not imputed vnto them that is that God doe not punish them for it so to Philemon 18. if he haue hurt thee any thing at all impute it vnto me that is let me satisfie for it Faius Tolet in this sense the Apostle saith Rom. 4.8 Blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth not his sinne his sinne shall not be laid to his charge in iudgement And so the Apostle saith here where no lawe is sinne is not imputted that is there is no punishment inflicted for sinne but by the prescript of a lawe seeing then that the punishment of death was inflicted vpon those which liued before the lawe it could not be for sinnes which they actually cōmitted which had no law to punish them therefore it was originall sinne which was punished by death and least it might be said that though there were no written lawe whereby sinne was imputed yet there was a naturall law which men transgressed and therefore were punished the Apostle sheweth in the next raise that euen death raigned ouer them which had committed no actuall sinne as Adam had done and therefore death was inflicted as a punishment not onely of actuall but originall sinne Beza 29. Quest. How death is said to haue raigned from Adam to Moses 1. Origen distinguisheth betweene the word pertransijt entred or passed which the Apostle vsed before v. 12. and regnavit raigned death entred ouer all both the iust and vniust but it raigned onely in those qui se peccato tota mento subiecerunt which did giue themselues wholly vnto sinne But the Apostle speaketh generally of all not onely of some that death raigned vpon by the generallitie of death he prooueth the generallitie of some and by this word regno he sheweth potentiam mortis the power of death tha◠none could resist it Martyr instar tyranni saeuijt it raged like a Tyrant Pareus 2. By death some vnderstand mons anima the death of the soule that is sinne which raigned from Adam vnto Moses Haymo Hug. but it is euident that the Apostle in this discourse distinguisheth death from sinne and prooueth by the effect the vniuersalitie of death brought in by sinne the generalitie of sinne also Origen seemeth to vnderstand mortem gehennae the death of hell vnto which all descended and therefore Christ went to hell to deliuer them this sense followeth also the ordinarie glosse and Gorrhan But in this sense it appeareth not why the Apostle should say vnto Moses for they hold that all the iust men euen vnder the law also went to hell But in truth the death of hell raigned not ouer the righteous either before the law or after from the which they were deliuered by Christ therefore the death of the bodie is here vnderstood which entred vpon all euen ouer infants which sinned not as Adam did 3. Vnto Moses 1. Origen by Moses vnderstandeth the Law and by the law the whole time of the law vsque ad adventum Christi vnto the comming of Christ who destroied the kingdome of sinne so also Haymo but in that the Apostle setteth Moses against Adam it is euident that he vnderstandeth the time when the law was giuen and what law he speaketh of is further shewed v. 20. The Law entred that offence should abound the dominion then of sinne and death there ended not 2. Some thinke this limitation is set because men were more afraid of death before Christs comming then after because they had not such hope of the resurrection Gorrhan but it is an hard and forced exposition to interpret vnto Moses vnto the comming of Christ as is shewed before 3. Some thinke it is said vnto Moses because then a remedie was giuen by the law in restraining of sinne and then first in Iudas capit destrui regnum mortis the kingdome of sinne beganne to be destroied and now euery where gloss ordinar but the law gaue no remedie against sinne for sinne then abounded much more v. 20. and the Apostle said before c. 4.15 That where no law is there is no transgression there is no such knowledge of sinne 4. Therefore vnto Moses noteth the time of the giuing of the law vsque ad legem per Mosen promulgatam vnto the law published by Moses gloss ordin not that death raigned not after Moses also but this is added to shew that death was in the world euen before the law Lyran. and so consequently sinne for of those greatest doubt might be made which liued before the law whether death entred vpon them as a punishment of their sinne 30. Quest. Of the meaning of these words which sinne not after the similitude of the transgression of Adam This verse hath diuers readings 1. some doe referre the last words after the similitude of the transgression of Adam vnto the first part of the sentence death raigned 2. some doe ioyne it with the next words before which sinned and of either of these there are seuerall opinions 1. They which distinguish the sentence and ioyne the first and last words together some as Chrysostome giue this sense that as death raigned vpon Adam so likewise it raigned ouer his posteritie but others doe make this the cause of death and mortalitie because they are borne like vnto Adam that is destitute of originall iustice Lyranus Tolet. annot 19. Tolet further would confirme this interpretation by diuers reasons 1. the preposition is 〈◊〉 which with a dative case sheweth the cause whereas an other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vsed to signifie in as Philip. 2.7 He was found in shape as a man and Rom. 8.3 In the similitats of sinneful flesh 2. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 similitude sheweth the similitude and likenes of nature 3. and this is most agreeable to the Apostles purpose to shew the cause why death raigned ouer all because they are borne sinners like vnto Adam Contra. 1. The Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometime taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as before in the 12. vers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whome and Tolet himselfe in that place sheweth that it is so vsed in other places of Scripture annot 15. 2. The word of similitude is better referred to the qualitie of Adams sinne then to the conformitie in nature 3. Neither needed the Apostle here shew the cause why death raigned ouer all but he bringeth in this as a proofe of that which he saide vers 12. that all sinned in Adam because all are subiect to death euen they which commit not actuall sinnes as infants it was therefore impertinent to repeat that which he intendeth to prooue 4. Now further this distinction of the verse is ouerthrowne by these two reasons 1. if the Apostle had saide ouer those which 〈…〉 and should haue put to no other addition he had contraried himselfe hauing set it downe vers 12. that in Adam all sinned and death therefore went ouer all how the◠could he say that death raigned ouer those that sinned not
of faith in any other gift it can not stand together for where merit and worke is the wages is not counted by fauour and so freely but by debt Rom. 4.4 2. The better answer then is that we are iustified freely although the condition of faith be required because faith doth not iustifie vt actus quidem noster est as it is an act of ours but all the vertue thereof proceedeth from the obiect as the Israelites beeing healed by looking vpon the brasen serpent obtained not their health by the very act of opening their eyes but by the obiect which they beheld which was the serpent And like as when a rich man giueth his almes vnto the poore though he stretch out his hand to receiue it yet is it said notwithstanding to be a free gift Tolet. annot 20. 3. But adde here further that as when a blind man putteth forth his hand but he that giueth is faine to direct it to receiue the almes or if a man haue a weake and withered hand which he is not able to stretch out vnlesse the other that giueth doe lift it vp in this case euery way the gift is free So our will is not of it selfe apt to beleeue or will any thing aright vnlesse the Lord direct it faith then beeing both the worke of God in straining our will and faith receiuing all the vertue from the obiect which it apprehendeth namely Christ it remaineth that faith notwithstanding we are iustified freely Faius 33. Quest. v. 25. To declare his iustice or righteousnes what iustice the Apostle vnderstandeth here 1. Chrysostome vnderstandeth the declaration of Gods iustice by the effects thereof like as God declareth his riches not that he is rich in himselfe but in making others rich and his power not in that he euer liueth himselfe but in raising others to life so his iustice is declared not in beeing iust in himselfe but in making others iust But this iustifying of sinners is a worke of Gods mercie not of his iustice 2. Theodoret herein will haue Gods iustice to be manifested because he did sustaine the sinnes of the world with patience forbearing to punish them but this likewise was an effect of his goodnes and mercie not of his iustice 3. Ambrose vnderstandeth this iustice of God in keeping and performing his promise but the iustice of God is not here to be taken in a diuers sense then before v. 22. the righteousnes of God by the faith of Iesus Christ. 4. Some doe take the iustice of God here for his goodnes mercie and clemencie as the Prophet Dauid vseth to pray Iudge me according to thy righteousnes that is thy goodnes Pareus but this seemeth not to be so proper here 5. Some vnderstand the iustice of God in not leauing sinne vnpunished Lyran. it was the iustice of God that the price of our redemption should not be paid otherwise then by the blood of Christ but this is not the iustice of faith which the Apostle spake of before 6. Therefore this iustice which the Lord manifested and declared is none other but the righteousnes of faith before touched and as the words here following doe shew by the forgiuenes of sinnes God reuealed and manifested this to be the true iustice whereby men are iustified before him euen the righteousnes of faith so August lib. de spir lit cap. 13. Anselme Tolet Osiander 34. Quest. What is meant by sinnes that are past v. 25. 1. Some think that this is vnderstood of the fathers in the law which were kept in Limbus who though thorough remission of their sinnes they were freed from punishment yet they were not receiued vnto glorie gloss ordin Gorrhan But Tolet confuteth this interpretation though he allow the opinion as not agreeable to the Apostles minde for the words are not to be so limited and restrained but generally the Apostle vnderstandeth such sinnes as he spake of before v. 23. All haue sinned and are depriued of the glorie of God And if the sinnes were not yet remitted vntill Christs comming vnto the Patriarks they could not be freed no not from the punishment 2. The Novatians vnderstand those former sinnes which were passed of sinnes going before vocation and iustification denying all remedie vnto sinnes committed afterward But this were to make the death of Christ of small force if there were no place for forgiuenes euen after one is iustified Dauid fell into those two grieuous sinnes of murther and adulterie after he was called and yet was restored againe 3. Catharinus with other Romanists vnderstand likewise sinnes going before iustification and baptisme the rest that follow after they say must be purged by other meanes as by repentance and satisfaction But the Apostle speaketh generally of all sinnes If any man sinne we haue an advocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust 1. Ioh. 2.2 Christ is our aduocate as well for sinnes before baptisme as after but see more for the confutation of thir error among the Controversies 4. The Apostle then compareth not the persons but the sinnes and the times and sheweth that euen the sinnes committed vnder the law and from the beginning of the world were redeemed by no other way then by faith in Christ God by his patience did forbeare to punish those sinnes as not imputing them because of the Redeemer which was to come Agreeable hereunto is that place Heb. 9.15 For this cause is he the Mediatour of the new Testament that thorough death which was for the transgression in the former Testament they which were called might receiue the promise of euerlasting inheritance By conference of these places together it is euident that by sinnes that are past are meant not the sinnes going before baptisme or iustification but the sinnes committed vnder the old Testament to shew that there was no remission of sinnes from the beginning of the world but by faith in Christ. And this further appeareth because the Apostle faith v. 26. to shew at this time his righteousnes c. he setteth the present time of the Gospel and the reuelation of grace against the former times 35. Quest. Why the Apostle onely maketh mention of sinnes past Now the Apostle so extendeth the effect and fruit of our redemption by Christ vnto the sinnes passed as that the sinnes present and to come also shall be by vertue thereof remitted but he maketh mention only of the sinnes past and before committed for these reasons 1. Hereby the Apostle sheweth the imbecillitie of the law of Moses and the ceremonies thereof that they were expiationes non verae sed vmbratiles not true expiations but onely in shadow Pareus as the Apostle saith Heb. 9.9 that those gifts and sacrifices could not make holy concerning the conscience and so Thomas yeeldeth this reason vpon this place God remitted the sinnes before passed quae lex remittere non potuit which the law could not remit 2. Adamus Safhout addeth that the Apostle maketh mention onely of former sinnes to
signifie non deinceps vivendum esse peccatis sed iustitiae that we should not liue afterward vnto sinne but vnto righteousnes for it were a signe of great vnthankfulnes hauing receiued so great a benefit in the forgiuenes of sinnes past if we should estsoone fall into the same againe 3. Pererius giueth two other reasons first that because it seemed an hard and impossible thing that sinnes before done should be remitted by the Redemption of Christ following many yeares after for the cause must be secundum existentiam haue a beeing before the effect therefore the Apostle to take away this scruple and difficultie maketh expresse mention of precedent sinnes to the which the vertue of Christs death was applied by faith 4. But Pererius other reason is false and friuolous that those former sinnes are mentioned to shew that there was no full remission of them for though they were remitted quanâ—â—â— ad culpam poenam aeternam in respect of the fault and euerlasting punishment yet the fathers vntill Christs comming were kept in Limbo and had no entrance into heauen â—at seeing by the blood of Iesus their sinnes were remitted they also by the vertue of the same blood had power to enter into heauen as the Apostle saith Hebr. 10.19 By the blood of Iesus we may be bold to enter into the holy place And againe v. 14. he saith With one offering hath he consecrated for euer them that are sanctified if then the beleeuing fathers of the old Testament were sanctified by Christs blood they were consecrated for euer that is perfectly but more followeth afterward of this matter among the Controversies 5. The true reason therefore why the Apostle giueth instance in sinnes which were past is to shew that from the beginning of the world there was no remission of sinnes from Adam vnto Moses and from Moses vnto Christ but onely by faith in his blood And therfore Iohn Baptist pointeth at Christ and saith Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world Some doe alleadge that place Apoc. 13.4 whose names are not written in the booke of life of the Lamb which was slaine from the beginning of the world Pareus Faius but this place seemeth not to be so fitly alleadged to that purpose for these words from the beginning of the world are rather to be ioyned with the former words whose names are not written in the booke of life c. from the beginning of the world so Aretus distinguisheth whome Beza and Pererius follow And so are the words ioyned c. 17.8 6. And further as hereby is expressed that all the sinnes of such as beleeued were remitted in Christ which were done before so much more the sinnes of the age then present and which should be committed afterward are forgiuen by no other way as the Apostle saith Heb. 13.8 Iesus Christ yesterday and to day and the same also is for euer Pareus 36. Quest. How God is said to be iust and a iustifier of him which is of the faith c. v. 26. 1. Some vnderstand this iustice of God generally of his holines vprightnes integritie which appeared in the worke of our redemption throughout Pareus wherein most of all shined forth the power of God his wisdome and benignitie vnto man his power in iustifying the wicked which was no lesse worke then in first creating him his wisdome in iustifying him by the death of Christ so fit and conuenient a meane for the reparation of man his benignitie appeared in beeing so mindfull of man as to appoint a way for his redemption Hugo 2. Ambrose doth vnderstand God to be iust that is faithfull in keeping his promises so also Beza 3. Some thus interpret iust that is benignus bonus good and gracious Osiand but Gods iustice is one thing his clemencie an other 4. Tolet vnderstandeth God to be iust in that he would not be satisfied for the sinne of man non accepto pretio sanguinis vnlesse he had first receiued the price of Christs blood so also Pareus 5. Oecumenius applieth it to Gods iustice which should be shewed in the iust punishment of those which should refuse grace offered but the Apostle speaketh of the time present not to come 6. The meaning then is this that he might be iust that is appeare and be acknowledged onely to be iust and all men lyars that is sinners and vniust as he saide before and as he is iust in himselfe so this iustice is communicated vnto vs by faith in Christ to this purpose Calvin Bucer Pellican so also the interlin glosse that he might be iust aliter non posse ipsoâ—vare otherwise he could not helpe to iustifie others if he were not most iust in himselfe God then is onely iust in himselfe and as he is the fountaine of all iustice so he doth iustifie others by that way which he hath appointed namely by faith in Christ. 37. Qu. How reioycing is excluded not by the law of works but by the law of faith 1. There are two kinds of reioycing one is in our redemption purchased by Christ whereof the Apostle speaketh 1. Cor. 1.31 He that reioyceth let him reioyce in the Lord there is an other reioycing in man as the Apostle saith in the same place v. 29. that no flesh should reioyce in his presence of the latter kind of reioycing which is in mens works speaketh the Apostle here 2. But the ordin glosse vnderstandeth this de laudabili gloriatione of the commendable reioycing and by excluded he vnderstandeth manifested or expressed as goldsmiths doe exclude and set out the stones set in siluer but this is a very vnfit interpretation the reioycing which the Apostle will haue here excluded is the reioycing before men as he sheweth afterward c. 4.2 3. By the law of works he vnderstandeth not onely the ceremonials iudicials of the law which are abolished vnder the Gospel as Lyranus but the morall also for the Apostle shewes c. 4.2 that Abraham might reioyce in works before men but not with God where he meaneth works of the morall law for the ceremonies were not yet instituted 4. Neither by the law of works doth the Apostle vnderstand such workes as are done without faith and by the law of faith the law of workes with faith but he excludeth all works whatsoeuer for seeing that such works they say proceede partly of freewill then this reioycing should not be taken away for where the freewill of man worketh there is merit and where there is merit there is reioycing Pareus 5. By the law of workes and the law of faith is vnderstood the rule and doctrine of works and the rule and doctrine of faith for in the Hebrew phrase the law is taken for the strength of a thing for doctrine or direction as afterward c. 7. he saith the law of the spirit the law of the members the law of the minde Mart. Faius 6. And Moses law is called the law of works not because it
risen but his bodie might haue beene kept incorruptible in his graue vnto the ende of the world and then he might haue risen and we with him but then should we haue beene iustified he rose therefore for our iustification not for our resurrection 4. Some will haue these two benefits of remission and iustification to be indifferently referred as well to the death as to the resurrection of Christ as Theophylact mortuus est exe tatus à morte c. he died and was raised from death to free and exempt vs from our euill works and to make vs iust to the same purpose Haymo vt credentes eum passum c. that beleeuing him to haue suffered for our saluation and to haue risen from the dead per hanc fidem mereamur iustificari we may be counted worthie to be iustified by this faith So Emmanuel Sa. vtrunque factum propter vtrunque both of these were wrought by both these But if both these benefits were in like sort and manner wrought by both those actions of Christ there should appeare no reason of this distinction which the Apostle vseth 5. An other exposition is Christ rose for our iustification that is ad eam demonstradam for the manifestation and demonstration of it Piscator he had purchased indeede both our redemption from our sinnes and our iustification by his death and passion but resurrectione gloriosa testatus est he witnessed by his resurrection that he had ouercome hell and death for vs Osiand But the Apostle sheweth the very reall cause of our iustification not the testification onely thereof by Christs resurrection as his deliuering to death was the very cause of the remission of our sinnes 6. Some giue this sense he is said to haue risen for our iustification quia salutis predicatio redemptionis applicatio generalis c. because the preaching of saluation and the generall application of redemption was to followe after the resurrection Tolet. annot 25. to the same purpose Pet. Martyr our redemption was purchased by the death of Christ but that the same might be applyed vnto vs spiritu sancto opus fuit it was needefull the spirit of God should be sent These by iustification vnderstand the application publication and preaching of iustification But this seemeth not be so fit neither for as in the one part of the sentence the Apostle toucheth the true working and efficient cause of the remission of sinnes Christs deliuering vnto death and not the application or publication so must the other part of our iustification be vnderstood And Christ might if it had pleased him haue giuen his Apostle a commission to preach his death and passion before his resurrection yet had we not beene fully iustified vntill he had risen againe 7. But among the rest that exposition which goeth vnder the name of Ambrose in the commentarie vpon this place seemeth to be most vnreasonable that the Apostle thus deuideth these benefits to shewe that as many as were baptized before the passion of Christ solam remissionem peccatorum accepisse receiued onely remission of sinnes but after Christs resurrection as well they which were baptized before as after esse omnes vere iustification were all truely iustified This one place doth giue iust occasion of suspition that those commentaries were not composed by Ambrose for remission of sinnes cannot be separated from iustification whosouer hath the one hath likewise the other because they are pronounced blessed whose sinnes are remitted before ver 7. but there can be no blessednesse without iustification 8. Hugo is somewhat curious to shewe the reason why remission of sinnes is ascribed vnto Christs passion and iustification vnto his resurrection first he saith that Christs passion is both causa meritum figura the cause merit and figure or forme of remission but it is the cause and merit onely of iustification and newenesse of life not the forme it is the cause moouing that we should liue in sinne for which Christ hath died and Christ by his death merited forgiuenesse of our sinne and he hath giuen in his death a forme that as he died in respect of his bodily life so we should die vnto sinne now of newenesse of life Christs death is both the cause mouing and meriting of newenesse of life but not a figure so it agreeth in three points with the remission of sinnes and in two onely with iustification Likewise Christs resurrection was both the cause mouing vnto newenesse of life are the forme and figure that as Christ rose againe so we should rise vnto newenesse of life but of remission of sinnes it was onely the cause moouing not the forme but of neither was it any meritorious cause for Christ hauing put off his mortall bodie in the resurrection was not in statu merendi in the state of meriting so the resurrection of Christ agreeth with iustification in two points in beeing the cause and figure or forme but with remission of sinnes onely in one in beeing the cause therefore iustification is rather ascribed to Christs resurrection then vnto his passion to this purpose Hugo But he faileth in this his subtile and curious distinction 1. for seeing that the passion of Christ in two points as be himselfe obserueth agreeth with iustification namely in beeing the cause and merit thereof and the resurrection in two likewise in beeing the cause and figure or forme iustification should rather in this regard be ascribed vnto Christs passion because it was merited by it and not by the other and the rather because the Apostle hath nothing to doe with the exemplarie forme of the one or the other but to shewe the true causes and so the passion of Christ shall agree in two respects with iustification and the resurrection of Christ but in one 9. To drawe then this question to an ende there are two answers which I insist vpon as the best and so I will ioyne them both together 1. The Apostle doth put iustification vnto the resurrection of Christ because although it were merited by his death yet it had the complement and perfection by the resurrection of Christ for if Christ had not risen againe he had not shewed himselfe conquerour of death and so the worke of our redemption had beene vnperfect thus Calvin Beza Gualter and to this purpose Rollecus distinguisheth well betweene meritum efficacia the merit of iustification in respect of Christ and the efficacie thereof in respect of vs Christ did meritoriously worke our iustification and saluation by his death and passion but the efficacie thereof and perfection of the worke to vs-ward dependeth vpon his resurrection the like distinction the Apostle vseth saying Rom. 10.10 With the heart man beleeueth vnto righteousnes and with the mouth man confesseth to saluation not really distinguishing them in the causes one from the other but shewing that the complement and perfection of the worke consisteth in both 2. Hereunto adde that although these two benefits of our
redemption remission of sinnes and iustification are in themselues and in the vse of them common and vndeuided and are indifferently sometime ascribed to Christs death and passion Rom. 3.24 Ephes. 1.7 and sometime to his resurrection Rom. 10.9 yet in respect of their proper causes they are discerned rather then distinguished as the remission of sinnes is properly referred to Christs passion iustification to his resurrection Pareus and the reason is yeelded by Thomas effectus habet aliqualiter similitudinem causae the effect hath in some sort the similitude of the cause our mortification in the remission of sinne answeareth to Christs death our iustification and spirituall life to Christs rising againe to life Mart. Thus the workes of our creation redemption sanctification are indifferently ascribed to the whole Trinitie as works of their deitie and yet are discerned in respect of their seuerall persons And this shall suffice of this intricate and difficult question 4. Places of doctrine Doct. 1. Iustification by workes sheweth pride and vaine-glorie v. 2. If Abraham were iustified by workes he hath wherein to reioyce or glorie c. It is euident then that for one to stand vpon the iustice of his workes it commeth of pride and vaine boasting it maketh a man to extoll and advance himselfe against the grace of God but God resisteth the proude and giueth grace to the humble the proud Pharisie was not iustified but the humble Publican then let proud Pharisies and vaine-glorious Papists knowe that as long as they stand vpon the merit of their workes they shall neuer be truely iustified But yet whereas the Apostle addeth he hath wherein to reioyce but not with God we learne that all reioycing in good workes and in the keeping of a good conscience is not denyed we may modestly professe and protest before men what the grace of God hath wrought in vs but we must not glorie therein as thereby iustified before God as the Apostle else where saith 1. Cor. 4.4 I knowe nothing by my selfe yet am I not thereby iustified Pareus Doct. 2. Of the nature and substance of the Sacraments v. 11. Circumcision is called the seale of the righteousnes of faith this is not proper and peculiar to circumcision but it sheweth the vse and end of all sacraments which is to seale confirme vnto vs the promises of God in Christ So here are collected all the causes of the Sacraments 1. the efficient cause and author is God onely because he onely is able to giue efficacie and vertue vnto the sacraments as God was the author of circumcision so of all other the Sacraments both of the old and newe Testament 2. the materiall cause is the visible and externall signe 3. the forme is the rite and manner of institution 4. the ende to seale vnto vs the promises of God for remission of our sinnes in Christ Faius pag. 238. Doct. 3. Of the baptisme of infants From the circumcision of infants in the old Testament is inferred the baptisme also of infants vnder the newe for there is the same reason of both the Sacraments and S. Paul doubteth not to call baptisme circumcision Col. 2.11 And if circumcision beeing graunted to infants then baptisme should be denied nowe this were to make God more equall vnto the Iewes and their seede which were the carnall offspring of Abraham then vnto beleeuing Christians which are the spirituall sonnes of Abraham If it be obiected that we knowe not whether infants haue rem sacramenti the thing represented in the Sacrament neither should we put to the signe we answear 1. that this were to reason against God for the same question may be mooued concerning circumcision 2. no more doth the minister know the minde and intention of all those which communicate in the Lords Supper 3. infants are baptized though they haue no vnderstanding as yet of the Sacrament to shewe that they belong vnto the couenant of grace whence their saluation dependeth and not of the outward signe and both presently the Church receiueth edifying when they see infants baptized and the children themselues are admonished and stirred vp when they come to yeares of discretion to learne the true signification and vse of their baptisme which they receiued in their infancie Peter Martyr Doct. 4. Of the vnitie of the Church and the communion of Saints v. 11. That he should be the father of all them that beleeue In that Abraham is called the father of all that beleeue whether of the circumcision or vncircumcision hence it is euident that there is but one Church and one way of iustification for all whether circumcised or vncircumcised vnder the Lawe or the Gospel and that there is a communion and common fellowship of all beleeuers as beeing all brethren and children of faithfull Abraham So the Apostle saith Ephes. 4.4 There is one bodie one spirit c. one Lord one faith one baptisme Doct. 5. Faith requisite in those which are made partakers of the Sacraments v. 11. The seale of the righteousnesse of faith which he had Circumcision profited not Abraham without faith neither can any Sacrament to them which are of discretion and able to vnderstand and discerne be of any force without faith and therefore S. Pauls rule is 1. Cor. 11.28 That a man should examine himselfe when he commeth to the Lords table and to this examination it belongeth to prooue whether they be in faith 2. Cor. 13.5 Doct. 6. The faithfull are the true owners and heares of the world the wicked are vsurpers v. 13. The promise to be heire of the world was made to Abraham thorough faith to them then that beleeue who are the right seede of faithfull Abraham doe the promises belong both of this life and of the next as the Apostle saith 1. Tim. 4.8 That godlinesse haue both the promise of this life and of that which is to come the faithfull then may vse the blessings of this life with a good conscience as pledges of the life to come but the wicked are vsurpers and therefore defile themselues in abusing the things of this life Gryneus Doct. 7. The difference betweene the true God and the false v. 17. He beleeued God who quickeneth the dead Hence are gathered three arguments of the Godhead 1. his omnipotencie both in giuing a beeing vnto things which are not be calleth the things that are not as though they were and in restoring vnto things the beeing which they had 2. his eternitie he is the first and the last both at the first he created all things and shall in the last day raise them vp to life againe 3. his omniscience he can foretell things to come in calling them that is giuing them a beeing which yet are nothing These things cannot idols doe nor any strange gods by these arguments the Prophet Isa confoundeth the Idols of the heathens shewing that they are not like vnto the true God Isa. 44.6 I am the first and the last and without me there is no
promised but that he had also a particular confidence of his acceptance with God and remission of his sinnes in the Messiah promised doth euidently appeare by these two arguments 1. The Apostle saith that Abraham was partaker by faith of that blessednesse which the Prophet Dauid speaketh of v. 7. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen then it followeth ver 9. Came the blessednesse vpon the circumcision or vpon the vncircumcision 2. the like faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse which is imputed to vs v. 23. but our faith is to beleeue that Christ was put to death for our sinnes and rose for our iustification v. 25. therefore Abrahams faith was an assurance of remission of his sinnes in Christ. Controv. 15. That faith doth not iustifie by the merit or act thereof but onely instrumentally as it applyeth and apprehendeth the righteousnesse of Christ. Bellarmine hath an other sophisticall collection vpon these words v. 22. therefore it was imputed to him for righteousnesse here saith at the Apostle rendreth the reason why faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse because he in beleeuing gaue glorie vnto god therefore he was iustified merito fidei by the merit or worthinesse of faith which notwithstanding was his grace and gift Bellar. lib. 1. de iustif c. 17. Contra. 1. Abraham was not iustified because he in beleeuing gaue glorie vnto God that indeede was an act and fruit of his faith but it was his faith onely for the which he was iustified as the Apostle saith afterward v. 24. it shall be likewise imputed to vs for righteousnes which beleeue c. 2. the Apostle saith to him that worketh not but beleeueth c. faith is counted for righteousnesse then it will followe that where faith is counted or imputed for righteousnesse there is no worke faith then iustifieth not as a worke by the act of beleeuing for then faith should not iustifie without works which is the scope of all the Apostles discourse that by faith righteousnes is imputed without workes v. 6. faith then doth not iustifie actiuely as it is a worke but passiuely as it apprehendeth the righteousnesse of Christ. 3. If faith be the gift of God as Bellarmine confesseth then can it not merit for he that meriteth must merit of his owne where there is grace and fauour as in the bestowing of gifts freely there is no merit v. 4. 4. I will here oppose against Bellarmine the iudgement of Tolet and so set one Iesuite against an other and a Cardinall against his fellowe he thus ingeniously writeth vpon these words non existimes Paulum merito fiderascribere iustitium c. thinke not that Paul ascribeth righteousnesse to the merit of faith as though because he beleeued he was worthie of the righteousnesse of God but he signifieth Deum ex gratia acceptare fidem nostram in iustitiam that God of grace and fauour accepteth our faith for righteousnesse Controv. 16. The people are not to be denied the reading of the Scriptures v. 23. Now it is not written for him onely but for vs c. Hence it is euident that the Romanists offer great wrong vnto the people of God in barring them from the reading of the Scriptures for they are to be admitted to the reading of the Scriptures for whom they are written but they are written for all that beleeue in Christ the reading then of the Scripture serueth to coÌ„firme our faith therfore they belong generally vnto the faithfull Par. But it will be obiected that the vnlearned doe not vnderstand the Scriptures and therefore they are to depend vpon the fathers of the Church for the vnderstanding of them and not to venture vpon them themselues Answ. 1. Nay the sense of the Scripture is most safely taken from the Scripture which is the best interpreter of it selfe 2. the Fathers and expossitors are to be heard and consulted with so farre forth as they agree with the Scriptures but the sense of the Scripture 〈◊〉 not depend vpon their fancies which haue no warrant by Scripture as Hierome vpon theâ— 23. chap. of Mathew giueth instance of a certaine interpretation of one of the Fatherâ— that Zacharias the sonne of Barachias mentioned there v. 35. to haue beene slaine betweene the Temple and the Altar was Zacharie the father of Iohn Baptist And Hierome searching out which of the Fathers had made this interpretation found that it was Basil and then he concludeth this seeing it hath no warrant out of the Scriptures eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur is as easily reiected as it is affirmed See further of the vulgar reading of Scripture and of the manner of interpreting the same Synops. Centur. 1. err 3. and err 9. Controv. 17. Against the heretikes which condemned the old Testament and God the author thereof v. 24. Which beleeued in him that raised vp Iesus c. Origen very well inferreth vpon these wordes that seeing the God whom Abraham beleeued was able to quicken the dead was the same that raised Iesus from the dead non erat alius Deus legis alius Domini nostri Iesu Christ. c. there was not then one God of the law and another of our Lord Iesus Christ c. But there was the same God of the old and new Testament which is obserued by Origen against the wicked Marcionites and Manichies who condemned the old Testament and the author thereof So also whereas the same heretickes vrged these wordes of the Apostle v. 15. where no law is there is no transgression and thereupon inferring the contrarie where there is a law there is transgression would thereby conclude that the law is the cause of transgression and so condemne the law Origen doth thus returne this their collection vpon themselues that as where the law is there is transgression of the law so where faith is there is transgression against faith but as faith is not the cause vt quis praeuaricetur à fide that one transgresse against faith neither shall the law be the cause of transgression against the law Controv. 18. Whether iustification consist onely in the remission of sinnes v. 25. Who was deliuered to death for our sinnes and is risen againe for our iustification Pererius taketh occasion here to inuergh against Protestants thus affirming of vs qui â—â—â—â—em vim iustificationis ponunt in sola remissione peccatorum donationem vero iustitiae c. which doe place all the force of iustification onely in the remission of sinnes but the donation of iustice whereby the minde is rectified and newenesse of life wrought in vs they do reiect and abandon Perer. disput 10. err 49. and to the same purpose Bellar. lib. 2. de iustif c. 6. and the Rhemists take vpon them to confute the Protestants because they hold iustification to be onely remission of sinnes and no grace inherent in vs annot in 4. ad Rom. Sect. 6. Contra. 1. It is a false imputation that we place iustification onely in the remission of
sinnes for we hold also with S. Paul the imputation of Christs righteousnesse by faith as S. Paul saith Philip. 3.9 That I may be found in him not hauing mine owne righteousnesse which is by the lawe but that which is of the faith of Christ c. 2. But though we graunt as well an imputation of righteousnes as a not imputation of sinne concurring vnto iustification yet we denie that any inherent iustice or renouation of life is any part of this iustification neither doth the Apostle meane any such iustification here Christ rose for our iustification not thereby onely to giue vs an example of newenesse of life as Bellarmine and Pererius expound it wherein Tolet his owne fellowe Iesuite and Cardinall is against him as is before shewed qu. 42. but Christs resurrection is the cause and ground of our iustification which is imputed by faith as Ambrose expoundeth resurrexit c. vt nos gratia iustificationis donaret he rose againe to endue vs with the grace of iustification vt iustitiam credentium confirmaret to confirme the iustice of those which beleeue saith Hierome ista resurrectio credita nos iustificat this resurrection beeing beleeued doth iustifie vs saith Augustine 3. an inherent iustice we confesse which is our sanctification the fruit and effect of our iustification by faith but because it is imperfect in vs and not able to satisfie the iustice of God we denie that we are thereby iustified in his sight Controv. 19. Against Socinus corrupt interpretation of these words v. 25. Was deliuered vp for our sinnes Socinus will not haue this phrase to signifie any satisfactioÌ„ made by Christ for our sinnes but onely to betoken the cause or occasion of Christs death as the Lord is said to giue Israâ—l vp for the sinnes of Ieroboam who sinned and caused Israel to sinne 1. king 14.16 thus â—icked Socinus de Seruat part 2. p. 108. Contra. 1. Though sometime this phrase signifie the cause yet it is false that it so onely signifieth for the Scripture speaketh euidently that Christ was our reconciliation and that we haue redemption in him Rom. 3.24 25. our sinnes then onely were not the cause or occasion of his death but he so died for our sinnes as that he by his blood satisfied for them 2. It was the Pelagian blasphemie that Christ died for our sinnes to be an example onely vnto vs to die vnto sinne for thus the power and force of Christs death is extenuated which indeede causeth vs to die vnto sinne it doth not teach vs onely and shew vs the way this were to extoll the power of mans corrupt will against the grace of God 3. The instance of Ieroboam is altogether impertinent Israel was deliuered vp for Ieroboams sinnes which they imitated and followed if Christ were so deliuered vp for our sinnes then they must make him also to be a sinner with vs and to be polluted with our sinnes ex Perer dub 8. 20. Controv. Piscators opinion examined that our sinnes are remitted onely by Christs death not for the obedience and merit of his life These are Piscators words in his annotation vpon the 25. v. Omnia nostra pectata expiatâ— sunt per solam mortem Christi all our sinnes are expiated onely by the death of Christ and therefore neither originall sinne is purged by his holy conception nor the sinnes of omission by his holy life but by Christs death onely to this purpose many places of Scripture are cited and alleadged by him as Matth. 20.28 The Sonne of man came to giue his life a ransome for many Matth. 26.28 Which namely blood is shed for many for the remission of sinnes Act. 20.28 Christ hath purchased his Church by his blood Likewise he affirmeth that by Christs obedience in his death and vpon the crosse partâ—â— esse nobis vitam aeâ—ernam euerlasting life is obtained for vs as Hebr. 10.19 By the blood of Iesus we may be hold to enter into the holy place and other places are cited to the same effect Contra. 1. It is true that Christ onely by his death and other his holy sufferings paied the ransome and bare the punishment due vnto our sinne but seeing Christs blood had beene of no value if he had not beene most perfectly righteous his obedience and righteousnes must as well concurre vnto the remission of sinnes as his death and this is that which S. Peter saith 1. Pet. 1.19 We are redeemed with the pretious blood of Christ as of a Lâ—â—â—e vndefiled and without spot and c. 3.18 Christ hath once suffered for sinnes the iust for the vniust the innocencie then and integritie of Christ must be ioyned with Christs blood to make it an acceptable sacrifice 2. Whereas there are two parts of our iustification the remission and not imputing of sinnes and the imputation of Christs righteousness which two are not separated neither can the one stand without the other neither can there be any remission of sinnes vnlesse Christs righteousnes be imputed as S. Paul saith 1. Cor. 5.21 He hath made him to be sinne 〈◊〉 that knew no sinne that we should be made the righteousnes of God in him the merit of Christs obedience and righteousnes must needes concurre in the remission of sinnes yea Piscator in his annotation vpon the 4. v. confesseth that these words blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen idem valere to be as much in effect as to say blessed are they to whom iustice is imputed 3. But that seemeth to be a more straunge assertion to denie that possessio vitae eternat tanquam effectum adscribitur obedientiae Christi the possession of eternall life is ascribed as an effect to Christs obedience which is directly affirmed by the Apostle Hebr. 7.26 Such an high Priest it became vs to haue which is holy harmelesse vndefiled separate from sinners and made higher then the heauens what hath made Christ higher then the heauens but his holines perfection integritie and therefore he is able perfectly to saue them that come vnto God v. 25. 4. And further that we are iustified by Christs obedience the Apostle sheweth Rom. 5.13 As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous here the Apostle saith directly that we are made righteous by the obedience of Christ. Piscator here answereth that by Christs obedience here is vnderstood his obedience in submitting himselfe willingly vnto death in which it was his fathers will he should suffer for vs. Contra. Our iustification consisteth of two parts of the remission of our sinnes and the making of vs iust before God the one is procured by Christs death the other is purchased by his obedience and righteousnes and that the Apostle speaketh not onely of Christs obedience vnto death but generally of his whole course of righteousnes both in life and death is euident because he calleth it the gift of righteousnes v. 17. and the raigning of grace
by righteousnes thorough Iesus Christ v. 21. And further this is yet more euident where the Apostle saith Rom. 4.25 Christ was deliuered to death for our sinnes and is risen againe for our iustification whence it is gathered that iustification is more then remission of sinnes onely which as it was wrought by his death so the other was compassed by all other his holy actions Piscator answereth that iustification is here affirmed of the resurrection because it is an euident demonstration of our iustification which was obtained by the death of Christ. But I preferre rather Augustines interpretation lib. 10. cont Faust. c. 10. Ista resurrectio credita nos iustificat c. this resurrection of Christ beeing beleeued doth iustifie vs non quod reliqua opera merita Christi excluduntur c. not that the rest of his merits and works are excluded sed omnia consummantur c. but because all was perfected and finished in his death and resurrection here Augustine affirmeth two things both that all Christs merits and works concurre in our iustification as also that the beleeuing of Christs resurrection is as verily a cause of our iustification not a demonstration onely as his death was of the remission of our sinnes See before this place more fully expounded quest 42. and Piscators exposition refuted artic 5. So then to finish this matter if Christs death onely effected and wrought our iustification then should the rest of his workes and actions be superfluous whereas whatsoeuer he did in life or death was wrought for vs as Thomas in his commentarie vpon this place alleadgeth out of Damascen omnes passiones actiones illius humanitatis fuerunt nobis salutifera vtpote ex virtute divinitatis prouenientes all the passions and actions of his humanitie did tend vnto our saluation as proceeding from the vertue of his Diuinitie 6. Morall observations v. 7. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen Peter Martyr here noteth well that our sinnes onely doe hinder our blessednes for iustificatio est inchoata beatitudo our iustification is an happines inchoate or begun so then when our sinnes shall be fully taken away then our beatitude and blessed estate shall no longer be deferred as our happines begunne bringeth with it the remission of sinne so when it is finished all our sinnes with the remainder of them shall be cleane purged v. 13. The promise that he should be heire of the world Although the faithfull haue the promises of this life so farre as the Lord seeth it to be expedient for them yet their peculiar inheritance is the kingdome of heauen the children of God therefore must comfort themselues in the hope and expectation of their proper inheritance though in the meane time they be stripped and dispossessed of the things of this life As Abraham had the land of Canaan promised him and yet he himselfe had no inheritance in it no not the breadth of a foote Act. 7.5 so we must be reuiued with the hope of our celestiall inheritance though we possesse little in this world as Abraham was promised to be heire of the world not so much of that present as of that to come v. 18. Abraham aboue hope beleeued vnder hope This teacheth vs that we should neuer despair or cast off our hope but comfort our selues in God though we see no meanes as Abraham beleeued Gods promise concerning the multiplying of his seede though he saw no reason thereof in nature such a godly resolution was in Iob cap. 13.15 Though he slay me yet will I trust in him Then God showeth himselfe strongest when we are weakest and his glorie most appeareth when he helpeth vs beeing forsaken of all other worldly meanes v. 20. And gaue glorie vnto God As Abraham praised and glorified God for his mercie and truth so we ought to magnifie God and set forth his praise for all his mercies toward vs the Lord is not so well pleased with any spirituall sacrifice and seruice as when he returne vnto the praise of euery good blessing as the Prophet Dauid saide Psal. 116.12 What shall I render vnto the Lord for all his benefits I will take the cuppe of sauing health and call vpon the name of the Lord this is all the recompence that either God expecteth at our hands or we are able to performe to giue him thanks for all his benefits v. 23. Now it was not written for him onely c. but for vs c. Seeing then that the Scriptures are written generally for all the faithfull we haue all interest in them and therefore euerie one of Gods children should hereby receiue encouragement diligently and carefully to search the Scriptures as appertaining and belonging euen vnto him as our Sauiour saith Ioh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures for in them you thinke to haue eternall life who would not search his ground verie deepe if he thought he should finde gold there so much more should we be diligent in searching the Scriptures which shewe vs the way to eternall life which is farre beyond all the treasures of the world v. 25. Who was deliuered to death for our sinnes Seeing then that Christ died not in vaine but brought that worke to perfection for the which he died this now maketh much for the comfort of Gods children that their sinnes are verily done away in Christ and blotted out in his death this was S. Pauls comfort that Christ came into the world to same sinners of whom he was the chiefe 1. Tim. 1.15 This also teacheth vs to die vnto sinne which was the cause that Christ was giuen vp vnto death as Origen well obserueth quomodo non alienum nobis inimicum omne ducitur peccatum c. how shall not euerie sinne seeme strange and as an enemie vnto vs for the which Christ was deliuered vp vnto death The fifth chapter 1. The text with the diuers readings v. 1. Then beeing iustified by faith we haue peace not let vs haue peace S. L. toward God thorough our Lord Iesus Christ 2 By whome also we haue had accesse thorough faith into this grace wherein we stand by the which we stand Be. and reioyce vnder the hope Be. G.V. in the hope L.S. of the glorie of God of the sonnes of God L. but this is added 3 Neither that onely but also we reioyce in tribulation knowing that tribulation of afflection V.S. oppression Be. bringeth forth patience worketh G. in vs S. but this is not in the originall 4 And patieâ—â—â—e proofe B.S.L.V. or experience Be. G. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. and proofe or experience hope 5 And hope maketh not ashamed because the loue of God is shedde abroad in our hearts by the holy Ghost which is giuen vnto vs 6 For Christ when we were yet weake at his time B.G. that is the appointed time S. according to the time Gr. died for the vngodly not to what ende when we were yet weake died Christ for the
they also without the mercie of God were subiect by nature vnto euerlasting death 2. But Origen manifestly interpreteth the Apostle to speake of originall sinne for he saith as Leui was in Abrahams Ioynes when he payed tithes to Melchizedeck sic omnes homines erant iu lumbis Adae c. so all men that are born were in the Ioynes of Adam and when he was expelled out of Paradise they were expelled with him c. 3. touching the scope of the place that which followeth v. 13. vnto the time of the lawe was sinne in the world comprehendeth also originall sinne which Erasmus would haue vnderstood onely of actuall that this place might be taken so likewise as shall be further shewed when we come to that place 2. But Theodoret goeth yet further then Erasmus for he doth not onely exclude originall sinne here applying the Apostles words onely to actuall sinne but he thinketh further that Adams sinne was not the cause of the entrance of sinne vpon his posteritie but the occasion onely for they hauing sinned became mortall and beeing mortall they begat mortall children and so were subiect to perturbations and consequently vnto sinne and so he concludeth vim peccati non esse naturalem c. that the force of sinne is not naturall for then they which sinne should be free from punishment for that which is naturall cannot be helped sed naturam ad peccatum procliuem esse factam but yet nature was made prone and apt to sinne to this purpose Theodoret But the Apostle euidently sheweth that not onely death is entred into the world but sinne also for how could infants in the iustice of God be subiect vnto death if they were not also guiltie of sinne 3. But the Pelagians goe yet a steppe further and denie that there is any originall sinne at all and that Adams sinne is not transfused to his posteritie by any naturall propagation but onely a corrupt imitation which heresie shall be confuted among the controversies Quest. 25. Of the coherence of these words vnto the time of the lawe was sinne in the world 1. Some make this connexion that the Apostle directly prooueth his former assertion v. 12. that in Adam all sinned and therefore are subiect to death and this is prooued by the contrarie because before there was any lawe giuen men were not punished for their actuall sinnes which were then in the world for there is no imputation of sinne vnto punishment where is no lawe seeing then death was not inflicted for actuall sinnes it followeth that it was for originall sinne Tolet. But this is not the coherence for he taketh sinne onely for actuall sinne whereas the Apostle spoke before of originall sinne 2. Some will haue all this verse to containe an obiection and to be vttered by S. Paul in the person of the adversarie and obiecter Where no lawe is there is no sinne imputed but before Moses there was no lawe giuen therefore no such sinne was imputed But all the words of this verse cannot containe the obiection because the first clause vnto the time of the law was sinne in the world are contrarie to the obiection for it is affirmed that sinne was in the world which the obiectio excepteth against beside Beza well obserueth that where the Apostle speaketh in the person of an other he inserteth some note or signification thereof 3. Calvin suspendeth all this sentence by a parenthesis which Beza misliketh because it hath a very good coherence with the former verse 4. Some thinke that the Apostle here maketh not an obiection but rather preuenteth it and maketh answear vnto a supposed obiection for it might haue beene thus excepted a-against the former words in whom all haue sinned that there was no lawe giuen vntill Moses and where no lawe is there is no imputation of sinne to this obiection the Apostle answeareth by way of cōcession vnto part that though sinne be not imputed without a law yet sinne was in the world before the lawe as it appeareth by the effects thereof namely death which reigned ouer all as it followeth v. 14. to this purpose Martyr Piscator Lyran. 5. But this rather is the right coherence and connexion of these words with the former whereas the Apostle had inferred that all in Adam were sinners and so subiect to death instance might be giuen of those which liued vntill the time of the law that vnto them sinne was not imputed because they had no lawe giuen them Then the Apostle answeareth this obiection proouing that death came into the world because of originall sinne and first he taketh it for graunted that there was then sinne in the world before the Lawe v. 13. as also death then he reasoneth thus if death were in the world and not inflicted for actuall sinnes then was it imputed for originall but it was not inflicted for actuall sinnes which he proueth by two reasons first by that which was obiected there was no lawe giuen for actuall sinnes and therefore they were not imputed secondly by the instance of children which committed no actuall sinnes and yet died therefore death entred into the world because of originall sinne Pare Quest. 26. How sinne is said to haue beene vnto the time of the lawe 1. Some doe vnderstand this sentence inclusiuely including also the time of the lawe and expound vnto the lawe vnto the ende and terme of the lawe for sinne was both before and vnder the lawe which could not take away sinne vntill Christ came thus Augustine lib. 1. de peccat remission c. 10. and Thodoret likewise Haymo who vnderstandeth by the lawe finem legis initium gratiae the ende of the lawe and beginning of grace and maketh it like vnto this speach the Hunnes raigned vsque ad Attylam regem vnto king Attylas that is vnto his death But the words following are against this exposition sinne is not imputed where is no lawe for if the time vnder the lawe be here comprehended how could it be said that then sinne was not imputed whereas by the lawe it is most of all imputed 2. Origen hath this singular exposition by himselfe he vnderstandeth here not the written but the naturall lawe and he supplieth the word mortuum dead sinne is dead vnto the time of the lawe that is till children come to yeares of discretion to vnderstand the lawe of nature and light of reason sinne is not imputed vnto them As it is forbidden that a child should smite his parents but in a boy of 4. or 5. yeare old it is counted no sinne so to doe and to this purpose he also interpreteth the word world the Apostle saith not among men but in the world because in the world there are vnreasonable creatures which are not capable of sinne and so he thinketh that S. Paul vnderstandeth children which are not yet capable of reason to this effect Origen But first it is euident that the Apostle by the lawe vnderstandeth the written lawe of Moses as
reference to the time before spoken of from Adam vnto Moses and therefore he saith many not all as he on the other side specially meaneth the times of the Gospell when likewise many and not all beleeued in Christ annot 22. so also Faius But then this comparison should be imperfect for as Adams sinne hath infected all his posteritie since the beginning of the world to the ende thereof so Christ is the Sauiour of the world both from Adam to Moses and since 4. Augustine taketh the Apostle to meane all but yet he saith many to shewe the multitude of those that are saued in Christ for there are aliqua omnia quae non sunt multa some things all that are not many as the fowre Gospels are all but not many and there be aliqua multa some things many that are not all as many beleeuers in Christ not all for all haue not faith 2. Thess. 3. c. It is true that the Apostle by many vnderstandeth all as he said in the former verse and sometime the scripture calleth them many which are all as in one place the Lord saith to Abraham I haue made thee a father of many nations Gen. 17. in an other in thy seede all the nations of the earth shall be blessed but yet the reason is not giuen why the Apostle saith many not all 5. Some thinke he so saith many because Christ is excluded that came of Adam Piscator But Christ though he descended of Adam yet not by ordinarie generation therefore in this generall speach he needed not to be excepted as he was not included when the Apostle saith in whom that is in Adam all haue sinned 6. The reason then is this multos apponit vni he opposeth many to one that Adam beeing one infected many beside himselfe with his sinne as Adams sinne rested not in his person but entred vpon many so Christs obedience and righteousnesse staied not in his person but was likewise communicated to many Beza Pareus Quest. 40. How many are said to be sinners in Adam 1. Chrysostome by sinners vnderstandeth morti obnoxiot those that are subiect to death by reason of Adams sinne and he addeth this reason ex illius inobedientia alium fieri peccatorem quam poterit habere consequentiam by his disobedience others to become sinners it hath no coherence or consequence Contra. 1. True it is that sometime the word peccatores sinners is taken in that sense for men subiect to death and punishment as Bathsheba saith to Dauid 1. King 1.21 else when my Lord the King shall sleepe with his fathers I and my sonne Salomon shall be sinners c. that is put to death as offenders But yet in this place the word is not so taken for as to be made iust in Christ signifieth not to haue the reward of iustice but to be iustified indeed so to be made sinners sheweth not the punishment but the guiltines of sinne deseruing punishment as then in the former verse the effects were compared together condemnation in Adam and iustification vnto life in Christ so here the causes are shewed sinne on the one side causing death and righteousnesse on the other which bringeth to life 2. though Chrysostome faile in the interpretation of this place yet he denieth not but that in Adams all sinned and in many places he testifieth euidently of originall sinne as he calleth to radicale peccatum the rooted sinne hom 40. in 1. epist. ad Corinth And therefore the Pelagians did him wrong to make him an author of their opinion who denied originall sinne from which imputation of the Pelagians Augustine cleareth Chrysostome writing against their heresie and this point is cleared in this place for if all are subiect to death in Adam which Chrysostome here confesseth then all haue sinned in Adam for death could not enter vpon all without sinne 2. As Chrysostome vnderstandeth here onely temporall death whereunto all are subiect in Adam so some by condemnation mentioned v. 17. doe likewise insinuate the sentence onely of mortalitie Tolet. Origen vnderstandeth the expulsion of Adam out of Paradise but by the contrarie seeing the Apostle by iustification vnto life vnderstandeth the raigning in life eternall by death and condemnation is signified animae corporis damnatio the damnation of bodie and soule so expoundeth gloss interlin Gorrhan with others 3. Origen by sinners vnderstandeth consuetudinem studium peccandi the custome and studie of sinning as though the Apostle had meant onely actuall sinne but that proceedeth not from Adams disobedience properly as originall sinne doth 4. Neither yet doth the Apostle onely meane originall sinne which is by Adams disobedience in ipsius posteros propagatum propagated vnto his posteritie Faius for it is more to be a sinner then to sinne in Adam which the Apostle said before v. 12. 5. Wherefore the Apostle by sinners vnderstandeth both such as sinne originally in Adam peccatum contrabendâ— by the contagion or contraction of sinne and peccatum inteâ—andâ— which sinne actually by imitation Gorrh. so that we are not onely naturally euill by sinful propagation as the Apostle said before v. 12. in whom all haue sinned and so are by nature guiltie of death and condemnation v. 18. but beside as an effect of our naturall corruption there is a generall pravitie of nature and an habite of euill engendred in vs whereby we can doe no other then sinne so Adams disobedience hath made vs not onely naturaliter pravos naturally euill sed habitualiter peccatores habitually sinners Pareus Quest. 41. How the lawe is said to haue entred thereupon ver 20. 1. The occasion of these words is not so much to shewe that sinne raigned in the world euen after the lawe as it was in the world before the lawe from Adam to Moses v. 14. but the Apostle hauing shewed at large how we are deliuered from sinne and death brought in by Adam onely by Christ he preuenteth the obiection of the Iewes for it might haue beene replyed wherefore then serued the lawe if there were no remedie against sinne thereby the Apostle then answeareth that the lawe was so farre from sauing men from their sinnes that they were thereby the more encreased thus Chrysostome and Pet. Martyr with others 2. But this is not to be vnderstood of the lawe of nature as Origen who to decline the imputation of the lawe laid vpon it by wicked Marcion that it was giuen to an euill ende to encrease sinne will haue the Apostle to speake of the lawe of nature for the Apostle making mention of the lawe before v. 13. vnderstandeth the written lawe as he expoundeth v. 14. where he expressely speaketh of Moses neither was the lawe of nature giuen to that ende to encrease sinne no more then the morall lawe was but sinne entred occasionaliter by occasion onely of the lawe as shall be shewed in the next question 3. The lawe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 entred thereupon 1. the Latine interpreter readeth subintravit
4 Therefore my brethren or euen so B.G. ye are made dead also or mortified Be. L.A. dead B.G. to the law by the bodie in the bodie Be. T. of Christ that ye should be vnto an other euen vnto him that is raised not risen L.T. from the dead that we should fructifie L. bring forth fruit Be. B.G. vnto God 5 For when we were in the flesh the motions infirmities T. affections Be. lusts B. passions L. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. of sinnes which were by the law did worke L.B. had force Be. G. were effectuall in our members to bring forth fruit vnto death 6 But now we are deliuered from the law that beeing dead not of death L. or we beeing dead vnto it B.G.T. see the question following vpon this place wherein we were holden that we should serue in the newnes of the spirit not in the oldnes of the letter 7 What shall we say then is the law sinne God forbid let it not be Gr. yea I knew not sinne but by the law for I had not knowne lust except the law had said Thou shalt not lust 8 But sinne taking occasion by the commandement wrought in me all manner of concupiscence B.G.T. some read thus sinne taking occasion by the commandement c. Be. L. see v. 11. following for without the law sinne was dead 9 For I once was aliue without the law but when the commandement came sinne revived but I died 10 And the commandement which was ordained vnto life the same was found to be to me vnto death 11 For sinne tooke occasion by the commandement and deceiued me and thereby flew me 12 Wherefore the law is holy and the commandement is holy and iust and good 13 Was that then which was good made death vnto me God forbid but sinne that sinne might appeare wrought death in me by that which is good L. G. T. A. some thus but sinne was death vnto me that sinne might appeare in working in me death by that which is good Be. B. that sinne might be out of measure sinnefull by the commandement 14 For we know that the law is spirituall but I am carnall sold vnder sinne 15 For what I worke I acknowledge not allow not G. vnderstand not L. for not what I would that doe I but what I hate that I doe 16 If I doe then that which I would not I consent to the law that it is good 17 Now it is no more I that worke it but sinne that dwelleth in me 18 For I know that good dwelleth not in me that is in my flesh for to will is present with me but how to performe that which is good I find not 19 For I doe not the good which I would but the euill which I would not that doe I. 20 Now if I doe that I would not it is no more I that worke it but sinne that dwelleth in me 21 I find then a law L. Gr. this law to be imposed Be. by the law B. Ge. that when I would doe good euill is present with me see the question following vpon this verse 22 For I delight in the law of God concerning the inner man 23 But I see an other law in my members rebelling against the law of my minde and leading me captiue to the law in the law L. of sinne which is in my members 24 O wretched man that I am who shall deliuer me out of this bodie of death Be. T. the bodie of this death L. B.G. 25 I thanke God through Iesus Christ our Lord Then I my selfe in my minde serue the law of God but in my flesh the law of sinne 2. The Argument Method and Parts IN this Chapter the Apostle sheweth how we are freed and exempted from the seruice of the law yet so as that he commendeth the law in it selfe and deliuereth it from all blame laying the imputation vpon his owne weaknes and infirmitie where he taketh occasion to shew the combate betweene the flesh and the spirit This Chapter then hath three parts 1. he sheweth how we are deliuered from the law to v. 7. 2. he excuseth and commendeth the law to v. 14. 3. he sheweth the infirmitie that remaineth in the regenerate and the combate betweene the flesh and the spirit 1. In the first part the Apostle sheweth that we are not freed and discharged from the morall obedience of the law but from the seruitude and bondage thereof in respect of the curse and irritation and prouocation to sinne this is set forth by an allegorie taken from the lawe of matrimonie the proposition is contained v. 1.2 3. consisting of three parts like as the woman is 1. free from her husband when he is dead v. 2. 2. after his death she may take an other husband and therein is no adultresse v. 2. 3. the third is implyed that she may also bring forth by an other the reddition followeth which hath three correspondent parts so we are 1. dead to the law 2. we are married to Christ. 3. to bring forth fruit vnto him v. 4. this last part is amplified by the contrarie that as sinne by the lawe did fructifie vnto death v. 5. so we now beeing freed should fructifie vnto the spirit v. 6. 2. Then he taketh vpon him the defense of the law that whereas he had said v. 5. that the matrons of sinne which were by the Law c. did bring forth fruit vnto death hereupon two obiections might arise that the lawe is the cause of sinne and of death to both which he answeareth The first obiection is propounded v. 7. is the law sinne then he answereth 1. in bringing a reason from the effect that the law connot be sinne nor the cause thereof because it reuealeth and discouereth sinne v. 7. 2. he sheweth how not the law but sinne taking occasion by the law wrought concupiscence reuiued in him deceiued him and in the end slew him all which he giueth instance of in his owne person v. 8. to v. 12. 3. he sheweth what the law is in it selfe iust and holy v. 12. the second obiection followeth v. 13. that it might seeme that the law beeing good wrought death in him then the answer is that not the lawe but sinne by the lawe wrought death 3. The Apostle in this third part sheweth first the combate betweene the flesh and the spirit to v. 24. then the issue thereof v. 24.25 the combate is set forth in three degrees 1. in that he by sinne is brought to doe that euill which he would not where he sheweth the opposition betweene the lawe commanding and his will consenting and sinne ouer-ruling him and his flesh obeying v. 14. to v. 18. 2. the next degree is that he is hindered by sinne from doing the good which he would this is prounded v. 18. then prooued by the contrarie effects v. 19. and by the contrarie causes the lawe moouing to good whereunto he consenteth and sinne hindring him v. 20.21 3. the third degree consisteth in
the law wrought in him all manner of concupiscence supposeth some to haue beene before 3. Hierome epist. 121 and Origen following him do take this for the time of childhood for then sinne is dead because they haue no knowledge of it for if a child smite his father or mother it is counted no fault and when they come to yeares of discretion sinne reviveth But the reviuing of sinne sheweth that it liued before which cannot be said of children that sinne first liued and afterward died and then reviued againe 4. Augustine lib. 1. contr 2. epistol Pelag. thus vnderstandeth the Apostle that before the lawe of Moses was giuen man is said to haue liued as without lawe and sinne then to haue beene dead because it was not perfectly knowne before the lawe was giuen so also Chrysostome Haymo But if all this be referred to the time before the lawe was giuen Paul could not haue giuen instance in himselfe as he doth 5. Wherefore S. Pauls meaning is that he was aliue without the lawe that is vinere miâ—ividebar I seemed to be aliue vnto my selfe when as yet beeing a Pharisie he had not full vnderstanding of the lawe then sinne also seemed to be dead because as yet he did not feele the burthen of sinne nor his conscience did not pricke him while he contented himselfe with the outward obseruation of the lawe thus Pareus Osiander Beza Calvin And further it is here to be considered that there is a twofold death of sinne non vera a death not in truth when sinne lurketh onely and lyeth hid and sheweth not it selfe of this the Apostle speaketh here and there is mors vera a true death of sinne when we truely die vnto sinne in Christ which death the Apostle treated of before c. 6. Quest. 18. How sinne is said to haue reuiued 1. Origen here maketh mention of the error of the Pythagorian heretikes who imagine that the soules of men liued before in the bodies some of birds some of beasts when they liued as it were without a lawe and so sinne is said to reviue in the soule But this is a grosse error for in those creatures which haue no reason sinne cannot be said to liue or haue any beeing at all and therefore not to reviue 2. Bucer seemeth thus to vnderstand it that sinne liued before that is qualis coram Deâ— erat apparuit it appeared such as it was before God but now it is said to reuiue because it is made knowne to vs but the liuing and reliuing or reuiuing of sinne must be vnderstood in respect of the sinne 3. The most doe vnderstand it simply without any relation a former life of sinne capa apparere it beganne to appeare gloss ordinar interlin apparnit delictum esse it appeared to be sinne Theophylact incepit vires explicare Mart. it began to shewe the strength which sense is not much to be misliked 4. Some haue here reference vnto the first knowledge of sinne which Adam had after his transgression as Augustine vixerat aliquando in Paradiso quando contra datum praceptum satis apparebat admissum c. it liued sometime in Paradise when it sufficiently appeared by the transgression of the commandement c. but afterward it lieth as dead in children till they come to the knowledge of the law then peccatum in notitia 〈◊〉 hominis reviviscit quod in notitia primi hominis aliquando vixerat sin reviveth in the knowledge of man that is borne which sometime was aliue in the knowledge of the first man c. to this purpose August lib. 1. ad Bonifac. c. 9. which sense Pareus followeth likewise Tolet. Haymo addeth further that sinne liued not onely in Adam but in Cain who said his sinne was greater then could be forgiuen but it died in their posteritie which came vnto that error that they thought that to be no sinne which was sinne But seeing the Apostle speaketh of the reviving of sinne in himselfe we must not goe further then the Apostle to seeke out this first life of sinne 5. Wherefore as Beza well obserueth a threefold state and condition of the Apostles life is here to be considered when he liued sub ignorantiam legis vnder the ignorance of the law that sinne raigned afterward he liued sub cognitione legis vnder the knowledge of the law but onely of the outward letter obseruing the externall works onely of the law whereas he before made conscience of no sinne at this time sinne seemed to be dead he pleased himselfe in his outward obedience then he came to the sight of his sinne and so he died his conscience accused him that he was worthie of eternall death Quest. 19. How sinne is said to haue deciued v. 11. 1. The meaning is not as Methodius and Ambrose likewise Haymo that the deuill seduced Adam for not Adam but Eue was seduced as Saint Paul saith 1. Tim. 2.2 but the deceitfulnes of sinne consisteth herein 1. inducitur error practicus there is brought in a practicall error that the sinner is deceiued by the pleasantnes of the obiect thinking that to be good which is euill Tolet annot 14. as Eue was deceiued by the pleasantnes of the apple 2. operit laqueum peccati it hideth the poison and not the sinne Hugo it sheweth the baite and hideth the hooke 3. cogitationem auertit à supplicijs it turneth aside our cogitation from the punishment of sinne and perswadeth a man that either the sinne is not so great and shall haue either no punishment or but a small and so it bringeth a man to vnbeleefe not to giue credit to the word of God who threatneth sinners as the Deuill first perswaded Eva that she should not die at all Martyr 3. Some will haue this word expounded non de re ipsa sed de notitia not of the thing it selfe but of the knowledge that at length he perceiued how farre he had beene deceiued and lead out of the way Hyper. But it rather sheweth the proper effect of sinne taking occasion by the law which is to deceiue the other to acknowledge our error is the effect of the law and not of sinne as Pellican well vnderstandeth here sinne taking occasion by the law doth draw vs out of the way as a sicke man taketh occasion to act those things which are forbidden ex mandato medici by the charge giuen by the Physitian to the contrarie 4. Then the Apostle sheweth three effects of sinne taking occasion by the law first it deceiueth then it worketh all manner of concupiscence and then it killeth it bringeth death to the soule Mart. so impostura causa est concupiscentiae c. imposture or deceit is the cause of concupiscence and concupiscence of death Oecumen Thus euery man is tempted seduced and entised by his concupiscence as S. Iames saith 1.14 Quest. 20. How sinne is said to haue staine him 1. Not occisum me esse ostendit it sheweth that I was staiue and dead by the law
homines à coelestium meditatione retrahit which draweth spirituall men from the meditation of heauenly things but the Apostle spake before of the combate betweene the flesh and the spirit and they are not all carnall which are occupied in the necessarie affaires of this life 6. Tolet ioyning the pronoune this vnto death not vnto the bodie reading thus from the bodie of this death will haue reference to be made vnto the tyrannie of the lawe of concupiscence whereof he spake before but the pronoune is better ioyned to bodie as the Syrian interpreter Erasmus and Beza well obserue for of his flesh and members he spake before but of death he made no mention This demonstrative then this is better referred to bodie 7. Wherefore the Apostle calling his present state out of the which he desireth to be deliuered this bodie of death ioyneth both mortalitie and sinne together he meaneth his mortall bodie subiect to sinne as Hierome expoundeth quod morti perturbationibus est oppositum which is opposed to death and perturbations apolog advers Ruffin and so Beza the Apostle by the bodie designeth carneam corporis molem the fleshie masse of the bodie which is nothing else but mussa mortis peccati a lumpe of death and sinne so Origen it is called the bodie of death in quo habitat peccatum quod est mortis causa wherein sinne dwelleth which is the cause of death 8. And this deliuerance which the Apostle longeth for is not the spirituall deliuerance in this life from the captiuitie of sinne as Tolet but the finall deliuerance from the bondage of mortalitie and corruption which we looke for in the resurrection as Augustine expoundeth lib. 1. cont epist. Pelag. c. 11. and so the Apostles meaning is non finiri hoc confluctus c. that these conflicts cannot be ended as long as we carrie this mortall bodie about with vs Pareus And here we may consider a threefold state of mans bodie the one in Paradise cum non potuit mori when it was in mans power if he had not sinned not to die at all vnder the state and condition of sinne where non potest non mori he cannot but die a necessitie of death is laid vpon all Adams posteritie vnder the state of glorie non possumus mori we cannot die we shall be exempted from the condition of all mortalitie Pererius Quest. 25. Why the Apostle giueth thanks to God ver 25. 1. There is some difference in the reading of these words the Latine interpreter thus readeth the grace of God thorough Iesus Christ so also Origen before who maketh it an answear to the former words of the Apostle who shall deliuer 〈◊〉 likewise Augustine followeth this reading serm 45. de tempor but all the Greek copies haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I giue thankes and the Apostle did not aske the question before who should deliuer him but suspirat potâ—â—s be sigheth and sheweth his desire to be deliuered Beza 2. For the meaning of the words 1. some thinke that the Apostle giueth thanks for his redemption in Christ Mart. that he is deliuered à reatu peccati from the guilt of sinne originall and actuall Roloch and that his sinnes are not imputed Osiander and before them Oecumenius quod me liberavit per mortem filij that he hath deliuered me by the death of his Sonne But this deliverance the Apostle had alreadie obtained he speaketh in the future sense who shall deliuer me 2. Theophylact referreth it to the former benefit quod viriliter adversatur peccato that he did manfully resist sinne which strength he had not either by the law of nature or by the law of Moses but by grace in Christ So also Pareus thinketh the Apostle doth giue thankes that he doth not succumbere in certamine sed vincere giue ouer in this combate but at the length ouercommeth But the Apostle wisheth yet a further deliuerance which as yet he had not because he speaketh of the time not to come who shall deliuer me and yet he giueth thankes for it as enioying the fame in hope 3. Tolet and Pererius thinke that the Apostle giueth thankes that he was deliuered from concupiscence quod non mentem trahit in consensum that it did not draw his mind to consent and so he was deliuered from it as it was malum culpae as there was sinne or fault in it that is to consent vnto it but not as it was malum poenae a punishment that is concupiscere to couet or desire simply without assent so also Lyranus But if the Apostle did not sometime thorough his infirmitie giue consent vnto his concupiscence how could he say it did lead him captiue vnto the law of sinne more it is prooued at large afterward that the commandement thou shalt not lust whereof the Apostle confesseth himselfe a transgressor v. 7.18 doth not onely restraine the first motions of concupiscence which haue not the consent of the will but the second also which haue controv 8.4 Vatablus will haue this thanksgiuing to be referred to the deliuerance which the Apostle expected in the life to come 5. But it is better to ioyne them together as Augustine doth serm 45. de tempor the grace of God nunc perfecte innovat hominem c. doth now perfectly renew a man by deliuering him from all his sinnes ad corporis immortalitatem perducit and bringeth him also to the immortalitie of the bodie Lyranus likewise comprehendeth both these deliuerances that both the regenerate are here deliuered from their sinnes and in the next life shall be freed from all corruption as the Apostle saith Philip. 3.21 Who shall change our vile bodie that it may be fashioned like vnto his glorious bodie so Chrysostome saith the Apostle giueth thanks quod non solum principibus malis liberamur sed eoruÌ„ quae futura sunt capaces facti sumus that we are not onely deliuered from the former euills namely our sinnes but are made capable of the good things to come thus also Pellican the Saints reioyce se primitijs spiritus donatos c. that they are endued with the first fruits of the spirit which giue them certaine hope of the inheritance to come and Beza the Apostle sheweth that he resteth in that hope quam habet in Christo fundatam which he hath grounded on Christ. 35. Quest. Of these words I in my minde serue the law of God c. 1. By the mind the Apostle vnderstandeth the inner man reformed by grace by the flesh the part vnregenerate so that in this speach of the Apostle a double figure is to be admitted first a metonymie in that the subiect is taken for the adiunct the minde for the sanctitie and holines wrought in the minde by grace as Vatablus well interpreteth secundum spiritum meum doctum à spiritu sancto in my spirit taught by the holy spirit and the flesh for the carnall sensualitie whereby it is lead there is also a
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
dutie vnto God in louing him with all our heart and strength and in obeying of his will is sinne but this doth concupiscence for it hindered the Apostle v. 19. I doe not that good thing which I would Ans. Pererius answereth that concupiscence doth not hinder vs from louing of God doing of his will so far as we are bound to this life for God may be loued with all the heart two wayes one is modus perfectionis the way of perfection which is when the heart actually loueth nothing but God and thus God shall be loued onely in heauen the other way is so farre as it bindeth a man in this life when the heart is habitually inclined vnto God so that it admit nothing against it as this kind of loue is not hindered as he saith by the first motions of concupiscence to the same purpose he alleadgeth Thomas that a precept is two wayes fulfilled the one is perfectly quando pervenitur ad finem when we attaine vnto the ende intended by him which giueth the precept the other imperfectly cum non receditur ab ordine ad finem when we depart not from the way which leadeth to the ende as when the captaine biddeth his souldiours fight to obtaine the victorie he which fighteth and hath the victorie perfitly fulfilleth his will he also which fighteth and doth his best doth his will also though he get not the victorie the first kind of fulfilling the precept shall be in patria in our countrey the other is in via in the way Contra. 1. We grant that there shall be a greater perfection of obedience in the next life then can be attained vnto here but euen that perfect obedience is propounded vnto vs here and required of vs Matth. 5.28 Ye shall be perfect as your heauenly father is perfect whereupon Augustine cur non praeciperetur in hac vita ista perfectio c. why should not this perfection be commanded euen in this life though no man can attaine vnto it here non 〈◊〉 recte curritur c. for we cannot runne right if it be vnknowne whether we should runne c. lib. de spirit liter c. vltim And seeing Christs righteousnesse and obedience of the lawe was most perfect and he came to performe that which was required of vs it followeth that God in the strict rule of his iustice required of vs perfect obedience which not to performe is sinne 2. If God doe command the ende as our perfection then he which commeth short and faileth of the ende fulfilleth not the commandement as if the souldier be commanded not to giue ouer till he haue the victorie breaketh his generalls charge if he get not the superioritie of the enemie And he which misseth of the ende must needes also recedere ab ordine ad finem faile in the meanes to the ende for otherwise he might atchieue the ende 3. And that concupiscence hindreth our obedience euen in this life the Apostle sheweth v. 19. I doe not the good thing which I would 3. Argum. The Apostle directly calleth euen concupiscence wherewith he is vnwilling sinne v. 20. If I doe that I would not it is no more I that doe it but the sinne that dwelleth in me Ergo it is sinne Answ. Pererius answeareth that it is called sinne either because it is effectus peccati the effect of sinne as the writing is called the hand because it was written with the hand or because it bringeth forth sinne as frigus cold is called pigrum slouthfull because it maketh one so Contra. 1. But that is properly and truely sinne which causeth death for death came in by sinne as the Apostle saith of concupiscence that it slue him and was vnto him the cause of death v. 10.11 2. S. Augustine also confesseth that concupiscence is not onely poena peccati the punishment of sinne and causa peccati the cause of sinne sed ipsum peccatum but sinne it selfe Pererius answeareth that Augustine vnderstandeth not peccatum morale a morall sinne but vitium naturae corruptae a fault or vice of our corrupt nature as the vices in the bodie as blindnes or deafenes are called peccata seu errata naturae the faults or errors of nature because they are against the integritie and perfection of the nature of the bodie so the rebelling of the carnall concupiscence against the lawe of reason is against the integritie and perfection of the soule and so an error of nature Contra. 1. We grant that there are naturall faults both in the soule as forgetfulnesse ignorance dulnesse of vnderstanding in the bodie weakenesse infirmitie blindnesse and such like which are the fruits and effects of sinne but not sinne themselues but concupiscence is none of that kind for all these infirmities are effects and passions but the concupiscence rebelling against the minde is actiue and working and Augustine himselfe giueth a reason why he calleth it sinne quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis because there is in it disobedience against the lawe of the minde gouerned by grace so that it disobeyeth not only the law of the mind but resisteth the motions of the spirit now all disobedience to the will of God is sinne 2. and that it is not naturall but a morall and spirituall sinne appeareth by the effects because it causeth the spirituall death of the soule Argument 4. Vnlesse the precept Thou shall not lust did prohibite the verie first motions that haue not the consent of the will then should there be no difference betweene this and the other precepts which doe condemne also ipsos prauos affectos the euill affections as of wrath enuie in the sixt of lust and carnall desire to the which the will is inclined in the seauenth so then this commandement ipsos appetitus quibus titillamur doth condemne the verie appetite which tickleth vs though it haue not our consent Calvin Pererius answereth that the other commandements onely prohibite ipsos externos actus the eternall acts of stealing committing adulterie and such like numer 58. Contra. 1. Our Blessed Sauiour confuteth him who Matth. 5. sheweth how in the former commandements the verie affections and inward purposes are restrained as of anger in the sixt thou shalt not kill of lusting after a woman in the heart in the seauenth thou shalt not commit adulterie 2. yea Pererius confuteth himselfe confessing afterward numer 60. praeceptis illis legalibus â—on solum externa peccata c. in those legall precepts not the externall workes of sinne onely to be prohibited but the verie inward concupiscence But we haue staied somewhat to long in this controuersie Controv. 9. That the commandement Thou shalt not lust is but one 1. The Romane catechisme which the Romanists generally follow deuide the last commandement into two the first forbidding the coueting of things of pleasure as the neighbours wife the other things of profit as our neighbours house and goods and they make the two first commandements thou shalt
it so the spirit dwelleth in the faithfull as the ruler and commander in the house the spirit and the flesh may be in the same house together if the flesh be as the seruant and the spirit as the master but if the flesh haue the masterie the spirit departeth like as where extreame cold hath taken possession there can be no heate at all but if the extremitie of cold be abated then there may be place for heate Martyr 4. And here we must distinguish as Origen well doth between the extraordinarie gifts of the spirits such as the Prophets and Apostles had when the spirit came vpon them in the likenes of fierie tongues and the ordinarie gifts for where the spirit is those extraordinarie graces alwaies follow not but those which the Lord seem to be conuenient for God giueth vnto euery one as he will 2. Cor. 12.11 3. And whereas the Apostle saith he that hath not the spirit of Christ is not his Origen well thus expoundeth creatura eius est sed non discipulus he is his creature still as all other things are but he is not his Disciple nor a member of his mysticall bodie 12. Quest. Of the meaning of these words v. 10. The bodie is dead because of sinne the spirit is life c. 1. Origen vnderstandeth the two parts of man the bodie and the soule and he giue in this sense the bodie is dead because of sinne mors imponitur ne peccet death is imposed vpon the bodie that it should not sinne alwaies remembring the ende and so the spirit vivit ad faciendam institiam liueth to worke righteousnes but the Apostle sheweth the cause of death in the one namely sinne and of life in the other namely righteousnes rather then the ende of both 2. Ambrose seemeth by the bodie to vnderstand the whole man that is dead because of sinne and by the spirit the holy Ghost â—â— author of life because he is giuen to iustifie vs so also Chrysostome will haue the holy Ghâ—â—t to be vnderstood which onely is not life in himselfe but giueth life vnto others so also Martyr but the other opposite part of the bodâ—â— sheweth that the spirit hath relation also vnto man 3. Some vnderstand the first clause of mortification as if the Apostle should say the â—â— die is dead quantum attinet ad peccati operationem in respect of the operation of sinne Oecumen Piscat but in this sense the same thing should be expressed in both clauses the mortifying of sinne and liuing vnto righteousnes which the opposition betweene the contraâ—â— parts of the bodie and spirit wil not heare 4. Calvin and so Osiander will haue the bodie to signifie the vnregenerate part the spirit the spirituall and regenerate but in this sense the Apostle vseth to oppose the flesh in the spirit not the bodie and the spirit 5. Wherefore by bodie we may better vnderstand that mortall part of man which is subiect to death and by the spirit the inward part of man namely his soule regenerate which liueth by faith Beza thinketh that the life of the soule is here vnderstood when it is separate from the bodie Chrysostome referreth it to the life of the resurrection Lyranus to the life of grace now in present But we may better comprehend both that both now for the present the spirit of man liueth by grace as the iust is said to liue by faith and that also is a pledge of life euerlasting afterward And this sense is most agreeable to the scope of the Apostle for hitherto he hath shewed how the spirit of Christ hath freed vs from the law of sinne in the flesh now he commeth to set forth the other part of our libertie which is from death and first presently in the spirit we liue by faith and then afterward the bodie also shall liue in the resurrection by the spirit of Christ which the Apostle sheweth in the next verse Quest. 13. How the quickening of the dead is ascribed to the spirit of Christ seeing all both good and bad shall rise 1. M. Calvins opinion is here refused who thinketh that the Apostle doth not here speake of the last and finall resurrection sed de continua spiritus operatione but of the continuall working of the spirit in vs in mortifying the reliques of sinne so also Piscator vificabit corpora vestra ad sanctificationem shall quicken your bodies vnto sanctification c. But in that sense our bodies are said to be mortua dead not mortalia mortall and the Apostle speaking of the time to come pointeth at the resurrection which shall be not that which is present in rising vnto newnes of life 2. There are three arguments of the resurrection here expressed by the Apostle the first from the power of God he that raised Christ from the dead shall also raise vs vp secondly from the correspondencie of Christ with his members as Christ was raised from the dead so shall we that are his members thirdly from the office of the spirit who shall raise vs vp that are his temples wherein he dwelleth Pareus 3. As God is said to haue raised Christ vp by his spirit so Christ raised vp himselfe by his eternall spirit omnia quippe divina pâ—â—er per Filium in Spiritu Sancto operatur all diuine things the father worketh by the Sonne in the holy Ghost Oecumen 4. Although our redemption purchased vnto vs by Christ was sufficient at once to haue redeemed both our soules and bodies tamen ordinate nobis datur it is giuen vnto vs in order and by degrees that as Christ had first a passible bodie before he had a glorious bodie so our bodies must first be mortall before they can haue immortalitie Lyran. 5. Now although the members of Christ shall be raised vp by his spirit yet the wicked also which haue not the spirit of Christ shall also rise againe but vnto iudgement they shall be raised vp by the omnipotent power of God but the righteous shall be raised by the spirit of Christ and therefore it is not said he shall raise but vinificabit he shall quicken your mortall bodie quod ipsa resurrectione maius est c. which is a greater worke then the resurrection and onely graunted to the righteous Chrysostome whom Martyr and Pareus followe Quest. 14. What it is to be lead by the spirit of God 1. There are two kind of actions of the spirit generall wherbey all things mooue liue and haue their beeing and speciall whereby the Lord worketh in the hearts of his children such is the worke of sanctification Calv. 2. And in that they are said to be lead we must not thinke that any are compelled by the spirit but this signifieth vehementem inclinationem non coactionem a vehement inclination not coaction Gorrhan God by his spirit ex nolentibus volentes facit of vnwilling maketh vs willing so he draweth vs volentes willing consequenter not antecedenter we are willing
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
Apostle setteth downe the sinnes of the Gentiles despitefull B. or contumelious L. doers of wrong G. proud boasters inuenters of euill things disobedient to parents without vnderstanding couenant breakers dissolute L.R. the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not standing to composition without naturall affection such as can not be appeased without fidelitie L.R. truce breakers B.V. but that was said before mercilesse 31. Which knowing the iustice of God the righteousnes B. law G. right of God G.Be. iudgement of God the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iustice that they which doe such things are worthie of death Be. B.G.V. not did not vnderstand that they which doe such things are worthie of death L. for these words did not vnderstand are not in the originall nor that it condemneth to death those which doe such things T. for the word is in the plural are worthie of death but fauour G. or applaud Par. or haue pleasure in B. or patronize Be. not consent L. the word signifieth more then a bare consent those which doe them 2. The Argument and parts of the Chapter IN this Chapter the Apostle after the salutation and exordium of the Epistle falleth to prooue iustification by faith against the Gentiles first shewing their manifold sinnes and bad works whereby they were so farre from beeing iustified that thereby they incurred euerlasting damnation The parts are 1. the inscription to v. 8. 2. the exordium or introduction to the matter to v. 17. 3. the proposition and argument concerning iustification by faith v. 17.18.4 the confirmation or proofe tow 31. 1. The inscription or salutation sheweth 1. the person that saluteth and sendeth greeting which is Paul described by his office and calling in generall a seruant of Iesus Christ in speciall an Apostle to what ende to preach the Gospel v. 1. which is set forth 1. by the antiquitie v. 2.2 the excellencie of the subiect thereof Christ Iesus who is described by the singularitie of his person God and man v. 3.4 and by his office set forth in generall by the worke of our redemption which was finished by his sanctification and resurrection v. 4. and in speciall he was the author of the conuersion and calling of the Apostle v. 5.3 by the effect of the Gospel to winne obedience to the faith among the Gentiles 2. The persons saluted are the Romanes whom he setteth forth by their externall condition generall they were Gentiles speciall at Rome and spirituall what they were called by whom by Christ to what to be Saints v. 6.7 3. The salutation it selfe v. 7. he wisheth vnto them grace and peace 2. In the exordium or proeme 1. there is his gratulation or giuing of thanks for their faith v. 8.2 the testification of his loue toward them confirmed by an oath in which his loue is expressed by two effects 1. his earnest prayer to God to come vnto them v. 9.10 2. his longing desire in himselfe to see them v. 11. with the ende v. 12.3 a preoccupation of a question or purgation of himselfe that he yet came not vnto them where he sheweth 1. the lets of his purpose v. 13.2 his purpose which yet he continued to come vnto thē which is confirmed both by the end to haue some fruit among them v. 13.2 and by his calling in generall he was a debter to all the Gentiles who are set forth by distribution v. 14. in speciall and so consequently he was readie to preach the Gospel vnto them And by this mention made of the Gospel he taketh occasion to passe vnto the matter 3. The third part is the proposition that iustification is by faith where we haue first the occasion whereupon he bringeth it in I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ then the proposition it selfe that the Gospell is the power of God to saluation to euerie one that beleeueth v. 16. and the proofe thereof taken from the Prophet Habacuke v. 17. 4. The fourth part is the confirmation of this proposition that men are iustified by faith which he sheweth by this disiunction they are either iustified by faith or by workes but not by workes which he prooueth by this distribution first that the Gentiles cannot be iustified by workes in this chapter to the 17. v. of the next then that neither the Iewes can chalenge any thing by their workes thence to the ende of the 2. chapter the Gentiles cannot be iustified by their workes because by their workes beeing full of impietie and iniquitie they are made guiltie of eternall death and of the wrath of God the argument standeth thus they which are full of impietie and iniquitie are subiect to the wrath of God this proposition is expressed v. 18. But the Gentiles are such full of impietie and iniquitie Ergo the assumption or second part is prooued distributiuely first their impietie is shewed toward God to v. 28. then their iniquitie toward men v. 32. In the proofe of their impietie first the sinne is shewed then the punishment their sinne in that wittingly and against their knowledge they depraued the worship of God their knowledge is set forth both by the light of nature in them v. 19. and by the creatures v. 20. their deprauation of Gods worship is expressed in the causes their vnthankefulnesse which brought forth vanitie of minde and foolishnesse v. 21.22 the effect in worshipping corruptible things in stead of God v. 23. then the punishment followeth they were giuen vp to their hearts lusts v. 24. 2. As they depraued Gods worship wittingly against their knowledge so they did it willingly their sinne is shewed in their voluntarie forsaking of the Creator v. 25. their punishment in beeing giuen ouer both women and men to vile affections v. 26.27 Then followeth the demonstration of their iniquitie which consisted 1. both in doing things not comely which is declared both by shewing the cause thereof then beeing giuen ouer to a reprobate mind procured by their contempt and wilfull neglect of the knowledge of God v. 28. and by a particular enumeration of the diuerse sinnes which they committed the seuerall distribution whereof see afterwards qu. 72. 2. they did not onely commit such things themselues but they also fauoured and patronized such as did them v. 32. so then the conclusion must followe that the Gentiles made themselues by those their euill workes worthie of death and so consequently thereby depriued themselues of life and saluation 3. The questions and doubts discussed Quest. 1. Why Paul setteth his name before this epistle 1. Chrysostome giueth this reason why neither Moses prefixeth his name before his bookes not yet the Euangelists Mathew Marke Luke Iohn before their gospels ille quippe praesentibus scribentes c. for they writing vnto these which were present had no cause to set to their names But Paul quia longe remotis scribebat c. because he did write to those which were a farre off had reason to set to his name after the manner of epistles
be lawfull to sweare and vpon what occasion 1. That it is lawfull to sweare thus it appeareth 1. Christ came not to dissolue the lawe Matth. 5.17 now the lawe not onely permitteth but commandeth to sweare where cause is Deut. 6.13 and 10.20 2. the Lord himselfe sweareth Psal. 110.4 Heb. 6.17 therefore it is not sinne to sweare 3. the holy Fathers and Patriarkes vsed to take an oath where it was lawfully required as Abraham Gen. 21.24 Iacob Genes 31.53 Dauid 1◠Sam. 24.23 2. But it will be thus on the contrarie obiected 1. Christ saith Sweare not at all neither by heauen for it is the throne of God c. Answear Christ forbiddeth not to sweare by God but not by creatures as by the heauen the earth by the Temple by the head 2. where he saith let your communication be yea yea nay nay Christ forbiddeth not the lawfull vse of an oath when there is iust cause but the often and vnnecessarie vsing of it in common talke where then it concerneth the saluation or edification of our brethren it is lawfull to take an oath as it was requisite that the Romanes should be well perswaded of S. Pauls affection toward them who had yet neuer seene them as Chrysostome saith quouiam neminem hominum animi sui testem sistere poterat c. because he could not set forth any man to be a witnesse of his minde he calleth vpon God who searcheth the heart 3. It will be againe obiected that in the Newe Testament an oath is not lawfull as it was in the olde Basil. in Psalm 14. Answear The abuse of an oath was vnlawfull both in the Old Testament and in the Newe But to take an oath lawfully is as well permitted to the Church of Christ nowe as it was to the Church of the Iewes As the Prophet Isaiah prophesieth of the Newe Church that they shall sweare by Iehovah Isay. 19.18 and c. 43.23 Ierem. 4.3 Quest. 30. How Paul is said to serue in the spirit 1. Chrysostome by the spirit vnderstandeth the holy Ghost omnia spiritus sancti imputat virtuti he ascribeth all to the vertue of the holy spirit nothing to his owne diligence But in that he saith in my spirit this interpretation is auoided Paul would not so call the holy Ghost my spirit 2. Theodoret by spirit thinketh to be meant the gift and grace giuen vnto Paul whereby he was furnished for his Apostleship whereof he spake before v. 5. by whom we haue receiued grace and Apostleship so also Oecumenius he is said to serue him in tradito sibi dono in the gift giuen vnto him but so much is expressed in the words following In the Gospell of his sonne that sheweth his ministerie and employment in the Gospell 3. some giue this sense whom I serue in the spirit that is not in the flesh non in carnalibus observantijs not in carnall obseruations such as were the ceremonies of the lawe gloss interlin so also Aretius I serue God non vt hypocritae ceremonijs not as hipocrites with ceremonies but the mentioning of the Gospel following excludeth all legall ceremonies 4. Origen here maketh a distinction betweene the soule and the spirit which he taketh for the superior and higher part of the soule wherein he serued God Ambrose also by the spirit vnderstandeth the minde which is true that inwardly he serued Christ in his spirit and mind but the faine not considered in the naturall condition thereof as Origen seemeth to haue relation thereunto but renewed and regenerate by grace 5. S. Paul then by his spirit vnderstandeth his ardent and earnest affection wherein he serued God most earnestly and zealously in the ministerie of the Gospel Beza The like saying the Apostle hath 2. Tim. 1.3 I thanke God whome I serue from mine Elders with a pure conscience he serued God with an vpright and innocent heart not in shew and oftentation and in this sense our Sauiour saith Ioh. 4.24 They that worship God must worship him in spirit and in truth Martyr 31. Quest. v. 10. What prosperous iourney the Apostle meaneth v. 10. That I might haue a prosperous iourney by the will of God 1. Paul simply praieth not for a prosperous iourney but according to the will of God there is a prosperitie not according to the will of God as the wise man saith Prov. 1.32 The prosperitie of fooles destroyeth them Gorrham But the Apostle esteemeth not of such prosperous things quae sine voluntate dei eveniunt which come to passe without the will of God Haymo 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth that I may haue a iourney giuen me according to my minde Erasm. in which desire the Apostle non deprecatur omnia pericula doth not pray against all perills and daungers for he suffered shipwracke and endured other casualties in his iourney to Rome but he counted it a prosperous iourney which howsoeuer might bring him vnto them to bestow some spirituall gift vpon them Aretius Such a prosperous iourney was that which S. Paul tooke into Macedonia where though he suffered imprisonment and were beaten with roddes yet his iourney prospered in respect of the good successe which he had in preaching of the Gospel Martyr 3. And this desire of Paul to see the Romanes might be one cause of his appeale which he made to Rome Act. 25. Lyranus 32. Quest. Whether S. Paul needed to be mutually strengthened by the faith of the Romanes v. 12. That I might be comforted through our mutuall faith both yours and mine 1. Chrysostome thinketh that Paul spake not this quod ipse illorum opus habeat auxilio as though he had neede of their helpe seeing he was a pillar of the Church but that he so saith to qualifie his former speach v. 11. because he had saide that I might bestow vpon you some spirituall gift to strengthen you 2. But although the Apostles modestie appeare herein that ioyneth himselfe with them as hauing neede of their mutuall comfort yet in truth he professeth himselfe not to be so perfect as though he needed no helps non ponit se in supremo gradu he doth not place himselfe in the highest degree for he other where doth acknowledge his imperfection both in knowledge 1. Cor. 13. and in the gifts of regeneration Rom. 7. Pareus like as a minister comming to visit one that is sicke to comfort him may be comforted againe by him Olevian to this purpose P. Martyr 3. This mutuall consolation Theophytact vnderstandeth of the alleviating of their afflictions by their mutuall comforts Tolet with others of the mutuall ioy which they should haue one in an others mutuall faith Lyranus that they should be comforted by faith which was common to him and them for there is but one faith But as Chrysostome saith here this consolation may be taken pro fider incremento for the encrease of faith for the faithfull mutuis exhortationibus in fide proficiunt by mutuall exhortations doe profit
weakenesse came vpon them by their owne apostasie and falling away from God and that light which they had they depraued neither did they acknowledge their infirmitie but became vaine and foolish in the opinion of their owne strength neither is God debter or bound vnto any but bestoweth his graces freely 2. Pererius disput 16. insisteth onely vpon the first part of this answeare shewing that there is a double kind of ignorance vna est causa culpae one kind of ignorance is that which is the cause of fault or sinne and this excuseth there is an other cuius causa culpa est the cause whereof is our fault and this excuseth not and such was the ignorance of the heathen which was caused by their owne wilfull neglecting and abusing of the light of nature giuen vnto them 3. Peter Martyr hath yet a further answer he distinguisheth between the ignorance of the heathen and their imbecillitie or weakenesse this the heathen would not haue pretended because they ascribed all vnto freewill and therefore they would not haue complained of want of strength the Apostle then toucheth that which was most likely to haue beene obiected by thē namely their ignorance sheweth how euen in that behalf they were also inexcusable c. But seeing as is shewed before euē their natural knowledge was insufficient to saluation the same doubt remaineth stil therfore those two other exceptions concerning their imbecillitie which P. Martyr mentioneth as that it happened by their owne default and that they did not practise that little knowledge which they had but abused it may also be admitted touching their ignorance as before Pareus answeared sufficiently 4. Hereunto further may be added that distinction of ignorance which Gryneus borroweth from Augustine not eueris one which is ignorant is excused sed is solùm qui non habuit vnde disceret but he onely that had not whence to learne And therefore S. Paul excuseth himselfe by his ignorance that he persecuted Christ I did it ignorantly thorough vnbeleefe 1. Tim. 1.13 But such was not the ignorance of God which the Gentiles had hauing naturall meanes offred vnto them which they depraued and abused Quest. 59. v. 21. How the Gentiles are said to haue knowne God and yet glorified him not as God 1. Some thinke that in Scripture that ignorance which is caused by a mans owne fault when he may haue knowledge if he will himselfe it is called by the name of science and knowledge in Scripture as Ioh. 7.28 Christ saith to the Iewes ye both know me and whence I am because they might haue knowne if they would Iustin. resp 140. ad 44. Gentium so also Photius and Sedulius But this is not the Apostles meaning here for he saith not when they might haue knowne God but when they knewe God they therefore had some knowledge of him 2. Some thinke that they had the true knowledge of God but they against this knowledge malitiously and against their owne conscience worshipped other gods so Ambrose Anselm But 1. it cannot be shewed that any of the Philosophers no not they which come nearest vnto the truth had the true knowledge of God for euen Socrates Plato Seneca allowed the worship of the heathen gods and practised it as is before shewed qu. 57. and if any of them thought that the images were no gods yet those which they worshipped were either deuils or Angels as Athanas. sheweth orat cont idol 2. the Apostle here saith that they became vaine in their imaginations which sheweth that they were without the true knowledge of God Anselm answereth that they had once the true knowledge of God and afterward lost it But the Apostle saith otherwise that they did withhold the truth in vnrighteousnesse v. 18. they lost not that knowledge of the truth which they had but suppressed it and kept it vnder with their vaine imaginations 3. Origen seemeth to thinke that they were vtterly voide of all true knowledge of God dum formas imagines requirunt in Des in semetipsis imaginem Dei perdiderunt while they imagined formes and images to be in God they lost in themselues the image of God for there were some Philosophers which held God to be a spirit without any forme or image 4. Some whereas it is said Ioh. 1. the world knewe him not and yet here the Apostle saith when they knewe God c. giue this solution that the world knewe the onely God but not the Sonne Gorrham But the Apostle speaketh here onely of such knowledge of God as naturally may be attained vnto but the knowledge of the Trinitie exceedeth the strength of nature 5. Wherefore the Apostle is thus to be vnderstood that they knewe the true God in part but not perfectly they held some truths concerning the diuine nature but they mingled many vntruthes and falsities therewith they acknowledged a God but they either denied his prouidence and power or they communicated the duine honour vnto others which were not gods and thus they knewe him and yet knew him not In this sense Christ said to his Apostles Ioh. 14.4 Whether I goe ye knowe and the way ye knowe and yet Thomas saith immediately Lord we knowe not whether thou goest how then can we knowe the way So they knewe Christ because they sawe him and he was among them but yet they knewe him not perfectly his power they as yet did not fully vnderstand So the Gentiles knew God in some sort but such an one as he was they did not knowe Augustine to this purpose giueth instance in one of their chiefe Philosophers Hermes Trismigestus how he confesseth many things of the true God the maker of the world tamen obscuritate cordis ad ista delabitur c yet by the darkenesse of his heart he falleth to say that he would haue men subiect vnto those gods which are made by men Beda ex Augustin so they kept the truth as the same Augustin saith in doctrina multis falsitatibus permixta in doctrine mingled with many falshoods And though some among the heathen did hold certaine true principles of God yet there were others more grosse and foolish and were vtterly ignorant of the diuine nature taking the fire wind starres and such like to be gouernours of the world as it is in the booke of wisdome c. 13.1 2. see before of this matter quest 52. Quest. 60. v. 21. How the Gentiles did not glorifie God neither were thankefull but became vaine 1. Did not glorifie him as God this word to glorifie is taken two wayes either to conceiue an honourable opinion of God and to magnifie him and set forth his praise as Ioh. 11.4 this sickenesse is not vnto death but for the glorie of God that the Sonne of God may be glorified thereby or it signifieth the worship due vnto God as Isay. 43.23 Neither hast thou honoured or glorified me with thy sacrifices Theodoret so likewise Chrysostome and Origen seeme to take it in the first sense
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
appointed for generation so the Syrian translator re quae non est ex natura vsae sunt they vsed the thing both which was not of nature c. 3. So likewise the men with men wrought filthines actiuely in forcing vpon other vnnaturall acts of vncleannes and passiuely in suffering others to doe it this was the sinne of Sodome for the which they were destroied Socrates is noted among the Philosophers for masculine venerie which Plato condemneth And the Apostle may seeme to haue speciall relation here vnto the abominable vncleannes of the Romanes and specially 〈◊〉 who was a monstrous beast for such sinnes against nature Pareus Chrysostome 〈◊〉 elegantly sheweth how whereas by Gods ordinance in lawfull copulation by mariage two became one flesh both sexes were ioned together in one by this Sodomiticall vnâ—â—â—nnes the same flesh is diuided into two the men with men working vncleannes with women and so serue in stead of two sexes 68. Quest. How one sinne is punished by an other vpon these words And receiued in themselues such recompence of their error c. v. 27. 1. There are some sinnes which are as punishments of former sinnes which are non tormenta peccantium sed incrementa vitiorum not so much the torment of sinners as the encreasing of sinne as Augustine saith And here we may make a foure-fold distinction of sinnes 1. some are not onely sinnes but the causes also of sinnes following as Gregorie giueth instance of one giuen vnto riot and excesse in eating and drinking which causeth him through the lustines of his flesh to commit adulterie here his Epicures life is both a sinne and the cause of an other sinne namely adulterie 2. Some sinnes are both the cause of an other sinne following and the punishment of a former as if the adulterer proceed further to commit murther here adulterie is the punishment of his gluttonie and the cause of murther 3. And there is a sinne which is the punishment of a former sinne though it bring forth no new sinne as murther here is the punishment of adulterie 4. Some sinnes are neither the causes nor punishment of other sinnes but simply sinnes in themselues as namely when any one repenteth of his sinne and proceedeth no further 2. But here it will be obiected that euery sinne is voluntarie but the punishment of sinne is involuntarie how then can sinne be a punishment and euery punishment of sinne is iust and so of God but sinne is vniust and not of God therefore not a punishment To this obiection diuers answers are made 1. The master of the sentences lib. 2. distinct 36. giueth this solution that sinne is said to be a punishment not as it is a fault committed by the will but in respect of the effect which it worketh in the soule which is the corrupting of the minde and making it guiltie of damnation But in this sense euery sinne should be a punishment of sinne because the minde is thus corrupted and made guiltie euen by the first sinnes which one committeth 2. Therefore Thomas Aquinas addeth further that sinne in respect of the nature thereof because it is voluntarie is not a punishment but in respect of the cause which is the subtraction or remoouing of the grace of God whereby he falleth into further sinne And further he explaneth the matter thus that sinne is a punishment 3. waies either in respect of somewhat going before as the absence or subtracting of the grace of God or somewhat which accompanieth sinne either in the minde as the corrupting and polluting of it or without as crosses and troubles which are sent for sinne or els in respect of somewhat ensuing and following as the torment of conscience But all these the subtracting of grace outward trouble and remorse of conscience may concurre in the first sinnes which are not the punishment of any precedent sinnes therfore a further reason hereof is to be found out 3. Wherfore God in punishing one sinne by an other is to be considered as a iust Iudge that not onely by subtracting his grace as Pererius not by giuing Sathan power ouer sinners to draw them further into sinne as Hyperius but by the secret working of his iustice in ordering and directing all things according to his will he so disposeth and effecteth that the wicked are giuen ouer to greater impietie and iniquitie to commit sinne with greedines so then this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recompence hath neither reference vnto the sinners themselues who regard herein nothing but their owne inordinate pleasure not yet vnto Sathans worke who intendeth nothing but the contumely of God and the destruction of the vngodly but it is referred vnto God who in punishing sinne by sinne onely respecteth the due course of his iustice in thus recompencing their former error God then is no way accessarie to their sinnes but concurreth as a iust Iudge in punishing their former sinnes with greater following Pareus Faius here noteth well a difference betweene the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Apostle here vseth which signifieth a iust and full recompence answering and correspondent vnto the merit of their sinne which word is onely vsed of euill works but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a reward is giuen vnto good works as be conferred of grace not answering vnto any merit before going 3. As thus it hath beene shewed how sinne is the punishment of sinne so also one sinne may be the cause of an other and that either directly or indirectly directly when as a man by one sinne is inclined to commit an other and that three waies 1. in respect of the ende as when one through couetousnes committeth murther to enioy an others wealth 2. or by suggesting the matter of an other sinne as gluttonie bringeth forth adulterie 3. or in respect of the efficient and moouing cause as when one by practise and continuance in sinne is growne into an habit of sinning which still stirreth him vp to heape sinne to sinne Indirectly one sinne causeth an other by remoouing that which should keepe one from sinne as namely when the sinne first committed excludeth the grace of God whereby one should be preserued from sinne Thom. prim secund qu. 80. art 2. 69. Quest. How the Gentiles are said not to regard to know God v. 28. 1. Origen thinketh that the Apostle setteth downe here three kinds of impieties against God first of them which worshipped idols to v. 23. which was the generall sinne of the Gentiles secondly of those which worshipped the creature rather then the creator v. 25. such were the Philosophers and Astronomers which were skilfull in the obseruation of naturall things thirdly he thinketh heretikes here to be noted that regard not to know God But the Apostle seemeth still to continue in the same argument setting forth the sinnes of the Gentiles that as before he shewed how they polluted and defiled themselues so now he describeth other sinnes as fruits of their idolatrie namely such as are
Vriah to be killed and the same Ioab also was Dauids instrument to number the people though be misliked it himselfe 3. They which giue counsell or any kind of helpe or assistance to the euill for which cause Iehosaphat was reprooued of the Prophet Iehu because he aided the idolatrous king of Israel in battell and here they also are included which doe promote vnworthie and vnmeete persons to office and therefore S. Paul chargeth Timothie to lay hands suddenly on none neither to be partaker of other sinnes 1. Tim. 5.4 They which commend the wicked in their euill doing and so extenuate their sinne as Psal. 10.5 the wicked man is said to blesse the couetous 5. They which by any signe in word or deede seeme to giue consent vnto the sinnes of others as Saul kept their garments which stoned Steuen and to gaue consent vnto his death 6. They which are partakers with others in their sinne and part stakes with them as Psal. 50.18 When thou seest a theese thou runnest with him and art paraker with the adulterer 7. They which doe not rebuke and correct others when it is in their power which was the sinne of Hell who vsed too much connivence and forbearance toward his sonnes 1. Sam. 2.8 They which giue intertainement vnto the wicked as vnto theeues robbers strumpets and such like 9. Such as conceale and keepe secret others sinnes whereby their heart is hardened and so they continue in their sinne Hyper. Quest. 77. Whether all the Gentiles were guiltie of these sinnes which are here rehearsed by the Apostle Many among the Gentiles in respect of the rest were men of ciuill life and gaue example of diuerse morall vertues such among the Grecians were Aristides Phacion Socrates among the Romanes the Scipioes Catoes with others But yet none of them are exempted out of the Apostles reprehension 1. because none of them were free from the most of these sinnes though they were not guiltie of all 2. they wanted true faith and therefore their vertues were but speciosa peccata goodly sinnes 3. And in respect of their naturall corrupâ— disposition euen the best of them were enclined vnto all these sinnes sauing that the Lord bridled in some of them the corruption and badnesse of their nature that there might be some order and gouernement among the heathen otherwise their common wealths would soone haue come to confusion 4. And those which gaue any good example among the heathen were so fewe that they are not to be named among the rest Peter Martyr 4. Places of doctrine v. 1. Paul a seruant of Iesus Christ. Christs seruice is perfect freedome there are three kinds of seruice 1. the seruice of God which is either generall belonging to all Christians which is the seruice of their profession whereof the Apostle speaketh Rom. 6.19 or speciall which is in that vocation to the which any are called whereof see Matth. 25.14 Luk. 12.43 2. Ciuill seruice which may very well stand with the seruice of God see 1. Cor. 7.11 3. there is the seruice of sinne Rom. 8.16 and seruice to please men Gal. 1.10 and this seruice is contrarie to the seruice of God Pareus Called to be an Apostle There are two kinds of calling one is vnto saluation the other is to some office in this life The first is either externall which is generall to all by the light of nature and knowledge of the creatures especiall by the preaching of the word or internall by the inward working of Gods spirit which is peculiar to the elect The calling to some function in this life is either priuate as of men to their seuerall vocations or publike which is either Ciuill of Magistrates in the time of peace leaders and Captaines in the time of warre or Ecclesiasticall which is either immediate from God as of the Prophets and Apostles or mediate by men which is either ordinarie such as is the ordination of Bishops and Ministers now or extraordinarie by lot as was the election of Matthias Act. 1. To be an Apostle There is a threefold difference betweene Apostles and other Pastors 1. They were immediatly called of Christ the other mediately are appointed by men 2. in respect of their doctrine and writings both the authoritie thereof they are free from error and are part of the Canonicall Scripture but so are not the doctrine and writings of the other they must be subiect to the writings of the Apostles as also their doctrine was confirmed and ratified by miracles Mart. 3. in their authoritie and office the Apostles were not tied vnto any place but were sent to preach to the whole world but Pastours now haue their particular and speciall Churches Pareus Set apart God the father set apart Paul to be an Apostle Gal. 1.1 and Iesus Christ Act. 9. and the holy Ghost Act. 13.2 these three then are one God for it belongeth onely vnto God to send Prophets and Apostles and Pastors to his Church therefore all such are condemned whome the Lord hath not sent Ierem. 14.15 Gospel of God which is afterward vers 16. and chap. 15.19 and in other places called the Gospel of Christ which is an euident testimonie of Christs eternall Godhead Pareus v. 2. Which he had promised before c. Concerning the Gospel of Christ 1. Euangelium the Evangel signifieth a ioyfull message of the grace of Christ 2. though the Gospel be diuers in circumstance for there is Gospel promised by the Prophets and the Gospel performed by Christs comming yet it is one and the same in substance 3. the efficient and author thereof is God it is called the Gospel of God the materiall cause is Iesus Christ God and man the formall the declaration and manifestation of him to be the Sonne of God v. 4. the end is to saluation v. 16. the effects obedience to the faith v. 5. v. 3. concerning his Sonne here the person of Christ is described to be both God and man Man as he was borne of the seede of Dauid and he was also declared to be the Sonne of God Piscator According to the flesh In that the Sonne of God is said to be made of the seede of Dauid after the flesh it sheweth against the Nestorian heretikes that there are not two Sonnes but one Sonne the same both God and man and that according to the flesh he was made there the propertie of his natures is still reserued against the Eutychians and Suenkefeldians which destroied the vnitie of Christs humane nature By reason of this vnion of the diuine and humane nature of Christ that which was done in one of his natures is ascribed to his whole person and here we are to consider of a threefold communion of the properties of Christs diuine and humane natures one vnto the other 1. some things are really common to both his whole person and natures as such things which belong to the office of the Redeemer as to sanctifie
goodnes therefore nothing can be good but that which is according to his will which is no where reuealed but in his word then no worke can be good vnlesse it be wrought according to the prescript of Gods word 2. there can come no good worke from man who is prone to euill and to nothing but euill by nature vnlesse then a man be regenerate and borne a new which is by faith in Christ be can doe no acceptable worke Both these are euident out of Scripture 1. that without faith it is vnpossible to please God Hebr. 11.6 and whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne Rom. 14.23 2. and that by faith we are regenerate and made the sonnes of God Ioh. 1.12 As many as receiued him to them he gaue power to be the sonnes of God euen to them that beleeue in his name All such workes then as haue neither warrant out of Gods word not yet proceede from faith such as all superstitious works are so much commended and commanded in Poperie are not to be counted good works Gualter 5. Controv. Whether any good workes of the faithfull be perfect 1. The Romanists doe hold that some workes of the righteous are so perfect that they be not sinne so much as venially in them they haue no blemish at all Concil Tridentin can 25. de iustificat Pererius vrgeth that act of Abrahams obedience in sacrificing his sonne which was not onely omnis peccati vacuum c. void of all sinne but it was perfectly good as appeareth by that excellent promise which the Lord made thereupon to Abraham so it is said of Dauid that he was a man according to Gods owne heart disput 4. in c. 2. numer 33. Contra. 1. That act of Abrahams obedience was not rewarded for the perfection of the worke but because it proceeded from faith he beleeued God and therefore it was counted vnto him for righteousnes 2. And it is hard to say whether Abraham did not cast some doubts in his mind when he was first commanded of God to sacrifice his onely sonne there might be some naturall reasoning within him which notwithstanding he did ouercome by faith Ambrose thinketh lib. 1. de Abrah c. 8. that when Abraham said to his seruants Tâ—rie you here with the asse for I and the child will goe yonder and worship and come againe to you captiose loquebatur c. spake cunningly or captiously least his seruants should perceiue whereabout he went 3. And as for Dauid he had many infirmities and imperfections from some of which euen his best works might not be free he was said to be according to Gods heart both comparatiuely in respect of Saul and others and because he fought God vnfainedly not in shew and hypocritie as Saul did otherwise that he was not imply according to Gods heart the great sinnes wherein he fell doe declare 2. But that there is some blemish imperfection and defect euen in the best works of the Saints though we affirme not as Pererius slandereth Luther that all the workes of the regenerate are sinne it is thus made euident out of the Scripture 1. The Prophet Isai saith c. 64.6 All our righteousnes is as stained clouts euen their best actions were defiled and polluted to this place diuers answers are found 1. Pererius out of Augustine thus interpreteth that iustnia nostra diuine comparata iustitiae c. out righteousnes beeing compared to the diuine iustice is like vnto a filthie and menstrâ—â—â— cloath this is then spoken comparatiuely to this purpose August serm 43. Contra. And we herein concurre with Augustine that although the worke of the Saints seeme 〈◊〉 perfect and excellent before men yet in regard of that perfection which God requireth of vs they are found to come farre short so that if they be compared with the iustice of God not which he hath in himselfe but which he commandeth and requireth of vs our best works will appeare to be imperfect and full of wants 2. He vrgeth Hieromes exposition who applieth this place to the incredulous Iewes after the comming of the Messiah whose sained legall holines was as vncleane thing in the sight of God because they beleeued not in Christ exhibited to the world Contra. It is euident by the text it selfe that be Prophet speaketh of that age then present v. 10. Zion is a wildernes Ierusalem is a deseâ— 3. Therefore Pererius insisteth vpon this third inpretation that the Prophet speaketh of the hypocrites among the Iewes and of their legall righteousnes which was an vncleare thing beeing not sanctified by the spirit of God and the Prophet speaketh in the first person as including himselfe as the manner of the Prophets is for humilitie sake condescending vnto the infirmitie of the people and therein also shewing his charitable affection and compassion toward them Contra. It is euident 1. that the Prophet speaketh not onely of their legall obseruations but of all their morall obedience whatsoeuer for the words are generall All our righteousnes is as a stained clout 2. neither doth he meane the hypocrites onely but he comprehendeth all the people excluding no not the better sort as he saith v. 8. But now O Lord thou art our father and v. 9. Lowe beseech thee behold we are all thy people but the wicked and hypocrites are not alone Gods people neither is God said to be their father for the godly and faithfuls sake among them they may be so counted but not alone by themselues 2. To this purpose may be vrged that place Psal. 143.2 Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant for in thy sight shall none that liueth be iustified c. Hence it is euident â—hat no not the iust in their best works are iustified in the sight of God but the Lord can finde sufficient matter against them euen in their most perfect works as Iob saith c. 9.30 If I wash my selfe with snow water c. yet shalt thou plunge me in the pit c. Pererius here sheweth fiue reasons why the iust desire that God would not enter into iudgement with them 1. because of the vncertentie of their election and present iustice 2. many of them may fall into deadly and great sinnes which they are not sure whether they be remitted 3. yea and the best men haue their veniall faults which can not altogether be taken heed of in this life 4. and euen in their best works plures negligentiae immiscentur many negligences and scapes are intermingled 5. their good workes are of God and not of themselues and therefore they can not in the rigour of iustice expect a reward at Gods hand Perer. disput 4. numer 37. Contra. 1. Of these fiue causes some are false some are impertinent and some directly make against him 1. That the righteous and faithfull are not certaine of their election nor of remission of sinnes is false and contrarie to the Scriptures for S. Paul was both sure of his election desiring to be dissolued and to be
punishment B. Par. immittit iram sendeth his wrath T. inducit iraâ—â— bringeth in his wrath that is punishment I speake according to man V.L. Or. as a man G. as the sonne of man T. after the manner of man B.Be. 6 God forbid farre be it or let it not be Or. els how shall God iudge the world Or. this world L.R. 7 For if the veritie of God hath more B. abounded thorough my lie in my lie L. so is the originall but the preposition in is taken for through why am I yet condemned as a sinner 8 And not rather as we are blasphemed orig as some speake euill of vs. Be. V. but the word in the orig is in the passive as we are slanderously reputed B. and some affirme that we say let vs doe euill that there may come good whose damnation is iust or whose damnation is reserued for iustice T. 9 What then are we more excellent no in no wise for we haue already or before prooued G. or pronounced T. not before accused Be. B. L shewed by rendring the cause V. the word properly so signifieth to giue a reason or shew the cause all both Iewes and Gentiles to be vnder sinne 10 As it is written There is none righteous no not one there is not any iust L.R. but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one is here omitted 11 There is none that vnderstandeth there is none that seeketh after B. God 12 They haue all gone out of the way they are together become vnprofitable there is none that doth good no not one vnto one Or. 13 Their throat is in an open sepulchre with their tongues they haue deceiued B. Or. vsed their tongues to deceit Be. G. the poison of aspes is vnder their lippes 14 Whos 's mouth is full of cursing and bitternes 15 Their feete are swift to shed blood 16 Destruction not hearts griefe B. the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrition destruction and calamitie V.B.G. miserie B. vnhappines L. griefe T. are in their waies 17 And the way of peace they haue not knowne 18 The feare of God is not before their eyes Or. not there is no feare of God before their eyes for the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not is an adverb 19 Now we know that whatsoeuer the Law saith it saith to them which are vnder the Law in the law Or. that euery mouth may be stopped and all the world may be culpable G. obnoxious V. Be. subiect L. R. endamaged B. subiect to condemnation B. the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to be vnder the sentence that is guiltie vnto God 20 Therefore not because L.B. because that V. for it is a conclusion inferred out of the former words by the works of the Law shall no flesh be iustified in his sight or before him L. for by the Law commeth the knowledge of sinne by the law sinne is knowne T. 21 But now is the righteousnes of God made manifest without the Law hauing witnes of the Law and the Prophets 22 To wit the righteousnes of God by the faith of Iesus Christ toward all vnto all B.G. but the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in omnes toward all and vpon all that beleeue the righteousnes of God by faith c. L.V.T. but it is better to ioyne it by way of exposition to the former verse for this righteousnes by faith is the same which in the former verse he called the righteousnes of God for there is no difference these words some make part of the next verse the 23. Genev but in the original they ende the 22. verse 23 For all haue sinned and are depriued of the glorie of God G. Be. or come short as of the marke not haue neede of the glorie of God L. B. or are destitute V. T. for that doth not sufficiently expresse the meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to come short 24 But are iustified beeing iustified L. Or. but the participle must be resolued into the verbe freely by his grace thorough the redemption that is in Christ Iesus 25 Whome God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood for the shewing of his righteousnes by the forgiuenes of the sinnes which were past before 26 Through the patience of God by the space which God gaue vs by his long suffering T. but this is interpreted rather then translated for the shewing of his righteousnes in this present time at this time G.B.L.T. but in the originall there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nunc now that is this present that he might be iust and a iustifier of him which is of the faith of Iesus Or. of Iesus Christ. L. of our Lord Iesus Christ. T. 27 Where is then the boasting reioycing G. it is excluded by what law of works nay but by the law of faith 28 Therefore we conclude G. or collect or gather B.V. as by reason and argument so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not we thinke L. or hold B. that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the Law 29 Is he God of the Iewes onely and not of the Gentiles also yes euen of the Gentiles also 30 For it is one God which shall iustifie iustifieth L.T. but the word in the originall is in the future tense the circumcision of faith through faith T. but the preposition here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of and the vncircumcision through faith 31 Doe we then make the Law of none effect through faith not destroy the law through faith L.B. for the same word was vsed before v. 3. shall their vnbeleefe make the faith of God without effect not destroy it God forbid yea we establish the Law 2. The Argument Method and parts IN this Chapter the Apostle proceedeth to prooue that the Iewes notwithstanding certaine priuiledges which they had yet because of their vnbeleefe were not better then the Gentiles and so he concludeth all vnder sinne and vnable to be iustified by their workes whereupon it followeth that they must be iustified by faith This chapter hath three parts The 1. from v. 1. to v. 9. wherein he remooueth certaine obiections which might be â—ooued by the Iewes which are three in number 1. Obiection is propounded v. 1. in making the case of the Iewes and Gentiles alike he should seeme to take away all priuiledge from the Iewes the answer followeth in graunâ—ing their priuiledge v. 2. and confirming the same by the constancie of Gods promises v. 3. which he prooueth by certaine testimonies out of the Psalmes v. 4. 2. Obiection is propounded v. 5. and it ariseth out of the testimonie before alleadged that if God be declared to be iust when he iudgeth and punisheth mens sinnes then he should not do well to punish that whereby his iustice is set forth v. 5. the answer followeth v. 6. taken froÌ„ the office of God he can not be but most iust seeing he shall iudge the
world 3. Obiect v. 7. which ariseth likewise out of the former testimonie cited out of the Psalme if by mens lies Gods truth is commended then the liar is vniustly punished the answer followeth v. 9. the Apostle calleth it a blasphemie and worthie of iust damnation if any shall iustifie themselues in their euill doing and of purpose doe euill to set forth the iustice of God v. 8. The second part is from v. 9. to 21. where he prooueth the Iewes and Gentiles both to be vnder sinne which is propounded v. 9. prooued by particular induction of their sinnes grounded vpon some testimonies of Scripture v. 10. to 19. then applied to the Iew as well as to the Gentile by three arguments v. 19.1 from the relation which the law hath to those which are vnder the law 2. then from two ends that euery mouth may be stopped all occasion of boasting may be taken away 3. and that all the world may be found culpable The third part followeth wherein the Apostle prooueth that all must be iustified by faith in Christ which he prooueth by a distribution either by the workes of the law or by faith not by the law by the contrarie effect v. 20. Then he confirmeth the other part that we are iustified by faith without the law which proposition is contained v. 1.22 23. by shewing the causes of iustification and who are iustified euen all that beleeue and why v. 23. Then this proposition is confirmed 1. by shewing all the causes the efficient principall the grace of God then Christ by his blood the instrument is faith the formall cause remission of sinnes the ende the setting forth of Gods iustice v. 24 25 26. 2. by the effects it excluding all boasting v. 27. 3. the conclusion followeth v. 28. 4. which is confirmed 1. by remoouing an absurditie because God otherwise should seeme to be God onely of the Iewes v. 29.30 2. by preuenting an obiection v. 31. 3. The questions and doubts discussed 1. Quest. Of the priuiledges of the Iewes and their preheminence before the Gentiles v. 1. What is the preferment of the Iew c. Whereas the Apostle seemed in the end of the former chapter to make the Iewes and Gentiles equall and had extenuated the circumcision of the flesh now it might be obiected by the Iew that by this meanes they should haue no preheminence or preferment more then the Gentile had the Apostle then meeteth with that secret obiection and sheweth wherein consisted the excellencie of the Iew. 1. The Iewes had many priuiledges which the Gentiles had not as 1. they were called to be the peculiar people of God and the Lord professed himselfe to be their God 2. i◠that nation continued the true knowledge of God euen vnto the comming of Christ 3. of them came many holy Patriarks and Prophets that were in high fauour and acceptance with God 4. among them and for their sakes the Lord wrought many miracles and wonders 5. they had many visions prophesies and dreames 6. God gaue vnto them the Sacraments and sacrifices as circumcision the Paschal lamb 7. the Messiah was promised to descend of that nation 8. But the Apostle omitteth these and specially insisteth vpon this that the law and oracles of God were committed vnto them 2. Chiefly or first because vnto them were credited c. This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erasmus taketh for to signifie the order of the Apostles speach as before c. 1.8 but there the Apostle beginneth his epistle which he doth not here 2. Some referre it to the number of the priuiledges rehearsed by the Apostle whereof this was the first and the rest follow in the epistle But the Apostle maketh mention of no other priuiledge but this 3. Origen whome Sedulius followeth hath here reference to the Gentiles that vnto the Iewes first were committed the oracles then to the Gentiles but the promises here spoken of were onely made vnto the Iewes 4. Therefore this word first here signifieth chiefe that this was the chiefe priuiledge and immunitie which the Iewes had 3. And the Apostle giueth instance of this that they had the Scriptures 1. because it was most generall multa concludit and concluded many things beside Tolet. 2. herein consisted a chiefe difference betweene the Gentiles which had but the law of nature to direct them and the Iewes which had also the written law of God Perer. 3. and the Apostle omitteth their temporall priuiledges insisting vpon a spirituall as beeing more pretious and durable Gorrhan 4. By oracles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some seeme to vnderstand onely the law which was giuen by Moses as Chrysostome Theodoret but thereby are signified all the propheticall writings which the Iewes had both the law and the Prophets gloss interlin though speciall reference be made to the law as S. Steuen saith that Moses receiued the liuely oracles Act. 7.38 Pare 5. But it will be obiected that God also to others communicated his oracles as to Pharaoh Nabuchadnezzer which were not of Israel it may be answered that 1. God did impart those things not to many of the Gentiles but to a few 2. and that of some particular things 3. neither were such oracles and visions committed to their trust but onely for a time reuealed 4. and that for his peoples sake rather then their owne 6. In that the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the oracles of God were committed to their credit or credited vnto them 1. the Syrian interpreter is deceiued who maketh it the nominatiue that the oracles of God were credited or beleeued 2. and Origens obseruation is much like that the oracles of God were committed vnto them which did vnderstand and beleeue them but the letter of the law was giuen to all for by the words following v. 3. what though some did not beleeue it is euident that the Apostle here speaketh of a generall priuiledge which was not made void by some mens vnbeleefe 3. Erasmus saith that those oracles were committed vnto them alijs magis profutura quam ipsis to profit other rather then themselues as though they were committed vnto them to keepe for others vse But Beza noteth better that they had those things committed vnto them non vt alienae rei depositum not as an other mans thing laid to pledge but as their owne proper treasure if they could haue vsed it well 4. And indeede they were faithfull keepers of the Scriptures preseruing them from falsitie and corruption and are to this day though they vnderstand them not and in the daies of our Sauiour when many other corruptions both of life and doctrine were obiected against them yet they were not charged to be falsifiers of Scripture Faius 5. Chrysostome hath here a good note nusquam illorum virtutes sed Dei beneficia in illos enumerat the Apostle doth not recken vp their owne vertues among their priuiledges but he counteth the benefits of God toward them 6. And this word is credited
his wrath and make his power knowne suffer with long patience the vessels of wrath prepared to destruction â—ere God should seeme to doe that which is euill as to prepare the vessels of wrath to destruction for a good ende namely to declare his power 2. Likewise to permit and suffer euill to be done in the world to exercise his iudgâ—ments or declare his prouidence seemeth to be euill as when he suffered Iosephs brethâ—â—â— to sell him into Egypt that Iacobs familie by this meanes might be prouided for for he which suffereth euill to be done when he may hinder it seemeth to consent vnto it and so is accessarie thereunto as a Magistrate sinneth in suffering adulterie murther and other sinnes to goe vnpunished Ans. Concerning the first obiection it is not euill that some are vessels of wrath prepared to destruction 1. because it is Gods will which is alwaies iust and holy yea Gods will is a perfect rule of iustice 2. and that which tendeth to Gods glorie can not be euill as God getteth himselfe glorie in the condemnation of the wicked 3. that which is lawfully done can not be euill but God in reiecting some doth that which he may doe by lawfull right to dispose of his owne as it pleaseth him as no man can reprooue the potter in making some vessels of honour some of dishonour of the same piece of clay 4. but seeing in the ende Gods reiecting and reprobating of some namely such as by their sinnes deserued eternall death appeareth to be most iust it must needs also be good for that which is iust is good 2. To the other obiection of Gods permission it may be likewise answered 1. to permit euill to be done and to consent to euill doe not necessarily follow one the other he that permitteth onely hath a will not to hinder but he that consenteth approoueth that which is done 2. and that God consenteth not to that which he permitteth is euident because he punisheth sinne which he suffreth to be done 3. God in permitting euill to be done onely consenteth to that good which he draweth out of euill and for the which he suffreth the same to be done 4. the case is not like betweene God permitting euill to be done and the Magistrate for 1. God is free and is not tied to any lawe but the Magistrate suffring euill therein doth contrarie to Gods lawe or mans 2. Man oftentimes of some sinister affection suffreth euill either because he is hindered by some greater power and cannot punish it or he is corrupted and so winketh at sinne but none of these are incident to God 3. If the Magistrate propound vnto himselfe some good ende in vsing connivence iâ— some sinnes yet he is not sure to effect it as God is 4. Beside it belongeth vnto the Creator to giue vnto his creatures freely to worke according to their nature for otherwise he should restraine the ordinarie course of things But this no way concerneth the Magistrate in his connivence ex Pareo Quest. 14. In what sense the Apostle denieth the lewes to be more excellent then the Gentiles v. 9 v. 9. What then are we more excellent there is a double sense of these words some thinke that this is spoken in the person of the faithfull which were vncircumcised as though they were more excellent then the Iewes which abused the blessings which the Lord had bestowed vpon them but if the Apostle had spoken here of the vncircumcised he would not haue named himselfe as one of them are we more excellent therefore the other sense is better that the Apostle speaketh here in the person of the Iewes least they might haue gloried too much in their preheminence and prerogatiues which the Apostle had yeelded vnto them before the Gentiles v. 1. 2. Now the Apostle in denying vnto the Iewes that excellencie which he before had yeelded vnto them v. 1. is not contrarie to himselfe for the reconciling whereof 1. Some thinke that S. Paul before spake of the excellencie of the Iewes beyond the Gentiles before the comming of Christ but here of their state in the Gospell when they had no such preheminence as the Apostle saith Coloss. 3. that in Christ there is neither Iewes transgressing against the lawe were no better then the Gentiles as Ezech. 5.10 she hath changed my iudgements into wickednesse more then the nations c. 2. Some giue this solution that then preheminence was in respect of the promises on Gods behalfe which he made vnto the Iewes but in respect of their owne nature they were sinners as well as others Thomas Pererius they had no preheminence by their owne merits to this purpose Gualter Hyperius Aretius with others But Tolet refuseth this vpon this reason because in this sense neither should a Christian man haue any preheminence before a Gentile seeing the one meriteth more at Gods hand then the other these things wherein they excell non 〈◊〉 proprijs acciperunt they haue not receiued by their owne merits annotat 6. 3. The preheminence then before graunted and now denied is neither in respect of the diuers times nor of their persons but of the cause in hand that although the Iewes had some ciuill and Ecclesiasticall prerogatiues they had the law circumcision which the Gentiles had not yet concerning their manner of iustification before God it was all one the Iew was no more iustified by works then the Gentile but both of them were iustified onely by faith Par. Tol. 15. Quest. Of the meaning of certaine phrases which the Apostle vseth v. 9. We haue alreadie prooued and vnder sinne 1. The Greeke word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. some translate criminati sumus we haue accused Greeke schol Beza Pareus but it had beene sufficient to haue said we haue shewed both Iewes and Gentiles to be vnder sinne this was a sufficient accusation it selfe without any such expresse addition that he had accused them Tolet. 2. Pererius maketh this the sense I haue alleadged this as a cause that all are vnder sinne namely as the cause and occasion why the Iewes in the matter of iustification are not preferred before the Gentiles Per. Haymo but that the Apostles speach should be imperfect saying thus much in effect we haue shewed this as the cause that all are vnder sinne not shewing whereof it should be a cause 3. Tolet deuiseth an other sense expounding it by the passiue we haue beene all accused that both Iewes and Gentiles are vnder sinne but the Greeke construction will not suffer this sense for Iewes and Gentiles is put in the accusatiue and so can not answer vnto the word accused 4. Some thus interpret causis redditis ostendimus we haue shewed by rendring the cause why all should be vnder sinne that the Apostle had not onely shewed this but tendred also the cause Chrysost. Ambr. Sedul Erasm. Vatabl. but Beza thinketh that the word is not found in that sense 5. Wherefore the best interpretation is this
eviciâ—â—â— probavimus we haue prooued before Oecumen Genevens we haue sufficiently shewed by reason that all are vnder sinne so also the Syrian interpreter readeth pronuntiaviâ—â—s we haue pronounced and gloss interl rationibus ostendimus we haue shewed by reason 2. Vnder sinne which signifieth three things 1. that although the act of sinne doe passe yet there remaineth still a blot in the soule and conscience and a guiltines of sinne as Iosu. 22.17 we are not clensed from the wickednes of Peor vnto this day Perer. 2. to be vnder sinne is tenerireatu to be held guiltie of sinne Pareus to be subiect vnto the curse and malediction due vnto sinne Piscat and so guiltie to euerlasting damnation 3. and beside it signifieth the seruitude vnder sinne that they doe walke and liue in sinne and can not be deliuered from the tyrannie thereof Tolet. as to be vnder the law is to be in subiection thraldome and vnder the curse of it Pareus 16. Quest. Whence the Apostle alleadgeth these testimonies v. 10. to 18. 1. All these allegations according to the vulgar Latin edition are taken out of the 13. Psalme where all those sentences stand together in this order wherein they are cited here And one Lindanus a Popish writer would prooue hereby the Hebrew text to haue beene corrupted by the Iewes because onely v. 10 11 12. are there found Psal. 14. according to the Hebrew originall and he affirmeth that he had seene an Hebrew copie thought to haue beene Augustins the Monke that was sent into England where these eight verses doe stand in the Hebrew text as they are here alleadged by S. Paul But Pererius misliketh this assertion 1. he vrgeth Hieromes opinion who was more auncient then that Augustine who findeth not all these sentences in the Hebrew 2. it is not like that the Iewes could all conspire to corrupt the Greeke text who otherwise are found to haue beene alwaies most carefull to preserue the Scriptures vncorrupted neither had they any reason to rase out any of those sentences seeing therein is contained no manifest prophecie of Christ. 3. and concerning that Hebrew copie Ioannes Isaac sometime professor of the Hebrew tongue at Coâ—â—â— writing against Lindanus thinketh it was patched together by some vnskilfull Hebriciâ—â— who might turne the Latine into Hebrew 2. Pererius thinketh that the Hebrew text is not corrupted in that place yet he would haue the vulgar Latine translation to be retained because of the antiquitie thereof which â—â—serteth all those verses in the 14. Psalme But if he acknowledge the Hebrew to be perfect and the Latine translation to put in more then is in the Hebrew why should not the Latine text be corrected according to the Hebrew 3. Therefore the truth is as Hierome thinketh proem l. 16. comment in Esaiam that this whole text is not taken out of the 14. Psalme sed partim ex Isaia partim ex Psalmis esse contextum but is framed together partly out of the Prophet Isai partly out of the Psalmes the 10 11 12 verses here are alleadged out of the 14. and 53. Psalme the first part of the 14. v. is out of the 5. Psal. v. 10. the second out of the 140. Psal. v. 3. the 14. v. out of the 10. Psal. v. 7. the 15 16 17. v. out of Isa. 59.7 8. the 18. v. out of Psal. 36.1 Pareus the same is also affirmed by Origen that these testimonies are cited partly out of the Psalmes partly out of the Prophet Isai but the 16. v. Destruction and calamitie are in their waies he saith non recordor vbi scriptum sis c. I remember not where it is written but I thinke it may be found in some one of the Prophets c. this may seeme strange that Origen so diligent a searcher of the Scriptures should not finde where these words are seeing they follow in the very same place of the Prophet Isai as Hierome also obserueth 4. But that is well obserued by Origen that whereas S. Paul doth not follow the very same words which are in the Psalme puto dari in hoc Apostolicam authoritatem I thinke saith he that this is done by Apostolike authoritie to teach vs when we vse the testimonie of Scripture sensum magis ex eo quam verba rapiamus that we rather take the sense then the words c. 17. Qu. Of the matter and order obserued by the Apostle in citing these testimonies In these testimonies the Apostle first sheweth the sinnes of men then their punishment their sinnes either of omission in leauing some duties vndone to v. 13. then of commission in committing such things as were euill to v. 16. the sinnes of omission are either concerning faith or manners concerning faith three waies nec credunt per fidem they neither beleeue by faith there is none iust nec intelligunt per scripturam neither doe they vnderstand by the Scripture nor seeke God per investigationem by searching after him v. 10 11. Concerning manners 1. they decline out of the way in turning away from God 2. they are become vnprofitable that is to their brethren 3. neither doe they good that is to themselues v. 12. The sinnes committed are of two sorts ad inducendum alios in errorem to bring others into error ad incutiendum terrorem and to smite into them terror the first is done three waies 1. openly in corrupting with euill words their mouth is an open sepulchre 2. secretly in deceiuing they haue vsed their tongues to deceit 3. in cloaking their malice with fained words the poison of aspes is vnder their lippes They doe strike terror into them 1. mala imprecando in wishing euill their mouth is full of cursing 2. necem intentando by threatning death and destruction there is bitternes in their mouth 3. in shedding of blood Then followeth their punishment which is of two sorts 1. poena non culpa a punishment and no fault either eternall destruction or temporall calamitie with the meritorious cause in their waies 2. there is a punishment which is both a punishment and a sinne which is first their wilfull ignorance and blindnes v. 17. they haue not knowne the way of peace then their obstinacie the feare of God is not before their eyes Gorrhan But this distribution may seeme to be too curious we therefore will content our selues with this plaine enumeration of sinnes which are here set downe by the Apostle 1. be accuseth all men of iniustice and vnrighteousnes there is none righteous v. 10. 2. of ignorance and blindnes there is none that vnderstandeth v. 11. 3. of apostasie and falling away from God to abominable idolatrie v. 12. 4. of deceit and craft 5. of cursing and bitternes v. 13. 6. of crueltie their feete are swift to shed blood 7. they are turbulent and enemies to peace v. 17. 8. they are prophane casting off all feare of God v. 18. Pareus 18. Quest. How none are said to be iust seeing Noah and other
prepared for you for when I was hungred ye gaue me meate he sheweth not the cause of their saluation but the condition state qualitie of those which should be saued to this purpose Faius see further before c. 1. quest 26. and controv 7. Quest. 25. How by the lawe came the knowledge of sinne 1. The Apostle here confirmeth that which he said before that none are iustified by the workes of the lawe by the contrarie vse of the lawe because thereby commeth the knowledge of sinne therefore iustice and righteousnesse is not attained thereby 2. The lawe Origen vnderstandeth of the lawe of nature Augustine onely of the morall lawe lib. de spirit liter c. 8. but indeed the lawe is vnderstood here in generall both the naturall for euen before the lawe written by the lawe of nature Abimelech knew that adulterie was sinne Genes 20. but the morall more by the which came a more full knowledge of sinne likewise by the ceremoniall and iudiciall lawe sinne was manifested but after a diuerse manner ex accidente accidentally because the one was appointed in expiationem for the expiation the other in poenam for the punishment of sinne Tolet. annot 14. 3. Now diuerse wayes doth the written lawe whereof the Apostle specially speaketh reueale sinne 1. Ambrose sheweth that before the law written there was some knowledge of sinne as he giueth instance in Ioseph who detested the sinne of adulterie to the which his mistresse enticed him but it is so said quia lex ostendit peccata non impune futura because the lawe sheweth that sinnes shall not goe vnpunished so also Theodulus 2. and by the written lawe peccata clarius fuerunt cognita sinnes were more euidently knowne and some were knowne to be sinnes that were not so taken before leviora quaque non cognoscebantur esse peccata the smaller sinnes were not knowne as concupiscence Hierome as the Apostle saith he had not knowne lust vnlesse the law had said thou shalt not lust quaedam etiam grauiora c. and some things by the lawe were knowne to be greater then before gloss ordinar 3. Oecumenius thus expoundeth because sinne was encreased by the knowledge of the lawe for he that sinneth wittingly is so much the more a grieuous offender 4. And before the lawe written sinne was knowne as beeing against reason but by the law it is discerned as beeing against the will of God and so the nature and qualitie of sinne is more fully and perfectly knowne by the lawe Perer. 5. and euen the knowledge of sinne before the lawe written did issue out of the grounds and principles of the morall lawe which were imprinted by nature in the minde Faius 4. But whereas the lawe sheweth as well what things are honest and vertuous as it discouereth sinne the Apostle onely toucheth that vse of the lawe which is to reueale sinne both because it was more pertinent to his purpose which was to shewe that there is no iustification by the lawe because thereby we haue the knowledge of sinne and for that men are more prone vnto the things forbidden in the lawe then to the duties commanded so that the lawe doth not so much teach our dutie to God and our neighbour as that we doe not performe that which is our dutie Beza 5. Now further whereas the Apostle saith by the lawe commeth the knowledge of sinne we must supply the word onely not that the lawe doth nothing else but reueale sinne for it iudgeth and condemneth sinne likewise but here the opposition is between the knowledge of sinne and the remission thereof the lawe onely giueth the one the agnition or knowledge of sinne not the remission Perer. by the lawe is cognitio peccati non consumptio the knowledge of sinne not the consumption of sinne gloss 6. But it will be obiected that in Leuiticus there are oblations prescribed for sinne and the Priest was to pray for such as had sinned and it should be forgiuen them Gorrhan answeareth that it was onely a legall remission quoad poenam non quoad culpam onely concerning the punishment of the lawe not of the fault But Lyranus answeareth better that such sacrifice for sinne was protestatio Christi passuri a protestation or profession of Christ which was to suffer so that such remission of sinnes though it were vnder the lawe yet was not by vertue and force of the lawe but by faith in Christ for the sinnes of the offerers were forgiuen at the prayers of the Priests which could not be heard if they were not of faith 7. It will here be further obiected that the politike and ciuill lawes of Princes intend more then the shewing of sinne they also doe helpe to reforme sinne and reclaime men from it therefore Gods lawe should doe more then manifest sinne Answ. 1. Humane lawes doe onely require an externall ciuill iustice but the lawe of God discouereth the corruption of the heart so that herein there is great difference betweene them Melancth 2. Humane lawes may by proposing of rewards and punishments helpe to perswade and induce men but they cannot instill or infuse obedience into the heart 3. God also intendeth more then the reuealing of sinne by his lawe for if any could keepe it they should liue thereby which while none is able to doe yet the law beside the discouering of sinne ferueth as a Schoolmaster to bring vs to Christ so that it is thorough mans owne infirmitie that the lawe giueth not life and it sheweth Gods power and wisedome that turneth the lawe vnto our good namely to bring vs vnto Christ which by our infirmitie is become vnto vs the minister of death 8. So then there are two other speciall vses and benefits of the lawe beside the reuealing of sinne the one that concerning faith it is a Schoolmaster to bring vs to Christ and touching manners and life it sheweth vs the way wherein we should walke Mars 9. There is a double knowledge of sinne by the lawe there is one which is weake and vnprofitable which neither thoroughly terrifieth the conscience nor reformeth the life such was the knowledge which the heathen had of sinne as the poets in their satyricall verses did set forth the sinnes of their times but themselues followed them there is an other effectuall knowledge of the lawe whereby the soule is humbled and this is of two sorts when such as is ioyned onely with terror of conscience without any hope such was the knowledge of sinne which Cain and Iudas had that betrayed Christ or it hath beside some liuely hope and comfort such was Dauids agnition and confession of his sinne But this comfort is no worke of the lawe it is wrought in vs by the spirit of grace Martyr Quest. 26. Of the meaning of these words The righteousnesse of God is made manifests without the lawe 1. Ambrose by the iustice of God vnderstandeth that iustice wherewith God is iust â—estans promissa sua in keeping his promises Origen
And although by our redemption we are not deliuered or taken from God but reconciled vnto him yet are we deliuered from his wrath Rom. 5.9 and so from his punishing iustice 5. Argum. We are improperly said to be redeemed from that to the which the price was not paied but to the curse of the lawe and wrath that is the punishment of sinne the price was not paied for the bearing of the curse and the sustaining of the wrath of God for vs was the price it selfe therefore we are improperly said to be redeemed from the curse and wrath Answ. 1. The proposition is false for the captiue may be said to be redeemed from that to the which the price is not payed as from the gives fetters prison sword death though principally the redemption is from the hands of him which holdeth any in captiuitie so we may be redeemed from the curse of the lawe though the price were not payed vnto it 2. the curse of the lawe and wrath may be taken two wayes passiuely for the effect of the curse and wrath which is the punishment of sinne and in this sense the price is not paid to the curse or actiuely for the wrath of God and his irefull iudgement pronouncing the sentence of the curse and in this sense the price may be said to be paied vnto the curse that is the iustice and wrath of God inflicting the curse 6. Argum. The operation or curse of the lawe is euerlasting death but Christ did not vndergoe euerlasting death for vs therefore he was not made a curse for vs but onely for our cause he fell into some kind of curse for vs. Answ. 1. The proposition is generally true for the curse or operation doth not onely signifie the punishment due vnto the breach of the lawe but the sentence also pronounced against the transgressors of the lawe as it is said Deut. 21.23 cursed is euerie one that hangeth vpon a tree but euerie one that so hanged was not euerlastingly condemned as the theife that was converted vpon the crosse 2. yet it is most true that Christ in some sense suffred eternall death for vs for in euerlasting death two things are to be considered the greatnesse and infinitnes of the infernall agonies and dolors with the abiection and forsaking of God the other is the perpetuall continuance of such euerlasting horror and abiection the second Christ must needs be freed from both because of his omnipotencie it was impossible for him to be for euer kept vnder the thraldome of death and his innocencie that hauing satisfied for sinne beeing himselfe without sinne he could not be held in death and in respect of his office which was to be our deliuerer yet the verie infernall paines and sorrowe Christ did suffer for vs because our Redeemer was to suffer that which was due vnto vs and why els was our Sauiour so much perplexed before his passion which in respect of the outward tormēt of the body was exceeded by many Martyrs in their sufferings if he feared not some greater thing then the death of the bodie 3. And although sometime in Scripture the preposition for signifieth onely the ende or cause as Christ is said to haue died for our sinnes 1. Ioh. 3.16 yet it signifieth also for and in ones stead to doe any thing as Rom. 5.7 for a good man one dare die that is in his stead that he should not die and so Christ died for vs that is in our place and stead that we should not die eternally ex Pareo 7. Argum. As we are said to be sold vnder sinne so we are bought and redeemed by Christ but we were sold vnder sinne without any price payed therefore so also are we redeemed without the paying of any price Answ. The proposition is not true for it is a metaphoricall speach that we are sold vnder sinne thereby is signified the alienation and abiection from God by our sinnes but we are said to be redeemed properly wherein it was necessarie that a price should be paied for vs both to satisfie the iust wrath and indignation of God against sinne as also because of Gods immutable sentence thou shalt die the death which sentence must take place let the Lord should be found a lier and his word not to be true Christ therefore in redeeming vs by his death payed that price and ransome for vs which we otherwise should haue payed 8. Argum. Where there is a true and proper redemption the price is paied to him which holdeth the captiues in bondage but in this redemption purchased by Christ the price was not so paied for then the deuill should haue had it whose captiues we were therefore it is not properly a redemption Answ. 1. It is not true that we are principally and originally the deuills captiues first we are the Lords captiues as of an angrie and offended Iudge by our sinnes but secondarily we were captiued vnto Sathan because the Iudge deliuereth ouer sinners vnto him as the tormentor that power therefore which Sathan hath ouer sinners is a secondarie power receiued from God this is manifested in the parable Matth. 18.34 where the king deliuereth ouer the wicked seruant vnto the tormentor 2. The price then of our redemption was paied vnto God who had deliuered vs ouer as captiues for our sinnes and so the Apostle saith that Christ offred himselfe by his eternall spirit vnto God Heb. 9.14 not that God thirsted for the blood of his sonne but after 〈◊〉 salvation quia salus erat in sanguine because there was health in his blood as Bernard saith for thereby Gods iustice was satisfied and the veritie of his sentence established thou shalt die the death 3. But whereas it is further obiected that the price could not be payed vnto God 1. because God procured his owne sonne to pay the price of our redemption but be that detaineth captiues doth not procure their deliuerance 2. in paying the price of redemption there is some vantage accruing and growing to him to whom the price is paied but in our redemption there was no gaine or advantage vnto God we further answear thus 1. that in such a redemption wherein the Iudge desireth the life and safetie of the prisoner the Iudge himselfe may procure him to be redeemed and that out of his owne treasure 2. neither in such a kind of redemption doth the iudge seeke for any advantage to himselfe but onely the preservation of the lawes and common iustice as Zaleucus the gouernor of the Loerensians hauing made a lawe that he which was taken in adulterie should loose both his eyes did cause one of his sonnes eyes to be put out for the offence and one of his owne eyes by this he gained nothing but the commendation of iustice and so in our redemption the iustice of God is set forth otherwise there can be no lucre or advantage growing properly vnto God 4. Wherefore notwithstanding all these cauills and sophistications Christ properly and
to followe and he is made in that respect the father of the faithfull but the faithfull and beleeuers now are onely the children of faithfull Abraham 2. Now Abrahams faith and ours herein agree 1. in the generall obiect which is God that quickeneth and raiseth the dead 2. in the manner condition and qualitie for Abrahams faith was firme and certaine he was fully perswaded and such must our faith be 3. the end and scope of his faith and ours is the Messiah the promised seede 4. the effect is the same the imputation of righteousnesse Pareus Quest. 41. How Christ is said to haue beene deliuered vp for our sinnes v. 25. Christ was diuerse wayes and by diuerse deliuered vp 1. he was deliuered vp by the determinate counsell of God Rom. 8.31 he spared not his owne sonne but gaue him vp 〈◊〉 vs all vnto death 2. He was deliuered vp by himselfe Galath 2.20 Who hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me Ephes. 5.25 as Christ loued his Church and gaue himselfe for it 3. By Iudas Matth. 26.21 One of you shall betray me 4. He was deliuered vp by the Iewes as Pilate saith vnto Iesus Ioh. 18.35 thine owne nation and the high Priests haue deliuered thee vnto me 5. He was also deliuered vp by Pilate to be crucified Ioh. 19.16 6. And lastly he was deliuered vp by Sathan Ioh. 13.2 the deuill had put it into the heart of Iudas to betray him Gorrhan Tolet. So then Christ was deliuered vp à patre permittente of his father permitting à scipso sâ— lutem hominis procurante of himselfe procuring mans saluation à Iudae prodente of Iudaâ— betraying him à Iudao invidente of the Iewes enuying him à Pilato iudicante of Pilatâ— iudging him à diabolo suggerente of the deuill suggesting Gorrh. But the Apostle here speaketh of the first kind of deliuering vp by God his father â—â— that the ineffable counsell of Gods wisedome and mercie toward vs may appeare 2. that it might be knowne that Christ died not by chance or of any weakenesse or imbecilitie â—â— by the counsell of God wherein appeareth Christs great loue in willingly offring himselâ—â— for vs Pareus 3. that the same author may be knowen both of Christs deliuering to death and of his raising againe God raised him vp v. 24. Tolet. 42. Quest. Why the Apostle thus distinguisheth the benefits of our redemption ascribing remission of sinnes to Christs death and iustification to his resurrection v. 25. v. 25. Who was deliuered vp for our sinnes and is risen againe for our iustification here the Apostle seemeth to ascribe our iustification vnto the resurrection of Christ where he must not be so vnderstood as though Christs death onely merited for vs remission of sinnes and not iustification also for elswhere this our Apostle doth place our iustification in our redemption by the death of Christ Rom. 3.24 We are iustified freely by his grace thorough the redemption that is in Christ Iesus and S. Peter likewise faith 1. epist. 2.24 Who his owne selfe bare our sinnes in his bodie on the tree that we beeing deliuered from sinne might liue vnto righteousnes c. Diuers interpretations then are giuen of these words to remooue this doubt 1. Some doe giue this reason of this distinction that Christ is said to be risen for our iustification that is to be an example of newnesse of life as Augustine applieth this sentence super Psalm 101. ser. 2. pasch serm 2. Christus crucifixus est vt ostenderet veteris homiris occasum c. resurrexit vt in vita sua ostenderet vitae nostrae novitatem Christ was crucified to shew in vs the dying of the old man and he rose againe to shew in his liuing againe our newnes of life c. to the same purpose Origen and Anselme vpon this place and likewise Thomas 3. part quest 56. artic 2 that quantum ad efficientiam in respect of the efficacie both the passion and resurrection of Christ are the causes of both sed quantum ad exemplaritatem c. but in respect of the exemplarie vertue and force the passion of Christ is the cause of remission of sinnes and his resurrection the cause of newnes of life this interpretation is approoued by gloss ordinar Gorrhan Bellarm. lib. 2. de effect sacram c. 9. resp ad argum 5. Pererius disput 10. numer 49. and by Stapl. Antidot pag. 259. But Tolet annot 25. misliketh this sense vpon this reason because as the one clause of this sentence is to be taken so is the other but the Apostle saying who was deliuered to death for our sinnes insinuateth a satisfaction made by his death for our sinnes not an example shewed of mortification therefore in the other part he must be vnderstood likewise to speake of the cause of our iustification not of an example onely And further there is difference betweene iustification and newnesse of life the Apostle saith c. 6.4 As Christ was raised from the dead c. so we should walke in newnesse of life here the Apostle speaketh of the exemplarie imitation of Christs resurrection in newnes of life which is our sanctification and regeneration but iustification is a diuers thing from sanctification which is as the frait and the other the cause thereof 2. Caietane thus expoundeth we are said to be iustified by Christs resurrection because we are iustified by faith which is confirmed by Christs resurrection and so products sumus ad iustificationem per fidem resurrectionis we are brought vnto iustification by the faith of the resurrection And they adde further that our faith is specially directed vnto Christs resurrection for the Iewes and heathen did confesse that Christ died but not that he rose againe to this purpose Vatablus Christ rose for our iustification that we should beleeue him to be the Sonne of God and so by that faith be iustified to the same purpose Faius But Peter Martyr resureth this opinion because our faith must as well aime at the death of Christ as at his resurrection and although the Iewes knew that Christ died yet they did not acknowledge that he died for our sinnes Tolet addeth this reason further that like as the death of Christ was not an argument onely and confirmation of our faith but the very cause of the remission of our sinnes so his resurrection must be held to be not an argument and proofe of our faith but the very cause of our iustification 3. Tolet here bringeth in an other exposition which he doth father vpon Theodoret Christ rose for our iustification vt communem omnibus resurrectionem procuraret to procure the common resurrection of vs all for vnlesse Christ had risen againe we should not haue risen againe But 1. no where in Scripture is our resurrection called by the name of iustification 2. and our resurrection was as well merited by Christs death as by his resurrection 3. if Christ indeede had not risen at all neither should we haue
a figure of Christ therefore as Christs righteousnesse is extended euen vnto those before the lawe so also was Adams sinne v. 14. Then the Apostle sheweth wherein Adam is vnlike vnto Christ namely in these three things 1. in the efficacie and power the grace of God in Christ is much more able to saue vs then Adams fall was to condemne vs v. 15. 2. in the obiect Adams one offence was sufficient to condemne but by Christ we are deliuered from many offences v. 16. 3. in the ende Adams sinne brought forth death but Christs righteousnesse doth not onely deliuer vs from sinne and death but bringeth vs vnto righteousnesse and life yea and causeth vs to raigne in life it restoareth vs to a more glorious kingdome and inheritance then we lost in Adam v. 17. The reddition or second part of this comparison sheweth wherein Christ of whom Adam was a type and figure is answearable vnto Adam namely in these three things propounded v. 12. first in the singularitie of his person one mans iustification saueth vs as one mans offence condemned vs v. 18. 2. in the obiect as Adams sinne was communicated to many so is Christs obedience v. 19. And here the Apostle by the way preuenteth an obiection that if sinne came in by Adam why entred the lawe he answeareth to the ende that sinne might the more appeare and be increased not simply but that thereby the grace of God might abound the more 3. in the ende as sinne had raigned vnto death so grace might raigne vnto eternall life 3. The questions and doubts discussed Quest. 1. What peace the Apostle meaneth ver 1. v. 1. Beeing iustified by faith we haue peace toward God 1. Oecumenius whom Harme and Anselme Lyranus Hugo followe doe reade here in the imperatiue habeamus let vs haue not habemus we haue and they vnderstand peace with men that the Iewes should no longer contend with the Gentiles about their lawe as though iustification came thereby seeing the Apostle had sufficiently prooued alreadie that we are iustified by faith But this exposition cannot stand 1. because the Apostle speaketh of such peace as we haue with God not with man 2. he speaketh in the first person we haue but S. Paul was none of these which did contend about the Lawe 2. Origen Chrysostome Theodoret vnderstand it of peace with God but in this sense let vs beeing iustified by faith take heede that we offend not God by our sinnes and so make him our enemie mihi videtur saith Chrysostome de vita conuersatione disserere the Apostle seemeth vnto me now to reason of our life and conuersation so Origen let vs haue peace vt vltra non adversetur caro spiritus that our flesh no longer rebell against the spirit But the Apostle here exhorteth not sed gratulatur eorum faelicitati he doth rather set forth with ioy the happines of those which are iustified Erasmus and it is not an exhortation but a continuation rather of the former doctrine of iustification Tolet annot 1. and here he sheweth the benefits of our iustification whereof the first is peace of conscience Pareus and this is further euident by the words following By whom we haue accesse which words beeing not vttered by way of exhortation but of declaration shewe that the former words should so likewise be taken Erasmus 3. Ambrose reading in the Indicatiue habemus we haue expoundeth this peace of the tranquilitie and peace of conscience which we haue with God beeing once iustified by faith in Christ thus the Apostle himselfe expoundeth this peace v. 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne for they are our sinnes which make a separation betweene God and vs this sense followe Tolet annot 1. and in his commentarie Pareus Gryneus Faius with others 4. This then is resolued vpon that the Apostle speaketh here not of externall but internall peace there is pax temporis and pax pecteris a temporall and a pectorall or inward peace the other Christ giueth but through the malice of Sathan and the corruption of mans heart it may be interrupted and therefore Christ saith Matth. 10.34 That he came not to send peace but the sword but the other which is the inward peace of conscience Satan himselfe can not depriue vs of no man can take it from vs. But whereas there is a threefold combate within vs the fight betweene reason and affection betweene the flesh and the spirit and a wrestling with the terrors of Gods iudgements in the two first we cannot haue peace here but in part for still in the seruants of God there remaineth a combat betweene reason and affection the flesh and the spirit as S. Paul sheweth that it was so with him Rom. 7.23 he sawe another lawe in his members rebelling against the lawe of his minde and therefore we are not to hope to haue such peace vt non vltra caro adversetur spiritui that the flesh should no more rebell against the spirit as Origen thinketh but this inward peace is in respect of the terrors which are caused in vs by the feare of Gods iudgement against sinne from this terror we are deliuered by Christ Beza yet so as sometimes there may arise some feare doubts and perplexitie in the minde of the faithfull as it is written of Hilarion that beeing 70. yeare old and now neere vnto death he was somewhat perplexed and troubled in minde yet faith in the end ouercommeth all these dangers that we fall not vpon the rockes to make shipwracke of our faith and a good conscience 5. And we must here distinguish betweene pax conscientiae stupor conscienciae the peace of conscience and a carnall stupiditie for the one neuer felt the terror of Gods iudgments and therefore can haue no true peace the other hath felt them and is nowe by faith deliuered from them Calvin 6. Now whereas it is added We haue peace with God or toward God these things are here to be obserued 1. all the causes are here expressed of our iustification the materiall which is remission of our sinnes included in iustification the formall by faith the finall to haue peace with God the efficient through our Lord Iesus Christ Gorrhan 2. and in that he saith toward God Origen noteth that this is added to shewe that they haue neither peace in themselues because of the continuall combate betweene the flesh and the spirit not yet with Sathan and the world which continually tempt vs but with God we haue peace who is reconciled vnto vs in Christ and he saith toward God or with God to signifie that reconciliation is not onely made with God but that it is pleasing and acceptable vnto him that such a reconciliation is made Tolet. and further hereby is signified that this is a perpetuall peace because it is toward God with whom there is no change nor mutabilitie Faius Thorough Iesus Christ 1. Chrysostome seemeth thus to vnderstand
absolute glorie which God hath in himselfe as of that whereby he shall glorifie vs Pareus Quest. 4. How we are said to reioyce in tribulation v. 3. Neither that onely c. Origen referreth this clause to all the particulars before expressed as iustification by Christ peace with God and hauing accesse vnto him by Christ but it is better restrained vnto the former clause that we doe not onely reioyce because of the future hope of eternall glorie but euen in tribulation also Erasmus for it might haue beene obiected that the condition and state of the children of God is for the present time most miserable the Apostle then preuenteth this obiection shewing that the children of God are euen in their afflictions most happie 2. As before then he shewed the internall effects of iustification in the spirituall graces of the minde so here is declared what iustification worketh in vs euen in temporall and externall things which is seene in these three points 1. the faithfull reioyce in tribulation 2. why because tribulation bringeth forth patience 3. and this is not in vaine for hope maketh them not ashamed Gorrhan 3. Chrysostome here sheweth a difference betweene the striuing for a temporall and euerlasting crowne for there in the labour that is sustained there is no pleasure till they come to the reward but here non minus iucunditatis adferunt ipsa certamina c. the very striuing hath no lesse pleasure then the reward which we striue for 4. But here we must vnderstand not euery tribulation but such as are endured for Christs cause for the euill also doe suffer tribulation but they suffer worthily as euill doers and in such tribulations there is no ioy no comfort but in such as the faithfull doe suffer for righteousnesse sake such as the Apostle speaketh of Act. 14.22 That we must thorough many afflictions enter into the kingdome of God 5. This is contrarie to the iudgement of the world and of naturall reason for they hold afflictions to be nothing els but miserie and vnhappinesse and them miserable which doe suffer them But like as the eight sphere keepeth it course from the East to the West but the planets doe mooue from the West to the East holding a contrarie course so the godly and faithfull doe embrace that way which the wicked decline as euill and vnhappie Martyr 6. And the faithfull reioyce thus in tribulation not as though they were without feeling and were voide of affection as the Stoiks would haue their wise men but afflictions beeing euill in themselues are thorough the grace of God turned to the good of his seruants Mart. Chrysostome here saith that tribulations are res in seipsis bonae c. things good in themselues because they bring forth patience but this is rather ex accidente by an accident that things in themselues euill are by Gods grace turned to be profitable vnto the servants of God 7. Now in that the faithfull doe many times mourne and complaine in their afflictions this is not contrarie to the Apostle for there is in euerie man regenerate the spirituall and naturall man the one sheweth it selfe in the naturall feeling of crosses and afflictions but the other aboue nature by grace reioyceth in them Calvin Quest. 5. How S. Paul and S. Iames are reconciled together the one making patience the cause of triall or probation the other the effect S. Paul v. 4. saith that patience bringeth forth triall or probation which is commonly translated experience But S. Iames saith v. 1.3 that the trying of your faith bringeth forth patience so S. Paul maketh this probation the effect of patience S. Iames the cause 1. It cannot be said that they speake of two diuerse kinds of patience for the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 patience is vsed in both places 2. Lyranus by probation vnderstandeth the purgation of sinnes for as the blot of sinne is taken away saith he by the contrition of the heart so the guilt of punishment by tribulation But the Scripture acknowledgeth no such purging of sinnes by affliction the purging of sinne is ascribed vnto Christ Heb. 1.3 Who by himselfe not by our afflictions but by his owne sufferings hath purged our sinne 3. There are then two kind of probations or rather this word probation is taken two wayes for either it signifieth the verie action it selfe whereby one is tried or prooued and so it is taken actiuely in respect of God who prooueth and trieth vs and so the triall and probation of our faith by affliction bringeth forth patience as the fruit and effect thereof and in this sense Iames taketh it or it signifieth the experience or triall which a man hath of himselfe by his affliction and so is the effect of patience and thus S. Paul vnderstandeth it And therefore the Apostles vse two diuerse words Iames hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is taken actiuely for the verie probation it selfe S. Paul vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is taken passiuely for that which is tried and found out by experience thus Calvin Pareuis dub 3. Tolet annot 4. Perer. disput 1. numer 5. 4. Faius further answeareth that both are true in the same sense that patience bringeth forth triall or experience and probation or triall againe maketh patience as health is the cause of deambulation and walking and walking is the cause againe of health the one is encreased by the other Quest. 6. Of the coherence of these words with the former because the loue of God is shed abroad in our hearts v. 5. 1. Oecumenius maketh this as a reason why we reioyce in tribulation because the loue of God is in vs and men doe delight to suffer and endure for that which they loue But loue is here taken passiuely for the loue wherewith we are beloued of God not actiuely for that whereby we loue God as shall be shewed in the next question and the Apostle had yeelded a sufficient reason before of our reioycing in tribulation because tribulation worketh patience patience experience c. 2. Some doe make it a reason of the words immediately going before namely of the certaintie of our hope which maketh vs not ashamed seeing we enioy the things hoped for because we are assured by the spirit of God that we are beloued of God his loue is shed abroad that is manifested in our hearts by the spirit so Faius Tolet. 3. But it rather containeth a generall reason of all the precedent benefits and priuiledges mentioned before of our iustification by faith accesse and entrance vnto God hope of glorie reioycing in tribulation because the spirit beareth witnesse vnto our hearts that we are accepted and beloued of God in Christ Calvin Pareus Quest. 7. What kind of loue the Apostle speaketh of saying The loue of God is shed abroad c. 1. Some doe take this actiuely for the loue wherewith we loue God so Oecumenius Anselme and Stapleton antidot pag. 275. doth to the same
to either of them but of that which by them redounded to many and this similitude and correspondencie is ex contrarijs by the contrarie as Origen well obserueth and that in these three respects what they are in themselues considered what to their posteritie and wherein 1. They were both authors and beginners Adam was the beginning of mankind quoad esse naturae in respect of the naturall generation Christ is the beginning quoad esse gratiae in respect of the spirituall regeneration by grace Lyran. 2. as Adams sinne did not hurt himselfe onely but his posteritie so the grace of Christ is communicated to all his spirituall generation 3. as death and sinne came in by Adam so life and righteousnes by Iesus Christ as the Apostle followeth this comparison in the rest of this chapter and â—â— large 1. Cor. 2.15 Here follow certaine questions touching this comparison made by the Apostle betweene Adam and Christ. 31. Quest. Of the names and tearmes which the Apostle vseth in this comparison 1. In the transgression and fall of Adam the Apostle vseth diuers words and tearmes which either expresse the cause of Adams fall the ruine and fall it selfe and the fruits for iâ— these three are Adam and Christ compared together 1. the cause is set forth in generall tearmes as it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sinne v. 12. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 transgression v. 14. or more speciall as it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disobedience v. 19. 2. the fall of man is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lapsus the fall or ruine of man v. 15. 3. the effect are either the guiltines of sinne called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 16 or the punishment which is either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 death v. 12. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemnation euerlasting death v. 16. 2. In the iustification purchased by Christ are likewise expressed the causes the worke it selfe and the effects which follow 1. the causes the efficient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grace of God v. 15. called also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the abundance or redounding of grace v. 17. the formall cause is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the obedience of Christ v. 19. 2. the worke of our iustification is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gift v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gift by grace v. 15. and the gift of righteousnes v. 17. 3. then the fruit and effect thereof is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the iustification of life or vnto life v. 18. 3. But yet if we will more exactly distinguish these words this difference may be made betweene them these three words which the Apostle vseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 15 16. the first signifying grace the other two beeing translated the gift doe thus differ the first sheweth the grace and fauour from the which the benefit proceedeth the second is the coâ—â—lation of the benefit the third betokeneth the benefit it self which is conferred as if a Prince should giue a great treasure to redeeme one out of captiuitie this fauour of the Prince is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grace the free giuing of it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the donation the others enioying of it and receiuing of this libertie is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the benefit or gift Beza 4. So these other 3. words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iustifying iustification iustice doe thus differ the first signifieth the merit of Christs iustice whereby we are iustified the second the action it selfe of iustification whereby Christs iustice is communicated to vs the third the iustice it selfe which is imputed and communicated vnto vs Tolet. annotat 24. Quest. 33. Of the comparison betweene Adam and Christ in generall 1. Origen well obserueth that this comparison is per genus similis per speciem contraria it is alike in the generall resemblance but contrarie in the particular in two things there is a generall agreement and resemblance 1. that there is one that giueth beginning and is the author vnto the rest 2. in plures aliquid diffundtur on both sides as the beginning is from one so there is somewhat conueyed vnto many 2. The specificall difference consisteth in the contrarietie and disparitie and the excellencie the disparitie is that one was the author of sinne vnto condemnation the other of righteousnesse vnto life the excellencie is in that the gift is not so as the offence but much more powerfull and abundant of both these the disparitie and excellencie more followeth to be added in the two next questions So then here are three things to be considered in this comparison as Photius obserueth cited by Oecumenius similitudo contrarietas excellentia the similitude or likenes the contratietie and disparitie and the excellencie 3. Now whereas the Apostle from this verse vnto the 19. v. seemeth to vse diuerse iterations of the same thing we shall finde by a dilligent viewe and examination of the Apostles sentences that he doth not repeate the same things as Pellicane thinketh eadem repetit propter infirmas conscientias c. he repeateth the same things because of weake consciences which often thinke that sinne is more powerfull then grace c. But Oecumenius saith better nequaquam iterum atque iterum eadem repetit Apostolus c. the Apostle doth not againe and againe repeat the same things as one would thinke but diligentissime copulat he doth most dilligently couple and ioyne the principall heads together Quest. 34. Of the disparitie and vnlikenesse betweene Adam and Christ in this comparison The difference and disparitie betweene them is in these sixe seuerall points 1. In the persons compared Adam is considered as a meere man v. 12. but Christ was both God and man he is called Iesus Christ our Lord v. 21. 2. They differ in that which is conferred Adam propagateth to his posteritie sinne and death v. 12. Christ communicateth to his righteousnesse and life v. 15.16 3. The meanes are farre different Adams disobedience brought in sinne Christs obedience procureth life v. 18.19 4. The persons vpon whom these things are conferred differ for from Adam death and sinne are deriued vpon all in generall v. 12.18 but righteousnesse is communicated onely to those which receiue the abundance of grace by faith v. 17. 5. The manner how these things are conueyed are diuerse Adams sinne is transmitted by naturall propagation but life and righteousnesse by Christ are communicated by grace v. 15. the gift is by grace 6. The sequele and endes are contrary the offence is vnto condemnation v. 16. but iustification by Christ is vnto life eternall v. 18. Quest. 35. Of the excellencie and superioritie which the benefit by grace in Christ hath beyond our fall and losse in Adam 1. The first excellencie is generally in the power and efficacie of the worker for it was necessarie that he that should ouercom sinne and death should be superiour to both for if he had beene of equall power he could not haue dissolued
Sathans worke the strong man could not be bound but by a stronger then he Mart. And more particularly this excellencie appeareth in the author and efficient cause Adams sinne was vnius puri hominis of one and the same a meere man but the gift was Christi hominis Dei of Christ God and man Lyran. that was of our but this non solum patris sed filij gratia was not onely the grace of God the father but of his sonne Chrysost. 2. An other point of excellencie is generally in the worke it selfe and the manner of it 1. if sinne beeing a privative were so forcible vnto condemnation much more the iustice and grace of Christ beeing a thing positive is auaileable fortior vita quam mors iustitia quà m peccatum life is stronger then death and righteousnes then sinne Origen 2. fortius est mortuum resuscitare c. it is a more powerfull thing to raise one beeing dead then to kill one that is aliue Osiand 3. Chrysostome addeth further magis videtur rationi consonum c. it seemeth more agreeable to reason that one man should purchase saluation and redemption then condemnation to and for an other if then that were done which was more against reason for one to worke an others condemnation much more the other 3. As our redemption and iustification by Christ is more excellent then our condemnation by Adam in respect of the more excellent and powerfull cause as the Apostle sheweth v. 15. as is before expressed so it excelleth in regard of the more excellent fruits and effects whereof one is declared v. 16. that whereas one offence of Adam entred vnto the condemnation of many in Christ not onely that sinne is pardoned but all other our actuall sinnes non solum illud peccatum per gratiam est oblatum sed reliqua omnia not onely that fault is taken away by grace but all the rest also Chrysost. 4. An other effect is that in Christ we receiue abundance of grace v. 17. non tantum peccata sublata sed iustitia prastita our sinnes are not onely taken away but righteousnes also is giuen vs Chrysost. which he further thus setteth forth by this similitude like as if a Prince should deliuer a man that is enthralled with his wife and children and not onely restoare him to libertie but set him in a princely throne or as if a medecine should be giuen not onely to heale the disease but whereby the bodie should be made much stronger Lyrau so Christ non solum iustificat à peccatis sed etiam inducit ad gloriam doth not onely iustifie vs from our sinnes but also bringeth vs to glorie Lyran. 5. Chrysostome addeth one excellent priuiledge further which we obtaine in Christ that whereas death came by Adam in Christ we obtaine that by death we receiue no hurt sed plurimi luchri tulerimus but much good as 1. death perswadeth vs and the remembrance thereof to liue soberly and honestly 2. hic sunt Martyrum coronae death was the occasion of the crowne of martyrdome 3. and thereby we are made fitte for immortalitie 6. Origen herein placeth the excellencie of this effect that not onely death no longer raigneth sed duo conferuntur bona two good things are conferred life is giuen in stead of death Christ our life raigneth in vs and we also shall raigne in life with him This then is the abundance of grace that we receiue in Christ. 1. in that we are not onely purged from our sinnes but iustified in Christ. 2. and sanctified in him 3. made fellow heires with Christ and restored to be the sonnes of God 4. and brought to euerlasting glorie 36. Quest. Some other opinions refused wherein this excellencie should consist 1. Some thinke that herein consisteth the excellencie of grace because the sinne of Adam was deriued onely vnto men the grace of Christ is reuealed to Angels Perer. disput 12. This is true that euen the Angels doe stand by Christ but it is not the meaning of Saint Paul here for he speaketh expressely of the abounding of this gift of iustification vnto men v. 18. 2. Pererius further saith that by originall sinne which we haue from Adam we are onely made subiect poenae damni to the penaltie of losse which is the privation of the grace and glorie of God but in Christ we are deliuered from the penaltie not onely damni of the losse but sensus of feeling and suffering the torments of hell But the Apostle is contrarie who saith that by the offence of one sinne came vpon all to condemnation v. 18. the euerlasting condemnation then of bodie and soule is due vnto men by nature in respect of originall sinne without the mercie of God in Christ and elswhere the Apostle saith we are all the children of wrath by nature Eph. 2.2 to the children of wrath belongeth all kind of punishment not onely in the priuation of life and glorie but in the actuall feeling and suffering of eternall torments 3. The ordinarie glosse saith that death in Adam raigned onely temporaliter temporally but grace and life in Christ eternally but death in Adam should haue raigned eternally if Christ had not redeemed vs not onely temporall but eternall death is the reward of 〈◊〉 then seeing all sinned in Adam all by nature are subiect euen to eternall death 4. Pet. Martyr obserueth out of Oecumenius an other point of excellencie in Christ aboue Adam for Adams sinne cooperans habuit omne nostrum peccatum had euerie one of our sinnes to helpe and worke together with it but the grace of Christ came vpon all sine nostra cooperatione without our ioynt working for not onely the faithfull and beleeuers but infidels also and vnbeleeuers shall rise againe from death But Pet. Martyr taketh these exceptions to this obseruation 1. Adams sinne without our actuall sinnes was sufficient to condemne his posteritie 2. though the vnbeleeuers shall rise againe it shall be to their further condemnation it shall be no benefit vnto them 3. though Gods grace doe worke without vs yet there is somewhat required in the faithfull that they should beleeue though that also be the gift and worke of God in vs. 5. Wherefore the true excellencie of the grace of Christ aboue the sinne and condemnation by Adam consisteth in those points declared in the former question because in Christ we are restored to a more excellent state then we lost in Adam 1. by Adam we are depriued of a temporall paradise in Christ we are restored to an heauenly 2. in Adam we are excluded from the eating of the materiall tree of life but in Christ we feede of the bread of heauen which giueth eternall life 3. in Adam it was giuen vs posse non mori non peccare a possibilitie not to sinne not to die but in Christ we shall obtaine non posse peccare mori that we cannot die nor sinne in the next life 4. by Adams sinne we are
it entred in by the way as though it had entred in secretly so also Erasmus and Gorrhan giueth the reason because it was giuen but vnto one people and secretly in the desert but the lawe beeing so publikely deliuered in such great power and signes could not be said secretly to enter 2. Origen giueth this sense that the lawe of the members entred sub obtentu legis naturalis vnder the pretext and colour of the lawe of nature it entred as it were by stealth but the Apostle speaketh not here of the lawe of nature as is shewed before 3. Chrysostome whom Tolet followeth thus interpreteth the lawe is said to haue entred by the way vt ostenderet vsum illius temporarium to shewe that the vse thereof was but for a time but this is a perpetuall vse of the lawe to manifest and reueale sinne though indeed the vse of the ceremoniall lawe were but to continue for a time 4. Some thinke the lawe is said to haue entred as vnder hand post effuscationem 〈◊〉 naturalis after the lawe of nature was obscured so Ambrose Lyran. but though the lawe of nature had not beene obscured yet the written lawe should haue beene giuen by 〈◊〉 which men should haue beene prepared to receiue the Gospell Tolet. annot 26. therefore it is said to haue entred thereto or thereupon that is beside that naturall corruption and depriuation of nature in Adam the lawe also was giuen accessit ad morbum illium it came vpon or was added vnto that naturall disease that sinne thereby beeing more encreased might more commend the riches of Gods mercie in Christ Beza Pareus Quest. 42. How the offence is said to haue abounded by the entring of the lawe ver 20. The lawe is to be considered three wayes in respect of the nature thereof in respect of man to whom it is giuen and of God the author and giuer of the lawe 1. The lawe beeing considered in it selfe it holy spirituall and good and so properly is not the cause of the encrease of sinne but onely in respect of the euent as Chrysostome Gennadius and most of the Greeke interpreters expound it the lawe then causeth sinne to encrease non causaliter sed consecutiue not as the cause but in regard of the euent or consequent and that not ex parte legis on the behalfe of the lawe but by the malice of mans heart Lyran non ex â—â—tura legis not by the nature of the lawe but by the slougth and carelesnesse of them which receiue the lawe Chrysost. and sinne is thus occasionally encreased sower wayes 1. because ruimur in vetitum c. we alwaies rush vpon that which is forbidden like as a riuer meeting with some stone or let in the way maketh the greater noise whereof these reasons may be giuen first because things forbidden are not in our power and therefore our desire is more toward them whereas we neglect things easie and such as we can do when we list secondly the nature of humane affections is the more they are suppressed and kept in the more to be inflamed as fide when it is kept in breaketh out more violently this is vsually seene in the passions of anger and griefe Perer. numer 78. Adde hereunto the peruersenesse of mans will which is opposite to the will of God and most of all is bent to follow those things which the Lord forbiddeth 2. Sinne is increased by the lawe because he sinneth more that knoweth the will of God and doth it not then he that is ignorant of it 3. by the lawe which containeth varietie of precepts the number of sinnes is multiplyed innumera praecepta lex dedit the law gaue a number of precepts Chrysostom 4. the lawe terrifieth the conscience and so accuseth and condemneth and sheweth punishment due vnto sinne and so exaggerateth it Mart. 2. If the lawe be considered in regard of the effect which it worketh in the hearts of men then this particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that may be taken causally because by the lawe properly sinne is manifested and reuealed as the Apostle sheweth Rom. 3.20 that by the lawe commeth the knowledge of sinne Perer. 3. If we turne our selues to God the author of the lawe then in respect of his counsell the lawe may be vnderstood causally to encrease sinne in regard of a further ende which God propoundeth to himselfe namely that by the abounding of sinne grace may yet more abound Martyr so the ordinarie glosse hath here this profitable note Magnum Deiconsilium fuit c. it was the great and deepe counsell of God that by the lawe sinne should abound that men in seueritie and austeritie of the lawe seeing their owne infirmitie infirmi ad â—â—dicum confugerent c. beeing weake should runne vnto the Physitian and seeke for the helpe of grace c. Quest. 43. How grace is said to haue abounded more 1. Athanasius referreth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vbi where to the nature of man that in the same nature grace abounded by the comming of Christ in the flesh where sinne abounded before tractas de salutar advent but this seemeth to be too curious 2. Lyranus hath reference to the lawe that whereas sinne abounded vnder the lawe grace also abounded vnder the lawe because Christ was made vnder the lawe as the Apostle sheweth Galat. 4.4 But here grace is opposed and set against the lawe therefore in both the opposite partes there cannot be reference to the same lawe 3. The ordinarie glosse hath two expositions grace is said to abound because it profiteth them whom the deuill could not ouercome grace worketh on them vpon whom the kingdome of sinne had no power but then the same thing should be compared with it selfe for in that the kingdome of sinne and Sathan preuailed not against them it was the worke of grace 4. Otherwise thus quia peccatum ad tempus regnavit because sinne raigned but for a time but grace for euer but vnlesse grace had destroyed the kingdome of sinne it should haue raigned for euer 5. Origen saith grace abounded more in that it doth not onely hominem absoluere à peccatis prateritis free a man from sinnes past but also strengthen him against sinnes to come 6. Chrysostome thus grace hath superabounded not onely in taking away the punishment and remitting our sinnes but in giuing vs life and making vs iust 7. Some giue this sense that grace hath abounded not onely in taking away originall sinne but all other actuall sinnes added beside Piscator Gorrhan 8. But it is better to vnderstand this superabounding of grace of all those priuiledges and excellencies which the benefit by Christ hath beyond our losse and fall in Adam as the Apostle shewed before Bez. Fai. So euery way grace exceedeth both in respect of the poteÌ„tis of God whose grace appeareth to be the greater by the greatnes of our sinne which non 〈◊〉 superat sed absorbet it doth not onely ouercome
vs as we must die for our brethren which is not to die in their stead but onely to profit them by our example Answ. The Apostle doth not simply compare the death of Christ and of the faithfull dying for their brethren together but onely in this that in both loue is expressed to the brethren though not in the like measure But Christs death doth not onely by the example thereof profit the Church as the death of the martyrs did but thereby mans saluation and redemption also was wrought 2. Obiect S. Paul saith that he suffered for the Colossians 1. Coloss. 1.24 which was not to satisfie for them or he suffered in their stead but onely to confirme their faith and so to edifie them Answ. There is great difference betweene the sufferings of Christ for his Church which was to redeeme it and the sufferings of Paul for his brethren which onely was to edifie them 3. Obiect As Christ is said to haue died for vs so likewise the Scripture saith he died for our sinnes Galath 1.4 the meaning is not in stead or place of our sinnes but. because of our sinnes in the same sense he died for vs that is for our cause not in our stead Answ. This is a childish cauill for the Scripture sheweth a manifest difference betweene these two phrases to die for vs that is to saue vs and to die for our sinnes not to saue them but to purge them and take them away 4. Obiect That which no lawe or custome euer allowed is not to be affirmed of Christ but one to die for an other is warranted by no lawe nor custome indeede one may pay an others pecuniarie mulct or debt because ones money may become an others but the death of one cannot be an others Answ. 1. The assumption is not true for euen among the Romanes there were some found that did offer themselues to present destruction for their countrey as Decius the Consull and Curtius these examples are farre vnlike vnto Christs yet they shewe that it is not against all vse and custome one to die for another 2. The proposition fayleth diuersly 1. Christs example is singular the like president cannot be found as the Apostle sheweth v. 7. that he died for his enemies which neuer any did therefore we must not seeke for lawe or custome to measure this singular act of Christ by 2. it is also false that no lawe nor rule can be found for this for it is reuealed in the Euangelicall lawe that God gaue his sonne to die for the world the lawe of Moses indeede required that the same person that sinned should die but that which was impossible to the lawe is fulfilled in Christ Rom. 8.2 yea the blind high Priest spake the truth vnwittingly Ioh. 11.50 That it was expedient that one die for the people and that the whole natiō perish not he little thought that Christ should redeeme the people from euerlasting death yet ignorantly vttered that which the Lord intended 5. Obiect It is a great cruelty and iniustice to punish him that is innocent and to let goe vnpunished the offenders they then accuse God of cruelty and iniustice in deliuering vp his innocent sonne to death for vs sinners Answ. 1. Gods acts are not to be measured according to the rules of humane proceedings for the like temper of iustice and mercie cannot be found among men neither haue any the like absolute power as God hath to dispose of all things according to his will and pleasure who if he should as he made the world of nothing so being it of a sudden to nothing againe should not therefore shewe himselfe either cruell or vniust 2. Neither is it vniust for the innocent to suffer punishment for the offenders vpon these conditions 1. If both of them be of the same nature 2. If the innocent partie doe willingly offer himselfe 3. If he can by his owne strength ouercome the punishment 4. and if thereby he can effectually procure the saluation of others all which doe concurre in Christs voluntarie suffering for vs. 6. Obiect The Scripture saith The same soule that sinneth shall die Ezeck 18. it was therefore vniust that Christ should die that had not sinned and those escape which had sinned Answ. These legall sentences shewe what God might according to the iustice of the lawe haue required of euerie one they are no rules of Gods proceeding in mercie with his children according to the promise of the Gospel 7. Obiect God might if it had pleased him haue freely forgiuen men their trespasses therefore Christ needed not to haue died for them Answ. 1. First it is no good argument à posse ad esse from that which may be no that which is God might doe it therefore he did it or would doe it is no good consequent 2. Neither is it true that God could otherwise haue forgiuen men then by the death of Christ his iustice beeing presupposed for God cannot denie himselfe seeing the sentence was past that they should die the death if they transgressed this decree must stand and the death deserued must be satisfied for neither is this any want or defect in Gods power but an argument of the perfection of his nature that he cannot lie neither is mutable 8. Obiect It is perfect mercie to forgiue freely and perfect iustice that the offender should be punished onely but in God is perfect mercie and iustice Answ. 1. It is true that perfect mercie and perfect iustice considered apart and by themselues haue these effects and properties but so can they not be incident into one and the same subiect therefore seeing Gods mercie and iustice are tempered together they must be so considered as the one destroy not the other 2. Indeede the rigor of the lawe requireth perfect iustice but in the Gospell of Christ is propounded a way how the seueritie of Gods iustice should be moderated with equitie and tempered in mercie or else no 〈◊〉 should be saued 9. Obiect One man can but redeeme one and therefore either there must be found out an infinite sort of redeemers for all men or Christ redeemed but one Answ. The antecedent is false for many times for one captiue Prince a thousand common prisoners are set at libertie much more auaileable for all was the redemption purchased by Christ the Prince of our saluation ex Pareo Controv. 7. Against other obiections of Socinus and other impugning the fruit and efficacie of Christs death in reconciling vs to God his father 1. Obiect Whereas the Apostle saith v. 8. God setteth forth his loue toward vs hence it is obiected that seeing God loued vs before the foundation of the world and whom he loueth he is not angrie with therefore Christ needed not to haue died to reconcile vs to God and to appease his fathers wrath toward vs. Answ. 1. The antecedent is true concerning those whom God loued simplie and was neuer offended with them because they had not sinned
veniall sinne annot 1. Ioh. 1. sect 5. Contra 1. We confesse that the guilt and punishment of originall sinne is washed away by faith in Christs blood but yet the staine and blot remaineth still though in Christ we are deliuered from the punishment due vnto sinne yet the euill qualitie of our nature is not purged away namely our naturall pronenes and aptnes to euill which shall not fully be purged vntill the resurrection when we shall put off all corruption together with mortalitie to this purpose Augustine saith well Meminisse debemus omnium peccatorum plenam remissionem c. we must remember that there is full remission of our sinnes in baptisme hominis vero qualitatem non totam continuo mutari c. yet the qualitie or condition of man is not straite chaunged de peccator merit remissi lib. 1. c. 25. 2. and that originall corruption hath the verie nature of sinne euen after baptisme the Apostle sheweth euidently Rom. 7.7 where he calleth the concupiscence of our nature sinne see further hereof Synops. Centur. 3. er 11. Controv. 14. What originall sinne is against the Romanists and â—some others and specially against them which hold it to be Adams sinne imputed onely to his posteritie 1. Faber Erasmus in their annotations vpon this place seeme to be of opinion that originall sinne is onely a pronenesse and aptnesse vnto sinne which is graft in vs by nature But this is refelled by the Apostle here who saith that in Adam all haue sinned and therefore death also is entred vpon all death is the stipend of sinne if then death actually is gone ouer all so also sinne 2. Flacius Illyricus held originall sinne to be a kind of substance But this is a dangerous opinion God onely is the Creator of substances and natures but he made not sinne 3. As he giueth too much to originall sinne making it a substantiall thing in man so the Romanists too much extenuate it allowe it too little 1. Pighius and Catharinus thinke that originall sinne is nothing else but the preuarication and transgression of our first parents made their posterities onely by imputation because Adam in himselfe contained all mankind and God made his couenant not onely with him but with all his posteritie beeing then in his loines and so his sinne is imputed vnto them but there is nothing in men naturally that hath the proper nature of sinne which is defined to be dictum factum vel concupitum c. somewhat said done or coueted against the law of God which cannot be in infants to this purpose Catharinus and before him Pighius in 1. contr de peccat origin Contra. 1. Bellarmine lib. 5. de amissi grat c. 16. and Pererius disput 16. in 5. c. ad Roman would confute this opinion and prooue that originall sinne is a reall and inherent corruption in the nature of man and not imputed onely because as we were sinners in Adam so we are made iust by Christ which is not by the imputation of his righteousnesse but by an inherent iustice which is giuen vnto vs by the merits of Christ c. But this were to confute one error by another for the Apostle euidently and expressely sheweth c. 4.3 that Abrahams faith was imputed and counted vnto him for righteousnesse and therefore the iustice whereby we are counted iust before God is the iustice of Christ imputed to vs by faith so also Adams sinne is imputed to his posteritie but beside there is an euilnes and prauitie of nature procured by the transgression of Adam as beside the imputed righteousnes of Christ there is also in the faithfull an inherent righteousnesse also which is their holines and sanctification but they are not thereby iustified before God 2. We haue better reasons out of the Scripture to refute this assertion for where there is no sinne death hath no power because all are sinners by nature they all die otherwise the Apostle had not reasoned well that death raigned from Adam to Moses because all had sinned v. 14. And v. 19. the Apostle saith that by one mans disobedience many are peccatores constituti made sinners which is more then to be counted sinners or to haue sinne imputed 3. That definition is of actuall sinne which is of such things as are said done or coueted against the law of God But sinne is more generally taken for any thing which is contrarie to the law of God now the naturall rebellion and resistance of the flesh in not beeing subiect to the will of the spirit but continually striuing against it which is to be seene euen in children who seeth not that it is contrarie to the law of God and hath in it the nature of sinne 4. Dauid complaineth that he was borne in sinne and conceiued in iniquitie Psal. 51. and S. Paul Rom. 7. calleth his naturall corruption sinne dwelling in him So that these holy men confessed that they were sinfull by nature Otherwise if there were not in vs originall sinne by nature of our owne but onely Adams imputed it would follow that his posteritie should be punished not for their owne but anothers sinne which were against the rule of Gods iustice Martyr Controv. 15. That originall sinne is not onely the privation of originall iustice Bellarmine with other of the Romanists will not haue originall sinne to be any euill positiue qualitie in man but onely carentia iustitiae originalis habitualis aversio à Deo a wanting of originall iustice and an habituall aversion from and a forsaking of God Bellar. lib. 5. de amission grat c. 15. Lyranus addeth an other clause that originall sinne is a defect or want of originall iustice cum debito habendi eam with a due debt or obligation to haue the same c. Now their cheefe reason that originall sinne is no euill habite or positiue qualitie but onely a defect or privation is this because God is the author of all positiue things that haue a beeing or existence but he is no way the cause of originall sinne Bellarm. ibid. Thoring replic ad addit 5. Paul Burgens And if it were an habite Adam could not haue transmitted it to his posteritie Bellarm. ibid. Contra. 1. Paulus Burgens taketh exception to Lyranus difinition of originall sinne that it is not a meere priuation but habitus corruptus a corrupt habite like as in a disease there is not onely a priuation of health but there is also some positiue thing habet humores male dispositos the humors also are euill affected and disposed and so is it in originall sinne there is an euill qualitie and habite beside the want of originall iustice and therefore it is called concupiscence quae sonat aliquod positivum which foundeth and signifieth some positiue thing c. This exception of Burgensis is iust and his opinion herein is agreeable to the Apostle who calleth originall sinne peccatum inhabitans an in-dwelling sinne Rom. 7.20 and corpus mortis the bodie
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
members as weapons of vnrighteousnesse vnto sinne but yeeld giue G. B. exhibite L. apply V. S. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your selues vnto God as aliue vnto God from the dead and yeelde your members as weapons of righteousnesse vnto God 14 For sinne shall not haue dominion let it not raigne S. but the word is in the future tense for ye are not vnder the lawe but vnder grace 15 What then shall we sinne because we are not vnder the lawe but vnder grace God forbid let it not be Gr. as v. 1. 16 Knowe ye not that to whom ye yeeld your selues as seruants to obey his seruants ye are to whom ye obey whether it be of sinne vnto death or of obedience of the hearing of the eare S. vnto righteousnes 17 But God be thanked that ye haue beene the seruants of sinne but ye haue obeyed from the heart that forme of doctrine whereunto ye were deliuered 18 Beeing then made free from sinne ye are become the seruants of righteousnes 19 I speake after the manner of men I speake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some humane thing Gr. L.V. because of the infirmitie of your flesh for as ye haue yeelded your members seruants to serue L. to the seruice S. but the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seruants to vncleanes and iniquitie to commit iniquitie so now yeeld your members seruants to righteousnes and holines vnto sanctification L. V. S. 20 For when ye were the seruants of sinne ye were free vnto righteousnes from righteousnesse G. B. that is the meaning but the word in the originall is put in the datiue 21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed for the end of those things is death 22 But now beeing freed from sinne and made the seruants of God ye haue your fruit vnto holines in holines G. holy fruits S. and the ende euerlasting life 23 For the stipend stipends Gr. wages G. reward B. of sinne is death but the gift of God the grace of God L. the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a grace a gift is eternall life through Iesus Christ our Lord. 2. The Argument Method and Parts In this Chapter the Apostle sheweth the necessarie coniunction betweene iustification and holines and newenes of life and there are two parts thereof in the first to ver 12. he layeth downe the doctrine then he exhorteth v. 12. to the end In the doctrine he prooueth the necessitie 1. of mortification and dying to sinne propounded v. 1.2 from the efficacie of baptisme which signifieth that we are dead and buried with Christ v. 3.4 and from the ende of Christs crucifying v. 6.2 of sanctification propounded v. 8. prooued from the mysterie of baptisme v. 4.5 from the vertue of Christs resurrection who is risen and dieth no more ver 9.10 and then he concludeth ver 11. 1. The exhortation followeth which hath two parts 1. one dehorting from sinne which is propounded and explaned v. 12.13 then amplified by three arguments 1. from their present state and condition beeing vnder grace v. 14. with the preuenting of an obiection v. 15.2 from the inconveniencie of the seruice of sinne which is vnto death set forth by the contrarie v. 16.3 from the efficacie of the doctrine which they obeyed v. 17.2 the other part stirreth vp to newenesse of life propounded v. 18. amplified 1. à pari v. 19.20 as when they serued sinne they were free from righteousnesse so beeing freed from sinne they must be the seruants of righteousnesse ab effectis from the effects of sinne shame and death v. 21. which are amplified by the contrarie effects of sanctification holinesse v. 22. and eternall life set forth by the contrarie on the diuerse manner sinne deserueth death as the iust stipend but life eternall is not deserued it is Gods free gift v. 23. 3. The questions and doubts discussed Quest. 1. Of the meaning of these words shall we continue in sinne v. 1. 1. The Apostle preuenteth here an obiection which might be occasioned by the former words in the end of the fift chapter where the Apostle said where sinne abounded grace abounded much more by occasion of which words the Apostle might feare least two sorts of men might take advantage the false teachers which did continually picke quarrells with the Apostles doctrine as some affirmed that he said we might doe euill that good might come thereof c. 3.8 He might feare also least the weake might receiue encouragement hereby to nourish theâ— infirmities still 2. But either of these so inferring did misconster the Apostles words and in this kind of reasoning there are three Paralogismes or fallacies committed 1. they take non causam pro causa that which is not the cause for the cause for the abounding of sinne is not the cause of the abounding of grace Augustine saith non peccantis merito sed gratiae supervenient â—â—â—uxilio c. where sinne abounded grace abounded more not by the merit of the sinne 〈◊〉 by the meanes of helpe by grace c. the Apostles speach is to be vnderstood occasionaliter by way of occasion and they take it causaliter by way of a cause Hugo sinne in it owne nature is no more the cause of grace then the disease is of medicine Maâ—â— qui laudat beneficium medecinae non prodesse dicit morbos c. he that praiseth the benefit 〈◊〉 Phisicke doth not commend the disease Augustin so then mans vnrighteousnesse doth not in it selfe set forth the iustice of God but ex accidente by an accident Pareus proveniter bonitate Dei qui bona elicit ex malis it commeth of the goodnesse of God who decreeâ—â— good out of euill Lyran. 2. the second fallacie is in that they thus obiecting make the Apostles words more generall then he meant or intended them for the abounding of sinne is not the occasion of the abounding of grace in all but onely in those which acknowledge and confesse their sinnes Martyr as it is euident in damnatione malorum in the condemnation of the wicked Lyran. there Gods iustice rather then his grace and mercie sheweth it selfe 3. a third fallacie is they apply that to the time to come which the Apostle onely vttered of time past the abounding of sinne in men before their conuersion and repentance setteth forth the aboundance of the grace and mercie of God in the forgiuenesse of their sinnes past but not so if sinne abounded after their conuersion and calling Mart. 3. The Apostle propoundeth this obiection in the person of the aduersarie by way of interrogation thereby expressing both affectum indignantis the affection of one angrie and displeased that his doctrine should be thus perverted and he sheweth also securitatem conscientiae the securitie of his conscience that he was free from any such thought 4. By sinne neither doth the Apostle vnderstand the author of sinne namely the deuill as Origen for then one should be said improperly to remaine in sinne that is in the
harder to say that the deuill had dominion then death ouer Christ. 3. Origen hath an other exposition that Christ dominatum pertulerit mortis quia formam servi susceperat did beare the dominion of death because he tooke vpon him the forme of a seruant and vpon all such death hath dominion but it was not necessarie that Christ should haue died though he had taken vpon him our nature seeing he was without sinne which causeth death 4. Wherefore death is said to haue had dominion quia sponte volens se subiecit mâ—rti because he willingly submitted himselfe to death for our sinne Mart. Calvin Quest. 14. How Christ is said to haue died to sinne v. 10. 1. Hilarie lib. 9. de Trinitat thus readeth that which died died once to sinne and vnderstandeth it of Christs bodie making the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a relatiue of the neuter gender so also Laurentius Valla and Iacobus Stapulens but this would seeme to fauour the Nestorian heresie that diuideth Christs person to say that Christ died not but his bodie died and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken for the coniunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that he died as Galath 2.20 in that now I liue to this purpose Erasmus Beza 2. For the meaning Hilarie thus expoundeth Christ died to sinne quia mortuus corpore because he died in the bodie wherein was the similitude of sinne lib. 9. de Trinit so also Augustine in Enchirid. 3. Haymo thus mortuus est semel peccato id est semper he died once to sinne that is alwaies because he neuer had sinne at all 4. Some vnderstand sinne as the cause wherefore Christ died that the sinnes of the world were the cause why Christ died so Ambrose he died for sinne that is for or because of sinners serm 18. in Psal. 18. 5. But the better sense is that Christ died to sinne that is tollendo to take away sinne so Chrysostome mortuus est vt illud tollerat he died for sinne to take it away Christ died otherwise to sinne then we doe ille expiando nos amitiendo he to expiate and purge our sinnes we to leaue it Pareus Quest. 15. How Christ is said now to liue vnto God ver 10. 1. Oecumenius thus vnderstandeth he liueth to God eo quod sit Deus because he is God that is by his diuine vertue 2. Pareus thus ad gloriam Dei patris he liueth to the glorie of God his father that by his life the Church should be glorified but thus Christ liued in the dayes of his flesh both by the power of God and to the glorie of his father as our Blessed Sauiour himselfe saith Ioh. 6.57 As the liuing father hath sent me so liue I by the father 3. Neither is Christ said so to liue vnto God as we are said in the next verse to be aliue vnto God that is by the spirit of grace for so Christ liued vnto God all the dayes of his flesh 4. Chrysostome thus expoundeth it to liue to God sine fine vinere is to liue without ende that is eternally neuer any more to die 5. But not onely the eternitie of Christs life is hereby expressed but the glorie and maiestie also as Haymo interpreteth he liueth in gloriam paternae maiestatis in the glorie of the maiestie of his father as Reuel 18. And am aliue but was dead and behold I am aliue for euermore c. 6. And by this phrase is expressed the indissoluble vnion which Christ hath with God the father the Apostle hereby doth not onely signifie that he now liueth in eternall happines sed indivulse Deo haerere but is inseparably ioyned vnto God Martyr Quest. 16. Of these words v. 11. likewise thinke yee c. 1. Likewise thinke ye 1. Origen saith the Apostle vseth this word because this death which he speaketh of namely dying to sinne in cogitatione consistit non in effectu consisteth in the cogitation not in any externall effect 2. Chrysostome because that which he speaketh of non potest ad oculum repraesentari cannot be represented to the eye but is apprehended by faith 3. Haymo giueth this sense they must in memoriam reducere often bring to remembrance and bethinke themselues that they are dead to sinne so also Tolet annot 15. and Faius 4. but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth rather collect yee gather ye it is the inference of the conclusion from the head to the members that we are certainely dead by the commemoration of his death so is the word vsed c. 3.28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we conclude Beza Pareus 2. Dead to sinne but aliue to God Some doe interpret this of the life of the Saints in the resurrection when they shall liue to God for euer neuer to die any more but the Apostle speaketh of the life of grace as the next verse sheweth 3. In Iesus Christ c. 1. Origen maketh this the sense to liue in righteousnesse holines peace is to liue in Christ because Christ is all these and to the same purpose Chrysostome he that hath obtained Christ hath receiued euery vertue and grace with him 2. Gorrhan referreth it to the imitation of Christ making the seuere parts of Christs life an example of so many degrees of our spirituall life to his conception answeareth propositum the purpose of newe life to his natiuitie our regeneration to his death our labour in dying to sinne to his sepulture cessatio vitiorum the ceasâ—ing of sinne to his resurrection answeareth nova vita iustorum the newe life of the righteous to his asscention processus virtâ—tum our proceeding in vertue to his sitting at the right hand of God gloria beatorum the glorie of the Blessed Saints 3. But here is more signified then a similitude or conformitie to and an imitation of Christ the Apostle expresseth the author and efficient cause of our dying vnto sinne and liuing vnto God namely Christ Iesus Christo auxiliante Christ helping vs Oecumen Christi opere by the worke of Christ gloss interlin per Christum mediatorem by Christ our Mediator Lyran. as the Apostle saith Galath 2.20 I liue by faith in the Sonne of God Bucer Pareus with others Quest. 17. How sinne is said not to raigne c. ver 12. 1. Chrysostome and Theodorets obseruation seemeth here to be somewhat curious that the Apostle speaketh of the raigning not of the tyrannizing of sinne the difference betweene which two is this the one is of necessitie the other is voluntarie he would not haue them willingly to submit themselues in obedience vnto sinne although it doe play the tyrant in suggesting euill thoughts and desires yet they should resist them and not suffer sinne to haue a peaceable kingdome to this purpose Theodoret But this distinction is not necessarie for the kingdome of sinne in man is a meere tyrannie the kingdome properly in man is peculiar to the spirit because sinne vsurpeth vpon them that by right are
inordinate lasts as specially after these things which concerne the tast feeling and such like Faius Quest. 20. How we are not to giue our members as weapons vnto sinne v. 13. 1. Chrysostome here noteth that the bodie as a middle and indifferent thing betweene sinne and righteousnesse it may be both vsed as weapons for sinne and as an instrument of righteousnesse as both the souldier vseth armour of defence for his countrie and the theefe against it and he maketh mention here of two Kings God and sinne shewing what great difference and oddes there is betweene them that it should be a shame for vs to leaue the seruice of God and to betake vs to the vile seruitude of sinne 2. Origen here also ascribeth a difference in the Apostles phraise he speaking of iniquitie maketh mention onely of our members which must not be giuen as weapons vnto it but he willeth vs to giue our selues vnto God because when first we haue deuoted our selues our inward minde and desire to Gods seruice so we shall make also our members instruments of holines 3. Theophylact noteth that sinne is called by the name of iniquitie because he that sinneth in scipsum vel in proximum iniurius est is iniurious and vniust against himselfe or his neighbour 4. By members we must not vnderstand onely the externall partes of the bodie as the eyes eares hands but the inward also as will affection heart that none of these must become the instruments of vnrighteousnesse Pareus 5. The Apostle setteth downe two partes of our seruice vnto God as he did before of seruice to sinne the first is obedience and subiection giue your selues vnto God the other is to striue and fight for the kingdome of righteousnesse as before he forbad them to vse their members as weapons for sinne Pareus 6. The Apostle inserting these words as aliue from the dead giueth a reason why we should not serue sinne but bequeath our selues to the seruice of God because we hauing receiued so great a benefit as to be raised in Christ from the death of sinne should now as no more dead but as liuing serue God and therefore in this regard iustum est it is iust as Chrysostome inferreth so the Apostle saith are aliue and therefore potestis yea may and ye were dead and therefore debetis ye ought to giue your selues vnto God gloss interline Origen maketh it as an effect and consequent of the former that in giuing your selues to God yea by this meanes shall die vnto sinne and liue vnto righteousnesse but it is rather a reason taken from the ende of our spirituall mortification as is obserued before out of Chrysostome Quest. 21. What it is not to be vnder the law but vnder grace v. 14. There are two things which doe encourage men to fight bonitas causa facilitas victoriae the goodnes of the cause and the facilitie of the victorie both these arguments the Apostle vseth here the goodnesse of the cause he shewed before which was to take part with God and to fight his battels against sinne the easines of the victorie he now setteth forth because we are not vnder the law but vnder grace which doth helpe vs and giue vs strength to resist sinne But these words are diuersely expounded 1. Origen vnderstandeth here the law of the members which continually resisteth against the law of the minde But as Beza well noteth the law of the members is not put absolutely without any other addition as it is here but alwaies something is added by way of explanation 2. Neither doth the Apostle speake here of the ceremoniall or iudiciall law from both which we are free from the first wholly both from the obligation but not from the substance in obseruing the equitie of these lawes the Apostle speaketh of neither of these but of the morall law against the which the concupiscence of the flesh continually inciteth and stirreth men vp 3. The Apostle then speaketh here of the morall law in the which three things are to be considered the substance in the obseruation thereof and the consequents either iustification in obseruing it or malediction if it be not obserued the question is in which of these respects we are said to be free from the law and not vnder it in this place it is confessed of of all that we are free from the iustification by the workes of the law the question is here of the other two the malediction of the law and the obseruation or obedience of it some take the first to be here meant that not to be vnder the law but vnder grace is not to be vnder the curse of the law but to haue remission of sinnes in Christ so Haymo ye are not vnder the law quae punit damnat peccatores which punisheth and condemneth sinners but vnder the grace of Christ that is the remission of sinnes to the same purpose Vatablus to be vnder grace is to haue the conscience assured omne peccatum nobis remissum esse c. that all sinne is remitted vs by the mercie of God so also Calvin they are not vnder the law that is opera eorum non exiguntur ad severum legis examen their workes are not now exacted according to the seuere censure and examination of the law thus also Melancthor Piscator likewise legi satisfecistis in Christo yea haue satisfied the law in Christ But Beza refuteth this interpretation vpon this reason because the Apostle speaketh not here of the remission of sinnes but of mortification and of the fruites of righteousnesse begunne in vs by the spirit 4. Some doe vnderstand it of the obseruation of the law in respect of the manner not of the substance for we are still vnder the obedience of the law to performe the holy workes and duties which are therein prescribed but we are not now vnder the law for the manner of our obedience to be forced thereunto by feare and terrour but the grace of God maketh vs willing and able in some measure to keepe the law which prescribed what was to be done but helped not toward the doing thereof thus Augustine Lex reos faciebat iubendo non adiuvando gratia adiuvat vt quisqne sit legis factor the law made men guiltie in commanding not in helping but grace helpeth euery one to be a doer of the law And to this purpose he maketh sowre degrees of men ante legem sub lege sub gratia in pace before the law vnder the law vnder grace in peace ante legem non pugnamus before the law we do not so much as fight or striue against sinne at all vnder the law pugnamus sed vincimur we fight but are ouercome vnder grace pugnamus vincimus we fight and by grace ouercome sinne in pace ne pugnamus quidem but in the state of peace which is in the kingdome of heauen we shall not so much as fight because then all our spirituall enemies shall be
state is now made firme and sure in Christ. Controv. 9. Against the sacrifice of the Masse v. 10. For in that he died he died once This place is verie pregnant against the Popish sacrifice of the Masse wherein they say they doe dayly offer vp Christs bodie in sacrifice vnto God for there is no oblation of Christ in sacrifice but by death he died but once and therfore one sacrifice of him in his death sufficeth for all and the Apostle saith Heb. 10.14 that he hath with one offring made perfect for euer them that are sanctified This then is a blasphemous derogation to make iteratiue sacrifices as though that one sacrifice had beene imperfect and whereas they alleadge that their Masse is a sacrifice applicatorie of Christs death such applications are superfluous seeing the death of Christ is effectually applyed by faith which is reviued strengthened and increased by the commemoration of Christs death in the Sacraments See more hereof Synops. Centur. 3. err 31. Controv. 10. Concerning freewill v. 12. Let not sinne raigne c. This place may be vrged by the adversaries of the grace of God to prooue that man hath some power in himselfe to resist sinne seeing otherwise the Apostles exhortation should be in vaine to exhort men vnto that which is not in their power Contra. 1. The Apostle elswhere euidently teacheth that man hath no power or inclination of himselfe to any thing that is good as 2. Corinth 3.5 Wee are not sufficient to thinke any thing of our selues but our sufficiencie is of God Philip. 2.23 it is God that worketh in you both the will and the deed of his good pleasure we must not then make the Apostle contrarie to himselfe as though in this place he should ascribe any thing to mans freewill 2. the Apostle speaketh here to men iustified and regenerate by the spirit of God by the which they are enabled to performe this whereunto they are exhorted so that this abilitie is not in themselues but from God 3. the Apostle sheweth a difference by thus exhorting betweene these actions which the Lord maketh in other creatures which either haue no sense at all or sense onely which creatures God vseth without any stirring at all feeling and inclination in them and those which he worketh in man whose reason will and vnderstanding he vseth by incicing and stirring it vp 4. So then these exhortations are not superfluous for thereby we are admonished rather what we ought to doe then what we are able to doe and by these exhortations of Gods word grace is wrought in vs to enable vs to doe that which of our selues we haue no power to doe See further Controv. 15. following Controv. 11. That concupiscence remaining in the regenerate is properly sinne v. 12. Let not sinne raigne The Apostle here speaketh of concupiscence which is sinne though it raigne not in vs the verie suggestions and carnall thoughts that arise in the regenerate haue the nature of sinne though they yeeld not consent vnto them Bellarmine with other of that side doe expound these and such like places wherein concupiscence is called sinne de causa vel effectu peccati of the cause or effect of sinne so concupiscence is improperly called sinne in their opinion either because it is the effect and fruit of Adams sinne as a writing is called ones hand because the hand writ it or because it bringeth forth sinne as we say frigus pigrum flouthfull cold because cold maketh one full of flouth Contra. 1. Concupiscence is sinne properly because it is contrarie to the lawe of God it striueth and rebelleth against it and continually stirreth vs vp to doe that which is contrarie to the Lawe sinne properly is the transgression of the lawe as the Apostle defineth it 1. Iohn 3.4 therefore concupiscence beeing contrarie to the lawe of God is properly sinne S. Paul also calleth it sinne dwelling in him Rom. 7.17 2. Whereas it may be obiected that all sinne is voluntarie but the motions and suggestions of the flesh are involuntarie we answear that all sinne is not voluntarie for then originall corruption should not be sinne which is euen in children which can giue no consent and yet in respect of the beginning and roote of this sinne which was Adams transgression it was voluntarie See more of this controversie Synops. Papism Centur. 4. err 16. Controv. 12. Whether a righteous man may fall into any mortall or deadly sinne v. 12. Let not sinne raigne there is then peccatum regnans sinne raigning as when one sinneth against his conscience and setteth his delight vpon it and followeth it with greedinesse and so for the time looseth the hope of forgiuenesse of sinne and maketh him subiect to euerlasting death without the mercie of God peccatum non regnans sinne not raigning is originall concupiscence suggestions motions of the flesh infirmities and such like Now the Romanists simply denie that a righteous man can commit any mortall sinne neither can any continuing the Sonne of God fall into it Rhemist 1. Ioh. 3. sect 3. Among the Protestant writers some thinke that the righteous may haue sinne for the time raigning in them as Aarons idolatrie and Dauids adulterie sheweth so Vrsinus vol. 1. pag. 107. but Zanchius denieth it miscellan p. 139. Contra. 1. Touching the assertion of the Romanists it is manifestly conuinced of error by the example of Dauid for it is absurd to thinke that in his fall he ceased to be the child of God for he that is once the sonne of God shall so continue to the ende Dauid was a righteous and faithfull man and yet fell into great and dangerous offences which they call deadly and mortall sinnes 2. The other may be reconciled by the diuerse taking and vnderstanding of raigning sinne for if that be vnderstood to be a raigning sinne which is committed of an obstinate minde with contempt of God without any feeling or remorse of conscience so we denie that any of the elect can fall into any such sinne but if that be taken for a raigning sinne when for a time the conscience is blinded and a man is ouercome and falleth yet rather of infirmitie then obstinacie yet afterward such vpon their repentance are restored in this sense sinne may raigne in the righteous as in Aaron Dauid but it is said improperly to raigne because this kingdome of sinne continueth not it is but for a time Controv. 13. Against the Manichees v. 22. In your mortall bodie Theophylact hence reprooueth the error of the Manichees who affirmed that the bodie of man is wicked and euill but seeing the Apostle compareth it to armour or weapons which the souldier vseth for his countrey the theife and rebell against it so the bodie is an indifferent thing it may either be abused as an instrument of sinne or by the grace of God it may be applyed to the seruice of the spirit as the Apostle sheweth v. 19. Giue your members as seruants vnto
neither the naturall desire as of meate and drinke is forbidden by this commandement as beeing a thing indifferent nor yet the supernaturall as to couet and desire such things as concerne the glorie of God and the saluation of our soules for these are good desires and conformable to the will of God but the euil and vnlawfull desires are forbidden either in the matter or manner 2. not the act of concupiscence onely but the verie facultie it selfe ipsa concupiscibilitas is forbidden as it is corrupt and auerse from God 3. and not onely the second motions which haue the consent of the will which the schoolmen call concupiscentiam formatam the formed and perfite concupiscence but euen the first motions which haue not the deliberate consent of the will which they call informem the vnformed concupiscence contrarie to the opinion of Pererius and other Romanists who thinketh concupiscentiam carnalem sed vt à voluntate approbatam c. that carnall concupiscence onely as it is approoued of the will to be forbidden in this commandement disput 8. numer 47. but the contrarie shall appeare afterward controv 8. that the law forbiddeth cupiditatem nudam the verie base and naked concupiscence as Beza calleth it because prauas cupiditates euill and disordred lusts and desires the very law of nature reprooued Augustine saith cupiditateÌ„ voco motum animi c. I call concupiscence the verie motion of the minde to enioy either himselfe or his neighbour or any other thing non propter Deum not for God de Doctrin Christian. lib. 3. c. 10. Quest. 12. Why the Apostle giueth instance in the tenth commandement thou shalt not lust and alleadgeth not all the words of the law 1. The Apostle could not giue instance in the grosser and more notorious sinnes which euen the wiser sort of the Gentiles abhorred nor yet in the vile and corrupt affections of man which the Philosophers also condemned but he singleth out those corruptions which could not be discerned by the light of nature especially so much obscured and darkned and could not be perfectly knowne but by the law of God Tolet. annot 9.2 And this the Apostle doth to shew the excellencie of the law of God beyond both the law of nature and the politike lawes of men for the first the law of nature is much obscured obliterated and empaired by the blindnesse and corruption of mans nature but the written law though it were much depriued by the corrupt gloses of the Scribes and Pharisies lex tamen scripta mâ—â— sit eadem yet the written law remained the same and beeing well examined was able to reprooue the false interpreters thereof and it is more perfect then other humane lawes which onely bridle the outward act of sinne but they can not meete with the inward concupiscence as the law of God doth 2. And S. Paul contenteth himselfe onely to repeat the first words of the commandement not adding the rest thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house c. as Moses doth for he hauing to doc in hominis durioribus with a rude people and of hard vnderstanding giueth instance in some sensible and particular obiects but S. Paul writing scientibus legem to men knowing the law thinketh it sufficient to giue them onely an hint by producing some words onely of the law Neither yet did Moses expresse all the particulars of this law but hauing reported some he concludeth with this generall clause nor any thing that is his And indeede in all the commandements Moses vseth the figure called synecdoché by one part signifying the rest and that both in the negative part wherein forbidding the most notorious vices he meeteth with the rest as our Sauiour sheweth Matth. 5. how the law bindeth not onely the hands but euen the heart and affections in the sinnes of murther adulterie and such like as also in the affirmative the contrarie vertues in euery commandement beeing comprehended in the prohibition of the contrarie vices so that Aristotles tenne predicaments are not so generall to containe whatsoeuer is in the world as Moses tenne commandements are to comprehend all vices committed in the world ex Martyr Quest. 13. What sinne the Apostle meaneth v. 8. sinne tooke an occasion c. 1. Some by sinne here vnderstand the deuill who taking occasion by the commandement did tempt man more strongly to breake it Methodius Ambrose Oecumenius sauing that the first by the law vnderstandeth the commandement giuen to Adam in Paradise the other two the law giuen by Moses But in this sense it cannot be properly said sinne reuiued if by sinne we vnderstand the deuill or thus sinne did dwell in the Apostle as he saith v. 10. 2. Chrysostome vnderstandeth this sinne to be vitium de fidiae the vice of flouthfulnes that man hauing receiued a law by his negligence was not the better for it but the worse But he expresseth not the whole minde of the Apostle 3. Anselmus will haue it to be peccati fomes the matter or nourishment of sinne which as Lyranus is called sinne for that it is the cause of sinne as the Sunne is said to be hoat beeing the cause of heat But the Apostle calleth it sinne properly because it was forbidden by the commandement 4. Hierom. epist. ad Hedib qu. 8. taketh this to be the sinne quod lege prohibetur which is forbidden by the commandement which while it is forbidden doth inflame the concupiscence the more but the Apostle speaketh not of actuall sinne before it is committed but of sinne dwelling in him v. 17. 5. This is none other but naturae corruptio the corruption of our nature Calvin lib. 1. de peccand the lust or desire of sinning Hyper. peccatum regnans in homine sinne raigning in man Tolet. annot 11. which is none other but the originall pravitie of our nature called before lust or concupiscence v. 7. it is pravitas nativa our naturall pravitie Pareus 14. Quest. How sinne tooke occasion by the law 1. The Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occasion is taken three waies first it properly signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the opportunitie of doing a thing but so the law was not the occasion as offering any opportunitie for there can be no opportunitie to doe euill 2. it signifieth any circumstance or accident whereby one is occasioned to doe any thing as the burning of an house may be said to be the occasion of building it againe 3. an occasion is that which draweth a man from doing that he intended as a rub in ones way turneth him beside the way Both these last waies sinne tooke occasion by the law for both the prauitie of our nature is more inflamed by the prohibition and we seeke to build our ruinous house which the law pulleth downe and beside because the law standeth vp in the way of sinne we decline it as a thing which hindreth vs in our pleasant and plaine iourney following after sinne and therefore we wish that it
were remooued as a rubbe or blocke out of our way Faius 2. Diuerse waies did sinne take occasion by the law 1. the corruption of mans nature turneth good things to the occasion of euill as the Pharisies by Christs comming and preaching had the more sinne and the Apostle saith Hebr. 10.29 Of how much more punishment suppose ye he is worthie which treadeth vnder foote the Sonne of God habet peius supplicium occasionem per exhibitum maius beneficium the greater punishment is occasioned by the greatnes of the benefit exhibited Chrysostome sinne then is encreased by the giuing of the law because of mens vnthankfulnes for so great benefite 2. And beside such is the corruption of mans nature vt ea quae prohibentur magis desiderentur which are forbidden are more desired Origen so was the commandement giuen to Adam an occasion that he coueted the more to eate of the forbidden fruite and like as there are foure diseases which are the worse for the applying of medecines vnto them as the gangrena and the leprosie called elephantiasis much like a restie horse that the more he is spurred kicked the more he giueth backe or as if a sicke man-beeing forbidden to drinke cold water should the more desire it Martyr 3. An other reason is because mans nature desireth libertie and therefore refuseth to be bridled by law and yet it is destructio libertatis the verie destruction and ouerthrow of libertie for a man to doe what he lift sine fraeno legis without the bridle of a law Lyranus 4. And further by the law commeth the knowledge of sinne and so mans corrupt nature hauing sinne shewed it doth then beginne to couet it as the Sunne light sheweth the beautie of a faire woman and then the lustfull eye is caried with a desire after her Gorrhan or like as Ambrose resembleth it as the art of Physicke sheweth the nature of persons to auoid them and yet one abuseth his knowledge in doing hurt by them lib. 1. de Iacob vita brat c. 4. And this was the reason why Solon would make no law against parricides least that men by that occasion might thinke of that sinne which they did not dreame of before 5. Adde hereunto that as a circumstance may accidentally stirre vp that which is a cause of it selfe of the action as Dauids walking vpon his house carried his eye to looke vpon the beautie of Bersheba and so to desire her the like occasion might sinne take by the law Pareus 6. And the Deuill tooke occasion by the law more strongly to tempt man to make his sinne the greater in transgressing of the law 7. And one contrarie accidentally is encreased by an other as hoat water is more strongly congealed Gorrhan 8. And euery nature adversantibus adversatur resisteth that which resisteth it as one stone breaketh an other Hugo so vice resisteth vertue 3. But it is further to be considered that the words are sinne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taking occasion for the law indeede gaue not occasion but sinne tooke it Beza Calvin 15. Quest. Of what time S. Paul speaketh when he knew not the law and afterward sinne tooke occasion by the law c. 1. Methodius vnderstandeth it of the time while yet Adam had not receiued the commandement of not eating the forbidden fruit but it hath beene shewed before that the Apostle speaketh here of the morall law giuen by Moses as appeareth by that particular instance of the tenth and last commandement 2. Origen will haue it vnderstood of the Apostles childhood and so also Hierome that then he knew not sinne but these things which the Apostle mentioneth as the working of concupiscence and the reviving of sinne are not incident into the age of children 3. Chrysostome vnderstandeth the time before the law when many sinnes were not knowne till the law came and so he thinketh that the Apostle in his owne person describeth the state of all those which liued before the law but in this sense the person of S. Paul should be excluded who liued not in those times 4. Wherefore he aimeth at that time when he was a Pharisie before he had the true knowledge of the law for the Pharisies contented themselues onely with the externall observation thereof as is euident Matth. 5. where our Sauiour deliuereth the law from their corrupt gloses Pareus Faius Quest. 16. What the Apostle meaneth by all concupisence v. 8. 1. Chrysostome vnderstandeth augmentum concupiscentiae the encrease of concupiscence which was more inflamed 2. Augustine summā consummatam concupiscence perfected which now after the law giuen did not onely couet euill things but lege prohibita forbidden by law 3. Ambrose because after the law came then all sinne came before there was sinne sed non omne quia crimen prauaricationis decrat but not all because the sinne of transgression and preuarication was not yet ex gloss 4. Martyr expoundeth it of all actuall sinnes but the Apostle speaketh onely of concupiscence 5. By all concupiscence then we may vnderstand with Hierome omnes perturbationes animae all the passions and perturbations of the mind epistol 151. and with Anselme cuiusque peccati contra quodcunque mandatum concupiscentiam the concupiscence of euerie sinne whatsoeuer against euery commandement with Faius euery kind of concupiscence not onely the concupiscence of the flesh but the concupiscence of the eyes which Saint Iohn speaketh of 1. epist. c. 2. with Gorrhan euery degree of concupiscence cogitationem consensum opus the thought the consent the action with Pareus all the vitious motions of the concupiscence primas secundas both the first and second with Oecumenius quas non noueram concupiscentias ex lege didici c. I learned by the law concupiscence which I knew not and those which I had learned I committed Quest. 17. In what sense the Apostle saith sinne was dead and he aliue without the law v. 8. 1. Methodius in Epiphan haeres 64. by sinne vnderstandeth the time of mans innocencie when the deuill lay as dead because yet there was no commandement giuen whereby man should be allured vnto sinne Ambrose by sinne likewise interpreteth the deuill but he referreth it to the time before the law when the deuill was secure hauing man sure enough in his possession But this opinion is reiected before for how could the Apostle say v. 20. that sinne dwelled in him if he meant the deuill by sinne and he saith that sinne reuiued when the law came then in this sense the deuill must be supposed to haue beene aliue before to haue beene busie in working before he tempted Adam 2. Theodoret and Caietane following him doe vnderstand this to be spoken of the time of mans innocencie when as sinne was dead there was no sinne at all before the law was giuen But beside that man could not be said to be aliue in Paradise without a law beeing created with the law of nature the Apostle saying that sinne by
as Bucer Hyper. for the Apostle speaketh of sinnes not of the law which sheweth the reward of sinne to be death 2. nor yet is the meaning it flie me per perpeirationem peccati by the committing of sinne Hugo inducendo ad opus in bringing sinne into act Lyran. for though one sinne may bring forth an other yet sinne is one thing death an other which is the stipend or wages of sinne 3. Osiander thus lepit eum adigere ad desperationem it begonne to driue him to despaire but the Apostle speaketh not of his particulate case but of the generall effect of sinne whereof he giueth instance in himselfe 4. therefore the meaning rather is concilionit vnibi mortem it procured death vnto me Pere ad mortem eternam tradit it deliuereth me ouer to eternall death Gorrhan addicit morti maketh one guiltie of death Fuius which must be vnderstood of the proper fruit and effect of sinne without the grace and mercie of God Quest. 21. How the law is said to be holy iust good and likewise the commandement 1. Concerning the first the commendation and titles of the law 1. Thomas and Caietane referre the holines of the law to the ceremoniall precepts the iustnes to the iudiciâ—s the goodnes to the morall 2. Lyranus it was holy in teaching our dutie to God iust in prescribing duties toward our neighbor good in respect of our selues teaching vs what is good and right 3. Haymo doth not distinguish these but saith the law is holy iust good because it commandeth holines equitie goodnes and intendeth to make the obseruers such so also Calvin Martyr with others 4. But Theodoret better distinguisheth them thus whom Oecomenius followeth the law is holy in respect of the matter because it prescribeth holy things iust in propounding rewards and punishments good in respect of the end to bring the obseruer vnto goodnes of life 5. Pareus distinguisheth them in like manner but he addeth further that all these titles are giuen vnto the law in the foresaid respects both with relation to the author who is most holy iust and good and to the doctrine it selfe of the law which is likewise holy iust and good and in regard of the effects of holines goodnes which is wrought in man before his fall and it shall bring forth in the state of glorie though now it faileth of the effect by reason of mans infirmitie 2. Whereas the Apostle speaketh both of the law and precept or commandement 1. Vatablus taketh them for the same herein following Origen but then the Apostle should seeme to commit a tautalogie 2. Oecumenius taketh the law for Moses law the precept for that which was giuen to Adam but this opinion is refused before 3. Theophylact will haue the commandement as generall the law as the particular because there are other commandements beside the law 4. so also Osiander Nazianzen as Faius reporteth him will haue the law so called in respect of vs because it containeth a rule of such things as are to be done and a commandement as it is prescribed of God 5. The most of our new writers do thus distinguish them the law quicquid ea pracipitur whatsoeuer is coÌ„manded therein Martyr Calvin and before them Hugo Cardin. 6. But I preferre Beza his interpretation whom Pareus followeth who by the law vnderstandeth generally the whole decaloge by the commandement that particular precept wherein he gaue instance before namely that Thou shalt not lust yet Haymo will haue one commandement here taken for all 22. Quest. How sinne is said to be out of measure sinnefull 1. Methodius in Epiphanius whom Gorrhan followeth still continueth his interpretation vnderstanding here the Deuill that he is this sinne out of measure by his manifold temptations causing men to sinne but the Apostle speaketh properly of sinne which is discerned and knowne by the law and so is not the Deuill Pareus 2. Ambrose as he is alleadged by Pet. Mart. doth inferre vpon these words out of measure that there is a certaine measure and degree of sinne the which if a sinner once passe his punishment shall be no longer deferred as he sheweth by the iudgement of God vpon the Sodomites and Cananites but this is not the Apostles meaning here 3. Faius will haue this vnderstood not of sinne it selfe but of the sinner that he is become by transgressing the law in a manner sinne it selfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sinner is made as it were sinne But the Apostle still speaketh of the fruits of sinne in the sinner and as Origen saith finxit personam peccati he signeth a certaine person of sinne 4. The meaning then is this that sinne by the commandement was more inflamed and encreased quia minus peccati est si quod non prohibetur admittas it is a lesse sinne to commit that which is not forbidden Origen and so Ambrose because sinne of knowledge is worse then sinne of ignorance because it sheweth contempt l. de Iob. c. 4. and hereby the multitude of sinnes is expressed invalescenie cupiditate ruimus in omnia concupiscence and lust encreasing we rush into all sinnes Martyr and so Augustine expoundeth it of the abounding of sinne lib. 1. quest ad Simplic qu. 1. the vehemencie and rage of sinne is hereby signified which as it were rising against the lawe sinneth so much the more like as an horse that is vnbroken the more he is curbed with the bridle the more he stingeth out Par. and as he which is sicke of a feuer is more inflamed by wine which is by reason of the infirmitie the wine is not properly the cause LyraÌ„ 5. But whereas Hierome epist. ad Algas thinketh that the Apostle committeth here solecisme because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sinner is of the masculine gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sinne of the feminine Erasmus well obserueth that here is no solecisme at all for it is vsuall in the Aâ—oâ—â—e dialect to ioyne an adiectiue of the masculine with a substantine of the feminine as Beza obserueth the like Rom. 1.20 where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eternall the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power beeing of the feminine gender 6. But whereas the Apostle saith the law is iust it followeth not hereupon that we are iustified thereby for the Apostle else where saith Gal. 3.11 that no man is iustified by the law Gorrhan giueth this solution that the Apostle meaneth the ceremoniall law but euen the Apostle excludeth the morall law from beeing able to iustifie vs the best answer is that the Apostle sheweth what the law is in it selfe it was giuen to iustifie vs but that which was ordained vnto life is found to be vnto death as the Apostle said before v. 10. by reason of the iufirmitie of man and the corruption of his nature And againe whereas the Apostle saith here the lawe is good and yet the Lord by his Prophet saith Ezech. 20.25 I gaue them
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
not doe v. 3. The other condition and limitation that they must not walke after the flesh if they would haue Christ to profite them 1. he prooueth by this argument iustification and righteousnesse is not for them that cannot please God v. 8. the conclusion followeth that righteousnesse and iustification is not appointed for such v. 4. the assumption he prooueth by shewing the contrarie effects of the flesh and the spirit as 1. they sauour the things of the flesh v. 5. the wisedome of the flesh bringeth forth death v. 1. it is enmitie against God v. 7. but the spirit worketh the contrarie to all these 2. Then followeth an application of this generall doctrine to the comfort of the Romans that they are not in the flesh 1. from the efficient the spirit of God dwelleth in them v. 9. 2. from the coniunction they haue with Christs they are Christs which he sheweth by their present mortification v. 10. and the hope of the resurrection v. 10. 3. Then he inferreth a vehement exhortation that they should not walke after the flesh v. 12. 1. from the effects that would follow they should die set forth by the contrarie v. 14. which he prooueth by two effects the externall is their inuocation of God v. 15. the internall the testimonie of the spirit v. 16. 2. In the second part he exhorteth vnto the patient bearing of affliction by diuerse arguments 1. from the end the partaking of glorie after our sufferings v. 17. 2. from the impuritie of our afflictions and the reward v. 18. 3. from the lesse to greater the creature groneth and trauaileth and waiteth for deliuerance v. 19.20.21.22 much more we v. 23. 4. from the nature of hope which is not of things that are seene v. 24.25 5. from the effects wrought by the spirit by occasion of affliction which is prayer with sighes which are not in vaine the Lord heareth them v. 26.27 6. from other effects in generall they worke for the best v. 28. in particular they make vs conformable vnto Christ v. 29. which he sheweth by the first cause the purpose of God in the decree of predestination which vocation iustification glorification follow v. 30. 3. In the third part he sheweth the immutable state and condition of the elect 1. from the power of God v. 31. 2. from his beneficence who together with Christ giueth all good things v. 32. 3. from his mercie iustifying vs in Christ from all our sinnes v. 33.34 4. from the effects of faith in Christ which is victorie in all afflictions v. 37. and therefore they cannot separate vs from Christ v. 35. 5. frō the immutable loue of God in Christ which is so sure a bond as nothing can breake it as the Apostle sheweth by a particular induction v. 38.39 3. The questions and doubts discussed Quest. 1. Who are said to be in Christ. v. 1. There is no condemnation to those c. 1. P. Martyr here well obserueth the wisedome of the Apostle who before speaking of the humane infirmities and of the force of sinne in our members gaue instance in himselfe that no man though neuer so holy should be thought to be freed altogether from sinne in this life but now comming to set forth the priuiledge of those which are in Christ he makes it not his own particular case but inferreth a generall conclusion that there is no condemnation not onely to him but not to any that are in Christ Iesus And here the argument well followeth from the particular to the generall for like as that which is incident by nature to one man is common to another so the priuiledge of grace is common to all that are sanctified 2. to be in Christ Tolet interpreteth to haue the grace of regeneration whereby we are deliuered from the seruitude of sinne and so the Syrian interpreter seemeth to thinke who ioyneth the words thus together which walke not after the flesh in Christ but these are two diuerse effects to be graft into Christ which is by faith and not to walke after the flesh which is the fruits of faith per fidem facti sumus vnum in Christo we are by faith made one with Christ Beza insui per fidem graft in by faith 3. indeed vpon this coniunction with Christ followeth a materiall coniunction that as we are made one flesh with him so also one spirit he is not onely partaker with vs of the same nature but we doe receiue of his spirit that like as the braunch doth receiue not onely substance from the vine but sap and life as in matrimonie there is a coniunction not onely of bodies but euen of the affections so is it betweene Christ and his members but this is onely the materiall coniunction as Pet. Martyr calleth it the formall coniunction is by faith Quest. 2. What is meant by the law of the spirit of life 1. The law of the spirit of life 1. Chrysostome by the law of the spirit vnderstandeth the holy spirit whereby we are sanctified and this difference he maketh betweene the law of Moses and this law that is said to be spirituall because it was giuen by the spirit but this is said to be the law of the spirit quia spiritum suppeditat because it supplieth the spirit to those which receiue it So also Bellarmine vnderstandeth it of the spirit which is shed into our hearts enabling vs to keepe the law lib. 4. de iustificat likewise Thomas interpreteth it to be spiritus inhabitans the spirit that dwelleth in vs and sanctifieth vs so also Tolet annot 2. Pere And these make this grace of the spirit infused a cause of our spiritual deliuerance from sinne 2. Calvin also vnderstandeth the grace of the spirit which sanctifieth vs but this is added saith he not as a cause sed modum tradi quo solvimur à reatu but the way is shewed whereby we are freed from the guilt of sinne so also Hyperius Piscator vnderstandeth here the spirit of sanctification But seeing our sanctification is imperfect this were a weake ground for vs to stay vpon to assure vs that we are farre from condemnation 3. Beza neither taketh this for the law of the spirit nor for the law of faith but he vnderstandeth perfectam naturae nostrae in Christo sanctificationem the perfit sanctification of our nature in Christ whereby we are deliuered But this righteousnesse of Christ if it be not applied vnto vs by faith how can it deliuer vs. 4. Some by the law of the spirit of life doe interpret with Ambrose legem fides the law of faith and with Haymo gratiam sancti Euangeli the grace of the holy Gospel which teacheth faith Pareus Faius the doctrine of the Gospell is called the law of the spirit and life because it is the ministrie of the spirit and life the law was spirituall in as much as it prescribed and commanded spirituall obedience but was not the ministerie of the spirit and life but rather
discriâ—iâ—â— all perills which put the life in danger Mort. omnia extrema secunda adversa and â—ll exceeding great prosperitie or adversitie 2. Angels principalities powers 1. Origen vnderstandeth onely the euill Angels and adversarie powers so Osiander also 2. Chrysostome onely the good Angels and Hierome so also Lyranus and they vnderstand it by way of supposition that if the good Angels should seeke to withdraw vs from Christ which is impossible yet we should not giue 〈◊〉 vnto them so the Apostle hath the like supposition of the good Angels Galat. 1.8 Calv. 3. But we may better vnderstand the Angels good and bad Mart. Gryn Pareus who by principalities and powers vnderstandeth the kingdomes and commanders of the world but they are titles rather giuen to the Angels as Ephes. 1.21 Gryneus following Chrysostome 3. Things present nor things to come 1. Not in this world and the next as Origen 〈◊〉 hath a speculation of the passage of the soule out of the bodie which in that instant is many times seduced and deceiued by the euill spirits 2. But he meaneth the dangers of this life present or to come Mart. Par. 3. he maketh no mention of the things past for they are ouercome alreadie Lyran. and as for our sinnes past they are forgiuen vs in Christ Gryn 4. Neither height nor depth 1. Origen vnderstandeth it of the spirits in the ayre and in the deepe 2. Lyranus of the depth and profunditie of Sathan 3. Gorrhan of the height and depth of humane wisedome so also Mart. 4. Osiander of the diuerse kinds of death as by hanging aloft and beeing drowned in the deepe 5. Chrysostome and Theophylact better vnderstand things in heauen and earth the elements aboue and belowe Pareus ret sâ—premas infernas things aboue and beneath Bulling 6. Theodoret vnderstandeth heauen and hell 7. Oecumenius prosperitie and adversitie 5. Or any other creature 1. not beside those which are visible Origen for he had spoken of invisible things before 2. nor a newe creature beside those which God made as Ambrose as equus hipes an horse with two legges and such like gloss ordinar Hugo Gorrhan 3. But the Apostle absolvit inductionem doth make an ende of his induction because it had beene infinite to reckon vp all the creatures Martyr so Chrysostome if there be any other creature of what manner soeuer how great soeuer 4. Places of Doctrine Doct. 1. How the same worke may be both good and sinnefull as it proceedeth from God the deuill and man v. 3. Sending his Sonne c. God in sending his Sonne and giuing him vp vnto death onely intented his owne glorie and the salvation of man but Sathan stirred vp the Iewes of envie and malice to put that holy and Iust one to death so the same action as it proceeded from God was good as it came from Sathan man was euill So that God is no way the author of euill though he be author of that thing which is abused vnto euill Mart. This further is euident in the affliction of Iob which as God was the author worker of it tended to Gods glorie and the triall of Iobs faith but as Sathan had his finger in it he would thereby haue supplanted the faith of Iob. Doct. 2. Of the causes of saluation v. 3. Here all the causes of our saluation are expressed 1. The author and efficient cause is God who sent his Sonne to redeeme vs. 2. the materiall cause is Christ who came in the similitude of sinful flesh not that he had not true flesh as Marcion the heretike said but it was true flesh yet without sinne so in that behalfe like vnto sinfull flesh as hauing the true nature of our flesh but not the sinfull qualitie thereof 3. the forme is also set forth he condemned sin in the flesh that is suffred the punishment due vnto our sinne in his flesh 4. the impulsiue or motiue cause was the imbecilsitie weaknes of the law for if the law could haue saued vs Christ needed not haue died 5. the finall causes were these two 1. for sin that is he came to expiate purge and take away sinne 2. and that the lawe might be fulfilled and the righteousnesse of the lawe fulfilled by Christ imputed to vs by faith v. 4. Doct. 3. That the holy Ghost is God v. 9. The spirit of God dwelleth in you Hence Didymus inferred well that the holy spirit is God because he dwelleth in all the faithfull this infinitenes and immensitie of the spirit sheweth that he is God for who but God can dwell in so many temples at once and beside in that he is called the spirit of God that also prooueth him to be God for the spirit of God is of the same nature and substance with God Doct. 4. That the three glorious persons of the Blessed Trinitie are of one efficacie and power v. 11. The raising vp of the dead is a worke of Gods omnipotencie but God the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost doe all raise vp the dead as God is said to raise vp our dead bodies because his spirit dwelleth in vs God the father then raiseth and his spirit also raiseth and quickeneth the dead and Christ also raiseth the dead because the same spirit is here called the spirit of God and of Christ so Ioh. 6.54 He that eateth my flesh c. I will raise him vp at the last day Doct. 5. Of euerlasting glorie v. 18. Not worthie of the glorie which shall be reuealed in vs Thomas Aquin. obserueth 4. necessarie points out of these words concerning euerlasting life 1. it is called glorie to shew the excllencie of it for in this life noble wittes are desirous of nothing more then glorie it is set forth by the name of that thing which is most desired 2. it shall be which sheweth the eternitie of it for that which is now present is but short and momentarie 3. reuealed the glorie to come then is of it selfe invisible but God shall so illuminate our minds as that he himselfe will be seene of vs. 4. this glorie shall be shewed in vs which signifieth the stabilitie of this glorie it shall not depend of externall things as riches honour but within vs it shall be and possesse and replenish both our bodies and soules Doct. 6. Of the nature and properties of hope v. 24. Hope that is seene is no hope 1. the author and efficient cause of hope is God Rom. 15.13 The God of hope c. 2. the subiect is the faithfull heart 3. the obiect things which are not seene 4. the forme thereof is with patience to abide 5. the effect thereof is ioy in the spirit Rom. 1â— 1â— reioycing in hope 6. the ende is our saluation we are saued by hope 7. the contrarie to all is despaire and diffidence ex Gryneo Doct. 7. Of true prayer that consisteth not in the sound of the voice but in the sighes of the heart v. 26.
The spirit maketh request with sighes The meaning is this that many times when the children of God are ouerwhelmed with griefe and knowe not themselues what they pray but onely sobbe and sigh that the spirit vnderstandeth their meaning and euen those sighs and groanes which come of the spirit doe pray for them Augustine writeth excellently hereof epist. 121. that the brethren in Egypt are said crebras habere orationes sed eas brevissimas raptim iaculatas to make often prayers but the same verie short and as it were of a sudden cast out c. whereupon he thus inferreth hanc intentionem sicut non est obtrâ—denda si per durare non potest ita si perduraverit non esse cito rumpendam the intention of prayer as it must not be forced if it doth not continue so if it hold still it must not suddenly be interrupted and broken off and so he concludeth ab sit ab oratione multa locutio sud non desit multa precatso in our prayer let there be absent much speach but let there not be wanting much praying c. for as long as the intention and devotion holdeth the prayer cannot be too much but to goe on still in words the intention beeing slacked is much babling and talking not praying 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. That concupiscence remaining euen in the regenerate is sinne and in it selfe worthie of condemnation v. 1. There is no condemnation Bellarmine hence inferreth the contrarie that in these words the Apostle doth not so much shewe that there is no condemnaâ—on to those that are iustified as that there is no matter of condemnation in them nihil condemnatione dignum nothing worthie of condemnation l. 5. de amiss grat c. 7. arg 3. and consequently concupiscence in them is not sinne Contra. 1. The contrarie rather is inferred out of the Apostles words that concupiscence is in it selfe worthie of condemnation of the which the Apostle treated before in the former chapter but it is not vnto damnation neither it nor any other sinne vnto those which are iustified by faith in Christ. 2. and the Apostle expresseth the verie cause they are iustified in Christ and therefore though sinne remaine in them yet it is not imputed therefore it is great bouldnes to denie that which the Apostle in so direct words expresseth that vnto those which are iustified in Christ there is no condemnation not for that there is nothing worthie of condemnation in them for then they should be altogether without sinne but because they are iustified 3. the Apostle saith not there is no sinne but no condemnation Melancth not that the same sinnes remaine in those which are iustified which were in them before as Pererius slanndereth Calvin to say disput 1. numer 5. but there be still some imperfections and reliques of sinne remaining but not raigning which notwithstanding are not imputed vnto the faithfull neither are able to condemne them and Calvin saith no more but that the Apostle ioyneth three things together imperfectionem the imperfections which are alwayes in the Saints Dei indulgentiam Gods indulgence whereby their sinnes are forgiuen and regenerationem spiritus the regeneration of the spirit for carni suae indulgens he that is giuen to the flesh doth flatter himselfe in vaine to be freed from his sinne Calvin then cannot the same sinnes remaine seeing in the regenerate the flesh is mortified and sinne subdued Controv. 2. That none are perfect in this life Origens ouersight is here to be noted who thinking that the Apostle spake in the former chapter of those which partly serued the lawe of God in the spirit and partly the Lawe of sinne in the flesh saith that now he speaketh of those which ex integro in Christo sunt which wholly are in Christ not partly of the spirit partly of the flesh but are perfect Contra. 1. First Origen confoundeth iustification and sanctification for the faithfull are indeed wholly graft into Christ by faith and yet they may haue some infirmities of the flesh remaining 2. there neuer liued any of that perfection neuer to be tempted of the flesh but onely Christ but yet they which are in Christ doe not walke after the flesh that is non carnem ducem sequuntur they doe not followe the flesh as their guide though they be sometime tempted of the flesh but they follow the guiding and direction of the spirit Beza in annot 3. and it hath beene sufficiently shewed before quest 36. of the former chapter that the Apostle there speaketh in his owne person as of a man regenerate and so in this place he meaneth the same whom in his owne person he described before Controv. 3. That regeneration is not the cause that there is no condemnation to the faithfull The Romanists doe make this the cause why there is no condemnation to those which are in Christ because they walke not after the flesh but after the spirit Tolet. annot 1. Bellarm 5. de amission grat c. 10. respons ad obiect 7. so likewise Stapleton Antidot p. 435. who thus obiecteth 1. Ob. He vrgeth the Apostles words here there is no condeÌ„nation c. which walke not after the flesh therefore for that they walke not after the flesh there is no condemnation to such Contra. The Apostle saith not there is no condemnation because they walke not but to them that walke not regeneration is required as a necessarie condition annexed to iustification not as the cause so that here is an answear to two questions together how we are iustified namely by faith in Christ and who are iustified they which bring forth good fruits the one is internall their iustification the other externall namely sanctification Beza 2. Ob. The Apostle saith that the lawe of the spirit which Beza interpreteth to be the grace of regeneration doth free vs from the lawe of sinne and death v. 2. Ergo it is the cause of iustification Contra. 1. This interpretation beeing admitted that followeth not which is inferred for the words are not from sinne but from the lawe of sinne that is from the dominion of sinne and so indeede the grace of regeneration freeth vs that sinne hath no more dominion ouer vs. 2. but it is better with Ambrose to vnderstand by the law of the spirit legem fidei the lawe of faith whereby we are freed from sinne and death 3. Ob. If righteousnesse beeing present do not iustifie vs then beeing absent it condemneth not Contra. 1. Is followeth not for a thing may be insufficient to a worke beeing present and yet if it be remooued it is sufficient to hinder the worke as good diet in a sicke man may hinder his recouerie and yet if he vse it it is not alwayes sufficient to helpe him 2. and yet here is a difference in this example for good diet is an helping cause vnto health but good workes are no cause of saluation but onely a condition necessarily required and annexed 4.
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
vnto that ende which the Lord will himselfe and so Hugo well saith that God invisibili operatione malas voluntates ad suum arbitrium temperat ordinat c. by his invisible operation doth temper and order euen wicked wills according to his owne mind c. yet God giueth vnto euill and perverse wills non corruptionem sed ordinem not corruption but order c. and he sheweth it by this similitude like as when one is cast downe headlong and is readie to fall if one make a way seeing he must needes fall that he tumble downe one way rather then an other he in some sort may be said to incline and make a way for him to fall and yet causeth or procureth not but onely disposeth his fall And thus God may be said to harden â—â—erly Outwardly also God hardeneth by his workes as either his mercies shewed vpon others as the Egyptians hated Gods people because the Lord blessed them and in this sense it is said that God turned their heart to hate his people Psal. 105.25 that is by creation of those benefits which he bestowed vpon them or by his iudgements inflicted vpon the wicked themselues as Pharaohs heart was the more hardened by the plagues which were sent of this kind also it is that the wicked are many times hardened by the ministerie and preaching of the word which is sent to conuert them but they peruert it to their destruction so it is said vnto the Prophet Isay 6.9 Goe c. and shut the eyes of 〈◊〉 people make their heart fatt the Prophet is said to harden their heart because it was hardened by occasion of his preaching Secondly God hardeneth by his instruments as when he deliuereth vp men vnto Sathan to be seduced by him and giueth them ouer into his power as God is said to haue stirred vp Dauid to number the people 2. Sam. 24.1 which was indeede the worke of Sathan 1. Chron. 21.1 so God bid the lying spirit to goe and deceiue Baals Prophets 1. Kin. 22.21 and the Apostle saith of the wicked that the God of this world hath blinded their minds 2. Cor. 4.4 Thirdly the wicked doe harden their owne hearts when God giueth them ouer vnto their owne wicked and corrupt desires as the Apostle speaketh of the heathen that God gâ—â—e them vp to their owne hearts lusts Rom. 1.24 And thus Pharaoh is said to haue hardened his owne heart And thus as hath beene shewed God is said to harden the heart But it will thus be obiected on the contrarie 1. Obiect To tempt man is all one as to harden him but God tempteth none Iam. 1.13 therefore neither doth he harden them Answ. God tempteth not with any such temptation as proceedeth from a corrupt begâ—â—ing such as are the tentations which are caused by mans own concupiscence for as God not tempted he hath no corrupt affections to be tempted so neither doth he tempt by inciting or stirring men vp to euill neither doth he in this manner harden but as God may tempt externally for the triall of mens faith and obedience as he tempted Abraham and so he tempted Israel in the desert so the Lord by externall meanes and in such manner as he haue said hardeneth in his iustice without any iniustice at all Martyr 2. Obiect If God hardened Pharaohs heart why then did he send Moses so often vnto him to bid him let his people goe God should seeme herein to be contrarie to himselfe in making shewe of one thing and yet intending an other Answ. Pet. Martyr here vseth this distinction Gods will is to be considered two waies there is voluntas signi vel antecedens the will of the signe or the wil going before and there is voluntas consequens seu beneplaciti the will following or of Gods good pleasure As when Ionas was sent to preach to the Niniuites that they should within 40. dayes be destroyed that was the will of the signe or the reuealed will of God but yet the Lord vpon their repentance purposed to spare them that was the secret wil and good pleasure of God yet were not these wills the one contrarie to the other but the one wrought for the other as Ionas preaching brought them to repentance that Gods pleasure might be fulfilled in spring of the citie so Moses was sent to Pharaoh to make him without excuse that Gods iustice might be manifest in giuing him ouer to the hardnes of heart 3. Obiect Hardnes of heart is of God hardnes of heart is sinne therefore is would hence followe that sinne is of God Ans. Hardnes of heart is not of God simply or as it is sinne but accidentally onely 〈◊〉 it is the punishment of sinne hardnesse of heart is then ascribed vnto God as the Iudge to Sathan as the tormentor and executioner to the wicked themselues as to the partie guiltie Pareus dub 16. 4. God is not angrie with his owne worke but he is angrie with men for their hardnes of heart therefore it is no way Gods worke Answ. Hardnes of heart as it is sinne or the cause of sinne it is not of God but the Lord is offended with it but as it is a punishment of sinne so is it of God and the Lord is pleased that the obstinacie of the wicked should be punished Gryneus Quest. 19. Of the obiection propounded v. 19. Thou wilt say why doth he yet complaine c. 1. This is the third obiection the first was of inconstancie which might seeme to be imputed vnto God in reiecting the Iewes which was answeared before v. 6. the second of iniustice in casting off some and choosing others before they had done any good or euill 5.14 now the third is of crueltie which might be furmised in God iâ— beeing an 〈◊〉 those that are hardened which notwithstanding is according to his owne will this phâ—â—â—ion the Apostle now beginneth to answear 2. Why doth he yet complaine or is angrie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word signifieth both the latine readeth queritur complaineth by the mistaking of which word some taking it for â—â—ritur with a dipthong which signifieth to be sought or enquired some haue here 〈◊〉 threefold sense as first it may be taken impersonally why is it enquired whence it 〈◊〉 one is good an other euill or passively wherefore is it sought for or why should any seeke to be good seeing all is as God will or actiuely why doth God complaine of sinners seeing all is according to his will so Gorrhan and the ordin gloss but the last onely is the right meaning the other two senses doe arise by the mistaking of the word 3. God complaineth in many places in the Scriptures of the wickednesse of men as Isa 1.26 How is the faithfull citie become an harlot so our Sauiour taketh vp this complaint ouer Ierusalem how often would I haue gathered together c. Matth. 23. now the obiection is why God should thus complaine seeing herein his will
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
Gods mercie herein exceedeth his iustice that whereas all men by nature are the children of wrath and God might iustly â—aue them in their sinne as he did the reprobate Angels yet out of that masse of corruption he saueth some to bring them vnto glorie so then vnlesse the fall and transgression of man he presupposed there is no way to magnifie Gods mercie aboue his iustice Thus Thomas Aquin though he mislike Augustines opinion who maketh the foresight of originall â—â—â—ne the ground of the decree of reprobation and thinketh that God absolutely reiecteth the reprobate without any foresight of sinne yet is constrained to seeke shelter here for the â—â—â—iding of this obiection 5. Wherefore fully to decide this great question and controversie touching the decree â—â— reprobation we will determine of it in this manner 1. There is reprobatio indefinita definita a reprobation indefinite that is that some â—â—e elected some reiected and a definite reprobation whereby some are certainely reiected and not others of the first the cause is onely in God for the demonstration of his mercie â—â—â—ard the elect and of his iustice and power toward the reprobate as the Apostle sheweth v. 22.23 and so the wise man saith Prov. 16.4 that God made all things euen the wicked for himselfe and to this purpose Thomas well saith that the reason of election and reprobation is taken from the goodnesse of God quae multiformiter in rebus representatur which by his meanes is diuersely represented and set forth in the creatures when aâ— some things are in an high some in a low degree If all should be elected Gods iustice should not appeare if all were condemned where were his mercie But of the definite and certaine reprobation why some are in particular reiected the cause is the foresight of their sinne 2. Againe reprobation is considered two waies absolute comparate absolutely as in reiecting these and these and comparatiuely in reiecting these rather then those of the first the reason is the generall corruption of mankind which transgressed in Adam who abused his freewill in choosing euill it beeing in his power to haue made choice of the good and so he brought all his posteritie into bondage vnto sinne in which state of corruption God iustly might haue left all if it had pleased him but of the comparatiue reprobation why God left others in their naturall corruption and freed others no reason can be giuen but the good pleasure of God as Saint Paul saith Ephes. 2.3 We were by nature the children of wrath as well as others but God who is rich in mercie through his great loue c. hath quickned vs so Augustine well saith quare hunc Deus trahat illum non trahat no◠〈◊〉 dijudicare si non vis errare why God draweth one out of that masse of corruption and not an other take not vpon thee to iudge if thou wilt not erre epistol 105. 3. We must distinguish betweene absolutum ius Dei and ordinatum the absolute right which God hath ouer his creatures and his moderate or subordinate right By his absolute right the Creator hath power to dispose of his creature as it pleaseth him to life or to death as the potter hath power of the same clay to make some vessels of honour some of dishonour and if the Lord should thus deale with his creature euen without any respect vnto sinne no man could accuse or challenge God But he dealeth not thus with vs secundum spiritum absolutum ius according to his strict and absolute right but according to his subordinate right whereby he proceedeth not against the creature either in condemning it or decreeing the same to be condemned without iust cause giuen by the creature And thus the Apostle dealeth in this place by the similitude of the potter v. 20.22 he sheweth what absolute power and right God hath if he would please to vse it and v. 22.23 he speaketh of the other ordinarie right and power which God indeed vseth in proceeding against the vessels of wrath prepared by their owne sinnes vnto destruction Pareus And Tolet here well obserueth that the Apostle maketh two answers vnto the obiection propounded one to stop the mouthes of gainesayers in vrging the absolute power of God the other to satisfie the faithfull in shewing that God doth not execute his wrath vpon any but for their sinne annot 28. Concerning this distinction of the strict or absolute right and power of God and his ordinarie or rather subordinate right though it be admitted on both sides both by Protestant and Popish writers yet there is this difference 1. Some doe thinke and so professe and teach that God vseth as well his absolute as subordinate power in the decree of reprobation and thus Bucer Calvin Zanchius affirme that God by his absolute will hath reprobate and reiected some without respect vnto their sinnes 2. Pareus who also acknowledgeth Gods power herein yet he would not haue this doctrine handled either in schooles or before the people but according to Gods subordinate power in reiecting no otherwise then for sinne p. 912. 3. Both these thinke that God bringeth this his absolute power into act but I thinke it more safe to hold that God might if it please him vse that absolute power which if he did none could accuse him of iniustice but he dealeth otherwise in this mysterie of reprobation refusing none but iustly for their sinne and this is that which Augustine affirmeth by way of supposition in this manner Si hominum genus quod creatum constâ—â— primitus nihilo c. if mankind which at the beginning God created of nothing were not brought forth endebted both to sinne and death and yet the almightie Creator should condemne some of them to euerlasting destruction who could say vnto him Lord why hast thou done so God in his infinite power might haue done thus but not according to the ordinarie course of iustice Then seeing I absolutely subscribe vnto the iudgement of Augustine seene before in the 2. opinion produced that mans originall corruption is the first ground of the decree of reprobation out of the which God in mercie saued some by the election of grace leauing others which adding to their originall corruption other actuall sinnes are made worthie of condemnation and so Augustine well concludeth investigabilis Dei miserecordia c. the mercie of God is vnsearcheable whereby he hath mercie on whom he will no merits of his going before and vnsearcheable is his truth whereby he hardeneth whom he will eius praecedentibus meritis his merites going before but the same with his vpon whom God sheweth mercie Learned Pareus hereunto agreeth dub 17. massa damnata propriè est obiectum c. the damned masse is properly the obiect of election reprobation Vrsinus also as Pareus hath set forth his workes defineth reprobation to be the immutable and eternall decree of God whereby he hath decreed in
his iust iudgement to leaue some in their sinnes c. and not beeing made partakers of Christ to condemne them for euer Iudicious Polanus hath the like definition of reprobation in his partitions It is the decree whereby God purposed to himselfe to leaue those of whom it pleased him not to haue mercie in euerlasting destruction vnto the which they should be obnoxious for their sinnes for the declaration of his iustice In these distinctions all the causes are touched of euerlasting damnation and the â—â—re-ordaining thereunto the efficient is Gods decree and purpose the materiall is sinne the formall the deniall of mercie and the leauing them to themselues the finall cause is the setting forth of the iustice of God And thus I trust it hath beene sufficiently shewed how the decree of reprobation may safely be held to proceede from the prescience of originall and actuall sinne and not to be an absolute act of Gods will and purpose as the decree of election is and in this resolution of this question whatsoeuer I haue before thought and written otherwise I set vp my rest as the safest from any inconuenience and the fittest to giue satisfaction to the contrarie obiections which are such as here follow 1. Obiect Seeing the number of the reprobate farre exceedeth the number of the elect how is Gods mercie magnified aboue his iustice Ans. They which hold an absolute reprobation without relation vnto sinne cannot here remooue this doubt for if God out of his owne will should cast off more then he receiueth he should be farre more iust then mercifull But this beeing first laid as a foundation that God casteth off none but for sin in that he saueth some out of that masse of corruption whereas he might iustly leaue all his mercie exceedeth his iustice and in these three points 1. in that God in the beginning made man righteous Ecclesi 7.31 and gaue him free-will so to haue continued if he would and if he had not willingly transgressed he should haue remained in the state of grace and fauour with God and not haue tasted of his iustice 2. after man had fallen and brought all his posteritie into the bondage of corruption Gods mercie appeared in sauing some whereas he might in iustice haue condemned all as he did the reprobate Angels that kept not their first state 3. his mercie is euident euen toward those which are left in their corruption that the Lord denieth not vnto them meanes whereby they might be called if they had grace to vse them and he suffereth euen the vessels of wrath with much patience not presently cutting theÌ„ off as he might in al these points Gods mercie exceedeth his iustice 2. Obiect When God had made Adam righteous it was in his power to haue kept him from falling that all might haue beene saued is not God therein accessarie to their sin is suffering that which he might haue hindered Ans. 1. 〈◊〉 was fit that the Creator hauing made man with free will should suffer the creature freely to exercise that naturall power and facultie which was giuen him as other creatures doâ—â— their kind 2. although God permitted Adam to fall yet he knew how to vse it for 〈◊〉 further demonstration of his glorie and in this behalfe it is iust with God to suffer euill â—â—â—â—e in the world which he knoweth how to turne vnto good as he suffered Iob to be 〈◊〉 of Sathan for the triall of his faith 3. But in that God saueth some out of that masse of corruption and perdition and not all how is he not now partial and an accepter of persons in dealing vnequally with those which are in equall state and condition Ans. Where one is bound to giue equally to all there it is partialitie and iniustice not to giue vnto all alike but in free and voluntarie gifts one may giue vnequally vnto those which are of equall sort without any touch at all as when a man hath two debters he may forgiue vnto one his debt and yet require it of another So God is not bound to giue his grace vnto any especially where they haue willingly fallen from his grace as Adam did in Paradise and we in him we beeing then all now endebted vnto Gods iustice in our naturall corruption God may haue mercie where and on whom he will it is lawfull for him to do with his owne as he will Matth. 20.15 4. Obiect It seemeth to be an hard and cruell part to destroie any for the setting forth of ones power and magnificence as the Turke and other Tyrants make no account of mens liues to serue their pleasure Ans. 1. No earthly potentate hath that power ouer his subiects which God hath ouer his creatures therefore though it be vniust in the one it is not in the other 2. for one to destroy another for his honour and glorie sake may seeme hard but to bequeath them to destruction worthily for their faults to get glorie thereby is not vniust so although God in the destruction and condemnation of the wicked intend his glorie yet they are worthily condemned for their sinne Obiect 5. He that willeth the end willeth also the meanes that bring and lead vnto that end if God haue appointed the damnation of the reprobate then he willeth also sinne which is the meanes to that end Ans. He that simply willeth the end willeth also the meanes but God simply willeth not the damnation of any but for their sinne Obiect 6. If God haue foreseene the sinnes of the reprobate and willeth their iust damnation for sinne how is it said he would haue all to be saued Ans. God simply willeth not the damnation of any but for sinne and no other thing appeareth in the reuealed will of God in that he offereth meanes of saluation to all but that he would haue all to be saued this then is to be vnderstood of the absolute and reuealed will of God 7. Obiect If God foresee the sinnes of the reprobate and decree their punishment why doth God complaine of sinners seeing his will in them is fulfilled Ans. Augustine answeareth 1. God iustly complaineth of sinners quia non cogit eos peccare because he doth not constraine them to sinne howsoeuer Gods decree cannot be altered yet their will is not forced they sinne willingly and so are iustly condemned 2. and when God complaineth of sinners by this meanes those on whom God sheweth mercie are called compunguntur corde and are pricked in heart howsoeuer the other are hardened Obiect 8. If the case so stand that the reprobate are appointed to damnation then it skilleth not what a man doth for though he should repent him yet if he be a reprobate it cannot helpe him Ans. If â—â—â—were apparant who were elected who a reprobate then indeed all contrarie endeauour were in vaine but seeing we haue no other way to prooue our election then by our faith and fruits we must thereby labour to make our election sure 2.
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
Trinitie concurreth in their diuine power and essence as they are one God yet with a speciall relation to their persons as God the Father Sonne and holy Ghost both created redeemed the world and sanctifie the elect but the worke of the creation is specially ascribed to the person of the Father the redemption to the person of the Sonne the worke of sanctification to the person of the holy Ghost considered together with their infinite and omnipotent Godhead Quest. 17. Whether to beleeue in the heart be not sufficient vnto salvation without confession of the mouth v. 10. With the heart man beleeueth vnto righteousnesse and with the mouth he confesseth to salvation 1. Lyranus thinketh that the Apostle onely giueth instance here of those which are in casis mortis at the point of death in whom it is sufficient to beleeue and confesse when they haue no time to worke But the Apostle describeth one generall way and rule whereby all are iustified 2. The Greeke scholiast thinketh that whereas the beleefe of the heart is sufficient yet mention is made of confession in two respects both in regard of others which by this confession are to be instructed and the time of persecution when it is necessarie to make publike confession of the faith But this which the Apostle requireth is to be performed of euerie beleeuer and at all times 3. Bellarmine inferreth out of this place fidem non sufficere ad salutem that faith is not sufficient vnto saluation but that the confession of the mouth and other works are also required as causes concurring vnto saluation which place he saith is so euident that in the colloquie at Altenburge one for ad salutē to saluation would haue put de salute of saluatiō But we are not driuen to such a straight as to vse any such shift we will send Bellarmine to his auncient Cardinal Tolet who vpon this place thus writeth oris confessio nos non iustificat à peccato c. sed iustificati tenemur eam palam profiteri c. the confession of the mouth doth not iustifie vs but beeing iustified we are bound publikely to professe it that we may obtaine euerlasting saluation c. confession then of the mouth is not required as a cause of saluation because it is no part of iustificatiō but as a necessary effect that followeth 4. Pet. Martyr thinketh that by saluation here is not vnderstood as in the former verse the remission of sinnes but vlteriorem perfectionem a further degree of perfection in them that are iustified as the Apostle in the same sense biddeth vs to works out our saluation with trembling and feare Phil. 2. so also Gorrhan interpreteth ad salutem to saluation ad salutis perfectionem to the perfection of saluation But this were to giue way vnto them which ascribe onely the beginning of saluation vnto faith and the perfection vnto works 5. Wherefore the Apostle maketh not here confession the cause of saluation as beleefe is of iustification but faith is the cause also of confession which is required not as a cause but tanquam medium as a way and meane vnto saluation for iustification and saluation are here to be considered as the beginning and ende by faith we are iustified which faith must bring forth liuely fruits as the confession of the mouth and the profession of the life before we can attaine to saluation to this purpose Pareus dub 8. likewise M. Calvine saith the Apostle sheweth onely how a true faith may be distinguished from a fained faith the faith which iustifieth must be such a faith as bringeth forth liuely fruits as the franke confession of the mouth And Beza addeth that the Apostle maketh faith and beleefe here the cause both of iustification and of saluation because the confession of the mouth to the which saluation is ascribed is an effect and fruit of faith and so according to that rule in Logike causa causae est causa causati the cause of the cause is the cause of that which is caused by that cause And so as Beza well concludeth confession is via qua pervenitur the way whereby we come vnto eternall life as also other good workes in the life are the way but not the cause which as Origen collecteth are here also included vnder confession for he can not confesse Christ to be risen from the dead which doth not walke in newnes of life as the Apostle saith which God hath ordained for vs to walke in them Eph. 2.10 now we vse to walke in the way 18. Quest. Of these words Whosoeuer calleth vpon the name of the Lord shall be saued v. 13. 1. The word here translated saued in that place of the Prophet Ioel 2.32 signifieth to be deliuered which in effect is all one the Septuagint reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall be saued doe put the consequent for the antecedent for he that is deliuered shall consequently be saued the Prophet there prophesieth of the spirituall benefits which the Church of God should receiue by the Messiah and so we are here to vnderstand not any temporall but a spirituall and eternall deliuerance 2. This sentence is brought in by the Apostle vpon these two occasions both to prooue his former generall proposition that God is rich in mercie to all both Iew and Gentile for the Prophet generally saith whosoeuer excluding none whether Iew or Gentile Calvin as also the Apostle sheweth the difference betweene the iustice of the lawe which requireth doing and the iustice of faith which requireth nothing but beleeuing and confession in the invocating of the name of God Melancth 3. Calleth 1. Gryneus thinketh that invocation the principall part of the worship of God is here taken for the whole as also Origen saith invocare nomen adorare Deum vnum to invocate the name of God and to worship God are one and the same But as Pet. Martyr thinketh invocation here rather is taken properly for the prayers of the faithfull 2. neither doth he speake of any invocation but of that which is in faith whereof the Apostle maketh mention 1. Cor. 12.3 No man can say that Iesus is the Lord but by the holy Ghost so the ordinar gloss he that prayeth invocateth but this he can not doe nisi prius credat vnlesse he beleeue before 4. Shall be saued He saith not he shall obtaine that which he prayeth for for many times one may pray ignorantly for that which is not meet for him but yet by his faithfull prayer he shall come vnto saluation Mart. 5. By the name of the Lord Origen well vnderstandeth Christ Iesus as he sheweth by that place of S. Paul 1. Cor. 1.3 with all that call on the name of our Lord Iesus and he further thus inferreth if that Enoch Moses Aaron did call vpon God and he heard them sine dubio c. without doubt they called vpon the Lord Iesus and Gorrhan giueth this reason why Christ is said to be the
will haue God no wayes the cause of hardening the heart which is Pighius assertion as he is here confuted at large by Pet. Martyr who in this manner obiected 1. that place of the Prophet Isay is a prediction therefore not the cause of hardening Answ. It followeth not for euen that word which Isay preached did provoke the Iewes and they were thereby further hardened and though euerie prediction be not a cause of that which is to come yet such predictions as foretell of such things as the Lord himselfe will worke as here the Prophet speaketh of the hardening of the heart doe not onely shewe the thing but expresse the cause also 2. Ob. Nemo cogitur ad peccandum but no man is compelled to sinne Ans. We must here distinguish between violentia necessitas violence and necessitie true it is that God forceth and compelleth none to sinne yet they cannot otherwise chuse but sinne by reason of the corruption of nature to the which man hath enthralled himselfe in respect whereof it is impossible that man should beleeue of himselfe without the worke of the spirit as it is said Ioh. 12.39 they could not beleeue c. 3. Obiect Pighius saith that by impossibile here we are to vnderstand difficile that which is hard to be done not that it was simply impossible that they should beleeue but it was an hard matter for them so to doe Answer Neither doe we say that simply it is impossible in respect of the absolute power of God but ex hypothesi by way of supposition the blindnes and obstinacie of mans heart beeing presupposed and to say that a man may beleeue of himselfe though hardly is the euasion of the old Pelagians for of himselfe not onely hardly but not at all can a man beleeue as our Sauiour saith Without me ye can doe nothing Ioh. 15.5 4. Obiect Whereas that place by vs is vrged Mark 4.11 To you it is giuen to knowe the mysterie of the kingdome but to them c. all things are done in parables that they seeing may see and not discerne c. to shewe that God hath an hand and worke in blinding of the eyes of the obstinate Pighius will haue this word that to shewe not the finall but efficient cause because they were blind therefore Christ spake in parables they were not therefore blinded the more because he spake in parables Answ. 1. Their blindnes was not the cause of Christs speaking in parables for that had beene a reason rather why Christ would haue spoken more plainly vnto them but because they were wilfully blind he therefore spake in parables that they might continue in their blindnes still 2. these words that because doe not alwaies shewe the cause of a thing sed causam notitiae but the cause of the knowledge or manifestation of a thing which is by the effect as Luk. 7.47 our Blessed Saviour saith of the woman many sinnes are forgiuen her for she loued much by the effect of her great loue he doth demonstrate the cause the forgiuenesse of her sinnes so here Christ sheweth the cause of his preaching in parables by the effect the hardening of their heart and blinding of their eyes 4. and like hereunto is that place where the Lord saith concerning Pharaoh For this cause haue I raised thee vp that I might shewe my power in thee Rom. 9.17 that was the ende of the raising vp Pharaoh that God might get himselfe honour in his confusion as this was the ende of Christs preaching in parables that the Iewes might be confirmed in their obstinacie and hardnesse of heart 5. Obiect Whereas we also vrge that place of Isay 6.9 Make the heart of this people fat shut their eyes c. Pighius replyeth that God biddeth it to be done he is not said to doe it and in that he saith shut their eyes it is thus much in effect praedica excaecandos preach that their eyes shall be blinded c. Ans. 1. That which the Lord biddeth to be done is held to be done by the Lord himselfe beeing done by his commandement 2. and it is a very strange construction shut their eyes that is prophesie or preach that their eyes should be shut vp but thereby is signified that by the word which he preached they should be occasioned to stumble and their eyes should dazle at it as bleare eyes at the brightnes of the Sunne 3. and that God is the cause of their hardening aad blinding is euidently expressed Ioh. 12.40 he hath blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts 6. Obiect To this Pighius againe replieth that man in himselfe is the cause of his hardening and blindnes yet the Scripture so speaketh as though God blinded their eyes and yet he doth not as when they which haue tender eyes and are made more blind by looking vpon the Sunne who will say that the Sunne-beames are the cause of blindnes the fault is in the eyes And both S. Matthew c. 13.10 and S. Luke Act. 28.27 doe otherwise cite that place Isa. 6.9 the heart of this people is waxed fat making no mention at all of God to be the cause or worker of it Ans. 1. Doth the Scripture so say that God blindeth the eyes and is it not so this were to make the Scripture to speake one thing and to meane an other 2. that similitude maketh directly against him for though the first and principall fault be in the eyes yet accidentally the brightnes of the Sinne doth increase the blindnes of the eyes and so God in his iustice more hardeneth the hearts of the obstinate which they first hardened by their owne peruersnes and vnbeleefe 3. S. Matthew indeede and S. Luke doe in that manner cite that text therein following the reading of the Septuagint whereof diuers reasons are yeilded 1. some thinke that the Iewes falsified the Scriptures and therefore the Septuagint which translated them before they were corrupted were rather followed but Origen vpon that place Isa. 6. refuseth this conceit because it is not like that our Sauiour and the Apostles would haue left that fault vntouched if the Iewes had falsified the Scriptures 2. Hierome in his Commentarie also vpon that place reporteth an other opinion of certaine Ecclesiasticall writers who thought that Saint Luke because he was more skilfull in the Greeke tongue did rather follow the Septuagint but this reason is not sufficient for Saint Matthew though it might seeme probable for the other 3. some thought that the Septuagint did so translate that they might decline that blasphemie as they thought to make God the author of the hardenesse of the heart but Hierome taketh away this because in other places the Septuagint are not afraide so to translate as God hardened the heart of Pharaoh 4. Wherefore the Septuagint in their translation tooke that libertie not alwayes to render the words but the sense and the Apostles followe them because their interpretation was then receiued and well knowne and so
it would haue giuen offence to the Gentiles if it had beene refused and though neither S. Matthew nor S. Luke doe directly make God the author yet it is sufficient that S. Iohn in his Gospell so alleadgeth that place which small difference betweene them teacheth vs that we should compare one Scripture with an other and interpret one by an other and thus much if not too much of their opinion that would vtterly exclude God from beeing any cause at all of the hardening of the heart 2. A second opinion is of them which ascribe somewhat vnto God herein but not much as Chrysostome saith that this word he gaue non operationem Dei sed concessionem significat doth not signifie an operation of God but a concession onely so Theophylact he gaue that is permisit he suffered them to be hardened likewise the enterlin gloss he gaue them the spirit of compunction that is permisit habere he permitted them to haue c. But to doe a thing is more then to suffer and it is a violent interpretation to giue that is to suffer to be giuen beside he that suffreth a thing to be done which is in his power to hinder is accessarie to the doing of it so that in allowing vnto God permission onely they either will make God an idle beholder and no doer or they will make him accessarie and consenting an euill Origen much better answeareth this question how it may be said de bono Deo of the good God that he should giue Israel eyes not to see and eares not to heare vide ne haec â—igis sit retributio merces incredulitatis see saith he if this be not rather a reward of their incredulitie so hardnes of heart as it is a punishment may well proceed from God not as a sufferer and permitter onely but as an agent and doer 3. Some as these doe extenuate the power of to God too much and so doe ascribe too much vnto God in making him the principall cause of hardening of mens hearts which must needes followe as the fruits and effects of their reprobation which God absolutely decreed without any respect vnto their works True it is that they which hold the absolute decree of reprobation must needs make God a proper and principall cause of the hardening of the heart seeing their reprobation is the beginning and originall of their rebellion obstinacie and forsaking of God but that God reiecteth none but for sinne nor decreeth none to be damned without relation to their sinne is before at large handled c. 9. contr 10. whether I referre the reader at this time that place of the Prophet perditio tua ex te Israel â—â—y perdition is of thy selfe O Israel onely may suffice to cleare God from beeing either the proper or principall cause of hardnesse of heart 4. Others doe discharge God altogether and make the deuill only the author and cause of the blindnesse of the heart according to that saying 2. Cor. 4.4 in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds this place was much vrged both by the Arrians who would prooue by this place that Christ is no other wise God then as this name is giuen vnto creatures in Scripture as here vnto the devill as also by the Manichees who held that there were two beginnings and two Princes or Gods one of good the other of evill Hereupon some of the fathers to take away all aduantage from these heretikes as Hilarie Augustine Chrysost. Ambrose did expound this place of the true God making this the sense in whome God hath blinded the minds that is of the infidels of this world But 1. here the words are euidently transposed for in the originall thus the words stand the God of this world 2. And the Arrians with the Manichees may be otherwise answeared then by declining the right sense of this place for though Sathan be here vnderstood he is not said simply to be God but with an addition God of the world whereas Christ is simply called God Rom. 9.5 Who is God ouer all blessed for euer and so are the Arrians answeared And to the Manichees we say that the deuill is called the God and Prince of the world not as though the kingdome were deuided with him but we graunt that a principalitie is committed vnto him yet as Gods Minister that he can goe no further then the Lord permitteth and therefore he is called the euill spirit of the Lord which came vpon Saul 1. Sam. 16.14 because the Lord vseth him as his messenger and minister of his iudgements Yet this place beeing vnderstood of Sathan maketh not him the onely cause of the blindnes and hardnes of heart though he be a principall doer in it for here the Apostle saith that God gaue them the spirit of slumber 5. Nor yet is man onely the cause of his owne hardening and blindnesse as the ordinar gloss saith excâ—â—ati sunt quia nolucrunt credere they were blinded because they would not beleeue for their blindnesse was the cause of their vnbeleefe as the Apostle here sheweth that the Iewes beleeued not because they were blinded Mart. and Gorrhan here distinguisheth well that there are two kinds of cecitie or blindnes there is caecitas culpa poenae a blindnes which is a fault and a blindnes which is a punishment the first is the cause of infidelitie and infidelitie causeth the second that is a man is first blind which is the cause he beleeueth not and then as a reward of their infidelitie they are more blinded still wherefore though the corruption of mans heart be a cause of his owne blindnes and hardnesse of heart yet there is some other cause beside 6. Wherefore to the hardening and blinding of the heart these three concurre mans owne corruption as the first and nearest cause Sathan as the instigator and temper God as a iust Iudge the Scripture maketh all these the causes God is said to harden Pharaohs heart and Sathan also blindeth the minds of the infidels 2. Cor. 4.4 and Pharaoh hardened his owne heart Exod. 9.34 the corruption of mans heart is as the coale that sendeth forth sparkes Iob. 5.7 the deuill bloweth and stirreth the coales and kindleth the fire God he smiteth as it were on the anvile and frameth and disposeth euerie thing to his owne will so God hath a stroke in the hardening of the heart not by permission onely neither in making a soft heart hard but both in leauing man beeing blind by nature to his owne will and in withdrawing his grace and giuing him ouer as a iust Iudge to the malice of Sathan to be further hardened and so God is the author of the hardening of mans heart not as it is a sinne but as it is a punishment of sinne and thus and no otherwise doe Protestants maintaine God to be an agent and worker in these actions and therefore that is a meere slaunder of Stapleton that Calvin should hold Deum
esse activam causam peccati that God is the actiue cause of sinne Antid p. 715. and the like slaunder is vttered by Becanus p. 6. that the God of the Calvinists is author peccati the author of sinne See more hereof c. 9. quest 18. 11. Quest. Of the meaning of those words Let their table be made a snare c. v. 9. 1. Concerning the place here cited out of Psal. 69. v. 22. Origen obserueth that the Apostle doth not tie himselfe to so many words for some he addeth as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a net or trappe which neither the Hebrew nor the Septuagint haue and some he omitteth as coram ipsis before them so also Erasmus but Beza obserueth that this latter is not omitted for vnto them is equivalent to before them further both Martyr Beza Pareus Calvin thinke that the Hebrew word lishlomius signifieth pacifica their prosperous things which the Septuagint read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a retribution as though the word were leshillomiâ—â— retributions but Iunius and Pagnine doe there interpret the world lishlominâ— retributions because of the preposition lamed being set before which signifieth for a recompence or retribution 2. Now for the meaning of the words 1. Origen by their table vnderstandeth the Scriptures which were a scandale vnto them in that they peruerted them to their owne hurt as where the Scriptures describe the Messiah to be a glorious deliuerer which must be vnderstood spiritually they were offended because they looked for a temporall deliuerance 2. Haymo doth vnderstand by the table collatio verberum in mensa their conferences together at the table how to take Christ but in this sense their table was a snare to others rather then to themselues 3. Lyranus doth thus distinguish these three their table because a snare in perverting the Scriptures and a trappe when they were taken by Titus and Vespasian and a scandale when to the infamie and opprobrie of that nation their nobles were put to torment and shamefull death by the Romanes 4. But the better interpretation is this by the table as Chrysostome expoundeth we vnderstand omnes illorum delicia all things wherein they delighted as their prosperitie their publike state their Temple Calvin the hauing of the Scriptures sacrifices and such other spirituall or temporall blessings the Prophet prayeth that all may be turned to their hurt and he vseth three similitudes let them be a snare as birds are taken when they thinke to find foode a trappe as beasts are caught and entrapped in the net and a scandale as that whereat men doe stumble in their going and running and fall 3. For a recompence vnto them 1. The interlin glosse vnderstandeth the retribution of eternall death 2. Haymo and Lyranus haue speciall reference to Christ that as they would haue blotted out his name so their name is perished as they killed him so they were killed of the Romanes 3. but it generally rather sheweth a retalion and recompense in their iust punishment for all the wrongs and iniuries which they had offered to the seruants of God and specially to Christ himselfe Pareus 4. Let their eyes be darkened and bowe downe their backe 1. Lyranus by the darkening of the eyes interpreteth the error of their vnderstanding and by the bowing of their backes the error of their will 2. Gorrhan vnderstandeth error in faith and manners 3. deprime â—â—eribus conscientiae hold them downe with the burthen of their conscience Pellic. aeterna servitute opprime oppresse them and keepe them vnder with euerlasting seruitude Melancthon following Chrysostome and Theophylact. 4. But the generall sense is better that they are deprived of all strength both inward and outward for the backe or loines as it is in the Hebrewe signifieth the strength so their eyes are blinded they are voide of all vnderstanding in spirituall things and they are likewise depriued of all grace and strength both spirituall they haue no endeauour or will to that which is good Genevens Pareus as also temporall their authoritie and gouernment is taken from them they liue in perpetuall seruitude Gryneus Quest. 12. Whether it be lawfull to vse any imprecation as Dauid doth here 1. Origen seemeth to be of opinion that it is not lawfull and therefore he hath here a strange interpretation he thinketh the Prophet prayeth not against the Israelites but for them that their eyes might be darkened ne videant perversa that they see not peruerse things as it had beene happie for Marcion Basilides and Valentinus and other heretikes that they had not seene those perverse errors which they held But seeing both that which goeth before let their table be made a snare c. and that which followeth bowe downe their backe are imprecations made against them how can this comming between be taken to be a praier for them 2. Augustine agreeing in the same opinion that no imprecation is lawfull yet followeth an other imprecation he thinketh that the Prophet spake this non optantis voto sed spiritu providentis not as with a desire of one that wisheth but with the spirit of one foreseeing and foretelling what should happen lib. 1. de serm Dom. in monte so Haymo haec verba non optantis voto sed praedicentis officio dicuntur these words are not vttered with a wishing desire but by way of prediction c. so also the ordinar gloss and these reasons may be alleadged against imprecations 1. Our Blessed Sauiour biddeth vs to pray for our enemies Matth. 5.46 S. Paul also saith Rom. 12.14 Blesse them which persecute you blesse I say and curse not c. 2. The example of our Sauiour is against imprecations who prayed for his enemies he cursed them not 3. Yet we haue some forren examples of such as refused to make imprecations as Baâ—â—â—â— would not curse the people of Israel and a certaine woman Priest of Athens could not be hired to curse Alcibiades making this answer that it was her office to pray for other not to curse them much more should Christians abstaine from cursing 3. Wherefore for the solution of this question these distinctions must be premised 1. the cause must be considered whether it be priuate which concerneth ones person onely in which cause it is vnlawful to curse or whether it be publik concerning the glory of God wherein imprecations are vsed as S. Peter sentenced Ananias to death Act. 5. laid a curse vpoÌ„ S. Magus Act. 8. S. Paul cursed Elymas the sorcerer Act. 13. or it may be a priuate cause yet ioined with the glory of God as Elisha cursed the children which called him bald head 1. King 2. 2. The condition calling of them which vse imprecations must be considered whether they do it of a priuate affection which is vnlawfull or of a propheticall spirit as the Prophets Apostles did as it is said of Paul that wheÌ„ he cursed Elymas he was ful of the H. Ghost Act. 13.9 herein they as Prophets
shall be saued Ans. It is not necessarie in these generall speaches to vnderstand euery one in particular like as where the Scripture saith All flesh shall see the saluation of God and all shall be taught of God and God will haue all men to be saued these sayings must be restrained ad vniversitatem definitam to the vniuersalitie defined and determined of God and not so enlarged as to comprehend all in generall Martyr like as where the Apostle speaketh of the entring and comming in of the fulnes of the Gentiles yet many remained vncalled so not withstanding this generall calling of the Iewes some may continue in their vnbeleefe still thus Haymo well expoundeth plenitudo haec non ad numerum cunctorum pertinet sed ad numerum à Deâ— praesinitum this fulnes doth not belong vnto the number of all but vnto the number determined of God 2. Obiect Our blessed Sauiour saith Luk. 18.7 The Sonne of man when he commeth shall be find faith in the earth if there shall be at Christs comming such scarcenes of faith it is not like that there shall be such a multitude of beleeuing Iewes Ans. 1. Lyranus answeareth that detecta falsitate Antichrist when the falshood of Antichrist shall be detected then the Iewes shall be called so faith in his opinion shall faile vnder Antichrist but it shall flourish afterward the Iewes beeing called but the fayling of faith which Christ our blessed Sauiour speaketh of shall be at his comming and as it were immediatly before it therefore the calling of the Iewes can not be after this fayling 2. Pet. Martyr thinketh it may be thus that after the calling of the Iewes there may grow some carnall securitie againe among them but that is not like that the Iewes beeing newly conuerted should so soone decline and fall away from their integritie it is more like they shall be most zealous Lyranus thinketh that they shall be so constant in the faith of Christ that they shall not refuse to die for the same 3. Pareus giueth this solution that although there shall be in the ende of the world a multitude of beleeuing Iewes yet their number shall be but small in respect of the vnbeleeuing Gentiles To this last solution this further may be added that the fayling of faith which Christ prophesieth of must be specially vnderstood of the Gentiles where Christ had beene preached and beleeued vpon that euen there where it was most likely that faith should haue beene none shall be found for when the Iewes shall be called faith shall waxe very faint and cold among the Gentiles Thus haue I shewed what is the most probable opinion concerning the calling of the Iewes wherein as we expect a more frequent and generall vocation of that nation then hitherto hath beene seene so yet we acknowledge a mysterie still which can not fully be revealed how when and in what number the Iewes shall be called vntill we shall see the same performed and so Origen resolueth well quis autem sit iste omnis Israel c. but who this all Israel is and what shall be the fulnes of the Gentiles God onely knoweth and his onely Sonne and they which are his friends c. Of this question briefly handled here I remember that some twentie yeares since I writ a speciall Treatise intituled De vniversali Iudaeoâ—â—â— vocatione wherein though in some other points as concerning Elias and Henochs corporall presence in heauen I haue altered my former iudgement yet in this question of the Vniuersall calling of the Iewes I resolue still as there I maintained that the Apostles propheticall prediction here can not otherwise be vnderstood then of their generall calling Quest. 28. Of the testimonies here cited by the Apostle how they are alleadged and whence 1. Concerning the manner the Apostle followeth the Septuagint which was then the receiued translation which he refuseth not while it retaineth the sense though the words precisely are not rendred 1. in the originall Isay. 59.20 the word is lecsion which the Septuagint translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of Sion or for Sions sake but the preposition lamed serueth to a datiue case and so it must be translated a redeemer shall come to Sion as Vatablus Pagnine and Innius reade S. Paul readeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Zion which Beza thinketh may be altered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the fault of the writer or copier out but Tolet is bold to affirme against the receiued opinion of the best Hebricians that the preposition lamed may their signifie de from annot 19. but that cannot be for it followeth in the same place vleshabhe and to them not from them that returne from iniquitie where the same preposition is vsed Iunius solution is best that the Prophet respecting the time and instant of the comming of the Messiah saith to Zion but S. Paul looking further vnto such things as followed the comming of Christ and to the progresse of the Gospell by way of interpretation saith the redeemer shall come out of Zion that is out of his Church 2. an other difference is that the originall hath and to them that returne from iniquitie on Iacob but the Apostle following the Septuagint saith he shall turne iniquitie from Iacob Martyr thinketh the Septuagint might reade lasoub to turne for leshabe to them that turne but such an ouersight is not like to haue beene in those excellent interpreters Iunius lib. 2. perall 23. saith that the Apostle in stead of Christs comming nameth a benefit which followed his comming which is the remission of sinnes but I thinke rather with Beza and Gryneus that where the Prophet speaketh of the effect which is turning away from sinne the Apostle riseth higher to the verie cause which is the taking away of sinne for none can turne away from sinne vnlesse they haue first grace and remission of their sinnes â— as the Prophet saith Ierem. 31.18 Convert thou me and I shall be converted 3. whereas in the next sentence the Hebrewe word is berith for a couenant the Septuagint render it by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Testament and so the vulgar Latine interpreteth here this shall be my Testament vnto them which reading Tolet iustifieth because the Apostle Heb. 9. so taketh the Hebrew word berith for a Testament Beza in his annotations here thinketh that where the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth any kind of disposition whether by Testament or other couenant the Apostle alludeth to the signification of the Greeke rather then of the Hebrew word But I preferre rather Iunius iudgement in c. 9. ad Hebr. who thinketh that the Hebrew word berith signifieth generally any disposition of the will as well by couenant as by testament and so it is taken for both according to the circumstance of the place so berith may be deriued of bara which signifieth to decide or declare ones sentence and so generally may signifie the disposition of the mind which
these at the first disposed of the goods which were giuen in common for they sold what they had and brought and laid it at the Apostles feete as we read of Ananias Act. 5. afterward there were collections and gatherings made for the Saints 1. Cor. 16. the distribution whereof was committed to the fidelitie of these Deacons Now where the Apostle saith in simplicitie 1. Chrysostome and Theophylact interpret it of giuing largely and liberally 2. Origen that they should not seeke praise of men or seeke vaine glorie and so get all the thanks to themselues 3. Hierome or who els was the author of the commentarie vpon this epistle will haue them to giue in simplicitie which are not curious in fishing and examining the poore and so seeke pretenses and excuses that they haue no neede 4. Lyranus he that giueth propter Deum onely for Gods cause and seeketh not to merit or satisfie for his sinnes Osiander 5. they must not be morosi froward giuing the poore euill words Faius 6. nor hauing respect vnto persons Beza or vnfaithfull in turning the common almes to their owne commoditie as Iudas did Gualt So here then simplicitie is set against vaine glorie couerousnes morositie malignitie fraud Pareus 5. He that ruleth 1. Some take these indifferently for temporall or Ecclesiasticall gouernors as Lyranus quod pertinet ad praelatos principes which belongeth to Prelates and Princes so also Gorrhan but concerning temporall and ciuill gouernment the Apostle treateth thereof in the next chapter he onely toucheth now ecclesiasticall offices 2. some take these for such as watch ouer mens soules and so seeme to vnderstand onely the Prelats of the Church as Haymo haec sollicitudo circa animas maximè esse debet this carefulnesse must chiefly be about soules 3. Theophylact hath a strange interpretation praesidere c. to be a President is both by words and by the helpe of the bodie to succour the needie c. and he giueth this reason because euery one hath not money but this were a base kind of presidencie 4. the most of our new writers doe vnderstand here certaine gouernors which attended not doctrine sed dabantur pastoribus adiutores but were giuen as helpers to the Pastors whome Osiander calleth Censores morum the censors of manners Calvin seniores the Seniors or Elders Gualter Senatum ecclesiasticum the Ecclesiasticall Senate Faius out of Tertullian presidentes whose office was ioyntly with the Pastors to see vnto the discipline of the Church So they make two sorts of Elders some that attended the word and discipline together some the gouernment onely which are called by the Apostle gouernors 1. Cor. 12.28 and whereof mention is made 1. Tim. 5.17 Thus Beza Martyr Gryneus Olevicie Pareus vpon this place 5. But seeing they which laboured in the word and doctrine were speciall men in the regiment of the Church 1. Tim. 3.17 they are not here to be excluded for as beside their employment in teaching and exhorting they also were Ecclesiasticall rulers this grace to rule with diligence was also necessarie for them so Chrysostome here sheweth that there was a double kind of presidencie praecipua quae per doctrinam est that was the chiefe which was by doctrine and exhortation then that which was per pecunias c. by money and other things With diligence 1. The vulgar Latine readeth cum sollicitudine with carefulnes such as was in the Apostle 2. Cor. 11.28 sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum c. he had the care of all Churches such a care Origen taketh this to be here commended but Tolet obserueth well that beside that there is an other word there vsed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the things themselues differ for the first signifieth beside a care a feare of future euents which might be any hindrance to the busines intended 2. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answeareth vnto these two Latine words studium studie and diligentia diligence which doe thus differ the first sheweth the desire of the mind and a resolute purpose to applie it selfe and that with delight to the busines in hand but diligence is seene in the opening in the executing of this purpose with speede and great endeauour this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 studie diligence and endeauour S. Paul testifieth to haue beene in Timothie 2. Cor. 8.16 6. He that sheweth mercie 1. Some doe vnderstand this generally of all Christians that they should giue chearefully as Chrysostome will haue it the same with that precept 2. Cor. 9.7 he that soweth sparingly shall reape sparingly Theodoret Haymo but the Apostle here speaketh of the speciall offices of the Church 2. Lyranus restraineth it onely to the rich hoc pertinet ad potentes this belongeth to the able and mightie but Chrysostome sheweth by the example of the widow that cast in two mites that euen the poore may shew mercie and that chearfully potest quis in paupertate magno in divitijs pusillo animo esse one may haue a franke minde in pouertie and a sparing minde in riches for not onely with wealth but with words and helpe of the bodie are the poore to be releeued c. 3. Origen thinketh that this is the same with the former he that distributeth in simplicitit here onely is the difference vnum opus sed non vnus affectus it is one and the same worke but not the same affection for he that sheweth mercie doth not onely giue but he giueth it with affection 4. Theophylact thus distinguisheth them he that giueth conferreth that which he receiued of an other he that sheweth mercie sua tribust giueth his owne 5. Hugo doth thus sort them the first must giue in simplicitie of heart propter Deum because of God before whome the intention of the heart must be right chearefulnes is required propter proximum toward our neighbour 5. But their opinion is rather here to be approoued which in the first place take the office of Deacons to be described such as were elected by the Apostles Act. 6. and here the office of such as were assigned to haue a care of strangers exiles the sicke such were the widows whome S. Paul would not haue chosen vnder 60. yeares 1. Tim. 5. Thus Calvin Beza Martyr Gualter Faius Pareus with others Now this shewing of mercie 1. some extend thus farre peccanti ignoscere oppresso subvenire to forgiue him that sinneth and to releeue the oppressed gloss ordinar but these duties are generall to all Christians not incident onely to this office and function here described 2. by shewing mercie Haymo vnderstandeth all the works of mercie as to giue meate to the hungrie drinke to the thirstie lodging to the harbourlesse but these also are generall duties 3. such speciall works of mercie then are here vnderstood which belonged to the curing and attending vpon the sicke aged impotent strangers exiles orphans Pareus 4. with chearefulnes of heart gentlenes in
Sathan 2. they are called armour rather then garments for we are not thereby couered in Gods sight as iustified by our own righteousnes yet we are thereby defended from Satans assaults 6. They are called the armour of light because they proceede from the knowledge of God the true light of the soule and they doe shine and giue light before men who seeing them doe glorifie God Par. and they defend vs against the workes of darkenes illuminate the soule and bring vs ad lucem aeternam to euerlasting light Lyranus Quest. 24. What time is vnderstood by the day and night 1. Chrysostome by the night seemeth to vnderstand the time of this life and by the day the resurrection prope est resurrectio the resurrection is at hand but as Tolet wel obserueth that the day cannot be vnderstood here of the day of iudgement as beside Chrysostome other of the Fathers interpret this place as Athanas. 44. ad Antioch qu. 90. August epist. 80. ad Isich for then the Apostles exhortation would be of small force who mooueth to cast off the workes of darkenes in respect of the time because the day was come but if the day were not yet come then the ground of this exhortation faileth 2. Anselme by the day vnderstandeth the time after this life which is so much the nearer as death approacheth so also the ordin glosse but when death commeth it is no time to worke here the Apostle exhorteth to walke honestly which is in the day therefore this day must be in this life present 3. Some doe expound this night to be the time before the comming of Christ and the day the time of preaching the Gospell when Christ the Sunne of righteousnes did shine vnto the world so Lyranus the night is past obscuritas figurarum legis the darkenes of the figures of the lawe likewise Erasmus vnder the lawe vmbra fuit magis quà m res there was a shadow rather then the thing Osiander also vnderstandeth that time quando nondum fuit exhibitus Christus when Christ was not yet exhibited to the world so also Faius But as Beza noteth the Apostle in this sense should haue had reference onely to the Iewes whereas he writeth to the beleeuing Gentiles among the Romanes which were not acquainted with the figures of the lawe 4. Wherefore with Pet. Martyr Pareus Beza by night rather we vnderstand tempus ignorantiae caecitatis the time of blindnes and ignorance which goeth before regeneration for till they were called to the knowledge of Christ they were in darkenes as the Apostle saith Ephes. 5.8 Ye were sometime darkenes but now are ye light in the Lord walke as children of light this day light as Martyr obserueth if it be compared with our darkenes ignorance in times past it may be called the day but in respect of the life to come it is but as the twilight or breake of the day Martyr so whereas the Apostle saith not the night is past but processit it is well nie spent thereby he signifieth the imperfection of the state present because yet there remaineth some darkenes euen in the regenerate like as whē we see noctem properae ad diluculum the night hasten to the dawning and the swallowes beginne to chatter we one call vp an other and say it is day Chrysostome and Theophylact yet maketh the matter more plaine as allowing 12. houres to the night and tenne of them be spent we say the night is wearing away and it is toward day c. so the grosse darkenes is past when the light of faith and knowledge riseth vp in vs but yet it is but as the dawning of the day in this life Thus Origen followeth this sense as is alleadged before si Christus in corde sit c. if Christ be in our hearts he maketh it day Quest. 25. How we should walke honestly v. 13. So that we walke honestly 1. Chrysost. obserueth wel whom Theophyl followeth that whereas the Romanes were much affected with the opinion of glorie he perswadeth them decoro honesto by that which was comly and honest 2. and further he saith that we walke not walk ye putting himselfe in the number that he might exhort thē without envie 3. that which he saith here in one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 honestly he elswher Tit. 2.12 thus distinguisheth to these three to liue soberly righteously and godly 4. and he addeth as in the day like as a man wil be ashamed to go naked or cladde with tottered and ragged garments in the day so this time of the light of faith requireth vs to walke honestly Not in riot and drunkennesse 1. Some by these two vnderstand by the first excesse in meat by the other excesse in drinke Gorrhan but Origen better distinguisheth them by the first vnderstanding in honesta luxuriosa convivia vnhonest and riotous feasts by the other drunkennes which is a companion of such feasts such excessiue feasts were vsed among the Egyptians where the manner was to haue a dead mans scull brought in in the middes of their feasts that they beeing put in minde of mortalitie might more freely spend the short time which they had in following of their pleasure 2. Chrysostome here noteth also bibere non prohibet sed praeter mensuram bibere he forbiddeth not to drinke but to drinke beside measure Chambering and wantonnes 1. Gorrhan and so Hugo by the first vnderstandeth the sinne of slouth by the other fornication and vncleanes 2. But Origen taketh these to be cubilia impuditiae the chambers of wantonnes and thinketh here some reference to be made to the dennes of beasts because these filthie sinnes are more agreeable to beasts then men 3. Chrysostome noteth that the Apostle forbiddeth not all kind of bedding and chambering for the marriage bed is vndefiled Heb. 13.4 non mulieribus commisceri sed scortari he forbiddeth not to companie with women but to followe whoredome Not in strife and envying 1. As before he touched the sinnes of the flesh so now he forbiddeth the vices of the minde contention emulation Origen 2. these are ioyned to the other as beeing the perpetuall companions of banqueting and drunkennesse as the wise man sheweth that to such is woe sorrowe and strife that followe wine Prou. 23.29 3. these two are the fruits and effects of drunkennesse concupiscence and wrath so that the Apostle taketh away the verie occasions of these euill affections Chrys. for excesse in meat and drinke is the cause of wantonnesse and of the sinne of vncleanes and of strife and contention 4. Haymo thinketh that by strife is here vnderstood the contention about questions of faith rather such brawles and contentions are here restrained which followe vpon excessiue rioting and drunkennesse Quest. 28. How we must put on Christ. 1. The Apostle altereth his phrase of speach for whereas before he spake of the armour of light now he vseth an other metaphor of putting on a garment for our
1. from their state or condition they are of Gods familie v. 3. and no man is to iudge an others seruant the reason whereof is rendred he standeth or falleth to his owne master v. 4. 2. from the power of God who is able to make them stand and will most surely establish them v. 4. therefore they must not be condemned or despaired of The second instance is of obseruing or not obseruing daies which is propounded with an admonition that nothing should be done without a full perswasion then the reasons vnto brotherly concord follow 1. froÌ„ the end because both the obseruer not obseruer do it to Gods glorie which he proueth by the adiunct their giuing of thanks v. 6. 2. Argum. From the whole to the part none of vs liue or die to himselfe v. 7. therefore the particular actions must be referred not to our selues but to the glorie of God the antecedent is prooued that we liue not or die vnto our selues but vnto the Lord v. 8. from the ende of Christs death and resurrection v. 9. 3. Argum. It belongeth vnto Christ to iudge who is made Lord of all v. 11. and euery one must giue account vnto him v. 10. therefore one must not iudge an other and so take Christs office vpon them 2. The Apostle now commeth to deale with such as are strong in faith and sheweth how they should behaue themselues toward the weake that they should giue them no occasion of stumbling or beeing offended This caution is first explaned by a distinction that although meates are not vncleane in themselues yet to him that so iudgeth they are vncleane and he is thereby offended v. 14. then follow the reasons 1. He that grieueth his brother walketh not charitably 15. 2. he destroieth him as much as in him lieth for whome Christ died 15. 3. causeth their libertie to be euill spoken of 16. 4. from the propertie and condition of Christs kingdome which consisteth not in meate and drinke but in righteousnes and peace 17. which he prooueth by the effects they which serue Christ therein please God 5. ab vtili from the commoditie ensuing they must follow those things which concerne peace 18. 6. from the inconuenience feared they shall destroy their brothers faith which is Gods worke 20. then he concludeth that it is not good to eate or drinke or to doe any thing to cause the brother to stumble â—â— v. 21. 3. Lastly he giueth a rule vnto the weake not to doe any thing with doubting or against their conscience for therein they should condemne themselues which he prooueth by the contrarie effects with their causes he which doth not any thing against his iudgement is blessed because he hath faith in himselfe therefore he which eateth against his conscience is condemned because he hath no faith and whatsoeuer is not faith and a sure perswasion is sinne 3. The questions and doubts discussed 1. Quest. Who are the weake in faith and how they are to be receiued 1. Chrysostome sheweth the occasion of the Apostles discourse in this chapter to be this that whereas there were certaine beleeuing Iewes among the Christian Gentiles and especially at Rome which beeing converted to the faith yet would not be suddenly weaned from the ceremonies of the law as in abstaining from some kinds of meates in obseruing of festivall daies betweene whome and the other Christians there was some dislike who beeing better instructed held all the ceremonies of the law to be abrogated the Apostle fearing least by the too great forwardnes of the more perfect in iudgement the weaker sort might be offended and caused vt prorsus ex fide defuerint to fall away quite from the faith he therefore perswadeth such to beare with the weake in such things not to offend nor grieue them c. And as in the former chapter he taught inferiors how to carrie themselues toward their superiors so here contrariwise he giueth a rule to the more perfit as superiors in faith how they should behaue themselues toward them which were weake Lyranus 2. Chrysostome also well obserueth how the Apostle wisely tempereth his speach for he speaketh vnto those which are strong occulte vero infirmos increpat and yet secretly he taxeth them which are weake for in that he calleth them weake he sheweth that they were sicke and in saying receiue them he sheweth that they haue neede to be cured But yet the Apostle neither blameth those which were perfect as though they did euill least he might haue confirmed the weake in their error neither doth he commend them as though they did well least he might haue made them more forward in accusing the weake sed commensur atam increpationem instituit but he tempereth his rebuke speaking to the one and yet finding fault with the other 3. The weake in faith 1. Origen maketh here a difference betweene the strong in faith the weake in faith and the infidell which Haymo explaneth thus he is weake in faith qui in aliquae parte fidei dubitat who doubteth in some part of faith who beleeueth not perfectly as he should he is an infidell qui ex toto c. who doubteth altogether he is strong in faith qui nihil dubitat doubteth nothing at all 2. and yet to speake more distinctly there is a double kind of strength and weaknes one is concerning faith and doctrine the other touching life and manners about faith some are weake or strong either totally or in part they are totally strong which are throughout confirmed in the faith as was Abraham of whome it is said before c. 4. He was not weake in faith and such he calleth perfect Philip 1.15 they are strong in part whose iudgement is setled in some speciall point of doctrine wherein others doubt as here the beleeuing Romanes were strong and well perswaded in the vse of Christian libertie againe some are totally weake in faith as they which are newly conuerted from Paganisme and not well instructed â— some weake in part as the Iewes which here thought that with a good conscience they might not eate of all kind of meates some likewise are strong in matters touching manners who are perfectly regenerate in respect of others whom the Apostle calleth spirituall Gal. 6.1 some may faile in their life in some particular act and so are weake such the Apostle calleth carnall 3. so then there is great difference betweene a weake faith and a false faith for faith though it be weake may iustifie so can not a false faith But it will be obiected that it should seeme that the faith of these Christian Iewes was not a right faith because they beleeued not all that was to be beleeued namely that the ceremonies of the law were abrogated to this I answer that where this happeneth that something is not beleeued which appertaineth to faith if it be vitio credentis by the fault of him which should beleeue as not yeelding himselfe in humilitie to be taught