A17643:323
Commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans
A commentary upon the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Romans, written in Latin by M. John Calvin, and newly translated into English by Christopher Rosdell preacher. Whereunto is added a necessary table for the better and more ready finding out of certain principal matters contained in this workA commentarie vpon the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Romanes, written in Latine by M. Iohn Caluin, and newely translated into Englishe by Christopher Rosdell preacher. Whereunto is added a necessarie table for the better and more readie finding out of certayne principall matters conteyned in this worke
London: printed by Thomas Dawson for John Harison and George Bishop, 1583London: printed by Thomas Dawson for Iohn Harison and George Bishop, 1583
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
But seeing a doubt might arise, whether we also after the example of Abraham are not to confirm the same righteousness by the seal of circumcision?1 why did the Apostle omit it?2 Namely, because he thought the question to have been sufficiently answered by his words. For seeing this sentence is admitted, that circumcision serveth only to seal the grace of GOD: it followeth that at this day it were superfluous for us, who have another Sacrament ordained of the Lord in place thereof. Because therefore where baptism is, there is no use now of circumcision, he would not to no purpose dispute of that, whereof was no question at all, to wit, why the righteousness of faith should not be sealed in the Gentiles by circumcision, if they should be like unto Abraham.
But seeing a doubt might arise, whether wee also after the example of Abraham are not to confirme the same righteousnesse by the seale of circumcision?1 why did the Apostle omitte it?2 Namely, because hee thought the question to haue beene sufficiently answered by his woordes. For seeing this sentence is admitted, that circumcision serueth onely to seale the grace of GOD: it followeth that at this day it were superfluous for vs, who haue another Sacramente ordayned of the Lorde in place thereof. Because therefore where baptisme is, there is no vse nowe of circumcision, hee woulde not to no purpose dispute of that, whereof was no question at all, to witte, why the righteousnesse of faith shoulde not be sealed in the Gentiles by circumcision, if they shoulde bee like vnto Abraham.
- 1Objection.Obiection.
- 2Answer.Answere.