had formerly dealt herein with the Thessalonians vnto whom he thus writeth 2. Thess. 4.9 as touching brotherly loue ye neede not that I write vnto you c. yea and that thing ye verily doe to all the brethren which are throughout all Macedonia It seemeth then that he had propounded this matter of beneuolence and almes to the Thessalonians before he had written thereof to the Corinthians Chrysost. in argum But here are two doubts mooued concerning this epistle from whence it was sent and by whom Barenius to whom Pererius consenteth thinketh it was written from Corinth because S. Paul maketh mention c. 3.6 of Timothie his returne vnto Paul before this epistle was written who found S. Paul at Corinth Act. 18.1.5 But there it is said that Silas and Timotheus came from Macedonia when they found Paul at Corinth therefore that might be an other returne then this here mentioned when Timothie came from Thessalonica And that Paul was then at Athens when he wrote this epistle is euident c. 3.1 we thought it good to remaine at Athens alone c. And of this opinion also are Athanasius in Synops. and Theodoret that this epistle was sent from Athens But these forenamed fathers thinke also that this epistle was sent by Timothie because it followeth c. 3.2 and haue sent Timotheus our brother c. who they thinke carried this epistle yet it is more probable that it was sent by some other and most like by Tichicus Pareus for the inscription of the epistle is in Paul Siluanus Timotheus name it is not like that he would send Timotheus salutation he beeing the messenger to carrie the epistle for salutation and greeting is sent in the name of those which are absent 3. The third epistle in order was the former Epistle to Timothie which he wrote from Laodicea the chiefe citie of Phrygia parationa while he passed thorough that countrey Act. 18.2.3 before he came to Ephesus c. 19.1 for when S. Paul writ to Timothie he purposed to see him shortly 1. Tim. 3.14 as he did out of Phrygia comming to Ephesus this seemeth to haue beene about the 19. yeare of his conuersion 4. Next was written the former epistle vnto the Corinthians which was dated not from Philippi as it is in the Greeke subscription but rather from Ephesus as the Syrian and Arabian translation hath for at this time Paul was at Ephesus 1. Cor. 16.8 I will tarrie at Ephesus vntill Pentecost and as yet he was not come to Macedonia where Phillippi was as he saith v. 5. I will passe thorough Macedonia it seemeth then that this epistle was writen while Paul stated at Ephesus before that commotion made by Demetrius Beza annot 1. Cor. 16.5 about the 19. yeare of Pauls conuersion the 54. yeare of our Lord and in the 12. yeare of Claudius Pareus 5. Then followed the second epistle to the Corinthians which was written from Philippi as the vsuall subscription sheweth for after the tumult ceased in Ephesus Paul departed to go into Macedonia Act. 20.1 and from thence into Grecia where he staied 3. moneths as he promised to come vnto Corinthus with them of Macedonia 2. Cor. 9.4 which he at that time performed 6. About the same time also was written the Epistle to Titus from Nicopolis which is not farre from Philippi in Macedonia whether he sent for Titus to come vnto him because he purposed there to winter Tit. 3.12 yet the Apostle afterward changed his mind for he staied three moneths in Grecia and there wintred Act. 20.3 as it is most like at Corinthus Pareus Aretius thinketh that this epistle was written before the latter to the Corinthians the matter is not great they were both written in a short time one after another but it seemeth he first came to Philippi whence he wrote to the Corinthians and then to Nicopolis 7. The last of all these was written this epistle to the Romanes from Corinthus in his last passing thorough Macedonia and Grecia when he went to Ierusalem whence he was sent captiue to Rome for now he had receiued the almes to minister vnto the Saints at Ierusalem Rom. 15.25 which he had written before to the Corinthians to be gathered 1. Cor. 16.2 2. Cor. 8.6 which almes he now caried to Ierusalem when he wrote this epistle as he saith Act. 25.17 that he brought almes to his nation This epistle to the Romanes as it was the last of those which were written before he came to Rome so yet was it before all the rest which he sent from Rome beeing there in bonds Romanorum enim vnbem nondum accesserat for he was not yet come to the citie of Rome when he wrote this epistle Chrysostome These seuen former epistles S. Paul did write before he was carried prisoner to Rome the other seuen he sent after he came to Rome for in all of them he maketh mention of his bonds but whereas Paul is thought to haue beene twice in bonds at Rome for otherwise beeing held to haue come to Rome in the 2. yeare of Nero he must either be thought after 2. yeares imprisonment at Rome to haue suffered in the 4. yeare of Nero which is against the opinion of all or that he remained there 12. yeares prisoner which is not like Now then whether he writ these Epistles following in his first or second imprisonment and bonds at Rome it is vncertaine Pareus 8. The first written from Rome was the epistle to the Galathians wherein he maketh mention of the markes of the Lord Iesus which he did beare in his bodie c. 6.17 meaning his chaines or torments which he endured this may seeme to haue beene in the beginning of his second boads Pareus Chrysostome thinketh that the epistle to the Galatians was before this to the Romanes but that cannot be for when he sent this epistle to the Romanes he had not yet seene them for he saith c. 1.11 I long to see you c. neither had beene at Rome but from Rome he sent the Epistle to the Galathians then being in bonds as both the subscription of the Epistle sheweth and the mentioning of the markes of the Lord Iesus c. 6.17 Aretius thinketh that this was written last of all sauing the epistle to the Hebrewes because the Apostle saith c. 6.17 from hence let no man put me to businesse ego enim modo immolar for I now am readie to be offred but these words are not there he saith for I beare in my bodie the marks c. 9. The next was the epistle to the Ephesians where he maketh mention also of his bonds c. 6.22 Pareus 10. Then the epistle to the Philippians in the which he maketh mention of some in Caesars houshold which sent salutations c. 4.22 Pareus Aretius will haue this the first epistle sent in his bonds because he maketh mention thereof as of a newe thing c.i.v. 7. but by this reason the epistle to Philemon should be first because in the verie title he saith
the father of many nations 3. by the vnlikelihood of the obiect set before his eyes that his seede should be as the starres of heauen in multitude Par. omnia difficultatem sonant all things were full of difficultie both actus fidei the act of his faith which was of things that appeared not and modus the manner it was against hope and fructus the fruit and ende which was to be the father of many nations Gorrh. Quest. 33. How Abrahams bodie is said to be dead verse 19. Whereas Abraham 37. yeares after this begat diuerse children of Keturah whom he married after Sarah it is questioned how Abrahams bodie at an 100. yeare old is said to be dead that is vnapt for generation 1. Origen to dissolue this doubt vnderstandeth this deadnesse of Abrahams bodie of his spirituall abstinence and mortification such as the Apostle speaketh of mortifie your earthly members But if in this sense Abrahams bodie be said to be mortified now then it would followe that it was not so mortified afterward when he had children at a greater age by an other wise 2. Pererius hath one solution in his questions vpon the 18. of Genesis that this deadnesse of Abrahams bodie was onely in respect of his owne opinion for it is said he considered not his owne bodie but this deadnes and vnaptnesse of his bodie was not in his owne opinion but verily and in deede as appeareth by the reason which is yeelded because he was an hundred yeare old 3. Augustine bringeth in two solutions lib. 16. de ciuit c. 28. the first is that Abrahams bodie was not simply dead and vnfit for generation but onely in respect of Sarah he might be able to beget children of a younger woman though not of Sarah so Lyraus Gorrhan with others But then this deadnes had not beene in Abraham's bodie but in Sarahs whereas the Apostle setteth downe both the deadnes of Abrahams bodie and of Sarahs wombe as two seuerall impediments 4. Augustine hath an other solution though he preferre the other that Abrahams body was indeede dead and vnapt for generation but his bodie was reuiued and he receiued a generatiue facultie of God by faith which continued also after Sarahs death thus answeareth also Thomas vpon this place Tolet. annot 21. Calvin Beza Martyr But it will be thus obiected against this interpretation 1. Augustine thus reasoneth that it is not like Abrahams bodie was dead for procreation at an 100. yeares seeing that although now a man of these yeares cannot beget a sonne yet it was not vnlike then for many not yeares onely but ages after Abrahams time no lesse then a 1700. yeares Plinius writeth of Cato and king Massinissa that begat children after 80. yeares and I haue known an old man in this age at those yeares to haue begotten children Answ. 1. If for a man at an 100. yeares to beget children were not then vnvsuall when the age of man extended neere vnto 200. yeares the like might be said also of Sarah that it was not vnvsuall for women to beare at 90. Tolet. 2. It must be considered that Abraham was worne with labour and trauaile and so he might the sooner growe old and his bodie weake Calvin as we see in these dayes some mens bodies are as weake at 60. yeares as some mens at 70. or 80. Tolet. 3. and further the disvse and discontinuance of Abrahams bodie all his life time in that generatiue facultie made it more vnapt now in his old age for procreation 2. Obiect Pererius thus obiecteth that the Apostle maketh this an act onely of Sarahs faith not of Abrahams that she receiued strength to receiue seede Heb. 11.11 whereas if Abrahams generatiue facultie had beene decayed the Apostle would also haue noted it to be an act of faith in him Answ. 1. In matters of fact it is no found reasoning from the Scriptures negatiuely it followeth not that if a thing be found not rehearsed in some place of Scripture that therefore it was not done 2. that may be omitted in one place of Scripture which is supplied in an other as both Genes 17.17 Abraham standeth vpon both these difficulties that a child should be borne vnto him at an hundred yeares and Sarah should beare at ninetie and the Apostle setteth downe both these as impediments in this place the deadnesse of Abrahams bodie and of Sarahs wombe the Scripture then noting both as difficulties and lettes we are not curiously to take exception to the contrarie Now although elsewhere Hexapl. in Gen. c. 17. quest 7.8 I seemed to encline vnto Augustines first solution yet now vpon better ground and plaine euidence of Scripture I approoue the latter rather that Abraham had effoetum corpus a bodie vnapt for generation indeede Haymo Beza and herein I subscribe vnto Chrysostome who rehearseth fowre impediments and difficulties which yet Abrahams faith ouer came 1. he beleeued contra spem against hope because non habebat alium quempiam c. he had not any other whom he knewe in that manner to haue receiued children whereas they which followed afterward of Abrahams posteritie had the example of Abraham set before them 2. then Abraham had himselfe corpus emortuum a dead bodie this was a second impediment 3.4 then Sarahs wombe was dead which he calleth the third and fourth impediment which Theophylact thus expoundeth that Sarahs wombe was two wayes mortified semo sterilitate with old age and barrennesse Quest. 34. What promise of God made to Abraham it was whereof he is said not to haue doubted v. 20. 1. Tolet annot 22. thinketh that the Apostle hath reference in this place vnto three promises renewed to Abraham the last is mentioned first v. 17. when he offred vp Izaak without doubting beleeuing God who quickneth the dead the first v. 18. which was made concerning the number of his seede Gen. 15. and then the renewing of the promise that he should haue a sonne of Sarah Gen. 17. the Apostle inferreth v. 19. and of that promise the Apostle speaketh here But if the Apostle in the first place should haue mentioned the last promise made at the offring of Izaak it had beene out of order to mention the last first and it hath beene shewed before that there the Apostle toucheth the first promise made to Abraham concerning his seede quest 29. 2. Some thinke that the Apostle here onely aymeth at the second promise made concerning Izaak as the Latine translator readeth in repromissione in the repromission or promise renewed and so Lyran. Gorrhan take it but the Apostle addeth v. 22. it was imputed to him for righteousnesse which imputation was at the first promise concerning Izaak Gen. 15. when Abraham beleeued 3. Neither yet is this to be restrained onely to the first promise for at that time no mention was made of Sarah but Abraham is promised a sonne onely out of his owne bowels Gen. 15. but the Apostle saith here that he considered not his owne bodie c.
avouched by this Egesippus as how Peter and Simon Magus did striue which of them should raise Neros cousin that was dead and he that could not doe it should die and how Peter fleeing out of Rome met Christ at the gates and asked him Domine quo vadis Master whether goest thou and he answeared I come againe to be crucified whereupon Peter returned and was crucified for this is contrarie to S. Peters owne doctrine that the heauens should containe Christ vntill his second comming Act. 3.21 To Ireneus testimonie we answear 1. whereas he saith that Matthew wrote his Gospell at what time Peter and Paul preached at Rome this cannot agree with the historie of times for Matthew is held to haue written his Gospel in the 3. yeere of Caligula from which yeare vnto the 2. of Nero when S. Paul is held to haue first come vnto Rome are verie neere 20. yeares 2. and as Ireneus is vncertaine in this so an other opinion he hath of the like credit that Christ should be 40. or 50. yeare old when he preached and this he saith he receiued of all the Elders of Asia who testified id ipsum tradidisse eis Iohannem that Iohn deliuered the same vnto them and yet the other opinion of Epiphanius that Christ died in the 33. yeare of his age and beganne to preach at 30. is held of all to come neerer vnto the truth Hierome is as vncertaine 1. he saith that Paul came to Rome in the 2. yeare of Claudius and yet he granteth that before he had been at Antioch and from thence went and preached to the dispersed brethren in Pontus Galatia Bithinia Cappadocia Asia which might hold him not much lesse then 14. yeares as shall be shewed afterward so that he could not in this account come to Rome til the 2. of Nero. 2. Hierome is as vncertaine in other things in his epistle to Marcella he thinketh Adam was buried in mount Calvarie in his epitath of Eustach he will haue him buried in Chebron in his epistle to Evagr. he thinketh Iob came of Esau and in his cōmentarie vpon Genesis that he discended of Nahor Abrahams brother To Eusebius these exceptions may be taken 1. that he was an Arrian and beeing an Arrian wrote his historie which maketh it of the lesse credit 2. he is contrarie to himselfe for l. 3. c. 2. he affirmeth that Peter came not to Rome till the last yeare of Claudius See Christ. Carlil in his booke of the life and peregrination of Peter 1. dis This shall suffice concerning the contrarie arguments and obiections made by the Papists now ours follow for the demonstration of the contrarie part of Peters not beeing at Rome where first I will set downe the opinion of the Protestants and then produce their reasons Though the Protestants in generall and by the most full and sufficient warrant of Scripture do hold that Peter was not at Rome as Bishop there or founder of that Church and so in effect doe agree in the substance yet I finde some difference among them in certaine points coincident to this question 1. Some directly affirme and prooue it by euident places of Scripture that Peter was not at Rome at all as Vl. Vellanus whose obiections Bellarmine rather maketh an offer to confute then indeed confuteth them l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 5.6 2. Some goe yet further and affirme that Peter neither liued at Rome nor yet died there nor S. Paul neither but assigneth Ierusalem to be the place where S. Peter was crucified by warrant of that place Matth. 23.34 where our Sauiour saith that Ierusalem shall kill and crucifie some of the wise men and Prophets whom he should send thither Christopher Carlil who alleadgeth Lyranus and the interlinear gloss vpon that place that Peter was crucified at Hierusalem for none els of the Apostles were crucified there Linus also affirmeth that Peter was slaine at Ierusalem by Agrippa the last king of the Iews when also Iames the lesse was killed with Ioses Simon and Iude. 3. Some of our writers denie not Peter to haue beene at Rome but they affirme he could not come thither so soone nor continue there so long 25. yeares from the 2. of Claudius as Beza saith non invitus concedam c. I will not vnwillingly graunt that Peter was at Rome and there put to death but not the other annot in 1. Pet. 5.14 so also Gualter id ego non facile negaverim c. I will not easily denie that Peter in the last yeare of Nero receiued the crowne of Martyrdome because of the consent of auncient writers c. to the same purpose also D. Fulke annot 4. in 16. c. ad Roman 4. To this we adde further that howsoeuer we absolutely denie not but that Peter might be at Rome yet it is more probable he was not certainely out of the Scripture it can not be prooued that he was there at all and it is not de fide a thing concerning faith neither to be held as an article of faith as the Church of Rome doth defend it because the Scripture only must be a rule of our faith and further it is euident out of the Scripture that Peter was not at Rome till Pauls first beeing there in bonds where the historie of the acts of the Apostle endeth whatsoeuer he was afterward which Pareus thinketh to haue beene the 11. yeare of Nero but it was rather the second yeare when S. Paul came thither first and his second arrivall was in the 11. yeare for this Epistle was not written in the 8. yeare of Nero as Pareus thinketh but rather in the ende of Claudius raigne while Narcissus was yet in authoritie see before in the ende of the 5. and 10. quest Our reasons against Peters beeing at Rome in manner and forme aforesaid are these Our first argument shall be out of the Scripture 1. it is evident that Peter was at Ierusalem the third yeare after Pauls conversion for there he staied with him 15. dayes which was the 37. yeare of Christ he was not then yet at Rome 2. 8. yeare after this he was imprisoned by Herod which was the 43. yeare of Christ and the 3. yeare of Claudius Euseb. l. 2. c. 11. Ioseph l. 19. c. 7. Peter thē was not yet at Rome 3. Sixe yeare after this was Peter at Ierusalem for there S. Paul found him 14. yeare after his first comming thither Galat. 2.1 then was celebrated the Apostolicall counsel mentioned Act 15. when each gaue to other the right hand of fellowship this was the 9. yeare of Claudius as witnesseth Hierome hitherto Peter had not visited Rome neither will it suffice to say that he came from Rome thither to the councell for then what time will they leaue vnto Peter to visit Antioch and the Churches of Asia Bythinia Cappadocia Galatia and Egypt where Nicephorus saith he preached lib. 2. c. 35. in all these places he preached as it appeareth by his 1.
appeareth Act. 5. where the whole Councell followed his sentence by profession he was a Pharisie Philip. 3.5 which was the most tolerable sect among the Iewes 4. Concerning his life and conuersation euen before his conuersion he did lead an vnblameable life touching the law beeing very zealous in defending the rites and ceremonies thereof but he was withall a most fierce persecutor of the Church of Christ Philip. 3.6 and after his conuersion he was a zealous a preacher of the Gospel 5. Touching his gifts he was not onely learned in their owne law but also well studied in humane learning as appeareth by the alledging of forten testimonies as of Aratus Act. 17. of Menander 1. Cor. 15. of Epimenides Tit. 1. He excelled in the gift of vtterance and had a singular grace of speach as is euident by the Apologies and extemporall speaches which he made Act. 22.23 Beside he was forceable in perswasion pithie in argument and readie in disputation as appeareth by the conflicts which he had diuers times with the Iewes and with the Philosophers at Athens Act. 17. His labour and paines was answerable to his gifts the grace of God was not in vaine in him for he laboured both by writing and preaching more then all the Apostles beside 1. Cor. 15.10 he caused the Gospel to abound from Ierusalem to Illyricum Rom. 15.19 euen vnto Spaine v. 24. in all Asia minor and in the most famous countries of Europe he preached the Gospel of Iesus Christ. 6. Now concerning the ende of this holy Apostle in the 23. yeare of his Apostleship after his conuersion which is held to haue beene in the 3. yeare after the ascension of Christ in the 20. yeare of Tiberius in the 2. yeare of Nero he was carried prisoner to Rome and there remained in free custodie two yeares from thence it is thought he was deliuered and went and preached the Gospel in the West parts as Hierome collecteth out of that place 2. Tim. 4.17 that the Lord deliuered him out of the lyons mouth meaning Nero that by me the preaching of the Gospel might bâ— fully knowne and all the Gentiles might heare Afterward in the 14. yeare of Nero and the 35. of his Apostleship and 37. after Christ ascension and from the natiuitie of Christ 70. he was beheaded at Rome and during his bonds he writ 7. of his Epistles but whether in his first or second bonds it is vncerten Paraeus Aretius thinketh he wrote them in the time of his first imprisonment but that is not so certen But there are other particular matters recorded which fell out in S. Pauls death which are not of like certentie Hierome thinketh that S. Paul and S. Peter suffered in one day at Rome and some adde that when he was beheaded in stead of blood there issued forth milke to shew his innocencie August in orat de sanctis But Nicephorus reporteth a thing more strange that Paul before he suffered had conference with Nero and told him that he would returne vnto him the third day after and so his shadow appeared accordingly which Nero catched at but it fled from him Niceph. l. 2. c. 36. The first of these is probable though not necessarie to be beleeued the second is not impossible though of no great certentie the third seemeth to be fabulous as many such miracles haue beene deuised in former times of the Saints to encrease superstition Aretius 3. Quest. Of S. Pauls place of birth 1. Absurd is the opinion of the Ebionites as Epiphanius reporteth and confuteth their heresie haeres 30. that S. Paul was a Grecian by nation and borne of Greeke parents but comming to Ierusalem he was in loue with the Priests daughter and desiring her to wife he became a Proselyre and was content to be circumcised But this is contrarie to Paul himselfe who affirmeth that he was an Hebrew of the Hebrewes and of the tribe of Beniamin Philip. 3.5 2. Hierome sometime seemeth to be of opinion that Paul was borne at Giscalis a towne of Iudea which beeing taken by the Romanes he departed to Tharsus with his parents and thereupon he was counted of Tharsus libr. de Ecclesiast script but after this in an epistle to Algasia he resolueth that he was borne at Tarsus Beda is of the same opinion that Paul was borne at Giscalis in c. 21. Actor and Andreas Masius in c. 19. Iosua 3. But the more generall and receiued opinion is that Paul was borne at Tarsus and not at Giscalis which is thus confirmed 1. Giscalis was a towne of Galile not of Iudea and taken by Titus the Emperour after S. Pauls death who was crowned with Martyrdome in the 13. yeare of Nero Ioseph l. 4. de bello Iudaic. it was not then taken by the Romanes so long before 2. S. Paul was a Romane borne Act. 22.26.28 that is borne in a citie priuiledged with the Romane liberties but so was not Giscalis Tharsus was as Dio testifieth lib. 47. and Plin. lib. 5. c. 27.3 Ignatius writing to them of Tharsus calleth them cives discipulos Pauli S. Pauls disciples and citizens 4. But the Apostle himselfe putteth this matter out of doubt affirming that he was borne in Tarsus in Cilicia Act. 22.2 4. Quest. Whether S. Paul were noble by birth 1. August serm 15. de verb. Apost thinketh that S. Paul was of noble birth vpon those words Philip. 3.3 Though I might haue confidence in the flesh for it had beene no great matter saith he for the Apostle to haue contemned nobilitie hauing none himselfe And beside he was of the sect of the Pharisies which was a noble sect among the Iewes they were not of the contemptible sort to this purpose Augustine Whereunto this may be added that the high Priest would not haue giuen so great authoritie vnto S. Paul as he did if he had bin of obscure birth or parentage 2. But Chrysostome seemeth to be of the contrarie opinion fuisse Paulum inopem coriarium that Paul was a poore handicraft man a worker of leather hom 4. in 2. epist. ad Timoth And hereof this argument is yeelded that S. Paul was not of noble birth because he was exercised in an handicraft in making of tents and therein brought vp before his calling as may be gathered Act. 18.3 But it was not the vse of noble men to follow such base trades And S. Paul saith not many noble are called 1. Cor. 1.25 which is vnderstood chiefly of the calling of the Apostles 3. The resolution is this that though S. Paul were not noble according to the Romane estimation of nobilitie beeing of an handicraft which suited not with nobilitie among the Romanes yet among the Iewes he was not of vnnoble birth v. ho counted nobilitie by the noblenes of the tribe and the antiquitie of the familie in which respect Ioseph the husband of Marie was noble though a carpenter by his trade as beeing descended of the royall tribe of Dauid So Paul was noble
moneths and 13. daies But herein he is much deceiued The most doe giue vnto Nero 14. yeares but not complete the reason of this vncertentie is because it is not certainly knowne when Nero died Onuphrius thinketh he died about the 10. day of Iune and he beganne to raigne about the 13. day of October when Claudius died so that by this account he should raigne but 13. yeares 7. moneths and 28. daies ex Perer. but because the most doe allow vnto him 14. yeares we will follow the vsuall and common reckoning And this shall suffice to haue beene inserted here concerning the yeares of the raigne of the Emperours see more of the yeares of the Emperours Hexapl. in Dan. c. 9. qu. 75. where the account somewhat differeth from this in certaine moneths because there Eusebius computation is followed 7. Quest. In which yeare after the passion of Christ Paul was conuerted It followeth now that such matters be briefly touched which concerne this holy Apopostle after he was conuerted to the faith of Christ and first of the time of his conuersion 1. Whereas it is most euident that S. Stephen was stoned to death after the most glorious ascension of Christ and that S. Pauls conuersion followed after that blessed Martyrs death some doe thinke that Stephen was put to death 7. yeares after Christs ascension and so consequently S. Pauls conuersion happened likewise 7. yeares after this opinion Nicephorus lib. 2. c. 3. ascribeth to Euodius the successor of S. Peter in Antioch But there is no probabilitie of this opinion for it is not like that the Church had rest without persecution so long that is 7. yeares after Christs ascension And the coniecture of some is that 7. yeares are put for 7. moneths by some corruption and fault in the copies for so many moneths there are betweene the ascension of Christ and the martyrdome of S. Stephen 2. Some thinke that Paul was conuerted in the first yeare after the passion of our blessed Sauiour vpon the 25. day of Ianuarie so Eusebius and Beda But because S. Stephen is held to haue suffered vpon the 26. day of Ianuarie in the first yeare after Christs passion from which day to the 25. day of Ianuarie when S. Paul according to the receiued opinion was conuerted is not aboue a moneth in which time all those things could not be fulfilled which are recorded by S. Luke Act. c. 8. S. Pauls conuersion could not fall out in the first yeare after the passion of Christ. This matter is not helped by the author of the scholasticall historie vpon the Acts of the Apostles c. 46. who thus distinguisheth that if the first yeare of Christs passion be reckoned according to the vsuall account that is from Ianuarie when the Romane yeare beganne then S. Paul was conuerted in the second yeare but if from the time of Christs passion then it was in the first yeare for still the same doubt remaineth that in this reckoning there was but one moneth betweene the martyrdome of S. Stephen and the conuersion of S. Paul 3. Wherefore the opinion of Oecumenius vpon the last chapter of the Acts of the Apostles is more probable that S. Paul was indeede conuerted in the second yeare counting from the time of Christs passion so that from the most holy death of our blessed Sauiour vnto the conuersion of Saint Paul which is held by a generall receiued opinion to haue beene vpon the 25. day of Ianuarie there was runne one whole yeare and tenne moneths 8. Quest. At what age S. Paul was conuerted 1. Ambrose and Theodoret vpon the 7. chapter of the 1. epistle to the Corinthians thinke that S. Paul at the time of his conuersion was so young a man that he was not meete for mariage so that in their opinion he could not then be aboue 20. yeares old this their opinion may seeme to be grounded vpon this reason because Act. 7.58 Saint Luke speaking of Saint Paul saith that the witnesses laide downe their garments at the feete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a young man called Saul But that word hath not so much respect vnto his age and youth as to his courage and fiercenesse as the word signifieth as Budeus sheweth whereupon Euripides calleth bold and insolent speach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that Saint Paul was not so very a young man appeareth because he is tearmed by an other word Ananias saith chap. 9.13 We haue heard by many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this man 2. And further that S. Paul was not so young a man at the time of his conversion may be shewed by these reasons 1. S. Paul himselfe saith Act. 26.6 As touching my life from my youth and what it was from the beginning among mine owne nation at Ierusalem know all the Iewes it seemeth then that he spent his youth among the Iewes before his conuersion 2. Those things which S. Paul reporteth to haue beene done by him before his conuersion agree not vnto S. Pauls youth Act. 26.9 I also verily thought in my selfe that I ought to doe many contrarie things against the name of Iesus c. many of the Saints I put in prison hauing receiued authoritie of the high Priests and when they were put to death I gaue sentence this iudgement of S. Paul and authoritie committed vnto him were not incident vnto a very youth 3. If S. Paul were but about 20. yeares of age when he was conuerted it would follow that he exceeded not 46. yeares in the 4. yeare of Nero when he is thought to haue written his Epistle to Philemon but then he called himselfe aged Paul for from the 20. yeare of Tiberius which was the 2. yeare after Christs passion when Paul was conuerted vnto the 4. of Nero are but 25. or 26. yeares It would follow also hereupon that S. Paul suffering as Hierome thinketh in the 37. yeare after the passion of Christ was not aboue 55. yeare old whereas Chrysostome thinketh that he was aboue 68. yeares when he suffered so that by this account he will be found to haue beene more then 30. yeares of age when he was conuerted 9. Quest. How long S. Paul after his conuersion was rauished in spirit and taken vp into Paradise 1. Some are of opinion that in the space of those three daies while Paul continued blind after Iesus had spoken to him by the way Act. 9.9 that he then was taken vp into the third heauen and heard such things as were not to be vttered of which his rauishing in the spirit S. Paul writeth 2. Corinth 12. of this opinion are Thomas Lyranus Carthusianus vpon that place Ioannes Driedo lib. 1. de scriptur c. 2. But this opinion is easily refuted for the Apostle saith that thing happened vnto him 14. yeares before he writ that epistle now this second epistle to the Corinthians he is held to haue written in the beginning of the raigne of Nero from thence counting 14. yeares we still come to
these two that this inhibition was in the 9. yeare it might be after 2. admit it were in the ninth yeare yet S. Pauls going vp in the 17. yeare of his conuersion might be before for seeing he was conuerted in the beginning of the 20. yeare of Tiberius vpon the 25. of Ianuarie as is commonly held his going vp to Ierusalem may be supposed to haue beene in the beginning likewise of the 17. yeare which falleth out in the beginning of the 10. yeare of Claudius and this eiection of the Iewes might be in the ende of the yeare 3. S. Luke saith not c. 18.2 that then the Iewes were first expelled but that Aquila was lately come from Rome because Claudius had giueâ— commandement c. there is no precise time set and there might be some space allowed for their departure after that the commandement was giuen 11. Quest. Of Pauls beeing in bonds first at Cesarea and afterward as Rome The fourth iourney of S. Paul to Ierusalem was when he was taken by the captaine Lysias and sent to Cesarea to Felix the gouernour as S. Luke setteth forth the historie Act. 21.22 23. and at Cesarea he continued vnder Felix two yeares in bonds Act. 24.28 But there are diuers opinions concerning this matter 1. Some doe thinke that the two yeares there mentioned are vnderstood of the time of Felix gouernment but that can not be for S. Paul saith Act. 24.10 that Festus had beene of many yeares a Iudge vnto that nation he had beene then their gouernour more then two yeares and Iâ—sephus writeth that Festus was sent thither in the 11. yeare of Claudius lib. 20. Antiquit. c. 5. and he was displaced from his regiment in the 2. yeare of Nero so that he held his gouernment fiue yeares at the least 2. Baronius thinketh that the two yeares there mentioned must be restrained to Neros raigne for in his second yeare Felix was remooued and Paul brought prisoner to Rome he denieth that he was two yeares in bonds at Caesarea But Pererius well refuteth this assertion because no mention is made at all of Nero by S. Luke and therefore to his raigne these two yeares can haue no relation 3. The author of the scholasticall historie will haue these two yeares counted from the time when the Iewes first accused Paul before Caesar in Act. Apostol c. 3. But neither doth S. Luke make mention there of any such thing 4. Wherefore whereas the words stand thus when two yeares were expired Pontius Festus came into Felix roome and Felix willing to get fauour of the Iewes left Paul bound the best sense is to beginne these two yeares from the first imprisonment of S. Paul at Caesarea of this opinion are Lyranus gloss interlinear Occumenius in vltim cap. Actor Beds in c. 24. Actor And so much may be gathered out of the text because it is said that Felix sent for Paul the officer and communed with him hoping that some money should haue beene giuen him v. 27. this often communing with S. Paul sheweth that S. Paul was detained there sometime in bonds and it is said also that he left Paul bound so that the two yeares expired which are mentioned in the same place are most fitly referred to Pauls bonds Now after Paul had beene two yeares prisoner at Caesarea he thence was sent bound to Rome in the second yeare of Nero and continued there free prisoner two yeares in an house which he hired Act. 28.30 So he came to Rome in the 23. yeare after his conuersion and the 25. yeare after the passion of Christ But afterward he was loosed out of his bonds and dismissed from Rome as shall be shewed in the next question and in this first two yeares imprisonment at Rome it is like that S. Luke wrote the historie of the Acts and there endeth because it is not like that he was after that S. Pauls perpetuall and inseparable companion 12. Quest. Whether S. Paul was set at libertie after he was prisoner at Rome and where he bestowed himselfe afterward 1. This is euident by S. Pauls owne testimonie who in diuers of his Epistles while he had beene prisoner in Rome promiseth to visit the Churches againe where he had preached the Gospel and speaketh thereof very confidently as Philip. 1.25 writing from Rome he saith This I am sure of that I shall abide and with you all continue for your furtherance and ioy of your faith likewise to Philemon he thus writeth v. 12. Prepare me lodging for I trust that through your prayers I shall be giuen vnto you So also Heb. 13.23 Know that our brother Timotheus is deliuered with whome of he come â—â—rely I will see you And yet more euidently he saith 2. Tim. 4.16 17. At my first answering no man assisted me c. notwithstanding the Lord assisted me and strengthened me that by me the preaching might be fully known and that all the Gentiles should heare and I was deliuered out of the mouth of the lyon All these places doe euidently shew that Paul was deliuered after his first imprisonment at Rome 2. The reason is thus alleadged by Eusebius Neronem in principio imperi-mitiorem fuisse that Nero in the beginning of his Empire was more gentle and mild but afterward when Paul was taken againe Nero then beeing become a most cruell Tyrant caused the holy Apostle to be put to death Thus Eusebius lib. 2. histor scholast c. 21. to the like purpose also writeth Hierome in Paulo 3. Now after S. Paul was deliuered he visited the Churches where he had preached and other places likewise where he had not beene before 1. Hierome thinketh that he preached onely in the West parts for he had a purpose to goe into Spaine Rom. 13.28 but it is not like that he spent all the time of his liberty after his first imprisonment which was 10. years onely in the West parts 2. Caietanus thinketh that he visited Macedonia and Achaia as he had promised in his Epistles and so much he inferreth vpon those words 2. Tim. 4.13 The cloake which I left at Troas with Carpus when thou commest bring with thee and v. 20. Trophimm I left at Miletum sicke these things were not done when S. Paul went first to Rome saith Caietane for no such thing is mentioned in the storie of the Acts these things then fell out before his second comming to Rome which beeing 10. or 11. yeares after the first he would not write for his winter cloake which he had left so long behind him neither is it like that Trophimus sicknes continued 10. or 11. yeares But Caietans collection here is not sound for it is euident that S. Paul wrote this epistle at his first imprisonment in Rome for he saith v. 17. that he was deliuered out of the mouth of the lyon And many things were acted by the Apostles which are not written in the historie of the Acts yet Caietans opinion is true that S. Paul visited the East Churches
Paul a prisoner of Iesus Christ These epistles the order whereof cannot be prooued otherwise out of the epistles themselues are best holden to haue beene written in that order wherein they are placed 11. The last of all the epistles written in S. Pauls first bands seemeth to be the epistle to the Hebrewes Pareus maketh it the first written from Rome but because he saith they of Italie salute you c. 13.23 it may seeme he was dismissed from Rome and preached in Italie Baronius and before him Aretius thinke it was the last of all S. Pauls epistles but that is not like because it seemeth when he writ this epistle he was deliuered from his bonds at Rome and was in Italie therefore I thinke that it was vpon the same reason the last which S. Paul did write in his first imprisonment as Pererius 12. The next was the epistle to Philemon but written in S. Pauls last bonds Pareus and Aretius thinke the Epistle to the Colossians was written first but Chrysostome giueth the prioritie of this epistle to Philemon vpon this reason because Coloss. 4.9 the Apostle maketh mention of Onesimus a faithfull and beloued brother whom he sent with Tiobicus vnto the Colossians but it is like he had first reconciled him to his master Philemon whose seruant he had beene without whose minde he would doe nothing Philem. 14. him therefore it is like he first of all sent to Philemon his master with that epistle before he would employ him 13. Then followeth the epistle to the Colossians wherein he prayeth them to be mindfull of his bonds These two last epistles 1. I neither thinke with Pererius to haue beene written in S. Pauls first bonds because he calleth himselfe now in the epistle to Philemon which was written before this to the Colossians Paul aged and though he writeth v. 21. as hoping to be deliuered yet it pleased God otherwise 2. neither yet doe I thinke with Pareus that all but the Epistle to the Hebrewes written from Rome are to be referred to S. Pauls last bonds because in some of them he writeth very confidently of his deliuerance as Philip. 1.25 This I am sure of that I shall abide c. these two then with the latter epistle to Timothie were written in S. Pauls last bonds 14. The last was the second epistle to Timothie which was after the other to the Colossians for Demas was now fallen away 2. Timoth. 4.10 who yet continued with Paul when he writ to the Colossians c. 4.14 Aretius And that this was the last of all is euident 2. Tim. 4.6 where he saith I am readie to be offred vp and the time of my departure is at band Chrysost. Pareus But Pererius much differeth and dissenteth as touching the order of time of the writing of these epistles whose placing of them with the reasons of his opinion shall briefely be examined 1. The Epistles to the Corinthians he thinketh to haue beene written before the 1. epistle to Timothie which is affirmed to haue beene written in the third place before either of these epistles for if Paul writ the 1. epistle to the Corinthians from Ephesus as Pererius confesseth and it is euident 1. Cor. 16.8 then must the 1. epistle to Timothie be the former for when S. Paul writ to Timothie he had not yet beene at Ephesus but he purposed to see Timothie shortly 1. Tim. 3.14 2. Next to the epistles to the Corinthians he placeth the former to Timothie which must goe before vpon the reason alleadged 3. After the epistles to the Corinthians he setteth the Epistle to Titus which followed indeede in that order as is shewed before sauing that he thinketh it was not written from Nicopolis which is most probable because he saith c. 3.12 Be diligent to come vnto me to Nicopolis for I am determined there to winter for although these words may beare that sense that he was not yet come to Nicopolis but had it in his minde to be there yet the subscription to the epistle affirming that it was written from Nicopolis ought to sway that way especially the text fauouring that sense 4. The epistle to the Galatians he thinketh to haue had the 5. place next to that to Titus with Chrysostome But Theodorets opinon is rather to be received who thinketh it was written from Rome and therefore after the epistle to the Romanes as is shewed before loc 9. 5. The Epistle to the Romanes was the last of those which S. Paul writ before he was in bonds at Rome as hath beene shewed before loc 7. 6. Then followe the other epistles to the Galatians Ephesians Philippians Philemon Colossians Hebrewes sauing that Pererius will haue the epistle to the Galatians before this to the Romanes and the epistle to the Hebrewes last of all but the two epistles to Timohie whereas the Epistles to Philemon and the Colossians were after it see before loc 13. 7. Last of all Pererius placeth the second to Timothie which was written last of all when Paul was readie to be offred vp as he writeth 2. Tim. 4.6 and that the time of his departure was at hand Baronius therefore is deceiued who thinkeh it was written before the epistles to the Philippians Ephesians Colossians Philemon and to the Hebrewes And whereas it will be obiected that S. Paul when he writ this epistle was deliuered out of the mouth of the lion meaning Nero 2. Timoth. 4.17 and therefore this epistle was written in his first not in his second bonds Chrysostome and Theodoret doe answear that S. Paul speaketh here of his first bonds that at his first answearing he was deliuered But 〈◊〉 the former places he speaketh of his state and condition wherein he then presently was euery day expecting death and looking for the time of his dissolution Quest. 18. That it is no point of curiositie but a thing verie requisite to knowe the diuerse times of the writing of S. Pauls Epistles 1. Not for that reason which Origen supposeth to know how the Apostle profited vâ—detur in hac epistola perfectior fuisse quam in caeteris he seemeth to haue beene more perfect in this epistle then in the rest for to the Corinthians he writeth 1. Cor. 9. Least when I haue preached to others I should be a reprobate he so saith quasi res non indubitata esset as though it were a thing which he was not fully resolued of and to the Philippians he saith 3.12 not as though I had alreadie attained vnto it But in this epistle he speaketh as a man thoroughly resolued he was perswaded that nothing could separate him from the loue of God in Christ c. 8.38 39. sic fere Origenes Contra. 1. The places alleadged prooue no such vncertaintie of assurance of saluation in Paul for in the first he speaketh not of reprobation before God but in the opinion of men least they might iudge him as a reprobate if his life should be contrarie to his doctrine in which sense he vseth the
preaching at Rome the Apostles beeing fishermen and of no note in the world first beganne to preach the Gospell in the world not onely Peter but Andrew his brother also and Iames and Iohn were fishermen he may as well prooue hence these to haue beene founders of the Romane Church as well as S. Peter 3. Epiphanius as Bellarmine citeth him haeres 27. saith primi in Roma fuerunt Petrus Paulus the first in Rome were Peter and Paul c. he giueth no prioritie to Peter before Paul 4. Orosius saith l. 7. c. 7. Exordio regni Claudij c. in the beginning of the raigne of Claudius Peter came to Rome atque exinde Christiani Roma esse coeperunt and that from that time Christians beganne to be in Rome c. But it shall be shewed afterward that there were Christians in Rome before Claudius raigne and the same Orosius maketh mention of a decree made by the Senate in Tiberius raigne exterminandos esse ex vrbe Christianos that the Christians should be expelled out of Rome 5. Leo writeth thus serm 1. de natal Apostolor Cum Apostli imbuendum Euangelio mundum c. when the Apostles had vndertaken parting the earth among them to season the world with the Gospell beatissimus Petrus c. ad arcem Romani destinatur imperij blessed Peter was appointed to the chiefe place of the Romane Empire c. But this is contrarie to that which S. Paul writeth Galat. 2.7 that the Gospel ouer the vncircumcision was committed to Paul as the Gospel ouer the circumcision was committed to Peter Then is it euident that S. Peters lot fell out among those of the circumcision 3. Now it shall be shewed that S. Peter could not be the first founder of the Romane Church 1. S. Paul in his salutation Rom. 16.7 maketh mention of Andronicus and Iunia which were in Christ before him they were conuerted to the faith before S. Paul but he was conuerted the 2. yeare after Christs passion about the 20. yeare of Tiberius from which time to the second yeare of Claudius when Peter is held first to haue come to Rome were about 9. yeares there remained 3. of Tiberius raigne 4. of Caligula and 2. of Claudius It is euident then that 9. yeares before Peter came to Rome Paul was conuerted and before Pauls conuersion there were some at Rome which had receiued the Christian faith 2. Vellenus whom Bellarmine confuteth alleadgeth out of Orosius lib. 7. that there were Christians in Rome in the raigne of Tiberius when there was a decree made by the Senate that the Christians should be banished from Rome Bellarmine answeareth that the meaning of the decree was vt non reciperetur vllo modo Christiana religio that the Christian religion should not by any meanes be receiued into the city But the words are exterminandos esse ex vrbe Christianos that the Christians should be exterminate or expelled out of Rome they could not haue beene expelled if they had not beene there before 3. Clemens in his recognitions and Dorotheus in Synops. doe affirme that Barnabas was the first that preached at Rome and conuerted them to the saith which report Bellarmine and Pererius hold to be but a fable neither will we contend for the truth thereof for S. Paul is as like to haue beene the first planter of the saith there as Barnabas But by this is appeareth euen out of these writers which the Romanists make account of when they may serue their turne that it was not held of any certaintie that S. Peter first preached the faith at Rome 4. Further seeing the Gospel of the vncircumcision was committed to Paul of the circumcision to Peter it is not like that Peter would intrude himselfe within S. Pauls diuision who if he had so soone come to Rome and planted a Church there whose example the rest of the Gentiles depending vpon the Romanes would haue followed he rather should haue beene the Apostle of the vncircumcision then S. Paul 5. Wherefore it is not probable that the Romane Church was first planted by S. Peters preaching neither yet was Paul the first that there preached for as yet he had not beene at Rome when he wrote this epistle Therefore it is most like that some other of the disciples and beleeuers first laid the foundation of faith at Rome which afterward was builded further by the Apostles Faius And herein I mislike not the opinion of Hugo Card. andierant à quibusdam fidelibus qui Roman◠venerant Hierosolynsis they had heard of certaine faithfull which came to Rome from Hierusalem to the same purpose Gorrbam quidem acceperant fideru à Petra hierant bene edocti quidam à Indais disciputis bi non pleur some had receiued these faith of Peter and they were well taught some of the Iewes beeing disciples and they were not fully instructed c. They are of opinion that the Romanes first receiued their faith by certaine disciples that came vnto them though afterward they were more fully instructed by Peter Quest. 27. The place Act. 28.21 reconciled 1. Whereas the Iewes say there vnto Paul We neither receiued letters out of Iudaea concerning thee neither came any of the brethren c. the question here mooued is how these dwelling at Rome could thus say vnto Paul whereas this epistle had beene written long before 2. Hereunto the answer is that those Iewes were not Christians or beleeuers and so not of the number of the brethren to whom S. Paul had written this Epistle namely to such as were Saints by calling but such as had not yet receiued the Gospel for they say concerning this sect we knowe that euery where it is spoken against Parens and beside whereas S. Paul had declared vnto them how the Iewes had resisted him and constrained him to appeale vnto Caesar they make answer that they had receiued no letters concerning such things as had happened vnto him Quest. 28. Whether this be an oath God is my witnesse v. 9. Although the vsuall forme of an oath be not here kept as when men sweare by the name of God of Iesus vsing the preposition per by yet it is euident the Apostle here doth take a solemne oath as it may appeare by these reasons 1. first by the definition of an oath which is a calling of God to witnesse of that which we say as the Apostle here doth so that to say God is my witnesse is as much as if he should say I sweare by God Tolet. 2. Augustine giueth instance of other places where the Apostle vseth the like oath as Galat. 1.20 The things which I write vnto you I witnesse before God that I lie not and 2. Cor. 11.31 The God euen the father of our Lord Iesus Christ which is blessed for euermore knoweth that I lie not like vnto these oathes is this which the Apostle taketh here Augustin lib. 1. de sermon Dora and Beda vpon this place 29. Quest. Whether it
the which naturall reason iuduceth was some way sufficient to the Gentiles vnto saluation c. But nothing can be acceptable to God without faith not that generall faith and knowledge of one God but the knowledge of God in Christ for he is the way and doore and without him is no entrace into life 6. Wherefore the Apostle here describeth the Gentiles in generall euen before the times of the Gospel and such as had no other direction then by the lawe of nature which they had as the Apostle sheweth by these two arguments both by the externall workes of the lawe and by the inward testimonie of their conscience But the Apostle faith not they fulfilled the lawe they onely did certaine things prescribed in the lawe Martyr And he speaketh rather de notitia naturali quam de implenda legis facultate of the naturall knowledge which they had not of any power or facultie to fulfill the lawe Calvin Beza And he meaneth not all the Gentiles in generall but the wiser sort among them as Solon Socrates Aristides the Sciptoes Catoes with other who outwardly did some externall workes which the lawe commanded though they wanted the inward obedience Pareus Quest. 27. How any thing can be said to be written in the heart by nature seeing the minde is commonly held to be as a bare and naked table v. 15. Which shewe the effect of the lawe written in their heart It is the opinion of the best Philosophers as of Plato in Philebo that the soule of man by nature is like vnto a booke wherein nothing is written or like vnto a bare naked table Aristot. lib. 3. de anima c. 4. how then doth the Apostle here say that the lawe is written in their heart Answ. 1. Plato was of opinion that all things were at the first written in the soule but when it commeth into the bodie is blotted out againe and forgotten and vpon this ground that opinion is mentioned by the Platonists that scire est reminisci to know is nothing els but to remember But this assertion presupposeth that the soule of man had a beeing without the bodie and that there is a certaine promptuarie or seminare of soules from whence the soules are deriued into the bodies But this opinion is contrarie to the Scripture which affirmeth that God formeth the spirit of man within him Zach. 12.1 the soule of man is created within him in his bodie infundendo creatur creando infunditur it is created by infusion into the bodie and iufused by creation 2. therefore a better answer is that whereas Aristole saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that nothing is written in the vnderstanding it must be vnderstood actually yet potentia in possibilitie euerie thing is written there because the vnderstanding is apt and hath a capacitie to receiue and apprehend euerie thing 3. neither is that axiome of Philosophie generally to be vnderstood but to be restrained to such principles as are not engendred in the mind without instruction experience and obseruation as is the knowledge of arts otherwise there are some principles which are by nature imprinted in the soule as first the naturall conclusions which the soule apprehendeth of it selfe without any other demonstration as that God is to be worshipped parents are to be honoured that good and honest things are to be desired secondly there are certaine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 generall notions which are at the first apprehended onely by the sense as that the fire burneth that the whole is greater then the part and such like ex Perer. Quest. 28. Of the Lawe of nature what it is It shall not be amisse by occasion of these words of the Apostle who speaketh here of the lawe of nature written in the heart a little to digresse and briefly touch certaine questions of this matter and first we will see what this lawe of nature is and of what precepts it consisteth 1. It is euident by the Apostle here that there is a lawe of nature which he prooueth by â—o effects the one externall in the performance of some things agreeable to the lawe the other internall in the testimonie of the conscience But in this inward testimonie there are two things to be considered there is first that which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the comprehension of certaine practicall principles and a naturall discerning betweene good and euill iust and vniust then there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the conscience which either accuseth one for doing euill or excuseth him in choosing of that which is good the synteresis doth frame the proposition the syneidesis or cosncience the assumption as thus the naturall lawe reacheth that parents must be honoured and that they which disobey parents are worthie of punishment thus the proposition is framed out of the principles of nature then the conscience of the guiltie person supplyeth the assumption But we Cham Esau Absolom haue disobeyed our parents therefore we deserue punishment and the like practicall syllogismes may be made in other commandements Gryneus 1. Melancthon thus defineth the lawe of nature it is a knowledge of certaine principles belonging to the practise of life and of the conclusions thence necessarily inferred agreeable with the eternall rule of truth which God hath planted in the mind of man to be a testimonie vnto man that there is a God which ruleth and iudgeth the actions of men c. In this description there are the former causes expressed of the law of nature 1. the materiall cause or the obiect thereof wherein it is occupied and whereof it consisteth namely of certaine practicall principles with the conclusions gathered thereupon for the speciall scope of this naturall direction is for the the practise of life and not for speculation and in this naturall knowledge are not onely contained the first principles as parents are to be honoured but the conclusions thence diducted as out of this principle in generall euery one is taught by the light of nature in particular to conclude that therefore he must honour his parents 2. the formall cause is the agreement with the rule of truth and the equitie of Gods written lawe for the lawe of nature is a summarie abridgement of the morall lawe 3. then the efficient cause and author is God who hath written and imprinted this law in the heart of man as Ambrose thus defineth this naturall law quam Deus omnium creator singulorum hominum pectoribus iufudit which God the Creator of all hath infused into euerie mans breast epist. 71.4 then the end is that it should be a testimonie of the diuine prouidence and iudgement whereby he ruleth all things and in the ende will iudge the actions of men This description of the lawe of nature agreeth with the Apostles definition here it is the effect of the lawe written in our hearts the effect or worke sheweth the matter of the lawe the forme written the efficient for it is Gods writing the ende
sacraments are seales to assure vs of Gods promises made in Christ and that they serue for the strengthning and confirmation of our faith his best reason is this qualis obsecro fides est quae vacillat c. what manner of faith is that I pray you which wauereth and had neede to be confirmed if by faith we are assured of Gods promises what vse is then of the Sacraments to assure vs of that whereof we are by faith assured alreadie Perer. disput 4. numer 22. to the same purpose Staplet Antid pag. 225. Contra. 1. The truth of our opinion that the Sacraments are seales to assure vs and meanes to confirme our faith is euident both by the Apostles words who calleth circumcision not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a signe but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a seale which is more then a signe for a seale is added for confirmation secondly the same is prooued by the nature of signes giuen in couenants which is to assure the parties of the truth and constancie of the couenant made now circumcision was a signe of the couenant betweene God and his people and therefore a signe of assurance and certaintie 2. And although it be the speciall office of faith to assure vs of Gods promises which on Gods behalfe are most sure and neede no ratification yet because our faith is here weake and imperfect it hath neede of proppes to confirme and strengthen it Mart. Controv. 9. Whether circumcision were auayleable for the remission of sinnes 1. Diuerse of the auncient and learned fathers are of opinion that circumcision had no spirituall vse but onely serued as a marke of distinction to discerne Abrahams posteritie from other nations and to be a signe vnto them what faith Abraham was of whom they should imitate and of this opinion these reasons are yeelded 1. Iustinus Martyr dialog cum Tryphon and Epiphanius haeres 30. doe giue this reason why circumcision was not giuen ad iustificationem for iustification or sanctificationis gratiâ for sanctification because it was a signe giuen onely vnto the men and not to the women quicquid ad iustitiam virtutem pertinet c. whatsoeuer belongeth vnto iustice and vertue was giuen vnto women as well as men Iustine 2. Tertullian saith that circumcision was giuen as a signe for those times non in salutis praerogativum not to be a prerogatiue of saluation because Abraham ante placuerat Deo quam circumcideretur had pleased God before he was circumcised lib. aduers. Iudaeos 3. Chrysostome prooueth quod circumcisio nihil ad animae virtutem conduceret that circumcision did nothing avayle for any vertue of the minde by this reason because it was appointed to be ministred vnto infants vpon the eight day that it might thereby appeare that it did nihil animae conducere nothing profit the soule hom 39. in Genes 4. Theodoret saith corporalis circumcisio solius obtinet locum signaculi corporall circumcision is onely in stead of a seale his reason is that circumcision is called carnall and it was a corporall thing and therefore had no such spirituall vse 5. Vnto these reasons may be added that the Israelites were not circumcised for the space of 40. yeares in the wildernesse which sheweth that it was no spirituall remedie for then they should not haue beene suffered to want it so long 6. Beside Iosephus and Philo who haue written most diligently of the ceremonies of the Iewes and the signification thereof neither of them make mention of remission of sinnes signified thereby Contr. But these reasons are easily answeared 1. Though the women were not circumcised yet were they not therefore excluded from the couenant Pererius thinketh that there might be some other meanes prouided for the women but if there had beene any such thing prescribed to women such as circumcision was for men the Scripture would not haue beene silent therein Peter Martyr answeareth better that although circumcision were only enioyned vnto the men yet the vse and fruit thereof also was extended to the women because they were numbred and counted with the men the virgins belonged to their fathers and the married women to their husbands 2. True it is that Abraham pleased God and was iustified before he receiued circumcision this prooueth that Abraham indeede was not iustified by circumcision not that thereby was not sealed the remission of sinnes 3. And the circumcision ministred vnto infants vpon the 8. day doth not take away the spirituall vse thereof for then neither should baptisme haue any spirituall vse concerning the cleansing of the soule because infants which haue yet no discretion are baptized The Sacrament of circumcision then and of baptisme now is giuen vnto infants to consecrate them vnto God that thereby they may be put in minde of their profession when they come to yeares of discretion 4. And whereas S. Paul calleth it circumcision in the flesh he there speaketh of circumcision as separate from faith as it is onely vnto carnall men whereas the right circumcision beeing receiued according to the institution consisteth both of the carnall and externall circumcision of the flesh and of the internall and spirituall circumcision of the heart 5. The omitting of circumcision 40. yeares in the wildernesse sheweth that iustification and remission of sinnes was not tied to the signe that it was no signe of spirituall grace in the remission of sinnes it prooueth not for them which died in the wildernes vncircumcised it may be affirmed that they were in like case with those which died before circumcision was instituted or with children which died before the eight day of circumcision the want of the signe in these cases was not preiudiciall vnto them 6. Iosephus and Philo might conceale this secret that circumcision was a seale of remission of sinnes least the Gentiles into whose hands they knew their writings should come might thereby haue taken occasion to haue scorned and derided the mysteries which they vnderstood not 2. A second opinion is of the Romanists who make this difference betweene circumcision and other Sacraments of the old Testament and baptisme in the newe that in baptisme grace is conferred but in the other there was onely significatio gratiae non effectio a signifying onely not an effecting of grace so Pererius out of Thomas disputat 6. numer 32. Contra. But beside that we shewed before controv 7. that there was the same spirituall effect of the Sacraments of the old and newe Testament they differed onely in respect◠of the more cleare light and liuely representation in the newe Sacraments then in the olde there was more then a bare signification onely of spirituall grace in circumcision for it is called a seale not a signe onely 3. Yet some other of the Romanists as diuerse of their Schoolemen as Alexander Gabriel Bonaventure Scotus as they are cited by Bellarmine lib. 2. de effect Sacramentor c. 13. are of opinion circumcisionem ex opere operato contulisse iustificationem that circumcision by
set against the law of the minde and the law of sinne against the law of God like as then the regenerate minde is conformable to the law of God so the vnregenerate members are captived to the law of sinne in the members which is the corruption of nature euen originall sinne 31. Quest. Why these are called lawes and why they are said the one to be in the inner man the other in the members 1. For the first 1. Chrysostome giueth this reason it is called the law of sinne propter vehementem exactam obedientiam because of the exact and forced obedience which is giuen vnto it for the laws of tyrants are so called abusive though not properly Calvin lex quia dominatur it is a law because it ruleth gloss 2. Lyranus a law is called à ligando of binding ducit membra ligata ad mala it leadeth the members and holdeth or tieth them to that which is euill they can doe no other 3. Pererius sicut lex dirigit c. as the law directeth to that which is good so the lawe of sinne to that which is euill 4. legitime factum est it commeth iustly to passe that illi non serviat suum inferius t. caro that mans inferiour that is his flesh should not serue him seeing he serued not his superiour namely God gloss ordinar Anselmus so it is called a lawe as in iustice imposed of God vpon man for his disobedience 2. For the second the one is called the lawe of the minde and inner man the other the lawe of the members and outward man 1. not that the minde and reason onely wherein the naturall lawe is written is the inner man and the sensitive part is the flesh as Lyranus Gorrhan with others which opinion is confuted before quest 26. for euen the minde is corrupt and so carnall in the vnregenerate as the Apostle speaketh of some which were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corrupt in their minde 2. Timoth. 3.8 2. But the regenerate part is called the inner man and the vnregenerate both in soule and bodie the outward 1. because intus potissimum regnat it raigneth chiefely within and is discerned chiefely and knowne in the mind Mart. 2. quia in cordis conuersione c. because it consisteth in the heart nec patet hominum oculis and is not open and apparent vnto the sight of men Pareus in which sense it is called the hid man of the heart 1. Pet. 3.4 3. and because non externa vel mâ—â—dana quaerit it seeketh not things externall belonging to the world whereas appetitus carnis vagi sunt extra hominem the fleshly appetite is wandring and as it were without a man Calvin and as Caietane carnalibus officijs immersae sunt the faculties of the outward man are drenched as it were and wholly spent in carnall offices 4. and the regenerate part is called by the name of the inner man and the minde per excellenciam because of the excellencie for as the minde is more excellent then the bodie so is the spirit then the flesh Calvin Quest. 32. Of the Apostles exclamation O wretched man that I am 1. The word which the Apostle here vseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth one that is perpetus pugnis fatigatus wearied with continuall combates Beza like as a champion which striuing along time is like at last to be ouercome of his aduersaries vnlesse he be helped the vulgar latine readeth O vnhappie man but that is not so fit 2. neither doth the Apostle thus crie out either as a man in despaire or doubting by whom he should be deliuered but he sheweth his great desire vox est anhelantis it is the voice of one breathing and panting desiring to be deliuered from this seruitude Calvin 3. and by this exclamation certaminis gravitatem ostendit he sheweth the greatnes of this combate out of the which he was not able to wrestle by his owne strength and if Paul were not able who is it is then a patheticall speach like vnto that Psal. 86. Who will giue me the wings as it were of a done Faius 4. And in this crying out the Apostle sheweth the state of all men in this life into what miserie they are brought by their sinne and likewise his desire longing to be deliuered therfrom Pareus Quest. 33. What the Apostle vnderstandeth by this bodie of death from the which he desireth to be deliuered 1. Ambrose by the bodie of death vnderstandeth vniuersitatem vitiorum a general collection of sinnes which he called before the bodie of sinne but there was not in the Apostle such a gathering together and confluence of all sinne 2. Pererius chargeth Calvin to agree with Ambrose who vnderstandeth by the bodie of death massam vel congeriem peccati ex qua homo constatus the masse and heape of sinne whereof man consisteth and thereupon he crieth out ô hominem impurum atque impium O wicked and filthie man that is not ashamed so to charge the Apostle c. Whereas Calvin onely saith that there were in the Apostle reliquiae peccati some reliques of sinne of that masse of sinne and corruption which is in man Calvin then and Melancthon do thus vnderstand the Apostle naturam hanc carnalem immersam esse peccato that this carnall nature is wholly drowned and drenched in sinne so also Martyr vitiatam corruptam naturam intelligit he vnderstandeth our corrupt nature but the Apostle speaketh of death here not of sinne 3. neither is the bodie of death taken here properly for sinne as Faius thinketh it was called before the bodie of sinne c. 6. and it is considered tanquam moles onus incumbens as a masse or burthen lying vpon vs so also Roloch it is taken for sinne in this place which is in the bodie and in the whole man likewise Piscator mortem intelligit peccatum inhabitans by death he vnderstandeth the sinne that dwelleth in vs and so before them Vatablus à concupiscentia c. he wisheth to be deliuered from concupiscence which did make him guiltie of eternall death and before him Photius in Oecumenius applyeth it to the corporall and sinnefull actions which bring the death of the soule But in their meaning the Apostle should say in effect who shall deliuer me from this sinnefull bodie what could an vnregenerate man haue said more 4. neither yet doe I approoue of their opinion which referre it onely to the mortalitie of the bodie as Theophylact morti subiecti subiect to death Lyranus quia sancti resurgent c. because the Saints shall rise in an immortall bodie and Pererius à corpore mortis huius from the bodie of this death that is subiect to mortalitie and corruption for the Apostle hath respect thus crying out vnto the conflict between the flesh and the spirit from which he desireth to be deliuered 5. Cassianus by the bodie of death would haue vnderstood the terrene busines and necessitie quae spirituales
inconuenience that if grace be ioyned with workes then worke were no more worke for if the reward be of grace it is not by the merite of the worke and the assumption and second part he prooueth by an other absurditie for then grace should be no more grace for that which is giuen to the merit of the worke is giuen of debt not of fauour as before the Apostle reasoned c. 4.4 this clause then is neither impertinent nor yet superfluous 3. This place of the Apostle meeteth with diuerse cauills 1. The Greeke scholiast saith that we need no workes to come vnto Christ sed sola voluntas mentis intentio sat est the will and intention onely of the mind is sufficient But I aske this will and intention whether it is Gods worke or mans if it be Gods worke as the Apostle saith that God worketh both the will and the deed Phil. 2.13 then is it of grace if it be mans then is it a worke but all workes are here excluded 2. beside this grace cannot be here vnderstood to be a thing infused into and inherent in man as the Romanists for then it were a worke Osiander but grace is here conceiued to be subiective in Deo in God as a subiect as worke is subiective in man as a subiect 3. Ghorrans conceit here hath no place that a worke may be said to merit and it shall be of grace because it meriteth of grace for the verie opposition betweene grace and worke one excluding the other alloweth no such permission 4. worke and grace may stand together but not as ioynt causes but workes must follow grace â—â— accepta gratia sit inanis that the grace receiued be not in vaine as Origen saith and though the reward follow works yet the merit of the work is not the cause but the grace fauour of God which hath appointed such a way and order that the faithfull after they haue wrought and laboured should be rewarded it is consecutio ordo a thing that followeth and an order which God hath appointed not any merit Mar. 4. Though the Apostle especially entreat here of election that it is of grace yet because the Apostles rule is generall ad totam salutis nostrae rationem extendi debet it must be extentended to the whole manner and way of saluation Calvin for as election is by grace not by workes Rom. 9.11 so our calling is by grace not by workes 2. Tim. 1.9 Who hath called vs with an holy calling not according to our workes our iustification also is by faith without workes Rom. 3.24.28 Quest. 8. How it is said Israel obtained not that he sought v. 7. The doubt is mooued because our B. Sauiour saith Matth. 7.7 aske and it shall be giuen you seeke and you shall finde c. 1. The answer is there are two kinds of seeking God a lawfull right and true seeking of God wherein must be considered both the manner which must be faith and the end which is to the glorie of God and the other seeking is not right which sayleth of either of these as the Iewes failed in both for they sought not righteousnesse by faith c. 9.23 and therefore missed of that which they sought for and beside they went about to establish their owne righteousnesse and would not submit themselues to the righteousnesse of God c. 10. 3. that is they sought their owne praise and glorie and not Gods and therefore it was no maruell if they failed of their desire 2. Like vnto those were they which sought and followed Christ Ioh. 6. but it was to haue their bellies filled and fed by him so Saint Iames saith c. 4.3 You aske and receiue not because ye aske amisse that you may consume it on your lusts in like manner the Prophet Hosea rebuked the old Israelites They shall goe with their sheepe and bullockes to seeke the Lord but they shall not find him because he hath withdrawne himselfe from them Hosh. 5.6 3. Chrysostome somewhat otherwise sheweth the reason why they obtained not that they sought Iudaeus sibi ipse repugnat c. the Iew is contrarie to himselfe for they sought righteousnes and yet when it was offered them they reiected it they looked for the Messiah and yet when he came they would none of him like as wanton children that call for bread and when it is giuen them they cast it away Quest. 9. Of these words v. 8. As it is written God hath giuen them the spirit of slumber whence it is taken 1. Origen is of opinion that these words can no where be found in the old Scriptures Ero hactenus invenire non potui I could not find them out yet saith he and therefore he thinketh that the Apostle addeth these words of his owne and followeth the sense of the Prophet rather then the words But if it were so the Apostle would not haue set this sentence before as it is written if it were not so written as it is here alleadged Erasmus thinketh that Saint Paul deliuereth the sense of that place Isai. 6.9 as likewise he doth Act. 28.27 but in that place there is no mention made of the spirit of slumber or compunction some thinke that the Apostle citeth not here any particular place but alludeth onely vnto the like places of the Prophet Isai as c. 19.14 The Lord hath mingled among them the spirit of errors ecclestic expos but that place is spoken of the Egyptians and therefore could not properly be applied by Saint Paul to the Iewes therefore I subcribe rather to Pareus and Tolet who thinke that this testimonie is taken out of two places of the Prophet Isai the first c. 29.10 the Lord hath couered you with a spirit of slumber the other part is found c. 6.9 2. But there is some difference both betweene the translation of the Septuagint and the Hebrew and betweene Saint Pauls citation and the Septuagint and betweene S. Pauls allegation and the originall 1. The Septuagint in that place Isai. 19.14 vse the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he hath made them drunke with the spirit of slumber but in the Hebrew it is he hath couered of the word nasaph to hide or couer the Apostle vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he hath giuen in the other place Isai. 6.9 the originall vseth the imperatiue moode make their hearts heauie and shut their eyes the Septuagint expresse it by the actiue applying it to the people they haue shut their eyes and so doth S. Luke cite it Act. 28.27 and Matth. 13.16 but Saint Paul referreth it vnto God he hath giuen c. as Ioh. 12.40 it is said he hath blinded their eyes wherein the Apostle followeth the sense of the Prophet for as Pet. Martyr well obserueth quod Dei imperio fit à Deo fieri dicitur that which is done by the commandement of God is said to be done by God 3. But there is some difference yet in the word tardemah slumber
specially shewed toward the Apostle such were Priscilla and Aquila which had laid downe their necks for his life v. 4. 2. or for some spirituall benefit such were Epenetus the first fruits of Achaia v. 5. Andronicus and Iunia v. 7. 3. or by reason of his familiar acquaintance with them as Amplias with the rest vnto v. 14. 2. Then he saluteth other persons by name neither so well knowne vnto him nor of such speciall note 3. And lastly he concludeth with a generall salutation to them all v. 16. 3. Wherein appeareth the singular memorie and thankfull remembrance of the Apostle that beeing occupied in the affaires of so many Churches yet tooke such speciall notice of so many singular persons among the Romans especially seeing he had not yet seene them in the flesh 2. Quest. Of Phebe commended here by S. Paul what place shee had in the Church and wherefore commended 1. I commend To commend signifieth two things both to praise one and set forth the good parts which are in them and to entreat fauour for one commending and committing the same to the faith and trust of an other to be helped or any way pleasured 2. Phebe Tolet annot 1. confuteth their opinion that take this Phebe to haue beene S. Pauls wife which he would confute by this argument that S. Paul was neuer married and whereas Clemens Alex. lib. 3. stromat thinketh that S. Paul was married and prooueth it by that place 1. Cor. 9.5 that he had power to lead about a sister a wife as well as the rest of the Apostles he confuteth that opinion shewing that the place must be thus read rather a sister a woman then a sister a wife Contr. 1. I agree with Tolet that Phebe could not be S. Pauls wife because shee was a minister of the Cenchrean Church but shee should haue ministred vnto S. Paul if shee had beene his wife 2. I also consent that the place giuen in instance 1. Cor. 9.5 prooueth not directly that S. Paul was maried but that he had libertie and power to take a wife as well as the other Apostles but whether he were maried or not it is vncertaine it is as like he was as otherwise there are of the Fathers of both opinions some thinke he was a virgin as Hierome Ambrose Epiphanius some that he had a wife as Ignatius epist. 9. and Clemens before alleadged but it is not greatly materiall whether he had a wife or not it is sufficient that some other of the Apostles were maried as Peter by name and Saint Paul might haue vsed the same libertie if it had pleased him yet Tolets exposition of that place is verie fond though the rest of his side concurre with him to read a sister a woman rather then a sister a wife for the word sister includeth a woman and what women were fitter to follow the Apostles and to minister vnto them then their own wiues See of this question touching S. Pauls mariage more 7. Cont. generall before the 1. c. 3. Our sister The Apostle commendeth this Phebe 1. by her profession she was a sister fide non cognatione in faith not by kindred 2. by her office she was a Minister of the Church 3. by her beneficence and liberalitie she had giuen hospitalitie to many and to S. Paul among the rest where Origen observeth that as Abraham beeing giuen to hospitalitie receiued Angels among the rest so Phebe while she is obsequious in her hospitalitie to all was worthie also to entertaine Paul 4. A Minister of the Church of Cenchrea 1. Tolet thinketh she was a deaconesse of that Church whose office he describeth out of Clement to haue consisted in these three things specially to attend vpon children comming to Baptisme to make them readie to be baptized to keepe the doores of certaine women which were for a time sequestred seperated from their husbands for greater devotion sake and to take care of the sicke such were the widowes whose office S. Paul describeth 1. Tim. 5. such an one Theodoret thinketh this Phebe was writing on that chapter and so before him Origen faith she was in ministerio Ecclesia constituta setled in the office and ministerie of the Church so also Calvin Osiander Gualter with other of our new writers But Pareus refuseth this opinion because the widowes were auncient women of 60. yeare old and of the poorer sort which were maintained of the Church But this was a rich woman and maintained other and by reason of her farre trauel and long iourney not like to be so old neither could the widowes of the Church whose charge was to attend the sicke be long absent from their office 2. Wherefore the better opinion is that she was a rich woman Lyranus thinketh that ecclesiam aedificaverat she had built a Church at Cenchreâ—â— but there were no common Churches then it is more like that ecclesiam sustentabat that she did releeue the Church and succoured the poore conuerted to the faith and specially the Apostles and other ministers Gorrhan Hugo subministravit facultates she did minister of her substance Vatablus and beside it is like that her house was both a common receptacle of straungers and a place for their holy meetings and assemblies Pareus ministrabat nobilissima matrona vestimentum victum she beeing a noble matrone ministred both raiment and foode Haymo as we read of certaine rich and noble women as Ioanna the wife of Chuza Herods steward and Susanna which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ministred vnto our Blessed Sauiour of their substance there a word is vsed of the same originall and deriuation with this here 5. Of Cenchrea or Cenchus because the word in the originall is in the plurall 1. there was a kenchus in Italie an other in Troas but this was neere vnto Corinth it was statio navalis the hauen of Corinth whereof mention is made Act. 18.18 as Pyraeum was the port at Athens 2. It seemeth that the Christians who could not so safely exercise their religion in the Citie of Corinth had their recourse as it were to the suburbes as Act. 16. they went out of the Citie and praied by the riuer side 3. Tolet obserueth further that the Gospel was so propagated by the preaching of Saint Paul that the faith shined non solum in vrbibus sedetiam in pagis not onely in Cities but in villages Quest. 3. Of Pauls request in the behalfe of Phebe 1. That ye receiue her in the Lord. The Apostle entreateth three things for her 1. that they would receiue her and giue her entertainment in the Lord that is as Chrysostome interpreteth propter Dominum for the Lords cause 2. that they giue her honourable entertainment as it becommeth Saints which Chrysostome vnderstandeth passively as is fit Saints should be entertained it may also be taken actively as it is fit for them which professe themselues Saints to receiue one an other 3. the third is to be helpfull vnto her and to assist