Commentary on Romans, Biblical exegesis 1 · Chapter 9 · Section 3 · Subsection 21
Quest. 21. How the similitude, which the Apostle bringeth in of the potter, is to be vnderstood.
1. Hierome epist. ad Hedib. que. 9.10. maketh this a dissimilitude rather then a similitude, in this sense: O man thinke not, that God hath made thee like a peice of clay, without any will or motion: for the clay cannot answear the potter any thing: but thou makest answear to God, O man who art thou that answearest, &c. to the same purpose Photius in Oecumenius, as he is here cited by Tolet ann. 26. But seeing that the Scriptures vntounto the which the Apostle here alludeth, doe often compare God to a potter, and men vntounto the clay, vnderunder the potters hand: this interpretation seemeth to crosse altogether the Apostles meaning, that neither God should be as the potter, nor men as the clay.
2. Chrysostome thinketh that S. Paul onelyonly alleadgeth this similitude to this ende ad obedientiae silentium exprimendum, &c. to shewe how we should be obedient and silent, not to be inquisitiue in these things, as the clay is vnderunder the potters hand, suffring him to worke his pleasure: But as we confesse this to be true, so there is more comprehended in this similitude, which giueth vntounto God, an absolute power ouer men to dispose of them, as it pleaseth him, as the potter doth of his clay.
3. Origen would expound this place by the like, 2. Tim. 2.21. If any purge himselfe from these he shall be a vessel vntounto honour, here (saith Origen) memoravit rationem, &c. he remembreth the reason, wherefore some are made vessels to honour, some to dishonour: if any man purge himselfe, &c. so Iacob was a vessel to honour, because he purged himselfe, &c. to the same purpose Ambrose in his commentarie here. But 1. these two places are not alike: for S. Paul there speaketh, neither of the decree of election, nor of the cause of our vocation … calling, but de officio, of the office and calling of a Christian, how he ought to be vnlike to the reprobate, and carrie himselfe as a vessell sanctified and purged for the glorie of God: as Calvin well interpreteth that place. 2. and if it were thus, that God vponupon the foresight of works good or euill, should elect or reiect, then should he not hauehave the like power which the potter hath ouer the clay, Mart.
4. Wherefore the Apostle in the enforcing of this similitude reasoneth à minori, from the lesse to the greater, that if a potter hauehave such power ouer his vessels which he maketh, God hath much more ouer his creature, to frame and fashion it, as it may best serue for his glorie. But yet this similitude is not in euerie point to be pressed, but in diuerse things there is a dissimilitude. 1. God maketh man of nothing, but the potter hath a matter prepared before, out of the which he maketh his vessels, Pareus. 2. the clay hath no motion or vnderstanding, as man hath, Faius. 3. and it is a greater matter to destroy a man, then a peice of clay, Faius. But herein this similitude holdeth, 1. like as there is no difference in the matter, out of the which the potter frameth diuerse vessels: so all men by nature were as one corrupt masse. 2. As the potter hath absolute power to doe with his clay as he will, for the the vse and service of the house: so God the Creator may dispose some to honour some to dishonour, as he seeth it to make most for his glorie. 3. as the clay if it could speake, is not to reason with the potter, so neither is man to question with God, for making him so. 4. and as the potter, nihil adimit into, &c. taketh nothing from the clay, of what forme soeuer he make it: so neither doth the Creator any wrong to the creature howsoeuer he dispose of it, Calvin: who thinketh that the Apostle in this place hath reference rather to that place, Isay 49.9.10. then to the other Ierem. 18.2. where the Prophet is bid to goe downe to the potters house: But the Apostle rather alludeth vntounto both these places, as Martyr obserueth.
5. But against this application of the similitude, it will be thus obiected. 1. Obiect. Erasmus obiecteth, as he is here cited and confuted by Pet. Mart. that the Apostle treating onelyonly of the temporall reiection of the Iewes, alludeth to that place of Ieremie, which must be vnderstood of the temporall reiecting and casting off the Iewes. Ans. P. Mart. here answeareth, that 1. neither in that place doth the Prophet onelyonly speake of temporall things, but as they were types and shadowes also of spirituall, which must be ioyned together in those propheticall predictions. 2. neither doth the Apostle onelyonly here speake of the temporall reiection and forsaking of the Iewes, but of the spirituall, as is euident, c. 10.1. mine hearts desire is, that they might be saued, &c. he maketh expresse mention of their saluation.
2. The Apostle seemeth to change the question, which was not whether the Lord had power as the potter, to dispose of his vessels as it pleaseth him: but why the Lord should complaine and be angrie with his worke, which is made according to his owne will. Answ. 1. Tolet and Faius here answear, that for God to complaine, or be angrie, is the same, as to make a vessel of dishonour: he maketh some vessels of dishonour, that is, he is angrie with them, and complaineth of them: but this answear satisfieth not: for God complaineth in Scripture and sheweth his anger against those, which were before ordained to destruction: therefore Pareus here better maketh this answear: that as the potter hath a double right to breake in peices the vessel which he maketh, both in respect of his power, because he is the potter, the maker and fashioner of it, and in respect of the vessel it selfe, if it chance to be tainted with some euill sauour, he may with much better right breake it into shiuers: so God, beside that by the right of his Creatorship, he may dissolue that which he made, he also is iustly angrie with the creature for the sinne and corruption thereof, which it hath voluntarily committed.