233


3 tf ~ ~ A ~ 0 » 4 ~ ~
οἰκονομίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν δοθεῖσαν μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς, πληρώσαι
3 ~ ~ 4 td ‘
τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, * TO μυστήριον TO ἀποκεκρυμμένον


other hand Romanist commentators,
while protesting (as they had a right
to do) against these methods of inter-
pretation, have fallen into the opposite
error. They have found in this pas-
sage an assertion of the merits of the
saints, and (as a necessary conse-
quence) of the doctrine of indul-
gences. They have not observed that,
if the idea of vicarious satisfaction
comes into the passage at all, the satis-
faction of St Paul is represented here
as the same in kind with the- satisfac-
tion of Christ, however different it may
bein degree ; and thus they have truly
exposed themselves to the reproach
which Estius indignantly repudiates
on their behalf, ‘quasi Christus non
satis pagsus sit ad redemptionem nos-
tram, ideoque supplemento martyrum
opus habeat; quod impium est sen-
tire, quodque Catholicos dicere non
minus impie calumniantur heeretici.’
It is no part of a commentator here
to enquire generally whether the Ro-
man doctrine of the satisfaction of the
saints can in any way be reconciled
with St Paul’s doctrine of the satis-
faction of Christ. It is sufficient to
say that, so far as regards this par-
ticular passage, the Roman doctrine
can only be imported into it at the
cost of a contradiction to the Pauline
doctrine. It is only fair to add how-
ever that Estius himself says, ‘qu
quidem doctrina, etsi Catholica et
Apostolica sit, atque aliunde satis
probetur, ex hoc tamen Apostoli loco
nobis non videtur admodum solide
statui pusse. But Roman Catholic
commentators generally find this
meaning in the text, as may be seen
from the notes of & Lapide.
