80 / 808
68
ephefans,Chap.t,
V
E
R.;.
who
fought
righteoufne
ffe
in
the Law
of
allthe
children
ofthefle/h;
Ergo,
the
children
of
the
flefh were not
in
the
feede.
"
The
conclufions are
true, but not pertinent
to
this fenfe;for the
chi!-
«
drenof
the
liefh
here are
thofe only who
in courfe
of
nature came from
"
Abraham:the
children
of
the promife,thofe
who
were
fo
borne
ofvl-
"
brahana,that
they were
in
1
faac
called
to the
heavenly benediction. But
"
inlaying downe this rejection
of
Efau
from benefit
of
this
word,
be-
"longing
to the
feedeand
taking
of
Jacob,
he fheweth plainly,
that
it
is
"not
a
reje&ing
of
thofe
in Abrahams
feede, who
were jufliciariesas
"jufticiaries,becaufe
that
Efau was reje&ed
before
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 the
ro,r r,rz,r3.ver.three
things.Firft,
the
"equity of
Efaia
and
ija.«
in
Parents conception, merits,, demerits,
"onelyin
birth
Efau
had preheminence.
Secondly, marketheword
"
Came,fignifying
the
ele&ion
of
the one,and calling himto the
heaven-
"
ly inhertance,with the
rejeétion
of
the other,which
is
laid
downe,ver.
"r
x,r 3.Thirdly,Marke
the
end,why God
did choofe and refufe,before
"
merits
or
demerits
in
the end
of
the
r
i.
verfe,
by
a
parenthefis,
viz.
"that
Gods
purpofe according
to
his
freeele&ion might abide
for
ever,
"
while it depended not on workes
in
men.which
are
changeable,but
on
"
him
felfe,who
freely calleth
whom
he will
to
this heavenly
glory.The
"
fcope
of
this example
is
the fame with
the other,
viz,
to
prove
that
all
"
of
Ifrael,
and all
the
feede of
Abraham
were not
fuchto whom the
word
declaring
Gods
free Ele&ion and
Adoption to the
heavenly in-
"
heritance belonged.
That
word which
belonged
not to
Efau,
butto
Jacob,
that
belonged
not to many
of
Abrahams feed
, and by confequence
that may
Hand
firme,
though
a
multitude
of
Abrahams
feede be rejei`ìed
but the word
declaring
Gods
elei%on,
&c.But the Apoffle doth lay downe the man-
ner after which the
word
choofrngand adopting Ifraell, refuting Epic,
was
given
forth, viz,
that it
came
without
refpe&
of
good or
evil!,
which might
move 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 they
might
thinke it impoffible
that
Cods
word could
Hand
with
reje&ing them
,
who
were righteous
in
compa-
rifon
of
the Gentiles
received
;
for
he
conceived this included in
that
querulous obje
&ion:Firfl,is
Gods
induration
a
caufe
why
he
is
angry
with
us?
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
a
i
ver.
telleth us,that
that
induration
is
not the
caufe
of
Gods
an-
ger, but anger
of
induration
;
for none
are
hardned
but
veffels
now
of
wrath,by
their
owne
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 thus
a
reddition might
be
framed,
faith
hest
majori
ad
minus:
Shall the
Potter havefuchabfolute power
in
his
clay,and
thall
not God
have power
to
decree
the
hardning
of
thofe who jufflydeferve
it?