Commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans

By the naming of circumcision, they think an example to be propounded, which proveth that it appertaineth unto the ceremonies only. But we have already declared why Paul hath named circumcision. For neither do any other swell with the confidence of works then hypocrites. And we know how they glory only in eternal shows. Secondly, circumcision in their judgement was a certain entrance unto the righteousness of the law: therefore it seemed also to be a work of great dignity. And whereas they fight out of the Epistle to the Galatians: where, when Paul handleth the same cause, yet he directeth his stile unto ceremonies only: ⟨image 52⟩that also is not firm enough to obtain that they would. Sure it is, Paul had to do with such as did incense the people with a false believe or confidence of ceremonies. That he might remove or take this away he doeth not contain him self within the compass of ceremonies, neither disputeth he specially of what value they are: but he comprehendeth the whole law, as may appear by the places which are all of them derived from that fountain.¹ Such also was the state of that disputation which was holden at Jerusalem amongst the disciples. And it is not without cause we labour to prove Paul in this place without exception to speak of the whole law. For the very stile and manner of disputation which he hath hither to followed and doeth still prosecute, doeth sufficiently favour us: and many places do not suffer us to think otherwise. It is therefore a sentence notable amongst the chiefest, that no man shall be justified by the keeping of the law. He hath showed the reason before, and repeateth it again straightways: because all men together being convicted of transgression, are reproved of unrighteousness by the law.² These two are contrary one to the other (as we shall see more at large in the process) to be thought righteous by works, and to be guilty of transgression. This word flesh without any special consideration betokeneth men: but that it seemeth after a sort to pretend a more general signification. After which manner more is expressed when one saith all mortal men, or all mortal creatures, then if he should name all men, as you may see with or at Gellius. For by the Law.

By the naming of circumcision, they thinke an example to bee propounded, which prooueth that it appertaineth vnto the ceremonies onely. But wee haue alreadie declared why Paule hath named circumcision. For neither doe any other swell with the confidence of workes then hypocrites. And wee know howe they glorye onely in eternall shewes. Secondely, circumcision in their iudgement was a certayne entraunce vnto the righteousnesse of the lawe: therefore it seemed also to bee a woorke of great dignitie. And whereas they fight out of the Epistle to the Galathians: where, when Paule handleth the same cause, yet hee directeth his stile vnto ceremonies onely: