Commentary on Romans, Biblical exegesis 2 · Chapter 14 · Section 3 · Subsection 3 – Subsection 9
Quest. 3. Why he is called weake, that eateth herbes.
1. Origen vponupon these two reasons, because the law prescribeth nothing concerning the eating of herb, onelyonly, and least the Apostle should seeme to be gulae & gurgitis magister, a teacher of gluttonie, perswading his disciples to eate, he will hauehave the Apostle here to speake, de cibo verbi Dei, of the foode or meat of Gods word: they which are perfect are able to eate of all, that is, to search the mysteries of Scriptures, but the weake eate onelyonly of herbes, that is, are capable onelyonly of easie doctrines.
But though elsewhere S. Paul compare the higher doctrines to strong meat, and the first principles and rudiments to milke, 1. Cor. 3. yet here he speaketh of the difference of meats, as it appeareth by his other instance, v. 6. of the observing of dayes: and S. Paul here exhotteth not to eate, but onelyonly sheweth what some did: and by eating of all, is not vnderstood greedie or vnsatiable eating, but of all kinds of meates: though the lawe spake nothing of eating of herbes, yet some other reason may be giuen, why these did eate herbes, as shall be presently declared.
2. Some doe read here in the imperatiue moode, he that is weake, let him eate herbs, as the vulgar Latine, which some follow: and so in this sense, it might seeme to be spoken of such as were weake in bodie, that they which were not able to eate flesh, should feede of herbes, and lighter meates: but in the originall the word is in the indicatiue, eateth, and so it best answeareth vntounto the other part, one beleeueth that he may eate of all things: and Beza to take away this scruple, supplyeth out of the former verse, the word (faith,) the weake in faith.
3. Some apply this vntounto the weake in manners, who propter casum libidinis, &c. because of their inclination to lust, doe eate herbs and other drie meates, which doe not so much pamper the flesh: Gorrhan following the ordinarie glosse which taketh this sense from Hierome, and Haymo, also maketh mention of it: but the supplying of the words, in the faith, out of the first verse, doe take away this scruple likewise, that the Apostle speaketh not of the weake in manners, but in faith and iudgement.
4. Neither yet because the Apostle saith before, one beleeueth, &c. by the weak are we to vnderstand, one that beleeueth not: for eueryevery error of the saith tendeth not to heresie or infidelitie: it is one thing to erre, an other to be an heretike: two things must concurre to make an heretike: he must pertinaciter errare, erre not of ignorance, and infirmitie, but of obstinacie and wilfulnes, and in fundamentis fidet, in the fundamentall doctrines of faith: Phillip had the one, he erred in a fundamentall point in the person of Christ, calling him the sonne of Ioseph, Iohn. 1.45. but he did it of ignorance: but these which did eate herbs, making difference of meates, did neither erre wilfully, not yet in a matter fundamentall.
5. Ambrose vponupon this place thinketh, that they did eate herbs onelyonly, thinking it vnlawfull to eate any flesh at all: but we doe not finde, that any among the Christians in those dayes did hold it vnlawfull to eate all kind of flesh.
6. Augustine taketh this to be the reason, why they did eat herbs, because some meats set forth in the shambles to be sold, were offered vntounto idols, and least they might eate of things offered to idols vnawares, they did thinke it more safe to eate no flesh at all, but only herbs: But this reason is not generall, for they might hauehave killed flesh at home of their owne prouision, which was free from any such suspition or danger, of beeing offered to idols.
7. Anselme giueth this reason, because they knew, that some meates were cleane, some vncleane, which could not be so easily discerned in the eating, as likewise the diuerse kinds of fishes, and foules, whereof some were cleane, some vncleane by the lawe, they therefore to be sure, abstained from all: so also Gualter, Martyr. But seeing the Iewes before their conuersion, abstained onelyonly from the kinds forbidden, not from all flesh, why should they after their conversion vse lesse libertie?
8. Chrysostome yeeldeth this reason, ne notarentur à Christianis, least they should hauehave beene noted and obserued of Christians, if they should hauehave onelyonly abstained from swines flesh, and other forbidden meates, they thought it better to betake themselues onelyonly to the eating of herbes, vt non legalis observatio, sed iciunium magis videretur, that it might be thought rather a kind of fasting and abstinence, then a legall observation: thus also Pareus: but it seemeth that they were not ashamed to be counted obseruers of the law, because they charged others, which did not obserue this difference of meates, as transgressors of the lawe.
9. Wherefore I take rather, that this is the Apostles meaning, not that any did in those times altogether abstaine from all kind of meats, and thought it lawfull onelyonly to eate herbs: but that where other choice of meat was not, they had rather eate of herbs, then either of meates offered to idols, or forbidden by the lawe, Tolet: so Faius, malebat, &c. he had rather eate herbs, then of such kind of flesh: likewise Piscator: yet Chrysostome and Augustines sense, are not much to be misliked.
Quest. 4. Whether any things be indifferent in their nature, as beeing neither good, nor euill of themselues.
The occasion of this question is out of the 3. verse, where the Apostle maketh the difference of meates as a thing in it selfe indifferent, and would not hauehave him that did eate and make no difference, to despise him that did, not him, that did not eate, and made a difference to iudge him, that did eat: here then this in generall would be considered, whether any thing in it owne nature, is neither good, nor euill, as neither commanded by the law of God, nor forbidden, but left indifferent betweene both.
1. That nothing is indifferent, it may be thus obiected. 1. betweene good and euill, there is no meane, but euerie action is either good or euill, agreeable, or not agreeable vntounto the lawe of God. 2. euerie thing is done of faith, or without faith: if of faith, it is good, if without, it is euill, therefore there is no indifferent thing, but it is either good or euill.
Answ. Some things are simply good, or euill in their owne nature, and of themselues: as the things which are commanded by the lawe of God, are simply good, the things forbidden, are simply euill: some things are neither good nor euill in their owne nature, but yet in respect of the intention, ende, and minde of the doer, though indifferent in themselues, they may not be indifferent: by this distinction the obiections proposed are easily answered.
1. Euerie action is good or euill, not in it selfe, but in regard of the intention or ende, as to eate, or not to eate flesh, of it selfe is neither good nor euill: but not to eate it, as thinking flesh to be vnholy, or to merit by it, is euill: and so likewise to eate it vncharitably with offence of the weake.
2. So to doe a thing of faith, or not of faith, respecteth the intention and perswasion of the doer, not the thing it selfe in it owne nature.
Now on the contrarie side, that some things are indifferent in their owne nature, neither good nor euill, it is thus prooued.
1. The things which God hath neither forbidden nor commanded, he hath left free and indifferent: but some things are such, as vponupon certaine dayes to eate or not to eate flesh, is neither commanded, nor inhibited, therefore in it owne nature, it is a thing indifferent.
2. Those things which neither commend vsus to God, nor yet doe displease God, are indifferent: but some things are such: as meate doth not commend vsus vntounto God, as S. Paul saith, 1. Cor. 8.8.
3. Those things which neither helpe to, nor hinder vsus from saluation, are indifferent, but such are meat, drinke, apparell, v. 17. of this chapter, Ergo.
Quest. 5. How the Apostle maketh the eating or not eating of flesh, and the observing of dayes, indifferent, which elsewhere he condemneth.
The occasion of this question ariseth out of the 4.5.6. verses where the Apostle seemeth to make these things indifferent: yet he condemneth the obseruation of dayes, Galat. 4.10. Ye obserue moneths, times, and yeares: and he reprooueth Peter, Gal. 2. because he abstained from certaine meates: and 2. Tim. 4 he calleth it a doctrine of deuils.
Answ. 1. Tolet would thus reconcile these places: that these things were indifferent till the Church had determined otherwise, at that time, nondum erat per Ecclesiam declaratum, &c. it was not declared by the Church, what they should doe in this case, annot. 1. in fine. But this was not all the reason: for the Apostles in their preaching did not cease to teach the people, that the ceremonies of Moses lawe were abrogated, as is euident, Act. 21.21. S. Paul was so knowne to teach the people, that they were no longer to keepe the custome of Moses lawe: and further, after that the Apostles had made a decree of these things, that they should onelyonly abstaine from strangled and blood, Act. 15. yet S. Paul circumcised Timothie, Act. 16. and he was shorne as a votarie, Act. 21.
2. Lyranus otherwise answeareth, that vntill the passion of Christ, all the ceremonies of Moses lawe were in force, but post publicationem Evangelij, after the publication of the Gospell, the obseruation of them was mortifera, damnable, for that was as it were to denie Christ to be come, but tempore intermedio, in the time betweene these, it was lawfull to obserue them. This is verie true, that for a time, the Apostles suffered the Iewes converted to the faith, to retaine some ceremonies of the lawe, least they might at the first hauehave beene discouraged from receiuing the Gospell: and Augustine doth fitly resemble the abrogating of the ceremonies, vntounto the decent buriall of humane bodies, which are not as soone as they are dead cast forth as stinking carions, but are brought decently to the sepulchre: so the ceremonies, which were instituted of God, were not at once to be cast off, as though there were no difference betweene them, and humane inventions, but they must hauehave a time, after their death, as it were in Christs death, to be brought honourably to the grave, but whosoeuer should reviue them afterward, he should not be pius deductor funeris, August. epist. 19. ad Hieron.sed impius sepultura violator, a devout solemnizer of the funerall, but a prophane raker in the graue, and violater of the sepulture.
3. Adde hereunto: that to the Galatians, the Apostle doth not so much reprooue them for obseruing those ceremonies, as that they did keepe them opinione necessitatis, with an opinion of necessitie: neither was S. Peter reprooued of S. Paul simply for the forbearing of some meates, which he might hauehave done to avoide scandall and offence: but because by his example he constrained the Gentiles to doe the like: and in that place, the Apostle speaketh not of abstinencie, but of the precept of abstinencie, from meates, and mariage, which should be brought in by wicked heretikes, the Manichees, Tations, and other, which condemned them, as things euill in themselues: But these Iewes among the Romanes, had no such opinion of these things, as necessarie to saluation: or the time was not yet come, for the generall laying downe of these ceremonies.
Quest. 6. Whom the Apostle speaketh of, the Iew, or Gentile, saying, God hath receiued him, &c.
1. Chrysostome thinketh that this must be vnderstood of the converted Gentile, that the beleeuing Iewe should not condemne him as a transgressor of the lawe: but where he saith, who art thou, which iudgest an others servant? this he thinketh the Apostle saith, ad sanum & robustum conversus, turning himselfe to the sound and strong: so also Haymo. But Tolet well refuseth this mixed interpretation vponupon these reasons, because the speach is still continued, as beeing vttered of one and the same, and for that before to iudge, was giuen vntounto the weaker part, the Iewe that did not eate, that he should not iudge him, that eateth.
2. Tolet inclineth to the contrarie, the first part, God hath receiued him, he thinketh rather to be spoken of the converted Iew, God hath receiued him, though yet but weake: the other part, who art thou that iudgest, of the conuerted Gentile, because the Apostle spake of the Iewe in the same phrase before, let not him that eateth not, iudge, &c. but by the same reason, of the continuance of the Apostles speach, it should seeme that the Apostle meaneth still the same parties, that one should not iudge an other.
3. Some thinke that the Apostle speaketh all this to the beleeuing, Iewe concerning the converted Gentile, that God had receiued him, and he was an others servant, and God would establish him: so Lyranus, Tolet, Piscator, Martyr: But seeing that the Apostle called him that did not eate, the weaker, as one that had a tender conscience, and thought it vnlawfull to eate of certaine meates: it is rather said of the weaker, God shall establish him, then of the stronger.
4. M. Beza seemeth to vnderstand all this to be spoken to the stronger, of and concerning the weake and newely converted, that though he were weake, yet God was able to confirme and strengthen him.
5. But I preferre their iudgement, which vnderstand these words, God hath receiued him, indifferently, both of him that eateth, and him that eateth not, so gloss. interlin. Calvin, Hyperius, Osiander: pertinet ratio ad vtrum que , the reason belongeth to them both, vtri que servi communis Domini, they are both seruants of one and the same Lord, Pareus: though the last words in the 4. v. he shall be established, may seeme more specially to be spoken concerning the weake, that God may and will strengthen him: and that these reasons serue to perswade both the strong and weake not to be preposterous one in iudging an other, it may appeare both by the Apostles proposition, v. 3. wherein he exhorteth the strong not to contemne the weake, nor the weake to iudge the strong: and the Apostles words, God hath receiued him, and they are an others seruants, and they stand or fall to their owne Master, are generally true of all beleeuers, as well the strong as the weak: and thus also interpreteth Origen, nam & imperitior, &c. for both the vnskilfull, thinketh the more perfect and profound to fall, if he conceiue any thing, which he is not capable of, and the other thinke the same of the vnskilfull or ignorant, &c. so these words, he standeth or falleth, he referreth indifferently to the opinion, which the strong or weake hauehave one of an other.
Quest. 7. Whether it be not lawfull at all for one to iudge an other.
v. 4. Who art thou, which iudgest an other mans seruant. 1. this is not vnderstood of publike iudgements, either Ciuill and politike, or Ecclesiasticall: for in these cases men doe not so much iudge, as God by them: for the Iudges and Magistrates are Gods Ministers, Martyr. 2. neither is all kind of iudging taken from priuate men: which is either of mens persons, or their facts: of mens persons we cannot giuegive sentence: no man knoweth without speciall reuelation, who is saued and condemned: but eueryevery one standeth or falleth to his owne Master. 3. and concerning mens workes, they are of two sorts, they are either apparently good or euill, of these one may iudge, what the worke is, and what he is for the present that doth them, for Christ hath giuen vsus a rule, By their fruites you shall knowe them, Matth. 7. we may iudge him a good tree, that bringeth forth good fruites, and him a badde tree, that bringeth forth euill. 4. but the Apostle speaketh here of iudging our brother in matters indifferent, the vse whereof is neither forbidden in the word of God, nor commanded: in such things we ought not rashly to iudge one an other. 5. Neither is this so spoken, as though one should be carelesse what his brother did: for the Apostle forbiddeth not the mutuall offices and duties of charitie in exhorting one another, but rash and precipitate iudgement, whereby one taketh vponupon him to censure and condemne an other.
Quest. 8. What it is to stand or fall to his owne Master.
1. Origen thinketh the Apostle speaketh this, secundum sensum eius qui increpabat, according to his sense, which reprooueth an other: for both the weake and the strong doe thinke one an other falleth or standeth according to that which they themselues are perswaded of, but the Apostle saying afterward, God is able to make him stand, speaketh of standing and falling indeede in respect of God, not of their owne opinion onelyonly.
2. Some by falling vnderstand, sinning, by standing not sinning, Bucer: but the Apostle speaketh not of workes simply good and euill, wherein men stand or fall, but actions in themselues indifferent.
3. Pet. Martyr thus interpreteth, damnum seu commodum, &c. the losse or commoditie in their standing, or not standing, redoundeth vntounto God their Master, it is nothing to thee: but God is nothing advantaged by mens standing, nor suffereth losse by their falling.
4. The ordinar. gloss. referreth it to the iudgement of the heart and conscience, de incognito corde servi, &c. of the vnknowne heart of the servant, and with what conscience he eateth or not eateth, it belongeth onelyonly vntounto God to iudge.
5. But properly by standing or falling to God, is meant, that it appertaineth onelyonly to God, to approoue, or disprooue, to be pleased, or to bee displeased with the fact: man therefore is not to entermeddle with iudging in such matters, which are left vntounto Gods iudgement: he best can examine, and so allowe and disallowe them, which eate or eate not: so that the Apostle speaketh as it were by way of supposition, that if he stand or fall, it is nothing vntounto thee, he standeth or falleth vntounto God: and though he seeme not yet to stand, that is, firmo gradu consistere, to hauehave any firme sooting, or to be setled in iudgement, making difference of meates, yet God in his good time may establish him, and make him to stand.
6. Where he saith, to his owne master, this is not to be taken foreign, by way of distinction, as though he were their proper and peculiar Master onelyonly, and not of others also, as the Iewes accused Christ, because he made God his father, that is, proper and peculiar vntounto him, Iohn. 5.18. but it is spoken foreign, by way of emphasis, God is their Master, who hath receiued them: though God be the Master of other faithfull also, yet they are servants to none other, but vntounto God, and to be discerned by his iudgement.
Quest. 9. Of the meaning of these words, God is able to make him stand, v. 4.
1. This may seeme to be no good argument taken from the power of God: he is able to make them stand, therefore they shall stand: vntounto this obiection, 1. one answear is, that the Apostle speaketh onelyonly of a possibilitie, he may stand, or fall, he may stand because God may make him stand: for dubia sunt in meliorem partem interpretandā, things doubtfull must be interpreted in the better part, Gorrhan: but the Apostle speaketh definitely and certainly, he shall stand. 2. Some are readie to take advantage of this argument, God can, therefore he will: as the Papists, which so reason for the carnall presence of Christs bodie in the Sacrament: but it alwaies followeth not, for God can doe many things, which he doth not, nor will doe. 3. Some thinke that this is added, least sibi stare arroget, one might arrogate his standing to himselfe, gloss. interlin. and to shewe a difference betweene this master, and other worldly masters, who may command their seruants many things, but can giuegive them no power to doe them, as this Master can, Tolet: but yet this doubt is not to be so remooued. 4. Chrysostome thinketh no more to be signified then this, ante iustam temporis maturitatem, &c. that the weake should not be sharply dealt withall, till we hauehave wayed a iust time, wherein they may be confirmed, for God is able to doe it: but more is signified then so, the Apostle pronounceth they shall stand. 5. Wherefore the best answear of all is, that Gods power is here to be considered, as ioyned with his will: Calvin thinketh this to be more scripturae, by the manner and custome of Scripture, which ioyneth Gods will and power together: Gryneus giueth this reason, because the Apostle speaketh of such as were weake, and sinned not of ignorance, but were willing to be instructed, and such God would not cast off: But not onelyonly in this generall meaning, doth will and power of God concurre together: but directly so much is insinuated by the Apostles owne words: for concerning the readines of Gods will, he had said before, v. 3. God hath receiued him, therefore his will was not to be doubted of: so then as God was willing, he was also able: the like see, c. 11.23. where the Apostle also prooueth the calling of the Iewes by an argument taken from the power of God, God was able to graffe them in againe: for it was not to be doubted that God was willing, seeing the Iewes were of the fathers, to whom God made so ample promises: and in the same chapter, v. 29. he saith, The gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
6. But it followeth not, because God is able to make them stand, that therefore they shall stand to the ende. 1. it is one thing, to be established in some one particular, and an other to stand vntounto the ende, Par. 2. and here the Apostle onelyonly sheweth, that in charitie bene speremus, we should hope well of our brethren, that they shall continue, Calv. we cannot pronounce certainely, that they shall so continue indeede.