Commentary on Romans, Biblical exegesis 1 · Observations on Romans – Chapter 1

Commentary on Romans · Biblical exegesis 1 · Observations on Romans – Chapter 1

p. 7More special obseruations vponupon the whole Epistle.

1. The Argument and Methode of S. Pauls epistles in generall, and specially of this Epistle.

1. Nicephorus lib. 2. c. 34. maketh the end and scope of Saint Paules Epistles to consist in these two things. 1. that the Apostle, what he preached beeing present, he committed to writing, to put them in memorie, when he was absent. 2. And that which he did more obscurely deliuer by word of mouth, or passed ouer in silence, he did in his writings handle and set forth more fully and plainely: But the Apostle had diuerse other occasions offred him in his epistles, then fell out in his sermons, and therefore it is to be thought, that although his sermons and writings agreed in the substance of doctrine, yet he, as occasion did mooue him, in his epistles otherwise handleth matters, then he did in his preaching.

2. His Epistles then may be reduced to these fiue kinds. 1. Some belong vntounto doctrine, wherein he layeth the foundation of faith and of Apostolicall instruction: as in the Epistles to the Romanes, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, the first to the Thessalonians, to the Hebrewes. 2. Some doe confute and refell errors of doctrine, and life, as the 1. to the Corinthians, the epistle to the Galatians, to the Colossians in part, the 2. to the Thessalonians. 3. Some are apologeticall, wherein the Apostle maketh Apologie, and vseth defence for himselfe, against the false Apostles, as in the 2. to the Corinthians. 4. Some specially concerne Ecclesiastical offices, as the Epistles to Timothie and Titus. 5. Some are written by way of mediation and intercession, as the epistle to Philemon.

3. The ende and scope of S. Pauls writings, as of the rest of the Scriptures, were these. 1. to set forth the true and sincere doctrine of faith. 2. to confute and conuince errors. 3. to reclaime men from vice and corruption of life. 4. to instruct them in the workes of righteousnesse: these sower are touched by the Apostle, 2. Timoth. 3.16. where he sheweth a fowrefold vse of the Scripture, it is profitable to teach, to improoue, to correct, and instruct in righteousnesse. 5. the edifying of the weake, is an other end, that they fall not away from the faith. 6. and the exhorting of those which are slacke, that they may goe on in their Christian course. 7. the comforting of the afflicted, that in tribulation they despaire not or faint: these three endes also the Apostle speaketh of, 1. Cor. 14.3. He that prophesieth, speaketh vntounto men to edifying, to exhortation, and comfort.

Of the occasion, argument, and Methods of this Epistle of S. Paul to the Romanes.

1. The occasion of the writing of this Epistle seemeth almost to hauehave beene the same that the Apostle tooke to write vntounto the Galatians: which was this, the beleeuing Iewes, dispersed among the Gentiles, did thinke that the ceremonies and obseruations of Moses law were still to be retained: whereupon did arise great stirres betweene the beleeuing Iewes and Gentiles: the one despising the Gentiles, thinking themselues to be priuiledged by the promises made to the seed and posteritie of Abraham, and vrging the rites of Moses lawe, as though they helped vntounto iustification: the other insulted against the Iewes, as glorying too much in their Christian libertie, and exemption from Moses lawe, and taking the Iewes, to be reiected of God: the Apostle to compound this dissension among them, writeth this Epistle; this was the occasion.

2. And accordingly the Apostle frameth this Epistle: first generally, shewing, that neither the Gentiles by their naturall knowledge, nor the Iewes by the workes of the Law could be iustified: but that both the one & the other were freely iustified by faith in Christ: this generall tractate of iustification by faith, is extended vntounto the 9. Chapter. Then particularly he commeth to suppresse the insolencie of the Iewes, shewing that the promises were not made vntounto all that were of Abrahams carnall seede, but onelyonly to the true Israel, so many as were of the faith of Abraham, c. 9.10. then he also turneth him to the Gentiles, that they should not as it were insult in the reiection of the Iewes: for it was not totall, not finall, God would hauehave merciemercy on them, if they continued not in vnbeleefers. 11. The rest of the Epistle is spent in Christian exhortation, 1. to the mutuall offices of charitie among brethren, c. 12. of dutie toward Magistrates, c. 13. how they should behaue themselues toward the weake brethren, c. 14, 15. And then after diuers salutations he concludeth.

p. 8The Methode then and parts of the Epistle are these two, the first is doctrinall, vntounto the 12. chapter, the second exhortatorie, in the 5. last chapters, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.

In the first the two chiefe points of Christian religion are handled at large, namely of iustification, to c. 9. and of election and reprobation, c. 9, 10, 11.

In the doctrine of iustification, 1. the manner and forme thereof is declared: 2. the fruits: in the first, the false way vntounto iustification by works is reiected and refused, c. 1, 2, 3. to v. 21. then the true way, which is by faith, is affirmed and prooued, c. 3.21. v. c. 4. the effects of iustification follow, as the peace of conscience, c. 5. the newnes of life, c. 6. exemption and freedome from the law, c. 7. constancie and perseuerance in affliction, c. 8.

In the doctrine of predestination and election: 1. he treateth of the reiection of the Iewes, c. 9. 2. of the vocation of the Gentiles, c. 10. 3. of the restoring of the Iewes againe, c. 11.

2. In the exhortatorie part: there are first exhortations generall concerning all Christians, c. 12. then particular, as of duties toward Magistrates, c. 13. toward the weake, c. 14, 15. secondly he concludeth with salutations, both of himselfe, wherein he professeth his louelove toward them, and purpose to come vntounto them, c. 15. v. 15. to the ende, then of others, c. 16.

2. Of the style and phrase which S. Paul vseth in this Epistle.

1. S. Paul, as he vseth not any affected eloquence, or elegant style, or entising speach, whereof he giueth this reason, that your faith should not be in the wisdome of men, but in the power of God, 1. Cor. 3.2. So neither yet is the Apostles style base or barbarous, but ex vtro que temperatus, of a mixt kind betwixt both: who by a pithie and sententious kind of writing, full of arguments, and forcible perswasions, in graue but plaine words, deliuereth high mysteries. There is a double kind of eloqu…ce, one which consisteth in the eloquence of speach, and the curious choice of words, such as the Oratours among the heathen excelled in: this shall we not finde in Paul: there is an other which is graue, sober, consisting rather in the force of perswasion, then in the number of words: and this kind of eloquence S. Paul vseth: Martyr. So that, as Chrysostome saith, lingua illius supra solem emicuit, doctrinae que sermone supra reliquos omnes exuberavit, his tongue or speach was brighter then the Sunne, and in the vtterance of doctrine he excelled all the rest, &c. and they all gaue place vntounto him for speach, vnde & Mercurius ab infidelibus putabatur, quod sermoni praesset, whereupon he was of the Infidels called Mercurie, because the office of speaking was committed to him, &c. Chrysost. argum. in epist. ad Roman. Augustine herein concurreth with Chrysostome, that although he affected not eloquence, ea tamen sapientiam eius comitata est, yet it did follow and accompanie his wisdome. lib. 4. de doctr. Christ.

2. But there are which thinke otherwise of S. Pauls style. 1. Origen saith, that Paul hath many hyperbata, and auantopedota, many imperfect transitions, and clauses of sentences not one answering an other, but breaking off abruptly: and M. Beza in his preface to Oleviaues commentarie, maketh mention of a famous man, nostrâ memoriâ magnus, of great name in our memorie, who therein concurred with Origen, but he leaueth it in doubt, whether this defect in the style were to be ascribed vntounto Paul himselfe, or to Tertius his Scribe. 2. Hierome although he be variable and diuers in this matter, yet thinketh that S. Paul though he were eloquent in his owne tongue, yet hath no pure Greeke style, but such as the Cilicians vsed, and was very full of Hebraismes. 3. Yea S. Paul himselfe seemeth to acknowledge his want of eloquence, 2. Cor. 11.6. Though I be rude in speaking, yet am I not so in knowledge. 4. and S. Peter saith of S. Pauls Epistles, that many things therein are hard to be vnderstood. Thus it is obiected against S. Pauls style.

Contra. 1. The reason why S. Paul seemeth sometime to breake off abruptly, and leaue his sentences imperfect, is, because of the sublimitie & depth of those great mysteries which he handleth, whereby he is forced often to breake forth into admiration, as Rom. 11.33. O the deepenes of the riches both of the wisdome and knowledge of God, how vnsearchable are his iudgements, &c. And this proceedeth also from the earnestnes of the apostle, that sometime he seemeth extra se raptus, to be rauished beside himselfe: Martyr. But as for his Scribe Tertius, it is not to be thought, that he writ otherwise then S. Paul endited: and therfore the style and manner of writing is to be imputed to Paul the author, not to the writer: which is such, that as Beza wel inferreth, nihil p…ruisse de tantis rebus, non modo divinius, sed p. 9ornatius aut accommodatius dici, nothing could be more diuinely, or elegantly saide of so great matters, &c. And this diuine kinde of writing, which is frequent with the Apostle, to fall into admiration and other such like affectionate speaches, Origen well expresseth with this similitude, that it fareth with the Apostle in treating of such diuine things, as with a man, that is brought into a Princes palace, and lead out of one chamber into an other, to behold the glorie and beautie thereof, which while he taketh a diligent view of, he is astonished, and beginneth to wonder, forgetting, vnde illuc venerit, aut quâ egressurus sit, whence he came in thither, or how he should got out againe, ex praefat. Martyr.

2. And as touching Pauls Cilician speach, it was fit and conuenient, seeing S. Paul did write not onelyonly to the learned, but vnlearned also, that he should attempes his speach to the capacitie and vnderstanding of all: and because the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into the Greeke tongue, which the beleeuing Gentiles were conuersant in, it was also meete, that the Apostle should so frame his Greeke style, as that it might hauehave some relish of the Hebrew tongue, out of the which the Scriptures were translated.

3. Neither doth S. Paul acknowledge any imperfection in his speach or writing, which he was perswaded, he endited by the spirit of God, but he so confesseth by way of concession, because the false Apostles obiected against him the weaknes of speach: so he saith thus much in effect, admit it be so, num rerum scientiam etiam mihi adimetis? will ye also denie vntounto me the knowledge of things?

4. S. Peter doth not impute the hardnes of S. Pauls epistles to the obscuritie of the style, but rather to the sublimitie and profunditie of the great mysteries, which he treateth of: which must needes be hard vntounto our weake vnderstanding: neither were his epistles hard, but onelyonly some things in his epistles: and that not to all, but to the vnstable and vnlearned, who peruerred those things to their owne destruction, 2. Pet. 3.16. Gryneus. So that notwithstanding any thing obiected against S. Pauls style, it appeareth to be answerable vntounto the matter, which he writeth of: that as he entreateth of high, graue, and diuine matters, so is his speach graue, diuine, peircing, as Hierome himselfe confesseth, that when he read S. Paul, non verba, sed toni…ru percipere, that he perceiued thunder, rather then words: And Origen likewise, though sometime he extenuateth S. Pauls style, yet thus excellently writeth thereof against Celsus, lib. 3. Sat scio, si se attente illorum lectioni dederit, aut admirabitur mentem viri vulgari dictione egregias complecti sententias, aut nisi admiratus fuerit, ipse ridiculus videbitur; I know well, if he read the Apostle well, either he will wonder, that such excellent matter is contained in so plaine speach, or if he wonder not at it, he will shew himselfe ridiculous.

3. The questions and doubts discussed.

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

Beside the generall consent of the Church of God both in times past, and now, that this Epistle was written by S. Paul, as Ireneus lib. 5. cont. Valent. Hierom. epist. ad Paulin. Eusebius Ecclesiast. histor. lib. 3. c. 3. with diuers others of the Fathers, doe acknowledge this diuine Apostle to be the author; it thus appeareth by better euidence out of the booke it selfe:

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

2. But beside the inscription of his name, this Epistle endeth with that vsuall salutation, which S. Paul annexeth in the ende of all his Epistles, The grace of our Lord Iesus Christ be with you all, Amen: Rom. 16.24. which forme of salutation written with S. Pauls owne hand, was his signe and marke in eueryevery epistle, 2. Thess. 3.18. Paraeus.

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

4. And it beeing resolued vponupon, that S. Paul was the author, it followeth, that this Epistle is of Canonicall authoritie, because it was written by the spirit of God speaking in Paul: for, he saith, I thinke that I hauehave the spirit of God, 1. Cor. 7.40. and that Christ spake in him, 2. Cor. 13.3. and that he receiued not his doctrine from man, but by the reuelation of Iesus Christ, Gal. 1.12.

p. 102. Quest. Of the birth, the life, acts, and death of S. Paul.

1. For the place of his birth, Hierome thinketh, that he was borne in Giscalis a towne in the tribe of Beniamin, which beeing taken by the Romanes, he then remooued with his parents to Tarsus: but this agreeth not with S. Pauls owne narration, that he was borne in Tarsus a citie of Cilicia, Act. 22.2. which if it had not beene so, his aduersaries would hauehave intrapped him, and detected him of an vntruth.

2. For his kinred, he himselfe testifieth, that he was of Israel, an Ebrew of the Hebrews, of the tribe of Beniamin, Philip. 3.5.

3. For his education, he was brought vp vnderunder the feete of Gamaliel, Act. 22.3. who was of great authoritie among the Iewes, as it 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 onelyonly 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 vntounto 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 hauehave 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 b… 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 vntounto 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 hauehave 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 louelove 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 p. 11of 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, vponupon those words, Philip. 3.3. Though I might hauehave confidence in the flesh: for it had beene no great matter, saith he, for the Apostle to hauehave 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 hauehave giuen so great authoritie vntounto 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 beeing borne of the noble tribe of Beniamin: which was famous, both because the first king of Israel Saul was chosen out of that tribe, and the tribe of Beniamin reuolted not from Iudah, as the other ten tribes had done: As also S. Paul was of a noble profession among the Iewes, by sect a Pharisie.

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

5. Quest. Whether S. Paul were brought vp in the learning of the Greekes.

1. Chrysostome thinketh, that S. Paul was vtterly ignorant before his conuersion of the Greeke tongue, and learning, and that he onelyonly knew the Hebrew tongue: hom. 4. in 2. ad Timoth. But it is not like that S. Paul beeing brought vp in a citie of Cilicia, where they vsed the Greeke language, was vtterly ignorant of the common speach then vsed.

2. Neither yet doe I thinke with Hierome, that Paul learned the Greeke tongue at Tarsus, where he was brought vp, yet was not very skilfull or eloquent in the Greeke tongue: seipsum in Graeca lingua interpretari cupiens, revolvitur, he desiring to interpret himselfe in the Greeke tongue is enwrapped and entangled: in 3. ad Philip. and where S. Paul saith, he was rude in speach: he thus said, non ex humilitate, sed ex scientiae veritate, not of humilitie, but according to truth: epist. ad Algasiam. and that he vsed Titus his interpreter for the Greeke tongue, as Peter vsed Marke: epist. ad Hedibiam.

p. 123. But that S. Paul was neither ignorant of the Greeke learning, as thinketh Chrysostome, appeareth by the alleadging of the Greeke poets, Aratus, Meuander, Epimenides, and by the commendation, which Strabo giueth of the Tharsensians, and in the studie of Philosophie, and other artes exceeded them of Athens, and Alexandria: Strabo lib. 16. Neither was he so rude in speaking, as Hierome thinketh: for he himselfe saith, 1. Cor. 14.18. I thank my God, I speak languages more then ye all: and he so confesseth by way of concession, because the false Apostles so obiected. But S. Paul vseth indeede no affected eloquence, both because he was to temper his speach to the capacitie and vnderstanding of all: and the depth of the diuine mysteries which he handleth, and his passionate speaches, breaking forth into zeale, doe carie him often away from hunting after or labouring for curious elocution.

Quest. 6. Of the yeares of the raigne of the Emperours of Rome vntounto Nero, vnderunder whom S. Paul suffered.

Because we shall hauehave occasion afterward in the handling of some Questions to hauehave recourse vntounto the yeares of the Romane Emperours, in whose time S. Paul liued, it shall not be amisse, to make a iust computation of their yeares, wherein I finde great difference among Chronographers.

1. Tiberius Caesar, who succeeded Augustus, in the 18. yeare of whose raigne Christ our Blessed Sauiour suffered, according to Suetonius, in Tiberio, c. 73. and Orosius lib. 7. c. 2. Eutropuis lib. 7. Beda de sex aetatib. raigned 23. yeares, according to Sextus Aureulius, 24. as Clemens Alexandrin. lib. 1. stromat. 22. yeares: as Dio counteth, lib. 58.22. yeares and 7. moneths, and so many daies: as Tertullian. lib. aduers. Iudaeos, c. 5. 22. yeares, 7. moneths, and 28. dayes: Iosephus lib. 18. antiquit. c. 14. reckoneth 22. yeares, and 6. moneths. But the true account is this: Tiberius raigned full 22. yeares, counting from the Calends of Ianuarie after he beganne to raigne, to the Calends of Ianuarie next before he died: but he entred his raigne the 19. of August, when Augustus died, from whence to the Calends of Ianuarie, are 4. moneths, and 13. dayes: and he died the 16. of March, two moneths and sixteene dayes after his 22. yeares expired at the Calends of Ianuarie: so in all he raigned 22. yeares and 7. moneths: so that by this computation appeareth the difference, why some doe giuegive vntounto him but 22. yeares, some 24. some but 23. because some count onelyonly the full yeares, some the moneths of his first and last yeare, for whole yeares; some put the odde moneths together, and make one yeare of them. Hence then it is euident, seeing our Blessed Sauiour is held to hauehave suffered in the 18. yeare of Tiberius about the beginning of Aprill, that Tiberius raigned after our Blessed Sauiours passion 4. yeares, an 11. moneths, and 18. dayes: for of his 1…. yeare there remained from the beginning of Aprill vntounto the 19. of August, when Tiberius beganne to raigne, 4. moneths and 18. dayes: and after the 18. yeare, he raigned 4. yeares, and almost 7. moneths, for he-raigned in all as is shewed before, 22. yeares, and 7. moneths.

2. Caius Caligula, raigned according to Suetonius, and Eutropius, 3. yeares, 10. moneths, and 8. daies: according to Clemens, and Tacitus, and Sextus Aurelius 4. yeares: after Beda, 4. yeares, 10. moneths, and 8. daies: according to Dio, 3. yeares, 9. moneths, 28. daies: as Tertullian, 3. yeares, 8. moneths, and 13. dayes: as Iosephus, 3. yeares, and 6. moneths. But the right computation is this: Caligula beganne his Empire the 16. day of March: from whence to the Calends of Ianuarie following are 9. moneths, and an halfe: then he raigned from the first Calends of Ianuarie full 3. yeares, and died the 24. of Ianuarie following: so the whole time of his raigne was 3. yeares, 10. moneths, and 8. dayes: they which giuegive vntounto him full fowre yeares, count the odde moneths, and dayes for a whole yeare.

3. Claudius, who was next Emperour, according to Tacitus, Suetonius, Clemens Alexandrin. Eutropius, Orosius, raigned 14. yeares, according to Dio and Iosephus, 13. yeares, 8. moneths, and 20. dayes: after Eusebius, 13. yeares, and 9. moneths: after Beda, 14. yeares, 7. moneths, and 28. dayes. But the certaine computation is this: Claudius beganne his Empire vponupon the 24. of Ianuarie: whence to the Calends of Ianuarie following, when the Romane yeare beginneth are 11. moneths, and 7. dayes: then he raigned full 12. yeares, and in his 13. yeare he raigned 9. moneths, and 13. dayes: from the Calends of Ianuarie vntounto the 3. day before the Ides of October, which was the 13. day of that monethmonth, when he died, as Tacitus and Suetonius write: so the whole time of his raigne was 13. yeares, 8. moneths, and 20. dayes: they then which giuegive vntounto him 14. yeares, doe count the odde moneths for a whole yeare.

p. 134. VntoUnto Claudius succeeded Nero, who according to Tacitus, Clemens Alexandrin. and Eutropius, raigned 14. yeares: according to Dio, 13. yeares, and 8. moneths: as Beda, 14. yeares, 7. moneths, 10. daies: after Suetonius not much vnderunder 14. yeares: Tertullian counteth but 9. yeares, 9. moneths, and 13. daies: But herein he is much deceiued. The most doe giuegive vntounto 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 vntounto him 14. yeares, we will follow the vsuall and common reckoning. And this shall suffice to hauehave 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, vponupon the 25. day of Ianuarie: so Eusebius and Beda: But because S. Stephen is held to hauehave suffered vponupon 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 monethmonth; 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, vponupon 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 monethmonth, betweene the martyrdome of S. Stephen, and the conuersion of S. Paul.

3. Wherefore the opinion of Oecumenius, vponupon 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, vntounto the conuersion of Saint Paul, which is held by a generall receiued opinion, to hauehave beene vponupon 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 vponupon 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 vponupon this reason, because Act. 7.58. Saint Luke speaking of Saint Paul, saith, that the witnesses laide downe their garments at the feete foreign, of a young man, called Saul: But that word hath not so much respect vntounto his age and youth, as to his courage, and fiercenesse, as the word signifieth, as Budeus sheweth: whereupon Euripides calleth bold and insolent speach, foreign. And that Saint Paul was not so very a young man, appeareth, because he is tearmed by an p. 14other word: Ananias saith, chap. 9.13. We hauehave heard by many, foreign, 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 hauehave beene done by him before his conuersion, agree not vntounto 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 vntounto him, were not incident vntounto 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 hauehave 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, vntounto 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,H…mil. de princip. Apost. rom. 3. edit. Parisien. 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 hauehave 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 vponupon that place: Ioannes Driedo, lib. 1. de scriptur. c. 2. But this opinion is easily refuted: for the Apostle saith, that thing happened vntounto him 14. yeares before he writ that epistle: now this second epistle to the Corinthians, he is held to hauehave written in the beginning of the raigne of Nero: from thence counting 14. yeares, we still come to the beginning of Claudius raigne: but S. Pauls conuersion was 8. yeares before that, in the 20. yeare of Tiberius: for there remained three yeares of Tiberius raigne, and 4. yeares almost of Caligula, whome Claudius succeeded.

2. But it is most like, that S. Paul in that three daies space had reuealed vntounto him the knowledge of Iesus Christ, and of his Gospel, which the Apostle saith, he receiued by reuelation of Iesus Christ, Galat. 1.12. so thinketh Beda in 9. c. Actor. and the author of the scholastical historie, c. 46. vponupon the same booke. And it is euidently gathered by the historie of S. Pauls conuersion set forth by S. Luke, Act. c. 9. how presently vponupon his conuersion S. Paul beganne to preach in the Synagogues, that Christ was the Sonne of God. He would not hauehave so preached vntounto others, if he had not beene before himselfe instructed in the waies of Christ.

3. Sixtus Senensis then is greatly deceiued, who 1. tom. bibliot. deliuereth this out of Origen, that S. Paul had learned the historie of the Gospel of S. Luke: for both S. Lukes owne narration is against it, who saith, that straitway after S. Paul had recouered his sight, by the laying on of the hands of Ananias, he beganne to preach in the name of Iesus, Act. 9. And S. Paul restifieth otherwise of himselfe, Galat. 1.11. Now I certifie you, brethren, that the Gospel, which was preached of me, was not after man: for neither receiued I it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the reuelation of Iesus Christ.

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

Because S. Paul did write diuers of his Epistles while he had his libertie, and some after the time of his imprisonment, it shall not be amisse to examine this matter briefly, when Paul beganne first to be restrained of his libertie: which falling out at Ierusalem, it must first be knowne, how after and vponupon what occasion he went vp to Ierusalem: his iourneis then p. 15to Ierusalem are found to hauehave beene these foure.

1. First he went to Ierusalem to see Peter, which was three yeares after his conuersion; And from Damascus where he was conuerted, he went into Arabia, and thence to Damascus, and so to Ierusalem. But here two doubts are mooued: the first is, that Saint Luke presently after S. Pauls escape out of Damascus, maketh mention of his comming to Ierusalem, Act. 9.26. but the answer here is, that S. Luke in that storie omitteth many things which were done, and so passeth ouer for breuitie sake that iourney of S. Paul into Arabia. The other doubt is, whether S. Paul preached at this his going to Arabia: Hierome thinketh that he did not, but that he was letted by the Spirit to preach the word in Arabia, as afterward in Asia: Act. 16.7. Pareus also is of the same iudgement: because S. Paul speaking before king Agrippa, how he preached at Damascus, and at Ierusalem, and in Iudea, Act. 26.20. maketh no mention of his preaching in Arabia. But seeing there were three yeares runne, after S. Paul went from Damascus to Arabia, before he returned to Ierusalem, it is not like, that S. Paul all this time was idle: and in the same place, Act. 26.20. though he make no particular mention of his preaching in Arabia, yet he saith in generall, that he preached to the Gentiles: wherefore I rather subscribe here vntounto the sentence of Chrysostome, who thinketh, that S. Paul at this time preached in Arabia, and did other memorable things, which for modestie sake he passeth ouer in silence.

2. The second voiage of S. Paul to Ierusalem, was, when he with Barnabas carried releese from Antioch vntounto the brethren at Ierusalem and in Iudea, because the great famine which was through the whole world, which fell out vnderunder Claudius Cesar: as we read, Act. 11.30. and 12.35.

3. The third trauell of S. Paul to Ierusalem, was that, whereof he writeth, Galat. 2.1. Then fourteene years after I went vp to Ierusalem. But here likewise ariseth a double doubt: first, whether this iourney, and that described Act. 15. were one and the same: the second, how these fourteene yeares are to be counted, and where they must take beginning. For the first, Chrysostome and Hierome vponupon the 2. to the Galatians, seeme to be of opinion, that these were two diuers iourneies: and there may seeme some probabilitie hereof; because S. Luke saith, that Barnabas went with Paul, Act. 15. But S. Paul saith, beside Barnabas he tooke also Titus: and S. Luke sheweth this to be the occasion, that Paul and Barnabas were sent vp about the deciding of the question concerning circumsision: But S. Paul saith, he went vp by reuelation, Gal. 2.2. Yet hereunto it may be thus answered, that though Luke make no expresse mention of Titus, yet he may be included in that generall addition, They ordained that Paul, and Barnabas, and certaine other of them should goe, &c. Act. 15.2. And S. Paul might goe vp by reuelation, and yet that other occasion also concurrè therewith. Wherefore the opinion rather of Theodoret, in 2. ad Galat. and of Beda, in c. 15. Actor. seemeth to be more sound; that both these were but one iourney: both because after this immediatly Paul and Barnabas deuided themselues, Act. 15.39. and trauailed not together afterward to Ierusalem: and Paul after this went not to Ierusalem, but when he was there apprehended and taken, Act. 21.

The other doubt is, where the computation of these 14. yeares must beginne. 1. Beda, and the author of the scholasticall historie vponupon the 15. of the Acts, and Thomas, Lyranus, Caietanus, vponupon the 2. to the Galat. thinke that they are to be counted from the time of S. Pauls conuersion.

2. But the opinion of Hierome and Anselme is more probable, that these 14. yeares beginne from S. Pauls first comming to Ierusalem, which was 3. yeares after his conuersion, whereof the Apostle maketh mention, Galat. 2.18. for seeing he had spoken before of his first going to Ierusalem, After three yeares I came againe to Ierusalem: and saith afterward, c. 2. Then fourteene yeares after I went vp againe to Ierusalem: these 14. yeares must properly beginne, where the other 3. yeares ende: so that these 14. yeares, were indeede 17. yeares from his conuersion.

But Pererius obiecteth, that then the 17. yeare would fall out into the tenth yeare of Claudius Cesar: which can not be, for the Iewes were expelled from Rome by Claudius after this third going vp of Saint Paul to Ierusalem: for Saint Luke in the 15. chap. maketh mention of Saint Pauls going vp to Ierusalem: but the Iewes departure from Rome, by the commandement of Claudius, afterward he remembreth, c. 18.2. now, this dismissing of the Iewes from Ierusalem was in the ninth yeare of Claudius, as Orosins writeth, p. 16lib. 7. c. 4. and Beda lib. de 6. atatib. Which obiection of Pererus may easily be answered: for, 1. he relieth onelyonly vponupon the credit of 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, vponupon the 25. of Ianuarie, as is commonly held: his going vp to Ierusalem may be supposed to hauehave 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 giuegive… 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 vnderunder 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 vntounto that nation: he had beene then their gouernour more then two yeares: and I…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 hauehave no relation.

3. The author of the scholasticall historie will hauehave 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 hauehave 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 vntounto you. So also Heb. 13.23. Know that (our) brother p. 17Timotheus is deliuered, with whome, of he come …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 onelyonly 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, onelyonly 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 vponupon 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, because he so purposed and promised in his Epistles. 3. But he did not visit onelyonly the East Churches, but as Eusebius saith, it is like, ad Evangelium passim praedicandum se denno recepisse, that he returned to preach the Gospel againe eueryevery where.

4. Yet to Ephesus it is certaine he returned not: for he himselfe had told them, that they should see his face no more, Act. 20.38. And whether euer he were in Spaine, it shall be shewed, when we come to that place in the 15. chapter.

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

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

Pererius obiection, that Nero died about the 10. of Iune in his 14. yeare, whereas S. Paul and S. Peter suffered the 29. of Iune, and therefore they could not be put to death in Neros raigne, may be thus answered: that it is vncertaine at what time of the yeare, or in what monethmonth Nero died: he buildeth onelyonly vponupon the coniecture of Onuphrius, as hath beene shewed before, qu. 6. toward the end: whose testimonie is not sufficient, to waigh against the authoritie of Eusebius, Hierome, and others, who place S. Pauls death in the 14. yeare of Nero.

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

14. Quest. Of Pauls person, and of the manner, and place of his death.

1. Concerning S. Pauls person, Nicephorus thus describeth him, lib. 2. c. 37. that he was p. 18of stature small, and somewhat stooping: of a whitely face, small head, comely eyes, low eyebrowes, a comming nose: a thicke beard somewhat long, full of gray haires, as likewise was his head: of comely grace, shewing some diuine thing to be in him. Chrysostome in his homilie de principib. Apostol. saith, that, for his stature, he was but 3. cubic high, whereas a mans vsuall stature is toward foure cubits: which if it were so, the reason may euidently appeare, why the false Apostles said that Pauls bodily presence was weake, 2. Cor. 10.10. they might disdaine his person, for his small stature.

2. For the place where S. Paul was beheaded, the generall opinion is, that it was in the way Hostrensis, where Constantine erected a Temple bearing S. Pauls name, and there was he buried. But Pererius by the authoritie of Gregorie, thinketh that he was put to death, ad aquas Salvia…, in a place called the Salvian waters: the matter is not great, yet there is more probabilitie for the former opinion.

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

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

1. Some doe thinke that this was the cause: when Simon Magus to prooue himselfe to the Romanes to be a God, by the helpe of the Deuill did flie aloft in the ayre, by the prayers of Peter the Deuill beeing driuen away, that wicked Sorcerer fell downe, beeing forsaken of his spirit, and so was broken in pieces: whereupon Nero was incensed against the Apostle: thus Hegesippus lib. 3. c. 2. Ambr. lib. 5. epist. de tradend. basilic. Arnob. lib. 2. advers. Gentil. with others: But this reason, if this report were true, as it may be doubted of, rather sheweth the cause, why Peter was put to death, then Paul.

2. Chrysostome and Theophylatt vponupon the 4. c. of the second to Timothie, doe alleadge this to be the cause, because Paul had conuerted to the Christian faith Neros butler, whome he made great account of: and thereupon he commanded him to be beheaded.

3. Simeon Metaphrastes in commentar. peregrinat. Petri & Paul. affirmeth out of Chrysostome, that Nero raged against S. Paul, because he had conuerted one of Nero his concubines, which afterward refused to hauehave companie with him. But these two may seeme to be but mens coniectures: if this had beene the cause, Nero would hauehave put Paul to death at his first imprisonment: for then he had conuerted diuers of Cesars houshold, whose commendations he sendeth to the Philippians: but after this he was enlarged, as may be collected, c. 1.25.

4. Severus Sulpitius, lib. 2. giueth an other reason, why Nero persecuted Paul to death, which was this: Nero hauing set Rome on fire, and laid it vntounto the Christians charge, wherof there was then a great number in the citie: and this occasion Nero tooke to persecute the Christians, and put them to diuers torments: some he caused to be couered with beasts skinnes, and to be woorried with dogges: some were nay led to crosses: some were burnt in the night, that their fires might qualifie the darknes of the night: and in this hoat persecution mooued vponupon this occasion, Paul was put to death. But Pererius confuteth this opinion by this reason: this setting of the citie on fire happened in the tenth yeare of Nero, as Eusebius noteth in his Chronicle, but S. Paul suffered in the 14. yeare of Nero.

5. But we neede assigne no other cause of Nero his rage against this blessed Apostle, then this, which Eusebius and Hierome both doe touch, as is partly shewed before, Quest. 12. that Pauls defence was at his first imprisonment admitted, and thereupon deliuered, because Nero at the first caried himselfe as a gentle Prince, but in the end he became a most sauage Tyrant, and then his hatred was such against the Christians, that Paul could not escape his bloodie hands. It was then the crueltie of that bloodie Tyrant ioyned with a wicked detestation of the Christian faith, that prouoked this beastly Tyrant, to shew his rage, in putting to death this holy Apostle: we neede not seeke for any further reason. And thus farre we hauehave proceeded in such questions as concerne the person of this Apostle: now follow such matters, as are to be obserued touching his writings, and specially this Epistle to the Romanes.

p. 1916. Quest. Of the Epistles of S. Paul the number of them.

1. The Epistles which S. Paul writ, are in all 14. in number, he writ nine of them to the 7. Churches: 1. to the Romanes, 2. to the Corinthians, 1. to the Galatians, 1. to the Ephesians, 1. to the Philippians, 1. to the Colossians, 2. to the Thessalonians, and one to the Hebrewes: and 4. beside to priuate persons, 2. to Timothie, 1. to Titus, 1. to Philemon. The reason of this number, Gregorie, whom Anselmus followeth yeeldeth to be this: this number of 14. consisting of 10. which signifieth the morall Lawe, and of fowre which noteth the 4. Euangelists, sheweth the harmonie and consent of Law and Gospel, and that S. Paul, Iegis & Euangelij secreta rimatus esset, had searched out the secrets both of the Law and Gospell: But this reason is too curious. Cyrillus de Hieros…lym. Catech. 10. better sheweth the reason, why S. Paul did write more epistles then the rest of the Apostles: non quod minor esset Petrus, ant Ioannes, not because Peter, or Iohn were lesse or inferior: sed quia antea fuit mimicus, but because he had beene an enemie before, it pleased God he should write most: that we might be the better perswaded that he taught the truth.

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

3. Yet diuerse bookes were forged and foisted in vnderunder S. Pauls name: as Augustine citeth the Apocalypse or Reuelation of S. Paul, in 16. c. Ioan. whereof Niceph…rus also maketh mention, lib. 12. c. 34. which they said was found in Pauls fathers house at Tarfus in a marble coffet in the time of Theodosius the Emperour, which was prooued to be false by the confession of an old man: such was the booke of the Acts of Paul, mentioned by the same Nicepherus, lib. 12. c. 46.

4. Of the same sort was the Epistle to the Laodiceans imagined to be of S. Pauls writing: 1. which neither was S. Pauls writing, but the Church reiected it, whether S. Paul wrote any Epistle to the Laodiceans.that there might be but 14. epistles in all: to shewe, that the Apostle had attained to the secrets of the Law and Gospel: for renne signifieth the Lawe, and foure the Euangelists, thus Anselmus in 4. epist. ad Colossens. following Gregor. lib. 35. moral. c. 25. for the Church hath no authoritie to reiect any part of the Apostolical writings. 2. neither was it of S. Pauls writing, but now perished, as Bellarmine thinketh, lib. 4. de verbo Dei, c. 4.3. nor yet was that epistle sometime extant, of S. Pauls writing, as Epiphanius maketh mention thereof, in the heresie of the Marcionites: for S. Hierome well saith, legunt quidam ad Laodiceuses, sed ab omnibus exploditur, some doe read also the Epistle to the Laodiceans, but it is reiected of all, catalog. scr…ptor. for the words are foreign, from Laodicea, Coloss. 4.16. which the vulgar Latine corruptly translateth, quae Laodicensium est, which is of the Laodiceans. 4. neither was it the same epistle which the Apostle had written from Laodicea, which some thinke to hauehave beene the first epistle vntounto Timothie: for it is euident Coloss. c. 2.1. that S. Paul when he wrote this Epistle had not seene the Laodiceans. 5. So Philastrius, har. 59 maketh mention of such an Epistle which was taken to be S. Pauls, but it was not publikely receiued, because of some doubtfull sentences thrust in by some: but it was not S. Pauls Epistle, neither in part nor whole, for the reason before alleadged, as Theodoret thinketh that it is a seyned and forged epistle. 6. Sixtus Senens. writeth, that there is an epistle of S. Pauls to the Laodiceans to be found in Paris, in an old booke, in the librarie of Sorbon, and at Padway p. 20in the librarie of S. Iohn: But that is not S. Pauls epistle, for it containeth nothing worthie of him: and whatsoeuer that epistle hath is more distinctly handled in the epistle to the Colossians: so that there was no reason, why S. Paul should will the Colossians to read that epistle. 7. this epistle then from Laodicea, was some epistle, which either the Laodiceans writ to S. Paul, whereunto he partly maketh answer, in that epistle to the Colossians, as Chrysostome, Theodoret, Oecumeneus, or which they had written to the Colossians, Beza.

Quest. 17. Of the order of time, wherein S. Pauls seuerall epistles were written.

This Epistle to the Romanes, though it be placed first, yet is thought to hauehave beene written last of all those, which S. Paul did write before he was imprisoned at Rome. His epistles then are thought to hauehave beene written in this order: 1. the former epistle to the Thessalonians, seemeth to hauehave beene first written, which he sent vntounto them from Athens by Tychicus: for from Thessalonica he remooued to Berea, from thence to Athens, Act. 17.2. And the same yeare while he was at Athens, he did write the second epistle also to the Thessalonians, explaining in the latter, that which he had written in the first concerning the comming of Christ, and the ende of the world: this was about the 17. yeare of his Apostleship, and the 9. yeare of the raigne of Claudius the Emperour, Pareus. Chrysostome giueth this coniecture, why the epistles to the Thessalonians should be written before those to the Corinthians, because he saith, 2. Cor. 9.2. that Achaia was prepared a yeare agoe: whereby he signifieth that he had formerly dealt herein with the Thessalonians, vntounto whom he thus writeth, 2. Thess. 4.9. as touching brotherly louelove, ye neede not, that I write vntounto 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 vntounto 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 hauehave 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 hauehave beene about the 19. yeare of his conuersion.

4. Next was written the former epistle vntounto 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 vntounto Corinthus with them of Macedonia, 2. Cor. 9.4. which he at that time performed.

p. 216. 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 vntounto 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 vntounto 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 hauehave beene twice in bonds at Rome, for otherwise beeing held to hauehave come to Rome in the 2. yeare of Nero, he must either be thought after 2. yeares imprisonment at Rome to hauehave 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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, Paul a prisoner of Iesus Christ: These epistles, the order whereof cannot be prooued otherwise out of the epistles themselues, are best holden to hauehave 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 vponupon 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, vponupon this reason: because, Coloss. 4.9. the Apostle p. 22maketh mention of Onesimus a faithfull and beloued brother whom he sent with Tiobicus vntounto 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 hauehave 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 hauehave beene written before the 1. epistle to Timothie: which is affirmed to hauehave 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 vponupon 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 vntounto 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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, eueryevery day p. 23expecting 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, v… detur in hac epistola perfectior fuisse quam in caeteris, he seemeth to hauehave beene more perfect in this epistle then in the rest: for to the Corinthians he writeth, 1. Cor. 9. Least when I hauehave 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 vntounto it: But in this epistle he speaketh as a man thoroughly resolued: he was perswaded that nothing could separate him from the louelove 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 word, 2. Cor. 13.7. though we be as reprobates, that, is in mans iudgement: In the other place he speaketh of the full possession of the inheritance, not of the perfect assurance. 2. the epistle to the Philippians was written after that to the Romanes, as hath beene shewed: therefore it is impertinently alleadged to prooue greater perfection to hauehave beene in the Apostle, when he writte to the Romanes, then when he indited the epistle to the Philippians. 3. The same assurance of saluation, which S. Paul professeth Rom. 8. he sheweth also, 2. Cor. 2.9. the things which eye hath not seene, &c. which God hath prepared for those that louelove him: But God hath reuealed them vntounto vsus by his spirit, &c. Here the Apostle, in saying (vsus) perswaded himselfe to be one of those, to whom these things were reuealed and prepared.

2. But Chrysostome better sheweth the reason, why it is profitable to distinguish of the time of the writing of these epistles: because the Apostle handleth the same things diuersely, treating of circumcision and other Ceremonies: for to the Romanes he saith concerning such things, c. 14. him that is weake in the faith receiue vntounto you. But to the Galatians, he writeth more sharpely, c. 5.2. If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing: and to the Colossians he calleth them the ordinances of the world, the commandements and doctrines of men, Coloss. 2.20.22. the reason of which difference Chrysostome alleadgeth to be this: quia principio condescendere oportuit, successu temporis non item, because in the beginning the Apostle was to condiscend and yeelde somewhat, but not so afterward: like as physitians and schoolemasters doe more gently and tenderly vse their patients, and young schollers at the first, then afterward.

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

1. Athanasius in Synops. placeth the 7. canonicall epistles before S. Pauls, which are foureteene in all: and of them the epistle to the Hebrewes he maketh the tenth next before the epistles to Timothie: Luther setteth the epistle to the Hebrewes after S. Iohns epistles, and diuideth it from S. Pauls: Tertullian lib. 5. cont. Marcionem, placeth them in this order, the epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, Romanes, Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians: But the best order is, that which is vsually receiued, to the Romanes, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, to Timothie, Titus, Philemon, to the Hebrewes.

2. And why the epistle to the Romanes is prefixed before the rest, the reasons are these: 1. not for that it was the first in time, for the contrarie is shewed before. 2. nor so much for the prolixitie and largenes thereof, as the prophesie of I say in that behalfe is set first, Pareus. 3. or for the dignitie of that nation, because the Romanes, were chiefe Lords of the world, Aretius. for this had beene but a temporall respect. 4. or for the dignitie and excellencie of the Romane Church: for he giueth the preheminence to the Iewes: whom he calleth the oliue tree, and the Gentiles the banches of the wilde oliue tree, c. 11.5. But the chiefe reason was, because of the excellent matter: this epistle treateth of that principall question of iustification by faith (which is handled also in the epistle to the Galatians, but here more at large) and of the chiefe questions beside of Christian religion, as of the workes of nature, c. 1.2. the force of the lawe, c. 7. the fruites of iustifying faith, c. 5. of election and reprobation, p. 24c. 9. of the calling of the Gentiles, and the reiection of the Iewes, c. 11. of the diuersitie of gifts, c. 12. of the dutie towards Magistrates, c. 12. of the vse of indifferent things, c. 14.15. so that this epistle is as a catechisme and introduction to Christian religion, and therefore is worthily set before the rest: Aretius, Pareus.

Quest. 20. VntoUnto whom this epistle to the Romanes was written, and from whence.

1. It was not written generally to the whole Romane state: for the Emperor of Rome with his Princes, ministers, and officers, were persecutors of the Church of God: but it was directed to those among the Romanes, whether of that nation or strangers, both Iewes and Gentiles, that had imbraced the Gospell of Christ: Aretius, Faius. As now in the Romane papall state we doubt not but there are many, which professe the gospell of Christ, and are members of the true Church.

2. And although this epistle were personally directed to the Romanes, yet it entreateth of the common faith, which concerneth the whole Church of God, and to the vse thereof is generall: and that which was written vntounto them, is written vntounto vsus. As that which our Blessed Sauiour said vntounto his Apostles, he said vntounto all, Mark. 13.37. So that which the Apostles did write to some speciall Churches, they did write vntounto all, Gryneus.

3. This epistle was written from Corinthus, as not onelyonly the subscription sheweth both in the Greek and Syriake, but Origen beside doth collect so much by these three arguments out of the text it selfe: 1. It was sent by Phebe a seruant of the Church of Cenchrea, Rom. 16.1. which Cenchrea is neere vntounto Corinth, yea, portus ipse Corinthe, the verie hauen of Corinth. 2. he saith, Gaius mine host, and of the whole Church saluteth you, c. 16.23. which Gaius dwelt at Corinth: as the Apostle saith, 1. Cor. 1.14. I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gains. 3. he addeth further, Erastus the chamberlaine of the citie saluteth you: which Erastus is the same, whom Paul left at Corinth, 2. Timoth. 4.20.

Quest. 21. Of the excellencie and worthines of this epistle.

Three things doe commend this epistle, 1. the matter, 2. the forme, 3. the kind and methode.

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

2. The forme and methode of this epistle is most exact: consisting of the definition of that, which is handled, and the tractation and explication thereof: for the most perfect and artificiall Methode is that which beginneth with the definition: as the Apostle sheweth what the Gospel is, it is the power of God to saluation to euerie one that beleeueth, c. 1. v. 16. in the which definition are expressed all the causes thereof: the efficient and author, (God) the ende saluation, the materiall cause Christ Iesus, the formall, faith and beleefe in vsus, and on Gods behalfe his efficacious power: Gryneus. In the amplyfying and tractation of this definition, all the rest of the epistle is bestowed: as this proposition, that we are iustified by the Gospel, that is by faith and beleefe in Christ, is further amplified by the contrarie, that we cannot be iustified either by the workes of nature, c. 11.2. or of the Lawe, c. 3. but by grace, and faith, c. 4. by the effects of iustifying faith, inward, the peace of conscience, c. 5. outward, the fruites of holinesse, c. 6. by the contrarie operation of the lawe, which reuealeth sinne, c. 7. but the Gospel freeth from condemnation, c. 8. by the cause, the free election of God, c. 9. by the subiect, the Gentiles called, the Iewes reiected, c. 11. See more hereof concerning the Methode, in the generall argument of the epistle before.

3. For the kind of epistle: It is principally definitiue and demonstratiue: for he defineth and determineth that we are iustified, neither by the workes of nature, nor of the law, but by faith in Christ; and prooueth the same by most euident demonstration: Beside this epistle hath somewhat of all other kinds of epistles, which are called accessaria, accessarie and secundarie: as it is both gratulatorie, reioycing for their faith, c. 1. and it is reprehensorie, p. 25rebuking the Gentiles for their licentiousnes: it is also exhortatorie, exhorting to holinesse of life, c. 6.12. and it is deprecatorie, he praieth and maketh request, praying for encrease of grace in them, and for himselfe, that he might hauehave some good occasion to come vntounto them. Aretius.

4. Places of doctrine.

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

This commendable vse was taken vp by the Apostles themselues: as the Apostle sheweth, Hebr. 6.1. he calleth it the doctrine of beginnings, and the laying of the foundation: as of repentance, faith, baptisme, the resurrection, of eternall iudgement: And so in this epistle, the Apostle deliuereth a perfect forme of catechisme: which consisteth of three parts, of the miserie of man by nature, his reparation and restitution by grace, and then of his thankfulnes afterward, in his obedience of life, for the benefits receiued: which three parts, the Apostle doth at large handle in this epistle: what man is by nature, he sheweth, c. 1.2.3. what by grace, c. 4.5.8. and of the fruits of regeneration he entreateth, c. 6. c. 12. So that it is false which Bellarmine affirmeth, that the Apostle deliuered no forme of catechising, to the Church: l. 4. de verb. Dei. c. 4. for he doth it most plainly & euidently in this epistle. Pareus.

5. Places of controversie.

1. Contr. That it is knowne, that this Epistle was written by S. Paul, and is of diuine authoritie, by the Epistle it selfe.

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

Contra. 1. That the Epistles of Saint Paul are of diuine, and Canonicall authoritie, it appeareth euidently out of the writings themselues: for they beeing written by Saint Paul, who had the spirit of God, 1. Corinth. 7.40. and had Christ speaking in him, 2. Cor. 13.13. and was taught of God, from whome he receiued his doctrine by reuelation, Gal. 1.12. it is not to be doubted, but that his holy writings proceeded from the spirit of God, and so are of diuine authoritie: and he himselfe doubteth not to make them canonicall, as he saith, Gal. 6.16. Whosoeuer walketh according to this canon or rule, &c. And he denounceth anathema, if any, yea an Angel, should teach any other Gospel, then he had preached, Gal. 1. 2. Likewise that S. Paul was the author and writer of them, it is euident, both by the inscription and title, and by the salutation in the ende of eueryevery epistle, and the benediction which he vseth, The grace of our Lord Iesus Christ be with you all: which he saith is the token or marke to know his epistles by, 2. Thess. 3.17. 3. The tradition of the Church is an vncerten thing: that which is vncerten can not be a rule and measure of that, which is most certen: the testimonie of men, can not assure vsus of the testimonie of God, Christ saith, Ioh. 5.33. Ye sent vntounto Iohn, and he bare witnesse vntounto the truth: but I receiue not the record of men, &c. 36. I hauehave a greater witnes, then the witnes of Iohn, &c.

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

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

Contr. 1. True it is, that as S. Peter saith, some things are hard in S. Pauls epistles, 1. Pet. 3.16. he saith not, that many things are hard, or that the Epistles are hard, but onelyonly some (few) things in them: this letteth not, but that his Epistles may safely be read of all, that read them with an humble minde, desirous to profit thereby: the danger is onelyonly to the vnlearned, and vnstable which peruert them, as they doe the rest of the Scriptures, as S. Peter in the same place saith. 2. And euen those hard places may be made easie by diligent reading: as Chrysostome giueth this instance; like as we know their minde whome we louelove and obserue, and are familiar with them, & vti que si lectioni cum animi alacritate volueritis attendere, &c. so you if you will with cheerfull attention giuegive your selues to reading, ye shall neede no other helpe, &c. hinc vt innumera mala nata sunt, quod scripturae ignorantur, p. 26hence so many euills hauehave sprung vp, because the Scriptures are not knowne; hence so many heresies, &c. the ignorance then, not the reading of Scripture, breedeth heresies: and thus he concludeth, oculos ad splendorem Apostolicorum verborum aperiamtu, let vsus open our eyes to receiue the brightnes of the Apostolicall words, &c. they doe not then cast darknes vponupon our eyes, but bring brightnes and clearnes. Chrysost. argum. in epist. ad Rom.

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

Whereas the Ebionites thought the rites of the Law necessarie, and ioyned them together with the Gospel, which heresie did much trouble the Church in the Apostles time, and is at large confuted in the epistles of S. Paul to the Galatians, and Colossians: the same also in this epistle is conuinced, and confounded: for the Apostle renounceth the workes of the Law, whether the ceremoniall and morall, as hauing no part in the matter of iustification, which he concludeth to be by faith, without the works of the law, c. 3. And he sheweth directly, c. 4.10. that Abrahams faith was imputed to him for righteousnes, when as yet he was vncircumcised, least his iustification might be thought to hauehave depended vponupon his circumcision.

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

These wicked heretikes too much depraued the law of Moses, with the rites thereof, (as the other extolled it too much) affirming that it was not appointed nor commanded, by the good and gracious God, but by the Prince of the darknes of this world. But these also are sufficiently confuted in this epistle: for S. Paul commendeth the ceremonies of the old Testament, as fit for those times, and figures of things to come: as he calleth circumcision the seale of the righteousnes of faith, c. 4.11. and this testimonie he giueth of the morall law, Rom. 7.12. Wherefore the Law is holy, and the commandement is holy, iust, and good, &c.

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

Bellarmine in his controversies, and Stapleton in his Antidotes, doe apparantly impugne the holy doctrine of the Apostle in this epistle in diuers points. 1. Iustification by the imputation, and apprehension of faith, which we call imputatiue iustice, they condemne, as a lie and vntruth: whereas the Apostle directly teacheth, c. 4.5. That to him that worketh not, but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly, faith is counted for righteousnes: and v. 8. Blessed is he, to whome the Lord imputeth not his sinne. So that it is euident by the Apostle, that our iustification before God, is in the not imputing of sinne, and in the imputing of Christs righteousnes by faith.

2. The Romanists doe teach, that a man, as long as he liueth here, can not be certen of faith, whether he beleeueth, of remission of sinnes, whether he be iustified, of reconciliation, whether he be in the state of grace, of adoption, whether he be the child of God, of life eternall, whether he shall be saued. Contrarie to the Apostle, who sheweth, that by faith, we may be assured of all these: as of remission of sinnes, for otherwise we could not be at peace with God, which we obtaine beeing iustified by faith, c. 5.1. of adoption, that by the spirit we can call God, Abba, father, c. 8.15. of euerlasting saluation, for there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus, c. 8.1.

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

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

This blasphemous Socinus not many yeares since, set forth a booke in Polonia, wherein he maketh Christ no otherwise the Sauiour of the world, then Moses, in teaching the people by his example to liue well: and so doing, they shall inherit eternall life: he further most impudently affirmeth, that we hauehave no neede of any Reconciler or Redeemer with God: but that he died for our sinnes, no otherwise then the Martyrs, not to make any satisfaction for vsus, but onelyonly to giuegive vsus example. These and other such wicked assertions, hath he published in that booke: Pareus in praefat.

p. 27Thus this wicked heretike opposeth himselfe to the most holy doctrine of S. Paul: who euidently teacheth, that as faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousnes, so is it to vsus, c. 4.24. and that when we were enemies, we were reconciled vntounto God by the death of Christ, c. 5.10. and that by Christs obedience we are made righteous, c. 5.19. But such wicked assertions, neede no confutation, it is sufficient to propound them: for who can not, that hath the least spark of grace, but at the very first naming of them abhorre them?

7. Controv. Whether Paul may be thought to hauehave beene married.

The Rhemists much mislike our English translation, because we read, Philip. 4.3. faithfull roake-fellow, so translating the Greeke words foreign, as though we thereby intended to prooue that S. Paul had a wife: which they say is contrarie to the Apostles words, 1. Cor. 7.8. where he wisheth the vnmarried to abide as he did: Anxot. Philip. 4.3.

Contra. 1. The Protestants doe not much insist vponupon it, whether Paul had a wife or no, neither doe they much vrge this place to that purpose: yet Clemens Alexandrin. out of this very place inferreth so much, that the Apostle by yoake-fellow, vnderstandeth his wife: lib. 4. stromat. Eusebius also is of the same mind, that Paul was married, ioyning him with Peter and Philip, which were both married. 2. Yet it followeth not, because Paul was vnmarried, when he writ vntounto the Corinthians, that he was so alwaies. 3. And what though Paul were not married, it is sufficient, that he had libertie to take a wife, as the other Apostles did, 1. Cor. 9.5. Aretius.

But we will somewhat more distinctly yet consider of this question, of S. Pauls mariage, whereof there are diuers opinions.

1. Some thinke that he was a perpetuall virgin and neuer maried, of which opinion is Tertullian, who calleth S. Paul, Euangelicum spadonem & custratum, the Euangelicall Eunuch, who had made himselfe chast: and he saith further, Petrum solum invento maritum, I finde Peter onelyonly, of the Apostles to hauehave beene an husband: lib. de Monogom. So thinketh Hierome, that Paul was a virgin: epist. 22. And Epiphanius, haeres. 58. reckoneth among those, qui perpetuo coluerunt virginitatem, which were perpetuall virgins, Helias in the old Testament, and Paul in the new. Ambrose likewise, and Theodoret, doe giuegive this reason, that S. Paul before his conuersion was too young to be maried: and after he was conuerted, it is not like he desired mariage, which he had neglected before. Of the same iudgement are Theophylact, Oecumenius, Beda vponupon the 7. c. 1. epist. ad Corinth. The chiefe reason of Pauls virginitie they ground vponupon these words, 1. Cor. 7.8. I say vntounto the vnmaried, and vntounto the widowes, it is good for them, if they abide, euen as I. But this onelyonly sheweth that S. Paul at that time was not maried, not that he neuer had beene maried: and that coniecture that Paul was not of age to be maried before he was conuerted, hath no probabilitie, seeing he was put in great authoritie by the high Priest, of whome he receiued letters to persecute the Disciples at Damascus, Act. 9.1, 2.

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

But neither of these places prooue any such thing. The first we refuse not, neither vponupon Tertullians reason, because it goeth before, HaueHave we not power to eate and drinke? lib. de Monog.that he speaketh of such women which ministred vntounto them victuals: or Hieromes, lib. 1. contr. Iovinian.who thinketh because the name sisters is added, he vnderstandeth rather other women, then their proper wiues, as the word foreign signifieth both a wife and a woman: for their wiues also were their sisters in profession: or Augustines, who saith the Apostle, lib. de oper. Monach.non ducendi, sed circumducendi …ocabulo vsus est, vsed not the word of leading to marrie, but leading about: But the speciall reason, why we refuse this place is, because at the same time, that S. Paul wrote this epistle, he counted himselfe among those which were vnmarried, 1. Cor. 7.8. This place onelyonly sheweth, that S. Paul had power to carrie about a wife, as the rest of the Apostles did: but not that he vsed this power: as likewise he had libertie not to worke, as it followeth in the same place, v. 6. Or I onelyonly and Barnabas, hauehave we not power not to worke? yet he wrought with his hands notwithstanding.

p. 28The other place is rather to be vnderstood of some helper, that was most neerely ioyned vntounto S. Paul in the worke of the Gospel, then of his wife: for as Caietane well noteth, seeing S. Paul was vnmaried before, when he was at libertie, and wrote the first epistle to the Corinthians, it is not like he tooke him a wife afterward, beeing now a prisoner at Rome, when he sent this epistle to the Philippians: and beside, the Syrian translatour putteth it out of doubt, who vseth here the masculine gender, as Beza noteth, which is ambiguous in the Greeke.

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

But now Pererius out of some fathers, as Hierome, Augustine, contendeth that it must rather be interpreted, a woman beeing a sister, for the word foreign, here vsed, signifieth both a woman, and a wife: which conceit is remooued by these sufficient reasons:

1. They in thus reading, a woman a sister, doe inuert the order of the words: which stand thus in the originall, foreign a sister a wife: if they will hauehave it, a sister a woman, that were superfluous, seeing the word sister also includeth the other: for shee could not be a sister, but shee must be a woman too.

2. It was more seemely, that seeing the Apostles had women in their companie to minister vntounto them, it was more fit and conuenient, that their owne wiues should goe about with them, then other women, which had not beene without offence.

3. Likewise the very phrase, of leading about a sister, sheweth some authoritie and command, such as husbands hauehave ouer their wiues, and masters ouer their seruants, as Peter Martyr well note…h: the Apostles had power to lead about their owne wiues, who were not to forsake their husbands: but ouer other women they had not that power.

4. And if this were to be vnderstood of rich and wealthie women, which accompanied the Apostles, and ministred vntounto them of their substance, they had beene no charge vntounto the Churches, whether the Apostles came: and so this had beene no priuiledge to the Apostles, to bring such women with them, as should support their charges. But the Apostle here standeth vponupon his priuiledge and immunitie, if he had thought good to hauehave vsed it, that he might, as the other Apostles, hauehave lead about a wife: Beza. So that whether S. Paul were married or not, it sufficeth, that he might hauehave taken a wife, if he would.

Morall observations out of the whole Epistle.

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

This Epistle hath a double vse, either to instruct vsus in the right iudgement of the greatest mysteries of Christian Religion, as of iustification by faith, of the Law, of Election, of certentie of saluation, as also to stirre vsus vp to the workes of pietie. Origen onelyonly commendeth the reading of the latter part of the Epistle, from c. 12. to the ende: the other part, he thinketh not to be so necessarie, as handling onelyonly questions about the ceremonies of the Law: but herein I preferre rather the iudgement of Chrysostome, who often caused S. Pauls epistles to be read in his hearing, euen twice eueryevery weeke: argument. in epist. ad Roman. and Augustine professeth he was much addicted to the reading of S. Paul, lib. 7. confess. c. 3. It was an auncient vse in times past in the Church, that they which were appointed to the Ministerie, should get without booke, the Psalmes and the prophesie of Isai in the old Testament, and the Gospel of S. Matthew, with S. Pauls epistle in the new: It shall be profitable for eueryevery Christian likewise to follow the same godly vse, especially to acquaint themselues with the diuine writings of S. Paul: and eueryevery one may say with Chrysostome, gaudeo equidem, quod spirituali illa tuba frui datum sit, I am glad, that I may enioy that spirituall trumpet, &c. in argum. ad. Roman.

p. 29The first Chapter.