Chap. 3 r. An Ezpofiti4,11 upon the Book! of J o a. Verl. 29 597 bath often fought to defiroy me, fo he would have re,ot ced to purpofe, and claps his hands for joy at my deftrudion. Such as this,was the character of the man that hated lab, of the man at whole deftrut`tion he did not rejoyce. Thus we fee ofwhat temper lob was, lab lived in darlee times, in times farre remote from the fullneffe of Gofpel light, yet how full was his heart ofGolpel love. He lived long before Chrift in the world, yet how like was his love to the love of Chrilt ? who not only did good to, but dyed for thofe that hated him. soh charity might wel become, yea it was fuch as is ra ely found a- mong thofe who live in the cleareft Gofpel light. Certainly flee IZuid Qr u!sse farre exceeded the light and learning of the Jewilh Rabbines and ree ¡i evange ii underftood the meaning of the Law of love in thofe times better t'ropre rat " then the Pharileesdid inChrifts time. What greater evidence of Or. `anis. love ( except that ofChrift himfelfe, who, as was fayd before, dyed for thofe that hatedhim ) could be given then this, not to rejoyce at the death or deftruelionofhim that hated him ? Yet, Some poffibly may object ; Had it not been a greater e. vidente of love, if 70b haddone good to him that hated hina,then only not to Raj -yce at the deftruttionof him that hated him ? Is it not more charitie to doe good town enemy, then not to rej iyce at the evill which he (offers ? Some have fayd, The reafonwhy 7.4 fayd not,he did good to or loved his enemies, or thofe that hated him was becau( the law of loving an enemy was not in force in his time, and fo he was not obliged to fuch a duty. For proofe of which opinion they alledge chat of Chrilt in his Sermon upon the Mount ( Math: 5,43.) Ye lauve heard that it bathbeen laid .feld, Thou ,(halt love thy neighbour, andhate thine enemy. Which they Inter. pret as if this were the rule given by God for chofe elder times, ?btu ¡hilt love thy neighbour, and h_te thine enemy Whereas when Chria faith, It hail, been ¡ayd, he dot') not mane , that this was the rule givenout by God to them of old, but this was the Gloflegiven by man: God laid in the Law , Thou fbalt love thy neighbour ; but he never laid , Then ¡halt hate thine enemy ; that was the expo lition or comment which the Pharifees made upon the text, and it was indeed a grof e corruption of it. As if that Commandement, Taon /halt /me thy neighbour, implyed, Thou shalt hate thine enemy: Thus they interpreted the Law by the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=