Comment.

PAUL an Apostle.] The Author who wrot this Epistle, doth alwayes call himselfe by the name of Paul. But Luke who in Acts of the Apostles, wrot the acts of Pauls Mi­nistery, doth call him Saul, while he prea­ched the Gospel among the Jewes and Sy­rians. Yet when he began to preach it a­mong the Romans, and amongst them he began in Cyprus, where Sergius Paulus the Proconsul of the I­sland, desired to heare it from him: then, and from that time e­ver afterward, Luke mentions him by the name of Paul. Which name being ordinary among the Romans, might first be attribu­ted unto him in the family of that Roman Proconsul, whose name was also Paul. But whether Saul and Paul be two diffe­rent [Page 2] names given to one and the same person, (for among the Jewes as wel as other Nations, many persons were binomious, and some trinomious, as appears by the three names of Simon Peter & Cephas, al denoting the same person) or but one & the same name, in different languages, like Silas and Silvanus, as Beza conjectures, I stand not to determine. But his name of Paul he prefixeth be­fore his Epistle, because in those times it was the custome among most Nations, especially the Romans, not to subscribe their name under or after their Letters, but to prescribe or prefixe it above or before them in the first place, as Princes doe in these times.

And Paul stiles himselfe by the title of an Apostle, i. e. of an Emissary, Legate, or Messenger universall, sent forth by divine authority from God by Christ, to be a founder and planter of the Gospell at large, without restraint to any certaine City or Countrey. For thus the Twelve were the Apostles of Christ; and thus was Christ himselfe the Apostle of God: for of the Gospel, Christ was the originall Founder, who by a mission immediate from his Father, layd the first stone for the foundation of it: and Christ in respect of his mission, is therefore called, Heb. 3.1. The Apostle and high Priest of our profession. And heerein all other Mi­nisters and Preachers of the Gospel, are different from the Apo­stles: because all other Ministers besides them, are not founders and planters of the Gospel, but are only Edifiers and Waterers upon that Foundation and plantation, which was first layd and made by Christ and his Apostles. Or they are only Teachers and Pastors to feed and rule that flocke which by Christ and his Apostles was first constituted and collected. This title of Apostle according to his usuall maner, Paul attributes to himselfe in all his Epistles: but in this Epistle above any of the rest, there was especiall reason for it. Because by this title he would establish his authority in the Churches of Galatia, and confirme his do­ctrine there planted, which after the plantation of it was by false Teachers amongst them, questioned and challenged of falshood. For to reject or but to question the doctrine of an Apostle, being a sacred messenger from God, fortified with divine authority, and for the most part armed with the power of miracles, was lawfull for no man; but for Christians to doe it, was insuffera­ble. This abuse therefore must bee rectified, by words that were proper to discountenance it.

Not of men.] The Greeke particle is, [...], which heere must needs signifie from. Because his meaning is, that men were not the prime authours from whom hee received the Commission or Mandate for his Apostleship; or, that the authority from whence hee derived that Function was not humane. And be­cause [Page 3] his words are a vindication of his Apostleship, and of his calling thereto, from a malicious and subtle calumny cast upon his Function by the Judaizers and false Teachers amongst the Galatians. For they allowed Paul to bee an Apostle sent forth to found and plant the Gospel: But they questioned his authori­ty therein; pretending that his Calling was not Divine, to come from God as from the prime authour of it: Or if it were from God, as from the prime authour; yet that it was not by the meanes of Christ, that hee had not his Instruction and Mission from God by Christ. But that hee was taught his know­ledge in the Gospel by some mortall man, and preached it by the meanes of humane helpe; and that in this respect, hee was not comparable to the rest of the Apostles. For which opinion (or rather calumny) of theirs, this may seeme to be the ground. Because Paul entred upon the office of his Apostleship, after Christ was ascended into Heaven, whereas the rest of the Apo­stles had their mission from Christ himselfe, while hee yet re­mayned upon earth. This calumny Paul removes by a flat ne­gation, that his authority or mandate to be an Apostle, was not humane, for he received not his mission from men, as sent to Preach from men, as if men were the prime authors of it. Before his conversion while he was a Pharisee, his authority against the Gospel, was humane; for hee had that calling from men, and from men hee had his mandate to persecute the pro­fessours of it, seeing hee had it from the chiefe Priests, as it ap­peares, Act. 9.14. And heere he hath authority from the chiefe Priests, to bind all that call on thy Name. But after his conversion, when he was a Beleever, his authority for the Gospel, to preach and plant it, came not from men.

Neither by man. ] His Apostleship was not from God mediate­ly, by the meanes of any person, who was a mortall or meere man. And heere hee takes man, for an ordinary mortall man, in opposition unto Christ, who is both God and man, and who though hee bee man, yet is an extraordinary and immortall man. First, therefore for his Instruction in the Doctrine of the Gospel, hee had it not by man, as taught it by man; as before hee had his knowledge in the Law by the meanes of Gamaliel, at whose feete hee was brought up in Jerusalem, Act. 22.3. And taught ac­cording to the perfect manner of the Law of the Fathers, and was zealous towards God. Or as Apollos, who although hee was before elo­quent in the Scriptures, and well catechised in the Christian Re­ligion; yet afterward hee had his best and soundest knowledge therein by the meanes of Aquila and Priscilla; for Acts 18.26. They tooke him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

[Page 4] Secondly, neither had hee his Mission by man; for some Preachers of the Gospel in the Primitive Church, though they had their authority and calling from God; yet they had their Mission into their Function by the meanes of men, being insti­tuted and ordained thereunto by men: As Mathias by the ele­ven, Timothy and Titus by Paul, and others by the rest of the Apostles. But the Mission of Paul was not effected by any such meanes; for although Ananias at Damascus put his hands up­on Paul, that hee might receive his sight: Yet Paul had no In­struction nor Mission from Ananias, but from the Lord onely, who having first converted him, sent Ananias to performe this office unto him, for the recovery of his sight: But Christ reser­ved unto himselfe the Instruction of Paul, Act. 9.16. I will shew him, how great things hee must suffer for my names sake. Likewise the Presbytery at Antioch, Act. 13.3. When they had fasted and pray­ed, layd their hands on Paul and Barnabas, and sent them away. But that Mission was not autoritative, but onely dismissive; for the Cal­ling and the Warrant for their sending away, was wholly from the Holy Ghost, who had sayd in the former verse, Seperate me Barnabas and Saul for the worke, whereunto I have called them.

Paul therefore doth utterly disclaime this humane Instruction and Mission, that thereby hee might the more commend and im­prove the authority and credit of his Apostleship, against the calumnies and obloquies of the false Teachers, who had divul­ged, that Paul had received from Peter, James and John, both his Instruction and his Mission. And heere againe the Calling of the Apostles differeth from ours, for although our Calling bee Divine, and come from God; yet it is not Primitively and immediately from God; but derivatively and mediately, by the meanes of man. Because our Instruction and Mission is deriva­tive and delegate, to bee instructed by the teachings and wri­tings of men, and to bee sent forth to preach by the authority of men, who were in this Office before us, and are the onely com­petent Judges of our ability and sincerity for our Function.

But by Jesus Christ and God the Father.] A full Declaration of his calling to his Apostleship, whence hee received it, and by whom; namely from God the Father, as the prime Authour of it, by the meanes of Jesus Christ, by whom hee had immediat­ly his Instruction and his Mission. For having before removed the calumny that was made against his Calling, he now asserts the verity and truth of it. But in this Assertion hee proceeds in an order retrograde to the former: for in the first place he intro­duceth Christ, as the immediate and proximous person by whom he was called unto his Apostleship, opposing Christ to the last [Page 5] words before mentioned, not by man: wherein the cause mediall was before intimated. And then he specifies God the Father, as the prime and principall person, from whom hee was called by Christ: opposing God the Father, to the remoter words before, not of or from men: wherein was intimated the cause prime and principall of his humane calling.

But in opposing Christ unto man, by man he understands (as we sayd before) an ordinary person, like other vulgar men, unto whom Christ though he also be man, may with good reason be opposed. Because Christ is exempted and exalted from and above the ranke, quality, and condition, of all other men; for he is the unigent Sonne of God, who was in the entire and per­fect nature of man, even then when he lived amongst men on earth. And therefore much more is he so now in Heaven, where he is invested with immortality and glory, enjoying soveraigne dominion over all men and Angels. For Worthies, and persons of eminent quality are wont to exempt themselves from the ac­count and number of men, because they are not like other vulgar men, but seeme to themselves as petty gods. For so Sampson sayd of himselfe, Judg. 16.17. If I be shaven, then my strength will goe from me, and I shall become weake, and be like any man, i. e. like every ordinary man. And from the number of men, Judges and Rulers are in a maner exempted; and that by God himself, when he speakes to them in this forme, Psal. 82.6. I have sayd, Yee are gods, and all of you are children of the most High, but yee shall die like men. i. e. Like other vulgar and ordinary men. If then such per­sons as are Worthies and Judges, may be exempted from the num­ber of men, and be opposed unto them; much more may Christ be so, who is over all, God blessed for ever, Rom. 9.5.

With good reason therefore Paul heere opposeth Christ unto man. q. d. I am no way inferiour to the rest of the Apostles; for as they for their preaching of the Gospel, had not their Instru­ction and Mission by man, but by Jesus Christ, who first taught, and after sent them forth: so I, for my part, to preach among the Gentiles, had my Instruction and Mission, not mediately by man, but immediatly by Christ, who immediately by himselfe, revealed and taught the Gospel unto me; and by himselfe sent me forth to preach it among the Gentils. And as the rest of the Apostles had the originall of their calling from God the Father, whose will it was, that they should bee taught and sent forth by Christ; so the originall author of my Apostleship is God the Fa­ther, by whose will I am an Apostle of Christ. For concerning Gods will for his Apostleship, see what himself saith, 1. Cor. 1.1. and 2. Cor. 1.1. and Ephes. 1.1. and Coloss. 1.1. And his Apo­stleship [Page 6] was grounded not so much on Gods permissive will to allow and suffer it, as on Gods imperative will to require and command it: for hence he sayth, 1. Tim. 1.1. That he was an A­postle of Jesus Christ, by the commandement of God our Saviour: which is a speciall will of God; for every command is a speciall will, and every Mandate is a speciall Command.

Who raysed him from the dead.] An Evangelicall attribute of God the Father, frequently ascribed unto him in the New Testa­ment. And the reason why there it is so frequently alleadged, is, partly to confirme the doctrine of the New Testament, and partly to certifie the perfect consent in all things, between God the Father who ordayned it, and Christ the Son who mediated it, and the Apostles, who were the Ministers of Christ, to propa­gate and perpetuate it. For God by raysing Christ from the dead, did marveilously confirme the whole doctrine, which Christ had publickly delivered unto the world, and did manifestly declare that himselfe was the authour of the doctrine taught by Christ. Because God raysed Christ from the dead, for the further pro­secution of the Gospel, whom the Jewes had put to death for the publication of it. And because for the greater honour and glory of Christ, the Gospel was afterward propagated and con­firmed by miracles, in the name of Christ crucified, and raysed againe from the dead.

And this Divinity of the Gospel, that it came originally from God, as his last Will and Testament, was a point to be seriously pressed; especially against the unbeleeving Jewes, who magnifi­ed and maintained the Law as a divine Institution proceeding from God, and of ancient observance amongst Gods people. But they despised and opposed the Gospel, as a humane Invention, and as a late novelty newly sprung up, contrary and derogatory to the will of God. And besides, Paul by mentioning the raysing of Christ from the dead, doth tacitly commend and advance his Apostleship, above all the other Apostles, from this singularity in it, that he was ordayned an Apostle by Christ, after the Re­surrection of Christ from the dead. A speciall priviledge unto him, which befell none of the rest, who were all ordayned be­fore his Resurrection, while Christ was yet a mortall man; and therefore his Calling was more divine then theirs, by how much Christ being made immortall, was more Divine, then while he was mortall.

Comment.

AND all the Brethren which are with me.] Paul in some of his Epistles writes single in his owne name only, without any Approver of his Doctrine, to subscribe and testifie it, besides himselfe; as in his Epistle to the Romans, to the Ephesi­ans, and to Timothy. In some of his Epistles, he adjoynes some one of his fellow-Ministers; as Sosthenes in the first to the Corinthi­ans, and Timothy in the second: whom also he adjoynes in that to the Philippians, and in that to the Colossians. In some he ad­joynes two; as Silas and Timothy, in the first and second to the Thessalonians. But in this to the Galatians, he assumes not only one or two, but even all the Ministers his Brethren, that were at that present abiding with him. Because, as it seemeth, all of them would have their Judgement extant in this Epistle, that it might carry the greater weight and authority with it. Partly to shew their affection to the Galatians, but chiefly to declare their ap­probation of Pauls doctrine; and to justifie it from that singula­rity, wherewith the Judaizers and false Teachers had charged it.

What persons these Brethren were, is neither expressed from any Scripture, nor to be collected from any solid reason. Yet if [Page 8] we suppose that this Epistle was written from Rome, as the Post­scripts of many ancient copies date it, and the conjectures of ma­ny learned men affirme it, then it seemes they were Romans, ey­ther for their Nation, or at least for their present residence. But by this inference we gaine no knowledge of their persons, and therefore desist from further search after them. Because that Reasoning makes but small gaines, which in a matter of no mo­ment, gathers but one uncertainty out of another.

Ʋnto the Churches of Galatia.] The direction of the Epistle for the persons unto whom it was addressed. And heerein this Epi­stle of Paul is singular from all the rest by him written, and that in two respects. 1. For the generality of the direction: for Paul directs his other Epistles, eyther to some single person, as unto Timothy, Titus, and Philemon; or to some one single Church or congregation, assembled in some one City, as all the rest are directed; but this is directed unto many Churches in many Ci­ties. For Galatià was not a City, but a large Country or Province, wherein were severall Churches or Christian Congregations, whereof, (as it seemeth) all, or the most part, were leavened and sowred with Judaisme, or the false doctrine of super-adding the law of Moses, unto the Gospel of Christ. Whereupon Paul directs his Epistle, not to any one single Church of them in particular, but to them all in generall: because they were all equally con­cerned.

2. For the abruptnesse or flatnesse of the Direction; for ther­in he attributeth not unto them any title of love or respect, by saying, unto the Churches of God, or by calling them beloved, sancti­fied, or the faithfull: as his usuall maner is to preface other persons and Churches, in the rest of his Epistles. But hee only affords them a bare and flat compellation in an abrupt and disrespective maner, unto the Churches of Galatia. Whereby the holy Apostle would argue and declare his holy indignation against the Gala­tians, as Congregations unworthy of those gratious appellations, which otherwise he readily attributes unto all other Christians. Because these Churches had partly corrupted the grace of God, and partly rejected the Meanes of it by Christ; for they had sow­red the liberty of the Gospel with the necessity of legall Cere­monies, especially that of Circumcision. Yet in saying, unto the Churches of Galatia, he allowes them the name of Churches, be­cause they yet retayned severall parts of Christianity. As in like maner he doth to the Corinthians, who were fowly tainted and stayned with divers corruptions both in doctrine and maners.

Comment.

GRace be to you and Peace. ] This is the ordinary forme of Apostolicke Salutation and benediction in the Epistles of Paul, Peter, John, and Jude. And the verbe substantive Be, which by Paul is silenced in the originall, is by Peter expres­sed by the word Be multiplied, 1. Pet. 1.2. Grace unto you and peace be multiplied. The ancient forme of Salutation among the He­brewes, was, Peace be unto you. Which forme was also used by Christ himselfe; and he commanded the use of it to his Apostles, Luke 10.5. And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace bee to this house. But afterward among the Christians, in memory of that rich Grace, which came by the meanes of Christ, the word Grace was added and prefixed to the former ancient Salutation. Grace then is the love, favour, or kindenesse of God by the meanes of Christ, or that rich kindenesse of God towards us, whereof Christ is the Messenger and Mediatour, the Beginner and the Finisher, who first published the truth; and procureth [Page 10] the finall effect of it. Peace denoteth unto us Christians all the effects, events, and issues of Grace; for Peace includes all those blessings, which are the fruit growing from Grace as from the roote: Whether those blessings bee temporall and spirituall in this life, or celestiall and eternall in the life to come, according to the sence of the Hebrewes, who by Peace understand all safe­ty, prosperity, and happinesse whatsoever.

From God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ.] The per­sons from whom Paul salutes them, and prayes a benediction upon them, are expressed to bee two; namely, God the Father, as the originall and prime cause from whence all grace and peace doth arise; and Christ our Lord, as the instrumentall and meane cause, wherby all Grace and Peace is conveyed. For hee wisheth a blessing upon them from the very same per­sons in the very same order that hee had his Calling; namely, from God the Father by Jesus Christ: Or to use the very same words wherein hee expresseth himselfe elsewhere, 1 Cor. 8.6. From God, of whom are all things, and from Christ, by whom are all things.

Unto each of these divine persons severally, Paul attributes a peculiar dignity or title of honour. For unto the Father hee gives the title of God, in an eminent and transcendent sense; because the Father is the supreame and most high God, who of himselfe hath soveraigne dominion and power over all things, & over all persons; and who of himselfe is that person from whom all other persons are descended. And unto Christ he gives the ti­tle of our Lord; because Christ is the person, to whom the Fa­ther hath communicated the universal dominion & governement over all things and persons, excepting one onely, who is the Fa­ther himselfe. For the Father hath ordained Christ in a peculiar manner to bee the Lord or head over his Church in all matters thereto pertaining. And heereby Christ in a peculiar relation unto us, becomes our Lord, in whom wee must believe and trust, and whom wee must worship, serve, and obey. Yet it is not Pauls meaning to make these titles so peculiar to each person, as if Christ were not God, or as if the Father were not our Lord; for each person beares both these titles; but that when they are mentioned both together, these are the usuall formes to diffe­rence them.

Hence from these two attributes, thus differenced and distri­buted unto these two divine persons, of God unto the Father, and of Lord unto Christ, and because there is but one Father, and one Christ; therefore it is frequent with the Apostle Paul, to call the Father one God, and Christ one Lord. For although [Page 11] there bee extant many Gods and many Lords: Yet there is ex­tant but one God and one Lord, to bee by us invocated and worship­ded. i. e. God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ; Because there is but one person, who unto us hath that relation of God, which the Father hath; and but one person, who unto us hath that relation of Lord which Christ hath. Hence it is sayd, 1 Cor. 8.5. For though there bee, that are called Gods, whether in Heaven or in Earth, as there bee Gods many, and Lords many: But to us there is but one God, the Father of whom are all things, and wee for him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and wee by him. Where by the way wee may note, that there are made three degrees; the first, is of those who are called Gods, but are not indeed so, as the Sunne and Moone in Heaven, Idolls and Images on Earth; the next of those, who are called so, and are indeede so, but not supreamely so, as the Angels in Heaven, and Rulers on Earth; and the last of those, who are called so, and are really or indeed so, and also are supreamely so, to bee invocated and worshipped, as God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hence also it appeares that the divine service of invocation or prayers is due unto Christ. Because this salutation heere is an invocation (though indirectly framed) wherein Paul prayes for grace and peace unto the Galatians from God and from Christ. For Christ (as it is evident from these words, and from the like in other places, wherein the government and care of Gods Church is ascribed unto him) doth know the wants and the desires of the faithfull, and therefore also doth heare their votes and prayers. Now the knowledge and the audience of such things is a ground sufficient for invocation or prayer to bee made unto Christ; especially seeing his knowledge and audi­ence are seconded with a power and a will, whereby hee is able and ready to helpe and to save those Believers who call upon him. Hence Christ commands his Disciples to pray in his name, and promiseth to effect their prayer, John 14.13. Whatsoever yee shall aske in my name, that will I doe, that the Father may bee glori­fied by the Sonne; If yee shall aske any thing in my name, I will doe it. This Invocation was preached by Steven, when hee was stoned, Act. 7.59. And they stoned Stephen, calling and saying, Lord Jesus receive my Spirit. And practised by Paul, when there was given him a thorne in the flesh, 2 Cor. 12.8. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.

They therefore are in an errour, who to barre Christ from the honour of Invocation, doe read this Text thus; From God our Father, and of the Lord Jesus Christ; referring the Pronoune Our unto God the Father, and thereupon construing the words; [Page 12] as if the Apostle prayed for grace and peace from the Father onely, and not from Christ: But would onely intimate that God is the common Father of us, and of Christ. But this construction is not onely against the sense of the words; but also against rea­son: For it is not reason, that when the Apostle would call God the Father of Christ, and also our Father; hee should then first call him our Father, before hee called him the Father of Christ. Especially in a passage where he intends to magnifie the honour of Christ, as by the verse following, where he expresly calls God, our Father, it appeares he intends it. This place therefore, and the like, wherein the Pronoune Our, in reference to the Father is omitted, doth wholly oppose this construction.

Comment.

VVHO gave himselfe.] Wee must heere supply the word unto death; which many times in Scripture is silenced: but is supposed, and must bee under­stood, when the words of giving himselfe, are ascribed unto Christ. Of whom they signifie, that his death was not wholly compulso­ry on the Jewes and Pilates part, but also voluntary on his own part, by yeelding himselfe unto death. From which, if he would have shunned it, he could easily have rescued himselfe, not only by his owne single power, but (Matt. 26.53.) by the ayd of more then twelve Legions of Angels, which at his request, his Father would have presently given him: but hee willingly yeelded and gave himselfe up to death. So the word unto death, must be under­stood, Ephes. 5.2. Walke in love as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himselfe for us; viz. unto death: as the words immediatly following declare it. And Ephes. 5.25. Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himselfe for it; viz. unto death. And 1. Tim. 2.6. Christ gave himselfe a ransome for all. i. e. Gave himselfe unto death. And Tit. 2.14. Christ gave himselfe for us, that he might redeeme us from all iniquity. i. e. Gave himselfe unto death.

[Page 14] For our sinnes.] Heere againe another word must be supplied, which in many places of Scripture is silenced, but yet supposed and understood; because in other places it is mentioned. And that word is Remission or forgivenesse; that Christ gave himselfe un­to death, for the remission or forgivenesse of our sinnes. So the word Remission must be understood, Rom. 4.25. who was delivered for our offences. i. e. Was delivered unto death, for the remission or forgivenesse of our offences; for this sense is declared by the words immediatly following, and rose againe for our justification. And 1. Cor. 15.3. I delivered unto you, how that Christ died for our sinnes. i. e. For the remission of our sinnes. And Heb. 10.12. But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sinnes for ever. i. e. For the Remission of sinnes for ever. For when in other places of Scripture, our sinnes are referred to the death of Christ, or unto his bloud, being put for his death, the word Remission, is mentioned expresly. As Matt. 26.28. This is my bloud of the new Testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sinnes. And Rom. 3.25. Whom God hath set forth to bee a propitiation through faith in his bloud, to declare his righteousnesse for the remission of sinnes that are past. And Ephes. 1.7. In whom wee have redemption through his bloud, the forgivenesse of sinnes, according to the riches of his grace. All which sayings, and the like, are explications or comments upon these words of Paul heer, who gave himselfe for our sinnes.

Sometime the word Remission is not mentioned expresly, but implicitly, by substituting in stead thereof, some other word ther­to equivalent; as the word Taking away: for the Remission or for­givenesse of sinnes, is nothing else but A taking away of that punish­ment, which by the Law is due unto sin. Hence John 1.29. Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world: Heere Christ is compared to a Lamb, in respect of his death for sin, which by his death is taken away, i. e. is remitted or forgiven. And 1. John 3.5. Ye know that he was manifested to take away our sinnes. i. e. To remit or forgive our sinnes. And the word Bearing, which when it is ap­plied unto Christ, in respect of sin, signifieth bearing away. i.e. ta­king away from us the punishment of sin; which is all one with Remission or forgivenesse. As Esay 53.11. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many, and shall beare their iniquities. And againe in the next verse following; Hee was numbred with the trans­gressors, and bare the sin of many. i. e. He shall and did beare away or take away from many, the punishment of their iniquities and sinnes; which in one word, is the Remission or forgivenesse of their sins. And 1. Pet. 2.24. Who his owne self bare our sinnes in his own body on the tree. i. e. Tooke away from us the punishment of our sins.

Yet Christ did not take the punishment of our sinnes upon [Page 15] himselfe, to beare and suffer in himselfe the punishment due to us for our sinnes; for he was not punished in our stead for our sinnes; but he only tooke away, or bare away from us the punishment of them, without inflicting it upon himselfe. The certainty of this truth for this sense of these two words, taking and bearing, is taught us by Matthew; for when the Prophet had sayd, Esay 53.4. Sure­ly he hath borne our griefes, and carried our sorrowes; Matthew cites this upon the miracles of Christ, in healing all that were sick, say­ing Matt. 8.17. Himselfe tooke our infirmities, and bare our sickenesses. Now in healing the sicke, Christ did not so take their infirmities and beare their sicknesses, as to be infirme or sicke himselfe: but he only tooke away or bare away from the sick their infirmities and sicknesses. For when a Physitian cureth a disease, he doth not take it unto himself, to be sick of it himself; but he only takes it a­way from the Patient: So Christ in dying for our sins took not un­to himself the punishment of thē, to beare or suffer the punishment himself: but he only took away and bare away from us the punish­ment of our sins. And when by the meanes of the Physitian, the di­sease is taken from the Patient, it is not necessary it should be layd on the Physitian, or on any body else; for it sufficeth if the disease be abolished: So when by the means of Christ, the punishment of sin is taken away from sinners, it is not necessary it should bee layd upon Christ, or on any else; because it is finally abolished. For the punishment of sin is eternall death, which is already abolished in grant or promise, and shall be abolished in esse, at the Resurre­ction; for death is the last enemy that shall be destroyed.

Our sinnes then are not the efficient cause of Christs death; for Christ died not to be punished for them: but his death is an effici­ent cause of the Remission or forgivenesse of our sinnes; for by the meanes of his death, the punishment of our sinnes is taken away, or borne away. And consequently, the Remission of our sinnes, is a finall cause, end or effect of Christs death: yet not immediat or proximous, but a remote effect. For (as shall bee more largely de­clared, cap. 2. ver. 21.) the immediat or proximous finall causes, ends or effects of Christs death, were to testifie, to confirm, and to execute the last Will and Testament of God; whereof one article is the Remission of our sinnes, which by way of Legacy is therein devised or promised unto us. Christ then gave himselfe to death for our sinnes: partly because by his death he testified and confir­med the new Testament, wherein the right of Remission of sinnes is given us; for that Testament being confirmed, becomes of force; and we by meanes of our faith, have a present right to the future forgivenesse of our sinnes. And partly because through his death he was made perfect with power to execute that Testament, that [Page 16] he might actually remit or forgive our sinnes, by doing all such acts whereby we might finally enjoy the benefit thereof, when hee shall rayse us from death to give us the possession of eternall life.

That he might deliver us.] Heer is another end or effect of Christs death, subordinat to the former, and therefore somewhat more re­mote from it; namely, our deliverance from the servitude of sin; which though causally on his part it be a deliverance, yet effectu­ally on our part it is our Repentance. The Greeke word [...], doth properly signifie to exempt, take out, or pluck out, in delive­ring from some sodain danger, and delivering in a speciall maner; namely, powerfully and hastily plucking or snatching away the party by force and speed. As Peter was delivered by the Angel out of prison from the hand of Herod, the night before he should have been slaine; wherof Peter making relation, useth the same word, Act. 12.11. [...], sayth he, the Lord hath sent his Angel and delivered me out of the hand of Herod. Or as Paul was delivered by Lysias the Colonel, who with an army or band of men rescued him from the Jewes, when they were about to kill him; as Ly­sias relates, Acts 23.27. where he useth the same word [...], sayth he, which in our last English Translation, is there ren­dred rescued. To the same sense the Scripture useth the word [...], which signifies to exempt, redeeme, or rescue.

From this present evill world.] The Greek is, [...], i. e. out of the sinfulnesse; that he might deliver or pluck us out of that sin­fulnesse which reigneth in the men of this present world. For evill is heer put for sinfulnesse, and the world for the men of the world, or worldly men, whose maners, conditions, and actions, are evill, sinfull, or wicked. If our deliverance be good, (as comming from Christ it must needs be) then the terme or state from whence we are delivered must needs be evill. Yet the evill heer meant is not the evill of punishment; because thence we are delivered by the Remission of sinnes, whereby the punishment is taken away: as was intimated in the former clause of this verse. Nor the evill of Affliction; from which we are many times delivered, and from which we pray for deliverance, as 2. Thess. 3.2. That we may be de­livered from unreasonable and wicked men. i. e. From the afflictions and violences which we suffer under them. But Affliction cannot be heer meant: because that is not an end or effect of Christs death; for he died not to deliver us from affliction, but rather to animate us against it, and to encourage us to suffer it. But the E­vill heer intended, is the evill of sin, or rather that degree of sin, which is wickednesse, as it is opposed to sins of Errour and Frail­ty; such wickednesse as Idolatry, Murder, Adultery, &c. For so [Page 17] the word [...], doth properly signifie; and the substantive [...] in King JAMES his Translation, is constantly Englished, Wic­kednesse.

Wherefore, To be delivered from this present evill world, is not meant locally, as if we should be taken away from being in the world, or be so separated from worldly men, as not to feare any affliction from their violences, or any corruption from their ex­amples; for then we must altogether go locally out of this world. But the words are to be understood Morally, for a separation from their wicked courses, by abstayning from all wickednesse, and in undergoing a course of life contrary to the common course of this present evill world, framing our selves to the workes of love, and to the wayes of holinesse, according to the precepts and rules of Christ. This distinction betweene a locall and a morall separa­tion, is taught us by Christ, when he prayed to his Father for his Disciples, Joh. 17.15. I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keepe them ( [...]) from the evill. i. e. From doing that evill which is wickednesse. And so I under­stand Christ, when he taught us to pray, Matt. 6.13. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us ( [...]) from evill. i. e. Not only from suffering of that evil which proceeds from the wicked­nesse of others, but chiefly from our doing of any evill which is wickednesse. For we pray, that God would not lead us into tem­ptation; now when we are tempted, whether by meanes of affli­ction, or otherwise, the purpose whereat the temptation aymeth, is not our suffering of evill, but our doing of it.

See heere the nature of true Repentance. Repentance is a se­paration from wickednesse. For it is a deliverance or separation or turning from evill, not from that of affliction which is the suffe­ring of evill; but from that of sin, which is the doing of evill. Yet not from all sin in every degree of it, as errours and frailties; for unto such a Repentance as to bee wholly sinlesse, no sinner ever yet did, or ever can attaine in this life. But it is a separation from that degree of sin which is [...], i. e. malignity, malice, or wic­kednesse; which consisteth either in a wilfull custome of sin, or in the act of some one sin, whereof the pravity amounts to a cu­stome. Repentance then is a liberty or freedome from wicked­nesse; for when Christ by forgiving our wickednesse delivereth us from it, then he causeth our repentance: and when we by for­saking wickednesse are delivered from it, then are wee come to Repentance. Unto this Repentance many have attayned, and thereto every Beleever may and must attaine in this life, or else his faith is not effectuall unto salvation. And this Repentance is really one and the same thing with holinesse, though betweene [Page 18] them there may bee some rationall differences, as the words in divers mens understandings may bee diversly dilated or restray­ned. For holinesse may bee in a person who never sinned, as is that of God, of Christ, and of Angels: but when the subject of holinesse is a person that was a sinner, and the terme from whence it began was sin, then such holinesse is repentance; and in this life the holinesse of Beleevers is no other; although ther­of there are diverse degrees, wherein some far exceed others.

The Motive unto repentance or holinesse of life, or the cause that should invite and draw us unto the workes worthy thereof, or (which is all one) the Means whereby Christ delivereth us from the evill or sinfulnesse of this present world, is the remission or forgivenes of our sinnes. For to what end or effect did Christ die for us? It was to this end, to testifie and confirme the New Testament, that it might be in force unto us, and that we might have a present right to the Legacies therein devised or promi­sed, whereon one is the Remission or forgivenesse of our sinnes. And to what end or effect are our sinnes forgiven? Certainly not to this; that thereupon we should imagine Repentance or holi­nesse to be a thing impossible, or should esteeme good works not necessary, or should differ from the evill men of this present world, in nothing but in our faith; taking liberty to live licenti­ously, without feare of punishment, that grace may abound, and God may have all the glory of it: as the false teachers among the Galatians (who besides the faith of the Gospel urged the works of the Law) conceived of Pauls doctrine, and in the next Chapter ver. 17. will object it against him. But the end or effect which the remission of our sinnes should have upon us, is to move and draw us to Repentance or holinesse of life. For Christ died or gave himselfe for the remission of our sinnes, that hee might deliver us from that servitude of sin, wherin the men of this pre­sent world are enthralled. Now this deliverance is done only by Repentance: because Repentance only doth separate and with­draw us from the service of sin and wickednes. And the Rea­sons why the forgivenesse of our sinnes should cause our Repen­tance, are two.

1. Because the forgivenesse of our sinnes is granted us in rela­tion to our repentance. It hath been the businesse of Gods spirit in all ages to struggle with man, and to draw him from wicked­nesse. Under the Law God ordayned severall punishments by vi­olent death for it: but this was a base and servile way for Gods people to be kept in aw, only through feare: and it was a defe­ctive, faulty, or weak way; because those penalties by death could not doe the deed, to deliver or withdraw men from wic­kednesse. [Page 19] Under the Gospel therefore God proceeds in a con­trary course, by reversing all penalties, and granting a generall pardon for all sinnes; to the end, that what the Law could not doe by way of feare, that the Gospel might effect by reasons of Gods love: that wee in thankfulnesse for so great a blessing, might answer his love with our love, and therupon for his sake might forsake the wayes of wickednesse. And God sealed this Pardon with the bloud of Christ, that his love in not sparing his own Son, and the love of Christ in laying downe his life for us, might the more endeare and engage us to the works of Re­pentance and holinesse. Unto which effect, what further means are there conducent, besides the feare of God in punishing sin, and the love of God in forgiving it?

2. Because our Repentance or holinesse is the condition wher­upon the forgivenesse of our sinnes is to take effect. Every Belee­ver by vertue of his beliefe or faith, hath a present right to the future forgivenesse of his sinnes; and his present right to that forgivenesse is absolute or simple without any condition. For his beliefe or faith is not the condition thereof, but the nomination whereby the Right of forgivenesse, and the rest of the Legacies devised in Gods Will, are assigned unto him; for that and the rest are setled upon all the faithfull, by their name of Beleevers. But the future fruition of that forgivenesse is conditionall; for it is limited or restrayned unto the condition of Repentance or ho­linesse: for though all Beleevers have a present right to the for­givenesse of their sins; yet only those Beleevers who are penitent or holy shall enjoy the future benefit of that Right. By reason of which limitation, the benefit or effect of actuall forgivenesse is suspended, untill the condition of holinesse bee accomplished. Which condition being never performed, God stands no way engaged for the future, to forgive actually those sinnes, un­to the forgivenesse whereof the Beleever had once a present Right.

Hence Christ makes our Forgiving of one another an adequate condition of Gods forgiving us; that if we forgive one another, (which act in us is a good degree of our repentance or holinesse) then will God forgive us: but if we forgive not, God will not forgive us; what former promise soever he hath made, or what present right soever we have thereto: Matt. 6.14. If yee forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if yee forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. If Gods forgivenesse heere mentioned be not conditio­nall, then must wee needs averre, that either there is no such thing as a condition, or that hitherto the thing is not rightly un­derstood, [Page 20] what it meaneth. Likewise every time wee pray to God for forgivenesse, as Christ taught us to pray for it, we aske it upon this condition of forgiving others. Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespasse against us. Or if on our part this con­dition be not expressed; yet on Gods part it is alwayes implied and understood. But if in this life our sinnes bee absolutely and actually forgiven, there can bee no cause why wee should dayly pray for their forgivenes: because no man prayes for what he al­ready hath and enjoyeth. But because Gods promise to forgive us is conditionall, therefore we dayly pray, that God would finally performe his promise, upon our performance of the condition.

Heerupon it is, that Christ makes the forgivenes of sinnes a Motive unto Repentance, in saying to the Cripple whom he had healed, John 5.14. Thou art now made whole, sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. Under the words, Thou art made whole, Christ comprehendeth the forgivenes of his sinnes: because the ordina­ry forme of words wherewith Christ healed, was by saying, Thy sinnes are forgiven thee. Peter also presseth the same doctrine, that the forgivenesse of our sinnes, should make us to repent, or die to sin, 1. Pet. 2.24. Who his own selfe bare (or tooke away) our sinnes in his owne body on the tree; that we being dead to sin, should live unto righteousnesse. The word heere in the originall for dead, doth pro­perly signifie departed: but is elegantly Englished dead: because it is opposed to live, in the clause following: but especially because all the dead are departed; and therefore all that are dead to sin, are departed from sin; which makes the nature of repentance. And the woman who had beene a sinner, did carefully put this doctrine in practice, and shewed us an example of it in her owne person; for she upon the forgivenesse of her sinnes, was thereby moved unto acts of holinesse in the works of love; and because her sinnes were many, her love was so much the more, in wash­ing, and wiping, in kissing and anointing the feet of Christ. And Christ afterward declared, that her motive to this great love, was the forgivenesse of her many sinnes; adding withall this ve­rity, Luke 7.47. To whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. From whence it followeth, that hee who loveth not, to him nothing is forgiven; or at least the forgivenesse will come to nothing: because if it. come to something, it must needs come to some love.

And Christ must bee the Judge of the condition. For his office it is to examine the reality of it, whether it have beene truly performed, according to the precept of the New Testament, wherein the forgivenesse of sinnes is promised. Because Christ is [Page 21] the sole Executor of that Testament; and unto the Executor it belongeth to examine, judge, and allow the conditions of Lega­cies conditionall, that accordingly hee may discharge them; for the discharge of Legacies lies alwayes upon the Executor. And at the day of judgement, when Christ shall sit Judge of the quicke and the dead, hee will also discusse the condition of our repentance or holynesse, judging thereof by the workes of love, in giving meate to the hungry, drinke to the thirsty, clothing to the naked, &c. as it is largely described, Mat. 25.35. And ac­cordingly hee will frame the finall sentence, either for the re­mission of sinnes unto the inheritance of everlasting life; or for the retention of sinnes unto the punishment of eternall death. Yet Christ will not examine the condition of our repentance or holynesse by the Rules of severity and rigour, but of grace, mer­cy, and kindnesse, accepting and allowing of a competent holy­nesse in a meane degree, though it have not beene precisely per­formed. Because the New Testament is a Testament ad pias cau­sis, or for charitable uses; and such Testaments admit of this priviledge; that their conditions are at the mercy of the Exe­cutor, and hee hath power to allow them, though they bee not precisely performed.

Thus Remission of sinnes and Repentance are of such neare relation, that they goe hand in hand, as the blessing and the con­dition of it; being in severall passages of the New Testament, joyned and coupled together as the two maine poynts or substan­tialls thereof; and as the two maine subjects which make up the worke of preaching the Gospel. For the New Testament being commonly distributed into the two maine branches of Promises and Precepts, or (which is all one) of Legacies and conditions; remission of sinnes is many times put for all the promises or legacies, and repentance for all the precepts or con­ditions. Hence these two made up the preaching of John the Baptist, Luk. 3.3. And hee came into all the Countrey about Jordan, preaching the Baptisme of Repentance for the remission of sinnes. Hence these two made up the summe of that Gospel, which the Apo­stles were to preach in the name of Christ, Luk. 24.46. And Christ sayd unto them, thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sinnes should bee preached in his Name among all Nations. Hence for the execution and effecting of these two, Christ was exalted to bee a Prince and a Saviour, Act. 5.31. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to bee a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgivenesse of sinnes.

According to the will of God. ] The will of God will not admit [Page 22] of a definition; for it is not definite to bee defined, but rather definitive and doth define; and therefore it must bee designed by such markes as may notifie it; and they are chiefely three: Namely, his Affects, Decrees, and Purposes. For 1. Every af­fect of God is his will, as his Love, Grace, and Mercy, his Ha­tred and Anger. 2. Every Decree of God is his will, as his Promises, Precepts, and Judgements. 3. Every purpose of God is his will, as his Precognition, Prevision, and Predestination; which Acts being the forethoughts or counsells of his will, whereby hee constituteth his Decrees, doe note an antecesse of time, that the Decree thereby constituted, was a long time pre­destinated or purposed before it was destinated or ordained. Hence it will follow, that every Covenant of God is his Will; because his Covenant is his present Decree for things to bee done for the future. And every testament of God is his will; because his testament is his present decree for things to bee done after death; for that futurity which is limited unto death, doth specifie Gods Testament from his Covenant. For Gods Testa­ment, and his Covenant are not wills opposite or divers, but sub­ordinate or graduous; because his Covenant is more ample and large; for all Gods Covenants are not Testaments; but all his Testaments are his Covenants. And every Testament whatsoe­ver, when it takes effect, becomes a Covenant; because when the Executor undertakes it, there is a full agreement betweene his will and the testators will, for the performance of the whole Testament, and an agreement of Wills makes up a full Cove­nant.

The will of God in expresse tearmes is no where mentioned, either in the Law, or the Prophets, or in the Old Testament, excepting onely once, Ezra. 7.18. But in the New Testament we frequently finde the word, and there it is commonly taken for the New Testament it selfe, or for that will of God, which is his last will and testament. So John 1.13. Which were borne not of bloud, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God, i. e. of Gods last will and testament. And John 6.38. I came downe from Heaven, not to doe mine owne will; but the will of him that sent mee, i, e. to execute and fullfill the last will and testament of God. And Rom. 12.2. That yee may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God, i. e. What are the Precepts or Commands of his last will and testament. And Ephes. 1.5. According to the good pleasure of his will, i. e. of his last will and testament; in which sence it is also taken in the same Chapter, vers. 9.11. And 1 Thes. 4.3. This is the will of God, even your sanctification, i. e. This is a Precept of Gods last will and testament. And Heb. 10.9. [Page 23] Then sayd hee, [...]e I come to the thy will O God, i. e. to execute and per­forme thy last will and testament, as by the words following is plainely declared. Hee taketh away the first, that hee may establish the second, i. e. Hee taketh away the Old Testament, which was the first will of God, that hee may establish the New, which is his second and last will.

And in this sence is the will of God taken heere, when Paul saith, according to the will of God; and that for three Reasons. 1. Because Christ gave himselfe to death according to no other will of God, then his last Will and Testament; for Christ dy­ed for this end or effect, that by the meanes of his death hee might testifie, confirme, and execute the New Testament; that thereupon it might bee in force, and take effect according to the purpose or meaning of God therein expressed. 2. Because re­mission of sinnes, for which Christ is heere sayd to dye, is accor­ding to no other will of God, then his last Will and Testament; for the Old Testament or Covenant of workes allowed not the remission of all sinnes, but onely Errours and Frailties; and those also were not remitted, unlesse they were expiated by the meanes of a sinne offering, and (in case of damage) of a trespas-offering. 3. Because Repentance which is heere called a Deli­verance from the evill of this present World, was according to no other will of God, then his last Will and Testament; for the Old Testament granted not the benefit of Repentance for any sinne; but the transgressor of a penall Law must by the Law undergoe the penalty of it, whether hee repented or not; in which respect, the Law was armed and strengthned with di­vers penalties, whereof the most were capitall, and from which no Repentance could excuse the Offendour.

These words then shew the efficient cause of Christs death, as those immediately before declared the finall cause of it; and these heere seeme added by way of answer to a tacit objection; for some man might say or thinke, that Christ indeed gave him­selfe to death, and it on purpose to confirme the New Testa­ment; but his death might proceede from the violence of the Jewes, who put him to death, and not from any Ordinance of God, that his death should bee effectuall to that end. To this the Apostle answers fully and plainely, that it was the will, counsell, and purpose of God, according to his last Will and Testament, that Christ should dye for the confirmation of that Testament, to this end, that accordingly our sinnes might bee forgiven; and our sinnes are forgiven to this further end, that thenceforth wee should repent by forsaking the workes of sinne; for all this was according to the last Will and Testament of God the Father.

[Page 24] For the forgivenesse of our sinnes is not the sole act or deede of Christ; but principally of God the Father; unto whom Christ is therein Ministeriall, receiving power and command from his Father, to performe all acts conducing to that effect. Because the forgivenesse of our sinnes is a legacy devised or pro­mised unto us in Gods last Will and Testament, whereof Christ is the Executor or Mediator. Now the Authour or principall cause of every Legacy is the Testatour, according to whose will it is devised; and the Executor is the hand or meane, whereby the Legacy is conveyed; for a Legacy (according to the nature of it) is a gift devised by the Testator, to bee performed by the Executor. And this forgivenesse of sinnes is the most necessary Legacy or promise above all the rest contained in Gods last Wil and Testament. Because without it, wee can never enjoy any of the rest; for unlesse our sinnes bee forgiven, wee can never attaine the Resurrection of the body; and without our Resur­rection, wee cannot enjoy life everlasting. So likewise our Re­pentance or Holynesse is the Precept or Command of Gods last Will and Testament; for throughout the whole body of that Testament, Holynesse is made the condition of the Legacies or Promises, which are thereby so suspended, that without it [...] of no effect. Thus forgivenesse and repentance [...] [...]ording to the will of God; for forgivenesse is ac­ [...]g to the promise of his will, and repentance is according to the precept of his will, as the condition whereupon the pro­mise is to bee performed.

Hence it appears, that The Gospel is the last Will and Testament of God: Which saying is soone delivered, but not so soone proved: For indeede it can never bee proved. Yet not therefore, because it is false; but therefore, because it is so true, and the truth of it so high, that there is no cause or reason above it why it is true. For this truth is a prime verity, which wee call a principle; and it is a prime principle, which wee call a definition: See there­fore in it an exact and easie definition of the Gospel. Nominal­ly indeede, the Gospel signifies glad tydings or good newes; but really it is the name of Gods last Will and Testament: Al­though then some Grammaticall or nominall cause may bee gi­ven for the single words, why it is called the Gospel, or why a Testament? Yet for the verity why one is affirmed of the other, there is no rationall or reall cause, because the affirmation is a de­finition. Which definition, though it cannot bee proved, may easily bee declared thus: A Testament is a Decree of things to bee executed after death; and God who himselfe cannot dye may make a Testament; because hee may make a Decree of [Page 25] things to bee executed after the death, not of himselfe, but of a­nother. God hath made two severall Testaments; whereof the first is called by the name of the Law, and the last by the name of the Gospel: Where by the way wee have also an exact de­finition of the Law thus; the Law is the first Will and Testa­ment of God: Yet wee may note, that throughout the Scrip­ture, the Law is not called the will of God; not that it was not his will; for being his Testament, it must therefore needes bee also his will; but because it was not his good will, as is the Gospel, wherein are devised unto us far better blessings.

The Testatour who is the Authour of this Will, and who fra­med it, is God the Father; for heere, and constantly elsewhere it is called the will of God. The Executor or principall Heire upon whom this will is grounded, is Jesus Christ; for hee is the person who receives the maine benefit thereby, and who is to performe it, by discharging the Legacies, which are therein charged upon him. The death whereto this will was limited, was the death of Christ; for Christ was the substitute of God to dye instead of God, that by the death of Christ the Testa­ment of God might bee confirmed, to bee and stand in force for ever, till the finall execution of it: For a Testament is of force after men are dead, and not before. The forme of this Will was Nun­cupative or a Will-parol; for at the constitution of it God first declared it unto Christ, and Christ published it to his Apostles, and they afterward consigned unto writing, whereby it became that part of the holy Scripture, which wee call the New Testa­ment. The apparence or certainety of this will, that it is the whole true and last will of God, was effected by the testimony of Christ, who made sufficient and full proofe thereof, by his Doctrine, his Miracles, his Death and Resurrection; for all Wills have their apparance or certainety either by writing or witnesse; as the Old Testament appeared by the writing of Mo­ses, and the New by the witnesse of Christ.

The Legataries who in this Will are made the co-heires with Christ, are all men who are Beleevers, or who through Christ beleeve in God; for in Gods Will men are nominated by no other name, then by the appellative or common name of Beleevers. The Legacies or promises made unto Beleevers in this Will, are the Graces and blessings of Adoption to bee the sonnes of God, of sanctification by the Spirit of God, of the Remission of their sinnes, of the Resurrection of their bodies, and of Ever­lasting life in heaven; for unto all these blessings, Beleevers are called and justified, to have a present right to the future possessi­on of them. The Termes or words whereby these Legacies or [Page 26] promises are disposed and conveyed unto Beleevers, are imputing, ordayning, and predestinating; which in this respect signifie no more, then what men commonly understand by the two usuall Testamentary words of Devising and bequeathing. The Conditions or precepts whereto these Legacies or promises are limited, and without which they shall never be possessed, are the Duties of Repentance or holines in the works of love towards our selves, toward our neighbour, and toward God; which workes who so performeth, that person is truly sayd to be delivered from this pre­sent evill world, according to the will of God.

And our Father.] i. e. who is our Father. For the particle and is not heer copulative, as if it joyned and argued divers persons, whereof God is one, and our Father another: but explicative, to specifie divers attributes of the same person: because the person according to whose will Christ died for our sinnes, the same is both God and our Father. Wherefore the particle and, is heere put for that is, or rather for the pronoune relative, who is. And heerby Paul doth tacitly insinuate the fundamentall Legacy of Gods last Will and Testament, which is the grace of divine alli­ance by adoption, whereby God makes over unto us the donati­on of himselfe, to become our Father; and whereby hee accepts us for his sonnes and heirs, and co-heirs with Christ, who was his only native sonne. For our Adoption, whereby wee acquire this divine alliance, that God is our father, is the Testamentary foundation, whereon are grounded and setled all the subsequent Legacies whereto wee are justified, as the Sanctification of the spirit, the Remission of sinnes, the Resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. For because initially in the first place God gives himselfe unto us to become our Father; therefore consequently hee will doe all further acts which become a father to doe for his sonnes, and will impart unto them the fulnesse of his bles­sings.

And further, he attributes unto God this title of being our fa­ther, as a Motive unto us for our holines. Because our delive­rance from the evill and sin of this world, which makes our ho­lines is according to the will of God our father, who is himselfe holy in all his works, and requires from us works of holines, and enableth us to performe them. For by his last Will and Testa­ment, hee promiseth and covenanteth with us to regenerate or sanctifie us with his holy spirit, and to write in the tables of our hearts those lawes and rules, which containe in themselves, and require from us, a greater measure and degree of holines then e­ver were in those lawes which once he wrot in the tables of stone. See and compare Jer. 24.7. and Jer. 31.33. and Ezech. 11.19. [Page 27] 20. and Ezech. 36.27.28. and 2. Cor. 3.3. and Heb. 8.10. And because by our holines of life, God becomes most really and properly our Father; for upon our adoption, God is but our jurall father, whereby we have a right to blessednes, even the same right with Christ, to be co-heirs with him thereunto; but upon our holines of life, God becomes our morall father, after whose likenes we doe right, wherein we most resemble God; for there­by we put on the new man, which after Gods image is renewed in righteousnes and true holines. Thus our most gracious God, who before vers. 1. was by the Apostle stiled the father, by way of community in generall, is now by vertue of his last Will and Testament, related to us in particular, and stiled our father.

Although by vertue of Gods first testament, God became a fa­ther unto the Jewes, and they to him were children; yet in that testament God doth not ordinarily stile himselfe their father, but their God and their Lord. Because though hee were their fa­ther, yet he caryed himselfe toward them not in the condition or quality of a Father, but of their Lord and Master: and they, though they were his heires, yet because they were children in their non-age, they differed nothing from the condition or qua­lity of servants; for they were held in bondage under the worldly elements of carnall commandements: as will appeare afterward, Cap. 4.1. of this Epistle. But by vertue of his last will and testament, God becomes unto Christians not onely a Father indeed and condition, but also in title and appellation, stiling himselfe constantly by the name of our Father, and com­manding us to petition, or pray to him by the title of our Father; which title argues a relation of more comfort, favour, love, and grace, then that of Lord. They therefore are in an errour, who in their Prayers, Sermons, or other discourses, esteeme it a higher honour to God, and affect it as a greater grace to them­selves, to mention God by the name of the Lord, according to the Jewish forme under the Law, then by the name of our Father, which is the Christian forme under the Gospell.

Comment.

TO whom be glory.] Though Grammatically, the Relative to whom, be of the singular number, and referred to the person last mentioned, who is God our Father: yet Theologically it must also be referred more antecedently to the person mentio­ned further off, who is Christ our Lord. Because we must not by any meanes exclude Christ from the right and due of glory; for as the blessing unto us comes primarily from God, and deri­vatively by Christ: so our Blessing, or thanksgiving for it, must be derived or conveyed unto God by Christ, who brought this grace from God unto us, and who is the Person by, and through whom we must glorifie God. See Rom. 16.27. and Ephes. 3.21. and Heb. 13.21. For how can we containe our selves from blessing and glorifying of God our Father, by Christ our Lord, when we apprehend and consider, that God is become our Fa­ther at so deare a rate, as the death of his only Son Jesus Christ our Lord?

For ever and ever.] Because God and Christ doe live, and reigne for ever, and we who are true Christians shall live with them for ever; for everlasting life is the finall Legacy devised unto us in Gods last testament; therefore our divine service of thanksgiving must continue for ever and ever, to glorifie God [Page 29] and Christ, not onely in this world, but in the world to come; for there both Saints and Angels shall glorifie both for ever and ever. See Revel. 4.9, 10. and Revel. 5.13. and Revel. 7.11, 12, and Revel. 19.1, 4.

Amen. ] An acclamation setting our fiat to testifie and ratifie the sincerity of our devotion in glorifying God our Father, and Christ our Lord. The word Amen is no wherein Scripture used as a forme of swearing; for it signifies no divine attribute where­by God is invoked as a Witnesse of verity, or an Avenger of per­jury. But in the new Testament where it is joyned or referred to a verb Indicative, there it is an adverb of Affirming, or Asse­vering; and then it is the same with the Greeke word [...], which signifies verily; for in this sense we frequently meet with it in the Evangelists, who use indifferently the words Amen and verily; and the thing which in one Evangelist is assevered by Amen, is by another, especially by Luke, expressed by verily: this forme of asseveration was very frequent in the speeches of Christ; because he assevered and assured the greatest and strangest truth that ever was published on earth, and which for the substance and certainty thereof is by way of eminency called the Truth. But where Amen is joyned or referred to a verbe Optative, there it is an adverbe of wishing or praying, and then it is the same with [...], which signifies Ʋtinam. i. e. God grant; in which sense it is a Petition to God, wherein we pray for some desired good, redounding either to God, our neighbour, or our selves; and in this sence Amen is opposed to the Greeke word [...], which is an adverbe of forbidding, and signifies absit. i. e. God forbid, which is a supplication to God, wherein we pray against some impending evill, which concerneth either God, our neighbour, or our selves. See afterward, Cap. 6. vers. 14. Hi­therto is the Proeme, or Preface of the Apostle.

Comment.

I Marvell that yee are so soone removed.] His words are a re­proofe of their fact, in that hee marvelleth at it; yet his re­proofe is but gentle, in that hee doth but marvell; for hee that saith hee marvelleth at a fact that is foule, doth not reproove it sharpely; but onely declares, that hee hoped farre otherwise of them, then by their fact appeares; which was so inconsiderate and rash, that it was altogether besides his expectation. But the things whereat the Apostle marvells, and thereby reproves, are two; whereof the one is, the nature of their fact, that they were removed or turned from the Gospel of Christ; wherein hee againe mollifies his reproofe, partly by using a Verbe of the passive voice, of their being removed; whereby hee seemes to remove the fact from themselves, and to translate the fault of it upon their false Teachers, who had troubled and perverted them, as more plainely hee declares himselfe in the next verse following; and partly by putting the Verbe passive in the pre­sent tense, [...]. as if hee did not conceive them, yet per­fectly and fully removed in facto esse, but onely upon a Remove in fieri. The other thing whereat hee marvells, is the suddaine­nesse of their fact, that they were so soone removed, which ar­gued much inconstancy and levity of minde; for this suddaine removall must not bee understood in respect of time onely; but also of their judgement, in that after Paul had planted the Gos­pel amongst them, and once watered it by a visitation; they, while yet it was but greene, and as it were in the blade, should suddainely and rashly bee removed from it, without expecting any fruit of it, or without consulting him who planted it.

From him that called you into the Grace of Christ.] The Greeke is, [...]; whereof the construction seemes to bee thus, [...], i. e. from Christ, who hath called you by Grace, or by his Grace: For although the Genitive [...] bee not in construction gover­ned by the Noune [...]. yet in sence, the matter of grace must needes bee referred unto Christ: But if [...] bee governed by the Preposition [...], then wee shall have in the Text a Substantive for the Participle [...], and not bee forced by way of sup­plement, to seeke for such a Substantive out of the Text, either in God or Paul; because wee shall runne into greater difficulties, [Page] before wee shall determine and agree upon the right Substantive to bee understood. The reading wee have proposed hath of all others least difficulty, and besides is no novelty; for so are the words read by the Syriack Interpreter, so by Jerome, and so by E­rasmus, so also by the Vulgar French Translation. But if wee take them in their literall order, and referre Christ unto Grace; then wee shall hardly determine of him that called; who that per­son should bee, whether God or Paul; for betweene those two the different opinions lye, and each of those opinions hath his difficulty: For although sometime God bee wholly understood in, and by the single Participle Calling, as hee is afterward, cap. 5.8. see also, Rom. 9.11. and 1. Thess. 5.24. And although for the most part in the writings of the Apostles, our Calling bee attribu­ted unto God, as see Rom. 8.30. and 1. Cor. 1.9. and Act. 2.39. and 1. Cor. 7.15. and 1. Thess. 2.12. and 2. Thess. 2.14. and 2. Tim. 1.9. and 1. Pet. 5.10. Yet if in this place the Apostle had understood the Calling heere of God, hee would hardly have said, that God had called them by the Grace of Christ; but rather by his grace, as afterward in this cap. ver. 15. Paul speaking of God calling him to his Apostleship, saith, who called mee by h [...] grace. And besides, to speake properly and truely, the Galatians were not removed from God, for they continued still zealous towards God, and really adhered to the Law of God; but they were re­moved from Christ unto Moses, i. e. from that Discipline which God delivered by Christ, unto that which God delivered by Moses. And as for Paul, the action of calling is no where in Scripture ascribed unto him, nor to any other of the Apostles: And it seemes somewhat too much for Paul, to say of himselfe, that the Galatians were removed from him, or from his Gospel, unto another Gospel; for the Gospel is really and truely the Gospel of God and of Christ, and is constantly so called; albeit in some passages, Paul in reference to his Ministery and preach­ing of the Gospel, calleth it his Gospel. See Rom. 2.16. and Rom. 16.25. and 1. Thess. 1.5. and 2. Thess. 2.14. and 2. Tim. 2.8. Yet so hee calls it, onely in respect of the line or circuit where hee was to preach it, because the Ministery thereof unto the uncircumcision or Gentiles was committed unto him; as af­terward in this Epistle hee expresseth it, cap. 2.7. Where hee op­poseth the Gospel of uncircumcision committed unto him, to the Gospel of Circumcision committed unto Peter. The plainest sense therefore of these words is, to referre the Calling unto Christ; and that for these three Reasons. 1. Because Christ is named in the Text, under a Genitive that may governe the Participle [...], and may bee governed as well by the Preposition [Page 32] [...], as by the Noune [...]. 2. Because Christ is the person who under God calleth us, and by whom God calleth us; for hence the faithfull are sayd, to bee the called of Jesus Christ, Rom. 1.6. 3. Because the Galatians were removed from Christ and his Gospel, unto Moses and his Ceremonies, especially unto that of Circumcision, as Paul plainely intimates afterward, cap. 5. vers. 2.4. Where hee professeth to the Galatians, that if they bee circumcised, Christ shall profit them nothing, and Christ is become of no effect unto them.

That called you.] In the word called, is expressed the manner of our accesse to the Right and Priviledge of Blessednesse, which is our Heavenly Inheritance; for unto this Right or Priviledge we are called, i. e. the will and good pleasure of God to give and grant us a right thereto, is revealed or signified unto us; for by this calling, wee have our first notice or knowledge of Gods good will towards us, to justifie and adopt us for his Sonnes and Heires, as Co-heires with Christ, whereby wee have a right to the Inhe­ritance of Blessednes. This will of God was revealed or signified to men, first by Christ, after by his Apostles, and ever since succes­sively by Gods Ministers, who by preaching and publishing the word of his will, doe dayly invite and call men to become the Sonnes of God, and Heires unto Blessednesse. For this Calling is a Metaphor taken from a publick Feast, whereunto divers Guests are invited, called, or bidden; who before they are invited have of themselves no right to come, no desert to come, no desire to come, nor no will to come; for in being invited, they are en­treated to come, as it were against, or beyond their will; and many will not come at all, but request to bee excused, because they have other businesse in the world, which as they conceive is of more importance then to come to a Feast. According to this manner is our Calling to become the Sonnes of God, and Co-heires with Christ to the Inheritance of Heaven; for be­fore wee are thereto called, wee are in the condition of Guests before they are invited to the Feast; for wee to that Inheri­tance have of our selves no right, no desert, no desire, no know­ledge, and therefore no will: For wee are invited or called, i. e. entreated to it as it were against, besides, or beyond our will; and many will by no meanes accept it, but desire to bee excused, that they may follow their worldly businesse, as appeares in the Parable of the Wedding, whereto the Guests were invited or called. Mat. 22.2. When an invitation or calling to a Feast is accepted by the Guest, then the invitation or calling is effectu­all; because according to the will and purpose of the Inviter it taketh effect; and that effect consisteth in this, that the Guest [Page 33] hath a right to come to the Feast; for the will and purpose of the Invitor is, that upon the invitatiō the Guest should have a right to come; and the Guest by his acceptance of the Invitation hath a right to that whereto he was invited. And the title whereby the Guest hath this right to come to the Feast, is only by the grace, fa­vour, or courtesie of the Invitor, and not by any works in the guest meriting that right, nor by any Law constraining the Invitor to give it; for invitations are not ordered by any such Rules, as works and Lawes; neither are or can be any Lawes extant in the World to regulate Invitations. So we, when by the Ministery of the Gos­pel we are invited or called to the inheritance of blessednes, if we accept of it, our calling is effectual, and thereby we have a right to it, for the son & heir hath a right to his Inheritance: Yet our title to that right is neither by birth, nor by works, nor by law, but on­ly by Grace. Into the Grace.] The Greek is, [...], i. e. By, with, or through Grace; for all these make but one sense, and one of these wayes, the words, [...], mentioned elsewhere, are alwayes ren­dred by our last English Translation. See 2. Cor. 1.12. & Col. 3, 16. & Col. 4.6. & 2. Thes. 2.16. And so it is rendred here by the Syriak Interpreter, and by the vulgar French Translation. For the word, by Grace, doth declare our title specifying what kind of right wee have to that Inheritance, whereto we are invited or called; that on Gods part, our title thereto is only by grace, & not by any act of Justice or Duty, wherby God stands bound to cal us; as by grace on­ly it is, that a Guest is invited or called to a Feast. And Grace is not the tearme or state whereinto wee are called; but the motive or meanes whereby wee are called; for Grace is the ori­ginall ground, or prime cause of our calling, and our calling is in order of Nature after Grace, because it is an effect of Grace. But Grace is on Gods part the title to our right in the state of filiation or Christian Liberty, whereby wee are made the sonnes of God, and co-heires with Christ to the Inheritance of Blessednesse; for unto that right wee are called by no other title on Gods part, but by his Grace, (though the title on our part bee our acceptance of that right, which is our Faith) as when a Guest hath a right to come to a Feast; his title to that right on the Feasters part, is onely by the Grace, Favour, or Courtesie of the Feaster; and the title on the Guests part is his accep­tance of the invitation or calling to the Feast. Now Grace is not a legall word belonging to the Old Covenant of the Law; for in the Old Testament, wee shall very rarely finde the word at all in any sense, but never in the genuine sense: But Grace is a word Evangelicall, belonging to the New Testament or Covenant, whereof Christ is the Mediatour; for hence the Gospel and [Page 34] the subject thereof, which is the New Covenant, is called the Gospel and the Covenant of Grace, and in that Evangelicall sense, wherein the word stands in this place, (for to take the word in the whole latitude would bee tedious and needelesse) Grace is the will and act of God, whereby wee are made the sonnes of God, and co-heires with Christ to the Inheritance of Blessednesse. For hence Grace is opposed to Nature, which is an act of God, whereby wee are made men, to have an earthly do­minion and inheritance after the Image or likenesse of God: So Grace is an Act of God, whereby wee are made Christians to have an Heavenly Dominion and Inheritance after the Image and Likenesse of Christ, who was the naturall sonne of God, borne to that Inheritance whereto wee after his likenesse as co-heires with him, are adopted. And hence Gods Grace is oppo­sed to our Workes, which as a title to that Inheritance are in­compatible with Gods grace; for if wee have a right to that Inheritance by grace, wee cannot have it by workes no more then wee have by nature or birth: Yet our workes are a tenure con­sequent and according to Gods grace, whereby wee hold the right wee have by grace; for because of Gods grace to make us his sonnes, wee must bee gratefull and thankefull to carry our selves as his sonnes by the workes of obedience to so gracious a Father; for otherwise wee are ungracious sonnes. And lastly, hence Gods grace is opposed contrarily to his wrath and his Law; extreamely contrary to his wrath, and meanely to his Law; because Gods Law is a meane betweene the two ex­treames of his grace and his wrath; for when God doth us more good or lesse evill then his Law allowes, this is grace; but when hee doth us more evill or lesse good then his Law pro­vides, this is wrath; and his wrath hee many times executes upon us, by taking judgement into his owne hands, and punish­ing our sinnes by himselfe, when the Ruler is negligent of his duty, in laying upon us the punishment assigned by Law; and extreame grace is, when God without any Law or equity obli­ging him thereto, bestowes upon us the supreame favour of ma­king us his sonnes and co-heires with Christ unto the Inheritance of eternall Blessednesse. Now the Apostle doth therefore tell the Galatians that they were removed from Christ, who had called them by grace; because hee would acquaint them with the admirable benefit or blessing, whereof by that removall they had voluntarily deprived themselves, that seeing and acknow­ledging the rashnesse of their fact, they might repent of it, and turn to the Gospel of Christ, by whose grace they had been called.

Unto another Gospel.] Another, i. e. a forraigne or strange Go­spel, [Page 35] pretended so to be. These words shew the terme of accesse whereto they were removed; and are opposed to the former words, from Christ who called them by grace; as the terme of Recesse from whence they were removed. The new doctrine which they had exchanged for the doctrine of Christ, who cal­led them by grace, he calls another Gospel; not that it was so in­deed, but only in the opinion of the Galatians, and of their false teachers, who obtruded upon them this counterfeit Gospel, and thereby taught them another way of obtayning a right to bles­sednes, then by the grace of God. The summe of which counter­feit and pretended Gospel was this; that the right and title to the inheritance of blessednesse, was to be had by the Law of God formerly given by Moses; that the inheritance was due unto them for the service and desert of their works performed accor­ding to that Law; and that God was to give them that inheri­tance by an act of his Justice, in consequence to his Law for their obedience unto it. For these seeme to bee the principall points in the confutation whereof, the Apostle bends his arguments prosecuted in this Epistle.

Comment.

VVHich is not another.] The Greek is, [...]; which words may beare a twofold sense. A first sense, 1. Thus; which is not another Gospel; for if the Relative which, be referred to the word Gospel in the former verse, then this saying is a correction of his former reproofe for that clause of it, in saying they were removed to another Gospel. q. d. Though I sayd you were removed to another Gospel, yet indeed there is [Page 36] no other Gospel at all, besides that which I preached amongst you: but only some trouble you with another doctrine, and per­swade you that their doctrine is the true Gospel. A second sense. 2. Thus; which is nothing else, but that there be some who trouble you; for if this whole sentence, with the rest of this verse bee referred to the whole reproofe in the former verse, then it is an excuse of the Galatians revolt, by discovering the true cause of it, and by translating the fault of it upon some others who troubled them, q. d. This your removeall from the Gospel of Christ unto ano­ther Gospel, is nothing else, or the cause of it is no other, but that there be some who trouble you. Either of these two senses is so allowable, that neither of them is to bee maintained or pressed against the other: because neither of them is of such consequence as to be elementary and serviceable for the illustrating or conclu­ding of any other verity in the New Testament.

But there be some that trouble you.] The true cause of their revolt from the true Gospel. The false teachers amongst the Galatians, to avoyd persecution for preaching the true and sincere Gospel of Christ, troubled and disquieted the consciences of the Gala­tians, constrayning them to Circumcision and other Legall ce­remonies. The truth many times may, and sometime doth breed trouble to him that teacheth it: but it seldome troubles the soul that receives it; whereas errour disquiets and distracts the con­science, leaving her uncertaine of the issue pretended, and trou­bling her about the means thereto leading.

And would pervert the Gospel of Christ.] The issue of their counterfeit Gospel; which though it might not be the intent of the false teachers, yet it would bee the event, that the Gospel of Christ would thereby be perverted. i. e. it would bee cast into a new mould or frame contrary to the forme it had before. The addition of Circumcision and other legall Ceremonies doth a­dulterate and corrupt the Gospel of Christ, by compounding it into a new nature, contrary to the genuine simplicity and sinceri­ty, wherein it was originally planted and taught; for they con­found the Gospel, who compound and complie it with the law; because they who unto the Gospel of Christ, would super-adde the law of Moses, must consequently needs teach, that Grace on Gods part, and faith on our part, make not a sufficient title to our right of inheritance unto blessednesse: but that our title by grace and faith requires a further corroboration from our works according to the law of Moses, such as Circumcision and diffe­rence of meats, which are such servile works, and such beggerly services unto God, and so far from making us a title to have that right, that they serve not for a tenure whereby to hold it: but [Page 37] that right must bee held by our filiall works of love, as wee are the sonnes and heires of God, and as they are prescribed in the Gospel of Christ; which works Evangelicall are of a more noble nature, and more pleasing to God, then the legall works under the law, which were but beggerly and servile services.

Comment.

BUt though we, or an Angel from heaven.] Wee. i. e. I Paul; for he speaks only of or concerning himselfe, using the plurall number for the singular; as appears in the words in the verse following, as we have sayd before; for Paul only was the per­son who had sayd the words of this verse. And the force of this argument is very moving, because the Apostle argues for the truth of his owne doctrine, even against himselfe. q. d. Not only they who trouble you, and would enforce a new gospel upon you, are to bee wholly rejected; but also I my selfe if I should attempt it, am to bee repelled as an execrable person. And not only I, but if an Angel should come to you as an Evangelist or an Apostle, with a message from Heaven contrary to the doctrine by me planted amongst you, he is in like maner to be abandoned. The words from heaven, are not to be referred to the act of prea­ching, but to the person of the Angel, to whom they are an attri­bute, and signifie only an heavenly Angel; for there are Angels who in respect of their residence, are celestiall and supernall in [Page 38] the highest Heaven, and there are Angels, who for their resi­dence are aereall, and infernall; for in comparison of the highest Heaven, which is most supernall, the Ayre which makes the lowest Heaven is infernall. Hence wicked spirits are called Prin­ces of the Ayre, and are sayd to bee in Heavenly Places, i. e. in the Ayre; for the Ayre, though in respect of the highest Hea­ven above it, it bee Hell; yet in respect of the Earth below it, it is Heaven; and consequently the Ayre in a different and sub­alterne respect is both Heaven and Hell. See and compare, Mat. 6.26. and Luk. 13.19. and Ephes. 2.2. and Ephes. 3.10. and Ephes. 6.12. and 2. Pet. 2.4. But to supply the Argument with the greater force, the Apostle supposeth a condition alto­gether impossible, seeing it could never come to passe, that either hee himselfe should against himselfe, or an Angel from Heaven against him should ever attempt to preach another Gospel.

Should preach any other Gospel unto you, then that which wee have preached. The Greeke is, [...], i. e. literally, should preach unto you, besides what wee have preached. Heereby is excluded from the Gospel of Christ, all such Doctrine that is either against his Gospel or besides it; for whatsoever Doctrine is against it, is also besides it, and more then besides it; and con­sequently all such Doctrine is excluded as alien from the Gospel of Christ, which either doth wholly alter or partly subvert the way delivered by Paul for obtaining a true right, and a right ti­tle to the Inheritance of Blessednesse. And this is done either directly, when any thing is taught manifestly contrary to that Doctrine which is necessary to salvation, as to teach that Jesus is not the Christ, or that there is no New Covenant: Or indi­rectly, when any thing not necessary is proposed and urged as necessary, though it bee not contrary to the Gospel of Christ, but onely disparate or diverse from it, as to urge the Ceremo­nies either of Moses, or of others, as necessary to salvation; for by this meanes the way to salvation is partly changed, and as­signed to some by-way, whereto Christ and his Apostles assigned it not: Yet because at that time the legall Ceremonies were ur­ged as necessary to salvation, especially by those Christians which were converted from Judaisme, whose infirmity was to­lerated by the rest of the Apostles, and by Paul himselfe, who Rom. 14. plainely declares, that their opinion was no prejudice to their salvation: Therefore wee must not affirme, that it was the Apostles minde in this place to pronounce a curse upon all those, who any manner of way should teach something as ne­cessary to salvation, besides what hee had taught, if they taught it out of meere ignorance or errour; but those onely hee pro­nounceth [Page 39] accursed, who out of arrogance, or some by-respect should presse as necessary to salvation those things, which they knew the Apostle had taught to bee not neces­sary.

Doth not this Text reach unto the Church of Rome, who ur­geth as necessary to salvation, the Traditions and Precepts of the Church, as shee calls them, which shee acknowledgeth, not to bee comprised in the Doctrine of the Apostles; for shee her selfe distinguisheth them from the Precepts of the Apostles. For if Pauls Doctrine which contained not those Traditions of the Church, were sufficient to salvation; with w [...] authority can those Traditions bee urged as necessary? and by what meanes shall they who urge them escape the curse heere menaced. But if they alleage that their Traditions are not contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles, but onely additionall; even the con­cession of this is enough for their conviction; for in adding to the Doctrine of the Apostles, and urging their additions as necessary to salvation, they thereby teach besides the Doctrine of Paul, as much as they did, who unto the faith of Christ would adde the legall Ceremonies, which is the maine point in this Epistle con­demned; because those legall Ceremonies, though they were not contrary and against, yet were different, and besides those things which Paul affirmed as sufficient to salvation: But the Galatians by necessitating of their additions must needes deny them sufficient; and therefore the Churches of Rome joyne heerein with the Churches of Galatia, that unto the Gospel of Christ they make additions, though the additions bee not the same.

Let him bee accursed. ] The censure and doome upon the for­mer presumption; that whosoever shall attempt it, shall become a curse, i. e. an abominable, and execrable, and devoted thing, which no man may or dare touch. In poynt of false Doctrine urged against, or besides the Gospel of Christ; no respect is to bee had to the Dignity or quality of the Person, though hee bee an Apostle or an Angel from Heaven; for if such Persons as these may by no meanes corrupt the Gospel, what person else shall dare to doe it? Whosoever therefore shall wittingly and pur­posely with arrogance and pertinacy attempt this corruption di­rectly or indirectly against, or besides the Gospel, that person cannot escape the thunder of this curse; but hee may escape it, who out of ignorance or errour teacheth somewhat, which hee thinkes consequent to the Doctrine of the Gospel, though indeed it bee repugnant or different from it, if afterward upon the sight of his errour, hee forsake it, and submit to the truth; for such a [Page 40] one is not forthwith to bee accursed, but must first bee refuted, and instructed in the truth.

Comment.

FOR doe I now perswade men, or God?] The particle now, and the particle yet, in the words following, though sometime they be taken for the very instant and moment of the time present; yet heere in this place they must bee ampliated or ex­tended to a greater latitude, to signifie such a time present as comprehendeth some compasse, and includeth a certaine state and condition of things, which state as long as it lasteth the same, is so long accounted the time present. See Matt. 3.10. and John 12.31. and Rom. 13.11. and 1. Cor. 13.12.13. and 2. Cor. 6.2. In this place therefore the particle now signifies that space of time, from whence the Apostle being made a Minister of Christ did begin to preach the Gospel, and yet continued to preach it; for it is opposed to that former time, when he was a Pharisee, and a vehement maintayner of the Law. He demands therefore whe­ther now during his Ministery of the Gospel, hee perswade men or God? which he proposeth by way of Interrogatory, signify­ing thereby, that the matter was so evident to the Galatians, that they must needs be forced to confesse the truth of it; for this In­terrogation must bee resolved and construed for two vehement assertions; one a Negation thus; I doe not now perswade men; [Page 42] the other an affirmation repugnant to the former negation thus, I doe now perswade God. The word Men, is here figuratively put for humane doctrines, or for those opinions whereof men are the Inventors; as wee often use the words Plato and Aristo­tle for the opinions or writings of Plato and Aristotle. And in like manner the word God, is put for divine Doctrines, and for those verities whereof God is the Authour and Revealer; so Christ is sometimes put for the Doctrine of Christ, and the preaching of Christ is put for the preaching of his Doctrine. See Act. 5.42. and Act. 8.5. and 2 Cor. 4.5. and Phil. 1.15. q. d. When I was a Pharisee zealous of the Law, I perswaded and pressed humane Doctrines, as the traditions of our Fathers and other opinions of men: but now since I was ordained an Apostle and a Minister of Christ, I dare urge no humane Doctrine: but contrarily, the Doctrine which now I urge is wholly Divine, whereof God is the Authour and Revealer unto mee. This Phrase to perswade men is taken in another sense, 2 Cor. 5.11. for there he affirmes that he perswades men, which heere he flatly denyes; and the reason is, because there men are taken for the personall object of his perswasion to whom the matter which he perswaded was piety: but heere Men are put for the reall matter of his perswasion, that the matter which now he per­swaded unto men, was not the Doctrine of men.

Or doe I seeke to please men.] A reason of his double assertion contained in his former interrogation; by removing the cause impulsive, which might seeme to move him to perswade humane Doctrines; and that cause must needs be, a desire to please men and to winne their favour, by preaching the Doctrines of men suitable to mens desires; for what other motive could the Apo­stle have to perswade the Doctrines of men, but only a desire to please men; whose favour he professeth here not to seeke. q. d. I teach not the Doctrines of men; because I hunt nor after their favour and good will, by preaching their inventions and traditions for Gospell.

For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.] A su­per-reason, or confirmation of the former reason; by an argu­ment from the inconvenience, which must necessarily follow, if he did seeke to please men; for that must needs argue him to be the servant of men; and if so, then hee could, or rather would not be the servant of Christ.

The particle yet, doth tacitly argue, that formerly while hee was a Pharisee and a servant to the law, and before he was the servant of Christ, hee endeavoured to please men, as when hee had authority from the high Priests to make inquisition and to [Page 43] attach the professors of Christian Religion; which although it were done in zeale to the Jewish Religion, and to the Law of God, yet can hardly bee free and cleare from all ambition of pleasing men. The word please may bee taken either for the act and deed of pleasing, or for the will and desire to please: yet the later sense is the more likely, because he mentioned before his will and desire in seeking to please men.

The pleasing of men must not here be taken as the will and pleasure of men is conformable and agreeable to the will and pleasure of God; for when men apply their knowledge to the truth of God, and their pleasure to the will of God, and their practice to the Law of God, to submit in all things their plea­sure to the good pleasure of God, or at least endeavour nothing contrary to his Lawes; then in cases wherein mens salvation may be furthered, we may, and must please men; for he that in due manner pleaseth and serveth such men, doth therein please and serve both God and Christ; for thus Paul elsewhere professeth to please men; that it was his exercise to have al­wayes a good conscience voyd of offence not onely toward God, but also toward men; he admonisheth us, that no man should please himselfe, but every one his neighbour, alleadging for our imitation the example of Christ, whose way was not to please himselfe; and the example of himselfe, that his manner was to give no offence neither to Jew nor Gentile, but pleased all men in all things. See Act. 24.16. and Rom. 15.1, 2, 3. and 1 Cor. 10.32, 33. But here wee must understand pleasing of men, as their will and pleasure is opposed to the will and pleasure of God▪ and in that case our will and endeavour must bee to please God, though thereupon all men living should be displeased; for when men have their will crosse to the will of God, and walke in wayes contrary to his Lawes, then by pleasing them wee must needs displease him; and therefore saith Paul, if I should endea­vour to please men, as they dissent and disagree from Christ, I should not be the servant of Christ: or rather I would not have beene the servant of Christ; for in that way his service is a con­dition very unfit for me. q. d. If it were my desire or endeavour to please men, who are displeasing unto Christ, I would not have Christ for my Master, but would soone quit my service unto Christ, and have nothing to doe either with professing or teaching the Religion of Christ; for it had been beter for me to have continued a Jew, and lived in my former state of a Pharisee; wherein I had a fitter condition, and a way more expedient to please the people, and gaine the good will of men; neither would I have abandoned that grace and favour, [Page 44] wherein among my owne nation, especially the chiefest persons, I flourished even unto envy; to have exposed my selfe to the common hatred of all men; whereof the many miseries and per­secutions which I have since suffered for the cause of Christ, are a testimony abundantly sufficient.

Comment.

BƲt I certifie you, brethren.] The Greek is, [...], i. e. but I make knowne unto you, or declare unto you; for one of these wayes the word is constantly rendred in our last English translation. See Luke 2.15. and John 15.15. and John 17.26. and Act. 2.28. and Rom. 9.22.23. and 1. Cor. 15.1. and Ephes. 1.9. and elsewhere. q. d. I declare now and make known unto you concerning the Gospel which I planted among you, a matter which it seems is yet unknown unto you; or if you have had some knowledge of it, yet there are some amongst you, which will not acknowledge it for a certaine truth, but eyther conceale it or keepe it doubtfull: now therefore I shall make it certaine and cleer unto you. And he calls them Brethren: because although in some points they were revolted and removed from the since­rity of the Gospel, yet they were not removed from the compasse of his charity.

That the Gospel which was preached of mee, is not after man.] The truth or matter concerning the Gospel, which hee would make known unto them; that the Gospel which hee planted among them was no humane doctrine. q. d. As my Apostleship by the au­thority whereof I preached the Gospel unto you, was not hu­mane, [Page 45] for I had my Apostleship neither of men, nor by men: so the Gospel which I preached by the authority of my Apostleship was no humane Gospel; the doctrine of it is neither the inventi­on nor tradition of any man; and this I make knowne and certi­fie unto you, that you may retaine no further scruple of the mat­ter. For heereof was the doubt among the Galatians, though there was no just cause for any doubt heerof.

Comment.

FOR I neyther received it of man, neyther was I taught it.] The word of man, interposed heer between the two Verbs recei­ved and taught, must bee referred to both, and follow both thus: I neyther received it, nor was taught it of man. And the word taught, is but explicative, to specifie the generall word recei­ved, and restraine it to the Gospel; in reference whereto those two words make but one sense; for to receive the Gospel, and to be taught the Gospel, is all one: and in a sense somewhat like to this, Paul requires the Thessalonians, to hold the Traditions which they had beene taught, 2. Thess. 2.15. The meaning of the Apostle in this place, is not simply to say, that hee neyther recei­ved, nor was taught the Gospel at all: for in the words next fol­lowing, he acknowledgeth and confesseth, that hee received and was taught it of Christ by revelation; for that was the maine point, which as he sayd in the former verse, he would certifie or make knowne unto the Galatians. But his purpose is to prove, that his knowledge in the divine Gospel of Christ was not hu­mane; that hee neyther received nor was taught his knowledge [Page 46] therein, by any Apostle, nor by any other mortall man. For al­though the Gospel which Paul preached, were for the matter of it divine, as being the same which Peter and the rest of the Apo­stles preached: Yet his knowledge therein, for the meanes whereby hee had it, might by the false Teachers bee alleadged and pretended to bee humane; which Paul heere denyes of him­selfe. But hee denies it not of Timothy, who though hee prea­ched that Gospel which was divine, yet Timothies knowledge in that divine Gospel was humane; because hee received and was taught his knowledge therein by Paul who was a mortall man; for Paul both instructed Timothy in the Gospel, and ordained him a Minister thereof by the imposition of his hands. See and compare 1. Tim, 4.6.14. and 1. Tim. 6.20. and 2. Tim. 1.6.13.14. and 2. Tim. 3.14. So is it in all the Ministers of the Gospel at this day; for although the Gospel which they preach bee di­vine, yet their knowledge therein is humane, because they receive their knowledge by humane meanes.

But by the Revelation of Jesus Christ.] A super-reason or confir­mation of his former reason, by an argument drawne from the contrary, that the Gospel which hee preached, hee neither re­ceived, nor was taught it by man; because hee received and was taught it of Christ by Revelation. And heere againe Christ is opposed to man; not that Christ was no way man; but because when hee revealed the Gospel unto Paul, hee was not at that time a mortall man, nor at any time a meere man, but alwayes both God and man. And heereby also hee firmely concludes and proves his principall assertion, that the Gospel which hee preached was not humane, or not after man; for if hee recei­ved and was taught it by the Revelation of Jesus Christ, then certainely the Gospell so by Christ revealed unto him, was no humane invention, neither was his knowledge in it by any hu­mane instruction. q. d. For my knowledge in the Gospel which I preached unto you; I was no Disciple nor Auditor to any of the Apostles, nor to any other mortall man, to bee taught it, and learne it from man; but my onely Master and Teacher in the Gospel was Jesus Christ himselfe, who revealed it unto mee; and his Revelation of it unto mee, was not after an ordinary manner as hee taught it his Apostles, and the rest of his Disci­ples, while hee conversed upon Earth: But after an extraordi­nary and miraculous manner; for hee taught it mee since his as­cention, and revealed it unto mee from Heaven; and this was the ground why I told you before; that if an Angel from Hea­ven should preach any other Gospel unto you, hee was to bee ac­cursed; because thereby hee preacheth a Gospell repugnant to [Page 47] that Gospel, which was revealed by Christ from Heaven.

Hee useth the word Revelation; because Revelation is an instruction teaching peculiar and proper to the Gospel, and such an instruction as is also peculiar and proper to God to bee made by him; for although men have and doe teach the Gospel; yet the action of revealing the Gospel is never ascribed unto man, but only unto God. See Mat. 16.17. and Luke 10.21. and 1. Cor. 2.10. and Ephes. 3.3. and Phil. 3.15. For the Gospel and the points therein contained are the sacred mysteries and secrets of God, which of themselves are veiled and covered from the know­ledge of man, who by the course of nature, or by force of his na­turall understanding can never attaine to any knowledge therein, unlesse first they bee revealed and discovered by God: Because God, and God onely is the revealer of secrets. Dan. 2.47. The first Teacher of the Gospel who published the Doctrine of it, was Christ, who because hee was God, was therefore a Revea­ler of it, and his Instruction was Revelation: But since Christs ascention, his Apostles and their Successours have beene Teachers thereof, yet not Revealers; neither is their instruction Revela­tion, because Revelation is that instruction which is immediate or proximous from God; therefore the Instruction in the Gos­pel which Paul received immediately and proximously from Christ, who is God, hee calls it Revelation. But the time when Paul had this Revelation from Christ, can not bee certainely de­fined from Scripture: Yet probable it is, that hee had it at the time of his conversion, when hee lay at Damascus in a Trance three dayes together blinde and fasting, without sight or meat▪ for when in his astonishment, hee demanded of Christ, what hee would have him to doe? Christ answered, hee must goe in­to Damascus, and there it should bee told him what hee must doe. Act. 9.6.9. &c. And probable also it is; that hee had this Revelation, at the time of those Revelations, which hee had in his rapture when hee was caught up into Paradice, and heard unspeakeable words; whereof hee writes, 2. Cor. 12.1.2.3. because it is very probable that his trance after his conversion and his rapture for those Revelations were at one and the same time; for in the sequele of this Chapter hee drawes im­mediate Arguments from his conversion to prove hee was taught by Revelation: But this is certaine, that Paul never preached the Gospel of Christ, untill first hee was taught it by Christ; and then immediately hee preached it. See afterward in this Chapter, vers. 16.

Comment.

FOR yee have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jewish Religion. ] By his former conversation in the Jewish Religi­on, wherein after the most straitest Sect hee lived a Phari­see, hee understands not his piety towards God, in any acts of devotion for the worshippe and service of God, whereto the Pha­risees above the rest of the Jewes, were great Pretenders, espe­cially for the acts of fasting and praying; for as it appeares by the description of their Devotions recorded in the Gospel, they fasted thrice in the weeke, they prayed publickly in the corners of the streetes, and they prayed tediously by making long prayers, although all this were Hypocrisie: Yet Paul by his conversation in this place hath reference to none of these. But hee meanes his activity or madnesse (as himselfe calls it) in being wholly trans­ported with fervency and zeale to defend the Law and oppose the Gospell, by persecuting and destroying the Professours thereof, as himselfe intimates in the words following. For all the con­versation of some men in their Religion, especially of those who professe themselves the strictest, is onely a blinde and bloody [Page 49] zeale to persecute and destroy all Dissenters from them; and the murders they commit by the fury of this zeale, they account the worshippe and service of God; as Christ foretold it unto his Disciples, John 16.2. Of Pauls former conversation this way, the Galatians must needes heare, either before or at least upon his planting of the Gospel amongst them; because his persecution was very generall, entering into every house, haling men and wo­men to prison; and because the dispersion of the Disciples ther­upon was very generall also; for they that were scattered a­broad, went every where preaching the Word. See Act. 8.3.4. And because of the fearfull accident that fell upon him in his journey to persecute at Damascus, neare whereunto hee was strucken to the ground with lightning from Heaven; the fact whereof was so notorious and publick, that the fame of it must needes spread to the hearing of the Galatians; seeing the con­fines of Galatia lay not farre remote from the confines of Sy­ria, whereof Damascus was the chiefe City.

How that beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God. ] An in­stance or example of his conversation in the Jewish Religion; namely, that beyond measure he persecuted the Church of God, and beyond measure wasted it. Beyond measure. i. e. Beyond all excesse, even unto extremity; for Beyond measure, is an express [...] ­on too flat and too dry, to utter the sharpnesse and bloudinesse of that persecution wherewith Paul once wasted the Church of God; for therein he exceeded unto all extremity. Into the pro­fession of persecution Paul, as it seemes, had his initiation at the martyrdome of Stephen, with whose bloud his zeale was flesh­ed, for he was accessory to Stephens death, by consenting there­to, and by keeping the rayment of them that stoned him. See Acts 7.58. and Acts 22.20. Of the bloudy persecution against the Church at Jerusalem, whereby all the Saints were thence scatte­red abroad throughout the Regions of Judea and Samaria, though the chiefe Priests were the chiefe authors, yet Paul was the chiefe actor; for hee entred not only into every Synagogue, but into every house, and haling out men and women, commit­ted them to prison. See Acts 8.3. and Acts 26.11. Hee sollicited the high Priest for authority, and obtayned a commission from him to commit the like outrage in the Synagogues at Damascus, as he had executed before in those at Jerusalem. See Acts 9.1.2. and Acts 22.5. and Acts 26.12.

And wasted it.] The degree of his persecution was, that it pro­ceeded unto wasting of the Church; for that word expresseth the extremity of his persecution, that it advanced and increased not only beyond measure, but beyond all excesse. The Greek [...] [Page 50] is rendred elsewhere in our last English Translation, destroyed: (See Act. 9.21. and afterward in this cap. ver. 23.) which ex­pression is too generall and flat, coming short of the full sense of the word: but in this place it is fully and properly translated wasted. For wasting is a speciall kind of destruction, executed with fury and excesse; not only upon mens persons, but upon their lands and goods, and properly signifies a vast destruction. For Wast is a metaphor taken from War, by the fury wherof a Coun­trey is depopulated, the people slaine with the sword, the Towns burnt downe by fire, the cattell driven away, and all the goods made a prey: such a Wast was done upon Jericho, Jos. 6.21.24. Or rather Wast seemes to be a metaphor taken from the Execu­tion of a heavy Judgement upon a cursed person, who to be made an example unto others, is put to a fearfull death, his wife and children turned out of doores, and his house pulled down to the ground; his gardens supplanted, his meadowes plowed, his trees digged up by the roots, and all his goods forfeited. Such a wast was by the judgement of God executed upon the house of Jero­boam, upon the house of Baasha, upon the house of Ahab, and upon the house of Baal, which was turned into a draught-house. See 1. King. 15.29. and 1. King. 16.3.4. and 1. King. 21.22. and 2. King. 10.27. Such a Wast, in a maner, Paul laboured to bring upon the Church of God, as it may easily appeare from two grounds. 1. From the fury of his mind; for hee was exceeding mad against the Church of God, and his mind was so bloudy, that his very breath was bloud, in breathing out threatnings and slaughters against the Disciples of the Lord. See Act. 9.1. and Act. 26.11. 2. From the excesse of his actions; for he haled men and women out of their houses into prison, he forced divers into banishment, persecuting them even unto strange Cities; hee punished the Saints in every Synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme, and when they were put to death, hee suffraged or gave his voyce against them: in a word, [...] (which word explicates [...]) i. e. he made havocke of the Church of God, which is all one with wasting it. See Acts 8.3. and Acts 26.10, 11. Hence plainly appeares the fury and madnesse of blind and blou­dy zeale, which is the only cause of persecuting and wasting the Church of Christ.

Comment.

AND profited in the Jewes religion above many my equals in mine owne nation. ] Hee seemes not heere to speake of his owne personall profiting eyther in the knowledge or in the observance of Judaisme, as if therein hee exceeded his con­temporaries; but of the nationall advantage he brought unto the Jewes in defending and propagating their religion amongst o­thers, and making Proselites unto it. For the Greek is [...], i. e. I increased the Jewish religion, or made it to proceed; for so elsewhere the word is rendred in our last English Translation. See Luke 2.52. and 2. Tim. 2.16. and 2. Tim. 3.9. And this sense is very consequent to his persecuting and wasting of the Church of God; for his persecution and vastation of Christiani­ty, must needs have this effect and fruit thereto consequent, that by vertue thereof, hee advanced and propagated Judaisme: for those two religions being mainly opposite and contrary, the de­crease of Christianity must needs bee the increase of Judaisme; as afterward the propagation of Christianity was the vastation of Judaisme. q. d. I propagated and advanced the doctrine, knowledge, and observance of the Jewes religion, by my activity and industry, in defending it against all adversaries, in gayning divers Proselites unto it, and in spreading it somewhat among the Gentiles; and heerein I exceeded and surpassed all my con­temporaries that were of my time; not only such as were Pro­selites reconciled to our Religion from other Nations; but also such as were Native Jewes by discent and birth in mine owne Nation.

Being more exceeding zealous of the Traditions of my Fathers.] The [Page 52] reason why hee persecuted and wasted the Church of God, was, because hee was zealous of the Traditions of his Fathers; and the reason why hee increased the Jewes Religion more then any of his contemporaries or equalls in time, was, because hee was more exceeding zealous then they. By the Traditions of his Fathers, Hee seemes to understand the whole body of Ceremo­nies then in practice among the Jewes, as well the Ceremonies of Moses, as the Traditions of his Ancestors; whereof some are mentioned by Christ in the Gospel. See Mat. 15.2.6. and Mat. 23.16.18.23.25. q. d. I was an exceeding Zelot above measure, and above many of my equalls, not onely for the Ce­remonies of Moses instituted by the Law of God; but also for the Traditions introduced and superadded by our Ancestours, which by Antiquity of time were confirmed into Customes, and carryed the force of Lawes. And the reason why hee was ex­ceeding zealous in the Jewish Religion, was, because hee was a Pharisee, not onely by profession, in living according to the Rules of that strict Sect, but also by birth and education; for he was the sonne of a Pharisee, and might bee bred by his Father in the Traditions of his Fathers; and the manner of the Pha­risees was to bee exceeding strict, and exceeding zealous. See and compare Mat. 23.15. and Act. 23.6. and Act. 26.5. and Phil. 3.5.6.

Comment.

BUT when it pleased God.] These first words of this verse must have their coherence with the first words of the next verse following, to reveale his sonne in me; thus, But when it pleased God to reveale his sonne in me; for the subject or mat­ter of Gods pleasure here mentioned, was the revealing of Christ unto Paul; which act he saith pleased God, because he would declare that the originall or prime cause of all those meanes whereby he became a Preacher of the Gospell, was onely the good will and pleasure of God, q. d. There was no other motive, or cause of my Conversion from my former con­versation wherein I persecuted and wasted the Church of God, and of my reduction to the knowledge of Christ, who was so effectually revealed unto me, that I became a member of the Church which I persecuted, and a Preacher of the Gospell in it, but onely the good will and good pleasure of God, without any dignity or merit of mine, and contrary to all dignity and merit in me; for the indignities and demerits which I had done to his Church were such, and so great, that had he looked upon my actions and not upon his owne pleasure, there could have been no cause why he should reveale his sonne to me.

Who seperated me from my mothers wombe. ] A reason of his former words, why the originall cause of all those meanes whereby he was ordained a Preacher of the Gospell, was the sole and singular pleasure of God, and no action of Pauls; namely, be­cause God separated or designed him to the Ministery from his mothers wombe, before he had yet done any action of his owne. The words are an Hebraisme, whereby is signified some excellent and singular benefit of nature in the composure or temper of the braine and heart, wherewith God endowes some children from their first conception in the wombe, espe­cially those whom hee preordaines, and prepares for some speciall purpose, whereof in Scripture there are severall exam­ples. For although nature in her ordinary course hath divers degrees of goodnesse, yet by the extraordinary hand of God, she may bee, and sometime is infinitely advanced and exalted, when God is pleased to fashion a child for some singular service, and curiously to worke it in the wombe. [...]. i. e. during, or from my time in my mothers wombe; for the wombe is not here the tearme of Recesse, from whence the Apostle is said to be separate, as if the separation were to be understood of his severing from the wombe by the way of his delivery or birth from thence; for then it must have been [...]: but his abode in the wombe was the tearme of Time when, or during [Page 54] which, hee was separated unto the Ministery, or rather decreed or designed to be separated thereto. But the tearme of Recesse from whence hee was decreed to bee separate, was partly his contemporaries whom hee exceeded in the acts of Persecution, and partly the rest of the Apostles whom hee exceeded in suffe­ring Persecution. And the terme of Accesse whereunto he was separate, was his Ministery or Apostleship; yet not that simply considered, but his separate and singular Apostleship, whereby after an extraordinary maner he was singled out from the rest of the Apostles, to exercise his Ministery apart from theirs, that hee might preach Christ among the heathen, or Gentiles, as he specifies in the next verse following; for unto those words there, the words heere of his separating and calling must be referred for their cohe­rence, as being the employment and service whereunto hee was separated and called. For unto this separate and singular Apostle­ship to preach Christ among the Gentils, Paul was elected, as God tells Ananias, whom he sent to heale Paul of his blindnesse in Damascus. Acts 9.15. and as Ananias reports it unto Paul when he healed him, Acts 22.13.14. And unto this he was in­stituted at Jerusalem, when hee was in a trance, praying in the Temple, where God sayd unto him, Make haste and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, for I will send thee farre hence unto the Gentiles. Act. 22.17.18.21. And unto this he was ordayned at Antioch, when unto the Prophets and Teachers there, as they ministred to the Lord and fasted, the holy Ghost sayd, Separate mee Barnabas and Saul for the worke whereunto I have called them. Act. 13.2. For heer and now, at this time and place, that Separation was actually ordayned or destinated, which from his mothers wombe was pre-ordayned or predestinated. Hence Paul stiles himselfe the separate Apostle unto the Gospel. Rom. 1.1. And hence he professeth with a deepe asseveration, that hee was ordayned and appointed a Preacher, and an Apostle, and a Tea­cher of the Gentiles. See 1. Tim. 2.7. and 2. Tim. 1.11. where by the words ordayned and appointed, he seems to explicate the word separated. q.d. Before the time that ever I had done any humane act eyther of good or evill in the world; yea before the time that I was borne into the world, while yet I lay wrapped in my mo­thers wombe, God by his good pleasure and singular favour un­to me, decreed and designed to separate, appoint, or ordaine me to a separate and singular Apostleship, apart from the rest of the Apostles, especially from Peter, James, and John, whose Pro­vince it was to preach Christ among the Jewes, that mine from theirs should be far remote, to preach him among the Gentiles; wherto afterward he actually called, instituted and ordained me, [Page 55] for the actuall execution of that whereto from my Mothers wombe hee had separated and designed mee. This hee saith; to certifie and make knowne unto the Galatians, that his Apostle­shippe was no way humane, that hee had neither instruction nor authority thereto from those that were the chiefe Apostles, as the false Teachers among the Galatians had falsely suggested: But the whole frame of his Apostleshippe was wholly divine, from the good pleasure of God even from his mothers wombe.

And in his expression heereof, hee seemes to allude to the words of Esay, who saith of himselfe; The Lord hath called mee from the wombe, from the bowells of my Mother hath hee made mention of my name, Esay. 49.1. Or to the words of Je­remy, to whom God saith, Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the wombe, I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a Prophet unto the Nations, Jer. 1.5. In the words to Jeremy, to sanctifie is the same, that to separate is with Paul; for to sanctifie there, is not to make Jeremy holy and righteous morally, but politically to designe and ordain him to a publick Office; for there Jeremy is ordained a Prophet unto the Nations, and heere Paul is separated a Preacher unto the Gentiles. A saying not much unlike to this of himselfe, and to those of the Prophets, the Apostle hath of Jacob and Esau, concerning whom God made a singular appoyntment from their Mothers wombe, while the Children were not yet borne, neither had done any good or evill, Rom. 9.11. But from Gods singu­lar acts upon any of these single persons from their Mothers wombe, to collect an universall appoyntment upon all single per­sons from all eternity, is not consequent by any rule of sound rea­son.

And called mee by his grace.] Called mee, viz. to my Apostleship, by signifying his will to institute mee an Apostle to the Gentiles. If wee referre this Calling to the time of his Mothers wombe, and make it an adjunct and concurrent with his separation, as if from his Mothers wombe God had both separated and called him; then the word called cannot signifie the act of his calling, that then hee was actually called, but onely the Decree of his calling, that then God designed him to bee called afterward; as it seemes the word is taken, Rom. 9.11. But there is no cause to the contrary, but that the word called may heere signifie the effect of that separation which God made of him in his Mo­thers wombe, and the time of it fitly referred to those times wherein hee was actually and really called, by the intimation unto him of Gods will and pleasure, who had elected, instituted, and ordained him to execute the office of an Apostle to the Gen­tiles; [Page 54] which intimation was made and confirmed unto him at severall times and places, as at Damascus by Ananias, at Jerusa­lem by God himselfe in a vision, and at Antioch by the Presbyte­ry, as was formerly noted. And the ground of his Calling to bee an Apostle of Christ was no qualification in himselfe, whereby hee was prepared or fitted to preach Christ: for hee was whol­ly ignorant of Christ, who now upon his calling was to bee re­vealed unto him; as it appeares by the words next following: Nor no act of justice in God, whereby God was obliged to re­compence any former act done by Paul; who had done many acts to the contrary, that made him unworthy to bee called an Apostle; for although touching the righteousnesse which is in the Law, hee was blamelesse, Phil. 3.6. Yet touching the Gos­pel, hee was not blamelesse, but criminates himselfe for a blas­phemer, a persecutor, and injurious, 1. Tim. 1.13. Nor no act of equity in God, whereby God stood engaged to his owne decree, in separating and designing him to the Apostleship from his Mothers wombe; for that decree being made severall yeares be­fore the act of his calling, had without all question thereto an­nexed such conditions as were sutable to the wisdome and righ­teousnesse of God; as particularly this condition, that before his actuall calling hee should not render himselfe altogether un­worthy of so sacred a Function; whereof hee made himselfe unworthy in a manner, and enough to acquit God of his decree or designe; because hee was a blasphemer and a persecutor, and had made himselfe unworthy altogether, if hee had beene a blasphemer wittingly and willfully against the knowledge and motion of his conscience; for of such a sinne Christ affirmeth that it shall never bee forgiven, Mat. 12.32. And if such a sinne must never bee forgiven, much lesse must the person polluted with such a sinne, bee called to a Function so sacred; for if hee were not meete to bee called an Apostle, because hee persecuted the Church of God, as himselfe argues, 1. Cor. 15.9. much lesse had hee beene meete for it, if hee had persecuted wittingly and willfully. But his calling to his Apostleship was an act of Gods meere grace proceeding from the good pleasure of God: For as the Decree for his calling when hee was separated from his Mo­thers wombe, came out from the good pleasure of God: So the act of his calling afterward had the same good pleasure for the ground of it. Or as Paul tearmes it elsewhere, it was an act of Gods mercy, and Gods mercy is also his grace, seeing all mercy is grace; for although hee were a blasphemer, a persecutor, and injurious, yet hee obtained mercy, because hee did it igno­rantly in unbeliefe, 1. Tim. 1.13. Whereby he tacitly intimates [Page 57] that hee had not obtained mercy, if hee had done it in know­ledge and malice. Yet Pauls ignorance was not the cause of that mercy, but onely the condition which qualified him for it; for the cause of it was, because Christ had a purpose upon Paul to make him a patterne of his mercy and long-suffering to them which should heereafter believe on him to life everlasting, 1. Tim. 1.16. Pauls title then to his Apostleship was onely grace, and so wholly grace, that very frequently in his Epistles hee not onely denominates it from grace, but nominates and calls it grace. See and compare, Rom. 1.5. and Rom. 15.15.16. and 1. Cor. 3.10. and Gal. 2.9. and Ephes. 3.7.8.

Comment.

TO reveale his son in me.] This co-heres with the beginning of the former verse, thus: When it pleased God to reveal his son in me. i. e. to make the mystery of his son known unto mee; for so elsewhere Paul himselfe seemes to expound these words heere, and particularly the word Reveale. See Eph. 3.3. His son. i. e. Jesus Christ; for this was intimated before, vers. 12. where the Apostle apologized for the Gospel he prea­ched, that he received it not of man, neither was taught it, but by the Revelation of Jesus Christ: and although it be sayd there, that Christ revealed the Gospel unto him, and heere that God revealed Christ unto him, and that these two sayings signifie di­stinct actions; yet both these sayings, and both the actions there­by signified, come to one effect thus; That God by the meanes of [Page 58] Christ, revealed Christ and his Gospel to Paul; or Christ accor­ding to the will of God revealed himselfe and his Gospel to Paul; for as ver. 1. hee had his Apostleship from God by Christ: so by these two verses it appeares, that hee had his revelation from God by Christ. And therefore of this revelation unto Paul, God was the principall authour who appointed it, and Christ was both the Instrument and Matter of it, so that the issue comes to this, That God by Christ revealed Christ to Paul. Now Christ is called, and is the son of God, by way of singular eminency, as the article the declares unto us: because he is so in a most pecu­liar and excellent maner, through severall degrees of eminency, far beyond all other Men and Angels, who in some maner and de­gree are also the sons of God; for the Saints are the sons of God by their justificatiō or adoptiō into that son-hood, which unto Christ is naturall, and whence they are made coheirs with Christ. And Christ as the son of God is a mystery, or a secret person, the know­ledge of whom is veyled, covered, or hidden from the world; for Christ and his gospel is called the mystery of God, the mystery of Gods will, and the mystery which was kept secret since the world began. See Rom. 11.25. and Ephes. 1.9. and Col. 4.3. Hence Christ especially since he was crucified, is sayd to be unto the Jewes a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishnesse: because unto them both, hee was a mystery veyled and covered from their knowledge. And this mystery of Christ to bee the son of God, was not originally made known by any naturall means, from any mortall man, but was by God himselfe, and by him only, first re­vealed and discovered: because of God alone, it is the preroga­tive and property to reveal secrets. And God revealed Christ to be his son, at severall times, to severall persons; as unto John the Baptist, who bare record of Christ, that hee was the son of God: for God who sent him to baptize, sayd it unto him. John. 1.33.34. and unto the Apostles, by name unto Peter, who confessed Christ to be the son of the living God; for not flesh and bloud, but God the Father revealed that unto him. Mat. 16.16.17. And unto Paul, to whom the mystery of Christ was made known by reve­lation. Eph. 3.3.4.5.

In me.] The Greeke is [...], which is an Hebraisme, com­monly put for unto me. See 1. Cor. 14.11. where [...], answers to a single dative: but joyned heer with the Verbe revealed, seems to signifie something more then externally unto; for it intimates that the knowledge of Christ was infused internally into his soule, by an act immediate, without any meane externall; as be­cause our future glory shall totally penetrate into our whole per­son, therefore it is sayd of it, that it shall be revealed, [...], i. e. [Page 59] into us. Rom. 8.18. Yet elsewhere in the New Testament, the word revealed is expressed with a single dative, governed from the Verb it selfe; without any preposition intervening. See Matt. 11.27. and Matt. 16.17. and 1. Cor. 2.10. and Eph. 3.5. and Phil. 3.15. The Syriak Interpreter renders it by me; which sense is ve­ry sound, and must needs follow upon the former, in respect of the end for which Christ was revealed to Paul; namely, that by Paul he might be preached among the Heathen; as appeares by the words following. q. d. When it pleased God by his speciall grace, to call me to the sacred office of an Apostle, I at that time was no way qualified for the Function of it: for Christ whom I was to Preach, was to me a meer mystery, and a stumbling block, of whom I was wholly ignorant that he was the son of God, ha­ving not only no true knowledge thereof, but a wicked misknow­ledge: for at the very time of my calling, I was persecuting him whom I was to Preach: but God who called mee by his grace, did also by his grace qualifie and enable me; for hee cleerely in­lightned my thick darknesse, by removing the veile of Christ, and revealing the mystery of his son unto me, infusing the knowledge of him into my soule.

That I might Preach him among the Heathen.] Preach him. i. e. Christ and the Gospell containing his Doctrine. Among the Hea­then. i. e. among the Gentiles; for so the Greeke [...] is for the most part rendred in this Epistle, and so alwayes in all the rest, excepting onely one place; namely, 2 Cor. 11.26. The end and purpose for which God revealed Christ unto Paul, was this, that Paul might preach the Doctrine of Christ among the Gen­tiles. In which words he describes his peculiar and proper office for the line or circuit of it, that he was to [...]e a separate Apostle, to exercise his Ministery apart from the rest in preaching the Gospel among the Gentiles. The Jewes had already designed unto them their peculiar Apostles, namely, the twelve whom Christ had chosen and called before, during his owne Ministery here on earth; as we shall see in the Chapter following. This he therefore mentions, that no man might surmise, he exer­cised his Apostleship among the Gentiles by meere chance, or by his owne private motion, or to procure their favour by exemp­ting them from the Law of Moses, thereby to make them more willing to embrace the Gospel of Christ: but he did it in obe­dience to the will and command of God, who from his Mothers wombe had designed him for a separate Apostle, and called him by his grace, and revealed his sonne unto him for that very purpose. Hence it appeares, that when Paul prea­ched Christ at Damascus to the Jewes in their Synagogues, [Page 60] Act. 9.20. he did but make as it were an Essay, or preparative to his Ministery; which three yeares after his first calling, he fully and wholly undertooke, when because the Jewes would not endure his preaching at Jerusalem; therefore Christ in a vision commanded him speedily to depart thence, and gave him his Commission for a Preacher to the Gentiles; and this was done then when hee was praying, and in a trance in the Temple at Jerusalem. See Act. 22.17.22.

Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood.] Flesh and blood is a phrase in Scripture put for any mortall man, because every man while hee remaines under that constitution is in the state of mortality; and in this place Paul opposeth mortall man to God and Christ, his onely Masters and Teachers in the Gospel; for hee made the like opposition before in this Chapter, vers. 1.11.12. The like sense this phrase beares, Mat. 16.17. Where it stands opposed to God the Father; and the like againe, Ephes. 6.12. Where it is opposed to wicked spirits, who notwithstand­ing their wickednesse are immortall. I conferred not. The Greek is [...]. i. e. I discovered it not, related or impar­ted it not to any mortall man, that I was called to the Gospel, and was to preach it. The word [...], is no where used in all the New Testament, but onely in this Epistle; and in this but twice, viz. heere, and againe cap. 2.6. in both which places, it signifies to discover, relate, or impart some secret to make it knowne to some other, who had no knowledge thereof before, with intent either to ease the Relaters minde, or to consult the Hearers judgement, or to informe and increase the Hearers know­ledge; and in this sense, to this last intent, the word shall bee taken, cap. 2. vers. 6. [...]s there shall bee shewed. For the word is materially the same with revealed, from which it differs onely modally, in reference to the person making the Relation; for when God is the Relator of the secret, then in the sense of the Scrip­ture, the Relation is called a Revelation: But when man is the Relator, it is called an Information, Communication, or Disco­very. And it is the very same with [...], from which it dif­fers onely terminally; for that knowledge which in respect of the Speaker who utters it, is [...]. i. e. expounding; the same in respect of the hearer who receives it, is [...], or [...], i. e. imparting or communicating; for so the word [...]. is rendred in our last English Translation, cap. 2. vers. 2. And it is opposed to [...], i. e. to conceale or keepe secret; which word is used of the Virgin Mary, that shee concealed or kept secret, pondering in her heart the things which shee heard from, and concerning Christ. See Luke 2.19.51. So in this [Page 61] place, Paul in a manner saith the very same thing of himselfe in a negative forme of speech, that what God had revealed in him concerning his sonne, that matter hee discovered not or impar­ted not to any morta [...]l man; which is all one with concealing or keeping it in his heart. Immediately must bee referred two wayes; first backward to his Revelation, when Christ was re­vealed in him, and then forward, to his going into Arabia, whi­ther hee went immediately after his Revelation, before hee dis­covered or related it to any mortall man, and before he went to Jerusalem to the Apostles. But then wee must marke the time whereto hee applyes the denyall of this discovery; namely, that at no time betweene the time of his calling and his going into Arabia, hee discovered the Revelation hee had to any mor­tall man; but afterward, and in times following, hee at divers times discovered it to divers persons; as appeares from severall passages in his Epistles. The maine sense is, Paul mentions this his Concealement of his Revelation and calling to preach the Gospel, not onely Historically, but Argumentatively; that by an Argument a minori, hee might firmely prove his principall as­sertion, that his Gospel was not humane or taught by man, be­cause hee discovered not his calling thereto to any mortall man, and therefore much lesse did hee consult any man for instruction therein; and therefore againe, much lesse durst any man attempt to instruct him, q. d. When God at Damascus had revealed his sonne in mee, and designed mee to preach him among the Gen­tiles, immediately thereupon, at least after my baptisme there; I went from Damascus into Arabia, to preach him among the Gentiles, and thence I returned againe to Damascus; but during all that time I discovered not the Revelation to any mortall man that I was called to the Gospel; much lesse did I consult or con­fer with any man for any further instruction in the knowledge of Christ, or for my proceeding in the exercise of my Ministery among the Gentiles, as if in any poynt I were either ignorant or doubtfull; and much lesse durst any man attempt to instruct mee, for no man knew that I was called to the Gospel, excepting Ana­nias of Damascus; but all other men knew that I had authority to binde all that professed it; and all men must needes imagine that I still continued in the same minde, and therefore all must needs be afraid, and actually were afraid of me. But for my know­ledge in Christ and his Gospell, I did wholly acquiesce and rest upon God, as abundantly instructed by his Revelation, and fully satisfied with his Commission, by the sole vertue whereof I prea­ched the Gospel; before I made any discovery of my calling to it, otherwise then by my preaching of it.

Comment.

NEither went I up to Jerusalem.] Went I up. The Greeke is, [...], i. e. Neither returned I to Jerusalem; for from Jerusalem hee came, when hee made that journey to Damascus, wherein by the way hee was converted and called to his Apostleship; and therefore his not going to Jerusalem at that time must needes bee a not returning thither. And thither hee returned not from Damascus immediately after his calling and baptisme there by Ananias; although three yeares after that time, hee returned to Jerusalem; as will appeare in the next verse following.

To them which were Apostles before mee.] At Jerusalem was the Oracle as formerly of the Law, so then of the Gospel, seated in the Apostles of Christ, whom Christ before his ascention had personally inspired with his Spirit, and ordained by his owne hand. Hee denyes therefore that hee went to the Apostles; either because his adversaries who magnified them so much for divine men exempted from the ranke of ordinary persons, might also remember that they were not yet exempted from the appel­lation of flesh and blood, although they were qualified with ex­traordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost; or because the chiefe sus­picion against Paul might arise concerning the Apostles, that hee to them made some addresse, and by them was instructed in the doctrine of the Gospel. This suspition therefore Paul cleares by these words, that by this his denyall, no man might affirme that ever hee was a Disciple to the Apostles, thereby to diminish his reputation, especially if in any poynt his Doctrine seemed dif­ferent from theirs, as was the suggestion of his adversaries.

Before mee.] i. e. For their time, or standing in the Apostle­ship; [Page 63] which hee mentions therefore; because from their seni­ority and Antiquity in their Apostleship, Pauls adversaries had taken occasion to disparage him, as a novice, and a puny, or a pu­pill, to some of the Apostles, who for their standing in the Mi­nistery were all his Seniors and Ancients. This objection hee re­fells by declaring, that although the Apostles were all his Seniors, yet hee was Disciple or pupill to none of them; for hee never came at them to learne any thing from them; neither immedi­ately after his calling, nor at any time afterward; for when af­terward hee was at Jerusalem with them about the controversie of circumcision, the chiefest of them who seemed to bee some­what, in conference added nothing to him, as it is expressed in the next Chapter following, vers. 6.

But I went into Arabia.] These words as was noted before, must cohere in sense with the word immediately, in the former verse, for the affirmative of Pauls first action after his conversi­on; for the two clauses intervening betweene that word and these, are both negatives of what actions hee did not, q. d. When it pleased God to reveale his Sonne in mee, and to give mee my charge for preaching the Gospel among the Gentiles, then after my baptisme and a little refreshment in Damascus to recover my strength, whereof the Lord by my dejection had deprived mee; the first action which I did was this, that immediately I went in­to Arabia, where certainely I could finde no instructions for the Gospel, to bee gathered from a people uncivill and wild, who were wholly ignorant of the Gospel, who had never heard any thing of Christ, and who (excepting some Proselites who came yearely to Jerusalem) were all wholly devoted to idolatry and superstition. By the adversative particle but, he plainly declares, that unto his not going to Jerusalem hee opposeth his going into Arabia, whereby hee seems to prefer Arabia the basenesse of the Gentiles, before Jerusalem the glory of the Jews; that by this intimation hee might either abolish or abate the boasting of his adversaries, who imagined that the truth of the Gospel was to­picall, and calculated onely for the Meridian of Jerusalem; and therefore afterward againe Arabia and Jerusalem are compared together in a matter of higher moment, and are both made e­quall to stand in the same ranke of basenesse and bondage. The end why immediately hee went into Arabia was this, that be­ing made a seperate Apostle from the rest, hee might (according to his calling, and the charge layd upon him) preach the Gos­pel among the Gentiles or Heathen; and of all the Gentiles they of Arabia were in a manner most Heathenish. But why hee chose to preach the Gospel there, rather then elsewhere, the [Page 64] reason might bee, because Arabia was much remote and quite contrary to Cilicia, wherein stood the famous Tarsus, where Paul was borne, and well knowne, for hee was a Citizen of that City; but Arabia was as it were an Angle of the World, and a Country of obscure and base condition, wherein hee might bee latitant in his preaching, and live somewhat secure from the fu­ry of that persecution, which himselfe had partly raised, and at that time flamed in all places round about Jerusalem, from whence the Saints were then all scattered abroad, except the A­postles who there lay hid; for it was the manner of Paul, who himselfe had beene a persecutor, to bee alwayes subject to perse­cution, and yet alwayes to shunne it by all the shifts hee could make, as farre as hee obtained licence and warrant from God. This journey of Paul from Damascus into Arabia is not menti­oned by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles; yet it is not there­fore not a truth; but therefore it is a truth, because Paul men­tions it heere; for whatsoever is any where mentioned in Scrip­ture is a truth, and many a truth is no where mentioned, especi­ally in poynt of History.

And returned againe unto Damascus.] I returned. The Greeke is [...]. i. e. I was forced or made to returne secretly and pri­vately, i. e. in one word, I retired. For the Verbe affected with that Preposition doth consignifie both compulsion and warinesse or secresie, imitating those Conjugations of the Hebrewes, which consignifie passively and causally, in being made to suffer the doing of something; which the Latines expresse by compounding the Verbe with fio. And the word though frequently used in Scripture in a vulgar sense, is originally a military word, borrow­ed from a Retreate in Warre; where a Party or an Army that hath marched into some danger or disadvantage is forced to retire or necessarily and warily to returne, for feare they should bee enclosed or bee beaten by the enemy. The returne then of Paul from Arabia was not voluntary, free, and open; but necessary, wary, and secret by way of retire. But the cause that necessita­ted him to retire from thence, is not expressed in Scripture, either heere or elsewhere: yet the reason might bee, because that per­secution which lately began at Jerusalem, and was by him ex­tended to Damascus, might now bee spread into Arabia, and threatned to him who had before threatned it to others, and who now for feare of it retired from thence; for persecution when once raised against the Gospel of Christ, though it spare no Pro­fessor of the Truth, yet it aymeth most at the Preachers of it. But why hee retyred back againe to Damascus, the reason is manifest from the Scripture; because hee was to preach the [Page 65] Gospel there; for after hee had rested at Damascus a few dayes with the Disciples there, hee straitway preached Christ in the Synagogues, that hee was the Sonne of God, Act. 9 19.20. Hence it appeares that in the middle of that 19. verse [...] the place, where Luke hath omitted Pauls journey into Arabia; which omission may easily bee harmonied and supplyed by inser­ting that journey into that Verse thus: And when hee received meat, hee was strengthned; and immediately hee went into Arabia, and retyred againe unto Damascus. Then was Saul certaine dayes with the Disciples which were at Damascus; and straightway hee preached Christ, &c. And there hee preached Christ to all their amazement that heard him; because hee now preached that Truth which before hee persecuted, and preached it there where hee most persecuted it, or most intended to persecute it; for God to shew his power upon Paul, and to comfort those Saints whom Paul had terrified, would make Paul, there build againe the things which there hee had destroyed. And there hee preached Christ till hee was persecuted thence; for Damascus was a Garison-City, whose gates were watched day and night, where the Governour min­ded to apprehend Paul, and the Jewes layd wait to kill him; but by night hee was let downe by the wall in a basket, by meanes whereof hee escaped thence. See Act. 9.24.25. and 2. Cor. 11.32. Heere was another [...], in departing from Damascus by way of a forced and secret retyre; for although in the whole course of his Apostleship hee travelled more then the rest of the Apostles, yet in the beginning of it, he never tra­velled otherwise, then as the storme of persecution blew him, and as the spirit of God steered him.

Comment.

[Page 66] THen after three yeares I went up to Jerusalem.] Then. The Grek is [...]. i. e. After that, or afterwards; for so the word taken as an adverb of Order, is rendred elsewhere in our last Translation. See afterward in this cap. ver. 21. and 1. Cor. 12.28. and 1. Cor. 15.6.7.23.46. and Heb. 7.2. When he was persecuted from Damascus, the next City whereto hee came afterwards, was Jerusalem; from whence hee had now beene absent for the space of three years. For the three yeares must not be computed from his retire out of Arabia unto Dama­scus, as if he had preached three yeares at Damascus; for how could he possibly preach so long in a City so populous, and so neer to Jerusalem, with such astonishment to all that heard him in then Preaching Christ, whom before he persecuted? and yet all this while no report of his Conversion should come to Jeru­salem? Now that no certainty thereof came thither, is from hence evident: because when at the end of three yeares Paul himselfe returned to Jerusalem, his present condition of being an Apostle was so unknowne to the Disciples there, that they be­leeved him not a Disciple; and when hee assayed to joyne him­selfe with them, they were all afrayd of him, as if he had yet per­sisted a persecutor; untill he was necessitated to procure the cur­tesie of Barnabas to introduce him to the Apostles, and to make the report as well of his conversion to the fayth, as of his Preach­ing Christ at Damascus. See Act. 9.26.27. Hence it appeares, 1. That although his Preaching at Damascus were many dayes, as Luke expresseth the time of it, Act. 9.23. yet it lasted not for the space of three yeares; and therefore the three yeares must be computed from the time of his conversion, or calling to his Apostleship; or, which comes all to one, from the time of his journey from Jerusalem toward Damascus, because his conversi­on fell out in that journey. 2. That the greatest part of the three years was spent in Preaching in Arabia; from whence the news of his conversion came not to Jerusalem; eyther because the Countrey of Arabia was somewhat obscure, and farre remote from Jerusalem, or because all commerce and passage of Letters was stopped by reason of the persecution then reigning about Je­rusalem. I went up. [...]. i. e. I returned; which hee therefore sayth, because Jerusalem was the place of his habitation or ordi­nary residence, from whence he set forth with authority to per­secute the Saints at Damascus, and now after three yeares he re­turned from thence to Jerusalem. q. d. When I had already exe­cuted my Apostleship for the space of three yeares, in Preaching the Gospel for the most part of that time in Arabia, and for some [Page 67] dayes at Damascus; and had thereby given sufficient proofe both of my Apostleship and of my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, then after those three years were expired, because I was persecu­out of Damascus, I returned to Jerusalem. Wherby he necessa­rily concludes; that he returned not to Jerusalem for any instru­ction to preach the Gospel; because for the space of three yeares he had already Preached it.

To see Peter.] The Greek is, [...]. i. e. to visit Peter: the word is no where else used in all the New Testament, and properly sig­nifies that kind of seeing, which by the Opticks is tearmed [...]us­tus. i. e. insight; which is a diligent and ferious observance of a thing, eying the whole and every part, and marking all that is to be seene, thereby, to get an exact and perfect knowledge thereof, as if we meant to write a history of it. The practise of this in­sight made upon Cities and Countries, is called Surveying, but done upon persons out of civill respect, is tearmed visiting▪ Yet the visit heere given by Paul unto Peter, was not a visitation by way of authority, but a Salutation by way of observance or brotherly kindnesse, to know and bee knowne unto that Apostle who was of singular authority and eminency, not only in Jerusa­lem, but in all that part of the Church which lay within the Je­wish pale, and of extraordinary fame throughout the whole Church. For what could bee more comfortable to all the Disci­ples of Christ, and more sutable in it selfe, then that two such great Apostles of Christ, who were the two principall Doctors, and as it were the two pillars of the Church, should joyne their eyes and hands in the mutuall knowledge and acquaintance one of another? The cause therefore of Pauls departure from Da­mascus, was his persecution from thence by the Governour, and the Jewes, who insidiated his life; and the cause of his accesse unto Jerusalem at that time, was only to give Peter a visit, and to bee known unto so great an Apostle. q. d. The end of my then going to Jerusalem, and personally to Peter, was not for In­struction to learne any thing of him, but for acquaintance to visit him, and to be known unto him.

And abode with him fifteene dayes. ] The space of time how long for that time he abode at Jerusalem, was only a for might: which saying heere, although in the letter it be History, yet in the pur­pose of the Apostle, it is a Reason to prove the truth of his for­mer words, that his comming to Jerusalem to see Peter, was on­ly to see and visit him, because hee abode with him but fifteene dayes; and further, he thereby also concludes his principall point, that the Gospel which he preached, was not humane, but divine. q. d. The space of a for [...]ight was a time too narrow for m [...] [Page 68] learne divine mysteries, by the meanes of humane instruction; and therefore my knowledge in the Gospel, whereby I became a Teacher of the Gentiles, could not be acquisitive to bee gayned by study or by the help of man, no not of Peter himselfe, the most eminent person in the Church of Christ: but must needs be infu­sive to be operated in me, only by the pleasure of God, and to be wrought in my soul by revelation. What the Apostle did besides at Jerusalem during those fifteen dayes, namely how hee exerci­sed his Ministery privatly, yet boldly, in disputing against the Grecians or Proselites of Jerusalem, till they went about to kill him, is related by Luke, Act. 9.28.29. But why the Apostle a­bode at Jerusalem no longer then fifteen dayes, and why he prea­ched not there, publikely to the Jewes during that time, himselfe gives the reason elsewhere; namely because the Jewes of Jeru­salem would not receive his testimony concerning Christ, as Christ in a vision had revealed it unto him in the Temple at Je­rusalem, where during his abode of fifteene dayes, hee was pray­ing and in a trance; for because of this malignity in the Jewes of Jerusalem, he neyther preached nor stayed there, but was com­manded to make haste and get him quickly out of Jerusalem, Act. 22.17.18.

Comment.

NOw the things which I write unto you.] These words must have the supply of some predicate or attribute to com­pleate or perfect the sense of them, which may be thus; the things which I write unto you, are not faigned, but most true and certaine: and the words for their proper antecedent, must be referred to the words at the beginning of the 15. verse be­fore, But when it pleased God, &c. for the things wherto he purposeth to sweare, doe include all the things from thence hitherto; namely, all Gods acts thence mentioned concerning his conver­sion and vocation to his Apostleship: and all his owne acts and travels immediatly and consequently thereunto.

Behold, before God, I lye not.] A solemne and sacred Oath, to prove the truth and certainty of the things before written. For because the particulars before related, in regard they were all matters of fact, could not be proved by force of reason, nor by the production of witnesses: and because they were matters of great moment to refell the objections and calumnies which his adver­saries had made against him concerning his Doctrine and autho­rity: and because the Galatians to whom the things were writ­ten, should not surmise them to be a fiction of invention of his owne: and further, because the things were not unworthy of Gods testimony, that God should be called to witnesse of them, as being a party to them all, for they were all either the proper acts of God, or acts of Paul done by the speciall command or [Page 70] guidance of God; therefore he confirmes them by taking his solemne Oath upon them, q. d. God who is the beholder of all our actions, and the hearer of all our sayings, and the supreme Judge of all our doings, him I invoke and produce as a witnesse, having at this time no other testimony, that all the things which I write unto you are most true and certaine, and that I frame no lye in any one particular. A forme of speech not unlike to this he useth elsewhere. See 2 Cor. 11.10.31. and 2 Cor. 12.19. and 1 Tim. 2.7. and Rom. 9.1. which speeches, if they be not Oaths, are asseverations so deep, that they confine upon Oathes. But the adjurations whereby he chargeth Timothy to observe the dutyes of his calling, are Oathes; whereof see 1 Tim. 5.21. and 2 Tim. 4.1. Hence it appears that in cases of moment and necessity, an assertory Oath is both lawfull and usefull.

Comment.

AFter his abode at Jerusalem for the space of fifteen dayes, Partly because of his danger from the Hellenists, against whom he disputed there; but chiefly in obedience to the vision of Christ who commanded him away from thence, he de­parted from thence and came into Syria. Yet unto Damascus, the chief City of Syria he returned not, by reason of the danger which not a month before he incurred and escaped there, from the inquisition of the Governour, who sought to apprehend him, and from the insidiation of the Jewes, who layd wait to kill him: but he passed through the regions of Syria; that is, through the Shires, Countreys, or Countrey-parts of it; for through the regions of Syria he must needs passe: because Syria lyes between Judea and Cilicia; and in the direct way from Je­rusalem to Tarsus, whither Pauls purpose was to travell, that [Page 71] there for a time hee might reside. And because of the danger wherein hee was at Jerusalem, where hee disputed against the Hellenists till they went about to kill him; therefore from Je­rusalem the Brethren conducted him as far as Cesarea, which stands upon the Confines of Syria; and at Cesarea they tooke their leave, dismissing him to passe forward toward Tarsus; as it is attested by Luke, Act. 9.30. The reason why hee travelled to Tarsus was, partly because Tarsus was his Native City, where­in hee was borne, Act. 22.3. But chiefely to preach the Gospel there and in Cilicia, which was the Country thereto adjacent, and wherein hee planted the Gospel; for upon the difference betweene Barnabas and him, hee made a visitation through Sy­ria and Cilicia to confirme the Churches, Act. 15.41. which confirmation doth necessarily suppose a former plantation. At and about Tarsus hee made his abode for some good space of time; for when Barnabas was sent from Jerusalem unto Anti­och, and departed from Antioch on purpose to seeke Paul, hee sought for him at Tarsus, and there finding him, brought him from thence back to Antioch, Act. 11.25.26. Thus until his next journey to Jerusalem with Titus about the Apostles De­crees, the places of his residence were Antioch and Tarsus, that is, Syria and Sylicia; for Antioch is a City of Syria, and Tar­sus of Cilicia. And heereby hee prosecutes his former Argu­ment to prove the Divinity of his Gospel, that hee received it not from man. q. d. After fifteene dayes departing from Jerusa­lem, I diverted not into any Parts of Judea to consult with any of the Apostles who were then at liberty, and preached abroad, nor with any other of the believing Jewes inhabiting Judea; but I tooke my journey directly through Syria, and came to Tarsus in Cilicia, which are places inhabited by the Gentiles, that ac­cording to my Commission of a separate Apostle, I might preach the Gospel among the Gentiles.

Comment.

AND was unknowne by face unto the Churches of Judea.] And was. The Greeke is, [...], i. e. For I was unknowne; for the particle [...], is not heere copulative, but causall or rationall, to shew the cause or reason of what hee sayd before; and is heere put instead of [...], i. e. for, or because, as elsewhere it is in divers places, and rendred for in our last English translation. See Mar. 16.8. and Luk. 20.38, and 1. Cor. 8.7. and 1. Cor. 12.24. and 1. Thess. 2.16. Unknowne by face. The Greeke is, [...], i. e. Unknowne by my person or by my bodily pre­sence; for [...], though primitively it signifies the face, and consequently the person, because the face is the common marke whereby the person is vulgarly knowne; yet heere it must bee taken in such a latitude of sense as may also include the presence of the person, as opposed unto his absence; for the word ta­ken in this sense, is elsewhere rendred presence in our last English Translation. See Act. 3.13. and Act. 5.41. and 2. Cor. 10.1. and 1. Thess. 2.17. and 2. Thess. 1.9. and Heb. 9.24.

Unto the Churches of Judea.] i. e. unto the Churches in the Re­gions of Judea, both at Jerusalem and other Countrey-Townes; and Judea must not heere bee taken strictly, as sometimes it is, when it stands opposed unto Galilee and Samaria; but largely [Page 73] as it contayns the whole land of Israel, including Galily and Sa­maria, and as Judea is opposed to Syria and Cilicia. For the per­secution at Jerusalem arising upon the dispute of Stephen with the Synagogue of the strangers there, grew so fearful and bloudy, for divers were put to death, that the faithful were scattred all abroad not only throughout the Regions of Judea strictly taken, but of Samaria also. Act. 8.1. And the good providence of God, by the scattering of the faithfull, scattered also the Gospel; for they who from Jerusalem were scattered abroad, went every where prea­ching the Gospel, Act. 8.4. Hence Philip, to whom Peter and John soone after adjoyned themselves, planted the Gospel in Sa­maria, and preached it in many Villages of the Samaritans, Act. 8.25. And after the baptisme of the Eunuch, he preached in all the Cities of Samaria, till he came to Cesarea, which frontiers upon Syria, Act. 8.40. As for Galily, the Gospel had her begin­ning there, and thither it redounded about this time, with peace and rest from persecution, which was now fully ceased through­out all the Churches of Judea, Galily, and Samaria, Act. 9.31. Yet Paul departing from Jerusalem, makes not his addresse to any of the Churches in the Regions of Judea, Galilee, or Sama­ria, where hee might have rested with safety and security, for it was now a time of tranquility from the tempest of the former persecution: but he proceeds into the Regions of Syria and Ci­licia; because unto the Churches of Judea, Galilee, and Sama­ria, he was altogether a stranger, unknowne by his bodily and personall presence; neither the teachers, nor members of those Churches had ever seen his face to his knowledge. And the rea­son heereof might be; because in a maner Paul was a stranger in the Countreyes of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee: for he was then but a yong man, who was borne at Tarsus, and brought up at Jerusalem, where he had alwayes lived, till about three yeers before, during which time he had preached in Arabia, and at Da­mascus in Syria.

Which were in Christ. ] A note of distinction whereby to discerne the Churches of Christ from the Synagogues of Moses; for heer­by hee would specifie what Churches of Judea hee understood, namely not the Jewish Synagogues, but the Christian Congre­gations: because in all the Regions of Judea, Galilee, and Sa­maria, the Churches of Christ were intermingled with the Sy­nagogues of the Jewes; for heereby it came to passe that the Christians were subject to so many persecutions from the Jews, who for their abode were their Countrey-men, as Paul intimates to the Thessalonians, where he expresseth the Churches of Ju­dea with the like note of distinction of being in Christ; 1. Thes. 2.14. [Page 74] To be in Christ beares two senses. 1. Generally: and so to bee in Christ, is to be a Christian; and hee is a Christian who hath ta­ken the new Covenant, whereof Christ was and is the Mediator: and he hath taken that Covenant, who beleeves the truth of it, and accepts the grace of it▪ for in this sense to be in Christ is ta­ken heere, and so the word is opposed to a Jew and a Heathen. 2. Specially, and so to be in Christ, is to be a reall, sincere, and true Christian, in opposition to the hypocrite, the carnall and false Christian: and he is a reall Christian, who puts on Christ, and lives according to the life of Christ; who not only beleeves the verities of the new Covenant, and accepts the promises of it, but also obeyes the precepts of it, by being a new creature accor­ding to the new Covenant: for thus to doe and be, is to be in the spirit, and to have the spirit of Christ, which if any man have not, he is not in Christ. See and compare Rom. 8.9. and 2. Cor. 5.17. and Gal. 5.24. and 1. John 4.13. The reason of the words in this verse for the History, was shewed before in the context: but the reason for their argument is thus: q. d. I was so far from learning any point of doctrine, eyther from the Apostles at Je­rusalem, or from any other Teachers, amongst the Christian Churches of Judea, that they never saw my face, but my person was wholly unknowne unto them; for to my remembrance I ne­ver was in presence with any of them.

Comment.

BUT they had heard onely.] The Greeke placeth the enclu­sive particle onely in the first place, reading it thus, But onely they had heard, viz. men say; for the words must bee sup­plyed with some impersonall or indefinite tearme, to perfect up the sense thus: But onely they had heard say (or men say) That hee who persecuted us in times past, now preacheth the faith; for so it is supplyed in the French Translation. They had heard. The Greeke is, [...]; i. e. they were hearing; which is both an Hebraisme and a Grecisme, used heere by way of ele­gancy to encounter his former words of himselfe, [...], i. e. I was unknowne to them, but they were hearing of mee. Some knowledge therefore the Churches of Judea had of Paul; yet none by sight or view of his person, for they had not seene his face; but their knowledge of him was onely by report and hear­say; for they had heard of his actions two wayes, whereof the one was extreamely contrary to the other; for first, they had heard that hee had persecuted and wasted the faith; and second­ly, they had heard the quite contrary, that now hee preached that faith which formerly hee had persecuted and wasted: Yet these two contrary reports of him were both true; for hee had done both; not at one and the same time, but successively one af­ter the other in times different. Of his former action they had heard long before, even then when his persecution was in action; for the deede thereof being done at Jerusalem, the same thereof came presently to the Churches of Judea, and afterwards spread beyond Syria and Cilicia, even to the Churches of Galatia, who had also heard of it, as hee mentions it unto them before in this Chapter, vers. 13. But of his latter action in preaching the faith, the Churches of Judea for the space of three yeares after hee began to preach it, heard not a word, or if they heard any thing thereof, they beleft it not; for when Paul (after three yeares of preaching the Gospel in Arabia and Damascus) came from Damascus into Jerusalem, neither the Churches of Judea, nor those of Jerusalem had heard of it; for the faithfull at Je­rusalem were all afraid of him, and beleeved not that hee was a Christian, as was shewed before, from Acts 9.26. But upon that returne of Paul to Jerusalem, the Church of Jerusalem first heard of his Preaching the Faith; and she heard of it by Barna­bas who brought Paul to the Apostles, and declared unto them both his calling and his Preaching, how wonderfully Christ had called him, and how powerfully he had Preached Christ at Da­mascus. Act. 9.27. And from the Church of Jerusalem, the Churches of Judea circumjacent, might easily heare the report of it.

[Page 76] That he which persecuted us in times past.] These words are related here by Paul, but are the words spoken by the Churches of Ju­dea, containing the report they had heard of Paul. Paul before in this Chap. vers. 13. saith to the Galatians that he had persecu­ted the Church of God: and here he saith, that the Churches of Judea had heard of him, he which persecuted us: yet between his saying and theirs, there is no difference concerning the object of his persecution, or the persons by him persecuted, who in his saying and theirs are still the same: because the Churches of Ju­dea were the Churches of God; for they were particular Chur­ches of that universall Church, which Paul in particular places persecuted in times past. And very probable it is, that some sin­gle persons either teachers or Members in those Churches of Ju­dea, were by Paul actually persecuted, and forced from Jerusa­lem upon the Martyrdome of Stephen; because the times past were not long past, for it was but a matter of three yeares be­fore. And those Saints which then were not at Jerusalem, were notwithstanding persecuted in that persecution; for as when one member of the body suffereth, all the members suffer with it: so when any one part of the Church is persecuted, all the faithfull who are the members thereof, and Christ himselfe who is the head thereof, is also persecuted; for Christ complained, that in that very persecution himselfe was persecuted; see Act. 9.5. Now the Apostle inculcates the me­mory of his former persecution into the mindes of the Galatians, thereby to maintaine their perswasion of him, that so great a Zelot for the Law of Moses, as therefore to persecute the Church of Christ, had not cast off his patronage of the Law, or layd aside his malice against the Gospel, without just and weighty causes.

Now preacheth the Faith, which once he destroyed.] The Faith. i. e. the Doctrine of faith, or the Gospel of Christ; for so it is re­corded of Paul, that at Damascus he had preached Christ, and in the name of the Lord Jesus, Acts 9.20.27. For in Scripture, Faith is often taken for the Motive whereby we believe, and for the matter which we believe; whether that matter be a single verity, or the whole body of the Gospel. See Gal. 3.2.5.23. and Ephes. 4.5 Which once. The Greeke is [...]. i. e. in times past; for so it was translated in the words immediatly going before, in reference to the persecution; and seeing here is the same word in the same sense, why should it not here have the same expres­sion? for where the elegancies in the Language of the holy Ghost may be fully expressed in our native language, there is no reason we should decline them. Hee destroyed. The Greeke is, [Page 77] [...]. i. e. wasted; for so it was rendred before in this transla­tion, verse 13. and he wasted the Faith, or the Doctrine of it, by using all meanes either by himself, or by his Friends, to with­draw men from the profession of it, and by labouring to being a great destruction upon them; for therein consisteth the nature of wasting, as was shewed before. verse 13. And the words of this verse are serviceable to continue his argument. q. d. The Chri­stian Churches in Judea knew me not by face, but only by heare-say: yet they heard nothing how I learned the Gospel, but only that I taught and preached it.

Comment.

AND they glorified God.] The Churches of Judea hearing that Paul preached the Faith, did thereupon glorifie and praise God; for it was an ancient custome among the people of God to give praise and thankes to God for any extra­ordinary worke of God. See Mat. 9.8. and Mat. 15.31. and Luk. 7.16. and Acts 4.21. particularly upon the same of a sinners repentance, or of any mans conversion to the faith, especially if he had been a persecutor of it; because such a conversion hath in it more then ordinary, and is an immediate worke of God. And such was Pauls conversion, wherein the good grace of God was extreamly powerfull, by drawing him from one extreame to another; that is, from being a Persecutor of the Faith, not only to the state of a Beleever, but beyond that state, to become a Preacher of it.

In mee.] The Greeke is, [...]. i. e. in my behalfe, by rea­son or because of me; for the particle [...], is here put for [...]. i. e. because; in which sense this phrase is an Hebraisme noting any kinde of causality, especially that which is ratio­nall; and so it is used elsewhere. See, and compare John 13.31, [Page 78] 32. and John 17.10. and 2. Cor. 12.9. and Ephes. 3.13. The ground or reason why the Churches of Judea glorified God, was because of Gods grace to Paul in converting him to the Faith, and because of Gods grace to his Church, by Pauls Preaching of the Faith.

Comment.

THen foureteene yeares after.] The Greeke is, [...], i. e. Literally, foureteene years betweene, or the space of fourteene interpo­sed; but the particle [...] is heere put for [...], which signifies after, and is truely so rendred; for so yee have it, Mat. 26.61. [...], i. e. After three dayes, and Mar. 2.1. [...], i. e. After some dayes, and Act. 24.17. [...], i. e. After many yeares. But from whence or from what tearme of time these fourteene years are to bee computed, whether from Pauls first conversion to the faith, or from his former being at Jerusalem to visit Peter three yeares after his conversion, which hee mentioned before, cap. 1.18. it appeares not from Scripture; neither is the knowledge thereof any way elementary or serviceable to the poynt heere pro­secuted, or to any other poynt elsewhere in Scripture heereby to bee illustrated. Yet the greater probability of the two is, that these yeares are to bee reckoned from Pauls conversion. 1. Be­cause [Page 81] Pauls conversion was a most memorable action, especially unto Paul, and fit to stand for an epocha unto him, from whence hee had good cause to compute all the acts of his Ministery du­ring his life; for all epochaes are fixed at a time of some nota­ble conversion in the World, that from thence in the memory thereof, future times may afterward bee computed. 2. Because the yeares remaining betweene this journy to Jerusalem, and his last thither, when there hee was apprehended, and afterward sent Prisoner to Rome, will bee too few, for those many actions and travells which by Luke are recorded of him; especially if wee consider, that of those few yeares, hee was one and a halfe at Corinth, and three at Ephesus. See Act. 18.11. and Act. 20.31. Yet Paul heere mentions the space of time to bee fourteene yeares, least his adversaries should quarrell at his words, where­to all words of actions iterated and frequented are subject, if by their severall times they bee not distinguished; for by this space of fourteene yeares this journy to Jerusalem with Barnabas is distinguished from a former journy of his to Jerusalem with Bar­nabas, which was before this, and therefore lesse then foureteene yeares from his conversion. See and compare Act. 11.30. and Act. 12.25.

I went up againe to Jerusalem with Barnabas. All travelling to­ward Jerusalem, is called ascending or going up; not for any lo­call altitude, as if the City and Territory about it were a higher ground then other places; but for the jurall eminency or jurisdi­ction of the Courts there seated, consisting of eminent persons; for Jerusalem was the Metrople of all the Jewes during the time of the Law, and of all the Christians, during the plantation of the Gospel, and the time of the Apostles. Unto Jerusalem Paul after his conversion made severall journies, whereof this heere seemes the third. 1. His first journey thither was from Damas­cus, and therein either hee had no company at all, or none that is named and specified in the Scripture; and his businesse was only by way of visit to see Peter; and that journy hee mentions in this Epistle, cap. 1. vers. 18. Because from thence he would have no man gather, that hee went thither to learne from the Apo­stles that Doctrine, which for the space of three yeares hee had already preached. 2. His second journy thither was from An­tioch, and therein Barnabas went in company with him; and their businesse was to carry thither a collection made in the Church of Antioch for the reliefe of the poore in the Churches of Judea, to prevent the misery of the famine foretold by Aga­bus, who for that purpose came with other Prophets from Jeru­salem to Antioch. See Act. 11.27.30. and Act. 12.25. From [Page 82] which last place it appeares, that this journy to Jerusalem with almes for the poore, was before the separation of Paul and Bar­nabas, for the worke of the Ministery made by the Presbytery at Antioch at the command of the spirit, Act. 13.1.4. But of this second journy Paul mentions nothing in this Epistle; be­cause therein was no act done at Jerusalem concerning his pre­sent argument to make either for it or against it; and because his intent was not heere to write a journall of all his journies to Je­rusalem in the same order that hee travelled them; but onely to mention such as it seemes his adversaries objected against him. 3. His third journy thither was againe from Antioch, and there­in againe Barnabas went in company with him; and their busi­nesse was to consult the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem con­cerning the necessity of circumcision; not that Paul made any question thereof, but because there was a question thereof made in the Church of Antioch, where certaine men who came from Judea, taught the necessity thereof unto salvation, Act. 15.1. For this journy seemes to bee the same with that, which is related by Luke in that Chapter; where from the Church of Antioch, Paul and Barnabas with certaine others are sent to Jerusalem a­bout that question; because the particulars mentioned heere in this Chapter by Paul, doe suit and agree very fitly with the time and the action mentioned there by Luke; as that hee communi­cated unto the Apostles the substance or summe of that Gospel which hee preached amongst the Gentiles: That no decree was there made for the necessity of circumcision to bee imposed upon the Gentiles; that hee stoutly opposed such as would have impo­sed it; that by the rest of the Apostles, even by the chiefest of them, hee was acknowledged for their co-Apostle and com-Mi­nister in the Gospel; and that by their approbation and consent hee undertooke for the time to come the Ministery of the Gospel to preach it among the Gentiles. This journy then, hee therefore mentions in this Epistle, because by occasion thereof, there passed at Jerusalem those remarkeable Occurrents, that were very ar­gumentative to his purpose, as to declare that hee was no way in­feriour to any of the Apostles, thereby to confirme the authority of his Ministery, and to confute the calumnies of his adversa­ries.

And tooke Titus with mee also.] Luke in the fifteene of the Acts makes no mention of Titus by name, that hee was sent to Jeru­salem at that time with Paul and Barnabas; for although cer­taine others are there sayd to bee sent with them: Yet it seemes that Titus was none of them that by authority from the Church of Antioch were sent with Paul; because Paul saith heere, that [Page 83] he tooke Titus with him also. i. e. That into the company of those that were sent from Antioch, he assumed Titus upon the by over and besides the rest, for a speciall purpose. And this his Assump­tion of Titus he mentions heere, because of him he was to relate afterward, that concerning him, being a person uncircumcised, the Apostles at Jerusalem gave no command for his Circumcisi­on, when the question thereof was there debated. q. d. When I went to Jerusalem with Barnabas, to confer with the Apostles for the debate of the question about Circumcision, I was so con­fident of my cause, that I feared not to take Titus with me also, a man who by nation and birth, was a Gentile, and uncircumci­sed; and him I assumed with mee, not only as a companion of my journey, but as my fellow-Minister in preaching of the Go­spel, notwithstanding the distast and opposition of the adverse party who urged the necessity of Circumcision.

Comment.

AND I went up by Revelation.] The maine and speciall mo­tive inducing Paul to goe to Jerusalem at that time, with those persons, was a particular revelation or vision from God commanding him thereto; for as by revelation hee [Page 84] had his instructions in the doctrine of the Gospel; so by revela­tion also he had particular directions in many cases for the exe­cution of his Ministery. His departure from Jerusalem after fif­teene dayes abode there to see Peter, was from a vision, wherein he saw the Lord saying unto him, Make haste and get thee quick­ly out of Jerusalem, Act. 22.18. His journey into Macedonia was from a vision that appeared unto him in the night, Act. 16.9. His appeal to Rome was from the Lord, who stood by him in the night and encouraged him thereto, that hee might beare wit­nesse of Christ at Rome, Act. 23.11. And this journey heere from Antioch to Jerusalem was by revelation: and lest through the abundance of his visions and revelations he should be exalted above measure, the Lord layd an affliction upon him, 2. Cor. 12.7. But visions and revelations were not proper and peculiar to Paul only; for they were communicated and imparted unto the Apostles in generall, and unto some that were not Apostles; as unto Ananias and Cornelius. See Act. 9.10. and Act. 10.3. Yet Pauls going to Jerusalem by revelation, is nothing repugnant to his going by the will and decree of the Church of Antioch, as Luke relates the cause of his going, Act. 15.2. For by severall and divers motives a man may be induced to one and the same a­ction; much more when there is a concurrence of Gods will un­to mans purpose; and very credible it is, that when the Church of Antioch had determined that Paul should goe to Jerusalem, then Paul was admonished by a revelation from God, to under­take that journey, which they had already determined upon him: because Gods will is sometime subsequent to follow not only mans will, but his act, by approving and confirming after­ward; what man before hath willed and acted: for hence Christ sayd to his Disciples, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall bee bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven, Mat. 18.18. Now Paul mentions this Motive of his journey, that he went it by revelation, thereby to signifie that hee went then to Jerusalem, chiefly as a Messenger sent from God; lest his adversaries to diminish the authority of his Ministery, should suggest to the Galatians, that Paul went that journey as a meere Messenger and servant to the Church of Antioch.

And communicated unto them that Gospel, which I preach among the Gentiles.] And communicated: The Greek is [...], i. e. I decla­red, related, or reported; for in all the New Testament, the word is used but in one place besides, and that is by Luke, who sayth, that Festus [...] i. e. reported Pauls cause unto King Agrippa: where our last English Translation renders it declared, Act. 25.14. The pronoune them, is here a relative without an antecedent, as [Page 85] the manner of the Hebrewes is sometimes to use it; yet it is referred antecedently, not to any persons mentioned before ex­presly, but tacitly as they are couched in the word Jerusalem: and it is referred subsequently to persons that shall be mentio­ned in the next following clause of this verse; namely to them which were of reputation in Jerusalem. The matter which un­to them he related, was not that whole Gospel wherein at his conversion Christ was revealed unto him: but the summe of that Gospel, or of that Doctrine, which as part of the whole Gospel he preached among the Gentiles, particularly to the point of circumcision, and the rest of the legall ceremonies; namely, he preached that men are justified only by faith in Christ, without either circumcision or other observances of the Law, which he no where pressed upon the Gentiles, or men­tioned as necessary to salvation.

But privately to them which were of reputation.] [...]. i. e. secretly, apart, or aside; for so also the word is commonly ren­dred elsewhere. [...]. i. e. to the principall or chiefe per­sons; for among the Greekes [...], are such who are per­sonages of chiefe esteem or repute, of whom other men hold a great opinion for their knowledge, wisedome, and integrity; such among the Apostles were Peter, James, and John, and who­soever else were principall persons in the Church of Jerusalem. To the chiefe persons therefore of that Church, Paul related the summe of his Doctrine; for they were most concerned in the point, because they were best able to examine it, and to give their judgement in it. And with these he first dealt privately at a secret meeting, as in like cases commonly the maner is, before he communicated the matter to the whole Church of Jerusa­lem, to whom the matter was referred, and to whom afterward Paul and Barnabas publickly delivered it in the Synod. For when in a full audience of the Synod they two had rendred an account of that Doctrine which they had preached among the Gentiles, and had declared the miracles and wonders which God by them had wrought among the Gentiles, presently upon their silence James gave the sentence, which was approved by the whole Synod, and thereupon the Decrees were drawne up, to be sent abroad among the Gentiles, as Luke reports it, Acts 15.12, 13. Against which order of proceeding, this makes no­thing, that here in this Epistle he mentions his conference with the chiefest persons secretly in the last place; for he might therefore doe so, because he would expresse the generall act of his message before that which therein was particular, without respect to the order of time. Yet if any man will urge the con­trary, [Page 86] I shall not much stand upon it.

Lest by any meanes I should run, or had run in vaine.] The finall cause why he made this relation of his Doctrine to the Apostles. Not that Paul made any doubt concerning the certainty of his Doctrine, as if he would acknowledge the verity and certainty thereof from the approbation of those who were the chiefe in reputation; for as we heard before, the verity and certainty of his Doctrine, was by God himselfe miraculously revealed unto him, and every where confirmed by divers miracles. But he therefore related it, to avoyd the inconvenience of losing his labour q. d. Unlesse I had thus communicated my selfe at Jeru­salem to the Apostles, I might have lost all my labour in preach­ing of the Gospel; for my adversaries would continually have clamoured against my Doctrine, that the chiefest of the Apostles thought, and taught otherwise; by which meanes they would have subverted their Faith who had beleft it, and consequently I should have run in vaine, losing all the fruit of my labour in preaching.

Comment.

BUT neither Titus who was with me, being a Greeke.] We may now perceive from these words, why Paul mentioned Ti­tus before as the companion of his journey to Jerusalem, and why he tooke him with him by Revelation; namely, that from his person he might draw an evident testimony against the necessity of circumcision upon the Gentiles. The particle neither stands not here for a copulative, but is put for the single nega­tive, firmely denying, of not indeed. A Greeke. i. e. a non-Jew, or a Gentile; for by the Jew every non-Jew, of what Nation so­ever is generally called sometime a Greeke, sometime a Gentile, [Page 87] or Heathen. See Rom. 1.16. and Rom. 2.9. q. d. From the re­sult of the Synod, no not Titus a man of great repute in the Church of God, and my frequent assistant in the Gospel, who was then with me at Jerusalem, and present in the Assembly, although by nation and birth he was not a Jew, but a Gentile, was ordered to be circumcised; no not although circumcision seemed of great moment in regard of his person, that he might be a precedent and leading man to the rest of the Gentiles.

Compelled to bee circumcised.] Compelled; the Greeke is, [...], i. e. necessitated to bee circumcised; for the question was whether circumcision were necessary to salvation; and to shew it not necessary, Titus was not necessitated to bee circumcised. An infallible argument, that the judgement of the Apostles was, that neither circumcision, nor the rest of the legall Ceremonies were no way necessary; neither necessary to salvation, as a means thereto, nor necessary to the Gentiles as a precept upon them. That afterward Paul circumcised Timothy, as wee read Act. 16.3. He was therein wondrous constant to himselfe in actions quite contrary one to another; in both which hee made use of his Christian liberty in a lawfull manner: For the nature of liberty is to bee unbound or loose, to doe an act or not doe it at our plea­sure, and not to bee compelled or bound to either; and the law­full use of our liberty in a thing indifferent, is sometime to doe it, sometime not, according as edification or reason requires. Now Paul circumcised Timothy, not necessarily or constrainedly, but spontaneously or voluntarily, that hee might not offend the Jews, but rather gaine upon them, and draw them to the faith by meanes of an act in it selfe indifferent, but then usefull in respect of such persons to such a purpose; but to circumcise Titus hee would not bee compelled or necessitated, especially at Jerusalem in a time of dissention, that he might not offend the Gentiles, by giving a foule scandall to the faithfull converted from Genti­lisme, and to the unbelievers among them that were not yet con­verted; for if upon the Gentile circumcision were necessitated, would not this danger and damage necessarily follow, that the believer would soone revolt from the faith, and the unbeliever would never enter it?

Comment.

AND that because of false brethren.] False brethren. i. e. Judaising Christians; whom hee therefore calls false brethren; because they were Christians in name and in shew, and did indeed believe in Christ; but withall they were also Jewes in heart and indeed; because they observed them­selves and urged upon others, the necessity of circumcision, and the legall Ceremonies. Who these false brethren were, is in generall discovered unto us by Luke, who declares them to bee certaine of the Sect of the Pharisees who believed, and sayd, it was necessary to circumcise the Gentiles, and to command them to keepe the Law of Moses, Act. 15.5. And Paul elsewhere making a list of the divers perills hee had escaped, recounts also his perills among such false brethren, 2. Cor. 11.26. And that be­cause. i. e. Although and because; for the Greeke particle [...], hath a double force, being partly adversative and partly cau­sall, to shew that Titus was not then circumcised, in opposi­tion to the false brethren; no not although they urged it, and therfore because they urged it. q. d. Titus was [Page 89] not circumcised at Jerusalem, although the false brethren there of the Sect of the Pharisees urged it as necessary, and would have compelled it; and hee was not circumcised there­fore, because they urged it as necessary and would have compel­led it: Whence it appeares, that otherwise the circumcision of Titus might have beene tolerated, to have gratified others that were weake: Yet then and there was not permitted, that the liberty and priviledge of the Gospel might be preserved.

Ʋnawares brought in, who came in privily. ] Namely into that private Assembly, where Paul had his private conference with them of the Apostles who were of reputation, before hee com­municated his Doctrine publickly in the Synod. Ʋnawares brought in. The Greeke is, [...], i. e. Brought in upon the bye, or privily brought in; for so elsewhere the word is rendred in our last English Translation. See 2. Pet. 2.1. And it seemes, these false brethren were craftily suborned, to insinuate themselves secretly, and to get in upon the bye into that private Assembly, where Paul had his private conference with the Apostles. Who came in privily. The Greeke is, [...], i. e. Came in upon the bye; for these words are but an explication, or rather a cor­respondence unto the words before, Ʋnawares brought in; for the false brethren being suborned, to insinuate themselves and get in upon the bye into that private Assembly, did accordingly intrude themselves, and came in upon the bye.

To spy out our liberty which wee have in Christ Jesus. ] The end of purpose of their comming in was, to spy and betray our Christ­ian liberty. Our liberty. i. e. our filiation or liberation, as wee are the sonnes of God, whom God hath adopted to make his Heires to the Inheritance of Heavenly Blessednesse. The state of a sonne is a state of liberty; because a sonne is the adequate and proper subject, wherein the right of liberty doth originally and principally reside; for filii and liberi are persons who really are all one and the same; for the same persons which in the family are liberi, and by us called sonnes, the very like same in the policy are liberi also, and for distinctions sake are expressed in English by the word freemen. The nature of liberty is a state of loose­nesse from evill unto good; the right unto which state doth pro­perly belong to a sonne; for although a sonne taken relatively in a vulgar sense, bee one that hath a father; yet taken absolute­ly and in a rurall sense, a sonne is hee that hath a right; and liber­ty expresseth the nature of his originall and radicall right, that is a loosenesse from evill unto good; and the good whereto the sonne is loose or free, is some inheritance, whether yee consider him either in the family or the policy. And the person enjoying [Page 90] this state of liberty, hath by vertue thereof a right to the use of his liberty unto certaine acts not arbitrarily or absolutely, but re­spectively so far as they are correspondent and sutable unto his state. And this liberty is opposed unto servitude, as unto a state quite contrary to that of a sonne; because although relatively a servant bee one that hath a Master, yet jurally and in a legall sense, hee is a servant who hath no right; and his servitude ex­presseth the nature of his non-right, that it is a bondage from good unto evill, and the good from which the servant is bound, is all Inheritance; for all the Inheritance and goods of his Ma­ster discends to his Masters sonnes, or in case hee have no sonnes, it passeth to some stranger of his kindred, and not to the servant, though he live in the family. Which we have in Christ Jesus. i. e. our Christian liberty; for after this manner he describes it af­terward, calling it the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, cap. 5. vers. 1. and this adjunct he atributes unto it both here and there, to determine and specifie, what kind of liberty he un­derstands; for he speaks not of liberty in generall, but only of that speciall liberty which is Christian liberty, which we have in and by Christ Jesus: which is not a carnall liberty of action, to be licentious and loose from the just and wholesome Lawes of man: nor a Mundane liberty of right, to have the right of a sonne in some worldly family, or the right of a freeman in some worldly policy; but it is a spirituall liberty of action, to be loose from the Lawes of Moses, as from circumcision and the rest of the legal observances, whereto the false Brethren would have necessi­tated the Gentiles, and particularly Titus, contrary to the state of their Christian liberty which they had in Christ; and it is a cce­lestiall liberty of right, to have a right of inheritance to the Kingdome of Heaven, as the adopted sonnes of God, and co-heirs with Christ to the inheritance of blessednesse. And it is called our Christian liberty, or the liberty we have in Christ Jesus, because Christ is the Authour of it; not only to publish to the world the good will and grace of God concerning [...] but also to collate the state of it upon all the faithfull who believe in him, and by him as their Mediatour covenant with God to be the sons of God, and because Christ is the Patterne of it; for we are the adoptive sonnes and heires of God, after the image and like­nesse of Christ who is the naturall sonne and heire of God; and whatsoever liberty and right Christ the native sonne of God hath in his Father, the same, or the like rights are imputed unto us who are the adoptive sonnes of God, whereby we are made co­heires with Christ unto the inheritance of Christ; and this imputation of these rights of Christ unto us, shall be afterward [Page 91] called our justification. The Priviledges or particular rights appendant and consequent to our state of Christian liberty are severall and singular: but hereof we shall speake more fully afterwards in the body of this Epistle, cap. 5. vers. 1. because the Apostle here seemes to mention it but in transitu, or occasionally, so farre as it concluceth to his historicall narration, which is but introductive to the rest of the Epistle. The purpose then of the false Brethren in comming in upon the by to the private meeting where Paul had his conference, was but to act the part of Spyes, to make some discovery upon the state of our Christian liberty or filiation, to view the condition of is, and to finde out by what occasion they might oppose it, and by what meanes they might oppresse it; for herewith afterward he chargeth the false tea­chers, that they troubled the Galatians, that they might subvert their Christian liberty. See. cap. 5. vers. 10. and vers. 12.

That they might bring us into bondage. ] A further end of their comming in subordinate to the former, was to enthrall us; or bring us into bondage. i. e. subject and necessitate us to the Law of Moses; which subjection he calleth a bondage, because those Lawes were servile, and the necessity to their observance was a grievous servitude; hence afterward he will call those Lawes worldly rudiments, weake and beggarly elements; under which Gods people were in bondage; and he will tearme them a yoke of bondage wherewith Gods people were entangled. [...]ee afterward, cap. 4.3. and cap. 4.9. and cap. 4.24. and cap. 5.1. For the Jewes although they were the people of God, yet they were not the sonnes of God in a right of plenage or state of liber­ty: but onely the children of God in a state of pupillage or mi­nority, and were under the Lawes of Moses in a servile condi­tion, as children are under Tutors and governours; which sub­jection being nothing different from servitude, is therefore a bondage: because as was shewed before, all servitude is a bon­dage; for it is quite contrary to liberty which is a loosenesse. He saith us, as he sayd before our liberty, that he might include himselfe and all other Christians, as well believing Jewes, as Gentiles, of which number was Titus. The purpose then of the false brethren was to continue upon the Jewes and to impose upon the Gentiles the whole observance of the ceremoniall Law, whereof the indifferency to performe some act of it upon some occasion, is a liberty: but the necessity of that Law, to be compel­led and alwayes bound unto all the precepts of it, is a bondage.

Comment.

TO whom wee gave place by subjection, no not for an houre.] The purpose of the false brethren in comming in upon the by, to that private meeting, was to spie out the priviledges of Christian liberty, that by some one act at first, and afterward by degrees they might subvert the whole, and at last wholly bring the faithfull into the servitude or bondage of the Law. And the meanes whereby they would effect this, was by urging Circum­cision upon Titus, as if they would require it but only of that person, and only at that time. But their further intention was, that if they could obtaine it upon those tearmes, then for the future, they would presse for a precedent, that person and that time, whereby to necessitate Circumcision, and consequently the rest of the legall ceremonies, upon other persons at other times. Paul therefore and Barnabas stoutly oppose them in this motion, and by way of subjection to be necessitated will yield to them in nothing, neither for the person nor for the time. q. d. Although by way of toleration or sufferance we might have been entreated to something, yet by way of subjection we would be compelled to nothing: and although they seemed to urge but the act of circumcision, and that to continue but for a time; yet we gave no way nor yielded not for the least moment. Hence it appears that in things indifferent, and in themselves lawfull, at some [Page 93] time to be done, we need not then gratifie an opposite party, when some lust her inconvenience is to be feared▪ but we must therein have a consideration not onely for the time present, but for the future.

That the truth of the Gospel might continue with you. ] The end or purpose of Parts opposition against the false brethren urging the circumcision of Titus; namely, to preserve and continue the Gospel in the sincerity and purity thereof unto all the faithfull, and consequently unto the Galatians. The truth.] i. e. the sinceri­ty or purity; for Truth here is opposed to all that falshood or for­gery which is done by any adulteration, corruption, depravation, subornation, or admission of any thing with the Gospel, which unto the nature of the Gospel is alien or contrary: and in this sence the word is often taken elsewhere. See Psal. 51.6. and Esay 59.14, 15. and 1 Cor. 5.8, and afterward here in this cap. vers. 14. and cap. 3. vers. 1. Now circumcision and the rest of the legall ceremonies were so alien and contrary unto the Go­spel, that they did wholly corrupt and falsifie the nature of it, nullifying all the efficacy thereof, and rendring it frustrate, voy [...], and of no effect; for if Christians be circumcised, Christ shall profit them nothing, he shall become of no effect unto them; for thereby they are fallen from his grace; as Paul will tell the Galatians afterward, cap. 5. vers. 2, 4. Paul therefore opposed the false brethren urging the circumcision of Titus, that he might preserve the nature of the Gospel intire and sincere in the purity thereof, free from all compliance with the legall ceremonies; that by thus maintaining it first at Jerusalem, he might so con­tinue it among the Gentiles, untill it arrived so unto the Galati­ans. For if Paul had given way to the circumcision of Titus at Jerusalem, would not the false teachers in Galatia have thence afterward drawne an argument for it, alleaging to the contrary of Pauls Doctrine there, that at Jerusalem by the Apostles them­selves, circumcision and the rest of the legall ceremonies were adjudged necessary to salvation; and thereupon Titus was com­pelled to be circumcised? With you. i. e. You the Galatians; or rather with you Gentiles; for although in those words he speakes only to the Galatians; yet in them he understands all others of their condition in respect of Religion, especially the Gentiles, to whom his Ministery was peculiarly ordained, and to whom the benefit of that action at Jerusalem [...]e­dounded.

Comment.

BUT of these who seemed to bee somwhat.] i. e. Of these who were the chiefe Apostles; for these words are but a cir­cumlocution of the chiefe persons at Jerusalem: and they are the same in sense with the words mentioned before, verse 2. which were of reputation: for the Greek of the Originall is the same. Yet by reason of the Infinitive [...], i. e. to bee somwhat, which followes heere, they are heere translated by the way of a Verbe, who seemed to be somwhat; but the sense returns still unto the same: because to be somwhat, signifies, to be some eminent and excellent person above other men: for as when we would debase a man, we commonly say, he is nothing: so contrarily, when we would ex­toll him, we sometime say, he is somwhat, or some body, i. e. some extraordinary or singular person. For in this forme of speech the Greek particle [...], doth not signifie indefinitly and really for some what, or some thing in generall: but eminently and personally for some person extraordinary, eyther in deed or in repute: for hence, of Theudas, who made an insurrection, it is sayd that he boasted himselfe, [...]; i. e. to be some body, Act. 5.36. And the like was given out by Simon Magus of himselfe, Act. 8.9. [Page 95] but hereof see more afterward, cap. 6. vers. 3. And when Paul saith heer of the chiefe Apostles, that they seemed to be some­what, his meaning is not, that they seemed great and eminent persons to others onely, and not so to himselfe also: but hee also himselfe had the like esteeme of them; for afterward in this cap. vers. 9. he acknowledgeth them to be pillars of that buil­ding whereof Christ is the head and corner stone. But his mea­ning is, that he did not acknowledge in those Apostles; or attri­bute unto them, things in that sense and maner, which others, especially his Adversaries boasted of them; and urged against him to disparage his Doctrine. For his adversaries after whose minde and sense he seemes to use these words, did use and urge them, as if those Apostles were some extraordinary persons for knowledge and power farre above Paul, and that Paul to them was no body.

Whatsoever they were.] The Greeke is, [...]. i. e. how great soever they were sometime, or in times past. In our last English translation, the Greeke particle [...], is not expressed: but should have been expressed, for it is very significant to com­pleate the sense of the words; and it is expressed in the Italian, and French translations: so also in our former English transla­tion compiled at Geneva by our Countrimen, who render the words thus, Whatsoever they were in times passed. But the parenthe­sis wherewith the words of this clause, and of the clause next following are included, seemes superfluous and needlesse; nei­ther is there any in the French translation: yet if wee doe (as wee may) admit of a Parenthesis in this verse, then this clause onely (Whatsoever they were in times past) is therewith to bee inclu­ded, and the clause following is not to bee co-included. The words then seeme to bee an answer to a tacite objection made to Pauls disparagement; for very probable it is, that his adversa­ries with intent to disparage him, had magnified Peter and the rest of the Apostles; as that they were the Disciples of Christ, had beene conversant with him, and instructed by him; when Paul was but a Pharisee. To this Paul seemes to answer. q. d. Whatsoever or how great soever the Apostles were formerly in times past, doth not necessarily inferre my disparity now; for things are not alwayes the same that formerly they were in times passed. Although then formerly in times past the Apostles were familiar with Christ, were instructed by him, and ordained by him; and all this then when I was a Pharisee; though they were Preachers of the Gospel then when I was a persecutor of [...] yet all this then, makes no matter now, either to the truth of the point in question, or to argue that now betweene their Doctrine [Page 96] and mine, there is any disagreement, or betweene their persons and mine any disparity.

It maketh no matter to mee.] The Greeke is, [...], i. e. I differ nothing, or am nothing different, viz. from those who seemed to bee somewhat; for unto those former words, these heere must bee referred for the construction and sense of both, which seemes thus, that betweene them and Paul there was no difference or disparity in any thing: But then the parenthesis which doth shadow and obscure the sense, must bee wholly removed. How­soever the word [...] signifie in humane Writers among the Greekes, yet in the holy Scriptures it signifies to differ, viz. in such a manner that one thing is either better or worse then another; and so it is rendred elsewhere in our last English Translation. So 1. Cor. 15.41. One Starre [...], i. e. differeth from another Starre in glory; and so afterward in this Epistle, cap. 4.1. The Heire, as long as hee is a childe, [...], i. e. differeth nothing from a servant; and so the French Translation reades it heere; and this sense seemes to bee intended, though not rightly expres­sed in our former English Translation made at Geneva. q. d. Whatsoever, or how great soever the difference or disparity be­tweene mee and the chiefe Apostles hath beene heeretofore in times past; which I confesse was very remarkeable, when they were first Apostles to preach the Gospell, and I a Pharisee to per­secute it; but now since the time that God revealed Christ unto mee, and trusted mee with the preaching of him unto the Gen­tiles, there is no difference or disparity at all betweene the grea­test of them and mee, either in respect of the Doctrine which I preach, or of my knowledge in the Gospel, or of my dignity in the Apostleship. Not that they now are any thing lesse then formerly they were; but that I by Gods grace, am so much grea­ter, that I am now their equall; for it hath pleased God so high­ly to advance mee in the Ministery, that now they have no ad­vantage above mee, that they in any thing should bee my betters, and I their inferiour,

God accepteth no mans person.] Or, accepteth not the person of man. The Greeke word [...], signifies sometime any single person, sometime the face and presence of man; but heere, and in such like formes of speech, it is taken for those outward qua­lities of man, which make nothing to the merit of his cause, or to the poynt of the matter in question, to argue the truth from any such qualities; and therefore the French Translation ren­ders these words thus; God accepteth not the outward appearance of man; and the Italian thus; God hath no regard to the quality of any mans person. These words, or the like to this sence, are somewhat [Page 97] frequent in the New Testament. See Act. 10.34. and Rom. 2.11. and Ephes. 6.9. and Col. 3.25. And they seeme to bee a speciall attribute unto God, in respect of the integrity and equity which hee perpetually useth, not onely in the administration of his justice and judgement; but also in the distribution of his grace and mercy. For God is no way partiall to respect mens dignities or other outward qualities, which conduce nothing to the merit of the cause or to the poynt of truth; but God is a most just and equall Judge, who regards onely the genuine and inward truth. And therefore in the debate of true Doctrine, no argument is to bee drawne from mens persons. Hence Paul would heere infer, that betweene him and the rest of the Apo­stles there was now no difference or disparity either for know­ledge or authority in the Gospel; notwithstanding those out­ward qualities in the Apostles, that formerly in times past, they were the proper Disciples of Christ, instructed and ordained by him, seeing God regardeth no such qualities.

For they who seemed to bee somewhat, in conference added nothing to mee. A reason of his former negation; that betweene the chiefe Apostles and him there was no difference or disparity; namely, because the chiefest of them added no knowledge or power unto him. Added nothing. The Greeke is, [...], i. e. Discovered nothing, or opened no further light or knowledge in the Gospel unto mee, as if therein God had revea­led any thing to them more then he had to me; for to this sense the word was used and rendred before: See cap. 1. vers. 16. q. d. How great soever the Apostles seemed, to whose judgement the difference about Circumcision, and the legall Ceremonies were referred; or how meane soever I seemed who was sent to re­quire their judgement therein; yet in the Gospel I learned from them no manner of knowledge which before was not revealed unto mee: For when the question was agitated and determined, they altered nothing in my Doctrine, as if it had beene any way erroneous; they added nothing to my preaching, as if in any poynt it had beene defective, or insufficient unto salvation.

An Objection: The Apostles in that Synod added severall things, as namely these, abstinence from fornication, from meals offered to Idolls, from blood, and from things strangled, as it plainely appeares, Act. 15.29. The Answer. These things were not then added unto his Doctrine, but his former Doctrine of these things was then confirmed. For Paul in his preaching did expresly and constantly forbid fornication, as it may appeare in divers passages of his Epistles; and particularly required absti­nence from things offered unto Idolls. See 1. Cor. 8.1.7. and [Page 98] 1. Cor. 10.20. And in generall words hee restrained men from blood and things strangled, in all his Doctrines of avoyding scan­dalls, especially in regard of those things, which unto the Jewes were abominable, as was the eating of blood and things strang­led, which the Jewes abhorred as much as they did meates offe­red unto Idols. See Rom. 14.13.14. and 1. Cor. 10.23. and 1. Cor. 11.2.

Comment.

BUT contrariwise.] This paricle of Contrariety must bee re­ferred backward, unto these words in the former verse, from these who seemed to bee somewhat, I differ nothing; for that negative of Inequality, shall be proved by the contrary affirmative of equality; and therefore the same particle must also bee refer­red forward, by carrying the coherence of it, to these words in the 9. verse following; they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship. q. d. The chiefest persons at Jerusalem, even the chiefest of the Apostles, were so far from putting any difference betweene their doctrine and mine, or condemning mine as erro­neous, [Page 99] imperfect, or insufficient in any point: and were so farre from making any disparity betweene their persons and mine, or preferring themselves before me and Barnabas in reputation and authority, that contrarily, they acknowledged us for their equals, and assumed us into their society of the Apostleship, as their co­partners and fellow-labourers in the Gospel; and in testimony of that their acknowledgement, they gave us their right hands up­on it.

When they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed un­to me. ] The causes or occasions that manifested the equality and fellowship between the chiefest Apostles and Paul; namely, that the chiefe persons at Jerusalem saw his Commission for preaching of the Gospel. The Gospel of the uncircumcision. i. e. The preaching of the Gospel among the uncircumcised, who were the Gentiles; for the words Circumcision and Incircumcision are often times put for the Circumcised and uncircumcised. See Act. 10.45. and Act. 11.2. and Rom. 2.26. and Rom. 3.30. and Rom. 4.9. and Phil. 3.3. Of the Gospel there were not two severall sorts; for the Gospel in it selfe, was but one for the doctrine of it: but there were two sorts of people notably different and separate in their maner of life and conditions, to whom God commanded that the Gospel should be preached, whereof the one sort was circumci­sed, and the other uncircumcised. And although personally some single persons who by birth were Gentiles, became Proselites to the Jewish religion, and were thereupon circumcised; yet natio­nally and in generall, those nations of the Gentiles who were not of the posterity of Abraham, were uncircumcised. But heer the word uncircumcision is not taken actually, but morally, as it is opposed unto Judaisme; and the uncircumcised are accounted all those who were not of the Jewish religion, although actually the foreskin of their flesh were circumcised and cut; such as the Edomites and Ismaelites, unto whom as to uncircumcised for re­ligion, though circumcised in the flesh, Paul preached the Go­spel in Arabia, whither he went from Damascus immediatly af­ter his conversion. Was committed unto me. The Greek is, [...], i. e. That I was entrusted, or put in trust with the Gospel: for in our last English Translation that word is rendred sometime com­mitted, sometime put in trust. See 1. Thess. 2.4. and 1. Tim. 1.11. and Tit. 1.3. The charge of preaching to the Gentiles who were uncircumcised, was committed or entrusted unto Paul; who be­cause in this charge he was separate from the rest of the Apostles, is therefore called the separate Apostle, as hath beene formerly noted. Yet this charge to preach to these, was committed unto Paul, not solely; for Barnabas and others were his fellow-labou­rers [Page 100] in that Province: but unto Paul it was committed chiefly, as the principall person to conduct the functions of that Ministe­ry. When they saw. i. e. When the chiefe persons at Jerusalem saw or perceived, that this charge was thus committed unto Paul; and the meanes whereby they perceived it, was by giving audience to him and Barnabas, when they two declared in the Synod at Jerusalem, what miracles & wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. See Act. 15.12.

As the Gospel of the circumcision was to Peter.] The preaching of the Gospel among the Jewes, who were circumcised was com­mitted unto Peter. The charge of preaching to the Jewes was imposed, not upon Peter onely, but generally upon the Apostles at Jerusalem; yet heere hee names onely Peter, because hee was the principall person in that Ministery, and naming him as prin­cipall, the rest of his fellow-laborers in that Ministery are to bee understood, as James, John, and Philip, who planted the Gos­pel in all the Cities of Samaria. Yet Peter was not so limited and restrained to the Jewes, as to preach to them onely, but chiefely; for hee also might preach among the Gentiles, and did so, as appeares by his vision of the sheete, and his preaching thereupon to Cornelius who was a Gentile; see Act. 10.11. and afterward in this Chapter, vers. 11. Wee shall finde him at An­tioch among the Gentiles. In like manner Paul was not so limi­ted to the Gentiles, as to preach to them onely, but chiefely; for hee had also power and authority given from God to preach a­mong the Jewes, who were the children of Israel. See Act. 9.15. Heerein Paul doth not onely exempt himselfe from all sub­jection unto Peter, but doth tacitly equall himselfe to Peter, and in a manner prefer himselfe above him; forasmuch as Pauls Pro­vince of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles was far the larger of the two; because it was extended over all the World.

Comment.

HEE that wrought effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the circumcision.] He plainly intimates that the agent whom heere hee understands, is the Almighty God; for the Verbe whereby hee expresseth the action, doth properly imply a divine Agent. Hee that wrought effectually in Peter. The Greeke is, [...]. i. e. he who enabled Peter, or was effectuall in or by Peter: But why it should be [...] in the dative case without the preposition [...], or [...], as elsewhere is commonly ad­ded to the Verbe [...], is not worth the enquiry; for whe­ther we make Peter the subordinate cause upon whom God was effectuall, or the instrumentall cause by whom God was effectu­all, it comes all to one sense: because these are but severall ex­pressions of Gods efficacy in Peters Ministery. But that God was the supreame Agent or principall efficient in this efficacy, it ap­peares from the nature of the word [...], which in the sense of the Scripture, doth principally signifie that working, whose principall Agent is outward and Divine, and whose action is inward and potent; and this is commonly done, when God by his spirit workes upon our spirit; by exalting our spirit to that action, whereto by naturall strength it could never attaine, and by blessing the finall effect beyond that power which by us was applyed to the meanes. And this word is also in Scripture oppo­sed meanly to [...], which signifies to cease or rest from work­ing, by being actually idle, or doing nothing: But extreamely it is opposed to [...], which signifies to defeate, or disable, by [Page 102] rendring a thing so ineffectuall or impotent, that it remaines deprived of all inward power to produce any outward act. To the Apostleship. i. e. to the exercise or Function of the Apostleship, and to the efficacy thereof upon others by his exercise of it; for to both these Peter of himselfe was unable, had he not beene su­per-enabled by a divine power. q. d. As the authority of Peters Apostleship to preach the Gospel unto the Jewes, was divine, for God had committed that Gospel unto him; so Peters effi­cacy in the execution of his Apostleship, was divine also; for he did not execute by vertue of his owne abilityes and natu­rall parts, but by the speciall grace of God, who by his spirit wrought effectually in him for the execution and successe of his Ministery. Now this Divine efficacy whereby God enabled Pe­ter to his Apostleship, appeared chiefely three wayes. 1. By his Preaching, when at one Sermon of his three thousand persons were converted, Acts 2.41. 2. By his Miracles, as his restoring of the Cripple, Acts 3.7. his destroying of Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5. his healing of Aeneas, and raising of Dorcas, Acts 9.34.40. 3. By his deliverance, when God by his Angel delivered him out of prison from the hand of Herod, who meant to slay him, Acts 12.6, 7.

The same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.] Was mighty in me. i.e. Enabled me; for the word in the Originall is the same, where­by Gods efficacy was expressed in Peter. Toward the Gentiles. i. e. To my Apostleship among the Gentiles; for the word Gentiles is opposed to the word Circumcision in the former clause of this verse, which there supposed for the Jewes. q. d. The efficacy of my Apostleship was divine also, wrought by the same grace of the same God, whose spirit was as powerfull and as effectuall in me as in Peter; so that betweene Peters authority and mine, betweene his ability and mine, and betweene his successe among the Jewes, and mine among the Gentiles, there is no difference, or disparity; seeing all are equally divine, and all meere graces from the same spirit of God. Now this divine efficacy upon Paul to his Apostleship, consisted chiefely in his travels to preach the Gospel among the Gentiles, even at the Emperors Court: in his miracles which hee wrought for the confirming of his Do­ctrine; in his afflictions which hee suffered, and in his deliveran­ces from persecution; in all which particulars hee was extraor­dinarily supported by Gods gracious assistance, as appeares by his history in the Acts of the Apostles. And heere againe Paul makes himselfe equall unto Peter, in that both their abilities for the exercise of their Ministery proceeded from the same super­naturall and divine power.

Comment.

AND when James, Cephas, and John.] The names of the chiefe Apostles then resident at Jerusalem. James. i. e. James the yonger, or the lesse, whom hee mentioned be­fore, and gave him the attribute of the Lords brother, cap. 1. ver. 19. He names him heere in the first place; therefore as it seems, because he was constantly resident at Jerusalem, and President in the Synod there, for upon the controversie about Circumcision he gave the sentence. Cephas. i. e. Peter: who was the brother of Andrew, and whose proper name was Simon; but Cephas (which in sense is all one with Peter) was his sirname: for Cephas is but the Syriack word, and Peter the Greek word, which in English signifie a Stone; so that Cephas, Peter, and Stone, are three se­verall words in three severall Languages, which signifie one and the same thing, the name whereof was given unto Simon for a sirname: for in Scripture it is often declared, that Peter was the sirname of Simon. See Act. 10.5.18.3 [...]. and Act. 11.13. And this sirname of Cephas or Peter, which is by the Evangelist inter­preted a stone, was given unto Simon by Christ, when Christ first beheld him, being presented unto Christ by his brother Andrew John 1.42. But seeing Paul mentioneth Simon by the [...] of Peter, in severall passages of this Chapter, both before and after this verse, why doth he heere, and heere only, call him Cephas? [Page 104] The reason may bee, because hee mentioneth him heere joyntly with other men whose names were Syriack as well as that of Cephas; for that is Pauls manner, that when hee speakes of Simon alone by himselfe, hee calls him by his sirname of Peter; but mentioning him among others, hee commonly calls him Ce­phas. See 1. Cor. 1.12. and 1. Cor. 3.22. and 1. Cor. 9.5. and 1. Cor. 15.5. John, i. e. John the Apostle, who was one of the twelve, and the beloved Disciple, who is commonly called the Evangelist, partly to distinguish him from John the Baptist, and partly because hee wrote that Gospel which goes under his name: hee also wrote three Canonicall Epistles, and the Booke of the Revelation; hee was the sonne of Zebedee, and Brother of James the Elder, whom Herod put to death, Act. 12.2. Besides this John, and John the Baptist, there was another John sirna­med Marke, whom Paul and Barnabas tooke for their Minister, and fell into some dissention about him, of whom, see Act. 12.25. and Act. 13.5.13. and Act. 15.37.

Who seemed to bee Pillars.] Having discovered and specified by name the persons, of whom before it was sayd in generall, that they were chiefe men who were of reputation, and who seemed to bee somewhat; hee now determines in particular what they seemed to bee; namely, to bee pillars, i. e. principall persons in the Church of God, who of that edifice whereof Christ is the foundation, were in a manner the maine supporters, whereby the Christian Religion and the truth thereof was sustained and upheld, against all persecutors who openly opposed it, and a­gainst all false Teachers who secretly undermined it. For as the Tabernacle and the Temple was supported by pillars: So the mysticall building of Christ, is under Christ, supported by the Ministers thereof; and as the Church is elsewhere called the pillar of truth, 1. Tim. 3.15. Because therein and therein onely the truth of Religion is preserved; for out of the Church wee seeke in vaine for any true Religion: So the Ministers are the pil­lars of the Church, by whose Doctrine and Ministery the Church is preserved. Yet James, Cephas, and John have heere from Paul this attribute, that they seemed to bee pillars, according to the language or speech of his adversaries, because unto them these Apostles onely seemed to bee the onely pillars; not that they were not as they seemed, or not that they seemed not so un­to Paul but because they were not the only men that either were, or seemed so; and because his adversaries who in the poynts con­troverted, dissented from the Apostles, abused their reputation of being pillars, on purpose to deceive the Galatians, and to de­base the reputation of Paul, as if hee were no pillar, or no sup­porter of the truth.

[Page 105] Perceived the grace that was given unto mee.] The grace. viz. of my Apostleship, or of my being an Apostle unto the Gentiles; for that was the matter whereof hee spake last before, when hee sayd that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto him; and that God was mighty in him toward the Gen­tiles. This his Apostleship hee calls a grace, because the office thereof was conferred upon him from God by Christ, by no o­ther title, then by the grace of God; as is further implyed in the word given: Because all gifts of what nature soever pro­ceede from the grace and favour of the giver. Paul of himselfe was unsufficient for this Function; for hee was ignorant of the Gospel, till such time as it pleased God to reveale Christ unto him; and above all other men hee was unworthy of it, because hee was a persecutor of those persons who sustained it, and of the Church, for whom the office was ordained. So that unto Paul his office in the Apostleship was free grace, because hee no way desired it, and meere grace because hee no way deserved it, and abundant grace because hee deserved the contrary. Hence elsewhere hee calls his Apostleship by the name, not onely of grace, but of grace exceeding abundant. See and compare Rom. 1.5. and Rom. 15.15. and 1. Tim. 1.14. But hee mentions it here by the name of grace, to continue his Argument for the Divini­ty of it; for seeing the Gospel was committed or entrusted un­to him, seeing God was mighty in it toward the Gentiles, and seeing it was a gift unto him proceeding from Gods graces, there­fore certainly it must needs be divine.

They gave to mee and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.] They, i. e. James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to bee pillars, Gave mee and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, i. e. acknowledged me and Barnabas for their Peeres and equalls, for their com-Mini­sters and fellow-Apostles; and in testimony thereof gave us their right hands. And these words for their coherence must be refer­red backward unto these words at the 7. verse, But contrariwise, q. d. James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars and were pillars, and by your false Teachers were pretended to bee the on­ly pillars, were so far from discovering any further light in the Gospel, or from adding any knowledge unto mee therein, as if I had beene their Disciple, who had learned something from them, that contrariwise, even they themselves acknowledged both mee and Barnabas to bee pillars also, even their equalls and fellowes in the Apostleship, and signed our fellowship under their hands by giving us their right hands upon it; thereby to testifie unto the world, that our authority, ability, and efficacy for the Mini­stery of the Gospel was equally divine with theirs, all proceeding [Page 106] immediately from the grace of God, which unto mee was excee­ding abundant. The giving of the right hand was among the Hebrewes an ordinary and solemne forme whereby to expresse e­quality and fellowship; for by this forme Jehonadab associated himselfe into the fellowship and company of Jehu, by giving him his hand, 2. King. 10.15. And thus Tobias was marryed to his wife Sara, by the joyning of their hands, Tobit. 7.13. For this solemnity of joyning the right hands in marriage is not one­ly ancient, but very proper; because marriage is the most origi­nall and naturall society or fellowship of mankinde, which is al­so called Wedlocke, because thereby two persons like two hands clasped, are so linked and locked together, that they are incor­porated into one body; or as Christ termeth it, whereby twaine are no more twaine but one flesh, which God hath joyned together, Mat. 19.6. Which Conjunction is expressed and sig­nified by the mutuall conjoyning of their right hands, a part of the body for the whole; and the right hand being the principall instrument of strength and action, doth further argue the mutual promise of that mutuall helpe, which God respected at the Cre­ation, in making the woman a helpe meete for the man, Gen. 2.18.

That wee should goe unto the heathen, and they unto the circumci­sion.] Should goe. In the Greeke there is no Verbe expressed: but is well supplied in our last English translation. Should goe; for the very same supply is in the Italian and French translati­ons; although the Syriack and some Latines supply it somwhat more emphatically thus, should exercise our Apostleship; for this expresseth the action or end of their going, q. d. Upon their hands given us, this agreement was further concluded between us, that we should exercise the Ministery of our Apostleships distinctly; I and Barnabas by preaching among the Gentiles, and they among the Jewes. And this order wee concluded, not ori­ginally from our selves, but consequently and subordinatly to that former Ordinance of God, whereby the Gospel of the uncircum­cision was committed unto mee, as the Gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; as it is before, vers. 7.

Comment.

ONely they would that wee should remember the poore.] They would; In the Greek there is no Verb expressed, nor none suppli­ed in the French translation: but in the Italian it is sup­plied thus, They admonished; which word in our English appre­hension is somewhat too high; for equalls and fellowes doe not admonish, or at least in this sense; and therfore our English supply is more proper, they would, or requested.

Remember.] i. e. Be carefull, viz. to make provision for the poor, by collecting almes for them; for to remember is often used both in the Scripture and in our vulgar speech for being carefull; as contrarily to forget is used for be negligent. The poore. i. e. those poore Christian Jewes in Judea, who believed the Gospel, and were driven into poverty either by the fury of the persecution there, or by the misery of the famine, against they had formerly beene supplied by a collection at Antioch, brought from thence to Jerusalem by Paul and Barnabas, as was noted before. q. d. All that which the Apostles at Jerusalem added there unto mee and Barnabas, was onely this, (and yet this was no matter of Doctrine, but of common Charity) that wee should be mindfull and carefull of the poore among the believing Jewes, who lived in Judea, to collect almes for them among the believing Gentiles; whose duty it was to minister to the Jewes in carnall things, be­cause they were made partakers of their spiritual things. Rom. 15.27. And this was all our message from the Apostles to the Gen­tiles, onely to collect almes among them, and not to impose any legall ceremonies on them.

The same which I also was forward to doe.] The same which. The Greeke is, [...]. The Relative [...] is here redundant accor­ding to the manner of the Hebrewes, as it is elsewhere in divers [Page 108] places. See Mat. 6.4. and Act. 10.38. and 1. Pet. 2.20. q. d. This care for the poore wee willingly undertooke and carefully execu­ted the charge thereof, not failing in any place where wee could make any advantage for a collection in their behalfe; as bound to this office not so much by any obligation layd on us by the A­postles, as by the Law of Charity. And heereunto there needed no Memento unto me; for I for my part endeavoured it before, and faythfully continued the practice of it afterward. See Rom. 15.25, 26. and 1. Cor. 16, 1. and 2. Cor. 8. per tot. and 2. Cor. 9. per tot. And I suppose that Barnabas also continued it for his part, though of him I can averre nothing for certaine: because he and I departed one from another at Antioch, and exercised our Ministery among the Gentiles severall wayes, for hee went toward Cyprus, and I toward Syria, Act. 15.39.

Comment.

BƲT when Peter was come to Antioch.] The time of this hi­story of Peters comming to Antioch, hath no certainty from the Scripture, that I can finde: yet the greatest pro­bability is, that it was after the Councell or Synod at Jerusa­lem, concerning the acts whereof Paul hath treated hitherto: [Page 109] because this is most agreeable to Pauls narration in recounting all his actions with the Apostles; wherein hee seemes to follow the order and course of time according whereto they fell out for after the dissolution of the Councell at Jerusalem, Paul and Bar­nabas immediately returned with Decrees unto Antioch, where for a time they continued teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, Act. 15.35. During this their continuance at Antioch, very probable it seemes that Peter might come thither, and then might bee the time of the action related heere betweene him and Paul; because Barnabas who was also carried away with the dissimulation of Peter and other Jewes, was then with Paul at Antioch; after which time wee never finde them together; for upon their next departure from Antioch, which was not long after they finally departed one from another, by reason of their dissenting about John their Minister, as hath beene formerly no­ted. And although Paul afterward came againe to Antioch, and spent some time there, as appeares, Act. 18.22.23. Yet this acti­on with Peter could not bee then, because then Barnabas was not with him.

I withstood him to the face.] Withstood. The Greeke is, [...], i. e. Literally, I resisted or withstood; but the sense is, I repro­ved; and this appeares partly from the reason in the near words, why hee withstood; namely, Because hee was to bee blamed.] For to withstand one to bee blamed, is to reprove him; partly from the speech wherewith hee withstood him, which at vers. 14. such the forme of a Reproofe; and partly from the nature of Reproofe, for all Reproofe is a verball resisting or withstanding, but not contrarily; so that the generall word withstood, is heere put for the speciall reproved. To the face. The Greeke is, [...]. before his face, face to face, or in his presence; for one of those wayes [...], is elsewhere rendred in our last English Translation. See Luke 2.31. and Act. 3.13. and Act. 25.16. and 2. Cor. 10.1. Yet this Reproofe was not private, in the presence of Peter alone, betweene him and Paul alone; but publick in the presence also of many others, as it will appeare afterward, vers. 14. Neither was it dissembled or feigned betweene them, to cast a feare upon the believing Jewes, in seeing Peter thus re­proved, as Jerome pretends it; but it was serious and reall with intent to reprove not onely the Jewes, but Peter also; for other­wise Paul should have used one dissimulation wherewith to re­prove another; seeing the thing it selfe which hee reproved was a dissimulation; as afterward it will appeare, vers. 13. q. d. When I was at Jerusalem, Peter reproved not mee, either for my Doctrine or for my Conversation; but when Peter came to An­tioch, [Page 110] I reproved him for his Conversation; and I condemned a carriage of his, not clancularly behinde his back, nor generally in tearmes indefinite; but particularly and openly even in his pre­sence to his face. For I was confident of my authority to reprove him, and of my equity in the cause of it; which otherwise I should never have done in that manner, had I beene conscious to my soule, that in poynt of the legall Ceremonies, his judgement was contrary to mine. For then, though his fact had disliked mee, I should not have dared to have reproved him openly to his face, as knowing that way would availe mee nothing, but to make my cause worse, and render me odious.

Because hee was to bee blamed.] A reason in generall of the for­mer words, why hee reproved Peter before his face; namely, because hee was to bee blamed. The Greeke is, [...], i. e. Literally hee was condemned; for so elsewhere the word is alwayes rendred in our last English Translation. See 1. John 3.20, 21. For hee that reproves another man, doth give as it were a judgement or sentence against him, which the Greekes call [...], and wee Blaming or Condemning. But really the sense is, not preteritively, that hee was blamed before Paul re­proved him, but futurely, hee was to bee blamed; when Paul did actually reprove him, then hee was worthy of reproofe, and de­served to bee blamed. For many time a Greeke participle passive of the preter tense is in imitation of the Hebrewes, put for a Noune verball; which the Latine sometime expresseth by the future in dus; and wee in English thus, is or was to bee, so [...], which are saved i. e. which are to bee saved, 1. Cor. 1.18. and [...], in them that perish, i. e. in them that are to perish, 2. Cor. 2.15. and [...]. them that are san­ctified, i. e. them that are to bee sanctified, Heb. 10.14. and [...], i. e. to bee reserved, 2. Pet. 2.4, So heere [...], hee was blamed, is rightly rendred, hee was to bee blamed. q. d. I reproved Peter, because concerning some of the legall Ceremo­nies his carriage was so various and different from it selfe, that al­though in one respect he was to be commended, yet in another he was to be blamed.

Comment.

FOR before that certaine came from James.] These were by their birth Jewes, who had been bred up in the Jewish Religion: but by their faith they were Christians: but as it seemes, so lately converted, that they were yet but weake in the faith, and therefore continued observers of the Jewish cere­monies. These men came to Antioch from Jerusalem while Peter was at Antioch: but whether they came thither as Emis­saries sent from James, or as voluntaries of their owne accord, either as spies or for other businesse, it appeares not from Scripture: Yet from James they are said to come, either autho­ritatively, because they might have some direction or addresse from him: or locally, because they came from the Church at Jerusalem, where James was the President or chiefe Pastor.

He did eate with the Gentiles.] He did eate. i. e. Peter did freely eare any manner of meates, though forbidden by the Law of Moses. With the Gentiles; with the Christian Gentiles, in their company, [Page 112] after their maner, and of their meates, altogether as they did eate, who observed not the differences of meats, nor other legall ceremonies. This action of Peter was very commendable; for although the Jewes by their Law esteemed it unlawful to eate of some meates, supposing themselves thereby polluted, because they were forbidden by the Law of Moses: yet unto the Chri­stians of all sorts, to whom the Law was now expired, it was by the Gospel fully allowable to eate of any meate: and particu­larly unto Peter it was most warrantable, by reason of his vision of the great sheet, wherein were all maner of meates, as Beasts, creeping things, and Fowles, which God had cleansed, com­manding him to kill and eate. See Acts 10.11.12.13.

But when they were come, hee withdrew and separated himselfe.] When those Christian Jewes were come from Jerusalem to Antioch; Peter who before did there eate with the Christian Gentiles, did then privily withdraw and separate himselfe from the company, and from the fare of the Christian Gentiles, car­rying himselfe as a strict observer of the Legall Ceremonies, and particularly of the differences of meates. This action in Peter was the thing that was blameable, and for which hee was by Paul reproved; for by this fact, Peter might and did very much blemish the truth and sincerity of the Gospel, by endangering the liberty therof; whilest by his ouermuch indulgence to the Jewes who were the minor part, he seemed to betray the liberty of the Gospel, and to give occasion of scruple to the Christian Gentiles who were far the major part, and far more considerable.

Fearing them of the circumcision.] The occasion of Peters fact in withdrawing himselfe from eating with the Christian Gentiles; namely, because he feared those Christian Jewes of the Circum­cision, who came from James and were yet but weake Christians, and were consequently earnest observers and defenders of the Legall Ceremony, particularly in the point of meates. And he feared them to incurre their displeasure, or to give them offence by alienating their mindes both from himselfe, and from the Doctrine of the Gospel; for they might censure him as a transgressor, & a desertor of the Law, which censure would much blemish Peters authority, wherein the Church was much con­cerned. This purpose of Peter to comply with the Christian Jewes, was not in it selfe sinfull, but only somwhat improvi­dent: because thereby he too much neglected the edifying and confirming of those Christian Gentiles with whom he conver­sed, who were much the major and more considerable part, whereof somwhat more afterward. Hence it appears, that by the Decrees passed in the Synod at Jerusalem, the Christian [Page 113] Jewes did not yet understand or conceive themselves disobliged from the legall Ceremonies; but onely that the Gentiles on whom the Law of Moses was never imposed, were by those De­crees excused from those Ceremonies; (though all believed not this neither;) for in that Synod the debate was onely concerning the Gentiles and not the Jewes; as it plainely appeares, Act. 15.10.11. Although Peter arguing in the Synod that the yoke of the Law was not to bee layd upon the Gentiles, doth produce such Arguments, as make no more for the Gentile then the Jew, or prove the Jew no lesse loose from the Law then the Gentile; and the truth it selfe declares, that unto both people was propo­sed the same way to salvation by Christ. Neither was the con­dition of the Gentile in this respect, to bee better then that of the Jew, to whom the Grace of Christ was by the promise of God peculiarly engaged; but the condition of the Gentile had beene better, if unto the Jew the observance of the legall Cere­monies had been necessary to salvation, and not unto the Gen­tile. But (as wee sayd) the Christian Jewes conceived not them­selves to bee yet freed from those Ceremonies, as may easily bee gathered from the speech of James to Paul. Act. 21.20.21.24.25. Peter therefore being a Jew by Nation should have offended those Christian Jewes who came from Jerusalem to Antioch, if they had perceived him either conversant among the Gentiles, or negligent of the Jewish Ceremonies.

Comment.

AND the other Jewes dissembled likewise with him.] The other Jewes. i. e. Not those Jewes who came from James; for they believed it necessary wholly to abstaine from eating with the Gentiles; and to comply with their infirmity, Peter had withdrawne himselfe; they therefore cannot bee sayd to dissemble with Peter in following his example, though they con­formed to his way, whatsoever their judgement was concerning the Jewish Ceremonies. But by the other Jewes, hee understands those Christian Jewes, who living at Antioch before, did usually converse with the Gentiles, eating all manner of meats after the Gentile-manner; for these seeing Peter withdraw, withdrew likewise, and therein dissembled with him. Dissembled likewise with him. The Greeke is, [...], i. e. literally, condissem­bled, or joyntly dissembled; but is well rendred, by dissembled likewise; because the dissimulation was not joyntly equall; but Peter therein was principall, and the other Jewes were accesso­ries unto him, by following his example and dissembling in like manner. And this fact of Peter is condemned by Paul for D [...]ssi­mulation; because Peter, whose judgement was, that the legall Ceremonies were not to bee necessarily obs [...]rved, did notwith­standing observe them, and seemed so to doe, as if hee had jud­ged their observance necessary: Yet hee declared not his judge­ment that way by any words, but by his fact (for dissembling is a fault somewhat different from lying) and by the example of his fact, the other Jewes were carryed into the same dissimulation.

Insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.] A further aggravation of this fact from the event of it. q. d. This dissimulation of Peter and of the other Jewish Christians with him, was like a violent torrent, that swept all away with it, to follow the like example one after another, till it also carryed away Barnabas, mine own companion, who stood throughly ac­quainted with my Doctrine, who had travelled with mee among the Gentiles, and had taught them their liberty from those legall Ceremonies, whom it highly concerned to confirme them in the truth, and not to weaken them by his example. Hence appeares the errour of those Writters who in this place labour excessive­ly to free Peter from all blame; for because Peter was an Apo­stle, and had received the Holy Ghost, therefore in matter of truth hee was infallible; but it followes not therefore necessa­rily, that in matter of fact hee was also unblamable; and this was not an errour in judgement, for his judgement was right, as appeares by his delivery of it in the Synod at Jerusalem; but it was an infirmity in fact, whereinto hee fell through inconsidera­tion; [Page 115] for wee read heere that he was actually blamed, and the fact is discovered for which hee was blamed, that it was a dissimulation; the example whereof was of great force to involve others in it. And they who labour to excuse him heerein, doe but free Peter to blame Paul; for therein they overthrow all Pauls argument, whereby in blaming this fact of Peter, hee would vindicate the authority of his Apostleship, against the calumny of his adversaries; for if Peter were not too blame, then Paul was too blame, in using this argument.

Comment.

BUT when I saw.] The adversative particle but signifies, that the carriage of Peter was averse and contrary to the minde of Paul, who addressing himselfe to reprove it publickly, doth first professe his observance of the fact, that hee saw the fault of it, and saw withall just cause to reprove it. For it had not beene reason, to reprove publickly so great a person as Peter, by way of heare-say, from the bare suggestion of others; that therefore the reproof might not seeme unreasonable or inconside­rate, hee first declares, that hee himselfe saw the fault, and tooke speciall notice of it.

[Page 116] That they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel.] Walked not uprightly: the Greek is, [...], i. e. literally, footed not uprightly, or walked not with an upright foot, which he opposeth to their dissimulation mentioned in the former verse; because all dissembling is halting, and all halting is contrary to walking uprightly. And the sincerity or truth of the Gospel was the line or levell, whereby they were to walke, and according whereto if they did walke, their walking would be upright. But their conversation was not conformable to the incorrupt and sin­cere doctrine of the Gospel; for they declined from the right path of it, halting, as it were, between the Law and the Gospel, leaning one while to the necessity of the Law, and another while to the liberty of the Gospel. The fault therefore by Paul re­proved, was, that Peters fact might and did prove some hindrance to the progresse of the Gospel; while Peter by his overmuch in­dulgence to the Jewish Christians, did endanger the verity and liberty of the Gospel. If an offence must needs have beene given one way or other, safer it had beene to have offended the Jew­ish Christians there, then to have given those of the Gentiles an occasion to stumble, and to question that doctrine which hither­to they had learned; for when we are necessitated betweene two scandals, the greater is more to be declined then the lesse. And besides, it was a thing most reasonable, that Peter and the rest of the Apostles should at last deale more freely and openly with the Jewish Christians, in leading them on by degrees to the sin­cerity and truth of the Gospel in this particular; especially seeing formerly the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem, where the offence was most to be feared, were sufficiently instructed by Peter and James, that the Legall Ceremonies were not necessary to salva­tion. For it was Gods good pleasure that upon his new Cove­nant, the Ceremonies of the old should cease, to the end that all Nations both Jewes and Gentiles should bee confederated under one Covenant, and be incorporated into one body, whereof Jesus Christ should be the Head; which could never be done, so long as those Ceremonies were of force; for while they were in be­ing, men could hardly, or not at all, conceive how that old Co­venant could bee antiquated and expired. Besides, wheresoever there remaine most Ceremonies, there is commonly more super­stition, then true and sound Religion: because betweene Cere­mony and Verity there is a kind of antipathy. This point not be­ing rightly understood, the benefit conferred upon us by Christ, and the way of the new Covenant in justifying us by faith, can never bee rightly conceived, as may easily bee collected from this Epistle. Wherefore it concerned the rest of the Apostles [Page 117] to afford their assistance unto Paul, who chiefly laboured in this, that at the least the Jewish Christians might not subduce and separate themselves from conversing and accompanying with their brethren of the Gentiles; especially seeing Peter had al­ready practised it before, and might have continued alwayes to practise it; for to him from Heaven this point was in speciall ma­ner revealed; and what grounds soever they were which induced Peter to eat with Cornelius and his family, the same were still in force to continue his conversation with the Antiochian Chri­stians, who had in like maner received the Holy Ghost. Peter therefore should have persisted in conversing with his brethren of the Gentiles, whatsoever exceptions the Jewish Christians should take against it: or at least should have first notified his intention to the Gentile-Christians, that he desired to condiscend a little to the Jewish infirmity; that the Gentiles might not bee troubled, if for a time he abstayned from their company; that he did it not, because hee beleft those Ceremonies necessary to salvation, but only because his brethren of the Jewes were so perswaded. But Peter, as it appeares, neglected this caution, and stoutly dissembled the contrary; for which Paul blamed him be­fore them all.

I sayd unto Peter before them all. ] A circumstance of this re­profe from the place of it, that it was publicke. Before them all; the Greek is, [...], i. e. literally, before all men, or in the presence and audience of all: but in sense, publickly; for these words are all one with [...], i. e. before men; which is opposed to secretly or privately. See Mat. 5.16. and Mat. 6.1. and Mat. 10.33. and Luke 12.8, 9. And he there­fore spake to him before all; because the knowledge of the mat­ter concerned all; for it concerned the Gentile-Christians, lest they should be troubled with the fact of Peter, and thence take occasion of erring; and the Jewish Christians it concerned, lest they should persist to follow his example; and besides this, the offence was exemplary and publicke; and a publicke offence de­serves a publicke reproofe. See 1. Tim. 5.20. Yet in reprooving Peter thus publickly, Paul offended not against the order of bro­therly reproofe, in that he first gave him no private admonition, because the publicke danger would not then admit that circum­stance. But he directs his reproof unto Peter only; because he was chiefly in fault; for he was the authour of that dissem­bling, whereinto others were carried by his example; and his Reformation being a person of so eminent authority with all, would soon reduce all the rest.

If thou being a Jew, livest after the maner of the Gentiles, and not as [Page 118] doe the Jewes.] The forme of the reproof is by way of Interroga­tion, which therefore redounds to the sharper reprehension; for in demanding a reason of his action, why he being a Jew com­pelled the Gentiles? he seems to tell him, that he had no rea­son at all for his action, but rather his action was against all rea­son. Yet the Interrogatory of his reproofe is but one, and that one so concise that the language and the argument of it, is con­tained and couched under a marvelous brevity. q. d. seeing thou art a Christian Jew, and by vertue of thy Christianity hast relin­quished Judaisme, and hast hitherto lived after the liberty of the Gentiles, eating all sorts of meats after their maner, for so thou didst eate, till certaine Jewes came from James; why art thou now become so contrary to thy selfe, as to relapse back againe into Judaisme? and in one fact to commit three offences? for therein thou dissemblest with thine owne soule, seeing thou hast declared thy judgement to the contrary; and therein thou confirmest the Jewish Christians in their infirmity, for by thy fact they will be hardened; and therin thou compellest the Gentile-Christians to Judaize, for thereto they are forced by the example of thy fact and for feare of thee.

Why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as doe the Jewes?] Why? some read [...]. i. e. how? but it matters not at all what the In­terrogation should be; for although the words be Interrogatory, yet the sense is reprehensory thus, certainely thou art too blame in compelling, &c. Compellest thou? The Greeke is, [...]. i. e. necessitatest, not by way of violence, but by way of example, whereby thou dost occasion and move them, and by thy fact dost impose a kinde of necessity upon them to doe the like, or at least that for fear of thee and of thy authority that dare not do other­wise. For he is sayd to necessitate or compell, who by force of reason or of example doth vehemently perswade or urge a thing to be done; for in this sense the word [...] is used. See af­terward cap. 6. vers. 12. and Luke 14.23. and Mat. 14.22. and Marc. 6.45. and Act 28.19. and 2 Cor 12.11. The Gentiles to Judaize. i. e. The Christian-Gentiles to abstaine from certaine meats after the Jewish manner; seeing neither that Ceremony nor any other part of the Law of Moses was ever by God imposed on the Gentiles, for that Law to them was never given nor ne­ver binding. q. d. Why dost thou now contrary to thy declared judgement, and to thy former custome, force the Gentiles to forsake their liberty, and to apply themselves to the Ceremonies and observances of the Jewish Lawes, whereto the Gentiles were never obliged? this is not onely against all equity, but against the liberty of the Gentiles, and against the freedome of the Go­spel. [Page 119] The Law of Moses did not now binde the Jewes, for by the accesse of the new Testament, the old ceased and was expired: much lesse should the Gentiles be compelled to it now being expired, seeing formerly while it was in force, it never obli­ged them. But so great was the authority of Peter, that any notable act of his was in a maner compulsory, to prescribe and impose upon others, especially when the rest of the Jewish Christians, and even Barnabas himselfe followed the example of it. Neither could all know that Peter herein dissembled; for they might believe that he did it as moved in conscience, and that now he corrected that errour, whereinto before he som­what swerved, in love and courtesie to the Gentile-Christians. Seeing then this fact of Peter might have occasioned great trou­bles, seeing it might have disquieted the consciences of many, and have much hindred the liberty of the Gospel; therefore Paul had great reason to pluck off the vizard in publicke, and to discover before all men the person which Peter had assumed. For necessary it is, that even great Persons, when their exam­ple grows to a publick offence, should undergoe a publick re­proof: yea, the greater they are, and the greater the danger that may arise from their example, so much the greater should our care be, that their authority which otherwise is to be main­tained for the publicke good, be not turned to the publicke ruine.

Hence for our better understanding of the former foure verses and of divers passages in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles, wee may and must observe, that in the Church of Christ there then were (and still are, and ever will bee) three sorts of Christ­ians, or three severall parties, which agreeing all in the faith of Christ, differed much among themselves.

1. The sincere Christian, who was intirely and wholly a Christian, believing in Christ, and walking in Christ, or (as from Pauls words in this verse they may bee described) who believed uprightly, and walked uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel: edifying their faith, and composing their life, according to the Doctrines, Precepts, and Rules delivered by Christ and his Apo­stles. These laboured for the sincerity and purity of the Gospel, to preserve the truth therof clean and free from the admixture & leaven of all Religions & Opiniōs whatsoever, that therunto were alien and forraine. These were inoffensive, peaceable, and quiet, giving no scandall to any party who differed from them in judge­ment or practice; not busying their mindes with foolish questi­ons and fruitlesse disputes to no profit; but exercising themselves not in the workes of the Law, but in the workes of their cal­lings, [Page 120] and in the good workes of the Gospel, by doing all Offi­ces and Services of Love, Charity, Equity, Mercy, Courtesie, and Kindenesse towards all men, but especially towards the houshold of faith, and chiefely one toward another. These were the children of the Kingdome, the good seede which Christ sowed in the field of the world; and they were the Wheate a­mong which his Enemy sowed Tares. Of this sort were the Friends, Landlords, and Companions of Paul, to whom and from whom in his Epistles hee sendeth salutes; also Aquila, and Priscilla, and the Church in their house; also the houshold of Cloe, of Crispus, Gaius, and Stephanas in the Church of Co­rinth; also the house of Onesiphorus, and all those in the Church of Ephesus, whom Paul salutes in these words, Ephes. 6.24. Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity; and also those in the Church of Philippi, to whom hee writes thus, Phil. 1.9.10. And this I pray that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge, and in all judgement, that yee may approve things that are excellent, that yee may bee sincere and without offence, till the day of Christ.

2. The second party of Christians were the Judaizers; for by that name Paul seemes to denote them heere, by using the word, [...], i. e. to judaize, or to live as doe the Jewes. These in re­spect of their faith were Christians, but by their life, they were Jewish; for they did believe in Christ, yet they walked not up­rightly according to the truth of the Gospell, but lived as did the Jewes. These labouring a compliance betweene Moses and Christ, did teach and professe, that the Law and the Gospel, the Old and New Testament were all one and the same; or at the most, that the latter was but an addition or supplement to the former; and that there was no coming unto Christ and to the Gospell, but by pas­sing first through Moses and the Law. These were Operaries and Rituaries, i. e. so much for the Workes and Ceremonies of the Law, that they made Workes the cause conservant to continue justification; and therefore after their faith and justification in Christ, to the end that they might continue and abide in that state, they continued in the Workes of the Law; as in practising the use of Circumcision, in abstaining from divers meates both of Flesh, Fish, and Fowle, and especially from all meates that had beene offered unto Idolls; in observing divers seasons, of dayes, moneths, times and yeares. And proceeding yet further, at last they came to this, that they made Workes also the cause procreant of justification, to constitute, create, and begin the state of it; for therefore they urged their Workes, especially Cir­cumcision upon the Gentiles, as necessary unto salvation.

[Page 121]Of this Sect were they who are mentioned, Acts. 15.1. And cer­tain men which came down frō Judea taught the brethren and sayd, Except ye bee circumcised after the maner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. Certain men, i. e. certain Judaizers. And they who are mentioned here in this cap. v. 12. For before that certain came from James. i. e. certain Ju­daizers. Also they in the Church of Rome and of Colossa, whom Paul notes in his Epistles to the Romans and Colossians; and they Phil. 3.2. whom Paul there cals Dogs, evill workers, and the Con­cision; and they in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, who were given to Jewish Fables, to endles Genealogies and strivings about the Law. The Cause of this their Judaisme was at first, partly their zeal to the Law of Moses, whereof they acknowledged God himself the Author; partly their envy and hatred against the Gen­tiles, that they should be made partakers of Gods grace in Christ; from which by this meanes they endeavoured to discourage the Gentiles: But afterward this Judaisme was advanced, partly out of vain-glory to insult over the Gentiles in forcing them to the Laws and Customs of the Jews; and partly out of policy, that li­ving as did the Jews, they might enjoy the Priviledges of the Jews, and thereby not become liable to that persecution, which lay up­on the sincere Christian. The Effect of this Judaisme was, that the walking therein was not onely an errour against the truth of the Gospel, but also a scandall against the growth of it, a dam­age and mischiefe to the planting and spreading of it; for heere­by it came to passe, that the unbelieving Gentiles were unwilling to receive it, and the believing Gentiles were ready to desert it.

3. The third party of Christians were the Gentilizers; for so they may bee called; seeing here in this verse Paul denotes them by this phrase, [...], i. e. to Gentilize, or (as our English Translation renders it) to live after the maner of the Gentiles. These also in respect of their faith were Christians, for they be­lieved in Christ; but in respect of their life they were Heathe­nish, because they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, but lived after the maner of the Gentiles. For these labouring a compliance betweene Philosophy and Christi­anity, interserted, mingled, and blended the Gospel of Christ with Pythagorisme, and Platonisme, with Epicurisme, and Stoi­cisme. The severall Sectaries or followers heereof, either tur­ning the grace of God into wantonnesse, or pretending to exer­cise their Christian liberty, were somewhat divided amongst themselves, not onely in their Doctrines and Opinions; but also in their practice and conversation. For some (as the Pythagorists) abstained from Wine, drinking onely water; they abstained from all kinde of flesh, eating onely herbes; and they abstained [Page 122] from mariage, disallowing that state, & holding it good for a man (especially a Philosopher) not to touch a woman. Others (as the Epicures) were heerto so contrary, that they would abstain from nothing, not from bloud, nor things strangled, nor any kinde of flesh, eating meats offered unto Idolls; not from fornication, nor incest, nor other uncleannesse; not from drunkennesse at the Communion, 1. Cor. 11.21. For in eating every one took before other his supper; and one (the Pythagorist) was hungry, and a­nother (the Epicure) was drunken. Yet these different sects a­greeing all in the fayth of Christ, tolerated one another in other matters, as anciently they had done before their conversion, that in the maine they might all side against the Judaizer. Where­fore taking advantage of Pauls doctrine against works and boa­sting that Paul was their Apostle, as indeed he was, they became Fiduciaries, and Libertines. i. e. They were only for faith and liberty; neglecting, despising, and disgracing works, as no way necessary to salvation, as no cause at all of Justification, neither procreant to constitute or build the state of it, nor conservant to continue and maintaine it.

Of this sect were they (Rom. 14.) who did eat only hearbs, and they who did eat all things. They (1. Cor. 1.) who made divisions and contentions saying, I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. They (1. Cor. 5.) who were puffed up in the behalfe of the incestuous Corinth; They (1. Cor. 6.) who held fornication lawfull; They (1. Cor. 7.) who held ma­riage unlawfull or unexpedient. They (1. Cor. 8.) who would eat meat offered unto Idols, and would eat it in the Idols temple; They (1. Cor. 15.) who denyed the Resurrection to come, and they at Ephesus who affirmed that it was already past; They, Coloss. 2. who spoyled men through Philosophy, beguiling them in a voluntary humility, and worshipping of Angels. In a word, they in generall who are censured and taxed in the Generall E­pistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude. The Cause of this their Gentilisme, was partly their vaine-glory in being gifted men and puffed up with the gifts of the Holy Ghost, as the gift of fayth, of knowledge, of tongues, and of prophesie: partly their Sensua­lity, in abusing their Christian liberty unto licentiousnesse and loosenesse, following their carnall appetite, and walking after the flesh: partly their Animosity, in opposing and crossing the Judai­zer, whose doctrines and practises, especially that of Circumci­sion they detested and abhorred. The Effect of this Gentilisme was the very same with that of Judaisme; for this walking or li­ving thus after the maner of the Gentiles, was not only an error against the truth of the Gospel, but also a scandall against the [Page 123] growth of it, a damage and mischiefe to the planting and spread­ing of it, especially amongst the Jewes: for heerupon the event was, that the unbeleeving Jewes were unwilling to receive it, and the beleeving Jewes were ready to desert it, and by both the name of God and his doctrine was blasphemed.

Whereupon wee are further to observe, that these two last Christian parties, namely the Judaizers and Gentilizers, agreed in effect. For although betweene themselves they were extream­ly opposite in many opinions and practises touching Religion, Policy, and Customes, whereby they became bitterly odious one to another; yet under this opposition, there were many resem­blances wherein they agreed. 1. Both were Christians; for both embraced the fayth of Christ; each acknowledged the grace of the Gospel, each pretended the truth of it, each endeavoured the growth of it, and each had a forme of godli­nesse. 2. Both were erroneous; for each labouring to make a compliance betweene the Gospel and that Religion from whence each was converted, they both corrupted, defiled, and leavened the sincerity of the Gospel; wherein though both were opposite, yet both were in an errour. For opposite parties love to make their opinions extreamly opposite, i. e. not only contradictory, but quite contrary, till both become equally erroneous. To say in the sense of the Judaizer, that works did every way justifie; and to say in the sense of the Gentilizer, that works did no way ju­stifie, were opinions equally erroneous. In no case to eat of meat offered unto Idols, and in every place to eat meat offered unto I­dols, were practises equally erroneous. And these two opposite erroneous Parties were the two Seminaries of all errors and sects in the Church of Christ: for since the first planting of the Gospel, unto this very day, what errour or what sect did ever trouble and vex the Church, which was not a branch either of Judaisme or Gentilisme.

3. Both were Contentious; for each labouring to maintayne their owne errour, and each to obtrude theirs upon the other, they did both [...], i. e. teach erroneously and corrupt­ly, neyther of them consenting to the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godlinesse; but do­ting about questions and strifes of words, whereof came envy, strife, ray­lings, evill surmisings, and perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, 1. Tim. 6.3, 4, 5. For their needles Con­troversies and foolish questions and doubtfull disputations, did commonly conclude and end, [...], i. e. in vaine janglings, and vaine bablings, having no other profit but the subverting of the hearers. Yet in such contentions some of them [Page 124] were so arrogant or proud, and yet so ignorant or knowing no­thing, that (1. Tim. 1.7.) they desired to bee teachers of the Law, understanding neither what they sayd, nor whereof they affirmed, i. e. not knowing which was the subject, and which the predicat of the question.

4. Both were malicious; for each transgressing the Rules of Charity, whose office is, not to behave it selfe unseemely, but to beare all things, and to endure all things, they both walked in the way of scandall, giving mutuall offence, grieving, vexing, and wounding each others conscience. The Judaizer judged and condemned the Gentilizer for a prophane and wicked sinner; and the Gentilizer despised and scorned the Judaizer for a super­stitious and weake idiot. Whereupon at first they shunned one anothers company, each separating themselves, and each excom­municating the other from their Assemblies; but at last they la­boured to extirpate and destroy one another. For in after times, when the Heathenish persecution against the Christians ceased, then these two opposite Christians fell to persecute one another; and wheresoever either party prevailed, that condemned the o­ther of Heresie, and the other exclaimed against that for Ty­ranny. Thus one toward another, these two opposite parties were ravening Wolves in sheepes clothing.

5. But in respect of the sincere Christian, both were the Tares or the children of the wicked one, which Sathan the Enemy of Christ sowed among the Wheat in the field of Christ. For as a right faith and a holy life is the seede and Wheate of Christ: So Errours and Vices in not walking uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, how opposite or contrary so ever they bee one to another, are the seed and tares of Sathan, which hee sow­eth to annoy the Wheate of Christ. For Tares, or rather, Juray or Darnell, are a vitious graine of a destructive nature, annoying, cumbring, hindring, and pulling downe, not onely one another, but any other Corne among which they grow, but especially Wheate: So Judaisme and Gentilisme were Errours and Vices sowed by Sathan, which annoyed, cumbred, and hindred not one­ly one another, but also the truth and sincerity of the Gospel: Yet when the question was moved for the extirpation or rooting out of the Tares, Christ denies it, and hee denies it for the Wheates sake, Mat. 13.29. Lest while yee gather up the Tares, yee roote up also the Wheate with them. For the Tares are rooted into the roote of the Wheate, both having one common root, one and the same Faith, one and the same Head, Christ Jesus. And the Tares themselves of both sides deny it for their owne sakes one against another: Yet both parties deny it not at [Page 125] one and the same time; but each party denies it then, when hee is deprest and feares to bee extirpated. And againe, both parties also affirme it one against another; yet both affirme it not in one and the same place: But each party affirmes it there where hee prevailes, and hopes to extirpate the other. By such turnings and windings of Doctrine the mystery of iniquity worketh; affirming and denying the same thing at severall times, and vary­ing their tenets as their advantages vary; professing in words the Rule of Equity, in Doing to others whatsoever they would that o­thers should doe unto them: But denying it in workes and doing the quite contrary. For they finde by experience, that the common capacities upon whom they worke, have not judgement enough to discover the mystery of this iniquity; but are rather children, tossed too and fro, and carried about with every winde of Doctrine, by the sleight of men and cunning craftinesse, whereby they lye in waite to de­ceive, Ephes. 4.14.

But thou who art a sincere Christian, and livest among these Tares, growing betweene them and bordering upon both, must carry thy selfe towards both, according to those Rules of Chari­ty, which the Gospel of Christ prescribeth. 1. Not to extir­pate either; for, since the planting of the Gospel, this was never done, neither till the end of the world shall it bee done, neither till then must it bee done; lest saith Christ, While yee extirpate the Tares, yee roote up also the Wheate with them; and when it is done, the deed is not a worke of men, but of Angels, Mat. 13.40.41. So shall it bee in the end of this World; the Sonne of man shall send forth his Angels, and they shall gather out of his Kingdome, all things that of­fend, and them which doe iniquity. True it is, that every plant which God hath not planted, shall bee rooted out: but withall it is also true, that the persons who are to doe this, are not men but Angels; and the time for the doing of it, is not now, but at the end of the world: For till then, both men and Angels must let them alone, & let both grow together. Compare Mat. 13.29.30. &c. with Mat. 15.13.14. 2. Not to condemne either; for seeing both those parties profest the faith of Christ, therefore both also are the servants of Christ, and Rom. 14.4. Who art thou that judgest another mans servant? To his owne Master hee standeth or falleth: yea hee shall bee hol­den up; for God is able to make him stand. 3. Not to offend either; for in Christ either is thy brother: and (Rom. 14.21.) thou must not bee a scandall, whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weake, to fall from that state wherein he stood; and (1 Cor. 10.32.) thou must give no offence neither to the Jewes, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God. Yet when there is a concurrence of such a counter-necessity, that thou must needs give offence [Page 126] to one Party, then thou must exercise thy discretion, to offend on that side, where thy offence may be least offensive. 4. But to love both; exercising towards both all the offices of Cha­rity, equity, and courtesie; bearing with both, pleasing both, and edifying both. For (Rom 15.1.) Wee that are strong ought to beare the infirmities of the weake, and not to please our selves: let every one of us please his neighbour, for his good to edification; for even Christ pleased not himselfe.

For according unto these rules the Apostles carried themselves towards these two opposite parties, accommodating and apply­ing themselves sometime to the one, and sometime to the other, as the opportunities of persons, times, and places required; In patience and meekenesse instructing those that opposed themselves; one while with great authority rebuking and reproving them; and another time with sutable gravity comforting, and commending them. Alwayes moderating and tempering their spee­ches and writings with such wisedome and discretion, that neither of these partyes might be lost from the Gospel, but both retained in the profession of it, and both reduced to the since­rity of it, and others who had not yet received it, might be gained to the reception of it. Heare how Paul relateth his ap­plications and cariage toward both of them, 1 Cor. 9.19. Though I be free from all men, yet have I made my selfe servant unto all, that I might gaine the more; unto the Jewes I became as a Jew, that I might gaine the Jewes: to them that are under the Law as under the Law, that I might gaine them that are under the Law: to them that are without Law, as without Law (being not without Law to God, but un­der the Law to Christ) that I might gaine them that are without Law: to the weake, became I as weake, that I might gaine the weake; I am made all things to all men, that I might by all meanes save some; and this I doe for the Gospels sake. &c. And when he forbids all scandall or giving offence either to the Jewes or to the Gentiles, he produceth an example from himselfe (1 Cor. 10.33.) even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine owne profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

And under these Applications the Apostles exercised their Christian liberty, to Circumcise or not Circumcise, to eate or not eate with this or that party, as occasion served, and as farre as they might preserve that liberty without scandall or giving offence. Yet when they fell upon a necessity of giving offence to one party, then they offended that way where the offence would be least, considering all circumstances; and this required such circumspection that sometime a good man might mistake. For herein was the mistake of Peter at Antioch, for which Paul [Page 127] withstood him to the face, and for which he was too blame; for before that certaine Jewes came from James, he did eate with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himselfe from the Gentiles, fearing to give offence to the Jewes; not considering that thereby he gave a greater offence to the Gentiles, as the case then stood at Anti­och, where the Gentiles were the greater number and the wea­ker Christians; and therefore in that place the more to be re­spected, and the lesse to be offended. The like mistake was al­so in the other Jewes there, who being sincere Christians for their Religion, dissembled with Peter; and in Barnabas also who was carryed away with their dissimulation. To be a sincere Chri­stian no way leavened either with Judaisme or Gentilisme; and to walke without scandall, not giving offence to either of these Sects; and when there is a necessity of offence, then to give that which is least; these are three degrees of difficulty, whereof the last is the highest.

Yet concerning the Judaizers we are further to note, that they in respect of their nation or birth were of two sorts. For some, and the major part were by nation, birth, or descent, Jewes, who were borne and bred up under the Ceremonies and works of the Law, but afterward were converted to the faith of the Gospel. And therefore their Judaizing in walking and living as did the Jewes. i. e. as themselves had lived formerly, deserved for a while some toleration, connivence and sufferance: because they lived so out of infirmity or weaknesse, and in conscience of that Religion, wherein they were borne and bred. Towards these Paul and the rest of the Apostles observed all those rules of charity formerly mentioned, no way offending, but by all meanes gaining them. Others were by nation, birth, or des­cent Gentiles, borne and bred up in Idolatry: yet for their Countrey they were Countrey-men to the Jewes, being borne and bred in those places where the Jewes had either full Syna­gogues or Oratories; as in Judea and Galilee, in Galatia and Macedonia, in Creet and Rome: by which meanes they were well acquainted with the Lawes and Customes of the Jewes. These being converted unto the Faith of Christ, did for their life and walking, side with the Jewish Judaizers, to re [...]aine the Jewish Ceremonies and to impose them upon the believing Gentiles comming into Christ. Out of these some tooke on them the Ministery of the Gospel, and preaching Christ, taught withall the necessity of Circumcision, pressing the matter by way of controversie, declaring themselves manifest adversaries to Paul by opposing his Doctrine, and disparaging his calling to [Page 128] the Ministery; for they preached Christ not of good will and sincerity, but out of envy and strife, supposing to adde affliction to his bonds, Phil. 1.15.16.

The cause why these Gentilish Judaizers exercised the Ministery and taught Judaisme, was not for piety and conscience, as did the Jewish Judaizers; but partly for policy, that by live­ing as did the Jewes, they might enjoy those exemptions and pri­viledges which the Romane Emperours had granted to the Jews, and consequently that thereby they might escape the crosse of Christ, i. e. avoyd those persecutions and inconveniences which followed the sincere Christians for following Christianity: And partly for their belly, to procure the better maintenance from the Jewish Judaizers, who thereupon were liberall and bounti­full unto them; for false Teachers easily finde by experience that false Doctrine doth bring more profit to the Teacher then to the Hearer. Against these Gentilish Judaizers, who tooke upon them to bee Teachers, and to teach for their belly, Paul is very vehement, reproving them with divers bitter rebukes. For those of Rome, hee calls Make-bates, or causers of Divisions and Of­fences, Rom. 16.17. Now I beseech you brethren, marke them which cause Divisions and Offences, contrary to the Doctrine which yee have lear­ned, and avoyd them; for they that are such, serve not the Lord Jesus Christ, but their owne belly, and by good words and faire speeches, deceive the hearts of the simple. Those of Macedonia hee calls Belly-gods, Phil. 3.19. Brethren, bee followers together of mee, and marke them which walke so as you have us for an ensample; for many walke of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the Crosse of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who minde earthly things. Those of Creete hee calls unruly, and vaine talkers, and deceivers. For there are many unruly, and vaine talkers, and deceivers, especially they of the Circumcision, whose mouths must bee stopped, who subvert whole hou­ses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucres sake. And those of Galatia, hee will heere in the next verse call Sinners of the Gentiles.

Comment.

VVEE who are Jewes by nature.] This whole verse be­ing in it selfe incomplete and suspensive, must for the due construction of it, be carried forward and referred to these words in the next verse, Even wee have beleeved in Jesus Christ. For between this verse and those words, the prin­cipall Assertion of this Epistle is interserted; namely That, A man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ. The Jewes above all other Nations in the world, had certaine prerogatives or advantages, from whence (besides their descent from Judah, the chiefe tribe of Israel) they were also denomi­nated Jewes; and these advantages were of two sorts. 1. Jural, [Page 130] in respect of their Rights and Privileges, as they were the true Israel, and peculiar people of God, with whom God had Cove­nanted for the Blessing promised to Abraham; for unto them that Blessing principally belonged, because thereto they by Co­venant had the originall Right. For hence the Jewes are called the children of the Kingdome, Mat. 8.12. They are called the children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant which God made with Abraham, that in his seed all the kindreds of the Earth should bee blessed, Act. 3.25. Ʋnto them first God raysed up Christ, and sent him to blesse them, in turn­ing away every one of them from their iniquities, Act. 3.26. They are called the Israelites, to whom pertayneth the adoption, and the glory and the Covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises, Rom. 9.4.

2. Legall; in respect of their lawes and Ordinances, which were all divine, constituted and enacted by God himselfe; not only concerning Religion and Piety for the worship and service of God, but for Justice and Judgement to be observed betweene man and man. For hence the Jew is sayd to Rest in the Law, and to make his boast of God, to know his will and to be instructed out of his law; to be a Guide to the Blinde, and a Light to them in Darknesse; to bee an instructer of the foolish, and a teacher of babes, Rom. 2.17, 18. Hence is the distinction of him who is a Jew outwardly in the letter, from him who is a Jew inwardly in the spirit, Rom. 2.28, 29. Hence the Jew is sayd, to have this advantage, that Ʋnto them were commit­ted the oracles of God, Rom. 3.1, 2. And hence in the verse before, to Judaize, or to live as doe the Jewes, was taken for the legall ma­ner of their life. But by the way, we must carefully observe, that in respect of time, God setled upon the Jewes their Rights long before he imposed on them their Lawes; for the promise of those Rights was made to Abraham, before their first and great Law of Circumcision; and the rest of their Lawes, for the body of them, as they were delivered by the hand of Moses, were given above 400 yeares after the Promise made to Abraham. See and compare Gen. 12.2. and Gen. 15.5, 6. and Gen. 17.10. and Act. 7.5, 6, 7, 8. and Rom. 4.10, 11. and Gal. 3.17.

The persons called Jewes who enjoyed these Prerogatives of Rights and Lawes, were of two sorts. 1. Some were Jewes na­tively, by nature, nation, or birth, who lineally descended from Jacob, and of what Tribe soever they were, yet from the Tribe of Judah, which was the Tribe Royall, were called Jewes. Thus the Galileans, though they were not all of the tribe of Judah, but of other tribes, were Jewes by nature, and Luke 7.3. are cal­led Jewes. So Sceva, Act. 19.14. who was one of the chiefe Priests, and therefore of the tribe of Levi, is called a Jew. And [Page 131] Paul himselfe, Acts 22.3. who was of the tribe of Benjamin, and borne at Tarsus in Cilicia, calls himselfe a Jew. 2. Others were Jewes factively, by naturalization, denization, or ascription, who descending from parents that were not Jewes by nature, but Gentiles, were by favour and grace, admitted to bee partakers of the Rights, Lawes and Religion of the Jewes, as incorporated, planted and grafted into the Jewish Nation; whereto they were initiated by Circumcision. Hence the Jewes by nature are cal­led The naturall branches of the good olive tree, whereinto the cions of the wild olive tree (i. e. of the Gentiles) are grafted contrary to nature, Rom. 11.21, 24. And these factive or endenized Jewes are commonly called Proselites; as Mat. 23.15. Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, for yee compasse sea and land to make one prose­lite. i. e. a factive or endenized Jew. And Acts 2.10. Strangers of Rome, Jewes and proselites. i. e. Iewes native and Iewes factive. And Acts 13.43. Now when the Congregation was broken up, many of the Jewes and religious proselites followed Paul and Barnabas. i. e. Iewes native and factive. Yet in one place they are called, Those under the Law. 1. Cor. 9.20. Ʋnto the Jewes I became as a Jew, that I might gaine the Jewes: to them that are under the Law, as under the Law, that I might gaine them that are under the Law. i. e. the proselites or Iews factive. For the Proselite being initiated by Circumcision, be­came thereby a pertaker of all the Iewish Rights, and also a sub­ject to be under all their Lawes. Hence sayth the Apostle, Gal. 5.3. I testifie againe to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debter to doe the whole Law. Such a Proselite or Iew factive was Uriah the Hittite, and Araunah the Iebusite, and Nicholas the Deacon, Acts 6.5. who was a Proselite of Antioch; for these three and divers others, were by Nation and nature Gentiles; but by fa­vour and Circumcision, Iewes. Now Paul, in this verse, useth the phrase Jewes by nature, partly to distinguish them from Pro­selites, who were Iewes by favour: and partly to oppose them unto Idolaters, who as it followes in the next words, were Sin­ners of the Gentiles.

And not sinners of the Gentiles. ] The Gentiles in opposition to the Jewes were in like manner of two sorts. 1. Some were Worshippers; who forsaking the way of Idolatry, did worship the God of Israel, and thereupon were admitted to sacrifice at the Temple, and to assemble at the Synagogues, where they heard the Lectures of the Law and the Prophets. These were commonly called Strangers within the gates, upright in heart, fearers of God, and devout men. Yet because they were not and would not be Circumcised, they retained the name of Gen­tiles, and by the Law were accounted uncleane Persons; and [Page 132] therefore no Jew would eat or converse with them, neither might they come into the inner Court of the Temple, but must worship in the outward Court, which was therefore called the Court of the Gentiles. Such a Worshipper was Naaman the Syrian, 2 Kings 5.17. who professed that henceforth hee would offer neither burnt-offerings nor Sacrifice unto other gods, but onely unto the Lord. Such the Centurion of Capernaum, of whom the Jewes there gave this Testimony, Luke 7.5. Hee loveth our Nation, and he hath built us a Synagogue. Such the Eunuch of Ethiopia, Acts 8.27. Who came to Jerusalem for to worship. Such Cornelius the Captaine at Cesarea, Acts 10.2. Who was a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. Such a Gentile was the father of Timothy though his Mother were a Jewesse, Acts 16.1. And such was Lydia the Purple-seller, who heard Paul Preach in the Oratory of Philippi, and (Acts 16.14.) is called a Worship­per of God. Such were those devout men out of every Nation under Heaven, (Acts 2.5.) who during the feast of Pentecost were dwel­ling (or abiding for the present) at Jerusalem. And those of An­tioch in Pisidia, who hearing Paul preach in the Synagogue there, (Acts 13.42.) besought that those words might be Preached to them the next Sabboth day. And that great multitude of Thessalo­nica, who belonged unto the Synagogue of the Jewes there, and (Acts 17.4.) are called devout Greekes.

2. Others of the Gentiles were Idolaters who worshipped Images, and served the false Gods of the Nation where they lived, and casting off all feare of the true God, followed the sway of their fleshly lusts. These to distinguish them from the former Gentiles who were Worshippers, are here called Sinners of the Gentiles; and in some places by way of eminency, simply Sinners; for so our Saviour calleth them (Mat. 26.45.) The Sonne of man is betrayed into the hands of Sinners. i. e. into the hands of the Idolatrous Gentiles. True it is that all the Gentiles of what sort soever, are called [...]. i. e. the Lawlesse, or those without the Law; as 1 Cor. 9.21.; To them that are without the Law, as without the Law, that I might gaine them that are without the Law. i. e. the Gentiles, who both transgressed & opposed the Law. Yet the Gentiles were not equally lawlesse, or without the Law; for the Idolaters who transgressed and opposed the whole Law, both the Commandements in the two tables of the Law, and the Ceremonies in the Book of the Law, were more lawlesse & more without the Law, then the Worshippers who transgressed & op­posed only one part of the Law; namely, the Ceremonies, but ob­served the ten Cōmandements in the two tables of the Law. And [Page 133] all the Gentiles are called [...]. i. e. Sinners; as in severall passages of the Evangelists where they are joyned with Publicans. See one for all, Luke 15.1. Then drew neare unto him all the Pub­licans and Sinners for to heare him. i. e. Publicans and Gentiles. Yet all the Gentiles were not equally Sinners; for the Idolaters who crucified Christ, and transgressed the Commandements, and opposed the Ceremonies, were more Sinners then the Wor­shippers who heard Christ, and observed the Commandements, and opposed only the Ceremonies, whereto they would never submit, neyther before nor after Christ. Such Idolatrous Gen­tiles were generally all other Nations farre and neer living round about the Iewes, and some living among them, as the Samari­tans, and many townes in Galilee, which Mat. 4.15. was there­fore called Galilee of the Gentiles. All these idolatrous Gentiles were so abominable and odious unto the Iewes, that Paul in con­tempt and disdayne doth heere tacitly call the false teachers of Galatia, Sinners of the Gentiles, i. e. Idolaters. Because although they were now by fayth Christians, and by sect Iudaizers, yet by birth they were Idolaters; for unto Christians they were not converted from being Iewes, but from being Gentiles, and from that sinfull sort of Gentiles, who were not worshippers but Ido­laters. For in saying, Wee who are Jewes by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles, he sufficiently insinuates, that those Iudaizers were once such sinners, and therefore were once men of the basest and lewdest life in the world, as persons most distant and remote from the Jewes by nature, who by the prerogative of their birth ac­counted themselves in the highest degree of all those who wor­shipped God, to be a holy Nation, and the Saints of the Lord.

The sence of the whole verse is q. d. Wee who are Jewes in the best and fullest maner, both in respect of our Nation as wee are the seede of Abraham; Jewes in respect of our Rights which God hath setled upon us, and Jewes in respect of our Lawes which God hath prescribed us for Religion and Justice; wee who have these advantages by the best title, even by Nature and Birth-right, as wee are borne to those Rights and under those Lawes; wee who were never sinfull Gentiles, borne and bred up in Idolatry, as were the Judaizing false Teachers, and therefore have better meanes then they, to know by what meanes a man is justified. Even wee have beene forced to forsake all these advantages, even the workes of our Law, and the wayes of our Religion, to flye unto the faith of Christ for our justificati­on, that by faith in him wee may attaine to that Blessednesse, which was promised to our Father Abraham. No reason is there then that the Gentiles, who heeretofore were alwayes aliens [Page 134] and strangers to God and our Lawes, but now by Gods grace manifested in the Gospel are admitted unto Christ, and endeni­zed into the Kingdome of Heaven, being made fellow-citizens with the Saints, and of the houshold of God, should thereupon bee constrained to the workes of our Law, and to the wayes of our Religion, considering that those workes and wayes were unto justification so unavailable and so unprofitable, that wee our selves have utterly forsaken them; for how can those things ad­vantage them which unto us were no benefit?

But in the word Sinners there is yet couched a further empha­sis, whereby the Apostle would prepare and lay a ground for his future Doctrine in the next verse concerning Justification; whereof a Sinner is the proper subject, and the onely person ca­pable of that blessing. That therefore wee may bee the better provided to understand what Justification is, and what is the Justification of a Sinner, wee must observe that in the Scriptures the word Sinner, and his Synonyma's or equivalents beare three severall senses, viz. a legall, a morall, and a jurall sense, according to the three generall and notable words, Lex, Mos & Jus. 1. The word sinner signifies legally, quoad leges, for one who is a transgres­sour, in not doing that right which hee should and ought to doe, by the Rules of the Lawes, Statutes, and Justice. For hee that doth not right according to the Rules of Law and Justice, hee is unrighteous, and a person unrighteous is a sinner. And the fact which doth constitute or make a man thus a legall sinner to bee a transgressor, is some unlawfull act of his done by him against the Law. Such sinners were our first Parents, who by transgressing against the Law of Paradise, were of mankinde the first sinners by whom sinne entered into the world. Such a Sin­ner was David, who in the case of Uriah transgressed the Laws against murder and adultety. Such a Sinner was Jeroboam who made Israel to sinne; and such was all Israel who did sinne by transgressing the Law against worshipping of Images. Such a Sinner was the woman, Luk. 7.37. Who washed the feete of Christ with her teares, and wiped them with the haire of her head, and kissed them and anointed them with oyntment; For shee was an Adulteresse. Such a Sinner was the other woman, John 8.3. Who was ta­ken in adultery in the very act, and was thereupon brought unto Christ to bee censured. And such were the Sinners of the Gen­tiles mentioned before.

2. It signifies Morally, quoad mores, for one who is Improbous, in not doing that right which hee might, should, and ought to doe by the Rules of Morality, Equity, Decency, Charity, and Mercy. For hee that doth not right according to the Rules of [Page 135] Equity, Decency, and Mercy, hee is unrighteous, and the person unrighteous is a Sinner. And the fact which doth constitute or make a man to become a sinner morally or improbous, is not an act of his, that is unlawfull in respect of any Law; for the act may bee lawfull, and yet sinfull enough to denominate him a sin­ner: But it is an act that is not honest and faire in respect of Equity and Decency. Such a Sinner was Cham, Gen. 9.22. Who seeing his Fathers nakednesse, told his two brethren without: This act of his was a sinne, for it was punished with a heavy curse of perpetuall slavery: Yet this was not a sinne legally against any Law or Statute then being in force, which forbad that act; but it was a sinne morally, against the Rule of good Manners, Equi­ty, and Charity, for a sonne to bee so improbous, unnaturall, and unkinde, as to blab of his fathers fault, which hee should have concealed. Such Sinners were they, 1. Sam. 10.27. Who despised Saul, and brought him no Presents. This act of theirs was a sinne; for at the beginning of the verse., the offenders are called the children of Belial: Yet this was no sinne legally, nor an act un­lawfull against any Law of Moses; but a morall sinne of im­probity, against the Rule of Morality, Equity, and Decency, for Subjects to despise their King, and upon his Election to bring him no Presents. Such a Sinner was Nabal, 1. Sam. 25.10. Who sayd, who is David, and who is the sonne of Jesse? There bee many servants now a dayes that breake away every man from his Master; Shall I then take my bread, and my water, and my flesh that I have killed for my Shearers, and give it unto men, whom I know not whence they bee? This saying was a sinne; for (vers. 14.) one of Nabals owne servants censureth it for railing; and afterward (vers. 17.) hee censu­reth his Master in these words; Hee is such a man of Belial, that a man cannot speake to him. Yet this sinne of Nabal, was no legall sinne against any Law of Moses: But a morall sinne of improbi­ty, against equity and good manners; that a man of a great e­state should bee so unmanerly, unthankefull, and unkinde, as to deny a little provision to David and his followers, who unto him had been so good, as to be a defence to him and his goods.

Come we down somewhat lower to an example or two of this improbity from the New Testament. Such an improbous Sinner was the wicked servant (Mat. 18.28.) who when his Lord had forgiven him a debt of ten thousand talents, would neither for­give nor forbeare his fellow-servant, who owed him onely an hundred pence: but arrested and imprisoned him for it. This act was a sinne; for his Lord thereupon was so wrath, that revoking his former pardon of the debt, hee delivered him [Page 136] to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. Yet this was no legall sinne against any Law: because the act in it selfe was very lawfull; for the Law allowes every Creditor to de­mand and sue for his debt: but it was a morall sinne against morality, equity, and Charity, for him to whom his Lord had forgiven a debt of ten thousand talents, to exact from his fellow-servant a matter of an hundred pence. Such a Sinner was Dives, (Luke 16.19.) who was cloathed in purple, and fared sumptuously every day; letting Lazarus lye at his gate full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crummes that fell from the table. This prodigality upon himselfe, and parcimony toward the poore, was a sinne not legall, but morall, against the rules of equity, Charity, and mercy. Such Sinners were the Priest and the Levite, (Luke 10.31.) who seeing a man lye in the way, stripped, wounded, and halfe dead, passed by on the other side. This passage of theirs was no legall sinne against any Law, but a morall sinne against the rules of equity, humanity, courtesie, charity, and mercy. Lastly, such sinners will the damned be found at the last day, when the finall Inditement shall runne against them in this form, (Mat. 25.42.) I was an hungred and ye gave me no meate; I was thirsty and ye gave me no drinke; I was a stranger and ye tooke me not in; naked and ye cloathed me not, sick and in prison and ye visited mee not. Certainely these negligences are sinnes; for the par­ties are cursed and punished with this finall Judgement to eter­nall damnation: Depart from mee ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the Divel and his angels. Yet they are not sinnes legal­ly against the Law of Moses: but morally against the rules of equity, charity, and mercy.

3. The word Sinner, signifies jurally: quoad jura, for one who is Calamitous; who either hath no Right at all, or not that right which he should have, or not that which he might have had: but is either deprived or debarred from some right privi­ledge or capacity, which by Law or favour is alowed unto others: and is predestinated, prejudicated, decreed, and doo­med to be, and abide in the state and condition of an offendour, and thereby to suffer that misery of losse, paine, and shame, which is commonly inflicted as a punishment upon offenders. Yet unto the Calamitous the misery which he suffers is not a punishment, but onely an affliction: because no man is to be punished for having no right, or for quitting his right, much lesse for losing it, if the losse be none of his fault, but against his will. Now according to the common rule and practice of denominations, he that hath no right, or not his due right, but misseth and faileth of his right, may be called unrighteous; and [Page 137] must bee so called, till wee can finde or make some other appel­lative, that will fit him better; and a person in this sense un­righteous is accordingly in Scripture called a Sinner. And the fact which doth constitute or make a man thus a Jurall Sinner to bee calamitous, woefull, and wretched, is no act of his owne; but either the act of some Adversary, who unjustly and with­out cause chargeth upon that sinne whereof hee is not guilty; or the act of some Law or of some Curse which burdeneth him for that sinne, whereof some other person is guilty; whereby the calamitous who is innocent and guiltlesse; is forced to suffer affliction or misery, as if in himselfe hee were a Delinquent and guilty.

Yet the Calamitous (as hee stands distinguished from the transgressor and the improbous) should in strictnesse of speech be called rather a quasi-sinner, then a Sinner; because hee is not a Sinner properly but quasily, i. e. hee hath manifest differences to cleare him from the proper nature of a Sinner, and yet hath resemblances enough to draw upon him the name of a Sinner. For properly and usually the word sinne doth signifie tha [...] evill act which is an offence either against Law or Equity; and so the Transgressor and the improbous are both offendors, and both properly sinners. But many times that word is taken im­properly and figuratively by a Metonymy frequent in Scripture and in ordinary discourse; and so it signifies, not the evill act of sinne, but that evill effect or consequent which followes the act of sinne, and is commonly made the punishment of sinne, as shame; paine, losse, or any other Affliction, Calamity, Misery, or Trou­ble, especially Death, which is mans finall suffering, and his last enemy. As Gen. 4.7. If thou dost well, shalt thou not bee accepted? and if thou dost not well, i. e. If thou dost any act of sinne; sinne ly­eth at the doore, i. e. the effect of sinne which is punishment and misery is ready to attach thee. And Gen. 19.15. Arise, take thy Wife and thy two Daughters, which are heere, lest thou bee consumed in the iniquity of the City, i. e. in the destruction or punishment of the City. And Gen. 31.39. That which was torne of Beasts, I brought it not unto thee; I bare the losse of it; where the Hebrew word is Achtenah, i. e. I sinned for it, q. d. I suffered for it, as if the sinne or fault had beene mine. And Levit. 22.9. They shall there­fore keepe mine Ordinances, lest they beare sinne for it, i. e. lest they suffer death for it; as appeares by the words following, which are but the sense of these, and dye therefore. And Levit. 24.15. Whosoever curseth his God, shall beare his sinne, i. e. Hee shall surely bee put to death; For so the words are explicated in the next verse. And Rom. 5.12. And so Death passed upon all men, for that [Page 138] all have sinned, i. e. For that in Adam all dyed, as afterward a­mong the examples of the Calamitous shall bee more amply declared. And Rom. 5.19. By one mans disobedience many were made sinners, i. e. Were made mortall and necessitated to dye; for the Greeke is, [...], i. e. Constituted, or­dained, or appoynted sinners or mortall; for in other places of our last Translation so many wayes that Verbe is Englished, and heereto other vulgar Translations agree; for the Italian hath it constituted sinners, and the French rendred sinners. But then by Sin­ners wee must understand mortall, or made to dye: because men are not constituted, ordained, or appointed to sinne, as sinne is pro­perly taken; but that men are constituted, ordained, or appoin­ted to dye, appeares by many Testimonies of Scripture.

And generally where wee read the phrase of bearing sinne and iniquity; there sinne must not bee taken for the act of sinne, but for the effect of it, which is punishment or affliction; because properly, not the act of sinne, but the punishment of it, is the thing that is to bee borne. And universally wheresoever sinne is joyned with forgivenesse, or with any other word to that sense, there sinne is put for punishment; because the thing to bee par­doned or forgiven, is not properly the act of sinne, but the pu­nishment or affliction which is the effect or consequent of sinne. Againe the Calamitous is not a Sinner actively, by committing any act of sinne against Law or Equity, as were the two for­mer Offenders who were properly sinners: But hee is a Sinner passively, by suffering that shame, paine, or losse, which is com­monly inflicted as a punishment on such as are sinners properly. Lastly, hee is not a sinner really in whom sinne is inherent, for then it must needes follow, that hee is properly and actively a Sinner: But hee is a Sinner putatively; because hee is accoun­ted or reputed a sinner, and having done no act of a sinner is put into the state and condition of a sinner, to bee handled after the image and likenesse of a transgressour, by suffering Afflictions like to those Afflictions which are denounced and executed as Judgements and Punishments upon transgressors; as the Beasts which the Law declared uncleane were not in themselves un­cleane really and inherently, but imaginarily and putatively. Thus the Jurall sinner is but a quasi-sinner, because hee is so improper­ly, i. e. effectually, passively, and putatively. And of these Ju­rall sinners, or Calamitous persons, there are foure sorts.

1. The Opressed, who unjustly against Law and Justice, yet under colour of Law and Justice are calumniated, criminated, condemned and executed as sinners and transgressours. Thus af­ter Davids death, in case Adonijah had prevailed, Bathsheba and [Page 139] Solomon should have beene sinners, 1. King. 1.21. Otherwise it shall come to passe, when my Lord the King shall sleepe with his Fathers, that I and my sonne Solomon shall bee counted Offenders. Where the He­brew hath it, shall bee sinners; as the Margin advertiseth: But Naboth de facto was made a sinner, for hee really was not a blas­phemer: Yet by the Letters of Jezabel hee was predestinated, ordained, and appointed to bee a blasphemer, 1. King. 21.9. And shee wrot in the Letters, saying, Proclaime a Fast, and set Naboth on high among the People, and set two men sonnes of Belial before him, to beare witnesse against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheame God and the King; and then carry him out and stone him that hee may dye. And in dange­rous times, when the wicked watch for iniquity, a word may make a man a sinner, Esay. 29.21. All that watch for iniquity are cut off, that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth. And (with all Religious reverence bee it written) such a sinner was Jesus Christ; who although hee were true God and true man, the truest and justest man that ever lived, one who never did any sinne, nor spake any guile; Yet hee was made a sinner, and suffered as a transgressour, Esay. 53.12. Hee poured out his soule unto death, and was numbred with the transgressours, i. e. Hee who really was no transgressour, was made a quasi-transgres­sour, and suffered among transgressours. And Rom. 8.3. For what the Law could not doe, in that it was weake through the flesh, God sending his owne Sonne in the likenesse of sinfull flesh, i. e. His sonne who really was not sinfull, was made quasi-sinfull, and suffered af­ter the likenesse and maner of one really sinfull. And 2. Cor. 5.21. For hee hath made him to bee sinne for us, who knew no sinne, i. e. Hee who really was no sinner, him God made a quasi-sinner, to suffer for us on the Crosse as a reall sinner; for sinne in the ab­stract is heere put for sinner in the concret. And Gal. 3.13. Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, being made a Curse for us, i. e. Hee who really was not cursed, was made quasi-cur­sed, in hanging on the Crosse, as one really cursed.

2. The blemished; who justly according to the law of Nati­ons, are disabled and debarred from the common rights and pri­viledges of man, to abide in that state and condition, which is u­sually made a punishment for offenders. In this ranke is a Ba­stard; who being no reall transgressour against the Law, is by an act of the Law made a quasi-transgressour; whereby hee is debarred from the right of his birth, forfeyting that inheritance or portion, which by common course belongs to children, as their birth-right. For the poore Bastard is predestinated, prejudicated, decreed, and doomed for a sinner before he is borne, before hee hath done any good or evill, before hee hath stirred in his mo­thers [Page 140] wombe, and before his mother hath conceived him. And whensoever he is to be conceived, hee shall bee conceived a sin­ner: because his conception being unlawfull and sinfull, doth ipso facto, render his parents actuall transgressours, or sinners le­gally, and himselfe a quasi transgressour or sinner jurally, to lose his birth-right when he is borne. And by the Law of God, the Bastard lost not only his right of Birth, but his right of Assem­bly to him and his heires for ever; for hee and they successively stood as persons excommunicate and debarred from entrance in­to the Congregation of the Lord, Deut. 23.2. A Bastard shall not enter into the Congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth genera­tion shall he not enter: i. e. he and his posterity shall never enter; for the tenth generation passeth for a perpetuity, as the next verse interprets it.

Such a Sinner is an Alien, forreiner, or stranger, inhabiting a Countrey wherein hee is disabled and debarred from the rights and priviledges of inheritances, assemblies, societies, and other common benefits of the Lawes municipall, which the natives of the Land enjoy; and consequently he lives in a state and conditi­on, which is usually inflicted on sinners as a punishment for sin. So the Romans, Greeks, and other Nations, sojourning in Judea, were by the Jewes accounted and called sinners: because they were aliens and strangers, who had no right to the lands and in­heritances of that Countrey, not to the assemblies, congregati­ons, and ceremonies of Moses, which by the Law were appro­priated and entayled to the Nation of the Jewes, and to such Proselites as were endenized or made free of their Nation. For in this jurall sense, the word Sinner is frequently taken in the E­vangelists, especially where it stands subjoyned with Publicans. See Mat. 9.10. and Mat. 11.19. and Marc. 2.15, 16. and Luke 5.30. and Luke 15.1. And lastly, such a Sinner is a Villain. i. e. a bond-slave borne; who is no actuall transgressour against any Law; yet by the Law of Nations is made a quasi-transgressour; being wholly depersonated and degraded from the common con­dition of an humane person, and depressed into the state, as it were, of a beast, to live as an odious and detestable creature, sub­ject to all maner of injuries, and excluded from all kind of bene­fit, having no humane right at all. No right of inheritance to en­joy any estate; no right of authority to beare any office; no right of suffrage to make any election; no right of assembly to consult of businesse; no right of testimony to beare witnesse; nor right of Testament to make a Will. And by the Law of God, the Gibeonites were cursed into an hereditary bondage to be slaves and drudges for ever about the Temple of the Lord, [Page 141] Jos. 9.23. Now therefore ye are cursed, and there shall none of you bee freed, from being bondmen and hewers of wood, and dramers of water for the house of my God.

3. The Distressed; who justly according to the secret will of God are afflicted with some permanent misery. Of these our Saviour gives us two or three severall short lists; one Mat. 11.5. as the Blind, the Lame, the Leapers, the Dease, and the Dead. Another Luke 4.18. as the Poore, the broken-hearted, the ca­ptive, the blinde, and the bruised. A third, Mat. 25.35. as the Hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick, and the prisoner. All which and the like, are by the Lawyers tearmed Personae mi­serabiles, i. e. miserable persons: because being in misery, they are the proper objects of mercy and pity: and because they are the proper subjects of for a Testament ad pias causas, i. e. a Will made for charitable and godly uses, for the reliefe of miserable and pi­tious creatures, to whom mercy and pity doth properly belong. Yet in the eye and judgement of the world, these kind of persons are generally censured for trangressours; and are indeed quasi-transgressours: because they are afflicted with such miseries, as are many times made the Judgement of God upon transgressors. In this ranke Job was a sinner; for hee was miserably afflicted in his goods, in his children, and in his body, as if he had beene a foule transgressour: yet really hee was not a transgressour; for Job. 1.8. the Lord gave him this testimony, that There was [...] like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feared God and eschewed evill. It was therefore the errour of Jobs friends, to argue his transgression from his affliction because although trans­gression be a cause of affliction, yet is neyther the perpetuall, nor totall, nor sole cause therof: but there are other good causes besides transgression, why God layes affliction upon this or that person, though from men those causes be concealed. For they flow from the secret will of God, and sometimes from his good will. Thus was Lazarus a sinner; for he was sorely distressed and afflicted, being a beggar layd at the rich mans gate full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crammes that fell from the rich mans table; more­over the dogs came and licked his sores, Luke 16.20. Yet it seemes he was not a transgressour; for when he dyed, hee was carryed by the Angels into Abrahams bosome. And thus was the blinde man a sinner, John 9.1. for he was afflicted and distressed, being blinde from his birth; and withall so poore that hee sate and begged. Yet neither he nor his Parents were transgressors; for in that point Christ expresly cleeres them all: but hee was made a quasi-transgressor or a quasi-sinner, that the workes of God should be made manifest in him.

[Page 142] 4. The Tainted, who justly according to the declared Will of God, are made Heires to their Fathers misery: Who derive from their Father, not onely that nature wherein hee was created, but also that distresse and misery wherewith hee was afflicted; who are necessitated, or at least not exempted from that state and condition of misery, which by reason of some sinne their Father incurred: But either by the curse of God, or by the course of nature, those forfeits, damages and losses, which fell upon the Father are made hereditary to descend upon the Children. This kinde of Calamity by Attainder, is by the Sages of the Common Law called Corruption of blood; when a mans Crime is so corrupt and foule, that the Attainder or Judgement against it doth corrupt and spoyle not onely the offenders person, but his blood, i. e. his children and kindred; for upon them that Attain­der hath three notable effects. 1. It debars them from being Heires to his estate; for hee forfeits all his Lands and Goods; and that forfeit is entailed on his Children. 2. It depriveth them from partaking of any dignity which hee had; as if hee before hee were noble, hee and all his children are thereby made ignoble and base. 3. It staineth them so deepely, that regular­ly it cannot bee salved or removed by the ordinary course of grace or mercy, but requires some extraordinary remedy, as heere in England by authority of Parliament. For this Corrupti­on of blood must bee understood in a sense onely Jurall or Judi­ciall; and not in a physicall, naturall or carnall sense; because the humour of blood which runneth in the veines of an offender, and of his children is physically and naturally as incorrupt, and as sound after the Attainder as before; for upon the humors and spirits the Attainder of it selfe workes no alteration, unlesse ac­cidentally in this or that person at the hearing of the Sentence, or apprehension of Death.

In this ranke, the children of Ninevy should have beene sin­ners, whereof sixe score thousand that could not discerne betweene their right hand and their left, should have beene destroyed in the de­struction of the City, had not their Parents repented at the prea­ching of Jonah. But the Children of Achan were de facto made such sinners, Jos. 7.24. For by reason of Achans Sacriledge, His Sonnes, and his Daughters, and his Oxen, and his Asses, and his Sheepe, and his Tent, and all that hee had, were stoned with stones, and afterward burnt with fire. So heere the Children of the Gibeonites, Jos. 9.27. Who for the deceit of their Parents, were made hewers of wood, and drawers of water for the Congregation, and for the Alter of the Lord, even unto this day. So were the seven sonnes of Saul, 2. Sam. 21.9. Who for their Fathers cruelty against the Gibeonites, [Page 143] where at the suite of the Gibeonites, hanged in the hill before the Lord. And so were also the sonnes of Gehazi, if hee had any, 2. King. 5.27. Who for their Fathers impudency in bribing and lying were made the Heires of his Leprosie; for the leprosie of Naaman shall cleave unto Gehazi, and unto his seed for ever.

And in this ranke are all the sonnes of Adam; who for his disobedience are made the Heires of his mortality; for by his sinne death entred upon him, and by him upon all his children; for they in him were all tainted, Rom. 5.12. By one man sinne entred into the World, and Death by sinne; and so Death passed upon all men, for that (or in whom) all have sinned, i. e. for that in him all dyed; for of the word sinned in this place, that in effect is the sence. Or to speake a little nearer to the letter of the word, it will bee thus; for that in him all quasi-sinned; not active­ly, by transgressing in his transgression; but passively by being prejudicated in his Judgement, [...], for in his one doome all were condemned, and all cast into the state of transgressors, to suffer misery and death like unto that, which was inflicted on him as a judgement for his transgression. For, for the tense, none of the Verbes in that verse are of the Preterperfectense, but all are aorists or in­definite; and accordingly the two first are rendred indefinitely, Sinne entred, and Death passed, not Sinne hath entred, and Death hath; and therefore the Translation had beene more sutable, if the last Verbe also had not beene rendred preterperfectly, all have sinned, but indifinitely thus, all sinned. And for the sense, these words, In whom all sinned, signifie in effect the same thing with these, ver. 15. Through the offence of one many bee dead, or many dyed; and with these words, vers. 16. The judgement was by one to condemnation, and with these, vers. 17. By one mans offence death raigned by one; and with these, vers. 18. By the offence of one, judge­ment came upon all men to condemnation; and with these, vers. 19. By one mans disobedience many were made sinners; and with these, 1. Cor. 15.22. In Adam all dye. All which sayings amount to no more but this, That by the sinne of Adam, hee and all his chil­dren were made mortall; as by the sinne of the Gibeonites, they and all their Children were made bondslaves; and by the sinne of Gehazi, hee and all his Children were made lepers.

For the Judgement given upon Adam for his offence, was Ba­nishment from Paradise, a Curse upon the ground for his sake, a Miserable and painefull Life, and at last an everlasting Death. And this judgement was not personall onely, to determine the effect of it upon Adam onely, and passe no further then his per­son; but it was also real and hereditary to him and his Heires for [Page 144] ever: First, falling upon him, and then descending to them. For as by his offence his Innocency was corrupted: So by this Judge­ment upon him his Posterity was corrupted; or as a common Lawyer would expresse it, By his Attainder, his blood was cor­rupted, i. e. First, none of his Children shall bee Heires to that immortality and blessednesse which hee once enjoyed in Para­dise; for that was forfeited and extinguished. Secondly, all his Children shall bee blemished, distressed, and tainted to inherit that Banishment, Malediction, Misery, and Mortality which hee incurred. Thirdly, this Corruption shall not bee remedied or salved, by any ordinary mercy of God; but by the extraordina­ry Mystery of Jesus Christ. Thus the Calamitous, who are ju­rall or quasi-sinners, are of foure sorts, viz. the oppressed, the blemished, the distressed, and the tainted.

If wee compare together the three first sort of sinners, viz. the Transgressor, the Improbous, and the Calamitous, we may observe. 1. That the difference between them is not essentiall and necessary, but accidentall and contingent; for they are not so opposite and contrary, as that when the word is taken in some one sense, all the rest should be excluded. But they are onely di­verse. i. e. so different that one sense may be without the other, and yet so complyant and consistent, that they may all concurre and meet in the same word. For the word Sinner doth carry sometime onely one of those senses, sometime two, and some­time all three; and when the senses are plurall, sometime they are equall, sometime one above the rest is more eminent; so that one and the same person may be at the same time a trans­gressor, improbous, and calamitous. 2. That the Gentiles generally were sinners all these three wayes; for they were sinners legally and morally, being transgressors and improbous, Rom. 1.29. Being filled with all unrighteousnesse, fornication, wickednesse, covetousnesse, maliciousnesse, full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despitefull, proud, boasters, inven­ters of evill things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, cove­nant-breakers, without naturall affection, implacable, unmercifull. And they were sinners jurally; for they were calamitous, ble­mished with the state of ignorance, and of enmity to God, Ephes. 2.12. Being aliens from the common Wealth of Israel, and strangers from the Covenant of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. 3. That in the sight of God the Jewes generally were as great sinners as the Gentiles, both legally and morally, in respect of transgressions and improbities. For of the Jewes the Apostle testifieth, Rom. 3.9. that they were in no wise better then the Gentiles; for he had proved both Jewes and Gentiles, that [Page 145] they were all under sinne. Yet jurally, the Jewes were not such sinners, nor so calamitous as the Gentiles: because they were not such aliens and strangers from God, as were the Gentiles: but had many jurall rights, priviledges and prerogatives as the true Israel and peculiar people of God; as was shewed before in the former clause of this verse. Yet the Right which the Jew had in God, was but a puerile and servile right, to be the chil­dren of God in the condition of servants, in a state of nonage and wardship under the Law. From which state Christ came to emancipate and deliver them, that hee might advance and invest them into a filiall right of being the sons of God in a perfect ple­nage and fulnesse of yeares, as shall be more fully explicated in this Epistle, cap. 4. ver. 2.3. Thus men are sinners three severall wayes; for most men generally are transgressors and improbous; and all men universally are calamitous, for in Adams attainder all were tainted. Wherefore this last way Man as he is Man is a sinner, and this Sinner is the Man, who in the next verse shall bee justified by the fayth of Jesus Christ; for so it there fol­loweth.

Comment.

KNowing that a man is justified.] First therefore for the mea­ning of Justified; whereof I intend not in the first place so much the definition, (though that shall follow) as the signification, for the right and true English of it, according to the Language wherein I write; because the word Justified is a Latinisme. The Greek word in the originall is [...], which properly signifies made righteous: for the Apostle, Rom. 5.19. ex­presseth that word by these two, [...], i. e. con­stituted, or made righteous, as our English Translation renders them, whereto other Vulgar translations unanimously; for the Italian hath it, constituted just, and the French, rendred just. Seeing then the verbe [...], is a derivative from the nown [...]; regularly therefore the verbe ought to pertake of those senses which are to be found in the primitive [...], whereof the English is Just or righteous. Which word carrieth in Scripture severall senses; and these (as it is the attribute of a person) are principally three; viz. a legal, a moral, and a jural sense. For as the word Sinner, in the verse before had severall senses, so the word Just or righteous, being contrary to Sinner, must needs ther­fore have severall senses also, and they severally contrary to those of Sinner: yet where the word is taken chiefly in one of these senses, the rest are not alwayes excluded, but some one sense is principall, and the other accessory.

[Page 147]1. The word Just or righteous, is taken legally quoad leges; for one who is upright according to the Laws, by doing right to all, and giving every man his due by the Lawes in being; sometime rendring that evill which by Law is due to a man, but alwayes that good which is due unto him. And all men ought to bee le­gally righteous, especially Judges and Rulers, whose uprightnes in other mens causes must be exactly legall; for the Law is the Rule whereby they must give Sentence and execute Judgement, declining neyther to the right hand, nor to the left, whether it concerne the good or the evill of the party whose cause is hand­led; for that which no way declines to neyther hand, is properly sayd to be upright. To render evill for evill, private men are not bound, but now under the Gospel are wholly bound from it: yet not so neither, but that Masters of Families may reprove and correct their children and servants, as the Law of reason shall require: because Masters of Families in respect of their Families are petty-Judges and petty-Rulers to judge and Rule uprightly by the law of reason.

Thus the word Righteous is taken, Exod. 23.7. the innocent, (Vezaddik) and righteous slay thou not. and righteous. i. e. upright, or legally righteous. And 2 Sam. 23.3. Hee that ruleth over men must be (Zaddik, [...].) just. i. e. legally righteous, or upright. And Esay 26.7. The way (Lazaddik) of the Just is uprightnesse. i. e. of the upright is uprightnesse. And it is sayd of John the Bap­tist, Marc. 6.20. that Herod feared him, knowing that he was ( [...].) a just man. i. e. an upright man; and of Zacharias and Elizabeth it is said, Luke 1.6. They were both ( [...],) righteous before God. (i.e. upright.) walking in all the commandements and ordinances of the Lord blamelesse; and Rom. 2.13. Not the hearers of the Law are ( [...].) just before God. i. e. upright before God. And as in the concrete, the righteous is put for the upright: so in the abstract, the word righteousnesse is put for uprightnesse. Thus saith Jacob, Gen. 30.33. So shall (Zidkathi) my righteousnesse answer for mee. i. e. my uprightnesse. And so Deut. 9.5. Not for thy righteousnesse. i. e. not for thy uprightnesse. And Psal. 45.7. thou lovest (Zedek) righte­ousnesse. i. e. uprightnesse. And Prov. 16.8. Better is a little (Be­zedakah) with righteousnesse. i. e. with uprightnesse. And Esay. 5.7. and he looked (Lizdakah) for righteousnesse, and behold a cry. i. e. he looked for uprightnesse. And Acts 17.31. He hath appoin­ted a day in the which he will judge the World ( [...],) in righteous­nesse. i. e. in uprightnesse. And 1 John 3.7. Hee that doth ( [...].) righteousnes is righteous. i. e. he that dealeth in upright­nes is upright. And in this sense the word righteous is opposed to the legall sinner, who because he walketh not according to the Law, [Page 148] but transgresseth it, is therefore unjust, and unrighteous.

2. The word Righteous signifies morally, quoad mores; for one who is kinde and courteous, liberall, and bounteous, by do­ing acts of benefit and mercy; who is not onely ruled by the Law to give every man his due by Law, but in many cases is over-ruled by his love, to give men more then their due, more good and lesse evill, then by the Law is due unto them; whose maner is to conferre and convey rights unto men, by bestowing benefits and doing kindnesses, by giving favours and forgiving trespasses. For he who out of his love, bestows some benefit, favor, or kindenesse upon me, doth thereby create in me a right, interest, or claime unto the thing bestowed; and consequently is thence rightly denominated a righteous man; for if he be a righteous man, who is upright and deales with me according to that right or claime which by Law I had before: much more is he righte­ous and properly so called, who by conferring some benefit or gift upon me, doth create some right or claime which before by Law I had not; and he that forgives my trespasse, doth against the right of the Law give me a right of Release from that penal­ty, which he by the Law might have exacted from me. Now as all men ought to be legally righteous. i. e. upright according to the Law: so ought all men to be morally righteous, i. e. kind and curteous according to good maners; for no man upon earth is so indigent or poore, as not to bee able some way or other to doe a kindenesse, as at least to forgive a trespasse: Yet eminently this vertue is required from persons of ability, and principally from Princes, whose Power and Offices lead them to give and for­give in many cases, partly beyond the Law, and partly against it.

So the word righteous is taken, Psal. 37.2. The wicked borroweth and payeth not againe, (Vezaddik, [...]) But the righteous sheweth mercy, and giveth, i. e. the kinde and liberall man forgive­eth and giveth; and Proverb. 21.26. The slothfull coveteth greedily all the day long, (Vezaddik, [...]) but the righte­ous giveth and spareth, i. e. the kinde and liberall man; and Mat. 1.19. Joseph the Spouse of the blessed Virgin is stiled [...], a just man; Then Joseph her Husband being a just man, i. e. a just or righteous man morally in being kinde and curteous: because hee was not onely upright in accustoming to doe that which was right according to the Law, but also exceeded the rule of the Law, in being kinde and curteous; an example of which kindenesse hee shewed to his Wife, in resolving to put her away privily, when by the Law hee might justly have questioned her openly. And Luk. 23.50. Joseph of Arimathea is stiled [...], a good man and a just, i. e. kinde and courte­ous: [Page 149] Because hee was not onely upright in not consenting to the sentence of the Sanedrim, when they condemned Christ: But also further, was so kinde and courteous, that hee begged a kind­nesse to bestow a kindenesse; for hee begged the dead body of Christ to bestowe upon it an honourable buriall, by wrap­ping it in linnen, and laying it in his owne Sepulcher. And Act. 10.22. Cornelius the Captaine is called [...], a just man, i. e. a kinde and courteous man; for hee was not onely upright in fearing God; but also toward men hee was kind and courteous, liberall and bounteous in giving much Almes unto the Poore, as in the same Chapter is specified at the second verse.

Furthermore, as in the concrete, the righteous is put for the kinde man: so also in the abstract, the word righteousnesse is ma­ny times in Scripture put for kindnesse; As 1 Sam. 12.7. Samuel speakes thus unto the people, Now therefore stand still that I may reason with you before the Lord (eth col zedakoth) of all the righteous­nesses of the Lord, which he did to you and to your Fathers. i. e. of all the kindnesses which he did to you and to your Fathers; where our last English translation in the margin renders it benefits; and Psal. 24.4. Hee that hath cleane hands, &c. shall receive the bles­sing from the Lord, and righteousnesse from the God of his salvation, i. e. Hee shall receive kindenesse from God; and Psal. 112.9. Hee hath dispersed, hee hath given to the poore, (Zidkatho) his righte­ousnesse endureth for ever, i. e. his kindenesse and bounty shall bee alwayes commemorated. And Esay. 60.17. I will also make thy Officers peace, and thy exactors (Zedakah) righteousnesse, i. e. They who used exaction upon thee shall doe thee kindenesse; for unto exaction which takes more then is due, kindenesse which gives more then is due, is extreamely contrary. And Mich. 6.5. That yee may know (Zidkoth) the righteousnesse of the Lord, i. e. the kind­nesses of the Lord, for the word is of the plurall number. And Mat. 6.33. Seeke yee first the Kingdome of God ( [...]) and his righteousnesse, i. e. his kindnesse, favour, and mercy. And Rom. 1.17. For therein ( [...]) the righteousnesse of God, i. e. the kindenesse of God, is revealed from faith to faith; for so the righteousnesse of God must heere signifie, because in the verse following it is opposed to the wrath of God, the contrary where­of must bee his kindenesse. And Rom. 3.21. But now ( [...]) the righteousnesse of God without the Law is manifested, i. e. the kinde­nesse of God is manifested; for Gods righteousnesse without the Law, must needes bee his kindenesse; in which sense also the word is often repeated in the following verses, 21.25.26. For the Apostle in other of his Epistles speaking to the same pur­pose, doth expresse the very same thing by the word [...], [Page 150] which our English Translations render kindenesse; as Ephes. 2.7. That in the Ages to come hee might shew the riches of his grace in his kindenesse towards us through Jesus Chrisi; now that of God which unto the Romans hee called Revealing, manifesting and declaring of Gods righteousnesse, heere hee termeth, Shewing of his kindenesse. And Tit. 3.4. But after that the kindenesse and love of God our Saviour towards man appeared; kindnesse appeared heere, is the very same with righteousnesse revealed and manifested before. And againe, 2. Cor. 9.10. Now hee that ministreth seede to the sower, &c. increase the fruits ( [...]) of your righteousnesse, i. e. of your kind­nesse in contributing and ministring to the poore Saints of Jeru­salem. Hence also that Chest of the Temple at Jerusalem, which stood in the Treasury, whereinto the people cast that money, which they offered for the necessities and services of the Temple, was by the Jewes called (Cuphah Schel Zedakah) the Chest of righteousnesse, i. e. of kindenesse; because it contained that mo­ney which was contributed by the voluntary kindnesse, courtesie, or bounty of the people.

Moreover that wee may bee no way imagined to enforce or obtrude this sense of kindenesse upon the word righteousnesse, it is yet further observable, that the Hebrew word Zedakah, which ordinarily signifies righteousnesse, is in severall passages of the Old Testament rendred by the Septuagint, [...], which pro­perly signifies kindenesse. See (or consult the Learned for) these passages, Deut. 6.25. and Deut. 24.13. and Psal. 24.5. and Psal. 33.5. and Psal. 103.6. and especially, Dan. 4.27. And the He­brew word Chesed, which properly signifies kindenesse, is always by the Septuagint rendered [...], which properly signifies mercy: But where the Hebrew hath Chesed, and the Septuagint [...], there our last English Translation doth render it two wayes in­differently, sometime mercy, sometime kindenesse, and loving kind­nesse. But the Greeke word [...], though it properly signi­fie kindenesse, yet wheresoever it is used in the New Testament, (and used it is there not infrequently, yet onely by Mathew and Luke) is perpetually in our last English Translation rendred Alms; but in the Old Testament where it is also frequently mentioned, it is never rendred Almes; for there the word Almes is never read; and the word Almes is not the Native English, but the Grecisme of it, to signifie that act or gift, which proceedes from kindenesse; for betweene these three words, Mercy, Kindenesse, and Almes, there is so neare an affinity that either may well bee put for the other; seeing Mercy is that inward affection, which exercising it selfe outwardly in the acts and deedes of Almes, doth produce the habit and vertue of Kindnesse; from which [Page 151] afterward proceede the morall acts and deedes of Almes; for those acts are properly morall, not which produce the habit, but which the habit doth produce: Because they proceede from such a person whose maner it is to use such acts, and to use them fre­quently.

Hence by the way it may appear, that about these words, Mat. 6.1. Take heede that you doe not your almes before men, there needs no great dispute, what should in the Originall bee the word for almes, whether [...] or [...]; partly because it is far the more probable, that the right Originall was [...], for the most ancient Manuscripts have it so, and apparent it is that so it was read by the Syriake and Arabick Interpreters; so by the most Ancient Greeke Fathers; so by almost all the Latine; so translated by the Vulgar Latine; and so by Beza a learned and diligent Interpreter: And partly because [...] and [...], being joyned with [...], are unto a Greeke eare so concurrent in sense, that they are but two words to signifie one and the same action, either word being a glosse to explicate the other: For un­to the Orientall or Easterne Greekes living in Asia (after whose language the New Testament is written) the word [...], was very usuall and familiar to signifie that kindenesse whose acts are Almes: But unto the Westerne Greekes living in Eu­rope, that word in that sense was somewhat strange, and was better expressed by [...], the sense whereof was unto them better knowne. And very probable it is (as Grotius well conject­ures) that the word [...], was first adjoyned in the Margin, and was afterward translated into the Text to exclude the other. But of the word Zedakah (which St. Mathew there followes) the Syriake Interpreter notes thus on the place; It is worth our observation (saith hee) that the word Zedakah, which among the He­brewes, Caldyes, and Syrians, signifies Righteousnesse, doth also signifie Almes.

And we may further observe, that the Greeke phrase in the New Testament [...], which properly signifies to doe a kindnesse, which is eminently done in doing of almes, is but an expression of the Hebrew phrase frequent in the Old Testa­ment, (gnasoth zedakah) which in our last English is rendred, sometime to doe justice, sometime to doe righteousnesse, viz. in a morall sense as justice and righteousnesse signifie kindnesse. For an instance or two heereof, see (or consult the learned for) these places, Psal. 15.2. and Psal. 99.4. and Psal. 106.3. and Proverbs 21.3. and Esay 32.17. and Esay 56.1. and Esay 58.2. and Jerem. 9.24. and Jerem. 22.3. and Jer. 33.15. And the Greeke phrase [...], expresseth this of the Hebrew, Gnasoth chesed, [Page 152] frequent in the Old Testament, which in our last English is ren­dred to shew mercy: See Psal. 18.50. and Psal. 109.16. Now to doe kindnesse, and to shew mercy, are all one Really, and differ onely verbally: because the doing of kindnesse is a shewing of mercy; for mercy is that inward affection, which is shewed outwardly by the deeds of kindnesse.

Thus we have shewed two senses of [...]. i. e. of the just or righteous man; first the legall, for the upright or innocent man; and then the morall for the kinde or courteous man; and conse­quently for the abstract, that justice, or righteousnes doth signifie both uprightnes and kindnes. If now we compare these two senses one with another, we may observe foure things. 1. That very frequently in Scripture, they are coupled and joy­ned in one sentence, not alwayes under these names, but under words equivalent bearing these senses; the places are too nume­rous for us to make instance: yea that solemne Oath, which Princes at their Coronation do ordinarily take, to doe Justice and Mercy, containes nothing else but uprightnes and kindnes in the senses premised; for Justice and Mercy are not natively English, but Latinismes. 2. That these two Virtues are not opposite or diverse, but subordinate and graduall, the latter being a degree or accesse unto the former, and alwayes supposing it, and af­fected with it, at least in the concrete; for every kinde man is also, or should be upright, but every upright man is not necessarily kinde; for kindnes is uprightnes and somewhat more: because true kindnes doth all the good offices which are due by Law, and many more besides which by Law are not due. For of Na­bal we may say that he was legally righteous or upright, to give every man his due: but that he was morally righteous or kinde to bestow a courtesie, we cannot say; for he is branded to be such a man of Belial, so unkind and churlish that a man could not speake to him; and he reviled David instead of relieving him, 1 Sam. 25.17. Of himselfe Paul saith, that for legall righteousnes or uprightnes which was by the Law, he was blameles. Phil. 3.6. but from morall righteousnes or kindnes he was so remote, that he was like a mad man against the Saints, to persecute, imprison, and put them to death, as he confesseth of himselfe, Acts 26.10. 3. That of these two virtues the latter is farre more excellent then the former, and alwayes preferred before it; for uprightnes is a low and servile righteousnesse: but kindnes is high and noble, the supreme and soveraigne righ­teousnes in the best and highest degree; and is therefore in the Gospel called perfection; for Christian perfection consisteth not in being sinles, but in deeds of kindenes: because uprightnes [Page 153] and kindnes being the two maine degrees of righteousnes, he that hath onely the first degree in being onely upright, he is imperfect; he therefore that hath both degrees in being both upright and kinde, he in the phrase of the Scripture is called perfect; for though in each degree singly he may be, and is very imperfect, or peccant, yet for having both and joyning both to­gether he is accounted perfect. Kindnes in God is Gods perfect righteousnesse, whereby God is most glorified, and wherein God himselfe doth most glory: yea, Gods kindnes is called his glory, Rom. 3.21. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. i. e. stand in need of the kindnesse of God; for seeing the words of this verse are a reason of those in the former; therfore the glory of God here, must needs be referred to the righteousnesse of God there, which as was formerly shewed doth signifie the kindnes of God. And kindnesse in man is mans perfect righte­ousnes; for in this kind man hath no other perfection, if he have this; but his kindnes is a virtue so lovely and obliging be­yond uprightnes, that for a kinde mans sake some even dare to dye. Rom. 5.7. For scarcely for a righteous (i. e. an upright) man will one dye: yet peradventure for a good (i. e. a kinde) man some would even dare to dye. 4. That the person wherein these two righte­ousnesses of uprightnes and kindnes do concurre and meet toge­ther, is quite opposite and contrary to the legall sinner mentio­ned in the verse before; who is a transgressour against the Law, and therefore cannot be upright; and being not upright, he can never be truely kinde; for he who is not upright toward me to give me that which is my due by Law, will much lesse be kinde toward me, to give me more then by Law is my due.

3. In the third and last sense, the word Just or Righteous doth signifie jurally quoad jura, for one who is a Proprietary or Owner, and hath a right, claime, or interest, eyther in generall as a Communer or Freeman, in some Kingdome or Common­wealth; or in particular who hath some Free-hold or Estate of his owne in his owne right; whether his right be a right in pos­session, by enjoying the present use and fruit of his estate, or whe­ther it be a right in capacity by way of interest or claime to some future estate, whereof the present possession lies yet in another. Such a right of capacity or expectance have the Heyres and Le­gataries instituted in a Will or Testament, unto the estate and goods of the Testator, during the Testators life; for although the Testators estate bee his owne both for the property and present possession during his life: yet also during his life, the Heyre by vertue of his nomination in the Will, hath a present right or clayme to the future possession of it. The like right, clayme, or [Page 154] interest, is imputed, given, or conveyed in every promise; for thereby the promissary hath a present right to the thing granted, although the present possession remaine still in the promiser, till such time as the promise be performed. Such a right of capacity by a present interest or clayme had Abraham, during his life to the Land of Canaan, whereof by vertue of Gods promise and Covenant he was made heire; for sayth Paul, Rom. 4.13. The promise was that Abraham should be heire of the world. i. e. Of the whole Land of Canaan: but Abraham during his life never had the possession of that inheritance; for sayth Stephen, Act. 7.5. God gave Abraham no inheritance in Canaan, no not so much as to set his foot on; i. e. no inheritance in possession.

The man then who hath a jus or right, whether in possession or but in capacity, is in Scripture called a Just or Righteous man; for so Abraham is called the righteous man, Esay 41.2. Who cal­led up the righteous man from the East. i. e. The man who had the originall and primitive right, from whence you derive all that right and interest which you clayme to the Land of Canaan, which was first given to Abraham, whom I exalted and raysed to the inheritance of that estate, by calling him thereto out of the East, to follow me, he not knowing whither, as the footman followes the step of his master, to give him the lands of the Na­tions before him. Yet this sense heere of Abrahams being jurally righteous, doth not exclude the other two senses; for hee was righteous every way, both legally, morally, and jurally; but heer in this place, the jurall is chiefly respected. So the Israelites who were the heyres of Abraham, are in many places of Scripture called the Righteous; partly in respect of aliens or strangers, especially of those who living amongst them, were debarred from the Passeover and other holy things, and commonly had no right in their Lands or Lawes, but were only under their protection and jurisdiction; from whence they were called forreigners and strangers within their gates. See Exod. 12.43.45. and Exod. 20.10. and Exod. 29.33. and Exod. 30.33. and Levit. 22.10.13. and Numb. 1.51. Partly they were called the Righteous, in respect of Canaan, to the Lands whereof they had a right in possession, as the Owners and Freeholders of it; for the inheritances thereof were divided by lot among their tribes; but chiefly they were so called in respect of God, in whom by Covenant they had a right of alliance, that hee on his part should bee their Lord and God, and they on their part should be his people and peculiar, to have, hold and enjoy their estates in fee from him.

For that in these jurall respects the Israelites are called the Righteous, it may appeare from divers testimonies of Scripture; [Page 155] as Psal. 69.28. Let them be blotted out of the booke of the living, and not be written (vegnim zaddikim) with the righteous. i. e. with the Israelites, who have the rights of inheritances in the Land, as the Owners and Freeholders of it: for among the Israelites and other Nations, the names not of the legally or morally righte­ous, but of the jurally righteous, are written in bookes, and en­tered into Records in respect of their Inheritances and Priviled­ges. And Psal. 72.7. In his dayes shall (Zaddik) the righteous flou­rish, i. e. literally, in the dayes of Solomon the Israelites who are the right Heires and Owners of the Land shall abound in peace: But mystically the words refer unto Christ, and to the Believers in him. And Psal. 92.12. (Zaddik) The righteous shall flou­rish like a Palme-tree, i. e. The Israelite shall so flourish; for in the Margin of that place there is a reference quoted to a parallell place, Hos. 14.5. Where the Prophet mentioning the like bles­sing doth instead of the Righteous, put the word Israel, I will bee as the dew unto Israel; hee shall grow or blossome as the Lilly. And Psal. 118.20. This gate of the Lord into which (Zaddikim) the righteous shall enter, i. e. The Israelite shall enter, who hath the right of entrance; for strangers had no right to enter within the gate of the Lord, i. e. of the Temple, but remained in the out­ward Court of the Gentiles. And Psal. 125.3. The rod of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot (hazzard dikim) of the righteous, i. e. The stranger shall not continue his Dominion and Possession over the Inheritance of the Israelite, to whom the right of the Land was allotted. And Esay. 26.2. Open ye the gates that (goi Zaddik) the righteous Nation, who keepeth the truth may enter in, i. e. The Nation who is the right Inhabitant and Owner of the Land, though for a time they were exiled and fled, because they would not change their Religion, but would keepe the truth. And E­say. 60.21. Thy people also shall bee all (Zaddikim) righteous, they shall inherite the Land for ever, i. e. Thy people, even all of them who have any right of Inheritance in Judea shall returne from their Captivity in Babylon, and shall henceforth enjoy their estates for ever, without any more Captivity. In all which passages the ju­rall sense of the word righteous is chiefely respected, although the other two senses may bee also included.

And under the word righteous in this jurall sense are compre­hended, not onely the Native Israelites who discended from Ja­cob, but also those factive Israelites, who by Nation or Birth be­ing Aliens became of the Jewish Religion, professing it by the Ceremony of Circumcision, and were thereupon by the Septua­gint called Proselytes, but by the Rabbins (gerei Zedek) advenae justitiae, i. e. strangers of right: Because they had a right, interest [Page 156] and claime to the Rights, Lawes, Ceremonies, and Priviledges of the Native Israelites, and in many particulars the very same Rights with the Natives. For the Proselyte had the same right for the Ceremonies, as in eating the Passeover, Exod. 12.19.48.49. and in keeping the Fast of Expiation, Levit. 16.29. and in offering of Sa­crifices, Numb. 15.14.15.16. and in the use of the holy water, Numb. 19.10. The Proselite had the same right for Judicature, For one maner of Law must bee for the Stranger and for the Native, Levit. 24.22. and one maner of Judgement, Deut. 1.16. and one maner of punishment, Numb. 15.30. And hee had the same right for Priviledges, the very same immunity from oppression, Levit. 19.33.34. and the same Reliefe in case of Poverty, Levit. 25.35.36. and the same benefit of Sanctuary, Numb. 35.15. Thus in the Land of Canaan, the Native Israelite and the Proselyte are cal­led the Righteous; and so heere in England a Subsidy-man, who is an Owner, and enjoyes an Estate in Lands or Goods to a cer­taine yearely, is in the Writts of our Common Law stiled homo probus & legalis, which wee can scarce English properly without the word Just or Righteous in this jurall sense, or some other word thereto equivalent. And as the concrete words Just or Righteous doe concretely signifie a proprietary or owner: So the abstract words of the Hebrew Zedakah in the Old Testa­ment, and of the Greeke [...], which in our Translations are rendred Justice and Righteousnesse, doe many times signifie the Latine word Jus, whereof the English is a Right, Interest, or Claime, as shall bee more largely declared in the last verse of this Chapter upon these words, For if righteousnesse come by the Law.

Compare we now the Proprietary or Owner who is a just or righteous man jurally, with the kinde or bounteous who is a just or righteous morally, and we may observe 3 things. 1. That the Owner and his property is a necessary effect, and conse­quent flowing from the kinde man and his kindnesse; for he who out of his kindnes bestoweth a thing upon me, doth thereby transferre his property and right thereto from himselfe, and imputeth or conveyeth the right and property thereof unto me, whereby necessarily I am made and become the true proprietary or Owner thereof. 2. That the Owner who is jurally just or righteous, is mainely opposed to the jurall sinner, which (as was shewed in the verse before) signifies a stranger, who either ab­solutely hath no right at all, or none respectively to this or that thing in particular; when therefore a stranger who before had no right to a thing, attaines some right or claime thereto, then he becomes just and righteous in a jurall sense. 3. That the word Righteous carryes a variety of sense not much unlike to the word [Page 157] Gracious; for as the word Gracious doth signifie sometime actively, for one who doth shew grace and favour, in which sense it is a frequent attribute of God in the Scripture, and so a Prince is Gracious to his favourite; and sometime passively, for one to whom grace and favour is shewed; so the Princes favou­rite is Gracious with his Prince; and in this sense the word Gracious is taken, Jer. 22.23. How gracious shalt thou bee when pangs come upon thee. i. e. no grace nor favour shall be shewed thee in thy distresse: so the word Righteous is taken, sometime actively, for him who is legally upright by doing right to all, and for him who is morally kinde, by doing kindnesses in granting and giving some right, interest, and claime; and sometime pas­sively for him to whom a kindnes is done, to whom some right, interest or claime is given or granted, and who, because he hath such a right, is therefore in Scripture called Just or Righte­ous. Thus the Greeke word [...], whereof the English is Just or righteous, doth in Scripture signifie in all three wayes. 1. Legally quoad leges, for one who is upright, faciendo, by doing right. 2. Morally, quoad mores, for one who is kinde, donande, by giving a right. 3. Jurally, quoad jura, for one who is an Owner, haben­do, by having a right: Yet in that one word in one and the same sen­tence, there may concurre or bee implyed, sometime two of those senses, sometime all three, as the circumstances may require a lesse or more generall acception thereof; for one and the same person at the same time may bee a man upright, kinde, and an Owner.

Come wee now to the Greeke Verbe [...], which is a de­rivative from the Nowne [...], and to the Latine Verbe Justi­fico, which is a figurative compounded of Justus and facio, and then the true genuine English of the Latinisme justified, will bee this, viz. to bee made just or righteous, and because the Nowne Just or righteous, hath three senses (as was formerly shewed) there­fore consequently the Verbe justified being thence derived, must regularly signifie three wayes: Viz. 1. To bee made upright. 2. To bee made kinde. 3. To bee made an Owner. And because the word made doth expresse unto us the forme of the third Con­jugation Hiphil and Hophal in the Hebrew, which regularly con­signifies making; therefore from that causall Conjugation wee must observe, that in the phrase of the Old Testament, and so likewise from the New, where it imitates the Old (as heere it doth) such Making may and must bee understood, sometime De­claratively only, sometime Efficiently, and sometime both wayes. For these consignifications modifying the principall sense of the Verbe, doe vary it into different and severall senses: Yet so, as [Page 158] that in some case they may concurre; for a man may at once be declaratively pronounced righteous, and efficiently made so: and in some case againe they may be severed; for a man may be de­claratively pronounced righteous, when he is not efficiently made so: and contrarily, he may be efficiently made so, when declaratively he is not so pronounced. For the declaring of a thing is not necessarily efficient to make the being of it, as if it had no being before; but it causeth that being to appeare which before appeared not; by making that manifest and cleare which was in being before, but the being was so obscure or doubtfull that it was in question; and after that being is duly declared, it admits of no proofe to the contrary. Wherefore the verb justi­fied (besides the 3 principall sences which it derives from the nowne Just or righteous) doth in Scripture consignifie chiefly 2 wayes, viz. Declaratively onely, and Efficiently, whether the effect be declared or not.

1. Declarative onely, by pronouncing a person just or righte­ous; and so it derives from the nown 2 senses. 1. A Legall, and so he is justified who is declared or pronounced upright, to have done that which is just or right, not to have offended against the Law, nor to have done that wrong wherewith he is char­ged. Hence Exod. 23.7. the Lord professeth of himselfe, (lo az­dick) I will not justifie the wicked, i. e. I will not declare the wic­ked to be upright or innocent. And Deut. 25.1. If there be a con­troversie between men, and they come into judgement that the Judges may judge them, (vehizdik eth hazaddik) then they shall justifie the righte­ous, i. e. they shall declare him upright, who is upright legally. And Rom. 2.13. For not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law ( [...]) shall be justified. i. e. the hearers onely of the Law are not upright before God, but the doers of the Law (if there be any such) shall be declared upright. And here, in the last clause of the verse in hand; for by the works of the Law shall no flesh ( [...]) be justified. i. e. no flesh shall be declared upright. See Job 33.32. and Psal. 51.4. and Prov. 17.15. and Esay 5.23. and Esay 43.9. and Mat. 11.19. and Mat. 12.37. and Luke 10.29. and Luke 16.15. In all which places the verb Justifie doth not consignifie efficiently, or any way causally, to make him upright who before was not upright, ei­ther by infusing into him a new uprightnes, which was no where existent before, or by imputing unto him that uprightnes which was before existent in another: but it consignifies onely declara­tively in pronouncing him upright, who was upright before, and had the quality of uprightnes inherent in him. 2. It de­clares the Morall sense; and so he is justified, who is declared [Page 159] kinde, bounteous, and gratious; that he not onely doth right in giving every man his due: but also doth more then right, in gi­ving men more then their due, by bestowing Gifts, Graces, and benefits upon them. Hence Luke 7.29. And all the people that heard him, and the Publicans ( [...]) justified God, being baptised with the Baptisme of John. i. e. the people and the Publi­cans declared God to be kind, Gratious, and bounteous in that counsell of his will, which the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected, as it appeares by the verse following: and this kindnes, bounty, and Grace of God they declared by their deed, in being baptised with the Baptisme of John: and the end why they declared Gods kindnes, was, that thereby they might glorifie God; for he that declares or sets forth Gods kindnes by shewing the good­nes and greatnes thereof, doth in effect prayse and glorifie God. And 1 Tim. 3.16. God was manifest in the flesh, [...], was ju­stified in the spirit. i. e. was declared kinde, bounteous, and Gra­tious, by reason of the various gifts and wonderous workes, pro­ceeding from his holy spirit. And here as before, the verb Justifie doth not consignifie efficiently, or any way causally, to infuse, or impute kindnes to him who was not kinde before: but onely declaratively, to manifest that kindnes which was before in being.

2. The verb Justified consignifies Efficiently, by effecting or making a man just or righteous; and then it derives from the nowne the jurall sense of it; and so he is justified or rather jurified, who is efficiently made an Owner, or an Heire in respect of some right, interest, or clayme imputed, conveyed, or settled upon him, whether the effect be declared or not declared; and this Jurall justifying is effected or made by the two maine degrees of efficiency. 1. Procreantly, and so he is justified, or rather ju­rified, who is made to have a right; when a right, clayme, or interest, which he had not before, is created, constituted, impu­ted, or ordained unto him; for by this efficiency his Right is first made to initiate, commence or begin unto him: so the word is taken Esay 45.25. in the Lord all the seed of Israel (Jizdeku) shall be justified. i. e. all the Faithfull who are the spirituall seed of the true Israel, shall be procreantly jurified, or made to have a right, interest, or clayme, in the Lord, that he is their God; and there­of they shall not boast in themselves, but shall glory in him. And Esay 53.11. By his knowledge, my righteous servant (jizdik) shall ju­stifie many. i. e. Christ who shall be upright in executing my will, and obedient even to the condition of a servant, shall by the knowledge or Doctrine by him taught, make many to have a right, interest, and clayme in God, as his sonnes and heires to [Page 160] everlasting life; for Paul expressing the sense of this place, doth instead of the words, shall justifie many, use these, many shall bee made righteous, Rom. 5.19. By the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous, i. e. Many shall bee jurally justified, or made to have a right in God, which before they had not; for the word made heere, doth not signifie Declaratively, but Efficiently: Because the Originall is, [...]. which properly signifies consti­tuted, ordained, or appoynted; and in some places of our last Eng­lish Translation is so rendred. See Act. 6.3. and Tit. 1.5. and Heb. 5.1. And Rom. 3.24. ( [...]) being justified freely by his grace, i. e. procreantly, jurified, or made to have our right in God, without any deserts, any workes, or any suit on our part, but onely by grace on Gods part, him thereto especially moving. And Roman. 4.2. if Abraham ( [...]) were justifi­ed by workes, hee hath whereof to glory, i. e. if Abraham were pro­creately or initially jurified, or made to have his right of inheri­tance to the Kingdome of Canaan by the title of his workes, he may well boast of them; for certainely they must bee mighty workes that could entitle him to a Kingdome, or make him to bee the Heire of the World, as Paul phraseth it afterward, ver. 13. And to instance in the first clause of the present Text, Knowing that a man is not justified by the workes of the Law, i. e. Procreantly jurified, or made to have a right, to bee constituted or initiated by the workes of the Law.

2. Conservantly, and so hee is justified or rather jurified, who is made to hold his right; when that right which hee was made to have before, is afterward, and moreover preserved, continued, and maintained unto him; for by this efficiency his right is made to subsist, and remaine according to the former creation or constitution of it; and consequently is kept from escheating, re­verting, revoking, forfeiting, or otherwise losing; for in vaine a man is made to have a right, if hee bee not also made to hold it. In this sense the word is taken, James 2.21. Was not Abraham our Father ( [...]) justified by workes, when hee had offered Isaac his sonne upon the Altar? i. e. That right of Inheritance to the Land of Canaan, which Abraham was first made to have by his faith (or which was created, constituted, imputed, or initiated unto him upon his faith) was it not afterward held, continued, preserved, and maintained by his workes in offering up his son? And againe, vers. 24. Yee see how that by works a man ( [...]) is justified, and not by faith onely, i. e. that right unto salvation which a man is first made to have by his faith, is held or continued by his workes; for though his faith onely without workes doth first create, constitute, and commence that right in making him to have [Page 161] it: yet faith onely without workes doth not preserve, continue, and maintaine that right, in making him to hold it: and though his workes have no efficiency procreant in making him to have that right: yet they have an efficiency conservant, in making him to hold it. And againe, vers. 25. Was not Rabah the harlot ( [...],) justified by workes, when she had received the messengers, and sent them out another way? i. e. the right to be saved at the sacke of Jericho, which was first created, constituted, and im­puted unto Rahab by her faith in God; was it not afterward preserved, continued, and held by her workes in receiving the messengers and dismissing them another way?

Yet this jurall efficiency of the Verb justified, doth not necessa­rily exclude the declarative sense, but is so compliant and consi­stent therewith, that it doth advance and further it. For if the right which is made us be declared, it becomes thereby the more manifest before men, and consequently the lesse questionable; and therefore in all the places formerly quoted out of James, the Verb justified, may and doth carry a declarative sense; yet not principally, but secondarily and accessorily; for that our right should be conserved and continued unto us, is of absolute necessi­ty to salvation; because otherwise wee cannot be saved: but that it should be declared and manifested (otherwise then Gods Will and Testament declares it) we find no such necessity in Scri­pture. And certainly our workes doe declare our right, yet not assertorily to pronounce it, for workes cannot doe so: but illa­tively and consequently to argue or inferre it by the meanes of our fayth; for workes by declaring our fayth, doe conse­quently declare that right which by our fayth wee are made to have. For faith being an inward thought of the heart, lies of it selfe covered and concealed, untill by some outward meanes it be declared or manifested: and the proper meanes for that act, are not words, (for a man may easily say hee hath faith;) but workes, for workes are the proper evidence which shew it. Hence sayth the Apostle, Jam. 2.18. Shew me thy faith without thy workes. i. e. Declare or manifest unto mee thy faith which is without workes, not by thy words, in bidding the poore, Depart in peace: but by thy workes, in giving them those things which are needfull to the body, as it is in the former verse before; but shew it by thy workes thou canst not; because it is solitary alone and without workes, as thou sayst it may bee and is. Workes then justifie not only efficiently to conserve our right, but declaratively also to manifest it, by declaring that faith, whereby we are made to have it.

See heere a solid and easie way to cleere that seeming contra­diction, [Page 162] which some have conceyved betweene Paul and James in the point of Justification; for although both these Apostles have the same word justified, and both use it in a jurall sense, and both in a consignification of efficiency, yet apparant it is, that both understand not the same kind of efficiency. For Paul understands that efficiency which is procreant, in making us first to have a right by creating, producing, and constituting of it; which kind of effi­ciency is proper wholly and only to fayth, but no way to workes, which are altogether excluded from it. But James understands that efficiency which is conservant, in making us afterward to hold our right by preserving, continuing, and maintayning it un­to us; which kind of efficiency is proper to works, yet not whol­ly and only so, as to exclude fayth, for fayth is also conservant of that right which it first created, if fayth it selfe bee conserved: but fayth cannot conserve it selfe without workes, because by workes fayth lives and breaths, but without workes is frustrate and dead, as the body is without breath. Workes therefore be­ing efficient to conserve our faith, must consequently needes bee efficient to conserve that right, which by the efficiency of our fayth was created unto us; for though fayth alone bee efficient to create our right, yet faith alone is not sufficient to conserve or declare it without the co-efficiency of workes. Wherefore workes are not only a signe of our right to declare it, but also a cause to conserve it; because they are a cause to conserve our faith, which without them would be dead.

And this jurall sense of the Verb Justified, may be further il­lustrated and confirmed from divers other words, which carry a jurall construction, and are referred to Justifying; which words for better order may be distributed into fowre sorts. 1. Words of Circumstance, whereof some doe create or constitue a Right or Interest; as Grace, Gift, Goodwill, Will and Testament, Covenant and Promise; all which are jurall words signifying the principall motives and causes of our Justification: some doe confirme or assure a Right, as Seale and Earnest; for the holy Spirit is sayd to be the Seal and Earnest of that Inheritance, whereto wee are justified: and some other words doe specifie a Right constituted and assured, as Liberty, Freedome, Communion, Fellowship, Inheritance, and Peculiar; all which and many more are the results and effects of our Justification.

2. Words of Contrariety, which are opposite to Justifying; as Injurying and Condemning: for the two Greeke words [...] and [...], which signifie Injurying and Condemning, are both contrary and opposite to [...], which is Justifying; As therefore he who is Injuried, is against Law made to lose some [Page 163] right which he had before, and which by Law was due unto him: and as he who is Condemned, is according to Law made to lose some right which he had before, and which by Law hee was to lose: for all Condemnation effecteth on the condemned eyther the abolition or the abatement of some right which the party had before, eyther in deed or in pretence; so contrarily, he who is justified, is beyond or above Law made to have some right which before hee had not, and which by Law was not due unto him. And as Condemnation is the Imputation of a present sin to a future punishment, so Justification is the Imputation of a present right to a future blessing: for although Justifyng and Condemn­ing, be opposite and contrary one to another, yet they agree in this, that both are under one and the same genus which is Im­putation. Seeing then Injurying and Condemning are jurall words, therefore so is Justifying; because it is opposite and con­trary to them both.

3. Words of Affinity or nearenesse, which are subordinate to justifying and comprehended under it; as Naturalizing, Le­gitimating, Manumising, Redeeming, Pardoning, Adopting, and such like; all which are severall kindes or sorts of justifying, which is the genus to them all. For Naturalizing is the Justify­ing of an Alien, by imputing or giving the right of a Native to him that was borne in a forraigne Countrey. Legitimating is the Justifying of a Bastard by imputing or giving the right of Birth to him that was born misbegotten. Manumising or Infranchising is the Justifying of a Villaine or Bondman, by imputing or give­ing the right of freedome to him that was borne a Slave. Re­deeming is the Justifying of a Captive by giving the right of Liberty to him who before was a Prisoner to his Enemy. Par­doning is the Justifying of an Offender, by imputing or giving the right of impunity to him who stands by Law condemned. Adopting is the Justifying of a Stranger by imputing or giving the right of a Sonne and Heire to him who was borne in another Family. Any one of these acts severally is justifying, and all of them concurring joyntly, (for concur they may upon one and the same person) are no more; saving that then the justifying is ex­ceeding gracious; for when an Alien, a Bastard, a Bondslave, and a Captive, and so much worse beside, as to bee a Malefactor, is made an Heire to some Kingdome; such a Justifying, in re­gard it passeth from one extreame to another, is extreamely gra­tious; and so gratious is our Justification by Christ, as to an ob­servant Reader will afterwards appeare.

4. Words of Attribute, whereby the justified are in Scripture stiled and called; as Sonnes and Heires of God, Gal. 4.7. Where­fore [Page 164] thou art no more a Servant but a Sonne, and if a Sonne, then an Heire of God through Christ. Co-heires or joynt-heires with Christ. Rom. 8.16.17. The spirit it selfe beareth witnesse with our spirit, that wee are the Children of God; and if Children, then Heires, Heires of God, and joynt-heires with Christ. Fellow-citizens and Domesticks of God, Ephes. 2.19. Now therefore yee are no more Strangers and Forraigners, but Fellow-citizens with the Saints, and of the Houshold of God. The Lords Freemen, 1. Cor. 7.22. For hee that is called in the Lord, being a servant is the Lords Freeman. Which last Attribute of Freeman, is a generall word including all the former, for Ci­tizens, Sonnes and Heires are but severall sorts and rankes of Free­men; and it is a word so jurall, that the state of Liberty or Free­dome is the Primitive, Originall, or Fundamentall Right, where­on all other Rights and Priviledges are raised, and without which none can subsist; for a Bondman during his bondage hath no right at all, neither can hee have any, till first hee bee infran­chised or made free; seeing all the right hee hath before, is one­ly a crooked right, to accept or refuse freedome; for a will to refuse freedome was by the Law of God allowed to a Bondman, who otherwise hath no freedom of will, Exod. 21.5. If the ser­vant shall plainely say I love my Master, my Wife, and my Children, I will not go out free, then his Master shall bring him to the Judges, &c. And the word Freeman is so intimate genuine & proper unto Justified, that those 2 words are reciprocall & adequate to denote the same person; for Freeman is the proper name whereby a person justifi­ed is called; & a person justifyed is the proper essence or differēce which defines a Freeman, seeing a Freeman is a person justified, or made to have some right; for hereby he is absolutely opposed to a bōdman, who absolutely is not justified, or hath no right at all; & heereby hee is respectively opposed to an Alien, a Forraigner or Stranger, who locally is not justified, or hath no right in this or that place, as none in such a Kingdome, such a City, or such a Family. Hence in the Scripture, the word Justified is sometime put for freed, as Act. 13.39. and by Christ all that believe are justified (i. e. freed) from all things from which yee could not bee justified (i. e. freed) by the Law of Moses; and sometime it is translated by the word freed, as Rom. 6.7. Hee that is dead, is freed from sinne, where the Margin shewes that the Originall word is justified.

From all those former jurall words thus referred to Justifying, it plainely appeares, that Justifying is not onely a jurall, but also a curiall or Court-word: Yet not borrowed from a Court cri­minall, or any other Civill Court of Justice or Law, where the suite is contentious, and the sentence a judgement, in which jus dicitur, i. e. in which that right which was in being before, is de­clared [Page 165] to bee, according to the letter or meaning of the Law; as heere in England is done in the Courts of the Kings Bench, and of the Common Pleas, where the Judges represent the King for his Justice. But Justifying (in the sense of the Apostle) is rather proper to a Court of favour or grace, where the suite is volunta­ry, and the sentence is a Decree, in which jus fit & datur, i. e. in which that right which was not in being before, is made to bee, according to the kindenesse, favour, goodwill, and grace of the Prince; wherein the iniquities and rigours of the Law are recti­fied, pardons for offences are granted; Patents and Charters for the Rights of Honours, Profits, and Priviledges are issued; as heere in England is done in the Courts of Requests, and the Chancery, where the persons President represent the King for his Mercy and Grace; and therefore are not called Judges, as that word is properly signified by Judex: But to avoyd the rough sense of the word Judges, they are called by other names. In ef­fect therefore Justifying is a right Chancery-word, whereby not onely our sinnes are cancelled, crossed out, and blotted; but our Patent for blessednesse is granted and sealed.

But if wee may borrow a little light from the Civill Law, or from those Courts wherein Wills and Testaments receive their Debates and Probates, wee shall easily perceive that Justi­fication is a Testamentary word. Yet not for the letter of it; for wee finde it not expresly used in Testaments: But for the sence of it, which is the very same or very neare with the Testa­mentary word of Institution. Not as Institution is distinguished from Substitution: But as it is opposed to Exheridation or disin­heriting; and signifies indifferently either for the ordaining of an Heire, or for the devising of a Legacy. In which ample signi­fication, Instituting is co-incident or equivalent with Justifying: Both words carrying a sense either really the same, or rationally consequent each to other. For whosoever in a Testament is In­stituted as an Heire or a Legatary, that person is Justified, or made to have a right to that Inheritance or Legacy, which is therein conveyed or devised unto him. And whosoever in a Te­stament is Justified unto any Inheritance or Legacy, that person is thereto Instituted. And the co-incidence or resemblance be­tweene these two words is the more proper: Partly because Justification is a most gratious act, proceeding from the meere favour and free grace of God; without any previous Petition, Motion or Request made by the party Justified: As commonly Institutions are made in Wills and Testaments, which are, or should bee acts of meere favour and grace. But chiefely, because Justification is also a Testamentary act of God, arising from his [Page 166] Will and Testament, wherein all Believers are Instituted Heires to the Inheritance of everlasting life, i. e. wherein they are Justifi­ed.

Having hitherto shewed the meaning of the word, let us now gather nearer toward the nature of the thing, to specifie more particularly what Right that is wee are made to have, according to the purpose of the Apostle heere, in saying that a man is justifi­ed. Man is jurally a Sinner and ungodly, i. e. a Calamitous person who is unto God an Alien and a Stranger, who by his birth heere on earth hath no right to the Kingdome of Heaven: For if a Native of England by his birth heere, can claime no Inheritance in France, nor in any other Kingdome on earth; much lesse can a Native of earth claime any Inheritance in the Kingdome of Heaven. And man is legally and morally a Sinner and ungodly, i. e. Hee is unto God a Transgressour, an Offendour, and a Malefact­our; and by reason of sinne, man is a Bondman and a Captive, held a Prisoner in the Grave, under Death, and under Sathan, who hath the Dominion and power of Death; for because of sinne, man is not onely debarred from Heaven, but condemned to that earth from whence hee was taken; even the uprightest man on earth can never bee found upright, if God enter into judgement with him, to take the examination of his life, and marke what is done amisse.

Contrarily, God is jurally Just or righteous, i. e. hee is a Lord and Owner; for hee is the universall and supreame Lord and Ow­ner of all the whole World, over all Owners, Lords, and Kings, having the Soveraigne Dominion and Possession both of Heaven and Earth, the Sea and all things else; for the whole World, and all the Creatures thereof are the workes of his hands; and every workeman, especially if hee worke upon his owne materi­alls, is the Lord and Owner of his owne workes. Unto God therefore doe belong, not onely the things that may bee no mans, and the things that may bee any mans, but also the very things that are each mans, as the Lands, Goods, and Chattells which each man possesseth. For although God hath given the Earth to the Children of men, and some men in respect of others are great Lords and rich Owners: Yet all men even the greatest Kings, in respect of God are but meane Lords, and petty Owners, or rather Tenants at will, who have but a precarious use of earthly things, the supreme seigniory and property whereof doth rest in God, who still retaines to himselfe an absolute and full power to dispose of all things at his pleasure, by giving and ta­king them away at his will. See and compare Deut. 10.14. and Job. 1.21. and Psal. 24.1. and Psal. 115.16. and Hos. 2.8.9. and [Page 167] 1. Cor. 10.26. And God is morally Just or Righteous, i. e. Hee is kind, free, and bounteous; for hee is universally and supream­ly kind, free, and bounteous to bestow in abundance his blessings upon all Creatures, but chiefely upon man in a surpassing maner above all the rest. Hence the Scripture is very serious and copi­ous in setting forth Gods kindenesse; for she magnifies it with the Attributes of great kindenesse, Joel. 2.13. and Jonah. 4.2. of loving kindenesse, Esay. 63.7. and Jer. 31.3. and Hos. 2.19. and in the Psalmes above 20. places; of mercifull kindenesse, Psalm. 117.2. and Psalm. 119.76. of marvellous kindenesse, Psalm. 17.7. and Psalm. 31.21. and of everlasting kindenesse, Esay. 54.8. Shee extolls it with the praises of being Gods title, that hee is the God of kindenesse, Nehem. 9.17. and of being Gods exercise, that hee makes it his delight, Jer. 9.24.

And the kindnesses which God bestowes upon man (for the acts of kinde persons are also called kindnesses) are divine bles­sings beseeming the goodnes and greatnes of God, as a right of heavenly freedome, a right of Alliance with God, and a right of inheritance in his kingdome. For God is so free, that his will is, to make man free of heaven, by giving him a right of di­vine freedome, as a Denizen, or Citizen of the Kingdome of Heaven. See John 8.32, 36. and Rom. 6.22. and Rom. 8.2. and 1 Cor. 7.22. and Ephes. 2.19. and Heb. 8.10. And God is so kinde, as to make man his Kinsman, by giving him a right of divine alliance, in making him his Son, and becomming a father to him, which makes not a remote and distant alliance, but the nearest and best degree of kindred. See John 1.12. and Rom. 8.14. and 2 Cor. 6.18. and Phil. 2.15. and Gal. 4.5. and 1 John 3.1, 2. So fatherly kinde, as to make man his heire, by giving him a right of inheritance in Heaven, where God hath provi­ded for him many Manors and Mansions, so goodly and so glori­ous, that the Manors and Mansions on earth are but the figures and shadowes of those in Heaven; for God who hath feared man here upon earth will hereafter most gloriously settle him in Heaven, whereof he hath already made him the Heire, by giving him a present right to the future possession of it; for this kinde of right makes the nature of an Heire. See Mat. 5.3. and Mat. 25.34. and John 14.2. and Rom. 8.17. and Gal. 4.7. and Ephes. 1.3. and Ephes. 2.6. and Tit. 3.7. and James [...].5. and 1 Pet. 1.4.

But for the better conveyance and settling of these Heavenly kindnesses, God frames his Will into a Testament, wherein more blessings are devised and bequeathed unto man by way of gifts and Legacyes; for hence the holy Scriptures both New and Old, [Page 168] are called Gods Testaments; though at the first making neither of them were written, but were nuncupative: because God at first declared his will by the word of his mouth; for hence the same Testaments are called the word of God; but his Will being afterwards written, became the Scriptures. And God by publishing of his Testament, reveales the Gifts and Legacies thereof into promises; (for Gods promises are but his Gifts and Legacyes declared) he covenants with man for the performance of those Promises; and confirmes his Covenant, that it may be irrevocable. Now the proper virtue and effect of Testaments, Promises, and Covenants, especially being once confirmed, is to constitute, ordaine, impute, and convey unto the persons concer­ned, rights, interests, and claymes to the things therein specified. And the rights and claymes constituted, ordained, and conveyed in Gods Testament, are no lesse precious then the inheritances of Heaven, whereto man is instituted Heire; for although a­mong men here on earth, some Lands and inheritances cannot be disposed by Will and Testament: yet all the inheritances of Heaven are deviseable by the Will and Testament of God. And Gods Testament argues Gods marvellous loving kindnes; for can a man possibly shew greater love and kindnes, then first to give away all his estate, and at last to confirme that gift, give up his life? all which is done in the making of a Will; because a Will is a Deed which makes away all, and yet it selfe is not ful­ly made, at least not made of force, untill the death of the maker.

And Gods Testament for the purpose of it, is a Will ad pias causas. i. e. for godly and charitable uses, wherein Gods goods are all distributed for the reliefe of impotent, poore, and needy wretches; for all the parties instituted in Gods Testament, are miserable persons, such as are the blind and lame, the deafe and dumbe, the dead and buried; such as are strangers unto God, as aliens, bondslaves, captives and prisoners unto Satan; such as are Sinners against him, as offendors and malefactors. For hence the publishing of Gods last Will and Testament is called by Christ, Luke 4.18. preaching of the Gospel to the poore, sending to heale the broken-hearted, preaching deliverance to the captives, recovering of sight to the blind, setting at liberty them that are bruised. And this againe doth magnifie Gods marveylous loving kindnesse: for can a Testament shew greater love and kindnesse, then when it is all for charitable uses?

And the better to qualifie these miserable persons, and to in­able them for the possession of these blessings, Gods will is yet further, to performe all acts thereto conducing; as to Illuminate [Page 169] and instruct them in heavenly knowledge, that they may know God to be their gratious Father, to Regenerate and sanctifie them by writing his divine Law in their hearts, that they may carry themselves as the sons of God; to Expiate, pardon, and forgive all their sins in generall, past, present, and to come; to Redeem from the grave, their dead and vile bodies, transforming them into heavenly and glorious bodies; and lastly, to Glorifie them, at their entrance into their Lords joy, where they shall be parta­kers of his divine nature, and the freeholders of eternall blessed­nesse. For such clauses there are in Gods will. See Heb. 8.10, 11, 12. and Phil. 3.21. and 2. Pet. 1.4.

Hence the nature of Justifying may easily appeare. For when unto a Sinner and a stranger, God by his Will and Testament deviseth or imputeth a present right to a future blessing, then God justifieth the ungodly; and when a Sinner hath that right, then a man is justified. And therefore actively and factively all the gifts and Legacies of Gods Will, and all the promises of God doe justifie: because it is the nature of a Legacy and of a promise to impute a present right to some future benefit or blessing. And therefore againe passively and effectually, all the free men of Gods kingdome, and all the sonnes and heyres of God are justified: because it is the nature of a freeman, of a son, and of an heyre, to have a present right to a future estate. When unto Abraham who at first was a sinner and a stranger, God by his Will and Testament devised these earthly blessings; That he should have an heyre from his owne body, and should have the Kingdome of Canaan for his inheritance; Gods will was that Abraham should have a present right to those blessings, and when effectually Abraham had that right, then was he justified. When unto Rahab, who was an harlot and a stranger, God by the same Will imputed a present right to her future safety, and consequently to make her free in Israel, then was Rahab justified. When unto the Jewes who were sinners, God by his last Will and Testament, which is his new Covenant, devised and orday­ned the kingdome of Heaven, and those heavenly blessings wher­of the Earthly kingdome of Canaan and her blessings were but figures and shadowes; as their exemption from the Law, the Priviledge and benefit of Repentance, the Renovation of their mindes, the Remission of their sins, the Resurrection of their bo­dies, and the Inheritance of everlasting life in the kingdome of Heaven; Gods Will was to give them a present right to those blessings; and those Jewes who effectually had that right, they were justified. And when the Gentiles who were both sinners and strangers, were by the same Will made fellow-citizens with [Page 170] the Saints, fellow-heyres, fellow-members and partakers of Gods promise in Christ, to have the same right unto the same blessings with the believing Jewes, then were the Gentiles justified.

The Names of Justifying or other words whereby in Scrip­ture this is expressed, are too many to be mentioned here: yet for the better understanding of the thing, we may take notice of some which intimate either the causes, effects, affections, or resemblances of it. 1. Therefore it is called adopting or ma­king Sons of God, Joh. 1.12. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become (or be made) the sonnes of God. i. e. he justifi­ed them, by giving them the right or priviledge of Sons; for so the word power is explained in the margin. 2. Manumising, infranchising, or making free; John 8.36. If the Sonne shall make you free, you shall be free indeed. i. e. if the Son shall justifie you, by giving you the right of freedome, the Kingdome of Heaven, ye shall have that reall and true freedome, whereof your earth­ly freedome is but a figure or shadow. 3. Reconciling, or attone­ing with God; Rom. 5.10. For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God. i. e. justified, by way of amity or alliance to be made the friends and Sons of God; and at the next verse following, By whom we have now received the attonement; i. e. by whom we have now been justified; for in the originall the word is [...] in both these verses, but is rendred in the 10. reconciled, and in the 11. attonement. 4. Inoculating or grafting, Rom. 11.24, If thou wert cut out of the Olive tree, which is wilde by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good Olive tree. i. e. if contrary to nature thou wert justified; for as the Cions or Graft hath a right of life and maintenance to partake of the root and sap of that stock whereinto it is inoculated: so the justified are made joynt-heyres with Christ, to have the same rights with Christ, into whom they are incorporated. 5. Ingratiating or making accep­ted; Ephes. 1.6. To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein ( [...],) he hath made us accepted in the beloved. i. e. hath justi­fied and graced us, by giving us a right in Christ, who is the beloved of God. 6. Infeoffing, or estating; Ephes. 1.11. In whom also ( [...],) wee have obtained an inheritance, or have been infeoffed. i. e. by whom we are justified to have that inheri­tance whereto God had predestinated, instituted, or ordained us in his will and testament. 7. Seating or placing in Heaven; Ephes. 2.6. And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. i. e. hath justified us, by ma­king us co-heires with Christ, by Christ, and giving us a present right to a future seat or possession in Heaven, where Christ is al­ready seated; for in this life we doe not actually sit in heavenly [Page 171] places: but in this life we are made to have a present right, for our future sitting there. 8. Allying or making nigh unto God; Ephes. 2.13. Yee who sometimes were farre off, are made nigh by the bloud of Christ. i. e. ye who were sometimes strangers unto God, are now justified, and made to have an allyance with God, a­mounting in a manner to a consanguinity, and as effectuall as a nearenesse by bloud; yet not by your bloud, but by the bloud of Christ. 9. Inabling, or making meet; Col. 1.12. Which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light. i. e. hath justified us, to make us fellow-heires, and fellow commoners with the Saints. 10. Translating; in the next verse following; Who hath delivered us from the power of darke­nesse, and hath translated us into the Kingdome of his deare Sonne. i. e. and hath justified us, by changing our state or con­dition from being bondslaves and captives in the Kingdome of Satan, to be made Owners and Freeholders in the Kingdome of Christ. 11. Pardoning, or forgiving; Col. 2.13. And you be­ing dead in your sinnes and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath hee quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses. i. e. having justified you, by giving you a right of impunity or par­don, whereby ye are released from the punishment of all your sinnes. 12. Ransoming, or Redeeming; Revel. 5.9. For thou wast slaine, and hast redeemed us to God by thy bloud. i. e. hast justifi­ed us, by delivering us from the bondage and slavery of Satan, and by asserting us into a spirituall freedome and a divine ally­ance with God.

The Matter of Justifying or the Right which thereby a man is made to have, is a Right of State, which is a permanent and stable condition wherein his person standeth, remaineth, and resteth; and this State is as it were the standerd, base, or ground to all the rest of mans future rights, priviledges, and benefits, which unto this state are incident and subsequent, to be raised and built thereon. For as in many Kingdomes of the world, so in the Kingdome of God, mens persons are made to stand and rest under severall states and conditions, whereof the most re­markable are the two states of spirituall bondage and of spiritu­all freedome, which being in themselves contrary, draw after them contrary consequents and accidents. Spirituall bondage is a restraint, pressure, closenesse, or fastnesse of the spirit, where­by a man stands tyed from good unto evill, debarred from ha­ving the good that hee would and should have, is hindred from doing the good that hee would and should doe, is constrained to doe the evill that hee would not and should not doe, is a drudge to the pleasure of sinne, is a slave to the motions of his lust, and [Page 172] a Captive under the power of Satan. This is a state of wrath, a low, base, terrene, and miserable condition; a condition farre beneath the proper nature and quality of man; a condition that hath no right or interest to any spirituall benefit, nor while it lasteth is capable of any; a condition charged and loaden with so many burdens and miseries thereto incident and consequent, that in poynt of Law the Bondman is reputed a dead man. Con­trarily, spirituall freedome is a gallantry, braven, fluency, cleer­nesse, or loosenesse of the spirit, whereby a man is inlarged from evill unto good, is advanced to have that good which hee would and should have; is inabled to doe that good which hee would and should doe; is restrained from doing that evill whereto Sa­than may tempt him; is licensed to live according to his owne will, or rather according to a better will then his owne; namely, according to the good will and pleasure of God, whose will hee makes his owne will by conforming his owne unto it, and whose service hee findes to bee no servitude but perfect freedome; is acquitted and discharged from the burdens and penalties of the Law, to rest and remaine under the friendship, favour, grace, and love of God, to bee inlightned, guided, moved, strengthned and cheered by the holy spirit of God. This is a state of grace, an high, noble, divine and blessed condition; a condition transcen­ding farre above the proper nature and quality of man; a con­dition honored and inriched with many other Rights, Priviled­ges and Benefits, thereto consequent, incident, and annexed; whereof the first concurrent with it is a degree of spirituall free­dome, viz. a divine alliance to bee the Sonne and Heire of God.

The state whereto a man is Justified, is this condition of spiri­tuall freedome and alliance, to bee the freed man and friend of God, to bee the Sonne and Heire of God. Hence Abraham be­ing justified was called the friend of God, Jam. 2.23. Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse, and hee was called the friend of God, i. e. Abrahams faith did justifie him or was imputed unto him for a right of Freedome, Amity, or Alliance with God, to bee made and called Gods friend. And Christ tells his Disciples, that they were and should bee called his friends, John 15.14. Yee are my friends, if yee doe whatsoever I command you; henceforth I call you not servants, for the servant know­eth not what his Lord doth: But I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard of my Father, I have made knowne unto you. And the Apostle tells all Believers that by being justified, they are made the Heirs of God, Tit. 3.7. That being justified by his grace, wee should bee made Heires according to the hope of eternall life. For Justi­fying is the altering or changing of mans spirituall state or condi­tion, [Page 173] whereby hee acquires a new state much different from that wherein hee stood before: Yet this change is not made downe­ward to abate and lessen it into the state of spirituall bondage, but upward to advance and raise it unto spirituall Freedome, A­mity, and Alliance with God. Hence Justification is quite op­posite and contrary to that Condemnation which the Civilians call Capitis diminutio, i. e. a lessening of the head, by debasing and changing the state or condition of a man from the better to the worse, to make him an Alien or a Bondman, who before was a Citizen or Freeman; for anciently the word head did signifie jurally for the state or condition of a man: Because a mans state or condition is the beginning, fountaine or head, from whence all his other rights are either derived or obstructed. And because of this contrariety to Capitis diminutio, Justification may be fitly tearmed Capitis exaltatio, i. e. a raising or lifting up the head; for to that sense the phrase of lifting up the head is used in the Old Testament, Gen. 40. vers. 20. And it came to passe the third day which was Pharoahs birth-day, that hee made a Feast unto all his ser­vants, and hee lifted up the head of the chiefe Butler, and of the chiefe Baker among his servants, i. e. Hee raised their condition by giving them their freedome, and releasing them from their former im­prisonment. And 2. King. 25.27. And it came to passe that Evilme­rodach King of Babylon, in the yeare that hee began to raigne, did lift up the head of Jehoiachin King of Judah out of prison, i. e. Did give him his freedome from his imprisonment. The state from whence a man is justified is the base condition of spirituall bond­age, and the miseries thereto consequent; for that state is the terminus a quo, or tearme of recesse from whence Justifying com­menceth, and from whence a man is thereby delivered; and the state of freedome is the terminus ad quem, or the tearme of accesse, whereto Justifying exalteth, and wherin a man is thereby invest­ed and seated. And although mans deliverance from bondage doth in order of nature precede his investiture into freedome: Yet I first mentioned the last because the last is first in the order of our method, and first in order of dignity, as being the more worthy and more noble condition. Hence it appeares that Justi­fying doth worke an alteration or change in a man; for it chang­eth his state or condition: Yet it appeares also that this change is onely jurall, whereby hee is exalted or raised from a low and base condition, to rest in a noble and divine state; for such a ju­rall change and no other there is in a person naturalized, legiti­mated, infranchised, redeemed, pardoned and adopted; in all which being severall sorts of Justifying, there is a change, yet that change is onely jurall, by a change of condition. As for any [Page 174] morall alteration or change upon the affections or manners of man, that is not the proper worke of Justification, but of Sancti­fication: Yet the grace and blessing of Justification in change­ing the state and condition of man, doth strongly oblige and binde him to the workes of sanctity or holinesse in making a mo­rall change upon his affections and manners by destroying sinne and the lusts thereof; as the Apostle will seriously presse it in this Chapter, vers. 18.

The Priviledges incident and consequent unto this state of di­vine freedome and alliance, are all the residue of the Legacies or precious Promises devised in Gods Testament; wherof the most future and most finall are the Remission of sins, the Resurrection of the body, and Life everlasting, with all the glory and joyes thereto annexed: all which three are in a maner eyther one and the same blessing, or blessings, so consequent one to another, that the former must necessarily be antecedent to the latter. For there can bee no Life everlasting, unlesse the Resurrection of the body antecede; and the Resurrection cannot be, unlesse the Remission of sins antecede. But when by the Remission of sins, eternall death (which is the punishment thereof) is extinguished, then the Resurrection of the body must needs follow; and upon the Resurrection from eternall death, Life everlasting must needes follow. For the heyres of God dying on earth, how shall they enter their heavenly inheritance, unlesse they be againe raysed to life? and dying for sin, how shall they be raysed, unlesse the sin be remitted for which they die? As therefore the state of Sove­reignty draweth unto it, the rights and dues of tribute, custome, feare, and honour, Rom. 13.7. Render therefore to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, custome to whom custome, feare to whom feare, honour to whom honour: so the state of supreame alliance doth draw unto it, the priviledges and blessings of Forgivenesse of sins, the Resurrection of the body, and Life everlasting. For Abra­ham, Isaac and Jacob have a right, interest, or clayme, unto the Resurrection, and consequently unto Life everlasting; and their right, interest, or clayme thereto, is by vertue of their state or condition of freedome and alliance unto God, that God is their God, i. e. their benefactor or patron, and they the beneficiaries or friends of God; for long after their death, God acknowled­ged this their state of alliance unto him, in saying unto Moses Exod. 3.6. I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And from this their alliance unto God, Christ proveth their Resurrection, and not only theirs, but of the dead in generall, Luk. 20.38. because God is not a God of the dead, i. e. he neyther is nor can be a benefactor to give a blessing [Page 175] to the dead, who while they rest in the state of death, are not capable of any benefit: but he is a God of the living. i. e. The persons to whom God is a benefactor to give them his blessing, must be living, or being dead, must be raysed to life, that therby they may be capable to receive his blessing; for unto him all live. i. e. all the dead in God, by vertue of their state of alliance unto him (which state dies not by their dying) have a present right to a future life, whereto God being their benefactor, is able and wil­ling to rayse them.

The Degree of mans Right to these future Priviledges is a right of Institution. If we consider mans state of freedome and alliance with God, man therein hath now a right in possession, to become seized of that state, ipso facto, and to enjoy it actually in this life; for in this life a man justified is actually the freed-man and friend the son and heyre of God. But if wee consider the future priviledges consequent to this state, as the Remission of sins, the Resurrection of the body, and Life everlasting; man unto these hath not a right in possession; for untill the day of Judgement no mans sins are actually forgiven, no mans body is actually raysed, no mans person is actually possessed of life ever­lasting. But unto these future blessings man in this life hath a right of Institution. i. e. he hath a present right to the future possession of them, and a present right to petition for that future possession, to clayme and make suit for it. Such a degree of right had the Israelites during their bondage in Aegypt, unto the Land of Canaan, whereof then they were not in possession: yet then they had a present right to the future possession of it; whereto God by his promise unto Abraham had instituted or ordayned them. Such a degree of right had David after his anointing by Samuel, during the life of Saul, unto the kingdome of Israel, whereof then he was not in possession; yet then hee had a present right to the future possession of it, whereto God by his anointing had instituted and ordayned him. Such a degree of right have the faithfull during their mortall life, unto the Remission of their sinnes, the Resurrection of their bodies, and the Life everlasting; of which blessings they are not now in possession, yet now they have a present right to the future possession of them; because thereto God by his Will and Testament hath predestinated, insti­tuted, or ordained them. And such a degree of right hath a le­gatary to his Legacy, when the Testament is once confirmed and come to bee of force; but a possessory and compleate right hee hath not, untill the Executor make delivery or payment of the Legacy, which being not done in due time, the Legatary by his right of Institution may bring his action and sue for it. For [Page 176] Testaments, Promises, and Covenants have two different effects according to the two differences of time present and future; their present effect is an Institution to a right, and their future effect is a possession of the thing: So their whole effect conjoyned is, to institute or ordaine a present right to some future possession.

The manner how a man hath this state, is factively, i. e. hee is made to have it. This state of divine franchise and alliance with God, man hath it not natively, i. e. not by virtue of his birth; for hee is not borne free nor borne the Sonne of God; but is borne an Alien to the Kingdome of Heaven, and a stranger to the Fa­mily of God; for man who is borne on earth, and borne the Sonne of man, how should hee by virtue of his birth become free of Heaven, and bee the Sonne and Heire of God? When by his birth in one Kingdome on earth, hee can claime no right in another. But the Verbe Justified being a compound of Justus and facio, doth intimate unto man, not onely his seisure of have­ing this state, but also the maner how hee hath it, namely, factive­ly, by the fact or deede of God, by whom hee is made to have this right of state, by whom hee is translated from the state of an Alien and of a Stranger to bee made the friend and sonne of God. For hence wee are sayd, [...], i. e. to bee made the sonnes of God, John 1.12. As many as received him, to them gave hee power to become (or bee made) the sonnes of God; and to bee made free, John 8.36. If the sonne shall make you free, yee shall bee free indeed, and to bee made accepted, Ephes. 1.6. To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein hee hath made us accepted in the beloved, and made to sit in heavenly places, Ephes. 2.6. And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places, and made nigh, Ephes. 2.13. Yee who sometimes were farre off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ, and made meet, Col. 1.10. Which hath made us meete to bee partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light. So Moses was the sonne of Pharoahs Daughter, not natively, for shee bred him not in her wombe; but factively, for shee found him by the Rivers brinke floating in a boat of bulrushes, and made him her sonne. So Uriah the Husband of Bathsheba was an Israelite, not natively; for by Nation hee was an Hittite, but factively, in be­ing made an Israelite: So Araunah was natively a Jebusite, but factively an Israelite; and so every Proselite became free of Is­rael factively, to bee made free. And this fact of God in making man to have this state, the Scripture calls Justifying, which though it much resemble the fact of Adoption, yet in the sense of Paul, is farre more ample, more noble, and more gratious: Because Justifying is extended to more acts then adopting; for it includes pardoning, redeeming, naturalizing, legitimating, in­franchising, [Page 177] and adopting. And this justifying fact of God is a Testamentary act, whereby this state is predestinated, ordained, or devised unto man, in the Will and Testament of God. For wee are made the sonnes of God by his Will, John 1.13. Which were borne, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God, i. e. Men are not borne the sonnes of God by flesh and blood, nor made his sonnes by the Will and Testament of man, but are made so by the Will and Testament of God. And wee are adopted by his Will, Ephes. 1.5. Having predestina­ted us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himselfe, according to the good pleasure of his Will, i. e. of his Will and Testament; whereto the like saying followeth afterward in the same Chap­ter, vers. 13. And wee are begotten by his Will, James 1.18. Of his owne Will begat hee us with the word of truth, i. e. by his owne Will and Testament.

Thus having premised the Meaning of the word Justified, that it signifies the conveying of a present right to man; that the Matter of that Right is a right of state or permanent condition wherein man resteth; that the quality of that state is a spirituall franchise or alliance to become the friend, son and heyre of God; that the priviledges incident to that alliance are the future Remis­sion of his sins, the Resurrection of his body, and Life everla­sting; that the degree of his right to these priviledges, is a right of Institution, or a present right to the future possession of them; that the Maner how man hath this state is factively, by a testa­mentary act of God. We come now to the Means whereby man hath this state; or to that fact of man whereby the fact of God is effected, or to the Title whereby man receives and enters this state: for on mans part there is required an Act, as the Meanes or Title for his reception of this state; and concerning this Means or Title was all the controversie between Paul and the false tea­chers of Galatia, against whom hee layes downe this Negative, that It is not by the works of the Law, as it followeth in the next words.

God forbid.] A generall answer unto the former objection, plain­ly denying the necessity of the Consequences therein pretended; that in the way of true reason, they cannot be necessarily dedu­ced from the Doctrine of Justification by faith onely without workes. And this deniall is not a bare and naked negation, which onely rejecteth the former objection: but it is a negation vested with a word of abomination; for it is expressed by a phrase which consignifies a high degree both of disdaining and abhorring the objection as a profane and wicked discourse: be­cause the ungodly Consequences therein mentioned cannot bee rationally collected from the former Doctrine of Justification. The Greeke is [...]. i. e. never be it so; which word is a forme of Supplication or prayer unto God against some future and fearefull evill, that God would divert and crosse the accesse of it. For it is equivalent to the Hebrew Chalilah, and to the Greeke [...], which are the expressions of a minde highly dis­daining and abominating. And it is opposed to the Hebrew A­men. i. e. so be it, and to the Greeke [...]. i. e. God grant it; which contrarily are formes of Application, & benediction, that God would approve and confirme with his fiat some present, or [Page 227] future good, the blessing whereof wee earnestly wish and desire.

Comment.

FOR if I build againe, the things which I destroyed.] The state wherein I stood before my Justification, was a state of sinne, a base, low, and terrene state of spirituall bondage, where­by I was a stranger to God, a slave to sinne, and the sonne of death. For I was not onely Calamitous, or a quasi-sinner, tainted by the attainder of Adam: But I was a transgressour against the rules of Gods written Law; and I was improbous, and many wayes peccant against the rules of equity and morality. But up­on my Justification my state of sinne was destroyed and extin­guished. For my Justification doth erect and build unto mee a state quite contrary to the former, namely, a state of Right, which makes mee jurally righteous, to have a divine right, a high, noble and heavenly state of divine liberty and allyance, whereby I am made a Freeman of Heaven, in the best and highest degree, to bee the Sonne and Heire of God. When a Slave is infranchised, his state of slavery is thereby extinguished: So when a Sinner is justified his state of sinne is thereby actually destroyed; because these two states are so contrary and inconsistent, that in one and the same person, at one and the same time, they cannot both sub­sist.

Yet upon my Justification, the passions, motions, or lusts of my sinne are not destroyed in facto esse; for I finde in my soule that they still remaine and struggle in mee, and by some of them I am sometime worsted. And yet againe even these motions and lusts are also destroyed in fieri, i. e. They are in a good course, and in a ready way to be actuall destroyed; for their dominion and pow­er is already destroyed; so that they cannot (as formerly they did) over-master and compell me to the acts of sinne. And the worke of their destruction in fieri is designed unto mee, as my service to righteousnesse unto holynesse. For unto this worke Christ who justi­fied mee by my faith, doth thereby oblige mee; and unto this worke Christ who sanctified mee by his spirit, doth thereto ena­ble me.

But after my Justification, if through the subtilty of Satan, or through the pravity of mine owne soule, I shall suffer my selfe to bee perswaded, that either there is no bond upon mee, or no power in mee to performe this worke of mortifying and destroy­ing the passions, motions, and lusts of my sinne, and thereupon shall either neglect this worke, or fall to a worke quite contrary in serving the passions, motions, and lusts of my sinne, unto the acts of sinne; not acts of ignorance and infirmity, but of Ma­lignity or wickednesse (for these three kindes or degrees of sinne must alwayes bee noted and discerned;) Then by my sinfull acts [Page 230] I destroy my state of Justification; which although by good works I could never build, yet by evil workes I may destroy; for by them I dedignifie and make my selfe unworthy of it. Yet by them I destroy it not for the seed and root of it; for this shall alwayes remaine a truth, that I had once a divine liberty and alliance, whereby I was a Free-man of Heaven, and the Son of God; and possibly before I dye, I may recover this state againe. But by sinfull acts I destroy this state for the fruit, bene­fit and priviledges of it: for during that condition I shall never enjoy that future estate of blessednes, whereto I had once a pre­sent right; nor shall I ever possesse that inheritance whereto I was once a co-heyre with Christ. For my faith which was live­ly and effectuall to procure my present right to blessednes, doth by my evill workes become dead, voyd, and of no effect to the future possession of it. Hence the Apostle asketh me, 1 Cor. 6.9. if I know not this, that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdome of God; and he chargeth me to Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor idolaters, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankinde, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdome of God. And the same A­postle hath told me, Gal. 5.21. that they who doe the workes of the flesh, shall not inherit the kingdome of God. And this I know, Ephes. 5.5. that no whoremonger nor uncleane person, nor covetous man who is an Idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God: let no man deceive me with vaine words &c. And by my sinfull acts I destroy not only my state of Right, but moreover by them I build againe my state of sin; for one sinfull act added to another doth at last build a habit of sin, as one stone upon another doth build an habitation. Or one single act alone without any more, if the sin be heinous and foule, is enough to cast me into the state of sin.

I make my selfe a transgressor.] By building againe my state of sin, I become a transgressor. i. e. an exceeding sinfull sinner, and a treble offendor against God; by sinning first against his writ­ten Law, and then against the rules of equity, and thirdly a­gainst the grace of his mercy, by a wilfull relapse into that state of sin, which he had gratiously pardoned. For the word Trans­gressor is not heere taken simply for one who commits some one act of sin against the Law: but for one who after pardon relap­seth into sin, and thereby drawes upon himselfe the guilt of his sin, and bindes himselfe over to the punishment of it, without all hope of remedy by the ordinary course of Gods mercy. For the transgressor heere is opposed not onely to the Just, who is le­gally and morally righteous, but also to the justified, who is [Page 231] jurally righteous. Am I not by this relapse a revolter from God, and a traytor to him, when after my amity, and alliance with him, I desert him and side with his enemy, defrauding God of his services to bestow them upon Satan? And am I not a felon to my selfe, to rob my selfe of all my right to eternall life, and cast away my selfe to eternall death? For doth not the Law of Na­tions teach mee, that by such facts as these, any estate becomes forfeit? and doth not the light of Reason teach me, that if my Tenure faile, my estate must needs escheat? And doth not the sacred Scripture teach me, that my last state in sin is worth then the first? For doth she not playnely tell me, Hebr. 10.26. that If I sin wilfully after that I have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sinne: but a certaine fearfull looking far of Judgement and fiery indignation which shall devoure the adversaries? And againe, 2 Pet. 2.21. that it had been better for me, not to have knowne the way of righteousnes, then after I have knowne it; to turne from the holy Commandement delivered unto me? Doth she not cleer­ly declare this unto me by the horrid and loathsome comparisons of a house haunted with an uncleane spirit, who being cast out, and re-admitted, doth re-enter with seven other spirits more wicked than himselfe? Luk. 11.24. Of a Dog licking up his vomit againe; and of a Som, that after washing, walloweth in the mire. 2. Pet. 2.22.

Yet Christ who justified me, is no minister to my sin by justi­fying me; neither is it hee that makes mee a transgressor. For the right of Impunity or forgivenes of sins, which is one of the Priviledges whereto Christ justified mee, gives mee no license to sin. As in the family, the right of Impunity which the son hath above the servant, not to be ejected or punished for every fault, as the servant may, doth give the son this Priviledge in faults onely, such as are ignorances and infirmities: but excuseth him not in crimes, such as are malignities, wickednesses, and wilfull misdemeanors. But if the son will abuse his Priviledge of Impu­nity, and shall thereupon run into presumptuous and wilfull offences: can wee charge the Father as the Minister to his sin, that hee makes his son a transgressor? Was ever any Father, who duly corrected his son (though he punished him not) menti­oned in such a case as this? The like may bee sayd of a Malefa­ctor, who after pardon relapseth into the same or the like crime, whereby his offence is highly aggravated; can wee charge his relapse upon the Prince, who in mercy granted the pardon to him? Or when a bondslave, whom his Lord hath infranchised, shall afterward sell himselfe for a slave; can any man in reason charge his latter slavery upon his first Lord, who set him at liber­ty?

[Page 232] It is not Christ then who makes mee a Transgressour; for my transgression is wholly against his will; against the will of his Precepts, wherein hee forbids it, and against the will of his Judgements, wherein hee threatens it with eternall death. And my transgression is wholly against his deedes; for in Justi­fying mee by faith, hee hath strongly obliged mee against it; and in sanctifying mee by his holy spirit, hee hath sufficiently e­nabled mee against it. What greater provision can Christ possi­bly make against my transgression? What greater obligation from it, could hee lay upon mee, then the menace of eternall death in case I commit sinne; and the promise of eternall life in case I refraine and destroy it in mee? What greater ability in this life can I have to refraine and destroy it, then the Power of his holy spirit alwayes resident in mee to inlighten, strengthen, assist, and succour mee against it? But on the contrary, if upon my continuance in sinne, Christ should promise to continue unto mee my right of inheritance to blessednesse, and accordingly should afterward settle mee in the possession of it; then cer­tainely hee makes mee a transgressour; and may thereupon bee justly accounted, not onely the Minister of my sinne, but also the rewarder of it. It is therefore no other but my selfe, who by reason of some default predominant in mee, doe willfully on my part make my self a transgressor; and that default seems twofold.

1. My unfaithfulnesse; not that I have no faith; for then I could not bee justified; or that my faith wants truth, for a faith not true is all one with none. Or that my faith wants strength; for it is engaged and obliged by Gods infinite kindenesse in giving mee a right to eternall blessednesse: And it is assisted and ina­bled by Gods holy spirit wherewith hee sanctifieth, enlightneth, and strengthneth mee to performe the workes, duties, and servi­ces sutable to my faith, and worthy of that divine alliance and inheritance, whereto God by my faith hath admitted mee. For what greater strength more can possibly bee added to my faith, then such an infinite engagement, and such a powerfull assistance? But my true and strong faith wants life and efficacy; or rather I want will enough to give it life and efficacy. Yet I have will enough to give it life and efficacy passively, to Accept those Promises and Legacies of Gods Will and Testament, wher­to I am justified. But I will not give it life and efficacy actively, to Performe those Precepts and Conditions of Gods Will and Testament, whereto I am sanctified, that it may become a faith working by love. Heereby it comes to passe, that my true and strong faith comes not to be a lively, active, working and effectu­all faith: But remaines a dead, idle, lazie, and slothfull faith; [Page 233] and this deadnesse, idlenesse, lazinesse, and slothfulnesse of my faith, is the unfaithfulnes of it.

For God promiseth unto mee a present right of divine alliance and inheritance to bee his Sonne and Heire to eternall blessed­nesse; and I by faith Accept this promise, and am thereupon actually in that divine state of a Sonne and Heire to God. This Acceptance is my passive or taking faith; and by this acceptance I doe againe on my part repromise unto God, that I will perform the workes, duties, offices, and services of a Sonne and Heire, to love, honour, and obey my heavenly Father. This promise I cer­tainely make, though really I neither mention it in words, nor mentally conceive it in my heart; for my act in accepting that right doth naturally and jurally according to the nature and equi­ty of the thing, make this promise for mee, though my tongue and heart bee never so silent. And the state of a Sonne and Heire wherein I stand, doth naturally engage and oblige mee, not onely to make this promise, but also to performe it. For hee that ac­cepts of any beneficiary state or condition, doth ipso facto, there­by promise to performe the workes, duties, offices, and services unto that state appertaining and incident. For the nature and e­quity of his Acceptance doth make this promise for him, though it bee neither expressed nor minded; and the Law of nature and equity doth oblige him to performe it, though there bee no writ­ten Law to inforce it. Seeing experience teacheth mee, that there are promises, obligations, and engagements, as well naturall as civill, and as well tacite as expresse. Now, if my faith be not lively and active to performe that promise of love, honour, and obedience, which I on my part have made to God; or if my faith be so dead, idle, lazy, and slothfull, that she will not, or doth not performe it; this non-performance of my promise to God, is the unfaithfulnesse of my faith; and this unfaithfulnesse is one default, by reason wherof I come to make my selfe a trans­gressor against my Justification.

2. The second default is my Unthankfulnesse, or rather my Ungraciousnesse, which is but the Latinisme of unthankfulnesse; saving that in my apprehension of the word, it noteth an aggra­vation, and soundeth a high degree of unthankfulnesse. Especi­ally if I consider the greatnesse of the Blessing which I have re­ceived, and the greatnesse of the person from whom I received it; for to proove unthankfull to God for his grace, what can this be else, but extreame ungraciousnesse? God hath given mee a state of divine alliance and inheritance to bee his son and heire to eternall blessednesse. And this state hee hath given mee most freely, out of his meere love and grace, without any desert of [Page 234] mine, without any desire of mine, without any motion by mee made, or any act by me done, saving my faith to accept it. What an infinite blessing is heere, improoved and exalted with infinite kindnesse? for what greater blessing could God confer upon me? and how could he confer this with greater kindnesse?

Certainly this blessing accompanied with such kindnesse de­serveth my thankes; and those not only verball, to give God good words, by acknowledging this blessing, and singing praises to his Name, but reall thankes by the workes, duties, offices and services of a son, to love and honour my heavenly Father, who hath so much loved and honoured me. For what lesse thankes then these can I returne? Seeing I have nothing else worthy of him; nor nothing at all but what was his before, and came from him. Yea, even my workes of loving and honouring him, pro­ceed from him; for he by loving and honouring me, hath begot­ten those workes in mee, and deserved them from mee; hee hath obliged me to them, and enabled me from them. Should an earth­ly Prince give, or but promise me some temporall estate, incom­parably short of Gods kindnesse, what duties, offices, and servi­ces, would I deny to such a Prince, thereby to expresse my thank­fulnesse to him? If therefore to the King of Heaven who hath so much loved and honoured me, as to make mee his son and heyre, I will not or doe not performe the duties, offices, and services of a son, to love, honour and obey him with all my heart, and all my soule, this non-performance is extreame unthankefulnes; and this unthankfulnes or rather ungratiousnes is another default whereby I come to make my selfe a transgressor against my Justification. Hence there appeare unto mee these 4 following verities.

1. My state of Justification is mutable.] It is in it selfe a state firme, stable, and permanent; and the firmenesse thereof is not onely durable, but may and should be perpetuall. Yet the firme­nesse thereof is casuall, and may be not perpetuall; for during my naturall life, and before I dye, it may be defeated, and destroyed. I say not, it must be defeated and destroyed; for the mutability thereof is not necessary; as is the mortality of my body, which God hath created from the dust, and hath decreed that unto dust it shall returne. But the mutability thereof is possible; for manifest it is, that it may bee not defeated and not destroyed: because God hath given mee the state of a son and heyre by way of perpetuity for ever, to continue not onely for my life, but after death. When I am dead and dissolved into dust, God still re­maineth my Father and my God; for hee acknowledgeth him­selfe the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who are long since [Page 235] dead. And from the Dead he will rayse mee at the last day, to put me in possession of that inheritance, whereto I am now an heyre. For as Marriages, so also Alliances are states not tempo­rary for terme of yeares, but of perpetuity for ever. Hence in the family, the son differs from the servant severall wayes, whereof this is one, that the servant hath no right of perpetuity there, but the son hath; for, saith Christ, John 8.35. The servant abideth not in the house for ever. i. e. hath not a right to abide for ever; but the son abideth for ever. i. e. hath a right of perpetuity to abide there for ever.

And againe on the other side, it is as manifest, that my state of Justification may bee defeated and destroyed: Because this latter possibility is necessarily consequent unto the former; for if it bee a truth that my state may bee not destroyed; then and therefore this also shall bee true, that it may bee destroyed. Otherwise how can I build againe my first state of sinfulnesse, which once I had destroyed? How can I make my selfe a transgressour against my Justification? How can I have a first and a last estate, which are both evill, and the last worse then the first? But I finde by good History, and by sad experience, that states of perpetuity have been defeated and destroyed. That many a man who hath had an e­state in fee simple, to him and his Heirs for ever, and yet by make­ing himselfe a transgressour against his Lord, hath forfeited that estate. That many a woman who was married for life, till death should depart her husband and her; and yet by making her selfe a transgressour against her husband, hath been divorced and lost her dower. That many a sonne who was Heire apparent to his Fathers estate; and yet by making himselfe a transgressour a­gainst his Father hath been disinherited. And that the like is possible concerning my state, the Scriptures teach mee three ways. 1. By serious Exhortations to take heed of making my selfe a transgressour. See John 5.14. and Rom. 11.20. and 1. Cor. 10.12. and 1. Tim. 1.19. and Heb. 3.12. and 1. Pet. 2.11. 2. By lively Demonstrations of my danger, in case I make my selfe so. See Mat. 12.43.44. and Heb. 6.4. and Heb. 10.26.27. and 2. Pet. 2.20. 3. By severall Examples of persons who have made themselves so; as Aaron, David, Solomon, the whole Kingdome of Israel, and the Nation of the Jewes. Which Examples doe necessarily conclude, that my transgression is possible, and my Justification mutable: Because of a thing impossible, it is impos­sible there should be any example.

Gods donation of my present right to bee his Sonne and Heir is absolute without any condition or preceding act on my part, except my faith to accept it. But my future possession of that In­heritance, [Page 236] whereto I have now a present right is conditionall; and that condition runs upon my good behaviour, modo bene me gesserim, that I behave and carry my selfe as becommeth the son and Heire of God; for this Condition is sufficiently expressed in Gods last Will and Testament. Or supposing, but not granting, that in Gods Testament there is no mention of any such conditi­on: Yet such a Condition must bee understood; because the ve­ry nature and equity of the thing requires it; and the state of a Sonne and Heire wherein I stand, doth necessarily draw this du­ty with it, and so binde mee to it, that for non-performance there­of my state may bee destroyed. Yet every trespasse will not de facto destroy it: because God will forgive mee a thousand faults; for hee that commands mee to forgive my brother (offending a­gainst mee and repenting) 70. times a day; hee certainely being my Father will upon my repentance, forgive mee more times in all my dayes. And upon this condition hee commands mee to pray unto him for the forgivenesse of my trespasses, and in case▪ I forgive other men theirs against mee, hee promiseth mee the forgivenesse of mine. For because I am his sonne, therefore I am not under his Law, but un­der his grace, i. e. God will not deale rigorously and strictly with mee to reject, or to punish mee for every trespasse like a slave who is under the Law and pleasure of his Lord; but hee will use me mercifully and kindely to correct mee in measure, or to forgive mee like a sonne, who is under the love and grace of his Father. Yet his forgivenesse must not licence and move mee to offend, but must restraine mee from it, and move mee to feare him. Hence, Psalm. 130.4. There is forgivenesse with God; not to this end that hee may bee offended, but to this, that hee may bee feared; for the more kinde any Father is, the more should the sonne feare to offend: Because the greater is his trespasse in case hee offend. And as a kinde Father is grieved to disinherit his incorrigible sonne: So when my transgression becomes presumptuous and in­corrigible, my heavenly Father is grieved to reprobate mee and decrees it not but in his wrath. For thus hee dealt with the Isra­elites, Psalm. 95.10. Forty yeares long was I grieved with this Gene­ration, and sayd, it is a people that doe erre in their hearts, and they have not knowne my wayes; unto whom I sware in my wrath, that they should not enter into my rest.

2. My Justification requires a tenure. For because the state of it, is mutable and defeaseable; therefore it requires a tenure wher­by I may continue, preserve and hold it. As my state had a cause procreant, or meanes acquisitive, which was the title, whereby I acquired, initiated, and had the right of it: So also it further [Page 237] needes a cause conservant, or meanes retentive, whereby the right already acquired, entred, and had, is continued, preserved, and held; which cause conservant, or meanes retentive, is common­ly called a Tenure. Now a Tenure is some act of reality or for­mality, whereby a state or any other right is declared and mani­fested to abide, remaine, and rest in that person, who by a good title acquired, and hath it. And the tenure whereby I hold a state or other right, is generally some use whereto I apply it, and consequently some utility or profit from that use, accrewing ei­ther unto my selfe, or to some other: being many times a meanes or act different from the former meanes or act, which was my ti­tle. Paul had the state or condition of an Apostle, and a right of power to the office of the Ministery; and his title to that state and right was his Reception thereof from Christ who collated it upon him, as hee fully declared in the first Chapter of this Epi­stle. But the Tenure whereby hee held that state, was the Prea­ching of the Gospel; for to this use hee must apply his Ministe­ry: Because saith hee, 1. Cor. 9.16. A necessity is layd upon mee, yea woe is unto mee, if I preach not the Gospel. So the Tenures where­by most estates in Lands are held heere in England, are some ser­vices either certaine or uncertaine; as Serjeanty, Escuage, and Socage, which either are, or may bee tearmed Court-service, War-service, and Plough-service.

Now because states and other rights are in this life transitory and defeasable, to come and goe, to be had and lost; therefore when I have a state, I must use the meanes to hold it, least I lose it. For in vaine I use the meanes of a title whereby to constitute and have my state of Justification, If I use not also the meanes of a tenure, whereby to continue and hold it. And in vaine I con­tinue and hold it, if I make not also some benefit of it; for that state is to no purpose, from whence ariseth no benefit. In my Ju­stification therefore I am to consider both these meanes; viz. not onely the meanes procreant or title whereby my state is con­stituted, acquired, or had: but also the meanes conservant or Tenure, whereby my state is continued, preserved, or held. Be­cause I am truly sayd to be justified, as well by the tenure wher­by I continue and hold this state, as by my title whereby I ac­quire and have it. For all states whatsoever, not onely jurall but naturall, of all creatures whatsoever, whose existence hath any duration, doe necessarily require a cause conservant, meanes re­tentive or tenure, whereby they may be continued or preserved to abide and remaine in being; for otherwise their state would not be permanent at all, but actually transient and sodainly passe away. Yea the Earth it selfe whose state above all other ele­ments [Page 238] is most firme and stable; and the whole world, whereof God is the sole cause procreant who created and established it for e­ver, should he cease to be thereof the cause conservant, would suddainely in a moment runne to ruine. Much more is such a te­nure necessary to my Justification, which is my state of alliance unto God: Because this state above all others is to mee most pretious, and consequently the losse of it, becomes most grievous.

3. The Tenure whereby I am justified, is workes. I am not afraid to expresse this verity in these words, because the phrase Justified by workes, is the expresse saying of the Holy Ghost. For, Jam. 2.24. This Assertion, that A man is justified by workes, and not by faith alone, is the language and word of God, as well as this, that A man is not justified by the workes of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ. For the Scripture delivereth both these assertions, mentio­ning neither of them obviously as it were in transitu: But hand­ling both equally, purposely, and by way of doctrine; for shee proposeth both, and presseth both, insisteth upon both, confirm­eth both by severall arguments, and illustrating both by Similies and examples. And therefore I cannot use such partiality, to bee so earnest for either, as thereby to bee against the other: but I must maintaine them both, and maintaine both for current doctrine to bee duly taught in the Church of God. Because both in their due senses are infallibly true, and of great consequence, as well to magnifie Gods grace, as to edifie his Church. But I must allow unto both their proper senses and due distinctions; for if I side with the assertion of Paul, and cast off James with a distinction; or side with James, and cast off Paul with a di­stinction; then I doe not rightly divide the word of truth: But I rather make that right-downe division, which Paul himselfe condemneth, 1. Cor. 1.12. I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ.

As therefore my faith is the Title whereby I am justified, viz. procreatively and acquisitively, i. e. Whereby my Justification is created, produced, and constituted to have the originall ex­istence and beginning; or whereby my state of divine alliance and inheritance to bee the Sonne and Heire of God, is acquired, commenced, and initiated. So my workes are the Tenure wher­by I am justified, viz. conservantly and retentively, i. e. Whereby my Justification is continued, preserved, and maintained, to abide, subsist and remaine in that existence, which originally it had by faith; or whereby my state of divine alliance and inheritance is prolonged for my finall continuance to bee the Sonne and Heir of God; untill such time as I possesse and enjoy that inheritance [Page 239] in heaven, whereto I am now the heire and have a present right. For that the verbe Justifie (as also many others of the like nature) doth consignifie these two kindes of efficiency, namely procreant and conservant, hath beene formerly shewed. And by workes I understand good and holy workes; for if the workes which un­justifie mee, by building againe the state of sin which I destroy­ed, are evill and sinfull; then the workes which sub-justifie or support my state of justification must needes bee good and holy. For seeing my Justification, which procures unto mee a divine alliance to bee the sonne and heyre of God, is a state of sanctity and holines; what can bee more suitable, convenient, and comely, then that a holy state should bee preserved by holy workes?

In this sense James affirmeth, that A man is justified by workes and not by faith alone. Which assertion hee prooves three severall wayes. 1. By two reasons, whereof one is, Because faith without workes is dead. i. e. the act of faith in justifying is frustrate, voyd, and of no effect: as a Bill, Bond, or other writing whereto there is no hand nor seale. For a man justified by faith, if his faith be not seconded by workes to continue and maintaine his Justifica­tion, he shall never possesse and enjoy that heavenly inheritance, whereto hee was by faith justified; and his faith falling of this effect, is therefore voyd or dead. The other reason is, Because faith working with workes, is by workes made perfect. i. e. faith alone by it selfe is a thing imperfect and ineffectuall; for in Justifying, it doth but commence, begin, and enter the state of Justification, and consequently it createth but an imperfect and weake right; namely, a right of Institution, and Expectation, a right of a son and heyre, a right of interest, clayme, and hope, a right escheatable and defeasable that may possibly bee destroyed. But faith seconded, accompanied, and animated with workes, is by workes made effectuall to continue, consummate, and [...] the state of Justification into the state and assurance of salvation; and consequently to procure a perfect plenary and full right, namely a right of possession and fruition, a right of peace, rest, and quiet, an inheritance executed and seized, subject unto no defea [...]ance, relapse, or other casualty; or as the Apostle calls it, 1 Pet 1.4. an inheritance uncorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not [...] reserved in Heaven for us.

Secondly, he proves it by two Similyes or comparisons; [...] of one is, that Faith alone without workes is like the Devils Faith; for they have a kinde of faith, whereby they believe the existence and unity of God. And their faith is alone without workes; namely without good and holy workes: but they are [Page 240] not without evill and wicked workes; and their faith with evill workes hath this evill worke upon them, that it makes them to tremble. The other Simily is, that faith alone without workes is like the body without breath; for as the body without breath is dead: so faith without works is dead also.

Thirdly, hee proves it by two Examples; One of Abraham; Was not Abraham our father justified by workes, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the Altar? i. e. The Justification of Abraham constituted long before by his faith, whereby was imputed unto him a right of alliance and amity to bee and bee called the friend of God; was it not afterward continued by his worke in offering his son? for was not that worke wrought by his faith? and was not his faith and the Scripture mentioning it, fulfilled by that worke? The other example is of Rahab; Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by workes, when she had received the Messengers and had sent them out another way? i. e. The Justification of Rahab constituted long before by her faith, whereby she be­came a Proselyte and an Israelite, in beleeving that the God of Israel was God in Heaven above and in earth beneath: was it not afterward continued by her worke in Receiving the Messengers? For was not that worke wrought by her faith? and at the sacke of Jericho was not she and her family preserved by that worke, and thereby continued Proselites unto Gods People? Now from these Examples and Similies of James, but especially from his two reasons, it evidently followes, that workes doe justifie in the sense alleadged, namely conservantly. For because Faith with­out workes is dead, and working with workes is by workes made perfect or effectuall; therefore workes doe preserve and continue the life, perfection and efficacy of Faith; and consequent­ly they preserve and continue the state of Justification, which is the effect of faith; and whatsoever doth preserve and continue Justification, that doth Justifie.

True it is, that Neither faith nor works are the principall and prime efficients of my Justifying; because God is the perso­nall, principall, and prime efficient, who makes mee to have my right, and who makes mee to hold it: but faith and workes are the reall, mediall, or meane efficients on my part. For God willeth and ordayneth that fayth should bee my title whereby I acquire and have this right; and that workes should be my tenure whereby to continue and hold it. From my title I whol­ly exclude my workes; allowing them neyther efficiency to ju­stifie, nor presence in my person at my Justifying. For faith a­lone without any efficiency or any presence of workes within mee, doth make me to have this right. Because when I am to [Page 241] bee justified, I have not within me any workes at all, that any way qualifie me, or can bee truely sayd to be resident in mee. For manifest it is, that I am then in the state and condition of a sinner; if not legally of a transgressor against the Law, yet mo­rally of one somewhat improbous, who was many wayes pec­cant in the rules of morality; equity, decency, and mercy; and jurally of one calamitous, who must suffer and die like a sinner; for the proper subject of Justification is a sinner.

But from my Tenure I exclude not faith, but include and sup­pose it, adding and adjoyning my workes unto it. Because in my Justification faith hath a double efficiency; first a pro­creant to constitute it, and secondly a conservant to continue it. Yet that degree of conservancy which flowes from faith, is so imperfect, that unlesse it be perfected by the accesse of works, fayth alone is not able to conserve it selfe; for without workes shee is dead. Yet from my Tenure I exclude the solitarinesse both of my faith and of my workes; for neither faith alone without workes, nor workes alone without faith; but both concurring and joyned together; viz. faith conducting and co-o­perating with workes, and workes accompanying and seconding faith doe justifie me conservantly as my Tenure, making mee to continue and hold that state of divine alliance which faith alone did create and constitute. And heerein I give the preeminence to faith; for I say not thus, Workes with faith, but thus, Faith with workes doth make up my Tenure; faith as the principall, and workes as accessories thereto, to animate, enable, and ren­der faith effectuall unto that effect, which alone without workes it can not performe. Because faith without workes is im­perfect and dead, but working with workes is by workes made perfect and effectuall.

And true it is, that Workes doe also justifie declaratively; because they declare, manifest, and shew that faith which doeth justifie efficiently; and which alone without workes is efficient procreantly; and which being alone without workes can not be declared. For words will not serve the turne to declare the existence of faith, but this service must be done by works. And therefore the existence of that faith which is solitary, alone, and without workes, can by no meanes bee sufficiently declared. Hence saith the Apostle, Jam. 2.18. Shew mee thy faith without thy workes. Shew me, if thou canst, (or thou canst not shew mee) that faith of thine which is without workes, or which is solitary or alone by it selfe; for by thy words, in saying thou hast faith, it is not sufficiently shewed; and by thy workes it cannot possibly be shewed, because (as thou acknowledgest) it is a solitary faith, [Page 242] which is alone by it selfe destitute of workes. And I will shew thee my faith by my workes. i. e. But I will shew thee my operary faith which worketh with workes; for I will and doe declare it by my workes, because I acknowledge that my faith is seconded and accompanied with workes.

Now because faith is declared or shewed by workes, therfore workes are a Signe of faith; and consequently they are a Signe of Justification to declare and shew the state of it: because faith is a cause whereof Justification is the effect, and whatsoever is a Signe of the cause, is also a Signe of the effect. Yet this is not all, and the whole influence, which workes have unto Justificati­on, that they are a Signe of faith to declare it. But moreover, workes are a cause of faith to effect it; yet not a cause procre­ant to constitute and produce it, but a cause conservant to con­tinue and maintaine it. For Jam. 2.26. As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without workes is dead also. Now the Spirit whereby the body respireth and breatheth is a cause of the bo­dy, yet not a cause procreant to give the body life and being, but a cause conservant to continue and maintaine the life and being of it. And consequently workes are also a cause conser­vant of that Justification whereof faith is a cause wholly pro­creant, and partly conservant; and to conserve Justification is to justifie.

For seeing that unto many words I willingly allow severall senses, not only modall but reall, I cannot with equity deny the like courtesie unto the Verbe Justified, for the honour of those two great Apostles, Paul and James, who were planters of the Gospel and pillars of the Church: especially when I consider the severall parties with whom they had to deale. For Paul by his assertion opposeth the Judaizers (who as was formerly shewed upon the 14. verse of this Chapter) were Operaries and Rituaries, standing so much for the workes and Ceremo­nies of the Law, that they made workes the sole and whole effi­cient cause of Justification; both the cause conservant to conti­nue and maintaine the state of it, and also the cause procreant to constitute and produce the being of it. And therefore against the Infirmity of these, Paul in his Epistles to the Romans, Ga­latians and elsewhere, stoutly maintaines this doctrine, that A man is not justified by the workes of the Law, but by faith only. Wher­in according to the quicknesse and shortnesse of his speech, hee intends these two points. 1. That no workes at all are the cause procreant to constitute and build mans Justification, as was largely explicated, verse 16.2. That no workes of the Law are a cause conservant to continue and maintaine mans [Page 243] Justification, as shall bee discovered in the next verity. For in these two points the Judaizers held the contrary, as it plainly appeares, partly by their practise, and partly by his arguments against them.

But James in his assertion opposeth the Gentilizers, who were a party quite contrary to the former, and in opposition of them were Fiduciaries and Libertines, standing onely for fayth and li­berty, neglecting, despising, and disgracing all maner of works, as no cause at all of Justification, neyther procreant to con­stitute or build the state of it, nor conservant to continue and maintayne it; as before was intimated after the 14. verse. And therefore against the vanity of these, James maintaynes this do­ctrine, that A man is justified by workes, and not by faith onely. Wherein his meaning is, (as it was well enough understood of the Gentilizers) that good workes [...]ot of the Law but of Grace, love and kindnesse) were necessary both to faith and Justificati­on, as causes conservant to continue and maintaine both, untill Justification bee consummated, determined, and finished into salvation; for without such workes, faith is dead, but with and by them is made perfect. Allowing therfore unto the word Justified, being a Verbe efficient or factive, these two senses, of efficiency procreant and conservant; and thereupon affirming, that Faith only without workes doth justifie procreantly to constitute the state of Justification: But faith with workes and by workes doth justifie conservantly to continue that state. Then it will plainly appeare concerning Paul and James, that neyther of their doctrines is a paradoxe, that neyther is to other repugnant; but each with the other is consistent, and both are conducent to the verity and sanctity of Christianity. Nay more, the doctrine of James is to that of Paul a necessary consequent, bor­rowing from Paul those principles whereby it is both raysed and proved.

For because, as Paul teacheth, my faith only without works doth procreate or build my Justification; and because evill workes destroy the state of it, and build againe my state of sinne, therefore it must needs follow, as Saint James teacheth, that good workes doe continue and maintaine the state of it. For although they doe not procreate or build that state, yet they preserve and uphold it, from that destruction and ruine, which evill works would bring upon it. Againe, because, as Paul teacheth, my continuance in sin is the cause corrumpent and de­struent to decay & destroy my Justification, which is to unjustifie me; therefore, as James teacheth, my continuance in good workes is the cause conservant and restituent to preserve the [Page 244] state and to restore the decayes of it. For in case I should fall, my faith alone cannot restore mee: but if I recover, my faith working by workes of Repentance, must be the meanes of my Recovery. Besides, because, as Paul teacheth, 1. Cor. 13.2. Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountaines, and have no charity, I am nothing: Therefore as James teacheth, faith with­out workes is dead: because the acts of charity are good workes, and of all other the greatest. Lastly, because as Paul teacheth, Gal. 5.6. In Christ Jesus neither Circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love: Therefore as James teacheth, Faith working with workes, is by workes made perfect, that it may finally availe in Jesus Christ.

Thus James in his doctrine and in his reasons thereof secondeth Paul, not differing from him in sense and truth, but onely in words and tearmes; and for that verball difference there was a just occasion. For Paul being an Apostle to the Gentiles, tempe­reth his doctrine with such words and tearmes, that hee might give no offence, either to the unbelieving Gentiles, who there­upon would continue in their unbeliefe: or to the believing Gentiles, who thereupon might recede from their beliefe. For hee made it his rule, not to offend any party, but to please all, seeking to save as many as hee could, labouring to plant the Go­spel, and to increase the Church of God as much as might bee. And James being an Apostle to the Jewes, and writing to the twelve dispersed Tribes, doth correspondently carry himselfe with the like temper, that hee likewise might give no offence, either to the unbelieving Jew or to the believing Judaizer.

Yet let no Christian presume to censure this temperate carriage with temporizing; seeing heerein these two great Apostles pra­ctized the great rule of Charity, which is, To walke without scandall or giving of offence; especially to parties opposite, but rather to please both. A rule by Paul both taught and practi­sed, as appeares, 1 Cor 10.32. Give no offence neither to the Jewes nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God: even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine owne profit, but the profit of many that they may be saved. And seeing under the tearmes of Justifying by workes, taken in different senses, opposite Errours did trouble the Church, who can say to the contrary, but that these two A­postles might bee moved to use these very termes, either by the spirit of God, or by their owne agreement, that each should confute those severall errours within his severall line, namely James within the line of Circumcision, and Paul elsewhere? Con­cerning this seeming opposition between Paul and James (where­of I spake somewhat before but not enough) there are extant di­vers [Page 245] other Reconciliations; whereof I oppose none: but leave every man to that sense whereby hee may bee most edifi­ed.

4. The fourth verity is this; The workes which continue my Justi­fication are acts of Love. The tenure whereby the Israelites conti­nued their Justification to the kingdome of Canaan to hold and enjoy it, were the workes of the Law in the literall sense. For thus speakes Moses to the people, Deut. 5.33. You shall walke in all the wayes which the Lord your God hath commanded you, and that you may prolong your dayes in the Land which ye shall possesse. i. e. Your walking in Gods Lawes shall continue and prolong your possessi­on in the Land whereto yee are justified or have a right. And in after-ages, when their children should aske them the mea­ning of these Lawes, they must answer their children thus, Deut. 6.24. The Lord commanded us to doe all these statutes; to feare the Lord our God for our good alwayes, that hee might preserve us alive, as it is this day: and it shall be our righteousnesse, if wee observe to doe all these commandements before the Lord our God as he hath commanded us. Thus speakes the Law it selfe, Levit. 18.5. Yee shall therefore keepe my statutes and my Judgements, which if a man doe, hee shall live in them. i. e. By keeping my Lawes you shall continue your right and state of life, to prolong the course of it, and to secure it from any violent death to be inflicted by the Law. Thus the Prophet Ezech. 18.9. He that hath walked in my statutes to deale truly, he is just, he shall surely live. i. e. by his walking in my Lawes hee be­comes upright, and by his uprightnes hee shall continue and pro­long his temporall life, which (hee not transgressing the Law) shall not by the Law bee cut off. And thus also the Apostle, Rom. 2.13. The doers of the Law shall be justified. i. e. shall continue to bee justified; for that by the deeds of the Law, they could not begin to be justified, hee meanes to prove at large in the follow­ing chapters of that Epistle. And for default of these workes, the ten tribes forfeited their right to that Land for ever: and the other two tribes were sequestred for the tearme of 70 yeares un­der their captivity in Babylon.

But the tenure whereby under the Gospel I hold my state of alliance with God, and continue my right of inheritance to the kingdome of Heaven, are not the workes of the Law in the lite­rall sense. Not her Ceremonies; as her Feasts, in observing dayes, and months, and times, and yeares; and her Fasts, in not touching, not tasting, not handling; and her Capitall Ceremony of Circum­cision, which in Christ Jesus availeth nothing. Not her Moralities; as to bee no Idolater, no perjurer, no Sabbath-breaker, no mur­derer, adulterer, thiefe, lyar, nor deceiver. For a profession of my [Page 246] selfe to bee no sinner, will not continue my Justification; nay a confession of my selfe to bee a sinner will rather justifie mee, then a justifying of my self to be no sinner; for upon this ground as I am taught, Luke 18.14. The Publican went downe to his house justi­fied rather then the Pharisee. But because that Pharisee was an Hy­pocrite, let us heare another kinde of Pharisee, who was no Hy­pocrite, and yet confesseth of his Innocency, that it justified him not, 1. Cor. 4.4. I know nothing by my selfe, yet am I not there­fore justified. I observe the Moralities of the Law: because other­wise I should make my selfe a transgressor, and thereby destroy my justification; for although my innocency in being no Idola­ter, no perjurer, no Sabath-breaker, &c. will neither constitute nor continue my divine alliance and inheritance: yet my Trans­gression in being an idolater, a perjurer, a murderer, or adulterer, or the like, will discontinue and destroy it. The Moralities of the Law therefore I doe and must observe: yet I observe them not in duty to the Law, because she commands them: nor for feare of the Law, because she threatens the breach of them. For I am not under the Law, but am dead to the Law; and it is a part of my Justification to bee free from the Law.

But the workes which continue my Justification are the works of Grace. For seeing God hath so highly Graced mee, as to make mee his sonne and heyre, therefore to shew my gratefulnes and thankefulnes to God for his grace, I observe those duties, offices, and services whatsoever they be, whereto not the letter of Gods Law, but the spirit of his grace doth move and draw mee; those workes which the grace of his Gospel commands and requires from mee; for I am under his Grace. And the workes which Gods grace causeth in me and requires from me, are the acts of Love, exercising it selfe in the offices of equity, mercy, courtesie and kindnesse. For seeing God hath so loved and graced me, as to make me his son and heire; what other workes should his love and grace produce in me, but the workes of love? for what should love beget but love? and what duties should the son doe to his father, but the duties of love?

And these workes of Love have two strange properties; for 1. They are super-legall, i. e. above and beyond the Law of Mo­ses, not only fulfilling but transcending and exceeding it. As to feed the hungry, and cloath the naked, to entertaine the stran­ger, to visit the sicke, and releeve the prisoner. 2. They are su­per-naturall, i. e. above and beyond the law of Nature: for as there is a miraculous faith, so there is also a miraculous love, which in a maner worketh miracles, surpassing the common course of naked nature. As not to be Angry, not to resist or re­venge [Page 247] evill, to suffer persecution gladly and joyfully, to lay down my life for my brother, and therefore much more for my hea­venly Father, to love mine enemies who hate, revile and perse­cute me, and in some case to hate my friends, as my father and mo­ther, my wife and children, my brothers and sisters, Luk. 14.26. These and the like workes of Love are not the commands of the Law; for they are not there manifested, though some of them be there testified. But they are the Commands of Grace; for they are manifested in the Gospel, which contayning the precepts and rules of equity, mercy, courtesie and kindnesse, whereto Gods Grace obligeth and enableth me, is therefore called the word of his Grace. Hence Christ calls Love a new Commandement; John 13.34. A new commandement I give unto you, that ye love one another, as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. And Christ calleth it his commandement, John 15.12. This is my Commande­ment, that ye love one another, as I have loved you.

And these workes, offices, and services of Love, are the tenure to continue and maintaine my state of Justification. For, sayth Paul, Gal. 5.6. In Christ Jesus, neither Circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love. i. e. The only thing which availeth to make mee continue and abide in Christ, is faith working by love. And 1. John 2.10. He that lo­veth his brother abideth in the light. i. e. Continueth in his state of light and life. And 1. John 4.16. He that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him. i.e. Hee that continueth in the workes of love, continueth in that alliance which is between God and him. And when James affirmeth, that a man is justified by works, he meanes not works of the law, but works of love; and of such love as is both super-legall and supernaturall, according to the two strange properties formerly mentioned.

For, sayth he, Jam. 2.21. Was not Abraham our father justified by workes, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Did not A­braham continue justified by his worke in offering Isaac? Was that worke a duty of the Law, or was it not a service of love, whereby at Gods immediate command he offered unto God his onely sonne in sacrifice? Was not his love super-legall above and beyond the Law? For did any Law command, that a father should sacrifice his son? And was not his love super-naturall, above and beyond the Law of nature, when his love to God with whom he had alliance only by faith, surpassed his love to his only son, with whom hee had alliance by nature, and in whose behalfe he had received the promises? Againe, Jam. 2.25. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by workes, when shee had received the Messengers, and had sent them out another way? Did [Page 248] not Rahab continue justified by her worke in receiving rhe Mes­sengers? Was that worke a duty of the Law, or was it not an office of love, or as she called it, Jos. 2.12. a shewing of kindnesse, whereby she entertayned and lodged strangers? Was not her love super-legall, above and beyond the Law; for did any Law command that a woman of the City should entertain Spies, who came to prepare the destruction of the City? And was not her love super-naturall above and beyond the Law of nature, when she shewed kindnesse to her enemies, in housing, hiding, and sen­ding them out another way?

These Offices of love, at least the super-legall are the workes, whereby at the day of Judgement my Justification must take ef­fect, for my salvation or finall possession of that inheritance where­to I am justified. For according to these works the finall sentence of Blessednes is formed and pronounced by Christ for the righ­teous, Mat. 25.34. Come ye blessed of my Father, inherite the King­dome prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungred and ye gave me meat, I was thirsty and ye gave me drink, I was a stranger and ye tooke me in, naked and ye cloathed me, I was sick and ye visited me, I was in prison and ye came unto me. And al­though to me in my owne person ye did not this, yet in as much as ye have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. And for default of these workes, my present Justifica­tion will then at that day become of no benefit unto mee▪ but will prove frustrate, voyd, and of no effect. For according to the contrary of these workes, the contrary sentence of eternall death is framed and pronounced upon the wicked, whether they were ever justified or not justified; as appeareth in the following part of that Chapter.

Comment.

FOR I through the Law.] There must heer be made a supply of the word Death, or some such like to that sense, thus, For I through the death, expiration or cessation of the Law, am dead, expired or ceased to the Law. The Law of Moses in respect of the duration, how long it should continue and remaine in force, was ordayned by God to be perpetuall; for unto many ordinances thereof there are annexed expresse words of perpetuity. So Cir­cumcision which was the soveraigne ordinance and the chiefe [Page 250] Ceremony of the whole Law, was enjoyned for an everlasting covenant, Gen. 17.13. And my covenant shall be in your flesh for an ever­lasting Covenant. So the Passover was to be observed as an Ordi­nance for ever, Exod. 12.14. And you shall keepe it a Feast to the Lord throughout your generations: you shall keep it a Fevst by an Ordinance for ever. So the Sabbath was to be observed for a perpetual co­venant, Exod. 31.16. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keepe the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations for a perpetu­all covenant. So the Fast of Expiation was to bee an everlasting statute, Levit. 16.34. And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an attonement for the Children of Israel, for all their sinnes once a yeare. So the holy Assemblies or Festivals of the Lord men­tioned Levit. 23. were to bee statutes for ever throughout their gene­rations in all their dwellings. So the Lamps for the Sanctuary, Lev. 24.3. must burne before the Lord continually; it shall be a statute for ever in your generations. And the like is sayd for the Shewbread, Levit. 24.8. Every Sabbath he shall set it in order before the Lord con­tinually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting co­venant.

Notwithstanding all these severall expressions of Perpetuity, yet the Law of Moses was not ordayned to bee so everlasting, that it should last as long as the World lasteth, and have no end till the Worlds end. For this opinion was and is the errour of the unbeleeving Jewes, and of the beleeving Judaizers. But the Law of Moses though it was ordayned to bee perpetuall and everlasting, yet withall it was ordayned also to bee tran­sitory, mutable, and ceaseable. For the understanding whereof, wee must observe, that the duration of the Law was ordered two wayes. 1. The duration of it was not limited to any time cer­taine, or to a set number of yeares: And in this respect it was per­petuall or everlasting; especially because as the event shewed, it lasted for the space of fifteene hundred yeares; and according to the phrase of the Scripture, any long space of time, or any thing lasting long is called everlasting; as Psal. 24.7. And bee yee lift up yee everlasting doores. i. e. Ye doores of Cedar, which is a long lasting wood. For the Perpetuity or everlastingnesse of a Law implieth not a duration infinite, that should never have an end; but consisteth in a duration indefinite that is not li­mited to a time certaine. And a Law so unlimited, is thereupon called perpetuall, or (according to the phrase of Scripture) ever­lasting, to distinguish it from a law temporary, whose duration is limited to a time certaine. Yet the Perpetuity of a Law doeth never debarre the Law-maker from his power to revoke, repeal, or alter at his pleasure, as cause shall require, either the Law it [Page 251] selfe, or the duration of it. And therefore upon just cause, by ex­punging the clause of limitation, hee may advance a Law tem­porary to become perpetuall; or by inserting a clause of li­mitation, hee may reduce a Law perpetuall to bee tempo­rary.

2. The duration of it was limited to a time uncertaine, the event whereof exceeded humane knowledge. For that this kinde of limita­tion was made, it plainly appeares from hence; in that the Ta­bernacle and the services thereto belonging, Heb. 9.9. are called a figure for the time present: and the rest of the Ceremonies in meats, drinkes, and washings, Heb. 9.10. were imposed untill the time of Reformation. Now the period or event of that time present, and of the time of Reformation, was at the making of the Law, so uncertaine that it passed the reach of humane knowledge. And that uncertaine time which the duration of the Law was limi­ted, was the time of Christ, whose time was the time of Re­formation. For the Law of Moses was but a way leading unto the Gospel of Christ, and ended at Christ, Rom. 10.4. for Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse to every one that beleeveth. And as the occasion of the Law was for transgressions, so the duration of it was untill the comming of Christ, Gal. 3.19. The Law was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made. It was a Schoolemaster to initiate the Jew for a time, untill the comming of Christ, Gal. 3.24. Where­fore the Law was our Schoolemaster unto Christ. And it was a tutor or governour to over-rule the childhood or the Jew for a time, the fulnesse whereof was fulfilled at the comming of Christ, Gal. 4.2. We when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world; but when the fulnesse of the time was come, God sent forth his son made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeeme them that were under the Law. Because then the duration of the Law was not limited to any time certaine, therefore it was perpetuall and everlasting: and yet because the duration of it was limited to a time uncertaine, therefore it was transitory, mutable, and ceasable.

Wherefore during the current of that uncertaine time, the Law was all that while mortall, and at the expiration of that time, it expired and died, i. e. it was then of no force, but frustrate and voyd. For as the Obligation or Bond of the Law while it standeth in force, is called the life of the Law; for hence it is sayd, Rom. 7.1. The Law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth. i. e. as long as the Law is in force, so the ces­sation of the Law when the force of it is expired, is called the death of the Law; for hence againe it is sayd, Rom. 7.6. But [Page 252] now we are delivered from the Law, that being dead wherein we were held. i. e. The Law being ceased and dead. Wherefore to speak accurately and properly the Law was not abrogated or repealed: but of it selfe it expired and ceased: because the fulnes of her time was come; for that uncertaine terme, whereto her duration was limited, was by the comming of Christ certainly determined. Yet this Expiration or Death of the Law is expressed by seve­rall other words; for it is called Abolishing; Ephes. 2.15. Ha­ving abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandements. And Cancelling or blotting out, Col. 2.14. Blotting out the hand­writing of ordinances that was against us. And Disanulling, Heb. 7.18. For verily there is a disanulling of the commandement going be­fore, for the weaknesse and unprofitablenesse thereof. And Antiquating or making old, Heb. 8.13. In that he sayth a new Covenant, he hath (antiquated or) made the first old.

Thus all the Lawes of Moses are as dead as the Lawes of Solon or Lycurgus. Yet the death of the Moralityes contained in the Decalogue or elsewhere dispersed must be cautelously understood by distinguishing between the Constitution of a Law, whereby it first hath being, and the Declaration of a Law, whereby that being which it had before is made knowne. For according to this distinction we say of Judges, that they doe not make Law, by constituting it: but they onely declare Law, by manifesting that to bee Law, which was constitute and made before. Much more may the Law-maker himselfe, in case of ignorance or que­stion declare that to be his Law, which hee had constituted for Law before. Now the Moralities in the Decalogue had their Constitution at the beginning of the world, for they are Lawes of nature, which God made at the making of man, from whose creation they resulted. But they had a declaration in the Deca­logue, wherein God wrote them and published them to the Isra­elites; that thereby they taking notice of them to bee his Lawes might not make their ignorance an excuse for their transgressions; for some Lawes of nature are of themselves obscure, and those that are knowne are not to all men equally manifest. And they had a new Declaration in the new Covenant; for thereby Hebr. 8.10. God hath put them into our mindes, and written them in our hearts; and lest our owne mindes and hearts should deceive us, hee hath sufficiently manifested them by Christ and his Apostles through­out the New Testament. The Moralityes then in the Law of Moses are dead as to that declaration which they had there; for by vertue thereof they binde no man: but they are not dead in respect of two other bonds; whereof the one is their new decla­ration in the New Testament, by vertue whereof they binde all [Page 253] Christians; and the other their first Constitution as Lawes of nature, by vertue whereof they binde all men whatsoe­ver.

The reason why the Law is dead, and why it expired at the death of Christ; is because the Gospel published by Christ is the last Will and Testament of God, established upon better promi­ses and better Precepts then were in the Law; and was confir­med by the death of Christ; and therefore the Law which was Gods former Will and Testament is thereby infringed and fru­strated. For of Persons testable the last and newest Will is al­wayes the best, and of such validity or force, that at the very making of it, all former Wills are infringed; and at the confir­ming of it, all former are frustrated. And Christ who was the Executor of Gods last Will, did disanull the first, to establish the last, Heb. 10.9. Then sayd he, Loe I come to doe thy Will, O God: He taketh away the first that he may establish the second. And Christ at his death by one and the same act effected both these things; for by his suffering on the Crosse hee confirmed the New Will and Testament; for hence his bloud is called the bloud of the New Testament, and the Wine at the Communion is the memoriall of that Bloud, Mat. 26.27. And hee tooke the cup and gave thankes, and gave it to them, saying, Drinke ye all of it; for this is the bloud of the New Testament. And by the same suffering hee cancelled the first Will and Testament, Col. 2.14. Blotting out the handwriting of Ordinances which was against us, which was contrary to us, and tooke it out of the way, nayling it to his Crosse. Yet hee cancelled the first Will but onely Consequently i. e. upon his confirmation of the last Will, it followed necessarily that thereby the first was cancelled and frustrated.

Am dead to the Law.] In respect of the Law, I am putatively or as it were a dead person, who am no way acted or moved at any thing in the Law; not at her Promises, nor her Judgements, nor her Precepts in any kind, whether for matter of Policy, Ceremo­ny, or Morality. For I regard neither what she promiseth, nor what she threatneth: not what she commands, nor what she for­bids. And these words of mine are not presumptuous, nor any way opprobrious or reproachfull to the Law; because the Law it selfe is the cause why I am thus dead unto the Law; namely, because the Law it selfe is dead; for through her death to me, I to her am dead. Yet my Person is not dead, but my subjection to the Law is dead; for my subjection was correlative to her do­minion; and Relatives as they mutually give being one to another, so they mutually take away each others being; for when either of the Relatives faile, the whole Relation ceaseth; the domini­on [Page 254] therefore of the Law being dead, doth make my subjection to dye with it. As by the death of the Husband the Wife also dyeth: Yet not in her person as she is a woman, but in her rela­tion as she is a wife; for she ceaseth to bee a wife, though still she remaine a woman. For by this comparison the Apostle doth elegantly illustrate both the death of the Law, and the death of the Jew unto the Law, Rom. 7.2. For the woman which hath an husband, is bound by the Law to her husband, so long as hee liveth: But if the husband bee dead, she is loosed from the Law of her husband, i. e. Shee ceaseth to bee his wife. And from hence hee inferres this conclusion, vers. 4. Wherefore my brethren yee also are become dead to the Law by the body of Christ.

That I might live unto God.] These words are a tacit prevention of an objection that might bee made against his former words. For some man might say unto him, if the Law bee dead, and you dead to the Law, and free from the dominion of it, then you may freely sinne without controule. Heereto his answer is; I am not dead to the Law for that purpose, that I might sinne: But contrarily, I am dead to the law, that I might not sinne, but might dye as well to sinne as to the Law. For I am there­fore dead unto the Law, that I might live unto God; by framing all my actions according to his grations Will, his last Will and Testament; which is the Will that hee hath surro­gated to the deceased Law of Moses, that was his former Will, but is now infringed; and which is the Rule whereby I am now to walke, that my wayes may bee acceptable and pleasing unto God. For to this very end the Old Law is dead, and I am dead to the Law, that I might become a new Creature to live a new life in the service of God. To serve him, not carnally after the old way in the Old Testament; but spiritually after the new way declared in the New Testament, Rom. 7.6. But now wee are delivered from the Law, that being dead wherein wee were held, that wee should serve in newnesse of spirit, and not in the oldnesse of the letter. A like expression to the words in hand wee have Rom. 6 11. Likewise reckon yee your selves to bee dead indeed unto sinne, but alive unto God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. And another after­ward, Rom. 6.13. Neither yield yee your members as instruments of unrighteousnesse unto sinne; but yield your selves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteous­nesse unto God.

Comment.

I Am Crucified.] The Crosse was an instrument for criminall executions, whereon malefactors were put to death; a punish­ment much practised, and well knowne among the Romans, Greekes, and Jewes. And to bee Crucified was to bee nayled hand and foot upon the Crosse, to suffer thereby a shamefull, paynfull, and lingring death. Hence by way of metaphor or re­semblance, the Faithfull when they renounce, reject, and crosse the motions, desires, and lusts of their carnall or fleshly appetite, are sayd in Scripture to crucifie, or mortifie the flesh; and there­upon they themselves are sayd to bee crucified, or mortified. For when the Flesh or carnall appetite, which is a kinde of Male­factor, is so curbed and crossed, that she cannot enjoy her former liberty and usuall motions unto sinne; then she resembles a man crucified, or nayled to the crosse, who thereby loseth, first his motion, and at last his life. The Apostle therefore would say; My death unto the Law, doth so far remove mee from living in sin, that I am dead to sin also: because I am as it were crucified. For as a man that is crucified or nailed to the crosse, doth dye a violent and paynfull death: so my old man, or that man that I was formerly, is so bruised and crossed, that it is dead; not a na­turall and easie, but a violent and paynfull death. For the deny­all of my former selfe, by crossing the motions, desires, and lusts of the flesh, is unto my sensuall appetite not onely a simple death, but a death with violence and torment: because when my appetite is crossed, she accounts her selfe vexed and tormen­ted.

With Christ.] Not really and locally, but putatively and quasive­ly; for I am mortified, in a maner as hee was crucified; and so I am for two reasons. 1. Because his Crucifying is the Paterne, resemblance, or likenesse of mine. For as Christ was crucified and dyed to his mortall life, that he might rise to a new life, and live unto God: so I am mortified and dead unto sin, that I might turne to a new life, and live unto God as a new creature. And as Christ was crucified but once, dying no more but once; for death had dominion over him no more but once: so I am mor­tified and dead to sinne once for all; and sinne shall never have dominion over mee more: because I will never againe returne [Page 257] under the bondage of it. For according to these resemblances the Apostle proposeth Christ unto every Christian, as the true pa­terne of mortification; Rom. 6.6. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sinne might be destroyed, that hence­forth we should not serve sinne: for he that is dead is freed from sinne. And againe at the next verse following but one, the other resem­blance followeth, Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead, dy­eth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he dyed, he dyed unto sinne once: but in that hee liveth, hee liveth unto God. Likewise, reckon yee also your selves, to bee dead in­deede unto sinne, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

2. Because his Crucifying is the cause; ground, or reason of mine. For as through the death of the Law, I am dead to the Law: so through the Crucifying of Christ, I am crucified with Christ. i. e. his Crucifying and dying on the Crosse is the cause, ground, and bond, why I must be mortified and dead unto sinne. For seeing Christ by his death upon the Crosse did confirme and esta­blish the last Will and Testament of God, to the Legacyes and Promises whereof I by fayth am justified, to have the same right in God with Christ or as Christ hath; namely a right of alliance and inheritance to be the son and heyre of God, as Christ is the son and heyre of God; and consequently to be the brother of Christ, and a co-heyre with him to eternall blessednes. Are not these benefits by the death of Christ a cause, ground, and bond sufficient to engage and oblige mee to crucifie or mortifie my sin? Shall I partake in the alliance and inheritance of Christ, to bee a co-ally and a co-heire with him? and shall I not partake in his obedience, to be a sufferer with him? especially in this holy suffe­ring whereby my sin onely suffers death? For seeing Christ for my sake layd downe his life; shall not I for his sake lay downe my sinne? Can I possibly doe lesse for his sake, who suffered so much for mine, then thus to conforme and plant my selfe into the likenesse of his death? And can I possibly doe more for my owne sake; when by thus conforming and planting my selfe into the likenes of his death (Rom. 6.5.) I shall be also in the likenesse of his resurrection? If Christ dyed for mee, then must I dye to sinne: because his death bindes mee to it; 2 Cor. 5.14. For if one dyed for all, then were all dead. i. e. then were all to dye, or then all ought or must dye to sin; for in this place, as in divers others, the action past is put for the duty to come. If Christ have any right in me, I must bee thus dead; Rom. 8.10. And if Christ bee in you, the body is dead because of sinne. i. e. the flesh or sensuall ap­petite is mortified or dead, that thereby ye may avoyd sinn: as [Page 258] a man is sayd to flye because of his enemyes. i. e. to avoyd his e­nemies. And lastly, if I have any right in Christ, I must be thus Crucified with Christ; Gal. 5.24. And they that are Christs have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. i. e. have vowed and are bound to crucifie the flesh, and must performe it; for heere againe the action is put for the duty.

The End for which I am crucified or mortified is to continue my Justification; to preserve and maintaine my divine state of allyance and inheritance with God. For (as formerly hath beene shewed) my Justification is continued by good workes, especially workes of love: but unto such workes my mortification must needs be antecedent, as a necessary preparative, without which I can performe no good workes at all. For unlesse I first bee dead unto sinne, how can I possibly live unto holinesse, whose actions are good workes? unlesse the old creature first dye, how can I become a new creature to bring forth the fruits of the spirit? Doe men gather Grapes of thornes, or Figs of thistles? [...]or can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit? Our Saviour Christ sayth, John 12.24. Except a corne of wheat fall into the ground and dye, it abideth alone, (or is without fruit:) but if it dye, it bringeth forth much fruit. So ex­cept a man justified become also mortified, there comes no fruit of it: but if hee bee mortified, much fruit will come of it. And the end for which I am crucified or mortified with Christ, as hee was and because hee was, is to Continue my Communi­on or fellowship with Christ. For as my Justification to be the son and heyre of God, doth make mee to communicate or par­take in the alliance and inheritance of Christ, to bee a co-ally and a co-heyre with Christ, who is eminently and supreamely the son and heyre of God; so my mortification to be dead unto sinne doth make mee to communicate or partake in the suffe­ring and glorifying of Christ; that suffering as hee did, I may be glorified as he is, Rom. 8.17. And if children, then heyres, heyres of God and joint-heyres with Christ: if so be that wee suffer with him, that wee may bee also glorified together. But because upon the eighteenth Verse of this Chapter, I shewed, that my state of Justification is mutable, and therefore requires a tenure to maintaine it; that the tenure maintayning it are good works, and that those good workes are acts of love; therefore corre­spondently unto those verities, I shall heere subjoine these two following.

1. The first worke of my love is to love my selfe. For the objects upon whom my love is exercised are God, my neighbour and my selfe: but because the acts or workes of my love toward these three objects, must not bee practised in a disorderly way, [Page 259] but in a right and due course, therefore they must commence and begin at my selfe. Yet by my selfe-love, I meane not my Lust, which is a sensuall desire of the flesh to have worldly good, as pleasure, profit, and credit; for my Lust is an inordi­nate, improbous; and malignant motion of my flesh or sensuall appetite condemned in the holy Scriptures; and therefore is that man in me that must be mortified, and that sinne that must bee put to death, or whereto I must die. But by my selfe-love I meane that effect of my faith, which is a rationall affection of my will, doing service to the spirit, and moving so contrary to my lust, that by meanes of my Love, my lust must bee mortifi­ed: for my selfe-love is my Will to doe, and also my doing of that good, which is decent, honest and holy, and for the do­ing whereof the spirit sanctifies mee, as the seeking of mine owne salvation, my neighbours edification, and Gods glory; which last is the first in my intention, though it come the last in execution.

For if I conceive it a thing possible for mee, truly to love ey­ther God or my neighbour, before I have truely loved my selfe, I greatly deceive mine owne soule. Because my Love to my selfe is the standerd, canon, or rule of that love, which I owe to my neighbour: for the law of Love commands mee to Love my neighbour as my selfe. i. e. As I love my selfe, so must I love my neighbour: if therefore I doe not really and truly love my selfe, how and whereby should I proportion, regulate or measure out any true love unto my neighbour. And because my Love to my selfe is also the standerd, canon, or rule of that love which I owe to God; for the law of Love commands me, to Love the Lord my God with all my heart, with all my soule, and with all my mind. i. e. Really and truely, to the utmost of my power; not barely as I love my selfe, but much more and in a greater measure. If therefore in my heart, soule and minde, I have no true love at all, how can I love God with all that love which is in my heart, soule and mind? or when I have no measure of love to my selfe, how can I be sayd to love God, in a greater measure then I love my selfe?

True it is, that my love to God is the first Commandement, i. e. the first for dignity; but the first for practise is love to my selfe; and therefore my love must begin at my selfe, that thence proceeding to my neighbour, it may determine in God, who is the chiefest, highest, and finall object of it; That rebounding backe againe from him, it may for his sake bee increased upon my neighbour, and for my neighbours sake upon my selfe. And my love to God is the greatest Commandement, i. e. the greatest [Page 260] for performance: but the least for performance is love to my selfe; and therefore againe my love must begin at my selfe: Be­cause I am to begin at things least and most easie; for if I can not truely love my selfe, which is the least and easiest perfor­mance, how shall I love my brother which is greater and harder, and consequently how God, which is the greatest and hardest taske of love? For seeing God is invisible, whom I see not, and my brother is visible whom I see, it must needes bee a matter of greater difficulty to love God, then to love my brother; for, 1. John 4.20. Hee that loveth not his brother whom hee hath seene, how can hee love God whom he hath not seen?

Doth it not from hence plainely appeare, that hee is but an hypocrite, who professeth to love God, and yet loveth not his brother? for too manifest it is, that many Christians who pro­fesse the love of Christ, are so farre from brotherly love, that they hate their brother for whom Christ dyed; and hate him more, then doe many Jewes who professe themselves enemies un­to Christ. And my soule bleeds to consider the bloody Warres that for many yeares have raged, and still continue in most parts of Christendome, wherein more Christian blood hath been spilt by Christians, then ever was shed by all the Heathen. Oh what a foule staine is this to the profession of Christ, that they for whose salvation Christ was crucified, should dayly practise one anothers destruction? Amongst many other causes, whereby Christians fall into these Unchristian courses, it seemes this is one, by mis­taking the course and order of love, in beginning the practice of it upon God, in whom the practice should determine. This is not the way of true zeale, but the errour of that which is blind.

2. My first selfe-love is to mortifie my sinnes. For my morti­fication is a worke of true love to my selfe. Because this worke is a killing or deading of that ferity or wildnesse, which natural­ly is bred in my flesh, i. e. in my sensuall appetite, by subduing, mastering, and taming her motions and desires, regulating and ordering them in such manner, that about carnall pleasure, they runne not into the sinnes of uncleannesse, to pollute, defile, and surfeit my soule with gluttony, drunkenesse, and whoredome; that about worldly profit, tney fall not into the sinne of Cove­tousnesse, to fill my heart with the thornes of worldly cares, and with the hookes of filthy lucre; that about worldly credit they rise not into the sinne of Pride, to swell my minde with the tu­mors and botches of humane praises and commendations. Is not this worke of mortification, a doing of my selfe great good, and therefore a worke of true love to my selfe? for if I beare not from my selfe so much love to my selfe as to fortifie, watch, [Page 261] and ward my soule, against the invasions and assaults of these sinnes; I am a traitour to mine owne soule; for is not hee is treacherous villaine, that will suffer his City to be entred by that enemy, whom hee hath power to repell? If I have any love to my life and health, I am carefull to keepe my selfe from the Pox and the Plague; are the Pox and the Plague more dangerous to my body, then are drunkenesse and whoredome both to my body and soule? Or is a soule defiled with these sinnes, lesse filthy then a Leper, or lesse ugly then a face all crusted with the Pox.

And my mortification is the first worke of my love. Because untill this worke bee done, I can doe no workes of love at all. None to my selfe; for when I am a Drunkard, a Leacher, cove­tous and proud, how can I performe such love to my selfe, as to furnish and adorne my soule with the virtues of Sobriety, Cha­stity, Liberality, and Humility? For by what meanes can these virtues enter, while their contrary vices keepe the possession of of mee? None to my Brother; for when I am covetous and greedy after worldly gaine, to get what I can out of my brother; how can I performe the duties of Justice and Equity, to give my brother his right and his due in all things that are his, either by Law or Reason? Or when my Covetousnesse makes mee so ni­gardly, that to thrive in the world by sparing and saving, I scarce allow my Family meat and drinke fitting for it according to my condition; how then can I doe the offices of Mercy and Kindnesse to my brother, in giving meat to the hungry, and drinke to the thirsty, in entertaining the stranger, cloathing the naked, and visiting the sick? Yet these are the workes of brotherly love, whereby I must bee tryed at the day of Judgement, and whereby the finall sentence must passe upon me.

Lastly, untill this worke be done, I can doe no workes of love to God; my acts of piety and devotion in prayers, prayses, and thanksgivings, for the worship and service of God, cannot passe for workes of love. For when I am a Drinker or a Leacher, can I love God, and will God accept love from a loathsome soul, that stinketh of Drunkennesse and Leachery? When I am co­vetous, can I love God, and will God accept love from an idola­trous soule? for is not covetousnesse idolatry? and can I worship two such contrary deities, as God and an idol? or can I serve two such contrary masters, as God and Mammon? When I am proud, can I love God, and will God accept love from a lofty soule, that is puffed up with vaine glory, preferring her owne prayse before Gods glory? But some man may say, that God loved us then when we were sinners, and so loved us that he gave his Sonne to die for us. To him I answer, that indeed [Page 262] God did so: yet he loved us, not to this end that we should con­tinue in sin; but to this, that wee should not continue in it, but mortifie and put it to death, that being purged and cleansed from it, we might thereby be prepared and fitted to love him a­gaine with love beseeming his acceptance.

Hence againe there appeares another hypocrisie, when I am carefull to mortifie the sin of my brother, before I have killed mine owne. And the exercise of this hypocrisie in mistaking the due order and practise of mortification hath beene one cause of the greatest troubles in the Church of Christ. For as my practise of love must not begin at God but end in him, so my practise of mortification must not begin upon my brother, but must commence at my selfe and determine in him. That having first cast out the beame out of mine owne eye, I may see cleerely to cast out the mote out of my brothers eye: that having first beaten down the beames of pride and covetousnesse which are inward ma­lignities in my selfe, and the rootes of all evill unto others, I may mortifie the moates of swearing and drunkennesse which are the outward infirmities of my brother. For if mine owne beame move me to mortifie my brothers moate, I quicken a greater sinne in my selfe, to kill a lesse in him. Very fitting it is for the advance of Gods glory, that my brothers idolatry should be mortified: but when my covetousnesse moves me to mortifie it, that I may devoure his estate, I kill an idolatry in him to quicken a greater in my selfe. For of all idolatry co­vetousnesse is the greatest: because it is an idolatry altogether prophane, without any colour or shew of piety. Hence sayth the Apostle, Rom. 2.22. Thou that abhorrest idols, doest thou commit sacrilege? i. e. Art thou so covetous, as to rob God? For all sacri­ledge is a worke of covetousnesse, and all robbing of God is a foul impiety.

An objecti∣on, Neverthelesse I live.] [...], i. e. but I live. Heerein he prevents a tacit objection which some man might seeme to make against him thus: You say, you are dead to the Law, and yet alive to God: and yet againe that you are crucified with Christ; how can these contrarieties stand together, that you should bee thus both dead and alive? the Answer, The answer. Although I am dead to the Law, not living by her rule; and am dead to sin, not serving sin, nor suffering sin to rule over me, but have crucified or mor­tified it. Neverthelesse I live unto God according to his rule unto his service: for I am mortified and dead, onely in respect of my lusts which are unruly and sinfull motions of my flesh or sensuall appetite; but in respect of my love and other holy mo­tions proceeding from my spirit or rationall Will, I am vivi­fied [Page 263] and quickned: Wherefore I am dead and aliue in respect of different faculties of my soule: because the death of one fa­culty is the life of the other; for the death of my flesh is the life of my spirit.

This kinde of death and life not only may, but needs must con­sist, comply, and stand together in me; for in effect and sub­stance this death and life are but one and the same thing, which under contrary names make up in mee that one and the same thing, which is sanctity or holinesse. For as in a journey, there seem two contrarieties, namely a departing from one place, and a travelling to another: yet really and in effect, both these are but one and the same journey; differing onely in tearmes of re­cesse from one place, and accesse to another, yet the motion in­terceding betweene those distant places is one and the same. Or as in curing the body of some disease, there seeme two contrary actions, namely an expelling of the disease, and an inducing of health: yet really, and in effect both these make but one and the same cure. So in my Repentance, regeneration, renovation, san­ctification, or by what names soever the Scriptures call the cure of my soule, there seem two contrarietyes, namely my forsaking of sin, or dying to it, and my approching to holinesse or living to God: yet really and in effect, both these are but one and the same conversation or walking.

Hence it appeares that mortification and vivification are really but one and the same motion, making up in me that one and the same morall alteration, which is my sanctification, yet there is between them a rationall difference in 3 respects. 1. Of their order; for in order of nature or reason, though not of time or continuance, mortification is first; for that beginneth, that con­sequently vivification may follow. 2. Of their object, for the matter mortified is sin; but that vivified is holines. 3. Of the subject; for the faculty mortified is the flesh, but that vivified is the spirit. Yet the faculty of my flesh is not mortified for the es­sence of it: but for some qualityes of it; for the faculty of the flesh doth also live in mee as much as that of the spirit: for al­though unto some motions my flesh bee deaded, yet unto some others it still liveth, and conduceth to usefull and lawfull effects in mee. For as in the killing of quick-silver, the silver remaines after the killing it, and serves for severall uses: but that malig­nity, ferity, or quicknes of the silver, which in the use thereof would prove noxious and hurtfull, is extinguished, and deaded. So in the Mortifying of my flesh, the faculty remaines after the mortifying and lives in me to divers good purposes: but that fiercenes, rashnes and quicknes of my appetite, the lusts and [Page 264] frauds of it whereby it would usurpe over my Spirit to reigne and rule in me, these qualities and motions of my appetite are mor­tified and extinguished; that thereby she may become obedient and serviceable unto my spirit for the better speeding of many ho­ly duties. And so when a horse is made to amble, his motion lives in him still: but the trot of his motion is deaded, and a pace is put upon it, that moves with more ease to the rider.

Yet not I.] [...]. i. e. no more I, or no longer I the same man that I was before I was justified, when sin lived in me. For elswhere the very same words are translated No more I; as Rom. 7.17. Now then [...]. i. e. it is no more I that doe it, but sin that dwelleth in me. And Rom. 7.20. Now if I doe that I would not, [...]. i. e. it is no more I that doe it, but sin that dwelleth in mee. And in this very place our former English translation, which was in use before that of King James, hath it thus. not I any more. q. d. Though after my crucifying or mortifying I live: yet I am not any more the man that I was before; neither doe I live any lon­ger the life I did, when living a naturall and carnall life, sinne lived in mee and over-ruled mee. For the man that I was is now mortified and dead unto sinne; it is crucified as Christ was cru­cified, and because hee was crucified. But now there is a great alteration in my morall life or conversation; for my old man which was naturall and carnall being dead, I am now become a new man and a new creature, to live a life which is spirituall and christian. For in vaine I professe my selfe a Christian, unlesse I become a new creature, 2. Cor. 5.17. Therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new creature. For neither Ceremony nor not-Cere­mony, nor any thing else availeth in Christ, but onely this to be­come a new creature; Gal. 6.15. For in Christ Jesus neither cir­cumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new crea­ture.

But Christ liveth in mee.] Not by his Person; for so hee lives in Heaven sitting at the right hand of God. But hee lives in mee by his spirit; for his spirit infused into mee, inspireth my spirit, inlightning my minde, animating my will, and govern­ing my actions to a life of holynesse, whereto my single spirit in her naked state of nature could never of her selfe elevate and raise mee. For unto my spirit the spirit of Christ is a Light, a Strength, and a Guide, by whom I am lead, and after whom I walke in the wayes of holynesse. And Christ lives in mee by his life; for as his death was the cause and paterne of my death, whereby I am mortified with him: So his life is the cause and paterne of my life, whereby I am vivified with him. For the ho­lynesse [Page 265] of his life hath such an influence upon mine, that accor­ding to the measure of grace and of my ability in my mortall condition, I labour to bee holy as hee was holy; that I may imi­tate and resemble his holynesse, though I can not equall it. However, hee is the Rule whereby I live; for I live not after mine owne will, but after his; and hee is the End for which I live; for I live not unto my selfe to seeke my selfe, but unto him, to seeke him who dyed for mee; and I therefore live thus, because he dyed for mee. For a like phrase to this, is that, 2. Cor. 5.15. And that hee dyed for all, that they which live, should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which dyed for them, and rose againe.

And the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith. ] [...], i. e. But in that I now live in the flesh. For so it is rendred in the Vulgar Latine, in the Vulgar Italian, in the Vul­gar French, and in our former English Translation in use before that of King JAMES, which leaveth the Greeke, and follow­eth the Latine of Beza. Yet in the Translation of King JAMES, the Particle [...], in other places of the New Testament is rendred in that; as Rom. 6.10. [...]. i. e. for in that hee dyed. I live by the faith, [...], i. e. I live in the faith; for so the Vul­gar Latine, Italian, and French render it. The Greeke Particle, [...], though many times it signifie by or through: Yet heere it doth not so; for the Apostles meaning is not to shew the meanes whereby hee lived, but the manner wherein hee lived. And the word faith by way of metonymy or transnomination is heere put for Religion, which is the proper and due effect of faith; for so faith is taken in divers places, as Gal. 1.23. Now preacheth the faith which once hee destroyed, i. e. the Religion which once hee de­stroyed. And 1. Tim. 4.1. In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, i. e. from the Religion. And 1. Tim. 5.8. If any man provide not for his owne, especially for those of his owne house, hee hath denyed the faith, i. e. the Religion of Christ.

To live in the flesh, is to performe the naturall and civill acts of a mortall man, who is compassed with flesh and blood; as to eate, drinke, and sleepe, to labour, traffick, or otherwise follow the workes of my worldly calling. But to live after the flesh, is another and a contrary thing, not allowable to any Christian, not compatible with mortification, nor consistent with salvation. For living after the flesh is a continuance in those sinnes, which will for certaine exclude the sinner from his divine inheritance in the Kingdome of God; as will appeare afterwards in this Epistle, cap. 5. vers. 19. &c. To live in the faith, or Religion of Christ, is to performe those workes of Love, which belong to a Believer professing the faith of Christ; as workes of love to himselfe, [Page 266] by Patience, Temperance, Chastity, and Humility; Love to his brother, by Equity, Mercy, Meekenesse, and Kindnesse; Love to God, by Piety and Devotion in his Worship and Service. Or to live in the faith, as the Apostle expresseth it in other words, Ephes. 4.1. Is to walke worthy of the vocation, wherewith wee are called with all lowlinesse and meeknesse, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love. And againe, Coloss. 1.10. It is to walke worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitfull in every good worke, &c. In a word, it is to live a religious and holy life, according to the profession and obligation of my faith; for if my faith have not this effect up­on mee, to make mee live thus, my faith is dead. I were as good have no faith, as have the Divels faith which justifies not: And I were as good againe have no faith, as to have such a bare sem­blance or shadow of a justifying faith, which sanctifies me not. For my Justification is before my Sanctification, not onely in nature and time, but also is or ought to bee the cause of it, and will bee frustrate unlesse it have that effect.

An Objecti∣on. The words then of this clause are another prevention of a ta­cit objection, that might bee made against his former words im­mediately preceding. For some man might thereupon say, Seeing you, and all other Christians are mortall men cloathed with flesh; yee must needes therefore live after the manner of other men, by performing those actions which belong to flesh and blood; as actions naturall, in eating, drinking, and sleeping, and actions civill in discoursing, buying, selling, and negotiating in the works of your calling. All which actions, and the like seeme nothing pertinent unto Christ, and to life spirituall, but carnall. the Answer. To this Objection his Answer seemes to bee thus; as for my former sin­full actions, they are wholly crucified, and mortified; for I have utterly renounced them, and live not in them at all. And as for my naturall and civill actions, they are altered and changed; for they are not now wholly the same that they were before, but are all done in faith; for they are as it were animated and quallified with my faith, which governeth and ordereth them after a reli­gious way.

For while I performe those naturall and civill actions which belong to flesh and bloud as necessary to the course of this mor­tall life, I have alwayes a respect to the Faith and Religion of Christ which I professe; thereby moderating, ordering, and ru­ling all my actions, that I may walke worthy of the vocation whereto I am called; carrying all things in a due conformity thereto, and avoyding all, tnat eyther may bring a scandall up­on it, or bee any way unworthy thereof. For even my naturall and civill actions are now all referred unto God, and being done [Page 267] in thankefulnesse to him for his grace, they serve to declare and advance his glory. Whether I eate or eat not; to the Lord I eate or eate not, and give God thankes, Rom. 4.6. Hee that eat­eth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thankes: and hee that eateth not, to the Lord hee eateth not, and giveth God thankes. This clause therefore of Living in the flesh, and yet living in the Faith, seemeth to be the same with that, 2. Cor. 10.3. Though we walk in the flesh, we doe not warre after the flesh.

Hence it appeeres, that Our naturall and civill actions, as far as they are capable of morality, doe belong unto fayth. For even upon such actions faith may have such an influence, that they may be done in faith; and that action which in one man is meerely naturall, may in another be both naturall and religi­ous, being cloathed with some circumstance which may make it a service acceptable unto God. Although my Faith and Reli­gion oblige me not to undertake every kinde of action; yet faith must moderate the maner of every action which I undertake, that it be suitable to the will of God; and faith must direct the end of every action, that it tend to the glory of God. Hence the Scripture is copious in her Exhortations, that all things be done in a due maner; nothing uncharitably, Rom. 14.15. If thy bro­ther be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Nothing offensively; 1. Cor. 10.32. Give no offence, neither to the Jewes, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God. Nothing contentiously, Phil. 2.3. Let nothing be done through strife or vaine glory &c. And that all things bee done to the right end; All unto the Lord, Rom. 14.8. Whether wee live, wee live unto the Lord, or whether wee die, we die unto the Lord. All unto his glory, 1. Cor. 10.31. Whe­ther yee eate or drinke, or whatsoever ye doe, doe all to the glory of God. All in thankfulnesse to him, Col. 3.17. Whatsoever ye doe in word or in deed, doe all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thankes to God and the father through him. When I live thus, ordering my humane actions in this maner and to this end, then I may truly say of my selfe, In that I now live in the flesh, I live in the faith of the son of God; as it followeth in the next words.

Of the Son of God.] [...]. i. e. I live in the faith or religion, in that (faith or religion) of the son of God. The particle that being placed after faith, doth emphatically de­termine and specifie the Author of that faith and religion where­in he lived, namely in that of the Son of God. And there is another emphasis in the article affecting the son [...], i. e. in that faith or religion of that Son of God, that hee might lay out a singular designation of Christ, in distinguishing him from other sons of God. For he hath reference unto that person whom in this verse [Page 268] hee had before mentioned by the name of Christ, in saying I am crucified with Christ; and Christ liveth in me. Heere therefore hee againe mentions the same person by another name in saying, I live in the faith, (or religion) in that of that Son of God who loved mee and gave himselfe for me. i.e. of Christ; for these words are an eloquent and affectionat circumlocution or description of Christ. Wherein are expressed two excellencyes or eminent qualityes of Christ, the one of his Birth in relation to God, that he was the Son of God; the other of his death in relation to man, whom he so loved that he dyed for his sake. Every Angel, every Prophet, and every Believer is A son of God: but Christ is The or That son of God, in a most eminent and singular maner, above all other persons that are sons of God, whether they be men or Angels. Because (to o­mit all other reasons not serving to the Apostles scope in this place) hee was begotten on a Virgin, not by the power of any man or Angel, but by the power of the Highest: for (as the An­gel Gabriel certifies the Virgin Mary his mother, Luke 1.35.) hee was therefore called the Son of God. And heere the Apostle un­derstands no other filiation of Christ, then that whereby he was a mortall man: because hee argues from his death in saying, who loved mee, and gave himselfe (to death) for mee.

Hee describeth Christ by this attribute of the Son of God; that thereby he might expresse another cause that moved him to for­sake the Law and Religion of Moses, to embrace the faith and Religion of Christ, and thereby to regulate all the actions of his life; namely because Christ is the Son of God. Which first ar­gues for his person, that Christ is a person of farre greater digni­ty then Moses. For although Moses were a great Prophet, yet his ordinary stile in reference to God runnes but thus, that hee was the servant of God, and the man of God: But the constant title and stile of Christ, is to bee the Son of God. For from this very difference of condition, the Apostle argues the high prero­gative of Christ above that of Moses, Heb. 3.5. And Moses verily was faithfull in all his house as a servant, &c. but Christ as a sonne over his owne house. And secondly, heereby hee highly commends the Religion introduced by Christ, beyond that which was set­led by Moses, as a Religion and service more agreeable to the will and pleasure of God. For the Authour to the Hebrewes doth in this respect exalt the Religion of Christ, in that God hath delivered the message thereof by his Sonne, Heb. 1.1.2. God who spake in time past unto the Fathers by the Prophets, hath in these last dayes spoken unto us by his son.

Hence it will easily bee collected, that the Religion of Moses being but the servant of God, was but a servile Religion; for [Page 269] the services thereof were very servile, Heb. 9.10. which stood onely in meates and drinkes, and divers washings and carnall ordinances imposed on them, untill the time of Reformation. Hence that whole Re­ligion is called, Rom. 8.15. The spirit of bondage to feare; because it wrought in the people a passion of slavish feare, such as they commonly have who live under bondage or servitude. Hence al­so the services thereof are called (Gal. 4.3.) the Elements (or Ru­diments of the World; under which as under Tutors and Governours, the Jewes though they were the adopted Children and Heyres of God, were held in bondage, in a condition nothing different from servants. But the Religion of Christ, who is that sonne of God is a filial, liberall, and noble Religion, whose services are fitted for the sonnes of God, according to the state and degree of sonnes in their plenage, who are come to their perfect growth and full­nesse of time. For so it followeth in the place fore-cited: But when the fulnesse of time was come, God sent forth his sonne to redeeme them, that were under the Law, in the condition of children and ser­vants, that they might receive the adoption of sonnes, i. e. That they might receive their emancipation from the state of children, to have their liberature according to the state and degree of sonnes in their plenage, or full age. The highest dignity which the Scripture ascribes to the Law or Religion of Moses, is taken from the Publication of it, in that it was ordayned and spoken by An­gels: and yet even in this respect she preferres the Religion of Christ before it: because this was ordayned and spoken by that son of God, who is the Lord, not only of men, but also of the An­gels, Heb. 2.2. For if the word spoken by Angels was stedfast, and eve­ry transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward: How shall wee escape, if wee neglect so great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord?

Who loved me and gave himselfe for me.] Heere hee addeth the other attribute or eminent quality of Christ, expressing thereby another motive that caused him to forsake the Religion of Mo­ses, and to embrace that of Christ; namely, because Christ had thereto endeared him by dying for him; who (sayth he) loved me, and gave himselfe (to death) for me. Whereby he would insinuate that Christ was far more excellent then Moses, not only for the dignity of his person, in being the Son of God; but also for the dearenesse of his affection in dying for Beleevers; for neyther of those are true of Moses. [...]. i. e. And delivered himselfe for me. Yet heere and elsewhere, it is well enough translated gave himselfe: because the words give and deliver, when they are used in this sense, are many times inter­changed, and one put for the other. But in the word Deliver, [Page 270] standing thus single and applied to a person, there is commonly an ellipsis or defect, which is to be supplyed according to the exigency of the matter in hand, and which for the most part is some evill, especially Death, from which or whereto the person is sayd to be delivered; as Mat. 27.43. He trusted in God, let him deliver him now. i. e. Let him deliver him now from death. And 2. Pet. 2.7. and delivered just Lot, i. e. from death, at the destructi­on of Sodome. But in divers other places the deliverance is not from evill, but unto evill; and the evill whereunto Christ was delivered, was death. So Rom. 4.25. who was delivered for our offen­ces, i. e. delivered unto death. And Rom. 8.32. He that spared not his owne sonne, but delivered him up for us all. i. e. delivered him up to death. So heer; and delivered himselfe for me, i. e. delivered or gave himselfe unto death for me.

The Person who delivered Christ unto death, was Christ himselfe; for he delivered himselfe and gave himselfe to die, Eph. 5.2. And walke in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himselfe for us: where in the Originall, it is, hath delivered himselfe for us. And againe in the same Chapter, ver. 25. Hus­bands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himselfe for it: where againe the Originall hath it, and delivered himselfe for it. Yet besides Christ there were other persons who were concurrent in this delivery of Christ to death. For God the Father by his Decree, and by the consent of Christ, did de­liver him to death, Act. 2.23. Him being delivered by the determi­nate counsell and foreknowledge of God, yee have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slaine. And Judas who betrayed him de­livered him; for all treachery is a delivery of the person who is betrayed; and Judas to extenuate the foulnesse of his treachery, calles it by the moderat and generall name of delivery, Mat. 26.15. Then one of the twelve called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chiefe Priests and sayd unto them; what will yee give mee, and I will deliver him unto you? and they covenanted with him for 30 peeces of silver; and from that time he sought opportunity to betray him: where in the Greeke the same word stands for delivering and betraying; for all unlawfull and sinfull delivering is betraying. Likewise the Ru­lers of the Jewes, as the chiefe Priests, the Scribes and Elders delivered him, Luk. 20.20. And they watched him and sent foorth spies, which should faine themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the Governour. And lastly Pilate the Governour delivered him, Mat. 27.26. And when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to bee crucified.

Yet this one and the same action wherein so many persons [Page 271] concurred, was in God and Christ an holy Act; but in the rest a wicked crime. Because actions are moralised to bee good or evill from their causes and circumstances, which being altered, doe alter the good or evill of the action. God who was the fa­ther of Christ, had power to deliver his son unto death; and did actually deliver him for this end; viz. to glorifie him; that raysing him after death to an immortall life, hee might be­come the perpetuall Priest and King of his Church; and con­sequently the authour of eternall salvation to all that obey him. And this act of God was good, because hee had power to doe it, and did it to a good and blessed end. And Christ who was the sonne of God, had power to deliver himselfe to death, and in obedience to his father actually did it to the same end; namely, to be glorified, Heb. 12.2. Looking unto Jesus the au­thour and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him, endured the Crosse, despising the shame, and is set downe at the right hand of the throne of God. And this act of Christ was good: because hee had power to doe it; for though no man had authority to take his life from him, yet hee had authority from his father to lay it downe, John 10.18. No man taketh it from mee, but I lay it downe of my selfe; I have power to lay it downe, and I have power to take it againe; this commandement have I received of my father. And because Christ did this act for a good end, that thereby he might compasse his owne glory and mans salvation. But in Judas and the Jewes, this very act of delivering Christ unto death, was a foule wickednesse; because they had no lawfull authority to doe it; and because they did it to an evill end, namely to de­stroy him; and because they did it, not as Gods will, but as Satans will and their owne; for John 13.2. The Divel put it into the heart of Judas. Thus one and the same action done by divers agents, upon divers motives, and for divers ends, may be diversly moralised, to become in one respect good and holy, but in ano­ther foule and wicked.

For me.] Christ delivered himselfe unto death, and died; yet not for himselfe only, and only for his owne sake, but also for me, and for my sake. Which is not to be so understood, as if Christ had died in my stead, or in my roome, by suffering that death which I for my sin am to suffer. For although Christ suffered a death, in a manner somewhat like to that death which I deserve to suffer, and suffered it for that end, to free me from that death which I deserve to suffer; and from which I should not have beene freed, unlesse he had suffered death. Yet first, He suffered not that very death which I deserve to suffer; for the death which I deserve to suffer is eternall death: which kinde [Page 272] of death Christ suffered not; for his death lasted but three dayes; neyther could he suffer it, because God had decreed and promised the contrary. And if he had suffered it, then could I have never beene freed from it: and yet my freedome from it was the maine end for which hee suffered. For if Christ had continued in death, and had not beene raysed from it, my faith to be raysed from it, is vaine; and whensoever I die, I shall ut­terly perish, 1. Cor. 15.17. And if Christ be not raysed, your faith is vaine, ye are yet in your sinnes: then they also which are fallen asleepe in Christ, are perished. And secondly, The death which Christ suffe­red, was not in stead or liew of mine: For the temporall death which Christ suffered, doth not free mee from temporall death, be­cause I shall suffer that kinde of death, and shall lie under it till the Resurrection; not as a punishment of my sin (for unto the Remission of my sinnes I am already justified, and my death is not a punishment for them) but as a Calamity of my birth, as being the son of Adam, in whose attainder I was tainted, and for whose sinne I must die. But by the temporall death of Christ, my temporall death shall determine, which other­wise would become eternall; for his Rising from his death will rayse me from mine, 1. Cor. 15.22. For as in Adam all die, e­ven so in Christ shall all be made alive.

But of these words for me, the meaning is, that Christ deli­vered himselfe to death, and actually died for my sake, for my good and for my great benefit; which benefit is no lesse unto me, then first my Right, and afterward my Possession of eternall Blessednesse. For by or through his death I collect from Scrip­ture these five benefits. 1. Hee Certified mee of blessednesse. That the Will and Testament which he published to the World con­cerning the future blessednesse of heaven, was the true, whole and last Will and Testament of God; seeing hee testified this truth and made faith thereof by his death; for because hee wit­nessed it with his bloud; therefore his bloud is sayd to beare witnesse on earth, 1 John 5.8. And there are three that beare wit­nesse on earth, the spirit and the water and the bloud. 2. He justified me to blessednes. For the Will and Testament of God, wherein the Legacies or Promises of blessednes are devised unto me, was con­firmed and established by the bloud and death of Christ; who dyed instead of the Testator, that the Testament might bee in force; and that being in force, I am upon my actuall faith actu­ally justified to my Legacies therein; for hence wee are sayd to bee justified by the bloud of Christ, Rom. 5.9. Being now justified by his bloud, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

3. He sanctified me for blessednesse.] For those acts of holinesse [Page 273] which consist in dying to sin, and in newnesse of life; and which are the conditions and Precepts of Gods Will and Testament whereto the possession of blessednes is limited, and without which I shall never possesse it, were figured and shaddowed out unto mee by the death and resurrection of Christ. For hee that had no sin himselfe, how could hee otherwise represent unto me this duty of my death unto sin and newnes of life? And that Christ dyed to doe this good upon mee, is expresly taught in ma­ny places of the Scripture; as Gal. 1.4. Who gave himselfe for our sins that he might deliver us from this present evill world. And Ephes. 5.25. Husbands love your Wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himselfe for it, that he might sanctifie and cleanse it, &c. And Tit. 2.14. who gave himselfe for us, that he might redeeme us from all iniquity, and purifie unto himselfe, a peculiar people, zealous of good workes. And Heb. 9.14. How much more shall the bloud of Christ, who through the eternall spirit offered himselfe without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works, to serve the living God. And 1 Pet. 1.18. Ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vaine conversation received by tradition from your fa­thers, but with the precious bloud of Christ. And 1 Pet. 2.24. Who his owne selfe bare our sins in his owne body on the tree; that we being dead to sin, should live unto righteousnesse.

4. He exemplified unto me the way to blessednesse. The way lea­ding unto blessednesse, is a hard, rough, and narrow lane, beset with many troubles, dangers, and certaine death, through all which hee commands mee to passe. A way that unto flesh and bloud is exceeding fearfull and full of horrour; for it seemes to lead mee unto utter destruction: yet is indeed the right, true, and onely way to eternall blessednes. Now seeing Christ by his death passing this way, came thereby to his crowne of glory; doth not hee by his example in taking the assay of death, and in tasting it for mee, encourage me to suffer death, and assure unto mee the likenesse of his glory? for may I not playnely see this in the death of my Saviour Jesus Christ? Heb. 2.9. But we see Jesus who was made a little lower then the Angells for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour; that hee by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

5. Hee will glorifie mee with the crowne of blessednesse. The Lega­cies or promises of my future blessednes are to be performed unto me by Christ: because he is the sole Executor of that Will and Testament wherein they are devised unto mee; and therefore also he is the Captaine of my salvation. Unto which Office hee was enabled and perfected through the sufferings of death; that after his death he might possesse his owne glory, and might also [Page 274] bring me to glory after mine: because this was a way beseeming and becomming the good pleasure of God, whereby to bring all his sons unto glory; Heb. 2.10. For it became him for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captaine of their salvation perfect through sufferings. Christ himselfe having been once dead, and gained by his death the po­wer over death, doth the more commiserate my death, and will be the readier, first to succour me at it, and hereafter to rayse me from it; Heb. 2.18. for in that he himselfe hath suffered being temp­ted, be is able to succour them that are tempted. In a word, hee there­fore dyed and revived, that hee might bee my gratious Lord, in what state soever I am, whether dead or alive; Rom. 14.9. For to this end, Christ both dyed and rose and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and the living.

Yet I am further to conceive, that these words (Christ gave him­selfe or dyed for mee) must bee understood of him by way of emi­nency or excellency in a speciall and singular manner: For al­though some other persons may dye for mee, yet they cannot bee sayd to doe it in that maner, or in that sense that hee did it. Be­cause Christ was the first person who dyed for mee in this kinde, and by the meanes of whose death principally and chiefely accor­ding to the grace and mercy of God, my salvation is established. And because Christ was the onely person who dyed for mee to these speciall ends of Justifying, Sanctifying, and Glorifying of mee, as hee was my sole and onely Mediatour, without the con­junction of any other person heerein. And because this deede of Christ in dying for mee is sometime in Scripture attributed unto Christ, as a speciall property peculiar to him; for hence it is sayd, Rom. 14.15. Destroy not him with thy meate, for whom Christ dyed, viz. in an eminent and excellent manner. And 1. Cor. 1.13. Was Paul crucified for you? i. e. Neither Paul, nor any other person was crucified for you principally and especially.

Otherwise besides Christ, some other person may also dye for mee, and may bee truely sayd to dye for the good of my salvation. For touching himselfe Paul saith, 2. Cor. 1.6. That hee was afflict­ed for the consolation and salvation of the Corinthians. And 2. Cor. 12.15. That hee would very gladly spend, and bee spent for their soules; for so the Margin declares the Originall. And Ephes. 3.1. That hee was the Prisoner of Jesus Christ for the Gentiles; and if conse­quently to his imprisonment hee had suffered death, then it must needes follow that hee had dyed for the Gentiles. And 2. Tim. 2.10. That hee endured all things for the Elects sake, that they may al­so obtaine the salvation which is in Christ Jesus, with eternall glory. And this was not the singular charity of Paul alone: But it is also [Page 275] the duty of every Believer to lay downe his life for his brethren, especially when the matter concernes their salvation; for heere­of the death of Christ is both the reason and the example, 1. John. 3.16. Heereby perceive wee the love of God, because hee layd downe his life for us; and wee ought to lay downe our lives for the bre­thren. Likewise of every true Martyr, by whose constancy I finde my selfe confirmed in the truth, it may bee truely sayd, that hee dyed for the good of my salvation. Yet notwithstanding all o­ther persons besides Christ, are in this kinde, onely subservient unto Christ; and the benefit which I have by their death, doth onely second my blessing by his.

Who loved mee.] The Motive that induced Christ to give him­selfe for mee; was his Love to mee. For as the fruit of his death was my good: So the roote of it was his love; for be­cause hee loved mee; therefore hee dyed for mee. Certainely a reall love, not in word, or in tongue, but in deede and in truth, testi­fied and certified by his death; for by the outward passion of his death, hee declared the inward affection of his love. And cer­tainely a liberall love; for seeing love delights to give, what could hee give mee more then to give himselfe for mee? For the great­nesse of his love unto mee is heere signified by two circumstances that inclose and stand about his Love. One before it, by the greatnesse of his person, in that hee was the sonne of God; for what greater person was there in the world, who was mortall and able to dye for mee? The other after it, by the greatnesse of his passion in that hee gave himselfe to death for mee; for what could hee possibly doe more for my sake, then to lay downe his life for mee? Seeing beyond this, there can bee no greater love; and hence hee himselfe commends the greatnesse of love, John 15.13. Greater love hath no man then this, that a man lay downe his life for his friends. His love therefore was the Cause of his death; and his death was the Effect of his love. For hence in severall passages of Scripture, his Love and his Death go hand in hand, as the Cause with the effect; As Ephes. 5.2. Walke in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and given himselfe for us. And Ephes. 5.25. Husbands love your Wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himselfe for it. And 1. John 3.16. Heereby perceive wee the love of God, be­cause hee layd downe his life for us.

Yet the love of Christ unto mee, was not the sole and onely cause of his death for mee; so as to exclude the love of the Fa­ther from being concurrent with the love of Christ. For God the Father also loved mee, and loved mee so eminently and so prin­cipally, that his love was the cause why Christ loved mee; and therefore consequently Gods love unto mee must needes bee the [Page 276] cause why Christ dyed for mee, and must needes bee also the su­preame cause, that hath no higher cause above it. For Christ therefore dyed for mee, because hee loved mee, and hee there­fore loved mee, because God loved mee: But why God loved mee, I know no cause, beside his love. Yet that Gods love to mee is the cause why Christ dyed for mee, is manifest from se­verall passages of Scripture; as John 3.16. For God so loved the World, that hee gave his onely begotten Sonne, i. e. Gave him to dye; for his love to the World was the cause, why hee exposed his sonne to death. And Rom. 3.25. God hath set forth Christ, to bee a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousnesse, i. e. His kindnes, which is the effect of his love. And Rom. 5.8. But God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ dyed for us. And 1. John 4.10. Heerein is love, not that wee loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

And the greatnesse of Gods love heerein, is manifest also by two circumstances. One of the Person dying; a person of that Majesty, and of so neare alliance unto God, that hee was the sonne of God, and his onely begotten sonne. Which must needs argue in God an excesse and high degree of love. For hee that is so free, as to give up his owne sonne for mee, doth thereby fur­ther give mee to understand, that hee would willingly give mee all that ever hee hath. And beyond this, can there bee any grea­ter love, or can any love bee more free? Yet such was Gods love to mee in the death of Christ, Rom. 8.32. Hee that spared not his owne sonne, but delivered him up for us all; how shall hee not with him also freely give us all things? The other Circumstance is of the per­sons for whom Christ dyed; for they were sinners and ungodly wretches; persons deserving death themselves, and altogether unworthy that any one should dye for them, and therefore much lesse the sonne of God. Peradventure for good and godly men, some man would dye; but would any man dye for sinners and ungodly wretches? But Christ dyed for us while wee were yet sinners and ungodly; and therein God commended the great­nesse of his love to us, Rom. 5.7. Peradventure for a good man, some would even dare to dye; but God commendeth his love towards us, in that while wee were yet sinners, Christ dyed for us. Hence there will follow these three verities.

1. Gods wrath was not the cause of Christs death.] For wee cannot finde any such Doctrine delivered in the Scriptures: But from se­verall expresse Scriptures wee have clearely shewed, that the cause of Christs death was Gods love unto us; and that love was not ordinary and vulgar, but singularly and intirely the grea­test, that ever was in the world. Wee were indeede the children [Page 277] of wrath, i. e. lyable to Gods wrath, and worthy of it: Yet it doth not▪ thence follow that God was then actually wrath with us; for God who is rich in grace and mercy may (in a divers re­spect) actually love them, who actually deserve his wrath. And when Christ dyed for us, wee were then dead in sinnes, i. e. guilty of death by reason of our sinnes: Yet it thence followeth not, that our sinnes were punished in the death of Christ; for God may actually pardon their life, who actually are guilty of death. This God may doe de jure, and hath already done it de facto; and hee hath done it for this end, that thereby hee might shew the exceeding riches of his love and grace, in his mercy and kindnesse towards us through Christ; Ephes. 2.3. Wee all had our conversa­tion in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the minde, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as o­thers; but God who is rich in mercy for his great love wherewith hee loved us, even when wee were dead in sinnes, hath quickned us together with Christ (by grace yee are saved) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus; that in the Ages to come, hee might shew the exceeding riches of his grace, in his kindnesse towards us through Christ Jesus. Certainely such love as heere is mentioned, so exceeding rich in grace, mercy, and kindnesse, must needes bee free from wrath and anger; unlesse wee are content to say, that at one and the same time in respect of the same acti­on, and of the same persons, God was exceeding loving, and yet exceeding angry; which at last will come to this, that at the same time the same God loved and loved not.

2. God was not angry with Christ when he dyed. ] For would God bee angry with his onely begotten Son, of whom hee gave this publick testimony from Heaven? Mat. 3.17. This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased. With his Son who was so obedient, that hee tooke upon him the forme of a servant, and God calls him his chosen servant, in whom his soule was well pleased; Mat. 12.18. Behold my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved in whom my soule is well pleased. With his Son who was so Innocent, that in all his life hee knew no sin, and therefore could bee no subject of Gods anger. And could God bee angry with his Sonne then, when hee was about Gods owne worke? a worke to God so pleasing, that God therefore loved him, because he undertook it; John 10.17. Therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down my life, that I might take it againe. A worke to God so agreeable, that (Ephes. 5.2.) it was an Offering and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet smelling savour. A worke to God so acceptable, that for his under­going of it, God hath highly exalted him, and caused every knee to bow unto him; Phil. 2.8. Hee humbled himselfe and became obe­dient [Page 278] unto death even the death of the Crosse: wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow. &c.

3. God was not angry with us when Christ dyed for us.] For could God bee angry with us then, when wee were the objects of his ad­mirable and infinite love; when hee did a worke for our sakes, whereby hee especially intended to free us wholly from his an­ger? a work wherein he playnly declared the exceeding riches of his grace, and the abundance of his mercy and kindnesse towards us? a worke wherein hee spared not his own most dearly beloved Son, but delivered him up for us all, and thereby manifested that hee would freely give us all things? a worke whereby hee con­veyed unto us, a right, interest, and clayme to the eternall pos­session of Heavenly blessednes? Or if God were then angry with us, when to settle upon us eternall life, hee exposed his owne Son to a bitter death; what sufficient argument can wee draw from his death, whereby to assure our soules, that God remaines not angry with us still, even unto this very day.

True it is, that God was angry with the Jewes who put Christ to death; for his bloud was upon them and upon their children; and afterward God punished their wickednes with a sin all deso­lation. Yet if wee consider that anger of God according to the right course of causality, we shall easily perceive, that Gods anger against the Jewes was not the cause of Christs death: but con­trarily, Christs death was the cause of Gods anger against the Jewes. For God whose anger caused not the worke, was justly angry with the workemen who did it: because they on their part made it a wicked worke; for they did it not as Gods worke, not as his Will, not for his sake, not for his end, nor by his authori­ty. Gods anger therefore against the Jewes for the death of Christ, maketh nothing against the verities by mee premised, that his anger was not the cause why Christ dyed. For the like may bee sayd of every Martyr; whose death is a just cause of Gods anger against his Persecutors, though Gods anger bee no cause at all of his death.

But some man may say, that the truth of these words [who loved me and gave himselfe for me,] being spoken by Paul of himselfe, and in his person of every Christian, might be certainely knowne unto Paul. Because hee might bee assured of this truth by the meanes of some revelation made unto him thereof; for either Christ whom hee had heard and seen; or God who revealed Christ unto him, might also reveale this truth unto him. But you that were borne some hundred yeares since the death of Christ, and have no revelation touching any such love of Christ [Page 279] toward you: how can you for your part certainely know and bee assured concerning your selfe, that Christ loved you, and gave him­selfe for you?

Hereto I answer. That this saying is also true of mee, I cer­tainely know and am assured from hence, because my name is written in Gods last Will and Testament, that Christ loved mee and gave himselfe for mee. Yet I find not my name written there by my proper Christian and sir-name: but by an appellative or common name of mine, which unto mee is farre better and more certaine then my proper name. For I certainely know of my selfe, that I am a Believer in Christ, and am truely called by that name; and under that name I finde it written of mee, that Christ loved me, and dyed for me; John 3.16. God so loved the world, that he gave (to death) his onely begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. And a­gaine, Rom. 3.21. But now the righteousnes (i. e. the kindnes) of God without the Law is manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets: even the righteousnesse (or kindnes) of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe. Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his bloud. Christ then dyed for all Believers whatsoever, of what Nation and what age soever; not onely for those who lived in that age wherein hee dyed, but for all those also who should afterwards live in any age whatsoever. Now because Christ for certaine dyed for all Believers, and I for certaine am a Believer: therefore for cer­taine Christ dyed for mee. And if this Reasoning be not right, there is no reason why man should bee accounted a reasonable creature: or if this Reasoning breed not certainty, man can have no certainty in any knowledge; and consequently he cannot bee certaine that himselfe is a man; much lesse can hee bee certaine that any thing is doubtfull.

This nomination of mee by the common name of a Believer, is fully sufficient to convey unto mee a proper right to everlasting blessednesse. My Father by his last Will setled his estate upon my elder Brother and upon his heires: but my Brother dying without issue, I came to enjoy my fathers estate. Because I was named to it in his Will; yet not by my single or proper name, but by my appellative or common name of Heire; for collate­rally by my birth I was heire to my Brother. But because this is a parable, therefore it is not necessary, that the Argument of it should agree with the thing it should argue, in every particular circumstance; but it shall suffice that it hold in the maine pur­pose and scope of it. My heavenly Father by his last Will setled [Page 280] the Kingdome of Heaven upon Christ my elder Brother and upon his Heires; and heereby the inheritance of Heaven is assured unto mee. Because in Gods Will I am named to it; not by my single or proper name, but by my appellative or common name of heire to Christ; for having God my Father by faith, I con­sequently become Brother to Christ and co-heire with him. And an heire by faith, when the Testator is pleased so to assigne it, is jurally as sure as an heire by birth; and in the case present much surer: because the assignation is universall to all in gene­rall, Whosoever believeth in Christ shall not perish, but have everlasting life. And the righteousnes of God, unto all and upon all them that believe. If therefore a common name written in mans will be of force to convey and assure an estate: much more shall it doe the like in Gods Will.

Oh my deare and blessed Lord, who hast loved mee, and given thy selfe for mee, and therefore wilt give mee any thing else be­side; grant mee the spirit of thy love, that thine to mee may beget mine to thee: But let mine bee a soveraigne love to adhere to thee against all the world; and let it bee a diligent love, not in word but in deed, to serve thee faithfully in all thy commands. Grant mee also the virtue of thy death, to worke in mee my death to sinne; that as thou for my sake didst lay downe thy life, so I for thy sake may lay downe my sinne. Let the sprinkling of thy blood fall upon my heart, to withdraw mee from the course of the world, to cleanse mee from all vaine conversation, to purifie mee from sinne and iniquity, to consecrate and dedicate my soule to holynesse; that as Adams sinne made mee guilty, so thy death may make mee holy. And when my naturall death approacheth, seeing thou hast tasted death for mee, bee pleased to succour mee at the houre of mine: Let mee not feare, or grieve, or grudge to dye, but answering the way of thy love, let mee give my selfe for mee; and then Lord Jesus receive my spi­rit, for which thou didst vouchsafe to dye.

Comment.

I Doe not frustrate the grace of God.] The Greeke is, [...], i. e. I doe not despise, reject, disanul, or bring to nothing the the grace of God; for these foure ways the word is Englished elswhere, and in this place only is rendred frustrate. As Luke. 10.16. Hee that heareth you, heareth mee, and ( [...]) hee that despiseth you, despiseth mee. And Marc. 7.9. And hee sayd unto them; full well ( [...]) yee reject the commandement of God. And Gal. 3.15. Though it bee but a mans Testament, yet if it bee confirmed, no man ( [...]) disanulleth or addeth thereto. And 1. Cor. 1.19. I will destroy the wisdome of the wise, and ( [...]) I will bring to no­thing the understanding of the Prudent. And all these foure wayes the word signifieth heere: Because these severall senses are not really different; but are either in a maner the same, or else one consequent to the other. For what I despise, that also I reject; and what I reject, that I disanull or bring to nothing in effect, by making it frustrate or void in respect of any use or benefit to my selfe. If therefore I frustrate or make voyd the grace of God, from having that effect upon mee, which God purposed towards mee, I disanul his grace or bring it to nothing; which argues my refusall of it to reject it; and my rejection argues my contempt of it, that I disesteeme or despise it.

Concerning the nature of Gods grace, what it is, wee have spoken somewhat before, cap. 1. vers. 6. where the Reader may peruse it. Heere therefore wee shall consider that effect of it, from which the Apostle argueth and reasoneth in this place; for heere the word is put by way of metonymy or transnomina­tion for all those effects both mediall and finall, whereof Gods grace is the originary and primary cause. The Right whereto I am justified is a divine state of alliance and inheritance to bee the sonne and heire of God; for this is the Matter of my right. The Title whereby I acquire or have this Right, is only my Faith to accept it; for my Faith is a meane procreant cause on my part, whereby I receive this Right. The Tenure whereby I continue or hold it, are the Duties and Services of holinesse, or the good workes of love; for these are a meane cause conservant on my part, that my right may not escheat or bee forfeited. The prin­cipall person who imputeth, deriveth, or conveyeth this right un­to mee is God the Father; for who but God as the principall A­gent, [Page 283] can make mee the sonne and heire of God? The Motive inducing God to impute or convey this Right unto mee is his meere Grace; I meane that inward affection residing in God, which is his goodwill, love, favour, mercy, and kindnesse; for all these are really the same, but rationally different in respects. So that my title on Gods part is Gods meere grace, which is the supreame or prime cause, having no other cause above or beyond it.

The cause why every Believer is the sonne and heire of God is because God in his last Will and Testament hath so devised or promised it. And the cause why God in his Will made this de­vise or promise, is his meere Grace, i. e. his love or goodwill to dignifie a person who deserves it not. For Gods love is his good­will to benefie or doe good; and when the benefit done is a dignity or honour to the receiver, and the receiver a person who deserves it not, then such Love of God is his Grace. My alliance with God to bee his sonne and heire, hath it not in it there [...]o qualities? The one, that it is an high dignity and honour unto me; the other, that it is far beyond my desert. For no man can deserve to bee borne of his Father, or after hee is borne to bee made the sonne of another: But the onely cause of a sonne is love; and the onely cause to bee made the sonne of God, is the grace of God: Because to bee made the sonne of God, is the greatest dignity and honour in the Wold; for thereby mans dignity approacheth to the Majesty of the most high God; who though by reason of his power hee bee the Father of all, yet by way of grace he is not so.

My Justifying therefore unto this alliance with God, is by the Scriptures attributed to the grace of God, Rom. 3.24. Being satis­fied freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ. And Rom. 4.16. Therefore it is of faith that it might bee by grace to the end the promise might bee sure to all the seed; what is the thing that is of faith? The divine inheritance to bee made the heires of God; as it appeares in the words preceding, vers. 13. and 14. And Ephes. 1.6. To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein or whereby) hee hath made us accepted in the beloved, i. e. Whereby hee hath justified us, or made us co-heires with his beloved sonne. And Ephes. 2.4.5. But God who is rich in mercy for his great love wherewith hee loved us, even when wee were dead in sinnes hath quick­ned us together with Christ; by grace yee are saved, i. e. The cause of your present right to future salvation, is the grace of God. And Tit. 3.7. That being justified by his grace, wee should bee made heires according to the hope of eternall life, i. e. The cause of our Justify­ing is Gods grace, and the effect of it is, that thereby wee are [Page 284] made heires of eternall life; and because wee are heires, wee have good reason to hope for it; for who can have better hope of any thing then an heire hath of his inheritance? These are the chiefe authorities from the Scriptures to testifie this truth, that our inheritance is by grace. Causes to prove it, there are none; for wee sayd, that Gods grace was the highest cause, which had none above it; and therefore this verity must needes bee a principle, and consequently cannot bee proved; for hee a­buseth a principle who attempteth to prove it. Yet there are rea­sons that may argue and perswade it; and they being grounded on Scripture, are chiefely these five following.

1. Because this Right comes from Gods gift. John 4.10. If thou knewest the gift of God. i. e. everlasting life which comes from Gods gift; for so the Well of water is interpreted at the last words of the 14. verse following. And Acts 11.18. Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. i. e. then hath God given them the benefit or fruit of repentance which is eter­nall life; for the originall is [...]. i. e. given: yet it is Engli­shed well enough, because every grant is a gift. And Rom. 5.15. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift; for if through the offence of one, many bee dead, much more the grace of God and the gift by grace, which is by one man Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many: here unto eternall death, the cause whereof was the offence or sin, is opposed eternall life the cause whereof is grace, for it is a gift by grace. And Rom. 6.23. But the wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternall life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. i. e. The cause of our present guiltinesse unto eternall death is sin, whereof death is the wages: but the cause of our present right unto eter­nall life is not our holinesse, but Gods grace whereof life is the gift; and that gift is conveyed unto us by the meanes of Jesus Christ. And Heb. 6.4. It is impossible for those who were once in­lightned, and have tasted of the heavenly gift. i. e. who have had the knowledge and have felt the joy of their inheritance to blessed­nes, which is no earthly purchase, but a heavenly gift proceeding from God. Now the fountaine or cause from which gifts and grants proceed is not Law and justice, but grace and fa­vour; for what else is a gift or grant, but an act of grace?

2. Because it commeth from Gods good pleasure. Luk. 2.14; Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will towards men; [...]. i. e. good pleasure towards men; q. d. Let the God of Heaven be glorified, for that blessednesse on earth, descended from his favour or good pleasure towards men, which he hath abundantly testified by sending his son to be their Saviour. And [Page 285] Luke 12.32. Feare not little flock; for it is your Fathers good pleasure to give you the Kingdome. i. e. feare not the want of food and rai­ment; for God is your Father, and therefore will give it you; and more then so; for he will also give you the Kingdome of Heaven; for the blessing thereof comes from his gift, and that gift proceeds from his good pleasure. And Ephes. 1.9. having made knowne unto us the mystery of his Will according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in himselfe. i. e. That Will and Testament of God, wherein we are made heirs to the inheritance of Hea­ven, was a long time a mystery and concealed in secret: but is now published and made knowne unto us; and this is according to his good pleasure which he purposed in himselfe, first for the making of that Will, and after for the publishing of it. Now that which proceeds from the good pleasure of any person, is not an act of Law and justice, but of Grace and favour: for matters of Law and justice leave not a man to his good pleasure, but oblige him to that which Law and justice require to be done.

3. Because it comes from Gods goodnes or kindnes. Rom. 11.22. Behold therefore the goodnesse and severity of God: on them which fell, severity: but towards thee, goodnes, if thou continue in his goodnes; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. i. e. The Jews were once in the state of alliance with God, to be his children and people: but because they fell from their obedience, God cut them off; and their exci­sion proceeded from Gods severity: but Gods election of thee in their room proceeds from his goodnes or kindnes towards thee, if thou cōtinue in that state wherinto his goodnes hath grafted thee▪ otherwise thou also shalt be cut off with the like severity. And Eph. 2.7. And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus; that in the ages to come hee might shew the exceeding riches of his grace, in his kindnesse towards us, through Christ Jesus. i. e. God hath raised Christ from the dead, and hath seated him in Heaven; and in him he hath given us a pre­cedent of our future possession there, to be raised as he was, and to be seated as he is; for he was raised and seated there to him and his co-heirs. i. e. to all believers in him: that in the world to come after the Resurrection, God might shew and impart un­to us the exceeding riches or abundance of that blessednes, which proceeds from the abundance of his grace and kindnes towards us, through the means of Jesus Christ. And Tit. 3.4. But after that the kindenesse and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared. i. e. Those benefits whereby God is the Saviour of man, pro­ceeds from Gods kindnesse and love toward man. Now Gods goodnesse or kindnesse is really the very same thing with his grace; for his grace is that inward affection from whence his out­ward [Page 286] kindnesse floweth, as the effect thereof.

4. Because it comes from Gods Mercy or Pity, Rom. 11.30. For as yee in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbeliefe: Even so have these also now not believed; that through your mercy, they also may obtaine mercy, i. e. As heereto­fore yee Gentiles were Infidells or Unbelievers; yet now have believed upon the Jewes unbeliefe: So now the Jewes are be­come unbelievers, that upon your beliefe, they may bee provo­ked to believe. Hee calls beliefe mercy; because the thing belie­ved, and the act of believing proceed from Gods mercy. And Tit. 3.5. Not by workes of righteousnesse which wee have done, but ac­cording to his mercy hee saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, i. e. Our finall salvation which God hath decreed or devised unto us, and our Sanctification in rege­nerating or renewing us by his holy Spirit, which is the meanes to the former end, proceedes not from any workes of ours, which wee had done before, according to any righteousnesse that was in us: But our right thereunto proceedes from Gods worke, as an act of his mercy. And 1. Pet. 1.3. Blessed bee the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begot­ten us againe unto a lively hope by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, &c. i. e. Blessed bee God who by the Resurrection of Christ hath begotten and wrought in us a lively hope of eternall life, which is an inheritance incor­ruptible: All which proceedes from the abundance of his mer­cy. Now all Mercy is Grace, though all Grace bee not Mercy: But when grace is so affected with the misery of a miserable per­son, that thereby she is moved to relieve him from his misery, then grace becomes mercy: Because all mercy is grace to a per­son in misery.

5. Because it comes by Gods Will and Testament, John 1.13. Who were borne not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God, i. e. Believers are made the sonnes of God, not by generation or birth from the will of flesh and blood: Nor by a­ny adoption from the will of man: But by that adoption which is from the Will and Testament of God. And Ephes. 1.5. Have­ing predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to him­selfe, according to the good pleasure of his Will, i. e. Our adoption to bee the sonnes of God, and the co-heires with Christ by meanes of Christ is predestinated, ordained, or devised unto us, according to that good pleasure of God, which hee hath expressed in his Will and Testament. And in the same Chapter, vers. 11. In whom also wee have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated ac­cording to the purpose of him, who worketh all things after the counsell [Page 287] of his owne Will. i. e. In or through Christ we are made co-heires with Christ unto blessednes, wherto we are predestinated, institu­ted, and ordained by God, who performeth all things according to that purpose, counsell, or meaning of his, which he hath ex­pressed in his Will and Testament. Now things conveyed or de­vised by Will and Testament are not debts and duties whereto the Testator is bound by Law and justice: but are gifts and Le­gacies proceeding from his grace, favour, and kindnes towards those Legataries, unto whom they are devised; for hence it is, that Wills require a favourable construction or interpretation, because they containe matters of favour.

And Gods grace wherby I am justified unto this Right, is rich grace. For that is a frequent attribute wherby the Scripture doth commend and magnifie the greatnes, plenty, and abundance of Gods grace, by stiling it the riches of his grace. As Rom. 11.12. Now if the fall of them be the richesse of the World, and the diminishing of them the richesse of the Gentiles. i. e. The fall of the Jewes is the occasion of Gods grace, and of the riches or abundance thereof unto the Gentiles, and unto all the world besides. And Ephes. 1.7. In whom wee have redemption through his bloud, according to the riches of his grace, wherein he hath abounded towards us. And Ephes. 2.7. That in the ages to come, he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace, in his kindnesse towards us through Jesus Christ. i. e. the excee­ding plenty and abundance of his grace; for although grace and kindnesse be really one and the same thing: yet after the word grace, the Apostle addeth the word kindnesse; that by the abun­dance of his words, he might signifie the abundance of Gods grace. Certainely sin aboundeth in the world, and hath done so in all ages; yet grace doth over-abound it; Rom. 3.20. The Law entred that the offence might abound: but where sinne abounded, grace did much more abound. i. e. After the Law was given, the e­vent was, that sin abounded: and after sin had abounded, the e­vent was, that grace did super-abound, by over-reigning, over-ru­ling, and overcomming sin: because God by his grace doth not on­ly forgive eternall death which is the punishment of sin: but over and above he doth give us a right unto eternall life, by justifying us thereunto through Christ; as it there followeth in the next verse; That as sinne hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reigne through righteousnesse (through a Right) unto eternall life. And this richnesse or greatnesse of Gods grace appeares from three grounds.

1. Because Gods grace is without a cause. There was no cause moving God to justifie me; for as we sayd before, his grace is hereof the supreame or prime cause, having no other cause [Page 288] above or beyond it to actuate or move it. What moved God to bee so gracious unto mee, as to predestinate or devise unto mee in his last Will and Testament, this divine state of alliance and inheritance with him? Certainely, no Merit or desert of mine moved him; for it was not for any worke or other act of mine, which I had done, or which God foresaw I would doe, that could deserve this grace. Because Gods grace and my workes are in re­spect of causality so inconsistent and contrary, that they cannot both concurre as causes procreant of the same blessing: But the claime by one, doth necessarily exclude the other. For if it bee by workes, it is of debt, and then it cannot bee of grace, Rom. 4.4. Now to him that worketh, is the reward reckoned, not of grace, but of debt. But if it bee by grace, it is of gift, and then it cannot bee of workes, Rom. 11.6. And if by grace, then it is no more of workes, otherwise grace is no more grace. No Petition or Request of mine moved him; for I never made any motion or suit for it; neither was it my counsell or advice, that God should devise this Legacy unto mee; for Rom. 11.34. Who hath knowne the minde of the Lord, or who hath beene his counsellour? Neither had I any existence when Gods Will was framed. Lastly, no inquiry or seeking of mine moved him heereto; for I never asked after it, nor desired it, and I had no desire to it, because I had no knowledge of it; hence saith God in respect of his grace, Rom. 10.20. I was found of them that sought mee not, I was made manifest unto them that asked not after mee. And when by the preaching of the Gospel, God sought mee, asked after mee, and called mee to accept his grace, I was hardly perswaded to believe and receive it. And unto this day many Nations cannot bee perswaded of it; yea some Christ­ians are not rightly and fully perswaded of it.

But God was heereto moved of his owne meere and proper motion, wherein the will of his grace was the prime cause or first mover. For according to the good pleasure, purpose, and counsell of his owne Will, hee predestinated or devised this Le­gacy unto mee, Ephes. 1.11. In whom wee have obtained an inheri­tance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him, who worketh all things after the counsell of his owne Will. For in all Testaments, what other cause is there of the Legacies therein devised, but on­ly the will and purpose of the Testator; whose Testament is in that respect called his Will? But if the Legacies proceed from the Will of the Legataries, then to speake properly, the Testa­ment is their Will, and not the Will of the Testator. And al­though among men it may fall out, that the Testator may bee moved to some Legacy by the Petition of the Legatary, or by the intercession of some friend: Yet with God it cannot bee thus; [Page 289] because his Will was made from the foundation of the World, before the existence of any person interessed who could sollicite or move him thereupon. Now that Grace which hath no cause moving it, but moves of its owne free accord, is farre more rich and gracious then that grace which hath a cause, which is solli­cited and moved by the importunities and petitions of the Recei­ver. For as an Injury done without cause is the more malicious, so a kindnesse without cause is the more gracious; whereas grace begged is but beggerly grace.

2. Because the Effect of Gods grace, is rich. That effect is my divine Alliance and inheritance to bee the son and heyre of God; and certaynely such a state must needes bee a rich condi­tion. For when David was sollicited to an alliance with King Saul, his Answer was, 1. Sam. 18.23. Seemeth it to you a light thing to be a Kings sonne in law; seeing that I am a poore man and lightly esteemed? And can it seeme a light thing to mee to bee made the sonne and heyre of God; seeing that I am a sinfull man, who stand condemned to death? Is not the grace infinite­ly greater, for man to bee made the sonne of God, then for David to bee made the sonne of Saul? And the future Inhe­ritance which God hath prepared for mee is so glorious, that the plenty or richnesse therof, is both ineffable which no tongue can expresse, and incomprehensible which no heart can imagine; for it cannot enter the eye or the care, which are the senses that should convey it to the heart; 1. Cor. 2.9. Eye hath not seene, nor eare heard, neither have entred into the heart of man, the things that God hath prepared for them that love him. Yet of the City wherein I shall bee seated John had a vision, wherein hee saw the rich­nesse of it, Revel. 21.10. That the walls were made of pretious stones, the gates of pearle, the streets of pure gold transparant as glasse, the light of the City was the glory of God and of the Lambe; and they two were also the Temple of it. Certainly the Inhabitants of such a City must needs be, not only rich, but very glorious; and therefore Gods grace in translating mee from the grave, which is the den of death and rottennesse, to seat mee in heaven, which is the mansion of joy and blessednes, must needs be very gracious.

3. Because the Meanes was rich, whereby the former effect is wrought. That meanes was the Death of Christ upon the Crosse; for the Meanes of his death, my alliance and inheri­tance with God is conveyed unto me; a Meanes certaynly very gracious, arguing the admirable and singular love of God to­wards me. For it cost God that person who was most deare unto him, even his owne and only begotten sonne, whose bloud [Page 290] was spilt and spent out to convey the effect of this grace unto mee: and that bloud was expended not by an ordinary death, but by the bitter, painfull, and shamefull death of the Crosse, whereon he suffered in the condition of a malefactour, and of a cursed person. Hence we are sayd to be Gods Purchase, which he bought at a price, 1. Cor. 6.20. Ye are not your owne, for ye are bought with a price. And for the purchase of us, hee payd very deare; for the price wherewith wee were bought, was the price of bloud, Ephes. 1.7. In whom we have redemption through his bloud. And the bloud of our redemption was precious bloud, 1. Pet. 18.19. Ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vaine conversation received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious bloud of Christ. For the bloud of Christ must needs bee precious, because it was the bloud of God. Act. 20.28. Take heed therefore unto your selves — to feede the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his owne bloud. And the cause why God expended that bloud, was his meere grace according to the richesse and abundance of it; Ephes. 1.7. In whom wee have redemption through his bloud, the forgivenesse of sinnes, according to the riches of his grace, wherein hee hath abounded towards us. Now that grace which is so chargeable to the donour, that it costeth bloud, must needs be rich and costly.

My workes then are not the cause of Gods grace; because his grace is heerein the supreame and prime cause, that hath no cause but is without cause: and because grace is not grace if it be of workes, though it bee grace when it is granted upon re­quest: and because the poorenesse of my workes can never cause the richnesse of his grace. But contrarily, Gods grace is the cause of my workes, if I have any that are good; for his grace is the cause of my alliance with him; and my alliance with him, is or should be, the cause of my good workes. Neyther is my will the cause of Gods grace, because God had first a will to give it me, before I had any will to have it; and he first cal­led me to take it, before I ever called upon him to aske it. For in order both of nature and time Gods grace is first, and is first given me for this purpose, namely to prepare and produce in me those workes of holinesse, which is my gratefulnesse or thanke­fulnesse for his grace: for hence, John 1.16. Gods grace is cal­led grace for grace. i. e. grace for thankes: for the word grace doth signifie an antecedent kindnesse done, and the subsequent thankefulnesse due for that kindnesse; and it is a frequent elegan­cy in Scripture, to repeat sometime in one sentence the same word in another sense, when it commonly beareth two senses. Which thankfulnesse to God for his grace, I can no otherwise [Page 291] really expresse, but by my workes of holinesse; for that holinesse which in respect of his Law that commands it, is my obedience; the very same in respect of his grace which requires it, is my thankfulnesse. Likewise Gods love was first, and first shewed, to prepare and produce my love; for God loves mee, not therefore because I first loved him: But contrarily, because God first loved mee, therefore I must and doe love him, 1. John. 4.19. Wee love him, because he first loved us.

And it goeth very well and happily with mee, if Gods grace have this effect upon mee, to bee seconded and followed with my workes of holinesse, by way of gratefulnesse for his grace. For this effect doth not follow necessarily, but onely contingently, which may bee or may bee not: Seeing too manifest it is, that in some men it followeth not: Because otherwise Gods grace could not bee frustrated, which the Apostle heere supposeth. Yet I must constantly note, that although my workes of holinesse bee not the cause procreant to produce the existence of Gods grace towards mee: Yet they are the cause conservant, to maintaine the continuance of it; because otherwise his grace will bee fru­strated. Seeing then Gods grace is on Gods part the cause of my Justification unto this divine alliance and inheritance with him; if therefore unto my workes I ascribe that cause which belongs unto his grace; doe I not heereby frustrate the grace of God, by denying it that effect which properly it doth produce? Am I not heereby a Rejector and a Despiser of Gods grace, as a thing superfluous and needlesse? And consequently am I not an ungrate­full and an ungracious wretch, to magnifie the poorenesse of my workes above the richnesse of his grace? Seeing unto workes of holinesse I stood bound before by the Law of nature as I am Gods Creature, though hee had conferred upon mee no such grace of alliance as to make me his son and heir.

For if righteousnesse come by the Law.] A further confirmation and illustration of this last argument in the former clause of this verse, comprising withall a prevention of a tacit objection.An Obje∣ction. For by reason of his former words, some man might say; why doe you speake of frustrating the grace of God? Should you frustrate his grace, if your right of inheritance should bee conveyed unto you by Gods Law, and not by faith in Christ? The An∣swer. Heereto his An­swer is affirmative; that thereby he should frustrate Gods grace; for (saith hee) if the right of inheritance come by the Law, then Christ dyed without a cause; and consequently the riches of Gods grace, which appeared by the meanes of Christs death, should bee made frustrate and void.

The word Righteousnesse in reference to God, doth often sig­nifie [Page 292] that vertue of God, which is his Uprightnesse, whereby all his actions are just and right, according to that holinesse, which unto him is naturall. Sometime it signifieth his faithfulnesse in keeping and performing that promise which hee hath made: But more frequently it signifieth his kindnesse, which went before his promise, and was the cause why hee made it. For why doth God keep his promise? The reason is, because he is just & faithful: but why did he first make his promise? the reason is, because he is kind and gracious. Of the word Righteousnesse in this latter sense, we spake somewhat largely before in this Chapter, verse 16. But heere in this verse the word signifies jurally, for that right of al­liance and inheritance, which on my part is the effect or conse­quent of Gods kindnesse to mee, and whereto his righteousnesse or kindnesse doth justifie mee: All which amount in one word unto Justification; as if the Apostle had expressed it thus; if my Justification, or the right whereto Gods kindnesse doth justi­fie, come by the Law. For Gods kindnesse, his Justfying, and my Right thence resulting, are in this respect either put for the other: Because they are all concurrent unto one and the same purpose; for his righteousnesse or kindnesse is the cause whereof my Right is the effect; and his Justifying is the act whereby (through the meanes of my faith) his kindnesse doth convey this Right unto me.

That therefore wee may heere performe what was before inti­mated in this Chapter, vers. 16. Wee are to observe, that the Hebrew word Zedakah in the Old Testament, and the Greeke [...], in the New, which in our Translations are commonly Englished by the word Righteousnesse, doe many times signifie the Latine word Jus, whereof the English is a Right, Interest, or Claime. As Gen. 15.6. And Abraham believed in the Lord, and hee counted it to him (Zedakah) for righteousnesse (or a Right) i. e. God upon Abrahams faith conveyed unto Abraham a right to the blessing which God had promised. And Gen. 30.33. So shall (Zidkathi) my righteousnesse (or right) answer for mee in time to come, when it shall come for my hire before thy face. q. d. All the yong ones of the flock which shall fall out to bee spotted, shall bee my hire for keeping the flock; and my Right to these shall an­swer your question concerning my future wages; for if you finde with mee any other then such, let it bee theft in mee. And Psal. 35.27. Let them shout for joy and bee glad, that favour (Zidki) my righteousnesse, i. e. my right, or (as it is there translated) my righ­teous cause. And Proverb. 16.8. Better is a little (Bizdekah) with righteousnesse, i. e. with right; for the words following re­quire that sense; then great revenues without right. And Esay. 5.23. [Page 293] Which justifie the wicked for reward, and take away (Zedakah Zaddi­kim) the righteousnesse of the righteous from him, i. e. the right of the righteous from him; for no man can take away the uprightnesse or morall righteousnesse of the righteous from him; but his ju­rall right may be, and many times is taken from him.

Likewise in the New Testament the Greeke word [...], doth many times signifie a right. As Heb. 11.7. And Noah be­came Heire ( [...]) of the righteousnesse which is by faith, i. e. of the right which hee accepted by his faith; For the matter whereto a man becomes heire is some right, interest, or claime, and not uprightnesse or morall righteousnesse; because such righteousnesse is not inheritable or deviseable to bee conveyed from one person to another, as Rights and Interests may and doe. And Rom. 4.4.5. Now to him that worketh, is the reward not recko­ned of grace, but of debt; but to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted ( [...]) for righteousnesse, i. e. for a Right; for it hath reference to the thine former words, Reward, Grace, and Debt; which are jurall tearmes concerning matters of Right, and plainely teach us this comparison, betweene the Laborer and the Believer; who agree in this, that both have a good right, interest, or claime, the La­bourer to his wages, and the Believer to his promise. But in this they differ, that the Labourer by title of his worke hath a right to his wages, and his right is of debt: But the Believer by title of his faith hath a right to his promise, and his right is of grace. And in the same Chapter, vers. 11. And Abraham received the signe of circumcision, a seale ( [...]) of the righteousnesse of the faith, which hee had being uncircumcised; that hee might bee the Fa­ther of all them that believe, i. e. A seale of the right which hee had by faith being uncircumcised; for a seale is not a signe of up­rightnesse or morall righteousnesse, but of a right, interest, or claime; and the right sealed unto Abraham is heere specified, That hee might bee the Father of all them that believe; which condi­tion in Abraham was not a morall righteousnesse, but a jurall right of dignity. And againe, vers. 13. For the promise that hee should bee the Heire of the World, was not to Abraham, or to his seeds through the Law, but ( [...]) through the righteousnesse of faith, i. e. through the right which hee had by faith; for it hath reference to the two former words, Promise and Heire, which are jurall tearmes proper to matters of right; for a Promise is an act which maketh a Right, and an Heir is a person who hath a right. The like sense the word Righteousnesse beareth in divers passages of that Epistle, the recitall whereof would prove too numerous and tedious.

[Page 294] Yet for our further confirmation heerein, wee may take notice, that in the Old Testament the Hebrew word Zedakah doth not onely signifie a right, but in King JAMES his translation is sometime so Englished; As 2. Sam. 19.28. For all my Fathers house were but dead men before my Lord the King: yet didst thou set thy servant among them, that did eate at thine owne table; (mah iesh li Zedakah) what right have I therefore yet to cry any more unto the King. The Right heere mentioned is the right of Inheritance which Mephibosheth had to his Land, whereof he stood then disseised by the treachery and calumny of Ziba; as it appeares by the words following. And Nehemiah 2.20. Then I answered them and sayd unto them; the God of Heaven he will prosper us; there­fore we his servants will arise and build: but you have no portion (Uze­dakah) nor right, nor memoriall in Jerusalem. The Right heere mentioned was a Right of Inheritance or of some speciall Pri­viledge, which the three persons to whom hee spake could not clayme: because they were not Jewes but Strangers; for San­ballat was a Samaritan, Tobiah an Amonite, and Geshem an Arabian. And Psal. 9.4. For thou hast maintained my right and my cause, thou satest in the throne Judging (Zedek) right. And Psal. 17.1. Heare (Zedek) the right, O Lord, attend unto my cry. Thus the Hebrew word Zedakah, the Greeke [...], and the En­glish righteousnesse, doth many times signifie a Right, and is some­time so Englished.

Now that the same word doth also signifie a Right here in the Text which we have now in hand, though here it be not so En­glished, it playnly appeares from a parallell place in the next chapter following, verse 18. For if the Inheritance be of the Law, it is no more of Promise. For first, both these sayings carry the same sense: because every Inheritance is a Right, though not contra­rily, every Right is not an Inheritance; for there be divers o­ther Rights besides Inheritances. But an Inheritance is one spe­ciall kind, and indeed the best kind of Right, when it comes to be in possession: because it is an universall and perpetuall Right extended to a whole estate for ever. What therefore in one place is meant by the generall word [...], i. e. Right: the same is expressed in the other by the speciall word [...]. i. e. Inheritance. Secondly, both these sayings carry the same reason: because in both places hee argues for one and the same conclu­sion; namely that a man is not justified by the Law; which hee proves from the severall absurdities, which upon a supposall of the affirmative will necessarily follow; for if a man be justified by the Law, or if his right come by the Law; or if his Inheri­tance be of the Law, (for all these sayings are all one in effect) [Page 295] then all is frustrate, voyd, without cause, and of no effect; for the grace of God is frustrate, faith is made voyd, the death of Christ is without cause, and the promise is of no effect. For when he saith It is no more of Promise, hee seemes to say, The Pro­mise is of no effect: for so hee sayth expresly in a place paralell to both these, Rom. 4.14. For if they which be of the Law be heires, fayth is made voyd, and the Promise made of no effect.

Then Christ is dead in vaine.] [...]. i. e. Dyed with­out cause. This is the absurdity which will necessarily follow upon the former supposition, that the right to blessednesse com­meth by the Law. The Greeke Adverbe [...] doth not signifie in vaine; for that is in vaine which is without effect: neither is it elswhere in the New Testament ever translated in vaine; neyther is that sense the minde of the Apostle heere; though that sense be a truth and will follow upon the former supposition. But [...] properly signifies gratis. i. e. for nothing, or of gift, with­out desert, reward, or recompence; and in this sense it is com­monly translated by the word freely; as Rom. 3.24. being justifi­ed ( [...]) freely by his grace. Yet sometime, and so heere in this place it signifieth causelesly or without cause; and that is done caus­lesly or without cause, for which there is no reason, or at least no just, weighty, or sufficient reason. So the word is rendred, John 15.25. they hated me ( [...]) without a cause; and so in this place it stands rendred in that English translation which was here in use before that of King JAMES. q. d. If the Right of Inheritance unto blessednesse bee Legitimate and come by the Law; then there was no just cause nor no sufficient reason can be given, why God should deliver Christ, and Christ should de­liver himselfe up to death.

But heere in the Death of Christ must bee tacitly comprehen­ded by way of Synecdoche, all those other actions of his, with­out which his death would have failed of that due effect, for which it was purposed, as his Doctrine before it, and especially his Resurrection after it. For when the Apostle declares the cau­ses of his Death, hee commonly also makes expresse mention of his Resurrection, joyning it with his death in respect of causality; As Rom. 4.25. Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised a­gaine for our justification. And Rom. 6.4. Therefore wee are buried with him by baptisme into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead to the glory of the Father: Even so wee also should walke in new­nesse of life. And Rom. 8.34. Who is hee that condemneth? It is Christ that dyed; yea rather that is risen againe. And Rom. 14.9. For to this end Christ both dyed, and rose, and revived, that hee might bee Lord both of the dead and the living. And 2. Cor. 5.15. And [Page 296] that hee dyed for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which dyed for them, and rose againe. And 1. Thess. 4.14. For if wee believe that Jesus dyed, and rose a­gaine; even so them also which sleepe in Jesus, will God bring with him: Yet heere, and sometimes elsewhere the Apostle doth mention onely the death of Christ: Because above all his other actions, his Death was the hardest worke, and the greatest argument of his love; and therefore his death should most strongly move us, to the workes of love and waies of holinesse.

The Effects and Benefits of Christs death were specified be­fore upon these words of the former verse, Who gave himselfe for mee. Heere therefore wee shall mention the Causes or Reasons of his death: Partly because there is much difference betweene the causes and the effects of the same thing, though sometime these to them may bee subordinate. Partly because it much con­duceth to our understanding and beliefe of a thing, to know the causes and reasons of it; especially a thing of such moment as is the death of Christ. But chiefely because the force of the Apo­stles argument lyeth in these words, that then Christ dyed without a cause. Yet heere wee intend not to meddle with the Naturall cause of his death; for manifest it is, that naturally his Cruci­fying caused it. Nor yet with the voluntary causes of it on the Jewes part: For so the causes of it were, partly the sentence of Pilate, whose will it was to condemne him; partly the Malice of the Jewes, whose will it was to importune that sentence; and partly the Treachery of Judas, whose will it was to betray him. But our meaning is to declare the voluntary causes of it on Gods part, why God had a will to decree the death of Christ, and actually to subject him thereunto.

And the Causes thereof on Gods part, if they bee rightly al­leadged according to the Scriptures, must needes have in them these three qualities. 1. They must bee repugnant unto Justi­fying by the Law; for otherwise wee lose the force of the A­postles argument, which runnes thus; For if righteousnesse (or the right whereto a man is justified) come by the Law, then Christ dyed without a cause, i. e. If the Law have this effect to justifie, then there is no just cause why Christ dyed; and therefore there must bee such a repugnancy betweene that effect of the Law, and the cause of Christs death, that hee who supposeth the former doth thereby overthrow the latter; and contrarily if there bee a cause of Christs death, the Law must needes bee without that effect.

2. They must bee Consequent to the love and grace of God; for otherwise againe wee lose another force of the Apostles rea­soning, whereby hee inferreth, that if Christ dyed without cause, [Page 297] then I frustrate the grace of God: But I doe not frustrate the grace of God, who by the death of Christ conveyeth that grace unto mee. For indeede the supreame, inward, impulsive cause, or prime motive of Christs death, was the love and grace of God towards us; and not his hatred or wrath; but of this remote cause wee spake before upon the former verse, and there­fore shall not insist upon it any further. 3. They must bee Re­spective unto the New Testament: Partly because the New Te­stament is both repugnant to Gods Law, and also consequent to Gods grace: Partly because the New Testament is that solemne Will and Act of God wherein his love and grace is conveyed, and whereon all the actions of Christ reflected. Repugnantly therefore to the effect of the Law; and consequently to the love and grace of God; and respectively to the New Testament, the immediate, proper, finall causes or reasons of Christs death are chiefely three.

1. To testifie or prove the truth of the New Testament. Every Te­stament ought to bee sufficiently and solemnly testified; for hence by way of eminency it is called a Testament. Partly because actively, it doth testifie the minde or will of the Testator, as the Civill Law delivers it, which thereupon saith, Testamentum ex eo appellatur, quod sit testatio mentis. But chiefely (under correction) because passively it is solemnly testified by the Testimony of se­verall testable persons, who are to attest the truth of it, and in case it bee a written Testament, actually doe attest it under their hands and seales: For the ancient solemnity whereof there are extant severall rules in the Civill Law. But unto the New Testa­ment a solemne Testimony was especially requisite: Because it was to encounter with strong opposition, which Gods people would and did raise against it in defence of the Law; which was Gods Testament also, and had a solemne Testimony on Mount Sinai, wherewith lightning, and thunder, and the shrill sound of a Trumpet, it was testified by an Angel in the audience of all the Nation. And besides this solemne testimony, the Law had the prescription of being in force for the space of fifteene hundred yeares. The New Testament therefore which was to in­fringe the Old, wherein a whole Nation had beene so long inte­ressed, had neede of good testimony; because men will strug­gle hard for their Lawes, Customes, and Religion; wherein the graver sort will hardly endure any change.

And the New Testament, though it were not written as was the Old; but was nuncupative, declared by God onely to Christ: Yet it had very sufficient testimony, as good and better then the Old. For the certainty and truth therof was testified by the Son of [Page 298] God, a greater person then any Angel; and hee testified it by greater meanes, not with lightning and thunder, but with workes of wonder, such as never were done in the World before, such as had they been in Sodome; it would have remained untill this day; as the strangenesse of his Miracles, the holinesse of his life, and the so­lemnity of his death. Which solemnity was performed upon Mount Calvary, in the view of all the Nation then assembled to eate the passover, in a greater Congregation then was at Mount Sinai. And that solemnity was attended with greater wonders then were at Mount Sinai; for there onely the Ayre was rent with lightnings, thunders, and the sound of a Trumpet: But at the death of Christ there were farre greater and stranger rents; for Mat. 27.51. The vaile of the Temple was rent in twaine from the toppe to the bottome, and the Earth did quake, and the Rocks rent, and the Graves were opened, and many bodies of the Saints which slept, arose. For because Christ could not gaine beliefe for Gods New Testament, neither by the constancy of his Doctrine, nor by the strangenesse of his Miracles, nor by the holinesse of his life; therefore hee testified it by the solemnity of his death; and afterward further attested it by the glory of his Resurrection; for thereby his Disciples who stood doubtfull before, gave full faith to his testimony, and have since co-attested it over all the World.

Hence Christ saith of himselfe, John 3.11. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, wee speake that wee know, and testifie that wee have seene, viz. the New Testament or last Will of God, which God had there­fore revealed unto him, that hee should speake and testifie it. And againe hee saith, John 18.37. To this end was I borne, and for this cause came I into the World, that I should beare witnesse unto the truth; viz. unto the New Testament, that it was the true and last Will of God. Hence the Apostle saith of him, 1. Tim. 6.13. that before Pontius Pilate hee witnessed a good confession; now the con­fession which Christ witnessed before Pilate, hee also witnessed with his death. Hence hee is called the faithfull and true witnes, Revel. 3.14. These things saith the Amen, the faithfull and true wit­nesse; viz. because hee was the first true Martyr of the New Testament to testifie it with his blood. Hence his blood is tear­med a witnesse on earth, 1. John 5.8. And there are three that beare witnesse on earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one. And hence his Gospel which is the New Testa­ment, is called his Testimony: Because it was testified and wit­nessed by his death, 1. Cor. 1.6. Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you, i. e. the Gospel or New Testament, which Christ testified. And 2. Tim. 1.8. bee not thou ashamed of the testimony of [Page 299] our Lord. i. e. of the Gospel or New Testament which Christ testified by his death upon the Crosse; for unto the Gospel that shamefull death was made the common reproach, and there was no other cause why Timothy should bee ashamed thereof.

2. To establish or confirme the force of the New Testament.] Every Testament doth necessarily require a solemne Confirmation of it, that may cause it to be of strength and in force: because the con­stitution or making of a Testament is in it selfe an imperfect and infirme act, untill it be ratified and established by a further act of Confirmation, whereby all power to revoke it is extinguished in the Testator, and whereby the Testament comes to be of force. And among men, this Confirmation of a Testament is made or done by the death of the Testator: because his death doth whol­ly and for ever extinguish in him all power to revoke it; for the dead have no power to do any act at all, much lesse to make or re­voke a Testament made. That Testament therefore which du­ring the Testators life, lay dormant, and was of no force, doth upon his death ipso facto come to be in force. Because every Te­stament according to the definition and nature of it, is a Decree touching things to be done after death. For the Testator in the time of his life doth predestinate, ordaine, and devise in his Te­stament those things which he would have take effect after his death, and which before his death are of no force. Hence sayth the Apostle, Heb. 9.16. Where a Testament is, there must also of ne­cessity be the death of the Testator; for a Testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all, whilst the Testator li­veth.

The New Testament then was confirmed: because God would have the world take notice, that he had not onely no will to re­voke it, but also had left himselfe no power to revoke it. And it was confirmed by death: because God would further have all men to understand, that upon the death of the Confirmer, the Testament was ipso facto in force, and began to take effect. But God who is the Testator could not confirme his Testament by his owne death in his owne proper person: because though he be a Person Testable who can make a Testament, yet withall he is a person immortall, who cannot dye: and therefore the most High God hath this prerogative, that he may confirme his Testament by the death of another. For hereupon God confirmed his Old Testament by the death of Beasts, whose bloud was sprinkled on the people, to establish his Testament unto them. Exod. 24.8. And Moses tooke the bloud (of the Oxen slayne for sacrifice, vers. 5.) and sprinkled on the People, and sayd, Behold the bloud of the covenant [Page 300] (or Testament) which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words. But God confirmed his New Testament by the death of Christ, a most Sacred person, who was next himselfe, and so neare unto him, that he was in a maner himselfe, even his onely and dearely beloved Son, whom God made his substitute to dye in his stead for the confirmation of his last Will and Testa­ment. For as the New Testament is better then the Old, and established upon better Promises: so it had a most excellent confirmation.

For can I devise a greater assurance of blessednesse, then to read the devise of it in Gods last Testament, which cannot be revo­ked, but is confirmed by the death of Christ to stand in force for ever, and therefore actually justifieth upon the accesse of my fayth, by giving me a present right to the future possession of that Inheritance, which long before the confirmation of that Testament, was therein predestinated, pre-imputed and devised unto me? Could God who could not dye, devise a way to come nearer death, then by the death of Christ who was next unto him? Or could God devise a course more consequent and suita­ble to that love and grace which he shewed in framing of the New Testament, then that his owne and onely Son should suf­fer death to confirme it? Or could Christ devise a more precious meanes whereby to shew his love, then to lay downe his life for a company of sinners, who stood condemned to death, that by Meanes of his death, that Testament might come to be in force, by which they might clayme not onely a pardon from eternall death, but also an Inheritance to eternall life, which is setled up­on them at the price of his bloud.

For hence Christ instituted the Eucharist as a perpetuall com­memoration of his death, and called his bloud, the bloud of the New Testament: because the New Testament was thereby e­stablished and confirmed to be in force; Mat. 26.28. For this is my bloud of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the Remission of sinnes. i. e. the Wine in this cup is a memoriall representing or betokening my bloud, which is to be shed to confirme the New Testament, wherein the Remission of sinnes is bequeathed unto many, even unto all Believers. And againe the like saying is expressed, Marc. 14.24. This is my bloud of the New Testament, which is shed for many. i. e. the bloud wherby the New Testament was confirmed. Hence Christ is frequently in Scripture sayd to give himselfe for us and to dye for us; because by his death hee confirmed the new Testament to be in force for our sakes, that wee thereupon might actually have our present right to all the blessings therein conveyed unto us. Hence also the bloud of [Page 301] Christ is opposed to the bloud of Abel, and is sayd to speake bet­ter things then that of Abel; Heb. 12.24. And to Jesus the Mediator of the New Testament, and to the bloud of sprinkling, that speaketh better things then that of Abel. viz. Because the sprinkling of Christs bloud confirmed the New Testament, which gives rights and claymes to blessednesse; whereas the bloud of Abel clamors and cryes for vengeance.

Hence the New Testament is highly magnified above the Old in respect of the confirmation; for although the Old Testament was confirmed by bloud, yet that confirmation was made but by the bloud of beasts, as of Oxen, Calves, and Goats; for that with such bloud onely the Old Testament was established or confirmed, it appeares playnely, Exod. 24.8. which place we re­cited before; and is further manifested, Heb. 9.18. Whereupon neither the first Testament was dedicated (or confirmed to be in force) without bloud; for when Moses had spoken every Precept to all the peo­ple according to the Law, he tooke the bloud of Calves and of Goates, with water, and scarlet wooll and hysop, and sprinkled both the Booke and all the people; saying, this is the bloud of the Testament which God hath enjoy­ned unto you. And hence a contempt against the New Testament is farre more fearefull and dangerous, then a despite against the Old: because the New was sanctified, confirmed, or hallowed with holy bloud, even with the bloud of the Son of God; Heb. 10.28. Hee that despised Moses Law, dyed without mercy, under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose yee shall hee bee thought worthy, who hath troden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the bloud of the covenant (or New Testament) wherewith hee (it should be, wherewith it, viz. the New Testament) was sanctified. i. e. was ratified, confirmed, and established to be and to stand in force.

3. To execute or performe the Decrees of the New Testament. Accor­ding to the rule of right reason, and to the Law of naturall e­quity, the will of the dead is to bee performed: Because other­wise the will also is dead. For it is a rule among the Civilians, Voluntas Testatoris pro Lege habet [...], i. e. the Testators Will is a kinde of Law. As therefore the Execution if the Law is the life of the Law: So the Execution of a Will is the life of the Will; and as the Law bindes the Magistrate to execute it: So doth a Will binde the Executor. But it is definitive and natu­rall to a Testament, to bee a Will wherein an Executor is nominated; that Will therefore wherein no Execution is nominated is no Testament, or is not properly so called. And to what pur­pose is an Executor nominated, or nominated by the name of an Executor, if hee execute not the Testament of the Testator. [Page 302] And because it is definitive and naturall to a Testament to prede­stinate and pre-decree things to be executed after death: that Te­stament therfore which after death is not executed, is frustrated; or frustrated to those particulars which are not executed. And a­vested Executor who hath some benefit by the Testament wherin he is nominated, may be compelled to accept the Executorship, or else to lose his benefit by the Testament. And although a nude or bare Executor, who hath no benefit by the Testament, bee not precisely bound to undertake the Executorship, for if hee see cause, hee may refuse it: Yet when once hee hath accepted it, he is then precisely bound to execute it.

Now of the New Testament the Executor was Christ. For the New Testament was the last and best Will of God, establi­shed upon better Promises, better Inheritances, and better Lega­cies, then were ordained in the former Testament. And there­fore what better Executor could God nominate and depute for the performance of it, then Christ? Because Christ was the Son of God, and by that relation above all persons in the World was nearest in alliance unto the Testator, and fittest in ability to exe­cute the Testament. For who but Christ can execute the Office of that Priest, who was to enter the Sanctuary of Heaven, and there to sanctifie the people of God, by expiating their sinnes, and sending unto them the holy spirit of God to purifie and cleanse their conscience from sinne? And who but Christ can execute the Office of that King, who was to set on the Throne of Heaven, there to governe the people of God, to subdue all their enemies, to raise them from death, to invest them with heavenly bodies, and to seate them in the possession of blessednesse? For the Priestly and Kingly Office of Christ, wherein else doth it chiefely consist, but in the execution of the New Testament? In a word, who but Christ can discharge the Promises or Legacies of blessednesse, which in the New Testament are made and de­vised unto Believers?

Hence Christ is called the Mediatour of the New Testament, Heb. 9.15. And for this cause hee is the Mediatour of the New Te­stament. And againe, Heb. 12.24. And to Jesus the Mediatour of the New Covenant, or Testament; for that word stands in the Mar­gin, and should have beene in the Text. Now the Mediatour of a Testament is hee, whom in these times wee call the Executor of it; for although every Mediatour bee not the Executor of a Testament, yet every Mediatour of a Testament is the Executor of it. Because the Executor thereof is a Mediatour or middle person betweene the Testator and the Legataries; and by Means of him, the finall effect of the Testament is procured, and there­in [Page 303] in consisteth the finall execution of it. But although this be not the onely respect, wherein Christ is the Mediator of the New Testament; for he mediated it, by testifying the truth of it, and he mediated it by confirming the force of it: yet he also mediated it this way, and chiefly this way, namely by executing the de­crees of it. For albeit the Testament were of force upon the confirmation of it: yet till the Execution of it, it was of no effect. But here we shall not further prosecute this verity, that Christ is the Executor of the new Testament: because we certified it be­fore upon verse 16.

And Christ was a vested Executor. Because he was to receive an infinite benefit by the new Testament. For therein he was appointed the universall heire of God; Heb. 1.2. God in these last dayes hath spoken unto us by his Sonne, whom he hath appointed heire of all things. Now in a testamentary construction, an heire, and a vested Executor are really all one and the same; although some rationall difference may be betweene them. Thereby he was to receive universall Power over all the world, both in heaven and earth; for such power was given him, and after his Resurrection he received it; Mat. 28.18. And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth. There­by he was to receive universall honour from all persons in Hea­ven, in earth, or under the earth; for all were to worship and serve him with divine Honour: for unto such honour God exal­ted him, Phil. 2.9. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and gi­ven him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus eve­ry knee should bow, of persons in Heaven, and in earth, and under the earth. i. e. that Christ might have divine worship from all maner of persons, whether they be Angels in Heaven, or men on earth, or the dead under the earth. For if the Angels of Heaven have a command to worship him, as they have, Heb. 1.6. And let all the Angels of God worship him: much more is worship due to him from men on earth. And lastly, thereby he was constituted and ordained to bee the High Priest of Gods Church, and the King of Gods Kingdome, to set upon the throne of Heaven, as the highest per­son in the world, excepting onely the most high God; 1 Cor. 15.27. For hee hath put all things under his feet: but when hee sayth all things are put under him, it is manifest that hee is excep­ted, which did put all things under him. Thus Christ was a vested Executor.

But his Executorship was conditionall. For it was charged with the condition of his owne death; he must dye before he can enter it, and therefore dye that he might performe it. Eve­ry Testament is a decree of things to be done after death: But [Page 304] the New Testament of God had this strange Prerogative, that it was of things to be done after the death of the Executor; who was to doe the things of it after his owne death. A course quite contrary to the Testaments of men, wherein the Executor after his owne death is able to doe nothing. Although Gods Testa­ment were in force upon the confirmation of it: yet the effect of that force, for the execution of it must necessarily be suspended, untill this condition was accomplished. But as the case stood, one and the same death of one and the same person, was both a Confirmation of that Testament, and the condition for the exe­cution of it. A condition somewhat difficult and burthensome unto flesh and bloud; for it is an hard case that an Executor must dye to compasse his Executorship. Yet unto Christ the condi­tion was possible, and lay in his power to performe; for unto a person who is mortall, what is more possible then death? And unto Christ it was very feasable; for seeing he must dye for the testimony of Gods testament, and for the confirmation of it, the same death also would serve as the condition for the execution of it. And unto Christ this condition was very Necessary; for his death was the Meanes by or through which that testament must be executed; and without this Meanes it could not be per­formed. And for the Necessity of this Meanes these are two reasons.

1. Because without his death, he could not receive his owne Inheritance. For by meanes of his death he was prepared, fitted, and perfected to receive that Inheritance which was ordained unto him in the testament whereof he was the Executor; as his universall power, honour, and glory, to set upon the throne of Heaven as the perpetuall Priest and King over the people of God. Because (1 Cor. 15.50.) flesh and bloud cannot inherite the kingdome of God; much lesse can it set upon the throne of God. That mortall person therefore that will enjoy immortality, must first be devested of mortality: and the mortality of a person mor­tall is devested onely by the meanes of death, or of a sudden change instead of death, as shall be done at the last day. Christ at the first was made flesh, John 1.14. And the word was made flesh: but afterward he was made a spirit; 1 Cor. 15.45. The last Adam was made a quickning spirit. And Christ at the first was made mortall; for he was made a little lower then the Angels: but afterward hee was made immortall; for hee was crowned with glory and honour above the Angels: and the Meanes through which this change was made from his mortality to immortality, was by or through the suffering of death; Heb. 2.9. But we see Jesus who was made a little lower then the Angels, for (by [Page 305] or through) the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; for the meaning of the Apostle is not, that the death of Christ was the merit of his crowning, but the meanes to it; because be­tweene the two extreames of his mortality and immortality, his death was the interposed Meane through which hee was to passe from one to the other.

2. Because without his death hee could not discharge the Le­gacies given to Believers. For through meanes of his death hee was prepared, fitted, and perfected to performe all the Promises of the New Testament. For seeing every Testament is a Decree touching things to bee done after death, and the New Testament was touching things to bee done after the death of Christ; therefore Christ must needes dye before they can bee done, and before hee can doe them; that through his death hee might bee qualified and perfected for the doing of them. God for the bringing of many sonnes unto glory, will constitute Christ the Captaine of their salvation: But for this Function hee will make Christ perfect through the suffering of death. And this meanes of perfecting was so decent and comely, that it became Almighty God to perfect him by this meanes, Heb. 2.10. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bring­ing many sonnes unto glory, to make the Captaine of their salvation per­fect through sufferings. Christ was the sonne of God, who learned obedience by the things which hee suffered; and through that suffering hee was made perfect, to become the authour of salva­tion to all who obey him, Heb. 5.8. Though hee were a sonne, yet learned hee obedience by the things which hee suffered; and being made perfect, hee became the authour of salvation unto all them that obey him.

Christ is ascended into the highest parts of the Heavens, for this end and purpose, that hee might execute and fulfill all things that were to bee done according to the last Will and Testament of God. But thither hee could not ascend, unlesse hee first dyed and descended into the Grave, which is the lower part of the earth, Ephes. 4.9. Now that hee ascended, what is it but that hee also descended first into the lower parts of the Earth? Hee that descended, is the same also that ascended up farre above all Heavens, that hee might fill all things, or rather fulfill all things; for so it is in the Margin, and should have beene so in the Text. Because in this place the word fulfill is a testamentary word, which signifies the executing and performing of a Testament, in distributing and discharging the Gifts and Legacies therein devised, to fulfill the minde of the Testator. For that heer the word beareth this sense it plainly ap­pears, partly by the words preceding, ver. 8. When hee ascended up on [Page 306] high, hee led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men; and partly by the words immediately following, vers. 11. And hee gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers; for the perfecting of the Saints, for the worke of the Ministe­ry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Now to doe these things, was to execute and fulfill the last Will of God.

Hence the Apostle teacheth the conveniency of Christs death, through the meanes whereof hee was fitted and perfected for the executing and doing of those things, which according to the last Will of God, conduce to our finall salvation. For hence is our Expiation, whereby wee are absolved and acquitted from our sinnes; for Christ through his death was made a mercifull and faithfull high Priest, to performe this gracious Office unto us, Heb. 2.17. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to bee made like unto his brethren, that hee might bee a mercifull and faithfull high Priest, in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sinnes of the peo­ple; for in that hee himselfe hath suffered, being tempted, hee is able to succour them that are tempted. And whereas at the Legall Expiati­on the Priest entred the Tabernacle after hee had shed the blood of Goates and Calves: But Christ first shed his owne blood, and thereupon entred the Sanctuary of Heaven once for all, to make an eternall Expiation, Heb. 9.12. Neither by the blood of Goates and Calves; but by his owne blood hee entred in once into the holy place, having obtained eternall redemption.

Hence is our Consolation, whereby wee are succoured in all our sufferings and distresses; for seeing Christ suffered and was tryed in all poynts as wee are, therefore hee hath a sense of our infirmities, and thereupon wee may confidently come to him for helpe in time of neede, Heb. 4.15. For wee have not an high Priest which cannot bee touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted as wee are, yet without sinne; let us therefore come bold­ly unto the Throne of Grace, that wee may obtaine mercy, and finde grace to helpe in time of neede. Hence is our Resurrection, whereby wee are raised from death; for Christ through his death destroyes the Divell, who had the power of death, and delivers us from our death; whereof though wee feele the pressure, yet wee need not feare the bondage, that it will bee eternall, Heb. 2.14. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, hee also himselfe likewise tooke part of the same, that through death hee might de­stroy him that had the power of death, that is, the Divell, and deliver them who through feare of death were all their life time subject to bondage. And hence is our Glorification, whereby the possession of our e­ternall inheritance is delivered unto us; for Christ was the Ex­ecutor of the New Testament, for this very cause, that through [Page 307] the meanes of his death, wee might receive the possession of that eternall inheritance to the present right whereof wee are called and justified, Heb. 9.15. And for this cause hee is the Mediatour of the New Testament, that by meanes of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first Testament, they which are called might receive the promise (the promised possession) of eternall inheri­tance.

Hence also Christ himselfe before his death, taught his Dis­ciples the Expediency of his death; that it was expedient for them, hee should dye; for otherwise the Comforter which was the holy Ghost would not come unto them, John 16.7. Never­thelesse I tell you the truth, it is expedient for you that I goe away; for if I goe not away the Comforter will not come unto you; But if I depart I will send him unto you. By his going away and departing, hee meanes his dying; for wee commonly expresse dying by the words of going away and departing. And after his death, hee taught them the Necessity of his death, that it behoved him to die and rise again from the dead, that thereupon the Gospel might be preached in his name, Luk. 24.46. And hee sayd unto them, thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sinnes should bee preached in his name among all Nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Thus the immediate, proper, finall causes or reasons why Christ dyed, are chiefely three; namely, to Testifie the truth of the New Testament; to Confirme the force of it, and to Execute the de­crees of it; for unto a Testament once constituted, what acts more do necessarily belong then the Testification, the Confirma­tion, and the Execution of it?

But the remote causes of his death might bee many and vari­ous. For all the actions done by Christ as Mediatour of the New Testament, were causes of his death; whether wee respect his Prophetick Office in publishing Gods Will, preaching his Doct­rine, and working Miracles; or his Priestly Office, in sanctify­ing Believers, and expiating their sinnes; or his Kingly Office, in governing his people, and subduing their enemies. And all benefits redounding to Believers, as the Legacies and Promises of the New Testament, were causes of his death; as their Justifica­tion, the Remission of their sinnes, their Resurrection and Glori­fication. And all Duties to bee done by Believers, as the conditi­ons without which they are not to enjoy their Legacies, are the causes of his death; as their sanctity or holynesse; their dying to sinne, and newnesse of life in all the good workes of love. But all these and the like are not opposite or repugnant to the three causes by us assigned; but are comprehended and included in [Page 308] them, are subordinate and consequent to them, are collected and inferred from them. For because Christ dyed to testifie, confirm, and execute the New Testament, and my sanctity or holinesse is a Precept thereof, and a duty by me to be done; therefore Christ dyed for my Sanctification that I might dye unto sin, and live unto holinesse; and consequently he dyed for my patience, temperance, mercifulnesse, &c. because these and the like are branches of holinesse. And because Christ dyed to testifie, con­firme and execute the New Testament, wherein Remission of sins, the Resurrection from the dead, and Glorification were devised and promised as Legacies unto Believers; therfore Christ also dyed for the Remission of my sins, for my Resurrection and Glorification.

Yet among the remote Causes of Christs death, the Scripture doth most frequently mention the Remission of sins. Because my sins have the greatest force upon me to bereave, or at least to hin­der me from the hope of their forgivenes. For according to the evidence of reason; if I looke upon my sins to consider the cu­stome and foulenesse of them, how can I chuse but feare, that I have deserved a fearfull punishment, and that God in his Justice will inflict it on me? Or if I looke upon my death to consider my dissolution and rottennesse in the Grave, how can I hope, that God whom I have so often and so much offended, should ever restore me to life, and translate me unto the Joyes of blessed­nesse? The Scripture therefore is very frequent in pressing the point for the Remission of my sins: because my gracious heaven­ly Father would have me to conceive and embrace a firme, sure, and stedfast hope of their future forgivenes; that by virtue of that hope I might utterly forsake them, and seriously devoting my life to holinesse, I might cherefully walke on in the way to bles­sednesse. Unto the Remission of my sins I have in this life a pre­sent right: but the possession and benefit of this right is so future, that I shall not enjoy it till the Resurrection; and then all my sins past unto this day shall be actually forgiven, upon my present forsaking of my sins. For this futurity must exercise my hope, and my hope of their future forgivenesse must engage me to a pre­sent forsaking of them. Thus it is evident that Christ dyed not without cause; seeing of his death there were three immediate causes, and divers other remote causes. Now let us consider the Apostles Argument, and we shall perceive the force of it from these two points following.

1. In that these causes are repugnant to Justifying by the Law.] For betweene these causes of Christs death and that effect of the Law, the repugnancy ariseth thus. It is the proper effect of [Page 309] every testament to Iustifie; for therein the testator doth give a present right to the future possession of gifts, Legacies, and Inhe­ritances, which he predestinateth, ordaineth, and deviseth, unto those persons whom he loveth and favoureth. Hence it was an an­cient Law of the twelve tables, Ʋti quisque legassit suae rei, ita jus esto. i. e. as any man deviseth his estate by his Will, so let the right passe; and hereto agree both the Law of Nations and of nature. That Testament therefore wherein no person is justified, is more inofficious then that, wherein persons to be necessarily justified, are wholly preterited. It is therefore the effect of both Gods testaments, of the Old and the New, of the Law and the Gospel, to justifie in their kind.

But these two Testaments are apparently different. Because they Justife differently; for they justifie different persons; the Old justifying workers onely, but the New onely Believers; they justifie from different sinnes, the Old onely from ignorances and infirmities, but the New from all sinnes whatsoever: And they justifie unto different inheritances, the Old onely to terrene and temporal, but the New unto caelestiall and eternall; as was large­ly declared before upon vers. 16. Hence of the New Testament it is sayd expresly, Heb. 8.6. That it is a better Testament, which was established upon better Promises. But if betweene the Old and the New, there be no difference, it cannot be truly sayd of the New, that it is a better Testament: because of two things that have no difference, neither can be better then the other. This difference then betweene these two Testaments breeds such a repugnancy between them, that they cannot both subsist. For when one and the same testator maketh different testaments, then the subsi­stence of either is repugnant to the subsistence and force of the o­ther. Because one and the same person, especially God who here is the testator, cannot at one and the same time have two different Wills or testaments in force. But the last and newest testament is alwayes the best, and of such force, that it wholly infringeth the former, though the former at the first making of it were valid and good; for when a latter testament is made, it necessarily argueth, that then at that time there is some defect or fault in the former, which is amended in the lat­ter.

If therefore the Old Testament be still in force, or if it be an effect of the Old to justifie unto those better promises, or if the right thereto come by the Law; then there had beene no cause of making the New Testament, and therefore no cause why Christ should dye, to testifie, confirme, and execute it, For if a mans first testament bee faultlesse, there can bee no cause why hee should [Page 310] make a second: because the true cause of making a second is to amend something amisse in the first: but in a thing faultlesse there can be nothing amisse, and therefore such a thing needs no amending. Hence sayth the Apostle, Hebr. 8.7. If that first Testament had beene faultlesse, then should no place have beene sought for the second. But if the two testaments of God be in effect all one, (as some teach they are) then is the Apostles argument ap­parantly fallacious. For then they can have no different effects, but whatsoever is the effect of either, must be also the effect of the other; then the first Testament and the last must equally justifie unto the same blessednes; then the Right thereto must come by the Law, and consequently Christ dyed without cause. For what cause could there be, why he should dye for the last Testa­ment if the first stood still in force, and could effect as much as the last? But if no discreet man will make two testaments, that shall be both wholly to one and the same effect; (for there can be no cause of his so doing) much lesse may we imagine this to be done of the most wise God.

2. In that these causes were consequent and suitable to the love and grace of God. When I was a poore miserable creature in the state of a grievous transgressor, who had offended against the Law of God; in the state of an improbous sinner who was peccant a­gainst the rules of naturall equity; in the state of a calamitous sinner, who was blemished as an alien and stranger to the King­dome of God, distressed and abandoned to all the miseries of this life, tainted in the attainder of Adams sin, and borne condemned to eternall death; was it not an argument of Gods love and grace, that he would so far please to cast his eye upon me, as to Justifie me, by releasing, and freeing me from my state of sinne and death, and by giving me besides a present right of alliance and inheritance with him, to be his Son and Heire to eternall blessednes? Was it not an argument of his love and grace to me, that he would justifie me upon the condition of holinesse? For seeing he justified me to be his Son and Heire; was it not reason I should carry my selfe as his Son and Heire, in the wayes of ho­linesse, answerable to the holinesse of my heavenly Father? For could it stand with the wisedome and holinesse of God to require any lesse condition of me, then to walk worthy of his love and grace towards me?

And was it not an argument of his further love and grace, that he would make my Justification to be Testamentary, to convey this Right unto me by his last Will and Testament, wherein by way of Legacy he predestinated and devised it unto me? For can any conveyance of any estate be more firme and sure, then that [Page 311] which is setled by the meanes of a Testament, an instrument which naturally requireth all favourable construction, that things may take effect according to the best meaning of the Te­stator? And was it not the richnesse of Gods grace, that hee would settle this Testament by the death of Christ, who was his owne and onely son, whom he made his substitute to dye in his stead, for the testifying, confirming, and executing of his Testa­ment, that it might be in force and take effect, whereby I might finally enjoy the benefit of it? For could not God have setled his Testament by meanes lesse chargeable and costly to him, then the precious bloud of his owne Son? And lastly this richnes and abundance of grace, was it not grace onely for grace, onely for my thankes? i. e. onely for my fayth to accept the present right to it, for my hope to expect the future possession of it, and for my love to performe the condition of it?

For is not the richnesse of this grace abundant enough to draw these thankes from mee? Is it not rich enough to perswade my faith to accept the present right to my Legacy, and to embrace it with all my heart, and all my soule? Seeing Christ hath dyed to testifie, confirme, and execute that Testament, wherein it is devised unto mee? For is faith to bee given to any thing which I have not seene, if this bee not credible, and to bee belie­ved? Is not this grace rich enough to assure my hope, to receive the future possession of my Legacy? for when the Executor of the Testament so loved mee, that hee dyed for my sake, that the Will might bee in force for which hee dyed; can I imagine that hee will deny mee my Legacy? For what will not hee give me, who gave himselfe for mee? When the Executor sitteth at the right hand of the Testator upon his Throne in Heaven, where he hath all honour and power to doe all things; can I imagine that hee can bee either unwilling or unable to performe the whole Will of the Testator? For will such an Executor in such a con­dition wrong the Testator, or defraud any Legatary, who is co-heire with him? Is not this grace rich enough to procure my love, to performe the condition of my Legacy? For seeing the Executor so loved mee, that hee dyed for my sake, to performe the condition of his Executorship: Is it not reason that I should love him againe, and chearefully addresse my selfe to the workes of love in all the waies of holynesse, which is the condition of my Legacy?

If therefore I conceive that this grace of God comes to mee by the Law, and claime my right to it by the Law: Doe I not heereby wave the death of Christ, and suppose that hee dyed without a cause, that there was no neede of his death, to testifie, [Page 312] confirme, and execute the New Testament? And consequently, doe I not heereby frustrate the grace of God, and disanul the gra­tious meanes whereby it was conveyed, and finally debarre my selfe from the benefit of it? For what right have I to this grace of God, if that Testament wherein it is devised unto mee, bee of no force, and have no effect? For what force or effect can any Testament have which is not testified, confirmed, and executed? But contrarily if I meane that Gods grace shall bee effectuall, and will hope to enjoy the blessing of it, I must acknowledge the gracious meanes whereby it was conveyed unto mee; namely, through the death of Christ, who shed his pretious blood to te­stifie, confirme, and execute that Testament wherein it was con­veyed. For this grace was not given by meanes of the Law, but it came by the meanes of Jesus Christ, John 1.17. For the Law was given by Moses: But grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Hence the New Testament is called, the Gospel of the grace of God, Act. 20.24. So that I might finish my course with joy, and the Mini­stery which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testifie the Gospel of the grace of God. And afterward it is called the word of his grace, in the same Chapter, vers. 32. And now brethren I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace. But unto the Law grace is con­trary; for they are things in themselves opposite, Rom. 6.14. Yee are not under the Law, but under grace. Thus the causes of Christs death were repugnant to the effect of the Law; and were consequent to the effects of Gods Love and Grace.