CHAPTER III

Verses 1, 2.

Having established the doctrine of the Gospel, and vanquished the seducers, the Apostle comes to the business of exhortation, that he might train to holiness of life those whom he had brought to hold the truth of faith. But this exhortation arises and is deduced from the twelfth and thirteenth verses of the preceding Chapter, where these words _ occur, Buried with him in baptism, who hath also raised and quickened you: hence he now infers, If ye be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above. We have said that the first branch of the general exhortation is included in the four first verses; and has for its object to excite the } Colossians to aim at and desire the true good, viz. what is spiritual and divine; and, moreover, to beget in them a contempt of apparent good things, viz. corporeal and earthly ones. And the Apostle acts prudently in prescribing and defining, in the first place, the thirst for the true end: since inordinateness of the will as to the end, engenders inordinate and monstrous actions through the whole course of our life; for as the form is the principal in natural things, so the end is in morals.

But to come to the matter itself, here are two things to be observed by us.

1. The duty to which we are excited by the Apostle, comprehended in three precepts: Seek those things which are above; Qpovel’rs, 1. e. think upon and love the things above; seek not after, neither mind, earthly things.

2. The inducements, or motives (as they say) to the performance of this duty. For the seeking and loving the things above, two inducements are brought: one taken from our resurrection; vers. 1, Ye are risen with Christ: the other from the exaltation of Christ; where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God. For the despising earthly things two others are used; the first derived from our spiritual death ; Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ, vers. 4; the latter, from the expectation of our life of glory ; When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

1. Of the duties.

Seek those things which are above.] The word Seek indicates labour and effort; and, to use the scholastic phrase, excludes sluggish willingness. By the things which are above we must understand, in the first place, the kingdom of heaven, or the beatific vision of God, and those pleasures to be hereafter enjoyed with Christ our Head and the blessed angels, which neither eye hath seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man, 1 Cor.i.9. But, secondly and consequently, we must understand those gifts of grace which are the seeds of this desired glory, as faith, love, holiness, and all those means by which, as by an intermediate path, God would have us proceed to this mark of heavenly glory. For Augustine hath properly remarked, that these things may also be called things which are above, because as to the excellency of their worth they far surpass earthly things; as, furthermore, because all things of this kind are bestowed from above, and come down from the Father of lights, Jas. i. 17. When, therefore, the Apostle exhorts to seek those things which are above, he would have us to understand, that we ought not only to seek celestial pleasures, but so to live that we may at length attain to them. For he who does not advance in faith, love, and holiness, he does not, by the whole course of his life, seek heaven, but hastens to hell.

Hence we infer,

1. That heaven is not given to the indolent, but to those who seek it by great labour, Seek ye the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, Matt. vi. 93. And elsewhere, the violent take it, not those who slumber.

2. Celestial pleasures are not possessed in this life: we should, therefore, long after and patiently expect those things, being certain to obtain them at last, if we seek them as we ought to do.

Tae “avo Qgoveire, Mind the things above, think upon or savour them.] The word Qpovi’re, in our translation set your affections, embraces two acts; the act of the mind or of the understanding reflecting about any thing; and the act of the will and affections approving and loving any thing: Therefore, the Apostle would have us raise our minds to heaven, and perpetually have those things above at heart ; neither that alone, but that we should ardently love those things, and fix our affection upon them. Unless we join “n^ these two, no one will prepare to seek heavenly things; for there is no desire of a thing unknown: it is, therefore, necessary to know, and frequently to revolve in mind, these heavenly things; for no one seeks that about which he thinks not: But neither is it sufficient to think, unless it is done with love and affection; for nothing is sought by us except that which is desired and loved. Bernard truly observed, The understanding and the affection in men are sometimes opposed to each other, so that the one knows and approves the things which are above, although the other is found to desire the things on the earth. When that happens, the mind is distracted and torn away, not excited to seek. Hence it is that Paul exhorts us not only to know, but to :savour the things which are above.

Hence we learn: .

1. That it is the duty of a pious and Christian man, always to have in mind that heavenly kingdom, and those heavenly good things which relate to the attainment of it. We observe this in Abraham, the father of the faithful, of whom the Apostle testifies, Heb. xi. 10, that he looked fora +. city which hath foundations. This we read of the Christians of the primitive Church, who had this kingdom above so frequently in their minds and discourse, that from thence they fell under the suspicion, among the heathen, of aiming at the sovereignty. Just. Martyr. Apol. 2. ad Antoninum.

2. It is also their duty who hope they shall obtain eternal blessedness, to order the course of their life according to heavenly considerations; and to judge of all matters with a constant reference to these supernal things : for this p is effectually (o savour the things above, viz. to be so affected by their excellence and sweetness, as to thirst for them with an insatiable desire, and refer all things to the attainment of them. The Psalmist felt this love in his heart, and well expressed it, Psal. xlii. 1, As the hart panteth after the water-brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God. Hence we may conclude, that all they who promise themselves the happiness above, when, in the meanwhile, they do not at all savour the things above, are delighted as by a certain pleasing dream, and never will be satisfied with those things, because they were never wont to thirst or hunger for them at heart. The last branch of this exhortation remains.

Not on things on the earth; supply, seek and savour.] The Apostle calls all those things, in which the kingdom of God does not consist, things of the earth; as riches, pleasures, honours; and I add, in fine, those ceremonies and observations which centre in things earthly and corporeal. for this hortatory conclusion being drawn from our death and resurrection with Christ, it shews all those things to be of no esteem. But now they are said to savour of or seek earthly things, who place their happiness in these things, who by these earthly blessings (as they are called) are influenced in all their judgments and decisions. These sensualities are well depicted by the Apostle, in Phil. iii. 18, 19, 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, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, 6: và emtyssa Qpovoüvree, who mind earthly things. They were men of this kind, whom our Saviour censured in his parable, Luke xiv. because, while * they regarded fields, oxen, and wives, altogether neglected the call of salvation.

Hence we may observe,

1. That no one can savour of things heavenly and things of the earth at the same time. For if this could be done, there would have been no need of this clause denying and forbidding it; but it would have been sufficient to have said, set your affections on things above, without its being added, and not on things of the earth. But that saying of the Saviour is true, No man can serve two masters, Matt. vi. 24. If, therefore, we be slaves to our earthly desires, .. we shall never be watchful to promote our salvation. The poet heretofore sang, Our bosoms do not admit two cares ; and the Apostle said, foolish and hurtful lusts drown men in perdition, 1 Tim. vi. 9.

2. We must observe, that Paul forbids us to seek and savour earthly things, he does not forbid us to use earthly things, much less, indeed, to obtain them. We cannot live without the use of earthly things; but they would not serve for necessary uses, unless they were before acquired. Therefore, to seek and affect them, means in this place, to desire them with the whole heart, with every labour and industry : and to acquiesce in those things as in the greatest good. This carnal and worldly men do, whatever they pretend: this is evinced by their coveting these earthly things in every way and without measure. Now it is plain, that that is sought and proposed as their sole end, which is sought immeasurably : for in that which is sought on account of some end, a measure is admitted in proportion to the end.

3. We may add a reason why it is not fit to affect earthly things, but those alone which are above; and that twofold, One taken from the vanity of these things; for earthly things, as Parisiensis has well remarked, cannot impart satisfaction to him that hath them, nor support to him that rests upon them, nor profit to him who labours for them. What then shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world, &c. Matt. xvi. 26. The other from their contrariety to true and heavenly pleasures. For, as the heavenly manna failed after the children of Israel had eaten of the fruits of the earth; so the sweetness of spiritual pleasure is not perceived by those who have a longing after these earthly things. Whence said Augustine, If the mind hath delight from what is external, it will remain without delight from what is internal. Thus much for the matter of the Apostle’s exhortation. Let us proceed to the inducements.

Lf ye be risen with Christ.] That it is our duty to seek and affect the things which are above he argues, first from our resurrection with Christ: For these words if ye be risen, are not expressive of doubt, but the language of inference and conclusion: for the assumption, viz. ye are risen with Christ, is presupposed from those things which were contended for in the foregoing Chapter, verses 12 and 19. And this argument proceeds from the cause to the effect: for this our resurrection which we have by Christ, is the efficient principle of the new life, and, therefore, of the new conversation and work. For we must know, that Christ, by the same power wherewith he raised himself from corporeal death, hath raised all his people from spiritual death. Hence said Bernard, There is a twofold resurrection ; one of the soul, which the secret coming of Christ effects ; the other of the body, which the glorious coming of Christ will accomplish. And as the outward man will receive in its corporeal resurrection, new life and functions: so in this\ spiritual resurrection, the inner man now receives new life and a new sensitive power. Hence that injunction of the Apostle, Rom. vi. 4, As Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life. This spiritual resurrection is effected in baptism, both sacramentally and really ; sacramentally, by the external administration of the rite; really, by the internal operation of the Holy Spirit. The Apostle comprehends both in Tit. iii. 5, According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of vegeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. These things being laid down, it is clear, that this ought to be the greatest inducement to all believers to seek and savour the things which are above. For he who is risen again is risen to another kind of life; but he who is risen with Christ, he, as far as it can be done in this life, ouglit to imitate Christ rising again. Therefore, like as Christ, being raised from the dead, cared no more for earthly things, but ascended to heaven to live a glorious and heavenly life: so Christians, who are spiritually raised, ought not to cleave to earthly things and desires, but elevate their minds to heaven.

Hence we observe,

1. It is the duty of Christians to imitate Christ, and to do those things spiritually which Christ did corporeally. For instance; Christ died; we ought in like manner to die to sin: Christ rose again; we ought also to rise to newness of life: Christ ascended into heaven ; it is our duty to soar to heaven in mind. This is what the Apostle would have us understand in Rom. vii. 5, where he requires that we, being planted together, should coalesce together in conformity as well to the death as to the resurrection of Christ. The Apostle, says Chrysostom, would have Christians to be partakers with Christ in all things.

2. It is not only our duty to rise with Christ; but to derive power from the resurrection of Christ for this spiri- _ tual resurrection; for that virtue wherewith Christ raised himself, he communicates to all his people to raise up them also. The argument, therefore, from the resurrection of Christ is strong for our spiritual resurrection. Hence the Apostle, having laid down the death and resurrection of _. Christ, subjoins Ovro Kai Ducis royigecSe, &c. Likewise reckon B ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom. vi. 11.

3. They are now inexcusable who still are absorbed in earthly things and desires; since they have a new nature proportioned and inclined to the things which are above, communicated to them by the quickening power of the resurrection of Christ. “Therefore, like as iron, which cannot raise itself aloft by its nature, yet, by the operation of the magnet acting upon it, is raised upward: so human minds, by their own aptitude being set upon earthly things, by virtue of the resurrection of Christ, can elevate themselves to high and heavenly things. Thus much for the first inducement. ume

Where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.] This is that other inducement or spur to seek and affect lofty or celestial things: Christ sitteth at the right hand of God; therefore it behoves us to seek and to affect the things that are above. First we shall explain the meaning of these words ; and then shew the force of the argument, or the consequence of the reason.

In the first place, then, it must be borne in mind, that this is spoken of Christ properly and especially as to his human nature, in which he rose, and ascended, and sits at the right hand of the Father, as it is stated in the Apostle’s Creed : and although as to the Divine nature, we must believe that he sat at the right hand of the Father from all eternity, i.e. as Damascenus, Lib. 4. cap. 2, has expounded it, that he had an equality of Divine Majesty with God the Father: By the right hand of the Father we mean the glory and honour of the Godhead ; in which the Son of God existed, before the world began, as God, and of one substance with the Father, but became incarnate in these last days, and. sitteth there bodily, his flesh being also glorified. Therefore, passing by this Exposition of Damascenus, which respects the Divine nature of Christ and his eternal Majesty, let us inquire what is intimated under the words £o sit at the right hand of God, when they are applied to the human nature of Christ and its exaltation effected in time.

This is the sum; Since God hath no bodily right hand, by this sitting is signified, that Christ as man, having accomplished the work of our redemption, is not only endowed with immortality and perfect blessedness, but is raised to heaven, placed above all creatures, Lord, Governor, and Judge of the whole world, and especially constituted the most glorious and powerful King and Patron of the Church. Augustine, De fide et symbolo, Tom. 3, says, to sit, is to possess judicial power ; but to be at the right hand of God, is to be in the highest blessedness ; as to be at the left hand is to be in the deepest misery. But what it is for the man Christ to sit at the right hand of the Father, is best explained by the Apostle in Ephes. i. 20, 21, and 22. It comprises, then, the exaltation of the human nature to a state of the completest happiness and glory of which it could be capable, and likewise exaltation and authority over all other creatures.

The error of certain moderns is therefore to be avoided, who, from this sitting of Christ at the right hand of God, endeavour to infer, that Divine Majesty, ubiquity, and all the properties of Deity are really communicated to the human nature of Christ. But they are easily refuted ;

1. Because, if the Divine attributes be really communicated to the human nature, the human nature is really God: for the Divine attributes are nothing else than the Divine essence. We therefore acknowledge that Christ incarnate has an equality of glory and majesty with God the Father: but we deny that the flesh of Christ, or the human nature, has, or can have this; because it is not consubstantial with God, although it is hypostatically united to God.

2. They are refuted from the circumstance of time. For “ (as they will have it) a real communication of attributes to the human nature arises from its hypostatic union with the Divine: but this sitting of the man Christ at the right hand of God, of which the Apostle speaks, followed his passion and resurrection. This we learn from the order of the articles in the Apostle’s Creed: He rose again; he ascended into heaven; he sat down, &c. This Christ himself teaches us, Luke xxiv. 26, Ought not Christ to have suffered, and to enter into his glory? And the Apostle, Heb. i. 3, After that he had purged our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

3. As to the ubiquity of Christ’s body; that is manifestly refuted, not established in this place. For the Apostle says, that the minds of Christians ought to be directed heavenward, not set upon earthly things, for this reason, that Christ is exalted at the right hand of God in the heavens, now no more to dwell with us upon earth in his bodily presence, although as to the presence of the Divine Majesty he is ever with us. Thus in Ephes. i. 20, He set Christ at his own right hand. Where? In the heavens ; and Heb. i. 3, in the highest places. Although, therefore, the right hand of God is every where, if thereby we understand the Divine Majesty and power; because God is every where: yet Christ, as far as regards his body, or his human nature, is set at the right hand of God, not as regards his ubiquity, but his presence in heaven.

And thus ye see briefly in what sense Christ is set at the right hand of God : His Divine nature, or the person of the Word, sits in the equality of Majesty and glory, and of all the Divine attributes ; the human nature sits above all created things, but yet beneath God, viz. endued with majesty, and the greatest glory adapted to it, and of which it can be capable.

Those things being explained, it remains that we shew the force of this argument: Christ sitteth on high at the right hand of God ; therefore we ought to seek and affect the things which are above. “There are two reasons which strengthen this consequence. The first derived from the love of all the faithful to the Head and Saviour Christ Jesus. It is a common saying, The mind is where it loves, not where its actual seat is: and that saying in the Gospel is also ^ well known, Where the treasure is, there will the heart be also, Matt. vi. 21. Since then Christ, who is the love and delight of the souls of the faithful, is placed in the heavens at the right hand of God, it is needful for every pious and holy soul to flee towards that celestial place as by a straight course, and in heart and mind especially to have conversation there daily. That saying of Paul, Phil. i. 23, I have a desire to depart and to be with Christ, flowed from this affection. The inferior members can never be well if they be disjointed and separated from their head: it is no wonder, therefore, if all the faithful mount to heaven as much as they can, and strive to join themselves to Christ their Head.

The other cause is derived from the influence of the head over the members. For Christ sits not idle at the right hand of the Father, but imparts saving grace to all his people, and supplies them with strength to trample under foot earthly things, and seek those which are above. For Christ being exalted hath attractive virtue, he draws all his people upward, and suffers them not to cleave to the earth. Even as the heavenly sun draws upwards by his power, gross and earthly vapours ; so Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, separates our gross and rigid souls from the dregs of earthly things, and by his efficacious working raises them to heavenly. The argument, therefore, is derived from what is possible or feasible: as though he had said, Although ye cannot by the strength of nature seek and affect the things that are above, yet by the aid of Christ sitting at the right hand of God, and drawing you to himself by the Spirit of grace, ye are now able to accomplish that. I can do all things, says the Apostle, through Christ strengthening me, Phil. iv. 13.

Hence we infer,

1. There is no reason why we should fear the hosts of our spiritual enemies, the devil, the world, and the flesh ; because Christ our Saviour is more powerful than all these, inasmuch as he is exalted at the right hand of God, far above all creatures. What fear of the world is there to him, who hath God for his guide through the world? Cyprian, De Orat. Dom. Human persecution shall not shake the mind, but — Divine protection shall strengthen faith. Idem, De exhort. martyr. cap. 10. ‘

2. This ought to induce a perpetual exercise of faith, that as often as we are troubled with earthly desires, forth- » with we should look up to heaven, we should contemplate Christ sitting at the right hand of God, and seek spiritual strength from him. Thus Stephen was even supported against the very terrors of death, Acts vii. 55.

3. They are not true and living members under Christ _ the Head, whose minds are not directed heavenward. For wheresoever the carcase is, thither will the eagles be gathered together, Matt. xxiv. 28.

So much for the inducements to seek those things which are above.

Verses 3, 4.

That the things which are above were to be sought by the Colossians, and so by all believers, is proved by two reasons; from our resurrection with Christ, and from the exaltation of Christ himself. The Apostle now enters upon that other part of his admonition, by which he forbids us to seek and to affect earthly things; and he corroborates it by two other arguments. The first taken from our spiritual death ; for ye are dead: to which he adds a silent occupation; your life is hid. The latter is derived from the certain expectation of future glory. And this certainty is shewn by the circumstance of the time assigned when this life of glory shall be given us; namely, when Christ shall appear. We shall begin from the former reason.

For ye are dead.] Namely, to sin, to the world, and to the flesh; as the Apostle constantly testifies. Reckon ye ] yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, Rom. vi. 11. The world as crucified unto me, and I unto the world, Gal. vi. 14; And elsewhere, They who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. Here let us consider two things : ‘ How we are dead ; and, How much this consideration pre- “ vails to the slighting of earthly things.

As to the first; They that are born again are dead to sin, not because sin is wholly eradicated and extirpated from their mortal body ; for this would oppose every one’s experience who perceives within himself the fuel of sin: but because its dominion is broken, weakened, and debilitated ; because its power is gradually subdued by the operation of grace; because at length it shall be wholly overcome and extinguished by the perfection of glory. Whoever, therefore, are born again in Christ are dead to sin, because all their sins are abolished, in the sacrament of regeneration, as to the guilt; because they are sealed to be entirely abolished, even as to the act, and begin to be abolished by the Spirit operating within; finally, because believers are bound to mortify them, on account of the vow of mortification undertaken at baptism. Therefore, as in common language we say that he is already a dead man, against whom sentence of death is passed ; so we rightly say, that they who are born again are dead, or that sin is already dead in them, because in their baptism the sentence of death was as it were passed against sin; the execution of which sentence is forthwith begun, is daily proceeding, and at length completed. It was not badly said by Parisiensis, De legib. cap. 28, All sin is reckoned to be dead that hath not extinguished the life of grace; wherefore it is accounted dead, since it is not permitted to rule. It would be easy to confirm this by many testimonies of the Scriptures. For they every where teach, that those who are born again in baptism not only die to sin sacramentally, but also receive the Spirit of Christ, by whose virtue and efficacy the lusts of the flesh are really mortified in them. Rom. vi. 6, We know that our old man is crucified with Christ, that the body of sin might be destroyed. They moreover teach, that we stipulated with God, to the perpetual study of mortification and a godly life: Thus speaks Peter, Epis. i. cap. iii. 21, where he calls baptism the answer of a good conscience towards God. We now understand what the Apostle meant with himself, when he says that the Colossians are dead ; and in what sense Christians are said £o be dead to sin by their baptism.

Now it remains that we examine, in the second place, the reason of this consequence, Ye ought not to seek, or set your affections on earthly things, because ye are dead: Which is most forcible on many accounts,

First, it prevails from the removal of the cause to the removal of the effect. For the effects of the dominion of sin are’ to savour and to seek earthly things: butin those who are dead to sin, sin has lost this lordly power: it cannot, therefore, compel them to unlawful lusts. The Apostle affirms this in express words, Rom. vi. 7, He who is dead is free from sin: and ver. 14, Sin shall not have dominion over you. This may be illustrated from the similitude of a tyrant who formerly flourished and domineered, but was afterward wounded, subdued, and cast into prison. For as he, whilst protected by his guards, held the citadel, ruled the miserable citizens, and compelled them to obey his commands ; but after he had been stripped of his defence, forced from his citadel, overcome, and bound, was derided and despised by all, neither had any one who regarded his directions: so sin, whilst it lives in the unregenerate man, urges and impels him to all wickedness; but after its dominion is broken, it can do nothing except to those who voluntarily give up themselves to it again.

Secondly, when the Apostle reasons, Ye are dead, therefore ye ought to savour earthly things, an argument is deduced by a simile. For as bodily death severs men from all commerce with earthly things, so this spiritual mortification ought to estrange our minds from the study and desire of earthly things. Bodily death of necessity wrests men from all worldly concerns; spiritual mortification, by a certain divine operation, withdraws us from the love of these things: To be dead, then, means this, that they who have the Holy Spirit mortifying within them the lusts of the flesh, are able, by his assistance, to despise earthly things, and desire those that are heavenly. Paul affords a remarkable specimen of this, who was so much removed from the desire of earthly glory, as to regard as dung whatever is desirable and glorious in the eyes of the world.

Lastly, the Apostle’s conclusion is supported by what is honourable and due. It is honourable, that they who have died sacramentally in baptism, should shew in their life that they are really mortified. It is due, that they who have vowed the mortification of the flesh in baptism, should exercise the duty of mortification by a contempt of earthly things. And thus ye see this consequence, Seek not earthly things, because ye are dead, is most firmly sustained by the force of many reasons. Now let us deduce some observations or doctrines.

1. A Christian serving the lusts of sin, is a deserter and voluntary captive. For he is delivered from the service of sin, this tyrant being weakened and smitten with a deadly wound. See the miserable and shameful condition of these in 2 Pet. ii. 19, 20: Of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

2. There is no cause why a Christian should despond, because he perceives in himself the rebellious motion of sin, unless he obeys its lusts, and is himself drawn headlong into rebellion, For, notwithstanding these enticements of sin, he who neither yields the consent of the will, nor the members of his body as instruments of iniquity thereto, is accounted dead to sin.

3. The Apostle requires that we should duly hold the mystery of our baptism, and transfer it to the use of piety and holiness. For he derives this most beautiful exhortation, Seek not the things that are on earth, because ye are dead, from the consideration of baptism, as it will appear to those who look back to the 12th verse of the foregoing Chapter. So in Rom. vi. 3, Know ye not that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? as though he had said, It is shameful and unworthy of a Christian not to know this.

4. They grievously sin who suffer their baptism to be rooted from their memory, as a transient ceremony: for this sacred mystery, although once performed, should be : perpetually revolved in mind, and expressed in conduct.

Let us proceed to the next clause.

And your life is hid with Christ in God.] Yt has been said that there is an implied occupation contained in these words, whereby he meets a twofold objection.

1. It is objected, That the Apostle contradicts himself : he had just now said that the Colossians were risen; but those who are risen again are alive: now in almost the same breath he affirms that they are dead ; but the dead are not alive.

This difficulty is solved by distinguishing, They are dead to the world, to sin, and the flesh, as was before shewn ; but they live to God and Christ. The same Spirit who mortifies the carnal life within us, quickens us to a new and spiritual life. -And this is that life which all those live by Christ who are dead to sin.

2. It might be said that Paul opposes common experience. For all the pious perceive themselves as yet infested by the remains of sin, oppressed by various sorrows, and at length fall under death: How, therefore, can it be true, that they are risen with Christ and follow a new life?

The Apostle answers, that this new life is, in fact, only begun, and is imperfect and obscure in the faithful themselves: but in Christ their Head it is completed, perfected, glorious; yet hidden. Therefore, Paul would anticipate these objections in saying, Your life is hid with Christ in God. Let us now examine the words themselves respectively.

Your life.] The word life is taken for that supernatural life whereby we live to God under a state of grace, and whereby we are to live with God in a state of glory : For the life of grace is nothing else (so to speak) than the childhood of glory. And both these are called your life by way of eminence; in comparison of which a carnal and bodily life is considered as death: for a carnal life leads to death, and that eternal. Whence in the holy Scriptures they are accounted dead who live after the flesh; Let the dead bury their dead: and 1 Tim. v. 6, She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth. Moreover, he who lives the life of grace according as he is led by the Spirit, he day by day ripens for eternity, Rom. viii. 13. And as the carnal life of sinners is death, if it be compared to the spiritual life of the faithful; so the natural life of man is death, if it is compared to the supernatural life of the blessed. For this whole bodily life passes away and vanishes any moment, nor has it any permanency; but that whole supernatural life stands in the perpetuity of its solidity, and hath nothing transient. Therefore, the Apostle intending this spiritual and supernatural life, rightly and emphatically says, Your life.

Is hid.] This may be applied as well to the life of grace as to the life of glory. The spiritual life of the saints is hid, First, as to the wicked. For the world does not discover any thing spiritual in. the children of God ; but accounts them the most despicable, foolish, and miserable beings. So says the Apostle, Heb. xi. 36—38, They had trials of mockings and scourgings, being destitute, afflicted, tormented, of whom the world was not worthy. Neither is it to be wondered at, since this spiritual life consists in those things which meet not the eye or sense; namely, in adoption, in regeneration, in union with Christ, in faith and love, and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit. Hence that tardy confession of the ungodly, Wisdom v. 3, &c. These are they whom we had sometime in derision and a proverb of reproach. We fools accounted their life madness, and their end to be without honour. How are they numbered among the children of God, and their lot is among the saints !

Secondly, as to the saints and faithful themselves, their spiritual life is hid; but partly, not entirely. I say it is in some measure hid, because they themselves do not always clearly perceive the life of grace in them ; but sometimes, being assaulted by the temptations of the devil and the flesh, they are half in doubt that they themselves are indeed slain, and destitute of the Spirit of God. Hence that word of the Psalmist li. 10, Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Moreover, when they perceive in themselves this spiritual life, they nevertheless acknowledge it to be very weak, languid, and ob- © scure on account of that perpetual resistance and rebellion of the flesh. So Paul felt that he delighted in the law of God after the inner man; Here we see his spiritual life! yet the same Paul sees another law in his members warring against the law of his mind ; Here we see the same life hidden and obscured! Rom. vii.22,23. -

Now as to the life of future glory, that is much more hidden: For although we have the seeds of this life within us, yet they are trodden down under this mortal body, neither are they brought into full light before the day of Christ’s coming. In the meanwhile, as it is in 1 John iii. 2, We are now the children of God, but it cloth not yet appear what we shall be: nay, we are not indeed able to take in even in imagination this hidden life, 1 Cor. ii. 9.

With Christ in God.] This also fitly accords both to the spiritual life to which we are now raised, as well as to that glorious life to which we are to be raised ; for each is hidden in Christ, as in the fountain, the root, or original. But these words in God, are added, because Christ himself, as man, hath withdrawn himself from the earth, and ascended to God the Father. Therefore, God is invisible and hidden from the world, and Christ with God, and our life with Christ. As to spiritual life, it is certain that whatever small streams are derived to us, the fountain itself lies hid in Christ ; nay, the streams of spiritual life are not derived to us, except so far as we are joined to Christ, in whom this life is laid up. TI live, says the Apostle, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me, Gal. ii. 20. Hence is that declaration John xv. 5, 6, If a man abide not in Christ and Christ in him, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered. But our life of glory is also hid in Christ. For as the life of the branches is not extinct in the season of winter, but is hidden in the root of the vine itself: so the blessed and glorious life of the faithful is hidden and reserved in Christ, the spiritual vine, in this season of their earthly pilgrimage. Nay, and we also are said, in this sense, to be already put into possession of this celestial life, namely, as we are already raised to heaven in Christ the Head, and endued with eternal life and immortality. This is what the Apostle would have us to understand in Ephes. ii. 6, [He hath raised us up together with him, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. In Christ, therefore, as man, our celestial life is hid, as in the modelling cause: for he shall change our humble body, that it may be fashioned like to his glorious body, Phil. 11. 21.* — It is also hidden as in the material and meritorious cause : for he hath expiated our sins by his death in the flesh, and merited for us this life. Ju the Son, therefore, is that eternal life which God hath bestowed on us, ] John v. 1]. It is hidden, lastly, in the man Christ, as in the efficient, that is to say, the secondary and instrumental cause. Moreover all supernatural life is hidden in God, as in the principal cause and chief fountain. The Apostle unites each cause, both primary and instrumental, in Rom. vi. 23, The gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.¹

In conclusion,

1. We are hence taught, as often as we perceive spiritual grace languish within us, to seek a fresh supply from Christ, in whom is hid the fountain of spiritual life.

2. Henceitis seen how necessary it is to be united with Christ by faith and the Spirit: for if we are separated from him, we are not Christians, but the dead carcases of Christians ; because in him is hidden all our life.

3. Here we have relief under our infirmity and imperfection; because, although all spiritual things in us are weak and imperfect, as faith, love, and holiness; yet, through Christ, we have spiritual life perfected in all things. © This is the consideration whereby St. Paul sustained himself, Phil. iii. 8, 9, I count all things but dung, that I may win Christ ; and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, &c.

4. Here we have most suitable consolation, and the firmest anchor to our hope in all external miseries. For our life is laid up in God ; but God will not deny the deposit: it is hid with Christ; but it is impossible that Christ and life be separated ; it is no less impossible that they should perish whose life is hid with Christ. Let us conclude, therefore, that heavenly things are to be sought by us, earthly things to be trodden under foot; because we are both dead to these earthly things, and have a supernatural life as well of grace as of glory hidden with Christ in God.

Vers. 4.

The Apostle proceeds still further to shew that earthly things are not to be sought or savoured by Christians, but heavenly ones. He derives his argument from the expectation of the glory destined for us. ^ We shall consider first, the matter contained in these words in itself: secondly, we shall shew the force of the consequence; that it may be understood how it tends to establish this conclusion, Earthly things are not to be affected by us.

In the former part three things are to be considered : the Author of the gift; the time of the bestowal; the gift itself.

1. The Author, or the Cause of the glorious and blessed life which we expect, is Christ himself: Whence he is called our life by a causal not an essential predication ; because it was he that promised this life to us, it was he that merited it for us, it was he prepared it, he that will bestow it. He promisd it, in the name of the Father, Luke xii. 92, Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom; and in his own name, John x. 28, I give unto them eternal life, &c. He merited it, 1 John iv. 9, God sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him; and 1 John v. 11, God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. And he hath prepared us for this life, and this eternal life for us. He hath prepared us, and made us meet for the participation of this life by his Spirit; Ile hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light, Col. i. 12. He hath quickened us together with Christ: by grace ye are saved, Ephes. ii. 5. He hath also prepared this kingdom for us by his ascension; I go to prepare a place for you: And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to myself ; that where I am, there ye may be also, John xiv. 23. Finally, he will bestow upon his people this crown of eternal life; Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him, John xvii. 2. There is laid up for me a crown of righteousness which the Lord shall give me, 2 Tim. iv. 8. Christ, then is rightly called our //fe, i.e. the author or the cause of our eternal life: as it is in Heb. v. 9, And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him.

2. Now let us consider the circumstances of time: When he shall appear, THEN we shall obtain a glorious life. The revealing, or manifestation, or appearing of Christ, is propounded in a threefold manner in the Scriptures :

First, he is manifested bodily in the flesh, to the bodily eyes of men, in his nativity. Whence Simeon, Luke ii. 30, congratulates himself on the bodily sight of Christ: Now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation. God was manifest in the flesh, 1 Tim, iii. 16.

Secondly, he is manifested spiritually in the preaching of the Gospel, to the spiritual eyes of believers. Of this manifestation Paul speaks in Gal. iii. 1, Who hath bewitched you that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was evidently set forth. And in John, 1 Epist. 1. 2, The life was made manifest, &c. .

Thirdly, he remains to be manifested to the whole world : in the splendour of his glory, by his coming to judge the living and the dead. Of this final manifestation the Apostle is speaking: for unto this day the glorification of his saints is deferred, doubtless to be perfected then. I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth, Job xix. 25. And 1 Cor, xv. 52, 53, The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption ; and this mortal immortality. This, then, is that festal day of which the Apostle subjoins a clear and most delightful promise in these words following,

3. Then shall ye also appear with him im glory, or glorious.] That is, Then shall ye each be made like to your glorious Head and Saviour Jesus Christ. The promised glory of this eternal life (if I may speak with the Schoolmen) consists in a twofold array; in the robe of the soul, and the robe of the body. The robe of the soul consists, First, in the manifest vision of God, which succeeds to faith; according to that declaration of the Apostle, Now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face, 1 Cor. xii.129. Secondly, in that perfect fruition, which succeeds to hope: They shall neither hunger, nor thirst; since the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, Rev. vii. 16. Thirdly, in the perfect love of God, which succeeds to our imperfect love, and shall perfect it for ever: Prophecies shall fail, tongues shall cease ; but love never faileth, Y Cor. xii. 8. But indeed, what of glory and of happiness shall it not comprise? To see, to love, to enjoy God! we are not only not able to express it, but we cannot comprehend it in our mind : For truly says Gregory, Moral 27. 26, When mortal man would discourse about eternal glory, he disputes as one blind about light.

That glorious robe of the body consists in the various endowments with which it shall then be adorned: In brightness; The righteous shall shine forth as the sun, Matt. xiii. 43: in exemption from suffering ; this corruptible shall put on incorruption, 1 Cor. xv. 53: in agility; which, according to Augustine, shall be such, that wherever the spirit flies, there shall the body also forthwith be. Other things were likewise added by some of the Schoolmen; but it is not my purpose with over nicety to define any thing about these matters; that saying of the Apostle, in 1 Cor. xv. 43, 44, shall suffice, It ?s sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory ; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power ; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If any one desires to see more about the state of the blessed, let him consult Prosper, De vit. contempl. lib. i. cap. 4; Parisiensis, De universo ; Albert, Compend. lib. vii. cap. 23, 24, &c. Thome Summ. part. iii, qu. 82. art. 1, 2, &c.

And thus much concerning the gift of glory, the time of the bestowment, and Christ the giver thereof. Now, in the second place, we shall consider how wonderfully all these things conduce to the contempt of earthly, and the desire of heavenly things. :

First, then, that state of glory promised to us and daily expected, ought to move us to despise earthly things. For if the heirs of an earthly king should disdain to be occupied in low and abject employments ; how much more does it behove those destined for a celestial kingdom, to tread under foot the lusts of earthly things? That saying of Alexander is worthy of remembrance, who, when invited to a contest of running with certain plebeians, said, that it was not befitting the son of a king to enter the course except with kings. It behoves us also to maintain this royal temper, and to resolve that we cannot, in conformity with the dignity of our condition, engage with worldly minded men in the contest for earthly things; but that we ought so to frame our course with the sons of God and coheirs of heaven, as to seek and obtain heavenly things. This is what Christ advised; Take no thought, saying, what shall we eat, or what shall we drink, or wherewithal shall we be clothed? for after all these things do the Gentiles seek : but seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, Matt. vi. 31. A saint, while he secks after eternity alone, holds beneath him every thing transitory, says Gregory, Moral 1. 3. 14.

Secondly, if we seriously consider who is the bestower of this glorious crown, that likewise will excite us to despise earthly things. Christ our life, as we before shewed, promised it, he merited it, he will assign this crown of glory: But to whom? to those who seek and delight in earthly things? By no means; but to those who seek the things that are above, and love his appearing, 2 Tim. iv. 8. It is proper to expect the reward from him for whom you have fought: if for the world, the flesh, or the devil, expect no other reward than death: if for Christ, then, and then only, it will be lawful to hope for glory in the end : He who soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption ; but he who sowelh to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting, Gal. vi. 8. Admirably spake Bernard: There is no road to the kingdom, without the first-fruits of the kingdom ; nor can that man hope for the kingdom of heaven, who has not yet obtained the dominion over his own lusts. So 1 John iu. 2, 3, When Christ shall appear, we shall be like him : And whosoever hath this hope in him purifieth himself even as he is pure. But Christ was as pure from the lusts of earthly things as could possibly be: for he would not yield the least inclination of his body to the devil, to obtain thereby all the kingdoms of this world and the glory of them, Matt. iv. Thus we ought to be animated, if we expect life eternal from Christ our life.

Thirdly, the circumstances of the time in which we expect this glorious life is a most powerful inducement to withdraw our minds from the love of earthly things. For when shall this crown of glory be given? When he shall appear, i. e. on the day of the coming of the Lord. Now this day, if we believe the Scriptures, will come both quickly and suddenly. Quickly; Yet a little while, and he that shall come, will come, and will not tarry, Heb. x. 37. And Rev. xxii. 12, Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me. It ought not, then, to seem troublesome or burdensome to regulate the short period of our time, and to abstain from earthly things, when Christ is at hand, and promises us eternal glory. The hireling, because he ponders heavily his drudgery, thinks lightly of the reward, says Gregory, Moral,8.8. Be patient, therefore, and stablish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh, Jas. v. 8.

That day shall likewise come suddenly : As the light shineth from heaven, so shall the Son of Man be in his day, Luke xvii. 24. The day of the Lord will come as a thief, 2 Pet. iu. 10… Now then who does not see how dangerous it is to be involved in earthly things and desires, and so to be taken unawares? Christ foresees this our danger, and forewarns us to avoid it; Be ye like unto men that wait for their Lord when he will return from the wedding, &c. Luke xii. 36. Behold I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame, Rev. xvi. 15. What, then, will become of us, if we are taken unawares immersed in all these earthly things ? Hear Gregory; He who would not go with the stream, let him avoid the torrent ; lest by that which allures him, he be carried to that which he avoids: for he is drawn to the same point to which he inclines, Moral 22. 2.

And thus it has been briefly shewn, that whether we consider the gift itself of eternal glory, or the giver, or the time of giving, all and every one of these considerations ought to withdraw us from the love of earthly things, and excite us constantly to seek and to meditate on heavenly things. It now remains that from the whole we deduce some corollaries, as well for instruction as for correction, and then finally for our consolation.

Instructions arising from this verse.

1. God will have Christ his Son to be the fountain and the bestower of this glorious life to all his faithful members: it is, therefore, not to be hoped for or supplicated from any others.

2. This Christ, being exalted to heaven, is removed from our sight: he is therefore to be apprehended by the eye of faith: and this ought to be the perpetual exercise of the pious, to soar towards heaven, to contemplate Christ glorified, and to render the assurance of that future glory certain to themselves.

3. The happiness of Christians is not placed in the things of the present life, but the whole depends upon the . expectation of future things. The resurrection of the dead is the confidence of Christians, says Tertullian. Therefore there is need of special faith.

Consolations.

1. Not we ourselves, but Christ is the keeper of the eternal life promised to us: Therefore, although we are compelled to tremble, as often as we consider our frail condition in ourselves; yet, as often as we meditate on the most firm and faithful care of Christ, we send forth that triumphant voice of faith, I know that there is a crown laid up for me.

2. This glory in reserve for the pious is able to assuage all temporal calamities. Cyprian, writing against Demetrian, admirably treats this matter; he says, He, whose entire joy and glory is in the world, suffers from worldly adversity: he, to whom there can be no well-being after the world, mourns under worldly misfortune. But the faithful bravely endure the ills and misfortunes of the world, whilst they look forward to future good and happiness. Vide Habbac. iii, 17, 18.

3. Nothing that is of any moment and worth can be snatched from the pious man. Against our good things (as they are called) of fortune, even against this frail life, the ungodly may prevail: but against the good things promised, and our eternal life nothing can prevail.

Reproofs.

1. They are to be blamed, who, either never think, or think not with joy of Christ and the coming of Christ. For who can excuse their torpor who do not ardently desire the life of his life, who do not wait for that natal day of this new life with gladness?

2. And they also are deservedly to be blamed who seek the glory of this world: for what else is this than to wish to violate this Divine decree? He has decreed that the glory of Christians is to be expected on the second coming of Christ. In the meanwhile, it behoves us to bear the injuries and miseries of time, to dream not here of glory and happiness, unless hereafter to hear with Dives, Remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things, but now he is comforted and thou art tormented, Luke xvi. 25…

3. They are to be derided, or rather to be pitied as the madinen of this world, who think themselves happy because they enjoy the pleasures, the honours, the wealth of this world; and think the pious, on the contrary, to be most abject and miserable, because they, for the most part, are destitute. But those are not truly happy, for whom eternal misery remains, nor those miserable, whom eternal glory awaits. Well said Lactantius, Instit. 6. 22, As we arrive at true good through fallacious evils, so we come to real evil through fallacious good. And thus we dismiss the first member of the general exhortation.

Verse 5.

Having gone through that former part of the exhortation which teaches us what is to be sought without us, and what to be avoided; the Apostle proceeds, and teaches what is to be extirpated and abolished within us, what is to be nourished and cherished. “That former part directed us to seek the true end, viz. celestial blessedness ; this directs us to enter upon the path which leads thereto, namely, true holiness. Now of this exhortation, which calls us to the life of holiness, there are two parts. In the former, he excites the Colossians to lay aside or to put off vicious actions and affections ; in the latter, to put on and exercise good ones. And the Apostle, in this and the following verse, persuades us to mortify, first, carnal vices, which immediately respect our peculiar, but unlawful pleasures ; secondly, in the verses which follow, spiritual vices, which tend immediately to the injury of our neighbour. But let us come to this fifth verse.

The Apostle here does two things: First, he proposes a general exhortation to the study of mortification ; Secondly, a particular enumeration of certain vicious deeds and affections which he would have to be mortified.

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth.] In these words you have the general exhortation to the practice of mortification, We may observe in them,

First, the connexion or dependence of the words; for the illative particle therefore, compels us to look to what goes before. They are thus then connected with the foregoing words: Because ye are risen with Christ, because ye are dead with Christ, because ye have a glorious life hid in Christ, THEREFORE mortify your members, &c. Hence we infer that our participation with Christ in dying, rising again, and ascending, is the strongest inducement to newness of life and holiness.

Secondly. Let us consider the act itself to which we are invited, expressed in this word, mortify, i. e. make the body of the old Adam as a dead carcase; that, although it may retain certain members and lineaments, yet they are inefficacious, being destitute of life and motion; i. e. Let not sin reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof; Kom. vi. 12. This our mortification, therefore, is nothing else than the study and the practice of repressing our corrupt nature, and restraining all unlawful actions and affections which are wont to spring from thence. But in this study these three things are involved: a serious determination of resisting sin; an avoiding of the occasions which are wont to induce us to sin; a careful use of all means which tend to the subduing of sin. A good determination averts the heart itself from the ways of sin; a diligent avoiding of it causes us not to return to it; the use of means, that we should be constant in our determination, and proceed happily.

But since the Apostle exhorts us to mortify our members, it may here be asked, Ist. Is mortification a human work, or of the human will? The Apostle seems clearly to assert it in this place: but the whole Scripture proclaims our mortification and vivification to be the effects of the Divine power alone, produced by the Holy Spirit regenerating and inspiring new life into men. Which are born not of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God, John i. 13. We are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works, Ephes. ii. 10. Rightly said Gerson, part. 3, God not only quickens the dead in sins, but stirs up the affections of the soul to a desire for this quickening. And Augustine, The freedom of the will does not prevail in those things which pertain to God, but only in the works respecting the present life, Contra Pelag. hypognost. lib. 3.

We shall easily solve this difficulty, if we will consider what sort of persons those were of whom the Apostle is here speaking, For he is speaking not of the profane and the dead in sins; but of Christians, i. e. those whom he presumes to be regenerate: and he commands them to mortify their members, &c. Therefore, for the sake of perspicuity, we must admit the existence of a twofold mortification: First, that which we may call habitual or internal, and this is the work of the Divine Spirit alone, infusing it where he will: but this mortification he effects whilst he infuses himself into the human soul together with the gifts of his grace, by the efficacy of which the power and dominion of sin is mortified and overthrown. Secondly, that which we call external or practical; and this is the work of the renewed man himself, whilst by the aid of the Spirit, he brings forth the fruits of that internal mortification, that is, whilst he resists the temptations of sin, whilst he restrains inordinate affections, whilst he diligently takes care lest he fall into unlawful deeds; for he who does this is said to mortify his flesh. “Therefore, the act of mortification attributed to us is nothing else than the ‘evépyez, or operation springing from infused grace, even that which we have called the internal or habitual mortification effected — . by the Holy Spirit.

2. It is again asked, How this Apostolic exhortation agrees with the preceding ? He had said, ver. 3, that they were dead, now he adds, Mortify your members: but what necessity is there that any one dead should be still ordered to mortify himself?

The solution depends upon what was before said. First, then, we answer, that the Colossians were dead sacramentally by having received baptism; but are bidden to mortify their members actually, viz. in the conversation of life : now these things are accordant, not contradictory. Secondly, we say that they were moreover dead by habitual mortification, viz. through the effect of internal mortification infused into their hearts by the Holy Spirit: and they ought to mortify themselves by a practical mortification, exercising infused grace in opposing their lusts. Thirdly, we also add, that the cause of natural death and spiritual mortification are different. He who has undergone natural death is vainly commanded any more to mortify himself daily ; because natural death is pure privation, and admits not in the subject of it any thing contrary: but spiritual mortification is not pure privation ; for whilst we carry this mortal body, every thing inducing to the contrary is to be relinquished, because it must be perpetually resisted and mortified more and more: Well spake Origen, in Epist. ad Romanos: The mortification of sin is not effected in a moment, but ts the work of an unceasing struggle. Sin languishes from the commencement of our mortification, it wastes away in the progress, at last (i. e. in our death) it shall be abolished. Lastly, it is not unseasonably answered, that the dead are commanded still to mortify themselves, because if they neglect the constant practice of mortification, vices that were trodden under and subdued recover their strength; corruption that was broken off sprouts anew; and the grace of the Holy Spirit being stifled, the man returns to his former course. This is illustrated by Chrysostom in an elegant similitude: As a man who has cleansed and polished a statue which had been covered and corroded with dust and filth, may truly say that it is cleaned, and yet properly direct it to be wiped every day, because such direction refers to that soiling which will adhere afresh to the statue af it be neglected: so the Apostle truly said that the Colossians were dead to sin, yet wisely admonishes them to mortify daily the works of the flesh ; because this admonition refers to those impure desires which will grow up afresh, and prevail, unless repressed by constant and diligent labour. Thus much respecting the act of mortification, to which ye see that those who are already dead to sin are not excited in vain.

3. Your members which are upon the earth.] He passes from the act to the object about which this practical mortification ought to be exercised. Let us, therefore, in the third place, consider this object; and since every word here used by the Apostle hath great meaning in itself, we shall examine each singly.

Members.] As to this first word we must point out two things: First, what the Apostle intended by members ; Secondly, what is the reason of this epithet. He calls, then, all vicious and inordinate dispositions, desires, motions, and acts of corrupt nature, members: for all these are to be mortified by us, i. e. opposed, subdued, repressed. The primary members of this our corrupt nature are three: the darkness and vanity of the intellect; the depravity and obliquity of the will; the rebellion of the inferior appetites and their proneness to sin. To these are allied innumerable inferior members, and which, as it were, depend upon them, some of these are soon after subjoined in this place, and more occur in Galat, v. 19—21, where, the name being changed, they are called works of the flesh.

Now let us see why they are termed members. It is usual to adduce three causes for this title.

First, because the old Adam, or the mass of corrupt nature dwelling in us, is compared to a body, Rom. vi. 6, or to a man, in the same place; therefore it was just and proper, this same metaphor being retained, to call the parts of this corruption members. Every one of us possesses three men, or three bodies: the natural and visible body, the members of which are also known and visible; the body of sin, or of the old Adam, the members of which are those vicious dispositions, desires, and actions which we just now glanced at: and the body of the new man; which is renewed after the image of God; the members of which are faith, love, holiness, and other gifts of the Holy Spirit.

2. The vicious affections and acts proceeding from this old Adam are perhaps called members, because they cleave ‘ to and exert themselves in each of the members and parts of this natural body. “Therefore, by that figure of speech which they call metonymy of the subject, the term members is transferred to signify the vicious affections and acts which are in and from the bodily members.

3. They are called members from the proportion, or similar use which they have, if compared with the members of the natural body. For as we use the members of this natural body to fulfil the desires and perform the operations of nature ; so the old man uses those vicious affections as instruments, for fulfilling the desires and performing the works of sin.

Ye perceive why they are called members: now let us look why your and earthly is added.

Your. These members are called ours, because that whole body of sin is also properly ours. This natural body which we bear, is ours now as to its use; but we received it from God as to. its creation: Job x. 10, 11, Hast thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with sinews. But this body of sin, and every one of its members are in every respect ours: for God made man upright : man has rendered himself depraved and corrupt.

Earthly.] So he calls vicious desires, because they always tend to earthly things ; because they hold the minds of men to earthly things ; because corrupt habits and affections dwell only among earthly things, but are excluded from heavenly ones: Rev. xxi. 27, There shall in no wise enter into it any thing that is defiled; and xxii. 15, Without are dogs, &c. This general exhortation to mortify our earthly members being now explained, we deduce some corollaries.

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth,

1. He is not risen with Christ who does not labour to mortify the flesh : for from the virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ communicated to us, there always follows a desire of mortification and holiness: Therefore, as many as delight in the flesh, are not mortified, but are dead in sin.

2. A true desire of external mortification cannot exert : itself in men corrupt by sin, unless they have within them the effective principle of internal mortification, the grace, I mean, of the Spirit of regeneration. Therefore, the external exercises which are sometimes wrought by the wicked, and bear the resemblance of mortification, are not the genuine effects of internal mortification, but false appearances.

From the act commanded; Mortify ye, we infer,

3. That the regenerate themselves never attain such perfect mortification in this life, but that they must always strive to mortify themselves more and more.

4. If they relax in this desire, that which happened to holy David may happen to every one, that he be carried away by the impetuosity of his lusts, and, for a time, may be a wretched slave to sin, over which he had before triumphed gloriously.

From the object; members,

5. This body of sin is as natural to every one of us, as is the very body of our flesh; nor does it consist of fewer members than that other.

6. As whilst we live here we necessarily carry about this natural body, nor are able to put it off ; so neither can we entirely lay aside this body of sin, which cleaves to us, although we can and ought to chasten and subdue it. There is, therefore, a perpetual, laborious, and dangerous warfare to the Christian: perpetual, because with an enemy not to be extirpated in this life ; laborious, because with a manifold enemy; dangerous, because with an internal enemy.

7. Original sin is not to be placed in a mere privation —. or withdrawal of original righteousness, as certain of the Schoolmen dream ; but, furthermore, in many depraved and corrupted dispositions, habits, and affections. Parisiensis hath learnedly proved this opinion in lib. De vitiis et peccatis, cap. 5and 6. Thomas, 1.2. qu. 82. art. ), assents to this, whose words I shall annex: We must assert, that as bodily sickness partly consists in privation, as far as the equality of health is taken away ; and partly in positive infliction, the humours themselves being disordered : so also original sin consists in the privation of original righteousness; and, together with this, in the disorder of the faculties of the soul: wherefore, it is not a mere privation, but a certain corrupt habit. Thus speaks Thomas. Neither is it probable that these words which are used by the Apostle, the old Adam, the body of sin, earthly members, intend nothing else than mere privation.

From the epithets, your, and earthly,

8. Original sin hath its origin, neither from God our Creator, nor from the principles of our pure and upright nature, but from the voluntary sin of our first parents. Hence our members are called parts of it, i. e. of the old Adam, propagated to us, and dwelling in us.

9. If there be any thing good in us, that ought to be referred to God alone; for What hast thou which thou hast not received? If we would arrogate any thing to ourselves which we might claim as peculiar to us, and our own, it is sin and corruption, not merit and righteousness.

10. The mind of sensual man lies wholly sunk in earthly things, neither is he able to raise himself heavenward before grace be infused: for the members of our soul, i.e. the inclinations and affections, are of the earth, earthly, or affixed to the earth naturally ; and, indeed, are not raised towards heaven except by grace exciting them.

11. We must withstand all these earthly desires, because they are members of the old Adam, to obey whom is nothing else than to rush to destruction,.—Thus much concerning the general exhortation.

Fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness which is idolatry.] The Apostle by a general exhortation had persuaded to a mortification of the earthly members of the old Adam: Now, that we may be certain what those members are, he adds a particular specification of certain of them, from the enumeration of which he would have all the others also, which are of the same nature and origin, to be understood, 1. e. what are the effects of the old man. He begins, as you perceive, with carnal vices: to these he couples covetousness, which he then marks with a black brand, by comparing it to idolatry. As to the vices of carnal luxury, he seems to me to condemn, 1. The external actions; for to these I refer fornication and uncleanness : 2. The internal motions and affections, which that word waéos (rendered, inordinate affection) denotes: 3, The very root or fountain of external and internal lust, which he calls evil concupiscence. Let us run over these, each in its order.

Fornication.] Augustine, Exposit. Epist. ad Gal. tom. 4, defines fornication indiscriminate concubinage, unrestrained by lawful wedlock, and sought only for the gratification of lust. It is wont to be restricted to those who have commerce with prostitutes, or at least with concubines: for if they violate married females or virgins, the one is deemed adultery, the other ravishment. So familiar was this vice among the Heathen, as to be accounted by most among the lawful pleasures. That saying of the comedian is well known, It is not a crime (believe me) to corrupt a boy. And lest any one should say this was spoken in the person of Mitio, he will find the same, according to Horace, to have been the opinion of the rigid Cato; who, when he observed a youth entering a brothel, said, Hither it is right that young men should descend ; as though that were an argument of probity and honesty. This opinion had taken deep root in the minds of almost all the Heathen, that fornication was either lawful, or at least to betolerated. This error, therefore, the Apostle in the first place meets, and asserts that fornication should be utterly repelled by Christians ; for if this be proved, it easily follows, that other kinds of pleasure which incur heavier guilt are much more to be avoided.

As to this vice; 1. We shall shew from the Holy Scrip- _ tures how pernicious it is: 2. We shall overturn those excuses which are usually brought by the patrons of lust. It will be manifest that this is indeed a heavy sin, if it be weighed in the standard of the sanctuary.

1. Because it is always reckoned up, not among lawful pleasures, but among the most loathsome and detestable impurities. The Apostle, in Rom. i. 29, writes, that those who are delivered to a reprobate mind are filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, &c. And in Ephes. v. 3, Fornication and all uncleanness let it not be named among you, &c.

2. Because they are judged to be excluded from the intercourse of faithful Christians who follow fornication: but no one is to be cast out of the Church for light errors. We have this broad sentence of Paul against fornication, 1 Cor. v. 9, 11, 1 wrote unto you not to company with fornicators: if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, &c. with such an one no not to eat.

3. Because for this crime men are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, and are subjected to the Divine wrath and indignation. 1 Cor. vi. 9, Neither fornicators, mor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, Kc. shall inherit the kingdom of God. And in Heb. xui. 4, Whoremongers and adulterers God shall judge.

It is very easy to add many other reasons to these, which may also demonstrate the weight of this crime. |. 4. Because it more especially pollutes the body than other vices: but our bodies are members of Christ and temples of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. vi. 15, &c. It is, therefore, no light crime to make the members of Christ members of harlots, or to make the temple of the Holy Spirit an abode of lust.

5. Because it peculiarly blinds the mind and understanding. The wise Solomon, being blinded by this vice, proceeded to idolatries; Women turned away his heart, 1 Kings xi. 3. Neither, indeed, did this escape the philosopher. Eth. vii. 10, ‘Ovx aua Qpovijov xa) axparrn svdeyerau tiva tov avrov; Wisdom and incontinence in the same man are 1ncompatible. Gregory the Great, in Moral 33, says, that blindness of the mind is the eldest daughter of luxury.

6. Because not only does it constitute the fornicator himself guilty of eternal death, but those miserable beings also with whom he sins. This greatly augments the aggravation of this sin: for it is not so in other crimes. If a man steals the goods of a woman, if he bears false testimony against her, if, finally, he should kill her, he does her an injury; but he does not involve her in damnable guilt, because he does not make her a partaker of his sin: but the fornicators defile them with their sins ; so that, although they themselves repent, yet they are of necessity tormented in mind, because as much as is in them they have precipitated other souls into hell by the contagion of their crime. Thus much as to the enormity of this sin.

Now let us hear, secondly, what is wont to be alleged by those who deny that simple fornication (for I would use their own words) is a mortal sin: and also by those who, when they have admitted that it is a mortal sin, yet contend that brothels and prostitutes must be retained. The former was not only an error of the heathen, but (if we believe Albertus²) of certain Christians: for he writes that the Greeks openly defended this, and that it was refuted by the Latins in the Council of Lyons, Part. 2. tract 18, quest. 122. Alfonsus de Castro³ relates the same from Guido, lib. 7. tit. Fornicatio. The other is the error of the Papists, who stiffly maintain that brothels are not to be removed from cities: which is inferred as well from their writings, as from their practice (for they are not attempted to be done away).

1. They who deny that fornication is a mortal sin, thus argue from Acts xv. 20. The things there enumerated seem to be placed on one footing ; but fornication is there enumerated with certain indifferent things: They should abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

I answer, that fornication is not always reckoned in the Scripture with things in their nature indifferent, but some- , times with things simply evil, as we have shewn. And the reason why, in this place, it is enumerated with certain things indifferent, is not, because they are of the same nature, or of equal guilt; but because all these things equally prevailed to disturb the Church, and to excite dissention between the Gentile converts, and the Jews who were yet weak.

2. They object, that which is mortal sin, and morally evil in itself, is understood to be so by the light of nature; but the Heathen, who were averse to the more flagitious crimes, as adultery, rape, and incest, thought that fornication should be imputed to no one as a vice; viz. because nature did not point it out as a sin.

I answer, first, we must not decide concerning things according to the opinion of the ungodly, as we must not about the taste of things according to the estimation of the sick, as Aquinas has well remarked. Therefore, although a corrupt and blinded mind does not judge fornication to be sin, yet it is by no means on that account not to be regarded as a sin: for, by the confession of the Orator, Cic. De legib. 1, so corrupting is the habit of evil that by it the small sparks assued from nature are extinguished, and contrary vices spring up. But neither do we admit, that fornication was not condemned by the wiser Heathens. Alcmena in Plautus says, With a woman whom thou judgest to be immodest thou wilt not converse, either in jest or in earnest, unless thou be the most foolish of all men. Tacitus also observes, There is nothing pure in a mind corrupted by lust.

3. It is objected, Sin cannot come by a Divine command; but God commanded Hosea the prophet, Go take unto thee a wife of whoredoms, and make to thyself children of whoredoms, &c. Cap.i. 11. It is not a sin, therefore, to commit fornication.

I answer, the word fac, make, which is added in the Vulgate version, is neither in the Hebrew, nor the Greek ; but the prophet is commanded to take to himself for a wife that harlot, and bring home to his house even the children which were born to her in fornication. Whether this were a true fact, or was proposed in a figure only, to express the spiritual fornication of the Jews whom God had espoused to himself; it in no way helps those patrons of fornication. If we assert with Origen, Jerome, the Chalde paraphrast, Tremellius, and many others, that this was done in vision only, then it is altogether irrelevant to the point. If we admit with Irenzus, Basil, Augustine, Cyril, and others, that it was done in reality; yet it argues nothing in defence of fornication: for the prophet was not commanded to commit fornication, but to take to himself a wife formerly addicted to fornication. Hence says Augustine, versus Faustus, lib. 22, cap. 80, What ts there, I ask, inimical to the Christian faith, if a harlot, abandoning her fornication, becomes a chaste wife ? But that which follows in the Vulgate version, and make to thyself children of fornication, is not repugnant to this opinion, which supposes the prophet to have married this prostitute : for either those were called children of fornication whom she had had before, as appears from the original context; or, if it be referred to those whom she was to conceive by the prophet, they also were called children of fornication; because following the example of their mother they would most likely become fornicators. Lastly, whichever of these be the fact, it may be answered, That God can specially command a thing which may be forbidden by the ordinary law: thus he commanded Abraham to slay his innocent son, and the Jews to carry away the goods of the Egyptians: Therefore, by the intervention of a special and extraordinary command, the obligation of an ordinary one ceases ; because the condition of the case is changed.

4. They object, Fornication is not contrary to charity ; therefore it is not a sin. For thus these points are argued by Augustine, Tom. 9, De decern chord. cap. 10, When I go to a harlot, to whom do I do what I am unwilling to suf- — — fer? How do I violate that maxim, What you would not have done to you, you should not do to another? If I lust after my neighbour’s wife, I am unwilling that any one should lust after mine. If I covet my neighbour’s goods, I am unwilling that he should take away mine: I do therefore what I am unwilling to suffer. But when I go to an harlot, to whom do I do what I am unwilling to suffer ?

I reply, it is repugnant to charity even in the highest degree. 1. Inasmuch as it is repugnant to the good of the offspring that may be born, whose instruction and education is neglected, seeing that it is the conception of promiscuous concubinage. 2. Inasmuch as it is repugnant to the good of the woman who is corrupted, and to the good of the fornicator himself; whilst the body and mind in each is polluted, and a deadly guilt is incurred. 3. Inasmuch as it is repugnant to the Divine love; whilst the image of God is destroyed by this foul lust, and the command of God is violated. Neither does it help them to affirm that that rule, What you wish not to be done to you, you should not do to another, is not violated by fornication. For what a man would wish to be done to by others is not to be regarded simply : but what he would wish in a regulated and sound will. If a man should wish his own daughter to be defloured, it will not, therefore, be lawful for him to deflour the daughter of another; because this is the wish of an evil and inordinate will.

Let us now come to the Papists, who concede that fornication is a mortal sin; but maintain, nevertheless, that brothels and public harlots should be allowed in cities, lest the inclination of lustful men should transgress against married females. In human governments, says Aquinas, Q. 2. qu. 10. art. 11, they who preside, justly tolerate some evils, lest they should incur worse; and he instances lewd women. This was the very plea of the heathen; for thus says Cato, Young men ought to have recourse to harlots, lest they should approach the wives of others. But Augustine also is called in to their aid, and that expression, Take away harlots from human society, and you will disturb all things by lust, is cited from his lib. 2. De ordin. cap. 4.

I answer,

1. The Papists favour fornication too clearly, when for the sake of avoiding adultery, they tolerate fornication, and to avoid fornication do not allow marriage. I speak of the Clergy and Monks, to whom the extraordinary gift of continence is not granted by God. For why do they tolerate fornication among the laity, which they say is a mortal sin, and not allow marriage among the clergy, which the Holy Spirit, Heb. xiii. 4, has pronounced to be honourable in all; unless that (whatever they contend to the contrary,) they do not cordially and sincerely determine it to be a deadly sin? Hence that observation, Dist. 82, in Gloss: They declare that no one is now to be rejected for fornication, because our bodies are more frail than they were formerly. And Caus. 2. qu. 7, in Gloss, No one is at this day to be rejected for simple fornication. It is clear, therefore, that the Papists are the manifest Patrons of fornication : nor is it to be wondered at if they so willingly abstain from wedlock.⁴

2. What they affirm, that brothels are to be tolerated lest married women should be violated, is contrary to the Divine command, Deut. xxiii. 17, There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, &c. It is contrary to Apostolic doctrine; which would have matrimony, not fornication, to be the remedy for lust. It is contrary to the received opinion of Theologians, who deny that a compensation of sins is to be admitted : Harlots, therefore, are not to be prostituted lest married women should be violated. Lastly, it is contrary to the duty of the Christian magistrate ; who is bound, as much as in him lies, to take care that all may live piously, soberly, and righteously: Rom. xii. He ought not, therefore, to suffer those who openly profess whoredom.

3. With respect to the remark of Augustine, Take away — — harlots from human society and you will disturb all things by lust ; we answer, it is not of much weight: because he wrote those books De ordine, when he was a young man, and not then baptized, as is evident from the first of his Retractations.⁵ We also oppose to it the more serious of the Fathers. Lactantius, Instit. lib. 6, cap. 23, says, The devil set up brothels, and published the shame of unhappy women. Clemens, Pedag. 3. cap. 3, Brothels are trophies of public intemperance. Tertullian, de cultu feeminar. calls harlots the most unhappy victims of public lusts. But now how disgraceful to the Christian magistrate, if he defend the inventions of the devil, if he suffer that victims be publicly immolated to lust, if, in short, he do not demolish the trophies of intemperance. Besides, I say, that however diligently the magistrate may endeavour to repress fornication, yet he can never wholly remove from human society harlots or fornicators, no more than he can remove thieves or murderers. Therefore the Papists may dismiss this fear.

Lastly we must also add ; that this remedy (the toleration of brothels⁶) is worse than even the disease which is dreaded. For although adultery be in itself worse than fornication; yet it is worse for a whole city to be continually polluted by brothels, than if it should sometimes happen that certain wedded women be violated. But even this is by no means to be conceded; that the honour and chastity of married women can be better preserved by the permission of fornication than by the severe punishment of it. For by impunity, and the continued habit of sinning we become more daring; and if we have served an apprenticeship to lust among harlots, becoming anon veterans, we the more confidently assault wedded females. This point acquires support from the fact, that we scarcely ever have either read or heard of married women having been defiled by any other than by those who were before accustomed to practices with harlots: so admirably does the toleration of brothels conduce to the protection of the chastity of married women !—And these remarks may suffice against those who either deny that fornication is to be accounted a sin, or say that it is to be tolerated for the sake of avoiding adultery. We have dwelt the longer in opposing fornication, because it has obtained its patrons. The other vices which remain we shall remark upon more briefly.

In the second place, then, axaSapoia, or uncleanness, follows: By which term the Apostle would comprehend all the more filthy kinds of lust, as adultery, incest, rape, and especially those sins of excess which even nature herself abhors. “Therefore, they who not only wallow in one kind of lust, but in different kinds, and those the most foul, are called the unclean. This uncleanness prevailed among almost all the Gentiles ; which you may easily gather from their poets, who often blame, although they sometimes approve these impurities, Rom. i. 27. “Tertullian, in his book, De Pudicitia, speaks of this uncleanness: Those impious furies of lusts, says he, contrary to nature itself, we remove not only from the threshold, but from the whole house of the Church ; for they are not sins merely but portentous vermin.⁷ Therefore, because the unrestrained appetite of the lustful is wont to proceed sometimes from fornication to this uncleanness; so, after fornication, the Apostle declares that all other uncleanness is also to be mortified.

Observe, 1. There is no sin so foul, so foreign from humanity itself, into which the inbred corruption of ourna- . ture may not impel a man not yet mortified.

2. Lesser sins pave and fence a path, as it were, to greater; this uncleanness always follows in the train of fornication: Hence says the Apostle, Ephes. v. 3, But fornication and all uncleanness.

3. To avoid greater sins, it is most safe not to tolerate the lesser, but as much as in us lies to root them out. If: you resist vice at its birth there will be no growth to worse ; but if in this you indulge ever so little, the iniquity increases.| Thus far we have contended against the external acts of lust.

T1é$0;.] Some translate this effeminacy, others dust.t The Apostle teaches that after all the external! acts of lust have been repressed, the internal motion itself, and the unbridled passion must be restrained. LlaSos, then denotes that disposition of the mind whereby any one is fitted and ready for the sin’ of lust, when any occasion is offered ; and because this vice arises from the effeminacy of a mind unwilling to sustain the attack even of the least temptation, therefore some not improperly render IIa3o; effeminacy. For they are justly deemed effeminate whose minds do not resist the temptations of the flesh; but willingly and immediately yield themselves to the bonds of lust, even as Samson yielded himself up to be bound by Dalilah. The Apostle teaches that such a disposition of mind is to be mortified and abandoned by a Christian man; nor may any Christian whatever refuse to do it;⁸⁹

1. Because it is Heathenish to serve his own lusts; it is Christian to serve God and holiness. Whence says the Apostle, 1 Thess. iv. 3, &c. This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that every one should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour, not in the lust of concupiscence, as the Gentiles which know not God.

2. Not only is it Heathenish, but it is brutish, to labour under this disease. For it is the property of brutes to be actuated and governed by their passions; it is the part of a man to restrain them, and to reduce them within the sphere of reason. He, therefore, who is drawn aside by every appearance of pleasure presented to his mind or his sight, becomes (ke to a horse or a mule, which hath no understanding. Ps. xxxii. 9.

3. All holy and praiseworthy men have been accustomed to banish afar off this effeminacy of mind. The example of Joseph recorded in Genesis xxxix. stands pre-eminent, whom his mistress daily solicited with her enticements to lust, yet could not prevail. If he had laboured under this effeminacy, he would also have yielded immediately to gratify lust. But as Tertullian wisely says in his Apologet. A pious and chaste man beholds a woman with safe eyes, because his mind is blind to lust. Unless their minds are firmly set against the allurements of sin, and strengthened by Divine grace, men become the wildest slaves of lust, and resist not even its slightest temptations, but are led away as captives to every vice.

Evil concupiscence.] Now the Apostle endeavours to cut up the very root of wickedness. For fornication and uncleanness, as hath been said, denote evil acts; [a%os, or effeminacy, that lustful and intemperate habit of mind, whereby men are so prepared, that straightway they seize every occasion of exercising lust, nor can restrain themselves; such as the Greeks call xvzgouaveiz —(V enus-mad). But now evil concupiscence denotes the first motion of znordinate desire; which is called evil to distinguish it from natural and spiritual concupiscence. For there is a threefold concupiscence: Natural; which comprehends the desiring power planted in the mind by God himself, and governing the ordinary motion of the same: vicious or carnal; which denotes the inordinateness and rebellious motion of this power: spiritual; which denotes a new and holy inclination of a reformed mind, of which concupiscence the Apostle speaks, Gal. v. 17, The Spirit lusteth or desireth against the flesh. Natural concupiscence, when it is carried to its due object and in a due manner, is to be gratified: spiritual, which tends to heavenly things, is to be nourished and cherished: carnal, which is likewise called evil, because it thirsts inordinately and after inordinate things, is to be mortified. Hence we may derive two lessons ; |:

1. A Christian man ought to aim even at that perfection which he understands he cannot attain in this life. For no sinner hath ever been able to mortify and restrain all the first motions of inordinate concupiscence; yet all are bound to attempt it: for that Divine mandate stands immoveable, Thou shalt not covet. Concerning which, Augustine,¹⁰ Epist. 200, ad Asellicum, truly said, The law, in declaring thou shalt not covet, has laid down not the power which we have in this particular, but the object at which we should advance progressively.

2. Those first motions of inordinate desires are sins, though the mind does not assent to them. Bellarmin, therefore, is wrong, who concludes, in De stat. pecc. 5. 7, that that rebellious motion of concupiscence has the nature, not of guilt, but of punishment. Why does the Apostle call it evil? Why does he say it is to be mortified? He is not wont to speak thus about punishments; which he teaches us are to be borne patiently, not to be mortified or resisted. Let the Jesuit hear Paul, who in Rom. vii. not once, but often, terms inordinate concupiscence sz, even in the regenerate who consent to the law, and oppose these motions. Let him also hear Augustine, lib. 5, contra Julian, cap. 3, The lust of the flesh, against which the good Spirit lusteth, is sin, because we yield obedience contrary to the sway of reason. Lastly, let him hear his own Schoolmen: Parisiensis says, We ought to follow with the sword the petty thieves of first, second, and third motions, that is, the thoughts, desires, and delights which are beyond the control of reason, De sacram. poenit. cap. 15. The whole host of the flesh which wars against the Spirit is sinful: therefore also all the battallions of that army : wherefore both the first battallion, which is that of the first motions ; and the second, which is the delights beyond the control of reason, are sinful. De sacram. matr. cap. 7. We have also Aquinas in concurrence with us, who is compelled to confess that the first motions in unbelievers are sins: whence it is manifest that they have the nature of sin, even in the faithful, although they have not the guilt, forasmuch as it is remitted in baptism. Lastly, we have Gerson also, Part. 2. in Reg. Moral. 6, A// the first motions which are suited to follow reason, and to be regulated by it, if they precede it may be called sins; because they deviate from the order of nature as it was first. constituted. Now let us proceed to those points which remain.

And covetousness which is idolatry.] ^ Let us inquire, ]. What the Apostle would understand under the name covetousness or macovetiag, 2. Why it is coupled with these carnal vices. 3. In what sense it is termed idolatry.

]l. It is the insatiable appetite of the mind seeking riches, and confiding in them as in its chief good. That this insatiable thirst is the property of covetousness is shewn in Eccles. v. 10, He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver ; nor he that loveth abundance with increase. Now that the rich are wont to confide in their riches, and to rest in them as their chief good, we see in the parable of the rich man, which is contained in Luke xii. 19, I will say unto my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years, eat, drink, and be merry. The vice of covetousness uAcovefiag is not the simple desire or seeking for temporal goods ; but the doing it with an insatiable desire, by unlawful modes, and with a heart acquiescing and confiding in them. For temporal goods may be coveted in three methods; for the necessity of life; for discharging the duties of benevolence; for enjoyment, or making them the end. This last is that vice of sasow£a;, to be avoided and mortified.

2. It may be enquired, Why he annexes covetoitsness to these carnal vices; for it seems rather to be reckoned among those that are spiritual. But the Apostle wisely inserts covetousness among them ; and that on these accounts :

1. Because it is of a middle kind, between carnal and spiritual sins. Those vices are properly designated carnal, which have a sensible delight in a sensible object; as we see in the sins of gluttony and luxury: Those are as properly designated spiritual, which seek spiritual delight amid spiritual objects ; as pride about personal excel- . lence. Now covetousness occupies a middle place: it is carnal in respect of the object, because it seeks delight in external and corporeal things; it is spiritual in respect of the delight itself ; because a covetous man hath delight only in this, that he possesses riches.

2. Because it affords incentives, causes, and occasions to both, namely, to carnal and spiritual vices. Hence spring the greatest incentives and excitements to luxury, to pride, to anger, and envy. Take away covetousness, and you will eradicate the greatest part of vices; for it is the root of all evil, 1 Tim. vi. 10.

3. Now, in the last place, we must see in what way it is called idolatry. Let Aquinas answer, Not in kind ; because a covetous man does not intend in regard to his money to account it as a God ; but in similitude ; because he pays to it supreme obedience. So Ales; A covetous man is called an idolater, because as an idolater behaves to an idol, so in a similar manner does a covetous man to. his money. Chrysostom, in Horn. 65, in xi. Joan, expatiates thus on this comparison, As an idolater looks to, and regards with veneration, his idol: so a covetous man the riches he has heaped together: nor dares to touch them. As the one heaps together his idols in a certain corner, and shuts them up in closets and with bolts; so the other does to his money. In short, the former worships the idol; the latter, the gold ; this immolates oxen and sheep to his idols ; that gives up his mind and affections to covetousness. Such and many more like remarks hath Chrysostom. But it may still more perspicuously be said, That a covetous man is an idolater, because he loves his riches above all things; because he trusts in them more than all things; because he serves his riches more than he does God himself.

1. Because he loves them above all things: for as Clemens has rightly observed, Pedag. Q. 12, Heaven is open, and he seeks mot God; gold is hidden, and he ransacks the bowels of the earth for it. Whence does this arise, unless because he had rather enjoy riches than God? Therefore, he commits spiritual idolatry with the riches of the world, not, as Gregory somewhere observes, by the exhibition of ceremonies, but by the oblation of concupiscence. For to whatever the affections of the heart cling as the chief good, that is taken into the place of God.

2. Because also he places that trust in riches which is due to God alone. For, in his heart he says to gold (what Job, xxxi. 24, loathes) thou art my hope; and to the fine gold thou art my confidence. Now that in which we hope, we make our God. Therefore, the voice ef all the godly is, In the Lord have I hoped; I have made God my helper. But the covetous man has money alone as the sponsor or surety ‘syfunrm of his felicity.

3. Because he altogether neglects the service due to God, and gives his whole service to the scraping together of money. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon, Matt. vi. 24. And, therefore, as the god of the gluttonous is their belly, because their belly is perpetually served; so the god of avaricious men is money, because they serve money day and night.

Corollaries.

1. Nothing is more miserable or more foolish than a covetous man; because he forsakes God, and confides in clay. But their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the Lord’s wrath, Zeph. i, 18. Therefore we ought to trust, not a uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy, 1 Tim. viwl7.

2. Nothing also is more base and flagitious than a covetous man; because as much as in him lies, he thrusts God from the throne of his Majesty, and sets up money in his place.

3. This vice is to be avoided before all others : because (to use the language of the Schools) it is most adhesive to the creature, and most aversive from God; but all the disgrace and defilement of sin consists in turning to the creature and departing from God.

4. Scarcely any one is wholly free from this idolatry ; for we all cleave unduly to the creature, and thus incur some stain of idolatry. But we must withdraw the mind from them, and return to the love and service of God.

And thus much concerning the dissuasion itself from the vices above-named. The confirmation thereof follows in the two succeeding verses.

Verses 6, 7.

The Apostle confirms the afore-mentioned dissuasive by two arguments. The first is drawn from the destructive consequence; for those sins enumerated provoke the Divine wrath; ver. 6. The second is derived from the removal of the cause ; for in the regenerate inbred sin formerly lived : now it is dead, ver. 7. In the former argument three things are to be noted: 1. The cause of the event ; For which things’ sake. 2. The event itself, viz. the outpouring of the Divine wrath; the wrath of God cometh. 3. The quality of the persons subjected to this Divine wrath: the children of disobedience, ’em} vov; tiods v5 dmeiSevas.

1. For which things sake] namely, for fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, the wrath of God falleth upon sinners. These words are not to be taken in such sense, that we should conclude it is peculiar to these sins alone to excite the Divine wrath (for this meets all sins) ; but because upon those gross flagitious crimes, which especially overthrow human happiness, God is especially provoked to exercise vengeance. And on this account, the chief argument is: These sins are the occasion of heavier punishments; therefore, from them we must abstain with all care, for zt zs a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, Heb. x. 31. The Apostle wished to point out distinctly the cause of human misery, and of the Divine judgments, for two reasons,

1. That God might be cleared from all suspicion of cruelty or injustice, and might be acknowledged by all most merciful and just. For God is the Father of mercies, and not willing to overwhelm the human race with such calamities: but as the Poet formerly sang :

At heaven itself we aim through folly ;

And such our crimes e’en God we suffer not,

To lay aside his vengeful bolts.

Hor. lib. 1. od. 3. Therefore our wickednesses provoke the Divine wrath against us.

2. To throw a restraint upon the wicked : For, as saith Cyprian, it affords great power to the wicked when he can deliberately rush forward with impunity. On the other hand, It hath great power in restraining sin, when he understands it to be the sure cause of future misery. This the Apostle intimates in these words, For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh, &c.

The wrath of God.] We pass from the cause to the effect. The Fathers with almost unanimous consent explain the wrath of God to be the Divine punishment or vengeance. For it is not fit to assign troubled affections to God ; since, as Augustine hath truly said, im Evang. Joan,

The anger of God is not the perturbation of an excited mind, but the tranquil constitution of righteous judgment. And in Enchirid ad Laurent. cap. 33, When God is said to be angry, perturbation is not signified, like what is in the mind of an angry man but his vengeance takes the name of anger from human motions. Ambrose in Psalm xxxvii. God does not lie open to passion, so that he should be angry; since he is without passions ; but because he avenges he seems to be angry. This seems so to us, because we are accustomed to avenge ourselves with commotion. The Schoolmen speak the same, but more compendiously : Anger is attributed to God, not according to the passion of inquietude, but according. to the effect of vengeance. From this common opinion of theolocians, Tertullian in 1 contra Marcion, and Lactantius in lib. De ira Dei, cap. 5, and 16, seem to differ: whose © opinion is either to be softened down by a suitable interpretation, or rejected.

We may therefore assume, that by the wrath of God vengeance is to be understood, or the punishment imposed upon sinners; and it will be easy to shew that this wrath of God is joined and connected with sin, and especially the sins of luxury. In Gen. vi. 11, we read, The earth was corrupt and filled with violence, Here is the sin! But directly it follows, ver. 17, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth and destroy all flesh. Behold the wrath or vengeance! So in Gen. xviii. 20, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is great, and their sin is very grievous. Here you have the sin. Gen. xix. 24, Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire. Here you have the vengeance. It would be tedious to go through all the examples of sacred Scripture. Let that in Job xxxi. 3, suffice: Is not destruction to the wicked, and a strange punishment to the workers of iniquity? as though he had said, It is certain, and placed beyond doubt, that God is estranged from sinners, and provoked to destroy them.

Seldom hath punishment, though halting in its pace, failed to overtake the wicked striving to keep head of it.¹¹ Nay, it 56 AN EXPOSITION OT ST. PAUL’S Chap. iil. never fails, unless the sinner repent, and forsake his wickedness.

2. If we now inquire, Why the wrath of God is poured upon sinners, the reasons are at hand.

The first is derived from the Divine justice. For although God is not pleased with the sins of men, yet he is pleased with his own righteousness, according to which, punishment is due to sinners. Therefore, it is not evil in God to punish the wicked, because it proceeds from the love of righteousness; but the evil is in man, to deserve punishment; because it proceeds from the love of wickedness.

The second is derived from human advantage. For this is the particular end of punishments, that they may effect the amendment of sinners. Whatever the Divinity may avenge before the last judgment, is not for the destruction of men, but ts to be believed as intended for their recovery, Augustine, contra epist. Man. cap. 1. Nor is it any objection to this argument that unbelievers are not so much admonished by these punishments to conversion, as blinded to condemnation, because this does not prevent them from sowing the seeds of a good harvest among the godly; for, as Cyprian, De zelo, remarks, the punishments of the imprudent convey health to the prudent.

The third is derived from the settled Providence of God : For God is the author of order throughout the universe, nor suffers any disorder to exist. But yet sin by its very nature is nothing else than mere disorder. As Aquinas has truly observed, Quest. disp. De pecc. orig. art. 8, Every sin is restored to order by means of punishment, in that tt reduces its inequality to a certain quality, And again, Quest. disp. De pecc. venial, art. 10, For it is just and determined that he who wishes to seek the pleasure of sin against the Divine will, shall be compelled to experience the bitterness of punishment against his own will, John Gerson has spoken well concerning this matter, Part. 3, Whatever thing deviates from one Divine constitution is driven into another ; so that which deviates from the constitution of mercy, rests in that of justice: where no less in conformity with this constitution are the condemned fixed in hell than the blessed in heaven.—So far concerning the cause of the Divine wrath, and the outpouring of the same.

Upon the children of disobedience.] The quality of the persons subjected to this Divine wrath, is described in these words. In the Greek it is “ez Toug wou’s r5 áreiSelans. Some translate these words, upon the children of distrust, or incredulity ; others, upon the intractable, or disobedient children. All these come to the same point; and denote men of that kind who can by no means be persuaded to believe the Divine word, and renounce their sins. In this term “ameSeiac, therefore, two crimes are involved; one of unbelief, the other of disobedience; this latter is the genuine offspring of the former. Such were those who lived before the flood in the days of Noah; whom Peter, 1 Epis. iii. ‘ 20, calls the incredulous ;* who, as Christ says, did in security, eat, drink, marry, and knew not until the flood came and took them all away, Matt. xxiv. 38, 39. Such were the people of Sodom and Gomorrha, who would not believe at the preaching of Lot, but, as though he spake in mockery, slighted him, Gen. xix. 14. Finally, such are all the reprobate, to whom that saying of the prophet Zechariah vii. 11, well applies, But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear. It is plain, therefore, that the reprobate and blinded are described in this place: For although the elect may be disobedient for a time, yet they are not the children of disobedience upon whom the wrath of God cometh; because, being softened by the effectual operation of Divine grace, they at length yield; as we may perceive in all the examples of the godly who have fallen.

But here it may be doubted, what the Apostle meant, when he said, for these sins, viz. fornication, uncleanness, &c. the wrath of God cometh upon the children of disobedience. Does it not also come upon the children of God? Who is ignorant that David felt the arrows of Divine wrath for his adultery with the wife of Uriah? and that other saints have been grievously punished for other crimes of theirs?¹²

I answer, It is not to be denied that even the children of God, when they give the reins to the flesh, and yield themselves to sin of this sort, feel the wrath of God falling upon them: but it does not lie perpetually upon them ; because they do not continue in these sins. Yet we must distinguish concerning the wrath of God: for God sends his wrath upon his fallen children, but paternally and for chastisement; and upon disobedient children as an enemy and to cut them off. Therefore, in these latter words the Apostle preferred to hold forth examples of the Divine wrath, that thus he might, indirectly as it were, instil the fear thereof into the pious. But we must add this also: When believers rush into sins of this kind against conscience, although that bond of the eternal good-will of God which depends upon election is not loosened; yet the love of friendship is loosened for a time, or at least the perception and enjoyment of it, which depend upon faith and sanctification. Therefore, whilst they are asleep in such sins, God acts towards them as with enemies ; they are not able to apprehend God otherwise than angry and hostile towards them: they cannot, therefore, approach the throne of grace with confidence, but, like Adam, they flee from God, and throw themselves into hiding-places. There is need, therefore, of stirring up their faith and love; there is need of serious repentance, to avert the wrath of God, and obtain the favour and the smile of his countenance: For that declaration of St. Paul is true, Rom. ii. 9, &c. Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil: but glory, honour, and peace to every man that worketh good. For there is no respect of persons with God.

From these things we may draw the following instructions.

1. Under public calamities and miseries, we must not murmur against God; but impute whatever evils we suffer to our sins.

2. As often as we are solicited to sin, we should oppose to its allurements the consideration of the Divine wrath, which closely follows sinners.

3. Nothing is more to be desired by a Christian, than that he may retain the Divine favour; nothing is more to be dreaded than that he should provoke the wrath of God.

4. God is not so much provoked to vengeance by sin itself, as by the obstinacy of the unbelieving and impenitent sinner.

5. However the children of unbelief flatter themselves, they cannot avoid the Divine wrath ; for wrath now cometh upon them, and in coming it will come, and not tarry.

6. Not only will the Divine wrath be poured forth upon the wicked, but upon the children of God themselves, if, quenching the grace of the Spirit, they indulge the lusts of the flesh. “Therefore, the study of mortification is incumbent upon all who dread the wrath of God as they — ought.

Vers. 7.

The Apostle is still occupied in confirming the foregoing dissuasive ; and he shews the Colossians by a new argument that they must abstain from fornication, and so from all impurity of life. Now this argument is drawn from the removal of the cause to the removal of the effect ; and the argument of the Apostle is thus applied: Sin is but the living and reigning cause of a wicked and lustful life: but sin is not living in you, but mortified: the cause, therefore, having ceased, the effect ceases. The Major is supposed: the Minor is shewn, in this verse, by a contrast of their former state. There had been a time, indeed, when ye lived in those sins, namely, before your conversion ; but now it is passed, and ye do not live in them, but ye are dead to sin by baptism. It is usual among authors, when they say concerning any one, That he has lived, to intimate, He is dead, or he no longer lives: So the Apostle, in saying when ye lived in them, ye then walked in sins, would intimate, Ye now live no longer in them; therefore, ye ought not to walk any longer in them. Thus ye have the force of the argument. Now let us consider the words.

In the which.] Erasmus renders it, among whom, and refers it to the children of disobedience: but Beza better, an which, viz. the aforesaid vices, for which the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience.

Ye also walked.] They are said to walk in sins, who constantly commit sin, who resist not concupiscence, but obey it with pleasure; Ephes. ii. 2, 3. Therefore, as men are accustomed to walk here and there in transacting their daily business ; so are those occupied in sins as in their ordinary vocation, and as though they had nothing else to do.

When ye lived in them.] 1. e. When the cause of those sins, viz. the old Adam, or inbred corruption, lived and reigned in you; which corruption is now weakened and mortified. To walk and to live, then, whether the expressions are referred to the flesh or to the spirit, differ in the same manner as power and operation among philosophers : For life precedes, and operations suitable to life follow ; as in Gal. v. 25, If we live in the Spirit, let us walk in the Spirit : so they who live in sin, walk in sin.

The sense of the words being now explained, two things which belong to the matter, are to be weighed: 1. The former state of the Colossians living in sin ; which is expressed. 2. The new state of the same persons now dead to sin; whichis implied by the contrast.

From the consideration of their former state, these instructions arise.

1. Nothing is more unhappy than unrenewed men. For to walk in sin with pleasure, is to hasten towards hell with pleasure: The wages of sin is death, Rom. vi. 23.

2. The fruits of a man in a corrupt state, are not works preparatory to grace, or, deserving life eternal, of congruity, as the Schoolmen say; but they are preparatory to hell, and meritorious of eternal death, from condignity for he walks in most gross and grievous sins, not in the paths of God’s commands.

3. They who appear to walk in virtue, dazzle the eyes of men by outward and pretended shew only ; whilst they really walk in sins, in which they live: for their deeds correspond to the powers whence they derive their origin.

4. The Papists, therefore, err, who ascribe to these works of carnal and unbelieving men, not only the praise of true virtue, but the efficacy of qualifying for the reception of grace; Durandus, lib. 4. dist. 15. qu. 3. Prosper speaks otherwise; No true virtues dwell in the minds of the ungodly: and Lactantius, lib. 6. cap. 9, There is no doubt but every ungodly man knows no! God: and that all his virtues which he thinks that he has or holds, are found in that way of death which is full of darkness.

Now as to that new state of the converted and regenerate, among whom the Gospel intimates that the Colossians were now placed, these things are to be observed, :

1. It is not unuseful for the renewed themselves, to call to mind their former state under sin : the Apostle mentions that they formerly walked and lived in sin, who were now dead to sin; not for the sake of upbraiding, but of encouraging them.

2. Christians that are now believers, ought not to take it amiss, when ministers bring before their eyes what they were under a state of sin in unbelief: for this is the Apostle’s custom in almost all his Epistles. Ye have yielded your members servants to iniquity unio iniquity, &c. Rom. vi. 19. Neither thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, &c. shall inherit the kingdom of God: Aud such were some of you: but ye are washed, &c. 1 Cor. vi. 10, 11. But most manifestly, Ephes. ii. 11—193, Remember that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, having no hope. But now in Christ Jesus, &c. “Tertullian, De Pudicit. hath well observed to this point: I am not ashamed of the error from which I am now free; because I feel that I am become better. No one need be ashamed to improve.

3. The regenerate receive a twofold advantage from a notice of this kind. 1. They are thereby excited to gratitude: for they must needs acknowledge that they are changed not by the power of free-will, but by the efficacious operation of the Holy Spirit. Hence the prophet; Turn thou us, O Lord, and we shall be turned, And Jerem. xiij, 23, If the Ethiopian can change his skin, or the leopard his spots ; then may ye also do good, who are accustomed to do evil. Hence, then, as I have said, the regenerate are excited to thankfulness to God. God be thanked that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Rom. vi. 17. And Paul speaking of himself says, 1 Tim. i. 12, 13, L thank my Lord, who hath enabled me, who was before a blasphemer and persecutor, &c. Why does he, a true penitent and believer, thank God? Because not only is the mercy of God necessary when we repent; but also that we may repent.

2. They are excited to newness of life; for a new life requires new habits. Since, then, from the comparison and contrast, they find that they are now other persons than what they were heretofore, they understand at the same time, that of necessity it behoves them to live in another manner. For the Christian Religion not only calls men to believe new doctrines, but to perform new works. Whence says Cyprian, De Zelo, To put on the name of Christ, and not to walk by the way of Christ, what else is it but to prevaricate with this Divine name? This is constantly inculcated upon the regenerate ; as in Rom. xiii. 12, The night is far spent; the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light: and Ephes. v. 8, Ye were sometime darkness ; but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light. —

4. Here we have the difference between the regenerate and the unregenerate: The regenerate may fall into sin, but they do not habitually walk, neither can they live, in sin: for those walk in sin, who freely, constantly, and with full consent sin: he falls into sin, who rarely, through fear, and with wrestling is drawn aside into any crime or devouring sin, as Tertullian calls it. Therefore, they are much deceived in their opinion, who think that they are faithful and regenerate, when that cannot be said concerning them which is here said of the Colossians, In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them ; but, Ye still walk in them, and live in them.

And thus much of the two reasons whereby he confirms his dissuasive from the sins enumerated in the fifth verse.

Vers. 8, 9, 10, 11.

After a dissuasion from carnal vices in which special pleasure is sought, the Apostle dissuades also from spiritual ones, in which the injury of ome’s neighbour is attempted. In this last part of his dissuasions the Apostle does three things, which he includes in these four verses. l. He lays down and enumerates the vices to be abandoned ; which are those either of the heart; as anger, wrath, malice; or those of the mouth; as evil speaking, filthy communication, lying. 2. He subjoins a reason why vices of this kind should be abandoned by the Colossians, and that a twofold one: namely, because they had put off the old man, and put on the new. 3. He amplifies and. strengthens these reasons in verse 11 by setting aside those false causes with which some men conceived that we are either benefitted or injured before God ; these he rejects as things of uo avail, in order to shew that human salvation entirely _ depends on the Spirit of Christ mortifying and quickening us; and that therefore we must aim at mortification before all other things.

As to what pertains to this eighth verse now under consideration, in it he effects two things. 1. After his dissuasion from carnal vices which render men infamous among all the sober and prudent, he dissuades also from all spiritual ones, which are deemed lighter faults, which are not accounted as vices among the generality. 2. He enumerates some expressly, that from these it may be understood that others of the same kind are to be condemned and abandoned.

1. But now ye also put off all these.] In this general persuasion we must first observe the circumstance of time denoted by the particle now. Asif he had said, Ye were overwheimed with spiritual vices as long as sin lived in you; but now, since it is mortified and hath ceased to live, ye ought and ye can put these things away : For God requires from Christians in a state of grace, another life and other manners than those to which they were heretofore accustomed in a state of sin. So the Apostle in many places declares. Thus Rom. xiii. 12, The night is far spent ; the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off, &c. And ] Thess. v. 5,6, Ye are the children of the day, and not of the night: let us not sleep as do others, &c. Augustine, De vita Christiana, wisely remarks, Let us not flatter ourselves with the name of Christians : but let us believe that this is the very reason we shall be judged, if we falsely claim to ourselves a name which doth not belong to us. Cyprian also says, We are Philosophers not in word, but in deed ; neither do we talk great things but we live them. Now, therefore, we especially must lay aside those vices, because we are Christians born again. -

2. Secondly, We should well weigh that act to which the Colossians are exhorted by the word 4zó3:c3e ; which may be explained either to put off, as men put off their old and dirty clothes, or to lay aside, from the sight, from the affections, and from all the senses, as the corpses of the dead shut up in sepulchres. And this last best agrees with the preceding word, mortify: as if he had said, Not only mortify your sins; but as though they were dead remove them from you, and put them away, and separate them from you altogether as dead bodies.

Now the instructions to be gathered are these :

1. Sin cleaves to the regenerate themselves, nor can it be entirely eradicated: yet we must still labour to put it off more and more every day.

2. We must not account sin a pleasure ; but a thing to be hated by a Christian as deadly poison, or to be avoided as a putrid carcase. Now what it is to put away sin, by what power it is done, and how far it can be done by us in this life, we have explained in the exposition of the fifth verse, at these words, Mortify therefore your members — : which are on the earth: What is there said of the act of mortifying, may be applied to this act of putting off.

3. Thirdly, we should consider that this object of putting-off is of wide signification; as wide as the nature of sin itself: not this or that sin, but a// sins are to be put off. For because some are enumerated just after, it is not by way of restriction to them, but by way of exemplification : for both those which are specially named, and all others besides (it is intimated) should be put off.

3. We are all prone by our nature and ready to run headlong into all sins. For original and inbred sin, although it is only one actually, yet is it virtually a whole army of vices; not unlike a seed, which is actually single, but virtually all those which are produced from it. Their corporeal constitution, and other external causes, make some men more inclined to certain vices; but there is no actual sin into which a man may not fall, in whom the nursery and fountain of all sin exists. We must, therefore, be on our guard against and avoid them all. So much of the general persuasion. Now let us come to the specification of the particular sins, in that order in which they are adduced ; and first to those of the heart.

Anger, wrath, malice.] Anger in this place signifies an inordinate desire unjustly to injure one’s neighbour for some past offence. It is briefly defined by Damascenus, lib. 2, cap. 16, ópsfig rms avtitiumpnoews, the appetite for revenge. And in this unjust and vindictive desire of revenge (as the Schoolmen say) the formal of anger is contained. Quuos, or wrath, denotes the hasty excitement of this passion, and that accession of blood around the heart, which the Schoolmen call the material of anger. Whence the same Damascenus says, in the passage before quoted; Quuds seri Ceoig TOU wep] napdiav “cimatos s& AvaSuuíactus THs XOANS ynmouévn. Wrath ds the boiling up of the blood around the heart, which arises from the kindling of resentment. Kaxia or malice, as some will have it, is a general vice, and denotes that vicious propensity which infects all the affections and desires, and inclines them to evil. Whence Bernard, in his Serm. 1, De pugn. spir. says, malice is the taste for evil : it is, then, the property of malice to make evil savoury and sweet; and, on the contrary, to render good insipid and unpleasant. But in this place I consider xaxíz to denote especially that machination of evil in the heart, which is wont to arise from anger in malevolent and incensed miuds. We see all these in the example of Cain, Gen. iv. 5, Cain was very wroth and his countenance fell: thence he contrives the murder of Abel, when he says, Let us go out: This was the effect of his malice. From the same disease of malice proceeded those words of Esau, Gen. xxvii, 41, The days of mourning for my father are at hand, then will I slay my brother Jacob.

You will now see what and what kind of sins are here reproved by the Apostle. It follows that we should, in the second place, offer some reasons for which these sins of an angry mind are to be opposed and extirpated. Gregory, in Moral. 5, cap. 31, adduces many :

1. Because through anger the use of wisdom is lost, yea, reason itself is for the time extinguished. Hence, on that passage in Eccles. vii. 9, Anger rests in the bosom of a fool, Basil, in his Homily against anger, says, Anger renders a man altogether ferocious, nor suffers him to remain any more a man. The sentiment of the Poet, Anger is a short madness, is well known.

2. Because through anger, justice, the most illustrious of all the virtues, is violated : for whilst an exasperated mind sits in judgment, every thing which its fury may suggest it thinks right. Hence James, i. 20, The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. We have an example in the sons of Jacob, who, when inflamed with anger, perfidiously and cruelly slaughtered the Shechemites, Gen. xxxiv.; whence they merited that reproach of their dying father, Cursed be their anger for it was fierce, and their wrath for it was cruel, Gen. xlix. 7.

3. Because by anger the kindness of social life (which is peculiar to man) is lost. Hence Solomon, Prov. xxii. 24, says, Make no friendship with an angry man ; and with a furious man thou shalt not go: As if he had said, these are entirely unfit for social life.

4. Because through anger the illumination of the Spirit is shut out. For the God of peace dwelleth not in a disturbed and wrathful heart, but in a mild and peaceful one. Chrysostom, in Hom. 30, ad pop. Antioch.says; The Holy Spirit dwelleth not where rage inhabits. Yea, he shews that such men are more like those possessed with devils, than men filled with the Holy Spirit: for as demoniacs froth and distort their countenances; so angry men have their minds foaming and distorted. See also Basil, De Ira.

5. Because through anger, which has an appetite for revenge, the remission of our sins is hindered, and the Divine wrath is provoked against us. Matt. xi. 26, If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive you your trespasses. Admirably speaks Tertullian, De orat. How rash a thing is it either to pass a day without prayer, or to lose a prayer by continued anger ?

6. Because by being angry that which is the attribute of God is usurped with sacrilegious audacity. Say not I will recompence evil ; but wait for the Lord and he shall save thee, Prov. xx. 22. Vengeance is mine, and I will repay, Deut. xxxii. 35. But an angry man (as is commonly said) makes himself the judge, and would have God to be the executioner: Yea, most commonly he would vindicate for himself and by himself; a property which God hath reserved for himself alone.

Now in the last place it may be inquired, whether all anger is evil and unlawful, since the Apostle advises us to lay aside anger without any distinction. It is clear, that anger is not an affection evil in itself; both because God, who cannot be the author of evil, hath implanted in the human mind the faculty of anger; as especially because we read that Christ was moved with anger, Mark iii. 5. Hence Basil calls anger, the very strength of the soul; Damascenus, the guardsman of the judgment. Because Eli had not this anger, he stirred up against himself the Divine vengeance, as says Gregory, Moral 5, cap.30. Hence the Apostle enjoins, Be ye angry and sin not. That is to say, Be ye angry where there is a fault with which ye ought to be angry; otherwise, as Ambrose rightly says, 7 és not a virtue, but weakness and remissness.

But that we may distinguish the natural and lawful affection from the inordinate and unlawful emotion of the same, we say that that anger is good which arises from a good motive, namely, from the love of God, or of our neighbour; and which tends to a good end, as the glory of God, and the correction of our neighbour; which proceeds according to a prescribed rule, awaiting or following for instance the determination of reason. Hither pertains that saying of Augustine, in De civit. Dei, lib. 9. cap. 5, Under our discipline tt is not so much inquired whether a pious mind may be angry, as wherefore he is angry: for no one of. sound reflection would reprehend the being angry with a sinner that he may be corrected. And Bernard, Epist. 69, says, Not to be angry with what one ought to be angry, is to be unwilling to amend a sin: to be more angry than one ought to be, is to add sin to sin. Lastly, Basil in his Homily De Ira, would have anger to be a bridled horse, which obeys reason as a curb. Such anger is not condemned.

On the other hand, it is clear that that anger is evil which arises from a bad beginning, or which tends to a bad end, or is exercised in an improper manner. If it should arise from a love of praise, or hatred of one’s neighbour; if it should tend to effect one’s own revenge, or the injury of one’s neighbour; if it should forestall the judgment of reason, or be borne headlong with a loose rein. For as Gregory in his Moral 5, cap. 33, well says, The anger which impatience excites is one thing ; the anger Jformed. by a zeal for justice another. We may hence conelude that we are not to cherish apathy,¹³ but that tumultuous and inordinate passion is to be restrained. And thus much as to the sins of the heart: Certain sins of the mouth now follow.

Blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.] The Apostle aptly proceeds from vices of the heart to the sins of the mouth ; because they arise from the inordinate affections of the heart.

And first he persuades us to lay aside evil speaking: in. - Greek Baacgnuia; which word is derived from gaze» vw gnam, injuring or disparaging the fame of another by reproachful and evil words. This word in its primary and principal signification in the Holy Scriptures, imports a derogation or injury by words offered to the chief and greatest Good, that is, the good and great God. Now God is blasphemed in three ways: J. When that which is repugnant to his nature is attributed to him ; as if any one should say that God is corporeal, corruptible, subject to sinful passions; as the Poets formerly imagined and wrote. 2. When that which most befits him, is taken away ; as if any one deny that he is good, merciful, omnipotent, &c. which blasphemy has its origin from the same ignorance. 3. When that which is the property of God is attributed to the creature; as if any one should say that the angels created this world, or that they are omnipotent; if any one say that meret men can remit the sins of other men, can dispense with the penalties and punishments of the dead ; or that they can by infallible judgment prescribe articles of faith to Christians. From the decree of God himself we find that capital punishment was assigned to this blasphemy, Levit. xxiv. 16, which we read in ver. 23, was inflicted on the blasphemer. But since in this place the Apostle seems to point out not that blasphemy whereby the Divine Majesty is assailed, but that whereby men are injured, dismissing this blasphemy of the Divine name, let us pass on to that other.¹⁴

We say, then, that to this evil speaking which assaults one’s neighbour, the epithet of blasphemy is also applied not only in this but in many places of Scripture. For instance, in Rom, iii. 8, As we be slanderously reported, &c. 1 Cor. iv. 13, Being defamed, we entreat, &c. ‘Tit. iii. 2, Put them iu mind to speak evil of no man.¹⁵ This blasphemy of one’s neighbour arises from that anger and wrath of the heart which the Apostle has advised us above to lay aside. For the heart by the bitter gall of malice, cannot through its instrument the tongue, scatter any thing but bitters, as Bernard truly says. But it has no kind of vengeance so ready as this of evil-speaking.

This evil-speaking kind of blasphemy hath a double way of injury: one secret, called detraction; the other open, called railing. Rash and angry persons take the open course of injury ; the crafty and malicious prefer the secret one. Let us consider how grievously both sin. And the grievousness of this sin is evident,

First, from the magnitude of the injury done to the neighbour who is evil spoken of: For they wound his reputation, which is a principal external blessing: nor is it easy to repair this injury by any just satisfaction; since here the quantity of loss cannot be estimated, which may be done in the taking away of other external matters.

Secondly, from the magnitude of the injury done to those who hear and take up those reports of evil speakers: For by these means, charity towards their neighbour is put an end to with them ; hatreds, suspicions, contentions, and sometimes strifes are the consequence. Which inconvenience we read happened to Saul and David by the efforts of evil speakers and detractors. Hence that prayer of the Psalmist, cxx. 2, Deliver my soul, O Lord, from lying lips, and from a deceitful tongue.

Thirdly, from the magnitude of the injury done to God himself. For as God is praised in the saints when his works which he effects in them are praised ; so when the saints are blasphemed and defamed by evil reports, God himself is blasphemed : for as a consequence, this blasphemy redounds against God who is the author of holiness: For the servants being wounded an injury is done to their lord, Justinianus, Instit. imp. lib. 4. cap. 4, De injuriis.

Fourthly, from the punishment due to evil speakers and detractors ; and that according to civil, ecclesiastical, and divine laws. Justinian’s pandects have this passage, lib. 4, cap. 4, De injuriis ; An injury is committed not only when any —— one shall have been struck with the fist or a stick ; but likewise when he shall even have been reproached. And the punishment is awarded according to the quality of the reproach, and also to the quality of the person affected by it. Gratian, Caus. 2. quest. 1, has this passage, If any one of the clergy shall have offered reproach or contumely to his bishop, let him be suspended. And Caus. 6, quest. 1, Let the calumniators and revilers of their brethren be held infamous (Cap. infames). As to the rule of Scripture; in Levit. xix. 16, there exists a law of the same kind, Thou shalt not go up and down as a tale-bearer among thy people. The punishment is assigned, 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10, Neither thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, &c. shall inherit the kingdom of God.

We will now deduce some Corollaries from these considerations; and first, such as respect the blasphemers themselves.

1. The passion and habit of evil speaking argues an unregenerate man, and one still in a state of death and condemnation: for it is reckoned among the principal deeds of the old man.

2. Nothing is more unhappy than evil speakers and slanderers: for as Nazianzen elegantly says, It is the extreme of misery to place one’s comfort not in one’s own happiness, but in the evils of others.

3. Those who exercise this art are not disciples of the Apostle, but of the devil, and to him they give their assiduous labours: for he is called, Rev. xii. 10, The accuser of the brethren. Hence Parisiensis not unwisely calls evil speakers and slanderers, the devil’s dog-teeth, De moribus; cap. 11.

We will now add other Corollaries which regard those who willingly lend an ear to these detractors.

1. If, therefore, evil speaking is so great a crime, then to hear evil speakers with delight cannot be void of sin. For not only they who commit the sin are worthy of punishment, but they also who applaud these sinners. J cannot easily affirm which of these two is most censurable, to slander, or to listen to slander, says Bernard, lib. 2, De consid. ad Eugenium; which is most true of the hearing what is agreeable (to use a Scholastic phrase). Each hath a devil; this in the ear; that in the tongue.

2. It behoves a pious man to turn away from and to reprove blasphemers and slanderers; nay, also to defend and to extricate his brother, when wounded by their detractions. We should withstand them; because, as the north wind driveth away rain, so doth an angry countenance a backbiting tongue, Prov. xxv. 23. We ought to succour a wounded brother also: Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off, says the Psalmist, ci. 5. I brake also the jaws of the wicked, and plucked the spoil out of his teeth, was among the consolations of Job, xxix. 17.

Respecting those injured and wounded by slander, the pious in this case have their consolation :

1. Because they may hence understand that the wicked break out into these attacks upon the good, not so much from their judgment, as from long-standing hereditary disease in their minds. They ought not, therefore, to grieve so much for their neighbour, as at the disease and madness of their slanderers.

2. Because slander harms not a good conscience. Neither does any one suffer prejudice from the opinion of those who have no judgment: nor, if prejudice doth arise against them in this world, will it in the judgment of God, as Ambrose well remarks, De interpret. lib. 2. cap. 3.

3. The opinion of good men, together with the testimony of the conscience, is sufficient for pious persons in this evil world, against the lip of those speaking lies; for as the Poet wisely sang,

False praise can charm, unreal shame control

Whom, but a vicious or a sickly soul ?

Hor. Epist. lib. 1. Ep. 16.

4. Let not the godly ever be provoked by the example of evil speakers to speak evil again; but let them say with the Apostle, Being reviled we bless: being persecuted we suffer wt: being defamed we intreat, 1 Cor. v. 12. He cannot be moved by slander, who excludes the slandering of men by the gift of the Divine blessing, Ambrose, Serm. 6, in Ps. exvili. And the Psalmist says, cix. 28, Let them curse, but bless thou. Thus much concerning this first sin of the mouth. -

Filthy communication] cirxporcyiav, which the same Apostle calls corrupt communication royov campov, Ephes. ii. 29. And well does he call it corrupt: for it grows and buds forth from a corrupt root and also brings corruption, if I may so say, to the morals of men (for foul discourse is the daughter of luxury; since the libidinous, whose hearts are on fire with corrupt desires, easily break out into foul language). Hence says the Apostle, in those words cited from Menander, 1 Cor. xv. 33, Evil communications corrupt good manners.

This filthy communication is to be avoided by the Christian on many accounts,

1. Because it makes that which is most precious and peculiar to man, namely his faculty of speech, foul and ridiculous ; a gift not granted us for this purpose, as it is well observed in Virgil, Ain. 4. 647. For obscene and scurrilous language is generally used for the purpose of raising a laugh. Against those who endeavour by obscene language to excite the laughter of fools, Clemens Alexandrinus gravely inveighs, Pedag. 2, cap. 5, If no one, says he, would willingly assume a ridiculous bodily shape, why should we try to become ridiculous in words. Ridiculing the power of speech, the most honoured of all the possessions of man.

2. Because it indicates and proves a corrupt mind. For as bad fruit betrays a bad tree, so ridiculous and obscene words, a ridiculous and obscene mind. For as Clemens adds (ibid) a man’s discourse is the fruit of his mind.

3. Because it is opposed to the sacred profession of a Christian. Hence says the Apostle, Ephes. v. 3, 4, But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not be once named among you as becometh saints. An evil word, says Lactantius, proceeds not from the mouth of him who cultivates chaste language. This has reference to all Christians, but especially to those who are ministers of the word. Thou hast consecrated thy mouth to the Gospel: it is unlawful to open it for such things; sacrilege to accustom it to them, says Bernard. Whence that Canon of the Council of Carthage cited by Gratian, which runs, We are of opinion that a minister who plays the buffoon and foul-mouthed jester should be stript of his office. For foolish sayings in the mouth of a Priest is blasphemy, says Bernard, De consid. ad Eugen. lib. 2.

4. Because they corrupt both the speakers and the hearers. Clemens, Pedag. 2, cap. 6, truly and eloquently says, that which is disorderly in words, will engender the practice of indecency also in deeds; but to be modest in what we say is to keep and preserve ourselves from lewdness. Now as to what belongs to the hearers; we have Chrysostom’s just remark, As dust and mud make the ears of the flesh unclean, so does obscene and filthy communication the hearing of the mind. We shall conclude with that saying of our Saviour, Matt. xii. 36, But I say unto you, that for every idle word men shall speak, they shall give an account thereof at the day of judgment. If, then, an idle word will receive the condemnation of a rigorous judge, how much more a foul or injurious one? Think then how worthy of condemnation he is, who does not refrain from malice, when those words are punishable which merely are wanting in utility. Thus reasons Gregory, Dial. lib. 3. Let us, then, put away from our mouths all malice and evil speaking, or filthy communication, as what defiles us with its foulness.

We may add to what hath been said,

1. Those who among their friends are accustomed to use filthy communication as a kind of savour to their discourse, act like Commodus, who (according to Lampridius) for the sake of a joke, had human feces mixed with the most exquisite dishes.

2. Pious men should not quietly submit to impure conversation ; for as Athanasius says with truth, a modest and pious man would bear to have stones thrown at him with greater patience than to hear obscene words.

Vers. 9.

10. And have put on the new man, which is renewed in

knowledge after the image of him that created him,

We are now come to the last sin of the mouth, which the Apostle here persuades us to put off, namely, lying : which they are often found to be guilty of, who are most indignant when it is laid to their own charge; foolish and ridiculous people, who, while they allow themselves the liberty of sinning, would take from others that of blaming it. But let us come to the point, and inquire,

1. What lying is, and how many sorts of it there are.

I approve the definition of Augustine, De mendacio ad Consent. cap. 4. He says, It ts the voluntary setting forth of what is false, with the intention of deceiving. To this Durandus (lib. 3. dist. 38. qu. 1) agrees, and the rest of the Schoolmen. Aquinas, Q. 2, qu. 110, art. 1, has this passage: If the following three circumstances concur, that what is uttered be false, that tt was wished to announce a falsehood; and, moreover, that it was the intention to deceive ; then it has the qualities of a lie complete: for it is false both materially and formally. So Ales, part 2. qu. 122. memb. 1, The false meaning of a word is as the material in a lie: the completion, or formal property of it is the intention of deceicing. The most received division of falsehoods is that taken from their diverse objects: For one is called pernicious ; another, officious; and another, jocose. The first is employed for the sake of injury ; the second, for that of assistance ; the third, for diversion.

2. We shall inquire if any of these be lawful, and without sin before God.

First, the Scripture itself denies it. Thus Revel. xxi. 8, Fornicators, idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone. And, xxii, 15, Without are dogs, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. in Prov. xit. 22, Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord. Ephes. iv. 25, Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour. Secondly, Right reason denies it, For what is in itself evil in its nature, (ex genere) can by no means be good and lawful: but every falsehood is in itself evil, since it is an act grounded upon an unlawful matter. Thus Durandus says, lib. 3. dist. 38. qu. I, Language was instituted, not that men might deceive one another by it, but that they should use it to tell their mutual thoughts : it is therefore an unlawful act for one to utter words to signify that which he doth not intend in his mind. Aquinas proves this by the same reasoning, Q. 2. qu. 110, art. 3, Language, says he, is the natural sign of the understanding: it ws therefore unnatural and unlawful that any one should signify that by his speech which does not exist in his mind. Hence Aristotle (Eth. 4, cap. 7) concludes that all falsehood is wrong in itself, and to be avoided. Wherefore the most sound of the Fathers held all falsehood to be sin. Augustine, Enchirid. cap. 18, says, Every falsehood is a sin, although he does not sin so greatly who lies with the desire of advising, as he does with that of injuring. And again, in his treatise De mendacio ad Cons. cap. 21, No one is to be brought to everlasting salvation by the aid of a le. Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. 7, says, A good man neither on his own account or his neighbour’s will lie. Gregory, Moral. 18, cap. 4, on Job xxvii. writes, Every falsehood is sin: for whatever is discordant with truth, disagrees with equity. Neither is the life of any one to be defended by the fallacy of lying, lest he should injure his own soul who endeavours to give life to the Jlesh of another. The opinion of Cassian, which he gives in Collat. 17. cap. 17, is therefore to be disregarded, 4Aa to ward off any great danger it is as lawful to use falsehood as hellebore.¹⁶ And, cap. 25, he says, that the Patriarchs had recourse to the protection of a lie in defence of life-+ Those 78 AN EXPOSITION OF $T. PAUL’s — Chap, iii. who are of this opinion have not God, but Plato, for the author of such licentiousness : for he, in 3, De repub. says, Falsehood is sometimes useful to men, as a medicine is : where- Fore it is to be allowed to the public Physicians ; but to be meddled with as little as possible by private people. So much for Plato; who is, however, less indulgent to this sin of lying than Cassian. Jerome fastens this error upon Origen, lib. 1, Apolog. adv. Ruffin, where he writes, the disciples of Origen are united among themselves by the insane mysteries of lies ; Origenistas inter se orgiis mendaciorum federari.¹⁷ But to all these errors we oppose those things which we have already adduced, and especially that admonition of the Apostle, Rom. iii. 8, that we are not to do evil that good may come.¹⁸¹⁹

3. Let us inquire whether parabolic and figurative expressions deserve the name of lying. For example, suppose one to say that a Heretic is a wolf; or should any one recite a parable, as that in Judges ix. 8, of the trees choosing to themselves a king, and many other such which occur in the Scriptures.²⁰²¹

It is certain that neither the matter nor the form of lying can be found in these; and, therefore, they are wholly void of all taint of sin. The matter is not found; because falsehood is not uttered, but the truth expressed in a figurative and customary manner; for as the natural, so the metaphorical signification of words depends upon custom and the will of the speakers. Since, then, custom permits us to call a cruel man a wolf or a lion, or a base or foundation a rock: the proposition is the same, whether you say a Heretic is a wolf, or a heretic is hostile and injurious to the flock of Christ: that the devil is a roaring lion; or the devil seeks souls for his prey: Christ is a rock ; or Christ is the base or foundation of human salvation. The same reasoning applies to parables: For, as Augustine justly remarks, De mend. ad Cons. cap. 5, Every proposition is to be referred: to that which tt sets forth; but all that is figuratively said or done, sets forth that which it intimates to those by whom the proposition is to be understood. Thus the Schoolmen. ‘ So Aquinas, quest. disp. de prophetia, art. 10, In metaphorical language the literal sense is attended to, and not what the metaphor expresses, but the meaning which is conveyed by the metaphor. Durandus, lib. 3, dist. 38, says, A figurative expression is not true or false according to the sense which it conveys, but to that which is intended. So Gerson, part. 1, In parables the literal sense is not that expressed by the words, but that pointed out by the things or the facis. But neither is the form of lying found in these: for metaphors, parables, and apologues, are not used with the intention of deceiving, but with that of teaching with the greater elegance and pleasure. For he who asserts that a heretic is a wolf, or the devil a roaring lion; or he who puts forth a parable or apologue, does not intend to impose any thing false upon his hearers, but to represent more clearly something true, and useful to be known.

4. In the last place, Let us glance at that Jesuitical equivocation, which is defended, truly I know not whether more ridiculously or impiously, by those master-builders and patrons of lies. And first, we shall offer an example of Jesuitical equivocation, or (as they term it) mental reservation ; then we shall convict them of manifest lying. Let us then assume that any Popish priest interrogated whether he be a priest or not, should answer expressly, nay, swear if it be necessary, that he is not a priest; he having reserved this thought in his mind, that he is not a priest of Apollo; or, that he is not such a priest as he desires to be ; or, that he is not a priest bound to declare this to others: I ask whether he is guilty of a lie. That most lying Jesuit Parsons, in his Tract, ad mitigat. spect. &c. cap. 8, denies that he is. We affirm it, and we prove it from that definition of Augustine and the Schoolmen: For, he voluntarily announces a falsehood, and that with the intention of deceiving. There is the material of lying; for he denies that he is what he is: there is also the form; for by this denial he intends to impress a false opinion on the mind of his hearer, What has the Jesuit to reply to this ?*²²

He answers, first, that the enunciation mention:d above is not false, because the enunciation or proposition, which is partly expressed and partly conceived in the mind, is one: but that is true, viz. 1 am not a priest of. Apollo, or 1 am not a priest obliged to declare it.

In reply ; we allow this proposition, I am not a priest obliged to declare that I am one, is one: but we affirm that that other also which is expressed in words is an entire proposition, and distinct from this. Therefore, by this very point in which he defends himself, he is convicted of alie; namely, that when he conceives the true proposition in his mind, he utters a falsehood: for although the true and false one may be in the view of the internal conception of the mind ; yet the lie properly so called, regards the other, and the external declaration of the mind by the. signs of words. However true, therefore, may be that which this priest has shut up in the conception of his mind, yet what he puts forth by the enunciation of a false proposition is a lie.

We may illustrate this by an example. Suppose any one being asked, Whether fire is hot, should assert and swear that fire is not hot, this distinction being reserved in his mind, that it is not hot by adventitious heat; or should any one say that man is not a rational animal, and then should defend himself on the ground that he is not a rational animal of the feathered or finny tribe; who would not see that such an one is not free from the guilt of lying by these trifling reservations? For in a negative proposition, it is whatever is usually contained in the comprehension of the predicate that is removed from (i. e. denied of) the subject ; not a single species only. So that he who dares to confirm propositions of this kind with an oath, relying upon his mental reservations, is guilty of perjury by the suffrages of all the antient theologians.²³

We only now adduce some few rules, leaving it to you to apply them to this dispute.

Rule 1. By whatever artifice of words an oath is taken, God accepts it as he to whom the oath is made understands it. Isidore.

2. An oath is received according to the common usage of language. Gerson, part. 2. But neither he to whom the oath is made, nor common usage, understands those clauses of reservation; and he who offers to make an oath knows this.

3. No one ought to swear to any thing as certain, says Durandus ; for an oath is calling God to witness for the con- Sirmation of the truth of what the hearer doubts, and to which he will not assent on a simple assertion. But there never was a doubt, whether that priest was the priest of Apollo: nor was it needful to profane an oath in proof of it.

4. An oath consisting of many or equivocal words, binds in that sense which the words are wont to convey to persons rightly understanding them. If among such the words equally convey several significations, then the oath binds in that sense in which the swearer believed that he to whom the oath was made understood them at the time. Altissiodorensis, lib. 3, tract. 19, qu. 4.

From all these instances we conclude, that notwithstanding the mental reservation, the material of a lie exists in that assertion of the priest, viz. his false proposition.

But, in the second place, the Jesuit answers, The lie does not exist formally in this example: for he did not intend to deceive his hearer, but preserve himself from danger, in denying he was a priest, with the aforesaid mental reservation.

But we reply, he intended both of these; for he would preserve himself by deception, yet not likely to preserve himself unless he had first deceived his hearer by this jugglery. I conclude, therefore, with Ales, part. 2. qu. 122, mem. 1, Although the ulterior intention be to benefit himself or his neighbour, nevertheless the immediate intention is to deceive; and as far as this is concerned a lie is told: for this last, the intention, in itself regards the language ; but the former regards the will of the party, and not the words themselves.²⁴

Seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds.] The Apostle here comes to the first argument of the aforesaid dissuasion, He derives it from the removal of the cause to the removal of the effects. For the old man is the cause of the vices before-mentioned ; when he, therefore, is put off, they must be put off also.

The old man denotes the corruption inherent in our nature, the inclination of all our faculties to evil; and, moreover, that state of sinfulness which they acquired by the habit of sinning before their ingrafting into Christ, The deeds of this old man are those sins afore-mentioned, and others of the like kind extended to acts. He dissuades from these in other words, but in the same sense, in Ephes. iv. 22, That ye put off, concerning the former conversation, the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts.

He means that they have put off the old man sacramentally in undergoing baptism; efficaciously by the operation of the Spirit of regeneration; totally indeed as to the guilt and dominion of sin; inchoatively as to the nature and act or the motion of sin. But having spoken at length concerning this putting off of the old man, on the 12th verse of the preceding chapter, we will refer to that rather than inculcate the same things over again.

Vers. 10.

Where there is neither Greek, &c.

Here is that other argument connected with the former one; for it cannot possibly happen that he who puts off the old man, should not at the same time put on the new. For as in physics, as soon as the old form (of existence) is expelled, a new one immediately succeeds: So when the old Adam is put off, a new man is at the same time put on: but when the new man is put on, the works and conversation of the old man must cease.

Here are three things to be observed: 1. What does the Apostle point out by this new man, whom he says the Colossians have put on. 2. How has the renovation taken place; by little and little, and continuously. 3. In what this renovation of the new man consists.

The new man.] As to this first, it may be explained in one word: for if the old man (as I have before shewn) designates the inherent corruption of our nature, with the proneness and inclination of all our faculties to do evil; then, by the law of contraries, the new man will designate the renewing, and fresh propensity of all our faculties to do good, infused into and impressed upon the faithful by the power of the Holy Spirit. J delight in the law of God after the inner man, Rom. vii. 22. That he would grant you to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in. the inner man, Ephes. iii. 16. The Holy Spirit, therefore, strengthens the renewed for those actions for which they before had neither the faculty nor inclination. Two Corollaries arise out of the consideration of this new man :

1. First, it excites to duty. It behoves those who have put on the new man, to adopt a new method of life. If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature ; old things are passed away ; behold, all things are become new: 2 Cor. v. 17. He who assumes the character of a king, is both foolish, and wicked if he acts the part of a buffoon; so is it with him who puts on the new man, if he shall act the part of the old.

2. Secondly, it depresses pride: for it behoves us to remember whence we obtained this newness, whatever it may be, and good works; namely, from the renewing Spirit. In nothing then, as says Cyprian, should we boast, since nothing is ours. What hast thou which thou hast not received ? 1 Cor. iv. 7.

2. Which is renewed.] This word respects the manner, for it indicates the constant workings of the Holy Spirit in renewing us: as if he had said, This your renewing ceases not for one moment ; for you have so put on the new man, that ye be more and more to be renewed daily : which is clearly taught in 2 Cor. iv. 16, But though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.

Now the reason why there is need of this daily renewing is on account of the remains of indwelling sin; which the Divine wisdom has not seen fit to eradicate in a moment, but would rather leave it to the day of our dissolution, for the exercise of our virtue and the preservation of humility within us. As, therefore, in wine mingled with water, both wine and water are found in every part: so in the renewed man the conditions of regeneration and some corruptions of the old man are found mingled and wound up together. Thus Augustine, de pecc. merit. et remiss. lib. 2. cap. 7 and 8, says, Perfect newness does not exist in the mind itself of the regenerate: and again, cap. 28, The law of sin remains in the regenerate, although overcome and broken through. On this account, therefore, the Apostle says this new man is still to be renewed in the sons of God.

Corollaries.

1. As the Spirit of God renews us more and more inwardly; so it behoves us, thus supported and aroused by the grace and help of the renewing spirit, to advance outwardly in holiness and good works: for men, says Augustine, de correp. et grat. cap. 2, are led by the Spirit of God, that being acted upon they may act, not that they themselves should do nothing. Lest ye receive the grace of God in vain, 2 Cor. vi. 1.

2. Those who deny that sin remains in the renewed, deny this daily benefit of the Holy Spirit renewing and remoulding us continually. For renewing intimates that something of the old man remains: for the old man is nothing else than the body of sin, as the Apostle elsewhere speaks. Thus much on the manner of the renewing, namely, that it is not effected in a moment, but by little and little.

3. Now, in the last place, we must consider in what things this renewing consists. The Apostle seems to place it in two particulars; the illumination of the mind, which he denotes by the word knowledge, and the healing and sanctification of the will, which he points out by the word image.

In knowledge.] As to the former, it is the property of the old man to have the mind darkened, as to what belongs to spiritual and saving knowledge. Having the understanding darkened, Ephes. iv. 8. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. ii. 14. The Holy Spirit, therefore, when he leads us to a knowledge of spiritual things, begins this work of our renewal, by the infusion of life-giving knowledge and the light of faith. Hence that prayer of the Apostle for the Ephesians, i. 17, 18, That 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. The Apostle uses the word agnition rather than cognition, lest any one should think he spoke of some idle and speculative knowledge; whereas the former word always means with him a lively, efficacious, and operative knowledge. This enlightening, then, of the understanding. and infusion of faith, and spiritual knowledge, is the first effect of a regenerating and renewing spirit. Whence Parisiensis very properly calls faith, the first life of the human mind, and like spiritual light in the works of the re-creation: it is the gate of life through which God first enters the human mind ; de morib. cap. 1.

I will here remark, Those who require in Christians only a blind devotion, seem to wish to build up the edifice of holiness without a foundation, and to approve of Christians only half renewed.

After the image of him that created him.] After the light of knowledge and of faith is infused, the regenerating Spirit (who is the Creator of the new man) impresses the image of God upon the will. It is, therefore, another effect of regeneration, that when the mind is enlightened by faith, the human will should be conformed to God, and shew forth a Divine disposition in its love of holiness and righteousness. In this sense the Apostle, in Ephes. iv. 24, says, this new man is after God created in righteousness and true holiness. So 2 Pet. i. 3, 4, Christ is said to have given to the renewed all things that pertain unto life and godliness ; and that these gifts have made us partakers of the Divine nature, and freed us from the corruption which is in the world through lust. By this image is denoted, therefore, a certain representation, as it were, of the Divine sanctity in the human mind. Concerning this image of God there are many disputations among the Fathers and Schoolmen.

First, they are wont to say, that the Son of God alone is the image of the Father; we are made according to this image, while irrational creatures have only the traces of the Divinity, not the image of God, not being made after this image. As to what pertains to this distinction between the eternal and natural Son of God, and we the adopted sons, it is not accurately remarked in Scripture. For as he is called the image of the Father, Web. 1.9; so we also are said to be not only made in the image, but the image of God, 1 Cor. xi. 7. We must, however, hold, that Christ is the image of God the Father in one way ; we in another: He is the image by equality, having entirely the same nature with the Father of whom he is the image ; every regenerated person is the image by imitation, partially representing a certain similitude to the Divine nature in some gifts of grace. Augustine illustrates this by no inapt simile: As the image of an Emperor, says he, upon a coin differs from that in his son; so does the image of God in us differ from that in Christ.

Secondly, the Schoolmen and Fathers inquire in what this image of God after which we are created, consists ; and the consideration of this more nearly concerns our present purpose. Tertullian, in his treatise against Marcion, lib. 2, determines it in immortality, freedom of will, and the capacity of knowledge. Augustine, in 9 de Trin. cap. 4, assigns the image of God in the soul as consisting in these three things, mind, understanding, and affections ;²⁵ but in 1 de Trin. cap. 11, as memory, intellect, and the will-+ The Schoolmen for the most part say, this image of God consists in natural gifts; but the likeness in gifts of grace; and the Gloss upon Genesis expresses this opinion, in saying that man was made after the image of God, as to natural qualities: after his likeness, as to qualities of grace. We allow, with the Fathers and Schoolmen, that a certain image of God is found in the natural faculties of the mind, which may be called the image of the natural creation; but nevertheless we affirm, both in this passage and every other of Paul, that this image of God (which may be called the image of the supernatural re-creation) is not placed in the powers, faculties, or qualities themselves of the native soul; but in the re-arrangement, sanctification, and confirmation of these according to the nature and will of God. To this Ambrose seems to me to have alluded in those words, Hexam. 6, cap. 8, Thou art painted, O man, painied by the Lord thy God ; thou hast a good artist, and painter ; do not thou deface a good picture, shining not with varnish, but truth ; ‘not formed of wax, but of grace. He, therefore, places the image of God which we bear in the effects of grace. Then we are renewed after the image of God when all the powers and inclinations of our souls are enlightened and sanctified.²⁶

We derive these Instructions :

1. The end of our regeneration is, that we may be made like to God, and, like a hard and polished mirror, reflect (as far as infirmity permits) his wisdom, righteousness, holiness, &c.

2. Those who do not seek after holiness and righteous- ‘ ness, still bear the image of the old Adam, nay, indeed, that of the devil; they are not yet renewed after the image of God, which chiefly consists in holiness: they must be adjudged to him whose character they bear impressed on their minds.

3. God’s kindness and love to man, must be considered in this work of regeneration: it is a great proof of his goodness and clemency, that he once willed that his image should be impressed upon us; and would renew and restore it again after it was obliterated and deformed. The consideration of the value God set upon this restoration will still more shew forth the Divine clemency : He created man first in his image by his voice and his word ; but he restored him a second time by his death and blood. Let, then, this benevolence of God in regenerating us at so great a cost, and renewing us after his image by his Holy Spirit, be a spur to us in laying aside our vices, and pursuing godliness.

So far of the twofold reasoning by which the Apostle confirms the preceding dissuasions from vice: in the next verse we have an amplification of the same reasoning.

Vers. 11.

The Apostle has excited the Colossians to renounce their carnal and spiritual vices, by this argument chiefly ; that they had put off the old man and put on the new. Me now seems to polish and point this very argument itself: 1. By discarding the false opinion of those, who, neglecting this renewing of themselves, confided in external privileges, and despised those who were without them. 2. By substituting a true one, viz. that all external things which are esteemed excellent and honourable, avail nothing to salvation without this renewal: on the other hand, what is esteemed vile and base, in no respect hinders it, because Christ is all in all, Let us examine the words in their order.

Where there is neither Greek nor Jew.] That is, where there is considered no difference of nations in respect to a new or renewed man, or the state of regeneration ; so that any one should hope he is more acceptable to God because he is a Jew, or fear that he is despised because he is a Gentile: Nay, If thou art a Jew, and art without this renewing, thou art a dog, and no son; if thou art a Gentile and hast it, thou art a son, and no more a dog.

We thus prove it. The difference of nation does not promote the salvation of any one if he be without sanctification, nor hinder his obtaining it if he have it: we must, therefore, seek after holiness. Hence it is that in the Scriptures the pride of the Jews, who plumed themselves on the privileges of their nation, is always rebuked. Thus in Matt. iii. 9, Say not within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father: and John viii. 39, to the Jews who boasted, We have Abraham to our father, Christ says, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But ye are of your father the devil, &c. vers. 44. On the other hand, if the Gentiles were renewed and sanctified, they are shewn to be acceptable to God. See Acts x. 34, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him. And Gal. iii. 7, They which are of faith, the same are children of Abraham. Jerome says, Ii is not the sons of the saints, who obtain the places of the saints, but those who perform their works. This is an effective argument against the impudence of the Romanists, who measure a member of the Church by this point alone, viz. that he does or does not adhere to the Papal chair. But Christ asks not whether he adhere to this or that national church, but to the true faith 2 not whether he be a Romanist, but whether he be renewed and sanctified? In the spiritual state, whether a man be a Greek or a Jew is not regarded ; much less whether he be a Greek or a Romanist.

Circumcision nor uncircumcision.] As in the business of salvation the difference of nations affords neither prerogative nor prejudice ; by similar reasoning the difference of ceremonies and external observances is of no moment. Circumcision was in the Jewish church the chief religious rite: it was used, therefore, to express the observance of all the legal rites, and uncircumcision argued the neglect of them. The Apostle, then, affirms, that neither the observation nor neglect of all the outward ceremonies is of any moment to Christians; but that internal renovation and true holiness contain the sum of our salvation.

The Christian is not commended to God by the observance of certain ceremonies or external traditions; neither is he alienated from God by the mere omission of the same. So Paul constantly teaches: Gal. vi. 15, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. Rom. xiv. 2, 3, One believeth that he may eat all things ; another who is weak eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not ; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth. He lays down the same rule as to the observance of days in vers. 5. But more clearly in 1 Cor. viii. 8, But meat commendeth us not to God, for neither if we eat are we the better: neither if we eat not are we the worse. It is, then, a wretched thing to condemn some for meat and drink’s sake, or to arrogate to ourselves holiness on account of abstinence from them.

What is said of circumcision, of meats, and of the observance of days, ought to be applied to all observations placed in external things. For these of themselves neither render men more acceptable to God by their observance ; nor less acceptable to him from their omission: We must not, then, trifle about these things, but strive for mortification and sanctification.

Hence the Monks are convicted of foolish pride, who account themselves superior to all other Christians by reason of these externals ; such as abstaining from certain meats, and shutting up themselves in convents, and (in one word) observing some rule of outward ceremonies invented by men. But if in Christ circumcision and uncircumcision make no difference, then the eating of flesh or fish, the living in convents or cities, and wearing frocks and hoods, has nothing in it that regards the salvation of Christians.

Barbarian or Scythian.] The former expressions seem particularly directed to the Jews, who considered themselves more acceptable and agreeable to God than others from the prerogatives of their nation and their ritual observances, The present are directed at the Greeks, who, refined by the knowledge of philosophy and the liberal arts, despised other nations, and considered them almost as brutes in comparison with themselves. The Apostle, therefore, says, this barbarism is no hindrance to those engrafted in Christ and truly renewed and sanctified. He mentions the Scythians by name, since they were accounted the most fierce of all barbarians; as if he had said, Not even the most barbarous barbarism should be any ground of prejudice against those who are enlightened by faith and renewed by the Spirit of God. Epiphanius,* almost in the very beginning of his first book against the eighty heresies, calls barbarism Scythism; and says, that barbarism flourished in the ten first generations of the world, afterwards that Scythism prevailed from the flood to the destruction of the tower of Babel. But I confess that I do not clearly understand the reason of this distinction; that the Scythians are so joined to the Barbarians, I think is for the sake of amplification, and not of distinction: which also seemed the case to Ambrose, who writes that the Scythians are distinguished from other Barbarians in this place because they surpassed the rest in rudeness of manners.²⁷

No pious and holy man is to be esteemed nothing worth, because he is of unpolished manners and destitute of literary attainments. It is not elegance of manners but innocence of life, not erudition but faith, which commends us : to God. Ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, 1 Cor. i. 26. So Augustine heretofore exclaimed, The unlearned arise and seize on heaven; and lo, where we with our heartless learning wallow in the mire of flesh and blood! Confess. lib. 8. cap. 8. A barbarian ignorance of other things is no hindrance to one who knows Christ, and lives after his law: but even an angelic knowledge of all things profits nothing to one who lives impurely, and knows not Christ: for in Christ there is neither Barbarian nor Scythian,²⁸

Bond nor free.] All these expressions have the same import, and signify, that a high or low station in the world is not to be considered by a Christian as if the one were nearer, the other farther from salvation. The condition of slaves among the antients was most unjust and wretched : they esteemed slaves as only animated tools, which their master could use as he pleased ; yea, they claimed to themselves the power of life and death over them as over their cattle. Notwithstanding this vile and abject condition, the Apostle says there is no difference between the slave and his master as far as concerns salvation: For the slave, if he be renewed after the image of God, is acknowledged as a son ; his master, if he remain wicked and impure, is rejected as a spurious offspring.* Now what is said of slavery and freedom is applicable to the noble and the ignoble, the rich and the poor; in one word, to all the different conditions of mortals in this world. For truly says Jerome, Our Religion knows nothing of the persons and. conditions of men, but regards their souls. And Lactantius, Instit. lib. 5. cap. 15, No one is poor in the eye of God, but he who lacks righteousness ; no one rich unless he abound in virtues; no one, lastly, great, unless he be good and innocent, &c. But we must here beware lest we consider the Christian Religion as confounding political order, and the various ranks of men. The Apostle does not say that bond and free are not to exist in this world: but that these distinctions are not found in Christ, or in a spiritual state of salvation. He who here affirms, that in the new man there is neither bond nor free, in 1 Tim. vi. 1, commands servants .. who are under the yoke, to count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. This also Augustine teaches in these words, Expos. in Epist. ad Rom. propos. 72, It behoves us as far as this life zs concerned, to be subject to powers ; but as to our believing in God and being called to his kingdom, we need not be subject to any man who would divert us from it.²⁹

Thus far it has been shewn, in opposition to this false and vain presumption of many, that external circumstances of any kind can avail nothing without this internal renewing of the heart: and that no condition, however vile and abject, forms an objection, if the Spirit of God be pre- — sent regenerating and purifying the heart from sin. To this error the Apostle again opposes a true judgment, which he expresses more affirmatively in these concluding words, BUT CHRIST IS ALL AND IN ALL] What the Jews hoped for from the privilege of their nation and the sign of the covenant, the Greeks from their philosophy, princes and great men from their dignity ; all these things, and others far more excellent, the man that is born again enjoys in Christ. On the other hand ; whatever blemish there may be thought, in being sprung from Gentile or Barbarian, in being born in uncircumcision, or in any low condition or mean station ; all these things are divested of all disgrace and dishonour through Christ living in the renewed; and, consequently, this renewed state is of the utmost value. For Christ (regenerating them and uniting himself with the renewed) s all that which is necessary to salvation ; 2» all, namely, in all the faithful who are thus sanctified and united to Christ. He is all things to them, meritoriously: for since they become one mystical person with Christ, he imparts to them the merit of his passion, death, obedience, and righteousness ; and thus he is made to them of God wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, 1 Cor. i. 30. He is all things to them efficaciously ; for whatever they possess or can do, as regards spiritual life and obtaining salvation, they possess from Christ and can do by him. And 4 live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me, Gal. 11. 20; and 1 Cor. xv. 10, But by the grace of God I am what Lam: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all; yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. It can, therefore, want no more explanation, but stands plainly before us, that Christ is all things in all the regenerate.

Corollaries.

1. Christ and his Spirit renewing us is not esteemed of sufficient value by us, unless we esteem this new man of such great value, that we consider all other things, which men generally think make them honourable or despicable, as nothing in comparison.

2. Here the pride and vanity of those who glory in any earthly dignity is put down; since any one of the regenerate is more noble and more free than they; and is more nearly allied to God, and like him who is the fountain of honour.

Thus far on that part of the Apostle’s admonition which respects the laying aside our vices: the other, which refers to the exercise of virtues, remains to be treated; to this he had fortified and paved the way by shewing that they had not only put off the old man, but had put on the new.

Verses 12, 13.

In the former part of the general exhortation, the Apostle advised the putting off and casting away of all vices, as members of the old Adam. We now come to the second part of the exhortation; in which he exhorts the Colossians to put on and exercise all virtues; and this part is extended as far as verse 18.

This last division of the Apostle’s exhortation consists of three parts. In the first he excites to those virtues which immediately regard our neighbours; and whether they be miserable and need our aid; or wicked and injurious to us; or in any other case, as expressed in vers. 12, 13, 14, 15. In the second he calls them to the study, knowledge, and use of the Divine word; by the ministry of which we are instructed and taught in the above virtues . see vers. 16. Thirdly, and lastly, he prescribes to the Colossians an universal rule to be observed on all occasions, in vers, 17.

With respect to the verse which we have in hand, three things are to be considered : the agreement of this exhortation with what went before; the preliminaries to the exhortation, and the exhortation itself.

1. First, it is proper to observe the agreement or dependence which the illative particle therefore intimates to us. This word requires us to look back to the 10th verse, where the Apostle states that they had put on the new man ; whence he here infers, therefore put on bowels of mercies, &c. As if he had said, They who have put on the new man, ought to put on all his members, and all his properties : but these virtues-are as the members and properties of the new man ; therefore, are to be put on by you who have put him on. He uses the same argument before, when from the circumstance of their having put off the old man, he inferred, Mortify therefore its members, fornication, uncleanness, &c. ,

Corollaries from this inference.

1. We must seek to make the new man entire and perfect in all his members: for as the natural body appears deformed if deprived of an eye, a hand, or a foot, or any other of its members; so it is with the spiritual man, if he lack any of his parts.

2. They have little or no sense of spiritual life, who do not perceive, or perceiving do not grieve for, or grieving for do not endeavour with all their might to amend and supply, this mutilation of the new man.

3. Scarcely will an individual be found who, as far as respects this new man, is not a monster either from deficiency or superabundance of limbs: I inean wanting in the members he ought to have, or supplied with those he should be without. But if we would attend to the Apostle, we shall understand, that from the fact of our having put off the old Adam, and put on the new man, we are bound to suffer any inconvenience which may occur in either respect. Thus much of the illative particle therefore.

2. As elect of God holy and beloved.] We here come, secondly, to the preliminaries, or the reason on which the exhortation is grounded, why these virtues should be adopted by the Colossians. This is drawn from what is fit and honourable: for these three attributes by which their condition is described, prove them to be bound to these virtues and to holiness of life. Let us consider them apart.

As elect of God.] This may be understood either of an eternal or temporal election, by which Christians are separated from the filth of the world to serve God according to the precepts of the Gospel. And I consider the Apostle means this latter election; which yet, if it be efficacious, presupposes the former one. But whether he means this or that, he speaks precisely to the purpose. For the consideration of our gratuitous election before the foundations of the world were laid, ought not to induce us to sloth, but influence us with eagerness to perpetual holiness of life; since God hath chosen us to this end: as it is said in Ephes. i. 4, he hath chosen us in Christ, before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy, &c. The same applies to temporal election, whereby we are called into the Church, and separated for a peculiar people of God; for this privilege also obliges us to cultivate holiness. This is a stipulation God makes with the Israelites, Deut. xxvi. 18, The Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, that thou shouldest keep all his commandments. So also Christ. stipulates with a Christian, 2 Tim. ii. 19, The Lord knoweth them that are his: And let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. Let, then, every one who believes himself elect of God, live as the elect of God.

Those, consequently, who prate about their eternal election, and boast of their Christian profession, while in their deeds and in their manner of life they shew themselves neither elect nor Christians, are here reproved: but as the lazy Greeks made a profession of philosophy, so do these men of their Christianity : 7 was all talk and no doing. But we ought not to become like the idle philosophers ; for as Tertullian gravely argues, Apologet. cap. 46, What analogy is there between the philosopher and the Christian? the disciple of Greece and of Heaven? the trader for an empty name, and for life? the artificer of words and of deeds ?

lloly.] That is by baptism and the sanctification of the {- Spirit. In the administration of baptism itself, Christians are consecrated to God ; they are renewed after the Divine image by the internal operation of the Spirit: in each rcspect they are called holy; by each they are bound to a holy life. For whatever is consecrated to God, should in,. some way participate in the Divine holiness. Hence that passage of Levit. xi. 44, Ye shall be holy, for I am holy ; and Chap. xx. 26, Ye shall be holy unto me: for I the Lord am holy, and have severed you from other people that ye should be mine. Being then by baptism separated and consecrated to God, we ought to put on all virtues, and exercise perpetual holiness of life.

Besides, what things are consecrated to God, are not to be applied to any purpose, but always to be used according to the Divine will; which is seen plain enough in temples, vessels, and other inanimate things: How much more, then, should this be attended to in men consecrated to God by baptism? Now it clearly appears that the will of God is our sanctification, 1 Thess. iv. 3: whence Nazianzen calls baptism, the covenant of a more holy life with God ; and Peter, 1 Epis. iii. 21, The answer of a good conscience towards God. Inasmuch, then, as we are holy by baptism, we ought to lead a life holy and adorned with virtues.

Wherefore that internal operation of the Holy Spirit, in which all true Christians participate, requires the same from them even as it were in its own right. For the operation of the Spirit brings new life; new life brings new strength; and these require new manners and actions. Hence arises that exhortation of the Apostle to the regenerate and sanctified, Rom. vi. 19, Now yield your members servants unto righteousness unto holiness. Now, that is, since the Holy Spirit hath inspired holiness, so walk as holy. Thus much of the second attribute.

And beloved.] This is the third attribute, by mentioning which he would excite the Colossians to put on and exercise the virtues. Now he does not speak of the love of the eternal benevolence, with which God embraced the elect before the foundations of the world ; for notwithstanding this love, they are accounted among rebels and enemies to God prior to their effectual calling and regeneration. Rom. v. 10, and Ephes. ii. 12. He speaks, then, of the love of friendship, by which God receives into the number of his children the elect, when actually converted and grafted into Christ ; as in John 1. 12, But as many as received him (Christ) ^” — to them gave he power to become the sons of God. They, therefore, who are beloved after this manner, ought as the beloved to put on all the virtues which are agreeable to God; Ver. 12. EPISTLE TO TIIE COLOSSIANS. 101

1. Because it behoves one beloved mutually to love God: but the proof of love is the exercise of virtue; If ye love me, keep my commandments, John xiv. 15. E

2. Because it behoves one beloved to frame himself to ^ the likeness of God who loves him: for as love arises from a similitude of dispositions, so does enmity arise from their dissimilitude.

Corollaries.

1. They who do not cultivate virtue and holiness, are not only impure but sacrilegious; since they pollute by a disorderly life, their bodies and souls, which were sacred to God.

2. It is but folly for one to presume that he is loved of God, or that he loves God, who neglects to put on the. ornaments of virtue: since they are at once signs of the Divine love towards us, and of ours towards God. For God always adorns those whom he loves by infusing: viriues and gifts ; and they who love God worship him and honour him by the exercise of virtue. So much of the arguments which the Apostle uses as preliminaries to the exhortation itself.

3. We now come, in the last place, to the matter of the exhortation contained in these words, Put on bowels of mercies, kindness, &c. Here it is proper to consider the act of putting on, and the things or virtues so put on.

Put ye on.] This is a figurative expression taken from garments. But since in things spoken metaphorically we are not to suppose a similitude in all respects, it will not be foreign to the matter if we briefly note in what respects virtues are like garments, and in what they are unlike.

They are like: I. Because as garments adorn the body ; so do virtues the soul. 2. Because as he who is stript of his clothes appears base and mean in the eyes of men; so does the man stript of virtues, to God, to angels, and to pious men. 3. Because as clothes are not derived from the human body; so true virtues are not of the will of man, but the gift of God. Hence that definition of the Schoolmen, Virtue is that good quality of the mind which constitutes a virtuous life, and which God works in us, Albert, lib. 5. cap. 5; and Prosper is of the same opinion, De vita contempi, lib. 3. cap. 1 and 16, Virtues are neither sought after nor possessed without the gift of God.

Virtues and garments differ: 1. Because the latter are daily put on and off; but it is sinful to throw aside virtues once put on. 2. Because garments do not become better, but worse from daily wear; but virtues continually augment and strengthen by exercise. 3. Because we can procure clothes by our own efforts ; but virtues cannot be obtained but by the gift of another, namely, God.

Here it may be asked, Why he bids the Colossians to put on virtues, when it is said that true virtue is infused into the human mind by God; and why, too, does he bid them to put on what he had before said that they had put on?

I answer, it is clear from what preceded, that he addresses those whom he presupposes to be regenerate, holy, and endowed with infused virtues ; and, therefore, to put on bowels of mercies, kindness, &c. denotes nothing more than daily to advance and exercise in their lives the virtues impressed upon their hearts by the Holy Spirit. But now, although it is the work of God alone to infuse into the heart spiritual gifts and virtues proceeding from grace, yet, human co-operation is required in the exercise of them: See for instance Paul, in 1 Cor. xv. 10, By the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain, but I laboured more abundantly than they all; yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

As to the other part of the objection, it may also be added ; the elect and holy who have put on virtues and gifts by the life-giving aid of the Holy Spirit, both can and ought to put on the same more and more; which, indeed, they are said to do, when they endeavour that these gifts of the Spirit may be confirmed and augmented by use and exercise. For although the power of increasing does not agree very well with the clothing of the body, yet it does with these garments of the mind. As Peter says, in 2 Epis. iii. 18, Grow an grace and in the knowledge of the Lord. These things may suffice concerning the act of putting on: It follows that we notice the virtues themselves to be put on.

Bowels of mercies, kinduess, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering.] He begins with those duties which we owe when in prosperity to our neighbours in adversity. And, in the first place, the Apostle requires us to put on bowels of mercies, that is, the real inward and unpretended affection of condoling with another’s woe. The phrase is a Hebraism, which the Apostle frequently uses, even in the New Testament. And it is taken from the emotion, and, as it were, concussion which is felt in the stomach, in deep . &ffections of the mind. Thus it is said of Joseph, Gen. xlii. 30, his bowels did yearn, or were set on fire towards his brother. So in Lamentations il. 11], My bowels are troubled, my liver is poured on the earth for the destruction of the daughter of my people. In the New Testament also the same phrase is used: See Luke i. 78; Phil. ii. 1. The most tender affection is, therefore, intended by the expression bowels of mercies. The Apostle wisely begins with the expression of condolence ; because from hence flows the act of relief; and because, as says Gregory, Mor. 20. 27, It is more to compassionate any one from the heart, than to give: for he who gives what is external, gives what does not belong to his own person; but he who gives compassion, gives somewhat of himself.

The chief objects of this compassion are persons who have none to give them relief, as widows and orphans; but, in general, it comprehends all oppressed with misery, whether the poor, prisoners, the sick, the afflicted, &c.

We have many motives or incentives to this affection of mercy.

1. We have the express and oft repeated command of God: Luke vi. 36, Be ye merciful: Rom. xii. 15, Weep with them that weep ; and 1 Pet. ii. 8, Be ye kindly affectioned, &c. Whence Gregory Nazianzen says, Orat. 16, If thou hast nothing, give but a tear; for pity is a great solace to the afflicted.

2. We have, besides, the examples of the prophets, of Christ, and the Apostles, and, lastly, of all good men: Jer. ix. 1; Matt. ix. 36; Luke xix. 41; 2 Cor. xi 29. Hence that saying of the Poet, The good are tear-abounding men.

3. We have, lastly, the conformity of nature, and the possibility of suffering similar things. For nothing is more agreeable to nature, than to be touched with the evils and misfortunes of those who are partakers of the same nature with us. This the Apostle points out, Heb. ii. 17, where he says of Christ, that 7¢ bekoved him to be made like his brethren that he might be a merciful and faithful High priest. The possibility of suffering similar evils, when seriously considered, forces mercy from any man that is not destitute of feeling: For what has happened to some one may happen to any one; which even Aristotle acknowledges, Rhet. 2. cap. 18.

Hence we conclude,

1. The apathy (vua) of the Stoics must be exploded by a Christian ; as not agreeing either with our natural condition or our supernatural regeneration. Prosper, De vit. contempl. 30, 31, well remarks, We are not in fault for having affections, but for making a bad use of them.

2. Bowels of mercy are found in every regenerate person : he is therefore moved at the very first view of another’s misery.

3. They who, ere they can be excited to mercy, must have much solicitation, bewailing, and clamour from the afflicted, can lay claim to little or nothing of the spiritual man: they who are not moved by these, have nothing human in them.

Kindness.] From the affection, the Apostle passes to the act; because the pity of the rich without kindness is but the illusion of the wretched. Augustine properly defines true pity to be, compassion in our heart for another’s distress, such as will lead us to assist where we are able. Thus by compassion the mind grieves, says Gregory, as the liberal hand shews this affection of grief. Consequently, these two, mercy and kindness, must always be joined together, as James recommends, Chap. ii. 16, and John, 1 Epis. iii. 17. Whatever they pretend, they who have their hands closed, have their bowels of mercy closed too, or rather they have none. But we shall also adduce some motives for this kindness or liberality.

The first shall be what ought to prompt us to all good works, the command of God and our Lord. For it is not the case (as the vulgar vainly imagine) that works of justice alone fall under the precept, and works of mercy are left to our own will. God distinctly requires of us works of beneficence, and severely punishes their omission. Break thy bread with the hungry, Isa. lviii. 7. See Matt. xxv. 41, 42, &c.

Secondly, the duty of dispensing their wealth is imposed upon all the rich. Hence benevolence towards the poor is called righteousness, Prov. xi. 18. And they are reproached with theft by the Fathers, who, when they might, assist not the poor. Hence that charge of Basil : The bread which you withhold is the bread of your servant ; the garment which you keep is the garment of the naked; and the money you lay up is the money of the poor. And Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 16, says, May it not be my unhappy lot to grow rich while the poor are in want, aud I not succour them in their. distress, &c.

Thirdly, A reward is promised by God to those who are beneficent towards the poor: A reward, I say, both in this life and in the life which is to come. That it is in this life see Ps. cxii. 5, &c. Prov. xi. 25, and xxviii. 27. For that which is to come, see Matt. xxv. 24, Luke xiv. 14, Gal. vi. 9. The testimonies of the Fathers to this are very numerous; and hence the exhortations to benevolence. We Jose all earthly things by keeping them ; we preserve them by giving, says Greg. Horn. 17. in Evang. J£ is gain to give to the poor, says Basil, Serm. l, in Avaros. Why fearest thou to render everlasting thy frail and transitory goods, or to entrust thy treasures to God’s safe keeping ? asks Lactantius, lib. 6. cap. J2. And Jerom, ad Nepotian says, I do not remember to have read of an unhappy death of any one who had liberally exercised the works of charity ; for such an one has many infercessors.

Humbleness of mind.] The Apostle well joins this to mercy and kindness ; since, as Augustine observes, there are many who would more readily give all they have to feed the poor, than become beggars themselves before God. Indeed it often happens, that works of charity and mercy give occasion for pomp and pride. In whatever condition we are, then, we have need to put on humility: In prosperity (that is, when we abound in temporal or spiritual riches), lest we become insolent towards God, as in the case of Uzziah, 2 Chron. xxvi. 16, and of the Israelites, Hosea xiii. 6; lest we despise and oppress our neighbour as did Haman, in Esther iii.6; or the Pharisee, in Luke xviii. 11. For, as Gregory has remarked, It is a rare thing for a person who is preeminent in many respects not to despise any one. In adversity too; lest we murmur against God, as the Israelites did; or despond in mind under our afflictions.

The following reflections will engender humbleness of mind in us :— a 1. If we consider that whatever good thing we have, it ‘ does not come from ourselves, but from God; that it is ~ small, in comparison of the virtues we are without, and the sins with which we are beset; and that we have abused this little good in many ways.

2. If we reflect that it is an especial part of the image of the devil, to admire one’s self; but a part of the image of Christ to be humble and lowly, Matt. xi. 29. Whence Augustine says, de Trinit. 4. 10, The prince of pride brings to death the man who indulges pride; Christ the Lord of humility brings to life the man who obeys.

3. If we observe how God is affected towards the humble; viz. in that he has respect to them before others, Isa. Ixvi. 2; and beyond all others he adorns and enriches them more and more with his gifts, Matt. xi. 25 ; Psal. xviii. 27; Luke i. 52, 53. Parisiensis not unaptly calls the human heart a spiritual vacuum. And as nature does not suffer a corporeal vacuum, but rather impels some bodies into -^ places not suited to their nature ; so the grace of God does not allow of a spiritual vacuum in the heart of the humble, but sends streams of heavenly blessings to fill it.

4. If we remark what mind God bears towards the proud: viz. that he accounts them his greatest enemies, and pursues them with his wrath even to destruction. Le destroys the house of the proud, Prov. xv. 25; God resisteth the proud, &c. 1 Pet. v. 5. From which Gregory, on that passage 1 Sam, xv. 17, WHEN THOU WAST LITTLE IN THINE OWN EYES, says, Thou wast great in mine eyes, be- . cause lowly in thine own: now art thou abased before me, because great in thine own sight. Therefore how much any one is precious in his own eyes, by so much he becomes more base before God.

Lastly, if we bear in mind that pride is the poison of all virtues, and of all good deeds. Whence Augustine (on Ps. xciil.) concludes, Ilumility in evil deeds is more pleasing to God, than pride in good ones. He, therefore, who combines other virtues without humility, does but bear chaff against the wind. On this account God determined that it was better for his holy Apostle to be buffetted by Satan, than to be inflated by the sin of pride, 2 Cor. xii. 7.

Meekness, long-suffering.] These two virtues are the daughters of humility, of which we have the greatest need in adversity, and when we have business with morose, reproachful, and wicked men ; for they become as a shield to us. As to meekness; it is that virtue which renders a man manageable in common intercourse, and prevents him from being exasperated beyond measure and justice at the follies, stubbornness, and lighter faults of others, even when they tend to his own injury or disadvantage. It is such a moderator of passion, that it absolutely restrains what is unjust, and so tempers and softens what is just, that it is neither rashly excited, nor borne headlong beyond its proper limits. A humble-minded man (paos) is not badly described by Aristotle, Ethic. 4, 5, when he says that he is not driven headlong by unbridled passion, but és angry so far, so long, and against the person right reason en- Joins; and, in a word, ts not given to revenge, but rather easy to be appeased.

We must strive after this virtue on many accounts.

1. Because it resides not with the good and perfect, but among those who often sin, from infirmity and ignorance ; which even we ourselves do. It is but just, therefore, that one requiring pardon for his offences should in his turn grant it. Which also the Apostle advises, Gal. vi. 1, Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness ; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

2. Because it brings the greatest utility to us, in rendering life pleasant and tranquil: while the passionate and angry are daily driven to madness, by the injuries they give and receive on every side. he meek, says the Psalmist, shall inherit the earth; they shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. Ps. xxxvii. 11.

9. Because it is a sign and an essential mark of the sons of God, and of those destined to eternal happiness. Blessed are the peace-makers ; for they shall be called the children of God, Matt. v. 9.

4. Because we have exhibited to us a living model of meekness in God himself (Jonah iv. 2; Joel ii. 13); the Son of God (1 Pet. ii. 23); and, in fine, in all the servants of God; as Moses (Num. xii. 3); David (2 Saml. xvi. 10, 11); Paul (1 Thess. ii. 7), We were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her own children.

Long-suffering, uaxpo9uuav.] This is not very different from the preceding virtue, unless that it seems to refer to injuries of a more grievous nature done to us by men, and severer calamities sent by God himself. Therefore we should not only bear with calmness and meekness, the follies, infirmities, and daily and customary injuries of men ; but-even if we should be annoyed and oppressed, however bitterly and maliciously, we must bear it with a great and generous mind.

1. On account of the Divine Providence which orders and disposes all these things, and to which it is right for a servant of God to submit. “This we find to have been done by Job, David, and Christ himself ; who, when evil entreated by the wicked, patiently obeyed the will of God.

2. On account of the advantage derived therefrom. For griefs and injuries greatly conduce to cure the diseases of the soul; to beat down pride, to extinguish the love of the world, as well as to shake off spiritual lethargy. Besides, they shew forth the virtues of the pious and the glory of God, and augment the reward and crown promised to the saints: In one word, they always work together for good to them who love God, Rom. viii. 28.

3. On account of our consciousness of sin and demerit. For whatever evils are brought upon us by the malice of men, are permitted by the justice of God. He would inflict far heavier if he treated us according to our deserts. So the godly have ever acknowledged; Nehem. ix. 33; Dan. ix. 8.

4. On account of the worth and excellence of affliction. For it is not reproach (as the vulgar think) to suffer for Christ, or be trampled upon by the wicked; but, on the contrary, honourable. Whence says Peter, 1 Epis. iv. 16, If any man suffer as a Christian let him not be ashamed ; but let him glorify God on this behalf. So the Apostles were animated; they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name, Acts v,41. We should rejoice in afflictions, says Parisiensis, because we are received to the communion of the sufferings of Christ, as it were to drink in common of the royal cup. In this sense also it is said in Philippians i. 29, Unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake.

From what has been said of these two virtues we gather,

That they are not to be accounted happy nor men of fortitude, who in this world commit violence and oppress others, and do what they please against whom they please under the impulse of their fury and lust. They are not happy; since this is both the signal and the cause of their future damnation, Phi. i. 28: nor men of fortitude; for this is the effect of the old and impotent Adam, and shews them to be destitute of the sanctifying Spirit and all its gifts and ornaments.

On the other hand, We infer from the foregoing ; that they who bear with a meek spirit the injuries and reproaches of the wicked, are neither base nor miserable; but happy and valiant, as endowed with the Spirit of God, covered with his gifts as arms of defence, and by their means conquerors over all evil.

Vers. 13.

In these words the Apostle shews the use and requires the practice of the afore-mentioned virtues of meekness and long-suffering. It is of little moment to have virtues, if you neglect to exercise them when occasion offers. But in this verse three things are to be remarked: 1. The actions required ; two for instance: the action of suffering, forbearing one another ; the action of forgiving, and forgiving one another. 2. The object of these actions (viz. the pougn) i. e. the just cause of complaint, 3. The rule of these our actions, viz. the example of Christ, as Christ also hath forgiven, &c.

Forbearing one another.] Here is the first act of the before-named virtues. Now he is said to forbear who, though attacked and wounded either by words or deeds, does not immediately rise up to inflict revenge ; but endeavours to overcome his enemy with mildness and to bring him back to a proper mind.

However this forbearance under injuries is accounted mean among the proud, yet by the wise it is esteemed the best and most glorious way of conquest; and that on many accounts. - For

1. He who bears injuries, overcomes and conquers himself, whilst he represses and restrains the desire for revenge always boiling forth from our corrupt nature; and binds and confines that wrath, as it were a furious monster, lurking within him. This mode of. conquest Solomon celebrates in Prov. xvi. 32, He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty ; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city. To conquer oneself is the greatest of conquests, says Plato.

2. He who forbears, conquers the very malice of his enemy. For when two contraries are in contention and .. conflict, that is said to conquer which draws the other into similarity with itself; that to be conquered, which is drawn or changed by the other. Therefore, like as we say water is overcone by fire, when it becomes warm; and, on the contrary, to have overcome it, if, retaining its own cold, it can subdue the fire: so we say a Christian is overcome by a wicked man, as often as he, by the provocation of attack, is drawn into similar fury ; on the contrary, we may pronounce him to have conquered when he retains his’ own disposition, and, by bearing with the violence of the other, changes and mollifies his ferocity. See a beautiful _, example 1 Sam. xxiv. 17, &c.; where David, by forbearing, b. and refraining from revenge, so mollifies and changes Saul, that from breathing blood and slaughter, he melts into tears and entreaties, confesses his fault, and is compelled to acknowledge and extol David’s innocence and meekness. Who does not here see the malice of Saul overcome, and the patience of David triumphing?

3. He who forbears, not only conquers, but conquers by lawful means, and those which God commands his soldiers to use. Now it behoves a soldier obeying the command of his general, not only to fight, but to do it with those arms, and in that manner which is assigned him. No one receiveth the crown unless he strive lawfully, 2 Tim. ii. 5. But hear the decree of our commander, Prov. xxiv. 29, Say not I will do so to him as he hath done to me; Iwill render to the man according .to his work. Recompence to no man evil for evil, Kom. xii. 17 ; and again, vers. 21, Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. So much for the act of forbearing.

And forgiving one another.] In this second act there is more contained than in the former. For there are some who sometimes bear injuries, because, forsooth, they cannot avenge them, or because they do not think it expedient; yet in the mean time the injury is treasured up in their memory, malice rages in their hearts, and a thirst for revenge burns. The Apostle, therefore, would have us, not only bear an injury, but remove from our hearts the very desire itself of revenge; nay, that we should cherish a love for our most bitter enemies. Here applies the precept of Christ, Matt. xviii. 35, That every one. forgive his brother from his heart : and Luke vi. 27, 28, Love your enemies ; do good to them that hate you; bless them that curse you, and pray for them that despitefully use you. We read that all this was religiously observed by Christians in the primitive Church. It isthe custom of all to love their friends ; of Christians alone to love their enemies, says Tertul. ad Scap.

Hence we are instructed

1. That those are in error who think that the forgiving of injuries and loving our enemies is matter of counsel and not of precept: for the Apostle teaches us that this belongs to all the elect of God, holy and beloved, that is, to all the regenerate.

2. They who forgive others profit themselves, yea, remove their own sins in some measure: whence in the Greek the phrase is xapifouevor Eavtois, remitting or forgiving your own selves. And Jerome writes on Ephes. v. What good one does to another is laid up more for him who performs the deed, than for him for whom it is performed. And Christ most plainly says, Matt. vi. 15, If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your heavenly Father forgive you your trespasses.

3. No one walks so cautiously, but that he sometimes offends against his neighbour both in words and deeds. Hence the Apostle says, forgiving one another ; as if we all had need of this mutual forgiveness. “Thus much as to the actions required; viz. forbearing and forgiving.

If any man have a quarrel against any.] Here we have the object or matter about which forbearing and forgiving is to be exercised, viz. a quarrel, that is, some just cause of complaint.

Here we must remark that all the words are put indeftnitely, and are therefore to be received universally, in this manner; Jf any man, that is, whoever in truth he may be, ~ whether superior or inferior: shall have a quarrel, that is,.. any cause of complaint whatever, on account of any wrong done either in word or deed : against any, viz. whe- — ther friend or foe; let him know that the duty of forbearing and forgiving is necessarily imposed upon him.

Corollaries.

1. If a just cause is not a sufficient ground for inflicting revenge, it is evident that they grievously offend who break forth into disputes and strifes for trifling and nugatory causes, nay, for those that are unjust and absolutely nothing. See Matt. xviii. 28.

2. Since the act of forbearing and forgiving is required. from all towards all, the pride of the great and the rich is rebuked, who think themselves exempt from this duty : as if only the poor and weak were born to bear injuries, and: the powerful and noble to inflict them. But the Scripture has not respect for nobility, power, or riches, but for fraternity, when it speaks of the forgiveness of injuries. See Matt. xviii. 21.

It is asked, If this duty of forbearing and forgiving be so necessary to a Christian, that it is not lawful for him in any way to repel an injury done to him, or to restrain or punish the person who offers it; but is bound when he is smitten on one cheek to turn the other; or when his cloak is taken away to offer his coat also? as Christ says, Matt. v. 39, 40.

We reply, That it is not by any means lawful for a private person by himself, and according to the dictates of his own will, to seek his own revenge; but it is sometimes lawful to do it by means of the magistrate and according to his judgment. Neither ought we to seek our revenge through the magistrate himself with an exasperated and corrupt mind, that is, with the passion of anger and hatred against our neighbour; but with a peaceful and meek mind, that is, from a zeal for righteousness, and a desire for the amendment of our neighbour: for it is better to lose any thing of this world, than to make a wreck of our patience and Christian charity. On the other hand, that it is lawful to seek the aid of the magistrate against those who do us injury is evident hence; 1. Because God himself, who approves nothing contrary to charity, hath ordained magistrates and tribunals. 2. Because laws in all well organised states are enacted for the repairing of injuries; which laws would remain absolutely useless if it was unlawful to recur to their assistance against evil-doers. 3. Because it is profitable even to evil-doers themselves, that they should be punished for their crimes, and that the plunder they obtain by doing injury to others should be taken from them: Hence it may sometimes happen, that charity requires us to take vengeance of the wicked : for Ae ?s overcome with the advantage of victory on his side, says Augustine, from whom the liberty of doing injury is taken away. August. Epist. 5, ad Marcell. As to what our Saviour says and the other similar passages of Scripture, we maintain that they should be interpreted according to the contest. Thus, when you shall be smitten on one cheek, turn the other, that is, rather than break out yourself into revenge, and inflict the same injury upon another. We say, too, that such passages are to be understood with this limitation : Do so as often as the glory of God and the good of our neighbour seems to require it. “These, therefore, are necessary precepts (as the Schoolmen say out of Augustine,) as far as the preparation of the mind is concerned; and they are to be followed in the outward act, as often as the glory of God and the good of our neighbour requires. See more on this point in Augustine, Epist. 5, ad Marcellinum.

Even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.] Supply the word forgive. The example of Christ ought to have with Christians both the force of an argument for persuasion and of a rule for direction, as far as forbearing and forgiving are concerned; the force of an argument; because the members ought to correspond to their head. A proud or a feeble member is inconsistent with a head which is humble and crowned with thorns. Hence by Christ himself and his Apostles, the example of Christ is urged principally in those things which relate to charity and the humility of his sufferings. If I have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one another’s feet: for I have given you an example, John xiii. 14. Christ hath suffered for us, leaving us an example, Pet. ii. 21. He that saith he abideth in him, ought himself also so to walk, ‘even as he walked, I John ii. 6. The example of Christ has, moreover, the force of a rule in directing us, inasmuch as it contains the most perfect model of virtue. Hence Bernard says, What have you to do with virtues, who are ignorant of the virtues of Christ? Where, I beseech you, will ye find true prudence, but in the doctrine of Christ ? where true temperance, but in the life of Christ? Where true fortitude, but in the passion of Christ? But let us evince this in our acts of forbearing and forgiving : in which we have a perfect rule for imitation, whether we regard what Christ bore and forgave, or from whom, or, in fine, in what man- ‘ ner he bore and forgave.

As to what he bore and forgave? It was curses, and those the most grievous and bitter: for he was called a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners, one possessed of a devil, one using the assistance of dzmons, a madman, a blasphemer, an impostor ;³⁰ and, in fine, what not? He suffered evil entreatment too, being spit upon, being beaten with rods, lastly, being crucified. Yet all these so many and so great injuries he bore and forgave. . ‘ From whom? From the chiefs of the people, from the people themselves, from the ignorant, from the wicked, from strangers and from countrymen, from Jews and Gentiles; in short, being injured by every description of men, he bore with them all, he pardoned them all.

In what manner? Not from such infirmity as rendered him unable to resist; but from humility and voluntary obedience, which made him willing to suffer. Isa. liii. 7; Matt. xxvi. 53. Not with a treacherous and deceitful intention, meditating and seeking future vengeance; but with a pure heart inflamed with love, intreating from God the Father a gracious forgiveness for his enemies; Luke xxiii. 34. Such was the perfect bearing of injuries and the forgiveness of Christ, of which the Apostle speaks in saying, As Christ has forgiven you, so also do ye. We ought therefore, to compare ourselves with this example; and although we cannot attain to its perfection, yet we should remember always to propose to ourselves its imitation.

We derive the following instructions ;

1. It behoves a Christian to be certain of the pardon of his sins through Christ: since this pardoning is the rule and measure of pardoning others ; but a rule ought to be fixed and certain.

2. He who does not freely pardon others, never feels in his heart the benefit of Christ pardoning his sins: neither can he who has not resolved to forgive his neighbour, conclude that his own sins are forgiven of God.

3. In vain does the mind eager for revenge excuse its own malice by the extent of the injury done, and by the loss to the man’s own character if revenge be neglected, and other points of the like nature, by which men are accustomed to inflame themselves with revenge. All these considerations vanish if we attend to the rule laid down by the Apostle, As Christ hath forgiven you, so also do ye.

4. It is, therefore, a diabolical opinion, which has possessed the minds of almost all those who lay claim to gentility, that they cannot bear, even a reproachful word, without the loss of their honour and their reputation ; but are under the necessity of seeking revenge in a duel, at the manifest peril of their own lives, and a plain attack upon the life of another.

This more than heathenish opinion can be refuted by many arguments:

1. We pull down the very foundation of what we are striving to build, by laying down this maxim. It is not a sign of a cowardly or ignoble mind, nor disgraceful or mean in a Christian, to bear injuries, but to inflict them. This was briefly proved above, when we were reasoning on meekness, patience, and their acts: we will now add, that this was even approved by the very heathens, especially the wiser among them. Socrates, as we find in Plato (in his Gorgia) draws the conclusion, that every injury is dishonourable and infamous to the inflictor of it, not to him who suffers it ; and that, as he says himself, for the strongest and most solid reasons, oidupois ua) ddapavtivos adyos. Aristotle follows the same opinion in his Ethics 5. cap. 11, giving this reason; To inflict an injury is the effect of dishonesty ; and on that account dishonourable and infamous: but to suffer one with equanimity is the effect of virtue, and therefore glorious. Seneca, in that book where he professedly considers whether an injury can affect a wise man, writes; We ought to despise injuries, and what I may call the shadow of injuries, contumely, whether they fall deservedly or undeservedly upon us. If deservedly, it is not contumely, but judgment given; if undeservedly, it is for him who did the injury, and not for me to be ashamed of it. That we may not accumulate more from profane authors, we have the opinion of Christ himself, Matt. v. 11, Blessed are ye when men shall revile you.

2. Should we grant that injury or contumely has been cast upon us, and that to do this is criminal ; nevertheless it by no means follows, that it is lawful to repel it by means of a duel: and that for these reasons ;

1. No one ought to be judge in his own cause; and, least of all, one who is disturbed with anger, violence, and the passion of revenge. Tertullian, De patient. says, What have I to do with a passion, which I cannot govern through impatience ?

2. Individuals do injury to God and his vicarious representative, the magistrate, when they seek to revenge themselves by private means. Vengeance is mine, and I will repay, saith the Lord, Deut. xxxii. 35; and Rom. xiii. 14, Paul says of the magistrate, He beareth not the sword in vain, But he would bear it in vain, if it was allowed to an individual to draw the sword at his own pleasure.

3. Duellists would punish every injury with the same punishment, namely, death ; which is not the judgment of a generous man, but of a madman. Now every punishment inflicted by one possessed of all his faculties, ought to be commensurate with the offence.

We shall conclude with the saying of Christ. Matt. xxvi. 52, All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword ; that is, as Augustine interprets it, Every one who without legitimate authority granted to him, or enjoining him so to do, shall arm himself against the life of any man, shall perish either by the sword of man, or that of Divine vengeance. From all these reasons it appears clear, that they are absolutely madmen, who follow the opinions of the many, renouncing the doctrine of Christ: so that they may retain the name of Gentlemen, they do not fear the title of homicide ; and, finally, so that they may avoid a suspicion of false infamy, they leap into the very pit of hell itself. Thus much of those virtues. which we practise towards such persons as are hostile and injurious to us: We next come to those which refer to all without distinction.

Verse 14.

The Apostle has exhorted the Colossians to put on meekness and long-suffering, and also to exercise these virtues: now he proceeds to advise them to put on charity also, which is the root, parent, and mistress, as well of these, as of all other virtues. This verse has two parts: the exhortation to put on charity ; and the commendation of charity, which contains the force of an argument for putting it on.

Above all these things charity.] First, let us consider this virtue of charity itself; secondly, its pre-eminence, or the prerogative which belongs to it. The Apostle speaks of charity towards one’s neighbour; this, however, is always to be understood to spring from love towards God. Now it is thus defined by Clemens Alexandrinus ; The extension of benevolence with just reason to the advantage of one’s neighbour. Strom. 2, But I am better pleased with the following definition: It isa virtue divinely infused, by which God is sincerely loved for his own sake, and one’s neighbour for God’s sake. For it is the same virtue of charity, which causes us to love God, and one’s neighbour under God and for God.

This love of charity is distinguished from every vicious love on account of its beginning. For charity flows from God, as a gift infused by the Holy Spirit into human hearts. Love is of God, 1 John iv. 7. God hath given to us the Spirit of love, 2 Tim. i. 7. Whence Prosper, De vita contempi. 3. 13, says, Charity is a regulated will united to God, enkindled by the fire of the Holy Spirit. But all vicious and inordinate love arises from the fountain of innate concupiscence : such is the love of the avaricious, the ambitious, the lustful; and, in one word, of all the wicked.

It is distinguished also on account of its order and its object. For charity arises from God whom it loves for himself: corrupt love springs from oneself. Charity proceeds to love one’s neighbour for the Lord’s sake ; corrupt love pretends to love one’s neighbour, but pursues one’s own advantage and pleasure. Therefore, they neither agree in order nor in object. But when it is said, Charity proceeds from God to one’s neighbour, it is by no means to be restricted to relatives, kinsmen, or our familiar friends; but is to be extended to men universally : for every man who is in want of our good offices, or our assistance, is our neighbour. Luke x.36. Hence Augustine, on Psalm cexviii. Cone. 8, says, Every man is neighbour to every man ; nor is the remoteness of family ties to be considered, where there is a common nature. With this view the Schoolmen say, Neighbour is to be understood not from nearness of blood, but fellowship in reason. Aquinas,Qusst. disp. de char. art. 7. But since we enlarged on this virtue of charity when treating the fourth verse of the first Chapter, we shall pass by the rest, and proceed with its pre-eminence. :

The Apostle intimates this prerogative of Charity when he says, éat vac) tovtos5, above all these, as the common translation renders it. In the figure the Apostle has taken up he seems to compare charity to some outward garment, which is worn over the others; to which comparison, however, we must attend not in regard to the order, as though charity was to be put on last of all the virtues before-mentioned ; but with regard to the comprehensiveness of the similitude.

1. As an outer garment is generally wider and larger than the rest ; so does charity exceed the before-mentioned virtues.

2. As that garment which is worn outermost is generally more beautiful and costly than the rest; so does charity among the other virtues shine like the moon among the stars.

3. As the ranks and degrees of men are generally distinguished by the outer garment; so charity serves to discriminate the true disciples of Christ and sons of God from false and pretended ones. So John xiii. 25, By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Calvin reads, on account of all these things put on charity. The Greek word em, signifies both over and because of (super et propter) : and either way serves to illustrate the excellence of charity. For if the Apostle has commanded them on account of all these virtues also to put on charity, he wished to shew that neither they nor their actions could subsist without charity.

For first, they have their truth, and, consequently, their value, from charity; as the Apostle says, 1 Cor. xiii. 3, Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Many marvellous properties are to be found in men, says Prosper, which without having the marrow of charity, put on the appearance of piety, but have not its reality. Epist. ad Ruffin. de lib. arbit.

Secondly, they have their actions from charity : for in those points which regard our neighbour, she is as it were the mistress of the other virtues, and causes them as her servants to perform her tasks. On this account their properties and actions are attributed to charity. Charity is long-suffering, &c. 1 Cor. xiii. 4, suffereth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things ; vers. 7, ib. This is what the Schoolmen mean when they tell us that charity produces the actions of all the other virtues, not elicitively, but imperatively.

Thirdly, they have their firmness and alacrity from charity. Whence Gregory (in cap. 28. Jobi) says, If any work be found destitute of charity, it is immediately taken away by the tempter. And Aquinas (Quest. disp. de charit. art. 2) remarks, that it is the peculiar property of charity, that an exercising the other acts of virtue, charity forces us to act voluntarily, promptly, with delight, and with firmness. On these accounts the Apostle assigns to charity the first place among the virtues, and admonishes us to put it on either above all these or on account of them all. We come now to that encomium or eulogy of charity expressed by the Apostle in these words,

The bond of perfectness] a figurative expression. For he calls it a bond from the similitude of the effect, since it joins and combines together things differing from one another; and from this connexion and conjunction springs perfectness. Some refer this perfection to the virtues, others, to the church. The former say charity is the bond of perfectness among virtues themselves ; since he who hath charity hath all the other virtues, and practises them; which the following Scriptures hint at; Rom. viii. 8, He who loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled the law. Galat. v. 14, All the law is fulfilled in one word, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Whence Cyprian says, In love, are combined all the volumes of the Scriptures. In this all religion is consummated. It is consequently called the bond of perfectness, since it joins and binds together the duties of all virtues : so that wherever true charity is, there is found the whole body and connexion as it were of all virtues. But when this sense is allowed, the Romanists fall upon us, and object;

If charity be the perfect fulfilling of the law, then does it justify: for they who perfectly fulfil the law are justified by the works of the law, yet this is impossible according to the Apostle, Rom. iii. 20.

We reply, the fulfilling of the law may be considered in a twofold sense, concerning the parts of the righteousness commanded, and concerning the degree. True charity fulfils the law in all its parts, but not in full degree. But justification is not had from the law unless it be fulfilled in both ways; each being included in the Divine command. We add this also, That charity if it be itself perfect, brings the perfect fulfilment of the law; for if the principle that operates be imperfect in any respect, the operations flowing from it must also be imperfect. Now we have the testimony of Augustine to shew that charity is imperfect in every mortal, Eqist. 29. ad Hiero. Entire charity exists in no individual as long as he lives here on earth : but that which as less than it ought to be, partakes of sin: from this sin there is no man free upon earth. This also Aquinas acknowledges, Quest. disp. de charit. art. 10.

But there are others who refer this perfection to the body of the church, and affirm that charity is the bond of perfectness in the church, since it unites her members one with another, and effects a community of mutual operations for the advantage and preservation of the whole. For as the perfection of the natural body arises from the union and connexion of the parts, so much so, that we account it halt and imperfect if they be torn away or separated: so the body of the church is considered perfect and entire, as all its members are held together by the bond of charity; but weak and imperfect if they should be drawn asunder by quarrelling and malice. In this sense, therefore, charity may be called the bond of perfectness. For the Apostle teaches, Rom. xii. 5, that the church is one body; and again, in Ephes. iv. 16, that this body zncreases, as far as it is Sitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working of every part. Nothing, therefore, prevents our admitting charity, in both respects, to be the bond of perfectness. These things being explained, we must point out some general corollaries or instructions which flow from the above. —

1. We hence learn to examine our acts of beneficence and mercy, in order to ascertain whether they flow from charity or not. Many persons impose upon themselves, and while they are dreaming that they perform acts of charity, are doing no more than works of vanity: we must, therefore, examine as to the moving principle, the order, the object, the intention, &c.

2. We may collect from the foregoing, that with however many virtues any one may seem to be adorned, he is not clothed as becomes a son of God or a true Christian, unless he shall have put on over the rest this garment of charity.

3. Hence also we see the reason why the before-mentioned virtues, mercy, humility, meekness, long-suffering, and others, appear so seldom in common life; namely, because their parent charity has perished, as it is said in Matt. xxiv. 12, Because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

Hence, lastly, we perceive that they who break the bonds of charity, and afford occasion for schism, rend the integrity and perfection of their mother the Church, and, as it were, dislocate and tear her limb from limb. “Thus much concerning charity.

Verse 15.

Ye have heard the Apostle’s exhortation to put on charity. He now exhorts to two other virtues, which are daughters, and, indeed, handmaids of charity; for they daily attend upon their mother, and cherish and preserve her. One of these virtues he calls peace, the other is gratitude.

As to the former, three things occur to be observed,

1. Whence this peace hath its origin: viz. from God: the peace of God, &c.

2. What is its office, viz. to rule and preside in human hearts : fpaftvéro.

3. What motives we have to render this duty of peace; viz. two: the ordinance of God; to which also ye are called, namely, by God: our mutual relation; because we are members of the same body.

The peace of God.] This peace is either internal, which we call peace of conscience; or external and brotherly, which we may call the peace of friendship. That former is established between God and the conscience of every individual whenever by faith he apprehends Christ, and the remission of his sins for Christ’s sake, and God reconciled and propitious to him. Hence says the Apostle, Rom. v. 1, Being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: and Ephes. 1. 14, He is our peace. This peace cannot have its origin from any other source than God: and hence it is named the peace of God, Phil. iv. 7, The peace of God which passeth all understanding, &c. The latter subsists among neighbours, and arises from charity ; and the Apostle has respect in this place principally to this. Now this peace especially denotes that affection of the heart which inclines it to love and seek concord, and to procure and preserve it by all means: although he may also design the external effect, that is, a peaceful state of all things among Christians, which is wont to arise from that peaceable inclination. “This peace in either respect is also from God. That peaceable affection is by the inspiration of God ; and the effect, or that happy and peaceful course of all things in the Church, is from the blessing of God. Isa. xlv. 7 ; and Ixvi. 12; Galat. v. 22.*

Let it rule in. your hearts, BpaBevétw ’ev vais xaupdioas jv. Some render this, let it bear the palm; others more aptly (as it seems to me) let it command, rule, or moderate. For the Apostle would intimate, that this is the duty of this virtue, to act as an umpire or steward amongst the other affections: for so the word Beaévew signifies. When, therefore, (as is often the case) the unruly affections of wrath, hatred, and revenge rise in our hearts, this peace of God ought to discharge its office, that is, put an end to the contentions, as the umpire of the games, take away the occasions thereof, compose their tumultuous affections, and restore all things to peace.³¹

But it is also to be noted, that the Apostle does not simply direct that the peace of God should rule, but that it should rule in our hearts; in the heart, not in the mouth only, not in the countenance. For many pretend to the desire of peace in words and look, who inwardly cherish wrath and hatred: whose words are soft, whilst war is in their heart ; they are softer than oil, although they be drawn swords, as says the Psalmist, lv. 21. Nazianzen also, Orat. 12, complains, Peace is extolled by all, but it is followed by few, If then this peace truly flourishes in our hearts, and performs its office, it will incline and draw all to concord, as well the offending as the offended: the offending, whilst it keeps wrathful elation from them; the offended, whilst it removes inexorable obstinacy from them : it makes the former humble, and ready to give satisfaction; the latter easy, and kind to forgive. This is the office of this steward.

To the which ye also are called in one body. Me now shews what incentives we have to perform this duty of peace.

The former; Because we are called to peace: i. e. Because Christ our Leader and Saviour has not only by his auspices established peace between us and God; but he hath called Jews and Gentiles, and so the whole world, to cultivate peace with one another, by having called them into his Church. This is clear,

1. Because this peace is foretold in many places by all the prophets. Is. ii. 4, and xi. 6, and Ixv. 12; So Mich. iv. 35 Zech. ix. 10.

2. Because this peace is enjoined upon all who are called and chosen into the family of God, that is, the Church, by the commands of God and of Christ. Have peace one with another, Mar. ix. 50. Let us follow after the things which make for peace, Rom. xiv. 19. — Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, Ephes. iv. 3.

3. Because this peace was observed and maintained by the primitive Church with all earnestness. The multitude — . that believed were of one heart and of one soul. Acts iv. 32.

4. Lastly, this peace being violated, subverts the Church which Christ would have to be perpetual. For a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand : but, like as when many draw a cord in different directions, if it break, they both fall the more heavily on either hand; so when the Church is agitated by strifes, detriment and loss come upon all.

e Domestic rents the people’s weal disturb ;

Internal discords fail of peace abroad :

ecco eso Tor nought unsociable is firm.

Prudent. in Psychom.

Thus much of the former incitement derived from the appointment of God. But there is an additional incitement to the cultivation of peace, because not only are we called thereto by the Divine appointment, but we are moreover bound to it by a certain mystical relation, which the Apostle denotes in these words,

In one body.] They who are citizens of the same republic, are mutually called upon and bound to keep the peace; yet are they only united in one body politically: but they who are members of the Church, are united in one body supernaturally and mystically, so that they all depend upon one Head, and are quickened and informed* as it were by one Spirit. This we are taught by the Apostle, Rom. xii. 4, 5, and 1 Cor. xii. 12, 25, 26, where he infers that there ought to be no difference between the members of the same body, but the greatest harmony of spirit and sympathy.³²³³

Now, from what hath been said concerning the origin of peace, its office, and the incentives to it, these instructions arise :

From the Author God, the peace of God.

1. That the peace of God rules among all those in whom the God of peace dwells: and on the other hand, they who reject this peace of God, thrust out the God of peace himself. Thus speaks the Apostle, 2 Cor. xiii. 11, Live in peace, and the God of love and peace shall be with you.

2. Whatever of religion and holiness, therefore, schismatics pretend to, they promote the cause of the devil, not of God. For he is the author and the sower of discord: But the true God, is the God of peace, 1 Cor. xiv. 33.

3. A union, or rather a confederacy, to assail the godly, extinguish the Gospel, and disseminate errors, is not a a mark of the Church: because there is not among them the peace of God, but the peace of the devil; such subsisted between Herod and Pilate; such is preserved among the very devils. In vain do the Romanists, therefore, boast of this union as among the marks of their Church. These instruetions are derived from the origin of peace.

From the office ; rule in your hearts.

1. This peaceable disposition ought to prevail in all others, and to exercise as it were a regal power over them.

1. They who are opposed to this, are to be seized, restrained, and as it were put in chains, as rebels against their king. Of this kind are wrath, envy, hatred, and the other pests of human happiness and tranquillity.

3. Let counterfeit benevolence, pretended love, hypocritical reconciliation, be far from a Christian man; for charity and peace ought to hold the sway in his heart, not to play merely in his countenance or his words.

From the incentives; £o the which also ye are called in one body.

1. They who disturb the peace of the Church are unmindful of their vocation, and despisers of the Divine appointment. For they whom God hath called and gathered together into his Church, the same he commands to dwell together, as it were in unanimous brotherhood, in their paternal house.

2. However they, who are the cause and the heads of factions and dissentions, flatter themselves, and seem to themselves to be lords, they are of all men the most miserable, because they are most hateful to God. These six things doth the Lord hate, yea, seven are an abomination to him, Prov. vi. 16. Now Solomon puts in the seventh place, he who soweth discord among brethren, vers. 19.

3. He who violates peace, is not only hurtful to others, but to himself. For no member of an uniform body is injured, but it occasions detriment to the whole : Since therefore, we are all members of the same body, he who tears and injures another, does the same as if any one by his own hand should beat and wound another member of his own body.

4: They who are pleased at the discords and evils of others, are either stupid members, or indeed not at all members of this one body, the head of which is Christ, and into the society of which all the godly are called. Thus much concerning peace.

And be ye thankful.] This is that other virtue to which the Apostle exhorts, namely, gratitude; which Cicero called, in Orat. pro Cn. Plane, not only the greatest of all the other virtues, but the mother of them. Now this gratitude is required as well in regard to God, as in regard to men.

We ought to be thankful to God; because without gratitude there can be no spiritual blessings within us. For since every spiritual blessing depends upon a certain perpetual influx of Divine grace, ingratitude is that infernal bar which interrupts the flow and the course of the Divine goodness. Therefore we ought to be thankful, lest we should be deprived of all our gifts. But gratitude to God is joined with peace in this place, because our gratitude towards him especially appears in this, if we cultivate peace religiously; ingratitude, if we violate it. Forasa mendicant and vagrant taken into a royal family, shews himself grateful, if he endeavours with all his might to adorn and defend the royal house; but on the contrary, proves himself ungrateful, if he aims to fill the same with enmities, and to rend it asunder by factions: so miserable mortals and outcasts called and chosen into the Church (which is the house of God), render themselves grateful to God their Lord, by living in the same peacefully ; but appear as ungrateful by separating and rending it in pieces with dissentions. On this account therefore, the Apostle subjoined, And be ye thankful, namely, towards God, by whom ye are called into one body.

But gratitude towards men is also required, that peace may be kept inviolate: because troubles and enmities sometimes arise, as well from kindnesses not duly repaid, as from injuries inflicted. Which we perceive in the example of Nabal, 1 Saml. xxv. ; who by his ingratitude so exasperated the mind of David, that unless the prudence and humanity of Abigail had relieved him, that ungrateful man and his whole family would have been ruined. The : Apostle truly thinks this the worst and most pernicious vice, which he numbers with the worst and most pernicious vices in 2 Tim. iii. 2. ,

Instructions;

1. If we would have God to remain kind to us, we ought to shew ourselves thankful to him, and grateful for the benefits conferred upon us.

2. The best proof that we can give of our gratitude is that we obey the Divine will. The chief of gratitude, says Clemens, is to do what is agreeable to the pleasure of God. Strom. 7.

3. Those benefitted by kindnesses, are bound by the Divine command (if occasion offers) to return thanks to their benefactors not in mere words, but in reality. We have the example of Joshua towards the harlot Rahab, Josh. vi. 23; of David towards the sons of Barzillai, 1 Kings il. 7, &c. Therefore they are to be blamed, and scarcely to be looked upon as men, who not only neglect returning kindnesses to their friends from whom they have received benefits; but, lest they should seem to acknowledge that they owe any gratitude, load them oft-times with injuries and reproaches. Such were the men of Keilah towards David, 1 Saml. xxiii. 12. Such also was the conduct of Hanun, 2 Sam. x. 4. Such that of the Jews towards Christ himself. So many examples of this ingratitude occur in common life, that the poet was not afraid to go so far as to say, He whose life is preserved to him is naturally ungrateful.

Vers. 16.

Because it would be an endless task to exhort to particular virtues and duties of piety one by one, the Apostle would make his address compendious: This could best be done, in referring them to an absolute and perfect rule of virtue and of every duty: that he therefore does by referring them to the word of Christ.

There are two parts in this verse. In the former he excites them to the study and knowledge of the Scriptures, Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, &c. In the latter, to the due use of the same, teaching and admonishing, &c.

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, in all wisdom.] In these words it is proper to observe,

]l. The matter or object of our study to which we are called by the Apostle; and that is the word of Christ, namely, the Gospel, or the doctrine of the Scriptures. The Gospel in a certain special manner is called the word of Christ, because it was revealed and preached by Christ himself clothed with flesh ; and because it reveals and declares to us that eternal decree of God concerning Christ our Saviour and Mediator: Luke iv. 18; Rom. i. 3, In either respect, both of author and of matter, the Gospel is called the word of Christ. But the whole Scripture may also be called the word of Christ for the same reasons. For before his incarnation, Christ, by his Spirit, inspired the patriarchs and prophets; as it is said 2 Pet. i. 21, The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Yea, the Aoyos itself was the eternal Son of God, who under the old Testament appeared to Moses, and instructed and established him in sacred things; as Tertullian contends, De Trin. Advers. Jud. Advers. Marcion, et alibi. Moreover, the Scriptures of the Old Testament no less than those of the New, speak and testify concerning Christ : This the Saviour asserts concerning the Old Testament, Search the Scriptures ; for they are they which testify of me, John v. 39. “Therefore, the object of this our study isthe the whole word of God; because the whole word of God is the word of Christ.

2. We must observe the mode of exercise in this study of the Scriptures: which the Apostle most fully expresses in three words :

“Evoxsíro, Let it dwell in you] that is, Do not suffer the word of God, as a stranger, to stand without; but let it enter into the chamber of your heart, and constantly abide in your minds, no otherwise than as domestics dwell in the house; yea, let it be no less known and familiar to you, than they are wont to be who dwell with you.

IDoveío;, richly, or abundantly] that is, Do not only cull some little particle, but turn over the whole Scriptures, prophets, apostles, evangelists; in a word, receive the whole doctrine revealed from heaven. Besides, admit the whole within you ; into the mind, the memory, the affections, the life: in fine, let there be no part of you in which the word of God does not dwell.

“E» mae copia, in all wisdom] that is, If ye apply to the word of God, that from thence ye may seek and learn all saving wisdom ; namely, perfect knowledge, as well of the things to be believed, as of those to be done, in what is ordained for life eternal. This, then, is to be the aim of our study, that we be instructed in all saving wisdom out of the storehouse of the Scriptures.

Hence we derive these instructions :

1. It is the duty of pastors to call and excite the people to the constant reading and meditation of the Scriptures : it is the duty of the people to obey such exhortations.

2. They grievously sin who excite Christian people to the knowledge of human traditions and fables; in the mean time forbidding them, as a thing full of danger, the reading of either Testament, that is, of the Divine word.

3. The word of God ought not only to be publicly preached in the temples, but to be read and heard in private houses.

4. In the word of God is contained the treasure of all wisdom necessary to salvation.

5. All, even the laics, should labour to obtain an understanding and full knowledge of Divine things.

6. That implied knowledge³⁴ which the Papists would have to be sufficient for the laity, is the offspring of laziness, the mother of impiety, not of devotion.

Therefore, the decree of the Council of Trent, and received opinion of the Papists, by which they deny that the Scriptures ought to be had in the vernacular tongue, or that the study of the Scriptures is to be required from the laity, may be refuted from this passage : nay, they affirm, that it is more safe for them to be restrained from reading the Scriptures, and is sufficient for them to regulate their course of life by the direction of their Pastors alone.³⁵ But the contrary opinion (which is ours, and the same as the Apostles) we shall shew can be confirmed, the sources of our argument being indicated,

1. From the command of God, who commands the study of the Scriptures not only to the clergy but to the people, and so to all who live in the Church; Deut. xi. 185-19.

2. From the intention of God ; who would have the doctrine of salvation to be delivered in writing, to the intent that it might be accessible to all, John xx. 31, and Rom. xv. 4.³⁶

3. From the commendation of all those who have applied themselves to the reading of the Scriptures. The eunuch is commended Acts vill. 28; the Bereans, Acts xvii. 11: yea, all are pronounced blessed who become assiduous in the study of the Scriptures, Ps. i.

4. From the case of the Apostles ; who, as they preached publicly the mysteries of salvation to the people, so also, by their Epistles, they recommended the whole doctrine to be read by the same. For it is most absurd for any one to say that what was heretofore written as much to the people as to the clergy, is not now proper to be read by the people. We may instance the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians. . 5. From the utility and necessity of this study. By the reading of the Scriptures men are enlightened and converted, Ps. xix. 8, 9. They are directed as by the most faithful counsellors, in all the ways of life, Ps. cxix. 24. They are armed against the fiery darts of Satan, Ephes. vi.

6. From the unanimous consent of all the Fathers ; who exhort the laity to the private reading of the Seriptures, and testify that the Scriptures were publicly read in ecclesiastical assemblies, not in an unknown tongue, but in a language understood by the people. Justin Martyr, Apolog. 2. ad Anton. near the end, and Tertullian in Apologet. testify, that the Scriptures were publicly read to the edification and understanding of the people. And B. Rhenanus, in Annotat. to Tertullian’s book De corona militis, says, I wish that custom could be restored to us, &c.³⁷

As to the private reading of the Scriptures: Jerome, ad Demetriad. de virginit. servanda ; Chrysostom, Horn. ], and 2 in Matt. and Horn. 3, de Lazaro, and Horn. 9, in Coloss. ; Augustine, Enarr. in Psal. 33, and Epist. i. ad Volusian.; ‘ Damascenus, De orthod. fide, lib. 4. cap. 18.; Theodoret, De curand. Grzc. atfect. lib. S, not far from the beginning ; all advise it. To these I add two testimonies of Count Mirandula :³⁸ the former is drawn from the Preface to his Heptaplum; A4 the Israelitish multitude, cobblers, cooks, dealers, shepherds, servants, maidens, to all whom the law was delivered to be read, could not bear the burden of the whole Mosaic wisdom. The latter testimony is extracted from his Exposit. orat. Domin. The Evangelical history ought to be continually read by every Christian man.

You may see the arguments, by which Bellarmin and other Papists endeavour to take away the reading of the Scriptures from the people, refuted by Whitaker of blessed memory in 1 controv. De sacra Script. quest. 2. cap. 11, and shewn to be altogether sophistical and nugatory: For from the abuse of the Scriptures, they infer that the use itself is to be denied to the people, in this manner,³⁹⁴⁰

1. Some of the laity, by reading the Scriptures, fall into absurd heresies; some into contempt of the Scriptures ; some, either into contempt of the saints, or a pernicious imitation of them, when they read of their adulteries, lying, and things of that kind: therefore, the laity are to be restrained from the Scriptures.

If this kind of argument were good, God, Christ, and the Apostles have sinned, who would have the word of God proclaimed to all indiscriminately, notwithstanding many abused them to their hurt, 2 Pet. iii. 16. Besides, on this ground, the reading of the Scriptures should be denied equally to the clergy and the laity: for they also ofttimes shamefully abuse the Scriptures. For who does not — know that almost all the heresies have sprung, not from the laity and seculars, but from bishops, presbyters, and monks? We have almost as many testimonies, as names of heretics. Lastly, the argument is inconclusive ; many laics have abused the Scriptures, therefore they are to be taken away from them indiscriminately: Let the abuse be taken away ; or at least, let the Scriptures be denied to those, concerning whom it appears that they read with a perverted mind. For, as Tertullian rightly observes, lib. ]. ad ver. Marcion, There is much difference between the cause and the fault, between the state and the excess. Not the institution of a good thing, but the misuse of it is to be reprobaled.⁴¹

Bellarmin here adds two testimonies from the most noted of the Fathers.

One is of Basil; who checked the steward of the Emperor’s kitchen, impertinently prating about dogmas of faith, with this rebuke, I¢ is thy business to provide porridge, not to serve up Divine eloquence.

I answer; He did not recal him by the rebuke from the study or the reading of the Scriptures; but restrained his pride and folly, who, when he was unskilful, thought that he could teach and refute Basil, the teacher of the world, and determine concerning the most weighty controversies of theology. Who would not confess this was a just reproof?

The other is drawn from Jerome’s epistle to Paulinus, where he thus writes:

eves What is the duty of Physicians,

Physicians undertake; artifcers confine themselves to their

work : The knowledge of the Scriptures is alone what all claim to themselves, The prating old woman, the drivelling old man, the wordy sophist, all presume upon, twist, teach this, before that they know it, &c.

We answer, he does not reprehend the laity because they read the Scriptures ; but blames all, of whatever rank, who presume to teach and interpret the Scriptures, and undertake as it were the theological office, when they are either altogether ignorant of the Scriptures, or have been only slightly conversant with the first principles of the same. We also confess this to be intolerable audacity. That this is the meaning of Jerome is plain, because elsewhere he commends every way the study and the reading of the Scriptures by the laity, and on this very passage of the Apostle which we have now under consideration, he thus writes ; It is here shewn that the luity ought not only to possess the word of Christ sufficiently, but even abundantly. These remarks concerning the first part of this verse, in which he excites to the study of the Scriptures, may suffice.

Teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts unto the Lord.] In the preceding words he excited the Oolossians to the study and knowledge of the Scriptures; now he shews the manifold use of scriptural knowledge.

1. The first use is, that Christians (even laics) should mutually teach and instruct one another in things pertaining to the faith; and what knowledge they procured to themselves from the Scriptures, they should employ to edify their brethren when needful. For although the business of teaching publicly with authority rests upon ministers; yet the duty of teaching privately out of charity, is incumbent upon every private person, to whom the faculty and the occasion is granted of edifying others in faith and religion. Thus parents are bound to teach their children, Deut. xi. 19; Psal. lxxviii.5. This is commended in Abraham, Gen. xviii. 19. So husbands should teach their wives ; If the women will learn any thing, let them. ask their husbands at home, 1 Cor. xiv. 35. This, in fine, every brother should teach his brother: as we read Apollos was instructed in the doctrine of the Gospel by Aquila and Priscilla, Acts xxviii. 26. There is an inward desire in all, says Clemens, of generating its own: in natural men indeed of generating men only ; but in the pious and faithful of generating pious and faithful men. Now this is done by imparting to them the doctrine of the Gospel. 1 Cor. iv. 15.

We hence learn,

1. That it behoves the laity, not only to aim at their own edification, but also their neighbour’s.

2. The Papists grievously err, who scarcely permit the laics (especially those who are in a humble condition) to speak about the Scriptures, and the things pertaining to Religion; whereas Paul exhorts them mutually to teach one another n these things.

3. A knowledge of the Scriptures is to be employed, not out of vain ostentation, not for sophistical skirmishing, not for ridiculous and profane trifling, but for our advantage and that of our brother. Thus much of the first use.

Qe Admonishing, vouSerouvteg.] This is the second use, and relates to manners. The Apostle, then, wishes that Christians imbued with the knowledge of the Scriptures, should from thence derive the rule of manners ; and (when it is necessary) advise their brethren according to it, about the exercise of virtues, the avoiding of faults, and breaking off their sins. For this duty of mutual admonition and correction devolves upon all the pious. J will teach sinners thy ways, &c. Psal. li. 13. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart; thou shalt tn any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him, Levit. xix. 17; If any man obey not our word by this Epistle,— yet count him not as an enemy, — but admonish him as a brother, 2 Thess. ii. 14, 15. They who neglect this even participate in other men’s sins: Eor truly says’ Prosper, De vita contemplat. 3. 28, I sin among all sinners, when from a certain cruel malignity of mind I do not reprove them whom I know to have sinned, or to sin. The Schoolmen lay down many conditions of legitimate correction. In correcting or admonishing another, they require aptitude for correction, meekness in correcting, a certain knowledge of the fault, a probable hope of the amending of the offender, suitability of the time, and weight of offence. But the Scriptures require before all other things, charity and meekness in instructing and admonishing brethren. Jf any one be overtaken in a fault, ye who are spiritual restore such a man in the spirit of meekness, Gal. vi. 1. To this that rule of Augustine in Expos. epist, ad Gal. has respect: The office of reproving another’s sin is never to be undertaken, unless our conscience shall clearly answer before God, that we do it from love : for whatever you shall say with bitterness of spirit, is the attack of one who punishes, not the charity of a corrector.

Corollaries.

1. A true Christian not only directs his own ways according to the commands of God, but, as far as in him lies, those also of his brethren. That diabolical speech of Cain, (Gen. iv. 9) therefore, never comes into his mind; Am I my brother’s keeper? . 2. That haughtiness which is wont to bear any correction or brotherly admonition with an evil mind, is to be rejected ; for it is the direct road to destruction, as Solomon forewarns, Prov. xxix. 1.

3. These mutual admonitions are more grateful to the godly and prudent, than flatteries are to fools: He that rebuketh a man, afterwards shall find more favour than he that flattereth with the tongue, Prov. xxvii. 23. Thus much of the other use of the Scriptures, in admonishing.

3. In psalms, and hymus, and spiritual songs, singing, &c.] This is the third use of the Scriptures, and regards the celebration of the Divine name, and our mutual comfort. Some join these words, psalms, and hymus, and spiritual songs, with those preceding, teaching and admonishing one another. But others, and with not less probability, with those following, singing unto the Lord, namely, in psalms, &c. The point is of little moment: For if they are referred to the preceding, they are not to be understood as though the materials of teaching and admonishing were to be derived from psalms and hymns alone; but the Apostle thereby wished to intimate, that even when we mean to promote hilarity, we ought to be mindful of mutual edification and utility.

As to the understanding of the words themselves : psalms (as it seems to Jerome) are what treat of morality, and shew what is to be done, and what avoided ; hymns, what set forth the greatness and the majesty of God, and extol his goodness and his works; songs or odes, those which artificially unfold the harmony of the world and the order of all creatures. Beza on this passage speaks somewhat differently: he calls psalms whatever verses are written with various arguments (which among the Hebrews are termed mizmorim) : he calls those hymus, which contain the praises of God only (which the Hebrews call tehillim) ; those songs or odes, which are peculiar and more artificial, which also embrace the same praises, but in a certain form more august than psalms or hymns (which the Hebrews call schirim). The Apostle would have us to entertain and promote our hilarity by these, according to that direction of St. James, v. 13, If any be merry, let him sing psalms. But in these psalms and hymns, or songs of believers, four conditions are required :—

1. That they must be spiritual] and that in a twofold respect; as well in regard to the origin, as in regard to the matter. As to the origin: like as Moses, David, and others, under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, composed and sang their hymns, psalms, and songs; so we, whether we sing the same or others, ought to do it by the influence and direction of the Holy Spirit. That the psalms and hymns of the godly flow as it were from the primary author, is gathered from Ephes. v. 18, 19, Be not drunk with wine, says the Apostle, but he filled with the Spirit: Speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, &c. . As though he had said, As wine is wont to excite the drunkards to foolish, silly, and lascivious airs; so does the Spirit inspire the godly to psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs. We have examples in the New Testament, of the blessed Virgin, Zacharias, and Simeon: and also in the primitive Church, certain of the holy fathers composed hymns, remains of which we retain even to this day. These psalms, hymns, and songs are also spiritual as to the matter: For they treat of spiritual things, relating to the glory of God and our salvation ; not of secular, vain, and earthly matters. “This is the first condition.

2. They must be sung with grace.] Some explain grace in this passage to mean gratitude, or thanksgiving, The word grace is sometimes taken in this sense. In 1 Cor. xv. 57, But thanks, xapis, be to God, who giveth us the victory ; and in 2 Cor. ii. 14, But thanks, xapis, be to God, who always causeth us to triumph in Christ. Gratitude is not improperly joined to songs; because we are for the most part moved to sing in joyous and prosperous circumstances, in which condition the affection of gratitude is binding and plainly necessary. But others explain these words with grace, with a certain gracious affability, which conveys both pleasure and utility to the hearers: so that what Horace says concerning ° poets, the same may be said of these spiritual songs,

They would both profit and delight. In this same sense the word grace, xapis, is sometimes taken, as afterwards in Chap. iv. vers. 6, Let your speech be always with grace, ’ev xaprri; and in Ephes. iv. 29 ; Let your speech be such, as shall minister grace to the hearers.

3. They must be sung in their hearts] that is, from the inmost affection of the heart: for he does not exclude the voice, but advises that the affection of the heart be always joined with the voice. And rightly indeed is a certain ardent motion required in the heart itself by the Apostle : for the action of singing declares as it were the internal exultation of the heart. He therefore acts the hypocrite, who sings with the heart asleep. Hence the Royal Psalmist, when he addresses himself to sing. not only tunes his voice to the harp, but his heart in preference to either and before either. My heart is fixed, O God, my heart is fixed: I will sing and give praise unto the Lord. Awake up my glory ; awake, psaltery and harp, &c. Psal. lvii. 7, 8. So the blessed Virgin, Luke i. 46, 47, My soul doth magnify the Lord; and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. The exultation of the heart, therefore, preceded; whereupon the tongue brake forth into that divine song. Hence Bernard, in his Serm. 52 De modo bene vivendi, says, When in the presence of God you sing psalms and hymns, revolve in your mind what you sing with your voice; do not think one thing, and sing another.

4. They must be sung unto the Lord] namely, to Christ the Saviour, our God and our Lord. The songs of Christians ought not to aim at promoting dissoluteness or gain ; but to be employed in celebrating the praises of Christ the Redeemer. We do not without cause celebrate Christ as true God in hymns, when the heathen are accustomed to extol their false and senseless gods, Jupiter, Neptune, Apollo, and the rest, in hymns: in this retaining, indeed, a right opinion, because they judged this spiritual worship to be rendered to the divine nature; but yet erring most perniciously in that they enrolled these monsters of men in the calendar of gods. That there was a yearly custom of the primitive church, to sing hymns in their assemblies to Christ the Lord, is collected from that epistle of Pliny the Second to the Emperor Trajan, which is still extant, Lib. 10. epist 97, in which he writes, that the Christians were accustomed on a particular day to meet before light, and to sing together by turns a hymn to Christ as God. Of which epistle, and also of the manner of the Christians in worshipping Christ, Tertullian, in his Apologet, and Eusebius in Hist. eccl. lib. 3, cap. 30, make mention. But here it is ^^ proper to advise by the way, That when we assert that Christ our Lord is to be extolled in hymns, we do not exclude the Father or the Holy Spirit, nay, we call them into a participation of the same honour: for he who estols, Christ the Redeemer, at the same time extols both the Father, who sent him to redeem the world ; and the Holy Spirit, who renders this redemption efficacious to all the elect and believers.

Corollaries.

1. The custom of singing is useful, and is to be adopted in the assemblies of Christians, as well in public as in private. For it has (as you see) the approbation of the Apostles ; and also that of the more antient Fathers; of Justin Martyr, in Quest. a Gentibus positis, quest. 107: of Augustine, Confess. lib. 9, cap. 6 and 7; and lib. 10, cap. 33 : in which places this same seems to have been the opinion of Ambrose and Athanasius.

2. Itisso to be performed, that they who hear may from thence derive spiritual pleasure and edification. Therefore, farewell to all nugatory, and much more to impure sons: farewell to the superstitious bawlings of the Papists, who bellow out psalms in their temples, but in an unintelligible language, and with so much noise and tumult, that if they should use a vernacular language, yet no one would perceive what is sung by them.

3. In singing psalms it ought to be the especial care of a Christian, that his heart be rightly affected: they who neglect this, may perhaps please men by an artificial sweetness of voice, but they will displease God by an odious impurity of the heart. Against such, that saying of Bernard may be turned, De interiori dome, cap. 50, You sing that you may please the people more than God: you tune the voice; tune the will: you keep the harmony of sounds, keep also the concord of manners.

4. What things are done for cheerfulness and relaxation of the mind by Christians, ought to be of such a kind, as are agreeable to Christ and the Christian religion: we must therefore detest the madness of those who cannot be cheerful without the reproach of Christ and the ridicule of religion.

Vers. 17.

The Apostle in this verse annexes a clause to his general exhortation ; in which is contained most wholesome advice, and most efficacious to regulate our life in holiness and the fear of God. But lest we should seem to follow no method in handling this verse, we shall propound two things to be considered : the matter to be regulated, or the object of the rule; and the rule itself laid down by the Apostle.

1. Whatsoever ye do in word or deed.] You perceive here the matter about which that rule which presently follows ought to be exercised; namely, all our words, and all our deeds: In which distribution also even the thoughts of the mind are comprehended ; for there are those deeds of the inner man, no less than those which meet the senses of the outer man.

And first as to our discourse or our words, they all indeed (if we would wish to be accounted Christians) ought to be subject to a certain rule. For truly says James i. 26, If any man seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, this man’s religion is vain. Hence also the Psalmist, xii. 4, attributes an unrestrained tongue to those who have cast off all fear of God ; They say, With our tongues will we prevail, our lips are our own; who is Lord over us? Hence, lastly, it is that the tongue of the glutton is read of as being most bitterly tormented in hell; namely, because it was unwilling to be regulated and restrained in this world. For thus, observes Cyprian, Lib. 1. epist. 3, Among all parts of the body, the mouth and the tongue of Dives endure the greatest punishment ; because forsooth by his mouth and his tongue he had most sinned. Which also Gregory remarks, Moral 1. cap.5, Because at feasts babbling is mostly wont to issue, the punishment indicates the guilt, when he affirms that he who feasted splendidly every day, burned most in his tongue. It is evident, therefore, that the tongue, or our discourse, must be conformed to a rule.

Now as to the works, whether external or internal; they ought without doubt to be conformed to his rule: for if we must speak according to rule, then much more must we work. The actions of all creatures are performed according to a prescribed rule: human actions, therefore, ought much more to be subject to rule. - Those axioms are known and approved by all: Every work of nature is the work of intelligence ; all nature works as if actuated by the mind of some infallible agent. Yea, we see not only brute animals, but the very elements, perform as well as intermit all their operations at the command and the good pleasure of God their Creator. From which, as it were a fortiori, it is concluded, that all human actions must be directed after the rule of the Divine will. And thus much concerning the matters to be regulated ; which is whatever we do, in word, or deed. Now let us consider the rule proposed in this place. ,

2. And it consists in two particulars. The former advises how we should conduct ourselves towards Christ ; namely, so, that we do all things in his name. The latter, how to behave towards God ; namely, so as to give thanks in all things to God the Father. We shall discuss these two branches of the proposed rule separately.

Do all things in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.] That iis said /o be done in the name of Christ, which is done through his assistance, according to his command and will, and for the promotion of his glory. All these things the Scripture is wont to comprise in this form of speaking, and the Apostle in this passage seems to have wished to comprise them all. For so this phrase is every where employed, as well in the Old as in the New Testament. Thus Psal. xliv. 6, In thy name will we tread under our enemies ; that is, by thy help. Psal. xxxi. 3, For thy name’s sake lead me, &c. that is, for thy glory. Luke x. 17, The devils are subject unto thy name; that is, by thy invocation; by thy aid. Matt. xviii. 20, Where two or three are gathered together in my name; that is, by my command, imploring my help, for my sake, to advance my doctrine and glory. You see what it is to do all things in the name of Christ : Now it remains, that we briefly shew, that all things are to be thus done in the name of Christ.

As to good actions which are done immediately in reference to God and our salvation; it is certain, that nothing can either be done, or said, or thought, that is good by us, unless it be done in the name of Christ, that is, according to the will of Christ, and by the assistance and invocation of Christ, and for the glory of Christ. J can do all things, says the Apostle, through Christ who strengtheneth me, Phil. iv. 3, We are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, 2 Cor. iii. 5. Most truly said Augustine, Soliloq, cap. 24, 25, It is not of man to wish what he can, or to effect what he may wish, or to know what he would wish or would do; but the ways of man are directed by God. Now God governs us by Christ: we ought therefore to do all things relying upon the grace and assistance of Christ the Mediator.

This likewise is evident, That all our good actions must be referred to the glory of Christ. For if they are done with any other end, although they may seem good as to the external appearance, yet they become bad on account of the perverse intent: For the end determines the quality in morals, say the Schoolmen. Hence John, Revel. v. 13, Every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, &c. heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. Hither ought all our good actions to .have respect; otherwise, as Augustine has well said, contra Julian, lib. 4. cap. 3, Whatever good is done, and is not done for the end for which it ought to be done, although it seems to be good in the performance, yet the final cause itself not being the right one, it is sin.

But also those actions which are indifferent in their nature, yet ought to be done by Christians in the name of Christ, that is (as we have explained it) according to the will of Christ, and for the glory of Christ. For although any one may eat, drink, and perform other such like actions as an animal or a man, Christ being neither invoked . nor thought upon; yet he cannot do these things at all as becometh a Christian, unless by Christ.

The reasons are these ; ]

1. We have no right to these creatures unless in Christ : therefore he is guilty of theft who, receiving things belonging to another against the will of God, takes to himself, in his own name, the creatures to his use: For a// things are ours when we are Christ’s, 1 Cor. iii. 22, 23. Therefore, although a civil authority is acquired by other modes; yet that evangelical authority, which gives us the faculty of using the creatures without injury to God, depends upon Christ.

2. Because, although we might have a right to the creatures without Christ; yet they are not blessed by God, nor sanctified to our use, without Christ. Therefore on this account there is need of invoking the name of Christ, and the influence of Christ with his Father. For what the Apostle says concerning meats, 1 Tim.iv. 5, They are sanctified by the word of God and prayer, that also is to be accommodated to all the other creatures: but the efficacy of prayer depends upon the name of Christ.

3. Because we are bound, even in things and actions indifferent in their nature, for instance, in food, and clothing, and other things of that kind, to retain that mode, and yield to those circumstances, which accord with the Christian doctrine and profession: we ought not therefore to eat, nor drink, nor clothe our bodies, not to use relaxation and lawful pleasure, nor to labour or work in our vocation, for our own will and pleasure; but at the will and for the pleasure of our Lord Christ. He who acts in this manner, acts in the name of Christ, and for the glory of God; and he observes that Apostolic precept, Whether ye eat or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God : 1 Cor. x. 31.

But here it may be asked, Whether a Christian is bound in every action expressly to implore the help of Christ, to flee to the grace and mediation of Christ, and, in fine, to regard the glory of Christ in actual thought in every business.

We answer, This actual contemplation, whether concerning the help, or the grace, or the glory of Christ, is not either possible or necessary to us for the condition of this life; but it is necessary that there be in exercise a fixed and as it were a rooted purpose in our hearts, of depending upon Christ, and referring the actions of our whole life to Christ. But we must also add, That it is the best thing, as often as it can be done, to raise our thoughts actually to Christ in all our doings: moreover it is fit and necessary, that we do that as often as the nature of the action which we undertake and transact requires it; as when the matter is of a sacred character, or of great importance to our salvation.

Instructions.

1. The vulgar are deceived whilst they judge it to be lawful to themselves to use food, clothing, speech, or any indifferent thing whatever of their own will: for all these things must be used according to rule ; otherwise, although there be no evil in the thing itself, yet there will be in the person using it.

2. They who desire to maintain a right course of life, and to order their actions well, ought to have respect to Christ as to their polar-star. .

3. No action is to be attempted by us to the performance of which we dare not implore the aid of Christ, and which we do not judge to be pleasing and acceptable to God for Christ’s sake, at least not to be displeasing and abominable. Let the avaricious, the lustful, the drunken, and indeed all the wicked, hence judge of their actions.

4. We should not attempt even good actions relying upon our own strength, but resting upon Divine aid, and the mediation of Christ.

5. They abuse the name of Christ, who employ it for those things which tend to the reproach, not to the glory of Christ. Here the Papists sin grievously, who are wont to exercise all their superstitions, to obtrude all their errors in the name of Christ ; they are not much unlike those indeed, who assume the name of Christ when they do the works of the devil. And thus much of the former part of : the rule.

Giving thanks to God and the Father by him.] This is that other part of the Apostolic rule; in which we are advised how it behoves us to conduct ourselves towards God the Father. For the word God is to be taken personally in this place, and the word Father is added exegetically. Therefore to God and the Father is the same, as if he had said, to God who is the Father both of Christ and also our Father in Christ. The same form of speaking is used in Ephes. v. 90. But let us come to the point; Here are three things to be observed: 1. That we are to give thanks; 2. To whom they are to be given; 3. By whom.

1. As to the first; Thanks are to be given both in the using of the creatures and in the success and issue of all things. The enjoyment of the creatures requires thanks from us as a debt; otherwise we are inferior to the brute animals. Hence that remark of the Apostle, 1 Tim. iv. 4, Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected, if it be received with thanksgiving. Moreover in every success and issue of things, and every action of ours, thanks are to be given; because all things co-operate for good to those, who undertake lawful and honest thines by invoking the name of Christ. On this account, in Ephes. v. 20, he more fully expresses this duty in these words, Giving thanks to God always and for all things. Neither is this duty to be performed on our own account only ; but we are bound to give thanks to God also for benefits towards our brethren, and so to the whole church. We give thanks to God always for you, &c. says the Apostle, 2 Thess. i. 3. It is plain, therefore, this duty of giving thanks is to be perpetual, &c.

2. To whom are thanks to be given? To God the Father.] It is usual in the Scriptures, to prescribe this method as well of praying as of giving thanks, that each act should be directed to the person of the Father. But there is no other reason for this, than that the Father is the fountain of Deity, from whom, as from its primary author, all good things are derived to us, by the Son’s mediation, and by the Holy Spirit working the same in us. That, therefore, the order of nature and of operation may be indicated, we invoke the Father as much as possible, we give thanks expressly to the Father: yet neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit is excluded from an alliance in this honour, since the essence of the three Persons is the same. We may even add that reason also; that the name Father affords us confidence in speaking with God: for when we invoke God the Father of Christ, faith immediately conceives, the same is now also become our Father in Christ.

3. By whom? By him; namely Christ.] By Christ the Mediator, therefore, we ought both to invoke God, and give thanks after that God shall have heard us calling upon him ; for our thanks will not indeed be pleasing to God, unless by Christ and for his sake. Therefore it is proper to acknowledge, that there neither hath been any merit in us for obtaining blessings from God the Father, unless by Christ; nor is there any faculty within us of giving the thanks that are due, unless by the same Christ.

Instructions.

1. They who do all things in the name of Christ, will always have copious matter for giving thanks to God, whatever things may befal them.

2. We ought to acknowledge the blessing of God in all those transactions which happen well to us, not to attribute prosperous events to our own strength or counsels: for he never gives thanks with the heart, who sacrifices to his own drag. Hab. i. 16.

3. God the Father will not be invoked, praised, or worshipped, unless through Christ his Son and our Mediator: relying therefore upon his merit and favour with the Father, we ought to render all these our duties to God. They therefore err, who choose to themselves other Mediators to God the Father.

Thus we have explained the universal exhortation of the Apostle, which has respect to all Christians alike. Now a particular exhortation follows, which is directed to certain orders of men variously.

Vers. 18, 19.

The Apostle now enters upon a particular and domestic exhortation. And since, as Aristotle has rightly observed, Polit. i. 3, there are three alliances (or moral relations) of which every house is composed, of which the husband and wife constitute the first; the parents and children, the second ; the master and servants, the third: the Apostle assigns precepts to all these; but he begins with the nuptial state, as the first and most worthy.

But it is to be observed that he requires the duty of the wife in the first place, although the husband obtains the more worthy place in the first alliance. A twofold reason may be assigned. 1. Because it is more difficult to perform the duty of subjection than of love: for to love and delight is pleasant; but to subject oneself and obey another, is for the most part troublesome and hateful, 2, Because the affection of the husband for the most part depends on the due subjection of the wife: for if she yield her subjection, unless he is dead to all moral sensibility, he cannot but return his love. But let us come to the words of the Apostle.

We have in this eighteenth verse, 1. A proposition ; 2. A limitation of the proposition. This is the proposition, Wives ought to be subject to their husbands. The limitation, or mode of subjection is, As it is fit in the Lord.

In the proposition itself we shall briefly treat these four things. First, what subjection is considered in a general point of view. Secondly, in what things this particular subjection of wives towards their husbands consists. Thirdly, what are the reasons impelling women to yield this duty of subjection. Fourthly, what may be the impediments or obstacles, that this bounden duty should not be performed by them: for both these ought to be known that they may be avoided and removed.

1. The subjection, then, of one creature to another in general, is nothing else, if it be considered on the part of God, than a Divine disposition, whereby the more imperfect are subordinate to the more perfect, that by this subjection the former may be perfected, governed, and preserved by the latter. If it be considered on the part of the _ creature subjected, then the virtue of subjection is its ready inclination to obey this ordinance constituted by God himself.

We see without this appointed subjection neither natural affairs, nor political societies, nay, not even the world itself could consist. All earthly and sublunary things are subject to celestial ones ; for since they are in their nature more imperfect and ignoble, they cannot attain to their perfection without this natural subjection. So in political societies, government and subjection are accounted not only among the things that are useful, but among the things plainly necessary.⁴² Iience citizens are subject to magistrates, soldiers to their commanders, for their good and advantage more than that of those to whom they are subject.

Corollaries.

1. The Author of the creatures would not have them to be confounded through disorder. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, 1 Cor. xiv. 39. They, therefore, are repugnant to God, who would take away the order of obeying and ruling.

2. It is not the mark of a base and abject mind, but of 4 generous one, and one not deviating from the law of creation, to be subject promptly and with a willing mind to his superiors. Whence that saying of the Heathen, The government over the good is easy ; every man in proportion to his depravity bears a ruler with a rude impatience,

3. They who shake off the yoke of due subjection, are blind to their own interest: for that old adage is true, meapyia eri Toug evmpakias untnp, Obedience is the mother. of prosperity.

But we must no longer cleave to generals: let us come to the particular subjection of wives. This, then, we say consists in three things :

First, in the internal act of the heart; when the wife acknowledges in her mind, that her husband is and ought to be her head and governor, and that she is the inferior, even on the mere ground that she is a wife, although in birth, riches, virtue, and prudence, she excel her husband. This submission of the heart is the fountain of outward subjection ; without this, all subjection is either forced or pretended. The Apostle seems to have had respect to this inward disposition in Ephes. v. 33, Let the wife reverence her husband. That pious Sarah possessed this is evident, who called Abraham her husband lord, not from the flattery of custom, but from the wish of testifying this subjection, 1 Pet. iii. 6.

Secondly, this subjection of the wife consists in the study of conforming her manners and affections, as much as possible, to the manners and affections of her husband in things indifferent and lawful : For the dissimilitude of manvers has no tendency to love, says Aristotle, Oeconom. lib. i. cap. 4. This is indeed difficult; but the more difficult it is, the more laudable ; because all cherish their own manners, indulge their own affections, and hate the contrary :

The melancholy do the merry hate,

And witty minds despise the sad.

Horat. Epist. lib. 1. ep. 18. It is, therefore, laborious, to strip off as it were her own disposition, and put on another’s. But this is necessary to the wife, and is before all other things to be commended in her. For as a mirror adorned with gems, and skilfully polished, is nothing, unless it express a true likeness of the person looking into it; so a wife, however endowed and beautiful, is nothing, unless she render herself conformable to the manners of her husband. This study of conforming herself to the disposition of her husband, I think the Apostle has respect to in 1 Cor. vii. 37, where he says, that the married woman careth how she may please her husband. She often and seriously thinks,

And turns her rapid thought, now here now there, that she may find out the way of pleasing her husband: this is the most ready way, if she study to accommodate her manners and affections themselves, and frame them to his. Lastly, this subjection consists in performing those duties and offices which are incumbent upon her. The first duty is, to love her husband religiously, to minister to him obligingly, and to be his help and solace in every condition of fortune: Gen. ii. 18. Love your husbands, says the Apostle, Tit. 1.4. She will do him good all the days of her life, Prov. xxxi. 12. The duties connected with this are those of taking care of the family and children, and administering other domestic matters according to the established laws, as says Aristotle. On this account Paul bids wives to love their husbands, to be keepers at home, Tit. ii. 4, 5. And Plutarch relates, that the Egyptian women did not make use of shoes, that they might learn to keep at home, and be ready for domestic offices. All these things pertain to the subjection of the wife: which let it suffice to have discussed lightly: for it is not our purpose to discourse largely on each of these particulars.

3. We must now come, in the third place, to those reasons which ought to excite and impel all good and pious matrons to perform these duties of subjection.

1. The first is derived from the Divine appointment ; which it is wicked for a pious mind to resist: for religious obedience does not discuss the commands of God, but performs them. But God most clearly has sanctioned this female subjection, Gen. iii. 16, Thy desire shall be to thy husband, sub viri potestate eris, in the Vulgate; and he shall rule over thee.

2. The second is derived from the natural imperfection of the woman: For by nature she is more infirm than the man, and more unsuited for her own government and protection. This both the sacred Scriptures and philosophy testify. Women are said to be the weaker vessels, 1 Pet. iii. 7. And Aristotle affirms, that they have indeed the power to determine, but without authority ; and that it is the leading quality of the woman 4o subserve, not to direct. Polit. lib. i. cap. 8.

3. The third is derived from the order of creation. For the woman was created after the man, out of the man, and for the man. But the end for which any thing exists, is better and more noble than the thing itself. This is urged by the Apostle, 1 Cor. xi. 8, 9.

4. The fourth is derived from the transgression of the woman. For she being seduced, violated the Divine command, and allured her husband into a participation of her transgression : Now it is just, that from thenceforward the wife should hearken to her husband, because the husband was ruined by hearkening to the wife. The Apostle makes use of this argument, 1 Tim. ii. 14.

5. The fifth is derived from the disadvantage of refusing this subjection, and disturbing the Divine ordination. For as in physical things, the disturbance of natural order yields many and great disadvantages, storms, floods, and earthquakes; so by the order of the due subjection of the wife towards her husband being disturbed, brawlings and clamours are heard in the house, like thunder; their bosoms are shaken by fear and mutual suspicions, as by earthquakes ; in fine, their whole life is overwhelmed with miseries and tears, as with inundations. It would be easy to bring in more reasons; but we shall be content with these.

4. It now remains to shew, in the last place, the usual hindrances to this subjection, and in the way of advice lay. down, not all, but some of the principal of those things which ought to be avoided.

1. The first is pride: which makes the wife think highly of herself and all things belonging to her, as her figure, her prudence, her family; on the other hand, to despise and disesteem her husband, as unworthy to command such a woman. To obviate this evil; 1. Let her remember, that the dignity of her husband and her own inferiority is not to be estimated from virtues, figure, nobility, or riches ; but from the Divine ordination alone: The authority of the husband, and the subjection of the wife, is founded in this, which neither ought nor can be abrogated : or changed from such accidental causes. 2. Let her also consider; that it is the veriest proof of folly and vanity, to presume upon her own worth and prudence : for all those things which are easily inflated are empty. 3. Lastly, let her also understand ; that this motion of pride proceeds from the devil, who, as he incited Eve to eat that fruit forbiddeu by God by infusing this poison; so, by instilling the same poison into the daughters of Eve, he daily tampers with them to throw off the subjection prescribed by God.

2. The second is the defect of true and genuine love. For she studies not to please her husband, whose greatest displeasure is that she has got such a husband: on the other hand, true love is a perpetual monitor, and the best teacher of obedience. Retain love, says Augustine; for all duties depend upon it; by it you will possess what you have learnt, and what you have not learnt. If, therefore, love be wanting, the wife neither knows how to please her husband, nor cares about it. This evil will be avoided; 1. If parents would not compel their daughters to odious nuptials ; but before they give them in marriage, to do what we read in Gen, xxiv. 57, 58, was done to Rebecca. Then they said, We will call the damsel, and inquire at her mouth. And they called Rebecca, and said unto her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go. 2. If they would beware in contracting matrimony, lest they choose husbands for the sake of honour or riches, who, they are sure, do not love them cordially. 3. Lastly, if after contracting marriage, they carefully avoid even the most trifling occasions of offence: for as things cleaving together in the beginning are rent asunder by any sudden blow; so also is it with the fresh love of those just united in marriage. But God also should be constantly invoked, that he would pour the bond of true and holy love into their bosoms: for lascivious and vague love is what arises from the flesh alone ;. chaste and constant love draws its origin from the Holy Spirit.

3. The third is a foolish affectation of divers vanities, For she cannot perform the domestic duties which respect her conjugal subjection, who is wholly drawn aside by the study of foibles most foreign to the office of a matron. Hither I refer that immoderate desire of appearing in public, to see, and be seen; whichis ever found in connexion with a dislike of household care. From this source also springs extravagance in dress, painting the face, in short, a sort of external theatric parade in the whole tenor of life, Prov. vii. 10. They who are mad of this disease of vanity, care neither for husband, nor children, nor family. As, therefore, they would withstand this evil, let wives reflect, that they should please not the eyes of the people, but of the husband alone. For (as says Clemens, Pedag. 2.) It is dishonest to make the beauty of the body a man-trap. — lt is, as says Augustine, De doctr. Christ. 4. 21, more dishonest to meditate by adultery of the countenance, the adultery of chastity. If, therefore, they will study ornament, they should hear Tertullian, De cultu femin. Let them borrow from simplicity, fairness of the skin, and from chastity the blush of the countenance ; and let them hang in their ears the pearls of the word. But the Apostle also recals them from these vanities to their true ornaments, in ] Tim. ii. 9. Let the women adorn themselves tu modest. apparel, with shame- Sfacedness and sobriety, not with broidered hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array ; &c.

As it is fit in the Lord.] These words contain either the reason of the aforesaid injunction, or rather the limitation. If the reason, they must be explained in this manner; Be subject to your own husbands, because Christ your Lord has so commanded you, whose ordination it is just that Christians should obey. But concerning this Divine ordination we have spoken. If, therefore, these words contain a limitation, (which I rather approve) then they are to be explained thus; Be subject to your husbands, not absolutely, and promiscuously in all things, but as far as God permits, or as far as it is befitting women who are in the Lord, that is, believers and Christians.

The occasion of this limitation springs from the circumstance, that many believing women were united to unbelieving husbands, whom they were bound to obey, so far as it could be done, without the violation of their faith and the Christian religion. For if an unbelieving husband should attempt to compel his wife to an idolatrous worship, she must resist, and be governed by that rule of Peter, Acts v. 29, We must obey God rather than man. There is the same reason, if the husband attempt to entice his wife into any sin: for it is not fit that those who are in the Lord, should obey in such things. The foundation of this exception is, That all authority and superiority is derived from God; and subordinate to the Divine authority : The command of the inferior power, therefore, does not oblige us to obedience when it is contrary to that of the superior, as Durandus well observes, lib. 2. dist. 39. qu. 5. “That saying of Gregory, therefore, is always to be retained, The wife should so please the will of her husband, as not to displease the will of her Creator.

Corollaries from this limitation.

1. Wives obedient to their husbands by this due subjection, render a submission grateful to God himself; because they are subject not only for their own sake, but much more in the Lord and for the Lord’s sake.

2. The wife is bound to her husband to be a companion and help, in prosperity and adversity, in all household duties; but in no manner in sin.

3. It is the mark of imprudence and impiety, to choose such a husband as seems likely to persuade his wife to those things which are not fit in the Lord. They do this who marry Papists, or any other heretics, and wicked persons, without any difference, provided the hope of riches shine upon them from it.—And thus much concerning the subjection of the wife and its limitation.

Vers. 19.

It is prudently said by Chrysostom, The scales should always be equally poised in exhortations. This Paul has accurately observed in this whole exhortation. In the foregoing verse he cast into one scale the duties of wives: now he places in the other the duties of husbands also; so that both should be equal in weight, neither the one being more than duly depressed, nor the other raised above what is meet. Therefore to come to the explication of the words: The duty of husbands is expressed in these words; by a precept enjoining dove; by an injunction forbidding bitterness.

1. First we must explain the precept, Husbands, love your wives.] The word for love must be referred as well to the passion as to the effect: Which is manifestly gathered from Ephes. v. 25, where the love of Christ towards the Church is proposed for an example to husbands ; Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also. loved the Church, and gave himself for it. ‘Hyámwes, he loved, indicates the affection ; Tlapeduxe, he gave himself, demonstrates the effect of the love.

In the first place, then, the Apostle requires the affection of love, namely, that the husband love his wife in heart and mind. For this internal affection of love gives the heart itself to the thing loved, which is the most precious and first gift, and that, in fine, in which all other gifts are given when occasion requires: for love is diffusive of its good. It is not badly said by Aristotle, Rhet. 2. 8, Love is the wishing to any one what it conceives to be good for the sake of that one, and not for its own; and it is the endeavouring to accomplish this, as far as it can. Therefore he requires such an affection in the heart of the husband. But because we cannot thrust our eyes into the hearts of men, io see the internal affection, external effects are required in testimony of love: for the proof of love is the exhibition of its operation. Let us come to this.

The love of the husband ought chiefly to express itself in three effects. First, it is shewn herein, that he lives freely and cheerfully with his wife in his own house; he is delighted ‘ with her presence and company; he suffers himself to be torn from her for any long time only by necessary causes, and then thinks himself to be cast elsewhere and to be thrown hither and thither, and at home with his wife to rest as in the wished-for haven. For although married persons ought to be so prepared in mind, that, if it be necessary, the one can bear absence from the other with equanimity ; yet it is not to be allowed that the husband should hate or be weary of the company of his own wife, or willingly be elsewhere than with her; for true love is mostly delighted with the presence of the beloved, and is tormented as it were by the absence of the same. This effect of love we see in Christ towards his Church: for he never deserts her, or leaves her alone: but performs what he promised Matt. xxviii. 20, J am with you always even unto the end of the world. Thus, then, ought the husband also to be animated towards his wife, to be with her constantly unto the last breath of his life. This Solomon requires from all pious and good husbands in Prov. v. 18, 19, Rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times, and be thou ravished always with her love. And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman and embrace the bosom of a stranger? Yea, Aristotle himself considers it injustice in the husband, if he despise his wife, and indulge unlawful pleasures elsewhere: and he calls that undivided society of life, and due benevolence which the husband is bound to yield towards his wife, a pious and muvst holy dwelling together, and dignified station of marriage. The opinion, therefore, or rather impiety, of the Emperor fBlius Verus, is to be rejected; who is wrong in having affirmed, that the wife was a title of dignity, not of pleasure: as though wives should be satisfied that husbands condescended to honour them by contracting marriage with them; and in the mean time it might be allowed the husband to follow pleasures, or rather iniquity, out of matrimony, at his own discretion. Thus much of the first effect of love.

The second duty of love is, to direct and instruct his wife to his utmost in all those things which relate to the passing through this life well, or to the attaining eternal life. On this account the husband is called the head of the wife in sacred learning: that, as the body is directed by the head, so the wife should be directed by the husband to the common good of both. Aristotle writes, Oecon. 1. 8, that by a prudent husband nothing should be neglected of those things which tend to the instruction of his wife: aud he alleges the cause ; namely, that she herself by being well informed may be capable of instructing her children. This also in Xenophon, in his Qeconomics, Ischomachus, whom that sweet writer proposed as an example of a good husband, as Cyrus, of a good king, says that he carefully did. Therefore he himself says, that he taught his wife, what might suffice for those carcs which related to her office ; and for this end, first songht from God, both that he himself might teach those things which would be best for either, and especially that she might learn the same. This duty of love (as you may perceive) was not concealed even from the heathen themselves, particularly as far as it relates to this life. But the sacred writers also extend this care of the husband to the other life: for he ought even in the business of religion, and in those things which regard her eternal salvation, to instruct his wife. For this maxim is a sign of true love, to take care that his wife may rightly worship God together with himself in this life, whereby they may together enjoy God in the life to come. On this account, Paul, in] Cor. xiv. 35, refers the wife to the husband as to a domestic tutor; Jf the wives would learn any thing, let them ask their own husbands at home. Therefore the husbands ought to direct their wives in things earthly and secular; because they are co-partners in all earthly things: they ought also to instruct them in divine and heavenly things; because they are co-heirs of heavenly blessings, heirs together of the grace of life, as Peter says, 1 Epis. iii. 7.

The third and last effect of love is, to provide his wife with all necessary things. And in this respect it belioves the husband to imitate the care and providence of Christ : for he would have nothing wanting to his Church, which is either necessary or conducive to its welfare, as to clothing, food, and life: so the husband ought to acquire by his labour, and communicate to his wife out of love, whatever either the necessity or dignity of her person shall require. He who is not concerned about this duty, subjects himself to that heavy censure, Jf any man provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and ts worse than an infidel, 1 Tim. v. 8. Hence we may conjecture what is to be thought of those monstrous guttlers, who not only provide not for their family, but dissipate the things which were well provided, in play, in drinking, and harlots; the wife and children in the mean while pinched, and all but perishing for want and hunger. Neither the love of the husband, nor the faith of the Christian appears in these things: for whom that which they are wont to allege is no excuse, that they consume what is their own ; for neither Divine nor human laws permit any one to abuse his goods through lust, Besides, the wife ought to be a partaker of all the goods which belong to the husband, no less than she is compelled to be a partaker in all his ills. And thus much of the three effects of love: which, the better to commend, we shall add a necessary caution by way of appendage.

He who is desirous of performing his duty in loving his wife, should beware of the vulgar error in choosing: Let him think from the beginning in entering upon matrimony, to choose, neither by the eyes alone, nor by the fingers alone, as Plutarch says, in Conjug. precep.

They are said to marry by the eyes alove, who in choosing a wife regard chiefly her external form and beauty. That love, which rests upon so unstable a foundation, can in no way be firm and constant. Neither do I so intend this saying, as though it was unlawful to choose a modest woman from her face; (for we see the most religious and chaste patriarch Jacob to have preferred Rachel to Leah) but to be understood that external beauty is not especially, or by itself, to be sought after in marrying. but so far as it is the beauteous dress of a beauteous mind. Virtue is more agreeable where it appears in a beautiful person, says Virgil, Ain. lib. v. 1. 344. Therefore, let the first enquiry be as to manners: If they are found to be good, and worthy of commendation, then beauty should not be slighted; which is not improperly called by Tertullian, felicity of body, an accession to the plastic hand of the Divinity, and the genteel apparel of the soul. The opinion of Solomon in this matter is to be remembered, Prov. xxxi. 30, Favour ts deceitful, and beauty is vain; but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.

Now they are led into matrimony by the fingers, who only regard what the wife shall bring in money; if the dowry satisfies, they are little or not at all solicitous about probity or piety. These are worse than the before-mentioned : for they respect beauty, that is to say, the good in the person; these, money, namely, the good apart from the person. Therefore, the love of the former is light; that of the latter, plainly nothing: for they seek not a wife, but a money-porter: after that they have laid their claws upon the money, they regard not of a straw the porter. But it is the character of the pious and the wise to prefer the wife to the money, rather than the money without the wife ; and to regard that in choosing a wife, which may and ought especially to induce them constantly to love the wife. And thus we have explained to you the precept which enjoins love: Now we must proceed to the injunction, which forbids bitterness.

2. Be not bitter against them.] The word is a metaphor, drawn from unpleasant and bitter food, by the taste of which men are offended. By this expression therefore, the Apostle intimates, that the conversation of the husband towards his wife ought to be pleasant and kind ; not unsavoury and harsh: Yea, (as says Ambrose in Hexem. 5. 7.) although naturally he may be rigid, yet he ought to mitigate it by the very contemplation of marriage. Which also was the opinion of the heathen: For (as Plutarch relates) they who did sacrifice at the rites of Juno, took out the gall of the victim, and threw it away, signifying by the ceremony, that tt was not fit that bile and bitterness should enter into the married state.

The bitterness here prohibited is wont to shew itself in three things: the affections, the words, and actions.

1. First, in the very affections of husbands. For as far as the affections are bitter, they who are exasperated against their wives for light causes, and failures however small, both begin from thence either to hate them, or at least remissly and languidly to love them. They who are affected in this manner, although they neither do nor say any thing evil against their wives, yet often render the fellowship of the conjugal state unpleasant and disagreeable. That this bitterness is to be avoided, is gathered,

1. From the precept itself of loving their wives, which is imposed upon husbands: For it does not admit that exception, If they shall be, or whilst they shall be free from all faults: For God, who gave this precept of loving the wife, knew well that no mortal is free from his faults and imperfections: Therefore by this truly impossible condition being added or understood, the precept would be superfluous (and ridiculous). As, then, the wife is bound to obey her husband, notwithstanding his many imperfections ; so also the husband is bound to love his wife. If for light causes he even remits the affection of love, it must be ascribed to bitterness.

2. This also is plain from the example of Christ, who is proposed as an example to husbands by the Apostle. For he is not wont to hate or despise his church for her many faults and sins; but he rather studies to amend and cover her sins, whilst no odium is cast upon her person: Such ought to be the affection of the husband towards his wife. No fault or sin of the wife ought then to extinguish that matrimonial affection, unless it be of that kind as to extinguish and dissolve matrimony itself: for the wife remains, whilst matrimony continues, one flesh with her husband: But no one never hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church, Ephes. v. 29.

3. From the confession of the very heathen. For Aristotle himself, imbued with the light of nature, saw that the husband ought not for any fault immediately to alienate his mind from his wife; but, as he says, Oecon. i. 8, he should forgive willingly little faults, tad mv wimp vv Tlacudrov, although they should be voluntary ; but even if through ignorance she should offend in those which are of greater moment, he should be satisfied to have advised and instructed her, not to have hated her. And thus you see all bitterness is to be banished afar off from the very mind and affection of the husband.

2. Secondly, this bitterness seems to be placed in bitter, contumelious, or any other words opposed to conjugallove. Fora tender mind is wounded no less by bitter words, than the body is by sharp weapons: Hence words are sometimes compared by the Psalmist to darts and swords. Psal. lv. [t does not therefore become the husband to wound his wife by these swords. (Arist. Rhet.) As to contumelious words, they are most foreign from duty and from matrimonial love. For the design of contumely is, that one may rejoice in the disgrace of him who is treated contumeliously : but it is barbarous to rejoice in the disgrace of his own wife. But neither is that bitterness of passionate men to be suffered, which breaks out into hard words, and threats, although there may be no

MINA. DE. M 2 intention either of contumely or injury. For if any one who is angry with any brother, and breaks forth into bitter words, shall be guilty of hell fire, Matt. v. 22, then how much more he who does so against his wife? Therefore, that all bitterness may be banished from the wedded state, let that precept in Prov. v. 18, be kept in remembrance : Rejoice with the wife of thy youth: not strive, revile, threaten ; but rejoice.

3. Thirdly, Bitterness, and that the most bitter, is found in the actions; namely, when the husband, plainly unmindful what the conjugal relation is, shews himself a tyrant, and treats his wife as his servant. The very institution of marriage repels this bitterness: For God gave not Eve to Adam as a servant ora slave, but for a companion or help-meet. Thou art not a lord, but a husband; thou hast not got a maid-servant, but a wife: God would have thee the guide of the inferior sex, not the tyrant, says Ambrose, Hexem. 5.7. But this tyranny is exercised over the wife in many ways:

1. When she is removed from all domestic rule, and is degraded as it were to the rank of a maid, even perhaps subjected to one of them. But the institution of marriage, in which the wife is taken to the supreme administration of the family under her husband, opposes this. Whence Xenophon calls the wife the guardian of the domestic laws ; and Aristotle says, that she is to preside over the inmates. Moreover, the sacred Scriptures assign this to her, Prov. xxxi. 27; Tit. 1. 5. Although, therefore, it ought to be pleasant to the wife to obey her husband ; yet it is bitter if he compel her to be subject to his own servant, or if he do not suffer her to preside. Abraham was unwilling to be bitter in this respect against Sarah, and on that account cast out the bondmaid from his house, who began to be disobedient and troublesome to her mistress ; as you may gather from Gen. xvi.

2. Itisa branch also of this tyranny, when those things which pertain either to her necessity or even to her dignity are denied or taken away by the husband. For she, by virtue of the matrimonial contract, ought to be a partner with the husband of all his goods: It is therefore injustice if he consume on himself more than his circumstances allow, and in the mean time withdraws from his wife what is just and good. This is esteemed bitterness in the doer, and it necessarily savours of bitterness to the sufferer : For all persons deprived of their proper privileges are deeply grieved, says Aristotle, CEconom. i. cap. 8.

Lastly, It is the height of this bitter tyranny, to act cruelly towards the wife by stripes or blows; which we do not read that any one among the heathen did, unless he was drunk or mad. Hence the civil law permits the wife to avail herself of a divorce, if she can prove that her husband has beaten her : and it gives as a reason, that blows are foreign to a stale of freedom, Cod. lib. 5. tit. 17. De repudiis;. and in Noveil. constit. 117. For no superiority whatever gives the power of coercing the inferior by blows. If two persons enter into a league of friendship on the condition that the younger shall obey the elder, and be directed in all things by his wisdom and discretion; he is bound to obedience by virtue of this contract: but if he refuse to do that, he cannot be forced to his duty by blows. The same must be said with regard to the matrimonial contract: for in this the husband and wife agree to a certain amicable fellowship in life, so that the wife is to be subject to her husband, and directed by him; but as a companion, not as a slave ; by advice, not by stripes.⁴³

Aristotle gives this reason ; because zt is not fit to instil such fear into the wife, which may be injurious both to respect and love : but that servile fear which is instilled by blows is subversive of both.

Neither is it fit that any one should exercise power over another by constraint supported by no law; but that power of chastising a wife by stripes is supported by no law either Divine or human.

Finally add, That is not to be done which cannot be done without sin, and what always derives its origin from this sin of bitterness. For although parents often chastise their children from love; yet both the experience and conscience of every one will testify, that no one proceeds to beat his wife except from anger, bitterness, or hatred ; all which are unlawful things, and diametrically opposite to the matrimonial state. Therefore, let all bitterness be done away.

So far we have spoken of the duty of wife and husband. In the next place the duty of children and parents follows; among which the second domestic relation is placed.

Vers. 20.

We have said that the second domestic relation subsists between parents and children: therefore the Apostle endeavours now to imbue these with wholesome instructions in this place. And as he began in that relation ordained to be prior, from the duty of the wives; so now he begins from that of children (as I conceive) for the same reasons, or at least not much unlike. The Apostle, then, follows this order; both because children oftener fail in the duty of obedience, than parents in that of love; as because this duty of obedience rightly discharged, cannot but draw parents to the discharge of their duty. But let us come to the words.

We have in them a precept; Children, obey your parenis, &c. and the reason of the precept; for this is acceptable to the Lord.

In the precept three things are to be noted: To whom it is given ; Concerning what matter; and to what extent.

1. Children.] In these words we perceive to whom this precept is proposed. The translator has rendered it, children. But this Greek word (ra vé) is evidently of more latitude, for it denotes young, or offspring in general. It therefore extends to sons and daughters, yea, to grandchildren; for both according to the Scriptures, and according to lawyers, in the appellation of children, grandchildren are comprehended ; as when the Jews are called the children of Israel, &c. Therefore, whoever is the réxvov of another, on this very account he hath one to whom he owes honour and obedience.

Observations.

1. No age exempts a child from duty to his parents ; because the indissoluble foundation of duty remains always, even in their more advanced age. .

2. No dignity of office frees from this debt: For although a magistrate is on political grounds more honourable than a private person, yet a son, on the ground of having derived his origin from him, is always inferior to his father. And Joseph went up to meet Israel his father, &c. Gen. xlvi. 29. Therefore, whoever is a son, neither by age, nor by station, nor riches, in fine, by no mode whatever can he be exempt from this filial duty. But what is it?

2. Obey your parents.] Here we have the matter of the precept, namely, obedience to be rendered to parents. The Greek word jzaxóvere, comprises two things; a humble promptitude in receiving the orders of another, and a cheerful obedience in executing the same. Therefore it pertains to this obedience, to do what parents order, to learn what they teach, to correct and amend what they reprove, and, in one word, to perform all outward deeds which may testify the internal affection of reverence and submission.

The Apostle could have said Honour, as it is said in the decalogue; but he preferred, Obey; namely, in order to restrain that vice under which children mostly labour. For many yield reverence and honour to their parents, who yet fail to render obedience in the course of their life.

But we must also observe that he says, not to fathers, but to parents; for in this word both parents are included ; and that properly too: for a son derives his origin from both ; therefore to both, that is, both father and mother, he owes obedience and reverence. Vide Prov. xxiii. 22.

In this very word parents, is implied the most powerful argument, yea, many arguments, which ought to impel children to obedience. For as soon as the epithet parents, sounds in the ears of a child, he calls to mind that they are the persons from whom he has received his origin, his support, and education. If he has derived his origin, or his bodily existence from them, then he ought by the law of nature to be subject to them: If his food and sustenance, then he is bound to it by the moral debt of gratitude or justice. Lastly, if his instruction and discipline, then he is constrained to yield this obedience on account of his own advantage.

Instructions.

1. The desire of honouring parents is pretended in vain, where the duty of obedience is not shewn, Matt. xxi. 30.

2. He who despises his parents is not only to be reckoned to have thrown off piety, but also nature: for nature enjoins the offspring to submit to the parent; which is observed in storks, and proposed to be imitated in men by Ambrose, Hexem. 5. 16.

9. Contumely is fixed upon God himself, when parents are not honoured : for whatever parents are, they have the likeness of God, who is the supreme Father, and from whom all paternity is derived. Of Him is the whole family in heaven and earth, Ephes. ii. 15. Hence Laciantius, Instit. lib. 5. cap. 19, calls God himself, our true and supreme Father; but he also adds, and earthly parents are instruments of our existence under God. These subordinate parents ,therefore, cannot be contemned, without God also being contemned.

4. They who strive at pleasing their parents, the same sare for the most part pious towards God: for as Hugo de St. Victor has well said, De sacram. lib. 1. cap. 7, ¢his paternity is to us the sign and image of the divine paternity ; so that the human heart may learn by that principle which it sees, what it owes to that principle from which it is derived, and which it does not see. Thus much concerning the matter of the precept; Now let us discuss its breadth and latitude.

3. n all things.] The Apostle appears to extend filial obedience to all things which are enjoined by parents, without excepting justice and equity: for universal and absolute obedience is due to God alone. But the limitation and explication of this charge may be obtained from Ephes. vi. 1, where he expresses what remains to be understood in this place ; Children, obey your parents in the Lord, that is, as far as it is allowed by God; or, as we may gather from the words immediately following, obey in all things, in which, for example, this your obedience may be pleasing to God. For, as Aquinas has laid down, Qu. disp. de consc. art. 4, We must not obey an inferior power against the command of a superior. By the expression all things, therefore, in this place, we must understand, not all things absolutely, but all things lawful and honourable. Hence, therefore, we infer,

1. We must obey parents in things good and pious, as well in regard to the thing commanded, as to the person himself giving the command.

2. In things general and indifferent in their nature, it behoves children to obey their parents. For although the things prescribed be free and indifferent in their nature ; yet obedience, when the parental command is interposed, is not at one’s pleasure, but under a mandate. For truly and wisely was it said by Gerson, De relig. perfect. part. ‘8, In things indifferent we must especially confide in the judgment of a superior ; since he tells us in the place of God what is expedient and what is proper.

3. Although the injunctions of parents may seem harsh and unjust, yet if they contain nothing of impiety they must be obeyed, especially by children not yet set free from parental authority. We have a remarkable example in Isaac, who withheld not his obedience to his father even unto death, Gen. xxii. 9, and in Christ himself, in his submission to his parents, Luke ii. 51.

But here a question may arise concerning married children, or those called to the administration of Church or State, whether they are still bound to obedience to parents, and how far?

We answer, That filial obedience is perpetual, and is to be rendered even to the last breath of life: which is manifest from the command itself, Honour thy father, that thou mayest live long upon the earth. Therefore, so long as we live here, so long is the obedience of honour due to parents; but not in the same manner and degree. Children, then, living in the paternal house, and under the paternal power, are bound to yield reverence, obedience, and assistance to their parents, and that in matters of domestic care, or in other matters according to their command and will. If parents would have them to remain at home, and aid them in household duties, they ought not to refuse; as is plain from the parable of the two sons, Matt. xxi. 28. If they wish to employ their labour to accomplish some outer business, in this also they must obey, Tob. v.3. But as to married children, or those called to administer the Church or State, the case is different. For although all these are yet bound to revere, obey, and even to render assistance when occasion offers; yet they are not bound, as before, to dwell with them, nor to labour at the domestic business of their parents ; because now they have their own and more weighty business.

With respect to married children this is plain; because the husband from the Divine ordination ought to leave his father and his mother to cleave unto his wife, Gen. ii. 24. Which we must not understand abstractedly, but comparatively, and in respect of individual fellowship and cohabitation: for he ought to labour for the support of his family, Gen. xxx. 30.

Now as to those who have undertaken ecclesiastical duties ; they cannot be recalled by the authority of parents to the performance of their earthly business. — For if a father cannot recal his son from the army of his earthly king by any authority with which he is invested, how much less from this sacred army? Nay, they who have put their hands to this work ought not to look back to that which they have left, Luke ix. 62.

The reason is similar in regard to those who discharge public offices: for it is just that private concerns yield to public ones. To conclude in a word: A son can never be freed from the duty of honouring and succouring his parents; but he may from the duty of dwelling with them, and administering their domestic affairs. And so far respecting the precept itself.

For this is well pleasing unto the Lord.] In these words is contained the reason or inducement, than which no other more efficacious can be presented to pious minds, to discharge that duty of obedience. For he does not say, This your duty will be useful to you, or grateful to your parents ; but it will be well-pleasing to Christ himself your Lord, whom it is your happiness to please. But how does it appear that obedience towards parents is a thing so pleasing to Christ our Lord, and to God our Father?

It appears chiefly from two considerations: From even a temporal, and as it were an extraordinary reward, annexed to that command of honouring parents; which is urged by the Apostle in Ephes. vi. 2, Being the first command with promise. And also from temporal punishment, which is to be inflicted by the ordination of God upon the violaters of his command, which see in Deut. xxi. 18, &c. Neither was it concealed from the heathen themselves, that the life of those who conducted themselves piously and dutifully towards their parents was prolonged by the Divine gift. Whence that remark of the Greek poet ; be assured that by honouring your parents you will flourish in the world: and another to the same purport; lou will live long enough, of you sustain the old age of your parents. They, therefore, acknowledge this to be well-pleasing to God. But they also have even declared that contempt of parents should be restrained by the severest punishments; A wronging of parents or of the gods is to be expiated with a like judgment, says Valerius. Which also was agreeable to Plato; as you may see in 11 De legibus.

Instructions.

1. It behoves the faithful in every good work, especially to respect the Lord himself. If our actions are wellpleasing to him, it matters not much what men think of us, or with what mind they may receive them.

2. Children, by obeying their parents out of a pure heart, offer a service most pleasing to God himself by this their obedience, and receive a reward from him; as is clear from the example of the Rechabites, Jer. xxxv. 18.

3. He who by his contumacy provokes the anger and curse of his parents against himself, calls down the anger and the vengeance of God in like manner against him. Abimelech is an example in Judg. ix. 56.

4. Hypocrites are much deceived, who under a pretence of piety towards God, neglect the duties of piety and obedience towards parents: as though sacrifice was more pleasing to God than either obedience or mercy. But Christ most clearly refutes this error, in Matt. xv. 4, 5, &c. The Papists have renewed this error of the Pharisees by maintaining, That it is lawful for children, even in opposition to their parents, to profess religion, that is, to enter a monastery ; which kind of life being undertaken, they cannot be subject to their parents, since they are bound by a Divine and natural law. Let us see therefore, what they think of this matter; and what we must think according to the word of God.

Aquinas, Q. 2. qu. 88. art. 9, concludes, after the years of puberty, children may bind themselves by a religious vow without the consent of their parents. This is also the common opinion of the Papists, and is defended by Bellarmin in lib. 2. De monachis, cap. 36, where he thus decides, That it is lawful for children, against the will of their parents, to leave their home, and enter upon a monastic life, provided they shall have reached the years of puberty, and the parents are not in such poverty but that they may live without their help. It is decided that boys shall be accounted of the age at fourteen; girls, at twelve. But on the contrary, we shall prove that it is not lawful that this should be done against the will of the parents. For;

1. To do any thing whatever not commanded by God, but in manifest violation of a command, is impious and rash: But for any one to bind himself to a monastic life does not come under the Divine precept; and to resist parents, when they enjoin that upon us which is either good or is not unlawful, is a manifest violation of a Divine command: Since, therefore, it is good and lawful to profit their parents, and to serve them in their domestic cares, children, whilst not yet free, ought not to desert their parents against their will.

2. To offer to God what is another’s, and that against his will, is opposed to virtue: But the power over children . belongs to parents, whilst they are under their keeping, so that they cannot of their own will withdraw themselves from their parents, and betake themselves whither they wish: therefore they cannot vow to enter a monastery against the will of their parents. Hither applies that declaration in Numb. xxx. 3, 5, If a woman shall have vowed in her father house in her youth; if her father shall have disallowed her, her vow shall be void.

Neither is that reply of Bellarmin and Aquinas of any weight, who say, that before the years of puberty, i. e. (as they interpret it) before the twelfth year, a damsel cannot vow against the consent of her parents: but afterwards she may, because she is free in all those things which relate to her person: for the context opposes it; which enacts this law concerning every woman remaining in her father’s house, that is, under the care of her father, whether she be twelve years old, or more.

3. What it is rash to do without the advice or not with the approbation of parents, that it is impious to do against their consent and remonstrances : But it is the part of rashness, if a youth of sixteen, or a damsel of fifteen, shall resolve about their mode of life without the knowledge and approbation of their parents, especially in entering upon that kind of life, which by a certain necessity calls them off from yielding submission to their parents; for it is the duty of pious children, first to go to their parents, to enquire both whether they may, and whether they wish to do without their help and assistance: If, therefore, they ought not to do this without the advice of their parents, much less so against their will.

4. We have the authority of the Council of Gangra, cap. 16. tom. 1, Whatever children separate from their parents under pretence of Divine worship, neither pay them due reverence, let them be anathema. Bellarmin endeavours to restrict it to those alone who forsake parents that are needy, and betake themselves against their consent into monasteries. But this answer is of no weight. For first, the words of the Council are general; Whoever separate from their parents, without the gloss of Bellarmin, placed in extreme want. Secondly, it is not the part of a modest child, when he hears his parent saying that he cannot do without his assistance, and remonstrating against his proposal to enter a monastery, yet to decide in opposition to it. Lastly, it is harsh to restrict the obedience of children to the extreme poverty only of their parents.

5. Basil in Quest, largely explained, quest. 15, plainly asserts, that children are not to be received into monasteries unless they shall be offered by their parents. — Bellarmin answers, that is to be understood of children under age alone; that is, males before their fourteenth year, and females before their twelfth, are not to be received without the consent of their parents; but after this age they may enter although the parents should be unwilling. But Basil does not distribute children in that place, into adults and those under age; but into ‘egmua yovewy, xcu vad yovers évra, those who are destitute of parents, and those whose parents are yet living, and have the care of their children. He denies that the latter are to be received without the consent of their parents.

Now let us proceed to solve the arguments of Bellarmin. He opposes it by passages of Scripture, testimonies of the Fathers, and of Councils, and by moral reasons.

1. He brings that passage of Scripture out of Gen. xil. ], as it is in the version of the Vulgate, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee. Therefore it is lawful to leave parents against their will, and to enter a monastery.

I answer, In no respect does it meet the case. Abraham was now married, and his own master, not under the protection of his father; Abraham had a special command ; it does not appear that Abraham’s parents opposed him, nay, it appears, Gen. xi. 31, that his father consented to his journey ; not, indeed, to enter a monastery, but to go into the land promised by God: But we contend respecting children still living under the paternal care, who have not a special command from God, and yet forsake their parents against their will, and betake themselves to a monastery. The cases are altogether dissimilar.

2. From Deut. xxxiii. 9, Who said unto his father and to his mother, I know you not ; and to his brethren, I am ignorant of you: these have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant. To which he joins that passage, Matt. x. 37, He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me.

I answer; The former passage speaks of the Levites, who drew the sword at the command of God against the idolaters, without any distinction of relationship, as you may see in Exod. xxxii. It therefore proves no more, than that they were worthy of commendation, who, to preserve the worship of God, and execute the command of God, had respect neither to relative, nor any human concern. What has this to do with those, who against the command to honour their parents, forsake them, that they may practise a superstitious worship in monasteries? That other passage does not say, He thai loveih father or mother more than cloister or hood, but more than Christ: therefore it makes nothing to the point. If we cannot obey Christ and parents, then we must forsake pareuts : but lawful obedience is not opposed to religion, but is a religious work, and pleasing to God.

3. From Psalm xlv. 10, Forget thy people, and thy father’s house ; so shall the king greatly desire thy beauty. Therefore, in order to serve God, it is lawful and commendable to renounce parents, and flee into a monastery.

I answer, The conclusion does not follow from these premises, unless when we cannot at the same time obey both. But these words are spoken in a literal sense concerning the daughter of Pharaoh, who could not at the same time remain in Egypt with her father, and obey her husband Solomon: they are understood in a mystical sense concerning Christ and his spouse the Church, who cannot retain her innate corruption and please Christ. But children are not compelled by this kind of necessity to enter monasteries, and desert their parents.—He brings certain other testimonies of Scripture, but so foreign to the purpose, that I am ashamed to be occupied in refuting such idle attempts: Let us come then to the Fathers whom he quotes.

1. I unite them all under one testimony, that of Theophylact, as the same answer may be accommodated to them all. Thus, then, speaks Theophylact,⁴⁴ on John xix. It behoves them not to obey parents opposing piety: and Gregory, Horn. 37, ou the Evang.: Those adversaries whom we meet in the way of God, let us know nothing of them, by hating and avoiding them: and Augustine, Epist. 38, ad Letum, says, that he ought to be drawn from the perfect way, neither by the command nor the entreaties of his mother.

I answer: All these are distorted by the very bad faith of Bellarmin; who, if he had looked into his authors, . could not but perceive that they never even dreamt about entering monasteries against the will of parents. I approve that saying of Theophylact, namely, That parents opposed to piety are not to be obeyed; but, however, they must be obeyed by children when they exact the duties of piety ; and this is what we maintain. The words of Gregory have respect to that saying of the Saviour, Luke xiv, 26, If any man come to me and hate not his father and his mother, he cannot be my disciple. Therefore, they relate equally to all Christians, not to monks alone. But Gregory in that place best interprets himself, who immediately adds these words to those which are adduced by Bellarmin: Quasi per odium diligitur, qui carnaliter saptens dum. prava nobis ingerit, non auditur. Gregory, therefore, means no more, than that parents, when they act wickedly towards their children, are not to be heard: which no one in ‘his senses would deny. As to Augustine, He does not say that Letus could enter a monastery against the will of his parents, whilst under their guardianship: nay, he no where indeed ever asserts in that epistle that he was a monk ; but he shews that he was a preacher of the Gospel, and ought not to be led away by earthly cares from the office he had undertaken. The duty, says Augustine, of preaching the Gospel hurries thee along ; the celestial trumpet impels the soldier of Christ to the battle, whilst his mother keeps him back: then a little after; Thy Mother the Church, is the mother of thy mother: she requires thy just and due assistance, &c. Therefore what Augustine urges is true, That a preacher of the Gospel ought not to be recalled from the office he has undertaken, not even by the intreaties of his mother: what Bellarmin infers, that a boy may not be prohibited from entering a monastery, not even by the command and authority of his parents, is false.

Two testimonies are cited from Jerome; one from his first Epistle to Heliodorus, in these words, Although a grandson may hang upon his neck, although thy mother with dishevelled hair and her garments rent, may present the paps which sucked thee, although thy father may prostrate himself across the threshold, proceed trampling upon thy parent, and with tearless eye flee forth to the banner of the cross. — It is the genius of piety alone to be cruel in this matter. It is lawful therefore for sons to follow Christ even against the will of their parents.

This Epistle, which was written by Jerome when a youth, and more of a rhetorician than a theologian, is of no great authority to determine a controversy of theology. But yet I answer ; what Jerome says may be admitted, that he must fly to the standard of Christ even by trampling upon parents, if he can no otherwise get thither: yet I deny that the standard of Dominic or Francis is to be approached in this manner. I add also, that children placed under the power of their parents, may follow Christ, although they do not desert their parents. If, then, Jerome would have the standard of Christ to be found no otherwise than in a monastic life, we unhesitatingly reject Jerome as in error: if this be not his meaning, he affords nothing for confirmation to Bellarmin. And it is plain this is not his meaning: for whereas Monasteries are for the most part erected near cities and towns, Jerome calls Heliodorus into the desert, and expressly writes, That a monk remaining in his own country cannot be perfect. Therefore, the Papistic Monasteries should be deserts, if the opinion of Jerome is to be allowed.

I come to another testimony drawn from Jerome’s epistle 47. If any one should reproach you that you are a Christian, or that you are a virgin, and for not caring to have forsaken your mother in order to live in a monastery among virgins ; you are not to regard it: such detraction is your praise, that cruelty is your piety: for you prefer him to your mother whom you are commanded to prefer to your own life.

I answer, We do not condemn the resolution to live a virgin in those to whom the gift of continence is given by God ; neither do we even blame those, who, the better to maintain this their resolution, flee as much as possible from the world, and join themselves to those who follow the same manner of life: But we deny that this virgin to whom Jerome writes, betook herself to a monastery against the consent of her parents, or could do so without violating filial duty : upon which the hinge of the controversy turns. Jerome says, for not caring to have forsaken your mother in order to live in a monastery ; but he does notadd, against her will and consent ; nay, he plainly asserts, that the virgin was consecrated by the will of her mother, and he exhorts her by this argument to avoid the suspected company of some young man or other, and that she would live with her mother, provided she was unwilling for her to remain in a monastery.

Ambrose, says Bellarmin, 2» 3. De virgiuibus, speaking of those who profess it against the consent of their parents, does not reprove them, but their parents, who endeavoured to prevent their profession, whom he declares to be worse than Gentiles. In proof of which he adduces these words of Ambrose; There (that is, among the Gentiles) they are withdrawn from marriage by rewards ; shall they be here compelled to marry by injuries? there it is made violence to take them away ; shall violence be done to them here lest they enter upon qu NC.

What Bellarmin premises of his own is false, that Ambrose spake of those virgins who offered of themselves against the will of their parents, and reproved their parents, not them. For Ambrose speaks of a certain father who had vowed the virginity of his daughter; which paternal vow when the daughter wished to fulfil, and to profess her virginity according to the ceremonies customary at that time in the church, a certain lover, by the favour of her mother (as we may conjecture) sought to marry the damsel, and hindered her profession by force. Ambrose, therefore, interposed his authority ; he pronounced it not lawful for any one to compel this virgin to marry against her will, devoted to God by her father, as well as by her own consent. Therefore Bellarmin shews nothing else from this place, than that it was not lawful to compel a virgin to marry by force; which we may concede, without any injury to our defence.

Next Bernard is introduced, who in Epist. 111, thus writes in the name of Helias the monk to his parents, who desired to draw him home to them from the monastery, God is the sole cause whereby it is not. lawful to obey parents. For he declares, He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; &c.

I answer, It is true, We must not obey parents against the will of God: but it is false which Bernard supposes, That children cannot serve God, unless they forsake their parents and betake themselves into a monastery. And to speak freely what I think, Bernard errs most grievously in this whole Epistle, by writing as though there was no religlon, no salvation, out of a monastery : since, on the contrary, every thing which really pertains to religion may be performed by any Christian whatever without becoming a monk; but many things which pertain to charity, cannot be performed by monks unless they come out from the monastery.

Bellarmin opposes to us Gregory of Tours,⁴⁵ who commends Leobardus and Pappula, because both against the will of their parents embraced the monastic life : therefore it is not only lawful but laudable to do this.

I answer, Gregory of Tours is not of so much authority with us, that we should admit whatever he may have praised as commendable. We therefore oppose the 16th Chapter of the Council of Gangra, where the same thing which was commended by Gregory of Tours, is condemned, as we have before shewn. But, in order that it may be understood how inconsiderately he has extolled this and that, we shall add what Bellarmin conceals from this same history, that Leobardus not only himself entered a monastery against the will of his parents, but against his faith pledged to a virtuous damsel to marry her; and .Pappula herself, not only unknown to and against the will of her parents, but, moreover, assuming the habit of a man, entered the monastery, and carried herself in it as a man for thirty years. At the Council of Gangra, Cap. 13, an anathema was pronounced against every woman on this very account who should assume the male attire.⁴⁶ Away, therefore, with the commendation of Gregory, which is diametrically repugnant as well to the decree of a grave Council, as to the interdict of God himself.⁴⁷

In the last place, Chrysostom is cited, who in the end of lib. 3, against the censurers of a Monastic life, thus speaks to parents, If you shall oppose it, your children, if they should be endued with distinguished virtue, although you should be unwilling they may arrive at this monastic philosophy, they will enjoy eternal pleasures ; but yon will heap to yourselves infinite torments, This testimony I have deferred to the last place, because it appeared the most valid.

But I answer, It appears from that book of Chrysostom that all things at that time were most corrupt both in city and town, so that he says they deserved to have fire and brimstone rained upon them no less than Sodom and Gomorrha. Hence he takes the occasion of exhorting parents to send their young children and as yet not corrupted by the common contagion, into seclusion among the Monks, in whose schools there was somewhat of piety and the Christian Religion: not that they should be perpetually bound over and above the will of their parents, by I know not what rules, as it is now done; but that, being well grounded in piety and religion, they might reverence their A parents, and be to them both a comfort and greater help through their whole life. These things being largely explained, at length he subjoins the words adduced by Bellarmin; Your children, if they should be endued with distinguished virtue, although you should be unwilling they should arrive at this monastic philosophy, &c. He does not say, should become monks against your will, and wholly forsake you ; but shall arrive at this monastic philosophy, that is, shall learn Religion and Christian piety, which then flourished particularly among the monks. This is the meaning of Chrysostom; which will be evident to every one reading the book itself; in the whole of which not even the smallest word is found, which proves a solemn undertaking of a monastic life against the will of their parents, But if that could be proved on account of those times, in which religion and the true study of Christianity flourished mostly among the monks, it does not make for the praise of the popish Monks, among whom idleness, lust, and superstition reign ; but true piety and religion are driven into exile. So much for the Fathers. Certain Canons of the Councils are even brought forward by Bellarmin.⁴⁸

1. From the tenth Council of Toledo,⁴⁹ and the last Chapter, in which it is decreed, that it concerns parents, not to dedicate their children to Religion sooner than their fourteenth year; but afterwards it shall be lawful for children, even against the will of their parents, to enter a monastery by their own devotion,

I answer, We are not bound by the authority of this Council, because it is opposed by better Councils: By the third Council of Carthage;t cap. 4, in which it is ordained, that virgins are not wholly consecrated before their twenty-fifth year: and although it opposes the Council of Gangra, a Canon of which we have before cited, prohibiting children from deserting their parents by a religious pretext. Lastly, it also opposes the opinion of all the Papists, and of Bellarmin himself: For that Canon (as it is extant in the edition of Surius and Binius) does not say that after the fourteenth year children may enter upon a monastic life against the will of their parents, but after the tenth year it shall be lawful for them to do it. Bellarmin saw that this was contrary to his argument, and did not square with his distinction concerning children under age and adults; therefore, in conformity with his own Jesuitical integrity, he adds four to the number.⁵⁰

2. He quotes from the Council of Tribur,* the 24th Canon, in these words, If a damsel shall have assumed to herself the sacred veil of her own accord before her twelfth year,

* This was an important Council, numerously attended, and remarkable for the character of some of itsConstitutions. It was heid in the year 805, under King Arnoldus, at his palace called Tribur, situated near Mentz. The Archbishops of Mentz, Cologne, and Treves attended it, with nineteen German Bishops. It passed 58 Canons, several of which were confirmatory of many of those novelties and superstitions with which the Church now began to abound, and with which it was afflicted, and brought into a state of bondage issuing in the subsequent dark age. The Canon referred to above is thus stated by Du Pin: * The four and twentieth imports, that a Maid, who had taken the Veil by her own desire, and without any constraint, before she is 12 years old, is obliged to retain her virginity, if she hath worn that habit for a year and a day, and nobody may take her out of the Monastery.”

The Doctors and Fathers of the Church of Rome are in the present day vehemently incensing the popular clamour against ‘l’ithes. The 13th and 14th Canons of this Council had respect to them, as existing and claimed by her in those days. After the 13th had laid down the division, and appropriation ; the 14th goes on “ to preserve the ‘T’ithes to the ancient Churches, and annexes the Tithes of new broken-up lands to them; but if new houses be built four miles from other Churches, in a wood, or other place, and a Church be built there by the consent of the Bishop, they may put in a Priest and give him the newTithes.” ‘Thus was established, in this part of the Church, that system which the church of Rome had been labouring, for three preceding centuries, to establish throughout her growing empire. And wefurther see, from the decrees of this Council, how far Papal Supremacy had begun toextend itsgrasp. The thirtieth Canon appoints, ‘ that in memory of St. Peter, the Holy Roman and Apostolic See ought to be honoured, it being just, that that Church, which is the Mother of the priestly dignity, should be the Mistress of Ecclesiastical order, so that “tis fit, that men bear and endure the yoke she lays upon them, although it be almost insupportable!! Nevertheless ‘tis ordered, that if any Priest or Deacon be accused of carrying forged Letters from the Pope to stir up any troubles, or lay any snares for the ministers of the Church, the Bishop may with due respect to the Pope, stop his proceedings, till he hath written to the Holy See.” her parents and tutors may make that act void if they wish. But if at a more adva..ced age, a youth, or a young woman, chooses to serve God (namely, in a monastic life), ?£ is not in the power of the parents to forbid it. Hence Bellarmin infers, that it was lawful for children to enter a monastery after their twelfth year against the will of their parents.

I answer, the former part of the Canon is corruptly cited, the latter is forged. For that whole sentence, But if at a more advanced age, and what follows, are not the words of the Council, but assumed by Gratian, hence Bellarmin brings forward this Canon. For Gratian, Caus. 20, qu. 2, can. Puella, cites this in the same manner in which Bellarmin has done: but those last words, in which the whole force of the argument lies, are not found in the volumes of the Council themselves. Nor is this new to Gratian, whom all know to be a famous interpolater of the Councils who have compared that farrago of decrees with the councils themselves.⁵¹ Bellarmin’s moral reasons remain now to be solved.

1. Jt is lawful for children, against the will of their parents, to contract matrimony ; therefore, it is lawful for them to profess continence against their will.

I answer, Children sin if in contracting matrimony they defer not this honour to their parents, and suffer themselves to be directed by them: aud they likewise sin who desert them against their will, to lead a monastic life. Although it must be conceded, That whatever is good and pious in a monastic life may be practised by children, even if their impious and profane parents gainsay it: for instance, they may preserve perpetual continence, if they have that gift from God ; they may give themselves up to prayer; they may subdue their appetite for flesh by moderate fasting; because these things are not opposed to due obedience: but they cannot withdraw themselves from the paternal roof against the will of their parents, and place themselves in that state of life in which they are unable to assist and sustain their parents ; because this is opposed to the Divine command.

2. It is lawful for a man, against the will of his wife, after the period of the marriage contract, to belake himself to a monastic life; therefore it is much more lawful for a son to do that against the will of his father.

I answer, That it is lawful by the canonical and antichristian law; but by the Divine law it never was lawful : for matrimony, from the moment of contract, is true and confirmed matrimony, although not consummated. This very contract, therefore, transfers the power of the husband’s own body to his wife, and the wife’s to the husband : the husband therefore cannot against the will of the wife, defraud her of her right. What the Schoolmen pretend, that the monastic profession is a spiritual death, and that by this death marriage is dissolved no less than bodily existence, is so ridiculous, that it needs no refutation : for to die spiritually to the world and sin, is the duty of all Christians, not of the monks only.

3. Every free-born child after the years of puberty has his own right, as far as pertains to those things which relate to his person and condition ; therefore he may use this right, and enter a monastery against the will of his parents.

I answer, Children after the years of puberty do not immediately so become their own masters, that they may, without sin, neglect the counsel, throw off paternal rule, or slink away from home at their own pleasure. Nay, we constantly see in the Scriptures, that pious children, even after their fourteenth year (which is fixed as the mark of puberty) obey their parents, and yield to their commands, even in those things which relate to their person: as Jacob did in choosing a wife, and Isaac before him: So virgins did not take to themselves husbands without paternal approbation: Exod. xxii. 17; Deut. vii. 3; 1 Cor. vii. 56. It is therefore false, and contrary as well to Divine as to human laws, which Bellarmin takes for granted, That every damsel after her twelfth year, and every youth after his fourteenth year, may, against the will of their parents, determine on these things which relate to their person and condition. And if they may, yet this should always be done with true obedience, and the honour due to parents, which compels them to forego a cloistered life.

4. We must obey God rather than men; But God requires a perfect life in all things in general, Matt. xix., and in particular, by internal inspiration he calls certain persons: therefore if parents oppose, they are not to be listened to.

Answer, Bellarmin plainly dotes, who binds perfection to a cloister and a hood. We place the perfection of a Christian life in faith and charity, not in ceremonies or monastic rules. And we say with Gerson, That religious performances, are improperly and abusively, and perhaps arrogantly called a state of perfection. We therefore answer to the argument, That all Christians ought to aim at spiritual perfection, neither must parents be listened to, if they endeavour to hinder the progress of their children in faith and charity: but if they direct their children to continue under their control, to remain with them at home, to obey them in domestic duties, I affirm that lawful commands of this kind cannot be contemned without the violation of the Divine command, and the work of perfection is more excellent to obey parents in the fear of God, than to subject themselves to monastic traditions.

Vers. 21.

We have treated of the obedience of children. Now lest parents should suppose that they might do any thing they pleased by the power vested in them over their children, the Apostle would also advise even them not to abuse this their authority. And this verse consists of two parts : the former contains a prohibition; the latter, the cause of the prohibition.

Fathers, provoke not your children.] By this prohibition he would restrain the paternal power within its limits: And here let us consider the act prohibited and the persons. Provocation is prohibited: Now this provocation arises from a manifold abuse of paternal power.

1. If it shall have denied or withdrawn from children : those things which are rightly due to them, such, for instance, as food, clothing, and education corresponding with the rank and means of their father. And this, indeed, is so heavy a sin, that the Apostle did not fear to declare, that he who should not provide for his own, had denied the faith, and was worse than an infidel, 1 Tim.v.8. But neither (which is often the case) must there be sin on the other side: which they commit, who spoil their children by more dainty food, more splendid clothing, and a better education than is needful. And our age truly is more in danger from this evil, than from too much severity towards children.⁵² That remark of Quintilian, lib. i. cap. 2, is well suited for us. J wish we ourselves did not ruin the manners of our children. We spoil them immediately in their infancy by delicacies. That soft education which we call indulgence, destroys all the vigour both of mind and body. What will he not . . do when come to man’s estate, who has crawled in purple in his childhood. He cannot yet utter his first words, and is already a connoisseur in colours ; he already insists upon a purple dress. We form their palate before that the mouth is formed, &c.

2. Children are provoked, if parents endeavour to load them with impious and unjust commands. That was impious of Saul when he commanded Jonathan to seize and bring David his friend, guiltless of any crime, that he might be put to death, 1 Sam. xx. 31. Hence we read, vers. 34, that Jonathan was inflamed with grief and anger. That was likewise impious of Herodias, who ordered her daughter (to whom Herod had promised to give whatever she might ask) to ask the head of John the Baptist, Matt. xiv.8. But we do not read that this dancing daughter was offended at the impious command of her mother, because. she equalled her mother in impiety: if she had had any piety, she would have grieved at it. But again, I call that an unjust command, if a father, impelled by no necessity, should endeavour by his authority to compel his son to servile deeds, and unworthy of a free man. For the condition of children is one thing, that of slaves another. Among children, a father holds not a tyrannical, but a kingly rule; Therefore he ought to use their labour as a good king uses the labour of citizens, not as a master abuses the labour of servants. This Aristotle himself has noted, Polit. i. 7 : and viii. 2. |. 9. It pertains to this provocation, when parents being seized with anger, rashly revile and wound their children when they do not deserve it, with contumelious and unbecoming language. For contumely has a certain sting, which it is very difficult for even prudent persons to endure. Saul also provoked his son Jonathan with this kind of injury, 1 Sam. xx. 30, where he breaks forth in these words, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not 1 know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness ? “ What could be said more bitter to provoke a son than that in order to reproach him he even reviles his own wife as a common prostitute ?

4. Children are provoked, when parents, out of wantonness and fury, beat and chastise them with unjust or immoderate stripes and punishments. I call that unjust chastisement, for which there is not a legitimate cause. Thus Saul even wished to strike his son with a javelin, for no other reason than that he had taken upon himself the defence of David, who was absent and innocent, ] Sam. xx. 33, Wherefore Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, vers. 94. But chastisement is immoderate, when the severity of punishment exceeds the weight of the crime. Therefore it is provided for by Divine authority, that those who have authority over others, should not act with arbitrary cruelty towards criminals. If the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number of stripes, &c. Deut. xxv. 2, 8. And thus we have briefly demonstrated from what causes the provocation prohibited arises.

Corollaries.

1. Parental rule is not absolute, or unlimited; but must be conformed to nature and reason, and above all, to the Divine law.

2. It is proper to govern children with gravity and prudence : but it is not proper to exasperate them by bitterness and cruelty. For they are more likely to be kept within the bounds of duty by liberality and forbearance, than by fear and tyranny. Fear does not keep a person long in the path of duty, says Cicero.

3. Although it is not lawful to provoke and exasperate children, yet it is proper to instruct them, to chide them mildly, and to chastise them. “That what is not expressly laid down in this place, is yet to be understood, is gathered from Ephes. vi. 4, Fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. For instruction and chastisement of offending children falls under the Divine command, and it makes for the advantage of those who are corrected. Prov. xxiii. 13, 14.

Hitherto we have considered the act prohibited. Now let us examine in one or two words, what relates to the consideration of the persons.

Two persons are here marked out: he, or they to whom this interdict is given of not using provocation ; those are fathers: and they concerning whom, or on whose behalf it is given; and these are the children of those fathers.

First, we must observe in this personal designation why the Apostle should not have retained a word which he used in the foregoing verse, when he gave the precept concerning the obedience of children: for there he speaks of parents, that is, of father and mother conjointly; here he speaks of father alone. He seems to do this, because children often offend in defect of obedience towards their mothers; therefore when he prescribes concerning obedience, it was very necessary to include mothers: but mothers seldom offend towards their children by too much severity ; therefore it was sufficient to have fathers alone restrained by this interdict. For too much indulgence is the sin of mothers, not cruelty, which scarcely happens in a father, unless he is void of all paternal affection.

Secondly, it is proper to observe that argument which is implied in the term father. For when he says, Fathers, provoke not, it is as if he had said, Do not what ought to be most foreign from the person and office of a father. The very name father, bespeaks clemency and mildness. Hence that saying of the poet,

He was gentle, as a. Father. And here earthly fathers have before them for their imitation an example of their heavenly Father, who is never so wrath against his children, but he is mindful of his paternal clemency, as it is in Psalm lxxxix. 31], &c. Jf they break my statutes and keep not my commandments, Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes ; Nevertheless my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail, &c.

Thirdly, we must also notice that argument which is implied under these words, your children. For what else is this, than as if he had said, Afflict not your flesh, your blood, your bowels, your own selves, by any injurv. For a child is something of the father, as Aquinas says, Qu. disp. de pecc. orig. art. 8; and by the authority of Aristotle, his own beloved. It is therefore against the inclination of nature itself, that a father should aim to wound and provoke his own children, whom it behoves him to love and cherish.

But neither must we omit that this consideration of the persons ought also to incline the children themselves to patience and equanimity, when harshly and cruelly treated : for the cruelty of the father towards his child is a heavy sin, but the wrath and fury of a child towards his father is excessively monstrous. Hence Cicero, in his oration for Cluentius, said, that children should not only conceal the injuries of their parents, but bear them with equanimity. And thus far we have explained the prohibition itself: Now let us consider the cause of the prohibition.

Lest they be discouraged, or lest they become faint-hearted.] The cause of the prohibition is derived from the disadvantage of provocation, And its great disadvantage is shewn: for when children are treated in this manner by parents, for the most part they fall under discouragement.

This discouragement, aSyma, comprises three evils: I. That heaviness and sadness of mind into which that cruelty of their parents is wont to plunge their children, especially pious children. Hence oftentimes diseases spring, and sometimes their premature death. For as a moth hurteth a garment, and a worm, wood; so does sadness the heart, Prov. xxv. 20. Therefore, parents must strenuously guard against this disadvantage, lest they should seem to have begotten children only for the purpose of having persons on whom they might inflict torment. And that paternal goodness of God is to be imitated, who would have obedience shewn to himself from his children with alacrity and joy, not with sorrow and distress: The same disposition ought to prevail in earthly parents.

2. This discouragement comprises that dejection and stupidity of mind, which makes them fearful, and unfit to enter upon any work. For children are terrified by the cruelty of their parents, and finding that themselves and all their duties are disagreeable and hateful to them, at length they are cast down in mind, they venture to try or attempt nothing, but they become inactive and torpid. And parents should especially beware not to sink their children to this: for children are as the hands and arms with which the old age of parents should be defended; they are the feet and legs whereby they must be sustained. Therefore as any one would deservedly be accounted mad, who should occasion such numbness to his legs and arms by any narcotic medicament, that they might become in a manner useless to him : so are those parents to be accounted not far from insane, who by their severity and cruelty, so beat and render their children stupid, that they can neither be of any help to their parents nor themselves.

3. This discouragement brings in its train (especially in those who are not of a very good disposition) a certain desperate contumacy. For when they perceive that all hope of pleasing is done away, they also on the other hand cast off all hope of pleasing; yea, sometimes assume to themselves a boldness in displeasing, and a wantonness of provoking their parents. This, indeed, is the height of impiety in a child; but yet the father must beware not to occasion this impiety by his cruelty. For repeated cruelty does not whet the minds of children to perform their duties, but recals and withdraws them from it. And thus much of the duty of parents.

Vers. 22, 23.

The duties of wives and husbands, of children and parents, have been explained: There remain these of servants and masters; which being explained, nothing will be wanting that pertains to domestic instruction. He begins with servants. As to what pertains then to these, the Apostle does three things: 1. He gives a precept of obedience; 2. He teaches the mode of obeying; 3. He adds certain stimuli, or incentives to obedience, vers. 24, 25.

In the first place the precept is to be explained, which is contained in these words,

1. Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh.] The occasion of this precept seems to spring from the circumstance, that servants converted to Christianity, thought themselves to be exempt from the yoke of servitude. Which opinion, full of error, the devil without doubt instilled into the minds of men, that thence he might render the Christian religion odious among the heathen, as a disturber of order. This error perhaps had some colour; If masters embraced the Christian religion together with their servants, it was unjust that they should still hold them as slaves whom they were bound to account as brethren: if Masters still adhered to paganism, when their servants were converted, it seemed much more unjust that he who had been delivered and redeemed from the power of the devil, should nevertheless remain in bondage to a pagan man, who himself remained a slave to the devil. These things seemed to have an air of probability ; but notwithstanding, the Apostle gives a contrary precept; in which every word hath its weight to demonstrate the equity and even the necessity of the precept.

Servants. He addresses Christians, and yet he still calls them servants; Aovaa.] This word does not denote such domestics as we now employ; who are in reality free and free-born, although they serve others for hire: but it denotes such as the ancients used; who were either taken in war or bought, and on that account were wholly in the power of their masters.

Concerning the foundation of this servitude, whether it be just or violent, I shall not contend: yet it appears to have been allowed and established by the law of Nations. Hence Aristotle asserts, Polit. 1. 3, that servants of this kind were nothing else than dpyave Empuxa, certain animated instruments of their masters. And even among the sacred writers these servants are reckoned among the goods and possessions of their masters, Job. 1.3; and the servant is called in Exod. xxi. 21, the money of his master. The Apostle therefore shews by this very name, that they were bound to obedience : and on that account he adds his command,

Servants, obey in all things.] This precept was proposed in these same words to children, vers. 20, and, as it was then said, involved two things ; humility in receiving the commands of another, and alacrity in executing the same: for these two are intimated under this one word tzaxover. But what he adds, in all things, that is to be restricted to things lawful and honest, and those which regard the duty of servants: for if a master shall order his servant to do any thing which is either contrary to piety or foreign from the duty of a servant, he is not bound to obey; because his master ought not to command such things. Rightly, therefore, has Jerome put in this exception, IN ALL THINGS; namely, says he, in which the lord of the flesh does not command contrary to the Lord of the spirit. Therefore, the Apostle does not include impious and unlawful obedience, when he enjoins them to obey zn all things, but he forbids divided and arbitrary obedience according to the will of servants themselves.

Your masters according to the flesh.] This title also, equally as the preceding one of servants, shews the equity of the precept. For as the epithet servant admonishes of the performance of obedience to another, so the name miaster points out the obedience due from him to that other. But that addition according to the flesh, signifies that this lordship or power of man over man, is only temporal, and in things external and temporal, but does not extend to the soul and the conscience. This difference of Divine and human authority Christ observed in Matt. x. 28, Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Instructions.

1. The Christian religion does not subvert political order; nay, it does not deprive Heathen masters of their legitimate authority over Christian servants. Therefore the Anabaptists err, who think all authority to be opposed to Evangelical liberty, even of Christians over Christians. ⁵³ The Papists err, who would have it that the authority of kings over their subjects is dissolved by heresy; for if notwithstanding paganism, a master remained a master of Christians according to the flesh, then a king also will remain the king of his subjects.

9. The Christian religion frees from the yoke of human servitude that which is the best and most excellent thing in man, namely, the spirit and the conscience. See Gal. v. l. They therefore err who would rule the minds and consciences of men by virtue of any superiority and human lordship ; for they are masters according to the flesh, not according to the spirit. They also err who believe or obey doctrines or commands of superiors in spiritual things pertaining to salvation, not thinking or seeking from God whether or not they proceed from their own inventions. The common people among the Papists labour under this error, who yield a blind faith and obedience to their prelates, as if they were the lords of the faith of Christians. Compare 1 Pet. v. 3, and 2 Cor. i. 24.

3. Christians may and ought to submit themselves according to the flesh (i. e. in things external, doubtful, and temporal) even to the unjust commands of those who are masters according to the flesh. Thus Augustine, in Expos. epist. ad Rom. propos. 74, We must not resist magistrates, although they unjustly take away from us temporal things. And Peter, 1 epis. ii. 18, Be subject to your masters, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. And thus much concerning the precept and the necessity of obeying: Let us now proceed to the manner.

2. The manner of obeying is described by the Apostle, both negatively and affirmatively ; Negatively, he shews the diseases of servants, from which a Christian should be free: Affirmatively, he prescribes certain precautions opposed to the aforesaid diseases.

Not with eye-service, as men-pleasers.] He touches a disease too familiar to servants, and also its cause. The disease he calls eye-service, i. e. obedience under the eye. They fall under this disease, who, when their master is present and beholding them, sedulously and strenuously perform their duty ; but are idle when he is absent and knows nothing of their proceedings, and (what is worse) they waste and consume their master’s substance. Such a servant is described in Luke xii. 45, who said in his lord’s absence, My lord delayeth his coming ; and thereupon exercised tyranny over his fellow servants, but he himself eats, and drinks, and is drunken. This is a disease which should be banished far away from Christian servants. Now he points out the cause or fountain of this disease, when he forthwith subjoins,

As men-pleasers.] Hes called a man-pleaser, who proposes this scope or end only to himself, to be praised by men, and to please them; in the mean time being no ways solicitous whether he shall effect this by true and lawful obedience, or by counterfeit and pretended means: therefore, when his inspector is absent, he desists from his work. That servant who is thus resolved to please his master, has no respect in his doings for integrity of conscience, nor the advantage of his master; but then only pretends to be diligent and industrious in performing the business of his master when he perceives that it will answer bis own end. Servants of this kind are like actors on the stage. For as comedians, who act in order to please, and study to please that they may thereby obtain benefit, do not mount the stage unless when the people are beholding and looking on: so these men-pleasers move not a hand to labour, unless when they have their masters beholding and applauding them, And thus much concerning the disease of man-pleasing, and its origin, namely, a fraudulent purpose of pleasing. ‘The remedies opposed to it follow.

But with singleness of heart, fearing God.] These words have a manifest antithesis to the afore-mentioned vices. For singleness of heart is opposed to deceitful eye-service ; the true fear of God, to the fraudulent purpose of pleasing men. Therefore, having banished those vices, he would have these contrary virtues to rule. He who serves his master to the eye, seems to have two hearts : one dutiful and pious, which excites him to due obedience in his master’s presence; the other an undutiful and impious one, which impels him to idleness and fraud when his master is absent. But he who obeys with singleness of heart, has one heart alone, and ever the same, which moves him to perform his duty, whether his master be inspecting him or not; because he judges the chief fruit of duty is duty itself. Therefore he should be said to labour and work in sing ‘eness of heart, who does it having excluded deceit, hypocrisy, and all disguise of an evil intention under an honest appearance, and who desires to appear the same that he is, and to be the same that he appears. But to this simplicity he joins,

Fearing God.] As the study of deceitfully pleasing men can produce nothing else than eye-service ; so the true and genuine fear of God always produces simplicity and sincerity. As, therefore, the cause is connected with the effect, he places the fear of God with singleness of heart : and rightly indeed ; For he who fears or respects men alone, will be changeable and inconstant in discharging any office, because he is directed by an uncertain rule : for indeed the fear of man is inconstant, inasmuch as it is incited whilst he is present, it vanishes on his being absent: but the fear of God is constant and firm in the bosoms of the pious, because God is always present to them, and never ought or can be imagined as absent. I am a God at hand, and not a God afar off, Jer. xxiii. 28. This was not unknown to the poet, who said, God seeth thee being near at hand. We have a remarkable example of the fear of God in Joseph: who, when he was solicited to commit adultery by his mistress herself whilst his master was absent and unconscious, would not hearken to her; but repelled her shamelessness by these words, How can I do this wickedness, and sin against God? If he had been only a man-pleaser, he both could and without doubt would have done it: but because he feared God the Supreme Lord, he could not wrong his earthly lord by this injury. Such are all they who obey their masters with singleness of heart, fearing God.

Vers. 23.

The Apostle proceeds still in describing the manner of lawful obedience: and he adds another condition, namely, that all the duties of servants should be performed, not only in singleness of heart and the fear of God, but also from the heart : and he immediately subjoins the reason; namely, because they serve the Lord, i. e. Christ, not men. Let us therefore consider, first, the condition requisite in all the obedience of servants ; secondly, the reason of the condition required.

Whatever ye do, do it heartily, ex Juxx.] Two things are implied in this one word:

1. That servants willingly and cheerfully do what things are commanded by their masters, not compulsorily and unwillingly. And, indeed, it is very probable, that certain Christian servants, obeyed their masters rather from the necessity of their condition, than from the will, especially unbelieving masters. The Apostle, therefore, endeavours to cure this evil, when he bid them to do all things, not from necessity, but from the heart, heartily. We do any thing heartily, when the mind desires and rejoices that that should be done which the hand does. On the contrary, when the mind murmurs and resists, although the outward act may be performed, yet it is done rather from the body than from the mind. For, as Prosper rightly said, If any thing be done against the will, it is done rather for thee than that thou doest it.

2. By this word it is also signified, that servants ought to obey their masters yer’ évvofas, that is to say, not only should they be well disposed to the execution of the work, but even possess benevolence of spirit towards the comander of the work. And these for the most part are connected together; for no one performs the work imposed upon him cheerfully, except he who strives and reverences him who commanded the work. And this is expressly laid down in Ephes. vi. 7, uev! éwoías Coursvovtes, with good will doing service. No one obeys better than he who renders obedience from love, says Ambrose. Thus much for the condition: Let us now come to the reason of this condition.

2. As to the Lord, and not unto men.] That is, as those who serve the Lord rather and more especially than men, even in such compliances as are rendered to men: for the use or utility of the works has respect to men; the mind of the doer first and especially to God. Therefore, the negative particle in this place is not used absolutely, as though it were wicked to serve men, or to respect men whilst serving them; but it is corrective and diminutive, shewing that it behoves us to regard the Lord Christ more and first in those compliances, than earthly masters themselves. There is a well known rule in the exposition of the holy Scriptures, In comparisons that is often denied which is not to be excluded, but only postponed to another: as in Mar. ix. 37, Whosoever receiveth me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me; i.e. he rather receiveth the Father who sent me, than I who am sent; because he receiveth me by that grace. So in this place, ¢o the Lord, and not unto men, i. e. to the Lord Christ, more than to men ; because for the sake of Christ you serve them.

But why in these lower and external observances are they said to obey the Lord more than men, whose commands they are, and whom alone they profit?

First, because they who obey are more the servants of Christ than of earthly masters. For earthly masters buy their servants for silver and gold; Christ buys them with his precious blood: they redeem the body alone, and that for another service; Christ redeems both soul and body for perpetual liberty. They must therefore especially serve Christ.

Secondly, because they obey earthly masters only at the appointment of Christ; therefore they rather obey Christ than them; not unlike as inferior servants who obey a steward, yet are said more to obey their master, at whose will they yield to his steward: he is opposed, if he shall order the contrary to his master.

Thirdly, because Christ himself hath declared that he wishes his servants to obey their masters, and this he strictly commands in his word: and he himself also in his wise governance and by his authority, hath ordained some to service and others to dominion. Whilst faithful servants have respect to all these things, they are rightly said to serve the Lord and not men.

But now, that this is the most valid reason why they should do all things heartily, is gathered from hence, because this supreme Lord, that is to say, Christ, can both inspect the heart, and he is wont to regard the heart, more than the external act: It behoves the person therefore who desires to please him, to do all things heartily. Now let us collect the instructions in one view.

1. A Christian servant is not satisfied to please his earthly master, unless at the same time also he may please his supreme Lord, namely Christ.

2. Whatever work and external compliance may seem laudable ; yet it is counterfeit and hypocritical when it is referred to a bad end.

3. In all the duties of our vocation we must study rather to preserve a good conscience, than to obtain human approbation. 07

4. A defect in all the observances of men towards men, arises from a defect of fear and reverence towards God.

5. They alone are judged truly to fear God, who are employed among men in a single and honest heart; on the contrary, they who carry themselves subtily and deceitfully towards men, are impious and treacherous against God,

To conclude therefore ; This is the manner of Christian obedience, that a faithful man so act in all the duties of his vocation as if there was no other being in this world besides himself and God; for when he hath his eyes so fixed in every work on God, he will not dare to obtrude those compliances upon men which he knows to be odious and disagreeable to God the searcher of hearts. Thus much concerning the precept and the manner of obedience.

Vers. 24, 25.

In these two verses are contained two incentives to the aforesaid obedience, derived from those considerations by which mankind are especially moved; namely, from the reward, and the punishment: that is to say, from the proniise of a reward, in the former verse; from the threat of a punishment, in the latter verse.

As to the former verse, we have in it, 1. The promise of the reward itself; Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance. 2. The confirmation of the reward promised ; for ye serve the Lord Christ.

In this promise we may observe, first, the Author or Bestower of the reward promised, namely, Christ; Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive.

The Apostle rightly and prudently would have those servants to expect a reward from Christ. For earthly masters give food and clothing to their slaves, whether bought or taken in war: they thought not any other reward to be due to them more than to their beasts. Food is the slave’s wages, says Aristotle, Oecon. i. 5. The Apostle, therefore, consoles these servants,⁵⁴ that although they are neglected by their earthly masters, yet they have a heavenly master a munificent rewarder, who will not suffer them to bé destitute of a reward, if from the heart they obey their masters, and as it becomes pious men and Christians. Therefore he joins that word «dotes, knowing, or taking it for certain: because it is wicked even to doubt concerning the reward which Christ himself has undertaken to bestow: for however men are accustomed to withhold and deny the reward engaged for, yet Christ neither ever will do so, nor can he. Thus much of the Author or Promiser of the reward.

Secondly, let us observe the quality of the reward signified by this addition, dvtamooorly 77$ HANPOVOUMLAS, the reward of the inheritance. These things seem to be incongruous: for a reward is paid to labourers; an inheritance is given to children. But the Apostle would indicate, that he is not speaking of any temporal reward, which should correspond in equal value to their work ; but of that eternal reward of blessedness, which surpasses far and wide all the worth of human works or duties.

This celestial reward, therefore, is called merces, hire or wages; not because men are able to merit it by the excellence of their works, but because it bears a resemblance to a reward in certain other circumstances.

1. As hire is not given except to labourers and workmen ; so the heavenly kingdom is not given to the indolent, but to those striving in their vocation.

2. As hire is not wont to be given except after the works are finished; so life eternal is not bestowed unless after the course of this life is ended.

Now in two other respects the heavenly reward is unlike hire.

1. Hire is given according to the merit of the workman; but the heavenly reward is given from the grace and liberality of the bestower, Luke xvii. 10.

2. Hire is proportioned to the labours for which it is bestowed; but the heavenly reward hath no proportion to our services for which it is a reward ; for finite hath no proportion to infinite. Therefore this same reward is called an inheritance, because it pertains to the pious and faithful by right of sonship. And by this word he comforts Christian servants: For as they could not receive any reward from their earthly masters, who looked upon them as slaves; yet they are to receive an inheritance from God, who accounts them as sons: and it behoves them to expect this reward of the inheritance.

Concerning this inheritance due to believers by right of adoption, the Apostle thus speaks in Rom. viii. 15, Ye have received the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba, Father. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ ; vers. 17.

Corollaries.

1. No vocation is so mean and abject, to which a reward is not promised by God, if only men conduct themselves piously in the same. We are not, therefore, to consider how honourable our vocation may be; but labour rather, that whatever in truth it may be (so that it is lawful and honest) it may be discharged well by us, and with a good conscience. flence that counsel of the Apostle, 1 Cor. vii. 20, Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called ; For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s free man ; vers. 22.

2. Itisnot proper to fix the eyes or the mind upon those light rewards which are promised by men to those doing well; but it behoves us always to regard that eternal reward which God the Father has promised to his obedient children. Thus Paul in discharging his vocation, regards not the reward of human favour or glory, or of earthly gain, but that Crown which the Lord shall give to all those loving his appearing, 2 Tim. iv. 8.

3. They sin who leave off to do well, or at least act languidly and remissly, on account of the ingratitude and iniquity of men: for it is sufficient for the godly man to know that he shall receive the reward of the inheritance from Christ ; with which he ought to be content, although in the mean while he is neglected and evil intreated by men.

4. They also err who attribute this reward of blessedness to their merits. For although it is given to the labourers, yet not for the excellence of their works, but by right of adoption, as was before said and proved. But now adoption excludes merit, if it be rightly defined by Lawyers. Adoption, says Durandus, lib. 3. dist. 10, qu. 2, is the gratuitous taking of a person to a participation of an inheritance, to which inheritance he had no right. And thus much concerning the promise of the reward: The confirmation of the promise follows.

For ye serve the Lord Christ.] “This concerning their reward being received from Christ himself avails to confirm the hope of servants. For the work and the reward are related ; Therefore, equity demands that for whom the work is done, from him the reward should be expected. It will seem scarcely credible, that they who discharged the meanest offices among men here on earth, should be said on this very account to serve Christ himself, who sits in the heavens most glorious and by no means needing human service. But the reason is manifest (as we have largely explained in the foregoing verse,) namely, that whatever duties are performed to men according to the direction and at the command of Christ, and on account of the appointment and for the glory of Christ, they are judged to be offered and rendered to Christ himself. For he serves God, who for the sake of God serves men, as Jerome has rightly observed on this passage. This Christ himself shews, Matt. xxv. 40, 45, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, ye have done it unto me ;, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. He speaks in this place concerning alms-deeds, as far as they are done or denied to men; but it ought to be extended to all the works of obedience commanded by God: for when these are rendered to men, they are rendered to God who commanded them to be done; when denied to them, they are deemed as denied to God himself. And that rightly too: for he who, being commanded by God to obey men, refuses to yield to human authority; if he had power would also shake off the Divine government.

Corollaries.

1. No service is dishonourable in which men conduct themselves well and faithfully: for they who are such, serve Christ himself, which is the height of dignity and honour.

2. No honour, no authority screens a wicked man from ignominy and disgrace: for they who are of that character serve the devil, which is the abyss of infamy and misery.

3. They who, being placed under the rule of others, are unwilling to serve, are not only rebels against men, but against God and Christ. Hence that reproof of God himself against the Israelites wishing to shake off the government of Samuel, They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, 1 Sam. viii. 7.

4. We ought not to obey any mortal among those who are opposed to the will of Christ: For it is unjust and foreign to reason that those should be obeyed against the will of Christ, whom we obey for Christ.

And thus much of the former incentive, derived from the promise of a reward: It remains to treat of the other, taken from the threat of punishment.

Vers. 25.

In the foregoing verse the Apostle had encouraged servants to perform their duty properly, by proposing a reward to them: Now he stimulates them to the same duty by threatening a punishment. But there are two parts of this verse. The first contains a commination, or threatening of punishment to all who shall fail in their duty; He that doeth wrong, &c. The latter contains an anticipation of an implied objection, which seems to lessen the certainty of the punishment threatened ; And there is no respect of persons.

He that doeth wrong, shall receive for the wrong which he hath done.] Some think this punishment threatened to wicked masters for the comfort of servants: as though the Apostle had said, If your masters shall be unjust and wicked, let not your minds be dejected, do not neglect to perform for them whatever is in your power; but leave your revenge to God, who will avenge whatever injuries shall be done to you.

Imperious and impious masters are accustomed to wrong their servants in many ways. Sometimes they defraud them of their clothing, food, or due wages; Sometimes they load and urge them by labours beyond their strength; sometimes they afflict them with reproaches and unjust stripes: almost all which things happened to the people of God in the Egyptian servitude; Exod. v. For wrongs of this kind, let not servants rise against their masters through impatience or anger, or leave the tasks imposed upon them through idleness, says the Apostle. Whoever, in fine, he shall be who does these wrongs to his servant, he shall receive from God himself for the wrong which he hath done: that is, he shall feel vengeance and punishment corresponding to his iniquity. We have a sample of this Divine vengeance upon the Egyptian oppressors ; whom God afflicted with much heavier punishments than they were able to afflict their Israelitish servants: and upon Saul, who is punished in his posterity for the wrong done to the slaughtered Gibeonites, 2 Sam. xxi.

Other interpreters refer this commination to servants themselves: as though the Apostle had said, If the expectation of the heavenly reward cannot inflame you to fulfil your duty ; this at least should excite you, that God himself will punish, either your contumacy, or your idleness. For contumacious servants, who despise their masters and regard them not of a straw, do wrong to them, as far as they do not pay them due obedience and reverence: the slothful and deceitful also are deemed to wrong their masters, because they either do not yield them due submission, or not with that faith and sincerity of heart with which they should have done. If, then, servants, by these or any other means, do wrong to their masters, they shall receive for the wrong done: that is, they shall be punished for their dishonesty by God, the judge and avenger. We have on record the example of Gehazi, 2 Kings v.

But I think with Jerome that both interpretations should be united ; as well because the Apostle addresses all generally as especially because he has placed this commination between the duties of servants and masters, that it may extend to both, and that equally. “Thus, then, I explain the words of the Apostle; He that doeth wrong ; whether he be the master, by afflicting his servant unjustly ; or the servant, by despising or defrauding his master; each shall receive for the wrong which he hath done, that is, shall be severely punished by the Supreme Lord God according to the weight of his sin.

Instructions.

1. In all sin (although men may indulge the hope of impunity, yet) it is determined by God himself that the punishments which impend over sinners shall be inflicted. And what can it profit to have avoided the avenging hand of men, and to fall into the hands of the living God ?

2. Earthly masters, with whatever power they may be armed, cannot safely or with impunity trample upon those subjected to them: for themselves also are subject to God ; and every sovereignty is under a still higher Sovereignty, says Senecd.

3. In dealing with subjects or servants, they who are set over them ought always to consider, whether what they do is of that nature, that it may also be cleared from the charge of wrong by God the Judge : for an account must be rendered at his tribunal.

4. ‘They are the most miserable of all mortals, who mostly afflict others by miseries : for they themselves shall receive for all those wrongs which they have done. “They, therefore, doat who think themselves happy in this power of doing wrong. Thus Sylla obtained the surname of Felix, even because he could with impunity murder his innocent fellow citizens at will. .

5. They who are under the rule and the power of others, ought to be induced by no wrongs to neglect their duty: but rather to continue at their duty, and leave their revenge to God. Thus much of the commination.

And there is no respect of persons.] There is in these words an anticipation of alurking objection. For it might be objected on the part of masters, Who shall call us to account for evil intreating a servant? Servants were accounted as nothing. It is understood, according to the opinion of Lawyers, that no wrongs could be done to servants. But suppose that we are arraigned ; we shall either escape through favour, or we shall avoid it by power, or we shall bribe the judge himself by money. The Apostle meets these notions; and affirms, that the rule of Divine and of human justice is not the same. Human tribunals are very much like a spider’s web: they enfold the powerless and weak; but the mighty and the rich break through by main force. But that Supreme Judge is not terrified by power, nor turned aside by favour, nor bribed by the money of the wicked: there is at his tribunal no respect of persons. This is well depicted by Job, xxxiv. 19, He accepteth not the persons of princes, nor regardeth the rich more than the poor: for they all are the work of his hands. Upon this passage Ambrose writes in Ephes. vi. The Lord as the just Judge ; he discerns causes, not persons.

But it might also be objected on the part of servants, What? if we do not obey these earthly masters heartily ; can it therefore be thought that God himself will avenge them upon us wretches? It is sufficient that we have experience of miseries in going through life under these hard and imperious masters; we may expect compassion from God rather than punishment. The Apostle cuts off this vain hope also in these persons, and denies that God is any other than just and good, or can favour the poor out of compassion, or withhold from the rich out of envy what is their due. Nay, he hath even removed this respect of persons by that broad law in Exod. xxiii. 3, Thou shalt not countenance a poor man in his cause; and Levit. xix. 15, Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: Thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty. There is, therefore, no respect of persons with God, who, as the poet (Phocylides) rightly said,

Distributes just rights to every one, and warps not judg-

ment to favour.⁵⁵

Instructions.

1. Not only those wrongs which are done to kings and the great, but those to subjects and servants, have God alike for their avenger.

2. We must therefore equally avoid both, that we may not sin in either; since both will equally subject us to Divine vengeance.

3. It behoves those who act for God upon the earth, to imitate this Divine justice, and, laying aside all respect of persons, render what is due to every one. Well said Archytas, that the judge amd the altar are the same: for we flee to either as often as wrong is done to us.⁵⁶ Therefore, that a Judge may be a sanctuary, he ought to protect the poor and men of the lowest estate, as well as the rich and great. edly chosen general of the Tarentines, and was Plato’s instructor, it is said, in geometry. He was one of the first who applied the theory of mathematics to practical purposes, and gave a method of finding two mean proportionals between two given lines, and thence the duplication of the cube, by means of the conic sections. Many marvellous stories are related of his skill in mechanics, such as his constructing a wooden pigeon which could fly, &c. He flourished about 400 years before the birth of Christ, and after acquiring great reputation both in his legislative and military capacity, and being distinguished equally for his modesty and self-command, he was shipwrecked in the Adriatic sea, and his dead body thrown upon the Apulian coast. Horace has finely alluded to this fate of Archytas, in his lib. i. od. 28:

Te maris et terre numeroque carditis arene !

Mensorem cohibent, Archyta,

Pulveris exigui prope littus parva Matinum

Munera ; nee quidquam tibi prodest N

Aérias tentásse domos, animoque rotundum

Percurrisse polum, morituro !

A treatise on the Universe, ascribed to him, and from which probably our Expositor cites the above passage, has been twice printed, at Leipsic, 1564, and at Venice, 1571, both in 4to.⁵⁷

---