medium, by an intervening looking glass, in which the glory is but obscure in comparison of the immediate glory seen in hea ven. 1 Corinth. xiii. 12, "Now we see through a glass darkly, then face to face." But it is a very plain and clear sight in comparison of that which was under the law; it is beholding with open face in comparison of that, though the face that is seen be in a glass; the sight we have now is by a medium as well as then, though the medium made use of now excels that inade use of under the law, as much as an open glass, for discerning, exceeds a glass covered with a veil.

"Are changed into the same image." In this there is an agreement between our looking in this glass, and a person's looking in a material glass, that there is an exact resemblance between the image in the glass, and the person that beholds it, in both cases. But in this there is a difference, that, whereas when a person looks in a glass, the image in the glass is conformed to him, as being derived from him as his image; he impresses his image upon the glass; but, when a person looks in this spiritual glass, the image that he beholds there conforms him to it. It is not his image, but the image of God, and reflects and impresses its likeness on the beholder.

[341] 2 Corinth. iii. 18. "Behold as in a glass." What seems especially to be meant by the looking-glass here spoken of, is the figurative representation of gospel things in the Old Testament, especially the Law of Moses; which, to the Jews, who did not know the meaning of them, nor see the image of Christ, or gospel things in them, was as a veil; but to us, to whom the image plainly appears as unveiled by the gospel, those types and other figurative representations are as a glass, in which we see the image of Christ's face.

[57] 2 Corinth. v. beginning. The house from heaven means the body of Christ's resurrection; as appears by the last clause of the 4th verse.

[60] 2 Corinth. v. 1. It is a confirmation that the apostle meant the body of the resurrection by an house not made with hands eternal in the heavens, that Christ said, Destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will raise another, made without hands; as the false witnesses testified, probably, so far truly.

[162] 2 Corinth. viii. 10. "Who have begun before not only to do, but also to be forward a year ago." It may seem strange that the apostle says, not only to do, but also to be wil

ling. Doing is more than merely being willing, but it is, as if he had said, Ye have not only begun to do before now, but you have been ready to do for a long time, even a year ago: to be forward so long ago, was something that might well be mentioned, in addition to their having now begun to do.

[164] 2 Corinth. xi. 4. It ought to have been translated, Ye have well borne, or ye might well have borne with me. In the beginning of the chapter he desires them to bear with him because he was jealous over them, having betrothed them to Christ, that they might present them a chaste virgin to Christ. He was jealous lest they should yield their supreme affections to other objects, and be defiled; and he tells them in this verse that, seeing they were solicited to forsake Christ, secing that he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, he might well be jealous, and they might well bear with him in his boasting to set himself off, or rather to set off Christ, appearing, speaking and working in him, to their affections, that so they might not like his rivals better.

Verse 5. "For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chief," &c.; and so accordingly now he begins to boast.

[165] 2 Corinth. xii. 13. “Whether in the body or out of the body, I cannot tell." When the apostle said, absent from the body and present with the Lord, he doubtless meant by absent from the body, the same that he here means by out of the body, which is a proper separation of the soul from the body.

[425] 2 Corinth. xiii. 1. "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." These words seem to be quoted from the law of our Saviour, Matth. xviii. 16, and not from the law of Moses in Deuteronomy; not only because the words are the same with those in Matthew, but from the likeness of the case. lu Deuteronomy, the law given concerus only judicial trials; in Matthew, it is a rule given for the management of persuasion used to reclaim offenders by fair means, before coming to the utmost extremity; which is the case of Paul here. The witnesses, which he means that he made use of to persuade them, being his two epistles. That, by witnesses, he means his two epistles, is plain from his way of expressing himself here, where he carefully sets down his telling them twice, viz. before in his former epistle, chap. iv. 19; and now a second time, in his second epistle, and also by these words, as if I were present with you a second time. By our Saviou.'s rule, the offended person was to go twice to the offender; which the apostle refers to. Mr. Locke's exposition.

[272] Gal. i. 17. "Neither went 1 up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me, but I went into Arabia and returned again to Damascus." It is probable that this was Arabia Deserta, which was that part of Arabia that lay nearest to Damascus, lying east of the land of Canaan, and reached up to the very neighbourhood of Damascus. By the apostle's going from Damascus into Arabia, and returning from thence into Damascus again, it looks as if the Arabia that he went into, was that which was neighbouring to this city. As Christ after his baptism withdrew into the wilderness, before he actually began to preach; so it is no improbable conjecture that Paul, after his conversion and baptism, withdrew into the deserts of Arabia, there to receive the knowledge of the gospel, by immediate revelation from Christ; and that this being done, he returned to Damascus, and after this his return that way preached Christ in their synagogues, as Acts ix. 20. See Wells' Sacred Geography, part ii. p. 22, 23. This very well agrees with this context, in which the scope of the apostle is to show that he had his gospel not from men, but by revelation of Jesus Christ, as verse 12, "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ;" and verse 15, 16, "But when it pleased God who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood."

Then follow the words of this verse that we are upon, to show how he did not confer with flesh and blood, but was taught immediately of Christ; "neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me, but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus." This is a desert, uninhabited country and therefore it is the more probable that the apostle went thither for this end, and not to preach the gospel to any that dwelt there. And the inbabitants that were in Arabia Felix, under whose king, Aretas, Damascus then was, they were chiefly heathens; but preaching to the heathens was not yet begun, though there were then some Jews, that were then inhabitants of Arabia, of whom we read in the ii. chapter of Acts; "Cretes, and Arabians."

[421] Gal. iii. 16. "Now to Abraham and his seed was the promise made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one, And to thy Seed, which is Christ." This Mr. Locke paraphrases thus: "God doth not say, " And to seeds," as if he spake of more seeds than one that were entitled to the promise on different accounts, but only of one sort of men, who upon one sole account, were that seed of Abraham which was alone meant and concerned in the promise, so that unto

T

!

thy seed, designed Christ, and his mystical body, i. e. those that became members of him by faith." And Mr. Locke adds in his notes," By seeds, Paul here visibly means the ix ricrews, those of faith; and the gywv, those of the works of the law, spoken of above, ver. 9, 10, as two distinct seeds or descendants claiming from Abraham. Paul's argument to convince the Galatians that they ought not to be circumcised, or submit to the law from their having received the Spirit from bim, upon their having received the gospel which he preached to them, ver. 2 and 5, stands thus, The blessing promised to Abraham and to his seed, was wholly upon the account of faith, ver. 7. There were not different seeds who should inherit the promise, the one by the works of the law, and the other by faith for there was but one seed, which was Christ, ver. 16, and those who should claim in and under him by faith. Among those there was no distinction of Jew and Gentile. They, and they only who believed, were all one and the same true seed of Abraham, and heirs according to the promise, ver. 28, 29, and therefore the promise made to the people of God of giving them the Spirit under the gospel, was performed only to those who believed in Christ: a clear evidence that it was not by putting themselves under the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ, that they were the people of God, and heirs of the promise."

[422] Gal. iii. 17, 18. “And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect; for if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise, but God gave it to Abraham by promise." Mr. Locke paraphrases it thus, "This therefore, I say, that the law, which was not till four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul the covenant that was long before made and ratified to.Christ by God, so as to set aside the promise. For if the right to the inheritance be from the works of the law, it is plain it is not founded in the promise to Abraham, as certainly it is. For the inheritance was a donation and free gift of God settled on Abraham and his seed by promise."

[423] Gal. iii. 19, 20. "It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made. And it was ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator. Now a Mediator is not a Mediator of one, but God is one." The apostle's design in mentioning the law's being ordained in the hand of a Mediator, is to show the contrary of what the Jews

and judaizing teachers supposed concerning that transaction of mount Sinai, between God and the people. When the law was ordained, they supposed it to be a merely legal transaction, that God acted therein merely as a sovereign righteous lawgiver in that affair, prescribing to the people legal terms of life and death; this is implied in their doctrine of justification by the works of the law. The apostle, in what he here mentions of the transactions being by a Mediator, would show the contrary, viz. that it was not a mere legal transaction, but a transaction of grace; for a mere legal transaction of God with men does not admit of any Mediator, but a transaction of grace does. Indeed, in a mere legal transaction, a middle person may be improved to act in the name of God, and appear for God to them, but such a middle person does not answer the notion of a Mediator, as the apostle would signify. A Mediator acts for both parties: he not only appears for God to man, and to act for God, but he also appears for man to God, and acts for man; for a Mediator is not of one, he is not a Middle person to act only for one of the parties. But God is one, i. e. God is but one of the parties transacting. If he acts as a Middle person only on one side, he does not act as Mediator; but a Mediator appears for both parties, he acts for each to the other. A legal transaction would have admitted of a middle person to act for one side, viz. for God to man, but not for man to God to intercede and plead for him. So was Moses. Moses was the Mediator here spoken of, as is confirmed by Deut. v. 5. God condescended, because the people could not bear the terrors of the law, to admit Moses as a Mediator for them to stand before him, and hear and bear those terrors for them, as well as to act his messenger to them. This shows plainly that it was a transaction of grace, wherein God was willing to adinit a method to screen and save the poor fearful people, to screen them from the dreadful things apprehended, as well as from the terrible apprehension they had by hearing the dreadful voice, and seeing the raging fire. Therefore this is an evidence of what the apostle is arguing for, viz. that God in this transaction was not disannulling the transaction of grace, or that gracious covenant that had before been established with Abraham; he was now only building on that foundation that was then laid, and not setting it aside by this transaction that seemed to have an appearance of a legal transaction. This inference is made very much after the same manner with many others from transactions and passages of the Old Testament in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and here and there in other epistles. And this reasoning is not so far fetched, and the arguments so much out of sight as some may imagine. The