An exposition of the nineth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans: wherein by the tenor and carriage of the contents of the said chapter, from first to last, is plainly shewed and proved, that the Apostles scope therein, is to assert and maintain his great doctrine of justification by faith, and that here he discourseth nothing at all concerning any personal election or reprobation of men, from eternity. By John Goodvvin, minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

AN EXPOSITION OF THE Ninth Chapter Of the EPISTLE of PAƲL to the ROMANS. Concerning the Scope of the Chapter.

IT is a saying, though common, yet of wor∣thy consequence,* 1.1 and this in cases of several imports, A wise man should still begin at the end. A man of understanding being to write, or to speak, will first diligently consi∣der what his end is in either; what it is that he proposeth unto himself to obtain by the one, or the other: and will accordingly form his Discourse in all the parts and carri∣ages of it. By means hereof all uncomely extravagan∣cies,

and tedious impertinences of words will be pre∣vented, and only such things delivered, which have a close and acceptable proportion unto his end. And (doubtless) he that desires clearly and without mistake to understand the particular passages, or sayings, in the Discourse of a wise and sober man, which in themselves simply considered, may be somewhat obscure, and of a doubtful Interpretation, shall put himself into the best posture of advantage for compassing this his end, if he can discover the end of the Speaker, and carry along with him the consideration hereof to the said passages. I confess that in such cases, where the end and main in∣tent of the Speaker is otherwise doubtful, and hard to be known, it is to be enquired after (and may very possibly be so discovered, and found out) in the tenor, strain, and tendency of the passages themselves of the Discourse.

There is no one thing of a richer conducement to a true understanding of this ninth Chapter to the Romans, especially in those passages which are more difficult and obscure, then a clear, steady, and distinct knowledge of the Apostle's scope herein, and what Doctrine or Con∣clusion it is, which the Holy Ghost seeks to prove, ex∣plicate, or establish, throughout this Contexture of Scripture. The reason hereof is, because all parts of the Discourse must be carryed in their respective Interpre∣tations, as it were in a streight line upon that, which is the scope and end thereof, so that what sence or mean∣ing of words or phrases, though otherwise consistent enough with the letter (simply considered) yea or with the truth it self in other points, yet shall be found to stand off from the said scope, and be irrelative to it, may hereby cleerly be detected not to be the genuine or true sence or meaning of the holy Ghost in those words. Therefore by way of Preface to our Explication of the

Chapter it self, we shall enquire a little after the main drift and intent of the Apostle herein; concerning which I find only these two different Opinions (in the general) amongst Expositors; nor indeed do I conceive any place left in reason, or with any colour of reason, for a third, at least materially differing both from the one, and the other.

First, Some conceive that the Apostle in this Chapter, from the rejection of the Jewish Nation out of the Love and Favour of God, (insinuated vers. 23.) who had for many ages past, been a peculiar and chosen people unto him, together with the calling and assuming the Gentiles in their stead, takes occasion to declare and open unto the World the Original Fountain, or supream Cause hereof, viz. the Absolute and Eternal Purpose, and Decree of God, according unto which, he hath prede∣stinated such and such persons (as it were by name) unto Eternal Life and Glory, and such and such others unto Eternal Death and Misery. From this absolute Decree of Predestination in God, it comes to pass, as they con∣ceive and teach, That some persons, viz. those who are predestinated unto Life, have such means of Grace vouchsafed unto them by God, by which they are infal∣libly, and without all possibility of mis-carrying, brought to Repent and Beleeve: as on the contrary, That others, viz. who are not predestinated unto Life, but unto Death and eternal Condemnation, must of ne∣cessity remain in impenitency and unbelief, and conse∣quently be at last rejected by God, and perish everlast∣ingly. This is the brief of the account which this Opi∣nion gives of the rejection of the Jews, and calling of the Gentiles, viz. the Election of the one, and Repro∣bation of the other, from Eternity; and this according to the absolute and meer Will and pleasure of God:

from which different purpose in God towards the one, and the other, it comes to pass (saith this Opinion) That the one, as viz. the Gentiles, [i. e. great numbers of them] are brought to Believe, and hereby become the people of God; and the other, viz. the Jews [a small remnant onely excepted] remain hardened in un∣belief, and so are cast off by God, and perish. The dis∣cussion of this business, the Opinion we speak of, sup∣poseth to be the soveraign drift and scope of the Apostle in the present Chapter.

The other Opinion conceiveth, that the Crown which the Apostle runs for in this Chapter, is, partly the pre∣venting, partly the satisfying, of such Objections, which he knew the Jews, either had made, or very probably might make, against that main Doctrine of Justification by Faith alone in Christ without the Works of the Law, which he had argued and asserted hitherto (with some occasional insertions of other matters, nearly relating hereunto,) and for the obstinate and wilful rejection whereof, being now so plainly and fully preached and opened unto them, he certainly knew that their rejection and casting off by God approached, and was even at the door.

That this, and not the other, is the genuine, proper, and direct scope of the Apostle in the Chapter in hand, will be sufficiently evidenced by these considerations (especially in conjunction with that natural correspon∣dency and agreement, which we shall find in all the prin∣cipal passages of the Chapter therewith, when we come particularly to examine and unfold them.)

First, The Doctrine of such a Predestination, as the former Opinion notioneth, and contendeth for, as the subject matter of the Chapter, hath nothing at all in it to convince the Jews of any rebellion or disobedience a∣gainst

God, in rejecting the Doctrine of Justification by Faith in Christ, or in cleaving so pertinaciously as they did, to the observation of the Law, for their Justification. For, that some are Elected by God, others Reprobated, no ways proveth, either that they who embrace the Doc∣trine of Justification by Faith, are they that are Elected by him, or approved of him; nor yet that they who depend upon the Law for their Justification, are those that are Re∣probated by him, or rebel against him. Now it is as clear as the light of the Sun, that Paul, both in this, and the two next following Chapters, labors mightily to convince the Jews of their obstinacy against God, in rejecting his counsel concerning their Justification by Faith; and that this obstinacy of theirs was the cause of their casting out of the Favor of God, and of the investing of the Gentiles with their priviledges. Nay,

2. Such a Doctrine of Election and Reprobation as that specified, is so far from having any thing in it, whereby the Jews should be convinced of disobedience against God by rejecting the Gospel, and Justification by Faith, that of the two it hath rather a tendency of a contrary import, as viz. to strengthen their hand under this their rejection, and to harden them in their rebellion yet more. For might not they upon a very plausible ac∣count argue, and conclude, that they, who continued in the Law and Ordinances of God given unto their fore∣fathers, and who sought for Righteousness by the ob∣servation of them, were the Elect of God: and on the contrary, that himself, and such of their Nation, who apostatized from the Religion of their forefathers, and went an whoring after a strange God, and a strange Law (for thus they interpreted their believing in Jesus Christ and profession of the Gospel) were the persons Re∣probated by God, and therefore destitute of his Grace,

and Spirit? Doubtless the Apostle, who professed, and this with all sacred solemnity (as we shall hear in the opening of the beginning of the Chapter) such a tran∣scendency of love to his Brethren, that he could wish to be an Anathema from Christ for their sakes, was far from delivering any such Doctrine unto them, which, in case they believed it, might on the one hand so easily (as we heard) prove a snare unto them, and harden them in the contempt of the Gospel, but on the other hand could no ways profit or advantage them, in their spiritual estate, in case they had received it. For what benefit could it have been to a Jew refractory against the Gospel, or of what tendency towards his reducement, to be informed, that God of his meer pleasure, without any considera∣tion of sin, Elected some, and Reprobated others, from Eternity? Is there any thing in such a Doctrine as this, either to mollifie his heart, or to over-rule his judg∣ment, towards an embracing of the Gospel? Therefore certainly the asserting of this Doctrine was no part of the Apostle's intendment in this Chapter. But,

3. For a person, who at present is an enemy to the Gospel, and stands off at a great distance in his judg∣ment from it, to hear it substantially argued, and proved unto him, That God himself did preach the Gospel, and that in such passages of Providence, or revelations and discoveries of himself, which this person himself owneth and acknowledgeth, is a method, or means, of the greatest efficacy and power, that lightly can be ima∣gined, to work a perfect reconciliation between such a mans judgement, and the Gospel. Now this is that, which we affirm to be the Apostles scope and intent in the chapter before us; as viz. to demonstrate to the gainsaying Jews, That that very Gospel, or Doctrine of Justification, which they so deeply abhorred, and de∣sperately

opposed, was anciently preached unto them in their forefathers, by God himself; and this in several passages of those very Scriptures, which themselves granted to be of Divine Authority, yea and wherein they hoped (as our Saviour testified of them) to have E∣ternal Life. This we shall (God assisting) bring forth into a clear and perfect light, in our traverse of the Chapter.

4. Evident it is, that a great part of the Chapter, and particularly that part of it, wherein the said Doctrine of a personal Election and Reprobation from Eternity, is supposed to be handled, is bestowed and spent in giving satisfaction unto two main Objections, which the Jews had ever and anon in their mouths (as is most like) or howsoever, were obvious and near at hand for them to take up into their mouths, against the Apostle's Doctrine of Justification by Faith. The former of these Ob∣jections was to this effect. If your Doctrine of Justifi∣cation by Faith be true, God and his Word must needs be false, or untrue: because God hath appointed, not Faith in Christ, but the Works of the Law, to be the condition, or means of obtaining Justification, and A∣doption: and hath nominated Abrahams feed and po∣sterity, for those that are to be his Sons and Heirs, and not the Gentiles, as your Doctrine of Justification by Faith would imply. This Objection of theirs against him and his Doctrine, he insinuates in a way of antici∣pation, Vers. 6. Nevertheless it cannot be that the Word of God hath taken no Effect: or (as our later Translation reads it) Not as though the Word of God hath taken no Ef∣fect: q. d. Though I teach Justification by Faith, and deny it to be by the Works of the Law; yea, though by my Doctrine of Justification, I exclude the greatest part of you Jews, who are Abrahams carnal feed, from

being the Sons of God, and entitle the Gentiles to this great and blessed Priviledg, yet do I not hereby make the Word of God of no Effect, as you vainly and untruly charge me to do. This I shall demonstrate from your own Scrip∣tures unto you presently. The other great Objection, in the strength whereof the Jews magnified themselves a∣gainst Paul's Doctrine of Justification by Faith, was this; That such a Doctrine makes God to be unrighteous, or unjust. This he insinuates Vers. 14. What shall we say then? is there unrighteousness with God? q. d. What? Doth any such thing, as you pretend, follow from that Doc∣trine, which I have now, and formerly in this Epistle, asserted concerning Justification by Faith, and not by the Works of the Law, viz. that God should be unjust? God forbid; meaning, that his Doctrine was far from being accessary to any such consequence, or conclu∣sion.

These being the two grand Objections, or absurdi∣ties, wherewith the Jews burthened Paul's Doctrine of Justification, and from which he undertakes to vindicate this his Doctrine in this Chapter, we must needs con∣ceive that his scope and intent was to deliver and insist upon such things, which are effectual and proper to dis∣solve the force and strength of them; unless we shall suppose him to be extravagant and weak in his Disputes, even beneath the line of ordinary men. If so, then cer∣tainly the asserting of such a Doctrine of Election and Reprobation, which some men would make to be his scope in the Chapter, cannot be it. For what though it should be granted, That God from Eternity hath pe∣remptorily Elected some unto Salvation, and conse∣quently unto Faith, and hath Reprobated others from Salvation, and so from Faith, doth it at all follow from hence, Either, 1. That therefore Gods Word must

needs take no effect, and that Justification by Faith is any ways contrary unto his Word? Or, 2. That there can be no unrighteousness in God? Who seeth not a pal∣pable incongruity and incoherence between such Pre∣misses, and the Conclusions specified, as well the one, as the other? Therefore certainly the express and clear scope of the Apostle in the Chapter under considera∣tion, is to acquit and bring off his Doctrine of Justifi∣cation with honour, from the two Objections men∣tioned.

5. The Apostle himself towards the end of the Chapter, briefly recollecting the sum and substance of what he had argued in the former part hereof, in the brief result of it, plainly enough declareth, that he had had nothing at all to do with such an Election and Re∣probation of men from Eternity, as many suppose to be there held forth by him; but that his work and business had been, to evince Justification by Faith, and that it was no ways contrary to the Word of God, that the Gentiles beleeving should be justified; or that the Jews, seeking to be justified by the Law, should be condemned, and cast out of the sight of God. The words we mind are these: What shall we say then? [i. e. what may we con∣clude and gather from what hath been lately said, but this?] That the Gentiles which followed not after righte∣ousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteous∣ness which is of Faith. But Israel, which followed after the Law of righteousness, hath not attained to the Law of righ∣teousness. Wherefore? because they sought it, not by Faith, but as it were by the Works of the Lawa 1.2 Here is nothing of any affinity with, or relation unto, either an Election, or Reprobation, of men from Eternity, of meer will and pleasure, but a plain and right-down assertion, of the Justification of those who beleeve, though Gentiles, and

of the non-justification of the Jews, because they be∣leeved not, but sought Justification by the Law. Both these are here asserted as the natural and clear products of the preceding Disputations. Therefore the intent of these was not to establish the Doctrine of a peremptory and absolute Election and Reprobation of men from E∣ternity; but to confirm and vindicate that Great Doc∣trine of Justification by Faith, about which there was so sharp a contest between him, and those Great Adver∣saries of the Gospel, the Jews, and which he had had in hand from the beginning of the Epistle hitherto.

6. Such an Election and Reprobation, the explica∣tion and asserting whereof many imagine the Apostle setteth up for his scope and drift in this Chapter, were never yet (I verily beleeve, and this upon grounds to me fully satisf••ctory, and for which I shall account in due time) substantially proved, either from this Chapter, or any other place or places of Scripture whatsoever, nor yet by any competent or convincing Argument other∣wise. Now this (I presume) is not passable in any mans understanding, that the Apostle should fall short, or prove defective, in point of real and substantial proof of what he undertakes.

7. (And lastly) That which is as much as all this (if not more,) the words, phrases, and imports of the re∣spective Verses, and passages of the Chapter, do very naturally and kindly fall in with that, which we have asserted to be the Apostles scope here, viz. a further proof, or vindication of the Doctrine of Justification against such Obje•• ions, which either the Jews, or others, might very probably raise against it; whereas they can∣not be drawn to a comport with the Doctrine of such an Election and Reprobation, as that which hath been oft mentioned, without much unkind and hard usage by

straining and wresting. This we shall (God assisting) make good as we pass along in the Explication of the Chapter, which beginneth, as followeth:

I say the truth in Christ, I lye not, my conscience also [Vers. 1] bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have [Vers. 2] great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that my self were accursed from [Vers. 3] Christ, for my Brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh; Who are Israelites, to whom &c. [Vers. 4]

THe Chapter may be divided into two parts; the former consisting of the five first verses; the latter of the sixth, seventh, &c. to the end of the Chapter. In the first, the Apostle in a most serious, solemn, and sacred manner professeth a transcendent ardency of affection towards his Countrymen and Brethren, the Nation of the Jews, together with a reverend and high esteem of them, in respect of those worthy Priviledges, with the investiture whereof they were highly honored by God himself above all the world. In the second part, he stands up to maintain his Doctrine of Justification for∣merly delivered, against such Objections, which the Jews judged impregnable, and such, whereby the said Doctrine was sufficiently evicted of untruth. Of this part of the Chapter, we shall speak more particularly, when we come to it.

Concerning the former; the occasion of that most pathetical and solemn profession and protestation made by the Apostle herein, of his signal affection to his Bre∣thren the Jews, together with so particular and full an acknowledgment of their many and great Priviledges, may well be conceived to be, either the consideration of the matter last in hand (in the close of the preceding

Chapter,) or else, of the Argument that he intended next to enter upon in the subsequent part of the Chap∣ter, together with the two Chapters next following. If the former consideration ministred the occasion we speak of, it is to be conceived of after this manner. The Apostle, towards the latter end of the former Chapter, having spoken very excellent and glorious things con∣cerning the Love of God in Christ Jesus towards those that beleeve, and set forth the great Blessedness that ac∣crues unto such persons hereby, on the sudden, and whil'st he was yet in the sweetness of his contemplation, he remembers the most deplorable and sad condition of his dear Friends and Kinsmen the Jews, who by the stubbornness of their Unbelief, cut themselves off from all part and fellowship in so great and blessed a business. Loving them with such an intense and ardent affection as he did, he could not but be very intimously affected, sorely struck and pierced in his heart and soul, with the consideration of their wilful blindness and rueful folly, whereby they did not only make fast (as it were) with bars of Iron the door that leadeth into all Joy and Hap∣piness, against themselves, but also desperately plung'd themselves into the bottomless gulf of the Wrath and Indignation of God. Thus it often cometh to pass, that upon the mention, or thought, of something greatly de∣sirable, we fall upon the remembrance of our dearest Friends; and are either affected with joy, for their sakes, as, viz. when we are in hope that they either do partake, or are like to partake, therein: or otherwise are apt to be troubled for them, as when we either know, or else have cause to fear, that they neither do, nor shall, partake thereof, but rather are in danger of suffering that evil, which is contrary to it.

If the Apostle be conceived in the said proem of the

Chapter (contained in the five first verses) to mind the Argument or subject matter intended by him to be han∣dled in the sequel of the present Chapter, and in the tenth and eleventh Chapters next unto it (which I rather incline unto) the relation or connexion between them is this. Doctrines or sayings, which are of any dispara∣ging, sad, or threatening import unto those, to whom they are spoken or delivered, are oft times liable to a si∣nister interpretation, and apt to be construed by them as savoring rather of hatred, then any good affection to∣wards them, in those by whom they are delivered. Now such was the Doctrine, in reference to the Jews, which the Apostle was now about to deliver unto them. He was to vindicate and assert that great Doctrine of the Gospel concerning Justification by Faith, against such Arguments and Objections, as wherein they magnified themselves against it, and by the snare whereof they were desperately hardened in their own sence and opinion of Justification by the observance of Moses Law. Upon which stubbornness and obduration, he, according to the express import of the Scriptures, and tenor of his Com∣mission in this behalf, plainly informs them of the Coun∣cel and Purpose of God concerning their abdication and rejection by him, and of the calling and receiving of the Gentiles in their stead. And because such Doctrines as these could not but seem hard sayings to the Jews, and consequently to proceed from a person of an exulcera∣ted, or much-disaffected spirit towards them, upon which account also they lay under a great disadvantage for be∣leeving them, and were the more likely to reject them; therefore the Apostle, if it were possible, and as far as lay in him, seeks, in his entrance upon this Doctrine, to possess this people with a confident opinion of the reali∣ty and truth, yea and of a more then an ordinary degree

of love and dear affection in him towards them, pro∣fessing that his heart would freely serve him to sacrifice his own dear Interest in Christ upon the service of their peace; hereby endevoring to remove that great stum∣bling stone of prejudice out of their way. This briefly for the connexion of the former part of this Chapter, with the latter, and consequently with the general prece∣dure of the Epistle. We come to the words themselves.

I say the Truth in Christ, I lye not, my conscience &c.] If the Iron (saith Solomon) be blunt, and a man hath not whet the edg, he must then put to more strengthb 1.3. Yea though the Iron [i. e. the Ax, or other cutting Instrument, made of Iron] be sharp to a good degree; yet if the material that is to be cut, or pierced, with it, be very hard and resisting, more then an ordinary strength must be put to notwith∣standing, to make an incision, or penetration. The A∣postle very well knowing and considering how hard and indisposed the hearts of his Countrymen (the Jews) were, to take the impression of what he was now about to speak and say unto them, viz. that he had great heavi∣ness, and continual sorrow in his heart, for that misery, which he saw coming like an armed man upon them, and that for the prevention hereof he could be content to suffer to the greatest extremity; therefore to make and (as it were) to force a way for the belief of these things in their hearts, he useth the strongest asseveration that can lightly be made of words, I say [or, I speak] the Truth in Christ, &c. as if he should say; Let no man suspect me for a Lyar, or Dissembler in what I am about to say, what unlikelyhood soever of truth some may ap∣prehend therein; nor that I speak out of any passionate, sudden, inconsiderate, or unsetled motion of mind or spirit: for I speak as in the presence of my Great Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, from whom I expect all things

for my peace and well-being, and who I know will se∣verely judg me, if I speak an untruth (especially when I appeal to him as my Witness,) and whose presence I reverence more, then to utter any thing rashly, or unad∣visedly before him. Yea I have the testimony of mine own Conscience within me, for the truth of what I speak, and this seconded and avouched by the Holy Ghost him∣self, who saith to my Conscience, Testifie, and fear not: it is a certain truth, and a thing worthy to be beleeved by men, which in this case thou shalt bear witness unto; yea it is nothing but what I my self am the Author of, and have given reality and truth of being unto. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. I speak truth, or, that which is truth, not, THE Truth (as our English Translation reads it:) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 THE Truth, is com∣monly put for the Gospel it self, being the Grand Em∣phatical Truth of the World. Thus John 8.32. —〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And ye shall know THE TRUTH, [i. e. the Gospel,] and THE TRUTH [viz. being known, and beleeved by you] shall make you free. See also Joh. 17.17. & 18.37, &c.

In Christ,] i. e. (saith Calvin) secundum Christum, according to Christ; meaning (I conceive) according to the mind of Christ, or, as Christ would have me speak: or, for the honor and glory of Christ, or for the advance∣ment of his Work and Kingdom: or rather (as is pro∣bable from what he had said immediately before) in the presence of Christ. Or, 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Christ, i. e. through Christ, (as the preposition, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, very frequently importeth.) This construction of the particle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 im∣porteth, that that motion of heart or soul, out of which Paul professeth to speak truth, which presently he expresseth, was in a special manner, raised, or wrought in him by Christ. This Exposition is very probable, and

is the Judgment of M^r Bucer upon the place. Some in∣terpret, in Christ, per Christum, by Christ; as if the A∣postle's intent were to appeal unto Christ, the great Judg of Heaven and Earth, who searcheth the heart and reins, and knoweth perfectly what is in man, for the confirma∣tion of what he saith; By which appeal, he makes ac∣count that he desireth, and engageth Christ to take ven∣geance on him, if he speaks untruth. According to this Exposition of the particle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Apostle's expression hath the nature, force, and import of an Oath. For he that swears by God, calleth him to attest and witness the truth of what is affirmed, and sworn by him. And be∣cause it is by the light of Nature it self judged an high indignity and affront put upon God, and that which will most certainly provoke him to take vengeance in the most severe manner upon him that shall do it, to be cited, or called in, or upon, to bear witness to a falshood, or lye, hence it cometh to pass, that generally, and amongst all sorts of men, an Oath for Confirmation (as the Apostle speaketh) is the end of all strifec 1.4: meaning, that when a person reputed sober and discreet, and so legally capable of taking an Oath, hath sworn, and called God to wit∣ness, that a matter is so, or so, as he affirmeth, no reason∣able man will, or can, further question, or doubt, the truth hereof; or however, judgeth himself in no capa∣city of receiving any further or better satisfaction. The ground and reason of which confidence, or plenari∣ness of satisfaction upon an Oath, is, that every man is presum'd so far to love himself, his own peace and preservation, that he will not upon any terms whatsoever, provoke God to punish or destroy him, at such a rate of provocation, which solemn calling upon him to be a witness to a lye importeth. This Expo∣sition of the place in hand, both Calvind 1.5 and Piscatore 1.6,

assert for legitimate, without dispute: and Musculusf 1.7 bends the same way. Nor is there any thing of moment (as far as I apprehend) against it. Whether the Apostle's intent be to make Christ either the Author, or Avoucher, of what he is about to say, amounts much to the same in point of confirmation of truth in it.

If it be demanded, But why doth the Apostle make his Oath of asseveration rather in, or by, Christ, then by God: especially considering the unbeleeving Jews, for whose sakes principally he seems to make this high Affi∣davit, did not acknowledg the Divinity of Christ, and so were not like to give any whit the more credit to what was attested by him? I answer,

1. Though the unbeleeving Jews did not themselves own or acknowledg the Godhead of Christ, yet they knew that the Apostle Paul did both own and preach it with an high hand of confidence, in the world, yea and suffered deeply for preaching it. In which respect they had as much reason to beleeve what he should assert or affirm upon an appeal, by way of Oath, unto Christ, as if themselves had acknowledged him in his Godhead, as well as he; yea or as if he had attested the truth of what he was about to say, by God himself.

2. The reason why our Apostle maketh his assertory Oath in the Name of Christ, rather then God, is (pro∣bably) this; viz. because God [in essence] was at this time, and always had been, generally owned and honor∣ed as God, or for God, in the world, and by the Jews themselves; whereas Christ, especially in respect of his Godhead, was not only, as yet, a stranger in the world, but rejected and blasphemed (in a manner) by All; the number of those who did beleeve in him, as God, being inconsiderable, in comparison of those, who rejected him. Now the Apostle, according to what he saith

elsewhere concerning the members of the natural body, that upon those, which we think to be less honorable, we bestow more abundant honor, and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness, because our comely parts have no needg 1.8, chuseth rather to assert the Godhead of Christ by ap∣pealing unto him in his Oath of asseveration, then to avouch the Honor or Being of God, by swearing by him; because God (as we have said) was generally ac∣knowledged in his divine Prerogative, by being called upon in Oaths for confirmation, amongst men, whereas the Godhead of Christ wanted as yet that honor in this kind, which was, and is, due unto it. Christ himself, in the days of his flesh, pleaded for, and demanded divine Honor for himself of those, whom he acknowledged as worthy homagers unto God. Ye beleeve in God (saith he to his Disciples) beleeve also in meh 1.9. Elsewhere he saith, that [God] the Father hath committed all judgment unto the Son [meaning, himself,] That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Fatheri 1.10. In like manner the Apostle Paul, joyning in design both with God the Fa∣ther, and the Son, may well be conceived to take the op∣portunity of the case in hand, to advance the honor of Christ the Son, to an equality with that Divine Honor, which was every where exhibited to God the Fa∣ther.

3. And lastly, Though it be no ways questionable but that the Apostle had very great respect to the unbe∣leeving Jews in this most solemn and sacred Protesta∣tion and Profession of his most cordial affection towards them, yet whether he had more, or greater, respects herein unto these, then unto all Beleevers in their suc∣ceeding generations respectively, whose spiritual edifi∣cation and advantage he (doubtless) intended in all his Epistles, and in every part and passage of them all, is a

matter (I conceive) of doubtful disputation. But because the decision of the case makes little or nothing for the vindication of the sence of the place in hand, we shall not stand to argue it.

I lye not,] That which he had in the former clause expressed in the affirmative, I speak the Truth in Christ, in this he emphatically confirmeth in the nega∣tive, according to the propriety of the Hebrew tongue, wherein that which is expressed with much earnestness in the speaker, and as matter worthy special observation by the hearer, is wont to be delivered both negatively and affirmatively. Thus God by his Prophet Isaiah sometimes said to Hezekiah: Set thine house in order; for thou shalt dye, and not livek 1.11. The Lords intent was by this tenor of his message, to render it as a matter so much the more considerable by him, to whom it was sent. So when David saith, I shall not dye, but livel 1.12, it argueth that he was full of confidence of truth in what he spake. In like manner when the Evangelist John describeth the purport of that answer, which John the Baptist gave to the Priests and Levites sent from Jerusalem to ask him, who he was, in these words, And he confessed, and denyed not, but confessed, I am not the Christm 1.13, his meaning is to represent the freedom and ingenuity of spirit in the Bap∣tist, as very remarkable, not simply in refusing, but in so propense and affectionate a refusing to accept of the honor belonging to the Messiah, when he was (after a sort) tempted with the offer of it. Upon the same ac∣count our Apostle being mightily affected himself, and desirous to affect others proportionably, with the con∣sideration of what he was about to say, contenteth not himself with the affirmative avouchment thereof, though with an Oath, but adds his negative assertion also of the same, I lye not. Nor is he satisfied with both

these, but draweth out his Soul yet further, upon the same service; saying,

My Conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,] q. d. When I affirm, that I speak the Truth in Christ, and that I speak nothing but the truth, and lye not, I do not speak out of any sudden, flashy, light, passionate, or inconsiderate motion, upon which terms men some∣times speak great words, which have no reality, sub∣stance, or truth of matter in them: but my Conscience is engaged in what I say herein, and beareth me witness, or (as the Original soundeth) witnessing together with me, [that I speak the real Truth] in, or through, the Holy Ghost: i. e. either by the information, or rather through the incitation, motion, and suggestion of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost excited and stirred up Paul's Consci∣ence, saying (as it were) to it, Stand by Paul, and witness with him the certainty of the Truth of what he is about to speak. According to this sence, the credit and Autho∣rity of that testimony of Paul's Conscience, whereof he speaketh, is resolved into the soveraign veracity, and is raised to the same line of authentiqueness with the testi∣mony, of the Holy Ghost himself. When God chargeth, directeth, or encourageth a man to speak so, or so, one thing or other, that which is spoken in this kind must be a truth, as well as if he himself had immediately spoken it. For it is altogether as inconsistent with the in∣finite and un-temptable veracity of God to say to a creature, Speak, or witness that, which is an untruth, as to speak an untruth himself.

If it be demanded, How was Paul able (upon suffici∣ent ground) to say and affirm, that his Conscience was stirred up, strengthened, or encouraged, by the Holy Ghost, to witness with him what he asserteth? How was he able to discern an excitement from or by the Holy

Ghost in this kind, from an impulse or suggestion from his own spirit? I answer,

1. Though it may be somewhat difficult, for persons of a lower growth in Christianity, who have not their senses much exercised in discerning good and evil, and withall have only some more faint and soft workings of the Spirit, clearly to discern the motions of the Spirit of God within them, from the movings or workings of their own hearts and spirits; yet is the discovery we speak of no such matter of difficulty unto Christians of a more raised stature and pitch, in whom the Spirit of God much delighteth, and acteth at an higher and more excellent rate. Towards the beginning of a feverish distemper in the body, it may be not so easie to deter∣mine whether the working and beating of the pulse be from nature, or from the distemper: but when the dis∣temper hath prevailed to any considerable degree, the dijudication is obvious. Men and women that have suf∣fered and given up themselves, especially for some good space of time, to be led by the Spirit of God, cannot light∣ly be so unacquainted with their Leader, as not to be able to know whether it be He that taketh them by the hand, or some other guide; especially if attempting to lead them in ways contrary unto those, wherein they have bin familiarly accustomed to be led by the Spirit. There∣fore it was no great mastery for Paul of all the men in the world to know whether it was the Holy Ghost, or his own Spirit, that put him upon that high asseveration, which we have heard, of truth in that saying, with which he was now in travel, and of which we shall see him pre∣sently delivered.

2. The animations, motions, and encouragements of the Spirit of God in men, are in many cases (I might say, in most) and particularly in such, as that of the Apostle,

now under consideration, clearly enough discernable from those, which proceed from any other Principle, or Author. There is no other difficulty to distinguish be∣tween the motions of the Holy Ghost within us, and the motions of our own spirits, then there is of distinguish∣ing between the lawfulness and expediency, and the un∣lawfulness or inexpediency, of an action. For whenso∣ever any man is stirred up, or moved, to do that which is lawful, and expedient to be done, there is little question to be made, but his excitements in this kind are from the Spirit of God within him. The reason is, because (as the Apostle James informeth us) every good giving, and every perfect gift, is from above, and from the Father of lightsn 1.14; meaning, God, who is the Father; i. e. the original Au∣thor of whatsoever resembleth light, that is, which is of a truly-comforting and directing import unto men: even as the Sun may be called the Father of all those rays and beams of light which issue from him on every side. Now an inward motion or incitation unto any action, which is expedient for a man to do, is of a graci∣ous tendency unto him, and consequently must needs proceed from the Father of lights, and by an appropriate acting, from the Holy Ghost. Especially that motion, or incitation of mind, by which our Apostle was acted and carried on to deliver and profess, that which he was now about to utter, being (in all likelyhood) exceeding strong and over-bearing upon him, might, without much deliberation, or any narrow disquisition had upon the point, be concluded by him to be the exertion or work of the Holy Ghost in him.

Before we proceed to the second Verse, it is worth our labor to take up these Corollaries or Doctrines, from the words already opened, by the way.

First, That it is not simply lawful, but in some cases ex∣pedient

and necessary, to assert and confirm by Oath the truth of what we speak. Questionless the Apostle did not take the Name of Christ in vain, when he interposed it to gain credence to what he had to say. Gen. 21.24. Deut. 6.13. Jos. 2.17, 20. Rev. 10.6, &c.

Secondly, That the promotion of the eternal peace and salvation of men, is an undoubted case, wherein the interposal of an Oath, is, or may be, expedient and necessary, for the con∣firmation of what we speak. The example and practise of the Apostle in the words opened, is a sufficient proof and demonstration hereof. See also Ezra 10.5. Rev. 10.6.

Thirdly, The passage in hand compared with the general purport of the other writings of this Apo∣stle, wherein he very seldom interposeth with the sacred Authority of an Oath for the confirmation of any thing, which he asserteth, although all that he wri∣teth, is written by him in order to the promotion of the Salvation of men, the Corollary from hence is, That the use of an Oath, even in matters relating to the Salvation of the Souls of men, is expedient only in some cases, and these of rare occurrence. This is sufficiently evident from hence, viz. that there are so few Oaths found in the Scriptures upon such an account.

Fourthly, That one special case, wherein the interposal of an Oath in order to the Salvation of men, is expedient, or necessary, is, when that which is affirmed in this kind, is, 1. Of very material and signal consequence in the belief of it to further this Salvation. 2. When otherwise, and without the advantage of an Oath, there is little, or no likelyhood that it will be beleeved, by those, the furtherance of whose Salvation is desired thereby. Both these considerations are manifest in the case before us. For, that which the Apostle here confirmeth by Oath, is (as appeareth by

the two next Verses) not only the reality and truth, but the most signal and transcendent height and degree of his affection to the Jews, whose Salvation he principally seeketh by the great Asseveration here made by him. Now the belief of this (I mean, of his most cordial and soveraign affection towards the Jews) 1. Was of very high concernment unto them to qualifie and dispose them to a willingness and readiness of mind, patiently to hear and bear the Doctrine, which he was about to deliver unto them, and consequently to promote the great Interest of their Salvation: And, 2. It was a thing not likely to be wrought in them, nor to take their hearts, unless it were by the mediation of an Oath. Heb. 6.13, 17. Rev. 10.6.

Fifthly, That a perswasion or belief in those, to whom the Gospel is preached, that he who preacheth it, is so far from being an enemy unto them, that he loves them, and that most fervently, is a matter highly conducing to the saving of their Souls. Were not this so, our Apostle (doubtless) would never have engaged or appealed unto, 1. The sacred Name of Christ, 2. His Conscience, 3. The Holy Ghost, to create a belief in the Jews that his love was unparallably great towards them. Rom. 1.9, 10, 11. 2 Cor. 7.3. & 11.11. Phil. 1.8.

Sixthly, That such, whether persons, or things, which are in themselves worthy, and the knowledg of them much conducing to the peace and comfort of men, but withall are (at present) less known in and to the world, ought upon all occasions to be asserted and manifested by us, though it be with the silence of others, as well persons, as things, as great and worthy, as they, in case these be better, and more generally known by men. We assigned this for the reason why the Apostle rather expresseth himself thus, I say the Truth in Christ, then, I say the Truth in God, because Christ is

eminently worthy and excellent, and the knowledg of him of high concernment unto the world, and yet was, especially in Paul's days, less known, or beleeved in, in the world, then God. 1 Cor. 15.51. Rom. 11.25. 1 Cor. 12.1.

Seventhly (and lastly) That persons professing Chri∣stianity, especially Ministers of the Gospel, ought at all times, and in the constant tenor of their lives and ways, to shew such tender, high, and sacred res••ects unto the Name of Christ, and to the Spirit of God within them, yea and so far to provide for the honor and repute of the goodness of their own Consciences, that an appeal unto these for the confirma∣tion of what they shall at any time say or affirm, may be au∣thentique, and of authority sufficient in the minds and con∣sciences of men, to gain credit and belief to what they shall affirm upon such terms. If Paul had ordinarily vilified or trampled under foot the Name of Christ, or polluted his Conscience, by unrighteous, unjust, unclean, or un∣worthy actions, his attestation either of the one or the other had been of little value for the confirmation, or credit (in point of truth) of what he affirmeth upon such his attestation. Philip. 1.18, 20. compared with Acts 24.16.

That I have great heaviness, and continual sorrow in my [Vers. 2] heart.] That which the Apostle desired to procure credence and belief unto, by all that solemnity of at∣testation and appeal, which he had expressed (vers. 1.) was, that he had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, great heaviness [or sorrow, as the word is commonly translated] and perpetual torment, or pain, like to that of a woman in travel (for so the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly signifieth) which never left him. Some refer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, here translated, sorrow, to the mind, making it to be an inward impression of sadness: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, heaviness, to

the body, supposing it properly to signifie, sharpness of pain herein. Some define 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. a laborious or painful kind of sorrow. But this different notion of the words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hath no place here: because the Apostle plainly professeth, that he had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in his heart. Only it is probable (or rather somewhat more) that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (put in the latter place) he understandeth some such impression, which was more affecting and afflicting to his heart and soul, then that which he had signified by the former word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doth not signifie continual, or perpe∣tual, in the strictness of their significations, as viz. that which is as well without any intermission, as which hath not absolutely and totally ceased to be: but continual in such a sence, which importeth a frequent recurrency of a thing upon all occasions, and without any consider∣able, or long, intermission. In such a sence as this the Apostle useth the adverb, where he exhorteth the Thessa∣lonians to pray 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, continuallyo 1.15, i. e. upon all oc∣casions, and so as not to intermit the duty long together at any time. So when he giveth thanks unto God that he had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the mention, or a remembrance with∣out ceasing (as we have it translated) of Timothy in his prayers night and dayp 1.16, his meaning is not, as if he never ceased, or gave over naming Timothy, whilest he was in praying, but that upon all occasions he remembered him in his prayers early and late, and never forbore the mention of him long together. See also Rom. 1.9. 1 Thess. 1.3. and Cap. 2.13. According to this sence and interpretation of the word, it is easie to reconcile that assertion of the Apostle concerning himself, where he saith, that he was always Rejoycingq 1.17, with the place in hand, where he saith in effect, that he was always sorrow∣ing, or in heaviness. He may be said to be always re∣joycing,

who ever and anon, and without any long inter∣mission, maketh his recourse in mind and spirit to such objects, whether persons, or things, the contemplation whereof worketh effectually upon his passion of joy, and causeth it to abound; as on the contrary he may be said to be in continual heaviness, or to be always sor∣rowing, who from time to time, without any long inter∣vals of respiration, feedeth upon the thoughts and consi∣deration of such things, which remembered and consi∣dered, awaken the natural 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or affection of sorrow within him, and cause this to fill the Soul with bitterness. Now a man may have occasions of both kinds with a frequent interchange, (I mean, both of recalling and ruminating matters of a joyful, and matters of a sorrow∣ful import) and may engage or apply himself accord∣ingly; and consequently, be (in the sence declared) both always sorrowing, and always rejoycing. Only this is to be considered about the case in hand, that though a man hath matters of both the kinds specified relating to him, yet unless they be conceived and apprehended by him as signally and very-considerably such for degree, in either kind respectively, it can hardly be said of him with truth, that he is always sorrowing, and always re∣joycing. For example, if a man apprehends that he hath very great matter, or occasion of sorrowing, but only some faint, or less considerable matter of rejoyc∣ing, he will be always sorrowing, but not always rejoycing. So on the other hand, when a man conceives that he hath many serious and weighty grounds of rejoycing, but none much considerable, for sorrowing, he is in a posture of rejoycing continually, but not of sorrowing upon any such terms. For when a man apprehends that he hath any very material and substantial ground of rejoycing, he is so much the more propense and apt to take all oc∣casions,

even those that are but slender, light, and very remote, for the reminding of himself of such a ground; and consequently must needs very frequently actuate his joy by means hereof. There is the same considera∣tion of him, who conceives that he hath a semblable ground or cause of sorrowing: a very small matter, a circumstance of the farthest relation thereunto, will be sufficient to bring to his remembrance the occasion of his sorrowing; and so it cannot lightly be, but that he must sorrow continually (in the sence formerly specified.) Whereas if a mans occasions either of sorrowing, or of rejoycing, be but faint and ordinary, and no otherwise apprehended by him, he will not readily take any im∣pression from such things coming in his way, which are in themselves apt enough to remember him of such oc∣casions, unless they be very pregnant indeed, and effec∣tual for such a purpose: and consequently such a man will neither sorrow, nor yet rejoyce, continually: these af∣fections will be seldom raised, or engaged within him, to any considerable degree. But if a man be known to have some high and excellent ground, or cause, of re∣joycing, and withall to be understanding and apprehen∣sive enough of the excellency of it in this kind, and yet shall be found, or known to be, in continual sorrow or heaviness also, such cause of rejoycing notwithstanding; it is an unquestionable sign, that the cause of this his sorrowing is apprehended by him to be exceeding great, and of a very sad resentment with him: otherwise the cause of his rejoycing, being great and richly affecting, would leave him little of his heart or of himself to mind the occasion of his sorrowing, this being but little com∣paratively. Now this was the Apostle's case before us. He had as many, and as weighty grounds of rejoycing as any person under Heaven: he had as full, as perfect

a knowledg of his blessed Interest in God, of his Justi∣fication, Adoption, Glorification in due time, as he was capable of: he was possest of as many spiritual and hea∣venly priviledges, as a man yet inhabiting flesh and blood could be. Yet all this notwithstanding, he most solemnly (as we have heard) and with a sacred Asseve∣ration protesteth, that he had great sorrow, and continual heaviness in his heart. Therefore how great must he needs apprehend the cause of this his sorrow and heaviness to be? As for those words

In my heart] They import the deepest intimousness and cordialness of that sorrow and heaviness which he professeth. The Scripture frequently expresseth the reality, throughness, and deep affectingness of any in∣ward impression, by mentioning the heart as the seat or place of residence thereof. Joh. 16.22. Act. 2.26, 37. Rom. 10.1, &c.

But it may be here demanded, To what purpose the Apostle should make so serious and solemn a profession of the greatness of his sorrow, and the continual heaviness of his heart, without declaring the ground, or cause of it? Or of what concernment was it to render the Doctrine, which he was about to deliver, any whit the more pass∣able, either with the Jews, or any other men, to under∣stand that he was a man of so much sorrow, and heaviness? I answer.

1. True it is, his sorrow and heaviness, had they been greater (if greater they could have been) and more im∣portunely pressing him, then they were, considered sim∣ply as such, or as the grounds of them might have been, would have been of little or no value to commend his Doctrine, either to one sort of men, or other. For, 1. Worldly sorrow (as himself elsewhere informeth) worketh deathr 1.18: and the greater it is, it worketh the faster,

and bringeth death [i. e. both temporal, and eternal, as is evident by the anti-thesis] so much the more speedily upon men. Now that which is a proper and direct cause, or means, of any mans own ruine and destruction, can∣not reasonably give credit unto any thing he shall say or teach. And, 2. For godly sorrow it self, if it be con∣ceived upon the account of a mans own sins, and in or∣der to his own Repentance and Salvation only, though it may, the greater it is, render the words of a man so much the more weighty and considerable in some re∣spects, yet it little conduceth to the mollifying or qua∣lifying of such words, or Doctrines, which are like to prove of an hard interpretation, and difficult recep∣tion with those, for whose sakes chiefly they are uttered. But,

2. When sorrow and heaviness fill a mans heart, for their sakes, to whom he speaketh, as either through a fear, or foresight, of some great evil or misery that is like to come upon them, the making known of such affections of his towards them, must needs be proper, and of a very promising import, to conciliate a benevolous affection in these persons towards the things that are spoken, though otherwise they be of a very sad and distastful consequence unto them. Now though our Apostle doth not expresly name, or mention, the particular ground, or cause, of that great sorrow and heaviness of heart, which here he so solemnly professeth (as we have heard,) yet he plainly enough insinuates it in the words imme∣diately following; from whence he leaveth it to be in∣ferred and concluded by themselves; like a prudent Orator, who declines as much as may be, without detri∣ment and disadvantage to the cause he hath in hand, the particular and express mention of what he conceives to be offensive, or less pleasing to his Auditory.

From this second Verse, these three things are ob∣servable:

1. That a Stoical apathy, or indolency of heart, is so far from being a vertue, or just matter of commendation unto any man, that the deepest sorrow and heaviness of Soul, that is lightly incident to the nature of man, in some cases, and as occasion may be, well becomes persons of the greatest wisdom, gravity, and worth in every kind. For (doubtless) the Apostle Paul was inferior to no man on the Earth, either in wisdom, or in any other endowment worthy praise or honor in men: nor hath any man (I presume) since the days of the writing of this Epistle, stood forth to accuse, censure, or condemn him, for the greatness of that sor∣row, or continuedness of that heaviness upon his heart, which here he avoucheth with so high an hand of asse∣veration, as we have seen lifted up by him. Rom. 12.15. 2 King. 8.11. & 20.3. & 22.19. Luke 19.41. &c.

2. That greatness of sorrow, and heaviness of heart con∣tinued for the miseries, and sad condition of men, whether imminent, or incumbent, is an undoubted Argument and sign of great love born towards them. The Apostle pre∣sumes that his Brethren the Jews would interpret his sorrow and heaviness for them, as unquestionable argu∣ments of his unfeigned love and affection towards them: otherwise he would not, especially in so serious, solemn, and sacred a manner (as we heard from the preceding Verse) have professed them. For it is not imaginable upon what other account, or for what other end, he should make so high a profession, so deep a protestation of such passionate impressions in himself. Joh. 11.35, 36. 1 Sam. 19.6. 2 Cor. 2.4. Isai. 66.10.

3. (And lastly) That when the occasion, or cause, of any sorrow, or sadness lying upon a man, is of any grievous or horrid resentment unto those, to whom, or for whose sakes,

we speak, it is prudential, as much as may be, to forbear the direct mention or naming of it, and to intimate, rather then express, it. The Apostle plainly, and with great asseve∣ration, professeth his great sorrow, and continual heaviness: but expresseth not in terms of any such plainness, the cause of them, which was, the rejection of his Kinsmen the Jews by God for their obstinacy in unbelief: but leaveth it to be collected by themselves from what he expresseth to another account in the words immediate∣ly following. The reason whereof was (doubtless) this; that he might not trouble or grieve the minds of the Jews, above what he judged necessary for their spiritual accommodation. 2 Sam. 12.18, 19. Joh. 11.11. 1 Thess. 4.13.

[Vers. 3] For I could wish that my self were accursed from Christ for my Brethren my Kinsmen according to the flesh; who are Israelites, &c.] In these words, as the causal particle, for, importeth, he rendereth an account both of the re∣ality and truth of those deep impressions of sorrow and heaviness, which he had expressed, and so solemnly as∣serted in the two preceding Verses (as we heard,) as also of the persons, over whom, or for whose sakes he tra∣velled with such sorrow and heaviness. These (to touch the latter of these particulars, in the first place) he plainly declareth to be the Jews, whom, the better to gain cre∣dence from them to that high and mighty Assertion, which he makes in the words in hand, he calls, his Bre∣thren, His kinsmen according to the flesh, Israelites, enu∣merating several other most honorable Prerogatives ap∣propriate to them (of which we shall hear more parti∣cularly anon) whereby they stood as a people signally recommended by God unto the world, for a Nation or people highly beloved of him. By this mentioning, partly of his near relation unto them in the flesh, as being

descended from the same royal Progenitors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with them, partly of those many sacred Priviledges, by the collation whereof upon them they were sealed by God for a people greatly beloved of him, he seems desirous to insinuate, that the greatness of that affection, which he professeth towards them (of which presently) is the more rational, and so may the more easily be beleeved by them. The nearer a person, one, or more, are unto us by blood, and withall the more we apprehend, or know them to be respected by God, it is so much the more likely that we should be willing to suffer much for their sakes in a case of great exigency, and for the procuring of their peace.

Concerning the other (the former of the two parti∣culars mentioned) the Apostle here professing, to how deep a degree he could wish, or be willing, to suffer for the Jews sake, to redeem them from that most heavy Judgment and Curse, which he evidently saw would shortly come upon them, confirms the reality and truth of that sorrow and heaviness, which he had professed, and this according to the extent of that great degree and measure, wherein he professed likewise that they lay up∣on him. For he that findeth himself willing, or con∣tent, to suffer very deeply, and to extremity, to purchase for others an exemption or immunity from suffering, cannot but be filled with sorrow and heaviness for them; yea and this to a fuller measure, and further de∣gree, then his own suffering the things, which he wisheth to suffer for them, would occasion in him, in case he knew certainly that he should indeed suffer them.

But great is the division of thoughts amongst Inter∣preters, concerning the Apostle's wish in this place, as in respect of some other circumstances relating to it, so more especially in respect of the subject matter of it. It

would rather (I conceive) be matter of weariness, then satisfaction, unto the Reader, to survey all that variety of notions and conceits, which might be presented unto him from the writings of Expositors upon the place. I shall therefore mention only two or three of them, which I judg to be more worthy consideration, and of some consistency with the Truth, declaring and account∣ing for mine own sence in the close.

1. (To pass by the Opinion of those, as altogether improbable, who conceive, that Paul here avoucheth that vehemency of affection, which he bare to the Jews, and their Religion, when he so furiously persecuted the Gospel, and the Professors of it, by means whereof he wished to be accursed, or separated, from Christ; as also theirs, who understand the place, as if the Apostle did here profess, or rather indeed, confess, that since his Con∣version unto Christ, viz. whilest he was not yet so well principled or instructed in matters of Christian Religi∣on, he did through an inordinate heat and vehemency of affection, wish to be excluded himself from that Salva∣tion which cometh by Christ, upon condition that his Brethren the Jews might be saved; I say, to pass by these, and some other, as ill-digested Interpretations, as these) Some conceive, that the Apostle doth not here express, or avouch, any constant, setled, or habituated affection, wish, or desire in him, but only such, which was transient, arising from an intense contemplation of that most deplorable estate and condition of being re∣jected by God, which he saw coming apace like an arm∣ed man upon the whole Nation (in a manner) of his Kinsmen, the Jews, and continuing only whilest he was taken up in his mind and spirit with the said contempla∣tion. This Interpretation supposeth (at least the Authors of it suppose) that the subject matter of the Apostle's

wish, was an absolute, utter, and eternal separation from Christ, and all that blessedness, which accrueth unto Be∣leevers, through him. To prove the transientness of the Apostle's affection, out of which he conceiveth the wish here expressed, they insist upon the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a verb of the preterimperfect tense, which (say they) signifieth, not that he did now, when or whilest he wrote the pas∣sage in hand, wish, but that he had wished, and was wont to wish, (viz. when, and as oft as, he intensly thought upon the sad condition, wherein they were now ready to plunge themselves through the obstinacy of their un∣belief. Not but that he did as seriously also, as deeply, as affectionately wish and desire on the other hand, the glory of God, even in the destruction of this people, upon the supposition of their remaining obdurate in un∣belief; viz. when, and as oft as he seriously considered, that the glory of God could not otherwise be salved, or provided for, in such a case; and considered withall, the soveraign necessity that the glory of God be sufficiently provided for in every case whatsoever. This alternation and interchangeableness of contrary affections, as like∣wise of suitable expressions, and that with reality, yea and great intensness in both, upon the contemplation or seri∣ous minding of different objects, yea of one and the same object (materially taken) in different considerations or respects, is not only possible, but in many cases matter of duty unto men, and accordingly enjoyned by God in the Scriptures. Rejoyce with them that rejoyce (saith our Apostle to the Romans) and weep with them that weeps 1.19. Wherein ye GREATLY REjOYCE (saith Peter unto o∣thers) though NOVV for a season (if need be) ye are in hea∣viness, through manifold temptationst 1.20. The altering and change of Paul's condition by death, was unto him in one consideration, matter of desire; in another, of the

contraryu 1.21 The sharp Epistle, which he wrote to the Church at Corinth, in one respect made him sad, or sor∣rowful, viz. as it occasioned their sorrow: but in ano∣ther, viz. as it occasioned their repentance of that sin which lay upon them, it was matter of joy to himx 1.22. So that the Authors of the Interpretation now in hand, sup∣pose nothing contrary to the Truth, in saying that Paul might be so intolerably afflicted in Soul for the de∣struction of the Jews, as his wish for their preservation here importeth, viz. whilest he looked upon it meerly as the lamentable condition of a people in many respects most dear to him; and yet might be well enough satis∣fied with it, when he considered it as the only means for the vindication of the glory of God, in case of their wilful obduration in unbelief.

That the object, or subject matter of Paul's wish in this place, expressed, by his being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ac∣cursed from Christ, was his eternal separation from Christ, they prove, 1. From the signification of the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, especially as it is used elsewhere by this Apostle, as viz. 1 Cor. 16.22. where they say it clearly signifies, perpetually, or everlastingly accursed. But this is not so clear as is pretended. 2. From the proportion, which (they say) ought in reason to be conceived between that estate of misery, whereinto the Jews were in imminent danger of falling, and that estate, whereunto Paul professeth him∣self willing to expose himself for their Redemption, or Preservation. Now the misery which the Apostle appre∣hended ready to come upon the Jews for their obstinacy in Unbelief, was not any temporal affliction or misery, nor a temporal or corporal death, but death eternal: therefore, upon the aforesaid Supposition, Paul must be supposed to wish himself eternally accursed from Christ, to exempt them from suffring the same or like condition.

But neither is this Reason much convincing.

Whereas this Interpretation is by some charged with this inconvenience, viz. that it maketh Paul's wish sinful, or unlawful; in as much as it is repugnant to the love of God, or of Christ, in any man, to wish himself eter∣nally separated from him, upon any terms, or for any creatures sakes whatsoever; to this the Friends of it answer, That what proceedeth from love, at least from such love which God requireth in men, cannot be con∣trary to the love of God, and so is not sinful upon that account. Now that affection of love in the Apostle, whereof his wish before us is the natural fruit or pro∣duct, is a love to the Souls and Salvation of the Jews: which kind of affection is of all others an affection plea∣sing unto God. Besides, to wish or desire a separation from God or Christ out of any hatred, disrespect, or neglect of him, is indeed sinful, and repugnant to that love of God and Christ, which of duty ought to be found in every man. But the Apostle's wish of being sepa∣rated from Christ, was so far from being the fruit of any hatred or neglect of Christ in him, that it proceeded ra∣ther from a vehement ardency of love towards him; the Apostle wishing unto himself the greatest evil and misery that he was capable of enduring (for such was his eternal separation from Christ, and so apprehended by him) that, or upon condition that, Christ might reap that abundant glory, which would accrue to him by the Salvation of such great numbers of men, as the Jewish Nation amounted unto.

This Exposition, as it hath been opened, is (for sub∣stance) delivered by M^r Bucer upon the place: and Cal∣vin seems to concur with it. Nor doth it want a fair face of probability: only the Reasons, which it insisteth up∣on, to prove the matter of Paul's wish to have been his

eternal separation from Christ, are not (as hath been al∣ready touch'd) effectually concluding. For, 1. It may be doubted, whether the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifieth (1 Cor. 16.22.) a person eternally accursed; yea Calvin him∣self questioneth it (upon the place) and seemeth to incline the contrary wayy 1.23. 2. If this signification of the word in the place mentioned could be evinced, yet if it appears to have another signification elsewhere in Scripture, especially in the writings of the same Apostle, and this fairly consistent with the place in hand, that eviction little availeth the said Interpretation. Now Calvin him∣self expresly affirmeth (that which otherwise is manifest enough) that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, used twice together by our Apostle, Gal. 1.8, 9. doth not here signifie, Reprobate, or damned by God, but that which is to be abhorred, or abo∣minated of usz 1.24. 3. Neither is it necessary to suppose any such proportion, as that intimated, between the con∣dition, whereunto the Jews were exposed through their wilful blindness and unbelief, and that, which the Apo∣stle wisheth that he might undergo for their deliverance from it. Yea in case it were granted, that the Apostle professeth himself willing to be eternally accursed from Christ, yet would not this evince any proportion be∣tween the ransom proffered, and the Redemption or De∣liverance, for the procuring whereof it is proffered by him. For what proportion is there between the eter∣nal punishment, or sufferings of many thousands, or millions of men, and the like punishment or sufferings of one man only, being a man but of the same line and level with them? And besides, manifest it is, that the reason and ground of the Apostle's wish (in the place in hand) was not at all to signifie, that he was willing, or content, to give any thing of a valuable consideration, or any thing proportionable, for the Redemption of his

Brethren from that heavy doom, which he saw hanging over their heads; but only to express the reality, and truth, or at most the heights and depths, the great ar∣dency of his affection towards them. Now (as our Sa∣viour himself informeth us) greater love then this hath no man [i. e. a more satisfactory or convincing argument or expression, either of the reality and truth, or of the excellency of degree, of this affection, can no man ex∣hibit, or give] that a man lay down his life for his Friendsa 1.25. So that Paul needed to go no further, no deeper (in∣deed could not regularly, or lawfully, go either further, or deeper) to express, either the truth, or greatness of his love to his Brethren the Jews, then to possess them fully and throughly with this, that he was desirous and ready to lay down his life for them, and this upon terms of the greatest ignominy and shame, in case it were possible to make an attonement with God for them hereby. The Apostle John declaring from God the highest engage∣ment of love, wherein any man stands bound even to his Christian Brethren themselves, and this upon the ac∣count of the highest engagement from God, and Christ, expresseth it in these words: Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he layd down his life for us: and we [i. e. therefore we; the connexive particle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and, is fre∣quently illativeb 1.26] ought to lay down our lives for the Bre∣threnc 1.27. Nor is there any other precept or charge from God to be found in all the Scripture, wherein he requi∣reth any greater expression, or fruit, of love in any man, either to himself, or to men, of what relation or capacity soever, then to lay down their lives, or dye, for either. Therefore if it shall be supposed that Paul was willing, yea desirous, not only to lay down his life, but his Soul also, for his Brethren the Jews, to suffer the loss of the love and presence of God for ever, together with the

vengeance of eternal fire, he must be supposed, 1. To have expressed and shewed greater love to a small par∣cel of men (comparatively) then the Lord Christ him∣self shewed to the whole World: for John (as we heard) represents the love of Christ to men as discernable in the greatest height and excellency of it, in none other glass, then this, that he layd down his life for them. 2. That He supererogated, and this in a very high degree; in as much as the Commandment or Law of God requireth no Greater love, or fruit of love, from any man, then that he layeth down his life for the Brethren. Now for a man to devote himself to everlasting burnings, and this not for his Brethren in the Faith, but in the flesh only, and these desperately set and bent in wrath, rage, and malice against him, (as the unbeleeving Jews generally were against Paul) argues a far greater and higher degree of love (if yet it be love, and not rather some phrenetical distemper) then the sacrificing of a mans natural life upon the service of his Christian Brethren. For (besides all this) it seems repugnant unto, and inconsistent with, the Order and Law of Love and Charity, that a man should part, or be willing to part with his God, or with his summum bonum, his soveraign Good, and that irreco∣verably and for ever, and further to expose himself to the greatest extremity of all endless and remediless tor∣ments and misery, upon any account, or for any mans, or mens, sake whatsoever. The Law of Love, is (doubt∣less) like the rest of the Commandments of God: and these the Apostle informeth us to be holy, and just, and goodd 1.28. Good, i. e. (as Bucer well expoundeth it) profit∣able and commodiouse 1.29; parallelling herewith that of our Saviour concerning his Doctrine, where he saith, My yoke is good (for so he translates the original 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which properly signifieth, useful, or profitable) and my burthen

lightf 1.30. Consonant whereunto is that also of David, when speaking of the judgements, or statutes, of God, he saith, in keeping of them there is great rewardg 1.31. As∣suredly if this were the Law or Commandment of God, that a man should sacrifice his sovereign and chief good, his hope and portion in God, and Christ, devo∣ting himself to endless and easless torments, upon the service of any man, or numbers of men whatsoever, it is unpossible to conceive how the observing of this command should be either useful, or profitable unto him. And if the action it self, or doing of the thing, be simply, absolutely, and in every respect inconsistent with the benefit, peace and comfort of him that shall do it, and consequently repugnant to the Law and Com∣mandment of God; it follows by clear consequence, that for a man to wish, or to be desirous or willing to do it, must needs be repugnant to the Law of God al∣so. For what is not lawful for me to do, is not law∣ful for me to wish, or to be desirous to do. There∣fore Pauls wish of being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, accursed from Christ, was not a wish or desire of being utterly, abso∣lutely, and eternally separated from him.

Nor (indeed) is such a wish incident to the nature of man, especially where the import and consequence of the thing wished is fully understood and beleeved, in neither of which can we reasonably suppose our Apostle to have been defective. The reason is, because nothing is volibile, competent to become matter of wish, or de∣sire, to a man, or other reasonable creature, but what hath in one consideration or other, either the nature and substance, or at least the appearance of good, in it. Now there are but three several kinds of good (in the general)

Utile, jucundum, majus{que} ambobus honestum,

that which is profitable, that which is pleasant, and that

which is honest, which surpasseth in goodnesse both the other. Yea the three may very well be contracted unto two: for that which is honest, must needs be profitable, and what is truly profitable, must needs be honest. And the Heathen Orator levies a sore complaint against those, who by a contra-distinction separated that which is honest, from that which is profitable. Now certain it is, that an eternal separation from Christ, hath neither substance, nor shew in it, either of any thing profitable, much lesse of any thing pleasant unto any man: nor in∣deed of any thing honest, as that which is honest is, or may be, distinguished from that which is profitable. There∣fore (questionlesse) such a separation from Christ, as that now argued against, was not the Apostles wish in the Scripture in hand.

If it be here demanded, But why might not Paul look upon it, as honest, yea and in some respect profi∣table, to be eternally separated from Christ, supposing that he should purchase or procure the salvation of a whole nation thereby, and this so dearly beloved of him, as the Jews were? To this I answer,

1. That cannot be good or honest, which rendreth a man uncapable of reward from God for it. Knowing (saith the Apostle Eph. 6.8.) that whatsoever good thing any man doth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, [mean∣ing in a reward, or consideration of good answerable according to the Law of divine bounty, thereunto.] Now an eternal separation from Christ, rendreth a per∣son utterly uncapable of all reward, or munificent con∣sideration from God, because it imports such a condi∣tion, with which nothing that is good or comfortable to a creature is consistent.

2. That which is honest, is desirable simply, absolute∣ly, in, and for it self: But no separation from Christ is

upon such terms desirable; least of all, an eternal sepa∣ration from him. That which is penal or afflicting, as the cause of suffering it may be, may be honourable. But honesty imports properly the comliness or worthi∣ness of a moral action.

3. (And lastly) That cannot be profitable to a man, which excludes all comfort, peace, and ease, and in∣cludes nothing but shame, torment and sorrow. There∣fore (doubtless) an eternal separation from Christ, can be profitable for no man.

Upon a resentment (I suppose) of that, or some such irrationality in the Interpretation mentioned, as that, now presented, some understand the Apostles wish con∣ditionally, as if his meaning in the words in hand were this: I could wish, viz. if it were lawful, and that which could be done, to become accursed from Christ. This Interpretation though it doth not suppose an eternal se∣paration from Christ, to be the matter of the Apo∣stles actual wish, at one time or other, or upon one con∣sideration or other, (wherein it differs from the for∣mer) yet it rendreth it as a thing wishable, or which the Apostle could, and would wish, in case the two im∣pediments specified, which render it de facto un-wish∣able, were, or could be, removed out of the way. But neither is this Interpretation so satisfying, although it hath many grave and learned Friends standing by it. First, because here is no mention, no not the least inti∣mation of either of those conditions, or of any other like to them, which the said Interpretation inserteth: Whereas the Apostle, when he mentioneth such con∣ditional wishing, or acts of willing, is wont to expresse the conditions. I bear you record (saith he, to the Ga∣lathians) that IF IT HAD BEEN POSSIBLE, you would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to

meh 1.32; meaning, either that if it had been lawful or or∣derly thus to have mangled or defaced their bodies for any mans sake; sometimes possible, is used for that which is lawful; Id possumus, quod jure possumus: or if it had been possible, viz. for them to have gratified him, or done him any considerable good, by such a mis-figu∣ring of themselves. 2. The Word wherein the Apo∣stle expresseth his wish, is a verb of the Indicative mood, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I did wish, [i. by an enallage of one tense for another, frequent in Scripture, I do wish] not a verb of the Potential mood, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I could or would wish. Therefore it seeems his wish, whatsoever it was, was actually conceived, and in present being within him. And probably the reason why he expresseth it rather in a Verb of the Preterimperfect tense, then of the Present, may be to insinuate, that this wish was not to serve his present occasion, or through the present heat, or high straining of his spirit, to speak some great thing unto them, now first conceived in him, but had been the so∣ber, setled, and standing wish of his soul, for some space of time before. 3. (And lastly) It is of very dange∣rous consequence, in the Interpretation of Scripture, to insert, or understand a condition, where a thing is abso∣lutely, or positively affirmed, when there is a sence, e∣very way agreeable to the words, to the scope of the place, import of the matter in hand, and to the course and current of the Scripture elsewhere, (which we shall shew presently to be the case in the place in hand) espe∣cially when such an insertion, or condition, is not justi∣fiable by any other Text of Scripture; as I beleeve there is none that will justifie the inserting of the conditions specified in the clause before us.

Thirdly, some limit the Apostles expression of being an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or accursed from Christ, precisely to that which

the Schoolmen term poena damni, the punishment of loss; and do not include in it, either any thing sinful, or any thing that is matter of any positive or sensible suf∣ferings. According to this notion, the matter or sub∣stance of Pauls wish (in this place) on the behalf of his Brethren the Jews, and for their salvation, is onely a deprivation or losse of all that positive blessednesse, all those great and high injoyments, which according to the tenour of the promise of God made unto those, that should beleeve in his Son Jesus Christ, and serve him with that zeal and faithfulness that he had done, he cer∣tainly expected from him. That most ardent affecti∣on of love, which he bare towards these his Brethren, and that most transcendent desire of their eternal safety and peace, which reigned in his soul, according to the interpretation last mentioned, wrought at so high and strange a rate within him, that they made him well con∣tented, yea put him into a capacity of really wishing and desiring, that they might be procured, though it were with the most invaluable damage and loss that he could possibly sustain, even the loss of that crown of glory, that immortall Kingdom which he was shortly to re∣ceive from the hand of his great Lord and Master, Christ. This Interpretation of the Apostles wish, I could willingly subscribe unto, were there not these three things in the way, advising me rather to a demur. 1. Such a strain or degree of love in any man, which ma∣keth him not onely willing, but wishing, to part with his portion in Christ, eternal blessedness and glory, for the accommodation and benefit of other men, is greater love then God requireth of any man upon such an ac∣count. This we lately shewed, arguing against the first of three Interpretations mentioned. 2. God requires no greater love of any man, then the laying down of

his life, and this, not for the enemies of God and Christ, or his own, but for the Brethren; i. e. Beleevers, bre∣thren in Christ, or at least chiefly for these. Hereby per∣ceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives FOR THE BRE∣THRENi 1.33. I do not remember any command of God imposed upon the Saints to lay down their lives for wicked, obstinate, and obdurate men; much less to part with their eternal inheritance in the Heavens, for their sakes. Therefore if Paul bare any such affection of love towards the Jews, who were indeed his Brethren (as he calls them) and Kinsmen according to the flesh, but otherwise most inveterate enemies unto him, and to the Gospel also, which made him ready and willing, and (which is somewhat more) wishing to sacrifice his ever∣lasting inheritance upon their service, this love must needs be a love of super-erogation, a love of a far high∣er strain, then God by any Law or precept of his requi∣reth of any of his Saints. And in case this love were in Paul, and withall, were a commendable or praise∣worthy affection, (as they I presume, suppose it to have been, who ascribe it unto him) then must the Law of God be adjudged imperfect, as not requiring of men actions or deportmens of greatest perfection. 3. (And lastly) to me it is matter of doubt, whether it be lawful for any creature to wish himself upon any account or consideration whatsoever, or out of any affection what∣soever to any creature or creatures whatsoever, into such a condition, wherein he must needs be eternally di∣vested of all capacity of loving God, or Christ. There∣fore,

Fourthly (and lastly) I rather close with the judg∣ment and sence of those, who judg the matter and im∣port of the Apostles wish, (in the Scripture now before

us) proceeding from his signal affection to his Brethren the Jews, and desire of their salvation to be onely this, viz. to be looked upon, and in every respect dealt with in the world, by men, as if he were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the onely person in the world accursed by, and from Christ, and abominated by him, and so worthy of all the ignominy, shame, reproach, punishments, tortures, deaths, that could be inflicted by men upon him, and were wont to be inflicted upon such persons, who for some hateful and execrable crime, or other, were sepa∣rated and devoted to utter ruine and destruction: Under which devotement they were termed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The word is indifferently applied, either to persons, or things; and in Scripture commonly signifieth such in either kind, which are designed and consigned, either by God himself, or men, or both, to destruction, in the nature of piacular sacrifices; i. e. Of such things, without the utter and totall subversion and abolition whereof by death, or destruction, God, either really and in truth will not be satisfied, nor his wrath appeased towards a place, or people (as viz. when himself ordereth the death, or destruction, of the one, or the other in order to such an end) or else is supposed by men unsatisfiable, and his wrath unappeasable, otherwise then by the death and ruine, either of the one or of the other; as viz. when they ignorantly and superstitiously conceive of the appeasablenesse, or unappeasableness of his wrath; and consequently devote, either such persons, or things, to destruction, out of an intent and hope to pacifie him, the destruction whereof in the mean time rather pro∣voketh him.

Some conceive (and with good probability) that the more usual and proper crime, for which men were ana∣thematized, or devoted for piacular sacrifices unto the

Gods, was sacriledg, i. a taking away, and converting to their own use, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such things as were con∣secrated in their temples to the honour of their Gods. This crime of sacriledge God himself in the Scriptures hinteth for a sin of the deepest abhorrency and detesta∣tion amongst the heathen themselves. Will a man rob God? or (as our former Translations read it) Will a man spoil his Gods? Yet ye have robbed me — in tithes and of∣feringsk 1.34. Yea the Apostle himself seemeth to resent it as a sin of a very high provocation in the sight of God, more provoking then Idolatry it self. Thou that abhor∣rest Idols, dost thou commit sacriledgel 1.35? But this by the way.

The Apostle then in wishing himself an Anathema, or accursed from Christ for his Brethrens sake, profes∣seth himself content, and willing, yea desirous, to lie under all the ignominie, infamy and shame, whereunto sacrilegious persons, or men separated and devoted to the worst of ruines or destructions for the most enor∣mous crimes that are, are exposed, yea and to suffer the death it self of such accursed persons as these, to procure safety and deliverance for them, from that most heavy curse, of an eternal separation from God, which he cer∣tainly knew hung over their heads, for their obstinate refusal of the Gospel; and would most assuredly fall upon them, if they repented not in time. Hereby he plainly signifieth and declareth, that that sorrow, and heaviness of soul which was now upon him, out of his sence and consideration of their great misery approach∣ing, was greater, and more insupportable to him, then any sorrow whatsoever, whereof he was capable upon his own account in matters appertaining to this present world could have been.

This Interpretation is confirmed, 1. By the weakness

and great improbability of all other Interpretations set up in competition with it, whereof an account hath been given. 2. By that perfect agreeableness, which the A∣postles wish, thus understood, hath with the precepts of God, and of the Gospel, concerning love (as hath been likewise shewed.) 3. By the usual sence and import of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which seldome or never signifies either person, or thing, devoted to the deprivation or loss of eternall blessedness, or to such a death, or de∣struction, which standeth in suffering the vengeance of eternal fire; but most fequently, such, both persons, and things, which are piacularly separated and devoted to a present visible destruction, (as hath also been declared.)

Nor do these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from Christ, import a∣ny such variation from the usuall signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as intended by the Apostle, which should make it signifie, a person eternally separated or accursed from Christ; but rather some such thing as this, that whereas he was now (as it were) a bosome friend of his, in the neerest union and conjunction with him, of which flesh and blood was lightly capable, and was upon this account highly honoured by his Friends, and by all the Churches of Christ throughout the world, he could ne∣vertheless be content, and wish himself for his Brethrens sake, in the condition of such a man, who is generally looked upon, as a person separated and divided to the greatest distance from Christ, and this upon the most justifiable grounds that can be; and consequently, who lieth under the greatest hatred, detestation, and abhoren∣cy of men, and is by all men adjudged worthy to die the worst of deaths. And probable it is that the Apo∣stle doth therefore express the ardency of his affection towards the Jews, by professing himself willing to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, accursed, or separated from Christ, for

their sakes, because they generally knew that he placed his greatest felicity and happiness in his Relation unto him, and was wont to glory much of him. In this respect wishing to be separated from Christ, for their good, he expressed the greatest affection towards them that could be.

For my Brethren, my Kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Preposi∣tion, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for, importeth here (as frequently elsewhere) the finall cause, or end. So that, for my Brethren, is as much as, for my Brethrens sake, or for their benefit, peace and safety. True it is, that the Apostle doth not here (in this Chapter) particularly expresse, either what the cause of that great sorrow and heaviness was, which he had so solemnly professed and exprest vers. 1. and 2. (as we heard) over his Brethren, or what evil or misery it was, from the suffering whereof he here professeth himself so willing to redeem them, with his own un∣speakable loss and sorrow of being separated from Christ: yet by the general carriage and subject matter of the sequel of the Chapter, and especially from Chap. 11. it clearly appears to have been that most grievous judgement of being rejected from that special Grace and favour of God, wherein they had now continued for many generations: by means of which rejection they were like to become the most miserable and ac∣cursed Nation upon the face of the whole Earth, who had, until the falling of this judgment upon them, been the happiest of all people. This judgment he knew hung over their heads, and was ready to be put in exe∣cution for their wilful blindness and desperate obstina∣cy, in refusing the glorious Gospel of God, sent unto them. He terms them his Brethren, and Kinsmen, to insinuate the reasonableness, and consequently the reality

and truth of that wish for them, which he had expres∣sed; it being reasonable, and concurring with the prin∣ciples and propensions of nature in men, to wish well un∣to those that are near in blood to them, yea and to be content to suffer much for them, to relieve them under any sad exigent or danger. Brethren] though it be a word of a more general signification, and appliable un∣to all men without exception, yet is it a term of an ac∣ceptable and sweetning resentment; and upon this ac∣count (probably) used by our Apostle here. That which rendreth it lesse taking in respect of the generality of it, is healed by these restrictive words (immediately fol∣lowing) my Kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Isra∣elites &c.] whereby he gives them to conceive, that he stiled them, Brethren, not because he looked upon them as descended from the same common root of mankind with him, in which sence all men whatsoe∣ver were his Brethren, as well as they; but because he lo∣ved and respected them as the children and posterity of the same worthy Progenitor, from whom he also was lineally descended, viz. Jacob the great Patriarch, who had the Honourable Name of Israel imposed on him by God himself. This consideration, with those imme∣diatly subjoyned, the Apostle (I conceive) mentioneth to insinuate the cordialness of his affection towards them, as being willing to commend them unto the world by all those royal prerogatives, wherewith God had dig∣nified them above all people, and not to detract from them in the least, either through envie, or any other di∣stast or offence that they might suppose he had taken or conceived against them, because of their hatred against him, and violent persecution of that Doctrine, which he so much magnified, and laboured to plant in the world. Those words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to the flesh, seem to in∣sinuate,

that notwithstanding his spiritual descent (by regeneration) from Jesus Christ and the Gospel, where∣in he most gloried, and wherein they disclaimed all communion and affinity with him, yet he owned, loved, and respected them in that natural band of blood and kindred, wherein both he and they were mutually ob∣liged.

[Vers. 4] Who are Israelites: to whom pertaineth the Adoption, and the glory, and the Covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises: Whose are [Vers. 5] the Fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen.] In these two Verses, he summarily reporteth the signal and high priviledges, and prerogatives of the Jews, above all other Nations. The reason why in this place he a∣voucheth them, and this with so full an enumeration of particulars, hath been already intimated; viz. That by a plain and express vindication and asserting of all their royalties and glorious priviledges unto them, he might withall vindicate the reality and truth of his great love, and high respects of them, against all surmises they might possibly have of a contrary spirit in him.

Who are Israelites] The Name of an Israelite, was ve∣ry honourable, as being derived from Israel, a name of extraordinary grace and dignation imposed by God himself (and this upon a very signal occasion) upon the renowned Patriarch Jacobm 1.36, from whom the Jews are li∣neally propagated; and as partakers of their Fathers ho∣nour and dignity in that Name of divine imposition, are termed Israelites. Are they Hebrews (saith this Apostle, speaking of some vain-glorious Teachers, or false Apo∣stles, his Corrivals) so am I. Are they Israelites? so am In 1.37. Meaning, that the persons he speaks of, stood upon their pedigree and descent from Israel, as matter of ho∣nour

and repute unto them. Onely it is here to be re∣membred, that in this place he allows the Name of Is∣raelites, unto the whole Nation of the Jews, who were naturally descended from Jacob or Israel, without di∣stinction: whereas afterwards, vers. 6. he appropriates the name, or term Israel, onely unto such of them, who resembled their Father Israel in Faith, and so were spi∣ritual Israelites, true Israelites, Israelites indeed.

To whom pertaineth the Adoption] i. e. who were the onely nation or intire body of people in the world, a∣dopted by God, into the priviledges & respects of a Son unto him; according as himself was pleased to honour them once and again by owning them in such a relation. And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, (saith God to Moses) thus saith the Lord; Israel is MY SON, even my first-born. And I say unto thee, Let MY SON go, that he may serve me, &co 1.38. So our Saviour in the Gospel speaking of the Jews, saith, It is not meet to take THE CHILDRENS bread, and to cast it to the dogsp 1.39. See also Jer. 31.20. Isa. 63.26. Gal. 4.1. It is true, this Adoption of the Jews was but a shadow or type of that high and hea∣venly adoption which appertaineth to beleevers through Christ, (in which respect the Apostle seems to appro∣priate it to the times of the Gospel, Gal. 4.5.) yet was it, simply considered, a prerogative of a very rich and sa∣cred import. Or else the meaning of these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to whom pertaineth the Adoption, may be, that God placed his great and gracious office (as it were) of Adoption, which he erected for the benefit of the world, amongst them. So that whosoever of any nation under Heaven desired the honour of Son-ship unto God, or the priviledge and repute of such a high relation, he was to seek and obtain it amongst the Jews, viz. by turn∣ing Proselite to their Religion and Worship, and by

incorporating himself with them.

And the glory] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whose is, or, to whom per∣taineth, glory, or, the glory. The meaning seems to be, that God by many visible Testimonies of his presence with them, like unto which no Nation under Heaven besides enjoyed any, had cast a spirit of glory upon them, and caused their brightness to shine throughout the world. See Deut. 4.6, 7, 8. Other nations sat in the dust of the Earth, and upon dunghills, whilst they were exalted by those drawings neer of God unto them, upon a Throne. And accordingly, this Nation hath still the inheritance of this promise from God pertaining to it, that in the day of the restitution of all things (as Peter speaketh); The Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God, thy gloryq 1.40; meaning, that God by the abundant and most excellent manifestations of his gracious presence with them, would render them a peo∣ple wonderfully glorious in the sight of the world. Some by the Glory in this place, understand the Ark of the testimony; Upon the taking and carrying away of which by the Philistines, the wife of Phinehas, now at the point of death, said: THE GLORY is departed from Israel: for the Ark of God is takenr 1.41. The Authors, or abetters of this Interpretation have no cause (as far I understand) to be ashamed of it.

And the Covenants] meaning that God at first made a gracious Covenant with this nation in their father Abraham, and because of their frequent transgressions of it, whereby it was disanull'd, dissolved, and made void, he was graciously pleased from time to time to re-establish it, and to give new force and validity unto it. In respect of which frequent re-establishment, though the Covenant was materially, or in respect of the subject matter, one and the same, yet formally it

was many, yea and in every new establishment of it, there being some alteration, though not in the main substance of the matter, it may upon this account be the better looked upon as multiplied, or made many. See Deut. 19.1. The difference between the Covenants here, and the Promises (soon after mentioned) seems to stand in this: The Covenants were as it were double Promises mutually or reciprocally binding, or ingaging both parties, according to the terms specified and con∣tained in them. The Promises, as to matter of perfor∣mance, oblige onely the one partie, namely the Promi∣ser, not him, or them, to whom they are made; though it is true, they may, and do, in a way of equity oblige these also unto thankfulness. And generally all pro∣mises that are conditional, so far as they are conditional, and the performance of them suspended upon the per∣formance of terms in one kind or other, by the promi∣sed, have rather the nature of Covenants, then of sim∣ple or direct promises. And of this kind are most of the promises found in the New Testament, the full and through performance of them on Gods part, being by him, and that in a way of the greatest equity, suspended upon such and such deportments of men.

By the way, when the Apostle appropriates the Cove∣nants he speaks of unto the Jews, his intent is not, so, or upon such terms to appropriate them unto them, as if they had any right or power by vertue of such an appro∣priation, to exclude the rest of the world, yea or any person, or persons whatsoever of any other nation, from part and fellowship with them therein, who should de∣sire it, and become worshippers of the same God with them. The Covenants were theirs, much in such a sence, as the Gospel was Pauls, (who often calls it his Gospel) or Baptism, was John the Baptists. The words or writings,

wherein these Covenants were contained and expressed, were delivered or given unto them; yea their names (as it were) were used by God, and put into the said Cove∣nants: not indeed as Feoffees in trust properly so called, who are meer Trustees, having no right or title them∣selves, to the things wherewith they are intrusted by o∣thers; but as a parcel or party of those persons, whose benefit was generally and in common intended by God, in and by these Covenants; onely THEY were selected by God to have the custodie, or keeping of the writings, or letter of the said Covenants, the tenour and import whereof equally respected the accommo∣dation and benefit of the whole world with them, and they stood bound to manage their trust in this behalf accordingly. To them (saith our Apostle in this Epistle, speaking of the Jewes) were committed, (viz. in trust, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifies) the Oracles of God. Which Oracles, or at least a part of them, are elsewhere term∣ed by him, the rudiments, or elements, of the world, (Gal. 4.9. Col. 2.8.) because they were intended and given by God for the nurture and training up of the gene∣rality of mankind, during the infancie (as it were) or the nonage of it, in the knowledg, love, and service of him∣self. There is the same consideration of the three Pri∣viledges following,

And the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the Promises] By the giving of the Law, he means chief∣ly (I suppose) that most glorious and majestique pro∣mulgation of the Moral Law by God himself, whether immediatly, or by the mediation of one, or more, of his great Angels, upon mount Horeb; not excluding the more private delivery of those other Laws, Ceremonial, and Judicial, upon the same mount unto Moses, to be by him communicated unto this people, as from God, with

this declaration, that by a careful and due observation of them they should be in all respects the happiest Na∣tion upon the face of the whole Earths 1.42. Now how great a prerogative this was to this people to have their Laws, by which they were to be governed, composed and fram'd, not by men but by God himself, and by him delivered unto them, ratified, and sanctioned by so many glorious and magnificently-miraculous solemni∣ties, cannot easily be measured by the line of humane understanding.

By the service of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is meant, not the ce∣remonial Law it self (as some interpret, restraining the former priviledg of giving the Law, to the Moral and Judicial Law onely, and to the giving of these) but that worship, or those services themselves, which were pre∣scribed in the Ceremonial part of the Law: meaning, that it was the singular priviledg of this Nation, that they had the true worship of God, such as was accept∣able and well-pleasing unto him, amongst them; and that no person of any other Nation could have the like but by being a debtor unto them for it. Origen, with some others, restrain the service of God here mention∣ed, to the Priestly function, and the particular execu∣tions and imployments hereof. An Interpretation not improbable.

By the Promises, I conceive are chiefly meant those frequent declarations found in the Scriptures of the Old Testament of the gracious purpose and intention of God to send his Son at the time appointed into the world, to accomplish the great work of the Re∣demption thereof, to repair the many sad and wide breaches, which sin had made upon the peace and com∣forts thereof, and to gird it again with joy and gladness. Though there be many other promises extant in those

Oracles of God which were committed to the Jews, yet these are promises 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: These are the first-born amongst their Brethren; and this Apostle in his write∣ings, very frequently appropriates the general word, promise and promises, unto the great and signal promise, or promises we now speak of. See Rom. 15.8. Heb. 11.39, &c. However, promises from God of what nature, or kind soever, being friendly communications of his gra∣cious and secret purposes and intentions concerning the world, and our selves, cannot but be judged matters of high and singular dignation from God, to what people or persons soever, they are peculiarly vouchsafed, and so, that no other person, or people in the world can come to the knowledg of them but by ploughing (as it were) with their heifer, and drinking of those fountains, which have been opened by the hand of Heaven a∣mongst them.

[Vers. 5] Whose are the Fathers] i. e. whose prerogative also it is, to be the children and posterity of most worthy An∣cestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, &c. who were great in the sight of God, and to whom he made many great and precious promises, wherein their children also, and their childrens children in their successive generations, were comprehended. However men degenerating in∣to wayes of sin and wickedness, prove a stain and a blot to the honour and memory of their worthy forefa∣thers, and forfeit their right unto, and interest in those promises of Grace, which are made by God unto their Fathers, yet to come from the loyns of Parents singu∣larly interessed in the love and favour of God, is sim∣ply and in it self considered, a priviledg of a very choice and desirable import. That one onely promise of God wherein he promiseth to shew mercy to a thousand genera∣tions in those that love him, is a demonstration hereof in

abundance. He that hath a fair estate left him by his Parents, is by means hereof, in a better condition, as to this present world, further from poverty or want, then he that is left (as we say) to the wide world, and must shift for himself; although it oft cometh to pass, that he that hath such an estate left him, through wastful and unthriftie courses, comes to beggery; and he that was born to inherit the dust of the Earth onely, is fed plen∣tifully.

And of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God Blessed for ever. Amen.] Of whom, i. e. not of which Fathers, but, of which Israelites (as the particle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 clearly intimates) Christ came, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. in respect of his flesh, or humane nature, which is often in Scripture expressed by the word, flesh. This re∣strictive or exegetical clause, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to the flesh, plainly supposeth another nature in Christ, ac∣cording unto which he came not from the Israelites or Jews; which can be none other but the Divine nature, or Godhead; which in the sequel of the Verse (as we shall hear presently) is expresly attributed unto him. The Apostle reserves the mention of Christs descent from the Jews, for the last place in his List or Cata∣logue of their prerogatives, judging it (as it seems) the greatest and most worthy of them all. And if it be a matter of Honour and high vouchsafement unto man∣kind (in general) that Christ, the natural Son of God, was pleased to associate himself in communion of the same nature with it; much greater honour it must needs be to that particular family or descent of men, which he chose from amongst all others, to receive this condescen∣tious investiture of flesh from it. So that Simeon had good ground in his Prophetical gratulation, to stile him, the Glory of his people Israelt 1.43 And if the Virgin his Mo∣ther

had cause to judg, that all generations would call her blessed, and that He that is mighty did great things to heru 1.44, in casting the Relation of a Mother to his Son Christ upon her; doubtless the nation of whom both Mo∣ther, and Son descended, had cause to judg themselves happy, and to say that God had done great things for them also, in taking a mother for his Son from amongst them, hereby making this glorious Son of his bone of their bone, and of their flesh, in a more appropriate manner. Whereas this Apostle else-where admonisheth the Saints, though they had known Christ after the flesh, yet that henceforth (viz. being now become new creatures) they would know him [so] no morex 1.45, his intent onely is to give them to consider, that to boast of, or to think the better of themselves for any carnal relation whatsoe∣ver unto men, yea though unto Christ himself, savour∣eth more of an unregenerate estate, or at least of weak∣ness in the Faith, then of such a change of heart, which accompanieth the new birth, especially in the strength and perfection of it; and upon this account admonish∣eth them to refrain all such, whether words, or thoughts. For though it be a priviledg and honour, and these very great in their kind, and within their own sphere, to be of the same line, or descent of blood with Christ, or of the same nation with him, yet do they not reach within the vail, nor commend any man unto God upon any other terms, then as the sence and consideration of them are improv'd and contriv'd by men, to provoke them to de∣sire and labour for spiritual union and communion with Christ. And indeed the benefit and advantage of all ex∣ternal priviledges whatsoever, consisteth, if not onely yet mainly and principally, in this; I mean, that they afford opportunities, and impose ingagements upon men that have them, to quit themselves more worthily

in matters relating unto God, then other men. And up∣on this account I suppose it is, that the Apostle con∣cludes else-where, that the advantage which the Jew had [above the Gentile] was very much, and so the profit of Circumcisiony 1.46

Who is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen.] This glo∣rious Elogium of Christ, as on the one hand it highly exalts the prerogative of the Jew, viz. as being that people, of whom a person so excellent, and so tran∣scendently blessed, was descended; so on the other hand it proportionably aggravates their sin and condemna∣tion, in rejecting a person of that infinite worth, not∣withstanding his descent from themselves. It is pro∣bable that the Apostle gives this so highly-honourable a testimony unto Christ, because he was so vilified and abhorred by the Jews; thus not onely supplying, as much as might be, that which was more then lacking on their part, but withall making up that great breach, which they had made on his Name and Honour by their unbelief. He is here said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, over all, whether persons onely, or things and persons both. The word indifferently admits either Interpre∣tation: Yet I find Expositors rather inclining to the latter, as being the more comprehensive. Christ is said to be over all, because (as himself expresseth it.) All power was given unto him (viz. by his Father) in Hea∣ven and on Earthz 1.47. And John Baptist; The Father lo∣veth the Son, and hath given all things into his handa 1.48, meaning that he hath made him his great Pleni-poten∣tiary, to transact, issue, and conclude all things what∣soever relating unto the whole creation, especially An∣gels and men; to settle the affairs of Heaven and Earth for eternity. He expresly asserteth his Godhead, part∣ly (as was hinted) to commend yet further the prero∣gative

of his Brethren the Jews, from whom so great and worthy a person, as he that counteth it no robbery to be e∣qual with God, had, in the humane nature assum'd by him, chosen to descend; partly also to awaken others, to the same acknowledgment of him, or at least to inquire after him, until they should come to such a light, by which they might discover him to be indeed God. He addeth these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, blessed for e∣ver, or, to be blessed [i. e. that ought to be blessed] for ever, to insinuate, that a far differing measure from that which they had measured out unto him hitherto, was due unto Christ from them (as from all other men) They had reviled, and reproached him, called him ac∣cursed, &c. The Apostle here admonisheth them, that he was so far from deserving any such intreatings at their hand, as these, that his divine goodness and glo∣ry every ways merited the greatest acknowledg∣ments of praise and honour, that they or any other creature could tender unto him. He closeth the busi∣ness in hand, with this word, Amen, a word common∣ly used for a serious confirmation of what is said im∣mediatly before, together with an approbation there∣of, sometimes also imporntig a wish for the perform∣ance of it. It is six times used by the Apostle in this Epistle. Our Saviour in the Gospels frequently useth it as an Adverb of asseveration, or valid Assertion, and in the beginning of the sentence: in the Gospel accord∣ing to John, he never useth it, but with an ingeminati∣on, or second repetition of it; in the other Evangelists alwaies singly. In all other places of Scripture, it is never found used in the beginning of a sentence, but al∣ways in the end: and this seems to have been the ordi∣nary construction of it, according to that of this Apo∣stle, where, speaking of a person who understandeth

not, he demandeth, How shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned, say AMEN, at [i. e. after, or upon] thy giving of thanksb 1.49, &c. It is once used as an Epi∣thite, or descriptive Character of Christ himself. These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witnessc 1.50, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. q. d. These things saith He, who is as true in his sayings, as Truth it self, whose essential and in∣nate veracity is confirmation in abundance of whatso∣ever he speaketh.

From this passage now last opened, consisting of vers. 3, 4, 5. let us briefly observe some heads of Do∣ctrine, and then go forward with our Exposition.

1. Whereas the Apostles sorrow and heaviness of heart for the sad condition of his Brethren the Jews, was such and so great, that to be delivered from it, and to better his condition in respect of it, he wish'd to be an Anathema, one accursed from Christ, It may be ob∣served; That Persons highest in favour and acceptation with God, yea, and such whose joy in him is unspeakable and glorious (as this Apostle's doubtless, was) may not∣notwithstanding have a sword passing through their soul, and no mens sorrows like unto theirs in this present world. Luke 2.35. 1 Cor. 15.19. 2 Cor. 6.4, 5, 6, &c. c. 11.23, 24, 25, &c.

2. From vers. 3. Whereas the Apostle professeth that he could wish [or did wish] to be accursed from Christ, for his Brethren his Kinsmen, &c. It is observable from hence, That Great love inableth to great and difficult ser∣vices and sufferings. Gen. 29.20. Cant. 8.6. 2 Sam. 23.16. 2 Cor. 12.15.

3. Whereas he was ready to be himself accursed from Christ for his Brethren, &c. It may be observed; That it is the natural Genius or property of a truly great, and publike Spirit to sacrifice himself with all his dear∣est

injoyments in this present world, upon the service and safety of many. 2 Cor. 12.15. Joh. 1.12. 2 Sam. 24.17.

4. Whereas it was the spiritual benefit of his Brethren, (their exemption from under the heavy displeasure of God) for the procuring whereof he wished to be himself accursed from Christ, the Doctrine is, That The spiritu∣al and soul-Interest of great numbers and multitudes of of men, should ingage us very deep for the promoting of it. 2 Cor. 12.15. 1 Cor. 9.19, 20, 21, &c. 1 John 3.16.

5. Whereas they were the Apostles Brethren and Kinsmen after the flesh, whose spiritual good he profess∣eth himself so desirous to advance, though with his own utter ruine, and this to be under-gone and suffer∣ed by him upon the sorest, and most grievous terms, that lightly could be, it may be observed, That Chri∣stians stand bound in a more peculiar manner before God, to endeavour the salvation of their kindred; to do more, and suffer more, if need be, for their salvation, then for other mens; even as they stand charged likewise, to provide out∣ward things for those of their own house. So that neither of these ingagements do imply any such knowing of men after the flesh, which the Apostle 2 Cor. 5.16. represent∣eth as a disparagement unto Christians. Acts 10.24. Gen. 18.19. Esth. 8.6

6. Whereas the Apostle expresseth a great height and depth of affection towards his Brethten the Jews, in wishing to be himself accursed from Christ for their sakes, notwithstanding he knew certainly that his offer in this kind would not be taken by God, and that they were not like to taste of that blessing, which he wished he might procure for them by his being accursed, it may be observed; That reality and truth, yea and great arden∣cy of affection, may be expressed by such offers, or professions,

which are never like to be put in execution, nor to benefit those, to whom, or on whose behalf they are made, by any actual performance. 2 Cor. 12.15. 2 Sam. 24.17.

7. Whereas the Apostle, being (comparatively) in∣nocent, wisheth himself accursed, for his Brethren, who were offenders, it may be observed, That it is not con∣trary to the rules of justice, or equity, that by the sufferings of an innocent person, (innocent, I mean, comparatively) freely offering himself hereunto, those that are guilty should be discharged from suffering. Otherwise the Apostles wish in this place would be unlawful, as desiring that, which were unrighteous or unequal for God to grant. John 1.9. compared with vers. 12, 15.

8. Whereas Paul, though conscious to himself of be∣ing in many things an offender, (as the best of men are, Jam. 2.) yet wisheth himself accursed for his Brethrens sake, [i. e. in effect, that by his stripes they might be healed] it is observable; That it is of good accord with the righ∣teousness of God, to reward, as the Prayers, so (and doubt∣less much more) the regular sufferings of his Saints, with a kind of mediatory honour, and with the exemption of Of∣fenders from such punishments, as they have deserved. O∣therwise (as we argued before) the Apostles wish be∣fore us will be found sinful, as desiring that at the hand of God, which would be unrighteous or unjust for him to give, or do.

9. Whereas the Apostles wish notwithstanding of being accursed for his Brethrens sake, and notwithstand∣ing Gods liberty in respect of his justice, to have ac∣cepted him in this his wish, as viz. by being pacified towards his Brethren upon his being made accursed for them, yet God did not accept him in this kind, was not pleased to recieve the Jews into his favour by putting him upon those sufferings, which he was so well content

to undergo upon that account, it may be observed, That such prayers or desires which are regular, and of choyce acceptance with God, in a way of approbation, are not yet always accepted by him as to a literal performance, or gra∣tification. 2 Cor. 12.8, 9. Exod. 32.32, 33. 2 Sam. 12.16. with the 18.

10. Whereas the Apostle intending, either onely, or chiefly, to commend the reality and truth of his affecti∣on to the Jews, declares unto them how great things he could even wish to suffer for their sakes, the Ob∣servation from hence is, That a readiness to suffer for o∣thers, is a very convincing argument of soundness and sin∣cerity of affection towards them, Gal. 4.15. Col. 1.24. Gal. 2.20.

11. Whereas, desirous to express how deeply he could be content to suffer for his Brethrens good, he giveth instance in being made an Anathema, or accurs∣ed from Christ (in the sence declared and asserted) It is observable; That to those who affectionately love the Lord Christ, it is the extremity or height of sufferings, to be looked upon as persons hated and abhorred of him. 1 Cor. 4.9, 10, 11, 12, 13. 2 Cor. 13.7.

12. (From vers. 4, and 5.) Whereas the Apostle menti∣oneth sundry great and excellent prerogatives apper∣taining unto his Brethren, the Jews, who all these not∣withstanding, were a people extreamly refractorie a∣gainst God; from hence the Observation is, That the greatest, and greatest number of outward priviledges and vouchsafements from God, may very possibly consist with, yea and occasion in men, the greater stubbornness and stout∣ness of heart against God. Rom. 23, 24, 25. Jer. 7.4, 8, 9, 10.

13. Whereas the Apostle, liberally, and without any extenuation or expression, acknowledgeth all the ex∣cellencies or vouchsafements from God appropriate to

the Nation of the Jews, we may learn, That it is a point of Christian candor and ingenuity, freely to own and ac∣knowledg all testimonies of respects from God in our great∣est enemies. Rom. 10.1, 2. Acts 26.27.

14. Whereas the Apostle the better to insinuate the cordialness of his affection unto the Jews, gives so free and large a testimony of the great honour, which God had put upon them (in many signal prerogatives) above any other, yea above all, Nations, it may be observed, That a free and full acknowledgment of things worthy ho∣nour and respects in men, is a pregnant argument or sign of good affection towards these men, in those who make this acknowledgment, or at least that they do not hate them. Rom. 10.1, 2. Gal. 4.15. Heb. 10.32, 33. Rev. 2.6.

15. Whereas the descent of the Jewish Nation, from the Fathers, and so honourable a person, as Israel, [or, their being Israelites] together with the descent of the Lord Christ from them, are rehearsed by the Holy Ghost amongst the high Prerogatives of the Jews, the Do∣ctrine is, That as well a worthy ancestry, as a worthy posterity, are simply, and in themselves, Priviledges, or matters of ho∣nour, unto men. 2 Cor. 11.21, 22. Acts 3.25. 1 Chr. 16.13. Job 5.25. Psal. 127.4, 5. Luke 11.27.

16. Whereas the Adoption, the Glory, the Covenants, the giving of the Law, &c. are numbred amongst the great and gracious respects vouchsafed by God (prerogative-wise) unto the Jews, it is observable, That a fulness or richness of instituted means for the true knowledg and wor∣ship of God, is matter of high dignation from God unto men. Psal. 76.1, 2. Psal. 147.19, 20. Rom. 3.1, 2.

17. (And lastly) Whereas the Jews being (more generally) a people rejected by God for their obdurate∣ness in unbelief, had yet far greater means for the true knowledg and worship of God, and consequently for

salvation, vouchsafed unto them, then other Nations, the Observation is, That the greatest excellency of means of salvation vouchsafed by God, argueth no specialty of in∣tentions in him towards men, in the death of Christ. Mat. 11.22, 23, 24. Isa. 5.4.

[Vers. 6] Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect: for they are not all Israel, that are of Israel, &c.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which some translate thus; but it is impossible that the word of God should take none effect. But this is not so proper, because it is not here said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies impossible, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which properly signifies, But not such a thing as. His meaning clearly enough is, (and Interpreters do not much vary here) that nothing he had now said, or implied, concerning the rejection of the greater part of his Brethren the Jews from God, drew any such consequence after it, as this, that the Word of God [i. e. the promises of God, or Covenant of God, viz. given unto, and made with, Abraham and his seedd 1.51,] should miscarry, or had miscarried, or fallen (as it were) to the ground. The ardent affection which he had expressed towards the Nation of the Jews in wishing after such a deliberate and solemn manner, (as we have heard) to be accursed from Christ for them, plainly implied, (as was hinted) that he looked upon them as accursed from God, or as in imminent and present danger of being utterly cast out of his sight, and cut off from his grace and favour; according to what he reasoneth in a like case, For the love of Christ constraineth us, because we thus judg, that if one died for all, then were all deade 1.52. Now upon this Insinuation, amounting (in substance) to as much as a plain Assertion, that the Jews were cast off by God from being any longer a people unto him, the Apostle plainly foresaw that the Jews would rise up with

such an Objection as this. If God should cast off that people, to whose Fathers he had ingaged himself by promise, to be a God unto them, and their seed, for e∣ver, then the Word and Promise of God should fail or miscarry in point of truth. But the Word of God cannot fail, or miscarry. Ergo. To this Argument the Apostle answereth, by granting the Minor Propositi∣on, viz. That the Word of God cannot miscarry; but denying the consequence in the Major, which suppose∣eth that a rejection of the people of the Jews, would prove the Word of God to be dissolved, and of none effect. The reason of this his denial he subjoyneth in the words immediatly following;

For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel,] q.d. There are many lineally according to the course of nature, descended from the loins of the Patriarch Jacob, sir∣named Israel (by God) who are not the emphatical or spiritual Israel, or the Israel of God (as he speaks else∣where) i. e. such Israelites, as to whom God made, or intended, that great promise of being their God for ever, or (which is the same in effect) of giving justifica∣tion, adoption, and salvation. It is a thing very fre∣quent in the Scripture, to use one and the same word in different significations, in one and the same sentence, and this with much elegancy, and emphatical acute∣ness. See Mat. 8.22. Rom. 3.21. Joh. 17.19. &c. as al∣so to term a race or generation of men by the name of some of their Progenitors, especially being persons of note and fame in the world. Deut. 32.9. Gen. 49.7. Psal. 14.7. and 83.7, 8, &c. Moreover, it is not unusual in the Scriptures, to appropriate a general or common term, by way of Emphasis, or (as is commonly ex∣pressed) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to some special particulars, one or more, contained under that general; yea and sometimes

to bereave such particulars which are lesse considera∣ble and lesse perfect, of that very name, or appella∣tion, which agrees to the general, and to appropriate it (as hath been said) to those particulars which are most considerable in their kind. See Rom. 2.28, 29. Gal. 3.7, 29. Joh. 6.55, &c. It is true, this promise was declared and delivered to all the posterity of Israel (as we part∣ly heard from the former Verses) without exception, and in a kind of conditional sence, was made unto them all, as viz. thus; If they would or should all be chil∣dren, i. e. followers, of the Faith, righteousness, and ho∣liness of Abraham, and Israel (their Fathers) as they were the children of their flesh, he would be a God, i. e. a glorious and signal Benefactor unto them all for ever. But in this sence, and upon these terms, it was made as well unto the Gentiles, and the whole world, as unto the Jews; though it was not so plainly, or immediatly com∣municated or made known unto them, as to these. And that it should be made unto the Jews themselves in any fence, or upon any other terms then those expressed, as viz. upon their good behaviour, and conformity to their worthy Progenitors in Faith and Holiness, is re∣pugnant to all principles of reason, yea of common sence it self. For who can imagine or conceive, that God being infinitely just, righteous, and holy, should promise the highest and most sacred enjoyments and re∣wards, which he hath to confer upon the best and ho∣liest of men, unto the worst, the most stubborn and dis∣obedient of men, and this whether ever they repent of these abominations, or no? If this were so, had not the world cause to demand, And where is the God of judg∣mentf 1.53? Yea the Jews themselves plainly enough grant∣ed this principle, for a truth, viz. That all that were car∣nally descended from Israel, were not true Israelites, or

the Israel of God, in that they counted all such of this descent, accursed and rejected by God, (and upon this account hated and persecuted them, even unto death) who embraced the Apostles Doctrine of Justification by Faith, and turned Christians. From whence it is e∣vident, that the Apostle doth not assert the said prin∣ciple, in opposition to the Jews, but onely maketh use of it, as far as the import of it will reach in this kind, to dissolve the force of their Objection against his Do∣ctrine; the tenour of which Objection (as hath been al∣ready intimated) was this, that the said Doctrine, suppo∣sing a rejection of a great part of their Nation from God, rendred the Word and promise of God unto Abra∣ham and his seed, of none effect. Now the Apostle e∣vinceth a nullity in the said Objection from the princi∣ple or Concession mentioned, thus far; viz. That such a Doctrine, which supposeth a rejection of some part of Abrahams carnal posterity by God, doth not hereby at all render the Word of God of none effect; themselves clearly granting this in the said Hypothesis. So that the Question yet remaining and depending between him and them, was this; who, or what sort, or kind of Jews they were, and how differing from the rest, whose re∣jection by God would render such a Doctrine, which should assert, or suppose it, so blasphemously erroneous, as to make the Word of God of none effect: They affirm∣ed them to be such, who sought after righteousness by the Observation of Moses Law, and rejected his Do∣ctrine of Justification by Faith; he on the contrary un∣dertakes to prove; that they were such, who sought their Justification by Faith, and placed no confidence or hope in this kind in the Works of the Law. He pro∣ceeds to the demonstration hereof in the sequel of this Chapter, onely asserting (the second time) the principle

lately mentioned, by the way, in somewhat differing expressions from the former, to make his transition to his intended demonstration the more passable and fair. The matter or substance of the Principle we speak of, he expresseth in these words,

[Vers. 7] Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children,] implying, that the great Promises made to A∣braham, and his seed, did not, according to the intent of God in making them, appertain, either universally or solely, to those who should naturally descend from A∣braham, and should be his seed (in this sence) but unto those in whom the Spirit of Abrahams faith should be found, and so should be, by a spiritual kind of propa∣gation or descent, his children. For a man to receive a change or alteration, either in the habit or dispositi∣on of his mind, or in a course of outward deportments and actions, by means, either of counsel, or example, from another, is a kind of generation, whereby he re∣ceives a certain being which he had not before. And it is a frequent dialect of Scripture to term men the chil∣dren of such persons, whom they resemble in Spirit, or practice, especially when this resemblance hath been occasioned or produced, either by their perswasions or practises. Thus saith the Lord God unto Jerusalem; Thy birth, and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan, thy Fa∣ther was an Amorite, and thy Mother an Hittiteg 1.54. See Joh. 8.38, 39, 41, 44. Act. 13.10. &c. So then this is that which the Apostle here affirmeth; viz. that when God made the promise of being a God, [i. e. a great and blessed Benefactor, such as no creature, one, or more, could be] unto Abraham, and his seed or children, by seed or children he did not mean, all those (without ex∣ception) who should carnally descend from him; but (as the next words plainly insinuate) such who should

resemble him in his Faith, as children commonly do the Parents of their flesh, both in the lineaments of their natural faces, as likewise in the temper or com∣plexion of their minds. By the way, when the Apostle saith, For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel; and so again: Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children, he doth not imply, or suppose that the greatest part of them were such, I mean, Israel, or A∣brahams children (in his emphatical sence) because he expresseth himself thus, They are not all Israel, neither are they all children. Negative or exclusive particles, do not always suppose, or take for granted, whatsoever in the same kind is not particularly denied, or excluded: but sometimes simply and precisely deny or exclude, without any connotation, or implication at all in this kind. As when the Apostle saith, For all men have not Faith, he doth not suppose, that most men, or the great∣est part of men have Faith; but simply denieth, that all men have Faith. But let us make some brief Observa∣tions from the words lately opened by the way.

First, from those words, Not as if the Word of God hath taken no effect, (so understood, as hath been shewed) it may be observed, That sometimes such consequences, which pretend to a legitimacy of descent from words spoken, are yet spurious and illegitimate. Rom. 6.1, 2. Rom. 3.5.31. Joh. 21.23. &c.

2. Upon the same account (onely somewhat more particularly) it is observable, That such events now and then come to pass, which seem to contradict the Word of God in the Scriptures, and yet really and in truth are far from it. Rom. 11.1. Joh. 12.34.

3. Whereas the Apostle rejects such a supposition as this, That the Word of God should be of none effect, not onely, or simply as a non-sequitur, or that which fol∣loweth

not upon any thing that he had either said, or meant, but as that which is in it self erroneous and dan∣gerous; it is observable, That any opinion or saying what∣soever, involving in it a non-performance of any promise, or Word of God, is unsound, and of a dangerous tendencie, and consequence. Rom. 3.3, 4.

4. From this clause, For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel (as it hath been expounded) it is observable, That though Faith and holiness commonly shoot forth in some of the branches of a natural propagation or descent, where there is, or hath been, a godly Ancestry or Parentage, yet seldome, or never do they appear in all. Rom. 11.1, 2, 15, 16.

5. From the same clause, as supposing that the Jews conceived all, or at least the greatest part of, those to be Israel, [the true Israel of God] who were naturally descended from Israel, the Observation is, That men frequently stretch the intentions of God in his collation of outward Priviledges beyond the truth▪ Or thus, Men un∣der the enjoyment of o••••ward priviledges, are apt to think more highly of themselves, then there is cause, and to conceit themselves something, when as indeed they are nothing, (as this Apostle speaks elsewhere) Phil. 3.3. Rom. 2.3.13. Jer. 7.4.

6. (And lastly) from these words, Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children, which imply that the Jews (more generally) thus argued, and judg∣ed, it is observable, That the Scriptures, in respect of the phrase, and manner of expression in many things, are so framed and drawn up by God, that by men of carnal minds they may easily be wrested to their destruction. 2 Pet. 3.16. 2 Cor. 3.14, 15. It followeth:

[Vers. 7] But in Isaac shall thy seed be called.] Meaning, that God himself declared, who or what persons of Abra∣hams

natural seed, his intent was should be counted for his children [viz. such children, that should inherit the promises] as also who should not be counted for such, in these words (spoken by himself unto Abraham) but in Isaac shall thy seed be calledh 1.55. It is frequent in Scripture to mention words spoken by a person, with∣out mentioning either the person speaking them, or sometimes the person to whom they were spoken. See Gal. 3.11, 12. Acts 1.4. &c. The Apostle here enter∣eth upon his main demonstration, intending to prove, That the rejection of such of Abrahams posterity by God, who according to his Doctrine, either were, or were likely ere long to be, rejected by him, doth in no consideration at all, by no tolerable consequence, make the Word of God of none effect, but rather (as he speaketh elsewhere) establish it. The argument or pro-syllogism by which he proveth this, may be thus formed.

The rejection of such Jews onely, or of such of Abrahams seed, to whom God made no promise, no absolute promise, of being their God, of justifying, blessing, or saving them, can∣not make the Word, or promise of God to Abraham and his seed, of no effect.

But such are those Jews, and onely such, viz. to whom God hath made no promise, &c. whose rejection is either asserted, or supposed by me in my Doctrine. Ergo, The rejection of onely such as these, maketh not the Word of God of none effect: and consequently, neither is my Do∣ctrine guilty of such a crime, either for asserting or sup∣posing it. The Process of this argument from the first to the last, is very pregnant and clear. The Major Pro∣position the Apostle taketh for granted, as well he may; and therefore insisteth not upon any proof hereof. The Minor is the ball of contention between him, and his opposers, (the Jews) therefore for this he runneth,

and that by the way of this Argument.

If none of those Jews, who according to my Doctrine, are re∣jected, or likely to be rejected by God, have any promise from God that he will be their God, that he will justifie, blesse, or save them, then cannot the rejection of these make the Word or promise of God of none effect.

But true it is, That none of those Jews whose rejecti∣on is either affirmed, or supposed, in my Doctrine, have any such promise. Ergo,

The consequence in the Major of this Syllogism al∣so is too pregnant with evidence of truth, to be denied. Therefore the Apostle passeth over this likewise with∣out proof. For the proof of the Minor, he 1. suppose∣eth (that which is plain enough, and which his Adver∣saries knew well enough) viz. that such Je••••, or such of Abrahams seed, who according to his Doctrine were spurious, and rejected by God, were onely such, who re∣jected Iesus Christ, and peremptorily opposed the Do∣ctrine of Justification by Faith in him. 2. He proveth that such Iews as these, had no such promise made or appertaining unto them, as whereby God should stand ingaged to be their God, or to own them for such chil∣dren of Abraham, to whom he ever engaged himself upon such terms. This he undertaketh to demonstrate from two famous Oracles uttered by God himself of old; the one, unto Abraham himself in person, Gen. 21.12. the other unto Rebecca, the wife of Isaac, Gen. 25.23. To this latter, he subjoyneth a testimony from one of the Prophets, for a more ample declaration of the mind of God herein, as we shall see when we come to vers. 13. By both these Oracles, as well joyntly, as severally, he proveth that the persons, whether Jews, or of any other Nation, with whom, under the name of Abrahams seed, God covenanted to be their God,

to justifie and save them, were not such, who should seek to be justified by Works, or the Law, but by Faith. The tenour of the former of these Oracles is contained in the words recited,

But, in Isaac shall thy seed be called.] The occasion of these words, spoken (as hath been said) by God him∣self unto Abraham, was this. Sarah, taking notice that Ishmael, Abrahams son by Hagar his servant, proved a scoffer, and misused her son Isaac, made it her earnest request unto Abraham, that together with his Mother, he might be turn'd out of doors. Abraham being ve∣ry much dis-satisfied with the motion, and loath to put in execution, what Sarah herein desired, received a command from God, however to hearken unto her, and perform her request, giving him this reason to satisfie him in the business; For in Isaac shall thy seed be called.] As if he should have said, let it not be so grievous un∣to thee, to part with thy son Ishmael out of thy house, because I have a mysterious and great design in ap∣pointing thy son Isaac to be thine onely heir, and cut∣ting off Ishmael from all hopes of being a sharer with him in thine inheritance: This, or some like sence to this, to be the true sence (at least one sence) intended by God in those words, the Apostle himself plainly de∣clares in the words immediatly following by way of Interpretation;

That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are [Vers. 8] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.] I confess that without ploughing with the Apostles heifer in this place, it would have been very hard for a man to have found out that Divine riddle in those words, which he findeth. But we need not be jealous of his Interpretation, knowing from whom he received it. Well then (saith he) the mean∣ing

of God (at least his principal meaning) in those words spoken unto Abraham, In Isaac shall thy seed, &c. was this, or to signifie, teach, and declare this: 1. That the children of the flesh, are not the children of God. 2. That the children of the promise, are, and shall be counted for the seed, i. e. the children of God. For that is to be minded, that the Apostle doth not here give, or intend to give, the grammatical or literal sence of those words; But in Isaac shall thy seed be called, but the mystical or typical sence onely. And by this Inter∣pretation which he gives, he plainly signifieth that the said words were not spoken or meant by God in a lite∣ral or Grammatical sence, or not in these sences onely; but rather in a sence typical, mystical, and allegorical. The type, mystery, or allegory contained in the words of that Oracle, he unfoldeth in this eight Verse, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, sheweth; being a word familiarly used by this Apostle to give notice of an explication or Interpretation ensuing, Rom. 7.18. Rom. 10.6, 7. Phi∣lem. v. 12. &c. The mystery or spiritual secret, typi∣fied in the said Oracle, the Apostle declareth to be the mind or counsel of God concerning such persons of mankind, whom he purposed to own in the relation of children, and to confer the blessing or great inheritance of righteousness and salvation upon; and whom on the other hand he purposed to dis-own, and exclude from all part and fellowship in these blessed priviledges. Those (in the first place) whom he purposed to dis-own, and to exclude from the Grace and Priviledg of Sons, the Apostle, in his Interpretation of the Oracle, de∣scribes by this character or relation, that they are, chil∣dren of the flesh: They which are children of the flesh, these are not the children of God. By children of the flesh, op∣posed to, children of the Promise (in the latter part of

the Verse) he clearly meaneth such persons, who seek after, and expect spiritual priviledges, Adoption, Justifi∣cation, Salvation, &c. in a fleshly way, i. e. by works, or by the observation of the Law; as by children of the pro∣mise, he must needs mean such, who depend upon the gracious and free promise of God for these heavenly accommodations. Elsewhere he useth flesh and works synonymously, and as mutually exegetical the one of the other. What shall we say then that Abraham our Fa∣ther, as pertaining to the FLESH, hath found? For if A∣braham were justified by WORKS, he hath whereof to glory, but not before Godi 1.56. Evident it is, that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ac∣cording to the flesh, (in the former verse) and by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by works (in the latter Verse) he meaneth one and the same thing, and that he doth expound Abrahams finding somewhat according to the flesh, by his being justified by works. So Gal. 3.3. by being made perfect by the FLESH, he clearly means a being compleatly justified by works, as appeareth from vers. 2. (immediatly preceding) as al∣so from vers. 5. and indeed from the general scope and carriage of the Chapter, yea and of the whole Epistle it self. Again, when he saith thus (Gal. 4.29.) but as then he that was born after the flesh, persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now; in these last words, e∣ven so it is now, his meaning must needs be this; they that are now, in these days, born after the flesh, persecute those that are born after the Spirit. And, by those now born after the flesh, he cannot mean, either 1. men born ac∣cording to the course of natural propagation; because those here said to be born after the Spirit, were born up∣on such terms, and so the Antithesis, which he makes between the one, and the other, will fall; nor 2. can he mean unregenerate men, simply considered, or as such, because these are no where expressed or described,

by a being born after the flesh, (in the literal signification of the word, flesh) this being a character or description, agreeing as well to persons regenerate, as unregenerate; and besides, such a sence as this, is wholly irrelative to the business in hand, which is to prove an opposition, not between an estate of unregeneracy, and Faith in Christ, but between the works of the Law, and such a Faith, in the important business of Justification: Therefore by those born after the flesh, he must needs mean such, who (as elsewhere he describes them) are of the works of the Lawk 1.57, i. e. have their dependance upon the works of the Law for their justification, which dependance is (as it were) their spiritual subsistence and being. Yet again, where he saith, We are the Circumcision, which worship God in the Spirit, and rejoyce in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence IN THE FLESHl 1.58; by having no confidence in the flesh, he means, that they have not the least or lightest depend∣ance upon the works of the Law for their justification. Heb. 9.10. the injunctions or performances of the Ce∣remonial Law are termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, carnal, or fleshly Ordinances. So that by the children of the flesh, (in the place in hand) it is a clear case that the Apostle meaneth such persons, who seek for righteousness in the sight of God, by the observation of the Law. The Metaphorical sence of the word, children, frequent in like constructions, gives some further light and strength to this Interpretation. They who love the light, and are so much addicted to it, are (in Scripture phrase) call∣ed, the children of lightm 1.59; and so likewise they that em∣brace the Truth, are said to be of the Truthn 1.60, i. e. (in ef∣fect) children of the Truth; as they who depend upon the Law for righteousness, are said to be of the Law, Rom. 4.14. and of the works of the Law. Gal. 3.10. They that love and give themselves to the studie of wisdome,

are called the children of wisdomeo 1.61; They who love and practise obedience, the children of obediencep 1.62; they that embrace and depend upon this present world, for their comfort and peace, the children of this worldq 1.63, &c. In like manner, and phrase, they who love, embrace, and depend upon the flesh, i. e. (as hath been said) a carnal and fleshly way, principle, or means for their justificati∣on, or upon the merit of their own doings, are termed, Children of the flesh.

This to be the clear sence and import of the clause, is yet more evident from the description of those, who are by the Apostle opposed to these children of the flesh: these he calls, the children of the promise. Now that by the children of the promise, he means, Beleevers, and those who seek after Justification by Faith, the familiar lan∣guage of his own pen demonstrates. In one place, he af∣firms, that those that are Christs [meaning, Beleevers in Christ] are Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the pro∣miser 1.64, i. e. according to the intent and mind of God in that promise, wherein the inheritance of life and blessedness are promised unto Abraham, and his seed. Elsewhere he opposeth the Law, and the Promise. For if the in∣heritance be of the Law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it unto Abraham by promises 1.65. In another place, those that are of the Law [i. e. as we formerly expound∣ed the phrase, that seek justification by the works of the Law] to those that seek it by the promise. For if they, which are of the Law be heirs, then Faith is made void, and the promise made of none effectt 1.66; meaning, that then they who expect the inheritance by Faith, and by the Promise, shall be frustrated in such their expectation. Elsewhere he calls Beleevers, Heirs of the promiseu 1.67: and in one place (a passage of much like import with that now before us) he expresly calls those who beleeve in

Christ, (amongst whom he numbreth himself) and this in opposition to those who look for Justification by the works of the Law, the children of Promise. But we, Bre∣thren, according unto Isaac, [or, as Isaac was] are the chil∣dren of promisex 1.68. So that evident it is, that by the chil∣dren of the promise, who the Apostle saith, God meant should be counted for the emphatical seed of Abraham, which was to inherit, he meaneth, true Beleevers; and if so, then by the children of the flesh, which he oppo∣seth unto these, and which he denieth to be Abrahams seed [in such a sence] he must needs mean, those who are of the works of the Law.

If it be demanded, but what was, or is, there in that saying to Abraham, For in Isaac shall thy seed be called, that gives the least overture to such a sence intended by God in them, as the Apostle here mentions; as viz. that God thereby should teach, or insinuate, that Beleevers onely, and not they who look to be justified by works, should be counted or adjudged by him, for that seed, or that kind of seed, of Abraham, whom he would ad∣opt for children, and make heirs; or what agreement is there between such a Text, and such an Interpretati∣on? I answer:

Ishmael, who was by order from God put out of doors, was (as the Apostle elsewhere) born [or begotten] after the fleshy 1.69; i. e. acording to the ordinary course of nature, upon such terms as children commonly are be∣gotten, and born in the world, Hagar his mother being a young Woman, and in a likely capacity to conceive, and Abraham as yet not so dead in his body,* 1.70, but that he might have children, and this without miracle, or any extraordinary interposure by God, by a wife so capable as Hagar was: Whereas Isaac is said to have been born, or begotten, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, after [or according to]

the Spirit, i. e.* 1.71 by a peculiar interposure of the Spirit of God: 1. In making a promise unto Abra∣ham, that Sarah shall yet have a Son by him before she died, notwithstanding the deadness of her womb, and of his body also; in which respect he is said to have been born, or begotten by promisez 1.72, whereof our Apo∣stle also remindeth us in the Verse immediatly follow∣ing. 2. In strengthning and assisting both Abraham to and Sarah to believe this promise. 3. (And lastly) in a supernatural collation of strength, upon Abraham to beget, but especially upon Sarah to conceive, a son, ac∣cording to this their Faith in that promise: for of this the Apostle takes special notice elsewhere; Through Faith also Sarah her self received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past agea 1.73 &c. So then these two children, in their different and re∣spective manner, or terms of Conception, do with a most exquisite aptness, and sweetness of resemblance, typifie the one (viz. Ishmael,) those that seek after justifi∣cation by works; the other (Isaac) that seek it by Faith. For they who expect Justification by works, depend upon themselves and their own natural goodness and strength for the obtaining of it, and so have their spi∣ritual subsistence or being (as it were) in a way of nature; as on the other hand, they who expect justification by Faith, receive their spiritual being from the gracious and free promise of God. So that in these words spo∣ken by God unto Abraham, For in Isaac shall thy seed be called, under the literal or grammatical sence of them, (whatsoever this be, though it be variously formed by Interpreters) there was this counsel or purpose of God mystically, or allegorically signified, viz. that those who should spiritually resemble Ishmael in his birth, and seek for a subsistence in peace and happiness by the

strength of nature, or works of the Law, should be ex∣cluded from them; but that all those who should spi∣ritually resemble Isaac in his, and receive their spiritual subsistence and being from, and by vertue of, the gra∣cious and free promise of God, should inherit life, and peace, and glory. Some give this sence of these words, In Isaac shall thy seed be called, i. e. that seed of thine, in whom all the Nations of the Earth shall be Blessed, shall descend from Isaac, not Ishmael: Others, this; That Generation or Nation of men, unto whom I intend to perform those gracious promises formerly made unto thee, and thy seed, as of giving the Land of Canaan, of making a Covenant with them, of dwelling amongst them, &c. and consequently who shall more particularly be taken notice of in the world, for thy posterity or seed, shall lineally descend from Isaac, and not from Ishmael, whose posterity shall be reckoned in common with the other Nations of the Earth. This latter sence is much the better, and bears the Alle∣gory more naturally, and with clearness of resemblance. For God intending that onely those who should natu∣rally descend from Isaac, who was Abrahams son by promise, (though not all these neither, as we shall see in the verses following) and hereby themselves also (in a sence) children of promise, should inherit the external priviledges and good things promised unto Abrahams seed, hereby might well, as in an Allegory, or Myste∣ry, signifie, that onely they, who should be spiritually born, as Isaac, and Abrahams seed by him, were natural∣ly, should inherit those spiritual and heavenly priviledges, and good things, whereof those external priviledges, were manifest shadows and types.

If it be demanded, But how can Abrahams seed be said to be counted, or estimated (in the sence given) in

Isaac, and his seed and posterity, when as one part of his seed, viz. Esau with his race, was no more included, or intended to be included, by God, in those great promises made unto Abraham, and his seed, then Ish∣mael and his race were?

I answer, 1. That God, in restraining his computa∣tion of Abrahams seed unto Isaac, and his line, did not necessarily enlarge it to the whole extent and compass of this line: From this saying, But in Isaac shall thy seed be called, (literally and grammatically onely under∣stood) there can no more be inferred but onely this; That that Nation or people, to whom he meant to per∣form those great and gracious promises, as concerning the Land of Canaan, signal multiplication, &c. made un∣to him [Abraham] and his seed, should naturally de∣scend from the loyns of Isaac; not, that whosoever, or what people soever should descend from him, should be counted his seed, in such a sence.

2. The Reason (probably) why God would not have all that should proceed from Isaac's loyns to be counted Abrahams seed (in the sence lately declared) i. e. heirs of those temporal promises, which were made, and con∣sequently intended to be performed, to his seed, may be to signifie and teach (by way of Type) that even from Abrahams spiritual seed themselves (true and sound be∣leevers) a carnal generation might, and would, proceed, persons that should not inherit the spiritual Canaan, with their Parents.

Or rather (3. and lastly) the reason hereof might be, that God by this means might so much the more ef∣fectually declare and shew, as in a redoubled type, chiefly unto the Jews, and then also to the rest of the world, his liberty and resolution to nominate and re∣pute for Abrahams seed, (i. e. for such as should inherit

the celestial Canaan) whom and what manner of per∣sons he pleased; as also to exclude from part and fel∣lowship in this great business, whom, and what man∣ner of persons he pleased; and as well in the one, as in the other, as well in his accepting, as excluding, to steer a course, contrary to the expectations and thoughts of men. For who would have thought, that having de∣clared his mind and purpose to compute Abrahams seed, in, and by, Isaac, he should, not onely reject one part, one half (as it were) of Isaacs seed, (as viz. Esau, and his race) from this dignity, but even that part of it, unto which, in the judgment of men, it rather seemed of right to appertain, Esau being the elder Brother, and Jacob to whom God adjudged it, the younger. This reason is intimated by the Apostle himself, vers. 11. (as we shall see when we come thither.)

By the way, from what hath been said, it appears, that, according to Scripture notion, Abraham may be said to have three (or indeed four) several kinds of children, or seeds. First, such as were propagated of him, ac∣cording to the flesh, but did not so much as inherit the carnal or outward priviledges promised to him and his seed. Of this kind were Ishmael, Esau, and all the rest of Abrahams children (Isaac onely excepted) with their respective generations and posterities. Secondly, such who not onely naturally descended from him, but were intended by God to be made joynt heirs of the letter of the great promises made to him and his seed, and yet should not inherit the spiritual or heavenly good things typified in, and by these promises. These were such, who descended from Abraham, first by the line of Isaac, and then of Jacob also, but yet were no true Is∣raelites, nor children of the Faith of their Father Abra∣ham. Thirdly, those are (in a more rich and compleat

sence) Abrahams seed, who being lineally, according to the course of natural propagation, descended from him, whether by Ishmael, or by Isaac, or by any other of his na∣tural children, were partakers of his Faith, as well as of his flesh, and true worshippers of the same God with him. Lastly, those also are in the Scriptures (e∣specially of the New Testament) frequently called A∣brahams seed, who beleeve in God, as Abraham did, whe∣ther naturally descended from him, or no. These two last named kinds, notwithstanding the difference of car∣nal descent between them, may yet well pass but for one and the same seed; and so the New Testament speaketh of them. And of this seed the Divine Ora∣cle before us, But in Isaac shall thy seed be called, princi∣pally speaketh.

To prove, that God, by declaring unto Abraham, that in Isaac his seed should be called, in those words, in Isaac, onely minded Isaac in respect of the manner, means, or terms of his conception and b••rth, (and consequently, that his meaning was, that they who should spiritually resemble him in these, should be called, i. e. counted and honoured by him as Abrahams seed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) he im∣mediatly adds;

For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, [Vers. 9] and Sarah shall have a son.] To shew that Isaac was a son of promise (and so a meet type of those, that should be begotten of the gracious promise of the Gospel by Faith) he citeth the very words of the promise, or at least the sum and substance of them) by which Isaac was begotten and born. The tenour of the place (or places rather) in Genesis, unto which the Apostle re∣lateth, is this: And he (God) said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life, and lo Sarah thy wife shall have a sonb 1.74. And because Sarah at the first hear∣ing

of these words, laughed, as not beleeving them to be true, (herein a type of the great aversness in men to beleve the promise of Justification by Faith) God re∣peats and re-asserteth them soon after: At the time ap∣pointed will I return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a Sonc 1.75. But before either of these promises, God had said thus to Abraham: But my Co∣venant will I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time the next yeard 1.76. Our Apostle (in the place in hand) takes special notice of that set time, mentioned in the last passage from Moses, in these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. according to this very time; as al∣so of the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I will come, from both the for∣mer. These two circumstances, the one of Gods com∣ing, viz. to fulfill his promise in causing Sarah to have, or to bring forth, a Son; the other, of the precise set time, when he would thus come, plainly and pregnantly evince Isaac to have been a Son of promise, conceived and born, not upon the meer account of nature, or in the way of ordinary propagation, but by vertue of that pe∣culiar promise, which God interposed, and both Abra∣ham and Sarah, beleeved in order to his conception and bringing forth. At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a Son: As if he should have said, Thou mayst certainly know that that Son, which Sarah thy wife shall bear unto thee, shall be conceived and born, by vertue of my coming unto thee [i. e. by my special and gracious interposure in this kind on thy behalf] and not according to the course of common propagation, be∣cause she shall bring him forth, neither sooner, nor la∣ter, but at the just precise time which I now declare unto thee. To come, in Scripture frequently signifies to help, rescue, assist, deliver, &c. Venire dicitur (saith Cal∣vin, on Matth. 10.23.) qui rebus desperatis opem fert.

See Luke 18.8. Jam. 5.8. Heb. 10.37. Hos. 6.3. &c.

Before we come to take up such Doctrinal Observa∣tions as the Verses last opened afford, it is very necessa∣ry that we take, and give, notice, (from the premises) that Isaac is not brought upon the theater of the Apo∣stles discourse in this Chapter, either as a type, in∣stance, or example of persons personally, or under per∣sonal considerations, elected by God from eternity, but as a type of that generation of men, how few, or how many soever they should be, that shall be justified by God, counted his children, and judged meet to inherit his Kingdom. This clearly appeareth from the whole carriage of the context, and from the express tenour and tendency, of all that is here alledged or said concerning him. Here is not the softest air, or gentlest breathing of any such purpose or decree of God, by which Isaac should from eternity, be in a meer personal considera∣tion peremptorily elected: but the manner of his con∣ception and birth, with the express reasons or causes of both, are narrowly scann'd and laid forth by the Apo∣stle, as typifying the counsel and purpose of God con∣cerning Justification and spiritual Sonship, and shewing who, or what manner of persons they must be, who shall receive the grace of Justification and Adoption from him, viz. such, who shall spiritually resemble Isaac in his birth, and be begotten, not of the Law, or the works thereof, but of the gracious and free promise of God, and Faith therein. Such a notion as this is expresly coherent with the main scope of the Apostle in the Epi∣stle all along, which is, to shew, and prove, in oppositi∣on to the Jewish confidence and conceit, that Justifi∣cation is not to be obtained by the works of the Law, but by Faith; whereas a discourse concerning such an Election and Reprobation of persons from eternity, as

many Expositors fancie in this place, would be alto∣gether eccentrical to his business, and neither make for his Doctrine, or way of Justification, nor yet against the Doctrine or way of his Adversaries, the Jews. For were there such a Decree of Election and Reprobati∣on, as they contend for, granted, or supposed in God, yet might the Justification of the persons elected be, as well by the works of the Law, as by Faith: But that Isaac in the manner of his birth, signified, or typified, those that were to be justified by Faith, was Austins notion and sence long agone* 1.77. Nor can it, so much as colourably, be proved from any thing spoken by the Apostle concerning Isaac in this quarter of his discourse, that he was peremptorily elected unto salvation from eternity; no nor yet that he was so much as a true Be∣leever; though this (I grant) be evident enough from the Scriptures elsewhere. And as Isaac is neither here nor elsewhere, held forth as a type or example, of per∣sons peremptorily elected unto life from eternity, so neither was Ishmael, either type, or example, of persons peremptorily Reprobated from eternity, but onely a type of persons seeking Justification by the Law, whe∣ther in time they come to repent of this Error, and seek it by Faith, or no. Yea I know no Expositor, whether Ancient or Modern, that passeth any definitive sentence of Reprobation upon Ishmael; but I know that some of our best Modern Expositors (as Bucer and Muscu∣lus by name) affirm and teach, not onely a possibility, but a probability of Ishmaels salvatione 1.78. Yea Austin himself, amongst the Ancient, teacheth once and again, that He was not cast out of Abrahams family because he was born of

the servant, or bondwoman, but because of the injury which he did unto Isaacf 1.79. Nor doth Gods act in chusing Isaac before he was born, to make him a Son of promise, any ways prove his Election or choice of him from eter∣nity, unto salvation; but onely his designment of him for a type of those, whom he intended to justifie, or ra∣ther for a typical Doctor of that method, way, or means, by which his counsel, and purpose was to justi∣fie the world; and this not so much, (or rather not at all) in his person, or in respect hereof, but of his propaga∣tion and the manner and terms hereof, according to what hath been already observed. If the Apostles scope or intent had been to propose or mention Isaac, as a type, instance, or example, of persons, under a meer perso∣nal consideration, or of the meer will and pleasure of God, elected from eternity, his narrow sifting and searching into the terms and manner of his conception and birth; and so his mentioning the Divine Oracle con∣cerning Gods estimating or computing Abrahams seed by him, had been meer impertinencies, and altogether irrelative to his purpose. Whereas if we suppose him to be in this passage held forth as a type of such persons, whom God intends, and always intended to justifie, all the said particularities will appear like apples of Gold with pictures of Silver, I mean, of a most plea∣sant and pertinent accommodation thereunto. The consideration hereof (I presume) it was that so far over∣ruled the judgment of learned J. Cameron, that he granteth that the Apostle hitherto had discoursed the business of Justification. And how little reason he had to conceive that here he should lay down this sub∣ject, and in the next words fall upon Vocation, will suf∣ficiently appear from the words themselves, when we come to them. In the mean time, Let us take up some

brief Observations from the Verses last opened by the way; and then advance.

1. From these words, vers. 7. But in Isaac shall thy seed be called, this Doctrine ariseth (in the general,) That God teacheth the great mysteries of salvation, not by ex∣pressness of words and Doctrine onely, but by special provi∣dences and dispensations also. By causing that part, or vein of Abrahams posterity, which was to descend from the loyns of Isaac, to be estimated and taken know∣ledg of in the world, for Abrahams seed (viz. by con∣ferring the great things promised unto Abraham and his seed, upon them, and upon them onely, and upon no o∣ther part of it) he informed the world (as the Apostle here informeth us) of his great and blessed counsel and purpose to justifie men by Faith; as on the contrary by causing Ishmael with his mother to be cast out of Abra∣hams family, he taught the world, that they who ex∣pected justification and salvation by works, should be rejected by him, 1 Cor. 10, 11. Gal. 4.23, 24, 25, &c.

2. From the same words, But in Isaac shall &c. this also is observable, That God without acceptation of per∣sons, may advance one branch, or line, of the same family a∣bove another, not onely in outward things, but in spiritu∣al privileges and accommodations also. Ismael was A∣brahams son, as well as Isaac; yet Isaac and his poste∣rity had a better share of the good things promised unto Abraham and his seed, setled, and conferred upon them, then Ishmael, and his. Acceptation of per∣persons hath place onely in judiciary awards, not in di∣spensations of grace or bounty, 1 Sam. 16.12. compared with vers. 7, 8, &c. 1 King. 2.12. compared with vers. 23, 24, &c.

3. These words (vers. 8.) That is, they which are the

children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; ex∣hibite this Doctrine, That Gods counsel, or purpose, con∣cerning the way wherein, or terms upon which, he will ju∣stifie, and adopt men, are not sutable to the carnal thoughts or imaginations of men. Isa. 55.8, 9. 2 Cor. 10.18. Rom. 2.29.

4. From the same words, this also may be observed; That as contrary as mens thoughts are to the counsel of God about the great business of Justification and Adoption, yet very confident men are of their congruity, or conformi∣ty thereunto. This the Apostle supposeth in opposing this conceit of the Jews, that the children of the flesh, [i. e. seekers of Justification by the Law] must needs be the children of God. Gal. 5.7, 8. Rom. 10.3. Joh. 9.39, 40.

5. From these words, [But the children of the promise are counted for the seed] this Doctrine putteth forth; Amongst men, capable through yeers of beleeving, those one∣ly are the true Sons of God, (so esteemed by him) and heirs of salvation, who receive their spiritual being from, and are begotten of, the gracious and free promise of the Gospel. 2 Pet. 1.4. Gal. 3.16.

6. From these words (vers 9.) For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a Son, this Doctrine sheweth it self: God frequently maketh promise of such great things, which he graciously intendeth unto men, some time before he actually confers, or performs them. 2 Pet. 3.13. Rom. 1.2. (besides other places with∣out number.)

7. (And lastly,) Upon the latter part of the words, At this time will I come, and Sarah, &c. the fruit of this Doctrine groweth, That by means of a special Divine interposure sometimes things are brought to pass above, and beyond expectation. Who would have said unto Abraham

(said Sarah her self) that Sarah should have given chil∣dren suck? Gen. 21.7. Yet by Gods coming to her (as we have heard) it so came to pass. Isa. 64.3. 1 Sam. 1.19, 20. (with other places.)

[Vers. 10] And not onely this, but when Rebecca also had conceived [Vers. 11] by one, even by our Father Isaac, (For the children not be∣ing yet born, neither having done any good or evill, that the purpose of God according to Election, might stand, not of [Vers. 12] works, but of him that calleth,) It was said unto her, The [Vers. 13] elder shall serve the younger, As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Having proved from what had been done in Abra∣hams family, and had passed between God and him, a∣bout his Son Isaac, that Gods pleasure and purpose was to account onely those for Abrahams seed, or persons justified, and in a capacity of inheriting the true Cana∣an, who after the manner of Isaac should be children of the promise, i. e. true Beleevers, in the Verses now mentioned, he prosecutes the same Argument, by in∣sisting upon another special dispensation of God in the family of Isaac, whereby he discovered himself, onely with more significancie and plainness, to the same pur∣pose. This Elliptick clause, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (frequent in the writings of this Apostle) here translated, And not onely this, plainly sheweth, 1. That the Apostle continueth, and goeth on with, the Argument or Subject of his for∣mer discourse: And 2. That what he is now about to add, unto that lately spoken, is of somewhat a more pregnant and considerable import that way. The words according to the Original, onely signifying, But not one∣ly, stand in need of somewhat to be added to them, to compleat their sense. The substance of what is to be added upon this account, is easie enough to be conceiv∣ed by the exigency of the context, which clearly shews,

that the Apostles meaning in them, with that which fol∣lows) was this, or to this effect: That God did not one∣ly discover his mind or counsel unto Abraham, by say∣ing unto him, In Isaac shall thy seed be called, who, or what manner of persons they should be, whom he would estimate or call Abrahams seed; but he made a more full and clear discovery of the same counsel of his also in the family of Isaac, in saying unto Rebecca, when she had conceived by one —the children being not yet born — The elder shall serve the younger. q. d. God did not onely at first discover unto Abraham, somewhat more darkly and obscurely, who, and who onely, should be reputed his seed, that seed of his, whom he intended to make heirs of the world, but soon after he made the same dis∣covery, onely more lightsomly and plainly, unto Rebec∣ca also. The knowledg and due consideration hereof will help us to keep a straight course in interpreting and understanding the Apostles meaning all along the con∣text in hand; wherein otherwise we may soon be be∣wildred, and so intangled, that we shall scarce be able to make, either head, or foot, sap, or sence, of any thing delivered herein. And this is that which hath befallen the generality or greatest part of our Interpreters in their Expositions of the place.

But it may be demanded, how it can, from the pas∣sage before us, and the words hereof, be proved, that the Apostle herein intended at all, to shew, or prove, who, or what manner of persons they are, who God accounteth for Abrahams seed (in the sence declared;) And 2. How such a Point or Doctrine as this can be conceived to be more emphatically, and with more ef∣fectualness of proof, argued and demonstrated in this passage, then in the former.

Concerning the former, (not to re-mention the Ar∣gument

drawn for the proof of this from the words, And not onely this, which are clearly connexive of the two passages, or contextures of Scripture, this, and the former, as was hinted,) 1. Evident it is, that the two Persons here mentioned, Jacob and Esau, are not considered in their meer persons, nor (indeed) so much (if at all) in their persons, as in their posterities, or as persons together with their respective posterities con∣stituting two several Nations, or bodies politick of men. This is plain from the words in Genesis, the sub∣stance whereof the Apostle here expresseth. And the Lord said unto her [Rebecca,] Two NATIONS are in thy womb, and two manner of PEOPLE shall be separated from thy bowels: and the one PEOPLE shall be stronger then the other PEOPLE: and the Elder [people] shall serve the youngerg 1.80. And whereas our English Translators, in the passage of the Apostle before us, have (without warrant from the Original) inserted the word, Chil∣dren, [For the CHILDREN being not yet born, &c.] they might (I conceive) as well, and with as good, if not better, agreeableness unto the Apostles mind, have supplied the word, Nations, For the NATIONS not be∣ing yet born, &c.]

From hence (by the way) it evidently appears, that Jacob and Esau are not here propounded, either as types or examples, of a meer personal, but of a certain specifical, or National, Election, and Reprobation; i. e. of men invested with such or such a qualification, whosoe∣ver, how many, and how few soever, they shall be found to be. Which typical representation or service, doth not necessarily require, or suppose, either the Election unto, or Reprobation from, eternal life, either of the persons themselves, Jacob and Esau, nor yet of their posterities, in whom this representation is made. Some of our best

Expositors (as was formerly in part, and may further be shewed in time) plainly grant and affirm, that the e∣ternal rejection of Esau from the love and favour of God, cannot be evinced from this place. And that ve∣ry many of Jacobs race, were not elected to eternall life, and some of Esaus race, not reprobated from this life, are things too evident from the Scriptures to be denied, or questioned: nor are they questioned (I pre∣sume) or denied by any.

2. As evident it is as the former, that these words (spo∣ken by God under such circumstances as are here spe∣cified) The elder shall serve the younger; as likewise those of the Prophet Malachi, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, are cited by the Apostle to prove (accord∣ing to their typical signification and import) That the purpose of God according to election, doth, and will stand, not of works, but of him that calleth: i. e. That the pur∣pose or counsel of God, which answereth, or corre∣spondeth with, and which is the ground and cause of that Election, which he maketh amongst men, unto the honour and dignity of being reputed Abrahams seed (in the sence declared, for there is no ground to ima∣gine that he here speaks of any other Election) might appear to remain unchangeable in him, even the same, which he had declared unto Abraham, (and in him, un∣to the world) in that Oracle delivered unto him, late∣ly mentioned, and explained; the tenor, or effect, of this purpose, or election, of his, being, not to elect or chuse to that dignity, upon consideration of mens works, or observations of the Law, (which unto men seems most reasonable and equitable) but according to his own will and pleasure, as having an unquestionable right to make his terms in this kind what he pleaseth, in as much as he is he who calleth, i. e. who freely setteth,

or holdeth forth the great price of Justification, or Son∣ship unto Abraham, inviting the world to contend and run for it. As he that at his own cost and charges, builds an Hospital, Alms-house, or the like, ought in all reason and equity to be at liberty to constitute and ap∣point the Laws, terms, qualifications, or conditions, by, and according unto, which, persons shall be admitted to partake of the benefit of either, and not to have terms obtruded or put upon him in this kind by others: And as in the Olympiaque games of old, he that was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. the person who at his proper charge bestowed and set forth the prize, or reward, by which men were invited to try Masteries in those games, was always allowed to nominate and prescribe the Laws, or rules, by which these exercises were to be performed, and according unto which the prize set forth by him∣self was to be awarded and givenh 1.81: In like manner (saith the Apostle, in effect) God freely, of his meer grace, and bounty, inviting and calling men to the high prize and priviledg of Justification, or Son∣ship unto Abraham, and not being necessitated hereun∣to by any Obligation, or rule of Justice, most reason∣able and meet it is, that he should please himself, not men, nor Angels, in appointing the terms and conditi∣ons, upon which this blessed investiture should be actu∣ally conferred upon men. And what his good will and pleasure is in this kind, (I mean concerning the Law, or terms, upon which he will justifie men, or own them for Abrahams seed) as viz. that he will confer these priviledges upon men, not for, or acccording to their works, or observnace of the Law, but for, and upon their beleeving, as he had formerly declared in Abra∣hams family, by saying unto him, But in Isaac shall thy seed be called, so here he declares it the second time

in Isaacs family, by saying unto Rebecca, concerning the two Nations which were yet in her womb, The Elder shall serve the Younger.

But it may be demanded, how, or upon what account, such a saying as this from God, The elder shall serve the younger, can import, or imply, That Gods purpose is to chuse, or nominate for Abrahams spiritual seed, not by the rule of works, or legal Observations, but ac∣cording to his own pleasure, i. e. by the rule of Faith (as hath been declared?) I answer:

1. If we consult the Historie in Moses, from whence the Apostle cites the words in hand, by, The elder, and the younger, the two Nations, or people, which were to descend from the two children, Esau and Jacob, are clearly meant, according to the express tenor of the words (lately presented,) Two Nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bow∣els: and the one people shall be stronger then the other peo∣ple: and the elder [people] shall serve the younger, [Gen. 25.23.] i. e. The Nation or people that shall de∣scend of the Elder Brother, Esau [meaning, the Edo∣mites, or Idumeans] shall be in subjection unto that Na∣tion, which shall be propagated by the younger Bro∣ther Jacob [viz. the Israelites] and shall acknowledg them for their Lords. In this sence the said propheti∣cal Oracle was historically and literally fulfilled, when the Idumeans in Davids time, were overcome by the Israelites, and made tributaries unto them, 2 Sam. 8.14. Psal. 60. tit. 1 Chron. 18.11, 13. But how the said O∣racle can be understood to have been verified, or fulfil∣ed in the persons of Esau and Jacob, no where appeareth from the Scriptures; but the contrary rather. For al∣though Esau sold his birth-right, or right of Primogeni∣ture unto Jacob, by means whereof Jacob might seem to

have purchased or obtained a right of power to rule over Esau, according to the Law of primogeniture a∣mongst Brethren, then in being (at least amongst the Jews) yet that he ever exercised any such power over Esaui 1.82, or that Esau ever became subject unto him, is not onely besides, but even contrary to, what we finde here written. For we finde that Jacob was rather in subjection unto Esau, and was sorely afraid of him, and his power, and first by his Messengers, and afterwards by himself, acknowledged him, and this over and over, for his Lord, and himself his servant. Gen. 32.4. and 33.8, 13.

From hence it appeareth as clear as the Sun at noon∣day, that neither Esau, nor Jacob, are here instanced by the Apostle, in any other consideration, then onely as they were significators of their posterities (respectively) and consequently, not as instances, or examples of any such personal Reprobation from eternity, as some are pleased to imagine. For certain it is, that not simply some, but very many, if not far the greatest part of Jacobs posterity it self, were wicked, and reprobated or rejected by God; and not less certain (or, not much less certain) but that some of Esaus posterity were par∣takers of the Faith of their Father Abraham, and so be∣loved of God. But,

2. True it is, that however Esau in his posterity, was in subjection, and under tribute, unto Jacob in his, for a time, yet according to the Prophetical prediction of their Father Isaac unto Esau, But it shall come to pass, when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neckk 1.83, not long after, the Idumaeans (Esaus posterity) joyning with Nebuchadnezzar in the siege of Jerusalem, here exercised a kind of imperious or lordly cruelty over their brethren, above what the

rest of their enemies did (as appears Psal. 137.7. Ezek. 35.5. Obad. vers. 10, &c.) Hereby it plainly ap∣peared that they had recovered their liberty, and were now rather Lords over, then servants or tributa∣ries under, or unto, their brethren the Israelites (Jacobs posterity.) The time wherein Esau in his posterity re∣mained in subjection unto Jacob in his, appears by com∣putation from the Books of the Kings, to have been about 166 years. And as this subjection of Esau unto Jacob in their respective posterities, was presignified by Ja∣cobs taking hold on his Brother Esaus heel, thus sup∣planting him (as it were) in his birth; so did it continue under the reign of five Kings of Jacobs race, signifi∣ed (as some conceive) by the five fingers of Jacobs hand, by which he supplanted him. But the considera∣tion hereof doth no ways accommodate the Apostles scope, or intent, in his citation of the Divine Oracle, The Elder shall serve the younger; which (as himself ex∣presseth it) was to prove, That the purpose of God accord∣ing to Election might stand, or be declared to remain firm and unchangeable; unless (haply) it be by some such intimation as this, That when God said to Rebecca, The elder shall serve the younger, his meaning was not, that he should always serve him, and consequently that that love, wherewith God is said (in the Verse follow∣ing) to have loved Jacob above Esau, was not any such love, out of which he would be supposed to have elect∣ed Jacob to eternal glory. For if this saying of God, The elder shall serve the younger, proceeded from such a love as this, it must import, that the estate or condition of Lordship, therein asserted unto Jacob the younger, should be perpetual, and without interruption. So that no literal sence whatsoever, as such, will render the said words any ways coherent with the Apostles drift

or scope of the place (formerly expressed.) There∣fore such a sence, which will make them comportant herewith, must be found out: which must needs be some such, which is commonly termed mystical, or alle∣gorical▪ yet this such also, which may clearly appear to have footing and foundation in that which is literal. Therefore,

3. As we had declared before, that God in Abrahams two sons mystically signified, in Isaac, born of the free∣woman, who, or what manner of persons they were, who should be the true Sons of God, and inherit the A∣doption, viz. such as should beleeve; and again in the other (Ishmael) born of the bondwoman, who and what manner of persons they were, who should be excluded from this dignity, viz. those who should depend upon the Law, and the observation thereof, for the obtain∣ing of it; in like manner in the two sons of Isaac, he mystically declared the same thing (in effect) the second time. In Jacob, who by his all-disposing providence, proved the latter born, or the younger, and yet had the dignity and priviledg of the first born conferred upon him, he mystically signified, the people of the new, or latter Testament, or Covenant, viz. those who should beleeve, and that these should have the preheminency of respects with God: in Esau, who by the same provi∣dence, became the Elder, or first born, and yet was less respected and regarded by God, and adjudged by him to a servile condition, he likewise signified the people of the old, or first Covenant of Works, (i. e. those that should expect Justification or Adoption by the works of the Law) and who upon this account should be reject∣ed by God from inheriting the true and heavenly Ca∣naan.

Nor doth that of the same Apostle Gal. 3.17. at all

make against this. And this I say, that the Covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ, the Law, which was four hundred and thirty yeers after, cannot disanul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For these words do not prove, that the Gospel, or Covenant of Grace, was before the Law, or Covenant of Works; but one∣ly before that solemn repetition, or new delivery of it, upon Mount Sinai, when there was a brief transcript of it written, and delivered unto Moses in Tables of stone by God himself, for such ends and purposes, re∣lating unto the Jews, as the Scripture mentioneth else∣where. Rom. 5.20. Gal. 3.19, &c. And that the Law, or Covenant of Works, was in being, yea in force, in the world, before the giving of it from Mount Sinai, ap∣pears from what this Apostle observeth Rom. 5.13. For until the Law [i. e. from the beginning of the world un∣til the giving of the Law, in words, and writing from mount Sinai] sin was in the world; and consequently the Law must of necessity have been here also; because (as he saith elsewhere) Where no Law is, there is no trans∣gressionl 1.84: And in the other place, but sin is not imputed [i. e. is not charged upon men, or punished] where there is no Law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam [inclu∣sivè] unto Moses, &c. And consequently there must needs have been a Law, without the breach whereof men had not been obnoxious unto death. Yea not one∣ly the Moral (properly so called) but even some par∣ticulars also of the Ceremonial Law it self were pra∣ctised in the world, before the delivering of this Law unto Moses upon mount Sinai, as appears by the offer∣ing of Sacrifices, many generations before this, and so by Circumcision, injoyned unto, and practised by, A∣braham and his seed; and again by the mariage of the widow of a kinsman dying without issuem 1.85, practised

also long before the said giving of the Law. Yea the Law, or Covenant of Works, was as ancient as Adam himself: and it was by the transgression of this Law, or Covenant, that he involved himself, and his whole posterity, in the guilt of death. So that it is out of que∣stion, that the Law, or Covenant of Works, was the first born of Testaments, or Covenants made by God with the creature, Man: and upon this account, they who are of the Law, (as the Apostles phrase is, i. e. who seek justification by the Law) may be very aptly resembled by Esau, who was the elder; as on the other hand, they who expect Justification by the New Testament, or Covenant of Grace, i. e. by Faith, may as proper∣ly and emphatically be typified by Jacob, who was the younger Brother.

But some question yet may be, how these words from God, The Elder shall SERVE the Younger, should mysti∣cally import, the rejection of the elder people, such who seek Justification by the Law, from the inheritance of blessing; and the acceptation of the younger, who seek it by Faith, hereunto. To this Answer may be, 1. That servitude and subjection import an obnoxiousness to a being separated from, or cast out of the house or fami∣ly, sooner, or later (and consequently an exclusion from the inheritance) according to that of our Saviour, Joh. 8.35. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 2. The blessed estate and condition of the Saints, or children of God, is fre∣quently expressed by soveraignty or dominion over the world, and wicked men; and consequently the hard condition of these men implied by servility or subjecti∣on. The upright (saith David) shall have DOMINI∣NION OVER THEM in the morningn 1.86. And the King∣dome, and DOMINION, and the greatness of the King∣dome

under the whole Heaven shall be given to the people of the Saints of the most High, whose Kingdom is an ever∣lasting Kingdom, and all dominions shall SERVE and obey himo 1.87. And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works un∣to the end, to him will I give power over the Nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of Iron,p 1.88 &c. (to omit other places.) So that when God said to Rebecca, con∣cerning the two Nations that were in her womb, The elder shall serve the younger, he mystically fignified and declared, that his absolute, will, purpose and decree was, never to own for Sons, nor to admit to the inherit∣ance, the people of the elder Covenant, i. e. those that should seek justification by the Law, but to assign over these for servants, or bondmen, unto his children, i. e. unto those of the latter or younger Covenant, who should seek the Adoption of Sons, and Justification, by Faith, upon whom likewise he intended to confer the blessed inheritance of the heavenly Canaan, although according to the judgment of men, the sormer may seem more worthy the preheminence, then the latter; as the first born more worthy and meet to rule, then the younger Brethren. Thus God was pleased to declare unto the world, that his purpose according to Election should stand firm, and unchanged; and that he meant not to elect, or make choice of those, whom he should or would adopt, by the rule of works, or by any rule that men should commend unto him, or desire to im∣pose or obtrude upon him; but onely by the rule of his own most gracious and wise pleasure, (which he hath declared to be the rule of Faith) in as much as an equi∣table right of making his own choice in this kind accru∣eth unto him, as he is the sole magnificent Founder of the blessed feast of Justification, calling and inviting the world, from all quarters unto it.

From the Premises, the true sence of the words im∣mediatly [Vers. 13] following, vers. 13. cited from the Prophet Malachi, by way of confirmation of what he had now cited from the mouth of God himself concerning the two Brother-Nations in Rebeccas womb, the elder, and the younger, fully appeareth: As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hatedq 1.89. These words, As it is written (in conjunction with the testimony following) import, either that what he had already cited from Mo∣ses, as spoken by God concerning the two Nations, stiled by the names of their respective heads, Jacob and Esau, was but the same (in substance) with what was spoken many years after by the Prophet Malachi; or else that what he had cited from Moses, concerning the said Nations, was declared by Malachi to have been ful∣filled in, and before, his generation. The difference is not much material, nor do I see any thing but that they may both stand together.

For the Testimonie it self, Jacob have I loved, &c. The captious and unthankful Jews, had in Malachies days, either openly, and in words, or else inwardly, and in their hearts, expostulated with God, and demanded of him, upon his profession of love to them, wherein he had loved them, i. e. declared any love unto them. I have loved you, saith the Lord, yet ye say, wherein hast thou loved usr 1.90? To this the Lord answereth; Was not Esau Jacobs Brother? yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains, and his heritage waste; for the Dra∣gons of the Wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are im∣poverished, but we will return and build the desolate places: Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, They shall build, but I will throw d••wn; and they shall call them, The border of wick∣edness, and the people against whom the Lord hath indigna∣nation for ever. And your eyes shall see, and ye shall

say, The Lord will be magnified from the border of Is∣rael.

1. It clearly appears from these passages, that the Prophet doth not speak at all of the Person of Esau, (and consequently neither of the person of Jacob,) but of their respective posterities. For it was not Esau in person that said, We are impoverished, &c. neither were his mountains or heritage laid waste, whilest he was alive, or in being. Yea it appears from his History, Gen. 35. not onely that he himself prospered greatly on Earth, whilst he lived, but that his house and posterity were both numerous and prosperous in the world for some descents after him. Besides, these Expressions (all im∣porting pluralities) We are impoverished, We will return, &c. they shall build, &c. the people against whom, &c. prove with greatest evidence, that it was not Esau in person, or in a personal consideration, whom God is here said to have hated. Now if the Prophet speaks neither of the person of the one, nor of the other, but of their posterities onely, certain it is, that neither doth the Apostle (in the place before us) speak any otherwise of them; because then he should cite the words of the Pro∣phet impertinently to his cause, and prove nothing at all for his purpose from them.

2. If neither the Prophet, nor Apostle, speak of the persons of Jacob, or Esau, but of their posterities, evi∣dent it is, that neither that love of God to Jacob, nor hatred of Esau, (mentioned by the one, and the other) were such, either love, or hatred, by, or according unto, which, the eternal estates of men, either in blessedness, or misery, are decreed or determined by God. For certain it is, that however the salvation of Jacob (in person) from other Scriptures, and upon other grounds, may with greatest probability be evinced, yet as certain it is

that all his posterity were not saved. Therefore God speaking thus, Jacob, and, or, in his posterity, have I lo∣ved, cannot be conceived to speak of such love, out of which he had decreed eternally to save him, and his posterity. Upon the same account, neither can he be conceived to speak of such an hatred, out of which he determines or decres the everlasting damnation of men, personally considered, when speaking of Esau, in, or with, his posterity, he saith, But Esau have I hated. For certain it is that all of Esaus race, have not been damned; witness that mirrour of patience, and piety, Job, who according to Ambrose of old, and the gene∣rality of the later Writers, was of this race. Beza ve∣ry expresly affirmeth, That the true God, was both known and holily worshipped amongst those, that were of Esaus race, though not by them all, yet by those of them, whom God blessed. And (not long after) I cannot doubt (saith he) but, notwithstanding that hatred of God against ESAU and his posterity, universally (but not in every individual person) considered, that Job, and all the Idumeans like to him, although they were not Israelites by kinde [or, birth] were notwithstanding members of the true Churchs 1.91. And concerning the person of Esau, Authors both Ancient, and Modern, of best account, judg it above what is written, either in any of the passages now be∣fore us, or elsewhere in Scripture, to conclude any thing touching his eternal condition: yea some strong∣ly incline to judg that he was saved. As concerning Ishmael and Esau themselves (saith Master Bucer) there is no ground why we should pronounce them rejected by God.

I rather beleeve that the holiness of their Parents was bene∣ficial unto them; so that though they oft sinned and this in an high degree, yet they obtained salvation, being endu∣ed with true faith in the mercy of Godt 1.92. So that evi∣dent it is that this Orthodox Writer (for he was never counted other by Protestants) was so far from conceiving the eternal Reprobation of Esau to be held forth in any, or in all, the Scriptures before us, that he judged there is better ground to think he was saved, then that he was rejected by God. Peter Martyr, con∣temporary with Calvin (as the former also was) though he doth not speak so home in the point, as Bucer did, yet (writing upon the place in hand) he arbitrates the case thus: Some (saith he) in this place with great curio∣sity inquire touching Ishmael and Esau, whether they be saved, or whether they be condemned. And the like some do touching Solomon, Origen and others such like. But I omit these things, and think of Esau and Ishmael as much onely as the Holy Scripture hath set forth unto us. And I think that there are no places extant, by which we may de∣fine any thing touching their salvationu 1.93. And a little af∣ter, thus: But touching both their posterities, I deny not but that some of them might be saved, no less then some of the stock of Jacob might become runagates and obstinate* 1.94. In another place he saith, That Paul with an excellency of wisdome transferred [or applied] unto things that are spiritual, those things foretold concerning Jacob and Esau, both in Genesis, and in Malachi, which seem to be but tem∣poralx 1.95. Therefore neither was it his sence, that either

the eternal election of Jacob, or reprobation of Esau, nor yet of either of their posterities can be inferred from either of the Scriptures before us. Tarnovius another learned Protestant Expositor (though of the Lutheran perswasion) in his Commentaries upon Malachi, ch. 1. v. 5. writeth thus: When I narrowly and attentively consider the things insisted upon hitherto, together with the Prophets scope, taking his words also into counsel, I easily come to be of this opinion, that in this place (however) there is nothing said concerning eternal Election or Reprobation; howsoever they who follow Calvin, with some Papists, would fain hammer out such a business from hencey 1.96. And this opinion of his concerning the scope and subject matter of the place, he argues and proves at large in that which follows; affirming (towards the close of this his discourse) That neither doth the Apostle in the ninth Chapter to the Romans, primarily handle either the business of Election to eternal life, or of Reprobation to eternal destructionz 1.97: And in the conclusion of all, sheweth how Paul applieth the Examples of Jacob and Esau to his purpose. Yea Cal∣vin is not altogether so whole, or so consistent with himself in the business, as he is generally conceived to be. For writing upon vers. 6. of this Chapter, he de∣livers his sense in these words; In as much as Gods will was, that as well Ishmael and Esau should receive the sign and the seal of his Covenant, as Isaac and Jacob, it ap∣pears from hence that they were not altogether estranged from hima 1.98. But doubtless those, who are eternally and

peremptorily reprobated by God from all possibility of salvation, are altogether estranged from him. For how can God lightly be conceived to estrange him self more, or to a further or higher degree, from a creature, then by an irrevocable decree to thrust it so far from himself, that it should never come so much as within a possibility of salvation? And besides, if God had eter∣nally rejected the two persons we speak of, Ishmael and Esau, from the Covenant of Grace, and possibility of salvation; and not onely so, but had declared also his purpose in this kind (which according unto those, who are contrary-minded in the business in hand, must needs be supposed, at least concerning Esau) it is no ways credible, that he would by a special order and com∣mand, injoyn the application, or administration of the seal of the Covenant of Grace unto them. To what purpose, or with what comfort could Isaac (for exam∣ple) administer the Seal of the Covenant of Grace (Circumcision) unto Esau his Son, in case he had cer∣tainly known that he had been everlastingly reprobated by God from the Covenant it self? Therefore (doubt∣less) Isaac did not understand the Oracle given to Rebec∣ca in these words, The Elder shall serve the Younger, as a∣any ways implying the eternal Reprobation of his Elder Son. The same Calvin speaking in another place of the words of Malachi, Iacob have I loved, acknowledg∣eth that they belong to the Patriarchs whole posterity, which the Prophet opposeth unto the posterity of Esaub 1.99; and con∣sequently cannot imagine, or suppose, that they speak of Election to Salvation, because he could not be ig∣norant but that many of Iacobs posterity were reject∣ed by God, and never came to be saved, much less that he should speak particularly of Iacobs Election thereunto. And whereas in the words immediatly

following, he is pleased to add, that notwithstanding the words specified, relate unto Iacobs whole posterity, yet this hindreth not, but that there MAY be, specimen, i. e. an overture, or view of election held forth unto us in the person of one man which cannot miscarry, he plainly disco∣vers a tenderness, or doubtfulness in himself to assert itc 1.100. Nor indeed, granting the words in hand, to concern Ia∣cobs whole posterity, can he with any tolerable congruity unto such a notion, affirm any view or instance of such an Election, as he speaks of, to be here propounded, or held forth in the person of one man. For if the Election here spoken of, relateth, and be attributable, as well un∣to many, who were not Elected to salvation, as unto some, who were thus Elected, it is a plain case that no instance of such an Election as this can be here concei∣ved to be propounded in the person of any man, one, or more, in as much as the Election here mentioned, must of necessity be conceived to be an Election of ano∣ther kind, and such, whereof as well they who were not elected to salvation, as they who were, were capa∣ble. So that neither is Calvin so through-paced in his judgment for a personal Election, or Reprobation, in this place, as some conceit him to be. Nor is Pareus, though much devoted to Calvins Doctrine, free from all regreet about Esaus Reprobation. For having confidently avouched, That Esau did not onely shadow out the Reprobation of his posterity, but was himself also a Reprobate from the Covenant, and from salvation, pre∣sently after, as if he had trod upon a Serpent before he was aware, he steps back, affirming onely, that it is ni∣mis probabile, i. e. too too probable that he is damnedd 1.101: Against which apprehension of his, I shall not (at pre∣sent) contend; though many of his equalls, as well in learning, as piety, are adversaries unto him herein.

Bishop Hooper, a worthy Martyr in Queen Maries dayes, plainly affirmeth, That Cain was no more exclu∣ded till he excluded himself, then Abel; Saul then David, Judas then Peter, Esau then Jacob. By the Scripture it seemeth that the sentence of God was given to save the one, and to damn the other, before the one loved God, or the other hated God. Howbeit these threatnings of God against E∣sau (if he had not of his wilful malice excluded himself from the promise of Grace) should no more have hindred his salvation, then Gods threatnings against Niniveh: which, notwithstanding God said should be destroyed within forty days, stood a great time after, &c. And soon af∣ter: That his life and conversation was not as agreeable unto justice and equity, as Jacobs, the sentence of God unto Rebecca was not in fault, but his own malice. For there is nothing at all in that place, that Esau was disinhe∣rited of eternal life: but that he should be inferiour to his Brother Jacob in this world. Which prophecy was fulfil∣ed in their posterities, and not the persons themselves. Of this acceptation of the one, and Reprobation of the other (concerning the promise of the earth) speaketh Malachi the Prophet,e 1.102 &c. Thus far (and much more to the same purpose) the worthy Martyr.

Mollerus, another late Writer, of the Reformed Re∣ligion, and of good esteem doth not look upon Esau as a Reprobate, but as an heir of eternal life. His words (upon Mal. 1. vers. 2, 3.) are to this effect: Probable Arguments may be taken from the book of Genesis, which shew that Esau was not so rejected by God, as to be damned, but that he was converted and repented, and became an heir of eternal life. For he was both reconciled unto his Bro∣ther, and afterwards joyned with him in the burial of his Father. Neither was he ever an enemy unto his Brother, after his reconcilement unto himf 1.103. Nor was Oecolam∣padius

(an Author of equall respects with the former) any otherwise minded concerning the spiritual estate of Esau. For he also (writing on Mal. 1. v. 2, 3.) saith thus: I dare not for this saying, call Esau a Reprobate; in as much as by temporal things in this place rather spi∣ritual things are typified, or figuredg 1.104.

Estius, though as rigid in the Thesis or Doctrine of Reprobation, as Calvin himself, or any of his follow∣ers, yet as touching the Hypothesis or particular case of Esau, he judgeth him saved upon these two grounds. 1. That at last he relented from that hatred, which he had formerly conceived against his Brother, and was reconci∣led to him. 2. That he died in the true Religion, where∣in he had been trained up by his Parentsh 1.105.

Amongst the ancient Writers, Hierome clearly un∣derstands the love and hatred of God here mentioned, 1. To relate onely unto temporals, (affirming that the Apostle disputes of them mystically in the place in hand.) 2. That they respect more the posterities, then the persons, of Jacob and Esaui 1.106. Ambrose expresly af∣firmeth, That Jacob and Esau were types of two kinds of people [or, persons] viz. beleevers, and unbeleeversk 1.107. Augustine (much to the same purpose) saith, That Ja∣cob bare the figure of the Church, as Esau the figure of the old Synagogue,l 1.108 [meaning, the Jews.] Nor doth An∣selm in his sence of the business in hand, dissent from the former, making the literal sence of these words, The elder shall serve the younger, to be this: The Idumeans, descending from Esau, shall be subject to the people of the

Jews: And the allegorical or mystical sence, this: The people of the Jews, who were Gods first-born, shall serve the Christians who come after themm 1.109; expounding the words of Malachi also, Iacob have I loved, &c. in perfect con∣sonancy hereunto. Nor to my best remembrance have I ever read, or heard, that so much as any one of the learned Fathers concluded from the passages in hand, ei∣ther Esau's Reprobation from eternity, or his eternal con∣demnation in time. And yet more certain I am, that neither could they, nor any other, have any sufficient ground from the said passages, to found such a conclu∣sion upon. Because,

1. (As hath been oft signified, and proved from the express words of the Scripture) Esau is not here men∣tioned under any personal consideration, but onely as the head and significator of his posterity.

2. It is the confession of those that are most opposite in the Doctrine of Reprobation,* 1.110 and may otherwise be evinced from the Scriptures, that all Esaus posterity were not reprobated (in such a sence) as neither were all Jacobs posterity elected.

3. Neither doth that service, or subjection unto Iacob, which the Divine Oracle imposeth upon Esau, any ways import such a Reprobation; in as much as the servant may be, and oft-times is, elected; yea and this sometimes when the master is in an estate of Repro∣bation. See 1 Pet. 2.18. Philip. 4.22, &c.

4. Were it granted, that servitude did signifie, or im∣port, such a Reprobation as is contended for, yet cer∣tain it is (and hath been proved from the Scriptures) that Esau in person never served Iacob.

5. Neither doth that hatred of God against Esau, (mentioned by Malachi) import any such Reprobati∣on of the person of Esau: 1. Because it related not

unto Esau personally considered, or unto the person of Esau, as appears from what hath been already said; and may appear yet further, from that description which the Prophet himself gives of it, in the fruits or effects thereof, as viz. the laying of his mountain waste, the throwing down, when he should build, &c. in which kind of fruit or effect, it never expressed it self unto, or against, the person of Esau. 2. These very effects of it, are not the proper effects of such an hatred in God, which argueth, either à priori, or à posteriori, a repro∣bation of men for eternity, I mean, of all those, who taste of such fruits; unless we will say, that when Je∣rusalem was laid waste by the Caldeans, and burnt with fire, all the persons that were sufferers in this calamity, were reprobated by God from eternity: although in case this could be proved (the contrary whereof ne∣vertheless is evident from the Scriptures) yet were it no sufficient proof, that all that either perish by a tem∣poral death, or deeply suffer otherwise, in publike deso∣lations, are therefore reprobated by God from eterni∣ty, or perish eternally.

6. The drift and scope of the Apostle in the context (formerly declared and asserted) doth no ways require, either a probation, or supposition, that Esau should be personally reprobated from eternity, but onely that in his posterity, and those sad events which according to the prediction of the divine Oracle, were in after times to befall them, he should be set forth, and prove, a sig∣nificant type of the spiritual and eternal misery of all those, that should seek justification by the works of the Law, or in a way of their own devising, and not submit unto the counsel, will, and good pleasure of God in this behalf, who hath consecrated the way of Faith in his Son Jesus Christ, as the only means wher∣by

Justification is to be attained by men.

7. His cordial and perfect reconcilement unto his Brother so fully expressed, as the Scripture recordeth Gen. 33. after that great and deep offence taken at him, upon occasion of his Brothers stepping in between him and home (as we use to say) in obtaining their Fa∣thers Blessing, is no light argument or testimony of his own reconciliation with God. For if ye forgive men their trespasses (saith our Saviour) your heavenly Father will also forgive youn 1.111. And though it should be granted that Jacob had not really trespassed against him, or done him any reall injurie or wrong, in intercepting his Fa∣thers blessing; yet it being such in Esaus apprehensi∣on, and the indignation conceived against him for it, being as reall, serious, and deep, as if it had been a re∣all and high injury indeed, his gentle, sweet, and lo∣ving intreating of his Brother after it, was every ways equivalent to a reall forgiveness, being a true and reall reconcilement. Therefore unless it can be proved, that after this reconcilement with his Brother, Esau re∣turned with the dog unto his vomit, or else continued in some course of impiety, inconsistent with salvation, for∣merly practised, there can be no competent ground as∣signed of his damnation, much lesse of his personal reprobation from eternity.

8. If Isaac had understood the Oracle delivered to his wife Rebecca, The elder shall serve the younger, as if it had imported, that his Elder son Esau had been re∣probated by God from eternity, it is no ways proba∣ble that he could have set his heart upon him, delight in him, or love him, as he did. That terrible wrath of God revealed from Heaven against the Son, in so signal a way and manner, could not but wholly quench all joy, pleasure, comfort, or contentment in the Pa∣rent,

in relation to such a Son. And unless we shall judg Isaac to have been a man extreamly sensual, and inordinately given to his appetite, we cannot reasona∣bly conceive that he could take any comfort or con∣tentment in his Son, or love him for his venison sake (which yet the Scripture testifieth of himo 1.112) if he had certainly known that God had from eternity irrever∣sibly doomed him to the easeless, endless torments of eternal fire.

9. It is no ways probable, nor like unto one of the ways of the dispensations of God, that he should inform such Parents, who were righteous and holy, who had found special favour in his sight, whose comforts and peace his heart was set to promote and advance, that he had Reprobated from eternity any of their children, and this whilst they were yet unborn. A message of such a sad and horrid import as this coming from the mouth of God immediatly to a weak and tender wo∣man, whose hour of travel, and this with two children, was now come, being likewise already sorely troubled and perplexed with the strangeness of her condition, in respect of what she sensibly felt in her womb, could not in all likelihood but have caused an abortion, or preproperous travel, and indangered her life. There∣fore certainly God did not intend to signifie unto Re∣becca, that she was ready to fall in travel of a Repro∣bate, a child, which he was peremptorily resolved to destroy with the dreadful vengeance of Hell fire.

10. If God should have signified unto Rebecca, and by her unto Isaac, that their elder Son had been Re∣probated by him from eternity, and consequently that there was no hope, no possibility of his repentance, or salvation, must not this needs have been a grand discou∣ragement unto them from lifting up so much as a

prayer unto God for him, and so from all other en∣deavours and applications of themselves unto him, in order to his conversion and salvation? And thus God must be supposed to have taught astorgie and unna∣turalness, unto Isaac and Rebecca, yea and taken them off from the performance of such duties, to, and on the behalf, of their child, which he strictly and universally imposeth upon all other Parents without exception, in reference unto their children.

11. It was never known, or heard of, that God ever made any discovery unto the world of any mans finall estate, especially on the left hand, before he was born, no nor yet before the perpetration of some grand and horrid sin.

12. (And lastly) There is no end imaginable, wor∣thy the onely wise, and most gracious God, why, or for which he should make known unto the world, such a thing concerning Esau, being yet unborn, as that he had reprobated him from eternity. Such a revelati∣on as this cannot well be supposed to be of any use, or spiritual accommodation, or edification to the world; but rather of evil tendency, and of a malignant influ∣ence upon the minde, and hearts of men, as directly occasioning them to judg hardly and most unworthily of God, and to conceive of him as no faithful Crea∣tor, as having no care, no love, no bowels or compas∣sions towards the best of the workmanship of his hands, man, no not whilest he remains yet pure, and unspot∣ted with sin, (not to mention that Dragons tail, I mean the long bead-roll of enormous notions and conceits, which attends the Doctrine of personal Reprobation from eternity, the account whereof is to be seen else∣wherep 1.113.) Whereas on the other hand, if it be suppo∣sed (as according to the truth, and evident scope of

the context, it ought) that by what God revealed unto Rebecca, (and so, unto the world) concerning Esau, be∣ing yet unborn, or his posterity in him, he signified and declared unto the world, that they who should not submit unto his counsel and pleasure for their justifi∣cation, and seek it by Faith in Jesus Christ, should be for ever excluded from the Heavenly inheritance; such a discovery or revelation from him as this, is apparant∣ly of a rich and blessed consequence and import unto men.

To object, that Esau is termed a prophane person by the Holy Ghost, for selling his birth-right for one mor∣sel of meat, and that afterwards when he would have inhe∣rited the blessing, he was rejected,q 1.114 &c. amounts to no∣thing of value for proof, that therefore Esau before he was born, was discovered by God unto his Mother, to have been a Reprobate from eternity. The utmost that can be conceived to be so much as hinted in this passage is, That being a prophane person, when he sold his birth-right, he was out of the favour of God: and that his rejection by his Father Isaac in that ardent and passionate suit which he made unto him for the bles∣sing of the first-born, was a presage or Item unto him, that he would be everlastingly rejected by God, unless he repented of his profaneness, and sought the favour of God by faith in Jesus Christ. That Repentance for which he is said to have found no place, though he sought it care∣fully with tears, is not meant of his own Repentance, as if he could have found no place for this, though he sought it carefully with tears, but of the repentance of his Father; the meaning being, that though he most affectionately desired his Father to reverse that bless∣ing, which he had conferred upon his younger Bro∣ther, and to settle it upon him, yet he could not pre∣vail

with him to do it, or to change his mind in that be∣half. — I have eaten of all (saith Isaac unto Esau) before thou camest, and have blessed him: yea and he SHALL be blessed (Gen. 27.33.) meaning, that he neither would, nor could recall that, which by the motion of the Spirit of God, was gone out of his lips, in blessing his Brother Jacob.

And thus we have proved at large the former of the two particulars which were formerly propounded; viz. That the Apostle in the passage now before us, and in what he discourseth concerning Jacob and E∣sau, intended to shew and prove, who, and what man∣ner of persons they are, whom God accounteth for Abrahams seed, and persons justified, viz. such, who seek their justification by Faith, and not by the deeds of the Law. We proceed to the latter, the tenor whereof was to shew, how such a Doctrine as this, can be conceived to be more emphatically, and with great∣er pregnancy of proof, argued and demonstrated from the present passage concerning Jacob and Esau, then it was in the former concerning Isaac and Ishmael. For this (as we observed) is clearly hinted by the Apostle, in these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: And not onely this.

For the demonstration of this, it is to be considered that though the Apostles former proof of the Doctrine we speak of, from the Divine Oracle delivered unto A∣braham, But in Isaac shall thy seed be called, was in it self sufficient, yet was it obnoxious to some cavils or excep∣tions, which the Jews, with whom onely or chiefly he hath to do in the present debate, were very like to make against it; as viz. That God made choice of Isaac, ra∣ther then of Ishmael, by whom to estimate and compute Abrahams seed, not out of an intention, as Paul pretend∣ed, to teach or signifie unto the world, that they who

should beleeve, should be reputed by him for Abrahams seed, but 1. Because he was born of Sarah, a free-wo∣man, and Abrahams Legitimate, or principal wife, whereas Ishmael was born of Hagar, a concubine and servant, or bondwoman. 2. Because Isaac was vertu∣ously and religiously disposed, whereas Ishmael was a scoffer and prophane. In both which respects, it is no marvell (might the Jews pretend) that Isaac should by Gods appointment be made Abrahams Heir, and so those be reputed his seed, that should descend from him: there is nothing of a mystery, nor like unto a mystery, in all this. Now the Apostle easily apprehending that the Jews would think thus to evade the force of his for∣mer proof, drawn from the Divine Oracle concerning Isaac, in the Verses now before us, advanceth another, which he knew was both more convincing, and no ways liable to any such exceptions, or pretences, as the former was; and therefore in his entrance upon it ex∣presseth himself thus (as we heard) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not one∣ly so, or, not onely this; meaning, that God indeed in saying unto Abraham, But in Isaac shall thy seed be call∣ed, signified his counsel and good pleasure touching such persons, whom he meant to count for Abrahams seed, but yet he signified the same much more plainly and distinctly afterwards, viz. when he said unto Re∣becca, concerning the two Nations, which she had con∣ceived by Isaac onely, and who were yet in their two re∣spective heads (Esau and Jacob) in her womb, and ha∣ving as yet done neither good nor evill, God (saith he) said unto their Mother Rebecca concerning them, The El∣der shall serve the Younger.

If it be demanded, but what is there more in this O∣racle, then in the former to evince or prove, that Gods pleasure and purpose is to account those onely for A∣brahams

seed, who shall beleeve and not expect Justifi∣cation by the deeds of the Law; I answer,

Those circumstances weighed and considered, which the Apostle here carefully insists upon in relation to the said Oracle, render the proof of the said Doctrine con∣tained herein, much more full and exception-less, then the former. These circumstances are five; 1. That the two children (interpreted, Nations) were conceived and born of one and the same Mother Rebecca, and be∣gotten by one and the same Person, or Father, viz. Isaac. 2. That He, that One, who was the Father of these two children, was the Father or Progenitor of the Jews, a person beloved of God, and partaker of the promise made unto Abraham. 3. (As some understand, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of, or by, one) that they were begotten, at one and the same time, or by the same Act of generation: Or how∣ever, this appears by their being born together, or so neer in time. 4. That God spake, as is expressed un∣to Rebecca, concerning them, whilest they were yet un∣born. 5. (And lastly) whilst they had done neither good nor evill. The first of these circumstances, takes off that exception of the Jews against the former argu∣ment, viz. that God made the difference mentioned between Ishmael and Isaac, because of the difference be∣tween their respective Mothers, the one being born of a free woman, the other of a bond woman. In the case of Esau and Jacob, (saith the Apostle) between whom notwithstanding God made the like difference, there is no such ground or reason of this difference can be pretended. Because these, as they had one and the same Mother, Rebecca, so had they one and the same Father Isaac. Therefore though Ishmael and Isaac, were born, the former of a bondwoman, the other of a free, yet this was not the reason why God made

that difference between them, which hath been signi∣fied.

The second circumstance, viz. That he who was the Father of these two children, Isaac, was a great Father and Patriarch of the Jewish Nation, invested in the same promises with Abraham, takes off such an excepti∣on as this, viz. that Isaac might be preferred before Is∣mael, for the righteousness sake of his Father Abraham, falling in conjunction with the condition and piety of his Mother, who was both a free-woman, as likewise a person fearing God. No (saith the Apostle, by the voice of the circumstance now under consideration) this could be no reason neither why Isaac was chosen by God, and not Ishmael, for the person by whom God would estimate Abrahams seed: because Esau and Ja∣cob were born of a worthy Father, much gloried in by the Nation of the Jews, as well as they, and of a Mo∣ther also equall both in condition, and vertue, unto theirs, and yet God put the like difference between these also. Therefore it was not for the Parents sake, either one, or both, that God made such a difference be∣tween them.

The third circumstance (if admitted) takes off such an exception as this against the former Oracle, differ∣encing Ishmael and Esau, (as hath been said) and the proof drawn from it, viz. that Abraham might be in a better posture of acceptance with God, more holy, ful∣ler of Faith, &c. when he begat Isaac, then he was when Ishmael was begotten: and upon this account it might be, that God was better pleased with the for∣mer, then with the latter; as the child which David be∣gat under the guilt of murther and adultery, was soon after the birth of it, struck by God with death; where∣as he took pleasure in Solomon, who was begotten by

him of the same Mother, in an estate of Repentance and reconcilement with God. Neither (saith the Apostle, this circumstance allowed) was there any such ground as this, of the difference made by God between Ishmael and Isaac; because he made the like difference between Esau and Jacob, who were begotten at one and the same rime, and consequently there could be no difference in him that begat them, in point of acceptation with God: he was as just, as holy, as faithfull, when the one was begotten, as when the other.

The fourth circumstance, when the children [or Nati∣ons] were yet unborn, takes off such an exception as this, against the Apostles argument from the former Oracle, viz. that God had had experience of Ishmael and Isaac, and of their different tempers and behaviours for many yeers before he made that signal difference between them; and accordingly finding Ishmael to be of a rough, scoffing, and prophane spirit, and Isaac better disposed, this might be a consideration moving him to give order for Ishmaels ejection, and Isaac's acceptance: and so no such mystery in this dispensation as he had asserted. Nay (saith the Apostle, in this circumstance) the expe∣rience which God had of Abrahams two Sons, Ishmael and Isaac, was no ground or motive at all unto him to make the difference mentioned between them: because he made the like difference between Isaac's two sons, E∣sau and Jacob, whilst they were yet unborn, and conse∣quently before he had, or made the least experiment of them.

The fifth and last circumstance, neither having done good, nor evill, may be (I suppose) added, for amplify∣ing and clearing of the former; or else to prevent any such conceit as this, that though the children were not yet born, yet in their wrastling or striving together in

the womb, the one might do well, or that which was some ways good, and the other that which was in some degree evill. No (saith the Apostle) when God sig∣nified unto Rebecca, (and so by her unto Isaac, and in∣deed unto the world) what difference he meant to make between her two Sons, (in their Posterities respectively) by saying to her, The Elder shall serve the Younger, he had no respect at all unto any thing done by either of them, good or evill, neither of them having done ei∣ther. Therefore though Ishmael had done evill, when God commanded his removal, out of Abrahams house; and Isaac, that which was good, when he was by Gods express order established for his heir; yet was neither the evill done by the one, nor the good by the other, the reason or ground of this deciding dispensation of God towards them, as appears by a like divine dispensation or decision between Esau and Jacob; of which neither good, nor evill, done by either of them could be the ground.

If it be demanded, but though God in chusing Ja∣cob and rejecting Esau (in the sense declared) had no re∣spect unto either good or evill, already acted or done, by either of them, yet might he not have respect unto such, both good, and evill, which he foreknew they would do afterwards, in this his so different a deter∣mination of their outward conditions in the world, yea and this be supposed here by the Apostle? I an∣swer, No: Because the Apostle expresly affirmeth, that the reason or end why God so determined the re∣spective estates and conditions of the two Brethren, or Nations, as hath been oft mentioned, whilest as yet they had neither done good or evill, was this, that the purpose of God according to Election might stand [might appear or be declared, to stand, firm and unchangeable] not of

WORKS, but of him that calleth. Now works, when∣soever done, whether sooner, or later, before, or after, whether seen when already done, or foreseen before done, are of the same consideration in the nature of works: Therefore the Apostle excluding works sim∣ply, from having any influence upon the purpose of God according to Election, excluded as well those foreseen, as those fore-done. Besides, affirming Gods intent in the said decisive Oracle between the two Nations, to be, That his purpose according to Election might stand, not of works, but OF HIM THAT CALLETH, he plainly sheweth, that no kind of works, whether known, or fore-known, is any bottom, ground, or foundation, of that his purpose. Because both kinds of works carry the same, or like opposition, to the origination, or first free conception of this purpose by him who calleth, i. e. (as hath been said) God himself. And suppose the said purpose had been taken up by, or conceived in God, by vertue of any respects born by him unto works foreseen, it had been never the more of, or from him∣self, then in case it had been conceived in him by means of works already done, and so considered by him.

If it be here objected, or demanded, but is not Faith a work? And if the purpose of God we speak of, be of Faith, is it not as much, at least as well, of works, and as little of him that calleth, as if it were of works, sensu Judaico, in such a sence as the Jews contended for? I answer,

1. It cannot be denied, but that Faith, in a sence, or to beleeve, is a work. This (saith Christ to the Jews) is the work of God, [i. e. the work which God requir∣eth of you, in order to your Justification, as appear∣eth from the words immediatly preceding] that ye

beleeve in him whom he hath sentr 1.115. But,

2. Faith in that sence of the word, work, or works, wherein works are so frequently, (or rather indeed con∣stantly) excluded by this Apostle from Justification, and opposed unto Faith, can for this very reason, be no work. And accordingly our Apostle opposeth it un∣to works, Rom. 4.5. But to him that worketh not, but be∣leeveth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his Faith is counted for righteousness. If it be demanded, In what sence then of the word work, is it, with works, excluded from Justification? And in what sence of the said word, doth it justifie or enter Justification? I answer, 1. That when the Apostle excludeth Works from Justificati∣on, he doth not mean that evill, or sinful works do not justifie, or have no part or fellowship in that great bu∣siness of Justification, because it never came into any mans heart to interess these in such a business, as Justi∣fication. Neither 2. When he excludeth works from justification, doth he intend to exclude all or every good work, from all, or all manner of interest, in, or about justification. For then he should exclude Faith it self, (which as we heard, is a work, so termed by Christ himself) unto which notwithstanding he very fre∣quently (as we know) ascribeth Justification. Nay 3. there is a justification, wherein works will be much in∣teressed, and which will not take place without some considerable concurrence of them. This is that sen∣tence of absolution from the guilt of sin, and the pu∣nishment due unto it, which shall be awarded on the be∣half of all Saints in the great day. Of this justifica∣tion the Apostle speaks, Rom. 2.13. For not the hear∣ers of Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law SHALL be justified. See also Matth. 25.34, 35, 36, &c: And again, Matth. 7.21. to the end of vers. 27. (to omit

many other places.) 4. There is a Justification even in this present life, which is attributable (at least in part) unto works. Of this James speaketh; Was not Abra∣ham our Father JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, when he had offered Isaac his Son upon the Altar? Jam. 2.21. And again, vers. 24. Ye see then how that BY WORKS a man is JUSTIFIED, and not by Faith onely. This justifica∣tion I conceive imports onely the Divine approbation of a person, as being just, holy, and good, some ways signified and made known unto the world; which is never done, but upon some reall and worthy testimony hereof exhibited by men themselves. See 1 Joh. 3.7.5. Therefore when the Apostle excludeth works from justification, he excludeth them onely under the notion or conceit of merit; in which sence the Jews urged the necessity of them in that business. This clearly appears from that opposition which the Apostle makes between justification by Grace, and by works; and sometimes be∣tween justification by works, and by faith, Rom. 11.6. and 4.5. Gal. 2.16. There is no opposition, but a clear con∣sistencie, between grace and works, unless by works we understand merit, or such works as either are, or pre∣tend to be meritorious. This is evident from the A∣postle himself. Now to him that worketh, is the reward, [or wages, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] not reckoned of grace, but of debts 1.116. Therefore though a man worketh, yet if his work be in∣considerable in value compared with this reward, which is given him, this reward is to be imputed to the grace and meer good will of him that giveth it, and not unto the work, or working, of him that receiveth it. Indeed if that which a man worketh, deserveth in a way of ju∣stice or equity, that which is given him in consideration of it, that which he receives in this case, is no matter of grace, or favour, but due debt. And in this respect

he that beleeveth, is by the Apostle (in the words imme∣diatly following) said, not to work [meaning, not to do any thing so much as in shew meritorious, either of ju∣stification, or salvation.] But to him that worketh not, [viz. with a conceit of merit] but beleeveth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness; meaning that God of his free and meer grace accepteth such a mans Faith, vice & loco, in the place or stead of a perfect and compleat observation of the whole Laws 1.117: Which were it exhibitable, and actually exhibited by any man, would be meritorious of his justification. For the reason why the Law blesseth no man with justi∣fication, but accurseth every man, is because it is too strict and holy to be compleatly and in all points per∣formed by men, by reason of that weakness, whereunto they are at present subjected by the flesh. For as many as are of the works of the Law [i. e. depend upon the works of the Law for justification] are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the Law to do themt 1.118; clearly implying, that were men in a capacity of conti∣nuing in all things written in the Law to do them, they might be justified by works, i. e. by the merit of works. For he that onely worketh righteousness, never sinning so much as in the least, cannot justly be condemned by God, as a sinner, and consequently must needs be justi∣fied. Therefore what, or how many works soever God should require of men, for, or in order to, their justification, onely beneath the compleat observation of the Law, and they perform them accordingly, their justification upon, and with respect unto such a per∣formance, would notwithstanding be of free grace, and not of works (in the Apostles sence) because God is a Debtor of justification unto no man for any per∣formance

of works whatsoever, but onely unto the most absolute and district, and uninterrupted observation of the whole Law. So that however Faith, or beleeving in Christ, be a work (in the nature of it) yet wanting merit, it may justifie, and this without any breach or intrenchment upon that great Maxime or Doctrine of our Apostle, viz. that justification is not of works, but of Grace. Indeed if it be supposeable, that a person may beleeve, with such a conceit of his beleeving, as the Jews (it seems, Gal. 5.2. Acts 15.1.) had of their being circumcised, as viz. that it is meritorious of their justification, it would be somewhat the more questiona∣ble, whether beleeving upon such terms would justifie him or no; considering that the reasons why the Jewish Observations of the Law, did not, could not, justifie them, was not because they had matter of merit in them (for if this had been, they would have justified them) but because they conceited such a thing of them, which occasioned them to stumble at that great stone of of∣fence, Jesus Christ, to reject the merit of that attone∣ment which was made by him. But there neither is, nor (I suppose) ever will be any occasion to discuss that question any further. Because he that beleeveth on Christ for justification, must needs beleeve the merit of his death in order to the procuring thereof at the hand of God; and consequently cannot lightly be intangled with a conceit of merit in his own beleeving.

How Christ alone may be said to justifie, and yet Faith also be said to justifie, is of ready explication. Christ alone justifieth by way of merit, and as he that hath purchased with a valuable price (the laying down of his life) the grace of justification for men: Faith ju∣stifieth instrumentally, or subserviently under Christ, viz. as a conditional act required by God of men in

order to their actual investiture with that Grace or bene∣fit of justification, which Christ by the merit of his death purchased or procured for them; yet with this reservati∣on, or proviso, that the actual communication of the said benefit, or grace, unto particular persons of years capable of believing, should be suspended, until it should be de∣sired by them, and sought for by beleeving. Therefore,

3. (And lastly) the premises consulted and consider∣ed, it is no matter of any difficult conception to con∣ceive how the purpose of God according to Election (as the Apostle expresseth it) may be said to be, or at least more apparantly be, of him that calleth, (viz. God) in case it be supposed to be built upon faith, then it will or can be, if supposed to be built upon works. For 1. That is most properly said to be OF a person, which pro∣ceeds freely and voluntarily from him, and whereunto he hath not been drawn, ingaged, or any ways necessi∣tated by any motive or ingagement from without. 2. It hath been lately shewed, that works (in the Apo∣stles sence) i. e. works meritorious of justification being found in men do impose a necessity (in way of justice) upon God, to justifie (and consequently to elect unto life) all those in whom they shall be found; so that in case God should purpose to elect, or justifie, upon the ac∣count of these, this purpose of his must needs be (espe∣cially must needs seem to be) of a forraign inspiration, occasioned, if not necessitated, from without, and so not to be of an inward and free conception, in, and from, himself. Whereas, if it shall be supposed, that this purpose of God to elect and justifie, is founded and built upon Faith (which the Scripture both here and else∣where, plainly enough supposethu 1.119) it must needs be (and so accordingly be apprehended) of himself, i. e. freely, voluntarily, and most graciously conceived, and taken

up by him; in as much as there is nothing in Faith, no not so much as in colour or shew, to ingage or necessitate him thereunto. This our Apostle himself plainly e∣nough insinuateth Rom. 4.16. Therefore it is (speaking of justification) of Faith, that it might be by [or, of] Grace, i. e. voluntary, free, and of meer good pleasure in God; implying withall, that had it been of works, it would have been, or however, it would seem to have been, by necessity, or upon such terms, which God, his justice considered, could not have refused.

By the way, from what hath been now said, it ap∣pears that neither Gods Election, nor his counsel or pur∣pose according to Election, (in the sence given) can with truth be said to be, or to proceed, ex fide previsa, from Faith foreseen in particular persons, either elect∣ed, or decreed to be elected, but onely from the meer grace or good pleasure of God. For though it be sup∣posed that he purposeth or decreeth to elect, and ac∣cordingly actually electeth, all those that shall beleeve, and none other, yet this at no hand proveth, either that such his purpose, or the execution hereof by him, pro∣ceed or spring in their origination or conception, from the Faith of such persons fore-seen, no nor yet from the fore-sight of their Faith in him (though this be more tolerable then the other,) Because (as we have heard) there is nothing in the nature of Faith, no nor in Gods fore-sight of Faith in what persons soever, that hath in it any seminal or generative vertue or property of any such purpose or action, in God. It is true, the infinite and incomprehensible wisdome of God, which min∣gleth it self with, and steers all the motions and trans∣actions of his will, led him unto Faith, (indefinitely, and in the nature of it considered, not as either seen, or fore∣seen in particular subjects) as the most proper and pru∣dential

groundwork and foundation, in its kind, and of an external consideration, whereon to fix and build his purpose of Election, and accordingly his Election it self. But this no more proveth, that Faith either foreseen, or in what consideration soever, is the cause or product∣tress of Gods purpose of Election, then the commodious∣ness either of a good foundation, or pleasant scituation, is the cause or reason of a mans desire or resolution to build an house. I confess there may be that in a mans commodious foundation or scituation, the considerati∣on whereof may occasion or beget a purpose in a man to build in such or such a place, where these conveni∣ences are to be had, rather then in another place where they are wanting; yea possibly, unless the desire or purpose of a man to build be very strong and preva∣lent upon him, the want or non-attainableness, of such material conveniences for building, may wholly divert him from such an undertaking. In like manner there may be, and (questionless) is, in Faith, something par∣ticularly considerable, for which the Divine under∣standing judged it more meet, then any other thing, to pitch upon for the regulation of his purpose of, or ac∣cording to, Election, (and of his Election it self accord∣ingly,) but this is no argument that therefore Faith, or that which is considerable in Faith in this kind, was, or is, the cause of such a purpose in him, simply or indefi∣nitely considered, as if (for example) he were any ways moved, disposed, or inclin'd by any thing in Faith to purpose and decree the justification, or Election of men, or of any man, so as had it not been for Faith, or had not Faith mediated the business with him, he would ne∣ver have purposed, or decreed such a thing. For doubt∣less the love of God to mankind, out of which he de∣creed the Justification, Election, and Salvation of those

that should beleeve, was a most intimous principle or affection in him, flowing immediatly from himself, or the essential goodness of his nature, and not begotten or raised in him by any forreign influence or interposure whatsoever; yea and as far as humane understanding is able to reach, would have taken place, and been found in him, whether ever there had been any such thing as Faith, in rerum naturà, or no. And consequently, he would have decreed the Justification, Election, and Salvation of men, though it should be supposed that they had universally been under an impossibility of be∣leeving. So that if Faith hath any influence, or inte∣rest of causality at all in Gods Decree of Election, &c. it is not in respect of the general nature, or goodness of this Decree, but of the particular form or tenor of it onely. Yea if we state the form or tenor of this De∣cree of Election, as the Scripture seems from place to place to state and hold it forth, as viz. That God in this Decree speaketh thus (or to like effect) I will elect, or, I decree to elect, all those that shall beleevex 1.120, then Faith or Beleeving, cannot be looked upon as any efficient or productive cause of the said Decree, because it doth ingredi ipsum Decretum, is somewhat of the nature or substance of the Decree it self; and so is rather the mat∣ter, or part of the matter, thereof, then any efficient cause of one kind or other. For this is the condition of the four causes, (so called) material, formal, final, and efficient, without the joynt concurrence whereof no∣thing is at any time effected or produced; that the two latter, the final and efficient, are always extrinsecal to the effect or thing produced; and the two former, ma∣terial, and formal, always intrinsecal, and parts of it. Therefore if Faith, or beleeving, be somewhat, or any part of the Decree we speak of, it cannot be any ways

contributing to it in any kind of efficiency whatsoever; and consequently could be no motive, (much lesse any ingagement) unto God to conceive or make such a De∣cree. But this by the way.

Having thus at large shewed and proved, that the Apostles scope (in the words before us,) was 1. To shew and prove, who, or what manner of persons they are, or must be, whom God accounteth for Abrahams seed (in the sence declared) or whom he justifieth: And 2. To shew and prove this with greater pregnancy, evi∣dence, and effectualness of proof here, then he had done in the former instance concerning Isaac; we shall now give some brief account of the words themselves toge∣ther, by way of Paraphrase, taking them as they lie in their construction, and not in the order of their scitua∣tion in the context, onely to render their sence more perspicuous; and so pass forward, with some few Do∣ctrinal Observations taken up from them by the way.

And not onely this] i. e. God did onely declare unto Abraham somewhat more obscurely, who should be esteemed by him for his spiritual seed, persons justi∣fied, and heirs of the world, in saying to him, But in Isaac shall thy seed be called; But when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our Father Isaac] i. e. but did further, and more clearly declare his mind and coun∣sel in that behalf unto Rebecca also, having now con∣ceived by one and the same person, and he none other then Isaac, Abrahams son and heir, and great Patriarch of our Nation, in which respect you [Jews] may pro∣bably think, that all those that should be born of her upon such an account, should be alike accounted Abra∣hams seed, and more especially that her first-born by such a Father, should be thus esteemed and owned by God; yet God himself declared the contrary: For the

children being yet unborn, and having done neither good nor evil] i. e. in as much, as whilest the two children, or Nations, conceived in her womb, yet remained there, and were unborn, yea and (that which is more) had done neither good, nor evill, in one kind or degree, or other, their striving together in the womb not being morally accountable, nor to be reputed either good or evill on either side; It was said unto her] i. e. unto Rebecca, by God himself; The Elder shall serve the younger] i. e. that Nation, which in the Head or Great Parent of it, shall be the first-born, or first come out of thy womb, shall be inferiour, tributary, or servant unto that, which shall (in like sence and consideration) be born after. Or thus; That child which shall be thy first-born, shall (viz. in his seed and posterity) be tributary or servant, unto his younger Brother, in his. As it is written,] i. e. The truth and substance of which Oracle deliver∣ed to Rebecca, was long after mentioned and confirm∣ed by the Prophet Malachi, who exhibiteth God speak∣ing thus; Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated] i. e. I have declared, and purpose yet further to declare, my self very loving and respectful unto Jacobs poste∣rity,x 1.121 much above what I have done, or intend to do, to the posterity of Esau, though his Brother. For unto Jacobs posterity, have I in meer grace and favour, gi∣ven that holy land flowing with milk, and honey, pro∣mised long since unto Abraham, for an inheritance to be possessed and injoyed by them. Whereas I have allotted unto the Idumeans, Esaus posterity, onely the rough, rocky, and incult mountains of Seir (a place not to be compared with the pleasant and fruitfull land of Canaan) and besides, having in a great measure laid waste and desolate the territories of these Idumeans, I am resolved that the breaches hereof shall never be re∣paired,

though they be full of confidence that they shall be able to effect it, and that with advantage. But as for Jacobs posterity, I intend such further Grace and good∣ness unto them in their land, that I will cause my Name to be magnified throughout the world for what I shall do for them. Now that which God mystically and my∣steriously intended, in declaring himself to Rebecca, con∣cerning the difference which he purposed in time to put, or make, between her two Sons, in their respective po∣sterities, whilst they were yet unborn, and were equally deserving and equally undeserving, neither of them ha∣ving done either good, or evill, (though as yet difference in this kind he had made none) being the second decla∣ration that he made of his mind and purpose in this be∣half, and this not long after the former, was, That the pur∣pose of God according to Election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth] i. e. that God might declare, that Decree, Counsel, or Purpose of his to be immoveable (for a second revelation, or assertion of the same thing by God, imports the establishment or unquestiona∣ble certainty of it, Gen. 41.32.) according to the tenour or purport whereof he maketh his Election amongst men unto that excellent dignity of being Abrahams spi∣ritual seed (for of this he treateth all along from vers. 6, 7, &c.) and consequently, heirs of the world; and with∣all, that this Decree, or purpose of his, according un∣to which he thus electeth, might be declared not to have been conceived, purposed, or taken up by him, from any consideration of merit, or desert by works, in men, but freely of, and by himself, of his gracious and good pleasure; and that the execution of this his Purpose or Decree in the actual Election of men to the said Digni∣ty of spiritual Adoption, or Sonship unto Abraham, admits of no regulation or confinement by any merit

of works in men, but is daily managed and carried on by another rule, freely and voluntarily chosen in this behalf, by himself; this Rule the Scripture every where proclaiming to be Faith, or beleeving in Jesus Christ. And this liberty, both of purposing to Elect, and of E∣lecting accordingly, not at the instance of works, or by the exigency thereof, but according to his own mind and pleasure, he claimeth upon a most just, equitable, and reasonable account, as (viz.) being He, who free∣ly, and without any obligation upon him on that be∣half, calleth, and inviteth the world, upon the terms (and these very gracious) proposed by himself, unto that high prize of Justification, or Son-ship unto Abraham, and herein unto eternal life, or the inheritance of the world. In which respect he hath a most equitable and and unquestionable right to nominate, and prescribe the terms, according unto which this Crown or prize shall be awarded and given unto men; As the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Olympiaque games had to prescribe Laws unto those that should try masteries, and to declare how they were to behave themselves in the respective exercises, who should receive the crown, or reward, and what miscarriages in men, in, or about the said ex∣ercises, should render them uncapable hereof. But of this formerly.

If it be demanded, but why doth the Apostle here express himself thus, not of works, but of him that call∣eth, making the opposition, not between works, and Faith, (as commonly he doth in the business of Justi∣fication) but between works, and the will and pleasure of him that calleth, (meaning, God?) I answer, the rea∣son may be, either because the plea of the will and plea∣sure of God, is more authoritative, and binding upon the judgments and consciences of the gainsaying Jews,

then the meer Allegation or Assertion of Faith would be; or else to insinuate, that God freely calling and inviting men to the unspeakable Grace and benefit of justification, (and salvation upon it) hath by reason here∣of (as hath been argued in the premises) a most equi∣table and unquestionable right to make the terms of the one, and of the other, what himself pleaseth; and con∣sequently standeth no ways obliged to accept of their terms, who will needs obtrude works, or the merit of works, upon him in this kind. And if God will not suffer men, who are obnoxious to his justice, and condemned persons, to prescribe terms unto him for their own justi∣fication, and they upon this account are found to pre∣scribe nothing but works, it follows (as it were) of course that Faith in his Son Jesus Christ, must needs be the terms, or Law of Justification imposed by him, in as much as works never met with any competitor in this kind from the hand of any man pretending knowledg of the mind of God in these matters, but Faith onely.

By the way, from the end and intent of God, in say∣ing to Rebecca, (under all those circumstances mention∣ed by the Apostle, and by us explained;) The Elder shall serve the Younger, being the same in substance with, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated; this end be∣ing (as we have heard) to insinuate that Gods purpose, according to which he electeth, or adopteth, is fully e∣stablished, and shall stand firm for ever, and be carried on, not by, or according to the Interest of works, but according to Gods own good pleasure otherwise; from this end (I say) of God in speaking so to Rebecca, it fully appeareth, (over and above all the light formerly given to make the Discovery) that it was no part of his intent here to teach, either Jacobs peremptory Electi∣on unto salvation, nor yet Esaus peremptory Repro∣bation

from eternity. Because had this been his end, either in whole, or in part, in the said Oracle, that assert∣ed by the Apostle for his end, cannot stand. For had Esau been peremptorily reprobated from eternity, then had he been every whit as uncapable of salvation, in case, or though, he had beleeved, as he could or should have been, in case he had sought his justification by works: And if so, Gods purpose according to Election, should no more stand of him that calleth [i. e. be esta∣blished unto men in that way, which God himself hath freely chosen] then by works. To say that Esau being so Reprobated, was in no possibility to beleeve, besides that it is in it self an untruth (as is demonstratively and at large proved elsewherey 1.122) reacheth not the point in question. For the purpose of God according to Election, here described by the Apostle, purporteth, not simply the Election of those who shall de facto beleeve, but of all others also, in case they should beleeve. But he that is peremptorily reprobated from eternity, is unca∣pable of Election, yea though he should comport with the will and pleasure of him who calleth, in beleeving: in which case the purpose of God according to Election should not stand, but fall. But of these things at large elsewherez 1.123.

We shall onely take up a few Doctrinal Observati∣ons, from the Verses lately opened; and so advance in our Exposition.

1. Whereas the divine purpose of putting the differ∣ence we formerly heard of, between Ishmael and Isaac, was revealed (immediatly, or originally) unto Abraham, and not unto Sarah; but the like purpose concerning E∣sau and Jacob, was thus revealed unto Rebecca, and not unto Isaac; it is observable, That God is sometimes pleased to make the first discovery of things mysteri∣ous

and secret unto weaker instruments, and other∣while, unto those of more strength and honour, Exod. 15.20. Judg. 4.4. 2 Kings 22.14. Luke 2.46. Acts 18.26. Acts 21.9. 1 Cor. 1.27, 28, &c.

2. Whereas the Secret of the Divine pleasure as well concerning Ishmael and Isaac, as concerning Esau and Jacob, was first imparted, or revealed, unto a single person onely, the former unto Abraham, the latter un∣to Rebecca, it may be observed, That matters of general concernment, and the knowledg whereof is necessary for all persons, are usually in their first discovery made known by God but unto some one single person onely, or very few. Exod. 3.7, 8. Am. 3.7. Acts 10.40, 41, &c.

3. Whereas the Divine disposition, and dispensation in matters of this life, were so different (as we have heard) in reference to the two pairs of Brethren, Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, it may be observed, That God hath left himself at more libertie to dispose of the tempo∣ral estates or conditions of men, then of their eternal. Or thus: God hath not declared, (and so not ingaged) him∣self to walk towards men in matters appertaining to this present life, by any such positive or determinate Rule, as he hath done in matters relating to their eternal conditions. Eccles. 9.1, 2, 3. with Mark 16.16. &c.

4. Whereas the Apostle expresly informeth us, that the end, purpose, and intent of God, in pre-declaring unto Rebecca, under the circumstances mentioned, his will and pleasure concerning the different conditions of her two Sons, (or rather their respective posterities, as hath been shewed) in this present world (and conse∣quently, of his actual and providential disposal of these their conditions in time, accordingly) was to make known unto the world this most spiritual and mysteri∣ous secret, viz. that his purpose according to Election might

stand, not of works, but of him that calleth (in the sence given) it is observable, That God hath revealed the great mysteries of salvation unto the world, not onely by the words of his mouth, but by the works of his hands, and divers providences. Gal. 4.22, 23, 24, 30. &c. Joh. 3.14.

5. Whereas the Apostle argueth and proveth Gods counsel and purpose of justifying men by Faith, and not by works, from such Texts and passages of Scrip∣ture, where the Jews were not able to discover or find any such thing, it is easie to observe, That Many truths may be discovered by persons that are spiritual, of sound principles, and raised understandings, in such veins of the Scriptures, where they who are carnal, and of mistaken, or unsound principles, are, or may be confident, that there is no such thing to be found. Mat. 22.23. compared with vers. 29, 31, 32, &c. Joh. 5.45, 46, 47. Joh. 9.40.

6. Whereas God was not satisfied with that one sig∣nification or single intimation given unto Abraham of the ratification of his purpose according to Election, (as viz. that it was founded, not upon works, but upon his own pleasure) but he was pleased to make a se∣cond, and this a more full, declaration hereof unto Rebecea, two things are from hence observable; 1. That The end and counsel of God in those frequent repetitions and re-assertions of the same things in the Scripture, being for the most part matters of greatest weight and consequence, is to give unto men the fuller assurance of their certainty and truth. Gen. 41.32. Philip. 3.1. 2. That what God discovereth more sparingly or darkly in one place, especial∣ly the matter being of much concernment unto men ful∣ly to understand and beleeve (which is the case before us in the Context) commonly he revealeth it more plainly and fully in some other. The Scripture aboundeth with ex∣amples in this kind. See also Heb. 8.6. and 11.40.

7. Whereas Gods purpose according to Election (in the sense declared) standeth, not of works, but of him that call∣eth, it is not unworthy Observation, That Gods eternal Purposes or Decrees concerning the Election, Justification, and Salvation of men, are not always formed or regulated by such rules or principles, which are most plausible unto men, but by such, which are pleasing unto himself, which commonly are much differing from those approved of men. Isa. 55.8, 9. Rom. 10.2, 3. and 2.28, 29. Luke 16.15.

8. Whereas the Apostle mentioneth Gods most gra∣cious and free calling men, (viz. to the great Blessings of Justification, Adoption, Salvation, &c. as hath been explained) as a reason and ground in equity, why he should make the terms and conditions of obtaining these rich prizes, what himself pleaseth, it may be observed, That God assumeth or claimeth unto himself no power (meer∣ly prerogative-wise) for over-ruling the eternal estates of men, but onely such, which most equitably, and upon a clear ac∣count of reason appertaineth to him. Ezek. 18.25, 26, 29. &c. Isa. 5.3, 4. Psal. 98.9. and 145.19.

9. From these words, vers. 12. The Elder shall serve the Younger (mystically understood, as hath been direct∣ed in the preceding Exposition.) Two things are ob∣servable. 1. That God judgeth it meet to sacrifice the car∣nall priviledges of some men, though given and avouched for such by himself, upon the spiritual service of many. Out of the dust and ashes of Esau's Prerogative of Primo∣geniture, hath sprung a lively confirmation of this blessed Truth unto the world, That it is the younger or latter Covenant of Grace, not the Elder of works, by which sinners must be justified. Gen. 21.10, 11. and 48.14. 2. From the tenor of the same Divine Ora∣cle (so understood and considered, as hath been said) it may be observed further, That those who shall inherit the

great dignity and priviledge of Justification by Faith, shall be heirs, (i. e. Lords) of the world, and they who expect justification by the works of the Law, shall be servants unto them. Rev. 2.26, 27. Gal. 4.30. Rom. 4.13. Psal. 49.14.

10. (And lastly) From these words, vers. 13. Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, (understood, as they have been explained) it is observable, That in mat∣ters of this present life, God hath left himself at liberty, in some cases, and upon some special occasions, to shew more or less love unto men, under a meer personal, or genealo∣gical and parentick consideration, Eccles. 7.15. and 9.11. Pro. 22.2.

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with [Vers. 14] God? God forbid.

The Apostle, having by the two famous Testimo∣nies of the Scriptures and ancient records of the Jews, asserted his Doctrine concerning the eternal purpose and Decree of God to justifie, and adopt for chil∣dren, those that should beleeve, excluding such who depend upon the works of the Law for the obtaining of these heavenly priviledges; and consequently, made it good, that no word or promise of God falls to the ground, by the rejection of the Jews, these (generally) being none of the seed of Abraham, to whom the pro∣mises of life and salvation were intended; proceeds (in the next place) to demonstrate the righteousness or e∣quity of the said Decree of God, and the execution of it in the world, being led hereunto by occasion of some Objections, which (it seems) were raised by the Jews in opposition unto both. For they perceiving how substantially the Apostle had taken off their main Objection, wherein (they urged a frustration of the Word of God, in case they should be rejected) if those

Scripture passages, which he had alledged upon that account, should be let pass with such a fence and con∣struction, as he had put upon them; therefore to over∣throw his Interpretation of them, together with that Doctrine, which he had built thereupon, they rise up with this Objection; that such a Purpose or Decree, (together with the execution of it) as Paul attributes unto God [viz. to adopt those for Sons, who should beleeve, and reject those who should seek to be justi∣fied by the works of his own Law] would be unjust; and therefore could not with truth be ascribed unto him. This Objection he propounds (interrogative∣ly) in the former part of this 14^th Verse; and begins his answer to it, in the close of it, God forbid.

What shall we say then &c. This is a form of propound∣ing an Objection, used by the Apostle elsewhere, Rom. 6.1. and 4.1. And sometimes it seems to import onely the awakening of the mind and judgement of him that readeth, to consider what is the natural consequence, or result, of things formerly argued, and concluded; which is a very spiritual and noble exercise and improvement of the rational abilities of the soul; and without which that which is read, or heard, seldome turns to any great matter of profit or edification: See vers. 30. of this Chapter. Interrogatives are more piercing and quick∣ning, then bare Assertives. When the Apostle saith, What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness &c. it is as if he had said; Do you think, that any such thing followeth from what hath been said concerning the purpose of God to justifie and adopt those who shall beleeve, and not those who depend upon works for their justification, as that he should be unrighteous or unjust? Nay, God forbid; or, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, let it not be: or, far be it from me, and from every man to affirm or

teach any thing, that should imply any unrighteousness, or unjustice in God, in the least.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Is there unrighteousness, or in∣justice, with God? i. e. Doth it follow from the pre∣mises that God should be unjust? But what is the un∣righteousness here spoken of? Or in what sence did the Jews mean, that Paul by his Doctrine, made God un∣just? I answer, There are two, or rather three, kinds of injustice: The one consisteth, in decreeing, the se∣cond in doing things that are uncomely, or which are contrary to reason and equity: The third, in speaking, promising, or professing, that which is not in the heart, or in the mind ever to perform. When the Jews pre∣tended that the Doctrine of Paul rendred God un∣righteous or unjust, they meant (doubtless) in all these respects, or with all these three kinds of inju∣stice. But that his Doctrine was not chargeable with making God unjust with that kind of unjustice, which consists in simulatory promises, or speakings, he had proved already, vers. 6, 7, &c. Not as if the Word of God had taken none effect. For, &c. Therefore in the passage now before us, the Apostle must needs be con∣ceived to speak of one, or both, the former kinds of in∣justice, which (indeed) are, upon the matter, but one and the same. For to purpose or decree things that are uncomely, and contrary unto equity, and to perpetrate and act such things, proceed from one and the same spi∣rit of injustice. So that the import of that Objecti∣on, which he insinuates (in this 14. vers.) was levied a∣gainst his Doctrine by the Jews, was, that hereby God was represented, both as a Decreer, and an Actor of things which were uncomly, and of no good consistence with principles of reason and equity.

Some conceive that the spring, rise, or occasion of this

Objection, was the Apostles discourse concerning Ja∣cob and Esau, viz. in that he had affirmed, that whilst they were yet unborn, and had done neither good nor evill, and though they were the children of the same Pa∣rents on both sides, yet God should decree con∣cerning them, That the Elder should serve the Young∣er; which seems to be a strain of that kind of in∣justice lately mentioned. But that this was not the occasion of the Objection, is evident from hence. 1. Be∣cause whatsoever Paul had said concerning Jacob and Esau, was expressly contained in the Scriptures; and consequently it is no ways likely that the Jews would object any thing against it. 2. That which he had said concerning Jacob and Esau, containing matter of favour and respects from God on Jacobs side, who was their Great Progenitor, and in whom they much gloried upon that account, if they should have reputed it mat∣ter of injustice in God to respect Jacob above Esau, (which is the effect of all the Apostle had said concern∣ing them) they should have been like ill birds, defiling (as the saying is) their own nest; nor is it probable in the least, that they would impute unjustice unto God for dealing so graciously and respectfully as he did, by them and their forefathers, above any other Nati∣on: Or that they were so zealous in the cause of Esau, or the Idumeans, his posterity, and their professed and inveterate enemies, as for their sakes to charge unrigh∣teousness upon God.

Therefore the clear spring of the Objection here in∣timated, was, not the Text, but the Interpretation, or that inference or deduction which Paul drew from the said Passages of Scripture for the confirmation of that Doctrine of Justification by Faith, so highly contest∣ed against by the Jews. He argued and urged, that God,

in saying unto Abraham, But in Isaac shall thy seed be call∣ed, and afterwards unto Rebecca, concerning the two Nations yet in her womb, The Elder shall serve the Young∣er, intended to declare and signifie unto the world, that his purpose and pleasure was, as to elect and accept those for children, and justified persons, who should de∣pend upon his Grace and good pleasure for the obtain∣ing of these blessings, by beleeving, so to reject those that should seek after them, and expect to attain them, by the works of the Law. Such a Declaration as this (say the Jews, in the Objection before us) could not be intended by God, because it would argue unrighteous∣ness in him, and that which is repugnant to all reason and equity; as viz. that he should reject and con∣demn those who are diligent and zealous observers of his own Law, the law which himself hath recommend∣ed unto them, and imposed on them; and receive in∣to Grace and favour such persons, who never yeelded the like obedience unto him, onely because they be∣leeve in Another, and expect their justification by, and from, him.

To this Objection the Apostle answers; 1. By de∣nying the consequence, in the close of this Verse. 2. By subjoyning a reason of such his denial; And this, 1. In respect of those whom God justifieth, or to whom he sheweth mercy vers. 15, 16. 2. In respect of those whom he Reprobates or condemns, vers. 17. In the former, he vindicates the righteousness of God, in ju∣stifying those, whom he is pleased to justifie: In the latter, he vindicates the same righteousness in repro∣bating and condemning such, who are reprobated and condemned by him.

First, he denieth that any such thing ••olloweth from his Doctrine, or Interpretation of the Scriptures a••∣ledged,

as that God should be unrighteous. Yea he de∣nieth it in that phrase or form of words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, God forbid, which doth not barely signifie, or import, the untruth of what is denied, but further, that the untruth hereof is such, that it deserveth even to be abhorred of every man. See Rom. 3.4, 6. Gal. 2.17. (to omit other places.)

Secondly, he giveth this account of his denial, as to the first particular objected, [viz. that God should be unrighteous, in case he should justifie, or shew mercy to beleevers.]

[Vers. 15] For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion, on whom I will [Vers. 16] have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

For he saith to Moses, I will, &c. As if he should have said; My Doctrine of Justification, by the free Grace and pleasure of God through beleeving, is so far from rendring him unrighteous, that himself plainly express∣eth and asserteth the effect and substance of it, in say∣ing thus unto Moses, I will have mercy, on whom &c. Meaning, that in as much as all men having sinned, are become miserable, and so absolutely obnoxious unto me, and my pleasure touching their relief, and I am re∣solved to use my prerogative herein, and to re∣lieve and shew mercy unto whom, [id est, unto what sort or kind of personsa 1.124] I please, not upon such who shall be obtruded upon me by men, or who shall judge themselves worthy or meet above others to be parta∣kers

of my Grace and favour in this kind. The re∣petitions in the words, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion, on whom I will have compassion, are very emphatical, and import the highest degree imaginable of a peremptoriness or re∣solvedness in God, to dispence his favour and mercy unto men according to his own mind and pleasure, and not according to the thoughts or prescriptions of men. When the clouds pour out rain in abundance, it is a sign they were full of water. In like manner, when a man utters over and over, reiterates and repeats any purpose, intention, or desire in his soul, it argueth a fulness or a∣bundance of that which is thus uttered, and that the heart could not discharge it self of all at once, or by one expression. Now we know who those are, on whom God is everlastingly, and most unalterably re∣solved to shew mercy, viz. those who beleeve in his Son Jesus Christ; according to that of this our Apostle elsewhere: For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us— was not yea and nay, but in him was yea: For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him, Amen,b 1.125 &c. And upon this account the Gospel, which asserteth the will and purpose of God in this kind, is termed by John, The Everlasting Go∣spel,c 1.126 i. e. a Gospel, the tenor and contents whereof shall never be altered. Here God fully declares who they are, on whom he will have mercy, viz. Beleevers: Neither are all the Angels in Heaven, nor men upon Earth, by all the strength of sollicitation they can use, able to take him off from this his purpose, as either to cause him not to shew mercy, on those who beleeve, or to shew mercy (I mean, the mercy here spoken of) un∣to any others. For that is to be considered by the way, that the Apostle clearly speaketh here of that

grace or mercy of God, which relateth to the salvati∣on of men sinful and miserable. But whereas the Scripture speaks expressly of two sorts, or kinds, or (if you will) degrees of grace, love, and mercy in God towards men in reference to their Salvation, one which precedes their Faith and obedience to the Gospel, and which consists, partly in the gift of his Son Jesus Christ for a Saviour unto them, partly in calling them by the Gospel preached in one kind or other unto them, in vouchsafing means and opportunities unto them for repenting and beleeving,d 1.127 &c. another, which is subse∣quent to their repentance and beleeving, and which God sheweth and exerciseth towards those, who do now truly beleevee 1.128; the question may be, of which of these two kinds of mercy the Apostle here speaketh, whether of that which is preventing, and which shew∣eth it self in giving Christ for a Saviour, in calling men, unto him, &c. Or of that which is subsequent, and which expresseth it self in Justification, Adoption, &c. I answer, not of the former, but of the latter. 1. God makes no such difference or distinction of men in his preventing Grace, or mercy, as the words before us, I will have mercy, on whom, &c. manifestly imply. Christ is said to have tasted death for every man, Hebr. 2.9. To have given himself a ransome for all men, &c. 1 Tim. 2.6. And accordingly God is said to command all men every where to repent, Acts 17.30. And many are said to be called, who yet are not chosen, Matth. 20.16, &c. 2. The whole discourse of the Apostle in the context adjoyning (as hath been shewed and proved) is not concerning preventing Grace or mercy, but subsequent; as viz. concerning Justification, Adoption, &c. which do not appertain to preventing Grace, but subsequent. 3. And lastly, Evident it is, that the Apostles intent is,

to declare the Jews to be excluded from that Grace and mercy, of which he speaks all along, as in telling them, that they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the pro∣mise are counted for the seed, vers. 8. And again, That the Elder should serve the Younger, That the purpose of God stands not of works, &c. But certain it is, that these Jews were not excluded from the preventing Grace, or love, or mercy of God; for they were called by God by the Doctrine and miracles of the Apostles, yea and by the Lord Christ himself, and this by means so exceedingly efficacious, that our Saviour himself affirm∣eth that even the men of Tyre and Sidon, might or would have been converted by them, Mat. 11.21. Therefore the Grace or mercy spoken of in the words in hand, must needs be the subsequent grace or mercy of God. And if so, it cannot be understood (so neither in the Verse following) of any such mercy in God towards men, by which men yet unregenerate, and in their sins, are in∣abled, much less necessitated, to repent, or beleeve; but (as hath been said) of that Grace or mercy, which is vouchsafed unto them, who do now repent, and be∣leeve. So that the meaning of the words, I will have mercy, on whom &c. in the Apostles citation and appli∣cation of them is, as if God should have said; I will justifie, adopt, save, and glorifie persons in what capa∣city, and under what qualifications soever I my self please, and will not be ordered or taught by men what I have to do, or what becometh me to do, in this kind.

As the said words were spoken by God unto Moses, [Exod. 33.19.] they seem to be of somewhat a differ∣ent import, yet of affinity enough (in the general) with the sence now given, and the scope of the Apostle in the

present context. And it is the manner of the Evan∣gelists, and Apostles, yea, and sometimes of Christ him∣self, in the New Testament, to cite passages from the old, for the confirmation or proof of what they teach, when there is onely an analogy or proportion of sence or matter, between the one and the other. The occa∣sion of Gods speaking thus unto Moses, I will have mer∣cy on whom, &c. as appears from the context, was this: Moses vers. 13. and 16. of the said Chapter [Exod. 33.] had desired of God that he would consider that the Jews were his people, and that he would please to go before them, and lead them their way, that so it might be known in the world, that both he and his people, had found grace in his sight. This God promiseth unto him that he will do, notwithstanding their frowardness and stiff-neckedness: and moreover, signifieth unto Moses, that for himself he had found Grace in his sight. Upon this gracious Declaration of God unto him, Moses takes the boldness to make a further request unto God, viz. That He would shew him his glory, vers. 18. To this request of his also, God returns this answer: I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the Name of the Lord before thee; giving the reason hereof in the words cited by the Apostle; And I will have mer∣cy, on whom, &c. q. d. Let no man stumble or take of∣fence, that I should do that in a way of Grace and fa∣vour for thee, which I neither shall do to any of the people besides, nor ever did to any of thy Fathers be∣fore thee, not to Abraham, or to Isaac, or to Jacob, themselves, nor shall do the like to any man after thee; nor do thou thy self imagine that I am any ways a debtor unto thee, of that Grace of manifesting my glo∣ry thus unto thee, which I deny unto others; for I am a debtor unto no man; and will dispence my favours,

and so my mercies, unto such persons, and to such one∣ly, as I please. This connexive particle, And, AND I will have mercy, &c. is sometimes causal (as Calvin well observethf 1.129) and signifieth, for, or because: Sometimes again it is adversative, and signifieth but, (See Ainsworth on Gen. 2.17.) which signification very well accordeth in the place before us; which is accordingly rendred by Junius, and Tremellius, and Piscator. Whereas our Apostle following the Septuagint (as the Evangelists, Christ himself, and the Apostles more commonly do in their citations from the old Testament) reads the former clause thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I will have mercy, on whom I have mercy. Arias Montanus, out of the Hebrew, renders it thus: gratiam addam cui gratiam addam, i. e. I will add Grace, to whom I will add Grace: Junius thus; sed gra∣tiosus ero, cui fuero gratiosus, i. e. But I will be gracious, to whom I shall be gracious. It is like the seventy did not accurately distinguish between Grace and mercy; and so took the liberty to translate the word properly signifying the former, by the latter. Though the dif∣ference between them be not much material; yet it was more properly matter of Grace, in God unto Moses, then of mercy, to make such a signal discovery unto him of his glory, as here he promiseth to do; unless we shall say, that Moses was somewhat miserable, before this manifestation was made unto him, and releived by it; both which (haply) in a sence, and this tolerable enough, may be admitted. The same act of God to∣wards men, may be, and more generally is, both an act of Grace, and of mercy, though in different conside∣rations. However, God, in the words before us unto Moses, with an high hand of Authority asserteth his absolute liberty to confer both the one and the other on whom himself onely pleaseth; saying not onely, I

WILL be gracious, or will add grace, to whom I will be gracious, but also, And I will have compassion, on whom I will have compassion. As for the version of the Sep∣tuagint, used here, or elsewhere by the Holy Ghost in the New Testament, though it may be a question whether it be hereby justified, or avouched for a true Translation, yet is it out of controversie authorized hereby for Truth, (at least so much of it as is here cited) and made Canonical and Authentick Scripture. Our English Translators rendring the latter part of either clause of the Verse, in the Future tense, On whom I will have mercy; and so, On whom I will have compassion, herein follow Moses, rather then Paul, who expresseth both in the present tense. As well the sence, as the em∣phaticalness of the Assertion, is alike preserved in both readings. Onely that is to be minded by the way, that it was no part of the Apostles intent by owning the Septu∣agint in their exchanging tenses with Moses, to strength∣en Calvins apprehension, occasioned (as it seems) there∣by; his conceit being, that the words sound to this ef∣fect; On whom I have once decreed to shew mercy, I will never take away my mercy from him, and will follow him with perpetual kindness, to whom I once decreed to be kindg 1.130. Such Positions as these are no consectaries to the A∣postles Doctrine; the intent whereof (as hath been pro∣ved) is onely to assert a liberty in God to shew mercy, to confer Justification, Adoption, Salvation, &c. upon whom, or what manner of persons, himself pleaseth; not a liberty, much less a purpose, to continue these, or any like mercies unto such persons as men shal ob∣trude upon him, and particularly not unto such, unto whom he hath most severely threatned and declared that they shall not be continued. Now many of those, who God decreed upon their beleeving, from eternity

to justifie, and adopt, apostatize from, and make ship∣wrack of their Faith (as the Scripture in many places testifieth) from whom he hath peremptorily threatned to take away the Grace of Justification, which before he had conferred upon themh 1.131: Therefore the Empha∣tical import of the Apostles expression, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I will have mercy on whom I have [now, or at present] mercy, respects the same species, not the same persons of men; being as if he had said, To that sort or kind of men, to whom now, or at this day, I shew mercy [viz. in pardoning their sin, and justifying their persons, meaning, Beleevers,] I will shew the like mercy at all times hereafter to the worlds end. Or rather thus: I will have mercy, on whom I have mercy, i. e. I will not, or there is no reason that I should, be taken off, or put by, by men, or by Angels, from shewing the grace or mercy of Justification, and Adoption, unto those [i. e. that kind of men] to whom I at this day, shew this grace or mercy; and these are such who beleeve; on these I am ultimately and unremoveably resolved to shew mercy. According to, as well the one exposition, as the other, God asserteth his liberty against all opposers, and con∣tenders with him, to dispence his high favours where, and on whom himself pleaseth.

If it be demanded, But is this a sufficient Argument or Plea to vindicate the justice of God in justifying and adopting those that beleeve, viz. that himself challeng∣eth or asserteth unto himself a liberty, or a resolution, thus to do: I answer, the plea is both sufficient in it self; and also in reference to the Jews, with whom particularly the Apostle had here to do. First, it is suf∣ficient in it self, upon this foundation; viz. that God is absolutely righteous and just. If so, then can he not con∣ceive within him an act of will, but what is righteous and

just; nor claim a liberty in one kind or other, but what is just likewise. Not that he makes a thing, an action, righteous or just, by willing or doing it, which is not such in it self, and so would have been, whether he had willed, or done it, or no; but by willing or doing any thing, he fully declares the righteousness, yea and somewhat more, I mean, the meetness or fitness of it, to be done, at least at such a time when he doth it. To say that whatsoever God willeth, or doth, is just, is a truth, and well consistent with his glory. But to say, concerning things that are in themselves, and in their own natures, unrighteous or unjust, that in case God should do them, he would here∣by make them just or righteous, is extreamly disho∣nourable to him, and (as Calvin truly observes) despoils him of the glory of his justicea 1.132.

2. For the Jews, the said plea was every ways suf∣ficient and convincing unto them, because they acknow∣ledged the perfect righteousness of God: and so could not but subscribe any liberty that God should claim to himself, as righteous and just.

I do not observe amongst Interpreters any difference made between the two words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the former clause translated, I will have mercy, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the latter, rendred, I will have compassion. They generally take both words, as purely synonymous, and the self-same in signification, onely conceiving that a plurality of words co-incident in sence is more emphatical, and im∣porteth a certain vehemency, or intensness of spirit in him that speaketh, about that which he so uttereth. And the truth is, that it is very hard to assign any difference between the two words, which will be found any ways pertinent to the Apostles discourse. The Greek Lexicons commonly expound the one by the other; so leaving

us under a presumption, that neither of them signifie any thing more, nor any thing less, nor any thing else, then the other. Notwithstanding if the grammatical propriety of the words were narrowly scann'd, the for∣mer word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, would (I conceive) be found to sig∣nifie the inward passion, or affection it self of mercy, and the latter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the outward expression or fruit there∣of, in one kind or other. According to this distincti∣on of the words (to which notwithstanding I would not have too much ascribed,) God in the words before us, may be thought to make this Declaration of himself to the world, viz. that he may of right, and according∣ly will, both inwardly in heart and soul pity and com∣passionate, and outwardly also and visibly express these gracious affections to, whomsoever himself pleas∣eth.

The difference between the two words in the Hebrew, according as they are rendred by Arias Montanus, Ju∣nius and Tremelius, and as our English Translators like∣wise (in consent with them) read them, is of more easie Observation. For here the former clause speaks thus: And [I] will be gracious, to whom I will be gracious; the latter thus: And will shew mercy, on whom I will shew mercy. To be gracious, properly imports a pro∣pensness of mind and will to do some signal good with∣out any motive or ingagement thereunto from without, especially from the person, or persons, to whom this good is done, or intended. To shew mercy, imports one∣ly the releiving of those that are in misery out of a merciful disposition. Grace may as well be shewed to him that is not in misery, as to him that is: and mercy may be shewed to him, whom we have some ingagement upon us to relieve, as well as to him, from whom we are wholly free in this kind. So that the formal and

strict significations of the words Grace and mercy, are very different. Though acts of Grace, and acts of mer∣cy, are sometimes the same materially, and make (as it were) but one and the same stream or current, yet are they different in their springs or fountains. There∣fore when our Apostle presenteth God as saying unto Moses, I will have mercy, on whom I have mer∣cy, he is to be understood, of that kind of mercy (to∣gether with the fruits, or effects of it) which is purely gracious, no ways provoked, assisted or strengthned by any motive or ingagement from those, to whom it is shewed. From hence it follows, that that mercy, the shewing of which unto whom he pleaseth, is here claim∣ed (prerogative-wise) by God, is not so much (if at all) provoked, wrought upon, or drawn out, by the misery of those to whom it is shewed, as by the wise, gracious, and good pleasure of God himself; for otherwise, there are many thousands altogether as miserable, as those, on whom this mercy is shewed by him, to whom notwith∣standing it is not vouchsafed. Which is a plain argu∣ment, that it is not of that kind of mercy, the exercise whereof is drawn out or procured, by any thing what∣soever in those to whom it is shewed, no not by their misery it self; but of such a kind, which though it re∣lieveth some of those that are miserable (in which re∣spect it is called, mercy) yet it doth it not because they are miserable, (for then it should relieve them all, as hath been said) but because it pleaseth it self, or him in whom it resideth, so to do. In this respect it differs very little, or nothing at all, from Grace: So that our Apostle, exchanging Moses his, I will be gracious, to whom I will be gracious, into, I will have mercy, on whom I will have mercy, was but his Interpreter; and sheweth that the Grace, of which he spake, was of that kind of Grace,

which as well disposeth the subject to the gratuitous, or undeserved relief of such miserable ones, as himself pleaseth, as to the advancement of their comforts or well being, whose condition is at present, prosperous and desirable, as the condition of Moses himself was, when God spake the words unto him.

From the testimony now opened, wherein God (as we have heard) asserteth his liberty of shewing mercy to whom he pleaseth, the Apostle infers thus: So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God [Vers. 16] that sheweth mercy. q. d. Since it is God that hath, and will have mercy, on whom he will have mercy, [i. e. as hath been said, will justifie, adopt, save, and glorifie, whom, and what manner of persons himself pleaseth,] it plain∣ly follows, that Justification (with the rest of the bless∣ings attending on it) is not [viz. in respect of the terms, Law, or condition of it] of those [i. e. by their ap∣pointment, or at their will or contrivement] who are the most diligent and zealous observers of the Law (much less of any other sort of men) but onely of God, [i. e. by the counsel, will, pleasure, and appointment of God] and this most equitably, and upon the best and clearest account of reason, viz. because it is he that sheweth mercy, [i. e. who freely, of his own accord, without any ingagement from men, or any other crea∣ture, affords unto men the opportunity and means of Justification, and thereby of life, peace, and salvation, and eternal happiness, whereas he was at full liberty whether he would ever have called, or admitted any per∣son of mankind whatsoever, being fallen, unto justifi∣cation (and so unto those other blessings) upon any terms, condition, or conditions, whatsoever.]

Those words [it is] are inserted in the Translati∣on, as necessary to be supplied; being omitted in the

Original, as easie to be supplied. The like Ellipsis we shall have vers. 32.

That by him that willeth, and him that runneth [here opposed unto God that sheweth mercy] is meant the whole species or kind of such persons, who are most zealously intent, and bent in their spirits upon the keeping of the Law, in order to, or upon hope of, their justification thereby, is (I presume) the sence of most, if not all, Expositors: or however, is in it self a thing too manifest to be reasonably denied; though I do not conceive onely such as these, and no others, to be here meant. The Jews, with whom our Apostle, had either onely, or chiefly, to do, in the place in hand, (as we have been oft informed) were both great willers, [or Desirers] of Justification, and great runners also, [i. e. laborious observers of the Law, for the obtaining of it.] This the Holy Ghost, both in the sequel of this Chapter, vers. 31, 32. and elsewhere in Scripture, plain∣ly signifieth. But Israel, which followed after the Law of righteousness, [i. e. by the Figure hypallage, the righ∣teousness of the Law, if Calvin expoundeth it aright] hath not attained the Law of righteousness [i. e. hath not found the terms of justification, prescribed, and autho∣rized by God.] Wherefore? Because they sought it [i. e. righteousness or justification] not by Faith, but as it were by the works of the Law. But more of these words in their place; at present we onely observe from them, That the Jews did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, earnestly pur∣sue a Law, by which they hoped, to be justified: See also Rom. 10.2, 3. Acts 15.1. and 21.20. and else∣where. So that there is little question, but that, by him that willeth, and him that runneth, the Apostle mean∣eth such persons, who were or shall be raised to the greatest height of desire after justification in the sight

of God, (and consequently, after salvation also,) and who were, and shall be, most industrious likewise and active in their way, for the obtaining of this crowni 1.133. In saying (in the sence declared) that it is not of these, but of God, &c. he plainly intimateth, that such persons as these, are more apt and likely then others, to obtrude terms of justification upon God, or (which amounteth to the same) to challenge and expect the great prviiledg or benefit of justification from God, upon the account of their zeal and works. They that languish in their spirits, that are chill and cold in respect of any great thoughts, or heat of desire after righteousness, and are withall neglective of such ways and works, upon the ac∣count whereof they can with some colour or pretext of reason, demand or expect the reward of righteousness, or justification from God, have no temptation upon them in this kind; I mean, to obtrude the merit of works upon God for a rule, or Law, by which he shall justifie men. But great Willers and Runners, are far more liable to have their feet taken in this snare, espe∣cially when they are ignorant of the righteousness of God (as our Apostle speaks afterwards) and know not that God hath made Faith in him through Jesus Christ, the Law of Justification unto the world.

But though by him that willeth, and him that runneth (in the words before us) the Apostle primarily (as hath been hinted) intendeth Jewish Justiciaries, and such as trust to the Law, and their own righteousness therein, for justification, yet that which he here affirmeth of these, viz. that Justification is not of them (in the sence declared) but of God that sheweth mercy, is as true of them who will and run, in the right way appointed by God himself, for justification, viz. in the way of beleeving. For neither is justification any whit more of such willers

and runners, as these, then of the others, in as much as true Beleevers themselves are at no hand justified by any Law, or terms, prescribed by themselves for their justification; nor would Faith, or beleeving it self, have justified them any whit more then the Law, or the works thereof, had it not been sanctifi∣ed and established for such a purpose, by a far great∣er power and authority then theirs, even by him that sheweth mercy. For it is the will, purpose, ordinance, or decree of God, not of Beleevers, by the efficacy, force, and power whereof Faith in Christ becomes ju∣stifying; according to that of our Saviour, And this is the WILL of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and beleeveth on him, should have everlast∣ing life (and consequently, be justified in order here∣unto) Joh. 6.40. See upon the same account, Joh. 1.12. Joh. 3.16, &c.

From the premises, (I presume) it is as clear as the Sun, that the Apostle in the words yet before us, doth not speak of that which Divines commonly call, pre∣venting grace, nor of any thing precedaneous, either to beleeving or working (and consequently, neither of Ele∣ction from eternity, nor yet of any grace or power from God, whereby to beleeve, or the like) but of that which is subsequent, to beleeving (as Paul affirmed) or to working, (as the Jews) viz. Justification, Adopti∣on, Salvation, &c. So that his meaning (without dis∣pute) is not, either that Election is not of him that will∣eth, nor of him that runneth, but of &c. nor that Faith, or power to beleeve, is not &c. but that justification is not of, or from either, or both, of these, but from God, who sheweth mercy. It is true indeed, that neither Election, whether from Eternity, or in time; nor yet Faith, or power to beleeve, are any whit more (sensu

Orthodoxo, & Scripturali) from him that willeth, or from him that runneth, then Justification and Adoption them∣selves: i. e. as they who are elected (with such an Election as the Scripture owneth, be it what it will be) are not the Authors, or principal Efficients, or meritorious causes, of their Election; so neither are they, any of these in respect of their Faith, or power to beleeve; in this sence neither is Election, nor Faith, nor Grace, of him that willeth, or of him that runneth, but of God,k 1.134 &c. But the series and line of discourse running all along the Context, evidently sheweth that the Apostle here, speaketh neither of Election, nor of beleeving, nor of grace to beleeve; but (as hath been oft said) of Justi∣fication, Adoption, &c. And besides, nothing can be more evident, then that in the words in hand, So then, it is neither of him that runneth &c. he concludeth somewhat in opposition to his Antagonists the Jews. Now there was no contest at all between them and him, either about Election from eternity, or about either a suffici∣ency, or non-sufficiency, of power in men to beleeve; but the solemn and famous contest between them was, about Justification, or the ground of claim to the in∣heritance, and peculiar favour of God. Therefore the antecedent to this relative pronoun, It, (expressed in our Translation, and understood in the Original) It is not of him &c. is either Justification, Adoption, or the like, not Election, or beleeving. The like con∣struction is observable elsewhere in this Epistle. There∣fore [it is] of Faith, that it might be by Gracel 1.135. Here also the words [it is] are not found in the Original, but left to be supplied by him that readeth: and the substantive or antecedent, which, according to Gram∣mar

exigency, must here sensifie, or relate unto, the pronoun, IT, cannot be either Faith, as is evident, be∣cause then Faith should be said to be of Faith; nor E∣lection, because Election had not been so much as once named, or hinted, in the precedure of the discourse; nor was there the least occasion of saying here, Election was not of Faith. Therefore the unquestionable An∣tecedent to the Pronoun It, in this place, is, Justificati∣on, or something including, or importing it. See also vers. 32. of this Chapter. And thus we see how the Apostle argueth for the vindication of his Doctrine concerning Justification by Faith, so far as it concerns those that are justified, and obtain mercy according to it, from the grand imputation, wherewith the Jews charg∣ed it, viz. of rendring God unrighteous. Before we pro∣ceed to his vindication of it from the same imputation, in respect of those, or of all those, who are excluded from mercy, or condemned, by it (v. 17, 18. (let us take knowledg of some of the special heads of Doctrine con∣tained in the Verses last opened.

1. Whereas the Jews (as the Apostle insinuates, vers. 14.) charged his Doctrine of Justification by Faith, that it made God unrighteous, or unjust, inferring, that upon this account, it must needs be erroneous and false; It may be observed, That even the greatest and most im∣portant truths are sometimes liable to such Objections, which vail their beauty and worth from the eyes of many intelli∣gent men otherwise. Joh. 1.46. and 3.4, 9.

2. From these words, God forbid, (vers. 14.) import∣ing the Apostles zeal in abhorring every Doctrine, which either expressly, or by consequence, chargeth God with unrighteousness, it is further observable, That All such Tenents or Doctrines, which reflect any matter of unrighteousness, or hard dealing, upon God,

ought to be the abhorring of a Christian soul, Rom. 3.4, 5.

3. Whereas God himself saith to Moses, I will have mercy, on whom I will have mercy, &c. the Doctrine is, That God is absolutely and ultimately resolved to follow the counsel of his own will, in, and about the justification of men, and not to suffer himself to be imposed upon by any creature whatsoever, in this behalf. Eph. 1.11. Rom. 3.22.24, 25, 28, 30, &c.

4. Whereas to vindicate the righteousness of God in justifying those that beleeve, the Apostle insisteth onely upon words spoken by himself, wherein he claims a libertie, or right of power, to justifie whom, or what manner of persons he pleaseth, the Observati∣on from hence is, That God is a competent Judg even in his own case. Or thus, Whatsoever God doth, or is resolv∣ed to do, is both by the one, and the other, unquestionably pro∣ved to be just, Rom. 3.4. Gen. 18.25.

5. Whereas the Holy Ghost (according to the pre∣cedent Exposition of vers. 15.) expresseth Justification by shewing, or having mercy on men, it is observable; That No act of Grace from God towards his creature, man, preceding justification, neither Election, nor the giving of Christ to die for them, nor the vouchsafement of ability or means for beleeving, &c. exempteth him from being tru∣ly miserable. Hence is it that Justification is termed the Blessedness, or blessed-making of a man. Rom. 6, 7, 1, 9. Psal. 32.1, 2.

6. From the same consideration, (viz. that the Holy Ghost expresseth Justification by shewing mercy) it is fur∣ther observable, That Justification is an act of mercy, or meer Grace, in God, notwithstanding the performance of that condition by men, which God requireth of them in order thereunto. Rom. 4.16. Tit. 3.5, 6, 7. Ephes. 2.8.

7. From these words (vers. 16.) So then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, &c. it is very observ∣able, That men zealously devoted and addicted to any way whatsoever of serving God, are apt to think, and this with confidence, that they highly commend themselves unto him thereby, and must needs be approved of him more then o∣thers, for the same. Joh. 16.2. Acts 20.9, 10.

8. (And lastly) From those words, But of God that sheweth mercy, (as they have been interpreted) this Do∣ctrine ariseth, That the right of nominating and appoint∣ing the Law, or terms, of justification, most equitably apper∣taineth unto God upon this account, viz. Because it is of his meer Grace and Mercy, that men having sinned, are called and admitted unto justification, upon any terms whatsoever. Rom. 3.21, 22, 30. Joh. 6.40.

[Vers. 17] For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, [or, on thee,] and that my Name might be de∣clared [Vers. 18] throughout all the Earth. Therefore hath he mer∣cy, on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will, he hard∣eneth.

The Apostle, having from that expression of God unto Moses (lately opened) I will have mercy, on whom &c. vindicated his Doctrine of Justification by Faith, from any repugnancy unto, or inconsistency with, the justice or righteousness of God, wherewith the Jews charg∣ed it, vers. 14. in respect of those that are justified, and saved by it, in the words now before us he proceeds un∣to the like vindication of the same Doctrine, in respect of those, who in the end come to be condemned by it, and perish. For if there should be found any thing unrighteous or unjust, either in the justification and sal∣vation of those, who are justified, and saved according to the tenour and import of such a Doctrine, or in the

condemnation and reprobation of those, who are con∣demned and perish by it, as well the one, as the other, would evince it to be a Doctrine inconsistent with the righteousness of God, and consequently, erroneous and false. Therefore it concern'd our Apostle to clear the innocency and righteousness of it, as well in respect of the condemnation of the latter, as of the justification of the former. Having performed this (as hath been said) vers. 15. and 16. he comes in this 17^th verse to perform the other. The words are somewhat obscure, (especi∣ally in their relation and accommodation to the Apo∣stles purpose) and accordingly (as it commonly befalls passages of like difficulty) have been troubled with va∣riety of Interpretations. We shall (God assisting) for the clearing of all things, relating to them, 1. Consi∣der some circumstances, under which the words here mentioned, Even for this same purpose have I &c. were spoken. 2. We shall open the dialect or phrase here used, and so give the sence and meaning of the words. 3. (And lastly) we shall shew how the said words and passage accommodate the Apostle in that cause which he is now pleading, and how they prove, that there is no unrighteousness in Gods reprobating or condemning, who, or what manner of persons he pleaseth, and con∣sequently, not in his reprobating or condemning those, who shall not beleeve, his pleasure being to reprobate and condemn these, and all these, and these onely.

For the first of these, there are three Circumstances considerable for the better understanding of the words. First, the person speaking. 2. The person spoken un∣to. 3. The time, when they were spoken.

First, the Apostle saying, That the Scripture saith un∣to &c. implieth, that the words were spoken by God himself, who is the Author of the Scripture. Else∣where

upon the same account, what God speaketh un∣to men in, or by the Scripture, the Scripture it self is said to speak, or say; as sometimes also what he speak∣eth by men, the men by whom he speaketh, are said to speak it. See Rom. 10.11. and 11.2. Gal. 3.8.22. 1 Tim. 5.18. &c. Now the place where the Scrip∣ture, or God in the Scripture, speaketh the words under consideration, is Exod. 9.16. where we find, that Moses was commanded by God, to speak (a∣mongst other things) the words specified, unto Pha∣raoh.

2. Concerning the person, to whom the words were spoken by God, he is expresly said to have been Pha∣raoh. But because (about these times) the Name of Pharaoh, was appropriated unto the Kings of Egypt, respectively in their successionsl 1.136, (as afterwards the Name of Ptolomy) the individual person here meant cannot be known meerly by the Name attributed unto him. Onely (in the Negative) certain it is, that this Pharaoh was not He, of whom Stephen speaketh saying, That he dealt subtilly with their kindred, and evill intreat∣ed their Fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live: And so neither that Pha∣raoh, who lay in wait for the life of Moses, and caused him to flee the Country, and to betake himself to the land of Midian for his safety. For it is expresly said, Exod. 2.23. that this Pharaoh was dead, before any thing was given in charge by God, either unto Moses, or any other person, about the dismission, or deliverance of his people out of Egypt. And probable it is, that the Pharaoh, after whom we are now enquiring, was either the next, or next but one, in succession unto the for∣mer;

from the beginning of whose reign, untill the reign of our Pharaoh, there passed (as is conceived) the space of about fourscore yearsm 1.137. It doth not appear that this Pharaoh walked in the steps of his Predecessor, in causing the male-children of the Israelites to be put to death; but he exercised another kind of cruelty towards them, whereby at once (as he conceived) he consult∣ed both the safety and security of his Kingdom, against the strengh and power of the people of Israel, (which seems to have been the chief design of him, that would suffer none of their male children to live,) and likewise the increasing of his revenues, and inriching of himself. This was by grinding their faces, by oppressing them with an intolerable servitude, compelling them by stripes and threatnings unto hard labour, and this with little or no consideration of wages, or otherwise, for their work. This is that Pharaoh, who was oft admo∣nished from God, by the Ministry of Moses and Aa∣ron, who also wrought sundry miracles in his sight, for the confirmation of their Embassie, to suffer his people to depart out of his Land. Notwithstanding, though he sometimes, upon the incumbency of some of the plagues and judgments inflicted upon his Land and people, seem∣ed to relent, and to be willing that the people of God should have liberty to depart, yet soon after the remove∣ing, or ceasing of the stroak, became the same man that he was before, and still detained this people in their most miserable bondage and thraldom, contrary to the ex∣press order and command of God, sent, and signified unto him in that behalf. This is that Pharaoh, to whom God said, For this end have I raised thee up, &c.

3. (And lastly,) for the time, wherein the said words were spoken unto Pharaoh; evident it is from Exod. 9.16. that it was after the sixt plague or stroke

inflicted upon him, and his land, and when another (the seventh) was now at the door, and ready to be inflict∣ed also. A little before the infliction and immission hereof, God dispatcheth an admonitory message unto him by the hand of Moses; wherein he threatneth and declareth, that though he had spared his life hitherto, ha∣ving been as a dead man before him for his high Re∣bellion, yet unless he shall timely repent, set his people at liberty, and suffer them peaceably to depart, he will draw out his power to an higher degree against him, and punish him yet more severely then he had done hitherto, that so he may make it known unto all the world, he is a God Great and terrible, above what the world conceived of him before. The substance of this message is contained in the words before us.

2. For the words themselves, the tenour of them (as we have heard) is this: Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew, &c. The Apostles pre∣face to them, [For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh] we have (in part) opened already, shewing, that when he af∣firmeth, that the Scripture spake thus unto Pharaoh, his meaning was, that God spake it, and that the Scripture onely relateth or reporteth it, as so spoken by him. We have likewise shewed, who, or what that Pharaoh was, to whom they were spoken. The ratiocinative or causal particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for, [For the Scripture saith, &c.] connecteth the words following with those preceding; yet (haply) not with those immediatly preceding, v. 16. but rather with those, vers. 14. God forbid [viz. that any Doctrine should be taught by men, or any man, which importeth any unrighteousness in God] although either of these con∣nexions may stand. If we conceive the word to relate to vers. 14. the import of the connexion is this: The Apostle having there peremptorily denied, that his

Doctrine of Justification by Faith any ways inferreth any unrighteousness in God, and having proved, this in respect of those that are saved according to the tenor of it, v. 15, 16. vers. 17. he proceeds to a like vindication of it in respect of those that perish (according to the sence and import of it,) For (saith he) the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, &c. q. d. There can be no unrighteousness in God, in condemning, or destroying those, who shall not beleeve; for, or because, the Scripture saith unto Pha∣raoh, &c. meaning that Gods proceedings in judgment against Pharaoh, a stubborn and impenitent unbeleever, even to destruction, is a clear argument and proof, that he may justly condemn and destroy whom he pleaseth: and that his pleasure in this kind is, to condemn and de∣stroy impenitent unbeleevers: otherwise he would not have destroyed Pharaoh upon this account. If we ap∣prove of that connexion, which referreth the said par∣ticle, For, to the words immediatly preceding, vers. 16. So then it is not of him that willeth—but of God, that shew∣eth mercy, the coherence riseth thus: It is a plain case that the Law or terms upon which men are justified and saved, are not moulded or framed by, do not proceed from, men, though never so zealously intent and bent upon, a course of Justification in their own way, but by, and from, God onely, who sheweth mercy and freedom of Grace unto them in their justification, be∣cause the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, &c. meaning, that in as much as God himself claimeth a liberty, or right of condemning whom he pleaseth, as appeareth in his proceedings against Pharaoh, evident it it is, that he hath a like right and liberty of justifying whom he pleaseth. For he that hath a right of power to con∣demn whom he pleaseth, must of necessity, and (as it were) of course, have a like power to justifie, or ab∣solve,

whom he pleaseth. The Reader is at liberty to chuse which of these Coherences of the words he pleas∣eth; The words I mean, are;

Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. i. e. That for this same thing have I, &c. meaning, for this end or purpose. The particle, Even, appears not in the Original. For the re∣gular understanding of this Verse concerning Pharaoh, and the Apostles drift in it, we shall endeavour these two things; 1. Distinctly to shew and declare the end, or purpose, for which God himself here saith, that He raised up Pharaoh. 2. To open the sence and true im∣port of this phrase, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I have raised thee up. By a diligent and narrow contemplation of the end, for which God is said to have raised up Pharaoh, we shall be the better able to conceive aright of this act of God done by him in order thereunto.

The end for which God raised up Pharaoh, is here ex∣pressed by this subordination. 1. That He might shew his power in him. 2. That hereby his Name might be de∣clared throughout all the Earth. First, Evident it is that the power of God, of which he here speaks, is that pu∣nishing or revenging power, which soon after he exert∣ed in Pharaohs destruction. This appears by comparing herewith vers. 22. What if God willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, &c. These two phrases, shewing his wrath, and making his power known, are mutually exegetical, and the one doth expound the other. So that that Power, which God did intend to shew in, or on, Pharaoh, was the power of his wrath, (as David calleth it, Psal. 90.11.) i. e. how strong, and mighty, and terrible above measure he is to punish, and take vengeance, when he pleaseth, and the nature of the sin and provocation of offenders, will bear it.

Whereas he adds this for the reason, why he purposed to make his power known on Pharaoh, viz. that his Name might [hereby] be declared throughout all the Earth, he signifieth, that the punishment or judgment which he meant to inflict upon Pharaoh should be most extraor∣dinary, and terrible, insomuch that the tidings thereof, should make all the world to tremble, and himself known to be a God exceeding terrible in executing ven∣geance upon impenitent and obdurate sinners, though never so great and mighty on the Earth. But although the punishment here denounced against Pharaoh, as in∣tended by God to be inflicted on him, and on his peo∣ple, be in the letter of the threatning, chiefly meant of those outward plagues, which were successively inflict∣ed upon him, and the Egyptians, and more especially of that final overthrow, wherein both he, and a mighty host of his men with him, perished in the red Sea, yet there is little question to be made, but that these tem∣poral and external judgements, not working a sound Repentance in those, who were summoned to such a Re∣pentance by them, were fore-runners of, and accompa∣nied with, the vengeance of eternal fire. Yet whether Pharaoh himself, or any of the Egyptians with him, might or did truly repent, in the immediate approaches of death (which is not impossible for any man, free from the guilt of the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost, to do, although I judg them to be exceeding few who do it) since I find it no where revealed, or de∣termined, in the Scripture, neither shall I determine. However as we reasoned before concerning Esau, that although it be said that God hated him, yet it cannot be proved from hence, nor from any other Scripture, that therefore he was a Reprobate and finally perished, (much less that he was reprobated by God from eter∣nity;)

and further, that though he should not be suppo∣sed a Reprobate in this sence, yet he may (with conve∣niency enough) be a type of those who are, or prove, such; in like manner, we affirm concerning Pharaoh, 1. That it cannot convincingly be proved from the Scriptures, that he perished everlastingly, or died under a sentence of Reprobation, much less can it be proved, that he was reprobated by God from eternity. 2. That though it should not be supposed, that he perished eter∣nally, yet may he in his story, properly and commodi∣ously enough, be held forth by the Apostle as a type of those who do, and will, so perish. But this by the way.

It being granted on all hands as a thing unquestion∣able, that Gods end, or intent in raising up Pharaoh (of which phrase afterwards in its place) was the shewing of his power on him,* 1.138 and the glorifying of his Great Name hereby throughout the world; it is a question of most worthy import, and the resolution of it of absolute ne∣cessity, for a clear and through understanding of the passage in hand, whether this end and intent of his, was precise and absolute, so that nothing that Pharaoh was in any capacity, under any possibility, of doing, could pos∣sibly have hindred or taken off God from shewing his power in him, [i. e. in his destruction] &c. Or whether it was conditional onely; conditional (I mean) in this sence; viz. that in case, Pharaoh had repented, whilst the pati∣ence of God yet waited on him, and had suffered the people of God peaceably to depart out of his Land, and not followed after them, to bring them back, whether (I say) upon this supposition, God would notwith∣standing have shewed his power in destroying him, as now he did.

The far greater part of Expositors take no know∣ledg

at all of any such question as this occasioned from the place:* 1.139 but according to the ducture of the common notion of an Election of persons under a personal con∣sideration, from eternity, hold on their course of ex∣pounding, onely attempting and straining (though in vain) to bring over the words to comport with this notion. For 1. here is not the least intimation of any end propounded by God to himself from eternity a∣bout Pharaoh, but onely in time; and this after his re∣fusal to obey the express command of God for the dismission of his people, notwithstanding the certainty of this command, as from himself, had been miracu∣lously confirmed unto him by Moses. Nor 2. Is there the least or lightest hint given, that the End of God here mentioned, in raising up Pharaoh when he did, viz. The shewing of his power in him, was upon any such terms proposed, or conceived by him, that he meant actually to accomplish or effect it, against all possible interveniencies whatsoever; or particularly, whether Pharaoh should have obeyed his command by letting his people go, or no. Nor 3. is any thing insinuated, as if Pharaoh had been under an absolute impossibili∣ty of yeelding this obedience unto that his command. Nor 4. doth the context or scope of the Apostle, which (as we have formerly shewed) is to vindicate the righte∣ousness of God, in condemning and destroying whom he pleaseth, (as viz. wicked, stubborn, and impenitent unbeleevers) require the Assertion, intimation, or sup∣position, of any such thing here, as that Pharaoh should be peremptorily or irreversibly doomed by God from eternity to eternal destruction, the said vindication be∣ing sufficiently asserted and made good onely by Gods claiming a liberty or right of power, to destroy Phara∣oh, or any other person, in case he shall remain obdu∣rately

wicked and unbeleeving unto the end. 5. Though I am strong of belief (upon some considerations) that Pharaoh did miscarry and perish, not onely temporally, but eternally also; yet can it not be clearly or demon∣stratively proved from any Scripture, that he did thus miscarry. 6. God himself declares and promiseth, that when he shall threaten wicked men, with any judg∣ment, or with death, in case they repent before the stroke cometh, he will repent also, and not bring the judgment threatned upon them. At what instant I shall speak con∣cerning a Nation, and concerning a Kingdom, to plack up, and to pull down, and to destroy it: If that Nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evill, I will re∣pent of the evill that I thought to do to them, Jer. 18.7, 8. And soon after vers. 11. Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I frame evill against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from the evill of his way, and make your ways and your doings good; meaning, that then, he would not execute the evill, which he had de∣vised [i. e. purposed, intended, and projected] against them. See also Zeph. 2.1, 2. Amos 4.12. (with many the like;) Now this message of God unto Pharaoh, For this same purpose have I raised thee up, to shew, &c. is minatory or threatning; and so the evil therein threat∣ned preventable by Repentance. 7. There is nothing more frequent and usuall in the Scriptures, then for the Holy Ghost to express such purposes and intentions of God simply, absolutely, and without any specifica∣tion or mention of a condition, which yet are conditi∣onally to be understood, as the event and issue of things hath in many cases made fully manifest. This message God sent to Nineveh by the Prophet Jonah, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be destroyedn 1.140. In this passage Gods intent to destroy Nineveh is positively, and with∣out

condition, expressed: yet the event plainly sheweth, that this intention of his was conditional, and not meant to be put in execution but onely in case of their im∣penitency, upon the denunciation of it unto them. The like is evident in that message to Eli: Wherefore the Lord God of Israel saith, I said indeed, [i. e. I really,o 1.141 or veri∣ly intended, and promised accordingly] that thy house, and the house of thy Father, should walk before me [viz.* 1.142 in the Office and dignity of the Priesthood] for ever: But now the Lord saith, be it far from me, &c. And it is matter of ready Observation, that the threatnings of God against sinners in every kind, are (almost) every where in Scripture positively and assertively expressed, without mention of any condition, as of Faith, Repent∣ance or the like, by which the great evil or misery intend∣ed and included in them, maybe prevented, which condi∣tions never the less are to be understood; otherwise the mind of God in such threatnings will utterly, & with im∣minent danger to the precious souls of men, be mistaken. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the King∣dom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idola∣ters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind: Nor theeves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the Kingdome of Godp 1.143. The counsel, purpose, and intentions of God for the destruction of all the several kinds of sinners here specified, are positively and absolutely (in respect of words) denounced; which yet we all know are conditionally to be understood, and with the reserve or supposal onely of final impenitency. Places of like Character and phrase, see Eph. 5.6. Mark 16.16. Joh. 3.36. Matth. 5.19. &c. So that to understand this mes∣sage of God unto Pharaoh, conditionally, For this same purpose have I raised thee up, to shew my power in thee, &c.

[as viz. in case thou shalt remain stubborn and impeni∣tent unto the end] is every ways consonant to the Scrip∣tures.

8. (And lastly) to understand the said message other∣wise, and as if Gods intent in raising up Pharaoh here mentioned, had been peremptory, positive, and absolute, so that notwithstanding Pharaoh should have behaved himself never so penitently, submissively, and obedient∣ly, under, or upon this message declared unto him, yet God would have shewed his power, as now he did, in destroying him, doth not onely oppose the main stream and current of the Scriptures, together with that most gracious Manifesto published by God himself unto the world, Jer. 18.7, 8. (lately mentioned,) but is repug∣nant also to that greater and more beloved end of God, (here likewise expressed) viz. the Declaration of his Name throughout all the Earth. For (questionless) by this Declaration of his Name, God doth not simply or onely mean, a publication or making known of his mighty power, whereby he is able to crush or destroy his creature, but the making known of this power to∣gether with his righteousness or just severity in the ex∣ercise of it for the destruction of all impenitent and stubborn sinners, who will not be reclaimed in due time. Now in case Pharaoh should have repented, and brought forth fruit worthy repentance, visible to the world, when God had shewed his power in destroying him, it would not have been the true Name of God, or any Name worthy him, that would hereby have been de∣clared throughout the world: because it must needs have signified, that as he is dreadfully irresistible in his power, so is he wont to exert and make use of it, for the destruction of those who truly repent and submit un∣to him, in case they have formerly rebelled, and been

disobedient. Certainly God doth not intend or project, by one means or other, such a representation of him∣self as this in the world.

If it be objected and said: But Gods intent was, that Pharaoh should not repent, or at least fore-saw, that he would not repent: and upon the foundation of this his foresight, resolved peremptorily to shew his power in his ruine. To this I answer:

1. It cannot be proved from any Scripture, that Gods intent was, especially from eternity, no nor yet from the beginning of his Treaty with him, that Pharaoh should not repent. Nay,

2. Though it should be granted that God foresaw that Pharaoh would not repent (albeit in strictness and and propriety of speech, God doth not foresee any thing, but onely seeth and beholdeth all things as pre∣sent) yet it must be granted that he foresaw likewise that Pharaoh might have repented, if he had pleased. For Pharaoh was under no more, no other necessity of non-repenting by means of the foresight of God that he would not repent, then he would have been under, in case it could, and should, be supposed, that God had not foreseen it. It is a Maxime delivered by Austin long since, and hath been generally received by men of best learning, judgment, and insight into the Scrip∣tures; That God by his foreknowledg doth not necessitate or constrain the coming to pass of the things foreknown by him. Therefore it doth not follow from Gods fore∣sight of Pharaohs non-Repentance, that his intent was, that he should not repent, or that he decreed his non-repentance. In that sence wherein the Scriptures as∣scribe intentions, or desires, unto God, he may be said to have intended Pharaohs Repentance, and upon this, his preservation, notwithstanding his foreknow∣ledg

of his obduration and impenitency. For,

3. The nature and proper tendency of those Mira∣cles which God commanded Moses to work in Pharaohs sight, together with the explication of the end, for which God enabled and sent him to work them, which was, that Pharaoh by this means might certainly know, that that message or command to suffer the children of Is∣rael to depart out of his land, which was signified un∣to him by Moses, was from God; the nature (I say) and proper tendency of these, being to work Pharaoh to a ready compliance with, and obedience unto, that com∣mand of God, plainly evinceth, that Gods intent con∣cerning him was, that he should have obeyed. For though God sometimes (as David saith) maketh a fruit∣ful land barren, for the wickedness of them that dwell thereinq 1.144, yet his primary intention in planting any man in a fruitful land, is not to starve or famish him, or to slay him with hunger. And it is none of the worst sayings of the Synod of Dort: That the efficacy if the helps or means of Grace [vouchsafed by God unto men] is to be [measured, or] judged of, by the nature of the benefit offered, and by the manifest Word of God, not by the event, or abuse of themr 1.145.

4. Gods express command imposed upon Pharaoh, to let his people go, together with his often threatning him, and this very terribly, in case he should disobey, and not let them go, to which we may add, his constant execution of these threatnings accordingly; these I say, both divisim, and (especially conjunctàm) plainly shew that Gods intent concerning Pharaoh, was not that he should rebell, much less finally persist in his rebellion, but that he should obey, and let the people go. For doth any man command, and that with all seriousness and gravity, yea and under severe penalties in case of

disobedience, that which he neither intends, nor desires, should be done? Nay, doth any man that is in earnest, command that which is quite contrary to what he in∣tends or desires should be effected? Therefore certain∣ly God did not intend Pharaohs disobedience, or re∣bellion, but the contrary. Yea the native and proper tendency of all those applications, which God made unto Pharaoh, to prevail with him, to suffer his people peaceably to depart out of his land, sufficiently appear∣eth by those yeeldings and relentings of heart which they wrought in him once and again, however he hard∣ned himself again afterwards. See Exod. 8.25, 28.9.27.10.16.12.31, 32. These inclinations and wil∣lingnesses in Pharaoh to let the people go, were the ge∣nuine and proper effects of those means, which God used to make him willing thereunto, not by fits and starts, but with a composed uniformity and perseve∣rance.

5. He that is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentances 1.146, (which the Apostle Peter ex∣presly affirms of God) could not be willing (much less intend) that Pharaoh should perish, or persist in impeni∣tency.

6. Disobedience and Rebellion against just and righ∣teous Laws, are abhorrings to the soul of God;* 1.147 and therefore can be no objects of his Intentions or Decrees. Who ever intended or decreed such a thing, which is contrary to what he approveth, taketh pleasure, or de∣lights in? No man ever yet, being in the possession of his senses, though but common and ordinary, intended or decreed his own sorrow, or any thing contrary to what he approveth.

But two things (it is like) will be here objected. 1. That God often said, that he would harden Pha∣raohs

heart, that he should not let the people go, Exod. 4.21. and 7.3.13. &c. If so, did he not intend his hardening, and consequently his disobedience and ruine? 2. If God did not intend his disobedience, and impenitency, why did he not shew him mercy, taking some effectual course to prevent them? First, to the first, I answer;

That when God saith, that he will harden Pharaohs heart, &c. the meaning is not, either 1. That by any positive (much less by any forcible, or compul∣sory) action in one kind or other, he would cause Pha∣raohs heart to become obdurate or hard; this is grant∣ed on all hands. Or 2. That he would withdraw his grace, or spirit from him to such a degree, that by means hereof it should become impossible for him not to be hardned. If this be affirmed, it clearly followeth, that untill this act of God, whereby Pharaohs heart was hard∣ned, he was by means of the Grace and Spirit of God in him, in a sufficient capacity to have repented: other∣wise there could be no occasion for God to withdraw his Spirit from him, in order to his obduration, or im∣penitency; nor can such a with-drawing as this be pro∣ved from the Scriptures. Or, 3. That he meant to with∣hold the Spirit of Grace from him to any such degree, that he would leave him under an absolute impossibility of Repentance. For (besides that such a with-holding as this, cannot be proved from the Scriptures, nor by any good reason) that persons even after a long course of disobedience and rebellion against God, are yet in a capacity, or possibility at least, of repenting and sub∣mitting unto Godt 1.148, is fully evident from Ezek. 12.2, 3. (compared) and 2 Chron. 36.15, 16. (to omit many o∣ther places of like import.) So that when God said he would harden Pharaohs heart, his meaning was not, that he would interpose, either by any such action, or

non-action, whereby Pharaohs heart must of necessity be hardned; but either, 1. That he would proceed, or deal after such a manner with him, as viz. by sparing his person for a long time, by a gracious removing, and taking off time after time, those several judgements or plagues, which he brought upon his land, so giving him respit and ease between plague and plague, and by such gradual withdrawings of his Spirit from him, as by the Rule of his proceedings in like cases, his sin required, that it was none otherwise like, but that Pharaoh being a man of a proud, haughty, and prophane spirit, would be hardned thereby, and persist in the habitual stubborn∣ness of his heart against God; Or else, 2. That he would take the course specified with him, upon which he cer∣tainly knew or foresaw, that he would be hardned. Such acts are frequently in Scripture ascribed, sometimes un∣to God, and sometimes unto men, some occasion where∣of onely they administer, though they act nothing po∣sitively or directly, in order to the production of them; no nor yet intend their production. Thus God is said to have TURNED THE HEART of the Egyptians to hate his people, to deal subtilly with his servantst 1.149, onely by those providential acts of his grace towards them im∣mediatly preceding; And he encreased his people greatly, and made them stronger then their enemies. Compare herewith Exod. 1.7, 8, 9, 10, &c. It cannot reasonably be imagined (much less substantially proved) that God did multiply and increase his people with an intent hereby to expose them to the hatred of their enemies, or to exasperate the spirits of the Egyptians against them: onely by multiplying them so greatly, he ministred such an occasion unto them, which so wrought upon their evil and corrupt hearts, that it provoked their passion of hatred against them. And when God intended and

was about thus to multiply them, he might have said (and this in sufficient propriety of speech) I will exasperate and provoke the Egyptians against my people, as here he saith, I will harden Pharaohs heart, &c. Nor doth it follow, that because God knew or foresaw (though neither know¦ledg, nor fore-knowledg, are properly, or formally in Godu 1.150) that such a Providence of his would raise up a spi∣rit of envy in the Egyptians against his people, that there∣fore he intended such a thing: nor did he intend or de∣sign the fall of Adam, in, or by creating the tree of the knowledg of good and evill in Paradise, with pleasant fruit upon it; although he knew the fall of Adam would be the consequent of it, and occasioned by it. For the Intentions, as also the Decrees of God, have onely that which is good, and approved by him, for their Object, (as we lately said) and consequently, not that which is evill, or sinful. Other texts of Scripture, where the subministration onely of an occasion, upon which any thing is acted by another, entitleth the subministrator in this kind to the said Action, though he intends it not, are these, and (probably) many others. 2 Sam. 16.10. Mat. 5.32. Joh. 12.40. Rom. 14.15, 20. 1 Cor. 8.13. Gen. 45.7, 8. So that there is nothing in the first rea∣son drawn from these words of God to Moses, But I will harden Pharaohs heart, that, &c. sufficient to prove, that either Pharaohs hardning, final impenitency, or destru∣ction by it, were intended by God.

Nor is there any whit more, if not much less, in the latter. For though Pharaoh be here brought upon the stage by the Apostle, as an instance or proof of that just power or liberty, which God hath, as well to harden whom, or what manner of persons, he pleaseth, as to have mercy on whom he pleaseth (as appears from the next Verse,) yet neither will this prove that he simply and

absolutely intended Pharaohs hardning, or destruction upon it, but onely that he intended to hold such a course of dispensations towards him, which, his voluntary pride, arrogance, ignorance and contempt of God, con∣sidered, was very likely to harden him, yea and which God knew would actually, and de facto harden him, and this to destruction (as was lately touched.) For the Scripture, speaking of Gods Intentions, especially those that are primary and antecedent, never makes them concurrent with such events or productions of his pro∣vidences, or dispensations, which are accidental and oc∣casional onely, but onely with those which are natural and proper, and which the said dispensations are of themselves, and when not abused, apt to produce. Thus our Saviour himself speaketh: For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be savedx 1.151. Though a very great part of the world, (yea the far greater part of it, if we speak of men and women actually capable of beleeving) will in respect of the event, be condemned and perish, and this upon the harder terms because of Christ, yet be∣cause the gift of Jesus Christ, was an apt, proper, and direct means to save the world, and no such means ei∣ther to condemn, or to increase the condemnation of the world, therefore he asserts and appropriates the inten∣tions (the primary intentions) of God in this gift, unto the former, and removes them from the latter. And whereas elsewhere he saith, For judgment [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unto judgment] am I come into the worldy 1.152, &c. he clear∣ly speaketh onely of the event and issue of his coming, and that which is accidental thereunto, asz 1.153 Calvin himself (with the generality of Interpreters) expound∣eth it. See further upon the like account, Joh. 10.10. Mat. 8.11. Joh. 1.7. &c. Now the hardning of Pha∣raohs

heart, being no natural, proper, or direct effect, of Gods dispensations in one kind or other, towards him, but accidental and occasional onely, contrary (in∣deed) to the native tendency and bent of the said dis∣pensations, caused rather by Pharaoh himself, his volun∣tary ignorance, pride, covetousness, prophaneness, &c. then by any of them (the said dispensations) it cannot according to Scripture notion concerning God, be re∣solved into his intentions or will, [primary I mean, or antecedent] as the cause thereof; Yea, the truth is, the nature and property of the means considered, where∣in God applied himself unto Pharaoh, he may be said to have intended his repentance, peace, and safety; yea and to have gone very far, and to have done in some respect as much, or more, in order to their procuring of them, then he doth for the generality of those, who are brought to repentance and salvation by him.

If it be demanded, But if God did not intend the hardning of Pharaohs heart, how comes his case to be an argument or proof with our Apostle, of that just liberty which God claimeth to harden whom he pleas∣eth? Can the effecting of any thing accidentally, ar∣gue a just liberty to effect or do it, in him who upon such terms effecteth it? To this I answer;

1. It is true, the doing of a thing casually or acci∣dentally by men, doth not argue a liberty or right of power in them to do it. The slaying of a man acciden∣tally is no necessary Argument that he that did it, hath, or had, a justness of power, simply and directly, and with the foreknowledg of the event, to do it: although it may very possibly be, that he had a justness of power to do that, by which he accidentally slaieth this man. Yea (that which is yet more) supposing that act, by which the man is accidentally slain, was matter of duty in

him that did it, (which may very possibly be) and that the event it self (the slaying of the man) had been re∣vealed before-hand by God unto him, he had a just∣ness of power (at least) this foreknowledg of the event notwithstanding, to have done that which he did, and consequently by way of event, to slay the man. Now though nothing can be done by God, casually, or acci∣dentally, in such a sence of the words wherein they are commonly applied unto men, (viz. without a knowledg of the event,) yet very many things are done by him casually and accidentally in this sence, viz. as the words signifie the doing, effecting, or bringing to pass of such a thing, which hath no natural affinity with the means by which it is effected by such an Agent, who in good propriety of speech, may notwithstanding be said to ef∣fect it. For otherwise the truth is, that there is no ef∣fect, or event whatsoever, not that which seems, and is, most casual and accidental, but which amongst all the means and causes, by which it is produced, taken together, will be found to be produced by some, one or more, which are apt and proper to produce it. But therefore some events are called such (I mean casual, and accidental,) and this properly and truly, because some of the causes, which contribute towards their production, and without the contribution whereof it is not like they would have been effected, are in them∣selves of a contrary tendency, and would not have con∣tributed any thing towards the producing of such ef∣fects, but the contrary, had they not fallen in conjuncti∣on with, and been over-ruled by, such other causes, which were natural and proper by the opportunity of this conjunction, to produce them. Thus the destru∣ction of fools is ascribed to their prosperity. [The pro∣sperity of fools destroyeth themz 1.154,] not because prosperity,

or the bountifulness of God in the good things of this life unto men, hath in the nature of it any such malig∣nant property, which is destructive either to the peace, comfort, or lives of men, the natural and proper ten∣dency and ducture of it being to lead men unto God, and so to preserve them from destruction; but because meeting with the vanity, weakness, pride, and inconsi∣derateness of men, it occasioneth strange and fond con∣ceptions of mind and thought in them, which become snares unto them, inticing them into such ways and pra∣ctises, which prove their ruine in the end. Thus our Apostle describing the proper Genius and work of the goodness of God [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] towards men, affirms it to be, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to lead them to repentancea 1.155; which nevertheless (as in the words immediatly following he teacheth, in effect) meeting with an hard and unrelent∣ing heart, occasioneth men to treasure up wrath unto themselves against the day of wrath.

By the way, when Solomon saith, that the prosperity of fools destroyeth them, he doth not suppose, that these fools would certainly have been blest, or have escaped, in case they had not met with prosperity by the way; for certain it is, that many perish through foolishness, in an adverse or unprosperous condition. But his mean∣ing is, that when prosperity comes upon such persons, who are sinfully foolish and vain, it frequently occa∣sioneth and produceth, both their more speedy, as like∣wise their more signall and exemplary ruine. In like manner, when God is said to have hardned Pharaohs heart, [i. e. to have raised him up; for the Apostle as we shall hear in due time, signifieth but one and the same action in God, by these two expressions,] and upon it, to have shewed his power, in his destruction, it neither, 1. Supposeth that Pharaohs heart was not hardned,

until God hardned it; the contrary hereunto is evident from the story: Nor yet, 2. That Pharaohs heart would not have been further hardned, unless God had taken some such course as now he did, thus to harden it: for many mens hearts are, and have been, hardned to a great degree, without any such interposures of God, as those whereby Pharaoh became so fearfully hardned: Nor yet, 3. That Pharaoh would not have perished, or been destroyed, unless God had hardned him, as now he did, or shewed his power in his destruction, as now like∣wise he did. All that the said expressions imply (as to such matters as these) are, 1. That God did provi∣dentially apply himself unto Pharaoh upon such terms, whereby he became hardned to destruction: 2. That had he not been hardned to such an high degree as he was, yet he might have perished, onely God could not ac∣cording to those principles of wisdome and justice, by which he governs the world, and ordereth the concern∣ments of men, have shewn his power with so much ob∣servation of dread and terror, unto the world, in his de∣struction, as now he did. But of this afterwards.

In the mean time, evident it is from what hath been argued, that Pharaohs hardning by God, being fore∣known, though not intended, by him, is a proper in∣stance, and sufficient proof, of his just liberty to harden whom he will; onely this supposed, (which the Jews, with whom especially the Apostle had here to do, granted without scruple, as we all generally do) viz. that God doth nothing in one kind or other, at any time, or in reference to any person, but what he hath a just and full liberty to do. How the prescience or foreknowledg of God differs from his Intentions; and how comprehen∣sive, in respect of the object, the former is above the lat∣ter, hath been argued at large elsewhereb 1.156. So then men

have no competent ground to judg, that Gods intent or end in raising up Pharaoh (which is said to be the shewing of his power in him, and the glorifying of his Name thereby) was positive and absolute (in the sence formerly declared) but conditional onely; and intend∣ed to be put in execution in case of his perseverance in his former stubbornness, and not otherwise, as viz. in case he had in time so repented of his rebellion against God, as to suffer his people to depart his land in peace.

If it be yet further objected, That the express tenor of the words, For this very thing, or cause, have I raised thee up, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. proveth, that the shewing of Gods power in Pharaoh [i. e. in his destruction] was the ve∣ry particular and precise end, purpose, or intent of God in raising him up; I answer:

The question is not, whether Gods shewing of his power [viz. in a most extraordinary and signall manner] in Pharaohs destruction, was the reall end and intent of his act in raising him up; but whether this end were so, or upon such terms intended by him therein, that he was resolved to proceed to his destruction howsoever, I mean, whether he had Repented, or no. The former hath been granted: it is onely the latter that is denied: and a sufficient account (we trust) hath been given of this denyal.

If it be objected, But if Gods end in raising up Pha∣raoh, was onely conditional (in such a sence, as you have described) then the ends and intentions of God, it seems, are pendulous, and his attainment or execution of them suspended upon the creature, and the motions of his pleasure and will. And to conceive thus of them, is it not highly dishonourable unto God? To this also I an∣swer;

1. There is a sence, and this most proper, clear, and direct, wherein it is most certainly true, that all Gods ends and Intentions are absolute, peremptory, and fix∣ed, not alterable, or liable to any disappointment, coun∣ter-working, or defeature by any creature, or creatures whatsoever. Whatsoever God intendeth, or propose∣eth to himself in the nature of an end, the tenor, man∣ner, and form of his intending or proposing it, rightly understood, and considered, he never faileth, under what interveniences soever, to obtain: Nor is the execution of the one, or bringing to pass of the other, liable to any suspension, diversion, or turning aside, by any creature. As for example, Gods intent is to save all those that shall continue [in faith and love] unto the endc 1.157. Let the world stand, or fall, let men, Angels, and Devils, interpose, and oppose their utmost, this Intention of God, shall take place, and be put toties quoties in execution: they who shall thus continue unto the end, shall be saved. Nor can the execution of such an intention as this, be said to be suspended upon the continuance of men in faith and love unto the end, but onely upon the power, purpose, and good pleasure of God. For the reason why they who continue in Faith and Love to the end, are saved, is not because they thus continue, or because they are wil∣ling and desirous themselves to be saved; both these might have been, and yet they (the persons) never have been saved; but because the will and good pleasure of God, who is able to save them is, that so it should be, i. e. that such should be saved. Let instance be put in any other Intention of God whatsoever, take the Intention in the complete, just, and intire notion or tenor of it, as it lieth in the brest of God, and the exe∣cution of it will be found impregnable, and indepen∣dent upon the will or pleasure of what creature soever.

Some things (indeed) there are, which are so expressed and represented in the Scriptures, as if they were sim∣ply and absolutely the Intentions of God, (and may upon this account be called his Intentions) when as they are but parts onely of these his Intentions, the other parts of them (respectively) being to be supplied, and made out from other Scriptures.

Thus the excluding of those who are Idolaters, (and so of Adulterers, covetous persons, &c.) from the King∣dom of God, is oft mentioned, as the intent or purpose of God. 1 Cor. 6.9, 10. Gal. 5.19.20, 21. Eph. 5.5, 6, &c. Yet this is but somewhat, or a part of his intent or purpose in this kind: his intire or compleat purpose or intent about this matter, (as other Scriptures make manifest above all contradiction) is the exclusion of the persons specified (with the like) from the Kingdom of God, in case they remain finally impenitent and unbeleeving, and not otherwise. Now this Intent and Purpose of God are like the great mountains (in Davids Rhetorick) which cannot be removed: and the execution of them not preventible, by any possible interposure, one or more, of any creature, or creatures, whatsoever. We gave (not long since) more instances of such par∣tiall and incompleat expressions of the Intentions of God, as this. Of this kind of Intention, or expressi∣on rather of the Intentions of God, is that under present consideration, where he saith to Pharaoh, For this very end have I raised thee up, that I may shew my power in thee, &c. These words do not contain the whole mind or intent of God concerning Pharaoh, or his destruction, but a part of it onely; and in this respect, so far as it is here declared, it might have been prevented by Pharaoh; as the intent of God concerning Nineveh, so far as it was revealed unto, and by Jonah, was prevented by the Ninivites.

But now take the whole mind, counsel, and intent of God concerning Pharaohs destruction, and so it was un∣possible to have been prevented, either by himself or any other. For this it was, that in case Pharaoh should remain obstinate to such a time, under such means as God intended to grant unto him for his Repentance, he would then shew his power in him, i. e. destroy him with a great pomp and terror of destruction. This In∣tent of God concerning Pharaohs destruction, neither Pharaoh himself, nor all the Angels in Heaven, nor all the Devils in Hell, nor all the men on Earth, were a∣ble to prevent. The like is true concerning the intire counsel or intention of God about the destruction of Nineveh, which was this, that unless Nineveh should re∣pent within forty days, it should be destroyed. This In∣tention of God, concerning this citie, was like God him∣self, unchangeable by all imaginable ways and means whatsoever.

Now the reason (probably, to adde that briefly by the way) why God so frequently revealeth his Intenti∣ons, especially concerning the punishing of men, onely in part (as hath been observed) mentioning onely the punishment, without any overture or promise of ex∣emption upon Repentance, may be either, 1. Because the Law of exemption from punishment upon Repent∣ance, is written in the Tables of mens hearts by the hand of nature, as is to be seen in the case of Ahab, the Ni∣nevites, and others, who onely upon judgments threat∣ned, without any mention or promise of mercy in case of Repentance, betook themselves to the sanctuary of Re∣pentance notwithstanding, making no account but that there was pardon and deliverance here, although they had no particular tidings or assurance of them. Or else 2. The Reason may be, because that very dispen∣sation

of God towards men, sinfull men, I mean, his giving them warning before he smites, and a space or breathing while, between the threatning, and the execu∣tion, being a fruit of his Patience, is (constructively) an in∣vitation unto Repentance, and consequently, unto favour safety, and peace: The goodness, or patience, of God (saith our Apostle, elsewhere in this Epistle) leadeth unto re∣pentance; i. e. pregnantly intimates grace and favour from God unto men upon their Repentance. Now God de∣lighteth much to deal with his creature (man) by way of intimations, and insinuations, for the better exercise and improvement of those noble faculties of their soul, reason, judgment, conscience, and understanding. Or else 3. The Reason hereof may be, because Lawgivers from amongst men are wont frequently in their Laws to express onely the penalty, in order to restraining the transgression; and to omit the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. the favou∣rable, or indulging part of the Law, leaving this to the brest of the Judg. For God as from many passages of Scripture might be made manifest, in his treaties and dealings with men, loves to comport with those forms and methods of transactions, which are in fre∣quent use amongst men. Or else, 4. (And lastly) the reason why God sometimes hides the lightsom and gra∣cious side of his Intentions, exposing onely the black and dark side unto present view, may be, because, though that which I call the dark side of his Intentions may in every case wherein it is expressed, be plainly enough gathered and understood from other Scriptures, as well as the other, which I call lightsome, yet men are far more propense and free to inquire and seek out matters relating to their accommodation and ease, then such things which are of a sorrowful and sad resent∣ment unto them. And in this respect it is not much

improbable, but that God many times may bring the evill day neer unto men, and bind it fast and close to their consciences by the band of an actual mention or threatning of it, and yet leave the good day to be looked after, and found out by themselves, it being not, in respect of the terms or conditions of it, very far remote from them. But whether any, or all these, or some other, be the reasons and grounds of that Scripture disposi∣tion, or dispensation we speak of, evident it is that such a disposition is found here, and that God oft-times speaks onely of wrath and destruction unto those, for whom notwithstanding he hath in full purpose, grace, and peace, in case of their Repentance.

And thus we clearly and plainly see, how and in what sence, the intentions of God are all absolute, all inflexi∣ble, unchangeable, liable to no disappointment or in∣terruption whatsoever, no ways dependent in their ex∣ecution, upon the wills or actings of any creature, or creatures whatsoever; and again on the other hand, how many of them notwithstanding, so far as they are ex∣pressed or declared upon particular occasions, may be, and frequently are, for ever suspended and prevented in their execution, by the interposures of men.

The result of all these latter Discussions, is this; That Gods intent, in raising up Pharaoh, here described to be the shewing of his power in him, &c. was not his whole counsel or intent concerning his destruction, but one part of it onely; and that he no otherwise intend∣ed his destruction, but upon his final obduration onely; yea and that he as much, or as well, intended his peace and preservation upon his timely repentance, as his de∣struction, upon his final impenitence. Therefore Pha∣raoh is no type, much less any instance, or example of such a Reprobation of men from eternity, which some

men have dreamt of waking, pretending to gather it where it was never strewed, I mean, from the Scrip∣tures.

Give me leave briefly to propound, and answer one Objection more about the business of Pharaoh, hitherto inquired into, and then (for the present) we shall dis∣miss it, although the truth is that the heart of the Ob∣jection hath been (in part) broken already. But because it may (haply) seem a new Objection unto some, and to have more strength in it for their purpose, then any of the former, let us give it audience. It speaketh thus:

[Object.] If God intended, as much, or as well, Pharaohs pre∣servation upon his Repentance, as his destruction upon his impenitency, and besides (as you have informed us) granted him means more proper to bring him to Re∣pentance, then to harden him, why should it not rather be said, That God raised him up, that he might shew his power in his preservation, or exaltation, then, in his de∣struction; especially considering (as you also have taught us) that the Intentions of God are to be judg∣ed of by the natural and proper tendency of the means granted by him, and not by the event or consequent of them. To this I answer:

[Answ.] The drift of the Apostle in the passage in hand, was to vindicate the righteousness of God, not in justifying or rewarding (this he had done in the two former Ver∣ses) but in rejecting, hardning, and destroying, whom, or what manner of persons he pleaseth. So that it was altogether impertinent and unproper for him to speak any thing here concerning any mans exaltation or rewarding by God.

2. Though those providential means by which God, in the event, hardned Pharaohs heart to a far higher de∣gree,

then it was before, and so prepared and fitted him for destruction, were in themselves simply, and in their native tendency, considered, apt and proper to have wrought his heart to a love and reverence of God, and of his commands, and not to a further degree of ob∣stinacy; yet the present temper and frame of Pha∣raohs heart, when they came to deal with it, consider∣ed, they were much more like to occasion and produce such an effect, as they did, viz. a greater measure of obduration, then the healing or removal of that, which he had already contracted. Now though the Intenti∣ons of God [i. e. his primary and antecedent Intenti∣ons,* 1.158 as we lately distinguished, and observed] be still presented in the Scriptures as confederate and concur∣ring with the naturall and proper, not with the acciden∣tal or occasional, effects of the means vouchsafed by him; yet his secondary and subsequent Intentions, are still concurrent with these. Behold, this child is set (saith Simeon) for the fall, and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign that shall be spoken againste 1.159. His being set for the fall of many, proceeds from the subsequent Intention of God, which is,* 1.160 that those who shall reject him, and oppose his Doctrine, shall be detected for Hypocrites and unworthy persons, and fall from that high esteem for holiness, which before they had a∣mongst men. His being set for the rising of many, is from, and according to, the antecedent or primary In∣tentions of God, which are, that they who shall im∣brace his Doctrine, though before they were ignorant and weak, and so in no repute amongst men for any great matters of sanctity, shall thereby be raised to an

honourable esteem in their thoughts. See the like, Joh. 9 39. Rom. 11.33. Mar. 16.16. (to omit other places) So then there being no occasion why the primary and antece∣dent Intentions of God concerning Pharaoh (which yet are evident enough from the nature and tendency of those applications made by him unto him, as we lately argued) should be here mentioned by Apostle, but a manifest and pregnant occasion, why his subsequent In∣tentions that way should be declared, it need be no matter of question unto any man, why the one should be done, and not the other.

3. (And lastly,) The intent of the Apostle in the place in hand, being (as hath been said) onely to assert and prove the just liberty of God to harden, and de∣stroy whom he pleaseth, and to insinuate withall, what manner of persons they are, upon, or against whom he is pleased to exercise this liberty, it was simply neces∣sary, for him to insist only upon the subsequent Intenti∣ons of God, and withall onely to instance some such wicked, ignorant, and, proud person, as Pharaoh was, because the primary Intentions of God are not set, do not stand, for the hardning, or for the destroying, of any person of mankind whatsoever, but for the soft∣ning and saving of all, and his subsequent Intentions themselves, are not bent for the hardning of any, nor (consequently) for the destruction of any, but of per∣sons voluntarily ignorant, evill, froward, proud, and either in whole, or in part, such as Pharaoh was.

Having by a diligent and narrow search clearly dis∣covered and found, what Gods end, purpose, and intent was in that Providential act or dispensation, about Pharaoh, here expressed in these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I have raised thee up, Viz. to shew the power of his wrath in his destruction, and so to make himself a Name great

and terrible through the world, in case he repented not in time, let us (with more brevity) now inquire and con∣sider what this word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I have raised up, here imports, and what this act of God was, by which he sought to compass that his end. Some by Gods raising up Pharaoh, understand his act of creating him, or bring∣ing him into the worldf 1.161: Others, his providential act in advancing him to the great place, and royal dignity of a King. Some understand by it both the said acts in conjunction: Thus Bucer. Others understand Gods stirrring up, or provoking Pharaoh to a greater obdu∣rateness of heart against his people, by commanding him so oft as he did, to let them gog 1.162, according to that of our Apostle, Rom. 7.6, 7. Sin taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence, &c. Lastly, some interpret it to be that act or dis∣pensation of God towards Pharaoh, by which he pre∣served him in life and being, after he had made him∣self a child of death, by so many acts of Rebellion as he had now committed against him, remaining still ob∣durate and impenitent notwithstanding. Though the three former Interpretations, well understood, contain nothing in them that is unsound, and (the third and last of them onely excepted) are of competent accord with the signification of the word here used, yet circumstan∣ces considered, and the words and passage in Moses du∣ly weighed, the Exposition last mentioned will be found most apposite and proper. For,

1. Concerning the clause in Moses, here rendred by the Apostle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, For this very thing have I raised thee up, the Chaldee Paraphrase explains it thus, Propter hoc sustinui te, for this cause have I en∣dured thee, or patiently born with thee. This noti∣on of the words well agrees with that phrase of the Apo∣stle,

vers. 22. endured with much long-suffering the ves∣sels of wrath fitted to destruction. The Septuagint trans∣lates it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, And for this hast thou been kept or preserved, untill now. Augustine: And for this very thing hast thou been preservedh 1.163: Thus also Ambrose reads the words of the Apostle, glossing thus: He speaketh thus, because Pharaoh, being guilty of so many and great evils that he ought not to live, and a person that would never prove good, lest he should either think that he lived upon the account of his own goodness, or that God, whom he often had thought might be deceiv∣ed, was unable to avenge himself on him, hath this message sent unto him by God, For this cause have I saved thee a∣live,i 1.164 &c. Junius in his Version revised and amend∣ed, translates the words thus: Therefore have I caused that thou shouldst remain alivek 1.165. Peter Martyr on the place be∣fore us writeth to this effect. The Hebrew Word here translated by the Apostle is from the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifieth to stand: but in the Conjugation Hiphil, it signifieth to make to stand, or to lift up, and establish; although many interpret it to preserve, [or save alive,] as if Pha∣raoh whilst others fell by death, was preserved alive, and remainedl 1.166. And (to cite no more Authors) the sence of the phrase which we have preferred, is recommend∣ed unto us by Calvin himself, in his Commentaries up∣on Exod. 9.16. Having briefly mentioned two of the Interpretations lately presented by us; Some (he saith)

conceive that this sentence depends upon the preceding Histo∣ry, and interpret, I have preserved thee, or, was willing thou shouldst remain alive. For the Hebrew word, which is transitive in Hiphil, comes of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifieth to stand. Therefore because God had refrained himself for a time, now he assigns the reason of his forbearance, because had Pharaoh perished and fallen by one light battel, the glory of the conquest had been less famous. In brief, lest Pharaoh should please himself, or harden himself with any vain con∣fidence, God denieth that he wanted strength to have de∣destroyed him in a moment, but saith that he deferr'd his fi∣nal punishment upon another account; viz. that Pharaoh might learn at leasure that he wrastled in vain with an in∣comparable power, and that so signal a story might be famous through all generations. But however Paul followeth the Greek Interpreter, yet this hindreth not but that it may be free for us to embrace this latter sence. For we know that the Apostles were not so strict in reciting words, but had respect rather to the matter, or thing it self. Now suppose we con∣fess that the Patience of God endured Pharaoh so long, un∣till he should be made a notable and famous document unto all men, what senceless and mad men all those are, who make resistance against God, yet this also belongs to the eternal providence of God. For therefore God spared Pharaoh, that he should stand [or continue] for a timem 1.167, &c.

Besides the consent of so many learned and Judici∣ous Interpreters, there is this reason to confirm the last

recited Interpretation, viz. that this message, For this very cause have I raised thee up, &c. was not sent by God unto Pharaoh, at the beginning of his Treaty with him about the dismission of his people, nor untill Pha∣raoh had multiplied his rebellions against him, now these six several times, and this after so many extraordina∣ry and sore judgments inflicted upon his land, and a∣gain graciously removed by God, some of them at his request. If by Gods raising up Pharaoh, were meant either his raising up from nothing, by creating, or gi∣ving him being; or his raising up to the power and dig∣nity of a King, the message (now under discourse) had been much more proper to have been sent to him at first, and before, or at the beginning of the said Treaty, then after so much rebellious obstinacy discovered, and so many acts of high misdemeanors worthy of death perpetrated by him. But it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, excellently becoming God, after so much patience and long suf∣fering shewed unto Pharaoh under such high provoca∣tions reiterated one upon another, to admonish him, that he had not spared his life all this while, intending still to spare it, in case he persisted in his obdurateness and re∣bellion; but on the contrary to gain an opportunity thereby, for the manifestation of the glorious greatness of his power in his destruction. Such a sence as this, as it incorporates the place in hand with the bodie of Pharaohs storie, and gives it a pleasant aspect as well up∣on the precedent, as subsequent part thereof; so also it perfectly accords with the nature of God, both in re∣spect of his Grace and goodness, and severity likewise, which are much after the same manner held forth un∣to the world in many other passages of Scripture (as hath been in part declared formerly.)

And for the Apostles phrase, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I have rais∣ed

thee up, this also is well pleased with the said inter∣pretation. For Pharaoh by rebelling against God, time after time, and this after many promises of obedience and loyalty upon Gods merciful dealings with him in healing his land at his request, having committed things worthy of death, and consequently being dead (as the saying is) in Law, and according to the sentence there∣of, Gods clemency towards him in sparing his life, might, with sweetness of Metaphor and allusion, be termed, a raising him up [as it were from the dead.] In a phrase of somewhat a like resemblance, our Apostle calleth Gods forgiving men their sins and trespasses, (by means whereof, according to the Law, they were dead) a quickning of them, or (as the word signifies) a making of them to live. Eph. 2.1, 5. compared with Col. 2.13. And God, by that gracious act of his in raising up Pha∣raoh (in the sence declared) and healing his land of the several plagues cleaving unto it, may (in Scripture phrase) be said to have covered his former transgressi∣ons. So there is little question but that the sence of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, now contended for, is according to the Apostles mind. And if so, then was not the shew∣ing of Gods power in Pharaohs destruction, his direct or primary intent in that act of raising him up (and consequently, his destruction could not absolutely, or peremptorily be intended by him) but his secondary and subsequent intent onely; in as much as the Pati∣ence or bountifulness of God, according the proper na∣ture of it, and the primary intentions of God in it, lead∣eth men, not to a continuance in obstinacy and rebelli∣on against him, and so not to destruction, but to Re∣pentance, and consequently, salvation. We shall touch upon a further confirmation of the Interpretation now pleaded for, when we come to open the Verse next

following, and consider the hardning there spoken of.

This for the clearing of the sence and meaning of this Verse.

There was a third thing propounded, which was to shew how the example of Pharaoh, as it is here brief∣ly exhibited by the Apostle, accommodates his pur∣pose; which (as we have heard) was to vindicate the liberty and justness of power in God to reject and cast off whom, or what manner of persons, he pleaseth, (and consequently, the Jews themselves in case they shall be found such.) The Verse also immediatly following sheweth this to be his drift and scope in this place. So then the Apostles reasoning from the example of Pha∣raoh, and Gods proceedings with him, to evince his conclusion, is apparantly this, or to this effect: If Gods will and pleasure was, and this most righteous and just, to threaten Pharaoh, a person obstinate and rebellious, that if he persisted in his disobedience and obstinacy, he would shew his power in his destruction, and, he thus per∣sisting, did shew it accordingly, then is it lawful and just for him to proceed after the same manner with all others like unto him: But it was the most righteous and just will and pleasure of God thus to proceed with Pharaoh. Therefore he may justly proceed after the same manner with all others like unto him; and consequently, reject and destroy whom he will. The consequence in the Ma∣jor Proposition is undeniable: for what is righteous and just for God to do in reference to one man, upon the ac∣count of such and such actions and ways, is as righteous and just for him to do by all other men, in whom the like actions and ways are to be found. The Minor Pro∣position, which only asserteth the righteousness of Gods proceedings with Pharaoh, is unquestionable, and needs no proof.

If it be here objected and said; But if it be Gods will

and pleasure to reject, and proceed against to destru∣ction, onely such persons, as Pharaoh was, i. e. persons as deeply and desperately obstinate and rebellious, as he, there will be very few, or none, found in the world, who will be rejected or destroyed by him; To this I answer;

That the Apostle intending to shew and prove, in the example of Pharaoh, who, or what manner of per∣sons they are, on whom God will exercise his just li∣berty of rejecting and destroying, doth not suppose, nor intend so much as to insinuate, that God will exercise this his liberty upon none, but those that shall be gra∣dually like to Pharaoh in sin and wickedness. But his meaning is, in the notable and famous instance of Pha∣raoh, whose rebellious obstinacy and disobedience are known to all the world, to declare what kind or species of men they are, upon whom God will shew his liber∣ty, and justness of power to reject and destroy. As in the example of Abrahams Justification by Faith, and acceptation with Godn 1.168, he did nothing less then intend to shew or signifie, that onely persons, as great, as strong in Faith, as Abraham himself was, should be justified; nor any thing more, then to teach and declare, what kind or manner of persons they are, who shall be justified with faithful Abraham, viz. such who shall beleeve, not with the same degree, but with the same kind of faith, wherewith he beleeved. And as the Ho∣ly Ghost doth not hold forth the example of Abraham, the Grand Beleever of the world, to discourage those from expecting justification or acceptation with God, whose Faith doth not make her nest among the starrs, as his did, but rather to incourage them to such an high raised Faith as this: So neither doth he propound the example of Pharaoh, the first-born son of disobedience

and rebellion, to incourage those to expect mercy or salvation from God, who shall not rise every ways as high in disobedience and rebellion against him, as he did; but rather to disswade and terrifie all men from all touch, taste, and tincture of such sins, which brought such horrible vengeance and destruction upon a miserable creature. It is of frequent observation in the Scriptures (and sometimes the like is found in other Authors) that the Heads or principals of any race, fami∣ly, species or kind of men, are made the Significators of the whole species or family. So that the Apostles intent in bringing the example of Pharaoh, an obstinate and rebellious sinner, upon this stage, was to demon∣strate, 1. That God is at liberty to reject and destroy what sort and kind of persons he pleaseth: And, 2. That this his liberty and pleasure determines it self, and pitcheth upon obstinate and rebellious ones, (such as the Jews, for the generality of them very signally were) as the objects of it. They who tell us, that Paul insist∣eth on the example of Pharaoh, as an instance of Gods Reprobation of men, personally considered, from eter∣nity, destroy the emphatical richness and benefit of his Doctrine, in the passage, and render this of very little or no effect. It now followeth:

[Verse 18] Therefore hath he mercy, on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will, he hardneth. The Apostle having (as hath been shewed) substantially vindicated the righ∣teousness of God, both in the Justification and salva∣tion, as likewise in the rejection and condemnation, of whom he pleaseth, accordingly subjoyneth the Do∣ctrine or conclusion which he had now won by dint of Argument from the Scriptures, in the words before us: Therefore hath he mercy, &c. What he meaneth, by Gods having, or shewing, mercy on men, as likewise from

whence he infers this part of his Conclusion here as∣serted, viz. That God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, may easily be understood by a diligent recog∣nition or survey of the premises; and of that part of them more particularly, wherein the mind of the Holy Ghost, in vers. 15, and 16. was explained. But con∣cerning the other part of his Doctrine, here drawn up conclusion-wise, viz. That whom he [i. e. God] will, he hardneth, a double Query may be moved: 1. Why he makes mention of such a thing as, hardning, in this place, having not spoken any thing of it before. 2. From whence he deduceth this part of his conclusion, That God hardneth whom he will. A good account given of the former, will give a good light to the latter.

Therefore (for the clearing of the former of these doubts) this consideration is neer at hand; viz. that though the Apostle had not used the word, hardning, before, nor spake any thing of it formally considered, yet he had spoken of such things under the types of ser∣vitude, vers. 12. and of hatred, vers. 13. and besides, by his Election, vers. 11. and Gods shewing mercy on whom he will, vers. 15.18. he had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by way of opposi∣tion, insinuated such things, which are of very neer af∣finity with hardning, as viz. Gods rejecting or repro∣bating of men, from his mercy, Grace and favour. These are always, either accompanied, or followed with hardning. And it is a matter of frequent occur∣rency in the Scriptures, to find words, not onely of an equipollent, but of a cognate signification also, and such which import things of a mutuall concomitancy, ex∣changed one with another. Thus our Apostle proveth the Justification of the Heathen by Faith, from this promise of God made unto Abraham, In thee shall all the Nations be blessedo 1.169; justification and blessedness, mutually

including or supposing the one the other. See also Rom. 4, 5, 6, 7, &c. Thus the same Apostle sometimes useth the word, life, for justification, or righteousness, Gal. 3.12, 21. (with many the like.) In like manner, because rejecting, hating, non-shewing mercy, &c. by God, are borderers in signification and import, unto, hardning, therefore the Apostle useth them promiscuously.

From hence (as was intimated) it may readily be un∣derstood (and so the second question resolved) how and from what premises, he inferreth this part of his Con∣clusion, that whom God will, he hardneth. This Position being proved, That God sheweth mercy on whom he will shew mercy, (which he had proved by an express from Moses, vers. 15.) it followeth in a way of clear deducti∣on, that then he hath a just liberty to harden whom he will. For if God be at liberty to shew mercy on whom he will, he must needs be at liberty not to shew mercy on whom he will; or (which is the same) to refuse to shew mercy to whom he will. Now to refuse to shew mercy, and to harden are (with our Apostle) either sy∣nonymous, or at least so neerly related, that they are not separated in their subject, and consequently the one may be proved from the other.

Notwithstanding I rather conceive that the Apostle raiseth the Inference we speak of, from a ground neerer hand; viz. from those words of God to Pharaoh (in the former Verse) I have raised thee up (in the sence lately de∣clared.) In which clause the manner and method of Gods proceedings, in and about, the hardning of Pha∣raohs heart (at least so far as he acted positively there∣in) is comprehended. For all that God did towards, or about, the hardning of Pharaohs heart in a positive way, was (as hath been formerly observed, and made good) by exercising patience, and lenity, and all long-suffering

towards him, by inflicting onely lesser and lighter judgments upon him, and which did not touch his life; and by removing even these also time after time, upon his request, and promise of dismissing his people. Now this whole tract and course of Gods treating with Pharaoh upon terms of clemency and in∣dulgence, is expressed by the Apostle (as by a narrow inquiry we lately discovered) in those words, I have raised thee up. So that Paul having proved from the Scriptures that God hardned Pharaoh, [i. e. made such providential applications unto Pharaoh, whereby he be∣came hardned] maketh this collection and conclusion from it, that whom he will, he hardneth.

But there are two demands which may justly be mo∣ved upon occasion of the late premisses; which being well satisfied, the Apostles discourse in the passage in hand, will be yet more lightsom and pleasant.

1. It may be some mans question. What the Apostle means by hardning, when he saith, that God hardneth whom he will?

2. It may be demanded, How from Gods hardning Pharaoh, it can be concluded, that he hardneth [hath a power, or a liberty to harden, and withall, is wont to act, or use this liberty, toties quoties, as oft he pleas∣eth] whom he will; considering, 1. That he did not will, or intend to harden Pharaoh himself (as was formerly maintained) but onely hardned him occasionally, or ac∣cidentally. 2. That for his act of hardning Pharaoh, it can onely be proved (as was before likewise insinuated) that he is at liberty to harden such as Pharaoh was, per∣sons already obstinate and disobedient, not others, and consequently (as it seems) not whom he will?

For satisfaction to the former of these demands, it is (I presume) every mans supposition and grant, that

when God is said to harden whom he will, it is to be understood of hardning in sin, or in ways of sinning. The phrase of hardning in sin, being metaphorical, the Metaphor must be briefly opened, that so the expres∣sion may be reduced to that which is proper. Hardness is a quality proper to an elementary body, and gives the denomination unto its subject, of being hard. The na∣ture of this quality may be readily apprehended by that common description (in naturall Philosophy) of the subject affected with it, which is this: Durum est, quod resistit tactui: That is HARD, which resisteth the touch; as on the contrary, that is, molle, or soft, quod cedit tactui, which gives way to the touch. Now as such a body is called hard, whose constitution, nature, and temper is such, that it will very hardly, if at all suffer an impression to be made upon it by any ordinary force, whereby the figure or outward shape of it should suffer an alterati∣on or change; in like manner the heart of a man (and so, the man himself) may be said to be hard, made hard, or hardned in sin, when it is wrought or brought to such a temper and frame, that neither the motions of the Spirit of God, nor exhortations, admonitions, promi∣ses, or threatnings from the Word of God, nor any pro∣vidential appearings of God, either for, or against a man, nor any counsel, or advice from friends or others, (which are the ordinary means whereby sinners are wont to be reclaimed) will alter, or change the sinful purpo∣ses, and inclinations of it, but that it retains, and main∣tains its former disposition of sinning, with the con∣tempt or neglect of all these. In some such conside∣ration as this, Pharaohs heart is often said in the Scrip∣tures to have been hardned, sometimes in the first place, by himself,p 1.170 and then by God also. The hardness of Pharaohs heart, either consisted in, or discovered it self

by, that unyeeldingness of it, under so many express messages and commands from God, so many miracu∣lous and extraordinarily-terrible Judgments inflicted upon his Land and people before his eyes, time after time, so many wonderfull and extraordinarily-gra∣cious intermixtures of mercy with judgment, in the sudden removall of these judgments upon his re∣quest, all of them divisim, but especially conjun∣im, perswading him with an high hand to hearken unto God, and to let the people of Israel go. What God ordinarily doth in, or about the hardning of men, and particularly what he did about the hard∣ning of Pharaoh, hath been in part already (viz. in our explications of the next preceding Verse) and shall (himself assisting) be again touch'd in our Answer to the latter demand. As for those transient and short-liv'd relentings which appeared in Pharaoh upon the incumbency, or new execution, of some of the said judgments, God may much more properly be said to be Author of these, then of any the respective hardnings presently ensuing; because these relentings were the proper fruits, or effects, of what he did in a way of judgment; whereas those hardnings were (as hath been said) but onely the occasionall or accidental effects of what he did in a way of mercy, either in sparing the per∣son of Pharaoh so long as he did, or in removing the judgments inflicted so soon as he did, upon his request. This for satisfaction to the former of the two demands lately propounded.

To the latter, how, or upon what account, from Gods hardning Pharaoh, it may be concluded, That he hardneth whom he will, I answer: The Premisses of Gods hard∣ning Pharaoh, brings forth this Conclusion, That he hardneth whom he will, by the midwifery, or media∣tion,

of these three suppositions (all of them plain and unquestionable:) 1. That he had a liberty, or justness of power, to harden Pharaoh as he did; otherwise he would not have hardned him. 2. That he hath a like liberty to harden any other person, one, more, or all, that shall be found like unto Pharaoh; for what reason can be imagined that should cause any difference in this kind? 3. And lastly, that his will is to harden onely such as Pharaoh was. These particulars being granted, it round∣ly follows, that if God hardned Pharaoh, he may, and consequently doth, harden whom he will. If there be any doubt of truth in any of the said three Propo∣sitions unto any man, it must be (I conceive) in the third and last onely: but the Scriptures being diligent∣ly consulted, this will be found as pregnant of truth, as either of the other. For these constantly teach, that every breach between God and the creature, is still be∣gun on the creatures side: which clearly sheweth that God never hardneth any man (and consequently that he willeth not to harden any man) but onely such who first voluntarily harden themselves, and are obstinately dis∣obedient, as Pharaoh was: Lo, this onely have I found, that God hath made man upright, but THEY have sought out many inventionsq 1.171; i. e. many crooked and perverse notions and cogitations, which lead them from that re∣ctitude, wherein God created them (as Mercer well ex∣poundeth it.) Hear ye me, Asa, and all Judah and Ben∣jamin (saith Azariah, the spirit of God being now upon him.) The Lord is with you, while ye be with him; and if yee seek him, he will be found of you: but IF YE FOR∣SAKE him, he will forsake your 1.172. See also Josh. 7.12. Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 shall be given [and he shall have abundance, as Mat∣t•••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉] and whosoever hath not, from him shall be ta∣ken

even that which he seemeth to haves 1.173; i. e. which men upon sufficient ground judged him at present, and be∣fore this judgment of God upon him, to have. The Verb, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, commonly translated, to seem, doth not al∣waies import a bare shew or appearance of a thing, in opposition to the reality, truth, or certainty of it; but very frequently noteth the manifestation or certain knowledg of a thing in opposition to the secrecy, hiddenness, doubtfulness, or else concealment of it. For it seemed [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] or, it seemed good, to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no other burthen upon you,t 1.174 &c. The meaning is not, as if the non-imposal of any further burthen upon the Gentiles, barely seemed a thing meet and reasonable, unto the Holy Ghost, and the Apostles, being in truth, and in it self, other∣wise; but that the reall goodness or meetness of the thing, was accordingly apprehended and judged by the Holy Ghost, and by him revealed and made known to the Apostles and Elders. See the like use and import of the word. Mar. 10.42. Luke 1.3. and 17.9. Act. 15.22, 25. and 25.27. 1 Cor. 7.40. Gal. 2.9. Heb. 4, 1. And that (in the Text cited, Luke 8.18.) it doth not signifie a groundless or empty conceit upon a meer shew or appearance, but a judgment according to the truth and reality of the thing, is evident from the pa∣rallel passages, Mat. 13.12. and 25.29. Mar. 4.25. where the person spoken of, is plainly and simply said, to have, that which upon his non-having, [meaning, by way of improvement] is threatned to be taken from him. But the clear sence and meaning of these passages, I have some while since in preaching, discussed and evinced at large; and God sparing life and health, may in time do the like more publikely. In the mean time, besides the Scriptures already cited to prove, that every breach

between God, and the creature, is still begun on the creatures side, these diligently considered, are very pregnant. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,—how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as an hen ga∣thereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not. Behold, your house is left unto you desolateu 1.175. So again, For this cause [viz. for changing the truth of God into a lye,] God gave them up unto vile affections, &c. And soon af∣ter: And as they did not regard to retain God in their know∣ledg, God gave them up to a Reprobate minde,x 1.176 &c. It were easie to gather more of these Spiritual stones toge∣ther for the raising of that building yet higher, which is now in hand, the Scripture every where laying at the creatures doors, the occasion, or cause, of any displea∣sure conceived in the brest of God, against it at any time. So that He never hardens any but the disobe∣dient, and those who first provoke him to it by such vo∣luntary neglect, stubbornness, and contempt, as Pharaoh did. The Synod of Dort expresseth it self very Ortho∣doxly in this point, (as indeed it doth, by places, in all the rest, of which it took cognizance.) The talent of Grace (saith this Synod) which is once granted by God is taken away from no man, unless through his own default he hath first buried it, Matth. 25.28. Hence it is that in the Scriptures we are from place to place admonished, that we resist not the Spirit, that we quench not the Spirit, that we receive not the grace of God in vain, that we fall not away from God, Heb. 3.7. Yea this reason is most clearly given why the creature is at any time forsaken by God, viz. because he is first forsaken by it. Prov. 1.24. Because I called, and ye refused, I will also laugh in your destruction. 2 Chron. 24.20. You have forsaken the Lord that he might [or should] forsake you. But it is no where in the Scriptures so much as insinuated in the least, that God

is either wont, or WILLING, to take away from any man the aid of exciting Grace, or any other help which he hath once given in order to his Conversion, unless the man himself hath first made way for it by his sin. This was the Doctrine of the Orthodox Fathers, who had to do with the Pelagians. Whether Austin or Prosper, the one of them saith: It is the will of God, that a man should continue in a good frame of will, who also forsakes no man, untill himself be first forsaken, yea and oft-times converteth many of the forsakers themselvesy 1.177. Thus far the Synod. By the way, is it not the first-born of things that are strange, that so many learned and grave men should speak and write such things as these, and yet deny that God vouchsafeth unto every man a suf∣ficiency of means for Salvation? Or that God beareth in his brest the most doleful and irreconcileable war of a fatall Reprobation from eternity, against far the greatest part of men, from their first conception in the womb? Doth a fountain (saith the Apostle James) send forth at the same place, sweet water, and bitterz 1.178? Calvin also hath many passages in his writings, very express for the Assertion of the same Truth; I mean that God never withdraws that preventing or exciting grace, which is given unto every man, from any man, untill the man himself by voluntariness of sinning provok∣eth him to it: and consequently that he willeth not to harden any man, or men, but such onely who are like unto Pharaoh. But I consider that multiplicity of quo∣tations from men are not so proper for a Commen∣tary. By this time (I presume) it appears to satisfacti∣on, that all the three Suppositions mentioned are unque∣stionably true, and that upon this account, the Apostles inference of Gods hardning whom he will, from his par∣ticular act in hardning Pharaoh, is legitimate and clear.

Onely I conceive, there is yet one dark corner in the room we are in, whereinto the light hath not yet shone. This is, how from Gods hardning Pharaoh, it can be con∣cluded, that he hardneth whom he will, if it be supposed that he intended not, i. e. willed not, no not the hardning of Pharaoh himself, at least with his antecedent or pri∣mary intention, or will; nor yet that he did (in the e∣vent) harden him otherwise then accidentally, or occa∣sionally: (for these things have been argued and assert∣ed in the Premises,) and consequently that Pharaoh, even when God did that by which he became ha••dned, might have chused whether he would have been hardned, or no. If this be so, it seems rather to rest in the wills of men, who shall be hardned by God, then in the will of God. God shall harden whom men will, not whom himself willeth. I answer to all this:

1. It hath formerly been said and proved, that God ne∣ver intends, or willeth, the hardning of any person what∣soever, with his primary or antecedent Intention, or will, but with his subsequent onely:* 1.179 from whence it follows, that when the Apostle, from Gods raising up, or hard∣ning Pharaoh, infers that therefore whom he will he hard∣neth, he speaketh of his secondary, or his consequent will onely. That God willeth the hardning of no man whatsoever, but only with his consequent will, is at large and with an high hand asserted by the Synod of Dort it self in the passage lately transcribed from it; as also where they teach and grant, that Christ died ANTE∣CEDENTLY for his enemies and unbeleevers, but CON∣SEQUENTLY for beleevers and his friends onelya 1.180. For if Christ died antecedently [i. e. with his antecedent and

primary intention] for his enemies and unbeleevers, and such who never are saved, it is unpossible that with his p••imary or antecedent intention, he should intend to hard••n them: because this evidently implieth, that he should intend both their salvation and damnation, and this with one and the same kind of Intention. As for his friends and beleevers, God hath no will or inte••t at all, neither antecedent, nor consequent, to harden them. So then this is unquestionably certain (in the first place) our Adversaries themselves consenting and asserting with us, that God with his antecedent will, willeth not the hardning of any man.

2. Although the event or effect it self of Pharaohs hardning, was, both in respect of the antecedent will, or intent of God, as likewise in respect of those provi∣dential interposures of his, by which it was effected, adventitious, accidental, and occasional onely, (as hath been said,) yet in respect of the consequent intent or will of God, it was direct, proper, and really intended by him. For Gods intent really and absolutely was, that, unless Pharaoh should repent, and relent in time to a dismission of his people, by the signal means and motives so graciously vouchsafed unto him to perswade and work him hereunto, he should by degrees be hard∣ned by them to destruction. Even as his full purpose and pleasure how is, that they who from day to day turn his grace in the Gospel unto wantonness, shall be hardned thereby unto condemnation.

3. Though the consequent will of God was abso∣lute, that Pharaoh, persisting obdutate to such or such a period of time under so many means used by God himself for his reclaiming, should be finally, or in the end, hardened unto his own destruction; yet might Pharaoh, all along the currency of his for∣mer

obduration, and untill he came to be finally hard∣ned,* 1.181 upon which his destruction immediatly followed, by relenting, and letting the people go, have prevent∣ed his finall hardning, and consequently, his destructi∣on.* 1.182 For whilst the patience of God, which (as our A∣postle saith) leadeth men to repentance, is continued or vouchsafed unto them, there is no impossibility but that they may be led [I mean, led home, or actually brought] to Repentance. The Apostle Peter also informeth us, that Gods long-suffering, towards men, proceedeth from his unwillingness that any man should perish, and desire that all should repent. It was not indeed in Pharaohs power or liberty of choice, having first begun to harden himself, whether God should proceed with him, as in the first place he did, and whereby he became further hardned; nor yet having thus further hardned himself, whether God should proceed with him in the next place, as he did, whereby he became yet hardned more (and so along all the gradations, or steps of his hardning) Gods deportment of himself towards Pharaoh, upon Pharaohs deportment towards him, depending onely upon his own will, and not at all upon Pharaohs, but it was in Pharaohs power, under, or upon, every prece∣dent act or dispensation of God, whereby he became hardned, or hardned more then before, to have prevent∣ed all those that now followed; and consequently his finall hardning and destruction hereupon. For there is no degree of obduration (on this side the unpardona∣ble sin against the Holy Ghost) but which (as hath been more then once observed in the premises, and is else∣where more fully proved, both from the Scriptures, and by Argumentb 1.183) admitteth of such a degree of the Grace of God, and of his good Spirit, in consistency with it, by the stirring up, and improvement whereof it is very

possible for men to recover out of the snare thereof, and to reduce themselves to a gracious tenderness of soul.

4. From the premisses it is not hard to conceive, how and in what sence the Apostles inference, that God hard∣neth whom he will, standeth firm, and is most true, notwithstanding it be true also (in its sence) that it rests in the wills of men, being always superintended and assisted by the Grace of God, whether they will be hardned by him or no. God hardneth whom he will, in as much as he hardneth those, who first voluntarily harden themselves, and are found disobedient, these being they, or all those, whom he willeth to harden. A∣gain, in as much as no man is necessitated, or compelled to harden himself, or to reject the motions of the pre∣venting Grace of God, but by vertue of this Grace, may, if he please, comport with it, and approve him∣self unto God; it is a plain case that every man, be∣fore his voluntary hardning of himself, may prevent such his hardning, and consequently, his being hardned by God. And as God in saving those who repent and beleeve, though he saveth no other, yet saveth whom he will: In like manner, in hardning those, who first hard∣en themselves, though he hardneth no others, yet hard∣neth whom he will. Even as this our Apostle, speaking of the Holy Ghost, and of his gifts saith, that he distri∣buteth them to every man severally AS HE WILL, 1 Cor. 12.11. and yet vers. 31. (of the same Chapter) supposeth that men may have what gifts from him they will, by coveting earnestly after them. Otherwise where∣unto serveth, or tendeth, this incouragement or exhor∣tation? So that the liberty vested in men to have what gifts of the Holy Ghost, they please, or shall covet af∣ter, doth not at all prejudice the liberty of the Holy

Ghost, to dispence them to every man as he will.

If it be yet demanded; But if Gods primary and an∣tecedent Intentions concerning Pharaoh, and his raising up (in the sence by you assigned) were not his hardning, or destruction, but the bringing of him to repentance, and his preservation hereupon from that destruction, which now overwhelmed him, (as you have affirmed,) why did he not vouchsafe unto him means as effectu∣al to bring him to Repentance, as he doth unto others, who are actually brought to Repentance by him? Or why did he not rather say and declare before hand, thus; I will give unto Pharaoh, an heart of flesh, rather then I will harden Pharaohs heart, which is (in effect) to give him an heart of stone? To this also I answer:

1. That this Question or difficulty, should (in due process of method) have been propounded and resolv∣ed in our explication of the last preceding Verse. But an after-memory is better then a perpetual forgetful∣ness. Therefore:

2. I answer, that it no where appears, but that the means vouchsafed by God unto Pharaoh for his Re∣pentance, or whereby he ought to have been brought to repent, were as effectuall, though not eventually so successful, as those are, whereby persons ordinarily are brought to Repentance. The Sun may shine every whit as hot upon the clay,* 1.184 when it hardeneth it, as it doth upon the wax, when it melteth it. The means whereby Chorazin and Bethsaida were hardned and prepared for a signal dstruction, would have been suc∣cessfully effectuall for the conversion, or repentance, of Tyre and Sidon. And in our discussions of the for∣mer Verse, we shewed it to be the express Doctrine of the Synod of Dort it self, that the efficacy of the helps or means of Grace, [vouchsafed by God unto men]

is to be [measured, or] judged of by the nature of the be∣nefit offered, and by the manifest Word of God, NOT BY THE EVENT, OR ABUSE OF THEM. So that Pha∣raohs unrelentingness and impenitency, are no argu∣ments at all of any defectiveness or insufficiency in the means afforded him for his Repentance. Nay,

3. The Benefit or Indulgence offered by God unto Pharaoh time after time, upon condition of his Repent∣ance and dismission of his people, as viz. his immuni∣ty from further plagues or judgments from God, plainly shew, according to the Doctrine of the Synod of Dort lately recited, that the means vouchsafed un∣to Pharaoh were effectual, and fully sufficient to have wrought him to Repentance. The proffer, or promise of a benefit, by a sober and well-disposed person, un∣to any man, upon the performance of such, or such, a condition, always supposeth (at least in his apprehen∣sion) a sufficiency of power in him, to whom such a pro∣mise or proffer, is made, to perform this condition. To promise any thing upon other terms, is rather an insul∣tation over the weakness of him, to whom the promise is made, then any matter of kindness, which the nature of a promise still imports. The promise of a reward of a thousand pounds made unto a cripple, or poor man, whose legs have been cut off, upon condition, he will run twenty miles within an hours space, were meerly to deride such a man in his misery. Therefore cer∣tainly, Pharaoh, God by many promissory intimations, time after time, signifying unto him, that upon his Re∣pentance, and letting his people go, the judgments threatned should not come upon him, is hereby evict∣ed to have had a sufficiency of means, or power, for the fulfilling of the said condition of Repentance, and of dismissing the people.

4. Pharaoh by the means which were vouchsafed unto him, did several times actually and truly repent of his obstinacy, and promised, yea and gave order for, the dis∣mission and departure of the people. Exod. 10.16, 17. and 12.31, 32, &c. Therefore he was (questionless) in a suffi∣ent capacity to have repented and dismissed the people. That afterwards he repented of this his repentance, and returned to his former obdurateness, is no argument that his former repentance was not true. Yea if this repentance had been hollow or counterfeit, his repent∣ing of it had been no sin. And besides, if the tree (as our Saviour saith) be known by the fruit, that Re∣pentance of Pharaoh, which produced, 1. Confession of sin, and of this committed, both against God, and men. (Exod. 10.16.) 2. Application by way of en∣treaty unto the Saints, to pray unto God for him. Ibid. 3. An express order with incouragement un∣to Moses and Aaron, to expedite the departure of their people according to the commandment of God, and this in as ample manner as themselves desired itc 1.185; that Repentance (I say) which brought forth such fruits as these, must needs be conceived to have been a true Repentance. And (doubtless) had Pharaoh persisted in this Repentance, and not relapsed into his former pro∣vocation, (which he was no ways necessitated unto,) he had escaped that dreadful stroke from Heaven, which he met with in the red Sea.

5. No man (I presume) ever yet conceived that Pha∣raoh died under the guilt of that unpardonable sin a∣gainst the Holy Ghost. If not, then during the whole course of his disobedience against God, he was not to any such degree destitute, or deprived, of the grace or good spirit of God, but that by the help and assistance hereof (as was said formerly) he was in a possibility of re∣covering

out of that snare of Satan, wherein his foot was takend 1.186.

6. (And lastly) the reason why God did before hand declare thus, I will harden Pharaohs heart, rather then I will soften Pharaohs heart, though his antecedent In∣tentions stood for the softning it, might (probably) be this; partly because he knew that the hardning of his heart would be the issue and event of those applica∣tions he intended to make unto him; partly also, be∣cause had he told Moses before hand, that he would soften Pharaohs heart, and Moses in the transaction of the business had found the contrary, it might have proved a grand discouragement unto him. Upon a like ac∣count (I suppose) our Saviour, Luke 12.51. pre-informs his Disciples, not of his primary or antecedent intenti∣ons of sending forth his Gospel into the world, which were, to make peace on earth amongst men, in as much as he knew these more generally would not take place; but rather of his consequent, because he foresaw that these would be fulfilled in many places, and amongst great numbers of men, and knew withall, that should his Disciples have met with these cross effects or events of the Gospel, in the world, and not have been pre-admonished of them accordingly, they might have been much troubled, and fainted under the tryal. Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on Earth? I tell you nay, but rather division.

If it be yet demanded concerning Pharaoh, and Gods hardning him; whether God could not, if he had so pleased, have dealt with Pharaoh, after such a manner, what by the inward motions and workings of his Spi∣rit within him, and what by such outward applicati∣ons of himself unto him, so as by the one and the other, etiher severally, or joyntly, to have brought him to Re∣pentance,

at least so far as to have let the children of Israel go, and consequently, to have prevented his de∣struction; and if God, had he so pleased, might have brought Pharaoh to Repentance, and so have prevent∣ed his destruction, and yet did neither, how can he be said truly and really to have intended either? I an∣swer:

1. That the power of God, simply and in it self considered, without that regulation which it admitteth from his wisdome and righteousness in the motions and actings of it, there is little question to be made but that he could have handled Pharaoh upon such terms, as to have made him stoop, and yeeld to the departure of the children of Israel. Yea had God refused to heal his Land of any of those plagues which were in∣flicted on it, and for a time clave unto it, untill he had suffered the people quietly to depart, doubtless he would have submitted hereunto, rather then have suf∣fered his Kingdom to be destroyed by his obstinacy in such a case. And the Text it self of the Story take∣eth notice from place to place, that the removal and taking off of the several judgments from time to time by God, was that which occasioned toties quoties, Pha∣raohs re-obduration. Exod. 8.15, 32. and 9.12, 34. and 10.20. This clearly implieth, that had any of the said judgments been continued in their strength and terror upon his Land and people, for any considerable space of time, his stiff neck would have bowed, and his stout heart have yeelded to the departure of the people. But,

2. If we speak of the power of God as regulated, mannaged, or acted by the infinite wisdome and un∣derstanding of God in conjunction with his righteous∣ness, (in which sence the Scriptures constantly speak

of it, in matters of divine Administrations in the world) so it may be as truly affirmed on the other hand, that God was not able, or (which is the same) that it was not in the power of God to work Pharaoh unto Repentance, or (consequently) to prevent his destruction. The true meaning and import of such a saying as this, is no more but this; That God is notable to do any thing un∣wisely, or unrighteously; or (which is the same) which he judgeth repugnant to any principle, either of wisdom or righteousness, for him to do. And such a saying as this, is but of the same confederacy both in reason, and truth with these, and the like (which are every mans sayings) that God cannot lie, cannot deceive, cannot forswear himself, cannot do unjustly, nor any thing whatsoever which includeth either sin, or imperfecti∣on. Of this regulated power of his, God himself speak∣eth, Isai. 5.4. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not not done in it? Wherefore, &c. God by his power, simply and absolutely considered, could have done a thousand things more to his Vine∣yard, to make it fruitfull according to his mind, then now he had done in it, or to it: he could have multi∣plied both Miracles and Prophets without number, above what he yet had done; yea and have wrought such signs and wonders in the midst of it, which should in greatness and majesty of conviction have exceeded an hundred-fold all those, that had been as yet wrought here: And so likewise have raised up and sent Pro∣phets unto them far more excellently qualified and gifted, then those, who had been now sent unto them. But God (in the words specified) speaks of his regu∣lated power; i. e. Of his power as directed and drawn forth into action by his wisdom in consort with his righteousness; and in respect of this power he demands,

What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? meaning, that he had turned every stone, attempted every way, method, and means, by which it was any ways honourable and meet for him to endeavour their Repentance, and so to preserve them from ruine and destruction. He must have made a breach upon his own principles of wisdome and righ∣teousness (which was unpossible for him to do, accord∣ing to that of the Apostle, He CANNOT deny himself) if he had proceeded any whit further, done any thing more upon that account. This might be illustrated and con∣firmed from that passage, 2 Chron. 36.15, 16. And the Lord God of their Fathers sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes, and sending, because he had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling place. But they mocked the Messengers of God, and despised his words, and mis-used his Prophets, untill the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy. These last words, till there was no remedy, import, that the people had pro∣ceeded to that height of wickedness, that there was nothing (as it were) left in God to help, or heal them: his power had been drawn out to the uttermost of its regular capacity to do them good, and prevent their ru∣ine, but it prevailed not. This likewise is plainly im∣plied in that other clause, where he is said to have had compassion on his people. Doubtless, if he had compassi∣on on them, he did not onely vouchsafe a bare suffici∣ency of means unto them, or such, by the highest and utmost improvement whereof they might have been reclaimed from the evil of their ways, and so have been preserved from ruine; but as rich and full a proporti∣on of such means, as his utmost estate in power (so con∣sidered as hath been declared) could afford. He doth not truly compassionate a person in misery, who doth

not afford him the best means he is able with wisdom and discretion, for his relief, in case he cannot be re∣leeved otherwise. Of this regulated power of God the Evangelist Mark also speaketh, where speaking of Christ now being in his own country, he saith, And he COULD there DO NO mighty work, &c. Mark 6.5. The expression implieth not that that Arm of Omni∣potency, by which the Lord Christ wrought so many mighty works in other places, was either shortned, or any ways weakned or enfeebled by coming into, or remain∣ing in, his own country; but onely that it admitted such a kind of regulation here by his wisdom, in re∣spect of differing circumstances, which it did not re∣ceive in other places; and consequently was at liberty to work many mighty works there, which it wanted here. What circumstance it was in particular, according to the exigency whereof the infinite wisdom of Christ regulated and contracted his power to a narrower sphere of action in his own country, then it did in other parts, the Evangelist Matthew clearly expresseth, where (speaking of the same thing) he saith, And he did not many mighty works there, BECAUSE OF THEIR UN∣BELIEF, Mat. 13.58. Christ judged it not a thing rea∣sonable or meet (and consequently, it was impossible for him to do it) to multiply miracles, or mighty works, where the people generally were either blockish, and set not their hearts or minds upon the interpretation and import of them, or otherwise were of malicious and perverse spirits, drawing onely darkness out of light, depraving and blaspheming that glorious power, by which they were effected. Of the same regulated pow∣er we speak of, the Apostle Paul also spake, Acts 27.31. when he said to the Centurion and Souldiers concern∣ing the Mariners now about to flee out of the ship; Except

these abide in the ship, ye CANNOT be safe. Question∣less the power of God, simply considered, did not stand in need of the help or presence of the Mariners, to pre∣serve either the ship, or those that were in it from the danger, unto which both were now exposed; but the regulated power of God, did. For he had promised unto his Beloved Servant Paul, tanquam munus hono∣rarium, as a reward of honour, the lives not of some, but of ALL that sailed with him in the ship (vers. 24.) meaning if they would all agree, and be content to ac∣cept of their preservation upon this account, and be di∣rected by Paul in order hereunto, that so the deliver∣ance might be discerned to be given unto them by God for his sake: and therefore did not judg it meet or honourable for him to make good his promise by halfs, nor yet contrary to the terms upon which it was made, and according to which the performance of it was intended. Therefore in case the Mariners, who were a part of those with Paul in the Ship, should at∣tempt their preservation another way, as viz. by escape∣ing in their boat, and so, in case they should have been thus preserved, their preservation would not have been ascribed to Pauls Interest in God, but to their own wisdome and providence, God declares plainly to the residue of those in the ship, by the mouth of his ser∣vant Paul, that unless they took a course to keep the Mariners also in the ship, it would not be in his power to save them; meaning (as hath been said) that it would not be honourable in point of wisdome for him to save them; in which respect he could not do it. That clause also, Heb. 7.25. speaking of Christ, Wherefore he is A∣BLE also to save them to the uttermost, that come unto God by him, speaketh clearly enough, not of the simple or absolute, but of the regulated ability, or power of Christ

to save. For in respect of his power, simply consider∣ed, he is able to save even those also to the uttermost [or, for evermore,] who do not come unto God by him. And if so, what great comfort is it for Beleevers themselves, who are they that do come to God by him, to hear that He is able to save them upon the same terms? Therefore (doubtless) the Holy Ghost, by the ability or power of Christ to save (in the passage before us) means, not his absolute, but his regulated, power to save: for by this he is able to save those, who come unto God by him, but no others. The power of God is in seve∣ral other Scriptures, besides those mentioned (which would be too long to insist upon particularly) represent∣ed unto us under that notion of regulation, which we have now opened. See Gen. 9.22. Eph. 1.11. 2 Tim. 1.12. and 2.13. Hebr. 2.18. (besides others.) And as these Texts speak of the power of God, as regulated, so that of David, Psal. 90.4. speaketh (in part) of the regulation it self. The Kings strength also (he speaketh of the King, that sitteth between the Cherubims, vers. 1.) loveth judgment; meaning, that the Omnipotency of God in all the exertions, motions, and actings of it, sub∣mitteth it self willingly and with delight to a prudent and righteous regulation, which it receiveth from his infinite wisdome and understanding. For to define, or determine, what is judgment, i. e. what is just, righ∣teous, and meet to be done, appertaineth to the under∣standing. And as he that loveth, is in a kind of sub∣jection to that, whether person, or thing, which he lo∣veth, and receiveth many laws and regulations from it, as (viz.) concerning the doing of such and such things which are for the benefit, good, and well-being of it, and on the other hand, concerning the for∣bearing of such and such actions, which are contrary

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

thereunto; in like manner the Strength, or power of the great King, loving judgment, must of necessity be con∣ceived to be in a kind of subjection unto it, and to ac∣cept of such terms of regulation from it, by the Ob∣servation whereof the said strength or power must ne∣cessarily, not onely act and do all things accommoda∣tious unto it, but refrain also the doing of all such o∣ther things, which are prejudicial to it, and inconsistent with the Interest and honour of it. The substance and import of this late saying of David, is contained in that of the Apostle Paul, Eph. 1.11. though the words seem to look another way. For here, speaking of God, he saith, that he works all things after [or according to, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the COUNSEL of his own will [or, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the will of himself,] not simply according to his will, but, according to the counsel of his will, according to that regulation, which his operative or acting will re∣ceiveth from his wisdome or understanding. Now if God, or the power of God, worketh and acteth ALL things, nothing at all excepted, not according to his meer will or pleasure, (which are some mens unhappy expressions, but put to rebuke by the Holy Ghost here) but according to the COUNSEL of his will, (in the sence declared) it clearly follows that the Omnipotency of God is continually, in all the movings and workings of it, steered and directed, enlarged and contracted, led this way, or that way, by the influence or superinten∣dency of his infinite wisdome and understanding. And wheresoever elsewhere any thing is ascribed unto the will of God simply, and without mention of the coun∣sel thereof, the sence of the place, or phrase, is to be reduced unto, and regulated by, the Scripture last spe∣cified, where he is said to work ALL THINGS accord∣ing to the COUNSEL of his own will, according to that

known rule for Interpretation of Scripture, viz. that places more particular, and full, ought to rule the sence of those that are more brief, and consequently more obscure. So that the Scripture speaking of the power of God, in this consideration, may truly and properly enough affirm many things to be unpossible to him, which in respect of his power simply considered, are very possible and easie unto him. There is an eye of, or somewhat in appearance like unto, that Regulated power, which the Scripture ascribes unto God himself, to be seen in his children also; and this by the same light of the Scriptures, by which we come to understand the other. For as the infinite wisdome and understand∣ing of God rendreth many things unpossible unto him, which by his absolute power are very possible for him to do; so doth that participation of this wisdome which he vouchsafeth to the children of light, the Saints, con∣tract their power also, according to the exigency of circumstances, and in relation to things lawful and meet for them to do. In which respect evill works and practises of sin, and things unworthy of them, though in respect of those humane faculties and abili∣ties vested in them, possible more then enough for them to do, are notwithstanding frequently in Scripture asserted as impossibilities unto them. For we (saith our Apostle) CAN DO NOTHING against the truth, but for the truth, [2 Cor. 13.8.] Doubtless he speaks of his regulated power: for otherwise, by his pow∣er, or by his abilities, simply considered, he was as a∣ble, yea more able in some respects, to act against the Truth, as other men. Thus also the Apostle John; Whosoever is born of God, doth not commit sin: for his seed remaineth in him; and HE CANNOT SIN, because he is born of God. [1 Joh. 3.9.] These last words, because

he is born of God, import, that that power of sinning [meaning, against light and conscience] which hath a being in the Saints, considered simply as men, is re∣strained and abolished as to the acting of such sin, by that divine light and heavenly understanding, which is the seed of their regeneration; according to that of James, Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, i. e. by the knowledg and understanding of that glo∣rious and blessed truth, contained and declared in the Word, i. e. in the Gospel, or in the Scriptures. For no man is begotten by the word of truth, as by a charm or spell, or any otherwise then by means of the sound knowledg and understanding of it, i. e. of the truth asserted in it. Thus Joseph likewise being tempted unto sin by his Mistress, repelleth the temptation by de∣manding, How CAN I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? meaning, that the knowledg which he had of God, and of the horridness of sinning against him, disabled him from the doing of that, which in other respects he was as able to do as other men. In respect of this contraction, limitation, and confinement of the power and abilities of the Saints unto things lawfull, and ways and practises approved of God, they are by our Apostle so frequently said to be, dead unto sin, Rom. 6.2.11. Col. 3.3. 2 Tim. 2.11. So also Peter, 1 Pet. 2.24. So that Maxime in the civil Law, id tan∣tum possumus, quod jure possumus, is, in the literal sence of it true, both of God, and his Saints: neither the one, nor the other, have power to do any thing, but what their respective understandings inform them, to be just, meet, and honourable for them to do. In re∣spect of that regulated power of God, which we have clearly evinced from the Scriptures, it is more then pro∣bable, that he doth whatsoever he is able to do for the

bringing of all men to repentance, and so for the sal∣vation of the whole world. Therefore:

3. (And lastly,) To argue the non-Intentions of God from his non-assecutions, is as impertinent and weak a kind of arguing as lightly can be. For as he that of∣fers the full value, and rather with the most, for a com∣modity, as suppose an Horse, an House, or the like, in case he that is to sell, or part with this Horse, or House, shall refuse to let him have either at the price he offer∣eth, cannot reasonably be thought not to have intended, and this very really and seriously, the purchase of ei∣ther, because though being a rich man and able, yet he would not come up to the unreasonable demands of the seller, and so to purchase to himself the blot and disparagement of a fool, with his money: in like manner when God proceedeth so far as he judgeth meet, and agreeable to true wisdome, in vouchsafing means and opportunities unto men in order to their Repentance and Salvation, (which is the measure that he measureth unto every man) it cannot reasonably be said of him, that he doth not, or did not, really and se∣riously intend their Repentance and Salvation, onely because he did not that, which infallibly, and with cer∣tainty of event and success, should cause them to repent (and so be saved,) which being rightly interpreted, is nothing less then the doing of that, which was unpos∣sible for him to do. So then it is as clear as the light at noon day, that Gods hardning Pharaoh by such means as he did, and the shewing of his power in his de∣struction hereupon, are no arguments or proof that simply and absolutely he intended either, or that He did not really and truly intend his Repentance, and Pre∣servation by means hereof.

All this while we see how methodically and closely our

Apostle keeps to the line of his ingagement, which is to argue and illustrate his Doctrine of Justification by Faith: and particularly (in the passages last explained) to vindicate the said Doctrine from the pretended crime or imputation of unrighteousness, in respect of those, who according to the tenor and effect thereof, are reject∣ed by God, and perish. The ground upon which this his vindication standeth, is this, God is at liberty, hath a justness of power, to reject, reprobate, & destroy, whom he will: Those whom he willeth, thus to reject, reprobate & destroy, he hath in the example of Pharaoh, and by his proceedings with him from first to last, declared to be, obstinate and impenitent unbeleevers. Therefore the doctrine of Justification in the sight of God by Faith, re∣flecteth not the least shadow of unrighteousnes upon him.

By the way, all that we have reasoned from the Scrip∣ture in hand (with many others) concerning Pharaoh, and Gods counsel and intentions about his raising up, and casting down (by destruction) sufficiently evince, that the Apostles intent in his inserting the brief of his story in his present discourse, was not to propound him for an instance, or example of that sort or kind of men, which God by his consequent will, is resolved to reject, reprobate, harden, and destroy, viz. such, who are finally stubborn, impenitent, and unbeleeving. The Apostle in all this plainly enough parallels, the case and condition of the stubborn and unbeleeving Jews, (with whom more particularly he had to do in the present discourse) with the case of Pharaoh, as it is recorded in their own Scriptures.

Let us now from the two Verses last explained, take up some brief Observations, and so proceed with our Interpretation.

1. Whereas the Apostle, vers. 17. expresseth himself

thus, For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, his meaning (as was explained) being, that God himself spake thus unto him; it is observable, That what the Scripture speaketh, ought to be conceived and understood, as spoken by God himself unto the world. 2 Tim. 3.16. 2 Pet. 1.16, 21. Gal. 3.22, &c.

2. Whereas we hear of Gods raising up Pharaoh (in the sence declared) for the end here specified, the shew∣ing of his power in him, &c. it is most worthy Observa∣tion, That where God vouchsafeth the greatest and most signal favours, he always intends the greatest exempla∣riness of severity, in case of disobedience and impenitency. Am. 3.2. Mat. 11.23. and 23.37, 38, &c.

3. From those words, And that my Name may be de∣clared through all the Earth, knowledg may be taken; That in the most severe punishments and executions done upon wicked men, Gods intentions are very gracious to the generality of men surviving, and succeeding, viz. in ordering and disposing such executions, to the more effectu∣all publication and manifestation of his most worthy and great Name amongst them, Psal. 58.10, 11. Numb. 14.21, 22, 23. Deut. 13.9, 10, 11.

4. From this Inference of the Apostle, Therefore hath he mercy, on whom he will have mercy, this Doctrine springeth, That the gracious will and good pleasure of God, and not the will or apprehension of man, is, and this with greatest reason and equity, the rule according unto which mercy and favour shall be shewn unto men. Eph. 1.11. 2 Cor. 10.18. Joh. 6.40, &c.

5. (And lastly,) From those words, And whom he will he hardneth, this Observation in like manner present∣eth it self; That the will of God, not the sence, conceit, or will of men, ought to umpire and determine, who, and what kind of persons are to be, and shall be, rejected, punished,

and reprobated by God. Proceed we now to Exposi∣tion.

[Verse 19] Thou wilt say then unto me, why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? This Particle, then, or (as it is in the Original) therefore, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] sheweth, that the Objection or demand, contained in the rest of the words, was occasioned from the last clause or in∣ference of the Apostle in the former Verse, And whom he will, he hardneth. This yet further appeareth from that other Particle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet, which will not accommo∣date the Objection in reference to any other clause or passage preceding. So that the Apostle raising and propounding the Objection, thus: Thou wilt THEN say unto me, why doth he YET, &c. in more plainness of speech, speaketh thus: Because I affirm and teach concerning God, That whom he will, he hardneth, there∣fore it is like that one or other, not well understand∣ing the sence, or not duly weighing the grounds of such a Doctrine, will be ready to object, and demand, Why doth he YET [viz. when men are now hardned by him] find fault, reprove, or complain (as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifieth) meaning, of such persons, as that they continue wicked, obstinate, disobedient, &c. and will not repent; taking it for granted (and that not without cause) that God indeed is wont to find fault with, to reprove, and complain even of such men, whom he hath hardned. The reasonableness or strength of the Objection (such as it is) is held forth by the Objector in the latter demand (as the ratiocinative particle, for, importeth) FOR who hath resisted his Will? q. d. Men being hardned by the irresistible will of God, cannot reasonably be complained of, or reproved, by him, either for being, or remaining, hardned or impenitent. The principle in reason and common equity, upon

which this Objection is founded, is this; That men are excusable in whatsoever they are necessitated unto by a power greater then they are able to withstand, and ought not to be reproved upon such an account, espe∣cially not by him, by whose over-bearing power they have been necessitated thereunto.

For the Phrase, Who hath resisted, it imports, who hath been able to resist;* 1.187 according to that rule by which the Scripture speaketh many things; Many times the negation of a power to act, is included in, and with, the negation of the Act onely. Thus God himself speaketh, and there is none delivereth out of my hande 1.188. [Thus the Original hath it, and Junius and Tremellius accord∣ingly render it, and Master Henry Ainsworth also] i. e. None CAN deliver, &c. (as our English readeth it,) So again, the land did not bear them [in the Original] i. e. could not bear them (as we have it translated.) Com∣pare Mat. 12.25. with Mar. 3.24, 25. And again, Mat. 17.21. with Mar. 9.29. So that the meaning of the words before us, Who hath resisted his will? is, who hath been, is, or ever shall be able to resist, i. e. to frustrate, or to hinder the coming to pass, or being of that, which God willeth shall come to pass, or be?

By the way, unless by the will of God (in this clause) be meant, that which some call his decreeing will, i. e. that will wherewith himself willeth to do a thing, and not his preceptive will, wherewith he onely commands som∣thing to be done by men, there is no strength, nor co∣lour of strength, or reason in the demand. For, con∣cerning this latter will of God, it may rather be de∣manded, Who hath not, at least in many things, resisted it? In many things (saith James) we offend all, i. e. do many things contrary to the preceptive will of God, and so do not suffer many things willed by him (in this sence)

to take place. If we understand the clause to speak of the other, the Decreeing will of God, the sence of it must be this: Who ever hath been, is, or will be, able, to hinder the coming to pass of that, which God hath absolutely, and against all possible interveniences, de∣creed to effect? According to such a sence as this (the truth is) that the Objection hath very little in it in op∣position to the Apostles Doctrine of Gods hardning whom he will. For when he saith of God, that whom he will he hardneth, it neither supposeth (in the first place) his actual hardning of any man, but onely his just liber∣ty or power to harden whom he pleaseth; Nor 2. Doth it suppose any purpose or decree in him to harden any man against all possible interveniences, or without the doing of that, by those who are hardned, which they might very possibly have prevented, or not have done, (as we have formerly proved at large,) but at the most, a purpose to harden those, who shall first voluntarily harden themselves; Nor 3. Doth it suppose, that they who are actually hardned by God, are in no capacity or possibility, by means of that Grace of God which is yet vouchsafed unto them, notwithstanding their hard∣ning, of recovering themselves from under it, or of be∣taking themselves to the Altar of Repentance: the contrary hereunto hath likewise been clearly evicted by us. Now then, though the Decreeing will of God, be (in the sence declared) irresistible, yet if this will be, 1. To harden none but those, who voluntarily first harden themselves, and so might have prevented their hardning: And 2. To leave those, whom he doth at any time harden, in a capacity of relenting, and returning to their former, or a greater tenderness, so that if they do it not, it becomes an high aggravation of their former sin; certainly he hath reason in abundance to reprove,

and complain of those, who are at any time hardned by him, and so continue. For reproofs are in no case more proper, then when men through their wilful foolish∣ness, have incurr'd any great danger and inconvenience; and especially, when having power and opportunity in their hands, to redeem themselves, they shall notwith∣standing neglect to do it. These things considered, it fully appears that there is little or no strength in the Objection: and that it savoureth more of a captious humour, or wicked desire to quarrel with the righteous proceedings of God against stubborn and disobedient men, or else to trouble, incumber, and disparage the A∣postles Doctrine, then of any true desire to be satisfied in the truth hereof, or of any conscientious scruple in the Objector about it: and upon this account seemeth rather to be the Objection of some perverse minded Jew, then of any otherh 1.189. Even as in these days, it is exceedingly to be feared▪ that many raise Objections, and some write Books, against several Doctrines, nor so much out of any ingenuity or goodness of Consci∣ence, as really and upon ground judging the said Do∣ctrines to be erroneous and unsound, or out of any Christian desire to be satisfied, either touching the truth or untruth of them, as to dis-figure their faces, and heap reproaches upon the heads of these Doctrines, least their beauty and truth should commend them with too high an hand unto the world.

But that the Objection yet before us proceeds from a great unworthiness of spirit, either through impudence, or ignorance, or both, in the Objector, the Answer which the Apostle returns to it, maketh evident, the tenor of which Answer followeth in these words:

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against [Verse 20] God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it,

why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the Potter power [Verse 21] over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessell unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

I scarce know any one passage of the Scripture, more importunely handled, and more frequently abu∣sed then this; Nay but, O man, who art thou that reply∣est against God? When men in the Great Questions of Predestination and Reprobation, bring forth any text of Scripture, one, or more, which, as they conceive and interpret, make for their notion in these points, though the sence which they put upon these Scriptures, be never so uncouth, horrid, and loudly-dissonant from the genuine and true meaning of the Holy Ghost, yet if any man goeth about to contradict their sence, or by the clearest evidence of reason to overthrow their In∣terpretation, they presently fall upon him with the sharp two edged-sword of this Apostolical reproof: Nay but, O man, who art thou, &c. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Paul had left them his heirs and successors in the infallibility of his Spirit, or as if all the spots of darkness and ignorance were clean scoured out of the Moon of their understandings. Indeed if men could now give us as good security, that they have the mind of God, and of Christ, as Paul did, that he had them, there were some better colour for the bearing them out in the exercise of such Apostle-like jurisdiction against those, who refuse to bow down to their apprehensions. But when men shall call a solid and sober answer to their reasonless and groundless conceits about the meaning of the Scriptures, a reply∣ing against God, it savours more of his Spirit, who was seen falling like lightning from Heaven,* 1.190 then of his, who saw him in this his fall. This onely by the way.

The Apostles Answer, to the Objection or demand

propounded,* 1.191 consisteth (as Calvin well observeth) of two parts. The former is a sharp objurgation or re∣proof: the latter, a substantial vindication of the right∣teousness and wisdom of God in those proceedings of his with men, both which the Objection seemeth desi∣rous to impeach. Each part of the Answer is propound∣ed in one and the same interrogative form and tenor of speech: the former thus; Nay but who art thou, O man, &c. The latter; Hath not the Potter power o∣ver, &c. Interrogative expressions argue much seri∣ousness and intensness of mind in him that speaketh, about the things of which he speaketh: and withall, are more apt to pierce, and awaken the minds and thoughts of those that are spoken unto, or hear.

In the objurgation or former part of the Answer, the Apostle toucheth upon three things, to make the Objector sensible either of his ignorance, or presump∣tion, or both, in admitting and giving way to such thoughts, as those, of which the Objection is made: First, he re-minds him of his own weak, and deplora∣ble condition, as being a man, and so sold under sin and ignorance, Nay, but who art thou, O MAN? 2. He sets before him the consideration of the most transcen∣dent greatness, wisdome and majesty of him against whom he contends, and whom he arraigns by such an Objection, in the word, God; Who art thou that repliest against GOD? 3. (And lastly) he informs him of the nature or quality of his offence committed in such an Objection, against this most glorious and incomprehen∣sible being, GOD, in that word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who re∣pliest, or takest up a dispute against, or who givest thwart, or cross answers unto God. The word will well bear any of these significations: yet I incline rather to that mentioned in the second place. So that this part of

the Apostles answer, being spread more at large, may be conceived to contain some such address from him, as this to the Objector. How is it, what strange and unheard of presumption is it, for such a creature as thou art, being a man, dwelling in an house of clay, compassed about with ignorance and darkness, sold un∣der sin, adjudged unto death, guilty of eternal death, shouldst undertake to reprove, censure, judg, and con∣demn the actions and ways of the most High God, as if they were crooked, defective either in justice, or wis∣dom, or any other excellency; the actions and ways I say of that God, who is the soveraign and supream Ruler of all things, the Lord of life and death, the Great Cre∣ator, Preserver, Governour of all creatures, before whom those great Princes of Heaven, the Holy An∣gels, cover their faces, and Heaven and Earth are afraid and tremble; and who through the riches of his pati∣ence hath endured thee in the midst of many great pro∣provocations, and all thy sins notwithstanding, hath intreated thee graciously, dealt bountifully with thee, heaped blessings and good things upon thee night and day, in comparison of whom, thou together with all the Nations of the Earth, art lighter then vanity, lesser then nothing it self? that such an one, as thou art, shouldst lift up a thought against such a God as this, or the least of his ways, is such a thing, such a deportment of a creature, at which the Sun may be ashamed, and the Moon abashed, and the Earth removed out of his place.

In the words following, Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus, the Apostle further amplifies and exaggerates the indignity put up∣on God by him, that should rise up against him with any such demand, as, Why doth he then find fault? for who, &c.

Meaning, that he that shall thus expostulate with God, doth no otherwise, no whit better, then if an earthen Pitcher should contend with him that formed it, and demand an account of him, why he made it in such or such a shape, as now he hath done, and not rather in some other. This comparison sets off the deportment of the Objector towards God with a kind of unnatu∣ral and prodigious deformity, and unworthiness. For what can there lightly be imagined more repugnant to the Law of nature, or light of reason, then that that which receives the benefit, or good of being, from an∣other, which, how mean or ordinary soever it be, it could no ways deserve or claim, from him that gave it, should notwithstanding censure or reprove him, because the being which he gave unto it, was not better, or some other, then what it is? Have sheep or oxen any cause to find fault with their creator, because he made them such, and not men? or men, that he made them men, and not Angels? especially considering, that it was im∣possible for God, to have given any other beings unto them, then those, which he hath now given them, and by which they are that which they are. God could in∣deed have made other creatures, and doubtless better then they, when he made them: but what had this been to them, in case they had not been made? It cannot upon this account be said, that he had done better for THEM, or given THEM any better being, then what they now have: nay, if they had not received those ve∣ry kinds of beings which now they have, THEY could have had no being at all, but onely other creatures should have had beings in their stead.

Nor ought the Apostles similitude, or comparison, seem improper to set forth or shew the unreasonableness of the Objector in the mentioned Objection, although

the Objection doth not speak of the natural form, or simple being of man, but onely of Gods handling of him, or dealing by him, being now made. Because, 1. Man having sinned, and provoked his Maker, hath hereby forfeited his very being; nor is in any capacity of claiming by any right, or law of equity from God, any manner of being, in the least degree, or in any re∣spect, desirable. Therefore for a man in this lost con∣dition to expostulate with God why he deals by him so or so, why he doth not intreat him more graciously then he doth, is equivalent to an expostulation with him about the terms, or manner of his simple being. 2. This expostulation with God about his handling, or dealing, by his creature man, and particularly in the matter of hardning upon much voluntary provocation preceding, is so much the more unreasonable, because, the wisdome and justice of God considered, it is not meet, and consequently, not possible, for him to proceed otherwise with him, or to alter his state and condition, until by means of that Grace, which is still vouchsafed unto him notwithstanding his present Induration, he stir up himself to seek an heart of flesh, a soft and tender heart, from God.

By the way, there is nothing in this part of the Apo∣stles answer, no not in these words, Nay but O man, who art thou, &c. which imports any unlawfulnes, or unmeet∣ness, for men with reverence and sobriety, to search out as well the righteousness and equity, as the wisdome and goodness, as of the counsels, so of the ways and dis∣pensations of God.* 1.192 Abraham discoursed with God, propounding several questions, and receiving answers from him, during the discourse, concerning his righte∣ousness in the destruction of Sodom, in such and such cases. And Jeremy the Prophet, desired leave of God

to reason with him about his judgments, and the pro∣sperity of wicked meni 1.193. Job also reasoned many things with God, about his righteousness and equity in afflicting him, as he did, and yet was blameless. The Prophet David, speaking of the great Works of God in his government of the world, saith, that they are sought out of all them that have pleasure in themk 1.194. And (doubtless) he that desires to be praised by men with understandingl 1.195, and is as well, if not as much to be praised for his righteousness, for his just and equitable administrations of humane affairs in the world, as for any other his Attributes, and perfections, is well pleas∣ed with those, who endeavour to make the rough things of his ways, smooth; I mean, to reconcile those things in his ways, which unto men are apt to seem unequal and hard, with the clear principles of justice and equi∣ty, such as are written by himself in the fleshly Tables of mens hearts, that so men may praise him for his righteousness with understanding. Therefore all that, which the words now before us, import in this kind, is, That it is intolerable presumption and impiety in men to accuse, quarrel, or arraign the counsels and ways of God, for any defect, whether in wisdome, or righteous∣ness, when they are plainly declared unto them, and e∣victed to be his, or when men cannot reasonably doubt or question, whether they be his, or no. For this was the Apostles case in reference to that severe Objurgation, wherewith he smites the conscience of the Objector; Nay but, O man, &c. He had expresly, and above all reasonable contradiction, from Pharaohs case, evinced the truth of this Assertion, That God hardneth whom he will. It is a far different case, when such counsels or ways are ob∣truded upon us by men, as fallible in their judgments as our selves, in the name of the counsels and ways of

God: and more especially when such counsels or ways are upon these terms obtruded, which have an open eye of unequalness, injustice, and partiality in them; and nothing so much as alledged to cover this great naked∣ness and shame, but onely the prerogative of God to do what he pleaseth, when as the great question is, Whether he pleaseth to do any such thing or no; yea rather, when it is scarce any question at all, but that such things are most displeasing unto him.

If it be said, But might not he that should make such an Objection, against the said Doctrine of the Apostle, as that mentioned, Why doth he then yet complain, &c. make it out of weakness in conjunction with a reall de∣sire of receiving satisfaction about that, which was a reall scruple unto him against it, and which is mention∣ed in the Objection; considering, that a thing may be evidently proved, and to the full satisfaction of some, which notwithstanding may remain doubtfull unto o∣thers? If this were the case with the Objector here, is not the objurgatory part of the Apostles answer raised to too high a pin of severity, and soarness of reproof?

I answer, 1. Some account hath been given former∣ly, that the Apostle, by the tenor and purport of the Objection, intends to personate, not an humble or con∣scientious man, modestly and with a spirit of meekness desirous of satisfaction in things, wherein he was dark, but of a man impatient of hearing the Truth, when the light of it breaks out to the discovery of the nakedness of some or other of his darling notions, or conceits; and who is not tender of speaking most unworthily of God, to salve the credit of his own opinion, or his inordi∣nate contentment received from it. I here add;

2. That the very form of the Objection, as it is here drawn up and exhibited unto us by the Apostle, bewrays

rather a confident and insulting spirit in the Objector, a spirit that thought it self sufficiently furnished with knowledg, wisdome, and understanding, utterly to o∣verthrow the Apostles Doctrine at once, then a spirit burthened with its own weakness and ignorance, or desirous of help from those that were able to relieve it. Look narrowly in the face of the Objection, and you will see haughtiness sitting on the eye-lids of it. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Doth not he that speaketh these things find fault with God himself for finding fault with men; as if Gods act in finding fault were justly taxable, but his own, faultless and irreproveable? Yea doth he not presume to give a reason, whereby, as he conceives, Gods act in finding fault with men, is evict∣ed of error and unreasonableness? [What else mean∣eth this clause subjoyned; For who hath resisted his will?] whereas (questionless) the thought of his heart was, that no good reason could be given by any man to evince any thing culpable in his finding fault with God; because then (it is like) that he would have re∣frained such his reproof. So that the highest strain of severity in the Apostles reproof, doth not rise a whit above the line of the demerit of the Objection.

3. (And lastly) it is not unlikely but that the Apostle in his reproof, might, and did, bear somewhat the hard∣er with his Authority upon the Objector here, that all others in all succeeding generations, might be more ef∣fectually admonished both to think and speak reverent∣ly, and with honour, of all the counsels and ways of God; and tremble at all communion or affinity with this Objector in his impiety. This for the former part of the Apostles answer to the Objection vers. 20. wherein he sharply reproves the Inditer, and so declares

the sinfulness of it. The latter part of his Answer fol∣loweth:

Hath not the Potter power over the clay, &c. The Apostle in this part of his Answer further demonstrates the importune unreasonableness of the said Objection, giving a clear account how God may harden whom he will, and yet both justly, and with wisdome every ways beseeming him, find fault with, or complain of, those who are hardned by him, and this notwithstanding any irresistibleness of his will, in such cases, or sence, where∣in it is irresistible.

Notice may be taken by the way, that the passage and words now before us, are the first-born of that pre∣sumed strength, which many think they find in this Chapter, to stand by them in their opinion of an abso∣lute Reprobation of men under a meer personal con∣sideration, from eternity. But to me it is the first∣born of manifest and apparant Truths, that there is nothing at all, little or much contained, or intended by the Apostle, in the said passage, of any comport with such a notion or opinion. And I doubt not but by a diligent examination of the words themselves, toge∣ther with the context round about them, I shall be able to make this clear to any unpartial, or considering man. But men that are inordinate in their desires after ex∣pedition, are never like to understand those things, which are most expedient for them to know. It is a com∣mon saying, but exceeding true, and most worthy some mens considerations; that omne compendium, dispendi∣um: Haste hath made the greatest part (if not the whole) of that waste of Truth, which hath been made in the world. But to the words.

Hath not the Potter, &c. I suppose it is no mans question, whether the Apostle, in these words, had an

eye, at least of allusion, if not of proof and confirma∣tion also, to that passage of the Prophet Jeremy, where being commanded by God to go down to a Potters house, whilst he stood by, and beheld one vessell mis∣carrying and marr'd in this Potters hand, whilst it was in framing, and another presently made of the same matter by him, the Word of the Lord came to him in this tenour: O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this Pot∣ter, saith the Lord? Behold, as the clay is in the Potters hand, so are ye in my hand, O house of Israelm 1.196. If it be but granted that our Apostle so much as alludeth unto, or glanceth at, these words spoken by God unto Jeremy, (which I presume cannot reasonably be denied, nor is denied that I know of, by any man) their conceit of the words before us, must needs be importune, and against reason, who acknowledg no comparison or similitude in them, but affirm and say, that by the word, Potter, God is properly and directly meant: by the lump, the earth of which men are formed and made: by vessels unto honour, those that are ordained unto salvation: by ves∣sels unto dishonour, those that are appointed unto dam∣nation. The sence of the passage, according to this no∣tion of the words, riseth thus, or to this effect: Hath not the Great Potter, God, such a right of power over that Earth, of which he intendeth to make and form men, that of the same piece or parcel of it he may law∣fully make some for life and glory, others, for shame and destruction? If the words ran thus, Hath not OUR, or, hath not THE HEAVENLY, Potter power of the same lump, &c. the sence specified, might have some com∣petent agreement with the words, although the con∣text ensuing would ill endure it. But now the tenor of them being as we have heard, Hath not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Potter, [i. e. any ordinary or common Potter] power

over the clay, &c. that sence doth at no hand accommo∣date the words themselves.

The Greater part of Expositors, as Calvin, Be∣za, &c. acknowledg a comparison in the words, Pot∣ter, power, clay, lump, vessell, &c. in their grammatical, literal and proper significations. But whereas every comparison consists of two parts, as well of that which called the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. the reddition, or application, as of that which is termed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. the fore-part of it, wherein the case, or things, resembling, are express∣ed; the agreement amongst Interpreters about this lat∣ter part of the comparison in hand, which I call the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is not greater then the disagreement concerning the other. The Protasis or fore-part of the compari∣son, is voted on all hands (that inconsiderable paucity resenting the former notion, excepted) to be expressed in the words oft mentioned, vers. 21. Hath not the Pot∣ter power over the clay, of the same lump, &c. But touch∣ing the other, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or applicatory part of it, who knoweth when Brethren will be reconciled? For some conceive, that the Apostle in the comparison express∣eth himself 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. only mentioneth the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or fore-part of the comparison, leaving the latter, or applicatory part of it to be supplied out of the for∣mer, by the reasons and understandings of men. Others on the other hand conceive, and are very confident and assertive herein, that there is a clear and express 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or application of the comparison, delivered by the A∣postle himself, vers. 22, 23. immediatly following, in these words; What if God willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, &c.

The sence of those, whose judgments and conscien∣ces have espoused that hard-favour'd opinion of a pe∣remptory reprobation of men under a meer personall

consideration from eternity, generally stands for the former. These, considering the tenor of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or former part of the comparison, expressed, vers. 21. upon the account of their own abilities of reason and understanding, challenge a right to so much confidence, as to make the Apodosis or application themselves. Those that are contrary-minded to them in the impor∣tant Doctrine of Predestination, judg it more safe to steer the other way, and to accept of that reddition or application of the said comparison which the Holy Ghost himself (at least as they conceive) hath drawn up, then to adventure in a business of that most sacred and high consequence, upon the strength of their own understandings. Let us give both parties a Patient and impartial hearing in these respective causes, (the mat∣ter between them being of so great moment) beginning with the former.

They who judg the fore-part of the comparison, layd down, vers. 21. a ground sufficient for them, by the light of their own reasons, to build the application upon, suppose they quit themselves worthily, and without danger of mistake, by managing the business after this manner, or to this effect: As the Potter hath that power over his clay, that he may of the same lump or part of it, make one Vessel for an honourable use, another for a dishonourable, as he pleaseth: in like manner, and much more, hath God power of the same mass, or lump of matter, to make one man for life and glory, another, to shame and destruction, as he pleaseth. Though they have no competent ground from the A∣postle in the words before us to proceed thus far, to∣wards the confirmation of their prementioned notion about Predestination, but onely some light and washy colour; yet they proceed much further with the same

confidence, even beyond all appearance of ground in this kind. For they do not onely plead from the words, a liberty or right of power in God, of the same lump, or mass, to create, or make, one man to salva∣tion, another, to damnation, (for which there may be some colour in the words, though, indeed, there is no∣thing more,) but likewise further urge the actual exercise or execution of this liberty or power, and this not with li∣mitation neither to the more gracious part, and which best becometh the goodness, and (indeed) all the At∣tributes of God, I mean, the creation of men unto sal∣vation; but with the extension of it also unto the other part, the creating of men unto condemnation. And cer∣tain I am, that the words in hand are so far from con∣tributing any thing material, or substantial, for the countenance of such an opinion, that they do not so much as mutter or whisper the least Iota sounding that way. For who knoweth not but that God hath a li∣berty or power of doing ten thousand things, which he hath no will ever to lift up his hand unto, nor to do any of them?

That which prevail'd (in all likelihood) with these men to undertake with so much confidence, to supply out of the treasury of their own wisdomes and under∣standings, the latter part, or application of the said comparison, was partly their preconceiv'd opinion of truth in that Doctrine, which such a supply maintain∣eth, (the Doctrine I mean of an absolute Election and Reprobation from eternity,) partly the concinn and handsome correspondency (at least in their eye) between the words of the Apostle, wherein the Protasis of the comparison is expressed, and the reddition, or appli∣cation, supplied by them; partly also, either their non-advertency, or their non-belief of a reddition made

to the said Protasis of the comparison, by the Apostle himself. But that all these, divisim & conjunctim, are grounds insufficient to warrant or justifie such an un∣dertaking, is not in it self very far from what is suffi∣ciently evident. For,

1. Suppose the said Doctrine pre-conceived, and which receiveth credit from the supply mention∣ed, were a Truth, (which yet I must borrow the Faith of some of those that are contrary-minded unto me, to beleeve,) yet doth this (not so much as in shew) justifie a supply in this place. An Interpretation of a Text of Scripture may very possibly be a Truth, and yet an erroneous and false Interpretation. I may suppose the Doctrine of an absolute Reprobation to be a Truth; and yet not necessarily evincible from these words, Hath not the Potter power over the clay, &c. But I should have been willing here (by the light of an argument or two) to have shewed the rottenness and dead mens bones of that opinion, notwithstanding all the painting of it, but that I remember it to be done already else∣where by the multiplied light of many Argu∣mentsn 1.197.

2. Neither is the correspondency or agreement be∣tween the said Protasis of the comparison (expressed by the Apostle, as we have heard) and the supplied An∣tapodosis or application mentioned, so harmonious, plea∣sant, or sweet, as the less considerate ear of many have resented it. Yea they themselves who are one, and all, in framing an application in favour of the said Do∣ctrine of an Absolute Election and Reprobation, yet are at high contests among themselves about the lump, or mass, over which the Potter is said to have power, &c. as what it should signifie, or what would best corre∣spond with it in the reddition, or application, as whether

men, or mankind, considered as yet uncreated, or as cre∣ated; if as created, whether considered as yet stand∣ing in their innocency and native integrity, or as fallen, and corrupted with sin: if as uncreated, whether con∣sidered as intended by God to be created, or onely as creable, in case God should please to create themo 1.198. If there were nothing else in the way to cancel the autho∣rity of the confidence of men in attempting to make applications of Scripture similitudes, or comparisons, of themselves, and without the guidance of the Holy Ghost, but onely such uncertainties and digladiations amongst the Attemptors, as these, the alone conside∣ration hereof is abundantly sufficient to do it. Nor is it so obvious, or easie, as many conceive, to build such an application upon the Apostles similitude of a Potter and his clay (I mean, with aptness, and clearness of sence in all the parts of it) which will much accommo∣date the Doctrines of absolute Election and Reproba∣tion. If we shall suppose that the Holy Ghost hath made no application himself of the similitude we speak of, (the contrary whereunto notwithstanding we shall shortly demonstrate,) yet may there such an applicati∣on be made of the words (and this upon better grounds, and with a more particular eye of reference to the pas∣sage in Jeremy mentioned, from whence the similitude, as hath been noted, is borrowed, then is found in the common application) which hath no sympathy at all with the said Doctrines of Election and Reprobation from eternity. As for instance; as the Potter hath pow∣er over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, another, unto dishonour: in like manner, yea and much more, hath God power [i. e. a just and equitable power, and which cannot reasonably offend or trouble any man] over men, who have corrupted and imbased

themselves by obstinacy [in which respect they may be very well resembled to a lump of clay,] to ordain or make some of them, viz. all those who shall repent, vessels of honour, and of salvation; others of them, viz. such who notwithstanding the patience of God towards them, shall yet remain stubborn and impe∣nitent, vessels of wrath, and vessels of dishonour, or condemnation. But this application is (I confess) the same for matter and substance, with that subjoyn∣ed by the Holy Ghost himself. In this application, that which answereth the Potters clay, or lump, (in the Protasis of the comparison) is neither man considered as created, or as increated; nor yet, either, as stand∣ing, or as fallen, nor under any of those other notions mentioned (which may well be compared to those fool∣ish and unlearned questions, which, as Paul saith, engen∣der strifesp 1.199,) but man considered as having voluntarily imbased and polluted himself with a course of obstinate sinning against God. This notion or Interpretation of the Potters clay in the similitude, agrees, 1. With the Pa∣rallel place in Jeremy, where the house of Israel, which the Lord here saith were in his hand, as the clay in the Potters hand, had been, not onely actually, but even obstinately sinful and rebellious against him for a long time; and, 2. It agrees also with the context, and scope of the place, which was to assert and maintain a right of power in God, not to create, or make, some men with an absolute intent to save them; others with a like intent to destroy them everlastingly, (the Apostle had nothing on foot at present, of any communion with such a notion as this,) but to harden whom he will, on the one hand; and to shew mercy on whom he will, on the o∣ther. Now we have formerly shewed and proved, that those, whom God willeth to harden, are such who

first harden themselves by neglecting the blessed guid∣ance of his patience towards them, which leadeth them to repentance: and on the other hand, that those, on whom he willeth to shew mercy, are such, who having polluted themselves with actuall transgressions, accept of his gracious pardon held forth unto them, and flee to the golden Altar of Repentance. And thus wee clearly see there is nothing in the second pretended ground, upon which men take courage to frame an ap∣plication of these words, Hath not the Potter power, &c. of themselves, that will justifie, or bear them out here∣in. The application they make, doth but flatter them with a fair face: the heart of it (as we have proved) is not perfect with the words.

3. (And lastly,) Neither doth the remaining incourage∣ment turn to any better account unto them for their undertaking. For what though they do not apprehend that the Apostle himself, hath drawn up the Apodosis or application, of the Protasis of his comparison, but imagine that he omitted it, with an intent it should be fram'd and drawn up by them, yet doth it not from hence follow, that therefore indeed he hath omitted it, or left it for them to supply, no more then it followeth, that what men see not, is not; or, that what one man, or some men, apprehend not, cannot be conceived, or understood by others. But this notion of theirs will be put to rebuke upon the best terms, by a diligent ex∣amination of the words now following, which (doubt∣less) hereupon will confess that they were intended by the Apostle for an Apodosis or application of his pre∣ceding similitude, or comparison, Hath not the Potter power, &c. and so will justifie those who are thus mind∣ed, and dislike the presumption of the other, who with∣out cause, or necessity, will needs undertake to relieve

the Holy Ghost, and supply his defects, where there is nothing wanting, nor any need of their help. The words are these:

What if God willing [or, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and what, or [Verse 22] but what, if God willing] to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might [Verse 23] make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory?

These words (as hath been more then once intimated) contain the Apostles reddition, or application, of his foregoing similitude of the Potter, and his power over the clay, to do so and with it, as we have heard. Now as the Proposition, or forepart of the comparison, expres∣sed a double power in the Potter over his clay, one, to make vessels of honour; the other, vessels of dishonour, of the same lump: So the Apostles application consists of two parts; the former speaks of the patience and long-suffering of God, towards the vessels of wrath, before he destroyeth them, which answers that power which the Potter hath to make vessels of dishonour; the latter ex∣presseth the bountifulness of God towards the vessels of mercy, in fitting them for glory; which answers the power of the Potter to make vessels unto honour.

By the way; because both the Verses are expressed interrogatively, But what if God, &c. knowledg may be taken, that it is not un-usuall in the Scriptures to de∣liver the applicatory part of a comparison, or similitude, in an interrogative or expostulatory form. And shall not God (saith our Saviour, in his reddition of the Para∣ble, or comparison of the unrighteous Judg, and the Widow) avenge his own Elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with themq 1.200? Where this also may be observed, that the same adversative Par∣ticle,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (frequently used in a copulative sence) is used in a like construction, as it is in the place in hand. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, And, or but, shall not God, &c. For the Interrogative form we speak of in redditions of si∣militudes, see also Mat. 6.23. Luke 12.54, 55, 56, &c. So that the interrogative character of speech, where∣in the Verses before us are delivered, argues nothing at all against their relation to the similitude of the Potter, vers. 21. by way of an Apodosis, or applica∣tion.

As this consideration makes nothing against the said relation of these Verses, so there are four others, which make with an high hand for it.

First, the Particle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.] shews some relation at least in these Verses unto, and depend∣ance upon, the precedent Verse, which contains the si∣militude of the Potter. Which relation our English Translators either over-look'd, or knowingly winked at, giving no English consideration at all for the said Greek Particle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. If they had rendred copulatively by the English Particle, And, as they did in the fore-mentioned Parable, Luke 18.7. And shall not God a∣venge, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. the connexion be∣tween the two parts of the Parable or similitude here had been above ground in our English Translation, as well as it is there; But notice hath been taken elsewhere, that Translators, where the letter of the Original Text bears hard upon any beloved notion or opinion of theirs, decline the proper work of Translators, and turn Interpreters. Knowledg likewise hath been given, that the Patrons of a Reprobation meerly personal, from eternity, cannot brook any such connexion between the two Verses in hand, and the immediatly preceding si∣militude of the Potter, which should import the for∣mer

to contain the explication and application of the latter.

Secondly, The grammatical construction, and com∣pleteness of sence in the Verses, depend upon some words used in the said similitude, vers. 21. which must be borrowed from thence, to make the sentence and Syntaxis here regular. Let the words be diligently re-perused, and there will appear a manifest 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or defect of words, that must be supplied from some place or other where they are to be had. This Ellipsis is so notorious and manifest, that I know no Expo∣sitor but takes notice of it under one term or other. Some call it an Aposiopesis: Calvin terms it, reticentia: Estius, the pendency, or hanging, of the sentence; (to o∣mit others.) Mind we then the words: What if God will∣ing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, en∣dured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath, fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory; What if God do this and that: here is no answer to these questions, nor any thing to make such demands savoury to the understanding. But if we borrow these words from vers. 21. (where the Protasis of the comparison is) Hath he not power, placing them in the end of the said Verses, What if God willing to do thus, and thus, hath he not power to do ei∣ther, or both, this completes the sentence, and renders the sence savoury and congruous. Some of the ancient Expositors went higher up, viz. to vers. 20. and from thence brought down these words, (as they read them) Who art thou O man, that canst answer God* 1.201, to make the sence perfect. But this commodity is further fetched, and doth less service when it comes. So that there is little question but that the Apostle, according to the

fre∣quent manner of the Scripture in like cases, left the sence of the two Verses in hand, unperfect, knowing that there were two words neer at hand, even in the same contexture of matter, that would perfect it. And who knoweth, whether he did not purposely leave these two Verses in a dependance upon that immediatly preceding them, that so that relation between them, which hath bin asserted by us, might be the more easily apprehended?

Thirdly, that the Apostle intended these Verses, for the reddition, or application of his similitude of a Pot∣ter, vers. 21. is visible by this juncture of light also. 1. There is nothing else delivered by him that can be imagined to be, or to contain, this application. This (I presume) is every mans concession. 2. It is in no de∣gree probable, that in the midst of a discourse about an∣other subject, he should insert a similitude importing (at least in face, and appearance) a matter so transcen∣dently weighty and abstruse, as the prerogative, or just power of God over his creature, without making some application thereof, or at least without giving some light of direction in the context neer unto it, for such an application. More generally, Parables and simili∣tudes in Scripture have their applications expressed and subjoyned unto them: and where no such application is particularly expressed, the series of the context round about is full of light to direct to the true and unque∣stionable application: as is to be seen in some of the Pa∣rables delivered by our Saviour, Mat. 13. v. 44, 45, 46. So that this Parable or similitude of the Potter, though it concerns as high, as hidden, as important a matter, as any similitude in all the Scripture besides, and be in it self, of as difficult and uncertain an Interpretation, as any other whatsoever (as appears by the manifold and grand contests, formerly noted, between the most

confident Interpreters of it by its own light,) yet will it be found deprived of that light of Interpretation, which is common unto them all, unless we suppose the two Verses in hand to contain the interpretation and ap∣plication of it. But

Fourthly (and lastly,) the Argument of greatest weight upon my understanding, inclining me to a con∣fidence that the Apostle intended the Verses in hand for an explication, or application of the said simile of the Potter, is the sweet and exact proportion which the sub∣stance of matter in these Verses, holds with the words and carriage of the said Simile. This proportion may be conceived after some such manner as this. As the Potter hath a just or equitable power over his clay, such as no man is offended at, in respect of the vileness of such matter, to make of the same lump, or parcel of it, as some vessels for a more comely and honourable use, so others for an use dishonourable; in like manner who hath any reason, colour or pretence of reason, to gainsay the righteousness of such a power, which God claimeth and exerciseth over men, who have imbased themselves by a long and voluntary course of sinning and rebelling against him, as viz. to harden and make vessels of wrath, [i. e. to destroy] those who shall despise his patience and long-sufferance, with other means vouchsafed unto them for their reducement and re∣pentance, and this in order to the manifestation of his avenging power; and on the other hand, to make such persons vessels of mercy, [i. e. to save and glorifie them] upon whom his goodness and patience, with other means of grace attending them, have had such a bless∣ed influence and operation, as to prepare them, i. e. by working them to Repentance and true Holiness, to make them meet for glory; and this for the declara∣tion

of the unsearchable riches of his most glorious grace unto the world?

By a diligent examination of Particulars in the car∣riage of these Verses, the application now expressed will be more confirmed, and further light given to the A∣postles discourse otherwise. For,

1. From these first words, What if God willing to shew his wrath, [meaning in the great dread and terror of it, as the next clause interpreteth it] and to make his POVVER [i. e. his vindicative, or avenging power] known, it fully appeareth, that the Apostle doth not treat here of a Reprobation of men from eternity, nor yet of Reprobates, as simply such, and therefore neither of all Reprobates; unless we shall affirm and say, that there is no difference in the punishment of Re∣probates, but that God intends to make his revenging power equally known in the destruction of them all, (which is expressly contradictious to a great current of Scriptures.) For evident it is (from the said words) that onely such Reprobates are here spoken of, in whose punishment God intends [viz. with his consequenti∣all intentions, as hath been formerly argued] not sim∣ply a manifestation of his avenging power, but a mani∣festation of the power, (as it were) of this power, or of the most astonishing greatness and dreadfulness of it; a Type whereof was exhibited in the temporal destru∣ction of Pharaoh, of which we heard, vers. 17. and on which the Apostle keeps an eye all along his discourse hitherto. The Observation mentioned might be fur∣ther asserted from those words, endured with MUCH long-suffering. For certain it is, that God doth not en∣dure 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with MUCH long-suffering, all Reprobates whatsoever (at least not in the sence, which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here importeth) although in the mean

time I am far otherwise minded then they, who teach it for a Doctrine, that there are some Reprobates, and these not a few neither, towards whom God sheweth no patience or long-sufferance at all, imagining that many Infants of days, yea, and many immediatly from the womb, are sent to the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone for evermore. Yea, the truth is, their opinion of Reprobation duly considered, they do not hold that any Reprobate at all is ever endured by God, not onely not with MUCH long-suffering, but not so much as with any long-suffering at all. My soul hath once been in the secret of these men: but let it ne∣ver enter thereinto more. Haec obiter.

2. From the former Observation it evidently fol∣loweth, that by vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, can∣not be meant persons reprobated by God from eterni∣ty, much less the whole number of Reprobates (in such a sence,) but such persons onely, who directly and pro∣perly are prepared and fitted to destruction onely by themselves, (as viz. by despising the grace of God, and sinning against the means of salvation, &c.) and not at all by God, unless accidentally and occasionally onely; viz. as he vouchsafeth unto them such means of Grace, which being turn'd into wantonness, prepare men for de∣struction, as driness in wood or stubble prepares and fits it for the fire. And if God did in any such sence prepare or fit these vessels of wrath to destruction, in which he prepares the vessels of mercy, for glory, why should the Holy Ghost so expresly ascribe the preparation of these for glory, unto God, (as he doth in the following Verse,) which HE had afore prepared unto glory, and no ways interess him in the fitting of the other to destructi∣on, but onely term them passively, and in an indefinite manner, fitted to destruction. The signal difference of

the expression (doubtless) imports something worthy Observation in this kind. Yea;

3. The vessels of wrath here spoken of, are neither said by God, nor yet by his enduring them with much long-suffer∣ing, to be fitted to destruction, either in one sence or other; but to have bin thus fitted (I mean, to destruction) before God is said to endure them with much long-suffering. For he is expresly said to have endured [i. e. by an enallage of the tense, to endure] with much long-suffering these vessels of wrath, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. having been prepared for destruction, viz. before such his enduring them. Nor (indeed) can God properly be said to endure men with much long-suffering, until they have much provoked him, as a man cannot be said to exercise much patience towards a person, who hath but lightly offended him. Now much provocation of God is that which prepares or fits a man to destruction. Whil'st a man is yet one∣ly in preparing and fitting himself to destruction, i. e. whilst he holds on in a course of sin, but hath not as yet continued very long in it, however God may be said to endure him with patience, or long-suffering, yet not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with MUCH long-suffering. Nor in propriety of Scripture language can a man be said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be perfectly, or throughly fitted to destruction, (for so the Word properly signifi∣eth) untill he hath provoked God to more then an or∣dinary degree.

4. The premises considered, when the Apostle de∣mandeth, What if God willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath already prepared [or, before-fitted] to destruction, he plainly signifieth, that that power, which God claimeth and exerciseth in hardning whom he will, respecteth not men simply considered, no nor

yet considered simply as sinners, he claimeth no such power over any man in either of these considerations: but it respecteth onely such, who are already actually, prepared and fitted to destruction, i. e. such persons whom he might most justly and equitably destroy, whether he further hardned them, [viz. by enduring them with much long-suffering,] or no. And that the reason, why God endureth such with much long-suffering, and hereby hard∣neth them, is not that hereby they might be simply fit∣ted to destruction, or that he may justly and equitably destroy them, (for this he might do without any such hardning,) but that, in case they repent not by the op∣portunity and means of this his enduring them with long-suffering, he might shew the dreadfulness of the power of his avenging wrath in their destruction, i. e. that he might destroy them with so much the greater and more formidable destruction. This consideration fully proveth, that that power in God over his creature, man, which answereth the power of the Potter over his clay (in the former Verse) at least so far as it respecteth his liberty to make vessels to dishonour, extendeth onely to such of these creatures, who have so far corrupted and embased themselves by voluntary sinning, that they are already meet to be destroyed, and is not claimed, or ex∣ercised, by him in reference to any others.

If it be objected, that according to this notion of the comparison, God should have no power to make vessels of wrath simply, but all such vessels as these, should be made such, of, and by themselves, and that the power or liberty of God in this kind, extendeth only to the make∣ing of such persons larger vessels of wrath, who have been made vessels of wrath simply, by themselves. And doth not such an Interpretation of the power of God, as this, render it unparallable with, and altoge∣ther

unlike unto, the power of the Potter over his clay? To this I answer;

1. The Scripture no where affirmeth that God maketh vessels of wrath, but affirmeth many things of an import contrary hereunto. Lo this onely have I found, that God made man upright;* 1.202 but they have sought many inventions. God made man upright, i. e. mankind, or all men, (as appears by the Pronoun of the plural number, THEY, in the latter clause) viz. in Adam; And (doubtless) they who were made upright by God, were not made ves∣sels of wrath, but of love, goodness, and bounty. A∣gain, As I live saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live, Ezek. 33.11. and 18.32. Doubtless if God made vessels of wrath, he would take pleasure in filling them with wrath, i. e. in inflicting death, and destructi∣on upon them. See also upon this account, 1 Tim. 2.6. Hebr. 2.9. 2 Pet. 3.9. (besides many other places of like import.) But,

2. There is a consideration, or sence notwithstand∣ing wherein God may be said to make vessels of wrath, viz. as he is maker of such a Law or Decree, by which wicked and ungodly men are juridically or in point of Law, constituted and declared vessels of wrath. For though men make themselves vessels of wrath morally, and by way of demerit, yet they do not make them∣selves such judicially, i. e. they do not constitute or make that Law, by which they come to be proceeded against, and to suffer, as vessels of wrath; this Law is enacted and made by God, and executed by him accordingly. When our Apostle saith, that the strength of sin is the Lawr 1.203, his meaning is, that sin simply considered, and as such, (I mean, as it is such, or such an act) hath no force or strength in it to bind men over unto punishment, or to

render men liable hereunto; but that which gives such a strength or force as this unto it, is the Law of God, by which such and such acts which now are sinful, are made punishable with death. To the same purpose elsewhere: Because the Law worketh wrath; for where no Law is, there is no transgressions 1.204; meaning, that such an act, which now is sinful, and binding unto punishment, by means of a Law prohibiting it, and adjudging it punishable, would not be sinful, nor binding unto pu∣nishment, in case no such law were in being. Which likewise is the sence of that other saying: —But sin is not imputed, where there is no Lawt 1.205. Now then God being the Author and maker of that Decree, or Law, by which men are made vessels of wrath, juridically, i. e. liable to wrath and punishment, he may in this sence and respect, be said to make such vessels, according to the notion of the Logick Maxime: Quod est causa causae, est etiam causa causati: That which is the cause of the cause, is the cause also of that which is effected or caused by this cause.

3. (And lastly) That liberty or power which is vest∣ed in God of making vessels of wrath, (in the sence specified) most properly answereth the power of the Pot∣ter over his clay, in making what vessels of it he pleas∣eth unto dishonour; and not such a power as many at∣tribute unto him, viz. of ordaining men, or of purpose∣ing to ordain men to destruction, from eternity. For that power [i. e. the equitableness of that power] which the Potter hath over his clay, to make what vessels of it he pleaseth, unto dishonour, accrueth unto him, not simply from hence, that it is his, or his own, but that it is HIS CLAY, i. e. a material of that vileness, that it being his, no man can reasonably be offended with him, in case he makes of it a vessell, one or more, to disho∣nour.

For (questionless) as it is not meet, no man hath power (i. e. a regular,* 1.206 or lawful power) to take the chil∣drens bread [i. e. such bread which is meet to be given unto children, and fit for their nourishment] and to give it to the dogs, although this bread be never so much his own (as men count things their own;) so neither hath any man any power (I still mean a regular, or lawful pow∣er) to oppress or debase nature in any kind, as to com∣pell such things to serve more ignoble and base ends, the excellency of whose natural temper, properties, and frame, declares them serviceable and meet for ends more honourable and worthy; although it be very law∣full on the other hand to advance and gratifie nature, when we have opportunity or occasion to do it, I mean, by converting the mean, and the vile, and the base things of nature unto services of a more honest and comely import, as the Potter doth, when of his clay he makes a vessel unto honour. So then it is onely such a power in God which answereth the power of the Potter over his clay, whereby he is inabled and at liberty, of such persons that are become vile, and have imbased themselves, and made themselves meet for destruction, by sinning, to ordain and make vessels of wrath, whom he pleaseth, as he doth all those, who despise his good∣ness, and patience, and long-sufferance towards them; and on the other hand, to make vessels of mercy of whom he pleaseth from amongst this generation of men, as he doth of all those, who by his goodness and patience are brought to Repentance. And (haply) it may be not unworthy Observation, that, though Goldsmiths and those who work upon, those more costly and choice materials of silver and gold, do take the same liberty over their materiall, which the Potter doth over his clay, I mean, of the same mass or lump of silver, and some∣times

of gold, to make one vessell unto honour, another unto dishonour, yet the Holy Ghost in this sublime Ar∣gument concerning the power which God exerciseth over his creature, in making some vessels of wrath, o∣thers, vessels of mercy, declineth the mention, and com∣parison of their power, or of that power which they exercise in this kind, and borrows his resemblance (as we heard) from the Potter, and his power over his clay. The reason whereof (in all probability at least) is this, because that power which the Goldsmith exerciseth over his material in making vessels of dishonour of any part of it, is not so clear and free from exception and offence, as that which the Potter exerciseth over his clay upon the same terms. When the Goldsmith makes vessels of dishonour (I mean, in the Apostles sence, ves∣sels for less honest, and honorable services,) of silver, or gold, he doth it to gratifie the inordinate lusts of men, the pomp, pride, luxury, and vanity, of the rich and great persons of the world; whereas the Potter by make∣ing like vessels of his earth or clay, accommodateth him∣self to the necessities or reasonable conveniencies of men. Besides, such vessels as now we speak of, can∣not be made of any materiall more vile, and (in this re∣spect) more suteable to those less-honourable services, for which they are made, then earth or clay is: In which consideration there is no waste committed upon nature in making them of such a material: In both these re∣spects the Potters making of vessels of dishonour, of his clay, is far more in-offensive, and less liable to excep∣tion and dispute, then the Goldsmiths making of the like vessels of dishonour of his silver and gold: and consequently is more apt and proper to illustrate and express that power, which God claimeth and exerci∣seth over his creature in making vessels of wrath, of

which, or whom of them he pleaseth. But they who notion this power in God, as if by it he ordained, ap∣pointed, or made vessels of wrath, of such creatures or persons of mankind, who were innocent and holy, and this during their innocency and holiness (as all they do, who maintain a Reprobation of men in a personal consi∣deration, from eternity) rather resemble it to the power which the Goldsmith, I do not say, hath, but which he claimeth and exerciseth over his silver and gold, in making of them vessels to dishonour, then to the pow∣er which the Potter claimeth and exerciseth over his clay in like kind; and consequently render it very offensive, and justly questionable unto sober and considerate men. Whereas such an explication and notion of it, as that which hath been held forth in a direct and clear con∣formity unto the Potters power over his clay, renders it al∣together in-offensive, undisputeable, and every ways passable in the judgments and understandings of all considering men. And this (questionless) was the A∣postles intent and meaning in the Verses in hand; I mean to assert such a power in God over his creature, in the making of the same kind or sort of them, vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy, as he pleaseth, which should be to all reasonable men every ways inoffensive, and far less questionable then the power of the Potter over his clay. This will appear as clear as the Sun at noon day, if we do but consider the tenor and carriage of the three Ver∣ses, 21, 22, and 23. together, Hath not the Potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto ho∣nour, and another unto dishonour? As if he should say, no man questioneth but that he hath. And what if God willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, en∣dured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction; And that he might make known the riches

of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he had afore pre∣pared unto glory? meaning, hath not he power; or ra∣ther, hath he not a power much more reasonable and unquestionable, then that of the Potter over his clay, to do both these? So that the Apostles comparison of the Potter, is argumentative (and so intended by him,) not simply a simili, or ab aequali, but à minori ad majus, i. e. not from the bare similitude or resemblance of one thing with another by the way of equality, but from the lesser probability, or evidence of truth, in the one, to the greater in the other. His argument or reason∣ing here may be formed thus: If the Potter hath such power over his clay, of the same lump to make one ves∣sel to honour, another to dishonour, the lawfulness or equitableness whereof no reasonable man questioneth: much more unquestionable, and apparantly equitable and just is that power in God, which he exerciseth, in making vessels of wrath of, and destroying, those most terribly, who shall despise his patience and long-suffer∣ing; as likewise in making those vessels of mercy, and glorifying them, who by the like patience and long-suffering towards them, shall be wrought in time to Repentance. The like argument à minori ad majus, is intended and held forth by our Saviour himself in that Parable of his, Luke 18.2, 3, &c. (which we have for∣merly in another respect also, compared with that of the Apostle now in hand,) There was in a city a Judg that feared not God, neither regarded man. And there was a widow in that city, and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversarie, And he would not for a while; but afterwards he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man, yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continuall coming she weary me. And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust Judg saith. And shall

not God avenge his own Elect, which cry day and night un∣to him, though he bear long with them? I tell you, he will a∣venge them speedily, &c. Our Saviours scope and drift by this Hypotyposis or compatison of the unjust Judg, who neither feared God, nor regarded man, &c. was not simply to teach or prove, that there is a like ground of hope that God, upon the importunity of his Elect by prayer, will avenge them of their enemies and oppres∣sors, with that which the Widow had to overcome the unjust Judg, and to prevail with him by her importu∣nity, to do her justice on her adversary; but to demon∣strate a great overplus of hope, or certainty rather, that God, upon the terms mentioned, will avenge, and deli∣ver them. And shall not God avenge his Elect, which &c. as if he should have said; Did the Widow by her im∣portunity draw water out of the flint, obtain an act of justice, contrary to the nature and principles of him, from whom she sought it: and is it not a thousand times more worthy hope, yea and confidence of expectation, that God, who is naturally inclin'd to acts of grace and mercy on the one hand, towards those that are oppres∣ed, as on the other hand, to acts of justice upon oppres∣sors, that he (I say) especially upon importunity of re∣quests and sollicitations made unto him by persons so highly respected by him, as his own elect, should in due time appear for their deliverance out of trouble? And thus you see how both comparisons, that of our Savi∣our now insisted upon, and that of our Apostle in hand, answer one the other in point of argumentation.

If yet it be any mans question, or doubt, how, or upon what account, the power of God to make vessels of wrath, as we have stated and explained it, should be so apparantly equitable, and unquestionable, as we have asserted it, above the power of the Potter over his

clay, to make of what part of the lump he pleaseth, vessels unto dishonour, were not the thing evident in it self (upon a little consideration) and so supposed by the Apostle in the context, I should be willing to make a further labour of inquiring into it. But the advantage of unquestionableness in that power of God, which we have ascribed unto him, above the power of the Potter over his clay, in the point under consideration, is appa∣rantly visible in this. That which gives the Potter an equitable power over his clay, to do with it, as hath been oft said, i. e. to make vessels to dishonour of what parts of it he pleaseth, is partly that civil property, or pro∣priety which he hath in it, it is his own lawful substance, and not another mans: partly, the vile and contempti∣ble nature of it, it is but a piece of Earth, the lowest, and most ignoble, element of all the rest; yea a piece of the baser and less considerable part of this Element. Now, 1. The civill right or propriety which the Pot∣ter hath in his clay, is not a soveraign right, but subor∣dinate to the will and pleasure of God, who may at a∣ny time, and this without injustice, take away this clay from him, and give it to what other person he pleaseth; yea and may lawfully impose upon the Potter laws and terms for the using and disposing of it, even whilst it is his own, and call him to account, and justly punish him, in case he shall transgress any of them. Therefore that power which the Potter hath over his clay in this respect, is not so compleat or full, and consequently not so clearly equitable, as the power of God is over his creature to dispose of it as he pleaseth, in as much as his propriety in it is absolute, soveraign, and every ways Independent: Nor is he subject to terms or prescriptions from any other how to order or dispose of it. 2. The vileness of the clay, (the other thing that gives the Potter that

power over it, of which we now speak) is not voluntarily contracted by the clay it self, but necessitated upon it by the Author of nature, and him that made it, nor was it at any time in the power of the clay to prevent it. In this respect also the power which the Potter hath over it to convert it to dishonourable ends and uses, is no∣thing so equitable, at least not so apparantly equitable, as that power, or the exercise of that power, over the creature man, which hath been ascribed unto God; in∣as much as that guilt or imbasement by sin in this crea∣ture, upon which onely, or mainly, the Apostle (in the Scripture before us) foundeth this power, or at least the exercise of it in God, is altogether voluntary, and might have been prevented by all those, who have con∣tracted it. The Potters clay never was in any capa∣city of making it self, a better or less-vile material, then now it is: but Gods clay we speak of, had means and opportunities vouchsafed unto it, 1. Never to have been this clay; And, 2. After it had made it self this clay, to have altered its property and frame, and to have be∣come a better material, before vessels of wrath were actually made of it by God. In this consideration therefore the Power which the Apostle asserts unto God over his clay, is far less disputeable, as to the reason∣ableness or equity of it, then that of the Potter over his; it being every mans sence that naturall defects are (in equall consideration) far less matter of shame or dis∣paragement, then those which are voluntary, and wil∣lingly contracted.

By the amount of this discourse it fully appeareth, that that liberty or power in God of making vessels of wrath, which the Apostle any ways supposeth in, or a∣scribes unto him, and which answereth the power of the Potter over his clay, to make of it vessels to dishonour,

is a liberty or power of decreeing, appointing, and de∣termining by a Law, who, or what kind of sinners, and transgressors those are, who shall at last be eternally destroyed by him, and so become persons that shall re∣ceive, and retain the dreadful impressions, or effects, of his wrath for sin, as vessels properly and literally so called, are wont to receive and keep liquors, or other things that are put into them; and not a power of making, or of decreeing to make, from eternity, such and such persons of mankind, under a meer personal con∣sideration, for, or to, eternal destruction. Such a pow∣er as this the very nature and essentiall goodness of God abhors, even as they do a power of lying, deceiving, or oppressing, nor doth the Scripture any where find it in him.

This for Answer to the Objection occasioned by the fourth Particular offered to consideration from the words in hand.

5. These words, endured with much long-suffering, plainly shew and teach, that when men are really ves∣sels of wrath, [i. e. meet to receive in their persons, and there to retain and hold, the wrath of God due unto sin, as a vessel properly so called, is to receive such such things, which are commonly put into it,] yea and are now prepared and fitted to destruction, yet have they the golden scepter of grace held forth unto them, and are through the long-suffering of God, during the con∣tinuance hereof, in a blessed capacity of becoming ves∣sels of mercy, and of glory. This perfectly accords with that passage of our Apostle in his latter Epistle unto Timothy: But in a great house there are not onely vessels of gold, and of silver, but also of wood, and of earth: and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If therefore a man shall purge himself from these [i. e. shall by repentance

cease to be a vessel of wood, or earth, and so dis-number himself from the vessels of dishonour] he shall be a ves∣sel unto honour sanctified and meet for the masters use,u 1.207 &c. For the intent and counsel of God (as hath been more then once observed formerly, and once at least, if not oftner, proved) in enduring with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, is not absolutely and peremptorily to shew his wrath, and make his power known, in their destruction, but conditionally onely, viz. in case they shall stubbornly persist in their disobedience, untill the day of his Grace and long-suf∣fering be expired. Nor doth the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or long-suffering of God, import onely or meerly, a non-punish∣ment for the time, of those to whom it is said to be vouchsafed, or shewn; nay possibly it may admit some degree of punishment with it; but besides a respit from punishment, at least from any extremity of punishment, it still importeth a willingness, yea and expectation, in God that such persons should repent, and consequently a vouchsafement of means unto them to bring them to repentance. This is evident from the general cur∣rent of the Scriptures, where-ever the patience or long-suffering of God are said to be shewed unto any: as on the contrary, where God neither willed, nor expected Repentance, though he granted a reprievement of pu∣nishment for a time, yet is he never said to exercise patience or long-suffering. From that saying of the Devils unto Christ, Art thou come hither to torment us before the timex 1.208? (to omit other proofs) it clearly ap∣pears, that their punishment or torment is respited by God for a time, yea and so hath been for a very long time (as men count long) even from the time of their fall, i. e. from the beginning of the world, to this day, yet God is no where said to endure them with much

long-suffering, to be patient towards them, or the like. The reason is, partly because his intent and purpose concerning their eternal punishment and torment, is ab∣solute and peremptory; partly also, because he afford∣eth them no means, or at least no sufficiency of means, for their recovery. So likewise after Saul was re∣jected by God from being King over Israel, for his disobedience in the business of Amalek, his punishment of being deprived of his Kingdom was deferr'd for a time: yet God is no where said to have endured him with much long-suffering, or to have exercised any pati∣ence towards him, or the like. Why? because his pur∣pose and intent concerning his rejection was absolute, and not reversible by any interveniences on Sauls part, or otherwise whatsoever. But on the other hand, God was willing, yea had purposed, to destroy the old world for sin, within the space of an hundred and twen∣ty years; yet because this will and purpose of his, was like unto that wherewith he purposed to destroy Nini∣veh within forty days, i. e. not absolute, but con∣ditional, yea and during this space, he vouchsafed unto them sufficient means for their Repentance, continuing the Ministery of Noah, who was a Preacher of righte∣ousness, amongst them, his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or long-suffering towards them is commended by Peter, and said to have waited, or expected in the days of Noah, [meaning, their returning unto God by Repentance, as Tremelius out of the ancient Syriack Translation rendreth and ex∣presseth ity 1.209.] Elsewhere the patience and long-suffering of God are held forth unto the world by the Holy Ghost, as unquestionable arguments and signs of Gods willingness to have men repent, and be saved; and con∣sequently they must needs be supposed to be accompa∣nied with the vouchsafement of sufficient means for

the salvation of those, to whom themselves are vouch∣safed. See and consider upon this account, 2 Pet. 3.9. compared with vers. 15. And again, Rom. 2.3, 4. Isai. 30.18. 1 Tim. 1.16, &c. So that evident it is, that the vessels of wrath here said to be endured by God with much long-suffering, were not ordained by him to destruction from eternity, nor yet created by him to destruction, no nor yet, during the course of his long-suffering towards them, though they had by a long continued course of sinning fitted themselves for destruction, yet were they not all this while, positively or absolutely, ordained by him to destruction; but were graciously entreated by him, and this in order to their repentance and salvation. From whence likewise it follows, that that will or willingness, here ascribed unto God, to shew his wrath, and make his power known, [in their destruction] is but consequential and conditional.

6. The Apostle, in the words now insisted upon, en∣dured with much long-suffering, seems to give an account of the equitableness of that power, which God claimeth and exerciseth, in, and about, the hardning whom he will, as viz. by shewing how, or by what means, as likewise upon what terms he doth it. If he should harden men against their wills, or by any secret and positive action should insensibly work, or incline their wills, or hearts, to a frame of hardness; yea or should harden them upon any such terms or after any such manner, that by the same means, by which they become hardned, they might not as well yea (and rather) be softned, and made penitent; the power which he claims and exerciseth in this kind, (I mean, in hardning men) might be of some hard resentment with men, and grate upon their spirits and souls. But now in as much as he hardneth men, not onely with the free consent of their own wills,

but even with the pre-currency of them in, and about, the act of hardning; yea and doth it by none other means, then such which are more apt and proper to soften, then to harden, yea and which would actually soften them (as they do many) and so save them, did they but lay their hearts to them, as they might, as viz. by enduring them with much long-suffering; if God (saith our Apostle, in effect) claimeth no other power of hard∣ning men, but onely upon such terms as these, who can with the least pretence or colour of reason be offended at it? To a sober-minded and duly considerate man, it is a matter of more grace, that God should afford an opportunity of Repentance and Salvation, unto him, who is already a vessel of wrath, and fitted to destruction, yea though his voluntary abuse or neglect of this op∣portunity must needs render his destruction so much the more grievous and intolerable, then it would be, to deny him such an opportunity, however by this deni∣al he should cut off from him all occasion, yea or possi∣bility, of increasing his destruction. So that this power which God claims of hardning whom he will, truly inter∣preted, and rightly understood, is in it self, of no ill a∣bode, or portendency unto men, but rather matter of grace, benefit, and accommodation; however it turns to a most heavy account unto all those, on whom it is exercised with the effect of hardning accompany∣ing it.

It may be objected, but if the matter be thus, may not God be said to shew mercy even on those whom he hardneth? And if so, will not the opposition between his shewing mercy on whom he will, and, his hardning whom he will, (vers. 18.) fall to the ground? I answer,

No; because though God sheweth mercy unto men in that act, or series of actions, whereby eventually he

hardneth them, yet he doth not shew them mercy in hard∣ning them, because hereby he prepareth and fitteth them for a more terrible judgment and destruction; which is not an act of mercy, but of justice or judg∣ment; and is a fruit or effect of that judiciary De∣cree of God, wherein he hath enacted or decreed, that whosoever shall abuse or despise his great long-suffering towards them, shall hereby be hardned in or∣der to their deeper condemnation, and judgment more intolerable. Even as in the Gospel, he vouch∣safeth his Grace and mercy unto men in that very grace, which they do turn into wantonness, although they be hardned hereby, and encrease their condemna∣tion.

It may possibly be some mans Question; Whether God shews mercy unto all those, whom he doth not hard∣en? And more particularly, whether he sheweth mercy to the vessels of wrath fitted already to destruction, in de∣stroying them out of hand, without exposing them to the danger of being hardned by him, and so to the suffering of a more grievous destruction? Therefore I answer:

1. To the former of these Questions; That God (doubtless) doth shew mercy, at least comparatively, though not simply or absolutely, unto all those whom he doth not harden. To harden (as was lately said) is an act of judgment; and in as much as no man can e∣scape or prevent hardning, but by mercy shewed unto him, in one kind or other by God, evident it is that all those who do escape hardning have some degree of mercy or other, shewed unto them. But if the Questi∣on be understood of mercy, simply and properly so called, or of such mercy which produceth the actuall salvation of men, it is a clear case that such mercy is not

shewed unto all those, who are not hardned by God: otherwise none should perish, but those who are hard∣ned by him, and consequently none but those, whom he should endure with much long-suffering; which is ma∣nifestly untrue.

2. To the latter Question I answer likewise, that when he doth present execution by death upon those, who are fitted to destruction, he cannot properly be said to shew them mercy; because such an act as this, is properly, and in the nature of it, an act of justice, and judgment. Notwithstanding if we consider the general state and condition of those who have hardned themselves, and so are fitted to destruction, and how few there are of this generation, that are brought to repentance by Gods enduring them with much long-suffering, and how many that are hereby hardned to their deeper condemnation, there may seem to be an ingredient of mercy even in that cup of judgment.

But the first-born difficulty (as far as I understand) about the Interpretation given of these words, endured with much long-suffering, &c. is this; how God can be said to endure with much long-suffering (in the sence asserted) such persons, and with his primary and ante∣cedent Intentions, to intend their repentance and salva∣tion, who he certainly knoweth before-hand will never repent, nor be saved? And so in general, how it can be looked upon, or made, a matter of any whit more grace, love, or goodness in God, to give Christ unto death, or to afford any other means, for the salvation of such men, who he foresaw from eternity would be ne∣ver the better for them, but much the worse, then to have denied them all interest in the death of Christ, and so all other means of salvation? If a Father knew certainly before hand, that the gift of such an Horse,

sum of money, or the like, unto his child, would occa∣sion either his more speedy, or sudden death, or bring upon him any other misery or calamity in the world, would it argue any love or kindness in him towards such a child, to give him either?

A through pursuit of this difficulty will carry us somewhat high: and they who desire to see a clear bot∣tom for a plenary satisfaction to it, must prepare to go up unto the mount of God, and there for a season be content narrowly to contemplate somewhat that may be known of him, though at present (I fear) it is not known unto many, and duly considered (I am cer∣tain) but by a few. But to the difficulty it self, or que∣stion propounded, I answer;

1. When God vouchsafeth unto men things, which are in themselves, and in their natures good, and bene∣ficial, and of worthy concernment unto them, and doth no ways hinder them from making a proportionable use of them, but doth many ways incourage, perswade, and press them hereunto, there is no reason, nor colour of reason, why he should be thought less gracious or be∣nevolous unto them, onely because he knows before-hand they will make a sinful use of them, and destructive to themselves. Or would the same or like vouchsafe∣ments from him, savour of any whit the more grace, love, or goodness, in case it could, or should be suppose∣ed that he were ignorant of what men would do with them, whether they would improve them to an happy end for themselves, or no? Or is there any reason why the surpassing excellency of the knowledg of God should be turned to the prejudice, or disparagement, of his goodness in giving such things unto his creatures, which were they not monstrously careless and regard∣less of the things of their own peace, might, and would

be converted and imployed by them accordingly? But;

2. It is much to be considered, that there is not the same consideration of God, and of men, in respect of such actions, vouchsafements, or gifts, the issue or con∣quence whereof, the one, and the other, are, or may be, said to foresee, that they will be evil to those, who receive them. The difference, with the ground and rea∣son of it, may be thus conceived. In case a man should foresee such an event, in one kind or other, his fore∣sight would be such literally or properly. 1. He should have knowledge of the event, and what this would be, before he had done the action, or given the gift, the e∣vent whereof in the Receiver, he is said to foreknow, or foresee: and consequently, upon his foresight of an ill issue of his gift in the Receiver, in case it should be given him, he may (and perhaps, in duty ought, to) withhold it. But now God, though he be said to fore∣see the issue or event of any action, or gift of his, in all and every the receivers of it (respectively) yet he is not said properly, or as the word sounds in ordinary ac∣ception with men, to foresee them: i. e. he doth not first, or antecedaneously, in respect of time, foresee, or see them, before the action be done by him, or the gift given, the event or issue whereof he is said to foresee. For as God himself is not measured by time, so neither are his actions. It is a common and generally-received notion a∣mongst men learned in the Scriptures, that God willeth nothing in time, but whatsoever he willeth, he willeth in, or from, eternity. So that whatsoever cometh to pass, or is effected in time by the efficacy and interposure of the will of God, was,* 1.210 so far as God contributeth to∣wards the production of it by the efficaciousness of his will, done from eternity. He doth not will any thing to day, which he did not will yesterday; nor any thing

yesterday, which he did not will from eternity; other∣wise he must needs be changeable. There is the same reason and consideration of his knowledge, or fore-knowledge, which there is of his will. As he willeth nothing in time, so neither doth he know, foreknow, or foresee any thing in time: his fore-knowledge of things being nothing really but himself, (there being nothing but himself from eternity) it must needs be as ancient as himself, and co-eternal with himself. So likewise that act of his, by which he gives, or imparts any thing unto men, though the gift it self given by it doth not come to the hands of men, or is not received by them, till such, or such a time, yet the act (I say of God) by which it is given, and comes thus to be recei∣ved in time by men, was from eternity: and conse∣quently, is not capable of being foreseen by him, being as ancient as any fore-sight, or fore-knowledge in him. And for the sad consequent, or event of any action, or gift of God, in, or to, the Receiver (one, or more) though he may (in a sence) be said to foresee it, because it happeneth in time: yet in as much as that act passed from him from eternity, and so is, and alwayes was, irreversible, by which tne gift sorting to so sad an event in the Receiver, was conferr'd upon him in time, there is no reason, nor colour of reason, why God should be thought to give this gift, being in it self Soveraign∣ly good and beneficial to the Receiver, out of any whit the less love, or grace, towards him, only because he may (in the by, and improper sence intimated) be said to have foreseen, that it would be abused by him to his harm; especially considering, 1. That the Re∣ceiver of such a gift, was no way prejudiced in his liber∣ty of making a blessed use of it, by the fore-know∣ledge of God that he would do the contrary, yea, and

might have made a blessed use of it, this fore-knowledg of God notwithstanding; and, 2. That God could not, the regulation of his power by his wisdom, consi∣dered, do any thing more towards the preventing of the abuse thereof, then he did. God foresaw that his peo∣ple of old would make a sad use of his grace towards them, in sending to them by his Messengers and Prophets, who effectually admonished and forewarned them of the wrath to come in case they repented not, yet is this gracious act of sending thus unto them, ascribed to his taking compassion on his peoplea 1.211. From whence the truth of both the particulars mentioned, sufficiently appeareth; As, 1. That God was never the less graci∣ous or compassionate towards his people, in sending unto them by his messengers, because he foresaw (in the sence lately signified) that they would abuse this grace of his to their greater misery. And, 2. That he did all that was in his power to do, [See Isai. 5.4.] to have prevented this abuse of his Grace by themb 1.212. For he that hath true compassion on a person (one, or more) in mi∣sery, is ready to do what he is well able to do for his relief. There is the same consideration of that of our Saviour in Matthew. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the Prophets, and stonest them that are sent un∣to thee, how oft would I have gathered thy children toge∣ther, as an hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, but ye would not? Mat. 23.37. Here the Lord Christ professeth the greatest care and tenderness that can well be conceived towards Jerusalem and her children, in his vouchsafement of means of grace, and repentance unto them; and withall plainly expresseth the sad e∣vent of this his care and tenderness in their impeniten∣cy, and destruction hereupon; yet, evident it is, (and is acknowledged by all) that Christ, as God, did fore∣see

(in such a sence as God is capable of foreseeing) this sad event we speak of in Jerusalem and her chil∣dren, and that notwithstanding all the means of Grace that should be vouchsafed unto them, yet they would remain rebelliously obdurate to destruction. Therefore that foreknowledge which God hath, that men will turn his Grace into wantonness, and abuse the means of Salvation granted unto them, to their greater con∣demnation, doth no wayes argue or prove, that his Grace, Love, or Goodness, were ever the less towards them in the vouchsafement of them.

If it be demanded, But was it not in Gods power, and at the liberty of his will, to have denied means of Grace, and of Salvation, unto those, who he knew and foresaw would abuse them to their greater con∣demnation? And if so, would it not have argued more grace and love in God towards their persons, to have denied the said means of Salvation unto them, then to have given them? To this I answer by distinguish∣ing;

1. A thing may be said to be in Gods power, or at the liberty of his will, either to do, or not to do, in re∣spect of freedom from, or non-obnoxiousness unto, any external agent, or any thing without himself, ei∣ther to constrain him to the doing of it, or to restrain him from the doing of it. And in this sence and considera∣tion, that saying common amongst Philosophers, and Divines, Deus est Agens liberrimum, God is the most free Agent that is, is most true. For whereas every creature, or being, besides God, is obnoxious unto him, and his power, he himself is obnoxious unto none of them, nor unto any power vested in them. 2. A thing may be said (or at least, by some conceived) to be in Gods power either to do, or not to do, in r••••pect of

an opportunity, or space of time before him to deter∣mine his will, or to resolve, either for, or against, the doing of it. As for example; A Father that hath not as yet given such, or such a sum of mony, suppose a thousand pounds, or the like, unto his child, hath yet an opportunity and time to bethink himself, and to con∣sider what he had best do in the case, whether to give, or not give it unto him. And in this respect we say, and say truly, that it is in his power, and at the liberty of his will, whether he will give it him, or no. But when once he hath given it unto him, it is not now in his power, whether he will give it, or no, because he hath done it. To apply this distinction to the business in hand. In the former consideration, or sence, most true it is, that it was in the power of God, and at the li∣berty of his will, whether he would have vouchsafed any such means of Salvation, as now he hath done unto those, who he knew would abuse them to the increase of their condemnation, and eternal misery. But the mean∣ing hereof is no more but this: that he was not compel∣led or necessitated by any external force, or by any thing out of himself, to make such a donation of the means we speak of unto such persons. But in the latter consideration it is altogether as true, that it never was in the power of God, to deny, or withhold, the means of Salvation we speak of, from the persons, whom he knew from eternity would abuse them to their deeper misery and ru ne: The reason hereof is, because he never had an opportunity, or space of time before him, wherein to consult, or advise with himself, what he should do in this kind, whether he should give, or not give, the means we speak of to such persons. It is re∣pugnant to those two Great Attributes of his infinite Wisdom, and Actuality, that his will should be at any

time undetermined, Or that he should ever be under any consultation about his Affairs, or about the ad∣ministration or government of the world. So that whatsoever he acteth, and doth in time, in the world, he doth, not simply according to, but also by the efficacy and vertue of, that modell or determination of his will, which was in him from eternity, and ne∣ver had beginning. And thus you see how, and in what sence, it never was in the power of God to de∣ny means of Salvation unto those, who he certainly knew would destroy themselves with the greater de∣struction, by occasion of them: and consequently, that he was never the less loving, gracious, and mer∣ciful unto them in the vouchsafement of them, such his knowledge, or fore-knowledge, notwithstand∣ing.

If it be yet objected, that according to this Do∣ctrine, now delivered, God must be conceived to work and do all things which he doth, out of the necessity of his nature, and not out of the liberty, freedom, or goodness of his will. And doth not this render all that God doth for men, either in or∣der to their present comfort or subsistence in the world, or to their eternal happiness, less acceptable unto them, and less matter of praise and thankful∣ness from them unto him? For who gives any man thanks, for any such good done unto him, which he that doth it, hath a necessity laid upon him to do and could not do otherwise? To this also I an∣swer:

1. That however nature, and will, be two things real∣ly distinct the one from the other, in the creature, yet in God, by reason of the infinite simplicity of his essence, or being, they are not so, but one and the same. There∣fore

it can with no more truth be said that God worketh out of the necessity of his nature, then that he worketh out of the necessity of his will.

2. The will of God, being nothing else but God himself, and so essentially good, and essentially wise, and upon this account infinitly good, and infinitly wise (for whatsoever is such or such by its essence must needs be infinitly such, as is demonstrable in the Metaphysiques) the acts or productions of it (I mean, the things exter∣nally acted and produced by it) must of necessity an∣swer the nature and essence of it, as far as they are ca∣pable of such a correspondency, i. e. must needs be act∣ings and productions of the best, as full of goodness, as full of wisdom, as is possible for such things to be. For it is a general and true rule in Philosophy, that modus o∣perandi consequitur modum essendi; the manner of the working of a cause, always follows (or accords with) the manner of the Being of it. Therefore the will of God, being infinitly good, and infinitly wise, and both essentially, the products of it must needs answer theise properties and perfections as far as they are answerable; I mean, as far as created actings or administrations are capable of such goodness, or wisdom. Therefore,

3. If the question be, whether God could not have made things otherwise then now they are made, or go∣vern the world after another manner then now he go∣verneth it, and with different administrations from those, now or formerly in being; the answer must be, by this, or the like distinction; that if we respect the power of God in it self, or God himself as simply om∣nipotent, so it may be said, that he could or might have made things otherwise, then now he hath done, and so have governed the world otherwise, then now he go∣verneth it. The reason is, because the power of God,

simply considered, extendeth it self to the utmost bounds and limits of all things that are possible, i. e. which do not imply a contradiction in their natures, as to make a man without a reasonable soul, to make a wall white without whiteness, &c. yea it stretcheth it self to the very confines and borders of impossibilities. In that consideration we now speak of (i. e. in respect of the power of God simply considered) he might have made, not onely another world in stead of this, differ∣ing from it, and governed it accordingly, but also many other worlds, besides this; (as it is the opinion of some that he hath done.) But now if we respect the power of God as in conjunction with his other attributes and per∣fections, as wisdom, goodness, righteousness, &c. and as regulated in the exertions and actings of it, by these, so we say that he could not have made this world, which is known unto us, and wherein we live, otherwise then now he hath made it, nor govern it, otherwise then now he hath, and doth, govern it; whatsoever may be thought, or conceived, concerning his making other worlds, and his governing them. For though (for ar∣gument sake) we should suppose that he hath made o∣ther worlds, besides this, and that these other worlds, simply considered, are better and more excellent, then this, and (in like consideration) better governed, then this; yet this doth not prove, that therefore he could have made this world otherwise, or better, then now he hath made it, or govern it otherwise, or better, then now he governeth it. As though the Sun be a more glorious and excellent creature, then the Moon, that now is, yet this doth not prove that God could have made a better Moon then this, or this otherwise, or better then now he hath made it. In like manner the Mosaical ordinances and dispensations under the

Law, were but beggerly rudiments (as the Apostle term∣eth them) being compared with the dispensations un∣der the Gospel; yet this proveth not that therefore God could have made those Mosaical dispensations better then they were, or that he could have given, all circumstances considered, better in their stead, when these were first given, or during the time of their con∣tinuance. The reason of what we affirm in all such cases as these, is delivered by our Apostle, Ephes. 1.11. where (speaking of God) he saith, that he worketh all things according to the counsel of his own will. By the way, the matter of this proposition, God worketh all things according to the counsel of his own will, is not (I suppose) materia contingens (as Logicians speak,) i. e. the proposition is not so to be understood, as if it were a thing contingent and accidentall onely unto God thus to work, I mean, according to the counsel of his will, or that, if he please, he may work otherwise, or upon other terms, as either without counsel, or according to the counsel of any other will, besides his own: but that which the said proposition attributeth unto him, viz. to work all things (meaning, which he now worketh) ac∣cording to the Counsel of his own will, is onely that which is natural, proper, and essential unto him. This on∣ly supposed, from the said words I reason thus (to the business in hand.) If God worketh all things, not sim∣ply and absolutely according to his own will, but according to the counsel of this his will [i. e. according to that ex∣cellency of wisdom, by which his will is acted or steered in all its motions] then could he work nothing, other∣wise, or better, all circumstances considered, then now he worketh, and hath wrought all things which are, or have been wrought, done, or made by him. The reason of this consequence, or illation, is evident;

viz. because he that worketh, and this not contingent∣ly or accidentally, but necessarily, uniformly, and con∣stantly, according to the most exquisite, and absolute, wisdom, or counsel that is, or can be imagined (for such is the wisdome and counsel of God) must needs work, whatsoever he worketh, after the best and most perfect manner that is: and consequently is in no capacity of working any thing otherwise, or better, (all circumstan∣ces considered, as it is proper for wisdom or counsel to consider them.) And if it shall be said, or supposed, that God could have made, or governed, this present world, either better (all circumstances considered) or otherwise, then now he hath made, or doth govern it, it must be supposed withall, that he did not make it, and so that he doth not govern it, according to any such counsel, which is infinitely perfect, and which adviseth to that which is simply and absolutely best (all circum∣stances, I still say, considered) which is expresly contra∣ry to the saying of the Apostle (lately mentioned,) That he worketh all things according to the counsel of his will; unless we shall suppose that this counsel of his will is de∣fective, or imperfect; a supposition, which I think eve∣ry mans soul abhorreth. For as counsel, simply consi∣dered, supposeth a possibility (at least in the apprehen∣sion of him that consulteth) of acting variously; so per∣fection of counsel supposeth an advisement or resoluti∣on to pitch upon the best way of acting in all this va∣riety.

If it be demanded, But might not God have had, or rather had he not, another model of a world in his eye, differing from that, according to which he hath now made this world, which yet might have been of equall goodness with this, so that the making of it would eve∣ry whit have as well become the counsel of his will you

speak of, as the making of this world now doth? (and there is the same reason of another government of the world;) And if so, if there were another world be∣before him of equall goodness, with this, the making whereof would as well have become his wisdom, or the counsel of his will, as this, then was he not at liberty whether he would have made this or no? or might he not have made that other in the place or stead of this? To this also I answer;

No: Because counsel hath place onely, where, in that va∣riety of courses, or things, that may be taken, or done, or are apprehended as fecible, & which may be done, in or∣der to a mans end, it is conceived by him that one thing may be better, and more conducing to his end, then a∣nother. But where two, or more things that may be done, are apprehended to be every ways, and in every respect of equall conducement to a mans end, in such a case counsel hath no place. For to what purpose should a man consider or consult, when he certainly knows before hand, that he can be no ways benefited by his consultation, nor inconvenienced by the contrary? Therefore certainly, if God worketh all things according to the counsel of his will, he wrought and made this world according hereunto: and if so, there could be no Model of any other world better then this in his eye, no nor yet equall unto it, when this was made by him; because in the former case, he should have wrought contrary unto counsel, in making this world; in the latter, coun∣sel about making this, had been useless and imperti∣nent. But (to the main Objection, or difficulty) I an∣swer:

4. (And lastly,) Though it be supposed, that God, his power, wisdome, and goodness consider∣ed as in conjunction, could work, make, and order

things no otherwise, then now he hath done, or doth; yet in as much as what he now doth necessarily, in re∣spect of his essential and native goodness, and wisdom, he doth also most voluntarily and freely, voluntate con∣comitante & subsequente, and with infinite satisfaction and contentment to himself in his way, there is no rea∣son, or colour of reason, why he should be judged less worthy praise or thanks for what he doth graciously out of such a necessity. As (for argument and illustra∣tion sake) suppose a person were under such a necessi∣ty of doing some speciall courtesie for us, which he could not decline, or avoid; yet if this necessity were no ways burthensome or troublesome to him, but ra∣ther matter of contentment a••d joy, so that he doth the kindness for us, with as much readiness and willing∣ness of mind, notwithstanding such a necessity of do∣ing it lying upon him, as he could in case no necessity at all ingaged him, in this case we are nevertheless in∣gaged in point of thankfulness unto him, that should do us the courtesie, upon the account of that necessity which lay upon him to do it. The reason is, because that freedom and gladness of spirit, wherewith he is supposed to act under the said necessity, is an argument, that he would have done every whit as much for us, whether he had been necessitated unto it, or no. In like manner God rejoycing over that necessity of doing good, and shewing mercy to the world, which is natu∣ral and essentiall to him, and hereby declaring that he would do the one, and shew the other, whether his na∣ture did necessitate him unto either, or no, that good which he doth, and mercy which he sheweth in this kind, have as equitable a claim to the praises and thank∣••••ll acknowledgments of men who receive them, as they could have had, in case he had been antecedane∣ously,

absolutely, and every ways free and at liberty whether he would have done any such good, or shewed any such mercy unto them, or no. Yea the nearer any creature, man or Angel, attaineth unto a natural neces∣sity of doing good, and acting worthily, [i. e. the more strongly, fervently, and (as it were) triumphantly in∣clind they shall be hereunto] the more worthy praise and honour are they to be esteemed: and the fruits also issuing from such triumphant principles of goodness, the more to be honoured, and thankfully entertained by those, who receive them. It is a good piece of discourse (in reference to the business in hand) which I find in Ur∣sine. He (saith he) hath not free-will, [or, a will free] who cannot change his counsel, being hindred by an exter∣nal cause, and in case he be willing [or desirous] to change it. Now God changeth not [indeed] his counsel, nor can change it, yet not by reason of any impediment or hindrance from an outward cause, nor yet through any defect of nature, or of [any] faculty, but because he will not, neither can will, the changing of his counsel, by reason of the immutable, [or unchangeable] rectitude of his will, upon which no error, nor any cause whatsoever of a change, can possibly falla 1.213. From the contents of this passage it plainly ap∣peareth, 1. That God cannot change the counsel of his will; and consequently, that he never could change it, in as much as he was the same, neither greater, nor less∣er, nor other, either in power, or in will, from eternity, which now he is. 2. That the reason of this impossi∣bility of change in him, is the immutable rectitude of his will; and consequently, that no other voliti∣ons or motions of his will (if any other, shall, or can be supposed by any to have been possible) could have had the same rectitude with those now exert∣ed and in being. And it is the common Doctrine

or notion of Divines, that God is under a necessity of immutability, though most free from all necessity of coaction. And God by doing that good willingly, and with delight, which that necessity of immutability, under which he is, necessitateth him unto, freeth him∣self from all that un-acceptableness with those, to whom this good is done by him, which otherwise the notion of a necessity would expose him unto; according to that of Seneca in another case, Velis id, quod necessitas jubet, & totam vim necessitatis eluseris. i. e. Be willing with that, which necessity commandeth; and by this means you shall elude the whole force [or strength] of necessity.

And thus we see, how it may well stand, that men, in case they could, and certainly did, foresee that good things given by them would make the Receivers mise∣rable, cannot be conceived to give them out of true love to these persons, in case they give them upon such terms; and yet withall, that God may truly be said to give his Son Jesus Christ, and other means of Salva∣tion, out of great love to such men, who yet he fore-sees, (after his manner of fore-seeing) will abuse all these gifts of his to their greater condemnation.

3. (And lastly,) That God's Intentions, even his Primary and Antecedent Intentions, may be reall and true, and yet never take place, I mean, the things re∣ally intended by him, never come to pass, hath been once and again above all reasonable contradiction, e∣vinced by us from the Scripturesb 1.214. So that God may be said truly and really to intend the Repentance and Salvation of those vessels of wrath, which he endureth with much long-suffering, yea, and this antecedently, though they never do repent, nor be saved; yea though he certainly fore-knew (according to his way of fore∣knowing)

that they would never do the one, or be the other. This for clearing the great difficulty propound∣ed.

If it be yet demanded, (before we leave this ver. 22.) but what doth the Apostle all this while answer, to that branch of the objection cast in his way, ver. 19. which seems to carry the chief strength of the objecti∣on in it, Why doth he yet find fault, or complain? where, or in what clause of his Answer, is there any account given of the reasonableness of Gods reproving, or com∣plaining of those, whom he hardeneth? nor doth the Apostle deny the thing; I mean, but that God is in∣deed wont to complain of those, whom he hardeneth. I answer;

That in the very words (lately insisted on) endured with much long-suffering, (as they have been opened) to∣gether with those following, fitted before [viz. by them∣selves] to destruction; there is a pregnant and satis∣factory account given to the said objectious demand. For if God, 1. hardeneth none, but only such, who first voluntarily harden themselves, and so fit themselves to destruction; And secondly, endures with much long-suffering those whom he hardeneth, all the while they are in hardening by him, and this long-suffering of his to∣wards them, be (as hath been proved) alwayes accom∣panied with means sufficient to bring them to repen∣tance, there is as just and reasonable a ground why God should all this while find fault with, blame, and complain of them, as well for their being hardened, as that they still continue refractory, obstinate, and impe∣nitent, careless and regardless of the things of their own eternal peace, &c. as well can be imagined. For in what case or condition can men more reasonably be blamed, admonished, or reproved, then when they vo∣luntarily

expose themselves unto danger by sinning, and when, and whilest they continue, in wayes of sin and wickedness, which lead unto death, when as the paths of life are before them, and they in a capacity of walking in them; This shall suffice for clearing this ver. 22.

Now though our Apostle stood no further enga∣ged by vertue of the Objection leavied against him, ver. 19. but only to vindicate the honour of the justice and wisdome of God in his proceedings about those whom he hardeneth, which he hath substantially done in these two verses, 21. and 22. yet having in this his vindication made use of the similitude of a Potter, ver. 21. and therein mentioned a double power (upon the matter) which this Potter hath over his clay; the one, to make vessels of it unto honour, the other, to make ves∣sels to dishonour, in his rendition of this Simile, he adds somewhat likewise concerning the Power of God to make of his clay vessels unto Glory, in these words.

[Verse 23] And that he might make known the riches of his glo∣ry on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto Glory. In these words, the Apostle gives a fur∣ther reason or account of that gracious dispensation of God towards the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, in enduring them with much long-suffering (ver. 22.) viz. a present discovery, by way of argument or intimation, of his exceeding great bounty towards the vessels of mercy, viz. such whom he hath before prepared, or fit∣ted, unto glory. As if he should have said: God endu∣reth with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath, after they have been fitted to destruction, not only for this end, to shew the dreadfull power of his avenging wrath in the destruction of these persons, in case they repent not;

but likewise that he may exhibit a ground of know∣ledg unto the world, how incomparably rich and won∣derfull his bounty is towards the vessels of mercy, i. e. Such, whom by the gracious operation of his good Spirit he hath brought to repentance, faith, and holi∣ness, and so prepared or made them meet for Glory.

If it be demanded, but how, or by what Medium or Principle, doth God make known the riches of his glory towards the vessels of mercy, by enduring the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, with much long-suffering? I answer, by the light of this principle, viz. that he, who being regular, and uniform in all his wayes, as God must needs be presum'd to be, shall very graci∣ously with much patience and goodness, entreat his greatest enemies, those that have very highly offended him, and dealt most unworthily by him, will most certainly express himself, to the height of his power, in all, and all manner of Grace, love, bounty, and magnificence unto those, who shall with all faithfulness and obedientiall respects approve themselves unto him. The riches of God's patience and long-suffering to∣wards the first-Born of sinners in this world, are de∣monstratively prophetical of his immense grace and bounty towards the Congregation of the first-born (for so the company of believers are called) in the world which is to come.

This Interpretation of the place I conceive to be much better then that, which coupleth this verse with the former, by the tatch of this principle, or notion; viz. That God's shewing his wrath, and making his power known, in the destruction of reprobates, commends and sets off upon terms of a far greater acceptance, the riches of his grace and love in the Salvation of his Elect. For (not to arraign that conceit for errour and

vanity at the present; I mean, that God by making so many Reprobates, so called, as he hath done, com∣mends his love upon so much the higher terms to his Elect,) suppose the conceit we speak of were true, yet can it have nothing to do about the Exposition of the place in hand. For it is neither said, nor meant, that God sheweth his wrath, and maketh his power known, in the destruction of the vessels of wrath, that so he may make known the riches of his glory to the vessels of mercy: but, that he endureth with much long-suffering the ves∣sels of wrath, that hereby he may make known the riches of his glory to the vessels of his mercy, &c. So that it is not the hatred, but the love, which God beareth and sheweth unto the Reprobates, which the Holy Ghost in this place maketh an argument of that far greater love which he beareth and sheweth, or will shew, to his E∣lect.

By the way it may be not unworthy the observing, that the Apostle, for a more ample and full justificati∣on of the wisdome of God in finding fault with those whom he hardeneth (which Attribute was principally struck at, as was noted, by the Objection) doth not only shew and declare how such a thing may be done by him without the violation of any principle or rule of wisdom (whereof notice hath been taken formerly) but further assignes several ends, and these worthy of him, which he propounds unto self, and compasseth, by such a dispensation; As 1. The shewing of his wrath [meaning, in the more signal destruction of those, who being found fault with by him, under their harde∣ning, shall notwithstanding not repent.] 2. The ma∣king of his power known [by the same opportunity, or means;] 3. (And lastly) The giving knowledge and information unto the world, how transcendently great

his grace, love, and bounty are towards those, who shall be found obedient unto him. It is a great com∣mendation of wisdom in a man, when his counsels and projections are such, that many collateral advantages shall attend, either the prosecution, or accomplishment of them.

We have shewed (in general) the Apostles Argu∣ment and Scope in the verse before us: let us briefly ponder some of the words and phrases in it more par∣ticularly.

And that he might make known the riches of his Glory, By Glory, he means that in God, which is just matter of honour and glory to him, the knowledg and due consideration whereof renders him glorious. i. e. Wor∣thy all admiration, adoration, &c. in the eyes of his creature. In this sence, his Power, in regard of the ex∣cellent greatness of it, is oft called, his Glory. Said I not unto thee (said the Lord Christ unto Martha) that if thou wouldst believe, thou shouldst see the Glory of Godc 1.215, [meaning, that in the raising up of her Brother Laza∣rus from the dead, she should see, as in a glass, the glo∣rious power of God.] See also Rom. 6.4. Ephes. 3.16. 2 Thess. 1.9. &c. In this sence, true it is, that every di∣vine Attribute or Perfection, may be termed, his Glo∣ry, because there is none of them, but rendreth him glorious in the esteem of all those who understand, be∣lieve, and consider them. Notwithstanding if the Scrip∣ture language be narrowly observed, we shall (I sup∣pose) very seldom, if at all, find any other Divine At∣tribute stiled or expressed by the name of the Glory of God, but only his Power (as hath been shewed) and his grace, or bounty; which is imported by it in the place in hand, as it is in several others. See Rom. 5.2. Ephes. 1.6.12.14. Philip. 4.19. &c. The reason probably of

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

this appropriation, I mean, of the word, Glory, only to the Power and Grace, of God, is this: because men, for whose sake the Scriptures were written, are more sensible and apprehensive of the fruits and expressions of these two Attributes of God, specially in their con∣junction, and so in a more ready capacity to glorifie God for them, then of any other his Attributes. The fruits of the Grace or Bounty of God, which are admi∣nistred by his Power, are all the sweet and desirable things which are possessed and enjoyed by men in the world, as life, health, peace, liberty, meat, drinks, wealth, &c. Now because men are generally more ta∣ken and affected with such things as these, being the proper productions and fruits of his Grace and Power, acting together, and so are more apt to glorifie him for them, then for any the appropriate fruits of any other his Attributes, as wisdom, justice, or the like, there∣fore those Attributes of his, may, in reference unto men, be in a more peculiar manner termed, his Glory.

The riches of his Glory, i. e. The great abundance of his Grace and bounty. The Metaphor of riches, is fre∣quently borrowed by this Apostle, to do service in commending and setting forth unto the world, the most adorable and unconceivable fulness of the Attributes, and Perfections of God. The riches of his goodness, Rom. 2.4. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and know∣ledg of God, Rom. 11.33. According to the riches of his Grace, Ephes. 1.7. According to the riches of his Glory, Ephes. 3.16. (to omit other like.) So that by, the riches of his Glory, (in the place in hand) is meant, the tran∣scendently great, inestimable, and most adorable Grace, bounty, and munificence of God, the knowledg and consideration whereof rendreth him exceedingly glo∣rious

before his creatures. If, by a Metonimy of the cause put for the effect (frequent in Scripture) by the riches of his glory, or glorious grace, we shall under∣stand, the fruits and effects of these riches of his glory, viz. the blessed enjoyments, the glorious estate and felicity of the Saints, &c. it will equally accommodate the place, and the Apostles argument.

And that he might make known the riches, &c.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i. e. That he might exhibit such an Argument, or Medium, by which men may be led to the knowledg of the riches of his Glory, or to make an estimate in themselves how abundantly rich in grace and bounty, he is towards those that obey him. A thing may be said to be discovered, or made known, two wayes. 1. When it is in it self brought into open view, so that it may be seen immediately and directly, and (as it were) face to face. 2. When something is done, which arguitively, and by the help of the rational and dis∣coursive faculty in men, evidenceth, or may evidence, to the mind and understanding, either the simple being of another thing, which is yet in it self, secret, or else something appertaining to such a being. The riches of Gods glory (understood in the former of the two sences mentioned) are no ways capable of being made known in the former of the two ways of discovery specified: be∣cause they are like unto God himself, yea they are God himself, whom, (as the Apostle saith) no man hath seen, neither can seea 1.216. In the later of the said two sences, they will not, they cannot be made known, at least not be made fully known, in the former way of discovery, until this corruptible hath put on incorruption, and this mortal hath put on immortality, i. e. Until the Saints be actually pos∣sessed of, and invested with, the fulness of their glory. Therefore the making known of the riches of Gods glo∣ry,

here meant, must needs be the making of them known in the later way of making things known, viz. by way of argument and discourse; which yet is not so to be understood neither, as if the said riches of his glory, were generally known unto men by means of the discovery or making them known, which is here attributed unto God. But God is said to make them known, because he hath taken a course, or done that, which is proper and sufficient to bring men to the knowledg of them; ac∣cording to the frequent Dialect of the Scriptures, wherein God is said to do such and such things, when he doth that which is proper for him to do in order to the effecting of them, though through a defect in men, not doing that which they ought to do, the thing be never actually done. What there is in that dispensation of God, his enduring the vessels of wrath fitted to de∣struction, with much long-suffering, to demonstrate by way of argument and proof, the riches of his Glory, to∣wards his Saints, hath been already argued and declared.

On the vessels of mercy, which he had before prepared unto Glory.] By vessels of mercy, it is out of question that he meaneth such persons, who somtimes were mi∣serable by being dead in sins and trespasses wherein they walked according to the course of the world,* 1.217 &c. But af∣terwards through believing the Gospel, obtain mercy, that great mercy, forgiveness of sins, with the fruits and consequents of it, which is a perfect relief against that misery. So that these vessels of mercy, and the chil∣dren of the promise, ver. 8. are one and the same. They are termed vessels of mercy, because as vessels (proper∣ly so called) have a peculiar form given unto them by the Artificer who maketh and frameth them, by means whereof they are commodious, and fit to receive and hold such things, whether liquid, or dry, as are, and

should be, put into them: in like manners the Persons here spoken of, are therefore termed vessels of mercy, in as much as when they come, under this denomination, they are so wrought and fram'd by the Holy Ghost, that they are meet to receive the mercy of God. i. e. The fruits and effects of his mercy, as forgiveness of sins in the first place, and then in due time, and by con∣venient degrees, all other blessings and good things, until their former misery be perfectly relieved, and their conditions reduced to a compleat happiness. Now that spiritual form, or frame, which maketh men ves∣sels of mercy (in the sence declared) is Faith and Re∣pentance: whereunto when men are wrought, and brought, by that Great and Heavenly Artificer, the Holy Ghost, then doth God judge them meet to re∣ceive his mercy, his great and rich mercy, which con∣sists in forgiveness of sins, together with all other fruits of his mercy accompanying it. So that men, whilest they yet remain dead in sins and trespasses, are not ves∣sels of mercy (in the sence here intended by the Holy Ghost) but rather vessels of wrath; although God may and doth oft-times, endure them (as we heard lately) with much long-suffering, which is a kind of mercy, yea, and a rich mercy (in the kind of it) and which somtimes turns to a blessed account to them who receive it, new forming them, and of vessels of wrath, making them vessels of mercy: and would do the like by them all, if they had will and wisdom to comport with it for their own peace.

Which he hath before prepared unto Glory.] In these words he more particularly declareth, who or what kind of persons he meaneth, by those vessels of mercy, towards whom God intendeth to make known the riches of his glory, by his enduring with much long-suffering

the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction (as we formerly heard.) These vessels of mercy are those, whom he 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, afore prepared [or, made ready, or fitted, as the word signifies] unto glory, [or, for glory, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] His meaning clearly is, that those riches of his glory, which he desires to make known, by the means specified, are only meant and intended by him to be conferred upon such vessels of mercy, which by his word, and spirit, and other dispensations relating to them, he hath made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in lightd 1.218, (as the Apostle speaketh elsewhere.) So that this clause, whom he hath before prepared, &c. seems to be characteristical, and distinctive between some vessels of mercy, and others: and to import, that there either are, or may be, some of these vessels, who will never be prepared or fitted by God for glory, but will miscarry between the hands of the Potter (like the vessels in Je∣remye 1.219) whilest he is working and fashioning them, on whom those riches of his glory will never be conferred. These riches are intended by God for the portion and inheritance only of such vessels of mercy, who will hold and abide, without cracking and breaking to pieces, the framing and working under his hand, until he hath fi∣nished all things about them, requisite to their meetness for glory. For men are not meet (at least ordinarily, and as God counteth meetness) for a translation into coe∣lestial glory immediately upon the first of their repent∣ing, or believing, (although they may now properly enough be termed vessels of mercy) but there are yet many things to be done, yea and suffered by them, af∣ter their first believing, before God looketh upon them as meet for an actuall investiture with glory. For ye have need of patience (saith this our Apostle to the He∣brews) that after ye have done the will of God, [viz. by

repenting, and believing] ye might receive the promisec 1.220, [i. e. the great Salvation promised unto those, who shall continue, in faith and love, unto the end.] And they that look for eternal life from God, who will render unto eve∣ry man according to his deeds, must seek for it by patient continuance in well doingd 1.221. So men that are rich in this world, though believers, yet must they do good, yea be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communi∣cate, thus laying up in store for themselves a good founda∣tion, that they may lay hold on eternal lifee 1.222. i. e. That they may come to it, and obtain it (as J. Diodate expoundeth it.) The Scriptures are very frequent and pregnant, in asserting this, that men must do more then simply be∣lieve, to become meet for glory, or such, on whom God is pleased to confer eternal life.

Nor doth it follow from hence, that, in case a person should die the very next moment to that, wherein he first believeth, he must then perish, or suffer the loss of eternal life. Because in case a mans faith be sound, all holy affections and righteous dispositions, and conse∣quently a life and conversation fruitful in good works, are vertually and seminally contained in it. Neither will God turn any mans non-doing of good, through want of opportunity only, which belongs only to him∣self to give, to any loss or disadvantage unto him. But when men have time and opportunity vouchsafed unto them, if they shall be found negligent and unfaithfull in doing those things, which God requireth of them, this argueth that their heart is not upright in them, and consequently that they are in no capacity of receiving the great recompence of reward from God.f 1.223

Some Expositors interpret the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, afore prepared, as if it signified, predestinated, or pre∣ordained. Though this sence of the word, rightly un∣derstood,

createth no errour or falshood, in as much as God hath predestinated, and this from eternity, all those who shall persevere believing to the end, unto glo∣ry, yet doth not such a sence, either so Grammatically, fit the word, or Logically, the place. For the Verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doth not properly, if at all, signifie to ordain, designe, or the like; but to fit, or make ready for some end, use, or purpose. See Matth. 22.4. Matth. 26.17, 19. Luke 1.17. Luke 9.52. Luke 12.47. 2 Tim. 2.21. Revel. 19.7. Revel. 21.2. (to omit many other places.) The compound, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (here used) is indeed once by our English Translators rendred, before ordained; created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them, Eph. 2.10. But as if they somwhat doubted, or relented, of this translati∣on, they give us our choice of another in the margent, offering us here that, which they have given us in our present Text, prepared. And doubtless good works, can∣not in any tolerable propriety of speech be said to be predestinated, or fore-ordained: but they may with good propriety be said to be prepared, or made ready by God for believers to walk in, as viz. by admini∣string so many incouragements as he hath done, and making so many rich and precious promises unto those who shall walk in them, on the one hand; and by pre∣scribing so many directions how they may eschew such snares and temptations, which are like to retard and hinder them from so walking, on the other hand. Be∣tween, and by means of these two things, good works may well be said to be prepared, or made ready for, or to be brought neer to hand unto, the Saints. But this by the way. Again,

2. For the sence of the place in hand, neither can this be so well accommodated, by interpreting, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ordained, predestinated, or designed, as, prepared, made fit, or meet. For the riches of the glory, [or glo∣rious Grace] of God, are not displayed, or conferred upon men, or the vessels of mercy, simply as, or so much because, they were fore-ordained unto glory, from eter∣nity (suppose this were granted instead of being pro∣ved) but because of their being prepared and fitted by God (in the sence, and by the means, formerly specifi∣ed) thereunto. The preposition, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, before [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] importing a precedency in time, relateth unto the actual collation of the riches of his glory; and import∣eth, that these riches are not conferred by God upon any vessel of mercy, untill he hath sanctified and prepared this vessel for the present receiving of them; according to that of our Apostle elsewhere; That we should be to the praise of his glory. [i. e. of his glorious grace, mean∣ing, by our salvation] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who had first, [or, before] trusted [or hoped] in Christa 1.224 imply∣ing (as it should seem) that the saving of such persons, who should not be first prepared, and made meet for such a blessed condition by beleeving in Christ, (always speaking in such cases as this, of persons of discretion, and capable of beleeving) would turn to no account of praise to the glorious grace of God.

Notice was taken in our explication of the former Verse, that whereas the Apostle, speaking there of the vessels of wrath, expresseth himself indefinitely, and in a verb of the Passive voyce, about their preparing to de∣struction, here speaking of the preparing of the vessels of mercy for glory, he expresly ascribeth it unto God. The reason of which different expression there passed under consideration likewise.

Before we make further progress in our Exposition, let us take up some Heads of Doctrine which shew

themselves from the Verses last expounded.

1. From those words of the Apostle, vers. 19. Thou wilt say then unto me, (as they were glossed by us) it is not amiss to observe, That Divine truth is frequently so delivered and expressed in the Scriptures, that men through ignorance, or inconsiderateness, may easily judg it objection∣able, and oppose it. See Joh. 3.3, 4, 5. to the 9^th, 2 Pet. 3.16. Mat. 22.23. compared with v. 31, 32.

From these two Interrogations, Why doth he yet com∣plain? For who hath resisted his will? This is observa∣ble, That weak and less considering persons are apt to think many dispensations of God to be hard, or unreasonable, up∣on mistaken grounds. The irresistibleness of Gods will, in that sence and in those cases wherein it is irresistible, is no ground at all (as hath been shewed) to judg, that God dealeth, either unjustly, or unreasonably, in com∣plaining of, or reproving those, who are hardned by him. See Rom. 3.3, 5. Mat. 25.24. Psal. 73.2, 3, &c. compared with vers. 16.

3. From this clause, For who hath resisted his will? it is worth the noting, That, Some mens (the truth is, many mens) Exceptions, or Objections, against the Truth, spring from an inability to distinguish between the different ac∣ceptations of one and the same word, or phrase. There had been no place for the Objection laid down in this Verse against Pauls Doctrine, wherein he had taught, That God hardneth whom he will, if the Objector had under∣stood, and well considered, that the will of God, sig∣nifieth sometimes his Antecedent will, which is re∣sistible, yea and is resisted by those that are harden∣ed by him; and sometimes his consequent will, which is irresistible in one sence, and not in another, (of which some other time: See Joh. 3.4. Joh. 6.52, &c.

4. From these words, vers. 20. Nay but, O man, who

art thou, &c. the Holy Ghost giveth us to understand, and consider, That it is no less then horrid presumption in so weak, sinful, and worthless a creature, as man is, to contest with the most High God, about the wisdom, or righteousness of his ways. Rom. 3.5. Ezek. 18.19, 25, 29. and 33.17, 20. Isa. 45.9. Job 34.17, 18, 19.

5. The words following, Shall the thing formed, say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? are a foundation whereon to build this Doctrine; No crea∣ture whatsoever hath any reason or ground, nor colour of ei∣ther, to complain of God touching any thing relating to the creation, or native being of it. Gen. 1.31. Psal. 104.24. Or rather this: Men that have made themselves obnoxi∣ous unto God by a long-continued course of sin and disobe∣dience, having hereby forfeited their beings, and all that is desirable therein, have no cause to complain of any proceed∣ings whatsoever in God against them, especially wherein there is but the least touch of grace and mercy. Rom. 3.5. 2 Thessal. 1.6. Ezra 9.13. Rom. 1.32. Ezek. 18.25. with 26.

6. From vers. 21. Hath not the Potter power over the clay, &c. this Observation offereth it self; That things which are vile, and of small value, or worth, may without any just offence unto any man, be converted, or disposed of, to ends and services of a mean nature, as well as unto those of better respect. Mat. 5.13. Joh. 15.6. Mat. 3.10. Jos. 9.22, 23.

7. From these words, vers. 22. What if God willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, &c. is held forth unto us this Truth; That God may with all good a∣greement to all principles of justice and equity, punish with the utmost severity such persons, whom he hath endured in a course of sinning, with patience, if they repent not. Mat. 11.22, 23, 24. Rom. 2.4, 5. Rev. 18.2, 3.7.

8. From these words, vessels of wrath, (as they have been opened) this Doctrine sheweth it self: That Actu∣al transgression, whilest unrepented of, makes the trans∣gressor capable of receiving, and of keeping, or holding, for ever, the wrath of God; (i. e. of the fruits or ef∣fects of this wrath.) Ezek. 18.4. Gen. 2.17. 2. Thes. 1.8.9. Rom. 1.31. & 2.••. Jam. 1.15. &c.

9. From these words (as they were notioned in the exposition given) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, fitted (or rather, compleatly or perfectly, fitted) to destruction, this is observable: That long continuance in a course of sin, and disobedience, without repentance, maketh men much more capable and worthy of destruction, then either a single act, or a short practice, of sinning doth. Rom. 2.4.5. Psal. 7.12. Luk. 18.7.8.

10. From this clause, endured with much long suffer∣ing, bearing such a part in the period, as that ascribed to it in the preceding exposition, this is considera∣ble;* 1.225 That Persons compleatly fitted to destruction by long continuance in sin, are, or may be, notwithstanding in a capa∣city of Repentance, whilest God spareth them (and so of be∣ing saved.) Ezek. 12.23. Jer. 36.3.7. & 26.3. &c.

11. From these words, vers. 23. on the vessels of mer∣cy (understood according to their explication) this beam of Truth shineth; That true Repentance investeth men with a comely and meet capacity of receiving that e∣minent fruit of the mercy of God, the forgiveness of sins. Mar. 1.4. Ezek. 18.21.32. Acts. 3.19.

12. From those words, the Riches Of His Glory on the vessels of mercy, which, &c. this Doctrine ariseth; that The bounty of God towards those, who shall be found meet for salvation, is exceeding great, above measure magnificent and glorious. Ephes. 1.18.19.20. Phil. 3.21. Mat. 13.43.

13. These words, which He hath afore PREPARED

unto glory, enrich us with this Truth; that The riches of the most magnificent bounty of God shall be the portion of such onely, who shall be first prepared and made meet by Faith and holiness to receive them. Colos. 1.12. Ephes. 1.12. Heb. 12.14. Revel. 3.4.5.

14. Whereas God is here affirmed to prepare men for their glory, which HE hath before prepared unto glo∣ry, the result of Doctrine is this: That the new creati∣on of the Saints, and all the spiritual workmanship that is found upon them, is to be ascribed unto God, and to the ef∣fectual working of his grace. Ephes. 2.10. 1. Cor. 6.11. Philip. 2.13.

15. Whereas God is here exhibited or presented un∣to us, as desirous or willing to make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which, &c. this Doc∣trine lieth large before us; That God is willing to de∣clare and make known before-hand unto the children of men, what great things they may with confidence expect from him to the days of eternity, who shall be found obe∣dient and faithfull unto him in the days of their mortali∣ty, that so their hand may be the more effectually strength∣ened to his service. Revel. 2.26, 27, 28. &. 3.4, 5, 12.21. Luke. 20.35, 36. Mat. 13.43.

Lastly, Whereas Gods making known what the rich∣es of his glory are on the vessels of mercy, which, &c. is here insisted on as one end of his enduring with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath, fitted &c (mentioned in the former verse) the blessing of this Truth is poured forth unto us; that the riches of Gods patience and long-suffering shewed on wretched men, and high-handed sin∣ners in this world, is a pregnant demonstration of the a∣bundant riches of his Grace and bounty on the Saints in the world to come. See Rom. 5.8, 9, 10.

Even us whom he hath called, not of the Jews onely, [Verse 24]

[Verse 25] but also of the Gentiles; As he saith also in Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people: and her, belo∣ved, [ 26] which was not beloved: And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, ye are not my people, there shall they be called the children of the living God.

Even us whom he hath called, not, &c. The sence of these words is to be compleated by the help of the for∣mer verse, where the Apostle (as we have heard) found it amongst the ends proposed, or proposeable by God unto himself, in his enduring with much patience the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, his making known the riches of his glory, on the vessels of mercy, afore pre∣pared unto glory. So that now subjoyning, even us whom he hath called not, &c. his meaning is, that they, whether Jews, or Gentiles, (for the Church at Rome, to which he writeth this Epistle, consisted of both) whom by his grace he had prevailed with to beleeve the Gospel, were a part of, or were of the number of those vessels of mercy, which he had prepared, or was now in preparing, unto glory. The reason why he takes occasion here to give instance in himself, together with the Saints in the Church at Rome, and elsewhere, whether Jews, or Gentiles, as being vessels of mercy pre∣pared by God unto glory, seems to be, either to prevent, or heale, the offence, which he knew the un-beleeving Jews were ready to take, that he, and those that em∣braced his Doctrine, who according to his own prin∣ciples, were lately in the same (or worse) condition with themselves, should (as it were) on the suddaine look upon themselves as the choyce and only beloved people of God, and upon them, as persons rejected and cast off by him. For that which the Apostle here ex∣presly asserteth touching all those, who with himself were effectualy called by God, as viz. that they are ves∣sels

of mercy, prepared by God unto glory, &c. he had insi∣nuated all along his discourse hitherto, and it could not but accordingly be resented by the Jews. Therefore to satisfy them touching the business, being matter of of∣fence unto them, he first tells them, that God had call∣ed them [himself, and those who beleeved] Even us whom he hath called. &c. 2. He lays before them several passages found in one of their own Prophets, wherein a thing of a like nature, and altogether as strange as this, was predicted, and which long since had been accom∣plished, in, and amongst themselves [i. e. their fore-fa∣thers] in these words; As he saith also in Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her, &c.

For the former; Even us whom he hath called] In the original: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. (word for word) whom also he hath called us. In some Greek copies, the pro∣noun, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, us, is wanting; not without some detri∣ment (I conceive) to the Apostles mind in the context. Admiting that reading of the words, which we have, and which our Greek copies more generally approve, probable it is, that they are to be otherwise pointed, then our English translators exhibit them unto us; and that after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he hath called, there should be a comma, and so the pronoun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be construed apposi∣tive (as Grammarians speak.) The words thus ordered, and read, Whom also he hath called, us [i. e. even us, or, namely us, as Beza also distinguisheth, and sup∣plietha 1.226] give us the mind of the Apostle to this effect, that those vessels of mercy, whom he prepareth unto glo∣ry, he is wont also to call [i. e. so to call them, as to pre∣vail with them to hear, and to answer this their call, by beleeving, as the word, call, frequently imports:] and thus he hath called us, who beleeve, as well of the Jews, as the Gentiles, &c. Such appositive constructions, as that

mentioned, are frequent in the Scriptures, and especial∣ly in the writings of this Apostle. One instance we have ver. 10. of this Chapter. Another, Rom. 5.15. another, John 5.45. (to omit many others.) The calling here specified, doth not barely signifie the act of God in call∣ing, or inviting persons, unto the fellowship of the Gospel, or communion with Jesus Christ, (as some∣times the word signifies, Matth. 20.16. & 22.8.14.) but rather the intended effect of this act of God in calling; i. e. His prevailing with men to believe by means of this his calling: which is the much more frequent (and al∣most the constant) acception of the word with this A∣postle. See Rom. 8.30. 1 Cor. 1.9. chap. 7.18.21, 22, 24. Gal. 1.6.15. (besides many other.) And that in the place before us, it must be taken in this sence, is evident, because it is spoken of, or applied unto, those, whom God hath prepared unto glory: Now that calling of God unto men, which is not answered by men with faith and love in Christ Jesus, is common unto thousands, who are in no degree prepared by him unto glory, but are by themselves prepared to destruction; according to that of our Saviour, Many are called, but few are chosen. In this sence of the word, called, the Apostle speaks like unto himself in the former Chapter, ver. 30. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called. Not that predestination of particular persons goeth before their calling, no more then Gods preparing, or fitting, men unto glory doth, but God is therefore said to call, or to have called them, whom he did predestinate, or, hath predestinated, to shew, that he is not wont to predestinate any person (capable of calling) until he hath called him. For in saying, Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called, his intent clearly is to shew, who those are, whom God hath predestinated to be conformed to the

image of his Son, ver. 29. These he notifieth by this cha∣racter, or property, viz. that God hath called them, [i. e. so called them, as to cause them to hear and obey his call, as was lately said.] Therefore those who have not this character upon them, i. e. are not yet thus called by God, are not predestinated by him to any such conformity. If they were, it could not be truely said, that those, whom he hath thus predestinated, he hath called. But this by the way.

The reason why our Apostle subjoyneth Gods call∣ing (in the sence declared) of those vessels of mercy, whom he prepareth, or hath prepared unto Glory, seemeth to be, to give an account unto the froward and con∣tradicting Jews, why, or how, he, with the rest both Jews and Gentiles, who had obeyed their calling from God by the Gospel, became vessels of mercy, and were prepared, or in preparing, by him unto Glory, in opposi∣tion to their rejection, who had not thus been called by him, but had obstinately, and wilfully rejected his call. As if he should have said to these unbelieving Jews; The reason why we Believers, as well Jews, as Gentiles, look upon our selves, as vessels of mercy, prepared, or in preparing, unto Glory, and not upon you, is, because that God by his gracious calling of us by the Gospel, hath perswaded and prevailed with us to believe in his Son, and to persevere believing until now; whereas you have been, and still remain, disobedient unto this hea∣venly calling: and therefore having once made your selves vessels of wrath by sinning, you continue such to this day. The obedience of Faith in believers, is both here, and frequently elsewhere, rather ascribed unto the calling of God, then to their compliance with the call, though this be as requisite to the production of such an effect, as the other; because it is the principal and pri∣mary

cause, and most worthy consideration; whereas the compliance of man with the call of God, though in respect of the blessed consequence, which through the most gracious and bountiful promise of God, de∣pends upon it, and accompanieth it, it be very consi∣derable also, yet in it self, and in the nature of it, it is of small value, and carrieth nothing of wonder, or worthy observation, in it.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whom also he hath called, or, whom he hath even ealled.] This particle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, also, or, even, seems to be emphatical, and to import, that the calling of God here mentioned, is very condescentious, and full of Grace, and not easie to be believed by men by reason of the abundance of Grace in it. In such an emphatical sence as this it seems to be used by this our Apostle elsewhere; as 1 Thes. 4.8. Who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit: as if he should have said, who hath given unto us such a gift, which we could hardly have expected from him, and greater then which he had none now to give, even his Spirit. See also Rom. 8.30.34. Some conceive it to be exege∣tical, and declarative of what went before, and to ex∣press the manner or means how God prepares the vessels of mercy unto glory. Haply it is not of much value to observe in the Pronoun 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whom, that Grammar figure, according to which there may be an incongruity in the Syntaxis of the words, when the sence is congruous and clear. For, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being the masculine Gender, relates in construction unto 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vessels (in the former verse) being the neuter Gender. But Grammar incongruities are frequent in the Scripture, where the sence suffers not by them. An instance we had, ver. 10.11. although we took no notice of it.

Not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.] Sel∣dom

is there any thing, either denied in the Scriptures, but only that which men, at least some men, are apt to affirm; nor any thing affirmed, but what some are apt or likely to deny. The reason why the Apostle, in the clause before us, expresseth himself by this distribution, not of the Jews only, but also, &c. is, because he knew the unbelieving Jews were inclined to think, that if any people under Heaven were so graciously entreated by God, as to be brought over to him in love and service, they must needs be, either only, or chiefly Jews. Nay (saith the Apostle) God hath now called, and brought home to himself for a people, as well Gentiles, as Jews, without making any difference between them. This for the former particular insisted on by Paul, to qualifie, or take off, the offence, which he knew his country-men the Jews were apt to take, at his appropriating unto himself, and those who imbraced his Doctrine, the dignity of being vessels of mercy, prepared by God unto glory, viz. their being called by him (in the sence oft declared.) The latter followeth.

And he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, who were not my people, and her beloved, &c.] These are not the precise words that are found in the Prophet;* 1.227 but our Apostle, according to the manner of the New Te∣stament, and of the Spirit of God uttering himself here, takes liberty in his citations from the Old Testament, to deliver the sence and substance of matter contained in the passages cited, with what variation of words he pleaseth. And it is well observed by some, that for the most part when the pen-men of the New-Testament take this liberty (I mean, to vary in words from the pen-men of the Old-Testament, in their quotations from them) it is for the accommodation of the sence, and to afford some addition of light to the places quoted. The

truth of this observation might readily be verified in many instances, if need were. However, the difference in words, is not much in the testimony before us, though gathered, and made up, from two several places in the Prophet mentioned, viz. Chap. 1.10. and Chap. 2.23. Whereas our Apostle citeth thus, I will call them my people, which are not my people; the words in the Pro∣phet are read thus, And I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people. For these words in our Apostle, There shall they be called the children of the living God, the Prophet hath, There it shall be said unto them, Ye are the Sons of the living God. The greatest difference between them, seems to be a∣bout this clause (in our Apostle) And I will call her beloved, which was not beloved: whereunto there is no∣thing found correspondent in the Prophet, but only this, And I will have mercy upon her, that had not obtain∣ed mercy: yet neither is the difference here very materi∣all: only the Apostles, love, seems to be somewhat more significant and full, then the Prophets, mercy; (if yet we suppose the Prophets 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to signifie mercy, rather then love: for Expositors more generally make it to signifie, either the one, or the other, indifferently: and M. Bucer affirmeth, that it signifieth such an affection or charity, which a mother beareth towards her child, whom she hath born in her womba 1.228.) For love, doth with a more manifest and pregnant involution, include mercy, then mercy, love. Where we truly love we can∣not but shew mercy, upon occasion: But we may shew mercy, especially when extremity is the occasion, where we do not greatly love, or affect. And besides, mercy, simply as such, extendeth only unto the relief of those in misery, and this but in part neither; for it must not be simply mercy, but mercy in some eminent degree,

which will advance a plenary relief and support to him that is in misery. But love amongst many other wor∣thy properties, which our Apostle discovers in the na∣ture of it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. (as our former Translation rendred) is bountifulb 1.229, and (as we know) is not satisfi∣ed with a bare relief, or comfort, of such who are in misery, but is ready to bestir and put forth her self to make them prosperous and happy. So that the Apo∣stle, in the clause in hand, exchanging the Prophets, mercy, for his, love, quits himself Evangelically, and o∣pens the heart of God towards his people, further then he [the Prophet] did.

The tenor of the whole citation now before us, clear∣ly imports a gracious promise, or prediction, of a bless∣ed alteration and change intended to be made by God in the present estate and condition of some people, or other, one, or more: and that whereas their present condition was poor, and low, and despicable, he would so far, and to such a degree alter the property of it, that it should become prosperous and honourable. The multiplication and variety of expressions in the Testi∣mony it self, importing for substance one and the same thing, (viz. the intent and purpose of God to do very bountifully by the people spoken of) emphatically im∣ply the fulness of his heart and soul with a purpose and resolution that way; according to that of our Sa∣viour in the Gospel, Out of the abundance [i. e. accord∣ing to the abundance] of the heart the mouth speak∣eth.

But though the sence and import of the Testimony be thus far clear, yet is it controversal amongst Expo∣sitors, of whom, or of what people, God here speak∣eth, I will call them my people, which were not my people, &c. and particularly whether he speaketh these things con∣cerning

the Jews onely, as viz. that he would restore them unto his grace and favour, after their great affli∣ction, devastation of their land, captivity, &c. under which they did not look like the people of God, but like a forlorn people, rejected and forsaken by him; and that upon their restauration unto his favour, he would make their faces to shine again in the world, and give them countenance from Heaven; or whether he predicteth these things, unto, or concerning the Gen∣tiles, as if his meaning were, that whereas at that time when his Prophet thus prophesied, the Gentiles were in their respective Nations, a people estranged from God and the knowledg of his ways, without favour or countenance from him, without any sign or testimony of his presence with them, &c. yet in time he would shew such respect unto them, that they also should be∣come his people, and have as great a presence of his Grace amongst them, as ever the Jews had formerly. Calvin stands up with much confidence for the former of these Interpretations, supposing that he should find no man dissenting from him thereinc 1.230; yet Pareus seems with as much (or with very little less) confidence to as∣sert the latter, endeavouring to prove by Argument, that the Prophet in the said passages intended to predict the calling of the Gentilesd 1.231. Though as well the one sence as the other, accommodates the Apostle in his present business (as will more appear presently) yet the carriage of all things along the context in Hosea, makes very strongly for Calvins sence, at least thus far, that the re-assuming of the Jewish Nation into his Grace and fa∣vour, after their long exile (as it were) and banishment from hence, was principally intended by God, and his Prophet, in the passages under Question. On the other hand it is very true also that the said Oracles, intended

(as hath been said) primarily and immediatly for the consolation of the Jews, were so indited and drawn up in words by the Spirit of God, that they might ac∣commodate the state and case of the Gentiles also; yea and moreover Item and instruct the Jews, that since the case and condition of the Gentiles, in reference to the love and favour of God, was no worse, no other, then what theirs sometimes had been, they when time was, having been no more the people of God, then the Gentiles now were, they should not be offended, or think it strange, that God should make a people for himself of the Gentiles alsoe 1.232. It is frequent in prophetical pre∣dictions of the Old Testament (and as frequently ob∣served by judicious Expositors) to be form'd in such words and Phrases, that they may not onely suit and fit those particular cases or events, which are principally, directly, and immediatly intended and aimed at (in part) by them, but several others also, being of like nature with them, which were to take place in the world after∣wards. Nor is it unusual in the New Testament, to stile many events the fulfillings of such, and such pre∣dictions, or sayings of the Prophets, which did not re∣late unto them, but onely in a kind of secondary and collateral way. See Mat. 2.15. compared with Hos. 11 1. Mat. 2.18. with Jer. 31.15. Mat. 4.15. compared with Isa. 9.1. Mat. 13.35. with Psal. 78.2. Mat. 13.14. with Isa. 6.9. Iohn 13.18. compared with Psal. 41.9. (to omit sundry others.) So that although it be granted that the restitution of the Jews unto the favour of God, and their former injoyments in their own land, after the sad desola∣tions thereof, and their carrying away into Babylon, were directly and immediatly intended by the Prophet in those veins of prophecy yet before us, yet may the call∣ing of the Gentiles be conceived to have been overtur'd

likewise therein. The Apostles intent and drift in citing the said testimony, was not (I conceive) simply either to prove or declare, either the re-instating of the Jews in the favour of God after that cloud of displeasure we spake of had for a time bin spread over them, or the calling of the Gentiles to be a people unto him; but rather (as hath bin signified) to shew and declare, that it is no new or strange thing, or that should offend any man, that such persons, who had been formerly, yea unto the very time where∣in the change should be made, alienated from God, and under his displeasure, should be called by him, and this up on such terms, as to be prevailed with to harken un∣to his call, and so with much love, and great respects to be entertained by him, as his people. This suffici∣ently appeareth from the Passages cited; so that the Jews could have no reasonable or just cause to stumble at that, which the Apostle all along this his discourse had insinuated, and even now more plainly affirmed, viz. that He, with the rest who had obeyed the calling of God in the Gospel by beleeving, were the people of God, vessels of mercy prepared unto glory, how far soever they had been estranged from God before. This for the Apostles latter plea mentioned.

We shall now onely open some particular expressi∣ons in the Quotations before us, and then make for∣ward.

I will call them MY PEOPLE, which were not my peo∣ple.] For God to call any Nation, or party of men, his people, imports their dignity, and great happiness; as on the contrary for him to dis-own any people in such a relation, implyes their contemptibleness and misery. For as earthly Princes and Monarchs, for the support of their State and Greatness, seek to have all things in relation unto them, and their service, of the best and

most excellent in their kind, the best servants, the best Horses, the best houses, the best dishesf 1.233, &c. so when God appropriates any thing to himself, whether men, Nations, or other creatures, it imports some speci∣all worth, excellency, and happiness in them. When our Saviour saith, God is not the God of the dead, but of the livingg 1.234, his meaning is, that God is not wont to call himself the God, i. e. the Lord or Master, either of things, or persons, that are dead, [i. e. that are in a sad, despicable, helpless, or hopeless condition] but of the living, i. e. whether things, or persons, which are in an honourable and happy condition, or in such a ca∣pacity, wherein he may, with the honour of his wisdom, justice, and truth, make them great and happy. And it is a frequent Observation amongst Expositors of Scripture, that things of choicest worth and excel∣lency in their kind, are here frequently appropriated unto God, or said to be his. Those goodly Cedars (as our English translateth them, Psal. 80.10. (are in the O∣riginal, the Cedars of God. So, the great mountains, Psal. 36.6. in out English Bibles, are the mountains of God, in the Hebrew. A goodly river, is called the ri∣ver of God, Psal. 65.9. A vehement flame, so translated,* 1.235 Cant. 8.6. the flame of God. And Jewish Writers say, that to call a man, A man of God, is as much as to say, he is an extraordinary man, a man of an excellent spirit, a Prophet, a holy man. So that when God saith, that he will call such, or such a Nation, or company of men, his people, he signifieth their great dignity, honour and felicity.

I will call them my people.] In Scripture phrase, to say that a thing, or person, shall be called so, or so, or by such or such, a name, doth not always import that either the one, or the other, shall vulgarly be called, or com∣monly

known by this Name,* 1.236 but (sometimes and most frequently) that the thing signified by such a Name, or word, whether it be matter of priviledg, or of shame, shall be evidently found in the estate and condition of either. This is his Name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our righteousness; i. e. he shall be known so to be, viz. the Lord, by whom we shall obtain favour and forgiveness of sins with God. See also Isa. 7.14. and 9.5. and 56.7. Zach. 6.12. Jer. 20.3. Rev. 19.13. (with many other.) And when the Virgin Mary prophecied, For behold, from henceforth all generations shall CALL me BLESSED, her meaning was not to oblige, either Papists or others, to stile her (as they commonly do) Beata virgo, the Blessed Virgin; but that the Grace and favour which she received from God, in being chosen from amongst women to be the Mother of his Son, the great Messiah and Saviour of the world, was so exceeding great, that she knew it would be reputed a singular happiness unto her amongst Christians in all succeeding generations. So that when God saith, I will call them my people, his meaning is, that he would invest them with such Priviledges, whether spiritual, or tem∣poral, or both, that they should be taken notice of in the world, for a people in special grace and favour with him, or peculiarly related unto him.

So likewise, whereas it followeth, And it shall [or, will] come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, ye are not my people, there shall they be called the children of the living God; by, where it was said unto them, ye are NOT MY PEOPLE, is meant, that where the inhabi∣tants, by reason of their poor, miserable and forlorn condition, were looked upon and esteemed by their neighbours, and oth••rs, as a people hated, and rejected by God; there shall they be called the CHILDREN of the

living God, i. e. their estate and condition shall in time be so wonderfully altered and changed, that this very people, these inhabitants, shall be honoured and admi∣red by those, who formerly despised them, not simply as the people of God, but as the children of the living God, i. e. as persons, whom he that is God indeed, the true God, loves, honours, and imbraceth, not onely as his Friends, but as his Sons or children. A man loveth his children, with a more genuine, affectionate, and intimate love, then his Friends, at least then such friends, who are not of an extraordinary endearment to him. The Apostle explains the Prophets Sons [there shall they be called THE SONS of the living God] by his, children [they shall be called THE CHILDREN, &c. The word, children, is more compre∣hensive, or at least more explicite and significant in the comprehensiveness of it, and so more Evangelical and lightsom in this place, then the word, Sons. For, children, equally respects both sexes, male, and female; whereas, Sons, properly importeth only the former. It is true, that the Prophet by his Sons, synecdochically understandeth daughters also; but his expression was Old-Testament-like, more implicite and involved: whereas our Apostle being a Son of the New Testament, turns the night of the Old Testament into day, and speaketh more plainly.

The children of the LIVING God.] This Epithite, LIVING, when applied unto God, is characteristical; and singleth out him, who is God indeed, the onely true God, from amongst the rabble-rout of those many Gods (so called,) who are all, either dead, as the dumb Idols, or dying, as the unclean spirits, or Devils (worshipped in them) whose God-ship was long since waxen old, and ready to vanish away into open shame and torment, whereas the true God is said to be living, [the living God] not onely (as I with submission conceive) because his Godhead is immortal and imperishable, but also

because the glory and greatness of it, is still growing and waxing in the minds and understandings of men and Angels. But the Epithite we speak of, living, is (in the place before us) not onely characteristical (in the sense declared) but very emphatical also, bearing some such notion or import as this, that the persons he speaks of should not onely, or simply, be translated and put by him into a happy condition worthy the children of God, but into such a condition also which should flou∣rish more and more, in the injoyment whereof they might be every day more happy and blessed then other.

Concerning the place here spoken of, where they [i. e. men, or the Inhabitants] should be called the chil∣dren of the living God, some conceive it to be Cal∣dea, whither the Jews were carried captive; some Jerusalem, or Judea, whither they were restored, and where they were built up again into a Nation with beauty, strength, and peace. Others, viz. those who conceive the calling of the Gentiles to be here direct∣ly intended, suppose it to be meant indefinitely of any place throughout the whole Earth, where God by the Gospel should gather a people to himself. I incline to the second Interpretation, as carrying the sence prima∣rily and directly intended by the Prophet, not exclude∣ing the third and last from his Intentions likewise in a secondary, and collateral way, according to what was formerly said.

And her beloved, who was not beloved.] The literal sence of this clause in the Prophet, seems to be this; that whereas God had commanded him to name his daughter, Loruhamah, which signifieth, not having ob∣tained mercy, or, not having been beloved, (for that the word indifferently admitteth either sence, was late∣ly observed) under which name she was a type and fi∣gure

of the Jews during their rejection, now he inform∣eth him, that he will change her Name, and call her, Beloved; under which appellation, she was a propheti∣cal type or figure of the restitution of that Nation (the Jews) unto the love and favour of God. This is vox Interpretum, the joynt voyce of Interpreters: and they speak nothing but good probability of truth in it. Ju∣nius and Tremelius translate the clause, as they find it in the Prophet, Et miserebor Loruchamae, and I will have mercy upon Loruhamah; which plainly sheweth, that they refer it to the Prophets daughter (as hath been said.) Yet it may, and (I humbly conceive) with as much probability, the common dialect of the Scripture con∣sulted, be understood, properly and directly of the Na∣tion of the Jews, and, by the rule of proportion, or of a secondary import, of any other body of people in the world, which having been formerly, either absolute∣ly, or comparatively, neglected by God, should after∣wards come to be highly respected and beloved of him. For it is a frequent and well known Metaphor in the Scriptures, to compare a State, body, or society of men, whether politick and civil, or sacred and Eccle∣siastick, unto a woman; and under such a Prosopopoea, to discourse of them and their affairs. See Ezek. 16.2, 3, 13, 14, &c. and v. 35.46. and 23.2, 3, 4, &c. Isa. 54.1. Rev. 12.1, &c. and 17.1, 3, &c. (to omit many others.) So that when God saith, I will call her beloved, which was not beloved, his direct and next-hand meaning may be, that he would receive the Nation of the Jews, or a remnant of them, again into his favour, and intreat them graciously after he had cast them out of his sight, and proceeded in judgment against them as his enemies. And his further meaning might be, that he was ready to do the like by any other people, nation, or body of men

in any part of the world, when they should hearken un∣to the voyce of his calling, and address themselves un∣to him as their God. But whether this sence, or the former, both much alike accommodate the Apostle in his purpose (as hath been shewed) this being to give the Jews to understand, that it was no new or unheard of thing, that God should cast his love upon such persons, and call them his people, who after the greatest estrange∣ment from him, should return in obedience unto him: Even us whom he hath called, not of the Jews onely, &c. What the emphatical repetition of one and the same thing (for substance) three times over importeth, hath been already declared. It followeth:

[Vers. 27] Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the Sea, a remnant [Vers. 28] shall be saved. For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make up∣on [Vers. 29] the Earth. And as Esaias said before: Except the Lord of Sabbath had left us a seed, we had been as Sodom, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

Because the Apostles Doctrine of Justification by Faith (hitherto maintained and asserted) according to the entertainment which it found in the world, was at∣tended with these two consequents, 1. That as well Gentiles as Jews, became the people of God, viz. by their receiving it; 2. That the far greater part of the Iews, were reprobated, or rejected by God, upon their refusing it; both which were hard sayings unto them, and not easie to be digested, or beleeved; therefore to take off, or allay the offensiveness of them, he demon∣strates from their own Scriptures, that neither the one, nor the other, were of any such import, but that the like had come to pass, and been accordingly predicted by God before their coming to pass, amongst themselves,

and in their own Nation. That which answereth the former of the two, he proveth to have been predicted by God (which supposeth the accomplishment of it in its time) from severall testimonies of the Prophet Ho∣see, which we have lately opened. That which paralleleth the latter, and is of the same nature and import with it, (I mean, that the far greater part of the Jews should be rejected by God,) he proveth to have been foreshewed by God, from a double testimony of the Prophet Isaiah; the former is found in Chap. 10. of his Prophecy: the latter, in the first. For the former;

Esaias also cryeth concerning [for so the Preposition, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, here signifieth, as in many other places] Israel, Though the number, &c. Neither doth our Apostle in this testimony bind himself exactly to the words, ei∣ther of the Greek Version, or of the Original Hebrew it self; although in any thing material he differeth not from either. The Particle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, translated also, is not co∣pulative or augmentative, but adversative, and signifi∣eth, but: and here seemeth to import an opposition be∣tween that which went before, concerning Gods call∣ing such his people; and that which now followeth, wherein the Apostle citeth the Prophet Esay declaring from the mouth of God (in effect) that those who had been his people [loved and graciously intreated by him] should in great numbers cease to be his people, and be severely handled by him. To affect the more deeply his countrimen the Iews, for whose sake (especi∣ally) he manageth the whole discourse of this Chap∣ter (as hath been formerly noted) with the testimony of their great Prophet, now before us, he exhibiteth him, not simply as saying, or speaking, the words of it, but as, crying [Esaias also CRYETH concerning Israel,] which importeth, either the great sorrow and bitterness of

soul, wherewith he uttered it, or else the ardent de∣sire he had that it should be earnestly minded and laid to heart by all men, and more especially by the Jews, who were more particularly and neerly concerned in ita 1.237. For the more then ordinary extending of the voyce or crying, commonly importeth either of the one, or the other, or both.

For the testimony it self; Though [or if, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the num∣ber of the children of Israel be as the sand, &c. The words in the Prophet, as Junius rendereth them, sound thus. For if thy people Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, &c. Some conceive the words spoken to King Heze∣kiah; others, to Israel it self. They may, with as much (or more) probability, as either, be conceived as directed by God to the Prophet himself; whose peo∣ple the Jews may be called in such a sence, as God had formerly called them, Moses his people, Exod. 32.7. And elsewhere the whole body, or nation of them, are called the people of each member respectively, Levit. 19.16, 18. as in many other places. Vast multitudes or numbers are frequently expressed by the sand of the sea, and sometimes by the sand on the sea shore, Gen. 22.15. & 32.12. (to omit several other places.) The particle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, if, is not here dubitantis, but ratiocinan∣tis; not importing it any matter of doubt or question, whether the number of the Children of Israel be as the sand, &c. but supposing and granting this, gives an Item that somewhat notwithstanding is a truth, which such

a supposition seemeth, at least in part, to contradict, or render improbable. In such a sence as this, the particle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, if, is also used elsewhere. See 1 Cor. 9.16. & 14.16. That which the Prophet from God here as∣serteth for truth, notwithstanding the said supposition concerning the vast multitudes of the children of Israel, be granted, is this, that yet a remnant shall be saved, i. e. a remnant onely; the exclusive particle, onely, is fre∣quently omited, and left to be understood. Whereas Moses twice expresseth himself thus; and him shalt thou servea 1.238 (speaking of God,) our Saviour explaining him, supplieth the word, onely, And him onely shalt thou serveb 1.239. So, Christ sent me not to baptizec 1.240, i. e. not onely, or, not so much, to baptize. See also Iam. 1.25. This man [i. e. this man onely] shall be blessed in his deed, (to omit other places.) A remnant] i. e. a small parcel, or proportion of this great multitude. The word is frequently used in this sence, in the Prophets, Isaiah, Ieremy, Ezekiel, and others. Shall be saved] i. e. shall be preserved from perishing in that deluge of de∣struction and desolation, which Senacherib and his host would bring upon the land of Judea; and by betaking themselves for shelter to Ierusalem, as Noah and his fa∣mily escaped drowning in the deluge of waters, where∣in the residue of the world perished, by betaking them∣selves into the Ark. See Isai. 7.17, to the end of the chapter: and againe, Isai. 8.6.7.8. Or if we consult the Prophet, from whom our Apostle citeth the testi∣mony in hand, who, instead of, shall be saved, saith, shall return (Isai. 10.22.) the place seemeth rather to be meant of that great consumption, waste, and spoyl, which God threatened to make of the lives of the Jews, in the destruction of Ierusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Chron. 36.6.17.20, &c.) and under the seventy years capti∣vity;

in so much that of those vast numbers who went into captivity, there were but very few (compari∣tively) that should returne into their own Land, or in∣joy the benefit of that Grace and liberty of re-injoying their own country, laws, and privileges, which Cyrus, being hereunto moved by God, generally granted unto their Nation. This is Calvins sence in his Commenta∣ries upon the place: although the truth is, that the place, notwithstanding those words in Esay, shall return, may well be understood of the Assyrian desolation of the ten Tribes (more strictly and properly called Israel,) a small remnant of which were sent back by the King of Assyria into their own Land, 2 King. 17.27. This was Jeroms opinion of old; and is embraced by some modern Interpreters of good note. The reason, why so few of this nation, should escape, or returne from their banishment and captivity into their own land, fol∣lows in these words;

[Vers. 28] For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteous∣ness: because a short work will the Lord make on Earth.] It is conceived by some judicious Interpreters, that the words in our common Greek Copies by passing through, either negligent, or injudicious hands, have lost their native perspicuity, and are somewhat troubled: who likewise inform us of another reading of them out of an anci∣ent Manuscript, much more plain and direct, as viz. this: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉a 1.241. For the Lord finishing [or perfecting] and contracting [or cutting short] the account, will act, [or fall to work] on the Earth. Or thus: For the Lord finishing and cut∣ing

short will make the account upon the Earth. The He∣brew (as far as Junius and Tremelius understood it) hath it to this effect, a precise consummation will he con∣summate a bounding [or overflowing] in righteousness: For a consummation, and this precise, will Jehovah the Lord of hosts make in the midst of this landb 1.242 [or, in this whole Land.] Ierom translated the words thus: An abbre∣viated [or, shortned] Consūmation shall overflow righteous∣ness: For God tbe Lord of hosts will make a Consummation and abbreviation in the midst of all [or, of the whole] landc 1.243. Arias Montanus in his Interlineary, thus: A Consummation decided [or, cut short] overflowing righteousness: because the Lord, the Lord, of Hosts, will make a consummation, and [this] decided in the inner [parts] of the whole landd 1.244. Musculus with a little variation, thus: There shall be a concise Consummation overflowing righteousness: Because the Lord God of Hosts, will make a consummation, and this concise, in the midst of all the Lande 1.245. Pareus not differing much from him, thus: A Consummation [or, the Consum∣mation] decided [or determined] shall overflow in [or, with] righteousness: because Jehovah the Lord of Hosts w••ll make a consummation, and this decided [determined, or cut short] in the midst of the Earthf 1.246. The Caldee Paraphrase glosseth the two verses thus: Because though thy people the house of Israel should be much [or many] as the sand of the Sea, great things shall be done to that remnant, which hath not sinned, and which hath turned from sin, and they shall prevail, and be led on in righteousness. Because the Lord God of Hosts will make a consummaton and consumption in all the wicked of the landg 1.247. The difference between these

several translations of the words of the Prophet among themselves, and between any one, or all of them, and the words of the Apostle now before us, is not such, or so material, but that the sence of both contexts suffici∣ently appears to be, for substance, and import of mat∣ter, the same, and particularly this, or to this effect, viz. that God had in his just Judgment determined to shew mercy and favour onely to a very small remnant, of those vast multitudes of the children of Israel, and to restore them [this remnant] to their own Land, who being restored, should walk before him in righte∣ousness and truth, (see Isai. 6.13. & 4.2.3, &c.) and on the other hand, that he was resolved to suffer the great body and bulk of this people, partly to dye and be consumed by the sword, partly to be led captive into a strange land, and there to undergo all miseries and ex∣tremity of condition. Some conceive with good probability, that the Apostle, twice using the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which signifieth an account, rather then a work) in this short testimony, resembleth God in these his judiciary proceedings against the Jews, to an Accoun∣tant, who being to adjust an account of monies receiv∣ed, and disbursed, finds only a small matter remain∣ing dueh 1.248. By this expression in the Prophet, The con∣cise consummation, is meant that small remnant, which God should consummate, i. e. either draw or cast up in a very short sum; or else, consummate, i. e. sancti∣fie, compleat, or make perfect, viz. by that signal grace and favour, which he intended to shew unto them, when the residue, or generality of their nation, should be severely handled by him. Such distinguishing mer∣cies and vouchsafements from God as these, have an excellent vertue or property in them to sanctifie, i. e. to render men willing and full of resolution to devote themselves unto God, and his service, which is their

Complement, or perfection. The consummation, put for, the consummate ones, or persons sanctified, is agreea∣ble to the frequent idiom of the Scriptures, wherein Ab∣stracts are used for their concretes, as Captivity, for, cap∣tives, Esth. 2.6. Judg. 5.12. Num. 21.1. Psal. 68.19. So, circumcision, for persons circumcised, Gal. 2.7. Rom. 3.30. & 4.9. And uncircumcision, for men uncircum∣cised, Rom. 2.26.27. So likewise, poverty, for poor men, 2 King. 24.14. Righteousness, for a company of righteous ones, 2 Cor. 5.21. Thanksgivings (for so the original hath it) for, thanksgivers, Neh. 12.31. So also, dreams, for, dreamers, Jer. 27.9. (besides many more.) Of this concise Consummation, the Prophet saith, that it shall, inundare justiciam, or (as Pareus render∣eth) in justicia, i. e. overflow righteousness, or, in, or with, righteousness. The meaning is, that they shall be excellently righteous, or abound in righteousness, as it were propagating or spreading of it unto o∣thers; as it argues a fountain to be full of water, when it overflows. The verb, inundabit, in the Latin trans∣lations, is used transitively: onely Pareus, in his red∣dition of the words, giveth it its native intransitive construction. It seems to be meant rather of that state and condition, wherein this remnant, or concise con∣summation, should be found of God, when he should so graciously preserve them (as we have heard) from pe∣rishing in the common calamity of their Nation, then to be a prediction of their righteousness afterwards. This sence, 1. Better accordeth with the Apostles saying, that He [God] shall cut it short in righteousness [mean∣ing, that he would be very district in the business, and preserve no more, how few soever these should be, then those, in whose preservation he should be found to be a righteous, holy, and just God,] and, 2. It much better accommodates his causal particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for (in the

beginning of the Verse) which (as was hinted) importeth a reason given in this Verse of what was said in the former. There it was said, That though the number of the children of Israel should be as the sand, yet a rem∣nant should be saved; Now why onely so few of such a vast multitude should be saved, our Apostle (accord∣ing to the sence given of the clause in Question) gives this reason; viz. because God intended to consult the honour of his justice, or righteousness, in the business, and to preserve no more, how few soever they should prove to be, then onely those, whose Preserver and Pro∣tector he might be known to be without any dispa∣ragement to his holiness. Now concerning those, who should be excellently righteous, it could be no blemish to the holiness or righteousness of God to be look'd upon as their Saviour and Protector.

Because Jehovah, the Lord of Hosts, will make a concise consummation [or consumption] in this whole Land.] The Prophet in these words seems to give the reason why he had said, that a remnant [onely] of the vast num∣bers of the house of Israel should return [i. e. as our A∣postle interprets, be saved,] as also why he had said, that this remnant, which he terms the precise or determined consummation (as we have heard) should overflow righ∣teousness. The substance of the reason which he gives of both, is to this effect; viz. that God being the Lord of Hosts, and in this respect able to subdue under him, punish and destroy as he pleaseth, the greatest numbers of men whatsoever, is resolved to make very district and through work amongst the people throughout their whole Land, and to shew the favour of exemp∣tion from publike calamity unto none, but unto such onely, whom he shall, in the day of his visitation, find like unto Noah in his generation, very just and upright.

The reason of which great severity may well be con∣ceived to be that briefly hinted by himself, Amos 3.2. You onely have I known [i. e. owned for a peculiar peo∣ple unto me, and given countenance from Heaven] of all the families of the Earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities. But this by the way. Our Apo∣stle (it is probable) in his citation of that clause of the Prophet now before us, mentioneth, God onely by the relation, or name of, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Lord, not (as the Prophet) Lord of Hosts, because that which he hath occasion to shew, or prove, concerning him, (viz. the rejection of the greatest part of the Jews for their unbelief) requi∣reth not so much the greatness of his executive power, as a power of right to dispose of his creatures, men, ac∣cording to such rules as himself pleaseth; which power, or right of dominion, is better expressed by the simple term, or Name, Lord, then by Lord of Hosts.

But all this while the Question is, How that which the Prophet Esa spake, or prophesied of, as to be ful∣filled in his days, or soon after, can serve our Apostle to prove that, which he saith would come to pass in his days, or not long after, viz. that the main body, or far greatest part of the Nation of the Jews, would be aban∣doned and rejected by God from being any longer a people unto him. Calvina 1.249 takes knowledg of such a Question as this offering it self in this place, acknow∣ledging the words of the Prophet cited by Paul, related [in their Letter] onely to his own times, and things to be fulfilled then: and teacheth (in ef∣fect) that they accommodate the A∣postles scope and purpose (now men∣tioned) onely by the way of analogy

and proportion thus: It need seem no new or strange thing to the Iews, to hear that the generality or far greater part of them should be for their sin and stubbornness rejected by God, in as much as it appears by several testimonies from one of their own greatest Prophets, that God had upon the like occasion, formerly proceeded after the same manner against them in their forefathers. From whom notwithstanding they derive all the prerogative they can pretend unto, either for being the people of God, or of immunity from punishment above other Nations. Grotius agrees in judgment with Cal∣vin upon the Premises; only dissent∣ing from him touching the literall sence of the passages here cited from Esa; Calvin understanding them of the Babylonish captivity, and the great depopulation of the Jewish Nation thereby; the other of the devastati∣ons made of this people somewhat before) by Sennacheribb 1.250 (as we lately hinted.) Musculus likewise supposeth the Babylonish captivity to have been a type of that great and sad rejection of the Iewish Nation, and this to have been predicted therebyc 1.251. So that Expositors more ge∣nerally agree in this, that that most grievous rejection of the Jewish Nation, which the Apostle had insinua∣ted, in the beginning of this Chapter, the improbability

(or rather, pretended impossibility) whereof the Jews urged as a great Argument against his Doctrine of Ju∣stification by Faith, was not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, literally, express∣ly or directly prophecied or foretold by Esa in those passages of his Prophecy here insisted on, but onely that which typically and by way of similitude, presaged and presignified this rejection, and is no otherwise in∣tended or applied by him. Only Estius conceives that though the said passages were meant literally of the small remnant that should remain and be gathered to∣gether, upon, and after the captivity, yet that allego∣rical, typical, and sublime sence, wherein the Apostle citeth them, was more principally intended by the Holy Ghost, then the other. The testimony following, v. 29. is of the same import with that now opened, being (I conceive) added unto the former, onely for a further hammering of the same nail, I mean, for a more through and effectual inculcation of the same thing into the Jews, the probability, or certainty rather, of their re∣jection by God, for their rejection of his Gospel, and unbelief, in case they persist, and persevere herein.

And, as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth [Vers. 29] had left us a seed, we had been as Sodom, and been made like unto Gomorrha.] And as Esaias said before, i. e. And it shall, or is like to come to pass, according to what the same Prophet had in Type, pre-declared in the prece∣ding part of his Prophecy, (viz. cap. 1.10.) or (more simply) prophecied of; viz. That Except the Lord of Sabaoth, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hath said, for, had said, the Pre∣terperfect tense for the Preterpluperfect, is Hebrew-wisea 1.252.

Whether this testimony relates to the same time, or exigency of the Iewish affairs, with the former; and so whether it be to be conceived as a prediction of what

was future, when the Prophet uttered it, (in which no∣tion the Verbs in it are rather to be construed in the fu∣ture tenseb 1.253,) or as a relation and reminding of somewhat that had been done formerly, are the discussions of Expositors upon the place. But in as much as the difference between opinion and opinion, in either of the particulars mentioned, nothing concerns our Apostle in his present business, nor (indeed) is otherwise much edifying, I shall supersede the examination of the said Questions in this place, recommending the Reader de∣sirous of satisfaction in them, unto the learned Com∣mentaries of Musculus upon the place in Esa. The ser∣vice which the Apostle requires at the hand of the said Testimony, is onely this, (as hath been already touch'd) to give his countrymen the Iews to understand, that it ought not to seem any strange, or new thing unto them, much less, any thing unpossible, or repugnant to any promise or Word of God, that they should by hun∣dreds, and thousands, and millions, yea the whole Na∣tion of them (a small remnant onely excepted) so far incur the displeasure of God by disobedience, stub∣bornness, and unbelief, as to be abandoned and de∣stroyed by him; in as much as this had been the condi∣tion and case of their nation, formerly, and this over and over, by the redoubled testimony of one of the Greatest of their own Prophets. Notwithstanding let us subjoyn some brief Exposition of the words.

The Lord of Sabbath] The Hebrew, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sig∣nifieth, according to some, the God of Angels, or of the stars: according to others, the God, or Lord, of Hostsc 1.254. God is stiled the God of Angels, either for his speciall Grace and favour to the Angels, in which respect he is called the God of Abraham, the God of I∣saac, and the God of Iacob, and sometimes the God of

his people: or else, to express his majestick greatness, as being invironed and attended with innumerable An∣gels, who themselves, though creatures, are yet excel∣lently glorious, and of incredible strength, and power, beholding his face continually, (as our Saviour speaks) and in this posture attentively awaiting all significations of his pleasure unto them (respectively) for imployment. And because he that hath the absolute command of all the Angels, must needs upon this account be conceived to have the like command over all creatures besides, e∣ven of those that are of greatest strength and most for∣midable, he may (probably) be stiled, the Lord of Hosts. In the period before us he seems to be mentioned by this Name, the Lord of Hosts, to shew, that it was not for want of strength or power, or of Instruments to have done the execution, that the whole number of us, or of our Nation, that we were not all from the first to the last swept away with that flood of destruction, which covered (in a manner) the whole face of the Land, and overwhelmed the far greater part of us, but for his truth and promise sake, having long before engaged himself unto Abraham to be a God unto him and his seed, [i. e. to such of his posterity, who should walk in the steps of his righteousness and faith.] Or else the said appellation, the Lord of Hosts, is here used, to insinuate, that had not God as well by the interposure of his mighty power, as of his Grace or faithfulness, rescued the said remnant, or seed, from the rage and revengeful hand of their ene∣mies, when this was lifted up on high to destroy and make desolate, they had most certainly perished with the rest. See Psal. 124.1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Had left us a seed, or, left us seed.] Esai hath it, a rem∣nant.] He compares the small remnant, which God re∣served from perishing in the great desolation of the

Jewish Nation, unto seed, 1. In respect of the small∣ness of their proportion, compared with the vast num∣bers of their fellows, who perished; as the seed which the Husbandman reserves out of his crop, for another sowage of his land, is but a little quantity in respect of the product or increase of his whole harvest. 2. In respect of that fruitfulness and great increase, which this small remnant, through the abundant blessing of God, and according to his promise in this behalf, was to produce, after the ruine and destruction of all the rest. See Jer. 13.14.16. Seed (we know) useth to be sepa∣rated and spared for the propagation of a new Harvest. 3. (And lastly) in respect of that goodness and upright∣ness of heart, wherein they were more excellent then all their neighbours, who were consumed by death; even as the best and soundest of the grain which the harvest affords, is wont to be pickt out and laid by for seed. Now, whereas the leaving of this seed is a∣scribed unto God, Except the Lord of Sabbath had left, &c. it implieth one of these two things; either, 1. That the wrath and fury of the enemy were so im∣placably high against the Jews, that had not the Lord of Hosts himself opposed them in their way with his irresistible power, they had made an utter desolation of this people, and left them neither rush nor branch re∣maining; Or else, 2. It implieth, that the true reason why that remnant, or seed, which now escaped, was reserved, or preserved by God, was not the merit of their righ∣teousness, as if God should have done unjustly in case he had not preserved them, but his meer grace, or his meerly-gracious respects unto that weak and imper∣fect righteousness, that was found in them. God, in strictness of speaking, is the Author onely of what he doth of Grace or favour, not of what he doth according

to the exigency either of merit, or demerit, either in men, or Angels. But of these two I incline rather to the latter, as being of neerest affinity with the Apostles scope and argument in hand; which is (in effect) to prove and shew, that his Grace, not men, or their works, are the Authors of justification, and salvation upon it.

We had been [or, been made, or become] as Sodom, and made like unto Gomorrha,] meaning, that they, their race, and Nation, had been utterly extinct, and con∣sum'd from off the face of the Earth, as these two Ci∣ties, with all their Inhabitants and respective families had been. The Prophet (it is probable) rather chose to express that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or total ruine, between which and the Jewish Nation, there was but so short a step, as we have heard, by the mention of these two places So∣dom, and Gomorrha, then in plain and direct terms, to smite the souls and consciences of the Jews, to whom he prophesied, so much the more effectually, to awaken them into some such thoughts and apprehensions, as these, that their sins were growing on apace to the like degree of provocation, with the sins of these cities, and that it would be their wisdome to take heed by their example of coming under the dint of the like fiery in∣dignation of God, by rebelling against him, as they did. The Holy Ghost in his threatnings, and admonitory applications unto men to desist from sinning, very fre∣quently re-mindeth them of what God hath done for∣merly in a way of punishment, or taking vengeance upon others, whether persons or nations; this being a method, or course much more piercing and convincing, then to deal with the consciences of men by simple and direct threatnings. For as men are more like to do, what, and as they have been accustomed to do, especially when

they shall also say and threaten that they will do so, then what they barely say or threaten they will do: so when God shall not only or simply threaten sinners, but to∣gether herewith remember them with what severity he hath been wont from time to time to handle such per∣sons as they, executing the same or like judgments upon them, this must needs be like the piercings of a sword to an hard heart, and awake the secure conscience most effectually. But go ye now unto my place, which was in Shiloh, where I set my Name at the first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel, Jer. 7.12, 14. Therefore will I do unto this house, which is called by my Name, wherein ye trust, and unto the place which I gave to you, and to your Fathers, as I have done to Shiloh. See also Jer. 26.6, 9. and 44.30. Numb. 16.40. Zech. 1.6. Amos 6.1, 2. 1 Cor. 10.5, 6, 7, &c. Heb. 3.15, 16, &c. Jude v. 5, 6, &c. (to omit many others.) But this by the way.

Sodom and Gomorrha are both mentioned (probably) to shew that God spareth not one place, or people, more then another, when they are in the same condemnation, and under the like guilt of sin. Besides the naming of a plurality of Cities, whose Inhabitants respectively have been destroyed by God with the same severe de∣struction, for sin, representeth the like destruction, as so much the more likely to be inflicted upon any other people, that should sin after the same manner, or de∣gree. Moreover, a double parallel of the misery, which a people was in imminent danger to have suffered, the more emphatically commends that interposure, whether of mercy, or of power, or of both, by which it was prevented. That phrase, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and should have been likened as Gomorrha, signifieth, we should have been in all ages mentioned upon all occa∣sions

for a people exemplarily destroyed rush and branch by God as Gomorrha now is. The Greek Trans∣lators use the like expression elsewhere, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. my people is become like [or hath been likened] as not having knowledg, (Hos. 4.6.) i. e. to a people which hath not knowledg: for which the Hebrew hath, as they who judg the Priest, or, contend with the Priest. So likewise, Ezek. 32.2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Let us onely now (as formerly we have done) draw out some brief Observations from the Verses last open∣ed, before we make further progress in our Exposi∣tion.

1. From these words, vers. 24. Even us whom he hath called, so related, and understood, as the preceding Exposition hath awarded, this Doctrine ariseth; That Those onely are vessels of mercy prepared by God unto glory; who by his calling them, have been prevailed with truly to beleeve, Mat. 20.16. and 22.14. 2 Tim. 2.21.

2. From the Particle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, even, or also, in the said clause, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whom he hath also called, so notioned as we were directed in the Explication, this may be observed; That for God to call men unto the blessed estate of Justification, and Salvation upon it, so as to put them into an actual capacity of hearing and making answer ac∣cordingly, is an act of a most Gracious condescention in him. Iam. 1.18. Tit. 3.4, 5. Eph. 1.7, 8, 9.

3. From these words, Not of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles also, (according to the import assigned unto them) this truth offereth it self to Observation; That sometimes such persons, who in the judgment of men are most estranged from God, are as well, yea and as soon, pre∣vailed with in his Evangelical call, to answer by Faith and Repentance, as those, who in many respects were much more

promising in this kind, then they. The Jews looked upon the Gentiles as strangers unto God, (as indeed they were) and on themselves as his houshold. Yet some of these Gentiles, the Apostle here informs them, obeyed the Evangelical call of God, as well as any of themselves, 1 Cor, 6.9, 10. 1. Eph. 2.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, &c.

4. From the Apostles end and scope (formerly de∣clared) in citing these words, vers. 25. I will call them my people, which were not my people, &c. it is not unworthy Observation, That, Whatsoever God hath done in the world heretofore in any way of Grace, it is very possible that he may do the same, or the like again in our days, or at any other time. Zach. 10.8, 10.

5. The tenor and import of the said words shineth the light of this Doctrine unto us; That the posterities, or after generations, may remember themselves, turn unto God, and be owned by him for his people, whose forefathers so far forgot themselves as not to seek after him, or the knowledg of him. 1 Pet. 2.10. Eph. 2.12, 13.

6. From these words, And her BELOVED [mean∣ing, and I will call her Beloved] which was NOT BE∣LOVED, this Doctrine issueth; That that love which God beareth unto men before conversion, and whilst they are yet impenitent and unbeleeving, though it be simply, and in it self great, yet is it no love, in comparison of that affecti∣on, which he beareth unto them afterwards. Ioh. 14.21, 23. and 16.27. Rom. 8.17. 1 Cor. 2.9. Luke 15.20, 22, 23, &c.

7. These words, vers. 26. There shall they be called the children of the LIVING God, according as they were notioned in the preceding Exposition, exhibit this Ob∣servation unto us, That such persons, who are really and with the whole heart converted unto the true God, shall be

notably differenced by him from worshippers of Idols, and from the children of any other God. Exod. 9.3, 4, 6, 7, 25, 26. Heb. 11.29. Rev. 3.9.

8. From the Prophet Esays CRYING concerning Is∣rael, vers. 27. Though the number of the children of Is∣rael be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved, it may be observed, That the greatest vehemency of affecti∣on is then especially required in a messenger of God, when the message which he is to deliver from God unto men, is of great consequence unto them, and yet very hard, or un∣likely, to be entertained or beleeved, by them. Both these properties, or characters, are easily discernable in the message now mentioned, put by God into the mouth of his Prophet to be uttered by him in the ears of the people. Isai. 58.1. Hos. 5.8, 9, &c. Ionah 1.2.

9. From the tenor and literal import of the same words or message, viz. That though the number of the children of Israel were as the sand of the Sea, yet, &c. this Doctrine faceth the world; That, When God at any time entereth into a district and close judgment with a People, or Nation, though never so confident (generally) of their own goodness, yet there are very few amongst many that will be found able, or meet, to stand before him, or to e∣scape the judgment. Ier. 3.14, 16. Isai. 17.4, 5, 6. Deut. 28.62. 1 Pet. 3.20.

10. From the typical import of the said words, to∣gether with the Apostles scope in citing them (both spe∣cified in their opening) this Doctrine sheweth it self, That amongst those many who are called by the Gospel, and make some kind of profession of it, the number of those that will at last be saved, will be but small, comparative∣ly. Mat. 7.13, 14. and 10.26. Luke 12.23, 24.

11. These words, vers. 28. and cut it short in righ∣teousness, (so importing as hath been affirmed,) afford

us this for observation; that God, when he intends to take a through and full vengeance on a wicked people, or Nation, commonly spareth, or sheweth favour, to those that are upright and just, if any such be to be found amongst them. 2 Pet. 2.5.7.9. Isai. 17.5.6.7. & 65.8.9.10.

12. From these words, vers. 29. Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left, &c. this Doctrine putteth forth: In publique calamities and desolations, if any, though never so small a number, escape, it is to be ascribed to the inter∣posure of the Grace and power of God, to effect it, not to chance, nor yet either to the inability and weakness or to the remissness of the enemy to have destroyed even these also. Isai. 14.22.23.30. & 15.9. & 17.6. & 37.31.32. & 46.3. Jer. 39.16.17.18. & 44.27.28. & 33.8.

13. From these words, had left US A SEED, (the metaphor so understood, as interpreted) these three particulars are observeable: 1. That a numerous people, or Nation, amongst whom God hath been truly worshiped, and this for a long season, and whom he hath time after time countenanced from Heaven with wonderfull preserva∣tions and deliverances, may notwithstanding for their wick∣edness be destroyed by him to a very small number remaining. Deut. 28.61.62. Isai. 17.4.5. 2. That those few to whom God sheweth mercy in publick miseries and calamities, are (commonly) the best, and most righteous in those places, where such sad executions are done. Psal. 33.18.19. Jer. 3.13.14. Isai. 3.8. compared with vers. 11. Isai. 4.2.3.3. And lastly, That when God hath severely punished a Na∣tion for sin, and wasted the inhabitants to a very few, for the most part he so blesseth the remnant that is left, that in time he maketh a great and flourishing Nation of them. Isai. 4.4.5.6. & 6.11.12.13. & 41.17.18. Gen. 9.1. Isai. 37.31.32. Jer. 33.9.10, &c.

Lastly, from these words, we had been as Sodom, and

should, &c. it may well be observed, That no City, Nation, or people, have received any such measure of seve∣rity from the hand of God for sin, but that any other City, or Nation whatsoever under Heaven, is liable unto the same, yea and certainly shall receive it upon the like provocations. Dreadfull above measure was the overthrow and de∣struction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and yet the Jews and Jerusalem it self were in danger of having the same line of destruction stretched over them also. Hos. 5.5.12. 2 King. 23.27. Deut. 6.14 15.

What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which follow∣ed [Vers. 30] not after righteousness, have attained unto righteousness, even the righteousness which is of Faith. [ 31] But Israel which followed af er the Law of righteousness, hath not attained to the Law of righteousness. Wherefore? [ 32] Because they sought it not by Faith, but as it were by the works of the Law; As it is written, Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling stone, [ 33] and rock of offence: and whosoever beleeveth on him, shall not be ashamed.

It is evident from the particle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, then [what shall we say then?] that the Apostle, in vers. 30. and 31. intends either to draw up (in breif) the sum and substance of what he had lately argued and proved more at large, or else (which I rather judg) to declare and avouch a certain inference and conclusion from his premises, which he conceived soveraignly necessary for his coun∣trymen the Jews, for whose sake the disputatory part of this epistle was chiefly undertaken, to take know∣ledg of, and consider, viz. that the Gentiles, though they followed not after righteousness, had yet now attained unto righteousness, &c. But Israel, which followed after righteousness, &c. But whether he intends this inference as the consequent meerly and simply of those prophe∣tical passages which he immediately before alledged,

vers. 25.26.27.28.29. (which seems to be sence of Ex∣positors more generally) or of the main discourse ma∣naged in the preceeding part of the chapter, from vers. 6. to vers. 30. whereunto the said passages onely serve in a collateral, applicatory, and allusive way (as hath been shewed) may be some question; although I suppose the truth in the question to be near at hand. For evident it is by the light given in the unfolding of the passages, that neither of the testimonies cited from Hosea, verse. 25.26. doe directly, or of themselves, prove (no nor so much as speak of) the conversion of the Gentiles unto God, much less do they prove their justification by Faith. Therefore the said Corollary, or Conclusion, concerning the Gentiles obtaining righteousness by Faith, and the Jews non-obtaining it, by seeking it as it were by the works of the Law, is not any thing that follows from the said testimonies, simply considered; but from the just tenour and im∣port of the premised discourse in this chapter, of which these testimonies are but a part, and this not so intrinsecal or essential to it neither, but onely mentioned by the Apostle, as proper and sufficient by their typical import to prevent or answer such an objection, which he knew the Jews were ready to make against that Doctrine, which he had now built up (as we shewed more particu∣larly in our exposition of the said testimonies, respec∣tively.)

If it be demanded, How, or by the mediation of what principle in reason, doth it follow from the main body of the discourse carried along this chapter, that either the Gentiles, who followed not after righ∣teousness, yet attained unto righteousness, or that the Jews, following after the Law of righteousness, did not attain thereunto? I answer, that both these Consec∣taries

clearly and directly follow from the Apostles Doctrine of Justification by Faith, onely by the medi∣ation of these two suppositions (both plainly asserted by him in the words before us;) 1. That the Gentiles did beleeve: from hence it follows, that if righteous∣ness, or justification, be by Faith, then they (the Gen∣tiles) beleeving, must needs be justified, or (which is the same) attain righteousness. 2. That the Jews sought righteousness, or justification, otherways then by Faith, viz. as by the works of the Law. From hence likewise it clearly follows, that if justification be by Faith, and by no other means attainable, then the Jews seek∣ing it otherwise then by Faith, viz. by the works of the Law, must needs miscarry, and never come to be justi∣fied. And the truth is, that the double consectary we speak of, and which the Apostle delivers, verse 30.31. cannot in either branch of it, be conceived to be the result or consequence of any other premises, or Doctrine whatsoever, but onely of Justification by Faith; least of all can it be imagined to be the sequel of any such Doctrine, or discourse, wherein a Repro∣bation of men under a personal consideration from e∣ternity should be asserted, it being altogether irrela∣tive hereunto. So that here again we have another impregnable argument to evince and prove, that the Apostles theme or subject matter discoursed all along in the precedure of this chapter, was not the Doctrine of such, either Election, or Reprobation from eternity, whether divisim, or conjunctim, which swims down the stream of the commentations of men upon the chapter, and out of which the generality of Ministers now upon the stage, have taken, and given it in stead of Ortho∣dox and wholesome nourishment unto their people, but that Great point of contest between him, and his

Jewish Antagonists, wherein he had laboured from the beginning of the Epistle untill now (some few neces∣sary digressions haply excepted) and wherein he labours yet further in the two Chapters next following, I mean, the Doctrine of Justification by Faith, and not by the works of the Law. Let us now go on to the Explica∣tion of the words before us, and so draw to a conclusion.

What shall we say then?] This is an Interrogative form of words, familiar with this Apostle, to provoke, either himself, or others, or both, to consider, some∣times what may reasonably be objected against, other∣while what may certainly be deduced, or concluded from, things formerly argued, and asserted. We met with the same words, vers. 14. where we spake some∣what of them.

That the Gentiles which followed not after righteous∣ness, &c.] These words, with those which follow to the end of the next Verse, are an answer given by him∣self to this question or demand, What shall we say then? Then, i. e. things being thus, as I have now declared unto you, touching the counsel and purpose of God, about the justification of men. What follows from hence? Clearly this (saith he, in effect) amongst other things; viz. That the Gentiles which followed not after righteousness, have [notwithstanding] attained unto righ∣teousness, &c. The universe of mankind is frequent∣ly in Scripture divided into Jews and Gentiles, Rom. 2.9, 10. Acts 21.21. Rom. 3.9. (besides other places,) as the Gentiles are subdivided into Grecians and Barba∣rians, Rom. 1.14. though (possibly) the Greeks numbred the Jews themselves amongst their Barbarians. So that by, the Gentiles, are meant the rest of the Inhabitants of the world, the posterity of Abraham by the line of Iacob onely excepted. Yet not all these Inhabitants

neither, but such of them onely who beleeved. It is usual in the Scriptures to ascribe that to a generality or multitude indefinitely expressed, which in strictness of speech belongeth onely to some, sometimes onely to a few, yea sometimes onely to one, of this generality. Thus our Saviour, by those that beleeve, Mark 16.17. understandeth only some, yea probably some few onely of this qualification or capacity. And these signs shall shall follow THEM THAT BELEEVE: in my Name they cast out Devils, they shall speak with new tongues, They shall take up serpents, &c. His meaning is not, that all without exception that should beleeve in him, should be workers of Miracles, this being contrary to that of our Apostle, —Are all workers of Miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tonguesa 1.255, &c. but that those who should beleeve in him should have persons amongst them, or of their holy Corporation, that should be in∣dued with such miraculous gifts as these. Thus also Matthew imputeth that to the THEEVES (indefinitely) that were crucified with Christ, Matth. 27.44. which was done onely by one of them, as is evident from Luke 23.39, 40. So likewise the Disciples are said to have had indignation at the womans pouring out the box of precious ointment upon our Saviours head, and to have said, To what purpose is this waste, Matth. 26.8. and Mar. 14.4. some are said to have indignation at it, yet it appears from Ioh. 12.4, 5. That it was onely Iu∣das Iscariot that was in this condemnation: There are many other instances of like kind in the Scripturesb 1.256.

The Gentiles here spoken of are said, not to have fol∣lowed after righteousness, (the Participle of the Present tense, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being put for the Pluperfect tense, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) i. e. not to have sought after righteousness, or not to have steered a course in order to the obtaining of

such a thing. The Verb, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, among some other acceptions, signifies to seek after or prosecute a thing in the nature of an end, or design, as viz. with diligence, and seriousness of intention, 1 Cor. 14.1. Philip. 3.12, 14. 1 Thes. 5.15. 1 Tim. 6.11. (to omit many o∣thers.) When he saith, the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, he doth not imply, that there was none, or that there was never any or this sort of men, that gave themselves to ways and works of righteousness, or that desired and endeavoured to approve themselves unto God, as righteous, (for besides Cornelius of whom we read Acts 10. we understand upon very credible terms from other Histories and Writings, that there were divers found among the Gentiles that were great Professors and Practitioners too, of righteousness,) but his meaning is, that the generality of those, who were now known to have beleeved the Gospel, and so to be justified, were none of those, who much minded any righteousness, but had walked according to the course of this world, according to the Prince of the power of the air, the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience, fulfilling the desires of the flesh, and of the mind, abomi∣nable, and to every good work reprobate. For in saying, that they followed not after righteousness, his meaning is, that they lived very wickedly, and prophanely, and in high contempt of all righteousness: the Phrase being an Hebraism, wherein Adverbs of denying signifie the contrary unto that, to which they are appliedc 1.257, ex∣amples whereof we have many, Rev. 12.8.11. Heb. 10.38. Levit. 9.7. 1 Cor. 10.5. Ier. 22.30. Prov. 28.13, &c.

The reason why the Apostle here mentioneth the case or condition of the beleeving Gentiles in this point, That they followed not after righteousness, (probably)

is this; to prevent the Iews that they might not object it unto him, when he should avouch their justification, by beleeving, and this in opposition to their (the Jews) sinful and unjustified estates, by means of their unbelief, notwithstanding their willing and running af∣ter justification in their way of works. For it hath some colour or face of a thing improbable, that they who never minded or looked after righteousness, but had lived loosly, wickedly, and in abominable Idolatries all their days before, should on the sudden, and this only by beleeving in another, be made righteous; and on the o∣ther hand, they who had zealously, and with all serious∣ness of intention, always lift up their hearts unto righte∣ousness, had been diligent observers of a most excellent Law prescribed unto them by God himself, should not∣withstanding be rejected as sinners, and condemned. Therefore the Apostle, to shew that he was very well a∣ware of this Objection against the Justification of the Gentiles by Faith, and withal that he finds nothing in it to incumber his mind or judgment touching the truth and certainty thereof, avoucheth the truth of such their ju∣stification, as it were in the very face and presence of this Objection.

Have attained unto righteousness, even the righteousness which is of Faith.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. overtook or laid hold on, righteousness; meaning, that when righteous∣ness, or justification, came to be preached and offered unto them in the Name of Jesus Christ, in the Go∣spel, they soon accepted and received it at the hand of God, upon the terms on which it was offered and held forth unto them, viz. by beleeving. And according∣ly the Apostle specifying and distinguishing that kind of righteousness, which they thus unexpectedly obtain∣ed, calleth it, The righteousness of Faith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. As if he should have said, When I affirm that the Gentiles who followed not after righteousness, yet at∣tained unto righteousness, I mean not any such righte∣ousness, as that which the Jews dream of, or which con∣sists in a strict and perfect Observation of the Law, (living as they had, they were manifestly uncapable of any such righteousness,) but that righteousness I mean, which according to the gracious compact and Cove∣nant of God established with the world in that behalf, is obtained by Faith in Jesus Christ, and consisteth in the pardon and forgiveness of all a mans sins, as I have formerly shewed and proved unto you, Cap. 3.24, 25, &c. And again, cap. 4.5. compared with vers. 6, 7, 8.

By the way, when he saith, chap. 4.3. That Abrahams beleeving God was imputed unto him for righteousness, and vers. 5. That to him, who beleeveth on him, that justi∣fieth the ungodly, his Faith is counted for righteousness, he differs onely in expression, not in sence or meaning from himself in this place, where he affirms righteous∣ness, to be of, or by, Faith, not Faith it self, or so count∣ed by God. For as these two expressions, Christ is the salvation of the world, and, The salvation of the world, is of, or by, Christ; though they differ in formality of expression, yet rightly understood, differ not in sence or substance of matter: so neither is there any material, but verbal difference onely between these two, Faith is a mans righteousness, and a mans righteousness is of, or by, Faith. For when it is said, Faith is a mans righte∣ousness, it cannot, according to principles of common sence, be looked upon as propositio formalis, a proper, or formal Proposition, there being nothing more ap∣parant, then that a mans beleeving is not the same thing, either in whole or in part, with the forgiveness of his

sins; but must needs be conceived to be propositio cau∣salis, or consecutiva, wherein the effect is predicated of the cause, or the consequent of the antecedent; of which kind there are many in the Scriptures.

When the Apostle saith, that the Gentiles which fol∣lowed not after righteousness, yet attained the righteousness which is of Faith, he doth not suppose, or imply, that that Faith by which they attained this righteousness, was gi∣ven unto them by God whilst they slept, or without the exercise of their intellectual abilities, reason, judge∣ment, understanding, &c. or that they were necessitated by him to receive it, and could do none other but be∣leeve, or the like; all that can be inferr'd from the said period in this kind, may be reduced to these three par∣ticulars; 1. That God graciously over-look'd and winked at the times of their former ignorance, and the many abominations, which during these times, they had committed, and that, these abominations notwith∣standing, he vouchsafed the Gospel in the letter, and o∣ral ministery of it unto them, together with such dis∣pensations of his Spirit, which ordinarily, at least in these times, did accompany this Ministery. 2. That they, falling in, and going along with the gra∣cious overtures and motions of the Spirit of God with∣in them in order to their beleeving, did through the Grace and blessing of God upon their endeavours in this kind, arrive at this fair haven of peace and safety; (I mean, did actually beleeve.) In respect of these two, that which is cited by our Apostle (in the next Chapter) from the Prophet Esai is verified in them; I was found of them that sought me not: I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. 3. (And lastly) That these Gentiles beleeving, God kept covenant and mercy with them, and justified them accordingly. But Gods

being found of those who sought him not (in this sence) is no argument to prove, either, 1. That those who do unfeignedly seek after him, are not in a more likely and hopeful way of finding him, then those who seek not after him: If thou seek him, he will be found of thee, 1 Chron. 28.9. See also Prov. 8.17. There is no such promise made to those who shall not seek him. Or, 2. Doth it prove, that those, who living under the sound of the Gospel, and ministery thereof, shall from time to time neglect the Grace and great salvation offered by God therein, are not further off from finding him, or in a worse and more disadvantagious posture for be∣leeving, every day then other; although (it is true) a man can be under no such disadvantage through any neglect whatsoever, but which by a proportiona∣ble care and diligence, may very possibly at any time be redeemed. Or, 3. (And lastly) doth it prove, that God is, or will be found savingly by any person what∣soever at any time, but onely then or at such times, when his minde, heart and soul are seriously ingaged and intent about, and upon, those means, whereby, and wherein, he is to be found, and which he vouchsafeth unto men for such a purpose. Nor do the words, I was found of them that sought me not, at all import any saving discovery or manifestation of God unto those, who at that time, when he was thus discovered unto them, did not seek him, or at least carefully at∣tend to those means, by which he was thus discover∣ed unto them; but onely unto those, who had not in all the foregoing part of their lives, sought after him.

[Vers. 31] But Israel which followed after the Law of righteousness, hath not atained to the Law of righteousness] Israel is that honourary Name which was imposed by God himself

upon that famous Patriarch and Progenitor of the Jew∣ish Nation, otherwise known by the name of Iacob. The signification of this name (in part) togethor with the occasion of the imposition of it, are declared Gen. 32.28. & 35.10. Sometimes the whole and intire poste∣rity of this Person is signified by this name, Israel. This signification of it is frequent and obvious in the Scriptures. Sometimes again it signifies, not the universality, but onely the generality, or main body of that people, who were and are his posterity, as distin∣guished from those amongst them, who were righteous and just, and true worshipers of God. In this sence the Prophet David useth it, Psal. 81.11.13. But my people would not harken unto my voyce, and Israel would none of me: And again: Oh that my people had harkened unto me, and ISRAEL had walked in my ways. This is the signification of it in the place before us. Sometimes it signifies, not this generality neither, but onely some considerable number or part of it. Thus Moses useth it; Num. 25.3. And ISRAEL joyned himselfe unto Baal-peor. Somtimes it signifieth the ten tribes, which rent themselves from the house of David, in oppositi∣on to the other two tribes, which are oft expressed by the name, Iudah. Thus the Prophet Hosea useth it: Though thou Israel play the harlot, yet let not Iudah offend, Hos. 4.15. And lastly in a more emphatical and strict sence, it signifies onely that part of this posterity or people, who resemble their Father Israel in Faith and holiness. Thus our Apostle useth it in this Chapter, vers. 6. For they are not all ISRAEL, who are of Israel. Yet in this place (and probably elsewhere) it may (I con∣fess) signifie those, who resemble Israel the Patriarch in his Faith and holiness, whether according to the flesh they be descended from him, or no. See Gal. 6.16. Ioh. 1.47.

Now the unbeleeving party of Israel, or of the Iews, are here said to have followed after the Law of righteous∣ness. Calvin (with whom Estius also herein accords) concieves the Apostle speaking by the figure Hypallage in these words, the Law of righteousness, and that he means, the righteousness of the Law; but in the latter clause, by the Law of righteousness, he understands the norm, or rule of righteousness. But this is altogether improbable: because the Apostle assigns this for the reason why Israel attained not this Law, viz. That they sought it not by Faith, but as it were by the works of the Law. Now to seek to attain the rule of righteous∣ness, which is nothing else but the Law, by the works (i. e. by doing the works) of the Law, is so far from being a reason why men should not attain unto this rule, or Law, that there is no other way, or possibility to attain unto it, but by these works only. Some Ex∣positors, by the Law of righteousness, understand, simply righteousness it self; as they suppose this Apostle (by an Hebraism) elsewhere by the Law of sin (Rom. 7.23.24.) meaneth, sin it self. And so by, the Law of the mind (Rom. 7.23.) the mind it self: and again, by the Law of the Spirit of life, the life of the Spirit, &c. Rom. 8.2. But it is very improbable that by the Law of sin, he should understand only sin, barely and simply con∣sidered; and not rather some property or adjunct of Sin, answerable in some respect unto a Law, (as Expo∣sitors upon the place more generally resent and ex∣plain.) There is the same reason of those other expressi∣ons, the Law of the mind, and, the Law of the Spirit of life. And (to the place in hand) if by the [or, a] Law of righteousness, nothing should be meant but righteous∣ness simply, there can no good reason be given, why the Apostle, speaking of the Gentiles, should onely

say, that they followed not after righteousness, and again, attained not unto righteousness; but speaking of the Iews should enlarge his expression, and say, not simply that, they followed after righteousness, but, they followed after the Law of righteousness; and again, they attained not unto the Law of righteousness. Therefore some others (with more probability) by the Law of righteous∣ness, here understand, the way of righteousness, i. e. the way or method of such a righteousness, which they con∣ceived would please Goda 1.258. I conceive, that by the Law of righteousness, which the Iews are here said to follow, the Apostle meaneth, some Law, rule, or terms, upon the observation whereof God hath suspended the Justification of men, and to the observation whereof he hath annexed the same by covenant or promise. The Iews, first, conceived in general (and herein they were no•• mistaken) that God had appointed some Law or rule for the justification of the world, without the ob∣servation whereof by men, he was resolved not to justi∣fie any: 2. They apprehended, and this with confidence, in particular, that that Law or rule which he had ap∣pointed in this kind, and without the observation whereof, he was purposed to justifie no man, was that Law, or body of precepts, which God delivered unto Mo∣ses on mount Sina, as appropriate unto them and their nation, and those that should proselyte-wise incorporate with them, to observe. This Law (saith the Apostle) they followed after [i. e. endevored to observe and keep] as, or as if it had been, the Law of righteousness, according unto which God intended to justifie men. But by occasion of this dangerous and sad mistake (as he saith, in effect, in the verse following) they attained not unto the Law of righteousness] i. e. they never came to understand, and so were in no capacity to observe, the true LAVV of

righteousness indeed, which our Apostle elsewhere call∣eth the Law of Faitha 1.259. The original, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, trans∣lated, attained not, properly signifieth, prevented not, or came not before. So that his meaning may be, that though the Jews contended might and main about the observation of such a Law which they imagined to be the Law, established by God for the justification of men, whereas the Gentiles neither minded this, nor any other, in order to the obtaining such a priviledg, or blessing, as justification is; yet they [the Iews] came no whit neerer or sooner, to the true Law of justi∣fication, then the Gentiles. Or if we here construe the negative, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the rule lately delivered, the Apo∣stles meaning, in saying that the Iews, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, did not prevent the Gentiles in there attaining, or coming to, the Law of justification, must be this, that they came far behind them in this race; or, that whilst the Gentiles submiting to the Law of righteousness ap∣pointed by God, came to be justified, they remained in the guilt of their sins, and under a sentence of con∣demnation. Some interpret this clause, attained not unto the Law of righteousness, as if the meaning were, that the Iews did not attain unto the righteousness of that very Law, which they followed after, i. e. of the Mosaical Law, falling many ways short in their observations of it. But the reason given (in the verse following) of their non-attainment in this kind, riseth up against such an interpretation. For their non-seeking of righ∣teousness by Faith, can be no reason why they did not perfectly observe or fulfil the Law of Moses.

By the way, the reason why the Apostle here men∣tioneth the Iews their following after a Law of righteous∣ness, seemeth to be, that he might anticipate them in this pretence, and declare, that their zealous willing and running for justification in such a way, which God

never appointed for their justification, was so far from furthering them in the great business of Justification, that it set them at a far greater distance from it. But because the Iews might (probably) think this a strange, or hard saying, that following so hard as they did, af∣ter the Law of righteousness, they should be never the nearer to it, but rather the further off, the Apostle gives them an account of such his saying in the words fol∣lowing.

Wherefore? because they sought it, not by Faith, but as it [Vers. 32] were by the works of the Law: for they stumbled at that stum∣bling stone.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Wherefore? as if he had said, Doth any man ask, Wherefore, or how, cometh it to pass, that the Iews, who followed after the Law of righteousness, should notwithstanding be as far, or further off, as the Gentiles, from attaining unto the Law of righteousness? I will tell you, (saith he) the clear reason hereof is this; Viz. Because they sought it not by Faith, but as it were, &c.] These words, they sought it [meaning righteousness or justification] are not in the Original, but left to be under∣stood and supplied from the former Verse: and are ne∣cessarily inserted by our Translators, to make the sence more obvious and plain. The former clause, because they sought it not by Faith, borrowing the Particle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as, from the latter, may be read thus; Because they sought it not as by Faith, i. e. as if it were by Faith. Such borrowing and lending of words as this between neighbour sentences, is frequent in the Scriptures. The reason why the Jews attained not the Law of righteousness, [or justification] which yet they followed after [though in a mistake] is said to be, 1. (In the Negative,) Because they sought it not by Faith, or, because they followed not after this Law, by the way of Faith; they thought beleeving in Iesus Christ would never bring them to it: 2. (In the affir∣mative)

because they sought it [or, followed after it,] as it were by the works of the Law, [or, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as by the works ••f the Law,] i. e. as if it had been [to be attained] by the works of the Law. The Particles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are fre∣quently used in such a construction, Mar. 14.48. Ioh. 15.6. Rom. 3.7. and in other places. Or the Apostle may thus speak, they sought it as it were by the works of the Law, either in an oblique manner to tax the confidence of the Jews, who looked upon their works, as if they had been the works of the Law, when as some of them were the works of the Devil, Ioh. 8.41, 44. and few or none of them in truth and strictness of construction, the works of the Law; or else to discover their error unto them, who supposed that such a righteousness, which should, or would, render a person accepted with God unto salva∣tion, was to be attained by such an observation of the Law, as either themselves, or any other person of man∣kind, were in a capacity to perform; whereas such a supposal is an untruth, in as much as the best and holi∣est mens endeavoured observations of the Law, are but as it were the works of the Law, i. e. things, or works, somewhat like, or of some affinity, with the works of the Law, but not strictly and completely these works indeed. In which respect he frequently elsewhere denieth all possibility of justification in the sight of God by the Law, or the works thereof. The reason why the Iews pursued not the Law of righteousness by the way of Faith, but by the works of the Law (or rather, by works some∣what like to those required by the Law,) is rendred in the following clause.

For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.] In the O∣riginal it is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, at the stone of the stumbling. For if we make either of the Articles em∣phaticall, there is no reason (I conceive) why not the

other also. If we make them both emphatical (which I judg to be their native construction here, respective∣ly) the former must be understood to insinuate, or point at, the signality or remarkableness of the Stone here spoken of; the latter, at the like extraordinary remarkableness of the stumbling here intended likewise; like unto which for matter of danger, and sadness of consequence, there is no stumbling besides whatsoever, unto which men are obnoxious. The Stone, at which the Jews are here said to have stumbled, as appears both by what went before, as also by what immediatly fol∣loweth, signifieth Christ, who is elsewhere called a chief corner stone, elect and preciousa 1.260; the import or effect of which honourable Epithites, or appellations, is assert∣ed unto him in the said Verse (immediatly following) in these words: And whosoever beleeveth on him, shall not be ashamed, [or confounded.] So that he may well be termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, THE Stone, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or, That Stone, no property whatsoever of a stone, being ever vested in any subject whatsoever of a like transcendent worth and excellency.

Again, as the Stone here spoken of is the most sig∣nally and wonderfully excellent amongst all Stones, so is the stumbling here specified the most signally dan∣gerous and dreadful amongst all stumblings. Of this both stumbling, and stone, this Stone it self speaketh, (Mat. 21.44.) And whosoever shall fall [i. e. shall so stum∣ble at, or on] this stone as to fall on it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shall be broken, [or, shattered, and dash'd in pieces;] meaning, that whosoever shall take any such offence at Christ, or his Doctrine, as neither first, nor last, to beleeve in him, and profess him in the world, shall be utterly undone hereby, and never find help or healing, for his wound. But on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to pow∣der,

i. e. yet his case shall be much more miserable then the others, who having once beleeved on Christ, and professed his Name, so (as it were) coming under him, and his grace and power, shall notwithstanding apo∣statize from him, and turn head against him afterwards. Of the same, both Stone, and stumbling likewise, in type, the Prophet Esai had spoken long before. And he shall be for a Sanctuary [meaning, unto those who shall betake themselves for refuge unto him,] but for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence to both the house of Israel, for a gin and a snare to the Inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be takenb 1.261. The mean∣ing is, that many of the ten Tribes, and many of the two Tribes also, not being aware of, or, not minding the truth and faithfulness of God in his Word, as well in his threatnings, sent by his Prophets unto them, as in his promises, would suffer hereby very grievously, some in one kind, some in another, some to a lesser, some to a greater degree.

By the opportunity of the happy enterview of the Scriptures now met together in our present discourse, to give some check to that daring and devouring Error, which blasphemously lifteth up it self against him, whom our Apostle (as we heard towards the beginning of this Chapter) stileth, God blessed for ever, insulting∣ly, and as it were to his face, telling the Lord Iesus Christ, that he is not God. In the passage now cited from the Prophecy of Esay, He that is termed the stum∣bling stone, and Rock of offence, &c. is expresly said to be, the Lord of Hosts HIMSELF (Esay 8.13. compared with vers. 15.) whereas in the Scripture before us, this stumbling Stone, and Rock of offence, is as plainly sig∣nified to be Christ; Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling

stone, and rock of offence, &c. Evident it is that He who layeth the stumbling stone, here spoken of, in Sion, is not the same (I mean, personally the same) with the stum∣bling stone it self laid by him. Therefore, 1. If the stone it self laid in Sion, be the Lord of Hosts, then he that layeth it must of necessity be conceived be the Lord of of Hosts also; unless we shall say that the Lord of Hosts may be laid, or disposed of, by a creature, or one infe∣riour to himself. If then both the layer of this stone, and the Stone it self layed, be the Lord of Hosts, and yet are not, cannot be, personally the same, it undeniably follows that there is a plurality of persons subsisting in the same divine essence, and interessed herein. There is no evading this argument or consequence, but by denying the Sun to be up at noon day; I mean, by deny∣ing the Supream Being, which we call God, to be signi∣fied by, the Lord of Hosts; a denial, which the Scrip∣ture in twenty places, and in ten, laughs to scorn. 2. If Christ be this Stumbling Stone, (as Paul supposeth) and the Lord of Hosts this stumbling stone, also (as the Prophet Esay affirmeth) it roundly follows, either that Christ is the Lord of Hosts, [i. e. really, properly, and truly God] or that this Stumbling Stone, is not one, but two Stones: which yet is contrary to our Apostles supposi∣tion, in these words, AS IT IS WRITTEN, Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling Stone, &c. which implieth that that stumbling stone, which he speaks of, was the same with that, of which the Prophet wrote long before. But this onely by the way.

The reason why the Jews followed not after the Law of righteousness, by the way of Faith, or beleeving, which would have led them thereunto, the Apostle declares to be, their stumbling at that stumbling stone. For they stum∣bled, &c. meaning, that they disliked, hated, were of∣fended

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

at, and rejected Jesus Christ, being indeed such a person, who by reason of his deep poverty, and humi∣liation in the days of his flesh, and especially by his suf∣fering the most ignominious death of the Cross, may very possibly be rejected, and not be beleeved on, as the great Saviour sent from God unto the world, by earthly-minded men, and such, who are either less in∣telligent, or less considerate of the nature, counsels and ways of God, as far the greater part of men in the world are. The reason properly why any man stum∣bleth, at a stone, stick, or the like, in his way, is not so much, or so frequently, want of light sufficient to dis∣cover unto him the stone, block, or stick in the way, at which he stumbleth, as the want of consideration, and sufficient taking heed lest he should, or doth, stumble at any such thing. The occasion of a mans stumbling, is partly the offendiculum it self in respect of the nature or quality of it [i. e. the thing at, or against, which he stumbleth,] partly also the scituation or lying of this thing, in such, or such a place, as viz. 1. Below, or on the Earth; 2. In that part of the Earth, where a mans way lyeth. So then the reason why the Jews stumbled at Christ, (and there is the same reason why any others stumble at him) was onely their own voluntary and ve∣ry-vincible ignorance of him, together with such evill principles and dispositions in them, all voluntary also, as were the causes of this ignorance, as viz. pride, co∣vetousness, earthly-mindedness, self-conceitedness, e∣strangement from God, &c. They stumbled at him, be∣cause they saw him not, were not aware of him. They saw him not, because they had no mind or will to see him. They had no will to see him, because their wills were inordinately ingaged and taken up with other things. Their wills were thus inordinately ingaged,

because they did not stir up, improve, and imploy the implanted light of their souls, to understand and con∣sider the emptiness and insufficiency of those things, with the inordinate love whereof, they suffered their wills to be thus ingaged. The occasion of their stum∣bling at Christ, was partly his low scituation, positi∣on, or condition here on Earth, partly his being in this low condition before them, and in their way. He hath no form nor comliness, (saith the Prophet Esay, personating his countrymen the Jews,) and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected by men: a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him notc 1.262. To the same pur∣pose the Evangelist Luke presenteth his Eunuch, reading cap. 53. vers. 8. of the same Prophet, in these words; In [or by] his humiliation, [or, if we make the Article emphatical, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in that his humiliation, meaning, that great, that strange, that incredible hu∣miliation, wherein he appeared in the days of his flesh] his judgment was taken awayd 1.263, i. e. that honourable esteem which was due unto him, was denied unto him: by means of that dark and thick covering of a poor and despica∣ble condition in the world spread over the face of his Majesty, men were hindered from judging righteous judgment concerning him, and from acknowledging him to be the great Messiah, the onely begotten Son of God, and Saviour of the world. In a like sence of the phrase of taking away a mans judgment, Job complaineth that God had taken away his judgmente 1.264, meaning, that he had so strangely and grievously afflicted him, that men, even his Friends, could not by reason thereof, be prevailed with to judg him an innocent and righteous man, but still arraigned him at the bar of their judgments for an

hypocrite. And in Scripture notion, when and whilst God blesseth and prospereth men in the world, he is said to cover their sins [viz. from the view and sight of men,] as on the contrary when he punisheth or bringeth any great evill upon men, he is said to discover their na∣kedness, or sin unto the world. See Esai. 3.17. Jer. 13.22.26. Lam. 4.22. Ezek. 16.37 57. and 23.10. Hos. 2.10. Nah. 3.5. Rev. 3.18, &c. Now the Jews (it is like) building upon this Scripture notion, and not distinguish∣ing between what God is wont to do in the ordinary and standing course of his Providence, and what he judg∣eth meet to do upon special and particular design, seeing the Lord Christ in a mean garb, and poor condition in the world, disparaged and reproached by the great men of his Nation, men high in esteem for wisdom, sancti∣ty, and understanding, and at last put to a cruel and shameful death as a notorious Malefactor, judged him to be no better then an Imposter and Deceiver, a man that suffered whatsoever was inflicted on him, from the hand of divine justice upon the account of his sins; ac∣cording to that of Esay; Surely he hath born our infir∣mities, and carried our sorrows; yet we did judg him as plagued and smitten of God, and humbledf 1.265, (meaning as an evil doer, and for his own transgressions.) By all this it appears that the low position of the Stone, at which the Jews are here said to have stumbled, was one speci∣all occasion of this their stumbling.

Another occasion of their sad miscarriage in stum∣bling was, that this Stone lay in their way; it was laid, or pitched, in Sion, i. e. amongst, and (as it were) in the midst of, the Jews. The ordinary and familiar con∣verse of Christ, in his mean garb and habit with, and amongst, the Jews, together with that knowledg which they had, or at least supposed they had, of his parentage,

kindred, place of birth, and education, was another great occasion of their stumbling at him. Is not this the Carpenters son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his Brethren, Iames, and Ioses, and Simon, and Iudas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended at him. (Mat. 13.55.56.) Implying (it seems) that had they not had such particular knowledg of the said matters relating to him, they had not been so likely to stumble, or take offence at him. In another place; The Iews then mur∣mured at him, because he said, I am the Bread, that came down from Heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus the Son of Joseph, whose Father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I came down from Heaveng 1.266. And elswhere: Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he ish 1.267: So that from several places it appeareth, that the Jews their stumbling at Christ, was in part occasioned by his being or lying in there way; I mean, by his being so neare, so well known unto them in matters relating unto his flesh, and outward condition, and by his being so fre∣quently and familiarly conversant amongst them.

If it be demanded, But whether may such Greeks or Gentiles who beleeved not in Christ, any whit more then the generality of the Iews, be said to have stumbled at Christ, as they (the Iews) did; especially consider∣ing, that the Scripture oft speaketh of the Iews stum∣bling at Christ; but no where useth the phrase or me∣taphor about the unbeleeving Gentiles? To this I an∣swer;

1. The metaphor or similitude of stumbling* 1.268 properly imports the dashing or strikeing of the foot against somewhat in a mans way, which is resistitive and hard; and may well co-import, the harm or mischeif which

a man gets by such a careless uncircumspect action, or striking, and which often proves an impediment unto him from making any further progress in his journey. And I conceive that when the Iews are said to have stumbled at Christ, it is to be understood of the worst and sorest kind of stumbling, and particularly of that which is accompanied with such an hurt received by it, or discouragement, which renders a man either unable, or unwilling (or both) to hold on his way to his jour∣neys end. For they cavilling, quarrelling, and con∣testing against Christ, as being none of their Messiah, and Christ being their Messiah indeed, and so in no capa∣city to yield, or give place to their cavils and contests in this kind, they through the just judgment of God in taking away his grace and good spirit from them up∣on this great provocation, grew into a most bitter and blasphemous hatred of him, and so were utterly dis∣abled from going along with him in that way of Faith and holiness, which leadeth unto Salvation: and were occasioned hereby to betake themselves unto such ways for attaining this blessedness, the end whereof was, and is, by the just decree and appointment of God, endless misery and destruction. In this sence that of the A∣postle Peter is to be understood: And a stone of stumbling, and rock of offence, to those which stumble at the word, be∣ing disobedient, whereunto also [or, even] they were ap∣pointed,i 1.269 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉^a; meaning, that they who reject the Gospel through disobedience and unbelief, are ap∣pointed by God to be destroyed, or dashed in pieces by Christ, as a ship is by the rock, against which it striketh or dasheth it self. Or if we construe the sim∣ple verb, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the known signification of the compound, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. were disposed, (which is a signification that some of our best Lexicographers

assign to ita 1.270, and may very well be the signification of it in many other passages of Scriptureb 1.271, although our English Translators have not thought meet so to render it,) the sence of the place last mentioned will be, that those to whom Christ is a stumbling stone, and rock of offence, and who stumble at the word, becoming here∣by disobedient and unbeleeving, are only such who are, and were before disposed, in respect of the wicked frame of their hearts, hereunto, (viz. to stumble at Christ and at the Gospel,) not by God, but either by the God of this world, or themselvesc 1.272, or both. The place thus understood, perfectly accordeth with this of our Apo∣stle: For if our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them [i. e. only to them, the restrictive particle, only being frequently understood, as hath been formerly noted] to them that are lost. In whom the God of this world hath blinded the eyes of them which beleeve not, lest that the light of the glo∣rious Gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto themd 1.273. So likewise with that of our Saviour him∣self (to omit very many places besides of like notion and import) How can ye beleeve, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God onlye 1.274? implying, that the reason why they beleeved not his Doctrine, or on his person, was that indisposition hereunto, which they had contracted, and voluntarily continued under, by their ambition and wretched com∣bination to uphold the credit and authority one of ano∣ther, and this in ways and practises dishonourable and displeasing unto God. As for the sence awarded by some unto the place in Peter now before us, which bear∣eth, that those who stumble at Christ and at the word, being disobedient or unbeleeving, were hereunto [i. e. unto this stumbling, or disobedience] ordained, and appointed by God, hath no affinity or correspondency

with any other Scripture (tolerably understood), but is repugnant to the main stream▪ and current of the Scrip∣tures, which teach us, that all stumblings at Christ, and all disobedience to the Gospel, as sins very hate∣full and provoking in the sight of God. If so, most certain it is that he neither appoints, nor ordains, any man, much less any great numbers of men, to, or for, the perpetration and committing of them. Who ever designed or appointed either men, or other Agents whatsoever, to perform or act such things, which are most contrary to their minds and desires, and which they prohibit all men, as far as lieth in them, to do? But this by the way. To the Question propounded concerning the Gentiles, whether such of them who reject the Gospel and Christ tendred therein, may by reason of their unbelief, be said to stumble at Christ, as the Jews oft are said to do; I answer.

2. That according to the import of the metaphor of stumbling, (lately opened) all unbeleevers, as well Gen∣tiles, as Jews, especially to whom Christ in the letter of the Gospel hath been brought and offered, may, in sufficient propriety of speech, be said to stumble at him: because not owning or acknowledging him for a Savi∣our, they fall foul upon him either with contempt, or hatred, and so are taken off and hindred from passing on any further in the way of life and peace. For every man may be said to be in this way, whilst he is consider∣ing of Christ, and debating with himself, whether he should beleeve in him, or no. But when once he comes to resolve, that he will not beleeve in him, or to neglect, or reject him, now he stumbleth at him, and is hereby Spiritually maimed and mischieved, and so hindred from making any further progress in his way. Nor is the phrase of stumbling at Christ so appropri∣ated

in the Scriptures unto the Jews, but that it is as well applied, or at least left applicable, unto the Gen∣tiles also. Witness the passage in Peter lately insisted on; which questionless suits as well the state and con∣dition of the latter, as the former. And when our Sa∣viour himself said, Blessed is He whosoever 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shall not be offended in mea 1.275, [i. e. shall not stumble at meb 1.276] in that term of universality, Whosoever, he com∣comprehended as well the Gentiles, as the Jews. The reason why our Apostle termeth Christ, a stumbling block to the Jews, not so to the Greeks [or Gentiles] but, foolishnessc 1.277, is not because he was in no respect this lat∣ter unto the Jews (for he had a little before said in the general, that the preaching of the Cross, i. e. Christ cru∣cified, was to them that perish, foolishness) so neither be∣cause he was in no respect the former (a stumbling block) unto the Greeks; but because the Jews having had Christ personally in the flesh amongst them, avouch∣ing himself, as well by the sinlesness of his life, as by his Doctrine and miracles, for their Messiah, yet being offended at the meanness of his birth, breeding and con∣dition, all too mean and low by many thousand de∣grees (as they supposed, or pretended) for him that was to be their Messiah, fell heavier upon him with hatred, indignation and disdain, then the Gentiles generally did, (even those, I mean, who refused to beleeve in him.) And in this respect He may in a more signal and par∣ticular manner be termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a scandal, offence, or stumbling block unto them. They were the Nati∣on that first stumbled, or were offended at him, in all the world: yea they were more offended, and stumbled at him more forcibly, and with greater violence, then any other Nation. Whereas for the Grecians (or Gentiles) though in a general sence (which hath been declared)

they may be said to have stumbled at him likewise, yet his poverty, or meanness of condition, or suffering death, did not occasion their offence, or rejection of him (and consequently their offence, was not so properly a stumbling, as that of the Jews.) It is like that some of their own wise men, and great Philosophers, who were in high esteem amongst them, were as mean of parent∣age and condition in the world, as Christ was repre∣sented unto them to have been; yea and possibly suf∣fered very great indignities from unjust and cruel men, as Christ also had done. So that their refusing to be∣leeve in Christ, did not (probably) proceed from any want of secular greatness in one kind, or other, in him. But that which occasioned their unbelief, was, that they who preached him, and salvation by him, did not sa∣tisfie or convince them by Philosophical arguments, or natural demonstrations, of the truth and certainty of those things, which they affirmed of him. But to give the Iews to understand that they might very possibly stum∣ble at that Stone he speaks of (the Lord Christ,) he cites a Testimony from one of their own greatest Prophets, wherein he is termed a Stumbling Stone; i. e. such a person, at whom many would be offended at to their great mi∣sery and ruine. The words of the testimony are these:

[Verse 33] As it is written, Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling stone, and rock of offence: and whosoever beleeveth on him, shall not be ashamed.] This testimony is framed of two or three several clauses taken out of two or three several passages in Esay, and put together, with some little va∣riation of words. The former words of this testimo∣ny, Behold I lay in Sion, are verbatim found, Esay 28.16. onely the word Englished, I lay, in the Original sound∣eth, I will lay foundation-wise; or, I will found, or firm∣ly lay. The next, a stumbling stone, and rock of offence,

are thus expressed, Esai. 8.14. for a stone of stumbling, and rock of offence. The last words, and whosoever belee∣veth on him shall not be ashamed, are thus read (a little after the former words, Behold, I lay in Zion,) he that beleeveth, shall not make haste. In this third and last clause, there are three particulars, wherein the Apostle relieveth the Old Testament darkness, with Evangelical or New Testament light. First, he expoundeth the Pro∣phets indefinite He, He that beleeveth, by his universal, Whosoever; Whosoever beleeveth, or, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, every one beleeving. The Pronoun, He, in such constructions as this, is frequently expounded by, Every one that, Who∣soever, and the like. Thus He that beleeveth in me, Joh. 6.47. Mar. 16.16. 1 Pet. 2.6. 1 Joh. 5.5.10, &c. is inter∣preted by, whosoever, or every one that beleeveth, Ioh. 3.16. and 12.46. Acts 10.43. &c. Secondly, where∣as the Prophet expresseth himself onely thus, He that beleeveth, not specifying either the Person, or thing to be beleeved on, our Apostle in his citation of the words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and every one beleeving ON HIM, plainly informeth, 1. That it is a person who is to be beleeved ona 1.278; And 2. That this person is he that that is compared to a stone of stumbling, and rock of of∣fence. Thus sometimes actions are mentioned, with∣out any mention of their objects; which notwithstand∣ing are named elsewhere. Thus our Saviour promi∣seth that to them that hear, more shall be givenb 1.279, not spe∣cifying either who, or what it is they must hear, in or∣der to such a gracious consideration from God. But both these are sufficiently explained in other Scriptures. Mat. 17.5. Luke 10.16. Ioh. 8.47, &c. Thirdly, (and lastly) the Apostle explaineth the Prophets, will not make haste, [or rather, let him not make haste,] by his, shall not be ashamed; although some learned Expositors

conceive, that the Hebrew Word anciently read in the Text in hand, was of the same signification with our Apostles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shall not, or cannot, be ashamed. However the reading now extant in the Prophet, will not make haste, may readily be reconciled with the A∣postles shall not be ashamed. The former, in saying, He that beleeveth, will not make haste, or, let him not make haste, meaneth, that whosoever shall beleeve and stay himself on that Stone he speaks of, needs not be like unto those who are fearfull of a disappointment where they trust, who by reason of their fear in this kind are impatient of all delay, and tormented herewith, untill they see the issue; hereby implying, that which the latter (our Apostle) plainly affirmeth, viz. that such shall not be ashamed, or confounded. This for making even reckonings between a Great Prophet, and an A∣postle Greater then he, in the particular before us. Now for the sence and mind of the Apostle in the words.

As it is written, Behold I lay, &c.] This clause, as it is written, [meaning, in the book of God, or amongst the Oracles of God] doth not import the Testimony or words following, to be, or to contain, a direct pro∣bation of what he had last before affirmed, viz. that the Jews stumbled at the Stumbling Stone, CHRIST: but onely to shew and prove that Christ was a Stone of Stumbling, [i. e. such a kind of Stone, so layd, or pich'd, so disposed of, and contrived by God, that men would be apt to stumble at him, yea and many would actually stumble at him; and consequently that the Jews might very probably stumble at him.] The said clause, As it is written, is frequently in the New Testament used in much alike sence, not importing an express proof of what went before in that which follows, but only some

kind of aspect upon, or relation unto, or affinity be∣tween, the one, and the other. See Luke 2.23. and 3.4. Acts 13.33. Rom. 3.4. and 8.36. (with many o∣thers.

Behold, I lay in Sion, &c.] This word, Behold, in such constructions as this, is like a trumpet sounding from Heaven to call the world together from their severall quarters, to attend with all their might, and consider what is now ready to be declared unto them. And the truth is, that this Trumpet never sounded upon a more solemn and weighty occasion, then that before us in the words following.

I lay in Sion, In the Prophets language (according to some of his Interpreters) the words sound thus, Fun∣dabo in Sion, I will found, or firmly lay, in Sion. Ari∣as Montanus, in his interlineary, translates them thus: Ecce, ego fundator in Sion lapidis, &c. i. e. (word for word,) Behold, I the founder in Sion of a Stone, &c. Junius and Tremellius in their Translation, thus: Ecce ego fundamentum posui in Sione lapidem: i. e. Behold, I have layd [or, placed] a foundation in Sion, a Stone, &c. Others thus, Ecce ego fundo in Sione lapidem, i. e. Be∣hold, I found [or lay foundation-wise] in Sion a Stone, &c. Hierome (in the last place) thus, Ecce ego mittam in fundamentis Sion lapidem, &c. i. e. Behold, I will put [or, cast] in the foundations of Sion a Stone, &c. The mean∣ing of the words (together with those following in the Verse) suffers little or nothing from this variety of translations, being clearly this, or to this effect; viz. that God here promiseth that in due time he would cause such a person to rise up, or to take his being from, and a∣mongst the Jews, who should be like unto a Stone, which is of transcendent worth and value, at which notwith∣standing many would be apt to stumble by reason of the

scituation and position of it; i. e. should be invested with an irresistible strength, power, and authority never to be taken away from him, and who should continually act and exercise this power, for the happy-making, and keeping, of all those, that shall depend on him, and com∣mit themselves unto him; and yet nevertheless should be so ordered, disposed of, and contrived by him, that wicked persons, careless, and regardless of the mind and counsels of God, may very easily overlook both his excellent worth and power, and so be offended at him, to their own irrecoverable loss and ruine. In Sion] Sion was a part of the City Jerusalem, scituate upon an hill towards the North in respect of the rest of the City. Sometimes the Hill it self is call∣ed by this Name: but more qerfuently the series of the buildings upon it are termed, Sion. This seems to have been the principal part of the City. 1. By reason of the Temple. 2. Of the Royal Palace. 3. Of that strong and impregnable fort or tower, called the strong hold of Sion, (2 Sam. 5.7.) all standing hereon. This tower, being won by David from the Jebusites, and enlarg∣ed with many buildings adjoyning, or near to it, be∣came his habitation, or seat royal, and (as it seems from 2 Sam. 5.7. and 1 Kings 8.1.) from the largeness and great compass of buildings added by him unto it, was it self called, The city of David. So that, when God saith, Behold I lay in Sion a Stone, &c. his intent may be to insinuate, that the Person here represented by the Metaphor of a stone, should be of the house and lineage of David. Which is of a gracious import, as well un∣to the Jews, as the Gentiles, leading the former direct∣ly to that particular house and family, from whence their Messiah was to be expected, and so preventing those distractions, wandrings, and uncertainties of mind

and thought, otherwise incident unto them about his pedigree and descent; and consequently, confirming the latter in the Truth and certainty of his being the Mes∣siah indeed, in whom the New Testament vesteth this transcendent honour and dignity.

A stumbling stone, and rock of offence.] Some Expo∣sitors (too much either Arrianized, or suspected) under∣stand these expressions, as not meant in Esay concerning Christ, but God himself; and as only allusive-wise, and for commodiousness of phrase, applied by the Apostle unto Christ, on purpose (it is like) to decline the preg∣nancy and force of such an Argument, which otherwise from between the two passages riseth up like an arm∣ed man to assert the Divinity of Christ. But how hard a saying it would be, that God, speaking of himself, should say, Behold, I lay in Sion a stone, and that his meaning should be, Behold, I lay my self in Zion a stone, needeth no arguing. Besides, if the Prophet Esay, did not by his stumbling stone, and rock of offence, directly and principally intend Christ, the Apostle (as is evi∣dent) should make very small earnings for his purpose, of the testimony in hand. For, from Gods being a stumbling stone, and rock of offence in Esay's days, it no ways follows, that therefore Christ must of necessity be the like, (viz. a stumbling stone, or rock of offence) in the Apostles days. And if such a consequence as this be of no value, the truth of the Apostles affirmation, or intimation, that Christ was, or is, a stumbling stone, &c. must rest onely upon his own credit and authority; which we know were of very light esteem with his countrymen the Jews, whose conviction notwithstand∣ing (as hath been oft said) is the main prize for which he runneth the long race of this, and the two following Chapters.

If it be demanded, why, or in what respect, Christ should be termed, a stone of stumbling, and rock of of∣fence; I answer, 1. Negatively, not because he was by God intended (at least antecedently) for such, either a Stone, or Rock: all stumblings, and offence-takings at Christ, are acknowledged by Calvin himself to be ac∣cidental and adventitiousc 1.280, i. e. besides the intentions of God, and proceeding from the pravity of men them∣selves. Nor 2. Because they who stumble and are of∣fended at him, were appointed or ordained by God unto these, or any the like sinful miscarriages, God ap∣pointing no man to do that, which he universally prohi∣bites all men from doing (as hath been formerly touch∣ed.) Nor, 3. Because He is so, or upon any such terms exhibited or set forth by God unto the world, that any man should be constrained, or necessitated, either by his own weakness and corruption, or by the Devil, or by any other instrument or creature whatsoever, to stum∣ble, or take offence at him: actions constrained or ne∣cessitated upon men, are neither demeritorious, nor pu∣nishable. Nor yet 4. (and lastly, for the Negative) Be∣cause he is so contrived by God in respect of any cir∣cumstance, or matter relating or appertaining to him, that any person should be so much as tempted, or rea∣sonably induced by any of these to stumble at him: God (saith James) tempteth no mand 1.281; this is as true of Christ also. But, 2. (for the affirmative, in two words) Christ is therefore termed a Stone of Stumbling, &c. partly be∣cause he is so laid, placed, or disposed of by God, that however no man (as hath been said) is either necessita∣ted to stumble at him, or inticed by any thing appertain∣ing unto him, thus to miscarry, yet men willingly ig∣norant, and wilfully perverse and wicked, may very pos∣sibly stumble at him; partly also because, though God

intended (as hath been said) no mans stumbling at him, yet he knew that many would through wilful blindness, and perverseness of spirit, de facto, stumble at him, and so expressed him by a Prophetical character answering the event, and predicting that which in time came to passe.

If it be demanded whether the two expressions, a Stone of stumhling, and, rock of offence, be synonymus, of one and the same import, or whether there be any material difference between them; I answer;

1. Some Expositors conceive them to be altogether the same in signification and import; onely apprehend∣ing the doubling of the expression to be somewhat em∣phatical, and tending to deeper and more serious incul∣cation of the matter or thing expressed: which they observe (or at least suppose they observe) to be frequent with the Prophets in like casesd 1.282. But though 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, here translated, Rock, be sometimes found to signifie an or∣dinary or lesser Stone, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth, yet pro∣perly it signifieth saxum, or cautes, a great Massie stone, a rock or mountain of Stone, and is accordingly (for the most part) translated, Rock, Mat. 7.24, 25. and 16.18. Luke 8.6. 1 Cor. 10.4. Mat. 27.51. Rev. 6.15, 16. Therefore,

2. It is more probable that both the Prophet and Apo∣stle intended somewhat differing in the one expression from the other, and that by the former 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Stone of Stumbling, they might imply that Christ would prove unto some onely a Stone of such a stum∣bling, from whence they would recover themselves, and beleeve on him unto Salvation afterwards: by the lat∣ter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; a rock of offence, that he would be unto others that which a rock in the Sea is to the ship that runneth and dasheth it self with violence against

it, and is split, shattered, and broken in peeces by it, ne∣ver to be repaired. Some state the difference between the two expressions thus; that Christ is termed a Stone of stumbling, because coming in humility, he was not owned or acknowledged by the Jews, but rejected: but a rock of offence, because after his Resurrection, and as∣cending up into Heaven, he became a Rock, and fell up∣on them, overwhelmed, and ground them to powder, by the Romans taking away both their place and Na∣tion. But the former Interpretation (I conceive) is the less strained.

It may yet be some mans question, how Christ can be said to have been laid by God in Sion a stumbling Stone, and rock of offence, in the days of the Prophet Esay, and in reference to the Jews then living; I an∣swer;

1. That both the places in Esay, of some parts where∣of the testimony now before us, is (as hath been shewed) compacted and made up, relate unto the times of Sen∣nacherib, and to the protection which God promised unto those that would hearken unto his counsel, and be∣take themselves to Jerusalem, and abide theree 1.283.

2. It is to be considered, that all promises of grace, peace, safety, deliverance, &c. made by God at any time unto men, are and have been made in Christ, i. e. upon the account of that grace and favour, which for∣merly he had procured for men by his sufferings, whilst they were yet onely undertaken for, and not under∣gone; and since, by the same sufferings having been un∣dergone and endured by him. So that Christ may in sufficient propriety of speech be said to have been, and to be, in all promises of grace whatsoever at any time made by God unto men. And they who shall stumble at, or reject any of these promises through unbelief,

may in like manner be said to stumble at Christ; and so to render their condition much worse, and more grie∣vous. Therefore;

3. When God by his Prophets sent a promise (one or more) of safety and protection unto the Jews, upon condition of their subjection unto his counsels and commands, intending withall that they who should not beleeve this promise, nor obey his counsels, should here∣by bring destruction and ruine upon themselves, he might well say, Behold, I lay in Sion a Stone of stum∣bling, &c. meaning, that Christ now appearing, and being discovered by God, in such a gracious promise, and as a Sanctuary, unto the Jews, in the time of their utmost danger, would nevertheless prove an occasion of stumbling, falling, and perishing unto many, who would neglect and despise him.

4. (And lastly,) It is a thing of frequent Observation in the writings of the Prophets, that God, having ei∣ther promised, or being about to promise, any great and signal blessing unto his people, is wont either in the Front, or in the Reer of such a promise, to renew his promise and intention afresh, of sending Christ unto them in due time, by way of confirmation of such his promise; yea and sometimes to in∣volve, and (as it were) to wrap up the one promise in the other. See Esai. 7.13, 14, 15, &c. and 9.1, 2, &c. and 11.1, 2, 10, 12, &c. and 46.13. and 49.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, &c. and 51.4, 5, 6, &c. and 52.7, 8. and 53.2, 3, &c. and 55.4, 5, &c. and 59.20. and 61.1, 2, 3, and 62.11. Jer. 23.5, 6, &c. Hos. 13.14. Zach. 3.8. and 9.9. Mal. 3.1, 2, &c. So that speaking and promising thus unto the Iews, (being now in danger of being devour∣ed by a potent and formidable enemy;) Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling stone, a Rock of offence, and he that be∣leeveth

on him, shall not be ashamed, he may well be con∣ceived, both to promise the sending of the Messiah, and Salvation by him, unto those that shall beleeve on him and also to threaten ruine and destruction unto those that shall reject him; and withall inclusively, and after the manner of Prophetical involution, to promise in the former, deliverance from the present danger unto all those that should beleeve this promise, and harken unto his councel delivered with it; and in the latter, to threaten those with bondage, or death, who through unbeleif of this promise, should refuse obedi∣ence unto his counsels.

And whosoever beleeveth on him shall not be ashamed.] The copulative, And, is frequently used in an adversa∣tive sence, and signifies, buta 1.284: and is accordingly rendred in most Translations, where the sence of the place re∣quires it. As, Gen. 2.17.20. &. 3.3. &. 42.10. (be∣sides sundry others.) Sometimes our English Transla∣tors retain the proper signification of the word, and translate, And, where the construction requireth, But. As Luke. 8.18. and so in the place before us. For the Apostle in this clause evidently opposeth the great Be∣nefit and Blessedness, which from Christ redoundeth unto those who shall beleeve on him, to that misery and ruine, which they bring upon themselves, who shall stumble at, and reject him. We have given notice alrea∣dy that our Apostle interprets the Prophets Indefinite, He, by his universal, Whosoever. He doth the like in the following Chapter. vers. 11. His reason probably may be, the more plainly and expresly to insinuate, that as well the Gentiles, as the Jews, shall partake of the unspeakable blessing that is brought unto the world by Jesus Christ, upon their beleeving on him.

Whosoever beleeveth on him] To beleeve God, and

so to beleeve Christ, and to beleeve ON the one, and ON the other, are frequently used as expressions of one and the same import, at least in respect of the great Blessings depending on either, Justification, and Sal∣vation; the same promises being made to, Beleeving God, which are made to, Beleeving on God; and againe,* 1.285 to Beleeving Christ, which are made to, beleeving ON Christ. Consider to this purpose, and compare Ioh. 20.31, Act. 8.37.38. Ioh. 3.33.36. & 8.24. & 11.26, 27. Rom. 4.3.5. & 10.9. 1 Ioh. 5.5. (to omit many other places.) Nor is this any thing but what is frequently ob∣served and affirmed by Luther, Calvin, Peter Martyr, and other as well modern as ancient Divines, as I have shewed at large elsewhere. To beleeve on Christ, for∣mally and properly, is not an act of Faith, but of hope, or trust, only including, or presupposing Faith: and it is well observed by the late Bishop, Downham (in his Treatise of the Covenant of Grace. p. 214.) that doubt∣ing, properly is opposed to Faith, distruct, to affiance [or hope.g 1.286] The reason why the great and precious promises of Justification and Salvation are so frequently in Scripture made to acts of recumbency, or to a resting, trusting, or beleeving in God, or, Christ, or rather un∣to those, who doe rest, trust, or beleeve on him, is not because they doe originally, formally, or precisely be∣long to those acts, or qualifications; but partly because such act ss athese do suppose in their subjects, and in their natures include and comprehend, the Act of Faith, unto which the said promises doe originally and pro∣perly belong; partly also (I conceive) to inform and teach men that they who doe truly and unfeignedly be∣leeve, either God, or Christ, in what they speak and assert in the Scriptures, have a sufficient and pregnant ground to rely, depend, or beleeve, on the one and the

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

other, for the obtaining of all things promised, (accord∣ing to the tenour and intent of the said promises re∣spectively,) yea and that they cannot (lightly) but hope, trust, and depend accordingly. And therefore where∣as many say and acknowledg that they beleeve the truth of all the promises and declarations that God hath made throughout the Scriptures, and this with the greatest confidence that may be, and without the least hesitancy or regret in their Faith, and yet complain with∣all that they cannot, with any semblable confidence, trust or depend upon God for Justification, or Salvation, the reason of this irrational and unnatural discord in the Soul, must needs be, either their ignorance of the mind and true meaning of God in those promises, which they say and think that they beleeve; or else a strange defect∣tiveness in their reasons and understandings, by means whereof they doe not see and apprehend (that which is as clear as the light at noon day) that they who doe truly and with their whole heart beleeve the promises of God, are ipso facto by this their beleeving, actually invested in a right to all the good things mentioned and contained in them: and consequently, have a clear and sure foundation for a stedfast expectation of these things, whatsoever they are, from the hand of God.

But whereas some conceive, that to beleeve God in his promises, and to beleeve Jesus Christ, doe not import justifying or saving Faith, but only that which they call an historical Faith, of which they make Re∣probates and Divels themselves capable, unsanctifying and deprecating of this Faith (as they suppose) and that it is only a beleeving ON God, or IN God, and so on or in, Jesus Christ, which is justifying and save∣ing; the Truth is,

1. That to beleeve God in his promises (and so,

Christ with a faith unfeigned, (as the Apostle speaketh) is as justifying and saving, as any beleeving on or in God, or on, or in, Christ whatsoever. This we have lately proved from Joh. 3.33.36. & 11.26.27. & 20.31. Act. 8.37.38. Rom. 4.3.5. (besides several other pla∣ces) we might here add, that the Scriptures from place to place doe not onely hold forth a true and unfeigned beleef, of, or assent unto, what God, or Christ, spake (especially in matters Evangelical) as a Faith truly justi∣fying and saving, but even a like belief of the minister or messenger of God, when he testifieth and declareth the word of God, and of Christ, in such things. Jesus saith unto them, verily I say unto you, that the publicans and harlots go into the Kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and they BELEEVED HIM NOT: but the Publicans and harlots BELEEVED HIMa 1.287. See also Ioh. 4.42. Act. 8.12. 1 Tim. 4.16.

2. It is very questionable, whether to beleeve on, or in, Christ, doth always in Scripture signifie, or import such a Faith which justifieth; considering what the Evangelist John saith; Nevertheless amongst the chief Rulers also, many beleeved ON HIM: but because of the Pharises they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the Synagogue. For they loved the praise of men,* 1.288 more then the praise of God. Now that they who are ashamed of Christ before men, and through feare shall not con∣fess him, as likewise that they who love the praise of men, more then the praise of God, are no sound be¦leevers, nor persons justified, the former is evident from Mat. 10.32.33. compared with Mark. 8.38. Luk. 9.26. Rom. 10.9, &c. The latter, from Joh. 5.44. And concerning the phrase of beleeving in, or on, Christ, or, the name of Christ, that it doth not always import such

a Faith, which is justifying and saving, plainly appear∣eth from Joh. 2.23, 24. and 4.49. and 7.31. compared with Joh. 1.11. and 3.32. and 11.45 48. (to omit other places.) Therefore when the Holy Ghost (in the words before us) avoucheth, That whosoever beleeveth on him, shall not be ashamed, he must be understood to speak of such a trusting or beleeving, which (as our Apostle else∣where speaketh concerning Faith) worketh by love, i. e. in∣gageth the heart and soul truly and really to love both God and men, and to walk towards both according to the exigency or requirement of such an affection. For as the Scripture speaketh of a kind of Faith, which it calls dead, meaning hereby such a Faith, which is work∣less, and fruitless, and concludes this not to be of that kind of Faith, unto which God hath annexed the great and precious promises of justification, and salvation, and consequently, that men and this Faith may like rich men and their money, perish together, so it speaketh also of a lively or living hopek 1.289, which supposeth, by way of Antithesis, a liveless, or dead hope likewise, which hath neither part nor fellowship in the blessed business of the promise in hand; Whosoever beleeveth on him, shall not be ashamed. See Matth. 7.26, 27. where this dead hope we speak of is found by Christ in such persons, who hear his sayings, and do them not, i. e. who expect and hope for salvation by him onely upon a formal and fruitless profession of his Name.

Whereas the promise of not being ashamed, (i. e. of being made eternally glorious and blessed, as we shall see anon) is here ascribed to a beleeving on Christ, notice may be taken that elsewhere the effect and substance of it is ascribed to a beleeving or trusting on God, Psal. 18.30. and 22.4, 5. and 37.3, 4, &c. and 146.5. 2 Cor. 1.9, 10. cap. 3.4. 1 Tim. 6.17, &c. Yea the truth is, that

they who beleeve or trust on Christ, do more pro∣perly beleeve and trust on God, then on Christ, ac∣cording to that saying of Christ himself, He that beleev∣eth on me, beleeveth not on me, but on him that sent mel 1.290, i. e. beleeveth not so much on me, as on God himself who sent me, viz. because God is he, who hath by all his Prophets since the world began, yea and now last of all by me also, ingaged himself that life and salva∣tion shall be given unto all those, who shall beleeve on me, i. e. expect salvation at his hand upon my account, and by means of that attonement, which I am shortly to make with my blood. So that the truth and faithful∣ness of God in his Word, is the bottom, ground-work, and foundation of our beleeving in Christ. Nor can any man reasonably, or with judgment beleeve in Christ, who questioneth the Truth of those promises, concerning life and salvation, which God hath made unto those who shall beleeve in him. And in this sence that of our Saviour may well be understood: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw himm 1.291, i. e. unless God, who hath sent me to be beleeved on unto salvation, shall draw him, i. e. prevail with him by the credit and authority of his promises made unto the world in that behalf. There may be (I grant) another sence given of the words, and this commodi∣ous and edifying, which we shall (I conceive) have oc∣casion to declare some other time.

It is a question of no easie solution, whether such a beleeving on Christ, to which this promise is made, He shall not be ashamed, necessarily and universally requi∣reth a distinct knowledg of Christ, or a knowledg of him by Name: or whether such a person, who never heard of the Name of Christ, may not notwithstanding beleeve on him, or (which is the same) beleeve on God

through him, unto acceptation, justification, and sal∣vation. The just debate of this Question would cause too large a digression in a Commentary or Exposition, and therefore I shall not charge the Readers patience with it here; especially considering that I have given an account of my sence upon it, and this somewhat at large, in a Discourse not long since published, Intitu∣led, The Pagans Debt and Dowry. I shall here only add the words of Peter, Acts 10.34, 35. which well under∣stood, are sufficiently decisive of the Question pro∣pounded: Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; But in every Nation he that feareth him, and worketh Righteousness, is accepted with him. He speaketh these words upon occasion of that speciall acceptance which he now plainly understood Corneli∣us had found with God. Yet by the carriage of the whole Relation concerning him, it fully appears that he never had heard of the Name of Christ, until Peters coming and preaching this Name unto him. Yea there is little question to be made, but that which God chief∣ly intended in that extraordinary vision, wherein Cor∣nelius was admonished and directed to send for Peter, was, that the Name of Christ together with the great mystery of the Grace of God in him towards the world, might by Peter be made known unto him. Therefore men may beleeve in God through Christ, and this un∣to salvation, although Christ by Name be not as yet manifested unto them. But more of this else∣where.

Shall not be ashamed, [or, as the Margent hath it, con∣founded,] that is, shall be advanced by him to great blessedness and glory. Observation hath been for∣merly made (in our explication of vers. 30.) that ac∣cording to the Hebrew Dialect, which is much fre∣quented

in the New Testament, Adverbs of denying signifie the contrary to the import of that Verb, whereunto they are joyned. Thus Levit. 19.7. —it shall NOT be accepted, signifies not simply a non-acceptance, but a rejection with high displeasure, as of a thing abhomina∣ble (as the thing spoken of is expresly there termed.) Thus likewise Ier. 22.30. A man that shall NOT prosper in his days, imports a man that shall be calamitous and full of misery whilst he liveth. With many of them God was not well pleased, (1 Cor. 10.5.) i. e. God was highly dis∣pleased and provoked by many of them, insomuch that (as it followeth) they were overthrown in the wilderness. Of like Interpretation is that, Hebr. 10.38.—My soul shall have NO pleasure in him. i. e. such a person shall be the hatred, and great abhorring of my soul. To omit ma∣ny others of like character; Mar. 9.41. He shall NOT lose his reward, implieth, that such a person shall be very highly and bountifully rewarded. Thus in the clause in hand, Whosoever beleeveth in him, shall NOT be asha∣med, these last words, shall NOT be ashamed, do not sim∣ply import that such a person shall not be brought to shame, or shall not perish; but that he shall be exalted unto exceeding great honour and dignity, and be made everlastingly happy.

Some observe that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which pro∣perly signifieth, to be ashamed, somtimes signifieth, to be deceived, or disappointed; because a trusting in such promises, or persons, which fail men in their expectati∣ons, commonly makes them much ashamed, it being mat∣ter of dishonour or disparagement to a man, to be known to trust or depend upon such, whether things, or persons, which want either strength, or honesty, to answer their expectations. O my God (saith David) I trust in thee, let me not be ashamedn 1.292, let me not be dis∣appointed

of help and protection, which I expect from thee, in as much as such a disappointment will be mat∣ter of shame and dishonour unto me. From whence (by the way) it may be observed, the nature of man, being (as it were) conscious both of that dignity wher∣in it was created, as of that likewise whereof it is yet capable, abhorreth nothing more then shame, or dis∣paragement, not trouble, pain, or torment it self. In which respect the Holy Ghost frequently expresseth the most wofull condition of wicked and ungodly men after death, by ignominy, shame, and contempt. Thus Dan. 12.2. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the Earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to SHAME and everlasting CONTEMPT. See also Esai. 66.24. On the other hand, the happy and blessed estate of those who shall be saved by beleeving on Jesus Christ, is very frequently commended unto us under the noti∣on of honour and glory. But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh goodo 1.293, &c. Consider to the same purpose, 1 Cor. 15.40, 41, 42, 43. Rom. 8.18. 1 Cor. 2.7. 2 Cor. 4.17. (to omit many other places.) But there is scarce any thing of more ready Observation from the Scriptures, then to find frustration and disappointment in matters of expectation, signified by shame. Senna∣chrib being full of expectation of carrying Jerusalem by means of his puissant and formidable host, when he found himself disappointed by that heavy slaughter which the Angel of the Lord made in his army, cutting off all his mighty men of valour therein, he is said to have returned WITH SHAME of face to his own Landp 1.294. Thus Esai. 30.3, 5. Therefore shall the strength of Pharaoh be your SHAME, and trust in the shadow of Egypt your CONFUSION. They were all ASHAMED of a people that could not profit them, nor be an help nor profit, but a

SHAME and also a reproach. See also Esai. 54.4. Hab. 2.9, 10. Esai. 20.5. and 42.17. and 44.9. Jer. 2.36. and 14.3. and 20.11. and 22.22. and 48.13. Zech. 9.5. (not to mention more.)

If it be demanded, But though it be true, that whoso∣ever beleeeveth on him [i. e. Christ] shall not be ashamed, yet doth this suppose, or imply, That whosoever shall not beleeve on him, shall be ashamed, or confound∣ed?

I answer, 1. That the Position of one means doth not by any Logical or rational consequence, exclude or remove all others. When our Apostle, speaking of the Woman, saith, She shall be saved, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by, or through child-bearing, he doth not imply, but that she may be saved, in some other way or service, besides that of bearing children. He that informs a traveller that such or such a way will bring him to such a Town or City, whither he is travelling, doth not necessarily suppose that there is no other way that leadeth to the same place, but onely this. In like manner when the Holy Ghost expresseth himself onely thus, Whosoever beleeveth in Christ, shall not be ashamed, it doth not follow vi formae, from any express import of the words, that therefore there is no other means to preserve a man from shame, but onely by beleeving on Christ.

2. When any action, or course, is simply or indefi∣nitely directed, or enjoyned by way of means for the compassing of such or such an end, the direction, or in∣junction, is to be conceived as respecting such persons onely, who are in a capacity, either immediate, or re∣mote, of performing such an action, or taking such a course, not those, who are simply uncapable of either, as if these must necessarily be deprived of the said end, because they do not use the means prescribed in such

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

a case. When Christ saith, He that beleeveth and is bap∣tized, shall be saved; but he that beleeveth not shall be damnedq 1.295, his meaning is, not to impose, either Faith or Baptism, upon Infants, as without which there is no possibility for them to be saved, because Infants, as, and whilst such, are simply uncapable of beleeving, as like∣wise in respect of their own procurement, or demand, of being baptized. There is much the same considera∣tion of those, who are naturally simple, and never recei∣ved so much as a first fruits of reason or understanding. Therefore beleeving, in the said passage of Christ, is pre∣scribed onely to persons of years and of competent un∣destandings, as a means simply necessary to salvation: and a being baptized, [i. e. a making profession of such their Faith] not as a means of equall necessity to salva∣tion with beleeving (as appears from the latter clause, where damnation is threatned, not to those who shall not be baptized, but to those onely who shall not be∣leeve) but as necessary onely, in case time and opportu∣nity shall serve for it. God in his Word and Gospel having onely to do with persons capable of understand∣ing what his mind and meaning is in them, chiefly here∣in declares his counsel concerning them, prescribes rules and Laws unto them in order to their peace; speaking more sparingly, and as it were onely on the by, of o∣thers, (as Viz. Infants and persons void of natural under∣standing) rather insinuating, then declaring how, and by what means, he intendeth the salvation of these; al∣though his insinuations in this kind are not so sparing, or reserv'd, but that they are very accessible to the un∣standings of such persons, who take pleasure in them, and are diligent in searching them out.

3. And (lastly) although it followeth not (upon the account specified) from the assertion before us, who∣soever

beleeveth in him, shall not be ashamed, that there is no other way or means to preserve men from shame, or confusion, but only beleeving on Christ; yet by com∣paring this saying, with the words immediately pre∣ceding, Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling stone, &c. (and more especially by consultation had with the general purport and current of the Scriptures) it fully appears, that for persons competent in understanding, there is no other possible way or means for their preservation from everlasting shame, but only by beleeving on Je∣sus Christ, either vertually and interpretatively, or else formally and explicitly (as we have formerly, and else∣where, distinguisheda 1.296, and this by warrant from the Scriptures.)

The essential and indisolveable connexion between these two, beleeving on Christ, and, not being ashamed, de∣pends upon, though not the meer, yet the absolute and unchangable, will and good pleasure of God. Beleeving on Christ, is no natural means of any mans preservation from shame; it produceth no such effect as this, by any native or inherent vertue or property in it, but by the irresistable efficaciousness of his will, who hath insti∣tuted and appointed it for such a purpose. Naaman was cleansed of his Leprosy upon his washing seaven times in Jordan: but his cure depended not, save only sacra∣mentally, upon the waters of Jordan, nor upon his seven times washing in them: neither the one nor the other of these had any native property or vertue in them to ac∣complish such a cure. That which healed him was the glorious operativeness of his will and pleasure, who prescribed the use of those means unto hin. In like man∣er the walls of Jericho; fell downe flat upon the com∣passing of the City seven days together by seven Preists having the Ark of the covenant with them, and blowing

with so many trumpets of Rams-horns, together with the shouting of the people: yet that which produced this great and wonderful effect, the utter demolishing of these walls, was not any property or force, either re∣sident in, or issuing from, any of the said means, Ark, Priests, trumpets, compassiing, shouting, or the like, but the most potent energy, force, and power of the will of God, who prescribed all the said means, not so much in order to the effecting of the end mentioned, (the bringing down the walls of Jericho) as to the making of his own will actually efficacious to the ef∣fecting of it. For it is noways probable, either that Naaman would have been cleansed of his Leprosie, un∣les, according to Divine prescription, he had washed sea∣ven tims in Jordan, although this washing (as was said) had nothing in it able or likely to effect the cure: or that the walls of Jericho would have fallen down flat on the ground, had not all the particulars specified been performed by Ioshua and the children of Israel; how∣ever these, neither divisim, nor conjunctim, contribut∣ed any thing considerable of themselves, towards the effect. The reason of both probabilities, is this: Had God absolutely, and without the performance of such things as he injoyned Naaman in reference to his cure, and the Isralites, for the bringing down the walls of Iericho, intended the said gracious effects, or had it been meet for him to have effected either the one, or the other with∣out the said performances respectively, doubtless he would have required neither the one, nor the other, up∣on the said accounts. For it is as true in Divinity, as Philosophy;* 1.297 that God and Nature doe nothing in vaine. And what can more apparently be done in vain, then to prescribe such or such meanes for the effecting of such an end, which should certainly be obtained, or ac∣complished,

whether any of these means be used, or no. As the case hath been represented in Naamans cure, and in the bringing down of the walls of Iericho, so is it in that great and blessed concernment of men, expressed (in the clause in hand) by their not being ashamed. God hath injoyend the world to beleeve on Iesus Christ, in order to the attainment of this transcendent Blessedness; not as if there were any thing in this beleeving, ei∣ther of any natural or moral consideration, suffi∣cient to invest men with such a Blessedness; but because his most gracious and good pleasure is to con∣fer this Blessedness upon them, upon, and by means of such their beleeving, not judging it meet, or worthy his wisdom, or righteousness, to grant such an investiture upon any other terms, or in any other way. They who hold, and teach that, Faith justifies (and conse∣quently, saveth) in respect of the object (as they speak, meaning, Christ) place the justifying vertue or proper∣ty of it, in the nature and essence of it, not considering that in such a notion they give the right hand of fellow∣ship to that Popish Doctrine, which maintaineth, that Faith justifieth by the inherent dignity, or intrinsecal worth of it. For what is, or can be more intrinsecal or essential, to that Faith which justifieth, then its relation to its object, Iesus Christ? It cannot be defined, but Iesus Christ must of necessity ingredi definitionem (as Logicians speak) i. e. enter or come into the defini∣tion; which is an infallible note of an essential relation to the thing defined. Yea that Faith which justifieth, in the very nature and essence of it, includeth such a re∣ference, or respect unto Iesus Christ, that this being seperated from it, it vanisheth into nothing, at least los∣eth the justifying glory of it. Besides, if Faith should justifie by vertue of, or by reverence unto its Object,

Christ, there can no reason be given why the love of Christ, or the worshiping of Christ, should not justifie, as well as Faith in Christ, in as much as they have all one and the same object. To object that they have not all the same relation to this object, and that Faith justifieth, and not the other, because of that praticularity of re∣lation to the object, wherein it differeth from the other, to object this (I say) in the case in hand, is clearly to take away that honour from the object, Christ, which the o∣pinion pretends to ascribe unto him, (I mean, the honour of justifying) and to cast it upon a modus, or particular manner of a relation, viz. of that Relation, which Faith beareth unto him. But the Scripture very plain∣ly and expresly from place to place, placeth the justifi∣ing vertue or property of Faith in Christ, in the will, pleasure, and appointment of God, which are things altogether extra—essential, and extrinsical unto Faith. But as many as received him, to them GAVE HE POVVER [or, the right, or priviledg, as our margent hath it] to become the Sons of God, even to them that beleeve in his Namea 1.298. It is not the receiving of Christ, or beleeving in his name, no nor yet Christ himself passively consi∣dered, i. e. as received or beleeved on, that gives pow∣er, or priviledg to those that beleeve on him, to become the Sons of God, but Christ in an active consideration, viz. as willing, ordaining and decreeing together with God the Father, that whosoever should beleeve on him, should herepon and hereby, become a Son of God, i. e. a person justified, and in favour with God. If it had been the receiving of Christ, or the beleeving on his Name that had given this power or priviledg unto men, the Evangelist need not have said, that He i. e. Christ, or God, gave them this power, meaning by an act of Grace or good pleasure. So again: This is the Fathers WILL

which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should loose nothing but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is THE WILL of him that sent me, that every one that seeth the Son and beleeveth on him, may have everlasting life, &c. (Ioh. 6.39.40.) clearly implying, that both seeing the Son, and beleeving on him, would have been available unto no man to the obtaining of e∣verlasting life, had not the will, pleasure, and decree of God interposed to make them available in this kind. It is true, the sufferings of Christ, especially the sweet and heavenly frame of soul considered, under which so great a person suffered, in respect of his deep humility, willing subjection unto God the Father, ardent love un∣to men, &c. are a consideration, fully valuable both in point of wisdom, and of Justice, why God should, or may be willing, to pardon the sins of what persons he pleaseth; but they are no reasonable consideration, why Faith in this Christ, without, or contrary unto, the will of God, should justifie any man; nor do they give any such dignity, worth, or merit to this Faith, that God, setting aside his promise in this behalf should be either unjust, or hard unto men, in denying them justificati∣on upon the exhibition or tender of it. But of these thing (I remember) we have reasoned elsewheret 1.299.

Let us therefore at present onely take knowledg of some principal Doctrines contained in the four Verses last opened, and so conclude our Exposition of the Chapter.

1. Whereas the Apostle affirmeth, (vers. 30.) that The Gentiles followed not after righteousness, it is observa∣ble, That Great numbers of men and women in the world live without any care or thought of approving themselves unto God, or (which is in effect the same) how they may be justified in his sight. Eph. 2.12. and 4.17, 18. Phil.

3.18, 19. Job 21. vers. 14, 15.

2. Whereas he informeth us, That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, (meaning for a long time, and until the Letter of the Gospel came amongst them) yet (at last) attained unto righteousness, The Doctrine from hence is, That Sometimes persons who have been careless and negligent of things of a spiritual concernment for a long season, are at last by some special dispensation of God or other awakenened out of their security, and brought to repent and beleeve, Matth. 21.31, 32. 1 Cor. 6.11.

3. Whereas the Gentiles who followed not after righte∣ousness, are here said to have attained notwithstanding unto the righteousness of Faith, the Doctrine from hence observable is, That forgiveness of sins which according to the most gracious promise, or covenant of God, is given un∣to all th••se that beleeve in Christ, is such a righteousnes, whereof the greatest sinners, as well as the lesser, are capable, Rom. 3.21.22. and 4.5, 7, 8, 23, 24. Eph. 2.1, 2, 3. com∣pared with Col. 2.13.

4. Whereas we have it here expresly from the pen of our Apostle, That the Jews, who followed after the Law of righteousness, yet attained not to the Law of righ∣teousness, it may be observed, That some men are apt to seek, and this with great diligence, confidence, and zeal, ju∣stification, and acceptation with God, in such ways and means wherein they are not to be found. Rom. 10.2, 3. Jam. 2.14, 15, 16, &c. Joh. 16.2. Mat. 7.21, 22, 23, 26, 27. Esai. 55.2. Joh. 9.40, 41. Phil. 3.6. compared with Acts 26.9, 10, 11.

5. Whereas the Apostle (vers. 32.) assigns this for the reason, why the Jews, though following after the Law [or a Law] of righteousness, yet attained not unto this Law, i. e. fell short of Justification, Viz. Because they sought it not by Faith, but as it were by the works of the Law,

The Doctrine is, That In what way, or by what means so∣ever, men shall seek justification, or forgiveness of sins, at the hand of God, without Faith in Jesus Christ, they will miscarry, and perish eternally in their sins, Joh. 8.24. and 6.43. and 3.36. Acts 4.12. Mar. 16.16.

6. Whereas he here saith, not simply, or directly, that the Jews sought after righteousness by the works of the Law, but, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as, or, as if it were, the Doctrine (according to one exposition given of the Particle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,) is this; That Many are deprived of the fruit and benefit of many things which they do with some conformity to the Law and will of God, by reason of their ignorance of the regular and true end of them, and by ascribing that unto them, which is above their line, and of right appertaining un∣to another thing, Phil. 3.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Ezek. 33.13. Rom. 3.30. Or (according to another construction of the said particle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,) the Doctrine may be this; That Many are apt to please themselves in themselves, as if they were very worthy observers of the Law of God, when as in the mean time they are full of unrighteousness and disobedi∣ence, 1 Sam. 15.13, 20. compared with ver. 14.19, 22, 23. Esai. 58.2, 3, 4, 5, &c. Luke 11.45, 46, 47, &c.

7. Whereas the Lord Christ is here termed by the Holy Ghost, a stumbling stone, (for the reason specified in our Exposition,) it is worthy the observing, that the Great humiliation of Christ in the days of his flesh, and in his sufferings, if men be not very wary, and considerate of other things relating to him, may very possibly prove a snare, and occasion unto them to despise and reject him. 1 Cor. 1.18.23. Esai. 53.2, 3. Mat. 27.39, 40, 41, 42.

8. Whereas the Apostle delivers this as the cause or reason, why the Jews sought after righteousness, as if it had been to be attained by the works of the Law, and not by Faith, viz. their stumbling at the stumbling stone, Christ;

the point observable from hence is, That non-under∣standing of the mind and counsel of God in Christ for the justification and salvation of the world, is the reason why men turn aside into other ways of hope and expectation in this kind. Rom. 10.2, 3. Esai. 55.2, 3. Gal. 2.16.

9. Whereas the Lord Christ is here stiled, not one∣ly a stumbling stone, but a rock of offence also, the Do∣ctrine is, That to fall foul upon Jesus Christ, as either by despising, blaspheming, or opposing him, or the like, is of most dreadful consequence to the creature, and without re∣pentance accompanied with the sorest condemnation. Hebr. 2.2, 3. and 10.28.29. 1 Cor. 16.22. Mat. 21.44.

10. Whereas though the Lord Christ be, (as he is here termed) a stumbling Stone, and Rock of offence, yet hath this honour given unto him by God, That whosoever beleeveth in him shall not be ashamed, it is worthy Observa∣tion, That the great and general stumbling or neglect of Christ in the world, by persons of all sorts and conditions, is no reasonable ground to discourage any man from beleeving in him. 1 Cor. 1.23, 24 1 Pet. 2.7, 8. Joh. 10.39. com∣pared with vers. 41, 42. Ioh. 12.37. with 42. and 6.66, 67, &c.

11. (And lastly,) From that awakning particle, Behold, vers. 33. (the tenor of what is immediately subjoyned, considered, Behold, I lay in Sion, a stumbling stone, &c.) it is of worthy import to consider, That although the counsels of God concerning the salvation of the world, be of that nature, or so laid, that unless men be very ingeniously circumspect and considering, they may easily neglect, or be in∣snared with them, yet he is graciously pleased to give know∣ledg and warning hereof unto the world, to prevent their stumbling and ensnaring in this kind. Luke 2.34. Ioh. 9.39. 1 Cor. 2.7. Esai. 53.2, 3, &c.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Sapiens debet incipere a fiue.
• a 1.2

  Rom. 9.30, 31, 32.
• b 1.3

  Eccl. 10.10
• c 1.4

  Heb. 6.16.
• d 1.5

  Quia res non indigna erat juramento, con∣tra vero hoc conceptum jam preejudi••ium, suam alioqui affirmation••m vix credibi••em fore prospicie∣bat, jure j••ran∣d•• asseverat se verum dicere. Calv. in loc.
• e 1.6

  Affirmatio∣n••m sui doloris confirmat jure jurando, &c. Pisc. in loc.
• f 1.7

  —Nec his contentus, t••stes advocat, pri∣mum, Chri∣stum: deinde, conscientiam suam; tertio, spiritum San∣ctum, quasi me∣tuens ne nudi•• verbis, est, est, non sint credi∣turi. Musc. in loc.
• g 1.8

  1 Cor 12.23, 24
• h 1.9

  Joh. 14 1.
• i 1.10

  Joh. 5.22.23.
• k 1.11

  Isai. 38.••••
• l 1.12

  Psal. 118.17.
• m 1.13

  John 1.20.
• n 1.14

  Jam. 1.17.
• o 1.15

  1 Thes. 5 17.
• p 1.16

  2 Tim. 1.3.
• q 1.17

  2 Cor. 6.10.
• r 1.18

  2 Co••. 7.10.
• s 1.19

  Rom. 12.15.
• t 1.20

  1 Pet. 1 6.
• u 1.21

  Phil. 1.23, 24
• x 1.22

  2 Cor. 7, 8, 9
• y 1.23

  Incertum est autem optetne illus exitium coram Deo, an exosos fideli∣bus imo execra∣biles esse velit. — Ego simpli∣citer expono, ac si dictum esset, Pereant, & ex∣scindantur, &c.
• z 1.24

  Quemadmo∣dum ad Gal. 1.8. Evange∣lii corruptorem pronuncians a∣nathema, non significat repro¦batum aut damnatum ess•• a Deo, sed no∣bis abhominan∣dum ••sse admo∣net. Calv. in 1 Cor. 16.22.
• a 1.25

  Joh. 15 13.
• b 1.26

  Vid. Cameron Myroth. p. 360
• c 1.27

  1 Job. 3.16.
• d 1.28

  Rom. 7.12.
• e 1.29

  Quod justum & bonum prae∣terea praecep∣tum praed••cat, exprimere volu∣it. fumman quae in lege est oequi∣tatem, utilita∣tem, & com∣moditatem. Illud quod & Servator de sua Doctrina dixit: Jugum meum bonum est, et onus meum leve.
• f 1.30

  Mat. 11.30.
• g 1.31

  Psal. 19.11.
• h 1.32

  Gal. 4.15.
• i 1.33

  1 John 3.16.
• k 1.34

  Mal. 3.8.
• l 1.35

  Rom 2.22.
• m 1.36

  Gen. 32.28.
• n 1.37

  2 Cor. 11.22
• o 1.38

  Exod 4.22.
• p 1.39

  Matth. 15.
• q 1.40

  Isa. 60.19.
• r 1.41

  1 Sam. 4.22
• s 1.42

  See Deut. 28 1, 2 &c. to v. 15.
• t 1.43

  Luke 2.32.
• u 1.44

  Luke 1.48, 49.
• x 1.45

  2 Cor. 5.16.
• y 1.46

  Rom 3.1, 2.
• z 1.47

  Mat. 28.18.
• a 1.48

  John 3.35.
• b 1.49

  1 Cor. 14.16.
• c 1.50

  Rev. 3.14. De ve••bo A∣men. vid. Ains∣worth in Num. 5.22. & Sam. Petit. Var. ••ect. l. 1. c. 17.
• d 1.51

  The Word of God, fre∣quently signi∣fieth the pro∣mise of God. Psal, 56.4.106.24. Psal. 119.38. where the for∣mer Translati∣on readeth, promise, in¦stead of word; to om••t many other places.
• e 1.52

  2 Cor. 5.15.
• f 1.53

  Mal. 2 17.
• g 1.54

  Ezek 16.3
• h 1.55

  Gen. 21.12.
• i 1.56

  Rom. 4.1, 2.
• k 1.57

  Gal. 3.10.
• l 1.58

  Phil. 3.3 4
• m 1.59

  Luke 16.8. John 12.36. Ephes. 5.8.
• n 1.60

  Joh. 18.37. 1 John 3.19.
• o 1.61

  Mat. 11.19.
• p 1.62

  1 Pet. 1.14.
• q 1.63

  Luke 16.8.
• r 1.64

  Gal. 3.29.
• s 1.65

  Gal. 3.18.
• t 1.66

  Rom. 4.14.
• u 1.67

  Heb. 6.17:
• x 1.68

  Gal. 4.28.
• y 1.69

  Gal. 4.23, 29
• * 1.70

  Habet enim or∣do naturae ut ex juvencula pos∣sit quis non ni∣mium senex fi∣lios procreare. Estius in Gal. 4.23.
• * 1.71

  ••o•• enim vt natu••a genera∣vit Abraham senex ex Ke∣tura juvencula. Possibile est se∣nem ex juven∣cula suscipere prolem, ex de∣crepita, sterili impossibile est naturaliter. Paraeus in loc.
• z 1.72

  Gal. 4.23.
• a 1.73

  Heb. 11.11.
• b 1.74

  Gen. 18.10.
• c 1.75

  Verse 14.
• d 1.76

  Gen. 17.21.
• * 1.77

  Non autem sufficit quod de libera uxore na∣tus est Isaac, ad significan∣dum populum heredem Novi Testamenti; sed pl•••• hic valet quod secundum promissionem natus est. Aug. Exposit. ad Galat. c. 4.
• e 1.78

  De Iismaele & Esau ipsis non est quod pronunciemus eos prorsus a Deo esse reje∣ctos; malo c e∣dere utrique p••∣etatem pater∣nam profuisse, ut licet gravi∣ter itentidem deliquerint, sa¦lutem tamen consecuti sint, donati & ipsi vera fide in miserecordiam Domini, &c. M. Bucer ad Rom. 9 11. Ista licet multum praerogativae haberent, cujus Apostolus Rom. 9. meminit, haud impediebant ta∣men quominus & Ismael signo foederis obsignandus esset, & ad gratiam unius ac veri Dei pertineret, si fidem Abrahae patris sui non abjiciret. Neque adimebatur Ismaeli spes salutis, quae in Christo unico mediatore expectabatur, &c. Musc. in Gen. 17.1.
• f 1.79

  Aug. Exposit. in Joh. Tract. 11.
• g 1.80

  Gen. 25.23.
• h 1.81

  The Apostle 2 Tim. 2.5. plainly rela∣teth hereunto, writing thus; And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully, i. e. unless in his striving he submits unto and observes the Laws pre∣scribed by the Master of the Exercise, or of him that be∣stows the Crown.
• i 1.82

  Ipse Esau nun∣quam fuit sub dominio Jacob; imo Jacob illum vehementer ti∣muisse legitur. Musc. in Gen. 25.
• k 1.83

  Gen. 27.40.
• l 1.84

  Rom 4 15.
• m 1.85

  G••n. 38:8, 9.
• n 1.86

  Psal. 49.14
• o 1.87

  Dan. 7.27.
• p 1.88

  Rev. 2 26.
• q 1.89

  Mal. 1.2, 3.
• r 1.90

  Mal. 1.2, 3 4.
• s 1.91

  Fuit ergo tum quoque verus Deus inter E∣sau posteros, si non omnes, at certe quibus Deus benedixit, & agnitus, & sancte adoratus &c. & paulo post (de Jobo, ejusque amicu loquens) & quum praete••ea idem cum ip∣serum familiis, ficut probabile est, foederis etiam notam externam, i. e. circumcisionem habuerint, ambigere non possum quin, non obstante illo Dei in Esauum & ejus sobolem odio universaliter, (non autem in singulu p••rsonis) considerato, Jobus & omnes Idumaei, ipsius similes, et si genere non fuerint Israelitae, tamen vera Ecclesiae membra fuerint. Beza. In Job in c. 1.••.
• t 1.92

  De Ismaele & Esau ipsis non est quod pro∣nunciemus eos p orsus a Deo rejectos esse. Malo credere utri{que} pietatem paternam pro∣fuisse; ut li••et graviter iden∣tidem delique∣rint salutim ta∣men consecuti si••t, donate & ipsi vera fide∣m misericordi∣am Domini. M. Bucer. in locum.
• u 1.93

  Quidam hos loco magna, cu∣riositate de Is∣maele & Esau inquirunt ser∣vacine sint an condemnati. Quod idem a∣•••• faciunt de Solomone, Origine, & aliis similibus. Verum haec ego missa facio, & de Esau & Is∣maele id solum pronuncio quod nobis scripturae sacrae tradide∣runt. Nulla autem oracula extare puto ex quibus de illorum salute quicquam possimus definire.
• * 1.94

  De amborum tamen posteritate non negarim aliquos potuisse servari, non mini•••• quam ex stirpe Jacobi aliquos evadere potuisse perfidos & obstinatos.
• x 1.95

  Ita Paulus ea quae de Jacobo & Esau in Genesi & Malachi praedicta videntur esse temponaria, mira prudentia transiulit ad spiritua∣lia. P. Marr. Loc. Class. 3. c. 1. sect. 1.
• y 1.96

  Quae autem na••••enus sunt allata cum a∣liquanto ac∣curatius per∣pendimus, & scopum Prophetae, imo verba ipsa non negligi∣mus, facile descendimus in cam senten∣tiam, in hoc quidem loco de aeterna E∣lectione aut Reprobatione non agi, utut magno conatu illud hinc ex∣culpere velint Calviniani, si∣cut etiam qui∣dam Pontifi∣cii.
• z 1.97

  Praecipue, quia nec in il∣lo capite Apo∣stolus prima∣rio agit de ele∣ctione ad vi∣tam aeternam, vel reprobatione ad aeternum exitium—Unde patet de duorum filiorum Isaaci electione, & reprobatione aeterna hic apud Prophetam & Mosem non agi, sed de dissimili utriusque posterorum in rebus temporalibus conditione. Paulum autem ut typum allegare hoc modo: Sicut Jacobo jus primogeniturae terrae fertilitas & temporalis Messiae ex co prodituri nativitas ex gratia contigit, ita ad coelestis virae hereditatem vocatio, sine generis privilegio, aut operum merito, hominibus a Deo indulgetur.
• a 1.98

  Nam cum Dominus volu∣crit foedus suum non minus in Ismaele & Esau, quam in Isaac & Iacob obsignari, apparet non fuisse ab ipso penitus alieno••.
• b 1.99

  Quod dici∣tur, Iacob di∣lexi, pertinet ad totam so∣bolem Patri∣archae, quam Propheta illic opponit po∣steris Esau: Calv. Instit. l 3.••.21. sect 7.
• c 1.100

  Hoc tamen non obstat quo∣minus in perso¦na unius homi∣nu specimen e∣lectionis propo∣situm nobis fu∣erit, quae &c. Calv. Inst. l. 3. cap. 21. sect. 7.
• d 1.101

  Pareus, ad Rom. c. 9. in Dub. 2. p. 865.
• e 1.102

  Bish. Hooper in his Preface to his Book upon the Command∣ments.
• f 1.103

  Ex Genesi veri-similes conjecturae su∣mi possunt, quae ostendunt Esau non ita rejectum esse a Deo, ut sit damnatus, sed conversum e∣gisse poeniten∣tiam, & vitae aeternae factum esse haeredem. Nam & recon∣ciliatus est f••a∣cri & postea fuit socius fu∣neris patris; nec post re∣ciliationem fratri unquam adversatus est. Mollerus in Mal. 1. v. 2, 3.
• g 1.104

  Non ausim ipsum Esau propter hoc dictum dicere reprobum; quandoqui∣dem hic per temporalia fi∣gurantur, &c. Oecolampad. in Mal. 1. v. 2, 3.
• h 1.105

  Notandum obiter, imper∣tinens esse hu∣ic loco, an E∣sau sit repro∣batus, ea re∣probatione, de qua disputat Apostolus: at∣que adeo non videri im∣probabile, quod post de∣positum fra∣ternum odium (de quo Gen. 33.) in Religi∣one vera a pa∣rentibus accep∣ta defunctus, falutem ad••p¦tus sit. Estius in Rom. 9.13.
• i 1.106

  —In Jacob, vos dilexi, in Esau Idumaeos odio habui. Quem locum Apostolus Pau∣lus mystica disputatione eventilans, scribit ad Romanos, &c. Et paulo post. Non solum, ait, dilexi Jacob, an e∣quam nasceretur, & odio habui Esau, priusquam ex utero matris funderetur: sed in poste∣ros eorum, amorem meum & odium conservavi: odium in Esau, cujus montes, qui appel∣lantur Seir, redegi in solitudinem &c. Hieronym. in Mal. c. 1. v. 2, 3, &c.
• k 1.107

  Isaac in figura salvatoris natus est; Iacob vero & Esau duorum populorum habent typum, crrdentium & non credentium, &c. Ambr. ad Rom. 9.8, 9.
• l 1.108

  Jacob quippe figuram gestat Ecclesiae, sicut Esau veteris Synagogae. Aug. in Enatr. Psal. 78.
• m 1.109

  Secundum literam autem Esau, i. e. p••∣pulus Idumae∣orum, qui de Esau deicen∣dit, servivit minori, i. e. subditus suit populo Judae∣orum. Allego∣rice vero Esau, i. e. populus Judaeorum, qui fuit primoge∣nitus, servivit minori, i. e. populo Chri∣stianorum, qui secutus est. Anselm. in loc.
• * 1.110

  Reasons a∣gainst the Re∣probation of Esau from e∣ternity.
• n 1.111

  Mat. 6.14.
• o 1.112

  Gen. 25.28.
• p 1.113

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. pag. 3, 4, 5. &c.
• q 1.114

  Heb. 22.16, 17.
• r 1.115

  Joh. 6.29.
• s 1.116

  Rom. 4.4.
• s 1.117

  Not as in point of merit, but of justifi∣cation onely.
• t 1.118

  Gal. 3.10.
• u 1.119

  See Redemp∣tion Redeemed, p. 462, 463.
• x 1.120

  See the A∣greement and Distance of Brethren, p. 13, 14, &c.
• x 1.121

  To hate, in Scripture di∣alect, oft im∣ports a lesser degree of love Gen. 29.31. Deut. 12.15. Luke 14.26. Mat. 6.24. Judg. 14.16. Joh. 12.25. Eph. 5.29. See Ainsworth on Gen. 29.31 and on Deut. 12.15. Estius upon Rom. 9.13. So that Daniel Chamier is mistaken, (who Panstrat. t. 3. lib. 7. c. 5. sect. 14.) deni∣eth that ha∣tred ever sig∣nifieth less love. Nor are the reasons he gives for this his opinion so much as pro∣bable, & much less conclude∣ing.
• y 1.122

  Redemption Redeemed, p. 480, 498, 499, &c. Pagans Debt and Dowry p. 9, 10, to the end. Agreement and D••stance of Brethren, cap. 4 throughout.
• z 1.123

  Redemption Redeemed, p. 467, 78.
• a 1.124

  The Pro∣noun Rela∣tive, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, qui, who, or whom, is sometimes used concrete, and signifieth not simply or barely the subject, to which it rela∣teth, but as so or so qualifi∣ed. Thus our Apostle, 2 Tim. 1.12. I know 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whom I have beleeved, i. e. what manner of God, how gracious, how merciful, how faithful, and powerful, &c he is whom I have beleeved, or betrusted my self and soul with. Thus also our Saviour, Joh. 3.18. I know whom [i. e. what manner of men] I have chosen [meaning for Disciples;] Or rather thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. I know who, i. e. what manner of per∣sons they are, whom I have chosen. Thus also Rom. 9.18.—and whom he will [i. e. what kind of persons he pleaseth] he hardneth.
• b 1.125

  2 Cor. 1.19, 20.
• c 1.126

  Rev. 14 6.
• d 1.127

  Of this love or mercy, See John 3.16. Rom. 5.8. 1 John 4.10. Ma•• 122.3, 4, 9, &c.
• e 1.128

  Of this, See Gal. 3.26. Gal. 4.6. Joh. 1.12. &c.
• f 1.129

  Copula enim particulam causalem va∣let, quod La∣tinis & Graecis est visicatum. Calvin in Col. 2.5.
• g 1.130

  Perinde e∣nim sonant verba, acsi dictum esset, Cujus semel decrevi mise∣reri, ab eo mi∣sericordiam nunquam au∣f••rami & per∣petua benig∣••itate pro••e∣••••a cum, cui 〈◊〉〈◊〉 esse 〈…〉〈…〉
• h 1.131

  See Red••mp∣tion Redeem••d, p. 151, 152, 153, 277, 278.
• a 1.132

  Deum en••m qui ex legem tac••t, maxima cum gloriae sua parte sp••liar. Calv. Opuse. p. 843.
• i 1.133

  Earnestness and fervour of engagement in one kind or other, is else∣where express∣ed by the Me∣taphor of run∣ning. 1 Co. 9.24, 26. Gal. 5.7. Psal. 119.32. (to omit many other places.)
• k 1.134

  But though neither Ele∣ction, nor Faith, nor power to be∣leeve, be ei∣ther original∣ly, or me••itori∣ously, of, or from those who are elect∣ed, and do be∣leeve, yet (speaking of their Electi∣on, and be∣lieving in par∣t••cular) they are from them sub••rdinately, or concurrent∣ly, viz. as by the grace of God prevent∣ing them, and vouchsafed unto them, they freely and willingly perform and submit unto, those conditi∣o••s, or terms, upon the per∣formance whereof, as well beleeving, as Election, according to the counsel and decree of God, a••ways follow.
• l 1.135

  Rom. 4 16.
• l 1.136

  Pharao no∣men erat Re∣gum apud E∣gyptios, sicut & apud Ro∣manos Reges Augusti appel∣lantur. Ambr. in locum. Ambrosius an∣notavit hoc loco, nomen Pharaonis, non fuisse propri∣um, sed potius cognomen omnium Re∣gum Aegypti: illosenim tum omnes dictos fuisse Pharao∣nes, ut postea dicti sunt Pto∣lomaei, cum Macedones re∣rum potiren∣tur. Quemadmodum Imperatores Romani dicti sunt Caesares, aut Augusti. P. Mart. in loc.
• m 1.137

  Non rex il∣le, sub quo Moses natus, nec is, sub quo ex••erat Aegyp∣to, sed succes∣sor eorum se∣dus vel terti∣us. Erat enim Moses anno∣rum 80. ante∣quam in Ae∣gyptum rediit ex Madian. Leonard Ma∣rius, in Exod. 2 23.

  Et revera constat alium fuisse Phara∣onem Regem Aegypti, cum Josephus eo descendetet, alium autem istum, de quo nunc agimus, cujus odium & crudelitas er∣ga Hebraeos describitur in Exod. Pet. Mart. in locum.
• * 1.138

  In what sence all the Inten∣tions and De∣crees of God are absolute, and unchang∣able, is fully c••eared, Re∣dempt Redeem∣ed. p. 65. 209. And how th••y cannot be de∣fea••ed, p. 215. And again, how some of them may, p. 22, 33, 215.
• * 1.139

  Gods end in raising up Phae∣raoh not posi∣tive, or abso∣lute.
• n 1.140

  Jonah 3.4.
• o 1.141

  1 Sam. 2.30.
• * 1.142

  Promissiones & comminationes, non semper praecise & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sed saepe condi∣tionate & hypo∣thetice sunt ac∣cipiendae, eti∣am si verba ab∣solute posita esse videantur. See more of this Redempti∣on Redeemed. p. 209, 210. 217, 222, &c.
• p 1.143

  1 Cor. 6.9, 10.
• q 1.144

  Psal. 107.34
• r 1.145

  Ex natura be∣neficii oblati, & verbo Dei aper∣tissimo judican∣dum est de illis Gratiae auxi∣tiis, quae homi∣nibus suppedi∣tantur, non au¦tem ex eventu, aut abusu. Syn. Dort. part. 2. p. 128.
• s 1.146

  2 Pet. 3.9.
• * 1.147

  In primis nefas est dicere, De∣um aliquid nisi bonum praede∣stinare. Aug. De praedesti∣natione Dei. c. 2.

  See more of this Redempti∣on Redeemed, p. 473.
• t 1.148

  See further ground for this, Agr••e∣ment and Di∣stance of Bre∣thren, p. 61, 62, 63.
• t 1.149

  Psal. 105.25.
• u 1.150

  See Redemp∣tion Redeemed, p. 29, 30.
• x 1.151

  Joh. 3.17.
• y 1.152

  Joh. 9. 39.
• z 1.153

  Quod autem alibi decet Christus, se in judicium ve∣nisse, quod vo∣catur Petra scandali, quod dicitur positu•• in multorum ru∣inam, id acci∣dentale est vel (ut ita loqu••r) adventitium. Calvin in John 3.17.
• z 1.154

  Prov. 1.••••
• a 1.155

  Rom. 2.4.
• b 1.156

  Redemption Redeemed, c. 3.
• c 1.157

  Matth. 24,
• * 1.158

  How this Di∣stinction of the Intentions, or will, of God, into Antecedent and Consequent, is founded up∣on the Scrip∣tures; and why the one are called Antece∣dent, the other Consequent See Redemp∣tion Redeemed, p. 448, 489.
• e 1.159

  Luke 2.34.
• * 1.160

  Omnino res ip∣sa eo nos ducit, ut diligenter di∣stinguamus Di∣vina Decreta. Nam alia vult Deus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ve∣ro 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sive (ut vecus∣••••ssimi Christia∣norum loquun∣tur) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; quod & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dicunt quidam. Hugo Crotius in Luc. 2.34
• f 1.161

  Vide Calv. in locum, & Bezae Annotat.
• g 1.162

  Anselm in lo∣cum.
• h 1.163

  Et propter hoc ipsum conserva∣tus es. Aug. in Exod. Qu. 32. Et paulo post. Ad eorum ita{que} utilitatem Pha∣raoh servatus est, &c.
• i 1.164

  Hoc enim dicit, quia cum Pharaoh —tantis malis esset reus, ut vivere non deberet nunquam futurus bonus, ne se aut merito vivere, aut De∣um, quem saepe fallendum censebat, ad vin∣dictam dandam impotentem, putaret, audit a Deo, Ad hoc te servavi ut ostendam, &c. Ambros. ad Rom. 9.17.
• k 1.165

  Propterea feci ut superfies maneres: In his former it was (to the same sence) Ut re∣stares.
• l 1.166

  Verbum Hebraicum, quod hic habetur, est a Verbo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 id autem significat stare: sed in conjugatione Hiphil, est facere stare, aut erige∣re & constituere: quamvis multi interpreta∣ti sunt, servare, quasi cadentibus & morionti∣bus aliis, Pharaoh conservatus fuerit & man∣serit.
• m 1.167

  Alii sententi∣am hanc putant ex superioribus pendere, ac in∣terpretantur, conservavi te, vel superstitem manere volui, Verbum enim Hebraicum, quod transici∣vum est in Hi∣phil, deducitur a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quod est stare•• Quo∣niam ergo sibi moderatus fue∣rat Deus, nunc tolerantiae suae causam assig∣nat, quia si uno levi praelio, cecidisset Pha∣raoh, minus ce∣lebris fuisset victoriae gloria In summa, ne sibi blanditias faciat, vel inani fiducia fe obduret Pharaoh, negat Deus sibi ad eum extemplo perdendum vires de∣fuisse, sed ob alium finem distul••sse ultimas poenas; quo scilicet lente disce••et Pharaoh frustra se luctari cum incomparabili potentia, atque ita omnibus saeculis celebraretur tam insignis historia. Et si autem Paulus Graecum interpretem sequitur, nihil tame obstat quo minus liberum sit posterio∣rem nunc sensum amplecti.—Jam ut fateamur Dei patientiam eousque durasse Pharaonem dum omnibus clarum & nobile documentum foret, quam v••sani sint atque amentes, quicunque Deo resi∣stunt, hoc etiam ad aeterna Dei providentiam pertinet. Ideo enim pepercit Pharaoni Deus, ut ad tempus staret, &c. Calvin in Exod. 9.16.
• n 1.168

  Rom. 4.23, 24. Gal. 3.9.
• o 1.169

  Gal. 3.8.
• p 1.170

  Exod. 5.2. and 8.15. As for Exod. 7.13 where our last Translation, without any ground, either from the con∣text, or other∣wise, readeth, And he hardned Pharaohs heart, the former Translation read it (accord¦ing to the ori∣ginal) So Pha¦raohs heard was hardned.

  Mr. Ainsworth transla••es wax •• strong. And some ob¦serve, that God is not said to have hard¦ened Pharaohs heart under any of the five first plagues, nor untill the sixt, and af∣terwards.
• q 1.171

  Eccles. 7.29.
• r 1.172

  〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉
• s 1.173

  Luke 18 18.
• t 1.174

  Acts 15.28.
• u 1.175

  Mat. 23.37, 38.
• x 1.176

  Rom. 24.28.
• y 1.177

  Talentum grat ae a Deo ••••mel concel∣lum nemini cripitur, nisi qui prius illud tuo vitio sepe∣••ivit, Mat. 25.28. Hinc en quod nos in Scripturis pas¦sim monentur, ne Spiritui resistamus, ne spiritum ex∣tinguamus, ne gratiam Dei frustra recip∣amus, ne defi∣ciamus a Deo. Heb. 3.7. Imo divinae dere∣lictionis ea a∣pertissime de∣signatur ratio, quod Deus ab hominibus pri∣us deseratur, Pro. 1.24. Quia voravi, & renu¦istis, ego quo{que} in interitu ve∣stro ridebo. 2 Chr. 24.20. De reliquistis Jehovam, ut derelinqueret vos. At nus∣quam in Scri∣pturis vel le∣v ssime innui∣tur, Deum so∣lere, aut VEL∣LE unquam absque praevia hominis cul∣pam eripere cuiquam gra∣tia excitantis auxilium, aut ullum subsidi∣um, quod se∣mel contulit ad conversio∣nem hominis ordinatum. Sic docuere Patres Orthodoxi, quibus cum Pelagianis ne∣gotium fuit. Aug. vel Prosp. ad Artic. fals. ad 7. Dei est voluntas, ut in bona volunta∣te maneatur, qui & pruis∣quam desera∣tur, neminem deserit, & mul∣tos desertores saepe conver∣tic. Act. Syn. Dord. part 2. p. 129.
• z 1.178

  Jam. 3.11.
• * 1.179

  How these two wills in God differ, and why one is termed, Antecedent, the other Conse∣qu nt, is decla∣red at large, Redemption Redeemed,
• a 1.180

  Caeterum quando dicimus Coristum esse mo••tuum pro credent bus & pro amicis suis, hoc intelligen∣dum est consequenter, ita ut denotetur terminus ad quem: sicut e contrario antecedenter dicitur mortuus, pro hostibus suis & pro infidelibus (negative accepto infidelitatis vocabulo.) Actu. Syn. Dordrech. part 2 p. 99.
• * 1.181

  Rom. 2.4.
• * 1.182

  2 Pet. 3.9.
• b 1.183

  Agreement and Distance of Brethren, p. 61, 62, 63, 64.
• * 1.184

  Mat. 11.21.
• c 1.185

  Exod. 12.31, 32.
• d 1.186

  See this proved from the Scriptures. Agreement and Distance of Brethren, p. 61, 62, &c.
• * 1.187

  Negatio actus saepe etiam connotat ne∣gationem po∣tentiae.
• e 1.188

  Isai. 43.13.
• h 1.189

  An Objecti∣on either of a carnal mans ignorance, who doth not apprehend the Apostles true meaning in this aforesaid will of God, and hardning of man, or of a Reprobates rage who im∣putes his per∣dition unto God, &c. I. Di∣dac. in locum.
• * 1.190

  Luke 10.18.
• * 1.191

  Hac priore re∣sponsione nihil aliud quam im∣probitatem illi∣us blasphemia retunda argu∣mento ab homi∣nis conditione sumpto. Alte∣ram mox sub∣jiciet, qua Dei justitiam ab omni crimina∣tione vindica∣bit.
• * 1.192

  Gen. 18.
• i 1.193

  Jer. 12.1.
• k 1.194

  Psal. 111.2.
• l 1.195

  Psal. 47.7.
• m 1.196

  Jer. 18.4.
• n 1.197

  Agreement and Distance of Brethren, p. 6, 7, 8, &c. See also Re∣demption Re∣de••med, p. 512, 513, 514, &••. And again, p. 47. And a∣gain, p. 478, 479.
• o 1.198

  See more of these contests amongst the Assertours of Absolute Re∣probation. Agreement and Distance of Brethren. p. 14, 15.
• p 1.199

  2 Tim. 2.23.
• q 1.200

  Luke 18.7.
• * 1.201

  O homo, tu quis es qui re∣spondeas Deo?
• * 1.202

  Eccles. 7.29.
• r 1.203

  1 Cor. 15.56.
• s 1.204

  Rom. 4.15.
• t 1.205

  Rom. 5 13.
• * 1.206

  Mat. 15.26.
• u 1.207

  2 Tim. 2.10 21.
• x 1.208

  Mat ••.27.
• y 1.209

  Quum longa∣nimitas Dei praeciperet ut ar••a fiereret, propter expecta∣tionem conver∣sionis eo••um, &c.

  Dr. Ames like∣wise in his A∣nalysi•• so un∣derstandeth it.
• * 1.210

  See more of this, Re∣dem••tion Re∣d••emed, p. 48, 49, 50. &c.
• a 1.211

  And the Lord God of their Fathers sent to them by his messen∣gers, rising up betimes, and sending, because he had compassion on his people, and on his dwel∣ling place. But they mock∣ed the messen- of God, and despised his words, and misused his Prophets, un∣til the wrath of the Lord a∣rose against his people, til there was no remedy, 2 Chron. 36.15, 16.
• b 1.212

  See more of this Redempti∣on Redeemed. p. 428, 429, 473.
• a 1.213

  Non habet l beram vo∣luntatem is, qui consilium mutare non potest, impedi∣tus a causa ex∣terna, & si mu∣tare velit. De∣us autem con∣silium suum non mutat; nec mutare potest, non propter impe∣dimentum c••u∣sae externae, nec propter naturae aut fa∣cultatis defe∣ctum; sed quia non vult, nec velle potest consilii sui mu∣tationē, prop∣ter immutabi∣lem rectitudi∣nem voluntat••s suae, in quam neque eror, ne{que} ulla mu∣tationis causa potest cadere. Ursin Cot. part. 1. qu. 8. sect. 2.
• b 1.214

  Redemption Redeemed, p. 22. 35. 215. 434.
• c 1.215

  John 11.40.
• a 1.216

  1 Tim. 6.16.
• * 1.217

  Ephes. 2.1.
• d 1.218

  Col. 1.12.
• e 1.219

  Jer. 18.4.
• c 1.220

  Heb 10 36.
• d 1.221

  Rom. 2 6 7
• e 1.222

  1 Tim. 6.17, 18.
• f 1.223

  Nunc vero significat, ante∣quam nascan∣tur, jam suae serti addictos esse: Calv••n in locum.
• a 1.224

  Ephes. 1.12.
• * 1.225

  See more of this Distance and Agreement of Brethren. p. 61, 62, 63, &c.
• a 1.226

  Quos etiam vocavit, ni∣mirum nos, &c.
• * 1.227

  Nihil familia∣rius Apostolis, quam Oracula Prophetica, ad sens••m p••tius, quam ad verba all••ga••e, & in∣stituto suo ac∣commodare, quia su••t Scrip∣turae Prophet•• •• Divini Inter∣pretes, Pareus in Heb. p. 68.
• a 1.228

  De verbo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 di∣ctum jam pau∣co ante est, sig∣nifica••i eo ejus∣modi charita∣tem, qualem habet mater erga filium su∣um, quem ge∣••••avit in utero suo. Bucer. in Rom. 9.25.
• b 1.229

  1 Cor. 13 4.
• c 1.230

  Sensus est a∣pertus; nisi quod in accom∣modando testi∣monio laboratur, si quidem Pro∣phetam illic de Israelitis loqui, nullus negave∣rit. Calvin in Rom. 9, 25.
• d 1.231

  Duobus ex Ho∣sea Oraculis probat, vocatio∣nem gentium ad Christum a Deo jam olim pronunciatam esse. Pareus in Rom. 9.25.
• e 1.232

  Oraculum ve∣ro de Judaeis proprie est, quos Dominus polli∣cetur se iterum assumpturum, cum rejicisset ob impietatem i••sorum, ne esset populus suus, neve charitate & misericordia fruerentur. Ve∣rum quia in O∣raculo hoc ines••, Deum assumere in p pulum su∣um, qui non est populus ejus, & dignari cha∣ritate, qui sunt ea merito desti∣tuti, moneban∣tur eo Iudaei, ut ex impensa sibi misericordia Dei discerent, non esse indig∣num Deo, eam etiam Gentibus impendere, ut cum{que} fuissent hactenus ea de∣stituti, & a po∣pulo ejus alleni, Bucer in Rom. 9.24, ••.
• f 1.233

  Seest thou a man diligent in his busines••? He shall stand before Kings: he shall not stand before mean men, Prov. 22.29. And if ye offer the lame and the sick, is it not evil? Offer it now to thy g••vernour, will he be pleased with i••? Mal. 1.8.
• g 1.234

  Mat. 22 32.
• * 1.235

  Solet Sc••iptura dicere rem quampiam vel personam, hoc, vel illo, nomine vocatum i••i, ••on quod habitura fit illud nomen, aut tali nomine vulgo appellan∣da sit, sed quod ve••e ac plane babitura sit rem tali nomine fig∣nificatam, Pe∣rer. in Gen. p. 848.
• * 1.236

  Schema 〈◊〉〈◊〉. propheticum, quo, nominis quasi proprii impositione, rei aut pe••sonae de qua agitur, qua∣litas, aut fatu•• indicatur. Med. Apoc. p. 84

  Dicitur Deus vocare quippi∣am non inani nomine, sed rei praestatione, dum id facit esse quod nominat; quomodo fre∣quenter in Pro∣phetis vocare & nominare su¦muntur. Estius ad Rom. 9.25.
• a 1.237

  Consequitur etiam, cla∣morem intelli∣gè, non gratu∣lantis, sed do∣lentis; quomo∣do frequenter accipitur apud Prophetas. Igi∣tur clamat E∣saias, i. e. mag∣no doloris affectu loquitur. Estius in locum. Non (inquit) dicit, sed clamat Esaias: non modo ut praesentes Judaeos ad attentionem excitet, sed etiam ut Esaiae jam olim gravem conten∣tionem de hoc cum Judaeis fuisse innuat. Nolebant audire hanc doctrinam Judaei: clamabat ergo Esaias, ut audire cogerentur. Pareus in locum.
• a 1.238

  Deut. 6.13. to 20.
• b 1.239

  Mat. 4 10.
• c 1.240

  1. Cor. 1.17.
• a 1.241

  In Paulino enim textu, qualem nunc habemus, satis absurdum est, poni primum▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, deinde, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Omnino haec lectio in∣terpolata est ex 70. Ve••us autem lectio extat in Ma∣nuscripto illo quem toties laudo, & sic habet: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. quae sufficiunt, satisque exprimunt id quod vult Esaias. Ingentem vasticiem ter••ae Judaae, quae per excellentiam, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, intulerat Senneaheribus. Pauci, qui Hierosolyma se recepere relicti tanquam ex clade superstites, &c. Hug. Grot. in loc.
• b 1.242

  Consumma∣tionem praeci∣sam consum∣mabit exun∣dans justicia. Nam consum∣mationem, & quidem praeci••¦sam, Dominus Jehovi exer∣cituum factu∣rus est in uni∣versa hac ter∣ra.
• c 1.243

  Consumma∣tio abbreviata inundabit ju∣sticiam; con∣summationem enim & ab∣breviationem Dominus De∣us exercituum faciet in me∣dio omnis ter∣rae.
• d 1.244

  Consumma∣tio decisa in∣undans justi∣ciam; quia consummatio∣nem & dec •• sam Dominus, Dominus ex∣cercituum fa∣ciens in inte∣riori universae terrae.
• e 1.245

  Consumma∣tio concisa erit inundans justiciam; Quoniam consummationem, eamque concisam, faciet Dominator, &c.
• f 1.246

  Consummatio decisa inundabit in justicia; quia consumptionem, & quidem decisam, D••m nus, &c.
• g 1.247

  Q••oniam si fuerint populus tuu•• domus Israel mu••tus sicut arena maris, illis reliq••iis, quae non peccaverunt, & quae conversae sunt a peccato, fient magnalia quae praevalebunt, & ducentur in just••cia. Quia consummationem & consumptionem Dominus Deus excercituum faciet in omnibus impus terrae.
• h 1.248

  Deus enim fecerat quod in rationibus pu∣tandis fieri so∣let, ubi post expuncta ea quibus expen∣sa acceptis oequantur, ex∣iguae aliqua summa restat quae debeatur Similis locutio apud eundem Esaiam. C. 28. 22. Hugo Grot in Rom. 9.28.
• a 1.249

  Nam etsi Propheta, postquam de∣scripsit populi vastitatem; ne putarent fideles extinct••m prorsus esse Dei foe∣dus, spem aliquam gratia facit residu∣am, restringit tamen eam ad paucos. Sed quia id de suo tempore vatic na∣tus erat Propheta, videndum•• qu••mo∣do ad institutum suum Paulus accom∣modet. Sic autem debet: Quum Do∣minus vellete captivitate Babylonica populum suum liberare, ex immensa illa multitudine, ad paucissimos mo∣do liberationis suae beneficium perve∣nire voluit, qui excidii reliquiae merito dici possent, prae numeroso illo popue¦lo, quem in exilio perire sinebat. Jam restitutio illa carnalis, veram Eccle∣siae Dei restaurationem figuravit, quae in Christo peragitur, imo ejus dun∣taxat fuerat exordium. Quod ergo tunc accidit, multo certius nunc ad∣impleri convenit, in ipso liberationis progressu & complemento, Calv. ad Rom. 9.27.

  Aliud ex primo capite testimonium affert ubi vastitatem Israelis, pro suo tempore Propheta deplorat. Id autem si semel factum fuit, non est novum exemplum. Nihil enim prerogativae habet Israel, nisi a parentibus, qui ta∣men eum•••• modum tractati fuerant, ut Propheta conqueratur sic afflictos fuisfe, ut parum abfuerint ab excidio Sodomae & Gomorrhae, Idem in v. 29.
• b 1.250

  Ingentem vasticiem terrae Judaae, quae per excellentiam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, intulerat Sennacheribus. Pauci, qui Hierosolyma se recepere, relicti tanquam ex clade superstites, &c. Paulo post; quod tunc fecerat Deus, non mirum si rursus faciat, & de multis paucos ad veram salutem perducat, quos, quibus{que} de causis, ipsi visum. Hug. Grot. ad Rom. 9.27, 28.
• c 1.251

  Tollit autem in his duobus locis al∣terum scandalum de paucitate eorum qui ex Judaeis Christo cred••derunt, docens, sive typum respicias, qui in captivitate Babylonica praecessit, sive rem ipsam prophetice praedictam, ita dispositum esse a Dom••no, ut multi sint voc••ti, pauc•• electi. Musculus ad Rom. 9 27, 28 29.
• a 1.252

  Praeteritum perfectum hicest pro plusquam perfecto, more Hebraeo: vult enim dicere, si∣cut inprioribus, id est, capite primo, dixerat idem Esaias. Grot. in loc.
• b 1.253

  Vide Muscu∣lum in Esai. 1.10.
• c 1.254

  Of the divers significations of the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, see the same Grotius on Mat. 24.29.
• a 1.255

  1 Cor. 12.29, 30.
• b 1.256

  See Mr ••••s∣worth on Num. 21.21.
• c 1.257

  Non prae va∣luit, pro de∣victus est, fi∣gura est, ut dixi, Hebraica, qua adverbia negandi ejus, cui adhiben∣tur, contra∣rium sign fi∣cant. Med. in Apocal. c. 12. vers. 7, 8.
• a 1.258

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hic viam signi∣ficat — Judaei quaerebant vi••i justiciae ej••••, qua Deo pla∣ceret, sed fru∣stra plerique. Hag. G•• in locum.
• a 1.259

  Rom. 3 27.
• a 1.260

  1 Pet. 2 6.
• b 1.261

  Isa. 8.14.15.
• c 1.262

  Esai. 53.2 3.
• d 1.263

  Acts 8.33.
• e 1.264

  Job 27.2.
• f 1.265

  Isai. 53.4.
• g 1.266

  Ioh 6 41.42.
• h 1.267

  Ioh 7.27.
• * 1.268

  Stumbling, what.
• i 1.269

  1. Pet. 2.8.
• a 1.270

  Vide: Rob: Constantini Le∣xicon in verbo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.271

  See Ioh. 10.11.15.17. Act. 1 7. 1. Cor. 12 18. 2. Cor. 5.19 (with many others.)
• c 1.272

  Verbs of the passive form, are oft used in a reciprocal sence, and import the ef∣fect specified to be don by the pe••sons themselves, who are spo∣ken of, or to, in such verbs. Thu•• Rom 10.3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, th••y we e not sub∣j••cted i. e. they did not sub∣ject them∣selves. Heb. 12.9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, shall be sub∣jected, i. e. shall subject ••ur selves. So Iam 4.10. and 1 Pet. 5 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be ye humbled, i. e. humble your selves. vi. Hug. Grot. Act. 13 48.
• d 1.273

  2 Cor. 4.3 4
• e 1.274

  Ioh. 5 44.
• a 1.275

  Mat. 11.6.
• b 1.276

  The Substan∣tive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is tran∣sl••ted stum∣bling block, 1 Cor. 1.23. Rom. 11.9. Rev. 2.14.
• c 1.277

  1 Cor. 1.23.
• a 1.278

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, can∣not relate un∣to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be∣cause of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (being the feminine Gender.) com∣ing between, Therefore must needs re∣late unto the person signi∣fi••d, by that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or stone.
• b 1.279

  Mark 4.24.
• c 1.280

  Quod autem alibi docet Chri∣stus, se in judi∣cium ven••sse, quod vocatur petra scandali, quod dicitur po∣situs in multo rum ruinam, id accidentale est, vel (ut i••a lo∣quar) adventi∣tium. Calv. in Joh. 3.17.

  Hoc antitheto demonstrat, quod tam male accipitur Chri∣stus, neque suo vitio, aut uni∣versali homi∣num genio hoc fieri; sed in cau∣sa esse eorum pravitatem, qui illuminati a Deo non essent. Idem in 1 Cor. 1.23.

  Notandum ve∣ro est, hoc [viz. esse lapidem of∣fensionis] Chri∣sto proprie & a seipso non com∣petere, sed poti∣us accidentale esse ex hominum malicia, sicut mox sequitur. Idem ad Rom. 9.32.
• d 1.281

  James 1.13.
• d 1.282

  Sed & hoc constat, vocabu∣la vicinae signi∣ficationis, ubi verborum copia quaeritur, max∣ime apud He∣braeos usurpari pro eodem signi∣ficato. Quare, quae omnium fe∣re sententia est, in verbis Pro∣phetae dicimus, esse ejusdem rei inculcatio∣nem, Prophe∣phetis familia∣rem: ut quem∣admodum Gre∣ca 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & quae ex H••braeo vo∣cabula respon∣deant, accipiun∣tur velit syno∣nyma it•• etiam lapis & petra. Estius in Ro∣man. 9.33. Vid. Rob. Con∣stant. Lexi∣con in verbo 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• e 1.283

  Recte autem ista loca con∣junxit, quia in utroque agitur de temporibus Sennacheribi, Dei{que} tutela iis promittitur, qui intra Hie¦••osolyma ma∣nentes in lege Dei persti••is∣sent, Hugo Grot. ad Rom. 9.33.
• a 1.284

  See M. Ains∣worth in Gen. 2.17.
• * 1.285

  See Redemtion Redeemed p. 397. 398 399. &c.

  Videas in sa∣cris litteris, tam fidei, quam siduciae promisiones esse factas: nempe quia fides fidu∣ciam semper secum trahit P. Martyr Loc. Com p. 510
• g 1.286

  Sed nos haud paulo aliter philosophamur Primo spem et fidem ratione sui et difiniti∣one distinctas, re tamen sem∣per nidivulsas esse: adeo ut neque quisquam vere credat, qui non vere speret, neque rursus vere spe∣ret, qui non vere credat, &c Dan. Chami-Panstiat Tom. 3. l. 13. c. 3. s. 9.
• a 1.287

  Mat. 21 31, 32.
• * 1.288

  Io••. 12.42, 43.
• k 1.289

  1 Pet. 1.3.
• l 1.290

  Ioh. 12 44.
• m 1.291

  Iohn 6.44.
• n 1.292

  Psal. 25.2.
• o 1.293

  Rom. 2.10.
• p 1.294

  2 Chr. 32.21
• q 1.295

  Mar. 16.16.
• a 1.296

  See Pagans Debt and Dowr••, p. 37, 38, 39 &c.
• * 1.297

  Deus & natura n hil faciunt frustra.
• a 1.298

  Ioh. 1.12.
• t 1.299

  Treatise of Iustification.