Christ the universal peace-makerChrist the universall peace-maker

Then 3. For the close of that 16. v. that he should in like manner bring in a second time these words, [Having slain the enmity] upon occasion of his mentioning our reconciliation to God, argues still more, his aim to be to cut off the 16. v. from the 15. For if those words, v. 16. That he might reconcile us to God, had referred to that other [Having slain the enmity, v. 15.] as a part of that sentence not made complete; then this second [Having slain the enmity] needed not to have been: but doth rather show, that there's another enmity between God and us, distinct from the former intended by him; and so the slaying thereof, joined properly and genuinely with its fellow conjugate, namely, reconciliation unto God, as the former, v. 15. had in like manner been connected with its conjugate also, making both one among themselves. If indeed the Apostle had carried his speech in the 15. v. thus, Having abolished the enmity between them, that he might create one new man, and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body, and so ended his discourse of it: then these two, in their reference could not have been parted: but he moreover adding to their reconciling to God, a second time these words, Having slain the enmity (namely, that between God and us) he so maketh the 16. v. an entire sentence and period of it self, as the 14, and 15, do make in like manner a full period of themselves: and so the 14, and 15, are to be read and joined thus; Christ hath made both (Jew and Gentile) one, having slain the enmity ⟨p. 8⟩(that was between them:) thus Beza and others: and answerably the 16. to this sense, with an easy and fair transposition, And having slain, Or, And hath slain the enmity (namely, between God and them) that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the Cross, on which he also slew that enmity.

Then 3. For the close of that 16. v. that he should in like manner bring in a second time these words, [Having slaine the enmity] upon occasion of his mentioning our reconciliation to God, argues still more, his aime to be to cut off the 16. v. from the 15. For if those words, v. 16. That he might reconcile us to God, had referred to that other [Having slaine the enmity, v. 15.] as a part of that sentence not made compleat; then this second [Having slaine the enmity] needed not to have been: but doth rather shew, that there's another enmity betweene God and us, distinct from the former intended by him; and so the slaying thereof, joyned properly and genuinely with its fellow conjugate, namely, reconciliation unto God, as the former, v. 15. had in like manner beene connected with its conjugate also, making both one among themselves. If indeed the Apostle had carried his speech in the 15. v. thus, Having abolisht the enmity betweene them, that he might create one new man, and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body, and so ended his discourse of it: then these two, in their reference could not have beene parted: but he moreover adding to their reconciling to God, a second time these words, Having slain the enmity (namely, that betweene God and us) he so maketh the 16. v. an entire sentence and period of it self, as the 14, and 15, doe make in like manner a full period of themselves: and so the 14, and 15, are to be read and joyned thus; Christ hath made both (Jew and Gentile) one, having slain the enmity