072. A Sermon On Ephesians 2:14-16—Part I

A SERMON ONEphesians 2:14-16

PART I For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby [or, in himself].

It were a manifest folly, in the judgments of most knowing men, to go about to use in any set way exhortatory motives to persuade to peace and reconciliation the people of God amongst us. The provocations are so high, and exasperations so fresh and increasing, that if I had an audience made up of those alone that have the swaying power of either, and together therewith their most favourable attention, and interest in affection, without prejudice, I should not know how to attempt it with any hope of success. But though the animosities of men’s spirits, augmented by coincident circumstances, are gone beyond the power of the persuasions of men in this present paroxysm, yet they are not above the power of God’s wisdom and providence, nor the force and efficacy of Christ’s blood. You may therefore, in the midst of all contrary appearances, give me leave, though I cannot hope to persuade, yet to believe, (the Catholic Church, and the Communion of Saints, they are in my creed,) and because I believe, therefore to speak, and so to give you an account of my faith as to this issue. Let your faith but wait, and give God time for it, and leave him to effect it his own way. And to this end I have taken this text, Christus pax nostra: ‘For he is our peace, who hath made both one,’ &c. And my inference is, that therefore the saints shall, and must be one, and reconciled in the end. And this is the best news which in these times can be told you, the seasonablest we can hear of, and is indeed one great part of the glad tidings of the gospel itself, without which it were imperfect, which Christ himself, our peace, who came to purchase it, as these words shew, so came to preach, as the very next verse, Ephesians 2:17, hath it. The main and principal intendment of these words is, to give an eminent instance of the efficacy of Christ’s mediation, in slaying the enmities that are amongst the people of God themselves, and of his being ‘our peace’ in that respect; instancing in that, the greatest that ever was, between Jew and Gentile, whom yet, as here, he hath made both one, and hath broken down the partition-wall between us. And however he mentions, in the 16th verse, our reconciliation made with God, of which elsewhere he treats more largely, yet here but by way of confirmation of our faith in this other, of reconciliation amongst ourselves. For the aim of its introduction here is but to shew, how that Christ, in reconciling us to God himself, carried it so, and did it under such a consideration and respect, as necessarily drew on and involved our reconciliation one with another; namely this, that he ‘reconciled us unto God in one body,’ among ourselves. It is a happy clause, that addition, ‘one body,’ and on purpose inserted thereinto, to shew that when God was to transact our peace and reconciliation to and with Christ hanging upon the cross, he would not, nor did not, acknowledge himself to him, then reconciled to us by him, upon any other terms, than as withal we were looked at, and represented to him by Christ, as one body, and therein reconciled one to another, whilst we were reconciled to himself. The connexion of the 16th verse with the 15th discussed: and how that reconciliation to God in one body,Ephesians 2:16, is to be understood; whether of that reconciliation wrought for us, or in us.

I meet but with one eminent difficulty in the coherence and contexture of these words, and that is the connexion of these two verses, Ephesians 2:15-16; as namely of these words, ‘and that he might reconcile us to God,’ Ephesians 2:16, &c., with the former, Ephesians 2:15, ‘having abolished the enmity,’ &c. Now this enmity mentioned, Ephesians 2:15, is evidently intended of the enmity between Jew and Gentile, as is clear by its connexion with Ephesians 2:14, ‘who hath made of twain one, and broken down the partition-wall; having slain the enmity.’ Now the twain, or the two, thus made one, between whom this enmity was, is not God and we, but the Jews and the Gentiles, of whom he had spoken in the former verses, for he adds, ‘that he might create both in one new man,’ which could not be said of God and us.

Now then the difficulty is, What reconciliation to God in one body that should be, Ephesians 2:16, which the Apostle makes the consequent of having slain the enmity between these Jews and Gentiles? For the connexion seems to import the one a consequent of the other, and the words to run thus: ‘Having slain the enmity between themselves,’ Ephesians 2:15, ‘that he might reconcile them unto God,’ Ephesians 2:16. Now this reconciliation to God must be either meant of the work of reconciliation wrought in us, whereby we turn unto God, as 2 Corinthians 5:20, ‘Be ye reconciled unto God;’ or that reconciliation which Christ wrought for us unto God. And whether of these should be intended, is the question; and so withal the question is, Whether those words, Ephesians 2:16, ‘and that he might reconcile both unto God,’ are to be cast unto the 15th verse, as a part of the discourse thereof, or do not rather begin a new and entire discourse, full and complete within themselves? For the first stand many interpreters, and the chief reason for that opinion is the coherence of these words with those next immediately foregoing. ‘Having abolished the enmity, that he might create (κτίσῃ) in himself, of twain, one new man, and that he might reconcile both unto God,’ &c. The resolve of which seems to be this, that Christ having on the cross wrought in himself this great work for us, to slay the enmity between us, and make both one, by the sacrifice of himself, and this as the antecedent work; that yet there remained two other, as consequent works, as the effects that follow therefrom: namely—

1. To create both one new man, so making actually peace between themselves. And—

2. To bring them both into an actual state of reconciliation with God, by working reconciliation in them towards God; so making them one body. And the reason for this interpretation further is, that both these two are brought in and yoked in the like tenor of speech: ‘that he might create,’ &c., ‘and that he might reconcile;’ as if they were like parallel fruits of that antecedent work, ‘slaying that enmity,’ mentioned, Ephesians 2:15. And according to this parallel, look as creating them both into ‘one new man’ is, and must be acknowledged to be, understood of a work wrought in them, viz., the new creation; so also that other, the reconciling them to God, must be understood of the work of reconciliation unto God wrought in them also. And so the new man they are created into, Ephesians 2:15, answereth but unto that one body they are reconciled unto, Ephesians 2:16, being one and the same. And that which increaseth the difficulty is, that if it should be understood of reconciliation unto God himself, wrought by Christ upon the cross, how such a reconciliation should be the consequent of his slaying first the enmity between the saints themselves; so as it should be said he slew the enmity among the saints, that he might reconcile them to God? This is not consonant to reason, seeing rather that, according to the harmony and dependence of theological truths, his reconciling them unto God upon the cross is the antecedent and cause of his slaying the enmity of them mutually; because our reconciliation one with another is rather depending upon, and the fruit of reconciliation with God himself, who being first reconciled to us, all things else are reconciled one to another: as subjects that have been at variance, when reconciled to their prince or head, become reconciled one to another among themselves. But yet I rather incline to think that other kind of reconciliation between God and us, wrought by Christ for us on the cross, to be intended, Ephesians 2:16, and so to be brought in as a parallel with that former reconciliation wrought by him also on the cross, between and on behalf of the Jew and Gentile mutually: and so this 16th verse to begin a new and entire discourse, apart and sejunct from the other, namely, of our reconciliation with God, as the former verses had discoursed of that reconciliation which is wrought for us between ourselves. And so the main proportions of this parallel are these: That as that reconciliation between Jew and Gentile, wrought by Christ on the cross, had two parts, 1. Positive, making both one; 2. Privative, the removing the impediment that caused the enmity, Ephesians 2:15, the consequent of which is, the creating of both into ‘one new man:’ so the Apostle discoursing, Ephesians 2:16, of this other reconciliation with God, he therein intends to make like two parts thereof, answerable to the other, only with a transposition of speech. 1. Positive, reconciliation to God in one body; 2. Privative, ‘having slain that enmity,’ namely, against God. The resolution of all which is as if he had said, Whereas there was a double enmity, one to God, another among ourselves, Christ that is our peace hath dealt with both. He having slain the enmity between themselves, hath made both one; and having slain in like manner the enmity to God, hath reconciled us unto God.

Now that which clears and confirms this connexion is—

First, That this renders a more full and just analysis of the words, which is this:—

1. That in Ephesians 2:14 he in general proclaims Christ our peace. And then—

2. In the next words proceeds to the two particular branches wherein Christ is made our peace:—

(1.) Between ourselves mutually.

(2.) Between God and us. And then—

3. In the handling of either, observeth this parallel in either, namely, between a privative part, slaying the enmity, and a positive part, reconciling, and making one, so enumerating the complete requisites to either.

Then, secondly, To shew that these are indeed two disjunct and complete discourses, of two such heads of reconciliation, he severs the first, Ephesians 2:15, from the second, Ephesians 2:16, by adding a full period, and as it were a selah to the first, thus sealing up the 15th verse, ‘so making peace;’ namely, fully and completely, that peace which had been spoken of among Jew and Gentile, that so he might enter anew and distinctly from this, upon that other, of reconciling both unto God, which he doth, Ephesians 2:16.

Then, thirdly, For the close of that 16th verse, 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 16th verse from the 15th. For if those words, Ephesians 2:16, ‘that he might reconcile us to God,’ had referred to that other, ‘having slain the enmity,’ Ephesians 2:15, as a part of that sentence not made complete; then this second, ‘having slain the enmity,’ needed not to have been: but doth rather shew that there is 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, Ephesians 2:15, had in like manner been connected with its conjugate also, making both one among themselves. If indeed the Apostle had carried his speech in Ephesians 2:15 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 16th verse an entire sentence and period of itself, as the 14th and 15th do make in like manner a full period of themselves: and so the 14th and 15th are to be read and joined thus: ‘Christ hath made both’—Jew and Gentile—‘one, having slain the enmity’ that was between them; thus Beza and others: and answerably the 16th 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. And whereas it will be said that the word καὶ, or ‘and,’ which the 16th verse begins with, seemeth to cast the reference of this upon the former ‘slaying the enmity,’ Ephesians 2:15, and so the latter to be but an emphatical repetition of the same; I answer, that that ‘and,’ Ephesians 2:16, is but all one with ‘moreover,’ as it is often used, as introducing a new and distinct discourse, added to a former. And so—

Fourthly, As thus understood, the parallel is rendered yet more full; for as there is here found a double enmity, and an answerable double slaying of each, in order to a double reconciliation, so to make up the parallel, which the Apostle intended, yet the more full, there are two further clauses added to each, fitly answering one to another. For as of the one he says, ‘having abolished the enmity in his flesh,’ Ephesians 2:15; so of the other, the latter, in like manner he speaks, ‘having slain that enmity in himself,’ Ephesians 2:16, as the Greek bears, and the margin varies it.

Now as to any difficulty proposed, that which is left as material to be considered is only this, How his having slain that enmity between us ourselves first, should be conceived to be the antecedent to reconcile us to God.

Now for answer hereunto—

First, Besides, that according to that connexion which I have given, the 16th verse should thus make up a full period of itself, and doth keep itself entire within itself, as the fourteenth and fifteenth verses also do, and so not at all referring to the ‘slaying enmity,’ Ephesians 2:15, as hath been explained, which coherence doth at once cut off the whole of that objection at first made: but besides this,—supposing it might take in, and refer to that slaying the enmity, Ephesians 2:15, among saints, as the antecedent, or at least, ingredient unto their reconciliation with God,—there may perhaps this just assoilment be given thereto—

That, secondly, in order of nature, all enmity must first be supposed removed ere friendship, or, as here, reconciliation can be supposed to be procured: the reason of which is obvious to any judgment; first, peace, by slaying enmity, and then good-will. And so upon this and the like grounds, these words, ‘that he might reconcile unto God in one body,’ may well be supposed to have a secondary aspect to his having first abolished the enmity between ourselves, Ephesians 2:15, as well as our enmity against God, Ephesians 2:16. And the Apostle’s adding ‘in one body,’ which he studiously hath done, shews that they being under that notion and respect reconciled unto God by Christ upon the cross, that then withal at the same time, yea, in order of nature, first their enmities one against another were removed, as well as against God himself. All sorts of enmities being to be removed ere any sort of reconciliation attained, surely under that notion they cannot be considered reconciled to God, but withal it must be said, they are at peace, and so made one among themselves; at least, these two do mutually argue each the other. If indeed there had been room left for us to conceive that our reconciliation with God had been so wrought by Christ for us, as for each person considered only single and apart,—though even so it was intended, namely, for each and every person; and this is involved in that other,—then indeed it might have been supposed that their enmities to God had been slain and done first away, and reconciliation wrought with him first by one primary act, and then after that, ex consequenti, as a secondary work, our reconciliation amongst ourselves had been cast in, and followed thereupon; or, which is all one, wrought and procured by a second act or intention of Christ’s. But if in one and the same very individual act and intention of their being reconciled to God, they were considered as ‘one body,’ and that this was put in as an involved ingredient thereinto; so you must necessarily suppose their own mutual enmities done away also, at least, together therewith, by one and the same individual act also; and this consideration, if there were no other, is a sufficient salvo to the forementioned difficulty. Now how this reconciliation unto God in one body was performed by Christ on the cross, I shall handle afterwards.

I shall trouble you no further with untying this knot, or the drawing out into one smooth and continued line the series of this coherence. For, however, take the 16th verse in which of these senses you please, the words in the 14th and 15th verses are sufficient bottom for the heads of that whole discourse I intend; for these words, Ephesians 2:14-15, do undeniably, as all must confess, treat of the reconciliation of the people of God among themselves, and sufficiently hold forth these two generals:—

1. The work of Christ upon the cross to procure it: ‘He hath made both one, having slain the enmity in his flesh;’ and hath virtually, in the virtue of his death, broke down the partition-wall that occasioned it, which in his providence he after ruined. And—

2. The work of Christ by his Spirit in us, creating both one new man in himself. And now take the other words, Ephesians 2:16, in either sense, or in both, which are not inconsistent; however, this is observable even therein, that the Apostle was not content to have setly pursued the saints’ reconciliation among themselves, in those two whole verses, the 14th and 15th, but when he speaks of reconciliation with God also, Ephesians 2:16, he must needs add and put in that clause also, ‘in one body;’ the mutual reconciliation then of the saints is, upon all accounts, the principal intendment of the Apostle here. The division of the words.—The principal heads of this discourse set out, which are four.

Now for the division of the words, that will fall according to either the larger, or else the more special scope of the words. If we take them in that first and largest comprehensiveness, as treating of both our reconciliation with God, and between ourselves also, and how Christ our peace is both, so they admit of this division and analysis:—

I. That the general theme and argument of the whole should be premised in these words, Christus pax nostra, Christ is our peace; which is the inscription of a proclamation of him under one of his eminent royal titles, Christ the great and perfect peacemaker. And then—

II. Proclaiming him such, in all the branches or particulars thereof that may argue him such.

First, As a universal peacemaker, as both being a peace between all sorts of persons at variance, and also extending his mediation to the removing of all sorts of enmities. First, persons; as—

1. Between us—that is, among ourselves—abolishing τὴν ἔχθραν, that enmity, Ephesians 2:15.

2. Between God and us, slaying that enmity also, Ephesians 2:16; thus an universal peacemaker.

Secondly, The establisher of a thorough and perfect peace, both for time past and time to come.

1. Who hath already made and concluded it, as in his own person, ὁ ποιήσας, he hath made it, λύσας, he hath dissolved and broke down, and so not now to be done. And—

2. The same secured for the future, even for ever; these enmities being abolished, Ephesians 2:14-15; that is, utterly abolished, as never to get head; slain, Ephesians 2:16, never to revive.

Thirdly, Our complete peace, as in respect to all parts that concur to it, and ways of peace to accomplish it, and make it sure. First, in respect of parts: both—

1. Negative, by removing and destroying even the very occasion of the enmity, the partition-wall of ordinances, breaking that down; and again, Ephesians 2:16, slaying the enmity itself.

2. Positive, expressed in two words, ‘reconciling,’ Ephesians 2:16; ‘making both one,’ Ephesians 2:14-15. Then—

Fourthly, By all sorts of ways accomplishing it:—

1. Representing us in his person, as in one body, Ephesians 2:16, personating all his people, and under that consideration reconciling them to God and one another.

2. Meritoriously, taking on his person, as representing their persons, all their enmities ‘in his flesh,’ or the human nature, says the 15th verse, hanging on the cross, Ephesians 2:16, and so offering up that as one common sacrifice to God for all; he is said to ‘reconcile all in one body by the cross,’ Ephesians 2:16.

3. Efficiently, by his Spirit, creating both into one man; of all conjunctions the nearest, and that creation wrought in himself, of all foundations of union the firmest; for they being both created one new man, and united in and to himself, he is able, and will be sure to hold them for ever together. And to put the more evident notice upon all he had said, or should say of him in this respect, he intermingleth in the midst of his discourse this selah, or note of observation, ‘so making peace:’ take notice of it, says he,—so, or thus, universally, perfectly, completely, and eternally. And this is one account of the words, and indeed of the whole, and every part and particle thereof. But if we single forth that more special and principal aim before mentioned, Christus pax nostra, as in relation to making peace amongst us, the elect of God; so, instead of any accurate division of them, I shall only draw forth these four propositions, which will suck into themselves the strength of what these words have in them as to this great point. Namely—

I. The story of the greatness of that enmity—the greatest that ever was—between Jew and Gentile, before Christ’s coming, and a while after, by reason of those Jewish rites and ordinances of the ceremonial law, which the Apostle by a metonymy termeth therefore the enmity.

II. The story of Christ’s transactions on the cross, by which he virtually slew and abolished this enmity, and meritoriously made them both one, and reconciled both in one body.

III. The story of their actual accord, and becoming one, as the records of the Acts of the Apostles, and they in their Epistles, have presented it unto our view; and the principles by which, and the providences whereby, that partition-wall was broke down, and the enmity allayed, chiefly by creating both one new man in himself.

IV. That the instance of all this was intended by God as a precedent and leading cause under the New Testament, to assure us that whatever should fall out in after-ages, of difference amongst the saints, yet still however they both might and should in the issue be reconciled, and their differences in a like manner allayed and compounded; as also to shew the ways and principles whereby to effect it.

I. The greatness of that enmity which was between Jew and Gentile, until Christ purchased their reconciliation. For the first, I have to present you out of this text with an instance of the deepest and most lasting enmity, between two sorts of men, chosen to be one body unto God, that shared as then the whole world between them—Jew and Gentile—that ever was, or will be in all ages, which yet was compounded by Christ. View we it first in the general, through those expressions the text useth of it. The Apostle sets it forth to us, not barely by terms of distance and division, calling them τοὺς δύο, both, or two, and τὰ ἀμφότερα, twain, not simply of being enemies in an ordinary way, but speaks of an enmity in the abstract, τὴν ἔχθραν; a special enmity it was, not that which is common to man against man,—who, as the Holy Ghost that knows our nature tells us, are mutually hateful to, and hating one another, Titus 3:3,—but a knotted, twisted, combined enmity; that the word λύσας, dissolved it, Ephesians 2:14, imports. A stirring, active enmity, that lay not sleeping; this the word καταργήσας, Ephesians 2:15, implies. He made it inefficacious, took away the strength, the energy, the operative virtue of it. Yea, and if you will take in, and borrow from the expression, Ephesians 2:16, ἀποκτείνας, he slew it, it was a living, spriteful enmity, yea, that had a rage in it; we on the contrary call such a one deadly, because it aims at life. The word^[89] bears up to this, non tam occidit, quam trucidavit, Christ did not barely kill it, but bloodily, with a rage, as provoked with the fierceness of the enmity itself; for the rage thereof was cruel, and reached up to heaven, as the Scripture speaks.

[89] ‘Ἀποκτείνεῖν, magis quidpiam quamφονευειν, significat, occidere cum sævitia.’—Bæn,Matthew 10:28.

Likewise an old hatred, as the prophet Ezekiel, Ezekiel 25:15, in his time termed it, speaking of that between the Philistim-Gentiles and the Jews; but this was now grown much older, in all of two thousand years’ continuance,—even from the first time wherein God separated the people from the rest of the nations, as in Abraham by circumcision he did; a wall of separation, if I may pursue the metaphor in the text, whose foundation was laid in Abraham’s time when circumcision was first given, for that began the quarrel; reared up higher by Moses’ rites, further lengthened and stretched out in all the times of the prophets, throughout all ages, until Christ, who came to abolish it and break it down.

And, lastly, a universal hatred in the Jews to all nations, and in all nations to the Jews; even all that were called τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκὶ, ‘Gentiles in the flesh,’ and ‘Uncircumcision,’ by that which is called ‘Circumcision,’ Ephesians 2:11, as all nations were termed and reckoned by them.

Thus God foreordained, that as to honour his Son in reconciling us to himself, he permits the greatest sins and enmities to be in the hearts and lives of those he intends to save, against himself; so likewise, that the highest and toughest animosities should be found amongst those, when he should come upon earth, that were ordained to be his people, to shew the sovereign power and efficacy of his mediation, in constituting them one new man in himself. These but in general for a foundation out of the text. The story of the particulars of it hath two branches:—

1. What it was between them before Christ, and the conversion of either to the Christian faith.

2. What after conversion, and that both equally had embraced Christ.

First, Take the elevation of it before, both out of the Scripture and other authentic testimonies: both—

1. Of the Jew against the Gentile.

2. Of the Gentile against the Jew. And I shall withal, by the way, make a parallel of the one with the other.

1. Of the Jew against the Gentile. The quarrel was begun indeed by them; they out of their carnal fleshly boasting of their privilege to be the only people of God, as they were, scorned and contemned the poor Gentiles. The 11th verse insinuates this, ‘Ye were Gentiles, who were called Uncircumcision by that (nation, namely,) which is called the Circumcision in the flesh.’ It began in nicknames, and the Jews were they that began to call names first, as interpreters have observed. And it began early, almost from the time when the seed of Abraham received that first badge of difference. You hear of it in Jacob’s time: ‘To give our sister to one that is uncircumcised, that were a reproach to us,’ Genesis 34:14. And after, amongst all the race of the Jews, both good and bad, in all ages, the same was used as a reproach: as by Samson, Judges 15:18; by Jonathan, 1 Samuel 14:6; by David, 1 Samuel 17:26; 1 Samuel 17:36; by Saul, 1 Samuel 31:4. They judging it, though but a circumstance, yet far worse than death itself, to ‘die by the hands of the uncircumcised,’ or have ‘the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph,’ 2 Samuel 1:20. And in the prophets, ‘uncircumcised’ and ‘unclean’ are all one, Isaiah 52:1. When they would accurse one to the most accursed death,—as all nations, according to what they have esteemed the worst of deaths, they have accordingly expressed such like curses, as Abi in malam crucem, among the Romans,—Let him die, said the Jew, the death of the uncircumcised; as Ezekiel 28:10. When they imprecated the most ignominious burial, Thou shalt lie in the midst of the uncircumcised, Ezekiel 31:18. A person excommunicate, accursed, and a heathen, was to them all one: ‘Let him be as a heathen,’ Matthew 18. And they distinguish themselves from the Gentiles, by appropriating the title of sinners wholly to the Gentiles: ‘We that are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,’ Galatians 2:15. And God, foreseeing how apt their spirits were to grow from hence into an abhorrency of all other nations, made a special law to prevent it, concerning some particular nations: Deuteronomy 23:7, ‘Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother; thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wert a stranger in his land.’

Next, see this enmity expressed in their carriages and dealings with the Gentiles. They not only would not communicate with them in sacris, in holy things, but their zeal was such, and this after the light of Christianity appeared to them, that they would have killed Paul, Acts 21:31, for no other crime but this: Acts 21:28, ‘This is the man that hath brought Greeks’—that is, heathens—‘into the temple, and hath polluted the holy place.’ Nay, they accounted it an abominable thing, ἀθέμιτον,—as in 1 Peter 4:3 the word is rendered, ‘abominable idolatry,’ and so the Vulgar here,—to keep company, that is, familiarly, yea, or so much as to come unnecessarily to one of another nation, founding all this upon that which was a peculiar command, upon a special ground, against the Ammonites and Moabites, Deuteronomy 23:6, ‘Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever.’ This they extended to all nations, and this to that rigidity that they would not do ordinary courtesies of common humanity:—

‘Non monstrare vias eadem nisi sacra colenti,’ says Juvenal, lib. xiv., Satyr.; not tell a man’s way to a poor wanderer, an act of civility: non ad fontem deducere, to lead to a well for water, which was an act of charity. The woman of Samaria therefore wonders at Christ: John 4:9, ‘How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, who am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.’ Each one of you, says Christ, will, and that on the Sabbath-day, loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering, Luke 13:15. But they would not do this much for a heathen, though ready to perish for thirst; not shew him a well hard by, says the same Juvenal, in the same place—

‘Quæsitum ad fontem solos deducere verpos’— not give a cup of cold water, which Christ makes the least of conrtesies, save only to their own verpi,^[90] as we say, vermin, and circumcised ones. So Juvenal scoffs them, et hoc Judaicum jus,—this is the Jewish law.

[90] The word signifies bothwormsandcircumcised. And no wonder of all this, for indeed they accounted all the heathen as beasts made to be destroyed, upon the mistake of their commission concerning those seven nations, Deuteronomy 7:1, given up by God the judge of the world, in whose sovereignty it was, into their hands. Even Christ, speaking in the common language of the Jews, calls the Syrophenician woman, and all the Gentiles, dogs, Matthew 15:26, as the Turks call Christians at this day. Yea, out of their own records, some of the Rabbinical interpreters, upon Deuteronomy 21:11, have delivered that they accounted them feris deteriores, worse than beasts; et nuptias eorum innuptas, their marriages no marriages; and therefore, nec homicidium, nec adulterium, in eos committi posse,—that it was no adultery to abuse their wives, no murder to kill any of them, no robbery to take from them, by never so much violence. Which Josephus Albo justifies, in his disputation adversus Christianos, giving this reason, that he that lived without their law, and worshipped false gods, was a common enemy,—et in eum illicitum nihil,—and nothing can be unlawful that is done against him by them. Can malice be supposed to rise any higher? And yet in that nation it did against these poor Gentiles. 1 Thessalonians 2:16-17, ‘Contrary they are to all men;’ and it follows, ‘forbidding us to preach to the Gentiles, that they might be saved.’ The Apostle, speaking it by way of aggravation of their malice, seems to intend it not only consequenter, that they denied them the gospel without which they could not be saved; but further, intentionaliter, what was in their intentions, that suppose they had thought the gospel a means of salvation, they would have forbade it to be preached to them, ‘that they might not be saved.’ Is there not work for a peace-maker now? This on the Jews’ part. And can we think the Gentiles were behind-hand with them? And yet the truth is, the Gentiles were the more moderate of the two, as the 11th verse here, and the parable of the good Samaritan that poured oil into a stranger’s wounds, and the story of the Samaritan woman, all shew; for she lays fault on the Jew, that he would not ask water of a Samaritan, and not è contra. It were too much to reckon up all that might be out of their poets and historians. I will but so far make mention of some testimonies of the Gentiles’ hatred against the Jews, as they make up a parallel with what hath been said of the Jewish enmity against the Gentiles; thereby to manifest that the Gentiles were even with them, if not in malice, yet in jeers and scorns.

1. Did the Jews reproach them as uncircumcised, as you heard? The Gentiles, on the contrary, scorned the Jews as much for circumcision, calling them apellas, Judæus apella; curtos, so Horace;^[91]recutitos, so Martial;^[92] and Persius, verpos;^[93] as also Juvenal. There is wit in these, but so unseemly, as I must forbear to English them. They were jeers at their circumcision.

[91] 1 Serm., Sat. 5.

[92] Lib. vii.

[93] Sat. 5.

2. Did the Jews abhor the Gentiles, and not converse with them? The Gentiles, on the other side, would hold their noses at the Jews when they met them, and cry, fætentes Judæos,^[94] stinking Jews. Vel fortuitum eorum occursum oculis horrebant, animo persequebantur,^[95]—they abhorred the sight of them, if by chance they met them. And—

[94] Malvenda Hom. de Antichristo, c. 3.

[95] Baron. An. 72, c. 31. Ammian. de Marco, lib. xi.

3. Esteemed them of all nations the worst. So Marcus the emperor, but passing through Judea to Egypt, and observing their manners, dolenter dicitur exclamasse, O Marcomanni, O Quadi, O Sarmatæ, tandem alios vobis deteriores inveni;^[96] which was as if, when we would express the wretchedness of any nation we accounted most vile, we should say, O you cannibals, yea, barbarous savages, that are found amongst the wildest Africans or Americans, we have at length found and light upon a generation of men worse by far than you. In this manner doth he speak of these Jews.

[96] Ibid.

4. As the Jews turned it into a curse to be a Gentile, as you heard; so the Gentiles in their cursings turned the like upon the Jews. Jeremiah 24:9 ‘And I will deliver them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth for their hurt, to be a reproach, and a proverb, and a taunt, and a curse, in all places whither I shall drive them.’ It was God’s own retaliation upon them, and fulfilled. As we now, so the heathen then imprecated on themselves, I were a Jew if I did so or so; and thus in all places, as the prophet hath it; yea, Jeremiah 42:18, they were made ‘an execration, an astonishment, and a curse.’ What can be more?

5. As they esteemed all other nations as dogs and beasts, the Gentile doth the like by them, and reckons them but as swine, the most contemptible of beasts, and this in a witty retortion from the Jewish practices—

‘Nec distare putant humana carne suillam;’ putting this interpretation upon their forbearance to eat swine’s flesh, that mankind and swine were alike to them.

6. As they hated all nations, so the Gentiles resented accordingly this catholic spirit in the Jew against them all, which turned their hearts universally to hate them. Ahasuerus had one hundred and twenty-seven provinces, amongst which the Jews, as we read, had enemies in them all, Esther 8:9; Esther 9:16, compared, whom the king’s letters restrained with difficulty from falling on them in every nation. And they accuse and arraign the Jews—

1. As hurtful to kings and provinces, Ezra 4:15; as continually moving sedition, in the same place, Ezra 4:15, ‘They are a people that of old time have moved sedition.’ And the same aspersion went current among the Romans and Greeks many hundred years after. ‘These men being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city,’ Acts 16:20, say the Philippians to the magistrates of the city. They lay their accusation that it was the genius of the nation: it is their known custom so to do.

2. As unsociable to the rest of mankind. Antiochus’s friends, in Diodorus,^[97] pleaded thus against the Jews: ‘That they alone of all nations were unsociable, and not capable of any mixture or coalescency with them, no, not at table:’ μηδένι ἄλλῳ ἔθνει τραπέζης κοινωνεῖν τὸ παράπαν. In Esther you have the same intimated, Esther 3:8, ‘There is a certain people,’ speaking of the Jews, ‘scattered abroad, and dispersed among the people, whose laws are diverse from all people,’ &c.

[97] Diod., lib. v.:—Μόνους ἀπάντων ἐθνῶν ἀκαινωνήτους εἴναι τῆς πρὸς ἄλλο ἔθνος ἐπιμιξίας.

3. The Gentiles accused them as enemies to all nations; so in that of Diodorus, μηδὲ εὐνοεῖν, that they wished well to none; and not only so, πολεμίους ἐπιλαμβάνειν πάντας, to account all others enemies. So also Tacitus, lib. v., Adversus omnes alios hostile odium, a hostile and deadly hatred is in them against all others; yea, μισάνθρωποι, haters of mankind; so also it follows there in Diodorus. It is strange the Apostle should express it in the very same manner, and near the same words, ‘They are contrary to all men, and God they please not,’ 1 Thessalonians 2:16-17.

4. As they founded their hatred against the Gentiles on this, that they were worshippers of other gods, so the Gentiles accused and detested them as hostes immortalium deorum, enemies of the immortal gods. And religion was the cause of all this; these rites here were the partition-wall.

And, lastly, under the notion of such a manner of persons as these, were they universally hated by all nations, as the books of the prophets do shew, especially Ezekiel and Jeremiah, where the cup is carried to all nations, for no other crime than their enmity to the Jews; likewise the books of Esther and Ezra. And accordingly persecuted they were upon that account; banished out of Rome again and again, as by Claudius, Acts 18:2, so by other emperors; and at last they destroyed both their city and commonwealth.

You have seen the enmities of both; and was there not cause to wish and pray, as David, Psalms 14, upon the like occasion, Oh that the Salvation (or, Saviour and Messiah) were come out of Sion, or, The desire of all nations were come! This for the story of their enmity before their conversion; that of their enmity and dissensions that continued after, though proper to this, yet comes more fitly in, and cannot be disjointed from the third part of this discourse, where it will have its place in order, to shew how those enmities were actually allayed and composed between them.