CHAPTER II

Verse 1.

In this short verse is contained the first part of the Exordium, viz. the narrative proposition; in which he shews his conduct and his good-will towards the Colossians, Laodiceans, and all others imbued with the Christian faith. These words are connected with the two last : verses of the first Chapter, as appears by those words, for I would, which look back to the preceding in this-manner : He had said that he strove and laboured, that he might teach and present every one perfect in Christ Jesus; now what he had spoken universally concerning all, he applies specially and expressly to the Colossians: As though he had said, * Ye have heard with what care and solicitude, with what conflicts I have spread the Gospel among others; I have defended it when spread, and have withstood seducers: I wish you to understand, moreover, that you have not been overlooked by me; whom, although I have never seen or visited, yet I have sustained the same conflicts for you also, I have had the like care and solicitude on your account. This is the connection of these words with the foregoing: In the explication of them we shall have to examine three things :

1. What the Apostle has an eye to in so often repeating and enforcing his labours and conflicts undertaken for the Churches; viz. their benefit, which he intimates by saying, For I would that ye knew.

2. What, and of what sort, was this conflict which the Apostle underwent.

3. For whom this conflict was undertaken: which he shews specially and definitely, for you; and for the Laodiceans ; and then indefinitely, and for as many as have xot seen my face, Kc.

For I would that ye knew.] The Apostle shews what was his meaning in commemorating this his conflict; viz. he does not seek empty glory to himself from thence, but he regards the gain and utility accruing to the Colossians from this knowledge of his conflicts. And this gain is manifold,

First, When a people understand what labours and conflicts their salvation demands from the Pastor, hence arises the fruit of mutual affection and kindness: for he is truly ungrateful, who does not love that man in return, who loves him and strives with all diligence for his salvation. In order, therefore, that the hearts of a people may be inflamed with love for their Minister, it is useful that they should know, what they do and what they endure for their sakes.

Secondly, hence springs the fruit of mutual solicitude and diligence; for if any spiritual sense exist in them, they are excited to the care of their own salvation, which they perceive to be the subject of such earnest care to another.

Lastly, hence is produced the fruit of like constancy and patience ; for loyal soldiers are animated by the example of their leader; and boldly (when occasion offers) they commence that fight which they observe to be bravely and successfully fought by their pastors. Hither, especially, all ecclesiastical histories tend, which propose the deeds and sufferings of the Martyrs to be contemplated by all, that from thence their minds may be prepared to take up the same cross. The Apostle, therefore, regarded these advantages as he intimates in saying, For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have, &c. .

Hence we derive two lessons:

1. It must not be deemed boasting, if Ministers sometimes freely talk of the labours and toils of their ministry among the people: for Paul very often did this ; it is very proper for the people to know this; it is done with a view to their spiritual good.

2. They who do not know, or are unwilling to know and acknowledge the labours, watchings, and conflicts of Ministers for their salvation, oppose themselves and their own advantage : for from this knowledge they reap much fruit, as was before shewn.

Thus much concerning the first point.

2. What great conflict I have.] Ye have heard why the Apostle wished his conflicts for the Colossians to be known ; now, in the second place, we shall explain what kind, and in what things that conflict consisted. Erasmus and the ancient interpreter* translate àyeva, solicitude, with little appositeness : for any one may be solicitous about his own or another’s affairs, although there may be no one who opposes and resists him: but no person is said to have a conflict except he who has strife and contention with an adversary. Every conflict requires solicitude; but all so- ‘ licitude does not always pre-suppose a conflict. We, therefore, receive the interpretation of Beza.

But what was this conflict? with whom, and on what account sustained ?

It was a conflict as well of mind as of body ; with Satan, with deceivers—the members of Satan, with various kinds of afflictions; it was undertaken for the edifying, confirming, and retaining the members of Christ in the faith.

Conflict of mind consists either in affections or in actions. Contrary affections strove in the mind of the Apostle, arising from different causes. For sometimes he rejoiced and exulted, and was full of hope, through witnessing the faith, and love, and other virtues of the godly; Rom. xvi. 19. Sometimes he mourned, grieved, and feared by beholding their dissensions, errors, or afflictions. Who is afflicted, and I am not afflicted? &c. 2 Cor. xi. 29. — I fear, lest as the serpent beguiled Eve, so, &c. 2 Cor. xi. 3. As to what relates to actions, the mind of the Apostle was scarcely ever free from conflict. He had continual conflicts of prayer against Satan, and his satellites, for the salvation of the faithful, Rom. xvi. 20. And 2 Thess. 1. 11, We pray always for you, &c. He moreover contended by writing and preaching, with false apostles, detecting and refuting their errors; with all ungodliness of men, restraining, and dispersing it, as appears in 2 Cor. x. 4, &c, Lastly, he contended with the infirmities of the faithful themselves, reproving, instructing, and consoling them ; as is every where to be seen in the writings of Paul. These were the conflicts of mind by which Paul was daily distracted. But neither was the body of the Apostle free from its own tortures: it had to encounter fatigues, watchings, hunger, thirst, fastings, inclemency of weather, and racks, 2 Cor. xi, 23, &c. Whether, therefore, we regard the labours he sustained, or the griefs he underwent, in each respect the Apostle was distinguished by divers bodily conflicts. If now it be asked, What advantage could result from this commemoration of so many of the Apostle’s conflicts of mind and body? It is answered, That the Apostle proposed to himself no other end than the good of the Church. For that he might bring men to Christ, present them perfect in Christ, keep them stedfast and persevering in the faith of Christ, and lead them at last to the kingdom of Christ, he sustained the conflicts before-mentioned. So he himself declares, 2 Tim. ii. 10, Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sake, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. From these things various arguments touching Ministers may be gathered.¹

1. A good Pastor ought to be affected with the good or evil of his flock, as much as with his own. For the Pastor, as Cyprian, speaking De lapsis, observes, is wounded by the hurt of his flock, and he likewise is revived by the health of his flock. I draw each to my bosom, I participate of its sorrow and joy by turns, says the same Father.

2. A good Minister is never less idle than when he is idle. The rude peasant thinks that saying of the Poet may be turned against Ministers, /o the idle it is always a feast : for they suppose that we make holiday the whole day long; nor have any occupation after we have left the temple; but if we are such as we ought to be, a conflict devolves upon us of praying, meditating, studying—1 had almost said unceasingly, certainly daily and assiduously.

3. It behoves Ministers to be of such a mind as not only to pray for their flock, but to be ready to submit to the cross, nay, even to death, if it should be required :. 2 Cor. xii. 15, I will very gladly spend and be spent for your souls,

4. Ministers ought, in all their cares, labours, and conflicts, to have this in view, not that they may gain empty glory, or any earthly advantage; but that the people may obtain salvation. For Clemens well says, Jt is the duty of a Theologian to lend his assistance for the preservation of those who desire to be preserved, not to put together the ornaments of : elocution.

All these lessons affecting Ministers arise from the example of Paul.

LESSONS AFFECTING THE PEOPLEF.

1. There is that inaptitude in the people to spiritual things, that without great conflicts on the part of Ministers they cannot be brought to God, nor be kept in the true religion; therefore it is proper that they should submit themselves to those who have the care and labour of seeking their salvation. ;

2. It is fit duly to honour Ministers, who are vexed by so many cares, worn by so many watchings, bruised by so many conflicts for their sakes. For if the leaders of an earthly warfare are honoured among all men, how much more fit is it that the leaders of the spiritual warfare should be honoured! according to that injunction of the Apostle, 1 Thess. v.12, Know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you, and esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake.

3. They are reproved to whom it is a pleasure to contend against, and strive about matters of no moment with their Ministers, who, on their account, undergo so many laborious conflicts: for what is more unworthy than that he should be harassed and wounded by his flock, who daily fights for the flock against their spiritual enemies ?

Thus much concerning the Apostle’s conflict.

3. For you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh.] It has been shewn why the Apostle calls to remembrance his conflict, and what this conflict was; it remains, in the last place, that we consider the persons for whom it was undertaken: and they are described (as hath been said) both definitely and indefinitely.

For you, and for them at Laodicea.] Here the Apostle expressly professes that his afore-mentioned conflicts were undertaken for the Colossians and Laodiceans; where we must explain why he expresses these by name, and why he joins them together.

He mentions them by name that he may anticipate an implied objection; for it might occur to them to say, You have, indeed, sustained heavy labours, you have endured remarkable conflicts ; but for the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians; and for others, to whom you have personally preached the Gospel; but your voice we never heard; nor have we even beheld your face. Paul anticipates these surmisings, and shews them that he sustained his conflicts of prayer, of solicitude, and of writing also for them, although he had not exercised the office of preaching among them. Yea, he entered the lists for them in this his Epistle, to encounter their seducers.

But why does he unite the Laodiceans also? Because this Epistle (according to his direction Chap. iv. 16) was to be recited publicly in the church of Laodicea; therefore he wished to mention them also, lest they should suspect that they were overlooked by the Apostle; besides, it is very probable that the Laodicean Church, on account of its vicinity, was assailed and attempted by the seducers in the same manner as that of the Colossian: in order, therefore, that they might understand the doctrine of this Epistle to relate to them in some especial manner, he expressly introduces them.

And as many as have not seen my face in the flesh.] That is, as many as have not seen me present in body, nor have heard me preach by word of mouth: for Paul was well known by reputation, and by his written Epistles to all the Churches. The Apostle adds this indefinite clause (as CEcumenius observes) lest he should seem to insinuate against them a suspicion of carelessness, thus earnestly exciting them to constancy and perseverance in the truth of the doctrine of the Gospel. He does this, not because he doubted of their stedfast faith, but because the nature of lovers is such, that they are more solicitous about absent than present friends: that he, therefore, being absent, might intimate this as the cause of his anxious care, rather than his distrust of their faith, he declares that he was so affected towards all the rest among whom he could not be present. For what the Poet remarks concerning the . bird and its young, may much more truly be said of the Pastor and his people: This bird, if she leave her unfledged young ever so little, thinks of, and fears, the approach of serpents much more anxiously than when she sits by them. (Hor. Epod. od. 1.) So the Pastor, if he is compelled to be absent from his flock, is much more solicitous than when he is watching over them, lest they should fall from their faith, be corrupted in their manners, or their salvation should in any measure be endangered.

Hence we learn,

1. There is another sort of aspect that conciliates love among the servants of God, than that of flesh and the eyes ; viz. the aspect of the mind. For Christian love does not conceive friendship and affinity to consist in local nearness, but in spiritual unity. There is, therefore, a certain mutual benevolence and solicitude among the godly about their spiritual proficiency, although they have never beheld, and are absolutely unknown to each other by face.

2. The care and solicitude of a faithful Minister is not lightened, but is increased, if at any time he should be withdrawn from his flock. For he who is absent in body ought always to be present with the flock in spirit, and to help them in the meanwhile by his prayers, and by any other means, with all his might.

3. Also it behoves him, with Paul, to exert himself to the utmost, that from his deeds all should understand that he is neither unmindful or neglectful of the people committed to him.

Let these things suffice concerning the first part of the Exordium, viz. the narrative proposition.

Verse 2.

We have now gone through the first part of the Exordium, which consisted of a narrative proposition ; for the Apostle relates in it how great a conflict he had sustained, that he might retain the Colossians, Laodiceans, and other Christians whom he had never visited, firm in the truth of the Gospel, against all the machinations and deceptions of seducers.

We now come to the second part of the introduction ; a statement of successive reasons of the actions and purposes of the Apostle. For he accumulates many arguments, from which he proves that his advice in persuading them to constancy in the doctrine they had received, was excellent, and that they would best consult their own salvation by following it, i. e. by perseverance, for these have a mutual connexion.

In this verse the argument is drawn from the triple fruit of true and Evangelical doctrine. The Apostle contends that they should persist in it; and that it is expedient for them to persist in it. Why? First, that their hearts might be comforted; This is the first fruit. Secondly, that they might be knit together, and, as it were, cemented in love; this is the second fruit. Thirdly, that they might attain a more enlarged, more certain, and more evident assurance of understanding : and here he finally declares, by apposition, what understanding or knowledge he means; not that of worldly things, but of God the Father and of Christ.

That their hearts might be comfoited.] These words may be referred to the Apostle’s conflict for the Colossians, and his earnest persuasions to perseverance in the received doctrine; for from this conflict for them they might receive twofold comfort.

1. Since they saw from it that they were highly regarded, and greatly beloved by the Apostle. For it is the greatest consolation to men in danger to perceive that others care for them, especially those who are able to assist them; which the original word itself shews, for wapaxanew is to excite the mind of a person in difficulty by encourag- . ing him, or applauding; as in single combat, or battles, men encourage by their shouts those friends whom they wish should conquer. Thus does the Apostle comfort the Colossians, contending with their seducers, by his good wishes, his advice, his encouragement, and his instruction.

2. They were comforted by this conflict of the Apostle, since they clearly saw from it that the doctrine they had drawn from Epaphras was approved by the Apostle, and its reverse rejected and condemned. For, as Epaphras was not one of the Apostles, they might entertain some doubt respecting the certainty of doctrine delivered by him; especially when many were introducing new doctrines with great appearance of wisdom. This scruple is therefore removed from their hearts; for the Apostle, directly taught of the Holy Spirit, confirms the same doctrine by his suffrage, and contends for retaining it.

But these words may and ought to be referred to the thing itself to which the Apostle endeavours to persuade the Colossians, viz. Perseverance in this true doctrine : for from this perseverance their hearts were about to receive especial comfort :

1. Because the doctrine of salvation by faith alone in Christ Jesus, brings tranquillity and peace to troubled consciences. For as the modulations of harmony are wont to be applied to revive and arouse the mind when sorrowful ; so are the gratuitous promises of God in Christ, to bring fresh warmth and tranquillity to men’s hearts and consciences. Hence that saying of the Apostle, Rom. v. 1, Being justified by faith, we have peace with God. And hence every solid consolation is every where shewn by the Apostle to be founded on the doctrine of grace; 2 Thess. ii. 16, Hath given us consolation through grace. And Phil. ii. 1, If there be any consolation in Christ. They, therefore, who embrace this doctrine, thence obtain consolation.

2. They will be comforted from persevering in the doctrine of the Gospel, because the doctrine of innovators (by establishing a necessary observation of ceremonies, by introducing the worship of angels, and other vain and uncertain traditions) harassed men’s hearts and minds with various scruples and anxieties. Now to.be exempt from these is a great part of spiritual consolation.

Observe 1. When the doctrine of the Gospel is attacked, it behoves a Minister who has any regard for the consolation of the Church, to defend his fellow-soldier, and to repress the audacity of heretics: unless he shall have done this, he will be considered to have failed in his duty, both to the people of God, and to the glory of the Creator. As, therefore, Paul vindicates Epaphras from the calumnies of seducers, and confirms the Colossians in the truth of the Gospel; so should we do when the same occasion occurs. For when the truth of the Gospel is in danger, it behoves all to assist, as if to extinguish a conflagration.

2. If we would receive consolation from the Gospel in the business of our salvation, we should not mingle the commentaries and decrees of men with divinely delivered doctrine. For as water mixes not with fire, but fire is extinguished when water is poured upon it; so the doctrines of men cannot coalesce with the saving word of God; but when these are tacked to it, the fervour of the word (i. e. the spiritual efficacy in gladdening the heart) is quenched. Hence the Apostle says to the Galatians, v. 4, in opposition to the teachers of the law, who taught that the works of the law were to be joined to faith in Christ for justification, Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law.

The Papists snatch from men’s hearts every comfort of the Gospel, whilst they tread in the footsteps of these seducers, and mingle with the doctrine of the Gospel their own doctrine of indulgences, expiatory masses, and meritorious works ; in which they place the hope of obtaining remission of sins, justification, and glorification; while the grace of Christ is neglected, or retained for form’s sake only. It is, however, worthy of remark, that although many, whilst idly disputing, thrust their masses, indulgences, merits, and such like things on God and man; yet, when their consciences contend in earnest with Divine jus- . tice, they are constrained to fly to Christ alone, and in very deed confess, that their hearts cannot be comforted, if this doctrine be departed from. Of this we will adduce some testimonies :

Anselm, in his meditations, says, Place thy whole confidence in the death of Christ alone; commit thyself wholly to this death; with this death cover thyself ; and involve thyself entirely in him. If the Lord would judge thee, say, Lord, I place the death of my Jesus between me and thee and thy judgment ; otherwise I contend not with thee. I bring forward his merit for my merit, which I ought to have; but, alas! have not. Parisiensis, in Lib. de Rhetor. divina, says, Ye must beware, in contending with God, lest you rely on a frail foundation ; which he does who confides in his own merits. For as he who strives on his own merits, deprives himself of the aid of God ; so he who altogether distrusts himself, and relies on grace alone, attracts to himself the aid of God, Gerson, in his Sermon De nuptiis Christi et Ecclesie, part. 1, teaches that we must trust in the merits of Christ alone before the Divine tribunal: also, in his treatise De distinctione verarum Visionum a falsis ; and in a Sermon De verbo Dom. part. 2; and De consolat, theolog.part.3. Bellarmin himself, lib. 5. De justific. cap. 7, says, It is safest to repose our whole confidence in the mercy of God alone, on account of the uncertainty of our own justification.

But to what purport are these things adduced? That ye may understand, that if we would have our hearts receive true and sound comfort, we must persevere in that doctrine which enjoins us to repose our hope in Christ alone; and that that must be exploded which would mingle with it merits, ceremonies, indulgences, &c.

Being knit together in love, XuuPiRacbevrav.] XvuGigát&u is to knit, to bring to adherence, as carpenters fit together two pieces of wood, so that they adhere in indissoluble union. By this word, therefore, the Apostle shews another fruit budding forth from this perseverance in the truth of the Gospel doctrine which they had learnt from Epaphras; viz. mutual love, and the indissoluble concord of minds. But this concord of minds not only is the fruit of constancy and stability in true faith, but also it is the condition without which the afore-mentioned comfort cannot be possessed: the first cannot, therefore, be had without the second.

1. Itis a fruit; because the iutellect is the leader of the will; as, therefore, discord in the intellect brings with it discord in the will; so concord in the intellect (particularly in matters of faith) brings with it concord in the will. This is every where observable in the Sacred Scriptures. The multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul, Acts iv. 32. This unity of minds is truly the result of unity of faith; for unity of faith is the firmest bond of unity of mind. This Nazianzen excellently shews, Orat. 10, De reconcil. ad Mon. Nothing so much conciliates concord among those who have at heart the things of God, as agreement concerning God ; and nothing more tends to discord than disagreement concerning Him: since he who in other things is most modest, in these becomes most fervent, &c. Love is, therefore, the fruit of unanimity in faith, which so binds the minds of the godly, as it were, in covenant, that though some light offences may intervene, yet, as the boughs of the same tree, driven asunder by the wind, immediately come together again because they are fixed steadily in one and the same root; so something similar takes place as it regards the iuinds of the faithful, because they are still rooted in the same faith. On this account, therefore, he would have them persevere unanimously in the faith, that they may be united also, being knit together iu love. Concord of minds is, therefore, the fruit of perseverance in the doctrine of the Gospel.

Yet it is also a condition without which the above-named spiritual comfort is not obtained. For comfort is not had out of Christ: if any one lives without love, he is without Christ, as says John, He who dwelleth in love dwelleth tn God. And, vice versa, he who casts off love is rejected of God. For as no member can be recruited and nourished, if its union with the rest of the body be dissolved; so no one can participate in that full influx of comfort from Christ, if that unanimity which ought to exist between . himself and the rest of the brethren be destroyed.

DOGMATICAL THESES.

1. It is folly to hope for any firm union between those who differ on the chief points of religion and fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. When Joram enquired of Jehu, Is it peace? he replied, What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and her withcrafts are so many? So do those of the True Religion reply, and justly too, to such as maintain a false religion, What peace, &c. i. e. while the errors and corruptions of the church, which ye acknowledge as your mother, are so many ?

2. Pious Princes should endeavour in their dominions to establish the one true religion, if they look forward to the salvation of their subjects, or to peace and public concord, however false politicians may scoff at it. For they cannot have subjects knit together in love, unless they have them of the same opinion in religion. We were very near being taught how true this is, by the extinction of the king, nobles, prelates, and, indeed, the whole government.

3. Those who would in this life enjoy spiritual consolations ought to preserve the bond of love, and agreement of faith with their brethren; for when these are present, all things are full of love, repose, and consolation; let these be removed, every thing abounds with and is debased by suspicion, animosity, and calamity.

So far concerning the second fruit of perseverance and unanimity in the truth received.

And unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding.] This is the third fruit to be participated in by the Colos- . sians, if they should remain in the truth of the Gospel. For not only will they become more firmly bound together in love, but they will more abundantly increase in faith itself: for their faith will be triply augmented ; in richness, in abundance, in intelligence or clear-sightedness. Riches refers to the matter embraced by faith; full assurance and intelligence, to the mode of embracing it.

As to the first; the faith of Christians is augmented in richness when they who have learnt only the principles and elements, as it were, of salvation (God blessing, and the Divine Spirit enlightening their minds more and more) proceed to farther attainments, and deduce from these principles many other particular propositions, and thus are enriched in a manner with new furniture in the knowledge of religion. For, as in other sciences, the principles are few, but in these few, innumerable conclusions lie virtually hid, which afterwards are drawn out by the intellect when it is employed on these principles; so in this science of Theology, some few principles, absolutely necessary to be known, are presented to tender minds just approaching the Christian faith ; and afterwards a rich treasury of sacred knowledge is collected for every purpose of salvation, by assiduous meditation, and by hearing, and chiefly by the internal operation and teaching of the Spirit. They, therefore, who constantly persevere in the doctrine of the Gospel, thence obtain all riches. For the Lord, who hath laid the foundation of this spiritual edifice, in his mercy daily builds it up until he finishes it, August. De pred. sanct. lib. 1. 7. He who hath begun a good work in you will perform it, Phil. i.6. *

Hence spring forth various doctrines.

1. The laity themselves should not be content with an elementary knowledge in religious matters, but ought to press forward from easy principles to a particular and richer knowledge of those things which have more difficult explications and require a deeper research. Thus the Apostle to the Hebrews, vi. 1, says, Therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection.

2. When these riches are sought, it is certain that the means also necessary to their attainment should be sought out. He who would have a treasure must dig in the earth. He who would have riches in the knowledge of divine things, must search the Holy Scriptures, carefully hear Ministers, and perform all those other things ordained by God for the acquirement of these riches. So much of the riches of faith.

I come now to the full assurance (sanpogopiav): by which word is denoted that firm and certain adherence to what is : believed, which springs from the internal operation of the Spirit illuminating the intellect, inclining the will, and, lastly, (if I may so express it) firmly stamping the impress of the things believed upon the mind itself. And this ful assurance is at length attained by those who remain firm in the doctrine of faith ; for as trees as soon as they are planted, are not so firmly fixed in the earth but that they are driven from side to side by the wind; so the faith of the godly at the commencement wavers with many doubts : but as the same trees in course of time fix their roots deeper, so faith also daily shoots its roots deeper into the mind, and at length, by the grace of the Spirit, acquires that steadiness which cannot be overthrown by the craft of seducers, the violence of tyrants, or any other machination of the devil.

I remember to have read a little tale told by Gerson which is well adapted to illustrate this. He relates that he once knew a pious man, vexed and harassed by doubts, even in the article of faith; who, nevertheless, at the last, was led to such a light of truth and assurance, that no trace of wavering dwelt in his mind; nor, indeed, did he doubt more of that than he did of his own existence. He adds, moreover, that this assurance did not spring from any new reasonings or demonstrations, but from humility, and the captivation of his intellect, and some wonderful illumination of God from the eternal hills. Worldly men do not believe that such illuminations do occur, and that such a full assurance is impressed on the minds of the faithful ; but the godly, who constantly persevere in the Gospel, have experienced them. The Apostle requires this undoubting persuasion in the doctrine of faith, Ephes. iv. 14. That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro and carried about, &c.

Hence we learn,

1. The faith of a Christian man ought not to depend upon others, but be settled in the believer by the efficacy of the Spirit; so that if prelates and ecclesiastics, nay, even the whole world, should depart from sound faith, yet should every one of the laity hold to the received faith. If we, or an angel from heaven should preach unto you any other Gospel than that ye have received, let him be accursed: Gal. i. 9.

2. Hence it is evident how greatly Romanists err, who think that the assurance of our faith lies enshrined in the papal breast of the Pope; not for every one in his own breast. Now it is most certain, that the determination of a Pope cannot give full assurance to my heart; but the operation of the Spirit both can, and is accustomed to do so, in the case of true believers. The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you; as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, 1 John TE

3. Their complaint also is unjust, who aver, that we cannot now arrive at assurance in matters of faith, since Christians are separated into different sects, and there are divisions and controversies every where. Notwithstanding this, the godly have this full assurance of Gospel truth. Clemens, Strom 7, rightly says, Truth is to be found, by those who wish it, froma diligent search of the Scripture. And Lactantius, Institut. lib. 7. cap. 2, asserts what is very much to our purpose: We do not attain truth by thinking and disputing, but by hearing and learning from Him who alone can both know and teach; i. e. (as I interpret it) from the Holy Spirit, speaking outwardly in the Scriptures, and inwardly in the heart of each believer. Thus far of fudd assurance.

Lastly, that we should weigh what the Apostle adds, that they would have not only a full assurance, but a full assurance of understanding, i. e. the understanding fully assured. The mind, therefore, is not only inclined firmly to adhere to what is believed by the power of the will when softened by grace; but the intellect, at the same time, is so brightened by supernatural light, that it can clearly contemplate the certain and indubitable truth of these things. Thus Parisiensis, in his Tractat. de fide. cap. l. writes, No power can effect any thing either contrary to or above itself. Consequently the human intellect cannot believe of itself; and it is therefore necessary that it should . be enlightened by a stronger light and greater illumination. It is by this light, then, that the intellect conceives a proposition which is behind, and at the same time sees the formal reason why it is believed. Now this reason is neither a scientific, nor demonstrative medium, but Divine authority. — For infused faith shews the intellect that the doctrine it believes is derived from God. Gerson excellently sets forth this in this treatise on errors in regard to faith. Aw infused faith is requisite, says he, for every one’s assent to Catholic truth, which points out and shews the reason of belief; viz. that God hath delivered this truth. This is, therefore, to have a full assurance of the understanding, both to perceive the truth itself and its Author. It appears from Scripture that this enlightened understanding is always joined with faith, Thus Ephes. i. 17, The Father of glory may give unto you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened, &c. And ] Pet. ii. 9, Who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.

Hence we learn,

1. That that is not a divine but a brutal animal faith, which has no understanding or comprehension of those things which are believed. Such a faith Staphylus extols in the collier who professed that he believed what the church believed, and the church believed what he himself held, whilst he was ignorant all the time what either the church or he himself held.² But the true faith has full assurance of the understanding ; this implicit and blind faith has not a grain of understanding.

2. Whoever assents to the belief of a doctrine only on account of the authority of its teachers, the multitude of its believers, or some such external motive, while he is in the mean time without that internal light in which the mind beholds the formal reason of its belief; such an one has not the attribute of infused faith, but a light notion in matters of faith. For no one believes any thing to be true, merely because he wishes to believe it is true. Picus Mirand. tom. i. p. 94.4³

From the whole we gather how disgracefully the Papists err, who say that we cannot believe the doctrine of faith revealed in Scripture, otherwise than because the church confirms it by its suffrage, That blasphemous saying of Hermanus is well known: that the Scriptures were worth just as much as /Esop’s fables, unless the testimony of the church were added to them. But if the full assurance of understanding arises from internal light and secret persuasion of the Spirit; then all the elect will recognise the he was sent to the University of Bologna, to study canon law, but after spending two years there, he set out to visit the most celebrated schools in Italy and France. He went to Ferrara, where he was kindly received by his relation Duke Hercules I. and studied under Batista Guarino. He had a great readiness in acquiring languages, and is said to have been master of twenty-two when he was but eighteen years of age. “Trithemius, his contemporary, says he was master of all the liberal arts, that he cultivated with success, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew literature, was an admirable poet, and the most learned philosopher and skilful disputant of the age. Settling at Florence, he addressed a panegyric to Lorenzo de Medici, whose patronage he obtained. In 1486 he went to Rome. “There he posted up 900 propositions appertaining to dialectics, morals, physics, mathematics, &c. challenging any antagonist whomsoever to dispute with him upon any one of . them. But instead of opponents such as he expected, he encountered an accusation of heresy, and thirteen of his propositions being accused before Pope Innocent VIII. he was silenced, and thought proper to leave Rome. He then returned to Florence, where he composed an apology for his opinions ; and was at length acquitted of all blame. The effect, however, of the anxiety produced by this business, caused a total change in his course of life; and though young, rich, elegant in person and in manners, and in some degree habituated to pleasure, he gave himself up to devotion, and confined his studies to theological subjects. These induced a most enthusiastic desire to be useful, and he resolved to distribute all his property among the poor, and travel barefooted through the world to preach the Gospel. An early death, at the age of 32, put an end to his projects. His principal works are—’“ Hexaplus, or an Explanation of the Six Days of the Creation ;” a book on the Psalins, another, “ Adversus Astrologiam Divini tricem, & Epistolarum, lib. viii.” He also wrote on the Jewish Cabala, which was in great credit in the sixteenth century. He was one of the learned men whom Naudé has thought it necessary to vindicate from the charge of being a Magician. “The writings of Picus, it is said, “ display an acute genius, and a vast extent of learning.” He is admitted on all hands to have been a very extraordinary person, and was denominated the Phoenix among the geniuses of his time. But his works added very little to true science, notwithstanding his attainments and erudition. voice of Christ in the Scriptures, although the Roman church, or any other visible church disclaim it. Therefore we do not reject the external voice of the church, or consider its ministry at all unnecessary; but we hold that the full assurance of the understanding in matters of faith arises from internal light and the testimony of the Spirit, without which, if the church were a thousand times to inculcate the belief of this or that, yet no one should believe it.

To the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ.] These words are connected with the former ones by apposition, as it is termed: For they explain what, and of what kind, is that full assurance of the understanding which they will acquire: It is not of human things, or philosophical or Jewish fables; but the knowledge of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ. Two things are to be examined: What he understands by mystery ; and why that mystery is called of God, and of the Father, and of Christ. ^ The mystery Chrysostom interprets to be our reconciliation and access to God the Father by the incarnate Son, not by angels. Cardinal Hugo says, that this mystery is nothing else but the saving death of Christ. But these interpretations are too restricted. Under the word mystery then, the Apostle includes the whole doctrine of the Gospel, which was revealed through the Apostles for the salvation of the human race. The Gospel is with good reason called a mystery, since it is impervious to human reason, which never could have formed even the slightest notion of that mode of acquiring salvation which is proposed in the Gospel; but would have wearied itself in vain in seeking salvation in the visionary schemes of the human imagination.

But why is the Gospel, or Evangelical doctrine, called the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ? On two accounts :

1. Because the triune God was the Author and Framer of the doctrine of the Gospel; and Christ was sent by the Father as a herald and promulgator of the same. It therefore flowed from them as from its efficient causes, and hence it is appropriately termed the Gospel of God and of Christ.

2. , Because God, and the Father, and Christ are the principal objects of the doctrine of the Gospel. For the Gospel lays open to us the majesty, the will, the nature, and, finally, the attributes of God ; it teaches, moreover, that this God has a paternal affection for us as adopted for his sons, through and on account of Christ his incarnate Son, Gal. iv. 5. Lastly, it depicts Christ to us as the Mediator uniting and reconciling us to God ; together with all his offices, operations, and other functions which relate to the full knowledge of Christ. “Therefore, from this threefold doctrine, which respects the nature of God, his paternal affection for the human race, and Christ the Mediator, the Gospel is called, as from its more noble part, the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ.

Hence we learn,

1. As the law was enacted, not only by the Father, but also by the Son, (for the Apostle says, Gal. iii. 19, it was ordained in the hand of a Mediator ;) so the Gospel is to be attributed not to the Son alone, but to the Father, nay, and . the whole Trinity: for it is the mystery of God, and of Christ effectively. It was extreme dotage, therefore, in Marcion to imagine that one God was Author of the law, and another of the Gospel: whom Tertullian thus refutes in lib. 5. vers. Marc. Distinguish, says he, the law for one God, and Christ for another God, tf thou caist divide a shadow from its substance. And again: The liberty of the Gospel was to be promulgated by the same by whom the servitude of the law was ; for no one can emancipate the servants of another. Joachim the Abbot⁴ was also mad in his conjecture, for he taught that a triple doctrine proceeded from the three per- sons; the doctrine of the old law from the Father; the doctrine of the Gospel, as we have it delivered to us in the sacred Scriptures, from the Son; and a third Gospel still to be looked for from the Holy Spirit, which he terms the eternal Gospel. But if the Gospel which we have, is the Gospel as well of God as of Christ, either the Holy Spirit is denied to be God, or this Gospel must be ascribed to him, and no new one expected from him.

2. As the Gospel proceeded from God and from Christ; so does it every where discourse of God and of Christ, and of those benefits which we obtain from God the Father through Christ. Whatever doctrines cannot be referred to these heads, such as those of heretics, scholastics, and the like, are not to be accounted Theological mysteries, but human inventions. This should have been considered by those who have devised a Platonic and Aristotelian Christianity, as Tertullian somewhere says: who, as Gerson writes, should justly be called Sophists and Mataologisis,⁵ not Evangelists or Theologists ; since, leaving the useful and intelligible instructions concerning God and Christ, they betake themselves to logical, mathen-atical, metaphysical, and such like speculations. 2 Lect. super Marcum.

Thus far concerning the mystery of God and of Christ, the full knowledge of which the Apostle promises to the Colossians abiding in the faith they had received.⁶

Verse 3.

In the last words of the preceding verse the Apostle had mentioned Christ: and seizing this occasion, he runs off into the praises of Christ, yet so that he does not advance beyond the limits of his subject. For this slight digression contains a most weighty reason why they should not depart from the doctrine which Epaphras had preached to them, and derived, in fact, from the completeness of the same, as what was amply sufficient for salvation. Having, therefore, laid this ground-work, he paves the way for the contest with the seducers.

But first it must be observed here, that these words zn whom, are referred by some to the whole phrase of the knowledge of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of . Christ, in this sense; that in the investigation of this mystery, i. e. of the Gospel, all the treasures of our wisdom and saving knowledge are placed. But they are referred by others to that last word Christ ; in which Christ—our Master, and the Author of the Gospel (say they)—exists as in the most copious fountain, an inexhaustible store of wisdom and knowledge.

The difference between these two interpretations is great. For the former makes the Apostle speak of our wisdom and knowledge, which we attain, by rightly knowing Christ, or the mystery of Christ: therefore, they would have all these treasures, viz. all the fulness and perfection of our wisdom to be in Christ objectively, i. e. in the knowledge of Christ, according to that saying of the Apostle, I determined not to know any thing save Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. ii. 2. But the latter would have him to speak concerning the wisdom and knowledge residing habitually in Christ; they therefore conclude from this place, that all wisdom and knowledge reside in Christ subjectively. I dare not reject this opinion, since there is neither falsehood in it, nor does it depart from the words themselves: But I think that the Apostle rather had regard to the former, nor spake so much concerning the wisdom with which Christ is wise, as concerning that, by the apprehension of which, we become wise.

2. And it is also to be noted, that these words wisdom and knowledge are not explained in the same manner by all. Some would have that there is no difference between them, but that they are introduced and repeated for the sake of amplification only; as if the Apostle had said, that in knowing Christ, we have the most absolute and perfect knowledge. Others say, the term cogia (wisdom) designated an acquaintance with God, cr divine things; yasews (knowledge) denotes the comprehension of human affairs, or of creatures. But there is a third opinion, which I prefer: it is that which explains the former term (which they render sapientia) to mean an acquaintance with those doctrines which relate to faith ; but the latter (scientia), the understanding of those that relate to the Christian life. Wisdom, therefore, embraces the things to be believed ; knowledge, the things to be done. Both these are known, when Christ, or the mystery of Christ, is properly understood.

In the last place, we must remark, that it is said these treasures are not merely placed or situated in the knowledge of Christ, or the Gospel of Christ, but hidden. By which word is intimated, that what is precious and magnificent in Christ, or the Gospel of Christ, is not conspicuous, or directly meets the eyes of carnal men; but is so concealed, that it is discovered only by those to whom God has given a quick sight, i. e. spiritual eyes to see. So Christ himself said, Matt xi. 95, 1 thank thee, O Father, that thou hast hidden, &c. And the Apostle, 1 Cor. i. 23, shews that Christ is no treasure to carnal men, but an offence and object of ridicule; We preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block, &c. This opinion, therefore, being adopted, which would have all these treasures in the mystery of Christ to be understood objectively, we hence derive these instructions :

1. He is truly wise, who has learnt the Gospel; he is altogether unwise who seeks saving knowledge elsewhere for here are a// treasures.

2. He who places secular knowledge, and the things of the world, before this study and sacred knowledge, prefers rubbish to treasure: for the mystery of the Gospel is treasure; all else is dung and dross.

3. It is not to be wondered at that almost all the world errs both in faith and practice. They err, in things to be believed, because they take not the rule of faith from the Gospel, but from human authority: in things to be done, because they take not the rule of life from hence, but from the custom of the ungodly, But in this both wisdom and knowledge should be sought.

4. If we would gain saving knowledge from the Gospel, we must attend to it not lazily, and in a perfunctory manner, but we must labour and toil in acquiring this treasure, For this treasure is not placed in open view, it is hidden. ]

5. We must not confide in our industry or discernment ; but diligently intreat God, that he would quicken our sight, and permit this hidden treasure to be seen by us: Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law, Ps. cxix. 18.

Up to this point in the Exposition of these words, In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, we . have followed that opinion which explains them objectively, respecting that perfect knowledge which we have in the true knowledge of Christ. But because (as was before said) these words are explained by some, of that perfect wisdom which Christ hath in himself subjectively, we will discuss their interpretation and opinion, and refute their erroneous inferences. But both the Schoolmen, as well as the Ubiquitarians, follow this opinion : for from this passage both conclude that omniscience is an attribute of Christ, even in regard to his human nature. But the Schoolmen, although they differ from our Divines verbally, yet they concur with them virtually. For what they call omniscience, they nevertheless include within certain limits: whence it is evident they ascribe to the soul of Christ an omniscience, not indeed absolute, which is the property of the Divine nature, but a certain similitude of it, and, as it were, the thing itself in a certain relation. But the Ubiquitarians much more boldly teach that the very Divine omniscience was really communicated to the human nature of Christ, in the same manner as the omnipotence; Jacobus Andreas, Colloq. Mompelg. tract. de persona Christi; where also he brings forward this passage. We shall set forth the opinion of the Schoolmen, and refute that of the Ubiquitarians, but very briefly.

The Schoolmen, besides the uncreated wisdom of Christ, allege a manifold created wisdom to be in him. Alexander Hales, part. 3. qu. 13. memb. 1 et 2, laid down a fourfold knowledge in the soul of Christ: The first he calls a knowledge by the grace of union; the second, a knowledge by the grace of comprehension ; the third, the knowledge of a perfect nature ; the fourth, the knowledge of experience. Aquinas, part. 3. qu. 9. art. 1, omits the first: for he does not think any new species of knowledge ought to be supposed in the soul of Christ on account of union ; only he grants that the knowledge of comprehension is much more clear and excellent in the soul of Christ because of this union, than in any of the blessed, whether angels or men. He, therefore, attributes a triple knowledge to the soul of Christ ; 7^ viz. a blessed, an infused, and an acquired knowledge. But now (to come to the point) they ask, whether the soul of Christ knows all things according to this created wisdom ; whether he hath an equal knowledge of all things with God ; and they answer in the affirmative, But when they attempt to explain their opinion, they say that the knowledge of God is to be considered in a twofold manner; in respect to God himself, and in respect to creatures. As to God’s knowledge of himself, the soul of Christ does not know, neither can it know, all things which God knows ; for it does not know all that God can do; because this knowledge would comprehend the divine Godhead, which is incomprehensible. But as far as regards the creatures, they say that Christ in the Word knows all things which are, and which will be, whether things spoken, done, or thought by any mortal; because he is to be the judge of all. They affirm, moreover, that he knows all the essence, and power, and acting of every creature, because he is the Lord of all. They, therefore, conclude, if we speak concerning knowledge as it respects the creatures, that the soul of Christ, as to the number of the things known, has a knowledge equal with God; because he knows all the creatures even as God; but as to the means of knowing, and the mode of knowing, his knowledge is far inferior : For because God knows all things by himself as by the cause; the soul of Christ [knows them] not by himself, but by the Word; God knows all things in a more clear and profound manner. But this universal knowledge of the creatures, is not that omniscience which is the attribute of the Divine nature; because all the creatures taken together, which are, which have been, or shall be, are not in fact infinite. Therefore, according to the Schoolmen, the soul of Christ, or the human nature, is not capable of omniscience, neither likewise of omnipotence. ;

Now to proceed with the Ubiquitarians ; they think that, like as the other attributes of Godhead, so omniscience is really communicated to the human nature of Christ; and they abuse this passage to establish their error, Jn whom are hid all the treasures, &c.

We answer, nothing can be concluded from this passage in favour of that absolute omniscience of the soul of Christ, on many accounts. First, because it is much more likely that the Apostle speaks concerning our saving wisdom, which we have in rightly knowing Christ, than concerning the wisdom of Christ himself. Secondly, because if it be granted that he speaks concerning the wisdom and knowledge with which the soul of Christ is endued, we may interpret this of that highest fulness of created and infused knowledge, in which there is nothing wanting that is required to perfect the soul of Christ, although there may not be omniscience, of which the creature cannot properly be said to be capable. Thirdly, let us assume the omniscience of Christ to be proved from this passage, yet they will not immediately make out from this that that is in the soul or human nature of Christ: for the Apostle does not say, in which soul, or nature; but in whom, i. e. Christ, are all treasures: they are, therefore, in Christ, because in the Word, not because in the human nature. So Ambrose places the treasures of omniscience in the person of Christ, not in the human nature: he says, it is just that the knowledge of all things should be in the Author of all things. But the Word, not the human nature of Christ, created all things. So Aquinas in his Commentaries refers this omniscience to the Word, not to the soul: Whatever, says he, can be known concerning God, all vH AT the Word has abundant knowledge of in himself ; whatever can be known concerning the creature, he knows pre-eminently in himself ; and therefore in the Word are all treasures.

We have thus vindicated this passage from the cavils of the Ubiquitarians: We shall now refute their error by a few arguments ; and that from their own principles.

1. They concede that each nature in Christ possesses and retains its own properties, so that the property of one nature can never become the property of the other: thus James Andreas, Colloq. Mompelg.⁷ But what is really communicated to one, that becomes the property of the other: Omniscience, therefore, being really communicated to the human nature of Christ, does not remain the property of the Divine nature alone ; because it is found in the other nature.

2. The attributes of the Divine nature are not communicated essentially to the human nature ; for were this the case, the human nature, upon the acknowledgment of Chemnitz himself, would turn out Divine :⁸ for since the properties of Divinity are not accidents, but the essence of God himself, they cannot belong to, neither are they communicated, i. e. formally, habitually, or subjectively. But no other mode besides the essential and accidental can be desired : therefore the attributes of Divinity, among which our opponents themselves assign omniscience, are not communicated to the human soul. But they say they are communicated by an hypostatical union. Yet this is nothing to the purpose. For the attributes of the natures are not transferred from one to the other by virtue of the hypostatic union; but the attribute of one nature is ascribed to the other in the concrete, for the sake of the identity of the thing supposed. As when we say that God suffered, or was crucified, or was born of a virgin; that the man Christ was omniscient, omnipotent, the Creator of the world: predications of this kind are true, not because the Divine nature in itself in any manner admits the possibility of suffering; or the human nature the attribute of omnipotence and omniscience : but because that man who suffered was God; and God who is omnipotent, was also man in unity of person. °

3. He who says that the human nature of Christ is omniscient, and is so by that omniscience which is the attribute of the Godhead, he assigns one and the same knowledge to the human soul and to the Divine nature.⁹ But our opponents themselves condemn the Monothelites,¹⁰ who ascribe the same will of Deity and humanity in Christ; why are they not also to be condemned, who hold that there is the same knowledge in both ?

4. That rule of Leo which is contained in his tenth Epistle, viz. that either nature can perform what is peculiar to it with the concurrence of the other, is proved by the Ubiquitarians themselves: But if omniscience be communicated to the human nature of Christ, then the human nature performs what exclusively belongs to the Godhead ; for it comprehends all things by the infinite power of the communicated omniscience.

In short; There is in the human nature of Christ, all that fulness of infused and created knowledge which is required for the ministration of our salvation ; in his Divine nature absolute omniscience is found: and, consequently, In him are all the treasures of created and uncreated knowledge.

Verses 4, 5.

In these two verses the Apostle assigns two reasons why he laboured so much in confirming the Colossians. Thé first is derived from the danger which threatened them ; lest any one should beguile you, &c. The second from the love dwelling in the Apostle’s heart; For though I be absent, &c.

And this I say.] These words are referred by some to the verse immediately preceding, concerning all the treasures of wisdom hid in Christ; which the Apostle affirmed with this view, lest being seduced by impostors, they ] should think that the means of salvation should be sought elsewhere. By others they are referred to all those things which had been before stated in this Chapter; as though the Apostle had said, I would that ye knew my conflict with those false teachers to have been undertaken for this end, lest ye should be beguiled by their sophistical conceits. It is of no importance to the main drift of the subject. For this is the meaning, that the Apostle strenuously defends the true doctrine concerning our salvation reposed in Christ alone, and on this account, lest the Colossians attaching themselves to the vain devices of men, this saving doctrine should be neglected.

Hence we learn,

1. That to preach and fully teach Christ and the benefits of Christ, is to stop the way against all the idle and superstitious inventions of men: for when Christ is rightly known, those beggarly elements are held in contempt, This is clearly taught in Philip. in. 8, I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, &c.

2. Where the treasures of wisdom laid up in Christ alone are not known, there the people easily fall into errors, into superstitious worship, and finally into the very pit of perdition. For as weak women who lack children, are wont to amuse themselves with lap-dogs and birds ; so weak, unhappy souls, destitute of the knowledge of Christ, in vain seek comfort in the silly trifles of human contrivance.

3. Here, then, we see why in the Papacy so much regard is paid to masses, indulgences, pilgrimages, satisfactions, invocations of the dead, and other things of that kind ; viz. because, forsooth, they know not that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are laid up in Christ : for this being admitted, that crude mass of superstition falls to the ground, which Christ and his Apostles never contemplated, except with abhorrence.

Lest any one should beguile you with enticing words.] See the danger in which the Colossians were ; that is to say, of the circumvention of false teachers! Behold also the instrument with which they endeavoured to create this danger for them; viz. enticing words !

TlapaacyigecSat, or to beguile, is by a false reason, which hath the semblance of truth, to deceive the unskilful. Whence Aristotle draws a parallel between it and spurious gold, or die, which counterfeit the real nature of those things they have not in them. Under this word, therefore, the Apostle would comprehend whatever is introduced in any manner under the appearance of Religion, against the simplicity of the doctrine of the Gospel. For although the impostors seemed by specious reasons to establish the worship of angels, the observance of ceremonies, and certain philosophical vanities; yet they could not effect it by legitimate arguments derived from the word of God, but by paralogisms and sophistical deceptions.

And, indeed, these sophisms of seducers proceed either from malice, or of ignorance. From malice, when wicked men oppose acknowledged truth, either for their own glory and advantage, or that they may occasion trouble and dislike to true teachers. So the Scribes and the Pharisees opposed Christ and his doctrine, that they might establish their own vain traditions, and that they might obtain honour among the unthinking multitude. These impostors are the most wretched of all mortals; for, as Cyprian writes, Epist. lib. 2. epist. 1, the souls of all those to whom by their deceivings they have been the authors and leaders to perdition, will be required at their hands in the day of judgment.

There are others who deceive the people by their sophisms from ignorance ; for their own minds, too, are ensnared by the same devices with which they endeavour to ensnare others. And these sophisms for the most part prevail among those in whom a preposterous zeal, void of knowledge, predominates. In this catalogue we may reckon those who, inflamed with a certain pious affection towards the saints of God and holiness itself, were at length so far carried away by a singular blind zeal, as to imagine and require that the saints should be worshipped and invoked ; to contend that even the kingdom of heaven is acquired by the fruit of their good works; and to hawk . about these their sophisms every where with the greatest ardour for true doctrine. Among this number even they also are to be accounted, who, burning with a just hatred against all superstitious worship, because God will not be worshipped by the commandments of men, are hurried away with such a zeal as to maintain that all rites, all the ordinances of the Church, even concerning things indifferent, are to be rejected and exterminated. But we should take care not to be imposed upon either by the one or the other: for both attempt to ensnare others, being deceived by their own sophisms. Honey is good, says Gerson, with the honeycomb ; that is to say, the savour of devotion, with the moderation of discretion. And thus much concerning the danger threatening the Colossians, the repelling of which is the object of the Apostle.

With enticing words, ev mSavoroyia.] This is that instrument or means which the seducers employed in order to deceive. Under this word the Apostle comprehends rhetorical and flattering insinuations, sophistical and intricate subtleties ; with which they endeavoured either to insinuate or force an entrance into the minds of men. In short; whatever is so flattering to human reason, by its specious colouring, as to lead a man from Christ, is to be referred to the pernicious enticing words. This deceitful sophistry the Apostle condemns in 1 Cor. ii. 4. Not that persuasiveness of words is in itself condemnable, for it is a great excellence of speech; but the abuse cf it, when it acts by apparent, but false reasons, and is employed to impose upon men.

Concerning that insinuating persuasion, Tertullian, in writing against Valentinus, clearly speaks, Impostors have the art to persuade before they teach ; but truth persuades by teaching, not teaches by persuading. Concerning that sophistry, Prudentius formerly complained ;

Fidem minutis dissecant ambagibus,

Ut quisque lingua est nequior ;

Solvunt ligantque questionum vincula

Per syllogismos plectiles,

Ve captiosis sycophantarum strophis,

Vee versipelli astutige.¹¹

But [it may be said] how can there be such enticement in those in whom there is no truth? For (if we believe the Philosopher) things which are true are more easily reduced to the shape of argument, and more persuasive, than false ones are. Rhet. i. 6.

This is the solution: They are so indeed, both in themselves and in their nature; but as it regards the unskilful and external appearance, many false things seem more probable than many true ones. And that happens, because false things are connected to true ones by their great likeness: whence it comes to pass that they are not distinguished by the unskilful, especially when aided by the art of impostors, which is accustomed to draw the colour of truth over false things.

DOGMATICAL OBSERVATIONS.

l]l. In theological subjects it is not proper rashly to give credit to reasonings, however plausible, which are not built upon the word of God as their foundation: for very often they have a wonderful persuasiveness, when, nevertheless, they have no truth. That remark of Tertullian [in his treatise] De anima, should be borne in mind, Build up faith from thy foundation.

2. As the Spirit of Christ is to be acknowledged the inward teacher of those who preach the Gospel uncorruptly; so a crooked serpent is their master who impose upon men by sophistical subtleties and this counterfeit persuasion. For that deceiver first employed this enticing mode in Paradise, in beguiling the woman.

3. This is the aim of sophists in treating divine things.] To put forth their own opinions, not the word of God; to beguile men, not to edify them; to obtain the victory for themselves, not that truth may conquer; according to that remark of Clemens, Strom. 1, Opiniativeness is the beginning of contention, strife the effect of it, victory the end.

Thus far concerning the impostors and their weapon, viz. false and counterfeit persuasion.

Verse 5.

This is the other reason of the Apostle’s solicitude for the Colossians, taken from his inward affection towards them; and contains in it an implied anticipation. For they might say, You are far distant from us; you are moreover ignorant of our affairs: you are not, therefore, solicitous about us; neither if you would, can you recommend those things which will conduce to the welfare of our church. He removes each objection: the former by a distinction, I am distant from you, but in body, not in mind and affection: the other by a negative, I am not ignorant of your affairs, for I perceive your order and faith: I am able to advise you therefore, equally as if I were present.

But that we may proceed in order, it will be proper to observe, in the illustration of the words, two things: 1. After what manner he is influenced, or the mode of the Apostle’s affection towards the Colossians ; 2. Wherefore he is so influenced, or the cause of his affection. The mode consists in two things: as well in unceasing thought about them, and meditation on their affairs, &c. as in rejoicing on their account. But now as to the cause why he so often thinks of them, why he rejoices in this contemplation, he assigns a double one; viz. their order and stedfast faith.

For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you n the spirit.] Here he shews that he was never so far absent from the Colossians, but that in mind, in care, and thought he was present with them.

1. Because he never put the recollection of them out of his mind. For it is the peculiarity of the lover not to be severed in mind from those whom he loves, although separated by distance of place.

But Ambrose, and some modern interpreters also, explain these words, I am with you in the Spirit, not only of that thought and remembrance of them, but of some extraordinary presence of the Spirit granted to the Apostle by Divine power: such as Elisha had, who perceived in his mind those things which were done by his servant, equally as though he had stood before him; which is gathered from those words of the prophet, 2 Kings v. 26, Went not mine heart with thee, when the man turned again from his chariot to meet thee? The prophet remained in his house, and yet he says that his heart went with his servant, because he saw as clearly his act, as they who were present when he met them. And these words, Beholding your order, &c. favour this interpretation. We do not, therefore, deny, that what was granted to the prophets, could have been granted to an Apostle also: since the care of all the churches was laid upon him, it is very likely the state of all the churches was also known to him, not only from the vague report of men, but from the revelation of the Divine Spirit; to the intent that he might better consult and provide for the necessities of the churches. We, therefore, admit and unite both interpretations, stating that the Apostle was with the Colossians as well in the medita- tion of his mind, as in the revelation of the Spirit, although absent in body.

Joying and beholding.] That is, joying because I behold: for the conjunction has the force of the causal particle. But this disposition of his mind the Apostle wished to express, lest they should suppose that he doubted their constancy, inasmuch as he so earnestly excited them to perseverance : nay, he does this because he greatly desires that . they should continue in the same, that this his joy may likewise continue; like as he does with the Philippians, iv. 1, My Brethren, dearly beloved, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord.

Ye see after what manner the mind of the Apostle, being . absent, was affected ; viz. so, that he always thought about the Colossians, that he beheld their state, that he rejoiced in this contemplation and observation.

Hence we infer,

1. That a faithful Minister never ought to be wholly absent from his flock : therefore, by care, by thought, and by prayer to God he should be present with them, when he cannot be present in body.

2. The true joy of a minister arises from the circumstance that the people continue and increase in spiritual blessings, not from the circumstance of himself being enriched with temporal ones.

3. That state of the people which affords an occasion of joy to the minister, ought likewise to afford occasion of greater solicitude; for Paul, in consequence of his joy at beholding their present state, laboured the more earnestly lest they should be cast down from the same by the deceit of impostors. For he knew the malice of the devil, who rages mostly when he sees a man liberated from his chains ; is then most wrathful, when he is dispossessed. — Tertull. De peenit. 7—Thus much concerning the mind and affection of the Apostle towards the Colossians: Now let us proceed to the causes.

Beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.] The first reason why Paul had so much pleasure, rejoiced so exceedingly concerning the Colossians, is their order ; the second, their stedfast faith ; on account of which they are deservedly praised. But this, by the way, is to be remembered; that this praise is a most skilful and strong inducement to perseverance in the things praised. For he who praises what you do, declares, first, that it is good; for otherwise it would not be fit to be praised: secondly, he declares that it is easy to you; because you have long effected it: lastly, he intimates that it would be base and disgraceful if you desist; because praise earned is never lost without shame being incurred on the other hand. But let us consider the things themselves.

Your order.] Under the term oder he seems to me to denote three things: the settled manners of the individuals ; the well-appointed discipline of that church; and their agreement and concord. Goodness of manners is constantly included under the term order in the Scriptures ; just as, on the contrary, they who are of bad manners are said to walk disorderly : Withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, 2 Thess. iii. 0. When, therefore, he praises their order, he intimates this, that they individually walk soberly, righteously, and godly in their vocation. Moreover, public discipline is also to be included under this term, as what promotes and preserves it ; For this teaches prelates to rule well, subjects to obey duly; and compels the negligent and refractory to perform their duty. Concerning this the Apostle speaks, 1 Cor. xiv. 40, Let all things be done decently and in order. For this hé commends his Timothy, Epis. i. cap. 3. He now, therefore, praises the Colossians because this Church discipline flourished among them, which, if neglected, all things would be in shameful confusion, sedition, errors, and crimes.

Lastly, he comprehends agreement and unity in religion under the word order: for cZ£g is a military term, and denotes a compact body of soldiers marshalled in due order: Thus, then, the Apostle, when he says that he beheld their order, intimates that he regarded them as a well arranged phalanx of soldiers, united and cleaving together in the unity of the faith, and therefore invincible. ‘ Hence we may lay it down,

1. That there is nothing more beautiful or useful than order, nothing more shameful or injurious than confusion, Admirably does Nazianzen write concerning this matter, Orat. 26. Where order prevails, there beauty shines brightly ; where there is want of order, there arise in the air storms, upon the land commotions, by sea inundations, in cities seditions, in . bodies distempers, and among souls sins. Order comprehends celestial and terrestrial things; there is order among rational beings, order among irrational ones ; order among angels, order in the stars, order in all things. No wonder, since God himself is not the author of confusion, but of harmony, and that especially in the churches of the saints, 1 Cor. xiv. 33.

2. Since order is the arrangement of equals and unequals, distributing their proper places to every one ; they who introduce equality of ecclesiastical ministers subvert order. For it is the polity of Cyclops, not ecclesiastical discipline, where no one recognizes another.*

3. Since from that order which flourishes among the people, their pastors derive such joy, it follows that they who despise and trample upon the legitimate orders of the Church, undeservedly vex and injure with great sorrow the prelates of the Church, in opposition to that direction of the Apostle, Heb. xiii. 17, Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves to them.

4. Order is as the fence opposed to seducers : therefore, they seldom are plunged into errors who observe the order of obedience due to those set over them; on the other hand, where the order of commanding and of obeying is neglected, there a breach is easily effected, as through a routed army. So much concerning order.f

And the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.] This is the second cause of joy to the Apostle. He saw the Colossians attacked by the seducers, he saw tares every where scattered by them; but, at the same time, he perceived that the faith of the Colossians could not be overcome, that those tares were not approved by them for wheat, but were despised and rejected ; hence that joy. This stedfastness, or solidity in the faith, therefore, denotes two things: first, that they suffered not the true doctrine to be wrested from them, but remained firm and immovable in it, like soldiers at their post: the other, that they did not permit strange and foreign doctrines to be mingled with it; but filled their minds with sacred doctrine, the inventions of men being excluded from the business of faith. For that is properly said to be solid, which is full of itself alone, that is, which does not receive any thing heterogeneous into it. That is, therefore, a stedfast faith, which not only embraces the true doctrine, but which admits no mixture of that which is false and foreign to it. Which, also, the Apostle himself afterwards intimates, when he restricts faith to Christ ; as though he would say, What they proclaim for the doctrines of faith without Christ, are to be rejected.

Hence we learn,

1. When the mind wavers and vacillates between various opinions, that is not a stedfast faith, but an empty shadow of faith. It is the will of God, therefore, that our assent to the cause of Religion and the faith, be firm, and without any hesitation. For he hath no stedfast faith who inclinés sometimes to one side, sonietimes to the contrary. A faith suspended between conflicting opinions is reproved 1 Kings xviii. 11, low long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him; but if Baal, follow him.¹²¹³

2. That faith also which, together with the faith of the Gospel, admits the traditions and inventions of men, is not stedfast, but hollow: if it were stedfast, there would not be a void place in it for those heterogeneous things. Tertullian admirably expresses himself in this sentence, Cum credimus evangelio, nihil desideramus ultra credere. Hoc enim priüs credimus, non esse quod ultra credere debeamus.¹⁴ De prescript.—So much concerning the causes of the Apostle’s joy.

We have dispatched the two parts of this preface: that is to say, the narrative proposition, in which the Apostle declared what a conflict he sustained for the Colossians ; and the statement of his argument, in which he brings many reasons of the fact itself. The last part remains, which contains the hortatory conclusion. :

Verses 6, 7.

We have said that the Exordium of the Apostle is composed of these three members; a narrative proposition, the statement of his reasons, and an hortatory conclusion. We are arrived at this last, included in these two short verses. In which he shews, first, what is to be done by them; namely, to cleave unto Christ, even as they had received him from Epaphras; ver. 6. Secondly, he teaches them how to cleave unto him. And the mode consists in three things: in the stability of faith; in its fulness; and in gratitude of mind for it.

We commence with the sixth verse: in which he teaches what he wishes to be done by them, 1. by proposing a rule to their observation, As ye have received Christ Jesus the Lord ; 2. by requiring action, or obedience to this rule, so walk ye in him.

As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord.] The rule of faith and of life which he proposes to the Colossians, is the doctrine of Christ preached by Epa@phras, and received by them; to which he would have them adhere constantly. We must, therefore, understand, what doctrine he had promulgated respecting Christ. He had, doubtless, taught, that all the grounds of our salvation are placed in Christ alone; that Christ is the Lord of our faith and of our life; and that both are .o be directed towards the Gospel of Christ, as to the brighter polar star; the Mosaic ceremonies must not be joined with the faith of the Gospel: This rule Epaphras had prescribed to them: to this rule they were bound ;

1. Because they received and approved of it: For when the Apostle says, as ye have received (as Chrysostom well observes) he binds them, as it were, by their own testimony: for he intimates that it is not his object that they should now receive some new doctrine, but that they should continue in what they had received ; that not to do so, argued either folly or levity in them.

2. Because, although they must not of necessity persevere in every doctrine received, as, for instance, in an erroneous one; yet they must remain in this, because, this doctrine being received, Christ Jesus the Lord himself was received; Ye have received Christ Jesus the Lord. In this form of speaking there is great force, which it is proper to examine. We must observe, therefore, that he does not say, Ás ye have received the doctrine of Christ, or concerning Christ ; but, As ye have received Christ himself. For we not only perceive the doctrine of Christ by faith, but we receive our quickening Saviour, and we hide him in the heart for our salvation. And, indeed, that saying of the Poet is known and approved by all, :

It is more shameful to eject than not to admit a guest. They could not, therefore, without great baseness reject the doctrine or the faith received, because by that same act they would reject Christ himself.

But that also must be noted, that he affirms they had received Christ the Lord: for (as the most learned interpreters will have it) the Apostle lays a stress upon this word. For the false apostles preached Christ, and their disciples received Christ: but those neither preached, nor did these receive Christ the Lord, but the fellow-servant of Moses ; therefore they joined his doctrine with the ceremonies prescribed by Moses. But the Colossians, and so all true Christians, received Christ the Lord, both of their faith and their life: nor will they suffer rules of faith and Christian life to be imposed upon them by any one else. For the servant cannot manumit himself, or make himself over to a new lord; because he is not his own master: neither could the Colossians subject themselves either to the Mosaic ceremonies, or the maxims of philosophers, because they had received Christ the Lord. From what we have said we may deduce the following instructions :

1. The true faith is not to be changed, although the prelates and doctors of the Church should begin to strike out a new one; because as we have received, so we must persevere. The Romanists, therefore, in vain thrust upon us their novel opinions ; it is sufficient to answer, We have not so received from the Apostles. . 9. We must not persevere in every doctrine received from our elders: but if they have received Christ, then we must abide in the same doctrine ; but should they have imbibed the poison of Antichrist, we are not bound to do the same. In vain, therefore, they also heap their old errors upon us: we say with Cyprian, In things which regard religion it does not behove us to follow the custom of men, but the truth of God.

3. The Gospel is to be received with the greater reverence, because that being received, Jesus Christ is received. The doctrines of men, however true, bring nothing else to the mind than knowledge: but the doctrine of the Gospel brings salvation, nay, the Saviour himself.

4. He is a Christian in vain, nay, to his great loss, who resolves not to direct both his faith and his life by the rule of Christ: for it is to mock Christ, if he is not worshipped as Lord by those who receive the Gospel.—Thus much concerning the Rule.

So walk ye in him.] He requires from them obedience to the rule proposed. When he says, we must walk in Christ, he shews by implication that Christ is the royal way to God and to eternal blessedness; I am the way, the truth, and the life. Chrysostom hath made this observation, who immediately adds, We must walk in Christ, because He is the way, and not angels, which leads to our heavenly Father.

To walk in Christ denotes two things : to persevere and to advance in the doctrine and the faith of Christ; to live according to this rule and the guidance of the Spirit of Christ. As to the first ; faith hath a progressive motion : Whence we are said with propriety enough to walk, when we proceed in the faith itself. They shall go from strength to strength, says the Psalmist Ixxxiv. 7. And Paul, Rom. i. 17, from faith to faith. But this term of walking is much more often accommodated to progress in a course of holiness. Hence to walk in the ways, or in the commandments of God, is in frequent use by David; and with Paul, £o walk after the flesh, or after the Spirit ; to walk in newness of life, or as children of light ; and in many like passages.

Therefore two things are required: that they should abide and proceed in the faith; that they should conform their life to the rule of faith. Now let us deduce some inferences.

1. As Christians are rightly said to walk in Christ, because they regulate both their faith and their life by the rule prescribed by him; so the Monks walk in the respective founders of their sects, who seek perfection in the rule invented by them.

2. Since Christ is the only way to heaven, he who aims at heaven out of Christ, wanders about blind and miserable, and will never arrive thither. . 3. He who thinks he can walk in Christ by a solitary . faith, attempts to walk with one foot, which is impossible. To walk in Christ is to proceed as well in holiness as faith ; for the Spirit of Christ stirs up to both or neither.

4. The life of a Christian man is in constant motion. He departs from sin and the world, and advances in holiness of life, and towards the heavenly state, by Christ as by the way, faith and love inclining him to this new motion as inherent qualities ; but impelled and directed by the Spirit of Christ as the principal agent and mover, who also himself imparted both faith and love.

And thus we have briefly explained what the Apostle required to be done in this his hortatory conclusion ; namely, that they would cleave to Christ; to which he draws them, ]. By proposing the rule itself to their contemplation; 2. by requiring their submission to this rule. Now it follows, that we explain how we are to abide in Christ; which we learn from the following verse.

Verse 7.

That the Colossians should cleave to Christ, the Apostle advises in the foregoing verse: now he shews somewhat more explicitly how they are to cleave to him. And the mode consists,

1. In the stability of that faith which adheres to Christ and the doctrine of the Gospel; Rooted, and built, and stablished.

2. In that fulness, or sufficiency, which faith in Christ acknowledges ; abounding therein, &c.

3. In gratitude for this fulness which we have through the faith of Christ; with thanksgiving.

Rooted and built up in him.] The stability of faith is described by two metaphors: The former borrowed from trees ; the latter, from buildings. The metaphor being rooted, is borrowed from trees. For as trees cannot have stability unless they send forth roots into the earth, and that earth not miry, but firm: so our faith cannot have stedfastness unless it fix its roots in Christ, as in the firmest soil. The other metaphor is borrowed from buildings. For as a house hath no stability unless it be built upon a firm foundation ; so neither faith, unless it rest upon Christ alone. Whence, likewise, the Saviour Christ commends his prudence who built his house upon a rock, but reproved his folly who preferred to erect his upon sand, .Matt. vii. 24. By these two metaphors, therefore, the Apostle points out to us that we should cleave to Christ as closely as possible.

And stablished in the faith as ye have been taught.] What he has before represented figuratively, he now expresses in direct terms, as interpreters will have: But he seems to me to do even something more than that. For in those figurative terms he expresses that stedfastness of which our faith partakes from having placed its roots in firm soil, Ver. 7. EPISTLE TO the COLOSSIANS. 385 (viz. in Christ) and resting upon a due foundation : but here he touches on that stability which we are said to have from the strengthening of faith itself, after that it shall have been rooted in this soil, and built upon this foundation. This difference it is easy to observe in trees, which as soon as they are planted have their stability hence only, that they are planted in firm soil : but when they shall have increased in height, they have also other strength in themselves: So a tender faith hath its stability in Christ; but being increased and advanced, it acquires new strength as to the internal habit itself. The Apostle, therefore, wishes the faith of the Colossians, not only to be built upon a firm foundation, but also to be strengthened and grow in itself daily.

And whereas he joins by a parenthesis (as ye have been taught), it tends to the greater caution, so to speak. For he had advised them concerning the same matter before in the foregoing verse; saying, As ye have received him, so walk ye in him: here he again requires stedfastness of faith, and shews in what faith they must continue; viz. in the very faith which they had been taught by Epaphras, not in the novel faith of false apostles. ]

He twice inculcates the same counsel, that he may correct a wrong inclination prevailing very much among the common people: For they were wont to grow weary of the received doctrine, and eagerly to desire new teachers, who led them away from the truth to their own dreams. He, therefore, reproves their itching ears, when he bids them remain in the faith as they had heretofore been taught, and forbids them to yield to the new faith of the seducers.

We have explained what stability the Apostle requires in the doctrine of the Gospel. Now from what we have said we may draw these instructive lessons ;

1. It is not enough to be planted in Christ, unless we are so established in him, and cleave so entirely to him, — that we neither rest on any other, as the foundation of our faith, nor suffer ourselves to be detached from this by any devices. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. ii. 11. Those vacillating persons, therefore, are reproved, who, seizing every occasion, flee away from Christ to Antichrist: but, as Chrysostom says, that which is grounded and rooted, is not easily moved away. “They also are censured who cleave to Christ only externally, when they have their roots in the mean time fixed elsewhere. Among these we may reckon all who retain the name of Christians, yet have their hope placed chiefly upon saints, monastic observations, or other idols of their hearts, but not on Christ. Against such, that rebuke of the prophet Jonah, ii. 8, may be levelled, They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy.

2. Faith is that which secures our walking in Christ as in the way, without error, our abiding in him as in the root with fruit, our standing upon him as a foundation without being shaken. Therefore, all seducers who labour to injure our faith are to be shunned and avoided; for by that means they attempt to separate us from Christ.

3. Since Paul restricts Christians to that faith which they have been taught by Apostles, we gather, that the rule of Apostolical doctrine, viz. the Holy Scriptures, is not to be removed out of the sight of the people. For it is unjust to demand that any one should act or believe according to a prescribed rule, and yet be unwilling to allow him the knowledge of this rule. But like as wicked boys, when they are bent upon mischief, shut out the schoolmaster; so the Papists, when they would make a traffick of their own trumpery among the people, take special care that the word of God should be withheld from them. But let us proceed.

Abounding therein.} He has described the stedfastness of faith : Now, in the second place, he touches that abundance, or sufficiency, which he requires in the faith of the Colossians, or rather, that which he states to be in the faith of Christ alone. This abundance interpreters refer to that perpetual increase which is required from believers in matters of faith. Therefore, they think that the Apostle exhorted them, that they should not only not abate, but daily grow in the abounding knowledge of evangelical doctrine. Yet I think (which I would say with the permission of the good), that another sense is included in these words in this place. Therefore I explain aepiocevovris év atti, feeling assured that you abound in that faith which rests on Christ alone, i. e. that you are rich, overflow, and possess abundantly all things necessary to salvation. It is not, therefore, to the increase of our knowledge I refer this abundance; but to the thing known, viz. the doctrine of the Gospel concerning Christ.

Never ought it to seem wonderful or novel that we explain abounding—knowing or determining that ye abound: for, in the Holy Scriptures, words very often denote a supposition of our knowledge of those things which they really signify. As 1 Cor. iv. 8, Ye are full, ye are. rich, ye have reigned as kings without us ; i. e. Ye think ye are full, ye are rich, ye have reigned, &c. And in Rom. v. 20, The law entered that sin might abound ; i. e. that ye might know the magnitude of sin. Therefore, I so explain abounding, in this place, knowing, or determining with certainty that ye abound.

I follow this interpretation, because it especially agrees with the purpose of the Apostle’s exhortation. For he wishes them to remain rooted in the faith of Christ alone : ! but that which especially conduces to their doing so is, that they should make up their minds that by this faith in Christ they abound, i. e. that they had all things which are necessary to be known for salvation.

Moreover, this especially opposes the opinion of the false teachers. For they thought that they had discovered poverty, and defects, in faith and the doctrine of the Gospel, and therefore they patched upon it philosophical speculations, and Mosaic ceremonies, and innumerable other traditions: but, on the contrary, the Apostle says, we abound in it, we have in that doctrine all abundance of saving knowledge.

Lastly, this best connects with the following words, with thanksgiving. For this ought especially to excite us to gratitude, because in Christ alone God hath administered to us abundantly all things necessary to salvation.

This sense of the words being granted, we learn that the tales of the Monks, about the perfection of the monastic state, are mere folly; as though the doctrine of the Gospel had not prescribed to all the most perfect instruction as to the attainment of life eternal, but that this had been delegated to Dominic and Francis. But if in this doctrine we are abundantly supplied with all things necessary to salvation, it follows, that what is added, to what is already abundant, must be vain and superfluous.

With thanksgiving.] This is the last thing to be observed in the mode in which we cleave to the doctrine of the Gospel. We ought to cleave to it firmly, that is to say, being rooted in Christ himself; we ought to cleave to him in such a manner as to acknowledge that in Him is all-sufficiency to salvation: now, in the last place, we ought so to cleave, that we may shew gratitude of mind for this abundance of saving grace opened and offered to us in the Gospel and in Christ. And that is rightly required from us,

1. Because the magnitude of the benefit claimed it. For in the Gospel a store and accumulation of the benefits of God, nay, the whole treasure of Divine munificence is set forth and offered to us; it ought, therefore, especially to excite us to gratitude. 2. Because the danger of its contrary—ingratitude, urges it. For God is wont to withdraw his benefits from the ungrateful : unless, therefore, we wish to be deprived of the Gospel of salvation, we ought to accept it with all thanksgiving.

3. Because the nature of true faith impels to it. For true faith, embracing Christ as the Saviour, is wont to warm the heart itself with gratitude towards God, and to melt the icyness which is found in the hearts of unbelievers.

Hence we learn,

1. True faith does not consist with ingratitude. For he who, through faith, sees himself delivered from the jaws of hell, and designed for the glory of heaven, cannot but be grateful to the Author of his felicity.

2. They who make no account of the Gospel, are not as yet partakers of the benefits of Christ: if they were, surely they would break forth into thanksgiving for this saving light so mercifully communicated by God.

3. God justly withdraws this benefit from those who do not receive it with thanksgiving. For this gratitude is as a certain tribute, and special service, which God requires in acknowledgment of his supreme dominion from all his feudal subjects: they who refuse to pay this are rightly expelled from their heritage. And these things concerning thanksgiving.

We have now dismissed this exordium of the Apostle. He proposes the question itself in the verse next following; then confirms his own opinion, and refutes the contrary.

Verse 8.

The Exordium now dispatched, the second part of this Chapter follows: In which is proposed the state of the question to be discussed, which he had lightly touched in verses 3 and 4, And if it be reduced to a logical proposition it stands thus :— In the business of salvation, neither philosophical speculations, nor traditions of human inven-: tion, nor Mosaical ceremonies ; but the pure, genuine doc-: trine of the Gospel is to be received. This is the Apostle’s judgment. But in order that he might produce more effect upon the minds of the Colossians, he preferred, iustead of proposing it in that mode, to direct his discourse to them by the figure apostrophe, and converse as it were with them. And so in this verse the Apostle effects three things. 1. He excites them to beware of impostures. 2, He reduces these impostures to three kinds. 3. He lays| down a general reason or rule whereby it may be understood that they are to be rejected.

Beware lest any man spoil you.] Here he directs his discourse to the Colossians, and endeavours to render them cautious in a twofold manner:

1. By this particle of attention, Beware lest. For this strikes the mind much more pointedly than if he had said, All the patches of men which are woven upon the Gospel are to be rejected by Christians: For he who so speaks seems to treat with the understanding alone; but he who, with the Apostle, calls upon his hearer to take care that he be not deceived by these fictions of men, he not only instructs the understanding, but moves the will and affections to hatred of the false doctrine. For by this form of speaking he points out, as with a finger, the plots laid for them, and the approaching deceiver: and thus sentinels, when they have discovered the enemy, exclaim, Beware! Take care; the enemy is upon you!

2. He excites them to the greatest caution by the elegant metaphor of spoliation. For evaayeyav is to drive away the booty ; as robbers are accustomed to carry away men and cattle with them, when they have prevailed in fight : So the Amalekites, having plundered Ziklag, bore away the men and all their goods, ] Sam. xxx. Dy this word, therefore, he shews the great danger that threatened them from the seducers, who attacked them with the design to bring them into bondage, as spoil taken in war; viz. whilst they led them from the Gospel to their impostures. This mode of speaking, therefore, is very powerful to excite their minds to attention and caution.

Hence we derive some observations ;

1. We are not to believe all who undertake to teach in the Church : but must take care, and weigh with serious examination, whether their doctrine be sound or not. This the Popish teachers forbid, because they doubt of their doctrine. This Apelles the heretic¹⁵ heretofore forbade, as it is stated in Euseb. lib. v. cap. 13, for he said, 2 was not Vet: 8. EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. 389 proper to inquire into doctrine ; but that every one should ho’d fast that which he received and believed. But tho Apostle in this place speaks otherwise; and in 1 Thess. v. 21, and Acts xvii. 11.

2. It pertains to the duty of the pastor, not only to in-; struct his flock in sound doctrine, but to prepare and arm them against the designs of seducers. For he holds the place of a sentinel ; he ought, therefore, to admonish them of the approach of the enemy ; he ought to point out the snares laid for them: which, unless he shall have done, whatsoever through indolence is left unguarded, will be required from the pastor, Cyprian, De sing. cler.

3. The doctrine of the Gospel is as the sheepfold of Christ. The sheep are safe whilst they abide within this fence : but when they wander to new and strange doctrines, as straggling sheep, they fall a prey to robbers, i. e. to heretics and seducers. By this treachery the papacy hath spoiled so many churches; for it hath withdrawn them from the doctrine of the Gospel ; then it hath led them whither it would, as its own slaves.

Through philosophy and vain deceit.] After the Apostle . had forewarned the Colossians to beware of impostures, he enumerates the various kinds of impostures. The first is what he has designated by the name philosophy : then terms are subjoined in apposition, which explain what philosophy he intends, namely, false and vain, But since inquiry is often instituted among theologians concerning the use of human reason and philosophy in the matter of religion: and since also mutual criminations arise hence between us and the papists, whilst we charge upon them the crime of corrupt theology, because, in the article of justification, free-will, and many other things, they follow Aristotle, rather than Paul; they, on the other hand, saying, that we, in the question of the presence of the body of Christ in the Lord’s supper, cleave to philosophical principles, 2nd reject the manifest word of God ; on these accounts, I say, we shall treat somewhat more largely of this matter; and shall bring all those points which we are about to mention under these heads :

1. We shall shew that true philosophy is not condemned by the Apostle.

2. We shall explain what we ought to understand under the word philosophy in this place.

3. We shall shew wherein the use, wherein the abuse of philosophy consists, as far as relates to divine matters.

1. As to the first ; Whether we speak concerning moral or natural philosophy, whether concerning any other branch of philosophy, or of the whole as a certain entire body ; it is certain that that cannot be condemred, lest God himself be called into judgment. For philosophy is the offspring of right reason: and this light of reason is infused into the human mind by God himself, according to that remark of Tertullian, Reason is of God. We, therefore, judge, not the discipline of the Stoicks, nor Platonists, nor Aristoteliars, to be true philosophy : but whatever among all these, or others, shall have been discovered, spoken, or written, by the light of right reason; all this taken together we call philosophy. Therefore, not the dreams of philosophers constitute philosophy, but the principles of every one, which agree with truth and good morals. For as the errors of Theologians do not pertain to theology as parts of it, but as disease; so neither do those of Philosophers pertain to philosophy. We scruple not, therefore, to call philosophy, with Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. 1, a morsel of eternal truth. They, therefore, who desire philosophy itself to be exploded from the schools of Christians, are either altogether ignorant, and have it in view to hide their ignorance among the common ignorance of all ; or they are wicked, and desire to expose us stripped of all advantage from learning, untaught and defenceless, to artful and aimed enemies; which wicked purpose of Julian, Nazianzen discovers and reproves, Orat. 1. in Julianum.

I might in this place speak of the various advantages of physics, ethics, and logic. For not only does common life derive assistance from all these, but even divine Theology, by the admission of Tertullian, a bitter enemy of philosophers ; In what way could any one be trained to human prudence, or to any action whatever, without learning, since literature is an help to every department in life? Low will you reject secular studies, without which there cannot be divine ones? , Tertul. De idol. If, therefore, the Apostle had condemned and rejected philosophy, he would verily have rejected the light of reason, and would have cast great injury upon God, the author of it. As often, then, as what relates to human and eternal affairs is slighted and rejected by divines, it is to be understood, not of true and genuine philosophy, but of the errors and fancies of philosophers. For tares are sown in philosophy as they are in our religion: and truth is nearly excladed from it by the pernicious things diffused in it. To conclude then, in a word, If the errors of philosophers, or their crabbed subtilties, are marked out under the term philosophy, then we are free to reject and condemn such philosophy: but if we may call the knowledge of the truth, discovered by the light of natural reason, by this term, we judge that is not to be condenned, but to be cultivated.

2. It is clear that true and genuine philosophy is not condemned. Let us enquire, in the second place, of what kind that is which is excluded by the Apostle; viz. that of . vain deceit, to which he affixes the ignominious brand of xtv”; amatns, This philosophy condemned is, then, both vain and deceitful.

Now, truly, philosophy, or human reason which is the mother of philosophy, is always found vain and deceitful when carried beyond its proper bounds, that is, when it attempts to determine concerning those things which cannot be judged of by the criterion of natural reason; and of this kind are those which concern the worship of God and the salvation of men. — Philosophy is, therefore, to be listened to when it pronouncés about things subject to itself, according to the light of right reason: but when it would determine concerning human justification, reconciliation with God, the mode of Divine worship. or of other matters relating to faith, it is to be exploded ; because, in those things which are beyond the grasp of reason, and depend wholly on the revealed will of God, it brings nothing solid or true, but betrays itself to be altogether vain and deceitfill. The Apostle hath elsewhere alleged the cause of this; viz. Because the natural gan receiveth not the things which .are of God; for they only are discerned by the Spirit of God; 1 Cor. ii. 14. But a philosopher, considered as a philosopher, is nothing more than a natural man ; and reason itself, not illuminated by faith, pertains to this natural condition: it cannot, therefore, extend to the knowledge of salvation; and, if it should attempt, it miserably spends itself in vain. Here, then, we renounce philosophy and human reason, and confess with Justin Martyr, a theologian ‘and philosopher, Parzn. ad Grecos, that Neither poets nor i philosophers are fit authors for instituting a Religion, but God ‘alone by revelation, Which also Prudentius has expressed in very elegant verse, which it will not be irksome to annex. In lib. 2. cont. Symmach. he is shewing that reason cannot but fail if it intrude itself into divine things ;

Quippe minor natura aciem si intendere tentet

Acriüs, ac penetrare Dei secreta supremi ;

Quis dubitet victo fragilem lassescere visu,

Vimque fatigate mentis sub pectore parvo

Turbari, invalidísque hebetem succunibere curis ?

Sed facilis fidei via, &c.¹⁶

Vide Hilar. 1. de Trinit. Neither ought this to seem wonderful. For if brute animals can judge very well concerning things which relate to sense, such as their meat and drink, yet cannot judge of human affairs; then, by a parity of reason, neither can men pronounce by natural light respecting heavenly doctrine and Divine worship, although they may determine by the aid of it, what is good and right in human concerns,

That we may, therefore, accommodate these points to the matter in hand; The false Apostles, under the pretext of a certain secret wisdom, endeavoured to obtrude upon the Colossians certain new doctrines about the worship of angels, the expiation of souls, and other things of that kind, drawn, no doubt, from the writings of the Platonists. What says Paul to these things? Believe not; he replies: fallacious and vain is philosophy when it prescribes about religion. It behoves you to learn how God the Father would be approached, how your sin can be expiated, not from Plato and human reason, but from God and his word. Let us explode, therefore, and condemn philosophy promulgating directions concerning these things.

But it is objected, that divine and spiritual things are. known to human reason, and that by the natural light of the same: for thus says the Apostle, Rom. i. 19, 20, That which may be known of God is manifest in them ;—The invisible things of him from the creation of the world, being understood, &c. f reason comprehends divine things, then may it determine respecting them, neither will it, therefore, be called vain.

It is answered; The natural knowledge of spiritual Í things is obscure and feeble, extending only to the existence of those things. As, for instance, that there is a God, that there is a worship of God, that there is a blessedness for souls, reason and philosophy perceives; but how God is to be worshipped, how happiness is to be obtained, it discovers not: whilst, therefore, it attempts to determine respecting these things and the like, it is caia and deceitful, This knowledge may render a man inexrcusable, but it cannot render him a competent teacher, unless knowledge infused by grace be added.

3. Let us approach to what we proposed to treat of in the last place, viz. to shew the abuse and use of reason or philosophy in the business of religion. For they who perpetually cry out for the exclusion of human reason from treating of sacred things, without discrimination, seem to require that men should engage in the greatest affairs without reason ; when, indeed, they cannot rightly manage the least, if that natural light of reason be extinguished.

The abuse of natural reason, or philosophy, in the cause of religion is manifold.

1. When it attempts to deduce the fundamentals theniselves of religion from its principles. For although the principles of right reason are true in themselves, neverthe- 1 less there cannot be elicited from them what is to be determined concerning the mystery of the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, the justification of a sinner, invocation of God, and his worship; all which things are to be deduced from higher principles, namely, from the will of God revealed in the Word. Reason is the discursive power which proceeds from principles to conclusions: but it does not possess in itself the principles of those thiugs which are apprehended by faith; therefore, it daringly builds conclusions upon the sand of its own opinions.

2. When it opposes its own principles, which are true in the order of nature, to theological principles, which are far above the order of nature. For example; it is true, that out of nothing, nothing can be made ; it is true that dissimilar species cannot be predicated of each other, and cannot unite in the same subject ; it is true there is no return from privation to possession: but all these things are to be understood according to the course of nature and the power of a finite agent. Philosophers therefore err, when they think that they can hence conclude against the creation of the world, the incarnation of God, and the resurrection of ;the dead; all which the Scriptures teach as done, or to be ‘done, not by virtue of natural causes, but by the Almighty “power of God. Here, therefore, that rule of Aquinas, ‘Quest. disp. de fide, art. 10, is to be retained, Theology can never contradict true natural reason, but often rises above it, and thus APPEARS to oppose it. For true reason does not affirm that those superior things cannot be effected absolutely; but cannot be effected by any finite power; and this theology likewise confesses. In those matters, therefore, which are of this kind, philosophy, as says Clemens, Strom. 1, should submit itself to theology, as Agar to Sarah ; should allow itself to be advised and corrected: but if it be unwilling to become obedient, cast out the handmaid.

3. When it obtrudes for legitimate conclusions its erlors, drawn sometimes by false consequences from true premises. Thus the Stoics, Epicureans, Aristotelians, and as many as come under the denomination of philosophers, do not always teach the dictates of right reason, but the dreams of their own fancy. But, truly, if any one should attempt, under the name of philosophy, to introduce these errors into theology, he commits a double sin : first, inasmuch as he resolves the corruptions of philosophers into the dogmas of philosophy itself; next, because he even thinks to subject theology to the rules of philosophy. And the Fathers appear to me strictly to have reproved this abuse in the antient heretics, and sometimes to have declaimed severely, on that account, against true philosophy and philosophers. Nothing is more frequent in Tertullian: A philosopher is the creature of boasting. They affect truth, and in affecting it they mar it. Every heresy is engendered by the devices of philosophers. All heresies consist of the maxims of philosophers. All the dogmas of heretics, when they grow frigid and stiff, and therefore cannot take wing, find a place of settlement and repose among the thorns of Aristotle. Nor is Lactantius more mild towards them; for in Institut. lib. 3. cap. 2, and in many subsequent places, he continually attacks philosophy and philosophers. But, as I have said, these respect not true and sober philosophy, keeping within its bounds; but that bold and deceitful counterfeit, which dares to mingle itself with things beyond its reach, or which publishes the opinions of private men for the decrees of truth itself. You perceive the abuse; now let us shew the use of true philosophy: And this is manifold.

1. The knowledge of philosophy is useful, nay, necessary to the clear understanding and perspicuous elucidation of many passages which every where occur in the sacred Scriptures. For although the principles of our Religion are derived from God, not from human reason, or any philosophical science; yet many forms of speaking occur in the books of holy Scripture, many examples and illustrations, which cannot fully be understood and stated with perspicuity, without the aids of human literature. Of this kind are those passages which speak of the inotion, the influences, the obscuration of the heavenly bodies, which, to be understood rightly, require the knowledge of astronomy. Of this kind also are those which allude to the properties of certain animals, as of the wolf, sheep, lions, bears, doves, and eagles; all which need the light of natural philosophy. To this also may be referred those which relate to the nature and temperature of countries ; as when forms of speech are derived from heat or drought, when from shade, or water, or cooling winds, and are often applied to illustrate spiritual things: for these are not rightly explained unless by him who shall have well investigated and examined the nature of those places; but this he shall not be able to do without the knowledge of geography. Lest our discourse should become too diffuse by an enumeration of particulars, we may truly say, there is no part of philosophy, or of human learning, which may not at times, be called in to his aid, by the interpreter of sacred literature, in order to contribute what falls within its province. This, therefore, is the first use of philosophy.

2. Philosophy, especially that which teaches the rules and the art of reasoning rightly, is particularly necessary, and to be employed by all, in discriminating between, and treating all controversies relating to religion. For although reason receives the principles of religion by the light of faith, yet this light, proceeding first from these principles, according to the laws of good and necessary consequence impressed by God himself upon a rational creature, is both wont, and ought to judge, how the parts of heavenly doctrine cohere together and mutually establish each other; what is consistent, what inconsistent with them. Our faith ascends above reason; but yet not rashly or irrationally. For reason herself is aware that the object of our faith is deduced from the principles of sacred Scripture. For instance; I believe the resurrection of the dead. How? Because reason itself proves this doctrine to be delivered in the Holy Scriptures: for I should not believe it unless I understood it to be founded in the Scriptures. On the other hand; I do not believe purgatory. Why? Because reason can collect from no part of Scripture, according to the rules of good and sound logic, the truth of this doctrine. This use of reason and logic in sacred things, God is so far from condemning, that he requires it of all: nay, for this end he plants in human minds certain laws of judging, and of discerning truth from falsehood, certainty from uncertainty, consequential from inconsequential reasoning, that we may use this light of reason in all things, and especially in Divine matters. Ephes. v. 17, Be not unskilful, but understanding what the will of the Lord is: and iv. 14, That we should be no longer children, carried about with every wind of doctrine, &c.; and 1 Thess. v. 21, Prove all things, hold fast that which is good. This is commended in the Bereans, who, on hearing Paul preach, Searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so or not, Acts xvii. 11; But there cannot be this investigation and examination of doctrines, unless the judgment of men be employed, which determines of the truth of conclusions by its own principles, and of the truth of things, not by relying upon principles known to it without the word of God, but delivered in the sacred Scriptures, as was before said. Tertullian, De resurrect. carnis, has well spoken in regard to this opinion : Zt is the part indeed of common sense to be wise in the ° things of God, but for testimony of what is true, not in aid of what is false ; this is not contrary, but according to the Divine economy.

3. The knowledge of philosophy is necessary, as well for the instruction of those who have not yet enrolled themselves under Christ, as for resistance, if they should obstinately oppose our Religion. He who has been born and constantly educated in darkness, is not directly to be drawn into the clear light of the sun, lest it should happen that by so much light he should, be overpowered rather than enlightened : so they who have been educated from childhood in the darkness of Paganism, cannot immediately bear the light of the Gospel, but are first to be awakened by reasons drawn from natural light, to contemplate this light. So Paul acted with the Athenians, Acts xvii. 24. Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. 1, illustrates the reason of this by a happy similitude: As they who would address the people do this most commonly by a public crier, that the things which are said, may be heard by all; so when discourse is to be held with men ignorant of the Christian Religion, the opinions and expressions of nature itself, which may be perceived and understood by them, are to be employed.

But now as to what belongs to the conflict with philosophers speaking against Religion, who does not see that it is necessary to be armed with philosophy? For it is like a trench and rampart against their inroads; it is a sword wherewith to thrust them: which, although it renders the truth in no ways more powerful, yet it is very useful in this respect, that it repels sophistry, and weakens its force against it. The saying of Julian the Apostate is remarkable, We are caught by our own wings. He uttered this lament when he saw the Gentile philosophers and their errors overthrown and routed by Christians through the advantages of human learning and philosophy itself. And truly this was very honourable to the teachers of the Church, because the enemy were cut off by them in their own camps, and overcome by those weapons in which they were wont to delight and confide, as says Lactantius, lib. 3. cap. 1.

4. The use of philosophy and of literature is also valuable among Christians ; since men’s miuds are prepared and rendered more acute by these studies for the treatment and reception of a more sublime science; because we are able to adorn and enrich our dissertations on sacred things with the good sayings of philosophers. For the good sayings of philosophers, says Justin Mart. Apolog. 1, are the heritage of Christians. For I agree not with those who think that not only the remarks of philosophers, but of the most holy Fathers, should be altogether withheld from sacred discourses. Prosper, in Prefat. ad 2, lib. de vita contemplativa, seems to me to decide much better: Truth, says he, from what quarter soever it shines, is not to be ascribed to human wit, but to God; neither ought it to be believed to be the property of some, but of all, which is such and so great of itself, that it is not then great when the great shall have taught tt, but rather itself makes them great by whom it could have been taught or learned.

5. In the last place, I also add this ; that it may even be employed to the moderate and useful delight of the hearers, as a certain seasoning, as it were, drawn from polite literature. For, if the Divine benignity shall have eranted us bodily food, not only necessary to repel hunger, but sweet and pleasant to delight the taste; why should we not also account this same to be granted us in regard to spiritual food? especially since this delight hath usefulness joined with it. For it occasions those things which are pre-eminently the doctrines of faith to flow into the mind more easily and pleasantly. Hence says Clemens; The truth which is sought from the holy Scriptures is as necessary to life as bread; but that which is sought from other instruction, is but as sauces and sweetmeats. I would not by this be understood to approve the affected vanity of those who crowd their discourses with short sentences collected from all quarters, in the meanwhile being altogether unmindful of the Scriptures; but I wish to shew that philosophy, and, therefore, all polite literature, hath its place and use, even in sacred things, if employed with address.

After the tradition of men.] The Apostle has reduced all the impostures of false teachers to three kinds. The first was placed in the curious speculations of the conclusion» of philosophers concerning the worship and the will of God, drawn from the judgment of reason not from the revealed word: This philosophy, although it wears the appearance of secret and sublime wisdom, yet Paul condemned and exploded it as vain and deceitful. Now he censures a second sort of false doctrine, which he calls the t1adition of men. But he does not intend those curious and abstruse speculations which he has before glanced at under the name of philosophy (for those doctrines had a certain shadow of wisdom), but superstitious and foolish observances, founded in external things, which rested upon custom and antiquity alone, but were confirmed very much either by the pretended visions of impostors, or by the stratagems and power of demons themselves. Of this kind were those traditions of the Pharisees about trifling matters, as the washing of cups, and many other such like things; in which, however, they would have that great sanctity consisted. Of this kind were the rites and observances of the Geutiles in sacrifices, marriages, and funeral solemnities. Hither also appertained the observances and modes of averting of all presages, of hours, days, and of things of invention; all which abounded in the most vain and foolish traditions and rites. Lastly, it is proper to refer hither the ridiculous ceremonies and superstitious rites of the Papists, which they have transplanted from the Heathen themselves into the Christian Religion, by the acknowledgment of Gerson, part. 3, De direct. cor. The Church, says he, hath changed many rites of the Gentiles, not by the abolition of them, but directing the attentions of the faithful about things of this kind to a good end. Neither will it be beside the matter to give some examples of these superstitious traditions, and that upon the authority of this Romanist, lest we should seem to charge the Papists falsely. The worship of saints seems to abound with superstition: for instance, the offering such a gift to such a saint ; as a cock for boys, a hen for girls; the invoking one saint iu preference to others for the cure of some particular disease ; the thinking that in one church more than another, the virtue of some one saint will be found more powerful and more prompt. He labours much that he may free these rites from superstition. The same writer, in his book De erroribus circa artem magicam, says, Magicians charge us likewise, and weary themselves to draw us into the same case. Are not such things, say they, done or tolerated by the Church, in. certain pilgrimages, in the worship of images, in blessing of candles and water, in exorcisms? Is it not said daily, If any one should remain nine days in this church, If he should be sprinkled with that water, If he should devote himself to such an image, he shall be healed forthwith? These things he acknowledges to be practised by the Papists, and that under the pretence of Divine worship, and to be approved, or at least tolerated by their prelates. But it is worth while to hear how he endeavours to excuse this manifest superstition; They are endured, says he, because they cannot be utterly eradicated, and because the faith of the common people is regulated, and preserved by the faith of their superiors. But what is that regulated faith of their superiors concerning these things? Hear ye, This is the intention of the church, that such things be done, not as necessarily efficacious, or as though the chief hope were placed in such things, preferring them to their obligations to God; but that the piety of faith may be nourished and increased by these things. But we shall refer both these, and monastical observations also, and all external rites, which are obtruded upon God as parts of Divine worship, to those condemned traditions of men, upon the authority of Paul, and of Christ ; In vain they worship me teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, Matth.xv.9. For in the cause of Religion, that rule of Tertullian is ever to be retained, It ts not permitted us to follow any thing from our own humour, nay, not even to choose what any one shall have introduced of his fancy.

But here it may be asked, Whether it behoves us to reject and abolish all traditions and external rites adopted by men, as condemned by the Apostle, or not? ]

We answer, Nothing less: Forit behoves us to yield the . power of instituting rites, to be observed for the sake of good order and decorum, to the rulers of the Church, upon the authority of the Apostle himself, Let all things be done decently and in order, 1 Cor. xiv. 40. And elsewhere, Obey them that have the rule over you. Concerning rites or traditions of this kind, the rule of Augustine is to be commended; Jn these matters there is no better. discipline for a grave and prudent Christian, than to demean himself after that manner in which he sees the church, whatever church it be to which he has conformed himself, deme.n herself. For whatever is enjoined that does not violate faith nor morals, is to be accounted as indifferent. Epist. 118. ad Januar. cap. 2. To this may be referred ecclesiastical laws respecting the time of fasts and festivals, the difference of garments, and, in fine, the whole external order which is observed in performing sacred offices. Whoever rejects rites and traditions of men of this kind, when they do not oppose the word of God, is a disturber of public order, and a despiser of the power ordained of God. But here it is fit to add certain cautions.

1. That men should not prescribe any rites or external works with the design of obtaining by them righteousness, the remission of sins, or acceptance with God without a Mediator: for, as to what pertains to all these matters, Christ is sufficient, nor does he require any additions of human invention. Traditions of this kind (and such are almost all those of the Papists) are overthrown by that denunciation of the Apostle, Gal. v. 4, Whosoever of you are justified by the law ye are fallen from Christ. How much more are they fallen from Christ, who seek justification and salvation in human commands? Prosper hath well decided concerning these observances : Fastings, abstinences, vigils, almsdeeds, and other things of this kind, are not to be offered for righteousness, but with righteousness to God, De vita contempi, lib. 3. cap. 10.

2. We should take care that these traditions concerning things indifferent in their nature, should not be so enjoined as to bind the conscience equally with the laws of God; i. e. so that this guilt of condemnation should be incurred by any violation of them, although that should happen without contempt of those who enforce them, or scandal to any. Wisely and truly says Gerson, part. 3, They abuse their power who wish that all their ordinances should have their validity under the sanction of eternal punishment. And part. 1, in conclus. Matth. Grabb. That every one who does any thing contrary to the canonical injunctions sins mortally, is in error.

3. We should take care lest traditions concerning things indifferent should be so multiplied as thereby to impose a servile yoke upon Christians, and bring them again, as it were, under a Jewish bondage. For this the Apostles themselves carefully avoided, Acts xv. 10, Why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? Augustine, Epist. 119, says, this exuberant abundance of ceremonies is to be retrenched, because they load Religion with servile burdens. And reason necessarily requires that. For this superfluous occupation about human traditions always begets ignorance and contempt of the Divine precepts, Matth. xv. 6. It might be proper here, therefore, to discuss this sink of Papistical traditions; but I had rather ye should hear an inquiry concerning this matter from some one among themselves than from me. Gerson, part. 1, De nuptiis Christi et Eccl. asks, What means such a multitude of constitutions whilst the Gospel is neither known nor regarded? Let the Gospel be in the first place known and maintained. And, De vita spirit. coral. 14. part. 3, Such is the multitude of this kind of constitutions, that af they were kept in their rigour, the greatest part of the Church would be damned.

And thus ye have what the Apostle would understand under the name of traditions; how far they may be approved, how far rejected. Now let us proceed to the third kind of false doctrine which is here reproved by the Apostle.

After the rudiments of the world.] This is that last species of imposture, or of false doctrine of which the Apostle advises us to beware. Some refer these words to that idolatrous worship of the sun, the moon, the sea, the earth, fountains, and floods, which the Gentile philoso- ° phers taught. For they divided the power of the one God into the particular virtues of the elements and creatures; and assigned a certain portion of the Divinity to each of these, and, consequently, a part of the Divine worship. Therefore, both Augustine, in Epist ad Galat, and some from among modern interpreters, think the doctrine of the worship of creatures to be glanced at in this passage. But I rather embrace the interpretation of those who understand by the rudiments of the world, those introductory lessons by which God instructed the Jewish church; namely, the Mosaic rites, the legal ceremonies, and the shadows of Christ to come: for the Divine wisdom was pleased to imbue the infancy of his Church with these, as with certain first principles of Religion, and to prepare it to receive Christ, and the perfection of the doctrine of the Gospel, when it should arrive at full age. I come over to this opinion the more willingly because Paul himself, Gal. iv. 3, by elements of the world designs that ceremonial worship which was in force under the old Testament, Even we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. And in verse 9, How turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, &c. But Paul contends in this Chapter and the following, with those who attempted to bring circumcision and the other Mosaic rites into the Church, and to mix them with the doctrine of the Gospel. This, therefore, the Apostle says, that they are to be avoided as impostors who, though the ceremonies enjoined by God himself under the Old Testament are now abrogated by the coming of Christ and the Gospel, would, nevertheless, force them upon Christians. For the old law had a shadow of good things to come, not the express image of the things, Heb. x. 1. In this text, therefore, we may see an intimation of the doctrine of the abolition of ceremonies.

The Schoolmen are accustomed to adduce a threefold cause why it is proper that the legal ceremonies should cease after the coming of Christ; because they were obscure as to their signification, imperfect as to their efficacy, and burdensome as to their observance: for in all these points they opposed the grace of the Gospel. But this reason seems to me most valid, That the legal ceremonies had a certain profession of faith annexed respecting the Messiah who was to come, and expiate the sin of the human race. As therefore, he would sin greatly who should declare his belief that Christ is to come and to suffer, by professing it in words ; so he sins who does it by his deeds, i.e. who by those legal observances professes the same. This Augustine shews in his treatise contra Faustum, lib. 19. cap. 16,¹⁷ Christ is not now promised to be born, to suffer, to rise again ; which the sacraments of the old law typified : but he is announced as born, as having suffered, and risen again ; which these sacraments that are observed by Christians now typify. Therefore the practice of the Jewish ceremonies now would be a profession of a false faith.

But it is objected, that the Apostles after the passion of Christ observed, and directed to be observed, some legal institutions. Paul circumcised Timothy, Acts xvi. 9. By the decree of the Apostles it was ordained that the Gentiles should abstain from blood, and from things strangled, Acts xv. 29, and this abstinence related to the observance of a ceremonial law. By what right, therefore, are they who lay upon Christians the rudiments of the world, i. e. the ceremonial law, accounted as impostors ?

We have one sufficient answer to both objections. As to what pertains to the observance of ceremonies, it is proper to distinguish with Augustine, Epist. 19, ad Hieron. three periods. One was before the passion. of Christ, in which the legal ceremonies were alive: the other, after his passion, but before the full developement of the Gospel, in which they were dead: the third, after that the truth of the Gospel shone clearly, in which they were dead and buried. We say, therefore, that Paul circumcised Timothy, and the Apostles put forth that decree in the intermediate time in which the legal institutions were not buried. But it is meet to add two other points: First, that the Apostles in this intermediate time observed and retained these legal cere- : monies, not, however, as parts of the Divine worship, not as figures of spiritual things; (for as to faith and conscience, they were abrogated by the passion of Christ) but only in a manner for public utility, and for the sake of avoiding offence, they observed those, as any other ceremonies whatever, left at the discretion of the godly. For $0 we see Timothy was circumcised by Paul, because he thought it of advantage to the Church ; Titus was not circumcised, because he judged it not expedient. Timothy received circumcision, therefore, not as a necessary Sacrament (as Isaac, Jacob, and others had aforetime) but as an indifferent ceremony. The same was the case with the Apostolical decree about abstaining from blood and things strangled ; which was not imposed upon Christians as a certain matter established by the Divine law, but as suited to those times, namely, that the Jewish and Gentile churches might coalesce more easily with each other. But it is proper to add that other point also, That the case was not the same with all the legal ceremonies. For whereas they are divided by the ancient Schoolmen into sacrifices, sacraments, sacred things, and observances; it was not lawful after the passion of Christ to call in the aid of sacrifices for propitiating God, nor sacraments for spiritual sanctification, nor those legal rites for the worship of God without a Mediator; but it was lawful for a time (especially to Jews embracing the Christian religion) that they should retain certain of these observances for this end, lest they should give offence to their weak brethren, Acts xxi. 26. Now then from these things which have been stated, we may collect the difference between the Apostle’s retaining certain legal institutions, and seducers urging the Mosaic law. The Apostle did that from respect to the weak before the Gospel was fully published; the seducers urged it to be done for a continuance: The Apostles allowed certain things to be observed with freedom of conscience, for the sake of charity, and of avoiding offence; the seducers recalled the whole Mosaic law, and that as necessary to justification and salvation. Thus much may suffice respecting these three forms of impostures ; viz. philosophical speculations, human traditions, and legal rudiments.

A)id not after Christ.) In these last words is contained the general reason why the three aforementioned doctrines of the seducers are to be avoided and rejected ; viz. because neither those curious speculations, nor those superstitious traditions, nor those abrogated ceremonies, are after Christ. -

1. All these things are denied to be after Christ, because they are not after the doctrine made known by Christ himself, and his Apostles by the inspiration of the Spirit of Christ.

Where we must observe, that this is the strongest of all ways of concluding that this is not after Christ, i. e. not made known in the Gospel of Christ, therefore not to be admitted in the business of our justification and salvation. Thus the Apostle exploded the doctrines of seducers ; thus we explode the traditions of Papists, which they urge as necessary to salvation.

2. These things are denied to be after Christ, not only because they did not proceed from him, but because they lead Christians off from him. And they lead them off in two modes :

1. Byexercising and detaining the mind elsewhere. For through its innate curiosity, the human mind more readily engages in these new and strange doctrines than in Evangelical simplicity, especially when they are obtruded under the pretext of Religion. He, therefore, who shall have brought his mind to these new doctrines, begins forthwith to grow weary of the Gospel; according to that saying of the Apostle, 1 Cor. i. 23, We preach Christ crucified, to the Greeks foolishness.

2. They also lead it off by offering a hope of salvation in other things. For because it is much more easy to perform some external works than to believe truly in Christ, and as soon as a hope is afforded of obtaining justification, the remission of sins, and eternal salvation in these works of human tradition, Christ is forthwith forsaken, and the greater part agree to run to these external aids. This is too clearly perceived in the papacy, where almost all hasten to saints, to indulgences, to expiatory masses, to personal satisfactions, whilst there are few who flee to sincere penitence and faith, 1. e. to God in Christ ; for these traditions, which are not after Christ, have led almost all from Christ.

Verse 9.

In a foregoing verse you have understood the state of the controversy, namely this,—The doctrine of Christ made known in the Gospel is sufficient for salvation; neither is it needful to join thereto either the maxims of philosophers, or the inventions of any men whatever, or even the Jewish ceremonies (formerly enjoined by God himself). Paul undertook to demonstrate this against the false apostles ; and he proves it by several arguments.

The first is drawn from the perfection which is in Christ, and, by consequence, in his doctrine. Now thus the case stands: Additions are needed to supply some defect or imperfection; but He in whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, is not an imperfect Mediator, Saviour, or Teacher of the Church; therefore, in the business or doctrine of salvation we ought not to join any thing to Christ or his doctrine. As though he had said, Perfect Deity dwells in Christ our Saviour and Teacher, with all Divine attributes, wisdom, power, mercy, &c.: what need is there, then, to seek other means or helps to salvation out of Him? Will Philosophers instruct thee better than Wisdom itself? Will Angels lead thee sooner to God than Mercy itself? Will those ceremonies and legal shadows justify thee better than Christ himself, the scope and fulfilment of those ceremonies? Rest thyself in him alone, therefore, in whom alone dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

But the better to understand the force of this argument and also the signification of those words, because the reason is drawn from the indwelling Divinity, let us consider these three things; the dwelling, In him; the inhabitant, all the fulness of the Godhead ; the mode of inhabiting, bodily.

In him dwelt.] That is, in the man Christ, or in that human nature in which he undertook and administered the business of our salvation: In that human nature, I say, so mean and despicable in the eyes of unbelieving men, all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt and perpetually dwells ; Phil. ii. 6, 7. The Apostle employs this metaphorical term indwelling, to shew that the Deity abode in the man Christ, not separately, but as in a fixed and proper residence. We must beware, therefore, not to push this metaphor beyond the design of the Apostle: For that rule of the Schoolmen is true, In metaphorical statements it is not proper to take the similitude in all points.

But here it is worth while to enquire why God himself chose to himself this dwelling of human nature, when he would promulgate the doctrine of the Gospel and procure our salvation? As to the preaching of the doctrine of salvation, it behoved that not a mere man, but God inhabiting human nature, should promulge the Gospel ;

1. Because the Gospel could not be carried on without the abrogation of the Mosaic law and the Levitical priesthood: But it was not equitable for this to be abrogated except by him who was far superior to Moses; viz. by the ° Son of God, not by any fellow-servant of Moses himself. This is demonstrated in the third Chapter to the Hebrews, where a comparison is made between Moses and Christ. Moses is said to be a servant in the house of God; Christ, a Son and constituted Lord over the house of God. It is not therefore wonderful if Moses yield to Christ, and the law to the Gospel; since in Christ dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead.

2. It was requisite for the Gospel to enter as an eternal doctrine, never to be changed; but it mostly conduces to this, when we understand that it was promulgated by the eternal God himself. For if Deity itself had not dwelt in Christ in some special manner, what should hinder, but that as the Mosaic law gave way to the Gospel, so the Gospel should give way to some other third doctrine? But when it appears that Christ was the Author of the Gospel, and that he assumed human nature to make known this doctrine to men, no one may dare to think of its abrogation.

3. The Gospel is to be received by all the faithful, not only as perpetual doctrine, but as certain, as perfect, as saving; but as soon as it is known that in him who brought the Gospel into the world the Godhead dwelt in that mode in which it is here asserted, it is immediately understood that in the doctrine of such a person, certainty, perfection, and salvation are found. For they who receive the rule of faith directly from truth itself, can in no wise be deceived. Well said Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. 6, Men, speaking as men about God and divine things, are not worthy of credit ; but the voice of the Lord is more worthy of credit than any demonstration. Neither can the doctrine fall under the suspicion of imperfection, which He, all whose works are perfect, would not divulge by his Ministers, but by himself. Lastly, that must necessarily be saving, which He taught who is the only way to salvation.

It was fit that the doctrine of salvation (as you see) should be promulgated not by a mere man, but by God dwelling in human nature. We will now also shew that the very work of our salvation required this indwelling of God in our nature.

J. Because human nature being severed from God, and alienated from the life and communion of God through sin, is most suitably restored to the communion of God, and most firmly preserved in the same, by this mode. The Fathers commonly assign this reason. Jreneus, lib. 4. cap. 59, says, How can the Ebionites be saved, if he be not God who wrought out their salvation upon earth? and how shall man pass over unto God, if God pass not over unto man ?* Athanasius, Orat. 8, says, Unless Christ be the real Son of God, man is not firmly united to God: For what a mere man hath received may be lost, as was the case with Adam. Therefore, that grace and the gift might remain firm, God assumed our nature; that thereby all spiritual good might be delivered to us in firm possession. Cyril, De Incarn. Verbi, cap. 1, says, The Word was made man, that in him, and in him alone, the nature of man being crowned with the endowments of innocence, might be enriched with the Holy Spirit, not to depart now, as was the case with Adam, but to remain therein.¹⁸

2. God chose to dwell in our nature, that thereby we might be sure that all his merits pertained to us as brethren and co-heirs. So says Athanasius; The Son of God took our nature upon him, that henceforth we, being constituted of earth only, should not come to the earth; but being joined to heaven by the Word, should be conducted to heaven by him. Fulgentius observes, God hath saved that in us which he assumed for us; and made that nature a partaker of salvation, which he joined to his own; ad Thrasimund, lib. 1.¹⁹²⁰

3. It behoved the Divine nature to be joined with the human, that men might have access to God with confidence, and that Divine grace might have a channel by which it should be derived to men. For since God assumed a nature allied to, and consubstantial with us, we can approach him with boldness; For no man hateth his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, Ephes. v. 29. We can also draw grace from this our mystical Head, as the members of the natural body receive sense and motion from the natural head.

All the fulness of the Godhead.] That is, not some portion of the Divinity, which the Gentiles had an erroneous persuasion of concerning their false gods; neither excellent endowments of Divine grace and munificence only, which are common to angels, and prophets, and other holy men: but the Léyos itself—true and perfect God, with all his Divine attributes, namely, infinite wisdom, power, goodness, dwells in this human nature of Christ. And the Apostle seems to allude to the ark of the covenant: for God promised that he would dwell there, hear them from thence, and be propitious to them: and, furthermore, the Apostle intimates, that the ark and the propitiatory, or mercy-seat, were types of Christ, and that the Deity dwelt in a much more excellent way in his human nature, than he did formerly in the tabernacle, concerning which it is written, Exod. xxix. 44, 45, I will sanctify the tabernacle of the testimony, and I will dwell among the children of Israel, &c. As, therefore, the Jews, who had an appointed place whence God uttered his oracles, and made known his will, could not, without sin, enquire elsewhere about things pertaining to God; so we, who have the fulness: of the Godhead dwelling in the body of Christ, cannot seek either the will of God or our salvation elsewhere, without the greatest folly and impiety.

Hence we learn,

1. As often as seducers endeavour to lead us away from the Gospel and from Christ, to their traditions and inventions, we must seriously reflect what kind of Saviour and Teacher Christ Jesus was; viz. one in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead ; and it is the height of madness to require new teachers after him.

2. Whoever, therefore, wanders out of Christ, or mixes any other thing with his doctrine as necessary to salvation, he accuses Christ of imperfection, and denies the fact that all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in him.

3. This we observe in the Turks and Jews, who are not content with the Gospel doctrine, because they do not believe that all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in him who proclaimed the Gospel. As to Papists, who, being fascinated with novel and marvellous error, acknowledge that all the fulness of the Godhead is in Christ, yet deny that all the fulness of salvation is contained in his doctrine, I know not what to say.

Before we proceed to the mode of this indwelling, let us briefly resolve a doubt which may arise in the mind of some, from the Apostle’s words. For when he asserts that all the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Christ, he seems to say that the entire essence of the Deity assumed to itself this habitation of the flesh of Christ, and, therefore, that not only the Son, i. e. the second person in the Trinity, but the Father also, and the Spirit, were incarnate. ,

The Samosatenians,²¹ who deny a Trinity of persons, think that they can drive us to this difficulty, viz. that if we affirm a Trinity, we shall be also compelled to admit that the three Persons were incarnate, because the fulness of the Godhead, i. e. the entire and perfect Divine essence, dwelt in Christ incarnate.

I answer, that the whole Divine nature was incarnate, not because it is incarnate in all the Persons, but because none of the perfection of the Divine nature is wanting to the Person of the Son. For since the Divine nature, or essence, is spiritual, it can neither be supposed nor allowed to have parts ; but wherever the Divine nature is found, there it is found entire and perfect. The whole Divine nature, therefore, was incarnate, but not as considered absolutely and in itself common to all the Persons, but as it is considered in its personal properties, or mode of being, limited in the person of the Son. God entire, is one person, says Luther, tom. 2.

But against this, that saying of Augustine, in Enchir. cap. 38, is urged ; The works of the Trinity are indivisible: therefore, if the second person assumed and adapted the human nature to himself for a dwelling, then both the Father and the Holy Spirit did the same, and, by consequence, not the Son alone, but the three persons are incarnate.

I answer, to assume flesh imports two things: the act itself, or the uniting of this flesh; and the end of this act, viz. the person to whom this flesh is united and adapted. As regards the act, it is common to the three persons ; for the Father and the Holy Spirit jointly effected the incarnation of Christ. But as regards the end, it is peculiar to the Son alone. As, for instance, if a father gives a wife to his son, but the son himself marries her, both are rightly said to have contracted the marriage ; yet with this difference, that the father married the bride to the son, and the son married her to himself; so, in the incarnation of Christ, both effected this conjunction of the human nature with the Divine; but yet so, that God the Father joined this flesh to his Son, the Son took it to himself. As, therefore, in the former example, not the father, but the son is said to be married, although the will and the action of both concurred in choosing and taking that wife: so in this latter, not the Father, but the Son only is said to be incarnate, although both concurred in creating and uniting this body. And what is affirmed respecting the Father, must also be understood of the Holy Spirit. It would be easy to shew this from the Scriptures. For the Word alone is said to be made flesh, i. e. to be incarnate, John i. Yet the work of incarnation is ascribed to the whole Trinity: to the Father, who is said to have prepared this his salvation, Luke ii. 31, and Heb. x. 5: to the Son himself, who is said to have taken the seed of Abraham, Heb. ii. 16: and, lastly, to the Holy Spirit, who in the conception of Christ, is said to have overshadowed the Virgin, Lukei.35. Thus far concerning the dwelling, viz. the human nature of Christ; and the inhabitant, viz. the Loyos, or the Son of God : Now let us enquire about the mode of inhabiting.

Bodily, copatinés.] Because God is said to be present with his creatures in many ways, the Apostle shews that he dwelt in the human nature of Christ in a certain special manner. For God, by his universal presence, is at hand with all things, so as to preserve and uphold them ; he is, moreover, present with the saints and faithful by the special efficacy of his Spirit, so as to sanctify and enrich them with the endowments of his grace: but God is not only present in these ways with the human nature of Christ, the ] fulness of the Godhead besides, i. e. the Léyos, the full, true, and perfect God, dwelt in it bodily ; not that the spiritual and incorporeal nature of the Word is changed (for that is immutable), but that the manner of existing was new, although the nature of the Word existing remained the same. By bodily, therefore, we ought to understand personally ; i. e. not by efficacy or assistance alone, but by hypostatical union: so that the Loyos inhabiting or assuming, and the nature inhabited or assumed, should be one person, or one vgistapevov, one substance. Whence it happens that the Word is declared incarnate; and that man is not a mere man, sanctified and upheld by the Divine Spirit, but the God-man. This Augustine briefly and perspicuously explains in these words, God took the temporal substance of the Jlesh into the Eternal person of the Divinity. What is he took it in person, but that he united it personally to himself, so that what is assumed becomes one with the person assuming? In this place, then, to dwell bodily, is nothing else than to join to himself persoually.

Neither should it seem a strange interpretation, when we explain this word cauarixós, vmostatinis, bodily, personally : for as the Hebrews put souls for persons (Gen. xiv. 21, Give me the souls, and take the goods to thyself; Acts vii. 14, Jacob with three score and fifteen souls went down into Egypt. And Ezek. xviii. 20, The soul which sinneth it shall die; i. e. the person) so, among the Greeks, caua signifies person. Thucydides, lib. 1, says, many poor persons are more ready THMATIYN Xpnuaos “TOME IY, 1. €. to £0 to war in their own persons, (as they say) than to contribute money for the war. So Demosthenes said, caudró v xai xpnudtwv marnbos, abundance of bodies, i. e. of men, or persons, was on the side of the Athenians, when he wished to excite them to war. And so this word is used in the well-known epigram,

Xuopuara TAM, TpéQtw, xai Samara worn’ dveyeipev, Kc. to nourish many bodies, and raise up many houses, &c.

The Apostle, therefore, when he says that the Godhead dwells in Christ bodily, means, that the eternal Son of God united the human nature to himself, so that the person of the Word, which subsisted in the Divine nature alone, now also subsists in the human nature, and imparts personality to it, which the human nature possessed not ia itself. There are not, therefore, two persons in Christ, one of man, and the other of the Son of God ; but the Divine nature is so united to the human, that it subsists in it CUJMATIKO 6, 1. C. CETApHü [AE V0G nal Umostatines, incarnate and personally. Hence the sacred Scriptures call the Son of Mary the Son of the Highest, Luke i. 32; and it is affirmed, verse 35, that Holy thing which was born of Mary, was the Son of God. On account of this personal union, the Branch of David is called Jehovah, Jerem. xxiii. 5,6; and the blessed God, Rom.ix. 5. Hence Hugo de St. Victor, Erud. theol. de Verb. incarn. collat. 2, says, The Son of God did not take the person man, but took man into the person. The personal Word assumed man ; not a person, but the nature. It is said he assumed man, because a human soul and body were assumed. It is not said that he assumed the person of man (or a human person), because that soul and body which he assumed, were not previously united together personally, but they derive their personality from the Word dwelling bodily’in that human nature.

And this may suffice as to the mode of this hypostatical union ; for the human mind is not able to fathom the whole depth of this mystery. If any doubt remain, Apply faith, as Justin Martyr speaks, which will render the solution easy. Piously and modestly does Chrysostom remark on this matter: I know that the Word was made flesh, but how he was made so I know not. Do you wonder because I know it not? Every creature is ignorant of it. We are not, however, so entirely ignorant of the mode, but that we can, out of the Scripture, stop the mouths of heretics who deny it. Let us, therefore, briefly solve the objections which they are wont to allege against this personal union. And those objections are advanced either as to the Divine, or as to the human nature.

1. As to the Divine nature they object: The Son of God or the person of the Loyos, was a perfect substance from all eternity : but nothing can be added to a perfect substance ; therefore the human nature was not taken into personal union with the Word.

We answer, Nothing can be added to the constitution of the essence of a perfect substance ; as to communion with its complete essence somewhat may be added. For although the hypostasis of the Word was perfect by reason of his nature, yet for the perfection of the end, which is to redeem the Church, there could, nay there must be something added to this perfect substance, namely, the human nature, in which the Son of God by his blood might purchase the Church to himself. But here we must beware not to think that the human nature is so added to the Divine hypostasis, as to be an equal part of it, by a mutual union constituting this hypostasis, but that it is evyrostatov, i. e. subsisting in the person, not as an equal part, but as a» instrument pertaining to the unity of the hypostasis, as Damascenus expresses it; oras a thing subsisting in its principal. And from this it appears how we should receive what is contended for by the Schoolmen, viz. that the hypostasis, or person of Christ was compounded after the incarnation. For this is asserted by them, not with respect to parts, as though the person of the Word were compounded of the human nature and the Divine, as of parts; but with respect to number, because that now subsists in two natures, which, before the incarnation, subsisted solely in the Divine. Thus Aquinas 3. part. qu. 2. art. 4, says, The person of Christ is considered either according to what it is in itself, and so it is simple ; or according to the natures in which it subsists, and so it is said to be compound, inasmuch as that simple person. subsists in two natures. Thus much as to the first objection.

2. It is objected, that to become incarnate, or to take to itself human nature, is to be changed: but the eternal Deity cannot be the subject of any change: therefore he could not become incarnate, and, therefore, he does not dwell bodily in the human nature of Christ.

We answer, That to be incarnate, as also to become man, occurred to the Word not by transmutation, but by union ; which is a species of relation: but what is predicated anew of any subject relatively, does not, therefore, presuppose a change of the thing to which it is ascribed, but of the other which it connects with it. For instance; God, who was not a Creator from all eternity, became a Creator in time; but yet this new appellation does not imply a change in God, but in the creature, which is brought into being by God from nothing: So the Son of God, who was not man, neither incarnate from all eternity, is made man, and becomes incarnate; yet is not changed in himself, because a change takes place in the human nature which is assumed, and not in the Divine which assumes. The Son of God was not man, or incarnate, when he did not impart personality to the human nature; he is pronounced man, and incarnate, when he did impart personality to that nature ; but this he did, not by changing his Divine nature, but by uniting this human nature to himself. To be made man, imports absolutely a real change in the subject acquiring human nature, as when man is made from the earth or seed ; because here the subject which is made man loses its former nature: but when the person of the Son of God is incarnate and made man, that is not understood to be done by transmutation, but (if it may be permitted to frame a word) by a new personation of human nature. And thus the Word was made flesh substantially, not by conjunction, yet without a change of his nature; by creating and uniting the human nature to himself, not by changing the Divine nature.

With respect to the human nature, it is objected,

1. If the human nature of Christ subsists in the person of the Loyos, not in its own proper personality, then the man Christ will be more imperfect than all other men: because all others have human personality, and are subjects existing in that nature; Christ alone, in as far as he is man, hath not this personality, but subsists in the Divine person of the Logos by the hypostatic union.

I answer; Proper personality is not wanting to the human nature, on account of the defect of any thing which is required to its perfection, but on account of the addition of something which far excels its nature, viz. its union to a Divine person. Christ, therefore, is not more imperfect, but more eminent than other men ; because our human na- ture subsists in us in its proper personality, but it subsists in Christ in that which is Divine; and it is much more noble and honourable to subsist in God by hypostatic union than to subsist by itself. For if we say the sensitive part is more noble in man than in a brute, because it is joined to a more noble form, although in a brute the form is complete, and in man it is not, but is joined to what is complete: then, by parity of reason, the human nature is more worthy and more excellent in Christ, on account of its union with the Divinity, than in us, although in us it subsists in proper personality, in Christ otherwise.

2. It is objected, If the human nature of Christ subsists in the person of the Logos, then he hath two personalities: for since a person is an individual substance of arational nature (according to the definition of Boethius) and Christ, in as far as he is man, is a single rational being ; it follows that there are two persons in Christ ; and so we fall again into the Nestorian heresy.

I answer; For personality more is required than to be constituted an individual or single being: for a person supposes not only a singular and rational substance, but, moreover, one existing by itself, and not joined to another more worthy. We, therefore, admit that the human nature of Christ, or Christ as far as he is man, is an individual or singular; but we deny that he is a person. And the reason is obvious; because in the moment in which the soul of Christ was created, and his flesh conceived, in that same moment they were united to the Divinity. If they had existed apart from the Logos, they would have had their own personality: but because they began to exist together, and to be united to the Word at the same time, there was a necessity that this human nature should draw its personality from the Word. For any thing is called a person from what it hath of the greatest excellence: Since, therefore, the Divinity is incomparably more excellent than the humanity, the human nature deservedly takes its personality from thence.²²

3. It is objected; If the human nature of Christ be hypostatically united to the Divine, then each is united with the other entirely ; because it is without parts : but if this be granted it follows, that wherever the Divine nature is, there is also the human ; and so we pass into the camp of the Ubiquitarians,

We answer; the consequence is denied; because it is a personal union with the properties of both natures preserved. Since, therefore, it is a property of the human nature to be circumscribed by certain limits ; it loses not this property by virtue of this union to the infinite nature. For as the natures united are not analogous, they are not made so by the personal union; since the union only joins together, but does not change the natures. Since, therefore, the finite nature and the infinite are not analogous, the Divine is not circumscribed by this personal union, nor the human extended to the infinite. We, therefore, confess, that the human nature is inseparably and indivisibly united to the Divine, and that the Divine is in no place separated from the human: not that the humanity is in all places where the Divinity is, by local position ; but that by a real and hypostatical union it is joined to the Divinity wherever . existing. The union, or conjunction, is circumscribed by no distance of place, because it consists in this, that the Deity sustains the humanity as its own and peculiar proand perfect Christ ; and both natures, of which he consists, remain in their properties unchangeable.” —W e may well unite, in the words of Bower, who gives us this Specimen of the Theology of the early part of the Church, in his life of Gelasius, “ He must be quite blind, who does not see that the whole strength of the Pope’s argument rests upon this, That the bread and wine in the Eucharist retain the nature and substance of the bread and wine, notwithstanding their sacramental union with the body and blood of Christ. This he does not prove, but supposes as a truth, not questioned either by the Exutychians or the Catholics, and from thence argues the human nature in Christ, to retain, in the same manner, its own substance, though united with the Divinity. Should we suppose the bread and wine in the Eucharist to be changed into the body and blood of Christ, this argument had been of no force against the Kutychians, but might have been by them unanswerably retorted against the Catholics.” See also ‘The History of Transubstantiation by Bishop Cosins, 1657, in which Treatise the above passage from Gelasius is adduced in Cap. 5. ais fact has given much exercise to the Jesuitic screw of Roman criticism. perty, and yields subsistence to it; and thus the Word, omnipresent in heaven, earth, and every where, sustains the humanity existing in the heavens alone: But the actual position of the body of Christ is included in certain space, because the nature of a body requires it. Some illustrate this by the example of the Sun and the solar Sphere. For as the Sun is inseparably united to its orb, yet the property of the sphere, to be in East and West at the same time, does not accord to the globe of the sun ; so the humanity is inseparably united to the Divinity, but will not be, on that account, wherever the Divinity is. But some perhaps may say, that the sun is not united to his orb as a whole, but as a part only ; but humanity is united to the entire Word. We acknowledge a dissimilarity of the similitude in this respect; but it tends more to confirm our opinion. For every spiritual nature, wherever it is, is a whole; because it is without parts, or indivisible, and its entireness is considered in the perfection of its essence, not in the extension of quantity. The Word, therefore, as far as it is a spiritual substance, is whole, and entirely in the human nature united to it, for it cannot be detached from it: and the same Word, as far as it is an infinite substance, is equally whole and entire without the human nature, for its immensity cannot be included in such narrow limits : But whether considered in the body united to itself, or out of the human nature of Christ, it no where exists disunited from the human nature, because every where it sustains it as its own.

Verse 10.

That we must adhere to Christ and his doctrine alone, is concluded in the foregoing verse from the infinite perfection of Christ; which neither requires nor admits any additions of philosophy, or traditions, or ceremonies. The Apostle now shews that same thing by two other arguments. P

The first is drawn from the effect; Ye are complete, or consummate, or perfect in him; i. e. Christ himself is not only perfect in himself, inasmuch as in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead ; but he brings it to pass that we are complete through him, namely, having all things in him, and his doctrine, which are necessary to our salvation: Therefore it is not needful to seek salvation apart from Christ and the Gospel. °

The second is taken from the office of Christ. Christ is the head, not only of men, but of angels also; by him, therefore, both men and angels have their perfection. Men ought not to seek or expect salvation from angels, but both should depend upon Christ, who is the head of both. Now let us examine these reasons separately.

And ye are complete in him.] Two things are here to be noticed: 1. What it is to be complete, or in what things our completeness, consummation, or perfection consist. 2. How this perfection may. be obtained or held by us; which the Apostle intimates when he says, in him.

As to the first; Yo be complete is nothing else than to be furnished with all things necessary to salvation: which we may severally refer to these three heads; l. perfect wisdom, or saving knowledge : 2. righteousness: 3. sanctification: possessing which things in this life, happiness and glory will follow in the life to come.

1. In Christ we have perfect wisdom; because by the right knowledge of him, according to the doctrine cf the Gospel, what is sufficient to salvation is known: This is life eternal, to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent, John xvii. 3. Hence the Apostle (1 Cor. ii. 2) desired /o know nothing but Christ and him crucified. For that which is full admits nothing beyond. Hence the mind filled with Evangelical knowledge, desires not any new knowledge in order to salvation; because this is consummate, full, and perfect doctrine. J admire the fulness of Scripture, says Tertullian, adversus Hermogenem. HEAR Him! J will hear thoroughly ; nor will I hear any one bes‘des Him, says Hilary, De Trinit. 6.²³

2. In Christ we have complete righteousness; because he has fully satisfied both the Divine law, and even God himself for our sins: according to that declaration of Isaiah (lui. 13) By the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities ; and of the Apostle, Rom. iil. 22, The righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ is unto all and upon all them that believe ; and Rom. x. 4, Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. In this respect, therefore, principally, we are complete, because being destitute of any righteousness of our own, Christ enriches and adorns us with his. Chrysostom, Horn. 17. in 10 ad Rom. observes, That if thou shalt believe in Christ, thou hast both fulfilled the law, and much more than the things which it had commanded ; forasmuch as thou hast truly received much greater righteousness. More briefly and explicitly says Bernard, Serm. ad milit. temp. 11, Death is put to flight by the death of Christ ; and the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us ; and Epist. 190, The righteousness of another is assigned to man, because he had none of his own. We have saving righteousness, therefore, in Christ.

3. In Christ we have sanctification, or indwelling righteousness. For what else is sanctification than a cleansing from sins and iniquities, whereby we were separated far from God; and a reception of gifts and graces, whereby we are brought nigh to him to serve him? Truly it is now manifest, that we are daily both cleansed from the pollution of our sins, and adorned and enriched with all the fulness of Divine gifts, so far as, being united to Christ, we are quickened by his Spirit; by whose efficacy the remains of the flesh are mortified, the image of holiness is restored, and our life is directed towards the attainment of happiness. Whence this Spirit is called the Spirit of holiness, Rom. i. 4. No one hath Christ, but he hath together with him, this Spirit of Christ; the Apostle affirming, If any one hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his, Rom. viii. 9. No one hath this Spirit but he is strengthened by his aid to serve God in good works, to resist the world and the lusts of the flesh. For as the needle, being touched by the magnet, turns itself to the arctic pole; so the human heart being touched and quickened by this Spirit of Christ, turns itself to God and the commands of God, and rests in them.

Ye now perceive how much the Apostle comprehends in saying that we are complete in Christ: for by this one word he shews that we have in Christ whatever is required for saving knowledge, justification, and sanctification: And by the same means he crushes all the errors of false Apostles: For if we have complete wisdom in Christ, there is no need of philosophical additions; if complete righteousness, there is no need of legal ceremonies ; if sanctification, there is as little need of angels for purifiers or enlighteners of our souls. Ye observe in what things this completeness consists ; let us enquire how it is obtained and held.

In him.] We are declared to be complete not from him, or by him only, but in him: that we may understand that we have that aforesaid wisdom, righteousness, and holiness, not as far as we look to Christ, as though he were distant from us; but as far as we are incorporated into Christ, as far as we have Christ dwelling and abiding in us. For although it is most certain, that all the fulness of the Godhead and of saving grace is in Christ, so that he is like a copious fountain whence abundance of living water flows, yet this is the difference between him, the spiritual fountain, and a natural one: There is no necessity that they who wish to drink of a fountain should enter the fountain itself; because, standing without that, they may draw from thence to quench their thirst: but it is not so with Christ, who is the fountain of grace and righteousness to us, for we cannot receive of his fulness unless we are in him. For, as the old Adam in us is the cause of corruption and death ; so this new Adam dwelling in us is the cause of righteousness and salvation. And it is the same whether we affirm that Christ dwells in us, or that we dwell in Christ; for these are united: John xv. 4, 5, Abide in me, and Tin you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine ; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. lam the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit. Whatever, therefore, men hope concerning grace, righteousness, and sanctification, for obtaining eternal life and glory, it will be found mere dreaming and delusion, if they are not in Christ, and Christ in them. And, indeed, Christ is in us, and we are in him, when, by the power of the Spirit, and of faith wrought in our hearts by the Spirit, we are united to this our Head, and are grafted in him as branches in the vine. Concerning the Spirit, the Apostle, Rom. viii. 9, declares, Jf any one have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Concerning faith, it is said, John iii, 36, He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; because life is in this Son, 1 John v. 11. Upon this Durandus well observes, lib. 4. qu. 8. (list. 1, No one can be justified unless through union with Christ ; but the first union with Christ is through the Spirit. And Cyprian, De cardin. oper. Christi ; By faith, not contact, we are joined to the Spouse.

Thus we have explained these two things : what it is to be complete ; and that no one is complete or perfected by Christ, but he who is in Christ. Let us deduce some instruction thence.

1. Since we have complete justification in Christ, it is plain they know not Christ, or at least treat him with contumely, who, not contented with him, seek higher righteousness and perfection in their own works and inventions. From this error flowed the superstition of the Monks, and presumption about the merit of works.

2. All the godly derive great consolation on account of their being complete in Christ: For when they regard themselves, they find that many corruptions still lie concealed within them; that in many things they daily fall and sin; but that, notwithstanding these things, they are acceptable to God, they are justified before God, because they are united to Christ by faith and the Spirit: There is l no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, Rom. viliv-].

3. The wicked and unbelieving are excluded from the benefits of Christ, because they are separated from Christ himself, inasmuch as they are void of the Spirit and of faith, without which no one is in Christ, and Christ abideth in no one. Ánd thus much for the first reason derived from the effect: I proceed to the other.

Which is the head of all principality and power.] This argument is drawn from the office of Christ, and his prerogative above all angels, whom the Apostle intends under the words principality and power, as in the 16th verse of the preceding Chapter. The false apostles threw out many things respecting these angelic principalities and powers : The Apostle, therefore, inculcates that Christ is not only the Head of the Church with respect to men, but of the angels also; and that men and angels are the fellow-servants of this our Lord Jesus Christ. Whether, therefore, we consider the angels in reference to Christ, or in reference to ourselves, from either consideration the doctrine of the false Apostles is overturned. For they taught, 1. That angels are to be worshipped; 2. That by them access to God is opened for us ; 3. That by them we derive spiritual blessings.

1. Now, that the angels are not to be worshipped, is evident from their relation to Christ: because worship is due to God alone; but the angels are not only inferior to God, but even to Christ as man, inasmuch as he is the Head and Lord of all angels. Hence, Heb. i. 6, it is said, When he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels worship him. Hence we perceive that the angels are nothing more than creatures, although lofty and noble; But the Catholic Church directs that God alone is to be worshipped ; it advises us that no creature is to be worship- A ped; says Augustin, De morib. Eccl. lib. 1. cap. 30.

2. Hence also it is inferred, that the angels are not mediators between God and the human race: For if Christ be ine Head of angels, then they cannot invade the office of Christ, nor make themselves equal to him in this respect. But there is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus: who is the Head, not the colleague of angels.

3. Whereas the angels are, under Christ the head, united to the rest of the Church, we readily understand that saving grace, and those excellent gifts of faith, of love, and the like, are not impressed upon human souls by the power of angels, but of Christ himself. For the more noble members do not impart a vital stream to the inferior ones; but the head emits sense and motion equally to these as to the other.

All these things will be equally evident, if we consider the relation of angels to ourselves. For they are our brethren, and fellow-servants ; they are members of one and the same Church; because the same Christ is the head both of men and angels.

1. If, then, they are our fellow-servants, and members of the Church together with us, they are not to be worshipped or adored by us, upon the confession of an angel himself; Rev. xxii. 8, 9, I fell down, says John, to worship before the feet of the angel: but he said unto me, See thou do it not for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren: Worship God. That saying of Augustine to this effect is well known; We honour them by love, not servitude, De vera relig. cap. 55. And that of Parisiensis, De legib. to the same purport; The angels are to be honoured, but with honour due to the servant, not the lord.

2. Whereas we and the angels are fellow-citizens, and members of the same body, it is inferred that angels are not mediators between us and God. For the whole Church is accepted of God on account of one and the same Mediator: but to attribute it to one member, that the rest are accepted on his account, is contrary to reason and the Scriptures. Whence says Augustine, Contr. Epist. Parm. lib. 2. cap. 8, that he alone is a Mediator for whom no one interposes, but he himself for all. And the Apostle, Rom. viii, 34, places the hope of our salvation in him, not because we have an angel our fellow-servant, but the Son of God seated at the right hand of the Father, an intercessor for us: Who is he that condemueth ? — It is Christ that died, yea, . rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

3. Since the angels are members of the same Church, it follows from this relation of angels to men, that faith, love, and holiness, are not gifts of the angels, but of Christ. For as in corporeal generation, one part does not form and frame another, but all are formed by one and the same power: so, in spiritual regeneration, as Albert properly observes, our mind, in the formation of grace is not fashioned by the angels, but by the Spirit of Christ.²⁴ But here two things may be objected against what is said respecting Christ as the head of angels, and men as fellow-servants with the angels.

1. If Christ be the head of the angels, and angels belong to the body of the Church, then he is also the Saviour of the angels; for he is the Saviour of the body, Ephes. v. 23: But the angels need not the benefit of a Saviour or Mediator; therefore it does not seem that Christ is the head of angels, as to this procuring of salvation and eternal happiness.

I answer ; the angels had no need of Christ as a Saviour to deliver them from sins committed, for they stood stedfast in obedience to God ; neither did they need the favour of a Mediator to snatch them from a state of wrath, for they never had God for their enemy: but they needed Christ the Saviour, they needed the favour of Christ the Mediator, that they might retain fixed their condition in righteousness, that they might have sure and inviolable peace with God, that they might be accounted worthy of the eternal and glorious fruition of God; which beatific vision of God surpasses the nature and desert of any creature. This Augustine intimates, De fide ad Petrum diac. cap. 23; This very thing, says he, that the holy angels can by no means be changed from that state of happiness in which they are fixed to a lower, is not naturally implanted in them: but after they were created, they were placed in it by the bounty of Divine grace. But grace is bestowed on no creature except through the Mediation of Christ, who is the channel of grace. Here seems to apply the Apostle in 1 Tim. v. 21, in calling the blessed angels the elect angels. But election, whether of men or angels, shews that the salvation of those who are elected is to be attributed alone to God in Christ. For this also Christ is said, as in Ephes. i. 10, avaneparciwcacbas, to have gathered all things together ; and in Colossians 1. 20, azoxaraaadéa, to have reconciled all things to God the Father, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. The most learned interpreters expound each of these texts to relate to this benefit of Christ the head which is derived to the augels: and although that word £o reconcile, in its proper and primary signification, cannot apply to the angels, yet in its broader and analogical application, they have shewn that it may be extended even to them. In which they follow Bernard, who, in Serm. 22, in Cantica, after he had proved that Christ was made to men, as he had been before to the angels, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, objects as to the angels in this manner, How there could have been redemption for the angels I do not see: for Scripture does not teach us that they were captives through sin, or obnoxious to death so as to render redemption necessary to them. He then answers, He who raised fallen man, granied to the standing angel that he should not fall; thus delivering the one out of captivity as he defended the other from captivity: And on this ground there was redemption to both, liberating the one, and preserving the other. From these considerations, therefore, the first objection is done away, and it is proved that Christ is truly called the head of the angels, not only by reason of his ruling power; but on the score of saving grace, although the angels never were in a condition of sin and condemnation.

2. Since because Christ is the head of the angels, we affirm that the angels are our fellow-servants, not mediators, or dispensers of grace ; it is objected that we rob the angels of their dignity, and snatch from them the ministry delegated to them by God: for they are ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation, , Heb. i. 14. And in Psalm civ. 4, it is said, He maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. By which terms they suppose that some angelic virtue for the illumination of the human mind, and for exciting the will to the love of God, is intended.

I answer; We confess that God employs the ministry of angels for many things; but especially in guarding the elect and promoting their spiritual safety. For as the bodily as well as the spiritual welfare of men is attacked by evil spirits; so it is clear from the Scriptures that in both respects we are defended and assisted by good angels. To omit examples which might be drawn from the old Testament ; we read that the Apostles were brought out of prison by the ministry of angels, Acts v. 19, and xii. 17. And Christ himself impresses terror upon those who shall offend one of his little ones, by this argument, that they have angels assigned to them by God the Father, Matt. xviii. But as * to our souls, it may also be granted; because, although to pour the light of faith and the fire of love into human minds, is the prerogative of God; yet, as he employs the external ministry of men to enlighten the minds of the elect, and excite their wills to piety; so likewise he employs the invisible and internal ministry of angels. Whence the Schoolmen admit, that the angels cannot create or infuse, yet they can enkindle, and excite spiritual knowledge, good thoughts, and pious affections in the mind and will. And they say that this is done in a threefold manner: 1. by removing impediments, driving away evil spirits, and bad illusions; 2. by exciting and directing visions, by representing to the mind good thoughts; 3. by moving the passions duly in the sensitive appetite, in inclining the will to its proper office. But to what purpose do we urge so many of these things? That it may be understood that we do not disparage the office delegated to the angels by God, as to the promotion of the salvation of the elect: and that it may also be understood, that the ministry of the angels in bringing about our salvation being admitted, yet they are not to be worshipped by us, but to be acknowledged for ministers of Christ, and our fellow servants, although somewhat more honourable. For the same Christ who is the head of the elect, is also the head of all principality and power, i. e. of all angels. Therefore, as we are not to worship with religious adoration, either earthly kings or ministers of the word, although those protect our goods and our bodies by their external rule, and these direct our souls in the way of salvation by their ministry : so neither ought we to worship the angels, although they render the same offices in a secret and invisible manner. But there will be occasion to treat concerning the worship of angels when we come to the 18th verse; now let it suffice that we hold ourselves complete in Christ, who is the head of all principality and power.

Verse 11.

Hitherto the perfection of Christ having been the subject of consideration, the Apostle taught in general that there was no need for the additions of the seducers: Here he withstands those particularly who imposed the Judaical ceremonies upon Christians. Now, among the Mosaic rites, circumcision held the primary place; because by submitting to this, men bound themselves to observe the rest, Gal. v. 3, I testify to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. ‘Therefore this being done away, it follows that Christians are also delivered from all the rest. On this account, then, he insists on circumcision, since it is his intention to shew, and to conclude, that all the Mosaic rites are now abrogated. And this verse is so connected with the foregoing, that it aptly meets the objection which those teachers of the ceremonies doubtless urged. For the Apostle had affirmed in the preceding verse, that Christians are complete in Christ; * But, nay,’ says some Jewish doctor, * you are mistaken, Paul, and you would endeavour to mislead Christians: they are not yet complete, because they are not yet circumcised : and without circumcision they are not accounted the holy people of God, they are not received into the covenant which was entered into with Abraham and his posterity.’ Therefore that he might crush this objection, after that he had stated that we are complete in Christ, he subjoins, In whom also ye are circumcised.

With respect to the interpretation of the words; those alone seem to contain any difficulty, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh. Beza translates them thus, corpore peccatis carnis exuto, the body of the flesh being freed from sins. He, therefore, takes the word body properly, and says, this our body is freed from the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ. But Erasmus, and almost all other interpreters thus ; whilst ye have put off the body of the sins of the flesh; or, in the putting away of the body of the sins of the flesh. They, therefore, take the word body metaphorically, for that mass of native corruption in which we are involved: and they think the word flesh is added that he might signify whence that body of sins hath its origin and motion; namely, from carnal generation, and from the carnal part of man, that is to say, from that part which is not yet regenerated. This interpretation, as it is less forced, I rather embrace: which the Apostle himself elsewhere favours; Rom. vi. 6, that the body of sin might be destroyed ; so likewise in the 3d Chapter of this Epist. ver. 5, he calls particular sins, members, He, therefore, seems to use the same metaphor in this place also.

Let us dismiss words, and proceed to the point. The argument of the Apostle is this, They who now have circumcision, even that which is more excellent than the Mosaic, are not to be compelled to the latter: but Christians are circumcised with a circumcision far more excellent and efficacious, &c. This he shews in a threefold manner; 1. From the Author of our circumcision: They were formerly circumcised by Moses, or by other men inferior to Moses ; but we are circumcised in Christ, or by Christ: for in and by have the same meaning. 2 From the mode of the Jewish circumcision and of ours: they had a circumcision made by hand; we, the circumcision of Christ. What is this? An inward circumcision wrought by the Spirit of Christ. These two clauses are, therefore, to be joined, the circumcision made without hands, and the circumcision of Christ ; and both are to be referred to the mode of our circumcision. 3. From the different effect: the Jewish circumcision cut off the foreskin of the flesh; ours, the whole body of sin.

In whom also ye are circumcised.] The Apostle lays a stress upon it, to teach the Colossians they had no need of the Mosaic circumcision. The reason is drawn from the excellence of our circumcision, which he shews first from its Author: n Christ, i. e. by Christ, or by the efficacy and virtue of Christ, ye are circumcised ; in vain, therefore, would ye receive the Mosaic circumcision. The force of this argument is clear, if we recal what has been said by the Apostle about Christ. For he has extolled Christ as the only begotten of God, the Head of the Church, the storehouse of grace, and, finally, as enriched with the fulness of the Godhead itself: it would, therefore, tend to bring reproach upon Christ, if any one being circumcised by him, should desire to be circumcised by any one else; for the desire of another indicates that there was some defect in the circumcision of Christ himself. For as it would : be both injurious to himself and to his king, should any one, being adorned with the dignity of a knight by the king himself, desire to receive the same honour after another manner by some inferior minister: so he who is circumcised by Christ, our King and Lord, proceeds to diminish his majesty, if in this same thing he should desire the ministry of another. Thus much concerning the Author: I pass on to the manner. .

With the circumcision made without hands, by the cireumcision of Christ.] I unite these, because both may be referred to the manner of this circumcision which we have obtained in Christ, or by Christ. For it might be said, that Christ circumcised no one. Nay, says the Apostle, we are circumcised in him. But in what way? With the circumcision made without hands, 1. e. not bodily and sensibly; but with the circumcision of Christ, i.e. spiritually, inwardly, and invisibly, such as it behoves us to expect from our heavenly Priest. The mode of this circumcision is described then, 1. Negatively: It is not wrought manually, for it is made without hands. By this he opposes the Mosaic circumcision, which consisted in an external operation administered by the hands of men. 2. It is also described positively; since it is called the circumcision of Christ, i. e. a certain internal circumcision effected by the power of the Spirit of Christ himself. And by this it is far preferred to the Mosaic circumcision : which, if it be compared to this, is plainly a thing of no worth, Rom. ii. 28, and Phil. iii. 3. But here it is to be observed by the way ; that the Apostle, when he disputes about circumcision and the other Mosaic rites, speaks of them, for the most part, as they are considered in themselves, apart from Christ, and not related to Gospel grace; because they were so urged by the false apostles with whom he disputed. For they sought righteousness and sanctification in the ceremonies themselves, neither did they acknowledge that there was concealed in them the shadows of Christ to come; on that account they would not allow them to be abrogated by the advent of Christ: The Apostle, on the contrary, argues, We have that spiritual circumcision which the bodily one shadowed: forth; therefore, that ought now to cease, lest, while we would retain the shadow, we deny that the body itself is come.

It is objected, The Apostle’s reason does not seem solid : for he thus concludes, Ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, therefore ye need not that which is made with hands: Any one from among those teachers of the ceremonies might rejoin, Nay, we need both: for Abraham was circumcised in heart by faith and the Spirit, yet he did not decline to undergo external circumcision besides.

We answer; The case is not the same. For Abraham by virtue of the Divine command was bound to corporeal circumcision ; Christians are not bound : Abraham by submitting to this sign declared and confirmed his faith concerning Christ, to be born of his seed, free from all sin ; but we do not look for Christ to be born, but believe that he is born: finally, Abraham had no other sign of the covenant entered into with God ; we have, namely, baptism, substituted by God himself in the place of circumcision. From what, then, has been said concerning the Author and the mode of our circumcision, we may derive some instructions.

1. Christ being taken away, there remains nothing in the sacraments but an empty shew, and a ceremony stripped of all salutary efficacy: for Christ is the substance of the sacraments; the virtue and operation of Christ is the very life of the sacraments. That saying of the schools is, therefore, a sensible and sound one, Sacraments represent by similitude ; signify by institution ; but sanctif y by the virtue of Christ.

2. If, as an outward administration of the sacraments is made by the hands of men, so an inward operation is wrought by the sole power of Christ; then it is vain to seek grace as though it were hidden in the signs themselves, or attached to the performance of them, 1. e. to the outward administration of the sacraments: for it is to Christ alone, not to those external rites. Parisiensis has learnedly written on this matter in Tract de sacram. bapt.’ cap. 2, where he shews that the external solemnity of the visible signs is nothing more than a book, in which is read the virtue and grace which proceed from God himself. This Prosper also teaches in Epist. ad Demetriadem ; That which is visibly performed in the sacraments is one thing, what is invisibly celebrated is another: nor is the form in the sacrament the same thing with the virtue: since the form is applied by the assistance of a human ministry, but the virtue proceeds through . the efficacy of a Divine work. More succinctly does Cyprian state it, De bapt. The Spirit alone imparts the reality of the sacrament to us.

3. We must not glory because we are made partakers of the external sacrament, unless we obtain besides the internal and quickening work of Christ: for if this be wanting, as it was heretofore said to the Jews, Acts vii. 51, O ye uncircumcised in heart, so it may be justly said to us, O ye unbaptized in heart.

4. The external administration of the sacraments is not to be despised, although the quickening and saving effect is to be expected neither from the human ministry, nor from the external signs, but from the Spirit of Christ: because Christ concurs with his institution, nor wills us to seek that grace from him which he promised, if we despise the sacraments of grace which he has directed to be used by us.—And thus much concerning the mode or quality of the circumcision which we have in Christ; namely, —— that it is not outward and bodily; but inward and spiritual.

In putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, or in spoiling, &c.] The last thing which we proposed to be considered in the circumcision of Christ, was the remarkable effect of this circumcision, viz. the putting away of the body of the sins of the flesh. See how the spiritual circumcision which we have in Christ excels the bodily and manual circumcision! That external rite cut off a small portion of the body: this internal operation is wont to abolish the whole body of sin, not the body itself, or the flesh itself, but the body of the sins of the flesh, i.e. the mass of vices and sins which spring from the flesh, that is to say, from our inbred and original corruption, with which flesh the soul of every one is no less surrounded than with its natural flesh.

We have here, then, a brief and perspicuous description of inward, i. e. of true circumcision: It is a putting off the old Adam with his deeds, or the corrupt likeness derived to us from our parents, infected with sin; or, as Origen remarks in Epist. ad Rom. cap. 2. lib. 2, [t isthe cleansing the soul, and casting away the vices.

Neither is it to be wondered at that this spiritual circumcision should have a different effect from that corporeal one, since it has a different agent, and different instruments. For the Agent in this spiritual circumcision is our Lord God himself; Deut. xxx. 6, The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, that thou mayest live. Behold the Agent, God; the effect, new motions in the heart itself, even spiritual life. But in corporeal circumcision the agents were men: Abraham circumcised Isaac the eighth day, Gen. xxi. 4; so Joshua circumcised the children of Israel, Josh. v.3 But will you expect from men any thing beyond man? Yet further, the instruments also are far different: for men perform corporeal circumcision with corporeal instruments ; according to what is said Josh. v. 2, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise the children of Israel: But God circumcises the heart with the sword of the Spirit and the word; for the word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, &c. Heb. iv. 12. It is quite reasonable, therefore, that the effect of this circumcision should be the putting away of the body of the sins of the flesh, i. e, the cleansing of the soul, not the impressing of a bodily sign.

Hence we learn,

1l. That Christ is a Saviour not only by the merits of his passion, but also by the efficacy of his internal operation; for he has not only expiated our sins by his blood ; but he hath renewed our hearts, and washes away the body of sins which cleave to our souls, by-his Spirit.

2. Since this spoiling of the body of sins is the work of the Spirit of Christ, we ought not to resist this Spirit, but commit our whole selves to be renewed and directed by the same. The reins of the flesh are, therefore, not to be loosened, but we must walk in the Spirit. Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh, Gal. v. 16.

3. It is not sufficient for the Christian, as it were, to cut off one or other member of this body of corruption; ; but he must needs prune, strip off, and cast away the whole: for this spiritual circumcision does not pertain to one member only, but to all. Ears, tongues, eyes, heart, mind, in short, the whole man must be circumcised, because the whole is defiled by sin. Rightly says Parisiensis, De virtut. cap. 22: He is not cleansed, except he hath renounced all sin. For who will call a man clean that rolls in one sewer only ?

But here a doubt arises concerning the effect of this internal circumcision : For it seems that that whole body of sins is not. put away from regenerate Christians, as well because they perceive in themselves yet the motions and lusts of indwelling sin, as because Scripture commands the spiritually circumcised, i.e. the truly renewed, daily to mortify more and more the old Adam, to put off the old man, and to put on the new: Ephes. iv. 22, 24.

I answer; the whole body of sins is put away and abolished totally from all the regenerate, 1. As to its guilt; for there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, Rom. viii. l. 2. Asto its dominion; for as many as are in Christ Jesus are ruled not by the desires of sin, but by the Spirit of Christ: 3. As to the Sacrament itself of regeneration; for in it, not this or that, but all our sins are washed away and mortified sacramentally. In these modes, therefore, sin is deposed and abolished in this life. Yet, again, sin is not totally put away; 1. As to the nature of sin: whence that injunction of the Apostle, Rom. vi. 12, Let not sin reign; He does not say, Let it not lie hid, let it not cleave ; but let it not reign in your mortal body. 2. It is not put away as to its motion and act: whence that saying of the Apostle, Rom. vii. 23, I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind. The act, therefore, of the laying aside of sin, or of natural corruption, if it be referred to the very nature of the thing, is not perfected in a moment, but is continued in all the godly until the last breath.

Verse 12.

It has been proved in the foregoing verse, that circumcision is by no means necessary to Christians, inasmuch as they are circumcised in Christ with an inward and spiritual circumcision. But as yet room is left for doubt: for some one might perhaps say, The outward sign by which the minds of the godly may be confirmed and persuaded that they are truly made partakers of the spiritual benefits in Christ is wanting. The Apostle, therefore, shews, that not even that is wanting ; nay, that Christians have a more excellent and express sacrament than circumcision, viz. baptism; Buried with him in baptism.

Three things are to be noted, 1. The spiritual benefits which are received in baptism: viz. the burial of the old man, which we usually call mortification ; the raising again of the new man, which we term vivification. 2. From what fountain these benefits flow, viz. from the death and resurrection of Christ; which is intimated in those words, With him, in him, or by him. 3. By what instrument these benefits are applied to us; viz. by faith.

Buried in baptism.] This burial of the body of sins, or of the old Adam, is signified in baptism, when the person to be baptised is let down into the water; like as the resurrection is when he is raised out: For in the ancient Church they not only sprinkled, but immersed in the water those whom they baptised.

But in what sense are we said to be cuvtagevtss, buried together? For the natural body of Christ was truly buried, but is it to be thought that our bodies are buried in the same manner in the administration of baptism? The Apostle does not assert that: but, as Chrysostom has rightly : observed in Rom. vi. That which is done in Christ by nature, is understood to be done in us by analogy and comparison. The body of sin, then, is buried, when its power is weakened, repressed, overwhelmed, and, as a corpse buried in the earth, can move no more and impel the man whithersoever it would, or hinder our salvation. And this is said to be done in baptism in a twofold respect :

1. In respect to Christ; in whom, when we are engrafted by baptism, the benefits of the death of Christ are conferred upon and sealed to us: but he being dead and buried, it is clear that our sins were also dead and buried with him; because he bare them in his own body, 1 Pet. ii. 24. This is what is urged by the Apostle in Rom. vi. 3, As many of us as were baptized into Christ, were baptized into his death. In looking back, then, to the person of Christ our Head, our sins are rightly said to be indeed dead and buried in his death and burial; and we are said to be buried in baptism as to the body of sin, because we are endowed with this benefit obtained through the death of Christ: and thence it comes to pass that our sins are not imputed to us, but are accounted as dead and buried.

2. Not only in the person of our Head, but even in our ownselves our sins are said to be buried in baptism: because that mortification and burial of sin is not only performed sacramentally in one moment in the act of baptism ; but really also is carried on by the spirit of grace received in baptism, through the whole life of a Christian. For the case of bodily death and burial is different from that which is spiritual. The former hath no degrees, because it is pure privation; he, therefore, who is dead, cannot daily die more and more. But the latter is in process, not in act past: therefore it hath degrees, so that he who is dead to sin, may die more ; he who is buried may be buried more, inasmuch as the work itself is to be perfected in man, although as to the sacramental representation and sealing of it it wanted nothing.

Ye are also risen.] This is the second effect of baptism, which is shadowed forth when the baptized person, after immersion in the water, is drawn out of it, But the Apostle, under this word resurrection, comprehends that new life which the regenerate began to live after they were dead and buried with Christ. And I call it new, because it hath both a new beginning, and new motions, or operations. The new beginning is not a soul living, but a spirit sanctifying; not desire innate, but grace imparted. The new fruits are, not those works of the flesh, Gal. v. 19, &c. adulteries, strifes, envyings, murders, drunkenness, and the like; but love, joy, peace, gentleness, goodness, faith, &c. These two benefits are always linked and joined together. For as Christ himself did not abide in death, but rose again; so, by virtue of his death and resurrection, we not only die to sin, but also so rise again, that we live unto righteousness, 1 Pet. ii. 24. Thus it is in Rom. vi. 5, If we have been planted together with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.

Hence we may infer,

1. A Christian living in sin and serving his lusts, is a horrible sight, nay, is deemed a monster before God. For the dead to walk or move is plainly a prodigy : But a Christian either is, or ought to be, not only dead, but buried, as to the old man.

2. A Christian growing torpid in indolence, i.e. not bearing the fruits of righteousness, nor aiming at newness of life, although he abstain from acts of sin, yet shews that he is forgetful of his baptism. For baptism is a covenant of a more pure life with God :²⁵ care should, therefore, be taken, that what hath been once done in baptism sacramentally, should always be carried on in life really.

3. External washing cannot yield solid comfort to a Christian, unless he discovers besides, these internal effects of mortification and vivification. For baptism, considered as the mere washing of the body, conduces nothing to salvation, unless it is also made to us the washing of regeneration, Tit. 11.5. For rightly said Cyprian, De zelo, To put on the name of. Christ, and not to proceed by the way of Christ, what else is it than a forgery of the Divine name? We put on the name of Christ when we undergo external baptism; but we enter the way of Christ, when we die to the world that we may live to God.

4. They who walk after the lusts of the flesh, can neither accuse God nor the inefficacy of baptism; but themselves, who resist the Spirit; whom, if they would obey, sin would be weakened in them daily, the image of righteousness would be renewed, and, finally, that would be accomplished in reality which in baptism was done sacramentally.

And thus far concerning the two effects of baptism; namely, our spiritual burial and resurrection: It remains that we enquire into the cause and fountain of these benefits: which the Apostle briefly indicated in these particles, With him, In whom.

We are said to be buried with Christ in baptism, and also to have risen in Christ, or by Christ, that we may not attribute these supernatural effects either to the external element, or to our own strength. Therefore, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ is the cause of our mortification and spiritual vivification. 1. It is the cause meritoriously, as was before contended for by us at the 18th verse of the first Chapter; because, by his death and resurrection, he merited for us this mortification and spiritual rising again, as it is said Isaiah liii. 10, If he shall lay down his soul for sin, he shall see a lasting seed.²⁶ For because he laid down his natural life, he merited to raise up a spiritual seed to himself, and to communicate spiritual life to them. 2. The death and resurrection of Christ is also the cause effectively of our mortification and resurrection ; inasmuch as rising again from death, by that same power with which he effected his own bodily resurrection, he effects also ‘ this our spiritual. For, as by the power of the Word he raised from death the humanity united to the Word; so also by the same power he quickens us, who are united to and planted in him, to a new life of grace. Rom. vi. 11, Reckon yourselves to be alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. 3. Lastly; the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, is the cause of this our death, burial, and resurrection by way of example: For thus it is every where propounded to us by this Apostle; Like as Christ was raised from the dead, so we also should walk in newness of life, Rom. vi.4. On these accounts, then, the Apostle rightly affirmed, that we were dead and risen again with him, and in him; because, by the merit, efficacy, and example of his death and resurrection, we have obtained mortification and spiritual resurrection.

Hence we observe,

1. Christ is not dead, buried, and raised again for himself alone; but for us: for in his death and burial he hath mortified and buried our sins, and in his resurrection he hath raised us up together with himself, as though he had taken us by his hand. When, therefore, you meditate on the death and resurrection of Christ, contemplate not only what was done in him, but likewise what is done in thyself. For as the Apostle divinely speaks, Ephes. ii. 5, 6, When we were dead in sins, he quickened us together with Christ, and hath raised us up together and made us sit together in heavenly places in him.

2. It is incumbent upon every Christian, not only to believe the death and resurrection of Christ, but to have and perceive them in himself, that he may exhibit also to others a real and lively testimony of the same; and this he does who renounces sin and lives to God. Nearly to this effect Origen wrote, In Genes. xvii. hom. 3, What does it profit if I believe that Christ came in that flesh oily which he received from Mary, and do not shew that he also came in this my flesh? We may add; What does it profit if I believe that Christ died and rose again in the flesh which he received from Mary, and do not shew in my flesh that he is dead and raised again, i. e. that I am dead and raised again in him and with him? All the godly may gather from hence that they are true and living members of Christ ; . namely, if they aim with their whole soul at mortification and newness of life. For whoever does this, does it not in his own strength ; but he is buried with Christ, he is risen again in Christ; and, therefore, he is planted in Christ, and quickened by the Spirit of Christ. Thus much may suffice respecting the cause, or fountain of our mortification and vivification. It follows that we notice the medium or instrument by which these benefits are apprehended.

Through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.] We come now to that instrument by the help and assistance of which the above-named benefits of baptism are apprehended and possessed. For if this faith be wanting, although the treasures of grace in the sacrament are offered on God’s part, yet they are not received on our part, but repelled by infidelity. But the sense of the words must be considered before we inquire into their subject matter. These words, then, through the faith of the operation of God, are used to be explained by. interpreters in two ways. Some give the meaning thus; through the faith of the operation of God, 1. e. by the faith which God works in every one of the faithful, by the faith which springs from the Divine operation. But others explain them thus ; through the faith of the operation of God, i.e. by that faith which is directed to that wonderful operation of God which raised Christ again for our justification. Whether we follow this latter or the former interpretation, three things are to be noticed in these words of the Apostle: The instrument by which we apprehend the treasures of grace offered in baptism ; viz. faith: the Giver or the worker of this faith, God, or the operation of God; the particular object which faith most especially regards in this business, the power of God raising Christ again from the dead for our salvation.

Through faith.] As to this first; it is not in vain that faith is required by the Apostle, that we may obtain the benefit of spiritual resurrection. For, as in the baptism of adults previous faith is required, according to that declaration of our Saviour, Mar. xxi. 16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be damned; so, from those who are baptized in infancy, subsequent faith is required ; which if they do not exhibit afterwards, they retain only the outward sanctification of baptism, the internal effect of sanctification they have not. Whence says Augustine, Quest. ex N. Test. qu. 59. He who imagines baptism to consist in the carnal form, is not spiritual ; neither can he obtain the celestial gift, who trusts that he can be changed by water, not by faith. We have a strong and perspicuous reason for this; viz. because the substance of the sacraments is Christ himself; all the virtue and vitality of them is from Christ: but, indeed, Christ is not approached by unbelievers; for men of this kind, whilst they receive the sacraments, because their hearts are dry and their minds barren, they indeed lick the rock, but suck thence neither honey nor oil, as Cyprian somewhere says.

By way of profit, let us learn not to confide with Papists in the opus operatum; but enquire farther, whether we possess all the other things without which the inward effects of baptism are not secured. So much concerning the instrument of faith. ©

Of the operation of God.] The Apostle points out the Author or Giver of faith; namely, God himself. For since the salutary efficacy of baptism depends upon faith, it is proper that faith itself should be expected from God alone, lest we should have some occasion of glorying in ourselves. Hence that affirmation of the Apostle, Ephes. ii. 8, By grace are ye saved through faith ; and that not of yourselves ; it is the gift of God. We ought not, therefore, as the Pelagians would wish, to allege that faith springs from the human will; nor that it is natural, as Basilides thought, according to the statement of Clemens, Strom. 2; but as, Augustine has stated, that it is bestowed upon us by the free gift of God: for although good works are done by man, yet faith is wrought in man, Epist. 105, ad Sixtum.

Who hath raised him from the dead.] Some contend that this clause is added by the way, to intimate that God stirs up faith in the human heart by that same infinite power with which he raised up Christ from the dead. For since our hearts are dead in sins and unbelief, there is need of . the same Almighty power to quicken them which shewed itself in the revival of Christ, as it is said in Ephes. i. 19, 20. Let us not reject this sense: But we also add this; that the Apostle here wished to point out, as with the finger, what kind of faith he required from us; viz. that whereby we believe in God, who, by his wonderful operation, raised Jesus from the dead for our justification, as it is in Rom. iv. 24, 25. Therefore, lest our faith should wander in any confused and indefinite speculation about God, he, as it were, moderates this infinite object to us, since he would have faith not contemplate the efficacy of God simply, but as far as it raised up Christ; for thus it became a saving efficacy to us.

And very suitably in this place, where he treats of faith united with our spiritual resurrection, he directs it to look at that power of God which raised up Christ from the dead; viz. for two causes, which we have before touched upon: 1: Because that same power which raised up Christ from the dead, infuses strength into us for this spiritual resurrection. 2. Because this resurrection of Christ is the cause of ours, as also was before shewn. But now two things remain to be cleared up which yield occasion for doubt.

1. The first arises from hence, that in these last words Christ is supposed to be raised by the power of another; whereas it is certain that he raised himself by his own power; according to that prediction of his, John ij. 19, Destioy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Christ speaks concerning the temple of his body, by the interpretation of John himself.

I answer, In statements of this kind, in which divine operations are referred to God the Father, neither the Spirit nor the Son is excluded, but the order of operation is noted. For that saying of Christ is most true, John v. 19, Whatsoever the Father doeth, those things also doeth the Son likewise. Therefore, both by the Father’s power and his own, was he raised up; because the power of both is the same. Whence says Hilary, De Patr. and Fil. unitat. He himself performs the works of God the Father by a nature not differing from God.

2. The other doubt, which is strongly urged by the Anabaptists, is somewhat more difficult. For since in this whole disputation of the Apostle, mortification, newness of life, and, finally, faith itself, is connected with baptism; but infants can neither mortify the flesh, nor produce the fruits of a new life, nor, in short, believe; they conclude that those of that age should not be baptised.

We answer ; If they speak of actual faith, of actual desire, and the profession of mortification and vivification, we say those places of Scripture which require these things in baptized persons should be restricted to adults : But with respect to infants, because they are sinners not by their own proper act, but by hereditary habit, it is sufficient that they have mortification and faith, not exerting itself by a proper act, but included in an habitual principle of grace. But that the Spirit of Christ can, and is wont to effect this habitual principle of grace in them, no sane person will deny. Moreover, it is not necessary that the sacraments, in that very moment in which they are administered, should effect all those things which they represent ; nay, upon the concessions of the Schoolmen themselves, A covenant admitting of delays is allowable when a bar is placed in the very act of undertaking it. But now the very defect of reason in infants as to acting, is an impediment to their possessing actual faith, or actual desire of mortification. Besides, although faith and actual penitence are required from an adult before he receives the sign of the covenant, yet it is not required as to the act from the infants of believers ; because to be in covenant is a sufficient reason for receiving the sign of the covenant: but infants are included in the same covenant with their parents; I will be the God of thee and of thy seed, Gen. xvii. 7. This we see in Abraham, who first believed and afterwards was circumcised ; but his Son Isaac, inasmuch as he was already in covenant, he circumcised before he was of age to believe. This, in the case of the infants of Christians, is done duly and after the example of the Apostles, who did not baptize adults except they made a profession of faith ; but ° when the parents embraced Christianity, then they baptized their whole families, and no one is ignorant that (in the Epistles) infants are also comprised under the name of a family. The passages are manifest ; Acts xvi. 15 and 33, 1 Cor. i. 16.

Let it suffice to have noticed these things about infant baptism against the Anabaptists.

Verse 13.

A new reason is propounded to shew them that we have no need of circumcision, and those other legal rites; because in Christ we have not only sanctification, or regeneration, but perfect justification from sins, and that by gratuitous remission. But that this benefit may be recognized with more glorious evidence, he does three things :

1. He places before our eyes the miserable condition of our nature; And you being dead, &c.

2. He points out our deliverer ; namely, God by Christ ; he hath quickened together with him.

3. He declares the mode of deliverance, by the gratuitous remission of sins; having forgiven, &c.

And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh.] In these words the state of man in corrupt nature is depicted, by shewing both the evil and its cause. The evil with which he is afflicted, death itself; and you being dead. The twofold cause of the evil: actual sins, which are here termed vapazrouara, or offences, and original corruption, which is signified by the epithet uncircumsion.

With respect to the evil itself; All the children of Adam are reckoned as dead, 1. Because they lie under the state of spiritual death, having lost the image of God in which they were created; and Divine grace, which was, as it were, the soul of the soul, being withdrawn, and a polluting mass of deadly vices succeeding in their room. 2. Because they lie under the sentence of eternal death, having become obnoxious to Divine wrath, and to that punishment which must be expected from an incensed God: for we are by nature the children of wrath, Ephes. ii. 3. Death, therefore (as you see) hath seized upon us all ; spiritual death, actually; eternal death, by sentence; and in each respect we are justly said to be altogether undone.

In sins] i. e. In actual transgressions of the Divine law: This is one, and a clear cause of our death. For the wages of sin is death by the Divine ordination. The soul that sinneth it shall die; the death of grace, inasmuch as sin, by its impurity, dissolves that gracious union of the soul to God, in which our spiritual life consists; according to that declaration of the prophet, Isa. lix. 2, Your iniquittes have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, &c.: and the death of hell, inasmuch as Divine justice requires that a punishment adequate to the of-: fence should be imposed on sinners ; but an offence against infinite Majesty deserves infinite punishment: Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil; Rom. ii. 9. Whoever, therefore, lives in sin, is in death.

And the uncircumcision of your flesh.] This is the other cause of our death. Some take these words literally, and think that there is denoted not the cause itself of death, but the sign of the cause. For as circumcision by itself : did not avail to life; so neither did uncircumcision by itself extend to death; but they are said to be dead in uncircumcision, inasmuch as that was a symbol of alienation from the Divine covenant, out of which they could expect nothing but the curse and destruction, as is concluded by the Apostle, Ephes. ii. 11, 12. But I incline to their opinion who take this word figuratively, and by uncircumcision of the flesh understand that original sin which is derived to all by carnal propagation, and renders the very soul itself as though it were carnal. For although this word may properly signify a particular part of the body, yet, figuratively, it may be transferred to many other things : Sometimes it denotes the Gentiles themselves, as circumcision does the Jews, as in Rom. iii. 30, It is God who justifies the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith. Sometimes it denotes Heathenism, or the condition of the Gentiles, as in Ephes. ii, 11, 12. But in this place (as it has

eg? been said) it signifies that natural depravity which adheres to all the children of Adam from their mother’s womb. Neither is this signification of the word unusual. Thus it is said in Deut. x. 16, Circumcise the foreskin of your heart. But more plainly in Jerem. ix. 25, Behold the days come that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised, i. e. every one who, though outwardly circumcised, yet bears within him the native depravity of the heart.

Retaining, then, this signification of the word, we say that every natural man is dead in this his native corruption ; as well because no part of the soul can exercise any vital action in spiritual things, as because, on account of this corrupt nature, it is subject to Divine wrath and the punishment of eternal death.

1. The understanding, which is the eye of the soul, is darkened and wholly blinded as to spiritual things; the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them, 1 Cor. ii. 14. But another evil also arises out of this darkness: For the mind which cannot receive spiritual things on account of this darkness, rushes also headlong into vain speculations, into errors, heresies, and finally into innumerable deceivings. Hence heresies are reckoned among the fruits of the flesh, Gal. v. 20. In this condition, then, of corrupt nature, the understanding lies dead ; deprived of its spiritual and salutary light; corroded, moreover, by vanity and error, as though it were preyed upon by worms.

2. The will also is most sadly depraved; so that it has lost all the desire of a good man, and burns with the constant thirst for vain, nay, for unlawful things. Hence that complaint of God, Gen. vi. 5, Every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart is only evil continually ; and of David, repeated by the Apostle, Rom. iii. There is none righteous, no not one: there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable.

3. The inferior powers of the soul are disordered, so that they refuse to obey the mind, nay, endeavour to govern it: [see a law in my members warring against the law of my mind, Rom. vii.23. Hence all the affections follow not — . the controul of reason in depraved man; they restrain it, they bind it, and lead it captive whithersoever they are inclined..

Now let us sum these points together. The mind has lost its light, and is buried in darkness; the will has lost its rectitude, and is filled with perversity ; the affections have lost their subjection, and are pleased with rebellion : and all these evils derive their origin from the uncircumcision of our flesh, 1. e. from the infection of corrupt nature: we are, therefore, rightly affirmed by the Apostle to be dead in the uncircumcision of our flesh. To all which it must also be added, that this original sin involves us in the condemnation of eternal death, equally as that actual guilt. concerning which we have before spoken. For thus says the Apostle, Rom. v. 12, Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Ye perceive the miserable condition of the human race without Christ, and the causes of the misery. Let us now also deduce some additional lessons from the parts discussed about this our spiritual death and its cause.

1. Since every man in the state of corrupt nature is I spiritually dead, it is not in the power of free-will, by its own strength, to prepare himself for his conversion ; even as a dead man cannot dispose himself for his resurrection. Admirably spake Gerson, part. 2. in Serm. de Spiritu sancto, [t is the most foolish presumption for any one to think that he can anticipate God, as though he were like a slave to follow the will of man. And Parisiensis is of the same opinion in his treatise De virtut. God first bestows efforts and preparations, that afterwards he may confer more. Each of these divines had been taught by the prophet, who denies that conversion is in the corrupt will of man, but depends upon the Divine compassion: Turn thou us unto thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned, Lament. v. 21.

2. Since every man is spiritually dead, he not only cannot dispose himself to quicken his own soul, but he cannot dispose himself to any motion to quicken and convert himself either external or internal, unless his mind be formed to the life of grace by God. For as every natural motion and operation presupposes a natural power; so every spiritual motion (such as is conversion to God) presupposes a spiritual power. That opinion of Bellarmin, therefore, De grat. et lib. arbitr. i. 12, and iv. 11, is not to be borne, who would have the efficacious grace of God to be nothing else than the implanting of such a perception, whereby the human will is rendered apt to be persuaded to obedience. The prophet Ezekiel, xi. 19, speaks otherwise, I will give them a new heart ; I will take away the heart of stone. And Augustine, De spirit. et lit. cap. 30, The healing of the soul is by grace: the freedom of the will by the healthiness of the soul. And Aquinas himself, quest. disp. de virtut. art. 10, says, For performing actions suited to the attainment of eternal life, grace is first divinely imparted, by which the soul hath as it were something of spirituality.

3. Since the cause of death both spiritual and eternal is the transgression of the Divine law (for he says that the Colossians were dead in their sins) the madness of almost all men is discovered, who have delight in that which is a deadly poison to the soul. He who should give poison to another, is deservedly adjudged guilty of murder; what shall we say of him who causes the death of his own soul by this poison of sin? I would say with Lactantius, Institut. 3, 18, If a murderer is base, because he is the destroyer of man; he lies under the same wickedness who kills himself, because he kills a man. But I will affirm that he has more truly slain a man who has destroyed his own soul in sinning with delight, than if he had only taken away bodily life from himself.

4. Since the uncircumcision of the flesh, i. e. original corruption, has pervaded and extinguished the spiritual life of the soul, and all its spiritual faculties, we infer that Bellarmin (lib. 5. cap. 6, de grat. et lib. arb.) and the rest of the Jesuits, who assert that human nature is not absolutely less healthy than it would be if created in natural holiness, too much extenuate this evil. They draw this notion from Durandus, who, lib. 3. dist. 3, quest. 1, thinks nothing more was done to human nature by the first sin, except that it was deprived of original righteousness ; and now, left to itself, follows the principles of nature. But, on the contrary: The darkness of the understanding, the depravity of the will, the rebellion of the inferior passions, are not the dispositions of the nature ordained by God : not of the nature, I say ; for although God had not added supernatural grace to nature, yet it would not have been without natural order and beauty, of which, through sin, it is now destitute. Whence Parisiensis, in tract. de vitiis et virtut. cap. 5, says, that they undoubtedly err, who determine original sin to be nothing else than a defect of grace: And he says that it is a positive brutality innate in us, and the cleaving of pollutions alien to our souls and not belonging to them. What else does the Psalmist confess in Psal. li. ‘ 5, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me? [believe these words will not bear that Jesuitical comment, I was conceived in pure nature, and in no worse a condition than Adam in his state of innocence would have been, if God had not further conferred upon him the supernatural gift of righteousness.

Last of all, the very words themselves on which we are occupied, dead in the uncircumcision of your flesh, denote ‘ more than a mere withdrawing of supernatural grace. For be it that original righteousness was an armour, put upon our first parents by God, for resisting all the darts of temptation; this being withdrawn, they would indeed be unarmed and exposed to danger; but not immediately wounded or diseased, much less dead. But what has been said is enough concerning this condition of death, and its cause. Let us proceed to the notice of the Deliverer.

Hath he quickened together with him.] That is, God the Father who raised Christ from the dead, hath also quickened us likewise with spiritual life, on account of his death. Here, then, we see our Deliverer, namely, God in Christ, by Christ, and with Christ. Nor must we wonder that this work is to be attributed to God and Christ: for it is the work both of Almighty power and goodness to quicken man dead in sins; and it surpasses the power of all creatures. God alone could impart animal or corporeal life to this fragment of earth; he alone, therefore, can impart spiritual life to earthly and carnal man. It is a greater work to quicken an ungodly man dead in sins, than to create heaven and earth. For whether we are quickened by the forming again of the image which we have lost, or by the : removal of the guilt which we have incurred, either operation is the work of God. He quickens the soul by renewing it, and by cleansing away the filth of sin: For we are ‘his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works, Ephes. ii. 10. He also quickens the soul (which the Apostle has especial respect to in this place) by taking away the deadly guilt of our sin. For we were dead, inasmuch as the sentence of death was passed against us by reason of our sins: we are said to be quickened, inasmuch as this sentence is done away through the death of Christ, and we are delivered from the guilt of punishment, and reconciled to God. Hence,

1. We may learn the eternal love of God the Father towards us, who is not so averse to us wretched mortals dead in sins, but that he vouchsafes to quicken and revive us from the death of sin. We shudder to touch the dead bodies of our friends: but God is not only ready to touch our dead souls, but to embrace them; and not only that, but would even restore them to life. This should inflame us with mutual love towards God.

2. Let us consider the infinite guilt of sin, which could not be acquitted, except by the death of the Son of God for our sins, and his being raised again for our justification, For this the Apostle intimates, when he says, he hath quickened us together with Christ. He delivered Christ to death, then he quickened him, that he being quickened, we, through, and on his account, might be restored to spiritual life. That was, doubtless, deadly sin, which could not be expiated but by the death of Christ: we were dead indeed, who could not be quickened otherwise than by the life of the Son of God. This should excite us to hatred of and avoiding sin,

You see our Deliverer, God in Christ, or with Christ ; now let us consider the mode of this deliverance from the most wretched condition of sin and death.

Having forgiven you all trespasses.] He now explains what was stated in the preceding words, that God had quickened the Colossians together with Christ, by shewing how it was done ; viz. by the free forgiveness of all their sins. But we must also add ; that with this forgiveness of sins which quickens the soul, there must be understood to be always united at the same time, the infusion of sanctifying grace, which also quickens in another sense: as is evident from the foregoing verse. For when sin is remitted, guilt is not only taken away, but the will, disordered and marred through sin, is quickened and restored through grace. Therefore the infusion of grace is always joined with this forgiveness of sin.

In this forgiveness of sins two things are to be noticed: that it is gratuitous, and that it is universal.

That it is gratuitous the word xapioapevos shews, being derived from the word gratia—grace itself. But we are to understand that it is gratuitous on our part: for we are absolved without any price paid by ourselves ; but on the part . of Christ we are redeemed with a price, namely his most precious blood. This the Schoolmen themselves acknowledge; Remission of sin, says Durandus, lib. 4. dist. 1. quest. 7, is nothing else than the not imputing it as to punishment. This the Apostle teaches, Rom. iii. 24, when he affirms that we are justified freely by the grace of God, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: then Chap. iv. verses 7 and 8, he shews that this grace consists in this, that God is willing to remit, and unwilling to impute, sin to us. And, indeed, if we seriously examine the matter itself, either a gratuitous remission, or no remission at all, must be admitted. As to ourselves, we are not able to pay ; since the debt is infinite, and we, and all that belongs to us, finite. We cannot make any satisfaction by doing ; because our good deeds are gifts of God, are due to God, are few and imperfect: nor can we blot out our sins by suffering, because no punishment of guilty man is deletive of sin; therefore, he who, notwithstanding punishment, remains a sinner for ever, will remain to be punished for ever. Therefore, the mode of gratuitous remission alone remains for our deliverance ; according to that parable of Christ, Luke vii. 41, There were two debtors, the one owed fifty pence, the other five hundred. How were they liberated? It immediately follows, When they had nothing to pay, he frankly, or freely and gratuitously, forgave them both.

All trespasses.] Remission is not only gratuitous, but universal. For it does not accord with the Divine majesty and goodness, freely to remit some part of our debts, and to require the other part from us ;

1. Because he remits to no one even a single sin, unless on the account that he has received the blood of Christ as a ransom: but this being received, he would be unjust if he did not remit all things, because it outweighs all.

2. Because to forgive is an act of paternal love, which cannot dwell with hostile enmity: but enmity does remain whilst any sins remain unremitted; they, therefore, who admit of a partial and half-remission, make God at once a father and an enemy, reconciled and hostile.

3. Because, unless we reckon upon an entire and full remission of sins, remission would be in vain, nor comprise its primary object; but nature does nothing in vain, much less the Author of nature. And this is evident, because the end of remission is the attainment of life eternal; but a partial remission cannot yield the hope of life eternal, because death is the wages even of one sin.

If we consult the Scriptures, we shall find that remission of sins is either entire and universal, or none is given and promised. Jer. xxxiii. 8, I will cleanse them from all their sins ; and I will pardon all their iniquities. Mic. vii. 19, He will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea. 1 John i. 9, He will forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Ye see, then, that remission of sins is gratuitous and universal. Hence we derive these Corollaries.

1. To forgive sins is the property of God alone: for who can forgive another his debt, whilst the will of the creditor is not yet understood? J, even I, am he that blotteth out thy sins for my name’s sake, Isa. xliii. 25, Now, forgivenesses of sins which are said to be made by men, are either remissions of injuries, or abatement of satisfaction, or of other things which are in the power of man, or evangelical promises of the remission of sins on the previous supposition of faith and true penitence: but forgiveness of eternal punishment is not in human power. The papal priests may sprinkle holy water upon sinners, but (as Parisiensis learnedly remarks, de Universe 2. 2. cap. 148) they have not the water of divine grace in their power, by which alone the washing away of sins ts effected. The ministers of the Gospel also may use their keys to absolve men from their sins: but how? Hear Durandus, out of Lombard, lib. 4. dist. 18, God puts away sin by himself, by washing the soul from its stain of guilt, and by relaxing the debt of punishment ; priests absolve, by shewing that the remission is made or not made. The sacerdotal absolution, therefore, hath then force, when it is made by the unerring key, as the Schoolmen rightly observe.

2. The Papists err, who would have the punishments due to sin, according to the Divine righteousness, to be expiated either by the proper satisfactions of the indivi- I duals, or to be relaxed by papal indulgences : for these devices oppose gratuitous remission. For, if to remit be not to charge with punishment, gratuitous remission is not granted us where just punishment or satisfaction is required from us. These additions of human satisfactions also oppose the dignity of the satisfaction exhibited by Christ ; for Christ, by submitting to punishment without any fault, hath delivered us both from the guilt and the punishment.

3. As universal remission of sins is always granted on God’s part, so also there ought to be in us an universal detestation of sin. And, doubtless, that is most true, that there is always found in every truly reconciled man an hatred of all his sins, and also a purpose and aim henceforward to abstain from all. For he who hath received remission of all, hath received at the same time the infusion of grace, which arms and fortifies him against all. He, therefore, who cherishes, as it were, in the bottom of his heart, the love of any sin, and resolves to continue in the same, flatters himself in vain about his sins being remitted. |. 4. Troubled consciences have here wherewith they may sustain themselves ; for the Apostle said not, You hath he quickened, having destroyed all sins, but having forgiven. Therefore, although we may perceive sin lurking in us, and opposing the Spirit; yet, if it is not pleasing to and ruling us, it does not exclude this spiritual quickening. For the universal remission of sins takes away the guilt of all our sins ; and the infusion of grace joined to this takes away the dominion of them all: but neither remission nor grace, whilst we bear this mortal body, takes away the nature, or the motion of indwelling sin.

Verse 14.

The Apostle illustrates the benefit of the remission of sins, concerning which we have discoursed above; and in doing so he teaches that Christians are not now, after all their sins are remitted, to be brought again under the obligation of the law, especially of the ceremonial law. And the reason is derived from the removal of the thing to the removal of the sign, for the legal rites were as so many hand-writings, or appendixes to hand-writings, to signify the guilt of the human race; therefore, guilt being taken away by the blood of Christ, it is right this hand-writing also should be abolished.

But that we may the better arrive at the meaning of the Apostle, we shall lay down three points to be explained, which being explained, we shall perceive both the sense of the words, and the matter contained in them.

1. What the Apostle understands by the hand-writing in ordinances, or decrees.

2. How this hand-writing was contrary to us, and against us.

3. How it is now made void : Which making void he amplifies by three words ; it is blotted out, it is taken out of the way, it is nailed to his cross.

1. Concerning the hand-writing of ordinances, or confirmed and sealed as it were in ordinances, the opinions of interpreters are various; yet all agree in this, that they suppose something to be intended under this word, which may, by force of testimony, prove us guilty before God. _ And indeed, rightly: for this is the use of a hand-writing or bond, that to this the creditor may appeal, and convict . the debtor, if he attempt to evade or disavow the debt : the very purport, therefore, of the metaphor, compels us to find out some such meaning.

Some of the Fathers assert that this hand-writing is nothing else than that covenant of God with Adam, Gen. ii. 17, Of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou mayest not eat ; for in the day in which thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die; for this being violated, both Adam himself and his posterity were held guilty of death as by a bond. Others refer it to that stipulation of the Jewish people, promising that they would perform all things which God commanded by Moses: for so it is written, Exod. xix. 7, 8, When Moses had laid before them all the words which the Lord commanded him, all the people answered together and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. By this promise, therefore, they bound themselves, as by a hand-writing, to the perfect obedience of the law ; which, nevertheless, they performed not; and, therefore, might be justly condemned from this their own hand.—Some, by the hand-writing, understand the remembrance of our sins, written, as it were, in the Divine mind and each one’s own conscience; whereto the prophet alludes, saying, I will blot out thy iransgressious, and will not remember thy sins, Isa. xliii. 25. When, therefore, they are not blotted out, we may be convicted, as by a bond, from the testimony either of the Divine knowledge, or of our own conscience. Melancthon interprets the hand-writing to be that sentence of condemnation which, from the decrees of the Divine law, conscience infers against itself: for instance; The Divine law hath decreed, Thou shalt love God with all thy heart: Thou shalt not covet, &c. If thou continuest not in these things, thou shalt be cursed. These are the decrees of the law. Now conscience suggests, I have not loved God with all my heart; I have coveted: therefore, Lam cursed. He calls this conclusion, arising out of the decree of the law, the hand-writing : he says this is blotted out, when the law loses its power of condemning; but, as will be hereafter shewed, it loses this upon our sins being forgiven through the death of Christ. Some modern writers understand the ceremonial rites; which they would have to be called a haid-writing, because they were the testimonies of human guilt: for circumcision testified innate depravity ; the purifications admitted the filthiness of sin; sacrifices indicated the heinousness of the guilt of the offerer. And this is, indeed, truly asserted: for the ceremonies, as far as they are considered not as sacraments of Gospel grace, but as appendages of the law, were nothing else, as Beza properly remarks, than a public confession of human misery. Those words, coi; déypac ordinances, seem to confirm this opinion, (for by ordinances the Apostle was wont to denote the Jewish rites ; as in Ephes. ii. 15 ;) also the very design of the Apostle in this place; because he here contends against those who endeavoured to restore Judaism, as is plain from the inference in verses 16 and 20. According to the opinion of those, then, the hand-wriing is said to be blotted out, i. e. the ceremonial rites are now abrogated, because the debt itself being paid by Christ, it is not just that the bond should remain, which would testify that we are still debtors, and that the guilt of our sin is not yet done away.

The two last opinions come nearest to the mind of the Apostle: but both these and the former also seem to me to be defective in this, that they restrict this hand-writing too much, the one to the moral law alone, the other to the ceremonial ; whereas the Apostle wished to comprehend both. For the benefit of the hand-writing being blotted out has respect to all, as well Gentiles as Jews : therefore it is proper to’ understand the hand-writing to be of that kind, whereby, in some measure, all are bound : but the Gentiles were never bound to the ceremonial law.

I therefore explain the hand-writing in ordinances to mean the force of the moral law binding to perfect obedience, and condemning for any defect thereof; laden with the ceremonial rites as skirts and appendages. The Apostle, then, states two things; viz. that the law itself as to the power of binding and condemning, is abrogated; and the rites or ceremonies, in which was founded, as it were, a public confession and confirmation of this obligation and: merited condemnation, are, at the same time, abolished. And this best agrees with the Apostle’s design: For he here contends against those who urged the Mosaic rites, and especially circumcision : and he concludes, that that hand-writing being done away, the rites also in which the acknowledgment of the debt was contained, ought likewise to be done away. Thus much concerning the hand-writing in ordinances. :

2. We must explain how this hand-writing in ordinances is said to be against us; and a little after, to be contrary to us: And since as we have interpreted the hand-writing in ordinances, of both laws, the moral and ceremonial, these things are also to be applied to each.

As to the moral law; that is, indeed, in itself holy, just, and good ; nevertheless, by accident it is become hostile and deadly to us, namely, by the introduction of sin and our corruption ; (as the Apostle shews, Rom. vii. 12, 13.) 1. Because the law propounds decrees plainly contrary to human nature: for that is spiritual, but we are carnal, sold under sin, Rom. vii. 14. 2. Because it arraigned, and convicts, and brings us in guilty of sin: for to summon to judgment, and to arraign of guilt, is the office of an adversary ; and this the law does in the tribunal of every man’s conscience: For by the law is the knowledge of sin, Rom. iii. 20. 3. Because, after it hath proved us guilty of sin, it denounces against us the sentence of condemnation and of malediction: For this is the sentence of the law, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them, Gal.iii.10. Therefore, on all these accounts, the law of God considered in its rigour, and as far as it hath the power of binding to perfect obedience, and of condemning, is hostile to mankind, and, as it were, a bond attesting our infinite debt, and giving power to the creditor of condemning us, and of casting us into prison, whenever it shall be his pleasure.

Now, with respect to ordinances, or the ceremonial law, which were annexed to this hand-writing, those legal institutions were also contrary to men:

1. Because they were almost infinite as to number, and most burdensome as to the observance. Whence that remark of Tertullian, advers. Marcion, 2. cap. 19, God louded the Jews with those legal disciplines, that he might subdue their obstinacy, and mould them by toilsome duties. And on this account we are admonished in Gal. v. 1, to stand fast in our liberty, and not to be again entangled with that yoke of bondage.

2. “They were also contrary to men by their signification and testimony. For although they seemed to promise the destruction of sin, yet there entered into them a confession rather than an expiation thereof; especially if any one regard them not as seaís of Gospel grace, but as appendages of the law itself, and parts of legal righteousness. But in this sense they were pressed by the false apostles with whom Paul contends; as manifestly appears from this, that they would not allow they were abrogated by the coming of Christ and the fulness of the grace of the Gospel.

Ye perceive, therefore, in what sense those ceremonies were contrary to us ; viz. because they were both burdensome, and also signified and admitted that the hand-writing of the law had been violated by us. On these accounts it was the height of folly to impose those ceremonies upon Christians, and, after the debt was paid and the guilt expiated by Christ, to compel them to a public confession of it, as though it yet remained due.

3. Lastly, it remains that we consider, How this handwriting in ordinances is made void; which is expressed in these three forms of speaking, it is blotted out, it is taken out of the way, it is nailed to his cross; By all which expressions this one thing is shewn, That by virtue of the passion of Christ dying upon the cross, the condemning force of the moral law was taken away, and all the rites of the ceremonial law were likewise abrogated, For the handwriting of the law bound us to obedience, and to the penalty of disobedience. Christ, therefore, our Surety, by yielding the exact obedience which the law demanded, and : undergoing the punishment which was required from violators of the law, did that to which we were bound by this hand-writing, and so blotted out the hand writing itself. For, as says Augustine, shedding his blood without sin, he blotted out the haud-writing of all sin. Christ was made under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law, Gal. iv. 4, 5.

But it must be observed, that this hand-writing may be i said to be blotted out in two ways: First, universally and sufficiently as it respects God: because by the blood of Christ such satisfaction is made to God, that he cannot require that hand-writing of the law from any debtors, when they flee by faith to this Deliverer ; but according to the order of his own justice is necessarily engaged to acquit them. Secondly, particularly and efficaciously, when, in fact, it is blotted from the conscience of all believers who lay hold on Christ by faith; according to that declaration of the Apostle, Being justified by faith we have peace with God. But, truly, he cannot have peace who sees himself overwhelmed with debt, and, moreover, entangled by a bond : but as soon as any one takes hold of Christ by faith, thenceforth this hand-writing is blotted out, and his conscience enjoys a blessed peace. And Paul in the most admirable manner hath provided for trembling consciences by a certain beautiful gradation. For, not content with having asserted in the foregoing verse, that all our sins are forgiven us; he subjoins, that the hand-writing itself is blotted out : but lest any one should think that it is not so blotted out, but that a new charge may be raised, he therefore adds, it is moreover taken out of the way: and lest it should be thought to be preserved hidden somewhere, and may be preferred against us hereafter; nay, says he, it is nailed to his cross, i.e. it is torn and rent in pieces by those nails wherewith Christ was affixed, and lacerated upon the cross. And, indeed, the guilt of our sins being expiated, and the condemning power of the moral law ceasing, the ceremonies must necessarily be abolished which proclaimed human guilt, and shadowed forth that expiation which was to be made: And thus the hand-writing of ordinances is blotted out. 1 add no more concerning this abrogation of rites, because we have treated the same matter in verse 8. From what has been said about the hand-writing itself, and its contrariety to us, and its abrogation, it remains that we elicit some instructions.

We learn, from the hand-writing itself;

1. Since every mortal man is, through the hand-writing of the law, guilty of death, how dreadful is the condition of the ungodly and unholy, who trample under foot that blood of the Son of God whereby alone this deadly hand-writing can be blotted out. They will fall, therefore, into the hands of the living God, who will at last require from them the uttermost farthing of the debt.

2. We here see the insane pride of Pharisees and Papists, who think that they themselves can satisfy God when he deals with them according to this hand-writing of the law; yea, pay more than is due to him from the handwriting, by counting up works of supererogation, as they call them: but what need, then, for the blotting out of the hand-writing by the cross of Christ ?

From its contrariety, we learn,

1. Since this hand-writing is said to be contrary to, and against us: we gather from hence, that our nature is depraved and corrupted: for, according to the terms of the first institution, the law of God was not contrary to us, but friendly and wholesome. Let us, therefore, acknowledge, that it is not by the fault of the law, or of the Lawgiver, but our own, that this hand-writing is rendered deadly to us.

2. As to the rites and ceremonies: Since the Apostle pronounces them to be contrary to us, they are reproved who would restore Judaism, and burden the Church with useless and unprofitable ceremonies, and beguile Christians of the liberty acquired by the cross of Christ.

From the abolition, we learn,

1. Since this hand-writing of the law is abrogated and blotted out as to its condemnatory power, we infer, that it yet retains its directing force. We may not, therefore, take . from hence a licence of sinning, but alacrity in serving God ; for we are delivered from all our sins, and from all our enemies by the death of Christ, not that we may grow wanton in sin, but that we may serve God without fear in holiness and righteousness all our days, Luke i. 74, 75.

2. Since the comfort of a troubled conscience consists in the blotting out of this hand-writing; we must labour to maintain, by a sure faith, not only that Christ has pro- , cured the blotting out of this hand-writing, but, moreover, that in fact it is blotted out as respects ourselves. Since, as in a case of debt, no one thinks himself sufficiently safe until he sees with his own eyes, or, at least, knows for certain, that his bond is cancelled: so, in this case of sin, we shall not be at peace, till we see by the eyes of faith that the hand-writing of our sins is blotted out by the blood of Christ.

Verse 15.

or in

himself,²⁷ i. e. by the power of himself alone.

The Apostle proceeds to amplify the foregoing benefit ; and shews not only that all our sins are forgiven, and the hand-writing blotted out by the blood of Christ, but moreover that all our spiritual enemies who could have done us any injury, are trodden under foot, triumphed over, and stripped of all their arms, strong holds, and forces, by Christ dying upon the cross. But to render this illustrious victory of Christ apparent to our mental view, he employs remarkable metaphors, taken from the custom of commanders in their triumphs. For that word having spoiled, alludes to that custom whereby conquerors were wont to deprive the conquered of their arms, and to fix them for a trophy of the same in the spot where their enemies had been put to flight. And what he adds of making a shew, and triumphing over them, has respect to that pomp of victors in which they were accustomed to lead their captives ignominiously chained together before their triumphal chariot, in the view and amidst the shouts of the populace. Cicero, Orat. in Pisonem, describes this manner of the antient triumphs in these words, What ts there in that chariot? in those princes led before it in chains? in those representations of towns? What is there in that gold? in that silver ? in those lieutenants and tribunes on horseback? in those shouts of soldiers? What in all that pomp, &c. And now, as to those last words, ’ev ’avra, iu it, or (as some copies have it) ’ev avra, in himself, they set forth that Christ conquered and triumphed, not by the valour and the exertions of others, as earthly conquerors do; but by his passion alone, or in his own individual power.

Let us proceed, however, to a more explicit treatment of the words themselves ; in which these two things may be considered: 1. Who were these enemies, whom the Apostle asserts, were spoiled, made a shew of, and triumphed over? c Principalities and powers. 2. Of what kind this spoiling, making a shew, and triumph were. For since these words are figurative, they must be reduced to some proper and perspicuous sense.

1. Principalities and powers.] By these two titles he designates the enemies conquered by Christ, namely, wicked demons, enemies of our salvation. And they are termed principalities and powers, because they have usurped the chief power and rule over men; as appears from Ephes. vi. 12, where they are called the rulers of this world. And 2 Tim. ii. 26, the devil is said to hold men ensnared and captive at his will. Hence he is compared in Luke xi. 21, to a strong man armed, who, having expelled another from his house, holds whatsoever he finds there by force. They are . denominated principalities and powers, therefore, in this place, for this reason in particular, because mankind are held, afflicted, and harassed under their tyrannical rule. But inasmuch as commanders and generals are never conquered alone, but we understand by their being conquered, that their army was likewise overcome and put to flight: as when we say that Hannibal was vanquished by Scipio, or Pompey by Caesar, we should be understood to mean not them alone; but that with them the Carthaginians and the forces of Pompey were all vanquished. These spiritual .principalities and powers, therefore, being subdued, whatever with them militated against human salvation is likewise laid prostrate; the old Adam, death, hell, the world, and our sins; for all these were enemies to us, being troops confederate with the devil. The Scriptures, then, affirm, that not the devil alone was vanquished by Christ, but also all those other foes who supported his kingdom, and were accustomed to promote our bondage under him. Concerning the Prince himself being vanquished, we may, to omit other places, advert to the passage before us, and to Heb. ii. 14; Christ by his death destroyed him who had the power of death, i e. the devil. Respecting the slaughter and conquest of the army of the devil, Hosea prophesied, Chap. xiii, 14, O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be « thy destruction. And Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 55—57, triumphs in the fulfilment of this by Christ, O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin ; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. You see among the enemies subdued by Christ were death, the grave, the law, and sin. Therefore, to sum up all in a word; this our chief adversary the devil, together with whatever held man in bondage, or opposed human salvation, was conquered and overthrown also, And thus is it briefly shewn who were the enemies spoiled by Christ, made a shew of, and triumphed over; viz. the devil, with all his satellites. Now let us examine what this spoiling of principalities and powers, what this making a shew, and triumphing over them, might be.

I find three opinions about this matter. The first is that of Liranus, Aquinas, and many Romanists: who explain this place thus; spoiling principalities, i.e. the infernal powers or demons; by leading Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the rest of the Old Testament fathers from the place which they call Limbus, he /ed them, viz. the same fathers, to heaven ; triumphing over them in himself, i. e. making them triumphant. But every thing by this interpretation is distorted ; here is nothing accordant either to the mind of the Apostle, or to truth: we reject this opinion, therefore, as palpably false. The interpretation does not agree with the context, because the Apostle asserts that they who were led, and triumphed over, were those who were spoiled: if, therefore, they account that the demons were spoiled, they ought also to account that they were led and triumphed over. Add to this that the word édesyudtice, does not denote a glorious leading to heaven, but an ignominious leading, such as of captives in triumphal pomp, as was before shewn. But neither does the exposition agree with the truth of things itself; because that limbus, placed at the borders and brink of hell, in which they think the fathers were kept, as in a dark dungeon, till the death of Christ, is a mere fiction. For howsoever the Schoolmen, in 3. Sent. dist. 22. obstinately maintain, that the ancient fathers were excluded from heaven, and thrust into limbus; and Bellarmin, De Christi anim. cap. 16, asserts, that Christ by his descent into hell conferred upon the fathers that bringing them forth out of that prison, and leading them to heaven; nevertheless we, relying upon truth itself, deny this fictitious place; we deny the devil to have been spoiled in this sense, viz. that the patriarchs were translated out of his dominion to heaven by Christ after his passion.

Although I would not rashly affirm that the bosom of Abraham (which they likewise call limbus) was the very seat of the blessed, to which the souls of the pious pass, since Christ by his blood hath consecrated a new way, Heb. x. 19, 20 ; yet that it was not a part of hell, but a celestial place, and full of blessedness, is gathered from Luke xvi.— l. Because the good angels are said to have carried the soul of Lazarus into this place, ver. 22. But it is more ° likely that a pious soul was carried to some part of heaven, than thrust down to the borders of hell. 2. Because it is said, Dives being tormented in hell lift up his eyes, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus tn his bosom, ver. 23. It was, therefore, a place situated above, not beneath. 3. Because it was a place most full of consolation: for thus Abraham addressed the rich man, ver. 25, Remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. But limbus is affirmed by the Papists to be a dismal place, most remote from essential blessedness, Lastly, because a great gulph is fired between this place and hell, ver. 26; but between hell and limbus, i. e. the mouth, and, as it were, the nearest part of hell, there cannot be said to be a great gulph fixed.

The passion of Christ had the eternal fruit of salvation as to all believers: therefore, the patriarchs, who believed that Christ was to suffer, were saved from hell and the devil by the virtue and merit of his death, like as we also are who now believe Christ to have suffered. They looked, therefore, after this life, not for limbus, but for that city which hath foundations, Heb. xi. 10, un heavenly country, ver. 16, even already prepared for them.

Although Christ himself died in the fulness of time, yet he first became a Surety to his Father that he would die for the deliverance of the human race: therefore, this security — . being accepted of the Father, there was no impediment why the patriarchs, being freed from their debts, should not be put in possession of salvation, before the price itself was actually paid. For if among men, culprits and debtors are accustomed to be liberated upon just satisfaction being made, why should we not think God the Father to have done the same of his goodness? Not any reason, therefore, obliges us to determine that the patriarchs were shut up in the prison of limbus, and were brought out and delivered a long time after upon the coming of Christ.

Moreover, although the fathers speak doubtfully concerning this thing, yet testimonies are not wanting from among them whereby this papistical limbus may be overturned. Tertullian, advers. Marcion, 4, cap. 34, says; The mouth of hell is one thing, the bosom of Abraham another, And a little after; There is a temporary receptacle for the souls of the faithful, where they have a foretaste of happiness till the resurrection. This father differs from the Papists in two things; 1. Because, although he does not think the bosom of Abraham to be the celestial place, yet he thinks it to be elevated far above hell: 2. Because he thinks the souls of the pious to be preserved there till the resurrection; whereas the Papists acknowledge their limbus to be long since spoiled.²⁸ Augustine, in lib. quest. super Genes. qu. 168, explaining those words written of Jacob, Gen, xlix. 33, He died and was gathered to his people, refers them to the people of the blessed angels, viz. of that city which is called by St. Paul mount Zion, the city of God, and the heavenly Jerusalem, Heb. xii. 22. Augustine follows up the same opinion in lib. 2. contra Pelag. & Coelest. cap. 30. Here, then, he placed the fathers, immediately after death, among the angels, although elsewhere he determines otherwise about this matter; as De civit. Dei. lib. 20, cap. 15. But let us dismiss these architects of limbus,²⁹ who suppose Christ to have spoiled the demons in this sense, that he had emptied limbus, and taken the patriarchs away.

The second opinion is that of Jerome Zanchius ; who thinks these words may be explained of a real and visible spoliation, exhibition, and triumph celebrated over the demons, in the presence of God, the angels, and blessed spirits. For although Christ might earn a triumph upon the Cross, yet he conceives that it was completed when the conqueror penetrated by his Spirit into the infernal kingdom, and brought out the demons thence, and led them through the air; all the angels, and souls of the pious dead, being witnesses: and he imagines that this triumph was afterwards continued from the resurrection to the ascension of Christ. It is my intention neither to confirm ! nor oppose this opinion : but, as it is doubtful, and cannot be corroborated by manifest testimonies of Scripture, I pass it by.

The third opinion, and which pleases me best, is that of Origen, CEcumenius, and of almost all of our time; who interpret this whole passage of a spiritual spoliation, a leading forth, and triumphing openly accomplished upon the Cross. He spoiled demons then, he made a shew of them, and also triumphed over them upon the Cross, when, to carnal eyes, he seemed to be conquered and triumphed over by them: For, as the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, neither sensible; so the victory and triumph of Christ over our enemies, is not proposed to be surveyed by the eye, but to be contemplated by the mind by faith. 474 AN EXPOSITION OF 5T. PAUL’s Chap. it. :

Now faith easily conceives that the devil was spoiled by the death of Christ; because mankind are plucked from his jaws, and his dominion is broken and diminished. For he held us bound with the chain of our sins: his bonds, therefore, being broken asunder, he is stripped of his prey, and we are delivered. Hence Augustin, De Trinit. lib. 4, says, From whence the devil received the power of externally wounding the flesh of the Lord, from thence his inward power, which held us captive, was slain. So also we in like manner say, that he was made a shew of, 1. e. treated with the completest shame and ignominy, as captives are wont. Neither is he without reason said to be made a shew of, i. e. to be overwhelmed with shame like those who are led captive: for when he hoped utterly to have devoured Christ, he himself beyond all expectation was devoured by the death of Christ. Therefore, as when gladiators engage, if he who has laid the other prostrate, and almost dispatched him by wounds, should receive a deadly thrust, and be overcome by him who was wounded, and just ready to die, becomes loaded with the greatest dishonour; so Christ loads the devil with the greatest ignominy, because, being crucified and dead, he, notwithstanding, in like manner overcame and subdued him. And this he is said to have done ev wappnila, i. e. as some translate it, openly; because Christ died openly upon the Cross, and thus, as in the sight of the whole world, conquered the devil: or, as others translate it, boldly ; because he intrepidly engaged with the devil, and subdued _ him by his death, knowing for certain that he, by this mode, should overturn the kingdom of the devil.

To come now to the last words, he is also said £o have triumphed over the devil “sv ‘avr, in it, i. e. upon his cross ; because, as Origen very properly remarks, two are understood to have been affixed to the cross; Christ visibly, of his own will, for a time ; the devil invisibly, against his will, and for ever. The eye of faith, therefore, regards Christ, sitting on the summit of the cross, as in a triumphal chariot ; the devil bound to the lowest part of the same cross, and trodden under the feet of Christ. Or, if we read ’ev avr, in himself, it must mean, by his own power, with no military aid, as commanders are accustomed to conquer in battles; according to what is said in the prophet Isaiah lxiii. 3, I have trodden the wine-press alone. Thus you see how Christ, by his death upon the cross, spoiled the devil, made a shew of him, and finally triumphed over him most gloriously, accomplishing a noble triumph, as CEcumenius aptly remarks on this passage.

But it may be asked, How are the demons said to be spoiled, disarmed, and led in triumph, when it appears by the declaration of the Apostle, Ephes. vi. 12, that they are yet exceedingly powerful to attack the faithful themselves ; for we wrestle even now against principalities and powers, so that we need the strougest armour.

I answer, they are spoiled and disarmed of all power whereby they could deprive the elect of salvation; but for the exercise of these, and that they also may triumph over them after the example of their Leader, they are permitted to tempt and oppose believers, but they shall never overcome them. For he who bruised Satan under his own’ feet, shall also bruise him under ours, Rom. xvi. 20.³⁰

We may add:

1. Since Christ hath spoiled and taken away the powers hostile to us, we have an argument whereby afflicted consciences may be comforted in the conflict: For although the devil, sin, and our other foes, may appear to press upon us; yet they cannot conquer, because they are restrained by the authority of Christ our Leader; they lie ‘ crushed and trodden under his feet.

2. We are animated, therefore, to the spiritual warfare against these enemies, who are already overcome and routed, nay, triumphed over by our Captain: for those who are vanquished are always more angry than powerful. He, therefore, who despairs of being able to overcome the devil and all his satellites, seems to deny the victory of Christ, who, through his triumphing, causes us to triumph.

3. Since Christ hath obtained this splendid victory by dying upon the cross, this glorious effect of the cross ought ever to be revolved in our mind against the scandal of the cross. For it was heretofore objected by the heathen that Christians were the most foolish of all mortals, inasmuch as they expect salvation from him who was nailed to the cross, and cut off with an ignominious death by his enemies. But we who, by the eye of faith, see the devil ‘ trodden under foot and spoiled by this death of Christ, can say with the Apostle, Gal. vi. 14, God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.

4. Since Christ hath overcome not only the devil, but all his satellites, as death, sin, and the rest of our foes, upon the cross ; we must beware lest we so live, that they may appear not broken, but reigning over us. The world is crucified unto. me, and I unto the world, says the Apostle, Gal. vi. 14. We may truly say this, if we despise the pleasures of the world, and sin ; but if not, that word will be applicable to us, Many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of. Christ : whose end is destruction ; whase God is their belly ; and whose glory is their shame: who mind earthly things; Phil. iii. 18, 19. Epicureans are rightly called enemies of the cross of Christ, for they seem to wish to restore their kingdom unto those whom Christ spoiled on the cross,

Verses 16, 17.

We have finished the third part of this Chapter, viz the confirmation of the Apostolic sentence, which Paul has, proved and supported by many and cogent arguments; the heads of which it is proper now to repeat, that it may be evident how aptly this conclusion is drawn from those premises.

The proposition to be confirmed, as is manifest from verse 8, was this: In the business of salvation neither philosophical speculations, nor Mosaical ceremonies, nor any traditions of human invention are to be received ; but the . doctrine of the Gospel alone is abundantly sufficient for the salvation of every believer. This is proved first, from the excellence of Christ our Saviour and Teacher; verse 9. Secondly, from the perfection which we obtain in Christ alone; as also from the office of Christ ; verse 10. Thirdly, from the benefits which Christ, by his Spirit and his death, confers upon us; verses 11, 12, &c. And the spiritual benefits are, circumcision (i. e. regeneration), remission of sins, the blotting out the hand-writing of the law, and the spoiling of all our enemies. Since we obtain all these benefits by Christ, this conclusion admirably follows, Let no man, therefore, judge you; &c.

We come now, then, to the fourth and last part of this Chapter, viz. the conclusion or inference arising from the preceding argument: which consi:is of three particulars, according to the three kinds of impostures which the Apostle in the eighth verse advised us to beware of; for against all these respectively he draws the conclusion ;

1. Against the Mosaic ceremonies, which were urged by the Judaizers ; verses 16, 17.

2. Against curious and superstitious doctrines about angels; which were propounded by philosophizers ; verses 18, 19.

3. Against rites and human traditions, which were devised by doting men, verse 20, &c.

Let us begin with the Mosaic ceremonies ; against which he places a conclusion in verse 16, and annexes the reason of the conclusion in verse 17.

Let no man judge you] i.e. Do not regard, fear not, the judgments of those persons who condemn you for neglecting ceremonies, since Christ himself hath delivered you from them. For the seducers assumed to themselves judicial authority, and, as judges, praised and absolved those who observed the Mosaic rites; on the other hand, they condemned as guilty all who neglected these ceremonies. The Apostle, therefore, advised the Colossians, that although they could not avoid these preposterous judgments, they would, nevertheless, cease to regard them. For, as lawyers say, A sentence given by any but its proper judge is no sentence in law: but these men had not the power of recalling ceremonies abrogated by Christ, and of imposing them as necessary to salvation upon Christians, who were now delivered from this yoke by the death of Christ: Let no man therefore judge you, i. e. acknowledge no man to have this power.

In meat or in drink.] He instances in certain particular rites, in the observance of which the Jews placed a great part of their holiness; but since there is a like reason for those which are here named by the Apostle, and for all others, he would have us understand that all were abrogated together. As to meats; it is certain from Levit. xi. that there was a distinction of meats to the Jews under a precept, so that by virtue of the Divine appointment they were compelled to abstain from some. In drink also, they had their rites and observances: for they who wished to be accounted more holy, were accustomed to abstain from wine and all manner of strong drink ; as we see among the Nazarites, Numb. vi. 3, and in the mother of Samson, Judg. xiii. 4. If any one also should drink out of a cup to which there was not a cover, he was considered unclean, Numb. xix. 15. These and other things of this kind the Apostle concluded were of no importance to salvation, nor were Christians to be condemned for the neglect thereof.

Or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath-days.] With the Jewish abstinence from meats he joins the observation of stated times. But the Jews had many festivals, as you may read in Levit. xxiii. and Exod. xxii. &c. It was necessary to celebrate some yearly ; as the feasts of the Passover, of Pentecost, and of Tabernacles: some at the beginning of every month; as of the new moons, Num. xxviii: some every seven years; as of the sabbaths. All these are noticed by the Apostle in this place; from these he wished a judgment to be formed respecting the rest. But what he says i» part of an holy day,* some explain in regard of an holy day; some of holy days by turns ; others simply in part of a holy day, i. e. on ac- : count of some part of a festival being violated ; for some festivals lasted many days, and with many ceremonies: All these no one was permitted to violate in any part: but the Apostle on the contrary concludes that no one is necessarily to be observed in any part. This, therefore, is the sense of the Apostle’s conclusion; namely, that Christians are not to be condemned as though they were transgressors of the Divine law, or guilty of the violation of conscience, because from henceforth they did not abstain from meat or drink forbidden by the ceremonial law, or because they did not observe the feasts enjoined by the same law, whatever false apostles had superstitiously determined to the contrary. From these things the following observations arise :

1. It is the peculiar character of seducers to load the consciences of men with ceremonies, as things necessary to salvation, and to condemn them for the omission thereof: thus did the false apostles heretofore; thus do false Catholics of the present day, who make the chief worship of God consist in the observance of their traditions, and the omission of the same to be the damnable guilt of eternal death. A grave author, Gerson, Chancellor of Paris, continually complains of this tyranny of the Popish Prelates, and torturing of consciences. Part. 3, De vita spirit. anim. lect. 4, he says, They abuse their power, who wish whatever they ordain to have force by an obligation to eternal punishment. And a little after ; No law ts to be enacted as necessary to eternal salvation, which is not in some degree after the Divine law.³¹

2. It is the duty of Christians, when ceremonial rites are imposed upon them under the plea of necessity, of righteousness, or of merit, to reject the same, and to despise those masters of ceremonies: For so the Apostle directs, both in this place and in Gal. v. 1, Stand fast, there- Sore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not again entangled with the y ke of bondage. But those are entangled with the yoke of bondage upon whom any ceremonies whatever are imposed as necessary, and meritorious, and saving. As, therefore, Christian modesty enjoins us to obey prelates, when they prescribe decorous rites for the sake of order; so Christian liberty enjoins us to withstand the same when they obtrude their traditions under the plea of worship, or of necessity for salvation. For here that saying of Cyprian, De heret. baptizandis, ought to have weight, It is dangerous for any one to surrender his right in Divine things.

3. Distinction of meats or of days is not now to be retained by Christians upon the opinion of necessity, of holiness, of righteouness, or merit. The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, &c. Rom. xiv. 17. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, eat, &c. 1 Cor. x. 95. Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years, Gal. iv. 10. Every creature of God is good and nothing to be rejected if it be received with thanksgiving, 1 Tim. iv. 4. Meats have not profited them that have been exercised therein, Heb. xiii. 9. Well spake Prosper, De vita contempl. lib. 3, cap. 19, It is a miserable thing to condemn others for receiving meat or drink, or to arrogate sanctity to ourselves for abstinence. And Tertullian, De cib. Judaic. Evangelical liberty has taken away the observances of meats. The true and pure meat is a conscience undefiled.

Here, therefore, we blame a double error of the Papists. First, in this they grievously err, and approach very near the Tatians³² and Manicheans, because they forbid certain meats at certain times, on the ground that they think them more cursed and less holy than others. For when they would assign a reason why it is not lawful to eat flesh at the time of fasting, although it is permitted to feed upon fish; they pretend that the earth is cursed by God, and, as a consequence, all earthly animals are so; that the water, with the fish, was not put under the curse; that Christ was accustomed to eat fish, not flesh; by which arguments they affirm that they believe fishes to be in themselves more holy and clean than flesh. Secondly, they further err in this, that they place the merit of I know not what extraordinary perfection in abstinence from meat: . whence it comes to pass that to the Carthusian monks, who would be accounted more perfect and holy than the rest, the use of flesh is forbidden for ever, and to all others during Lent. That remark of Augustine, Serm. De tempore 157, may fitly be brought against them, There are certain observers of Lent more delicate than religious ; seeking rather new delicacies, than chastising old lusts. They shudder at the vessels in which flesh is cooked, as though these were unclean ; but they dread not the luxury of the appetite and gluttony. For if we look into the Schoolmen they place the whole argument of ecclesiastical fasting in a difference and choice of meats, not in abstinence and moderation. Hence Hales, part. 4. quest. 28. memb. 3. art. 2, contends, that we are to abstain in the time of fasting not so much from quantity as from quality : for he asserts, that during the time of fasting, it is a greater sin to eat a little flesh, than to devour much fish. And Durandus, lib. 4. dist. 7. quest 4, writes, That a Popish fast is not broken by one meal, however great, provided they abstain from the meats prohibited, 1. e. from flesh, eggs, and milk. Hence it comes to pass that the Papists feel no scruple to taste wine or fish, however delicate, during Lent, or figs, dates, and almost all other articles which are accounted delicacies, provided they religiously take care not to eat flesh. No wonder fasts are so pleasing to them to whom it is holiness to fast in this manner.

But now let us meet certain doubts, which may arise from this apostolic doctrine, concerning the abrogated difference of meats and days. — ] ltis objected that Christian magistrates have commanded abstinence from meats at certain times; and on this account, those who violate this command are criminal, and may be judged: therefore, Christians are judged on account of meats; which seems to oppose the apostolic conclusion, Let no man therefore judge you, &c.

It is to be answered, first, that the Apostle blames those who introduce a difference of meats for the cause of sanctity ; viz. that so they may condemn as transgressors of the law, those who do not observe this choice of meats: but he blames not those who decide that, for the sake of public utility, the one may be taken at this time, or the other at that: so that they may offer no scruple to men’s consciences, as if it were a thing unlawful in itself to do otherwise. Secondly, we say that the magistrates themselves wish that laws of this kind, in which the fate of the commonwealth is not involved, may be accepted and observed after the manner of citizens, not rigorously; that is, they would have subjects to be bound not to contravene statutes of this kind with contempt or scandal; but they are unwilling so to bind their consciences, that if by accident, or infirmity, or any other reasonable cause, they should act contrary, they should be accounted despisers of the magistracy, much less violaters of the Divine law. Gerson, in Regulis moralibus, observes, No man is bound by the fasts of the Church when under known infirmity of body, scandal being excluded. And Erasmus, in Tract. De amibili ecclesia concordia, says, The constitution of the Church by no means binds those who incur danger from eating fish, or who find that fasting injures the health of the body, or the vigour of the mind. In fine ; it accords not with ecclesiastical or magisterial polity, to prescribe choice of meats at certain times, upon the plea of necessity, or sanctity, or merit; but because it is consistent either with public good, or reason, or the example of the saints, that certain persons should abstain at certain times. With respect to public utility, politicians may see to that: but I affirm it is consistent with reason and the examples of Scripture. For as it is allowable and accordant with reason, that in festivities of public joy, we use more dainty food and allowable gratifications; according to that direction of the ] prophet, Nehem. viii. 10, Eat the fat and drink the sweet ; for this day is holy unto our Lord: so also is it lawful and decorous, when there is cause of signifying public grief or penitence, to abstain from delicate food, and from those other things whereby the body is wont to be cherished and delighted. This we find observed by Daniel, chap. x. verses 2, 35 I was mourning three full weeks. I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth. This also was the use in the primitive Church, yet so that, as Augustine testifies, no one should be urged to severities which he could not bear ; nor that be imposed upon any one which he refused, De morib. eccl. lib. 1. cap. 33.

Let these things suffice for resolving the first doubt.

2. As to festival days ; it is objected that the Jews were even bound to the observance of them after they had embraced Christianity, because God commanded the festivals instituted under the old Testament to be observed for ever. It is expressly said concerning the Passover, Ye shall keep it as a feast to the Lord throughout your generations for ever, Exod. xii. 14. The same command is given concerning the Sabbath, Exod. xxxi. 16. And of every other feast it is said, Levit. xxiii. 21, Lt shall be a statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your generations.

I answer, That Hebrew word, Gnolam, which interpreters sometimes render eternal, sometimes everlasting, and sometimes an age, denotes perpetuity either absolute, or for a period; i. e. limited according to the nature of the thing. It denotes an absolute eternity, when it is predicated of God, or of other eternal things: as when it is said, The truth of God abideth for ever, or when God himself is called eternal. It denotes a period, or a circumscribed perpetuity, in regard to the condition of the subject, when it is predicated of things in their nature frail and mutable: As in Deut. xv. 17, concerning a servant who did not wish to go free, Thou sha’t take an awl and thrust it through his ear, and he shall be thy servant for ever. So 1 Sam. xxvii. 12, Achish said concerning David, He hath made his people utterly to abhor him, therefore he shall be my servant for ever. Latin authors speak after the same manner. Thus Horace,

* Who sells his freedom in exchange for gold,

(Freedom, for mines of wealth too cheaply sold,) 2 Shall make eternal servitude his fate,

And feel a haughty master’s galling weight.”

Francis’s Hor. Ep. x. L. I. Thus the Schoolmen are accustomed to affirm that ungodly men are justly punished in the eternity of God, because they have sinned in suo eterno, in their own eternity. In all these places by the word eternal we are to understand nothing else than the longest duration of a thing according to its nature and condition. So, then, with respect to the feasts and other Jewish ceremonies, which God enjoined to be observed for ever, that the eternity was not absolute, but is to be received in a limited sense, according to the condition of the subjects. And this limitation extended to the advent of Christ and the revelation of the Gospel. This Jeremiah foretold, Chap. xxxi. 31, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant. with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. So Moses himself, Deut. xviii. foretels the coming of a new prophet. St. Paul, in Heb. ix. 10, asserts that those legal ceremonies were imposed until the time of reformation: and in Galat. iii. 24, 25, he says, that the law was a Schoolmaster to lead to Christ, after whose coming we were to be no longer under this School discipline. Since, therefore, holy days and other ceremonies had a limited condition, in the purpose of God, their eternity (as it is called) is for a period, and limited.

Lastly, it is objected, that Christians are not yet freed from the observation of days: For in the Church we celebrate the feast of Easter, of the Nativity of Christ, Pentecost, and some others: we appear, therefore, not yet to have shaken off the yoke of Jewish ceremonies.

We answer ; In the Jewish festivals there was something moral, something ceremonial. In that they had a certain portion of time set apart for the public worship of God, and for the solemn testifying of gratitude for benefits received; this was moral, and natural, and common to them with all other nations: but as to their being bound to observe this or that special season, and the peculiar ceremo- ! nies which were significative of things to come, this rested on the obligation of a Divine command: and these and the other things of the same kind were ritual, temporary, and belonged to the Jews alone, in reference to their times. We, then, are delivered from the ceremonial observance of days, but not from the moral. Whatever, therefore, some are wont to adduce to the contrary, it was piously and prudently provided by the ancient fathers, that those great benefits of the Incarnation, the Passion, the Resurrection, and Ascension of the Son of God, and the Descent of the Holy Spirit, should be celebrated annually in the Church : the remembrance of all which we consecrate by stated anniversaries ; lest, as Augustine says, in the rolling wheel of time an ungrateful forgetfulness creep upon us. De Civit. Dei, lib. 10. cap. 4.

First, the duty of gratitude towards God demands it: for public benefits are to be acknowledged publicly, and to be celebrated by a public offering of thanks: which cannot be conveniently done, unless they who govern the Church or the State prescribe appointed days in which we may assemble; See Joel ii. 15.

Secondly, Reason admonishes us, that to render the remembrance of past benefits more efficacious, they should be recollected (if it can be commodiously done) at that very time in which they were originally bestowed: for a recollection of the day itself excites the mind to a more attentive consideration of the benefit. Hence that injunction of God to the Jews, Exod. xiii. 9, 4, Remember this day in which ye came out of Exypt, &c. This day, I say, came ye out, in the month Abib.

Thirdly, the interest of the people recommends it; By occasion of these festivals, the chief mysteries of our salvation are opened to them; which we may see in the sermons of the Fathers, who always treated those subjects which were connected with the institution of the feasts themselves. Thus Nazianzen, in sanct. Pentecost. says, Our feasts are celebrated in a spiritual manner ; for each solemnaty hath its peculiar tendency ; as the word hath to those who attend upon the word: but that is the most powerful out of the word, which is best suited to the time.

Fourthly, the examples of the pious confirm it. For in the old Testament besides the festivals appointed by God, we read that others were introduced on occasion of new mercies: the feast of Purim, or of lots, instituted by Mordecai, and approved by the Church, Esth. ix. 27: the feast of Dedication, in memory of the reparation of the temple, and of the deliverance from the tyranny of Antiochus, 1 Maccab. iv. 59. Which feast Christ himself honoured by his presence, John x. 22 ; and, doubtless, he never would have done that, if he had considered a feast appointed by man for the recognition of Divine benefits to be unlawful. Therefore the Church, relying upon these reasons and examples, hath rightly judged that certain holy days should be appointed for the public worship of God, and for the public celebration and acknowledgment of benefits received from God.

But here, that all superstition may be avoided, we must apply certain cautions.

1. We must not think that there is more of holiness in one day than another; but must understand that, on account of the order and regulation of the Church, and for the other reasons above-mentioned, we assemble upon one day rather than another for these exercises of holiness.

2. We must not think that the Christian Church is bound by any necessity to the constant observance of holy days; but must conclude that these days appointed by human authority, may be done away and changed by the same authority if the advantage or necessity of the Church should require it: For (by the rule of law) Any thing may be dissolved by the causes which may originate it, be they what they may.

3. Neither must we conclude that private Christians are bound by such necessity to the celebration of festivals, but that they may omit the public solemnization of them, if either necessity or charity require it: but let them take heed lest, upon a false pretext of necessity or charity, they violate the order of the Church, and abuse their Christian liberty. Hostiensis, De feriis. i

4. Although certain festival days are distinguished by the names of Apostles or Martyrs, yet we must not think that they are appointed for the worship of them, or are to terminate in the honour of these. For that error of Bellarmin is to be exploded, who, hb. 3, De cultu sanct. cap. 16, asserts that the honour of feast days immediately and determinately pertains to the saints. The holy Fathers judged otherwise: Eusebius, in lib 4. cap. 15, observes, We do not worship the Martyrs, but we love them as followers of Christ, of whom we also wish to become followers. Basil, in Asceticis, cap. 40, says, It is not proper that Christians should appear together in remembrance of the Martyrs for any other cause than to pray, and by a rehearsal of the constancy of the Martyrs be stirred up to an imitation of like zeal. These festivals, then, are referred to the remembrance of the saints, by whom Christ hath edified his Church for our own benefit; but for the worship and honour of God alone, who bestowed upon Apostles and Martyrs whatever they either had or did, or endured, worthy of praise. This is clear by the practice of our Church. For in those festivals which are distinguished by the names of the Apostles, we do not worship the Apostles, or offer incense to them, or, finally, invoke them ; but we invoke God alone, and offer thanksgivings to God for those benefits which we have received by the ministry of the Apostles.

5. We must not imagine that the outward performance is a worship acceptable to God, so that nothing else is required by the law of feasts than to cease frum daily works, and attend the sacred rites; as Bellarmin, De cultu sanct. lib. 3. cap. 10, would have it; but we must much rather consider that internal operations are required ; namely, cessation from the works of sin, elevation of the mind to God, grateful recollection and consideration of those benefits in remembrance of which festivals were instituted: If these things be wanting, we mock God by the outward solemnity of a holy day. Thus spake Ambrose, De natal. Dom. ser. 14, Whatever polluted character be present at the Festival, although he may be there in body, he is separated in mind ; and whilst he would be serviceable, he is really injurious. ) Lastly, we must beware, lest we pervert holy days to idleness, luxury, and base pleasures altogether unbecoming Christians. For although in publicly observing sacred rites, it is not unlawful to relax the mind, yet we must take heed that that saying of Tertullian, in Apologet. be not rightly applied to us; Is public rejoicing to be thus expressed by public disgrace? Do these things become solemn days, which are unbecoming other days? Shall license in evil be piety? Shall an occasion of luxury be accounted religion ?

Verse 17.

The Apostle concluded in the preceding verse, that Christians are not to be judged or condemned because they do not observe the ceremonial law concerning the difference of meats and appointed festivals. Lest this should seem impious to the Jews, who knew that these ceremonies had been sanctioned by God himself, he meets their secret thoughts, and demonstrates the afore-mentioned conclusion by the most solid reason. His reason is derived from analogy : As the shadow hath relation to its body, so have the ceremonies of the law to Christ and the Gospel: but where the body is, it is ridiculous to catch at and embrace its shadow: therefore, since we have Christ and the Gos- ] pel, it is foolish to retain ceremonies. But to proceed in order we shall here consider three things:

1. That the rites of the Mosaic law concerning meats, holy days, and other matters were shadows of future things ; they are shadows of things to come.

2. That the things shadowed out are exhibited and clearly manifested to us in Christ and the Gospel ; but the body is of Christ.

3. That since it is so, it is meet that these shadows should be abolished ; which the Apostle intended to shew by this contrast. .

1. Which are a shadow of things to come.] That is, Which ceremonies obscurely delineate the offices and benefits of Christ, and the doctrine of the Gospel; for these are those things to come of which the Apostle speaks. Whence Augustine (contra Faustum) calls the Mosaic ceremonies prenunciative observations. And Paul says that they are, not that they were, shadows of things to come, although Christ had then been exhibited, and the Gospel laid open; because he speaks of them as considered in their nature, abstracted from the circumstances of time: for this is the custom of disputants. So that if any one should now be asked, What the legal ceremonies were? he might answer, They are shadows of things to come; not that they now actually exist, or did shadow forth things to come, but that this may be the definition and nature of the ceremonies considered in themselves.

But it may be shewn that the things to come, viz. Christ, and grace, and the doctrine of the Gospel, were shadowed forth in all: but we shall only insist upon those that are particularized by the Apostle in this place, namely, meats and holy days. Concerning meats, that saying of Christ appears most true; Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man ; but those things which come out of the mouth, and the heart, they defile the man; Matth. xv. Therefore, that certain meats are forbidden as unclean, is not to be referred to the nature of the things, but to the signification, and to the shadowing forth obscurely of the moral doctrine, which now is clearly taught by the Gospel. The law forbad levened bread to be eaten, in the seven first days of the Passover, Exod. xii. 15; but what was shadowed forth by this ceremony St. Paul shews, 1 Cor. v. 7, Purge out the old leven that ye may be a new lump, &c. In Levit. xi. various kinds of animals are prohibited as unclean; but it is the fixed opinion of all Divines, that that was done, not on account of any natural uncleanness, but either on account of a moral signification, or for an express distinction of the Jewish church from other nations. The antients for the most part follow that moral signification in their commentaries ; and shew in the several animals prohibited, the depraved affections and habits that are to be avoided. Thus Origen, Hom. 7, in Levit. So Tertullian. De cibis Judaic, from whom it will not be wearisome to quote a few words ; That men might be cleansed, beasts are branded: viz. that men who possess the same vices, might be accounted on a level with cattle. And a little after, Human habits, actions, and desires are depicted in animals: they are clean if they chew the cud, 2. e. if they always have the divine precepts in their mouth, &c. When the law forbids swine to be eaten, it reproves a life filthy, and polluted, and delighting in the impurity of vice. Tertullian makes these and many more such remarks. Theodoret follows the same argument, quest. 11, in Levit. and Augustine embraces the whole matter in these few words, The meats, says he, which the Jews avoided in cattle, it behoves us to avoid in morals. More recent commentators think that God had not respect to the particular properties of the animals in those prohibitions ; but rather wished to distinguish the body of the Jewish Church by this ceremonial from the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and all other nations. By these rites, therefore, they publicly professed themselves to be the peculiar people of God, both washed and sanctified ; whereas all other nations were deemed unclean. The vision of St. Peter, and the application of it, contained in Acts x. verses 11 and 23, favours this opinion. From which it is easy to gather, that by that distinction of animals was shadowed forth the distinction of the Jews from other nations, which is done away through Christ. Whether, therefore, we follow the antient or the more recent opinion, or (which may fitly be done) join them together, it is plain ! that those distinctions of meats were only shadows of things to come, which are made manifest to all by the Advent of Christ.

Now, as to holy days, the argument is the same. For although they were instituted as a memorial of past benefits; as the Passover, in commemmoration of the deliverance from Egypt ; the feast of Pentecost, in remembrance of the benefit of the giving of thelaw; the feast of Tabernacles, in memory of the Divine protection in the wilderness ; the Sabbath, in memory of the creation ; and so of the rest: yet there was conjoined with them, a shadowing forth and promise of the spiritual benefits to be exhibited in Christ. The deliverance from Egypt, and the Passover of the Jews, shadowed forth our deliverance from the powers of hell, and the death of Christ: the feast of Pentecost, and that celebration of the giving of the law shadowed forth the descent of the Holy Spirit, and the writing of the law in the tables of the heart by the same Spirit. The feast of Tabernacles delineated the pilgrimage of a pious man through the desert of this world to the heavenly country; the Sabbath represented the spiritual gladness and rest imparted to the conscience by Christ; and the feast of the New Moon, the enlightening of the Church by Christ, the Sun of righteousness, or the sanctification of a new life. Not to trace every instance, we may say with the Apostle, Heb. x. 1, This ceremonial law was a shadow of good things to come, not the very image of the things. But the substantial benefits themselves are now bestowed upon us Christians, the shadows being taken away.

But here it may be asked whether the pious under the old Testament, before the appearance of Christ and the revelation of the grace of the Gospel, enjoyed only these empty shadows ; or were also made partakers of Christ and his substantial blessings. For since in these ceremonies there was not salvation, righteousness, or the remission of sins, they were the most miserable of mortals if their salvation depended upon these alone. For it was impossible that the blood of bulls or of goats, or any external ceremonies, should take away sins, Heb. x. 4.

We answer, that they used these shadows according to the Divine command ; but they penetrated by faith even to the substance itself, viz. to Christ veiled under these ceremonies. They were, therefore, partakers of spiritual good things like as we; but those good things which were proposed obscurely and sparingly under the old Testament, are exhibited clearly and fully under the New. Whence Clemens, in Strom. 6, observes, There is one Testament of salvation from the beginning of the world, although there seems a difference in the mode of bestowing it. And Augustine, in Evang. John tract. 25, remarks, To the antients temporal things were promised; spiritual things were figured. They waited for the promises by Moses, and they waited for the promises by Christ. And more plainly, contra Adimant. cap. 16, Types and shadows did not impart salvation; but those things which were signified thereby. And upon those things the Patriarchs fixed the eye of faith: as is expressly said of Abraham, John viii. 56, He saw the day of Christ and was glad ; and it is shewn of all, Heb. xi. 13, These all died in faith, not having received the promises ; but having seen them afar off.

2. But the body is of Christ.] That is, In Christ we have those true and solid benefits which were shadowed forth and figured in the aforesaid ceremonies. It will not be necessary to run through the ceremonies minutely: For whether they shadowed forth moral purity, this Christ clearly taught, perfectly exhibited; whether they engaged for the expiation of sin, this Christ merited for us upon the Cross; or promised the participation of heavenly blessings, this also Christ communicated to all his people by the Gospel: to sum up all in a word ; Whatever good was concealed in the legal shadows, that we have revealed and held forth by Christ and the Gospel. Upon this, Tertullian, De Trinit. remarks, The authority of the Old Testament totters not, whilst it is upheld by the revelation of the New; nor is the power of the New Testament cut off, whilst it is rooted on the Old. And Lactantius, in Instit. 4, cap. 20, says, The Testaments are not different; for the New is nothing else than the completion of the Old, and in each there is the same . Testator-—Christ. The time, therefore, of the Old Testament was the time of signifying ; but this, of manifesting : that was a time in which the good things to be exhibited were prefigured by shadows ; this is the time in which the truth itself, and the body of things so prefigured, is exhibited, according to that word of John, The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, John i. 17. On many accounts, therefore, the Mosaic rites are compared £o shadows; but Christ, and the grace of the Gospel exhibited with Christ, to the body:

1. Because as the body is the cause of the shadow, not vice versa; so Christ was the cause of the Mosaic rites; and he, therefore, had power to abolish the same by his coming.

2. Because as the shadow is the sign of the body; so the types and figures were the signs of Christ to be exhibited.

3. Because as the shadow represents the body very obscurely and imperfectly ; so those legal ceremonies represented Christ.

4. Because as the shadow by itself avails nothing, neither can; but it is the property of the body to act, and to exert its own power: so those ceremonies by themselves could avail nothing to the remission of sins, sanctification, and salvation; but all the efficacy of salvation is from Christ.

These things being established, viz. that the ceremonies were shadows, it remains, in the last place, to shew, that Christ having exhibited the body of these shadows, it is right that they should now be done away :

First, Because, as Augustine properly remarks, The method to be observed in our obedience towards God, is, that whatever God directs in appointing particular times, is so to be observed as he directs it. Now God, in his wisdom, so directed times, that he would have shadows, and the discipline of a tutor, to prevail until the coming of Christ; but when Christ, the Sun of righteousness, arose, he would have those shadows to flee, and the meridian light of the Gospel every where to shine. So the Apostle argues in Gal. iv. ; When we were children, we lived under those elements as under tutors: but since God hath sent his Son to deliver us, we ought not to recur to these weak and beggarly elements. Therefore, as it would have been contemptuous, not to use these ceremonies under the Old Testament, when enjoined by God himself, so it is folly to desire to use the same now under the Gospel, when they are done away by Christ himself.

Secondly, because means are used in order to an end ; and the end of the ceremonies was the utility of the signification, which has now ceased and that for two reasons: first, because the things which were signified as future, are no longer future, but accomplished: therefore, they would be false shadows, since they would assume that to be future, which is past. Secondly, because the doctrine of the Gospel now clearly propounds all those mysteries which were only obscurely suggested by the ceremonies. Let the carnal celebration, therefore, now end, when the spiritual signification shines forth: for what need is there of a little lamp in the splendour of the sun?

Thirdly, it is not now proper to retain the ceremonies, because far better things are substituted in their places. For Christ hath abrogated the ancient rites, not by condemning them, but fulfilling them: for he so removed the shadows and representations, as to exhibit to men the substantial and real body in their room. Whence that declaration of Augustine, Advers. Judaeos, The people of Christ are not now compelled to observe what they observed in the times of the prophets, not because those things are condemned, but because they are changed for the better.

And here just occasion presents itself for reproving those who, notwithstanding this abrogation of the ceremonies, are so delighted with shadows, that they place more holiness in following rites and human traditions than in obeying the Gospel. But of this superstition we shall have occasion to treat hereafter. Let it now suffice to have spoken thus much concerning the argument of the Apostle derived from analogy, or the relation of the body to the shadow. ‘

Verse 18.

We shall inquire first into the sense of these words, and then proceed to the subject matter.

Let no man beguile you of your reward.] This word xata- BpaBevérw, which is here translated beguile you of your reward, is taken from the gymnastic contests, in which the judge and umpire of the contest is called GoaBeus, or BpaBevtng : hence GpaBevev means (o regulate the contest, to dispense the rewards, &c. But from this special signification it is transferred to a general one, and denotes him who regulates and defines any act or matter in that mode in which those umpires were accustomed to do. But xatafpaGevew, as here used, means to discharge this office perversely, and unjustly to decide, not on the ground of right, but according to his own will, to withdraw and take away the prize. Hence Beza translates it, Let no umpire determine concerning you. Erasmus, Let no one intercept the prize from you; others, Let no one defraud you of your reward. But to confess the truth, that Greek word cannot be expressed in a single Latin one: Every interpreter, therefore, adopts what best pleases him, since, indeed, by this one word, all those things are denoted which different interpreters adduce.

The participle Seawy willing some join with the preceding words, and take it to be the same with ‘c9&vrw, voluntary, in that sense in which Cicero, in his Philippics, called Asinus a voluntary Senator, and chosen by himself : so these seducers were umpires, but voluntarily, and chosen by themselves; for this power of judging and dispensing they arrogated to themselves without any right. Let no one be a voluntary umpire, says Beza. Others think that this word Saw is placed with an ellipsis, and supply the words to do this, i. e. to defraud you, or exercise the authority of a judge over you. So the Greek Scholiast, and Calvin. Tremellius follows the Syriac, as though it were to be read, Mu; Üpdis naraBpuRevsw Séao, translating it, Let no one be willing to render you blamable, I embrace the first interpretation ; because the second is forced to supply something by conjecture, and the third is opposed to the Greek manuscripts.

In worship of angels.] Some take this to be spoken of a certain new worship, or of new articles of religion, which the seducers boasted that they had received by extraordinary visions from angels: by the worship of angels, therefore, they understand the worship delivered or revealed by angels. But others apply it to the doctrine of the seducers concerning angels being worshipped: which opinion appears to me the more probable, as well because Paul himself, at the beginning of the Epistle, so studiously made angels subordinate, and subjected them to Christ as their Creator; as because it is evident from history, that the d worship of angels prevailed in those regions of Phrygia, and on that account was afterwards condemned in the Laodicean council, as Theodoret writes.

Intruding into those things which he hath not seen.] Erasmus thinks that the original term éugaltvziy,” means to walk in a stately manner, as the gods and kings were accustomed to do in tragedies; for the buskins worn by tragedians, were called suga2:;; from which he would derive éuSaléveyv. But Budeus,* with more truth, and more according to the use of the Greek language, shews that the word means nothing else than to place the foot upon, or to enter into possession of any thing: For thus did the false apostles thrust themselves into things the most unknown and obscure, as into a house very familiar to them, or in their own possessions, where they governed and determined as they pleased, and imposed upon Christians according to their own will.³³

Those last words, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, are explained in different modes, but with no difference of sense. For whether we render it by the sense of his flesh, or by the mind of his flesh, or by his fleshly mind, or, lastly, by the persuasion of his flesh; it speaks the same thing, viz. that the seducers drew their doctrine, not from the revelation of the Divine Spirit, but from the presumption of human reason. But we dismiss the explanation of the words and proceed to the matter itself.

In these 18th and 19th verses is contained the second part of the Apostle’s conclusion, which is an inference from the discussion already considered. And here he rejects that corruption of religion which had its origin from a deceitful philosophy. For as the Jews (whom he had refuted in the two preceding verses) obtruded the Mosaic ceremonies ; so others introduced curious speculations from the schools of the philosophers, and particularly the worshipping of angels, which is found among the dogmas of the Platonists. For Plato, in 4. De legibus, prescribes, that, after the tutelary gods, demons are to be worshipped. And in Epinomide, he says, that demons ought to be worshipped because they hold the middle place between the gods and men ; and discharge the office of interpreters: they are therefore to be worshipped xpw ris évÓnuow diamopeias, for their propitious and happy intercession between God and men.³⁴

In this verse the Apostle does three things.

1. He deeply brands those seducers, and concludes that no regard is to be paid to them ; and that on two accounts: First, because they usurp the authority of judges to them- . selves ; secondly, because they abuse the same to defraud the people. Both these are intimated in the words, Let no man beguile you of your reward, according to his will.

2. He shews in what instance they abused the authority usurped, and endeavoured to deceive the people, viz. whilst they suggest to them a foolish humility, and the worship of angels; in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels.

3. He reproves this erroneous doctrine on a double charge, viz. that of ignorance and pride. It arises from ig- ‘ norance ; for they intruded into those things which they had not seen; and from pride, for these things they prated about, not being taught of the Spirit, but relying upon their own wit, vainly puffed up by their fleshly mind.

Let no man beguile you of your reward.] He rebukes those seducers, and shews they were not to be accounted of: l. Because in sacred things which had respect to the worship of God, and the salvation of men, they arrogate to themselves, by no right whatever, an imperious power of determining and decreeing, even as the judges were accustomed in contests. For these voluntary umpires decreed the reward of eternal life to be granted to no one who was unwilling to subscribe to their novel doctrines. But whence did they derive this authority of defining? Who made them lords over the faith of Christians? Who gave them the power of framing new doctrines? They truly usurped to themselves this office, and became voluntary judges by their own suffrages. Therefore, inasmuch as the Apostle strikes at this usurped authority of seducers, we must understand that such power is granted to no mortal man, that he should determine any thing in matters of faith and religion of his own will; but is bound to judge according to the rule of law, i.e. according to the sacred Scriptures: If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them, Isa. viii. 20. Prating without the authority of. Scripture is of no credit, says Jerom, in Cap. 1. ad Titum. And Lactantius, Instit. lib. 8. cap. 13, observes, A man, be he who he may, if he trusts in himself, that is, in a man, is certainly arrogant, since he presumes to claim for himself what human condition does not admit. It is, then, above the condition of man to be an absolute judge in matters of faith. Hence estimate Romish tyranny, which has claimed to itself for a long time this very power over all Christians. What pleases them, either must forthwith be believed, or they brandish their anathemas. If you require the testimonies of Scripture to support the faith, they say that they are judges of all controversies, and of the Scriptures themselves; nay, that they can prescribe articles of faith from unwritten,traditions. But what else is this than to rule over the churches, and the consciences of men in the same manner in which umpires were accustomed to do in the games and contests ?— Thus far concerning the first mark of seducers, which they possess in common with our Papists.

Secondly, those seducers are reprehended and rejected, not only because they usurped to themselves undue and illegal power, but also because they abused the same to deceive Christians. How? Namely, whilst they exercised them in vain worship and toil, from which they could derive no profit; and whilst they led them from the straight course, and from the mark set before them in the word, to their own inventions. For as a director of the games, if he should order any one to run (as they say) without the course, would defraud him of his prize; because he never would arrive by that way at the goal: so they who direct Christians to seek salvation apart from Christ, endeavour to beguile them of their reward ; because they never could gain the prize of their high calling: For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end, Heb. iti. 14. Therefore, be it established, that whoever endeavour to lead us from the simplicity of the Gospel and from Christ, do, by the same effort, endeavour to beguile us of our reward. ‘Therefore, let them be despised and withstood ; for they are voluntary judges, they are deceitful impostors.—Thus much concerning the two marks which are branded on these seducers.

In humility and worshipping of angels.] Some explain these words of the pretended humility of the seducers themselves, and of a certain new worship which they feigned to have been made known to them by angelic revelations. But (as we noted at the beginning) the opinion of the antients is the more probable, which most of our own writers, and even of the Papists, follow; viz. that the Apostle spake of a certain preposterous humility, and worship of the angels themselves, to which they attempted to persuade Christians.

But these words, in a humility and worshipping of angels, — are connected; because, under the pretext of humility, they introduced that worship. For they argued, that we were unworthy to approach God directly; therefore, the intercession of angels was to be solicited, and that they were to be invoked to conduct us to God. As to the humidiy, then, or lowliness of mind, we must understand that it was not a true and laudable, but a preposterous and superstitious humility, forced upon the minds of Christians, . by those seducers. Now I call that preposterous which makes a man dejected in what he ought to be joyful; or which diminishes and lessens his confidence in those things in which it is laudable to have the greatest confidence. Such a humility, then, they induce, who wish us on account of our unworthiness, not to implore forthwith the power and assistance of our God-man Mediator, but to go first to angels or saints.

But this foolish lowliness of mind is rightly reproved, because Christ himself is more united to us both by nature and love than the angels; and the Scriptures command us to go unto him with boldness, and to no other Mediator: Rom. v.2, By whom we have access; and Ephes. iii. 12, In whom we have boldness, and access with confidence by the faith of him; and Heb. iv. 16, Let us come with boldness unto the throne of grace. For he, therefore, humbled himself, and took our nature, that we might approach him the more boldly as our elder brother: I can speak more safely, says Augustine, and more cheerfully to my Jesus, than to any of the holy spirits of God, De vis. infirm. lib. 2. cap. 2. That humility, then, which leads us from Christ the Mediator is to be renounced: If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and He is the propitiation for our sins, &c. 1 John ii. 1, 2.

And worshipping of angels.] That improper lowliness of mind begets superstitious worship. The Latin word colo, commonly used for worship, is of a general signification; and we are rightly said colere—to revere, not only God, but parents, or any other superiors. Thus speaks Cicero: Duty is that by which we reverence, and colimus, worship superiors; and elsewhere, Thy Father, whom colui—1 worshipped and loved. But the Greek word, Spnoxsias, which the Apostle uses, is wont to be referred to religious or Divine worship: For it is derived (as Plutarch writes) from the Thracians, among whom Orpheus first taught the worship of the gods. Therefore, the Colossians in this place are admonished, lest, being deceived by impostors, they should give Divine or religious worship to angels.

But because, from this and similar places, there arises between us and the Papists a great controversy about the worship of angels, and deceased saints, who are icayye»oi, equal to the angels, Luke xx. 36; in order that it may be seen with whom the truth lies, we shall briefly dispatch these three points. First, we shall shew a distinction of worship: Secondly, demonstrate that religious worship is due to God alone: Thirdly, prove that this worship rendered formerly by these seducers to angels and saints, and now by the Papists, is forbidden.

1. As to the first; Worship is obedience rendered to any one on account of his excellence, But under the word obedience I include the act of the mind, whereby we apprehend the excellence of the person, or of the thing honoured; the act of the will, whereby we submit inwardly to him, and are ready to acknowledge it by suitable offices; and the act of the body, whereby we shew the outward sign of our humility. But now this worship is exercised with a threefold difference, according to a threefold excellency of the things which are worshipped. There is a certain worship of civil subjection which is offered to a person by reason of a particular eminence and dominion which he hath over another; with this civil worship we worship magistrates, parents, preceptors, &c. There is another worship of moral reverence, which is offered to persons or things on account of their excellence considered in themselves, by reason of virtue, station, or any dignity apart from authority in the person honoured, or subservience in the person honouring. We worship learned, pious, and wise men with this moral worship, although we are not subject to them by any political subordination: we venerate saints and angels with this same worship, yet in a higher degree, because they are endowed with more excellent gifts, : virtues, and graces: We honour them with love, not with service. August. De vera relig. cap. 55. And, lastly, there is the worship of sacred religion, or /atria, which is rendered to him alone whom we apprehend as the author of creation and of our blessedness. Thus much concerning the difference of worship.

2. Now let us shew that religious worship, whether it be called latria or dulia, is to be given to God alone, not 2 to angels or saints.³⁵

It is shewn, first, from the interpretation of the word itself, and that by the concurrence of the Heathen, the Fathers, and Schoolmen. Religion, says the Orator, is that which produces regard and service to some superior nature, which he calls divine ; and elsewhere ; Religion is that which is comprised in the pious worship of the gods. Lactantius, in his Instit. lib, 4. cap. 29, remarks, We are tied and bound to God, by the bond of piety, whence Religion itself derives its name. So Augustine, De civit. Dei, lib. 10. cap. 1. If we merely call it worship, it does not appear due to God alone ; but if we more distinctly call it Religion, it signifies not any worship, but that of God. So Aquinas, Q. 2. qu. 81. art. 1, Religion hath reference to God: and art. 8, Religion is a virtue exhibiting service to God in those things which especially pertain to God. Hilary, 8 De Trinit. says, Religion paid to the creature is accursed. From all these testimonies it is plain that religious worship is to be paid to God alone.

Secondly, the same is evident from clear testimonies of Scripture. From Deut. vi. 13. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and him only shale thou serve. From Gal. iv. 8, Ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods; edsacvoate. Religious service dsaea dulia, therefore, is due only to him who by nature is God. In Rev. xix. 10, the angel would not be adored by John: See thou do it not ; Lam thy fellow-servant. Worship God.

Thirdly, the same is proved by reason. For the foundation of religious worship, whether you call it latria or duha, is infinite excellence apprehended under the consideration of our first cause and chief good: it is not a sufficient reason, therefore, for offering to them, that angels and saints are endowed with supernatural gifts, or procure for us many good things, unless they are the first and chief cause to us, and of our chief good: So says Augustine, tract. 23, in Evang. John, This is the Christian religion, to worship but one God ; because only the one God renders the soul happy: and lib. 22, contr. Faust. We worship the martyrs with the worship of fellowship and love, whereby they also in this life worshipped holy men, Where it is to be observed, that dead saints are worshipped with the same worship with which they were whilst alive, and, therefore, not religious worship.

3. In the third place we must shew, that the Papists ascribe to angels, and even to saints, supreme religious worship, no less than these seducers, who are censured for introducing the worshipping, Spnoxeiav, of angels. For Bellarmin says, that the heresy of Simon Magus is reproved in this place, who taught that certain angels were to be adored as lesser gods, because they made the world; and prescribed sacrifices to be offered to the same, and, in fact, paid to the angels the highest worship of adoration; but that this does not affect the Papists, who only render to them dulia, i.e. worship inferior to that which is Divine. But this jesuitical tergiversation avails nothing. For the Apostle forbids not this or that, but all worshipping of angels, 1. e. all religious worship not founded in the word of God, whether that used by the followers of Magus, or the Papists. It is, then, ridiculously said, That he forbids that religious worship which Simon Magus paid to angels, therefore, not that which the Papists render: for he forbad both. Moreover the Platonists themselves, or the heretics did not worship the angels as in their apprehension first causes, but as ministers under God; they, therefore, might use that distinction of latria and dulia, as well as our Papists. Lastly, the Fathers in this place testify that the same worship is forbidden which the Papists daily render, viz. the worship of invocation, whereby they acknowledged the angels as Mediators between God and man. For so Theodoret and Chrysostom assert ; the former of whom declares that oratories were built to the angel Michael by those idolatrous worshippers of angels ; which every one knows is also done by the Papists.

But since the Papists, whatever worship they pay to angels or saints, always escape through this loop-hole, viz. ! That they do not render it with the intent of worshipping them with /atria, as the first cause and authors of good, but with dulia, as servants most pleasing to God, by whose assistance they more easily obtain whatever they require from God, the fountain of all good ;—we shall clearly shew, that they do render that to angels and saints, which pertains to that highest worship of /atria. Laying aside, therefore, all that tacit mind and intention of theirs, which God alone knows, we shall deliver our judgment upon this point from the external actions, which meet our eyes and ears.

1. Prayer, or religious invocation, is an act of latria, or of the highest worship: for when we pray religiously, we acknowledge that he upon whom we call can hear us, that he can deliver us, that he can give us those good things which we ask; Whence that declaration in the Psalms, Psal. 1. 15, Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me. But the Papists call upon angels and saints; they think that they can be delivered by their aid ; and, finally, they honour them for their deliverance. Now, truly, all these things are proper to God alone; to be every where present, and to hear the prayers of all that call upon him, to deliver supplicants from impending evils, to bestow gifts, and, lastly, to be adored with religious honours for this his compassion. Since, therefore, in the very act of invocation, these things are ascribed to saints and angels, /atria, or Divine worship, is paid to them, Upon this, Tertullian, De orat. cap. 1, writes, that Christ taught us that our religious intreaties should be offered to him alone whom we believe every where to hear and to see us. And advers. Marcion, 4, They who supplicate another god, and not the Creator, do not pray to him, but dishonour him.

2. To make a vow to another, is an act of atria, due to God alone. Isa. xix. 21, and Psal.l. 14, Offer unto God thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the Most High ; and Psa, Ixxvi. 11, Vow and pay unto the Lord your God. Aquinas himself, Q. 2. quest. 88. art. 1, thus defines a vow, A vow is a promise made to God, by which we dedicate the things promised to the Divine service. But now the Papists cannot deny that they may make vows to angels and saints. Whence, in the profession of the Friars Predicate, that formula of vowing is customary, I vow to God, and to the blessed Mary, and to all the saints, &c. Nay, when in any danger, they utter some vow to the saint whose aid they implore. What does Bellarmin say to allthis? The vow is made to God for a token of gratitude towards the first cause of all good things ; but to saints or angels, as a token of gratitude towards the intercessors by whom we receive benefits from God. But this does not excuse the idolatry; because, whatever be the intention or reference, an act of latria cannot be offered to creatures. For what Bellarmin says of vows, might be said of sacrifices under the Old Testament, viz. That sacrifice was to be made to God alone, in token of gratitude and obedience towards the First Cause ; but that sacrifices might be offered to angels or departed patriarchs in token of gratitude and obedience towards mediators and intercessors.

3. To erect a temple (i. e. a house of prayer and of religious worship), to raise altars, and offer incense in honour of any one, is to pay Divine honour to him, Concerning temples, Augustine, Contra Max. Arian, remarks, If we were to erect a temple to an angel, we should be anathematized from the truth of Christ and the Church of God. So concerning altars; An altar is that which testifies that he to whom it is erected is accounted a God. Concerning incense it is evident as well among the heathen as the Jews, that it was a token of Divine honour ordained for his own worship by God, Exod. xxx. 37. All these the antient heretics assigned to angels ; these the Papists assign to angels and saints. Concerning temples, Bellarmin says, De cultu sanct. lib. 3. cap. 4, Sacred houses are rightly erected and dedicated, not only to God, but also to the saints: and this that there he may be worshipped and invoked as a patron to whom it is dedicated, for instance, Peter or Paul, But God claims this honour to himself, Mv house shall be called the house of prayer, Matth. xxi. 13. Concerning altars, the same author , confesses, they are dedicated to saints, but not with the purport of an altar, but of a monument or sepulchre. But what madness is this to refer those things to other respects and inferior worship which God himself in his word, hath confined to the worship of latria? Lastly, concerning incense, the same Bellarmin concedes, that sweet odours are burnt to the images whether of angels or of saints: But these ceremonies (as hath been said) refer to the outward acts of latria. We conclude, therefore, with the Apostle, as well against antient heretics as these new ones, Let no man beguile you into the worshipping of angels or of saints; for what is peculiar to God is rendered to creatures by both. Let us proceed, and dismiss the rest briefly.

Intruding into those things which he hath not seen.] He rejects this doctrine of the worshipping of angels on a twofold account. First (as ye perceive) because it proceeded from those who are accustomed rashly to invent and boldly to speak about matters altogether unknown to them. For when he says intruding into those things which he hath not seen, his meaning is, Determining or decreeing concerning those things the certainty of which he neither sees to be revealed in the word of God to the eye of faith, nor has investigated by the judgment of a sound reason, nor comprehended in a way of certain knowledge. Towards these, that remark of the Apostle, 1 Tim. i. 7, applies, Destring to be teachers, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. For if you ask those who would have angels and saints to be worshipped by us with invocations, dedications of temples and altars, promising of vows, and other religious ceremonies, whence they learn that this worship is to be paid them; they cannot say that they learn it from the word of God, or from the example of prophets or apostles, or from any certain ground, but that they only so determine of their own will concerning things altogether unknown to them. Proceed and ask them, since they would have saints and angels to be invoked by us, how they can persuade us that they hear always and receive the prayers of all those who supplicate them: Some will answer, that angels and saints, from the beginning of their happiness, see all things which are performed by us, in the mirror of the Divinity ; others think that our prayers are revealed by God himself to those whom we invocate, from the very instant we utter our prayers ; some suppose that the saints know the prayers of men from the relation of angels. But of these things they have nothing established by sound reason. So Cajetan, in Qu. 2. qu. 88. art. 5, ingenuously confesses, We are not certain that the saints hear our prayers, though we piously believe it. They intrude themselves, therefore, into those things which they know not.

Hence we may infer:

1. That their bold curiosity is not to be endured who intrude themselves into the determining of things the investigation of which surpasses human wit. For, as the Apostle prudently advises, Rom. xii.3, Let no one think more highly than he ought to think; but let him think soberly. Where an obscure matter exceeds our measure, and the holy Scripture does not clearly help us, human conjecture rashly presumes to determine anything. August. ad Optat. Epist. 157.

2. Concerning things relating to religion, nothing should be determined without a sure foundation; but that foundation is the word of God; for whatever things we see relating to our salvation we see in this. He who obtrudes any thing which he did not find there, hath not seen it, but imagined, as in a dream, that he hath seen it.

3. Our Church is not to be condemned because she does not receive those dogmas about purgatory, indulgences, the worship of saints, and other things of the same sort: since (if we should allow, which, however, we cannot allow, that they are not repugnant to the word of God,) it is certain, neither the Fathers nor the Papists found any of these in the Scriptnres. And we are not bound to believe men when they intrude upon us those things which they have not seen.

4. They, therefore, exercise tyranny over the Church, : who pronounce as heretics, and anathematize, all who will not hold those comments of men for articles of faith.

Thus far concerning the defect of certain knowledge in these seducers.

Vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind.] Here again the Apostle reprehends the aforementioned doctrine; because, not only do the authors of it labour ignorantly, but, moreover, are puffed up with pride, and thence presume that their inventions are the dictates of truth itself. For the Jleshly mind denotes the reason of the animal man, or perspicacity not enlightened by the Divine Spirit. Therefore, they rashly think that they can discover truth in the business of religion by their own acuteness of understanding, whereas the natural man cannot receive the things which are of God, 1 Cor. ii. 14. Whence Athenagoras, in his apology for Christians, rightly observes, Although the philosophers did as much as reason could, yet they found not out the truth concerning God, because they would know it, not from God, but each for himself.*

Three properties of impostors may, therefore, be observed in this place.

1. In Divine things to have confidence in the acuteness of their reason, and to think that they can find out the mysteries of religion by the light of nature. This was the fault of the antient heretics, this is the fault of the Papists, who in matters of Religion and faith hold as many dogmas derived from human reason, as from the Scriptures.

2. To love these inventions of their own brain with a certain foolish self-complacency, and to exhibit, like apes, this most deformed offspring of their own conceit, for the highest and fairest wisdom. This was the custom of all heretics, who despised, in comparison of these their inventions, the doctrines clearly delivered in the Scriptures, as things placed before their feet.

3. Not only to love and to extol these doctrines springing from their fleshly mind, but, moreover, to be so puffed up as to account these their dreams for the revelations of the Holy Spirit himself. They, therefore, imagine, that they are filled with the Spirit, when they are inflated and puffed up with empty wind. I might confirm all these things by examples from the antient heretics; but it is not needful to repeat old things: consider the Papists, who in all those points which they thrust upon Christian people without the authority of the word, blush not to usurp that affirmation of the Apostles, It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.—Thus much concerning the second species of impostures, which hath its foundation in the cunning of human wit.³⁶

Verse 19.

The Apostle proceeds in refuting the doctrine of the seducers concerning the worship of angels ; and does it by a new argument, and the weightiest of all: But thus his instruction would run: Those are not to be heard by you who endeavour to draw you away from Christ your Head : but this they do who intrude the worship of angels ; therefore both they and their doctrine are to be rejected. He omits the major proposition because it is clear of itself: He expresses the minor in deep terms, Not holding the Head. J For these words must be connected with the preceding, in which those who introduce the worship of angels are censured because they intrude themselves into unknown things; because they are puffed up by an opinion of their wisdom ; and now he adds, in the last place, because they hold not Christ the Head. Then he joins an amplification of this argument, borrowed from the effects of the head, and their fruit. Two effects are touched upon: The first; this Head supplies all things necessary to its members. The second, it binds and knits together the same as well to itself, as to each other. Lastly, he notes the fruit; the spiritual augmentation of the Church itself. “Therefore, we must not depart from such a Head.

And not holding the head.] This is that capital crime of seducers ; Whilst they would have angels to be worshipped, thev proceed to diminish the dignity of Christ; for they take away from him the prerogative of the Head. They hold not the Head, because they themselves neither rightly judge of the virtue and sufficiency of this Head, nor preach it to others. For Christ, the God-man, is the Head of the Church : If they acknowledged him to be God, they would seek from him alone grace and salvation; if to be man, they would not solicit angels or other men to intercede with God for them ; since they have Christ our elder brother, sitting continually at the right hand of God. AIthough, therefore, as far as words go, they concede the name of the Head of the Church to Christ, yet they take away from him the reality and the prerogative itself of the Head, whilst they hope more easily to obtain mercy, grace, righteousness, and remission of sins by the meditation of saints or angels, than of Christ; and, therefore, they offer the worship of invocation to them more frequently and more earnestly than to Christ.

Hence we may infer,

1. The primary object of Satan is, by seducers, who are his ministers, to withdraw Christians from Christ the Head, and to persuade them to rest for salvation upon other aids, not upon Christ alone.

2. They who feel concern for their salvation ought never to turn their eyes from their Head: for if they are plucked away from him by the wiles of seducers, there is an end of salvation.

3. Christians are plucked away, and do not hold the Head, whenever they embrace new doctrines, new worship, new means of salvation, never prescribed or delivered by Christ and his Apostles. Jf any man teach any other doctrine, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, he is proud, knowing nothing. 1 Tim, vi. 3, 4. Thus far concerning the crime of seducers, viz. that they do not hold the Head; by which argument the Apostle proves that they are to be rejected.

Now, if it be enquired, Why they are to be avoided who hold not the Head, or Why it is so necessary for us to adhere to the Head ; the Apostle shews it from the effects which flow from the Head, and the fruit of the same; which are comprehended in these words,

From which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.] He illustrates the effects of Christ the Head by metaphors borrowed from the natural head and body. For as the members, whilst they are joined to the Head, receive life, motion, and sense from it, by arteries, veins, and nerves, and are also connected with each other by certain ligaments: so, whilst Christians cleave to Christ the Head, they receive and draw from him spiritual life by spiritual joints and bands, and, moreover, are united to each other by the strongest ties.

All those things which bind us to Christ, and by which celestial benefits are supplied to us, are called commissure, or ‘agiz, joints; and all those things by which the members cohere together under this Head, and communicate mutual advantages to each other, are termed juncture, or ctvecuor, bands. The phrase nourishment mints’ered, raust, therefore, be connected with joints; and knit together, with bands. The former has respect to the union of the members with Christ ; the latter to the union and binding together of the members with each other; and from both the increase of the Church results. Which two things, for the sake of ° perspicuity, we shall consider apart.

First, then, the effect which is obtained from cleaving to Christ our Head is this, that ‘he whole body, cleaving indeed to him, hath by joints nourishment ministered.

Now, truly, the joints by which we are united to Christ the Head, and by which the influence of Christ is derived to us, are the Spirit of Christ, and the gifts of the same Spirit, especially faith, which is the hand whereby spiritual benefits are apprehended. Without the Spirit of Christ, no one is joined to Christ :. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his, Rom. viii. 9. Therefore, that we may be quickened and united to Christ, first of all God pours into us the Spirit of Christ. For as that member is not truly united to the head which is not animated with the same essence as the head itself; so neither is that Christian united to Christ who lacks the Spirit of Christ. This Spirit, therefore, is the primary joint by which we touch Christ, Christ us, and one another mutually, and by whom all gifts are derived to us. And among these gifts faith obtains the primary place, by which, as a secondary mean, we are united to Christ, and by which we receive the righteousness of Christ, the remission of sins, and all the grace promised in the Gospel by Christ. am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst, John vi. 35. Faith, therefore, is that other joint by which we are united to Christ, and by the operation of which the grace of the Gospel is derived to us. For the whole body which thus adheres to Christ the Head by the Spirit and by faith, hath nourishment ministered, as we translate ’emxopnyeita:. What is the force of this term? The Greeks call him xogmyóv who supplied all the apparatus to the leaders of the antient sacred dances. By a metaphor derived from this, he is said xopnysiv, to supply the expenditure, who furnishes to another the things necessary for any particular object: and ’emixopnyelv, the word used by the Apostle, signifies the doing of this copiously and abundantly. When, therefore, it is said, that the whole body of the Church hath, by the Joints afore-mentioned, nourishment ministered, the Apostle intends that all things necessary to its salvation are by Christ abundantly supplied to his Church cleaving to him. For whether (to use the terms of the Schools) we regard grace making grateful, or grace gratuitously given, Christ abundantly communicates both to his Church by his Spirit ; so that every thing is supplied to it by its Head which it can even wish in order to life eternal. Of that grace which has respect to the justification and sanctification of any particular person, the Apostle testifies, in Rom. viii. 10, and 2 Cor. viii. 9, that it is ministered to all his members by Christ. As to that which relates to the edification of the Church, those gifts of grace are likewise abundantly ministered to the Church; 1 Cor. xii. 7, &c. and Ephes. iv. 11, 12. Thus much as to the prior effect. We may here observe,

1. In the whole body of the Church is not found a single dry member, but all are watered by the streams of grace flowing from Christ the Head.

9. To adhere to the Roman Pontiff as a visible head, does not constitute a true member of the Church; but to adhere to Christ the Head. Therefore, hypocrites, and the ungodly, are not true members of the Catholic Church, to whatever visible church they may join themselves, unless by the joints of the Spirit and of faith they are united to Christ.

3. As to doctrine and saving grace, the whole body of the Church is supplied from its head, not one member by another. Whence Theodoret, on this text, says, The Church receives both the fountains of doctrine, and the matter of salvation from Christ the Lord.

4. The Papists err, who will have the Church to draw the doctrine of salvation, not alone from Christ the Head, but from human traditions; who will have her also to receive the matter of salvation, viz. holiness, merit, and satisfactions, not from Christ alone, and the passion of Christ, but from angels, from saints, and the sufferings of saints. If this be true, this statement of the Apostle is not true, that his whole body hath nourishment ministered, i. e. is abundantly supplied and furnished for the attainment of salvation by Christ the Head. Thus much concerning . the first effect, which is obtained by those who cleave to Christ the Head.

The second effect of the Head is, that by virtue of it the whole body is by bands knit together. These words, as hath been said, respect the union and binding of the members not only to their Head, but to one another: for, as it is said in Rom. xii. 5, We being many are one body in Christ, &c. And the bands, or ovvdecuo, by whose power we are knit together in one body, are the same of which we have before spoken ; the Spirit, and the gifts of the Spirit. For the same Spirit which unites us to Christ, is that principal band by which we are united to one another: for by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, \ Cor. xii. 13. Now after this Spirit is infused into all the ligaments of the Church, it enkindles in every one that excellent gift of charity which is also the firmest bond of cohesion. There are also other ties by which the members of the Church are

Ll12 516 AN EXPOSITION OF 8T. PAUL’s Chap. ii. bound to one another, viz. the diversity of gifts and callings emanating from the same Spirit: for God gave some, Apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; Ephes. iv. 11, 12. These, then, are those eminent effects which are found by all who cleave to Christ the Head ; but which are lost by those who do not obtain the Head ; for to those who are separated and plucked away, there is no place in this body, where all things are knit together.

It remains now that we speak of the fruit which springs from this union of the members to the Head, and their being knit with one another, and the consequent effects: He expresses this-in these words;

Increaseth with the increase of God.] Whilst they continue united to Christ the Head by true faith, and knit together by love, the whole body of the Church increaseth, &c. He calls the spiritual growth of a Christian in faith, love, holiness, and all saving grace, the increase of God. This growth is said to be of God, as well because it is from God, as the primary agent; (for Paul may plant, and Apollos may water, but God giveth the increase, 1 Cor. iii. 6) as because it tends to the glory of God, as its ultimate end; and as a certain divine and spiritual increase, not carnal or earthly.

We may observe of this increase of the Church,

1. As there is a growth in the natural body in all its parts; so in the mystical body of the Church, all and every member of it increaseth spiritually: Therefore, that is not a living member of this. body which does not increase.

2. Not every increase is approved, but that which proceeds from God. For as a member of the natural body is not properly said to increase when it is inflated with any bad humour: so the faith or piety of a Christian man is not increased when his mind is filled with human traditions and will-worship ; because those things are not from the Spirit, but from the empty wind of ignorance and pride.

3. Hence we learn not to be deceived by that incongruous mass of opinions of the Romish Church. That kingdom of the Pope may be increased, extended, and spread in every part of the earth; yet it is not proved to be the body of Christ. Why? Because it is increased by an external increase of splendour and temporal things; it is increased by a heap of traditions, and by an accession of many superstitions; not by the true knowledge of God, not by sincere piety; in a word, it is not the increase (f God. That which the Poet spake of Cyclops may, therefore, be truly said of this Church:

Monstrum, horrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen

ademptum, The light, I say, of the Divine word, by being deprived of which, churches do not increase, but are puffed up.

And thus much for this second member of the Apostle’s conclusion, in which he rejects and condemns curious speculations and doctrines, springing from the force of natuyal reason, not from the revelation of the Divine word,

Verses 20, 21.

From this twentieth verse to the end of the Chapter, the Apostle concludes against the last appearance of false religion, or imposture, which consists in those external ordinances that are imposed upon the consciences of men under the plea of necessity, of worship, or of righteousness, We must observe the order itself of the refutation: For first he concluded that the Jewish ceremonies instituted by God himself, did not bind Christians: he began with these as the more noble, because they had the appearance of Divine authority: Secondly, he rejected those new doctrines which derived their origin from philosophical subtilty : now, in the last place, he contends against those superstitious observances which, being invented by men, are obtruded, not under the plea of a Divine command, but of supererogation, humility, mortification, &c. as appears from the last verse As to this third and last part of the Apostle’s conclusion, it seems to consist of four parts:

1. A general argument against these ordinances introduced by men is proposed ; verse 20.

2. What ordinances are here condemned by the Apostle is shewn in particular instances; verse 21.

3. Two arguments against the same ordinances are comprised : one derived from the nature of the things themselves about which these prohibitions are made; the other from the origin of the prohibitions ; vers. 22.

4. Under what colour seducers are accustomed to gloss over these their mandates is exposed ; and notwithstanding these, it is concluded that there is nothing of true wisdom or piety in these ordinances; vers. 23.

If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, &c.] To be dead in this place, is to be delivered from the rudiments of the world, so that they may have no more authority over you than worldly laws over the dead.

Why as living in the world, &c.] That is, why, as though subject to these worldly rudiments, do ye seek the worship of God and righteousness by things of this kind? — For men are subject to the laws of that place in which they live ; but they are free from the laws of those countries in which they have ceased to live.

Are ye subject to ordirances.] That is, to new ordinances devised by men, or to old ones revived by human authority. For the original word, 3oyuarítec9as, means to be held or bound by the decrees of our masters: as the Academics were bound to adopt the dogmas of Plato: the Peripatetics, of Aristotle; and all the rest, the opinions of those to whose sects they join themselves. Paul, therefore, would have the Colossians, in the business of salvation, whether in faith or practice, not be bound in this manner. This is the verbal meaning: let us next examine the force of the argument itself. The argument, then, proceeds from the less to the greater; Ye have been delivered from those ordinances which God himself prescribed: therefore, ye must be delivered from the burthen of traditions invented by men. Let us consider two things; the cause of this deliverance, and from what we are delivered.

If ye be dead with Christ.] The death of Christ delivers us from the ceremonial worship: which was before expressed by the Apostle in other words, when he said that by this death the hand-writing of ordinances was blotted out. For first, the death of Christ merited that all his people should be freed from the bonds of ceremonies: Secondly, he not only merited that, but, a new covenant being confirmed, he actually abolished the old with its appendages, viz. the Mosaic ceremonies: Thirdly, he brought to believers those very blessings which were shadowed forth by the rites ; namely, the expiation of sin, righteousness, holiness, and all others: we ought not, therefore, to grasp the shadow in ceremonies, when we have the very substance in the death of Christ. But we have often treated of this ° point; therefore, it may suffice lightly to glance at it.

Let us, then, consider, from what Christians are delivered. First, they are delivered, by the death of Christ, from the rudiments of the world, i. e. from those ordinances, or from that school discipline by which God himself formerly instructed the world by Moses, and which consisted in weak and elementary matters: This is now supposed, because it was proved above. Secondly, they are delivered from the bondage of rites and human decrees: This is gathered and inferred from the former deliverance: for that interrogation, Why as living in the world are ye subject to ordinances? is as if he had said, It is most unjust to impose this yoke upon you; and ye will be most foolish if ye submit to it; for God would not have abrogated the ceremonial worship instituted by himself, that a new one should be devised by men.

From the foregoing remarks these observations arise :

1. They who have given their names to Christ are bound to follow the doctrine of the Gospel alone as to righteousness and salvation. For Ambrose on this passage rightly says; Lvery one who is baptized into Christ, renowi.ces all superstitious, that he may exercise faith alone in Christ.

2. They who force Christians to Jewish ceremonies, exercise tyranny over the people of God, and require tribute, as it were, from the dead: for the dead are not more delivered from the sway of magistrates, than Christians from the law of Moses. Whence holy Scripture sometimes says, that we are dead. and delivered from these rudiments ; sometimes, that the law itself is made void and dead ; that it may be understood by all, that the consciences of Christians ought in no way to be subject to them.

3. If not to those, then much less are consciences to be ensnared by ordinances of human invention, so as to be driven to seek holiness, righteousness, and salvation in them. For if they are obtruded for this end, they are crushed by that bolt, In vain do they worship me by the commandments of men.

4. Therefore, not only do they sin who invent new decrees in religion, but they who subject themselves to the same, and suffer the liberty procured by the blood of Christ, to be snatched from them. Why are ye subject to ordinances? says the Apostle: As though he had said, It is your duty to refuse this yoke, and /o walk in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free, as he advises, Gal. Veale

But here, by the way, it is proper to give this admonition; that all these things are to be understood of those rites and ceremonies which are obtruded as parts of Divine worship, as necessary duties of sanctification and righteousness, as obligatory upon the conscience in themselves. For if ordinances are instituted by those who preside over the Church, for the sake of order; as about the becoming apparel of ministers, the time of public fasts or festivals, and, finally, of all that external discipline which ought to be observed in the performance of sacred offices; these do not pertain to superstition, but to the legitimate authority of those who are set over the Church, and for avoiding confusion.— Thus much concerning the general argument, whereby it is proved that Christians are freed from rites.

Verse 21.

The Apostle had condemned the audacity of the seducers, who, when God himself would have us to be freed from the ceremonial law; yet dared to load the consciences of Christians with human rites and traditions. He now shews, by particular instances, what those rites were for which the false apostles contended: and this he does in the way of mimickry, by introducing their very words and decrees, Touch not, taste not, handle not. Ambrose explains this passage, as though Paul were speaking in his own person, and deterring Christians from all desire after the . things of the world. But without doubt the figure of speech escaped hia: for these things are brought forward by the Apostle mimically, or by way of recitation, not dogmatically ; as Augustine and all the later interpreters acknowledge. But among these, likewise, there is a disagreement about the sense of the words. Some refer them to different things, in this manner: Touch not, for instance, a dead body, because it is unclean; taste not this or that food, because it is forbidden; Handle not, for instance, sacred vessels, because they are consecrated. But some refer all these things to meats, in this sense; Mn”adn, Eat not, i. e. however slightly ; (for this Greek signifies not only to touch, but to eat often). Taste not, i. e. Put not either this or that food to the mouth, although ye swallow not any of it; Lastly, handle not, 1. e. touch it not, even with the hands, although all desire of tasting be absent. The 522 AN EXPOSITION OF $T. PAUL’S Chap. M. progress of the false apostles in their ordinances is, therefore, described by this gradation. For as soon as they had ensnared the consciences of men, they always proceeded to more rigid things. First, they forbad them to eat of certain meats; then, if they succeed in this, they forbid them even to taste; and, if here you resist them not, then, lastly, they will enjoin you not even to touch.

And the Apostle rather insists upon these ordinances of the difference of meats, than upon others, because in this point has the superstition of misemployed men exerted itself: always in this abstinence from particular meats have they imagined that some sanctity consists. This may even be inferred from the Apostle attacking it in so many places; The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, Rom. xiv. 17. Meat commendeth us not to God; for neither if we eat are we the better ; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse, 1 Cor. viii. 8. In the latter times, some shall depart from the faith ; commanding to abstain from meats, 1 Tim. iv. 1, 3. Unless this error had taken deep roots in the minds of men, the Apostle would not have been conipelled so frequently to strive at eradicating it.

But here it may be asked, what difference is there between this imposture, and that which he had reproved above at verse the 16th? for in each place, they who wished a difference of meats to be observed by Christians are reproved.

I answer, The former urged a choice of meats by virtue of the Divine command and the law of Moses, which they supposed not yet abrogated: but these latter employed another pretence, as will be evident when we arrive at the last verse. Both, then, urged the same thing ; both would ensnare the consciences of men; both sought holiness and righteousness in these external rites: but the former would have this abstinence from certain meats to be a thing commanded by God; the latter, to be a voluntary worship, and therefore of greater merit with God. That the Apostle, then, might the better expose their folly, he employs irony ; intimating, in this manner, that that in which those hypocrites would have the all in all of holiness to consist, was altogether a thing ridiculous.

From what hath been said these instructions follow :

1. There is no end of ceremonies and traditions, if once they are admitted with an opinion of merit and holiness : for the authority of seducers always will proceed to the imposition of severer matters. Wittily said Calvin, They tie you up at the beginning, that they may strangle you afterwards.

2. We must resist the ordinances of hypocrites of this sort, not only because they are full of error in themselves, but also on account of the dangerous consequence. For God hath prescribed certain and fixed things in his worship: but if you allow men this power to prescribe their traditions, under the notion of worship, they will daily heap on more and heavier; neither is there any end of their burden.

3. They who make holiness to consist in difference of meats, or in external observations of this kind, however they may seem to themselves to philosophize wisely, are, nevertheless, contemptible, and to be derided for their s pains.

4. Seducers for the most part prohibit, by their authority, things allowed by God, and very necessary, as meat, drink, marriage; they impose and enjoin superfluous and ridiculous matters, as the worship of images, long pilgrimages, muttering of prayers not understood, according to a certain calculation, and other charms, not only abhorrent from all religion, but even reason itself.

We conclude, therefore, that the consciences of Christians are not to be burdened either by these rites, which relate to differences of meats, or by any which consist in the observance of external things, as though they were parts of sacred worship or religion.

Verse 22.

The Apostle proves by two other reasons, that neither the true worship of God, nor the justification or sanctification of a Christian man is placed in the observance of rites, regarding the choice of meats, or any other external things. The former is derived from the very nature and condition of these things; which all are to perish with the using. The other from the origin or authority of such rites; after the commandments and doctrines of men.

Which all are to perish with the using.] We have in these words a clear and solid reason why it behoves us not to make the worship of God, or our holiness, to consist in these external rites. First, because the very nature and condition of these things oppose it. For godliness, righteousness, holiness, are spiritual things lighted up in the ‘ human heart by the aid of the Holy Spirit. The choice of meats, therefore, neither begets holiness and righteousness in the soul, nor evinces it. For whether you eat flesh, or fish, or fruits, you use earthly and transient things, in which there is no spiritual power to purify or defile the soul. Secondly, because the end or use of meats is designed by God himself for bodily sustenance, not for the sanctification of souls; for it was his pleasure that they should be consumed in the very use, not that we should expect from them the spiritual fruits of righteousness, holiness, merit, &c. Hence the sacred Scriptures every where disprove the false opinion of those who thought that men become more holy by abstinence from certain kinds of meats, or worse by the indifferent use of meats of whatever kind. Christ himself, in Matth. xv. blamed the Pharisees for this error, and admonishes his disciples, in. ver 11, lest they also should be deceived by the same; Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man ; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. And when the Pharisees, having heard this discourse, were offended, Christ confirmed his opinion from the very condition and corruptible nature of all meats; Do ye not yet understand, said he, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the bel^y, and is cast out into the draught? ver. 17. As though he had said, It is foolish to seek holiness or righteousness in those frail, earthly, and corruptible things, or to fear any pollution and contamination of sin from them: for all things of this kind are neither good nor evil in themselves, but are to men just as are the minds of those who use them. This, then, is the sentence of Christ himself concerning meats. Moreover, Paul, not only in this place but many others, invalidates their opinion, who thought that some religion consisted in a difference of meats ; and, for the most part, he uses this very argument, taken from their earthly and corruptible nature. Thus, 1 Cor. vi. 13, Meats are intended for the belly, and the belly for meats ; but God shall destroy both it and them. He does not say that meats are intended for sanctifying the mind; but for filling ° the belly. And Rom. xiv. 17, 18 (which passage we have before cited), The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost : For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God. He, therefore, who imagines that he serves Christ, inasmuch as he abstains from certain kinds of meats, or because he binds himself to the observance of certain rites as to external things, deceives himself, neither does he on these accounts become more acceptable to God ; but if he cherishes peace and righteousness in the Holy Spirit, then he will at length be acceptable to God. Well spake Prosper, De vit. contempl. 3. 10, Fasts, abstinences, and other things of this kind, are not to be offered to God for righteousness, but with righteousness. If, then, there is no righteousness in fasting, how much less in abstaining from this or that sort of meat, when, meanwhile, other meats are taken, and that perhaps with no very strict moderation? 526 AN EXPOSITION OP ST. PAUL’S Chap. ii.

The instructions are these :

1. When any thing is proposed to us for observance, the nature of the thing itself is to be considered: if the observation consist in bodily and transitory things, such as in food, raiment, or the like, we ought not to suppose that the immediate worship of God, righteousness, or holiness consists therein.

2. Commandments of this kind, therefore, if they are prescribed by those who have legitimate authority, and that in a legitimate manner, they must be received in that sense, that they wish them to be observed, either for the sake of external order, or as far as they may be referred and directed to some useful end: not that they are parts of Divine worship in themselves, or that by the performance of the work itself, they add to our righteousness, holiness, or merit with God.

3. If sometimes those observances which consist in these transitory things are violated, provided contempt and scandal be shunned, the soul is not defiled by the mere act of omission, or involved in deadly guilt; because (as we have before shewn) the nature of these things is not of a kind to reach to the sanctification or defilement of the soul.

4. Hence we gather the error and folly of the Monks, who think that they are more perfect and holy than all other mortals, because they have bound themselves to. abstain from certain external things which they could lawfully use, as, for instance, from meats, from elegant clothing, from the private possession of goods, &c.; whereas, all these are of the number of earthly and corruptible things, by the use of which, in itself, no one can be defiled or rendered worse ; and by the abstaining from which, no one can be made more righteous or holy.

5. Whatever is worthy of praise in abstaining from these indifferent things, or in the use of the same, when they are prescribed by men endowed with authority, the whole depends, not on the nature of the things themselves (for they are earthly and corruptible), neither on the work or action itself, but upon the mind of the person obeying, and the useful end to which these observations are referred.

Thus much concerning the former reason, derived from the nature and condition of the things themselves.

After the commandments and doctrines of men.] This is that other reason why the religion, righteousness, or salvation of Christians is not placed in those decrees, Touch not, taste not, handle not, and such trifles; viz. because they derive not their origin from God, but from men. For although God himself imposed upon the Jews, under the old Testament, ceremonial ordinances of this kind, that they might possess in them shadows of spiritual and future things; yet, under the Gospel, he commanded the same to be abrogated. so that now they are imposed by the commandments of men, not by the authority of God. It is, therefore, rightly said, that all those things are now after the commandments and doctrines of men.

But let us weigh the force of this argument; This is after the commandments and doctrines of men: therefore, it is not one of the things necessary to salvation, or to the worship of God, or for the acquiring of righteousness and holiness ; for the following reasons : .

1. Because God retains to himself alone this honour of appointing what he will have directly and immediately to pertain to Religion and his worship. — Ye shall not do every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes : but what thing soever shall be commanded you of the Lord, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it ; Deut. xii. 8, 32. Hence that remark of Christ, Matth. xv. 9, In vain ye worship me, teaching the doctrines and commandments of men.

2. Because if these commandments of men pertained to the worship of God as parts of it, it would follow that the worship of God might be abrogated by human authority : for all these decrees may be either taken away or changed by the authority of those by whom they were ordained from the beginning: but that men have this power over the worship of God is most absurd.

3. Because if it be conceded that the observance of human decrees is a necessary part of worship or holiness in itself; it would thence follow, that God may be worshipped in ways not only different, but plainly contrary to one another, according to the will of men. For these human commandments are not only different, but sometimes opposed to each other. You may see this in the different orders of Monks among the Papists, on whom different commandments are imposed, such as relate to food, and raiment, and almost all other external observances. You may observe it also in the different rites of churches: for, in administering the sacraments, in ordaining ministers, in fasts, in feasts, and in almost all external rites, the ceremonies of different churches are different. And, as Ireneus is quoted in Eusebius, lib. 5. cap. 23, The very difference of churches in these things, the more illustrates the harmony of the faith. But if these observances and ceremonies of human command pertained in themselves to the worship of God, and to holiness, there could not be any difference in them, they could not bind some, and not bind others, according to diversity of places, but would be the same among all, and would equally bind all. For that rule of Parisiensis, De fide, cap. 2, is most true: The worship due to God is not a worship which may be refused to him without injury, by any person who is capable of worshipping him: for the Religion by which God is worshipped, and by which he is pleased and served by men is uniform and universal. From these things it is clearly evident, that the commands and traditions of men are not to be obtruded upon the Church under the notion of worship and righteousness, because they are the commandments of men and not of God.

Hence we derive the following Instructions :

1. That alone immediately and properly concerns Religion and the worship of God, which hath the testimony of the Divine will. Jt so behoves us to worship God in the way in which he himself lias prescribed that he is to be worshipped, Augustine, lib. 1. De consensu Evang. cap. 18.

2. They who would have religion, righteousness, and holiness to consist in observing their commands and traditions, arrogate that to themselves, and their inventions, which is peculiar to God and the Divine commands. Men as men, speaking concerning God, are not worthy of credit ; Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. 6.

3. Since salvation and righteousness is not placed in the commands of men, they grievously err who so multiply these burdens of human traditions as thereby to hinder Christians in the exercises of true righteousness and godliness: For, it commonly happens, that when a thing is paid where it is not due, it is neglected where it is due, Tertull. De penit. This Christ himself complained of, that the people of God were drawn away from the observance of the Divine commands, whilst they were entirely employed upon the traditions of the Pharisees, Matth. xv. 6. Gerson, De vita Spirit. part. 3, reprehends this in that heap of ceremonies and traditions of the Papists; Unnecessary occu- ‘ pation in human traditions begets ignorance of the Divine precepts.—Thus much concerning the second argument from the origin of these commands.

Verse 23.

In these words of the Apostle we have a censure of human rites and traditions which are obtruded upon Christians under the notion of necessity, righteousness, or the Divine worship. The passage is well worthy of being diligently considered. For hence we may perceive that the Papists can allege nothing for their traditions, which was not alleged by antient impostors, and refuted by Apostles ; that we do nothing else, when we oppose the same, than what Christ himself, what his Apostles before us have done, and what they would have us to do for the sake of retaining Christian liberty.

In this verse, therefore, which puts a conclusion to the refutation, there are three things to be observed and explained, as to those rites prescribed by men:

1. We must observe the Apostle’s concession: for he concedes to them »óyov cogias. Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom.

2. Three pretences are to be noted, by which for the most part human traditions are covered to wear the appearance of wisdom: These are, will-worship, humility, and neglecting of. the body.

3. We may observe the censure of the Apostle, who, notwithstanding these pretences so fair, accounts these commandments of men for things of nought: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom.] The Greek word aóyo, some translate reason, some shew, and others pretence ; with little difference of sense. For the Apostle means this: The aforesaid commandments of men have a shew, or external appearance of wisdom, they have not the reality and truth. There is, then, in these words, a prolepsis, or anticipation, which, whilst it concedes to the adversaries what they could allege in pretence, at the same time would have them understand that it was of no value. But when the Apostle savs, these doctrines of men have a shew of wisdom, he means, they have the appearance of some excellent doctrine, rather brought from heaven than excogitated by human counsel: for thus the word wisdom is used by Paul, as Beza hath rightly observed.

1. And they have this shew or pretence, First, on the part of the impostors. For these, for the most part, pretend, that they do not bring forward any thing of their own mind, but promulgate those things, being enlightened by the Spirit of wisdom himself. Under this pretence, Montanus formerly vaunted his prophecies, and imposed upon many: for thus Tertullian, De prescript. before he was a Montanist himself, writes, hey assert that the Paraclete spake more things to Montanus than Christ. delivered in the Gospel; and not only more, but even better and greater. Those who are a little more modest, venture not to pretend immediate revelations of the Holy Spirit; yet, that their notions may not appear destitute of a shew of Divine wisdom, they are wont to affirm, as it is stated in Ireneus, lib. 3. cap. 2, that their doctrines were not indeed consigned in writing by the Apostles, but delivered to them viva voce; according to that saying,‘ We speak wisdom among the perfect :’ and their own fictious every one asserts to be this wisdom. ‘Thus says Ireneus. Therefore human traditions have this shew of wisdom on the part of the impostors.

2. On the part of superstitious and carnal men, they have a shew of wisdom, because carnal things are suited to the taste of carnal men, but spiritual things are not esteemed. Whence that saying of the Apostle, Rom. viii. 7, The wisdom of the flesh³⁷ is enmity against God ; and 1 Cor. ii. 5, Your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. For that seems full of wisdom to a carnal man, which accords with the nature and disposition of the flesh ; and nothing is more pleasing to the carnal mind, than to have salvation, righteousness, and holiness in rites and external things. You see, therefore, how human traditions have a shew of wisdom; namely, 1. From the fraud : of impostors, who always boast that they flowed from the Spirit of wisdom: 2. From the carnal nature of superstitious men, whom it always pleases to seek salvation and righteousness in rites and external exercises. But, nevertheless, we must hold, that they have the shew only, and, as it were, a vain shadow of wisdom, not the reality. For, as Lactantius has truly said, Instit. lib. 4. cap. 1, where the repute of foolishness appears, there wisdom is chiefly to be sought ; so we may truly affirm, where to the carnal man the repute of wisdom appears, there folly is always to be found. For this wisdom descendeth not from the Father of lights, but is earthly, sensual, devilish ; James iii. 15.

Instructions :

1. They are to be accounted for impostors who, in the business of salvation, obtrude upon us doctrines under the pretence of revelation or tradition, without the testimony of the word. For whatsoever shew, or rather shadow of wisdom there might be in these human inventions, yet true and saving wisdom will never be found in them.

2. In the worship of God we ought not to run after and embrace those things which are most approved by human reason; for if we use this guide, we shall, instead of true wisdom, embrace some shew, and painted shadow of wisdom.

3. Hence infer what you ought to conclude about popery, viz. whether it possesses that genuine wisdom, or only the shew of wisdom. It obtrudes its doctrines, and its innumerable commandments, as necessary to salvation : but under what pretence? The same with all impostors; viz. that all its decrees flow from the Holy Spirit directing and inspiring the Church; that they do not bring in human commandments, but those unwritten traditions which the Apostles left as a deposit to Rome. Behold a wonderful shew of Divine wisdom! But if I further ask, How will it be proved to me that these your ordinances have flowed from the Spirit of God and from the Apostles? Forthwith they retort against you, Either believe, or be accursed : but in the mean time they produce no testimony from the word of God. They who thus confirm their dogmas, may display among the unskilful a shew of wisdom, but among the sober, and the prudent, they will be accounted to have lost the thing itself.

Thus much concerning the Apostle’s concession, that there is only a shew of Divine wisdom in the doctrines and commandments of seducers.

In will-worship, “ev ‘eSeroSpnoneia.] He begins to shew with what colours seducers were wont to paint this false wisdom. ‘The first is, as you may call it, voluntary worship; i. e. not commanded or prescribed by God himself, but offered to him by human will and choice. This, then, is urged by impostors, He who performs only those things which are bidden and commanded by God himself, does nothing but what is common; but he who goes beyond those precepts, and worships God by certain voluntary works, to which he is not bound, he becomes as an angel among men, he lays up to himself merits of supererogation ; he finally makes God a debtor to him. And this willworship. is very pleasing to human nature. For since there is a double will-worship; one, when a person of his own accord chooses any creature to whom he offers the worship due to God; the other, when he worships the true God, but not in that manner, neither by those acts whereby he hath defined his worship, but by others, chosen of his own will: the former species of will-worship is condemned by almost all, because it clearly detracts from God what is his own, and transfers it to the creature ; but this other is commended by many because it seems to offer to God what is his own, and something beyond it ; it has, therefore, as. it were, the appearance of a certain free-will offering. This colour imposed upon the Monks, who think that they, inasmuch as they worship God by certain works not com- |… manded by God himself, are in a higher and more perfect condition than other men who endeavour to perform only those things which are enjoined. Hence, also, they have dreamed, that they so overflow with merits, that they hesitate not daily to bestow out of their great treasure upon . ethers. Hence, also, the ignorant multitude are not only accustomed to beg, but to purchase at any price the superabundant merits of the Monks. Nay, for this end, they say monasteries are instituted, that they may make satisfaction for the sins of their founders, and of all in general, Gerson, part. 2. serm. De abstinent. Carthus. But lest we should be deceived by this same pretext, we ought to remember, That God, indeed, loves the willing worshipper, i. e. him who joyfully and willingly does that which he hath commanded to be done; but that he hates will-worship, 1. e. those acts which are offered to him as the immediate worship of God, when they were not prescribed and commanded by him for this end : for this is to go a whoring with their own inventions, Psalm cvi. 39. We must also know ; that abstinence from certain meats, celibacy, voluntary poverty, and other things of that kind, in which impostors place this voluntary worship of God, and I know not what merit of supererogation, are nothing else than things and actions indifferent, which, to certain persons at certain times, may be instruments, or means availing in the worship of God, as also their contraries may be: But, neither in the one nor the other, ought we to imagine, that there is any worship or merit.

And so far as to the first pretext, wherewith seducers are wont to gloss over their commandments.

And humility.] This is the second colour with which the commandments and doctrines of men are painted. For all seducers endeavour to persuade the people, that there is nothing more pleasing to God than humility, and devoted submission of mind ; which they would have to consist in this, that Christians should submit themselves simply and absolutely to those who are set over them, and to their traditions and commandments, believe whatever they propose to be believed, and do whatever they direct to be done. This humility they babble about as being of the — greatest merit with God, because he has enjoined all, Obey them that have the rule over you, Heb. xiii. 17; because he himself has plainly said concerning this matter, He that heareth you, heareth me, &c. Luke x. 16. They, moreover, add, that this especially conduces to the salvation of Christians, that they should not discuss the commands of those who are set over them (such as the worship and faith recommended by them to the Church), but receive and observe them; because it is most safe for the ignorant to follow the opinion of the more wise. When, by this artifice, they have procured for their rites and doctrines an authority plainly Divine, the submission and obedience of Christian people seems to have a shew of wisdom, so that by this their subjection, they think not only thus to act piously, but prudently. Ignatius Loyola, the father of the Jesuits,* deceived by this pretence, advises in that Epistle which is read at table in the College of the Jesuits every month, and seriously commands, that those things which the Superior enjoins, they should simply perform with a blind obedience, not considering whether what is eventful sera. The change in his views which led to this, resulted on his pondering over the lives of some of the Romish Saints, during a long confinement under wounds, received at the siege of Pampeluna, against the French, in 1521. On his recovery, he hung up his arms in the Church of Montserrat, and dedicated himself to the blessed Virgin. ‘The character of the man, and the circumstance which so affected his subsequent proceedings, by his mind taking a direction for Religion, was thus described by the celebrated Vieira (one of his Order), in a Sermon which he preached in Lisbon in reference to him some years after. ‘ The Cids, the Pelayos, the Geryons, the Hercules who had figured in Spain, roused his spirit to covet an heroic resemblance. Their celebrity stimulated him. Navarre seemed. a small point of defence; the Pyrenees but inferior walls; and all France but a petty conquest. He considered that he was a captain, a Spaniard, and had been conquered. Weary with combating thoughts so vast, he called for a book of chivalry to amuse himself, but he could only find a volume of the lives of saints. If it had been what he wished, it would have led him to be a famous knight ; but, being what it was, it made him a great saint. Instead of being a cavalier of a flaming sword, he became the saint of a burning torch. At first the contents displeased him, but he became astonished, as he read, to find that there was in the world another scene of soldiership, quite new, and unknown to him before: and he resolved to be- come one of its most zealous members. He took off his noble collar, he laid down his helmet, he stripped off his armour, and offered up the sword which he had valued above all things, as the first tribute of his new feelings, on the altar of Montserrat. After passing through various scenes as a mendicant, a student, and a preacher, he became at last the founder of that sect which assumed the name of the Company of Jesus; a sect which arose to uphold the Popedom, till its final consummation of iniquity, just at the time that the temporal power of the Pope received a blow, from which it has never recovered, by the attack of the Duke of Bourbon upon Rome, and the sacking of the great City, in 1527, by his Colleague in arms, and successor in that extraordinary event —the Prince of Orange. The Order was organized about 1530, and on its resolving upon a vow of submission to Pope Paul III., he, in 1540, established it by a Papal Bull, under the title of * the Society of Jesus.” Hence they received the epithet of Jesuits ; and thus was created an Order, when, as Hume justly remarks, * the Court of Rome perceived that the lazy Monks and Mendicant Friars, who sufficed in times of ignorance, were no longer able to defend the ramparts of the Church, assailed on every side ; and that the inquisitive spirit of the age required a Society more active and more learned to oppose its dangerous progress.” The Papacy was not disappointed; for the Society has been proverbial for their intrigues in nearly every State on the face of the Globe. 536 AN EXPOSITION OF 8ST. PAUL’S Chap. ii. : enjoined is good or useful, since every thought of the kind ‘. takes away the merit and weight of obedience. It is also the common opinion of the Romanists that there ought to be such a humility among Christians, that they should not The able corrector of Mr. Dallas, in his history of the Order, has well summed up their extensive operations. “ The Jesuits,” says he, p. 374, “ had no sooner appeared, than they overran the universe with surprising rapidity : they became the Instructors of Youth ; the Masters of Seminaries; the Confessors of Kings; the distributors of favours ; and the nominators to every office, civil and ecclesiastical, and sometimes even to crowns ; in a word, the arbiters of every great event: they acquired immense wealth in freehold estates, and in the benefices which they procured for their houses : they formed the most substantial and brilliant establishments ; and laid the foundations of a monarchy, calculated to resist the most powerful princes.”— All this was effected, to use the appropriate terms of Sharon Turner, “ through a remarkable combination of ability, enthusiasm, benevolence, intelligence, craft, ambition, piety, and superstition.” Under the semblance of vows of poverty and chastity, together with that rwPricrT OBEDIENCE TO THE CHIEF OF THE ORDER, as above-mentioned by Davenant, it has always been taught among them, that oaths might be fulsified! Their statutes, in fact, have been denounced as “ a complete code of perfidy, immorality, and revolt;” and, wherever they have gained a footing, this body has established itself as an arbitrary power over the legal and regular authorities of the State. Loyola lived to see the diffusion of his Order over the greatest part of the Old and New worlds ; and its attainment of a new spiritual empire for the Popedom, in Asia and South America especially. 1nless than twenty years, owing to its Missionary activity, it included twelve large provinces possessed of one hundred Colleges. Within two centuries after, their number was found to amount to 20,000. This was ascertained in consequence of the inquiries instituted about them owing to the Provincial Letters of Pascal, laying open their detestable casuistry and diabolical intrigues. In 1554, long before Pascal’s time, and only fourteen years after their establishment by Paul IIL, the Faculty of Theology in Paris, whose advice the Parliament had sought, pronounced, that * the *€ Society, withdrawn from the obedience and submission due to authorities, * unjustly deprived both temporal and spiritual lords of their rights: * brought discord into every form of government, and occasioned among * the people many subjects of complaint, many law-suits, altercations, “ schisms, and jealousies ; that it appeared dangerous to all that concerned * the Faith; calculated to disturb the peace of the Church; to overturn * the Monastic orders; and more fit to destroy than to build up.” The formidable body, however, proceeded in its career of iniquity, till, in 1773, Pope Clement XIV. pronounced its extinction in a Bull dated July 21 of that year. Since the restoration of the Monarchy in France, the Order has been revived, and in 1830, at the breaking up of the Jesuit Establishment at Montrouge, among their archives was found the following statement rehave the least doubt about those things which are set forth by the Romish Church, as to faith or practice in Religion and the worship of God. But we, notwithstanding, may truly assert, that this blind obedience and humility is not only foolish, but impious and irreligious. And the grounds for this are,³⁸

1. Because we are bound to obey superiors only in cases in which they are our superiors. Now, as to the framing doctrines of faith, or instituting the worship of God, God alone is our Superior: if, therefore, men attempt to devise doctrines of faith, or to introduce a new worship, they step beyond the limits of the power granted them, and are not to be acknowledged as superiors in this matter.

2. Because the command of an inferior authority does not oblige to obedience when it is contrary to the command of a superior, Hence that remark of the Apostle, Acts v. 20, It is meet to obey God rather than man: and of Cyprian, De sing. cler. It is not allowable to please men where the will of men includes not the will of God. But admonitions of this kind would be vain, if a blind obedience in all things was due to our superiors. ]

3. Because no one subjects himself knowingly to the peril of mortal sin, but he thereby sins mortally, as the Schoolmen say: but whoever vows, or performs absolute subjection and blind obedience to men, subjects himself to manifest peril ; for every man may err, as well in commanding to do things which are evil, as in prescribing to believe things which are false.³⁹

4. Because to attribute to men what is the peculiar right of God, is great impiety: but absolute dominion over our bodies and our minds, is the property of God alone. The human will owes absolute obedience to him; the understanding owes to him prompt assent in all things : but to yield to any mortal such subjection of the will, and of the understanding, incurs the crime of treason against the Divine Majesty. For that saying of Tertullian concerning God and the Divine commands is true, I esteem it audacity to dispute about the goodness of a Divine precept : for we ought to obey it, not because it is good, but because God hath commanded it ; De peenit. And that is no less true of the Apostle, when men order us to do or to believe any thing, Prove all things ; hold fast that which is good, 1 Thess. v. 2].

But they who require this preposterous humility and blind obedience from the people, are wont to object, That it is not the duty of subjects to judge of the doctrines or commands of their superiors; but it rather pertains to the prelates and superiors, to judge of the faith and actions of subjects: therefore, they seem to recede from their duty, when they doubt whether those things are true and lawful which are promulgated and confirmed by the authority of those who are set over them.

I answer, Subjects neither ought, nor can judge of the decrees of superiors by a judgment of authority ; but they can, and ought to judge of those things with a judgment of discretion, as far as they concern themselves. Aquinas very well explains the reason of this, Quest. disp. de consens. art. 5. Every one, says he, is bound to examine his own actions according to the knowledge he has from God, whether it be natural, or acquired, or infused; for every man ought to act according to reason. Thus speaks Aquinas. This is confirmed by the example of all the pious; who, although they arrogated not to themselves a judgment of authority over their prelates or magistrates, yet they used a judgment of discretion about the things proposed to them. We see this done by Daniel, who judged that the edict of Darius, concerning not praying to God, was not to be observed by him. We see it in the Apostles, who judged ‘that they could not, consistently with piety, obey the commands of the priests, Acts iv. 20. — Finally, this was done in the reign of Mary, by all our martyrs ; who judged rightly that they ought neither to believe those things which were then proposed by the prelates to be believed, nor to do what they commanded to be done.

From these things, then, it is evident, that even the second colour also of submission and meritorious humility, whereby human decrees are commended to the people, is vain, and has nothing of true wisdom in it.

And neglecting of the body, dpedia eupaos, not sparing the body, or severity to the body.] Behold the third colour with which human decrees being painted and glossed over, wear the appearance of piety and wisdom. For since carnal men are mostly employed in an inordinate care of the flesh, they who afflict by fasting, waste by watchings, or subdue by flagellating this frail body, which others unduly cherish, are supposed to be spiritually wise, and careful of their salvation above others. “Therefore, all those decrees which : have for their object this subduing of the flesh, so strike the eyes of the ignorant by that mask of sanctity and n.ortification, that they do not meanwhile observe the poisonous errors which are customarily concealed under them. For in all these, impostors always present an outward mortification of the flesh, but cherish within, mental pride and hypocrisy. But for the better understanding of this whole matter, we will bring forward, first, a few examples of those who exercised this severity to the body: secondly, we will expose the errors which usually lurk under decrees and exercises of this kind: finally, we will shew what is to be determined concerning these exercises of carnal mortification.

1. Evagrius, Historie eccl. lib. ]. cap. 21, reports, that the Monks of Palestine sometimes fasted for more than five days together, and afflicted themselves with such labours and watchings, that they seemed to be dead, and lying unburied upon the earth, and relates many other extraordinary things about them; yet so as to exalt them to heaven, account this plan of life, and term it, a most holy and divine kind of life. The same author, lib. 3. cap. 49, writes that others, on account of their continued watchings, were called dxojntous, the sleepless.⁴⁰ Bernard, Serm. 6. cap. 49, in Psalm xci. writes, that certain Monks, by various exercises of the body, and abstinences, were worn down beyond their strength, beyond nature, beyond custom. Jerome, in his epitaph on Paula, relates, that when she had recovered from a burning fever, she was altogether unwilling to use the weakest and smallest quantity of wine, although her Physician, and Jerome himself, earnestly advised her to it, and shewed her the imminent danger of a dropsy from continually drinking water. But the most celebrated of all for this mortifying of the body were, the Flagellantes, whose order arose in the year 1260, at Perusia, in Tuscany, when the whole world suffered from a dreadful famine. These men, wandering about, beat themselves publicly almost to death, and exercised these bloody rites for thirty three days; then they thought that they had expiated their sins and were reconciled to God, and at length they returned to their homes. Hospin. pag. 271.* It would be easy to collect more examples of those who exercised this severity to the body; but these may suffice.

2. We will now, in the second place, lay open the errors to which they, who are wont either to order or to practise these things, are commonly obnoxious.

1. They err as to the very nature of Christian mortification : for they consider the afflicting and injuring of the body to be true mortification ; whereas, that pertains chiefly not to the flesh, or the inferior part of the soul, but chiefly to the mind and will: for the mind and will of a man not yet renewed are carnal. They foolishly dream, therefore, that they are mortified persons, through the body being weakened and almost destroyed, when, in the meanwhile, the soul, which is the seat of sin, is filled with incredulity, pride, envy, and other spiritual vices. See Mirandulanus, De fide et ord. credendi ; and in Exposit. orat. Dom.

2. They err as to the means themselves, or, at least, as. to the mode of applying these means. For it is one thing to subdue the flesh by moderate fasts and watchings, lest it should rebel against the spirit ; another, so to afflict and wear down the natural powers, that they cannot advantageously serve the spirit. For whilst the flesh is unduly restrained, it is enervated for the exercise of good works: and whilst they endeavour to stifle entirely the incentives to vice, it is rendered too feeble to preach or pray, Gregor. Moral. 30. . cap. 28. Whence Aquinas, in xii. ad Rom. writes, that he loses the dignity of a rational man, who prefers fasting or watching, to the full use of his senses. And Gerson, part. 3, remarks, There have been many who, to merit the fame of contemplation, have endeavoured to imitate Elias, or Daniel, or John the Baptist ; but who, by this abstinence, have become, not prophets, but fanatics.

3. They err, because they bind themselves to these external services by the notion of a necessity so absolute, as not to allow the violation.of them even for the sake of health. We see this in the example of Paula;⁴¹ we see it in the Carthusian Monks, who dare not even taste flesh, though bodily infirmity demand it; we see it in all who are brought under the government of the Church of Rome, who imagine that they commit mortal sin, if they do not fast according to the Papal statutes. But since it was just that the ceremonial law itself should yield to the love of God, how unjust is it that human mandates should refuse the same subjection in things indifferent ?

4. They err because they judge that the worship of God, the merit of salvation, and the expiation of sins, stand in these outward exercises. Thus says Peter Soto,⁴² To deny that fasting is a work by which we merit eternal life, and make satisfaction for our sins, is a most manifest error. Alensis, part. 4. quest. 28, tells us, A fast, whether enjoined or assumed, zs satisfactory for sins. Thomas, Q. 2. quest. 147, A fast is assumed for three things: to repress the lusts of the flesh, to raise the mind of man to higher things ; and. to make satisfaction for sins.—These are the errors in which almost all are implicated who exercise this neglecting of, or vot sparing, the body.

Now, in the last place, that we may not appear to reject outward exercises of mortification, we shall briefly shew what is the opinion of our church respecting these things.

We very much approve the remark of Athanasius, That E these bodily exercises are praiseworthy, if they are united with knowledge and moderation. Fastings, then, and watchings, and other things of this kind, we confess, have their utility, if we understand their use and end; i.e. if they are referred to the chastening of the body, lest by excess, or sloth, it should be excited to sin; if they are referred to the external testifying of internal penitence ; if, lastly, they are referred to this, that being assisted by those helps, we may more ardently call upon God. For rightly spake Tertullian, advers. Psychicos, When fasting, we possess a strange?’ mind, and a heart more active to these spiritual things, than when that mansion of the inner man is glutted up with food, or drenched with wine. But if we think there is any merit of satisfaction or justification in these external exercises, then they are not used with knowledge, and, therefore, are rejected by God; as we may see Isa. lviii. 3, where they obtruded upon God this very opus operatum in these words, Wherefore have we fasted, and thou seest not? Wherefore have we afflicted our soul, and thou takest no knowledge? God answers, It is not such a fast as I have chosen, &c. So Zech. vii. 5, 6, he denies that they fast for him who place holiness and the worship of God in an external work. But the Apostle most clearly distinguishes in I Tim. iv. 8, between bodily exercise and godliness, or true worship. We, therefore, ought to know, that all these things come under the head of external discipline, not of works of divine worship.

Besides this knowledge, there is also required a due moderation in all these things; for that abstinence or chastening of the body, which hath no regard to its peculiar infirmity, is foolish. Hence we read in Eusebius, lib. . 5. cap. 3. that Alcibiades was reprehended because he would not use the creatures of God, but took only bread and water for the sustenance of his body. We see also Timothy himself advised by Paul, 1 Tim. v. 23, no longer to be too abstemious, but to use a little wine for his stomach’s sake and his often infirmities. These free and moderate fasts were in use in the primitive Church: but those necessary and rigid ones beyond the strength of the body, were always condemned by the wiser men. “Thus Augustine, 1 De mor. eccl. cath. cap. 33,. testifies, No one is compelled to severe things which he cannot endure ; nothing is imposed upon any one which he refuses. Prudentius, 1 Cathemer. hymn. post jejun. says, A» open and free mode of abstinence is set before all ; neither are we impelled by severe terror : it is his own will binds every one. Prosper, De vita contempl. lib. 2. cap. 24, says, We ought so to fast that we may not be subject to the necessity of fasting, lest, not with devotion, but unwillingly, we perform an act that is really voluntary. And thus you find that meglecting or chastising of the body, which is full of superstition, is to be exploded, although that chastising of the body which is joined with true knowledge and due moderation, is to be retained. And thus much of the three pretences whereby impostors are accustomed to gloss over their commands and superstitious doctrines. Now let us hear what is the Apostolic censure of mandates and things of this kind.

Yet they are of no value, since they respect those things with which the flesh is filled.] Thus Beza. [Not in any honour (supply, do they hold the body) to the satisfying or contenting of the flesh.] Thus others.

They who approve this latter interpretation, think that the Apostle, in these words, explains what is that neglecting of the body which he reprehends; namely, when the body is had in no honour to satisfy or fill it. In this place, therefore, they interpret the word honour by care; as 1 Tim. v. 9, Honour widows, i. e. have a care and consideration of them: therefore not to have the body in honour, is to bestow no due care upon it. But by what is added—to the satisfying of the flesh—they mean the filling of it, which is opposed to that inanition whereby the strength of the body is lessened and impaired ; and they think that the Apostle used this fuller word to reprove those hypocrites who defrauded the bodies of their necessary food, as if it were a fault to satisfy the body; whereas surfeiting and gluttony are vices, not sufficiency. But the care of just sustentation is due to this earthly body, not only because it is the necessary organ of the soul, but because it is the temple of the Holy Spirit, because it is a member of the body of Christ; nay, if it be esteemed in the place of a beast of burden, still it is proved that sufficient aliment is due to it: fora righteous man regardeth the life of his beast, Prov. xii. 10.

We ought, then, to understand, that the care of the body is twofold: one which tends to the fulfilling its unlawful desires, which is evil and forbidden, Rom. xiii. 14; the other, good and lawful, which has the more concern to afford the body food and necessaries for life, lest strength and health should fail it to undergo the duties which devolve upon us in our vocation. He who rejects this latter care, holds his body in no honour; and some think that this kind of person is reproved in this place.

This is a probable interpretation: But neither do I think the interpretation of Beza is to be despised; who refers those words, not i» any honour, to the very rites and commandments of abstaining from and choosing meats, and thinks they are answered from the contrary. Which indeed have a shew of wisdom, yet are not of any worth. Beza supplies the word yet, because it is usual with those who adopt the Hebrew idiom (as Paul occasionally does), to understand the adversative particle. But now, if it be asked, . Why are not those commandments of men of any value, the Apostle gives the cause, for the satisfying of the flesh, they refer, “ovra or cwvrsív ovra, to the satisfying of the flesh, i. e. they rest in meat and drink, and things earthly and vain, in which the kingdom of God does not consist, but in those which relate to spiritual sustenance and life eternal; as was shewn in the foregoing verse. But the Apostle asserts commandments of this kind to be of no value or 7 moment, not because they are void of all utility, if proposed and observed with knowledge and moderation, as Athanasius advises; but they are in themselves of no value and moment for justification, sanctification, satisfaction for sins, and the worship of God, as the seducers would contend they were.

It is not needful to add more concerning this censure of the Apostle, which relates to these ordinances referring to external things ; for we have often treated sufficiently of this matter. The fourth part of this Epistle yet remains ; which contains instruction in morals, roots out vices, inculcates virtues, and, finally, forms the life of Christians, as well in respect to their common duties, as to their social relations.⁴³

---