Vert. jo. the Epiftie to the. Romans. 3 35 nally confie of Abraham, be not the chi ldrem of the promife. T t NT. How doth Paul knit this exam- pie to the former.? . . S t L. By a gradation, as a thing greater and ffronger to prove his pur - pofe,that the promife ofgeace and fal- vation loth not indifferetlyand equal- ly pertain unto all the pofterity of A- braham, but to fuch of them only as were .ele &:.For the Jew's might obje& that I Prie! was reje£ted,.becaufe he was born of the bondwoman (to wig, A- gar ;) whereas no fuch thing could be alledged in this- example of Jacob and Efau, who both came of Ifaae, Abra- I..ants lawfull fon, and. of Rebecca at one time,snd by one birth, yea; and E- Jàu was the Elder of the twain.: fo as this example fits the Apoffle much bet- ter to ¡LICIT' that the prerogative of car - nali birth, is not the caufe of receiving the promife. T t 5t: Tea ,but the Jewes might alledge, that Efau being a prophane man, and beha ring 'himfelf ill, was .therefore rejetled : nhereas Jacob was loved and had the efeet of the promife,becaufe he ¡was a good man,and did well. Coheren. Method. S t L. The Apoftle meeteth with this.ab¡e&on,in.laying that Gods pur- pofe was declared touching them both, ere ever they were born ; and there- lore their prefent good or evillworks (for they had done none when God had uttered his counfel of them,)coultl not mOve God to loèe the one,aiidhate the other. T i M. Yet it may be Paid that God de- creed of them both, for the forefeet! works of them both. S! L. Pau /denyeth this, faying:it was not of works, and aflirmeth the quite contrary,thatthepurofe of Sa- ving ]acob,and ofrefuftng Erau, came of his free ele&ion,whereby of his love(hé chafed the one,and not the other.Thus whereas the Jews flood ttìtich upon the priviledge of their birth and their works,Paul rejeð them both, as no cau.fes of Gods promifes,which are ap- plyed and take place by the decree of Góds elerion. The my fiery whereof, upon this occafion,he beginneth to o pen both particularly by example, and ,generallyy teftimony of Scripture, verf. i 5, t .and in the reff of the Chap. T r M. What inftrattions areto be ga- thered from this Text thus unfolded S i L. That faith nor good works, neither prefent or fort-teen, are any caufe whyGod ele ð any unto fal- vation.At dcontrariwife,infidelity and bad works, whether prefent or fore - feen, do not move God to refttfe any man and call hint off from having any part in Chrift,l& the proinifes by him. The reafon is, faith and good works Rorif rì. do proceed ,from ele &ion, therefore cannot be the caufe thereof; for one thing cannot be the caufe and elfe& in refpeFt of another. Now that faith and works be effe &s,_ fee Air 13. 43. Dim !. i. Epbefs.4. No man hath any good but what God purpofed from everla= fling to put into him. Secondly,Gods ele &ion depends !upon his will :only, verf. 15. therefore not upon fore -feen faith and works. Thirdly, Infidelity fore -feen, and bad works, were not the caufe that men were refufed, be- caufe all finning in Adam, God could fee in whole mankinde no other thing but tinbeliefand concupifcence, which hereditarily flowed from Adam upon all his race; and fo all had been reje&ed for fin forefeen, if any were caft out. T t M.Butif wicked men bedeJtroyed for unbeliefand bad works, then God decreed to deftroy them in refpell o f thefe. S s L. It is true,fo he did, but he re- fufed and did not chufe them, only be- caufe he would not chufe them, with- out all refpe& to their ill qualities and works.It is otherwife with the cleft, whom God did appoint in his eternall decree unto falvation,fnot in refpe& of their works,but in and for Chrift ; yet fo as he purpofed in time to call, to jet - ftifìe and to fan&ifie them, ordaining to thefe 1hings,nof for thefe things. T t M. What ufeof this point ? S s L. It reproves fuch as Lye Gods predeftination to mens merits, where. as it is independent and without all re- lation, to the worthineffè and ufiwor= thineffe Dottrine. V e.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=