baptisme both originall sinne and the corrupt motions springing from thence therefore such motions in the baptized are not sinne Contra. 1. As originall sinne is taken away in baptisme so all other sinnes are for baptisme serueth for the remission of all sinnes Act. 2.38 euen then sinnes are wholly remooued in baptisme it would follow that they which are baptized should haue no sinnes at all 2. Wherefore in baptisme reatus tollitur the guilt of sinne is taken away yet sinne it selfe remaineth but it is not imputed neither doth sinne remaine in the full strength but the power thereof is subdued and the kingdome of sinne in the regenerate vanquished but yet there remaine some reliques of sinne still as long as we are in this flesh and this daily experience sheweth how they which are regenerate are not altogether freed from the inhabitation and in-dwelling of sinne though it raigne not in them 3. And whereas Pererius obiecteth Augustine who confuting that slander of the Pelagians who affirmed that the Catholiks should hold baptismum non auferre sed radere peccata that baptisme doth not take away sinne but as it were shaue it because concupiscence remaineth the roote of sinne denieth that the Catholikes teach any such thing but that baptisme indeede doth auferre crimina take away sinnes lib. 13. cont 2. epist. Pelag. Augustine must be vnderstood to speake of the guilt of concupiscence which is remooued in baptisme as he saith lib. 6. c. 8. cont Iulian. quamvis eius reatus qui fuerat generatione contractus sit regeneratione transactus though the guilt thereof contracted in the generation be transacted and done away in regeneration yet it remaineth still in homine secum confligente in man hauing a conflict with himselfe c. 4. Argum. The laâ—â— commandeth not things impossible which can not be auoided but these first motions of concupiscence no man can shunne or auoide Augustine saith nec impossibile Deus hominis imperare potuit quia iustus c. neither could God command any impossible thing to man because he is iust nec damnaturus est hominem pro eo c. neither will he condemne a man for that which he that is godly can not auoid serm 61. de tempor Perer. ibid. Contra. 1. The law simply is not impossible to man considered as he was at the first created of God in that it is now impossible it is by reason of the weaknes and frailtie of mans flesh Rom. 8.3 which imbecillitie of nature came in by mans voluntarie transgression 2. The Law though impossible to be kept by a naturall man was giuen vnto other ends then that he should or could perfectly keepe it and in keeping thereof be iustified but it was giuen as a schoolemaster to bring vs vnto Christ Gal. 3.19 that finding themselues weake they might seeke to be cloathed with the righteousnes of Christ. 3. Augustine speaketh of a possibilitie by grace not in nature Nemo quantum possumus melius novis quam qui ipsum posse donavit no man can better tell what we can doe then he which gaue vs power c. which Augustine affirmeth not as though any man had power by grace to keepe all which is commanded but onely to shewe against the Manichees hominem posse vitare peccata that a man by grace may decline some sinnes which they denied 5. Argum. S. Iames saith c. 1.16 When lust hath conceiued it bringeth forth sinne and when sinne is perfected it bringeth forth death hence it followeth that either concupiscence is not sinne it onely bringeth forth sinne or if it be it is no mortall sinne for sinne onely when it is perfited bringeth forth death Contra. 1. It followeth not concupiscence bringeth forth sinne therefore it is no sinne it followeth that it is not that sinne which it begetteth or bringeth forth but yet one sinne may beget an other this is like as if a man should thus reason a man begetteth a man therefore he is not a man he is not indeede that man which he begetteth yet a man therefore because he begetteth a man and so one sinne may bring forth an other 2. neither doth it followe sinne which is perfited bringeth forth death Ergo sinne not perfited bringeth forth death which is as if one should thus reason the father begetteth a mortall man therefore the grandfather doth not sinne perfited is said to bring forth death as the nearest cause but yet sinne not perfected or produced as the remote cause also bringeth forth death for otherwise neither originall sinne not yet the second motions of concupiscence which haue the consent of the will should be worthie of death before they doe breake forth into act Now our contrarie arguments that euen concupiscence it selfe without the consent of the will either of things vnlawfull or of things lawfull vnlawfully is sinne are these and such like as followe Argum. 1. Whatsoeuer is forbidden by the lawe is sinne for sinne is defined to be the transgression of the lawe 1. Iob. 3.4 but the verie first motions of concupiscence are forbidden by the lawe and are a transgression thereof Ergo. So Augustine multum honi facit c. he performeth a great good that doth as it is written thou shalt not goe after thy desires Eccles. 18. sed non perfectum bonum facit c. but he doth not that which is perfectly good who fulfilleth not that which is written thou shalt not lust c. lib. de mixt concupiscent c. 23. c. 29. Answ. Pererius answeareth 1. that the motions of concupiscence hauing not the consent of the will are not forbidden by the commandement 2. and S. Augustine meaneth not that the precept thou shalt not lust cannot be fulfilled here so farre as it bindeth a man but as it excludeth concupiscence altogether which cannot be till the next life disputat 9. numer 50. Contra. 1. The Apostle meaneth the verie lusts and vnlawfull desire of the heart without consent of the will as he saith v. 15. what I hate that doe I his concupiscence tempted him euen against his will and whereas he saith he had not knowne lust without the law he meaneth the verie first motions for the second motions which haue the will concurring as enuie hatred and such like many of the heathen which knewe not the lawe condemned by the light of nature as euill 2. it is true that to be without concupiscence is not incident to this life yet is it a breach of the commandement for the precept so farre bindeth as it is commanded if then we be commanded not to couet at all and yet we doe couet we are bound to keepe it and in not keeping of it we sinne 3. further if the last commandement as not of coueting a mans wife restraine not the verie first rising deâ—â—â—es it should not differ from the 7. precept which restraineth the lusts of the heart that haue the will consenting Matth. 5.28 Argum. 2. That which hindereth vs from doing our
be answeared 4. Whereas to shunne these rockes of offence and to preuent these obiections some here haue found out a middle or meane way to referre the decree of reprobation partly to the will of God as the efficient partly to the foresight of sinne as the materiall cause thereof And here these distinctions are brought in 1. Lyranus thus distinguisheth that reprobation is either taken large largely and so it signifieth onely simplicem negationem ad gloriam a simple deniall of glorie and this hath no cause in Gods prescience but onely in the will of God or it is taken proprie properly for ordinario ad poenam an ordaining vnto punishment and so it is not willed or decreed of God nisi propter culpam but for sinne Bellarmine also fleeth to the same distinction of negatiue reprobation which is not to haue mercie positive to decree vnto condemnation of this the foresight of sinne he saith is the cause of the other the free will of God But seeing this negatiue reprobation containeth a priuation and deniall of euerlasting glorie this also must arise from the foresight of sinne for God excludeth none out of his kingdome but for sinne as the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 6.9 Know ye not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God 2. Gorrhan hath this distinction there is a double kind of reprobation temporalis the temporall which is non appositio gratiae the not affording or giuing of grace and eterna voluntas non apponendi the eternall which is the will or purpose of not giuing of grace this is without the foresight of any merite but not the other like vnto this is that difference which some make betweene the decree and the execution of the decree the first is without respect vnto sinne but sinne commeth betweene before the other But this doth not satisfie as Pareus well obserueth for the same cause mooued God to decree punishment which mooueth him in time to execute punishment 3. Some doe thus consider of predestination that it is of two sorts there is decretum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a decree simply called of those things whereof God is the author and efficient cause himselfe such is the decree of election vnto life there is decretum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secundum quod a decree after a sort which may also be called permissivum the decree of permission as the other is effectivum an effecting and working decree of this latter sort is the decree of reprobation the meanes which lead thereunto God onely permitteth and effecteth not as the sinne and iniquitie of men for the which they are worthily condemned to this purpose Rollocus in 8. ad Roman p. 181.182 But this doth not satisfie for the decree of damnation is as well an effecting decree as is the decree of election God willeth and decreeth the damnation of the wicked as effectually in his iustice as he effectually willeth the saluation of the elect as the wise man saith in the Proverbs 16.4 That the Lord hath made all things for his owne sake yea euen the wicked for the day of euill 4. Iunius against Pukâ—us resp ad ration 72. maketh two degrees of reprobation decretum praeteritionis the decree of preterition which is the purpose of God not to shew mercie and this is absolute without any respect vnto sinne then there is decretum ex praescientia the decree of reprobation issuing forth of God prescience and so none are decreed to be condemned but for sinne some call the first decretum non miserandi the decree not to shew mercie the other decretum puniendi the decree of punishment Pareus dub 8. p. 913. citeth Mr. Perkins who calleth them decretum deserendi the decree of desertion and ordinatio ad poenam an ordaining to punishment Pareus out of his owne iudgement saith that there are two acts of reprobation negativus the negatiue that is not to haue mercie and affirmativus the affirmatiue which is to condemne the negatiue act is either reprobation from grace or from glorie the first of these which is a reiection from grace be thinketh onely to proceed from the good pleasure of God but not the other all these distinctions are the same in effect which else where I haue followed allowing that distinction especially of Iunius as giuing full satisfaction in this matter But now I find some doubts and obiections which are not yet remooued by these distinctions 1. Seeing damnation necessarily followeth reiection and where grace is denied glorie cannot follow if the deniall of the one should be the absolute act of Gods will so by consequence should the other also 2. And the Scripture sheweth that the cause why God reiecteth man is for that they reiect God first as Samuel saith concerning Saul 1. Sam. 15.23 Because thou hast cast away the word of the Lord the Lord hath cast away thee and Rom. 1.24.27 the Apostle sheweth that the giuing vp of the Gentils vnto their hearts lusts was a iust recompence of their error therefore because the substraction and deniall of grace the hardening of the heart the blinding of the mind are punishments of sinne and sinne goeth before the punishment thereof it followeth that these things as they are not temporally inflicted but for sinne so neither are they eternally decreed but vpon the foresight of sinne 3. If God should absolutely reiect any otherwise thou for sinne and more are reiected then elected then should Gods iustice farre exceed his mercie and his seueritie farre surpasse his clemencie To this last obiection Thomas Aquin. maketh this answer by a distinction that bonum proportionatum communi status naturae c. the good things which are proportioned to the common state and condition of nature are found in the most but bonum quod excedit comâ—â—â—â— statum c. the good things which exceed the commoÌ„ state are found in few as they are found more which haue sufficient knowledge and direction for the gouernment of their life then they which want it such as are idiots and fooles but there are few which are found that haue the profunditie and depth of knowledge and of this kind of euerlasting life it exceedeth the common state and condition of humane nature and therefore it is no maruel if it be found in the fewest and smallest number to this purpose Thomas 1. part qu. 25. artic 7. But this answer is not sufficient he hath giuen a good reason why eternall life is not merited or procured by mans deserts because it is a gift which exceedeth the proportion and condition of mans nature but yet the reason appeareth not neither is the doubt satisfied why seeing God aboundeth in mercy euerlasting life is not giuen vnto the most therefore Thomus addeth further that Gods mercie appeareth in that he directeth some vnto life from the which the most decline by the common cause and inclination of nature And indeed this is the best and most sufficient answear that
caeten Graec. which Stapleton followeth But Faius here well answereth that here money is considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of passion it is a thing vsed as an instrument it hath no action but an actiue power is here giuen vnto God 5. The blasphemous Manichees were here driuen to this strait because they would free God from beeing any way accessarie to euill that they made two gods one good the father of Christ and the author of the new Testament the other euill the author of the old and that God it was which is saide to haue hardened Pharaohs heart and to bid Shemei curse Dauid and of this god they vnderstood S. Paul to speake 2. Cor. 4.4 In whome the god of this world hath blinded the mindes But the Manichees doe here manifestly contradict the Apostle who saith Eph. 4.6 There is one God and father of all c. who is aboue all there are not then more Gods then one And in that other place by the god of this world the Apostle meaneth Sathan who is the prince of the darknes of this world who is so called because he is so held to be of the infidels Some thinke that God may as well be said to blind the minds of infidels as here to deliuer them vp to their owne concupiscence as P. Mart. following Augustine But the Scripture vseth not so to speake of God the God of this world is all one as to say the prince of the world which name Christ giueth vnto Sathan Ioh. 14.30 6. Wherefore there is more to be considered in these actions of hardening the heart deliuering vp vnto a reprobate sense then bare permission onely subtraction of grace these we refuse not so that permission be here vnderstood as ioyned with Gods will for otherwise to thinke that God permitteth any thing which he can not hinder were great blasphemie Faius yet God hath a further stroke in these actions then by permission onely and withholding of his grace 1. Augustine doubteth not to affirme that not onely the good wills and mindes of men which God maketh good of euill are in Gods hand but also the euill minds and wills of men are so in Gods power vt eos quo voluerit quando voluerit factat inclinari that the same God causeth to be enclined which way he will and when he will and he giueth instance in diuers places of Scripture as how God is saide to haue hardened Pharaohs heart that he bid Shemei curse Dauid non iubendo dixit sed eius voluntatem proprio suo vitio malam in hoc peccatam iusto suo indicio inclinavit not that he in deede badde him but by his iust iudgement he inclined his will beeing euill of it selfe into this sinne so it is saide 2. Chron. 25.20 But Amaziah would not heare for it was of God that he might deliuer them into his hand c likewise Ezek. 14.9 if the Prophet be deceiued when he hath spoken a thing the Lord hath deceiued that Prophet vpon these and other such places Augustine thus inferreth that it is manifest operari Deum in cordibus hominum ad inclinandus sorum voluntates quacunque voluerit c. that God worketh in the hearts of men to incline their wills which way he will either vnto good for his mercie sake or vnto euill according to their desert indicio suo aliquando aperto aliquando occulto semper nutem iusto by his iudgement sometime open sometime hid but alwaies iust thus August lib. 5. contr Iulian. c. 3. All these places alleadged shew that God in such actions is to be considered as an agent and yet is free from the imputation of any euill 2. Which that it may more fully appeare these considerations following are here necessarie 1. we must distinguish betweene the motion of the mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the disorder or euilnes of the motion Pareus and there are two things in sinne actio defectus the action it selfe and the defect or fault the action is of God but not the other Mart. so Hugo Cardinal Deus non incitat ad malas notiones in quantum sunt mala c. God doth not stirre vp vnto euill actions as they are euill but as they are actions 2. Beside sinnes are considered three waies first as they are transgressions of the law of God then as they are causes of other sinnes in neither of these respects doth sinne any way stand with the will and pleasure of God thirdly as they are poena praecedentium scelerum punishments of sinnes before-going and so they are of God so then as there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a disordered motion in sinne God no way is accessarie vnto them but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the infliction of them as a punishment proceedeth from the iust iudgement of God Pareus 3. As God is to be considered as a iust Iudge in punishing sinne by sinne so likewise as a wise foreseer and prouident worker and contriuer of all things to effect his good pleasure so then we affirme Deum iusto suo iudicio ordinare c. God doth so ordaine in his iust iudgement that men be deliuered vp to their owne concupiscence as the Iudge deliuereth male factours ouer to the tormentor or hangman Calvin carnifex agit vi authoritate iudicis c. the tormentor worketh by the authoritie of the Iudge yet carnisicis opus cum imperio iudicis non confundo I confound not the worke of the hangman with the commandement of the Iudge saith Beza So it is true as Faius here saith Deus arcano suo iudicio effecit c. God so wrought by his secret iudgement that they which were alreadie estranged from him magis averterentur should yet be estranged more But it will be thus obiected against this resolution 1. Iulianus the Pelagian thus cavilled If this concupiscence vnto the which the Gentiles were deliuered vp were a punishment of sinne then it is good and commendable Ans. It followeth not for by the same reason the deuill should deserue commendation because he is the executer of Gods reuenge and punishment 2. He obiecteth that they were left by the patience of God not per poâ—â—tiam compulsi not compelled by his power Ans. 1. God sheweth herein both his patience and his power as the Apostle sheweth Rom. 9.22 What if God would to shew his wrath and make his power knowne suffer with long patience the vessels of his wrath prepared to destruction c. 2. yet although God herein shew his power and secret iudgement in punishing them with their owne concupiscence yet he forceth not their wills but beeing euill of themselues he giueth them ouer further to all impietie 3. Obiect The Apostle saith Eph. 4.19 Which beeing past feeling haue giuen themselues vnto wantonnes c. they then giue themselues ouer God giueth them not vp Ans. It followeth not for both God doth deliuer them vp as a iust Iudge and
of death originall sinne then hath a kind of existence for how else could it be called a bodie of sinne or death see more hereof elsewhere Synops. Cen. 4. err 14. 2. Concerning the reasons obiected 1. God is the author of euerie substance and of euery naturall qualitie but not of vnnaturall dispositions or qualities as neither of diseases in the bodie nor of vices in the minde this euill qualitie was procured by mans voluntarie transgression 2. and though habites which are personall and obtained by vse and industrie are not transmitted to posteritie yet this euill habite was not personall in Adam as he is considered vt singularis persona as a singular person but by him it entred into the nature of man as he was totius humanae naturae principiū the beginning of the whole nature of man 3. Burgensis taketh another exception vnto Lyranus addition and he thinketh that Adams posteritie is not bound to haue the originall iustice which was giuen to Adam for they haue no such bond either by the law of nature for that originall iustice was supernaturally added or by any diuine precept for God gaue vnto Adam no other precept but that one not to eate of the forbidden fruite and therefore they were not bound at all to haue or reteine Adams originall iustice Thus Burgens Contra. 1. Herein I rather consent vnto Thoring the Replic vpon Burgens who thus argueth that this debt or bond to haue originall iustice was grounded vpon the law of nature which is the rule of right reason for by nature euery one is tied to seeke the perfection and conseruation of it kind and this originall iustice tended vnto the perfection of man which though it were supernaturally added vnto man yet it was not giuen him alone sed pro tota natura for the whole nature of man and so he concludeth well that man is culpable in not hauing this originall iustice though not culpâ actuali quae est suppositi by any actuall fault which belongeth to the person or subiect yet culpâ originali quae est natura by an originall fault which is in nature To this purpose the Replic And this may be added further that if Adams posteritie were not debters in respect of this originall iustice then were they not bound to keepe the law which requireth perfect righteousnesse and so it would follow that they are not transgressors against the law if they were not bound to keepe it the first exception then of Burgensis may be recieued but not the second 2. Pighius also who denieth originall sinne to be a privation or want of originall iustice holdeth it to be no sinne to want that iustice which is not enioyned by any law vnto mankind for no law can be produced which bindeth infantes to haue that originall iustice and therein he concurreth with Burgensis Contra. But this obiection is easily refuted for first man was created according to Gods image in righteousnesse and holines which image Adams posteritie is bound to retaine but he by his sinne defaced that image and in stead thereof begate children after his owne image Gen. 5.3 in the state of corruption And whereas Pighius replieth out of Augustine that the image of God in man consisteth in the three faculties of the soule the vnderstanding memorie and will Augustine must not be so vnderstood as though herein consisted onely the image of God but as therein is shadowed forth the misterie of the Trinitie for the Apostle expressely sheweth that this image of God is seene in righteousnes and holines Ephes. 4.24 An other lawe is the lawe of nature which is the rule which euery one is to followe Cicero could say that convenientur viuere c. to liue agreeably to this law is the chiefe ende of man to this lawe euen infants are also bound there is a third lawe which is the morall which saith thou shalt not lust which prohibiteth not onely actuall but originall concupiscence And whereas Pighius here obiecteth that a lawe is giuen in vaine of such things as cannot be avoided therein he sheweth his ignorance for it is not in mans power to keep the lawe for then it had not beene necessarie for Christ to haue died for vs who came to performe that which was impossible by the lawe Rom. 8.3 yet was not the lawe giuen so in vaine for there are two speciall vses thereof both to giue vs direction how to liue well and to bring vs to the knowledge of sinne xe Mart. 4. This then is originall sinne 1. it consisteth partly of a defect and want of originall iustice in that the image of God after the which man was created in righteousnesse and holines was blotted out by the fall of man partly in an euill habite disposition and qualitie and disorder of all the faculties and powers both of bodie and soule This was the start of man after his fall and the same is the condition of all his posteritie by nature Augustine also maketh originall sinne a positiue qualitie placing it in the concupiscence of the flesh not the actuall concupiscence but that naturall corruption which although it be more generall then to containe it selfe within the compasse of concupiscence onely yet he so describeth it by the most manifest effect because our naturall corruption doth most of all shew and manifest it selfe in the concupisence and lust of our members 2. The subiect then and matter of originall sinne are all the faculties and powers of soule and bodie the former is the pravitie and deformitie of them the efficient cause was the peruersnes of Adams will the instrument is the carnall propagation the end or effect is euerlasting damnation both of bodie and soule without the mercie of God Martyr 3. Originall sinne is taken either actiuely for the sinne of Adam which was the cause of sinne in his posteritie which is called originale origmans originall sinne giuing beginning or passiuely for the naturall corruption raised in Adams ofspring by his transgression which is tearmed originale originatum originall sinne taking beginning 4. Of this originall sinne taken both waies there are three misserable effects 1. participatio culpa the participating in the fault or offence for we were all in Adams loines when he transgressed and so we all sinned in him as here the Apostle saith 2. imputatio reatus the imputation of the guilt and punishment of sinne we are the children of wrath by nature subiect both to temporall and eternall death 3. there is naturae depratatio vel deformitas the depravation and deformitie of nature wherein there dwelleth no good thing Rom. 17.18 Controv. 16. Of the wicked heresie of Marcion and Valentinus with the blasphemous Manichees 1. Origen out of the words of the former verse where the Apostle speaketh of our attonement and reconciliation by Christ confureth the heresie of Marcion and Valentinus whose opinion was that there was some substance quae naturaliter Deo sit inimica which naturally is
statutes that were not good Gorrhan here answereth that they were good in themselues but became euill ipsorum vitio by their fault Iunius vnderstandeth that place of the hard iudiciall laws and sentences of death both ordinarie and extraordinarie But rather it is referred to the ceremoniall laws which were as a yoke and burthen laid vpon the people which they were not able to beare as S. Peter expoundeth Act. 15.10 Quest. 23. How the lawe is said to be spirituall 1. Origen thinketh it is called spirituall because it must be vnderstood not literally but spiritually But the Apostle treateth here of the morall lawe where was no place for allegories 2. Theodoret because it was giuen of God who is a spirit 3. Ambrose because the lawe directed vs to the worship of God who is a most pure spirit 4. Augustine because it cannot be fulfilled nisi à viris spiritualibus but of spirituall men but no man in this life is so spirituall that he can keep the law 5. Thomas because concordat cum spiritu hominis it agreeth with the spirit of man that is reason so also Lyranus because it directeth man to followe the instinct of the spirit or reason so also Gorrhan spiritum hominis aleus it nourisheth the spirit of man But the verie spirit of man is corrupt and contrarie to the law by nature and therefore the Apostle saith Ephes. 4.23 be renewed in the spirit of your mind 6. Pet. Martyr giueth this reason why it is called spirituall because it requireth not onely the externall obedience in the outward workes but the spirituall in the heart and affections 7. But hereunto it may be added that it is spirituall because it requireth a spirituall that is a perfect obedience both in bodie and soule and an angelicall and diuine obedience to followe vertue and shunne vice so Chrysostome and Theophylact and Calvin Pareus Osiand following them 8. that seemeth to be somewhat curious which the ordinar gloss here obserueth that the Lawe is onely called spirituall because therein are those things quae Dit sunt which are Gods but the Gospel is called lex spiritus the lawe of the spirit because there Deus ipse est God himselfe is Quest. 24. How the Apostle saith he is carnall and sold vnder sinne v. 17. 1. Pererius well obserueth here that one may be said to be carnall two waies quia serâ—â— carni because he serueth the flesh or he which by reason of his corrupt nature procliuis est is prone vnto concupiscence to this purpose Pareus that in the first sense the vnregenerate are said to be carnall in the other the regenerate because they are yet infirmitatibus abnoxque subiect to infirmities quia nondums habent spirituale corpus because they haue not yet a spirituall bodie freed from all infirmities such as they shall haue in the resurrection August lib. ad Bonifac. c. 10. so we haue inchoatam non plenam liberationem a deliuerance begunne in Christ but not yet perfect till our last enemie death shall be destroied 2. Likewise where the Apostle saith he was sold 1. Some take the word properly for such a selling wherein there is a buyer a thing sold and a price which they referre either vnto Adams selling himselfe to the deuill for an apple Lyran. gloss ordinar or to a mans selling of himselfe by his actuall sinnes for the sweetnesse of pleasure which is as the price which men sell themselues to the deuill for Tolet. annot 16. Gorrhan But in this sense S. Paul beeing a spirituall and regenerate man cannot be said to be sold. 2. wherefore this metaphor is not largely to be taken as when Ahab is said to haue sold himselfe to worke wickednes 1. King 21.25 for there are two kinds of slaues one that selleth himselfe into captiuitie and willingly obeyeth a tyrant or one which against his will is brought into servitude as Ioseph was sold by his brethren into captiuitie and this is S. Pauls case here Pareus And Augustine noteth that sometime selling in Scripture is taken for a simple tradition or deliuering ouer without any price lib. 7. in Iudic. c. 17. and so indeed the Hebrew word machar signifieth as well to deliuer as to sell as Isay 52.3 the Israelites are said to be sold for naught and the Lord will redeeme them for naught But these two are said in a diuerse sense Men are said to be sold for naught in respect of God he receiueth no honour but rather dishonour by their selling ouer vnto sinne they are redeemed for naught in Christ in respect of themselues because they gaue nothing for their redemption but yet in respect of Christ and his price they were not redeemed for naught but by the most pretious blood of Christ Mart. Pererius thinketh they are said to be redeemed for naught comparatively because that momentarie pleasure for the which a sinner selleth himselfe is nothing to the price and dignitie of his soule numer 72. but rather selling is here taken for a plaine deliuering ouer as is before shewed out of Augustine Now two waies are the regenerate sold ouer to sinne in respect of their originall corruption and of their carnall infirmities which remaine still in their corrupt nature to the which they are subiect still Pareus but the vnregenerate are said to be sold ouer as Ahab was because they giue themselues wholly ouer vnto sinne Beza doth well expresse these two kinds of seruitude or selling ouer by the like difference in humane servitude for some are slaves because they are borne of serâ—ile and bond parents others make themselues bond like vnto the first are the regenerate and the vnregenerate as the second Quest. 25. Of these words v. 15. I allow not what I doe what I would that doe I not 1. Chrysostome thinking that the Apostle speaketh this in the person of an vnregenerate man referreth this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know not or vnderstand nor to the vnderstanding not that a sinner knoweth not when he sinneth sed tenebrosa quadaÌ„ vertigine obvoluor but I am ouertaken with a kind of dizines that I know not how I was ouertaken so also Origen non rem ipsam sed causam rei dicitur ignorare he is said not to know not the thing but the cause thereof that is how and by what means he came to sinne But it is euident by the words following what I would c. that the Apostle speaketh of his will rather then vnderstanding 2. Pererius likewise inclining to thinke that this is spoken in the person of a carnall man will haue this vnderstood of a generall and vniversall knowledge will and hatred that men in generall knowe and will vertue and hate vice but not in particular But the Apostle here speaketh of doing and not doing which must be referred to particular actions 3. Augustine verie well interpreteth non agnosco I know not that is non approbo non consentio I approoue not consent not
the other he ordained but he hateth the third that is sinne which he made not like as a iudge condemning a theefe neither hateth his person nor the punishment which is according to iustice but the crime of thes◠c. vpon this answer insisteth Pererius and before him Haymo non edit naturam quam fecit sed peccatum quod non fecit he hated not the nature which he made but the sinne which he made not so aso Gorrhan and the ordinarie gloss he hated nothing in Esau nisi originale peccatum but his originall sinne c. But the Apostle here speaketh of an hatred before Esau had done any euill and before the fight thereof 3. Neither doth it satisfie to say it is spoken comparatiuely Esau was hated that is lesse beloued as a man is bid to hate father and mother to cleaue to his wife that is loue them lesse then his wife for the Apostle calleth them the vessels of wrath afterward whom he is here said to hate therefore such are not beloued at all 4. This then is the solution hatred in God signifieth three things 1. the negation and deniall of his loue and of this degree of hatred sinne is not the cause but the will of God that electeth whom he will and refuseth whom he pleaseth thus God hateth Esau and all the reprobate 2. the decree of punishment and this proceedeth from the foresight of sinne and thus God is said to haue the wicked 3. it signifieth the anger of God and his abhorring of that which he hateth and thus God is said to hate iniquitte and of this hatred is that saying to be vnderstood thou hatest nothing that thou hast made for God in this sense hateth not his creatures but sinne in them Pareus dub 11. Quest. 15. Of the meaning of these words I will haue mercie on whom I will haue mercie 1. Origen and Heirome epist. ad Heath qu. 10. doe thinke that this is an obiection made by some as it were contradicting the Apostle But this is the Apostles answer rather to the former obiection is their iniquitie with God that he should elect one and reiect an other both of them beeing in the same state and condition to the which the Apostle maketh answer God forbid and giueth a reason of his answer here out of the Scripture 2. Chrysostome thinketh whom Theophylact followeth that by this sentence the Apostle staieth mans curiositie from requiring the cause why some are elected some are refused which is best knowne vnto God as the Lord answeared Moses who was desirous to know why all of the Israelites beeing guiltie of the same sinne in worshipping the golden calfe yet were not alike punished to whom the Lord answeareth thus in effect non est tuum scire Moses c. Moses it belongeth not to thee to know who are worthy of my mercie c. But in this sense there were small coherence in the Apostles speach for then there should be no answer made vnto the former obiection which the Apostle remooueth here Tolet annot 22. neither was this sentence vttered vpon any such occasion concerning the punishing of sinne of the Israelites and sparing of others but whereas Moses had made request to see Gods glorie and the Lord had granted him to see his backer partes and so in part yeelded vnto his request then this is added as a reason thereof I will haue mercie Mar. 3. Ambrose is farre wide who maketh this the sense of these words I will haue mercie on him on whom I will haue mercie that is quem praescivi whom I foresaw like after his error to returne vnto me so the ord gloss cui praescio misericordiam whom I foresaw mercie is to be shewed vpon the like glosse Thomas maketh mention of in his Commentarie I will haue mercie on him quem dignum praenonero misericordia whome I foresaw to be worthy of mercie But this is not agreeable to the Apostles minde 1. there had beene no occasion of any such obiection if the cause were in the foresight of mens worthines why some are elected and not others for then there had beene no shew of iniustice at all in God the reason had beene plaine Tolet annot 22. 2. this to giue vnto those which are worthie respicit iustitiam Dei respecteth the iustice of God whereas the Apostle here referreth all vnto Gods mercie Martyr 3. neither can that be a cause of election which is an effect thereof for to beleeue and to be obedient are effects of election then the foresight thereof cannot be the cause Pere dsiput 7. err 39. 4. Neither is this onely an Hebrew phraise signifying the same thing as Tolet ibid. as the Hebrewes for more vehemencie sake doe expresse the same thing by an emphaticall repetition neither yet are these words so curiously to be distinguished with Anselme as to referre thē to Gods mercy in calling in beleeuing in working that whom he sheweth mercy vpon in calling he will shew further mercie in giuing grace to beleeue and whom he giueth grace vnto beleeue they shall haue grace also to worke by their faith Lyranus and Pererius vnderstand the three degrees of Gods mercie in predestinating in giuing present grace and glorie to come and so make this the sense I will haue mercie in giuing grace to him on whom I haue mercie in electing him and to whom I giue finall grace I will shew mercie in giuing him future glorie Iunius much differeth not I will haue mercie ex facto in fact and indeed vpon whom I haue mercie decreto in my decree of election parallel 11. But Pareus better sheweth the reason of the ingemination and repeating of these words to shew 1. this mercie gratuitam to be franke and free and that there can be no reason or cause yeilded why God sheweth mercie but his owne gracious inclination to mercie 2. arbitrariam that it is arbritarie depending onely vpon the will of God 3. constantem that it is constant and immutable where he sheweth mercie he will haue mercie to the end 4. immensam this mercie is infinite and without measure not onely in bestowing one grace but many 5. Further it is to be obserued that thought the same word to haue mercie be reteined both in the Greeke translation of the Septuagint and in the latine in both partes of the sentence yet in the Hebrew there are two words the one in the former clause of the sentence canan which signifieth to shew grace and fauour the other in the latter part is racham to shew bowels of compassion and beside the Septuagint doe put the verbe in the present-tense in the latter part of both the clauses whereas in the originall the same tense and time is kept in both but this is no great difference the sense still notwithstanding remaineth the same 6. This then is the Apostles meaning whereas it was obiected that if God elect some and not others their case beeing the same the Lord
father as Rom. 1.23 2. Cor. 1.3 and 11.31 2. Not euery one that is called God in Scripture is consequently that chiefe and great God 3. Christ is said to be ouer all that is men as the most excellent man of all not ouer all whatsoeuer 4. He is said to be ouer all with a limitation for he is not ouer him that hath subdued all things vnto him 1. Cor. 15.27 5. And in that he is ouer all he hath it not by nature but of gift Philip. 2.9 Contra. Erasmus seemeth first to haue giuen occasion to these newfangled Dogmatists who likewise in his annotations vpon this place thinketh this Scripture not so fit to prooue the diuine nature of Christ adding that herein there is no daunger seeing there are more direct places to prooue Christs Godhead by But Pet. Martyr here answeareth well non convenit vt Ecclesiae armamentarium sine causa exhauriatur c. it is not conuenient that the armorie of the Church should without cause be diminished seeing the fathers as Origen Chrysost Theophylact Cyprian cont lud lib. 2. c. 5. Hilarius in Psal. 122. doe all alleadge this place for the proofe of Christs deitie it is not fit that we should suffer it to be wrestled out of our hands their cauills are thus answeared 1. Where the father is said to be blessed for euer the Sonne is not excluded and in some places Christ is said expressely to be blessed for euer as Matth. 21.9 Blessed is be that commeth in the name of the Lord and if the Creator be blessed for euer Christ is included by whom all things were created Ioh. 1. Coloss. 1. 2. He which is said to be God ouer all as Christ here must of necessitie be that chiefe and great God 3. Some indeede reade super omnia ouer all things as Origen the Syrian and Latine interpreter and this is agreeable to that place Coloss. 1.17 He is before all things and in him all things consist and the Apostle nameth both things visible and invisible and so Origen well expoundeth he is aboue all things that is powers principalities and euerie thing that is named 4. He is aboue all things that is all creatures and aboue all as the father is aboue all and yet neither aboue the Sonne or the holy Ghost the father then is here excepted for Christ and his father are one non post patrem ipse sed de patre he is not after the father but of the father Origen 5. S. Paul in that place speaketh of the exaltation of Christ as he is Mediator and according to his humane nature and so he hath it by gift but as he is God he is ouer all by his eternall generation as the onely begotten Sonne of God Controv. 4. That the water in Baptisme doth not sanctifie or giue grace Chrysostome sheweth here a fit analogie and resemblance betweene the birth of Izaak oâ— Sara by the word of promise v. 9. and our spirituall regeneration in baptisme the barren wombe of Sarah he likeneth to the water which of it selfe hath no efficacie erat vterni ille aqua frigidior propter sterilitatem senectutem that wombe was more vnapt for generation then water because of the barrennesse and old age thereof like as then Izaak was borne of that barren wombe by the word of promise ita nos oportet ex verbo nasci so we are borne of the word To this purpose Chrysostome who maketh the element of water of it selfe but a dead thing and like vnto Sarahs barren wombe which could not haue conceiued but by the word of promise So the Apostle saith Ephes. 5.25 Cleansing it by the washing of water thorough the word the water cleanseth but by the operation of the word This then ouerthroweth that opinion of the Romanists which affirme that the sacramentall signe in the sacraments conferre grace See further hereof Synops. Centur. 2. err 76. Controv. 5. Against the vaine observation of Astrologers in casting of nativities v. 10. Rebecca when she had conceiued by one c. Augustine lib. 2. de doctrin Christian. c. 21. by this Scripture confuteth the folly of Mathematicians who in casting of mens natiuities doe obserue the aspect of the planets and so doe calculate and coniecture of the disposition of men for Esau and Iacob were borne at the same time of one and the same parents and yet they were of diuerse dispositions and qualities and conditions of life Controv. 6. That the soules had no beeng in a former life before they came into the bodie It was Origens error who therein did too much Platonize that the soules in the former life according to their workes good or euill were accordingly appointed of God to saluation or damnation But this error is euidently conuinced by the Apostle here for Esau and Iacob had neither done good nor euill before they were borne Lyranus addeth two other reasons to convince this error 1. if there had beene an other life before then the world was not created in the beginning as it is said Gen. 1.1 for that the soules had a beeing and beginning before 2. and temporale non potest esse causa aeterni no temporall thing can be the cause of that which is eternall the actions then and workes of the soule could not be the cause of the act of Gods eternall will Controv. 7. Whether the foresight of faith or workes be the cause of election This was in time past maintained by the followers of the Pelagian sect as it appeareth by the epistles of Prosper and Hilarius Arelatens sent to Augustine and not much differing is the opinion of the Greeke expositors as Theodoret in these words that the purpose of God might remaine according to election vnderstandeth the purpose of men foreseene of God according to the which he electeth But the Apostle euidently calleth it the purpose of God and therefore not of men Chrysost. and Photius cited by Oecumenius doe here vnderstand the purpose of God but where it is added according to election they say this election presupposeth a difference and diuersitie of wills foreseene of God The late Lutherans tread in the same steppesâ— who at the first did hold that the foresight of faith was the cause of election but now they haue somewhat refined that assertion and their opinion now is fidem non esse electionis causam meritoriam sed instrument alem that faith is not the meritorious but the instrumentall cause of election their arguments are these 1. Argum. Photius thus reasoneth electio de illis fit qui aliqua in re differunt election is said to be of those which differ in some thing God then did see some difference in them which he elected from others Contra. 1. Augustine at the first was somewhat mooued with this argument which made him deuise an other sense of the Apostles words to this effect that it was said vnto the children beeing not yet borne and before they had done either good
Pet. 1.10 2. for one to be a reprobate and yet to repent are contraries for he that is a reprobate can neuer haue grace to repent and he that hath grace truely to repent may be assured he is no reprobate Obiect 9. But if God haue foreseene the sinnes of the reprobate and that which God foreseeth must needs come to passe then the reprobate sinne of necessitie they cannot doe otherwise how then can they be iustly punished for that which they cannot auoid Ans. There is a double kind of necessitie the one is called antecedens necâ—â—â—â—â—tas an antecedent necessitie or going before which proceedeth from necessarie and working causes as when a thing is forced by violence and strength as a stone out of the hand it is necessarie it should goe there is consequens necessitas a following necessitie or by way of consequent which is vpon supposition of the effect as when we see one fit this beeing supposed that we see him fit it is now necessarie beeing done and yet he was not forced to fit so it is in this case the reprobate doe sinne necessarily not by a necessitie forcing their will but an infallible necessitie following the effect for they therefore sinne not because God did foresee they would sinne but therefore God foresaw it because they would sinne The reprobate then do sinne freely without any compulsion and therein are guiltie though they were foreseene to sinne and because of the corruption of their nature could doe no other And thus is this doctrine deliuered from all those cauils and obiections and man iâ— found onely to be the cause of his owne ruine and destruction but the beginning of our saluation is from God according to that saying of the Prophet Hoshea c. 13.9 perditio tâ—â— ex te Israel salus ex me thy perdition O Israel is of thy selfe thy salvation of me and so I ende and conclude this point with that saying of Tertullian Deus de suo optimus de nostro iustus c. God is good and mercifull of his owne and iust in that which is ours c. lib. de resurrect that is the originall of mercie is from God but the occasion of his iustice is from sinne which is of our selues Controv. 11. Of the difference betweene the decree of election and reprobation and of the agreement betweene them Whereas in both these there are two things to be considered the decree and the execution thereof here are diuerse opinions Some will haue a correspondencie in election and reprobation in both and these also are deuided Some only in the former that is the decree Some will haue a difference in both as well in the manner of the decree as in the execution 1. Of the first opinion were the Pelagians and some of the Romanists which hold that both the decree of election is grounded vpon the foresight of faith and the good vse of freewill as also the execution of that decree in the giuing of eternall life they will haue procured by good works as reprobation both in the decree and execution proceedeth from sinne and the foresight thereof So the whole worke of election they will haue to take beginning from man as reprobation doth Thus the Rhemists hold that election is not without the condition and respect to workes annot Heb. c. 5. sect 7. Becanus the new diuinitie Reader in Mentz hath this assertion that predestination is ex praescientia conditionata c. of a conditionall prescience whereby God foresaw that one would well vse the grace offered and not an other c. 1. de praedestinat loc 5. But herein other Romanists do dissent from them as Bellarmine Tolet Pererius as hath beene shewed before controv 7. 2. Other Romanists will haue an agreement both in the decree and execution but after an other manner as Pererius following Thom. Aquin. disput 5. numer 34. disput 12. numer 66. saith that God is the cause of reprobation as well as election quantum ad duo principium terminum in respect of these two the beginning and the ende concerning the beginning which is the decree he saith there is nulla causa meritoria ex parte hominis no meritorious cause of either on mans behalfe but in respect of the last effect there is a meritorious cause in man both of his good works vnto eternall life and of euill workes to condemnation But Pererius in two points is farre wide both in making good workes meritorious of eternall life which is the free gift of God Rom. 6.23 and in assigning the beginning or first cause of reprobation and so of condemnation in the will of God and not in the sinne of man contrarie to that saying of the Prophet alleadged before Hos. 13.9 Thy perdition is of thy selfe O Israel as their Latine text readeth 3. Some doe make great difference in the execution of these decrees for good workes are not meritorious of saluation as euill workes are of damnation the reason of which difference is because euill workes are perfitly euill but our good workes are imperfect and so not proportionable to the most excellent and perfect reward and good workes are not our owne nor of our selues as euill workes are and therefore they merit not but the decree as well of election as reprobation they hold to be alike without any relation vnto workes good or euill thus worthie Calvin Beza Martyr with other of our learned new writers 4. But it is the safer way thoroughout from the beginning of the decree to the execution to hold a perpetuall difference betweene election and reprobation that we are elected freely without respect vnto faith or workes for otherwise we should haue chosen God first and not he vs and so we are also saued freely not for our workes and yet neither without them But in the way of damnation neither were the wicked decreed to be condemned neither yet shall they actually be condemned but for their sinne and the foresight thereof 1. because the beginning of damnation is from man but the decree of reprobation is the beginning of damnation therefore that decree must proceed from the foresight of something worthie of damnation in man 2. that for the which God condemneth man he decreed him to be condemned but for sinne is man condemned 3. otherwise if it it were Godâ— absolute will to reiect more then he electeth his iustice should exceede his mercie see before contr 10. Controv. 12. Whether mercie be a naturall propertie in God or an effect onely of his will against Socinus v. 18. He hath mercie on whom he will Socinus that blasphemous heretike lib. 1. c. 1. by occasion of these words goeth about to prooue that Mercie is not a naturall propertie in God but a voluntarie act 1. Because the Apostle saith He hath mercie on whom he will 2. God alwaies vseth his naturall properties but mercie he alwaies sheweth not as toward impenitent sinners 3. Contrarie properties are not naturally in God but his mercie
and iustice are contrarie therefore they are not both naturally in God 4. Naturall properties are not vnequally in God but his iustice and mercie are vnequall for his mercie exceedeth his iustice 5. Mercie is nothing els but a griefe conceived vpon an others miserie but there is no such thing in God Contra. Before these arguments be answeared these considerations must be premised 1. that mercie is otherwise in God then in man in man indeede it is a griefe or compassion conceiued vpon an others miserie but in God it is onely a propension and readinesse of the diuine will to helpe those which are in miserie 2. Mercie in God either signifieth the inclination power facultie and propertie to shewe mercie and this is naturall in God or the act and exercising of that propertie toward the creature and this is so naturall in God as yet it is directed by his will 3. a thing is said to be naturall two wayes either that which onely proceedeth from the instinct of nature as the fire naturally burneth or that whereunto nature inclineth yet not without direction of the will as thus a man is said to speake to vnderstand naturally So God is both wayes naturally mercifull in himselfe the first way toward his creatures the second now to the arguments we answear 1. The Apostle speaketh not of the naturall propertie but of the act of mercie which is directed by the will of God 2. all the naturall properties which are in God he alwaies vseth not nor towards all as his iustice power long animitie mercie they are alwaies in God but he exerciseth them as it pleaseth him 3. iustice and mercie are not contrarie but crueltie is opposed to mercie neither is there any contrarietie in God but in the effects in diuerse subiects as the Sunne with the same heat mollifieth the waxe and hardeneth the clay 4. neither are these properties vnequall in God but the effects and acts onely are vnequall as it pleaseth God to dispose in his freewill 5. humane mercie is such as is described but the diuine mercie is of an other nature as hath beene shewed now the contrarie arguments that mercie is a naturall propertie in God are these 1. The Scripture describeth God by his mercie Exod. 34. he is called the father of mercie rich in mercie God is described by his naturall properties 2. all vertues in God are essentiall and naturall but mercie is one of Gods vertues 3. iustice is naturall in God but mercie is a part of Gods vniuersall iustice 4. mercie and compassion is naturall in men they which haue it not are called inhumane they are beasts rather then men therefore much more is it naturall in God for euery good thing in the creature proceedeth from the fountaine of goodnes in the Creator See more hereof in Pareus dub 12. Controv. 13. Whether the mercie of God in the forgiuenesse of sinne be an effect of Gods free and absolute will onely and be not grounded vpon Christ against the heresie of Socinus and Ostorodius v. 18. He hath mercie on whom he will Blasphemous Socinus and Ostorodius a Samosatenian heretike directly impugning the eternall dietie of Christ by occasion of these words doe affirme that God of his free mercie without any satisfaction purchased by Christs death forgiueth sinnes vnto the penitent Socinus first maketh these and such like obiections 1. The Apostle here saith he hath mercie on whom he will therefore of his owne will be remitteth sinnes without Christ. 2. He doth forgiue sinnes for his owne sake Isai. 43.25 therefore not for Christ. 3. If God should forgiue sinnes for Christs satisfaction then both mercie and iustice should be seene at once in the worke of our saluation by Christ. 4. God may remit sinnes without satisfaction for he may depart from his right and remit of his owne as it pleaseth him 5. God requireth onely repentance and innocencie of life in them whose sinnes are pardoned and he forgiueth onely for that which he requireth 6. Many examples are extant in the old Testament of sinnes pardoned and mercie shewed without Christ as in Abel Henoch and others that pleased God by faith beleeuing onely that God is that he is a rewarder of the righteous Heb. 11.6 therefore without Christ. 7. God promiseth Ierem. 31. to be mercifull vnto their iniquites and to remember them no more but where he requireth satisfaction for sinne he remembreth it and is not mercifull vnto it 8. We are commanded one to forgiue an other as God in Christ forgaue vs but we must forgiue without any satisfaction Ergo so God forgaue vs. 9. The remission of the debt excludeth all payment and satisfaction for it to this purpose Socinus lib. de Servator The other impious heretike thus also obiecteth 1. Gods loue is set forth to vs in Scripture before Christ died for vs Ioh. 3.16 Ephe. 1.4 but Christs satisfaction sheweth that God was offended with vs before 2. God did remit our sinnes freely by grace Rom. 3.24 but grace and satisfaction are contrarie 3. This doctrine of satisfaction by Christs death maketh God cruell that would not receiue mankind vnto his fauour but by the most cruell death of his Sonne 4. It maketh God a Tyrant in punishing the innocent for offenders 5. The Sonne should be more mercifull then his Father for he forgiueth without satisfaction so doth not his Father 6. If Christ had truely satisfied for vs he should haue suffered eternall death and so neuer haue risen againe which had beene impossible these and other such obiections this wicked Ostorodius hath in a booke written in the Germane tongue against Tradelius cited by Pareus dub 13. Contra. Before we come to answear these obiections the state of the question must first be opened 1. the question here is not of the power propertie and facultie of shewing mercie which is naturall in God and absolute in him without any condition 2. but of the act and exercising of this propertie which is either generall toward all creatures and toward all men both good and bad vpon whom he suffereth the sunne to shine and the raine to fall Matth. 5.45 or speciall toward the elect in giuing them his grace and forgiuing their sinnes whereof the Apostle speaketh Tit. 3.4 When the bountifulnes and loue of God our Sauiour toward men appeared c. according to his mercie be saued vs. 3. this speciall act of Gods mercie must be considered two wayes according to the causes foregoing which are none other but onely the good pleasure of God no merit of any creature no not of Christ himselfe was the cause of his mercie toward the elect but as the Apostle saith he hath mercie on whom he will but there are certaine conditions which doe accompanie or followe this free act of Gods loue and mercie for the effecting of the worke thereof in the sanctification and glorification of the elect which are these three the ransome made by Christ faith in the
Some giue this solution that there is no acception of persons in donis gratuitis in gifts of gratuitie and freely bestowed as election vocation are of the free gift of God he calleth and electeth whome he will but a person may be accepted in the distribution of that which doth of right appertaine vnto one and so the Lord accepteth no ma◠person but rewardeth euery one according to his worke Peter disput 6. numer 42. 2. Beza thus answereth that in the decree of election there can be no acception of persons when God electeth some before they haue any beeing and so are yet no person at all 3. But this answer is more full and sufficient there are three things to be considered in the accepting of persons 1. when some externall condition is respected beside the merit of the cause 2. and this is done contrarie to the law of equitie 3. and not without iniur◠done vnto an other when of partiall affection that is taken from one which is his right and adiudged to an other But none of these are seene in Gods election 1. he respecteth not any condition or qualitie in them which are elected but he maketh choice of them of his owne good pleasure 2. he is not tied to any law and so transgresseth no law 3. he doth not wrong vnto any in exempting some from destruction which in the rigour of his iustice is due vnto all like as Augustine putteth the case of two debters if the Creditour doe forgiue his debt vnto one and exact it of an other he doth no wrong it is free for him to doe what he will with his owne Matt. 20.15 Pareus Faius so as Augustine well determineth ibi acceptio personarum recte dicitur vbi ille qui iudicat relinquens causae meritum c. there acception of persons is rightly saide to be when he that iudgeth leauing the merit of the cause doth finde somewhat in the person for the which he giueth sentence with one against an other c. lib. 2. ad 2. epist. Pelagian c. 7. But to doth not God for he findeth no difference in the persons but all beeing in the same cause of damnation he of his owne free will forgiueth his debt vnto some and requireth it of others 4. Obiect But it is an accepting of persons as well cum aequalibus in aequalia tribnuntur c. when vnequall things are giuen to those which are equall in cause as when all are guiltie and yet one is saued an other condemned as when the persons are vnequall as the innocent condenmed and the guiltie freed God seemeth in the first kind to haue respect vnto persons freeing some from condemnation which belongeth in the rioour of Gods iustice to all Answ. 1. It is not simply an accepting of persons to giue vnequally where the cause is equall but when this is done with respect vnto some qualitie in the person as because he is rich or honourable or such like and the other is not But God doth not so he electeth some before other not for any respect to their persons but of his meere grace and fauour 2. betweene the decree of Gods election and the execution thereof there commeth the faith and pietie of the elect which maketh a manifest difference betweene them and the reprobate which freeth God from all partialitie who iudgeth men according to the qualitie of their workes See more afterward 3. addition to the places of doctrine 24. Quest. Of the meaning of these words v. 12. As many as haue sinned without the law shall perish without the law 1. Ambrose exposition here seemeth somewhat strange who vnderstandeth this not of the law of nature but of the law of Moses to the which the Gentiles were bound to giue assent and therefore duplici nomine sunt rei they are guiltie two waies because they did not giue assent vnto the law giuen by Moses nor receiued Christ c. Pererius refelleth this interpretation because the law of Moses did onely bind the Hebrewes neither were any of the Prophets commanded to publish the law of Moses to the Gentiles as afterward the Apostles were commanded to preach it to the Gentiles But Tolet somewhat qualifieth and excuseth Ambrose making this his meaning that he speaketh onely of the Gentiles who liued after the publishing and preaching of the Gospel who then were bound to beleeue and to receiue the writings of Moses and the Prophets which prophesied of Christ yet in this sense he thinketh that Ambrose expresseth not the Apostles full meaning who speaketh generally of the Gentiles both before and at the comming of Christ. 2. Chrysostome whome Anselme followeth doth interpret this to be iudged without a law levius puniri to be more easily punished for the Gentile hauing not the law as the Iew had is thereby somewhat excused But the Apostles purpose is not to shew any inequalitie of punishment betweene the Iew and Gentile but onely howsoeuer they are vnequall in knowledge yet because they are equall in sinne they shall both indifferently be punished 3. Some contrariwise doe make the case of the Gentiles more grieuous they shall perish without the law meaning the written law but the Iewes shall be iudged onely that is not punished eternally but for a time who afterward shall be saued this opinion is imputed to Origen hom 3. in Levit. and he insinuateth as much in his commentarie vpon this place Augustine reselleth this opinion concion 25. in Psal. 118. And it is euidently confuted by the saying of our Sauiour Matth. 11. that it shall be more easie for the Sodomites in the day of iudgement then for the vnbeleeuing Iewes Perer and they that haue done euill whether Iew or Gentile shall goe into euerlasting fire Matth. 25.46 Here then iudgement is taken for condemnation as it is vsuall in the Scripture as Ioh. 5.29 They that haue done euill shall come forth to the resurrection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of iudgement that is condemnation Tolet. 4. Pererius here maketh mention of the like opinion of certaine of their Catholikes who by iudging here vnderstand certaine transitorie paines in purgatorie which such shall endure but they shall not finally perish because they hold the foundation namely faith in Christ But Pererius confuseth them because the Apostle speaketh of such Iewes as beleeued not in Christ and therefore did not hold the foundation 5. Gregorie hath this obseruation vpon those words he maketh two degrees of those which shall be saued in the day of iudgement and two likewise of them which shall be condemned first alij iudicantur regnant some shall be examined first for their life and afterwards enter into Gods kingdome such as repented them of their former sinnes and did good workes such Christ shall say vnto for I was hungrie and ye gaue me meate c. alij electorum non iudicantur reginant others of the elect should not be iudged at all but presently reigne with Christ such are they
torments which had not sinned by their owne will in 9. c. Iob. so also Augustine but he saith mitissima omnium pana erit eorum their punishment shall be most gentle and easie of all other which beside originall sinne haue added none other sinnes c. and this may be safely affirmed with Augustine But that when followeth hath more doubt non audeo dicere quodijs vt nulli essent quà m vt ibi essent sotius expediret I dare not say that it were better for them not to be at all then to be there Augustine Enchirid. c. 93. Controv. 22. That Christs essentiall iustice is not infused into vs. v. 17. Much more shall they which receiue abundance of grace c. Osiander did hold not Lucas Osiander who hath written breefe annotations vpon the old and new Testament but another of that name before him that the iustice of Christ is some reall thing infused into the faithfull and that it was his essentiall iustice as he is God that is communicated to the faithfull ex Faio in v. 17. But the Apostle euidently refuteth this error c. 4.22 where he sheweth that it was imputed vnto Abraham for righteousnes because he beleeued in God if we are iustified by faith then not by the essentiall iustice of Christ which still remaineth in Christs person as the subiect thereof but the righteousnesse whereby we are iustified before God is the righteousnes of Christ as he is man which is apprehended by faith and this also is euident in this place where the Apostle ascribeth iustification to the abundance of grace receiued and how is it receiued but by faith Controv. 23. Against the patrones of vniuersall grace v. 18. By the iustifying of one the benefit abounded toward all men c. Hence of 〈◊〉 Huberus and before him the Pelagians would prooue that the benefit of iustification is as vniuersall toward all euen infidels and vnbeleeuers as the condemnation that came in by Adam for the Apostle on both sides nameth all for otherwise the benefite by Christ should be inferiour vnto the losse in Adam which redounded generally vpon all Contra. 1. This tearme of vniuersalitie all must be restrained according to the nature of the subiect as Adam transfused his sinne vnto all which were his ofspring so Christ also iustifieth all his that is all which beleeue in him so by all the Apostle vnderstandeth the vniuersall companie of the faithfull 2. the preheminence of the benefit consisteth not in the equalitie of the number that Christ should saue as many as are lost in Adam for then there should be onely an equalitie not a superioritie 3. But herein is the prerogatiue of grace seene 1. in the excellencie of the effect for life is a more excellent thing then death and righteousnesse then sinne 2. in the powerfulnesse of the worke it sheweth a greater power to saue then to destroie to iustifie then condemne for it is an easier matter to destroie then to saue to pull downe then to build vp to mortifie then to reviue and raise to life 3. the preheminence is in the amplitude and largnes of grace in that we are iustified not onely from one but all kind of sinnes as well actuall as originall whereas originall sinne is onely deriued from Adam See more hereof quest 15. Controv. 24. Against the Popish inherent iustice v. 9. So by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous c. The Romanists as Bellar. lib. 2. de iustificat c. 1. Pererius disputa 17. doe much vrge this argument against imputatiue iustice that we are not iustified by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed by faith but by an inherent righteousnesse wrought in vs by Christ whereby we are formally made iust because we are so made righteous and iust in Christ as we became sinners in Adam but that was not by imputation of Adams sinne but by sinne dwelling in them whereby they are formally made sinners therefore we are formally made righteous by an inherent iustice remayning in vs and not imputed onely Pererius further vrgeth the phrase iusti constituentur many shall be made iust which is not all one as to be reputed iust or to be iust by imputation but to be iust indeed Contra. 1. The comparison betweene Adams disobedience and Christs obedience doth hold verie well euen in this point of imputation for as there is in making of vs sinners both an imputation of Adams sinne to his posteritie as comming out of his loines as also an habituall prauitie and corruption of nature the effect thereof so their is a double operation of Christs obedience both it is imputed vnto vs by faith whereby we are iustified before God and thereby there is wrought in vs holines and righteousnesse which is our sanctification but by this because it is imperfect in this life we are not iustified before God 2. and whereas the Apostle vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constituentur shall be made or constituted iust we confesse that he meaneth they shall be made iust indeede in Christ but therefore the word is put in the future tence because in this life our sanctification is but begun it shall not be absolutely perfect till the next life when all imperfection and impuritie of our nature shall be cleane taken away and then shall we be made perfectly iust indeed See a more full answer to this obiection Synops. Centur. 4. er 56. 3. But if they shall further replie that we are rather made sinners by the reall corruption of our nature then by the imputation of Adams sinne and so consequently we should rather be iustified by an inherent righteousnesse then imputed onely we answer that herein appeareth the preheminence of grace that Christs righteousnesse onely imputed is more able to iustifie vs then Adams sinne onely imputed was to condemne vs. Controv. 25. That we are iustified both by the actiue and passiue obedience of Christ. Piscator in his annotations vpon this verse vrgeth this point that we are not iustified by the obedience of Christ in his life which was his actiue obedience but by his passiue obedience in his death because if we be iustified by his righteousnesse acted in his life then should he not haue needed to haue died for vs for beeing iustified alreadie by the righteousnesse of his life there was no cause for Christ to be punished for vs beeing alreadie made iust by his righteous life Contra. 1. Though the Apostle doe principally meane the particular obedience of Christ in submitting himselfe to his fathers will in his death to giue his life for his sheepe as it is opposed to Adams particular disobedience in eating of the forbidden fruite which was in re facillima in a thing most easie to haue beene kept whereas Christs obedience was in re dissicillima in a most hard difficult thing to giue himselfe for vs euen vnto death yet this his particular obedience in his death depended vpon the generall obedience of
euill but all good workes are of grace for God worketh in vs both the will and the deed Phil. 2.13 and that euen good workes which are of grace are excluded the Apostle sheweth elsewhere Ephes. 2.8 By grace are ye saued c. not of workes least any man should boast of himselfe for ye are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes c. 2. The Apostle indeed speaketh of the election of grace but yet the rule is generall that grace and workes in the matters of saluation cannot be matched together for he prooueth election to be of grace and not of workes by his generall axiome or proposition because that which is of grace cannot be of workes and if election be of grace and not of workes then euerlasting life also which dependeth of our election must of necessitie be of grace also Argum. 4. That which is of workes is by debt as the Apostle saith Rom. 4.4 To him that worketh the wages is not counted by fauour but by debt But God is endebted to no man therefore life eternall is not of workes because it is not by debt Answer Pererius here answereth by indistinction that there is a lawfull kind of meriting de condigno of worthines the one is perfect and absolute which presupposeth no gift of grace whereof it dependeth such were the workes of Christ which were absolutely meritorious ex rigore iustitiae euen according to the strict rule of iustice by the reason of the excellencie of his diuine nature beeing vnited in one person to his humanitie there is another kind of merit ex suppositione diuinae gratiae vpon the presupposall of diuine grace so the workes of men proceeding of grace and their free will working together are merita apud Deâ—â—â— merites with God like as naturall things though they haue that vertue and actiuitie from God are the true causes of their effects Pere disput 10. numer 53. Contra. 1. This answer ouerthroweth it selfe for if mens good workes proceed of the grace and gift of God then cannot God be any waies endebted for his owne as Dauid saith 1. Chron. 29.14 All things come of thee and of thine owne hand haue we giuen thee and the Apostle saith Rom. 11.35 Who hath giuen vnto him first and he shall be recompenced if then we might challenge any thing at Gods hands as a debt by way of recompence we must first giue vnto him 2. There is not the like reason of naturall and supernaturall things the naturall causes haue their vertue at once from God and then they afterward worke according vnto that nature and propertie wherewith they were once endued but in supernaturall the grace of God is necessarie ad omnes actus to euery act as the horse when he goeth of his owne accord is the naturall cause of his going but the order that directeth him is the cause of his going in the way and of his going to such a place so grace is the cause of our well doings we concurre indeed as naturall causes of the action but the goodnes of the action is onely from God 3. God then is not endebted vnto man for the merite of his worke neither in iustice in respect of vs is he bound to recompence vs but yet he is another way endebted in respect of his promise and so it is iust with him in regard of his word and promise to performe that which he hath promised which promise he made onely of his free grace and this point is touched also by Pererius praesertius vero adiuncta Dei promissione de remunerandis c. especially the promise of God being adioyned for the rewarding of the good workes of the righteous c. in regard of this promise we graunt which is meerely of grace not for the merite of the worke the Lord worketh himselfe a voluntarie debter of eternall life Argum. 5. The Apostle saith Rom. 8.18 That the afflictions of this present life are not worthie of the glorie which shall be shewed c. here he euidently sheweth that our workes are not meritorious or worthy of eternall life Answer Pererius here also thus distinguisheth that workes may three wayes be considered in respect of the naturall cause as they proceed from mans freewill in respect of the matter wherein they are expressed and the time of continuance which are but temporall and for a time and thirdly as they are wrought in vs by the grace of God in the two first respects they haue no cause of merit but in the third conuenientem habent proportionem equalitatis dignitatis c. they haue a fit proportion of equalitie and worthines with the reward of eternall life thus Pere disput 11. Contra. 1. The verie scope of the place taketh away this distinction for the Apostle v. 17. saith If we suffer with Christ c. he speaketh of such sufferings and afflictions as are endured for Christ which are the workes of grace for a man of himselfe without grace cannot suffer for Christ therefore euen good workes as they proceed in vs of grace are not meritorious or worthy of eternall life 2. Good workes are so farre from beeing meritorious causes of eternall life that they are not alwaies and in all causa sine qua non the cause without the which we cannot attaine vnto life as in infants and in them which are of yeares though without good workes they cannot be saued yet good workes are rather a beginning of eternall life then the cause thereof 3. To conclude this point therefore in a merit there must fowre things concurre 1. it must be a free seruice which we otherwise are not bound vnto 2. it must be of our owne 3. it must be perfect 4. it must be proportionable to the reward But our workes faile in all these 1. we can performe nothing vnto God but that we are alreadie bound to doe 2. neither haue we any good thing of our owne which we haue not receiued 3. and our best workes are imperfect 4. and betweene our temporall seruice and an euerlasting reward there is no proportion therefore we cannot merite See more hereof Synops. Centur. 4. er 79. 6. Morall obseruations Observ. 1. Of perseuerance v. 4. So we also walke in newnes of life Origen hence well collecteth that this newnes of life semel facta non sufficiat once done sufficeth not ipsa novitas innovanda est this newnes must still be renewed from day to day as the Apostle saith 2. Cor. 4.16 our inward man is renewed daily for as that which waxeth old is euery day oulder and oulder so that which is new must continually be renewed otherwise it ceaseth to be new so that we must walke on still perseuere and encrease in this newnes of life Observ. 2. Of the continuall strife with sinne v. 13. Neither giue your members weapons The Apostle vsing this phrase of weapons sheweth that there is a warre in vs some fight for sinne and make their members weapons
is most probable and commeth nearest to the truth the former reasons may demonstrate to any of vnderstanding Quest. 35. How we are said to be saued by hope v. 24. 1. For the coherence of these words 1. Chrysostome thinketh the Apostle maketh mention of hope because he had spoken before of the excellent graces of the spirit which he called the first fruits ne omnia in hoc tempore quaereremus left we should make accouÌ„t of all things as present 2. some make this as a reason of the sighing and longing of the faithfull because they haue onely yet things in hope Tolet. 3. Martyr thinketh the Apostle answeareth an obiection how it may stand with the condition of children to sigh and grone because yet they haue their saluation but in hope 4. some make the obiection this how can it be said that we waile for our adoption seeing we are alreadie the adopted sonnes of God in Christ and so the answer shall be that we haue these things onely in hope Rolloch Piscator 5. But it is rather an other argument of consolation to moue the faithfull patiently to beare their tribulations from the nature of hope Pareus Gryneus 2. Hope is taken three waies in Scripture 1. it signifieth generally the doctrine of faith as 1. Pet. 1.15 be readie to giue an answer to euery man that asketh a reason of that hope which is in him 2. hope is taken for the obiect of hope the thing hoped for as Gal. 5.5 we wait for the hope of righteousnes through faith afterward in this place hope that is seene that is the thing hoped for is no hope 3. it betokeneth that godly affection of the mind in hoping for that which is promised and beleeued Gryneus 3. Saluation is taken sometime for iustification in this life Tit. 3.5 Not by the workes of righteousnesse c. but according to his mercie he saued vs But here it signifieth the perfection and happie estate both of soule and bodie in the kingdome of heauen Pere disp 16. 4. But these words of the Apostle must not be so taken as though we had onely things in hope and nothing in possession for we are now iustified by faith and sanctified by the spirit but the perfection and accomplishment of these things we haue onely in hope Martyr 5. And two conditions are considered in the things hoped for that it is both difficult for if it were easie and in our owne power we would not hope for it and beside though it be hard and difficult yet is it not impossible for then we should despaire altogether and neuer hope for it Martyr and hereunto adde a third qualitie required in hope it selfe that it is not wauering and doubtfull for that is contrarie to the nature of hope but it is certaine and firme and therefore is it called the ankor of the soule Heb. 6.19 6. We are saide to be saued by hope not efficienter not as though it were the cause of saluation but consequenter in respect of the sequele and consequent that after we haue patiently waited and expected by bope that the thing hoped for will certainely follow Quest. 36. Of the difference betweene faith and hope They differ three waies 1. ordine in order and prioritie 2. operatione in the worke and operation and obiecto in the obiect 1. Faith goeth before hope and begetteth hope as the Apostle defineth hope Heb. 11.1 it is the ground hypostasis or foundation of things hoped for for first we beleeue the things promised then we hope for them and in the third place followeth our loue and delight in them yet faith is not the efficient cause of hope the spirit of God is the author efficient and working cause of all these graces but the way and manner of working them is according to this order that first we haue faith then by faith the spirit bringeth vs to hope 2. The operation of them is diuerse for it is the proper effect of faith to iustifie vs and assureth vs of remission of sinnes in Christ but hope doth not iustifie vs it doth by patience vphold and support the soule in the expectation of the finishing of that which is begunne in vs by faith 3. The obiect of them both doth differ 3. waies modo gradu tempore in the manner the measure or degree and the time 1. in the manner for faith relyeth vpon the promise it selfe hope resteth in the thing promised 2. in the measure initium salutis fide habetâ—r complementum spe the beginning of saluation is had and obtained by faith the complement and perfection thereof by hope 3. in the time for faith apprehendeth the promise of remission of sinnes and iustification as present hope is exercised in the expectation of eternall life to come Quest. 37. Whether things hoped for cannot be seene It will be here thus obiected 1. we looke for heauens and earth in the next world but they are seene Origen answeareth that they are not these heauens and earth which are now visible which we looke for but other heauens and earth as Saint Peter saith we looke for new heauens and new earth 2. Pet. 3.13 for as touching these visible heauens and earth they shall passe away Matth. 5.18 2. Obiect Stephen saw the heauens open and Iesus sitting at the right hand of God Act. 7. he saw that which he hoped for Gorrhan answeareth he saw indeed gloriam Christi non suam the glorie of Christ but not his owne glorie hope is of those things which belong vnto a man himselfe he saw the glorie of Christ which shall be communicated to his members but his participation of that glorie he saw not but hoped for it 3. Obiect Saint Paul was taken vp into the third heauen and heard things not possible to be vttered and beeing there he likewise saw the glorie of Christ. Ans This was not any corporall sight but a spirituall vision and sight for Saint Paul determineth not whether his spirit were then in the bodie or out of the bodie when he was so taken vp 4. Obiect A man running in a race may set his eie vpon the price which he runneth for â—â— hopeth to obtaine Caietan answeareth that there are two things considered in that which is hoped for materiale the materiall part the thing it selfe and formale the formal part which is the possession and obtaining of it the first may be seene the second is not seene but onely hoped for Quest. 37. What spirit is said to helpe our infirmities v. 26. 1. Chrysostome by the spirit vnderstandeth the spirituall gift of prayer that whereas the Church was in heauines and much perplexed then he which had the gift of praier did rise vp and by framing of a praier shewed the people how and what they should pray for But thus it may be be excepted against this sense 1. the spirit is not thus taken throughout this Chapter and diuersely in the same place to vnderstand the same word is
of merit is an act of iustice and iustice is a kind of equalitie where there is no equalitie there is no iustice and so no merit Thom. in 1. secund qu. 114. ad 1. 4. If the sufferings of this life are neither in quantitie nor qualitie proportionable to the glorie which shall be reuealed then can they not be meritorious for betweene the merite and reward there must be a proportionable equalitie and an equall proportion Notwithstanding then all these cauillous answers this place of the Apostle that the sufferings of this time present are not worthie of the glorie is verie pregnant to ouerthrow the merite of the sufferings and other workes whatsoeuer of the Saints in respect of the reward of euerlasting life Controv. 13. That hope iustifieth not v. 24. We are saued by hope by this place both the Rhemists here in their annotations and Pererius numer 82. doe inferre that faith doth not onely iustifie but that hope and charitie doe iustifie as well as faith as here the Apostle saith we are saued by hope Contra. This cauill may diuersely be remooued 1. by beeing saued the Apostle vnderstandeth not to be iustified for our iustification is presently had and possessed but by saluation he signifieth the perfection and accomplishment of our redemption and adoption in Christ therefore they would deceiue vs by the homonymie and diuerse takings of the word to be saued sometime signifieth to be iustified Tit. 3.5 but so it is not here 2. We must vnderstand the Apostle to speake of hope as ioyned with saith hope hath relation to faith by the which we are iustified freely D. Fulk And when as these things as our iustification saluation are ascribed to hope or charitie we must so take it that the manner of our iustification is shewed not by the causes but by the effects like as then in the will we looke to the foundation in a tree to the roote so when the Scripture setteth forth any commendation of hope and loue we must looke vnto faith from whence they spring and without the which they cannot stand Mar. 3. The Apostle doth not here treat of the cause of iustification sed quo fulcro in ea iustitia sustentemur quae nobis per fidem obtingit but by what prop we are sustained and vpheld in that righteousnesse which happeneth vnto vs by faith Gualter so that hope is not the cause of saluation but it is as the way and meanes whereby saluation begunne in vs by faith is brought vnto perfection Controv. 14. Whether hope doth relie vpon the merite of our workes The Master of the sentences affirmeth lib. 3. sperare sine meritis non spem esse sed praesumptionem that to hope without merits is not hope but presumption so also Gorrhan illud quod ex meritis patienter expectatur c. that which is patiently expected by merits is most certainely had and obtained of God they reason thus Argum. 1. S. Paul affirmeth that patience bringeth forth experience or triall or probation and experience hope Rom. 5.4 if hope then arise of our patience and experience it hath dependance of our workes Ans. 1. It is euident that Saint Paul doth not in that place make his gradation by the causes for tribulation is not the cause of patience seeing many by tribulation are driuen to despaire but the Apostle onely setteth downe the order of those instruments which the spirit of God vseth to worke hope in vs thereby 2. and properly hope causeth patience not patience hope for the Martyrs if they were not thereto enduced by hope could neuer endure such vnspeakeable torments like as the Marchant would neuer put himselfe into such daungers by Sea if the hope of gaine mooued him not thereunto and so S. Iames sheweth that the probation and triall of our faith bringeth forth patience c. 3. faith beeing tried and prooued by affliction worketh patience and faith bringeth forth hope 3. yet we denie not but that as hope originally causeth patience so by our patience and experience our hope is also the more strengthened and confirmed Now on the contrarie that it is but a weake and indeed a false hope which dependeth vpon workes it is thus euident 1. because by this meanes hope should be contrarie to faith which iustifieth a man freely without relation to his workes if hope then should be tied to the condition of workes it should be opposite to faith 2. our workes are imperfect if hope be built vpon an imperfect and vncertaine ground it can haue no certaintie in it selfe 3. Some are conuerted to God hauing no good workes as the theefe vpon the crosse yet he had hope in Christ praying vnto him to be remembred in his kingdome Controv. 15. Against the naturall power and integritie of mans will v. 26. We know not what to pray as we ought this ouerthroweth that error of the Pelagians who ascribed vnto man power by nature to keepe the law of God but how can this be seeing a man cannot tell how to pray as he should if he be not ayded by the grace of Gods spirit he must needes come short of keeping the law that faileth in this principall part of Gods seruice namely prayer for if a man know not of himselfe how to pray and so cannot serue God as he ought he faileth in a cheef part of the law of God And wheras there are three degrees in the proceeding of euery action the thought conceiueth the wil consenteth the act work persiteth none of al these are in mās power not the first we are not able of our selues to thinke any thing and it is God which worketh both the other namely the will and the deed Phil. 1.13 And as these places doe exclude this heresie of the Pelagians who extoll the power of nature altogether so also they ouerthrow the error of the Semipelagians the Papists who ioyne freewill and grace as workes together Controv. 16. That predestination dependeth not vpon the foresight of faith or good workes v. 16. Those whom he knew before he also predestinate Chrysostome and other Greeke expositors following him as Theophylact Theodoret Oecumenius hence inferre that Gods prescience is the cause of predestination praeuidet Deus c. God first foreseeth who are meete and worthy to be called and then he doth predestinate them so also Ambrose and Heirome in their Commentaries vpon this place doe interpret that to be the purpose of God whereby he decreed to call vnto the faith those whom he foresaw would beleeue Lyranus saith that Gods prescience is praeambulum ad praedestinationem a preamble and as an inducement to predestination The Lutherans doe somewhat incline vnto this opinion as Osiander in his annotation here quos antequam nascerentur c. praeuidit c. whom in his infinite wisedome he foresaw such as should please God c. The moderne Papists are not here all of one opinion The most learned among them doe affirme election by grace ante
omnium operum prouisionem before the foresight of any workes Bellar. lib. 2. de grat c. 10. and Pererius is of the same iudgement disput 22.23 vpon this chapter but our Rhemists are more grosse in this point they say that Christ hath not appointed men by his absolute election c. without any condition or respect of their workes Hebr. c. 5. sect 7. Now this opinion that predestination is grounded vpon the foresight of faith or good workes is thus euidently confuted Argum. 1. That which is Gods worke in man is no cause in mans behalfe why he should be elected but faith and to beleeue is the worke of God Ioh. 6.29 This is the worke of God that yee beleeue c. Ephes. 2.8 By grace are ye saued through faith not of your selues it is the gift of God therefore the foresight of faith is not the cause of election 2. Argum. That which is the effect of predestination is not the cause but faith and good workes are the fruit and effect as Act. 13.48 As many as were ordained to eternall life beleeued he saith not as many as were foreseene to beleeue were ordained c. Eph. 2.4 He hath chosen vs that we should be holy it is the end and fruit of our election our holines therefore not the procuring or inducing cause 3. Argum. There is one and the same reason and manner and cause of election vnto all but some are saued without prouision or foresight of their workes as infants which die in their infancie for their good workes which are not could not be foreseene it cannot be here answered that their good workes are foreseene which they would haue done if they had liued for if one may be elected for the foresight of good workes which he might haue done by the same reason one might be condemned vpon the foresight of euill works which he might haue committed but this standeth not with the iustice of God 4. Argum. First the end is propounded then the meanes are thought of as tending to that end the meanes are no inducement to decree or set downe the end of a thing life eternall is the end the meanes and way thereunto are faith and vertuous workes these then foreseene of God could not be a motiue to decree the end 5. Augustine was sometime of opinion that although God hath not chosen the good workes of men in his prescience elegit tamem fidem in praescientia yet in his prescience he made choice of faith in exposition huius epistol But afterward Augustine retracteth this opinion lib. 1. Retractat c. 23. ingeniously confessing nondum diligenter quaefieram c. quaenam sit electio gratiae I had not diligently enquired not found out what is the election of grace which is no grace si vlla merita praecedant if any merits goe before 6. Some Popish writers haue deuised how to reconcile Augustine with the rest of the fathers and they haue found out this distinction that there are two kinds of predestination one ad gratiam to receiue grace and this they say is without any foresight of faith or works and the other is ad gratiam vnto glorie and life eternall which proceedeth from the foresight of faith and workes of this kind of predestination speake the Greeke fathers and Augustine of the other Thus Ruard Tapper Dryedon Gabriel Vasquez as they are cited and approoued by Parerius disput 24. Contra. 1. Augustine euidently speaketh of predestination to eternall life where he deliuereth his first opinion of the foresight of faith for these are his words Quid elegit Deus in eo what did God elect in him whom he did predestinate vnto life eternall 2. That is a vaine and idle distinction for predestination comprehendeth both the ende and the meanes thereunto as the Apostle saith Ephes. 1.11 in whom we are chosen when we were predestinate c. that we which first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of his glorie here both the meanes to beleeue or trust in Christ and the end euerlasting glorie are both comprehended vnder predestination 3. in this distinction there is a vaine and absurd tautologie for who would aske this question whether the foresight of grace and faith in a man were the cause that God ordained him to haue grace and faith 7. Tolet to helpe out this matter saith that the foresight of faith as a motiue vnto election and the election by grace may well stand together for here faith foreseene is not considered as a merit but as causa sine qua non a cause without the which God hath purposed not to call those which shall be saued but notwithstanding it is bene placitum the good pleasure of God not the merit of man annot 31. Contra. In this question of predestination we must distinguish betweene the decree it selfe and the execution of the decree in the execution good workes are required not as a meritorious cause of life eternall but onely as such a cause without the which life eternall cannot be â—â—ad and this we graunt but if Gods decree should arise of any such foresight it is now an inducement and motiue not a cause onely sine quae non without the which not and so Gods good pleasure should not be the first cause higher then the which the Apostle goeth not Ephes. 1.5 if the foresight of faith or good workes should induce the Lord to elect for now election should not stand vpon the will and pleasure of God but vpon the will and inclination of man Controv. 17. Against the opinion of Ambrosius Catharinus concerning predestination This Popish writers opinion is that God hath ordained all men vnto eternall life yet with this difference Some he hath absolutely appointed vnto saluation without any condition whose head is Christ and then the blessed Virgin Marie the number of those thus predestinate is certaine and none of them can perish there is an other sort of men which are ordained vnto saluation not absolutely but vnder condition of their obedience vpon the foresight of their merits and some of those come vnto eternall life some doe not of this opinion Sixtus Senensis Catharinus scholar professeth himselfe to haue beene Biblioth lib. 6. annot 248. and that he preached it for tenne yeares together and in diuerse cheefe cities of Italie till he saw the inconuenience and manifold difficulties that would follow vpon that doctrine and then he gaue ouer Contra. This opinion hath diuerse absurdities 1. it alloweth some to be saued which are not predestinate vnto life contrarie to the Scripture which onely promiseth euerlasting deliuerance and saluation vnto them which are written in the booke of life Dan. 12.1 Reuel 17.8 c. 20.12 2. It maketh Gods ordinance and decree to be vncertaine that many whom he appointeth to saluation yet are not saued 3. it maketh a diuersitie in the ordinance of God to saluation that some are absolutely elected some vpon condition onely whereas there is one end and the
hath appointed as Ier. 51.11 God is said to haue raised vp the spirit of the King of the Medes against Babel and yet it is certaine that they sinned in this action which God stirred them vp vnto for God stirred them vp to one end to be ministers of his iudgements vpon that wicked nation but they therein satisfied onely their owne cruell and couetous mind as Isai 10.5 the Lord saith concerning Ashur I will giue him a charge against the people of my wrath c. but he thinketh not so they considered not wherefore the Lord 〈◊〉 them as the end of his wrath 4. Lastly the end must be considered wherefore God raised vp Pharaoh to a most holy and iust end for the setting forth of his glorie as the wise man saith Prov. 16.4 The Lord hath made all things for his owne sake yea euen the wicked against the day of euill In these foresaid respects God is said to haue raised vp and ordained Pharaoh without any touch of iniustice at all Quest. 18. How the Lord is said to harden whom he will v. 18. 1. Origen thinketh that this sentence is part of an obiection propounded in the person of some other and so also Chrysostome But it appeareth to be the Apostles owne assertion both by the note of illation therefore he hath mercie c. and because the obiection followeth in the next words v. 19. thou wilt say vnto me then which sheweth this to be no part of the obiection Beza Gryneus 2. Some thinke that God hardneth by permission onely as Oecumen indurat i. durâ—â—â— esse permittit he hardeneth that is suffereth and permitteth to be hardened so also Bellarmine permittit eos male agere he permitteth them to doe euill But this permission doth suppose God either otiosum vel invitum either to be idle and negligent or against his will to suffer things so it will cast vpon God either an imputation of negligence or indulgence as Heli permitted his sonnes to sinne or of impotencie in permitting things which he cannot hinder therefore this deuise of bare permission doth not satisfie 3. Nor yet did God harden him per patientiam by his patience in sparing to punish him Origen dilatione poenae by deferring of his punishment Basil in Oecumen for in this sense Pharaoh rather hardened his owne heart in abusing Gods longsuffering as the Apostle speaketh of those which through their hardnesse of heart despise the bountifulnesse of God Rom. 2.42 God cannot be said this way to harden it 4. Hierome thinketh that God doth harden the vessels of wrath and malâ—â—fieth the vessels of mercie causis praecedentibus vpon causes proceeding or going before because some beleeued in Christ some beleeued not Hierome epist. 150. resp ad qu. 10. But Pererius refuseth this opinion and vpon good ground because he maketh the wills and dispositions of men to be the first cause why God sheweth mercie on some and hardeneth others as the same heate of the Sunne mollifieth the wax and hardneth the clay whereas the Apostle soli voluntati diuinae aperte assignat doth manifestly assigne the cause to the onely will of God Pere disput 10. numer 55. 5. And farre be it from any to thinke that God is the proper efficient cause of the hardening of mans heart which is the worke of Sathan as Pererius slaundereth Calvin to say Deum causam esse efficientem indurationis that God is the efficient cause of the hardening of the heart c. And thus he challenging Calvin because he saith that this word to burden in Scripture signifieth not onely permission sed diuinae irae actionem but an action of the diuine wrath which is most true but yet as the hardning and hardnesse of the heart is sinne the Lord hath nothing to doe with it 6. Pererius thinketh that by hardening here we may vnderstand ipsam reprobationis originem the verie beginning of reprobation that is the will and purpose of God non miserandi not to shew mercie But hardening of the heart is an effect or consequence rather of reprobation then reprobation it selfe and thus he will make God the proper cause of this induration and hardening which he charged Calvin with before 7. To vnderstand therefore how God is said to harden the heart it must be considered that there are two degrees thereof desertio induritae the leauing and forsaking of men in their hardnes of heart which is either non apponendo vel subtrahendo gratiam in not giuing or in subtracting his grace as Augustine saith he hardeneth not impertiendo malitiam sed non impertiendo gratiam not by imparting malice but by not imparting his mercie and grace epistol 105. ad Sixtumi non quia irrogatur aliquod quo fit homo deterior sed quo ferrer melior non irrogatur not because any thing is irrogated to make man worse but nothing is irrogated to make him better â—lib 1. ad Simplici qu. 2. and he likeneth it to the freezing and congealing of the water by the absence of the Sunne which is done non impretiendo frigiditatem sed non apponendo calorem not by imparting coldnesse but in not putting to heat The other degree in hardening is inflictio grautoris duritiae the inflicting of a greater blindnesse and hardnes of heart which is done three wayes either immediately by God himselfe or mediately by Sathan or by themselues that are hardened and so we reade in Exodus that God is said 8. times to haue hardened Pharaohs heart and thrice Pharaoh hardened his owne heart and fiue times his heart is said simply to be hardened Pareus First God inflicteth the hardnesse of heart as a punishment when either inwardly he giueth them vp to their owne desires not onely in denying vnto them necessarie graces but so working by his invisible power that their corrupt wills are more and more hardened as it is said Reuel 22.11 He that is filthie let him be filthie still hardnesse then of heart as it is a punishment of former sinnes is iustly inflicted by God as Augustine saith prioribus meritia c. hoc redditum est Pharaoni vt cor eius induraretur this was giuen as a iust recompence to Pharaohs former euill merits in afflicting the people of God that his heart was hardened c. As hardnesse of heart is a punishment of former sinnes so it is of God And God by his immediate power hardeneth the heart two wayes 1. the generall facultio whereby euerie one mooueth and willeth this or that is of God Luther vseth this similitude as Pet. Martyr alleadgeth him like as the rider that forceth a lame and halting horse is the cause of his going but his halting pase proceedeth from the lamenesse of the horse so God hardeneth as the generall moouer but the euillnes of the action proceedeth from the corruption of man 2. But more then this God doth by a more speciall prouidence so ouerrule euen the hearts of wicked men that they are ordered
or euill the elder shall serue the younger least the purpose of God should remaine according to election which he supposeth to rise of some difference in the parties elected to this purpose Augustine lib. ad Simplician quest 2. But this parenthesis or interlaced sentence is â—â—tered by the Apostle affirmatively That the purpose of God might remaine c. it cannot therefore be drawne to a negatiue sense And indeede Augustine whether vpon this or some other reason otherwise expoundeth these words epist. 115. 2. But the best answear is that the proposition is not true for election in God presupposeth not a difference God may make election euen in things in themselues equall by the right of his Creatorship and make a difference as euidently appeareth in the creation of the world when all things were equall at the first in that indigested himpe and masse whereout the creatures were made and yet our of it were different creatures made some lightsome as the Sunne and starres some darke and obscure as the earth and earthly things And so the Lord in his decree of predestination made a difference in his election according to his good pleasure of things which differed not before And so there is a difference indeede in those which are elected from others sed non invenit Deus sed ponit ipse in hominibus differentiam but God findeth not any such difference in men but he maketh it Pet. Martyr the difference then dependeth not of the nature of the things but of the purpose and counsell of God 2. Arg. 1. S. Paul saith Ephes. 1.4 He hath elected vs in him that is in Christ but none are in Christ without faith that then which ioyneth vs to Christ is the cause of election 2. againe 2. Thess. 2.13 we are said to be chosen to saluation in faith 3. and Heb. 11.6 It is impossible to please God without faith the elect are pleasing to God therefore by faith they were accepted 4. and seeing faith is the instrumentall cause of saluation why not also of election Thus the Lutherans reason for the foresight of faith Contra. 1. Not euerie thing whereby we are ioyned vnto Christ is the cause of election but that whereby we were first giuen vnto Christ which is the absolute and free mercie of God who elected vs of his free grace and mercie and in Christ appointed to bring those whom he elected vnto eternall life And the Apostle doth expound himselfe what he meaneth by beeing elected in Christ that is he hath predestinate vs to be adopted thorough Christ faith then in Christ is not the cause of election but a meane subordinate to bring the elect vnto saluation 2. We are said to be chosen in faith not faith foreseene as the cause of election but in faith present as a meane vnto saluation 3. The same answear may serue to the third place obiected which must be vnderstood likewise de fide praesenti non praevisa of faith present not of faith foreseene for God thorough his mercie elected vs beeing yet his enemies his loue therefore was before any foresight of faith by his mercie he made vs acceptable vnto himselfe by the election of grace before he sawe any thing in vs. 4. It followeth not that euerie thing which is the cause of saluation should be the cause of election it is true in the generall cause which is the mercie of God which causeth as well the one as the other but not in the next and immediate causes as for example the father is the cause of his son and the son of the nephew and yet the son is not the cause of the father so election is the cause of faith and faith of saluation but it therefore followeth not that faith should be the cause of election And Hunnius that was at the first a great patrone of this cause in the ende argueth that faith in the mysterie of election was to be considered neither vt causam meritoriam as a meritorious or instrumentall cause sed vt partem illius ordinis c. but as a part of that order which God had appointed that is a meane vnto saluation Pareus dub 6. 3. Arg. If God simply should elect some and refuse others without foresight of their faith how is he not an accepter of persons Ans. The accepting of person is when against the rule of iustice a man of no good parts or qualites is preferred before him that is well qualified But there is no feare of this in Gods election for he findeth all alike in themselues none endued with any good gifts or qualities but as he giueth them therefore herein he is no accepter of persons in preferring one before an other all beeing alike Now on the contrarie side that the foresight of faith or any thing in man is not the cause of election but onely the good pleasure and will of God it may be thus further confirmed 1. The Apostle in saying not by workes but by him that calleth excludeth whatsoeuer in man for if either the foresight of faith or of any other thing and not onely of works should be the cause of election then it should not be onely in the caller as the Apostle here saith Mart. Pareus Tolet annot 19. 2. The effect of election is not the cause faith with the fruits thereof are the effects of election Ephes. 1.4 he hath chosen vs that we should be holy Pareus 3. The eternall decree of God is not founded in that which is temporarie the faith or good workes of men are but temporarie things and therefore they cannot be the ground and foundation of Gods eternall decree Faius 4. Faith is the worke of God Ioh. 6.29 therefore not the cause of his election so the same thing should be the cause of it selfe and so also be before it selfe Pareus 5. If election depended vpon the foresight of good workes then it would followe that we are iustified by workes for from election and predestination proceedeth our vocation and from vocation iustification and if election be out of the foresight of works then iustification also which followeth election by degrees Mart. 6. Lyranus addeth this reason further Deus non vult finem propter ea quae sunt ad finem God will not appoint the ende for those things which tend vnto the ende but rather these are for the ende now faith and works are but the way to the ende and therefore they cannot be the cause of the appointment of the end that is that men should attaine vnto euerlasting glorie Lyran. vpon this place 7. Tolet also annot 16. vrgeth this reason whereas the Apostle saith v. 14. is there iniquitie with God if he had meant that the difference in the decree of election ariseth out of the foresight of faith then the reason had beene apparent and there had beene no shew at all of any iniustice in God and so no place for this obiection at all See further of this question before c.
endebted to the diuine iustice quod siue exigatur siue donetur nulla est iniquitas which though it be exacted or pardoned there is no iniquitie ad Simplic lib. 1. qu. 2. In this assertion there is no inconueniencie to say that God beholding and foreseeing all men by the voluntarie transgression of Adam in the state of corruption did of his free mercy elect some to be saued in Christ the others he left in their corruption and so for their sinnes decreed thē to damnation for here can be no imputation of iniustice at all for it is free where one hath diuerse debters to remit the debt vnto one and to exact it of another So then if the reason be demanded why some are reiected of God it may be answeared that mans voluntarie transgression bringing all his posteririe into bondage beeing foreseene of God is a sufficent cause of their reiection but if it be further demaunded why God out of this masse of corruption hath elected some and not others there no other reason can be giuen but the good pleasure of God Ephes. 1.5 so that the absolute decree of reprobation is grounded vpon the foresight of mans corruption but of the comparatiue as why one is reiected and left and not an other no reason can be rendred but Gods gracious and free purpose Against this opinion of Augustine there are two principall obiections 1. Pererius disput 12. thus obiecteth the Angels had no originall sinne they were all created in the state of grace and yet some of them were elected some reprobate therefore sinne is not the cause of reprobation Ans. 1. As the Angels were created in the state of grace so also was Adam in Paradise and as Adam fell by voluntarie transgression and so enthralled his posteritie so did the Angels that fell abuse the gift of freewill and so for their pride were iustly condemned for euer so then the foresight of the apostasie of the reprobate Angels was the cause of their reiection and condemnation as the Apostle saith Iud. 6. The Angels which kept not their first estate he hath reserued in euerlasting chaines as man then hath originall sinne out of the which proceed actuall sinnes which are the ground and cause of reprobation and condemnation so the Apostate Angels for their sinne of pride were reiected onely here is the difference that the Angels fell irrecouerable falling by their owne pride beeing not seduced but man falling by the sedition and tentation of the deuill hath a redeemer in Gods mercie prouided for him 2. Pareus thus obiecteth the foresight of originall corruption is generall and common to all mankind therefore it cannot be the cause of the reprobation of some onely dub 8. argum 4. so also Vrsinus catech 3. p. 357. Ans. Not simply the foresight of originall corruption which all are subiect vnto but it beeing considered together with Gods decree because he purposed to deliuer some and not others is the cause of reprobation 3. Some doe wholly referre the decree of reprobation and election onely to the will and purpose of God and thinke that no other cause can be rendred why God hath elected some and condemned others but the absolute will pleasure and purpose of God their reasons are these 1. As God loued Iacob before he had done any good so he hated Esau without any respect vnto the euill which he did Rom. 9.11 2. The Apostle also saith v. 18. That God hath mercie on whom he will and whom he will be hardeneth Gods will is the cause of both 3. And God is compared to the potter that as he hath power ouer the clay to make thereout vessels of honour or dishonour as he thinketh good so much more the Lord may out of the same masse make some vessels of mercie some of euerlasting shame 4. Our Blessed Sauiour maketh this the reason why God had hid the misterie of saluation from the wise men and reuealed it to babes because O Father thy good pleasure was such Matth. 11.25 Ans. 1. Why God loued not Esau as well as Iacob the cause was onely the gracious purpose of God and hereof neither the good workes of the one nor the euill workes of the other were the cause yet both of them beeing considered in their originall corruption as it was Gods mercie to deliuer the one so it was no iniustice to leaue the other 2. here the hatred of God is taken onely for the not conferring of his grace and loue which God freely bestowed without respect vnto workes but that hatred which is an ordaining of men vnto euerlasting punishment is not without respect vnto their sinnes 2. Mercie presupposeth miserie and hardening a corrupt inclination in the heart before for the which it is hardened here then mans miserable estate is insinuated out of the which some by Gods mercie are deliuered 3. By that similitude the Apostle sheweth what God may doe by his absolute power not what he doth he dealeth not with men as the potter with the clay though he might that is stricto absoluto iure by his strict and absolute right but aequissimis rationibus vpon most equall and iust conditions he might doe as the potter doth but yet he taketh not that rigorous and strict course 4. It is indeed Gods good pleasure to reueale the secrets of his will to whom he pleaseth and to hide them from whom he will because he is not bound vnto any he may doe with his owne as he please and bestow his graces freely but if he should keepe them from all none had cause to complaine seeing their naturall blindnes and corruption was brought vpon them by the voluntarie corruption of Adam and though it was Gods gracious favour to reueale vnto some his will yet the rest were hardened and blinded iustly through their owne wilfulnesse and obstinacie against the truth And further against this opinion of the absolute decree of reprobation without any respect vnto the sinnes of men originall and actuall these two strong obiections are made first there would be an imputation of iniustice vpon God if he should decree any to be condemned but for sinne for like as none are indeed in time condemned but for sin as the Apostle saith Ephes. 5.6 For such things commeth the wrath of God vpon the children of disobedience c. so the decree of damnation before all time must be vpon the foresight of sinne Secondly whereas God in Scripture is set forth to be exceeding aboundant in mercie as Psal. 25.10 All the waies of the Lord are mercie and truth and Psal. 144.9 His mercies are ouer or aboue all his workes and Iames 2.13 mercie reioyceth against iudgement Now the Lord should be accused of seueritie and inclemencie and farre more readie and prompt vnto iustice then mercie if he out of his owne will should decree more to be condemned then to be saued these obiections the former position of the absolute decree of damnation beeing maintained cannot possibly
mouthes and nothing els doth God require vnto saluation so Chrysost. in ore corde tuo salutis causa in thy heart and mouth is the casue of saluation so Oecumen brevis salus nihil indigens externis laboribus saluation hath but a short cut it needeth not externall labour facile credere animo ore confiteri potes c. thou mayest easily beleeue with thy minde and confesse with thy mouth by the operation of the spirit Calvin and it seemeth to be a proverbiall speach to shewe the readines and facilitie of that which is in the heart and mouth as it is said Psal. 81.10 Open thy mouth wide and I will fill it Faius so Lyranus ostenditur iustitiae per fidem Christi facilitas the facilitie of righteousnesse by the faith of Christ is shewed And here Origens distinction may be receiued who saith that two waies is Christ neere vs possibilitate in possibilitie and so he may be neere vnto vnbeleeuers for they may haue grace to beleeue and efficacia in efficacie and power and so he is neere vnto those which actually by the spirit doe beleeue with the heart and confesse to saluation 4. But where the iustice of faith is said to be easier then the iustice required by the law that is not vnderstood in regard of the beginning and efficient cause of faith for man hath no more power to beleeue of himselfe then to doe good workes for it is God that worketh iâ— vs both the will and deede Philip. 2.13 but the righteousnesse of faith is easier in regard of the manner of the work because the law requireth the obedience thereof to be performed by our selues but faith referreth vs for the performing of the lawe vnto Christ Neither doth our saluation depend vpon the force and efficacie of faith but vpon the worthines and vertue of Christ apprehended by faith as when a sicke man walketh leaning vpon his staffe it is his staffe that stayeth him not his hand which onely layeth hold vpon the staffe The iustice of the law is as if a weake and sicke man should be enioyned to stand by himselfe without a staffe but faith sheweth how our weakenes is propped and held vp by other helps â—s when a sicke man layeth his hand vpon a staffe Quest. 14. How Moses that preached the law is alleadged for iustification by faith Ob. The obiection is made out of that place Ioh. 1.17 The lawe was giuen by Moses but grace and truth came by Iesus Christ c. but if Moses also taught iustification by faith then grace also came by him Answ. 1. Pet. Martyr answeareth that Moses is said to giue the law because his principall intendment was to propound the law yet he giueth testimonie also to the Gospell because Christ was the ende of the lawe as the Apostles in the new Testament preach repentance which belongeth to the law but their principall scope and intent is to set forth the faith of the Gospell 2. Hereunto for more full answear may be added that the lawe giuen by Moses is taken two wayes either strictly for the precepts of the morall law and so Moses was the minister of the lawe onely and not of grace or for the whole doctrine deliuered by Moses wherein also Euangelicall promises are contained Quest. 15. How Christ is to be confessed v. 9. If thou shalt confesse with thy mouth c. 1. S. Paul here placeth the confession of the mouth first both because he followeth that order which Moses did who nameth it first and for that we doe not knowe the faith of others that beleeue in Christ but by their confession Mart. Pareus 2. By confession is vnderstood not a bare and naked acknowledgment of Christ but the invocation of his name beleeuing in him giuing praise vnto him and whatsoeuer belongeth vnto his worship and this must be such a confession as is ioyned with the beleefe of the heart and not with a generall and historicall beleefe onely such as the deuills haue but a confident trust in Christ in beleeuing him to be our redeemer and Sauiour 3. Here we are to consider of fowre sorts of men 1. some neither confesse Christ nor beleeue and they are atheists 2. some beleeue and confesse not they are timorous and fearefull as Peter when he denied his Master 3. some confesse and beleeue not such are hypocrites 4. some both confesse and beleeue and they are right Christians 4. The Apostle maketh speciall mention of the raising of Christ from the dead 1. because this was the most doubted of his death the Iewes and Gentiles confessed but his resurrection they would not acknowledge Mart. 2. and vnlesse Christ had risen againe all the rest had profited vs little because in his resurrection he obtained a perfect victorie ouer death hell and damnation Calvin 3. and this article of Christs resurrection praesupponis alios articulos presupposeth other articles of the faith and taketh them as graunted as if he rose he died and his death presupposeth his birth Gorrhan Quest. 16. How Christ is said to be raised by God 1. By God in this place is not necessarie to vnderstand the person of the father but the power of the Godhead in the whole Trinitie whereby Christ as man was raised vp So Christ as man was raised vp by the power of his father but as he is one God with his father so he is said to raise vp himselfe Iohn 2.18 Christ is also said to be raised by the spirit of sanctification Rom. 1.4 so then Christ is here considered three wayes as beeing one God with his father as the second person in the Trinitie and as he was man as he is God he onely raiseth is not raised as he is man he is onely raised and raiseth not as he is the Son of God he both raiseth himselfe and the father raiseth him the father raiseth the Sonne by the Sonne and the Sonne raiseth himselfe by the spirit of sanctification whereby he was declared to be the Sonne of God Rom. 1.4 Pareus annot in v. 9. 2. And generally concerning the workes of the Trinitie there is a threefold difference to be obserued for there are some workes wherein the Blessed Trinitie doe concurre together both in their diuine essence and persons and they are ioynt workers as all those which are called extra workes without them as all things now ruled and gouerned by Gods prouidence are so gouerned by the whole Trinitie as Ioh. 5.17 My Father worketh hitherto and I worke and the spirit of God also worketh Psal. 104.30 If thou send forth thy spirit they are created some workes are proper and peculiar vnto the glorious persons of the Trinitie as those which are called ad intra the inward workes as the father begetteth the Sonne is begotten the holy Ghost proceedeth these are so peculiar vnto each of them that what is proper to one agreeth not vnto an other and thirdly some works there are wherein the Blessed
is subsequens gratia subsequent or following grace whereby the Lord assisteth those which are called as Augustine saith gratia praevenit vt velimus subsequiâ—â—â—â— frustrà velimus grace preuenteth vs that we may be willing and it followeth vs that our will be not in vaine 3. the cause of the grace of God is his owne mercie the Apostle saith here v. 35. who hath giuen vnto him first the internall motiue is the free loue of God the externall impulsiue and moouing cause is the merit of Christ. 4. the effects of the grace and fauour of God are either externall as election predestination or such as are brought forth in time as vocation iustification sanctificatioÌ„ 5. the graces in the second sense which are the gifts of the spirit are either salutis the graces belonging to saluation as knowledge faith hope or they are vocationis such as appertaine vnto our vocation and calling which are either extraordinarie as were the miraculous and propheticall gifts which the Prophets and Apostles had or ordinarie as are the knowledge of arts the gift of vtterance and such like which now are attained vnto by diligent labour and industrie Doct. 5. Concerning good workes the qualitie and kinds thereof the causes and effects v. 6. But if of workes c. 1. The works of men are either naturall as to sleepe or ciuill as to buy to sell which are indifferent or they are morall which are either good or evill 2. the efficient cause of good works is first God moouing by his spirit then the will of man converted and prepared by grace the helping causes are instruction exhortation faithfull endeauour prayer 3. the matter of good works is the internall and externall act of the will and mind heart and bodie the forme is the consent and agreement with the lawe of God 4. the effects of good works are toward God our obedience which in Christ is pleasing and acceptable to him in our selues the fruits and testimonie of our faith toward our brethren their edification they are stirred vp by our good conuersation to glorifie God Doct. 6. We must compare the present state of the Church with the times past v. 5. Euen so now at this present time As S. Paul compared the estate of the Church then present with the times of Elias so we are taught to comfort our selues in the afflictions of the Church of God in these dayes with looking backe into the times past for God doth after the same manner gouerne his Church So Origen well obserueth sicut factum est sub Helsa c. as it was vnder Helias so it was in the comming of Christ and in S. Pauls time c. like as the small number of true professors was then no preiudice to the truth no more ought it to be now Doct. 7. Of the priviledge of the seede of the faithfull v. 16. If the first fruits be holy so is the whole lumpe like as the Iewes which were descended of Abraham were within the couenant and so vnto them belonged circumcision the signe of the couenant the paschal lambe the Temple and sacrifices vnto the which the seede of the Gentiles which were not of Abraham had no right so now the seede and ofspring of Christians are counted holy vnto them belongeth baptisme and other Sacraments and rites of Christian profession for they are an holy seede as the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 7.14 Els were your children vncleane but now are they holy Doct. 8. How the Church or a righteous man is resembled to a tree v. 16. If the roote be holy so are the branches c. 1. a iust man is resembled to a tree 1. propter pedis i. fidei immobilitatem for the stedfastnes of his foot that is his faith v. 20. thou standest by faith 2. propter stipitis i. spei erectionem c. for the erecting of the stalke or truncke which signifieth hope and therefore Iob saith 19.10 he hath remooued my hope like a tree 3. the roote is charitie Eph. 4. beeing rooted and grounded in loue 4. The branches are his vertues Hosh. 14.7 His branches shall spread and his beautie shall be as the olive tree 5. the bloomes and blossomes are his sweete manners 6. the leaues his gracious words 7. the fruit good workes 8. the shadowe of the tree is his mercie Hosh. 14.7 They that dwell vnder his shadowe shall returne Gorrhan Doct. 9. The old Testament and the newe one and the same in substance v. 18. Thou bearest not the roote but the roote thee c. There was then the same roote both of the Iewes and beleeuing Gentiles the same faith the same Mediator the same substance efficacie and force of the Sacraments though the externall rites and symboles were diuerse Martyr so S. Paul Ephes. 4. There is one bodie one spirit c. one Lord one faith c. Doct. 10. Of Gods omnipotencie v. 23. God is able to graffe them in againe The Apostle prooueth the returne and graffing in of the Iewes by the power of God though simply and generally this is no good argument God can doe it therefore it shall be yet here is a sufficient reason because there was no doubt of Gods will seeing the Iewes were his people of old otherwise Gods power is not limited to his will for he can doe more then he will it is contrariwise with man who willeth many things that he cannot effect and so his will is larger then his power Martyr Doct. 11. Christ prooued to be God by the remission of sinnes v. 27. This is my couenant when I shall take away their sinnes c. This sheweth Christ to be God who onely is able to forgiue sinnes men may remit the punishment that it be not inflicted but the guilt of sinne is onely purged by God the keyes are indeede committed to the Church in the preaching of the word but they are the instruments onely whereby God forgiueth sinnes the Ministers are onely the proclaymers of Gods will herein they cannot remit sinnes but onely ministerially as the instruments Doct. 12. Of the excellencie of the knowledge of God v. 33. O the depth of the riches of the wisedome and knowledge of God c. Gods knowledge is excellent 1. for the largenes of it in knowing all things 2. the perfection of it he knoweth all things perfitly 3. the manner he needeth no meanes of his knowledge but himselfe 4. the celeritie of it he knoweth all things in a moment 5. the certaintie of it it cannot be deceiued 6. the eternitie it was from the beginning 7. the efficacie it is the cause of all things 8. the secunditie of it all things are lightened by his knowledge 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. That none which are elected can finally fall away v. 2. Whereas the Apostle saith God hath not cast away his people which he knewe before c. Hence it may be obiected thus God knewe his people before that is elected them vnto saluation but
the propertie of opposition between grace and works remaineth as well in the election to the second grace as to the first if grace be admitted works are excluded for they cannot stand together 2. And all kind of works are excluded from election for good works are not the cause but the effect and fruits of election as Haymo here sheweth out of Saint Paul Eph. 1.6 he hath chosen vs in him that we should be holy c. Controv. 4. Against freewill Chrysostome vpon these words v. 4. I haue reserued to my selfe c. graunteth that God attulit potiorem partem brought the better part but they which were called brought their will volentes sulvat he saueth those which are willing Tolet annot 4. subscribeth vnto Chrysostome herein and refuseth Augustine who ascribeth all vnto grace and further he affirmeth that the nature of grace is not taken away though somewhat be presupposed in man dum modo non sit illud meritorium so it be not held to be meritorious or the cause of grace As when a Prince doth propound ample rewards to all commers though they that come onely haue the rewards yet their comming is no meritorious cause of receiuing the reward but the grace and fauour of the Prince so God elected some to be iustified by faith quos praevidit libero arbitrio concursuros whom he foresawe would concurre with their free-will to this purpose Tolet. Contra. 1. Chrysostomes speach that God saueth onely those which are willing if it be vnderstood with these two cautions that this willingnes is wrought by grace and yet beeing so wrought it is no cause of iustification may safely be receiued for true it is that none are saued against their will But yet God ex nolentibus volentes facit of vnwilling maketh them willing if Chrysostome be otherwise vnderstood as ascribing here strength to mans freewill it is a great error 2. And herein I preferre Augustines iudgement who well obserueth de bon perseueran c. 18. that the Lord here saith not relicti sunt mihi they were reserued for me or they reserued themselues for me but I haue reserued to shewe that it was Gods grace whereby some were reserued and not the act of their owne will Haymo also hath the same note he saith not relicti sunt are left but I haue left or reserued that is per gratiam reservani I haue reserued by grace gloss interlin 3. If any thing be presupposed in man as helping vnto his calling it hindreth and obscureth the worke of grace if it be but a preparation onely though not meritorious and it is directly against the Scripture that a man hath any will to come to God of himselfe as Ioh. 6.44 No man can come vnto me except the father drawe him Rom. 9.16 it is not in him that willeth or runneth but in God that sheweth mercie Philip. 2.13 It is God that worketh in you both the will and the deede how then can mans will of it selfe concurre with the grace of God that example alleadged is not like for to come to receiue the Princes reward is a ciuill thing wherein mans will hath some freedome but in spirituall actions it hath no libertie at all vntill it be freed by grace as our Blessed Sauiour saith Ioh. 8.36 if the Sonne shall make you free then are you free indeede Controv. 5. That vniuersalitie and multItude is not alwaies a note of the true Church v. 4. I haue reserued to my selfe seuen thousand Like as the paucitie and fewenes of professors in Elias time was no preiudice to the truth nor yet the multitude of idolaters a proofe that they were the Church so neither is the great number of nations people powers Cardinals Bishops Priests Monkes an argument for the Papall Church for in Noahs time the visible Church was contained in his familie and his Arke did beare the little barke of the Church of God and in Sodome onely in Lots house was there an exercise of true pietie yea our Sauiour calleth his a little flocke though therefore the Church of Christ consisted of smaller numbers then it doth which still encreaseth and shall we trust more and more toward the comming of Christ yet the smalnes of the number should be no matter of exception as it was not either in the time of Elias or of our Blessed Sauiour and his Apostles when as a thousand to one were enemies to true godlines see before Synops. Centur. 1. nr 19. Controv. 6. Of the sufficiencie of Scripture and of the right way to interpret the same v. 8. According as it is written By this often allegation of Scriptures and by collation of one with an other as here the Apostle compareth Isaias and Dauid together we gather a double vse of Scripture the one that all doctrine of faith must be derived from thence as throughout this epistle the Apostle for the proofe of his doctrine onely alleadgeth the Scriptures and therefore our Blessed Sauiour faith Ioh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures c. for they are they which testifie of we Christ admitteth no other witnesse of him and his doctrine but the Scriptures And in that the Apostle doth illustrate and interpret one place of Scripture by an other we see that the Scripture is the best interpreter of it selfe that which in one place is obseurely insinuated otherwhere it may be found more plainly and perspicuously expressed See more hereof Synops. Centur. 1. err 10.12 Controv. 7. Against the Iewes Chrysostome vpon these words bowe downe their backes alwayes v. 10. sheweth how this prophesie is now verified in the perpetuall desolation of the Iewes for whereas the Israelites were 200. yeares in Egypt God yet in his mercie deliuered them though they there committed fornication and were guiltie of diuerse other sinnes afterward beeing deliuered after the Lord had a long time suffered and endured them with patience at the length he punished them with 70. yeares captiuitie beeing deliuered from thence they were vexed vnder Antiochus three yeares but now more then three hundred yeares are past and yet they haue not so much as alicuius spei vmbram the shadowe of any hope when as they neither commit idolatrie nor some other sinnes for the which they were before punished Whereupon it must needes followe that the Iewes to this day are afflicted for not beleeving in Christ. To this purpose Chrysostome wrote more then a thousand yeeres since and so he then prophetically expounded that the Iewes backes should for euer be bowed downe and kept vnder vntill such time as they should vniuersally be called God open their eyes at the length that they seeing the cause why the wrath of God is thus kindled against them may at the last with faith and repentance turne vnto him Controv. 8. Whether any of the true branches may be broken off v. 17. Though some of the branches be broken off c. It may seeme then that some branches may be broken off and so some of
the elect perish Answ. It followeth not the branches may perish therefore the elect 1. That the elect cannot possibly fall away is shewed before contr 1. the Scripture saith they that trust in Iehovah shall be as mount Sinai which is not mooued but standeth fast for euer Psal. 125.1 not that the elect are so stable of themselues that they cannot be mooued for there is no creature but of it selfe is mutable and subiect to change but the Lord vpholdeth such by his grace as it is said Psal. 37.24 Though the righteous fall be shall not be cast off for the Lord putteth vnder his hand 2. We must distinguish of the branches some are true and right branches and they are the faithfull and elect which cannot be broken off some are counterfeit branches which were neuer elected and they may fall off so Christ sheweth Ioh. 15. that the vine may haue some vnfruitfull branches which are cast off but the fruitfull branches he neuer casteth away so the Apostle c. 9.7 doth make a difference among the children of Abraham all were not his right children that were of his seede Controv. 9. Against the heresie of Valentinus and Basilides that held some things to be euill some good by nature Whereas S. Paul maketh mention of the wild oliue and of the true oliue v. 17. Origen taketh occasion to confute the heresie of the foresaid heretikes and their followers whose assertion was this that there were two natures of soules some were made good and they should be saued and neuer fall away some were euill and they could not but perish 1. Origen refelleth this hereticall paradox out of this place for here some branches of the oliue tree were broken off because of their vnbeleefe and so of good became bad and the branches of the wild oliue were planted in and so of bad became good this difference was not in the diuersitie of their nature and further he vrgeth these words of our Blessed Sauiour Math. 12.33 Either make the tree euill and the fruit euill or make the tree good and the fruit good whereupon he inferreth vt ostenderet arborem bonam vel malam non nasci sed fieri to shewe that a tree is not borne good or euill but is so made 2. Thus farre Origen proceedeth well but after going about to shew the cause whence it commeth that some trees are good some bad he falleth into other errors himselfe 1. ascribing this difference onely to the power of free will for these are his words vnusquisque ex arbitrij potestate aut bona oliva aut oleafter efficitur euery one by the power of free will is made either a true oliue or a wild oliue which he prooueth by the example of the creatures which are all of one nature but by certaine accidentall qualities bring forth diuerse kinds as of trees hearbs and such like so there is one and the same nature of reasonable creatures the difference is out of the diuers motions of their free will and to this ende he presseth that saying of our blessed Sauiour wake the tree good and his fruit good as though it were in mans power to make himselfe a good tree 2. he addeth that whereas God so in his prouidence disposeth that there are outward exhortations ministred sometime to good sometime to euill it is in mans power obedire si velit to obey if he will him that provoketh him vnto goodnes and if he will to despise him 3. and to mend the matter withall he saith further that by this libertie of will he that is ramus oliuae a branch of the right oliue may fall away to misbeleefe and an other that is but a wild oliue may conuert vnto the faith and become a branch of the true oliue Thus Origen playeth the Philosopher rather then the diuine Contra. 1. The Apostle is contrarie to Origen for he saith v. 20. Thou standest by faith therefore not by free will for faith is not of our selues it is the gift of God Eph. 2.8 neither is the example of the creatures like for the diuersitie of their kinds proceedeth of the seuerall properties of their different natures whereas the difference betweene men is not from their nature but by the grace of God which separateth them 1. Cor. 4.7 Who separateth thee and what hast thou that thou hast not receiued and whereas Christ saith facite make ye this word as Pet. Martyr well sheweth non efficientiam sed hypothesin significat doth signifie not an efficiencie but a supposition as if he should haue said you must thus thinke and imagine with your selues that the tree must first be good before it can bring forth good fruit and this to be the meaning appeareth by the words following how can ye speake good things when ye are euill 2. Neither is it mans power to giue care vnto wholesome doctrine and obey it if he will for then why is it said of Lydia Act. 16.14 whose heart God opened that she attended to the things that Paul spake 3. Neither is it possible for them that were true branches of the right oliue to be broken off they were neuer truly graffed in that are broken off though they so seemed as they which are said to be blotted out of the booke of life were neuer indeede there written at all Rev. 17.8 and thus witnesseth S. Iohn 1. epist. 2.19 They went out from vs but they were not of vs for if they had beene of vs they would haue continued with vs. 10. Controv. That there was the same spirit of faith and the same spirituall substance of the Sacraments vnder the old Testament and in the new v. 17. And made partaker of the roote P. Martyr doth well obserue out of these words so also Pareus with others that there was eadem substantia res spiritus c. the same substance matter spirit in both Testaments though their Sacraments in respect of the outward signes and ceremonies were diuers for there was but one roote of faith both of the Iewes and Gentiles we are not planted into an other oliue but are made partakers of the fatnes of the same oliue tree this is contrarie to the doctrine of the Romanists which denie that the Sacraments of the old Testament had the same spirituall substance with the Sacraments of the new See further Synops. Centur. 2. err 97. 11. Controv. That the Scriptures are the iudge of euery one in particular Whereas Gretserus in the colloquie at Ratisbone sess 9. p. 111. denied impudently that the Scripture iudged him because it no where said Thou Gretser errest and cried out with â— blasphemous mouth let the Scripture iudge me indicet me spiritus si potest let the holy spirit iudge me if he can Pareus out of this place taxeth his ignorance and impudencie for the Apostle speaketh in particular v. 20. Thou standest by faith 21. take heede he spare not thee and in like manner the commandements were propounded in particular as speaking
haec vera est c. this is the true renovation of the minde to preferre the will of God before our owne c. and Beza maketh it a part of the exhortation be ye transformed c. and doe your endeauour to prooue what Gods will is c. that like as they which fashion themselues to the world followe the will thereof so you should transforme your selues by the newenes of your minde to the will of God and this sense is most agreeable so this is added both as a principall part and cause of our renovation and it is a fruit also thereof a further degree of more perfect knowing the will of God as our Sauiour saith Ioh. 9.17 If any man doe his will he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God 2. May prooue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. he neither meaneth a curious probation to trie whether a thing be so or not for this were to doubt of the will of God whether it were good and perfect 2. neither is it taken onely for to search and consider for a man cannot be renewed at all that hath not alreadie searched out the good will of God 3. not yet doe we vnderstand a bare knowledge of the will of God for many which are not regenerate doe knowe Gods will and yet doe it not as the Apostle c. 2. reprooued the Iewes for teaching the lawe to others and not knowing it themselues 4. nor yet doth it signifie onely an experimentall knowledge as the interlinearie gloss and Lyranus for he that is renewed cannot but haue experience of the will of God 5. but this probation signifieth a discerning with iudgmēt of those things which are good as S. Paul saith Phil. 1.10 that ye may discern things that are excellent as he that hath a perfect tast discerneth of the goodnes of meates 3. What is the good will of God and acceptable and perfect 1. Concerning the reading of these words some will not haue these epithets good perfect acceptable to be ioyned vnto the will of God but to be referred to all the cause before going as to the offring vp of their bodies a liuing seruice not to fashion themselues to this world and to be renewed in the mind all this is good acceptable and perfect so Augustine epist. 85. and Ambrose some doe make it an absolute sentence by it selfe adding the coniūction and and what is good acceptable perfect c. Bucer But the vsuall reading is the best which the vulgar Latine followeth to make these three epithets and attributes of the will of God thus also reade Clemens lib. 2. stromat Basil regul brev resp 276. Chrysost. serm 12. Cyprian epist. 77.2 by the will of God we vnderstand not here that facultie and power in God whereby he willeth but the thing which he willeth in which sense we say in the Lords prayer thy will be done Matth. 6. and Matth 12.50 Whosoeuer doth the will of my father c. 4. The good will c. 1. Origen here distinguisheth betweene the will of God simply so called and his good and acceptable will for it is the will of God when he inflicteth punishment but that is his good and acceptable will when he doth any thing in mercie 2. Chrysostome also will haue the old lawe to be the good will of God but the acceptable and perfect will of God is his will reuealed in the new testament 3. Basil regul brev 276. make three degrees of things agreeable to Gods will some good some are better some best of all which are called perfect as Tolet giueth this instance to loue our friend is a good thing to doe well vnto him is better to loue our enemie is the best and most perfect 4. Anselme referreth it to the three states incipientium proficientium perfectorum of beginners of those that goe forward and of such as are perfect or to three conditions of life of the married the continent and virgins 5. Lyranus vnderstandeth the first of bona natura the good things of nature the second of the good things of grace the third of the good things appertaning to glorie But all these observations are curious neither to the Apostles minde who doth here commend vnto vs the will of God reuealed in the old and newe testament as a perfect rule of all our actions which is called good because the word of God prescribeth nothing but that which is good and it is acceptable because nothing is pleasing vnto God but that which he himselfe prescribeth and is agreeable to his will this rule also is perfect because the word of God containeth all things which tend to the perfection of the creature so that all other helpes are vaine idle and superfluous Quest. 9. What the Apostle vnderstandeth by grace I say by grace c. 1. Origen by grace vnderstandeth virtutem sermonis the vertue and power of speach which was giuen to the Apostle one may speake eloquently and learnedly and yet not with grace to edifie the hearers 2. Ambrose interpreteth grace of the gift of wisedome giuen to the Apostle this sense Haymo also followeth as S. Peter giueth this testimonie of S. Paul how he wrote according to the wisedome of God giuen vnto him but Chrysostome refuseth this the Apostle saith not I say by the wisedome giuen vnto me 3. he therefore as also Theodoret vnderstandeth the grace of the spirit 4. but more particularly the Apostle vnderstandeth the speciall grace of his Apostleship which was committed vnto him in which sense the Apostle saith Rom. 11.16 Thorough the grace that is giuen me of God that I should be the minister of Iesus Christ so here is a metonymie the cause is put for the effect and that the Apostle ascribeth his calling vnto grace he thereby both freeth himselfe from all ambition that he intrudeth not himselfe as also presseth his Apostolike authoritie that they might more readily obey Mart. Calv. I say which some thinke to be an exposition of the former words that now the Apostle beginneth to shew what the good and perfect will of God is Tolet but the Apostle rather entreth into a newe matter that as hitherto he had generally exhorted to common duties so now he descendeth to speciall Mart. and here dicere to say is taken for iubere to command Calvin Gorrhan taketh it for prohibeo I forbid but there followe many precepts as well as prohibitions to the which this preface of the Apostle hath reference To everie one among you the Latine translator readeth to all but not so fitly for now the Apostle in saying to euerie one speaketh to all in generall and to euerie one in particular Origens obseruation here is somewhat curious all among you that is they which are in God that is the faithfull for they onely are said to be the Apostle noteth all indifferently noble vnnoble high or lowe which were among them Chrysostome Quest. 10. What it is to vnderstand aboue that which is meete
words pleasantnes of countenance for all those are signified by hilaritie or chearefulnes Tolet so Chrysost. verbis rebus corpore c. in words deedes yea with seruice of the bodie the poore must be helped with chearefulnes Chearefulnes is required in heart in words in countenance euery way 1. in respect of God he loueth a chearefull giuer 1. Cor. 9. Pareus 2. in respect of the kingdome of heauen which such hope for quis regnum accipiens maestus est who receiuing a kingdome is sorowfull Chrysost. lucrum est alijs benefacere c. it is a gaine to doe well to others and euery man reioyceth in his owne gaine Theodoret. 3. againe such as were emploied in these seruices as old men and widows are naturally giuen to morositie and therefore they haue neede of this precept to dispose themselues to chearefulnes Pareus 4. the worke it selfe which was to deale with the diseased sicke and feeble was such as might breed loathsomnes and therefore the Apostle doth hearten them that they should not giue ouer this worke of mercie thorough nicenes that they should not disdaine with their owne hands if neede were to handle their sores and diseases Tolet. 5. the consideration of the common condition of mankind that there is eadem omnium sors the same lot of all that they are subiect to the same diseases and infirmities this should mooue them in such workes of mercie to be chearefull and willing Gualter 6. ne moerorem addant moerori that they should not adde griefe vnto griefe for the poore seeing them which attend them to doe it vnwillingly would thereby be grieued the more Mart. Beza 17. Quest. Of the Christian affection of loue and the properties thereof The Apostle hauing hitherto touched certaine speciall and particular duties belonging vnto Ecclesiasticall offices proceedeth vnto generall and first concerning Christian brotherly loue which he sheweth how it should first consist in the inward affection and then in the outward act v. 10. in giuing of honour c. Concerning the first this loue must be verus true without simulation then discretus discreete we must not loue but hate that which is euill thirdly it must be firmus firme cleauing vnto that which is good and it must be vniversalis vniuersall common without acception of persons we must be affectioned one toward an other c. Lyranus 1. Let loue be without dissimulation 1. The Apostle beginneth with loue which giueth a rellish and tast as it were to all other vertues euen faith without charitie is not right 1. Cor. 13.2 it is the badge and cognizance whereby we are knowne to be the disciples of Christ Ioh. 13.35 therefore the Apostle first beginneth to shew what this loue is 2. Origen vnderstandeth this loue generally of the loue of God and our neighbour but Chrysostome applieth it onely to brotherly loue and so the precepts following shew 3. this loue must be without dissimulation which Origen defineth thus when one loueth onely God and that which is pleasing to God Chrysostome giueth this rule when one loueth an other and doth vnto him as vnto himselfe but S. Iohn giueth a perfect description of this kind of loue 1. epist. 3.18 My little children let vs not loue in word or tongue but in deede and in truth he then loueth without dissembling that sheweth his loue in act and in deede so S. Paul describeth true charitie 1. Tim. 1.5 out of a pure heart good conscience faith vnfained where are expressed the subiect or place of this loue a pure heart the cause thereof is faith vnfained the perpetuall companion or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ioynt-worke is a good conscience as the Apostle to the Hebr. 10.22 let vs draw neere with a true heart in the assurance of faith sprinkled in our hearts from an euill conscience Gryn From this true and syncere loue these are farre of 1. they which doe nourish hatred in their heart but colour it with pretensed friendship onely watching an opportunitie of reuenge such was Cain toward Abel and Ioab toward Abner 2. they which pretend friendship toward other but onely for hope of some gaine and profit to themselues these are selfe-louers and not louers of others as Felix propounded fauour vnto S. Paul but he hoped for some bribe Act. 24. 3. they also which professe loue and obedience but onely for feare as they which obserue those which are mightie and of authoritie because they are afraid of their greatnes and power doe not loue without dissimulation 2. Hating that which is euill or rather abhorring c. 1. Chrysostome obserueth an emphasis in the Apostles phrase he saith not abstaining but prosequnting with hatred and that vehemently the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Apostle addeth alwaies somewhat to the sense as he sheweth in diuers instances 2. Haymo taketh this for a generall precept that we should hate the deuill and his members but it seemeth rather to belong to the precept of loue 3. and in this sense some giue this interpretation that they should in their loue abstaine from all euill hurt deceit malice and follow goodnes Calvin Pellican some thinke that good and euill signifie here that which is profitable or vnprofitable and so he that loueth should procure the good not the hurt of him whome he loueth Pareus but the meaning rather is that we should so loue as that we be not partakers with men in their sinnes neither should be withdrawne from God but cleaue to him as the onely good so Chrysostome saith this is added because there is dilectio in malis a loue friendship in euill things as in them that are fellows in robbers c. so Origen qui proprium errantem videt non corrigit c. he that seeth his brother erring and correcteth him not he loueth not in truth so Lyranus also sic ametur natura vt vitium odio habeatur let nature be so loued as yet vice be hated this sense followeth Pet. Mart. some are so foolish to thinke that they loue their brethren cum illis consentiant ad libidines when they consent vnto them to lust and other vices to the same purpose Gualter dilectionis praetexiu non facienda m 〈…〉 la euill things must not be done vnder pretense of loue 3. Cleauing to that is good 1. that is saith Haymo to God who is the chiefe good but this is too generall 2. here we vnderstand that which is morally good Gryn which is agreeable vnto the will of God who is onely good 3. and the meaning is that we should so adhere vnto that which is good that no respect of any friendship or any thing whatsoeuer should draw vs away from it 3. Chrysostome noteth a singular force in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cleaving adhering the same word is vsed of the coniunction betweene man and wife Matth. 19.5 shewing the neare coniunction that should be betweene
he take greater punishment of the offender then the cause requireth but the magistrate reuengeth not himselfe but others Now here men are forbidden onely to auenge themselues and yet in this case euen the magistrate auengeth himselfe when vnder colour of his office he in respect of some particular wrong proceedeth more rigorously against an offender 3. But the Apostle taketh not away here all libertie to vse defence by the authoritie of the Magistrate for both S. Paul himselfe appealed vnto Cesar and the Magistrate is appointed of God for our wealth yet we must not goe vnto the Magistrate animo vlciscendi with a mind to seeke reuenge For these causes a Christian may safely craue the aid of the Magistrate 1. to discharge his dutie in defending those frō wrong which are vnder his care and charge 2. to seek the amendment of the offender and wrong-doer by moderate correction 3. to take away such euil examples and scandals among Christians Martyr but one must not vse the benefit of the law to seeke his owne reuenge as S. Paul when 40. Iewes conspired against him sought the Magistrates helpe for his defence and deliuerance not for their punishment Gualt so that nihilo plus excusationis habet c. he hath no better excuse that seeketh to the Magistrate with a malevolent minde then if he sought to be reuenged by himselfe Calv. 4. The Apostle doth not onely stay our hands tongue here from reuenge sed ne cor huiusmodi cupiditate teneatur but he forbiddeth least the heart should be tempted with any such desire Calv. 5. But whereas our Sauiour proceedeth yet further and saith Matth. 5.39 Resist not euill but whosoeuer shal smite thee on the right cheeke turne to him the other also this must not be vnderstood according to the strict letter as Augustine well interpreteth that this precept is not alwaies to be obserued quantum ad executionem in respect of the execution in fact sed quantum ad praeparationem animi but in the preparation of the minde that we should alwaies be armed with patience to suffer wrong for neither did our Sauiour when he was smitten on the cheeke turne the other but mildly reprooued him that did the violence to this purpose Aug. epist. ad Marc. This then is to be done when it may either profit our brother or maketh more for the glorie of God and not otherwise Martyr Beloued ◠The Apostle vseth this friendly compellation 1. because these things which now he speaketh of were duriora somewhat harsh and vnpleasing therefore he thus insinuateth himselfe the better to perswade Martyr blanda appellatione manum inijcit vt nos retineat c. he doth stay vs as with his hand by this friendly word for otherwise men are impatient in their affections Calv. 2. And least they might thinke that he in thus reading did not counsell them for their profit he calleth them beloued Mart. 3. And though the world hate such as were patient in suffering wrong yet they were beloued of God and so also beloued of the Apostle Tolet. 4. And in thus saluting them as beloued brethren he putteth them in mind of brotherly loue which is much hindred by seeking of reuenge Giue place vnto wrath 1. some vnderstand this of our owne wrath to giue way vnto it not to suffer it to breake forth sed apud nos ipsos concoquamus but to digest and allay it in our selues Gualt so also Vatablus compescite eam stay your anger but this phrase is vsed in a contrarie sense Eph. 4.27 neither giue place vnto the deuill to giue place vnto wrath were to giue way vnto it not to resist it 2. others referre it to the anger and wrath of the aduersarie that doth wrong and so they giue two expositions giue place that is permittite vobis nocere suffer them willingly to doe you wrong and hurt or fugite a loco ad locum flee from place to place and so giue way vnto them Haymo and Basil also hath both these expositions regul brev resp 244. Origen vnderstanding it also of the wrath of him that doth the wrong giueth an other sense that if he that hath receiued the wrong auenge not himselfe quasi effuso à rgesto furore c. he hauing digested and allaied his furie waxeth milder 3. But the better interpretation is by wrath to vnderstand the diuine reuenge or punishment permitte Deo vt adversarium tuum in ius vocet suffer God to deale with thine aduersarie Chrysost. so also Origen vnderstandeth vindictam divinam the diuine reuenge and that wrath quam sibi the saurizat malis actibus which he doth treasure vnto himselfe by his owne leud acts this sense followeth Calv. Mart. Osiand Par. Perer. it is confirmed by the sentence following cited out of Moses vengeance is mine I will repay the meaning is then that we should commend our cause vnto God and he will in due time take reuenge 4. Vengeance is mine c. 1. Concerning the reading of the words 1. the vulgar Latin putteth the word in the accusative vindictam reuenge which reading Pererius defendeth to be auncient and to haue beene vsed both by Tertull. l. 2. cont Marc. and Hil. in Psal. 118. yet he confesseth quod lectio sit rectior c. that it is the better reading in the nominatiue And so it is in the Greeke and so readeth Hier. epist. ad Ruffia mihi vindicta to me reuenge that is belongeth 2. now whereas in the originall Deut. 32.35 whence this testimonie is cited there is the coniunction and which is here omitted by the Apostle and there a verbal word is put recompence is mine which here the Apostle expresseth by the verb I will repay herein he partly followeth the Septuagint who doe interpret it so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I wil repay and partly he expresseth the sense not tying himselfe to the words neither doth the omitting of the coniunction any thing alter the sense 2. The Apostle here secretly meeteth with an obiection for whereas he forbiddeth all reuenge it might be said what then shall iniuries neuer be requited yes saith the Apostle God in his good time shall take reuenge Tol. neither must the Apostle be so vnderstood as though we should votis expetere by our vowes and desire entreat God to be reuenged of our enemies but the Apostle here sheweth that we must not reuenge our selues for this were to take Gods office vpon vs we must therfore pray first that God would conuert our enemies but if they continue in their wickednes then we leaue them to Gods iustice Calv. and when the righteous seeth his desire vpon his enemies non tam delectatur poena quam dei iustitia he is not so much delighted in his punishment as in the iustice of God gloss ordinar 3. Now then we must leaue all reuenge vnto God 1. because he is the iudge of all the earth and it belongeth vnto him to punish Gualt 2. he taketh
the subiect is assaulted if it be a ciuill matter resistance may more safely be vsed but if it be the cause of religion therein they should rather shew their patience in suffering as we read in the persecutions of the primitiue Church of 20. thousand Martyrs that were burnt together in a Temple without any resistance at all who for their number might haue sustained the brunt of the aduersaries but they willingly yeelded themselues to the fire 5. Likewise this discreete consideration must be vsed whether there be not hope to escape the daunger without resistance or whether by resisting a way may be opened of deliuerance or whether by their escaping many of their brethren shall not be brought into greater daunger for where any of these things doe happen it is not safe to resist 6. They must in such extremities so defend themselues as that they vse no assault vpon the person of their Prince to put his life in daunger for therein they manifestly transgresse the publike lawes it is one thing to vse a necessarie defense an other to make an assault Dauid though he stood vpon his owne guard and had a great band of men attending vpon him yet when Saul twice fell into his hands he spared to lay any violent hands vpon him with these restraintes and limitations some defense may be graunted euen vnto priuate subiects against Tyrants otherwise it is daungerous both in respect of their conscience in resisting the power and for the euil example whereby other seditious persons may be encourraged Thus much of this question how farre resistance may be made against the ciuill power how farre also and in what manner the Tyrannie of the Pope the Antichrist may be resisted see among the Controversies contr 3. Quest. 18. How we should not owe any thing to any man but to loue one an other 1. Touching the occasion of these words Augustine thinketh that the duties before membratim fusa nunc ipso circuitu clauduntur deliuered by partes now are shut vp together de doctrin Christian. 4. c. 20. Lyranus also thinketh that here inferiors are taught that they owe charitie to their superiors so also Mr. Calvin thinketh this precept of the Apostle to be a confirmation of his former doctrine of obedience to Magistrates because violat charitatem c. he doth violate charitie who denieth obedience 2. Beza thinketh that the Apostle remooueth the impediment of obedience because the want of charitie is cause of quarrels and suits whereupon the Magistrate is constrained by his authoritie to force men to render vnto euerie one their owne and so by this meanes magistratus nomen invidio sum sit it commeth to passe that the name of the Magistrate is odious and envied 3. Erasmus collecteth out of Ambrose but not rightly as Beza here noteth that hitherto the Apostle shewed what dutie was to be yeelded to the heathen Magistrates but now he teacheth the dutie which must be rendered to Christian Magistrates 4. But the truth is the Apostle from speciall duties belonging to superiors ascendeth higher to treat of the generall dutie of loue which is common to all 2. Owe nothing there are two kinds of debts there is a Ciuill debt and a Naturall debt the ciuill is either common to all as the paying of tribute yeelding of obedience must be performed by euery one to the superiors or concerneth onely some particular persons which are endebted by promise and contract or some other bond vnto others there is also a naturall debt either peculiar and proper to some as of the children to the parents of scholers to their Masters wiues to their husbands or common to all as is mutuall loue here by the Apostle commended 3. There are three kind of wayes whereby one may be a debter to another either when he payeth nothing of his debt as if he owe an hundred shillings and pay none at all or if he pay but part and not all as but tenne and if he pay the whole debt due at one time but not at another as if he should pay euery day a shilling till the whole debt be paid and he hold the payment one day or two but fayle in the rest the debt of charitie is not of either of the first kinds but of the third a man sheweth charitie once or twice he is bound to shew it still Tolet. 4. The debt of charitie different from other debts in these three points 1. as Chrysostome saith it is such a debt vt semper reddatur semper debeatur that it both is alwaies paied and yet is alwaies owing not like vnto other debtes which beeing paied cease to be due and so both redditur cum impenditur it is restored when it is paied debetur cum reddita fuerit and it is owing when it is rendered because it must be shewed at all times 2. nec cum redditur omittitur charitie is not lost from him that sheweth it as money which is paid goeth from him that payeth it 3. may charitie reddendo multiplicatur is multiplyed by the paying of it cum redditur ab homine crescit in homine when it is rendered by a man it encreaseth in man gloss ordinar ex Augustine so some things when they are communicated to many minuuntur non augentur are diminished not encreased as mony and all terren things some things are neither encreased nor diminished when they are communicated as the light and the sound of a voiceâ— some things non minuuntur sed augentur are not diminished but encreased as charitie and all spirituall things Gorrhan 5. Origens conceit is here verie straunge who by debt vnderstandeth sinne vult ergo omne debitum peccati solvi he would therefore euery debt of sinne to be paid and not to remaine with vs. But the Apostle speaketh not of any such spirituall debt whereby we stand indebted to God neither is it in our power to pay that debt but of outward debts and duties vnto men 19. Quest. How he that loueth his brother fulfilleth the law 1. He which loueth his brother doth not in euery particular and in act keepe euery part in the law for one may loue his brother though in that instant he doe not performe all the acts of charitie as in feeding him if he be hungrie and such like but yet he fulfilleth all these duties virtute potestate in possibilitie and hauing an aptnes and power thereunto both because charitie is the cause and beginning of all the duties which as it mooueth him to one dutie so it will stirre him vp to the rest as also it is the ende and scope of the law which is to maintaine charitie and it is modus the manner how the law should be obserued for whatsoeuer externall dutie one doth if it be not in loue it is nothing as S. Paul sheweth 2. Cor. 13.2 3. 2. But here a question is mooued by Chrysostome how the Apostle reduceth all the law vnto this one precept of louing
order of placing the Epistles and why this to the Romanes is set first 20. qu. Vnto whome this Epistle to the Romanes was written and from whence 21. qu. Of the excellencie and worthines of this Epistle Questions vpon the first Chapter Quest. 1. Why Paul setteth his name before this Epistle 2. qu. Of the two names of the Apostle Saul and Paul what they signifie 3. quest Vpon what occasion the name Saul was turned to Paul 4. qu. At what time the Apostles name beganne to be called Paul 5. qu. In what sense Paul calleth himselfe the seruant of Iesus Christ. 6. qu. How Paul calleth himselfe a seruant seeing Christ saith I will not call you seruants Ioh. 15.15 7. qu. How S. Paul saith called to be an Apostle 8. qu. Of the office and calling of an Apostle what it is 9. qu. Diuers points wherein consisteth the excellencie of the Apostleship 10. qu. How S. Paul is said to be set or put apart for the Gospel of God 11. qu. Of the description of the Gospel 12. qu. Whether the Gospel be comprehended in the old Testament 13. qu. How Christ is saide to be made of Dauid after the flesh 14. qu. How it can be shewed that Christ was borne of the seede and posteritie of David 15. qu. Whether Christ descended of David by Salomon or Nathan 16. qu. Of the meaning of these words v. 4. declared mightily to be the Sonne of God c. 17. qu. Of the meaning of these words declared to be the Sonne of God in power 18. qu. Of these words according to the spirit of sanctification v. 4. 19. qu. Of these words by the resurrection of the dead 20. qu. Of these words v. 5. By whome we haue receiued grace and Apostleship 21. qu. Of the persons whome the Apostle saluteth To all you that be at Rome c. 22. qu. What the Apostle vnderstandeth by grace and peace v. 7. 23. qu. Of Pauls giuing of thankes for the faith of the Romanes which was published abroad v. 8. 24. qu. How the faith of the Romanes was published through the world 25. qu. Of the singular faith of the Romans 26. qu. Whether the Church of Rome were first founded by S. Peter 27. qu. The place Act. 28.21 reconciled 28. qu. Whether this be an oath God is my witnesse v. 9. 29. qu. Whether it be lawfull to sweare and vpon what occasion 30. qu. How Paul is said to serue in the spirit 31. qu. What prosperous iourney the Apostle meaneth v. 10. 32. qu. Whether S. Paul needed to be mutually strengthened by the faith of the Romanes 33. qu. Of the impediments whereby Saint Paul was letted to come vnto the Romans 34. qu. Why S. Paul expresseth not the cause in particular what letted him 35. qu. Whether Saint Pauls desire to goe to Rome beeing therein letted were contrarie to Gods will and so sinned therein 36. qu. How S. Paul was a debter vnto all v. 14. 37. qu. Whom S. Paul vnderstandeth by the Grecians and Barbarians 38. qu. How Paul is not ashamed of the Gospel v. 16. 39. qu. What the Gospel or Evangel signifieth 40. qu. Of the definition of the Gospel It is the power of God vnto saluation to euery one that beleeueth 41. qu. Of the difference betweene the Law and the Gospel 42. qu. Why the Iewes are named before the Grecians v. 16. 43. qu. The iustice or righteousnes of God is reuealed what iustice the Apostle meaneth 44. qu. Of the meaning of these words v. 17 is reuealed from faith to faith 45. qu. Whether the Apostle doth rightly cite this place out of the Prophet The iust by faith shall liue 46. qu. Whether S. Paul in citing this saying followeth the Prophets sense 47. qu. How the wrath of God is saide to be reuealed from heauen against all vnrighteousnes 48. qu. What it is to withhold the truth in vnrighteousnes v. 18. 49. qu. What the Apostle meaneth by these words v. 19. That which may be knowne of God is manifest in them 50. qu. Of the waies and meanes whereby the Lord doth manifest himselfe vnto men 51. qu. What invisible things of God the Apostle speaketh of and how they are made knowne vnto vs. 52. qu. Of the knowledge which the Philophers had of God and by what meanes they attained vnto it 53. qu. How other Scriptures that denie all knowledge of God vnto the wicked agree with this place of S. Paul 54. qu. Of the meaning of these words that they should be inexcusable v. 20. 55. qu. Whether there is any naturall knowledge of God in man 56. qu. Whether the naturall knowledge which the Heathen had of God was sufficient vnto saluation 57. qu. Whether any of the Philosophers were saued by that naturall knowledge which they had of God 58. qu. Seeing that the naturall knowledge which the Heathen had was not sufficient vnto saluation how are they thereby made inexcusable 59. qu. v. 21. How the Gentiles are said to haue knowne God and yet glorified him not as God 60. qu. v. 21. How the Gentiles did not glorifie God neither were thankefull but became vaine 61. qu. How the Gentiles changed the glorie of God into the image of men and beasts v. 23. 62. qu. Of the diuers kinds of idolatrie among the heathen in worshipping the images of men and beasts v. 23. 63. qu. Of the grosse idolatrie of the heathen in worshipping the images of men beasts v. 23. 64. qu. How God is saide to haue deliuered them to their owne hearts lusts v. 24. 65. qu. How the Gentiles are saide to defile their bodies in themselues 66. qu. How they worshipped the creature rather then the Creator 67. qu. Of the vnnaturall sinnes of the heathen 68. qu. How one sinne is punished by an other vpon these words And receiued in themselues such recompence of their error c. v. 27. 69. qu. How the Gentiles are said not to regard to know God v. 28. 70. qu. What it is to be deliuered vp to a reprobate minde 71. qu. Generall obseruations out of the Catalogue of the sinnes of the heathen reckoned vp by the Apostle v. 29 30. 72. qu. Of the order obserued by the Apostle in the particular enumeration of the sinnes of the Gentiles 73. qu. Of the particular sinnes of the Gentiles here rehearsed by the Apostle 74. qu. Of the true reading of the last vers 31. and the meaning thereof 75. qu. What a dangerous thing it is to be a fauourer and procurer of sinne in others 76. qu. How one may be accessarie to an others sinne 77. qu. Whether all the Gentiles were guiltie of the sinnes which are here rehearsed by the Apostle Questions vpon the second Chapter 1. qu. To whome the Apostle here speaketh Wherefore thou art inexcusable O man 2. qu. Whether one offend in iudging an other wherein he is guiltie himselfe 3. qu. Of these words v. 2. Wee know that the iudgement of God is according to truth 4. qu.
opinion examined that our sinnes are remitted onely by Christs death not for the the obedience and merit of his life Controversies vpon the 5. Chapter 1. contr Whether a good conscience and integritie of life be the cause of peace with God 2. contr Against invocation of Saints 3. contr Of the certaintie of salvation and of perseverance 4. contr That the tribulation of the Saints is not meritorius though it be said to worke patience 5. contr That we are not iustified by the inherent habite of charitie 6. contr Against the heresie of impious Socinus who denieth that Christ died for our sinnes and payed the ransome for them 7. contr Against other obiections of Socinus and other impugning the fruit and efficacie of Christs death in reconciling vs to God his Father 8. con That Christs death was a full satisfaction for our sins against Socinus his cauils 9. contr That Christs death was not onely satisfactorie but meritorious against Socinus Certaine controversies touching Originall sinne 10. cont That there is originall sinne in men by the corruption of nature against the opinion of the Hebrewes 11. contr That Adaws sinne is entred into his posteritie by propagation not imitation onely against the Pelagians 12. contr Of the manner how originall sinne is propagated against the Pelagians where it is disputed whether the soule be deriued from the Parents 13. contr Against the Pelagians and Papists that originall sinne is not quite taken away in Baptisme 14. contr What originall sinne is against the Romanists and some some others and specially against them which hold it to be Adams sinne imputed onely to his posteritie 15. contr That originall sinne is not onely the privation of originall iustice 16. contr Of the wicked heresie of Marcion and Valentinus with the blasphemous Manichees 17. cont That all sinnes are mortall and worthie of death by nature 18. contr That Henoch and Elias are not yet aliue in the bodie 19. contr The Virgin Marie conceiued in originall sinne 20. contr Againe meritts 21. contr That the punishment of originall sinne is euerlasting death 22. contr That Christs essentiall iustice is not infused into vs. 23. contr Against the Patrons of vniuersall grace 24. contr Against the Popish inherent iustice 25. contr That we are iustified both by the actiue and passiue obedience of Christ. 26. contr Against the Philosophers who placed righteousnes in their owne workes 27. contr Against the Manichees and Pelagians the one giuing too much the other too little to the lawe 28. contr Of the assurance of salvation 29. contr Of the diuerse kinds of grace against the Romanists Controversies out of the 6. Chapter 1. contr Against the administring of the Sacraments in an vnknowne tongue 2. contr Concerning inherent iustice 3. contr That the Sacrament of Baptisme doth not conferre grace by the outward worke 4. contr That Baptisme serueth as well for the remission of sinnes to come as of sinnes past 5. contr Whether in Baptisme our sinnes be cleane taken away 6. contr Of the baptisme of infants 7. contr Of the assurance of salvation 8. contr That Christ shall not die in the next world againe for those which were not healed here 9. contr Against the Sacrifice of the Masse 10. contr Concerning freewill 11. contr That concupiscence remaining in the regenerate is properly sinne 12. contr Whether a righteous man may fal into any mortall or deadly sinne 13. contr Against the Manichees 14. contr Concerning inherent iustice 15. contr Against the power of freewill in the fruits of righteousnesse 16. contr Whether all death is the wages of sinne 17. contr Against the distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes 18. contr That everlasting life cannot be merited by good workes Controversies vpon the 7. Chapter 1. contr Against Purgatorie 2. contr Of the lawfulnes of second marriage 3. contr Whether the marriage bond be indissoluable before the one partie be dead 4. contr That the disparitie of profession is no cause of the dissolution of marriage 5. contr Whether the bill of diuorce permitted to the Iewes did lawfully dissolue matrimonie vnder the Law 6. contr Against the workes of propitiation 7. contr Against the Heretikes which condemned the Lawe 8. contr That we are freed by grace from the strict and rigorous observation of the lawe 9. contr That concupiscence though it haue no deliberate consent of the will is sinne forbidden by the commandement 10. contr That the commandement thou shalt not lust is but one 11. contr Against freewill Controversies out of the 8. Chapter 1. contr That concupiscence remaining euen in the regenerate is sinne and in it selfe worthie of condemnation 2. controver That none are perfect in this life 3. controver That regeneration is not the cause that there is no condemnation to the faithfull 4. contr Against the Arrians and Eunomians concerning the dietie of the holy Ghost 5. contr Against the Pelagians that a man by nature cannot keepe and fulfill the lawe 6. contr The fulfilling of the lawe is not possible in this life no not to them which are in the state of grace 7. con That not the carnall eating of Christs flesh is the cause of the resurrection but the spirituall v. 11. 8. contr Against merits 9. contr Whether in this life one by faith may be sure of salvation 10. contr Against the invocation of Saints 11. contr That a strange tongue is not to be vsed in the seruice of God 12. contr That euerlasting glorie cannot be merited 13. contr That hope iustifieth not 14. contr Whether hope relie vpon the merit of our workes 15. contr Against the naturall power and integritie of mans will 16. contr That predestination dependeth not vpon the foresight of faith or good workes 17. contr Against the opinion of Ambrosius Catharinus concerning predestination 18. contr That election is certaine and infallible of grace without merit and of some selected not generally of all 19. contr That the elect cannot full away from the grace and fauour of God and be wholly giuen ouer vnto sinne 20. contr Whether a reprobate may haue the grace of God and true iustice 21. contr That the elect by faith may be assured of euerlasting salvation Controversies out of the 9. Chapter 1. contr That succession of Bishops is no sure note of the Church of Christ. 2. contr Against the old heretikes the Manichees Arrians Nestorians confuted out of the 5. ver 3. contr Against the prophane and impious collections of Eniedinus and Socinus late heretikes 4. contr That the water in baptisme doth not sanctifie or giue grace 5. contr Against the vaine observation of Astrologers in casting of nativities 6. contr That the soules had no beeing in a former life before they came into the body 7. contr Whether the foresight of faith or workes be the cause of election 8. contr That not onely election vnto grace but vnto glorie also is onely of the good will of God 9. contr That the Apostle treateth as well of