Commentary on Romans; Systematic Theology

VERSE 37. Nay, in all these tilings we are more titan con querors, &c. This verse is connected with the 35th. 4 So far from these afflictions separating us from the love of Christ, they arc more than conquered.' That is, they are not only deprived of all power to do us harm, they minister to our good, they swell the glory of our victory. Through him that loved us. The triumph which the apostle looked for was not to be effected by his own strength or perseverance, but by the grace and power of the Redeemer. 1 Cor. xv. 10, Gal. ii. 20, Philip. iv. 13, "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."

VERSES 38, 39. In these verses the confidence of the apostle is expressed in the strongest language. lie heaps words together in the effort to set forth fully the absolute inability of all created things, separately or united, to frustrate the pur pose of God, or to turn away his love from those whom he has determined to save.

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, &c. It is somewhat doubtful how far the apostle intended to express distinct ideas by the several words here used. The enumera tion is by some considered as expressing the general idea that nothing in the universe can injure believers, the detail being designed merely as amplification. This, however, is not very probable. The former view is to be preferred. Neither death. That is, though cut off in this world, their connection with Christ is not thereby destroyed. " They shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand," John x. 28. Nor life, neither its blandishments nor its trials. "Whether we live, we live unto the Lord, or whether we die, we die unto the Lord. So that living or dying we are the Lord's." Rom. xiv. 8.

Nor angels, nor principalities, nor poivers. Principalities and powers arc by many understood here to refer to the authorities of this world as distinguished from angels. But to this it maybe objected, that Paul frequently uses these terms in connection to designate the different orders of spiritual beings, were in common use among the Jews in this sense. It is probable, from the nature of the passage, that this clause is to be taken generally, without any specific reference to either irood or bad angels as such. 'No superhuman power, no anirel, how ever mighty, shall ever be able to separate us from the love of God.' Neither tilings present, nor tilings to <-oine..Nothing in. this life, nor in the future; no present or future event, <S:c.

VERSE 39. Nor height, nor depth. These words have been very variously explained. That interpretation which seems, on the whole, most consistent with scriptural usa^e ami the con text, is that which makes the terms equivalent to /intern and earth. 'Nothing in heaven or earth:' see Eph. iv. 8, Isa. vii. 11, "Ask it either in the depth or the height above," &c., cVc. Xor an;'/ other creature. Although the preceding enumeration had been so minute, the apostle, as if to prevent despondeiicv having the possibility of a foothold, adds this all-comprchcndim: speci fication, no created tlthii/ shall be able to separate us from the love of God. This love of (lod, which is declared to he thus unchangeable, is extended towards us onlv on account of our connection with Christ, and therefore the apostle adds, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord; see Eph. i. li, '1 Tim. i. 9.

1. God chooses certain individuals and predestinates them to eternal life. The ground of this choice is his own sovereign pleasure; the end to which the elect are predestinated, is con formity to Jesus Christ, both in character and destiny, yer. 29.

3. The only evidence of election is effectual calling, that is, the production of holiness. And the only evidence of the genuineness of this call and the certainty of our pesevcrancc, is a patient continuance in well doing, vs. 29, 30.

4. The love of God, and not human merit or power, is the proper ground of confidence. This love is infinitely great, as is manifested by the gift of God's own Son; and it is unchange able, as the apostle strongly asserts, vs. 31 — 39.

5. The gift of Christ is not the result of the mere general love of God to the human family, but also of special love to his own people, ver. 32.

0. Hope of pardon and eternal life should rest on the death, the resurrection, universal dominion, and intercession of the Son of God, ver. 34.

7. Trials and afflictions of every kind have been the portion of the people of God in all ages; as they cannot destroy the love of Christ towards us, they ought not to shake our love to Avar ds him, ver. 35.

8. The whole universe, with all that it contains, as far as it is good, is the friend and ally of the Christian; as far as it is evil, it is a more than conquered foe, vs. 35 — 39.

9. The love of God, infinite arid unchangeable as it is, is manifested to sinners only through Jesus Christ our Lord,

1. The plan of redemption, while it leaves no room for despondency, affords no pretence for presumption. Those whom God loves he loves unchangeably; but it is not on the ground of their peculiar excellence, nor can this love be extended towards those who live in sin, vs. 29 — 39.

2. As there is a beautiful harmony and necessary connection between the several doctrines of grace, between election, pre destination, calling, justification, and glorification, so must there be a like harmony in the character of the Christian. He cannot experience the joy and confidence flowing from his election, without the humility which the consideration of its being gratuitous must produce; nor can he have the peace of one who is justified, without the holiness of one who is called,

3. As Christ is the first born or head among many brethren, all true Christians must love him supremely, and each other as members of the same family. Unless we have this love, we do not belong to this sacred brotherhood, ver. 29.

4. If the love of God is so great and constant, it is a great sin to distrust or doubt it, vs. 30 — 39.

5. Believers need not be concerned if they are condemned by the world, since God justifies them, vs. 33, 34.

6. If God spared not his own Son, in order to effect our salvation, what sacrifice on our part can be considered great, as a return for such love, or as a means of securing the salvation of others, ver. 32.

7. The true method to drive away despondency, is believing apprehensions of the scriptural grounds of hope, viz., the love of God, the death of Christ, his resurrection, his universal dominion and his intercession, ver. 34.

8. Though the whole universe were encamped against the solitary Christian, he would still come off more than conqueror,

9. Afflictions and trials are not to be fled from or avoided, but overcome, ver. 37.

10. All strength to endure and to conquer comes to us through him that loved us. Without him we can do nothing,

11. How wonderful, how glorious, how secure is the gospel! Those who are in Christ Jesus are as secure as the love of (lod, the merit, power, and intercession of Christ can make them. They are hedged around with mercv. They {ire enclosed in the arms of everlasting love. "Now unto Him that is able to keep us from falling, and to present us faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy; to the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Anien!'

WITH the eighth chapter, the discussion of the plan of salva tion, and of its immediate consequences, was brought to a close. The consideration of the calling of the Gentiles, and the rejection of the Jews, commences with the ninth, and extends to the end of the eleventh. Paul, in the first place, shows that God may consistently reject the Jews, and extend the blessings of the Messiah's reign to the Gentiles, ix. 1 — 24; and in the second place, that he has already declared that such was his purpose, vs. 25 — 29. Agreeably to these prophetic declarations, the apostle announces that the Jews were cast off and the Gentiles called; the former having refused submission to the righteousness of faith, and the latter having been obedient, vs. 30 — 33. In the tenth chapter, Paul shows the necessity of this rejection of the ancient people of God, and vindicates the propriety of extending the invitation of the gospel to the heathen, in accordance with the predictions of the prophets. In the eleventh, he teaches that this rejection of the Jews was neither total nor final. It was not total, inas much as many Jews of that generation believed, and it was not final, as the period approached when the great body of that nation should acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, and be reingrafted into their own olive tree. So that we have in this and the following chapters, 1st. Paul's lamentation over the rejec tion of the Jews, ix. 1 — 5. 2d. The proof that God had the right to deal thus witli his ancient people, ix. 6 — 20. 3d. The proof that the guilt of this rejection was on the Jews them selves, ix. 30 — 33, and x. 1 — 21. 4th. The consolation which the promises and revealed purposes of God afford in view of this sad event.

In entering on the discussion of the question of the rejection of the Jews, and the calling of the Gentiles, the apostle assures his brethren of his love for them, and of his respect for their national privileges, vs. 1 — 5. That his doctrine on this subject true, he argues, 1. Because it was not inconsistent with the promises of God, who is perfectly sovereign in the distribu tion of his favours, vs. 6 — 24. And secondly, because it was distinctly predicted in their own Scriptures, vs. 25 — 29. The conclusion from this reasoning is stated in vs. 20 — 33. The Jews are rejected for their unbelief, and the Gentiles admitted to the Messiah's kingdom.

As the subject about to be discussed was of all others the most painful and offensive to his Jewish brethren, the apostle approaches it with the greatest caution, lie solemnly assures them that he was grieved at heart on their account; and that his love for them was ardent and disinterested, verses 1 — 3. Their peculiar privileges he acknowledged and respected. Th«y were highly distinguished by nil the advantages connected with the Old Testament dispensation, and, above all, by the fact that the Messiah was, according to the flesh, a Jew, verses 4, 5.

VERSE 1. I x<i>/ the truth in Chrixt, J lie not, &c. There are three wavs in which the words in Christ^ or liy Christ^ may here be understood. 1. They may be considered as part of the formula of an <>;ith, / (swear) by Glu'ixt, I xjn'iik tin' truth..But in oaths the preposition ~IH')~, and not k^, is used. In a few cases, indeed, where a verb of swearing is used, the latter lireposition occurs, but not otherwise. In addition to this objec tion, it may be urged that no instance occurs of Paul's appeal ing to Christ in the form of an oath. The case which looks most like such an appeal is 1 Tim. v. 21, "I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels," &c. But it is evident from the mention of the angels, that this is not of the nature of an oath. Paul merely wishes to urge Timothy to act as in the presence of God, Christ, and angels. This interpretation, therefore, is not to be approved. 2. The words in Christ may be connected with the pronoun /. '/ in

Christ,' i. e., as a Christian, or, 'In the consciousness of my union with Christ, I declare,' &c. So the words are used in a multitude of cases, "You in Christ," "I in Christ," "We in Christ," being equivalent to you, /, or we, as Christians, i. e., considered as united to Christ. See 1 Cor. i. 20, " Of whom are ye in Christ," i. e., 'By whom ye are Christians, or united to Christ;' Horn. xvi. 3, 7, 9, 1 Cor. iii. 1, and frequently elsewhere. 3. The words may be used adverbially, and be translated after a Christian manner. This also is a frequent use of this and analogous phrases. See 1 Cor. vii. 39, "Only in the Lord," i. e., only after a religious manner, in the Lord being equivalent with in a manner becoming ', or suited to the Lord. Horn. xvi. 22, "I salute you in the Lord." Philip, ii. 29, "Receive him, therefore, in the Lord;" Eph. vi. 1, Col. iii. 18. The sense of the passage is much the same, whether we adopt the one or the other of the last two modes of expla nation. Paul means to say that he speaks in a solemn and religious manner, as a Christian, conscious of his intimate rela tion to Christ.

I say the truth, and lie not. This mode of assertion, first affirmatively, and then negatively, is common in the Scriptures. "Thou shalt die, and not live," Isaiah xxxviii. 1. "He con fessed, and denied not," John i. 20. There is generally some thing emphatic in this mode of speaking. It was a solemn and formal assertion of his integrity which Paul here designed to make. My conscience also bearing me witness; aofipaprupoua^, my conscience bearing witness with my words. In the Holy G-host. These words are not to be taken as an oath, nor are they to be connected with the subject of ou ^suootmc, '/, instructed, or influenced by the Holy Ghost, lie not;" but rather with ffo^/jtaprupoucr^, his conscience bore this testimony guided by the Holy Spirit, Spiritu Sancto duce et moderators, as Bcza expresses it.

VERSE 2. That I have great heaviness, &c. This it is which Paul so solemnly asserts. He was not an indifferent spectator of the sorrow, temporal and spiritual, which was about to come on his countrymen. All their peculiar national advantages, and the blessings of the Messiah's kingdom which they had wickedly rejected, were to be taken away; they were, therefore, left without hope, either for this world or the next. The consideration of their condition filled the apostle with great and constant heaviness. The sincerity and strength of this sorrow for them he asserts in the strongest terms in the next verse.

VERSE 3. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, &c. The word anathema (Attic ai>d- $rtim, Hellenistic dva$£//«,) means any tiling consecrated to God, TO dvaTe&efjtevov T(L> (Jew, as JSuidas explains it. The Attic form of the word occurs in the New Testament only in Luke xxi. 5. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word to which it answers occurs very frequently, and probably the root originally meant to cut off', to separate. Hence, the substantive derived from it, meant something separated or consecrated. In usage, however, it was applied only to such things as could not be redeemed,* and which, when possessed of life, were to be put to death. It is evident from the passages quoted in the margin, that the word usually designates a person or thing set apart to destruction on religious grounds; something accursed.

In the New Testament the; use of the (I reek word is very nearly the same. The only passages in which it occurs, besides the one before us, are the following; Acts xxiii. 14, uWe have bound ourselves under a great curse, (we have placed ourselves under an anathema,) that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul." The meaning of this passage evidently is, 'We have imprecated on ourselves the curse of God, or we have

* Levit. xxvii. 28, k2'.\ " No devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the Lord of all that ha hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his posses sion, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted tiling ( ~-r; uva3—uj-) is most holy unto the Lord. None devoted, which shall be devoted from among men, Bhall be redeemed, but shall surely be put to death."

Dent. vii. L'O, "Neither shah thou bring an abomination into thy house, lest thou be (i cursed tinny (uv«c-s«*) like it, but thou shalt utterly detest it. and utterly abhor it; for it is a cur>ed thing." The sacred writer is here speak ing of the images, &C., of the heathen, which were devoted to destruction.

Joshua vi. 17, -'.And the city shall be (Vvuo-swx) accursed, even it and all that is therein, to the Lord," &c. Verse 18, "And ye. in anywise keep yourselves from the accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed, when ye take of the accursed thing, and mnke the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it."

1 Sam. xv. 21, "And the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, &c. la Hebrew, simply called upon him to consider us as anathema.* 1 Cor. xii. 3, "No man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed (anathema);" 1 Cor. xvi. 22, "Let him be anathema maranatha;" Gal. i. 8, 9, "Let him be accursed (anathema)." In all these cases it is clear that the word is applied to those who were regarded as deservedly exposed, or devoted to the curse of God. In this sense it was used by the early Christian writers, and from them passed into the use of the church. "Let him be anathema," being the constant formula of pronouncing any one, in the judgment of the church, exposed to the divine malediction.

Among the later Jews, this word, or the corresponding Hebrew term, was used in reference to the seccnd of the three degrees into which they divided excommunication (see Buxtorf's Rabbinical Lexicon.) But no analogous use of the word occurs in the Bible. Such being the meaning of this word in the Scriptures, its application in this case by the apostle admits of various explanations. The most common interpretations of the passage are the following.

As those men or animals pronounced anathema in the Old Testament were to be put to death, many consider the apostle as having that idea in his mind, and meaning nothing more than 'I could wish to die for my brethren,' &c. But the objections to this interpretation are serious. Even in the Old Testament the word expresses something more than the idea of devotion to death. An anathema was a person devoted to death as accursed; see the passages quoted above. And in the New Testament this latter idea is always the prominent one.

The connection is also unfavourable to this interpretation. The phrase is, " accursed from Christ.'" How are the words from Christ to be explained? Some say they should be ren dered Itj Christ. 'I could wish myself devoted to death by Christ.' But this is an unusual use of the preposition (0.7:0) which our version correctly renders from; and the whole expression is, besides, unusual and unnatural. Others, there fore, say that the passage should be rendered thus: ' I could wish from Christ, that I might be devoted to death/ But this, too. is an unusual and forced construction.

use of the word, and means only that he would be willing to be cut off from the church, or excommunicated. In this view the word Christ is commonly taken for the body of Christ, or the church. But, in the first place, this is not a scriptural use of the word anathema, and is clearly inapplicable to the other cases in which it is used by the apostle; and, in the second place, it gives a very inadequate sense. Excommunication from the church would not be a great evil in the eyes of the Jews.

Others rentier the verb which, in our version, is translated 'I could wish,' I did wish. The sense would then be, 'I have great sorrow on account of my brethren, because I can sympa thize in their feelings, for I myself once wished to be accursed from Christ on their account.' Hut, in the first place, had Paul intended to express this idea, he would have used the uorist, the common tense of narration, and not the imperfect.* 2. It i.s no objection to the common translation, that the imper fect indicative, instead of some form of the optative, is here used, and that, too, without an optative particle, see Acts xxv. 22. -). This interpretation does not give a sense pertinent to the apostle's object. He is not expressing what was his state of mind formerly, but what it was when writing. It was no proof of his love for his brethren that he once felt as they then did, but the highest imaginable, if the ordinary interpre tation be adopted. 4. The language will hardly admit of this interpretation. No Jew would express his hatred of Christ, and his indifference to the favours which he offered, by saying he wished himself accursed from Christ. Paul never so wished himself before his conversion, for this supposes that he recog nised the power of Christ to inilict on him the imprecated curse, and that his displeasure was regarded as a great evil.

The common interpretation, and that which seems most natural, is, ' I am grieved at heart for my brethren, for I could wish myself accursed from Christ, that is, I could be willing to be regarded and treated as anathema, a thing accursed, for their sr,kes.'| That this interpretation suits the force and

f Sensus est: optabam Judaeoi-um miseriam in mcum caput conferre, et illorum loco esse. Judaei, fidcjm repudiautes, eraiit anathema a Christo. —

meaning of the words, and is agreeable to the context, must, on all hands, be admitted. The only objection to it is of a theological kind. It is said to be inconsistent with the apostle's character to wish that he should be accursed from Christ. But to this it may be answered, 1. Paul does not say that he did deliberately and actually entertain such a wish. The expres sion is evidently hypothetical and conditional, 4 1 could wish, were the thing allowable, possible, or proper.' So far from saying he actually desired to be thus separated from Christ, he impliedly says the very reverse. ' I could wish it, were it not wrong; or, did it not involve my being unholy as well as mise rable, but as such is the case, the desire cannot be entertained.' This is the proper force of the imperfect indicative when thus used; it implies the presence of a condition which is known to be impossible. Speaking of the use of the imperfect ifioMpjv in Acts xxv. 22, Dr. Alexander says: "Most interpreters, and

especially the most exact philologists of modern times, explain the Greek verb, like the similar imperfect used by Paul in Rom. ix. 2, as the indirect expression of a present wish, ren dered correctly in the English version. The nice distinction in Greek usage, as explained by these authorities, is that the present tense would have represented the result as dependent on the speaker's will (as in Rom. i. 13, 16, 19, 1 Cor. xvi. 7, 1 Tim. ii. 8); the imperfect with the qualifying particle di> would have meant, 1 could wish (but I do not); whereas this precise form is expressive of an actual and present wish, but subject to the will of others, 'I could wish, if it were proper, or if you have no objection.'* 2. Even if the words expressed

more than they actually do, and the apostle were to be under stood as saying that he wished to be cut off from Christ, yet, from the nature of the passage, it could fairly be understood as meaning nothing more than that he was willing to suffer the

nicht unmo'glich ware)." Tholuck says: " Ths indicative of the imperfect expresses exactly the impossibility of that for which one wishes, on which account it is not, properly speaking, really wished at all. The optative admits the possibility of the thing wished for, and the present supposes the certainty of it."

utmost misery for the sake of his brethren. The difficulty arises from pressing the words too far, making them express definite ideas, instead of strong and indistinct emotions. The general idea is, that he considered himself as nothing, and his happiness as a matter of no moment compared with the salva tion of his brethren.* Brethren according to the Jlcah. Paul had two classes of brethren; those who were with him the children of God in Christ; these he calls brethren in the Lord, Philip, i. 14, holy brethren, &c. The others were those who belonged to the family of Abraham. These lie calls brethren after the flesh, that is, in virtue of natural descent from the same parent. Philemon he addresses as his brother xat ev ffapxi xa.e £^ K'jit'iw, loth in the flesh and in the Lord. The.Bible recognises the validity and rightness of all the constitutional principles and impulses of our nature. It therefore approves of parental and filial affection, and, as is plain from this and other passages, of peculiar love for the people of our own race and country.

VERSK 4. The object of the apostle in the introduction to this chapter, contained in the first five verses, is to assure the Jews of his love and of his respect for their peculiar privileges. The declaration of his love he had just made; his respect for their advantages is expressed in the enumeration of them con tained in this verse. Who are Israelites, i. e., the peculiar people of God. This includes all the privileges which are afterwards mentioned. The word J*r<ii:l means one who con tend* irith God, or a prince with G»d. Hosea xii. 3, u He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God." As it was given to Jacob as an expression of God's peculiar favour, Gen. xxxii. 2<S, its appli cation to his descendants implied that they too were the favourites of God. To whom pert aineth the adoption. As Paul is speaking here of the external or natural Israel, the adoption

* Utrum privationom duntaxat omnis boni, ct dcstructionem vel annihilationem smi, iui etinm perpessionem omnis inali, eainque ct in corpore et in anirna, et sempiternam, optaret, aut in ipso voti illius paroxysmo intellectui BUO observantem habuerit, quid scit, an Paulus ipse interrogatus definiret? Certc illud K<;O penitus apud ilium in pausa erat: tantuui aiios, honoris divini causa, spcctabat. — Benyel.

or sonsJtip which pertained to them, as such, must be external also, and is very different from that which he had spoken of in the preceding chapter. They were the sons of God, i. e., the objects of his peculiar favour, selected from the nations of the earth to be the recipients of peculiar blessings, and to stand in a peculiar relation to God. Exod. iv. 22, " Thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Israel is my son, even my first-born;" Deut. xiv. 1, "Ye are the children of the Lord your God;" Jer. xxxi. 9, "I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first-born." As the whole Old Testament economy was a type and shadow of the blessings of the New, so the sonship of the Israelites was an adumbration of the sonship of believers. That of the for mer was in itself, and as common to all the Jews, only the peculiar relation which they sustained to God as partakers of the blessings of the theocracy. The latter, common to all the true children of God under any dispensation, is that relation in which we stand to God in virtue of regeneration, the indwell ing of the Holy Spirit, and adoption into the household of God.

And the glory. These words are variously explained. They may be connected with the preceding, as explanatory of the adoption, or as qualifying it, and the two words be equivalent to glorious adoption. But as every other specification in this verse is to be taken separately, so should this be..Others understand it, of the dignity and distinction of the theocratical people. It was their glory to be the people of God. In the Old Testament, however, that symbolical manifestation of tho divine presence which filled the tabernacle and rested over the ark, is called the glory of the Lord. Exod. xl. 34, "A cloud covered the tent of the congregation; and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle;" Exod. xxix. 43, "There will I meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory;" Lev. xvi. 2, "I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy-seat;" 1 Kings viii. 11, "The glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord;" 2 Chron. v. 14, llaggai ii. 7, Rev. xv. 8. By the Jews this symbol was called the tihekinah, i. e., the presence of God. Besides this, the manifestation of God's presence in general is called his glory; Isa. vi. 4, "The whole earth is full of his glory," &c. &It is probable, therefore, that Paul intended by this word to refer to the fact that God dwelt in a peculiar manner among the Jews, and in various ways manifested his presence, as one of their peculiar privileges.

The covenant*. The plural is used because God at various times entered into covenant with the Jews and their fore fathers; by which he secured to them innumerable blessings and privileges; see Gal. iii. 10, IT, Eph. ii. 1'2. The giving of the law, (yj wrw&zff'M) the le<ji*l«ti'>n. The word is some times used for the law itxelf (see the Lexicons); it may here be taken strictly, that giving of the law, i. e., the solemn and glo rious annunciation of the divine will from Mount Sinai. The former is the most probable; because the possession ot the law was the grand distinction of the Jews, and one on which they peculiarly relied; see chap. ii. IT. The service means the whole ritual, the pompous and impressive religious service of the tabernacle and temple. The ji/'oirtixes relate, no doubt, specially to the promises of Christ and his kingdom. This was the i^reat inheritance of the nation. This was the constant subject of gratulation and object of hope. See Gal. iii. 1»>, " Xow to Abraham and his seed were the promises made;" ver. 21 " Is the law against the promises of G<>d':'' So in other places the word pronnxex is used specially for the predictions in reference to the great redemption, Acts xxvi. <>.

VKKSK f>. Who*,- are fh<' father*, and of whom, "* concerning the fl'xh, Chri*t came, «Su'. The descent of the.lews from men so hiirhlv favoured of God as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was justly regarded as a great distinction. And of whom. The and here shows that -whom refers, not to the fathers, but to the Israelites, to whom pertained the adoption, the law, the service, arid of whom Christ came. This was the great honour of the Jewish race. For this they were separated as a peculiar peo ple, and preserved amidst all their afflictions. As it was true, however, only in one sense, that Christ was descended from the Israelites, and as there was another view of his person, accord ing to which he was infinitely exalted above them and all other men, the apostle (qualifies his declaration by saying as Concern ing the flesh. The word flesh is used so often for human nature in its present state, or for men, that the phrase as to the flesh, in such connections, evidently means in as far as he was a man, or as to Jus human nature, chap. i. 3. In like manner, when it is said Christ was manifested or came in the flesh, it means, he came in our nature, 1 Tim. iii. 16, 1 John iv. 2, &c.

Who is over all, Grod blessed for ever. Amen. There is but one interpretation of this important passage which can, with the least regard to the rules of construction, be maintained. The words 6 wv are equivalent here to o'c IffTt, as in John i. 18, xii. 17, 2 Cor. xi. 31. Over all, i. e., over all things, not over all persons. The xdvrcov is neuter, and not masculine; see Acts x. 37, 1 Cor. xv. 28. It is supremacy over the universe which is here expressed, and therefore this language precludes the possibility of 6teoc being taken in any subordinate sense. In the Greek fathers, 6 e-l Trdvrcov 0soc is the constantly recurring designation of the supreme God. So exalted is its import, that some of them used it only in reference to the Father, who, being the first Person in the Trinity, was, they say, alone as a person, God over all. It is not the relation of the persons of the Trinity, however, which is here brought into view, but simply the true and supreme divinity of our Lord. Paul evidently declares that Christ, who, he had just said, was, as to his human nature, or as a man, descended from the Israel ites, is, in another respect, the supreme God, or God over all, and blessed for ever. That this is the meaning of the passage, is evident from the following arguments: 1. The relative who must agree with the nearest antecedent. There is no other subject in the context sufficiently prominent to make a depar ture from this ordinary rule, in this case, even plausible. " Of whom Christ came, who is," &c. Who is? Certainly Christ, for he alone is spoken of. 2. The context requires this inter pretation, because, as Paul was speaking of Christ, it would be very unnatural thus suddenly to change the subject, and break out into a doxology to God. Frequently as the pious feelings of the apostle led him to use such exclamations of praise, he never does it except when God is the immediate subject of dis course. See chap. i. 25, "Who worship and serve the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for evermore;" Gal. i. 5. 2. Cor. xi. 31. Besides, it was the very object of the apostle to set forth the great honour to the Jews of having Christ born among them, and this, of course, would lead to his presenting the dignity of the Redeemer in the strongest light. For the greater he was, the greater the honour to those of whose race he came. 3. The antithesis, which is evidently implied be tween the two clauses of the verse, is in favour of this interpre tation. Christ, according to the flesh, was an Israelite, but, according to his higher nature, the supreme God. On any other interpretation there is nothing to answer to the 70 x«7« ffdoxa. These words are used in distinct reference, and for the sake of the clause who is over all. VHiy not simply say, "of whom Christ came"? This would have expressed every thing, had not the apostle designed to bring into view the divine nature. ] laving, however, the purpose to exalt Christ, in order to present in the highest form the honour conferred on the Jewish race in giving the Messiah to the world, he limits the first clause. It was only as to tin' jlc*/i that Christ was descended from the patriarchs; as to his higher nature1, he was the supreme God. See the strikingly analogous passage in chap. i. o, 4, where Christ is said, according to one nature, to be the Son of David, according to the other, the Son of God. 4. No other interpretation is at all consistent with the gram matical construction, or the relative position of the words. One proposed by Erasmus is to place a full stop after the words Christ came, and make all the rest of the verse refer to (Iod. The passage would then read thus: "Of whom, as con cerning the Jlesh, Christ came. (Iod blessed for ever. Amen." But this is not only opposed by the reasons already urged, that such doxologies suppose God to be the immediate, subject of discourse, or are preceded by some particle which breaks the connection, and shows plainly what the reference is, c^c.; but, apart from these objections, no such doxology occurs in all the Bible. That is, the uniform expression is, "blessed be God," and never u God be blessed.''* The word M<wd always stands first, and the word Grod after it with the article. Often as such cases occur in the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, there

* In the Greek version of the Old Testament, the constant form of the doxology is «yxi>»Tsc '- ©«?, or uteymx wyi; o Ow'f, never the reverse. And so in Hebrew, always {-p^i '•'lSl is, it is believed, no case of the contrary arrangement. In Psalm Ixviii. 20 (Septuagint Ixvii. 19), the only apparent exception, the first clause is probably not a doxology, but a gimple affirmation, as in the old Latin version, Dominus Deus benedietus est. In the Hebrew it is, as in all other cases, Blessed be the Lord, and so in our version of that Psalm. See also Ps. xxxi. 21, Ixxii. 18, 19, xli. 13, Ixviii. 35, Ixxxix. 52, Gen. ix. 26T Exod. xviii. 10, and a multitude of other ex amples. In all these and similar passages, the expression is blessed be God, or blessed be the Lord, and never God blessed, or Lord blessed. This being the case, it is altogether incredi ble that Paul, whose ear must have been perfectly familiar with this constantly recurring formula of praise, should, in this solitary instance, have departed from the established usage. This passage, therefore, cannot be considered as a doxology, or an ascription of praise to God, and rendered God be blessed, but must be taken as a declaration, who is blessed; see chap. i. 25, "The Creator, who is blessed for ever." 2 Cor. xi. 31, "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed for evermore." See Matt. xxi. 9, Luke i. 08, 2 Cor. i. 3, Eph. i. 3, 1 Pet, i. 3; in these arid all other cases, where, as here, the copula is omitted, it is eu/o^oroc 6 0so^. Where the relative and verb are used, then it is not an exclamation but an affirmation, as Rom. i. 25: rbv xriaa^ra, oc £0~w s'J/op^roc £^C ro'j£ aiwvaz. ' Air^y. 2 Cor. xi. 31: 6 $£oc xac T:arr/to — b wv £i<Aopj?roc etz rob^ alwvaz; and here, Xpt(jrb^, b d>v k~l T.a^i tov Oeb^, ey/o^rcc ecz roi>z o.lco^a^. 'Afjiijv. To separate this passage from the class to which it obviously belongs, and to make it a solitary exception, is to do violence to the text. A second method of pointing the verse, also, proposed by Erasmus, and followed by many others, is to place the pause after the word all. The verse would then read, " Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all. God be blessed for ever." This avoids some of the diffi culties specified above, but it is subject to all the others. It breaks unnaturally the connection, and makes a doxology out of a form of expression which, in the Scriptures, as just stated, is never so used. 5. There is no reason for thus torturing the text to make it speak a different language from that commonly ascribed to it; because the sense afforded, according to the common interpretation, is scriptural, and in perfect accordance with other declarations of this apostle. Titus i. 3, "According to the commandment of God our Saviour." '"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and (even) our Saviour Jesus Christ," Titus ii. 13; see Phil. ii. G, Col. ii. 9, &c., &c.

Over all is equivalent to most Idyll, supreme. The same words occur in Eph. iv. G, "One God, who is above all." This passage, therefore, shows that Christ is God in the highest sense of the word. Amen is a Hebrew word signifying true. It is used as in the Xew Testament often adverbially, and is ren dered verily; or, at the close of a sentence, as expressing desire, let it le. or merely approbation. It does not, therefore, neces sarily imply that the clause to which it is attached contains a wish. It is used here, as in Horn. i. 2o, for giving a solemn assent to what has been said. "• God who is blessed for ever, Amen." 'To this declaration we say, Amen. It is true.'

1. The Holy Ghost is ever present with the souls of the people of God. He enlightens the judgment and guides the conscience, so that the true and humble Christian often has an assurance of his sincerity, and of the correctness of what he says or does, above what the powers of nature can bestow,

2. There is no limit to the sacrifice which one man may make for the benefit of others, except that which his duty to God imposes, ver. 3.

3. Paul does not teach that we should be willing to be damned for the glory of God. 1. His very language implies that such a wi>h would be improper. For in the ardour of his disinterested affection, he does not himself entertain or express the wish, but merely says, in effect, that were it proper or pos sible, he would be willing to perish for the sake of his brethren. 2. If it is wrong to do evil that good may come, how can it be right to wish to be evil that good may come? 3. There seems to be a contradiction involved in the very terms of the wish. Can one love God so much as to wish to hate him? Can he be so good as to desire to be bad? We must be willing to give up houses and lands, parents and brethren, and our life also, for Christ and his kingdom, but we are never required to give up holiness for his sake, for this would be a contradiction.

4. It is, in itself, a great blessing to belong to the external people of God, and to enjoy all the privileges consequent on this relation, ver. 4.

5. Jesus Christ is at once man and God over all, blessed for ever. Paul asserts this doctrine in language too plain to be misunderstood, ver. 5.

1. Whatever we say or do, should be said or done as in Christ, i. e., in a Christian manner, ver. 1.

2. If we can view, unmoved, the perishing condition of our fellow-men, or are unwilling to make sacrifices for their benefit, we are very different from Paul, and from Him who wept over Jerusalem, and died for our good upon Mount Calvary,

3. Though we may belong to the true Church, and enjoy all its privileges, we may still be cast away. Our external relation to the people of God cannot secure our salvation, ver. 4.

4. A pious parentage is a great distinction and blessing, and should be felt and acknowledged as such, ver. 5.

5. If Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, if he has a nature like our own, how intimate the union between him and his people; how tender the relation; how unspeakable the honour done to human nature in having it thus exalted! If Jesus Christ is God over all, and blessed for ever, how profound should be our reverence, how unreserved our obedience, and how entire and joyful our confidence! ver. 5.

6. These five verses, the introduction to the three following chapters, teach us a lesson which we have before had occasion to notice. Fidelity does not require that we should make the truth as offensive as possible. On the contrary, we are bound to endeavour, as Paul did, to allay all opposing or inimical feelings in the minds of those whom we address, and to allow the truth, unimpeded by the exhibition of any thing offensive on our part, to do its work upon the heart and conscience.

THE apostle now approaches the subject which he had in view, the rejection of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles. That God had determined to cast off his ancient covenant people, as such, and to extend the call of the gospel indis criminately to all men, is the point which the apostle is about to establish. lie does this by showing, in the first place, that God is perfectly free thus to act, vs. (J — 24, and in the second, that he had declared in the prophets that such was his inten tion, vs. 25 — ->3.

That God was at liberty to reject the Jews and to call the Gentiles, Paul argues, 1. J>y showing that the promises which he had made, and by which he had graciously bound himself, were riot made to the natural descendants of Abraham as such, but to his spiritual seed. This is plain from the case of Ishmael and Isaac; both were the children of Abraham, yet one was taken and the other left. And also from the case of Esau and Jacob. Though children of the same parents, and born at one birth, yet "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated," is the language of God respecting them, vs. (J — 13. 2. I>y showing that God is perfectly sovereign in the distribution of his favours; that he is determined neither by the external rela tions, nor by the personal character of men, in the selection of the objects of his mercy. This is proved by the examples just referred to; by the choice of Isaac instead of Ishmael, and especially by that of Jacob instead of Esau. In this case the choice was made and announced before the birth of the children, that it might be seen that it was not according to works, but according to the sovereign purpose of God, vs. 6 — 13.

Against this doctrine of the divine sovereignty, there are two obvious objections, which have been urged in every age of the world, and which the apostle here explicitly states and answers. The first is, that it is unjust in God thus to choose one, and reject another, at his mere good pleasure, ver. 14. To this Paul gives two answers: 1. God claims the prerogative of sovereign mercy; saying, "I will have inercy on whom I will have mercy," vs. 15, 16. 2. He exercises this right, as is evident from the case of Pharaoh, with regard to whom he says, "For this same purpose have I raised thee up," vs. IT, 18. The second objection is, that if this doctrine be true, it destroys the responsibility of men, ver. 11). To this also Paul gives a twofold answer: 1. The very urging of an objection against a prerogative which God claims in his word, and exercises in his providence, is an irreverent contending with our Maker, espe cially as the right in question necessarily arises out of the rela tion between men and God as creatures and Creator, vs. 20, 21. 2. There is nothing in the exercise of this sovereignty incon sistent with either justice or mercy. God only punishes the wicked for their sins, while he extends undeserved mercy to the objects of his grace. There is no injustice done to one wicked man in the pardon of another, especially as there are the highest objects to be accomplished both in the punishment of the vessels of wrath, and the pardon of the vessels of mercy. God docs nothing more than exercise a right inherent in sovereignty, viz., that of dispensing pardon at his pleasure,

VERSE 6. It has already been remarked, (chap. iii. 3.) that it was a common opinion among the Jews, that the promises of God being made to Abraham and to his seed, all his natural descendants, sealed, as such, by the rite of circumcision, would certainly inherit the blessings of the Messiah's reign. It was enough for them, therefore, to be able to say, " We have Abra ham to our father." This being the case, it was obvious that it would at once be presented as a fatal objection to the apostle's doctrine of the rejection of the Jews, that it was inconsistent with the promises of God. Paul, therefore, without even dis tinctly announcing the position which he intended to maintain, removes this preliminary objection. It is indeed peculiarly worthy of remark, as characteristic of the apostle's tenderness and caution, that he does not at all formally declare the truth which he labours in this chapter to establish. lie does not tell the Jews at once they were to be cast off; but begins by professing liis affection for them, and his sorrow for their destiny; thus simply, by implication, informing them that they were not to be admitted to the Messiah's kingdom. When lie has shown that this rejection involved no failure on the part of God in keeping his promises, and was consistent with his justice and mercy, he more distinctly announces that, agreeably to the pre dictions of their own prophets, they were no longer the peculiarpeople of God. The remark, therefore, which Calvin makes on ver. ~, is applicable to the whole introductory part of the chapter. 2son caret artificio, quod orationem ita abscidit, nondum exprimeiis qua, de re loquatur; noiidum eiiim opportunum erat, interitum gentis Judaicae aperte exprimere. In vs. -, •>, in which he professed his sorrow for his brethren and his readiness to suffer for them, it was, of course, implied that they were no longer to be the peculiar people ot God, heirs of the promises,,Ve., \c. This, Paul shows, involves no failure on the part of the divine promises. AV ax though t/n' -irord of Grod hath takrn none r//v<-f, £c. That is, "I say notliing which implies that the word of God has failed.' The simplest expla nation of the words o'j% olus ok or.', is, not <ix that^ i. C., I say no such tliinir as that. It is thus an elliptical phrase for o'j ro?ov ok /£j'oj, 0:0 or:, non tale* (r//co,) quale (lioc est) excidisse ect. Winer, § iI'J. 5. Other.- give u:j% ulo^ ok followed by o~c, the force of d'r£ oiov 7£ followed by an infinitive, vi/., it v'x not possible. This, however, is not only contrary to usage, but to the context. 1'aul does not intend to say that it is impossible the promise should fail, but simply that his doetrino did not conflict with the promise. God had not bound himself never to cast oil' the Jews; and therefore what the apostle taught concernini: their rejection did not involve the failure of the word of God. Meyer, who generally defends the apostle from the charge of violating Greek usage, assumes that he here con founds t\\o forms of expression, oO^ wov ix~er;Ttoxs.v and u'j% OT: lx-£-T(Dz-y. lie agrees, however, with the explanation quoted above from Winer. The word of God means any thing which God has spoken, and here, from the connection, the promise made to Abraham, including the promise of salvation through Jesus Christ. Hath taken none effect, literally, hath fallen, i. c., failed. "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail," literally, to fall, Luke, xvi. 17. So this word is used frequently. The reason why the rejection cf the Jews involved no failure on the part of the divine pro mise, is, that the promise was not addressed to the mere natural descendants of Abraham. For they are not all Israel which are of Israel, i. e., all the natural descendants of the patriarch are not the true people of God, to whom alone the promises properly belong. The word Israel may refer either to Jacob or to the people. 'All descended from the patriarch Jacob called Israel, are not the true people of God;' or, 'all belong ing to the external Israel are not the true Israel;' i. e., all who are in the (visible) Church do not belong to the true Church. The sense is the same, but the former explanation is the more natural. In the following verse the apostle distinguishes between the natural and spiritual seed of Abraham, as here he distinguishes between the two classes of the descendants of Israel.

VERSE 7. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children. In this and the following verses the senti ment is confirmed, that natural descent from Abraham does not secure a portion in the promised inheritance. The language of this verse is, from tke context, perfectly intelligible. The seed, or natural descendants of Abraham, are not all his children in the true sense of the term; i. e., like him in faith, and heirs of his promise. So in Gal. iii. 7, Paul says, "They which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." This verse is part of the sentence begun in the preceding verse. It pre sents the same idea in a different form. 'All the descend ants of Israel are not the true Israel, neither are all the seed of Abraham his (true, or spiritual) children.' Children, viz., of Abraham. Others supply roi) Oeov, "the seed of Abra ham are not all children of God." This is true, but it is not what the apostle here says. His object is to show that the promises made to the children of Abraham were not made to his natural descendants as such.

But in Isaac shall thy seed be called. As the word rendered called sometimes means to choose, Isa. xlviii. 12, xlix. 1, the meaning of the phrase may be 'In Isaac shall thy seed be chosen.' <I will select him as the recipient of the blessings promised to you.' 2. To be called is often equivalent to to be, to be regarded, as Isa. Ixii. 4, "Thou shalt not be called deso late," i. c., thou shalt not be desolate. Hence, in this case, the text may mean, 'In Isaac shall thy seed be,' i. e., he shall he thy seed. Or. 3. ' After Isaac shall thy seed be called,' they shall derive their name from him. Shall be tunned, i. e., shall he so regarded and recognised. 'Not all the children of Abraham were made the heirs* uf his blessings, but Isaac was selected by the sovereign will of God to be the recipient of the promise.' This is the general meaning of the passage; but here, as before, it may bo understood either of the individual Isaac, or of his descendants. 'Isaac shall be to thee for a seed;' or, 'Through Isaac shall a seed be to thee.' The former is the more con sistent with the context, because Paul's immediate1 object is to show that natural descent from Abraham did not make a man one of his true seed. Ishmael was a son of Abraham as well as Isaac, but the latter onlv was, in the spiritual sense of the term, his seed. The Greek here answers exactlv to the original Hebrew, ' Fn Isaac a seed shall be called to tlu'e, or for thee.' That is, 'Isaac (not Ishmael) shall be to thee a son and heir.' God therefore is sovereign in the distribution of his favours. As he rejected Ishmael notwithstanding his natural descent from Abraham, so he may reject the Jews, although they also had Abraham as a father.

VERSE s. That is, they n-hi-h are the rhildren of the Jlexh, tin1*'- are n<>t. tin- r/n'/a'ren <>f (/<"/. Tin- simplest, view of this verse would seem to be, to regard it as an explanation of the historical argument contained in the preceding verse. "The Scriptures declare that Isaac, in preference to I-hmael, was selected to be the true seed and heir of Abraham, that z'x, or thix jirftres, that it is not the children of the llesh that are regarded as the children of God, iSic.' This suits the immedi ate object of the apostle, which is to show that God, according to his good pleasure, chooses one and rejects another, and that he is not bound to make the children of Abraham, as such, the heirs of his promise. It is very common, however, to consider this passage as analogous to that in Gal. iv. 22 — -11; and to regard the apostle as unfolding the analogy between the history of Isaac and Ishmael, and that of the spiritual and natural children of Abraham; Isaac being the symbol of the former, and Ishmael of the latter. As Ishmael, "who was born after the flesh, (Gal. iv. 23,) i. e., according to the ordinary course of nature, was rejected, so also are the children of the flesh; and as Isaac, who was born "by promise," i. e., in virtue of the promised interference of God, was made the heir, so also are they heirs, who in like manner are the children of the promise, that is, who are the children of God, not by their natural birth, but by his special and effectual grace. The point of comparison, then, between Isaac and believers is, that both are born, or become the children of God, riot in virtue of ordinary birth, but in virtue of the special interposition of God. In favour of this view is certainly the strikingly analogous passage referred to in Galatians, and also the purport of the next verse. Besides this, if Paul meant to say nothing more in this and the following verse, than that it appears from the choice of Isaac that God is free to select one from among the descendants of Abraham and to reject another, these verses would differ too little from what he had already said in vs. 6, 7. It is best, therefore, to consider this passage as designed to point out an instructive analogy between the case of Isaac and the true children of God; he was born in virtue of a special divine interposition, so now, those who are the real children of God, are born not after the flesh, but by his special grace.

The children of the promise. This expression admits of various explanations. 1. Many take it as meaning merely the promised children, as child of promise is equivalent to child which is promised. But this evidently does not suit the application of the phrase to believers as made here, and in Gal. iv. 28. 2. It may mean, according to a common force of the genitive, children in virtue of a promise. This suits the con text exactly. It assigns to the genitive iTzaffstiaz in this clause the same force that (japxo^ has in the preceding. Isaac was born not after the ordinary course of nature, but in virtue of a divine promise. See Gal. iv. 23, where the expressions born after the flesh, and born by promise, are opposed to each other. It is, of course, implied in the phrase children in virtue of a promise, that it is by a special interposition that they become children, and this is the sense in which Paul applies the expression to believers generally. In Gal. iv. 28, he says, u We, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." Believers, therefore, are children of the promise in the same sense as Isaac. The birth of Isaac was xa~a;::/£?>««, supernatural; believers also are the children of God in virtue of a spiritual or supernatural birth. This is the main idea, although not the full meaning. The children of promise are those to whom the promise belongs. This is what the apostle has specially in view in the passage in Galatians. He there desires to show that believers are the true children of Abraham, and heirs of the promise made to the father of the faithful. This idea, therefore, is not to be excluded even here. Isaac was not only born in virtue of a promise, but was, on that account, heir of the promised bless ing. The former, however, as just stated, is the prominent idea, as appears from the folh.wing verse. Conip. John i. 13. "Who are born not of blood, nor of the will of the ilesli, nor of the will of man, but of God." This idea seems to bo included in the apostle's use of the expression. Gal. iv.:!S? k>No\v we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise'," and iii. 21', " Ye ar<' Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the pro mise;'' see, too, Gal. iii. 18, 22, Kom. iv..1(1, "To the end the promise might be sure to all the seed." Though this idea seems to have been in the apostle's mind, the second expla nation is most in accordance with the context. Arc counted fur t//<: X'w/, i. e., are regarded and treated as such. ""^Not the natural descendants of Abraham are the children of God, but those who are born again by his special interposition, arc re garded and treated as his true children." »See the same form of expression in (Jen. xxxi. 15.

V EltSK 1*. For t/ttx iv tin' trord of prointxe, at this time will I come, and Surah xlndl hare a x<>n. Literallv, (the word of) the promise is this word. This verse is evidently designed to show the propriety, and to explain the force of the phrase children of the pro),/;**'. Laar \\as so calb-d because God said at this time. I will come, iS:c. This is not oidy a prediction and promise that Isaac should be born, but also a declaration that it should be in consequence of God's coining, i. e., of the spe cial manifestation of his power; as, in scriptural language, God is said to come, wherever he specially manifests his presence or power, John xiv. 23, Luke i. 08, &c. The apostle does not follow exactly the Hebrew or the Septuagint. He gives the substance of Gen. xviii. 10? and xviii. 14. The words rrn Mi at the living time, either tempore vivente, i. e., redeunte, or, the time being, i. e., the current time, are rendered by the LXX. and the apostle, xara rov xaepbv ro^rov, at this season. That is, when this season of the year returns again.

VERSE 10. And not only (this); but when Rebecca had con ceived Inj one, (even) ly our father Isaac. Not only does the case of Isaac and Ishmael prove that the choice of God does not depend on natural descent, but on the sovereign will of God, but that of Rebecca evinces the same truth still more clearly. In the former case, it might be supposed that Isaac was chosen because he was the son of Sarah, a free woman, and the legitimate wife of Abraham, whereas Ishmael was the son of a maid-servant. In the choice between Jacob and Esau, there is no room for any such supposition. They had the same father, the same mother, and were born at one birth. Here, assuredly, the choice was sovereign. The original is here ellip tical, something must be supplied to complete the sense. On the principle that an ellipsis should, if possible, be supplied from the immediate context, Winer, Meyer, and others, supply the ellipsis thus: ' Not only did Sarah receive a promise of a son, but Rebecca also.' In this view the construction of the passage is regular; otherwise, an irregularity, or change of grammatical construction, must be assumed in ver. 12. 'Not only Rebecca — it was said to her.' To this however, it is objected, first, that the promise was not made to Sarah, but to Abraham; and secondly, that no promise was made to Rebecca. Others, therefore, prefer supplying simply, did this happen. That is, not only was Isaac chosen instead of Ishmael, although both were the sons of Abraham, but also Rebecca. Then we must either assume a grammatical irregularity, or the nomina tive (Rebecca) must be taken absolutely; or we can supply some such phrase as, Rebecca also proves this, i. e., the sove reignty of God in election. These questions do not affect the sense of the passage. The apostle proceeds with his historical proof that God, according to his own good pleasure, does choose one and reject another. He has therefore the right to cast off the Jews.

VERSE 11. For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, &c. The force of for is clear by a reference to the preceding verse, and the object of the apostle. 'Not only does the case of Isaac and Ishmael evince the sovereignty of God, but that of Rebecca, and her children does the same, in a still more striking manner, for the decision between her children was made previously to their birth, for the very purpose of showing that it was not made on the ground of works, but of the sovereign pleasure of God.' This is an example which cannot be evaded. ^\ ith regard to Lshmael, it might be supposed that either the circumstances of his birth, or his personal character, was the ground of his rejection; but with regard to Esau neither of these suppositions can be made. The circumstances of his birth were identical with those of his favoured brother, and the choice was made before either had done any thing good or evil. The case of Ishmael was, indeed, sufficient to prove that having Abraham for a father was not enough to secure the inheritance of the promise, but it could not prove the entire sovereignty of the act of election on the part of God, as is so fully done by that of Jacob and Esau. This passage shows clearly that the design of the apostle is not simply to show that natural descent from Abraham was a title to Messianic bles>ings. but that works also were excluded; that the choice of God was sovereign.

Ncitlicr luiruxj dune good ur /•/•//. The design of the intro duction of these words is expressly stated in the next clause. It was to show that the ground of choice was not in them, but in God; and this is the main point in regard to the doctrine of election, whether the choice be to the privileges of the external theocracy, or to the spiritual and eternal blessings of the kingdom of Christ.

That t/ie purpose of God, according to election, might stand. This is the reason why the choice was made prior to birth. The original here admits of various interpretations, which, how ever, do not materially alter the sense. The word rendered purpose, is that which was used in the previous chapter, ver. 28, and means here, as there, a determination of the will, and of itself expresses the idea of its being sovereign, i. e., of having its ground in the divine mind and not in its objects. Hence, in 2 Tim. i. 9, it is said, "Who hath called us not according to our works, but according to his own purpose, £c., see Eph. i. 11, iii. 11. The words (xar lyJ.off^) according to election, are designed to fix more definitely the nature of this purpose. The word election often means the act of choice itself, as 1 Thess. i. 4, "Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God." In this sense, the clause means, 'the purpose of God in reference to election, or in relation to this choice.' This view of the passage is perfectly consistent with the context. The choice was made prior to birth, in order that the true nature of the purpose of God in reference to it might appear. It is objected to this interpretation that the IxAo-ff (election) follows the Ttpo&soez (the purpose) and not the reverse. This does not amount to much. It relates merely to the order of conception. We can conceive of God's electing some to eternal life, and then purposing to save them, as well as his purposing to save them and then electing them. The real meaning is expressed by giving xar IzAoffv an adjective force, the electing purpose, electivum Dei propositum, as Bcngel renders it. Others give ixXoffj here the sense of free choice, or free will. ' The purpose according to free choice, for, free or sovereign purpose.' Many commentators adopt this view of the passage. This is, perhaps, the most common interpretation. But as the word does not occur in this sense in the New Testament, the former mode of explanation is perhaps to be preferred. Should stand, i. e., should be established and recognised in its true character, that is, that it might be seen it was not of works, but of him that calleth. This purpose of God, in reference to election, or the choice itself, is not of works, i. e., does not depend on works, but on him that calleth. It is not to be traced to works as its source. That is, as plainly as language can express the idea, the ground of the choice is not in those chosen, but in God who chooses. In the same sense our justification is said to be " not of works," Gal. ii. 16, and often; i. e., is not on the ground of works; see Rom. xi. 6, 2 Tim. i. 9. The language of the apostle in this verse, and the nature of his argument, are so perfectly plain, that there is little diversity of opinion as to his general meaning. It is almost uniformly admitted that he here teaches that the election spoken of is perfectly sovereign, that the ground on which the choice is made is not in men, but in God. Commentators of every class unite in admitting that the apostle does here teach the sovereignty of God in election.

Undo sensus totius loci sic constituitur; ut appareret, quicquid Deus decernit, libere eum deeernere nun propter hominis meritum, sed pro sua decernentis voluntate. — Koppe. Ut berievola Dei voluntas maneret, ut 411:10 non a merit is cujus quam pendeat, sed benefactore ipso. — Noeszelt. Das der Kathschluss Gottcs fest stehe, als ein soldier, der nidit abhange von mensddiclien Verdiensten, sondern von dem gnadigen oder freien Willen Gottes. cThat the decree of God might stand firm, as one which depended not on human merit, but the gracious or free will of God.' — F/atf. And even Tholuck makes Paul argue thus, "Das.s wie Gott, ohne Anrechte anzuerkennen, die iiu>sere Theokratie und mancherlei Yortheile libertrug wem er wollte, er so aueh jet/t die innere dem iibortragt, oder den darein eingehen liisst welchen er will." 'That as God, without recognising any claims, committed the external theocracy and manifold advantages to whom he pleased, so also now he commits the internal to whom he will, or allows whom he will to enter it.' To the same effect Meyer says, '• Er wollte niimlich dadurch fur immer festsetzen, dass sein zufolge einer Auswahl unter den Menschen eintretender Beschluss, mit dem Messianischen Jleile zu beglucken, unabhiingig sei von menschlichen Leistungen, und nur von seinem, des zum Me.-siasheil IJeruf'cnden. eigenen Willen dependire." 7//.s tl<-siijn //v/x to cstablixli, <>n<'e for all, (the principle) tltnt Itis j>ur]ntM in reference tot/te choice of those wJto ^crre to eafiT the Messiah's kinf/iloWi u'<is independent of human eondwt, and -was deter mined by the will of him who calls.

The opposers of the doctrine of personal election endeavour to escape the force of this passage, by saying that the choice of which the apostle speaks, is not to eternal life, but to the ex ternal advantages of the theocracy; and that it was riot so much individuals as nations or communities which were chosen or rejected. With regard to this latter objection, it may be answered, 1. That the language quoted by the apostle from the

Old Testament is there applied to the individuals, Jacob and Esau; and that Jacob, as an individual, was chosen in preference to his brother; and that Paul's whole argument turns on this very point. 2. That the choice of nations involves and con sists in the choice of individuals; and that the same objections obviously lie against the choice in the one case as in the other. With regard to the former objection, that the choice here spoken of is to the external theocracy arid not to eternal life, it may be answered, 1. Admitting this to be the case, how is the diffi culty relieved? Is there any more objection to God's choosing men to a great than to a small blessing, on the ground of his own good pleasure? The foundation of the objection is not the character of the blessings we arc chosen to inherit, but the sovereign nature of the choice. Of course it is not met by making these blessings either greater or less. 2. A choice to the blessings of the theocracy, i. e., of a knowledge and worship of the true God, involved, in a multitude of cases at least, a choice to eternal life; as a choice to the means is a choice to the end. And it is only so far as these advantages were a means to this end, that their value was worth consideration. 3. The whole design and argument of the apostle show that the objection is destitute of force. The object of the whole epistle is to exhibit the method of obtaining access to the Messiah's kingdom. The design here is to show that God is at liberty to choose whom he pleases to be the recipients of the blessings of this kingdom, and that he was not confined in his choice to the descendants of Abraham. His argument is derived from the historical facts recorded in the Old Testament. As God chose Isaac in preference to Lshmael, and Jacob in preference to Esau, not on the ground of their works, but of his own good pleasure, so now he chooses whom he will to a participation of the blessings of the kingdom of Christ: these blessings are pardon, purity, and eternal life, &c., &c. That such is the apostle's argument and doctrine, becomes, if possible, still more plain, from his refutation of the objections urged against it, which are precisely the objections which have ever been urged against the doctrine of election.

VERSE 12. It was said to her, the elder shall serve the younger. These words are to be connected with the 10th verse, according to our version, in this manner, "Not only this, but Rebecca also, when she had conceived, &c., it was said to her, &c." According to this view, although the construction is irregular, the sense is sufficiently obvious. As it was said to Rebecca that the elder of her sons should serve the younger, prior to the birth of either, it is evident that the choice between them was not on account of their works. It has been said that this declaration relates not to Jacob and Esau personally, but to their posterity, 1. Because in Gen. xxv. 2o, whence the quotation is made, it is said, "Two nations are within thy womb, and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. -. Because Esau did not personally serve Jacob, although the descendants of the one were subjected to those of the other. It is no doubt true that the prediction contained in this pas-age lias reference not only to the relative standing of Jacob and Esau as individuals, but also to that of their descendants. It may even be allowed that the latter was principally intended in the annunciation to Rebecca. But it is too clear to be denied, 1. that this distinc tion between the two races presupposed and included a distinc tion between the individuals. Jacob was made the special heir to his father Isaac, obtained as an individual the birth-right and the blessing, and Ksau as an individual was cast oft. 'The one, therefore, was personally preferred to the other. '2. In Paul's application of this event to his argument, the distinction between the two as individuals, was the very thing referred to. This is plain from the llth verse, in which he says, a The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, tic." It is, therefore, the nature of the choice between the children that is the point designed to be presented. As to the objection that Esau never personally served Jacob, it is founded on the mere literal sense of the words. E>au did acknowledge his inferiority to Jacob, and was in fact postponed to him on various occasions. The main idea, however, is that Esau for feited his birthright. Jacob was preferred to his elder brother, and constituted head of the theocracy. In a spiritual or reli gious sense, and therefore in the highest sense, or in reference to the highest interests, Esau was placed below Jacob, as much as Ishmael was below Isaac. This is the real spirit of the passage. This prophecy, as is the case with all similar predic* tions, had various stages of fulfilment. The relation between the two brothers during life; the loss of the birthright blessing and promises on the part of Esau; the temporary subjugation of his descendants to the Israelites under David, their final and complete subjection under the Maccabees; and especially their exclusion from the peculiar privileges of the people of God, through all the early periods of their history, are all included, Compare the prediction of the subjection of Ham to his brethren; and of Japheth's dwelling in the tents of Shem, Gen. ix. 25— 27.

VERSE 13. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. These words are quoted from Malachi i. 2, 3, wThere the prophet is reproving the Jews for their ingratitude. As a proof of his peculiar favour, God refers to his preference for t'hem from the first, "Was not Esau Jacob's brother, saith the Lord; yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau, &c." This passage, as well as the one quoted in ver. 12, and just referred to, relates to the descendants of Jacob and Esau, and to the individuals themselves; the favour shown to the posterity of the one, and withheld from that of the other, being founded on the distinction originally made between the two brothers. The meaning, therefore, is, that God preferred one to the other, or chose one instead of the other. As this is the idea meant to be expressed, it is evident that in this case the word hate means to love less, to regard and treat ivith less favour. Thus in Gen. xxix. 33, Leah says, she was hated by her husband; while in the preceding verse, the same idea is expressed by saying, "Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah," Matt. viii. 21, Luke xiv. 26; "If a man come to me and hate not his father and mother, &c." John xii. 25. The quotation from the prophet may be considered either as designed in confirmation of the declaration that the elder should serve the younger; or it may be connected in sense with the close of the llth, ' God is sove reign in the distribution of his favours, as it is written, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated;' the distinction made between* these two individuals being cited as an illustration and confirmation of the apostle's doctrine.

The doctrine of the preceding verses is, that God is perfectly sovereign in the distribution of his favours, that the ground of his selecting one and rejecting another is not their works, but his own good pleasure. To this doctrine there are two plausible objections; first, it is not consistent with the divine justice, ver. 14; second, it is incompatible with human responsibility, ver. 19. To the former the apostle answers, first, God claims distinctly in his word this prerogative, ver. 15; and secondly, he obviously exercises it, as is seen in the dispensations of his providence, ver. IT. Here again the sense is BO plain that commentators of all classes agree in their inter pretations. Thus Meyer says, " God does not act unjustly in his sovereign choice; since he claims for himself in the Scriptures the liberty to favour or to harden, whom he will."

VERSE 14. What sJiall we sny then* in tJtere unrighteousness with God! G<>d fttrlid. The apostle, according to his usual manner, proposes the objection to his own doctrine in the form of a question, denies its validity, and immediately subjoins his reason; see Ivom. iii. 5, Gal. iii. '21. The obvious objection here presented is, that it is unjust in God, thus, according to his own purpose, to choose one and reject another. This Paul denies, and supports his denial by an appeal, in the fi"st place, to Scripture, and the second, to experience. It will be remarked that these arguments of the apostle are founded on two assumptions. The first is, that the Scriptures are the word of God; and the second, that what God actually does cannot be unrighteous. Consequently any objection which can be shown, to militate against either an express declaration of Scripture, or an obvious fact in providence, is fairly answered. And if, as is almost always the case, when it militates against the one, it can be shown to militate against the other, the answer is doubly ratified.

VERSE 1">. For God saith to Moses, I will have merry on wliom / will have mercy, and 1 icill have compassion on whom I will /tare compassion. The connection and argument are obvious. ' It is not unjust in God to exercise his sovereignty in the distribution of his mercies, for he expressly claims the right.' The passage quoted is from the account of the solemn interview of Moses with God. In answer to the prayer of the prophet for his people and for himself, God answered, " I will proclaim my name before thee, and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, &c." Exodus xxxiii. 19 v It is, therefore, a formal declaration of a divine prerogative. The form of expres sion / will do wJiat I will, or I do what I do, is here, as in Ezek. xvi. 23, 2 Sam. xv. 20, designed to convey the idea that it rests entirely with the agent to act or not, at his pleasure. The ground of decision is in himself. In the connection of this verse with the former, therefore, it is obvious that Paul quotes this declaration to prove that God claims the sovereignty which he had attributed to him. In order to avoid the force of this passage, many deny that it expresses the sentiment of the apostle. They consider this and the following verses as the objections of a Jewish fatalist, a mode of interpretation so obviously inconsistent with the context, and even the proper force of the words, that it is mentioned only to show how hard it is to close the eyes against the doctrine which the apostle so clearly teaches. Gottes Erbarmen und Iluld sci lediglich von scincrn eigenenen unumschranten Willcn abhlingig; auf wen cimnul sein Erbarmen gerichtet sei, dem werde er's erweiscn. — Meyer. God's mercy and favour depend solely on his own sovereign will, he will manifest that mere?/ towards him to whom it has been once directed. Tittmann, in his Synon. in N. T., says that the difference between otxrsipety and £/ss?v is, that the former denotes the feeling experienced in view of the sufferings of others, and the latter the desire to relieve them. The differ ence is very much the same as that between our words com passion and mercy.

VERSE 16. So then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, &c. If the ground of the decision or choice of the objects of mercy be in God, as asserted in ver. 15, then that it is not in man, is a conclusion which flows of course from the previous declarations. The word it refers to the result con templated in the context, viz., the attainment of the divine favour, or more definitely, admission into the Messiah's king dom. This result, when attained, is to be attributed not to the wishes or efforts of man, but to the mercy of God. That one, therefore, is taken, and another left, that one is introduced into this kingdom and another not, is to be referred to the fact asserted in the preceding verse, that " God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy." This seems plainly to have been the apostle's meaning. It is said, however, that the efforts here declared to be vain are those of the self-righteous; that Paul intends to say that the Jews, by the works of the law, could not attain the favour of God, &c. But no such sentiment is expressed by the apostle; it is all supplied by the commentator. The sentiment, moreover, is not only not expressed, but it is in direct contradiction to the language and design of the apostle. lie says the ground of choice, or of admission into the kingdom of Christ, is not in us; this interpretation says it is in us. Paul says it is in God; this interpretation says, it is not in God. It is neither the will nor the efforts of men which deter mines their admission into Christ's kingdom. It depends on

the sovereign will of God. Neque in voluntate nostra, neque in coriatu csse situm, ut inter electos censeamur: sed totum id divinae bonitatis, quac nee volentes, nee conantes, ae ne cogitantes (juidi'in ultro assumit. — (.Wr/.v. This is not an interpre

tation peculiar to Augiistiniaiis. It is, as has been shown, the view of the passage adopted by commentators of every shade

of doctrine. Also ist's (niimlich Gottes Erbarmen und Iluld zu empfangen) nicht von dem wollcnden noch von dem Laufenden abhiingig, sondern von dem barmherzig scienden Gotte. — Meyer.

YKRSK 17. Fur tin' Scripture xaith unto Pharaoh, &c. The connection of this verse is with the 14th, rather than with the one immediately preceding. Paul is still engaged in answering the objection proposed in the 14th verse. There is no injustice with God, because he saith to Moses, kl will have mercy, &c.' ver. 15, and because the Scripture saith to Pharaoh, for this purpose, i!s:c. ver. IT. His second answer to the objection is, that God, in point of fact, does exercise this sovereignty, as is evident from the case of Pharaoh. Pharaoh was no worse than many other men who have obtained mercy; yet God, for wise and benevolent reasons, withheld from him the saving influences of his grace, and gave him up to his own wicked heart, so that he became more and more hardened, until he was finally destroyed. God did nothing to Pharaoh beyond his strict deserts. lie did not make him wicked; he only forbore to make him good, by the exertion of special and altogether unmerited grace. The reason, therefore, of Pharaoh's being left to perish, while others were saved, was not that he was worse than others, but because God has mercy on whom he will have mercy; it was because, among the criminals at his bar, he pardons one and not another, as seems good in his sight. He, therefore, who is pardoned, cannot say it was because I was better than others; while he who is condemned must ac knowledge that he receives nothing more than the just recom pense of his sins. In order to establish his doctrine of the divine sovereignty, Paul had cited from Scripture the declaration that God shows mercy to whom he will; he now cites an example to show that he punishes whom he will. Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up. This is what God said to Pharaoh, as recorded in Exod. ix. 16. The meaning of the declaration may be variously explained. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word used in the passage quoted, means literally, I have caused thee to stand. This is understood by some as meaning, I have called thee into existence. 2. By others, I have preserved thee. 3. By others, I have raised thee up as king. 4. By others, I have placed and continued thee in tliy post. Either of these interpretations admits of being defended on philological grounds more or less satis factory. The first is sufficiently suitable to the word used by the apostle, but does not agree so well with the original. The Hebrew word n£3>, in Hiphil, is used not only in the literal sense, to cause to stand, but also in the sense, to continue, to preserve, as in 1 Kings xv. 4, and also to appoint (to office). The LXX. (changing the person) have, in Exod. ix. 16, disr/jorfir^, equivalent to vivus servatus es, thou hast ~been kept alive. Paul renders the Hebrew l^rjetpd at, which answers to the use of the word in Nehem. vi. 7, " Thou hast appointed (caused to appear) prophets; and Dan. xi. 11, "The king of the south shall set forth a great multitude." In no case, how ever, is the Hebrew word used for calling into existence in the sense of creating. For the second, it may be urged that verbs in the form (Hiphil) used in the passage quoted, signify fre quently the continuance of a thing in the state which the simple form of the verb expresses. Thus the verb meaning to live, in this form, signifies to preserve alive, Gen. vi. 19, 20, too definite, and supplies an idea not in the text. The fourth, which is only a modification of the second, is perhaps the nearest to the apostle's intention. * For this purpose have I raised thee up, and placed thee where thou art; and instead of cutting thee off at once, have so long endured thy obstinacy and wickedness.' It is not the design of Pharaoh's creation that is here asserted; but the end for which God determined his appearance and position in the history of the world. Xor does the apostle refer Pharaoh's wickedness to God as its author, but his appearance at that period, the form in which the evil of his heart developed itself, and the circumstances attending its manifestation, were all determined by the providence of God. and ordered for the promotion of his infinitely wise and bene volent purposes.

That I mil/lit nhot'.' my p<iiv<T -in th<'e, and that in if n<nn*' might In- declared in all t/t<' earth. This is the reason why God dealt with Pharaoh in the manner described. It was not that he was worse than others, but that God might be glorified. This is precisely the principle on which all punishment is inflicted. It is that the true character of the divine lawgiver should be known. This is of all objects, when God is con cerned, the highest and most important; in itself the most worthy, and in its roults the most beneficent. The ground, therefore, on which 1'haraoh was made an object of the divine justice, or the reason why the law was in his case allowed to take its course, is not to be sought in any peculiarity of his character or conduct in comparison with those of others, but in the sovereign pleasure of God. This result of the argument Paul formally states in the next verse.

YERSK IS. TAov/c/yv hatlt he inercij on idiom he will, hare mercy, and wlmm he will he, hardeneth. This is the conclusion, not merely from the preceding verse, but from the whole passage, vs. 14 — 17. This perfect sovereignty in the selection of the objects of his mercy and of his judgment, Paul had attributed to God in ver. 11, and, in the subsequent verses, Lad proved that he claims and exercised it, both in reference to the recipients of his favour, ver. 15, and the objects of his wrath, ver. 15. The doctrine, therefore, is fully estab lished.

The latter clause of this verse, whom he will he hardeneth, admits of various explanations. The word may be taken either in its ordinary meaning, or it may be understood in its second ary sense. According to the latter view, it means to treat harshly, to punish. This interpretation, it must be admitted, is peculiarly suited to the context, < He hath mercy on whom he will, arid he punishes whom he will.' Nor is it entirely destitute of philological support. In Job xxxix. 16, it is said of the ostrich, "she treateth hardly her young." But, on the other hand, it is liable to serious objections. 1. It is certain that it is a very unusual sense of the word, and opposed to the meaning in which it frequently occurs. There should be very strong reasons for departing from the usual meaning of an expression so common in the Scriptures. 2. It is inconsistent with those passages in the Old Testament which speak of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. 3. It removes no difficulty; for •what, according to the usual sense of the word, is here said, is frequently said elsewhere.

1. The common sense of the word is, therefore, doubtless, to be preferred, whom he will he hardens. This is by many under stood to express a direct and positive influence of God on the soul in rendering it obdurate. But, in the first place, this inter pretation is by no means necessary, as will presently be shown; and, in the second, it can hardly be reconciled with our ideas of the divine character.

2. Others think that this phrase is to be explained by a reference to that scriptural usage, according to which God is said to do whatever indirectly and incidentally results from his agency; on the same principle that a father is said to ruin his children, or a master his servants, or that Christ is said to produce wars and divisions. Thus, Isa. vi. 10, the prophet is commanded to make the heart of the people fat. and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, &c., as though to him were to be ascribed the incidental effects of his preaching. In the same way the gospel is the cause of death (not of misery only, but of insensibility also,) to those who hear and disregard it.

3. Nearly allied to this mode of explanation is that which rests on the assumption that God is said to do what he permits to be done, Keferen.ee is made to such passages as the follow ing. 2 Sam. xii. 11, "I will give thy wives unto thy neigh bour/' i. e., I will permit him to take them. 2 Sam. xvi. 10, "The Lord hath said unto him, curse David.".Isa. Ixiii. 17, "0 Lord, whv hast thou caused us to err from thy ways, and hardened our hearts from thy fear." Deut. ii. -><X "For the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, (Silion's,) that he might deliver him into thy hand." 1 Kings xi. 23, ''The Lord stirred up another adversary." l)s. cv. 2~>, fc'Ile turned their hearts to hate his people." In 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, God is said to have moved David to number the people; but in 1 Chron. xxi. 1, Satan is <aid to have provoked David to number Israel. From these and similar passages, it is evident that it is a familiar scriptural usage, to a>orihe to God effects which he allows in his wisdom to come to pass. Jleiiee, almost every thing is. at times, spoken of as if it was produced by divine aircncv. although, in a multitude of other phiees, these same results are referred, as in some of the examples cited above, to their immediate authors..According to this mode of representa tion, God is understood as merelv permitting Pharaoh to harden his own heart, as the result i.- often expressly referred to Pha raoh himself, Exod. viii. L~>, ->-, &(•.

4..But there seems to be more expressed by the language of the text than mere permission, because it is evidently a puni tive act that is here intended, and because this view does not suit the other passage- in which (Iod is said to give sinners up to the evil of their own hearts, Kom. i. 24, 28. It is probable, therefore, that the judicial abandonment of men "to a repro bate mind,'' a punitive withdrawing of the influences of his Holy Spirit, and the giving them up to the uncounteracted operation of the hardening or perverting influences by which they are surrounded, are all expressed by the language of the apostle. In this God does no more than what he constantly threatens to do, or which the Scriptures declare he actually docs, in the case of those who forsake him; and. nothing more than every righteous parent does in reference to a reprobate son. This, in connection with the principle referred to above, fin No. 2,) seems as much as can fairly be considered as in cluded in the expressions. De Wette here wisely says, that we are to exclude, on the one hand, the idea that God merely permits evil, and on the other, that he is its author, and to hold fast the doctrine, that evil is from man, and that God orders and directs it, and that to punishment. It is to be remembered that the hardening of the sinner's heart is itself punitive. It supposes evil, and is its punishment. As a ruined constitution is at once the inevitable consequence and the punishment of intemperance, so insensibility, obduracy of conscience, and blindness of mind, are the penal consequences of a course of sin, and become themselves the just ground of further punishment, because they are in their own nature evil. This we instinc tively recognise as true in our moral judgments of men. A man whom a long course of crime has rendered perfectly callous, is, on account of his callousness, justly the object of execration and abhorrence. It is therefore not only a doctrine of Scripture (Rom. i. 24) that sin is the punishment of sin, but a fact of experience. Satis est, says Augustine, (Ad Sixtum Ep.,)

interim Christiano ex fide adhuc viventi, et nondum cernenti quod perfectum est, scd ex parte scienti, nosse vel credere quod ncminem Deus liberet nisi gratuita miseracordia per Dominuni nostrum Jesus Christum, et neminem damnet nisi aequisima veritate per eundem D omnium nostrum Jesum Christum. Cur autem ilium potius quam ilium liberet aut non liberet, scrutetur qui potcst judiciorum ejus tarn magnum profundum, — verumtamen caveat praecipitium. The Lutheran Church,

after the days of Luther, endeavoured to find a middle ground between the Augustinian and the semi-Pelagian doctrine. In the Form of Concord it is taught that the choice of the vessels of mercy is to be referred to the good pleasure of God, but the passing by of the non-elect is to be referred to their voluntary resistance of his offered grace. Election is founded, according to this view, on the sovereignty of God, but preterition on the foresight of impenitence. This, however, seems to involve a contradiction; for if faith be the gift of God, the purpose to give it only to some, involves the purpose not to give it to others. Besides, it is the very object of the apostle in the whole context to teach the sovereignty of God in dealing with the vessels of wrath. This Olshausen admits. " This refer ence," he says, " to the foreknowledge of God, although not unfounded so far as evil is concerned, tends rather to pervert than to elucidate the passage, inasmuch as the precise object of the apostle is to render prominent the sovereignty of the divine will."

VERSE 19. Thou wilt then say unto?/?<?, why doth he yet find fault? for who hath resisted his will- This is the second leading objection to the apostle's doctrine. If it be true, as he had just taught, that the destiny of men is in the hands of God, if it is not of him who willeth, or of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, what can we do? If the fact that one believes and is saved, and another remains impenitent and is lost, depends on God. how can we be blamed? Can we resist his will? It will at once be perceived that this plausible and formidable objection to the apostle's doctrine is precisely the one which is commonly and confidently urged against the doc trine of election. There would be no room either for this objection, or for that contained in the 14th verse, if Paul had merely said that God chooses those whom he foresees would repei.it and believe; or that the ground of distinction was in the different conduct of men. It is very evident, therefore, that he taught no such doctrine. How easy and obvious an answer to the charge of injustice would it have been to say, God chooses one and rejects another according to their works. But teach ing as he does the sovereignty of God in the selection of the subjects of his grace and of the objects of his wrath, declaring as he does so plainly, that the destinv of men is determined by his sovereign pleasure, the objection (how can he vet find fault?) is plausible and natural. To this objection the apostle gives two answers: 1. That it springs from ignorance of the true relation between God and men as Creator and creatures, and of the nature and extent of the divine authority over us, vs. 20, 21: 2. That there is nothing in his doctrine inconsistent with the divine perfections; since he does not make men wicked, but from the mass of wicked men, he pardons one and punishes another, for the wisest and most benevolent reasons, vs °-> -K>> lie blame us for being hard. Gross as is this perversion of the apostle's doctrine on the part of the objector, Paul at first rebukes the spirit in which it is made, before he shows it to bo unfounded. It is not the doctrine of the Bible, that God first makes men wicked, and then punishes them for their wicked ness. The Scriptures only assert, what we see and know to be true, that God permits men, in the exercise of their own free agency, to sin, and then punishes them for their sins, and in proportion to their guilt. He acts towards them as a perfectly righteous judge, so that no one can justly complain of his deal ings. This strictness in the administration of justice, is, how ever, perfectly consistent with the sovereignty of God in deter mining whom he will save, and whom he will permit to suffer the just recompense of their deeds. Who hath resisted, rather, who resists, i. e., who can resist. The perfect di/vjteor^xs (as effT^xsi/) is present; see xiii. 2. His will, i. e., his purpose,

VERSE 20. Nay, but, 0 man, who art thou that repliest against Grod? Shall the thing formed, &c. In these words we have both a reproof and an answer. The reproof is directed against the irreverent spirit, whence such cavils always arise. After the clear proof given in the preceding verses, that God claims this sovereignty in his word, and exercises it in his providence, it argues great want of reverence for God, to assert that this claim involves the grossest injustice. It is very common with the sacred writers, and with Christ himself, when questions or cavils are presented, to direct their answers more to the feeling which the question indicated, than to the question itself. Tholuck refers, in illustration of this remark, to John iii. 3, Matt. viii. 19, 20, 22, xix. 10, xxii. 29. But in this case, besides this reproof of presumption in attempting to call our Maker to account, instead of considering that the mere fact that God claims any thing as his right, is evidence enough that it is just, there is a direct answer to the difficulty. The objec tion is founded on ignorance or misapprehension of the true relation between God and his sinful creatures. It supposes that he is under obligation to extend his grace to all. Whereas he is under obligation to none. All are sinners, and have forfeited every claim to his mercy; it is, therefore, the prerogative of

God to spare one and not another; to make one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour. lie, as their sovereign Creator, has the same right over them that a potter has over the clay. It is to be borne in mind, that Paul does not here speak of the right of God over his creatures as creatures, but as sinful creatures, as he himself clearly intimates in the next verses. It is the cavil of a sinful creature against his Creator, that he is answering; and he does it by showing that God is under no obligation to give his grace to any, but is as sovereign, as the potter in fashioning the clay. -^Vtf'/, but, 0 man, /^si/o^j's. This particle is often used in replies, and is partly concessive and partly corrective, as in Luke xi. -8, where it is rendered, yea, rather, in Horn. x. 18, yes, verily. It may here, a~s elsewhere, have an ironical force. Sometimes it is strongly affirmative, as in Phil. iii. H, and at others, introduces, as here, a strong negation or repudiation of what had been said.

Khali t/ie thin<j formed nay to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me t/iux.' See Isaiah xlv. 9. In this clause Paul presents ma'iily the idea of God's right, and in the subsequent verses lie shows that nothing unjust is included in the right here claimed. AVe are at his mercy; audit is the height of irreverence and folly for us to call him to account for the manner in which he may see fit to dispose of us.

VERSI-; 21. Hath not the potter power orer tJ/e elay, out of the same lum/> to ma/c<' one vessvl* &c., A:c. The word i-o'jfj'.a ren dered pn/rrr, means also authority and ri<jht. In this case it means, t/n' lawful power or riyht; he not only can do it, but he has a perfect right to do it; see the use of the Greek word in Matt. xxi. 2o, 1 Cor. viii. H, and frequently elsewhere. This verso is merely an illustration of the idea contained in the last clause of the preceding. The Creator has a perfect right to dispose of his creatures as he sees fit. From the very idea of a creature, it can have no claim on the Creator; whether it exists at all, or how, or where, from the nature of the case, must depend on him, and be at his sovereign disposal. The illustration of this truth which follows, is peculiarly appropriate. When the potter takes a piece of clay into his hands, and approaches the wheel, how entirely does it rest with himself to determine the form that clay shall take,, and the use to which it shall be destined? Can any thing be more unreasonable, than that the clay, supposing it endued with intelligence, should complain that the form given it was not so comely, or the use to whicli it was destined not so honourable, as those which fell to the lot of a different portion of the* same mass? Are not these points on which the potter has a most perfect right to decide for himself, and regarding which the thing formed can have no right to complain or question? And so it is with God; the mass of fallen men are in his hands, and it is his right to dispose of them at pleasure; to make all vessels unto honour, or all unto dishonour, or some to one and some to the other. These are points on which, from the nature of the relation, we have no right to question or complain. The illustration here employed occurs elsewhere in Scripture, as in Isa. Ixiv. 8, "But now, 0 Lord, them art our Father; we are the clay, and them art our Potter; and we all are the work of thy hands." Sec also Isa. xxix. 16, and Jer. xviii. 3 — 6, " Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel which he made of clay was marred in the hands of the potter; so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. 0 house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in my hand, 0 house of Israel." In the sovereignty here asserted, it is God as moral governor, and not God as creator, who is brought to view. It is not the right of God to create sinful beings in order to punish them, but his right to deal with sinful beings according to his good pleasure, that is here, and elsewhere asserted. He pardons or punishes as he sees fit.