79 / 808
VER..
Rom.9.
cleared.
«,and
feede
of
vábraham. The
Apoflle
dcnieth
the
reafon
on which
.
they thought
their
rejedion
a
thing which
could not (land
with the
«
immobility
of
Gods word.
He anfwereth the affumption
of
the
latter
« fyllogifme, by
diflinguifhing
of
Ifrael and children
;.
denying
that
all
«
Ifaelites
are
that
Ifrad to
which Gods word belongeth
;
or that
all
«
cs
bra
hams
feede are
thofe childrenwhom God adopted
to
himfeife,
«
verfe
7. but fuch onely
who
were
like
/fide;
Firfl,begotten by
a
word
of
promife,
and partakers
of
the heavenly
calling
:
The
reafon
is
to be
« conceived
in
this
manner; The
rejedting
of
fuch,who ale not the
true
.<
Ifrael, nor belong
not to the
number
of
Gods
adopted children,
can-
«
not
(hake
Gods word,
fpoken to Ifraeland
Abrahams feede
:
But many
«
of
the Ifraelites
and Abrahams feede, are fuch
to whom the word
be
.
longed not:Ergo,
The
word
of
God
is
firme,though theybe
reje&ed.
«This
an'
mption
is
propounded
in
the
end
of
the
fift
and fixt
verf
s.
Secondly;
It
is
proved
to the
fourereenth verfe.Here Arminius having
prefuppofedthis word
the
word
of
the legali covenant,and this
rejec-
tion
of
fuch
as
fought
righteoufneffe in
the Law;
he thus
taketh
up
«
the argument.
If
the ward reff
eel
the children
of
promife, then
it
a
frme,
though
the
children
of
theflefh
are rejetled
:B
at
it
concerneth
children ofthe
promt
fe,
that
is, beleevers
;
Ergo,
it
it
[afe, thoughju
filciaries,
cbil-
siren
ofthe
fief!;
be
rejelied.
"But
this affumption
is
to
word
of
it
in
Lafrminitta his
fenfe,here ex-
"
preffed
:
For though children
of
the
fle(h
in
fome
other
Scripture,
«
doth note out
jufliciaries, feeking falvation in
the Law, yet herethe
«
literati meaning
is
to be
taken
;
a
childe
of
the
flefh
being
fuch
a
one
«
who
defcendeth from
Abraham
according
to the
flefh
;
for
it
is
molt
plain,
that
thefe did make them thinke themfelves
within the corn.
«
pafle
ofthe
word,
becaufe
they
were Ifraelites and the feede
of,lbra.
9 ham,
in
regard
of
bodily
generation propagated from
him;
and
"minims
doth
decline
that,
in
objeéting and anfwering which this
«difcourfe confrfleth..Befide
that, though the
fonnes
of
the
flefh
may
«
lignifie
fuch,
who
carnally,
not
fpiritually conceive
of
the Law, yet
«
the feede
of
Abraham
without
any
adjoyned,
is
never fo taken.
The
«
affumption
which
is
to be proved,
is
this ;
That
many
of
Abrahams
"
feede, are fuch
to whom the word belongeth not
:
The
wordwhich
« belongednot to
Ifmaeland Efau,but
to
I
faac
and
Jacob
onely,and
fuch
«
as
were
like
to them, that
word belonged
not to
many
ofthofe who
pr"
e
the
feede
of
Abraham,and Ifraelites
:
But
the
word
fhewing
Gods
ve, choife, adoption,blefïing
of
Ifrael, and
Abrahams
feede,
belong-
"
ed
notto
Efau, ifmael, and fuch as
they
were,
but to
Ifaac
and
Jacob.
«Here
vlrminius
having
thofe
legali jufliciaries, thus
gathered
his
« fyllogifine.
Ifmad
and
Efau
were
types
of
fiscb
as
fought
juftice
in the Law:
Ifma-
eland
Efau
were
rejetled
;
Ifaac
mac
reckoned
in the
feede
;
Ifaac
was
atype
of
the
children
of
the
pronsi
fe
;
Ergo,
the children
of
the
promife
are
the
fide.
Ifmael
was
not in.
the feede, but
Ifmad
etas
a type
of
all
who