68 ephefans,Chap.t, V E R.;. who fought righteoufne ffe in the Law of allthe children ofthefle/h; Ergo, thechildrenoftheflefh were not in thefeede. " The conclufions are true, but not pertinent to this fenfe;for the chi!- « drenofthe liefh here are thofe only who in courfe ofnature came from " Abraham:the children ofthe promife,thofe whowere fo borne ofvl- " brahana,that they were in 1faaccalled to the heavenly benediction. But " inlaying downe this rejectionofEfau from benefitofthis word, be- "longing to the feedeand takingofJacob, he fheweth plainly, that it is "not a reje&ing ofthofe in Abrahams feede, who were jufliciariesas "jufticiaries,becaufe that Efau was reje&edbefore he was borne,or had « done good or evill,frompart in that word made to Ifrael and Ifaac, ta- 'kentothe heavenly benediótion before any thing which might move " thereunto :marke,Ergo,in thero,r r,rz,r3.ver.three things.Firft, the "equity ofEfaia and ija.« in Parents conception, merits,, demerits, "onelyin birth Efau had preheminence. Secondly, marketheword "Came,fignifying the ele&ion ofthe one,and calling himto the heaven- " ly inhertance,with therejeétionof the other,which is laiddowne,ver. "rx,r 3.Thirdly,Markethe end,why God did choofe and refufe,before " meritsor demerits in the endof the r i. verfe, by a parenthefis, viz. "that Gods purpofe according tohis freeele&ion might abidefor ever, "while it depended not on workes in men.which are changeable,but on " himfelfe,who freely calleth whom he will to this heavenlyglory.The "fcope of this example is the fame with the other, viz, toprove that all " ofIfrael, and all the feede of Abrahamwere not fuchto whom the worddeclaring Gods free Ele&ion and Adoption to theheavenly in- " heritance belonged. That word whichbelonged not toEfau, butto Jacob, that belonged not to many of Abrahams feed , and by confequence that may Hand firme, though a multitudeofAbrahams feede be rejei`ìed but the word declaring Godselei%on, &c.But the Apoffle doth lay downe the man- ner after which theword choofrngand adopting Ifraell, refuting Epic, was given forth, viz, that it came without refpe& ofgood or evil!, which mightmove unto it, that he may prevent a fecond obje&ion which the Jewes might make from their owne righteoufnefl'e,in refile& of the Gentiles, fanners ; for theymight thinke it impoffiblethat Cods word could Hand withreje&ing them , who were righteous in compa- rifonof the Gentiles received ; for heconceived this included inthat querulous obje&ion:Firfl,is Gods indurationa caufe why he is angry withus? Secondly, can he be angry with us who are hardned-by s untefitablewill? Thirdly, can he be angry with us juflly? The Apte in this ai ver. telleth us,that that induration is not the caufe ofGods an- ger, but anger ofinduration ; for none are hardnedbut veffels nowof wrath,by theirowne deferving.z.Saith he,God beareth themwith much patience,and doth not harden them by will irrefrflable.3.God doth it for moft juft ends, and thusa reddition might beframed, faith hest majori adminus: Shall the Potter havefuchabfolute power in hisclay,and thall not Godhave power todecree thehardning ofthofe who jufflydeferve it?
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=