shew it selfe Blessed Paul is by the Lords owne mouth called electum vas a chosen vessell and this epistle of his is as a pretious vessell that containeth in it most heauenly liquor S. Peter giueth this testimonie of S. Pauls epistles that he writ according to the wisedome giuen vnto him his writings are both diuine and wise Augustine well calleth him nutritorem Ecclesiae the nourisher of the Church as he saith to the Corinthians that he gaue them milke to drinke quae Pauli epistola non melle dulcior non lacte candidior what epistle of Paul saith Augustine is not more sweete then honie and whiter then milke But of all other writers Chrysostome is most ample in setting forth the commendation of this our Apostle comparing the cleernesse of his doctrine with the brightnes of the heauens yea preferring it The heauens saith he all this while haue beene seene yet mooue not much but Paul preaching but a short time totum orbem attraxit hath drawne the whole world after him the heauen 's doe keepe their course and goe no further mentis Paulum sublimitas omnes coelos transcendit but the sublimitie of Pauls minde went beyond the heauens astra cum fierent c. the Angels wondred at the starres when they were made hunc vero Deus admiratus est c. but God himselfe wondred at Paul saying this is a chosen vessell vnto me the heauens are oft cast ouer with clouds Pauli mentem nulla abnubilauit tentatio but no tentation did ouercast the mind of Paul Thus excellently Chrysostome In the reading of this Commentarie let the Reader obserue that in the diuerse readings V. standeth for Vatablus L. for the vulgar Latine Be. for Beza S. for the Syriake T. for Tremellius translation B. for the great Engish bible Ge. for the Geneva translation Gr. for the Greeke and sometime Or. for the originall Those my trauels I commend vnto the Church of God praying for the prosperitie thereof and crauing againe their mutuall prayers that as S. Paul saith the word of God may haue a free passage and be glorified c. As for my selfe I trust I shall be more and more resolued to say with S. Paul I passe not at all neither is my life deare vnto my selfe so that I may fulfill my course with ioy and the ministration which I haue receiued of the Lord Iesus to testifie the Gospell of the grace of God To whom be praise for euer Amen THE MOST DIVINE EPISTLE OF THE MOST holy Apostle S. PAVL to the Romanes explaned Certaine observations premised of the New Testament in generall 1. The Argument and matter of the New Testament THe New Testament though it had the same Author with the Old namely CHRIST IESVS and the same ende and scope to bring vs vnto Christ for the Law was a schoolemaster to the same ende Gal. 3.19 yet it differeth from the old 1. in the substance and doctrine 2. in the ratification and confirmation 3. in the rites and manner 4. in the persons to whome it was deliuered and committed 1. Whereas the old Testament promised eternall life vnder the condition of perfect obedience of the Law the Gospel onely requireth the obedience of faith Rom. 10.5 6. 2. The old Testament was confirmed by the sprinkling of the blood of beasts Exod. 24.8 but the New was sealed and ratified by the blood and death of Christ Hebr. 9.14.17 3. There were other rites and ceremonies of the old Law as the sacrifices and oblations circumcision the paschal lambe and such like Christ hath instituted new Sacraments of the Gospel Baptisme and the Eucharist 4. The old Testament was made onely with the Hebrewes but the new is commended vnto the Church of God dispersed ouer the world and therefore it is called Catholike The bookes of the New Testament are 1. historicall as of the acts the sayings and doings of our blessed Sauiour in the foure Euangelists or of the Apostles in the booke of the Acts. 2. or doctrinall which specially concerne doctrine and instruction without a continued historicall narration such are the Epistles of the holy Apostles 3. or Propheticall as the booke of the Reuelation yet though the bookes may be thus diuided in generall there are both heauenly doctrines intermingled in the historicall bookes as the heauenly sermons of our blessed Sauiour in the Gospel and prophesies also are inserted both in the historicall and doctrinall bookes as that of the destruction of Ierusalem and the ende of the world Matth. 24. and of the calling of the Iewes Rom. 11. of the comming of Antichrist 2. Thess. 2. 2. Of the language and tongue wherein the New Testament was originally written As the Old Testament was written originally in Hebrewe because it was committed vnto the Hebrewes Rom. 3.2 so the New was set forth by the Apostles and Euangelists in the Greeke tongue which was then generall and vsed of the most famous nations because it concerned the Church of God which was dispersed in all countreys There are three other languages wherein the Newe Testament or some part thereof was written first the Gospel of S. Matthewe is held to haue beene written in the vulgar Hebrew tongue which was then the Syriake Iren. l. 3. c. 1. Hierom. praefat in commentar in Matth. which Athanasius thinketh to haue beene translated into Greeke by S. Iames some thinke by S. Iohn likewise the Epistle to the Hebrewes is thought by some to haue beene first written in the Hebrewe tongue But neither of these is certaine 1. It is rather like that S. Matthewe writ his Gospel in Greeke because he citeth many places of the old Testament according to the Septuagint as that Isay. 40.3 alleadged Matth. 3.3 and Psal. 22.18 cited Matth. 27.35 and the like is to be seene elsewhere As also Matth. 27.46 these words Eli Eli Lamasabacthani are interpreted by the Euangelist in the Greeke tongue which interpretation had beene superfluous if he had written in the Syriake or vulgar Hebrewe tongue 2. for the same reasons it is most probable that the epistle to the Hebrewes was not written in the Hebrew but in the Greeke tongue originally because the Apostle followeth the translation of the Septuagint and c. 7. he interpreteth the word Melchizedek in the Greeke tongue which signifieth the king of righteousnesse An other language wherein the new Testament is written is the Syriake into which tongue the Syrians doe thinke that the Newe Testament was translated by S. Marke But 1. this is not like that this Syriake translation should be so auncient for then these auncient fathers Origen Clemens Alexandrin Epiphan Hierome Theodoret Damascene which were Bishops and Presbiters in Syria or Egypt would haue made some mention thereof in their writings which they doe not 2. And though the Syriake translation could be prooued to haue beene of such antiquitie yet it must giue place vnto the authenticall Greeke whereout it was translated A third tongue is the Latine in the
which Bellarmine out of Adrianus Finus lib. 6 flagell Iudcor c. 80. and Damasus pontifical would prooue that S. Marke writ his Gospel first at Rome and afterward turned it into Greeke at Aquilea But this is verie improbable 1. Because the Greeke tongue was then more generally vsed then the Latine and S. Paul writing to the Romanes spake in the Greeke tongue for the reason so also would S. Matthewe haue done 2. If the Greeke were translated out of the Latine why then doe not the Romanists vse a Latine translation answerable to the Greeke whereas their vulgar translation much differeth from the Greeke some where it addeth as Mark. 1.1 the name Isaia the Prophet is inserted sometime it leaueth out as Mark. 6.11 all that clause is omitted verily verily I say vnto you it shall be easier for Sodome and Gomorrha in the day of iudgement then for that citie sometime it choppeth and changeth as c. 5.1 Garasenes for Gadarens It remaineth then that the Newe Testament was originally written in the Greeke tongue for the reasons before alleaged 3. The questions discussed Quest. 1. Of the word Testament what it signifieth and of what things it must be vnderstood 1. The Hebrew word berith signifieth both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a compact or couenant made betweene parties as Aquila translateth as Hierome witnesseth in Malach. 2. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a testament or disposition of ones last will as the word is vsed by the Apostle Heb. 9.17 2. Both these acceptions and takings of the word agree vnto the holy Gospel first it is a couenant betweene God and his people the Lord offring reconciliation on his part and requiring conditions to be performed on our part as in the Law obedience and perfect keeping of the lawe so now the obedience of faith in Christ our Mediator and Reconciler It is also a Testament not with any relation vnto vs but onely in respect of the Testator and will-maker Christ Iesus 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 seales are the Sacraments both of the one and the other 3. The Old and newe couenant and Testament are one and the same in substance both in respect of the parties betweene whom the couenant and conuention is made God and his Church and of the ende and scope which is to bring vs vnto the euerlasting inheritance but the manner of dispensation is diuerse according to the condition of the times and the qualitie of the persons 4. This couenant made betweene God and man some distinguish into the couenant of nature and grace but euerie couenant now indeede is rather of grace the naturall couenant made betweene the Creator and Man in Paradise was violated by his transgression and disobedience the couenant which now remaineth is wholly to be ascribed vnto grace and it is either of some temporall grace and benefit and that either generall as was that which the Lord made with Noah not to destroy the world any more with waters Gen. 9. or particular as was the promise made to Abraham to inherite the land of Canaan Gen. 15.18 and that made to Phineas concerning the priesthoode Numb 25.12 either of spirituall graces as of the remission of sinnes and the inheriting of euerlasting life in Christ. 2. Quest. Of the diuerse significations of the old and newe Testament 1. The old Testament is 1. either taken for the doctrine of the lawe which required exact obedience to the commandements vnder the most grieuous commination of malediction vnto the transgressors yet couertly was propounded vnto them the doctrine of repentance and faith in Christ vnder the shadowes and rudiments of the Law which were imposed vpon that people partly to humble them and to bow downe their stiffe necks partly to discerne them from other nations and partly to lead them by the hand as vnto Christ so in this sense the old Testament 1. comprehendeth the doctrine of legall obedience 2. the ceremoniall and ministeriall part of their legall rites and seruice 3. the externall policie and regiment in these respects the old Testament is abolished and the Lord saith he will make a newe couenant 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 diuersely 1. either for the spirituall doctrine which requireth obedience of faith in Christ without any legall obseruations 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 Euangelists and Apostles So it is new 1. because it succeeded the old 2. because it setteth forth the newe doctrine of faith without legall rites 3. it hath new sacraments a new forme of worship a new kind of Church 4. it is confirmed after a newe manner not by the blood of beasts but by the most holy blood of the Blessed Mediator 3. Quest. Of the bookes of the newe Testament their number and authoritie 1. Concerning the number and authoritie of the bookes of the Newe Testament there is no question among the Christians though the obstinate Iewes wilfully refuse them all they are 27. in number which Athanasius in Synops. distinguisheth into these fiue orders 1. the foure Euangelists 2. the Acts of the Apostles 3. the 7. Canonicall Epistles one of S. Iames 2. of S. Peter 3. of S. Iohn and one of S. Iude 4. the 14. Canonicall epistles of S. Paul 5. the Propheticall booke of the Reuelation But all these may be reduced to 3. kinds the historicall doctrinall propheticall bookes as is before shewed in the argument 2. But these books of the New Testament were not alwaies receiued with the same approbation 1. Some were euer held to be of vndoubted authoritie as the 4. Euangelists the Acts of the Apostles the 1. of S. Peter the 1. of S. Iohn all S. Pauls Epistles excepting onely that to the Hebrewes 2. Some were doubted of by a fewe but of the most receiued as the 2. of Peter the 2. and 3. of Iohn one of Iames one of Iude that to the Hebrewes and the Apocalypse But at the length these bookes were receiued and acknowledged for Canonicall by a generall consent 3. Other bookes besides these were priuately receiued by some in the Church and were called Ecclesiasticall as the Acts of Paul the Epistle of Barnabas the Reuelation of Peter the Gospell according to the Hebrews 4. Some bookes were foisted in by Heretikes and more generally reiected of the Church as the Gospell of Andrew Thomas Matthias the Acts of Peter Thomas Matthias and of the
other Apostles which were iudged to be Apochryphall bookes and of no authoritie 1. because in the writings of those which succeeded the Apostles no mention is made of them 2. the stile is diuerse from the stile of the Apostles 3. and the doctrine contained in those bookes dissenting from the doctrine of the Apostles 3. Beside these two latter sorts of bookes all the rest are vndoubtedly held to be Canonicall and of equall authoritie and therefore that distinction of Sixtus Senensis is to be taken heede of who calleth some bookes of the New Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 canonicall of the first sort some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 canonicall of the second sort which were sometime doubted of for by this meanes should they not be of equall and the like authoritie And beside he saith that these latter were held by some of the fathers to be Apochryphall bookes vnderstanding Apochryphal bookes for such as had an hid and vnknowne author But indeede the Apochrypha are so called not for that their author was vnknowne for then diuerse of the Canonicall bookes should be Apochrypha but because they were of an hid and obscure authoritie in which sense none of the fathers euer held any of the Canonical bookes of the New Testament to be Apochrypha 4. As the Heretikes brought in counterfeit bookes of their owne into the New Testament so they reiected diuerse parts of the Canonical bookes 1. Faustus the Manichie held diuerse things to be false in the New Testament Augustin lib. 33. cont Faust. c. 3. 2. The Ebionites receiued none but the Gospel according to Saint Matthew Iren. l. 1. c. 26. 3. the Marcionites onely allowed S. Lukes Gospel Epiphan haeres 42.4 the Acts of the Apostles and S. Pauls epistles the Tatiane and Seueriane heretikes reiected Euseb. l. 4. c. 29. 5. Marcion and Basilides the epistles to Timothie Titus and to the Hebrewes Hierom. praefat ad Titum 4. Places of doctrine in generall 1. Doct. Of the excellencie of the Newe Testament aboue and beyond the Old 1. It excelleth in the the matter and doctrine the law promiseth life onely to those that keep it the Gospel vnto those which beleeue in Christ Rom. 10.5 6. 2. In the subiect the lawe was written in tables of stone but the Gospel is written by the spirit of God in the fleshie 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 giueth life 2. Cor 3.6 7. 4. In the condition and qualitie the law imposed the hard yoke and seruitude of ceremonies which was impossible to be borne Act. 15.10 but Christs yoke is easie Math. 11. which of seruants adopteth vs to be the sonnes 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 fruites and effects the Old Testament could not purge the conscience from sinne but the sprinkling of the blood of Christ purgeth the conscience from dead workes Heb. 9.13 14. 7. In the manner the old Testament was folded vp in types and figures as Moses vailed the glorie of his face but now we see the glorie of the Lord in the Gospell 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 seales the old was attended vpon by bloodie sacrifices and other such like hard Sacraments as circumcision which was painefull to the flesh the New hath easie and vnbloodie sacraments as the seales neither so many in number namely Baptisme and the Eucharist 10. Another excellencie is in persons whom this New Testament concerneth which is not giuen onely to one people and nation as the old was but vnto the Catholike Church of God dispersed ouer the face of the earth as the Apostles are commanded to goe and teach all nations Matth. 28.19 In these respects the Apostle thus giueth preheminence 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 vpon better promises Not that Christ was not Mediator also of the old Testament for without him neither can there be any Church nor couenant made with the Church but because Christ but shadowed forth in the old Testament is more fully reuealed and manifested in the New 5. Places of confutation 1. Controv. Against those which thinke it is against the nature of the New Testament to be committed to writing Of this opinion are certaine of a fantasticall spirit which to this purpose abuse that place of Ieremie 32.33 I will write my lawe in their hearts and that of S. Paul 2. Cor 3.3 You are our epistle written not with inke but with the spirit whence they would inferre that the Newe Testament is not to be written but that it consisteth in reuelation 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 vnnecessarie worke in writing the bookes of the Newe Testament whereunto they were directed by the spirit of God and S. Iohn is directly commanded to write Apocal. 14.13 and S. Paul saith that all Scripture is giuen by inspiration 2. Tim. 3.16 The spirit of God then mooued them to put in writing these holy bookes 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 commeth by hearing and hearing by the word And againe the Prophet there sheweth a difference betweene the lawe and the Gospell the law gaue Precepts but could not incline the heart to obedience but the Gospel doth not onely 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 contrarie to himselfe as though he should speak against the writing of Euangelical precepts whereas the Apostle did write that very epistle with inke 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 vnderstandeth not the writing with inke or such like but the externall 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 necessarie to saluation First we will examine the arguments which are brought by them to confirme this their
6. and the heretikes called Apostolin denied that wicked men could minister the Sacraments Bernard serm 66. in Cantic Contra. 1. This place of the Apostle that circumcision profiteth if one keepe the lawe doth not fauour any such opinion for the Apostle speaketh not of the dignitie and worthinesse of the sacraments which dependeth vpon the institution sed de fructu but of the fruit thereof Mart. Gualt 2. neither the vnworthinesse of the minister maketh the sacrament voide for Iudas baptized with the rest of the Apostles nor yet of the receiuer for he that eateth and drinketh vnworthily shall be guilty of the bodie and blood of the Lord if his vnworthinesse made it no Sacrament he should not be guilty of so great a sinne But the vnworthinesse both of the one and the other maketh the sacrament void and without fruite vnto themselues Controv. 13. Against the Marcionites and other which condemned the old Testament and the ceremonies thereof The Marcionites among the heathen reiected circumcision and condemned the author of the old Testament for the same and the Stoiks among the heathen denied the same as beeing an invention not beseeming God who thus obiected as Origen sheweth in this place 1. It was not a thing answearable to the clemencie and goodnesse of God to command infants so to be wounded and cruelly handled in their infancie 2. If the foreskinne of the flesh be a superfluous part why was it made if it be not why should it be cut off 3. by this meanes many were terrified from taking vpon them that religion which God desired to be propagated both for the shame and painfulnesse of circumcision and so it fell out to be impedimentum religionis non insigne an impediment rather then an argument and cognizance of religion These obiections are thus sufficiently answeared by Origen 1. He sheweth against the Gentiles that circumcision was had in honour euen amongst them and therefore they had no reason to scorne and deride that as a thing dishonest among the people of God which was of great estimation among them for among the Egyptians who were most addicted of all other people to superstitious rites and from whom all other nations borrowed their ceremonies there was none giuen to the studie of Astrologie Geometrie but was circumcised so were all their Priests and Ministers of sacred things 2. Against those which professed Christ and yet refused the old Testament with all the rites thereof he sheweth the conueniencie of circumcision that seeing we were to be redeemed by the blood of Christ before that price was paid for our redeemption it was necessarie for them which were instructed in the lawe vnumquemque pro se velut ad imitationem quandam futurae redemptionis sanguinem suum dare euerie one for himselfe to giue his blood in imitation of the redemption to come but now seeing the blood of Christ hath beene offered for vs it is not now necessarie that euerie one for himselfe should offer the blood of circumcision 3. Then he commeth to answear the particular obiections 1. If you blame God for imposing so hard a thing vpon infants why also doe ye not finde fault that Christ was circumcised the 8. day vulnera passionis excepit was wounded in his passion and shed his blood 2. And if this bloodie Sacrament terrified men from their religion then exempla martyrum prohibebant homines accedere ad fidem by the same reason the example of martyrs much more should haue hindered men from comming to the faith 3. And though there had beene no other mysterie in circumcision it was fit that the people of God should carrie some badge and cognizance to discerne them from other people and if the amputation or cutting off some part of the bodie were requisite what part was more fit then that quae obscaena videbatur which seemed to be obscene 4. And whereas they obiect if it be not a necessarie part it should not haue beene created if necessarie it should not be cut off they may be answeared by the like they will not denie but that the procreation of children is necessarie then by this reason virgins and all vnmarried persons and such as haue made themselues chast for the kingdome of God should be blamed quia necessariâ—s naturae officijs non ministrant because they doe not giue their seruice to the necessarie offices of nature 5. And so he concludeth thus As there were many washings and baptismes in the lawe before the baptisme of Christ many purifyings before the purifying by the spirit many sacrifices before that alone sufficient sacrifice was offred vpon the crosse so multorum sanguinis effusio processit the shedding of the blood of many went before vntill the redemption of all came by the blood of one And here the Apostle stoppeth their mouthes saying that circumcision was profitable how then doe they reiect it as a thing vaine and vnprofitable to this purpose Origen vpon this place Controv. 14. Against the Anabaptists which reiect the Sacraments of the newe Testament Whereas the Apostle saith v. 28. Neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh the Anabaptists take occasion by these and such like words to condemne all the Sacraments of the newe Testament and the outward ministerie thereof in like manner S. Paul saith 1. Cor. 7.19 Circumcision is nothing nor vncircumcision but the keeping of the commandements But their obiection may be answeared out of this place where the Apostle had said a little before v. 25. Circumcision is profitable if thou doe the lawe The Apostle then condemneth not outward circumcision simply but if it be externall onely and not ioyned with the inward circumcision Mart. Controv. 13. That the want of baptisme condemneth not v. 29. Seeing the Apostle saith that the outward circumcision is not that which hath praise of God but the inward in the spirit and the like may be said of baptisme which succeedeth in the place of circumcision then it followeth that like as many circumcised in heart were saued without the circumcision of the flesh so also many hauing the spirituall baptisme of the soule by faith in Christs blood may be saued the outward sacrament beeing not by them contemned or neglected but by some vrgent necessitie denied as Ambrose saith concerning Valentinian the younger Emperor who deceased without baptisme Christus te baptizavit quia humana officia defuerunt Christ baptized thee where other humane offices were wanting c. and againe detersa labe peccati ablutus ascendit quem sua fides lauit he is ascended to heauen beeing washed from his sinne whom his owne faith washed Ambros. tom 5. de obit Valentin The like may be affirmed of infants the seede of the faithfull that they dying without baptisme Christ baptizeth them they are within the couenant of grace and so stand according to Gods promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seede Gen. 17.7 Like as then the want of circumcision was
world 3. Obiect v. 7. which ariseth likewise out of the former testimonie cited out of the Psalme if by mens lies Gods truth is commended then the liar is vniustly punished the answer followeth v. 9. the Apostle calleth it a blasphemie and worthie of iust damnation if any shall iustifie themselues in their euill doing and of purpose doe euill to set forth the iustice of God v. 8. The second part is from v. 9. to 21. where he prooueth the Iewes and Gentiles both to be vnder sinne which is propounded v. 9. prooued by particular induction of their sinnes grounded vpon some testimonies of Scripture v. 10. to 19. then applied to the Iew as well as to the Gentile by three arguments v. 19.1 from the relation which the law hath to those which are vnder the law 2. then from two ends that euery mouth may be stopped all occasion of boasting may be taken away 3. and that all the world may be found culpable The third part followeth wherein the Apostle prooueth that all must be iustified by faith in Christ which he prooueth by a distribution either by the workes of the law or by faith not by the law by the contrarie effect v. 20. Then he confirmeth the other part that we are iustified by faith without the law which proposition is contained v. 1.22 23. by shewing the causes of iustification and who are iustified euen all that beleeue and why v. 23. Then this proposition is confirmed 1. by shewing all the causes the efficient principall the grace of God then Christ by his blood the instrument is faith the formall cause remission of sinnes the ende the setting forth of Gods iustice v. 24 25 26. 2. by the effects it excluding all boasting v. 27. 3. the conclusion followeth v. 28. 4. which is confirmed 1. by remoouing an absurditie because God otherwise should seeme to be God onely of the Iewes v. 29.30 2. by preuenting an obiection v. 31. 3. The questions and doubts discussed 1. Quest. Of the priuiledges of the Iewes and their preheminence before the Gentiles v. 1. What is the preferment of the Iew c. Whereas the Apostle seemed in the end of the former chapter to make the Iewes and Gentiles equall and had extenuated the circumcision of the flesh now it might be obiected by the Iew that by this meanes they should haue no preheminence or preferment more then the Gentile had the Apostle then meeteth with that secret obiection and sheweth wherein consisted the excellencie of the Iew. 1. The Iewes had many priuiledges which the Gentiles had not as 1. they were called to be the peculiar people of God and the Lord professed himselfe to be their God 2. i◠that nation continued the true knowledge of God euen vnto the comming of Christ 3. of them came many holy Patriarks and Prophets that were in high fauour and acceptance with God 4. among them and for their sakes the Lord wrought many miracles and wonders 5. they had many visions prophesies and dreames 6. God gaue vnto them the Sacraments and sacrifices as circumcision the Paschal lamb 7. the Messiah was promised to descend of that nation 8. But the Apostle omitteth these and specially insisteth vpon this that the law and oracles of God were committed vnto them 2. Chiefly or first because vnto them were credited c. This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erasmus taketh for to signifie the order of the Apostles speach as before c. 1.8 but there the Apostle beginneth his epistle which he doth not here 2. Some referre it to the number of the priuiledges rehearsed by the Apostle whereof this was the first and the rest follow in the epistle But the Apostle maketh mention of no other priuiledge but this 3. Origen whome Sedulius followeth hath here reference to the Gentiles that vnto the Iewes first were committed the oracles then to the Gentiles but the promises here spoken of were onely made vnto the Iewes 4. Therefore this word first here signifieth chiefe that this was the chiefe priuiledge and immunitie which the Iewes had 3. And the Apostle giueth instance of this that they had the Scriptures 1. because it was most generall multa concludit and concluded many things beside Tolet. 2. herein consisted a chiefe difference betweene the Gentiles which had but the law of nature to direct them and the Iewes which had also the written law of God Perer. 3. and the Apostle omitteth their temporall priuiledges insisting vpon a spirituall as beeing more pretious and durable Gorrhan 4. By oracles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some seeme to vnderstand onely the law which was giuen by Moses as Chrysostome Theodoret but thereby are signified all the propheticall writings which the Iewes had both the law and the Prophets gloss interlin though speciall reference be made to the law as S. Steuen saith that Moses receiued the liuely oracles Act. 7.38 Pare 5. But it will be obiected that God also to others communicated his oracles as to Pharaoh Nabuchadnezzer which were not of Israel it may be answered that 1. God did impart those things not to many of the Gentiles but to a few 2. and that of some particular things 3. neither were such oracles and visions committed to their trust but onely for a time reuealed 4. and that for his peoples sake rather then their owne 6. In that the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the oracles of God were committed to their credit or credited vnto them 1. the Syrian interpreter is deceiued who maketh it the nominatiue that the oracles of God were credited or beleeued 2. and Origens obseruation is much like that the oracles of God were committed vnto them which did vnderstand and beleeue them but the letter of the law was giuen to all for by the words following v. 3. what though some did not beleeue it is euident that the Apostle here speaketh of a generall priuiledge which was not made void by some mens vnbeleefe 3. Erasmus saith that those oracles were committed vnto them alijs magis profutura quam ipsis to profit other rather then themselues as though they were committed vnto them to keepe for others vse But Beza noteth better that they had those things committed vnto them non vt alienae rei depositum not as an other mans thing laid to pledge but as their owne proper treasure if they could haue vsed it well 4. And indeede they were faithfull keepers of the Scriptures preseruing them from falsitie and corruption and are to this day though they vnderstand them not and in the daies of our Sauiour when many other corruptions both of life and doctrine were obiected against them yet they were not charged to be falsifiers of Scripture Faius 5. Chrysostome hath here a good note nusquam illorum virtutes sed Dei beneficia in illos enumerat the Apostle doth not recken vp their owne vertues among their priuiledges but he counteth the benefits of God toward them 6. And this word is credited
signifie non deinceps vivendum esse peccatis sed iustitiae that we should not liue afterward vnto sinne but vnto righteousnes for it were a signe of great vnthankfulnes hauing receiued so great a benefit in the forgiuenes of sinnes past if we should estsoone fall into the same againe 3. Pererius giueth two other reasons first that because it seemed an hard and impossible thing that sinnes before done should be remitted by the Redemption of Christ following many yeares after for the cause must be secundum existentiam haue a beeing before the effect therefore the Apostle to take away this scruple and difficultie maketh expresse mention of precedent sinnes to the which the vertue of Christs death was applied by faith 4. But Pererius other reason is false and friuolous that those former sinnes are mentioned to shew that there was no full remission of them for though they were remitted quanâ—â—â— ad culpam poenam aeternam in respect of the fault and euerlasting punishment yet the fathers vntill Christs comming were kept in Limbo and had no entrance into heauen â—at seeing by the blood of Iesus their sinnes were remitted they also by the vertue of the same blood had power to enter into heauen as the Apostle saith Hebr. 10.19 By the blood of Iesus we may be bold to enter into the holy place And againe v. 14. he saith With one offering hath he consecrated for euer them that are sanctified if then the beleeuing fathers of the old Testament were sanctified by Christs blood they were consecrated for euer that is perfectly but more followeth afterward of this matter among the Controversies 5. The true reason therefore why the Apostle giueth instance in sinnes which were past is to shew that from the beginning of the world there was no remission of sinnes from Adam vnto Moses and from Moses vnto Christ but onely by faith in his blood And therfore Iohn Baptist pointeth at Christ and saith Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world Some doe alleadge that place Apoc. 13.4 whose names are not written in the booke of life of the Lamb which was slaine from the beginning of the world Pareus Faius but this place seemeth not to be so fitly alleadged to that purpose for these words from the beginning of the world are rather to be ioyned with the former words whose names are not written in the booke of life c. from the beginning of the world so Aretus distinguisheth whome Beza and Pererius follow And so are the words ioyned c. 17.8 6. And further as hereby is expressed that all the sinnes of such as beleeued were remitted in Christ which were done before so much more the sinnes of the age then present and which should be committed afterward are forgiuen by no other way as the Apostle saith Heb. 13.8 Iesus Christ yesterday and to day and the same also is for euer Pareus 36. Quest. How God is said to be iust and a iustifier of him which is of the faith c. v. 26. 1. Some vnderstand this iustice of God generally of his holines vprightnes integritie which appeared in the worke of our redemption throughout Pareus wherein most of all shined forth the power of God his wisdome and benignitie vnto man his power in iustifying the wicked which was no lesse worke then in first creating him his wisdome in iustifying him by the death of Christ so fit and conuenient a meane for the reparation of man his benignitie appeared in beeing so mindfull of man as to appoint a way for his redemption Hugo 2. Ambrose doth vnderstand God to be iust that is faithfull in keeping his promises so also Beza 3. Some thus interpret iust that is benignus bonus good and gracious Osiand but Gods iustice is one thing his clemencie an other 4. Tolet vnderstandeth God to be iust in that he would not be satisfied for the sinne of man non accepto pretio sanguinis vnlesse he had first receiued the price of Christs blood so also Pareus 5. Oecumenius applieth it to Gods iustice which should be shewed in the iust punishment of those which should refuse grace offered but the Apostle speaketh of the time present not to come 6. The meaning then is this that he might be iust that is appeare and be acknowledged onely to be iust and all men lyars that is sinners and vniust as he saide before and as he is iust in himselfe so this iustice is communicated vnto vs by faith in Christ to this purpose Calvin Bucer Pellican so also the interlin glosse that he might be iust aliter non posse ipsoâ—vare otherwise he could not helpe to iustifie others if he were not most iust in himselfe God then is onely iust in himselfe and as he is the fountaine of all iustice so he doth iustifie others by that way which he hath appointed namely by faith in Christ. 37. Qu. How reioycing is excluded not by the law of works but by the law of faith 1. There are two kinds of reioycing one is in our redemption purchased by Christ whereof the Apostle speaketh 1. Cor. 1.31 He that reioyceth let him reioyce in the Lord there is an other reioycing in man as the Apostle saith in the same place v. 29. that no flesh should reioyce in his presence of the latter kind of reioycing which is in mens works speaketh the Apostle here 2. But the ordin glosse vnderstandeth this de laudabili gloriatione of the commendable reioycing and by excluded he vnderstandeth manifested or expressed as goldsmiths doe exclude and set out the stones set in siluer but this is a very vnfit interpretation the reioycing which the Apostle will haue here excluded is the reioycing before men as he sheweth afterward c. 4.2 3. By the law of works he vnderstandeth not onely the ceremonials iudicials of the law which are abolished vnder the Gospel as Lyranus but the morall also for the Apostle shewes c. 4.2 that Abraham might reioyce in works before men but not with God where he meaneth works of the morall law for the ceremonies were not yet instituted 4. Neither by the law of works doth the Apostle vnderstand such workes as are done without faith and by the law of faith the law of workes with faith but he excludeth all works whatsoeuer for seeing that such works they say proceede partly of freewill then this reioycing should not be taken away for where the freewill of man worketh there is merit and where there is merit there is reioycing Pareus 5. By the law of workes and the law of faith is vnderstood the rule and doctrine of works and the rule and doctrine of faith for in the Hebrew phrase the law is taken for the strength of a thing for doctrine or direction as afterward c. 7. he saith the law of the spirit the law of the members the law of the minde Mart. Faius 6. And Moses law is called the law of works not because it
truely redeemed vs by his blood which first appeareth both by euidēt testimonies of Scripture as Mark. 10.45 The Sonne of man came to giue his life a ransome for many Coloss. 1.14 In whom we haue redemption thorough his blood 1. Tim. 2.6 Who gaue himselfe a ransome for all men Apocal. 5.9 Thou hast redeemed vs vnto God by thy blood secondly all the parts requisite in redemption doe here concurre together 1. there must be captiues that are we 2. one to redeeme which is Christ. 3. a ransome must be paid that is Christs blood 4. and one to whom it must be paied that is God see further hereof in Pareus 〈◊〉 10. Controv. 23. That Christ truely reconciled vs by his blood against an other blasphemous assertion of Socinus v. 25. To be a reconciliation thorough faith in his blood against this Socinus obiecteth that Christ was no otherwise a reconciliation then the couer of the Arke in the old testament was called the propitiatorie not that thereby God was reconciled but that God shewed himselfe therein reconciled and appeased toward his people So also the sacrifices of the lawe are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a reconciliation yet there was no satisfaction made vnto God by them to this purpose that impious Socinus part 2. c. 2. pag. 81.82 as he is cited by Pareus dub 11. Contra. 1. It is false that the Arke and sacrifices of the old Testament did reconcile as Christ hath reconciled vs for there is great difference betweene dumbe and senselesse ceremonies the blood of beasts and the most holy and liuely blood of Christ. 2. the Arke and the sacrifices though in themselues and their owne vertue they did not reconcile vnto God yet typically and sacramentally they did reconcile as beeing types and figures of the true reconciliation by Christ. 3. And that Christ was verily and properly our reconciler vnto God appeareth in that the Apostle addeth in his blood which he offred vp to God his father which to what ende was it so offred vp but to be a reconciliation thus much of the controversall questions out of this chapter 6. Morall observations v. 3. Shall their vnbeleefe make the faith of God of none effect c. Origen hereupon hath this note infidelitas eorum qui vel non accedunt ad fidem c. their vnbeleefe which either come not to the faith or fall away from it when they laugh vs to scorne in our fasting almes deeds and other workes of faith fidem quae in nobis est non evacuant doe not euacuate or make voide the faith in vs our faith and pietie is not hindred by other mans incredulitie and prophanenesse And in that the Apostle doth here preuent the cauills and obiections of the Iewes it teacheth that the minister of Gods word should so set forth the doctrine of the truth whether in Church or Schooles as that he may meet with all contrarie obiections made against the truth both to satisfie the mindes of them that are desirous to learne to deliver them from all scruple and doubting and to stoppe the mouth of gainesayers Pareus in v. 1. v. 4. Yea let God be true Seeing God is alwaies found true of his promise but men are liars and deceitfull we are taught that in all our trialls and tentations we should certainly ground vpon the promises of God and not be carried away or swayed by the promises or threats of men to let goe our confidence in Gods promises as Dauid in all his afflictions when he was chased vp and downe and persecuted of Saul staied himselfe vpon the truth of Gods promises v. 4. That thou mightest be iustified When as God doth correct vs his children for our sinnes or otherwise exerciseth his iudgements in the world we should not seeme to accuse God or murmure against him but confesse God in all his works and iudgements to be iust and our selues to be sinners as Dan. 9.8 to vs appertaineth open shame c. yet compassion and forgiuenesse is in the Lord. v. 3. What though some did not beleeue As the Oracles of God committed to the Iewes yet were not in vaine though some beleeued not so the Minister of Gods word must not be discouraged and giue ouer his calling because he seeth in some his labour to take small effect Martyr for euen our Blessed Sauiour in that his most heauenly sermon of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood was forsaken and left of many of his hearers yet many of his disciples went away in so much that he said vnto the twelue Will ye also goe away Ioh. 6.67 v. 9. Are we more excellent The Apostle that his reprehension might appeare more easie and tolerable ioyneth himselfe in the companie and maketh himselfe one of the number and indeed he was a part and member of Israel So the Prophets doe often ioyne thereselues with the rest of the people as partaking with their sinnes as Dan. 9.5 We haue sinned and committed iniquitie for like as the praise and commendation of the good and vertuous extendeth it selfe vnto all the congregation wherein there are notwithstanding some carnall men and hypocrites so the sinnes of the congregation doe euen touch and some way defile the godly because that they liuing among the wicked might offend in their connivence in not reproouing the sinnes of others as they ought or in not giuing themselues such good example of life as they should or some other kind of way might be touched v. 21. By the Lawe commeth the knowledge of sinne Then is the lawe first to be preached to make men to knowe themselues and to acknowledge their sinnes this was the course that Iohn Baptist tooke to preach repentance to the people and to bring them to confesse their sinnes and so to prepare a way for the Gospell of Christ for like as a wound cannot well be cured vnlesse first it be searched to the bottome so the heart must first be humbled before it can be truely capable of the comforts of the Gospel v. 31. Doe we then make the Lawe of God of none effect c. As the adversaries in S. Pauls time blamed his doctrine concerning iustification by faith onely as an enemie to the Lawe and good workes whereas the Apostle alwaies ioyneth sanctification with iustification workes with faith though he exclude workes in the act it selfe of our iustification So the aduersaries of the grace of God in these dayes the Papists and Romanists doe slaunder the doctrine of the Gospel which vrgeth iustification by faith onely as though it should beate downe and hinder the exercise of good workes But we say with the Apostle that by this doctrine of onely faith we doe not destroy the law but indeed establish it in as much as we hold faith without workes to be a dead and fruitlesse faith we do not separate work from faith though we exclude them from iustification faith which
also is the proper signification of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Erasmus â—ere obserueth S. Paul in the 9. to the Hebrewes calleth it a Testament where is required the death of the Testator which was shadowed forth by the type of shedding and sprinkling of blood but here in the Prophet there beeing no such circumstance expressed which belongeth to a Testament it is better interpreted fadus a couenant 2. For the other point whence these testimonies are alleaged there are diuerse opinions 1. All agree that the former place is taken out of the 59. of Isay v. 20. and for the next this shall be my couenant with them when I take away their sinne Calvin thinketh it is taken from Ieremie 31.33 This shall be the couenant that I will make with the house of Israel c. I will forgiue their iniquities 2. Iunius saith these words when I take away their sinne are repeated out of the former verse to confirme the Gentiles in the assured expectation of the conuersion of the Iewes 3. Tolet following Origen thinketh that these words are added by the Apostle by way of declaration 4. But the more probable opinion is that the Apostle ioyneth two prophesies of Isay together as he did before v. 8. and that the last words when I take away their sinne are cited out of the 27. c. of Isay v. 9. where the Septuagint haue these verie words cited by the Prophet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when I shall take away their sinnes the other words are found with some small alteration in the 59. c. of Isay v. 20. and in the beginning of the 21. v. Pareus Quest. 29. Of these words v. 28. As touching the Gospel they are enemies for your sakes c. 1. Chrysostome noteth that the Apostle doth but verbis consolari comfort the Iewes in word onely in saying they are beloued for the fathers because the vertue of their Progenitors doth not profit them vnlesse they beleeue themselues but the Apostle doth both in word and deed minister consolation vnto them and though they cannot be saued but by faith yet this benefit they haue by the fathers that they are within the couenant of grace which was made with their fathers and their seed Tolet obserueth well how Saint Paul speaking of the enmitie and casting off of the Iewes doth mollifie his speach saying they are enemies for your sakes that ye might be called not otherwise and againe he qualifieth it with reference vnto their election and Progenitors in which respect they are beloued 2. As touching the Gospel they are enemies c. 1. Some doe vnderstand this enmitie to be against Paul and the Church as if he should haue said they are mine and your enemies considering their hatred to the Gospel but they are beloued of mee their election considered thus Theodoret Chrysostome Luther Osiander 2. Origen referreth this enmitie vnto God Israel in respect of the Gospel factus est inimicus Deo is become an enemie vnto God so Origen whom Beza and Pareus follow 3. Pet. Martyr doth well ioyne both together though principally they are vnderstood to be enemies to God and in an other respect beloued of him yet consequently they must be enemies to vs for Gods enemies are our enemies and as they are beloued of God so also we should wish well vnto them 3. They are enemies c. they are beloued c. 1. Chrysostome Theodoret seeme to expound this of the same Iewes who while they continue in vnbeleefe are enemies but when they shall be conuerted to the faith they shall be beloued but they which according to election are beloued of God are neuer enemies 2. Origen much better interpreteth the Apostle thus to speake of diuerse sortes of the Iewes they are enemies among them which did spurne against the Gospel they beloued which were that remnant which belonged to election so also Calvin Martyr with others 3. But Beza better vnderstandeth the Apostle to speake not of particular men but of the whole nation which at that time seemed to be reiected because of their vnbeleefe but yet was not vtterly cast off in regard of their election and promise made to their fathers like as it is called the same riuer that runneth along though it be not of the same water because of the perpetuall succession so it is the same nation of the Iewes because of their lineal discent though consisting of diuerse generations of vnlike condition Faius So then these are not contraries the Israelites are enemies and so hated and they are beloued for contraries must be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secundum idem according to the same subiect but here are diuerse subiects they are enemies in respect of those which beleeue not and beloued that is such as in time to come shall be conuerted to the faith againe contraries must be considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad idem in one and the same respect and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same time but the Iewes are said to be enemies and yet beloued both in diuerse respects for they are enemies for the Gospel sake which they spurne and kick against they are beloued in regard of their election and this must be vnderstood also at diuerse times for at that time present they were enemies but in time to come when they should be called they shall be beloued Gryneus 4. Beloued for the fathers sake 1. not propter merita patrum for the merite of the Fathers as Lyranus it is Christs merite onely for the which the Lord receiueth them to the faith 2. neither because when they are conuerted the Lord shall be put in remembrance of their fathers as Ambrose for God is not oblivious that he had neede of a remembrancer 3. not yet onely is it said for the fathers sakes because sequuntur patrum fidem they doe imitate and follow the faith of their fathers Origen Haymo for so the beleeuing Gentiles also did imitate the saith of Abraham 4. but the Apostles meaning is they are beloued propter promissiones patribus factas because of the promises made to the Fathers gloss â—dmar Tolet because they are descended of those fathers to whom the Lord promised to be their God and to their seed after them Bucer which promise of God the infidelitie of some cannot frustrate 5. There are two reasons giuen why they are enemies one from the occasion not giuen but taken namely the Gospel which they refused the other from the end for your sakes that the Gentiles by their vnbeleefe might enter in there are likewise two causes shewed of their receiuing to grace their election with God which is immutable and the couenant made with their Fathers Quest. 30. Of the meaning of these words The gifts and calling of God are without repentance v. 24. 1. Erasmus interpreteth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 impaenitibilia or as Augustine sometime rendreth the word impaenitendo things whereof he cannot repent him of that
were not lawfull to vse the defense of the Magistrate against wrongs nay that it was not lawfull for the Magistrate to take reuenge of euill doers therefore the Apostle verie fitly falleth into this discourse Gualter 7. And lastly because the Magistrates were then infidels least that the faithfull might take themselues free from the command of Infidels as subiects from their Magistrates seruants from their Masters the Apostle doth interlace this treatise Calvin Gualter for these and such like reasons doth the Apostle so inculcate this doctrine of ciuill obedience as in this place and 1. Tim. 12. Tit. 3.1 and S. Peter agreeth 1. Pet. 2.13.14 Quest. 2. How euerie soule should be subiect to the higher powers 1. Euerie soule 1. The soule is put a part for the whole by the figure synecdoche according to the phrase of Scripture as Haymo giueth instance of that place Gen. 46. how Iacob went downe to Egypt with 70. soules and Act. 27. there were 275. soules with Paul in the ship as sometime the flesh the other part of man is taken for the whole as all flesh shall see the saluation of the Lord. 2. But Origens conceit is here somwhat curious as Martyr and Erasmus note that it is not said euery spirit but euery soule for the spirituall man which hath renounced the world hath nothing wherein to be subiect to the superior powers as the Apostle said gold silver haue we none he that hath none of these nō habet vnde subiaceat potestat ib. hath nothing wherein to be subiect to the powers c. But euen the Apostles thēselues were obedient vnto them 3. he saith euery soule quia debet esse voluntaria subiectio because this subiection must be voluntarie not onely in bodie but in soule Gorrhan 4. and further by this is signified that all mortall men none excepted should be so subiect and therefore he saith euery soule 5. Caietane yet noteth further that not onely our bodies and our substance but euen our soules should be subiect vnto the secular powers in ijs quae possunt legitime imperare in those things wherein they may lawfully command Be subiect The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to be subordinate where 1. is insinuated the order of gouernment which whosoeuer resisteth bringeth in disorder and confusion 2. and Chrysostome noteth that he saith not be obedient but be subiect which is a generall word comprehending all other duties and seruices 3. but this must be limited vnto those things which are lawfully commanded for otherwise if they shall require any thing against the glorie of God and our conscience we must follow the example of the Apostles Act. 4. to obey God rather then man Gualt so Haymo well obserueth that as man consisteth of bodie and soule so he must inviolably in his soule servare fidem Deo keepe his faith vnto God and in his bodie serue the powers To the superior or chiefe powers 1. The vulgar Latin readeth sublimiaribus higher powers which Erasmus and Beza thinke not to be so fit because the word in the originall is not in the imperatiue and this would giue occasion to some to thinke that obedience should be giuen onely to the chiefe magistrate But they are called high in respect of the people ouer whom they are set not compared among themselues for not onely the King as the chiefe but other inferiour officers and ministers are to be obeied as S. Peter sheweth 1. epist. 2.3.14 2. Caietane obserueth that this word high or excelling is added to exclude tyrants who are not excelling Lords and so he taketh the Apostle to speake de legitimis potestatb of lawfull powers but I preferre the ordinarie glosse which vnderstandeth the Apostle of secular powers sive bonis sive malis whether good or euill and Peter Martyr obserueth well that here we must not inquire quo iure quave iniuria by what right or wrong these powers obtained their authoritie for the Romanes by force not by right were at this time Lords of the world but the Magistrates for the present are to be obeied 3. Chrysostome also noteth well that the Apostle speaketh not of the person of the gouernors sed de ipsa re but of the thing it selfe of their authoritie and power that howsoeuer they are vnworthie of their authoritie which abuse it yet the power which they haue is to be obeied 4. Lyranus and Haymo before him thinke this place to be vnderstood of spirituall gouernors and Prelates as well as secular and ciuill but Chrysostome and Basil. lib. de constitut Monach. c. 23. doe better interpret this place of ciuill gouernors and Basils reason is because the Apostle afterward maketh mention of tribute which is due onely to the secular power And therefore Calvine iustly taketh exception to the Romanists which out of this place would conclude that obedience is to be giuen also to the Prelates of the Church Pererius here disput 1. numer 3. opposeth Basil vnto Calvin who should thinke that obedience to Prelates may be concluded out of this place but Basil in the place before alleadged directly sheweth that the Apostle speaketh de potestatibus mundi of the worldly not of spirituall powers onely he reasoneth from hence from the lesse to the greater that if such obedience be to be giuen to temporall gouernors quanto magis c. how much more to spirituall and then for proofe hereof he alleadgeth that place Heb. 13.17 Obey those which haue the ouersight of you 3. Quest. How the powers that be are said to be of God 1. God in the beginning gaue a threefold power vnto man first ouer himselfe God gaue vnto man freewill whereby he should gouerne all his actions then he gaue him power ouer the other creatures and thirdly he gaue vnto man power ouer man first in families as vnto the father ouer his children to the master ouer his seruants to the husband ouer his wife then in the politike regiment of what kind soeuer it be whether Monarchicall of one Aristocraticall of many and those the best or Democraticall which is the popular state all these had their beginning from God some mediatly some immediatly Pareus But it will be asked how and when this order of gouernment was first instituted of God the answer is that God imprinted in man by nature this originall light to see the necessitie of gouernment without the which there would be no order as we see that the vnreasonable creatures as the silly bees haue their gouernor the cranes also and sheepe Chrysostome addeth further maruell not that God hath appointed rule and gouernment among men cum istud in corpore fecerit seeing he hath done the like in the bodie for some parts are made to direct and guide the rest this naturall instinct of gouernment the Lord estsoone confirmed by precept as Gen. 9.6 Whosoeuer sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shedde which is not vnderstood of euery one for