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
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
weakenesse came vpon them by their owne apostasie and falling away from God and that light which they had they depraued neither did they acknowledge their infirmitie but became vaine and foolish in the opinion of their owne strength neither is God debter or bound vnto any but bestoweth his graces freely 2. Pererius disput 16. insisteth onely vpon the first part of this answeare shewing that there is a double kind of ignorance vna est causa culpae one kind of ignorance is that which is the cause of fault or sinne and this excuseth there is an other cuius causa culpa est the cause whereof is our fault and this excuseth not and such was the ignorance of the heathen which was caused by their owne wilfull neglecting and abusing of the light of nature giuen vnto them 3. Peter Martyr hath yet a further answer he distinguisheth between the ignorance of the heathen and their imbecillitie or weakenesse this the heathen would not haue pretended because they ascribed all vnto freewill and therefore they would not haue complained of want of strength the Apostle then toucheth that which was most likely to haue beene obiected by thē namely their ignorance sheweth how euen in that behalf they were also inexcusable c. But seeing as is shewed before euē their natural knowledge was insufficient to saluation the same doubt remaineth stil therfore those two other exceptions concerning their imbecillitie which P. Martyr mentioneth as that it happened by their owne default and that they did not practise that little knowledge which they had but abused it may also be admitted touching their ignorance as before Pareus answeared sufficiently 4. Hereunto further may be added that distinction of ignorance which Gryneus borroweth from Augustine not eueris one which is ignorant is excused sed is solùm qui non habuit vnde disceret but he onely that had not whence to learne And therefore S. Paul excuseth himselfe by his ignorance that he persecuted Christ I did it ignorantly thorough vnbeleefe 1. Tim. 1.13 But such was not the ignorance of God which the Gentiles had hauing naturall meanes offred vnto them which they depraued and abused Quest. 59. v. 21. How the Gentiles are said to haue knowne God and yet glorified him not as God 1. Some thinke that in Scripture that ignorance which is caused by a mans owne fault when he may haue knowledge if he will himselfe it is called by the name of science and knowledge in Scripture as Ioh. 7.28 Christ saith to the Iewes ye both know me and whence I am because they might haue knowne if they would Iustin. resp 140. ad 44. Gentium so also Photius and Sedulius But this is not the Apostles meaning here for he saith not when they might haue knowne God but when they knewe God they therefore had some knowledge of him 2. Some thinke that they had the true knowledge of God but they against this knowledge malitiously and against their owne conscience worshipped other gods so Ambrose Anselm But 1. it cannot be shewed that any of the Philosophers no not they which come nearest vnto the truth had the true knowledge of God for euen Socrates Plato Seneca allowed the worship of the heathen gods and practised it as is before shewed qu. 57. and if any of them thought that the images were no gods yet those which they worshipped were either deuils or Angels as Athanas. sheweth orat cont idol 2. the Apostle here saith that they became vaine in their imaginations which sheweth that they were without the true knowledge of God Anselm answereth that they had once the true knowledge of God and afterward lost it But the Apostle saith otherwise that they did withhold the truth in vnrighteousnesse v. 18. they lost not that knowledge of the truth which they had but suppressed it and kept it vnder with their vaine imaginations 3. Origen seemeth to thinke that they were vtterly voide of all true knowledge of God dum formas imagines requirunt in Des in semetipsis imaginem Dei perdiderunt while they imagined formes and images to be in God they lost in themselues the image of God for there were some Philosophers which held God to be a spirit without any forme or image 4. Some whereas it is said Ioh. 1. the world knewe him not and yet here the Apostle saith when they knewe God c. giue this solution that the world knewe the onely God but not the Sonne Gorrham But the Apostle speaketh here onely of such knowledge of God as naturally may be attained vnto but the knowledge of the Trinitie exceedeth the strength of nature 5. Wherefore the Apostle is thus to be vnderstood that they knewe the true God in part but not perfectly they held some truths concerning the diuine nature but they mingled many vntruthes and falsities therewith they acknowledged a God but they either denied his prouidence and power or they communicated the duine honour vnto others which were not gods and thus they knewe him and yet knew him not In this sense Christ said to his Apostles Ioh. 14.4 Whether I goe ye knowe and the way ye knowe and yet Thomas saith immediately Lord we knowe not whether thou goest how then can we knowe the way So they knewe Christ because they sawe him and he was among them but yet they knewe him not perfectly his power they as yet did not fully vnderstand So the Gentiles knew God in some sort but such an one as he was they did not knowe Augustine to this purpose giueth instance in one of their chiefe Philosophers Hermes Trismigestus how he confesseth many things of the true God the maker of the world tamen obscuritate cordis ad ista delabitur c yet by the darkenesse of his heart he falleth to say that he would haue men subiect vnto those gods which are made by men Beda ex Augustin so they kept the truth as the same Augustin saith in doctrina multis falsitatibus permixta in doctrine mingled with many falshoods And though some among the heathen did hold certaine true principles of God yet there were others more grosse and foolish and were vtterly ignorant of the diuine nature taking the fire wind starres and such like to be gouernours of the world as it is in the booke of wisdome c. 13.1 2. see before of this matter quest 52. Quest. 60. v. 21. How the Gentiles did not glorifie God neither were thankefull but became vaine 1. Did not glorifie him as God this word to glorifie is taken two wayes either to conceiue an honourable opinion of God and to magnifie him and set forth his praise as Ioh. 11.4 this sickenesse is not vnto death but for the glorie of God that the Sonne of God may be glorified thereby or it signifieth the worship due vnto God as Isay. 43.23 Neither hast thou honoured or glorified me with thy sacrifices Theodoret so likewise Chrysostome and Origen seeme to take it in the first sense
said to be incorruptible because he onely of himselfe is free from all corruption and change the Angels are incorruptible yet not originally but by the will of God Pareus infaelix mutatio this was an vnhappie change of the true glorie of God into a similitude of the very God into an image and of the incorruptible into that which is corruptible Gorrham 3. this they did two wayes first in ascribing diuine honor to such things as by nature were not gods as the Egyptians did worship beasts and other creatures for their gods then in seeming to honour the true God by the images of men and beasts Pareus 4. Some take the words in this sense as though they should thinke that the godhead was like vnto these things as S. Paul toucheth that error Act. 17.29 We ought not to thinke that the Godhead is like to gold or siluer c. But the meaning rather is that they giue the diuine honour due vnto God vnto the images of men and beasts for the Apostle seemeth here to allude to that place Psal. 106.16 they turned their glorie into the similitude of a bullocke c. yet the Israelites did not thinke God to be like vnto a calfe or bullocke Tolet. now whereas in the Psalme it is said their glorie but here the glorie of God the reason is because gloria eorum Deus God was their glorie for there can be no greater honour vnto a nation then the true worship of God Mart. 5. The Apostle here doth diuers wayes exaggerate this grosse idolatrie of the heathen 1. maxime ridiculum est c. it was ridiculous that they tooke vpon them to change the glorie of God 2. then quod in tam absurda mutarunt that they changed it into such absurd things Chrysostome 3. he saith not they changed the glorie of the incorruptible God into a corruptible man but into the similitude of the image c. not naturall but such as was fashioned and framed by the hands of man Gorrham Tolet. 6. And whereas some of the Philosophers were not so grosse to thinke that the verie images of wood gold or siluer were the gods but that the Gods were represented in them yet both the one and the other did worship them for gods as Athanas. sheweth orat cont idolat and Augustine saith well quis orat intuens simulachrum qui non sic afficiatur vt ab eo se exandirs putet c. who prayeth looking toward an image is not so affected as though he thought it heard him and hopeth to haue performed by it that which he desireth whereupon men addicted to such superstitions doe turne their backe vpon the Sunne and power out their prayers before the image of the Sun August tractat in Psal. 123. ex Beda 62. Quest. Of the diuerse kinds of idolatrie among the heathen in worshipping the images of men and beasts v. 23. 1. Varro a famous antiquarie among the Romanes who wrote the 41. bookes of antiquities whereof 25. are of humane matters 16. of them of diuine he maketh three kinds of Theologie or heathenish diuinitie one fabulous and poeticall wherein the Poets doe faine many vndecent things of the gods as that they committed theft adulterie that some of them had their beginning out of the thigh some out of the head of Iuppiter there was also a naturall Theologie which the Philosophers handled as whether the gods were eternall what their beginning was whether of the fire as Heraclitus or they consisted of numbers as Pythagoras or ex atomis of small motes as the Epicures the third was ciuill Theologie which belonged to the Priests as what gods ought to be worshipped and with what ceremonies and sacrifices this was for cities the second for the world the first for the theater or stage to this purpose Varro But Thomas sheweth how in this place the Apostle condemneth all these kinds the Ciuill which consisted in the adoration of images in these words they turned the glorie of the incorruptible God into the similitude of the image c. the fabulous and poeticall in these words v. 25. which turned the truth of God into a lie and the naturall obserued by the Philosophers he condemneth in saying v. 25. they serued the Creature forsaking the Creator Thom. in hunc locum 2. Plutarke 6. c. lib. 1. de plurit Philosoph diuideth the heathen idolatrie into 7. kinds 1. they obserued the heauens and starres and when they sawe that by their motion and influence the things belowe were much guided they gaue vnto them the name of gods 2. they made some profitable and wholesome gods as Iuppiter Iono Mercurie 3. some vnprofitable as Mars Saturne the Furies whom they appeased with sacrifices 4. they gaue the fourth place vnto the passions and affections of the minde as to loue venerie desire 5. then they made goddesses of the vertues as of Iustice Fortitude and such like 6. Then followe the poeticall fictions as Hesiodus generation of the gods 7. They ascribed diuine honour vnto those that had bestowed any benefits or found out any profitable inuention for men as Hercules Castor Pollux Bacchus 3. And of all other people the Romanes exceeded in the varietie of idolatrie Tertullian in apologet citeth Varro that he brought in 300. Iuppiters and of other kinds they had an infinite number of gods whereof Augustine giueth this reason Roma quanto maior facta est sicut nauis nautas tanto plures adhibendos esse Deos putavit c. Rome the greater it waxed as a great ship requireth more mariners so they thought to vse many gods as though a fewe gods sufficed not for their greatnesse lib. 3. de ciuit c. 12. Leo addeth further cum pene omnibus dominaretur gentibus omnium pene serutebat errorbus when as they bare rule ouer all nations they became slaues to all their errors serm 1. de Natal Pet. Paul and they in policie did worship the gods of all other nations ad dilatationem imperij for the enlarging of their dominion thinking thereby the rather to insinuate themselues Lyranus Quest. 63. Of the grosse idolatrie of the heathen in worshipping the images of men and of beasts v. 23. 1. Of the image of a corruptible man c. 1. In the booke of wisdome two reasons are yeelded of the adoration of images nimius amor amicorum nimius timor tyrannorum too great loue of friends and too great feare of tyrants of the one they made images to remember them of the other to flatter them Gorrham 2. The Assyrians were the first that worshipped the image of a man namely of Belus the father of Ninus whom the Babylonians called Bell the Sidonians Baal the Iewes Beelzebub the Philistims Zebet Haymo 3. The Romanes after the comming of Aeneas into Italy worshipped also the images of men as Iuppiter Romulus ex gloss ordinar 4. And they worshipped not onely men of desert but lewde persons as the Romanes made Larentia a common strumpet one
to restraine the euill there is no inconvenience for so the Apostle would haue the Corinthians to ende among themselues the controversies that did rise and not one to haile an other before the Magistrate 1. Cor. 6. but for such matters they should be as Magistrates to themselues where no question the Minister and Pastor is not excluded among others but that he may and ought to haue a chiefe hand in the carriage of such matters and so Augustine expoundeth that place in Psal. 118. concion 24. When they bring saith he their causes vnto vs non audemus dicere c. we dare not say man who appointed me a iudge among you constituit enim talibus causis Ecclesiasticos Apostolus cogniturus in foro prohibens litigare Christianos for the Apostle hath appointed ecclesiasticall persons to take cognizance of such causes forbidding Christians to striue in courts c. so it seemeth in those daies that godly Bishops and Pastors were emploied in ending controversies and suits among the people and further Augustine hath this excellent saying touching this matter otium sanctum quaerit charitas veritatis negotium iustum suscipit necessitas charitatis quam sarcinam si nullus imponat percipiendo vacandum est veritati si autem imponitur suscipienda est propter charitatis necessitatem c. the loue of the truth desireth an holy kind of ease and leisure and the necessitie of charitie vndertaketh iust busines which burthen if none impose we must attend the searching of the truth but if it be imposed it must be vndertaken for the necessitie of charities sake lib. 19. de civit Dei c. 19. In the which saying of Augustine I obserue three things 1. what causes were referred vnto Ecclesiasticall persons not criminall but civill not matters which touched the life but controversies which violated charitie 2. how and vpon what occasion they dealt in such causes they hunted not after them neither sought them but they were brought vnto them they ambitiously intruded not themselues into the Magistrates office 3. with what moderation they did onely attend such matters of necessitie and in such sort as it hindred not their better studies and searching of the truth which excuseth not them which so entermeddle in ciuill busines as they neglect their calling So then to conclude this point there are some things in the Civill and Ecclesiasticall power that are compatible some incompatible and can not be ioyned together like as a ciuill Magistrate ought not to preach or minister the Sacraments so neither can a Minister meddle with the sword but some things are compatible as the ciuill power to maintaine peace extendeth it selfe to the externall policie of the Church â— and so are helpers to the Ecclesiasticall state so the Ministers may be assistants to the ciuill state to advise and direct them See further hereof Synops. Centur. 1. err 52. Controv. 6. Whether it be lawfull for a Christian to be a Magistrate and to vse the sword in time of peace and warre v. 4. He beareth not the sword in vaine Hauing hitherto out of this chapter resisted diuerse erroneous opinions of the Romanists we haue now occasion to deale with the fantasticall and brainesicke position of the Anabaptists who denie that any Christian ought to take vpon him to be a Magistrate or to vse the sword in exercising ciuill iustice at home or militarie discipline abroad not much vnlike was the saying of Iudus Gaulonita of whom Iosephus maketh mention in the beginning of his 18. booke antiquit Iudaic. who affirmed that the Iewes were not bound propter libertatem legis by the libertie of their lawe to yeeld obedience to Caesar or to any profane Prince c. in the Councell also of Vienna was condemned a certaine sect called Beghardi who held that a man might attaine to that perfection as that he was not bound to the observation of any precepts nor was subiect to the obedience of any we will examine some of the Anabaptists reasons 1. Argum. The Apostle saith that Christ made some Apostles some Evangelists c. Ephes. 4. not that he made them Princes and rulers Ans. 1. Christ came not to invert or innovate the ciuill state which was instituted before but to appoint a newe order of teachers for the building of his Church 2. and the Apostle speaketh there onely of such Ministers as were called to teach those indeede he made not Princes this letteth not but other of his members not called to teach may be Rulers 2. Argum. Christ forbiddeth his Apostles to be Lords and Rulers as the heathen were But with you it shall not be so Math. 20. and this he saith not onely to his Apostles but to all Mark 13.27 That which I say vnto you I say vnto all c. Answ. In that place Matth. 20. Christ forbiddeth not all Christians Lordly dominion but onely his Apostles that were apointed to preach the word that there might be still a difference betweene the Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall power but in the other place our Sauiour speaketh of spirituall watchfulnesse which concerneth not onely the Apostles but all Christians and therefore speaketh to all 3. Argum. S. Paul forbiddeth the Corinthians all strifes and controversies which doe appertaine vnto the Magistrate 1. Cor. 6. Ans. The Apostle doth not simply forbid all suites but 1. before the heathen iudges 2. among brethren 3. for small causes and trifling matters 4. and with a desire and mind to procure trouble one to an other for otherwise S. Paul had transgressed against his owne rule when he appealed vnto Caesar. 4. Argum. Our Blessed Sauiour forbiddeth to seeke reuenge but if one smite vs on the one cheeke to turne the other also Matth. 5. Ans. All priuate reuenge is forbidden but the Magistrate is Gods minister and therefore as reuenge belongeth vnto God so the Magistrate in Gods place may take reuenge and one may implore his helpe as he may commit his cause to God so it be not done with a revengefull minde 5. Argum. Our Sauiour biddeth vs to loue our enemies but to wage battell with them and to put malefactors to death is not to loue them Ergo. Answ. We are bidden to loue our enemies not simply but 1. as they are men 2. as they are our enemies that we should not attempt any thing against them of a priuate grudge or with a reuengefull minde 3. and we must not seeke their destruction but amendement yet we are not to loue our enemies 1. as they are euill least we should loue in them their vices which God hateth 2. as they are enimies of God and his Church 3. and in forbearing to punish them to their owne hurt and euill example of others So the Magistrate may loue the malefactor in seeking his amendement and yet may punish his vice in him so the Prince may loue his enemies in seeking all meanes to winne them and yet wage battell with them as enemies to God and the commonwealth 6.