Commentary on Romans

Quest. 1. Of the word Testament, what it signifieth, and of what things it must be understood.

1. The Hebrew word berith, signifieth both 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a compact or covenant made between parties, as Aquila translateth, as Jerome witnesseth, in Malachi. 2. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a testament, or disposition of ones last will, as the word is used by the Apostle, Heb. 9.17.

2. Both these acceptions and takings of the word agree unto the holy Gospel: first it is a covenant between God and his people: the Lord offering reconciliation on his part, and requiring conditions to be performed on our part: as in the Law obedience, and perfect keeping of the law, so now the obedience of faith in Christ, our Mediator, and Reconciler: It is also a Testament not with any relation unto us, but only in respect of the Testator, and will-maker Christ Jesus, who ratified and confirmed both the Old and New Testament by his death, in the one prefigured and promised, in the other exhibited and performed: the testamentorie tables are the holy Scriptures both of the Old, and Newe Testament: the witnesses are the Prophets and Apostles, the writers also of this Testament: the seals are the Sacraments both of the one and the other.

3. The Old and new covenant and Testament are one and the same in substance, both in respect of the parties between whom the covenant and conuention is made, God, and his Church, and of the ende and scope, which is to bring us unto the everlasting inheritance: but the manner of dispensation is diverse, according to the condition of the times, and the quality of the persons.

4. This covenant made between God and man some distinguish into the covenant of nature and grace: but every covenant now indeed is rather of grace: the natural covenant made between the Creator and Man in Paradise, was violated by his transgression and disobedience: the covenant which now remaineth, is wholly to be ascribed unto grace, and it is either of some temporal grace and benefit, and that either general, as was that which the Lord made with Noah, not to destroy the world anymore with waters, Gen. 9. or particular, as was the promise made to Abraham, to inherit the land of Canaan, Gen. 15.18. and that made to Phineas concerning the priesthood, Numb. 25.12. either of spiritual graces, as of the remission of sins, and the inheriting of everlasting life in Christ.

2. Quest. Of the diverse significations of the old and new Testament.

1. The Old Testament is 1. either taken for the doctrine of the law, which required exact obedience to the commandments, under the most grievous commination of malediction unto the transgressors: yet covertly was propounded unto them the doctrine of repentance and faith in Christ, under the shadows and rudiments of the Law, which were imposed upon that people, partly to humble them, and to bow down their stiff necks, partly to discern them from other nations, and partly to lead them by the hand as unto Christ: so in this sense the Old Testament 1. comprehendeth the doctrine of legal obedience, 2. the ceremonial and ministerial part of their legal rites and service, 3. the external policy and regiment: in these respects the Old Testament is abolished, and the Lord saith he will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, Ierem. 31.31. 2. the Old Testament is taken for the writings and tables of the scriptures: in which sense it is not abolished: one iotte thereof shall not perish, Matth. 5.18.

2. The Newe Testament also is taken diversely. 1. either for the spiritual doctrine, which requireth obedience of faith in Christ, without any legal observations. 2. or for the Sacraments: as Christ calleth the Eucharist the Newe Testament in his blood in the institution of his last supper. 3. or for the writings of the Evangelists, and Apostles: So it is new, 1. because it succeeded the old. 2. because it setteth forth the new doctrine of faith without legal rites. 3. it hath new sacraments, a new form of worship, a new kind of Church. 4. it is confirmed after a new manner, not by the blood of beasts, but by the most holy blood of the Blessed Mediator.

3. Quest. Of the books of the new Testament their number and authority.

1. Concerning the number, and authority of the books of the Newe Testament, there is no question among the Christians, though the obstinate Jews willfully refuse them all: they are 27. in number, which Athanasius in Synops. distinguisheth into these five orders: 1. the four Evangelists. 2. the Acts of the Apostles. 3. the 7. Canonical Epistles: one of S. James, 2. of S. Peter, 3. of S. John, and one of S. Jude: 4. the 14. Canonical epistles of S. Paul. 5. the Prophetical book of the Revelation: But all these may be reduced to 3. kinds: the historical, doctrinal, prophetical books: as is before shown in the argument.

2. But these books of the New Testament were not always received with the same approbation. 1. Some were ever held to be of undoubted authority, as the 4. Evangelists, the Acts of the Apostles, the 1. of S. Peter, the 1. of S. John: all S. Paul's Epistles, excepting only that to the Hebrews. 2. Some were doubted of by a few, but of the most received, as the 2. of Peter, the 2. and 3. of John, one of James, one of Jude, that to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse: But at the length these books were received and acknowledged for Canonical by a general consent: 3. Other books besides these, were privately received by some in the Church, and were called Ecclesiastical, as the Acts of Paul, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Revelation of Peter, the Gospel according to the Hebrews. 4. Some books were foisted in by Heretics, and more generally rejected of the Church: as the Gospel of Andrew, Thomas, Matthias: the Acts of Peter, Thomas, Matthias, and of the other Apostles: which were judged to be Apochryphall books, and of no authority. 1. because in the writings of those, which succeeded the Apostles no mention is made of them. 2. the style is diverse from the style of the Apostles. 3. and the doctrine contained in those books dissenting from the doctrine of the Apostles.

3. Beside these two latter sorts of books, all the rest are undoubtedly held to be Canonical, and of equal authority: and therefore that distinction of Sixtus Senensis is to be taken heed of: who calleth some books of the New Testament 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , canonical of the first sort, some 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , canonical of the second sort, which were sometime doubted of: for by this means should they not be of equal and the like authority: And beside, he saith, that these latter were held by some of the fathers to be Apochryphall books, understanding Apocryphal books for such, as had an hid and unknown author: But indeed the Apocrypha are so called, not for that their author was unknown, for then diverse of the Canonical books should be Apocrypha, but because they were of an hid and obscure authority: in which sense none of the fathers ever held any of the Canonical books of the New Testament to be Apocrypha.

4. As the Heretics brought in counterfeit books of their own into the New Testament: so they rejected diverse parts of the Canonical books. 1. Faustus the Manichie held diverse things to be false in the New Testament: Augustine. lib. 33. cont. Faust. c. 3. 2. The Ebionites received none but the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, Iren. l. 1. c. 26. 3. the Marcionites only allowed S. Luke's Gospel, Epiphan. haeres. 42.4. the Acts of the Apostles, and S. Paul's epistles the Tatiane, and Seueriane heretics rejected, Euseb. l. 4. c. 29. 5. Marcion and Basilides the epistles to Timothy, Titus, and to the Hebrews, Jerome. praefat. ad Titum.

1. Doct. Of the excellency of the Newe Testament above, and beyond the Old.

1. It excelleth in the the matter and doctrine, the law promiseth life only to those that keep it, the Gospel unto those which believe in Christ, Rom. 10.5, 6.

2. In the subject: the law was written in tables of stone: but the Gospel is written by the spirit of God in the fleshy tables of our hearts, 2. Cor. 3.2.

3. In the end: the Old Testament was the ministration of death, and the killing letter: the other is the ministration of the spirit which giveth life, 2. Cor, 3.6, 7.

4. In the condition and quality: the law imposed the hard yoke, and servitude of ceremonies, which was impossible to be borne, Act. 15.10. but Christ's yoke is easy: Math. 11. which of servants adopteth us to be the sons of God, Rom. 8.15.

5. In the minister: Moses was the typical Mediator of the Olde Testament: but Christ the Lord and builder of the house, is the Mediator of the New, Heb. 3.3.

6. In the fruits and effects: the Old Testament could not purge the conscience from sin: but the sprinkling of the blood of Christ purgeth the conscience from dead works, Heb. 9.13, 14.

7. In the manner: the Old Testament was folded up in types and figures: as Moses veiled the glory of his face: but now we see the glory of the Lord in the Gospel with open face, 2. Cor. 3.18.

8. In the ratification: the Old Testament was confirmed with the blood of beasts: the New by the death of Christ, quest. 17.18.

9. In the seals: the old was attended upon by bloody sacrifices, and other such like hard Sacraments, as circumcision, which was painful to the flesh: the New hath easy and unbloody sacraments as the seals, neither so many in number: namely Baptism and the Eucharist.

10. Another excellency is in persons, whom this New Testament concerneth: which is not given only to one people, and nation, as the old was: but unto the Catholic Church of God dispersed over the face of the earth: as the Apostles are commanded to go and teach all nations, Matth. 28.19.

In these respects, the Apostle thus giveth preeminence to the New Testament before the old: Heb. 8.6. he hath obtained a more excellent office, in as much as he is the Mediator of a better Testament, which is established upon better promises: Not that Christ was not Mediator also of the Old Testament (for without him neither can there be any Church, nor covenant made with the Church) but because Christ, but shadowed forth in the Old Testament, is more fully revealed, and manifested in the New.

1. Controv. Against those which think it is against the nature of the New Testament to be committed to writing.

Of this opinion are certain of a fantastical spirit, which to this purpose abuse that place of Jeremiah. 32.33. I will write my law in their hearts: and that of S. Paul, 2. Cor 3.3. You are our epistle written not with ink, but with the spirit: whence they would infer, that the Newe Testament is not to be written, but that it consisteth in revelation and the instinct of the Spirit.

Contra. 1. If the Newe Testament were not to be extant in writing, then the Apostles had done a superfluous and unnecessary work, in writing the books of the Newe Testament, whereunto they were directed by the spirit of God: and S. John is directly commanded to write, Apocal. 14.13. and S. Paul saith, that all Scripture is given by inspiration: 2. Tim. 3.16. The spirit of God then moved them to put in writing these holy books of the Newe Testament; which are part of the Scripture.

2. It followeth not because the Lord writeth the Gospel in our hearts by his spirit, that therefore it is not to be written: for by the writing thereof which is preached and read, saith is wrought in the heart by the operation of the spirit: as the Apostle saith, Rom. 10.17. that faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word. And again the Prophet there showeth a difference between the law and the Gospel: the law gave Precepts, but could not incline the heart to obedience: but the Gospel doth not only command faith, but by the operation of the spirit worketh the same thing which it requireth.

3. In the other place of the Apostle, 1. they would make the Apostle contrary to himself, as though he should speak against the writing of Evangelical precepts, whereas the Apostle did write that very epistle with ink. 2. he speaketh not of the Gospel, but of the Corinthians, whom he calleth his Epistle. 3. and by the latter in that place he understandeth not the writing with ink, or such like, but the external doctrine without the grace and life of the spirit: such as the doctrine of the Law was.

2. Controv. Against the Romanists, which hold, that the writing of the Gospel, and other Scriptures, is not simply necessary to salvation.

First, we will examine the arguments which are brought by them to confirm this their unsound opinion. 1. Bellarmine thus reasoneth: that the Apostles did reach the Church at the first without Scriptures, therefore they are not simply necessary, but only for the greater profit of the Church: like as an horse is necessary for ones journey, for his more speedy travail, but not simply necessary, because he may go a foot, Bellar. l. 4. de verb. c. 4.

Contra. 1. True it is, that the writing of the Scriptures are not simply necessary in respect of God, for he by his absolute power could find a way to teach his Church otherwise, but in respect of God's ordinance, which hath appointed the Scriptures for edifying of his Church, they are necessary: as bread is necessary for man's sustentation, though God can nourish and maintain life without bread. 2. It is not true that the Apostles did teach without Scriptures; for they had the prophetical writings first, and afterward their own, and while the Apostles themselves were living and present, the writing of the Gospel was not so necessary, as afterward. 3. The writing then of the Gospel was necessary, 1. both in respect of that age present, for the preventing and stay of heresies, which might be more strongely resisted and gainesayed, by an evident and extant rule of faith. 2. in regard of those Churches, to whom the Apostles preached not by lively voice, it was necessary that they should have some perfect direction by writing. 3. and that the ages also to come might have a rule of their faith.

Arg. 2. The Church may as well now be instructed without the Scriptures, as it was for the space of 2000. years before the law was written, Bellar. ibid.

Contra. 1. In the first age of the world, the light of nature was not so much obscured, as afterward, when the law was written, and therefore the argument followeth not, the Scriptures were not necessary then, therefore not now. 2. because the old world wanted the Scriptures to direct them, that was the cause, why they were given over generally to all kind of profaneness: and therefore to prevent the like mischief afterward, the Lord thought good to give his written word to his Church.

Argum. 3. The Apostles did preach much more, then they did write, and many things they delivered to the Church by tradition: so that not the Scriptures by themselves, are a total rule and direction of the faith, but partial together with the traditions and ordinances of the Church.

Contra. 1. The Apostles did indeed speak more, then they did or could write, but yet they preached the same things, and delivered no other precepts concerning faith and manners, but the same, which they committed to writing. 2. many things concerning orders, and especially in particular Churches, the Apostles left by tradition: but no other precepts and rules of faith, then they had written. 3. The Scriptures are no partial, but a total and perfect rule of faith: for mensura adaequata esse debet mensurate, the measure must be equal unto that which is measured: it must neither be longer nor shorter: if then the Scripture should come short of faith, it were no perfect rule, nay it were no rule at all, Pareus.

Now on the contrary that the Scriptures are necessary, thus it is made plain. 1. From the author: the Prophets and Apostles did write by the instinct of the spirit: but the spirit moveth not to any unnecessary or superfluous work. 2. from the office of the Apostles, which was to teach all nations, Matth 28.19. which seeing they could not do in their own persons, it was necessary that they should preach unto them by their writings. 3. from the ende and use of the Scriptures. 1. whether for instruction in doctrine: for all Scriptures are written for our learning, Rom. 15.4. or direction unto virtuous living, or decision of Questions, and confuting of errors, it was necessary that the Scriptures should be written to these uses, as the Apostle showeth, 1. Timoth. 3.16. that the man of God may be perfect. The Scriptures then were necessary to be extant for the aforesaid purposes: in so much that the Apostle saith, if any Angel from heaven do preach any other Gospel, &c. let him be accursed: whereupon Chrysostom saith, Paulus etiam Angels de coelo descendentibus proponit Scripturas, Paul even propoundeth the Scriptures to the Angels descending from heaven, in Galat. c. 1.

1. Observ. Of the happiness of these times under the Gospel, in comparison of the former times under the Law.

In that the Lord hath clearly manifested and opened unto his Church by Jesus Christ, the high mysteries, which lay hid before, therein appeareth the singular love of God to his Church, and the great preeminence, which the faithful now have in comparison of the people of God under the Law: as our Savior saith unto his Apostles, Blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears for they hear, for verily I say unto you, that many Prophets, and righteous men have desired to see those things which you see, and could not see them, &c. Matth. 13.16, 17. the use hereof is to stir us up unto thankfulness unto God, for this so great mercy shown unto his Church.

2. Observ. The dangerous estate of those, which are found to be contemners of the Gospel and Newe Law.

The greater light is revealed, and the more knowledge that men have, the greater obedience doth God look for at their hand: disobedience then now unto the Gospel of truth, is so much more grievous, then was transgression under the law, as the times of light and knowledge in brightness exceed the days of ignorance and blindness: thus the Apostle reasoneth, the night is past, and the day is at hand, let us therefore cast away the works of darkness, and put on the armor of light, Rom. 13.12. So also Hebr. 2.2. the Apostle saith, if the word spoken by Angels was steadfast, and every transgression, &c. received a just recompense of reward: how much more if we neglect so great salvation, &c.

1. Quest. Whether S. Paul were the Author of this Epistle.

Beside the general consent of the Church of God both in times past, and now, that this Epistle was written by S. Paul, as Irenaeus lib. 5. cont. Valent. Jerome. epist. ad Paulin. Eusebius Ecclesiast. histor. lib. 3. c. 3. with diverse others of the Fathers, do acknowledge this divine Apostle to be the author; it thus appeareth by better evidence out of the book it self:

1. By the inscription of the Epistle, where the name of Paul is prefixed as in all other his epistles, saving that to the Hebrews, in the which he concealeth his name, as Jerome saith, propter invidiam sui apud eos nominis, because his name was envied among them: catalog. scriptor.

2. But beside the inscription of his name, this Epistle endeth with that usual salutation, which S. Paul annexeth in the ende of all his Epistles, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all, Amen: Rom. 16.24. which form of salutation written with S. Paul's own hand, was his sign and mark in every epistle, 2. Thess. 3.18. Pareus.

3. Beside, the style of the epistle, and the matter agreeable to other writings of the holy Apostle, do evidently proclaim him to be the author: Gryneus in c. 1. v. 1.

4. And it being resolved upon, that S. Paul was the author, it followeth, that this Epistle is of Canonical authority, because it was written by the spirit of God speaking in Paul: for, he saith, I think that I have the spirit of God, 1. Cor. 7.40. and that Christ spake in him, 2. Cor. 13.3. and that he received not his doctrine from man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ, Gal. 1.12.

2. Quest. Of the birth, the life, acts, and death of S. Paul.

1. For the place of his birth, Jerome thinketh, that he was borne in Giscalis a town in the tribe of Benjamin, which being taken by the Romans, he then removed with his parents to Tarsus: but this agreeth not with S. Paul's own narration, that he was borne in Tarsus a city of Silicia, Act. 22.2. which if it had not been so, his adversaries would have entrapped him, and detected him of an untruth.

2. For his kindred, he himself testifieth, that he was of Israel, an Hebrew of the Hebrews, of the tribe of Benjamin, Philip. 3.5.

3. For his education, he was brought up under the feet of Gamaliel, Act. 22.3. who was of great authority among the Jews, as it appeareth Act. 5. where the whole Council followed his sentence: by profession he was a Pharisee, Philip. 3.5. which was the most tolerable sect among the Jews.

4. Concerning his life and conversation: even before his conversion, he did lead an unblameable life touching the law: being very zealous in defending the rites and ceremonies thereof: but he was withal a most fierce persecutor of the Church of Christ, Philip. 3.6. and after his conversion, he was a zealous a preacher of the Gospel.

5. Touching his gifts, he was not only learned in their own law, but also well studied in human learning, as appeareth by the alleging of forten testimonies, as of Aratus, Act. 17. of Menander, 1. Cor. 15. of Epimenides, Tit. 1. He excelled in the gift of utterance, and had a singular grace of speech, as is evident by the Apologies and extemporal speeches which he made, Act. 22.23. Beside, he was forceable in persuasion, pithy in argument, and ready in disputation: as appeareth by the conflicts which he had diverse times with the Jews, and with the Philosophers at Athens, Act. 17. His labor and pains was answerable to his gifts: the grace of God was not in vain in him, for he labored (both by writing and preaching) more then all the Apostles beside, 1. Cor. 15.10. he caused the Gospel to abound from Jerusalem to Illyricum, Rom. 15.19. even unto Spain, v. 24. in all Asia minor, and in the most famous countries of Europe, he preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

6. Now concerning the ende of this holy Apostle, in the 23. year of his Apostleship, after his conversion (which is held to have been in the 3. year after the ascension of Christ in the 20. year of Tiberius ) in the 2. year of Nero he was carried prisoner to Rome, and there remained in free custody two years: from thence it is thought he was delivered, and went and preached the Gospel in the West parts: as Jerome collecteth out of that place, 2. Tim. 4.17. that the Lord delivered him out of the lions mouth, (meaning Nero ) that by me the preaching of the Gospel might b • fully known, and all the Gentiles might hear. Afterward in the 14. year of Nero, and the 35. of his Apostleship, and 37. after Christ ascension, and from the nativity of Christ 70. he was beheaded at Rome: and during his bonds, he writ 7. of his Epistles, but whether in his first or second bonds, it is vncerten: Pareus. Aretius thinketh he wrote them in the time of his first imprisonment, but that is not so certain.

But there are other particular matters recorded, which fell out in S. Paul's death, which are not of like certainty: Jerome thinketh that S. Paul and S. Peter suffered in one day at Rome: and some add, that when he was beheaded, instead of blood there issued forth milk, to show his innocence: August. in orat. de sanctis. But Nicephorus reporteth a thing more strange, that Paul before he suffered had conference with Nero, and told him, that he would return unto him the third day after: and so his shadow appeared accordingly, which Nero catched at, but it fled from him: Niceph. l. 2. c. 36. The first of these is probable, though not necessary to be believed; the second is not impossible, though of no great certainty; the third seemeth to be fabulous: as many such miracles have been devised in former times of the Saints, to increase superstition: Aretius.

3. Quest. Of S. Paul's place of birth.

1. Absurd is the opinion of the Ebionites (as Epiphanius reporteth and confuteth their heresy, haeres. 30.) that S. Paul was a Grecian by nation, and borne of Greek parents, but coming to Jerusalem he was in love with the Priests daughter, and desiring her to wife, he became a Proselyre, and was content to be circumcised. But this is contrary to Paul himself, who affirmeth, that he was an Hebrew of the Hebrews, and of the tribe of Benjamin, Philip. 3.5.

2. Jerome sometime seemeth to be of opinion, that Paul was borne at Giscalis a town of Judea, which being taken by the Romans, he departed to Tharsus with his parents, and thereupon he was counted of Tharsus: libr. de Ecclesiast. script. but after this in an epistle to Algasia, he resolveth that he was borne at Tarsus. Beda is of the same opinion, that Paul was borne at Giscalis, in c. 21. Actor. and Andreas Masius in c. 19. Joshua.

3. But the more general and received opinion is, that Paul was borne at Tarsus, and not at Giscalis, which is thus confirmed: 1. Giscalis was a town of Galilee, not of Judea, and taken by Titus the Emperor after S. Paul's death, who was crowned with Martyrdom in the 13. year of Nero: Joseph. l. 4. de bello Iudaic. it was not then taken by the Romans so long before. 2. S. Paul was a Roman borne, Act. 22.26.28. that is, borne in a city privileged with the Roman liberties: but so was not Giscalis: Tharsus was, as Dio testifieth, lib. 47. and Plin. lib. 5. c. 27.3. Ignatius writing to them of Tharsus, calleth them cives, & discipulos Pauli, S. Paul's disciples and citizens. 4. But the Apostle himself putteth this matter out of doubt, affirming that he was borne in Tarsus in Silicia, Act. 22.2.

4. Quest. Whether S. Paul were noble by birth.

1. August. serm. 15. de verb. Apost. thinketh that S. Paul was of noble birth, upon those words, Philip. 3.3. Though I might have confidence in the flesh: for it had been no great matter, saith he, for the Apostle to have contemned nobility, having none himself: And beside he was of the sect of the Pharisees, which was a noble sect among the Jews, they were not of the contemptible sort: to this purpose Augustine: Whereunto this may be added, that the high Priest would not have given so great authority unto S. Paul as he did, if he had been of obscure birth or parentage.

2. But Chrysostom seemeth to be of the contrary opinion: fuisse Paulum inopem & coriarium, that Paul was a poor handicraft man, a worker of leather: hom. 4. in 2. epist. ad Timoth. And hereof this argument is yielded, that S. Paul was not of noble birth, because he was exercised in an handicraft in making of tents, and therein brought up before his calling, as may be gathered, Act. 18.3. But it was not the use of noble men to follow such base trades: And S. Paul saith, not many noble are called, 1. Cor. 1.25. which is understood chiefly of the calling of the Apostles.

3. The resolution is this, that though S. Paul were not noble according to the Roman estimation of nobility, being of an handicraft, which suited not with nobility among the Romans; yet among the Jews he was not of unnoble birth: v.ho counted nobility by the noblenes of the tribe, and the antiquity of the family: in which respect Joseph the husband of Marie was noble, though a carpenter by his trade, as being descended of the royal tribe of David. So Paul was noble being borne of the noble tribe of Benjamin: which was famous, both because the first king of Israel Saul was chosen out of that tribe, and the tribe of Benjamin revolted not from Judah, as the other ten tribes had done: As also S. Paul was of a noble profession among the Jews, by sect a Pharisee.

4. But this will be objected further, that S. Paul could not be privileged with the liberty of a citizen of Rome: which immunity no tradesmen were capable of, but only husbandmen and soldiers: as Halycarnesseus writeth, lib. 2. & 6. But the answer is, that this constitution or provision made by Romulus, was afterward abrogated by Numa Pompilius, who admitted artificers to the privilege of citizens: as Terentius Varro was Consul, and Marcus Scaurus, whose fathers were handicrafts men, the first a butcher, the second a colliar.

5. Quest. Whether S. Paul were brought up in the learning of the Greeks.

1. Chrysostom thinketh, that S. Paul was utterly ignorant before his conversion of the Greek tongue, and learning, and that he only knew the Hebrew tongue: hom. 4. in 2. ad Timoth. But it is not like that S. Paul being brought up in a city of Silicia, where they used the Greek language, was utterly ignorant of the common speech then used.

2. Neither yet do I think with Jerome, that Paul learned the Greek tongue at Tarsus, where he was brought up, yet was not very skillful or eloquent in the Greek tongue: seipsum in Graeca lingua interpretari cupiens, revolvitur, he desiring to interpret himself in the Greek tongue is enwrapped and entangled: in 3. ad Philip. and where S. Paul saith, he was rude in speech: he thus said, non ex humilitate, sed ex scientiae veritate, not of humility, but according to truth: epist. ad Algasiam. and that he used Titus his interpreter for the Greek tongue, as Peter used Mark: epist. ad Hedibiam.

3. But that S. Paul was neither ignorant of the Greek learning, as thinketh Chrysostom, appeareth by the alleging of the Greek poets, Aratus, Meuander, Epimenides, and by the commendation, which Strabo giveth of the Tharsensians, and in the study of Philosophy, and other arts exceeded them of Athens, and Alexandria: Strabo lib. 16. Neither was he so rude in speaking, as Jerome thinketh: for he himself saith, 1. Cor. 14.18. I thank my God, I speak languages more then ye all: and he so confesseth by way of concession, because the false Apostles so objected. But S. Paul useth indeed no affected eloquence, both because he was to temper his speech to the capacity and understanding of all: and the depth of the divine mysteries which he handleth, and his passionate speeches, breaking forth into zeal, do carry him often away from hunting after or laboring for curious elocution.

Quest. 6. Of the years of the reign of the Emperors of Rome unto Nero, under whom S. Paul suffered.

Because we shall have occasion afterward in the handling of some Questions to have recourse unto the years of the Roman Emperors, in whose time S. Paul lived, it shall not be amiss, to make a just computation of their years, wherein I find great difference among Chronographers.

1. Tiberius Caesar, who succeeded Augustus, in the 18. year of whose reign Christ our Blessed Savior suffered, according to Suetonius, in Tiberio, c. 73. and Orosius lib. 7. c. 2. Eutropuis lib. 7. Beda de sex aetatib. reigned 23. years, according to Sextus Aureulius, 24. as Clemens Alexandrin. lib. 1. stromat. 22. years: as Dio counteth, lib. 58.22. years and 7. months, and so many days: as Tertullian. lib. adverse. Iudaeos, c. 5. 22. years, 7. months, and 28. days: Josephus lib. 18. antiquit. c. 14. reckoneth 22. years, and 6. months. But the true account is this: Tiberius reigned full 22. years, counting from the Calends of January after he began to reign, to the Calends of January next before he died: but he entered his reign the 19. of August, when Augustus died, from whence to the Calends of January, are 4. months, and 13. days: and he died the 16. of March, two months and sixteen days after his 22. years expired at the Calends of January: so in all he reigned 22. years and 7. months: so that by this computation appeareth the difference, why some do give unto him but 22. years, some 24. some but 23. because some count only the full years, some the months of his first and last year, for whole years; some put the odd months together, and make one year of them. Hence then it is evident, seeing our Blessed Savior is held to have suffered in the 18. year of Tiberius about the beginning of April, that Tiberius reigned after our Blessed Saviors passion 4. years, an 11. months, and 18. days: for of his 1 • . year there remained from the beginning of April unto the 19. of August, when Tiberius began to reign, 4. months and 18. days: and after the 18. year, he reigned 4. years, and almost 7. months, for he-reigned in all as is shown before, 22. years, and 7. months.

2. Gaius Caligula, reigned according to Suetonius, and Eutropius, 3. years, 10. months, and 8. days: according to Clemens, and Tacitus, and Sextus Aurelius 4. years: after Beda, 4. years, 10. months, and 8. days: according to Dio, 3. years, 9. months, 28. days: as Tertullian, 3. years, 8. months, and 13. days: as Josephus, 3. years, and 6. months. But the right computation is this: Caligula began his Empire the 16. day of March: from whence to the Calends of January following are 9. months, and an half: then he reigned from the first Calends of January full 3. years, and died the 24. of January following: so the whole time of his reign was 3. years, 10. months, and 8. days: they which give unto him full four years, count the odd months, and days for a whole year.

3. Claudius, who was next Emperor, according to Tacitus, Suetonius, Clemens Alexandrin. Eutropius, Orosius, reigned 14. years, according to Dio and Josephus, 13. years, 8. months, and 20. days: after Eusebius, 13. years, and 9. months: after Beda, 14. years, 7. months, and 28. days. But the certain computation is this: Claudius began his Empire upon the 24. of January: whence to the Calends of January following, when the Roman year beginneth are 11. months, and 7. days: then he reigned full 12. years, and in his 13. year he reigned 9. months, and 13. days: from the Calends of January unto the 3. day before the Ides of October, which was the 13. day of that month, when he died, as Tacitus and Suetonius write: so the whole time of his reign was 13. years, 8. months, and 20. days: they then which give unto him 14. years, do count the odd months for a whole year.

4. Unto Claudius succeeded Nero, who according to Tacitus, Clemens Alexandrin. and Eutropius, reigned 14. years: according to Dio, 13. years, and 8. months: as Beda, 14. years, 7. months, 10. days: after Suetonius not much under 14. years: Tertullian counteth but 9. years, 9. months, and 13. days: But herein he is much deceived. The most do give unto Nero 14. years, but not complete: the reason of this uncertainty is, because it is not certainly known when Nero died: Onuphrius thinketh he died about the 10. day of June, and he began to reign about the 13. day of October, when Claudius died: so that by this account he should reign but 13. years, 7. months, and 28. days: ex Perer. but because the most do allow unto him 14. years, we will follow the usual and common reckoning. And this shall suffice to have been inserted here concerning the years of the reign of the Emperors: see more of the years of the Emperors, Hexapl. in Dan. c. 9. qu. 75. where the account somewhat differeth from this in certain months, because there Eusebius computation is followed.

7. Quest. In which year after the passion of Christ Paul was converted.

It followeth now, that such matters be briefly touched, which concern this holy Apopostle after he was converted to the faith of Christ: and first of the time of his conversion.

1. Whereas it is most evident, that S. Stephen was stoned to death, after the most glorious ascension of Christ, and that S. Paul's conversion followed after that blessed Martyrs death: some do think that Stephen was put to death 7. years after Christ's ascension, and so consequently S. Paul's conversion happened likewise 7. years after: this opinion Nicephorus lib. 2. c. 3. ascribeth to Euodius the successor of S. Peter in Antioch. But there is no probability of this opinion: for it is not like, that the Church had rest without persecution so long, that is, 7. years after Christ's ascension. And the conjecture of some is, that 7. years are put for 7. months, by some corruption and fault in the copies: for so many months there are between the ascension of Christ, and the martyrdom of S. Stephen.

2. Some think, that Paul was converted in the first year after the passion of our blessed Savior, upon the 25. day of January: so Eusebius and Beda: But because S. Stephen is held to have suffered upon the 26. day of January, in the first year after Christ's passion: from which day to the 25. day of January, when S. Paul, according to the received opinion, was converted, is not above a month; in which time all those things could not be fulfilled, which are recorded by S. Luke, Act. c. 8. S. Paul's conversion could not fall out in the first year after the passion of Christ. This matter is not helped by the author of the scholastical history, upon the Acts of the Apostles, c. 46. who thus distinguisheth, that if the first year of Christ's passion be reckoned according to the usual account, that is from January, when the Roman year began, then S. Paul was converted in the second year: but if from the time of Christ's passion, then it was in the first year: for still the same doubt remaineth: that in this reckoning there was but one month, between the martyrdom of S. Stephen, and the conversion of S. Paul.

3. Wherefore the opinion of Oecumenius, upon the last chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, is more probable: that S. Paul was indeed converted in the second year, counting from the time of Christ's passion: so that from the most holy death of our blessed Savior, unto the conversion of Saint Paul, which is held by a general received opinion, to have been upon the 25. day of January, there was run one whole year and ten months.

8. Quest. At what age S. Paul was converted.

1. Ambrose, and Theodoret upon the 7. chapter of the 1. epistle to the Corinthians, think that S. Paul at the time of his conversion, was so young a man, that he was not meet for marriage: so that in their opinion, he could not then be above 20. years old: this their opinion may seem to be grounded upon this reason, because Act. 7.58. Saint Luke speaking of Saint Paul, saith, that the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of a young man, called Saul: But that word hath not so much respect unto his age and youth, as to his courage, and fierceness, as the word signifieth, as Budeus showeth: whereupon Euripides calleth bold and insolent speech, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And that Saint Paul was not so very a young man, appeareth, because he is termed by an other word: Ananias saith, chap. 9.13. We have heard by many, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of this man.

2. And further, that S. Paul was not so young a man at the time of his conversion, may be shown by these reasons. 1. S. Paul himself saith, Act. 26.6. As touching my life from my youth, and what it was from the beginning among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews: it seemeth then that he spent his youth among the Jews, before his conversion. 2. Those things which S. Paul reporteth to have been done by him before his conversion, agree not unto S. Paul's youth: Act. 26.9. I also verily thought in myself, that I ought to do many contrary things against the name of Jesus, &c. many of the Saints I put in prison, having received authority of the high Priests, and when they were put to death, I gave sentence: this judgment of S. Paul, and authority committed unto him, were not incident unto a very youth. 3. If S. Paul were but about 20. years of age, when he was converted, it would follow, that he exceeded not 46. years in the 4. year of Nero, when he is thought to have written his Epistle to Philemon; but then he called himself aged Paul: for from the 20. year of Tiberius, which was the 2. year after Christ's passion, when Paul was converted, unto the 4. of Nero, are but 25. or 26. years. It would follow also hereupon, that S. Paul suffering, as Jerome thinketh, in the 37. year after the passion of Christ, was not above 55. year old: whereas Chrysostom thinketh, that he was above 68. years when he suffered: so that by this account he will be found to have been more then 30. years of age when he was converted.

9. Quest. How long S. Paul after his conversion was ravished in spirit, and taken up into Paradise.

1. Some are of opinion, that in the space of those three days, while Paul continued blind, after Jesus had spoken to him by the way, Act. 9.9. that he then was taken up into the third heaven, and heard such things, as were not to be uttered: of which his ravishing in the spirit, S. Paul writeth, 2. Corinth. 12. of this opinion are Thomas, Lyranus, Carthusianus upon that place: Johannes Driedo, lib. 1. de scriptur. c. 2. But this opinion is easily refuted: for the Apostle saith, that thing happened unto him 14. years before he writ that epistle: now this second epistle to the Corinthians, he is held to have written in the beginning of the reign of Nero: from thence counting 14. years, we still come to the beginning of Claudius reign: but S. Paul's conversion was 8. years before that, in the 20. year of Tiberius: for there remained three years of Tiberius reign, and 4. years almost of Caligula, whom Claudius succeeded.

2. But it is most like, that S. Paul in that three days space had revealed unto him the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and of his Gospel, which the Apostle saith, he received by revelation of Jesus Christ, Galat. 1.12. so thinketh Beda in 9. c. Actor. and the author of the scholastical history, c. 46. upon the same book. And it is evidently gathered by the history of S. Paul's conversion set forth by S. Luke, Act. c. 9. how presently upon his conversion S. Paul began to preach in the Synagogues, that Christ was the Son of God. He would not have so preached unto others, if he had not been before himself instructed in the ways of Christ.

3. Sixtus Senensis then is greatly deceived, who 1. tom. bibliot. delivereth this out of Origen, that S. Paul had learned the history of the Gospel of S. Luke: for both S. Luke's own narration is against it, who saith, that straightway after S. Paul had recovered his sight, by the laying on of the hands of Ananias, he began to preach in the name of Jesus, Act. 9. And S. Paul restifieth otherwise of himself, Galat. 1.11. Now I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel, which was preached of me, was not after man: for neither received I it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

10. Quest. At what time Paul was first in bonds, and of his going to Jerusalem, how oft he went thither, before he came into bonds.

Because S. Paul did write diverse of his Epistles while he had his liberty, and some after the time of his imprisonment, it shall not be amiss to examine this matter briefly, when Paul began first to be restrained of his liberty: which falling out at Jerusalem, it must first be known, how after and upon what occasion he went up to Jerusalem: his iourneis then to Jerusalem are found to have been these four.

1. First he went to Jerusalem to see Peter, which was three years after his conversion; And from Damascus where he was converted, he went into Arabia, and thence to Damascus, and so to Jerusalem. But here two doubts are moved: the first is, that Saint Luke presently after S. Paul's escape out of Damascus, maketh mention of his coming to Jerusalem, Act. 9.26. but the answer here is, that S. Luke in that story omitteth many things which were done, and so passeth over for brevity sake that journey of S. Paul into Arabia. The other doubt is, whether S. Paul preached at this his going to Arabia: Jerome thinketh that he did not, but that he was letted by the Spirit to preach the word in Arabia, as afterward in Asia: Act. 16.7. Pareus also is of the same judgment: because S. Paul speaking before king Agrippa, how he preached at Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and in Judea, Act. 26.20. maketh no mention of his preaching in Arabia. But seeing there were three years run, after S. Paul went from Damascus to Arabia, before he returned to Jerusalem, it is not like, that S. Paul all this time was idle: and in the same place, Act. 26.20. though he make no particular mention of his preaching in Arabia, yet he saith in general, that he preached to the Gentiles: wherefore I rather subscribe here unto the sentence of Chrysostom, who thinketh, that S. Paul at this time preached in Arabia, and did other memorable things, which for modesty sake he passeth over in silence.

2. The second voyage of S. Paul to Jerusalem, was, when he with Barnabas carried releese from Antioch unto the brethren at Jerusalem and in Judea, because the great famine which was through the whole world, which fell out under Claudius Caesar: as we read, Act. 11.30. and 12.35.

3. The third travel of S. Paul to Jerusalem, was that, whereof he writeth, Galat. 2.1. Then fourteen years after I went up to Jerusalem. But here likewise ariseth a double doubt: first, whether this journey, and that described Act. 15. were one and the same: the second, how these fourteen years are to be counted, and where they must take beginning. For the first, Chrysostom and Jerome upon the 2. to the Galatians, seem to be of opinion, that these were two diverse iourneies: and there may seem some probability hereof; because S. Luke saith, that Barnabas went with Paul, Act. 15. But S. Paul saith, beside Barnabas he took also Titus: and S. Luke showeth this to be the occasion, that Paul and Barnabas were sent up about the deciding of the question concerning circumsision: But S. Paul saith, he went up by revelation, Gal. 2.2. Yet hereunto it may be thus answered, that though Luke make no express mention of Titus, yet he may be included in that general addition, They ordained that Paul, and Barnabas, and certain other of them should go, &c. Act. 15.2. And S. Paul might go up by revelation, and yet that other occasion also concur therewith. Wherefore the opinion rather of Theodoret, in 2. ad Galat. and of Beda, in c. 15. Actor. seemeth to be more sound; that both these were but one journey: both because after this immediately Paul and Barnabas divided themselves, Act. 15.39. and travailed not together afterward to Jerusalem: and Paul after this went not to Jerusalem, but when he was there apprehended and taken, Act. 21.

The other doubt is, where the computation of these 14. years must begin. 1. Beda, and the author of the scholastical history upon the 15. of the Acts, and Thomas, Lyranus, Caietanus, upon the 2. to the Galat. think that they are to be counted from the time of S. Paul's conversion.

2. But the opinion of Jerome and Anselm is more probable, that these 14. years begin from S. Paul's first coming to Jerusalem, which was 3. years after his conversion, whereof the Apostle maketh mention, Galat. 2.18. for seeing he had spoken before of his first going to Jerusalem, After three years I came again to Jerusalem: and saith afterward, c. 2. Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem: these 14. years must properly begin, where the other 3. years ende: so that these 14. years, were indeed 17. years from his conversion.

But Pererius objecteth, that then the 17. year would fall out into the tenth year of Claudius Caesar: which cannot be, for the Jews were expelled from Rome by Claudius after this third going up of Saint Paul to Jerusalem: for Saint Luke in the 15. chap. maketh mention of Saint Paul's going up to Jerusalem: but the Jews departure from Rome, by the commandment of Claudius, afterward he remembereth, c. 18.2. now, this dismissing of the Jews from Jerusalem was in the ninth year of Claudius, as Orosins writeth, lib. 7. c. 4. and Beda lib. de 6. atatib. Which objection of Pererus may easily be answered: for, 1. he relieth only upon the credit of these two, that this inhibition was in the 9. year: it might be after. 2. admit it were in the ninth year, yet S. Paul's going up in the 17. year of his conversion might be before: for seeing he was converted in the beginning of the 20. year of Tiberius, upon the 25. of January, as is commonly held: his going up to Jerusalem may be supposed to have been in the beginning likewise of the 17. year, which falleth out in the beginning of the 10. year of Claudius: and this eiection of the Jews might be in the ende of the year. 3. S. Luke saith not, c. 18.2. that then the Jews were first expelled: but that Aquila was lately come from Rome, because Claudius had give • commandment, &c. there is no precise time set: and there might be some space allowed for their departure, after that the commandment was given.

11. Quest. Of Paul's being in bonds first at Cesarea, and afterward as Rome.

The fourth journey of S. Paul to Jerusalem was, when he was taken by the captain Lysias, and sent to Cesarea to Felix the governor: as S. Luke setteth forth the history, Act. 21.22, 23. and at Cesarea he continued under Felix two years in bonds, Act. 24.28. But there are diverse opinions concerning this matter.

1. Some do think that the two years there mentioned, are understood of the time of Felix government: but that cannot be: for S. Paul saith, Act. 24.10. that Festus had been of many years a Judge unto that nation: he had been then their governor more then two years: and I • sephus writeth, that Festus was sent thither in the 11. year of Claudius, lib. 20. Antiquit. c. 5. and he was displaced from his regiment in the 2. year of Nero: so that he held his government five years at the least.

2. Baronius thinketh, that the two years there mentioned must be restrained to Nero's reign: for in his second year Felix was removed, and Paul brought prisoner to Rome: he denieth that he was two years in bonds at Cesarea: But Pererius well refuteth this assertion, because no mention is made at all of Nero by S. Luke: and therefore to his reign, these two years can have no relation.

3. The author of the scholastical history will have these two years counted from the time, when the Jews first accused Paul before Caesar, in Act. Apostol. c. 3. But neither doth S. Luke make mention there of any such thing.

4. Wherefore, whereas the words stand thus, when two years were expired, Pontius Festus came into Felix room, and Felix willing to get favor of the Jews, left Paul bound: the best sense is to begin these two years from the first imprisonment of S. Paul at Cesarea: of this opinion are Lyranus, gloss. interlinear. Occumenius in vltim. cap. Actor. Beds in c. 24. Actor. And so much may be gathered out of the text: because it is said, that Felix sent for Paul the officer, and communed with him, hoping that some money should have been given him, v. 27. this often communing with S. Paul showeth that S. Paul was detained there sometime in bonds, and it is said also that he left Paul bound: so that the two years expired, which are mentioned in the same place, are most fitly referred to Paul's bonds.

Now after Paul had been two years prisoner at Cesarea, he thence was sent bound to Rome, in the second year of Nero, and continued there free prisoner two years in an house which he hired, Act. 28.30. So he came to Rome in the 23. year after his conversion, and the 25. year after the passion of Christ: But afterward he was loosed out of his bonds and dismissed from Rome, as shall be shown in the next question: and in this first two years imprisonment at Rome, it is like that S. Luke wrote the history of the Acts, and there endeth, because it is not like that he was after that S. Paul's perpetual and inseparable companion.

12. Quest. Whether S. Paul was set at liberty after he was prisoner at Rome, and where he bestowed himself afterward.

1. This is evident by S. Paul's own testimony, who in diverse of his Epistles while he had been prisoner in Rome, promiseth to visit the Churches again where he had preached the Gospel, and speaketh thereof very confidently: as Philip. 1.25. writing from Rome, he saith, This I am sure of, that I shall abide, and with you all continue, for your furtherance, and joy of your faith: likewise to Philemon he thus writeth, v. 12. Prepare me lodging, for I trust, that through your prayers I shall be given unto you. So also Heb. 13.23. Know that (our) brother Timothy is delivered, with whom, of he come •• rely I will see you. And yet more evidently he saith, 2. Tim. 4.16, 17. At my first answering no man assisted me, &c. notwithstanding the Lord assisted me, and strengthened me, that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles should hear, and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lyon. All these places do evidently show, that Paul was delivered after his first imprisonment at Rome.

2. The reason is thus alleged by Eusebius, Neronem in principio imperi-mitiorem fuisse, that Nero in the beginning of his Empire was more gentle and mild: but afterward, when Paul was taken again, Nero then being become a most cruel Tyrant, caused the holy Apostle to be put to death. Thus Eusebius lib. 2. histor. scholast. c. 21. to the like purpose also writeth Jerome in Paulo.

3. Now after S. Paul was delivered, he visited the Churches, where he had preached, and other places likewise where he had not been before. 1. Jerome thinketh, that he preached only in the West parts: for he had a purpose to go into Spain, Rom. 13.28. but it is not like that he spent all the time of his liberty after his first imprisonment, which was 10. years, only in the West parts. 2. Caietanus thinketh that he visited Macedonia, and Achaia, as he had promised in his Epistles: and so much he inferreth upon those words, 2. Tim. 4.13. The cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee: and v. 20. Trophimm I left at Miletum sick: these things were not done when S. Paul went first to Rome (saith Caietane ) for no such thing is mentioned in the story of the Acts: these things then fell out before his second coming to Rome: which being 10. or 11. years after the first, he would not write for his winter cloak, which he had left so long behind him: neither is it like that Trophimus sickness continued 10. or 11. years. But Caietans collection here is not sound: for it is evident that S. Paul wrote this epistle at his first imprisonment in Rome: for he saith, v. 17. that he was delivered out of the mouth of the lyon. And many things were acted by the Apostles, which are not written in the history of the Acts: yet Caietans opinion is true, that S. Paul visited the East Churches, because he so purposed and promised in his Epistles. 3. But he did not visit only the East Churches, but as Eusebius saith, it is like, ad Evangelium passim praedicandum se denno recepisse, that he returned to preach the Gospel again everywhere.

4. Yet to Ephesus it is certain he returned not: for he himself had told them, that they should see his face no more, Act. 20.38. And whether ever he were in Spain, it shall be shown, when we come to that place in the 15. chapter.

13. Quest. In what year after the passion of Christ, and of Nero his reign, S. Paul was put to death at Rome.

1. Pererius, alleging for his authors, Metaphrastes, Dyonisius Bishop of Corinth, Onuphrius in his Chronicle, and Baronius, thinketh that S. Paul was martyred in the 13. year of Nero his reign, in the 8. month: and in the 36. year from the passion of Christ. 2. Beda upon the 15. c. of the Acts, assigneth Paul's death to the 38. year after the passion of Christ. 3. Thomas yet goeth further, and saith it happened in the 40. year after Christ's passion, in 2. cap. ad Galat. But if either of these two latter opinions were true, S. Paul should not have suffered under Nero, which is against the common received opinion of all. 4. Therefore it is more probable, according to the received tradition, that S. Paul died in the 14. year of Nero his reign, and in the 37. year after the passion of Christ: as Eusebius in Chronic. and Jerome. lib. de script. Ecclesiast.

Pererius objection, that Nero died about the 10. of June in his 14. year, whereas S. Paul and S. Peter suffered the 29. of June, and therefore they could not be put to death in Nero's reign, may be thus answered: that it is uncertain at what time of the year, or in what month Nero died: he buildeth only upon the conjecture of Onuphrius, as hath been shown before, qu. 6. toward the end: whose testimony is not sufficient, to weigh against the authority of Eusebius, Jerome, and others, who place S. Paul's death in the 14. year of Nero.

But Epiphanius is far wide, who thinketh S. Paul to have died in the 12. year of Nero, in haer. 27. which was the 35. year after the passion of Christ: who herein is against the opinion of all other.

14. Quest. Of Paul's person, and of the manner, and place of his death.

1. Concerning S. Paul's person, Nicephorus thus describeth him, lib. 2. c. 37. that he was of stature small, and somewhat stooping: of a whitely face, small head, comely eyes, low eyebrowes, a coming nose: a thick beard somewhat long, full of gray hairs, as likewise was his head: of comely grace, showing some divine thing to be in him. Chrysostom in his homily de principib. Apostol. saith, that, for his stature, he was but 3. cubic high, whereas a man's usual stature is toward four cubits: which if it were so, the reason may evidently appear, why the false Apostles said that Paul's bodily presence was weak, 2. Cor. 10.10. they might disdain his person, for his small stature.

2. For the place where S. Paul was beheaded, the general opinion is, that it was in the way Hostrensis, where Constantine erected a Temple bearing S. Paul's name, and there was he buried. But Pererius by the authority of Gregory, thinketh that he was put to death, ad aquas Salvia • , in a place called the Salvian waters: the matter is not great, yet there is more probability for the former opinion.

3. It is also generally received, that S. Paul and S. Peter were both put to death on the same day at Rome: But Prudentius in his verses, de festo Apostolor, and August. Tom. 10. serm. 4. de fest. Apost. are of opinion that Paul suffered upon the same day, that Peter did, but a year after: the matter is not great: though Gelasius condemn them as heretics which deny that S. Peter and S. Paul suffered in one day together.

15. Quest. What moved Nero to put the holy Apostle to death.

1. Some do think that this was the cause: when Simon Magus to prove himself to the Romans to be a God, by the help of the Devil did fly aloft in the air, by the prayers of Peter the Devil being driven away, that wicked Sorcerer fell down, being forsaken of his spirit, and so was broken in pieces: whereupon Nero was incensed against the Apostle: thus Hegesippus lib. 3. c. 2. Ambr. lib. 5. epist. de tradend. basilic. Arnob. lib. 2. adverse. Gentil. with others: But this reason, if this report were true, as it may be doubted of, rather showeth the cause, why Peter was put to death, then Paul.

2. Chrysostom and Theophylatt upon the 4. c. of the second to Timothy, do allege this to be the cause, because Paul had converted to the Christian faith Nero's butler, whom he made great account of: and thereupon he commanded him to be beheaded.

3. Simeon Metaphrastes in commentar. peregrinat. Petri & Paul. affirmeth out of Chrysostom, that Nero raged against S. Paul, because he had converted one of Nero his concubines, which afterward refused to have company with him. But these two may seem to be but men's conjectures: if this had been the cause, Nero would have put Paul to death at his first imprisonment: for then he had converted diverse of Caesars household, whose commendations he sendeth to the Philippians: but after this he was enlarged, as may be collected, c. 1.25.

4. Severus Sulpitius, lib. 2. giveth another reason, why Nero persecuted Paul to death, which was this: Nero having set Rome on fire, and laid it unto the Christians charge, whereof there was then a great number in the city: and this occasion Nero took to persecute the Christians, and put them to diverse torments: some he caused to be covered with beasts skins, and to be woorried with dogs: some were nay led to crosses: some were burnt in the night, that their fires might qualify the darkness of the night: and in this hot persecution moved upon this occasion, Paul was put to death. But Pererius confuteth this opinion by this reason: this setting of the city on fire happened in the tenth year of Nero, as Eusebius noteth in his Chronicle, but S. Paul suffered in the 14. year of Nero.

5. But we need assign no other cause of Nero his rage against this blessed Apostle, then this, which Eusebius and Jerome both do touch, as is partly shown before, Quest. 12. that Paul's defense was at his first imprisonment admitted, and thereupon delivered, because Nero at the first carried himself as a gentle Prince, but in the end he became a most savage Tyrant, and then his hatred was such against the Christians, that Paul could not escape his bloody hands. It was then the cruelty of that bloody Tyrant joined with a wicked detestation of the Christian faith, that provoked this beastly Tyrant, to show his rage, in putting to death this holy Apostle: we need not seek for any further reason. And thus far we have proceeded in such questions as concern the person of this Apostle: now follow such matters, as are to be observed touching his writings, and specially this Epistle to the Romans.

16. Quest. Of the Epistles of S. Paul the number of them.

1. The Epistles which S. Paul writ, are in all 14. in number, he writ nine of them to the 7. Churches: 1. to the Romans, 2. to the Corinthians, 1. to the Galatians, 1. to the Ephesians, 1. to the Philippians, 1. to the Colossians, 2. to the Thessalonians, and one to the Hebrews: and 4. beside to private persons, 2. to Timothy, 1. to Titus, 1. to Philemon. The reason of this number, Gregory, whom Anselmus followeth yieldeth to be this: this number of 14. consisting of 10. which signifieth the moral Law, and of four which noteth the 4. Evangelists, showeth the harmony and consent of Law and Gospel, and that S. Paul, Iegis & Euangelij secreta rimatus esset, had searched out the secrets both of the Law and Gospel: But this reason is too curious. Cyrillus de Hieros • lym. Catech. 10. better showeth the reason, why S. Paul did write more epistles then the rest of the Apostles: non quod minor esset Petrus, ant Johannes, not because Peter, or John were less or inferior: sed quia antea fuit mimicus, but because he had been an enemy before, it pleased God he should write most: that we might be the better persuaded that he taught the truth.

2. These epistles of S. Paul are extant, some other he did write, which are not extant, as 1. Cor. 5.9. he maketh mention of an epistle, which he had written to the Corinthians before that: for thus he saith, I wrote unto you, in an epistle, that you should not company together with fornicators: which words Chrysostom thinketh to have relation to the 2. and 7. verses of the chapter, but the 11. verse following, But now I have written unto you, doth show that it was at another time, that he so had written. Indeed those words of the Apostle, Ephes. 3.3. as I have written before, (or above) in few words, may have relation to the beginning of the same epistle, c. 1. v. 9. yet in this place it may be gathered that S. Paul had written a former Epistle to the Corinthians, Pareus: which may be his meaning, where he saith, this is the third time that I come unto you, 2. Cor. 13.1. which he may understand of his three epistles, which he had written unto the Corinthians: for that some of the Apostles writings may be missing in the Newe Testament, as some of the Prophets in the Old Testament, as Solomon is said to have spoken three thousand Proverbs, and a thousand and five songs, 1. king. 4.32. whereof the greater part is lost, may be granted without any inconvenience: seeing that part of the Scripture, which the Lord hath thought good to preserve for the edifying of his Church is found to be sufficient.

3. Yet diverse books were forged and foisted in under S. Paul's name: as Augustine citeth the Apocalypse or Revelation of S. Paul, in 16. c. John. whereof Niceph • rus also maketh mention, lib. 12. c. 34. which they said was found in Paul's fathers house at Tarfus in a marble coffet in the time of Theodosius the Emperor, which was proved to be false by the confession of an old man: such was the book of the Acts of Paul, mentioned by the same Nicepherus, lib. 12. c. 46.

4. Of the same sort was the Epistle to the Laodiceans imagined to be of S. Paul's writing: 1. which neither was S. Paul's writing, but the Church rejected it, that there might be but 14. epistles in all: to show, that the Apostle had attained to the secrets of the Law and Gospel: for renne signifieth the Law, and four the Evangelists, thus Anselmus in 4. epist. ad Colossens. following Gregor. lib. 35. moral. c. 25. for the Church hath no authority to reject any part of the Apostolical writings. 2. neither was it of S. Paul's writing, but now perished, as Bellarmine thinketh, lib. 4. de verbo Dei, c. 4.3. nor yet was that epistle sometime extant, of S. Paul's writing, as Epiphanius maketh mention thereof, in the heresy of the Marcionites: for S. Jerome well saith, legunt quidam ad Laodiceuses, sed ab omnibus exploditur, some do read also the Epistle to the Laodiceans, but it is rejected of all, catalog. scr • ptor. for the words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from Laodicea, Coloss. 4.16. which the vulgar Latin corruptly translateth, quae Laodicensium est, which is of the Laodiceans. 4. neither was it the same epistle which the Apostle had written from Laodicea, which some think to have been the first epistle unto Timothy: for it is evident Coloss. c. 2.1. that S. Paul when he wrote this Epistle had not seen the Laodiceans. 5. So Philastrius, har. 59 maketh mention of such an Epistle which was taken to be S. Paul's, but it was not publicly received, because of some doubtful sentences thrust in by some: but it was not S. Paul's Epistle, neither in part nor whole, for the reason before alleged, as Theodoret thinketh that it is a seyned and forged epistle. 6. Sixtus Senens. writeth, that there is an epistle of S. Paul's to the Laodiceans to be found in Paris, in an old book, in the library of Sorbon, and at Padway in the library of S. John: But that is not S. Paul's epistle, for it containeth nothing worthy of him: and whatsoever that epistle hath is more distinctly handled in the epistle to the Colossians: so that there was no reason, why S. Paul should will the Colossians to read that epistle. 7. this epistle then from Laodicea, was some epistle, which either the Laodiceans writ to S. Paul, whereunto he partly maketh answer, in that epistle to the Colossians, as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumeneus, or which they had written to the Colossians, Beza.

Quest. 17. Of the order of time, wherein S. Paul's several epistles were written.

This Epistle to the Romans, though it be placed first, yet is thought to have been written last of all those, which S. Paul did write before he was imprisoned at Rome. His epistles then are thought to have been written in this order: 1. the former epistle to the Thessalonians, seemeth to have been first written, which he sent unto them from Athens by Tychicus: for from Thessalonica he removed to Berea, from thence to Athens, Act. 17.2. And the same year while he was at Athens, he did write the second epistle also to the Thessalonians, explaining in the latter, that which he had written in the first concerning the coming of Christ, and the ende of the world: this was about the 17. year of his Apostleship, and the 9. year of the reign of Claudius the Emperor, Pareus. Chrysostom giveth this conjecture, why the epistles to the Thessalonians should be written before those to the Corinthians, because he saith, 2. Cor. 9.2. that Achaia was prepared a year ago: whereby he signifieth that he had formerly dealt herein with the Thessalonians, unto whom he thus writeth, 2. Thess. 4.9. as touching brotherly love, ye need not, that I write unto you, &c. yea and that thing ye verily do to all the brethren, which are throughout all Macedonia. It seemeth then that he had propounded this matter of benevolence, and alms to the Thessalonians, before he had written thereof to the Corinthians, Chrysost. in argum.

But here are two doubts moved concerning this epistle: from whence it was sent, and by whom: Barenius, to whom Pererius consenteth, thinketh it was written from Corinth: because S. Paul maketh mention, c. 3.6. of Timothy his return unto Paul, before this epistle was written, who found S. Paul at Corinth, Act. 18.1.5. But there it is said, that Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, when they found Paul at Corinth: therefore that might be another return, then this here mentioned, when Timothy came from Thessalonica: And that Paul was then at Athens, when he wrote this epistle is evident, c. 3.1. we thought it good to remain at Athens alone, &c. And of this opinion also are Athanasius in Synops. and Theodoret, that this epistle was sent from Athens.

But these forenamed fathers think also, that this epistle was sent by Timothy: because it followeth, c. 3.2. and have sent Timothy our brother, &c. who they think carried this epistle: yet it is more probable that it was sent by some other, and most like by Tichicus: Pareus: for the inscription of the epistle is in Paul, Siluanus, & Timothy name: it is not like, that he would send Timothy salutation, he being the messenger to carry the epistle: for salutation and greeting is sent in the name of those which are absent.

3. The third epistle in order was the former Epistle to Timothy, which he wrote from Laodicea, the chief city of Phrygia parationa, while he passed thorough that country, Act. 18.2.3. before he came to Ephesus, c. 19.1. for when S. Paul writ to Timothy, he purposed to see him shortly, 1. Tim. 3.14. as he did, out of Phrygia coming to Ephesus: this seemeth to have been about the 19. year of his conversion.

4. Next was written the former epistle unto the Corinthians: which was dated not from Philippi, as it is in the Greek subscription, but rather from Ephesus, as the Syrian and Arabian translation hath: for at this time Paul was at Ephesus, 1. Cor. 16.8. I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost: and as yet he was not come to Macedonia, where Phillippi was, as he saith, v. 5. I will pass thorough Macedonia : it seemeth then, that this epistle was written while Paul stated at Ephesus, before that commotion made by Demetrius: Beza annot. 1. Cor. 16.5 about the 19. year of Paul's conversion, the 54. year of our Lord, and in the 12. year of Claudius. Pareus.

5. Then followed the second epistle to the Corinthians, which was written from Philippi, as the usual subscription showeth: for after the tumult ceased in Ephesus, Paul departed to go into Macedonia, Act. 20.1. and from thence into Grecia, where he stayed 3. months: as he promised to come unto Corinthus with them of Macedonia, 2. Cor. 9.4. which he at that time performed.

6. About the same time also was written the Epistle to Titus from Nicopolis, which is not far from Philippi in Macedonia, whether he sent for Titus to come unto him: because he purposed there to winter, Tit.. 3.12. yet the Apostle afterward changed his mind, for he stayed three months in Grecia, and there wintred, Act. 20.3. as it is most like at Corinthus, Pareus. Aretius thinketh that this epistle was written before the latter to the Corinthians: the matter is not great: they were both written in a short time one after another: but it seemeth he first came to Philippi, whence he wrote to the Corinthians, and then to Nicopolis.

7. The last of all these, was written this epistle to the Romans, from Corinthus in his last passing thorough Macedonia and Grecia, when he went to Jerusalem, whence he was sent captive to Rome: for now he had received the alms to minister unto the Saints at Jerusalem, Rom. 15.25. which he had written before to the Corinthians to be gathered, 1. Cor. 16.2. 2. Cor. 8.6. which alms he now carried to Jerusalem, when he wrote this epistle, as he saith Act. 25.17. that he brought alms to his nation: This epistle to the Romans, as it was the last of those, which were written before he came to Rome, so yet was it before all the rest, which he sent from Rome, being there in bonds: Romanorum enim vnbem nondum accesserat, for he was not yet come to the city of Rome, when he wrote this epistle, Chrysostom.

These seven former epistles, S. Paul did write before he was carried prisoner to Rome: the other seven he sent after he came to Rome, for in all of them he maketh mention of his bonds: but whereas Paul is thought to have been twice in bonds at Rome, for otherwise being held to have come to Rome in the 2. year of Nero, he must either be thought after 2. years imprisonment at Rome to have suffered in the 4. year of Nero, which is against the opinion of all, or that he remained there 12. years prisoner, which is not like: Now then whether he writ these Epistles following, in his first, or second imprisonment and bonds at Rome, it is uncertain, Pareus.

8. The first written from Rome was the epistle to the Galatians, wherein he maketh mention of the marks of the Lord Jesus, which he did bear in his body, c. 6.17. meaning his chains, or torments, which he endured: this may seem to have been in the beginning of his second boads, Pareus. Chrysostom thinketh, that the epistle to the Galatians was before this to the Romans: but that cannot be: for when he sent this epistle to the Romans, he had not yet seen them, for he saith, c. 1.11. I long to see you, &c. neither had been at Rome: but from Rome he sent the Epistle to the Galatians, then being in bonds, as both the subscription of the Epistle showeth, and the mentioning of the marks of the Lord Jesus, c. 6.17. Aretius thinketh that this was written last of all, saving the epistle to the Hebrews: because the Apostle saith, c. 6.17. from hence let no man put me to business: ego enim modo immolar, for I now am ready to be offered: but these words are not there: he saith, for I bear in my body the marks, &c.

9. The next was the epistle to the Ephesians, where he maketh mention also of his bonds, c. 6.22. Pareus.

10. Then the epistle to the Philippians, in the which he maketh mention of some in Caesar's household, which sent salutations, c. 4.22. Pareus. Aretius will have this the first epistle sent in his bonds, because he maketh mention thereof as of a new thing, c.i.v. 7. but by this reason the epistle to Philemon should be first, because in the very title he saith, Paul a prisoner of Jesus Christ: These epistles, the order whereof cannot be proved otherwise out of the epistles themselves, are best holden to have been written in that order wherein they are placed.

11. The last of all the epistles written in S. Paul's first bands seemeth to be the epistle to the Hebrews: Pareus maketh it the first written from Rome: but because he saith, they of Italy salute you, c. 13.23. it may seem he was dismissed from Rome, and preached in Italy: Baronius, and before him Aretius, think it was the last of all S. Paul's epistles: but that is not like, because it seemeth when he writ this epistle, he was delivered from his bonds at Rome, and was in Italy: therefore I think that it was upon the same reason, the last which S. Paul did write in his first imprisonment, as Pererius.

12. The next was the epistle to Philemon, but written in S. Paul's last bonds: Pareus and Aretius think the Epistle to the Colossians was written first: but Chrysostom giveth the priority of this epistle to Philemon, upon this reason: because, Coloss. 4.9. the Apostle maketh mention of Onesimus a faithful and beloved brother whom he sent with Tiobicus unto the Colossians: but it is like he had first reconciled him to his master Philemon, whose servant he had been, without whose mind he would do nothing, Philem. 14. him therefore it is like he first of all sent to Philemon his master, with that epistle, before he would employ him.

13. Then followeth the epistle to the Colossians, wherein he prayeth them to be mindful of his bonds. These two last epistles, 1. I neither think with Pererius to have been written in S. Paul's first bonds, because he calleth himself now in the epistle to Philemon, which was written before this to the Colossians, Paul aged: and though he writeth v. 21. as hoping to be delivered, yet it pleased God otherwise. 2. neither yet do I think with Pareus, that all but the Epistle to the Hebrews written from Rome, are to be referred to S. Paul's last bonds: because in some of them he writeth very confidently of his deliverance, as Philip. 1.25. This I am sure of, that I shall abide, &c. these two then, with the latter epistle to Timothy, were written in S. Paul's last bonds.

14. The last was the second epistle to Timothy, which was after the other to the Colossians: for Demas was now fallen away, 2. Timoth. 4.10. who yet continued with Paul, when he writ to the Colossians, c. 4.14. Aretius. And that this was the last of all, is evident, 2. Tim. 4.6. where he saith, I am ready to be offered up, and the time of my departure is at band. Chrysost. Pareus.

But Pererius much differeth and dissenteth, as touching the order of time of the writing of these epistles: whose placing of them with the reasons of his opinion shall briefly be examined.

1. The Epistles to the Corinthians he thinketh to have been written before the 1. epistle to Timothy: which is affirmed to have been written in the third place before either of these epistles: for if Paul writ the 1. epistle to the Corinthians from Ephesus, as Pererius confesseth, and it is evident, 1. Cor. 16.8. then must the 1. epistle to Timothy be the former: for when S. Paul writ to Timothy he had not yet been at Ephesus, but he purposed to see Timothy shortly, 1. Tim. 3.14.

2. Next to the epistles to the Corinthians, he placeth the former to Timothy, which must go before upon the reason alleged.

3. After the epistles to the Corinthians he setteth the Epistle to Titus, which followed indeed in that order, as is shown before: saving that he thinketh it was not written from Nicopolis, which is most probable, because he saith, c. 3.12. Be diligent to come unto me to Nicopolis, for I am determined there to winter: for although these words may bear that sense, that he was not yet come to Nicopolis, but had it in his mind to be there: yet the subscription to the epistle, affirming that it was written from Nicopolis, ought to sway that way especially, the text favoring that sense.

4. The epistle to the Galatians he thinketh to have had the 5. place next to that to Titus, with Chrysostom: But Theodorets opinion is rather to be received, who thinketh it was written from Rome, and therefore after the epistle to the Romans, as is shown before, loc. 9.

5. The Epistle to the Romans was the last of those which S. Paul writ before he was in bonds at Rome, as hath been shown before, loc. 7.

6. Then follow the other epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Hebrews: saving that Pererius will have the epistle to the Galatians before this to the Romans: and the epistle to the Hebrews last of all, but the two epistles to Timohie: whereas the Epistles to Philemon, and the Colossians, were after it: see before, loc. 13.

7. Last of all Pererius placeth the second to Timothy: which was written last of all, when Paul was ready to be offered up, as he writeth 2. Tim. 4.6. and that the time of his departure was at hand: Baronius therefore is deceived, who thinkeh it was written before the epistles to the Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews: And whereas it will be objected, that S. Paul when he writ this epistle was delivered out of the mouth of the lion, meaning Nero, 2. Timoth. 4.17. and therefore this epistle was written in his first, not in his second bonds. Chrysostom and Theodoret do answer, that S. Paul speaketh here of his first bonds, that at his first answering he was delivered: But 〈◊〉 the former places, he speaketh of his state and condition, wherein he then presently was, every day expecting death, and looking for the time of his dissolution.

Quest. 18. That it is no point of curiosity, but a thing very requisite to know the diverse times of the writing of S. Paul's Epistles.

1. Not for that reason, which Origen supposeth, to know how the Apostle profited, v • detur in hac epistola perfectior fuisse quam in caeteris, he seemeth to have been more perfect in this epistle then in the rest: for to the Corinthians he writeth, 1. Cor. 9. Least when I have preached to others, I should be a reprobate: he so saith, quasi res non indubitata esset, as though it were a thing which he was not fully resolved of: and to the Philippians he saith, 3.12. not as though I had already attained unto it: But in this epistle he speaketh as a man thoroughly resolved: he was persuaded that nothing could separate him from the love of God in Christ, c. 8.38, 39. sic fere Origen's.

Contra. 1. The places alleged prove no such uncertainty of assurance of salvation in Paul: for in the first, he speaketh not of reprobation before God, but in the opinion of men, least they might judge him as a reprobate, if his life should be contrary to his doctrine: in which sense he useth the word, 2. Cor. 13.7. though we be as reprobates, that, is in man's judgment: In the other place he speaketh of the full possession of the inheritance, not of the perfect assurance. 2. the epistle to the Philippians was written after that to the Romans, as hath been shown: therefore it is impertinently alleged to prove greater perfection to have been in the Apostle, when he writ to the Romans, then when he indicted the epistle to the Philippians. 3. The same assurance of salvation, which S. Paul professeth Rom. 8. he showeth also, 2. Cor. 2.9. the things which eye hath not seen, &c. which God hath prepared for those that love him: But God hath revealed them unto us by his spirit, &c. Here the Apostle, in saying ( us ) persuaded himself to be one of those, to whom these things were revealed and prepared.

2. But Chrysostom better showeth the reason, why it is profitable to distinguish of the time of the writing of these epistles: because the Apostle handleth the same things diversely, treating of circumcision and other Ceremonies: for to the Romans he saith concerning such things, c. 14. him that is weak in the faith receive unto you. But to the Galatians, he writeth more sharply, c. 5.2. If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing: and to the Colossians he calleth them the ordinances of the world, the commandments and doctrines of men, Coloss. 2.20.22. the reason of which difference Chrysostom allegeth to be this: quia principio condescendere oportuit, successu temporis non item, because in the beginning the Apostle was to condescend and yield somewhat, but not so afterward: like as physicians and schoolemasters do more gently and tenderly use their patients, and young scholars at the first, then afterward.

Quest. 19. Of the order of placing the Epistles, and why this to the Romans is set first.

1. Athanasius in Synops. placeth the 7. canonical epistles before S. Paul's, which are fourteen in all: and of them the epistle to the Hebrews he maketh the tenth next before the epistles to Timothy: Luther setteth the epistle to the Hebrews after S. John's epistles, and divideth it from S. Paul's: Tertullian lib. 5. cont. Marcionem, placeth them in this order, the epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians: But the best order is, that which is usually received, to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, to Timothy, Titus, Philemon, to the Hebrews.

2. And why the epistle to the Romans is prefixed before the rest, the reasons are these: 1. not for that it was the first in time, for the contrary is shown before. 2. nor so much for the prolixity and largeness thereof, as the prophesy of I say in that behalf is set first, Pareus. 3. or for the dignity of that nation, because the Romans, were chief Lord's of the world, Aretius. for this had been but a temporal respect. 4. or for the dignity and excellency of the Roman Church: for he giveth the preeminence to the Jews: whom he calleth the olive tree, and the Gentiles the banches of the wild olive tree, c. 11.5. But the chief reason was, because of the excellent matter: this epistle treateth of that principal question of justification by faith (which is handled also in the epistle to the Galatians, but here more at large) and of the chief questions beside of Christian religion, as of the works of nature, c. 1.2. the force of the law, c. 7. the fruits of justifying faith, c. 5. of election and reprobation, c. 9. of the calling of the Gentiles, and the rejection of the Jews, c. 11. of the diversity of gifts, c. 12. of the duty towards Magistrates, c. 12. of the use of indifferent things, c. 14.15. so that this epistle is as a catechism and introduction to Christian religion, and therefore is worthily set before the rest: Aretius, Pareus.

Quest. 20. Unto whom this epistle to the Romans was written, and from whence.

1. It was not written generally to the whole Roman state: for the Emperor of Rome with his Princes, ministers, and officers, were persecutors of the Church of God: but it was directed to those among the Romans, whether of that nation or strangers, both Jews and Gentiles, that had embraced the Gospel of Christ: Aretius, Faius. As now in the Roman papal state we doubt not but there are many, which profess the gospel of Christ, and are members of the true Church.

2. And although this epistle were personally directed to the Romans, yet it entreateth of the common faith, which concerneth the whole Church of God, and to the use thereof is general: and that which was written unto them, is written unto us. As that which our Blessed Savior said unto his Apostles, he said unto all, Mark. 13.37. So that which the Apostles did write to some special Churches, they did write unto all, Gryneus.

3. This epistle was written from Corinthus, as not only the subscription showeth both in the Greek and Syriac, but Origen beside doth collect so much by these three arguments out of the text it self: 1. It was sent by Phebe a servant of the Church of Cenchrea, Rom. 16.1. which Cenchrea is near unto Corinth, yea, portus ipse Corinth, the very haven of Corinth. 2. he saith, Gaius mine host, and of the whole Church saluteth you, c. 16.23. which Gaius dwelt at Corinth: as the Apostle saith, 1. Cor. 1.14. I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gains. 3. he addeth further, Erastus the chamberlaine of the city saluteth you: which Erastus is the same, whom Paul left at Corinth, 2. Timoth. 4.20.

Quest. 21. Of the excellency and worthiness of this epistle.

Three things do commend this epistle, 1. the matter, 2. the form, 3. the kind and method.

1. Concerning the matter, it containeth the chief articles, and most weighty points of the Christian faith, as is partly shown before, qu. 6. Origen further setteth it forth thus: multa de lege Mosis connectuntur, &c. many things are knit together in this epistle, as of the law of Moses, of the calling of the Gentiles, of Israel, which is according to the flesh, and of Israel not according to the flesh: of the circumcision of the heart, and of the flesh, of the spiritual law, and the law of the letter: of the Law of the members, and the law of the mind, of the law of sin, of the inward and outward man: to this purpose, Origen. praefat. in epistol. ad Romanos.

2. The form and method of this epistle is most exact: consisting of the definition of that, which is handled, and the tractation and explication thereof: for the most perfect and artificial Method is that which beginneth with the definition: as the Apostle showeth what the Gospel is, it is the power of God to salvation to everyone that believeth, c. 1. v. 16. in the which definition are expressed all the causes thereof: the efficient and author, (God) the ende salvation, the material cause Christ Jesus, the formal, faith and belief in us, and on God's behalf his efficacious power: Gryneus. In the amplyfying and tractation of this definition, all the rest of the epistle is bestowed: as this proposition, that we are justified by the Gospel, that is by faith and belief in Christ, is further amplified by the contrary, that we cannot be justified either by the works of nature, c. 11.2. or of the Law, c. 3. but by grace, and faith, c. 4. by the effects of justifying faith, inward, the peace of conscience, c. 5. outward, the fruits of holiness, c. 6. by the contrary operation of the law, which revealeth sin, c. 7. but the Gospel freeth from condemnation, c. 8. by the cause, the free election of God, c. 9. by the subject, the Gentiles called, the Jews rejected, c. 11. See more hereof concerning the Method, in the general argument of the epistle before.

3. For the kind of epistle: It is principally definitive and demonstrative: for he defineth and determineth that we are justified, neither by the works of nature, nor of the law, but by faith in Christ; and proveth the same by most evident demonstration: Beside this epistle hath somewhat of all other kinds of epistles, which are called accessaria, accessory and secundarie: as it is both gratulatorie, rejoicing for their faith, c. 1. and it is reprehensorie, rebuking the Gentiles for their licentiousness: it is also exhortatorie, exhorting to holiness of life, c. 6.12. and it is deprecatorie, he prayeth and maketh request, praying for increase of grace in them, and for himself, that he might have some good occasion to come unto them. Aretius.

1. Doct. Of the godly custom and use of the Church, in laying the foundation of religion, which is Catechising.

This commendable use was taken up by the Apostles themselves: as the Apostle showeth, Hebr. 6.1. he calleth it the doctrine of beginnings, and the laying of the foundation: as of repentance, faith, baptism, the resurrection, of eternal judgment: And so in this epistle, the Apostle delivereth a perfect form of catechism: which consisteth of three parts, of the misery of man by nature, his reparation and restitution by grace, and then of his thankfulness afterward, in his obedience of life, for the benefits received: which three parts, the Apostle doth at large handle in this epistle: what man is by nature, he showeth, c. 1.2.3. what by grace, c. 4.5.8. and of the fruits of regeneration he entreateth, c. 6. c. 12. So that it is false which Bellarmine affirmeth, that the Apostle delivered no form of catechizing, to the Church: l. 4. de verb. Dei. c. 4. for he doth it most plainly & evidently in this epistle. Pareus.

1. Contr. That it is known, that this Epistle was written by S. Paul, and is of divine authority, by the Epistle it self.

Bellarmine affirmeth, that to know, that any Scripture is divine or Canonical, it cannot be concluded out of the Scripture it self: neither which were the writings of S. Paul, or that the Gospel of S. Matthew was written by Matthew, without the tradition of the Church. Bellar. lib. 4. de verb. c. 4.

Contra. 1. That the Epistles of Saint Paul are of divine, and Canonical authority, it appeareth evidently out of the writings themselves: for they being written by Saint Paul, who had the spirit of God, 1. Corinth. 7.40. and had Christ speaking in him, 2. Cor. 13.13. and was taught of God, from whom he received his doctrine by revelation, Gal. 1.12. it is not to be doubted, but that his holy writings proceeded from the spirit of God, and so are of divine authority: and he himself doubteth not to make them canonical, as he saith, Gal. 6.16. Whosoever walketh according to this canon or rule, &c. And he denounceth anathema, if any, yea an Angel, should teach any other Gospel, then he had preached, Gal. 1. 2. Likewise that S. Paul was the author and writer of them, it is evident, both by the inscription and title, and by the salutation in the ende of every epistle, and the benediction which he useth, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all: which he saith is the token or mark to know his epistles by, 2. Thess. 3.17. 3. The tradition of the Church is an vncerten thing: that which is vncerten cannot be a rule and measure of that, which is most certain: the testimony of men, cannot assure us of the testimony of God, Christ saith, John. 5.33. Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth: but I receive not the record of men, &c. 36. I have a greater witness, then the witness of John, &c.

2. Contr. That S. Paul's epistles are not so obscure, that any should be terrified from the reading thereof.

In the Preface to Toletus commentary, the epistles of S. Paul are affirmed to be hard, out of Jerome and Origen, contr. Whitakerum hareticum, against Whitaker that heretic: as it pleaseth that railing taxer, to call that learned godly man.

Contr. 1. True it is, that as S. Peter saith, some things are hard in S. Paul's epistles, 1. Pet. 3.16. he saith not, that many things are hard, or that the Epistles are hard, but only some (few) things in them: this letteth not, but that his Epistles may safely be read of all, that read them with an humble mind, desirous to profit thereby: the danger is only to the unlearned, and unstable which pervert them, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, as S. Peter in the same place saith. 2. And even those hard places may be made easy by diligent reading: as Chrysostom giveth this instance; like as we know their mind whom we love and observe, and are familiar with them, & vti{que} si lectioni cum animi alacritate volueritis attendere, &c. so you if you will with cheerful attention give yourselves to reading, ye shall need no other help, &c. hinc vt innumera mala nata sunt, quod scripturae ignorantur, hence so many evils have sprung up, because the Scriptures are not known; hence so many heresies, &c. the ignorance then, not the reading of Scripture, breedeth heresies: and thus he concludeth, oculos ad splendorem Apostolicorum verborum aperiamtu, let us open our eyes to receive the brightness of the Apostolical words, &c. they do not then cast darkness upon our eyes, but bring brightness and clearness. Chrysost. argum. in epist. ad Rom.

3. Controv. Against the Ebionites, which retained the rites and ceremonies of Moses.

Whereas the Ebionites thought the rites of the Law necessary, and joined them together with the Gospel, which heresy did much trouble the Church in the Apostles time, and is at large confuted in the epistles of S. Paul to the Galatians, and Colossians: the same also in this epistle is convinced, and confounded: for the Apostle renounceth the works of the Law, whether the ceremonial and moral, as having no part in the matter of justification, which he concludeth to be by faith, without the works of the law, c. 3. And he showeth directly, c. 4.10. that Abraham's faith was imputed to him for righteousness, when as yet he was uncircumcised, least his justification might be thought to have depended upon his circumcision.

4. Controv. Against the Marcionites, which rejected the law of Moses.

These wicked heretics too much depraved the law of Moses, with the rites thereof, (as the other extolled it too much) affirming that it was not appointed nor commanded, by the good and gracious God, but by the Prince of the darkness of this world. But these also are sufficiently confuted in this epistle: for S. Paul commendeth the ceremonies of the Old Testament, as fit for those times, and figures of things to come: as he calleth circumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith, c. 4.11. and this testimony he giveth of the moral law, Rom. 7.12. Wherefore the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy, just, and good, &c.

5. Controv. Against the Romanists, which deprave the doctrine taught by S. Paul in this epistle.

Bellarmine in his controversies, and Stapleton in his Antidotes, do apparently impugn the holy doctrine of the Apostle in this epistle in diverse points. 1. Justification by the imputation, and apprehension of faith, which we call imputative justice, they condemn, as a lie and untruth: whereas the Apostle directly teacheth, c. 4.5. That to him that worketh not, but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, faith is counted for righteousness: and v. 8. Blessed is he, to whom the Lord imputeth not his sin. So that it is evident by the Apostle, that our justification before God, is in the not imputing of sin, and in the imputing of Christ's righteousness by faith.

2. The Romanists do teach, that a man, as long as he liveth here, cannot be certain of faith, whether he believeth, of remission of sins, whether he be justified, of reconciliation, whether he be in the state of grace, of adoption, whether he be the child of God, of life eternal, whether he shall be saved. Contrarie to the Apostle, who showeth, that by faith, we may be assured of all these: as of remission of sins, for otherwise we could not be at peace with God, which we obtain being justified by faith, c. 5.1. of adoption, that by the spirit we can call God, Abba, father, c. 8.15. of everlasting salvation, for there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, c. 8.1.

3. Whereas the Apostle would have every soul subject to the higher powers, c. 13.1. they exempt all their Clergy from the power of the Magistrate, and so in a manner the one half of the multitude: for if their Cardinals, Prelates, Priests, Monks, Friers, Pardoners, with all their ministers, be put together, à media multitudinis puto vix aberit, they will not want much of the half part. Pareus in praefat. But these controversies shall more fully be handled, when we come to deal with them afterward in particular.

6. Controv. Against Socinus, that blasphemously subuerteth the doctrine of our redemption by Christ, and justification by faith.

This blasphemous Socinus not many years since, set forth a book in Polonia, wherein he maketh Christ no otherwise the Savior of the world, then Moses, in teaching the people by his example to live well: and so doing, they shall inherit eternal life: he further most impudently affirmeth, that we have no need of any Reconciler or Redeemer with God: but that he died for our sins, no otherwise then the Martyrs, not to make any satisfaction for us, but only to give us example. These and other such wicked assertions, hath he published in that book: Pareus in praefat.

Thus this wicked heretic opposeth himself to the most holy doctrine of S. Paul: who evidently teacheth, that as faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness, so is it to us, c. 4.24. and that when we were enemies, we were reconciled unto God by the death of Christ, c. 5.10. and that by Christ's obedience we are made righteous, c. 5.19. But such wicked assertions, need no confutation, it is sufficient to propound them: for who cannot, that hath the least spark of grace, but at the very first naming of them abhor them?

7. Controv. Whether Paul may be thought to have been married.

The Rhemists much mislike our English translation, because we read, Philip. 4.3. faithful roake-fellow, so translating the Greek words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as though we thereby intended to prove that S. Paul had a wife: which they say is contrary to the Apostles words, 1. Cor. 7.8. where he wisheth the unmarried to abide as he did: Anxot. Philip. 4.3.

Contra. 1. The Protestants do not much insist upon it, whether Paul had a wife or no, neither do they much urge this place to that purpose: yet Clemens Alexandrin. out of this very place inferreth so much, that the Apostle by yoke-fellow, understandeth his wife: lib. 4. stromat. Eusebius also is of the same mind, that Paul was married, joining him with Peter and Philip, which were both married. 2. Yet it followeth not, because Paul was unmarried, when he writ unto the Corinthians, that he was so always. 3. And what though Paul were not married, it is sufficient, that he had liberty to take a wife, as the other Apostles did, 1. Cor. 9.5. Aretius.

But we will somewhat more distinctly yet consider of this question, of S. Paul's marriage, whereof there are diverse opinions.

1. Some think that he was a perpetual virgin and never married, of which opinion is Tertullian, who calleth S. Paul, Euangelicum spadonem & custratum, the Evangelical Eunuch, who had made himself chaste: and he saith further, Petrum solum invento maritum, I find Peter only, of the Apostles to have been an husband: lib. de Monogom. So thinketh Jerome, that Paul was a virgin: epist. 22. And Epiphanius, haeres. 58. reckoneth among those, qui perpetuo coluerunt virginitatem, which were perpetual virgins, Helias in the Old Testament, and Paul in the new. Ambrose likewise, and Theodoret, do give this reason, that S. Paul before his conversion was too young to be married: and after he was converted, it is not like he desired marriage, which he had neglected before. Of the same judgment are Theophylact, Oecumenius, Beda upon the 7. c. 1. epist. ad Corinth. The chief reason of Paul's virginity they ground upon these words, 1. Cor. 7.8. I say unto the unmarried, and unto the widows, it is good for them, if they abide, even as I. But this only showeth that S. Paul at that time was not married, not that he never had been married: and that conjecture that Paul was not of age to be married before he was converted, hath no probability, seeing he was put in great authority by the high Priest, of whom he received letters to persecute the Disciples at Damascus, Act. 9.1, 2.

2. An other opinion is, that S. Paul had a wife both before his conversion and after: so Ignatius epist. ad Philadelphens. Clemens Alexander. lib. 3. stromat. Leo 9. distinct. 31. c. 11. Catetanus and Catharinus, in 4. cap. ad Philippens. and Erasmus likewise: their grounds are out of two places, 1. Cor. 9.5. Have we not power to lead about a wife being a sister, as well as the rest of the Apostles? and, Philipp. 4.3. I beseech thee, faithful yoakefellow, help those (women,) which labored with me in the Gospel.

But neither of these places prove any such thing. The first we refuse not, neither upon Tertullian's reason, because it goeth before, Have we not power to eat and drink? that he speaketh of such women which ministered unto them victuals: or Jerome's, who thinketh because the name sisters is added, he understandeth rather other women, then their proper wives, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth both a wife and a woman: for their wives also were their sisters in profession: or Augustine's, who saith the Apostle, non ducendi, sed circumducendi • ocabulo vsus est, used not the word of leading to marry, but leading about: But the special reason, why we refuse this place is, because at the same time, that S. Paul wrote this epistle, he counted himself among those which were unmarried, 1. Cor. 7.8. This place only showeth, that S. Paul had power to carry about a wife, as the rest of the Apostles did: but not that he used this power: as likewise he had liberty not to work, as it followeth in the same place, v. 6. Or I only and Barnabas, have we not power not to work? yet he wrought with his hands notwithstanding.

The other place is rather to be understood of some helper, that was most nearly joined unto S. Paul in the work of the Gospel, then of his wife: for as Caietane well noteth, seeing S. Paul was unmarried before, when he was at liberty, and wrote the first epistle to the Corinthians, it is not like he took him a wife afterward, being now a prisoner at Rome, when he sent this epistle to the Philippians: and beside, the Syrian translator putteth it out of doubt, who useth here the masculine gender, as Beza noteth, which is ambiguous in the Greek.

3. Some other leave the matter in suspense, not determining, whether S. Paul were married or not: as Origen in the beginning of his commentary upon this epistle: to which opinion it is safest to subscribe: to hold it as a matter indifferent, whether S. Paul were at any time married or not, seeing it is not expressed in Scripture. It sufficeth, that he saith he had power to lead about a sister a wife, as well as the rest.

But now Pererius out of some fathers, as Jerome, Augustine, contendeth that it must rather be interpreted, a woman being a sister, for the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , here used, signifieth both a woman, and a wife: which conceit is removed by these sufficient reasons:

1. They in thus reading, a woman a sister, do invert the order of the words: which stand thus in the original, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a sister a wife: if they will have it, a sister a woman, that were superfluous, seeing the word sister also includeth the other: for she could not be a sister, but she must be a woman too.

2. It was more seemly, that seeing the Apostles had women in their company to minister unto them, it was more fit and convenient, that their own wives should go about with them, then other women, which had not been without offense.

3. Likewise the very phrase, of leading about a sister, showeth some authority and command, such as husbands have over their wives, and masters over their servants, as Peter Martyr well note • h: the Apostles had power to lead about their own wives, who were not to forsake their husbands: but over other women they had not that power.

4. And if this were to be understood of rich and wealthy women, which accompanied the Apostles, and ministered unto them of their substance, they had been no charge unto the Churches, whether the Apostles came: and so this had been no privilege to the Apostles, to bring such women with them, as should support their charges. But the Apostle here standeth upon his privilege and immunity, if he had thought good to have used it, that he might, as the other Apostles, have lead about a wife: Beza. So that whether S. Paul were married or not, it sufficeth, that he might have taken a wife, if he would.

1. Observ. Of the singular profit that may arise by reading of this Epistle to the Romans.

This Epistle hath a double use, either to instruct us in the right judgment of the greatest mysteries of Christian Religion, as of justification by faith, of the Law, of Election, of certainty of salvation, as also to stir us up to the works of piety. Origen only commendeth the reading of the latter part of the Epistle, from c. 12. to the ende: the other part, he thinketh not to be so necessary, as handling only questions about the ceremonies of the Law: but herein I prefer rather the judgment of Chrysostom, who often caused S. Paul's epistles to be read in his hearing, even twice every week: argument. in epist. ad Roman. and Augustine professeth he was much addicted to the reading of S. Paul, lib. 7. confess. c. 3. It was an ancient use in times past in the Church, that they which were appointed to the Ministry, should get without book, the Psalms and the prophesy of Isai in the Old Testament, and the Gospel of S. Matthew, with S. Paul's epistle in the new: It shall be profitable for every Christian likewise to follow the same godly use, especially to acquaint themselves with the divine writings of S. Paul: and everyone may say with Chrysostom, gaudeo equidem, quod spirituali illa tuba frui datum sit, I am glad, that I may enjoy that spiritual trumpet, &c. in argum. ad. Roman.

Quest. 1. Why Paul setteth his name before this epistle.

1. Chrysostom giveth this reason, why neither Moses prefixeth his name before his books, not yet the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, before their gospels, ill quippe praesentibus scribentes, &c. for they writing unto these which were present, had no cause to set to their names: But Paul, quia longe remotis scribebat, &c. because he did write to those, which were a far off, had reason to set to his name, after the manner of epistles. 2. But Paul for another reason doth suppress his name, writing to the Hebrews, quia non erunt amico in Paulum animo, because they had no friendly mind toward Paul: and therefore as soon as they had heard his name, they would presently have rejected the whole epistle, Chrysostom. 3. And S. Paul being appointed to be the doctor of the Gentiles, useth rather to instruct them by epistles, then by sermons, as the Prophets, or commentaries, as the Evangelists, or dialogues, as lob: because he did write unto many Churches: And so as the form of epistles requireth, he setteth his name in the inscription, that it may be known whose epistle it was. Hyperius.

Quest. 2. Of the two names of the Apostle, Saul, and Paul, what they signify.

1. Concerning Saul: Ambrose in his commentary thinketh it signifieth unquiet, wrestles, alluding unto the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifieth the troublesome motion of the waves of the Sea: and the letter υ being put unto it, it maketh 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Erasm. annot. But Saul being an Hebrew name, the derivation thereof must be taken from the Hebrew: Saul then is derived of the Hebrew word, shaal, and it signifieth asked or begged, Erasm. ibid. Tolet.

2. Of the derivation of the name Paul, there are diverse opinions. 1. Jerome sometime thinketh, that it should come of the Hebrew word pelah, which signifieth wonderful, comment. in Philemon. 2. Some will have it rather derived of paghal, which signifieth to do, or work, because he was God's workman, and the Lord wrought by him as his instrument, Tolet. 3. Remigius saith, it signifieth in the Hebrew os tuba, the mouth of a trumpet: for so S. Paul was the Lord's trumpet to found forth the gospel, Gorrham. but Aretius saith well, ex proprijs linguis derinatio nominum petenda, that the derivation of names must be fetched from the proper languages: from the Hebrew tongue then, words which are not Hebrew, cannot take their derivation. 4. Some do make it a Greek name, and to be derived of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , quietness, of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to rest, to be quiet. But Aretius well noteth, that Paul is found to be no proper name among the ancient Greek writers, Homer, Hesiode, Herodotus, Thucydides: but only in the late Greek historians, Plutarke, Appion, Dion, which turned the Latin histories into Greek. 5. Augustine thinketh that it is a Latin name derived of the adverb paulum, little: whereby S. Paul signified his humility: and herein Bed • followeth Augustine. 6. But their conjecture is best, that take it to be a proper name used among the Romans: as Paulus Aemilius and other famous Romans were called by this name, Beza.

Quest. 3. Upon what occasion the names Saul was turned to Paul.

1. Origen thinketh, that the Apostle had two names from the beginning, as Matthew was called Levi: and it was the manner of the Hebrews to use diverse names: and he giveth this reason, because it is said, Act. 13.9. Saul, which is called Paul, that be began not then to have two names, but was so called before: and his parents because they were Jews of the tribe of Benjamin called him Saul, and being citizens of Rome also by privilege, they called him Paul, according to the Roman names: But Toletus thus objecteth, that if he had two names from the beginning, S. Luke would have expressed them before, whereas he is only called Saul in the history going before the 13. chapter: otherwise there is great probability in this opinion, that the Apostle was called both Saul and Paul, but not at the same instant, neither from the beginning, but afterward.

2. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Theodulus, all these are of opinion, that the Apostles name was changed from Saul to Paul, by God himself, as Abraham and Jacob's names were changed, and Peters, that herein he should not be inferior to Peter. But Jerome in commentar, in Philemon, and Sedulius, do refute this opinion by this reason, because mention is made in Scripture of the change of their names, so is there not of this: and Tolet addeth further that Peters name was not changed, but somewhat added to it: he was called Simon Peter: But after the Apostle began to be called Paul, he is no more named Saul.

3. Jerome in epist. ad Philem. whom Lyranus follow, think, that Paul after the conversion of Sergius Paulus, would be called by his name, as a monument of that triumph in converting a chief man of the Gentiles to the Christian faith: Sedulius and Anselm do reject this opinion, because there is no such use and custom in the Scripture for Saints to take unto them names upon any such occasion: And again, this had not beseemed Paul's humility to have taken the glory of that victory to himself, which was due unto Christ, Tolet. and rather Sergius should have been called by Paul's name by whom he was converted and baptized, then Paul by his. Perer.

4. Ambrose and Augustine, think that the Apostles name was changed at the time of his conversion: and Ambrose giveth this reason, ex Saulo inquieto factum Paulum quietum &c. of unquiet Saul he was made quiet Paul, of a persecutor a preacher of the Gospel: But here Ambrose alludeth unto the Greek signification of these words, whereas Saul is an Hebrew name, and Paul a Latin, as is shown before: But Augustine rendereth another reason, which Beda followeth: Saulus factus est Paulus, primo superbus, postea humilis, Saul was made Paul, first proud, then humble: for Saul was a proud and cruel king, and persecuted David, and so Saul before his conversion persecuted the Church: this opinion Tolet approveth. But if Paul had been so called upon any of these occasions, S. Luke would have called him by that name before, presently after his conversion, whereas he maketh no mention of Paul until he came to the 13. chapter.

5. Therefore this is the most probable conjecture, that as long as S. Paul labored among them of the circumcision, he was called by his Hebrew name Saul. But after his calling to preach unto the Gentiles, he was called by a Roman name, Paul, not so much to show that he was a Roman by privilege, as to testify and profess himself the Apostle of the Gentiles, because the name of Paul was more acceptable unto the Gentiles, as being a Roman name: And Saul and Paul may be thought to be one and the same name in effect, and to differ no more, then Theodoricus in Latin, Dietrich in the Germane tongue, and Tierrie in French: as Iochanan in Hebrew, Johannes in Latin, and Iean in French: Beza annot. Act. 13.9. with whom agreeth Pareus. But Aretius objecteth, that Saul and Paul cannot be the same name, and one derived of the other, because Saul is an Hebrew name, and Paul a Latin or Roman: Tolet addeth further, that if they had been one and the same name, S. Luke would not have said, Saul which also is Paul.

Answ. 1. We do not say that Paul is derived of Saul, or of the same signification in the Latin, which Saul hath in the Hebrew: but that in likeness of sound the one cometh near the other, and so one might be taken for the other. 2. And though th • y be one name in effect, yet being diverse in language, and so differing, S. Luke may make mention of both, as John doth of Simon's new name, which was Cephas in Hebrew, and Peter in Greek, John 1.42. And this is an evident argument, these were not two diverse names of the Apostle at the same instant, because as soon as the Apostle began to be called Paul, he ceased to be named Saul.

Quest 4. At what time the Apostles name began to be called Paul.

1. Origen's opinion is, that from the beginning even of his nativity he was called by two names by his parents, so also Pererius: but that is not like, for then from the beginning of the story, S. Luke would have called him indifferently by the one name, as well as the other.

2. Ambrose and Augustine think, that this change was made at the time of their conversion: whose opinion is seen before: but this is unlike upon the former reason, because S. Luke maketh no mention of the name of Paul, at his first calling and conversion.

3. Jerome's opinion is, that he then first was called Paul when he converted Sergius Paulus: But he is so called before S. Luke setteth down the manner of his conversion, Acts. 13.9.

4. I prefer therefore their opinion, that think that Saul began then to be called Paul, when he was set apart by the Church of Antioch by the instinct of the spirit to preach among the Gentiles: thus Beza annot. and Catharinus a Popish writer. Pererius objecteth that after the Apostle was thus separate, and set apart by the Church, he is called Saul, and Barnabas was also separate with him, and yet his name is not changed: Answer. He is not called Saul after he was sent forth by the Church: but the last place wherein he is called Saul only, is v. 2. Separate me Barnabas and Saul, &c. But being now sent forth, they came first to the Isle Salamis, the deputy whereof was Sergius Paulus: and then he is called Saul, otherwise Paul, and ever after that, in all that history Paul only.

5. Quest. In what sense Paul calleth himself the servant of Jesus Christ.

1. Origen assigneth sour causes why Paul calleth himself, the servant of Jesus, 1. propter humilitatem to show his humility. 2. propter imitationem Christi, to imitate Christ, who said, I am in the middes among you, as one which ministereth. 3. And because he is thought to have been called, having a wife, in that respect he was a servant. 4. as long as we are in this body, we have not attained to perfect liberty, and therefore are as servants still: But all this being admitted to be true, that in all these respects Paul was a servant to Christ: yet they are too general, and agree unto other servants of Christ: whereas S. Paul doth make this somewhat more peculiar to himself. 3. Chrysostom saith, that three ways we are servants unto God: by the right of creation, by the obedience of faith, and the obedience of life and conversation: but yet these considerations are somewhat too general, and do not show, why the Apostle doth use this title specially of himself. 4. Some give this reason: the servant must be addicted to his masters religion: as Exod. 12.22. the servants bought for money, were to be circumcised: so Paul professeth himself a servant of Jesus Christ's, that is, of the Christian religion: so that writing to Christians, he might better persuade them hereby, professing the same religion, Aretius, Toletus. But in this sense, not only Paul, but every Christian is the servant of Jesus Christ. 5. Sedulius understandeth Paul to be a servant in respect of his ministry, which is a kind of service: But Tolet misliketh this, because his office and ministry is expressed in the next word following, wherein he maketh mention of his Apostleship. 6. Ambrose, Theodoret, Theodulus, interpret him to be a servant, because he was àlege liberatus, delivered from the Law: But this was not a peculiar privilege to Paul, but general to all Christians. 7. Therefore this holy Apostle in a peculiar, and special regard, calleth himself the servant of Jesus, in respect of his singular and miraculous conversion: by the which he was so obliged unto Christ, that he devoteth himself wholly to his service: so that both by his condition, he professeth himself Christ's servant, being by him redeemed from the tyranny and servitude of Satan, of a cruel persecutor and blaspemer, being made a worthy Apostle and preacher of the gospel: and so by his office also and ministry, he wholly doth consecrate himself to the setting forth of the Gospel of Christ.

Quest. 6. How Paul calleth himself a servant, seeing Christ saith, I will not call you servants, John. 15.15.

1. Jerome giveth this solution, that there is a double kind of service, one is a service of men, of the with Christ speaketh, I will not call you servants, but friends: the other is a service unto God, whereof David speaketh, I am thy servant, and the son of thine handmaid, Psal. 116.15. 2. Origen giveth this satisfaction, seruit Christo non in spiritu seruitutis, &c. he serveth Christ not in the spirit of servitude, but in the spirit of adoption: quia omni libertate nobilior est Christi seruitus, for Christ's service is more noble then any liberty. 3. But yet to speak hereof more distinctly: there is a theefold kind of service, seruitus peccati, the service of sin: whereof our Savior speaketh, John. 8.34. he that committeth sin is the servant of sin: there is seruitus humana, the service of men, from the first we are freed by faith in Christ, but not from the second: for the Apostles exhort those which are called being servants, to be obedient to their masters in the flesh: the third kind is the service of God: which is of two sorts, voluntary, as in the Angels and Saints: the which S. Paul meaneth here, and constrained, as in the devils, which are forced to be obedient to God's will: now there are two special bond of this service, both by right of the creation, we are God's creatures, and the workmanship of his hands, and therefore bound unto his service, and of our redemption in Christ, Perer. 4. And of this service unto God, there is a threefold consideration: there are servants, natura, conditione, statu, by nature, as by the right of creation, by condition, by the right of redemption: thus the faithful remain servants unto God: but they are not in the state of servants, but are freemen, though the Lord's servants, Tolet. 5. And of these servants unto God there are three kinds, 1. the worst sort is of those which serve only for fear: the middle sort is of such, which serve only for hope of reward: the third of those, qui Deo propter Deum serviunt, which serve God only for his own sake, Pererius.

Quest. 7. How S. Paul saith, called to be an Apostle.

1. Pererius note is somewhat curious here, as if the Apostle should have said, I dare not call myself an Apostle, but I am so called of all: for here the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , called, is not of the nature of a Participle, but rather of a noun, as Erasmus noteth and Beza, and it is as much, as if he should say, by calling an Apostle: so that this word rather showeth the authority by the which he was called, then the calling it self. 2. here may be noted the difference which the fathers make between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which both signify called: but the first is used of them which are called, and obey not, the other of them which are effectually called, and obey their calling which difference though it may well be observed here, yet it is not derpetuall, as Math. 22.19. Many are called, and few chosen, the word is there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beza. 3. not much unlike is Origen's distinction: between, electus and vocatus: elected to be an Apostle, and called to be an Apostle, Judas was an Apostle called, but not elected: which distinction, if by election be understood predestination, it holdeth well: otherwise in respect of the outward calling, Judas was both elected and called to be one of the twelve, Tolet. 4. the difference which Augustine here noteth between vocari, and congregari, to be called and congregate, or gathered together, is not generally true: the first he thinketh to be peculiar to the Church of Christ, the other to be used of the synagogue and Church of the Jews: for the Prophets in the Old Testament do use the word of vocation and calling, Beza. 5. there are two kinds of calling, one is general, as to be called to the knowledge of God: in what sense it is said, many are called, but few chosen: there is a special kind of calling, as to be called to some special office: as the Apostle saith, No man taketh this honor to himself, but he that is called of God, as Aaron, Heb. 4.5. S. Paul was called both ways, first to the knowledge of Christ when he was converted, Act. 9. then he was separated to the office of his Apostleship, Act. 13. Tolet. 6. And hereby S. Paul, in saying, called to be an Apostle, noteth two things: 1. that he did not take this honor upon him by intruding himself, but he was thereunto appointed of God, Erasm. 2. he showeth that the Apostolic dignity is not attained unto by any human merits, but by the grace only, and free gift of him that called, Perer. ex Thoma.

Quest. 8. Of the office and calling of an Apostle, what it was.

1. The word Apostle is taken, either aequivoce, in an equivocal and improper sense: and either in the better sort, as Andronicus and Iunta are said to be notable among the Apostles, Rom. 16.7. where the word is generally taken for one that is sent: or in the worse, as some are called false Apostles, 2. Cor. 11.13. 2. or the word is used vnivoce, properly: and that either in a kind of excellency, as Christ is called our high Priest and Apostle, Heb. 3.1. or else it is applied to the chief Ministers of the New Testament, which were properly called Apostles, Gryneus. 2. Jerome maketh four kinds of Apostles, that is of such as were sent, as the word signifieth. 1. Some were only sent from God, as the Prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, with the rest. 2. Some were ordained of God, but by men, as Moses consecrated Aaron to be high Priest: and Joshua to succeed him. 3. Some are sent by men, and not of God, as they which enter by corruption and bribes. 4. some intrude themselves being neither sent of God, nor by men. 3. the word Apostle generally signifieth any, that is sent, yet it properly also expresseth the highest office and dignity of Apostles in the Newe Testament: as S. Paul saith, 1. Cor. 12.20. God hath ordained some in the Church: as first, Apostles, secondly Prophets, thirdly teachers. 4. And though S. Paul were none of the 12. Apostles, yet he and Barnabas were also ordained of Christ, to be Apostles, of equal authority with the twelve.

Quest. 9. Diuerse points, wherein consisted the excellency of the Apostleship.

1. The Apostles were such as were immediately called by Christ, to preach his gospel through the world, as Matth. 28.20. Go and teach all nations.

2. They were such as had known Christ in the flesh, and were eyewitnesses of his miracles, and heard his sermons: as S. John saith, That which we have seen, and heard, declare we unto you, 1. epist. 1.3. And S. Paul though he had not known Christ in the days of his flesh, yet he saw him now being immortal and in glory by revelation.

3. They had the keys of the kingdom of heaven after a more special manner: that whatsoever they bound, or loosed in earth, should be bound and loosed in heaven, as Peter did bind up the sin of Simon Magus, and gave sentence against Ananias and Sapphira his wife.

4. They had authority both to discern the canonical Scripture, from that which was not canonical, as also to write new canonical books: as Paul, Matthew, Peter, John, Jude.

5. They had power to work miracles: to heal all manner of diseases: and to cast out devils: yea the very shadow of Peter as he passed by, was able to heal the sick, Act. 5.15. and the partlets and napkins that were brought from Paul's body to the sick, helped them, Act. 19.12.

6. They had the gift to speak with diverse tongues and languages: Pererius here addeth further, that they had another special grace: that speaking but in their own tongue, yet men of diverse languages did so understand them, as if they had spoken diverse languages: of the same opinion is Erasm. annot. Act. 2.8. But Beza well objecteth, that if this had been so, the miracle had not been in the Apostles speaking, but in the people's understanding: neither yet is it to be thought, that they spake diverse languages, at one and the same instant (as Erasmus objecteth) but that they spake diversely, unto several people, of diverse languages, as they were offered unto them.

7. This special prerogative the Apostles had, to be judges of men at the latter day: as our Savior saith, Matth. 19.28. That they shall sit upon 12. seats, and judge the 12, tribes of Israel: not that they shall sit as Judges to give sentence: but by the word and doctrine, which they had preached, and the world refused, shall men be judged as our blessed Savior in this sense saith, John. 12.48. He that refuseth me, and receiveth not my words, the word that I have spoken, it shall judge him in the last day.

8. The Apostles had power by laying on of their hands, to give the holy Ghost: which Simon Magus seeing, would by money have purchased the like power, Act. 8.

9. It was given them in all their doctrine to be free from error, as Christ promiseth, John. 16.13. that the spirit should lead them in all truth.

10. The Apostles in the knowledge of the mysteries and high things of the Gospel exceeded all other, as S. Paul saith, Ephes. 17. According to his rich grace, whereby he hath been abundant toward us in all wisdom and understanding.

11. Two other perogatives Pererius addeth, the one uncertain, the other false: first he saith, that the Apostles composed and framed the symbol, containing the 12. articles of the faith, commonly called the Apostles Creed, which is not certain: both because some of the articles, as that of the descension came in many years after the Apostles, as is elsewhere shown: and if the Apostles had set down this rule of faith, it is not like that diverse Churches would after them, have framed so many diverse forms beside of the Creed.

12. But the last privilege, that the Apostles post acceptum spiritum sanctum fuerint impeccabiles quantum ad peccatum mortal, after they had received the spirit, were without sin, &c. for 1. in this sense, that distinction of venial and mortal sin, is not to be allowed, that some are venial in their own nature: by the grace of God all sins were venial to the Apostles, and to all other believers: but in it own nature every sin deserveth death, and so is mortal, Rom. 6.23. 2. and that the Apostles were apt to sin, is evident by Peters oversight, for the which he was openly rebuked of S. Paul, Gal. 2.11. where he saith, he was to be blamed.

10. Quest. How S. Paul is said to be set, or put apart for the Gospel of God.

The word which the Apostle here useth, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , separated, or set apart. 1. Ambrose thinketh that here there is an allusion to the sect of the Pharisees, whereof S. Paul was, who were so called, because they were in a more strict kind of living separated from others. 2. Whereas S. Paul saith likewise, Galat. 2.15. that God separated him from his mothers womb, some interpret, ab vtero synagogae, he was separate from the womb of the Synagogue, gloss. interlin. à doctrina Phariseorum, from the doctrine of the Pharisees, gloss. ordinar. but this S. Paul expresseth in the words following, and called me by his grace, Gal. 2.15. 3. Hug. Cardin. segregatus à grege, he is said to be separated from the rest of the flock: but so were the other Apostles also. 4. Oecumen. alij ad alia, ego ad Euangelium, some were set apart for other things, I for the Gospel: but this was general also to all the other Apostles. 4. Anselmus, he is said to be segregatus, set apart, prae caeteris discipulis, &c. in respect of other disciples, which were with him, then at Antioch: when the Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul, Act. 13. but the Apostle speaketh of a separation even from his mothers womb, as he expoundeth himself, Gal. 2.15. 5. As these have special reference to Paul's actual separation, when he was called: so others refer it to the electing and foreordaining Paul to this work in the counsel of God. But Origen and Sedulius, ascribe this separation to Paul merits, that the Lord foresaw his merits and labors, which he should take in the Gospel, and therefore elected him to be an Apostle. But Tolet well confureth this, because it is contrary to S. Paul's own doctrine, Rom. 9. who ascribeth election to the mercy and grace of God: and he himself professeth, that he was called by the grace of God, Gal. 2.15. therefore not by any merits. 6. Chrysostom understandeth this separation, of his preordaining unto the Apostleship: as the Lord likewise saith to Jeremiah, c. 1.5. Before thou camest out of the womb, I sanctified thee: and so, inculcat divinam electionem, he doth urge his divine election, that his Epistle might be received with great authority: so also Peter Mart. he showeth his calling initium habuisse ex praedestinatione, to have taken beginning from God's predestination: which he maketh mention of, to show a difference between his calling to be an Apostle, who was thereunto also elected, and theirs, which were called, but not elected, as was Judas. Hyperi • . And further, apponit vitae priori, he setteth this against his former life: while he was a persecutor, all that he did, was per accidens & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as by the way, and out of course: but this was that whereunto he was ordained. Aretius. 7. But beside this eternal separation in God's prescience, here is somewhat noted, quod Paulus ab alijs Apostolis habuit peculiare, which Paul had peculiar even from other Apostles: he was appointed an Apostle to preach among all the Gentiles, as it followeth, v. 5. for the rest of the Apostles remaining in Judea, he first with Barnabas was separated to preach to the Gentiles, Act. 23. Tolet. And so consequently his office was to preach to the Romans among other Gentiles, Aretius. Here also he insinuateth his extraordinary calling to be an Apostle, diverse from the rest: he was separate from them, being an Apostle above the number of the twelve: Mathias was chosen in the place of Judas, and so did but fill up that number: but S. Paul was over and above, Tolet. so S. Paul was separate first unto eternal salvation, then unto the knowledge of Christ, and thereby to be an Apostle. Faius.

11. Quest. Of the description of the Gospel, v. 1, 2, 3.

v. 1. The Gospel of God, which was promised, &c. 1. The Gospel is taken two ways, either for the doctrine concerning Jesus Christ, which containeth four things: 1. of the coming of Christ in the flesh, which comprehendeth the whole history of the incarnation of Christ, and all his acts: both his holy sermons, and speeches, and his holy and powerful works: 2. the effects of his coming, as the remission of sin, the subduing of the kingdom of Satan, the reconciling us to God, opening the kingdom of heaven, and the like: 3. the third is the verity of those things, which in the Gospel are prescribed to be believed; the holy doctrine and precepts of the Gospel: 4. the observation of such things as Christ commanded, Matth. 28.20. Teaching them to observe all things, which I have commanded you: Tolet. secondly, the Gospel is taken for the publishing, preaching, and annuntiation of it: in which sense the Apostle saith, If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to thē which are lost.

2. Here all the parts of the Gospel are expressed: 1. the efficient, it is called the Gospel of God: to show that it was no human invention, Gwalther. 2. the form thereof, it was promised before: as the Apostle saith, Gal. 3.23. Before faith came, &c. we were shut up unto the faith which should be revealed: Gryu. which promises concerning Christ to come were made unto the fathers for these five reasons. 1. for their comfort in the expectation of the Messiah to come: as Isa. 40.2. Speak comfortly to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, &c. 2. to stir up their desire to long for the coming of the Messiah: as Isa. 64.1. O that thou wouldest break the heavens, and come down. 3. to set forth the honor and glory of the Messiah, that sent his forerunners, and messengers the holy Prophets before him, to proclaim the coming of the great king: as the Prophet saith, Isa. 40.3. A voice crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, &c. 4. that none might be excused by their ignorance, as touching the coming of the Messiah: as Abacuck 2.2. Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it. 5. that the fathers should not rest in the figures, but by them should be brought to the understanding of these things, which were shadowed forth by those figures: as the Apostle saith, Hebr. 10.1. That the law had the shadow of good things to come. Hug. Card. 3. The ministers and instruments of these promises, or the Gospel promised, were the Prophets in the Scriptures, Gryneus, Aretius: and here by Prophets we understand not only them, which were writers of the prophesies, but they also which preached to the people, as Nathan to David: and to whom those promises were made concerning Christ, and so Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the rest of the Patriarchs are here also comprehended. Hyperius. 4. The subject and matter of the Gospel, is Jesus Christ the Son of God: who is described in his person, the Son of God, in his offices, he is Jesus, the Savior, and Christ, the anointed of God, and his two natures, his humanity, v. 3. his divine nature, v. 4.

Now, this Gospel is sometime called the Gospel of God, as in this verse, sometime the Gospel of Christ, v. 16. the one in respect of the author of the Gospel, the other of the matter and subject. Gryneus.

12. Quest. Whether the Gospel be comprehended in the Old Testament.

1. This is evident by diverse reasons, that the fathers under the Old Testament enjoyed the Gospel of Christ. 1. If they had not the Gospel, they could not consequently have faith: for how could they believe in him, of whom they had not heard? and faith cometh of hearing, Rom. 10.14, 17. but the fathers had faith, as the Apostle proveth at large, Heb. 11. 2. If they had not the Gospel, then were they not saved by the grace of Christ, which is by the Gospel: for the law was given by Moses, but faith and truth came by Jesus Christ: now the fathers were saved by the grace of Christ, Act. 15.11. 3. The fathers had the knowledge of God, but that cometh by the revelation of Jesus Christ, John. 1.18. 4. The fathers did eat and drink Christ, 1. Corinth. 10.3. but he is only eaten and drunk by faith: therefore the fathers were not without the faith of the Gospel.

2. But it will be thus objected on the contrary: 1. the Gospel was only promised to the fathers, as here the Apostle saith, which he had promised before by the Prophets: but that which is promised, a man hath not in deed: 2. again the Apostle saith, that the mystery of the Gospel was kept secret since the world began, Rom. 16.25. therefore it seemeth to have been unknown to the fathers: 3. S. Mark also thus beginneth his Gospel, Mark. 1.1. The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: if the Gospel began but then, it will follow that the Patriarchs had it not before.

3. For answer hereunto, the Gospel must be distinguished: for it either may be taken for the Gospel promised, or the Gospel complete and exhibited: the Gospel promised, is the doctrine of grace by Christ to come: the Gospel complete and exhibited, is the doctrine of grace in Christ already exhibited, and performed to the world. By this distinction the several objections propounded may be answered.

1. That which is promised, a man hath not in full complement and perfection, but he may have it in certain and assured hope: so the fathers had not in deed the Gospel exhibited, but they had it promised, and so enjoyed it in hope. 2. Likewise the mystery of the Gospel which lay hid from the beginning of the world, must be understood of the Gospel exhibited. 3. And S. Mark also understandeth the beginning of the Gospel, not accomplished, but only exhibited, and manifested. Pareus.

13. Quest. How Christ is said to be made of the seed of David after the flesh. v. 3.

1. Some do read, genitus, begotten, as Vatablus, or natus, borne, Erasm. but the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , properly signifieth made: which doth better set forth the admirable conception of Christ of a virgin, without the help of man: which is not so well expressed in the other reading: to say he was borne, or begotten. Beza, Tolet.

2. Chrysostom well noteth, why it is added, after the flesh, significans quod & iuxta spiritum generationem habeat, signifying, that he had a generation also after the spirit, as he had one according to the flesh. And this generation also after the flesh is first spoken of, not because it was first in order, but this infinite generation, commodius auditorem subducit, doth more fitly bring the hearer, to the other divine and first generation.

3. By flesh is here understood the substance of Christ's human nature, as it was infirm and weak (which weakness notwithstanding continued but for a time) not as it is corrupt: as it is taken, John. 1.14. 1. Tim. 3.17. And although mention be not made here of the soul of Christ, it must neither be understood to have had the same beginning with the flesh of the seed of David: nor yet (as Origen ) is it here understood by the spirit of sanctification, which showeth the divine nature of Christ, Beza: but Christ's soul was infused of God, and seeing he took our flesh, and became very man, it followeth consequently, that having an human and organical body, he was also endued with an human soul: Gryneus.

4. Now he is said to be of the seed of David, that although he was not conceived by any human seed, yet, ex ea carne formatus est, quae constat ex semine, he was formed of that flesh, which came of (human) seed: gloss. ex August. so that this word seed, doth not only note here the Virgin Marie, which was of the posterity of David, but ipsam carnem de Virgin assumptam, the very flesh taken of the Virgin: Beza.

5. And though he came also of the seed of Abraham, and of other the holy fathers: yet mention is made of David for these reasons: 1. because the Messiah was promised to come of David, Hugo. 2. vt ex rege natus oftendatur, that it might appear he was borne of a king. 3. & quia David criminosus, and because David was a sinner: that he was not borne of his seed for any merit of his, but of grace: Haimo: and because he vouchsafed to be borne of sinners, to show, quod non dedignetur peccatores, that he disdaineth not sinners, Gorrham.

14. Quest. How it can be shown that Christ was borne of the seed and posterity of David.

Seeing both Matthew and Luke do set down the genealogy of Joseph the reputed husband of Marie, the question is how this concerneth the birth of Christ, who only took his flesh of Marie.

1. Ambrose giveth a good reason, why the genealogy is derived by the man, not by the woman: because it is the manner of the Scripture, to express the generation of men, not of women: secundum carnem natus, vsum debuit sequi carnis, he that is borne after the flesh, was to follow the use and custom of flesh, which is to count the petigree by the men.

2. Then the genealogy of Joseph thus concerneth Christ: because Joseph being a just man, took a wife out of his own tribe: Origen also with Ambrose propoundeth this solution, yet he insisteth not upon it, but runneth to allegories; that Joseph was not the natural, but spiritual father of Christ: But it is evident, that the Evangelists do set down the natural generation, and descent of Christ.

The best solution then is the former, that Joseph married with Marie being of his own tribe: and so they were both of David, and therefore they went both up unto Bethlehem a city of David to be taxed, Luk. 2.4.

3. But where it will be objected, that Elizabeth, which was married to Zechariah a Priest of Levi, is called Mary's cousin, and therefore Marie is not like to have been of Judah: it is not sufficient to say with Origen, that Elizabeth was Mary's cousin, not in respect of the tribe, but the nation, because they were both of Israel: for so Elizabeth had been no more her cousin, then any other beside. Theophylact in Luk. 1. thinketh, that the kindred came in thus; because Aaron married Elizabeth the daughter of Aminadab of the tribe of Judah, Exod. 6. and so this Elizabeth was descended of Judah, by her great grandmother Elizabeth. But this kindred was too ancient, and would have grown in so many descents out of knowledge: whereas it seemeth that Marie and Elizabeth were so of kindred, that they were of acquaintance also, for Marie went to visit Elizabeth, Luk. 2.41. Augustine thinketh it might be thus: that some woman of the tribe of Levi was married into the tribe of Judah, and so Christ was descended not only of the kingly, but the priestly stock also, quaest. super. Iudic. 47. But the best solution is, that some rather of the tribe of Judah was married into the tribe of Levi: for though the other tribes might not one marie within another, to avoid confusion, yet the Levites might take their wives out of any tribe, for they had no inheritance, and so there was no danger of any such confusion: So Iehoida the high Priest married Iehosabath the daughter of king Joram, the sister of Ahaziah the king, 2. Chron. 22. Pareus, Genevens.

4. Now as Matthew doth set down the pettigree of Joseph, the reputed husband of Marie, so Luke doth prosequute the genealogy of Marie: for Heli whole son Joseph is said to be, was the father of Marie, and father in law to Joseph: for sons and daughters in law in Scripture are called by the names of sons and daughters simply: as Naomi calleth Ruth her sons wife her daughter: Beza, Pareus. But Ambrose hath another answer, that Heli and Jacob were brethren, and Jacob dying without children, Heli according to the law took his wife, and raised seed to his brother: Ambr. lib. in Luc. 3. of these two the first solution is the best: for Matthew saith that Jacob begat Joseph: Heli then begat him not, but he was the natural father of Marie.

15. Quest. Whether Christ descended of David by Solomon, or Nathan.

But another doubt there is about this genealogy: for Matthew descendeth by Solomon, Luke by Nathan. Hereof a question ariseth of which of these, Solomon or Nathan, Christ came after the flesh.

1. Eusebius thinketh, that he was descended of Solomon, which he would prove by the 72. Psal. v. 1. Give thy judgment to the King, and thy righteousness to the kings son: where by the king, he thinketh Solomon to be understood, and by the kings son, not Rehoboam, but Christ, which was to come of him. Euseb. Demonstr. l. 7. c. 7. Origen before approved the same opinion, who giveth this reason thereof, because in Matthews genealogy, the word, he begat, is repeated still, and so is it not in S. Luke's catalogue: and therefore he thinketh that Christ came of Solomon, whom Matthew maketh mention of, not of Nathan, whose generation S. Luke rehearseth.

Contr. 1. That Christ was not lineally descended of Solomon, it is evident, because all Solomon's posterity ended in Iechoniah: as is evident, Ierem. 22.30. Write this man destitute of children. 2. In the place objected out of the Psalm: by the king, is understood David, by the kings son, Solomon, who was a figure of Christ. 3. Neither in Matthews genealogy, properly is everyone said to beget: for Jeconiah is said to beget Salathiel, who was in deed the son of Neri, as S. Luke setteth it down in his genealogy: but Jeconiah dying without heir, appointed Salathiel his next heir.

2. Origen, Ambrose, & Beda think, that Christ came of Nathan both a Priest and Prophet: but that cannot be, for it is certain Christ came of Judah, not of Levi: Hebr. 7.14. It is evident, that our Lord sprang out of Judah: and therefore Apoc. 7, he is called the lyon of the tribe of Judah.

3. Wherefore our Lord descended of David by Nathan his son, who is thought to have been brother unto Solomon, not only by his father, but by his mother also, 1. Chro. 3.5. Damascene. lib. 4. c. 15. Pareus.

16. Quest. Of the meaning of these words, v.4. Declared mightily to be the Son of God, &c.

1. The usual interpretation is, to gather from hence three arguments of Christ's divine nature: 1. by the power of miracles: 2. by the holy Ghost, which he gave unto them, which believed in him, and specially in the feast of Pentecost. 3. by the raising of himself up from the dead: to this purpose Chrysostom, Hyperius, Aretius, with others.

But the better interpretation is this: that here three things are expressed concerning Christ: what he was declared to be, the Son of God mightily, or in great power: by which nature, namely his divine: by the spirit of sanctification, whereby he sanctified his own flesh, and his mystical body the Church: and by what argument, namely by his resurrection from the dead: wherein he manifestly shown himself by his own power, being able to raise up his own body from the grave: