to prove to the Jews, that of old there was a considerable number of
and is no more a confirmation of it, than if the words were thus: "There are some, or there are many in Israel, that are not righteous."
2. To suppose, the Apostle's design in citing these passages, was only to prove to the Jews, that of old there was a considerable number of their nation that were wicked men, is to suppose him to have gone about to prove what none of the Jews denied, or made the least doubt of. Even the Pharisees, the most self-righteous sect of them, who went furthest in glorying in the distinction of their nation from other nations, as a holy people, knew it, and owned it: they openly confessed that their "forefathers killed the prophets" (Matt. 23:29, 30, 31). And if the Apostle's design had been only to refresh their memories, to put 'em in mind of the ancient wickedness of their nation, to lead to reflection on themselves as guilty of the like wickedness (as Stephen does, Acts 7), what need had the Apostle to go so far about to prove this; gathering up many sentences here and there, which prove that their Scriptures did speak of some as wicked men; and then, in the next place, to prove that the wicked men spoken of must be of the nation of the Jews, by this argument that "What things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law," or that whatsoever the books of the Old Testament said, it must be understood of that people that had the Old Testament? What need had the Apostle of such an ambage or fetch as this, to prove to the Jews, that there had been many of their nation in some of the ancient ages, which were wicked men; when the Old Testament was full of passages that asserted this expressly, not only of a strong party, but of the nation in general? How much more would it have been to such a purpose, to have put 'em in mind of the wickedness of the people in general, in worshipping the golden calf, and the unbelief, murmuring and perverseness of the whole congregation in the wilderness, for forty years, as Stephen does? Which things he had no need to prove to be spoken of their nation, by any such indirect argument as that,