be rendered, I have raised thee up, or I have kept thee alive in those judgments, and not destroyed thee, as the Remonstrants and others vehemently contend; yea some Orthodox do yield, it will all come to the sense, that he was an object on whom God would demonstrate his power and justice, or kept by God for a while, as some Anatomists do a dead body before they bury it, to gather profitable observations for the good of others: not that God infused any evil in Pharaoh's heart (though the Scripture useth three words concerning Pharaoh, the one is to confirm or corroborate his heart, and that is ascribed to God seven times. The other is to harden, and that is once (though we render the word to corroborate, to harden.) The last is, To aggravate or make heavy, which is once likewise ascribed to God, (which is also rendered by our Interpreters to harden,) not (I say) that this expression denoteth, God did put any sinful frame into Pharaoh's heart; nor yet on the other side, is it to be understood of a mere bare permission of God, as if he did no more then suffer him by his patience to be hardened, but God as a just Judge did for Pharaoh's sin antecedent justly deny him any mollifying grace, leaving him to his lusts, which in such occasions as he had, did break out into a more violent flame; So that the whole blame lay upon Pharaoh himself, not on God; Hence it is, that he is so often said, To harden his own heart. Now this example of Pharaoh could not make at all to Paul's purpose, if his intent was to prove, that God would reject all such who seek for righteousness by the works of the Law, for Pharaoh was an Heathen, he was ignorant of Gods Law, and could not seek for Justification by the works thereof. Besides, if the Apostle did not intend to show Gods purpose absolutely and inconditionately (in a well explained sense) about persons, but only his Decree about their qualifications, what occasion was there for Paul to make such an Objection, Is there unrighteousness with God? And then first to objurgate the Objector, Who art thou, O man, that disputest against God? And then returneth a full answer to the Objection, from the less to the greater, from the Potter, who hath power over the same clay to make a vessel of honour or dishonour. These Objections and Answers could have no place in the Remonstrantical Analysis and Interpretation;
be rendred, I have raised thee up, or I have kept thee alive in those judgments, and not destroyed thee, as the Remonstrants and others vehemently contend; yea some Orthodox do yeeld, it will all come to the sense, that he was an object on whom God would demonstrate his power and justice, or kept by God for a while, as some Anatomists do a dead body before they bury it, to gather profitable observations for the good of others: not that God infused any evil in Pharaoh's heart (though the Scripture useth three words concerning Pharaoh, the one is to confirm or corroborate his heart, and that is ascribed to God seven times. The other is to harden, and that is once (though we render the word to corroborate, to harden.) The last is, To aggravate or make heavy, which is once likewise ascribed to God, (which is also rendered by our Interpreters to harden,) not (I say) that this expression denoteth, God did put any sinfull frame into Pharaoh's heart; nor yet on the other side, is it to be understood of a meer bare permission of God, as if he did no more then suffer him by his patience to be hardened, but God as a just Judge did for Pharaoh's sinne antecedent justly deny him any molifying grace, leaving him to his lusts, which in such occasions as he had, did break out into a more violent flame; So that the whole blame lay upon Pharaoh himself, not on God; Hence it is, that he is so often said, To harden his own heart. Now this example of Pharaoh could not make at all to Paul's purpose, if his intent was to prove, that God would reject all such who seek for righteousness by the works of the Law, for Pharaoh was an Heathen, he was ignorant of Gods Law, and could not seek for Justification by the works thereof. Besides, if the Apostle did not intend to shew Gods purpose absolutely and inconditionately (in a well explained sense) about persons, but only his Decree about their qualifications, what occasion was there for Paul to make such an Objection, Is there unrighteousnesse with God? And then first to objurgate the Objector, Who art thou, O man, that disputest against God? And then returneth a full answer to the Objection, from the lesse to the greater, from the Potter, who hath power over the same clay to make a vessel of honour or dishonour. These Objections and Answers could have no place in the Remonstrantical Analysis and Interpretation;
