A37035:630
A commentary upon the book of the Revelation Wherein the text is explained, the…A commentarie upon the book of the Revelation Wherein the text is explained, the…
A commentary upon the book of the Revelation Wherein the text is explained, the series of the several prophecies contained in that book, deduced according to their order and dependence on each other; the periods and succession of times, at, or about which, these prophecies, that are already fulfilled, began to be, and were more fully accomplished, fixed and applied according to history; and those that are yet to be fulfilled, modestly, and so far as is warrantable, enquired into. Together with some practical observations, and several digressions, necessary for vindicating, clearing, and confirming many weighty and important truths. Delivered in several lectures, by that learned, laborious, and faithful servant of Jesus Christ, James Durham, late Minister of the Gospel in Glasgow. To which is affixed a brief summary of the whole book, with a twofold index, one of the several digressions, another of the chief and principal purposes and words contained in this treatise.A commentarie upon the book of the Revelation Wherein the text is explained, the series of the several prophecies contained in that book, deduced according to their order and dependance on each other; the periods and succession of times, at, or about which, these prophecies, that are already fulfilled, began to be, and were more fully accomplished, fixed and applied according to history; and those that are yet to be fulfilled, modestly, and so far as is warrantable, enquired into. Together with some practical observations, and several digressions, necessary for vindicating, clearing, and confirming many weighty and important truths. Delivered in several lectures, by that learned, laborious, and faithfull servant of Jesus Christ, James Durham, late Minister of the Gospel in Glasgow. To which is affixed a brief summary of the whole book, with a twofold index, one of the several digressions, another of the chief and principall purposes and words contained in this treatise.
Edinburgh: printed by Christopher Higgins, 1658
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Yea, if we were strictly considering this very difference, as it is proposed in respect of the prevalent comparative degree, we will find it to infer a real difference in the kind of the act, beside this comparative degree: for (suppose in the act of sincere love) by one the Lord is preferred, and all other objects are rejected; by another, He is loved, but some other thing is preferred to Him: now that act of love, which respects God as the chief good, and as such closeth with Him, must be different in kind from that that taketh Him, but not as the chief good: and therefore loveth some other thing more. For, in this act there is not only a comparing of God with other things; but an act resulting from that comparison, whereby the heart of one saith, when this question is proposed, Is God thy chief good? Yea: and so positively it closeth with Him as such: in the other, when the heart compareth, it saith, Nay, God is not the chief good: and therefore closeth not with Him as such; but refuseth Him. Now these two, nay and yea, to accept of Him as such, or to refuse Him, must differ oppositely, and not in degree only. For the consideration of God here in the act of the heart, is not simply if he be good: for, that cannot come under consideration, but if He be the chief good, and so to it, and if it will take Him as such; and so that act of love to Him must be such as determineth that question by yea, or nay; and in that respect the one yieldeth, the other rejecteth. Therefore here it is not yielding in this or that degree, but yielding, or refusing; which in that pinch are contradictory. 2. By the one act of love, God getteth the chief room, and other things are cast down: it is quite contrary in the other; and can these two be of one kind? Or can that act of love which preferreth many things to Him, act for its kind on God, as that act of love that taketh Him as infinitely preferable to all? Because the one considering Him as the chief good, accordingly loveth Him; and the other, not doing so, but otherwise, This difference must follow thereupon. 3. That act wherein there is this prevalence, must either have somewhat peculiar in it which doth make it prevail over its opposites, as to love God above all, which another hath not, that loveth created things above Him; or, it must have its prevalence from what is common to both. Now, this last cannot be said:
Yea, if we were strictly considering this very difference, as it is proposed in respect of the prevalent comparative degree, we will find it to infer a real difference in the kind of the act, beside this comparative degree: for (suppose in the act of sincere love) by one the Lord is preferred, and all other objects are rejected; by another, He is loved, but some other thing is preferred to Him: now that act of love, which respects God as the chief good, and as such closeth with Him, must be different in kind from that that taketh Him, but not as the chief good: and therefore loveth some other thing more. For, in this act there is not only a comparing of God with other things; but an act resulting from that comparison, whereby the heart of one saith, when this question is proposed, Is God thy chief good? Yea: and so positively it closeth with Him as such: in the other, when the heart compareth, it saith, Nay, God is not the chief good: and therefore closeth not with Him as such; but refuseth Him. Now these two, nay and yea, to accept of Him as such, or to refuse Him, must differ oppositly, and not in degree only. For the consideration of God here in the act of the heart, is not simply if he be good: for, that cannot come under consideration, but if He be the chief good, and so to it, and if it will take Him as such; and so that act of love to Him must be such as determineth that question by yea, or nay; and in that respect the one yeeldeth, the other rejecteth. Therefore here it is not yeelding in this or that degree, but yeelding, or refusing; which in that pinch are contradictory. 2. By the one act of love, God getteth the chief room, and other things are casten down: it is quite contrary in the other; and can these two be of one kind? Or can that act of love which preferreth many things to Him, act for its kind on God, as that act of love that taketh Him as infinitly preferable to all? Because the one considering Him as the chief good, accordingly loveth Him; and the other, not doing so, but otherwise, This difference must follow thereupon. 3. That act wherein there is this prevalencie, must either have somwhat peculiar in it which doth make it prevail over its opposits, as to love God above all, which another hath not, that loveth created things above Him; or, it must have its prevalencie from what is common to both. Now, this last cannot be said: