Galatians 2 commentary

Observe the apostle's faithfulness in giving a full account of the doctrine he had preached among the Gentiles, and was still resolved to preach, that of Christianity, free from all mixture of Judaism. This doctrine would be ungrateful to many, yet he was not afraid to own it. His care was, lest the success of his past labours should be lessened, or his future usefulness be hindered. While we simply depend upon God for success to our labours, we should use every proper caution to remove mistakes, and against opposers. There are things which may lawfully be complied with, yet, when they cannot be done without betraying the truth, they ought to be refused. We must not give place to any conduct, whereby the truth of the gospel would be reflected upon. Though Paul conversed with the other apostles, yet he did not receive any addition to his knowledge, or authority, from them. Perceiving the grace given to him, they gave unto him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, whereby they acknowledged that he was designed to the honour and office of an apostle as well as themselves. They agreed that these two should go to the heathen, while they continued to preach to the Jews; judging it agreeable to the mind of Christ, so to divide their work. Here we learn that the gospel is not ours, but God's; and that men are but the keepers of it; for this we are to praise God. The apostle showed his charitable disposition, and how ready he was to own the Jewish converts as brethren, though many would scarcely allow the like favour to the converted Gentiles; but mere difference of opinion was no reason to him why he should not help them. Herein is a pattern of Christian charity, which we should extend to all the disciples of Christ.

Notwithstanding Peter's character, yet, when Paul saw him acting so as to hurt the truth of the gospel and the peace of the church, he was not afraid to reprove him. When he saw that Peter and the others did not live up to that principle which the gospel taught, and which they professed, namely, That by the death of Christ the partition wall between Jew and Gentile was taken down, and the observance of the law of Moses was no longer in force; as Peter's offence was public, he publicly reproved him. There is a very great difference between the prudence of St. Paul, who bore with, and used for a time, the ceremonies of the law as not sinful, and the timid conduct of St. Peter, who, by withdrawing from the Gentiles, led others to think that these ceremonies were necessary.

Paul, having thus shown he was not inferior to any apostle, not to Peter himself, speaks of the great foundation doctrine of the gospel. For what did we believe in Christ? Was it not that we might be justified by the faith of Christ? If so, is it not foolish to go back to the law, and to expect to be justified by the merit of moral works, or sacrifices, or ceremonies? The occasion of this declaration doubtless arose from the ceremonial law; but the argument is quite as strong against all dependence upon the works of the moral law, as respects justification. To give the greater weight to this, it is added, But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ the minister of sin? This would be very dishonourable to Christ, and also very hurtful to them. By considering the law itself, he saw that justification was not to be expected by the works of it, and that there was now no further need of the sacrifices and cleansings of it, since they were done away in Christ, by his offering up himself a sacrifice for us. He did not hope or fear any thing from it; any more than a dead man from enemies. But the effect was not a careless, lawless life. It was necessary, that he might live to God, and be devoted to him through the motives and grace of the gospel. It is no new prejudice, though a most unjust one, that the doctrine of justification by faith alone, tends to encourage people in sin. Not so, for to take occasion from free grace, or the doctrine of it, to live in sin, is to try to make Christ the minister of sin, at any thought of which all Christian hearts would shudder.

Here, in his own person, the apostle describes the spiritual or hidden life of a believer. The old man is crucified, Ro 6:6, but the new man is living; sin is mortified, and grace is quickened. He has the comforts and the triumphs of grace; yet that grace is not from himself, but from another. Believers see themselves living in a state of dependence on Christ. Hence it is, that though he lives in the flesh, yet he does not live after the flesh. Those who have true faith, live by that faith; and faith fastens upon Christ's giving himself for us. He loved me, and gave himself for me. As if the apostle said, The Lord saw me fleeing from him more and more. Such wickedness, error, and ignorance were in my will and understanding, that it was not possible for me to be ransomed by any other means than by such a price. Consider well this price. Here notice the false faith of many. And their profession is accordingly; they have the form of godliness without the power of it. They think they believe the articles of faith aright, but they are deceived. For to believe in Christ crucified, is not only to believe that he was crucified, but also to believe that I am crucified with him. And this is to know Christ crucified. Hence we learn what is the nature of grace. God's grace cannot stand with man's merit. Grace is no grace unless it is freely given every way. The more simply the believer relies on Christ for every thing, the more devotedly does he walk before Him in all his ordinances and commandments. Christ lives and reigns in him, and he lives here on earth by faith in the Son of God, which works by love, causes obedience, and changes into his holy image. Thus he neither abuses the grace of God, nor makes it in vain.

1. Fourteen years after. This cannot with certainty be affirmed to be the same journey mentioned by Luke. (Acts 15:2.) The connection of the history leads us rather to an opposite conclusion. We find that Paul performed four journeys to Jerusalem. Of the first we have already spoken. The second took place when, in company with Barnabas, he brought the charitable contributions of the Greek and Asiatic Churches. (Acts 15:25.) My belief that this second journey is referred to in the present passage rests on various grounds. On any other supposition, the statements of Paul and Luke cannot be reconciled. Besides, there is ground for conjecturing that the rebuke was administered to Peter at Antioch while Paul was residing there. Now, this happened before he was sent to Jerusalem by the Churches to settle the dispute which had arisen about ceremonial observances. (Acts 15:2.) It is not reasonable to suppose that Peter would have used such dissimulation, if that controversy had been settled and the decree of the Apostles published. But Paul writes that he came to Jerusalem, and afterwards adds that he had rebuked Peter for an act of dissimulation, an act which Peter certainly would not have committed except in matters that were doubtful. “Sinon les choses estant douteuses et non resolues encore.” “Except in matters that were doubtful and not yet settled.”

Besides, he would scarcely have alluded, at any time, to that journey “Ce voyage-la qui est escrit au quinzieme chapitre“ “That journey which is recorded in the fifteenth chapter” (of the Acts of the Apostles.) undertaken with the consent of all the believers, without mentioning the occasion of it, and the memorable decision which was passed. It is not even certain at what time the Epistle was written, only that the Greeks conjecture that it was sent from Rome, and the Latins from Ephesus. For my own part, I think that it was written, not only before Paul had seen Rome, but before that consultation had been held, and the decision of the Apostles given about ceremonial observances. While his opponents were falsely pleading the name of the apostles, and earnestly striving to ruin the reputation of Paul, what carelessness would it have angered in him to pass by the decree universally circulated among them, which struck at those very persons! “De la quelle il eust au assez pour les vaincre du tout.” “Which would have been sufficient for gaining a complete victory over them.” Undoubtedly, this one word would have shut their mouth: “You bring against me the authority of the apostles, but who does not know their decision? and therefore I hold you convicted of unblushing falsehood. In their name, you oblige the Gentiles to keep the law, but I appeal to their own writing, which sets the consciences of men at liberty.”

We may likewise observe, that, in the commencement of the Epistle, he reproved the Galatians for having so soon revolted from the gospel which had been delivered to them. But we may readily conclude, that, after they had been brought to believe the gospel, some time must have elapsed before that dispute about the ceremonial law arose. I consider, therefore, that the fourteen years are to be reckoned, not from one journey to another, but from Paul’s conversion. The space of time between the two journeys was eleven years.

2. And I went up according to revelation. “Et y montai par revelation.” “And I went up thither by revelation.” He now proceeds to prove his apostleship and his doctrine, not only by works, but also by a Divine revelation. Since God directed that journey, which had for its object the confirmation of his doctrine, the doctrine was confirmed, not by the concurrence of men only, but likewise by the authority of God. This ought to have been more than enough to overcome the obstinacy of those who blamed Paul by holding up the names of the apostles. For although, up to this time, there had been some room for debate, the communication of the mind of God put an end to all discussion.

I communicated to them. The word communicated claims our first attention; for the apostles do not describe to him what he ought to teach, but, after listening to his own account of his doctrine, express their concurrence and approbation. But, as his opponents might allege that, by cunning dissimulation on many points, he had gained the favor of the apostles, he expressly states that he “communicated to them that doctrine which he preacheth among the Gentiles;” which removes all suspicion of hypocrisy or imposture. We shall see what followed; for the apostles did not take it amiss that he had not waited to obtain their sanction. On the contrary, without dispute or expostulation, they approved of his labors; and did so by the direction of the same Spirit, under whose guidance Paul had performed his journey to Jerusalem. Thus, he was not made an apostle by them, but acknowledged to be an apostle. But this point will be treated more fully afterwards.

Lest by any means. What then? Shall the word of God fall, when it is unsupported by the testimony of men? Though the whole world were unbelieving, yet the word of God remains firm and unshaken: and they who preach the gospel by the command of God are not uselessly employed, even when no fruit is produced by their labors. This is not Paul’s meaning; but, as the consciences of men, so long as they doubt and hesitate, derive no benefit from the ministry of the word, so a preacher is said, so far as men is concerned, to run in vain, when his labors are ineffectual, and unaccompanied by proper edification.

It was, therefore, a formidable weapon for shaking weak consciences, when the doctrine which Paul preached was falsely declared by impostors to be at variance with the doctrine of the apostles. Multitudes in this manner fell away. The certainty of faith, indeed, does not depend on the agreement of human opinions; but, on the contrary, it is our duty to rest in the naked truth of God, so that neither men nor all the angels together, could shake our faith. Yet ignorant persons, who have imperfectly understood, and never have cordially embraced, sound doctrine, feel the temptation to be almost irresistible, while teachers of acknowledged eminence are found to entertain opposite views. Nay, strong believers are sometimes powerfully affected by this stratagem of Satan, when he holds out to their view the “strife and divisions” (1 Corinthians 3:3) of those who ought to have been

“perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” (1 Corinthians 1:10.)

It is hard to tell how many were driven from the gospel, how many had their faith shaken, by the mournful controversy about the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, because, on a question of the highest moment, very distinguished men were observed to take opposite sides.

On the other hand, the agreement of all who teach in the Church is a powerful aid for the confirmation of faith. Since, therefore, Satan was laboring so insidiously to hinder the progress of the gospel, Paul resolved to meet him. When he had succeeded in demonstrating that he held the same views with all the apostles, every hinderance was removed. Weak disciples were no longer perplexed by the inquiry, whom they ought to follow. His meaning may be thus summed up: “That my former labors might not be thrown away and rendered useless, I have set at rest the question which disturbed many minds, whether I or Peter deserved your confidence; for in all that I had ever taught we were perfectly at one.” If many teachers in our own day were as heartily desirous as Paul was to edify the Church, they would take more pains to be agreed among themselves.

3. But neither Titus. This is an additional argument to prove that the Apostles held the same views with himself; for he had brought to them an uncircumcised man, whom they did not hesitate to acknowledge as a brother. The reason is assigned why he was not circumcised; for circumcision, being a matter of indifference, might be neglected or practiced as edification required. Our invariable rule of action is, that, if “all things are lawful for us,” (1 Corinthians 10:23) we ought to inquire what is expedient. He circumcises Timothy, (Acts 16:3,) in order to take away a ground of offense from weak minds; for he was at that time dealing with weak minds, which it was his duty to treat with tenderness. And he would gladly have done the same thing with Titus, for he was unwearied in his endeavors to “support (Acts 20:35) the weak;” but the case was different. For some false brethren were watching for an opportunity of slandering his doctrine, and would immediately have spread the report: “See how the valiant champion of liberty, when he comes into the presence of the apostles, lays aside the bold and fierce aspect which he is wont to assume among the ignorant!” Now, as it is our duty to “bear the infirmities of the weak,” (Romans 15:1,) so concealed foes, who purposely watch for our liberty, must, be vigorously resisted. The duties of love to our neighbor ought never to be injurious to faith; and therefore, in matters of indifference, the love of our neighbour will be our best guide, provided that faith shall always receive our first regard.

4. And that because of false brethren. This may mean either that false brethren made it the subject of wicked accusation, and endeavored to compel him; or that Paul purposely did not circumcise him, because he saw that they would immediately make it an occasion of slander. They had insinuated themselves into Paul’s company with the hope of gaining one of two objects. Either he would treat with open scorn the ceremonial law, and then they would rouse the indignation of the Jews against him; or he would refrain entirely from the exercise of his liberty, and in that case they would exult over him among the Gentiles as one who, overwhelmed with shame, had retracted his doctrine.

I prefer the second interpretation, that Paul, having discovered the snares laid for him, determined not to circumcise Titus. When he says that he was not “compelled,” the reader is led to understand that circumcision is not condemned as a bad thing in itself, but that the obligation to observe it was the subject of dispute. As if he had said, “I would have been prepared to circumcise Titus if higher matters had not been involved.” Their intention was to lay down a law; and to such compulsion he would not yield.

5. To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour. This steadiness was the seal of Paul’s doctrine. For when false brethren, who wished nothing more than a ground of accusation against him, exerted themselves to the utmost, and he stood firm, there could no longer be any room for doubt. It cannot now be insinuated that he deceived the apostles. He asserts that he did not for a moment give place to them by subjection, that is, by such a mode of yielding as would have implied that his liberty had been crushed. In every other respect, he was prepared, to the very close of his life, to exercise mildness and forbearance toward all men.

That the truth of the gospel. There was no danger that Paul would be deprived of his liberty even by yielding to them; but the example would have done harm to others, and therefore he prudently inquired what was expedient. This shows us how far offenses must be avoided, and points us to edification as the object which ought to be kept in view in all matters of indifference. The amount, is this: “We are the servants of the brethren, but still keeping in view that we all serve the Lord, and that the liberty of our conscience shall remain unimpaired.” When false brethren wished to bring the saints in to bondage, it was their duty not to yield to them.

The truth of the gospel denotes its genuine purity, or, which means the same thing, its pure and entire doctrine. For the false apostles did not altogether set aside the gospel, but mixed up with it their own notions, so as to give it a false and disguised aspect, which it always has when we make the smallest departure “from the simplicity that is in Christ.” (2 Corinthians 11:3.)

With what effrontery then will the Papists boast that they possess the gospel, which is not only corrupted by many inventions, but more than adulterated by many wicked doctrines? Let us remember that it is not enough to retain the name of the gospel, and some kind of summary of its doctrines, if its solid purity do not remain untouched. Where are the men who, by pretended moderation, endeavor to bring about a reconciliation between us and the Papists? as if the doctrine of religion, like a matter affecting money or property, could be compromised. With what abhorrence would such a transaction have been regarded by Paul, who affirms that it is not the true gospel, if it is not pure!

Galatians 2:6-10

6. But of those who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

6. Ab iis autem qui videbantur aliquid esse, quales aliquando fuerint, nihil mea refert (personam hominis Deus non accipit, Deuteronomy 10: 17; 2 Paral. 19:7; Job 34:19; Wisdom 6:8.; Ecclesiastes 35:15; Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25; 1 Peter 1:17) nam mihi, qui videbantur esse in pretio nihil contulerunt

7. But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

7. Imo contra, quum vidissent mihi concreditum fuisse evangelium praeprputii, quemadmodum Petro Circumcisionis;

8. (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

8. (Nam qui efficax fuit in Petro ad apostolatum Circumcisionis efficax fuit et in me erga Gentes);

9. And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

9. Quumque cognovissent gratiam mihi datam Iaeobus et Cephas et Ioannes, qui videbantur columnae esse, dextras dederunt mihi ac Barnabae societatis, ut nos inter Gentes, ipsi vore in Circumcisionem, apestolatu fungerenur.

10. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

10. Tanturn ut pauperurn memores essenms, in quo et diligens fui, ut hoc ipsum facerem.

6. Of those who seemed to be somewhat. “Τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι, the men ‘who appeared to be somewhat,’ that is, persons of highest character and estimation. For though this word signifies to ‘appear,’ or ‘seem,’ yet it is not always used in a diminutive or disparaging sense, but to denote what they really are, and what others think them to be. Thus, τῶν ᾿Ελλήνων δοκοῦντες διαφέρειν (AElian) are persons esteemed as the principal men of Greece; and Aristotle is said σόφος ἄνηρ καὶ ὦν καὶ εἶναι δοκῶν, both to be, and to be esteemed as a wise man.’ “Chandler. Paul is not yet satisfied, without making the Galatians understand that he had learned nothing from Peter and the apostles. Hence Porphyry and Julian Porphyry, (Πορφύριος.) a Greek philosopher, (whose original name was Malchus,) and Julian, the Roman emperor, (commonly called “the apostate,”) were able and virulent opponents of Christianity. Their writings drew forth powerful defences, by which all their arguments were triumphantly confuted. — Ed. accuse the holy man of pride, because he claims so much for himself that he cannot endure to learn anything from others; because he boasts of having become a teacher without any instruction or assistance; and because he labors so hard not to appear in an inferior character. But any one who will consider how necessary that boasting was, will acknowledge that it was holy boasting, and worthy of the highest praise; for, if he had yielded this point to his opponents, that he had profited under the apostles, he would have furnished them with two charges against him. They would immediately have said, “And so you made some progress; you corrected your past errors, and did not repeat your former rashness.” Thus, in the first place, the whole doctrine which he had hitherto taught would have fallen under suspicion; and, secondly, he would ever afterwards have possessed less authority, because he would have been reckoned but an ordinary disciple. We find, therefore, that it was not on his own account, but by the necessity under which he lay to establish the doctrine, that he was led to this holy boasting. The controversy has no reference to individuals, and therefore cannot be a struggle of ambition; but Paul’s determination was that no man, however eminent, should throw into the shade his apostleship, on which the authority of his doctrine depended. If this be not enough to silence those dogs, their barking is sufficiently answered.

Whatsoever they were. These words must be read as a separate clause; for the parenthesis was intended to assure his opponents that he did not concern himself with the opinions of men. This passage has been variously interpreted. Ambrose thinks that it is a passing reference to the folly of attempting to lower Paul by holding up the apostles; and represents him as saying; “As if I were not equally at liberty to object that they were poor, illiterate men, while I, from my early years, enjoyed a liberal education under the care of Gamaliel. But I pass over all this, because I know that there is no respect of persons with God.” Chrysostom and Jerome take a harsher view of the words, as an indirect threatening of the most distinguished apostles. “Whatsoever they may be, if they swerve from duty, they shall not escape the judgment of God; neither the dignity of their office, nor the estimation of men, shall protect them.” But another interpretation appears to me more simple, and more agreeable to Paul’s design. He admits that they were first in the order of time, but contends that this did not prevent him from being their equal in rank. He does not say that it is of no consequence to him what they are at present; but he is speaking of a period now past, when they were already apostles, and when he was opposed to the faith of Christ. In short, he does not choose that what is past shall decide the matter; and refuses to admit the proverb, that he who comes first has the best right.

No man’s person. Besides the interpretations which I have mentioned, a third is not unworthy of notice, — that in the government of the world distinctions of rank are admitted, but in the spiritual kingdom of Christ they can have no place. There is plausibility in the statement, but it is in reference to worldly government, that it is said,

“Ye shall not respect persons in judgment,.” (Deuteronomy 1:17.)

But I do not enter into that argument, for it does not affect this passage. Paul simply means, that the honorable rank which the apostles had attained did not prevent him from being called by God, and raised, all at once, from the lowest condition to be their equal. The difference between them, though great, is of no value in the sight of God, who does not accept persons, and whose calling is not influenced by any prejudices. But this view may likewise appear liable to objection; for, granting it to be true, and a truth which must be carefully maintained, that in our intercourse with God there is no respect of persons, how does this apply to Peter and his fellow-apostles, who were venerable, not merely for their rank, but for true holiness and spiritual gifts?

The word person is contrasted with the fear of God and a good conscience; and this is its ordinary acceptation in Scripture. (Acts 10:34,35 1 Peter 1:17.) But piety, zeal, holiness, and other similar graces, were the principal grounds of the esteem and respect in which the apostles were held; while Paul speaks contemptuously of them, as if they had possessed nothing but the outward forms.

I reply: Paul is not discussing the real worth of the apostles, but the idle boasting of his adversaries. In order to support their own unfounded pretensions, they talked in lofty terms of Peter, and James, and John, and took advantage of the veneration with which they were regarded by the Church, for accomplishing their earnest desire of degrading Paul. His object is not to inquire what the apostles are, or what opinion must be formed respecting them when controversy is laid aside, but to tear off the disguises which the false apostles wore. As in a subsequent part of the Epistle he treats of circumcision, not in its real character, but in the false and impious notion attached to it by those impostors, so he now declares that the apostles were in the sight of God disguises, by which those persons attempted to shine in the world; and this is evident from the words. Why did they prefer them to Paul? because they were his predecessors in office. This was a mere disguise. In any other point of view, they would have been highly esteemed, and the gifts of God manifested in them would have been warmly admired by one so singularly modest as the apostle Paul, who elsewhere acknowledges that he was “the least of the apostles,” and unworthy to occupy so exalted a station.

“I am the least of the apostles, and not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God.” (1 Corinthians 15:9.)

They communicated nothing to me. It might also be rendered, “they communicated nothing with me;” for it is the same word which he formerly used twice. “ἀνεθέμην αὐτοῖς”, Galatians 2:2 But the meaning is the same. When the apostles had heard Paul’s gospel, they did not on the other side bring forward their own, (as is commonly done when something better and more perfect is desired,) but were satisfied with his explanation, and simply and unhesitatingly embraced his doctrine, so that not even on the most doubtful point did a single word of debate pass between them. Nor are we to suppose that Paul, presuming on his superiority, took the lead in the discussion, and dictated to his brethren. On the contrary, his faith, about which unfavourable rumors had been spread, was fully explained by him, and sanctioned by their appropation.

7. But, on the contrary. They immediately gave him the right hand of fellowship. (Galatians 2:9.) Consequently they gave their testimony to his doctrine, and without any exception; for they produced nothing on the other side, as is commonly done on debated points, but acknowledged that he held the same gospel in common with them, and was therefore entitled to the honors and rank of an associate. Now, one condition of this fellowship was, that they distributed the provinces among themselves. They were therefore equal, and there was no subjection on the part of Paul. To “give the right hands of fellowship” means here, to have a partnership settled by mutual agreement.

When they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to me. He asserts that he was not indebted to the apostles for the favor of being made an apostle by their consent and approbation, but that, in conceding to him the apostleship, they only refused to take away what God had given. He constantly urges that he was made an apostle by the gift and appointment of God, but adds here that he was acknowledged as such by the apostles themselves. Hence it followed, that those unprincipled men were attempting, what the apostles durst not have attempted, to oppose the election of God.

And here he begins to claim what belonged to himself in preference to others, the apostleship of the uncircumcision. For Paul and Barnabas differed from the rest in this respect, that they had been appointed to be apostles of the Gentiles. (Acts 13:2.) That had been done by a Divine revelation, which the apostles not only did not oppose, but determined to ratify, because not to obey it, would have been impious. This shows us in what manner they arranged their respective duties, in compliance with a Divine revelation, namely, that Paul and Barnabas should be the apostles of the Gentiles, and that the others should be the apostles of the Jews.

But this appears to be at variance with the command of Christ, which enjoins that the twelve shall

“go unto all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” (Mark 16:15.)

I reply, that command was not intended to apply specifically to each individual, but describes in general terms the design of the apostolic office, which was, that salvation must be proclaimed to all nations by the doctrine of the gospel. For the apostles evidently did not travel over the whole world; nay, it is probable that not one of the twelve ever passed into Europe. What they allege about Peter may, for aught I know, be fabulous, and is, at all events, quite uncertain.

All of them, it will be objected, had still a commission both to Gentiles and to Jews. I own they had, as occasion offered. Each apostle, I grant, was entrusted with the publication of the gospel both among Gentiles and Jews; for the distribution was not of such a nature as to assign them fixed boundaries, like those of kingdoms, principalities, and provinces, which could not lawfully be passed. We see that Paul, wherever he went, uniformly offered his labors and services, in the first instance, to the Jews. As he had a right, while living among the Gentiles, to offer himself as an apostle and teacher to the Jews; so the others were at liberty, wherever they had it in their power, to bring Gentiles to Christ; and we find Peter exercising this privilege with regard to Cornelius and others. (Acts 10:1.) But as there were other apostles in that district, which was almost wholly inhabited by Jews, Paul traveled through Asia, Greece, and other distant parts, and on this occasion was specially ordained to be an apostle to the Gentiles. Nay, when the Lord first commanded him to be set apart, he directed him to leave Antioch and Syria, and perform voyages to distant countries for the sake of the Gentiles. On ordinary occasions, therefore, he was the apostle of the Gentiles, and on extraordinary occasions, he was the apostle of the Jews. The other apostles, again, took the Jews for their own department, but with the understanding that, when an opportunity occurred, they would be at liberty to direct their ministrations to the Gentiles; this last, however, being in their case an extraordinary service.

But if Peter’s apostleship had a peculiar reference to the Jews, let the Romanists see on what ground they derive from him their succession to the primacy. If the Pope of Rome claims the primacy because he is Peter’s successor, he ought to exercise it over the Jews. Paul is here declared to be the chief apostle of the Gentiles, yet they affirm that he was not bishop of Rome; and, therefore, if the Pope would establish any claim to his primacy, let him gather churches from among the Jews. He who by a decree of the Holy Spirit, and by the consent of the whole apostolic college, has been solemnly declared to be one of the apostles, cannot but be acknowledged by us in that character. Those who would transfer that right to Peter set aside all ordination, both human and divine. It is unnecessary to explain here the well-known metaphor in the words circumcision and uncircumcision, as applied to Jews and Gentiles.

8. He that wrought effectually. That the province which had been assigned to him was truly his own, is proved by the exertion of divine power during his ministry. Now, this manifestation of divine energy, as we have frequently seen, is the seal by which his doctrine was attested, and his office as a teacher sanctioned. Whether Paul refers God’s effectual working to the success of his preaching, or to the graces of the Holy Spirit which were then bestowed on believers, is doubtful. I do not understand it as denoting the mere success, but the spiritual power and efficacy, “La vertu et efficace spiriluelle.” which he has elsewhere mentioned. (1 Corinthians 2:4.) The amount of the whole is, that it was no idle bargain which the apostles had made among themselves, but a decision which God had sealed.

9. And when they perceived the grace. They who treated with contempt the grace of God, by which the most eminent apostles had been led to admire and reverence Paul, are charged with hateful and proud disdain. If they should allege that they were ignorant of that which the apostles knew from the beginning, the hypocritical pretense was not to be endured. This admonishes us to yield to the grace of God, wherever it is perceived, unless we choose to contend with the Holy Spirit, whose will it is that his gifts shall not remain unemployed. The grace which the apostles perceived to have been given to Paul and Barnabas, induced them to sanction their ministry by receiving them as their associates.

James and Cephas. I have already stated, that James was the son of Alpheus. He could not be “the brother of John” who had been lately put to death by Herod, (Acts 12:2,) and to suppose that one of the disciples had been placed above the apostles would be absurd. That he held the highest rank among the apostles, is made evident by Luke, who ascribes to him the summing up and decision of the cause in the council, (Acts 15:13,) and afterwards mentions his having assembled “all the elders” of the church of Jerusalem. (Acts 21:18.) When he says, that they seemed to be pillars, he does not speak contemptuously, but quotes the general opinion, arguing from it, that what was done by such men ought not to be lightly set aside. In a question relating to diversity of rank, it is surprising that James should be mentioned before Peter; but the reason perhaps is, that he presided over the church at Jerusalem. As to the word pillar, we know that, from the nature of things, those who excel in ability, prudence, or other gifts, possess greater authority. And even in the Church of God, he who enjoys a larger measure of grace ought, on that account, to receive the higher honor. It argues ingratitude, nay impiety, not to worship the Spirit of God wherever he appears in his gifts; and as a people cannot want a pastor, so the assemblies of pastors require a moderator. But in all cases let the rule be followed,

“He that is greatest among you shall be your servant” (Matthew 23:11.)

10. That we should remember the poor. It is evident that the brethren who were in Judea labored under extreme poverty: otherwise they would not have burdened other churches. That might arise both from the various calamities which befell the whole nation, and from the cruel rage of their own countrymen, by which they were every day stript of their possessions. It was proper that they should receive assistance from the Gentiles, who owed to them the inestimable benefit of the gospel. Paul says, that he was forward to do, that he faithfully performed, what the apostles had requested from him, and thus he takes away from his adversaries a pretext which they were desirous to seize.

Galatians 2:11-16

11. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

11. Quum autem venisset Petrus Antiochiam, palam ei restiti, eo quod reprehensione dignus esset.

12. For, before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

12. Nam antequam venissent quidam ab Iacobo, una cum Gentibus sumebat cibum; quum autem venissent, subduxit ac separavit se ab illis, metuens eos qui erant ex Circumcisione.

13. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

13. Acts simulabant una cum illo caeteri quoque Iudeai, adeo ut Barnabas simul abduceretur in illorum simulationem.

14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

14. Verum ubi vidissem, quod non recto pede incederent ad veritatem evangelii, dixi Petro coram omnibus: Si tu, quum sis Iudaeus, Gentiliter vivis, et non Iudaice; cur cogis Gentes Iudaizare?

15. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

15. Nos natura Iudaei, et non ex Gentibus peccatores,

16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

16. Cognito, non justificari hominem ex operibus legis, nisi per fidem Iesu Christi, et nos in Iesum Christum credidimus, ut justificaremur ex fide Christi, et non ex operibus legis; propterea quod non justificabitur ex operibus legis onmis care.

11. When Peter was come. Whoever will carefully examine all the circumstances, will, I trust, agree with me in thinking, that this happened before the apostles had decided that the Gentiles should receive no annoyance about ceremonial observances. (Acts 15:28.) For Peter would have entertained no dread of offending James, or those sent by him, after that decision had been passed: but such was the dissimulation of Peter, that, in opposing it, Paul was driven to assert “the truth of the gospel.” At first he said, that the certainty of his gospel does not in any degree depend on Peter and the apostles, so as to stand or fall by their judgment. Secondly, he said, that it had been approved by all without any exception or contradiction, and particularly by those who were universally admitted to hold the highest place. Now, as I have said, he goes further, and asserts that he had blamed Peter for leaning to the other side; and he proceeds to explain the cause of the dispute. It was no ordinary proof of the strength of his doctrine, that he not only obtained their cordial approbation, but firmly maintained it in a debate with Peter, and came off victorious. What reason could there now be for hesitating to receive it as certain and undoubted truth?

At the same time, this is a reply to another calumny, that Paul was but an ordinary disciple, far below the rank of an apostle: for the reproof which he administered was an evidence that the parties were on an equal footing. The highest, I acknowledge, are sometimes properly reproved by the lowest, for this liberty on the part of inferiors towards their superiors is permitted by God; and so it does not follow, that he who reproves another must be his equal. But the nature of the reproof deserves notice. Paul did not simply reprove Peter, as a Christian might reprove a Christian, but he did it officially, as the phrase is; that is, in the exercise of the apostolic character which he sustained.

This is another thunderbolt which strikes the Papacy of Rome. It exposes the impudent pretensions of the Roman Antichrist, who boasts that he is not bound to assign a reason, and sets at defiance the judgment of the whole Church. Without rashness, without undue boldness, but in the exercise of the power granted him by God, this single individual chastises Peter, in the presence of the whole Church; and Peter submissively bows to the chastisement. Nay, the whole debate on those two points was nothing less than a manifest overthrow of that tyrannical primacy, which the Romanists foolishly enough allege to be founded on divine right. If they wish to have God appearing on their side, a new Bible must be manufactured; if they do not wish to have him for an open enemy, those two chapters of the Holy Scriptures must be expunged.

Because he was worthy of blame. The Greek participle, κατεγνωσμένος, signifies Blamed, so that the words run, “because he was blamed;” but I have no doubt whatever, that the word was intended to express, “one who deserves just blame.” Chrysostom makes the meaning to be, that others had previously indulged in complaint and accusation; but this is really trifling. It was customary with the Greeks to give to their participles the signification of nouns, which, every person must see, is applicable to this passage. This will enable us to perceive the absurdity of the interpretation given by Jerome and Chrysostom, who represent the whole transaction as a feigned debate, which the apostles had previously arranged to take place in presence of the people. They are not even supported by the phrase, “I withstood him to the face, κατὰ πρόσωπον, which means that “to the face,” or “being present,” Peter was chastised and struck dumb. The observation of Chrysostom, that, for the sake of avoiding scandal, they would have talked in private if they had any difference, is frivolous. The less important must be disregarded in comparison of the most dangerous of all scandals, that the Church would be rent, that Christian liberty was in danger, that the doctrine of the grace of Christ was overthrown; and therefore this public offense must be publicly corrected.

The chief argument on which Jerome rests is excessively trifling. “Why should Paul,” says he, “condemn in another what he takes praise for in himself? for he boasts that ‘to the Jews he became as a Jew.’” (1 Corinthians 9:20.) I reply, that what Peter did is totally different. Paul accommodated himself to the Jews no farther than was consistent with the doctrine of liberty; and therefore he refused to circumcise Titus, that the truth of the gospel might remain unimpaired. But Peter Judaized in such a manner as to “compel the Gentiles” to suffer bondage, and at the same time to create a prejudice against Paul’s doctrine. He did not, therefore, observe the proper limit; for he was more desirous to please than to edify, and more solicitous to inquire what would gratify the Jews than what would be expedient for the whole body. Augustine is therefore right in asserting, that this was no previously arranged plan, but that Paul, out of Christian zeal, opposed the sinful and unseasonable dissimulation of Peter, because he saw that it would be injurious to the Church.

12. For before that certain persons came. The state of the case is here laid down. For the sake of the Jews, Peter had withdrawn himself from the Gentiles, in order to drive them from the communion of the Church, unless they would relinquish the liberty of the Gospel, and submit to the yoke of the Law. If Paul had been silent here, his whole doctrine fell; all the edification obtained by his ministry was ruined. It was therefore necessary that he should rise manfully, and fight with courage. This shews us how cautiously we ought to guard against giving way to the opinions of men, lest an immoderate desire to please, or an undue dread of giving offense, should turn us aside from the right path. If this might happen to Peter, how much more easily may it happen to us, if we are not duly careful!

14. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly. Some apply these words to the Gentiles, who, perplexed by Peter’s example, were beginning to give way; but it is more natural to understand them as referring to Peter and Barnabas, and their followers. The proper road to the truth of the gospel was, to unite the Gentiles with the Jews in such a manner that the true doctrine should not be injured. But to bind the consciences of godly men by an obligation to keep the law, and to bury in silence the doctrine of liberty, was to purchase unity at an exorbitant price.

The truth of the gospel is here used, by Paul, in the same sense as before, and is contrasted with those disguises by which Peter and others concealed its beauty. In such a case, the struggle which Paul had to maintain must unquestionably have been serious. They were perfectly agreed about doctrine; “From this portion of sacred history, we are not at liberty to conclude that either of those two apostles had fallen into error in faith; or that they differed from each other about doctrine. Unquestionably, so far as relates to doctrine, Peter was of the same opinion with Paul on this subject, that it was lawful for a Jew to live on terms of friendship with believing Gentiles. — The whole of this controversy related, not to the doctrine of Christian liberty, but to the exercise of it at different times and places; and on this point the rules of prudence were better understood by Paul than by Peter.” — Witsius. but since, laying doctrine out of view, Peter yielded too submissively to the Jews, he is accused of halting. There are some who apologize for Peter on another ground, because, being the apostle of the circumcision, he was bound to take a particular concern in the salvation of the Jews; while they at the same time admit that Paul did right in pleading the cause of the Gentiles. But it is foolish to defend what the Holy Spirit by the mouth of Paul has condemned. This was no affair of men, but involved the purity of the gospel, which was in danger of being contaminated by Jewish leaven.

Before them all. This example instructs us, that those who have sinned publicly must be publicly chastised, so far as concerns the Church. The intention is, that their sin may not, by remaining unpunished, form a dangerous example; and Paul elsewhere (1 Timothy 5:20) lays down this rule expressly, to be observed in the case of elders,

“Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear;”

because the station which they hold renders their example more pernicious. It was particularly advantageous, that the good cause, in which all had an interest, should be openly defended in presence of the people, that Paul might have a better opportunity of shewing that he did not shrink from the broad light of day.

If thou, being a Jew. Paul’s address to Peter consists of two parts. In the first, he expostulates with him for his injustice toward the Gentiles, in compelling them to keep the law, from the obligations of which he wished himself to be exempted. For, not to mention that every man is bound to keep the law which he lays down for others, his conduct was greatly aggravated by compelling the Gentiles to observe Jewish ceremonies, while he, being a Jew, left himself at liberty. The law was given to Jews, not to Gentiles; so that he argues from the less to the greater.

Next, it is argued, that, in a harsh and violent manner, he compelled the Gentiles, by withdrawing from their communion, unless they chose to submit to the yoke of the law; and thus imposed on them an unjust condition. And, indeed, the whole force of the reproof lies in this word, which neither Chrysostom nor Jerome has remarked. The use of ceremonies was free for the purposes of edification, provided that believers were not deprived of their liberty, or laid under any restraint from which the gospel sets them free.

15. We who are Jews by nature. Some, I am aware, think that this is stated in the form of an objection, (ἀνθυποφορὰ,) anticipating what might be urged on the other side, that the Jews possessed higher privileges; not that they would boast of exemption from the law, (for it would have been highly absurd, that they to whom the Law was given should make this their boast,) but that there was a propriety in retaining some points of distinction between them and the Gentiles. I do not entirely reject, and yet, as will afterwards appear, I do not altogether adopt this view. Some, again, consider that it is Paul himself who uses this argument, “If you were to lay upon the Jews the burden of the law, it would be more reasonable, because it is theirs by inheritance.” But neither do I approve of this view.

He is now proceeding to the second part of his speech, which commences with an anticipation. The Gentiles differed from them in this respect, that they were “unholy and profane,” (1 Timothy 1:9;) while the Jews, being holy, so far as God had chosen them for his people, might contend for this superiority. Skilfully anticipating the objection, Paul turns it to the opposite conclusion. Since the Jews themselves, with all their advantages, were forced to betake themselves to the faith of Christ, how much more necessary was it that the Gentiles should look for salvation through faith? Paul’s meaning therefore is: “We, who appear to excel others, — we, who, by means of the covenant, have always enjoyed the privilege of being nigh to God, (Deuteronomy 4:7,) have found no method of obtaining salvation, but by believing in Christ: why, then, should we prescribe another method to the Gentiles? For, if the law were necessary or advantageous for salvation to those who observed its enactments, it must have been most of all advantageous to us to whom it was given; but if we relinquished it, and betook ourselves to Christ, much less ought compliance with it to be urged upon the Gentiles.”

The word sinner, signifies here, as in many other places, a “profane person,” (Hebrews 12:16,) or one who is lost and alienated from God. Such were the Gentiles, who had no intercourse with God; while the Jews were, by adoption, the children of God, and therefore set apart to holiness. By nature, does not mean that they were naturally free from the corruption of the human race; for David, who was a descendant of Abraham, acknowledges,

“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me,” (Psalm 51:5,)

but the corruption of nature, to which they were liable, had been met by the remedy of sanctifying grace. Now, as the promise made the blessing hereditary, so this benefit is called natural; just as, in the Epistle to the Romans, he says, that they were sprung from a “holy root.” (Romans 11:16.)

When he says, we are Jews by nature, his meaning is, “We are born holy: not certainly by our own merit, but because God hath chosen us to be his people.” Well, then, we who were by nature Jews, what have we done? “We have believed in Jesus Christ.” What was the design of our believing? “That we might be justified by the faith of Christ.” For what reason? Because we “know that a man is not justified by the works of the law.” From the nature and effect of faith, he reasons that the Jews are in no degree justified by the law. For, as they who

“go about to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God,” (Romans 10:3,)

so, on the contrary, they who believe in Christ, confess that they are sinners, and renounce justification by works. This involves the main question, or rather, in this single proposition nearly the whole controversy is embodied. It is the more necessary to bestow some care on the examination of this passage.

The first thing to be noticed is, that we must seek justification by the faith of Christ, because we cannot be justified by works. Now, the question is, what is meant by the works of the law? The Papists, misled by Origen and Jerome, are of opinion, and lay it down as certain, that the dispute relates to shadows; and accordingly assert, that by “the works of the law” are meant ceremonies. As if Paul were not reasoning about the free justification which is bestowed on us by Christ. For they see no absurdity in maintaining that “no man is justified by the works of the law,” and yet that, by the merit of works, we are accounted righteous in the sight of God. In short, they hold that no mention is here made of the works of the moral law. But the context clearly proves that the moral law is also comprehended in these words; for almost everything which Paul afterwards advances belongs more properly to the moral than to the ceremonial law; and he is continually employed in contrasting the righteousness of the law with the free acceptance which God is pleased to bestow.

It is objected by our opponents, that the term “works” must have been employed without any addition, if Paul had not intended to limit it to a particular class. But I reply, there is the best of all reasons for this mode of expression; for, though a man were to excel all the angels in holiness, no reward is due to works, but on the footing of a Divine promise. Perfect obedience to the law is righteousness, and has a promise of eternal life annexed to it; but it derives this character from God, who declares that “they who have fulfilled them shall live.” (Leviticus 18:5.) On this point we shall afterwards treat more fully in its own place. See p. 90. Besides, the controversy with the Jews was about the law. Paul, therefore, chose rather to bring the matter to an issue, by meeting them at once on their own ground, than to adopt a more circuitous route, which might wear the aspect of evading the subject, or distrusting his cause. Accordingly he resolves to have a close debate about the law.

Their second objection is, that the whole question raised was about ceremonies, which we readily allow. Why then, say they, would the apostle pass suddenly from a particular department to the whole subject? This was the sole cause of the mistake into which Origen and Jerome were betrayed; for they did not think it natural that, while the false apostles were contending about ceremonies alone, Paul should take in a larger field. But they did not consider that the very reason for disputing so keenly was, that the doctrine led to more serious consequences than at first view appeared. It would not have given so much uneasiness to Paul that ceremonies should be observed, as that the confident hope and the glory of salvation should be made to rest on works; just as, in the dispute about forbidding flesh on certain days, we do not look so much to the importance of the prohibition itself, as to the snare which is laid for the consciences of men. Paul, therefore, does not wander from the subject, when he enters into a controversy about the whole law, although the arguments of the false apostles were confined wholly to ceremonies. Their object in pressing ceremonies was, that men might seek salvation by obedience to the law, which, they falsely maintained, was meritorious; and accordingly, Paul meets them, not with the moral law, but with the grace of Christ alone. And yet this extended discussion does not occupy the whole of the Epistle; he comes at length to the specific question of ceremonies: but as the most serious difficulty was, whether justification is to be obtained by works or by faith, it was proper that this should be first settled. As the Papists of the present day are uneasy when we extort from them the acknowledgment that men are justified by faith alone, they reluctantly admit that “the works of the law” include those of a moral nature. Many of them, however, by quoting Jerome’s gloss, imagine that they have made a good defense; but the context will show that the words relate also to the moral law. “The Papists will readily acknowledge that we are justified by faith; but they add that it is in part. Now this gloss spoils all; for they are convinced that we cannot be righteous before God, unless it be accomplished by our Lord Jesus Christ, and unless we rely on that salvation which he has procured for us. The Papists see this very well; and therefore, with a careless air, they will say, We are justified by faith. But by faith alone? No. On this point they give battle, and this is the chief article on which we differ from them.” — Calvin’s Sermons.

16. But by the faith of Jesus Christ. He does not merely state that ceremonies, or works of any kind, are insufficient without the assistance of faith, but meets their denial by a statement admitting of no exception, as if he had said, “Not by works, but by the Gift of Christ alone.” In any other point of view, the sentiment would have been trivial and foreign to the purpose; for the false apostles did not reject Christ nor faith, but demanded that ceremonies should be joined with them. If Paul had admitted this claim, they would have been perfectly at one, and he would have been under no necessity to agitate the church by this unpleasant debate. Let it therefore remain settled, that the proposition is so framed as to admit of no exception, “that we are justified in no other way than by faith,” or, “that we are not justified but by faith,” or, which amounts to the same thing, “that we are justified by faith alone.”

Hence it appears with what silly trifling the Papists of our day dispute with us about the word, as if it had been a word of our contrivance. But Paul was unacquainted with the theology of the Papists, who declare that a man is justified by faith, and yet make a part of justification to consist in works. Of such half-justification Paul knew nothing. For, when he instructs us that we are justified by faith, because we cannot be justified by works, he takes for granted what is true, that we cannot be justified through the righteousness of Christ, unless we are poor and destitute of a righteousness of our own. Sinon en nous recognoissant despourveus et du tout desnuez de justice propre a nons.” “Unless by acknowledging that we are poor and utterly destitute of any righteousness of our own.” Consequently, either nothing or all must be ascribed to faith or to works. As to the word justification, and the manner in which faith is the cause of it, we shall afterwards see.

By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. He had already appealed to the consciences of Peter and others, and now confirms it more fully by affirming that such is the actual truth, that by the works of the law no mortal will obtain justification. This is the foundation of a freely bestowed righteousness, when we are stripped of a righteousness of our own. Besides, when he asserts that no mortal is justified by the righteousness of the law, the assertion amounts to this, that from such a mode of justification all mortals are excluded, and that none can possibly reach it.

Galatians 2:17-21

17. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

17. Porro si quaerentes justificari in Christo, inventi sumus ipsi quoque peccatores, ergo Christus peceati minister est? absit.

18. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

18. Nam si quae destruxi haec rursum aedifieo, praevaricatorem me ipsum constituo.

19. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

19. Ego enim per Legem Legi mortuus sum. Ut Deo viverem,

20. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

20. Cum Christo sum crucifixus; vivo autem non amplius ego, sed vivit in me Christus; quod autem nunc vivo in carne, in fide vivo Filii Dei, qui dilexit me, et tradidit se ipsum pro me.

21. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

21. Non abjicio gratiam Dei; si enim per Legem justitia, ergo Christus gratis mortuus est.

17. If, while we seek to be justified. He now returns to the Galatians. We must take care not to connect this verse with the preceding one, as if it were a part of the speech addressed to Peter: for what had Peter to do with this argument? It certainly has very little, if anything, to do with the speech; but let every one form his own opinion.

Chrysostom, and some other commentators, make the whole passage to be an affirmation, and interpret it thus: “If, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we are not yet perfectly righteous, but still unholy, and if, consequently, Christ is not sufficient for our righteousness, it follows that Christ is the minister of the doctrine which leaves men in sin:” supposing that, by this absurd proposition, Paul insinuates a charge of blasphemy against those who attribute a part of justification to the law. But as the expression of indignant abhorrence immediately follows, which Paul is never accustomed to employ but in answer to questions, I am rather inclined to think that the statement is made for the purpose of setting aside an absurd conclusion which his doctrine appeared to warrant. He puts a question, in his usual manner, into the mouth of his antagonists. “If, in consequence of the righteousness of faith, we, who are Jews and were ‘sanctified from the womb,’ (Jeremiah 1:5 Galatians 1:15,) are reckoned guilty and polluted, shall we say that Christ makes sin to be powerful in his own people, and that he is therefore the author of sin?”

This suspicion arose from his having said that Jews, by believing in Christ, renounce the righteousness of the law; for, while they are still at a distance from Christ, Jews, separated from the ordinary pollution of the Gentiles, appear to be in some respects exempted from the appellation of sinners. The grace of Christ places them on a level with the Gentiles; and the remedy, which is common to both, shews that both had labored under the same disease. This is the force of the particle also, — we ourselves also, — meaning not any description of men, but the Jews, who stood highest.

Far from it. He properly rejects that inference. Christ, who discovers the sin which lay concealed, is not therefore the minister of sin; as if, by depriving us of righteousness, he opened the gate to sin, or strengthened its dominion. Εἰ παράβασις τιῦτο νεν́ομισται ὅτι τὸν νόμον καταλιπόντες ἐν Χριστῷ ζητοῦμεν δικαιωθὢναι, ἡ αἰτία εἰς αὐτὸν Χριστὸν χωρήσει. “If this be reckoned an offence, that we have forsaken the law, and seek to be justified through Christ, the blame will fall on Christ himself.” — Theodoret. The Jews were mistaken in claiming any holiness for themselves apart from Christ, while they had none. Hence arose the complaint: “Did Christ come to take from us the righteousness of the law, to change saints into polluted men, to subject us to sin and guilt?” Paul denies it, and repels the blasphemy with abhorrence. Christ did not bring sin, but unveiled it; he did not take away righteousness, but stripped the Jews of a false disguise.

18. For if I build again. The reply consists of two parts. This is the first part, and informs us that the supposition now made is at variance with his whole doctrine, since he had preached the faith of Christ in such a manner as to connect with it the ruin and destruction of sin. For, as we are taught by John, that Christ came not to build up the kingdom of sin, but “that he might destroy the works of the devil,” (1 John 3:8,) so Paul declares, that, in preaching the gospel, he had restoreth true righteousness, in order that sin might be destroyed. It was, therefore, in the highest degree improbable, that the same person who destroyed sin should renew its power; and, by stating the absurdity, he repels the calumny.

19. For I through the law. Now follows the direct reply, that we must not ascribe to Christ that work which properly belongs to the law. It was not necessary that Christ should destroy the righteousness of the law, for the law itself slays its disciples. As if he had said, “You deceive wretched men by the false notion, that they must live by the law; and, under that pretext, you keep them in the law. And yet you bring it as a charge against the Gospel, that it annihilates the righteousness which we have by the law. But it is the law which forces us to die to itself; for it threatens our destruction, leaves us nothing but despair, and thus drives us away from trusting to the law.”

This passage will be better understood by comparing it with the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. There Paul describes beautifully, that no man lives to the law, but he to whom the law is dead, that is, has lost all power and efficacy; for, as soon as the law begins to live in us, it inflicts a fatal wound by which we die, and at the same time breathes life into the man who is already dead to sin. Those who live to the law, therefore, have never felt the power of the law, or properly understood what the law means; for the law, when truly perceived, makes us die to itself, and it is from this source, and not from Christ, that sin proceeds.

To die to the law, may either mean that we renounce it, and are delivered from its dominion, so that we have no confidence in it, and, on the other hand, that it does not hold us captives under the yoke of slavery; or it may mean, that, as it allures us all to destruction, we find in it no life. The latter view appears to be preferable. It is not to Christ, he tells us, that it is owing that the law is more hurtful than beneficial; but the law carries within itself the curse which slays us. Hence it follows, that the death which is brought on by the law is truly deadly. With this is contrasted another kind of death, in the life-giving fellowship of the cross of Christ. He says, that he is crucified together with Christ, that he might live unto God. The ordinary punctuation of this passage obscures the true meaning. It is this: “I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live to God.” But the context will read more smoothly thus: “I through the law am dead to the law;” then, in a separate sentence, “That I might live to God, I am crucified with Christ.”

That I might live to God. He shews that the kind of death, on which the false apostles seized as a ground of quarrel, is a proper object of desire; for he declares that we are dead to the law, not by any means that we may live to sin, but that we may live to God. To live to God, sometimes means to regulate our life according to his will, so as to study nothing else in our whole life but to gain his approbation; but here it means to live, if we may be allowed the expression, the life of God. In this way the various points of the contrast are preserved; for in whatever sense we are said to die to sin, in the same sense do we live to God. In short, Paul informs us that this death is not mortal, but is the cause of a better life; because God snatches us from the shipwreck of the law, and by his grace raises us up to another life. I say nothing of other interpretations; but this appears to be the apostle’s real meaning.

20. I am crucified with Christ. This explains the manner in which we, who are dead to the law, live to God. Ingrafted into the death of Christ, we derive from it a secret energy, as the twig does from the root. Again, the handwriting of the law,

“which was contrary to us, Christ has nailed to his cross.” (Colossians 2:14.)

Being then crucified with him, we are freed from all the curse and guilt of the law. He who endeavors to set aside that deliverance makes void the cross of Christ. But let us remember, that we are delivered from the yoke of the law, only by becoming one with Christ, as the twig draws its sap from the root, only by growing into one nature.

Nevertheless I live. To the feelings of man, the word Death is always unpleasant. Having said that we are “crucified with Christ,” he therefore adds, “that this makes us alive.”

Yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. This explains what he meant by “living to God.” He does not live by his own life, but is animated by the secret power of Christ; so that Christ may be said to live and grow in him; for, as the soul enlivens the body, so Christ imparts life to his members. It is a remarkable sentiment, that believers live out of themselves, that is, they live in Christ; which can only be accomplished by holding real and actual communication with him. Christ lives in us in two ways. The one life consists in governing us by his Spirit, and directing all our actions; the other, in making us partakers of his righteousness; so that, while we can do nothing of ourselves, we are accepted in the sight of God. The first relates to regeneration, the second to justification by free grace. This passage may be understood in the latter sense; but if it is thought better to apply it to both, I will cheerfully adopt that view.

And the life which I now live in the flesh. There is hardly a sentence here which has not been torn by a variety of interpretations. Some understand by the word flesh, the depravity of sinful nature; but Paul means by it simply the bodily life, and it is to this that the objection applies. “You live a bodily life; but while this corruptible body performs its functions, — while it is supported by eating and drinking, this is not the heavenly life of Christ. It is therefore an unreasonable paradox to assert, that, while you are openly living after the ordinary manner of men, your life is not your own.”

Paul replies, that it consists in faith; which intimates that it is a secret hidden from the senses of man. The life, therefore, which we attain by faith is not visible to the bodily eye, but is inwardly perceived in the conscience by the power of the Spirit; so that the bodily life does not prevent us from enjoying, by faith, a heavenly life.

“He hath made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” (Ephesians 2:6.)

Again,

“You are fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God.” (Ephesians 2:19.)

And again,

“Our conversation is in heaven.” (Philippians 3:20.)

Paul’s writings are full of similar assertions, that, while we live in the world, we at the same time live in heaven; not only because our Head is there, but because, in virtue of union, we enjoy a life in common with him. (John 14:23.)

Who loved me. This is added to express the power of faith; for it would immediately occur to any one, — whence does faith derive such power as to convey into our souls the life of Christ? He accordingly informs us, that the love of Christ, and his death, are the objects on which faith rests; for it is in this manner that the effect of faith must be judged. How comes it that we live by the faith of Christ? Because “he loved us, and gave himself for us.” The love of Christ led him to unite himself to us, and he completed the union by his death. By giving himself for us, he suffered in our own person; as, on the other hand, faith makes us partakers of every thing which it finds in Christ. The mention of love is in accordance with the saying of the apostle John,

“Not that we loved God, but he anticipated us by his love.” (1 John 4:10)

For if any merit of ours had moved him to redeem us, this reason would have been stated; but now Paul ascribes the whole to love: it is therefore of free grace. Let us observe the order: “He loved us, and gave himself for us.” As if he had said, “He had no other reason for dying, but because he loved us,” and that “when we were enemies,” (Romans 5:10,) as he argues in another Epistle.

He gave himself. No words can properly express what this means; for who can find language to declare the excellency of the Son of God? Yet he it is who gave himself as a price for our redemption. Atonement, cleansing, satisfaction, and all the benefits which we derive from the death of Christ, are here represented. Χριστός ἐστι πάντα ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ κρατῶν καὶ δεσπόζων· Καὶ τὸ μὲν ἡμέτερον θέλημα νεκρόν ἐστι. Τὸ δὲ ἐκείνου ζὣ καὶ κυθερνᾷ τὴν ζωὴν ἡμῶν. “It is Christ who does and rules and governs all in you; and our will is dead, but his will lives and directs our life.” — Theophylact. The words for me, are very emphatic. It will not be enough for any man to contemplate Christ as having died for the salvation of the world, unless he has experienced the consequences of this death, and is enabled to claim it as his own. “Car cene seroit point assez de considerer que Christ est mort pour le salut du monde, si avec cela un chaeun n’applique particulierement a sa personne l’efficace et jouissance de ceste grace.” “For it would not be enough to consider that Christ died for the salvation of the world, unless each individual specially apply to his own person the efficacy and enjoyment of that grace.”

21. I do not reject. There is great emphasis in this expression; for how dreadful is the ingratitude manifested in despising the grace of God, so invaluable in itself, and obtained at such a price! Yet this heinous offense is charged against the false apostles, who were not satisfied with having Christ alone, but introduced some other aids towards obtaining salvation. For, if we do not renounce all other hopes, and embrace Christ alone, we reject the grace of God. And what resource is left to the man, who “puts from him” the grace of God, “and judges himself unworthy of everlasting life?” (Acts 13:46.)

Christ is dead in vain “Δωρεὰν ἀπέθανε does not mean ‘in vain,’ ‘uselessly,’ ‘ineffectually,’ but ‘without just cause;’ for if righteousness be by the law, there was no reason why he should die.” — Tittmann.

Εἰ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν ὁ Χριστός εὔδηλον ὅτι διὰ τὸ μὴ ἰσχύειν τὸν νόμον ἡμᾶς δικαιοῦν· εἰ δ ᾿ ὁ νόμος δικαιοῖ περιττὸς ὁ τοῦ Χριστοῦ θάνατος. “For if Christ died, it is very evident that it was because the law was unable to justify us; and if the law justifies us, the death of Christ was superfluous.” — Chrysostom. There would then have been no value in the death of Christ; or, Christ would have died without any reward; for the reward of his death is, that he has reconciled us to the Father by making an atonement for our sins. Hence it follows, that we are justified by his grace, and, therefore, not by works. The Papists explain this in reference to the ceremonial law; but who does not see that it applies to the whole law? If we could produce a righteousness of our own, then Christ has suffered in vain; for the intention of his sufferings was to procure it for us, and what need was there that a work which we could accomplish for ourselves should be obtained from another? If the death of Christ be our redemption, then we were captives; if it be satisfaction, we were debtors; if it be atonement, we were guilty; if it be cleansing, we were unclean. On the contrary, he who ascribes to works his sanctification, pardon, atonement, righteousness, or deliverance, makes void the death of Christ.

This argument, we shall perhaps be told, is of no weight against those who propose to unite the grace of Christ with works; which, it is universally admitted, was done by the false apostles. The two doctrines, it is alleged, stand together, that righteousness is by the law, and that we are redeemed by the death of Christ. True; supposing it were granted that a part of our righteousness is obtained by works, and a part comes from grace. But such theology, it may easily be proved, was unknown to Paul. His argument with his opponents is either conclusive or inconclusive. If any blasphemer shall dare to accuse him of bad reasoning, a powerful defense is at hand; for that justification in the sight of God of which he treats, is not what men may imagine to be sufficient, but what is absolutely perfect.

But we are not now called to plead in behalf of Paul against blasphemers, who venture to speak in reproachful language of the Holy Spirit himself. Our present business is with the Papists. They ridicule us, when we argue with Paul that, if righteousness come by works, Christ is dead in vain. They imagine it to be a beautiful reply, with which their sophists furnish them, that Christ merited for us the first grace, that is, the opportunity of meriting; and that the merit of his death concurs with the satisfactions of works for the daily pardon of sins. Let them ridicule Paul, whose language we quote. They must refute him before they can refute us. We know that he had to deal with men, who did not entirely reject the grace of Christ, but ascribed the half of salvation to works. In opposition to them he argues, that “if righteousness is by the law, then Christ is dead in vain;” and by so doing, he certainly does not allow to works one drop of righteousness. Between those men and the Papists there is no difference; and therefore, in refuting them, we are at liberty to employ Paul’s argument.

CHAPTER 3

Galatians 3:1-5

1. O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

1. O stulti Galatae, quis vos fascinavit, ut non obediatis veritati? quibus ante oculos Iesus Christus depictus est inter vos crucifixus.

2. This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

2. Hoc solum volo discere a vobis: Ex operibus Legis Spiritum accepistis, an ex praedicatione fidei?

3. Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

3. Ita stulti estis, ut, exorsi a Spiritu, nunc carne eonsummemini?

4. Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

4. Tanta passi estis frustra? si tamen etiam frustra.

5. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

5. Qui ergo subministrat vobis Spiritum, et operatur in vobis virtutes; ex operibus legis, an ex praedieatione fidei id (facit)?

CHAPTER 2

Ga 2:1-21. His Co-ordinate Authority as Apostle of the Circumcision Recognized by the Apostles. Proved by His Rebuking Peter for Temporizing at Antioch: His Reasoning as to the Inconsistency of Judaizing with Justification by Faith.

1. Translate, "After fourteen years"; namely, from Paul's conversion inclusive [Alford]. In the fourteenth year from his conversion [Birks]. The same visit to Jerusalem as in Ac 15:1-4 (A.D. 50), when the council of the apostles and Church decided that Gentile Christians need not be circumcised. His omitting allusion to that decree is; (1) Because his design here is to show the Galatians his own independent apostolic authority, whence he was not likely to support himself by their decision. Thus we see that general councils are not above apostles. (2) Because he argues the point upon principle, not authoritative decisions. (3) The decree did not go the length of the position maintained here: the council did not impose Mosaic ordinances; the apostle maintains that the Mosaic institution itself is at an end. (4) The Galatians were Judaizing, not because the Jewish law was imposed by authority of the Church as necessary to Christianity, but because they thought it necessary to be observed by those who aspired to higher perfection (Ga 3:3; 4:21). The decree would not at all disprove their view, and therefore would have been useless to quote. Paul meets them by a far more direct confutation, "Christ is of no effect unto you whosoever are justified by the law" (Ga 5:4), [Paley].

Titus ... also--specified on account of what follows as to him, in Ga 2:3. Paul and Barnabas, and others, were deputed by the Church of Antioch (Ac 15:2) to consult the apostles and elders at Jerusalem on the question of circumcision of Gentile Christians.

2. by revelation--not from being absolutely dependent on the apostles at Jerusalem, but by independent divine "revelation." Quite consistent with his at the same time, being a deputy from the Church of Antioch, as Ac 15:2 states. He by this revelation was led to suggest the sending of the deputation. Compare the case of Peter being led by vision, and at the same time by Cornelius' messengers, to go to Cæsarea, Ac 10:1-22.

I ... communicated unto them--namely, "to the apostles and elders" (Ac 15:2): to the apostles in particular (Ga 2:9).

privately--that he and the apostles at Jerusalem might decide previously on the principles to be adopted and set forward before the public council (Ac 15:1-29). It was necessary that the Jerusalem apostles should know beforehand that the Gospel Paul preached to the Gentiles was the same as theirs, and had received divine confirmation in the results it wrought on the Gentile converts. He and Barnabas related to the multitude, not the nature of the doctrine they preached (as Paul did privately to the apostles), but only the miracles vouchsafed in proof of God's sanctioning their preaching to the Gentiles (Ac 15:12).

to them ... of reputation--James, Cephas, and John, and probably some of the "elders"; Ga 2:6, "those who seemed to be somewhat."

lest, &c.--"lest I should be running, or have run, in vain"; that is, that they might see that I am not running, and have not run, in vain. Paul does not himself fear lest he be running, or had run, in vain; but lest he should, if he gave them no explanation, seem so to them. His race was the swift-running proclamation of the Gospel to the Gentiles (compare "run," Margin, for "Word ... have free course," 2Th 3:1). His running would have been in vain, had circumcision been necessary, since he did not require it of his converts.

3. But--So far were they from regarding me as running in vain, that "not even Titus who was with me, who was a Greek (and therefore uncircumcised), was compelled to be circumcised." So the Greek should be translated. The "false brethren," Ga 2:4 ("certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed," Ac 15:5), demanded his circumcision. The apostles, however, constrained by the firmness of Paul and Barnabas (Ga 2:5), did not compel or insist on his being circumcised. Thus they virtually sanctioned Paul's course among the Gentiles and admitted his independence as an apostle: the point he desires to set forth to the Galatians. Timothy, on the other hand, as being a proselyte of the gate, and son of a Jewess (Ac 16:1), he circumcised (Ac 16:3). Christianity did not interfere with Jewish usages, regarded merely as social ordinances, though no longer having their religious significance, in the case of Jews and proselytes, while the Jewish polity and temple still stood; after the overthrow of the latter, those usages naturally ceased. To have insisted on Jewish usages for Gentile converts, would have been to make them essential parts of Christianity. To have rudely violated them at first in the case of Jews, would have been inconsistent with that charity which (in matters indifferent) is made all things to all men, that by all means it may win some (1Co 9:22; compare Ro 14:1-7, 13-23). Paul brought Titus about with him as a living example of the power of the Gospel upon the uncircumcised heathen.

4. And that--that is, What I did concerning Titus (namely, by not permitting him to be circumcised) was not from contempt of circumcision, but "on account of the false brethren" (Ac 15:1, 24) who, had I yielded to the demand for his being circumcised, would have perverted the case into a proof that I deemed circumcision necessary.

unawares--"in an underhand manner brought in."

privily--stealthily.

to spy out--as foes in the guise of friends, wishing to destroy and rob us of

our liberty--from the yoke of the ceremonial law. If they had found that we circumcised Titus through fear of the apostles, they would have made that a ground for insisting on imposing the legal yoke on the Gentiles.

bring us into bondage--The Greek future implies the certainty and continuance of the bondage as the result.

5. Greek, "To whom not even for an hour did we yield by subjection." Alford renders the Greek article, "with THE subjection required of us." The sense rather is, We would willingly have yielded for love [Bengel] (if no principle was at issue), but not in the way of subjection, where "the truth of the Gospel" (Ga 2:14; Col 1:5) was at stake (namely, the fundamental truth of justification by faith only, without the works of the law, contrasted with another Gospel, Ga 1:6). Truth precise, unaccommodating, abandons nothing that belongs to itself, admits nothing that is inconsistent with it [Bengel].

might continue with you--Gentiles. We defended for your sakes your true faith and liberties, which you are now renouncing.

6. Greek, "From those who," &c. He meant to complete the sentence with "I derived no special advantage"; but he alters it into "they ... added nothing to me."

accepteth--so as to show any partiality; "respecteth no man's person" (Ep 6:9).

seemed to be somewhat--that is, not that they seemed to be what they were not, but "were reputed as persons of some consequence"; not insinuating a doubt but that they were justly so reputed.

in conference added--or "imparted"; the same Greek as in Ga 1:16, "I conferred not with flesh and blood." As I did not by conference impart to them aught at my conversion, so they now did not impart aught additional to me, above what I already knew. This proves to the Galatians his independence as an apostle.

7. contrariwise--on the contrary. So far from adding any new light to ME, THEY gave in THEIR adhesion to the new path on which Barnabas and I, by independent revelation, had entered. So far from censuring, they gave a hearty approval to my independent course, namely, the innovation of preaching the Gospel without circumcision to the Gentiles.

when they saw--from the effects which I showed them, were "wrought" (Ga 2:8; Ac 15:12).

was committed unto me--Greek, "I was entrusted with."

gospel of the uncircumcision--that is, of the Gentiles, who were to be converted without circumcision being required.

circumcision ... unto Peter--Peter had originally opened the door to the Gentiles (Ac 10:1-48; 15:7). But in the ultimate apportionment of the spheres of labor, the Jews were assigned to him (compare 1Pe 1:1). So Paul on the other hand wrote to the Hebrews (compare also Col 4:11), though his main work was among the Gentiles. The non-mention of Peter in the list of names, presciently through the Spirit, given in the sixteenth chapter of Romans, shows that Peter's residence at Rome, much more primacy, was then unknown. The same is palpable from the sphere here assigned to him.

8. he--God (1Co 12:6).

wrought effectually--that is, made the preached word efficacious to conversion, not only by sensible miracles, but by the secret mighty power of the Holy Ghost.

in Peter--Ellicott and others, translate, "For Peter." Grotius translates as English Version.

to--with a view to.

was mighty--Translate as before, the Greek being the same, "wrought effectually."

in me--"for (or 'in') me also."

9. James--placed first in the oldest manuscripts, even before Peter, as being bishop of Jerusalem, and so presiding at the council (Ac 15:1-29). He was called "the Just," from his strict adherence to the law, and so was especially popular among the Jewish party though he did not fall into their extremes; whereas Peter was somewhat estranged from them through his intercourse with the Gentile Christians. To each apostle was assigned the sphere best suited to his temperament: to James, who was tenacious of the law, the Jerusalem Jews; to Peter, who had opened the door to the Gentiles but who was Judaically disposed, the Jews of the dispersion; to Paul, who, by the miraculous and overwhelming suddenness of his conversion, had the whole current of his early Jewish prejudices turned into an utterly opposite direction, the Gentiles. Not separately and individually, but collectively the apostles together represented Christ, the One Head, in the apostleship. The twelve foundation-stones of various colors are joined together to the one great foundation-stone on which they rest (1Co 3:11; Re 21:14, 19, 20). John had got an intimation in Jesus' lifetime of the admission of the Gentiles (Joh 12:20-24).

seemed--that is, were reputed to be (see on Ga 2:2 and Ga 2:6) pillars, that is, weighty supporters of the Church (compare Pr 9:1; Re 3:12).

perceived the grace ... given unto me--(2Pe 3:15).

gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship--recognizing me as a colleague in the apostleship, and that the Gospel I preached by special revelation to the Gentiles was the same as theirs. Compare the phrase, La 5:6; Eze 17:18.

heathen--the Gentiles.

10. remember the poor--of the Jewish Christians in Judea, then distressed. Paul and Barnabas had already done so (Ac 11:23-30).

the same--the very thing.

I ... was forward--or "zealous" (Ac 24:17; Ro 15:25; 1Co 16:1; 2Co 8:1-9:15). Paul was zealous for good works, while denying justification by them.

11. Peter--"Cephas" in the oldest manuscripts Paul's withstanding Peter is the strongest proof that the former gives of the independence of his apostleship in relation to the other apostles, and upsets the Romish doctrine of Peter's supremacy. The apostles were not always inspired; but were so always in writing the Scriptures. If then the inspired men who wrote them were not invariably at other times infallible, much less were the uninspired men who kept them. The Christian fathers may be trusted generally as witnesses to facts, but not implicitly followed in matters of opinion.

come to Antioch--then the citadel of the Gentile Church: where first the Gospel was preached to idolatrous Gentiles, and where the name "Christians" was first given (Ac 11:20, 26), and where Peter is said to have been subsequently bishop. The question at Antioch was not whether the Gentiles were admissible to the Christian covenant without becoming circumcised--that was the question settled at the Jerusalem council just before--but whether the Gentile Christians were to be admitted to social intercourse with the Jewish Christians without conforming to the Jewish institution. The Judaizers, soon after the council had passed the resolutions recognizing the equal rights of the Gentile Christians, repaired to Antioch, the scene of the gathering in of the Gentiles (Ac 11:20-26), to witness, what to Jews would look so extraordinary, the receiving of men to communion of the Church without circumcision. Regarding the proceeding with prejudice, they explained away the force of the Jerusalem decision; and probably also desired to watch whether the Jewish Christians among the Gentiles violated the law, which that decision did not verbally sanction them in doing, though giving the Gentiles latitude (Ac 15:19).

to be blamed--rather, "(self)-condemned"; his act at one time condemning his contrary acting at another time.

12. certain--men: perhaps James' view (in which he was not infallible, any more than Peter) was that the Jewish converts were still to observe Jewish ordinances, from which he had decided with the council the Gentiles should be free (Ac 15:19). Neander, however, may be right in thinking these self-styled delegates from James were not really from him. Ac 15:24 favors this. "Certain from James," may mean merely that they came from the Church at Jerusalem under James' bishopric. Still James' leanings were to legalism, and this gave him his influence with the Jewish party (Ac 21:18-26).

eat with ... Gentiles--as in Ac 10:10-20, 48, according to the command of the vision (Ac 11:3-17). Yet after all, this same Peter, through fear of man (Pr 29:25), was faithless to his own so distinctly avowed principles (Ac 15:7-11). We recognize the same old nature in him as led him, after faithfully witnessing for Christ, yet for a brief space, to deny Him. "Ever the first to recognize, and the first to draw back from great truths" [Alford]. An undesigned coincidence between the Gospels and the Epistle in the consistency of character as portrayed in both. It is beautiful to see how earthly misunderstandings of Christians are lost in Christ. For in 2Pe 3:15, Peter praises the very Epistles of Paul which he knew contained his own condemnation. Though apart from one another and differing in characteristics, the two apostles were one in Christ.

withdrew--Greek, "began to withdraw," &c. This implies a gradual drawing back; "separated," entire severance.

13. the other--Greek, "the rest."

Jews--Jewish Christians.

dissembled likewise--Greek, "joined in hypocrisy," namely, in living as though the law were necessary to justification, through fear of man, though they knew from God their Christian liberty of eating with Gentiles, and had availed themselves of it already (Ac 11:2-17). The case was distinct from that in 1Co 8:1-10:33; Ro 14:1-23. It was not a question of liberty, and of bearing with others' infirmities, but one affecting the essence of the Gospel, whether the Gentiles are to be virtually "compelled to live as do the Jews," in order to be justified (Ga 2:14).

Barnabas also--"Even Barnabas": one least likely to be led into such an error, being with Paul in first preaching to the idolatrous Gentiles: showing the power of bad example and numbers. In Antioch, the capital of Gentile Christianity and the central point of Christian missions, the controversy first arose, and in the same spot it now broke out afresh; and here Paul had first to encounter the party that afterwards persecuted him in every scene of his labors (Ac 15:30-35).

14. walked not uprightly--literally, "straight": "were not walking with straightforward steps." Compare Ga 6:16.

truth of the gospel--which teaches that justification by legal works and observances is inconsistent with redemption by Christ. Paul alone here maintained the truth against Judaism, as afterwards against heathenism (2Ti 4:16, 17).

Peter--"Cephas" in the oldest manuscripts

before ... all--(1Ti 5:20).

If thou, &c.--"If thou, although being a Jew (and therefore one who might seem to be more bound to the law than the Gentiles), livest (habitually, without scruple and from conviction, Ac 15:10, 11) as a Gentile (freely eating of every food, and living in other respects also as if legal ordinances in no way justify, Ga 2:12), and not as a Jew, how (so the oldest manuscripts read, for 'why') is it that thou art compelling (virtually, by thine example) the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (literally, to Judaize, that is, to keep the ceremonial customs of the Jews: What had been formerly obedience to the law, is now mere Judaism). The high authority of Peter would constrain the Gentile Christians to regard Judaizing as necessary to all, since Jewish Christians could not consort with Gentile converts in communion without it.

15-16. Connect these verses together, and read with most of the oldest manuscripts "But" in the beginning of Ga 2:16: "We (I and thou, Peter) by nature (not by proselytism), Jews, and not sinners as (Jewish language termed the Gentiles) from among the Gentiles, YET (literally, 'BUT') knowing that ... even we (resuming the 'we' of Ga 2:15, 'we also,' as well as the Gentile sinners; casting away trust in the law), have believed," &c.

17. Greek, "But if, seeking to be justified IN (that is, in believing union with) Christ (who has in the Gospel theory fulfilled the law for us), we (you and I) ourselves also were found (in your and my former communion with Gentiles) sinners (such as from the Jewish standpoint that now we resume, we should be regarded, since we have cast aside the law, thus having put ourselves in the same category as the Gentiles, who, being without the law, are, in the Jewish view, "sinners," Ga 2:15), is therefore Christ, the minister of sin?" (Are we to admit the conclusion, in this case inevitable, that Christ having failed to justify us by faith, so has become to us the minister of sin, by putting us in the position of "sinners," as the Judaic theory, if correct, would make us, along with all others who are "without the law," Ro 2:14; 1Co 9:21; and with whom, by eating with them, we have identified ourselves?) The Christian mind revolts from so shocking a conclusion, and so, from the theory which would result in it. The whole sin lies, not with Christ, but with him who would necessitate such a blasphemous inference. But his false theory, though "seeking" from Christ, we have not "found" salvation (in contradiction to Christ's own words, Mt 7:7), but "have been ourselves also (like the Gentiles) found" to be "sinners," by having entered into communion with Gentiles (Ga 2:12).

18. Greek, "For if the things which I overthrew (by the faith of Christ), those very things I build up again (namely, legal righteousness, by subjecting myself to the law), I prove myself (literally, 'I commend myself') a transgressor." Instead of commending yourself as you sought to do (Ga 2:12, end), you merely commend yourself as a transgressor. The "I" is intended by Paul for Peter to take to himself, as it is his case, not Paul's own, that is described. A "transgressor" is another word for "sinner" (in Ga 2:17), for "sin is the transgression of the law." You, Peter, by now asserting the law to be obligatory, are proving yourself a "sinner," or "transgressor," in your having set it aside by living as the Gentiles, and with them. Thus you are debarred by transgression from justification by the law, and you debar yourself from justification by Christ, since in your theory He becomes a minister of sin.

19. Here Paul seems to pass from his exact words to Peter, to the general purport of his argument on the question. However, his direct address to the Galatians seems not to be resumed till Ga 3:1, "O foolish Galatians," &c.

For--But I am not a "transgressor" by forsaking the law. "For," &c. Proving his indignant denial of the consequence that "Christ is the minister of sin" (Ga 2:17), and of the premises from which it would follow. Christ, so far from being the minister of sin and death, is the establisher of righteousness and life. I am entirely in Him [Bengel].

I--here emphatical. Paul himself, not Peter, as in the "I" (Ga 2:18).

through the law--which was my "schoolmaster to bring me to Christ" (Ga 3:24); both by its terrors (Ga 3:13; Ro 3:20) driving me to Christ, as the refuge from God's wrath against sin, and, when spiritually understood, teaching that itself is not permanent, but must give place to Christ, whom it prefigures as its scope and end (Ro 10:4); and drawing me to Him by its promises (in the prophecies which form part of the Old Testament law) of a better righteousness, and of God's law written in the heart (De 18:15-19; Jr 31:33; Ac 10:43).

am dead to the law--literally, "I died to the law," and so am dead to it, that is, am passed from under its power, in respect to non-justification or condemnation (Col 2:20; Ro 6:14; 7:4, 6); just as a woman, once married and bound to a husband, ceases to be so bound to him when death interposes, and may be lawfully married to another husband. So by believing union to Christ in His death, we, being considered dead with Him, are severed from the law's past power over us (compare Ga 6:14; 1Co 7:39; Ro 6:6-11; 1Pe 2:24).

live unto God--(Ro 6:11; 2Co 5:15; 1Pe 4:1, 2).

20. I am crucified--literally, "I have been crucified with Christ." This more particularizes the foregoing. "I am dead" (Ga 2:19; Php 3:10).

nevertheless I live; yet not I--Greek, "nevertheless I live, no longer (indeed) I." Though crucified I live; (and this) no longer that old man such as I once was (compare Ro 7:17). No longer Saul the Jew (Ga 5:24; Col 3:11, but "another man"; compare 1Sa 10:6). Ellicott and others translate, "And it is no longer I that live, but Christ that liveth in me." But the plain antithesis between "crucified" and "live," requires the translation, "nevertheless."

the life which I now live--as contrasted with my life before conversion.

in the flesh--My life seems to be a mere animal life "in the flesh," but this is not my true life; "it is but the mask of life under which lives another, namely, Christ, who is my true life" [Luther].

I live by the faith, &c.--Greek, "IN faith (namely), that of (that is, which rests on) the Son of God." "In faith," answers by contrast to "in the flesh." Faith, not the flesh, is the real element in which I live. The phrase, "the Son of God," reminds us that His Divine Sonship is the source of His life-giving power.

loved me--His eternal gratuitous love is the link that unites me to the Son of God, and His "giving Himself for me," is the strongest proof of that love.

21. I do not frustrate the grace of God--I do not make it void, as thou, Peter, art doing by Judaizing.

for--justifying the strong expression "frustrate," or "make void."

is dead in vain--Greek, "Christ died needlessly," or "without just cause." Christ's having died, shows that the law has no power to justify us; for if the law can justify or make us righteous, the death of Christ is superfluous [Chrysostom].

Then fourteen years after - There is a considerable difference among critics concerning the time specified in this verse; the apostle is however generally supposed to refer to the journey he took to Jerusalem, about the question of circumcision, mentioned in Act 15:4-5, etc. These years, says Dr. Whitby, must be reckoned from the time of his conversion, mentioned here Gal 1:18, which took place a.d. 35 (33); his journey to Peter was a.d. 38 (36), and then between that and the council of Jerusalem, assembled a.d. 49 (52), will be fourteen intervening years. The dates in brackets are according to the chronology which I follow in the Acts of the Apostles. Dr. Whitby has some objections against this chronology, which may be seen in his notes.

Others contend that the journey of which the apostle speaks is that mentioned Act 11:27, etc., when Barnabas and Saul were sent by the Church of Antioch with relief to the poor Christians in Judea; there being at that time a great dearth in that land. St. Luke's not mentioning Titus in that journey is no valid objection against it: for he does not mention him in any part of his history, this being the first place in which his name occurs. And it does seem as if St. Paul did intend purposely to supply that defect, by his saying, I went up with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. The former St. Luke relates, Act 11:30; the latter St. Paul supplies.

I went up by revelation - This either means, that he went up at that time by an express revelation from God that it was his duty to do so, made either to the Church of Antioch to send these persons to Jerusalem, or to these persons to go according to the directions of that Church; or the apostle here wishes to say, that, having received the Gospel by revelation from God, to preach Christ among the Gentiles, he went up according to that revelation, and told what God had done by him among the Gentiles: or it may refer to the revelation made to certain prophets who came to Antioch, and particularly Agabus, who signified by the Spirit that there would be a dearth; in consequence of which the disciples purposed to send relief to their poor brethren at Jerusalem. See Act 11:27-30.

But privately to them which were of reputation - Τοις δοκουσι· To the chief men; those who were highest in reputation among the apostles. Δοκουντες, according to Hesychius, is οἱ ενδοξοι, the honorable. With these the apostle intimates that he had some private conferences.

Lest by any means - And he held these private conferences with those more eminent men, to give them information how, in consequence of his Divine call, he had preached the Gospel to the Gentiles, and the great good which God had wrought by his ministry; but they, not knowing the nature and end of his call, might be led to suppose he had acted wrong, and thus labored in vain; and that, if he still continued to act thus, he should labor in vain. It was necessary, therefore, that he should give the apostolic council the fullest information that he had acted according to the Divine mind in every respect, and had been blessed in his deed.

But neither Titus, who was with me - The apostle proceeds to state that his account was so satisfactory to the apostles, that they not only did not require him to insist on the necessity of circumcision among the Gentiles, but did not even require him to have Titus, who was a Greek, circumcised; though that might have appeared expedient, especially at Jerusalem, to have prevented false brethren from making a handle of his uncircumcision, and turning it to the prejudice of the Gospel in Judea.

To spy out our liberty - The Judaizing brethren got introduced into the assembly of the apostles, in order to find out what was implied in the liberty of the Gospel, that they might know the better how to oppose St. Paul and his fellows in their preaching Christ to the Gentiles, and admitting them into the Church without obliging them to observe circumcision and keep the law. The apostle saw that while such men were in the assembly it was better not to mention his mission among the Gentiles, lest, by means of those false brethren, occasion should be given to altercations and disputes; therefore he took the opportunity, by private conferences, to set the whole matter, relative to his work among the Gentiles, before the chief of the apostles.

To whom we gave place by subjection - So fully satisfied was he with his Divine call, and that he had in preaching among the Gentiles acted in strict conformity to it, that he did not submit in the least to the opinion of those Judaizing teachers; and therefore he continued to insist on the exemption of the Gentiles from the necessity of submitting to Jewish rites; that the truth of the Gospel - this grand doctrine, that the Gentiles are admitted by the Gospel of Christ to be fellow-heirs with the Jews, might continue; and thus the same doctrine is continued with you Gentiles.

Those who seemed to be somewhat - Των δοκουντων ειναι τι· Those who were of acknowledged reputation; so the words should be understood, see Gal 2:2. The verb δοκειν, to seem, is repeatedly used by the best Greek writers, not to call the sense in question, or to lessen it, but to deepen and extend it. See the note on Luk 8:18. Perhaps this verse had best be translated thus, connecting διαφερει with απο των δοκουντων· But there is no difference between those who were of acknowledged reputation and myself; God accepts no man's person; but, in the conferences which I held with then, they added nothing to me - gave me no new light; did not attempt to impose on me any obligation, because they saw that God had appointed me my work, and that his counsel was with me.

But contrariwise - They were so far from wishing me to alter my plan, or to introduce any thing new in my doctrine to the Gentiles, that they saw plainly that my doctrine was the same as their own, coming immediately from the same source; and therefore gave to me and to Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.

The Gospel of the uncircumcision - They saw, to their utmost satisfaction, that I was as expressly sent by God to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, as Peter was to preach it to the Jews.

For he that wrought effectually - Ὁ ενεργησας Πετρῳ, ενηργησε και εμοι· He who wrought powerfully with Peter, wrought powerfully also with me. He gave us both those talents which were suited to our work, and equal success in our different departments.

James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars - Οἱ δοκουντες στυλοι ειναι· Who were known to be very eminent, and acknowledged as chief men among the apostles. See the note on Luk 8:18, for the meaning of the verb δοκειν, and see before on Gal 2:6 (note).

Among the Jews, persons of great eminence and importance are represented as pillars and foundations of the world. So Abraham is said to be עמוד העולם ammud heolam, "the pillar of the universe; for by him to this day are the earth and heavens supported." Yalcut Rubeni, fol. 29. "Rabbi Simeon said, Behold, we are the pillars of the world." Idra Rabba, s. 23. "When Rabbi Jochanan ben Zachai was near death, he wept with a loud voice. His disciples said unto him, O Rabbi, thou high pillar, thou light of the world, thou strong hammer, why dost thou weep?" Aboth. R. Nathan, chap. 24.

So, in Sohar Genes, fol. 5, it is said: "And he saw that Rab. Eleazar went up, and stood there, and with him שאר עמודין shear ammudin, the rest of the pillars (eminent men) who sat there."

Ibid., fol. 13: "These are the seven righteous men who cleave to the holy blessed God with a pure heart, and they are the seven pillars of the world."

Ibid., fol. 21, on the words bearing fruit, Gen 1:11, it is said: "By this we are to understand the just one, who is the pillar of the world." See Schoettgen, who adds: "These pillars must be distinguished from the foundation. The foundation of the Church is Jesus Christ alone; the pillars are the more eminent teachers, which, without the foundation, are of no value."

The right hands of fellowship - Giving the right hand to another was the mark of confidence, friendship, and fellowship. See Lev 6:2 : If a soul - lie unto his neighbor in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, בתשומת יד bithsumeth yad, "in giving the hand."

Only they would that we should remember the poor - They saw plainly that God had as expressly called Barnabas and me to go to the Gentiles as he had called them to preach to the Jews; and they did not attempt to give us any new injunctions, only wished us to remember the poor in Judea; but this was a thing to which we were previously disposed.

When Peter was come to Antioch - There has been a controversy whether Πετρος, Peter, here should not be read Κηφας, Kephas; and whether this Kephas was not a different person from Peter the apostle. This controversy has lasted more than 1500 years, and is not yet settled. Instead of Πετρος, Peter, ABCH, several others of good note, with the Syriac, Erpenian, Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Armenian, later Syriac in the margin, Vulgate, and several of the Greek fathers, read Κηφας. But whichsoever of these readings we adopt, the controversy is the same; for the great question is, whether this Peter or Kephas, no matter which name we adopt, be the same with Peter the apostle?

I shall not introduce the arguments pro and con, which may be all seen in Calmet's dissertation on the subject, but just mention the side where the strength of the evidence appears to lie.

That Peter the apostle is meant, the most sober and correct writers of antiquity maintain; and though some of the Catholic writers have fixed the whole that is here reprehensible on one Kephas, one of the seventy disciples, yet the most learned of their writers and of their popes, believe that St. Peter is meant. Some apparently plausible arguments support the contrary opinion, but they are of no weight when compared with those on the opposite side.

Before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles - Here was Peter's fault. He was convinced that God had pulled down the middle wall of partition that had so long separated the Jews and Gentiles, and he acted on this conviction, associating with the latter and eating with them; but when certain Jews came from James, who it appears considered the law still to be in force, lest he should place a stumbling-block before them he withdrew from all commerce with the converted Gentiles, and acted as if he himself believed the law to be still in force, and that the distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles should still be kept up.

And the other Jews dissembled likewise - That is: Those who were converted to Christianity from among the Jews, and who had also been convinced that the obligation of the Jewish ritual had ceased, seeing Peter act this part, and also fearing them that were of the circumcision, they separated themselves from the converted Gentiles, and acted so as to convince the Jews that they still believed the law to be of moral obligation; and so powerful was the torrent of such an example, that the gentle, loving-hearted Barnabas was carried away by their dissimulation, αυτων τῃ ὑποκρισει, with their hypocrisy - feigning to be what they really were not.

That they walked not uprightly - Ουκ ορθοποδουσι· They did not walk with a straight step - they did not maintain a firm footing.

According to the truth of the Gospel - According to that true doctrine, which states that Christ is the end of the law for justification to every one that believes; and that such are under no obligation to observe circumcision and the other peculiar rites and ceremonies of the law.

If thou, being a Jew, livest - This was a cutting reproof. He was a Jew, and had been circumstantially scrupulous in every thing relative to the law, and it required a miracle to convince him that the Gentiles were admitted, on their believing in Christ, to become members of the same Church, and fellow heirs of the hope of eternal life; and in consequence of this, he went in with the Gentiles and ate with them; i.e. associated with them as he would with Jews. But now, fearing them of the circumcision, he withdrew from this fellowship.

Why compellest thou the Gentiles - Thou didst once consider that they were not under such an obligation, and now thou actest as if thou didst consider the law in full force; but thou art convinced that the contrary is the case, yet actest differently! This is hypocrisy.

We who are Jews by nature - We who belong to the Jewish nation - who have been born, bred, and educated Jews.

And not sinners of the Gentiles - Ἁμαρτωλοι· Not without the knowledge of God, as they have been. Ἁμαρτωλος often signifies a heathen, merely one who had no knowledge of the true God. But among the nations or Gentiles many Jews sojourned; who in Scripture are known by the name of Hellenists, and these were distinguished from those who were termed εξ εθνων ἁμαρτωλοι, sinners of the Gentiles - heathens, in our common sense of the word; while the others, though living among them, were worshippers of the true God, and addicted to no species of idolatry. Some have translated this passage thus: We Jews, and not Gentiles, by nature sinners; for it is supposed that φυσει here refers to that natural corruption which every man brings into the world. Now, though the doctrine be true, (and the state of man, and universal experience confirm it), yet it can neither be supported from this place, nor even from Eph 2:3. See the note on Rom 2:16. It appears, from the use of this word by some of the best Greek authors, that φυσει did not signify by nature, as we use the word, but expressed the natural birth, family, or nation of a man; to distinguish him from any other family or nation. I can give a few instances of this, which are brought to my hand in a small elegant pamphlet, written by Dr. Mnter, the present bishop of Zealand, entitled Observationum ex marmoribus Graecis Sacrarum Specimen, and which has been lent to me by the right honorable Lord Teignmouth, to whose condescension, kindness, and learning, many of my studies have been laid under particular obligation.

The word in question is the xxviiith example in the above pamphlet, the substance of which is as follows: In an inscription on a Greek marble, given by Dr. Chandler, page 27, we find these words Ὁ γαμβρος μου Λεων Αρτεμεισιου, ὁ επικαλουμενος Ιασων, οικονει μεν Μειλησιος, φυσει δε Ιασευς· "My son-in-law, Leo, the son of Artemisius, who is called a Jasian, is of the house of Milesius, though by nature he is from Jaso." That is: Jaso being a town of Caria, this Leo is said to be φυσει Ιασευς, by nature a Jasian, although he sprang from the Milesian family. The following examples will place this in a clearer light. Josephus, Ant. Jud., lib. xi. cap. vi. sec. 5, speaking of Amanes, the Amalekite, says: Και γαρ φυσει τοις Ιουδαιοις απηχθανετο, ὁτι και το γενος των Αμαλεκιτων, εξ ὡν ην αυτος, ὑπ' αυτων διεφθαρτο· "For he was by nature incensed against the Jews, because the nation of the Amalekites, from whom he sprang, had been destroyed by them;" that is, he had a national prejudice or hatred to the Jewish people on the above account. The following example from Dio Chrysostom, Orat. xxxi., is also to the point: Οἱγε (Αθηναιοι) τον δεινα μεν Ολυμπιον κεκληκασι, ουδε φυσει πολιτην ἑαυτων· "For they (the Athenians) called this person an Olympian, though by nature he was not their citizen;" that is, he was called an Olympian, though he was not naturally of that city, or, in other words, he was not born there. From these examples, and the scope of the place, we may argue that the words, we who are Jews by nature, mean, we who were born in the land of Judea, and of Jewish parents. And hence the passage in Eph 2:3, which speaks most evidently of the heathens, "and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others," may be thus understood: Being Gentiles, and brought up in gross darkness, without any knowledge of God, abandoned to all sensual living, we were, from our very condition, and practical state, exposed to punishment. This sense is at least equally good with that given of the words in Rom 2:16, where it is proved that φυσει, in several connections, means truly, certainly, incontestably; "we were, beyond all controversy, exposed to punishment, because we had been born among idolaters, and have lived as they did. Here both senses of the word apply.

Knowing that a man is not justified - See the notes on Rom 1:17; Rom 3:24 (note), Rom 3:27 (note); Rom 8:3 (note). And see on Act 13:38 (note) and Act 13:39 (note), in which places the subject of this verse is largely discussed. Neither the works of the Jewish law, nor of any other law, could justify any man; and if justification or pardon could not have been attained in some other way, the world must have perished. Justification by faith, in the boundless mercy of God, is as reasonable as it is Scriptural and necessary.

But if while we seek to be justified - If, while we acknowledge that we must be justified by faith in Christ, we ourselves are found sinners, enjoining the necessity of observing the rites and ceremonies of the law, which never could and never can justify, and yet, by submitting to circumcision, we lay ourselves under the necessity of fulfilling the law, which is impossible, we thus constitute ourselves sinners; is, therefore, Christ the minister of sin? Christ, who has taught us to renounce the law, and expect justification through his death? God forbid! that we should either act so, or think so.

For if I build again the things which I destroyed - If I act like a Jew, and enjoin the observance of the law on the Gentiles, which I have repeatedly asserted and proved to be abolished by the death of Christ, then I build up what I destroyed, and thus make myself a transgressor, by not observing the law in that way in which I appear to enjoin the observance of it upon others.

For I through the law am dead to the law - In consequence of properly considering the nature and requisitions of the law, I am dead to all hope and expectation of help or salvation from the law, and have been obliged to take refuge in the Gospel of Christ. Or, probably the word νομος, Law, is here put for a system of doctrine; as if he had said, I through the Gospel am dead to the law. The law itself is consigned to death, and another, the Gospel of Christ, is substituted in its stead. The law condemns to death, and I have embraced the Gospel that I might be saved from death, and live unto God.

I am crucified with Christ - The death of Christ on the cross has showed me that there is no hope of salvation by the law; I am therefore as truly dead to all expectation of justification by the law, as Christ was dead when he gave up the ghost upon the cross. Through him alone I live - enjoy a present life, and have a prospect of future glory.

Yet not I - It is not of my natural life I speak, nor of any spiritual things which I myself have procured; but Christ liveth in me. God made man to be a habitation of his own Spirit: the law cannot live in me so as to give me a Divine life; it does not animate, but kill; but Christ lives in me; he is the soul of my soul; so that I now live to God. But this life I have by the faith of the Son of God - by believing on Christ as a sacrifice for sin; for he loved me, and because he did so he gave himself for me - made himself a sacrifice unto death, that I might be saved from the bitter pains of death eternal.

I do not frustrate - Ουκ αθετω· I do not contemn, despise, or render useless, the grace of God - the doctrine of Christ crucified; which I must do if I preach the necessity of observing the law.

For if righteousness - If justification and salvation come by an observance of the law, then Christ is dead in vain; his death is useless if an observance of the law can save us; but no observance of the law can save us, and therefore there was an absolute necessity for the death of Christ.

1. The account of the prevarication of Peter in the preceding chapter teaches us a most useful lesson. Let him who assuredly standeth take heed lest he fall. No person in a state of probation is infallible; a man may fall into sin every moment; and he will, if he do not walk with God. Worldly prudence and fleshly wisdom would have concealed this account of the prevarication of Peter; but God tells truth. This the fountain of it; and from him we are to expect not only nothing but the truth, but also the whole truth. If the Gospel were not of God we had never heard of the denial and prevarication of Peter, nor of the contention between Paul and Barnabas. And these accounts are recorded, not that men may justify or excuse their own delinquencies by them, but that they may avoid them; for he must be inexcusable who, with these histories before his eyes, ever denies his Master, or acts the part of a hypocrite. Had the apostles acted in concert to impose a forgery on the world as a Divine revelation, the imposture would have now come out. The falling out of the parties would have led to a discovery of the cheat. This relation, therefore, is an additional evidence of the truth of the Gospel.

2. On, I through the law am dead to the law, etc., pious Quesnel makes the following useful reflections: "The ceremonial law, which is no more than a type and shadow of him, destroys itself by showing us Jesus Christ, who is the truth and the substance. The moral law, by leaving us under our own inability under sin and the curse, makes us perceive the necessity of the law of the heart, and of a Savior to give it. The law is for the old man, as to its terrible and servile part; and it was crucified and died with Christ upon the cross as well as the old man. The new man, and the new law, require a new sacrifice. What need has he of other sacrifices who has Jesus Christ? They in whom this sacrifice lives, do themselves live to God alone; but none can live to him except by faith; and this life of faith consists in dying with Christ to the things of the present world, and in expecting, as co-heirs with him, the blessings of the eternal world. And who can work all this in us but only he who lives in us? That man has arrived to a high degree of mortification, who can say Christ liveth in me, and I am crucified to the world. Such a one must have renounced not only earthly things, but his own self also."

3. Is there, or can there be, any well grounded hope of eternal life but what comes through the Gospel? In vain has the ingenuity of man tortured itself for more than 5000 years, to find out some method of mending the human heart: none has been discovered that even promised any thing likely to be effectual. The Gospel of Christ not only mends but completely cures and new makes infected nature. Who is duly apprised of the infinite excellency and importance of the Gospel? What was the world before its appearance? What would it be were this light extinguished? Blessed Lord! let neither infidelity nor false doctrine rise up to obscure this heavenly splendor!

Then fourteen years after - My first journey thither. I went up again to Jerusalem - This seems to be the journey mentioned Acts 15:2; several passages here referring to that great council, wherein all the apostles showed that they were of the same judgment with him.

I went up - Not by any command from them, but by an express revelation from God. And laid before them - The chief of the church in Jerusalem. The gospel which I preach among the gentiles - Acts 15:4, touching justification by faith alone; not that they might confirm me therein, but that I might remove prejudice from them. Yet not publicly at first, but severally to those of eminence - Speaking to them one by one. Lest I should run, or should have run, in vain - Lest I should lose the fruit either of my present or past labours. For they might have greatly hindered this, had they not been fully satisfied both of his mission and doctrine. The word run beautifully expresses the swift progress of the gospel.

But neither was Titus who was with me - When I conversed with them. Compelled to be circumcised - A clear proof that none of the apostles insisted on the circumcising gentile believers. The sense is, And it is true, some of those false brethren would fain have compelled Titus to be circumcised; but I utterly refused it.

Because of false brethren - Who seem to have urged it. Introduced unawares - Into some of those private conferences at Jerusalem. Who had slipped in to spy out our liberty - From the ceremonial law. That they might, if possible, bring us into that bondage again.

To whom we did not yield by submission - Although in love he would have yielded to any. With such wonderful prudence did the apostle use his Christian liberty ! circumcising Timothy, Acts 16:3, because of weak brethren, but not Titus, because of false brethren. That the truth of the gospel - That is, the true genuine gospel. Might continue with you - With you gentiles. So we defend, for your sakes, the privilege which you would give up.

And they who undoubtedly were something - Above all others. What they were - How eminent soever. It is no difference to me - So that I should alter either my doctrine or my practice. God accepteth no man's person - For any eminence in gifts or outward prerogatives. In that conference added nothing to me - Neither as to doctrine nor mission.

But when they saw - By the effects which I laid before them, Gal 2:8; Acts 15:12. That I was intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision - That is, with the charge of preaching it to the uncircumcised heathens.

For he that wrought effectually in Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision - To qualify him for, and support him in, the discharge of that office to the Jews. Wrought likewise effectually in and by me - For and in the discharge of my office toward the gentiles.

And when James - Probably named first because he was bishop of the church in Jerusalem. And Cephas - Speaking of him at Jerusalem he calls him by his Hebrew name. And John - Hence it appears that he also was at the council, though he is not particularly named in the Acts. Who undoubtedly were pillars - The principal supporters and defenders of the gospel. Knew - After they had heard the account I gave them. The grace - Of apostleship. Which was given me, they - In the name of all. Gave to me and Barnabas - My fellow - labourer. The right hands of fellowship - They gave us their hands in token of receiving us as their fellow - labourers, mutually agreeing that we - I and those in union with me. Should go to the gentiles - Chiefly. And they - With those that were in union with them, chiefly to the circumcision - The Jews.

Of the poor - The poor Christians in Judea, who had lost all they had for Christ's sake.

But - The argument here comes to the height. Paul reproves Peter himself. So far was he from receiving his doctrine from man, or from being inferior to the chief of the apostles. When Peter - Afterwards, Came to Antioch - Then the chief of all the Gentile churches. I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed - For fear of man, Gal 2:12; for dissimulation, Gal 2:13; and for not walking uprightly. Gal 2:14.

And the other believing Jews - Who were at Antioch. Dissembled with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation - Was borne away, as with a torrent, into the same ill practice.

I said to Cephas before them all - See Paul single against Peter and all the Jews! If thou being a Jew, yet livest, in thy ordinary conversation, after the manner of the gentiles - Not observing the ceremonial law, which thou knowest to be now abolished. Why compellest thou the gentiles - By withdrawing thyself and all the ministers from them; either to judaize, to keep the ceremonial law, or to be excluded from church communion ?

We - St. Paul, to spare St. Peter, drops the first person singular, and speaks in the plural number. Gal 2:18, he speaks in the first person singular again by a figure; and without a figure, Gal 2:19, &c. Who are Jews by nature - By birth, not proselytes only. And not sinners of the gentiles - That is, not sinful Gentiles; not such gross, enormous, abandoned sinners, as the heathens generally were.

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law - Not even of the moral, much less the ceremonial, law. But by the faith of Jesus Christ - That is, by faith in him. The name Jesus was first known by the gentiles; the name Christ by the Jews. And they are not always placed promiscuously; but generally in a more solemn way of speaking, the Apostle says, Christ Jesus; in a more familiar, Jesus Christ. Even we - And how much more must the Gentiles, who have still less pretence to depend on their own works! Have believed - Knowing there is no other way. Because - Considering the demands of the law, and the fate of human nature, it is evident, that by the works of the law - By such an obedience as it requires. Shall no flesh living - No human creature, Jew or Gentile, be justified. Hitherto St. Paul had been considering that single question, "Are Christians obliged to observe the ceremonial law? But he here insensibly goes farther, and, by citing this scripture, shows that what he spoke directly of the ceremonial, included also the moral, law. For David undoubtedly did so, when he said, Psalm 143:2, the place here referred to, "In thy sight shall no man living be justified;" which the Apostle likewise explains, Rom 3:19,20, in such a manner as can agree to none but the moral law.

But if while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves are still found sinners - If we continue in sin, will it therefore follow, that Christ is the minister or countenancer of sin?

By no means. For if I build again - By my sinful practice. The things which I destroyed - By my preaching, I only make myself - Or show myself, not Christ, to be a transgressor; the whole blame lies on me, not him or his gospel. As if he had said, The objection were just, if the gospel promised justification to men continuing in sin. But it does not. Therefore if any who profess the gospel do not live according to it, they are sinners, it is certain, but not justified, and so the gospel is clear.

For I through the law - Applied by the Spirit to my heart, and deeply convincing me of my utter sinfulness and helplessness. Am dead to the law - To all hope of justification from it. That I may live to God - Not continue in sin. For this very end am I, in this sense, freed from the law, that I may be freed from sin.

The Apostle goes on to describe how he is freed from sin; how far he is from continuing therein. I am crucified with Christ - Made conformable to his death; "the body of sin is destroyed." Rom 6:6. And I - As to my corrupt nature. Live no longer - Being dead to sin. But Christ liveth in me - Is a fountain of life in my inmost soul, from which all my tempers, words, and actions flow. And the life that I now live in the flesh - Even in this mortal body, I live by faith in the Son of God - I derive every moment from that supernatural principle; from a divine evidence and conviction, that "he loved me, and delivered up himself for me."

Meantime I do not make void - In seeking to be justified by my own works. The grace of God - The free love of God in Christ Jesus. But they do, who seek justification by the law. For if righteousness is by the law - If men might be justified by their obedience to the law, moral or ceremonial. Then Christ died in vain - Without any necessity for it, since men might have been saved without his death; might by their own obedience have been both discharged from condemnation, and entitled to eternal life.

1 THen fourteen years after , I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also .

Either fourteen years after the three years before mentioned, and the fifteen dayes; or fourteen years after the conversion of Paul ▪ or fourteen years after the death of Christ. This journey seeming to be that mentioned Acts. 15.2. it seems rather to be understood of fourteen years after the death of Christ.

Motions to Ierusalem are usually in Scripture called ascendings or goings up; either because of the Mountains round about it, or in respect of the famousness of the place, see Acts 15.2. and 21.4. The occasion of this journey we have Acts 15.2, 3. It was to advise with the Apostles and Elders, about the necessity of circumcision, ver. 1. Some that came from Iudea, having taught the Disciples at Antioch, that except they were circumcised, they could not be saved.

Barnabas was chosen to go with Paul, verse 2. and some others, whom Luke nameth not, but it is plain by this Text Titus was one.

2 And I went up by revelation , and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles , but privately to them which were of reputation , lest by any means I should run, or had run in vain .

Revelation signifieth Gods immediate declaration of his will to him, that he would have him take this journey; which is not at all contradicted by Luke, saying, Acts 15▪ 2, 3. That their journey was determined by the Christians at [illegible: 1 word]. God, to incourage Paul, had let him know it was his will he should go; and also put it into the Christians hearts at Antioch, to chuse him to the journey. His motions from one place to another, were much by revelation, or immediate order, and command from God, Acts 16.9. and 22.18. and 23.11.

He saith, he communicated, or made a report or relation of (in which sense the word is used, Acts 25.14.) that Doctrine of the Gospel which he had preached amongst the Gentiles; He doubtless more particularly means, the abolition of Circumcision, and no necessity of the observance of the Law of Moses contained in Ordinances.

But he saith that he did it privately, and to men of Reputation; by which he meaneth the Apostles, or some other Christians of greatest eminency.

Lest he should have prejudiced himself, as to the course of the Gospel, which he metaphorically compareth to a race, (1 Cor. 9.26.) Object. If any ask how this influenced Paul, so as to make him privately to communicate the Doctrine which he had amongst the Gentiles preached publickly? It is easily answered, 1. That the consent of those who were Apostles before him, to the Doctrine which he preached, was of great moment to perswade all Christians to imbrace it; and by this means he obviated the scandal of being singular in the Doctrine which he preached. 2. Besides that Paul was now at Hierusalem, which was the chief place of the Jews residence, to whom God indulged a greater liberty for the ceremonial usages, then to the Churches of the Gentiles, who had not been Educated in that Religion. And had Paul openly there declared the liberty of Christians from circumcision, and the ceremonial usages, he had both inraged those who as yet continued in the Jewish Religion, and possibly given no small offence to those who had been Educated in that Religion, though they were converted to the Faith of the Gospel, they not fully yet understanding the liberty of Christians from that yoke. By one, or both of which wayes, had Paul openly at Hierusalem published the Doctrine which he had publickly preached in Damascus and Arabia, and other places of the Gentiles, his labours might have been rendred useless, and he might also have been less successful in his further course of preaching it.

Marginal references: Or, [illegible: 1 span]; Phil. 2.1[illegible: 1 letter]

3 But neither Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised .

The Apostle brings this as an instance of the Apostles at Hierusalem, agreeing with him in his Doctrine, as to the non-necessity of Circumcision, for though Titus was with him, who was a Native Gentile, being a Greek, and a Minister of the Gospel, (and possibly Paul carried him with him for an instance) yet the Apostles at Hierusalem, did not think fit to impose upon him Circumcision; no, not upon a solemn debate of that question. If any shall object that Paul himself circumcised Timothy, who was a Greek, Acts 16.1, 2. The answer is easie, the same Text letting us know that his Mother was a Iewess; and verse 3. that he did it because of the Iews in th[illegible: 1 letter]se quarters. As to the Iews, it was matter of liberty at this time, they might, or might not be circumcised. Now in matters of this nature, where men have a liberty, they ought to have regard to circumstances, and to do that which they from a view of circumstances, judge will be most for the glory of God, the good of others, and give least offence, 1 Cor. 10.28, 29, 30, 31.

4 And that because of false brethren u nawares brought in , who came in privily to spy out our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus , that they might bring us into bondage .

He gives the reason why Circumcision was not urged upon Titus, viz▪ because there were some got into that Meeting, where Paul debated these things with the Apostles that were at Hierusalem; who though they had embraced the Christian Religion, (and upon that account were Brethren) yet were sowred with the Jewish Leaven, and were very zealous for all Christians to observe the Jewish Rites of Circumcision, &c. Upon which account it is that he calleth them false Brethren.

These (he saith) came in privily, to spy out that liberty which all Christians had, and Paul had preached and used, as to these Jewish Ceremonies: Who, could they have obtained to have had Titus circumcised, they had had a great advantage to have defamed Paul, as teaching one thing to the Gentile Churches, and practising the contrary, when he came at Hierusalem to the Apostles, and amongst the Iewes. And this being a liberty which he and all Christians had, in and from Jesus Christ, he would not part with it,

for they aimed at nothing, but the again bringing of Christians under the bondage of the Ceremonial Law. Some may say, it being a thing wherein Christians had a liberty, why did not St. Paul yield to avoid their offence? becoming all things to all men to gain some. Answ. In the use of our liberty, all circumstances are to be con [illegible: 1 letter]idered, as well as that of scandal and offence. The valuable opposite circumstance in this case, seemeth to be the validity and success of the Apostles Ministry, the efficacy of which would have been much weakened, if his enemies [illegible: 1 letter]ad from hence gained an advantage to represent him, as doing one thing in one place, and the quite contrary in another. Besides, though at this time, the use or not use of the Ceremonial Rites, by the Iews, was a matter of liberty, by reason of Gods Indulgence to them for the prejudices of their Education, yet whether they were at all so to the Gentile Churches, may be doubted, see chap. 5.2, 3. Further, yet these Brethren urged the observation of these Rites, as necessary to Salvation, (as appears from Acts 15.1.) for they were of the sect of the Pharisees, verse 5. And to use them under that notion, was no matter of liberty.

Marginal references: 1 Cor. 11.26.; [illegible: 1 word] 3.25. [illegible: 1 word] 5.1, 13.

5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no not for an hour ; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you .

To these Iudaizing Christians the Apostle did not think fit to yield one jot; not for the least time, nor in so much as one president.

Having a desire that these Gentile Churches might not be perverted. Or (as others think) to which men of Reputation we yielded not in the least: It is very probable, that Peter and Iames upon their first arguing the case, to avoid the scandal and offence of the Iews, would have had Titus circumcised: St. Paul would not yield to it, that he might preserve the Doctrine of the Gospel, which he had planted amongst the Galatians, and other Gentiles, pure, and not incumber those Churches with the Mosaical Rites: But the most, and best Interpreters rather judge the persons here mentioned, to whom Paul would not yield, to be some Judaizing Christians, rather then the persons of Reputation, mentioned ver. 2.

6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat , whatsoever they were it maketh no matter to me; God accepteth no mans person , for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing unto me q.

The word Translated seem, is the same with that verse 2. which we there Translate of Reputation. The Apostle meaneth the [illegible: 1 letter]ame persons that were of the greatest reputation, and so the following words to be something, do import, Act. 5.36. and 8.9. We must not understand the Apostle by this expression, to detract from the just Reputation that the Apostles, and these Eminent Christians at Hierusalem had, he only taketh notice here of them, as magnified by the false Teachers of this Church, to the lessening of himself; and as those that seem to be something, must be interpreted as relating to these mens estimation of them; [that seem to you to be something] though I seem nothing to you.

Whatsoever they were formerly, suppose (as probably some of these Galatians had said) that they saw Christ in the flesh, were immediately called by him, when I was a Pharisee, &c. God accepteth no mans person, hath no regard to what a man hath been, but to what he is: When I am to confer and discourse with them, about the Doctrine which I and they had taught, I learned no new Doctrine from them, different from what I had before taught, neither did they reprove or correct me, for any thing which I had taught amiss, we were all of the same mind.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 word]. 2.11.

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was commited unto me t, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter .

They were so far from contradicting any thing that I had preached, that when they understood from me, and Barnabas, (who Acts 15.12. Declared in the counsel what miracles and wonders God had wrought amongst the Gentiles by them):

That the business of preaching the Gospel to those who were no Iews, (for that is meant by uncircumcision; not simply those that were not circumcised (for some of the Heathens were circumcised) yet all go in Scripture under the name of uncircumcised) was committed to me.

As the preaching of the Gospel to the Iews was committed to Peter, and not to him only, but to Iames and John. It must not be so understood, as if Paul might not preach to the Jews, or Peter might not preach to the Gentiles (for the contrary is evident from Acts▪ 9.15. as to Paul, and from Peters preaching to Cornelius, Act. 10.) but because God designed the Gentiles to be more especially the Province for Paul to exercise his ministry in Acts. 26.17. (and accordingly he was specially sent out by the Church, Acts 13.4.) as Peters chief work was among the Jews.

Marginal references: Rom. 11.13. 1 Tim. 2.7. 2 Tim. 1.11.

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me towards the Gentiles .)

As Pauls call was equal to that of Peter, both of them being Divine, so (saith the Apostle) my ability and success was equal; as God wrought effectually in and by Peter in the discharge of his Apostleship in the Province berrusted to him, (which was preaching to the Jews.) so he wrought effectually, and mightily in me, or by me in the Province wherein I was imployed, viz. carrying the Gospel to the Gentiles This efficacious working of God both by Paul and Peter, was seen in the conversion of multitudes by their Ministry, as well as in their miraculous operations, by which they confirmed the Doctrine of the Gospel which they preached.

Marginal references: Act. 9.15. & 13.2. & 22.21. chap. 1.16.

9 And when James , Cephas , and John , who seemed to be pillars , perceived the grace that was given to me , they gave to me, and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship , that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision .

Iames (called the Less) the Son of Alpheus (before called the Brother of our Lord, as is thought because he was the Son of the Virgin Maries Sister:) whose naming here in the first place spoileth the Papists argument for Peters primacy, because in some other places he is first named.

That is, Peter, called here Cephas in the Syriack; possibly because he is named with others, who had Syriack Names; in most places he is by this Apostle called Peter.

Iohn the Apostle and Evangelist, who is also known by the Name ofthe Beloved Disciple.

Paul in saying they seemed to be Pillars, doth not deny them to be so; being such as God made use of in the first founding and building of the Gospel-Church; as also to bear it up, (in the same sense that the Church is called the pillar and ground of truth;) and as by them the Gospel was carried out into the World, but he useth the word seemed, because the false Teachers had magnified their ministry, but disparaged his. When these, he saith

understood the grace given to him; by which, he either understands his Office of Apostleship, or the Crown and Seal of his Offices in the blessing which God had given to his labours amongst the Gentiles.

They looked upon him, and Barnabas, as much Pillars as themselves; and in token of it gave them their right hands, (a token of admitting into fellowship▪ 2 Kings 10.15. Ier. 50.15.) And agreed

that it should be the[illegible: 2 letters] special work to go and preach to the Gentiles, as they, (viz. Iames, and Iohn, and Peter) would make it their special work to preach the Gospel to the Iews.

10 Only they would that we should remember the poor , the same which I also was forward to do .

These Pillars and Apostles which have among you the greatest reputation, added no new Doctrine to us, gave us nothing new in charge; they only desired us that we would be careful wheresoever we went to make collection for the poor Christians in Iudea, who either by selling all they had to maintain the Gospel in its first plantation, or by the sharp persecution which had wasted them, or by reason of the Famine, were very low; nor was this any new thing, I had before done it▪ and was very forward to do it again, had they said nothing to us about it.

These Pillars and Apostles which have among you the greatest reputation, added no new Doctrine to us, gave us nothing new in charge; they only desired us that we would be careful wheresoever we went to make collection for the poor Christians in Iudea, who either by selling all they had to maintain the Gospel in its first plantation, or by the sharp persecution which had wasted them, or by reason of the Famine, were very low; nor was this any new thing, I had before done it▪ and was very forward to do it again, had they said nothing to us about it.

Marginal references: Act. 24.17. Rom. 15.25. 1 Cor. 16.1. 2 Cor. 8.9.

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed .

Of this motion of Peters to Antioch, the Scripture saying nothing of it, hath left Interpreters at liberty to guess variously as to the time; some judging it was before, some after the Councel held at Hierusalem, (of which we read Acts 15.) Those seem to judge best, who think it was after; for it was at Antioch, while Barnabas was with Paul; now Paul and Barnabas came from Hierusalem to Antioch, to bring thither the Decrees of that Councel; and at Antioch, Barnabas parted from Paul; after which we never read of them as being together. While Paul and Barnabas were together at Antioch, Peter came thither; where Paul saith, he was so far from taking instructions from him, that he withstood him to his face. Not by any acts of violence, (though the word often expresseth such acts;) but by words reproving, and blaming him; for, (saith he) he deserved it, he was to be blamed. Though the word signifies he was condemned, (which makes some to interpret it, as if Peter had met with some reprehension for his fact before Paul blamed him▪) yet there is no ground for it; for though the Greek participle be in the Praeterperfect Tense, yet it is an H[illegible: 1 letter]braism, and put for a Noun Verbal, which in Latine is sometimes expressed by the Future: according to which we translate it, see 1 Cor. 1.18. 2 Cor. 2.15. 2 Pet. 2.4. so our Interpreters have truly translated it according to the sense of the Text.

12 For before that certain came from James , he did eat with the Gentiles : but, when they were come, he withdrew , and separated himself , fearing them which were of the circumcision .

It should seem that Peter had been at Antioch some time; while he was there, there came down certain Jews from Iames, who was at Hierusalem; before they came

Peter had Communion with those Christians at Antioch, which were by birth Gentiles, and at meals eat as they eat, making no difference of meats, as the Iews did in obedience to the Ceremonial Law.

But as soon as these Zealots, for the Iewish rites, (though Christians,) were come, Peter withdrew from the Communion of the Gentile Christians, and

was the head of a separate Party,

and all through fear of the Iews; lest they should at their return to Hierusalem make some report of him to his disadvantage, and expose him to the anger of the Iews.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him , insomuch, that Barnabas also was carryed away with their dissimulation .

The fact was the worse, because those Christians which were of the Church of Antioch, having been Native Jews,

followed his Example, and made a separate Party with him.

Nay, Barnabas my fellow-labourer, who was joyned with me in bringing the Decrees of the Councel in the case, was carried away with their Dissimulation. So dangerous and exemplary are the warpings and miscarriages of those that are eminent Teachers.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the Gospel , I said unto Peter before them all , If thou being a Jew livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews , why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews ?

Uprightly, here is opposed to halting. Peter halted betwixt two opinions, (as Elijah sometime told the Israelites ▪) when he was with the Gentiles alone, he did as they did, using the li [illegible: 2 letters]rty of the Gospel; but when the Jews came from Hierusalem, [illegible: 1 letter]e left the Gentile-Church, and joyned with the Jews; this was [illegible: 1 letter]ot according to that plainness and sincerity which the Gospel required; he did not, (according to the precept he held Heb. 12.13.) Make strait paths to his feet, left that which is lame be turned out of the way. Paul not hearing this from the report of others, but being an eye-witness to it, doth not defer the reproof, lest the scandal should grow: Nor

doth he reprove him privately, because the offence was publick, and such a [illegible: 1 letter]laster would not have fi[illegible: 1 letter]ted the sore, but he speaketh unto Peter before them all, rebuking him openly, because he sinned openly; and by this action had not offended a private person, but the Church in the place where he was; who were all Eye-witnesses of his halting, and prevarication. 1 Tim. 5 20.

If thou, who art a Jew, not by Religion only, but by Birth, and Education, hast formerly lived, eat, and drank, and had communion with the Gentiles in the omission of the observance of Circumcision, and other Jewish rites, generally observed by those of their Synagogues; (as Peter had done before the Jews came from Hierusalem to Antioch.)

Why dost thou by thy example compel the members of a Gentile-Church to observe the Jewish rites; for compelling here doth not signifie any act of violence, (Peter used none such,) but the example of leaders in the Church, who are persons of reputation and authority, is a kind of compulsion to those that are inferiours, and who have a great veneration for such leaders. So the word here used [non-Latin text not transcribed], is used in 2 Cor. 12.11. as also to express the force of exhortations and arguments. Of such a compulsion the word is used, Luk. 14.23. Peter by his example, and possibly by some words and arguments he used, potently moved those profelyted Jews, who were in communion with the Churches of Galatia, to observe the Jewish rites, so so that by this fact, he did not only contradict himself, who by his former walking with the Gentile-Church h[illegible: 1 letter]d practically asserted the Gospel liberty; but he also scandalized those Christians in these Churches who stood fast in the liberty which Christ had purchased for them, and Paul had taught them; and also drew others away from the Truth they had owned, and practised. This was the cause of Pauls so open and publick reproof of him.

Marginal references: Act. 10.28.

15 We who are Jews by nature , and not sinners of the Gentiles ,

Born Jews, not only pro[illegible: 1 letter]elyted to the Jewish Religion, (and so under an obligation to the observation of the Jewish Law;) but of the seed of Abraham, and so under the Covenant made with him and his seed, as he was the Father of the Jewish Nation.

Not sinners of the Gentiles. The Gentiles were ordinarily called by the Jews sinners; though it appeareth that there were divers of them worshippers of the true God, and came up to Ierusalem to worship; for whose sake there was a peculiar Court allotted in the Temple, called The Court of the Gentiles. Yet not being under the obligation of the Jewish Law, they went under the denomination of sinners by the Jews; and the most of the Gentiles were really sinners, and that eminently; (for such the word here used ordinarily signifieth,) as the Apostle describeth their manners, Rom. 1.29, 30, 31.

Marginal references: Act. 15.10, [illegible: 1 letter]; Eph. 2.[illegible: 1 letter]

16 Knowing that a man is not justified , by the works of the Law , but by the faith of Jesus Christ , even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law , for, by the works of the law shall no flesh be justifyed .

We knowing that a man is not absolved from the guilt of sin, and declared righteous in the sight of God.

By any kind of works done in obedience to the Law of Moses, whether Ceremonial, or Moral. For it is manifest, that although this question about justification by works began about Circumcision and works done in obedience to the Ceremonial Law, yet the determination of it extended further. For the Apostle by the Law understands that Law by which is the knowledge of sin, Rom. 3.20. Now the knowledge of sin, is neither only nor chiefly by the Ceremonial Law: Nor did ever any of those against whom the Apostle argueth, think, that men could be justifyed by obedience only to the Law contained in Ordinances; nor could boasting be excluded, (which the Apostle sheweth Rom. 3.27. was Gods design in fixing the way of a sinners justification,) if men might be justified by works done in obedience to the Moral Law, nor was it the Ceremonial Law only, the violation of which works wrath, Rom. 4.15. or disobedience to which brought men under the curse, chap. 3.10.

But we are justified by believing in Christ; not by Faith as it is a work of ours, (for that was denyed before;.) nor by Faith as a principal efficient cause, for in that sense it is God that justifieth; nor as a meritorious cause, for so we are justified by the blood of Christ, but by Faith, as an instrument apprehending and applying Christ and his righteousness.

We (saith the Apostle) that are Jews, knowing this, have not only assented to the truth of the Gospel proposition, but accepted of this way of Salvation, and received the Lord Jesus; that we so doing, not trusting to the Law, or any obedience of ours to it might be absolved from the guilt of sin, and declared righteous before God.

For no mortal man shall ever be absolved or declared righteous upon his own personal obedience to the Law of God; being in the best imperfect, and much short of what the Law requireth.

Marginal references: Act. 13.[illegible: 1 letter]; Rom. 1. [illegible: 1 letter] Heb. 7.18,; Psa. 143[illegible: 1 letter] Rom. 3.[illegible: 1 letter]

17 But if while we seek to be justified by Christ, we our selves also are found sinners , i[illegible: 1 letter] therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid .

Some Interpreters think, that the Apostle here begins his Discourse to the Galatians upon the main argument of his Epistle, viz. Justification by Faith in Christ; though others think it began ver. 15. If (saith the Apostle,) you make us grievous offenders in our expectation of being justified by Christ▪ and not by the works of the Law:

You make Christ the Minister of sin, who hath taught us this. But others think that the Apostle here obviateth a common objection which was then made, (as it is also in our age) against the Doctrine of Justification by Faith in Christ; viz. That it opens a door of liberty to the flesh, and so makes Christ a Minister of sin; as if he relaxed mens obligation to the Law of God; which is the same objection which the Apostle answered in his Epistle to the Romans; chap. 6. If while we plead for justification by Christ, we live in a course of notorious disobedience to the Law of God, then Christ must be to us a Minister of sin, and come into the World to purchase for us a possibility of Salvation, though we live in never so much notorious disobedience to the Law of God. As if there were no obligation upon men to keep the Law, unless by their obedience to it, they might obtain pardon of sin and justification. This calumny the Apostle accords: First, By a general Aversation, God forbid!

Marginal references: 1 Joh. [illegible: 1 letter]

18 For if I build again the things , which I destroyed , I make my self a transgressour .

By the things which he destroyed, Some understand the state of sin; and from hence conclude the mutability of a state of Justification: But there is no need of that, it may as well be understood of a constant course, and voluntary acts of sin. If I teach a Doctrine that shall incourage a sinful life, or if I should live in a course of sin, these are the things,

which I as a Minister of Christ, have in my preaching an Doctrine destroyed, teaching you, that not only the guilt of your sins was removed upon your Justification by Christ, but the dominion of sin also destroyed: And they are things which Iustification destroyeth; God never saying to any soul, Thy sins are forgiven thee, without adding, sin no more. So as if a justified state would admit of a going on in a setled course of sin, it would build what it destroyed.

Now should I, or any one, do any such thing, we should thereby make our selves great Transgressors: So as the Apostles Argument here seemeth to be the same with that Rom. 6.2. How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? He strives at the same thing here, viz. to prove that the Doctrine of Justification by Faith in Christ, could not give a liberty to any to sin, because it shews persons made partakers of that grace, that they are freed, not only from the guilt, but also from the power and dominion of sin, so as that none can from it receive any comfort, as to the former, nor find the latter wrought in them.

19 For I through the law am dead to the law , that I might live unto God .

Through the law of Christ, (as some say) or rather, through the Law of Moses, (of which he had been before speaking) That is, (say some) through the death of the Law: The Law it self being dead, as a covenant of works: (Rom. 7.1.) Or rather, by means of the Law, giving me a knowledge of sin, and condemning me for sin.

Am dead to the Law; as to any expectation of being justified by obedience to it.

Not that I might live in disobedience to it, as it is a rule of life, but that I might live more holily unto God: So as my being dead to the Law, as a covenant of works, or as to any expectation of being justified from my obedience to it, gives me no liberty to sin at all; for this is the end why God hath freed me from the bondage and rigour of the Law, that I might live unto him, and serve him without fear; in Holiness and Righteousness.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 paragraph]; [illegible: 1 paragraph]; [illegible: 1 paragraph]

20 I am crucified with Christ ; Nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me , and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God , who loved me, and gave himself for me .

This Epistle is much of the same nature with that to the Romans, and the substance of what the Apostle saith in the latter part of this chapter, agreeth much with the sixth chapter of that Epistle; where we find an expression much like to this verse 6. Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. I am (saith the Apostle) Crucified with Christ, not only by Iustification made partaker of the benefits coming by a Christ Crucified, but also as having Communion with the death of Christ, in the mortification of my lusts. A figure of which (as he informeth us, Rom. 6,) we have in Baptism, verse 4. Buried with him by Baptism into death.

Yet (saith he) I live an Holy, Spiritual Life; though dead to the Law, and though crucified with Christ:

But I cannot say so properly that it is I, for my motions are not according to my natural propensions and inclinations; but Christ by his Spirit liveth in me, having renewed and changed me, made me a new creature, and begot new motions and inclinations in me. And though I live in the flesh,

yet I live by the Faith of the Son of God: All my natural, moral and civil actions, being principled in Faith, and done according to the guidance of the rule of Faith in Jesus Christ.

Of whom I am perswaded, that he loved me, and from that love gave himself, to dye upon the cross for me.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 word] 6.6. [illegible: 1 word] 5.24.; [illegible: 1 word]. 1.4. [illegible: 1 word] 5.2. [illegible: 1 word] 14.

21 I do not frustrate the grace of God , for if righteousness come by the law , then is Christ dead in vain .

I do not despise, reject, make void (for by all these words the word here used is Translated; Mark 7.9. Iohn 12.48. chap. 3.15. Heb. 10.28.) the free love of God, in giving his Son to dye for our sins: From whence is easily gathered, that those who live a loose life, and take a liberty to sin from their Justification, or from the free grace of God in Christ; they do contemn and despise the Grace of God: Or rather, (if we refer it to the following words) those who assert Justification by the works of the Law, they do reject and despise the free grace of God in the Gospel, and (as much as in them lyes) make it vain and frustrate.

For if it be possible, that a man by works done in obedience to the Law, should arrive at a Righteousness, in which he may stand before God,

there Christ dyed to no purpose, or without any just cause; the reason of this must be, because it was the main and principal end of Christs death, to procure or purchase a Righteousness, wherein sinners might stand before God, to bring in an everlasting Righteousness▪ Dan. 9.27. If the most proper effect of the death of Christ be taken away, then his death is made causless, and to no purpose. Thus the Apostle concludeth his Thesis, laid down verse 16. That none shall be justified by the works of the Law, from two absurdities that would follow upon the contrary, viz. Iustification by the works of the Law, the rejection of the grace of God, and the frustration, or making void of the death of Christ.

Marginal references: Heb. 7.11.

Paul's Journey to Jerusalem; Paul's Decision and Fidelity. (a. d. 56.)

1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. 3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for a hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

It should seem, by the account Paul gives of himself in this chapter, that, from the very first preaching and planting of Christianity, there was a difference of apprehension between those Christians who had first been Jews and those who had first been Gentiles. Many of those who had first been Jews retained a regard to the ceremonial law, and strove to keep up the reputation of that; but those who had first been Gentiles had no regard to the law of Moses, but took pure Christianity as perfective of natural religion, and resolved to adhere to that. Peter was the apostle to them; and the ceremonial law, though dead with Christ, yet not being as yet buried, he connived at the respect kept up for it. But Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles; and, though he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, yet he adhered to pure Christianity. Now in this chapter he tells us what passed between him and the other apostles, and particularly between him and Peter hereupon.

In these verses he informs us of another journey which he took to Jerusalem, and of what passed between him and the other apostles there, v. 1-10. Here he acquaints us,

I. With some circumstances relating to this his journey thither. As particularly, 1. With the time of it: that it was not till fourteen years after the former (mentioned ch. i. 18), or, as others choose to understand it, from his conversion, or from the death of Christ. It was an instance of the great goodness of God that so useful a person was for so many years preserved in his work. And it was some evidence that he had no dependence upon the other apostles, but had an equal authority with them, that he had been so long absent from them, and was all the while employed in preaching and propagating pure Christianity, without being called into question by them for it, which it may be thought he would have been, had he been inferior to them, and his doctrine disapproved by them. 2. With his companions in it: he went up with Barnabas, and took with him Titus also. If the journey here spoken of was the same with that recorded Acts xv. (as many think), then we have a plain reason why Barnabas went along with him; for he was chosen by the Christians at Antioch to be his companion and associate in the affair he went about. But, as it does not appear that Titus was put into the same commission with him, so the chief reason of his taking him along with him seems to have been to let those at Jerusalem see that he was neither ashamed nor afraid to own the doctrine which he had constantly preached; for though Titus had now become not only a convert to the Christian faith, but a preacher of it too, yet he was by birth a Gentile and uncircumcised, and therefore, by making him his companion, it appeared that their doctrine and practice were of a piece, and that as he had preached the non-necessity of circumcision, and observing the law of Moses, so he was ready to own and converse with those who were uncircumcised. 3. With the reason of it, which was a divine revelation he had concerning it: he went up be revelation; not of his own head, much less as being summoned to appear there, but by special order and direction from Heaven. It was a privilege with which this apostle was often favoured to be under a special divine direction in his motions and undertakings; and, though this is what we have no reason to expect, yet it should teach us, in every thing of moment we go about, to endeavour, as far as we are capable, to see our way made plain before us, and to commit ourselves to the guidance of Providence.

II. He gives us an account of his behaviour while he was at Jerusalem, which was such as made it appear that he was not in the least inferior to the other apostles, but that both his authority and qualifications were every way equal to theirs. He particularly acquaints us,

1. That he there communicated the gospel to them, which he preached among the Gentiles, but privately, &c. Here we may observe both the faithfulness and prudence of our great apostle. (1.) His faithfulness in giving them a free and fair account of the doctrine which he had all along preached among the Gentiles, and was still resolved to preach—that of pure Christianity, free from all mixtures of Judaism. This he knew was a doctrine that would be ungrateful to many there, and yet he was not afraid to own it, but in a free and friendly manner lays it open before them and leaves them to judge whether or no it was not the true gospel of Christ. And yet, (2.) He uses prudence and caution herein, for fear of giving offence. He chooses rather to do it in a more private than in a public way, and to those that were of reputation, that is, to the apostles themselves, or to the chief among the Jewish Christians, rather than more openly and promiscuously to all, because, when he came to Jerusalem, there were multitudes that believed, and yet continued zealous for the law, Acts xxi. 20. And the reason of this his caution was lest he should run, or had run, in vain, lest he should stir up opposition against himself and thereby either the success of his past labours should be lessened, or his future usefulness be obstructed; for nothing more hinders the progress of the gospel than differences of opinion about the doctrines of it, especially when they occasion quarrels and contentions among the professors of it, as they too usually do. It was enough to his purpose to have his doctrine owned by those who were of greatest authority, whether it was approved by others or not. And therefore, to avoid offence, he judges it safest to communicate it privately to them, and not in public to the whole church. This conduct of the apostle may teach all, and especially ministers, how much need they have of prudence, and how careful they should be to use it upon all occasions, as far as is consistent with their faithfulness.

2. That in his practice he firmly adhered to the doctrine which he had preached. Paul was a man of resolution, and would adhere to his principles; and therefore, though he had Titus with him, who was a Greek, yet he would not suffer him to be circumcised, because he would not betray the doctrine of Christ, as he had preached it to the Gentiles. It does not appear that the apostles at all insisted upon this; for, though they connived at the use of circumcision among the Jewish converts, yet they were not for imposing it upon the Gentiles. But there were others who did, whom the apostle here calls false brethren, and concerning whom he informs us that they were unawares brought in, that is, into the church, or into their company, and that they came only to spy out their liberty which they had in Christ Jesus, or to see whether Paul would stand up in defence of that freedom from the ceremonial law which he had taught as the doctrine of the gospel, and represented as the privilege of those who embraced the Christian religion. Their design herein was to bring them into bondage, which they would have effected could they have gained the point they aimed at; for, had they prevailed with Paul and the other apostles to have circumcised Titus, they would easily have imposed circumcision upon other Gentiles, and so have brought them under the bondage of the law of Moses. But Paul, seeing their design, would by no means yield to them; he would not give place by subjection, no, not for an hour, not in this one single instance; and the reason of it was that the truth of the gospel might continue with them—that the Gentile Christians, and particularly the Galatians, might have it preserved to them pure and entire, and not corrupted with the mixtures of Judaism, as it would have been had he yielded in this matter. Circumcision was at that time a thing indifferent, and what in some cases might be complied with without sin; and accordingly we find even Paul himself sometimes giving way to it, as in the case of Timothy, Acts xvi. 3. But when it is insisted on as necessary, and his consenting to it, though only in a single instance, is likely to be improved as giving countenance to such an imposition, he has too great a concern for the purity and liberty of the gospel, to submit to it; he would not yield to those who were for the Mosaic rites and ceremonies, but would stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, which conduct of his may give us occasion to observe that what under some circumstances may lawfully be complied with, yet, when that cannot be done without betraying the truth, or giving up the liberty, of the gospel, it ought to be refused.

3. That, though he conversed with the other apostles, yet he did not receive any addition to his knowledge or authority from them, v. 6. By those who seemed to be somewhat he means the other apostles, particularly James, Peter, and John, whom he afterwards mentions by name, v. 9. And concerning these he grants that they were deservedly had in reputation by all, that they were looked upon (and justly too) as pillars of the church, who were set not only for its ornament, but for its support, and that on some accounts they might seem to have the advantage of him, in that they had seen Christ in the flesh, which he had not, and were apostles before him, yea, even while he continued a persecutor. But yet, whatever they were, it was no matter to him. This was no prejudice to his being equally an apostle with them; for God does not accept the persons of men on the account of any such outward advantages. As he had called them to this office, so he was at liberty to qualify others for it, and to employ them in it. And it was evident in this case that he had done so; for in conference they added nothing to him, they told him nothing but what he before knew by revelation, nor could they except against the doctrine which he communicated to them, whence it appeared that he was not at all inferior to them, but was as much called and qualified to be an apostle as they themselves were.

4. That the issue of this conversation was that the other apostles were fully convinced of his divine mission and authority, and accordingly acknowledged him as their fellow-apostle, v. 7-10. They were not only satisfied with his doctrine, but they saw a divine power attending him, both in preaching it and in working miracles for the confirmation of it: that he who wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in him towards the Gentiles. And hence they justly concluded that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to Paul, as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter. And therefore, perceiving the grace that was given to him (that he was designed to the honour and office of an apostle as well as themselves) they gave unto him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, a symbol whereby they acknowledged their equality with them, and agreed that these should go to the heathen, while they continued to preach to the circumcision, as judging it most agreeable to the mind of Christ, and most conducive to the interest of Christianity, so to divide their work. And thus this meeting ended in an entire harmony and agreement; they approved both Paul's doctrine and conduct, they were fully satisfied in him, heartily embraced him as an apostle of Christ, and had nothing further to add, only that they would remember the poor, which of his own accord he was very forward to do. The Christians of Judea were at that time labouring under great wants and difficulties; and the apostles, out of their compassion to them and concern for them, recommend their case to Paul, that he should use his interest with the Gentile churches to procure a supply for them. This was a reasonable request; for, if the Gentiles were made partakers of their spiritual things, it was their duty to minister to them in carnal things, as Rom. xv. 27. And he very readily falls in with it, whereby he showed his charitable and catholic disposition, how ready he was to own the Jewish converts as brethren, though many of them could scarcely allow the like favour to the converted Gentiles, and that mere difference of opinion was no reason with him why he should not endeavour to relieve and help them. Herein he has given us an excellent pattern of Christian charity, and has taught us that we should by no means confine it to those who are just of the same sentiments with us, but be ready to extend it to all whom we have reason to look upon as the disciples of Christ.

Peter Reproved by Paul. (a. d. 56.)

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

I. From the account which Paul gives of what passed between him and the other apostles at Jerusalem, the Galatians might easily discern both the falseness of what his enemies had insinuated against him and their own folly and weakness in departing from that gospel which he had preached to them. But to give the greater weight to what he had already said, and more fully to fortify them against the insinuations of the judaizing teachers, he acquaints them with another interview which he had with the apostle Peter at Antioch, and what passed between them there, v. 11-14. Antioch was one of the chief churches of the Gentile Christians, as Jerusalem was of those Christians who turned from Judaism to the faith of Christ. There is no colour of reason for the supposition that Peter was bishop of Antioch. If he had, surely Paul would not have withstood him in his own church, as we here find he did; but, on the contrary, it is here spoken of as an occasional visit which he made thither. In their other meeting, there had been good harmony and agreement. Peter and the other apostles had both acknowledged Paul's commission and approved his doctrine, and they parted very good friends. But in this Paul finds himself obliged to oppose Peter, for he was to be blamed, a plain evidence that he was not inferior to him, and consequently of the weakness of the pope's pretence to supremacy and infallibility, as the successor of Peter. Here we may observe,

1. Peter's fault. When he came among the Gentile churches, he complied with them, and did eat with them, though they were not circumcised, agreeably to the instructions which were given in particular to him (Acts x.), when he was warned by the heavenly vision to call nothing common or unclean. But, when there came some Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, he grew more shy of the Gentiles, only to humour those of the circumcision and for fear of giving them offence, which doubtless was to the great grief and discouragement of the Gentile churches. Then he withdrew, and separated himself. His fault herein had a bad influence upon others, for the other Jews also dissembled with him; though before they might be better disposed, yet now, from his example, they took on them to scruple eating with the Gentiles, and pretended they could not in conscience do it, because they were not circumcised. And (would you think it?) Barnabas himself, one of the apostles of the Gentiles, and one who had been instrumental in planting and watering the churches of the Gentiles, was carried away with their dissimulation. Here note, (1.) The weakness and inconstancy of the best of men, when left to themselves, and how apt they are to falter in their duty to God, out of an undue regard to the pleasing of men. And, (2.) The great force of bad examples, especially the examples of great men and good men, such as are in reputation for wisdom and honour.

2. The rebuke which Paul gave him for his fault. Notwithstanding Peter's character, yet, when he observes him thus behaving himself to the great prejudice both of the truth of the gospel and the peace of the church, he is not afraid to reprove him for it. Paul adhered resolutely to his principles, when others faltered in theirs; he was as good a Jew as any of them (for he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews), but he would magnify his office as the apostle of the Gentiles, and therefore would not see them discouraged and trampled upon. When he saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel—that they did not live up to that principle which the gospel taught, and which they had professed to own and embrace, namely, that by the death of Christ the partition-wall between Jew and Gentile was taken down, and the observance of the law of Moses was no longer in force—when he observed this, as Peter's offence was public, so he publicly reproved him for it: He said unto him before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? Herein one part of his conduct was a contradiction to the other; for if he, who was a Jew, could himself sometimes dispense with the use of the ceremonial law, and live after the manner of the Gentiles, this showed that he did not look upon the observance of it as still necessary, even for the Jews themselves; and therefore that he could not, consistently with his own practice, impose it upon the Gentile Christians. And yet Paul charges him with this, yea, represents him as compelling the Gentiles to live as did the Jews—not by open force and violence, but this was the tendency of what he did; for it was in effect to signify this, that the Gentiles must comply with the Jews, or else not be admitted into Christian communion.

II. Paul having thus established his character and office, and sufficiently shown that he was not inferior to any of the apostles, no, not to Peter himself, from the account of the reproof he gave him he takes occasion to speak of that great fundamental doctrine of the gospel—That justification is only by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law (though some think that all he says to the end of the chapter is what he said to Peter at Antioch), which doctrine condemned Peter for his symbolizing with the Jews. For, if it was the principle of his religion that the gospel is the instrument of our justification and not the law, then he did very ill in countenancing those who kept up the law, and were for mixing it with faith in the business of our justification. This was the doctrine which Paul had preached among the Galatians, to which he still adhered, and which it is his great business in this epistle to mention and confirm. Now concerning this Paul acquaints us,

1. With the practice of the Jewish Christians themselves: "We," says he, "who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles (even we who have been born and bred in the Jewish religion, and not among the impure Gentiles), knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we ourselves have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law. And, if we have thought it necessary to seek justification by the faith of Christ, why then should we hamper ourselves with the law? What did we believe in Christ for? Was it not that we might be justified by the faith of Christ? And, if so, is it not folly to go back to the law, and to expect to be justified either by the merit of moral works or the influence of any ceremonial sacrifices or purifications? And if it would be wrong in us who are Jews by nature to return to the law, and expect justification by it, would it not be much more so to require this of the Gentiles, who were never subject to it, since by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified?" To give the greater weight to this he adds (v. 17), "But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ the minister of sin? If, while we seek justification by Christ alone, and teach others to do so, we ourselves are found giving countenance or indulgence to sin, or rather are accounted sinners of the Gentiles, and such as it is not fit to have communion with, unless we also observe the law of Moses, is Christ the minister of sin? Will it not follow that he is so, if he engage us to receive a doctrine that gives liberty to sin, or by which we are so far from being justified that we remain impure sinners, and unfit to be conversed with?" This, he intimates, would be the consequence, but he rejects it with abhorrence: "God forbid," says he, "that we should entertain such a thought of Christ, or of his doctrine, that thereby he should direct us into a way of justification that is defective and ineffectual, and leave those who embrace it still unjustified, or that would give the least encouragement to sin and sinners." This would be very dishonourable to Christ, and it would be very injurious to them also. "For," says he (v. 18), "if I build again the things which I destroyed—if I (or any other), who have taught that the observance of the Mosaic law is not necessary to justification, should now, by word or practice, teach or intimate that it is necessary—I make myself a transgressor; I own myself to be still an impure sinner, and to remain under the guilt of sin, notwithstanding my faith in Christ; or I shall be liable to be charged with deceit and prevarication, and acting inconsistently with myself." Thus does the apostle argue for the great doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the law from the principles and practice of the Jewish Christians themselves, and from the consequences that would attend their departure from it, whence it appeared that Peter and the other Jews were much in the wrong in refusing to communicate with the Gentile Christians, and endeavouring to bring them under the bondage of the law.

2. He acquaints us what his own judgment and practice were. (1.) That he was dead to the law. Whatever account others might make of it, yet, for his part, he was dead to it. He knew that the moral law denounced a curse against all that continue not in all things written therein, to do them; and therefore he was dead to it, as to all hope of justification and salvation that way. And as for the ceremonial law, he also knew that it was now antiquated and superseded by the coming of Christ, and therefore, the substance having come, he had no longer any regard to the shadow. He was thus dead to the law, through the law itself; it discovered itself to be at an end. By considering the law itself, he saw that justification was not to be expected by the works of it (since none could perform a perfect obedience to it) and that there was now no further need of the sacrifices and purifications of it, since they were done away in Christ, and a period was put to them by his offering up himself a sacrifice for us; and therefore, the more he looked into it the more he saw that there was no occasion for keeping up that regard to it which the Jews pleaded for. But, though he was thus dead to the law, yet he did not look upon himself as with law. He had renounced all hopes of justification by the works of it, and was unwilling any longer to continue under the bondage of it; but he was far from thinking himself discharged from his duty to God; on the contrary, he was dead to the law, that he might live unto God. The doctrine of the gospel, which he had embraced, instead of weakening the bond of duty upon him, did but the more strengthen and confirm it; and therefore, though he was dead to the law, yet it was only in order to his living a new and better life to God (as Rom. vii. 4, 6), such a life as would be more agreeable and acceptable to God than his observance of the Mosaic law could now be, that is, a life of faith in Christ, and, under the influence thereof, of holiness and righteousness towards God. Agreeably hereunto he acquaints us, (2.) That, as he was dead to the law, so he was alive unto God through Jesus Christ (v. 20): I am crucified with Christ, &c. And here in his own person he gives us an excellent description of the mysterious life of a believer. [1.] He is crucified, and yet he lives; the old man is crucified (Rom. vi. 6), but the new man is living; he is dead to the world, and dead to the law, and yet alive to God and Christ; sin is mortified, and grace quickened. [2.] He lives, and yet not he. This is strange: I live, and yet not I; he lives in the exercise of grace; he has the comforts and the triumphs of grace; and yet that grace is not from himself, but from another. Believers see themselves living in a state of dependence. [3.] He is crucified with Christ, and yet Christ lives in him; this results from his mystical union with Christ, by means of which he is interested in the death of Christ, so as by virtue of that to die unto sin; and yet interested in the life of Christ, so as by virtue of that to live unto God. [4.] He lives in the flesh, and yet lives by faith; to outward appearance he lives as other people do, his natural life is supported as others are; yet he has a higher and nobler principle that supports and actuates him, that of faith in Christ, and especially as eyeing the wonders of his love in giving himself for him. Hence it is that, though he lives in the flesh, yet he does not live after the flesh. Note, Those who have true faith live by that faith; and the great thing which faith fastens upon is Christ's loving us and giving himself for us. The great evidence of Christ's loving us is his giving himself for us; and this is that which we are chiefly concerned to mix faith with, in order to our living to him.

Lastly, The apostle concludes this discourse with acquainting us that by the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, without the works of the law (which he asserted, and others opposed), he avoided two great difficulties, which the contrary opinion was loaded with:—1. That he did not frustrate the grace of God, which the doctrine of the justification by the works of the law did; for, as he argues (Rom. xi. 6), If it be of works, it is no more of grace. 2. That he did not frustrate the death of Christ; whereas, if righteousness come by the law, then it must follow that Christ has died in vain; for, if we look for salvation by the law of Moses, then we render the death of Christ needless: for to what purpose should he be appointed to die, if we might have been saved without it?

CHAP. II. Verſe 1. I went up]

TO that firſt Chriſtian Councell, Act. 15.

With Barnabas] His conſtant companion, till that bitter bickering, Act. 15.39. See the Note there.

Verſe 2. By revelation] i. e. By Gods ſpeciall direction: for he ordereth a good mans goings, Pſal. 37.23.

I communicated unto them] I laid open the matter freely and familiarly, [non-Latin text not transcribed]. as unto boſome-friends.

But privately] For all good men are not fit to be truſted with ſecrets, but only ſuch as can both keep counſell, and give counſell.

Or had run in vain] Leſt, if it ſhould be thought that I had not held good correſpondency with thoſe other Apoſtles, I might loſe the fruit of my Miniſtery.

Verſe 3. I was compelled to be circumciſed] i. e. I would not yeeld he ſhould be: leſt I ſhould ſeem to countenance them that held circumciſion neceſſary to ſalvation. In the year of grace 1549 the Miniſters of Magdeburg did ſtoutly oppoſe them of Wittenberg and Leipſich, and ſet forth many books againſt them, becauſe they dealt deceitfully,Alſted: [illegible: 1 letter]bron. pag. 520. and by their Adiaphora, or things indifferent, as they called them, they paved a way to Popery. And this was our caſe till this late bleſſed Reformation. It was not without cauſe that Peter Martyr commended it to the care of Queen Elizabeth, That Church-governours endeavour not to carry the Ark of the Goſpel into England upon the cart of needleſſe Ceremonies.

Verſe 4. [non-Latin text not transcribed]. Ʋnawares brought in] Or privily ſlipt in, pretending piety to their worldly or wicked reſpects. With ſuch ill inſtruments the Church hath been ever peſtered, 2 Pet. 2.1. Theſe hell-ſcouts are ſculking in every corner.

To spie out our liberty] viz. Of circumcising or not circumciſing Titus, that they might pick a quarrell with us.

That they might bring us into bondage] ſc. To the ceremoniall law.Bucholcer. Chronol. Carolostadius attempted ſome ſuch thing in Luthers daies, and by him was oppoſed.

Verſe 5. to whom we gave place] We muſt ſtick cloſe to the truth, and ſtickle hard for it, accounting each parcell thereof precious, and not to be parted with for any good. How religious were the Apoſtles and Ancients this way? They would not yeeld for an hour, or exchange one letter or ſyllable of that holy faith, wherewith Chriſt had betruſted them.

Verſe 6. Whatſoever they were] Augustine being oppreſſed with the authority of the Fathers, ſaith, he regardeth not Quis, ſed quid, the worth of the man, but the weight of his reaſons.

Verſe 7. As the Goſpel of, &c. He equalizeth himſelf to Peter in office and dignity: though pſeudo-apoſtles, and pſeudo-catho-likes deny him that honour. Survey of Weſt. relig. Saint Peter Jeſuites commend for a worthy ſpirit, when they cenſure Saint Paul for a hot-headed perſon, &c.

Verſe 8. For he that wrought, &c.] He argues from the ſucceſſe of his and Peters Miniſtery, to the lawfulneſſe of their calling to the work. So he doth, 1 Cor. 9.1, 2, 3. and 2 Cor. 13, 4.5. See the Notes there.

Verſe 9. Who ſeemed to be pillars] Of the Church, or of the Colledge of Apoſtles. The Apoſtle ſeems to intimate, [non-Latin text not transcribed]. dictum. Camer. that even then men began to attribute more then was meet to thoſe holy Apoſtles. This degenerated afterwards into groſſe ſuperſtition.

And they unto the circumciſion] Yet were they not ſo tied up by this agreement, but that they might preach upon fit occaſion, to the Gentiles too, as might Paul and Barnabas to the Jews; but the Gentiles were their chief charge, and among them, they had greateſt ſucceſſe.

Verſe 10. Remember the poor] Thoſe Jews that embraced Chriſtianity in Pal[illegible: 1 letter]stina were therefore turn'd out of all by their unkinde countrey-men, Heb. 10.34. Hence this care of the Apoſtles, and this forwardneſſe in S. Paul. About the beginning of the Reformation in France, the Duke of Lorrain had proſcribed ſome thouſands of his Lutheran Subjects, who were forced to feed upon haws and acorns, &c. The Divines of Straſborough in Germany, moved with pity towards theſe poor brethren, ceaſed not till by their diſcourſes they had prevailed with the Senate there, to take thoſe miſerable exiles into their City,Scultet. Annal. and to provide for them, till they might be conveniently conveyed to other places.

Verſe 11. But when Peter, &c.] I would gladly learn (ſaid that Martyr) why the ſeat of the primacy (to grant that) ſhould be rather at Rome then elſewhere? They anſwer, becauſe Peters chair was at Rome. Act. and Mon. fol. 1496. This is even like to this, becauſe Moſes the greateſt Prophet, and Aaron the firſt Prieſt exerciſed their office untill their death in the deſert, therefore the principalleſt place of the Jews Church ſhall be in the wilderneſſe. But grant them their reaſon that it is good, what ſhould Antioch claim? for Peters chair was there alſo, when Paul gave him a check, which was unſeemly and unmannerly done of Paul, that would not give place to his Preſident and better.Baron. A[illegible: 2 letters]a'. Thus far Mr Bradford. Cardinall Baronius withſtands Paul as much as ever he did Peter, and blaſphemouſly aſſirmeth, that Peter was not to be blamed, but Paul a great deal more, Bellarmine ſaith, It was not Peter, but Cephas one of the ſeventy.

Verſe 12. For before that certain] This hiſtory pertains to Act. 15.30, 35. but is not there recorded, that we might ſearch the Scriptures, and compare place with place. So God hath ſcattered the duties of husbands and wives up and down the Scriptures, That men learning to be good husbands, they may learn alſo to be good men.

Fearing them of the circumciſion] It was not danger that he feared, but offence: wherein he had not done amiſſe, but that in avoiding a leſſe ſcandall, he fell into a far greater.

Verſe 13. And the other Iews diſſembled] The ſins of teachers are the teachers of ſins: and great mens faults go as ſeldom unaccompanied, as their perſons.

Barnabas alſo] Adhering to Peter rather then to Paul his old companion, not without a tincture perhaps of the old bitter bickering. Try all things; Good men may ſeduce us, as here Peter did Barnabas, and as thoſe would have done Paul, Act. 21.12.

Verſe 14. That they walked not] Miniſters muſt both [non-Latin text not transcribed] and [non-Latin text not transcribed], Divide the word rightly, and foot it uprightly.

I ſaid to Peter be fore them all] The fault was publike, the reproof muſt be according, 1 Tim. 5.20. In the year 1159. lived Ioannes Sariſburienſis, Prae ens prae, erter pontificem redarguit. Renius in hiſt. Pont. who both reproved the Pope to his face, and alſo wrote his Polycraticon, wherein he freely ſcourgeth the Popiſh Clergy.

Why compelleſt thou, &c.] Peters example was a compulſion. The company we keep compell us to doe, as they doe.

Verſe 15. We who are Jews] The Apoſtle proceedeth in his ſpeech to the Jews at Antioch.

And not ſinners of the Gentiles] Becauſe under the Covenant of Grace; Their ſinnes and iniquities will I remember no more.

Verſe 16. Knowing] Here's more then an implicite faith, or a conjecturall confidence.

Verſe 17. B[illegible: 2 letters]. if whiles we ſeek] This is the ſame in ſenſe with Rom. 3.31. If we ſhould argue from mercy to liberty, from free juſtification to lewd and looſe converſation, would not all the world cry ſhame on us? I reade of a monſter, who that night that his Prince pardoned and releaſed him, got out and ſlew him. This was Michael Balbus, who ſlew the Emperour Leo Armenius. Is it poſſible that any ſhould offer to do ſo to Chriſt?

Verſe 18. For if I build again] As I ſhould, if I ſhould licenſe any man to ſin, becauſe juſtified by faith. Chriſt came by water, as well as by bloud: he juſtifies none, but whom he alſo ſanctifies.

Verſe 19. Am dead to the Law] I. e. Am freed from the curſe, rigour, and irritation of the Law. Or, am freed from ſin, as Rom. 6.7.

Verſe 20. Chriſt liveth in me] Luthers Motto was Vivit Chriſtus, Chriſt liveth: and if he were not alive,Ioh. Manl. loc. com pag. 419. Pſ l. 18. I would not with to live one hour longer. Let the Lord live, ſaith David: Yea let him live in me, ſaith Paul. Let him act me, let him think in me, deſire, pray, do all in me. Lord, ſaith Nazianzen, I am an inſtrument for thee to touch. Chriſt dwels in that heart moſt largely, that hath emptied it ſelf of it ſelf. The Iſraelites felt not the ſweetneſſe of Manna, till they had ſpent the fleſh-pots, and other proviſions of Aegypt.

And gave himſelf for me] True faith individuateth Chriſt, and appropriateth him to a mans ſelf. This is the pith and power of particular faith: Miſtris Lewis the Martyr, being ſet upon by Satan, a little afore ſhe ſuffered, was much comforted and helped by this text.Act. and Mon. fol. 1826.

Verſe 21. I doe not fruſtrate] viz. By ſeeking to be juſtified by the Law. Ambroſe tenders it, Non ſum ingratus gratiae Dei, I am not ungratefull to grace of God: I do not repudiate, caſſate, nullifie it.

Dead in vain] Becauſe he attains not his end in dying, which was not only to leave us a patern of patience, as Anabaptiſts hold; but to merit for us remiſſion of ſins, and imputation of his righteouſnes for our juſtification.

Then, fourteen years after. That is, fourteen years after his first visit there subsequent to his conversion. Some commentators, however, suppose that the date of the fourteen years is to be reckoned from his conversion. But the more obvious construction is to refer it to the time of his visit there, as recorded in the previous chapter, Gal 2:18. This time was spent in Asia Minor, chiefly in preaching the gospel.

I went up again to Jerusalem. It is commonly supposed that Paul here refers to the visit which he made as recorded in Acts 20. The circumstances mentioned are substantially the same; and the object which he had at that time in going up was one whose mention was entirely pertinent to the argument here. He went up with Barnabas to submit a question to the assembled apostles and elders at Jerusalem in regard to the necessity of the observance of the laws of Moses. Some persons who had come among the Gentile converts from Judea had insisted on the necessity of being circumcised in order to be saved. Paul and Barnabas had opposed them; and the dispute had become so warm that it was agreed to submit the subject to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. For that purpose Paul and Barnabas had been sent, with certain others, to lay the case before all the apostles. As the question which Paul was discussing in this epistle was about the necessity of the observance of the laws of Moses in order to justification, it was exactly in point to refer to a journey when this very question had been submitted to the apostles. Paul indeed had made another journey to Jerusalem before this, with the collection for the poor saints in Judea, Acts 11:29,30, 12:25; but he does not mention that here, probably because he did not then see the other apostles, or more probably because that journey furnished no illustration of the point now under debate. On the occasion here referred to, Acts 15 the very point under discussion here constituted the main subject of inquiry, and was definitely settled.

And took Titus with me also. Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, Acts 15:2, says that there were others with Paul and Barnabas on that journey to Jerusalem. But who they were he does not mention. It is by no means certain that Titus was appointed by the church to go to Jerusalem; but the contrary is more probable. Paul seems to have taken him with him as a private affair; but the reason is not mentioned. It may have been to show his Christian liberty, and his sense of what he had a right to do; or it may have been to furnish a case on the subject of inquiry, and submit the matter to them whether Titus was to be circumcised. Hie was a Greek; but he had been converted to Christianity. Paul had not circumcised him; but had admitted him to the full privileges of the Christian church. Here, then, was a case in point; and it may have been important to have had such a case before them that they might fully understand it. This, as Doddridge properly remarks, is the first mention which occurs of Titus. He is not mentioned by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles; and though his name occurs several times in the second epistle to the Corinthians, 2Cor 2:13, 7:6, 8:6,16,23, 12:18, yet it is to be remembered that that epistle was written a considerable time after this to the Galatians. Titus was a Greek, and was doubtless converted by the labours of Paul, for he calls him his own son, Tit 1:4. He attended Paul frequently in his travels; was employed by him in important services, (see 2Co. in the places referred to above;) was left by him in Crete to set in order the things that were wanting, and to ordain elders there, Tit 1:5; subsequently he went into Dalmatia, 2Ti 4:10, and is supposed to have returned again to Crete, whence it is said he propagated the gospel in the neighbouring islands, and died at the age of ninety-four.--Calmet.

(a) "fourteen years after, I went" Acts 15:2

And I went up by revelation. Not for the purpose of receiving instruction from the apostles there in regard to the nature of the Christian religion. It is to be remembered that the design for which Paul states this is to show that he had not received the gospel from men. He is careful, therefore, to state that he went up by the express command of God. He did not go up to receive instructions from the apostles there in regard to his own work, or to be confirmed by them in his apostolic office; but he went to submit an important question pertaining to the church at large. In Acts 15:2, it is said that Paul and Barnabas went up by the appointment of the church at Antioch. But there is no discrepancy between that account and this; for though he was designated by the church there, there is no improbability in supposing that he was directed by a special revelation to comply with their request. The reason why he says that he went up by direct revelation seems to be, to show that he did not seek instruction from the apostles; he did not go of his own accord to consult with them, as if he were dependent on them; but even in a case when he went to advise with them he was under the influence of express and direct revelation, proving that he was as much commissioned by God as they were.

And communicated unto them that gospel, etc. Made them acquainted with the doctrines which he preached among the heathen. He stated fully the principles on which he acted; the nature of the gospel which he taught; and his doctrine about the exemption of the Gentiles from the obligations of the law of Moses. He thus satisfied them in regard to his views of the gospel; and showed them that he understood the system of Christianity which had been revealed. The result was, that they had entire confidence in him, and admitted him to entire fellowship with them, Gal 2:9.

But privately. Marg., severally. Gr., κατιδιαν . The phrase means, that he did it not in a public manner; not before a promiscuous assembly; not even before all the apostles collected together, but in a private manner to a few of the leaders and chief persons, he made a private explanation of his motives and views, that they might understand it before it became a matter of public discussion. The point on which Paul made this private explanation was not whether the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles, for on that they had no doubt after the revelation to Peter, Acts 10; but whether the rites of the Jews were to be imposed on the Gentile converts. Paul explained his views and his practice on that point, which were, that he did not impose those rites on the Gentiles; that he taught that men might be justified without their observance; and that they were not necessary in order to salvation. The reasons why he sought this private interview with the leading men in Jerusalem he has not stated; but we may suppose that they were something like the following:

(1.) The Jews in general had very strong attachment to their own customs, and this attachment was found in a high degree among those who were converted from among them to the Christian faith. They would be strongly excited, therefore, by the doctrine that those customs were not necessary to be observed.

(2.) If the matter were submitted to a promiscuous assembly of converts from Judaism, it could not fail to produce great excitement. They could not be made readily to understand the reasons why Paul acted in this manner; there would be no possibility in an excited assemblage to offer the explanations which might be desirable; and after every explanation which could be given in this manner, they might have been unable to understand all the circumstances of the case.

(3.) If a few of the principal men were made to understand it, Paul felt assured that their influence would be such as to prevent any great difficulty, he therefore sought an early opportunity to lay the case before them in private, and to secure their favour; and this course contributed to the happy issue of the whole affair. See Acts 15. There was indeed much disputation when the question came to be submitted to "the apostles and elders," Acts 15:7; many of the sect of the Pharisees in that assembly maintained that it was needful to teach the Gentiles that the law of Moses was to be kept, Acts 15:5; and no one can tell what would have been the issue of that discussion among the excitable minds of the converts from Judaism, had not Paul taken the precaution, as he here says, to have submitted the case in private to those who were of "reputation," and if Peter and James had not in this manner been satisfied, and had not submitted the views which they did, as recorded in Acts 15:7-21, and which terminated the whole controversy. We may just remark here, that this fact furnishes an Horae Paulinae--though he has hot referred to this--of what he calls undesigned coincidences. The affair in Acts 15, and the course of the debate, looks very much as if Peter and James had had some conference with Paul in private, and had had an opportunity of understanding fully his views on the subject before the matter came before the "apostles and elders" in public, though no such private conference is there referred to by Luke. But on turning to the epistle to the Galatians, we find in fact that he had on one occasion before seen the same Peter and James, Gal 1:18,19; and that he had had a private interview with those "of reputation" on these very points, and particularly that James, Peter, and John had approved his course, and given to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, Gal 2:9. Thus understood, the case here referred to was one of the most consummate instances of prudence that occurred in the life of Paul; and from this case we may learn,

(1.) that when a difficulty is to be settled involving great principles, and embracing a great many points, it is better to seek-an opportunity of private explanation than to submit it to a promiscuous multitude or to public debate. It is not well to attempt to settle important points when the passions of a promiscuous assembly may be excited, and where prejudices are strong. It is better to do it by private explanations, when there is an opportunity coolly to ask questions and to state the facts just as they are.

(2.) The importance of securing the countenance of influential men in a popular assembly; of having men in the assembly who would understand the whole case. It was morally certain that if such men as Peter and James were made to understand the case, there would be little difficulty in arriving at an amicable adjustment of the difficulty.

(3.) Though this passage does not refer to preaching the gospel in general, since the gospel here submitted to the men of reputation was the question referred to above, yet we may remark, that great prudence should be used in preaching; in stating truths that may excite prejudices, or when we have reason to apprehend prejudices; and that it is often best to preach the gospel to men of reputation κατιδιαν separately, or privately. In this way the truth can be made to bear on the conscience; it may be better adapted to the character of the individual; he may put himself less in a state of defence, and guard himself less against the proper influences of truth. And especially is this true in conversing with persons on the subject of religion. It should be if possible alone, or privately. Almost any man may be approached on the subject of religion if it be done when he is alone, when he is at leisure, and if it be done in a kind spirit. Almost any man will become irritated if you address him personally in a promiscuous assembly, or even with his family around him. I have never in more than one or two instances been unkindly treated when I have addressed an individual on the subject of religion, if he was alone; and though a minister should never shrink from stating the truth, and should never be afraid of man, however exalted his rank, or great his talents, or vast his wealth, yet he will probably meet with most success when he discourses privately to "them which are of reputation."

To them which were of reputation. Meaning here the leading men among the apostles. Tindal renders this, "which are counted chief." Doddridge, "those of greatest note in the church.". The Greek is, literally, "those who seem;" more fully in Gal 2:6, "who seem to be something," i.e., who are persons of note, or who are distinguished,

Lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. Lest the effects of my labours and journeys should be lost. Paul feared that if he did not take this method of laying the case before them privately, they would not understand it. Others might misrepresent him, or their prejudices might be excited; and when the ease came before the assembled apostles and elders, a decision might be adopted which would go to prove that he had been entirely wrong in his views, or which would lead those whom he had taught to believe that he was, and which would greatly hinder and embarrass him in his future movements. In order to prevent this, therefore, and to secure a just decision, and one which would not hinder his future usefulness, he had sought this private interview, and thus his object was gained.

(1) "privately" "severally" (b) "by any means" Php 2:16

But neither Titus, who was with me. Paul introduces this case of Titus undoubtedly to show that circumcision was not necessary to salvation. It was a case just in point, lie had gone up to Jerusalem with express reference to this question, here was a man whom he had admitted to the Christian church without circumcising him. He claimed that he had a right to do so; and that circumcision was not necessary in order to salvation. If it were necessary, it would have been proper that Titus should have been compelled to submit to it. But Paul says this was not demanded; or if demanded by any, the point was yielded, and he was not compelled to be circumcised. It is to be remembered that this was at Jerusalem; that it was a case submitted to the apostles there; and that consequently the determination of this case settled the whole controversy about the obligation of the Mosaic laws on the Gentile converts. It is quite evident from the whole statement here, that Paul did not intend that Titus should be circumcised; that he maintained that it was not necessary; and that he resisted it when it was demanded, Gal 2:4,5. Yet on another occasion he himself performed the act of circumcision on Timothy, Acts 16:3. But there is no inconsistency in his conduct. In the case of Titus it was demanded as a matter of right and as obligatory on him, and he resisted the principle as dangerous. In the case of Timothy, it was a voluntary compliance on his part with the usual customs of the Jews, where it was not pressed as a matter of obligation, and where it would not be understood as indispensable to salvation. No danger would follow from compliance with the custom, and it might do much to conciliate the favour of the Jews, and he therefore submitted to it. Paul would not have hesitated to have circumcised Titus in the same circumstances in which it was done to Timothy; but the circumstances were different; and when it was insisted on as a matter of principle and of obligation, it became a matter of principle and of obligation with him to oppose it.

Being a Greek. Born of Gentile parents, of course he had not been circumcised. Probably both his parents were Greeks. The case with Timothy was somewhat different. His mother was a Jewess, but his father was a Greek, Acts 16:3.

Was compelled to be circumcised. I think it is implied here that this was demanded and insisted on by some that he should be circumcised. It is also implied that Paul resisted it, and the point was yielded, thus settling the great and important principle that it was not necessary in order to salvation. Gal 2:5.

(*) "neither Titus" "Not even"

And that because of false brethren. Who these false brethren were is not certainly known; nor is it known whether he refers to those who were at Jerusalem, or to those who were at Antioch. It is probable that he refers to Judaizing Christians, or persons who claimed to be Christians and to have been converted from Judaism. Whether they were dissemblers and hypocrites, or whether they wore so imperfectly acquainted with Christianity, and so obstinate, opinionated, and perverse, though really in some respects good men, that they were conscientious in this, it is not easy to determine. It is clear, however, that they opposed the apostle Paul; that they regarded him as teaching dangerous doctrines; that they perverted and misstated his views; and that they claimed to have clearer views of the nature of the true religion than he had. Such adversaries he met everywhere, 2Cor 11:26; and it required all his tact and skill to meet their plausible representations. It is evident here that Paul is assigning a reason for something which he had done, and that reason was to counteract the influence of the "false brethren" in the case. But what is the thing concerning which he assigns a reason? It is commonly supposed to have been on account of the fact that he did not submit to the circumcision of Titus, and that he means to say that he resisted that in order to counteract their influence, and defeat their designs. But I would submit whether Gal 2:3 is not to be regarded as a parenthesis, and whether the fact for which he assigns a reason is not that he sought a private interview with the leading men among the apostles? Gal 2:2. The reason of his doing that would be obvious. In this way he could more easily counteract the influence of the false brethren, he could make a full statement of his doctrines, he could meet their inquiries, and anticipate the objections of his enemies, he could thus secure the influence of the leading apostles in his favour, and effectually prevent all the efforts of the false brethren to impose the Jewish rites on Gentile converts.

Unawares brought in. The word rendered "unawares" παρεισακτους is derived from a verb meaning to lead in by the side of others, to introduce along with others; and then to lead or bring in by stealth, to smuggle in.--Robinson, Lex. The verb occurs nowhere in the New Testament but in 2Pet 2:1, where it is applied to heresies, and is rendered, "who privily shall bring in." Here it refers probably to men who had been artfully introduced into the ministry, who made pretensions to piety, but who were either strangers to it, or who were greatly ignorant of the true nature of the Christian system; and who were disposed to take every advantage, and to impose on others the observance of the peculiar rites of the Mosaic economy. Into what they were brought, the apostle does not say. It may have been that they had been introduced into the ministry in this manner, (Doddridge;) or it may be that they were introduced into the "assembly" where the apostles were collected to deliberate on the subject.--Chandler. I think it probable that Paul refers to the occurrences in Jerusalem, and that these false brethren had been introduced from Antioch or some other place where Paul had been preaching, or that they were persons whom his adversaries had introduced to demand that Titus should be circumcised, under the plausible pretence that the laws of Moses required it, but really in order that there might be such proof as they desired that this rite was to be imposed on the Gentile converts. If Paul was compelled to submit to this, if they could carry this point, it would be just such an instance as they needed, and would settle the whole inquiry, and prove that the Mosaic laws were to be imposed on the Gentile converts. This was the reason why Paul so strenuously opposed it.

To spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus. In the practice of the Christian religion. The liberty referred to was, doubtless, the liberty from the painful, expensive, and onerous rites of the Jewish religion. See Gal 5:1. Their object in spying out the liberty which Paul and others had, was, undoubtedly, to be witnesses of the fact that they did not observe the peculiar rites of the Mosaic system; to make report of it; to insist on their complying with those customs, and thus to secure the imposition of those rites On the Gentile converts. Their first object was to satisfy themselves of the fact that Paul did not insist on the observance of their customs; and then to secure, by the authority of the apostles, an injunction or order that Titus should be circumcised, and that Paul and the converts made under his ministry should be required to comply with those laws.

That they might bring us into bondage. Into bondage to the laws of Moses. Acts 15:10.

(a) "false brethren" Acts 15:1,24 (+) "brought in" "artfully introduced" (b) "liberty" Gal 5:1.13 (c) "bondage" 2Cor 11:29, Gal 4:3,9

To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour. We did not submit to this at all. We did not yield even for the shortest tune. We did not waver in our opposition to their demands, or in the slightest degree become subject to their wishes. We steadily opposed their claims, in order that the great principle might be for ever settled that the laws of Moses were not to be imposed as obligatory on the Gentile converts. This I take to be the clear and obvious sense of this passage, though there has been a great variety of opinions on it. A considerable number of Mss. omit the words οιςουδε, "to whom neither," (see Mill, Koppe, and Griesbach,) and then the sense would be reversed, that Paul did yield to them for or after a short time, in order that he might in this way better consult the permanent interests of the gospel. This opinion has been gaining ground for the last century, that the passage here has been corrupted; but it is by no means confirmed. The ancient versions, the Syriac, the Vulgate, and the Arabic, accord with the usual reading of the text. So also do by far the largest portion of Mss.; and such, it seems to me, is the sense demanded by the connexion. Paul means, in the whole passage, to say, that a great principle was settled. That the question came up fairly whether the Mosaic rites were to be imposed on Gentile converts. That false brethren were introduced who demanded it; and that he steadily maintained his ground. He did not yield a moment. He felt that a great principle was involved; and though on all proper occasions he was willing to yield and to become all things to all men, yet here he did not court them, or temporize with them in the least. The phrase "by subjection" here means, that he did not suffer himself to be compelled to yield. The phrase "for an hour" is equivalent to the shortest period of time. He did not waver or yield at all.

That the truth of the gospel might continue with you. That the great principle of the Christian religion which had been taught you might continue, and that you might enjoy the full benefit of the pure gospel, without its being intermingled with any false views. Paul had defended these same Jews among the Galatians, and he now sought that the same views might be confirmed by the clear decision of the college of apostles at Jerusalem.

But of those who seemed to be somewhat. Gal 2:2. This undoubtedly refers to those who were the most eminent among the apostles at Jerusalem. There is an apparent harshness in our common translation, which is unnecessary. The word here used δοκουντων denotes those who were thought to be, or who were, of reputation; that is, men who were of note and influence among the apostles. The object of referring to them here, is to show that he had the concurrence and approbation of the most eminent of the apostles to the course which he had pursued.

Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me. Tindal renders this, "What they were in time passed, it maketh no matter to me." The idea seems to be this: Paul means to say, that whatever was their real rank and standing, it did not in the least affect his authority as an apostle, or his argument. While he rejoiced in their concurrence, and while he sought their approbation, yet he did not admit for a moment that he was inferior to them as an apostle, or dependent on them for the justness of his views. What they were, or what they might be thought to be, was immaterial to his claims as an apostle, and immaterial to the authority of his own views as an apostle. He had derived his gospel from the Lord Jesus; and he had the fullest assurance that his views were just. Paul makes this remark evidently in keeping with all that he had said, that he did not regard himself as in any manner dependent on them for his authority. He did not treat them with disrespect; but he did not regard them as having a right to claim an authority over him.

God accepteth no man's person. Acts 10:34; Rom 2:11. This is a general truth, that God is not influenced in his judgment by a regard to the rank, or wealth, or external condition of any one. Its particular meaning here is, that the authority of the apostles was not to be measured, by their external rank, or by the measure of reputation which they had among men. If, therefore, it were to be admitted that he himself was not in circumstances of so much external honour as the other apostles, or that they were esteemed to be of more elevated rank than he was, still he did not admit that this gave them a claim to any higher authority. God was not influenced in his judgment by any such consideration; and Paul therefore claimed that all the apostles were in fact on a level in regard to their authority.

In conference. When I conferred with them, Gal 2:2. They did not then impose on me any new obligations; they did not communicate anything to me of which I was before ignorant.

(a) "seemed" Gal 6:3 (*) "somewhat" Of most reputation" (b) "God accepteth" Acts 10:34, Rom 2:11 (+) "to be somewhat" "of reputation"

The gospel of the uncircumcision. The duty of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised part of the world; that is, to the Gentiles. Paul had received this as his peculiar office when he was converted and called to the ministry, see Acts 9:15, 22:21; and they now perceived that he had been specially intrusted with this office, from the remarkable success which had attended his labours. It is evidently not meant here that Paul was to preach only to the Gentiles and Peter only to the Jews, for Paul often preached in the synagogues of the Jews, and Peter was the first who preached to a Gentile, Acts 10; but it is meant that it was the main business of Paul to preach to the Gentiles, or that this was especially intrusted to him.

As the gospel of the circumcision. As the office of preaching the gospel to the Jews.

Was unto Peter. Peter was to preach principally to the circumcised Jews. It is evident that until this time Peter had. been principally employed in preaching to the Jews. Paul selects Peter here particularly, doubtless because he was the oldest of the apostles, and in order to show that he was himself regarded as on a level, in regard to the apostleship, with the most aged and venerable of those who had been called to the apostolic office by the personal ministry of the Lord Jesus.

(++) "contrariwise" "On the contrary" (&) "committed" "intrusted" (c) "unto me, as the gospel" 1Thes 2:4, 1Timm 2:7

For he that wrought effectually in Peter, etc. Or by the means or agency of Peter. The argument here is, that the same effects had been produced under the ministry of Paul among the Gentiles, which had been under the preaching of Peter among the Jews. It is inferred, therefore, that God had called both to the apostolic office. See this argument illustrated Acts 11:17.

The same was mighty in me, etc. In enabling me to work miracles, and in the success which attended the ministry.

(|) "effectually in Peter" "By" (**) "mighty in me" "Wrought powerfully by me" (++) "toward the Gentiles" "in the conversion of the Gentiles"

And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars. That is, pillars or supports in the church. The word rendered pillars στυλοι means, properly, firm support; then persons of influence and authority, as in a church, or that support a church--as a pillar or column does an edifice. In regard to James, Gal 1:19. Comp. Acts 15:13. Cephas or Peter was the most aged of the apostles, and regarded as at the head of the apostolical college. John was the beloved disciple, and his influence in the church must of necessity have been great. Paul felt that if he had the countenance of these men, it would be an important proof to the churches of Galatia that he had a right to regard himself as an apostle. Their countenance was expressed in the most full and decisive manner.

Perceived the grace that was given unto me. That is, the favour that had been shown to me by the great Head of the church, in so abundantly blessing my lab ours among the Gentiles.

They gave unto me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship. The right hand, in token of fellowship or favour. They thus publicly acknowledged us as fellow-labourers, and expressed the utmost confidence in us. To give the right hand with us is a token of friendly salutation, and it seems that it was a mode of salutation not unknown in the times of the apostles. They were thus recognised as associated with the apostles in the great work of spreading the gospel around the world. Whether this was done in a public manner is not certainly known; but it was probably in the presence of the church, or possibly at the close of the council referred to in Acts 15.

That we should go unto the heathen. To preach the gospel, and to establish churches. In this way the whole matter was settled, and settled as Paul desired it to be. A delightful harmony was produced between Paul and the apostles at Jerusalem; and the result showed the wisdom of the course which he had adopted. There had been no harsh contention or strife. No jealousies had been suffered to arise. Paul had sought an opportunity of a full statement of his views to them in private, Gal 2:2, and they had been entirely satisfied that God had called him and Barnabas to the work of making known the gospel among the heathen. Instead of being jealous at their success, they had rejoiced in it; and instead of throwing any obstacle in their way, they cordially gave them the right hand. How easy would it be always to prevent jealousies and strifes in the same way! If there was, on the one hand, the same readiness for a full and frank explanation, and if, on the other, the same freedom from envy at remarkable success, how many strifes that have disgraced the church might have been avoided! The true way to avoid strife is just that which is here proposed. Let there be on both sides perfect frankness; let there be a willingness to explain and state things just as they are; and let there be a disposition to rejoice in the talents, and zeal, and success of others, even though it should far outstrip our own, and contention in the church would cease, and every devoted and successful minister of the gospel would receive the right hand of fellowship from all--however venerable by age or authority--who love the cause of true religion.

(a) "be pillars" Mt 16:18, Eph 2:20 (b) "the grace" Rom 1:5, 12:3,6

Only they would that we should remember the poor. That is, as I suppose, the poor Christians in Judea. It can hardly be supposed that it would be necessary to make this an express stipulation in regard to the converts from among the Gentiles, and it would not have been very pertinent to the case before them to have done so. The object was, to bind together the Christians from among the heathen, and from among the Jews, and to prevent alienation and unkind feeling. It might have been alleged that Paul was disposed to forget his own countrymen altogether; that he regarded himself as so entirely the apostle of the Gentiles that he would become wholly alienated frown those who were his "kinsmen according to the flesh," and thus it might be apprehended that unpleasant feelings would be engendered among those who had been converted from among the Jews. Now nothing could be better adapted to allay this than for him to pledge himself to feel a deep interest in the poor saints among the Jewish converts; to remember them in his prayers; and to endeavour to secure contributions for their wants. Thus he would show that he was not alienated from his countrymen; and thus the whole church would be united in the closest bonds. It is probable that the Christians in Judea were at that time suffering the ills of poverty, arising either from some public persecution, or from the fact that they were subject to the displeasure of their countrymen. All who know the peculiar feelings of the Jews at that time in regard to Christians, must see at once that many of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth would be subjected to great inconveniences on account of their attachment to him. Many a wife might be disowned by her husband; many a child disinherited by a parent; many a man might be thrown out of employment by the fact that others would not countenance him; and hence many of the Christians would be poor. It became, therefore, an object of special importance to provide for them; and hence this is so often referred to in the New Testament. In addition to this, the church in Judea was afflicted with famine. Comp. Acts 11:30, Rom 15:25-27, 1Cor 16:1,2, 2Cor 8:1-7.

The same which I also was forward to do. See the passages just referred to. Paul interested himself much in the collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem, and in this way he furnished the fullest evidence that he was not alienated from them, but that he felt the deepest interest in those who were his kindred. One of the proper ways of securing union in the church is to have the poor with them, and depending on them for support; and hence every church has some poor persons as one of the bonds of union. The best way to unite all Christians, and to prevent alienation, and jealousy, and strife, is to have a great common object of charity, in which all are interested, and to which all may contribute. Such a common object for all Christians is a sinful world. All who bear the Christian name may unite in promoting its salvation, and nothing would promote union in the now divided and distracted church of Christ like a deep and common interest in the salvation of all mankind.

But when Peter was come to Antioch. On the situation of Antioch, Acts 11:19. The design for which Paul introduces this statement here is evident. It is to show that he regarded himself as on a level with the chief apostles, and that he did not acknowledge his inferiority to any of them. Peter was the eldest, and probably the most honoured of the apostles. Yet Paul says that he did not hesitate to resist him in a case where Peter was manifestly wrong, and thus showed that he was an apostle of the same standing as the others. Besides, what he said to Peter on that occasion was exactly pertinent to the strain of the argument which he was pursuing with the Galatians, and he therefore introduces it Gal 2:14-21 to show that he had held the same doctrine all along, and that he had defended it in the presence of Peter, and in a case where Peter did not reply to it. The time of this journey of Peter to Antioch cannot be ascertained; nor the occasion on which it occurred. I think it is evident that it was after this visit of Paul to Jerusalem, and the occasion may have been to inspect the state of the church at Antioch, and to compose any differences of opinion which may have existed there. But everything in regard to this is mere conjecture; and it is of little importance to know when it occurred.

I withstood him to the face. I openly opposed him, and reproved him. Paul thus showed that he was equal with Peter in his apostolical authority and dignity. The instance before us is one of faithful public reproof; and every circumstance in it is worthy of special attention, as it furnishes a most important illustration of the manner in which such reproof should be conducted. The first thing to be noted is, that it was done openly, and with candour. It was reproof addressed to the offender himself. Paul did not go to others and whisper his suspicions; he did not seek to undermine the influence and authority of another by slander; he did not calumniate him, and then justify himself on the ground that what he had said was no more than true: he went to him at once, and he frankly stated his views, and reproved him in a case where he was manifestly wrong. This too was a case so public and well known, that Paul made his remarks before the church, Gal 2:14, because the church was interested in it, and because the conduct of Peter led the church into error.

Because he was to be blamed. The word used here may either mean because he had incurred blame, or because he deserved blame. The essential idea is, that he had done wrong, and that he was by his conduct doing injury to the cause of religion.

(d) "Antioch" Acts 15:35

For before that certain came. Some of the Jews who had been converted to Christianity. They evidently observed in the strictest manner the rites of the Jewish religion.

From James. Gal 1:19. Whether they were sent by James, or whether they came of their own accord, is unknown. It is evident only that they had been intimate with James at Jerusalem, and they doubtless pleaded his authority. James had nothing to do with the course which they pursued; but the sense of the whole passage is, that James was a leading man at Jerusalem, and that the rites of Moses were observed there. When they came down to Antioch, they of course observed those rites, and insisted that others should do it also. It is very evident that at Jerusalem the peculiar rites of the Jews were observed for a long time by those who became Christian converts. They would not at once cease to observe them, and thus needlessly shock the prejudices of their countrymen. Acts 21:21 also Acts 21:22-25.

He did eat with the Gentiles. Peter had been taught that in the remarkable vision which he saw, as recorded in Acts 10. He had learned that God designed to break down the wall of partition between the Jews and the Gentiles, and he familiarly associated with them, and partook with them of their food. He evidently disregarded the peculiar laws of the Jews about meats and drinks, and partook of the common food which was in use among the Gentiles. Thus he showed his belief that all the race was henceforward to be regarded as on a level, and that the peculiar institutions of the Jews were not to be considered as binding, or to be imposed on others.

But when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself. He withdrew from the Gentiles, and probably from the Gentile converts to Christianity. The reason why he did this is stated. He feared those who were of the circumcision, or who had been Jews. Whether they demanded this of him; whether they encountered him in debate; or whether he silently separated himself from the Gentiles without their having said anything to him, is unknown. But he feared the effect of their opposition; he feared their reproaches; he feared the report which would be made to those at Jerusalem; and perhaps he apprehended that a tumult would be excited, and a persecution commenced at Antioch by the Jews who resided there. This is a melancholy illustration of Peter's characteristic trait of mind. We see in this act the same Peter who trembled when he began to sink in the waves; the same Peter who denied his Lord. Bold, ardent, zealous, and forward, he was at the same time timid and often irresolute; and he often had occasion for the deepest humility, and the most poignant regrets at the errors of his course. No one can read his history without loving his ardent and sincere attachment to his Master; and yet no one can read it without a tear of regret that he was left thus to do injury to his cause. No man loved the Saviour more sincerely than he did, yet his constitutional timidity and irresoluteness of character often led him to courses of life fitted deeply to wound his cause.

(a) "eat with Gentiles" Acts 11:3

And the other Jews. That is, those who had been converted to Christianity. It is probable that they were induced to do it by the example of Peter, as they would naturally regard him as a leader.

Dissembled likewise with him. Dissembled or concealed their true sentiments. That is, they attempted to conceal from those who had come down from James the fact, that they had been in the habit of associating with the Gentiles, and of eating with them. From this it would appear that they intended to conceal this wholly from them, and that they withdrew from the Gentiles before anything had been said to them by those who came down from James.

Insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away, etc. Concerning Barnabas, Acts 4:36. Barnabas was the intimate friend of Paul. He had been associated with him in very important labours; and the fact, therefore, that the conduct of Peter was exciting so unhappy an influence as even to lead so worthy and good a man as he was into hypocrisy and error, made it the more proper that Paul should publicly notice and reprove the conduct of Peter. It could not but be a painful duty, but the welfare of the church and the cause of religion demanded it, and Paul did not shrink from what was so obvious a duty.

(*) "insomuch that" "So that"

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly. To walk, in the Scriptures, is usually expressive of conduct or deportment; and the idea here is, that their conduct in this case was not honest.

According to the truth of the gospel. According to the true spirit and design of the gospel. That requires perfect honesty and integrity; and as that was the rule by which Paul regulated his life, and by which he felt that all ought to regulate their conduct, he felt himself called on openly to reprove the principal person who had been in fault. The spirit of the world is crafty, cunning, and crooked. The gospel would correct all that wily policy, and would lead man in a path of entire honesty and truth.

I said unto Peter before them all. That is, probably, before all the church, or certainly before all. who had offended with him in the case. Had this been a private affair, Paul would doubtless have sought a private interview with Peter, and would have remonstrated with him in private on the subject. But it was public. It was a case where many were involved, and where the interests of the church were at stake. It was a case where it was very important to establish some fixed and just principles, and he therefore took occasion to remonstrate with him in public on the subject. This might have been at the close of public worship; or it may have been that the subject came up for debate in some of their public meetings, whether the rites of the Jews were to be imposed on the Gentile converts. This was a question which agitated all the churches where the Jewish and Gentile converts were intermingled; and it would not be strange that it should be the subject of public debate at Antioch. The fact that Paul reproved Peter before "them all," proves,

(1.) that he regarded himself, and was so regarded by the church, as on an equality with Peter, and as having equal authority with him.

(2.) That public reproof is right when an offence has been public, and when the church at large is interested, or is in danger of being led into error. Comp. 1Timm 5:20, "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear."

(3.) That it is a duty to reprove those who err. It is a painful duty, and one much neglected; still it is a duty often enjoined in the Scriptures, and one that is of the deepest importance to the church. He does a favour to another man who, in a kind spirit, admonishes him of his error, and reclaims him from a course of sin. He does another the deepest injury, who suffers sin unrebuked to lie upon him, and who sees him injuring himself and others, and who is at no pains to admonish him for his faults.

(4.) If it is the duty of one Christian to admonish another who is an offender, and to do it in a kind spirit, it is the duty of him who has offended to receive the admonition in a kind spirit and with thankfulness. Excitable as Peter was by. nature, yet there is no evidence that he became angry here, or that he did not receive the admonition of his brother Paul with perfect good temper, and with an acknowledgment that Paul was right and that he was wrong. Indeed, the case was so plain--as it usually is, if men would be honest--that he seems to have felt that it was right, and to have received the rebuke as became a Christian. Peter, unhappily, was accustomed to rebukes; and he was at heart too good a man to be offended when he was admonished that he had done wrong. A good man is willing to be reproved when he has erred, and it is usually proof that there is much that is wrong when we become excited and irritable if another admonishes us of our faults. It may be added here, that nothing should be inferred from this in regard to the inspiration or apostolic authority of Peter. The fault was not that he taught error of doctrine, but that he sinned in conduct. Inspiration, though it kept the apostles from teaching error, did not keep them necessarily from sin. A man may always teach the truth, and yet be far from perfection in practice. The case here proves that Peter was not perfect, a fact proved by his whole life; it proves that he was sometimes timid, and even, for a period, time-serving; but it does not prove that what he wrote for our guidance was false and erroneous.

If thou, being a Jew. A Jew by birth.

Livest after the manner of the Gentiles. In eating, etc., as he had done before Judaizing teachers came from Jerusalem, Gal 2:12.

And not as do the Jews. Observing their peculiar customs, and their distinctions of meats and drinks.

Why compellest thou the Gentiles, etc. As he would do, if he insisted that they should be circumcised, and observe the peculiar Jewish rites. The charge against him was gross inconsistency in doing this. "Is it not at least as lawful for them to neglect the Jewish observances, as it was for thee to do it but a few days ago?"--Doddridge. The word here rendered "compellest," means here moral compulsion or persuasion. The idea is, that the conduct of Peter was such as to lead the Gentiles to the belief that it was necessary for them to be circumcised in order to be saved. For a similar use of the word, see Mt 14:22, Lk 14:23; Acts 28:19.

(b) "truth of gospel" Gal 2:5 (c) "Peter before them" 1Timm 5:20 (+) "compellest" "urgest"

We who are Jews by nature. It has long been a question whether this and the following verses are to be regarded as a part of the address of Paul to Peter, or the words of Paul as a part of the epistle to the Galatians. A great variety of opinion has prevailed in regard to this. Grotius says, "Here the narrative of Paul being closed, he pursues his argument to the Galatians." In this opinion Bloomfield and many others concur. Rosenmuller, and many others, suppose that the address to Peter is continued to Gal 2:21. Such seems to be the most obvious interpretation, as there is no break or change in the style, nor any vestige of a transfer of the argument to the Galatians. But on the other hand it may be urged,

(1.) that Paul in his writings often changes his mode of address without indicating it.--Bloomfield.

(2.) That it is rather improbable that he should have gone into so long a discourse with Peter on the subject of justification; His purpose was answered by the reproof of Peter for his dissimulation; and there is something incongruous, it is said, in his instructing Peter at such length, on the subject of man's justification. Still it appears to me probable that this is to be regarded as a part of the discourse of Paul to Peter, to the close of Gal 2:21. The following reasons seem to me to require this interpretation:

(1.) It is the most natural and obvious--usually a safe rule of interpretation. The discourse proceeds as if it were an address to Peter.

(2.) There is a change at the beginning of the next chapter where Paul expressly addresses himself to the Galatians.

(3.) As to the impropriety of Paul's addressing Peter at length on the subject of justification, we are to bear in mind that he did not address him alone. The reproof was addressed to Peter particularly, but it was "before them all," Gal 2:14; that is, before the assembled church, or before the persons who had been led astray by the conduct of Peter, and who were in danger of error on the subject of justification. Nothing, therefore, was more proper than for Paul to continue his discourse for their benefit, and to state to them fully the doctrine of justification. And nothing was more pertinent or proper for him now than to report this to the Galatians as a part of his argument to them, showing that he had always, since his conversion, held and defended the same doctrine on the subject of the way in which men are to be justified in the sight of God. It is therefore, I apprehend, to be regarded as an address to Peter and the other Jews who were present. "We who were born Jews."

By nature. By birth; or, we were born Jews. We were not born in the condition of the Gentiles.

And not sinners of the Gentiles. This cannot mean that Paul did not regard the Jews as sinners, for his views on that subject he has fully expressed in Rom 2, Rom 3. But it must mean that the Jews were not born under the disadvantages of the Gentiles in regard to the true knowledge of the way of salvation, They were not left wholly in ignorance about the way of justification, as the Gentiles were. They knew, or they might know, that men could not be saved by their own works. It was also true that they were under more restraint than the Gentiles were; and though they were sinners, yet they were not abandoned to so gross and open sensuality as was the heathen world. They were not idolaters, and wholly ignorant of the law of God.

(d) "sinners" Eph 2:3,12

Knowing. We who are Jews by nature, or by birth. This cannot mean that all the Jews knew this, or that he who was a Jew knew it as a matter of course, for many Jews were ignorant of it, and many opposed it. But it means that the persons here referred to, those who had been born Jews, and who had been converted to Christianity, had had an opportunity to learn and understand this, which the Gentiles had not. This gospel had been preached to them, and they had professedly embraced it. They were not left to the gross darkness and ignorance on this subject which pervaded the heathen world, and they had had a better opportunity to learn it than the converts from the Gentiles. They ought, therefore, to act in a manner becoming their superior light, and to show in all their conduct that they fully believed that a man could not be justified by obedience to the law of Moses. This rendered the conduct of Peter, and the other Jews who "dissembled" with him, so entirely inexcusable. They could not plead ignorance on this vital subject, and yet they were pursuing a course the tendency of which was to lead the Gentile converts to believe that it was indispensable to observe the laws of Moses, in order to be justified and saved.

That a man is not justified by the works of the law. Rom 1:17, 3:20,26, 4:5.

But by the faith of Jesus Christ. By believing on Jesus Christ. Mk 16:16, Rom 3:22.

Even we have believed in Jesus Christ. We are therefore justified. The object of Paul here seems to be to show, that as they had believed in the Lord Jesus, and thus had been justified, there was no necessity of obeying the law of Moses with any view to justification. The thing had been fully done without the deeds of the law, and it was now unreasonable and unnecessary to insist on the observance of the Mosaic rites.

For by the works of the law, etc. Rom 3:20, Rom 3:27. In this verse, the apostle has stated in few words the important doctrine of justification by faith--the doctrine which Luther so justly called, Articulus stantis, vel cadentis ecclesia. In the notes referred to above, particularly in the notes on the epistle to the Romans, I have stated in various places what I conceive to be the true doctrine on this important subject. It may be useful, however, to throw together in one connected view, as briefly as possible, the leading ideas on the subject of justification, as it is revealed in the gospel.

I. Justification is properly a word applicable to courts of justice, but is used in a similar sense in common conversation among men. An illustration will show its nature. A man is charged, e.g., with an act of trespass on his neighbour's property. Now there are two ways which he may take to justify himself, or to meet the charge, so as to be regarded and treated as innocent. He may

(a) either deny that he performed the act charged on him, or he may

(b) admit that the deed was done, and set up as a defence that he had a right to do it. In either case, if the point be made out, he will be just or innocent in the sight of the law. The law will have nothing against him, and he will be regarded and treated in the premises as an innocent man; or he has justified himself in regard to the charge brought against him.

II. Charges of a very serious nature are brought against man by his Maker. He is charged with violating the law of God; with a want of love to his Maker; with a corrupt, proud, sensual heart; with being entirely alienated from God by wicked works; in one word, with being entirely depraved. This charge extends to all men; and to the entire life of every unrenewed man. It is not a charge merely affecting the external conduct, not merely affecting the heart; it is a charge of entire alienation from God--a charge, in short, of total depravity. See, especially, Rom 1, 2, 3. That this charge is a very serious one, no one can doubt. That it deeply affects the human character and standing, is as clear. It is a charge brought in the Bible; and God appeals in proof of it to the history of the world, to every man's conscience, and to the life of every one who has lived; and on these facts, and on his own power in searching the hearts, and in knowing what is in man, he rests the proofs of the charge.

III. It is impossible for man to vindicate himself from this charge. He can neither show that the things charged have not been committed, nor that, having been committed, he had a right to do them. He cannot prove that God is not right in all the charges which he has made against him in his word; and he cannot prove that it was right for him to do as he has done. The charges against him are facts which are undeniable, and the facts are such as cannot be vindicated. But if he can do neither of these things, then he cannot be justified by the law. The law will not acquit him. It holds him guilty. It condemns him. No argument which he can use will show that he is right, and that God is wrong. No works that he can perform will be any compensation for what he has already done. No denial of the existence of the facts charged will alter the case; and he must stand condemned by the law of God. In the legal sense he cannot be justified; and justification, if it ever exist at all, must be in a mode that is a departure from the regular operation of law, and in a mode which the law did not contemplate, for no law makes any provision for the pardon of those who violate it. It must be by some system which is distinct from the law, and in which man may be justified on different principles than those which the law contemplates.

IV. This other system of justification is that which is revealed in the gospel by the faith of the Lord Jesus. It does NOT consist in either of the following things:

(1.) It is not a system or plan where the Lord Jesus takes the part of the sinner against the law or against God. He did not come to show that the sinner was right, and that God was wrong. He admitted most fully, and endeavoured constantly to show, that God was right, and that the sinner was wrong; nor can an instance be referred to where the Saviour took the part of the sinner against God, in any such sense that he endeavoured to show that the sinner had not done the things charged on him, or that he had a right to do them.

(2.) It is not that we are either innocent, or are declared to be innocent. God justifies the "ungodly," Rom 4:5. We are not innocent; we never have been; we never shall be; and it is not the design of the scheme to declare any such untruth as that we are not personally undeserving. It will be always true that the justified sinner has no claims to the mercy and favour of God.

(3.) It is not that we cease to be undeserving personally. He that is justified by faith, and that goes to heaven, will go there admitting that he deserves eternal death, and that he is saved wholly by favour and not by desert.

(4.) It is not a declaration on the part of God that we have wrought out salvation, or that we have any claim for what the Lord Jesus has done. Such a declaration would not be true, and would not be made.

(5.) It is not that the righteousness of the Lord Jesus is transferred to his people. Moral character cannot be transferred. It adheres to the moral agent as much as colour does to the rays of light which cause it. It is not true that we died for sin, and it cannot be so reckoned or imputed. It is not true that we have any merit, or any claim, and it cannot be so reckoned or imputed. All the imputations of God are according to truth; and he will always reckon us to be personally undeserving and sinful. But if justification be none of these things, it may be asked, what is it? I answer, It is the declared purpose of God to regard and treat those sinners who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as if they had not sinned, on the ground of the merits of the Saviour. It is not mere pardon. The main difference between pardon and justification respects the sinner contemplated in regard to his past conduct, and to God's future dealings with him. Pardon is a free forgiveness of past offences. It has reference to those sins as forgiven and blotted out. It is an act of remission on the part of God. Justification has respect to the law, and to God's future dealings with the sinner. It is an act by which God determines to treat him hereafter as a righteous man, or as if he had not sinned. The ground or reason of this is the merit of the Lord Jesus Christ; merit such that we can plead it as if it were our own. The rationale of it is, that the Lord Jesus has accomplished by his death the same happy effects in regard to the law and the government of God, which would be accomplished by the death of the sinner himself. In other words, nothing would be gained to the universe by the everlasting punishment of the offender himself, which will not be secured by his salvation on the ground of the death of the Lord Jesus. He has taken our place, and died in our stead; and he has met the descending stroke of justice, which would have fallen on our own head if he had not interposed, Isa 53:1 and following, and now the great interests of justice will be as firmly secured if we are saved, as they would be if we were lost. The law has been fully obeyed by one who came to save us, and as much honour has been done to it by his obedience as could have been by our own; that is, it as much shows that the law is worthy of obedience, to have it perfectly obeyed by the Lord Jesus, as it would if it were obeyed by us. It as much shows that the law of a sovereign is worthy of obedience, to have it obeyed by an only son, and an heir to the crown, as it does to have it obeyed by his subjects. And it has as much shown the evil of the violation of the law to have the Lord Jesus suffer death on the cross, as it would if the guilty had died themselves. If transgression whelm the innocent in calamity; if it extends to those who are perfectly guiltless, and inflicts pain and woe on them, it is as certainly an expression of the evil of transgression as if the guilty themselves suffer. And an impression as deep has been made of the evil of sin by the sufferings of the Lord Jesus in our stead, as if we had suffered ourselves. He endured on the cross as intense agony as we can conceive it possible for a sinner ever to endure; and the dignity of the Person who suffered--THE INCARNATE GOD--is more than an equivalent for the more lengthened sorrows which the penalty of the law exacts in hell. Besides, from the very dignity of the Sufferer in our place, an impression has gone abroad on the universe more deep and important than would have been by the sufferings of the individual himself in the world of woe. The sinner who is lost will be unknown to other worlds. His name may be unheard beyond the gates of the prison of despair. The impression which will be made on distant worlds by his individual sufferings will be as a part of the aggregate of woe, and his individual sorrows may make no impression on distant worlds. But not so with Him who took our place, He stood in the centre of the universe. The sun grew dark, and the dead arose, and angels gazed upon the scene; and from his cross an impression went abroad to the farthest part of the universe, showing the tremendous effects of the violation of law, when not one soul could be saved from its penalty without such sorrows of the Son of God. In virtue of all this, the offender, by believing on him, may be treated as if he had not sinned; and this constitutes justification. God admits him to favour as if he had himself obeyed the law, or borne its penalty, since as many good results will now follow from his salvation as could be derived from his punishment; and since all the additional happy results will follow which can be derived from the exercise of pardoning mercy. The character of God is thus revealed. His mercy is shown. His determination to maintain his law is evinced. The truth is maintained; and yet he shows the fulness of his mercy, and the richness of his benevolence.

(a) "a man" Acts 13:38,39, Rom 3:20 (b) "faith" Rom 5:1, Gal 3:11,24 (c) "for by works of the law" Ps 143:2, Heb 7:18,19

But if, while, we seek to be justified by Christ. The connexion here is not very clear, and the sense of the verse is somewhat obscure. Rosenmuller supposes that this is an objection of a Jew, supposing that where the law of Moses is not observed there is no rule of life, and that therefore there must be sin; and that since the doctrine of justification by faith taught that there was no necessity of obeying the ceremonial law of Moses, therefore Christ, who had introduced that system, must be regarded as the author and encourager of sin. To me it seems probable that Paul here has reference to an objection which has in all ages been brought against the doctrine of justification by faith, and which seems to have existed in his time, that the doctrine leads to licentiousness. The objections are, that it does not teach the necessity of the observance of the law in order to acceptance with God; that it pronounces a man justified and accepted who is a violator of the law; that his acceptance does not depend on moral character; that it releases him from the obligation of law; and that it teaches that a man may be saved though he does not conform to law. These objections existed early, and have been found everywhere where the doctrine of justification by faith has been preached. I regard this verse, therefore, as referring to these objections, and not as being peculiarly the objection of a Jew. The idea is, "You seek to be justified by faith without obeying the law, You professedly reject that, and do not hold that it is necessary to yield obedience to it. If now it shall turn out that you are sinners; that your lives are not holy; that you are free from the wholesome restraint of the law, and are given up to lives of sin, will it not follow that Christ is the cause of it, that he taught it, and that the system which he introduced is responsible for it? And is not the gospel therefore responsible for introducing a system that frees from the restraint of the law, and introduces universal licentiousness?" To this Paul replies by stating distinctly that the gospel has no such tendency, and particularly by referring in the following verses to his own case, and to the effect of the doctrine of justification on his own heart and life.

We ourselves also are found sinners. If it turns out that we are sinners, or if others discover by undoubted demonstration that we lead lives of sin; if they see us given up to a lawless life, and find us practicing all kinds of evil; if it shall be seen not only that we are not pardoned and made better by the gospel, but are actually made worse, and are freed from all moral restraint.

Is therefore Christ the minister of sin? Is it to be traced to him? Is it a fair and legitimate conclusion that this is the tendency of the gospel? Is it to be charged on him, and on the plan of justification through him, that a lax morality prevails, and that men are freed from the wholesome restraints of law?

God forbid. It is not so. This is not the proper effect of the gospel of Christ, and of the doctrine of justification by faith. The system is not fitted to produce such a freedom from restraint; and if such a freedom exists, it is to be traced to something else than the gospel.

(a) "ourselves also" 1Jn 3:9,10

For if I build again the things which I destroyed. Paul here uses the first person; but he evidently intends it as a general proposition, and means that if any one does it he becomes a transgressor. The sense is, that if a man, having removed or destroyed that which was evil, again introduces it or establishes it, he does wrong, and is a transgressor of the law of God. The particular application here, as it seems to me, is to the subject of circumcision, and the other rites of the Mosaic law. They had been virtually abolished by the coming of the Redeemer, and by the doctrine of justification by faith. It had been seen that there was no necessity for their observance, and of that Peter and the others had been fully aware. Yet they were lending their influence again to establish them, or to "build" them up again. They complied with them, and they insisted on the necessity of their observance. Their conduct, therefore, was that of building up again that which had once been destroyed--destroyed by the ministry, and toils, and death of the Lord Jesus, and by the fair influence of his gospel. To rebuild that again, to re-establish those customs, was wrong, and now involved the guilt of a transgression of the law of God. Doddridge supposes that this is an address to the Galatians, and that the address to Peter closed at the previous verse. But it is impossible to determine this; and it seems to me more probable that this is all a part of the address to Peter, or rather, perhaps, to the assembly when Peter was present.

Gal 2:15.

For I through the law. On this passage the commentators are by no means agreed. It is agreed that in the phrase "am dead to the law," the law of Moses is referred to, and that the meaning is, that Paul had become dead to that as a ground or means of justification, lie acted as though it were not; or it ceased to have influence over him. A dead man is insensible to all around him. He hears nothing; sees nothing; and nothing affects him. So when we are said to be dead to anything, the meaning is, that it does not have an influence over us. In this sense Paul was dead to the law of Moses. He ceased to observe it as a ground of justification. It ceased, to be the grand aim and purpose of his life, as it had been formerly, to obey it. He had higher purposes than that, and truly lived to God. Rom 6:2. But on the meaning of the phrase "through the law," διανομου there has been a great variety of opinion. Bloomfield, Rosenmuller, and some others, suppose that he means the Christian religion; and that the meaning is, "By one law, or doctrine, I am dead to another;" that is, the Christian doctrine has caused me to cast aside the Mosaic religion. Doddridge, Clarke, Chandler, and most others, however, suppose that he here refers to the law of Moses, and that the meaning is, that by contemplating the true character of the law of Moses itself; by considering its nature and design; by understanding the extent of its requisitions, he had become dead to it; that is, he had laid aside all expectations of being justified by it. This seems to me to be the correct interpretation. Paul had formerly expected to be justified by the law. He had endeavoured to obey it. It had been the object of his life to comply with all its requisitions, in order to be saved by it, Php 3:4-6. But all this while he had not fully understood its nature; and when he was made fully to feel and comprehend its spiritual requirements, then all his hopes of justification by it died, and he became dead to it. See this sentiment more fully explained Rom 7:9.

That I might live unto God. That I might be truly alive, and might be found engaged in his service. He was dead to the law, but not to everything. He had not become literally inactive and insensible to all things, like a dead man, but he had become truly sensible to the commands and appeals of God, and had consecrated himself to his service. Rom 6:11.

(b) "For I through" Rom 7:4,10, 8:2 (c) "live unto God" Rom 6:11,14, 2Cor 5:15

I am crucified with Christ. In the previous verse, Paul had said that he was dead. In this verse he states what he meant by it, and shows that he did not wish to be understood as saying that he was inactive, or that he was literally insensible to the appeals made to him by other beings and objects. In respect to one thing he was dead; to all that was truly great and noble he was alive. To understand the remarkable phrase, "I am crucified with Christ," we may remark,

(1.) that this was the way in which Christ was put to death. He suffered on a cross, and thus became literally dead.

(2.) In a sense similar to this, Paul became dead to the law, to the world, and to sin. The Redeemer, by the death of the cross, became insensible to all surrounding objects, as the dead always are. He ceased to see and hear, and was as though they were not. Hie was laid in the cold grave, and they did not affect or influence him. So Paul says that he became insensible to the law as a means of justification; to the world; to ambition and the love of money; to the pride and pomp of life; and to the dominion of evil and hateful passions. They lost their power over him; they ceased to influence him.

(3.) This was with Christ, or by Christ. It cannot mean literally that he was put to death with him, for that is not true; but it means that the effect of the death of Christ on the cross was to make him dead to these things, in like manner as he, when he died, became insensible to the things of this busy world. This may include the following things:

(a) There was an intimate union between Christ and his people; so that what affected him, affected them. See Jn 15:5,6.

(b) The death of the Redeemer on the cross involved as a consequence the death of his people to the world and to sin. See Gal 5:24, 6:14. It was like a blow at the root of a vine or a tree, which would affect every branch and tendril; or like a blow at the head, which affects every member of the body.

(c) Paul felt identified with the Lord Jesus; and he was willing to share in all the ignominy and contempt which was connected with the idea of the crucifixion. He was willing to regard himself as one with the Redeemer. If there was disgrace attached to the manner in which he died, he was willing to share it with him. He regarded it as a matter to be greatly desired to be made just like Christ in all things, and even in the manner of his death. This idea he has more fully expressed in Php 3:10, "That I may know him, [that is, I desire earnestly to know him,] and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death." See also Col 1:24, 1Pet 4:13.

Nevertheless I live. This expression is added, as in Gal 2:19, to prevent the possibility of mistake. Paul, though he was crucified with Christ, did not wish to be understood that he felt himself to be dead. He was not inactive; not insensible, as the dead are, to the appeals which are made from God, or to the great objects which ought to interest an immortal mind. He was still actively employed, and the more so from the fact that he was crucified with Christ. The object of all such expressions as this is to show that it was no design of the gospel to make men inactive, or to annihilate their energies. It was not to cause men to do nothing. It was not to paralyze their powers, or stifle their own efforts. Paul therefore says, "I am not dead. I am truly alive; and I live a better life than I did before." Paul was as active after conversion as he was before. Before, he was engaged in persecution; now, he devoted his great talents with as much energy, and with as untiring zeal, to the cause of the great Redeemer. Indeed, the whole narrative would lead us to suppose that he was more active and zealous after his conversion than he was before. The effect of religion is not to make one dead in regard to the putting forth of the energies of the soul. True religion never made one lazy man; it has converted many a man of indolence, and effeminacy, and self-indulgence, to a man actively engaged in doing good. If a professor of religion is less active in the service of God than he was in the service of the world--less laborious, and zealous, and ardent than he was before his supposed conversion--he ought to set it down as full proof that he is an utter stranger to true religion.

Yet not I. This also is designed to prevent misapprehension. In the previous clause he had said that he lived, or was actively engaged. But lest this should be misunderstood, and it should be inferred that he meant to say it was by his own energy or powers, he guards it, and says it was not at all from himself. It was by no native tendency; no power of his own; nothing that could be traced to himself, he assumed no credit for any zeal which he had shown in the true life. He was disposed to trace it all to another. He had ample proof in his past experience that there was no tendency in himself to a life of true religion, and he therefore traced it all to another.

Christ liveth in me. Christ was the source of all the life that he had. Of course this cannot be taken literally that Christ had a residence in the apostle; but it must mean that his grace resided in him; that his principles actuated him; and that he derived all his energy, and zeal, and life from his grace. The union between the Lord Jesus and the disciple was so close that it might be said the one lived in the other. So the juices of the vine are in each branch, and leaf, and tendril, and live in them and animate them; the vital energy of the brain is in each delicate nerve--no matter how small--that is found in any part of the human frame. Christ was in him, as it were, the vital principle. All his life and energy were derived from him.

And the life which I now live in the flesh. As I now live on the earth, surrounded by the cares and anxieties of this life. I carry the life-giving principles of my religion to all my duties and all my trials.

I live by the faith of the Son of God. By confidence in the Son of God, looking to him for strength, and trusting in his promises and in his grace.

Who loved me, etc. He felt under the highest obligation to him, from the fact that he had loved him, and given himself to the death of the cross in his behalf. The conviction of obligation on this account Paul often expresses. Rom 6:8, and Rom 6:9-11; Rom 8:35, and Rom 8:36-39; 2Cor 5:15. There is no higher sense of obligation than that which is felt towards the Saviour; and Paul felt himself bound, as we should, to live entirely to him who had redeemed him by his blood.

(a) "crucified with Christ" Gal 5:24, 6:14 (b) "liveth in me" 1Thes 5:10, 1Pet 4:2 (c) "gave himself" Jn 10:11, Eph 5:2

I do not frustrate the grace of God. The word rendered "frustrate" αθετω means, properly, to displace, abrogate, abolish; then to make void, to render null, Mk 7:9, Lk 7:30, 1Cor 1:19. The phrase, "the grace of God," here refers to the favour of God manifested in the plan of salvation by the gospel, and is another name for the gospel. The sense is, that Paul would not take any measures, or pursue any course, that would render that vain or inefficacious. Neither by his own life, by a course of conduct which would show that it had no influence over the heart and conduct, nor by the observance of Jewish rites and customs, would he do anything to render that inefficacious. The design is to show that he regarded it as a great principle, that the gospel was efficacious in renewing and saving man, and he would do nothing that would tend to pre, vent that impression on mankind. A life of sin, of open depravity and licentiousness, would do that. And, in like manner, a conformity to the rites of Moses, as a ground of justification, would tend to frustrate the grace of God, or to render the method of salvation solely by the Redeemer nugatory. This is to be regarded, therefore, as at the same time a reproof of Peter for complying with customs which tended to frustrate the plan of the gospel, and a declaration that he intended that his own course of life should be such as to confirm the plan, and show its efficacy in pardoning the sinner, and rendering him alive in the service of God.

For if righteousness come by the law. If justification can be secured by the observance of any law--ceremonial or moral--then there was no need of the death of Christ as an atonement. This is plain. If man by conformity to any law could be justified before God, what need was there of an atonement? The work would then have been wholly in his own power, and the merit would have been his. It follows from this, that man cannot be justified by his own morality, or his almsdeeds, or his forms of religion, or his honesty and integrity. If he can, he needs no Saviour--he can save himself. It follows, also, that when men depend on their own amiableness, and morality, and good works, they would feel no need of a Saviour; and this is the true reason why the mass of men reject the Lord Jesus. They suppose they do not deserve to be sent to hell. They have no deep sense of guilt. They confide in their own integrity, and feel that God ought to save them. Hence they feel no need of a Saviour; for why should a man in health employ a physician? And confiding in their own righteousness, they reject the grace of God, and despise the plan of justification through the Redeemer. To feel the need of a Saviour, it is necessary to feel that we are lost and ruined sinners; that we have no merit on which we can rely; and that we are entirely dependent on the mercy of God for salvation. Thus feeling, we shall receive the salvation of the gospel with thankfulness and joy, and show that in regard to us Christ is not "dead in vain."

(*) "frustrate" "make void" (d) "if righteousness" Heb 7:11

Observe here, 1. How the gracious care and good providence of God did watch over St. Paul from place to place, and from time to time, when and wheresoever he went forth to preach, to plant, and propagate the gospel. After fourteen years he went up to Jerusalem, that is, fourteen years after his conversion; soon after which he went about preaching the gospel to the Gentile world. Blessed be God, who is oft-times pleased, in mercy to his church, to preserve the lives of his laborious ministers, and their liberties also, for the free exercise of their ministry, notwithstanding the joint endeavours of men and devils to the contrary. This good man, this great apostle, whose blood was thirsted after having obtained help of God, continued fourteen years together, preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Observe, 2. The end, design, and intent of St. Paul, in this present going up to Jerusalem, and appearing before St. Peter there: It was not to acknowlege St. Peter's supremacy over him, or to appeal to him as the infallible judge in matters of religion: but it was, in a friendly and brotherly manner, to acquaint St. Peter and the rest of the apostles, with the doctrine preached by him; that their concurring approbation being given to it, the mouth of his adversaries, the false apostles, might be stopped, who accused him for preaching contrary to what the rest of the apostles both believed and practiced.

Observe, 3. The ground upon which St. Paul undertook this journey to Jerusalem at this time; He went up by revelation; he advised with God about the matter, and received direction from God to undertake the journey. Blessed be God, that although we cannot expect immediate direction and information from God, now, as the saints of old had before the canon of the scripture was completed, yet we have the written word of God to be a light to our feet, and a lamp unto our paths, to direct and guide us in all our enterprises: and we ought to regulate all our actions according to it, and to judge of the lawfulness and expediency of our undertakings by it.

Observe, 4. With what prudence and holy caution the blessed apostle proceeded in this matter; he imparted his sentiments, and communicated his doctirne to the rest of the apostles privately, for fear of exasperating the zealous Judaizing Christians: And to the most eminent of the apostles, such as were of greatest reputation; lest if there should be any opposition made to his doctrine, he should hereafter run, or had run in vain. Nothing more obstructs the success and efficacy of the gospel, than differences of judgment, and strife and debate about those differences, amongst the most eminent preachers of it.

Hence it was, that St. Paul endeavoured so much to get the joint consent of the most eminent apostles to the doctrine delivered by him, lest by the calumnies of his adversaries, his preaching should have been rendered unsuccessful, and he should hereafter run and labour in vain.

Observe here, 1. The instance and evidence which St. Paul brings of the apostles at Jerusalem, agreeing with him, both in their doctrine and in their practice; and that was Titus, who being a Gentile, born a Greek, and now a preacher of the gospel, and never circumcised, the apostles at Jerusalem would no more compel him to be circumcised than St. Paul had done, but received him into fellowship with them, though he was an uncircumcised Greek. This was a plain evidence, that they did not judge circumcision, at that time, to be a part of God's commanded worship; for then they would have compelled Titus to it; that is, constrained him, by the force of ecclesiastical censures, to become circumcised, had they thought circumcision necessary to the Gentiles.

Observe, 2. The reason assigned, why the apostle would not circumcise Titus, though he had before circumcised Timothy, namely, because some false brethren crept in, would have taken advantage from it, to bring persons into bondage to the law of ceremonies, and plead conformity to circumcision as an obliged duty.

Learn hence, that although the cermonial law was certainly abolished by the death of Christ; yet, Almighty God, partly with respect to it as his own ordinance, and partly in condescension to the weakness of the Jews, was pleased to tolerate the observation of some part of it, and particularly circumcision, as an indifferent action, though not as a part of religion, for some time; the cermonial rites being dead, they were to be decently, nor over hastily buried.

Observe, 3. The apostle's undaunted courage, and heroic resolution in this matter; he would, notwithstanding the false apostles importunity, never yield subjection, or submission to, or compliance with, their commands, in the least measure, by consenting to circumcise Titus; that so the truth and liberty of the gospel might continue sincere and unshaken.

Learn hence, that an outward act of compliance must not be consented to, which, in some cases, might be complied with, when, by making it necessary, we turn Christian liberty into servitude and bondage, when things in their own nature indifferent, are urged and enforced as necessary; in that case, the practice of a thing indifferent, is to be abstained from. Thus here, when false brethren urged the circumcision of Titus, as an evidence of St. Paul's receding from the doctrine of Christian liberty, he would not obey them, nor consent unto them: To whom we gave place, no not for an hour; that is, we refused to use circumcision, though but that once, because we would not give the adversaries the least advantage against us, or against the truth delivered and defended by us.

As if the apostle had said, "When I came up to Jerusalem, thus I behaved myself toward the false brethren, as I have here declared; but now, for those who seemed to be somewhat, that is, Peter, James, and John, who were of chief reputation among the apostles, and more than ordinary ministers of Jesus Christ, being the foundations of the Christian church, laid by Christ himself, although they had some external advantages above me, as being apostles before me, and having conversed with Christ, and seen him here on earth, which I never did; yet this maketh no matter to me: for God values no man for these outward favours and benefits: Neither in that conference about circumcision, did they add anything to me, either by their authority or instruction; they added nothing, they corrected nothing, but approved all things, both what I did and said: From whence it evidently appears, that my authority was equal with theirs, and my doctrine the same with theirs also."

Note here, 1. That the ordinance both of Peter and Paul, for the office and work of apostles, was alike divine. The former, St. Peter, was to be the minister of the circumcision: that is to exercise his ministry among the Jews, and St. Paul, by virtue of the same divine ordinance, was to exercise his office among the Gentiles, called the uncircumcision; yet this must not be so understood, as if Paul might not preach to the Jews, nor St. Peter to the Gentiles, which they both did upon occasion, but because their more special and particular province was thus, St. Peter to preach to the Jews, and St. Paul to the Gentiles.

Learn hence, that the office of preaching the gospel is a special trust, committed by God himself to such as he qualifies for it; and as none must enterprise it, but such as he calls unto it, so must all that undertake, be accountable to him for it; The gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, and the gospel of the circumcision was committed unto Peter.

Note, 2. How this great apostle ascribes the success and efficacy of his own ministry among the Gentiles, and of St. Peter's amongst the Jews, alike to God; He that wrought effectually is Peter, was also mighty in me: it is neither the person or pains of the minister, nor any natural energy or efficacy in the word preached, upon which the success of the gospel depends, but upon the effectual working of the holy Spirit; He that wrought effectually in Peter, was also mighty in me. The word of God works not as a natural agent, but as a moral instrument in the hand of the Spirit. The weapons of our ministerial warfare are then mighty, when made mighty through God, for the pulling down the strong-holds of sin and Satan.

Note, 3. The duty of the ministers of Christ implicitly declared, namely, to be pillars; not seeming to be so, but really so. As pillars, they are to uphold the truth, but their doctrine and diligence; as pillars, to be constant in defending the truth against all the blasts and storms of error and false doctrine; as pillars, to adorn the truth by an innocent life, and instructive example, whereby they ought not only to shine before others, but also to outshine others. When James, Cephas, and John seemed to be pillars.

These three apostles under Christ, were the great supporters of the church of Christ, by their diligence and faithfulness: yet observe, James is here named before St. Peter; which shews the weakness of the Papists arguments for Peter's primacy, because sometimes first named: But it is evident he is not always so; St. James is here mentioned before him, because, say some, bishop of Jerusalem, and the Lord's brother, or near kinsman; but certain it is, that St. Paul paid not here any deference to Peter, upon the account of his primacy or supremacy, which is now so much contended for, but was not then thought of, because it is the apostle's great drift and design to shew that he was in every respect equal with Peter and the rest of the apostles, and in no respect inferior to any of them; and consequently, that neither in his mission nor his message, neither in his office nor his doctrine, neither in his external authority, nor his internal gifts and graces, did he come behind the chiefest apostles, as the false apostles had misrepresented him.

Note farther, St. Peter's integrity with James's and John's, in this matter, they being all very well satisfied, by convincing evidence, that Almighty God had certainly called Paul to be an apostle no less than themselves; they own and acknowledge him for such, no doubt, to the grief, as well as to the shame of the false apostles, who had vilified his person, lessened his authority, and disparaged his doctrine: When James, Cephas, and John, perceived the grace that was given unto me; that is, the grace of apostleship, they, in the name of all the apostles, and the whole church, gave unto me, and Barnabas my fellow-labourer, the right hand of fellowship: that is, they owned us to be pillars as much as themselves, and acknowleged us to be apostles no less than themselves; and it was agreed and concluded upon, that we should continue to preach chiefly to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews:

So far were the apostles of Jerusalem from condemning St. Paul's doctrine, or undervaluing his calling, which was the thing that the false apostles were so desirous of, and hoped for.

Note lastly, that as an evidence of the happy agreement of Peter, James, and John, with Paul and Barnabas, and of the their owning them as apostles and ministers of Jesus Christ, they recommended to St. Paul's charitable consideration, the poverty of the Jewish converts to Christianity, desiring him to make collections in the Gentiles churches for the Christian Jews.

Here observe, 1. That the Jews were generally poorer than the Gentiles; it is frequently the lot of those who are rich in grace, to be poor in goods, and to be reduced to such straits, as to be forced to live upon some charitable supplies from others.

Observe, 2. That although those who are our own poor, and live within our bounds, near us, and about us, are chiefly to be believed by us; yet in cases of extreme necessity, such poor as live remote from us, whose faces were never seen by us, ought to be sharers in our charity.

Observe, 3. That the care of God's poor, and the supplying of the outward necessities of his saints, is an employment not unworthy the highest apostle, much less unbecoming the ordinary ministers of Christ; They would that we should remember the poor.

Observe, 4. That the faithful ministers of Christ ought, upon just and fit occasions, to excite and stir up their people to duties of charity, as well as piety; to costly and expensive duties, as well as those that are easy and less burdensome; these being no less profitable to the church, and much more evidential of a real work of grace upon the heart. Thus did St. Paul here, the apostles desired me to remember the poor: the same which I also was forward to do.

Observe here, St. Peter's offense, and St. Paul's rebuke.

St. Peter's offense, 1. was this, he declined from the doctrine taught by himself, concerning the abrogation of circumcision and the ceremonial law; he had formerly conversed freely with the Christian Gentiles without scruple, making no objection against them, because they were not circumcised: But at Antioch he withdrew himself from the Christian Gentiles, refusing to eat with them, because they were not circumcised; as if, for want of circumcision, they had been unclean, and altogether unfit to be conversed with. This was his fault; whereby it appears, that St. Peter himself was not infallible, whatever his pretended successors, the bishops of Rome, are supposed to be.

Learn hence, how certainly and suddenly the holiest and best of men will run into sin and error, if a special assistance from the holy Spirit doth not uphold them, and preserve them.

Observe, 2. As St. Peter's offense, so St. Paul's rebuke; he withstood him to the face; that is, rebuked him publicly, because he was blame-worthy, and not secretly behind his back; such as sin openly, must be rebuked and reproved openly.

Here note, how little St. Paul dreamed of St. Peter's supremacy; if so, he had been more modest than thus to reprove him to his face.

Learn hence, that as no bands of friendship must keep the ministers of God from reproving sin and vice; so when they find the fault to be notorious, they must reprove it wherever they find it, with much boldness and resolution.

St. Paul here, in reproving St. Peter withstood him: It is in the original a military word, signifying to stand against, either by force of arms, as among soldiers; or by dint of argument, as among disputants: It is a word of defiance, and signifies an opposition hand to hand, face to face, foot to foot, not yielding a hair's breadth to the adversary. Yet withal, as St. Paul's courage, so his candour appeared, in reproving St. Peter to his face, and not reproaching him, as some, behind his back.

And behold this great and chief apostle St. Peter, submits to his reprover, neither justifying his action, nor reflecting upon St. Paul; he replieth not again.

A farther account is given us in these verses, of St. Peter's offense at Antioch, in giving occasion of scandal to the Gentiles, by refusing to converse and eat with them, although he had before, in a vision, received a divine command so to do.

St. Paul calls it fear, Gal 2:12, dissimulation, Gal 2:13, and not walking uprightly, Gal 2:14.

He refused to converse with the believing Gentiles, being uncircumcised, for fear of offending the believing Jews, who were so tenacious of circumcision, and the ceremonial law.

Learn hence, what weakness and inconstancy is found with the best of men, especially when fear gets a prevailing power over them. St. Peter was the minister of the circumcision, in great honour and esteem with the believing Jews, but fearing the loss of his reputation among them, he falls into a sin against God.

Observe, 2. The fatal influence of that sin; it drew others into a partnership with him therein; Barnabas himself was led away with the dissimulation, and the other Jews dissembled with him.

Learn hence, that such as are eminent in the church, had need be exactly careful how they walk; for if they fall, they fall not alone, many do fall with them.

Observe, 3. With what openness and freedom, with what courage and resolution, St. Paul checks and reproves Peter, for his cowardice and timorousness, in refusing to converse with the believing Gentiles, for fear of gaining the displeasure of the circumcised Jews; I said unto Peter before them all, If thou being a Jew, livest, in thy ordinary conversation, after the manner of the Gentiles, why compellest thou the Gentiles, by thy example to live, as do the Jews:

Where note, what a constraining power there is in the example of eminent persons. He is said to compel in scripture, not only who doth violently force, but who, being of authority, doth provoke by his example. The errors of those that do rule, became rulers of error. Men sin through a kind of authority, through the sins of those who are in authority.

St. Paul having fully vindicated his own authority as an apostle, from the imputations of the false apostles, he comes next to vindicate his doctrine, namely, the evangelical doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, which he had formerly preached to the Galatians, and which, in his absence, the false apostles had endeavoured to subvert and overthrow, urging the strict observation of the ceremonial law, as necessary to justification and salvation. Our apostle, therefore, to strike at the root of this dangerous error, excludes all works of our own from having any influence upon our justification.

Now, this he proveth, 1. Because they that were Jews by birth, and so federally the holy people of God, found it necessary to renounce the works of the law in point of justification, and to seek righteousness only through faith in Christ, as well as the profane idolatrous sinners, of the Gentiles, who were strangers to the covenant of God; For by the works of the law shall no flesh, neither Jew nor Gentile, be justified; that is, acquitted from the guilt of sin, and discharged from obnoxiousness to the wrath of God.

Now, no obedience of our scan obtain this, because of the great imperfection which cleaves to it, and because God will have all boasting excluded, By grace ye are saved, through faith: not of works, lest any man should boast; but that he that glorieth, should glory in the Lord. Eph 2:8

Observe here, that the doctrine of justification by faith, and not by works, was early, very early opposed by Satan and false teachers. It being articulus et cadentis ecclesiae, a fundamental article of our Christian faith, our comfort stands or fall with it; no wonder then it is strenuously opposed.

These words are generally looked upon as an objection, which the adversaries of the doctrine of justification by faith, have been always ready to make against it, namely, "That if persons be not justified by their obedience to the law, then they may live as they list in the breach and violation of the law, and freely indulge themselves in sin, and consequently make Christ the minister of sin, as if he had relaxed the duty." The apostle rejects this inference and deduction with the greatest abhorrence and detestation, saying, God forbid.

Hence note, that it is no new prejudice, though a very unjust one, against the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and not by works, that it opens a door to licentiousness, and makes Christ the minister of sin.

Observe farther, a second objection here suggested. Some might pretend that he built up by his practice, what he had destroyed: No says the apostle, I have, together with the doctrine of free justification, preached to you, pressed upon you, the duty of mortification, as of indispensible necessity to be practiced by you; should therefore my preaching or my practice be otherwise than it has been, I should build again what I have destroyed, and destroy what I have already builded; and thus by encouraging sin, and discouraging holiness and obedience, I should be a transgressor against the law of righteousness.

Learn hence, that the doctrine of justification by faith alone, cannot be rightly preached, except the duty of mortification of sin be urged and enforced with it; for the same faith that depends upon Christ for pardon of sin, doth look up unto him for power and strength to vanquish and subdue sin; If we do not the latter, Christ will never do the former.

Here the apostle shews, that believers are so far from being justified by the law, that they are dead to the law, so as to put no confidence in their obedience to it for justification; particularly,

1. They are dead to the law; that is, they are delivered from the rigorous exactions of the law. Perfect, personal and perpetual obedience, is the duty which the law exacts at the believers's hand, and he has performed it, though not in himself, yet in the person of Christ his Surety, who yielded as absolute and complete obedience to the law, as it could require or demand.

2. The law is dead to believers, and they to that, in regard to the condemnatory curse and sentence of the law; Christ hath redeemed them from the curse of the law: being made a curse for them, Gal 3:13. True, the believer's violation of the royal and righteous law of God, in the smallest measure and degree, doth in its own nature, deserve the curse and condemnatory sentence; but Christ has discharged him from obnoxiousness to the curse, by being made a curse.

3. The law is dead to believers, as to its authority, to justify and save them. This is that the law cannot do, being made weak through the flesh? though properly speaking, the law is not weak to us, but we are weak to that; the law has not lost its authority to command, but we our ability to obey; it is as impossible for a fallen sinner to keep the law of God perfectly, as it is for a lame cripple to run a race swiftly.

Yet, 4. Believers are not dead, but alive to the law, as a rule of life and holy living; the law binds the believer (in Christ's hand) as strictly to endeavour obedience to it, as it did Adam in innocency: But here is the believer's privilege, that God the Father, upon the score of the covenant of grace, which the blood of Christ has ratified and confirmed, doth graciously accept the faithful endeavours of his children, instead of perfect performances; which obedience the law-covenant did rigorously exact and require.

Thus may every believer say with the apostle, I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God, namely, a life of righteousness and true holiness.

Several things are here observable, St. Paul's spiritual death declared, and his spiritual life described, together with the author and instrument of it.

Observe, 1. St. Paul's spiritual death, I am crucified with Christ; that is, with Christ I am dead to the law (in the manner mentioned in the foregoing verse) dead to sin, and dead to the world.

Learn hence, that all true believers are crucified with Christ Jesus; or that all justified persons have fellowship with Christ in his death: They have fellowship with him,

1. In the merit and value of his death; they are ransomed by it, as a price paid down to the justice of God for them.

2. In the virtue and efficacy of his death; which doth not only merit pardon for us, but mortifies sin in us: Our old man is crucified; that is, the power of sin is subdued in us.

3. A justified person hath fellowship with Christ, in the likeness and similitude of his death, and that is a crucifixion: As Christ died a painful, shameful, lingering, and accursed death for him, so doth sin die painfully, shamefully, and gradually in him: They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts, Gal 5:24.

Observe, 2. St. Paul's spiritual life described, I live, yet not I, but Christ in me.

Learn hence, that a crucified Christian is a living Christian; I am crucified, nevertheless I live; a life of justification and sanctification at present, in hope of, and as an earnest for, a life of glorification to come.

Yet, observe, 3. How the apostle corrects, or rather explains himself, after what mind, and in what manner he lives; he denies himself to be the author and root of his own life; and declares Christ to be both. I live, yet not I, but Christ in me. Christ is both the author and efficient cause, the exemplary cause, the end or final cause of the Christian's life; a living Christian lives not himself, but Christ lives in him.

Observe, 4. As the author of the Christian's spiritual life, Christ; so the instrument of it, and that is faith: The life which I live in the flesh, that is, the spiritual life which I live as a Christian here in the world, I live by faith in the Son of God; my life of justification, is by faith in his blood; my life of sanctification and consolation, is through faith, in and by influences derived from his holy Spirit.

Observe, 5. How the apostle appropriates to himself in particular, what Christ had done for all believers in general; He loved me and gave himself for me.

Where note, though a firm persuasion, and a full assurance of Christ's special love to ourselves, and his dying for us in particular, is not of the essence and being of justifying and saying faith, yet it is attainable without an extraordinary revelation; and, as such, every sincere Christian ought to aim at it, to labour and endeavour after it.

The apostle concludes the chapter with a double argument, to prove the Christian's justification by faith, without the works of the law.

1. Were it otherwise, we should frustrate and make void the grace of God: For if justification be by works, it can no more be by grace; according to the apostle, Rom 6:6.

2. Christ's death had been in vain, without any necessary cause or reason at all, if the justification of a sinner could have been obtained by his own works.

Where note, that as well works done after faith and conversion, as those done before it, are excluded from being the meritorious cause of our justification, either in whole or in part; because the joining of works with faith, in the matter of our justification, is a total exclusion of God's free grace, and a loud proclaiming, that Christ died in vain: If righteousness come by the law, I frustrate the grace of God, and Christ is dead in vain.

CHAP. II.

1 Then 14. yeares after I went vp againe to Ierusalem with Barnabas, and tooke with me Titus also. 2 And I went by reuelation, and communicated with thē of the Gospel, which I preach amōg the Gentiles, but priuately with them that were the chiefe, least by any meanes I should runne, or had runne in vaine.

IN this chapter, Paul proceedes to iustifie and defend, his immediate, & extraordinarie calling. And this whole chapter seemes to depend on the last wordes of the former chapter, against which the Aduersaries of Paul might happily obiect on this manner: Though the Churches of Iudea glorifie God for thee, yet will not the Apostles doe it; because thou teachest otherwise then they teach. To this obiection, Paul makes a double answer, in this chapter. The effect and summe of the first, is this: I went vp to Ierusalem: I conferred with the Apostles there: I had their consent, and approbation. And the answer containes three parts. The first, of Pauls iourney to Ierusalem, in the first verse: the second, of his conference with the Apostles, in the 2. verse: the third, of the approbation which they gaue him, from the 3. v. to the eleuenth.

In his iourney, I consider foure things. The first is, the Manner of his iourneying, in these wordes, I went vp, or, ascended to Ierusalem. And this he speakes, because Ierusalem was placed, and seated vpon a mountaine, and compassed with moūtaines, Psal. 125. or againe, in respect of the dignitie and excellencie of the place: as we in England are said to goe vp to London, from all the parts of the land, because it is the cheife citie.

The second thing to be considered in the iourney is, the time when, in these words, then after fourteene yeares. Here two questions are to be demaunded. The first is, of which of his iourneies must this be vnderstood? (for he made fiue iournies to Ierusalem.) The first, from Arabia: the second, when he and Barnabas were sent by the Church of the Gentiles to carrie almes to Ierusalem: the third, when he went to the Councell at Ierusalem: the fourth, when he went vp for the keeping of his vowe: the last, is mentioned Act. 19. 21. Answ. These words are not spoken of the first, for that was but three yeares after his conuersion: neither can they well be vnderstood of the second, because Paul then was sent by the Church, and therefore he went not by reuelation. And they cannot well be vnderstood of the third: for then Paul would here haue mentioned the Councell of Ierusalem, whereof he was a principall member, specially seeing he hath occasion so to doe, and it serued much for his purpose. The fourth, & fifth iourneys were after a longer time then fourteene yeares. It is likely therefore, that this iourney here mentioned, and described by Paul, is none of the fiue mentioned by Luke, but some other. The second question is, When these fourteene yeares must beginne? Ans. It is vncerten. Some thinke, they must beginne at his conuersion; some three yeares after, when Paul went first to Ierusalem: and either may be a truth. None must here take offēce. For though circumstances of time, and place, beeing things of lesse moment, cannot alwaies be certenly gathered, yet histories for their substance and doctrines pertaining to saluation are plainly set downe. And here we are put in minde, to be content to be ignorant in some things, because the spirit of God hath more darkly expressed them, or againe because we cannot, by reason of our blindnes, gather them.

The third point is, concerning the companions of Paul in this iourney, namely Barnabas, and Titus. And Paul takes them with him, that they might be witnesses to the Iewes of the doctrine he taught among the Gentiles: and againe, to the Gentiles of the consent that was betweene him, and the rest of the Apostles For the law of God is, that euery matter shall be established by the testimonie of two, or three witnesses. Hence we learne, that if a question arise of the doctrine which is deliuered in the publike Ministerie, then the hearers that are able to iudge, must be witnesses, and the triall is to be made by them. Thus saith Christ in the like case, Why aske ye me? aske them that heard me, Ioh. 18. 21. Therefore great care, and circumspection is to be had of things publikely deliuered. Againe, whereas Paul makes Barnabas a Iew, and Titus a Gentile, his companions, we are taught, to imbrace with a brotherly loue, not onely the men of our owne countrey, but also such as be of other nations, specially if they beleeue. For then they are all children of one father, and pertaine all to one familie: and there is no difference of nations now. It is a fault therefore, that men of one nation carrie in their hearts, a generall dislike, and hatred oftentimes of them with whome they deale and conuerse, and that because they are of such, or such countries.

The fourth point is, the cause of his iourney, in these words, and I went by reuelation. Here we are taught, that for the iournies we make, we are to haue some good and sufficient warrant: though not a reuelation, yet a commandement, or that which counteruailes a commandement: as when we trauaile by vertue of our, callings. When Noe had made the Arke, he enters into it at Gods commandement: he abides in it: and when the earth was in part dried, he presumes not to goe out, till the Lord bad him. Here, three sorts of men are to be blamed. Pilgrimes, that trauell to Ierusalem, or other countries in way of merit, or religion. For they haue no warrant. Secondly, trauellers, that goe from countrey to countrey, and out of the precincts of the Church, vpon vaine curiositie, to see fashions. Such when they trauell from their own countries, yet they trauell not from their vices, but rather goe deeper into them, and come home againe, with many bad and corrupt fashions. The last, are beggers, & Rogues, that passe from place to place, that they may'l ue in idlenes, & vpō the sweat of other mens brows.

Thus much of the iourney: now followes the Conference, in these words; and I communicated, &c. Here generally I gather, that Conferences both priuate, and publike, are laudible, and to be maintained; specially, when they tend to the maintenance of vni[illegible: 1 letter]ie, and consent in doctrine. The Papists blame vs Protestants, for condemning Conferences (as they say) and Councells. But they doe vs wrong. Indeede the Councell of Trent we reiect, and condemne. For in it, against all equitie, the Pope was both partie, and iudge. In it there was no libertie to make triall of truth. For nothing was propounded but by the liking and consent of the Pope. Againe, the whole Councell consisted of such as were of the Italian faction, whose faith was pinned on the Popes sleeue. Neuerthelesse, we allow all Christian Councells, lawfully gathered: and we desire there might be a Generall Councell, for the triall of truth, and for the staying of vnsetled minds: these three caueats beeing remembred. One, that the Councell be gathered by Christian Princes, to whom the right of calling a Councell belongs. The other, that the Pope be no iudge, but a partie. The third, that Christ in his word be the iudge, and that the Delegates in the Councell be but as witnesses, determining all things by the written word.

In this conference, we are first to consider the manner of conferring, which was vsed. Paul saith, he communicated with them, that is, he laid downe vnto them, and expounded the Gospel which he preached; and this he did priuatly, that is, with the Apostles, one by one, in plaine and familiar manner, as one friend doth with an other. Therefore for the maintaining of this conference, there was no assembly made, neither was there any disputation held. Onely Paul declares his doctrine, and they giue assent. Hence it appeares, that Paul doth not submit the truth of his doctrine to triall. For he was resolued of it, and he accursed him that taught otherwise: but his intent was to seeke the approbation of the Apostles, that he might stop the mouth of his aduersaries.

The second point is, the matter of the conference, and that is the Gospel which Paul preached. Here the Papist gathereth, that the Church is the iudge, in all questions pertaining to religion, and the word: because it is here the thing that is iudged. I answer, first, that they gather amisse. For Paul doeth not here submit the Gospel which he preached, to the iudgement of the Church of Ierusalem. And it is false, which they teach: for the soueraigne Iudge of all questions, and controuersies in religion, is Christ alone. The power to determine and resolue in cases concerning faith, and good life, is inseperably annexed to his person; and in it are we to rest. The principall voice of the iudge, and the definitiue sentence, is the written word. And the office of the Church, is no more but to gather, declare, testifie, and pronounce this sentence. It is obiected, that when a question is propounded, the scripture cannot speake, nor Christ in the Scripture, but the Church onely: I answer againe, that God ascribes to the written word, a voice, or speech, Rom. 3. 19. and the scripture speakes sufficiently, to the resoluing of any mans, conscience, in all matters pertayning to saluation. Again, they alleadge, that the Church is before the scripture; and therfore it beeing most auncient, must be the Iudge. I answer, that the Church was before the writing of the word, but not before the word which is written. For the church presupposeth faith, and faith presupposeth a word of God. Vpon this our doctrine, they further vpbraid vs, that we wil be tried by nothing, but by the scriptures, euen as the malefactour, that will not be tried by the Quest, but by the euidence. I answer, for the satisfying of our aduersaries, we submit our selues to the triall of the Church and Councels, so be it, the three cautions before remēbred, be duly obserued: specially, that all things be iudged, and tried by the written word, and by reasons gathered thence.

Againe, the Papists hence gather, that the scriptures are to be approoued by the Church. Ans. Thus much we graunt: yet so, as we hold, that the principal approbatiō of the word, (wherby we are mooued to beleeue and obey,) is in the word, & frō the word, and not from the church. For the scripture hath his euidence within itselfe, which is sufficient to make vs beleeue the word to be the word, though the Church should say nothing.

The third point is, concerning the persons, with whome Paul conferred: namely, with them that were the cheife, that is, with them that were in price and account, as Peter, Iames, &c. Here we see, what is the honour and worshippe that is due to excellent men, namely, a pretious and reuerend estimation. Thus the name of Dauid was in price in Israel for his vertues. 1. Sam. 18. last, And thus with the Papists, are we content to honour the Saints. Again, here the Papists gather, that they are hereticks, that after Pauls example, will not go vp to Rome, to Peter, and his successour, to haue their doctrine and religion tried and examined. I answer, first, we are content to be tried by the writings of Peter, Iames, Iohn, Paul, &c. And this is the commandement of God, in doubtfull cases: To the Law and the testimonie. Isai, 8. Secondly, I answer, that we haue a commandement, not to goe vp to Rome at this day, to haue our religion tried. Reuel. 18. Come out of Babylon my people. Thirdly, I answer, that the Bishop of Rome is Peters successour, not in teaching, but in denying Christ. And the learned Papists confesse, that for this succession, they haue but a humane faith, grounded vpon humane historie.

The fourth point is, the Ende of the conference, Least I should runne, that is, least I should preach, or had preached in vaine. These words of Paul, are not simply to be taken. For the Ministerie of man, and euery sermon, brings forth the fruite which God hath appointed. And whether it be vnto the hearers, the sauour of life, or the sauour of death, it is alwaies a sweet sauour vnto God. The words therefore carrie this meaning: Least my preaching should be of lesse vse, and profit: or againe, least I should preach in vaine, in respect of that good which is looked for at the hands of an Apostle. And this Paul speakes, because a rumor went abroad, that his doctrine in many things, was contrarie to the other Apostles. And by this meanes, many were kept from receiuing the Gospell, and the faith of weake beleeuers was quenched. Now then, the ende of the conference was, to stay this false report, that the Ministerie of Paul, might haue passage, and that with greater profit.

Hence the Papists gather, that the doctrine of Paul was vncerten, and vnprofitable, till it was approoued by Peter. I answer, that Paul sought the approbation of his doctrine, at the hands of Peter, and the rest: not because it was vncerten, and vnprofitable; but because it was slaundered: and the slaunder was, that he taught otherwise then Peter did. Nowe to cut off this slander, he vseth meanes to manifest his consent with Peter, and therefore seekes approbation at his hand.

Againe, when Paul saith, Least I should runne in vaine, he giues vs to vnderstand, that the Ministerie of the word, is not a worke of ease, or pleasure, but a labour: nay a continued labour, like to the running in a race. It were therefore to be wished, that ministers of the Gospel, would so labour, and walke in this calling, that they might be able to say with Paul, I haue fought a good fight, I haue finished my course. &c. 2. Tim. 4.

Thirdly, hence it appeares, that all beleeuers should haue a certen knowledge of their faith and religion. The procuring of this, was the thing that Paul aimed at, in this conference with the Apostles at Ierusalem. We must not be as children, carried away with euery winde of doctrine, Eph. 4. 14. Gods word requires faith in vs: and faith presupposeth certen knowledge. The first, and second commandements require, that we knowe God, and his will, distinguish him from false gods, and his worshippe, from false worshippe. Here comes the fault of our times to be considered: most men among vs, doe not knowe their religion, neither can they distinguish it from errour, and false religion. A foule negligence. We take paines to learne trades, and occupations, that we may haue wherewith to preserue this temporall life: what a shame then is it, that we learne not better to know the doctrine of true religion, whereby our soules are to be saued?

Lastly, here we learne, that the office of the Minister is, not onely to teach and preach, but also to studie, and take care, howe by preaching he may doe the most good.

3. But neither yet Titus, which was with me, though he were a Grecian, was compelled to be circumcised.

After the Conference, followes the Approbation, which was giuen to Paul. It stands in foure things. The first, that the Apostles did not compell Titus to be circumcised, v. 3. The second, that they added nothing to his doctrine, v. 6. The third, that they gaue him the hands of fellowship, v. 7. The laste, that at his departure, they required of him nothing, but the giuing of Almes, v. 16.

For the first; the words, And Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, carrie this sense: I, for my part was readie to circumcise Titus, if there had beene a meete occasion: false brethren would haue imposed a necessitie vpon vs: then I and Titus refused: and the Apostles did not vrge me to circumcise him.

Here it may be demanded, howe this text can well stand with Act. 16. v. 3. for there Paul circumciseth Timothie, a Grecian: and here he refuseth to circumcise Titus, though he were a Grecian. I answer thus. Circumcision was at this time, a thing indifferent. From the first institution, to the comming, and specially to the death of Christ, it was a thing commanded, a Sacrament, and a part of Gods worship. Againe, after the planting of the Church of the newe testament, it was vtterly abolished, and a thing in respect of vse, vtterly vnlawfull. In the middle time, that is, while the Gospel was in publishing to the world, and the Church of the newe Testament was yet in founding, it was a ceremonie free, or indifferent. It may be obiected, that the whole Ceremoniall law was abolished in the death of Christ: I answer, it was so: and circumcision was abolished, in respect of faith, and conscience: yet so, as the vse therof was left to the libertie of the people of God for a while. Circumcision at this time was as a corps that is dead, yet vnburied, and onely laid out; and so it must remaine for a time, that it may be buried with honour. It may againe be obiected, that baptisme was come in the roome of circumcision: and that therefore circumcision was but an idle and emptie ceremonie. I answer, it was not vsed as a Sacrament at this time, or as a part of Gods worship, or as a matter of necessitie, but onely as a free ceremonie, and that onely then, when it tended to the edification of men.

Beeing then a thing indifferent, it might as occasion serued be vsed, or not vsed. Therefore Paul condescending to the weaknes of the beleeuing Iewes, circumcised Timothie: and that he might not offend the godly, and hinder Christian libertie, he refused to circumcise Titus.

Here a great question is answered, whether we may vse things indifferent, as oft as we will, and howe we will? The answer is, No. Things are not called indifferent, because we may vse them indifferently, or not vse them when we will, and how we will: but because in themselues, or in their owne nature, they are neither good nor euill, and we may vse them well, or ill, & we may againe not vse them well, or euill. Furthermore, there be two things which restraine the vse of things indifferent: the lawe of charitie, and the lawes of men. The lawe of charitie is this, Things indifferent in the case of scandall, cease to be indifferent, and are as things morall, that is, either forbidden, or commanded. Paul saith, if to eate flesh, be to the offence of his brother, he will eate no flesh while the world stands, 1. Cor. 8. 13. And though he circumcised Timothie, yet would he not circumcise Titus, least he should offend the godly, and by his example, hurt Christian libertie.

Likewise, the good lawes of men, whether ciuill or Ecclesiasticall, tending to the common good, and seruing for edification, restraine the vse of things indifferent, so that they which shall doe otherwise, then these lawes command, with a contemptuous, or disloyall minde, are guiltie before God; yet here two cautions must be remembred. One, that the lawes of men doe not chaunge the nature of things indifferent: for it is the propertie of God, by willing this or that, to make it good, or euill. Neither doe they take away the vse of things indifferent. For libertie graunted by a soueraigne power, cannot be reuersed by an inferiour power. Therefore humane lawes doe no more, but temper, and moderate, the ouer common vse of things indifferent. The second caution is, That when the ende of a law ceaseth, when there is no contempt of the authoritie that made the law, when no offence is giuen: a thing indifferent remaines in his free vse without sinne, or breach of conscience.

Againe, here we learne, that a thing indifferent, when it is made necessarie to saluation, (as Circumcision was) is not to be vsed. This conclusion serues to ouerthrow the Popish religion. For it stands in the obseruation of things indifferent, as meates, drinkes, apparell, times, &c. And the vsing, or the not vsing of them is made necessarie euen in regard of mans saluation. For the abstinence from things that are by nature indifferent, is made a part of Gods worship, and meritorious of eternall life. For example: to marrie, or not to marrie, is for nature a thing indifferent: and therefore when abstinence from marriage is made necessarie (as it is in diuers orders of men and women) the nature of the thing is changed, which God hath left free, and it is a doctrine of deuills, which is taught.

Here againe we learne, to make difference of persons. Some are weake, some are obstinate. Weake ones are such, as hauing turned vnto God, and carrying in their hearts a purpose in all things to please God, neuerthelesse doe sundrie things amisse, vpon simple ignorance, or badde custome, till they be better informed. Of these Paul saith, that he became all to all, that he might saue some, 1. Cor. 9. 22. and for their sakes he condescended to circumcise Timothie. And if we that haue scarce a drop of mercie in vs, must thus beare with them that are weake, much more will God doe it, who is mercie it selfe. The good shepheard brings home the stray sheepe vpon his shoulders: he carries his lambs in his bosome. Isa. 40. 11. He will not quench the smoaking flaxe, Isa. 42. he spares them that feare him, as a father spares his child. Malach. 3. 17. This beeing alwaies remembred, that weake ones truly turne to God, and carrie in their hearts an honest purpose not to sinne against his lawes at any time wittingly, and willingly. Obstinate persons, are such as professe the faith, and yet hold and practise bad things, of wilfull ignorance, and of malice. These persons are not to be borne with, nor to be respected: and in respect of them, Paul would not circumcise Titus.

Lastly, in that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, it may be demanded, whether Recusants may be compelled to the exercises of religion? I answer, yea: for exercises of religion are not things indifferent, as Circumcision was. Iosias made a couenant with the Lord, and he caused all his subiects to stand to it, 2. Chron. 34. 32. The king at the marriage feast of his sonne saith of the guests, Compell them to enter in, Luk. 14. 23. It is obiected, that men may not be compelled to beleeue. I answer: it is the commandement of God, prooue the spirits, 1. Ioh. 4. 1. and this commandement pertaines to all persons. Therfore though men may not be compelled to beleeue: yet may they be compelled to come to the congregation, to heare our sermons, and therein the reasons and grounds of our doctrine, that they may trie what is the truth, and cleaue vnto it. For this is their dutie.

4 For all the false brethren, that crept in: who came in priuily to spie out our liberite which we haue in Christ Iesus, that they might bring vs into bondage: 5 To whome we gaue not place by subiection, for an houre that the truth of the Gospel might continue with you.

Paul had said before, that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised: now he addes, For all the false brethren, that is, though the false brethren did what they could to the contrarie. Here then Paul sets downe, who were the cause that Titus was not circumcised, namely, certaine persons at Ierusalem, and them he sets forth by two properties, they are false brethren, and they crept into the Church. Touching the first, by it we learne, that the Church of God vpon earth, euen when it is at the best, hath wicked men, and hypocrites in it. In Adams family, there is Cain: in the Arke, there is Cham: in Christs family, or schoole, there is Iudas. In the Church of Ierusalem, planted and gouerned by the chiefe Apostles, there be false brethren. The true sheepe be often without, and wolues within. Therefore we may not so much as dreame of a perfection of the Church of God vpon earth; so long as wicked men be mixed with true beleeuers.

Againe, these aduersaries of Paul, are called false brethren, because they ioyned Circumcision with Christ, as a necessarie cause of iustification, and saluation. Hence it followes, that the Church of Rome, is a false Church: because it ioynes workes with Christ, in the case of our iustification, and that as meritorious causes.

Their second propertie is, that they crept into the Church, which I conceiue on this manner. The Church of God is as a sheepefold, or house, Ioh. 10. 1. Christ is the onely dore. Now Pastours, that teach Christ aright, are saide to enter in by this dore: they which teach any other way of saluation, are said to clime in an other way: and they which teach Christ, ioyning some other thing with him in the cause of saluation, are said to Creepe in: because in appearance, they maintaine Christ; and yet, because they adde something to Christ, they neither enter nor continue in the true Church, with any good warrant from God. In this, they are like the serpent. Liuing creatures were all placed in Eden: and Man was placed in the garden of Eden called Paradise, and so were not beasts. How then comes the serpent in? why, in all likelihood, it crept in. And so doe false brethren into the Church. Hence I gather that false brethren, are not true, and liuely members of the visible Church: though they be members in appearance. For if they were in their right place, they should not be said to creepe in. The true members of the Church creepe not into the mysticall bodie, but are built and set vpon the foundation by God. It may be alleadged, that they are baptised, and thereby made members of the Church. I answer: that faith makes vs members of Christ, and consequently of the true Church: and baptisme doth but seale our insition into Christ, and serues as a meanes of Admission into the outward societie of the congregation: and the outward washing doth not make any man a member of Christ. Againe, it followes hence, that false brethren are not members of the Catholike church. For the visible church is part of the Catholike: and therefore they which are not reall members of the true visible church, are not members of the Catholike.

Againe, in that false brethren creepe into the congregation, hence it appeares, that no man can set downe the precise time, when errours had their beginning. For the authors thereof enter in secretly, not obserued of men. The enuious man sowes his tares, when men be asleepe, Math. 13. It sufficeth therefore, if we can shew them to be errours by the word, though we cannot designe the set time when they began. The time when a shippe sinketh, we often obserue: but the time when it first drew water, we doe not. Let the Papists thinke vpon this.

Paul, hauing thus declared who were the causes that Titus was not circumcised; goes on, and shewes, how they were causes. The effect, and summe of his declaration, is this: They vrged the obseruation of the Ceremoniall law, as necessarie: and hereupon we resused to circumcise Titus. First therefore, Paul sets downe how they vrged circumcision, and that by three degrees. First, they come in priuily. Secondly, they spie out their libertie. Thirdly, they labour to bring them into bondage. Againe, Paul sets downe the manner of their refusall, in three things. We gaue not place for an houre. We gaue not place by subiection. We gaue no place, that the truth of the Gospel might continue with you.

The first degree or steppe in their vrging of circumcision, was, that They came in priuily: that is, they ioyned themselues in fellowship with the Apostles, & in shew pretended the furtherance of the Gospel: & yet indeed meant nothing lesse: though their fraud, & wickednes was not perceiued. Here then the foū dation they lay of all their naughtie dealing, is their dissēbling, which Paul here notes & condemns. On the contrarie, our dutie is, to be indeed that which we professe our selues to be: & to professe no more outwardly, then we are inwardly: and to approue our hearts to god, for that which we professe before mē.

The second steppe or degree is, that they spie out the libertie vvhich Paul, and the rest had by Christ: that is, they conferre with the Apostles, and inquire of them what libertie they haue by Christ, in respect of the Ceremoniall lawe of God: and this they doe, not of a minde desirous to learne, but for aduantage sake. There be two kinds of spying: one lawefull, the other vnlawefull. Lawefull, as when in iust and lawefull warre, we inquire into the counsells and doings of our enemtes. Numb. 13. 1. Vnlawefull, when men prie into any thing, or matter, to finde a fault. Thus hypocrites spie faults in the persons and liues of men; that they may haue somwhat whereby to disgrace them, Math. 7. 4. Thus Atheists prie into the scriptures, that they may confute them. Thus sundrie hearers, come to sermōs, that they may carpe. Thus our enemies, inquire into our religion, that they may finde (as they suppose) exceptions, vntruthes, and contradictions. And in the Church of Ierusalem, false brethren inquire, how farre Christian liberty extends, that they may ouerthrow it. This kind of spying, is a common fault; we must take heede of it, and apply the eie of our minde to a better vse. First, we are to be spies, in respect of our owne sinnes, and corruptions, to spie them out. Lam. 3. 40. Let us search our waies, and inquire, and turne againe to the Lord. Again, we are to plaie the spies, in respect of our spirituall enemies, that we may finde out the temptations of the flesh, the world, and the deuill. Thirdly, we must be as spies, in searching of the Scriptures. Ioh. 5. 39. that we may vnderstand the words of the lawe of God, and find comfort to our soules.

The third and last degree of vrging, is, that the false brethren seeke to bring the Apostles in bondage, that is, to binde them to a necessarie obseruation of the ceremoniall lawe. Here let vs marke the practise, and pollicie of the deuill. Libertie from sinne, death, and the ceremoniall lawe, is the treasure of the Church: and therefore the deuill seekes to ouerthrow it, by holding men in bondage vnder abolished ceremonies. Thus at this day, they of the popish Church, are in bondage vnder an heape of humane traditions, beeing indeede, a yoake farre heauier, then that of the ceremoniall-lawe. Againe, when men professe the name of Christ, the deuill is content with it: and he indeauours with all his might, euery where to hold them vnder the bondage of sinne, and to hold them in his snare at his will. Thus vnder the name of Christianitie, there be swarmes of Atheists, Epicures, Libertines, worldlings, and prophane persons. At this time, according to auncient custome, we celebrate the memoriall of the birth of Christ: and yet no time so full of disorder as this. For the most that professe Christ, take and challenge to themselues, a licentious libertie, to liue and doe as they list: and this kind of libertie, is flat bondage. But they that are seruants of Christ indeed, should take heede of this bondag[illegible: 1 letter]: For beeing free from sinne, they should be seruants of nothing but righteousnesse, Rom. 6. 18. They that be of a corporation, stand for their liberties: what a shame then is it, that men should loue bondage, and neglect the spirituall libertie, which they haue by Christ.

Thus, we see, howe the false brethren vrged circumcision: now let vs come to Pauls refusall. The first point is, that they would not giue place for an houre. It seemes they were requested to vse circumcision but once; but they would not yeeld, so much as once: because their acte would haue tended to the preiudice of Christian liberty, in all places. Here we learne, that we may not vse the least ceremonie that is, in the case of confession; before our aduersaries, that is, when they seeke to oppresse the trueth, by face, or by fraud, and make ceremonies, signes, and tokens, of the confession of any vntrueth. Iulian the Emperour sitting in a chaire of estate, gaue gold to his souldiers, one by one, withal cōmāding to cast of frākincense, so much as a graine into the fire, that lay vpon an heathenish altar, before Theodoret. bist. lib. 4. c. 16. him. Nowe Christ in souldiers refuse to do it: and they which had not refused, afterward recalled their acte, and willingly suffered death.

Againe, here we learne, that we are not to yeeld from the least part of the trueth of the Gospel, that God hath reuealed to vs. This truth is more pretious, then the whole world beside: and heauen and earth shall rather passe, then the least tittle of it shall not be accomplished. The commission of the Apostles, was to teach them, to doe all things, which God had commanded. Therefore the vnion or mixture of our religion with the popish religion, is but a dreame of vnwise Politickes: for in this mixture, we must yeeld, and they must yeeld something: but we may not yeeld a iot of the truth reuealed to vs. There is no fellowship of light with darkenesse. 1. Cor. 6. Colacinthus a naughtie pot hearbe, marred a whole pot of pottage. 2. King. 4. 40. Christ saith in the like case of the Pharisies; Let them alone: they are the blinde leaders of the blind, Math. 15. 14. We may yeeld in things indifferent, but not in points of religion. In matters of this world, we may be indifferent, and of neither side: but in matters of God, we may not. There is no halting betweene two religions.

The second point is, they gaue not place by way of subiection. The reason is, the Apostles were of highest authoritie, Luk. 10. 16. simply to be beleeued in their doctrine. And they had extraordinarie authoritie, to punish them that rebelliously withstood them. Act. 5. 5. & 10. & Act. 13. 20. 2. Cor. 10. 6. For this cause, they were not to stand subiect to the iudgement, and censure of any man. They willingly suffered their doctrine to be tried; yet were they not bound to subiection, as other ministers of the new testament are, 1. Cor. 14. 32. 1. Ioh. 4. 1. It may be said, if they would not giue place by subiection, howe then gaue they place? Answer. There is two kinds of yeelding: one by tolleration without approbation, the other by subiection, which is the greatest approbation that can be. By the first, it may be, Paul was content to giue place, but not by the second. Here we see, howe we are to yeeld, to the corruptions of the times, in which we liue, whether they be in manners, or in doctrine. We are to giue place by meeke and patient bearing of that which we cannot mende, but we are not to giue place by subiection.

The third point is, the ende of Pauls refusall, That the truth of the Gospell might continue: that is, that the Gospel might be preserued in puritie, and integritie in all things. And by this Paul giues vs to vnderstand, that if circumcision be made a necessarie cause of iustification, and saluation, the truth of the Gospel doeth not continue. Here let vs obserue, that when iustification, or saluation is ascribed to workes, or Sacraments, the truth of the Gospell giues place, and falshood comes in the roome. Wherefore the religion of the Church of Rome, is a meere deprauation of the Gospel, for it makes workes to be the meritorious causes of iustification, & saluation. Nay, which is more, it teacheth men to worship a peece of bread, and to invocate dead men, and to kneele downe to stockes, and stones.

6 And of them that seemed to be great I learned nothing, or, I was not taught.—:(what they were in times past, it makes no matter to me: God accepteth no mans person:) for they that are the cheife, did not communicate any thing to me.

Here Paul laies downe the second signe of his approbation, namely, that in conference, he learned nothing of the cheife Apostles. And this he expresseth in the first words: in which, the concealement which he vseth, is to be obserued. For hauing begun a sentence, he breakes it off in the middle, and conceales the latter part, and leaues it to be supplied by the reader thus, Of them that seemed to be great, I was not taught, or, I learned nothing. The like forme of speaking, is vsed 1. Chron. 4. 10. Where Iabez saith, If the Lord blesse me and be with me; concealing the end of his sentence, I will be thankefull, thus, and thus.

In the roome of this concealement, Paul puts an answer to an obiection. For some man might take exception, against his former speech, thus: Thou callest the Apostles Great, but thou speakest fainedly: for thou knowest, they were but poore fishermen. To this he makes answer thus: What they were once, it makes no matter to me. Then he renders a reason of his answer: God accepts no mans person. This done, he proceeds, and renders a reason of his first speech: he learned nothing of the cheefe Apostles: because, they did not communicate any thing to him, either in doctrine or counsell.

The vse. This verse serues to expound other places in S. Iohn. Where Christ promiseth to giue his spirit to his Disciples, to teach them all things, Ioh. 14. 26. and to led them into all truth, Ioh. 16. 13. Now these promises directly, and properly, concerne the Apostles: and they are here verified in Paul. Who was so farre forth taught by God, and lead into all truth, that the cheife Apostles could not teach, or communicate, any thing to him. For all this, though Paul and the rest, were led into all truth, that they could not erre, yet were they not led into all holinesse of life, that they could not sinne. Paul saith, to will is present with me, but he addes, that he cannot doe the good he would. Christ saith to all the Apostles, He that is washed and is all cleane, must still haue his feete washed, Ioh. 13. 10. Wherefore they are to be rebuked, that thinke there must be no want at all in them that are Preachers of the Gospel: and hereupon take occasion to despise their Ministerie, if they can spie any thing amisse in their doings. Vpon the same ground, they might reiect the Ministerie of the Apostles. For though they could not erre in preaching, and writing, and though they had no neede to be taught of any man, yet were they not free from sinne in their liues; and the chiefe of them sundrie times fayled.

Againe, here we learne, that there is a good, and lawfull kind of boasting: and that is, when a man is disgraced, and his disgrace is the dishonour of God, and the disgrace of the Gospel. This makes Paul here to say, that he learned nothing of the chiefe Apostles. For if he had said otherwise, he should haue bin reputed to be no more but an ordinarie disciple: and the doctrine, which he taught before this conference, should haue bin called in question. For this cause, he stands vpon it, that they did not communicate any thing vnto him. Vpon the like occasion he professeth that he will boast, 2. Cor. 11. 16. Here the saying of Salomon may be obiected, Let an other mans mouth praise thee, and not thine owne, Prou. 27. 2. I answer, it sufficeth for the truth of sundrie prouerbs, if they be commonly, ordinarily, and vsually true, though they be not generally true. Thus ordinarily, men are not to praise themselues: yet in a speciall and extraordinarie case, it may be otherwise, And the manner which Paul vseth in commending of himselfe, is to be obserued. First, he doth it in great modestie: because in speaking of himselfe, he concealeth that part of the sentence, which should haue serued to expresse his praise. Secondly, in praising of himselfe, he is not carried with enuie, but his care is, to maintaine the good name of the rest of the Apostles; when he saith, What they haue bin, it is no matter to me. Here then we see, that the Atheists doe Paul wrong, who challenge him for pride, and presumption, as though he could not brooke an equall, and withall skorned to learne of any. Againe, by Pauls example we are to take notice of a common sinne. Mens hearts are so possessed with selfe-loue, and they are so addicted to their owne praise, that it is griefe to them, to heare any praised beside thēselues: whereas loue binds vs as well to take care for the good name of others, as of our owne.

When Paul saith, What they were in times past, it matters not to me: we learne, that we are to esteeme of men, not as they haue bin, but as they are. Peter, Iames, and Iohn, though they had bin fishermen, yet are they honoured of Paul, as Apostles. Therefore when men haue repented, we may not vpbraid thē with their liues past. Neither may we take occasion to contemne them that be in authoritie; because we haue knowne what they haue bin heretofore: but euery man is to be esteemed according to his calling, and according to the grace of God giuen him. Like is Gods mercifull dealing toward vs. For he accepts men, not as they haue bin, but as they are when they repent. Therefore if Sathan shall at any time obiect thy life past: say vnto him thus: Tell me not what I haue bin: but tell me what I am, and what I will be. This sufficeth when we repent.

God accepteth the person of no man] By person is meant, not the substance of a man, or the man himselfe, but the outward qualitie, or condition of man, as countrey, sexe, birth, condition of life, riches, pouertie, nobilitie, wisdome, learning, &c. And God is saide, not to accept the person, because he doth call men, bestow his gifts, and giue iudgement, according to his owne wise and iust pleasure, and not according to the outward appearance, and condition of the person. Read Iob. 34. 19. It may be obiected, that God deales not equally with them that are equall: because all men are equall in Adam, and of them he chooseth some to eternall life, and refuseth others. I answer: he is said to accept persons, that deales vnequally with men, beeing bound to deale equally: now God is not thus bound: because he is a soueraigne, and absolute Lord ouer all his creatures, and may doe with his owne what he will, Math. 20. 16. Secondly, it may be obiected, that God had respect to Abel, and his sacrifice, Gen. 4. 4. Ans. The condition of man is twofold, outward, inward. Outward, standes in worldly, and ciuill respects. Inward, standes in a pure heart, good conscience, and faith vnfained. For this onely was Abel respected, Hebr. 11. 4. Though God accept not the outward person, yet in euery nation he that feareth God, is accepted of him, Act. 10. 34. Thirdly, it may be obiected, that God iudgeth euery man according to his workes. Ans. Though workes appeare outwardly, yet the roote and ground of them, is in the heart. And the iudgement of God is according to them, as they are fruits of the faith of the heart.

The vse. All men are in this to be like vnto God their heauenly father: not accepting persons in their dealings. As Magistrates in the exequution of iustice, Deut. 1. 17. Ministers in teaching, and in the reproouing of sinne, Mark. 12. 14. and all beleeuers, who are not to haue religion in acceptation of persons, Iam. 12. 1. This acceptation is the ruine of societies. And it is the common fault. For vsually elections are made, offices bestowed, and iustice exequuted with partialitie, and with blind respects to countrey, kinred, friendship, money.

Secondly, we are all taught, to feare the iudgement of God, and to prepare our selues with all diligence, that we may be found worthie to stand before God, in that great day. For we must come naked before him, and he will haue no respect to our birth, our riches, our learning. Therefore it is good for vs now to put on Christ, that in him we may be accepted. For with him the father is well pleased.

Thirdly, we may not set our hearts vpon the outward things of this world: because God doth not respect vs for them. But we are earnestly to seeke after the things that make vs accepted with God; as true faith, righteousnes, and good conscience. Rom. 14. 17.

Againe, superiours must be admonished to deale moderately with their inferiours, Coloss. 2. 11. Againe, inferiours are to comfort themselues, if they be oppressed: in that God the iudge of all, accepts no persons.

Lastly, here we learne, that when we shall haue immediate fellowship with God in heauen, all outward respect of persons shall cease. God himselfe, and the lamb Christ Iesus, shall be all in all to the Elect.

In the ende of the verse, Paul addes: for they communicated nothing to me. but to the contrarie Rom. 1. 12. may be obiected. Where Paul desires to come to Rome, that he might be comforted by their mutuall faith both his, and theirs. Answ. Though the Apostles did communicate nothing to Paul in respect of doctrine, or iudgement; yet might they, or the meanest beleeuers, conferre something vnto him, in respect of comfort, or the confirmation of his faith: and thus much he signifieth to the Romanes. Here is a good item for them, that come to no sermons, because they can learne nothing. Put the case they were as learned as the Apostles, yet might they profit in hearing in respect of comfort, of faith, and good affection.

7 But on the contrarie, when they saw that the Gospel ouer the vncircumcision was committed vnto me, as the Gospel ouer the circumcision was to Peter: 8 (For he that was mightie by Peter in the Apostleship ouer the circumcision, was also mightie by me toward the Gentiles.) 9 And when Iames, and Cephas, and Iohn, knew the grace of God that was giuen to me, which are accounted pillars, they gaue to me, and to Barnabas, the right hād of fellowship, that we should preach to the Gentiles, & they vnto the Circumcision.

The wordes of more difficultie, are thus to be explaned. Contrariwise] that is, they did communicate nothing to me in way of correction, but on the contrarie they gaue me the hand of fellowship. Againe, the words [Circumcision, and vncircumcision] signifie the nation of the Iewes, and the Gentiles, the one circūcised, the other vncircūcised. And whē Paul saith, that the grace of God was giuen to him, he meanes specially, the gift of an Apostle. Rom. 1. 5. Lastly, to giue the right hand of fellowshippe to Paul, is to esteeme and acknowledge him, for their collegue, or fellowe Apostle, by giuing the right hand in token thereof.

The contents of the words are these. Here Paul sets downe the third signe of his approbation, namely, that the cheife Apostles acknowledged him for their fellow Apostle, v. 9. Secondly, he sets down the manner, how the cheefe Apostles acknowledged this fellowship: and that was, by making a couenant with Paul, that he should preach to the Gentiles, and Peter to the Iewes. Thirdly, he sets down the impulsiue cause, that mooued the Apostles to receiue Paul to their fellowship: and that was the decree of God, whereby he ordained, that Paul should be the cheife Apostle to the Gentiles, and Peter the cheife Apostle among the Iewes, v. 7. Lastly, he sets down the signes, whereby the Apostles knew, that Paul was ordained the Apostle of the Gentiles: and they are two, the grace of god giuen him, and the power of his Ministerie, among the Gentiles, v. 8, 9. Furthermore, the things here contained, are in a syllogisme disposed, thus: When the Apostles saw that I was ordained the cheife Apostle of the Gentiles, and Peter of the Iewes, they acknowledged me for their fellow Apostle, and made a couenant with me, that I should preach to the Gentiles, and Peter to the Jewes. But when I was with them at Ierusalem, they saw that I was ordained the cheife Apostle of the Gentiles, and Peter of the Iewes.

This minor is omitted, yet the proofe thereof, is set down thus. For they saw the efficacie of my ministerie among the Gentiles, and the grace of God that was with me. Therefore they acknowledged me for their fellow Apostle, &c.

The vse. This text makes notably against the primacie of Peter. First therefore, let vs obserue the Ordinance of God here plainely expressed, that Paul should be the cheife Apostle of the Gentiles, and Peter the cheife Apostle of the Iewes. And this may else where be gathered. For the commission of the twelue Apostles ran thus, that they must first preach to Ierusalem and Iudea, then to Samaria: and in the last place; to the vttermost part of the earth. Act. 1. 8. And Pauls commission was, that he should first preach to the Gentiles, and in the second place to the people of Israel, Act. 9. 16. It may be obiected, that the commission of all the Apostles, was to goe into all the world, and to preach to all men without exception, Mar. 16. 15. Answer. This power and libertie, Christ gaue to all the Apostles, and he did not take it away afterward: neuerthelesse, he ordered it by a second decree, that Paul should specially haue care of the Gentiles, and Peter of the Iewes. And this the Lord did in great wisdome, that confusion and discord might be auoided, and a regard had of all prouinces through the world.

Hence it followes, that the primacie of Peter, ouer Iewes & Gentiles, is a supposed thing. For the ordinance of God, is, that Peter shall be cheife ouer the Iewes, and not ouer the Gentiles, which were almost all the world beside. And thus the supremacie of the Pope goes to the ground, for if he hold of Peter, and succeede him in authoritie, and office, (as he pretends) he must challenge a superioritie ouer the Iewes, and he hath nothing to doe with vs. For Paul was cheife ouer the Gentiles, and not Peter.

Secondly, this Ordinance of God giues vs to vnderstand, that the place, Math. 16. 18. Thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke will I build my Church, &c. and I wil giue thee the keies of the kingdome of heauen: doth not containe a promise made to Peter, of a primacie ouer all the Apostles, and ouer the Catholike church. If Christ had meant any such thing, in these words, he would not haue assigned the Iewes to Peter, and all the nations of the world beside, to Paul. Thus we see, how this text, for many hū dred yeares, hath beene abused, and is still, at this day.

Thirdly, it is false which the Papists teach, that the place in S. Iohn, Feede my lambes, and, feede my sheepe, giues a primacie to Peter, ouer the whole world. For by the ordinance of God, this feeding of lambes, and sheep, is limited to the nation of the Iewes.

Lastly, whereas Eusebius saith in his Chronicle, that Peter was Bishop of Rome, and sate there 25. years, it hath no likelihood of truth: for then Peter liued in the breach of an expresse commandement of God, for a long time: because the Iewes were his speciall charge.

Againe, it is to be obserued in this text, that Iames, Peter, Iohn, are made equall, all being pillars; and Iames is first named: and that not without cause. For not Peter, but Iames was the President of the councell of Ierusalem: because he spake the last, and concluded all, Act. 15. 13. Therefore the first naming of Peter, in other places of scripture, is no sufficient proofe of his supremacie.

Thirdly, Peter here is said to make a couenant with Paul, that he shall be the Apostle of the Gentiles, and Peter of the Iewes. But if Peter had bin head of the Church for 14, yeares togither; and had but known the primacie, which the Papists giue to him, he would not haue consented to this order. It is alleadged, that Paul was the cheife Apostle ouer the Gentiles, in respect of paines and labour, and not in respect of iurisdiction. I answer, this distinction hath no ground in the word of God. Againe, Paul was an Apostle, and vsed his Apostolicall authoritie ouer the Gentiles: and there is no Ecclesiasticall person that is, or can be aboue an Apostle. For he was simply to be beleeued in preaching and writing, and had extraordinarie power giuen him by God, to punish them that rebelled.

Againe, Paul here saith, that the Gospel was committed to him and Peter, that is, that they were put in trust with it. Hence we learne 3. things. The first, that the Gospel is not ours, but gods; and that men are but the keepers of it. For this we are to praise God. The second is, that the ministers of the word, are to keep, and maintaine the truth of it, with all faithfulnesse and good conscience: and further, to apply it to the best vse, and to the greatest good of men. For this charge lies vpon them that are put in trust. The third is, that the Gospel is a speciall treasure. For this, we in England are to giue vnto God all thankfulnes, specially, by bringing forth the fruits of the Gospel. In this dutie the most of vs come short: and therfore we may iustly feare, least God take from vs the gospel of life, and giue it to a nation, that will bring forth the fruit of it.

Moreouer, in that Paul saith, that God was mightie by him, and Peter, to the Iewes and Gentiles, we are to consider the efficacie of the Ministerie. Of it three cautions are to be obserued. The first, that grace or power to regenerate, is not included in the word preached, as vertue to heale, in a medicine: Paul saith, He that planteth, and he that watereth is not any thing, 1. Cor. 3. 7. To regenerate, is the proper worke of God, not agreeing to angels, no not to the flesh of Christ, exalted aboue men and angels. For the vertue to renew or regenerate, is not in it, as in a subiect, but in the godhead of the sonne. The second caution is, that grace is not inseparably annexed, and tyed, to the word preached, for to some it is the sauour of death, to death. The third is, that the preaching of the word is an externall instrument of faith, and regeneration: and the proper effect of it, is to declare, or signifie. And it is an instrument: because, when the ministers of the word, doe by it signifie and declare, what is to be done, and what is the will of God, the spirit of God inwardly inlightens the minde, and inclines the heart to beleeue, and obey. Hence we learne that it is a magicall fiction, to suppose that fiue words, For this is my bodie, should transubstantiate the bread, into the bodie of Christ. Secondly, we learne, that the Sacraments doe not conferre grace, ex opere operato, by the worke done. For the word and Sacraments, are both of one nature (Sacraments beeing a visible word.) Now the word, & the preaching of it, doth not conferre grace, but onely declare what God will conferre. Thirdly, by this it appeares, that charmes or spels, haue not force in them to cure diseases, and to worke wonders, but by satanicall operation. For the best word of all, euen the word preached, hath it not. Lastly, we are here to be put in mind, that we loose no time in hearing of the word; for it is a meanes whereby we are clensed and renewed. Euery branch that bringeth forth fruit, God purgeth it by his word and other meanes, that it may bring forth more fruite, Ioh. 15.

It is a thing to be obserued, that the Apostles at Ierusalem, acknowledged Paul to be an Apostle: because he had the gift of an Apostle, and because his ministerie was powerfull amōg the Gentiles. Therefore, they which haue the gift of teaching, by whome also God is powerfull in the conuersion of sinners, are Ministers certenly called of God. Let them thinke on this, that vtterly condemne the ministerie of the Church of England. For many teachers among vs, can shew both the gift of teaching, and the power, or efficacy of their ministery.

It is worth the marking also, that the Apostles are called Pillars. Here we see, what is the charge of the ministers of the word, namely, to sustaine and to vphold the Church, by doctrine, praier, counsel, good life. Elizeus is called of Ioas, The charrets and horsemen of Israel, 2. King. 13. 4. And the Church of God vpon earth, is called the Pillar and ground of trueth, in respect of the Ministerie of the word. 1. Tim. 3. 15.

Againe, in that all ministers in their places (according to the measure of gifts receiued) are pillars, they are admonished hereby to be constant in the truth, against all enemies whatsoeuer. It is the praise of Iohn the Baptist, that he was not as a reed shaken of the winde, Math. 11. 7. All beleeuers are to stand fast in temptation, against their spirituall enemies, Eph. 6. 13. and this they shall the better doe, if they be directed by the good example of their teachers.

Thirdly, in that Ministers are pillars, we are taught to cleaue vnto them, and their ministerie, at all times, in life and death. For we are liuing stones in the temple of God, Christ is our foundation, and they be pillars to hold vs vp: and therefore not to be forsaken. Deut. 12. 19.

Furthermore, Paul at this time was not accounted a pillar: for he saith thus, Iames, Cephas, Iohn, are accounted pillars; as who should say, I am accounted none. Thus Paul goes through good report, and euill report, and is content to be contemned.

Lastly, the example of concord among the Apostles is to be obserued: in that they giue the right hands of fellowship one to an other.

10 Warning onely that we should remember the poore: which thing also I was diligent to doe.

In these words, Paul sets downe the fourth and last signe of his approbation at Ierusalem, on this manner. At my departing the Apostles warned me to remember the poore, and of no other thing did they giue me warning: therefore there was a full and perfect consent betweene vs.

In the wordes, two things are set downe, the Apostolicall warning, and the practise of it by Paul. The warning in these words, [Warning onely that we should remember the poore.] In them three points are to be considered. The first, that the Church of Ierusalem is in extreame pouertie. And the causes of it may be two. The first, because the poorer sort receiued the Gospel: thus it was in Corinth, 1. Cor. 1, 26. Not many wise according to the flesh, not many mightie, not many noble. The like we in experience at this day: the poorer sort among vs doe more heartily receiue it then they of the richer sort. By this we are taught, that we may not fixe our loue, and our confidence vpon riches: & they that buie, must be as though they bought not, and they that possesse, as though they possessed not. Because riches steale away the heart. The second cause of their pouertie was, that they were depriued of their riches for the profession of the name of Christ. 1. Thess. 2. 14. Heb. 10. 34. Here we are taught to sit downe, and to recken what the profession of Christ will cost vs to the vttermost: and we must put this in our account, that we must be readie, and willing to part with the deerest things in the world, for the name of Christ. And this reckning and resolution must we daily carrie about with vs.

The second point is, Why the Church of Ierusalem must be releeued by the Gentiles, considering by Gods law Deut. 15. 11. euery place must releeue his owne poore. Ans. We are first of all, debters to our owne poore, and they must first be releeued: this done (in the case of extreame necessitie) we are debters to the poore a thousand miles off. And in this case, did the Apostles craue releefe of the Gentiles, for them of Ierusalem.

The third point is, that the Apostles themselues are carefull for the gathering of releefe. Hence we learne, that it is the office of Pastours and teachers, not only to preach and dispence the word, but also to haue care of the poore: and this care is to be shewed in exhortation, counsell, ouersight. As for the administration and execution of matters belonging to the poore, it belongs to others. If the Apostles at any time gathered, carried, and dispensed releefe, it was because the Church was not yet founded, and planted, and therefore there was no other to doe it.

Now I come to the practise of Paul, in these words; Which thing also I was diligent to doe it. Here first let vs marke, that Paul who had spoiled and made hauocke of the Church of Ierusalem, now gathers releefe, (and as we say) begges for it: and, no doubt, the rather that he may make some recompence for the wrong he had done. By his example we are taught to make Satisfaction for all iniuries and hurts done to others, and that to the vttermost. He that steales, according to the qualitie of his theft, must restore either twofold, or fourefold, Exod. 22. 7. he that maimes a man must pay for his healing, and for his resting, that is, for the losse of his labour, Exod. 21. 19. Daniel saith to Nabuchadnezzar, O King, breake off thy sinnes with almes deedes, Dan. 4. 24. that is, whereas thou hast bin giuen to crueltie, and oppression, cease to doe so any more, and make some recompence by giuing of almes. Dauid saith, it is the propertie of a wicked man, to borrow, and not to repay, Psal. 37. 21. Satisfaction, recompence, and restitution, is the way to life by the appointment of God. Ezech. 18. 7. and 33. 15. If thou restore the pledge, and repay that which thou hast robbed, thou shalt liue, and not die. The Lord saith, Are the treasures of wickednes yet in the house of the wicked? and he addes, that he will not iustifie the false ballance, Mich. 6. 10, 11. Zacheus, in his conuersion for known wrongs, restores fourefold: and for his vnknown wrongs he giues halfe his goods to the poore. Luk. 19. 7.

Let vsurers, ingrossers, and all that oppresse, or deale deceitfully, remember this; and begin to make conscience of this du ty of Satisfaction, or restitution. And that it may the better be practised, I will further set downe fiue points.

The first is, who must satisfie and restore? Ans. He that is the cause of any wrong, or losse to others: and all they that are accessarie. Men may be accessarie many waies, by commaundement, by counsell, by consent, by partnership, by receiuing, by silence when a man ought to speake, by not hindring when he ought to hinder, by not manifesting that which we ought to manifest.

The second is, To whom must restitution be made? Ans. To him that is wronged, and beares the losse, (if the partie be knowne and aliue:) if he be dead, to his heires: if all be dead, to the poore. If the person wronged be not knowne to vs (as often it falls out) then restitution is to be made to the Church, or commonwealth, and restitution is to be turned into Almes for the poore. Dan. 4. 24. Moreouer, if both the giuing and the receiuing of a thing be vnlawfull, as in bribes, and Simoniacall gifts; restitution is not to be made to the giuer, but, as before, it is to be applied to common vse, specially to releefe.

The third point is, What must be restored? Ans. The things which are of vsvniustly receiued, or deteined, either known to vs, or vnknowne. If they be knowne, they are in their owne kind to be restored, or in value, Exod. 21. 19. If the partie, who is to restore, be in extreame pouertie, and haue not wherewith to make recompence, he must doe that which he can, that is, he must shew a readie and willing minde: and this is done by confession, and by crauing of pardon. If goods to be restored, be for their value and quātitie vnknowne, then restitution must be made according to the iudgement, and discretion of them that are wise.

The fourth point is, touching the time when? Ans. In respect of preparation of mind, we must presently satisfie: yet not in respect of execution. For the Act of restitution may be deferred, if there be ignorance of the right, or ignorance of the fact, if the restorer be in extreame neede: if vpon present restitution, life, goods, or good name, be indangered.

The last point is, in what order and manner, Restitution is to be made? Ans. Things certen must first be restored, and things vncerten after. Among things certen, that is, which certenly belongs vnto an other, things bought and not deliuered, are to be restored, and Deposita, things committed to our trust. If things to be restored for their value and qualitie be vncerten, the order is this; Restitution must be made (according to the discretion of wise men) in some part: and for the rest, pardon to be craued. Againe, in restitution warines is to be vsed, least by supplying the losses of other men, we make to our selues the losse of good name.

Againe, in Pauls practise we see an earnest care and diligence to prouide for the poore. And his diligence is further expressed Rō. 15. 25, 28. where it is said, that he ministred to the Saints at Ierusalem, and withall that he gaue himselfe no rest in this dutie, till he had sealed this fruit vnto them, that is, till he saw it done according to his desire. His example must be followed of vs. It is not enough for vs to giue good words, and to wish well, but we must in our places and callings, doe our endeauour that releefe may euen be sealed to our poore. And there be many reasons to mooue vs. First, let vs consider that the charge was very great, to maintaine the altar of the Lord in the old Testament with sheepe, and oxen, and offerings of all kinds: and now in the new Testament the poore come in the roome of the Altar. Secondly, the poore represent the person of Christ; and in them he comes vnto vs, and saith, J am hungrie, I am sicke, I am naked, I am harbourlesse: therfore, looke what we would doe to Christ, the same must we doe to them. Thirdly the poore haue title, and interest, to part of our goods: for God is the Lord of them, and we are but stewards to dispose and vse them, according to his appointment. And his will is, that part of our goods be giuen for the releefe of the poore. If this be not done, we are theeues in respect of the goods we possesse. Lastly, mercie or the bowels of compassion in vs, is a pledge, or an impression of the mercie that is in God, towards vs: and by it we may knowe, or feele in our selues, that mercie belongs vnto vs. Thus we see, what is our dutie: nowe let vs consider what is our fault. Not to blame any person or persons, it is our common fault, that we are backeward and slacke in this dutie. And the cause is, that we doe not heartily giue our selues to Christ: and this makes vs to be so slacke in giuing our goods to the poore, 2. Cor. 9. 5. Againe, we commonly liue (as it were) without a law. We doe not with Dauid, set the laws of God before vs, Psal. 119. v. 168. Neither doe we apply our hearts to his statutes, v. 112. For then would we with Dauid, make haste to keepe the commandements of God, v. 60. Specially this great commandement of releefe: and the rather, because the obseruing of it, is the inriching of vs all.

Lastly, let vs marke, that Paul beeing warned of the Apostles, was diligent to doe that, whereof he was warned. The like must we doe. It is not sufficient to heare, but beside this, there must be in vs a care and diligence to doe and practise that which we heare. For this is to build vpon the rocke. And it is a common fault, to heare much, and doe little. Ezech. 33. 24.

v. 11. And when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face: for he was to be blamed.

In these words Paul propounds the second answer, which he makes to the obiection, mentioned in the beginning of the chap. to this effect. Though the church glorifie God for thee: yet wil not the Apostles do it: because thou art contrary to thē. Here Paul answers, that there was indeed a dissention between him and Peter, when he withstood Peter to his face at Antioch: but the fault was not his, but Peters, who was wholly to be blamed.

For the better vnderstanding of these words, three points are to be handled. The first is, who was resisted? The answer is, Peter the Apostle. For the intent of this chapter is, to shewe what agreement there was betweene Paul, and the rest of the Apostles. And there was no Apostle of this name but one. Therefore, they among the Auncient, are greatly deceiued, who thinke, that the Apostle Peter was not reprooued, but some other of that name. The second point is, who resisted? Answer. Paul: and that not for shewe and fashion, but in truth, and good earnest. And this appeares, because in the words following, he sets downe a waightie and vrgent cause of his reproofe. Therefore Ierom and others are deceiued, who thinke that Paul reprooued Peter 'Simulatè, non verè. in shewe and appearance, and not in good earnest. The third point is, what was Pauls minde and meaning, in resisting of Peter? Answer. To doe his office. The kingdom of God, and all things pertaining thereto, must haue free passage without resistance. The second petition is, Thy kingdome come. Iohn the baptist preached thus, Prepare the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight, Mar. 1. Saint Paul saith, Praie that the word of God may haue free passage, and be glorified, 2. Thess. 3. 1. Contrariwise, such things as hinder the kingdom of God, must be withstood. Therefore Peter saith, Resist your aduersarie the deuill, strong in faith. 1. Pet. 5. 9. And thus men that are instruments of euill, are to be withstood. And here Paul, by an holy reproofe, withstands Peter for his bad example.

In Paul, here first we may behold an example of true vertue, in that he resists euill, to the vttermost of his power, following his owne rule, Abhorre that which is euill, and cleaue vnto that which is good, Rom. 12. 9. Haue no fellowship with the vnfruitfull workes of darkenes, but rather reprooue them, Eph. 5. 11. In like manner must euery one of vs resist euill; first, in himselfe, and then in them that appertaine to him. Therefore Paul saith to all, Put on the armour of God, that ye may resist, Eph. 6. 13. Here 2 things may be demāded: first, what must we resist? Paul answers again, Principalities, and powers, and spirituall wickednesses: that is, the deuill, and all his angels. It may be said, we haue no dealing with them, for they vse not to appeare vnto vs. Ans. That the deuill comes not vnto vs visibly, but in the persons of euill men, and in the badde examples of all men. This made Christ say to Peter, Math. 16. 23. Come behind me, Satan, for thou art an offence vnto me, when Peter would haue disswaded him from going to Ierusalem. Again, it may be said, In what things must we resist them? Paul answereth, In heauenly things, v. 12. that is, in things which pertaine to Gods kingdome, and concerne either the saluation of our soules, or the worship of God. For the deuill seeketh by all manner of euils, to hinder these good things. Moreouer, this dutie of resisting euill is so necessarie, that we must resist sinne, if neede be, to the very shedding of our blood, Heb. 12. 4.

Againe, we haue in Paul an example of bouldnes and libertie in reproouing of sinne. This was a thing commanded to the Prophets and Apostles Isai, 58. 1. Crie and spare not, lift vp thy voice like a trumpet, shew my people their transgression. Ierem. 1. 17. Trusse vp thy loines, arise and speake vnto them all that I commaund thee: be not afraid of their faces, left I destroy thee before them. Like libertie may the ministers of the word vse, obseruing Pauls rule. 2. Tim. 1. 7. God hath not giuen vs the spirit of feare, but of power, and of loue, and of a sound minde. Where he sets downe three caueats. First, that this libertie in reprouing, is not the fruite of a bold and rash disposition, but it is a fruit of Gods spirit, and so to be acknowledged. Read Mich. 3. 8. The secōd, that the vse of this libertie is to be ordered by a sound mind, whereby we are able to giue a good ac count of our reproofes, both for the matter, and manner of them. The third is, that all our admonitions must be seasoned and tempered with loue: that they tend to the good and saluation of them that are reproued. These caueats obserued, libertie in reproouing shall neuer want his blessing, Isai. 50. 7.

Thirdly, here is an example in Paul, of an ingenious & ho nest minde. When he sees Peter doe amisse, he reprooues him to his face. Contrarie to this, is the common practise in backbiting, whispering, & tale-bearing, whereby it comes to passe, that when a man is in fault, euery man knowes it, saue he which is in fault. This vice the lawe of God expressely forbids, Leu. 19. 16. And it is the propertie of a good man, not to take vp a false reporte. Psal. 15. And Dauid reproues Soul because he did but lend the eare to tale bearers saying wherefore giuest thou an eare to mens wordes that say, behould, Dauid seeketh euill against thee? 1. Sam. 24. 10.

In Peter, who when he was reproued made no reply, we see an example of patience and humiltie, whereby he humbled himselfe before the reprouer, when he was conuicted of an offence. The like was in Dauid when he said, let the righteous smite mee. Psal. 141. v. 5.

Where as Paul saith, that Peter was to be blamed, or condemned, not in respect of his person, but of his example: we see that excellent men euen the cheefe Apostles are subiect to erre, and be deceiued. It may be said, howe then may we trust them in their writings. I answer, while they were in deliuering any thing to the Church, whether it were by sermon, or wri ting, they were guided by the infallible assistance of the spirit, and could not erre. Otherwise they might erre, when they were out of this worke, in mind, will, affection, or action. Thus Ionas, when he saw that Niniue was not destroyed, was impotent in his anger. Nathan was deceiued in giuing aduise to Dauid, touching the building of the temple 2 Sam. 7. The Apostles at the ascension of Christ, still dreamed of an earthly kingdome, saying, When wilt thou restore the kingdome to Israel? Act. 1. And Peter beeing bidden to arise, and eate of things forbidden by the ceremonial law, said, Not so Lord, Act. 10. 1. 4.

Thus then, if Peter was subiect to errour, the pretended successours of Peter, namely, the bishops of Rome, cannot be free from errour. It is alleadged, that Peter erred in life; and not in doctrine. I answer, it was so indeed: yet did his bad example tend to the ruine of doctrine, if it had not bin preuented. Therefore, the errour that was in acte, if we respect the euent, was in doctrine. Againe, I answer, that an errour in action, presupposeth an errour in minde, or at the least, some ignorance: because the minde is the beginning of the thing done. Thus all sinners, are called ignorant persons. Hebr. 5. 2. And it seemes that the errour of Peter was, that of two euils, it was the best to choose the lesse: that is, to choose rather to offend the Gentiles, then the Iewes, to whome he was an Apostle specially appointed.

Here againe we miserable wrethes are taught to watch and pray, that God would not lead vs into temptation: considering most excellent men are subiect to falling. And men must be warned not to abuse Peters example in boulstering themselues in their naughtie waies: by saying, we are all sinners, that the best man aliue is a sinner, that the iust man falles seuen times a day. For the place in the Prouerbs 14. 16. is spoken of affliction and not of sinne: the iust man falls seuen times, that is, he falles into manifould perills. And further, we should not only consider the faults of iust men, but also their conuersion and repentance. And againe to sinne and to commit sinne are two diuers things. Though the godly sinne yet doe they not keepe a course in sinning and goe on from sinne to sinne.

v. 12. For before certen came from Iames, he ate with the gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew himselfe, fearing them that were of the circumcision. 13. And other Iewes dissembled likewise with him: in so much that Barnabas was brought into their dissimulation also.

The Apostle hath propounded his second answer in the former verse: now he proceedes to make a declaration of it. And first, he sets downe the cause why Peter was reproued, and the manner of reprofe. The cause is the 12 and 13. verses, namely Peters sinne. And this sinne is set forth by foure things. By the name of the sinne, the matter of the sinne, the cause of the sinne, the effects of the sinne.

The name of the sinne is noted, when Paul saith, And other Iewes dissembled likewise with him. v. 13. where I gather that Peters sinne was Simulation. Simulation of it selfe is a thing indifferent, and according to circumstances is either good, or euill. Lawfull simulation is, when men conceit that which they may lawfully conceit, and signifie something either by word or deede, that is onely beside the truth, and not contrarie to it. This was the Simulation of Ioseph, who carried himselfe as a stranger to his brethren in Egypt, after he had examined them, and knew who they were. Gen. 42. This was the Simulation of Christ, who when he was come to Emaus, made as though he would haue gone further, Luk. 24. 28. Thus Paul among the Iewes, plaid the Iewe, 1. Cor. 9. 20. Vnlawfull Simulation is that, when something is signified, or fained against the truth, or to the preiudice of any. Of this kind was the simulation of Peter, which tended to the preiudice of the Gospel, and to the offence of the Gentiles.

The second point is, the matter of the sinne, or the sinne it selfe, which was on this manner. First, among the Gentiles at Antioch, he vseth Christian libertie, in eating things forbidden by the ceremoniall law: yet after the comming of certen Iewes from Ierus[illegible: 1 letter]lem, he seperates himselfe from the Gentiles, and plaies the Iewe among the Iewes. Like to this, was the halting of the Israelites betweene God and Baal. 1. King. 18. 21. and the practise of sundrie men, who are Protestants with vs, and yet in other countries goe to Masse: and the practise of our people▪ who change their religion with the times.

Here we see the great weaknesse of Peter, in that vpon a very little occasion, and that presently, falls away from his profession to his old course. In him we may behold our owne weakenesse, and consider what we are like to doe in like case. We nowe professe the Gospell of Christ: yet if any occasion were offe[illegible: 1 letter]ed, it is to be feared, that many of vs would be easily mooued to returne to our old prophanenesse, and to the superstition of poperie. But for the staying and the better establishing of our mindes, let vs alwaies remember, that they shall perish, who withdraw themselues from their faith, profession, and obedience, which they owe vnto God, Heb. 10. 38. Psal. 73. 27.

Againe, here it must be obserued, that Paul in describing the sinne, expresseth two actions, his eating with the Gentiles, and his seperation from them, the first good, and the latter euill. The beginning of his action was good, but the end of it was naught. The reason is this: the man regenerate is partly flesh, and partly spirit: and hereupon it is, that when we will that which is good, we cannot accomplish it, and euill is present with vs. The child of God is like a lame man, that goes the right way, but yet halts at euery step. Abrahā & Sara desire ishue, that is from the spirit: but they desire ishue, by Agar their handmaid, that is, from the flesh. Rebecca seekes the blessing for Iacob: that is a worke of the spirit: but shee seekes it by lying, that is from the flesh: Peter eates with the Gentiles, that is from Christian libertie: he after seperates himselfe, that is from corruption. Thus we see that the best workes are imperfect, & mixed with corruption: and that for the best workes we must humble our selues, and seeke pardon; not in respect of the goodnesse of the worke, but in respect of the defect thereof.

It may be demanded, how the acte of Peter should be a sin, considering he did onely abstaine from certaine meates, that he might auoide the offence of certen Iewes? Answer. The fact of Peter considered by it selfe, is not a sinne: for Paul did the like in playing the Iewe: but the circumstances make it a sinne. For first of all, Peter doth not onely abstaine from meates forbidden by the ceremoniall lawe, but also he withdrawes himselfe from the companie of the Gentiles, and keepes company apart with the Iewes. Secondly, he abstaines not among the Iewes at Ierusalem, but at▪ [illegible: 1 letter]n[illegible: 3 letters]ch among the Gentiles, where a little before, he had openly done the contrarie, in vsing his Christian libertie. Thirdly, he vsed this abstinence, when certen Iewes c[illegible: 1 letter]m: from Ierusalem, to search out the libertie of the Gentiles. Fourthly, while Peter seekes to auoid the small offence of some Iewes, he incurres a greater offence of all the Gentiles. Lastly, this acte of Peter, did tend to the ouerthrowing of Pauls Ministerie, and the suppressing of the truth of the Gospel. Thus then the act of Peter becomes vnlawfull, that was otherwise lawefull, beeing simply considered by it selfe. Here it may be demanded, what Peter should haue done? Ans. He shoul haue openly withstood the Iewes, that came from Ierusalem: as Paul withstood them that vrged the circumcision of Titus: Or againe, before he had plaid the Iew, he should haue aduertised the Gentiles, that for a time he was to yeeld to the infirmitie of some Iewes.

In Peters example, we are taught, that we must not offend God, though all the world be offended. Lesse offences must giue place, when the great offence is at hand: that is, when god is dishonoured, and the very least part of his trueth is suppressed.

The third point to be▪ con[illegible: 1 letter]idered, is, the cause of the sinne of Peter: and that was the feare of the offence of the Iewes. Here two questions are to be handled. The first, how Peters feare should be a sinne? Ans. There is a naturall feare created by God, and placed in the heart of man. This feare of it selfe is good. Neuerthelesse by the corruption of nature it becomes euill. And it is made euill two waies. One is, when men feare without cause, as when the disciples feare Christ walking vpon the sea, and feare drowning when Christ was in the ship with thē. The other is, whē there is no measure in feare. As whē men so feare the creature, that they neglect their dutie to God. This was Peters feare, and it was a sinne in him. For God is to be feared, simply because he is Lord of bodie and soule, and can destroy both: and he is to be feared for himselfe, whereas euery creature is to be feared in part onely, and for God, Rom. 13. 3. 4. By this we are taught, daily to inure our selues in our hearts to feare God aboue all things.

The second question is, how Peter could haue the feare of God, considering he feared men more then God, at the least in this one action? Ans. There are three kinds of feare. One is, without all sinne: this was in Adam, and in Christ. The second is, altogether sinnefull, in the wicked and vngodly, because it is seuered from faith, and obedience: as when there is a feare of men, without the feare of God. The third is, a mixed feare, in them that are regenerate, in whome the feare of God is ioyned with the corrupt feare of man. And in this mixture otherwhiles the one preuailes, otherwhiles the other. And this feare was in Peter: in whome at this time the carnall feare of man, preuailed against the true feare of God.

Paul notes feare to be the cause of Peters sinne, that he may thereby signifie vnto vs, what kind of sinne it was, namely, a sinne not of malice, but of infirmitie. A sinne of infirmitie is, when there is a purpose in the heart not to sinne: and yet for all this, the sinne is committed, by reason the will is ouercarried by temptation, or by violence of affection, as by feare, anger, lust. Thus Peter sinned. And let it be remembred, that to sinne of infirmitie i[illegible: 1 letter] properly incident to such as be regenerate, as Peter was. Euery wicked man makes his sinne his infirmitie: fornication is the infirmitie of the [illegible: 1 letter]ornicatour, drunkennes the infirmitie of the drunkard, &c. but it is false which they say. For they sinne with all their hearts when they sinne.

The fourth, and last point is, the Effect of Peters sinne, in drawing the Iewes, and Barnabas, to the like dissimulation. Here we see the contagion of euill example. And hence we learne, that Minis[illegible: 1 letter]ers of the word must of necessitie ioyne with good doctrine, the Example of good life. For first of all, it is the exp[illegible: 1 letter]es[illegible: 1 letter]e commandement of God, 1. Pet. 5. 3. Be patternes of the flocke. 1. Tim. 4. 12. Be an ensample in word, conuersion, loue, spirit, faith, puritie. Phil. 4. 8. What ye haue seene in me, that doe. Math. 5. 16. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works. Secōdly, practise in the Minister is a part of his teaching. For the multitude doe not ma[illegible: 1 letter]ke so much what men say, as what men doe. Herod did many things, not because Iohn the Baptist was a good Minister, but because he was a good man, Mark. 6. 20. Thirdly, Ministers haue not the presence & protection of God, vnlesse their liues be vertuous and godly. If thou turne, thou shalt stand before me. Ierem. 15. 19. God reueales his secrets to the Prophets his seruants. Amos 3. 7. Lastly, fearefull iudgements of God belong to Ministers of wicked liues. Destruction befalls the sonnes of Eli and their families, because they by leud example made the people of God to sinne. 1. Sam. 2. 24. The like befell the sonnes of Aaron for their presumption.

Againe, all superiours are warned to goe before their inferiours by good example. When Moses went into Egypt to be the guide of the Israelites, the Lord would haue destroied him, by reason of the bad example in his owne familie, namely, the vncircumcision of his child. Dauid, for his euill exāple, whereby he caused the enemies of God to blaspheme, is punished, and that after his repentance, that men might see in him an example of Gods iudgement against sinne. 2. Sam. 12. 14.

Here againe we see that the consent of many together, is not a note of truth. Peter, Barnabas, and the Iewes, all together are deceiued, and Paul alone hath the truth. Panormitane saith, that a laie-man bringing Scripture, is to be preferred before a whole Councell. Paphnutius alone had the truth, and the whole Councell of Nice, inclined to errour.

14 But when I saw that they went not with a right foote to the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter before all men: If thou beeing a Iew liuest as the Gentiles, and not like the Iewes, why constrainest thou the Gentiles to doe like the Iewes?

In these words, Paul sets downe the reproofe of Peter, and the whole manner of it. In it, many points are to be considered. The first is, the time of this reproofe: and that was so soone as Paul saw the offence of Peter. Here we learne, that we must resist, and cut off the first beginnings of temptation, of sinne, and of superstition, because we are prone to cuill: and therefore if it once set footing in vs, it will take place.

The second point is, the foundation of the reproofe in these wordes [when I saw,] and that is a certen knowledge of Peters offence. Here we are to take notice of the common fault, and that is, that we vse to censure, and condemne men specially publike persons, vpon suspitions, and coniectures, and hearesay. Whereas we should not open our mouthes to reprooue, till we haue certen knowledge of the fault. Moreouer, publike persons, as Magistrates and Ministers, haue their priuiledge, that an accusation is not to be receiued against them, without there be a proofe by two or three witnesses. 1. Tim. 5. 20.

The third point is, the fault reprooued, which is here expressed by an other name, not to walke with a right foote to the truth of the Gospel: that is, not to conuerse with men, and to carrie himselfe so, as he may be sutable to the sinceritie of the Gospel, both in word, and deede.

Here is a notable dutie set downe for all men, To walke with an euen foote according to the truth of the Gospel: and this is done, when in word and deede, and euery way, we ascribe all the good we haue, or can doe, to grace, to mercie, and to Christ: when againe, in word, and deede, and euery way, we giue all thanks to God, for grace and mercie by Christ. Here two sorts of men are to be condemned, as haulters in respect of the truth of the Gospel. The first, are Papists, who ioyne Christ and workes in the cause of our iustification, and saluation. The second, are carnall Protestants, and all other sorts of men, that professe the name of Christ, and withall challenge to themselues a libertie to liue as they list. For they walke contrarie to the Gospel, disioyning iustification, and sanctification, faith, and good life, remission of sinne, and mortification. This is the rife and common sinne of our daies. We are light in the Lord, but we walke not as children of light. We are content to come to the marriage of the kings sonne, but we come not with the marriage garment. It is to be feared, this very sinne will banish the Gospel, and bring all the iudgements of God vpon vs. Let vs therefore, repent of our vneuen and haulting liues: and preuent the Lords anger, by walking worthie the Gospel of Christ.

It will besaid, how must we performe this dutie? Ans. Two rules must be remembred. The first is, that we must haue and carrie in vs a right heart. For the want of this was Simon Magus condemned, Act. 8. 21. A right heart is an humble and an honest heart. The humble heart is, when in the estimation of our owne hearts, we abase our selues vnder all creatures vpon earth, and that for our offences: when againe, in the affection of our hearts, we exalt the death, and blood of Christ, aboue all riches, aboue all honours, aboue all pleasures, aboue all ioyes, and aboue all that heart can thinke, or tongue can speake. The honest heart is, when we carrie, and cherish in our hearts the setled purpose of not sinning: so as if we sinne at any time, we may in the testimonie of a good conscience say, that we sinned against our purpose. The second rule is, that we must make straight steppes to our feete, Hebr. 12. 13. And that is done, when we endeauour to obey God, according to all his commandements, Psal. 119. 6. and also, according to all the powers of the inward man, that is, not onely in action, but also in will, affection, and thought. Let vs also applie our hearts to the doing of this, least if we come to the marriage of the kings sonne without the garment of a right heart and life, we heare the sentence, Binde them hand and foote, and cast them into vtter darknes, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The fourth point is, the place of reproofe: [before all men:] for they that sinne openly to the offence of many, are openly to be reprooued. 1. Tim. 5. 20.

The fifth point is, concerning the reasons which Paul vseth for the restraining of the sinne of Peter. The first is set downe in the 16. verse, If thou beeing a Iew, &c. Here the meaning of some words are to be opened. To Iudaise, or to liue as a Iew, is to obserue (and that necessarily,) a difference of meates, and times, according to the ceremoniall law of Moses. To Gentilize, or to liue as a Gentile is to vse meats, and drinks, and times, freely without difference. Peter is said, to compell the Gentiles to Iudaise, not by teaching of any doctrine, (for the Apostles neuer erred, in teaching and deliuering any thing to the church of God: this is a principle:) therefore he constrained them by the authoritie of his example: whereby he caused them to thinke that the obseruation of the Ceremoniall law was necessarie.

The first reason then is framed thus: If thou beeing a Iew, vsest to liue as the Gentiles, thou maist not by thy example compell the Gentiles to Iudaize in the necessarie obseruation of ceremonies: but thou beeing a Iew, vsest to liue as the Gentiles: therefore thou maist not compell the Gentiles to liue as Iewes.

Here first, let vs obserue the force of euill example: it compells men to be euill. Therefore let all superiours, Magistrates, Ministers, and all gouernours of families, looke to their examples. For if they be euill, they constraine others also to be euill.

Here againe, we see what wonderfull subiection the ancient beleeuers yeelded to the ministerie of the word. For if the actions of the Apostles compelled men to do this or that, what then did their doctrines, and heauenly exhortations do? When Iohn the Baptist preached, the kingdome of heauen suffered violence, and the violent tooke it to themselues. When the disciples Matth. 11. 1[illegible: 1 letter]. preached in Iewrie, they saw Satan falling downe from heauen Luk. 10. 18. like lightning. The weapons of Paul were spirituall, to cast downe holds, and to bring euery thought in subiection to God. Here, the [illegible: 1 word]. Cor. 10. 4. fault of our time is to be considered. We haue the forme of godlines, in hearing and in outward profession, but we want the power of it. For we doe not in heart yeeld subiection by suffering our selues to be vrged, and compelled to obedience by the authoritie of the ministerie.

Thirdly, here we see wherein stood Peters sinne: namely, in that he constrained men to a necessarie obseruation of the Ceremoniall law: by his example binding the Gentiles to the doing of that which the Gospel hath made free. Therefore great is the wickednes of the Romane religion: in that it placeth a necessitie in many things, in the vse whereof. Christ hath procured vs an holy, and Christian libertie. In this respect the vowes of perpetuall continencie of pouertie, and regular obedience, are falsly tearned states of perfection: and are indeede estates of abomination.

15 We which are Iewes by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles: 16 Know that a man is not iustified by the workes of the law, but by the faith of Iesus Christ: which (I say) haue beleeued in Iesus Christ, that we might be iustified, by the faith of Iesus Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the workes of the law, no flesh shall be iustified.

Here Paul laies downe the second reason of his reproofe; it is framed thus. That, which we defend, both in iudgement, and practise, that must we vrge, and not the contrarie: but iustification by faith without workes we defend both in iudgement, and practise: therefore we must vrge it, and not the contrarie, namely, the necessarie obseruation of the law.

The maior is wanting: the minor is expressed in the 16. v. and it is amplified by an argument of things diuers, thus: Though we be Iewes, to whome the law was giuen: yet we forsake the law, and looke to be iustified by the faith of Christ. Secondly, the minor is confirmed by a testimony of the psalme: v. 16. by the workes of the law, no flesh shall be iustified.

Here two points are to be handled. One, of the distinction of the Iewes and Gentiles: the other, of iustification.

Touching the distinction of Iewes, and Gentiles, sundrie points are to be handled. The first▪ what is the cause of this distinction. Ans. The good will and pleasure of God. Moses saith, God chose the Israelites [illegible: 1 letter]boue all nations, Deut. 7. 6. he loued them, Deut. 10. 15. when he de[illegible: 2 letters]ded the nations, lacob was his portion, Deut. 32. 8. He knew them aboue all nations, saith Amos 3. 1. And he chose them, because he loued their fathers, Deut. 4. 37. Hence we gather, the free Election of God: and that they are deceiued, who thinke, that there was no difference of Iewes and Gen[illegible: 2 letters]les in respect of God, but in respect of themselues: because the one imbraced Christ, the other refused Christ. But there cannot be a refusall, where the Messias was not knowne: and among the Gentiles he was not so much as named. Rom. 15. 20.

The second point is, wherein stands the difference of Iewes and Gentiles. Ans. Here the Iewes are opposed to sinners of the Gentiles: and therefore by the Iewes, are meant an holy, and peculiar people. The distinction therefore lies in this, that the one was holy, the other prophane: the one in the couenant, the other out of the couenant. Rom. 9. 4, 5. Psal. 147. 20. Here two errours must be auoided. One, that the difference lay in earthly things: which is not true. For the law was giuen to the Israelites: and it was a schoolemaster to Christ, Gal. 3. and, an introduction to a better hope, Hebr. 7. 19. The second errour is, that they differed onely in this, that Christ was more plentifully and fully reuealed to the Iewes: more darkly, and sparingly to the Gentiles. But it was otherwise. For the Gentiles were without God, and Christ, Eph. 2. 12. and they were left to themselues, to walke in their owne [illegible: 1 letter]aies, Act. 14. 16.

The third point is, how long this difference indured? Ans. Till the death of Christ. For the disciples were forbidden to goe into the way of the Gentiles. Math. 10. 5. And Christ saith, that he was not sent, but to the l[illegible: 1 letter]st sheepe of the house of Israel, Mat. 15. 22. It may be obiected, that here we see the difference of Iewes, and Gentiles, is st[illegible: 1 letter]nding, long after the ascension of Christ. Ans. Christ in his death did fully merit the abolishment of this difference. Eph. 2. neuerthelesse the execution of this abolishment was by degrees: and it was at this time begunne by the ministerie of the Apostles, yet not accomplished.

The last point is, that the Iewes are an holy people by nature: not because holines is conuaied to them by generation, but because euen from their beginning, and birth, by vertue of the couenant, they are holy. If the roote be holy, the branches are holy, Rom. 11. 16. If either of their parents beleeue, their children are holy. 1. Cor. 7. 14. In a ciuill contract, the father and his heire make but one person, and the father couenants for himselfe, and his posteritie: euen so, in the couenant of grace, he beleeues for himselfe, and withall makes his posteritie partaker of the said couenant: and thus the posteritie becomes holy. It may be obiected, that whatsoeuer is borne of flesh is flesh. Ans. The parent sustaines a double person. First, he is to be considered as a child of Adam, and thus he brings forth a child, hauing with Adams nature, Adams corruption. Againe, he is to be considered as a beleeuer: and thus albeit he doth not propagate his faith and holines to his child, yet by meanes of his saith, his child is in the couenant, and consequently is to be accounted holy in the iudgement of charitie, till God manifest the contrarie. Againe, it may be obiected, that if the children of beleeuing parents be borne holy, they want originall finne. Ans. The children also sustaine two persons. First, they are to be considered as children of the first Adam: and thus they are conceiued and borne in sinne, and are children of wrath. Againe, they are to be considered as children of beleeuing parents: and thus by meanes of the couenant, they are children of God; and originall sinne which is in them is couered from their first beginning, and not imputed to them.

The vse. There was no absolute necessitie of circumcision. For they which died before the eight day, were borne holy, and consequently, in the couenant: and therefore might be saued. And thus Baptisme was not of absolute necessitie: for the children of beleeuers are borne holy and Christian: and therefore dying in the want of baptisme, may for all that be saued. The seale of the couenant is not of like necessitie, with the couenant it selfe.

Secondly, here we learne, that it is not the act of baptisme to conferre the first grace: but onely to confirme, and seale it vnto vs. Adoption, and life beginnes not in baptisme, but before. If the roote be holy, the branches springing thenee are holy. We are borne Christians, if our parents beleeue, and not made so in baptisme.

Lastly, if we be borne holy: it is our shame that we haue made no more proceeding in holines, then we haue done: the most remaine ignorant, and vnreformed; and they of the better sort, either stand at a stay, or goe backward.

The second point is, concerning Iustification in the 16. v. of which sundrie things are there propounded. And first, I will beginne with the name. The word, Iustifie, is borrowed from courts of iudgement, and signifies a indiciall act. Otherwhiles it is put for the action of the iudge, and then it signifies to absolue, or to pronounce innocent. Thus Paul saith, Act. 13. 39. That we are instified from all things, from which we could not be iustified by the law of Moses, that is, absolued, or cleered. Againe, he opposeth iustification to accusation, and condemnation, Rom. 8. 33. Now the contrarie to condemnation, is absolution. Sometimes againe, the word iustifie, signifies the act of the partie iudged, or of the witnesses: and then it imports as much, as to giue testimonie, or to declare and approoue. Thus Iames saith, Abraham was iustified by workes, chap. 2. v. 22. that is, declared, and approoued to be a iust man by workes. In the former signification is the word vsed, where the holy Ghost deliuereth the doctrine of iustification, as in this place.

The vse. Here we see how to distinguish betweene Iustification, regeneration, and renouation. Regeneration is vsually in scripture, the change of the inward man, whereby we are borne anew. Renouation is, the change both of the inward and outward man, that is, both of heart and life. Iustification, is neither, but a certaine action in God applied vnto vs, or a certaine respect or relation, whereby we are acquit of our sinnes; and accepted to life euerlasting. Secondly, we must here note, that the Teachers of the Church of Rome, mistake the word, Iustification. For by it, they vnderstand nothing els, but a physicall transmutation of the qualitie, and disposition of our hearts from euill, to good. And by this mistaking, they haue made a mixture or rather confusion, of law and Gospel. Thirdly, here we see, what is to be the disposition of the partie iustified: (for by the consequent we may learne the antecedent.) A man therfore that would be iustified, must come before the iudgement seat of God, and there must he plead guiltie, and be his owne aduersa[illegible: 1 letter]ie, condemning himselfe: and beeing pressed with the terrours of the law, he must flie and make his appeale to the throne of grace for pardon in Christ: and then he shall be acquit, or iustified from all sinner. Thus much doth the word, [illegible: 1 span] stifie, import. Thus came the Publican before God, Luk. 18, when he said, Lord be mercifull to me a sinner; and departed iustified. Thus in the sift petition, we are taught to come euery day into the presence of God, and to acknowledge our debts, and to vse the plea of mercie, saying, Forgiue vs our debts.

The second thing to be considered, is the subiect of iustification, or the person to be iustified, and that is man generally, signifying that a Man is iustified. The holy Ghost speaketh thus generally, for two causes. The first is; because all men without exception haue need of iustification, euen they which are regenerate, Rom. 3. 23. And in this place Paul saith, that he, and Peter, and the rest, haue beleeued in Christ, that they might be iustified by faith. Here we are to take notice of the miserable condition of prophane, and secure Epicures, who neuer so much as dreame of any iustification. The second reason is; because God communicates the benefit of iustification, generally to all sorts of men: and this he doth in the Ministerie of the word, in which he beseecheth men to be reconciled to God. 2. Corinth. 5. v. 21. This must be an inducement vnto vs, to come vnto Christ, humbling, and iudging our selues, that we may be iustified. God himselfe from heauen vseth reasons vnto vs daily, to mooue vs to the practise of this dutie. What meane these gratious, and continuall preseruations, of Prince, and people, Church and land? By them we see, it is the good pleasure of God, to giue vs a time to seeke his kingdome and righteousnes: wherefore let vs not neglect the day of visitation, but take the time, while it serues, that we may turne vnto God, and be accepted of him, and escape the woe pronounced vpon Corazin, and Bethsaida.

The third thing to be considered, concernes things excluded from iustification, as false causes: namely, the works of the Law. Here it may be demanded, what works are meant. I answer, first, not onely workes of the Ceremoniall, but also of the morall law. For all men know, that ceremoniall actions are of no vse, vnlesse they be ioyned with morall duties of loue, and mercie. And if Paul meant onely Ceremoniall workes, he needed not to haue made so long a discourse against iustification, by workes: for he might haue ended the whole matter in a word or twaine, by shewing that the ceremoniall law, was abrogated by Christ. Secondly, I answer, that not onely workes done before faith, are excluded, but also workes that follow faith, and are done in the estate of grace. For Paul here reasons thus: If no flesh be iustified by workes, then not we beleeuers: but no flesh at all is iustified: therefore not we beleeuers. Dauid, Psal. 143. reasoneth on the same manner: No flesh shall be iustified in thy fight: therefore I cannot, though otherwise I be thy seruant, in keeping thy commandements. When Abraham was the father of all the faithfull, and was come to the highest degree of faith, and abounded in good workes, yet was he not then iustified by workes, Rom. 4. 1, 2. Paul kept a good conscience before God and men, Act. 23. and yet was he not iustified therby, 1. Cor. 4. 4. And he saith, that we are not saued by the workes which God hath ordained that we should walke in, Eph. 2. 9, 10. And the workes that God hath ordained for vs to walke in, are the best workes of all, euen workes of grace. Againe, he saith, that we are not saued by workes of mercie, Tit. 2. 5. It may be obiected, that there is a Cooperation of works and faith, I am. 2. 21. I answer, that this Cooperation is not in the act of iustification, nor in the worke of our saluation, but in the manifestation of the truth, and sinceritie of our faith, without hypocrisie. And for the declaration and approbation of this, faith and workes ioyntly concurre. Here then we see it is a pestilent and damnable doctrine of the Papists, when they teach iustification by the workes of the law. Let vs here be warned to take heede of it.

The fourth point is, the Meritorious cause of our iustification: and that is Christ. Here it may be demanded, what is that thing in Christ, by and for which, we are iustified. I answer, the Obedience of Christ, Rom. 5. 19. And it stands in two things, his Passion in life and death, and his Fulfilling of the law ioyned therewith. For by faith the law is established, Rom. 3. 31. Christ was sent in the similitude of sinnefull flesh, that the rigour of the law might be fulfilled in vs, Rom. 8. 4. and Christ is the perfection of the law for righteousnes to all that beleeue, Rom. 10. 4. He that doth not fulfill all things contained in the Law, is accursed, Gal. 3. 10. Seeing therefore we cannot performe the things contained therein, by our selues, we must performe them in the person of our Mediatour: who hath satisfied for the threatnings of the law by his passion; and hath fulfilled the precepts of the law by his obedience, in all duties of loue to God, and man. We owe to God a double debt. One is, that we are to fulfill the law euery moment, from our first beginning, both in regard of puritie of nature and puritie of action. And this debt was laid vpon vs in the creation, and is exacted of vs in the law of God. The second debt is, a satisfaction for the breach of the law. For this double debt, Christ is be become our Suretie; and God accepts his obedience for vs, it beeing a full satisfaction, according to the tenour of the law.

For the better conceiuing of this obedience, foure questions may be demanded. The first is, when this obedience beginnes and ends? Ans. Satisfactorie obedience performed by Christ, beginnes in his incarnation, & ends in his death. Christ saith, Ioh. 4. 34. It is my meate, to doe my fathers will, and to finish his worke. But when was it indeede finished? A little before his passion he said, Ioh. 17. 4. I haue finished the worke which thou gauest me to doe. Againe, in the surrendring of his soule. he saith, It is finished, Ioh. 19. 30. S. Paul saith, Christ was obedient to the death of the crosse, Phil. 2. 8. The triumph of Christ beganne vpon the crosse, Col. 2. 15. and he could not triumph before he had made a full, and perfect satisfaction for vs. When Christ had procured deliuerance from hell, and Right to life euerlasting, he there made a perfect satisfaction for vs, to the iustice of God. And this he did in his death vpon the crosse. For by the death of the Mediatour, we receiue the promise of euerlasting inheritance, Heb. 9. 15. and with one oblation vpon the crosse he perfected them that are sanctified, Heb. 10. 14. and they cannot be perfected, without the perfect obedience of Christ. Christ rose from death, and ascended into heauen in our roome, and stead: and this he could neuer haue done, vnlesse he had made a perfect satisfaction in death. Here it may be asked, If satisfactorie obedience end in the death of Christ, to what vse serue the resurrection, and ascension of Christ, and his fitting at the right hand of the father? Ans. They serue also for our iustification, but after an other sort. For they serue to applie & communicate to vs, and to put vs in possession of the benefits, which Christ hath procured for vs, and purchased by his death. S. Paul saith, He as[illegible: 2 letters]nded to giue gifts [illegible: 1 word], and to fill all things. Eph. 4. 8. 10. And Christ saith, When I am exalted, I will draw all men to me. Ioh. 12. 32. And he liues for euer to make intercession[illegible: 1 letter] for vs. Heb. 5. 27.

The second question is, how Christ could obey beeing God; and satisfie for vs beeing man? Ans. Christ must be considered; not meerely as God, or as man, but as God-man, or Man god. For the Godhead doth not redeeme vs without the manhood, nor the manhood without the Godhead. Neuerthelesse, Christ as God and man, may both obey, and satisfie. For, as there are in Christ, two natures, so there are two distinct operations of the said natures. And as the said natures vnited make one Christ; so the operations of the natures concurring and beeing vnited in one, make the compound worke of a Mediatour. Therefore the Obedience of Christ, beeing the worke of a Mediatour, hath in it the operations of both natures. The practise, exercise, or exequution of obedience, is from the manhood: therfore it is said, that Christ bare our sinnes in his bodie vpon the crosse. 1. Pet. 2. 24. that he suffered in the flesh. 1. Pet. 4. 1. that he made a liuing way by the vaile of his flesh. Heb. 10. 20. that we are reconciled in the bodie of his flesh. Coloss. 1. 22. Obedience, i[illegible: 1 letter], properly a subiection of the will in reasonable creatures to the will of God: now the will of the Godhead of Christ, admits no subiection to the will of God: because the the will of the Godhead (or of God,) is one and the same in all the persons. Christ therefore yeeldes subiection onely in respect of the will of the manhoode: in which he performes obedience. Moreouer, the operation of the Godhead is to make the saide Obedience meritorious and satisfactorie for all that shall beleeue. In this respect Paul saith, God was in Christ reconciling the world vnto himselfe, 2. Cor. 5. 18. and that God shedde his blood. Act. 20. 28. namely, in that nature which the sonne of God assumed. Hence ariseth the value, price, and dignitie of the obedience of Christ.

The third question is, how the Obedience of Christ should be made ours? Ans. By the freedonation of God. For Christ is really giuen vnto vs in the word, and sacraments; and consequently the obedience of Christ is made ours: euen as when a peece of ground is made ours, the commoditie thereof is ours also.

The fourth question is, how the obedience of Christ should be our iustice? Ans. It is not our iustice in naturall manner: for then it should be in vs: but by a diuine and supernaturall manner, namely, by Gods Acceptation in that he accounts it ours euen as truly, as if it were in vs. And because God accepts it for ours, it is ours indeede: for his willing and approouing of any thing, is the doing of it: and he calls the things that are not, as if they were.

Thus we see what the Obedience of Christ is. And here two errours must be auoided. The one is of some Protestants, lesse dangerous, yet an vntruth; namely, that we are iustified, onely by the Passion of Christ. But if this were so, we should be iustified without fulfilling the law: for (as I haue said) we owe to God a double debt: one by creation, namely, the fulfilling of the law in all things, from our first beginning: the second, since the Fall of Adam, namely, a satisfaction for the breach of the law. Now the Passion of Christ, is a paiment of the second debt, but not of the first; whereas both must be answered. For Cursed is he that doth not continue in all things written in the law, to doe them. The passion of Christ procureth deliuerance from hell, but alone by it selfe considered, it doth not purchase a right to eternall life.

Obiect. I. Christ fulfilled the law for himselfe: therefore his passion alone serues for our iustification Ans. Christ as man fulfilled the law for himselfe: that he might be in both natures an holy high Priest, and so continue. Neuertheles as Mediatour, God and man, he became subiect to the law: in this regard he did not fulfill the law for himselfe, neither was he boūd so to doe.

Obiect. II. That which Christ did, we are not bound to doe: but Christ (say some) fulfilled the law for vs: therefore we are not bound to fulfill the law. Ans. That which Christ did, we are not bound to doe, for the same ende, and in the same manner. Now he fulfilled the law in way of redemption, and satisfaction for vs: and so doe not we fulfill the law, but onely in way of thankfulnes, for our redemption.

Obiect. III. The law doth exact both obedience, and the penaltie also. Ans. In the estate of innocencie the law threatned the penaltie, and it onely exacted obedience. Since the fall, it exacteth both obedience, and the punishment. The threatning of the law, exacts the punishment; the precepts exact obediēce. Obiect. IU. Hebr. 10. 19. By the blood of Christ we haue entrance into the Holy place. Ans. By the blood of Christ, we are to vnderstand the Passion: and the passion may not be seuered from actiue, and voluntarie obedience. For Christ in suffering obaied, and in obeying, suffered. And (as Chrysostome saith) the Homil. 2. in Act Passion is a kind of action. Christ in the oblation of himselfe did not onely offer to God his passion, but also praiers, which are no passions. Heb. 5. 7.

The second errour is of the Papists: who teach, that the thing by which, and for which, a sinner is formally iustified, is remission of sinnes, with inherent justice infused by the holy Ghost. But this cannot be. For inherent iustice, and iustification, are made distinct gifts of God. Paul saith, Christ is made vnto vs of God, wisdome, iustice, sanctification, 1. Cor. 1. 3. Againe, But ye are washed, ye are iustified, and sanctified. 1. Cor. 6. 11. Secondly, the iustice whereby a sinner is iustified, is reuealed without the law. Rom. 3. 21. Now inherent iustice, or the habit of charitie, is reuealed by the law: and the obedience of Christ, is the onely iustice reuealed without the law. For it is a iustice imputed that the law neuer knew: and in this obedience, Christ performed the law, and more too. For he died for his enemies; and so loued his neighbour more then himselfe. Thirdly, God is not onely a iustifier, but also iust in iustifying, Rom. 3. 26. because he iustifieth none but such as bring vnto a him a true and perfect iustice, either in themselues, or in their Mediatour. Prou 17. 15. Now this inward, and inherent iustice is not such. For it is imperfect: because it is increased (as they teach) by a second iustification: and it is in this life mixed with the corruption of the flesh. Fourthly, the righteousnes of a good conscience is an excellent grace, and gift of God: but by it we are not iustified, 1. Cor. 4. 4. Lastly, a close errour is to be noted in this Popish doctrine of iustification. For in Popish learning Remission of sinnes, is not onely an abolishing of the guilt, and the punishment, but also of the corruption of sinne: so as the partie pardoned, and iustified, hath nothing in him, that (as they say) God may iustly hate. And yet Paul iustified, and regenerate saith, otherwise of himselfe; that sinne dwelleth in him; and that the law of sinne rebells in him against the law of his minde, and leads him captiue to sinne. Rom. 7.

The vse of the doctrine. First, in that we are iustified, by an obedience out of our selues, we are taught, vtterly to denie our selues, and to goe out of our selues, as hauing nothing in vs whereby we may be saued. Here is the foundation of the abnegation of our selues. Secondly, the obedience of Christ must be vnto vs the foundation of our obedience: for he performed all righteousnes for vs, that we might be seruants not of sinne, but seruants of righteousnes in all duties of obedience. And in his obedience we must not onely respect the merit thereof, but also his holy example in loue, mercie, meekenes, patience, &c. and after it, are we to fashion our liues. Thirdly, the obedience of Christ must be the foundation of our comfort. In all daungers, and temptations, we that beleeue are to oppose the obedience of Christ against the fierce wrath of God, against hell, death, and condemnation. Certen beasts, when they are pursued, flie the next way to their dennes, where they hold themselues euen to death. Christ in respect of his obedience, is our hiding place, Rom. 3. 26. he is set forth unto the world as a Propitiatorie. For as the Propitiatorie couered the Arke, and the decasogue, so he couereth our sinnes, and he hides our bodies, & soules, from the furious indignation, and vengeance of God. Let vs therefore by our faith, flie to this our hiding place in the storme and tempest of Gods wrath: and let vs there liue and die. Fourthly, this Obedience is the foundation of our happines. For true happines is, to be eased of our sinnes, Psal. 32. 1. and this ease we haue from Christ, Math. 11. 28. Lastly, the consideration of this obedience, is the foundation of our thankfulnes to God. For if we beleeue that Christ suffered, and fulfilled the law for vs, we are worse then beasts, if we doe not euery way shew our selues thankfull for this mercie.

The fifth point to be considered, is the meanes of iustification, namely; the Faith of Christ. Of which I consider 3. things. The first, what faith is. The Papists define iustifying faith to be a gift of God, whereby we beleeue the articles of faith to be true, and the whole word of God. But thit faith, the deuills hanc. Here they alleadge, that Abraham was the father of all the faithfull, and that his faith was nothing els but a perswasion, that he was able to giue him a child in his old age. Ans. First, the obiect of Abrahams faith was double: one lesse-principall, that he should haue ishew in his old age: the second, more principall, that the Messias his Redeemer should descend of his loines. And this was the thing which his faith in the promise of God specially aimed at. I answer againe, that Abraham beleeued not onely the power of God, Rom. 4. 21. but also his will, which he had reuealed in the promise, In thy seede all the nations of the earth, shall be blessed. Secondly, it is alleadged, that Christ in the curing of certaine blind men, required no more, but that they should beleeue his power, Math. 9. 28. I answer, that the ende of the miracles of Christ, was to confirme the certentie of doctrine, specially touching his natures, and offices. And therefore a generall faith touching the diuine power, or Godhead of Christ was sufficient, for the obtaining of a miraculous cure. Thirdly, they obiect, that saluation is promised to generall faith, Rom. 10. 9. If thou shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and beleeue that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saued. That Peters faith was generall, Math. 16. 10. Thou art Iesus Christ, the sonne of the liuing God. That the Eunuchs faith was of the same kind, Act. 8. 37. I beleeue that Iesus Christ is the sonne of God. Ans. It is a common rule in scripture, that words signifying knowledge, signifie also the motions and good affections of the heart. Psal. 1. The Lord knowes the way of the righteous, that is, knowes, and approoues it. 2. Tim. 2. 19. The Lord knowes who are his, that is, he knoweth and chooseth them. Ioh. 17. 2. This is eternall life to know thee the onely God, that is, to know and acknowledge thee for our God. If this be true in wordes of knowledge, then much more wordes of beleeuing signifie the good motions, and the affiance of the heart. Thus to beleeue Christ to be the sonne of God, in the places before named, is to beleeue that he is God, and withall to fixe our affiance on him: otherwise the deuills beleeue thus much. When Thomas had put his finger in the side of Christ, he saide, My Lord, and my God, Ioh. 20. 28. And to this speech of his Christ faith, Thou hast seene, and beleeued. This then is true faith not onely to beleeue that Christ is God, but also that he is our God.

Iustifying faith in true manner is defined thus: It is a gift, whereby we apprehend Christ, and his benefits. Ioh. 1. 12. to beleeue in Christ, and to receiue Christ, are put both for one. Ioh. 6. faith is the mouth of the soule, whereby we eate the flesh of Christ, and drinke his blood. Ioh. 17. 8. To receiue the word of Christ, to acknowledge it, and to beleeue it, are put all for one. Paul saith, that the Gentiles did apprehend the iustice which is by faith, Rom. 9. 30. Againe, that we receiue the promise of the spirit by faith. Gel. 3. 14.

This apprehension stands in two things. The first is, to know Christ, as he propounds himselfe in the word, and sacraments. The second is, To applie him and his benefits vnto our selues. This application is made by a supernaturall act of the vnderstanding, when we beleeue that Christ with his benefits is really ours. It may be obiected, that faith is a certen confidence whereby we beleeue in Christ: and so it is described euen in this text. Ans. I. Faith, and confidence, properly are distinct gifts of God: and confidence is the effect, or fruit of faith. For Paul saith, that we haue entrance to God with confidence by faith. Eph. 3. 12. And reason declares as much, for a man can not put his confidence in Christ, till he be assured that Christ with his benefits are his. We doe not rest on his goodnes, of whose loue we doubt. Secondly, I answer that confidence, beeing a most notable effect of faith, is often in scripture, put for faith, and faith is described by it (as it is in this place) and yet for nature they are not one, but must be distinguished.

Furthermore, the grounds of apprehension must be considered. For speciall faith, must haue a speciall, and infallible ground. The grounds are three. The first is this. In the Gospel God hath propounded generall promises of remission of sinnes, and life euerlasting by Christ: and withall he hath giuen a commandement to apply the said promises to our selues. 1. Ioh. 3. 23. This is the commandement of God, that ye beleeue in the name of his sonne Iesus Christ: and we cannot beleeue in Christ, till we beleeue Christ to be our Christ. Now then, a generall promise, with a commandement to applie the same to our selues, is in effect as much as a speciall promise. The second ground is this. Rom. 8. 16. The spirit of God testifieth together with our spirit that we are the sonnes of God. In this testimonie, foure things must be obserued. The first, that it is sufficient to certifie and assure vs of our saluation. For if the testimonie of two or three witnesses establish a truth among men, then much more the testimonie of God. The second is, that this testimonie may be certenly knowne; els it is no testimonie vnto vs. The third is, that this testimonie is found and perceiued in the vse of the word, praier, sacraments. The last [illegible: 1 word], that it is especially giuen and felt in the time of great danger and affliction. For when by reason of miserie and trouble, we know not to pray as we ought, then the spirit makes request for vs with groanes that cannot be vttered. Rom. 8. 26. And in afflictions, Paul saith, the loue of God is shedde abroad in our hearts. Now then, if God giue to them that turne vnto him a testimonie that they are the children of God: they for their parts, are by speciall faith to beleeue it. The third ground is this. A speciall faith may be gathered, partly vpon things generally reuealed in the word of God, and partly vpon sense, obseruation, and experience: the same things beeing reuealed generally in the word, and particularly by experience. Vpon this ground may we truly conclude the forgiuenes of our sinnes, & the saluation of our soules, on this manner: He which beleeueth, hath the forgiuenes of his sinnes: but I beleeue in Christ (saith he which beleeueth:) therefore my sinnes are forgiuen me. The maior or first part, is expressed in the Word; the minor or second part is found true by experience, and by the testimonie of the conscience, which is a certen Testimonie. For Paul saith. This is my reioycing, the testimonie of my conscience. 2. Cor. 1. 12. And the conclusion, is the conclusion of speciall faith. If this be not a good and sufficient ground, there is almost no speciall faith in the world.

Lastly, we are to consider the degrees of Apprehension, and they are two: there is a weake apprehension, and there is a strong apprehension, is there is a weake and a strong faith. The weake faith, and apprehension is, when we endeauour to apprehend. This endeauour is, when we bewaile our vnbeleefe, striue against our manifold doubtings, will to beleeue with an honest heart, desire to be reconciled to God, and constantly vse the good meanes to beleeue. For God accepts the will to beleeue for faith it selfe, and the will to repent for repentance. The reason hereof is plaine. Euery supernaturall act presupposeth a supernaturall power, or gift: and therefore the will to beleeue and repent, presupposeth the power and gift of faith, and repentance in the heart. It may be obiected, that in the mindes of them that beleeue in this manner, doubtings of Gods mercie abound. Ans. Though doubtings abound neuer so, yet are they not of the nature of faith, but are contrarie to it. Secondly, we must put difference between true apprehension, & strong apprehension, and strong apprehension. If we truly apprehend, though not strongly, it sufficeth. The palsie-hand is able to receiue a gift, though not so strongly as an other. The man in the Gospel said, Lord, I beleeue, helpe mine vnbeleefe, Mar. 9. 24. that is, helpe my faith which by reason of the smalnes thereof may rather be called vnbeleefe, then faith. This is the common faith of true beleeuers. For in this world, we rather liue by hungring and thirsting, then by full apprehending of Christ: and our comfort stands rather in this, that we are knowne of God, then that we know God.

The highest degree of faith is, a full perswasion of Gods mercie. Thus saith the holy Ghost, that Abraham was not weake through vnbeleefe, but strong in faith, Rom. 4. 20. But wherein was this strength? In that he was fully perswaded, that God, which had promised would also performe it. This measure of faith is not incident to all beleeuers, but to the Prophets, Apostles, martyrs; and such as haue beene long exercised in the schoole of Christ. And this appeares by the order, whereby we attaine to this degree of faith. First, there must be a knowledge of Christ: then followes a generall perswasion of the possibilitie of pardon, and mercie, whereby we beleeue that our sinnes are pardonable. An example whereof we haue in the prodigall child, Luk. 14. 18. After this, the H. Ghost worketh a will and desire to beleeue, and stirres vp the heart to make humble and serious inuocation for pardon. After praier instantly made, followes a setling and quieting of the conscience, according to the promise, Math. 7. 7. Knocke, it shall be opened, seeke ye shall finde, aske ye shall receiue. After all this, followes an experience in manifold obseruations of the mercies of God, and loue in Christ: and after experience, followes a full perswasion. Abraham had not this full perswasion, till God had sundrie times spoken to him. Dauid, vpon much triall of the mercie, & fauour of God, growes to resolution, and saith, Psal. 23. 6. Doubilesse kindnes and mercie shall follow me all the daies of my life.

This distinction of the degrees of faith, must the rather be obserued; because the Papists suppose that we teach, that euery faith is a full perswasion, and that euery one among vs hath this perswasion. Which is otherwise. For certentie we ascribe to all faith, but not fulnes of certentie. Neither doe we teach, that all men must haue a full perswasion, at the first.

The vse. If that be the right faith, which apprehends and applies Christ vnto vs, then is it a poore and miserable faith of the Papist, to be baptized, and withall to beleeue as the church doth, when it is not knowne what the Church beleeues.

Of the same kind is the faith of the multitude amōg vs, whose faith is their good meaning, that is, their fidelitie, and truth in their dealings.

Lastly, if that be faith which truly apprehends Christ, there is little true faith in these last daies. For though the merit of Christ be apprehended by faith, yet is not the efficacie of his death: and that appeares by the bad and vnreformed liues of them that professe the Gospel. Indeede, many say they haue and euer had, a strong perswasion of Gods mercie: but in the most of them it is but a strong imagination: for their faith was conceiued without the word, praier, sacraments: and it is seuered from Good life. We are then all of vs carefully to seeke for this true and liuely faith. And the rather, because faith and repentance, are possible to all that by grace doe will it. Nay, they which will to beleeue and repent, haue begunne to beleeue and repent: God accepting the will for the deede. Luk. 11. 13. And hauing attained to a measure of true faith, we must goe on and seeke to iustifie our selues: but yet (as S. Iames teacheth, c. 2.) iustifie our faith by good workes: and then shall our faith be a meanes to iustifie vs, in life and death.

The second point to be considered concerning faith, is the manner how it iustifieth. The Papists teach, that it iustifieth, because it stirreth vp good motions and good affections in the heart, whereby it prepareth and disposeth man, that he may be fit to receiue his iustification: againe, because it beeing an excellent vertue meriteth that God should iustifie. But this is false which they say. For if faith iustifieth by disposing the heart, then there must be a space of time betweene iustification and iustifying faith: but there is no space of time betweene them. For so soone as a man beleeues, he is presently iustified. For euery beleeuer hath the promise of remission of sinnes and life euerlasting. Againe, in the case of iustification, Paul opposeth beleeuing and doing: faith, and workes of the law: faith therefore doth not iustifie as a worke, or as an excellent vertue, bringing forth many diuine and gratious operations in vs. Nay the proper action of faith, which is Apprehension, doth not iustifie of it selfe: for it is imperfect, and is to be increased to the ende of our daies.

Faith therefore iustifieth, because it is an instrument to apprehend, and applie that which iustifieth, namely, Christ and his obedience. As the Israelites stung of fierie serpents were cured, so are we saued: Ioh. 3. 16. the Israelites did nothing at all, but onely looke vpon the brasen serpent; so are we to doe nothing for our iustification and saluation, but to fixe the eye of our faith on Christ. The bankrupt paies his debt by accepting the paiment made by his suretie. It is the propertie of true religion to depresse nature, and to exalt grace: and this is done when we make God, the onely worker of our saluation, and make our selues to be no more but receiuers of the mercie and grace of God by faith, & receiuers not by nature, but by grace, reaching out the beggers hand, namely our faith in Christ, to receiue the gift or almes of mercie.

The last point is, that faith alone iustifieth. For here Paul saith, that we are iustified by faith, without the workes of the law: and that is as much as if he had said, by faith alone. Some Papists to helpe themselues translate the words of Paul thus, Knowing that a man is not iustified by the workes of the law, [[non-Latin text not transcribed]] if not by faith, that is, except faith goe withall: then if faith be ioyned with workes, (say they) workes iustifie. I answer, that this manner of translation corrupteth the text. For [[non-Latin text not transcribed]] must here be translated, but: as appeares by the wordes following, We haue beleeued in Christ, that we might be iustified by faith in Christ without the workes of the law. We cannot doe more in the curing of our spirituall diseases, then in the curing of the diseases of our bodie: of which Christ saith, Onely beleeue, Mark. 5. 36. When Abraham abounded both in faith and works, Rom. 4. it is said, that he was iustified by faith without workes.

This doctrine is of great vse. First, we learne hence, that a man is iustified by the meere mercie of God: and that there is excluded from iustification, all Merit of congruitie, all meritorious workes of preparation, wrought by vs, all Cooperation of mans will with Gods grace, in the effecting of our iustification.

Secondly, we learne, that a man is iustified by the meere merit of Christ: that is, by the meritorious obedience, which he wrought in himselfe, and not by any thing wrought by him in vs. Here then our merits, and satisfactions, and all inward iustice, is excluded from the iustification of a sinner. To this end Paul saith, that we are iustified freely by the redemption that is in Christ, Rom. 3. 24. that we are made the iustice of God in him (and not in vs.) 2. Cor. 5. 21. that he gaue himselfe to deliuer vs, Gal. 1. 4. that he hath purged our sinnes by himselfe, Heb. 1. 3. and not by any thing in vs. Hence it appeares, that the Papists erre, and are deceiued, when they teach that Christ did merit, that we might merit, and satisfie for our selues: for then we should not be iustified by our faith alone.

Thirdly, hence we learne, that a sinner is iustified by meere faith: that is, that nothing within vs concurres as a cause of our iustification, but faith; and that nothing apprehends Christs obedience for our iustification, but faith. This will more easily appeare, if we compare faith, hope, and loue. Faith is like an hand, that opens it selfe to receiue a gift, and so is neither loue, nor hope. Loue is also an hand, but yet an hand that giues out, communicates, and distributes. For as faith receiues Christ into our hearts: so loue opens the heart, and powers out praise and thanks to God, and all manner of goodnes to men. Hope is no hand, but an eye that wishly looketh, and waiteth for the good things, which faith beleeueth. Therefore it is the onely propertie of faith to claspe and lay hold of Christ, and his benefits.

It is obiected, that true faith is neuer alone. I answer thus. Faith is neuer alone in the person iustified, nor in godly conuersation: but is ioyned with all other vertues. Yet in the act, and office of iustification, it is alone. The eye in the bodie is not alone: beeing ioyned with all other parts, hand, foote, &c. neuerthelesse, the eye in seeing is alone. For no part of the bodie seeth, but the eye.

Secondly, it may be obiected, that beeing iustified by faith alone, we are saued by faith alone: and so may liue as we list. I answer, faith must be considered as an Instrument, or as a way. If it be considered as an instrument to apprehend Christ to our saluation, we are onely saued by faith, on this manner. Yet if faith be considered as a way, we are not onely saued by faith. For all other vertues and workes are the way to life as well as faith, though they be not causes of saluation.

Thirdly, it is obiected, that not onely faith, but also the sacraments serue to applie Christ: I answer, they are saide to applie, in that they serue to confirme faith, whole office is to applie. And here let vs take notice of the errour of the Papists, who teach that our satisfactions, serue to applie the satisfaction of Christ, and the sacrifice of the Masse, to applie the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse: whereas nothing indeede applies but faith.

In the sixt place, we are to consider the kindes of iustification. The Papists make two: one, when a man of an euill man is made a good man: the second, when a good man is made better: and this, they say, is by workes. But it is false which they teach. For the Iewes which were borne an holy and peculiar people to God, by meanes of the couenant, were iustified (as Paul here saith) by faith, without workes. Againe, he saith, that the very ende of our beleeuing is, that we may be iustified by faith without workes. Therefore there is one onely iustification, and no more: and that by faith without workes.

The seuenth point is, the ground of this doctrine of iustification by faith without workes. And it is laid downe in the end of the 16. verse, No flesh shall be iustified by the workes of the law. And this ground is taken, as I suppose, from Psalme 143. v. 2. It may be alleadged, that Dauid saith thus, No flesh shall be iustified in thy sight, and that the other words, [by the workes of the law,] are not expressed. I answer, that the Apostles, and Christ in citing places of the old Testament, applie them, and expound them, and hereupon sometime adde words without adding to the sense. Moses saith, Him shalt thou serue. Deut. 6. 16. Christ alleadging the same wordes, saith, Him onely shalt thou serue, Math. 4. 10. Dauid saith, Sacrifice and burnt offering thou wouldest not, but mine eares hast thou pearced, Psal. 40. 7. the author to the Hebrewes citing this text, saith, Sacrifice and burnt offering thou wouldest not, but a bodie hast thou fitted me, Heb. 10. 5. And thus the pearcing of the eare is explaned. For indeede it signifies to be made obedient: and to this ende was a bodie giuen to Christ, that he might obey his fathers will.

The eight, and last point is, the practise of them that are iustified, and that is to beleeue, or put their trust in Christ. Trust in the Lord (saith the Prophet) and ye shal be assured; 2. Chron. 20. 20. And Salomon saith, Roll your care on the Lord, Prou. 16. 2. By meanes of this faith the heart of the righteous is fixed and stablished. Psal. 117. 7, 8. For the better practise of this dutie, two rules must be remembred. The one is, that faith and the practise thereof, must raigne in the heart, and haue all at command. We must not goe by sense, feeling, reason, but we must shut our eyes, and let faith keepe our hearts close to the promise of God. Nay faith must ouerrule nature, and command nature, and the strongest affections thereof. Thus Abraham beleeued against hope, and by faith was content to offer his naturall and onely begotten sonne. Hebr. 11. If faith ouerrule nature, then much more must it haue all the lusts and corruptions of nature at command. The second rule is, that when we know not what to doe, by reason of the greatnes of our distresse, we must then fixe our hearts on Christ without seperation. He that climes vp a ladder, or some steepe place, the higher he goes, the faster he holds. 2. Chron. 20. 12. Iob. 13. 12. Hence is true comfort. Psal. 27. 13.

17 And if while we seeke to be made righteous by Christ, we our selues are found sinners, is Christ the minister of sinne? God forbid.

For the better vnderstanding of the latter part of this chapter, it must be obserued, that Paul directs his speach not onely to Peter, but also to the Iewes that stood by, beeing maintainers of iustification by the law.

Some thinke, that in this verse Paul makes an obiection in the person of the false Apostles, on this manner. If we be iustified by Christ alone, without the obseruation of the law, then there is no difference betweene vs Iewes and the Gentiles; but we are as deepe sinners as they: and if this be so, then Christ is the minister of sinne. And then they say, to this Paul answers, God forbid. But I somewhat doubt, whether this be the sense of the words, because Paul doth not make a direct confutation of this obiection in the words following.

Therefore I rather suppose, that Paul continues his former speach, euen to the ende of the chapter: and that in these words he vseth a third reason, to disswade Peter from haulting, betweene the Iewes and Gentiles. And the reason will the better appeare, if we search the meaning of the words. If, while we be iustified by Christ, that is, by faith in Christ, without the workes of the law. We are found sinners, that is, found in our sinnes, not fully iustified, but are further to be iustified by the workes of the law. Is Christ the Minister of sinne? that is, doth it not hence follow, that Christ ministred vnto vs occasion of sinne, in that he hath caused vs to renounce the iustice of the law? God forbid, that is, ye doe all hold it with me as a blasphemie, that Christ should be the minister of sinne.

The argument then is framed thus. If beeing iustified by Christ, we remaine sinners, and are further to be iustified by the law, then Christ is the minister of sinne: but Christ is no minister of sinne: therefore they which are iustified, neede not further to be iustified by the law.

The vse. First, we learne hence, that it is a blasphemie to make Christ the minister of sinne, who is the minister of righteousnes, yea iustice it selfe. Isa. 53. 11. Dan. 9. 25. He brings euerlasting righteousnes. Ioh. 1. He is the lambe of God that takes away the sinnes of the world. Of this all the Prophets giue testimonie. Act. 10. 43. Therefore Atheists are no better then deuills, that recken him among the false Prophets of the world. And many of them that professe Christ are greatly to be blamed, that make Christ the greatest sinner in the world: because Christ died for them: therefore they prefume of mercie, and take libertie to liue as they list.

Againe, Paul here teacheth, that they which are iustified by Christ, are perfectly to be iustified; and neede not further to be iustified by any thing out of Christ; as by the workes of the law. It may be obiected, that they which are iustified feele themselues to be sinners. Rom. 7. 14. Ans. The corruption of original sinne, is in them that are iustified: yet is it not imputed to them by God, and withall, it hath receiued his deadly wound by the death of Christ. Therefore they which are iustified, are not reputed sinners before God. Againe, it may be obiected, that they which are iustified, must confesse themselues to be sinners to the very death. Ans. Confession of sinne is not a cause, but a way for the obtaining of pardon. Prou. 28. 14. 1. Ioh. 1. 9. The vncouering of our sinnes is the way to couer them, before God. The sinnes therefore of men iustified, vpon their humble and serious confession, are not sinnes imputed, but couered.

Vpon this doctrine it followes, that there is not a second iustification, by workes, as the Papists teach. For he that is iustified by Christ, is fully iustified, and neede not further be iustified by any thing out of Christ, as by the law. Againe, the same persons teach, that our sinnes are done away by the death of Christ, and we iustified in our baptisme: and that if we fall, and sinne after baptisme, we must doe workes of penance that we may satisfie Gods iustice, and be further iustified by our works and sufferings. But then, by their leaues, after we are iustified by Christ, we are found sinners, and we are further to be iustified, by our owne workes. Now this is the point, which Paul here confuteth.

Againe, by this doctrine we learne, that Christ alone is by himselfe sufficient, for our iustification. In him (saith Paul) are we complete, Col. 2. 14. He is a well of grace and life neuer dried vp. Ioh. 4. 14. Thirdly, we must content our selues with him alone, and with his obedience for our iustification, despising (in respect of him) all merits, and satisfactions done by man.

Lastly, here we see what must be the care of men in this world, namely, to seeke to be iustified by the faith of Christ. It was Pauls principall desire to be found in Christ, hauing not his owne righteousnes, but the righteousnes which is by the faith of Christ. Phil. 3. 10. The like desire should be in vs all.

18 For if I build againe the things, which I haue destroied, I make my selfe a transgressour.

By things destroyed, Paul meanes the workes, or the iustice of the law, as appeares by the next verse following, where rendering a reason of this he saith, by the law I am dead to the law.

These words, depend on the former thus. Paul had said before, that Christ was not a minister of sinne vnto vs: and here he prooues it thus. He that builds, the iustice of the law which he hath destroied, is a minister of sinne, or makes himselfe a sinner: but the Iewes, and Peter by his example build the iustice of the law, which they haue destroied, and so doth not Christ: therefore the Iewes, and Peter, make themselues sinners, and Christ doth not make vs sinners.

Here let vs obserue the modestie and meeknes of Paul. The things which he speakes, concerne Peter, and the Iewes: yet least he offend them, he applies them to himselfe. This care, not to offend, was in Christ: who was rather willing to depart frō his right, then to offend. Matth. 17. 27. And Paul biddes vs please all men in that which is good.

Here againe it is Pauls doctrine, that we make our selues offendours, when we build that which we haue lawfully destroied. Thus Teachers are great offenders, when good doctrine is ioyned with bad conuersation. For good doctrine destroies the kingdome of darknes, and bad conuersation builds it vp againe. Thus rulers are great offenders when good counsell, and bad example goe together. For good counsell beats downe wickednes, and bad example sets it vp againe. Thus beleeuers in Christ are great offenders, when reformed religion, and vnreformed life are ioyned together, as often they are. For then vnreformed life builds the kingdome of sinne, which Christ hath destroied.

Further, we are here taught to be constant in that which is good, Tit. 1. 9. and to hold fast the Gospel which we professe. We haue put vnder foote the Popish religion for this many yeares: our dutie is to be constant herein, and no way to build either in word, or deede, that which we haue to the vttermost of our power destroied.

19 For I through the law, am dead to the law, that I may liue vnto God.

In these words, Paul sets downe a second reason, to prooue Christ to be no minister of sinne, in abolishing the iustice of the law. And the reason is framed thus: We Iewes, iustified by Christ, are dead to the law, not to liue as we list, but to liue to the honour of God. Therefore Christ in taking away the iustice of the law, is not the minister of sinne.

Here three points are propounded: the first is, that the person iustified, is dead to the law: the second, that he is dead to the law by the law: the third, that he is dead that he may liue vnto God.

For the better vnderstanding of the first point, we must seach what is meant by dying to the law. Here the law is compared to an hard and cruell master: and we to slaues, or bondmen: who so long as they are aliue, they are vnder the dominion, and at the command of their masters: yet when they are dead, they are free from that bondage, and their masters haue no more to doe with them. Here then, to be dead to the law, is to be free from the dominion of the law. And we are free, in foure respects. First, in respect of the accusing, and damnatorie sentence of the law. Rom. 8. 1. Secondly, in respect of the power of the law, whereby as an occasion it prouoketh and stirreth vp the corruption of the heart in the vnregenerate. Rom. 7. 8. Thirdly, in respect of the Rigour of the law, whereby it exacteth most perfect obedience for our iustification. Thus Paul here saith, that he is dead to the law. Lastly, in respect of the obligation of the conscience, to the obseruation of Ceremonies. Col. 2. 20. Thus are all persons iustified by the faith of Christ free from the law.

Hence we learne, that the Papists erre, and are deceiued, when they teach, that the Law and the Gospel are one for substance of doctrine. For then they which are iustified by Christ, should not onely be dead to the law, but also to the Gospel. Now the Scripture saith not, that persons iustified are dead to the Gospel.

They erre againe, in that they teach, that persons iustified by the merit of the death of Christ, are further to be iustified by the workes of the law. For he that is iustified by Christ, is dead to the law: but if we be iustified by workes, then are we by Christ made aliue to the law.

Thirdly, here we see how long the dominion of the law continueth, and when it endeth. The law raignes ouer all men without exception, till they be iustified. When they once beginne to beleeue in Christ, and to amend their liues, then the dominion of the law ceaseth, and they then are no more vnder the law, but vnder grace. Here all such persons as liue in the securitie and hardnes of their hearts, are to be admonished to repent of their sinnes, and to beginne to turne vnto God. For they must know, that they liue vnder a most hard and cruell master, that will doe nothing but accuse, terrifie, & condemne them, and cause them to runne headlong to vtter desperation. And if they die beeing vnder the law, they must looke for nothing but death and destruction without mercie. For the law is mer[illegible: 1 letter]ilesse. This consideration serueth notably to awake them that are dead in their sinnes. Againe, all such as with true and honest hearts haue begunne to repent and beleeue, let them be of good comfort. For they are not vnder the dominion of the law, but they are dead to the law, and vnder grace, hauing a Lord, who is also their mercifull Sauiour, who will giue them protection against the terrours of the law, and spare them as a father spares his child that serues him, and not breake them though they be but as weake and bruised reedes, and as smoaking flaxe.

The second point is, touching the meanes of our death to the law, and that is, the Law. Here some by the law, vnderstand the law of faith, that is, the Gospel. Rom. 3. 27. And they make this to be the meaning of the words, By the law of Christ, that is, by the Gospel, I am dead to the Law of Moses. But this sense, though it be a truth, yet will it not stand in this place. For it is the question, whether by the gospel we be freed from the law? Now Paul, a learned disputer, would not bring the question to prooue it selfe. Therefore, I take the true meaning of the words to be this: By the law of Moses, I am dead to the law of Moses. It may be demanded, how this can be, considering the law is the cause of no good thing in vs? For it is the ministerie of death and condemnation. 2. Cor. 8. 7. 9. Againe, that which the law cannot reueale, it cannot worke: but the law neither can, nor doth reueale faith in Christ, the death to the law, nor repentance, &c. therefore the law is no cause to worke them. It may peraduenture be said, that the law workes repentance, and sorrow for sinne. I answer, there is a double Repentance. One Legall, the other Euangelicall. Legall is, when men haue a sight of their sinnes, and withall are grieued for the punishment thereof. This repentance is wrought by the ministerie of the law: it was in Iudas: and it is no grace of God; but of it selfe it is the way to hell. Euangelicall Repentance is, when beeing turned by grace, we turne our selues to God. This repentance is a gift of grace, and is not wrought by the law, but by the ministerie of the Gospel. Again, there is a Legall sorrow, which is a sorrow for sinne, in respect of the punishment: this is no grace, and it is wrought by the law. Euangelicall sorrow, is sorrow for sinne, because it is sinne. This indeede is a grace of God; but it is not wrought by the law, but by the preaching of mercy and reconciliation: and it followes in vs vpon the apprehension of Gods mercie by faith. The law then beeing the cause of no good thing in vs, it may be demanded (I say) how we should be dead to the law, by the law? Ans. Though the law be not a cause of this death to the law, and so to sinne: yet it is an occasion thereof. For it accuseth, and terrifieth, and condemneth vs: and therby it occasioneth, or vrgeth vs to flie vnto Christ, who is the cause that we die vnto the law. As the needle goes before, and drawes in the third, which sowes the cloth; so the law goes before, and makes a way that grace may follow after, and take place in the heart. Thus must this place be vnderstood, and all other places that speake of the law in this manner: as Rom. 7. 8. &c.

The third point is, touching the ende of our death to the law: and that is, that we may liue to God. It may be demanded, what life this is, whereby we liue to God? Ans. There is a naturall, and a spirituall life. Naturall life is that, which we receiue from Adam by generation: and it is the function of naturall faculties, in liuing, moouing, vse of senses, and reason. Spirituall life, is that which we receiue from Christ by regeneration: and it is the action, motion, or operation of the spirit in vs. This life is called by Paul, the life of God, Eph. 4. 18. And this is the life which he speakes of in this place. And it is described by many things. First, by the ende, and vse of it. For it serues to make vs to liue to God, that is, to the honour and glorie of God. And we liue to God by liuing wisely, godly, iustly. Tit. 3. 12. Wisely, in respect of our selues: godly, in respect of God: iustly, in respect of men:

That we may liue wisely, we must obserue two rules. The first: we must labour with all diligence, and with all speede, that we may be worthie to stand before the sonne of man at his comming. And therefore we must labour to be in Christ, hauing true faith and good conscience. Eph. 5. 15. Luk. 21. 36. Consider also the example of Paul. Act. 24. 16. It is true wisdome to be wise for our soules, and for euerlasting happines: and it was the follie of the foolish virgins, that they did not surnish themselues with the oyle of grace in time conuenient. The second rule: we must in this world come as neere heauen and the happines of life euerlasting, as may be. Psal. 3. 14. And for this cause we must ioyne our selues to the assemblies where the word is preached, praier made, and sacraments administred: for there is the gate of heauen. Consider the practise of Moses, Heb. 11. 25, 26. and of Dauid, Psal. 84. 10. Againe, beeing absent from heauen both in bodie and soule, yet we must haue our conuersation there, by the cogitation of our mindes, and by the affections of our hearts. Phil. 3. 21.

That we may liue godlily, seuen rules must be remembred. The first: we must bring our selues into the presence of the inuisible God: yea, we must set our thoughts, wills, affections, and all we doe in his sight and presence: and we must euermore remēber whatsoeuer we doe, that we haue to deale with God himselfe. In this regard Enoch is said to walke with God, Gen. 5. 24. Abraham and Isaac before God, Gen. 17. 1. and 48. 15. and Dauid, Psal. 116. 9. and 139. all. and Cornelius, Act. 10. 33. and Paul, 2. Cor. 7. 17.

The second: we must take knowledge of the will of God in all things, whether it be reuealed in the word, or by any euent. It is not enough to know Gods will, but when time and place serues, we must acknowledge it. Rom. 12. 2. Col. 1. 10.

The third: we must bring our selues in subiection to the knowne will of God, and captiuate all our senses vnto it: and suffer God to set vp his kingdome in vs. Rom. 12. 1.

The fourth: when we haue offended God, we must instantly humble our selues before his maiestie, confessing our offences, and making instant deprecation for mercie. Thus did Ezra, chap. 9. and Daniel, chap. 9. and Dauid, Psal. 32. 3.

The fifth: in all our miseries and aduersities, we must be silent in our hearts, by quieting our wills in the good will of God. Psal. 4. 4. Examine your selues, and be still. Psal. 37. 7. be silent to Iehoua. Consider the example of Aaron, Leuit. 10. 3. of Dauid, Psal. 39. 9. of the Iewes, Act. 11. 18.

The sixth: in all things we doe or suffer, we must depend on the goodnes, prouidence, and mercie of God, for the successe of our labours, and for ease or deliuerance out of miserie. This is to liue by faith: and, as Peter saith, 1. Pet. 3. 17. to sanctifie God in our hearts.

The last: in all things we must giue praise and thankes to God: and that for our miseries, and afflictions, Iob 1. 22. for in them, God mingles his iustice, with mercie, whereas he might vtterly condemne vs.

That we may liue iustly in respect of men, two rules must be obserued. The first: we must make God in Christ, our treasure and our portion, and his fauour and blessing, our riches. Then shall not the vile sinnes of auarice, and ambition, beare sway in vs: and then shall we learne with Paul to be content in any estate, Phil. 4. 11. because howsoeuer the world go, we haue our portion and treasure. The second, we must loue God in louing of man: and serue him in doing seruice to men by the offices and duties of our callings. They which labour in their callings for this end to get riches, honours, and to set vp themselues in this world, prophane their callings, and practise iniustice. For not selfe loue, but loue to God, in duties of loue to men, must beare sway in all our actions.

Thus we see what it is to liue to God. Now we are all to be exhorted, to order our liues in this manner. For first of all, we are Gods: and therefore we must glorifie God both in our bodies and soules, 2. Cor. 6. 20. Secondly, the end of our iustification and redemption is, that we may liue to God. And it is great wickednes to peruert the order of God, by liuing to our selues and the iusts of our hearts. Thirdly, there be three degrees of life: one is in this life, a spirituall and a renewed life: the second in death, when the bodie goes to the earth, and the soule to heauen: the third, in the last iudgement, when bodie and soule reunited, enter into the presence of God. Therefore that we may be saued, we must liue vnto God in this life: for we can neuer come to the second degree of life, but by the first. And we must not imagine, that we can steppe immediatly out of a leud and wicked life, into euerlasting happines in heauen. Lastly, the grace of God in the ministerie of the Gospel hath appeared, and long taught vs, and called vpon vs, to liue vnto God. Therefore vnlesse we be ashamed and confounded for our sinnes, and beginne with all speede to liue vnto God, it will be worse with vs, then with Sodom and Gomorrha, and many other nations.

20 I am crucified with Christ: Thus I liue, yet not I any more, but Christ liues in me. And in that I now liue in the flesh, I liue by the faith of the sonne of God, who hath loued me, and giuen himselfe for me.

Whereas Paul said before, I am dead to the law, here he declares the reason of it, when he saith, I am crucified with Christ. Againe, here Paul sets downe the true preparation to spirituall life. For God first kills, and then he makes aliue. And the measure of spirituall life, is according to the decay of originall sinne. This preparation, stands in two things: the first is, fellowship with Christ in his crosse, and Passion, in these words, I am crucified with Christ. The second, is Ab[illegible: 1 letter]egation, or Annihilation (as some call it) in these words, Not I any more.

I am crucified with Christ.

For the better vnderstanding of these words, we must obserue, first, that Paul speakes not this of himselfe particularly, but he speakes in the person of the Christian Iewes, before whome he now reasoneth with Peter: nay in the person of all beleeuers. For all that beleeue are buried into his death. Rom. 6. 4. Secondly, it must be obserued, that Paul speakes this of himselfe not as he is a man consisting of bodie and soule, but as he is a sinner carrying about him the bodie of sinne. Rom. 6. v. 6. Further, it may be demanded, vpon what ground he should say, I am crucified with Christ? Ans. There be two reasons of this speach. One is, that Christ vpon the crosse, stood not as a priuate person, but as a publicke person, in the roome, place, and stead of all the Elect: and therefore when he was crucified, all beleeuers were crucified in him; as in the Parlament, when the Burgesse giues his voice, the whole corporation is said to consent by him, and in him. The second reason is this. In the conuersion of a sinner, there is a reall donation of Christ, and all his benefits vnto vs: and there is a reall vnion, whereby euery beleeuer is made one with Christ. And by vertue of this vnion, the crosse and passion of Christ, is as verily made ours, as if if we had beene crucified in our owne persons. Hereupon Paul saith in the time present, I am crucified with Christ; There are like phrases in Paul, We are dead with Christ: we are risen with him: we sit with him in heauenly places. Eph. 2. 6. Col. 3. 1. and they are in the same manner to be expounded. Moreouer, the benefits that arise of this communion with Christ in his passion, are two. One is, Iustification from all our sinnes, Rom. 6. 7. The second, is Mortification of sinne by the vertue of the death of Christ, after we are ingrafted into him. Thus much of the meaning.

The vse. Superstitious persons take occasion by the passion of Christ, to stirre vp themselues to sorrow, compassion, and teares, by considering the pitifull handling of Christ, the sorrow that pearced the heart of the virgin Marie, and the crueltie of the Iewes. But this is a humane vse, that may be made of euery historie.

The right vse is this: we are in minde and meditation to consider Christ crucified: and first, we are to beleeue, that he was crucified for vs. This beeing done, we must goe yet further, and as it were spread our selues on the crosse of Christ, beleeuing and withall beholding our selues crucified with him. Thou wilt say, this is a hard matter, I cannot doe it. I say againe, this is the right practise of faith: striue therefore to be setled in this, that the bodie of thy sinne is crucified with Christ. Pray instantly by asking, seeking, knocking, that thou maist thus beleeue. This faith, and perswasion, is of endles vse. First, it is the foundation of thy comfort. If thou beleeue thy selfe to be crucified with Christ: thou shalt see thy selfe freed from the dominion of the law and sinne, from hell, death, and condemnation; and to thy great comfort shall see thy selfe to triumph ouer all thy spirituall enemies. For this Christ doth, Col. 2. 14. and thou dost the same, if thou be setled in this, that thou art crucified with him. Secondly, vpon this perswasion, thou shalt feele the vertue of the death of Christ to kill sinne in thee, and to raise thy dead soule to spirituall life. When the Sunamites child was dead, Elisha went and lay vpon him applying face to face, hand to hand, and foote to foote: and then his flesh waxed warme, and reuiued, 1. King. 4. 34. euen so applie thy selfe to Christ crucified, hand to hand, foote to foote, heart to heart; and thou shalt feele in thy selfe a death of sinne, and the heat of spirituall life to warme and inflame thy dead heart. Thirdly, if thou beleeue thy selfe to be crucified with Christ, thou shalt see the lēgth, the breadth, the height, the depth of the loue of god in Christ. For thy sinnes are the swords, and the speares that crucified Christ: and yet thou hast all the benefit of his passion. Lastly, if thou canst beleeue that thou art crucified with Christ, thou shalt further be assured, that he is partner with thee in all thy miseries and afflictions, to ease thee, and to make thee to beare them. 1. Pet. 4. 13. Col. 1. 24.

The duties hence to be learned, are these. First, if thou be crucified with Christ, then must thou applie thy heart to crucifie the bodie of corruption in thee, by praier, fasting, by auoiding the occasions, by abstaining frō the practise of sinne, and by all good meanes. Behold a man hanged vpon a gybbet. Thou seest he hath satisfied the law: and there is no further iudiciall proceeding against him: and withall thou seest how he ceaseth from his thefts, murders, blasphemies: euen so if thou canst behold thy selfe spred vpon the crosse of Christ, and crucified with him, there will be in thee a new minde and disposition, and thou wilt cease from thine old offences. Againe, beeing crucified with Christ, thou must be conformable to Christ in thy sufferings. He suffered in loue; and the more his passion increased, the more he shewed his loue: euen so in thine afflictions and sufferings, thy loue to God & man must be increased, though man be the cause of thine afflictions. Secondly, Christ suffered in obedience: Not my will, but thy will be done: euen so in all thy sufferings, thou must resigne thy selfe to God, and quiet thy selfe in his will. Thirdly, Christ suffered in all humilitie, humbling himselfe to the death of the crosse: euen so we, in, and vpon our afflictions, are to humble our selues vnder the mightie hand of God, confessing our sinnes, and intreating for pardon. Fourthly, he suffered in faith as man depending on his fathers goodnes, euen in the middest of his passion: euen so are we to doe. Fifthly, he went on constantly in his sufferings to the very death: euen so are we to suffer in the resisting of sinne euen vnto the shedding of our blood. Lastly, the principall care of Christ was, to see the fruit of his sufferings: so when we are distressed, our care must rather be to see the fruit of our distresse, then to seeke deliuerance. This conformitie with Christ in his passion, is an infallible worke and token of the child of God, and a signe that we are crucified with Christ.

Againe, here we are to take notice of the false faith of many men. They can be content to beleeue that Christ was crucified for them: but there they make a pause: for they doe not beleeue that they are crucified with Christ. Their faith therefore is but halfe a faith: and their profession is according. For they haue the forme of godlines without the power thereof. They thinke that they beleeue the Articles of faith aright: but they are deceiued. For to beleeue in Christ crucified, is not onely to beleeue that he was crucified, but also to beleeue that I am crucified with him. And this is to know Christ crucified.

Lastly, here we are to consider the abomination of the Church of Rome. For it most abuseth that, which is the greatest treasure in the world, namely, Christ crucified. For they make a very Idol of him, in that they worship him in, at, and before painted, and carued Crucifixes. For there is no such Christ in heauen or in earth, that wil be present when we pray, and heare vs at Crucifixes. Againe, they giue Latria, diuine honour, to deuised and framed crucifixes: and thus they robbe Christ of his honour.

Thus much of our Communion with Christ in his passion: now followes the second part of preparation, namely, Abnegation. J liue, yet not I any more: that is, I liue a spirituall life, yet not as I as a naturall man. For in that regard, I carrie my selfe as a man crucified, or after the manner of a dead man, suffering nothing that is in me by nature, to raigne in me, that Christ alone may liue and raigne in me. Here is a notable dutie to be learned: we beeing crucified with Christ, must carrie our selues as men crucified: and that in three respects. First, in respect of corruption of sinnefull nature. For in regard of our sinnes, we are to esteeme our selues vnworthie of meat, drinke, sleepe, breathing: yea we are to esteeme ourselues to be as vile as any of the creatures vpon earth: and we are to denie vngodlines, and worldly lusts, not suffering any of them to raigne ouer vs. Secondly, we must carrie our selues as dead men, in respect of the good things that belong to nature, as honours, riches, pleasures, friends: all which in respect of preparation of minde, we must daily forsake for Christs sake, not suffering any of them to take place in our hearts. Lastly, we must be as dead men in respect of our owne reason and will, and we must tread them vnder foote, making Gods will, our wisdome, and will; and giuing it lordship and dominion ouer vs, our owne wills in the meane season lying dead in vs. Thus are we to carrie our selues as dead men: and we are to be carefull of it: that God may haue pleasure in vs we must forget our owne people, and our fathers house. Psal. 45. 10. That we may buy the pearle, we must sell all we haue, our wills, our affections, and the dearest things in the world. He that would liue when he is dead, must die while he is aliue: and we must now lay out our selues as dead persons. Corruption of nature, reason, and will, must be dead in vs, that Christ alone may liue and raigne in vs.

The third point concerning spirituall life is, touching the Originall and well-spring thereof, in these words, That Christ may raigne in me. For the better conceiuing whereof, three points are to be obserued. The first, that Christ is not onely the Author, with the father & the H. Ghost, but also the Roote of life, hauing life in himselfe that he may conuaie it to all that beleeue in him. He is the true vine, and we are the branches. Ioh. 15. 1. he is an appointed head to his Church. Eph. 1. 22. he is the prince of life. Act. 3. 15. he is a quickning spirit. 1. Cor. 15. 45. And in this regard is he said to liue in vs, namely, as a roote in the branch, or as the head in the members. The second point is, that there must be an Vnion with Christ, before we can receiue life from him, and he liue in vs. If ye abide in me, and I in you, ye shall bring forth much fruit. Ioh. 15. 4. We must be grafted with him, before we can be conformable to his death and resurrection. Rom. 6. 5. And againe, we must be taken out of the wild oliue, and set in the true oliue. Rom. 11. 24. Thus much Paul signifieth, when he saith, Christ liues in me. Of this coniunction, two things must be noted. The first, that it is a substantiall vnion: in that the person of him that beleeueth, is vnited to the person of Christ. For we must eate the flesh of Christ, and drinke his blood, before we can haue life abiding in vs, Ioh. 6. 53. and our bodies are members of Christ. 1. Cor. 6. 15. Againe, this Vnion is spirituall, because it is made by the bond of one spirit. 1. Cor. 12. 13. By one spirit we are baptised into one bodie. And no man is to maruaile, that we on earth should be ioyned to Christ in heauen. By ciuill contract man and wife are one flesh, though distant many miles asunder: why then may not we be ioyned to Christ by vertue of the couenant of grace? considering no distance of place can hinder the beeing of the spirit of Christ in vs. The third point is, that after this vnion with Christ, he must further communicate himselfe vnto vs, before we can liue by him, and he in vs. To this purpose S. Iohn saith, that God hath giuen vs life: that this life is in the sonne: that he which hath the sonne hath life. 1. Ioh. 5. 12. For the conceiuing of this truth, two questions may be demanded. One, in what order Christ giues himselfe vnto vs? Ans. Christ first of all, giues his flesh and blood, that is, himselfe: and then secondly, his gifts, namely the efficacie, and merit of his death. The institution of the Lords Supper sheweth plainly, that we are not partakers of the benefits of Christ, vnlesse first of all Christ himselfe be giuen vnto vs. The second question is, how Christ can be said to liue in vs? Ans. He is not in vs in respect of locall presence, but by the supernaturall, and speciall operation of his spirit. 1. Cor. 6. 17. The operation of the spirit, is threefold. The first is, when God imputes the righteousnes of Christ to them that beleeue, and withall giues the Right of eternall life, and the Earnest of this right, namely, the first fruits of the spirit. Hereupon iustification is called the Iustification of life. Rom. 5. The second is, Viuification by the vertue of the resurrection of Christ. Phil. 3. 10. And this vertue is the power of the Godhead of Christ, or the power of the spirit, raising vs to newnes of life, as it raised Christ from the death of sinne. And by this power, Christ is said to liue in them that beleeue. The third is, the Resurrection of the dead bodie to euerlasting glorie, in the day of iudgement. Rom. 8. 11.

Thus then the meaning of the words is euident: that Christ as a roote, or head, liues in them that are vnited to him, and that by the operation of his spirit, causing them to die vnto their sinnes, and to liue vnto God. And againe, it must be remembred, that Paul speakes this not priuately of himselfe, but generally in the name of all beleeuers. For he saith, 2. Cor. 13. 5. Know ye not that Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

The vse. Hence it followes, that they which are true beleeuers, cannot make a practise of sinne: and againe, that they sinne not with the full consent, or swinge of their wills. Because, Christ liues in them, and restraines the will in part. When they sinne therefore, they sinne not of malice, but of ignorance, [illegible: 1 word]. Ioh. 3. 9. or infirmitie.

Secondly, the true beleeuer, cannot wholly fall away from grace: because the life of Christ cannot be abolished. As Christ died but once, and for euer after liues to God: so they that are in Christ, die once to sinne, and liue eternally to God. Rom. 6. 10. The vertue, and power of God, that was shewed in raising Christ to life, is likewise shewed in quickning them that doe beleeue. Eph. 1. 19. He therfore that is made aliue to God, dies no more, but remaines aliue as Christ doth.

Thirdly, they which are true beleeuers, are a free and voluntarie people obeying God, as if there were no law to compell them. For they haue Christ to liue in them. Read Psal. 110. 2. The spirit of life that is in Christ is also in them; and that is their law. Rom. 8. 2. It is the propertie of the child of God to obey God, as it is the nature, and qualitie of the fire to burne when matter is put to it.

It may here be demanded, how we may know that Christ liues in vs? Ans. By the spirit of God. 1. Ioh. 3. 24. And the spirit is knowne by the motions, and operations thereof. The first whereof, is a Purpose to obey God, according to all his commandements that concerne vs, with an inclination of our hearts to the said commandements. Paul saith, he was sold vnder sinne: and yet withall he addes, that he delighted in the law of God according to the inward man. Rom. 7. 23. He that loues God, and keepes his commaundements hath the father and the sonne dwelling in him. Ioh. 14. 23. Let this be obserued. Pharaoh, when Gods hand was vpon him, confessed he was a sinner and his people, and requested Moses, and Aaron, to let the people goe. But after God had withdrawne his hand, he returned to his old course. The like doe sicke men: they make promise to amend their liues, and they request their friends to pray for them: but when they are recouered, they forget all their faire promises. The reason is this. There is conscience in them; and by it they know themselues to be miserable sinners: but they want this purpose to obey God, and the inclination to his laws: and therefore indeede they hate not their sinnes, but rather the commandement of God. The second operation, and signe of the spirit, is a mind and disposition, like to the mind and disposition of Christ: which is to doe the will of God, to seeke his glorie, and to applie himselfe to the good of men in all duties of loue. The third and last (to omit many) is to loue Christ for himselfe, and to loue them that loue Christ, and that because they loue Christ. This is a true signe, that we haue passed from death to life. 1. Ioh. 3. 14. It may here be said, how can Christ be said to liue in vs, considering we are laden with afflictions and miseries? Where Christ liues, there is no miserie. Ans. In the middest of all miseries, the life of Christ doth most appeare. Where naturall life decaies, there spirituall life takes place. 2. Cor. 4. 10. I beare in my bodie the mortification of our Lord Iesus, that the life of Iesus may be made manifest in me. Gods power is made manifest in weaknes. 2. Cor. 12. Againe, it may be said, if Christ liued in vs, we should not feele so many corruptions as we doe. Ans. The life of Christ is conueyed vnto vs, by little and little. God hauing wounded and slaine vs, first bindes vs vp, then he revives vs, and the third day he raiseth vs vp. Hos. 6. 1. Againe, nature feeles not nature, nor corruption feeles corruption, but grace: therefore it is the life of Christ in vs that makes vs feele the masse, and bodie of corruption.

Furthermore, here we are to take notice of the common sinne of our daies. Men will not suffer Christ to liue in them, and to rule ouer them. It is reputed a small matter; but it is a grieuous offence. The Gentiles say, Let vs breake their bands and cast their cords from vs. Psal. 2. 2. And it is was the sinne of the Iewes to say, We will not haue this man to raigne ouer vs, Luc. 19. 14. And therefore Christ saith, bring them hither, and slay them before me.

Lastly, here we learne our dutie: and that is so to liue, that we may be able to say with good conscience, that Christ liues in vs: we must seeke his kingdome aboue all things, and take his yoke on vs. It will be said, what must we doe that Christ may liue in vs? Ans. We must vse the meanes appointed, meditation of the word, prayer, sacraments: and withall we must spiritually eate the flesh of Christ, and drinke his blood. Ioh. 6. 57. And that we may eate him, we must haue a stomacke in our soules like the stomacke of our bodies, and we must hunger and thirst after Christ: and therefore we must feele our owne sinnes, and our spirituall pouertie, and haue an earnest lust and appetite after Christ, as after meat and drinke. When Sisera was pursued by the armie of the Israelites, he cried to Iael and said, Giue me drinke, I die for thirst. Iudg. 4. 19. euen so we beeing pursued by the sentence of the law, by the terrours of hell, death, and condemnation; must flie to the throne of grace, and crie out, saying, Giue me of the tree of life, giue me of the water of life: I perish for thirst. Then shall our wretched soules be quickned, and reuiued to euerlasting life. Math. 5. 6. Rev. 21. 6.

In the fourth place, here is set downe the Meanes of spirituall life, in these words, And in that I now liue in the flesh, I liue by the faith of the sonne of God, who hath loued me, and giuen himselfe for me. And that the doctrine may the better appeare, I will stand a while to shew the meaning of them. By flesh, is ment the mortall bodie, or the fraile condition of this temporall life. Heb. 5. 7. and 1. Pet. 4. 2. And therefore to liue in the flesh, is to liue a naturall life by eating, drinking, sleeping. Further, Paul saith that liuing in the flesh, he liued by faith: and for the better conceiuing of this, two questions may be demanded. The first is, Why a beleeuer is said to liue by faith? Ans. There be two causes. First, faith is an Instrument to vnite vs to Christ: and by meanes of this vnion, we receiue life from Christ: for Christ dwells in our hearts by faith. Eph. 3. 17. Secondly, faith is a Guide, to order and gouerne temporall life, in all good manner according to the will of God. And this faith doth, by a diuine kind of reasoning framed in the mind, whereby it vrgeth, and perswadeth to good duties. Rom. 6. 11.

The second question is, How men liue by faith? Ans. The child of God liues a double life in this world: a spirituall, and a temporall. The spirituall stands specially in three things; Reconciliation with God: renouation of life: and good workes. Now in our Reconciliation with God, we liue in this world onely by faith. For we haue, and enioy pardon of sinnes, imputation of iustice, and acception to life eternall, onely by meanes of our faith. Rom. 4. 4. & 5. 1.

Againe, in the renouation and change of our liues, we liue by faith. For our faith in Christ purifieth our hearts, Act. 15. 9. partly, by deriuing holines and puritie from Christ vnto vs, who is our sanctification: and partly, by moouing and perswading of vs to holines and newnes of life. 1. Ioh. 3. 3.

Lastly, in the doing of euery good worke, we must liue by our faith. For first there must be a generall faith that the worke in his kind pleaseth God. Rom. 14. 25. Secondly, iustifying faith must giue a beginning to the worke. I beleeued, therefore I spake. Psal. 116. 12. Thirdly, after the worke is done, faith must couer the defects thereof, that it may be acceptable to God. Heb. 11. 5.

Temporall life, stands in cares, or miseries: and miseries, are outward afflictions, or inward temptations. And in all our worldly cares, we are to liue by faith. For our care must be to doe our office, and the labour of our calling, with all diligence. This beeing done, we must there make a pause: and for the successe of all our praiers, and labours, we must cast our care on God. 1. Pet. 5. 7.

Likewise, in our afflictions we are to liue by faith. For our faith is to assure vs, that God according to his promise will giue a good issue. 1. Cor. 10. 12. And though all temporall things faile vs, it makes vs retaine the hope of mercie and of eternall life. Thirdly, it makes vs waite Gods leisure for our deliuerance. Isa. 16. 28.

Lastly, in our Temptations we are not to liue by feeling, but by faith: yea against feeling, to rest on the bare promise of God; when we feele and apprehend nothing but the wrath of God. And thus we see how the beleeuer liues by his faith in this world.

It may be said, What is the faith we liue by? Answer is here made: It is the faith of the sonne of God. And sauing faith is so called; because Christ is not onely the Author of it, and the obiect, or matter of it, but also the Reuealer of it. For there was a certaine faith in God, which was put into the heart of man in the creation, which also the morall law requireth: but this faith in the Messias, was not knowne till after the fall; and then it was reuealed to the world by the sonne of God.

Againe, it may be saide, What is this faith of the Sonne of God? Answer is here made: A faith whereby. I beleeue that Christ hath loued me, and giuen himselfe for me.

These words then thus explaned, are an answer to an obiection, which may be framed thus: Why shouldest thou say, that thou liuest not, but that Christ liueth in thee; considering thou liuest in the flesh, as other men doe? Answer is made, Though I liue in the flesh, yet I liue by the faith of the sonne of God.

The vse. Here first of all they are to be blamed, that liue by sense, like beasts: beleeuing no more then they see, and trusting God no further then they see him. For, if a man whome we see and know, make a promise to vs, we are comforted: yet if God, who is inuisible make in his word farre better promises (as he doth,) we are not in like sort comforted. Againe, we put too much confidence in meanes. If we haue good callings, house, land, liuing, we can then trust in God: but when meanes of comfort faile, we are confounded in our selues, as if there were no God. We are like the vsurer, who will not trust the man, but his pawne: euen so we trust not God vpon his bare word, without a pawne. If he come to vs with a full hand, and with the pawne of his good gifts, and blessings, we trust him; els not.

Againe, they are to be blamed, that liue onely by the guidance of reason. For many dispute thus: I deale truly and iustly with all men, and liue peaceably with my neighbours: therefore God will haue me excused. But there must be a better guide to euerlasting life; namely, faith in Christ: els shall we misse of our marke.

Thirdly, they deceiue themselues, that thinke they may liue as they list: and call vpon God when they are dying, and so die by faith. It is well if they can die by faith: but that they may so die, they must liue by faith.

Lastly, they are to be blamed, that spend their daies in worldly cares, so as no good thing can take place. This is the life of infidels. And where true faith raignes, it cuts off the multitude of cares, and makes vs cast them on God.

Moreouer, here we see what we are to doe in perilous times, as in the time of plague, famine, sword, when present death is before our eyes: we must then liue by faith. When Noeh heard of the flood, he prepared such meanes as faith would affoard for the sauing of himselfe, and his familie. Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, by faith liued as pilgrimes in a strange land, and were content. Moses left Pharaos court, and feared not the wrath of the king: because by faith he saw him that was inuisible, Hebr. 11. 27. Dauid in the feare of present death, comforted himselfe in the Lord his God, 1. Sam. 30. 6. When Iehosaphat knew not what in the world to doe, he lift vp the eyes of his faith to the Lord. 2. Chron. 20. 12. Christ in his agonie and passion of the crosse, by faith commended his soule into the hands of his father. Of the Saints of the New Testament, some were racked, some were stoned to death, and that by faith. Heb. 11. 36. We must therefore all of vs, learne to liue by faith: and for this cause we must acquaint our selues with the word, and promises of God; and mingle them with our faith: els shall the life of a man in the world be worse, then the life of a beast.

Againe, in these words [who hath loued me, and giuen himselfe for me] the nature and propertie of iustifying faith is set down, which is to Applie the loue of God, and the merit of the passion of Christ, vnto our selues. And therefore the Papists are deceiued, who say, that hope applieth, and not faith. It may be alleadged, that Paul speakes these words priuately of himselfe. Ans. He speakes them in the name of all beleeuers, Iewes and Gentiles. For (as we may see in the former verses) that which concerned Peter, and the rest of Christian Iewes, he applies to himselfe, least his speech should seeme odious.

Againe, it may be obiected, that all beleeuers cannot say thus, Christ hath loued me, and giuen himselfe for me. Ans. If the minde be fixed on Christ: and there be also a will and indeauour to beleeue and apprehend Christ; there is faith indeede. For God accepts the true and earnest will to beleeue, for faith. We are not saued for the perfection of our faith, but for the perfection of the obedience of Christ, which faith apprehendeth. The Israelites which looked vpon the brasen serpent with one eye, or with a squint-eye, with halfe an eye, or dimme sight, were healed, not for the goodnes of their sight, but for the promise of God. The poore in spirit, are blessed. Now they are poore in spirit, who finde themselues emptie of all goodnes, emptie of true faith, full of vnbeleefe, and vnfainedly desire to beleeue. So then if we greeue, because we cannot beleeue as we should, and earnestly desire to beleeue, God accepts vs for beleeuers.

Againe, in these words [who hath loued me, and giuen himselfe for me] S. Paul sets downe the reason or argument, which faith vseth in the minde regenerate, to mooue men to liue to God. And the reason is framed thus: Christ loueth thee, and hath giuen himselfe for thee: therefore see thou liue to God. Read the like, Rom. 12. 1. and 2. 4. and Psal. 116. 12.

By this we are to take occasion, to consider and to bewaile the hardnes of our hearts, who doe not relent from our euill waies, and turne vnto God vpon the consideration of his loue in Christ. The waters of the Sanctuarie haue long flowed vnto vs: but they haue not sweetned vs, and made vs sauerie: therefore it is to be feared least our habitations be at length turned to places of nettles and saltpits. Eze. 7. 11.

21 I doe not abrogate the grace of God: for if righteousnes be by the law, then Christ died without cause.

The meaning, Grace in Scriptures signifieth two things: the free fauour of God; and the gifts of God in vs. And where the holy Ghost intreates of iustification, grace in the first sense, signifies the good will, and fauour of God, pardoning sinnes, and accepting vs to life euerlasting, for the merit of Christ. 2. Tim. 1. 9. Eph. 2. 8. And in this sense is the word vsed in this place. And when Paul saith, I doe not abrogate the grace of God; his meaning is, I doe not make void, or frustrate the grace of God in respect of my selfe, or in respect of other beleeuers, by teaching the iustification of a sinner by saith alone. He addes, If righteousnes be by the law; that is, if a sinner be iustified by his owne obedience, in performing the law, then Christ died without cause. The word [non-Latin text not transcribed], freely, translated without cause, hath a double signification. One is, when it signifies as much as without price, or merit. Math. 10. 8. Ye haue receiued freely, giue freely. The second is, when it signifies rashly, without iust, or sufficient cause: as Psal. 69. 4. Mine enemies hate me freely, (as the Seuentie translate) that is, wrongfully, or without iust cause. Thus here is Christ said to die freely, that is, in vaine, or without cause: because if we be iustified by obedience to the law, then Christ died in vaine, to make any satisfaction to the law for vs.

These words are an answer to an obiection. The obiection is this: If thou teach that a sinner is iustified onely by his faith in Christ, then thou abolishest the grace of God. The answer is negatiue. I doe not by this doctrine abrogate the grace of God. And there is a reason also of this answer: If we be iustified by our owne fulfilling of the law, then Christ died in vaine to fulfill the law for vs.

The vse. First, let vs marke that Paul saith, he doth not abrogate the grace of God: and why? because he will suffer nothing in the cause of our iustification to be ioyned with the obedience of the death of Christ. And hence we learne, what is the nature of grace. It must stand wholly, and intirely in it selfe. Gods grace cannot stand with mans merit. Grace is no grace, vnlesse it be freely giuen euery way. Rom. 4. 4. To him that worketh the wages is giuen, not of grace, but of desert. Rom. 11. 6. If election be of grace, then not of workes, els is grace no grace. Grace, and works of grace in the causing of iustification, can no more stand together, then fire and water. By this we are admonished to be nothing in our selues, and to ascribe all that we are, or can doe, to the grace of God.

Againe, here we see our dutie, and that is to be carefull not to abrogate the grace of God vnto our selues. But how is that done? Ans. We must strippe and emptie our selues of all righteousnesse, and goodnesse of our owne, euen to the death, and withall hunger and thirst after Christ and his righteousnes. Math. 5. 6. Luk. 1. 35.

Thirdly, Paul here sets downe a notable ground of true religion; That the death of Christ is made voide, if any thing be ioyned with it in the worke of our iustification, as a meanes to satisfie Gods iustice, and to merit the fauour of God. Therefore the doctrine of iustification by workes, is a manifest errour. For if we be iustified by the workes of the law, then the iudgement of the holy Ghost is, that Christ died without cause. Againe, the doctrine of humane satisfactions is a deuice of mans braine. For if we satisfie for our selues, then did Christ by death satisfie in vaine. Thirdly, it is a false and wicked, (though a colourable inuention) to say, that Christ by his death merited, that we should merit by our workes. For if we merit by workes, Christ died in vaine to merit by his owne death. This is the sentence of God, who cannot erre. Lastly, here we see the Church of Rome erreth in the foundation of true religion: because it ioyneth the merit of mans workes, and the merit of the death of Christ, in the iustification of a sinner. And therefore, we may not so much as dreame of any reconciliation to be made with that religion; for light and darknes cannot be reconciled, nor fire and water. Here the Papists answer, that Paul in this text speakes against them, that looked to be iustified by the naturall obseruation of the law, without the death of Christ. But it is false which they say. For Paul here speakes against Christian Iewes, who ioyned the law and the Gospel: and looked to be iustified both by Christ, and by the works of the law: and not by workes of the law, done by strength of nature, but by works of grace.

The ſecond Chapter.

Verſe. 1. Then fourtene yeares after I vvent vp to Ieruſalem. PAVLE taught that the Gentiles were iuſtified by faith onely without the works of the law.Paules doctrine. This doctrine when he had publiſhed abroad among the Gentiles, he commeth to Antioch, and declareth to the Diſciples what he had done. Then they which had bene trained vp in the old cuſtomes of the law,Contention of ſuch as vvere turned from the Ievves, againſt Paule. Acts. 15.89. The declaration of Paule and Barnabas as touching thoſe things vvhich vvere done among the Gentiles. roſe againſt Paule with great indignation, for that he preached to the Gentiles libertie from the bondage of the law. Wherevpon followed greate diſſention, which afterwards ſtirred vp new troubles. Paule and Barnabas ſtoode ſtrongly to the truth, and teſtified, ſaying: whereſoeuer we preached among the Gentiles, the holy Ghoſt came and fell vpon thoſe which heard the word: and this was done through out all the churches of the Gentiles. But we preached not circumciſion, neither did we require the keping of the law, but we preached onely faith in Ieſus Chriſt: and at this preaching of faith, God gaue to the hearers the holy Ghoſt. The holy Ghoſt therefore doth approue the Faith of the Gentiles without the law and Circumciſion. For if the preaching of the Goſpell and faith of the Gentiles in Chriſt had not pleaſed him, he had not come downe in a viſible ſhape vpon the vncircumciſed which heard the word. Seing then by the only hearing of faith he came downe vpon them, it is certaine that the holy ghoſt by this ſigne hath approued the faith of ye Gentiles. For it doth not appeare that this was euer done before at the preaching of the law. Then the Ievves and many of the Phariſeis which did beleue, and notwithſtanding bare yet a greate zeale to the law, earneſtly ſtriuing to maintaine the glory thereof, ſette themſelues fiercely againſt Paule, VVhat they aunſvvere to Paule in this diſputation, vvhich are ſo earneſt for the lavve. (who affirmed that the Gentiles were iuſtified by faith onely without the works of the lawe) contending that the lawe ought to be kept, and that the Gentiles ought to be circumciſed: for otherwiſe they could not be ſaued. And no maruell: for the very name of the lawe of God is holy & dreadfull. The heathen man, which neuer knew any thing of the law of God, if he heare any man ſay: This doctrine is the law of God, doubtles he is moued. How thē could it be but yt the Ievves muſt nedes be moued, & vehemently contend for the maintenāce of the law of God, which euen from their infancie had bene nuſled and trained vp therein?They that vvere conuerted from among the Ievves hardly forſooke the lavve. We ſee at this day how obſtinate the Papiſts be in defending their traditions and doctrines of Deuils. Wherefore it was much leſſe to be maruelled, that the Iewes did ſo vehemently and zelouſly ſtriue for the maintenance of their law, which they had receaued from god. Cuſtome is of ſuch force, that where as nature is of it ſelfe inclined to the obſeruation of the law, by long continuance it ſo confirmeth nature that now it becommeth a double nature.Cuſtome is a double nature Therefore it was impoſſible for the Ievves which were newly conuerted to Chriſt, ſodenly to forſake the lawe: who though they had receaued the faith of Chriſt, thought it neceſſary notwithſtanding to obſerue the lawe. And with this their weakenes God did beare for a time, vntill the doctrine of the Goſpell might be plainely diſcerned from the lawe.God alvvayes beareth vvith the infirmities of his people. 1 Reg. 8.21. Exod. 34.6.7. So he bare with the infirmitie of Iſraell in the time of King Achab, when the people halted betwene two religions. He bare alſo with our weakenes, while we were vnder the blindnes of the Pope: For he is long ſuffering and full of mercy. But we muſt not abuſe this goodnes and patience of the Lord, nor continue ſtill in our weakenes and errour, ſithens the truth is nowe reueiled by the cleare light of the Goſpell. Moreouer, they that ſtoode againſt Paule, VVhat they had to ſay for themſelues that reſiſted Paule. affirming that the Gentiles ought to be circumciſed, had to lay for themſelues, firſt the law and cuſtome of the countrey, then the example of the Apoſtles, and laſt of all the example of Paule himſelfe who had circumciſed Timothy. Wherefore if Paule in his defence ſaid, that he did not this of neceſſity, but for Chriſtian loue and liberty, leſt they which were weake in faith ſhould be offended: which of them would beleue him? Herevnto all the people would aunſwere: Since it is euident that thou haſt circumciſed Timothy, thou maiſt ſay what thou wilt: notwithſtanding thou haſt done it. For this is a matter farre paſſing all mans capacity, and therefore they could not vnderſtand it. Moreouer, no defence can ſerue when a man hath loſt the fauour of the people and is fallen into ſuch deadly hatred and contempt. Paule therfore ſeeing this contention and theſe clamours daily to encreaſe more and more, and being alſo warned by reuelation from God: after fourtene yeares (beſides thoſe wherin he had preached in Damaſcus and Arabia) he goeth vp againe to Ieruſalem, to conferre his Goſpell with the other Apoſtles: yet not for his owne cauſe, but for ye peoples ſake. Now this contention touching the obſeruation of the law, exerciſed Paule a long time after, and wrought him much trouble. But I doe not thinke yt this is the contention which Luke ſpeaketh of in the .15. of the Acts, which happened (as it appeareth) by and by after ye beginning of the Goſpell. But this hiſtory which Paule here mencioneth, ſeemeth to be done long after, when Paule had now almoſt eightene yeares preached the Goſpell.

Verſe. 1. VVith Barnabas, and tooke vvith me Titus. Paule taketh vnto him vvitneſſes Barnabas and Titus.He ioyneth vnto himſelfe two witneſſes, Barnabas and Titus. Barnabas was Paules companion in preaching to the Gentiles freedome from the ſeruitude of the law. He was alſo a witnes of all thoſe things which Paule did,Barnabas. and had ſeene the holy Ghoſt geuen vnto the Gentiles which were circumciſed and free from Moſes law, by the onely preaching of faith in Ieſus Chriſt, & he only ſtucke to Paule in this poynt: that it was not neceſſary that the Gentiles ſhould be burdened with the law, but that it was enough for them to beleue in Chriſt. Wherefore by his owne experience he teſtifieth with Paule againſt the Ievves, that the Gentiles were made the children of God & ſaued by faith alone in Ieſus Chriſt, without the law or circumciſion. Not as hauing any ſoueraintie, othervviſe then an Euangeliſt, or chiefe of the eldershippe of the churches. 1 Tit. 1.5. Titus was not only a Chriſtian but alſo the chiefe ouerſeer in Crete: For vnto him Paule had committed the charge of gouerning the churches there. Tit, 1. And this Titus was a Gentile.

Verſe. 2. And I vvent vp by reuelation. For vnleſſe Paule had bene admoniſhed by reuelation, he had not gone vp to Ieruſalem. But becauſe God warned him by a ſpeciall reuelation, and commaunded him to goe vp, therefore he went. And this he did to bridle or at leaſt to appeaſe the Ievves that beleued and yet obſtinatly contended about the keeping of the law, to the ende that the truth of the goſpell might be the more aduaunced and confirmed.

Verſe. 2. And I communicated vvith them touching the goſpell. You heare thē that at length, after .18. yeres he went vp to Ieruſalem, and conferred with the Apoſtles touching his goſpell.

Verſe. 2. VVhich I preach among the Gentiles. For among the Iewes he ſuffered the law & circumciſion for a time, as the other Apoſtles did: I am made al things vnto all men, ſaith he, 1. Cor. 9: yet euer holding the true doctrine of the goſpel,Paule ſo defendeth the goſpel, that he vvill haue all things geue place vnto it. Actes. 13.3[illegible: 1 letter]. which he preferred aboue the law, circumciſion, the Apoſtles, yea & an Angell from heauen. For thus ſayth he vnto the Iewes: Through this Chriſt is preached vnto you the forgeuenes of ſinnes. And he addeth very plainly: And from all things, from the vvhich ye could not be iuſtified by the lavve of Moſes, by him euery one that beleueth is iuſtified. For this cauſe he ſetteth forth and defendeth the doctrine of the goſpell ſo diligently euery where, & neuer ſuffereth it to come in daūger. Notwt ſtanding he did not ſodenly breake out at the firſt, but had regard vnto ye weake. And becauſe the weake ſhould not be offended, ther is no doubt but he ſpake to the Iewes after this maner: If that vnprofitable ſeruice of Moſes law which nothing auaileth to righteouſnes, do ſo highly pleaſe you, ye may kepe it ſtil for me, ſo that the Gentiles which are not bound to this law, be not charged therwithall. Paule confeſſeth then, that he cōferred the goſpel wt the Apoſtles, (but ſayth he) they profited me or taught me nothing: but I rather for the defence of the libertie of the goſpel, in the preſence of the Apoſtles did conſtantly reſiſt thoſe which would needes force the obſeruation of the law vpon the Gentiles, and ſo did ouercome them. Wherfore your falſe apoſtles lie in ſaying that I circumciſed Timothie, that I ſhaued my head in Cenchrea, and that I went vp to Ieruſalem at the commaū dement of the Apoſtles. Nay rather I glory that in going vp to Ieruſalem by the reuelation of God, and not at the commaundement of the Apoſtles, and there conferring my Goſpell with them, I brought to paſſe the cōtrary, that is to ſay, obtained that the Apoſtles did approue me, and not thoſe which were againſt me. Now,The queſtion that vvas hādled in the meting of the Apoſtles. the queſtion whervpon the Apoſtles conferred together in thisThe practiſe of the church in the time of the Apoſtles, as touching Synodes and conferences, teach vs novv to vſe the ſame, vvhen vve haue any controuerſie. aſſembly, was this: whether the keping of the law were neceſſary to iuſtification or no? To this Paule aunſwereth: I haue preached vnto the Gentiles, according to my goſpel which I receaued from God, faith in Chriſt and not the law: and at this preaching of faith they receaued the holy Ghoſt: and hereof Barnabas ſhall beare me witnes. Wherfore I cōclude that the Gentiles ought not to be burdened with the law, nor to be circumciſed. Notwithſtanding I geue no reſtraint to the Iewes herein. Who if they will nedes kepe the law and be circumciſed, I am not againſt it, ſo that they do it with fredome of conſcience. And thus haue I taught and liued among the Iewes, being made a Ievv vnto the Ievves: holding euer ye truth of the goſpel notwtſtanding.

Verſe. 2. But particularly vvith them that vvere the chiefeſt. That is to ſay, I did not onely conferre with the brethern, but with thoſe that were the chiefeſt among them.

Verſe. 2. Leſt by any meanes I should run, or had run in vaine. VVhy Paule ſayth, leſt I had run in vaine.Not that Paule doubted that he ran or had run in vaine, for as much as he had now preached the goſpel .18. yeres (for it foloweth incontinēt in the text, ye he had continued firme & conſtant all this while & had preuailed) but for that many did thinke that Paule had therefore preached the goſpell ſo many yeres in vaine, becauſe he had ſet the Gentiles at libertie from the obſeruation of the lawe. Moreouer, this opinion daily more and more increaſed, that the lawe was neceſſary to iuſtification. Wherfore in going vp to Ieruſalem by reuelatiō, he ment ſo to remedy this euill, yt by this conference all men might plainly ſee his goſpell to be in no poynt contrary to ye doctrine of the other apoſtles: to the end yt by this meanes he might ſtop the mouthes of the aduerſaries, which would elſe haue ſayd that he ran or had run in vaine. Note here by the way, the vertue of mans righteouſnes, or of the righteouſnes of ye law to be ſuch, that they which teach it, doe run and liue in vaine.

Verſe. 3. But neither yet Titus vvhich vvas vvith me, though he vvere a Grecian, vvas compelled to be circumciſed. This word, vvas compelled, ſufficiently declareth what the cōference and concluſion was:VVhat vvas decreed in this conference. to wit, that the Gentiles ſhould not be conſtrained to be circumciſed, but that circumciſion ſhould be permitted to ye Gentiles for a time: not as neceſſary to righteouſnes, but for a reuerence to the forefathers: alſo for charities ſake towardes the weake (leſt they ſhould be offended) vntil they were grown vp more ſtrong in faith: For it might haue ſeemed ſtraunge and vnſeemely vpon a ſudden to forſake the lawe and traditions of the fathers, which had bene geuen to this people from God with ſo great glory. Paule then did not reiect circumciſion as a damnable thing, neither did he by word or deede enforce the Iewes to forſake it. For in the .1. Cor. 7. he ſayth: If any man be called being circumciſed, Hovv Paule refuſed circumciſion. 1. Cor. 7.18. let him not adde vncircumciſion. But he reiected circumciſion as a thing not neceſſary to righteouſnes, ſeing the fathers themſelues were not iuſtified therby, but it was vnto thē as a ſigne onely or a ſeale of righteouſnes, wherby they teſtified and exerciſed their faith. Notwithſtāding the beleuing Iewes which were yet weake, & bare a zeale to the law, hearing that circumciſion was not neceſſary to righteouſnes, could vnderſtand this no otherwiſe, but yt it was altogither vnprofitable and damnable. And this fond opiniō of the weake Iewes yt falſe apoſtles did encreaſe, to the end that the hearts of the people being ſtirred vp againſt Paule, by this occaſiō, they might throughly diſcredite his doctrine.Hovv vve teach faſting and other Chriſtian exerciſes novv a dayes. So we at this day do not reiect faſting & other good exerciſes as dānable things: but we teach yt by theſe exerciſes we do not obtaine remiſſion of ſinnes. When the people heare this, by & by they iudge vs to ſpeake againſt good workes. The Papiſts alſo do confirme & encreaſe this opinion in their preachings & wrytings. But they lie, & doe vs great wrong. For many yeres paſt there hath ben none that hath more truely and faithfully taught concerning good workes, then we doe at this day. Paule then did not ſo cōdemne circumciſion, as though it were ſinne to receaue it or kepe it:VVhat vvas determined in that meting of the Apoſtles. for ſo the Iewes would haue ben highly offended: but it was decided in this conference and Councel, that it was not neceſſary to iuſtification, & therfore not to be forced vpon the Gentiles. So this moderation was found, that for the reuerence of the fathers, and charitie towardes the weake in faith, the Iewes ſhould kepe the law and circumciſion ſtill for a time, notwithſtanding they ſhould not therby ſeke to be iuſtified: And alſo that the Gentiles ſhould not be burdened therwith, both becauſe it would haue bene to them a very ſtraūge thing, and alſo a burden vntolerable: Actes. 15.[illegible: 1 letter]0. briefly that none ſhould be conſtrained to be circumciſed, or any reſtrained from circumciſion. Paule therfore compelled none yt would be circumciſed, to remaine vncircūciſed, ſo yt he knew circūciſion not to be neceſſary to iuſtificatiō. This cōſtraint would Paule take away. Therfore he ſuffred ye Iewes to kepe ye law, ſo yt they did it wt a free conſcience. For he had euer taught, as wel the Iewes as the Gentiles, yt in conſcience they ought to be free frō the law & circumciſion: like as all the Patriarks & all the faithfull in ye old Teſtament were free in cōſcience & iuſtified by faith, & not by ye law or circumciſion. And in dede Paule might haue ſuffred Titus to be circumciſed:VVhy Paule vvould not ſuffer Titus to be circumciſed. but becauſe he ſaw that they would compell him thervnto, he would not. For if they had preuailed therein, by and by they would haue gathered that it had bene neceſſary to iuſtification, & ſo through this ſufferance they would haue triumphed againſt Paule. Now, as the falſe apoſtles would not leaue circumciſion & the obſeruation of the law indifferent, but required the ſame as neceſſary to ſaluation: ſo at this day our aduerſaries doe obſtinately contend that mens traditions cā not be omitted without peril of ſaluation. And thus of an example of charitie, they make an example of faith, whē notwithſtanding there is but one example of faith, which is to beleue in Ieſus Chriſt: And this, as it is alone neceſſary to ſaluation, ſo doth it alſo indifferently pertaine to all men. Notwithſtāding the aduerſaries would rather worſhip the Deuill ten times in ſtead of God,The obſtinate aduerſaries defend their vvicked blaſphemies by tyrannie and violence. then they would ſuffer this. Therfore they are daily hardned more and more, and ſeeke to eſtabliſh their impieties and blaſphemies againſt God, defending the ſame by force and tyrannie, and will not agree or conſent vnto vs in any poynt. But what then? Let vs go on boldly in the name of the Lord of hoſtes, and for all this, let vs not ceaſe to ſet forth the glory of Ieſus Chriſt: and let vs fight valiantly againſt the kingdom of Antichriſt by the word and by prayer,Math. 6.9.10. that the name of God alone may be ſanctified, that his kingdom may come, and that his vvill may be done. And that this may ſpedely come to paſſe, we deſire euen from the bottome of our heartes and ſay, Amen, Amen. The victorie of Paule againſt the falſ Apoſtles.This triumph of Paule therfore was very glorious: namely, that Titus which was a Gentile, although he were in the middes of the Apoſtles and all the faithfull where this queſtion was ſo vehemently debated, was not yet conſtrained to be circumciſed. This victorie Paule carieth away, & ſayth that in this conference it was decided by the conſent of all the Apoſtles, the whole Church alſo approuing the ſame, that Titus ſhould not be circumciſed. This is a ſtrong argument, and maketh very much againſt the falſe apoſtles. And with this argument: Neither vvas Titus compelled to be circumciſed, Paule was able to repreſſe and mightely conuince all his aduerſaries. As if he ſhould ſay: Why doth theſe counterfait apoſtles ſo falſely report of me, ſaying, that I am compelled to keepe circumciſion by the commaundement of the Apoſtles, ſeeing I haue the witnes of all the faithfull in Ieruſalem, and moreouer of all the Apoſtles them ſelues, that by my purſute and trauaile the contrary was there determined: and that I did not onely there preuaile that Titus ſhould not be circumciſed, but that the Apoſtles did alſo approue and ratifie the ſame. Your counterfet apoſtles therfore do lie deadly, which ſclaūder me vnder the name of the Apoſtles, and therby deceaue you: for I haue the Apoſtles and all the faithfull, not againſt me, but with me. And this I proue by the example of Titus. Notwithſtanding, Paule (as I haue often ſayd) did not condemne circumciſion as an vnprofitable thing, nor conſtrained any man therevnto. For it is neither ſinne nor righteouſnes to be circumciſed or vncircumciſed, as it is neither ſinne nor righteouſnes to eate or drinke. For vvhether thou eate or eate not, thou art neither better nor vvorſe. 1. Cor. 8.8. But if any mā ſhould adde therto either ſinne or righteouſnes, and ſay: If thou eate thou ſinneſt, if thou abſtaine thou art righteous, he ſhould ſhew him ſelfe both fooliſh and wicked.The Pope putteth righteouſnes in the keping of his traditiōs, and damnation in breaking of them. Therfore to ioyne ceremonies with ſinne or righteouſnes, is great impietie: As the Pope doth, who in his forme of excommunication, threatneth to all thoſe that doe not obey the law of the Biſhop of Rome, Gods great curſe and indignation, and ſo maketh all his lawes neceſſary to ſaluation. Wherefore the Deuil him ſelfe ſpeaketh in the perſon of the Pope, & in all the Popes decrees. For if ſaluation cōſiſteth in keping of the Popes lawes, what neede haue we of Chriſt to be our iuſtifier and Sauiour?

Verſ. 4.5. For all the falſe brethern that crept in, vvho came in priuely to eſpie out our liberty vvhich vve haue in Chriſt Ieſus, that they might bring vs into bōdage. To vvhom vve gaue not place by ſubiection for an houre, that the truth of the Goſpell might continue vvith you. Here Paule ſheweth the cauſe why he went vp to Ieruſalem, and there conferred his goſpell with the other Apoſtles, and why he would not circumciſe Titus: Not that he might be the more certaine, or confirmed in the goſpell by the Apoſtles, for he nothing doubted thereof: but that the truth of the goſpell might continue in the Churches of the Galathians, and in all the Churches of the Gentiles. We ſee then that this buſines of Paule was no light matter. Nowe, where he ſpeaketh of the truth of the Goſpell, he ſheweth that there be two goſpels, a true and a falſe goſpell. Indeede the goſpell of it ſelfe is ſimple, true and ſincere, but by the malice of Satans miniſters it is corrupt and defaced. Therfore where he ſaith: The truth of the goſpel, he would haue vs to vnderſtād alſo the contrary. As if he would ſay:The goſpell of the falſe apoſtles. The falſe apoſtles do alſo preach a faith & a goſpel, but they are both falſe. Therfore haue I ſet my ſelfe ſo conſtantly againſt them: and in that I would not geue place vnto them, I haue brought to paſſe that the truth of the goſpell continueth with you.The goſpell of the Pope, and other heretikes the Anabaptiſtes. Verſe. 7. So the Pope and the Anabaptiſts doe bragge at this day that they teach the Goſpell & faith in Chriſt. True it is: but with ſuch frute as the falſe apoſtles once did, whom Paule calleth before in the firſt chapter troublers of the church, and ſubuerters of the goſpell of Chriſt. On the other ſide he ſayth that he teacheth the truth of the goſpell. As if he ſhould ſay: Thoſe things which the falſe apoſtles teach,Of preachers vvhich preach Chriſt corruptly. bragge they neuer ſo much that they teach the truth, are nothing elſe but ſtarke lies. So all Heretikes pretend the name of God, of Chriſt, and of the Church. Alſo they pretend that they will not teach errours or lies, but moſt certaine truth and the pure Goſpell of Chriſt. The truth of the goſpell, vvhat it is.Now the truth of the goſpell is, that our righteouſnes cometh by Faith only without the workes of the law. The corruption or falſhode of the Goſpell is,The corruptiō of the goſpell. that we are iuſtified by Faith, but not without the workes of the lawe. With the like condition the falſe apoſtles alſo preached the Goſpel. Euen ſo doe our Papiſts and craftie Sophiſters at this day.The doctrine of the Papiſtes concerning faith. For they ſay that we muſt beleue in Chriſt, and that Faith is the foundation of our ſaluation: but it iuſtifieth not, except it be furniſhed with charitie. This is not the truth of the Goſpell, but falſhode and diſſimulation. But the true Goſpell in deede is, that works or charitie are not the ornament or perfection of faith: but that faith of it ſelfe is Gods gift and Gods worke in our hearts, which therefore iuſtifieth vs becauſe it apprehendeth Chriſt our redemer. Mans reaſon hath the law for his obiect,The obiect of reaſon. thus thinking with it ſelfe: This I haue done, this I haue not done. But faith being in her owne proper office, hath no other obiect but Ieſus Chriſt the ſonne of god,The obiect of faith, is the thing vvhervnto the eie of faith loketh, vvhich is Chriſt. deliuered to death for the ſinnes of the whole world. It loketh not to charitie. It ſayeth not: what haue I done? what haue I offended? what haue I deſerued? but what hath Chriſt done? what hath he deſerued? Here the truth of the goſpel anſwereth thee: he hath redemed thee from thy ſinne, from the Deuil & from eternall death. Faith therefore acknowledgeth, that in this one perſon Ieſus Chriſt, it hath forgeuenes of ſinnes and eternall life. He that turneth his eyes away from this obiect, hath not true Faith but a fantaſie and a vaine opinion, and turneth his eyes from the promiſe to the law, which terrifieth and driueth to deſperation. Wherfore thoſe things which the Sophiſters & Scholemen haue taught cōcerning the iuſtifying faith being furniſhed wt charitie,Faith adorned vvith charity. are no thing elſe but mere dreames. For that faith which apprehēdeth Chriſt the ſonne of God & is furniſhed wt him, is the ſame faith that iuſtifieth, and not that faith which includeth charitie. For a true & a ſtedfaſt faith muſt lay hold vpon nothing elſe but Chriſt alone, and in the afflictions and terrours of conſcience it hath nothing elſe to leane vnto, but this Diamond Chriſt Ieſus. Wherfore he yt apprehendeth Chriſt by faith,True faith. although he be neuer ſo much terrified with the law, & preſſed downe with the weight of his ſinnes, yet may he be bold to glory that he is righteous. How or by what meanes? Euen by that precious Pearle Chriſt which he poſſeſſeth by faith. This our aduerſaries vnderſtand not, and therfore they caſt away this precious Pearle Chriſt, & in his place they ſet charitie, which they ſay is their precious Diamund. Now, when they can not tell what Faith is, it is vnpoſſible that they ſhould haue faith: much leſſe can they teach it vnto others. And as for that which they will ſeme to haue, it is nothing elſe but a very dreame, an opinion, and naturall reaſon, and not faith. This I ſay, to the end ye may perceaue that Paule mentioning here the truth of the Goſpell, ſpeaketh with great feruencie of ſpirite for the more reproofe of the contrary. For by theſe wordes he reprehendeth the falſe apoſtles, for that they had taught a falſe goſpell: for they required circumciſion & the obſeruation of the law as neceſſary to ſaluation. Moreouer,Sleights practiſed of the falſe apoſtles againſt Paule. they went about by craftie ſleights and policie to entrap Paule: for they watched him narowly, to ſee whether he would circumciſe Titus or no: Alſo whether he durſt withſtand them in ye preſence of the Apoſtles, and for this cauſe he reprehendeth them bitterly. They vvēt about (ſayth he) to ſpie out our libertie vvhich vve haue in Chriſt Ieſu, that they might bring vs into bōdage. Wherfore the falſe apoſtles armed them ſelues on euery ſide, that they might cōuince and confound him before the whole congregation. Beſides this, they went about to abuſe ye authoritie of ye Apoſtles, in whoſe preſence they accuſed him, ſaying: Paule hath brought Titus being vncircumciſed, into ye company of all the faithfull: he denieth and condemneth ye law in your preſence which are Apoſtles. If he dare be ſo bold to attēpt this here & before you, what wil not he attempt in your abſence among ye Gentiles? Wherfore when he perceaued yt he was ſo craftely aſſailed, he ſtrōgly wtſtode the falſe apoſtles, ſaying: we did not ſuffer our liberty which we haue in Chriſt Ieſu to come in daūger, although the falſe brethren ſought by all meanes to ſnare vs, and put vs to much trouble: but we ouercame them euen by the iudgement of the Apoſtles themſelues, and we would not yelde vnto them, no not one hower (for, no doubt, their drift was to haue cauſed Paule to ſurceaſe from this liberty for a time) ſithens we ſaw yt they required the obſeruation of ye law as neceſſary to ſaluation. But if they had alleaged nothing els but charitable bearing with the brethren, no doubt but Paule would haue giuen them place. But it was an other thing that they ſought, to witte, that they might bring Paule and all that ſtucke to his doctrine into bondage. Therefore he would not yelde vnto them, no not the ſpace of one moment. In like maner doe we alſo offer to the Papiſtes all that is to be offered, yea and more then we ought. Onely we except the libertie of conſcience which we haue in Chriſt Ieſus. For we will not ſuffer our conſciences to be bound to any worke, ſo that by doing this thing or that, we ſhould be righteous, or leauing the ſame vndone, we ſhould be damned.Theſe be the corruptions vvhich Luther here ſayth, that he tolerateth more then he ought to do: but the ſafeſt vvay is, quite to reiect them. We are contented to eate the ſame meates that they eate, we wil kepe their feaſtes and faſting daies, ſo that they will ſuffer vs to doe the ſame with a free conſcience, and leaue theſe threatning words wherwt they haue terrified and brought vnder their ſubiection the whole world,The Popes thunderbolts. ſaying: we commaūd, we charge, we charge againe, we excōmunicate, &c. but this liberty we can not obtaine: like as Paule alſo could not in his time. Therefore we doe as he did. For when he ſaw that he could not obtaine this libertie, he would not geue place to the falſe Apoſtles, for the ſpace of one hower. Wherefore like as our aduerſaries wil not leaue this free vnto vs, that onely faith in Chriſt iuſtifieth: ſo on the other ſide neither will we nor can we geue place vnto them, that faith furniſhed with charitie iuſtifieth.It is a point of true godlines to be ſtout againſt the meritmongers for keping our Chriſtian liberty. Here we wil and we ought alſo to be rebellious and obſtinate againſt them, for els we ſhould loſe the truth of the Goſpell: we ſhould loſe our liberty which we haue, not in the Emperour, not in Kings and Princes, not in that mōſter the Pope, not in the world, not in fleſh, bloude, reaſon &c: but which we haue in Chriſt Ieſus. We ſhould loſe faith in Chriſt, which (as before I haue ſaid) apprehēdeth nothing els but that precious pearle Chriſt. This faith whereby we are regenerate, iuſtified, and engrafted into Chriſt, if our aduerſaries will leaue vnto vs ſound and vncorrupt: we offer vnto them that we will doe all things, ſo that they be not contrary to this faith. But becauſe we can not obtaine this at their ha[illegible: 1 letter]des, we againe for our parte will not yelde vnto them one heares breadth▪ For here is a great and a weighty matter in hand, namely touching the death of the ſonne of God: who by the will and commaundement of the father was made fleſh,VVhen faith is ſound all things are ſafe was crucified and died for the ſinnes of the world. If faith here geue place, then is this death and reſurrection of the ſonne of God in vaine: then is it but a fable that Chriſt is the Sauiour of the world:The holy obſtinacie and ſtoutnes of the Godly. then is God alſo found a lier becauſe he hath not performed that he promiſed. Our ſtoutnes therefore in this matter is godly and holy: For by it we ſeeke to preſerue our liberty which we haue in Chriſt Ieſus, and therby to retaine the truth of the Goſpell: which if we loſe, then doe we alſo loſe God, Chriſt, all the promiſes, faith, righteouſnes, and euerlaſting life. But ſome man will ſay: The lawe is diuine and holy.The doctrine of the lavv. Let the law haue his glory: but yet no law, be it neuer ſo diuine and holy, ought to teach me that I am iuſtified and ſhall liue through it. I graunt it may teach me that I ought to loue God and my neighbour: alſo to liue in chaſtitie, ſobernes, patience &c. but it ought not to ſhew me how I ſhould be deliuered from ſinne, the Deuill, death and hell. Here I muſt take counſell of the Goſpell,The doctrine of the Goſpel. I muſt harken to the Goſpell which teacheth me, not what I ought to doe (for that is the proper office of the law): but what Ieſus Chriſt the ſonne of God hath done for me: to wit, that he ſuffered and died to deliuer me from ſinne and death. The Goſpell willeth me to receaue this and to beleue it. And this is the truth of the Goſpell. It is alſo the principall article of all Chriſtian doctrine: wherein the knowledge of all godlines conſiſteth. Moſt neceſſary it is therfore that we ſhould know this article wel, teach it vnto others, and beate it into their heades continually. For as it is very tender, ſo is it ſoone hurt. This Paule had well tried, and of this haue all the godly alſo good experience. To conclude, Paule would not circumciſe Titus, and (as he ſaith) for no other cauſe but for that certaine falſe brethren were crept in, to eſpie out their liberty, and would haue conſtrained Paule to circumciſe Titus. Paule perceauing this conſtraint and neceſſity, would geue no place, no not for one hower, but ſtrongly reſiſted them: And therefore he ſaith: Neither Titus vvhich vvas vvith me, being a Gentile, Galat. 2.3. vvas compelled to be circumciſed. If they had required this in the way of brotherly charitie, doubtles he would not haue denied it. But ſeīg they would haue done it as a neceſſary thing, and that by compulſion, to the ill example of others, to the ouerthrowing of the Goſpell and to bring mens conſciences into bondage, therefore he ſetteth himſelfe mightely againſt them, and preuailed ſo, that Titus was not circumciſed. It may ſeeme to be but a ſmall matter to be or not to be circumciſed. But when a man hath an affiance in keping, or is in feare for not keping of it, here God is denied, Chriſt is reiected, the grace and all the promiſes of God are refuſed.They are to be reſtrained to ſuch as ſerue to edification or els vve ought to leaue them. But if circumciſion be kept without this addition, there is no daunger. If the Pope would in this ſort require of vs the keping of his traditions as bare ceremonies, it ſhould not be greuous vnto vs to kepe them, foraſmuch as we alſo doe vſe ceremonies: but to binde mens conſciences to theſe ceremonies, and to make of them an high and acceptable ſeruice vnto God, yea and moreouer to adde, that life and ſaluation, or death and euerlaſting damnation conſiſteth in the obſeruation hereof, is a deuiliſh ſuperſtition and full of blaſphemie. Who ſo will not crie out againſt this, accurſed be he.

Verſe. 6.7. And of them vvhich ſeemed to be great, I vvas not taught (vvhat they vvere in times paſt, it is no matter to me. &c.) VVhy Paule geueth not vnto the apoſtles any glorious title.This is a vehement and a ſtout confutation. For he geueth not to the true Apoſtles themſelues any glorious title: but as it were abaſing their dignitie, he ſaith: vvhich ſeemed to be great, that is, which were in authoritie: vpon whom the determination of all matters depē ded. Notwithſtanding the authoritie of the Apoſtles was in deede very greate in all the churches. And Paule alſo did not ſeeke any whit to diminiſh their authoritie, but he thus contemptuouſly aunſwereth ye falſe Apoſtles, which ſet ye authoritie & dignitie of ye Apoſtles againſt Paule in all the churches, yt therby they might weaken his authority & bring his whole miniſtery into contempt. This Paule might not ſuffer. To ye end therfore that the truth of the Goſpell and liberty of conſcience in Chriſt might continue among the Galathians and in all the churches of the Gentiles, he aunſwereth ſtoutly to the falſe Apoſtles, that he paſſed not how greate the Apoſtles were or what they had bene in time paſt: and wheras they alleadged the authority of the name of the Apoſtles againſt him, it toucheth him nothing at all. He confeſſeth that the Apoſtles are in deede ſomewhat, and that their authority is to be reuerenced. Notwithſtanding his Goſpell and miniſtery ought not to be ouerthrowne for the name or title of any whatſoeuer, be he an Apoſtle or an Angeil from heauen. And this was one of the greateſt arguments that the falſe Apoſtles vſed againſt Paule. The Apoſtles ſaid they, were familiarly conuerſant with Chriſt for the ſpace of three yeares. They heard and ſaw all his preachings and miracles.The argument of the falſe Apoſtles againſt Paule. Moreouer they themſelues preached & wrought miracles whiles Chriſt was yet liuing in the world: whom Paule neuer ſaw in the fleſh, & as touching his conuerſion, it was long after the glorification of Chriſt. Wherefore they ſhould now conſider which of theſe they ought more to beleue: Paule which was but one and alone, and alſo but a diſciple, yea and one of the laſt of all: or the cheifeſt and moſt excellent Apoſtles,The vvord of God to be preferred before all titles and perſons vvhatſoeuer. which long before Paule were ſent & confirmed by Chriſt himſelfe. To this Paule aunſwereth: what of all this? This argument concludeth nothing. Let the Apoſtles be neuer ſo greate, yea let them be Angels from heauen, it is no matter to me. The queſtion is not here cōcerning the excellency of the Apoſtles, but concerning the word of God and the truth of the Goſpell. Herein conſiſteth all the weight of the matter, that the Goſpell may be preſerued pure and vncorrupt: which alſo aboue all things ought to be preferred. Therefore how greate Peter and the other Apoſtles haue bene, what greate miracles they haue wrought, it is no matter to me. This is it that I onely ſeeke, euen that the truth of the Goſpell may continue among you. This ſeemeth to be but a ſlender aunſwere of Paule, when of purpoſe he ſo contemneth the authoritie of the Apoſtles which the falſe Apoſtles alledged againſt him, and geueth no other ſolution to their mighty argument then this: it is no matter to me. Notwithſtanding he addeth a reaſon of the confutation.

Verſe. 6. God accepteth no mans perſon. This place he alledgeth out of Moſes, who vſeth ye ſame, God reſpecteth no mans perſon. Deut. 10.17. 2 Chron. 19.7. Rom. 2.11. Eccleſ. 35.16. Acts. 10.34. Epheſ. 6.9. Coloſ 3.26. not once but many times: Thou shalt not accept in iudgemēt the perſō of the rich man or of the pore. And this is a principle of diuinitie: God is no acceptor of perſons. With the which ſaying he ſtoppeth the mouthes of the falſe apoſtles. As though he would ſay: Ye ſet thoſe againſt me which ſeeme to be ſomewhat: but God careth not for ſuch outward things. He regardeth not ye office of Apoſtleſhip. It is not ye dignity or authority of mē ye he loketh vpon. And in tokē hereof,Iudas. Saule. Iſmaell. Eſau. he ſuffered Iudas one of ye chiefeſt Apoſtles, & Saul one of ye greateſt kings, yea & the firſt of all, to fall away & to be damned. Iſmaell alſo & Eſau he refuſed, being both firſt born. So ſhal you find throughout al ye whole ſcripture yt god oftētimes reiected thoſe which in outward ſhew were very good & holy mē. And in theſe exāples God ſemeth ſometimes to be cruel: but it was moſt neceſſary yt ſuch feareful exāples ſhould be ſhewed & alſo be writē. For this vice is naturally grafted in vs, that we highly eſteeme yt perſons and outward appearance of men and more regard the ſame then the word of God. Contrariwiſe God will haue vs to fixe our eies and to reſt wholy vpon the word it ſelfe:Mā regardeth the perſon. he will not haue vs to reuerence and adore the Apoſtleſhip in the perſons of Peter and Paule, but Chriſt ſpeaking in them, and the word which they bring and preache vnto vs. This the naturall man can not ſee: but the ſpirituall man onely diſcerneth the perſon from ye word,Euery creature of God may be called the veile of God, becauſe God is, as it vvere couered and shadovved vnder it. ye veile of God from God himſelfe. Now this veile of God is euery creature. Moreouer, God here in this life dealeth not with face to face, but couered and ſhadowed from vs: yt is, as Paul ſaith in an other place:1. Cor. 13.12. vve ſe him novv as it vvere through a glaſſe and darkely. Therefore we can not be wtout veiles in this life. But wiſedom is here required, which can diſcerne the veile from God himſelfe: and this wiſedom the world hath not. The couetous man hearing that man liueth not by bread onely,Deut. 5.10. Mat. 4.4. but by euery word that procedeth out of the mouth of God, eateth the bread, but he ſeeth not God in the bread:Mā truſteth to the veiles of God, and not to God himſelfe. for he beholdeth the veile onely and outward ſhew. So he doth with gold and other creatures, truſting to them ſo long as he hath them: but when they leaue him, he deſpaireth. And thus he honoureth not the creator, but the creatures, not God but his owne belly. This I ſpeake leaſt any man ſhould thinke yt Paule vtterly condemneth theſe outward veiles or perſons. For he ſayth not that there ought to be no perſon, but that ther is no reſpect of perſons with God. There muſt be perſons and outward veiles:The outvvard veiles are Gods good creatures, but vve muſt not truſt in them, vvhich is vvicked. God hath geuen them and they are his good creatures: but we muſt put no truſt in them. All the matter is in the right vſing of things, & not in the things thēſelues, as before I haue ſayd. There is no fault in circumciſion or vncircumciſion (for circumciſion is nothing, and vncircumciſion is nothing) but in the vſe therof. To put righteouſnes in the one, and vnrighteouſnes in the other, that vſe is damnable and ought to be taken away: which being remoued, circumciſion and vncircumciſion are things tolerable. So the Prince, the magiſtrate, the preacher, the ſcholemaſter, the ſcholer, the father, the mother, the children, the maſter, the ſeruaūt are perſons and outward veiles, which God will haue vs to acknowledge, loue and reuerence as his creatures, which alſo muſt needes be had in this life: but he wil not haue vs ſo to reuerence them or truſt vnto them, that we forget him. And to the end that we ſhould not too much magnifie the outward perſons or put any truſt in them, God leaueth in them offences and ſinnes, yea great and foule ſinnes, to teach vs what difference there is betwene the perſon and God him ſelf.God ſuffreth his deare ſainctes to fal into great vices, that vve shuld not cleaue to their perſons. 2. Sam. 11.4.17. Dauid that good king, becauſe he ſhould not ſeeme to be a perſon vpon whom men ſhould truſt, fel into horrible ſinnes, adulterie and murther.Mat. 26.69. Marke. 14.66. Luke. 22.55. Iohn. 18.25. Men are but men. Peter that excellent Apoſtle denied Chriſt. Theſe and ſuch like examples, wherof the ſcripture is full, ought to warne vs that we repoſe not our truſt in the perſon & outward veile, nor thinke that when we haue the outward ſhewes & ſhadowes, we haue al things: As it is in Poperie, where they iudge all things according to the outward veile, and therefore all Poperie is nothing elſe but a meere reſpecting of perſons and outward ſhewes. God hath geuen his creatures to our vſe and to doe vs ſeruice, and not as Idols, that we ſhould do ſeruice vnto them. Let vs then vſe bread, wine, apparell, poſſeſſions, gold, ſiluer, and all other creatures: but let vs not truſt or glory in them: for we muſt truſt and glory in God alone: He onely is to be loued, he only is to be feared and honored. Paule calleth here the perſon of man the Apoſtleſhip or office of the Apoſtles, which wrought many and greate miracles,Paule calleth the Apoſtleship the perſon of man. taught and conuerted many to the faith, and were alſo familiar with Chriſt. Briefly, this word perſon comprehendeth the whole outward conuerſation of the Apoſtles which was holy, and their authoritie which was great. Notwithſtanding (ſayth he) God eſteemeth not theſe things: Not that he eſteemeth them not at all, but in the matter of iuſtification he regardeth them not, be they neuer ſo great and ſo glorious. For we muſt diligently marke this diſtinction, that in matters of diuinitie we muſt ſpeake farre otherwiſe then in matters of policy. In matters of policy (as I haue ſayd) God will haue vs to honour and reuerence theſe outward veiles or perſons as his inſtruments by whom he gouerneth and preſerueth the world. But when the queſtion is touching religion, conſcience, the feare of God, faith and the ſeruice of God, we muſt not feare theſe outward perſons, we muſt put no affiance in them, loke for no comfort from them,The outvvard perſon is not to be looked vpon in iudgement, Deut. 1. or hope for deliuerance by them either corporally or ſpiritually. For this cauſe God will haue no reſpect of perſons in iudgement: for iudgement is a diuine thing. Wherefore I ought neither to feare the iudge, nor truſt to the iudge: but my feare & truſt ought to be in God alone, who is the true iudge. The ciuill iudge or magiſtrate I ought in deede to reuerence for Gods cauſe, whoſe miniſter he is: but my conſcience may not ſtay or truſt vpon his iuſtice & equitie, or be feared through his vniuſt dealing or tyranny, whereby I might fal into any offence againſt God, either in lying, in bearing falſe witneſſe, or denying the truth &c. Otherwiſe I will reuerence and honour the magiſtrate with all my heart. VVhat can the Pope othervviſe do being Antichriſt but take vpon him dominion ſuch as Gods vvord neuer allovved of? Marke vvhat ſeruitude Luther vvas cō tent to endure ſo that he and others might enioy the liberty of conſcience. Acts. 4.19. The dominion of the Pope intolerable. So I would alſo honour the Pope and loue his perſon if he would leaue my conſcience free and not compell me to ſinne againſt God. But he will ſo be feared and adored as can not be done without offence to the maieſtie of God. Here ſince we muſt needes loſe the one, let vs loſe the perſon and ſticke to God. We could be content to ſuffer ye dominion of the Pope: but becauſe he abuſeth the ſame ſo tirannouſly againſt vs, & would compell vs to deny and blaſpheme God, & him onely to acknowledge as our Lord & maſter, clogging our conſciences, & ſpoiling vs of the feare & truſt which we ſhould haue in God, therfore we are compelled by the commaundement of God to reſiſt the Pope: for it is writen that vve muſt rather obey God then men. Therfore wtout offēce of cō ſciēce (which is our ſingular cōfort) we cōtemne ye authority of ye pope. There is a vehemencie in this word God: for in the cauſe of religion and the word of God, there muſt be no reſpect of perſon: but in matters of policy we muſt haue regard to the perſon: otherwiſe there muſt needes follow a contempt of all reuerence and order. In this world god will haue an order, a reuerence and a difference of perſons. For els the childe, the ſcholler, the ſeruaunt, the ſubiect would ſay: I am a Chriſtian as well as my father, my ſcholemaſter, my maſter, my Prince: why then ſhould I reuerēce him? Before God there is no reſpect of perſons, neither of Grecian nor of Iewe,Rom. [illegible: 1 letter].9.10 but all are one in Chriſt: although not ſo before the world. Thus Paule diſſolueth the argument of ye falſe Apoſtles touching ye authority of ye Apoſtles, ſaying that it is nothing to yt purpoſe. For the queſtion is not here concerning ye reſpect of perſons, but ther is a farre weightier matter in hand, yt is to ſay, a diuine matter cōcerning God & his word, & whether this word ought to be preferred before ye Apoſtleſhip or no. Whereunto Paule aunſwereth: So that the truth of the goſpel may continue, ſo that the word of God and the righteouſnes of faith may be kept pure and vncorrupt, let the Apoſtleſhip goe, let an Angell from heauen, let Peter, let Paule and altogether periſh.

Verſe. 6. Neuertheleſſe they that ſeemed to be the chiefe, did communicate nothing vvith me. As though he would ſay: I did not ſo conferre with the Apoſtles, that they taught me any thing. For what ſhould they teach me, ſince Chriſt by his reuelation had before ſufficiently taught me all things? & moreouer ſince I haue now preached ye Goſpell the ſpace of eightene yeares among the Gentiles, & Chriſt hath wrought ſo many miracles by me, wherby he hath confirmed my doctrine? Wherfore it was but a conference and no diſputation. Wherein I learned nothing,VVhat Paule did in that conference. neither did I recāt, nor yet defend my cauſe, but only declared what things I had done: to witte, that I had preached to the Gentiles faith onely in Chriſt wt out the lawe, and that by this preaching of faith the holy Ghoſt came downe vpon the Gentiles, which immediatly ſpake wt diuers tongues. Which thinge when ye Apoſtles heard, they witneſſed yt I had taught ye truth. Wherfore the falſe Apoſtles doe me greate wrong which peruert and turne all theſe things cleane contrary. Now if Paule would geue no place to the falſe Apoſtles which ſet the authoritie of the true Apoſtles againſt him: much leſſe ought we to geue place to our aduerſaries, which haue nothing els to bragge of but the authoritie of their Idol the Pope. I know that the godly ought to be humble:The holy pride of the godly againſt the Pope. but againſt the Pope I will and I ought to be proude with an holy pride and ſay: Thou Pope, I wil not be ſubiect vnto thee: I will not take thee for my maſter, for I am ſure that my doctrine is true and godly. But the Pope will not heare this doctrine. Nay he would force vs to obey his lawes and his decrees, and if we will not, he will by and by excommunicate, curſe and condemne vs as heretikes. Such pride therfore againſt the Pope is moſt neceſſary. And if we ſhould not ſo be proude, & vtterly condemne in ye holy Ghoſt both him wtal his doctrine, & the deuil ye father of lies ſpeaking in him,VVhy[illegible: 1 letter]e the godly are proude againſt the Pope. we ſhould neuer be able to defend this article of ye righteouſnes of faith. We doe not then contemne the authoritie of the Pope becauſe we would beare rule ouer him, neither doe we goe about to exalt our ſelues aboue all ſouereigne power, ſince it is euident that we teach all men to humble and ſubmit thēſelues to the higher powersThe Pope is no povver ordeined of God. ordained of God: but this is it that we onely ſeke, that the glory of God may be maintained and the righteouſnes of faith may be kept pure and ſound. Wherefore if the Pope will graunt vnto vs that God alone by his meere grace through Chriſt doth iuſtifie ſumers,This is impoſſible for Antechriſt the ſōne of perdition to acknovvledge. we will not onely carry him in our hands, but will alſo kiſſe his feete. But ſince we can not obtaine this, we againe in God are proude againſt him aboue meaſure, & will geue no place, no not one hears breadth to all the Angels in heauen, not to Peter, not to Paule, not to an hundreth Emperours, not to a thouſand Popes, nor to the whole world. Be it farre from vs that we ſhould here humble ourſelues, ſince they would take from vs our glory, euen God himſelfe that hath created vs and geuen vs all things, and Ieſus Chriſt who hath redemed vs with his bloud. Let this be then the concluſion of altogether, that we will ſuffer our goods to be taken away, our name, our life, and all that we haue: but the Goſpell, our faith, Ieſus Chriſt we will neuer ſuffer to be wreſted from vs. And curſed be that humilitie which here abaſeth and ſubmitteth it ſelfe. Nay rather let euery Chriſtian man here be proude and ſpare not, except he will deny Chriſt. Wherefore God aſſiſting me, my forehead ſhalbe more hard then all mens foreheads. Here I take vpon me this title, according to the prouerbe: I geue place to none. Yea I am glad euen wtal my hart in this poynt to be called rebellious and obſtinate. And here I confeſſe that I am and euer will be ſtout and ſterne and will not one inch geue place to any creature. Charitie geueth place: for it ſuffereth all things, beleueth all things, 1 Cor. 13.7. Loue ſuffereth all things, but faith can beare nothing hopeth all things, endureth all things. But faith geueth no place, yea it can ſuffer nothing, according to this aūcient verſe, Non patitur ludum fama, fides, oculus: That is, mans good name, his faith, and his eie will not be dalied withall. Wherfore a Chriſtian, as touching his faith, can neuer be to proude nor to ſtout, neither muſt he relent or geue place, no not the breadth of one hear. For faith maketh a man here like vnto God:2 Pet. 1.4, but God ſuffereth nothing, he geueth place to none, for he is immutable. So is faith immutable, and therfore may ſuffer nothing, geue place to no man. But as touching charitie let a Chriſtian man yeld and ſuffer all things, for therin he is but a man.

Verſ. 7.8. But contrarivviſe vvhen they ſavve that the Goſpell ouer vncircūciſion vvas committed vnto me, as the Goſpel ouer circumciſion vvas vnto Peter (for he that vvas mighty by Peter in the Apoſtleship ouer the circumciſion, vvas alſo mighty by me tovvards the Gentiles.) With theſe words Paule mightely confuteth the falſe Apoſtles: For here he chalengeth to himſelfe the ſame authoritie which the falſe Apoſtles attributed to the true Apoſtles. And he vſeth here a figure which is called an Inuerſion, returning their argument againſt themſelues. The falſe Apoſtles (ſaith he) doe alledge againſt me the authoritie of the greate Apoſtles, to maintaine their cauſe. But I contrariwiſe doe alledge the ſame againſt them for my defence, for the Apoſtles are on my ſide. Wherefore O my Galathians, beleue not theſe counterfet apoſtles which bragge ſo much of the authoritie of the Apoſtles againſt me. For the Apoſtles when they ſaw the Goſpell ouer the vncircumciſion to be committed to me, and knew of the grace that to me was geuen, gaue to me and Barnabas the right hands of felowſhip, approuing my miniſterie and geuing thankes vnto God for the gift which I had receiued. Thus he retourneth the argument of the falſe apoſtles vpon them ſelues. And here is alſo in theſe wordes an ardent vehemencie, and more contained in matter, then in wordes is able to be expreſſed. This ſeemeth to be a hard text,To Peter is cōmitted the Goſpell ouer circumciſion. and to Paule ouer vncircū ciſion. Actes. 10.17. where Paule ſayth that the goſpell ouer the vncircumciſion was committed vnto him, & ouer the circumciſion vnto Peter, when notwtſtanding Paule almoſt euery where preached to the Iewes in their Sinagoges, and Peter likewiſe to the Gentiles. There are examples & teſtimonies of both in the Acts. Peter conuerted the Centurian wt his familie, which was a Gentile. He wrote alſo to the Gentiles, as his firſt epiſtle teſtifieth.1. Peter. 1.1. Paule preaching Chriſt among the Gentiles,Actes. 9.20. entreth notwithſtanding into the Sinagoges of the Iewes, and there preacheth the goſpel. And our Sauiour Chriſt in Mathevv and Marke commaundeth his apoſtles to goe throughout the whole world, and preach the Goſpel to euery creature.Mat. 23.9.10. Marc. 16.15. Paule likewiſe ſayth: The goſpel preached to euery creature vvhich is vnder heauen. Coloſſ. 1.5.6. Why then doth he call himſelfe the Apoſtle of the Gentiles, and Peter with the other, the Apoſtles of the circumciſion? This queſtion is not hard. Paule here hath reſpect vnto this, that the other Apoſtles remained ſpecially in Ieruſalem, vntil God called them vnto other places. Thus ſtoode the matter then for the time, that whiles the politicall ſtate of the Iewes continued, the Apoſtles ſtill remained in Iudea: but when ye deſtruction of Ieruſalem approched, they were diſperſed throughout the whole world. Actes. 13.1.2. Peter the Apoſtle of the Ievves, and Paule of the Gentiles. But Paule as it is written in the Actes, by a ſingular vocation was choſen to be the Apoſtle of the Gentiles, and being ſent out of Iudea, he traueled through ye countreys of the Gentiles. Now were the Iewes diſperſed almoſt throughout ye whole world, and dwelt here and there in cities and other places amongs the Gentiles. Paule comming thether was wont (as we read in the Actes) to goe into the Sinagoges of the Iewes, Actes. 9.20. Paule preached alſo to the Ievves. and by this occaſion he firſt brought vnto them as the children of the kingdom, this glad tidings, that the promiſes made vnto the fathers, were now accompliſhed by Ieſus Chriſt. When they would not heare this, he turned to the Gentiles, as Luke witneſſeth, where he bringeth in Paule thus boldly ſpeaking againſt the Iewes:Act. 13.45.46. Math. 10.6. It vvas neceſſary that vve should firſt preach the vvord of God vnto you: but ſeing ye reiect it, & iudge your ſelues vnvvorthy of euerlaſtīg life, loe vve turne to the Gentiles. And in the Actes:Actes. 28.2[illegible: 1 letter]. Be it knovvne therfore vnto you, that this ſaluation of God is ſent vnto the Gentiles, and they shall heare it. Wherefore Paule was ſent ſpecially vnto the Gentiles. But becauſe he was a detter vnto all,Rom. 1.14. and became all things vnto all mē, therfore, occaſion being offered, he went into the Sinagoges of the Iewes, where not only the Iewes, but alſo ye Gentiles heard him preaching Chriſt. Otherwhiles he preached publikely in the market place, in houſes, and by the riuers ſides. He was ſpecially then the Apoſtle of the Gentiles, as Peter was of the Iewes: who notwithſtanding preached Chriſt to the Gentiles alſo when occaſion was offered. Vncircūciſiō. Circumciſion.And here he calleth vncircumciſion the Gentiles, and circumciſion the Iewes by a figure named Synecdoche, which vnder part comprehē deth the whole: which figure is commonly vſed in the ſcripture. The goſpell then ouer vncircumciſion, is that which ſhould be preached to the Gentiles. This goſpell he ſayth was committed vnto him, as the goſpell ouer circumciſion was vnto Peter. For as Peter preached the goſpell among the Iewes, ſo did he among the Gentiles. Paule receaueth not his goſpel of the other Apoſtles.This he often repeteth, yt Peter, Iames and Iohn, which ſemed to be the pillers of the church, taught him nothing, nor committed vnto him the office of preaching the Goſpell, as hauing authoritie and rule ouer him. But they them ſelues (ſayth he) did ſee that the goſpell was committed vnto me: but not by Peter. For as I did not receiue or learne my goſpel of man, ſo did I receiue no cōmaundement by man to preach the ſame, but both the knowlege and the cōmaundement to preach it amōg the Gentiles, I receiued immediatly from God: like as the charge was geuen of God vnto Peter to preach the ſame among the Iewes. This place witneſſeth very plainly that the Apoſtles had like calling,The Apoſtles calling equall. like charge, and all one Goſpell. Peter preached no other Goſpell then the reſt of the Apoſtles did, neither did he appoynt to others their charge and office:Equalitie among the Apoſtles. but there was an equalitie among them all, for they were all taught of God, that is, both their vocation and charge was wholy and immediatly from God. There was none therefore greater then other: none that had any prerogatiue aboue other. And therefore where the Pope vaūteth that Peter was the chiefe of the Apoſtles, that thereby he might confirme and ſtabliſh his vſurped primacie, it is an impudent lie.

Verſe. 8. For he that vvas mightie by Peter. This is a confutation of an other argument of the falſe apoſtles. Why doe the falſe apoſtles boaſt (ſayth he) that the Goſpell of Peter was mightie, that he conuerted many, that he wrought many and great miracles, raiſed vp the dead, and with his ſhadow cured the ſick? Actes. 15.14. The Goſpell of Peter mightie. I graunt all theſe things to be true: but Peter receiued this power from heauen. God gaue a vertue to his woorde that many did beleeue him, and great miracles were wrought by him. The ſame power had I alſo: which I receiued not of Peter, but the ſame God and the ſame ſpirite which was mightie in Peter, was mightie in me alſo. I had the ſame grace: I taught many: I wrought many miracles, and through my ſhadow alſo I cured the ſicke. And this Luke teſtifieth in the .19.Actes. 19.11.12. of the Actes in theſe wordes: And God vvrought no ſmall miracles by the handes of Paule, ſo that from his body vvere brought napkins and handkercheefes, and the diſeaſes departed from them, and the euill ſpirites vvent out of them. Read more hereof in the .13.16.20.28. of the Actes. To conclude, Paule wil be counted in no poynt inferiour to the reſt of the Apoſtles: and herein he ſtandeth with a godly and a holy pride. For he was compelled of neceſſitie to take vpon him ſtoutly againſt Peter, The ſtoutnes of Paul is not carnall. and the zeale of God conſtrained him to be proud whether he would or no. Certaine prophane ſpirites, as Iulianus and Porphirius not conſidering this, thought it to be but a carnall pride that cauſed Paule thus to doe: ſuch as at this day we ſee in the Pope and his generation. But Paule had not here his owne buſines in hand, but a matter of Faith. Nowe, as concerning Faith we ought to be inuincible, and more harde if it might be, then the Adamant ſtone. But as touching charitie, we ought to be ſoft, and more flexible then the reede or leafe that is ſhaken with the winde, and ready to yelde to euery thing. Therefore the controuerſie was not here touching the glorie of Paule, but the glory of God, the word of God, the true worſhip of God, true religion, and the righteouſnes of Faith, to the ende that theſe things might ſtill remaine pure and vncorrupt.

Verſe. 9. And vvhen Iames and Cephas and Iohn knevv of the grace that vvas geuen vnto me, vvhich are counted to be pillers, they gaue to me and to Barnabas the right hands of felovvship, that vve should preach vnto the Gentiles, and they vnto the circumciſion. That is to ſay, when they heard that I had receaued my calling and charge from god to preach the goſpel among the Gentiles, & that God had wrought ſo many miracles by me: moreouer, that ſo great a nomber of the Gentiles were come to the knowledge of Chriſt through my miniſterie, and that the Gentiles had receiued the holy Ghoſt without the law and circumciſion by the onely preaching of faith, they glorified God for this grace which was geuen vnto me. VVhat Paule calleth grace in this place.He calleth grace here what ſo euer he had receaued of God: to wit, that of a perſecuter and waſter of the Church, he was made an Apoſtle, was taught by Ieſus Chriſt, & enriched with ſpiritual gifts. And heerewithall he ſheweth that Peter gaue teſtimonie vnto him,Peter alovveth the miniſterie of Paul. that he was a true Apoſtle, ſent and taught, not by hym ſelfe nor by the other Apoſtles, but by God alone, and not onely acknowledged the miniſterie and authoritie of Paule, and giftes of the ſpirite which were in him, as heauenly things, but alſo approued and confirmed the ſame, and yet not as a ſuperiour and ruler, but as a brother and witnes. Iames and Iohn did [illegible: 4 letters]wiſe the ſame. Wherefore he concludeth that they which are eſſe[illegible: 3 letters] for the cheefe pillers amongſt the Apoſtles, are wholy with him and not againſt him.

Verſe. 9. The right handes of felovvship. As if they ſhould haue ſayd: We (O Paule) in preaching the goſpel, doe agree with thee in all things. Therefore in doctrine we are companions and haue felowſhip togither therin: that is to ſay, we haue all one doctrine,Paule and the other Apoſtles taught all one goſpell. for we preach one goſpell, one baptiſme, one Chriſt and one faith. Wherefore we can teach or enioyne thee nothing, ſince there is one mutuall conſent betwixt vs in all things. For we doe not teach any other or more excellent things then thou doeſt: but the ſame giftes which we haue, we ſee to be in thee alſo, ſauing that to thee is committed the Goſpell ouer the vncircumciſion, as the Goſpell ouer the circumciſion is vnto vs. But we conclude here that neither vncircumciſion nor circumciſion ought to hinder our ſocietie and felowſhip, ſince it is but one goſpell which we both preach. Hetherto Paule hath proued by manifeſt witnes, not only from god, but alſo frō man, that is to ſay, the apoſtles, yt he had truely & faithfully preached the goſpel. Therfore he ſheweth that what ſo euer the falſe apoſtles ſayd to diminiſh his authority, is but fained and forged matter, and yt the teſtimony of the Apoſtles maketh for him, & not for the falſe apoſtles. But for that he is alone & wtout witnes, therfore he addeth an oth, & calleth God to record that ye things which he hath ſpokē are true.

Verſe. 10. VVarning onely that vve should remember the poore: vvhich thing alſo I vvas diligent to doe. After the preaching of the Goſpel,A good miniſter muſt be carefull for the poore. Eſay. 61.1. Math. 11.1. Luke. 4.16. the office and charge of a true and faithful Paſtor is, to be mindful of ye poore. For where the Church is, there muſt needes be poore: who for the moſt part are the onely true diſciples of the Goſpell, as Chriſt ſayth: The poore receiue the glad tidings of the Goſpell. For the world and the Deuill do perſecute the Church, and bring many to pouertie, who are afterwardes forſaken and deſpiſed of the world. Moreouer the world not onely offendeth herein,The vvorld is forvvard to geue for the maintenaunce of vngodlines, but it careth not for Gods miniſters. but is alſo careleſſe for the maintenaunce and preſeruation of the goſpell, true religion, and the true ſeruice of God. There is none that will now take any care for the nouriſhing of the miniſters of the Church, and erecting of ſcholes: but for the erecting and ſtabliſhing of falſe worſhip, ſuperſtition and idolatrie, no coſt was ſpared, but euery man was ready to geue largely what ſo euer could be made. And hereof came vp ſo many Monaſteries, ſo many cathedrall Churches, ſo many Biſhopprickes in the Popes church where all impietie raigned, with ſo great reuenues prouided for their ſuſtentation: where as now a whole Citie thinketh it much to finde one or two poore miniſters and preachers of the Goſpell, which before, whiles the Pope and all impietie raigned, was charged and burdened with finding ſo many Monaſteries and infinite ſwarmes of maſſing Prieſtes. To be briefe, true religion is euer in neede. And Chriſt complaineth, that he is hungrie, thirſtie, harbourles, naked and ſicke. Contrariwiſe,Math. 25.3[illegible: 1 letter]. falſe religion and impietie flouriſheth & aboundeth with all worldly wealth and proſperitie. Wherfore a true and faithful Paſtor muſt haue a care of the poore alſo: and this care Paule here confeſſeth that he had.

Verſe. 11. And vvhen Peter vvas come to Antiochia, I vvithſtoode him to his face: for he vvas to be blamed. Paule goeth on ſtill in his confutation, ſaying that he not onely hath for his defence the teſtimonie of Peter & the other Apoſtles which were at Ieruſalem: but alſo that he withſtoode Peter in the preſence of the whole Church of Antioche. He ſheweth here a matter not done in a corner, but in the face of the whole church. For (as before I haue ſaid) he hath here no trifeling matter in hand, but the chiefeſt article of all Chriſtian doctrine.The maieſtie of this article of iuſtificatiō. The value and maieſtie where of who ſo rightly eſtemeth, to him all other things ſhall ſeeme but vile and nought worth. For what is Peter? what is Paule? what is an Angell from heauen? what are all other creatures to the article of Iuſtification? which if we know, then are we in the cleare light: but if we be ignoraunt therof, thē are we in moſt miſerable darknes. Wherfore if ye ſee this article impugned or defaced, feare not to reſiſt either Peter or an Angell from heauen, following the example of Paule, who ſeing the maieſtie of this article to be in daunger for the dignitie of Peter, did nothing regard his dignitie & eſtimation, yt he might keepe ye ſame pure & vncorrupt. For it is wrytten:Mar. 10.39. Math. 16.25. He that loueth father or mother, or his ovvne life more then me, is not vvorthy of me. It behoueth vs to be obſtinate in Gods matter.Wherefore we are not aſhamed for the defence of the truth, to be counted and called of the hypocrites proud and obſtinate, & ſuch as wil be onely wiſe, will heare none, will geue place to none. Very neceſſary it is here to be inflexible & obſtinate. For the cauſe why we offend man, that is to ſay, tread downe the maieſtie of the perſon or of the world, is ſuch, that the ſinnes which the world iudgeth to be moſt hainous, are counted ſingular vertues before God. In that we loue our parentes, honoure the Magiſtrate, ſhew reuerence to Peter and other miniſters of the word, we doe well. But here we haue in hand the cauſe neither of Peter nor parēts, nor Magiſtrate, nor of the world, nor of any other creatures, but of god him ſelfe. Here if I geue no place to my parents, to the Magiſtrate, or an Angell from heauen, I doe well. For what is the creature in reſpect of the creator? Yea, what are all creatures cō pared vnto him? Euen as one droppe of water in reſpect of the whole ſea. Why then ſhould I ſo highly eſteme Peter which is but a droppe, and ſet God aſide which is the whole ſea? Let the droppe therefore geue place to the ſea, and let Peter geue place vnto God. This I ſay, to the ende that ye ſhould diligently weye and conſider the matter wherof Paule entreateth: For he entreateth of God, who can neuer be magnified enough. And here of purpoſe he addeth this clauſe, to his face, againſt the venemous vipers and apoſtles of Satan, which ſclaunder thoſe that are abſent, and in their preſence dare not once open their mouth: as the falſe apoſtles did, whom alſo here he toucheth by the way:A Chriſtian vvill openly reproue vices in his brother which durſt not ſpeake euill of him in his preſence, but in his abſence ſclaundered him moſt ſpitefully. So did not I (ſayeth he) ſpeake euill of Peter, but frankly and openly I withſtoode him, not of any colourable pretence, ambition, or other carnall affection, but becauſe he was to be blamed. Here let other men debate whether an Apoſtle may ſinne or no.The Prophets and Apoſtles haue ſinned, and had their infirmities, & yet God hath deliuered vnto vs by their miniſterie, vvhatſoeuer he vvould haue vs to folovv vvithout corruption. This ſay I, that we ought not to make Peters fault leſſe then it was in deede. The Prophets themſelues haue ſometimes erred and ben deceiued.2. Sam. 7.3.4.5 Actes 1.6. Peter ſinned. Math. 28. Actes. 10.11. Nathan of his owne ſpirite ſayd vnto Dauid that he ſhould build the houſe of the Lord. But this Prophecie was by and by after corrected by a reuelation from God, that it ſhould not be Dauid, becauſe he was a man of warre and had ſhed much bloud, but his ſonne Salomon yt ſhould build vppe the houſe of ye Lord. So did the Apoſtles erre alſo. For they imagined that the kingdom of Chriſt ſhould be carnall and worldly, as we may ſee in the firſt of the Actes. And Peter him ſelfe, although he heard this commaundement of Chriſt: Goe into the vvhole vvorld. &c. Yet he had not gone vnto Cornelius, if he had not ben admoniſhed by a viſion. But in this matter he did not onely erre, but alſo committed a great ſinne, and if Paule had not reſiſted him, all the Gentiles which did beleue, had ben conſtrained to receiue circumciſion, and to kepe the lawe. The beleuing Iewes alſo had ben confirmed in their opinion: to witte, that the obſeruation of theſe things was neceſſary to ſaluation, and by this meanes they had receiued againe the lawe in ſtede of the Goſpell, Moiſes in ſtede of Chriſt:No Sainctes vvithout ſin. and of all this great enormitie and horrible ſinne Peter by his diſſimulation had ben the onely occaſion. Therfore we may not attribute to the Sainctes ſuch perfection, as though they could not ſinne. Luke witneſſeth yt there was ſuch great diſſention betwene Paule and Barnabas, Diſſention betvvene Paule and Barnabas. Actes. 15.1.2.3. (which were put a part together for the miniſterie of ye goſpell among the Gentiles, and had traueled through many regions, and preached vnto them the goſpell) yt the one departed from the other. Here we muſt nedes ſay yt there was a fault either in Paule or in Barnabas. And doubtles it could not be but that the diſcord was exceeding great which ſeperated theſe two companions being ioyned together in ſuch a holy felowſhip, as the text witneſſeth.The fauls of the Sainctes bring great comfort vnto vs. Such exāples are written for our conſolation. For it is a great cōfort vnto vs when we heare that euen ye ſaincts which haue the ſpirit of god, do ſinne. Which cōfort they would take from vs which ſay that the ſainctes doe not ſinne. Iudges. 1.6. 2 Sam 11.24. Iob. 3.12. Iob. 4 &c. Ierem. 10.14. Ionas. 4 3. Sampſon, Dauid and many other excellentmen, full of the holy Ghoſt, fell into greate ſinnes. Iob and Ieremy curſe the day of their natiuitie. Elias and Ionas are wery of their life, and deſire death. Such errours and offences of the ſainctes, the ſcripture ſetteth forth to the comfort of thoſe that are afflicted and oppreſſed with deſperation, and to the terrour of the proude. No man hath ſo greuouſly fallen at any time, but he may riſe againe. And on the other ſide, no man taketh ſo faſt footing but he may fall. If Peter fell, I may likewiſe fall. If he roſe againe, I may alſo riſe againe. And ſuch examples as theſe are, ye weake harted and tender conſciences ought to make much of, that they may the better vnderſtand what they pray for when they ſay: forgeue vs our treſpaſes: and, I beleue the forgeuenes of ſinnes. We haue the ſelfe ſame ſpirite of grace and prayer which the Apoſtles and all the ſaincts had, neither had they any prerogatiue aboue vs. We haue ye ſame gifts which they had, the ſame Chriſt, baptiſme, word, forgeuenes of ſinnes, all which they had no leſſe neede of then we haue, and by the ſame are ſanctified and ſaued as we be.

Verſe. 12. For before that certaine came from Iames, he did eate vvith the Gentiles. Peter liueth vvith the Gē tiles like a Gentile.The Gentiles which were conuerted to the faith, did eate meates forbidden by the law, and Peter being conuerſant with the Gentiles which were conuerted, did eate with them, and drunke wine alſo which was forbidden, knowing that herein he did well, and therefore boldly tranſgreſſed the law with the Gentiles. Paule confeſſeth that he alſo did the like when he ſaith that he became as a Iewe to the Iewes, and to them that were without law,1 Cor. [illegible: 1 letter].20.21. as though he were without law: That is to ſay, with the Gentiles he did eate and drinke like a Gentile and kept no law at all: with the Iewes, according to the lawe he abſtained from all things forbidden in the law. For he laboured to ſerue & pleaſe all men that he might gaine all. Wherefore Peter in eating and drinking with the Gentiles ſinned not, but did well, and knew that it was lawfull for him ſo to doe: For he ſhewed by this tranſgreſſion, that the law was not neceſſary to righteouſnes, and alſo deliuered the Gentiles from the obſeruation of the lawe. For if it were lawful for Peter in one thing to breake the law, it was lawfull for him to breake it in al things. And Paule doth not here reproue Peter for his tranſgreſſion, but for his diſſimulation, as followeth.

Verſe. 12. But vvhen they vvere come, he vvithdrevve and ſeparated himſelfe, fearing them vvhich vvere of the circumciſion. Here then ye ſee Peters offence, as Paule plainly ſetteth it forth.The offence of Peter. Paule accuſeth him not of malice or ignorance, but of diſſimulation and infirmity, in that he abſteined from meates forbidden in the law, fearing leſt the Iewes which came from Iames, ſhould be offended therby, and had more reſpect to the Iewes then to ye Gentiles: wherby he gaue occaſion as much as in him was, to ouerthrow the Chriſtian libertie & truth of the Goſpell. For in that he did withdraw and vtterly ſeparate himſelfe, abſtaining from meates forbidden in the lawe (which notwithſtanding he had eaten of before) he miniſtred a ſcruple of conſcience to the faithfull, thus to gather vpon his example:VVhat the beleuing Ievves gathered of Peters abſtaining. Peter abſtaineth from meates forbidden in the law: therefore he that eateth meates forbidden in the law, ſinneth and tranſgreſſeth the law: but he that abſtaineth is righteous and kepeth the law, for els would not Peter haue withdrawn himſelfe. But becauſe he did ſo, and of purpoſe refuſed thoſe meates which before he did eate, it is a ſure argument that ſuch as eate againſt the law doe ſinne, and ſuch as abſtaine from meates which the law forbiddeth, doe keepe the law and are iuſtified thereby. Here note, that the end of this facte of Peter is reproued of Paule, & not the fact it ſelfe: for the facte in it ſelfe was not euill.A facte is one thing and the end of a facte an other. To eate and drinke, or not to eate & drinke is nothing. But the end, that is: If thou eate thou ſinneſt: If thou abſtaine thou art righteous, is euill. So circumciſion of it ſelfe is good, but this end is euill: If thou be not circū ciſed after the law of Moſes, thou cāſt not be ſaued. Alſo to eate meates prohibited in the law, is not euill: but this ſhrinking and diſſimulation of Peter is euill. For it might be ſaid: Peter abſtaineth from meates forbidden in the law: wherfore if thou doeſt not likewiſe abſtaine, thou canſt not be ſaued. This Paule might in no wiſe diſſemble: for the truth of ye Goſpell was here in daunger. To the end therefore that this truth might continue ſound and vncorrupt, he reſiſted Peter to his face. And here we muſt make a diſtinction.Meates may be refuſed tvvo maner of vvaies. 1 Cor. 9. For meates may be refuſed two maner of waies. Firſt for chriſtian charities ſake. And herein ther is no daunger: for to beare with the infirmitie of my brother it is good. So Paule himſelfe both did and taught. Secondly, by abſtaining from them to obtaine righteouſnes, and for not abſtaining to ſinne and to be be damned. Here accurſed be charitie with all the ſeruice and works of charitie whatſoeuer. For thus to refraine frō meates is to deny Chriſt, to tread his bloud vnder our feete, to blaſpheme the holy Ghoſt, and to deſpiſe all holy things. Wherefore if we muſt loſe the one, let vs rather loſe man our frend and brother, then God our father. For if we loſe god our father, man our frend and brother can not continue. Ierome, who neither vnderſtood this place nor the whole epiſtle beſides, thinketh this to be but a fained reprehenſion of Paule, & therfore he excuſeth Peters fall, ſaying, that it was done by ignorance. But Peter offended through diſſimulation,The diſſimulation of Peter and therby he had eſtabliſhed ye neceſſity of the law, he had conſtrained both Gentiles & Iewes to reuolt from the truth of the Goſpell, he had giuen them greate occaſion to forſake Chriſt, to deſpiſe grace, to returne to ye Iewiſh religion & to beare all ye burdens of ye law, if Paule had not reproued him & by that meanes reuoked ye gentiles & Iewes which were offēded through this example of Peter, to ye liberty which is in Chriſt Ieſus & to the truth of ye goſpel. The ſinne of Peter.Wherfore if a man would here ſet forth and amplifie Peters offence, it ſhould appeare to be very greate, and yet was it not done by malice or ignorance, but by occaſion and feare only. Thus we ſee what ruines may come by one mans fal and offence if it be not well ſeene to and corrected in time. Wherfore we may not trifle with this article of iuſtification:A fall in doctrine is eaſy. neither is it without good cauſe that we do ſo often and ſo diligently put you in minde therof. The Councell holden at Ieruſalem.And it is much to be marueled that Peter being ſuch an excellent Apoſtle ſhould thus do: who before in ye Councel of Ieruſalem ſtood in a maner alone in the defence of this article & preuailed therin, namely yt ſaluation cometh by faith wtout the law.Acts. 15. He that before did ſo conſtantly defend the truth & liberty of the goſpell, now by his fall in abſtaining from meates forbidden in ye law,1. Cor. 10.12. is not only the cauſe of greate offence, but alſo offendeth againſt his owne decree. Wherfore let him which thinketh he ſtandeth, take heede leſt he fall.Ceremonies are daungerous: and if ſuch offence come by keping thoſe vvhich vvere commaunded of God, vvhat may vve think of ſuch as Antechriſt hath deuiſed, ſeruing to no edification? No man would thinke what daūgers & perils do enſue of traditions & ceremonies: which not wtſtanding we can not want. What is more neceſſary then ye law & the works therof? and yet there is great daunger leſt by the ſame, men be brought to ye denial of Chriſt. For of the law often times cometh a truſt & affiance in works, & where that is, there can be no affiance in Chriſt. Chriſt therfore is ſoone denied & ſone loſt, as we may ſee by this example of Peter, who knew this article of iuſtification better then we do, & yet how eaſily did he geue occaſion of ſuch an horrible ruine, that all ye Gentiles ſhould therby haue falne away from the preaching of Paule, & by this meanes ſhould haue loſt ye goſpell & Chriſt himſelfe. And all this ſhould haue bene done vnder a holy pretence. For they might haue ſaid: Paule, hetherto thou haſt taught vs yt we muſt be iuſtified by grace without the law. Thou ſeeſt now that Peter doth the contrary: for he abſtaineth from meates forbidden in the law, & hereby he teacheth vs yt we can not be ſaued except we receaue circumciſion & obſerue the lawe.

Verſe. 13. And the other Ievves diſſembled likevviſe vvith him, in ſo much that Barnabas vvas brought into their diſſimulation alſo. Here ye may plainly ſee that Paule chargeth Peter with diſſimulation. If Peter diſſembled,Peters diſſimulation. then did he certainly know what was the truth and what was not. He that diſſembleth ſinneth not of ignorance,Diſſimulation vvhat it is. but deceaueth by a colour which he knoweth himſelfe to be falſe. And other (ſaith he) diſſembled likevviſe vvith Peter, in ſo much that Barnabas alſo (who was Paules companion, & had now a long time preached among the Gentiles faith in Chriſt without the law, together wt Paule) vvas brought into their diſſimulation. Ye haue here then Peters offence plainly deſcribed to be meere diſſimulation, which afterwards had ben an occaſion of the ruine of the Goſpel then newly receaued, if Paule had not reſiſted him. And this is a wonderfull matter, that God preſerued the church being yet but yong, and the Goſpell it ſelfe, by one onely perſon. Paule alone ſtandeth to the truth: for he had loſt Barnabas his companion, & Peter was againſt him. So ſometime one man is able to doe more in a Councell then the whole Councell beſides. Which thing the Papiſtes thēſelues do witnes. And for example they alledgePaphnutius ſtoode in the defence of the mariage of miniſters againſt the vvhole Councell. Paphnutius, who wtſtoode ye whole Councell of Nice (which was the beſt of all that were after the Councell of the Apoſtles at Ieruſalem) & preuailed againſt it. This I ſay,The lavve and the Goſpell muſt be diſcerned one from the other. to the end that we ſhould diligently learne the article of Iuſtification, and make a plaine difference betwene the lawe and the Goſpell, and that in this matter we ſhould doe nothing by diſſimulation, or geue place to any man, if we will retaine the truth of the goſpell and faith ſound and vncorrupt: which (as I haue ſayd) are ſoone hurt. Wherefore in this caſe away with reaſon,The lavve and reaſon are againſt faith. which is an enemie to Faith: which alſo in tentations of ſinne and death, leaneth not to the righteouſnes of Faith (for thereof it is vtterly ignoraunt), but to her owne righteouſnes, or at leaſt to the righteouſnes of the law. Now as ſoone as the law and reaſon ioyne together, faith loſeth her virginitie: for nothing more ſtrongly fighteth againſt faith then the lawe and reaſon. And theſe two enemies can not be conquered but with great labour and difficultie: which we muſt conquere notwithſtanding if we will be ſaued. VVhat vve muſt do vvhē our cōſcience is terrified.Wherefore, when thy conſcience is terrified with the lawe, and wreſtleth with the iudgement of God, aſke counſell neither of reaſon nor of the lawe, but reſt onely vpon grace and the word of conſolation, and ſo ſtand herein, as if thou haddeſt neuer heard any thing of the law: but aſcend vp to the glaſſe of faith, where neither the law nor reaſon do ſhine, but onely the light of Faith, which aſſureth vs that we are ſaued by Chriſt alone without any law. Thus the goſpell leadeth vs beyond and aboue the light of the law and reaſon, into the inward and deepe ſecretes of Faith, where the lawe and reaſon haue nothing to doe. Notwithſtāding we muſt hearken alſo vnto the law, but in place and time. Moiſes whiles he was in the mountaine, Exod. 19.16. Moiſes in the mountaine vvas aboue the lavv: ſo in matters of faith, vve muſt haue nothing to doe vvith the lavv. where he talked with God face to face, had no law, made no law, miniſtred no law: but when he was come downe from the mountaine, he was a lawgeuer, and gouerned the people by the law. So the conſcience muſt be free frō the law, but the body muſt be obedient vnto the law. Hereby it appeareth yt Paule reproued Peter for no light matter, but for the chiefeſt article of all Chriſtian doctrine, which by Peters diſſimulation was in great daunger. For Barnabas and the other Iewes diſſembled togither with him, which did all offend: not through ignorance or malice, but for feare of ye Iewes: wherby their hearts were ſo blinded that they did not ſee their ſinne. And certainly it is much to be maruelled, that ſuch excellent men as Peter, Barnabas and others, ſhould ſo ſodenly and ſo lightly fall, eſpecially in that thing which they knew to be well done, & had alſo before taught vnto others. It is a perilous thing therefore to truſt to our owne ſtrength,VVe muſt not truſt in our ovvn ſtrēgth. be we neuer ſo holy, neuer ſo well learned, and although we thinke our ſelues neuer ſo ſure of that we know, For in that wherof we thinke our ſelues moſt ſure, we may erre and fall, & bring our ſelues and other into great daunger. Let vs therefore diligently and with all humilitie employ our ſelues in the ſtudie of the holy ſcriptures, and let vs heartely pray that we neuer loſe the truth of the goſpell. VVithout Gods aſſiſtāce vve can doe nothing.Thus we ſee then that we are nothing, with all our giftes be they neuer ſo great, except God aſſiſt vs. When he leaueth vs to our ſelues, our wiſedom and knowledge is nothing. For in the houre of tentation it may ſuddenly come to paſſe, that by the ſubteltie of the Deuil, all the comfortable places of the ſcripture ſhalbe taken out of our ſight, and ſuch places onely as containe threatnings ſhalbe ſet before our eies & ſhal oppreſſe & vtterly confound vs. Let vs learne therfore yt if God wt draw his hand we may ſoone be ouerthrowne. Neither let any man vaunt and glory of his owne righteouſnes, wiſedome and other gifts, but let him humble himſelfe and pray with the Apoſtle:Luc. 17.5. Lord encreaſe our faith.

Verſe. 14. But vvhen I ſavv that they vvent not the right vvay to the truth of the Goſpell. This is a wonderfull example of ſuch excellent men and pillers of the church. There is none but Paule that hath his eies open and ſeeth the offence of Peter, Peter knovveth not his errour. Barnabas and the other Iewes which diſſembled with Peter. On the other ſide, they doe not ſee their owne offence: nay they rather thinke that they doe well in bearing with the infirmitie of the weake Iewes. Wherefore it was very neceſſary that Paule ſhould reproue their offence and not diſſemble it, and therefore he accuſeth Peter, Barnabas and other, that they went not ye right way to the truth of the Goſpell: that is to ſay, they ſwarued from the truth of the Goſpell. It is a greate matter that Peter ſhould be accuſed of Paule as one that was falne from the truth of the Goſpell. He could not be more greuouſly reprehended. Yet he ſuffered it patiently, and no doubt but he gladly acknowledged his offence. I ſayde before that many haue the Goſpell but not the truth of the Goſpell. So Paule ſaith here, that Peter, Barnabas and other of the Ievves vvent not the right vvay to the truthe of the Goſpell: that is to ſay, they had the Goſpell, but they walked not vprightly according to the Goſpell. For albeit they preached the Goſpell, yet through their diſſimulation (which could not ſtand with the truth of the Goſpell) they eſtabliſhed the law: but the eſtabliſhing of the law is the aboliſhing of the Goſpell. Who ſo then can rightly iudge betwene the lawe and the Goſpell, let him thanke God, and know that he is a right Diuine. In the time of tentation,The difference of the lavve and the Goſpel is moſt diligently to be learned. I confeſſe that I my ſelfe doe not know how to doe it as I ought. Now, the way to diſcerne the one from the other, is to place the Goſpell in heauen and the lawe on the earth: to call the righteouſnes of the Goſpell heauenly, and the righteouſnes of the law earthly: and to put as greate difference betwene the righteouſnes of the goſpell and of the law, as God hath made betwene heauen and earth, betwene light and darkneſſe,The difference betvvene the lavv and the Goſpell. betweene daye and night. Lette the one be as the light and the day, and the other as the darkenes and the night. And would to God we could yet further ſeparate the one from the other. Wherefore if the queſtion be concerning the matter of faith or conſcience, let vs vtterly exclude the law, and leaue it on the earth: but if we haue to doe with works, then let vs lighten the lanterne of works and of the righteouſnes of ye law. So let the Sunne & the ineſtimable light of the Goſpell and grace ſhine in the day, and the lanterne of the law in the night. Wherefore if thy conſcience be terrified with the ſenſe and feeling of ſinne, thinke thus with thy ſelfe: Thou art now remaining vpō earth: there let the Aſſe labour and trauel: there let him ſerue and carry the burthen that is laid vpon him, that is to ſay, let the body with his members be ſubiect to the law. But when thou mounteſt vp into heauen, then leaue the Aſſe with his burthen on the earth: for the conſcience hath nothing to doe with the law or works, or with the earthly righteouſnes. So doth the Aſſe remaine in the valley, but the cōſcience aſcendeth with Iſaac into the mountaine, knowing nothing at all of the law or workes thereof, but onely looking to the remiſſion of ſinnes and pure righteouſnes offered and freely geuen vnto vs in Chriſt. VVhen the lavv is to be vrged.Contrariwiſe in ciuill policy, obedience to the law muſt be ſeuerely required. There nothing muſt be knowne as concerning the Goſpell, conſcience, grace, remiſſion of ſinnes, heauēly righteouſnes, or Chriſt himſelfe: but Moſes onely with the law and the works thereof. If we marke well this diſtinction, neither the one nor the other ſhall paſſe his bounds, but the law ſhall abide without heauen, that is, without the heart and conſcience, and contrariwiſe the libertie of the Goſpell ſhall abide without the earth, that is to ſay, without the body and members thereof. Now therfore as ſoone as the law and ſinne come into heauen, that is,The lavv hath nothing to do vvith the conſcience. into the conſcience, let them by and by be caſt out. For the conſcience being feared with the terrour of the wrath and iudgement of God, ought to know nothing of the law and ſinne, but of Chriſt onely. And on the other ſide, when grace and liberty come into the earth, that is, into the body, then ſay: thou oughteſt not to dwell in the dregges and dunghill of this corporall life, but thou belongeſt vnto heauen. This diſtinction of the law and the Goſpell Peter confounded through his diſſimulation, and therby perſwaded the beleuing Iewes that they muſt be iuſtified by the Goſpell and the law together. This might not Paule ſuffer, and therefore he reproued Peter, not to put him to any reproch, but to the ende that he might againe eſtabliſh a plaine difference betwene theſe two: namely that the Goſpell iuſtifieth in heauen and the lawe on earth.The Pope maketh the Goſpell lavv, and confoundeth them both together. The Pope hath not onely mixed the law with the Goſpell, but alſo of the Goſpell hath made meere lawes, yea and ſuch as are ceremoniall onely. He hath alſo confounded and mixed politicall and eccleſiaſticall matters together: which is a deuiliſh and an helliſh confuſion. This place touching the difference betwene the law and the Goſpell, is very neceſſary to be knowne:Hovv neceſſary this difference is to be knovven. for it containeth the ſumme of all Chriſtian doctrine. Wherfore let all that loue and feare God, diligētly learne to diſcerne ye one from the other, not only in words, but in effect & practiſe, yt is to ſay, in heart & conſcience. For as touching ye words, the diſtinction is ſoone made: but in time of tentation thou ſhalt finde the Goſpell but as a ſtraunger and a rare geſt in thy conſcience:The Goſpell a ſtraunger in tentations: The lavve a continuall geſt. but the law contrariwiſe thou ſhalt finde a familiar and continuall dweller within thee: for reaſon hath the knowledge of ye law naturally. Wherfore when thy conſcience is terrified with ſinne, which the law vttereth and encreaſeth, then ſay thou: There is a time to die and a time to liue: there is a time to heare the law and a time to deſpiſe the law: there is a time to heare the Goſpel,The time of the Goſpell. and there is a time to be ignorant of the Goſpell. Let the law now depart and let the Goſpell come: for there is now no time to heare the lawe, but the Goſpell.An obiection of the lavv. But thou haſt done no good: nay thou haſt done wickedly & haſt greuouſly ſinned. I graūt: notwithſtanding I haue remiſſion of all my ſinnes for Chriſtes ſake. But out of the conflicte of conſcience,VVhen vve muſt heare the lavv. when externall duties muſt be done, there is no time to harken to the Goſpell: then muſt thou follow thy vocation and the works thereof.

Verſe. 14. I ſaid vnto Peter openly: If thou being a Ievve liueſt as the Gentiles and not as the Ievves, vvhy conſtraineſt thou the Gentiles to doe like the Ievves. That is to witte,To liue like the Ievves thou art a Iewe and therfore art bound to liue like a Iewe, that is, to abſtaine from meates forbidden in the law. Notwithſtanding thou liueſt like a Gentile: that is to ſay, thou doeſt contrary to the law and tranſgreſſeſt the law. For as a Gentile which is free frō ye law, thou eateſt common & vncleane meates, & therin thou doeſt well. But in that thou being afraid at the preſence of the brethren conuerted from the Iewiſh religion, abſtaineſt from meates forbidden in the law and keepeſt the law, thou compelleſt the Iewes likewiſe to keepe the law: that is, thou conſtraineſt them of neceſſitie to obſerue the law. For in that thou abſtaineſt from profane meates, thou geueſt occaſion to the Gentiles thus to thinke: Peter abſtaineth from thoſe meates which the Gentiles vſe to eate, which alſo he himſelfe before did eate, therefore we ought likewiſe to auoid the ſame, and to liue after the mā ner of the Iewes:Peter through his diſſimulation compelled the Gentiles to liue like the Ievves otherwiſe we can not be iuſtified or ſaued. We ſee thē yt Paule reproueth not ignorance in Peter, (for he knew that he might freely eate with the Gentiles all maner of meates,) but diſſimulation, wherby he compelled the Gentiles to liue like the Iewes. Here I ſay againe, that to liue as the Iew, is not euil of it ſelfe, for it is a thing indifferent either to eate ſwines fleſh or any other meates. But ſo to play the Iewe that for conſcience ſake thou abſtaineſt from certayne meates,Things indifdifferent may not clogge mens conſciences. this is to deny Chriſt & to ouerthrowe the Goſpell. Therfore when Paule ſaw that Peters act tended to this end, he reſiſted him and ſaid: Thou knoweſt that the keeping of the lawe is not neceſſary to righteouſnes, but that we are iuſtified onely through faith in Chriſt, and therfore thou keepeſt not the law, but tranſgreſſeſt the law and eateſt all maner of meates. Notwithſtanding by thy example thou conſtraineſt the Gentiles to forſake Chriſt and to returne to the lawe. For thou geueſt them occaſion thus to thinke: Faith onely is not ſuffient to righteouſnes, but the law and works are alſo required. And this Peter teacheth vs by his example. Therfore the obſeruation of the law muſt needes be ioyned with faith in Chriſt if we wilbe ſaued. Wherefore Peter by this example is not onely preiudicial to the purity of doctrine,Peters errour. but alſo to the truth of faith and chriſtian righteouſnes. For the Gentiles receaued this of him, that the keping of the law was neceſſary to righteouſnes: which errour in caſe it be admitted, then Chriſt profiteth nothing. Hereby it plainly appeareth to what end this diſcord betwene Paule and Peter tendeth. Paule doth nothing by diſſimulation, but dealeth ſincerely and goeth plainly to worke. Peter diſſembleth, but this diſſimulation Paule reproueth. The controuerſie was for the maintenance of pure doctrine and the veritie of the Goſpell: and in this quarell Paule did not care for the offence of any. In this caſe all people and nations, all Kings and Princes, all Iudges & Magiſtrats ought to geue place. Since then it is ſo daungerous a thing to haue to doe with the law, and that this fall was ſo ſodaine and ſo greate as if it had bene from heauen aboue euen downe into hell, let euery Chriſtian diligently learne to diſcerne betwene the law and the Goſpell. Let him ſuffer the law to rule ouer the body and members therof, but not ouer the conſcience. For that Queene and ſpouſe may not be defiled with the lawe,Libertie of conſcience. 2. Cor. 11.[illegible: 1 letter]. but muſt be kept without ſpot for her onely huſband Chriſt, as Paule ſayth. 2. Cor. 11. I haue eſpouſed you to one huſband. &c. Let the conſcience then haue her bride chamber, not in the lowe valley, but in the high mountaine: in the which let Chriſt lie and there rule & reigne, who doth not terrifie and afflict ſinners, but comforteth them, pardoneth their ſinnes and ſaueth them.VVhat an afflicted conſcience ought chiefly to looke vpon. Wherefore let the afflicted conſcience thinke vpon nothinge, know nothing, ſet nothinge againſte the iudgement of God, but the worde of Chriſt, whiche is the worde of grace, of remiſſion of ſinnes, of ſaluation and euerlaſting life. But this to performe in deede, is a hard matter. For mans reaſon and nature can not ſtedfaſtly cleaue vnto Chriſt, but oftentimes it is caried away with the cogitations of the lawe and ſinne, and ſo alwayes ſeeketh to be at libertie after the fleſh, but according to conſcience a ſeruaunt and ſlaue.

Verſe. 15. VVe vvhich are Ievves by nature, and not ſinners of the Gentiles. That is to ſay: we are borne vnto the righteouſnes of the lawe, to Moſes, and to circumciſion, and euē in our birth we bring the law with vs. We haue the righteouſnes of the law by nature, as Paule before ſayth of him ſelfe in the firſt chapter:Galat. 1.14. Being zelous of the traditions of the fathers. Wherefore if we be compared to the Gentiles, we are no ſinners: we are not without the law & without works as the Gentiles:The prerogatiue of the Ievves. but we are Iewes borne, we are borne righteous & brought vp in righteouſnes. Our righteouſnes beginneth euē with our birth, for ye Iewiſh religion is naturall vnto vs.Gen. 17.10. For God commaunded Abraham to circumciſe euery man childe the eight day. This law of circumciſion receiued from the fathers, Moſes afterward confirmed. It is a great matter therfore that we are Iewes by nature. Notwithſtanding, although we haue this prerogatiue, that we are righteous by nature, borne to the law and the workes therof, and are not ſinners as the Gentiles, yet are we not therfore righteous before God. Hereby it is euident that Paule ſpeaketh not of ceremonies, or of the ceremoniall lawe, as ſome doe affirme, but of a farre waightier matter, namely of the natiuitie of the Iewes, whom he denieth to be righteous, although they be borne holy, be circumciſed, keepe the lawe, haue the adoption, the glory, the couenaunt, the fathers, the true worſhip, God, Chriſt, the promiſes, liue in them and glory in the ſame:Iohn. 8.33. as they ſay Iohn. 8. VVe are the ſeede of Abraham. Alſo, vve haue one father, Rom. 2.17. vvhich is God. And to the Romaines: Beholde, thou art called a Ievv, and reſteſt in the lavv. &c. Wherfore, although that Peter and the other Apoſtles were the children of God, righteous according to the law, the works and the righteouſnes therof, circumciſion, the adoption, the couenaūts, the promiſes, the Apoſtleſhip and all ſuch like: yet Chriſtian righteouſnes commeth not therby: for none of all theſe is faith in Chriſt,Faith onely iuſtifieth. which onely (as foloweth in the text) iuſtifieth, and not the law: Not that the law is euil or damnable, for the law circumciſion, and ſuch like, are not therefore condemned becauſe they iuſtifie not: but Paule therfore taketh from them the office of iuſtification, becauſe the falſe apoſtles contended that by them, without faith, and onely by the worke wrought, men are iuſtified & ſaued. This was not to be ſuffred of Paule. All things deadly vvithout faith. For where faith ceaſeth, all things are deadly: the law, circumciſion, the adoption, the temple, the worſhip of God, the promiſes, yea God and Chriſt him ſelfe without faith profiteth nothing. Paule therfore ſpeaketh generally againſt all things which are contrary to faith, and not againſt ceremonies onely.

Verſe. 16. Knovv that a man is not iuſtified by the vvorks of the lavv, but by the faith of Ieſus Chriſt. The vvorke of the lavve.This clauſe the vvorke of the lavv, reacheth farre, and comprehē deth much. We take the worke of the law therefore generally for that which is contrary to grace. What ſo euer is not grace, is the law, whether it be Iudiciall, ceremoniall, or the ten commaundements. Wherfore if thou couldeſt doe the workes of the lawe according to this commaūdement: Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God vvithall thy heart. &c. (which no mā yet euer did or could do) notwithſtanding thou ſhouldeſt not be iuſtified before God: for a man is not iuſtified by the workes of the law. But hereof we will ſpeake more largely hereafter. The worke of the law then according to Paule, ſignifieth the worke of the whole law, whether it be ceremoniall or Moral. Now if ye worke of the morall law doe not iuſtifie, much leſſe doth circumciſion iuſtifie, which is a worke of the ceremonial law. Wherfore, when Paule ſayth, (as he oftentimes doth) that by the lavv, or by the vvorkes of the lavv (which are both one) a man is not iuſtified, he ſpeaketh generally of the whole law, ſetting the righteouſnes of faith againſt the righteouſnes of the whole law. For the righteouſnes of the law (ſayth he) a man is not pronounced righteous before God: but the righteouſnes of faith God imputeth freely through grace, for Chriſtes ſake. The lawe (no doubt), is holy, righteous and good, and conſequently the works of the law are holy, righteous, and good: yet notwithſtanding a man is not iuſtified therby before God. Now,VVorks done before iuſtification, and after iuſtification. the works of the law may be done either before iuſtificatiō or after. There were many good men euen amōgſt the Paganes, as Xenophon, Ariſtides, Fabius, Cicero, Pomponius Atticus & others, which before iuſtification performed the deedes of the lawe, and did notable workes. Cicero ſuffered death valiantly in a good & a iuſt cauſe. Pomponius was a cōſtant man, & loued truth,Cicero Pomponius Atticus. for he neuer made lie him ſelf nor could ſuffer the ſame in any other. Now, conſtancie & truth are noble vertues & excellent works of the lawe, & yet were they not iuſtified therby. After iuſtification, Peter, Paule, & al other chriſtians haue done & do the works of the law, but yet are they not iuſtified therby. I knovv not my ſelfe giltie in anything (ſayth Paule) and yet am I not therby iuſtified. We ſee then that he ſpeaketh not of any part of the law,Paule intreateth of the vvhole lavve. but of the whole law, and all the workes thereof. The Diuinitie of the Sophiſters, commonly called the Scholemen. Wherfore the wicked & pernicious opinion of the Papiſts,The Papiſtes Diuinitie. is vtterly to be condemned, which do attribute the merite of grace & remiſſion of ſinnes to ye worke wrought. For they ſay yt a good worke before grace, is auaileable to obtaine grace of Congruence,Merite of Congruence. which they call meritum de Congruo, becauſe it is meete and conuenient that God ſhould reward ſuch a worke. But when grace is obtained, ye worke folowing deſerueth euerlaſtīg life of due det & worthines, which they cal meritum de Condigno. As for exāple: If a mā being in deadly ſin, wtout grace,Merite of duetie and vvorthines. do a good worke of his owne good naturall inclination: that is, if he ſay or heare a Maſſe, or geue almes, and ſuch like, this man of cōgruence deſerueth grace. When he hath thus obtained grace, he doth a worke which of worthines deſerueth euerlaſting life. For the firſt, god is no detter: but becauſe he is iuſt and good, it behoueth him to approue ſuch a good worke though it be done in deadly ſinne, & to geue grace for ſuch a ſeruice. But when grace is obtained, God is become a detter, and is conſtrained of right and duetie to geue eternal life. For now it is not onely a worke of freewill done according to the ſubſtance, but alſo done in grace which maketh gratious, that is to ſay, in loue. This is the Diuinitie of the Antichriſtian kingdom. Which here I recite to the ende that the diſputation of Paule may be the better vnderſtand.The doctryne of the Papiſtes vvicked and blaſphemous againſt Chriſt and his righteouſnes. (For two contrary things being ſet together be the better knowen): and moreouer that all mē may ſee how farre from the truth theſe blinde guides and leaders of the blinde haue ſtrayed, and how by this wicked and blaſphemous doctrine they haue not onely darkned, but taken away the Goſpell, and buried Chriſt vtterly. For if I being in deadly ſinne, can doe any litle worke which is not onely acceptable in Gods ſight according to the ſubſtaunce, but alſo is able to deſerue grace of congruence: and when I haue receaued this grace, I may do workes according to grace, that is to ſay, according to loue, and gette of right and duetie eternall life, what neede haue I now of the grace of God, forgeuenes of ſinnes, of the promiſe, and of the death and victorie of Chriſt? Chriſt is now to me in vaine and of none effect: For I haue freewill and power to doe good works, wherby I deſerue grace of congruence, and afterwards of duety, and by the worthines of my worke, eternall life. Such monſtrous & horrible blaſphemies ſhould be ſet forth rather to the Turkes and Iewes, then to the church of Chriſt. And this plainly declareth that the Pope with his Biſhops, Doctors, prieſts, & with all his religious rable, had no knowledge or regard of holy matters: and that they were not careful for the health of the ſeely and miſerably ſcattered flocke. For if they had ſeene but through a cloud, what Paule calleth ſinne and what he calleth grace, they would neuer haue compelled the people to beleue ſuch abhominations & execrable lies as they haue done.VVhat the Papiſtes call deadly ſinne. By deadly ſinne they vnderſtoode onely the externall worke committed againſt the law, as murther, theft, and ſuch like. They could not ſee that ignoraunce, hatred, and contempt of God in the heart, ingratitude, murmuring againſt God, and reſiſting the will of God, are alſo deadly ſinne: and that the fleſh can not thinke, ſpeake, or do any thing, but that which is deueliſh and altogether againſt God. If they had ſeene theſe miſcheefes faſt rooted in the nature of man, they would neuer haue deuiſed ſuch impudent and execrable dreames touching the deſert of congruence and worthines. A deſcription of a deadly or mortall ſinner.Wherefore we muſt properly and plainly define what a wicked man or a deadly ſinner is. He is ſuch a holy and bloudy hypocrite as Paule was whē he went to Damaſcus to perſecute Ieſus of Nazareth, to aboliſh the doctrine of the goſpel, to murther ye faithful, & vtterly to ouerthrow the church of Chriſt. And who will not ſay but yt theſe were horrible ſinnes? Yet could not Paule ſee them. For he was ſo blinded with a peruerſe zeale of God, that he thought theſe abhominatiōs to be perfect righteouſnes and high ſeruice vnto God: and ſhall we ſay that ſuch as defend theſe horrible ſinnes to be perfect righteouſnes, doe deſerue grace? Wherfore with Paule we vtterly deny the merite of congruence & worthines, and affirme that theſe ſpeculatiōs are nothing elſe but mere deceites of Satan, which were neuer done in dede, nor notified by any examples.Deſert of congruence and vvorthines a vaine and folish toy. For God neuer gaue to any man grace and euerlaſting life for the merite of congruence or worthines. Theſe diſputatiōs therfore of the Scholemen touching the merite of congruence & worthines, are nothing elſe but vaine toyes & dreames of idle braines, to no other end and purpoſe but to draw men from the true worſhip of God.The ground of the vvhole Popedom. And herevpon is the whole papacie grounded. For there is no religious perſon, but he hath this imagination: I am able by the obſeruation of my holy order to deſerue grace of congruence: and by the workes which I doe after that I haue receiued this grace, I am able to heape vp ſuch treaſure of merite, as ſhall not onely be ſufficient for me to obtaine eternall life, but alſo to geue or ſell vnto others. Thus haue all the religious orders taught, and thus haue they liued. And to defend this horrible blaſphemie againſt Chriſt, the Papiſts doe at this day attempt againſt vs what they can. And there is not one of them all, but the more holy hypocrite and meritemunger he is, the more cruell and deadly enemy he is to the Goſpell of Chriſt. The true vvay to Chriſtianitie. Now, the true way to Chriſtianitie is this,The firſt poynt of true Chriſtianitie is, that a man do acknovvledge himſelfe to be a ſinner. that a man aboue al things doe acknowledge him ſelfe to be a ſinner by the lawe, and that it is impoſſible for him to doe any good worke. For the lawe ſayth: Thou art an euill tree, and therefore all that thou thinkeſt, ſpeakeſt, or doeſt, is againſt God. Thou canſt not therefore deſerue grace by thy workes. Which if thou goe about to doe, thou committeſt yet a more greeuous offence: For ſince thou art an euill tree,Math. 7.1[illegible: 1 letter]. thou canſt not but bring forth euill frutes, that is to ſay, ſinnes: For vvhat ſo euer is not of Faith, Rom. 14.23. is ſinne. Wherfore he that would deſerue grace by workes going before Faith, goeth about to pleaſe God with ſinnes, which is nothing elſe but to heape ſinne vpon ſinne, to mocke God, and to prouoke his wrath. When a man is thus inſtructed by the law, then is he terrified & humbled, then he ſeeth in deede the greatnes of his ſinne, and can not finde in him ſelfe one iote of the loue of God: therefore he iuſtifieth God in his word, and confeſſeth that he is giltie of death and eternall damnation. The firſt part then of Chriſtianitie is the preaching of repentance, and the knowledge of our ſelues. The ſecond part, is to beleue the forgeuenes of our ſinnes. Iohn. 3.17. The ſecond part is: If thou wilt be ſaued, thou maiſt not ſeeke ſaluation by works, for God hath ſent his onely begotten ſonne into the world, that we might liue through him. He was crucified and died for thee, and offred vp thy ſinnes in his owne body. Here is no congruence or worke done before grace, but wrath, ſinne, terrour and death. Wherfore the lawe doth nothing elſe but vtter ſinne,The office of the lavve. terrifie and humble, and by this meanes prepareth vs to iuſtification, and driueth vs to Chriſt. For God hath reueled vnto vs by his word, that he will be vnto vs a merciful father, & without our deſertes (ſeing we can deſerue nothing) wil freely geue vnto vs remiſſion of ſinnes, righteouſnes, & life euerlaſting for Chriſt his ſonnes ſake. For God geueth his gifts freely vnto all, and yt is the praiſe & glory of his diuinitie. But the Iuſticiaries will not receaue grace & euerlaſting life of him freely,Meritmōgers take from God the glory of his Godhead. but wil deſerue the ſame by their workes. For this cauſe they would vtterly take from him the glory of his Diuinitie. To the ende therfore that he may maintaine and defend the ſame, he is cōpelled to ſend his law before, which as a lightning and thundring from heauen, may bruſe and breake thoſe hard rockes. This briefly is our doctrine as touching Chriſtian righteouſnes, againſt the abominations and monſtrous dreames of the Papiſts concerning the merite of congruence and worthines,The vanitie of the Papiſtes in that foolish diſtinction of congrunuum & condig[illegible: 1 letter]m. or workes before and after grace. For a ſort of idle monks (which neuer had any regard of God or his glory, nor of the health of their owne ſoules: which were neuer exerciſed with any tentations, neuer had any true feling of ſinne, or of the terrour of death) haue forged theſe vaine toyes & blaſphemies of their owne braine, and therefore they know not what they ſay, or what they teach. Moreouer, they can ſhew no example of any worke done either before or after grace that could iuſtifie before God. Wherfore theſe are nothing elſe but vaine fables and lies whereby the Papiſts deceaue both them ſelues and other. For Paule here plainly affirmeth, that a man is not iuſtified by the works of the lawe, either going before grace (wherof he here ſpeaketh) or comming after. You ſee then that Chriſtian righteouſnes is not ſuch an eſſentiall qualitie engrafted in the nature of man, as the Scholemen doe imagine when they ſay: The Diuinitie of the Schole men. When a man doth any good worke, God accepteth it, and for that good worke he poureth into him charitie. This infuſed charitie (ſay they) is a qualitie grafted in the heart,VVhat the Papiſtes call formall righteouſnes. and this they call formall righteouſnes (which maner of ſpeaking it is expedient for you to know:) and they cā abide nothing leſſe then to heare yt this qualitie furniſhing the ſoule as whitenes doth the wal, ſhould not be coūted righteouſnes.The Papiſtes take their formall righteouſnes, vvhich they call charitie, to be that grace vvherby vve are made acceptable vnto God. They can clime no higher then to this cogitatiō of mans reaſon: yt man is righteous hy his owne formall righteouſnes, which is grace making him acceptable vnto God, that is to ſay, loue or charitie. So to this qualitie cleauing vnto the ſoule, that is to wit, charitie (which is a worke after the law, for the law ſayth: Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God. &c.) they attribute formall righteouſnes, and they ſay that this righteouſnes is worthy of euerlaſting life, and he that hath it, is formally righteous: and moreouer he is effectually or actually righteous, becauſe he now doth good workes, wherevnto euerlaſting life is due. This is the opinion of the Scholemen, yea euen of the beſt among them. Some other there be which are not ſo good, as Scotus and Occam, Scotus. which ſayd that for the obtaining of the grace of God,Occam. this charity infuſed or geuen of God, is not neceſſary:The pernicious opinion of the Papiſtes. Iohn. 17.1. but that a man euen by his owne naturall ſtrength may procure this charitie aboue all things. For ſo reaſoneth Scotus: If a man may loue a creature, a yong man a maiden, a couetous man money, which are the leſſe good, he may alſo loue God which is the greater good. If he haue a loue of ye creature through his naturall ſtrength, much more hath he a loue of the creator. With this argument were all the Sophiſters conuicted, and none of them all was able to ſoile it. Notwithſtanding thus they replie. The ſcripture compelleth vs to cōfeſſe (ſay they) that God, beſides that naturall loue and charitie which is engrafted in vs,The doctrine of the Sophiſters. (wherwith alone he is not contented) requireth alſo charitie which he him ſelfe geueth. And heereby they accuſe God as a tyranne and a cruell exactor, who is not content that we kepe and fulfil his law, but aboue the law, which we are of our ſelues able to fulfill, requireth alſo that we ſhould accompliſhe it with other circumſtaunce and furniture, as apparell to the ſame. As if a Miſtres ſhould not be contented that her Cooke had dreſſed her meate excellently well, but ſhould chide her for that ſhe did not prepare the ſame, being decked wt precious apparel & hauing a croune of gold vpon her head. What a miſtres were this, who beſides that which her Cooke was onely bound to doe and alſo exactly performed, would require moreouer precious apparell or a croune of gold which ſhe could not haue? Euen ſo, what a one ſhould God be if he ſhould require his lawe to be fulfilled of vs (which otherwiſe by our owne naturall ſtrength we obſerue and fulfill) with ſuch furniture as we can not haue? But here leſt they ſhould ſeeme to aduouch contrary things, they make a diſtinction, and ſay that the law is fulfilled two maner of waies: firſt according to the ſubſtance of the deede,The lavv fulfilled tvvo maner of vvaies, ſay the Papiſtes, according to the ſubſtance of the deede, and according to the intent or purpoſe of the Commaū der. and ſecondly according to the minde of the commaunder. According to the ſubſtance of the deede (ſay they) we may fulfil al things which the law commaūdeth, but not according to the meaning of the Commaunder, which is, that God is not contented that thou haſt done all things which are commaunded in the law, although he can require no more of thee: but he yet further requireth, that thou ſhouldeſt fulfill the law in charitie: not that charitie which thou haſt by nature, but that which is aboue nature and heauēly, which he himſelfe geueth. And what is this els but to make of God a tyranne and a tormentor, which requireth of vs that we are not able to performe. And it is in a maner as much as if they ſhould ſay that the fault is not in vs if we be damned, but in God, which with this circumſtance requireth his law to be accompliſhed of vs. Theſe things I doe the more diligently repete, that you may ſee how farre they haue wādred from the true ſenſe of the ſcripture, which haue ſayd that we by our owne naturall ſtrength may loue God aboue all things, or at leaſt, by ye worke wrought we may deſerue euerlaſting life. And becauſe God is not contente that we fulfill the law according to the ſubſtance of the deede, but will haue vs alſo to fulfill the ſame according to the meaning of the Commaunder: therefore the ſcripture further compelleth vs to haue a qualitie aboue nature poured into vs from aboue, and that is charitie which they call formall righteouſnes adorning and bewtifying faith, being alſo the cauſe that faith iuſtifieth vs. So faith is the body, and the ſhell: charitie the life, the kernell, the forme and furniture. Theſe are the dreames of the Scholemen. True Chriſtian faith.But we in the ſteede of this charitie do place faith, and we ſay that faith apprehendeth Ieſus Chriſt, who is the forme which adorneth & furniſheth faith, as the colour adorneth and bewtifieth the wall. Chriſtian faith thē is not an idle qualitie or empty huſke in the heart, which may be in deadly ſinne (as they ſay) vntill charitie come and quicken it: but if it be true faith, it is a ſure truſt and confidence of the heart, and a firme conſent wherby Chriſt is apprehended: So that Chriſt is the obiect of faith, yea rather euen in faith Chriſt himſelfe is preſent.Chriſt is the obiect vvhich faith beholdeth and looketh vpon. Faith therefore is a certaine obſcure knowledge, or rather darkenes which ſeeth nothing, and yet Chriſt apprehended by faith ſitteth in this darknes: like as God in Sinai and in the temple ſatte in the middeſt of darknes.Exod. 19.9. 1. Reg. 8.10. Formall righteouſnes. Wherfore our formall righteouſnes is not charitie furniſhing and beutifying faith, but it is faith it ſelf which is as it were a certain cloud in our harts: that is to ſay, a ſtedfaſt truſt & affiance in the thing which we ſee not, which is Chriſt: who although he be not ſeene at all, yet is he preſent. Faith therefore iuſtifieth becauſe it apprehendeth and poſſeſſeth this treaſure, euen Chriſt preſent. But this preſence cā not be comprehended of vs, becauſe it is in darknes, as I haue ſaid. Wherfore, wher aſſured truſt and affiance of the heart is, there Chriſt is preſent, yea euen in the cloud and obſcuritie of faith. And this is that formall righteouſnes, whereby a man is iuſtified, and not by charitie, as the popiſh Scholemen do affirme. To conclude, like as the Scholemen ſay that charity furniſheth and adorneth faith: ſo do we ſay that it is Chriſt ye furniſheth and adorneth faith, or rather that he is the very forme & perfection of faith. Wherefore Chriſt apprehended by faith and dwelling in ye heart, is true chriſtian righteouſnes, for the which God counteth vs righteous and geueth vs eternall life. Here is vndoubtedly no worke of the lawe, no ſuch charitie or loue as the Sophiſters dreame of: but a farre other maner of righteouſnes, and a certaine new world beyond and aboue the lawe: For Chriſt or faith is not the law nor worke of the law. But concernīg this matter, which the Scholemen neither well vnderſtood nor taught, we entende to ſpeake more largely hereafter. Now it ſhall be enough that we haue ſhewed that Paule ſpeaketh not here onely of the ceremonial law, but of the whole law. The true rule of Chriſtianitie. Contrary to theſe vaine trifles and doting dreames (as we haue alſo noted before) we teach faith, and geue a true rule of Chriſtianitie in this ſorte: Firſt that a man muſt be taught by the lawe to knowe him ſelfe, that ſo he may learne to ſay with the Prophet: All haue ſinned and haue neede of the glory of God. Rom. 3.15. Pſal. 14.1. Pſal. 53.4. Pſal. 51.4. Alſo, there is not one righteous, no not one: Not one that vnderſtandeth, not one that ſeeketh after God: All haue gone aſtray. Alſo, againſt thee onely haue I ſinned. Thus we by a contrary way, do driue men from the merite of congruence and worthines. Now, when a man is humbled by the law and brought to the knowledge of himſelfe, then followeth true repentance (for true repentance beginneth at the feare & iudgement of God) and he ſeeth himſelfe to be ſo great a ſinner, that he can finde no meanes how he may be deliuered from his ſinne by his owne ſtrength,Rom. 7.14. works, or merits. Then he perceaueth wel what Paule meaneth when he ſaith, that man is the ſeruaunt and bondſlaue of ſinne. Rom. 11.32. Rom. 3.19. Alſo, that God hath shut vp all vnder ſinne: & that the whole world is gilty before god &c. Then he ſeeth that all the diuinitie of the Scholemen touching the merite of congruence and worthines, is nothing els but meere fooliſhnes, and that by this meanes the whole Papacye falleth to ruine. Here then he beginneth to ſigh, and ſaith in this wiſe: Who then can geue ſuccour? For he being thus terrified with the law, vtterly deſpaireth of his owne ſtrength:The .[illegible: 1 letter]. parte of the Goſpell. he loketh about, and ſigheth for the helpe of a Mediatour and Sauiour. Here then cometh in good time the holeſome word of the Goſpell,Mat. 9.1. and ſaith: Sonne, thy ſinnes are forgeuen the. Beleue in Chriſt Ieſus crucified for thy ſinnes. If thou feele thy ſinnes and the burthen therof, looke not vpon them in thy ſelfe, but remember that they are tranſlated and laid vpon Chriſt,Eſai. 53.4. 1. Pet. 2.24. whoſe ſtripes haue made thee whole. This is the beginning of health and ſaluation. By this meanes we are deliuered frō ſinne, iuſtified, & made inheritours of euerlaſting life: not for our owne works and deſerts, but for our faith, wherby we lay hold vpon Chriſt. Wherfore we alſo doe acknowledge a qualitie and a formall righteouſnes in the heart: not charitie (as the Scholemen doe) but faith, and yet ſo notwithſtanding that the heart do behold nothing, apprehend nothing but Chriſt the Sauiour. And here it is neceſſary that you know the true definition of Chriſt. The Scholemen being vtterly ignorant hereof, haue made Chriſt a iudge and a tormentor, deuiſing this fond fantaſie concerning ye merite of congruence & worthines. Chriſt is no lavvgeuer.But Chriſt, according to his true definition, is no lawgiuer, but he is a forgiuer of ſinnes and a Sauiour. This doth faith apprehend and vndoubtedly beleue, that he hath wrought works and merits of congruence and worthines before and after grace abundantly. For he might haue ſatiſfied for all the ſinnes of the world by one onely droppe of his bloud.Verſe. 12. But now he hath ſhed it plentifully and hath ſatiſfied abundantly. Ebr. 9. By his ovvne bloud hath he entred into the holy place once for all, and obtained eternal redemption for vs. Alſo Rom. 3. Verſe. 24.25. And vve are iuſtified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Chriſt Ieſus, vvhom God hath ſet forth to be a reconciliation vnto vs through faith in his bloud. Wherfore it is a greate matter to lay hold vpon Chriſt by faith bearing the ſinnes of the world.Rom. 3.25. Rom. 4.3. And this faith alone is counted for righteouſnes, as the Apoſtle teacheth in the third and fourth Chapters to the Romaines. Here is to be noted that theſe three things, faith, Chriſt,Chriſt. Faith. Imputation. acceptation or imputation muſt be ioyned togither. Faith taketh hold of Chriſt and hath him preſent, and holdeth him incloſed as the ring doth the precious ſtone. And who ſo euer ſhalbe found hauing this confidence in Chriſt apprehended in the hart, him will God account for righteous. This is the meane and this is the merite wherby we attaine the remiſſion of ſinnes and righteouſnes. Becauſe thou beleueſt in me, ſaith God, and thy faith layeth hold vpon Chriſt whom I haue freely geuen vnto thee that he might be thy Mediatour and high Prieſt, Ebr. 4. therefore be thou iuſtified and righteous. Wherefore God doth accept or accoūt vs as righteous, onely for our faith in Chriſt. And this acceptation or imputation is very neceſſary: Firſt becauſe we are not yet perfectly righteous,Acceptation neceſſary. but whiles we remaine in this life, ſinne dwelleth ſtill in our fleſh: and this remnant of ſinne God purgeth in vs. Moreouer we are ſometimes lefte of the holy Ghoſt and fall into ſinnes, as did Peter, Dauid and other holy men. Notwithſtanding we haue alwaies recourſe to this article:They that beleue in Chriſt shall not be charged vvith their ſinnes. Pſal. 32. Rom. 4.21. That our ſinnes are couered, and that God will not lay them to our charge. Pſal. 32. and Rom. 4. Not that ſinne is not in vs (as the Sophiſters haue taught, ſaying that we muſt be alwaies working well vntill we feele that there is no gilt of ſinne remaining in vs): yea ſinne is in deede alwaies in vs, and the godly doe feele it: but it is couered and is not imputed vnto vs of God for Chriſtes ſake: whom becauſe we doe apprehend by Faith, all our ſinnes are now no ſinnes. But where Chriſt and faith be not, there is no remiſſion or couering of ſinnes, but mere imputation of ſinnes and condemnation. Thus will God glorifie his ſonne,Io. 17.[illegible: 1 letter]. and will be glorified him ſelfe in vs through him. When we haue thus taught faith in Chriſt, then do we teach alſo good works.The doctrine of good vvorkes to be taught after the doctrine of faith. Becauſe thou haſt laid hold vpon Chriſt by faith, through whom thou art made righteouſnes, begin now to worke well. Loue God and thy neighbour: call vpon God, geue thanks vnto him, praiſe him, confeſſe him. Theſe are good workes in dede, which flowe out of this faith and this chearefulnes conceaued in the heart for that we haue remiſſion of ſinnes freely by Chriſt. The Croſſe.Now, what croſſe or afflictiōs ſo euer do afterwardes enſue, they are eaſily borne, and chearfully ſuffered. For the yoke that Chriſt layeth vpon vs, Math. 11.30. is ſvvete, and his burden is eaſie. When ſinne is pardoned and the conſcience deliuered from the burden and ſting of ſinne, then may a Chriſtian beare all things eaſily. Becauſe he feeleth all things within ſweete and comfortable, therfore he doth and ſuffreth all things willingly. But when a man walketh in his owne righteouſnes, what ſo euer he doth is greeuous and tedious vnto him, becauſe he doth it vnwillingly. We therfore doe make this definition of a Chriſtian man: that he is a right chriſtian to whom God imputeth not his ſinne,VVho is a right Chriſtiā. through faith in Chriſt. This doctrine bringeth great conſolation to poore afflicted conſciences in ſerious and inward terrours. It is not without good cauſe therefore that we doe ſo often repete and beat into your mindes the forgeuenes of ſinnes, and imputation of righteouſnes for Chriſtes ſake:A Chriſtian man hath nothing to doe vvith the lavve. alſo that a Chriſtian hath nothing to doe with the law and ſinne, ſpecially in the time of tentation. For in that he is a Chriſtian, he is aboue the law and ſinne. For he hath Chriſt the Lord of the law preſent and incloſed in his heart (as we haue ſaid) euen as a ring hath a Iewel or precious ſtone incloſed in it. Therefore when the lawe accuſeth and ſinne terrifieth him, he looketh vpon Chriſt, and when he hath apprehended him by faith, he hath preſent with him the conquerour of the law, ſinne, death, and the deuill: who raigneth and ruleth ouer them, ſo that they can not hurt him. Wherfore a Chriſtian man, if ye define him rightly, is free from all lawes, and is not ſubiect vnto any creature, either within or without: In that he is a Chriſtian (I ſay) and not in that he is a man or a woman, that is to ſay, in that he hath his conſcience adorned and bewtified with this faith, with this great and ineſtimable treaſure,1. Cor. 9.15. or as (Paule ſaith) this vnſpeakeable gifte: which can not be magnified and praiſed enough, for it maketh vs the children and heires of God. And by this meanes a Chriſtian is greater then the whole world. For he hath ſuch a gifte, ſuch a treaſure in his heart that although it ſeemeth to be but litle, yet notwithſtanding the ſmalnes therof is greater then heauen and earth: for Chriſt which is this gift and this treaſure is greater then all things. Whiles this doctrine pacifying and quieting the conſcience abideth ſound and vncorrupt, Chriſtians are made iudges ouer all kindes of doctrine, and are Lords ouer the lawes of the whole world.Chriſtians are Iudges of all kindes of doctryne. Then cā they certainly iudge that the Turke with his Alcoran is damned becauſe he goeth not the right way, that is, he acknowledgeth not himſelfe to be miſerable and damnable, nor apprehendeth Chriſt by faith, for whoſe ſake he might be aſſured that his ſinnes are pardoned. In like maner they boldly pronoūce ſentence againſt the Pope,The doctrine of the Pope. that he is condemned with all his kingdome, becauſe he ſo walketh and ſo teacheth (with all his religious rable of Sophiſters and Scholemē), that by the merite of congruence we muſt come to grace, & that afterwards by the merite of worthines we are receaued into heauen. Here ſayth the Chriſtian, this is not the right way to iuſtifie vs, neither doth this way leade vs to heauen. For I can not (ſaith he) by my works going before grace, deſerue grace, nor by my works following grace deſerue eternall life: But to him that beleueth, ſinne is pardoned and righteouſnes imputed. This truſt and this confidence maketh him the childe of God and heire of his kingdome: For in hope he poſſeſſeth already euerlaſting life aſſured vnto him by promiſe. Through faith in Chriſt therefore all things are geuen vnto vs, grace, peace, forgeuenes of ſinnes, ſaluation and euerlaſting life, and not for the merite of congruence and worthines. Wherefore this doctrine of the Scholemen, with their ceremonies, Maſſes, & infinite foundations of the Papiſticall kingdome, are moſt abhominable blaſphemies againſt God, ſacrileges and plaine denials of Chriſt, as Peter hath foretold in theſe words. Ther shalbe (ſaith he) falſe teachers among you vvhich shall priuely bring in damnable hereſies, denying the Lord that hath bought them &c. 2. Pet. [illegible: 1 letter].[illegible: 1 letter]. As though he would ſay: the Lord hath redemed and bought vs with his bloud, that he might iuſtifie and ſaue vs: this is the way of righteouſnes and ſaluation. But there ſhall come falſe teachers, which denying the Lord, ſhall blaſpheme the way of truth, of righteouſnes and ſaluation: they ſhall finde out new waies of falſehode and deſtruction,The Papacie liuely painted out. and many ſhall follow their perdiction. Peter throughout this whole chapter moſt liuely painteth out the Papacie, which neglecting and deſpiſing the Goſpell and faith in Chriſt, hath taught the workes and traditions of men: as the merite of congruence & worthines, ye difference of daies, meates, vowes, inuocation of Saincts, pilgrimages, purgatory & ſuch like. In theſe fantaſticall opinions the Papiſtes are ſo nuſled, that it is impoſſible for them to vnderſtand one ſyllable of ye goſpel, of faith, or of Chriſt. And this the thing it ſelfe doth well declare. For they take that priuiledge vnto them ſelues which belongeth vnto Chriſt alone. He onely forgeueth ſinnes, he onely geueth righteouſnes and euerlaſting life: and they moſt impudently and wickedly doe vaunte that they are able to obtaine theſe things by their owne merits and worthines before and after grace. Peter and the other Apoſtles call theſe damnable hereſies and ſects of perdition. For by theſe meanes they deny Chriſt, treade his bloud vnder their feete, blaſpheme the holy Ghoſt, and deſpiſe the grace of God.Papiſticall Idolatrie. Wherefore no man can ſufficiently conceaue how horrible the idolatry of the Papiſtes is. As ineſtimable as the gifte is which is offered vnto vs by Chriſt: euen ſo and no leſſe abhominable are theſe prophanations of the Papiſtes. They ought not then to be lightly eſteemed or forgotten: but diligently wayed & conſidered. And this maketh alſo very much for the amplifying of ye grace of God and benefite of Chriſt, as by the contrarye. For the more we know the prophanation of the papiſticall Maſſe, ſo much the more we doe abhorre and deteſt the ſame, and embrace the true vſe of the holy communion,The true vſe of the Communion taken avvay by the Pope. which the Pope hath taken away, and hath made marchandiſe of it, yt being bought for money, it might profite others. For he ſaith yt the Maſſing prieſt, an apoſtata, denying Chriſt & blaſphemīg the holy Ghoſt, ſtanding at ye aultar doth a good work, not only for him ſelfe, but alſo for others both quicke & deade, and for the whole church, and that onely by the worke wrought, and by none other meanes. Wherefore euen by this we may plainely ſee the ineſtimable pacience of God, in that he hath not long agoe deſtroyed the whole Papacy and conſumed it with fire and brimſtone, as he did Sodome and Gomorre. But now theſe ioly felowes goe about, not onely to couer, but highly to aduance their impietie and filthines. This we may in no caſe diſſemble. We muſt therefore with all diligence ſet forth the article of iuſtification, that the ſame, as a moſt cleare Sunne, may bring to light the darknes of their hypocriſie, and may diſcouer their filthines and ſhame. For this cauſe we doe ſo often repete and ſo earneſtly ſet forth ye righteouſnes of faith, that the aduerſaries may be confounded and this article eſtabliſhed & cōfirmed in our hearts. And this is a moſt neceſſary thing: for if we once loſe this Sunne, we fal againe into our former darknes. And moſt horrible it is yt the Pope ſhould euer be able to bring this to paſſe in the church, that Chriſt ſhould be denyed, troden vnder foote,The horrible abuſe of the goſpell, and Sacraments in the Popedome. ſpitte vpon, blaſphemed, yea and that euen by the Goſpell and ſacraments: which he hath ſo darkned and turned into ſuch an horrible abuſe, that he hath made them to ſerue him againſt Chriſt, to ſet vp and ſtabliſh his deteſtable abhominations. O deepe darkenes, O horrible wrath of God.

Verſe. 16. Euen vve I ſay, haue beleeued in Ieſus Chriſt, that vve might be iuſtified. This is the true meane to become a Chriſtian, euen to be iuſtified by faith in Ieſus Chriſt, and not by the workes of the lawe. Here we may not ſtand vpon the wicked gloſe of the Scholemen, which ſay that faith then iuſtifieth, when charitie and good workes are ioyned withal.That the Scholemens gloſe is vvicked vvhich ſaith that faith adorned vvith charitie iuſtifieth. With this peſtilent gloſe the Sophiſters haue darkened & peruerted this & ſuch other like ſentences in Paule, wherein he manifeſtly attributeth iuſtification to faith onely in Chriſt. But when a man heareth that he ought to beleue in Chriſt, and yet faith notwithſtanding iuſtifieth not except it be formed and adorned with charitie, by and by faith faileth him and thus he thinketh with him ſelfe: If faith without charitie iuſtifieth not, then is faith in vaine and vnprofitable, and charitie only iuſtifieth: For except Faith be adorned and furniſhed with charitie, it is nothing. And to approue this their pernicious and peſtilēt gloſe, they alledge this place out of the Corinthes:1. Cor. 1[illegible: 1 letter].1, Though I ſpeake vvith the tounges of men & angels, & haue no loue I am nothing. This place is their braſen wall. But theſe men are without vnderſtanding, & therfore they can ſee or vnderſtand nothing in Paule. And moreouer they haue not onely done iniury to ye words of Paule, but alſo they haue denied Chriſt & buried al his benefits.Faith iuſtifieth vvithout the lavv. Wherfore we muſt auoid this their gloſe as a moſt deadly and deuiliſh poiſon and conclude with Paule that we are iuſtified, not by faith furniſhed with charitie, but by faith onely and alone. We graunt that we muſt alſo teach good workes and charitie,The doctrine of good vvorkes is not to be neglected. but it muſt be done in time and place, that is to ſay, when the queſtion is concerning workes, and toucheth not this article of iuſtification. But here the matter reſteth in this point, to know by what meanes we are iuſtified and attaine eternall life. To this we aunſwere with Paule, that by faith onely in Chriſt we are pronounced righteous, and not by the workes of the law or charitie: Not becauſe we reiect good workes, but for that we will not ſuffer our ſelues to be remoued from this anker hold of our ſaluation: which Sathan moſt deſireth. Since then we are now in the matter of iuſtification, we reiect and condemne all good workes: for this place will admitte no diſputation of good workes. Wherefore in this matter we doe generally cut of all lawes and all the workes of the law. But the law is good, iuſt and holy. True it is. But when we are in the matter of iuſtification there is no time or place to ſpeake of the law: but the queſtion is,Chriſt. what Chriſt is, and what benefite he hath brought vnto vs. Chriſt is not the law, he is not my worke, or the worke of the law: he is not my charitie, my chaſtitie, my obedience, my pouerty, but he is the Lord of life and death, a Mediatour, a Sauiour, a redemer of thoſe that are vnder the law and ſinne.Iohn. 6.56. In him vve are by faith and he in vs. This bridegrome muſt be alone with the bride in his ſecrete chamber, all the ſeruants and family being put apart. But afterwards when the dore is open and he cometh forth, then may the ſeruauntes and hādmaides returne, to miniſter vnto them. Then may charitie and good workes beginne to doe their office. Let vs learne therefore to diſcerne all lawes, yea euen the law of God, and all workes, from faith and from Chriſt, that we may define Chriſt rightly, Io. 1.36. Faith onely iuſtifieth becauſe it onely taketh hold of the benefite of Chriſt. and know that he is not the law, and therfore he is no exactor of the law and workes, but he is the lambe of God that taketh avvay the ſinnes of the vvorld. This doth faith alone lay hold of, and not charitie, which notwithſtanding as a certaine thankfulnes, muſt follow faith. Wherefore victory ouer ſinne and death, ſaluation and euerlaſting life come not by the law nor by the workes of the law, nor yet by the power of free will, but by ye Lord Ieſus Chriſt only & alone.

Verſe. 16. That vve might be iuſtified by faith in Chriſt, and not by the vvorkes of the lavv. Paule ſpeaketh of the vvhole lavv. Paule ſpeaketh not here of the ceremoniall law onely (as before we haue ſayd) but of the whole law. For the ceremoniall law was as well the law of God as the morall law was. As for example, Circumciſion, the inſtitution of the Prieſthoode, the ſeruice and ceremonies of the temple were commaunded of God no leſſe then the ten commaundements. Moreouer, when Abraham was commaunded to offer vp his ſonne Iſaac in ſacrifice, it was a law. This worke of Abraham pleaſed God no leſſe then other works of the ceremoniall law did, and yet was not he iuſtified by this work, but by faith: for the ſcripture ſaith,Geneſ. 15.6. Rom. 4.3. Abraham beleued God, and it vvas counted to him for righteouſnes. But ſince the reueiling of Chriſt (ſay they) the ceremoniall lawe killeth and bringeth death. Yea, ſo doth the lawe of the ten commaundements alſo without faith in Chriſte. Moreouer,The lavve in any vviſe is not to be ſuffred to raigne in the conſcience. Rom. 5.2. Rom. 7.7. there may no law be ſuffred to raigne in the conſcience, but onely the law of the ſpirite and life, wherby we are made free in Chriſt from the lawe of the letter and of death, from the workes therof, and from all ſinnes: Not becauſe the lawe is euill, but for that it is not able to iuſtifie vs: for it hath a plaine contrary effect and working. It is an high and an excellent matter to be at peace with God: and therefore in this caſe we haue neede of a farre other Mediatour then Moſes or the lawe. Here we muſt doe nothing at all, but onely receaue the treaſure, which is Chriſt,Our ſaluation conſiſteth not in doing, but in receauing. and apprehend him in our heartes by Faith, although we feele our ſelues to be full of ſinne. Theſe words therfore of the Apoſtle: that vve might be iuſtified by faith, and not by the vvorkes of the lavve, are very effectual, and not in vaine or vnprofitable, as the Scholemen thinke, and therefore they paſſe them ouer ſo lightly. Hetherto ye haue heard the wordes of Paule which he ſpake vnto Peter: Hetherto hath Paule ſpoken to Peter. wherein he hath briefly compriſed the principall article of all Chriſtian doctrine, which maketh true Chriſtians in deede. Now he turneth to the Galathians to whom he wryteth, and thus he concludeth: Since it is ſo that we are iuſtified by faith in Chriſt, then by the workes of the lawe ſhall no fleſh be iuſtified.

Verſe. 16. Becauſe by the deedes of the lavve, no flesh shall be iuſtified. Flesh in Paule doth not ſignifie (as the Scholemen dreame) manifeſt and groſſe ſinnes,VVhat Paule calleth the flesh. Galat. 9.19.20. for thoſe he vſeth to call by their proper names, as adultery, fornication, vncleanes and ſuch like: but by fleſh Paule meaneth here as Chriſt doth in the third chapter of Iohn. That vvhich is borne of flesh (ſayeth he) is flesh. Iohn. 3.6. Fleſh therfore ſignifieth the whole nature of man, with reaſon and all other powers what ſo euer doe belong to man. This fleſh (ſayth he) is not iuſtified by workes, no not of the lawe. Fleſh therefore, according to Paule, ſignifieth all the righteouſnes, wiſedome, deuotion, religion, vnderſtanding and will that is poſſible to be in a naturall man: So that if a man be neuer ſo righteous according to reaſon and the lawe of God, yet withall his righteouſnes, workes, merites, deuotion, and religion he is not iuſtified. The blindenes of the Papiſtes.This the Papiſtes doe not beleue, but being blinde and obſtinate, they defend their abhominations againſt their owne conſcience, continuing in this their blaſphemie, and hauing yet ſtill in their mouthes theſe execrable wordes: He that doth this good worke or that, deſerueth forgeuenes of his ſinnes: who ſo euer entreth into this or that holy order and kepeth his rule, to him we aſſuredly promiſe euerlaſting life.The Pope attributeth the vertue of iuſtifying to his ovvne traditions, vvhich Paule taketh from the lavv of God. It can not be vttered what an horrible blaſphemie it is to attribute that to the doctrine of Deuilles, to the decrees and ordinaunces of men, to the wicked traditions of the Pope, to the hypocriticall workes and merites of Monkes and Friers, which Paule the Apoſtle of Chriſt taketh away from the lawe of God. For if no fleſh be iuſtified by the workes of the lawe, much leſſe ſhall it be iuſtified by the rule of Benedict, Fraunces, or Auguſtine, in which there is not one iote of true Faith in Chriſt: but this onely they vrge, that who ſo euer kepeth theſe things, hath life euerlaſting. Wherefore I haue much and often marueled, that theſe ſectes of perdition raigning ſo many yeres in ſuch great darknes and errours, the Church could endure and continue as it hath done. Some there were whom God called by the letter of the Goſpell and by baptiſme.VVho vvere ſaued in the kingdom of the Pope. Theſe walked in ſimplicitie and humblenes of heart, thinking the Monkes and Friers, and ſuch onely as were anoynted of the Biſhops, to be religious and holy, and them ſelues to be prophane and ſecular, and not worthy to be compared vnto them. Wherfore they finding in them ſelues no good workes to ſet againſt the wrath and iudgement of God, did flie to the death & paſſion of Chriſt, and were ſaued in this ſimplicitie. Horrible and vnſpeakeable is the wrath of God, in that he hath ſo long time puniſhed the contempt of the Goſpell and of Chriſt in the Papiſtes, and alſo their ingratitude, geuing them ouer into a reprobate ſenſe,Rom. 1.28. in ſo much that they blaſpheming and denying Chriſt altogether as touching his office, in ſtede of the goſpell haue receaued the execrable rules,VVith the Papiſts, mans traditions are preferred before the Goſpell. ordinaunces and traditions of men, which they haue deuoutly adored and honoured, yea and preferred the ſame farre aboue the word of God, vntill at length they were forbidden to marry, and were bound to that inceſtuous ſingle life: wherein they were outwardly polluted and defiled with all kindes of horrible wickednes, as adultrie, whoredom, vncleanes, Sodomitrie and ſuch other abominations. This was the frute of that filthie ſingle life. So God puniſhing ſinne with ſinne, inwardly gaue them ouer into a reprobate minde, and outwardly ſuffered them to fall into ſuch horrible abominations: and that iuſtly, becauſe they blaſphemed the onely ſonne of God, in whom the father would be glorified, and whom he deliuered to death, that al which beleue in him, might be ſaued by him, and not by their owne execrable rules and orders.Sam. 2.30. Iohn. 5.23. Him that honoureth me (ſayth he) I vvill honour. Nowe God is honoured in his ſonne. Who ſo thē beleueth that the ſonne is our Mediatour and Sauiour, he honoureth the father, and him againe doth God honour, that is to ſay, adorneth him with his giftes, forgeuenes of ſinnes, righteouſnes, the holy Ghoſt, & euerlaſting life. Cōtrariwiſe: They that deſpiſe me (ſayth he) shall be deſpiſed. This is then a generall concluſion:The dignitie of the lavv. Becauſe by the deedes of the lavv no flesh shalbe iuſtified. The law of God is greater then ye whole world, for it comprehendeth all men, and the works of the law do farre excel euen the moſt glorious wilworkes of all the Meritmongers: and yet Paule ſayth, that neither the lawe nor the workes of the law do iuſtifie. Therfore we conclude with Paule that faith only iuſtifieth. This propoſition he goeth about to confirme in this maner.

Verſe. 18. If then vvhile vve ſeeke to be made righteous by Chriſt, vve our ſelues are found ſinners, is Chriſt therefore the miniſter of ſinne? God forbid. If this be true (ſayth he) that we are iuſtified by Chriſt, then is it vnpoſſible that we ſhould be ſinners, or ſhould be iuſtified by the lawe. On the contrary, if this be not true,The firſt argument in defence of the righteouſnes of faith. but that we muſt be iuſtified by the lawe and the workes of the lawe, it is then vnpoſſible that we ſhould be iuſtified by Chriſt. One of theſe two muſt needes be falſe. Either we are not iuſtified by Chriſt, or we are not iuſtified by the lawe. But the truth is, that we are iuſtified by Chriſt: therefore we are not iuſtified by the lawe. He reaſoneth therefore after this maner: If then vvhile vve ſeeke to be made. &c. That is: If we ſeeke to be iuſtified by Chriſt, and ſo being iuſtified we are yet foūd ſinners, hauing neede of the lawe to iuſtifie vs being ſinners: If we haue neede (I ſay) of the obſeruation of the lawe to iuſtifie vs, ſo that they which are righteous in Chriſt are not righteous, but haue yet neede of the lawe to iuſtifie them: Or if he that is iuſtified by Chriſt muſt yet further be iuſtified by the lawe, then is Chriſt nothing elſe but a lawgeuer and a miniſter of ſinne. Therfore he that is iuſtified and holy in Chriſt, is not iuſtified or holy, but hath yet neede of the righteouſnes and holines of the lawe. But we are in deede iuſtified and made righteous in Chriſt: For the truth of the Goſpell teacheth vs that a man is not iuſtified in the lawe, but in Chriſt. Nowe, if they which are iuſtified in Chriſt are yet found ſinners, that is, doe yet ſtill belong to the lawe, and are vnder the lawe (as the falſe Apoſtles teach) then are they not yet iuſtified. For the lawe accuſeth them, and ſheweth them to be yet ſinners: It requireth of them the workes of the lawe as neceſſary to their iuſtification, and ſo it foloweth that Chriſt is not a iuſtifier, but a miniſter of the lawe. With theſe wordes he vehemently chargeth the falſe Apoſtles and all Meritemongers,The Iuſticiaries make Moſes Chriſt, and the lavve grace. that they peruerte altogether: for they make of the lawe grace and of grace the lawe, of Moſes Chriſt and of Chriſt Moſes. For they teach that beſides Chriſt and all the righteouſnes of Chriſt, the obſeruation of the lawe is neceſſary to iuſtification. And thus we ſee that by their intolerable peruerſnes they make the lawe Chriſt: for by this meanes they attribute that to the lawe, which properly belongeth vnto Chriſt. If thou doe the workes of the lawe (ſay they) thou ſhalt be ſaued: but if thou doe them not, thou ſhalt not be iuſtified although thou doe beleue in Chriſt neuer ſo much. Now, if it be ſo that Chriſt iuſtifieth not, but is the miniſter of ſinne (as it muſt needes folowe by their doctrine) then is Chriſt the lawe: for we haue nothing elſe of him, ſeeing he teacheth that we are ſinners, then that we haue by the lawe. So Chriſt being the miniſter of ſinne, ſendeth vs to the lawe and to Moſes, as to our iuſtifier. It can not be therfore but that the Papiſts and all ſuch as are ignorant of ye righteouſnes of Chriſt, or haue not the true knowlege therof, muſt nedes make of Chriſt Moſes and the law, & of the law Chriſt. For thus they teach: It is true (ſay they) that faith in Chriſt iuſtifieth, but withall we muſt needes kepe the commaundements of God. For it is wrytten:Math. 19.17. If thou vvilt enter into life, kepe the commaundementes. Here euen at the firſt daſh Chriſt is denied and Faith aboliſhed, becauſe that is attributed to the commaundements of God or to the lawe, which belongeth to Chriſt alone. For Chriſt,Chriſt. according to his true definition, is a Iuſtifier and a Redemer from ſinnes. If I attribute this to the lawe, then is the lawe my Iuſtifier, deliuering me from my ſinnes, becauſe I do the workes therof and ſo nowe the lawe is Chriſt, and Chriſt vtterly loſeth his name, his office and glory, and is nothing elſe but a miniſter of the lawe, reprouing, accuſing, terrifying, preſenting and ſending the ſinner to an other, that may iuſtifie him: which is the proper office of the lawe. But the proper office of Chriſt is, after the lawe hath pronounced a man to be giltie, to raiſe him vp againe, and to looſe him from his ſinnes, if he beleue the Goſpell. For to all that doe beleue, The office of Chriſt. Rom. 1.16. Iohn. 1.36. Chriſt is the ende and full finishing of the lavve vnto righteouſnes: He is the Lambe of God that taketh avvay the ſinnes of the vvorld. But the Papiſtes and Anabaptiſtes, becauſe they vnderſtand not this doctrine, doe peruert altogether, making of Chriſt Moſes, and of Moſes Chriſt. And this is in deede (although they will ſay otherwiſe) their principall propoſition: That Chriſt is Moſes.Meritemōgers ſcorne the true preachers of faith. Moreouer they deride and mocke vs, becauſe we doe ſo diligently teach, and ſo earneſtly require Faith. Ha ha (ſay they) faith faith: wait thou the time vntil thou come to heauen by faith. Nay, thou muſt ſtriue to doe greater & waightier matters. Thou muſt fulfill the law, according to that ſaying:Luke. 10.18. Doe this and thou shalt line. Faith which ye ſo highly extoll, doth nothing elſe but make men careles, idle, and negligent. Thus are they become nothing elſe but miniſters of the law, and laweworkers, calling backe the people from baptiſme, faith, the promiſes of Chriſt, to the law and workes, turning grace into the law, and the law into grace. Who would euer beleue that theſe things could ſo eaſily be confounded and mingled together. There is no man ſo vnſenſible, which dothe not perceaue this diſtinction of the lawe and grace to be moſt plaine and manifeſt. For the very nature and ſignification of the wordes maketh this diſtinction and difference.The differēce of the lavve and grace is very eaſie, but yet are they ſoone confounded and mixed together. For who vnderſtandeth not yt theſe words, Lavve and grace, do differ in name and ſignification? Wherefore it is a monſtrous thing, that this diſtinction being ſo plaine, the aduerſaries ſhould fall to ſuch deueliſh peruerſenes, ſo to mingle together the lawe and grace, and to tranſforme Chriſt into Moſes. For this cauſe I do often repete and teach, that this doctrine of faith is very plaine, and that euery man may eaſely vnderſtand this diſtinction of the law and grace as touching the wordes, but touching the vſe and inward practiſe, it is very hard. The Pope cō foundeth the lavve & grace together.The Pope and his Scholedoctors doe plainly confeſſe that the lawe and grace are diuers and diſtinct things: and yet when they come to the vſe and practiſe thereof, they teach cleane contrary. Faith in Chriſt (ſay they) whether it be gotten by the ſtrength,Faith infuſed, the Scholemē call that faith vvhich is poured into vs, or geuen vnto vs of God. operation and qualities of nature, or whether it be Faith infuſed and poured into vs of God, yet is it but a dead Faith if charitie be not ioyned therewith. Where is nowe the diſtinction and difference of the lawe and grace? In deede they doe diſtinguiſh them in name, but in effect they call grace charitie. Thus doe all they which ſo ſtraitly require the obſeruation of the lawe, and attribute iuſtification to the law and works. Wherfore who ſo euer do not perfectly vnderſtand the article of iuſtification, muſt needes confound and mingle the lawe and grace together. Let euery man therfore diligently learne aboue all things to put a difference betwene the lawe and grace in deede and in practiſe: not in words onely as the Pope and the fantaſticall Anabaptiſts do: Who as touching the words, doe confeſſe that they are two diſtinct things: but in very deede (as I haue ſayd) they confound & mingle them together: for they will not graunt that faith iuſtifieth without workes. If this be true,The Papiſtes and Anabaptiſtes againſt the ſound doctrine of iuſtification. then Chriſt profiteth me nothing. For though my faith be neuer ſo perfite, yet after their opinion, if this faith be without charitie, I am not iuſtified. And thus Chriſt apprehended by faith is not a iuſtifier, grace profiteth nothing, neither can faith be true faith without charitie, (or as the Anabaptiſtes ſay) without the croſſe, without ſuffering and effuſion of bloud: but if charitie be ioyned withall, then is it true faith and iuſtifieth. They that ſay, the lavve is neceſſary to righteouſnes, are like to the falſe apoſtles.With this doctrine theſe lying ſpirites and ſects of perdition doe darken againe the benefite of Chriſt at this day: they take away from him the glory of a iuſtifier, and make him a miniſter of ſinne. They are in all things like to the falſe Apoſtles. For euen as they throughout all the Churches did require circumciſion and the obſeruation of the lawe beſides faith in Chriſt, in ſo much that without circumciſion and keping of the lawe, they denied the iuſtification of faith (for except ye be circumciſed, ſayd they, after the lawe of Moſes, ye can not be ſaued): euen ſo at this day theſe ſtraite exactors of the lawe, beſides the righteouſnes of Faith, doe require the keping of the commaundementes of God,Luke. 10.2[illegible: 1 letter]. according to that ſaying: Doe this and thou shalt liue. Alſo, If thou vvilt enter into life, kepe the commaundemēts. Math. 19.1[illegible: 1 letter]. Wherfore there is not one among them, be he neuer ſo wiſe, that vnderſtandeth that difference betwene the lawe and grace. But we put a difference, and ſay, that we do not here diſpute whether we ought to doe good workes: whether the law be good, holy and iuſt: whether it ought to be kept or no: for this is an other maner of queſtion. But our queſtion is concerning iuſtification,The ſtate of the matter. and whether the lawe doe iuſtifie or no. This the aduerſaries will not heare: they will not aunſwere to this queſtion, nor make any diſtinction as we doe: but onely crie out, that good workes ought to be done, that the lawe ought to be obſerued. We know that well enough. But becauſe theſe are diuers and diſtinct matters, we will not ſuffer them to be mingled together. That good workes ought to be done, we will hereafter declare when time ſhall ſerue. But ſince we are nowe in the matter of iuſtification, we ſet aſide here all good workes, for the which the aduerſaries doe ſo earneſtly ſtriue, aſcribing vnto them wholy the office of iuſtifying: which is to take from Chriſt his glory, and to aſcribe the ſame vnto workes. Wherfore this is a ſtrong argument, which I haue oftentimes vſed to my great comfort:Verſe. 17. If then vvhile vve ſeeke to be made righteous by Chriſt. &c. As though Paule ſhould ſay:If our righteouſnes come by the lavve, then is Chriſt in vaine. If we being iuſtified by Chriſt, are counted yet as not iuſtified and righteous, but as ſinners which are yet to be iuſtified by the lawe, then may we not ſeeke iuſtification in Chriſt but in the law. But if iuſtification cometh by the lawe, then cometh it not by grace. Now, if iuſtification cometh not by grace, but by the lawe, what hath Chriſt done and wrought by his death, by his preaching, by his victorie which he hath obtained ouer the lawe, ſinne and death, and by ſending the holy Ghoſt? We muſt cōclude therfore, that either we are iuſtified by Chriſt, or elſe that we are made ſinners, culpable, and giltie through him. But if the lawe doe iuſtifie, then can it not be auoided, but needes it muſt folowe that we are made ſinners through Chriſt, and ſo Chriſt is a miniſter of ſinne. The caſe ſtanding thus, let vs then ſet downe this propoſition: Euery one that beleueth in the Lord Ieſus Chriſt is a ſinner and is giltie of eternall death, and if he flie not vnto the lawe doing the workes thereof, he ſhall not be ſaued. The holy Scripture, eſpecially the new Teſtament, maketh often mention of faith in Chriſt, & highly aduaūceth ye ſame: which ſaith,Faith in Chriſt. that vvhoſoeuer beleueth in him, is ſaued, perisheth not, is not iudged, is not confounded, Ioh. 3.16. Ioh. 5.[illegible: 1 letter]4. hath eternal life &c. But contrariwiſe they ſay: he that beleueth in him is condemned, becauſe he hath faith without works which doth condemne. Thus doe they peruert all things, making of Chriſt a deſtroyer and a murtherer, and of Moſes a Sauiour. And is not this an horrible blaſphemy, ſo to teach that by doing good works thou ſhalt be made worthy of eternall life? but by beleuing in Chriſt thou ſhalt be made culpable and giltie of eternall death? that the law being kept & accompliſhed ſaueth? & faith in Chriſt condēneth? Theſe ſelfe ſame words (I graūt) the aduerſaries doe not vſe: but in very deede ſuch is their doctrine. For faith infuſed (ſay they) which properly they call faith in Chriſt, doth not make vs free frō ſinne, but that faith which is furniſhed with charitie. Hereof it followeth that faith in Chriſt without the law ſaueth vs not. This is plainly to affirme that Chriſt leaueth vs in our ſinnes and in the wrath of God, and maketh vs giltie of eternall death. On the other ſide, if thou keepe the law and doe the works therof,The doctrine of the Papiſts. then faith iuſtifieth thee becauſe it hath works, without the which faith auaileth nothing: Therefore works iuſtifie and not faith. O horrible impietie. What pernicious and curſed doctrine is this? Paule therfore groundeth his Argument vpon an impoſſibilitie & a ſufficient diuiſion. If we being iuſtified in Chriſt are yet found ſinners, and can not be iuſtified but by any other meane thē by Chriſt, that is to witte, by the law, then can not Chriſt iuſtifie vs, but he onely accuſeth and condemneth vs: and ſo conſequently it followeth that Chriſt dyed in vaine, and that theſe with other like places are falſe: Behold the lābe of God that taketh avvay the ſinnes of the vvorld. Ioh. 1.2[illegible: 1 letter].36. Alſo: He that beleueth in him hath euerlaſting life: yea the whole ſcripture is falſe, which beareth witneſſe that Chriſt is the Iuſtifier and Sauiour of the world. For if we be found ſinners after that we be iuſtified by Chriſt, it followeth of neceſſitie that they which fulfill the law are iuſtified wtout Chriſt. If this be true, thē are we either Turks, or Ievves, or Tartariās, profeſſing the name and word of God in outward ſhew, but in deede and veritie vtterly denying Chriſt and his word. It is greate impiety therfore to affirme that faith,The Papiſtes are touched. except it be adorned with charitie, iuſtifieth not. But if the aduerſaries wil needes defend this doctrine, why do they not then reiect faith in Chriſt altogether: eſpecially ſeing they make nothing els of it but a vaine qualitie in the ſoule, which without Chriſt auaileth nothing? why doe they not ſay in plaine wordes that workes doe iuſtifie and not faith? Yea why doe they not generally denie, not onely Paule, but alſo ye whole goſpel (as in very deede they do) which attribute righteouſnes to works, and not to faith alone? For if faith and works together doe iuſtifie, then is the diſputation of Paule altogether falſe, which plainly prononceth that a man is not iuſtified by the deedes of the law, but by faith alone in Ieſus Chriſt.

Verſe. 17. Is Chriſt therefore the miniſter of ſinne? This is a kinde of ſpeach vſed of the Hebrewes,2. Cor. 3.6.7.8. which Paule in the 2. Cor. 3. doth alſo vſe: Where he moſt diuinely and plainly ſpeaketh of theſe two miniſteries, to witte, of the letter and the ſpirite, of the law and grace, or of death and life.The miniſtery of Moſes, And he ſaith that Moſes the miniſter of the law, hath the miniſtery of ſinne (as he calleth it) and of death and condemnation. For Paule is wont to geue reprochfull names vnto the law, and among all the Apoſtles, he onely vſeth this maner of ſpeach: the other do not ſo ſpeake. And very neceſſary it is that ſuch as are ſtudious of the holy ſcripture, ſhould vnderſtand this maner of ſpeach vſed of the Apoſtle. Now, a miniſter of ſinne is nothing els,A miniſter of ſinne. but a lawgiuer or a Scholemaſter of the law, which teacheth good works and charitie, and that a man muſt ſuffer the croſſe and afflictions, and follow the example of Chriſt and of the Sainctes. He that teacheth and requireth this, is a miniſter of the lawe, of ſinne, of wrath, & of death: For by this doctrine he doth nothing els but terrifie & afflict mens conſciences and ſhutteth them vnder ſinne.Let all Papiſts and Anabaptiſtes marke this point, that euen in the iuſtified, there is not perfect fredom from ſinne. Rom. 7.23. 1. Timot. 1.7. For it is impoſſible for the nature of man to accompliſh the law: yea in thoſe that are iuſtified and haue the holy Ghoſt, the lavv of the members fighteth againſt the lavv of the mind. What will it not then do in the wicked which haue not the holy Ghoſt? Wherfore he that teacheth that righteouſnes cometh by the lawe, doth not vnderſtand what he ſayeth, or what he affirmeth, and much leſſe doth he keepe the law: but rather he deceaueth himſelfe and others, and laieth vpon them ſuch a burthen as they are not able to beare, requiring and teaching impoſſible things, and at the laſt he bringeth himſelfe and his diſciples vnto deſperation. The right vſe and end therfore of the law is,The office and vſe of the lavv to accuſe and condemne as giltie, ſuch as liue in ſecuritie, that they may ſee themſelues to be in daunger of ſinne, wrath, and death eternall, that ſo they may be terrified and brought euen to the brinke of deſperation, trembling and quaking at the falling of a leafe. And in that they are ſuch, they are vnder the law. For the law requireth perfect obedience vnto God, and condemneth al thoſe that doe not accompliſh the ſame. Now, it is certaine that there is no man liuing which is able to performe this obedience, which notwithſtanding God ſtreitly requireth of vs. To be vnder the lavv. Deut. 27.6. Galat. 3.10. The law therfore iuſtifieth not but condemneth, according to that ſaying: Curſed is he that abideth not in all things that are vvriten in this booke. Therefore he that teacheth the law is a miniſter of the law. 2. Cor. 3.7.Wherefore it is not without good cauſe that Paule in the 2. Cor. 3. calleth the miniſter of the law,The miniſtery of the lavv is the miniſtery of ſinne. the miniſter of ſinne: For the law ſheweth and vttereth ſinne, which without the law is deade. Now the knowledge of ſinne (I ſpeake not here of that ſpeculatiue knowledge of hypocrites, but of a true knowledge, by the which we ſee the wrath of God againſt ſinne and feele a true taſt of death) terrifieth ye heart, driueth downe to deſperation,Rom. 7.11. killeth and deſtroyeth. Rom. 7. Wherfore theſe Scholemaſters of the law and works are called in the ſcripture oppreſſors and tirants. Exod. 5. The ſcripture calleth the teachers of the lavv exactors and tirants. The teachers of the lavve bring mens ſoules into ſpirituall ſlauery. For as the taſkemaſters in Egypt did oppreſſe the children of Iſraell with corporall ſeruitude, ſo doe theſe lawgiuers and taſkemaſters driue men into moſt miſerable bondage of ſoule, and at lengthe bring them to deſperation and vtter deſtruction. Theſe doe neither know themſelues nor the force of the law. And it is not poſſible for them to haue quietnes and peace of conſcience in great and inward terrours and in the agony of death, yea though they haue obſerued the law, loued their neighbours, done many good works, and ſuffred great afflictions: for the law alwaies terrifieth and accuſeth, ſaying: thou neuer diddeſt accompliſh all that is commaunded in the law: but accurſed is he yt hath not done all things contained therin. Wherefore theſe terrours remaine ſtill in the conſcience and encreaſe more and more. And if ſuch Scholemaſters of the lawe be not raiſed vp by Faith and the righteouſnes of Chriſt, they are driuen downe headlong to deſperation. The hiſtory of the deliuery of the lavv in Exod. 19.20. Verſe. 17. This alſo was notably figured when the law was geuen, as we may ſee in the .19. and .20. of Exodus. Moſes, brought the people out of the tentes to meete with the Lord, that they might heare him ſpeake vnto them out of the darke cloude. Then the people being aſtoniſhed and trembling for feare, fled backe (which a litle before had promiſed to doe all that God had commaunded), and ſtanding aloofe of, ſayd vnto Moſes: VVho can abide to ſee the fire, and to heare the thundrings and noiſe of the trumpet? Talke thou vvith vs, and vve vvill heare thee: but let not God talke vvith vs leſt vve die. So the proper office of the lawe is to leade vs out of our tents and tabernacles, that is to ſay, from the quietnes and ſecuritie wherin we dwell,The office of the lavve. and from truſting in our ſelues, and to bring vs before the preſence of God, to reueile his wrath vnto vs, and to ſette before vs our ſinnes. Here the conſcience feeleth that it hath not ſatiſfied the lawe, and that it is not able to ſatiſfie it, nor to beare the wrath of God, which the lawe reueileth when it bringeth vs forth after this maner before the preſence of God, that is to ſay, when it feareth vs, accuſeth vs, and ſetteth before vs our ſinnes. Here it is impoſſible that we ſhould be able to ſtand: and therefore being thorowly affraid, we flie, and we cry out with the children of Iſraell: we ſhall die, we ſhall die: Let not the Lord ſpeake vnto vs, but ſpeake thou vnto vs &c. He then which teacheth that faith in Chriſt iuſtifieth not without the obſeruation of the law, maketh Chriſt a miniſter of ſinne,VVho make Chriſt a miniſter of ſinne. that is to ſay, a Scholemaſter of the law, which teacheth the ſelfe ſame doctrine yt Moſes did. By this meanes Chriſt is no Sauiour, no geuer of grace, but a cruell tirant, which requireth ſuch things (as Moſes did) which no man is able to performe. See how all the meritmongers doe take Chriſt to be but a new lawgeuer, and the Goſpell to be nothing els but a certaine booke which containeth new lawes concerning works, as the Turkes dreame of their Alcoran. But as touching lawes, there is enough in Moſes. The Goſpell then is a preaching of Chriſt,The Goſpell vvhat it is. which forgeueth ſinnes, geueth grace, iuſtifieth and ſaueth ſinners. Now, whereas there are commaundements found in the Goſpell,Commaundements in the Goſpell vvhat they are. they are not the Goſpell, but expoſitions of the lawe and matters depending vpon the Goſpell. To conclude, if the lawe be the miniſtery of ſinne, then is it alſo the miniſtery of wrath and of death. For as the lawe reueileth ſinne,The lavve is the miniſtery of ſinne, vvrath, and death. ſo doth it terrifie a man, it ſheweth vnto him his ſinne and the wrath of God, and ſtriketh into him a terrour of death and damnation. For thus the conſcience by and by gathereth: Thou haſt not kept the commaundements of God, therefore God is angry with thee. And it thinketh this to be an infallible conſequence: I haue ſinned, therfore I muſt die.The Conſcience thus gathereth: Thou haſt ſinned, therfore thou art giltie of euerlaſting death. And ſo it followeth that the miniſtery of ſinne is the miniſtery of wrath and condemnation. For after that ſinne is reueiled, by and by enſueth the wrath of God, death, and damnation. And hereof it cometh that many which are not able to beare the iudgement and wrath of God which the lawe ſetteth before their eyes, doe kill, hang or drowne themſelues.

Verſe. 17. God forbid. A picture of Chriſt.As though he would ſay: Chriſt is not the miniſter of ſinne, but the geuer of righteouſnes and eternal life. Wherfore Paule ſeparateth Moſes farre from Chriſt. Let Moſes then tary on the earth: Let him be the Scholemaſter of the letter, and exactor of the law: Let him torment and crucifie ſinners. But the beleuers (ſayth Paule) haue an other Scholemaſter in their conſcience: not Moſes but Chriſt, which hath aboliſhed the lawe and ſinne, hath ouercome the wrath of God, and deſtroyed death. He biddeth vs that laboure and are oppreſſed with all kindes of euils, to come vnto him. Therefore when we flie vnto him, Moſes with his law vaniſheth away,Deut 34. ſo that his ſepulcher can no where be ſeene: ſinne and death can hurt vs no more. For Chriſt our inſtructor is Lord ouer the lawe, ſinne and death, ſo that they which beleue in him, are deliuered from the ſame. It is therefore the proper office of Chriſt to deliuer from ſinne and from death. And this Paule teacheth and repeteth euery where. The lavve. Chriſte.We are condemned and killed by the law, but by Chriſt we are iuſtified & reſtored to life. The lawe aſtoniſheth vs and driueth vs from God: but Chriſt reconcileth vs to God, and maketh for vs an entrāce, that we may boldly come vnto him: For he is the Lambe of God that hath taken away the ſinnes of the world. Now, if the ſinne of the world be taken away, then is it taken away from me alſo which doe beleue in him.Chriſt hath taken avvay all euils, and hath brought vnto vs all good things. If ſinne be taken away, then is the wrath of God, death and damnation taken away alſo: And in the place of ſinne ſuccedeth righteouſnes, in the place of wrath, reconciliation & grace, in the place of death, life, and in the place of damnation, ſaluation. Let vs learne to practiſe this diſtinction, not in wordes onely, but in life and liuely experience, and with an inward feeling. For where Chriſt is, there muſt nedes be ioy of heart and peace of conſcience: For Chriſt is our reconciliation, righteouſnes, peace, life, and ſaluation. Briefly, what ſo euer the pore afflicted cōſcience deſireth, it findeth in Chriſt abundantly. Now Paule goeth about to amplifie this argument, and to perſwade as foloweth.

Verſe. 18. For if I builde againe the things that I haue deſtroyed, I make my ſelfe a treſpaſſer. As if he ſhould ſay: I haue not preached to this ende that I might build againe thoſe thīgs which I once deſtroyed. For if I ſhould ſo do, I ſhould not onely labour in daine, but ſhould make my ſelfe alſo a trāſgreſſor and ouerthrowe altogether, as the falſe Apoſtles doe: that is to ſay, of grace and of Chriſt I ſhould againe make the law and Moſes: & contrariwiſe of the law and Moſes I ſhould make grace and Chriſt. Now, by the miniſtery of the Goſpell I haue aboliſhed ſinne,VVhat Paule had deſtroyed by the miniſtery of the Goſpell. heauines of heart, wrath and death. For thus haue I taught: Thy conſcience O man, is ſubiect to the law, ſinne, and death: from which thou canſt not be deliuered either by men or Angels. But now cometh the Goſpell and preacheth vnto thee remiſſion of ſinnes by Ieſus Chriſt, who hath aboliſhed the law, and hath deſtroyed ſinne and death. Beleue in him: ſo ſhalt thou be deliuered from the curſe of the law and from the tyrannie of ſinne and death: thou ſhalt become righteous and haue eternall life. Behold how I haue deſtroyed the law by the preaching of the Goſpell, to the end that it ſhould not reigne in thy conſcience any more. For when the new Geſt Chriſt Ieſus cometh into the new houſe there to dwell alone,Moſes geueth place to chriſt and the lavve to the goſpel. Moſes the old inhabiter muſt geue place vnto him and depart ſome whether els. Alſo where Chriſt the new Geſt is come to dwel, there can ſinne, wrath & death haue no place: but there now dwelleth meere grace, righteouſnes, ioy, life, true affiance and truſt in the father, now pacified and reconciled vnto vs, gracious, long ſuffering & full of mercy for his ſonne Chriſtes ſake. Should I then, driuing out Chriſt and deſtroying his kingdome which I haue planted through the preaching of the Goſpell, now build vp againe the law and ſette vp the kingdome of Moſes? In deede this ſhould I doe if I ſhould teach circumciſion and the obſeruation of the law to be neceſſary to ſaluation, as the falſe Apoſtles doe: and by this meanes, in the ſteede of righteouſnes and life, I ſhould reſtore againe ſinne and death. For the law doth nothing els but vtter ſinne, procure Gods wrath, kill and deſtroy. What are the Papiſts (I pray you) yea the beſt of them all,The Papiſtes are deſtroyers of the kingdome of Chriſt. but deſtroyers of the kingdome of Chriſt and builders vp of the kingdome of the Deuill and of ſinne, of wrath and eternall death? Yea they deſtroy the church, which is Gods building, not by the law of Moſes, as did the falſe Apoſtles, but by mens traditions and doctrines of Deuils. And euen ſo the fantaſticall heads which are at this day and ſhall come after vs, doe deſtroy and ſhall deſtroy thoſe things which we haue built: doe build and ſhall build vp againe thoſe things which we haue deſtroyed. But we by the grace of Chriſt holding the article of iuſtification, doe aſſuredly know that we are iuſtified and reputed righteous before God by faith onely in Chriſt.The difference of the lavve and the Goſpell diligently to be marked. Therfore we doe not mingle the law and grace, faith and works together: but we ſeparate them farre aſunder. And this diſtinction or difference betwene the law and grace, let euery man that feareth God marke diligently, and let him ſuffer the ſame to take place, not in letters and ſyllables, but in practiſe & inward experience: So that when he heareth, that good works ought to be done, and that the example of Chriſt is to be followed, he may be able to iudge rightly and ſay: well, all theſe things will I gladly doe. What then followeth? Thou ſhalt then be ſaued and obtaine euerlaſting life. Nay, not ſo. I graunt in deede that I ought to do good workes, patiently to ſuffer troubles and aflictiōs, and to ſheed my bloud alſo if neede be, for Chriſtes cauſe: but yet am I not iuſtified, neither doe I obtaine ſaluation therby. We muſt not therfore draw good workes in to the article of iuſtification as the Monkes haue done, which ſay, that not only good works, but alſo the puniſhments and torments which malefactors ſuffer for their wicked deedes,Hovv the Monkes vvere vvont to cō fort condemned Perſons at the time of their death. doe deſerue euerlaſting life. For thus they comfort them when they are brought to the gallowes or place of execution. Suffer willingly and patiently this ſhamefull death: which if thou do, thou ſhalt deſerue remiſſion of thy ſinnes and euerlaſting life. What an horrible thing is this, that a wretched theefe, a murtherer, a robber ſhould be ſo miſerably ſeduced in that extreame anguiſh and diſtreſſe, that euen at the very point of death, when he is now ready to be hanged or to haue his head cut of, he ſhould refuſe the Goſpell and ſweete promiſes in Chriſt, which are onely able to bring comforte and ſaluation, and ſhould be commaunded to hope for pardon of his ſinnes, if he willingly and patiently endure that opprobrious death which he ſuffereth for his miſcheuous deedes? What is this els but to heape vpon him that is already moſt miſerably afflicted, extreme perdition and deſtruction, and through a falſe confidence in his owne death, to ſhew him the ready way to hell? Hereby theſe hypocrites doe plainely declare, that they neither teache nor vnderſtande one letter or ſyllable concerning grace, the Goſpell, or Chriſt. They retaine onely in outwarde ſhewe the name of the Goſpell and of Chriſt, that they may begile the heartes of the people. Notwithſtanding they denying and reiecting Chriſt in deede, doe attribute more to the traditions of men then to the Goſpell of Chriſt. Which thing to be true, ſo many kindes of falſe worſhippe, ſo many religious orders, ſo many ceremonies, and ſo many wilworkes doe witneſſe: All which things were inſtituted as auailable to deſerue grace, righteouſnes, and euerlaſting life.The maner of Popish confeſſions, In their confeſſions they make no mention of faith or the merite of Chriſt, but teach and ſet forth the ſatiſfactions and merits of men, as it may plainly appeare in this forme of abſolution (I ſpeake nothing here of other matters) which the Monkes vſed among themſelues, yea and ſuch as would be counted more deuout and more religious then others: which I thinke good here to ſette downe, that our poſteritie may ſee howe greate and howe horrible the kingdome of the Pope is. The forme of a Monkish abſolution. God forgeue thee, my brother. The merite of the paſſion of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt, and of bleſſed Saincte Mary alwaies a virgine, and of all the Saincts: the merite of thine order, the ſtreitnes of thy religion, the humilitie of thy confeſſion, the contrition of thy hart, the good workes which thou haſt done and ſhalt doe for the loue of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt, be vnto thee auaileable for the remiſſion of thy ſinnes, the encreaſe of deſert and grace, and the reward of euerlaſting life. Amen. Ye heare the merite of Chriſt mencioned in theſe words: but if ye weye them well, ye ſhall perceaue that Chriſt is there altogether vnprofitable, and that the glory and name of a iuſtifier and Sauiour is quite taken from him, and geuen to Monkiſh merites. Is not this to take the name of God in vaine? Is not this to confeſſe Chriſt in wordes, and in very deede to deny his power, and blaſpheme his name? I my ſelfe alſo was once entangled with this errour. I thought Chriſt to be a iudge (although I confeſſed with my mouth that he ſuffered and died for mans redemption) and ought to be pacified by the obſeruation of my rule and order. Therfore when I prayed or when I ſaid Maſſe, I vſed to adde this in the end: O Lord Ieſus, I come vnto thee, & I pray thee yt theſe burthens and this ſtreitnes of my rule and religion may be a full recompence for all my ſinnes. But now I geue thankes vnto God ye father of all mercies, which hath called me out of darkenes vnto ye light of his glorious Goſpell, & hath geuen vnto me plentifull knowledge of Chriſt Ieſus my lord: for whoſe ſake I coūt al things to be but loſſe, yea I eſteme them but as dunge that I may gaine Chriſt, and that I may be found in him, not hauing mine owne righteouſnes out of the rule of Auguſtine, but that righteouſnes which cometh by faith in Chriſt: Vnto whom with the father & the holy ghoſt be praiſe and glory world wtout end. Amen. Faith vvithout vvorkes.We conclude therefore with Paule, that we are iuſtified by faith onely in Chriſt, without the law. Now, after that a man is once iuſtified and poſſeſſeth Chriſt by faith, and knoweth that he is his righteouſnes and life, doubtles he will not be idle, but as a good tree he wil bring forth good frutes. For the beleuing man hath the holy Ghoſt, and wher the holy Ghoſt dwelleth, it will not ſuffer a man to be idle, but ſtirreth him vp to all exerciſes of pietie and godlines and of true religion, to the loue of God, to the patient ſuffering of afflictions, to praier, to thankes geuing, to the exerciſe of charitie towards all men. Hitherto we haue handled the firſt argument, wherin Paule contendeth that either we can not be iuſtified by the law, or els that Chriſt muſt needes be the miniſter of ſinne. But this is impoſſible: wherefore we conclude that iuſtification cometh not by the law. Of this place we haue largely entreated, as it is well worthy, and yet can it not be caught and ſetforth ſufficiently.

Verſe. 19. For I through the lavv am deade to the lavv, that I might liue vnto God. Paules maner of ſpeach vnknovvne to mans reaſon.Theſe are maruelous words and vnknowne kindes of ſpeach, which mans reaſon can in no wiſe vnderſtand. And although they be but few, yet are they vttered with greate zeale and vehemencie of ſpirite, and as it were in greate diſpleaſure. As if he ſhould ſay: why doe ye boaſt ſo much of the law? wherof in this caſe I will be ignoraunt. But if ye will needes haue the law, I alſo haue the law. Wherfore, as though he were moued through indignation of the holy Ghoſt,Paule calleth grace the lavv he calleth grace it ſelfe the law, geuing a new name to the effect and working of grace, in contempt of the law of Moſes and the falſe Apoſtles, which contended that the law was neceſſary to iuſtification: Phraſes of ſpeach onely proper to the ſcripture. The lavve againſt the lavv. and ſo he ſetteth the law againſt the law. And this is a ſweete kind of ſpeach and full of conſolation, when in the ſcriptures, and ſpecially in Paule, the law is ſet againſt the law, ſinne againſt ſinne, death againſt death, captiuitie againſt captiuitie, hell againſt hell, the altar againſt the altar, the lambe againſt the lambe, the paſſeouer againſt the paſſeouer. In the .8. to the Romaines it is ſayd: For ſinne he condemned ſinne. Pſal. 68. and Epheſ. 4. He hath led captiuitie captiue. Hoſee. 13. Pſal. 68.19. Epheſ 4.8. Hoſ. 13.14. O death I vvill be thy death, O hel I vvill be thy deſtruction. So he ſaith here, that through the lawe he is dead to the lawe. As if he ſayd: The lawe of Moſes accuſeth and condemneth me: but againſt that accuſing and condemning lawe, I haue an other lawe,1. Cor. 15.55. which is grace and libertie. This lawe accuſeth the accuſing law, and condemneth the condemning law. So death killeth death: but this killing death is life it ſelfe. But it is called the death of death by abundance of ſpirite,Death againſt death. or vehement indignation againſt death. So righteouſnes boroweth the name of ſin, becauſe it condemneth ſin, & this cōdemning of ſin is true righteouſnes. And here Paule ſemeth to be an heretike:Paules hereſy. yea of all heretikes the greateſt, & his hereſie is ſtraunge and monſtrous. For he ſayth, that he being dead to the lavv, liueth to God. He that is dead to the lavve, liueth to God. The falſe apoſtles taught this doctrine: Except thou liue to the lawe, thou art dead to God: that is to ſay, vnleſſe thou liue after the lawe, thou art dead before God. But Paule ſayeth quite contrary: If thou be not dead to the law, thou canſt not liue to God.The doctrine of the papiſts. The doctrine of our aduerſaries at this day is like to the doctrine of the falſe apoſtles of that time. If thou wilt liue to God (ſay they) liue to the law or after the law. But contrariwiſe we ſay: If thou wilt liue to God, thou muſt be vtterly dead to the law. Mans reaſon and wiſedom vnderſtandeth not this doctrine: therefore it teacheth alwayes ye contrary: that is: If thou wilt liue vnto God, thou muſt kepe the law: for it is wryten: Do this and thou shalt liue. A ſpeciall principle amongſt the diuines. And this is a ſpeciall principle amongſt all Diuines: he that liueth after the law, liueth vnto God. Paule ſayth the contrary: that is, we can not liue vnto God vnleſſe we be throughly dead to the law. Wherfore we muſt mount vp to this heauenly altitude, that we may be aſſured that we are far aboue the law, yea that we are vtterly dead vnto the law. Now if we be dead vnto the law, then hath the law no power ouer vs, as alſo it hath no power ouer Chriſt, who hath deliuered vs from the ſame, that we might liue vnto God. All theſe things tende to this ende, to proue that we are not iuſtified by the lawe, but by faith onely in Ieſus Chriſt. And here Paule ſpeaketh not of the ceremoniall lawe onely, (as before we haue declared more at large) but of the whole law, whether it be ceremoniall or morall: which to a Chriſtian is vtterly abrogate,That the lavv is abrogated. for he is dead vnto it. Not that the lawe is vtterly taken away: nay it remaineth, liueth, and raigneth ſtill in the wicked. But a godly man is dead vnto the lawe, like as he is dead vnto ſinne, the Deuill, death and hell: which notwithſtanding doe ſtill remaine, and the world with all the wicked ſhall ſtill abide in them. Wherfore when the Papiſt vnderſtandeth that the ceremoniall lawe onely is aboliſhed, vnderſtand thou that Paule and euery Chriſtian is dead to the whole lawe, and yet the lawe remaineth ſtill. Chriſt free frō the graue.As for example: Chriſt riſing from death is free from the graue, and yet the graue remaineth ſtil. Peter is deliuered from the priſon, the ſicke of the palſey from his bed, the yong mā from his coffen, the maiden from her couch, and yet the priſon, the bed, the coffen, the couch doe remaine ſtill. Euen ſo the lawe is aboliſhed when I am not ſubiect vnto it, the law is dead when I am dead vnto it, & yet it remaineth ſtill. But becauſe I die vnto it by an other law, it dieth alſo vnto me: As the graue of Chriſt, the priſon of Peter, the couch of the maiden. &c. do ſtill remaine, and yet Chriſt by his reſurrection dieth to the graue, Peter by his deliueraunce is freed from the priſon, and the maid through life is deliuered from the couch. I am dead to the lavv.Wherfore theſe words: I am dead to the lavv, are very effectuall. For he ſayeth not: I am free from the law for a time, or I am Lord of the lawe: but ſimplie, I am dead to the lawe, that is to ſay, I haue nothing to do wt the law. Paule could haue vttred nothīg more effectually againſt iuſtification of the law, then to ſay: I am dead to ye law, that is, I care nothing at all for the law: therfore I am not iuſtified by it. VVhat it is to die to the lavve.Now, to die to the law, is, not to be bound to the law, but to be free from the law & not to know it. Therfore let him that will liue to God, endeuour that he may be found wtout the law, & let him come out of the graue with Chriſt. The ſouldiers were aſtoniſhed whē Chriſt was riſen out of the graue: and they alſo which ſaw the maiden raiſed vp from death to life, were amazed. So mans reaſon and wiſedom is aſtoniſhed and becometh fooliſh when it heareth yt we are not iuſtified, except we be dead to the law: for it is not able to reach vnto this myſterie. But we know yt when we apprehend Chriſt by faith inwardly in conſcience, we enter into a certain new law, which ſwaloweth vp the old law that held vs captiues. As the graue in which Chriſt lay dead, after that he was riſen againe, was voide and emptie, and Chriſt vaniſhed away: ſo when I beleue in Chriſt, I riſe againe with him, and die to my graue, that is to ſay, the lawe, which held me captiue: So that now the law is voide, and I am eſcaped out of my priſon and graue, that is to ſay, the lawe. Wherefore the lawe hath no right to accuſe me, or to hold me any longer, for I am riſen againe. It is neceſſary yt mens conſciences ſhould be diligently inſtructed, that they may wel vnderſtand the difference betwene yt righteouſnes of the law & grace. The righteouſnes of grace or the libertie of cōſcience doth in no wiſe pertaine to the fleſh. For the fleſh may not be at liberty,The flesh is ſubiect to the lavve, but not to the conſcience. but muſt remaine in the graue, the priſon, the couch: it muſt be in ſubiection to the law, and exerciſed by the Egyptians. But the chriſtian cō ſcience muſt be dead to the law, that is to ſay, free from the law, & muſt haue nothing at all to doe with it. It is good to know this: for it helpeth very much to the comforting of poore afflicted conſciences. Wherfore when you ſee a man terrified and caſt downe with the ſenſe and feeling of his ſinne, ſay vnto him: Brother, thou doeſt not rightly diſtinguiſh. Thou placeſt the lawe in thy conſcience, which ſhould be placed in the fleſh. Awake, ariſe vp, and remember that thou muſt beleue in Chriſt the conquerour of the lawe and ſinne. With this faith thou ſhalt mount vp aboue and beyond the lawe into that heauen of grace where is no law nor ſinne. And albeit the law & ſinne doe ſtill remaine, yet they pertaine nothing to thee: for thou art dead to the lawe and ſinne. This is eaſily ſayd: but bleſſed is he which knoweth howe to lay ſure hold on theſe things in time of diſtreſſe, that is, which can ſay, when ſinne ouerwayeth him, and the law accuſeth him: what is this to me, O lawe, that thou accuſeſt me, and ſayeſt yt I haue committed many ſinnes? In deede I graunt that I haue committed many ſinnes, yea and yet ſtil I doe commit ſinnes daily without number. This toucheth me nothing: I am now deafe, and can not heare: therefore thou talkeſt to me in vaine, for I am dead vnto thee. But if thou wilt needes diſpute with me as touching my ſinnes, get thee to the fleſh and members, my ſeruaunts: teach them, exerciſe and crucifie them. But trouble not me Conſcience, which am a Ladie and a Queene, and haue nothing to doe with thee: for I am dead to thee, and now I liue to Chriſt,The cōſcience anſvvering to the accuſatiō of the lavve. with whom I am vnder an other lawe, to witte, the lawe of grace, which ruleth ouer ſinne and the lawe. By what meanes? By faith in Chriſt, as Paule declareth hereafter. But this ſemeth a ſtraunge and a wonderfull definition, that to liue to the lawe is to die to God: and to die to the lawe, is to liue to God. Theſe two propoſitions are cleane contrary to reaſon, and therefore no craftie Sophiſter or lawworker can vnderſtand them. But learne thou the true vnderſtanding thereof. He that liueth to the lawe, that is, ſeketh to be iuſtified by the workes of the lawe, is and remaineth a ſinner: therfore he is dead & condemned. For ye law can not iuſtifie and ſaue him, but accuſeth, terrifieth, & killeth him. Therfore to liue vnto the law, is to die vnto God: and contrariwiſe, to die to the law is to liue vnto God. Wherefore if thou wilt liue vnto God, thou muſt die to the lawe: but if thou wilt liue to the lawe, thou ſhalt die to God. Now,To liue vnto God. to liue vnto God, is to be iuſtified by grace or by faith for Chriſtes ſake, without the lawe and workes. This is then the proper and true definition of a Chriſtian, that he is the childe of grace and remiſſion of ſinnes,VVho is a Chriſtian. becauſe he is vnder no lawe, but is aboue the lawe, ſinne, death, and hell. And euen as Chriſt is free from the graue, and Peter from the priſon, ſo is a Chriſtian free from the lawe. And ſuch a reſpect there is betwene the iuſtified conſcience and the lawe, as is betwene Chriſt raiſed vp from the graue, and the graue: and as is betwene Peter deliuered from the priſon, and the priſon. And like as Chriſt by his death and reſurrection is dead to the graue, ſo that it hath now no power ouer him, nor is able any lōger to holde him, but the ſtone being rolled away, the ſeales broken, and the kepers aſtoniſhed, he riſeth againe and goeth away without any let: and as Peter by his deliueraunce is freed from the priſon, & goeth whether he will: euen ſo the conſcience by grace is deliuered from the law. So is euery one that is borne of the ſpirite. But the fleſh knoweth not from whence this cometh, nor whether it goeth, for it can not iudge but after the lawe. But on the contrary, the ſpirite ſayeth: let the law accuſe me, let ſinne and death terrifie me neuer ſo much, yet I doe not therfore deſpaire: for I haue the lawe againſt the lawe, ſinne againſt ſinne, and death againſt death. Therefore when I feele the remorſe and ſting of conſcience for ſinne, I behold that braſen ſerpent Chriſt hanging vppon the croſſe. There I finde an other ſinne againſt my ſinne which accuſeth and deuoureth me. Now this other ſinne, namely in the fleſh of Chriſt, which taketh away the ſinnes of the world, is almightie: it condemneth and ſwaloweth vp my ſinne. So my ſinne is condemned by ſinne, that is, by Chriſt crucified:1. Cor. [illegible: 1 letter].21. vvho is made ſinne for vs, that vve might be made the righteouſnes of God through him. In like maner I finde death in my fleſh, which afflicteth and killeth me: but I haue in me a contrary death,Death againſt death. which is the death: for this death crucifieth and ſwaloweth vp my death. Theſe things be not done by the lawe or workes, but by Chriſt crucified: vppon whoſe ſhoulders lie all the euils of mankinde, the lawe, ſinne, death, the Deuill, and hell: and all theſe doe die in him, for by his death he hath killed them. But we muſt receaue this benefite of Chriſt with a ſure faith. For like as neither the lawe nor any worke thereof is offered vnto vs, but Chriſt alone: ſo nothing is required of vs but Faith alone, whereby we apprehend Chriſt, and beleue that our ſinnes and our death are condemned and aboliſhed in the ſinne and death of Chriſt. Thus haue we alwayes moſt certaine and ſure arguments, which neceſſarily conclude that iuſtification cometh by faith alone.The lavve maketh vs not righteous, but faith onely. For how ſhould the lawe and workes auaile to iuſtification, ſeeing that Paule is ſo earneſt both againſt the lawe and workes, and ſayeth plainely that we muſt be dead to the lawe, if we will liue to God. But if we be dead to the lawe, and the lawe be dead to vs, then hath it nothing to doe with vs. How then ſhould it auaile any thing at all to our iuſtification? Wherefore we muſt needes ſay, that we be iuſtified by grace alone, or by faith alone in Chriſt, without the lawe and workes. This the blinde Sophiſters doe not vnderſtand, and therefore they dreame that Faith iuſtifieth not except it doe the workes of charitie. By this meanes Faith which beleueth in Chriſt becometh vnprofitable and of none effect: for the vertue of iuſtifying is taken from it except it be furniſhed with charitie. But let vs nowe ſet aparte the lawe and charitie vntil an other time, & let vs reſt onely vpon the poynt of this preſent matter: which is this,The very poynt of all this matter. that Ieſus Chriſt the ſonne of God died vpon the croſſe, did beare in his body my ſinnes, the lawe, death, the Deuill and hell. Theſe inuincible enemies and tyrannes doe oppreſſe, vexe, and trouble me, and therefore I am carefull howe I may be deliuered out of their handes, iuſtified and ſaued. Here I finde neither lawe, worke nor charitie which is able to deliuer me from their tyrannie. There is none but the Lord Ieſus onely and alone, which taketh away the lawe, killeth and deſtroyeth my death in his body, and by this meanes ſpoyleth hell, iudgeth, and crucifieth the Deuill, and throweth him downe into hell. To be briefe, all the enemies which did before torment and oppreſſe me, Chriſt Ieſus hath brought to naught: Hath ſpoyled them, and made a shevv of them openly, Coloſſ. 2.15. triumphing by him ſelfe ouer them, in ſuch ſort that they can nowe rule and raigne no more ouer me, but are conſtrained to obey me. By this we may plainely ſee,In the matter of iuſtificatiō there is nothing for vs to doe, but to heare vvhat Chriſt hath done for vs, & to apprehend the ſame by faith. that there is nothing here for vs to doe. Onely it belongeth vnto vs, to heare that theſe things haue bene wrought and done in this ſort, and by faith to apprehend the ſame. And this is the true formed and furniſhed faith in dede. Now, when I haue thus apprehended Chriſt by faith, and through him am dead to the lawe, iuſtified from ſinne, deliuered from death, the deuill, and hell, then I doe good works, I loue God, I geue thankes to him, I exerciſe charitie towardes my neighbour.Good vvorks. But this charitie or workes folowing do neither forme nor adorne my faith, but my faith formeth and adorneth charitie. This is our diuinitie: which ſeemeth ſtraunge and maruelous, or rather fooliſh to carnall reaſon: to witte, that I am not onely blinde and deafe to the lawe, yea deliuered and freed from the law, but alſo wholy dead vnto the ſame. This ſentence vvell vnderſtand in the time of trouble, maketh a man ſtrong againſt all tentations.This ſentence of Paule: Through the lavv I am dead to the lavv, is full of conſolation. Which, if it may enter into a man in due ſeaſon, & take ſure hold in his heart with good vnderſtanding, it may ſo worke that it will make him able to ſtand againſt all daungers of death, and all terrours of conſcience and ſinne, although they aſſaile him, accuſe him, and would driue him to deſperation neuer ſo much. True it is that euery man is tempted: if not in his life, yet at his death. There, when the law accuſeth him and ſheweth vnto him his ſinnes, his cōſcience by and by ſaith:A ſpeeche or Dialoge betvvene the lavv and conſcience. Thou haſt ſinned. If then thou take good hold of yt which Paule here teacheth, thou wilt anſwere: I graunt I haue ſinned. Then will God puniſh thee. Nay, he will not ſo doe. Why, doth not the lawe of God ſo ſay? I haue nothing to doe with that lawe. Why ſo? Becauſe I haue an other lawe which ſtriketh this lawe dumme,The lavve of libertie. that is to ſay, libertie.A conſolation againſt the terrours of the lavv. &c. What libertie is that? The libertie of Chriſt, for by Chriſt I am vtterly freed from the lawe. Therfore that lawe which is & remaineth a law to the wicked, is to me libertie, and bindeth that law which would condemne me: And by this meanes that lawe which would bind me and hold me captiue, is now faſt bound it ſelfe, and holden captiue by grace and libertie, which is now my lawe: which ſayth to that accuſing law:The binding lavv through Chriſt, is boūd it ſelfe. Thou ſhalt not hold this man bound & captiue, for he is mine: but I wil hold thee in captiuitie, and bind thy hands that thou ſhalt not hurt him, for he liueth now vnto Chriſt, and is dead vnto thee. This to do, is to daſh out the teeth of the lawe, to wraſt his ſting and all his weapons from him, and to ſpoile him of all his force. And yet the ſame law notwithſtanding continueth and remaineth ſtil to the wicked and vnbeleuers: And to vs alſo that be weake, ſo farre forth as we lacke faith, it continueth yet ſtill in his force: here it hath his edge & teeth. But if I do beleue in Chriſt, although ſinne driue me neuer ſo much to deſpaire, yet ſtaying vpō this libertie which I haue in Chriſt, I confeſſe that I haue ſinned:Sinne condē ned, and condemning. but my ſinne which is a cōdemned ſinne, is in Chriſt which is a condemning ſinne. Now this condemning ſinne is ſtronger then that which is condemned: for it is iuſtifying grace, righteouſnes, life & ſaluation. Thus when I feele the terrour of death, I ſay: Thou haſt nothing to doe with me O death,Death killed, and death killing. for I haue an other death which killeth thee my death, & that death which killeth, is ſtronger then that which is killed. Thus a faithfull man by faith onely in Chriſt, may raiſe vppe him ſelfe, and conceaue ſuch ſure and ſound conſolation, that he ſhall not neede to feare the deuill, ſinne, death, or any euils. And although the Deuill ſet vpon him with all might and maine, and goe about with all the terrours of the world to oppreſſe him,As Satan is to others ouer vvhō he hath dominion, ſo is Chriſt to Sathan vvhom he holdeth boūd, that he can not hurt vs farther, thē he geueth him leaue. 1. Iohn. 5.4.5. yet he conceaueth good hope euen in the middes therof, and thus he ſayth: Sir Deuill, I feare not thy threatninges & terrours, for ther is one whoſe name is Ieſus Chriſt, in whom I beleue: he hath aboliſhed the law, condemned ſinne, vanquiſhed death and deſtroyed hell: and he is thy Tormentor O Satan, for he hath boūd thee, and holdeth thee captiue, to the end that thou ſhouldeſt no more hurt me, or any that beleueth in him. This faith the Deuill can not ouercome, but is ouercome of it. For this is the victorie (ſayth S. Iohn) that ouercometh the vvorld, euen our faith. Who is it that ouercometh the world, but he which beleueth that Ieſus is the ſonne of God? Paule therfore through a vehement zeale and indignatiō of ſpirit, calleth grace it ſelfe the lawe,VVhy Paule calleth grace the lavve. which notwithſtanding is an exceding & ineſtimable libertie of grace which we haue in Chriſt Ieſu. Moreouer he geueth this opprobrious name vnto the law for our conſolation, to let vs vnderſtand that there is a new name geuen vnto it: to witte, that it is not now aliue any more, but dead and condemned. And here (which is a pleaſant ſight to behold) he bringeth forthe the lawe, and ſetteth it before vs as a theefe and a robber, which is already condemned and adiudged to death. For he deſcribeth it as it were a priſoner hauing both handes and feete faſt bound,The lavve bound and condemned cannot accuſe vs. and all his power taken away, ſo that it can not exerciſe his tyrannie, that is to ſay, it can not accuſe and condemne any more: And with this moſt pleaſaunt ſight he maketh it odious and contemptible to the conſcience: ſo that now he which beleueth in Chriſt dare boldly and with a holy pride triumph ouer the lawe after this maner. I am a ſinner:A holy pride. If thou canſt doe any thing againſt me, O lawe, nowe doe thy worſt. So farre of is it then that the law is now terrible vnto him which doth beleue. Since Chriſt is riſen from death, why ſhould he nowe feare the graue? Since Peter is deliuered from the priſon, why ſhould he now feare it? When the maiden was at the point of death, then might ſhe in deede feare the bedde: but being now reiſed vp, why ſhould ſhe feare it? In like maner, why ſhould a Chriſtian which enioyeth and poſſeſſeth Chriſt by faith, feare the law? True it is that he feeleth the terrours of the law, but he is not ouercome of them: but ſtaying vpon the libertie which he hath in Chriſt, he ſaith: I heare thee murmuring O law, that thou wouldeſt accuſe and condemne me: but this troubleth me nothing at all. Thou art to me as the graue was vnto Chriſt. For I ſee that thou art faſt bound hand and foote: and this hath my lawe done.Hovv he calleth libertie the lavv. What law is that? libertie, which is called the law, not becauſe it bindeth me, but becauſe it bindeth my law. The law of the ten commaundements did bind me. But againſt that law I haue an other law, euen the law of grace:The lavv of grace binding the lavv of the ten commaū dements. which notwithſtanding is to me no law, neither doth it bind me, but ſetteth me at liberty. And this is a law againſt that accuſing and condemning law: which law it ſo bindeth, that it hath no power to hurt me any more. So againſt my death which bindeth me, I haue an other death,Death killed by death: that is the death vvhich vvas due to me, is killed by Chriſtes death that is to ſay, life, which quickneth me in Chriſt: and this death looſeth and freeth me from the bondes of my death, and with the ſame bondes bindeth my death. So death which bound me, is now faſt bound, which killed me, is now killed by death, that is to ſay, by life it ſelfe. Thus Chriſt with moſt ſweete names is called my law, my ſinne, my death,The ſvveete and comfortable names of Chriſt. againſt the law, againſt ſinne, againſt death: wheras in very deede he is nothing els but meere libertie, righteouſnes, life and euerlaſting ſaluation. And for this cauſe he is made the law of the law, the ſinne of ſinne, the death of death, that he might redeme me from the curſe of the law, iuſtifie me and quicken me. So then, whiles Chriſt is the lawe, he is alſo libertie, whiles he is ſinne he is righteouſnes, and whiles he is death he is life. For in that he ſuffered the law to accuſe him, ſinne to condemne him and death to deuoure him, he aboliſhed the law, he condemned ſinne, he deſtroied death, he iuſtified and ſaued me. So is Chriſt the poiſon of the law,Chriſt a poyſon againſt death. ſinne, and death, and the remedy for the obtaining of libertie, righteouſnes, and euerlaſting life. This maner of ſpeach which Paule here vſeth and is proper vnto him alone,The lavv of the mind ſette againſt the lavv of the members. is full of conſolation. Likewiſe in the .7. chapter to the Romaines he ſetteth the law of the ſpirite againſt the law of the mēbers, And becauſe this is a ſtraunge and a maruelous manner of ſpeaking, therfore it entreth more eaſily into the mind and ſticketh faſter in the memorie. Moreouer, when he ſaith: I through the lavv am dead to the lavv, it ſoundeth more ſwetely then if he ſhould ſay: I through libertie am dead to the law. For he ſetteth before vs as it were a certaine picture: as if the law were fighting againſt the law. As though he ſhould ſay: O law, if thou canſt accuſe me, terrifie me, and bind me, I will ſet aboue and againſt thee an other law, that is to ſay, an other tormentor, which ſhall accuſe thee, bind thee and triumph ouer thee. Whē thou art thus bound and ſuppreſſed, then am I at libertie. So then grace is a law, not to me, for it bindeth me not, but to my law: which this law ſo bindeth that it can not hurt me any more. Thus Paule goeth about to draw vs wholy from the beholding of the law, ſinne, death, & all other euils, and to bring vs vnto Chriſt,A moſt ioyfull combat. that there we might behold this ioyfull conflict: to witte, the law fighting againſt the law, that it may be to me libertie: ſinne againſt ſinne, that it may be to me righteouſnes: death againſt death, that I may obtaine life: Chriſt fighting againſt the Deuill, that I may be the child of God: and deſtroying hell that I may enioy the kingdome of heauen.

Verſe. 19. That I might liue vnto God. That is to ſay, that I might liue before God. Ye ſee then that there is no life vnleſſe ye be without the law, yea vnleſſe ye be vtterly dead vnto the law, I meane in conſcience. Notwithſtanding in the meane ſeaſon (as I haue often ſaid) ſo long as the body liueth,The flesh ſubiect to the lavv, but not the conſcience. the fleſh muſt be exerciſed with lawes and vexed with exactions and penalties of lawes, as were the Egyptians. But the inward man not ſubiect to the law, but deliuered and freed from it, is a liuely, iuſt, and holy perſon, not of himſelfe, but in Chriſt, becauſe he beleueth in him, as foloweth.

Verſe. 20. I am crucified vvith Chriſt. This he addeth to declare that the law is a deuourer of the law. Not onely (ſaith he) I am dead to the law through the law that I may liue to God, but alſo I am crucified with Chriſt. But Chriſt is Lord ouer the law becauſe he is crucified and dead vnto the law: Therfore am I alſo Lord ouer the law: for I likewiſe am crucified and dead vnto the lawe for as much as I am crucified and dead with Chriſt. By what meanes? By grace and faith. Through this faith, becauſe I am nowe crucified and deade vnto the law, therfore the law looſeth all his power which it had ouer me, euen as it hath loſt all his power which it had ouer Chriſt.To be crucified vvith Chriſt. Wherfore euen as Chriſt himſelfe was crucified to the law, ſinne, death and the Deuill, ſo that they haue no further power ouer him: euen ſo I through faith being now crucified with Chriſt in ſpirite, am crucified and deade to the law, ſinne, death and the Deuill, ſo that they haue no further power ouer me, but are now crucified and deade vnto me. Paule ſpeaketh not here of crucifying by imitation or example (for to follow the example of Chriſt is alſo to be crucified with him), which crucifying belongeth to the fleſh.1. Pet. [illegible: 1 letter].21. Wherof Peter ſpeaketh in his 1. epiſtle and .2. chapter. Chriſt ſuffered for vs (ſaith he) leauing vnto vs an example that vve should follovv his ſteppes. But he ſpeaketh here of that high crucifying, wherby ſinne, the deuil and death are crucified in Chriſt & not in me. Here Chriſt Ieſus doth all himſelfe alone. But I beleuing in Chriſt am by faith crucified alſo with Chriſt, ſo that all theſe things are crucified and dead vnto me.

Verſe. 20. Thus I liue. I ſpeake not ſo (ſaith he) of my death and crucifying as though I now liued not: Yea I liue, for I am quickned by this death and crucifying through the which I die: That is, for as much as I am deliuered from the law,The true life of the faithful ſinne and death, I now liue in deede. Wherfore that crucifying and that death wherby I am crucified and dead to the law, ſinne, death and all euils, is to me reſurrection and life. For Chriſt crucifieth the Deuill, he killeth death, condemneth ſinne, and bindeth the law: and I beleuing this, am deliuered from the law, ſinne, death and the Deuill. The law therfore is bound, dead and crucified vnto me, & I againe am bound, dead, & crucified vnto it. Wherfore euen by this death and crucifying, that is to ſay, by this grace or liberty I now liue. Here (as before I haue ſayd) we muſt obſerue Paules maner of ſpeaking. He ſaith that we are dead and crucified to the law, where as in very deede the law it ſelfe is dead and crucified vnto vs.The faithfull crucified and deade to the lavv. But this maner of ſpeach he vſeth here of purpoſe, that it may be the more ſweete and comfortable vnto vs. For the law (which notwithſtanding continueth, liueth and reigneth in the whole world, which alſo accuſeth and condemneth all men) is crucified and dead vnto thoſe onely which beleue in Chriſt:The glory of the faithfull. and therfore to them alone belongeth this glory, that they are dead to ſinne, hell, death, and the Deuill.

Verſe. 20. Yet novv not I. That is to ſay, not in mine owne perſon nor in mine owne ſubſtance. Here he plainly ſheweth by what meanes he liueth: And he teacheth what true Chriſtian righteouſnes is, namely that righteouſnes wherby Chriſt liueth in vs, and not that which is in our perſon. Therefore when we ſpeake of Chriſtian righteouſnes we muſt vtterly reiect the perſon. And here Chriſt and my conſcience muſt become one body,VVe muſt haue Ghriſt onely before our eies. ſo that nothing remaine in my ſight but Chriſt crucified and raiſed from the dead. But if I behold my ſelfe only and ſet Chriſt aſide, I am gone. For by and by I fall into this cogitation: Chriſt is in heauen and thou art on the earth: how ſhalt thou now come vnto him? Forſoth I will liue holily and doe that which the law requireth: ſo ſhall I enter into life. Here returning to my ſelfe, and conſidering what I am, what I ought to be, and what I am bound to doe, I loſe Chriſt out of ſight, who is my righteouſnes and life. Who being loſt, there is no counſell nor ſuccour now remaining, but certaine deſperation and deſtruction muſt needes follow. And this is a common euil among men. For ſuch is our miſery, that when tentation or death cometh, by and by ſetting Chriſt aſide,Such is our miſery that intentations and afflictions vve ſet Chriſt aſide and loke backe into our ovvne life paſt. we conſider our owne life paſt and what we haue done. Here, except we be raiſed vppe againe by faith, we muſt needes periſh. Wherefore we muſt learne in ſuch conflicts & terrours of conſcience forgetting our ſelues, and ſetting the law, our life paſt, and all our works apart, which driue vs to the conſideration of our ſelues onely, to turne our eies wholy to yt braſen ſerpent Chriſt Ieſus crucified, & aſſuredly beleue that he is our righteouſnes and life, not fearing the threatnings and terrours of the law, ſinne, death and the iudgement of God. For Chriſt, on whom our eies are fixed, in whom we liue, who alſo liueth in vs, is Lord and conquerour of the law, ſinne, death and all euils: In whom moſt certaine and ſure conſolation is ſet forth vnto vs and victory geuen.

Verſe. 20. Thus I liue, yet not I novv, but Chriſt liueth in me. Wher he ſaith: Thus I liue, he ſpeaketh it as it were in his owne perſon. Therfore he by and by correcteth himſelfe, ſaying: yet not I now. That is to ſay, I liue not now in mine owne perſon, but Chriſt liueth in me. In deede the perſon liueth, but not in himſelfe, nor for his owne cauſe, nor for any thing that is in him. But who is that I of whom he ſayeth:He ſpeaketh of the olde man. yet not I. This I is he which hath the lawe, and is bound to doe the workes therof: who alſo is a certaine perſon ſeperate from Chriſt. This perſon Paule reiecteth. For as he is ſeperate from Chriſt he belongeth to death and hell. Therfore he ſayeth: Novve not I, but Chriſt liueth in me. He is my forme, my furniture and perfection, adorning and beutifying my faith, as the colour, the cleare light, or the whitnes do garniſh and beutifie the wall. Thus are we conſtrained groſſely to ſet forth this matter. For we can not ſpiritually conceaue that Chriſt is ſo nerely ioyned & vnited vnto vs, as ye colour or whitenes are vnited vnto the wall.Chriſt beſtovveth himſelf and all that he hath, vpon thoſe that beleue in him. Chriſt therfore (ſayth he) thus ioyned and vnited vnto me and abiding in me, liueth this life in me which I now liue: yea, Chriſt him ſelfe is this life which I now liue. Wherefore Chriſt and I in this behalfe are both one. Now Chriſt liuing in me aboliſheth the lawe, condemneth ſinne, and deſtroyeth death: for it can not be but at his preſence all theſe muſt nedes vaniſh away. For Chriſt is euerlaſting peace, conſolation, righteouſnes and life: and to theſe the terrour of the law, heauines of mind, ſinne, hell, and death muſt nedes geue place. So Chriſt liuing and abiding in me, taketh away and ſwalloweth vp all euils which vexe and afflict me. This vnion or coniunction then is the cauſe that I am deliuered from the terrour of the law and ſinne, am ſeperate from my ſelf, and tranſlated vnto Chriſt and his kingdom, which is a kingdom of grace, righteouſnes, peace, ioy, life, ſaluation, & eternal glory. Thus I now abiding and dwelling in him, what euill is there that can hurt me? In the meane ſeaſon the old man abideth without and is ſubiecte to the lawe: but as concerning iuſtification, Chriſt and I muſt be entierly conioyned and vnited together, ſo that he may liue in me and I in him. And this is a wonderful maner of ſpeech. Now, becauſe Chriſt liueth in me,VVhatſoeuer good the godly haue in thē, it is Chriſtes, and vve are ſo knit together, that he liueth in vs and vve in him. therefore looke what grace, righteouſnes, life, peace, and ſaluation is in me, it is his, and yet notwithſtanding the ſame is mine alſo by that vnſeparable vnion and coniunction which is throughe Faithe: by which Chriſte and I are made as it were one bodye in ſpirite. For as much then as Chriſt liueth in me, it foloweth, that as I muſt nedes be with him pertaker of grace, righteouſnes, life, and eternall ſaluation: ſo the lawe, ſinne, and death can haue no place in me: yea the lawe is crucified and ſwallowed vp of the lawe, ſinne of ſinne, and death of death. Thus Paule goeth about to draw vs from the beholding of our ſelues, the law & workes, and to plant in vs true faith in Chriſt: ſo that in the matter of iuſtification we ſhould thinke vpon nothing elſe but grace, ſeparating the ſame farre from the law and works, which in this matter ought to haue no place. Paule hath his peculiar phraſe or kind of ſpeach,Paules excelent and heauenly maner of ſpeach. which is not after the maner of men, but diuine and heauenly: nor vſed of the Euangeliſtes or of the reſt of the Apoſtles, ſauing only of Iohn, who alſo is wont ſometimes ſo to ſpeake. And if Paule had not firſt vſed this phraſe and ſet forth the ſame vnto vs in plaine words, the very Saincts thēſelues durſt not haue vſed it. For it ſeemeth a very ſtraunge and a monſtrous maner of ſpeaking thus to ſay: I liue, I liue not: I am dead, I am not dead: I am a ſinner, I am not a ſinner: I haue the law, I haue not the law. Which phraſe is ſweete and comfortable to all thoſe that beleue in Chriſt. For in that they behold themſelues,Albeit the faithfull be ſinners yet are they alſo righteous. they haue both the law and ſinne: but in that they looke vnto Chriſt, they are dead to the law and haue no ſinne. If then in the matter of iuſtification thou ſeparate the perſon of Chriſt from thy perſon, then art thou in the law, thou abideſt in the law, thou liueſt in the law and not in Chriſt, and ſo thou art condemned of the law and dead before God.The Papiſtes faith. For thou haſt that faith which (as the Sophiſters dreame) is furniſhed with charitie. Thus I ſpeake for examples ſake. For there was neuer any one found that was ſaued by this faith. And therfore what things ſoeuer the Sophiſters haue written touching this faith, are nothing els but vaine toyes and meere deceites of Sathan. But let vs graunt that ſuch there be as haue this faith: yet are they not therfore iuſtified. For they haue but an hiſtoricall Faith concerning Chriſt, which the Deuill alſo and all the wicked haue. Faith therfore muſt be purely taught: namely that thou art ſo entirely and nerely ioyned vnto Chriſt,Faith ſo knitteth all beleuers & Chriſt together, that they become one perſon. that he and thou are made as it were one perſon, ſo that thou maieſt boldly ſay, I am now one with Chriſt, that is to ſay, Chriſtes righteouſnes, victory, and life are mine. And again, Chriſt may ſay, I am that ſinner, that is, his ſinnes and his death are mine becauſe he is vnited and ioyned vnto me & I vnto him. For by faith we are ſo ioyned together that we are become one fleſh & one bone. Eph. 5. we are the members of the body of Chriſt,Epheſ. 5.30. fleſh of his fleſh, and bone of his bones: So that this faith doth couple Chriſt and me more neare together then the huſband is coupled to his wife.True faith is not idle. This faith therfore is not an idle qualitie, but the excellencie therof is ſuch, that it vtterly confoundeth theſe fooliſh dreames of ye Sophiſters touching their formed faith and counterfeit charitie, their merits, workes and worthines. Theſe things I would gladly ſet forth more amply if by any meanes I could. Hitherto we haue declared this to be the firſt argument of Paule: that either Chriſt muſt needes be the miniſter of ſinne, or els the lawe doth not iuſtifie: when he had finiſhed this argument, he ſet forth himſelfe for an example, ſaying: that he was dead vnto that old law by a certaine new law. Now he aunſwereth two obiections which might be made againſt him. His firſt aunſwere is againſt the cauillations of the proude, and the offence of the weake. For when remiſſion of ſinnes is freely preached, then doe the malicious by and by ſclander this preaching. As Rom, 3: Let vs doe euill that good may come therof. For theſe fellowes as ſoone as they heare that we are not iuſtified by the law,VVhat occaſion the malicious take of this doctrine. forthwith do maliciouſly conclude and ſay: why, then let vs reiect the law. Againe, if grace doe there abound (ſay they) where ſinne doth abound, let vs then abound in ſinne that we may become righteous, and that grace may the more abound. Theſe are the malicious and proude ſpirites, which ſpitefully and wittingly ſclaunder the ſcriptures & ſayings of the holy Ghoſt, euen as they ſclaundered Paule whileſt the apoſtles liued, to their owne confuſion & cōdemnation, as it is ſaid. 2. Pet. 3. Hovv the vveake are to be inſtructed.Moreouer, yt weake which are not malicious, are offended when they heare yt the law & good works are not to be done as neceſſary to iuſtification. Theſe muſt be holpen, and muſt be inſtructed how good works doe not iuſtifie:Good vvorks are not the cauſe but the frutes of righteouſnes. how they ought to be done, how not to be done. They ought to be done, not as the cauſe, but as the frutes of righteouſnes: and when we are made righteous we ought to doe them: but not contrariwiſe, to the end that when we are vnrighteous we may be made righteous. The tree maketh the apple, but not the apple the tree. He ſaid before: I am dead. &c. here the preſumptious and malicious might ſoone take occaſion to cauill after this maner. What ſaieſt thou Paule? art thou dead? how then doeſt thou ſpeake? how doeſt thou write? The weake alſo might ſoone be offended and ſay vnto him: what art thou Paule? Doe we not ſee yt thou art liuing, and doeſt ſuch things as pertaine to this life?Life taken tvvo maner of vvaies. To this he aunſwereth: I liue in deede, and yet now not I, but Chriſt liueth in me. Ther is then a double life. The firſt is mine, which is naturall: the ſecond is the life of an other, that is to ſay, the life of Chriſt in me. As touching my natural life I am dead, and now I liue an other life. I liue not now as Paule, but Paule is deade. Who is it then that liueth? The Chriſtian. Paule therfore as he liueth in him ſelfe, is wholy dead through the law: but as he liueth in Chriſt, or rather as Chriſt liueth in him, he liueth by an other life: for Chriſt ſpeaketh in hin, liueth in him, and exerciſeth all the operations of life in him. This cometh not now of the life of Paule, but of the life of the chriſtian and regenerate perſon. Therfore thou malicious ſpirite, where I ſay that I am dead, now ſclaunder my words no more. And thou ye art weake, be not offēded, but diſtinguiſh & diuide this matter rightly. For (as I ſaide) there are two liues: to wit, my naturall life, and the life of an other. By mine owne life I liue not: for it I did,The faithfull liue not their ovvne life, but the life of Chriſt. the law would haue dominion ouer me, and hold me in captiuitie. To the end therfore that it ſhould not hold me in captiuitie & bondage, I am dead to it by an other law: and this death purchaſeth vnto me the life of an other, euen the life of Chriſt: which life is not mine by nature, but is geuen vnto me by Chriſt through faith. The ſecond aunſwere is this. It might againe be obiected vnto Paule: what ſaieſt thou Paule? Doeſt thou not liue by thine owne life, or in thine owne fleſh, but in Chriſt? we ſee thy fleſh, but we ſee not Chriſt. Wouldeſt thou then delude vs by thine inchauntments, that we ſhould not ſee thee preſent in fleſh, liuing as thou diddeſt before, and doing all things in this corporall life as others doe? he aunſwereth.

Verſe. 20. And in that I novv liue in the flesh, I liue by faith in the ſonne of God. That is to ſay, I liue in deede in the fleſh, but this life,Chriſt is our life. whatſoeuer it is, I eſteme as no life, for it is no true life in deede, but a ſhadow of life: vnder the which an other liueth, that is to ſay, Chriſt, who is my true life in deede, which life thou ſeeſt not but onely heareſt & I feele. Thou heareſt the vvind, but knovveſt not vvhence it cometh or vvhether it goeth. Ioh. 3. Euen ſo thou ſeeſt me ſpeaking, eating, labouring, ſleeping, and doing other things, and yet thou ſeeſt not my life.The faithfull liue in the flesh but not according to the flesh. This life which I now liue, I liue in deede in the fleſh, but not through the fleſh or according to the fleſh, but through faith and according to faith. Paule then denieth not that he liueth in the fleſh, becauſe he doeth all things that belong to a naturall man. He vſeth alſo carnall things, as meate, drinke, apparell and ſuch like, which is to liue in the fleſh: but he ſaith that this is not his life: and although he vſeth theſe things, yet he liueth not through them, as the world liueth through the fleſh and after the fleſh: for it neither knoweth nor hopeth for any life beſides this. Therfore (ſaith he) this life which I now liue in the fleſh,To liue in the faith of the ſonne of God. whatſoeuer it is, I liue in the faith of the ſonne of God. For this word which I now corporally ſpeake is the word, not of fleſh, but of the holy Ghoſt and of Chriſt. This ſight which goeth in or cometh out at mine eies procedeth not of fleſh, that is to ſay, it is not gouerned of the fleſh, but of the holy Ghoſt. So my hearing cometh not of the fleſh, although it be in the fleſh, but of the holy Ghoſt. A Chriſtian ſpeaketh none other but chaſt, ſober, & holy things, which pertaine vnto Chriſt, to the glory of God & the profit of his neighbour. Theſe things come not of the fleſh, neither are done accordīg to the fleſh, and yet are they in the fleſh. For I can not teach, write, pray or geue thanks but with theſe inſtruments of the fleſh, which are neceſſary to the accompliſhing of theſe works: and yet notwithſtanding theſe works proceede not of the fleſh, but are geuen by God from aboue. In like maner I behold a woman, but with a chaſt eie, not luſting after her. This beholding cometh not of the fleſh, although it be in the fleſh becauſe the eies are the carnall inſtrumēts of this ſight: but ye chaſtnes of this ſight cometh from heauen. Thus a Chriſtian vſeth the world and all creatures, ſo that there is no difference betwene him and the Infidell. For in their apparell, in their feeding, hearing, ſeing, ſpeaking, geſtures, coūtenances and ſuch other things they are like, and in outward apperance they ſeeme to be all one (as Paule ſpeaketh of Chriſt:Philip. 2.7. In outvvard appearance he vvas found, The differēce betvvene the faithfull and vnfaithfull. ſayth he, as a man:) yet notwithſtanding there is greate difference. For I liue in the fleſh (I graunt) but I liue not of my ſelfe: but in that I now liue, I liue in the faith of the ſonne of God. This which I now ſpeake, ſpringeth out of an other fountaine then that which thou heardeſt of me before. Paule before his conuerſion ſpake with the ſame voice and toung wherwith he ſpake afterwards. But his voice and his toung were then blaſphemous, and therfore he could ſpeake nothing els but blaſphemies & abhominations againſt Chriſt and his Church. After he was conuerted he had the ſame fleſh, the ſame voice and toung which he had before, and nothing was chaunged: but his voice and his toung then vttered no blaſphemies but ſpirituall and heauenly words: to witte, thanks geuing and the praiſe of God: which came of faith & the holy Ghoſt. So then I liue in the fleſh, but not of the fleſh or after the fleſh, but in the faith of the ſonne of God. Hereby we may plainly ſee whence this ſpirituall life cometh: which we haue not of our ſelues but of an other, which the natural man can in no wiſe vnderſtand, for he knoweth not what maner of life this is. He heareth the wind, but whence it cometh or whither it goeth he knoweth not. He heareth the voice of the ſpirituall man, he knoweth his face, his maners and his geſtures: but he ſeeth not whence theſe workes, which are not now wicked and blaſphemous as before, but holy and godly: or whence theſe motions and actions doe come. For this life is in the heart by Faith, where the fleſh is killed and Chriſt raigneth with his holy ſpirite, who now ſeeth, heareth, ſpeaketh, worketh, ſuffereth and doth all other things in him, although the fleſh doe reſiſt. To cōclude, this is not the life of ye fleſh, although it be in ye fleſh: but of Chriſt the ſonne of God, whom the Chriſtian poſſeſſeth by faith.

Ʋerſe. 20. VVho loued me and gaue him ſelfe for me. Here haue ye the true meane of iuſtification,The true vvay to iuſtificatiō. and a perfect example of the aſſuraunce of faith ſet before your eyes. He that can with a firme & conſtāt faith ſay theſe words with Paule: I liue by Faith in the ſonne of God, vvho hath loued me, & geuen him ſelfe for me, is happie in deede. And euen with theſe wordes Paule taketh away the whole righteouſnes of the lawe and workes, as afterwardes we will declare. But we muſt diligently wey and conſider theſe wordes: The ſonne of God hath loued me, and geuen him ſelfe for me. It was not I then that firſt loued the ſonne of God, and deliuered my ſelfe for him: as the Sophiſters dreame, that they loue the ſonne of God and deliuer thēſelues for him. For they teach that a man expuris naturalibus, that is,The peſtilent doctrine of the Papiſtes and Pelagiās. of his owne pure naturall ſtrength, can do meritorious works before grace, & loue God & Chriſt aboue all things. Theſe felowes preuent the loue of God and Chriſt: for they doe that which lieth in them (as they are wont to ſay) that is, they doe not onely kepe the commaundements, but they doe alſo the workes of ſupererogation, & ſell the ouerplus of their merites to laimen, & ſo (as they imagine) they deliuer them ſelues for Chriſtes ſake, whereby they ſaue both themſelues & others, turning ye words of Paule cleane contrary, and ſaying:Theſe meritemōgers turne theſe vvordes of Paule vpſide dovvne. we haue loued Chriſt and geuen our ſelues for him. Thus, whiles the wicked being puffed vp wt the wiſedom of the fleſh, imagine that they doe what in them lieth, that they loue God, and deliuer them ſelues for Chriſt: what doe they elſe but aboliſh the goſpel, deride, deny and blaſpheme Chriſt, yea ſpit vpon him & tread him vnder foote? They confeſſe in wordes yt he is a iuſtifier and a Sauiour: but in very deede they take from him the power both to iuſtifie and ſaue, and geue the ſame to their owne wilworkes, ceremonies, and deuotions. This is to liue in their owne righteouſnes and workes, and not in the faith of the ſonne of God. This is not then the true meanes to attaine iuſtification, to do that which in thee lieth:To doe vvhat in vs lieth. as the Sophiſters and Scholedoctours doe teache, which affirme that if a man do what in him lieth, God wil vndoubtedly geue vnto him his grace. But this ſaying may not be ſtraitly vrged, ſay they. For if we doe thoſe works which may be approued by the iudgement of any good man, it is enough: for then grace ſhall ſurely follow, becauſe god, in that he is good and iuſt, muſt needes geue grace as a recompence for ſuch good works. And hereof cometh this verſe: Vitra poſſe viri non vult Deus vlla requiri. That is, God vvill no more require of man, then of him ſelfe performe he can. In dede this is a good ſaying if it be vſed rightly & in place cōuenient: yt is, in ye gouernment of cōmon weales or families. And if I being in ye kingdome of reaſon do execute ye office of a magiſtrate or gouerne a family, doing yt in me lieth, I am excuſed. This kingdom hath his boūds and limites:The Papiſtes do apply matters of policy and ciuill gouernment to the church. Rom. 7.14. to the which alſo theſe ſayings doe pertaine: To doe what in vs lieth: To doe as much as we are able. But the Sophiſters apply theſe ſayings to the ſpirituall kingdome, wherin a man can do nothing els but ſinne: for he is ſold vnder ſinne. But in externall things (ſuch I meane as pertaine to ciuill and houſhould gouernment) he is not a ſeruaunt, but a Lord and a ruler. Wherfore they haue done wickedly in applying theſe ſentences to the church, which properly pertaine to the gouernment of common weales & families. For the kingdome of mans reaſon and the ſpirituall kingdome muſt be ſeparate farre aſunder. Moreouer, they ſay that nature is corrupt, but the qualities of nature notwithſtanding are ſound and vncorrupt: which alſo they attribute euen vnto Deuils. Vpon this groūd they reaſon after this maner. If the naturall qualities of man be ſound and vncorrupt,The Papiſtes doe graunt that nature is corrupt: but they ſay that the povvers and qualities of nature remaine ſound and vncorrupt then is his vnderſtanding and his will ſoūd and vncorrupt, and ſo conſequently all other qualities of nature are pure and perfecte in him. To knowe theſe things it is neceſſary for you, that ye may hold the ſinceritie of the doctrine of faith. Where they ſay then that the naturall qualities of man are ſound and vncorrupt, and therof do inferre, that a mā is able of him ſelfe to fulfil the law, and to loue God with al his heart, applying theſe qualities to the ſpirituall kingdome, I deny the conſequence. And here I make a diſtinction betwene the naturall and the ſpirituall qualities (which they confound and mingle together), & I ſay that the ſpirituall qualities are not ſound but corrupt, yea vtterly quenched through ſinne both in man and deuill, ſo that there is in them nothing els but corrupt vnderſtanding and a will continually ſtriuing againſt the will of God, which can thinke nothing els but that which is altogether againſt god. Notwithſtanding, I graunt that the naturall qualities are vncorrupt. But what qualities are they? That a man being drowned in ſinne and iniquitie, and a bondſlaue of Satan, hath will, reaſon, and power notwithſtāding to execute the office of a magiſtrate, to gouerne a family, to guide a ſhippe, to build a houſe, and to doe ſuch other things as are ſubiect vnto man: for theſe things are not taken from him. We doe not then denie but that theſe ſentences are true in the corporall kingdom: But if ye wreſt them to the ſpirituall kingdom, I vtterly deny them: for there (as I ſaid) we are cleane ouerwhelmed and drowned in ſinne. Whatſoeuer is in our wil, is euil: whatſoeuer is in our vnderſtanding, is errour. Wherefore in ſpirituall matters man hath nothing but darknes, errours, ignoraunce, malice, and peruerſenes both of wil and vnderſtanding. How then ſhould he worke well, fulfill the lawe, and loue God? Wherfore Paule ſayth here that Chriſt firſt began and not we. He, Chriſt firſt loued vs, and not vve him. euen he (ſayth Paule) loued me & gaue him ſelfe for me. As if he ſaid: He found in me no good will or right vnderſtāding: but this good Lord had mercy vpon me. He ſaw me to be nothing els but wicked, going aſtray, contemning God, and flying from him more and more: yea rebelling againſt God, taken, led, and caryed away captiue of the deuill. Thus of his mere mercy preuenting my reaſon, my wil, and my vnderſtanding, he loued me, and ſo loued me, that he gaue him ſelfe for me, to the ende that I might be freed from the law, ſinne, the deuill, & death. Againe, theſe wordes: The ſonne of God hath loued me, and geuen him ſelfe for me, are mightie thūdrings and lightnings from heauē againſt the righteouſnes of the law & all the works therof. So great & ſo horrible wickednes, errour, darknes and ignorance was in my wil and vnderſtanding, that it was vnpoſſible for me to be raūſomed by any other meanes then by ſuch an ineſtimable price.The bragging of the integritie of our natural qualities is in vaine. Why do we then vaūt of the ſoundnes of nature, of the rule of reaſon, of free will, and of doing what in vs lieth? Why do I offer vnto god being angry wt me (who, as Moſes ſayth, is a cōſuming fire) this my rotten ſtubble and ſtraw, yea horrible ſinnes, & claime of him to reward me wt grace & euerlaſting life for them, ſince here I learne ſuch wickednes to lie lurkīg in my nature, that the whole world & all creatures therin were not able to counteruaile the indignation of God, but that the very ſonne of God him ſelfe muſt needes be deliuered for the ſame. But let vs conſider well this price, and let vs behold this captiue deliuered (as Paule ſayth) for me, the ſonne of God I meane, and we ſhal ſee him without all compariſon to excede & excell all creatures.The greatnes of the price to be vvel vveyed, that vvas geuen for vs. What wilt thou doe when thou heareſt the Apoſtle ſay that ſuch an ineſtimable price was geuen for thee? Wilt thou bring thy cowle, thy ſhauen crowne, thy chaſtitie, thy obedience, thy pouertie, thy works, thy merites? What ſhall all theſe doe? Yea what ſhall the law of Moſes auaile? What ſhall the works of all men, & all the ſuffering of the Martyrs profite thee? What is the obedience of all the holy angels in compariſon of the ſonne of God deliuered, and that moſt ſhamefully, euen to the death of the croſſe, ſo that there was no droppe of his moſt precious bloud but it was ſhedde, and that for thy ſinnes? If thou couldeſt rightly conſider this incomparable price, thou ſhouldeſt hold as accurſed all theſe ceremonies, vowes, works and merites before grace and after, and throw them all downe to hell. For it is an horrible blaſphemy to imagine that there is any worke wherby thou ſhouldeſt preſume to pacifie God, ſince thou ſeeſt that ther is nothing which is able to pacifie him but this ineſtimable price, euen ye death & bloud of the ſonne of god, one drop wherof is more precious then al ye creatures in ye world.

Verſe. 20. For me. Who is this me? Euen I wretched and damnable ſinner, ſo dearly beloued of the ſonne of God that he gaue himſelfe for me. If I then through works or merites could haue loued the ſonne of God and ſo come vnto him, what needed he to deliuer himſelfe for me? Hereby it appereth how coldly the Papiſtes handled,The ſluggishnes of the Papiſts in handling the holy ſcriptures. yea how they vtterly neglected the holy ſcriptures and doctrine of faith. For if they had conſidered but onely theſe words, that it behoued the ſonne of God to be geuen for me, it had bene vnpoſſible that ſo many monſtrous ſectes ſhould haue ſpronge vp amongeſt them. For faith would by and by haue aunſwered: why doeſt thou chooſe this kind of life, this religiō, this worke? Doeſt thou this to pleaſe God, or to be iuſtified therby? Doeſt thou not heare, O thou wretch, that the ſonne of God ſhed his bloud for thee? Thus true fayth in Chriſt would eaſilie haue withſtande all maner of ſectes.Hovv ſectes may be vvithſtande. Wherefore I ſay (as I haue often times ſaid) that there is no remedie againſt Sectes or power to reſiſt them, but this onely article of Chriſtian righteouſnes. If we loſe this article, it is impoſſible for vs to withſtand any errours or Sectes: As we may ſee at this daye in the phanaticall ſpirites the Anabaptiſtes and ſuch like: who being fallen away from this article of iuſtification, will neuer ceaſe to fall, erre, and ſeduce vntill they come to the fulnes of all iniquitie. There is no dout, but they will raiſe vp innumerable ſectes, and ſtill deuiſe new workes. But what are al theſe things (though they haue neuer ſo goodly a ſhew of holines) if ye compare them to the death and bloud of the ſonne of God, vvho gaue himſelfe for me. Conſider well, I pray you, who this ſonne of God is, how glorious he is, how mightie he is. What is heauen and earth in compariſon of him? Let all the Papiſtes and all the authors of ſectes, yea though the whole world take their part, be throwne downe into hell, withall their righteouſnes, workes, and merits, rather then the truth of the Goſpell ſhould be blemiſhed, and the glory of Chriſt periſh. What meane they they then, to bragge ſo much of workes and merits? If I being a wretched and a damned ſinner could be redemed by any other price, what needed the ſonne of God to be geuen for me? But becauſe there was no other price, either in heauen or in earth, but Chriſt the ſonne of God, therefore it was moſt neceſſary yt he ſhould be deliuered for me. Moreouer this he did of ineſtimable loue: For Paule ſayth, vvhich loued me. Wherfore theſe wordes: vvhich loued me, are full of faith.Hath geuen himſelfe for me. And he that can vtter this litle word Me, and apply it vnto him ſelfe with a true and conſtant faith as Paule did, ſhalbe a good diſputer with Paule againſt the lawe. For he deliuered neither ſhepe, oxe, golde nor ſiluer, but euen God him ſelfe entierly and wholy, for me, euen for me (I ſay) a miſerable and wretched ſinner. Nowe therefore in that the ſonne of God was thus deliuered to death for me, I take comfort and applie this benefite vnto my ſelfe.The true force of faith. And this maner of applying is the right force of faith in deede. Theſe wordes (which are the pure preaching of grace and Chriſtian righteouſnes in deede) Paule ſetteth againſt the righteouſnes of the law. As if he ſayd: Be it ſo that the law is an heauenly doctrine,The lavve loueth not ſinners, but accuſeth them. and hath alſo his glory: yet notwithſtanding it loued not me, nor gaue it ſelfe for me: yea it accuſeth me, terrifieth me, and driueth me to deſperation. But I haue now an other which hath deliuered me from the terrours of the law, ſinne and death, and hath brought me vnto libertie, the righteouſnes of God, and eternall life: who is called the ſonne of God: to whom be praiſe and glory for euermore. Faith therefore (as I haue ſaid) embraceth and wrappeth in it ſelfe Chriſt Ieſus the ſonne of God, deliuered to death for vs, as Paule here teacheth, who being apprehended by faith, geueth vnto vs righteouſnes and life. And here he ſetteth out moſt liuely the Prieſthode and offices of Chriſt: which are to pacifie God, to make interceſſion for ſinners, to offer vppe him ſelfe a ſacrifice for their ſinnes, to redeme, to inſtruct, and to comfort them. Let vs learne therefore to geue a true definition of Chriſt, not as the Scholedoctours do and ſuch as ſeeke righteouſnes by their owne workes, which make him a new law-geuer, who aboliſhing the olde lawe hath eſtabliſhed a newe. To theſe Chriſt is nothing elſe but an exactor and a tyranne:A true definition of Chriſt. but let vs define him as Paule here doth: namely that he is the ſonne of God, who not for our deſert or any righteouſnes of ours, but of his owne free mercie offered vppe him ſelfe a ſacrifice for vs ſinners, that he might ſanctifie vs for euer. Chriſt then is no Moſes, no exactor, no geuer of lawes, but a geuer of grace, a Sauiour, and one that is full of mercie: briefly, he is nothing elſe but infinite mercie and goodnes, freely geuen and bountifully geuing vnto vs. And thus ſhall you paint out Chriſt in his right coloures. If you ſuffer him to be painted out to you any otherwiſe then thus, when tentation and trouble cometh you ſhall ſoone be ouerthrowne.The greateſt cunning that Chriſtians can haue, is to define Chriſt rightly. Nowe, as it is the greateſt knowledge and cunning that Chriſtians cā haue, thus to define Chriſt: ſo of all things it is the moſt hardeſt. For I my ſelfe euen in this great light of the Goſpell, wherein I haue bene ſo long exerciſed, haue much a doe to hold this definition of Chriſt which Paule here geueth: So depely hath this doctrine and peſtilent opinion that Chriſt is a lawgeuer, entred in me, euen as it were oyle into my boanes. Ye yong men therefore are in this caſe much more happie then we that are olde. For ye are not infected with theſe pernicious errours, wherein I haue bene ſo nuſled and ſo drowned euen from my youth, that at the very hearing of the name of Chriſt my heart hath trēbled and quaked for feare: for I was perſwaded that he was a ſeuere iudge. Wherefore it is to me a double trauaile & trouble to correct and reforme this euill: Firſt to forget, to condemne, and to withſtand this olde grounded errour, that Chriſt is a lawgeuer and a Iudge: for it often returneth and plucketh me backe. Then to plant in my heart a new & a true perſwaſion of Chriſt, that he is a iuſtifier & a Sauiour. Ye (I ſay) that are yong, may learne with much leſſe difficultie to know Chriſt purely and ſincerely if ye will. Wherfore if any man feele him ſelfe oppreſſed with heauines and anguiſh of heart, he muſt not impute it vnto Chriſt, although it come vnder the name of Chriſt, but vnto the Deuill, who oftentimes cometh vnder the colour of Chriſt, and tranſformeth himſelfe into an Angell of light. Let vs learne therefore to put a difference betwene Chriſt and a lawgeuer, not only in word but in practiſe, & in deede alſo, that when ye Deuil ſhal come vnder the ſhadow of Chriſt, & ſhal go about to trouble vs vnder his name, we may know him, not to be Chriſt, but a very feend in deede. For Chriſt when he cometh, is nothing elſe but ioy and ſweetenes to a trembling and broken heart, as here Paule witneſſeth, who ſetteth him out with this moſt ſweete & louing title when he ſaith: vvhich loued me and gaue him ſelfe for me. Chriſt loueth the afflicted, and ſuch as feele the vveight of their ſinnes. Chriſt therefore in very deede is a louer of thoſe which are in bitternes of minde, ſinne & death, and ſuch a louer as gaue him ſelfe for them: who is alſo our high prieſt, that is to ſay, a mediatour betwene God & vs wretched ſinners. What could be ſayd (I pray you) more ſweete or comfortable to the poore afflicted conſcience? Now, if theſe things be true (as they are in deede moſt true, or elſe the Goſpell muſt be nothing elſe but a fable) then are we not iuſtified by the righteouſnes of the lawe: and much leſſe by our owne righteouſnes. Read therefore with diligent attention, and with great vehemencie theſe wordes Me and for me, and ſo practiſe with thy ſelfe,Me. For me. that thou maiſt well conceaue and print this Me in thy heart, and applie it vnto thy ſelfe with a ſtedfaſt faith, not doubting but thou art of the number of thoſe to whom this Me belongeth: Alſo that Chriſt hath not onely loued Peter and Paule, and geuen him ſelfe for them, but that the ſame grace alſo which is comprehended in this Me, doth as well pertaine and extend vnto vs as vnto them. For as we can not denie but that we are all ſinners, and are conſtrained to ſay that through the ſinne of Adam we were all loſt, were made the enemies of God, ſubiect to the wrath and iudgement of God, and giltie of eternall death (for this doe all terrified heartes feele and confeſſe, and more in deede then they ſhould do) ſo can we not denie but that Chriſt died for our ſinnes yt he might make vs righteous. For he died not to iuſtifie the righteous, but the vnrighteous, and to make them the children of God, and inheritours of all ſpirituall & heauenly gifts. Therfore when I feele & confeſſe my ſelfe to be a ſinner through Adams trāſgreſſion,As by Adam all became giltie, ſo by Chriſt all that beleue, are made righteous. why ſhould I not ſay that I am made righteous through the righteouſnes of Chriſt, eſpecially whē I heare yt he loued me, & gaue himſelfe for me. This did Paule moſt ſtedfaſtly beleue, & therfore he ſpeaketh theſe wordes with ſo great a vehemencie and full aſſurance. Which he graunt vnto vs, in ſome part at the leaſt, who hath loiſed vs and geuen him ſelfe for vs.

Verſe. 21. I doe not abrogate or reiect the grace of God Now he prepareth a way to the ſecond argument of this epiſtle. And here ye muſt diligently conſider,They that ſeke to be made righteous by the lavv, reiect the grace of God. yt to ſeeke to be iuſtified by the workes of the law is to reiect the grace of God. But, I pray you, what ſinne cā be more execrable or horrible then to reiect the grace of God and to refuſe that righteouſnes which cometh by Chriſt? It is enough and to much already that we are wicked ſinners and tranſgreſſours of all the commaundements of God: and yet we commit moreouer the moſt execrable ſinne of all ſinnes, in that we doe ſo contemptuouſly refuſe the grace of God and remiſſion of ſinnes offered vnto vs by Chriſt. This blaſphemy is more horrible then can be expreſſed. There is no ſinne which Paule and the other Apoſtles did ſo much deteſt as the contempt of grace and deniall of Chriſt, and yet there is no ſinne more common. Hereof it cometh that Paule aboue ye reſt doth ſo ſharply inuey againſt Antichriſt for that he deſpiſeth the grace of God and refuſeth the benefite of Chriſt our high Prieſt,Antichriſt reiecteth grace, and denieth faith. who offered vp himſelfe a ſacrifice for our ſinnes. Now thus to deny Chriſt, what is it els but to ſpitte in his face, to treade him vnder foote, to ſet himſelfe in his place, and to ſay: I will iuſtifie thee and will ſaue thee. By what meanes? By maſſes, pilgrimages, pardons, merits and ſuch like. We ſee then how proudly Antichriſt hath lift vp himſelfe againſt and aboue God, and ſet himſelf in the place of Chriſt, reiected the grace of God and denied the faith. For this is his doctrine: Faith auaileth nothing (ſaith he) vnleſſe it be ioyned with works: and by this falſe and deteſtable doctrine he hath defaced, darkned, and vtterly buried the benefite of Chriſt, & in the ſteede of the grace of Chriſt and his kingdome, he hath eſtabliſhed the doctrine of works and the kingdome of ceremonies, and hath confirmed the ſame with meere trifles and doting dreames, and by this meanes he hath wreſted the whole world out of Chriſtes hands (who alone ought to reigne in the conſcience) & hath throwne it downe hedlong into hell. VVhat it is to reiect grace.Hereby we may eaſily vnderſtand what it is to reiect and refuſe the grace of God, euen to ſeeke righteouſnes by the law. Now, who hath euer heard that a man by keping of the law reiecteth grace? Do we then ſinne in keeping of the law? No forſoth. But we deſpiſe grace when we obſerue the law to this end, that we may be iuſtified through it. The law is good, holy and profitable, and yet it iuſtifieth not. He then that kepeth the law to be iuſtified therby, reiecteth grace, denieth Chriſt, deſpiſeth his ſacrifice, and will not be ſaued by this ineſtimable price, but will ſatiſfie for his ſinnes through the righteouſnes of the law, or deſerue grace by his owne righteouſnes: and this man blaſphemeth and deſpiſeth the grace of God. Now what an horrible thing is it to ſay that any man ſhould be ſo deuiliſh, as to deſpiſe the grace and mercy of God? And yet notwithſtanding all the world doth ſo.The vvorld is ſo vntovvard that it reiecteth the grace of God. Albeit it can not abide that any man ſhould ſo iudge of it, but will ſeeme to doe high ſeruice and honour vnto God. Now followeth the ſecond argument.

Verſe. 21. For if righteouſnes come by the lavve, then Chriſt died in vaine. Here againe I admoniſh you that Paule ſpeaketh not of the ceremoniall law onely (for this the Papiſtes doe alwaies alleage) but of the whole law.Corrupters of Paule. And theſe words of Paule are diligently to be conſidered in this wiſe. It is true that Chriſt ſuffered death or not? Againe, did he ſuffer in vaine or not? Here we are conſtrained to aunſwere, except we be ſtarke madde, that he ſuffered in very deede: and that he ſuffered not in vaine nor for himſelfe, but for vs. If then he ſuffered not in vaine, it followeth of neceſſitie that righteouſnes cometh not by the law. Take now therfore the whole law, and imagine that by the merite of cōgruence or works going before grace, thou haſt ſo much profited, that thou haſt receaued grace and the ſpirite of God, which is a thinge impoſſible vnto nature:If the deſert of congruence auaile ought, then is Chriſt dead in vaine. but yet admitte (I ſay) that in doing what in thee lieth, thou haſt obtained grace, art made righteous, and haſt receaued the holy Ghoſt by the merite of congruence: then haſt thou no neede of Chriſt, he is to thee vnprofitable and his death of none effect. Moreouer take euen the law of the ten commaundements, wherin is contained the true religion and the higheſt ſeruice of God:If the lavv iuſtifie, Chriſt died in vaine. that is to ſay, faith, the feare of God, the loue of God, and the loue of our neighbour, and ſhew me any man that hath bene iuſtified therby: yet is it true notwithſtanding that Chriſt died in vaine. For he that is iuſtified by the law, hath power in himſelfe to obtaine righteouſnes. For in that he doth what in him lieth, he deſerueth grace, & the holy Ghoſt is powred into him, wherby he is now able to loue God and his neighbour. This being graunted, it muſt needes follow that Chriſt died in vaine. For what neede of Chriſt hath he which both loueth Chriſt and geueth himſelfe for him, ſo that he is able by the merite of congruence before grace to obtaine grace, and then to doe ſuch works as by the merite of worthines after grace he is able to deſerue eternall life? Then take away Chriſt withall his benefits, for he is vtterly vnprofitable. But why was he borne? why was he crucified? why did he ſuffer? why was he made my high Prieſt louing me and geuing Himſelfe an ineſtimable ſacrifice for me? In vaine (no doubt) and to no purpoſe at all if righteouſnes come by no other meanes then the Papiſtes teach: for I finde no righteouſnes but either in my ſelfe or in the law, without grace and without Chriſt. Is this horrible blaſphemy to be ſuffered or diſſembled, that the diuine maieſtie not ſparing his owne deare ſonne, but deliuering him to death for vs all, ſhould not doe all theſe things ſeriouſly & in good earneſt,The righteouſnes of all Saincts is nothing in compariſon of the righteouſnes of Chriſt. but as it were in ſport? Before I would admit this blaſphemie, I would not only that the holines of all the Papiſts & meritmongers, but alſo of all the Saincts & holy angels ſhould be throwne downe into the bottome of hell, & condemned with the deuil. Mine eies ſhall behold nothing els but this ineſtimable price my Lord & Sauiour Chriſt. He ought to be ſuch a treaſure vnto me, that all other things ſhould be but dunge in cōpariſon of him. He ought to be ſuch a light vnto me, yt when I haue apprehended him by faith, I ſhould not know whether there be any law, any ſinne, any righteouſnes or any vnrighteouſnes in ye world. For what is al yt is either in heauē or earth in cōpariſō of ye ſonne of god Chriſt Ieſus my lord & Sauiour, vvho loued me & gaue hīſelf for me. A common ſinne to reiect the grace of God.Wherfore, to reiect the grace of God, is an horrible ſinne and commonly reigning throughout the world: wherof al they are giltie which ſeeke righteouſnes by their owne workes. For whiles they ſeeke to be iuſtified by their owne works and merites or by the law, they reiect the grace of God and Chriſt,The Pope the chiefe author of all abhominations in the church. as I haue ſaid. And of all theſe abhominations the Pope hath bene the only author. For he hath not onely defaced and troden the Goſpell of Chriſt vnder his feete, but hath alſo repleniſhed the world with his curſed traditions. And hereof amongeſt other enormities,The Popes pardons. his bulles and pardons are a ſufficient witnes: wherby he abſolueth, not ſuch as beleue, but ſuch as are contrite, make confeſſion to a Prieſt, and reach out their helping hand to the maintenance of his pompe and his traditions. Yet notwithſtanding in this greate light of the Goſpell the blind and obſtinate Papiſtes doe continue ſtill in their damnable doting dreames, ſaying that the qualities of nature doe remaine ſound and vncorrupt, & that men are able to prepare themſelues to grace, or to deſerue grace by their owne works and merits. And ſo farre of is it that they will acknowledge their errour and impietie, that they doe yet ſtill obſtinatly defend the ſame euen againſt their owne conſcience. But we doe conſtantly affirme with Paule (for we will not reiect the grace of God) that either Chriſt died in vaine,If the lavv iuſtifie, then is Chriſt died in vaine. or els the law iuſtifieth not. But Chriſt died not in vaine: therfore the law iuſtifieth not. Chriſt the ſonne of God of his owne free grace and mercy hath iuſtified vs: therfore the law could not iuſtifie vs: for if it could, then had Chriſt done vnwiſely in that he gaue himſelfe for our ſinnes that we therby might be iuſtified. We conclude therfore that we are iuſtified neither by our owne works and merites before grace or after, neither yet by the law. Now, if my ſaluation was ſo coſtly and deare a price vnto Chriſt, that he was conſtrained to die for my ſinnes, thē all my works, with all the righteouſnes of the law,A comparing of Chriſt and the lavv together. are but vile and nothīg worth in compariſon of this ineſtimable price. For how can I bie yt for a farthing which coſt many thouſand talents of gold? Now the law (to ſpeake nothing of other matters which are of much leſſe valew) with all the works and righteouſnes therof, is but as a farthing if ye compare it vnto Chriſt: who by his death hath vanquiſhed my death and hath purchaſed righteouſnes and euerlaſting life. Should I then deſpiſe and reiect this incomparable price, and by the law or by the works and merites of mē (vile droſſe and dung, for ſo Paule calleth them, if they be cōpared vnto Chriſt) ſeeke that righteouſnes which Chriſt freely & of meere loue hath geuen vnto me already, & hath coſt him ſo greate a price that he was conſtrained to geue himſelfe and euen his owne hart bloud for me? This (as I haue ſaid) the whole world doth, and ſpecially ſuch as will be counted more holy and religious then others. Wherby they plainly witnes that Chriſt died in vaine,The deuilish peruerſnes of the vvorld. although with their mouthes they confeſſe the contrary neuer ſo much. Which is moſt horribly to blaſphemie the ſonne of god, to ſpit in his face, to tread him vnder foote, to count the bloud of the teſtament as an vnholy thing, & vtterly to deſpiſe the ſpirite of grace. Paule here diſputing of righteouſnes, hath no ciuill matter in hand, that is, he ſpeaketh not of ciuill righteouſnes: which God notwithſtanding alloweth and requireth,Ciuill righteouſnes hath her revvards. and geueth certaine rewards therunto accordingly: which alſo reaſon is able in ſome part to performe. But he entreateth here of the righteouſnes that auaileth before God, whereby we are deliuered from the law, ſinne, death, and all euils, and are made partakers of grace righteouſnes, and euerlaſting life, and finally are now become Lords of heauen and earth and all other creatures.The righteouſnes of faith, is the righteouſnes that pleaſeth God. This righteouſnes neither mans law, neither the law of God is able to performe. The lawe is geuen beſides and aboue reaſon to be a light & a helpe to man, and to ſhew him what he ought to doe, & what to leaue vndone. Notwithſtanding man with all his ſtrength and reaſon,Reaſon although it be lightned vvith the lavve, yea and the lavve of God, yet it can not iuſtifie. yea with this great light alſo and heauenly benefite (the law I meane) can not be iuſtified. Now, if that which is the moſt excellent thing in the world (the law I ſay) which as a bright ſhining ſunne is ioyned to the dimme and obſcure light of mans reaſon, to lighten and to direct it, is not able to iuſtifie, what can reaſon doe (I pray you) without the lawe? What? Doutles nothing elſe but that which ye Pope with his dreaming Sophiſters and his whole Sinagoge hath done, who with their owne traditions haue darkned the light euen of the firſt cōmaundement. Wherfore there is not one of them that is able rightly to vnderſtand any one ſyllable of the lawe, but euery man walketh in mere darknes of mans reaſon. And this errour is much more pernicious and deadly then that which procedeth of the doctrine of workes and the lawe. Theſe words therfore are very effectuall and full of power, where he ſayth:Galath. 2.21. If righteouſnes come by the lavv, then Chriſt died in vaine. He ſpeaketh here nothing of mans ſtrength, reaſon or wiſedom, be it neuer ſo great (for the greater it is, the ſooner it deceaueth a man), but he ſayth plainly without all condition: If by the lavv. &c. Wherefore reaſon lightned, aided, and directed by the lawe, yea euen by the law of God, is ſo vnable to attaine righteouſnes, that it draweth a man from righteouſnes & reiecteth Chriſt. Set thou therfore the death of Chriſt ſimplie againſt all lawes, and with Paule know nothing but Ieſus Chriſt crucified. Receaue no light either of reaſon, or of the lawe, or of any thing elſe then of Chriſt alone. Then ſhalt thou be learned in dede, righteous and holy, and ſhalt receaue the holy Ghoſt, which ſhall preſerue thee in the puritie of the word and faith: but ſet Chriſt aſide, and all things are but vnprofitable and vaine what ſo euer they be. Here againe we ſee what a goodly commendation Paule geueth to the righteouſnes of the lawe, or mans owne righteouſnes, in that he teacheth it to be a contempt and reiecting of the grace of God, and an aboliſhing of the death of Chriſt.The praiſe of the righteouſnes of the lavve. Paule is no great Rhetorician, and yet ſee what matter he miniſtreth to him that liſteth to play the Rhetorician. What eloquence is able ſufficiently to ſet out theſe wordes: To reiect grace: the grace of God: Alſo, that Chriſt died in vain. The horriblenes whereof is ſuch, that all the eloquence in the world is not able to comprehend it. To ſay that any man dieth in vaine, it is but a ſmall mater: but to ſay that Chriſt died in vaine, it is to take him quite away and make of him nothing at all. Who ſo liſteth to play the Rhetorician hath here mater enough to dilate and amplifie at large, what an horrible & blaſphemous doctrine it is to ſet vp the righteouſnes of the law and workes. For what can be more blaſphemous and horrible, then to make the death of Chriſt vnprofitable?VVho make Chriſt to haue died in vaine. and what doe they els which obſerue the law to the end they may be iuſtified therby? Now, to make the death of Chriſt vnprofitable, is alſo to make his reſurrection, his victory, his glory, his kingdome, heauen, earth, God himſelfe, the maieſty of God, and briefly all things els whatſoeuer, but vnprofitable and of none effect. This thundring and lightning from heauen againſt the righteouſnes of the law and mans owne righteouſnes, ſhould feare vs and make vs to abhorre it. And here with this thunderbolt falleth downe all the orders of Monkes and Friers, with all the rablement of ſuch ſuperſticious religion. For who will not deteſt his owne vowes, his cowle, his ſhauen croune, all mens traditions, yea the very law of Moſes alſo, if he heare that for theſe things he reiecteth the grace of god and maketh the death of Chriſt vnprofitable? The world hearing this, doth not beleue that it is true. It thinketh that ſuch horrible wickednes can not enter into any mans heart, that he ſhould reiect the grace of God & eſteme the death of Chriſt as a thing of nought. And yet this ſinne commonly reigneth. For whoſoeuer ſeeketh righteouſnes without Chriſt, either by workes, merites, ſatiſfactions, afflictions, or by the law, reiecteth the grace of God and deſpiſeth the death of Chriſt, whatſoeuer he proteſteth with his mouth to the contrary.