Commentary on Galatians 1-5, Conclusion – Table of scripture passages

Commentary on Galatians 1-5 · Conclusion – Table of scripture passages

p. 655The Conclusion.

In the ende of all, it is added, in the Greeke, and Siriacke copies, that this Epistle was written to the Galatians from Rome. Which post-script seemes to be erroneous and false: for first, 5there is not a tittle in the whole Epistle, that giueth the least inkling that it should hauehave beene written from Rome: whereas in all the rest, which are written from thence, Paul makes mention of his bonds, and imprisonment. Secondly, the varietie of copies 10argues the vncertentie of it, seeing in some copies it is said to hauehave been sent from Ephesus, as Caietan and Hyperius affirme, in their Commentaries vponupon this place. Thirdly, Baronius (if Annal. Tom. 1. pag. 657. l. 26. Antuerp.his authoritie be of any waight in this case) affirmeth that it is not likely or credible that it was written from thence. But, be it 15graunted that this post-script were true indeede; yet it is no part of Canonicall Scripture, as not beeing written by the Apostle, but added afterwards by the Scribes which copied out the Epistles. Neither is this onelyonly true of post-scripts, but also of Inscriptions or Titles prefixed before Epistles, they are no 02part of holy writ. This may easily be prooued in particular: for first, touching Post-scripts, the Greeke copies agree in this, that the first Epistle to the Corinthians, was written from Philippi, and sent by Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus, and Timotheus: when as it is certen, it was written from Ephesus. For first, 25chap. 16. 5. he saith, He will come to them when he shall go through Macedonia. Therefore Paul was not then at Philippi, a chiefe citie in Macedonia. Secondly, in the 19 of the same chapter, he saith, All the Churches of Asia salute you, which shewes plainly, that when Paul writ this Epistle, he was at Ephesus in Asia, not 30at Philippi in Europe. Thirdly, v. 8. he saith, he will abide at Ephesus till Pentecost, therefore he was not then at Philippi. Fourthly, that it was written before the tumult in Ephesus raised by Demetrius and his complices, and so consequently before his comming to Philippi▪ as also that it was sent by Timotheus and 35Erastus, it is manifest, v. 10. of that chapter, beeing compared with Act. 19. v. 21, 22. Lastly, the Syriacke translatour agreeth with me, in affirming that it was written from Ephesus; and so doth Baromius Annal. tom. 1. pag. 494. l. 39. Againe, the post-script of the 2. to the Corinthians, hath it was written from Philippi p. 656of Macedonia, and sent by Titus and Luke: whereas the Rhemists (if we may giuegive any credit to their testimonie, who elsewhere make titles part of the Canonicall scripture) say, it was written at Troas, as it is thought. And Baron. annal. …om. 1. pag. 590. l. 51. Antuerp▪ thinkes it was written at Nicopoli, vponupon this 5occasion, that in his former Epistle from Ephesus promising to come vntounto thē as he passed through Macedonia, & cōming not, 1. Cor. 16. he doth in this excuse himselfe, 2. Cor. 15, 16, 17. compared with the 2. Cor. 7. 5. Neither is it a good reason to prooue that Titus carried this Epistle (as it is in the postscript) 10because Paul saith, he sent Titus to them, and another with him. 2. Cor. 8. 18, 22. and 12. 18. for Paul speakes of Titus his comming vntounto thē before that time: neither may it be thought that T…tus was sent the second time vntounto them, considering that departing from Macedonia, and taking Titus with him, he left 15him in Creete. See Cesar Baron. annal. tom. 1. Antuerp. p. 591. l. 40. Besides, the Rhemists controll the subscription of the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, which hath it thus, The first Epistle to the Thessalonians, written from Athens. For in their preface, they are bold to affirme, that it seemeth rather to hauehave bin written 20at Corinth, then at Athens: and they giuegive this reason of it, because after the sending of Timothie to Thessalonica, Paul and he meete not at Athens againe, but at Corinth. And Baronius affirmeth, that it seemes to hauehave beene written presently after that Sylas and Timotheus came to him to Corinth, out of Macedonia, 25by comparing Act. 18. 5. with 1. Thess. 3. 6. Annal. tom. 1. pag. 457. l. 1. And Emman…i Sa doth censure the Syriacke postscript, which saith it was sent from Athens by Timothie, seeing that Timothie was then absent. The like they affirme in the argument of the second Epistle: for albeit the Greeke postscript 30hath it, that it was written from Athens, yet they rather thinke it was written from Corinth, where Paul aboad a yeare and sixe moneths, Act. 18. 11. because the title is like vntounto the first Epistle, Paul and Sylvanus and Timotheus, &c. And Baronius saith, that it should be written from Athens, impossibile est 35affirmare; because it was written soone after the former, as may appeare by the inscription, Paul and Sylvanus and Timotheus, (they continuing together:) but the former was written from Corinth, (as hath bin prooued,) and therefore the latter: specially considering that Paul went thence from Athens, and aboad p. 657at Corinth a yeare and a halfe, and returned not backe againe to Athens, but went to Ephesus. Annal. tom. 1. pag. 457. l. 2….

Adde hereunto that whereas the postscript of the 1. to Timothie saith it was written from L…odicea the chiefe Citie of Phrigia Pacaciana, the Rhemists notwithstanding in the argumen…, affirme that it is vncerten where it was written: & though 5it be commonly said to hauehave beene written at L…odicca, yet it seemeth to be otherwise, because it is like he was neuer there, as may be gathered by the Epistle to the Colossians which was written at Rome in his last trouble▪ a little before his death: for Coloss. 2. 1. Paul seemes to insinuate that he was neuer at that 10Laodicea of Phrigia, neare to Colossos, and Hierapolis, and that they neuer saw his person. Besides, neither Pl…nie (who writ after Paul) nor any other ancient classique author, doth make mention of Phrigia Pacaciana, so that it seemeth to hauehave beene so called long after Pauls discease: the first mention that is 15made of it (as some hauehave obserued) beeing in the acts of the 5. Synode of Constantinop. Baronius is of opinion that it was written from Macedonia, Tom. 1. pag. 564. grounding his coniecture vponupon 1. Tim. 1. 3. as I besought thee to abide at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia; so doe—The same doth 20Athanasius affirme, in his Synopsis, and Theodoret in his preface vponupon that Epistle.

Againe, the subscription of the 2. to Timothie, that it was written from Rome vntounto▪ Timothie the first Bishop elected of the church of Ephesus: cannot well stand as some thinke with that of 25S. Paul, 2. Timothie 4. 5. Doe the worke of an Euang…list, seeing that Euangelists were not tied to personall residencie, to abide in one place (as Bishops and pasters are) but were to goe from place to place, to confirme the Churches planted by the 30Apostles. But the discussing of this argument, whether Timothie were an Euangelist properly so called, and whether the same man could not be an Euangelist, and a bishop, requireth a longer discourse, then can be affoarded to this short treatise. Lastly, the postscript of the Epistle to T…tus, saith it was written from Nicopolis of Macedonia: the deuisers of which assertion 35ground their opinion vponupon Titus 3. 12. where Paul saith, be…iligent to come to me to Nicopolis, for I hauehave determined there to winter: mistaking the text, for he saith not, be diligent to come to me to Nicopolis▪ for I hauehave determined here to winter (as p. 658beeing there alreadie) but I hauehave determined there to winter. By which it is plaine that when Paul wrote to Titus, he was not at Nicopolis, (as the postscript affirmeth,) and so we see the text which they alleadge for them, maketh most against them. And this is the iudgement & reason of Baronius, Annal. tom. 1. pag. 575. l. 33. Antuerp. howsoeuer Claudius Espencaus shifts 5his fingers of it, and passes it ouer in silence.

Thus much concerning Subscriptions: a word or two touching Inscriptions or titles prefixed before Epistles. That these be no part of scripture written by the Apostles, but added to the Epistles by some others, it may appeare by these reasons. First 10generally, if titles were canonicall as well as the epistles themselues, the Fathers would neuer hauehave doubted (as they did) whether Paul were the author of the epistle to the Ebrewes or not, seeing in all copies saue one (as Beza hath obserued) it beareth his name: but some of them ascribe it to Barnabas, as 15Tertullian: others to Luke, as Jerome witnesseth, others to Clement: Oecumenius infitleth it only thus, The epistle to the Ebrewes, without adding the name of Paul or any other as the penner of it: and so Hentenius a papist doth translate it out of Occumenius. 20Secondly, some epistles (as those seuen written by Iames, Peter, Iohn, Iude) hauehave vnfit titles prefixed before them, in that they are called sometime Canonicall, specially of the Latine church) and sometime Catholick (chiefly of the Greek church) neither of which were euer giuen them, by any Apostle, or 25Apostolique writer. For first touching the title Canonicall, it may seeme strange that this inscription should euer hauehave been appropriated vntounto them, which is common with them to the whole word of God: as though in them were contained a more perfect and absolute rule of doctrine and manners, of things 30to be beleeued and practised, then in the other bookes of holy writ; considering that sundrie Diuines (albeit erroniously I confesse) hauehave beene so farre from giuing vntounto them this preheminence aboue the rest of the bookes of Scripture, that they hauehave altogether reiected them, as no part of Canonicall Scripture: 35by name the epistle of Iames, the 2. of Peter, the 2. and 3. of Iohn, and that of Iude, of all which it was doubted in auncient time, as we see in Eusebius; and the Syrian church receiueth them not to this day, as beeing not in the Syriacke translation; and Caietan a popish writer, and the Lutherans at this present, p. 659reiect them, as may appeare by their writings. Secondly, that this inscription was added to these Epistles without sufficient ground, and warrant of reason, may appeare, in that no reason can be giuen why these seuen should be called Canonicall, rather then the Epistles of S. Paul, or that to the Ebrewes (whosoeuer was the penner thereof.) For whereas the ordinarie 5Glosse saith, they are called Canonicall, because they were receiued into the Canon with the other epistles; by that reason they should be no more Canonicall then the rest, nay, not of that authenticall, at least of that vndoubted authoritie the rest are 10of, seeing they hardly obtained to be registred in the Canon with the rest as Canonicall. Lastly, this title was neuer giuen to these Epistles by the Greek church (which was more auncient) but onelyonly by the Latin church, as might be prooued by manifold testimonies, if it were a thing necessarie to be stood vponupon. Neuerthelesse, howsoeur this inscription cannot be defended, 15yet it may be excused, and tollerated, as a title of distinction, to distinguish them from the other epistles. As we see the Iewes diuiding the olde testament into 4. parts: the first they called the law, or 5. bookes of Moses: the 2. the former prophets, viz Ioshua, Judges, 2. bookes of Samuel, 2. bookes of the 20Kings: the 3, the later prophets, as Esay, Ieremie, Ezechiel, and the small prophets: the 4. they called Kethubim, which in English is as much as the scriptures, not as though those 11. bookes were more properly scripture then the Pentateuch of Moses, 25or the bookes of the former and later prophets: but onelyonly for distinction sake they were so called. And they are tearmed of the 70. and of the Greeke church foreign, that is, holy writts, not because they had a peculiar holines proper to them aboue other parts of Gods word, (seeing all scripture is equally giuen 30by diuine inspiration) nor as though the amanuenses of these bookes were more holy then the other pen-men of the holy Ghost (nay, contrarily it is doubted by some, of Salomon, who penned three of these bookes whether he were elected or reiected; whereas it is not doubted of the rest:) but onelyonly (as I 35hauehave alreadie said) to put a note of distinction betwixt them and other bookes, in naming of them, as ooTō. 1. p…not. Elucid. c. 12. quia nullam. habent specialem proprietatem quâ distinguantur á… caeteris, commune nomen▪ quasi proprium obtinent.Hugo, de S. Uict. hath well obserued.

In this sense this title Canonicall, may be giuen to these Epistles without danger: but if we shall vnderstand it in any other p. 660sense, we shall be so farre from beeing able to defend it, that we shall not be able to excuse it.

The second title which is giuen them, is, that they be called Catholike, which inscription is as vnfit as the former: for they are so called (as some would hauehave it,) because they were writtē, and directed to the whole Catholike Church, consisting both 5of Iewes and Gentiles. But that is not true, seeing Iames chap. 1. 1. directeth his Epistle onelyonly to the 12 tribes that were dispersed, and not to the Gentiles. And Peter, who was an Apostle of Circumcision, 1. Epist. 1. 1. writeth onelyonly to the strangers 10the Iewes, that dwell here and there throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythinia. Others thinke they are tearmed Catholike, for that they were not sent to one man, or familie, or citie, or countrey: but generally to the whole bodie, companie, and societie of the Iewes, wheresoeuer dispersed 15ouer the whole earth. But neither in this sense can they fitly, or truly be tearmed Catholike: forasmuch as two of these seuen, viz. the second and third of Iohn, were written to particular persons, the one to the elect Ladie, the other to Gains. And by this reason the Epistle to Timothie, that to Titus, and Philemon, 20may be called Catholike, as well as these.

Againe, be it graunted, that they were all directed to all the Iewes, yet I see not why the Epistle to the Ebrewes, may not as well chalenge this title to be called Catholike, as any of these seuen, considering it was written to all the Iewes, and onelyonly to 25the Iewes.

Thirdly, others affirme them to be called Catholike, because they containe Catholike doctrine, such as appertaineth to all men generally, of what estate, place, condition, or calling so euer they be. But in this sense all Pauls Epistles may be called 30Catholike Epistles. For whatsoeuer is written, is written for our learning, that we through patience and consolation of the Scriptures might hauehave hope. Rom. 15. 4.

Secondly, the word Catholike, is not so ancient: for Pacianus an auncient father, saith, it was not vsed in the Apostles daies. 35His wordes are these. Sed sub Apostolis (enquies) nemo Catholicus vocabatur: esto, sic fuerie, vel illud indulge, cum post Apostolos, haereses Biblioth. sacrae tom. 3 ad Sympronian. No…atian. de Cathol. nomine Epist. 1.extitissent, diuersis que nominibus Columbam Dei atque reginam lacerare per partes, & sciudere niterentur; nonne cognomen suum pleb… Apostolica p…stulabat, quo incorrupti populi distingueret vnitatem, p. 661ne intemeratam Dei virginem, error aliquorum per membra laceraret? that is, But thou wilt say, vnderunder the Apostles no man was called Catholique: well, be it so, yet admit this withall, when after the Apostles there were heresies, and men beganne to rend in peeces, and diuide gods done, and Queene, by sundry different names, did not the Apostolike people require their surnames, 5whereby they might distinguish the vnitie of the vncorrupt people, least the error of some, should rend in sunder gods vndefiled virgin? where we see Pacianus doth freely grant, that this surname Catholike Annalium tom. 1. pag. …19. Antuerp.was not in vse in the time of the Apostles. Which testimonie Baronius doth notably dissemble, in shewing the originall 10of this name out of Pacianus; affirming, but not proouing it to be as ancient as the Apostles. Now this errour hath not onelyonly befallen the Latin, and Greeke copies, but the Syriacke likewise, as may appeare in the title prefixed before the most ancient Syrian trāslation, where we shal find these words, The 3. 15Epistles of the 3. Apostles before whose eyes our Lord was transfigured, Iames, Peter, Iohn. In which inscription be couched 2. soule errours. First, in that this translator maketh but 3. epistles of James, Peter, and Iohn: whereas there are sixe, he omitting 20the 2. of Peter, the 2. and 3. of Iohn (as also that of Iude) as no part of holy scripture; & therfore the Syriack church (as I hauehave alreadie said) doth not receiue these Epistles into their Canon vntounto this day. The second is, in that he affirmeth Iames before whom our S. Christ was transfigured in mount Tabor, to be 25the author of this epistle. For, that Iames before whome Christ was transfigured in the mount, was Iames the sonne of Zebedeus, and brother of Iohn. Matth. 17. 1. After sixe daies, Iesus tooke Peter and Iames and Iohn his brother, and brought them vp into an high mountain, and was transfigured before them. Which Iames 30could not possibly be the penner of this epistle, for he was slaine by king Herode long before the destruction of Ierusalem, and the dispersion of the 12. tribes, Acts 12. v. 2. About that time Herode the kinge stretched forth his hand to vexe certaine of the Church: and he slew Iames the brother of Iohn with the sword. Therfore Iames the author of this epistile, was Iames the sonne 35of Alphaeus. For to faine an other Iames the brother of our Lord as some hauehave done, is childish, seeing it is plaine by sundry places of the N. T. that there were but two of that name mentioned in Scripture, Iames the sonne of Zebedeus called p. 662Iames the greater; and Iames the sonne of Alphoeus, brother to Iude, called the lesser, and brother of our Lord.

GRATIAS TIBI DOMINE IESV.

COMMON PLACES HANDLED IN THIS Commentarie.

The first figure shewes the page, the second the line.

1 HOw a man may be assured that the Scripture is the word of God? 31. 33

2 How wee may be assured that the calling of our Pastours is from God? 33. 36

3 Of Phariseisme. 41. 18

4 Of preuenting and cooperating grace in mans conuersion. 51. 9

5 Of a Lye, and whether it be alwaies a sinne? 62. 22

6 Of the forme and vse of an Oath. 65. 14

7 Whether faith may be lost? 69. 25

8 Of Satisfaction, or restitution. 99. 20

9 Of the distinction of Iewes and Gentiles. 114. 2

10 Of Iustification, at large. 116. 6

11 Of Christs Obedience. 119. 12

12 Of iustifying faith and apprehension. 124. 35

13 How to liue wisely, godly, iustly: sundrie rules. 138. 32

14 How Christ liueth in vsus, and how it may be knowne? 145. 15

15 How we liue by faith? 149. 24

16 Of Iudging. 156. 1

17 Of witchcraft, and what a witch is? 158. 2. & 429. & 431

18 Of imputation, and imputed righteousnes. 175. 16

19 Of the curse of the Law. 184. 2

20 That no man can perfectly fulfill the law in this life. 186. 35 and 499. 17.

21 The difference betweene the Law and the Gospel. 194. 35

22 How Christ became a curse for vsus? 198. 19

23 Whether all Couenan…s are to be kept, and how farre forth? 208. 7 &c.

24 Of the Judiciall …aw. 230. 27

25 Of Baptisme, at large. 243. 32

26 Of the Parents authoritie in appointing his childs marriage & calling. 274. 27

27 Of the mysterie of the Fathers sending the Sonne. 279. 5

28 How Christ was subiect to the Law? 286. 5

29 Of the obseruation of daies. 314. 4

30 Of good Ielousie. 331. 23

31 Of Polygamie. 342. 9

32 Where our mother the Church is to be found? ten motiues answered. 352. 25

33 Of spirituall bondage. 364. 39

34 Of Christian Libertie. 366. 12

35 Of Imprecation or cursing. 396. 29

36 Of the right vse and abuse of Christian Libertie. 400. 12

37 Of brotherly LoueLove. 403. 11

38 Of Christian peace and concord. 408. 14

39 Of the spirit, and walking therein. 411. 20

40 Of the combate of the flesh and the spirit. 415. 38

41 Of Idolatrie. 427. 22

42 Of Heresie. 432. 21

43 Of Enmitie. 435. 3

44 Of Murther. 438. 7

45 Of Drunkennes and gluttonie. 439. 11

46 Of Long-suffering. 445. 2

47 Of Goodnesse. 445. 38

48 Of Temperance. 448. 3

49 Of Uaine-glorie. 454. 35

50 Of Christian reproofe, at large. 469. 31. &c.

51 Wherein the Law and Gospel agree and differ? 497. 24

52 Of Merit of workes. 594. 31

53 Of the kindes of goodnesse, and rules to be obserued therein. 588. 1. &c.

54 Of obseruing of times. 600. 10

55 Whether it be lawfull to compell men to embrace true religion? 614. 5

56 Of Inscriptions of Epistles, and post-scripts, at large. 655. 4

A Table of all those places of Scripture which are briefly expounded in this Commentarie.

Genesis.

Exodus.

Deuteronomie.

I. Kings.

II. Kings.

II. Chron.

Psalmes.

Proverbs.

Isai.

Ezechiel.

Matthew.

Marke.

Luke.

Iohn.

Roman.

I. Cor.

II. Cor.

Philip.

Coloss.

I. Tim.

Titus.

Hebr.

Iames.

I. Iohn.

Apocal.