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
acception of the word hath no place here for this declaration of one to be iust by works is before men before God there neede no such declaration for he knoweth what is in man but this iustification is before God which the Apostle here speaketh of it is therefore iustification in deede and not the declaration of it onely 6. Some thinke that the Apostle speaketh of the legall iustification which is by works which if any could doe they should be iustified thereby but it is impossible for any to keepe the law Calv. Pareus Beza annotat But it is euident that the Apostle speaketh not here of a thing impossible to be done and of iustification vpon that supposall if any could be doers of the law but he setteth this downe affirmatiuely and positiuely that they which liued according to the law should be iustified as he said before v. 6. that God will reward euery one according to his workes And as the hearers of the law onely are not iustified so the hearers and doers are iustified but some heare the law in fact verily and in deede therefore some also were verily and in deede doers of the law 7. The meaning then of this sentence is the same with that v. 6. God will approoue iustifie reward them that doe the works of the law whether Iew or Gentile yet it followeth not that a man is therefore iustified by the workes of the law But God approoueth and rewardeth the workers not the hearers or professors so here the Apostle entreareth not of the cause of iustification which is faith without the works of the law but of the difference betweene such as shall be iustified and such as are not Faius they onely which haue a liuely faith which worketh and keepeth the law in part and supplieth the rest which is wanting in themselues by the perfect obedience of Christ they shall be iustified not those which onely professe the law and keepe it not the Apostle then here sheweth who shall be iustified not for what 8. But this place maketh nothing at all for iustification by works 1. if a man is iustified by doing the works of the law either he is iust before he doe the works or nor iust if he be iust then he is iustified before he doe those workes then is he not iustified by those workes if he be not iust then can he doe no good workes whereby he is made iust for the workes done before faith as Tolet himselfe confesseth non possunt iustum afficere can not make one iust Here the Romanists haue no better answer then to confesse fidem sine operibuâ— primaâ— efficere iustificationem that faith without workes doth effect the first iustification which is encreased by workes which they call the second iustification Tolet. ibid. And thus they are driuen to consent with Protestants that iustification is by faith without works as for that distinction of the first and second iustification the vanitie of it is shewed before 2. If workes did iustifie then it would followe that the iustice whereby we are made iust should be an actuall iustice not habituall because that is actuall which worketh the contrarie whereof is maintained by Bellarmine who prooueth by sundrie reasons that one is formally made iust not by an actuall but an habituall iustice wherewith the minde is endued lib. 2. de iustific c. 15. Controv. 8. That it is not possible in this life to keepe the lawe 1. Pererius disput 7. numer 55. taketh vpon him to prooue against Calviu legem divinam impleri posse that the lawe of God may be kept in this life he meaneth by a man in the state of grace 1. Otherwise Dauid had not said true Psal. 18.21 I kept the wayes of the Lord and did not wickedly against my God 2. S. Paul saith he that loueth his brother hath fulfilled the Lawe Rom. 13. 3. What wisedome were there in God to command things impossible vnto man or what iustice to punish him for not keeping of that which was not in his power 2. Contra. 1. Dauids keeping of the wayes of God must be vnderstood either of some particular act of his obedience wherein he behaued himselfe vprightly as Psal. 7.3 If I haue done this thing or if there be any wickednesse in mine hands or els it must be vnderstood of his faithfull endeauour as farre as he was enabled by grace for Dauids sinnes which are mentioned in the Scripture doe euidently shewe that he did not keepe all the wayes of God 2. If a man could perfectly loue his brother as he ought he might fulfill the lawe but so can no man doe and there is as Hierome distinguisheth 2. kinds of iustice or fulfilling the lawe there is a perfect iustice which was onely in Christ and an other iustice quae nostrae competit fragilitati which agreeth vnto our frailtie dialog 1. cont Pelagian and thus may the lawe be fulfilled 3. The commandements are not simply impossible for man in his creation had power to keepe them if he would Gods wisedome is seene in giuing his lawe vnto man beeing vnable in himselfe to keepe it that it might be a schoolemaster to bring him vnto Christ Galat. 3.19 and his iustice appeareth in punishing man for transgressing that lawe which sometime he was able as he was created of God to keepe and now may perfectly performe it by faith in the obedience of Christ who hath deliuered vs from the curse of the lawe 3. Now that it is not possible for a man no not in the state of grace to keepe the lawe of God it is thus shewed out of the the Scripture 1. S. Paul saith Rom. 7.19 To will is present with me but I finde no meanes to performe that which is good a man regenerate now can doe no more then S. Paul could who confesseth that he was vnable to doe that which was good and agreeable to the lawe 2. If a man by grace could keepe the law by grace he hath power to redeeme himselfe from the curse of the lawe for as he which keepeth not euerie thing contained in the law is vnder the curse so he that keepeth all things which the lawe commandeth is free from the curse but no man can redeeme himselfe from the curse of the lawe for Christ hath redeemed vs from the curse of the lawe Galat. 3.13 3. Further The lawe is not of faith Galat. 3.12 but if the lawe might be kept by grace and faith then should it be of faith 4. And if a man regenerate were able to keepe the lawe then it were possible for a man in this life to be without sinne for where no transgression of the lawe is there should be no faâ—e for sinne is the transgression of the law 1. Ioh. 3.4 see more hereof Synops. Centur. 4. â—rr 63. pag. 916. Controv. 9. Whether by the light of nature onely a man may doe any thing morally good Bellarmine hath this position that a man if no tentation doe vrge
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
any thing that is good Beza 5. To iustifie is taken three wayes first to make one actually and verily iust so if any man could perfectly keepe the lawe he should thereby get an habituall and inherent iustice secondly it signifieth to be counted and declared iust as wisedome is said to be iustified of her children and thirdly it signifieth to forgiue discharge and acquite sinnes and so is it taken here that no man is iustified by the workes of the lawe that is thereby findeth forgiuenesse of his sinnes and so is taken for iust before God but this iustification is by faith in Christ by whome we are acquited of our sinnes and cloathed with his righteousnesse Martyr 6. The Apostle addeth in his sight to shewe a difference betweene iustification and righteousnesse before men which may be attained vnto by workes and the perfect righteousnesse which God requireth sometime this phrase in Gods sight is vsed to shewe a difference betweene that righteousnesse which is but in shewe and hypocrisie and that which it in truth as in this sense Zacharie and Elizabeth are said to haue beene iust before God Luk. 1.6 sometime it distinguisheth betweene the righteousnesse euen of good men and the righteousnesse before God as the Apostle graunteth that Abraham had wherein to glorie before men in respect of his workes but not before God Rom. 4.1 and so the Apostle taketh it here It is Christ onely that maketh vs holy and vnblameable in the sight of God Coloss. 1.22 Beza And further these reasons may be yeelded hereof why none can be iustified by works in Gods sight though before men they may 1. in respect of the Maiestie of God and most perfect puritie of his nature before whom the verie Angels doe couer their faces and feete Isay 6. and the heauens are not cleane in his eyes how much more is man abhominable Iob. 15.15 2. God looketh not vnto the outward shew but to the inward disposition of the heart which is perfect in none 3. the lawe of God is spirituall and requireth exact obedience of Gods commandements so that he which offendeth in one is guilty of all Iam. 2.10 this perfection none can attaine vnto Pareus Quest. 24. How the Apostle here denieth iustification by workes seeing he said before c. 2. v. 13. that the doers of the Lawe are iustified 1. The ordinar gloss giueth this solution secundum ceremonialia intellige vnderstand this according to the ceremonials he thinketh that the Apostle speaketh here of the ceremoniall workes of the lawe whereby none are iustified but in the other place of the morall workes which doe instifie But the Apostle here euen excludeth morall workes for of the morall lawe the words following are specially vnderstood by the lawe commeth the knowledge of sinne 2. Caietan thinketh that the Apostle speaketh here of iustification before God there of the iustice of workes before men but the verie words of the text doe ouerthrowe this interpretation for euen in that place the Apostle speaketh of those which are righteous before God which are not the hearers but the doers of the lawe 3. Ambrose to this purpose lex temporalem habet iustitiam fides aeternam the law may giue a temporall kind of iustice but faith an euerlasting be thinketh that men are said here not to be iustified by workes that is without faith but yet a temporall kind of iustice they might haue by the lawe without faith But the Apostle in both places as hath beene said speaketh of true iustice and righteousnesse before God 4. The moderne Papists tell vs here of two iustifications the first which is by faith onely without workes the second which is by workes which proceede of faith and grace of the first speaketh the Apostle here as they thinke and of the other in the former place Rom. 2.13 Perer. disput 8. to the same purpose Tolet that the Apostle speaketh here of workes going before faith which doe not iustifie there of workes which followe faith the other doe iustifie in encreasing iustification which was begunne before by faith annot 13. Contra. 1. This is but a Popish fiction of the first and second iustification the Apostle is saying Rom. 8.30 whom he iustified he glorified maketh but one iustification after the which followeth glorification 2. euen the Apostle excludeth here the workes of the regenerate which may appeare by these reasons 1. because there neede no question to be made of the workes of carnall men which are euill because they are without faith there can be no shewe at all that such workes should iustifie 2. the workes of Abraham were the workes of grace which the Apostle excludeth from iustification c. 4.2 3. This is the reason why workes cannot iustifie that all occcasion of reioycing may be taken away from men and euerie mouth may be stopped but now if men might be iustified by their works after they are called and haue faith they might glorie in such works by the which they say they doe merit and which in their opinion proceede in part from mans owne free will 5. Some thinke that the Apostle Rom. 2.13 speaketh ex hypothesi by way of supposition that the doers of the lawe shall be iustified that is if any could keepe and performe the lawe they should thereby be iustified But here he simply denieth iustification to workes because no man is able to keepe the lawe Pareus This is a good distinction and in other places it may well be receiued where the Scriptures seeme to attribute much vnto the law as he that doth these things shall liue thereby But here it is not so fit for in that place Rom. 2.13 the Apostle encreateth not of the causes of iustification but onely sheweth who they are which shall be iustified not hearers and professors but doers and followers 6. Peter Martyr saith that when iustification seemeth to be ascribed vnto workes it must be vnderstood in respect of faith and grace wherewith they are ioyned as a man is said to be a reasonable creature yet in respect of his soule onely though he consist both of soule and bodie yet it is faith properly that iustifieth and not workes which followe faith But the Apostle doth not at all in that place or any other ascribe iustification before God vnto workes 7. Wherefore the best solution is this that here S. Paul disputeth indeede of the proper and true causes of iustification which he simply denieth vnto workes and giueth vnto faith but there he sheweth who and vpon what condition men are iustified and who are not iustified namely such as hauing a liuely faith doe bring sorth the fruits thereof and doe their endeauour to keepe the lawe are iustified as the Apostle in the same sense had said before c. 2.6 that God will reward euerie man according to his workes And in the like sense Christ shall say vnto the righteous in the day of iudgement Matth. 25.34 Come ye blessed of my father inherite the kingdome
men by their sinne are strangers and as banished men from God and his kingdom which is not recouerable by mans workes neither is there any way to come vnto God and euerlasting saluation but onely by faith in Christ So that all religions whatsoeuer are condemned beside the Christian faith as not beeing able to bring vs vnto God Pareus Quest. 30. Of iustification freely by grace v. 24. 1. Here the Apostle expresseth all the causes of our iustification 1. the efficient which is the grace of God that is not the doctrine of the Gospel freely reuealed as the Pelagians vnsterstand it nor the graces of the spirit infused as the Romanists but by the grace of God we vnderstand the free mercie and goodnesse of God toward mankind 2. the formall cause and manner is in that we are freely iustified without any merit of our owne the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 freely is sometime taken in an other sense as Galat. 2.22 if righteousnesse were by the law then Christ died 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without cause but here it signifieth firely 3. the meritorious and working cause is Christ Iesus who hath redeemed vs and the instrumentall cause is faith 4. the ende in respect of vs is our saluation and iustification in respect of God the manifestation of his righteousnes to his glorie 2. Thorough the redemption 1. This word is taken improperly for any deliuerance out of daunger as God is said to haue redeemed his people out of the thraldome and captiuitie of Egypt but properly it signifieth such deliuerance as when any thing beeing in an others occupying is freed and exempted by paying the price and such redemption is either corporall as when men are deliuered from externall and corporall bondage or spirituall such is our redemption by Christ whose death the price of our redemption was in respect of the deede corporall beeing historically done but in regard of the effect and fruit it was spirituall in redeeming vs from the spirituall bondage of sinne the deuill and hell 2. This redemption is taken two waies either properly for the very worke of our redemption purchased by the death of Christ or for the effect thereof the consummation of that worke of our redemption in euerlasting life as it is taken Rom. 8.22 Pareus 3. But it will be obiected that we are not freely iustified seeing that Christ hath paied the ransome for vs how then is that said to be freely done where a price is paied Answ. It is free ex parte hominū on mans behalfe because no price for their redemption is exacted of them but ex parte Christi on Christs part it was not free because he paied a most sufficient and exact price for our redemption So the Prophet saith Come buie without money Isa 55.1 they are saide to buie saluation because it is bought for them by Christ and yet without money because Christ paied the debt for them Tolet. So in the worke of our redemption are seene both the iustice and free mercie of God the first in that Gods wrath was so testified by the death of Christ the other toward vs in that God hath giuen his sinne freely to die for vs. 31. Quest. How God is said to haue proposed or set forth Christ to be our reconciliation 1. Whome God hath set forth or proposed Ambrose readeth disposed and some vnderstand it of the publike exhibiting and proposing of Christ in the preaching of the Gospel Tolet. but this word rather sheweth the euerlasting purpose and decree of God from the beginning of the world to giue his sonne for our redemption so is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken Rom. 8.28 euen to them that are called of his purpose Faius And hence may two obiections be answered 1. how it might stand with the iustice of God that his most innocent Sonne should die for others Answ. This was Gods purpose from the beginning of the world it was the decree of the whole Trinitie that the Sonne of God should be the Redeemer of the world yea and Christ also offered himselfe 1. Tim. 2.8 Faius 2. Some obiect how the death of Christ and whence it should haue vertue to reconcile vs vnto God what proportion is there betweene the infinite sea of mens sinnes and the short death of Christ that was not extended beyond three daies Answ. The vertue of Christs death dependeth of the purpose of God he so appointed decreed and purposed that by this meanes the world should be redeemed the Lord in his infinite power could haue appointed other meanes but he thought none fitter for the recouering of our decaied estate Pareus 2. Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the reconciliation which some thinke may be taken in the masculine gender that he is our reconciliator Tolet. annot 21. where there is a manifest allusion vnto the propitiation of the Arke which was called cappareth the propitiatorie Christ was then signified by that golden propitiatorie which couered the Arke from whence the Lord deliuered his oracles Origen is here somewhat curious in his typicall applications by the gold vnderstanding the puritie of Christ by the length breadth his diuinitie and humanitie but I omit them as too curious obseruations Beza thinketh that the Apostle in saying whome God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath proposed alludeth vnto the propitiatorie which was then kept within the vaile but now is publikely proposed and exhibited that vaile beeing remooued but the Apostle in this word proposed hath reference rather to the purpose and counsell of God as is before shewed 3. Through faith in his blood 1. by blood is vnderstood by a synecdoche the whole sacrifice of Christ which was the consummation of his obedience And he saith in his blood that is by his blood as the instrument of our redemption for there are two instruments of our redemption one on Christs part his death and shedding of his blood the other on ours which is our faith Mart. these words in his blood some doe referre vnto the word reconciliation Theodoret Anselme Tolet some vnto the next words before through faith as the Syrian interpreter But it may very well be ioyned with both that our reconciliation was purchased by Christs blood and Christs blood can not profit vs vnlesse we beleeue it to haue beene shedde for vs. Pareus 32. Quest. How we are said to be iustified freely seeing faith is required which is an act in the beleeuer 1. This obiection may further be vrged thus that is freely bestowed which is conferred without any helpe or worke in the receiuer seeing then a man must bring faith which is a worke of the will how is he said to be iustified freely Ans. 1. Tolet first hath this answer that we are said to be iustified freely through faith because faith is the free gift of God and it is giuen vs freely to merit our saluation by faith But he himselfe misliketh this answer for to be iustified freely and by the merit
two the Apostle manifestly distinguisheth Rom. 6.22 Beeing freed from sinne c. you haue your fruit in holines holines then and sanctitie is the fruit of our iustification whereby we are freed from sinne Againe Apoc. 23.11 He that is righteous let him be righteous still be that is holy let him be holy still here these two to be iust and holy are manifestly distinguished 16. Controv. Against the works of preparation going before iustification Pererius concerning the works and motiues of preparation tending to iustification hath these positions 1. There are sixe of these preparatiue motions faith the feare of God hope to obtaine pardon the loue of God the purpose of a new life repentance and sorrow for sinnes past thus he alleadgeth out of the Councell of Trent sess 6. can 6. so also Stapleton in Antidot 2. These works of preparation proceede partly from mans free will partly from the assistance of the spirit concurring and hereof it is that sometime the worke of our conuersion is ascribed vnto man as Ioel 2. Turne vnto me with your whole heart Iam. 4. Draw neere vnto God and he will draw neere vnto you sometime it is giuen vnto God as Ier. 31. Conuert vs and we shall be conuerted 3. These works of preparation though they doe not merit the grace of iustification â—â— condigno of condignitie yet de congruo by way of congruitie they may that is God seeth it to be meere and conuenient that such works of preparation should be rewarded with the grace of iustification following Perer. disput 7. Contra. 1. Concerning faith it is no where said in Scripture to prepare or dispose vnto iustification but in deede to iustifie by the imputation of the righteousnes of Christ and as for the other preparations they follow iustification they doe not prepare a way vnto it â— for good works follow iustification as the fruit and effect thereof Rom. 6.22 Beeing freed from sinne you haue your fruit in holines And againe there is no good worke or motion but it is commanded in the law seeing then that we are iustified by faith without such works they can not goe before iustification as preparatiues thereunto 2. The Scripture ascribeth euery good worke motion and thought of the minde vnto God for of our selues we are not able to thinke a good thought 2. Cor. 3.5 and our Sauiour saith Ioh. 15.5 Without me you can doe nothing wherein the Scripture exhorteth men to be conuerted and to draw neere vnto God that sheweth not this power to be in themselues but by these exhortations the spirit of God worketh in them and stirreth them vp that by grace they should seeke to doe that which they finde no strength in themselues to performe 3. But that distinction of merit of congruitie and condignitie is vaine and friuolous for in the matter of iustification there is no merit at all the whole worke is ascribed onely to grace Eph. 2.8 By grace are ye saued thorough faith not of your selues it is the gift of God not of works c. least any should boast if all boasting be taken away then there is no merit for of merits men may boast Augustine hath an excellent testimonie to this purpose Vocantis est gratia percipientis vero gratiam postea sunt opera bona c. Grace is of the caller and then good works belong vnto those which haue receiued grace quae non pariant gratiam sed quae à gratia pariantur c. which works doe not beget grace but are begotten of grace for the fire doth not burne thereby to waxe hoate but it is first hoat and then it burneth and the wheele therefore runneth not well that it may be round but it is first round and then it runneth well so nemo propterea bene operatur vt accipiat gratiam c. no man therefore worketh well to receiue grace but because he hath receiued grace by the saâ—â—e he worketh well lib. 1. ad Simplician qu. 2. no works then going before the grace of iustification haue any worthines in them at all to procure grace 17. Controv. What iustifying faith is Pererius that he may euery where shew some tricke of his Popish profession misliketh three things in that description of faith which is vsually receiued by Protestants for whereas we thus define faith that it is a confident assurance of the heart whereby we are perswaded of the remission and forgiuenes of our sinnes in Christ he taketh exception to these three points 1. He denieth that faith is any such confidence and assurance which he graunteth must be ioyned with faith but that faith is not such assurance and confidence he would thus prooue Eph. 3.12 the Apostle saith by whome we haue boldnes and entrance with confidence by faith in him here it appeareth that confidence is a distinct thing from faith Againe 1. Tim. 3.13 They that haue ministred well get themselues a good degree and great libertie as the faith here the Apostle sheweth that confidence is a diuers thing from faith and that it springeth from charitie and a good conscience Contra. 1. Pererius first argument is faith worketh confidence therefore it is not the same with confidence Answ. 1. This argument may rather be retorted faith worketh confidence therefore it is much more a kind of confidence for as the cause is so is the effect 2. faith is not the same with that confidence which it worketh but they are thus distinguished faith hath a generall assurance confidence in all Gods promises out of this fountaine doe proceede those speciall acts of confidence as to pray confidently to be confident in tribulation which are as little riuers running forth out of the same head and fountaine 2. His second argument is this confidence is wrought by charitie and a good conscience therefore not by faith Ans. The argument followeth not for there may be diuers causes of the one and the same thing faith worketh confidence and yet the same is more encreased and confirmed by a good conscience because the Sunne giueth heat doth it follow that the fire doth not heat also like as the warmth of the Sunne may be augmented by the heat of the fire so may the assurance of faith by charitie and a good conscience be encreased See further Synops. Centur. 4. err 48. 2. Pererius second exception is that the obiect of faith is not the assurance of remission of sinnes The Eunuch when he was baptised beleeued onely that Iesus Christ was the Sonne of God Act. 8. And Paul required none other faith of the keeper of the prison but that he should beleeue in the Lord Iesus and so he should be saued Act. 16. Abrahams faith was counted vnto him for righteousnes which was no other faith then to beleeue that in his seede that is in Christ all the nations of the world should be blessed of none of these was required such faith to beleeue their sinnes were forgiuen them to this purpose Pererius
God who is like me that shall call and declare it c. and what is at hand and what things are to come c. Doct. 8. Of the nature condition and properties of faith v. 13. Who aboue hope beleeued vnder hope faith then is a grace and gift of God whereby we giue a firme and sure assent vnto his promises in Christ euen aboue and against naturall reason in faith then these things are considered 1. the author thereof God faith of Gods gift Ephes. 2.8 2. the obiect or matter of faith in generall is the word of God but the particular and proper obiect which is called obiectum adaequatum is the promise of saluation in Christ. 3. the qualitie and property which maketh the forme of faith is to be firme and sure without wauering and to beleeue euen beyond and against the apprehension of naturall reason Pet. Martyr 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. That the Apostle excludeth all kind of workes from iustification v. 2. If Abraham be iustified by workes The Romanists are here of opinion that the Apostle onely excludeth such workes as were done onely by the strength of nature without faith in the Mediator so Staplet Antid pag. 46. who vrgeth this reason among other to confirme his opinion the Apostle onely excludeth such workes which expect not an eternall reward with God but the workes done in faith doe expect an eternall reward therefore such workes he excludeth not Contra. 1. But the contrarie is euident that the Apostle shutteth out all workes whatsoeuer from the matter of iustification 1. he speaketh of the workes of Abraham now a faithfull man not an vnbeleeuer 2. he mentioneth workes in generall without any distinction denying iustification vnto them and ascribing it vnto faith 3. euerie thing which is rewarded ex debito of due debt is excluded from iustification but to euerie worke is the wages due of debt as vers 4. To him that worketh the wages is counted by debt therefore euerie worke is excluded 2. Concerning his reason if he vnderstand the reward which is due of debt and not giuen by fauour then euen the workes of faithfull men cannot expect such a reward if he meane a reward giuen by fauour then as well the workes which are so rewarded as those which shall not are excluded 3. And as the workes of faith are excluded together with workes done before and without faith so also not onely doth the Apostle speaking of workes meane the rewardes onely but euen the workes of the morall law also for the Apostle nameth workes in generall and he directly afterward speaketh of the morall law v. 15. The law causeth wrath and where no law is there is no transgression which though it be true of euery law in generall yet this generally is seene in the morall law Controv. 2. Whether blessednesse consist onely in the conuersion of sinners v. 7. The Romanists here obiect that as the Apostle out of the Psalmes ascribeth beatitude to the remission and forgiuenesse of sinnes so elswhere in Scripture it is giuen vnto innocencie of life and to other vertues as Psal. 119. Blessed are the vndefiled in heart and Matth. 5. Blessed are the mercifull blessed are the pure in heart c. 1. Peter Martyr answeareth here by a distinction of beatitude which is either inchoata begunne onely and that is in our iustification or perfecta it is perfect and absolute in the kingdome of God so he will haue the Apostle here to speake of the blessednesse which is begunne in our iustification but in the other places the blessednesse in the next life is promised 2. Calvin saith that all these beatitudes which are pronounced doe presuppose the happinesse which is in beeing iustified by faith without the which all the other promises are in vaine 3. But the more full answear is that the Apostle here sheweth the cause and manner of our iustification which is by faith in Christ but in the other places it is onely declared to whom this iustification belongeth and who they are that shall be blessed namely the mercifull and vndefiled in heart but the Apostle sheweth why they are blessed because they beleeue in Christ Pareus dub 5. Controv. 3. Whether sinne is wholly purged and taken away in the iustification of the faithfull The Romanists are of opinion that not onely the guilt of sinne is taken away in iustification but sinne it selfe is altogether purged and so for sinnes to be couered idem plane valet atque esse sublata nulla prorsus relicta is all one as to be taken away and not to remaine at all Perer. disput 3. numer 11. Tolet. annot 10. and they impute this opinion to the Protestants peccata non auferri c. that sinnes are not taken away in iustification but remaine the same they were onely they are not imputed after iustification their reasons are these 1. It was the opinion of the Pelagians confuted by Augustine that in baptisme there is not giuen remission of all sinnes nec auferre crimina sed radere and that it doth not take away sinne but onely prone it as it were and pare it the roote remaineth still August lib. 1. contra 2. epist. Pelagian c. 13. like vnto this error they make the opinion of Protestants Perer. ibid. 2. It were no iustice in God if sinne remained still not to impute it not to impute sinne vnto the sinner seemeth not to stand with the rule of equitie Tolet. ibid. 3. The Scripture so speaketh of the remission of sinnes as though they were wholly remooued as Isaiah 44. I haue taken away thine iniquitie as a cloud 1. Cor. 6. but ye are washed ye are sanctified Iob. 1. Behold the lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world Isaiah 1. If your sinnes were as redde as scarlet they should be made white as snowe Hes. 14.3 Take away all iniquitie and receiue vs graciously Coloss. 2.14 Putting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against vs these and the like places are produced by Tolet and Pererius in the foresaid places to prooue the full remoouing and abolishing of all sinne in our iustification 4. Otherwise Christs merit should be of lesse force and efficacie then the sinne of Adam if it should not wholly remooue and take away sinne brought in by Adam Tolet. 5. Pererius inferreth as much out of the Apostles words here if our sinnes be hid and couered then are they not seene of God si non videntur à Deo nulla vtique sunt if they are not seene then are they none at all for if sinne still remained in the faithfull which God hateth then he should finde somewhat in them worthie of hatred and so what he hateth consequently he punisheth Perer. numer 11. Contra. 1. Our aduersaries doe not truely propound the state of this question betweene them and the Protestants for we affirme not that the same sinnes remaine before iustification and after there is great difference between peccatum
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
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
to the second or next vnderworking cause as the Apostle saith of beneficence or liberalitie that it worketh or causeth thanksgiuing vnto God sometime the effect is ascribed by this word vnto the instrumentall cause as Rom. 4.15 the lawe is said to worke or cause wrath and our light and momentanie afflictions are said to cause or worke vnto vs an exceeding weight of glorie 2. Cor. 4.17 because they are meanes to withdrawe our mindes from earthly things and to stirre vp faith in vs So tribulation worketh patience not as the efficient cause but as the organe and instrument whereby the spirit worketh patience in vs it procureth patience not sicut causa effectum c. as the cause the effect as Caietan but eam exercendo augendo ostendendo in exercising encreasing and shewing forth our patience Gorrh to the same purpose Pererius exercendae patientiae materia occasio est tribulation is the matter and occasion of exercising our patience This then is to be vnderstood according to the phrase of Scripture which doth vse to pronounce that of the signe and instrument which is proper vnto the thing as when it speaketh of the Sacraments for of it selfe tribulation worketh not patience as is seene in the wicked who thereby are driuen to impatience and despaire here then is no place to prooue any merit in the afflictions of the faithfull Controv. 5. That we are not iustified by the inherent habite of charitie Whereas the Apostle saith v. 5. The loue of God is shed abroad in our hearts c. Pererius vnderstanding the Apostle to speake here of that loue and charitie which is infused as an habite into the minde whereby we loue God setteth downe here certaine positions concerning this inherent charitie 1. he affirmeth that this charitie is that iustice whereby we are formally made iust and righteous before God disput 2. numer 10. 2. this charitie whereby we are iustified he affirmeth esse donum omnium donerum maximum to be a gift farre exceeding all other gifts 3. this charitie re non distingui à gratia gratum faciente is not indeede distinguished from grace making vs acceptable vnto God 4. Against the opinion of Caietane Scotus Gabriel he holdeth that there is in those which are iustified the habite of charitie permanent and remaining when the act ceaseth whereby they are formally made iust before God otherwise they should not be helde to be iust before God in their sleepe or when they cease to worke disput 3. numer 17.18 Contra. Although all these questions are here impertinent because the Apostle treateth not here of the charitie or loue which is in man toward God but of Gods loue toward vs as hath beene shewed at large before quest 7. yet it shall not be amisse briefly to counterpoise these erroneous assertions with the contrarie true and sound positions 1. An inherent righteousnesse and infused charitie in the faithfull we denie not but not such as whereby we are formally made righteous and iustified before God both because all our righteousnesse is as a stayned cloth Esay 64. it is imperfect and weake and therefore not able to iustifie vs and for that the Scripture testifieth that it is the righteousnesse of Christ which is applyed by faith whereby we are iustified before God as the Apostle calleth it The righteousnesse of God thorough the faith of Christ Rom. 3.22 Philip 3.9 2. Charitie is not simply the greatest of all other gifts and so absolutely preferred before faith but onely wherein they are compared together namely in respect of the continuance because faith and hope shall cease when we enioy those things which are beleeued and hoped for but loue shall remaine still so Chrysostome expoundeth the Apostle 1. Cor. 13.13 Thus Hugo saith well that charitie is said to be the greatest quia non excidit because it falleth not away but otherwise faith is the greater in quantum est cognitio generans omnes alias virtutes as it is a knowledge and engendreth all other vertues 3. The Thomists are herein contrarie to the Iesuite who affirme that gratia gratum faciens grace which maketh vs acceptable to God is in respect of charitie as the soule is to the powers and faculties which proceede from it And so indeede the grace that maketh vs acceptable vnto God is the loue and fauour of God in Christ which is as the efficient cause of that other loue and charitie which is infused into vs and wrought in vs by the holy Ghost And that our loue of God maketh vs not first acceptable vnto him the Apostle euidently testifieth 1. Iob. 4.10 Herein is loue not that we loued him but that he loued vs we were first then accepted and beloued of God before we could loue him againe 4. We graunt that faith hope and charitie are habits of the minde infused by the spirit and permanent in the soule for as the wicked doe attaine vnto euill habites of vice and sinne so the faithfull haue the habite of vertue but this is the difference that an euill habite is acquisitus gotten by euill custome but the good habites of the intellectuall vertues of faith loue hope are iufusi infused and wrought in vs by the spirit But we denie that by any such inherent habite we are made formally iust they are not causes of our iustification but rather the fruits and effects we haue the habite of faith because the spirit of God worketh in vs beleefe and we loue God because he loued vs first and gaue vs his spirit which worketh this loue in vs Faius So then the faithfull euen in their sleepe are iustified not by any inherent habit but because they are accepted of God in Christ as the Apostle saith Christ died for vs that whether we wake or sleepe we should liue together with him Controv. 6. Against the heresie of impious Socinus who denieth that Christ died for our sinnes and payed the ransome for them Whereas the Apostle here saith v. 8. that Christ died for vs we according to the Scriptures so vnderstand it that he offered a sacrifice for our sinnes Heb. 10.12 that he as our high Priest offred himselfe for our redemption Heb. 7.27 that he was our suretie and paied our ransome for vs Heb. 7.22 and saued vs from our sinnes in bearing the punishment due vnto the samâ—â—nd so he died for vs that is in our place and stead and so purchased our redemption 〈◊〉 wicked Socinus thus wresteth and misconstrueth these words that Christ died no 〈◊〉 wise for vs then for our profit and benefit in confirming by his death his doctrine and example of life by the which he saith he brought saluation vnto the world and not by dying for vs as in our stead or to pay by his death our ransome his wicked obiections are these 1. Obiect The Apostle saith 1. Ioh. 3.16 He laid downe his life for vs and we ought to lay downe our liues for the brethren Christ died for
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.
of merit is an act of iustice and iustice is a kind of equalitie where there is no equalitie there is no iustice and so no merit Thom. in 1. secund qu. 114. ad 1. 4. If the sufferings of this life are neither in quantitie nor qualitie proportionable to the glorie which shall be reuealed then can they not be meritorious for betweene the merite and reward there must be a proportionable equalitie and an equall proportion Notwithstanding then all these cauillous answers this place of the Apostle that the sufferings of this time present are not worthie of the glorie is verie pregnant to ouerthrow the merite of the sufferings and other workes whatsoeuer of the Saints in respect of the reward of euerlasting life Controv. 13. That hope iustifieth not v. 24. We are saued by hope by this place both the Rhemists here in their annotations and Pererius numer 82. doe inferre that faith doth not onely iustifie but that hope and charitie doe iustifie as well as faith as here the Apostle saith we are saued by hope Contra. This cauill may diuersely be remooued 1. by beeing saued the Apostle vnderstandeth not to be iustified for our iustification is presently had and possessed but by saluation he signifieth the perfection and accomplishment of our redemption and adoption in Christ therefore they would deceiue vs by the homonymie and diuerse takings of the word to be saued sometime signifieth to be iustified Tit. 3.5 but so it is not here 2. We must vnderstand the Apostle to speake of hope as ioyned with saith hope hath relation to faith by the which we are iustified freely D. Fulk And when as these things as our iustification saluation are ascribed to hope or charitie we must so take it that the manner of our iustification is shewed not by the causes but by the effects like as then in the will we looke to the foundation in a tree to the roote so when the Scripture setteth forth any commendation of hope and loue we must looke vnto faith from whence they spring and without the which they cannot stand Mar. 3. The Apostle doth not here treat of the cause of iustification sed quo fulcro in ea iustitia sustentemur quae nobis per fidem obtingit but by what prop we are sustained and vpheld in that righteousnesse which happeneth vnto vs by faith Gualter so that hope is not the cause of saluation but it is as the way and meanes whereby saluation begunne in vs by faith is brought vnto perfection Controv. 14. Whether hope doth relie vpon the merite of our workes The Master of the sentences affirmeth lib. 3. sperare sine meritis non spem esse sed praesumptionem that to hope without merits is not hope but presumption so also Gorrhan illud quod ex meritis patienter expectatur c. that which is patiently expected by merits is most certainely had and obtained of God they reason thus Argum. 1. S. Paul affirmeth that patience bringeth forth experience or triall or probation and experience hope Rom. 5.4 if hope then arise of our patience and experience it hath dependance of our workes Ans. 1. It is euident that Saint Paul doth not in that place make his gradation by the causes for tribulation is not the cause of patience seeing many by tribulation are driuen to despaire but the Apostle onely setteth downe the order of those instruments which the spirit of God vseth to worke hope in vs thereby 2. and properly hope causeth patience not patience hope for the Martyrs if they were not thereto enduced by hope could neuer endure such vnspeakeable torments like as the Marchant would neuer put himselfe into such daungers by Sea if the hope of gaine mooued him not thereunto and so S. Iames sheweth that the probation and triall of our faith bringeth forth patience c. 3. faith beeing tried and prooued by affliction worketh patience and faith bringeth forth hope 3. yet we denie not but that as hope originally causeth patience so by our patience and experience our hope is also the more strengthened and confirmed Now on the contrarie that it is but a weake and indeed a false hope which dependeth vpon workes it is thus euident 1. because by this meanes hope should be contrarie to faith which iustifieth a man freely without relation to his workes if hope then should be tied to the condition of workes it should be opposite to faith 2. our workes are imperfect if hope be built vpon an imperfect and vncertaine ground it can haue no certaintie in it selfe 3. Some are conuerted to God hauing no good workes as the theefe vpon the crosse yet he had hope in Christ praying vnto him to be remembred in his kingdome Controv. 15. Against the naturall power and integritie of mans will v. 26. We know not what to pray as we ought this ouerthroweth that error of the Pelagians who ascribed vnto man power by nature to keepe the law of God but how can this be seeing a man cannot tell how to pray as he should if he be not ayded by the grace of Gods spirit he must needes come short of keeping the law that faileth in this principall part of Gods seruice namely prayer for if a man know not of himselfe how to pray and so cannot serue God as he ought he faileth in a cheef part of the law of God And wheras there are three degrees in the proceeding of euery action the thought conceiueth the wil consenteth the act work persiteth none of al these are in mās power not the first we are not able of our selues to thinke any thing and it is God which worketh both the other namely the will and the deed Phil. 1.13 And as these places doe exclude this heresie of the Pelagians who extoll the power of nature altogether so also they ouerthrow the error of the Semipelagians the Papists who ioyne freewill and grace as workes together Controv. 16. That predestination dependeth not vpon the foresight of faith or good workes v. 16. Those whom he knew before he also predestinate Chrysostome and other Greeke expositors following him as Theophylact Theodoret Oecumenius hence inferre that Gods prescience is the cause of predestination praeuidet Deus c. God first foreseeth who are meete and worthy to be called and then he doth predestinate them so also Ambrose and Heirome in their Commentaries vpon this place doe interpret that to be the purpose of God whereby he decreed to call vnto the faith those whom he foresaw would beleeue Lyranus saith that Gods prescience is praeambulum ad praedestinationem a preamble and as an inducement to predestination The Lutherans doe somewhat incline vnto this opinion as Osiander in his annotation here quos antequam nascerentur c. praeuidit c. whom in his infinite wisedome he foresaw such as should please God c. The moderne Papists are not here all of one opinion The most learned among them doe affirme election by grace ante
that they put not downe the high places yet his heart was vpright with the Lord all his daies yet was he an enemie to idolatrie so might Salomon be after his repentance idolatrie could not be purged out all at one time 3. For matters of fact the argument followeth not negatiuely it is not in the Scripture mentioned therefore it was not done though in matters of doctrine it concludeth well for no mention is made of Daniels refusall of Nabuchadnezzers odors and sacrifices Dan. 2.46 and yet it is certaine he did refuse them And yet notwithstanding Salomons repentance may be found in Scripture the booke of Ecclesi istes was made after his fall as a monument of his repentance See more hereof Synops. Papis p. 3. Controv. 21. That the elect by faith may be assured of euerlasting saluation v. 38. I am perswaded c. The Romanists to elude this so euident a place for the certaine and sure perswasion which the elect haue by faith of their saluation doe frame vs diuerse answers 1. that Saint Paul had this by speciall reuelation it is not generally giuen to all beleeuers 2. in generall we are certaine that all the elect shall be saued but in particular it is not knowne 3. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am perswaded signifieth a morall kind of assurance not certitudinem fidei a certaintie or assurance of faith as the Apostle vseth the same word Heb. 6.9 we are perswaded better things of you Rom. 15.14 I am perswaded of you that you are full of goodnes but Paul could not beleeue these things of others by a certaintie of faith to this purpose Bellarmine lib. de iustificat c. 9. Pererius disput 28.4 for Paul himselfe was not certaine of his election thus writing 1. Cor. 9.27 I doe beate downe my bodie c. left when I haue preached to others I my selfe should be a reprobate Staplet Antidot p. 503. Contra. 1. The Apostle such things as he had by reuelation faith could not be vttered 2. Cor. 12.4 they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things not to be spoken but this thing touching the certaintie of saluation he vttered it was not therefore any of those secrets which were reuealed and 2. Tim. 4.8 the Apostle sheweth how he came to be assured of a crowne of righteousnesse euen by keeping the faith and faith it was not laid vp onely for him but for all other that loued the appearing of Christ. 2. This assurance was not in generall but in particular Christ gaue himselfe for me Gal. 2.10 and a crowne of righteousnesse is laid vp for me 2. Tim. 4.8 3. There is a double kind of perswasion persuasio fidei the perswasion of faith such as this of the Apostles was grounded vpon Gods promises which was most certaine there was persuasio charitatis a perswasion of charitie which S. Paul had of others this was not so certaine as the other yet neither of them was coniecturall for S. Paul who had the gift of discerning of spirits and could pronounce of the election of others that their names were written in the booke of life Philip. 4.4 had more then a coniecturall gesse of their estate and yet it followeth not one can not be certainly perswaded of an others saluation therefore not of his owne 4. To that place we answer 1. that S. Paul speaketh not there of his eternall election or reprobation but saith in effect that if his life and doctrine agreed not which he preached to others he might be worthily reprooued of men 2. and yet if it were admitted that Saint Paul should meane his reprobation with God it followeth not by this speech that be doubted of his saluation but was sollicitous and careful to doe nothing which might hinder it a godly care bringeth them to a greater certentie for it is a liuely and proper fruit of their election 3. Origen vpon this place expoundeth it of S. Pauls state in time past aliquando â—etuit c. he sometime feared his flesh but the former answers are better 4. howsoeuer the Apostle doth not there doubt of his saluation beeing most certainly perswaded here See more Synops. Centur. 4. err 21. 6. Morall obseruations Observ. 1. Sanctification must not be seuered from iustification v. 1. There is no condemnation c. which walke not after the flesh c. The Apostle here euidently sheweth that they which walke after the flesh are not in Christ Iesus not iustified by him and freed from condemnation although our sanctification be not any meritorious or efficient cause of saluation yet it is such a cause as sine qua non without the which there is no saluation 1. because regeneration is inseperably ioyned with iustification 2. sanctification is a testimonie and euidence of our faith without the which it is dead 3. it is a fruite of the spirit 4. and it doth necessarily follow true repentance Observ. 2. Sinne maketh vs enemies to God v. 7. The wisedome of the flesh is enmitie We see how Sathan hath poisoned the whole nature of man by sinne not onely the sensuall and carnall parts but euen the mind wisedome and vnderstanding that euery part of man by nature is rebellious vnto God so that iustly by nature we are the children of wrath for how can the Lord else doe but shew his anger and indignation vpon his enemies the consideration therefore hereof should worke in vs a detestation of sinne Observ. 3. The sonnes of God must be like their heauenly father v. 14. As many as are led by the spirit are the sonnes of God the Apostle vseth this as a forceable motiue to perswade vs to holinesse and pietie because we are the sonnes of God as children doe beare the image of their parents so the sonnes of God must expresse the image of their heauenly father in holines and righteousnesse their children men are whose workes they doe if they doe not the workes of God but of Sathan Gods children they are not but Sathans Ioh. 8.44 Observ. 4. Of the contempt of all worldly things v. 17. If children then also heires c. If we then doe hope for such a glorious inheritance in the kingdome of life we should contemne and trampie vnder our feete the glorie and pompe of the world vnlesse onely vsing them as transitorie things for our necessarie vse as S. Paul counted all things as dung in comparison of Christ. Phil. â— 8 Observ. 5. No suffering in this world can be answerable to the glorie to be reuealed v. 18. I count that the afflictions c. This difference there is betweene the sufferings of Christians and the labours which the heathen endured for their countrie their labours were greater then the end which they propounded Brutus killed his owne sonnes for the libertie of his countrie Torquatus put his owne sonne to death for transgressing militarie discipline Curtius cast himselfe into the pit for the safetie of his countrie these by their vtmost daungers onely sought the
exasperating them with rigorous speach so the Preachers of the word should vse such moderation that neither in their silence and forbearing to speake the truth they should incurre the iust suspition of flatterie nor yet in their sharpe invectiues against those whom they doe reprooue they should be iustly blamed for their vndiscrete seueritie Mar. Doct. 3. That Christ is God and man v. 5. Who is God ouer all c. 1. Christ is God because the Apostle sweareth by his name v. 1. and he is called God blessed ouer all c. 2. he is also perfite man because he is said to come of the fathers concerning the flesh c. 3. and yet these two natures concurre to make but one person because it is said of Christ who is God ouer all blessed for euer c. Doct. 4. Of the diuerse kindes of diuine promises v. 8. Children of promise c. some promises are generall to all as that the world should no more be destroied with water that the seasons of the yeare as seede time and haruest and the rest should continue or peculiar to the Church of God which are either concerning things temporall comprehended vnder the name of bread in the Lords praier which the Lord promiseth so farre sorth as he seeth it to be meete and conuenient or spirituall which are either peculiar vnto some speciall callings as were the gift of tongues knowledge of secrets elocution and vtterance to the Apostles or generall belonging to the whole Church and the same externall as the promise of the word and Sacraments or internall as of faith hope iustification remission of sinnes The Apostle speaketh here of spiriuall and speciall promises which were shadowed forth in those times by temporall blessings Doct. 5. Of election v. 11. That the purpose of God might remaine according to election c. Concerning election these points are hence concluded 1. that God hath decreed some to be elected vnto saluation before the beginning of the world 2. That the decree of election is the purpose of God to shewe mercie on some in bringing them vnto glorie 3. that the free and gracious purpose of God is onely the cause of election without the foresight of faith or workes 4. that it is certaine and immutable 5. the effects thereof are vocation iustification sanctification c. 8.30 whom he predestinate them he called c. 6. the ends two the happines of the elect and the glorie and praise of God in the setting forth of his mercy Doct. 6. Of reprobation v. 18. Whom he will he hardeneth Concerning reprobation these points also are here set forth 1. that some are reprobate from the beginning as God hated Esau before he was borne 2. what reprobation is the purpose of God in leauing some in the masse of corruption and in ordaining them to be damned for their sinnes 3. the cause of reprobation is the purpose of God to leaue some in their naturall corruption 4. the effects are desertion hardening of heart the subtraction of the grace of God 5. the ends the iust condemnation of the wicked and the demonstration of the power of God See more hereof among the Controv. following Doct. 7. Of scandals and offences v. 33. Rocke of offence 1. A scandale is any thing done or said whereby one is made the worse either of himselfe or by some accident 2. it is of two sorts giuen iustly or vniustly taken as the offence at Christ was taken and not giuen 3. the cause of offences is first the malice of Sathan and obstinacie of vnbeleeuers and the iust iudgement of God concurring there withall as the Iewes by their owne blindnes stumbled at Christ and receiued that as a punishment of their vnbeleefe 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. That succession of Bishops is no sure note of the Church of Christ. v. 5. Of whom came the fathers 1. Though the Iewes might alleadge that they had the fathers yea they could shewe a perpetuall succession of high Priests from Aaron vntill the times of our blessed Sauiour yet for all this they were reiected and not acknowledged for the Church of God In like manner the Romanists pleading for themselues by succession of Bishops doe but build vpon a weake ground vnlesse they could also shewe a continuall succession of true doctrine together with an outward succession of persons and pace 2. Our Blessed Sauiour was a Priest after Melchisedech without any such continued succession and the Apostles the first planters of the Gospel could shew no succession from the high Priests neither is it necessarie in these times where religion is corrupted and the Church deformed to expect a locall succession for the restoring of religion 3. Yet the succession of godly Bishops is much to be accounted of where the true faith is continued withall and for this reason did the fathers Tertullian Irenaeus Augustinae ascribe so much to the succession of Christian Bishops who transmitted vnto their successors true and found doctrine together with their place See more of succession Synops. Centur. 1. err 20. 2. Controv. Against the old heretikes the Manichees Arrians Nestorians confuted out of the 5. v. 1. Where the Apostle saith of whom came Christ according to the flesh the Manichees are confuted which denied Christ to haue any true flesh but onely in shewe whereas the Apostle saith that Christ came of the Israelites concerning the flesh he therefore had true 〈◊〉 because he tooke his nature of them Likewise their heresie is confuted that thinke Christ brought his bodie from heauen and tooke it not of the Virgin Marie for then how could it be true that Christ according to the flesh came of the fathers 2. The Arrians also are confuted who denied Christ to be God but onely affirmed him to be a creature for the Apostle saith of Christ who is God blessed for euer as Athanasius epist. ad Epictet vrgeth this place against those which denied the humanitie of Christ so Tertullian lib. de Trinit Hilar. lib. de Trinit Theophylact vpon this place doe alleadge it against those which impugne the diuine nature of Christ. 3. The Nestorians also which denied the vniting of Christs two natures into one person but onely affirmed it to be by grace are here refelled for the Apostle speaketh of one and the same Christ which according to the flesh came of the fathers yet was God aboue all blessed for euer Ireneus lib. 3. cap. 18. applieth this place against such a like heresie of those which diuided Iesus from Christ and affirmed Iesus to be one and Christ an other 3. Controv. Against the prophane and impious collections of Eniedinus and Socinus late heretikes Whereas the Apostle expressely saith of Christ who is God ouer all blessed for euer c. these two forenamed heretikes contend by their impious cavills to shew that Christs diuine nature is not prooued out of this place 1. This phrase who is blessed for euer is alwaies in Scripture giuen vnto God the
8. contr 16. Controv. 8. That not onely election vnto grace but vnto glorie also is onely of the good will of God Stapleton antidot p. 126. will haue this place of the Apostle to be vnderstood onely of election vnto grace which is the first effect and fruit thereof and this onely proceedeth frō the free grace and mercie of God but the election vnto glorie which is the last effect thereof is not without the foresight of workes he reasoneth thus Argum. Election to glorie is not onely of him that calleth for it is also by iustification for whom he iustified he also glorified Rom. 8.30 but the election whereof the Apostle speaketh here is onely of the caller therefore he speaketh not here of election vnto glorie but of election onely to the first grace Contra. 1. Other Romanists herein dissent from Stapleton as Bellarmine lib. 2. de grat c. 15. sheweth that men are freely elected not onely vnto grace but vnto glorie so also Peter disput 5. and before them Thomas in his commentarie denieth that praescientia meritorum the foresight of merits is the cause of predestination to glorie likewise Lyran. here 2. And for the argument Glorification as well as grace is onely of God that calleth as the efficient cause iustification goeth before glorification not as an efficient or meritorious cause but as a meane appointed of God to that ende 3. But that the Apostle speaketh euidently of election as well vnto glorie as vnto grace it is euident 1. he treateth of election vnto the promise for he maketh expresse mention of the children of the promise v. 8. but the promise comprehendeth both the first grace in our vocation and the rest that followe iustification glorification 2. he speaketh of election ioyned with the dilection and loue of God Iacob haue I loued but whom God loued he loueth to the ende and bringeth them vnto eternall life 3. v. 23. the Apostle in direct tearmes maketh mention of the vessels of mercie prepared to glorie he therefore speaketh here of election to glorie Controv. 9. That the Apostle treateth as well of reprobation in this place as of election Huberus who defendeth vniuersal grace will haue the Apostle here onely to speake of election and not of reprobation for he holdeth all generally to be elected the same is the assertion of Stapleton antid p. 565. against Calvin that S. Paul treateth onely of election here and not of reprobation at all he reasoneth thus Argum. 1. Onely election is of God that calleth the purpose of God is according to election therefore the purpose of God is of election Answ. 1. The purpose of God is according to election but not onely which must be assumed or els nothing can be concluded but the purpose of God is as well concerning reprobation as election the purpose and counsell of God is generall to both and it sorteth it else either into the purpose of election or reprobation 2. And that the Apostle intendeth in this discourse as well to speake of reprobation as of election it thus appeareth 1. by the text it selfe he expressely mentioneth both the loue of God to Iacob and his hatred of Esau v. 22.23 he speaketh of the vessels of wrath and of the vessels of mercie 2. so much also is insinuated by the nature and propertie of election for an election of some supposeth that there is a reiection and reprobation of others As when Moses saith vnto Israel the Lord chose you aboue all people it followeth that as they were elected so all the rest were refused and reiected Controv. 10. Whether as well the decree of reprobation as of election be without the foresight of works Here are two opinions opposite in two extreames one to the other the one was of the Pelagians who vtterly condemned the absolute decree of reprobation without any respect of works and Catharinus also in his commentaries vpon this epistle some other doe make the decree of reprobation and damnation to be a free act of the will and purpose of God as election is But beside these there is a third opinion betweene both that the decree of reprobation neither issueth onely from the free and absolute will of God not yet altogether dependeth of the foresight of sinne but proceedeth in part from them both We will now examine these opinions in order 1. Of the first sort that hold the decree of reprobation altogether to proceede from the foresight of sinne some doe hold strange paradoxes as Catharinus before named whose opinion is this that God appointed all to be saued but some absolutely as Marie and other holy men and women some conditionally if they beleeued and did works they should be saued if otherwise they should be damned not much differing is the opinion of Becanus a late Popish writer who affirmeth that God simply in the beginning appointed all to be saued voluntate primaria by his first and principall will but secundaria voluntate by his secundarie will he would some to be condemned for their sinne cap. 1. loc 12. de pradestinat c. 5. loc 4. But the former of these opinions is distasted by the Romanists themselues as Pererius in c. 8. ad Rom. disput 25. refuseth it vpon this reason because vna est ratio c. there is one and the same reason of all that are predestinate vnto saluation how then can some be certainly appointed and absolutely some vncertainly and conditionally for all which are ordained vnto life are written in the booke of life out of the which none can be blotted out And against Becanus assertion it may thus be obiected 1. If God indeede would haue all to be saued why are not all saued for none can resist the will of God this then sheweth either God to be impotent in not performing his will or variable in changing his purpose concerning those whom he first intended to be saued neither of which imputations must be laid vpon God 2. seeing God getteth glorie as well by shewing his power and exercising his iustice vpon the wicked as by shewing mercie vpon the elect the one is as primarily the will of God as the other for God primarily intendeth his owne glorie but in the punishment of the wicked Gods glorie is set forth therefore the decree of iustice as well as of mercie standeth with the primarie and principall will of God 2. Augustine though nothing fauouring these erroneous conceits yet he referreth reprobation vnto the foresight of originall sinne and considereth man in massa corrupta in the masse of corruption as all haue transgressed in Adam Vniversa massa poenas dedit c. the whole masse of mankind is worthie of punishment and if the punishment of damnation should be rendred vnto all non iniuste proculdubio redderetur it should not be rendred vniustly c. and again in an other place vna quaedam massa peccati supplicium debens diuina iustitiae c. there is one masse of sinne which is
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
Apostle expresseth the Hebrew word sorer by these two rebellious and gainesaying so also Beza But Iunius parall 19. thinketh rather that the Apostle doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 compendiously in one word expresse the Prophets meaning which is set forth in many words in that place Isa. 65.3 a rebellious people which walketh a way that is not good after their owne imaginations a people that prouoke me euer to my face c. all this the Apostle comprehendeth in these two words rebellious and gainsaying 2. By all the day 1. Origen vnderstandeth litterally the day wherein Christ did hang vpon the crosse c. and so a part is taken for the whole gloss ordinar but then it should not haue beene said all the day 2. Haymo interpreteth it to be the whole time Dominicae predicationis of the Lords preaching vnto his passion 3. But Oecumenius better taketh it for all that time which went before since they came out of Egypt so also Gryneus with M. Calvin and others vnderstand all that time since the Lord begunne to take speciall care of this people and thus the Prophets vse to speake as Ierem. 7.13 I rose vp earely to speake vnto you c. but ye would not heare toto tempore legis Mosaicae all the time of the law of Moses Lyran. 3. I stretched out my hands 1. not vpon the crosse as Origen and Ambrose for Christ said before he suffered that he would haue gathered them together as the henne her chicâ—â—us but they would not Martyr 2. neither is thereby onely signified the miracles which Christ shewed and the benefits bestowed vpon them as Haymo and as Gorrhan by the extending the left hand signifieth their protecting from euill and by the right hand the collaâ—â—â— of benefits 3. But hereby we vnderstand generally all those meanes which the Lord vsed not onely by his benefits but by his threatnings promises preaching of his word whereby he would haue called them to repentance Pareus 4. Yet they were still a rebellious and gainsaying people rebellious in heart and gainsaying in their mouth contrarie to those two speciall works of grace before spoken of the 〈◊〉 of the heart and the confession of the mouth Pellican so here three sinnes are set 〈◊〉 in the people their ingratitude that regarded not Gods mercie in calling them 〈◊〉 incredulitie in their rebellion obstinacie in gainsaying three vertues also are described 〈◊〉 seruants of God the Prophets their patience in suffering signified by the stretching out of their hands their perseverance all the day the cause for the which they suffered against a rebellious and gainsaying people 4. Places of Doctrine 1. Doct. A good intention maketh not a good action v. 1. They haue the zeale of God but not according to knowledge Hence it is euident that make a good action it is not sufficient to haue a kind of zeale and good intention for them beleeue had beene excused for putting Christ to death which they did of a blind zeale 〈◊〉 here the Apostle confesseth that they had zeale but it was not according to knowledge â—â— therefore it was a false and erroneous zeale such as they were ruled with that should â—â—â—ke they did God seruice in killing his seruants Ioh. 16.2 Doct. 2. Of the kinds of prayer v. 1. My hearts desire There is oratio mentalis vocalis a mentall and vocali prayer the one onely in the mind the other vttered by the voice of the first our Sauiour speaketh Matth. 6.6 When thou prayest enter into thy chamber of the other v. 9. after this manner pray yee And Saint Paul sheweth them both in this place that his hearts desire was c. he prayeth both with his heart and voice and the praier of the heart is the more principall Doct. 3. How to discerne true loue and freindship v. 2. That they may be saued c. Herein Saint Pauls true affection appeared toward his countrie men the Iewes in wishing their saluation whatsoeuer one freind wisheth vnto an other beside this it is nothing hence it is that Saint Paul in all his Epistles beginneth his salutation with grace and peace this was Abrahams commendation that he had a case to instruct his familie children and seruants in the waies of God Gen. 18.18 Doct. 4. Of the consent betweene the law and the Gospel v. 4. Christ is the end of the law So then herein both the law and the Gospel agree that both of them doe ayme at Christ the law looketh vnto him as the end and the Gospel also requireth obedience to the law but Christ is couertly insinuated in the law but openly shewed in the Gospel the law leadeth indirectly vnto faith and the Gospel as it were indirectly pointeth at the law requyring the obedience thereof not as a cause but as a â—â—â—ie testimonie and consequent of iustification and so that is fulfilled which S. Paul saith Rom. 3.31 doe we then make the law of none effect through faith God forbid yea we est 〈◊〉 the law Doct. 5. Of the difference betweene the law and the Gospel v. 5. He that doth these things shall liue thereby c. Hence may be gathered there differences betweene the law and the Gospel 1. the law commandeth things impossible and not in mans power as in euery point to keepe and fulfill the law the Gospel onely requireth faith and beleefe 2. the law worketh terrour and perplexitie of conscience breeding doubts and questions in the mind who shall ascend to heauen to bring vs thâ—â—â—er who shall descend to hell to keepe vs from thence But the Gospel bringeth comfort and peace of conscience and assurance of saluation 3. the righteousnesse of the law is grounded vpon the law of Moses but the iustice of faith vpon the Gospel this is the word of faith v. 8. Doct. 6. Of the diuerse kinds of calling and sending to preach v. 18. How shall they preach vnlesse they be sent c. Though the Apostle doe here especially speake of the extraordinarie calling such as was this of the Apostles yet it is true of the ordinarie calling of preachers that none must take vpon them to preach vnlesse they be sent of God which is either immediately as the Prophets were so called of God in the old Testament or mediately by the authoritie of the Church or by them to whom it is committed which kind of mediate calling is not in euery Church the same in respect of some circumstances which are left to the libertie of the Church Pareus but yet the same end must be propounded which is the edifying of the Church and none ought to be sent which are not meete for such are not sent of God but runne vncalled and vnsent and as intruders But no man as the Apostle saith ought to take this honour vpon him but he that is called of God Hebr. 5.4 Here I cannot omit that obseruation of Faius who thinketh the sending of Ionas to haue beene ordinarie from the companie of the Prophets
vnsound opinion 1. Bellarmine thus reasoneth that the Apostles did reach the Church at the first without Scriptures therefore they are not simply necessarie but onely for the greater profit of the Church like as an horse is necessarie for ones iourney for his more speedie trauaile but not simply necessarie because he may go a foot Bellar. l. 4. de verb. c. 4. Contra. 1. True it is that the writing of the Scriptures are not simply necessarie in respect of God for he by his absolute power could find a way to teach his Church otherwise but in respect of Gods ordinance which hath appointed the Scriptures for edifying of his Church they are necessarie as bread is necessarie for mans sustentation though God can nourish and maintaine life without bread 2. It is not true that the Apostles did teach without Scriptures for they had the prophetical writings first and afterward their owne and while the Apostles themselues were liuing and present the writing of the Gospel was not so necessarie as afterward 3. The writing then of the Gospel was necessarie 1. both in respect of that age present for the preuenting and stay of heresies which might be more strongely resisted and gainesayed by an euident and extant rule of faith 2. in regard of those Churches to whom the Apostles preached not by liuely voice it was necessarie that they should haue some perfect direction by writing 3. and that the ages also to come might haue a rule of their faith Arg. 2. The Church may as well now be instructed without the Scriptures as it was for the space of 2000. yeares before the lawe was written Bellar. ibid. Contra. 1. In the first age of the world the light of nature was not so much obscured as afterward when the law was written and therefore the argument followeth not the Scriptures were not necessarie then therefore not now 2. because the old world wanted the Scriptures to direct them that was the cause why they were giuen ouer generally to all kind of prophanenesse and therefore to preuent the like mischiefe afterward the Lord thought good to giue his written word to his Church Argum. 3. The Apostles did preach much more then they did write and many things they deliuered to the Church by tradition so that not the Scriptures by themselues are a totall rule and direction of the faith but partiall together with the traditions and ordinances of the Church Contra. 1. The Apostles did indeed speake more then they did or could write but yet they preached the same things and deliuered no other precepts concerning faith and manners but the same which they committed to writing 2. many things concerning orders and especially in particular Churches the Apostles left by tradition but no other precepts and rules of faith then they had written 3. The Scriptures are no partiall but a totall and perfect rule of faith for mensura adaequata esse debet mensurate the measure must be equall vnto that which is measured it must neither be longer nor shorter if then the Scripture should come short of faith it were no perfect rule nay it were no rule at all Pareus Now on the contrarie that the Scriptures are necessarie thus it is made plaine 1. From the author the Prophets and Apostles did write by the instinct of the spirit but the spirit mooueth not to any vnnecessarie or superfluous worke 2. from the office of the Apostles which was to teach all nations Matth 28.19 which seeing they could not doe in their owne persons it was necessarie that they should preach vnto them by their writings 3. from the ende and vse of the Scriptures 1. whether for instruction in doctrine for all Scriptures are written for our learning Rom. 15.4 or direction vnto vertuous liuing or decision of Questions and confuting of errors it was necessarie that the Scriptures should be writen to these vses as the Apostle sheweth 1. Timoth. 3.16 that the man of God may be perfect The Scriptures then were necessarie to be extant for the aforesaid purposes in so much that the Apostle saith if any Angel from heauen doe preach any other Gospel c. let him be accursed whereupon Chrysostome saith Paulus etiam Angelis de coelo descendentibus proponit Scripturas Paul euen propoundeth the Scriptures to the Angels descending from heauen in Galat. c. 1. 6. Morall observations 1. Observ. Of the happinesse of these times vnder the Gospel in comparison of the former times vnder the Lawe In that the Lord hath clearely manifested and opened vnto his Church by Iesus Christ the high mysteries which lay hid before therein appeareth the singular loue of God to his Church and the great preheminence which the faithfull now haue in comparison of the people of God vnder the Law as our Sauiour saith vnto his Apostles Blessed are your eyes for they see and your eares for they heare for verily I say vnto you that many Prophets and righteous men haue desired to see those things which you see and could not see them c. Matth. 13.16 17. the vse hereof is to stirre vs vp vnto thankefulnesse vnto God for this so great mercie shewed vnto his Church 2. Observ. The dangerous estate of those which are found to be contemners of the Gospel and Newe Lawe The greater light is reuealed and the more knowledge that men haue the greater obedience doth God looke for at their hand disobedience then now vnto the Gospel of truth is so much more greiuous then was transgression vnder the law as the times of light and knowledge in brightnesse exceede the dayes of ignorance and blindnesse thus the Apostle reasoneth the night is past and the day is at hand let vs therefore cast away the workes of darkenesse and put on the armour of light Rom. 13.12 So also Hebr. 2.2 the Apostle saith if the word spoken by Angels was stedfast and euerie transgression c. receiued a iust recompence of reward how much more if we neglect so great saluation c. More special obseruations vpon the whole Epistle 1. The Argument and Methode of S. Pauls epistles in generall and specially of this Epistle 1. Nicephorus lib. 2. c. 34. maketh the end and scope of Saint Paules Epistles to consist in these two things 1. that the Apostle what he preached beeing present he committed to writing to put them in memorie when he was absent 2. And that which he did more obscurely deliuer by word of mouth or passed ouer in silence he did in his writings handle and set forth more fully and plainely But the Apostle had diuerse other occasions offred him in his epistles then fell out in his sermons and therefore it is to be thought that although his sermons and writings agreed in the substance of doctrine yet he as occasion did mooue him in his epistles otherwise handleth matters then he did in his preaching 2. His Epistles then may be reduced to these fiue kinds 1. Some belong vnto doctrine wherein he layeth
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
entercourse is betweene God onely and his elect as Act. 13.48 thâ—â— beleeued as many as were ordained to eternall life God hath a speciall care of their saluation that are ordained vnto life 2. there is a mutuall relation betweene the faith of God and the elect the elect are by faith perswaded of the faith of God and the truth of his promises 3. on Gods behalfe there is offred his word on our part it is required that we should keepe that worthie thing which is committed vnto vs 2. Tim. 1.14 Gryneus Doct. 4. That the Sacraments depend not of the worthines of the Minister As the Apostle here saith shall their vnbeleefe make the faith of God without effect howsoeuer the minister be disposed the Sacraments want not their force and efficacie because they depend vpon the truth of God which the incredulitie or misbeleefe of man cannot make voide Martyr Doct. 5. There are alwaies some vnbeleeuers and incredulous persons in the Church Shall their vnbeleefe c. Then it followeth that as there were some vnbeleeuers euen among the Iewes so there are still such carnall men and hypocrites in the Church and yet it ceaseth not to be a Church we should not therefore be afraid when we see carnall men and euil liuers to remaine within the Church but consider that such there must be as the Apostle saith that they which are approoued may be knowne 1. Cor. 11.19 Pareus Doct. 6. Who shall iudge the world and how v. 6. Els how shall God iudge the world 1. Here we learne that God is the iudge of the world and he shall iudge the world by Iesus Christ Act. 17.31 2. and this iudgement of God consisteth both in his knowledge that nothing is hidde from him Eccles. 12.14 God will bring euerie work vnto iudgment and euerie secret thing and in his power whereby he now present both directeth ordereth and disposeth euery thing and afterward shal giue vnto euerie one according to his workes 3. God iudgeth two wayes 1. by his word reuealed which teacheth the true faith and worship of God and discerneth the true faith and doctrine from false so our Sauiour saith Ioh. 12.48 the word which I haue spoken shall iudge him This word then ought to be iudge of all controversies the Church cannot iudge because it is a partie as when the question is which is the true which the false Church here the Church is a partie therefore the word and not the Church must be iudge as the lawe is the iudge of ciuill controversies the Church notwithstanding is said to iudge but improperly when it searcheth out and pronounceth the sentence of the word 2. God iudgeth by his deed and worke both present in disposing euerie thing to that end which he thinketh best and in proposing examples of his iudgements euen in this life and therefore Dauid saith Psal. 9.5 thou sittest in the throne that iudgest right and by his iudgement to come in the finall execution of his sentence vpon all both good and bad wherein he shall reward euerie one according to his works ex Pareo Doct. 7. Our doctrine must be grounded vpon the Scriptures v. 10. As it is written hereupon Origen giueth this good note non nostras cum docemus sea spiritus sancti proferamus sententias let vs not bring forth our owne but the sentences of the spirit when we teach c. the Preacher of the truth must confirme his doctrine by the word of truth for faith must not be grounded vpon any mans word yea the Berrheans searched and examined the sermons of the Apostles by the Scriptures Act. 17.11 Therefore neither are such preachers to be commended which are verie rare in citing of Scriptures in their sermons but they are much more worthie of blame which are more frequent in the citing of prophane testimonies of Philosophers and Poets and such like then of the Prophets and Apostles Doct. 8. Of the corruption of mans nature v. 10. There is none righteous no not one 1. It is euident that mans nature is wholly corrupt as both the Scripture testifieth and daily experience sheweth 2. this corruption of nature is a generall deprauation and prauitie of nature beeing inclined vnto all euill and by this prauitie and euilnes it is made guilty of death 3. this corruption of mankind is not of God who created man good but of man himselfe through the instigation of the deuill 4. it is generall and vniuersall none are exempted from it there is none righteous v. 10. all haue sinned v. 13. 5. the knowledge thereof commeth by the lawe v. 20. 6. It must be knowne confessed and acknowledged of all that euerie mouth may be stopped v. 19. and God onely may haue the glorie 7. the remedie against this naturall prauitie and corruption is by the Redemption thorough Christ v. 24. Pareus Doct. 9. Of the difference of true and false religion v. 19. That euerie mouth may be stopped This is a true marke and touchstone whereby to discerne true religion from false for that religion which onely giueth honour vnto God and denieth all power vnto man to helpe toward saluation and so stoppeth mans mouth and taketh from him all ostentation and vaine glorie that is the true religion whereas on the contrarie that which giueth vnto man matter of ostentation and reioycing is to be suspected of falshood and hypocrisie such is the doctrine of Poperie which ascribeth much vnto mans free will and merits Doct. 10. Of true iustification by faith the manner propertie vse and end thereof v. 21. Now is the righteousnesse of God made manifest without the lawe c. from this place to the ende of the chapter S. Paul setteth forth the doctrine of iustification 1. how there is a right and true iustification which is by faith in Christ and a false iustification by the workes of the lawe 2. from the true iustification are excluded not onely the workes of the ceremoniall lawe and of freewill but all workes whatsouer for the lawe of faith is set against the lawe of workes in generall v. 27. 3. the first cause efficient of this iustification is the grace of God the next is redemption purchased by Christ v. 24. 4. the matter or obiect of iustification are all beleeuers v. 22. 5. the forme is the imputation and application of Christs righteousnesse obtained by his obedience and blood 6. the manner is through faith in his blood v. 25. 7. the ende is the declaration of the righteousnesse of God by the forgiuenesse of sinnes v. 25. 8. the effect thereof is our reconciliation with God v. 25. 9. it is reuealed in the Gospel v. 21. 10. and this iustification was not vnknowne vnto the faithfull vnder the lawe hauing testimonie of the lawe and the Prophets ver 21. Doct. 11. How God hath set forth Christ and to what ende v. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a reconciliation 1. God hath set forth Christ to be our propitiator and reconciler
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
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
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
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
righteousnesse Controv. 14. Concerning inherent iustice v. 13. Neither giue your members as weapons of vnrighteousnesse c. Bellarmine inferreth out of this place that as sinne was a thing inherent and dwelling in vs before our conuersion so instead thereof must succeede righteousnes per iustitiam intelligit aliquid inherens by righteousnesse he vnderstandeth a thing inherent in vs from whence proceed good workes Contra. 1. We doe not denie but that there is in the regenerate a righteousnesse inherent and dwelling in them which is their state of sactification or regeneration but by this inherent iustice are we not iustified before God but by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed onely for here the Apostle treateth not of iustification but of our sanctification and mortification which are necessarie fruits of iustification and doe followe it but they are not causes of our iustification 2. Wherefore this is no good consequent There is in the righteous an inherent iustice Erg. by this iustice they are iustified before God See further hereof Synops. Centur. 4. err 56. Controv. 15. Against the power of freewill in the fruits of righteousnesse v 20. When ye were the seruants of sinne ye were freed from righteousnesse Beza doth vrge this place strongly against the popish freewill for in that they are said to be free from iustice that is as Anselme interpreteth alieni à iustitia estranged from iustice it sheweth that they haue no inclination at all vnto iustice it beareth no sway at all nullum erat eius imperium it had no command at all ouer you Pererius disput 5. numer 33. maketh an offer to confute this assertion of Beza but with bad successe for those verie authors whom he produceth make against him first he alleadgeth Anselme following Augustine liberum arbitrium saith Augustine vsque adeo iâ— peccatoribus non perijt vt per ipsum maximè peccent c. freewill is so farre from beeing lost in the wicked that thereby they doe sinne most of all c. But who denieth this the wicked haue freewill indeed free from compulsion it is voluntarie but inclined onely vnto euill which Anselme calleth libertatem culpabilem a culpable freedome and he therefore fitly distinguisheth betweene these two phrases of the Apostle he saith they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 free not freed from iustice least that sinne might be imputed vnto any other then to themselues but afterward v. 22. he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liberati freed from sinne to shewe that this freedome is not of our selues but onely from God and so he concludeth haec voluntas quae libera est in malis c. ideo in bonis libera non est quia non liberatur ab eo qui eam solus c. this will which is free in euill because they delight in euill is not therefore free in good things because it is not freed by him who onely can make it free from sinne c. With like successe he citeth Thomas in his Commentarie here who thus writeth semper itaque homo sive in peccato fuerit sive in gratia liber est à coactione non tamen semper liber est ab omni inclinatione man therefore alwaies whether he be in sinne or in grace is free from coaction and compulsion but he is not alway free from an inclination c. where he affirmeth the same thing which we doe that the will of men is free alwaies from compulsion for it alwaies willeth freely without constraint that which it willeth but it is not free at any time from an euill inclination it is not free à necessitate from a necessitie of inclining vnto that which is euill of it owne naturall disposition Controv. 16. Whether all death be the wages or stipend of sinne v. 13. The stipend of sinne is death Socinus part 3. c. 8. pag. 294. graunteth that eternall death is the reward of sinne and the necessitie of mortalitie and dying but not â—â—â— corporall death it selfe for Adam before sinne entred was created in a mortall state and condition and Christ hath redeemed vs from all sinne and the punishment thereof therefore corporall death is no punishment of sinne because it remaineth still neither hath Christ redeemed vs from it Contra. 1. It is euident in that the Apostle speaketh of death here absolutely without any restraint or limitation that he meaneth death in generall of what kind soeuer and of the corporall death he speaketh directly c. 5.12 by one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne which is specially vnderstood of the bondage of mortalitie which Adam by his transgression brought vpon his posteritie 2. It is friuolous distinction to make a difference betweene death and the necessitie of dying for what else is mortalitie then a necessitie of dying which if it be brought in by sinne then death also it selfe 3. Adam though he were created with a possibilitie of dying if he sinned yet this possibilitie should neuer haue come into act if he had not actually sinned 4. Christ hath indeed deliuered vs from all punishment of sinne both temporall and eternall as he hath deliuered vs from sinne for as our sinnes are remitted neuer to be laid vnto our iudgement and yet the reliques and remainder of sinne are not vtterly extinguished so the Lord hath effectually and actually deliuered vs from eternall death that it shall neuer come neare vs but from temporall death as it is a punishment onely for he hath made it an entrance to a better life and he hath taken away the power thereof that it shall not seaze vpon vs for euer because he shall raise vs vp at the last day and then perfectly triumph ouer death for euer 5. Origen here vnderstandeth neither eternall nor temporall death but that qua separatur anima per peccatum à Deo whereby the soule is separated from God by sinne But then the Apostle had made an iteration of the same thing for sinne it selfe is the spirituall death of the soule and therefore the death here spoken of is an other death beside that namely that which followeth as the stipend of sinne which is euerlasting death vnto the which is in the next clause opposed eternall death Controv. 17. Against the distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes v. 23. The stipend or wages of sinne is death Faius by this place doth well confute that Popish distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes they say that veniall sinnes are those which in their owne nature are not worthie of death but the Apostle here noteth in generall of all sinne whatsoeuer that the stipend and wages thereof is death because all sinne is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the transgression of the law 1. Ioh. 3.5 and death is the wages of them that transgresse the 〈◊〉 that glosse then of Haymo vpon this place may seeme somewhat straunge hoc non de omnibus peccatis intelligendum est sed de criminalibus c. this is not to be vnderstood of all sinnes
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
the perfection of the parts because regeneration is both in the bodie and soule but not perfectione graduum by the perfection of degree for so it is onely begunne here and shall be perfited in the next life 2. and sanctification followeth after iustification and so is no part of it for first we are iustified then sanctified Controv. 7. That not the carnall eating of Christs flesh is the cause of the resurrection but the spirituall v. 11. 1. The Apostle sheweth the cause of the resurrection of the Saints to be the inhabiting and dwelling of the spirit of God in them so that the spirituall communicating with the flesh and blood of Christ by faith is that by the vertue and power whereof our bodies shall be raised againe at the last day it is not the carnall eating of Christs flesh in the sacrament as the Romanists hold wherwith to the same end they housle the sicke that is in our bodies the seede of the resurrection for there may be a spirituall eating and drinking of Christs flesh and blood euen without the sacrament which is both necessarie and sufficient vnto life whereof our Blessed Sauiour treateth Ioh. 5.4 Whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life and I will raise him vp at the last day Christ speaketh not here of the sacramentall eating and drinking but of his spirituall for the sacrament was not yet instituted 2. And that the carnall and corporall receiuing of Christs flesh is not possible neither yet requisite or necessarie to the resurrction of our bodies doth euidently appeare by these two reasons 1. because the Fathers that died before Christ was incarnate could not in that manner eate and drinke Christ and yet they died in the hope of the resurrection 2. infants are not admitted to the sacramentall eating and yet they shall rise againe at the latter day Martyr Controv. 8. Against merites v. 12. We are detters not to the flesh c. hence it followeth that we are detters to the spirit which part the Apostle suppresseth as beeing euident enough of it selfe out of the other 1. It is manifest then that whosoeuer seruice we doe performe vnto God it is ex debito a due debt we are endebted to God 1. by reason of our creation that he hath giuen vs these bodies and soules to the end that we should set forth his praise in the world 2. we are bound vnto God for our redemption by Christ our regeneration and sanctification by his spirit all which the Lord hath wrought for vs that we should performe him faithfull seruice 3. and likewise we are bound vnto God for the hope of our resurrection and glorification promised in his kingdome which the Apostle touched in the former verse 2. If then whatsoeuer seruice we doe vnto God we doe but our bounden dutie then there is no place for merits for our selues much lesse for works and merites of supererogation for others as the Romanists hold and teach for debitum meritum debt and merite doe one take away another as the Apostle sheweth Rom. 4.5 And whatsoeuer workes we do they are either according to the flesh or the spirit if after the flesh they are sinfull if according to the spirit they are of dutie 3. But they will thinke here to helpe themselues by a distinction that though our works merite not in the rigour of Gods iustice yet they merite ex acceptatione diuina through the diuine acceptance c. God indeed accepteth of our good workes in Christ yet not as merits but of grace and so in mercie rewardeth them Controv. 9. Whether in this life one by faith may be sure of salvation v. 16. The same spirit beareth witnesse with our spirit that we are the children of God Though this be an euident place to prooue the certaintie of saluation in the perswasion of the faithfull because the testimonie of the spirit is vnfallible yet the Romanists are not ashamed to denie that any such certaintie may be gathered from hence they say this testimonie of the spirit is nothing else but the inward good motions comfort and contentment of spirit which the children of God doe daily feels more and more c. Rhemist annot And Pererius it is but gustus quidum spiritualis praesentiae a kind of tast of the spirituall presence of grace and he consenteth vnto Thomas who thus interpreteth this testimonie of the spirit to be câ—â—iecturalem perswasioneÌ„ a coniecturall perswasion but infallibilis certitudo an infallible certaintie cannot be had citra specialem Dei reuelationem without the speciall reuelation of God their reasons are these 1. Thomas thus argueth a thing may be knowne either by speciall reuelation from God and so it may be reuealed vnto some that they are saued or a man may know somewhat in himselfe and that two waies certainely or coniecturally a thing is certainely knowne by the principles thereof as God is the beginning of grace but because God cannot perfitely be knowne none can attaine vnto this certaintie the coniecturall knowledge is by signes and effects as when a man doth perswade himselfe that because he feareth God and contemneth the world he is in Gods fauour but this knowledge is imperfect as S. Paul saith I know nothing by my selfe yet am I not thereby iustified 2. Pererius addeth this reason fowre waies may a thing certainely be knowen per lumen naturale c. by the naturall light of the vnderstandingâ— by the light of the Catholike faith by speciall reuelation per lumen fidei infusa by the light of faith infused but by none of these can one be assured of his saluation not by the first for it is a supernaturall light nor by the second for then all that beleeue the Catholike faith should haue this assurance neither hath euery Christian the third which is by special reuelatioÌ„ neither by the fourth can it be attained vnto for that perswasion riseth of two propositions the one apprehended by faith the other collected out of that by some naturall euidence and experience as faith reacheth vs that all which are truely contrite and penitent shall be saued then one out of his owne experience inferreth but I am contrite and penitent Ergo But this experience is vncertaine because that many actions proceeding from a man himselfe may carrie some semblance of those which are wrought by the spirit and a man may haue many sinnes which he knoweth not and so cannot repent him of them Contra. 1. To Thomas argument we answer 1. that two waies is a faithfull man perswaded and made certaine of his saluation both by the efficient cause the spirit of God which giueth such testimonie and assurance vnto them and by the signes and effects which are wrought in them 2. though God cannot here be perfitely knowne yet so much is knowne of God as may make a man sure of his saluation as we know by the Scriptures the great loue and mercie of God towards vs in
of predestination c. 8.30 whereupon iustification by faith is grounded he in this Chapter doth handle at large this mysterie of Gods free and gracious election and the Chapter consisteth of three parts 1. because he was to treat of the reiection of the Iewes and calling of the Gentiles be doth first vse a pathetical insinuation protesting his desire toward the saluation of the Iewes to v. 6. 2. Then he handleth the mysticall doctrine of election remooving diuerse obiections to v. 24. 3. then he declareth the vse of this doctrine in the vocation of the Gentiles and the reiection of the Iewes 1. In the insinuation 1. the Apostle setteth forth his griefe the truth of it v. 1. the greatnes v. 2. 2. then his desire v. 3. euen to be separated from Christ for the saluation of the Iewes with the reasons thereof 1. because they were his kinsmen after the flesh v. 3. 2. they were the people of God which he prooueth by fiue priuiledges and immunities v. 4. 3. of them were the fathers of whom Christ descended 2. The mysterie of the doctrine of predestinaion is handled by remoouing certaine obiections which are three 1. Obiect Is propounded v. 6. if the Iewes be reiected and become an anathema to whom Gods promises were made it would followe that God should be mutable and inconstant in his promises Answ. 1. He denieth the consequent it followeth not if many of the Israelites be reiected that therefore God should faile in his word v. 6. 2. he sheweth the reason the promise was made onely vnto the true seede of Abraham but all which are carnally descended of Abraham are not his seede but the elect onely Ergo this is affirmed v. 6. 7. then it is prooued first by the example of Izaak that he onely was the true seede of Abraham and not Ismael which is prooued 1. by a direct testimonie of Scripture v. 7. 2. by this argument the children of the promise are the true seede v. 8. but Izaak onely was the promised seede v. 9. Ergo Secondly the same is confirmed by the example of Iacob and Esau Iacob onely was the true seede this is amplyfied 1. by remoouing the supposed causes of this difference betweene Iacob and Esau which was neither their carnall generation because they were conceiued by one and at the same time nor yet their workes for when as yet they were vnborne and had done neither good nor bad sentence was giuen of them which he sheweth by two testimonies of Scripture v. 12.13 2. he setteth downe the true causes the efficient the election and vocation of God the finall that the purpose of God might remaine firme v. 11. 2. Oiection is propounded v. 14. and it riseth out of the former for if God elect some and reiect others before they haue done either good or euill he should seeme to be vniust Answ. 1. He answeareth negatiuely it followeth not that God should be vnrighteous 2. then he giueth a reason of his answear taken from Gods absolute power and right in the creature he sheweth mercie and hardeneth whom he pleaseth this is propounded v. 18. and it is handled before by parts first that he hath mercie on whom he will v. 15. which is amplified by the contrarie it is not in the willer or runner but in God that sheweth mercie v. 16. secondly the other part is prooued by the particular example of Pharaoh which is amplyfied by shewing the ende of his reiection the setting forth of Gods glorie v. 17. 3. Obiect v. 19. If God doth according to his owne will elect some and reiect others and his will cannot be resisted nor hindered it would seeme a cruell and vniust part to condemne those which cannot helpe it Answ. The Apostle answeareth negatiuely not denying that it is Gods will that some should be elected some reiected but that it followeth not hereupon that God should be cruell or vniust which he sheweth 1. by the vnsearcheable wisedome and iustice of God which man is no more to finde fault with then the clay with the potter 2. by Gods absolute power which he hath ouer his workemanship as the potter ouer the clay v. 21. 3. by the effects that howsoeuer Gods decree standeth concerning the reprobate yet they worthily deserue to be cast off because of their sinne wherein God vseth long suffring toward them v. 22. 4. by the ende of the reiection of the one to shewe Gods iustice and power v. 22. and of the election of the other to declare the riches of his mercie v. 23. 3. The third part containeth an application of this generall doctrine of Gods election to the present state of the Gentiles and Iewes wherein 1. he sheweth how the elect and called both among the Gentiles shall be saued which he prooueth by two testimonies out of the Prophet Osee v. 25.26 and among the Iewes which should not be saued but onely a selected remnant which he prooueth by 3. testimonies out of the Prophet Esaias v. 27.28.29 2. he inferreth hereupon the vocation of the Gentiles shewing the cause thereof the embracing of the righteousnesse of faith v. 30. and the reiection of the Iewes v. 31. which he amplyfieth by shewing two causes thereof the following of the workes of the lawe and the stumbling at Christ v. 32. which he confirmeth by a testimonie of the Prophet which concludeth the cause both of the reiection of the Iewes and the taking offence at Christ and of the vocation of the Gentiles namely their faith and beleefe v. 33. 3. The questions and doubts discussed Quest. 1. Why the Apostle beginneth this treatise with an oath I speake the truth in Christ c. 1. Hugo Cardinal referreth it to the former doctrine of the certaintie of predestination because he had said nothing could separate him from the loue of God in Christ. 2. Origen and Chrysostome haue relation to the Apostles extraordinarie wish v. 3. that he wisheth to be seperated from Christ for his brethrens sake which because it might seeme strange and incredible and contrarie to the Apostles confidence vttered before that nothing could seperate him from Christ he therefore vseth this vehement asseueration to shew that he spake from his heart 3. Gryneus thinketh that the Apostle by this vehement speach doth purge himselfe from those cauills and suspitions which were taken vp of him as that he was an innouator of the law a pestilent and seditious fellow 4. Haymo thinketh that the Apostle hereby doth confirme his loue toward his nation sheweth his greefe and sorow for them as it followeth in the next verse 5. But the verie occasion indeed why the Apostle breaketh out into this speach is because he was to entreate of the reiection of the Iewes and vocation of the Gentiles which left it might seeme to proceed from the hatred of his nation he protesteth his loue toward them both by shewing his sorrowe for their hardnesse of heart c. 9. and by his prayer for their conuersion c.
or euill the elder shall serue the younger least the purpose of God should remaine according to election which he supposeth to rise of some difference in the parties elected to this purpose Augustine lib. ad Simplician quest 2. But this parenthesis or interlaced sentence is â—â—tered by the Apostle affirmatively That the purpose of God might remaine c. it cannot therefore be drawne to a negatiue sense And indeede Augustine whether vpon this or some other reason otherwise expoundeth these words epist. 115. 2. But the best answear is that the proposition is not true for election in God presupposeth not a difference God may make election euen in things in themselues equall by the right of his Creatorship and make a difference as euidently appeareth in the creation of the world when all things were equall at the first in that indigested himpe and masse whereout the creatures were made and yet our of it were different creatures made some lightsome as the Sunne and starres some darke and obscure as the earth and earthly things And so the Lord in his decree of predestination made a difference in his election according to his good pleasure of things which differed not before And so there is a difference indeede in those which are elected from others sed non invenit Deus sed ponit ipse in hominibus differentiam but God findeth not any such difference in men but he maketh it Pet. Martyr the difference then dependeth not of the nature of the things but of the purpose and counsell of God 2. Arg. 1. S. Paul saith Ephes. 1.4 He hath elected vs in him that is in Christ but none are in Christ without faith that then which ioyneth vs to Christ is the cause of election 2. againe 2. Thess. 2.13 we are said to be chosen to saluation in faith 3. and Heb. 11.6 It is impossible to please God without faith the elect are pleasing to God therefore by faith they were accepted 4. and seeing faith is the instrumentall cause of saluation why not also of election Thus the Lutherans reason for the foresight of faith Contra. 1. Not euerie thing whereby we are ioyned vnto Christ is the cause of election but that whereby we were first giuen vnto Christ which is the absolute and free mercie of God who elected vs of his free grace and mercie and in Christ appointed to bring those whom he elected vnto eternall life And the Apostle doth expound himselfe what he meaneth by beeing elected in Christ that is he hath predestinate vs to be adopted thorough Christ faith then in Christ is not the cause of election but a meane subordinate to bring the elect vnto saluation 2. We are said to be chosen in faith not faith foreseene as the cause of election but in faith present as a meane vnto saluation 3. The same answear may serue to the third place obiected which must be vnderstood likewise de fide praesenti non praevisa of faith present not of faith foreseene for God thorough his mercie elected vs beeing yet his enemies his loue therefore was before any foresight of faith by his mercie he made vs acceptable vnto himselfe by the election of grace before he sawe any thing in vs. 4. It followeth not that euerie thing which is the cause of saluation should be the cause of election it is true in the generall cause which is the mercie of God which causeth as well the one as the other but not in the next and immediate causes as for example the father is the cause of his son and the son of the nephew and yet the son is not the cause of the father so election is the cause of faith and faith of saluation but it therefore followeth not that faith should be the cause of election And Hunnius that was at the first a great patrone of this cause in the ende argueth that faith in the mysterie of election was to be considered neither vt causam meritoriam as a meritorious or instrumentall cause sed vt partem illius ordinis c. but as a part of that order which God had appointed that is a meane vnto saluation Pareus dub 6. 3. Arg. If God simply should elect some and refuse others without foresight of their faith how is he not an accepter of persons Ans. The accepting of person is when against the rule of iustice a man of no good parts or qualites is preferred before him that is well qualified But there is no feare of this in Gods election for he findeth all alike in themselues none endued with any good gifts or qualities but as he giueth them therefore herein he is no accepter of persons in preferring one before an other all beeing alike Now on the contrarie side that the foresight of faith or any thing in man is not the cause of election but onely the good pleasure and will of God it may be thus further confirmed 1. The Apostle in saying not by workes but by him that calleth excludeth whatsoeuer in man for if either the foresight of faith or of any other thing and not onely of works should be the cause of election then it should not be onely in the caller as the Apostle here saith Mart. Pareus Tolet annot 19. 2. The effect of election is not the cause faith with the fruits thereof are the effects of election Ephes. 1.4 he hath chosen vs that we should be holy Pareus 3. The eternall decree of God is not founded in that which is temporarie the faith or good workes of men are but temporarie things and therefore they cannot be the ground and foundation of Gods eternall decree Faius 4. Faith is the worke of God Ioh. 6.29 therefore not the cause of his election so the same thing should be the cause of it selfe and so also be before it selfe Pareus 5. If election depended vpon the foresight of good workes then it would followe that we are iustified by workes for from election and predestination proceedeth our vocation and from vocation iustification and if election be out of the foresight of works then iustification also which followeth election by degrees Mart. 6. Lyranus addeth this reason further Deus non vult finem propter ea quae sunt ad finem God will not appoint the ende for those things which tend vnto the ende but rather these are for the ende now faith and works are but the way to the ende and therefore they cannot be the cause of the appointment of the end that is that men should attaine vnto euerlasting glorie Lyran. vpon this place 7. Tolet also annot 16. vrgeth this reason whereas the Apostle saith v. 14. is there iniquitie with God if he had meant that the difference in the decree of election ariseth out of the foresight of faith then the reason had beene apparent and there had beene no shew at all of any iniustice in God and so no place for this obiection at all See further of this question before c.
seueritie but toward thee kindnes if thou continue in his kindnes or els thou also shalt be cut off 23 And they also if they abide not still in vnbeleefe shall be graffed in for God is able to graffe them in againe 24 For if thou wast cut out of the wild oliue tree by nature and contrarie beside B.S. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to nature wast graffed in a right oliue tree good oliue Gr. how much more shall they which are by nature be graffed into their owne Oliue tree 25 For I would not brethren that ye should be ignorant of this secret mysterie Gr. that ye should not be wise arrogant B. G. A. in your selues in your owne conceits B. that obstinacie blindnes L.V. see before v. 7. in part is come to Israel vntill the fulnes of the Gentiles be come in 26 And so all Israel shall be saued as it is written The deliuerer shall come out of Sion and shall turne away vngodlines from Iacob 27 And this is my couenant testament V.S.L.P. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth both but the first is fitter here to them when I shall take away their sinnes 28 As concerning the Gospel they are enemies for your sakes but as touching the election they are beloued for their fathers sakes 29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance such as he cannot repent him of B. V. God changeth not in his gift S. 30 For euen as ye in times past haue not beleeued God obeyed Be. S. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it signifieth both but the first is more proper here yet haue now obtained mercie thorough their vnbeleefe 31 Euen so now haue they not beleeved not obeyed Be. haue beene contumacious S. see the former verse by the mercie shewed vnto you your mercie Gr. that they also may obtaine mercie not beleeued the mercie B. A. in the mercie L. not beleeued because of your mercie V.S. Beza referreth it to the latter clause that by your mercie they might obtain mercy 30 For God hath shut vp all in vnbeleefe contumacie or disobedience S.B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth both the first rather here for the Apostle still vrgeth the necessitie of beleefe as c. 9.32 that he might haue mercie on all 33 O the deepenes of the riches both of the wisdome and knowledge of God◠and of the wisdome and knowledge of God L. see 32. quest how vnsearchable incomprehensible L. are his iudgements and his waies past finding out 34 For who hath knowne the minde of the Lord or who was his counseller 35 Or who hath giuen vnto him first and he shall be recompensed 36 For of him and thorough him in him S. and for him are all things to him be glorie for euer Amen 2. The Argument Method and Parts THe Apostle in this Chapter treateth of the calling of the Gentiles and of the reiection of the Iewes yet so as that he both exhorteth the Gentiles not to insult ouer the Iewes because they are reiected for a time and to the comfort of the Iewes he sheweth that they are neither totally nor finally reiected but shall in the ende be conuerted Tehre are ◠parts of the chapter the first is doctrinall shewing that the Iewes are not totally reiected to v. 11. the second is exhortatorie both to Iewes and Gentiles to v. 33. the third is the conclusion v. 33. 1. In the Doctrinall part 1. he sheweth that all the Iewes are not reiected by these reasons 1. by his own example that was a Iew. 2. by the immutabilitie of Gods foreknowledge v. 2. 3. by an argument à pari taken from the like in Elias time the antecedent containeth Elias complaint vnto God v. 3. and Gods answer to him v. 4. the consequent sheweth the application euen so now a remnant shall be saued v. 5. as in Elias time this is amplified by setting forth the efficient cause of their election the grace of God which can not fall away which is enlarged by the contrarie not of works v. 6. 2. Then the Apostle speaketh of the part of the Iewes reiected which is propounded by the contrarie v. 7. and proued by testimonies of Scripture one of Isay v. 8. the other of the Prophet Dauid v. 9 10. 2. In the exhortation 1. he moueth the Gentiles that they should not insult ouer the Iewes to v. 25. 2. he comforteth the Iewes by a propheticall prediction of their conuersion to v. 33. 1. The summe of the Apostles exhortation is set forth v. 18. that the Gentiles to whom he directeth his speach v. 13. should not beast themselues nor be high minded v. 20. or arrogant in themselues v. 25. This exhortation is strengthened by diuers arguments 1. from a double end of the reiection of the Iewes one to bring saluation to the Gentiles the other that the Iewes might emulate the example of the Gentiles these two ends are propounded v. 11. and then amplified the first v. 12. by an argument from the lesse to the greater that if the world gained so much by the reiection of the Iewes much more by their conuersion the other ende is vrged by shewing the ende of the Apostles ministerie among the Gentiles which was to prouoke the Iewes to emulation to saue some of them v. 13 14. 2. Argument from the hope of the conuersion of the Iewes v. 15. which is grounded vpon the force of the Couenant they are branches of an holy roote v. 16. therefore let not the Gentiles insult 3. Arg. from the former state and condition of the Gentiles they were as a wild oliue tree v. 17. 4. Arg. the Gentiles should shew themselues vnthankfull to insult against the roote which did beare the branches v. 18. 5. Arg. the Gentiles might be cast off themselues therefore they were not to boast which he prooueth by an argument from the greater to the lesse If God spared not the naturall branches much lesse the vnnaturall v. 19 20 21. 6. Arg. from the cause or originall of the vocation of the Gentiles the bountie and mercie of God therefore they were not to boast v. 22. 7. Arg. from the hope of the conuersion of the Iewes which was touched before v. 15. which is amplified by the efficient the power of God and by an argument from the lesse to the greater v. 24. The propheticall prediction of the conuersion of the Iewes for their comfort followeth which is propounded v. 25. as before he shewed that the reiection of the Iewes was not totall so here he prooueth that it shall not be finall but that Israel shall be called againe 1. by two testimonies of the Prophet Isai v. 26 27. 2. from the dignitie of the Iewes depending vpon Gods grace and election which was infallible v. 18 19. 3. à pari from the like as the Gentiles sometimes beleeued not but were receiued to mercie so the Iewes then beleeued but should receiue mercie v. 30 31. 4. from the ende God hath shut vp all in vnbeleefe that all might
is subsequens gratia subsequent or following grace whereby the Lord assisteth those which are called as Augustine saith gratia praevenit vt velimus subsequiâ—â—â—â— frustrà velimus grace preuenteth vs that we may be willing and it followeth vs that our will be not in vaine 3. the cause of the grace of God is his owne mercie the Apostle saith here v. 35. who hath giuen vnto him first the internall motiue is the free loue of God the externall impulsiue and moouing cause is the merit of Christ. 4. the effects of the grace and fauour of God are either externall as election predestination or such as are brought forth in time as vocation iustification sanctificatioÌ„ 5. the graces in the second sense which are the gifts of the spirit are either salutis the graces belonging to saluation as knowledge faith hope or they are vocationis such as appertaine vnto our vocation and calling which are either extraordinarie as were the miraculous and propheticall gifts which the Prophets and Apostles had or ordinarie as are the knowledge of arts the gift of vtterance and such like which now are attained vnto by diligent labour and industrie Doct. 5. Concerning good workes the qualitie and kinds thereof the causes and effects v. 6. But if of workes c. 1. The works of men are either naturall as to sleepe or ciuill as to buy to sell which are indifferent or they are morall which are either good or evill 2. the efficient cause of good works is first God moouing by his spirit then the will of man converted and prepared by grace the helping causes are instruction exhortation faithfull endeauour prayer 3. the matter of good works is the internall and externall act of the will and mind heart and bodie the forme is the consent and agreement with the lawe of God 4. the effects of good works are toward God our obedience which in Christ is pleasing and acceptable to him in our selues the fruits and testimonie of our faith toward our brethren their edification they are stirred vp by our good conuersation to glorifie God Doct. 6. We must compare the present state of the Church with the times past v. 5. Euen so now at this present time As S. Paul compared the estate of the Church then present with the times of Elias so we are taught to comfort our selues in the afflictions of the Church of God in these dayes with looking backe into the times past for God doth after the same manner gouerne his Church So Origen well obserueth sicut factum est sub Helsa c. as it was vnder Helias so it was in the comming of Christ and in S. Pauls time c. like as the small number of true professors was then no preiudice to the truth no more ought it to be now Doct. 7. Of the priviledge of the seede of the faithfull v. 16. If the first fruits be holy so is the whole lumpe like as the Iewes which were descended of Abraham were within the couenant and so vnto them belonged circumcision the signe of the couenant the paschal lambe the Temple and sacrifices vnto the which the seede of the Gentiles which were not of Abraham had no right so now the seede and ofspring of Christians are counted holy vnto them belongeth baptisme and other Sacraments and rites of Christian profession for they are an holy seede as the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 7.14 Els were your children vncleane but now are they holy Doct. 8. How the Church or a righteous man is resembled to a tree v. 16. If the roote be holy so are the branches c. 1. a iust man is resembled to a tree 1. propter pedis i. fidei immobilitatem for the stedfastnes of his foot that is his faith v. 20. thou standest by faith 2. propter stipitis i. spei erectionem c. for the erecting of the stalke or truncke which signifieth hope and therefore Iob saith 19.10 he hath remooued my hope like a tree 3. the roote is charitie Eph. 4. beeing rooted and grounded in loue 4. The branches are his vertues Hosh. 14.7 His branches shall spread and his beautie shall be as the olive tree 5. the bloomes and blossomes are his sweete manners 6. the leaues his gracious words 7. the fruit good workes 8. the shadowe of the tree is his mercie Hosh. 14.7 They that dwell vnder his shadowe shall returne Gorrhan Doct. 9. The old Testament and the newe one and the same in substance v. 18. Thou bearest not the roote but the roote thee c. There was then the same roote both of the Iewes and beleeuing Gentiles the same faith the same Mediator the same substance efficacie and force of the Sacraments though the externall rites and symboles were diuerse Martyr so S. Paul Ephes. 4. There is one bodie one spirit c. one Lord one faith c. Doct. 10. Of Gods omnipotencie v. 23. God is able to graffe them in againe The Apostle prooueth the returne and graffing in of the Iewes by the power of God though simply and generally this is no good argument God can doe it therefore it shall be yet here is a sufficient reason because there was no doubt of Gods will seeing the Iewes were his people of old otherwise Gods power is not limited to his will for he can doe more then he will it is contrariwise with man who willeth many things that he cannot effect and so his will is larger then his power Martyr Doct. 11. Christ prooued to be God by the remission of sinnes v. 27. This is my couenant when I shall take away their sinnes c. This sheweth Christ to be God who onely is able to forgiue sinnes men may remit the punishment that it be not inflicted but the guilt of sinne is onely purged by God the keyes are indeede committed to the Church in the preaching of the word but they are the instruments onely whereby God forgiueth sinnes the Ministers are onely the proclaymers of Gods will herein they cannot remit sinnes but onely ministerially as the instruments Doct. 12. Of the excellencie of the knowledge of God v. 33. O the depth of the riches of the wisedome and knowledge of God c. Gods knowledge is excellent 1. for the largenes of it in knowing all things 2. the perfection of it he knoweth all things perfitly 3. the manner he needeth no meanes of his knowledge but himselfe 4. the celeritie of it he knoweth all things in a moment 5. the certaintie of it it cannot be deceiued 6. the eternitie it was from the beginning 7. the efficacie it is the cause of all things 8. the secunditie of it all things are lightened by his knowledge 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. That none which are elected can finally fall away v. 2. Whereas the Apostle saith God hath not cast away his people which he knewe before c. Hence it may be obiected thus God knewe his people before that is elected them vnto saluation but
the propertie of opposition between grace and works remaineth as well in the election to the second grace as to the first if grace be admitted works are excluded for they cannot stand together 2. And all kind of works are excluded from election for good works are not the cause but the effect and fruits of election as Haymo here sheweth out of Saint Paul Eph. 1.6 he hath chosen vs in him that we should be holy c. Controv. 4. Against freewill Chrysostome vpon these words v. 4. I haue reserued to my selfe c. graunteth that God attulit potiorem partem brought the better part but they which were called brought their will volentes sulvat he saueth those which are willing Tolet annot 4. subscribeth vnto Chrysostome herein and refuseth Augustine who ascribeth all vnto grace and further he affirmeth that the nature of grace is not taken away though somewhat be presupposed in man dum modo non sit illud meritorium so it be not held to be meritorious or the cause of grace As when a Prince doth propound ample rewards to all commers though they that come onely haue the rewards yet their comming is no meritorious cause of receiuing the reward but the grace and fauour of the Prince so God elected some to be iustified by faith quos praevidit libero arbitrio concursuros whom he foresawe would concurre with their free-will to this purpose Tolet. Contra. 1. Chrysostomes speach that God saueth onely those which are willing if it be vnderstood with these two cautions that this willingnes is wrought by grace and yet beeing so wrought it is no cause of iustification may safely be receiued for true it is that none are saued against their will But yet God ex nolentibus volentes facit of vnwilling maketh them willing if Chrysostome be otherwise vnderstood as ascribing here strength to mans freewill it is a great error 2. And herein I preferre Augustines iudgement who well obserueth de bon perseueran c. 18. that the Lord here saith not relicti sunt mihi they were reserued for me or they reserued themselues for me but I haue reserued to shewe that it was Gods grace whereby some were reserued and not the act of their owne will Haymo also hath the same note he saith not relicti sunt are left but I haue left or reserued that is per gratiam reservani I haue reserued by grace gloss interlin 3. If any thing be presupposed in man as helping vnto his calling it hindreth and obscureth the worke of grace if it be but a preparation onely though not meritorious and it is directly against the Scripture that a man hath any will to come to God of himselfe as Ioh. 6.44 No man can come vnto me except the father drawe him Rom. 9.16 it is not in him that willeth or runneth but in God that sheweth mercie Philip. 2.13 It is God that worketh in you both the will and the deede how then can mans will of it selfe concurre with the grace of God that example alleadged is not like for to come to receiue the Princes reward is a ciuill thing wherein mans will hath some freedome but in spirituall actions it hath no libertie at all vntill it be freed by grace as our Blessed Sauiour saith Ioh. 8.36 if the Sonne shall make you free then are you free indeede Controv. 5. That vniuersalitie and multItude is not alwaies a note of the true Church v. 4. I haue reserued to my selfe seuen thousand Like as the paucitie and fewenes of professors in Elias time was no preiudice to the truth nor yet the multitude of idolaters a proofe that they were the Church so neither is the great number of nations people powers Cardinals Bishops Priests Monkes an argument for the Papall Church for in Noahs time the visible Church was contained in his familie and his Arke did beare the little barke of the Church of God and in Sodome onely in Lots house was there an exercise of true pietie yea our Sauiour calleth his a little flocke though therefore the Church of Christ consisted of smaller numbers then it doth which still encreaseth and shall we trust more and more toward the comming of Christ yet the smalnes of the number should be no matter of exception as it was not either in the time of Elias or of our Blessed Sauiour and his Apostles when as a thousand to one were enemies to true godlines see before Synops. Centur. 1. nr 19. Controv. 6. Of the sufficiencie of Scripture and of the right way to interpret the same v. 8. According as it is written By this often allegation of Scriptures and by collation of one with an other as here the Apostle compareth Isaias and Dauid together we gather a double vse of Scripture the one that all doctrine of faith must be derived from thence as throughout this epistle the Apostle for the proofe of his doctrine onely alleadgeth the Scriptures and therefore our Blessed Sauiour faith Ioh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures c. for they are they which testifie of we Christ admitteth no other witnesse of him and his doctrine but the Scriptures And in that the Apostle doth illustrate and interpret one place of Scripture by an other we see that the Scripture is the best interpreter of it selfe that which in one place is obseurely insinuated otherwhere it may be found more plainly and perspicuously expressed See more hereof Synops. Centur. 1. err 10.12 Controv. 7. Against the Iewes Chrysostome vpon these words bowe downe their backes alwayes v. 10. sheweth how this prophesie is now verified in the perpetuall desolation of the Iewes for whereas the Israelites were 200. yeares in Egypt God yet in his mercie deliuered them though they there committed fornication and were guiltie of diuerse other sinnes afterward beeing deliuered after the Lord had a long time suffered and endured them with patience at the length he punished them with 70. yeares captiuitie beeing deliuered from thence they were vexed vnder Antiochus three yeares but now more then three hundred yeares are past and yet they haue not so much as alicuius spei vmbram the shadowe of any hope when as they neither commit idolatrie nor some other sinnes for the which they were before punished Whereupon it must needes followe that the Iewes to this day are afflicted for not beleeving in Christ. To this purpose Chrysostome wrote more then a thousand yeeres since and so he then prophetically expounded that the Iewes backes should for euer be bowed downe and kept vnder vntill such time as they should vniuersally be called God open their eyes at the length that they seeing the cause why the wrath of God is thus kindled against them may at the last with faith and repentance turne vnto him Controv. 8. Whether any of the true branches may be broken off v. 17. Though some of the branches be broken off c. It may seeme then that some branches may be broken off and so some of
Prince maketh some of his subiects to whom he committeth his authoritie iudges of the rest 5. Obiect Tolet annot 11. thus reasoneth from the authoritie which the spirituall power hath ouer mens persons and bodies to free and exempt them as it shall make most for their soules health toward the obtaining of euerlasting life 1. Like as a king hath power to take mens sonnes and daughters for his seruice and their vineyards and possessions to giue them to his seruants as Samuel describeth the office of a king 1. Sam. 8. so much more hath the spirituall power authoritie to doe it toward the aduancement of Gods kingdome 2. our Sauiour Matth. 17.26 freeth the sonnes of kings that is omnes credentes all that beleeue from paying of tribute which notwithstanding was paid propter vitandum scandalum to avoide scandall 3. S. Paul had power to retaine and keepe Onesimus from his master Philemons seruice yet he did remit somewhat of his power that his Master might not seeme to doe it of necessitie but willingly Philem. 1.4 Contra. 1. Popes are partiall iudges in their owne case and therefore it skilleth not what immunities they haue giuen to the Clergie and no man can conferre more power vpon an other then he hath himselfe seeing then that the Pope himselfe is not exempted from the power of the Magistrate he much lesse can exempt others 2. Samuel in that place describeth not the office of a King what it ought to be but what Princes should doe for their will and pleasure and so the Pope herein taketh vpon him to tyrannize in the Church 3. that place is vnderstood of the naturall sonnes of Kings who are free from tribute and so Christ beeing lineally descended of Dauid might haue challenged that priuiledge thus beside our owne interpreters Pererius one of Tolets owne order expoundeth that place de naturalibus filijs of the naturall sonnes of Kings disput 2. num 12. for otherwise a great inconveniencie would followe that all Christians should be exempted and treed from paying of tribute 4. S. Paul had a speciall interest in Philemon to command him because as Theophylact well interpreteth te in Christo genui I haue begotten thee in Christ this was his speciall case this can not then be drawne to an ordinarie present and example and againe this maketh directly against the Papists that if S. Paul which had this Apostolike authoritie would not keepe Onesimus from his master without his consent it is great boldnes and presumption for the Pope who begetteth none vnto the faith by preaching as S. Paul did and so hath no such interest in that behalfe neither is he an Apostle to arrogate that to himselfe which S. Paul would not vsurpe Now notwithstanding these obiections that Ecclesiasticall persons and causes though in things meerely Ecclesiasticall and proper to the ministerie as are the preaching of the word and the administration of the Sacraments they are to be ruled onely by the word and are not subiect to men yet are in respect of their ciuill obedience as they are citizens and parts of the Commonwealth and in some sort as ministers also subiect to the censure and command of the ciuill Magistrate some of our arguments are these 1. The Kings of Iudah exercised power ouer Ecclesiasticall persons both in ciuill and criminall causes and partly also Ecclesiasticall as Dauid appointed vnto the Levites their courses Salomon displaced Abiathar from the Priesthood Bellarmine answereth that these Kings were also Prophets and so God did extraordinarily commit vnto them some things which belonged onely vnto the Priests lib. 1. de concil c. 20. Contra. Not onely Dauid and Salomon which were Prophets did exercise this power ouer Ecclesiasticall persons and causes but the rest also of the succeeding godly kings of Iudah as Iehosaphat gaue commission to the Priests and Iudges to abolish idolatrie Ioas reprooued the negligence of the Priests Iosias purged the land of idols and put downe the Chemarims and vnlawfull order of Priests 2. The Apostles words are generall Let euery soule be subiect to the higher power therefore Ecclesiasticall persons also Ans. 1. Origen by euery soule vnderstandeth animalis homo a naturall man spirituall men then are exempted Contra. 1. In the Hebrew phrase euery soule is taken for euery person therefore that distinction betweene the spirit and the soule proceedeth from the ignorance of the Hebrew phrase 2. Origen in that place saith that he which hath no siluer or gold or possessions hath nothing to be subiect for but the Papall Clergie haue all these and in great abundance therefore euen by Origens sentence for such things they ought to be subiect vnto the Ciuill powers 2. Ans. Bellarmine telleth vs that the Apostle speaketh generally of obedience to be giuen as well to spirituall as temporall powers and that the meaning is that euery subiect should yeeld obedience to his superiour and so the Clergie should giue obedience to the Pope and the Laitie to their Prince lib. 2. de Rom. Pontif. c. 29. resp ad argum 3. Contr. 1. The Apostle speaketh here of that power which hath the sword but the Ecclesiasticall state doth not handle the sword therefore the Apostle speaketh onely of subiection to the Ciuill power to whom the sword is committed 2. and this were to make a diuision and rent in kingdomes if all that are therein should not be subiects to the king of the countrey as in France all the French should not be in subiection to the French king but the Clergie of France should be subiects to the Pope Martyr 3. Ans. The Papall Clergie are bound by oath vnto their Bishops and they to the Pope and therefore without breach to their oath they can not be subiect to temporall gouernors Contr. Such oaths are contrarie to the Apostles precept of obedience to be giuen to the Ciuil magistrate and therfore pro impijs illicitis rescindi debent they must be cut off and disanulled as vnlawfull and impious Gualter 3. Argum. Our blessed Sauiour was himselfe subiect not onely priuately vnto his parents but publikely to the Magistrate to whome he caused poll money to be paid for himselfe and Peter refusing to vse that priuiledge which he might haue challenged to himselfe as beeing descended lineally of king Dauid wherein he was an example vnto vs of obedience to be yeelded vnto Ciuill gouernors So also S. Paul following his masters steps was obedient to the magistrate and appealed vnto Cesar Act. 16. 4. Argum. This was the doctrine of the Church in the pure ages as Chrysostome vpon this place saith Euery soule should be subiect si Apostolus si Evangelista si Propheta sive quisquis tandem fueris if thou art an Apostle or Euangelist or whatsoeuer els Bernard epist 42. thus inferreth vpon this place si omnis anima vestra quis vos excipit ab vniversitate si quis tentat excipere conatur deripere if euery soule then yours who can except you