Chapter 9

1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not: my own conscience bearing me witness together with the holy spirit. 2 That I have great heaviness, and continual sorrow in my heart. 3 I would wish myself to be accursed or abandoned from Christ for my brethren: I say, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 Who are the Israelites, to whom pertains the adoption, and glory, and testaments, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises. 5 Of whom are the fathers, and of whom Christ is according to the flesh, who is God over all blessed forever. Amen.

In this chapter he begins to meet with those offenses, which might turn away the hearts of men from Christ: namely that the Jews, for whom he was ordained by the covenant of the law, did not only refuse, or condemn him: but for the most part did abhor him. For upon this one of these two were thought to follow: either that the promises of God were not true, or else that that Jesus, whom Paul preached, was not the anointed of the Lord, which was peculiarly promised to the Jews. Both which doubts Paul does notably unfold in that which follows. However, he does so handle this place, that he does bridle himself from all bitterness against the Jews, lest he should exasperate their minds: and yet he yields not one [reconstructed: hair's breadth] to them, to the damage of the Gospel.

For he so gives to them their ornaments, that he derogates nothing at all from Christ. But he passes as it were so abruptly to make mention thereof, that there appears no joining or hanging together of speech: and yet he so begins a new matter, as though he had touched it before. This he therefore does, because, having finished the treatise of doctrine, when he turns his mind to the Jews, being astonished at their incredulity as at a wonder, he bursts forth into a sudden protestation, no otherwise, than if he would entreat of a thing handled before: seeing there was none, in whose mind this thought would not voluntarily arise: if this be the doctrine of the law and the Prophets, how comes it then to pass, that the Jews do so stubbornly refuse it? Add that it was a thing everywhere known, whatever hitherto he had said of the law of Moses and the grace of Christ, to have been more detested of the Jews, than that by their consent the faith of the Gentiles should be helped. Therefore it was needful this offense should be taken out of the way, lest it should hinder the course of the Gospel.

1 I speak the truth in Christ. Because this opinion was presumed among the most part, that Paul was as it were a sworn enemy of his nation, so that he was greatly suspected also of those who were of the household of faith, as though he taught a falling away from Moses: before he begins to dispute of the purposed matter, he uses a preface to prepare the minds of the readers toward him: where he clears himself of that false suspicion of ill will toward the Jews. And because the thing was not unworthy of an oath, and he also saw his affirmation would scarcely be believed, against the already conceived prejudice, he testifies by an oath that he speaks the truth. By which example and such like (as I admonished in the first chapter) we ought to learn what oaths are lawful: namely, which cause that truth to be believed, which is both profitable to be known, and also would not otherwise be believed.

This particle, in Christ, is as much as according to Christ. Whereas he adds, I lie not, thereby he signifies that he speaks without deceit or guile. My conscience bearing me witness. By these words he calls his conscience before the judgment of God, because he brings in the spirit to bear witness of his meaning. For to this purpose he has interposed the name of spirit, that he might the rather prove, how he being void and clear of all corrupt emulation, did handle the cause of Christ, at the direction and moderation of the spirit of Christ.

Often times it comes to pass, that a man being blinded with the affection of flesh (although he deceive not) yet wittingly and willingly he does obscure the light of the truth. And this is properly to swear by the name of God, to call him for witness to the confirmation of doubtful matters: and also to bind ourselves to his judgment, if we lie.

2 That I have great heaviness. It is not without great cunning, that he has so broken off his speech, not as yet showing whereof he spoke. For it was not yet time, to express plainly the perdition of the people of the Jews. Add also that hereby he insinuates greater vehemence of sorrow, because imperfect speeches for the most part do greatly set forth the affections. But straightaway he will declare the cause of his sorrow, when he has more fully testified his sincerity. Furthermore that the destruction of the Jews, which he knew to come to pass by the will and providence of God, did so greatly grieve him: hereby we are taught, that the obedience which we give to the providence of God, does not prevent us from mourning at the fall of wicked men, to which yet nevertheless we know they were ordained by the just judgment of God. For the same mind may receive this twofold affection: that while it respects God it can willingly abide they should perish, whom he has determined to destroy: but when it has turned its thought to men, it sorrows at their evil. They therefore are far deceived, who require in godly men a senselessness and voidness of affection, lest they should oppose the ordinance of God.

3 For I would wish. He could not express any greater vehemence of love than by protestation or declaration. For this is perfect love, when one refuses not, indeed even to die for the health of his friend. But the particle that is added, does declare that he speaks not only of a transitory destruction, but of eternal death. And he alluded to the signification of Anathema, when he said from Christ.

For it is called of segregating or separating. And what is it to be segregated or separated from Christ, but to be excluded from all hope of salvation? It was therefore an argument of most fervent love, that Paul doubted not to wish that condemnation to himself, which he saw to hang over the heads of the Jews, that he might deliver them. Neither does it hinder that he knew his salvation was grounded upon the election of God, which can by no means fall away. For these fervent affections, as they are carried headlong, so they respect or consider nothing else, but that they tend to. Therefore Paul did not join the election of God with his wish, but the remembrance of that being past by, he was wholly fixed upon the salvation of the Jews. Now whereas many doubt whether it were a lawful desire: that doubt may thus be unfolded: namely, that this is the perpetual limit of love, that it may proceed even to death. So that then if we love in God, and not out of God: our love shall never be too much. And such was this of Paul. For while he saw his nation to be endowed with so many gifts of God, he loved the gifts of God in them, and them for the gifts' sake.

And also was very sorry that these graces should perish: hence came it that his mind being (as it were) confounded, he burst forth into this extreme wish. So I receive not their opinion, who think Paul said these in respect of God only, and not in respect of men: again, neither do I consent to those, who without consideration of God, say that Paul gave so much to the love of men: but I join the love of men with the study of the glory of God. And yet I have not declared that, which was the principal: namely that the Jews are here considered as they are decked with their ornaments, whereby they were distinguished from mankind. For God by his covenant had so highly advanced them, that if they fell, the faith and truth of God should fail or decay in the world. For the covenant had been void, whose stability is said to endure, so long as the Sun and Moon shall shine in heaven. So that it were more absurd the same should be abolished, than that the whole world should be turned upside down.

Therefore, it is not a simple and bare comparing of men: for although it were better one member should perish than the whole body: yet Paul therefore esteems the Jews so highly, because he gives to them the person and (as they commonly say) the quality of elect people. Which thing also appears better out of the text, as we shall see straightway in its place. These words, I say my kinsmen according to the flesh, although they signify no new thing, yet they avail much to amplification. For first lest any should think he does willingly or voluntarily seek a cause of debate with the Jews, he signifies that he has not so put off the sense of humanity, but he is moved at this so horrible a destruction of his own flesh. Again, seeing the Gospel whereof he was a preacher, must needs come forth of Zion, it is not without cause that he does so largely infer the commendation of his kindred. For this exception, according to the flesh, in my judgment, is not added, as elsewhere, to extenuate, but rather to cause trust or confidence. For although the Jews had rejected Paul, yet he does not dissemble that he was born of that nation, in whose root the election yet flourished, though the branches were withered. That which Budaeus says of the word Anathema, is contrary to the sentence of Chrysostom, who makes [illegible] and [illegible] all one.

4 Who are the Israelites. Here now he plainly shows the cause why the destruction of the people of the Jews did so greatly grieve him, that he was ready to redeem them with his own destruction: namely, because they were Israelites. For the relative pronoun is put in stead of a causal adverb. So this anguish grieved Moses, when he desired that he might be put out of the book of life, that the holy and elect seed of Abraham might not utterly perish. Therefore besides human affection, he notes other reasons, and the same also greater or weightier, which ought to make him favor the Jews: namely, that the Lord had so advanced them as it were by a certain prerogative, that they were separated from the common sort of men. And these speeches of dignity are testimonies of love. For we use not to speak so favorably, but of those whom we love. And although through their ingratitude they made themselves unworthy, who should be esteemed according to these gifts, yet Paul ceases not even therefore to reverence them. Whereby he teaches, that the wicked cannot so defile the good gifts of God, but they are always worthy to be praised and had in admiration: although to those who abuse them, there comes nothing thereby but the greater reproach. And as we are not, by hating the wicked, to contemn the gifts of God in them: so on the contrary we are to beware, lest by our favorable esteeming and praising of the gifts in them, we puff them up: much more also that our praises carry not a show of adulation. But let us imitate Paul, who grants to the Jews their ornaments in such sort, that afterward he declares all to be nothing without Christ.

Finally, he does not in vain put this among their praises, that they were Israelites. For Jacob prayed for that in stead of an excellent blessing, that his name might be called upon over them. To whom pertains the adoption. The whole speech of Paul is directed to this mark. However the Jews by their falling away, have made a wicked divorce with God, yet is not the light of the grace of God utterly extinguished in them, as he also said in the third Chapter, although they were unbelievers and truce breakers, yet is not the faith of God made void by their unbelief. Not only because he has reserved out of the whole multitude a remnant to himself, but because by the right of inheritance, the name of the Church did yet abide with them. And albeit they had now deprived themselves of all these ornaments, so that it profited them nothing to be called the sons of Abraham: yet because it was dangerous, lest through their fault, the majesty of the gospel should become vile among the Gentiles, Paul considers not what they deserved, but with many veils he covers their filthiness and shame, until the Gentiles were persuaded the Gospel came to them from the celestial fountain, out of the privy chapel of God, out of an elect nation. For the Lord, all other nations being let pass, had selected them for a peculiar people to himself, and had adopted them for sons, as he often testifies by Moses and the Prophets. And not content simply to call them sons, sometimes he calls them his first begotten, sometimes his darlings. In Exodus the Lord says thus, Israel is my first begotten son, let my son go that he may serve me (Exodus 4:22). I am become a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first born (Jeremiah 31:9). Also in the same place, Is not Ephraim my dear son? Is he not my pleasant child? Therefore my bowels are troubled over him, and yet I will have compassion on him. By which words he does not only set forth his favor toward Israel, but rather shows the force of adoption, under which the promise of the celestial inheritance is contained. Glory signifies that excellence to which the Lord had advanced that people above all other nations: and that both by many and diverse other means, and also because he dwelt in the midst of them. For besides many signs of his presence, he gave a singular testimony thereof in the ark, from where he both gave answers, and also did hear his people, that he might show forth his power in helping them. For which cause it was called the glory of God. Because here he has distinguished covenants from promises, [reconstructed: let us note this difference], that we count that a covenant, which is conceived by plain and solemn words: and has a mutual promise: namely, the covenant made with Abraham: but promises they be, whatever occur here and there in the scriptures. For when God had once made his covenant with the old people, he ceased not now and then to offer his grace by new promises. Whereby it follows, that the promises are referred to the covenant, as to their only head: even as the special helps of God, whereby he testifies his favor toward the faithful, do flow out of the only fountain of election. And because the law was nothing else but a renewing of that covenant, which renewing might the better establish the remembrance thereof: it seems that law giving here in this place ought peculiarly to be restrained to judgments. For that also is a singular ornament of the people of the Jews, that they had God for their lawgiver. For if some glory in Solon, and some in Lycurgus: how much more justly may they glory in the Lord, of whom you may read in Deuteronomy 4. By worship, he understands that part of the law, wherein the lawful manner of worshipping God is prescribed, as are the rites and ceremonies. For they ought to be esteemed lawful by the rule of God: without the which, whatever men devise, is but mere profaning of religion.

5 of whom are the fathers. For this also is of some value, to descend from the saints, and men beloved of God, seeing God has promised to the holy fathers mercy toward their children even to a thousand generations: and chiefly in the words made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And in another place. Neither does it matter, that this by itself is vain and unprofitable, if it be separated from the fear of God, and holiness of life. For the same we see also in worship and glory: both every where in the Prophets, and specially in Isaiah. Howbeit because God vouchsafes these, being joined with the study of piety, with some degree of honor, he has worthily reckoned them among the prerogatives of the Jews. For therefore, are they called the heirs of the promises, because they descended of the fathers, of whom Christ is, etc. They which refer this to the fathers, as though Paul's mind were only to say, that Christ descended of the fathers, they have no reason for it. For his meaning is, by this commendation: namely, that Christ came of them, to knit up the excellence of the people of the Jews. For it is not a thing lightly to be esteemed: namely, to be joined in carnal kindred with the Redeemer of the world. For if he honored all mankind, when he couples himself to us by communicating our nature, much more did he honor them, with whom he would have a nearer bond of conjunction. Although it is always so to be taken, that if this blessing of kindred be separated from piety, it is so far from profiting, that rather it turns to their greater condemnation. Furthermore, here we have a notable place: that the two natures are so distinguished in Christ, that they are united together into the person of Christ. For whereas he says, Christ came of the Jews, thereby he declares his true humanity. The part according to the flesh, which is added, does note that he had something more excellent than flesh: where is a plain distinction between his humanity and divinity. And he joins both together, when he says, the same Christ, which was born of the Jews according to the flesh, is God, blessed for ever. We must also note that this speech does not agree to any other, than the only and eternal God. For in another place he preaches one only God, to whom all honor and glory is due. They who divide this member from the other text, that they might take from Christ, so manifest a testimony of his Deity, do too impudently go about to make darkness at noon day. For the words are clear enough. Christ of the Jews according to the flesh, who is God blessed for ever. And I doubt not but Paul who had a hard fight, an urgent offense, did purposely erect his mind to the eternal glory of Christ: indeed and that not so much for his own private cause, as that he might encourage others by his example to look up.

6 And yet not as though the word of God were fallen away: for all they are not Israelites, which are of Israel.

7 Neither are they all therefore children, which are the seed of Abraham: but in Isaac shall your seed be called.

8 That is, they are not the children of God, which are the children of the flesh: but they which are the children of the promise, shall be counted for the seed.

9 For this is the word of promise, about this time I will come: and Sara shall have a son.

6 And yet not as though etc. Because Paul through the heat of his desire, was carried (as it were) into an excess of mind, now he going about to return to his parts of teaching, adds a kind of correction, as though he stayed himself from excessive grief. And because out of that that he bewailed the destruction of his nation, this absurdity did seem to follow: namely, that the covenant of God made with Abraham was fallen away (for the grace of God could not fall away from the Israelites, but the covenant should be abolished) he prevents this inconvenience in due season: and shows how in so great [reconstructed: blindness] of the Jews, the grace of God nevertheless did abide constantly in that people, whereby the truth of the covenant did stand. Some reads, Neither is it possible, as though in Greek it were, Oionte: but because I find that reading in no copy, I rather allow that which is commonly read, not that the covenant is fallen away: to this sense, that I so lament the destruction of my nation, it is not, as though I thought the promise of God given to Abraham in old time, were now void and abolished. For not all etc. The proposition is, the promise was so given to Abraham and to his seed, that this inheritance should not appertain to every one of that seed: whereby shall fall out, that the falling away of some does nothing prevent, but the covenant may abide firm and stable. But to the end it may better appear, by what condition the Lord adopted the posterity of Abraham for a peculiar people to himself: two things are to be considered here: namely, the promise of salvation given to Abraham, to appertain to all which take their beginning of him, because it is offered to all without exception: and that in this respect they are rightly called the heirs and successors of the covenant made with Abraham or (as the scripture speaks) the sons of the promise. For seeing that God would have his covenant sealed, as well in Ishmael and Esau, as in Isaac and Jacob, it appears they were not altogether aliens from it: unless perhaps you count circumcision nothing, which was communicated to them by the commandment of God: which thing cannot be spoken without the dishonor of God. And that was it the Apostle said before, the covenants appertained to them, although they were faithless. And in the Acts they are called the children of the covenants, because they were the offspring of the Prophets. The other thing that is to be considered, is, that they are properly called the sons of promise, in whom the virtue and efficacy thereof appears. And in this respect Paul here denies all the sons of Abraham to be the sons of God, although the covenant of the Lord were made with them: because but few did stand in the faith of the covenant: when yet notwithstanding God himself does testify by Ezekiel, they are all to him in stead of sons. To be brief, when the whole people is called the inheritance, and peculiar people of God, it is meant they are adopted of the Lord, the promise of salvation being offered to them and confirmed by the seal of circumcision, But because many of them refuse that adoption by their ingratitude, and therefore enjoy not the benefit thereof, hence arises among them another difference, while the fulfilling of the promise is respected. Least therefore it should seem wonderful to any, that that fulfilling of the promise appears not in many of the Jews, Paul denies them to have been comprehended in the true election of God. Or if any had rather in other words thus, the general election of the people of Israel prevents not, but God by his secret counsel may choose out from among them, whom he thinks good. And this is a singular testimony of God's free mercy, that he vouchsafed to make the covenant of life with one nation: but yet his hidden grace abounds more in the second election, which is restrained to a part only. And where he denies all to be Israelites that are of Israel, and all to be sons, that are of the seed of Abraham, it is a kind of collusion of words (which is, when a word is repeated again not altogether the same, but somewhat changed) seeing in the first member he comprehends the whole progeny, in the other he notes only the true sons, namely, which do not degenerate.

7 But in Isaac shall your seed be called. Paul goes about this, that he might show how the secret election of God, does dominate over the external calling: and yet is not contrary to it; but rather tends to the confirmation and perfection of it. That he might therefore in order declare them both, in the first place, he takes it as a thing granted, that the election of God is not tied to the carnal generation of Abraham, neither is that contained in the condition of the covenant: which thing he now confirms by a fit example. For if there ought to be any natural progeny, which should not fall from the covenant, that should chiefly have place in them, which did obtain the first degree: but seeing we see even in the first sons of Abraham, while he was yet alive, and the promise yet fresh, that one of the seed of Abraham, was separated or put apart: how much more may that come to pass, in a long posterity? And this testimony is taken out of Genesis, where the Lord answers Abraham, that he had heard his prayers touching Ishmael: but yet there was another in whom the promised blessing should rest. Whereby it follows that by special privilege some certain men are chosen out of the elect people of God, in whom the common adoption might be effectual and firm.

8 That is, they are not. Now out of the testimony he gathers a proposition, wherein his whole purpose is included. For if in Isaac, and not in Ishmael the seed be called, and yet this was no less the son of Abraham than he: then must not all the carnal sons be reckoned in the seed, but the promise must specially be fulfilled in some, and does not generally, and indifferently belong to all. He calls those the sons of the flesh, in whom there is nothing more excellent than carnal progeny, as he calls those the sons of promise, who are peculiarly sealed of the Lord.

9 For this is the word of promise. He adds another testimony, in the explanation of which, we may see with what diligence and dexterity he handles the scripture. When the Lord, said he, said he would come, and Sara should bear a son to Abraham, thereby he insinuated, that his blessing was not yet extant, but was yet to come. However, Ishmael was now already born, when that was spoken: therefore the blessing of God, was outside of Ishmael. And let us also by the way note, with what circumspection he proceeds here, lest he should exasperate the Jews. For first the cause being suppressed he does simply declare the matter: then secondarily he opens the fountain.

10 Neither he only: but Rebecca also, when she had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac.

11 For before the children were born, and when they had neither done good nor evil (that the purpose of God might remain according to election, not by works, but by him that calls.)

12 It was said to her, the elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, and have hated Esau.

10 Neither he only. In this Chapter there are certain broken sentences: as this is, but Rebecca also which had conceived by one, our father Isaac. For he ends in the midst thereof, before he comes to the principal verb. Yet the meaning is, that this diversity, touching the inheritance of the promise, may not only be seen in the sons of Abraham: but also there is a far more evident example thereof in Jacob and Esau. For in the former, some might allege, the condition was not equal, because one was the son of a handmaid. But these were both of one womb and twins, yet was one rejected, and the other received of the Lord. Whereby it appears, that the fulfilling of the promise, does not without distinction fall out alike in all the sons of the flesh. And because Paul did respect the persons, to whom God made his counsel known, I choose rather to understand the masculine pronoun, than the neuter, as Erasmus has done. For the meaning is, that the special election was not only revealed to Abraham, but also afterward to Rebecca, while she bore two twins in her womb.

11 For before the children were born. Now he begins to ascend higher: namely, to show the reason of this diversity, which he teaches does not consist in anything else, than the election of God. For up to this point he had touched in few words, that there was a difference among the carnal sons of Abraham: namely, notwithstanding they were all by circumcision adopted into the fellowship of the covenant, yet the grace of God was not effectual in them all: and that they therefore are the sons of the promise, who enjoy the benefits of God. But from where that came, he had either not spoken of it, or else he had obscurely insinuated it. But now he does plainly refer the whole cause, to the election of God, and the same free, and such as does not depend upon men: that in the salvation of the godly nothing might be sought for above the goodness of God: and in the destruction of the reprobate, nothing above his just severity. Let this therefore be the first proposition, as the blessing of the covenant, does separate the people of Israel from all other nations: so also the election of God discerns the men of that nation, while he predestinates some to salvation, and others to condemnation. The second proposition is, that there is no other foundation of that election than the mere goodness of God, and also mercy, since the fall of Adam, which mercy (not for any consideration of works at all) embraces whom it pleases. The third proposition, that the Lord in this his free election is at liberty and free from that necessity, that he should without distinction impart the same grace to all. But rather whom he will he passes over, and whom he will he chooses. All these things does Paul comprise briefly in one sentence, then afterward he will prosecute the rest. Finally in these words, when they were not yet born, or had done good or evil, he declares that God in putting a difference, could not have respect to the works, which were not yet. And they which reason to the contrary, saying, that does not hinder, but the election of God may discern between men, according to their merits, because God does foresee by the works to come, who will be worthy or unworthy of his grace: do not see more than the Apostle, but fall in that principle of religion, which ought to be very well known to all Christians: namely, that God could see nothing in the corrupt nature of man, such as was in Esau and Jacob, whereby he might be moved to do good. Therefore when he says, that both of them had then done neither good nor evil, it is also to be added which he presumes: namely that both of them were the sons of Adam, by nature sinners, endued with no crumb of righteousness. Neither do I therefore stand so long in expounding these, as though the mind of the Apostle were doubtful: but because the Sophisters not being content with the simplicity thereof, go about by their frivolous distinctions to creep out hence, my meaning was to show, that Paul was not ignorant of those things they bring: but that they rather are blind in the first principles of religion. Moreover, although the corruption of nature, which is dispersed over all mankind, before it comes (as they say) into action, is sufficient enough for condemnation, whereby it follows that Esau was worthily rejected, because naturally he was the son of wrath: yet lest any doubt should remain, as though through respect of any fault or sin his condition was the worse, it was necessary as well sins as virtues should be excluded.

Surely true it is, that the next cause of reprobation, is, for that we are all accursed in Adam: yet to the end we might learn to rest in the bare and simple will of God, Paul did lead us aside from the consideration thereof, for so long, until he had established this doctrine: namely, that God has a sufficient just cause of election and reprobation in his own will or pleasure.

That the purpose of God, etc. Almost in every word he urges the free election of God: for if works had place, he should have said, that the reward of God might stand by works. But he opposes the purpose of God, which is contained (that I might say so) in his only pleasure. And lest there should remain any doubt thereof, by adding the other part, according to election, he has removed all doubt. And then the third clause, not of works, but of the caller. Now then let us apply our minds more nearly to this text. If the purpose of God according to election, be thereby established, that before the brothers were born, and had done either good or evil, the one is rejected, the other is chosen: then if any would go about to attribute to their works the cause of difference, the purpose of God should so be overthrown. Now whereas he adds, not of works, but of the caller: he signifies, not of the behalf of works, but of calling only. For he goes about to exclude all consideration of works. Therefore we have all the stability of our election concluded in the only purpose of God: merits are worth nothing here, which serve for nothing but to death: no dignity is regarded, for there is none: but the only goodness of God reigns. And therefore the doctrine is false and contrary to the word of God: namely, that God does choose or reject, as he foresees every man worthy or unworthy of his grace.

12 The elder shall serve the younger. Behold how the Lord puts a difference between the sons of Isaac yet being in their mother's womb. For this is the answer of the heavenly oracle, whereby it follows, that his pleasure was to show to the younger special favor, which he denied to the elder. And although this did appertain to the law of birthright: yet therein, as in the type of a greater matter, was the will of God declared. And that may easily be seen, if we do consider how little according to the flesh the birthright profited Jacob. For therefore he was both in great danger, and also for the avoiding of that danger, he was forced to flee from his house and country, and was discourteously treated in exile: and when he returned, trembling, and doubtful of life, he prostrates himself at the feet of his brother, humbly he beseeches him to forgive him his offense, and does not live but by his pardon. Where is his lordship over his brother, of whom he is constrained, by prayer to ask life? Therefore there was some greater matter than the birthright, which the Lord promised by his oracle.

13 As it is written. Yet he confirms by a surer testimony, how greatly that oracle given to Rebecca did avail to the present cause: namely, that by the lordship of Jacob, and bondage of Esau, the spiritual condition of them both was testified: secondarily, that Jacob obtained this grace, by the goodness of God, and no merit of his. Therefore this testimony of the Prophet declares why the Lord gave to Jacob the birthright. And it is taken out of Malachi, where the Lord upbraiding the unthankfulness of the Jews, first makes mention of his goodness toward them. I have loved you (said he) and he adds from where the beginning of love proceeded, was not Esau the brother of Jacob? As though he said, what prerogative had he, why I should prefer him before his brother? none at all. For there was an equal right, saving that by the law of nature, this which was the younger, ought to have been subject to him that was the elder: yet have I chosen him, and refused this, being moved to that by my mercy only, and by no dignity of works. And now I had adopted you to be my people, that I might still prosecute the same love toward the seed of Jacob: but I have rejected the Edomites, the progeny of Esau. Therefore you are so much the worse, whom the remembrance of so great favor, cannot provoke to the worship of my majesty. And although the earthly blessings are there also mentioned, which God bestowed upon the Israelites: yet we must not otherwise take them, than pledges of his benevolence. For where the wrath of God is, there follows death: but where his love is, there follows life.

14 What shall we say then? is there any unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy: and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.

16 So then it is not in him that wills, nor in him that runs, but in God that shows mercy.

17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh, For this same purpose have I stirred you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18 Therefore he has mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardens.

14 What shall we say then? Flesh cannot hear that wisdom of God, but straightaway it is troubled with tumultuous questions, and in a sort strives to bring God to account. Therefore we see the Apostle, so often as he handles any high mystery, answers many inconveniences, with which he knew the minds of men otherwise to be occupied. And chiefly when men hear that of predestination, which the scripture delivers, they are tangled with many trifles. For the predestination of God is truly a labyrinth, from where the wit of man can no way unwind itself: but such is the importunate curiosity of man, that the more dangerous the inquisition of any thing is, the more boldly he rushes there: so, when talk is of predestination, because he cannot bridle himself, by his rashness he does straightaway (as it were) drown himself in the depth of the sea. What remedy then have the godly? Should they flee all remembrance of predestination? No, not so. For seeing the Holy Spirit has taught nothing, but that which is necessary for us to know: assuredly the knowledge thereof shall be profitable, if it keep itself within the word of God. Let this then be a sure observation with us, that we seek to know nothing of it, but that the scripture teaches where the Lord shuts his holy mouth, let us also stop the way to our minds of going further. But because we are men into whose minds those foolish questions do naturally come: let us hear of Paul how we may meet with them. Is there any unrighteousness with God? This is a monstrous fury of man's wit, that rather it charges God of unrighteousness, than it will reprove itself of [reconstructed: blindness]. Neither would Paul fetch things far off, with which he might trouble the readers: but (as it were) he takes away that wicked doubt, which straightaway creeps in upon many, so soon as they hear that God does determine of every one according to his pleasure. Furthermore this is that kind of unrighteousness, which flesh imagines, that one being neglected, God does respect another. That Paul might loosen this knot, he divides the whole cause into two members: in the former of which he entreats of the elect, in the other, of the reprobate: and his will is, that in those, we consider the mercy of God, but in these we acknowledge the just judgment of God. First of all therefore he answers, that this cogitation is execrable, that unrighteousness should be thought to be with God: then secondly he declares on both sides, how there can be none. Yet before we go further, this objection testifies clearly, that God has elected some, and rejected others, and the cause is nowhere else to be sought for, than in his purpose. For if the difference were grounded upon the respect of works, in vain had Paul moved question of the unrighteousness of God, of which there could be no suspicion, if he handled every one according to his desert. Now this also is to be noted in this second place, that although he saw this part of doctrine could not be touched, but murmuring speeches and also horrible blasphemies, would straightaway rise against it, yet frankly and freely he does denounce it, indeed he does not dissemble, what occasion of storming and murmuring is offered to us, while we hear, that before men are born, every one has his lot appointed by the secret counsel of God: yet nevertheless he goes on, and without doubting, he denounces that, which he had learned of the Holy Spirit. By which it follows that their niceness is intolerable, who seek to be wiser in redeeming and pacifying offenses than the Holy Spirit. Lest God should be charged with any fault, they make religion of the matter, simply to say, that the salvation and destruction of men, does depend on his free election. If they restrained their minds from wicked curiosity, and also bridled their tongues from too much lavishing, their modesty and sobriety were to be allowed of: but what boldness is this, to bridle the Holy Spirit and Paul? Let this magnanimity therefore flourish in the church of God, that the true teachers be not ashamed of the simple profession of true doctrine, however it be hated, and to refute whatever reproaches the wicked thrust in.

15 For he says to Moses.) Touching the elect, God cannot be charged with any unrighteousness: for he vouchsafes them of mercy according to his good pleasure. And yet here also the flesh finds something to murmur or complain. Because it cannot yield this to God, that he should vouchsafe one with favor rather than another, unless the cause appear forth. Because therefore it seems absurd, that some should be preferred before others without desert, the frowardness of men makes war with God, as though he gave to the persons more than equity. Now let us see, how Paul defends the righteousness of God. First he obscures not, neither hides that, which he saw to be odious: but in maintaining thereof he proceeds with immutable constancy. Secondly, he labors not to find out reasons to mollify the asperity: but he counts it sufficient, by the testimonies of Scripture to restrain impure barkings. This might seem to be a cold excuse, that God is not unjust, because he is merciful to whom he will: but because to God, his own only authority is sufficient, so that he stands in no need of the defense of any other, it was sufficient to Paul that he was appointed a defender of his own right. And Paul brings here the answer which Moses received of the Lord, when he prayed for the health of the whole people, I will have mercy (says the Lord) on whom I will have mercy: and I will show compassion, to whom I will show compassion. By this oracle the Lord declared, how he is debtor to no man: and that it is of his free goodness whatever he gives to them: secondly that this beneficence is free, that he may bestow it upon whom he will: lastly, that no cause can be imagined above his will, why he does good to certain men, and wills them well, not to all. His words are as much, as if it were said, look upon whom I have once determined to have mercy, I will never take my mercy from him: and I will forever show bountifulness to him, to whom I have determined to be bountiful. And so he notes the highest cause of bestowing grace, namely, his voluntary decree: and withal he insinuates, that he has appointed his mercy peculiarly for certain. For both this short speech excludes all foreign causes: as when we, challenging to ourselves free power of doing, we say, I will do, what I will do: and also the pronoun Relative expresses plainly, that mercy is not indifferently for all. This liberty is taken from God, if his election be tied to external causes. In two words which Moses uses, the only cause of salvation is expressed: for Chanan is to favor, or give a benefit freely and liberally: but Racham is to show mercy. So that is brought to pass that Paul intends: namely, that the mercy of God because it is free, is not tied, but he may show it where he will.

16 So then it is not, etc.) By that testimony he gathers, that without all controversy it follows, the election of God is not to be attributed to our industry, or study, or endeavor: but is wholly to be referred to the counsel of God. Lest any should think, that they who are chosen, are therefore chosen because they did deserve it, or had won to themselves the favor of God by any means: or finally, because there was in them any crumb of dignity or worthiness, whereby the Lord might be provoked. And understand it simply, that it stands not in our will or study (for he has put course for study) that we should be numbered among the elect: but that stands wholly on the goodness of God, which chooses those freely, that neither will, nor study, no nor think of it. And they who reason out of this place that there is in us some force or virtue of study, but which can do nothing by itself, except it be helped by the mercy of God, they do it foolishly. For the Apostle does not show what is in us: but excludes all our endeavors. It is therefore a mere cavilation that they bring in: namely, that we will and run, because Paul denies it to be in the willer or runner: seeing his mind is nothing else, than that neither will nor running does anything. Yet they are again to be reproved, who, to the end they might give place to the grace of God, abide secure and idle. For although we profit nothing by our own study, yet that study which is inspired of God is not ineffectual. These things are not therefore said, that we should by our waywardness or slothfulness choke the spirit of God infusing his sparks into us: but that we should understand, it is of him, whatever we have: and therefore let us learn both to ask all things of him, to hope for all things, and to ascribe all things to him, and also with fear and trembling to seek our salvation. Pelagius has gone about by another sophistical, but a filthy or rotten cavilation, to abuse the sentence of Paul: namely, that it is not the willer or runner only, because the grace of God helps. Whom Augustine has not only soundly, but wittily refuted: for if the will of man be therefore denied to be the cause of election, because it is not the only cause, but in part: then thus it may be said again, that it is not of mercy but of the willer and runner. For where there is a mutual working there shall also be a mutual praise. But assuredly this last saying does fall with the weight of its own absurdity: let us therefore determine that the salvation of those, whom it pleases God to save, is so ascribed to the mercy of God, that nothing is left to the industry of man. Neither has it much more color, that some would have those recited together in the person of the wicked. For how shall it hang together, to wrest those places of Scripture, where the righteousness of God is defended, to upbraid to him tyranny? Again, is it likely, seeing the refutation was ready and easy, that Paul, without speech, would suffer the Scripture to be so grossly abused? But these starting holes they have sought, who did measure this incomparable mystery of God by their own sense. It was a rougher doctrine, for their dainty, and tender ears, than that they could think it meet for an Apostle. But they ought rather to have bent their own stiff-neckedness to the obedience of the spirit, that they might not have been, so much addicted to their own gross imaginations.

17 For the scripture says, etc. Now he comes to the second member, of the rejection of the wicked. Wherein, because there seems to be somewhat more absurdity, so much the more diligently he goes about to make manifest, how God in rejecting whom he will, is not only irreprehensible or without blame, but also wonderful in his wisdom, and equity. He therefore takes his testimony out of Exodus. Where the Lord says it was he that stirred up Pharaoh to that end, that while he went about stubbornly to resist the power of God, he being overcome, and subdued, might be for an example how invincible the arm of God is: to the bearing thereof, much less to the breaking thereof, no human strength is sufficient. Behold the pattern that the Lord would show in Pharaoh. Therefore two things are to be considered here, the predestination of Pharaoh to destruction: which is verily referred to the just, but yet secret counsel of God.

Secondly, the end thereof, which is that the name of God might be celebrated: and to that end does Paul chiefly stay upon it. For if this hardening be such, for which the name of God deserves to be declared, that he should be charged with unrighteousness, is abomination. It is an argument taken from the places of contraries. But because many interpreters, while they go about to qualify this place also, they do corrupt it, first it is to be noted, that for the word stirred up. In Hebrew it is, I have ordained you: where, the Lord going about to declare that the stubbornness of Pharaoh was no let to him, that he might not deliver his people, affirms that his fury was not only foreseen of him, and that he had means prepared to bridle it, but also that he had purposely so ordained it, and verily to that end, that he might show forth a more evident testimony of his power. Some therefore do turn it amiss, namely that Pharaoh was reserved to a time, seeing rather he speaks of the beginning. For seeing many things elsewhere occur to men, which hinder their counsels, and let the course of their actions, God says Pharaoh came from him, and that this person was laid upon him. To which sentence the word raise or stir up, notably agrees. Finally, lest any should imagine, that Pharaoh was moved from above, by a certain universal and confused motion, that he might rush into that fury, the special cause or end is noted: as if it were said, that God did not only know what Pharaoh would do: but also purposely appointed him to this use. Whereby it follows, that it is in vain now to strive with him, as though he were bound to give a reason or account, seeing he does willingly come forth himself, and prevents this objection, denouncing, that the reprobate, in whom he will have his name celebrated, come from the secret fountain of his providence.

18 Therefore he has mercy on whom he will. Here follows the conclusion of both members: which can not any way be understood in the person of any other than of the Apostle: because straightaway he adds a communication with the adversary, when he begins to bring forth such things as may be objected of the contrary part. Therefore it is not to be doubted but Paul speaks these of his own sense, as we have admonished a little before, namely, that God according to his pleasure, vouchsafes whom he sees good of mercy: and draws forth the severity of judgment against whom he will. For this he goes about to bring to pass among us, that concerning the diversity between the elect and reprobate, our mind might be content with this, namely, that it has so pleased God, to illuminate some to salvation, and blind others to death: and not seek for any cause above his will. For we must stand upon these particles, of whom he will, and whom he will: beyond that which he does not suffer us to pass. But the word harden, when in the Scriptures it is attributed to God, it does not only signify (as certain tempering moderators would have it) a permission or suffering, but also the action of God's wrath. For all external things, which make to the blinding of the reprobate, are the instruments of his wrath. And Satan himself, which inwardly works effectually, is so far forth his minister, that he works not but at his commandment.

Therefore that frivolous evasion or refuge, which the schoolmen have of foreknowledge, does fall down. For Paul does not only say, that the ruin of the wicked is foreseen of the Lord, but is ordained by his counsel and will: as Solomon also teaches, that the destruction of the wicked, was not only foreknown, but that the wicked ones themselves were purposely created, that they might perish (Proverbs 16:4).

19 You will say then to me, why does he yet complain? Who has resisted his will?

20 But O man, what are you that plead or should plead in judgment with God? Shall the thing formed, say to him that formed it, why have you made me so?

21 Has not the potter power of the clay, to make of the same lump, one vessel to honor and another vessel to dishonor?

19 You will say then to me. Here especially the flesh storms, when it hears how it is referred to the will of God, that they are destined to death who perish. Therefore the Apostle descends again to objections, by taking to him the speech of the adversary: because he saw the mouths of the wicked could not be stopped, but with full mouths they would bark against the righteousness of God. And he does notably express their affection. For, they not being content to defend themselves, make God guilty in their stead: and then after they have turned the fault of their condemnation upon him, they are grieved at his so great power. Indeed they are constrained to yield, but storming, because they cannot resist: and attributing to him the principality they do in a manner charge him of tyranny, much like as Sophists in their schools do in such sort babble of his absolute (as they call it) righteousness, as though he having forgotten his righteousness, would make a trial of the might of his lordship, by mixing all things perversely. Thus therefore do the wicked reason in this place, what cause has he, why he should be angry at us? Seeing he made us such, seeing he leads us where he will at his pleasure: what else does he in destroying us, but revenge his own work in us? Neither is it our part to contend with him: and however we strive, he will have the upper hand. Therefore both his judgment shall be unjust if he condemn us: and also his power which he abuses now against us is licentious. But what does Paul answer to these?

20 Who are you O you man, Because in Greek there is the participle, it may also be read in the present tense, which does strive, or contend, or fights on the contrary: because this is expressed in the Greek word, to this sense, who are you that take upon yourself to contend with God: but the sense is not much different. By this first answer he does nothing else than repress the wickedness of that blasphemy, by an argument taken from the condition of man. He will straightway add another, whereby he will clear the righteousness of God, from all accusation.

This verily is apparent, that no cause is brought above the will of God. Seeing the answer was at hand, namely, that the difference does depend upon just causes: why did not Paul use this compendious or short form, but placed the will of God in the highest degree, that it only might suffice us for all causes? Assuredly if the objection had been false, that God does reject or elect according to his pleasure, whom he either vouchsafes not with favor, or whom he loves freely, the refutation had not been neglected of Paul. The wicked object, that men are cleared from guiltiness, if the will of God bears the chiefest sway in their salvation and destruction. Does Paul deny it? Indeed by his answer he confirms, namely that God does decree or determine of men as it pleases him: yet in vain and madly do men rise up to contend, because God by his right power, or authority assigns to his works what lot he will. And they who say that Paul wanting reason, did flee to brawling, or chiding, charge the Holy Ghost with great reproach. For he would not at the first bring forth those things which might make to the defense of the equity of God, and which he had in a readiness, because they could not be conceived or apprehended. Indeed he also so tempers the second reason, that he does not undertake a full defense. But yet so that he declares or shows forth the righteousness of God, if it be with devout humility and reverence weighed of us. That therefore which was most meet, he admonishes man of his condition, as if he said, seeing you are a man, you must acknowledge yourself earth and ashes: why then do you contend with the Lord, about a matter which you cannot understand? To be brief, the Apostle has not brought that could be said, but that was expedient for our rudeness. Proud men storm, that Paul, not denying men to be rejected or elected by the secret counsel of God, alleges no cause, as though the Spirit of God wanting reason held his peace: and not rather by his silence did admonish that the mystery which the minds of men do not comprehend, is reverently to be had in admiration, and so might bridle the waywardness of man's curiosity. Let us know therefore that God does not for any other end cease from speaking, but because he sees his infinite wisdom cannot be comprehended by our slender capacity, and therefore sparing our infirmity, provokes us to sobriety and modesty. Shall the thing formed. We see that Paul hitherto does always stand upon this, namely, that the will of God, although the reason thereof is unknown to us, is to be counted just. For he shows that the Lord has his right taken from him, if he be not at liberty to do with his creatures what he wills. This seems hard to the ears of many. And there are also some who allege that God is put to great reproach, if such liberty be given to him, as though they with their disdainfulness were better divines, than Paul, who has appointed this rule of humility to the faithful, that they should wonder at the power of God, and not esteem it after their own judgment. And he represses this arrogance of striving with God, by a most [reconstructed: fit] similitude, wherein he seems rather to have alluded to Isaiah, than Jeremiah. For nothing else is taught with Jeremiah, than that Israel is in the hand of the Lord, so that for his sins he may break him in pieces, as a potter may his earthen vessel. But Isaiah goes higher: saying, woe be to him that gainsays his maker: namely, to the pot that strives with the potter. Shall the clay say to his potter, what do you make? And surely there is no cause why mortal man should prefer himself before an [reconstructed: earthen] vessel, when he compares himself with God. Neither are we to be very curious in applying that testimony to the present cause, seeing the mind of the Apostle was only to allude to the words of the Prophet, that his similitude might have the more weight.

21 Has not the Potter authority: The reason why the thing formed, ought not to strive with his former: because the maker does nothing but by his right or authority. By the word power, he understands not, that he has strength and force, to do with his vessel what he wills: but that this preeminence or authority does agree to him, by good right. For his mind is not to give to God any licentious power: but such as is worthily given to him.

Furthermore in applying the similitude, consider this, as the potter does take nothing from the clay, whatever form he give it: So to whatever condition God creates a man, he takes nothing from him. Only that is to be remembered, namely that God is partly robbed of his honor, unless such authority be given to him, over men, that he may be judge of life and death.

22 What and if God would, to show his wrath, and to make his power known, suffer with long patience, the vessels of wrath prepared to destruction:

23 That he might also declare the riches of his glory upon the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared to glory?

22 What and if. The second answer, wherein he does briefly declare, although the counsel of God be incomprehensible on this part, yet it is apparent, his equity is unblamable, no less in the destruction of the reprobate, than in the salvation of the elect. He does not give a reason of the election of God in such sort as though he would assign the cause why this man is chosen, and that rejected. For both it was unfit, that those things which are contained in the secret counsel of God, should come under the censure of man: and also that mystery was unfoldable. Therefore he restrains us, from examining those things curiously, which exceed the capacity of man: in the meantime he shows, that so far forth as the predestination of God does show forth itself, therein appears true righteousness. I take the particle eide, which Paul uses, as though it were said, what and if? that this whole sentence may be interrogative.

For so the meaning shall be more apparent: and it shall be a kind of silence or concealing, wherein must be understood, who therefore can accuse him of unrighteousness, or appoint him a day? For here appears nothing but the most straight rule of righteousness. But if we will understand the mind of Paul, every word almost is to be examined. For thus he reasons, there are vessels prepared for destruction, that is, bequeathed and destinated to destruction: there are also vessels of wrath, that is, made and formed to this end, that they might be testimonies of the vengeance and wrath of God. Now if God patiently suffers those for some time, not destroying them at the first moment, but deferring the judgment prepared for them, and that to show forth the testimonies of his severity, that others might be terrified by so horrible examples: and also to set forth his power, to which he makes them diversely to serve: and lastly that thereby the greatness of his mercy toward the elect might be better known, and more clearly appear: what is worthy to be reprehended in this dispensation? However, it is no marvel though he shows not, from where it is that they are vessels prepared for destruction. For out of that which has gone before, he takes it to be a sure thing, that the cause is hid in the eternal, and unsearchable counsel of God: the righteousness of which we ought rather to worship, than to search after. And he has put vessels in a general signification for instruments. For whatever action there is in any creature, it is (as a man would say) the ministry of the power of God. Very fitly therefore are we the faithful called vessels of mercy, which the Lord does use as instruments to show forth his mercy: and the reprobate, the vessels of wrath, seeing they serve to show forth the judgments of God.

23 That he might also declare the riches. Because I doubted not but in these two particles, kai ina, and that, there was a displacing of words, that being in the first place should be in the last: to the end this member might the better agree with the former, I have translated it: That he might also declare. And it is the second reason, which manifests the glory of God in the destruction of the reprobate: because thereby the greatness of the goodness of God toward the elect is more largely confirmed. For what do these differ from those, but that they are delivered from the same gulf of destruction by the Lord? And that by no desert of their own, but of his free goodness. Therefore it cannot otherwise be, but that infinite goodness of God toward the elect, should be commended more and more, when we consider how miserable all they are, who do not escape his wrath. I interpret the word glory, which is twice repeated here, to be put for the mercy of God, by the figure, metonymia, which is here by putting the effect for the cause: for his chiefest praise consists in doing good. So to the Ephesians, after he has taught how we are adopted of God, to the praise of the glory of his grace, shortly after he adds, that we are sealed by the spirit of inheritance to the praise of his glory, the word grace being left out (Ephesians 1:13). His meaning therefore is to signify, that the elect are instruments or vessels, whereby God does exercise his mercy, that he might glorify his name in them.

And although in this second member he does more expressly affirm, that it is God who prepares his elect to glory, when as before he had simply said, that the reprobate are vessels prepared to destruction: yet there is no doubt but the preparation of them both, does depend upon the secret counsel of God. Otherwise Paul had said, the reprobate give or cast themselves into destruction, but now he gives us to know, that before they are born, they are already addicted to their lot.

24 Whom he has also called: namely us, not only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles.

25 As he says also in Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people: and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26 And it shall be in the place, where it was said to them, you are not my people, that there they shall be called, the children of the living God.

27 And Isaiah cries concerning Israel, though the number of the children of Israel, were as the sand of the sea, yet shall but a remnant be saved.

28 For he making his account short, and gathering it into a brief sum in righteousness, because the Lord will make a short account in the earth.

29 And as Isaiah had said before: except the Lord of hosts had left us a seed, we had been made as Sodom, and had been like to Gomorrah.

26 Whom he has also called. Out of that disputation which he has hitherto had of the liberty of God's election, two things followed: namely that the grace of God is not so included within the people of the Jews, that it cannot also flow forth to other nations, and spread itself over the whole world. Secondly that it is not so tied to the Jews, that it must needs come to all the sons of Abraham according to the flesh, without exception. For if the election of God, be grounded upon his pleasure only: wherever his will shall turn itself, there also the election of God has place. Election therefore being put down, now the way in a manner is made to those things which he has purposed to say as well of the calling of the Gentiles, as the rejection of the Jews: the one of which, for novelty did seem absurd, the other altogether unfit or unworthy. Yet because this latter had more offence in it, he handles the other, being less odious, in the first place.

He says therefore that the vessels of God's mercy, which he chooses to the glory of his name, are taken everywhere, no less from among the Gentiles, than the Jews. But in the relative, whom, although the reason of grammar be not observed by Paul, yet his meaning is, a passage as it were being made, to add, that we are those vessels of God's glory, who are partly taken out from among the Jews, and partly from among the Gentiles. Where, by an argument taken from the vocation of God he proves, there is no difference of nation in election. For if pedigree taken from the Gentiles, was no impediment why God should not also call us, it is apparent, the Gentiles are not banished from the kingdom of God, and the covenant of eternal salvation.

25 As he says also in Hosea. Now he declares that the calling of the Gentiles ought not to seem new: as which was testified long before, by the oracle of the prophet. The sense is plain enough, but that there is somewhat to do for applying the testimony: for none will deny, but the prophet speaks there of the Israelites. For the Lord being offended at their wickedness, denounces they should no more afterward be his people. After that he adds a consolation: and of not beloved, makes them beloved, of not a people, a people. And Paul sets about to apply that to the Gentiles, which is precisely spoken to the Israelites.

They who have hitherto best unfolded this knot, have thought that Paul would reason thus: that which might be supposed an impediment to the Gentiles, to hinder them from being partakers of salvation, was also in the people of Israel: as God therefore in old time did graciously receive the Jews into favor, whom he had cast off and banished: even so now he uses the same bountifulness toward the Gentiles. But because that interpretation, although it may be suffered, yet seems to me to be somewhat forced, let the readers consider, whether this be not more apt, if we do believe, that consolation of the prophet was not given to the Jews only, but also to the Gentiles. For it is no new or strange thing among the prophets, after they have published the vengeance of God, against the Jews for their iniquities, to turn themselves to the kingdom of Christ, which was to be dispersed over the whole world. Neither did they that without reason. For seeing the Jews by their sins did so provoke the wrath of God, that they deserved to be divorced from him, there remains no hope of salvation, unless they turn themselves to Christ: by whom the covenant of grace is restored, and as it was founded in him, so now by his intercession it is renewed. And assuredly seeing Christ is the only refuge in desperate affairs, or such as are past all hope: no sound consolation can be brought to miserable sinners, and such as see the wrath of God hang over them, but by setting Christ before their eyes. Indeed this (as we have admonished) is ordinary among the prophets, when they have humbled the people being pricked with the threatening of God's vengeance, to recall them to Christ, the only sanctuary of those who have no other refuge. And where the kingdom of Christ is erected, there also that heavenly Jerusalem is raised up, into which the citizens out of all parts of the world are gathered. And that chiefly avails in the present oracle: for when the Jews were cast out of the family of God, by that means they were brought into a common estate, and were made like to the Gentiles. After the difference is taken away, now the mercy of God has place indifferently among all nations.

Whereby we gather that the testimony of the prophet is fitly applied to the present cause. Wherein, God, after he has matched the Jews with the Gentiles, pronounces that he will gather a Church of them both, that they which were no people might begin to be.

I will call them my people which is not my people. This is said in respect of the divorce, which God had now made with the people, depriving them of all dignity, that they should not excel the foreign nations. And although they whom God has ordained for sons to himself, in his eternal counsel, these are, and are forever, sons: yet the Scripture many times reckons not among the sons of God, but whose election is confirmed by calling, whereby also he teaches us not to judge, and much less to pronounce on the election of God, but so far forth as it manifests itself by his tokens. So likewise after that Paul had shown to the Ephesians, that their election and adoption was determined with God before the creation of the world, a little after, he testifies they were sometime strangers from God: namely, according to that time, wherein the Lord had not yet declared his love toward them: although he had embraced them with eternal mercy. Therefore in this place they are called, not beloved, to whom the Lord rather testifies his wrath than love. Finally, until adoption reconcile men to God, we know his wrath lies upon all mankind: the feminine gender of the participle, depends upon the text of the prophet. For he had said that a daughter was born to him, whom he called not beloved: that under this type, the people might know they were hated of God. Now as rejection was the cause of hatred, so the prophet teaches that the beginning of love is, when God does adopt them, who for a time were foreigners.

27 And Isaiah cries. Now he comes to the second part, whereat he would not begin lest he should exasperate their minds too much. And this is not without skill, that he brings in the prophet Isaiah crying, and not speaking: namely that he might make them more attentive.

Furthermore, the words of the prophet are plain, to fear the Jews, lest they should glory too much in the flesh. For it is horrible to be heard, that of such an infinite multitude, a small number only should be saved. For although the prophet after he has described the destruction of the people, lest the faithful should think the covenant of God were utterly wiped out, puts them in mind there is some hope of grace remaining: yet he restrains that to a few. But because the prophet prophesied that of his time, we are to see how Paul does rightly apply it to his purpose. And thus it ought to be applied, when the Lord would deliver his people out of the captivity of Babylon: he would the benefit of his deliverance should come to a very few of so great a multitude: which might justly be called the remnant of that destruction, in respect of the multitude of people, which he suffered to perish in exile. Now that same carnal restitution, did figure the true restoration of the Church of God, which is accomplished in Christ: indeed, it was only the beginning thereof. That therefore which happened then, must needs more certainly be fulfilled now in the progress and perfection of the deliverance.

25 For he making his account short. The diversity of interpretations being omitted, this seems to me the natural sense, the Lord will both so shorten, and cut off his people, that that which shall remain may seem (as it were) a certain consumption, that is, the form or print of a wonderfully great ruin. Yet this fewness which shall remain of the consumption or wasting, shall be the work of the Lord's righteousness: or, which I like better, shall serve to testify the righteousness of God through the whole world.

Because, word, generally in Scripture signifies a thing, word consummated or perfected, is put for consummation or perfection. Where many interpreters have grossly erred, while they go about to reason too subtly. For they have imagined, that the doctrine of the Gospel is so called, because the ceremonies being cut off, it is a brief abridgment of the law. Although it ought rather to be called a consumption.

Where also not only there, but in Isaiah and Ezekiel, the interpreter has erred, where it is said, Ah, ah, Lord God, will you make a consummation of the remnants of Israel? when the Prophets would say, will you destroy even the remnants to utter destruction? And that comes to pass through the ambiguity or doubtfulness of the Hebrew word (Isaiah 10:22; 28:22; Ezekiel 11:13).

For seeing the word Chalah may signify as well to end and finish, as to consume, this difference has not been sufficiently observed in his place. Neither has Isaiah word for word so spoken, but he has put two substantive nouns, namely, consumption, and definition, or deciding and ending: so that the desire or seeking after Hebraism in the Greek interpreter is marvelously unreasonable. For to what purpose is it, to enwrap a sentence, by itself clear, in an obscure figurative speech? Add also that Isaiah speaks here excessively, while by consumption he means extenuation or diminishing, such as is wont to be in some famous destruction.

29 And as Isaiah had said before. He brings another testimony out of the first chapter, where the Prophet bewails the destruction of Israel in his time. And if that has been once done, it is no new example. For the people of Israel has no prerogative, but from their parents or ancestors: who notwithstanding were handled in such sort, that the Prophet complains they are so afflicted, that they were but a little from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Yet this difference there was, that a few were reserved for a seed, to raise up the name, lest it should perish utterly, and by eternal forgetfulness be wiped out. For it behooved God, always to be so mindful of his promise, that in the midst of his most severe judgments, he might leave some place for mercy.

30 What shall we say then? that the Gentiles which followed not righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

31 But Israel in following the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.

32 Why? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works. For they have stumbled at the stumbling stone.

33 As it is written, behold, I lay a stumbling stone in Zion, and a rock of offense: and every one that believes in him shall not be ashamed.

30 What shall we say then? Now, that he might take from the Jews all occasion of murmuring against God, he begins to show those causes may be comprehended by man's capacity, why the nation of the Jews was so rejected. But they do lewdly, and invert order, who go about to set and erect these causes above the secret predestination of God, which he taught before to be taken for the first or highest cause. However as that is above all causes: so the corruption and wickedness of the ungodly does give place and matter to the judgments of God. And because he had to deal in a difficult cause, he uses a communication, and demands (as though he doubted) what might be said here. That the Gentiles which followed not righteousness. Nothing was thought more absurd or unlike, than that the Gentiles, who having no care of righteousness, wallowed in the pleasures of their flesh, being called into the participation of salvation, should obtain righteousness: and the Jews on the contrary, who seriously gave diligence to the works of the law, should be put beside all reward of righteousness.

Paul so utters that in bare words, which was a marvelous paradox or strange thing, that by a reason added, he tempers whatever sharpness or roughness was in it: namely that that righteousness the Gentiles attained to, does consist in faith: and therefore does depend upon the mercy of the Lord, and not on man's own worthiness. And that that study of the law was in the Jews, was preposterous, because they sought to be justified by works: and so they labored to attain to that, where man cannot come. Indeed, they also were offended at Christ, by whom only we have entrance to obtain righteousness.

But the purpose of the Apostle in this former member, is to advance the mere grace of God, that no other cause should be sought for in the calling of the Gentiles than this, namely, that he vouchsafed to embrace them, being unworthy of his favor. He speaks of righteousness by name, without the which salvation comes not: but while he says it proceeded from faith, he gives to understand that the righteousness of the Gentiles does consist in free reconciliation. For if any imagine they were therefore justified, because by faith they had gotten the spirit of regeneration, he is far wide from the mind of Paul. For it could not be true, that they obtained what they sought not, unless the Lord freely embraced them strange and wandering, and offered them righteousness, whereof, in as much as they knew it not, there could flourish no study among them. But also it is to be noted, that the Gentiles did not otherwise obtain righteousness by faith, but because God prevented their faith by his grace.

For if by faith they had first attained to righteousness, this now had been to follow it. Therefore faith itself was a portion of grace.

31 Israel in following righteousness. Paul does frankly denounce that, which was incredible to be spoken, namely, that it was no marvel, if the Jews by following righteousness earnestly, profited nothing: because by running out of the way, they wearied themselves in vain. Now in the first place he seems to me to have put the law of righteousness, by the figure hypallage, for the righteousness of the law: and in the repetition of the second member, in another sense to have so termed the form or rule of righteousness. Therefore the sum is, that Israel depending upon the righteousness of the law, namely that, which is prescribed in the law, had not the true manner of justification. And it is a notable allusion of words, while he teaches that the legal righteousness was in cause, that they fell from the law of righteousness.

32 Not by faith, but as it were by works. Because commonly the excuse of preposterous zeal seems to be just, Paul shows they are justly rejected, who seek to get to themselves salvation, by the confidence of works: because so much as in them is, they destroy faith, out of the which there is no health to be hoped for. Therefore if they should be partakers of their desire, that success should be a making void of true righteousness.

Furthermore you can see how faith and the merits of works are compared together, as things utterly contrary. Seeing then the confidence of works is a great hindrance, whereby the way to obtain righteousness is stopped up against us: it is necessary that that being rejected, we rest upon the only goodness of God. For this example of the Jews ought justly to terrify all those, who seek to obtain the kingdom of God by works.

For as it is already declared, he calls not the observations of ceremonies the works of the law: but the merits of works: to which faith is opposed, which faith, not regarding its own worthiness, does (that I may say so) with both eyes behold the sole mercy of God. For they have stumbled at the stumbling stone. By an excellent reason he confirms the former sentence. For nothing is more absurd, than that they should obtain righteousness, which go about to overthrow it. Christ is given to us for righteousness: he labors to deprive him of his office, whoever thrusts upon God the righteousness of works. And hereby it appears, whenever men rest upon the confidence of works, under the vain pretence of being zealous for righteousness, by furious folly they fight with God.

Moreover, it is no hard matter to be known, how they stumble at Christ, who trust to the confidence of works: for except we acknowledge ourselves to be sinners, bare and void of righteousness that is our own, we obscure the dignity of Christ: which consists in this, that he might be light, health, life, resurrection, righteousness, and medicine to us all. And to what end serve all these, but that he might enlighten the blind, restore the damned, give life to the dead, raise those who are brought to nothing, wash those who are full of filth, cure and heal those who are deadly diseased? Indeed if we claim to ourselves any righteousness, we do in some sense strive with the power of Christ: seeing his office is, as well to beat down all pride of flesh, as to ease and comfort those who labor and are heavily laden. And the testimony is properly cited. For there God declares that he will be an offense to the people of Judah and Israel, where they should stumble and fall.

Seeing Christ is the same God who spoke by the Prophet, it is no marvel, though that be now fulfilled in him. And calling Christ a stone of offense, he admonishes, that it is not strange, if they did not profit in the way of righteousness, who stumbled at the offense by their own perverse stubbornness, when God had declared an easy way. And it is to be noted, that this does not properly and of itself agree to Christ, but rather is accidental by the malice of men, as it follows immediately.

33 And everyone that believes in him shall not be ashamed. He adds this testimony, being taken elsewhere, to the consolation of the godly: as if he said, whereas Christ is called a stone of offense, there is no cause that therefore we should be afraid of him, or in stead of trust, conceive trembling. For he is ordained to the ruin of the faithless, but to the life and resurrection of the godly. Therefore as that prophecy of stumbling and offense is fulfilled in the rebellious and faithless: so there is another which is directed to the godly: namely, that he is a strong stone, a precious and cornerstone, most firmly grounded, upon whom whoever shall lean, they shall not fall. And whereas he has put "not to be ashamed," for "not to make haste" or "precipitate," that he had from the Greek interpreter. Assuredly the Lord there goes about to confirm the hope of his: And when the Lord bids us hope well, thereby it follows, that we cannot be ashamed. See the place of Peter (1 Peter 2), not much unlike this.