(though not to the exclusion of others from being, in his sovereign pleasure, brought within the bond of his covenant ;) and if, in the token of his covenant, he has given his people encouragement, to indulge the believing expectation, of his mercy being imparted, through the use of appointed means, to their offspring, as well as to themselves; it becomes a very serious matter, to treat this encouragement, which regards the dearest and most interesting of all concerns, to a believing parent's heart with indifference or neglect.

That the promise had a primary respect to the fleshly seed of believing Abraham, implying as its first import, not indeed that all his fleshly seed should be saved, but that amongst them there should be a seed to serve the Lord, may, I think, be established from the following passages of the word of God.

I. Gen. xviii. 17-19.' And the Lord said, shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; seeing that Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.'

The most inattentive reader will perceive, that, in this passage, the character given of Abraham is connected with the fulfilment of God's promise to him. It is equally obvious, that the authoritative instruction of his family could have no influence in accomplishing the promise of a carnal, but of a spiritual seed. His acting in the manner described was the means, by which God verified his word; giving him such a secd, from among his natural offspring, by the communication of the knowledge of God to his family, and from them downwards, through successive generations. By this means, God brought upon Abraham that which he had spoken of him; proving a God to him, and to his seed after him in their generations.' And in the same manner, 'the generation of the upright' continued to be 'blessed'' God's righteousness being to children's children, to such as keep his covenant, and remembered his commandments to do them.'

II. Rom. xi. 1. 'I say then, hath God cast away his people? God forbid! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.'-The Apostle here begins to prove, that God had not cast off his people. And what is the first consideration, which he suggests? That he himself, whom God had blessed with salvation, was a descendant of Abraham, after the flesh. For, that he speaks of fleshly descent, is plain, from his mentioning the tribe of Benjamin,' along with the 'seed of Abraham.’

Two things may be observed from this passage.

1st.

If there had not been such a primary respect to the fleshly seed, as I am endeavoring to establish; the salvation of one belonging to the fleshly seed, could never, with propriety, have been adduced, as any peculiar or appropriate evidence, that God had not cast away his people.' The salvation of a Gentile would have been quite as much to the purpose; the 'election' among the Gentiles being the people of God, as well as among the Jews. And the Apostle might have quoted the case of Cornelius, or of the Philippian jailor, with as much conclusive effect, as his own. 2dly. It seems equally evident, that, while there was a primary respect to the natural seed of those to whom the promises were made, these promises never implied, that all who should descend from them, by fleshly birth, should partake of the blessings. For of this, the salvation of an individual, or of a remnant according to the election of grace,' however numerous, would have been a proof totally inconclusive.

III. Jer. xxxi. 31-33. Heb. viii. 8-10. 'Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah ; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, &c. For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel,' &c.-When we consider what is so often repeated in the New Testament, respecting the gospel, or new covenant, as being to the Jew first,' the meaning of these passages appears sufficiently obvious. They represent the new covenant as made with the same people, with whom the old was made, the house of Israel,' the natural seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

And this was fulfilled, when to them first, God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless them, in turning away every one of them from their iniquities,' Acts, iii. 26. These words immediately follow an address of the Apostle Peter, to the unbelieving Jews, which appears to put this matter beyond a doubt: Ye are the children of the prophets, says he, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.' From this arises the encouraging declaration immediately added, Unto you first,' &c. If there had been, in the promises, no such primary reference, of peculiar regard, to the fleshly seed, I am at a loss to conceive, in what sense the Jews here addressed, who had no relation to Abraham but that of carnal descent, could be denominated the children of the covenant made with the fathers, not as containing the promise of temporal blessings only, but the promise of the glorious gospel of the blessed God.-' To them (says the apostle, in the ninth chapter of the epistle to the Romans, speaking of his kinsmen according to the flesh,') 'to them pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises.'

If this primary respect to the fleshly seed be admitted, it is all that I desire to establish in behalf of the carnal relation."

Mr. Maclean's strictures on this reasoning have only served to establish me in the conviction of its truth. He first " freely admits, that the promises made to Abraham had a primary respect to his natural offspring." "But," he adds, "on this subject we must distinguish Abraham's natural offspring into the children of the flesh and the children of the promise, and also the promises themselves into temporal and spiritual:"-and from the laying down of this usual distinction, any reader that has the slightest portion of sagacity, and of acquaintance with this controversy, might anticipate the manner in which it is applied. -The sagacity of the same reader, however, may enable him to perceive, that the whole of my argument and illustration regarded the primary respect of the spiritual prom

*5

ises to the fleshly seed. I should have been doing a very useless thing indeed, had I set myself to prove the primary reference to this seed of the temporal promises: for I should have been proving what no one questioned. Now, what I have contended for, Mr. Maclean in substance admits: "As to the spiritual promises which are included in the blessing of Abraham, such as justification, the promise of the Spirit, the true adoption of sons, &c. these had also a primary, though not a peculiar or exclusive respect to Abraham's natural offspring. That they had not an exclusive respect to them, is clear from the very words of the covenant with Abraham on which the Apostle's argument is founded, viz. 'In thee,' or 'in thy seed, shall all the nations of the earth be blessed,' which includes Gentiles as well as Jews, Gal. iii. 8, 14, 16, 17, 28; and with this the facts recorded in the accomplishment of that promise fully agree."*

These positions he proceeds to establish, much in the same way as I have myself done above. And when he subjoins, "Thus the spiritual promises had a primay respect to the natural offspring of Abraham: but as the bulk of that nation rejected Christ when he came, and persecuted his followers, neither their being the circumeised seed of Abraham, nor their national relation to God by the Sinai covenant, could entitle them to the privileges of the free sons and heirs; and so they were, like the bond-woman and her son, cast out of God's house :”—he says what I heartily subscribe to. The distinctions made

are essential to my own argument.

Mr. Maclean labors hard with the passage Rom. xi. 28. "As touching the election, they are beloved for the fath ers' sakes."-After stating his objection to its being understood as implying any regard, in the bestowment of spiritual blessings, to the character of their godly progenitors, namely, the apparent inconsistency of such a sentiment with the freedom of grace,-he proceeds to say "I apprehend, therefore, that when the Apostle says, 'As concerning the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes,' he means, for the sake of that which God

* Review, p. 88, 89.

promised to their fathers. The promise to Abraham was, In thee.' or 'in thy seed, shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.' Gen. xii. 3, xxii. 18. This, the Apostle informs us, was the covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ, and in which the gospel was before preached to Abraham; and he explains this seed in whom the nations were to be blessed, and to whom the promises were made, to be Christ." Gal. iii. 8, 16, 17.* This view of the passage is liable to the following objections:

1. Mr. Maclean understands the election' as meaning the persons elected; and the pronoun they as having these persons for its antecedent," they, (i. e. the election,) are beloved for the fathers' sakes." But the structure of the entire verse will hardly admit of this :-" As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes; but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes."It seems evident, that the pronoun "THEY," in the two clauses of the verse, has the same antecedent. It relates to the race of the Jews,-not the then existing generation, but the race generally, considered as the offspring of the ancient fathers. The same mode of expression occurs in all the preceding context-where the Apostle, speaking of the future restoration of Israel, says-" And THEY also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in; for God is able to graft THEM in again," &c. verses 23-27. Although the pronoun them appears to refer to the branches which were then broken off, yet the real reference is, not to the generation then in being, but only to the same people or race, at a distant period, considered as retaining its identity in its continued connection with the same original root or stock.

It appears to me evident, that, in the verse under consideration, things and persons are respectively set in contrast:- as concerning the GOSPEL"-" as touching THE ELECTION :"-" enemies for YOUR sakes"-" beloved for THE FATHERS' sakes.”—“The election," therefore, means, I think, not the persons chosen, but the Divine choice. The word as used in both senses in the preceding part of

* Review, p. 92, 93.