appointed for generation so the Syrian translator re quae non est ex natura vsae sunt they vsed the thing both which was not of nature c. 3. So likewise the men with men wrought filthines actiuely in forcing vpon other vnnaturall acts of vncleannes and passiuely in suffering others to doe it this was the sinne of Sodome for the which they were destroied Socrates is noted among the Philosophers for masculine venerie which Plato condemneth And the Apostle may seeme to haue speciall relation here vnto the abominable vncleannes of the Romanes and specially 〈◊〉 who was a monstrous beast for such sinnes against nature Pareus Chrysostome 〈◊〉 elegantly sheweth how whereas by Gods ordinance in lawfull copulation by mariage two became one flesh both sexes were ioned together in one by this Sodomiticall vnâ—â—â—nnes the same flesh is diuided into two the men with men working vncleannes with women and so serue in stead of two sexes 68. Quest. How one sinne is punished by an other vpon these words And receiued in themselues such recompence of their error c. v. 27. 1. There are some sinnes which are as punishments of former sinnes which are non tormenta peccantium sed incrementa vitiorum not so much the torment of sinners as the encreasing of sinne as Augustine saith And here we may make a foure-fold distinction of sinnes 1. some are not onely sinnes but the causes also of sinnes following as Gregorie giueth instance of one giuen vnto riot and excesse in eating and drinking which causeth him through the lustines of his flesh to commit adulterie here his Epicures life is both a sinne and the cause of an other sinne namely adulterie 2. Some sinnes are both the cause of an other sinne following and the punishment of a former as if the adulterer proceed further to commit murther here adulterie is the punishment of his gluttonie and the cause of murther 3. And there is a sinne which is the punishment of a former sinne though it bring forth no new sinne as murther here is the punishment of adulterie 4. Some sinnes are neither the causes nor punishment of other sinnes but simply sinnes in themselues as namely when any one repenteth of his sinne and proceedeth no further 2. But here it will be obiected that euery sinne is voluntarie but the punishment of sinne is involuntarie how then can sinne be a punishment and euery punishment of sinne is iust and so of God but sinne is vniust and not of God therefore not a punishment To this obiection diuers answers are made 1. The master of the sentences lib. 2. distinct 36. giueth this solution that sinne is said to be a punishment not as it is a fault committed by the will but in respect of the effect which it worketh in the soule which is the corrupting of the minde and making it guiltie of damnation But in this sense euery sinne should be a punishment of sinne because the minde is thus corrupted and made guiltie euen by the first sinnes which one committeth 2. Therefore Thomas Aquinas addeth further that sinne in respect of the nature thereof because it is voluntarie is not a punishment but in respect of the cause which is the subtraction or remoouing of the grace of God whereby he falleth into further sinne And further he explaneth the matter thus that sinne is a punishment 3. waies either in respect of somewhat going before as the absence or subtracting of the grace of God or somewhat which accompanieth sinne either in the minde as the corrupting and polluting of it or without as crosses and troubles which are sent for sinne or els in respect of somewhat ensuing and following as the torment of conscience But all these the subtracting of grace outward trouble and remorse of conscience may concurre in the first sinnes which are not the punishment of any precedent sinnes therfore a further reason hereof is to be found out 3. Wherfore God in punishing one sinne by an other is to be considered as a iust Iudge that not onely by subtracting his grace as Pererius not by giuing Sathan power ouer sinners to draw them further into sinne as Hyperius but by the secret working of his iustice in ordering and directing all things according to his will he so disposeth and effecteth that the wicked are giuen ouer to greater impietie and iniquitie to commit sinne with greedines so then this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recompence hath neither reference vnto the sinners themselues who regard herein nothing but their owne inordinate pleasure not yet vnto Sathans worke who intendeth nothing but the contumely of God and the destruction of the vngodly but it is referred vnto God who in punishing sinne by sinne onely respecteth the due course of his iustice in thus recompencing their former error God then is no way accessarie to their sinnes but concurreth as a iust Iudge in punishing their former sinnes with greater following Pareus Faius here noteth well a difference betweene the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Apostle here vseth which signifieth a iust and full recompence answering and correspondent vnto the merit of their sinne which word is onely vsed of euill works but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a reward is giuen vnto good works as be conferred of grace not answering vnto any merit before going 3. As thus it hath beene shewed how sinne is the punishment of sinne so also one sinne may be the cause of an other and that either directly or indirectly directly when as a man by one sinne is inclined to commit an other and that three waies 1. in respect of the ende as when one through couetousnes committeth murther to enioy an others wealth 2. or by suggesting the matter of an other sinne as gluttonie bringeth forth adulterie 3. or in respect of the efficient and moouing cause as when one by practise and continuance in sinne is growne into an habit of sinning which still stirreth him vp to heape sinne to sinne Indirectly one sinne causeth an other by remoouing that which should keepe one from sinne as namely when the sinne first committed excludeth the grace of God whereby one should be preserued from sinne Thom. prim secund qu. 80. art 2. 69. Quest. How the Gentiles are said not to regard to know God v. 28. 1. Origen thinketh that the Apostle setteth downe here three kinds of impieties against God first of them which worshipped idols to v. 23. which was the generall sinne of the Gentiles secondly of those which worshipped the creature rather then the creator v. 25. such were the Philosophers and Astronomers which were skilfull in the obseruation of naturall things thirdly he thinketh heretikes here to be noted that regard not to know God But the Apostle seemeth still to continue in the same argument setting forth the sinnes of the Gentiles that as before he shewed how they polluted and defiled themselues so now he describeth other sinnes as fruits of their idolatrie namely such as are
of death originall sinne then hath a kind of existence for how else could it be called a bodie of sinne or death see more hereof elsewhere Synops. Cen. 4. err 14. 2. Concerning the reasons obiected 1. God is the author of euerie substance and of euery naturall qualitie but not of vnnaturall dispositions or qualities as neither of diseases in the bodie nor of vices in the minde this euill qualitie was procured by mans voluntarie transgression 2. and though habites which are personall and obtained by vse and industrie are not transmitted to posteritie yet this euill habite was not personall in Adam as he is considered vt singularis persona as a singular person but by him it entred into the nature of man as he was totius humanae naturae principiū the beginning of the whole nature of man 3. Burgensis taketh another exception vnto Lyranus addition and he thinketh that Adams posteritie is not bound to haue the originall iustice which was giuen to Adam for they haue no such bond either by the law of nature for that originall iustice was supernaturally added or by any diuine precept for God gaue vnto Adam no other precept but that one not to eate of the forbidden fruite and therefore they were not bound at all to haue or reteine Adams originall iustice Thus Burgens Contra. 1. Herein I rather consent vnto Thoring the Replic vpon Burgens who thus argueth that this debt or bond to haue originall iustice was grounded vpon the law of nature which is the rule of right reason for by nature euery one is tied to seeke the perfection and conseruation of it kind and this originall iustice tended vnto the perfection of man which though it were supernaturally added vnto man yet it was not giuen him alone sed pro tota natura for the whole nature of man and so he concludeth well that man is culpable in not hauing this originall iustice though not culpâ actuali quae est suppositi by any actuall fault which belongeth to the person or subiect yet culpâ originali quae est natura by an originall fault which is in nature To this purpose the Replic And this may be added further that if Adams posteritie were not debters in respect of this originall iustice then were they not bound to keepe the law which requireth perfect righteousnesse and so it would follow that they are not transgressors against the law if they were not bound to keepe it the first exception then of Burgensis may be recieued but not the second 2. Pighius also who denieth originall sinne to be a privation or want of originall iustice holdeth it to be no sinne to want that iustice which is not enioyned by any law vnto mankind for no law can be produced which bindeth infantes to haue that originall iustice and therein he concurreth with Burgensis Contra. But this obiection is easily refuted for first man was created according to Gods image in righteousnesse and holines which image Adams posteritie is bound to retaine but he by his sinne defaced that image and in stead thereof begate children after his owne image Gen. 5.3 in the state of corruption And whereas Pighius replieth out of Augustine that the image of God in man consisteth in the three faculties of the soule the vnderstanding memorie and will Augustine must not be so vnderstood as though herein consisted onely the image of God but as therein is shadowed forth the misterie of the Trinitie for the Apostle expressely sheweth that this image of God is seene in righteousnes and holines Ephes. 4.24 An other lawe is the lawe of nature which is the rule which euery one is to followe Cicero could say that convenientur viuere c. to liue agreeably to this law is the chiefe ende of man to this lawe euen infants are also bound there is a third lawe which is the morall which saith thou shalt not lust which prohibiteth not onely actuall but originall concupiscence And whereas Pighius here obiecteth that a lawe is giuen in vaine of such things as cannot be avoided therein he sheweth his ignorance for it is not in mans power to keep the lawe for then it had not beene necessarie for Christ to haue died for vs who came to performe that which was impossible by the lawe Rom. 8.3 yet was not the lawe giuen so in vaine for there are two speciall vses thereof both to giue vs direction how to liue well and to bring vs to the knowledge of sinne xe Mart. 4. This then is originall sinne 1. it consisteth partly of a defect and want of originall iustice in that the image of God after the which man was created in righteousnesse and holines was blotted out by the fall of man partly in an euill habite disposition and qualitie and disorder of all the faculties and powers both of bodie and soule This was the start of man after his fall and the same is the condition of all his posteritie by nature Augustine also maketh originall sinne a positiue qualitie placing it in the concupiscence of the flesh not the actuall concupiscence but that naturall corruption which although it be more generall then to containe it selfe within the compasse of concupiscence onely yet he so describeth it by the most manifest effect because our naturall corruption doth most of all shew and manifest it selfe in the concupisence and lust of our members 2. The subiect then and matter of originall sinne are all the faculties and powers of soule and bodie the former is the pravitie and deformitie of them the efficient cause was the peruersnes of Adams will the instrument is the carnall propagation the end or effect is euerlasting damnation both of bodie and soule without the mercie of God Martyr 3. Originall sinne is taken either actiuely for the sinne of Adam which was the cause of sinne in his posteritie which is called originale origmans originall sinne giuing beginning or passiuely for the naturall corruption raised in Adams ofspring by his transgression which is tearmed originale originatum originall sinne taking beginning 4. Of this originall sinne taken both waies there are three misserable effects 1. participatio culpa the participating in the fault or offence for we were all in Adams loines when he transgressed and so we all sinned in him as here the Apostle saith 2. imputatio reatus the imputation of the guilt and punishment of sinne we are the children of wrath by nature subiect both to temporall and eternall death 3. there is naturae depratatio vel deformitas the depravation and deformitie of nature wherein there dwelleth no good thing Rom. 17.18 Controv. 16. Of the wicked heresie of Marcion and Valentinus with the blasphemous Manichees 1. Origen out of the words of the former verse where the Apostle speaketh of our attonement and reconciliation by Christ confureth the heresie of Marcion and Valentinus whose opinion was that there was some substance quae naturaliter Deo sit inimica which naturally is
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.
his iust iudgement to leaue some in their sinnes c. and not beeing made partakers of Christ to condemne them for euer Iudicious Polanus hath the like definition of reprobation in his partitions It is the decree whereby God purposed to himselfe to leaue those of whom it pleased him not to haue mercie in euerlasting destruction vnto the which they should be obnoxious for their sinnes for the declaration of his iustice In these distinctions all the causes are touched of euerlasting damnation and the â—â—re-ordaining thereunto the efficient is Gods decree and purpose the materiall is sinne the formall the deniall of mercie and the leauing them to themselues the finall cause is the setting forth of the iustice of God And thus I trust it hath beene sufficiently shewed how the decree of reprobation may safely be held to proceede from the prescience of originall and actuall sinne and not to be an absolute act of Gods will and purpose as the decree of election is and in this resolution of this question whatsoeuer I haue before thought and written otherwise I set vp my rest as the safest from any inconuenience and the fittest to giue satisfaction to the contrarie obiections which are such as here follow 1. Obiect Seeing the number of the reprobate farre exceedeth the number of the elect how is Gods mercie magnified aboue his iustice Ans. They which hold an absolute reprobation without relation vnto sinne cannot here remooue this doubt for if God out of his owne will should cast off more then he receiueth he should be farre more iust then mercifull But this beeing first laid as a foundation that God casteth off none but for sin in that he saueth some out of that masse of corruption whereas he might iustly leaue all his mercie exceedeth his iustice and in these three points 1. in that God in the beginning made man righteous Ecclesi 7.31 and gaue him free-will so to haue continued if he would and if he had not willingly transgressed he should haue remained in the state of grace and fauour with God and not haue tasted of his iustice 2. after man had fallen and brought all his posteritie into the bondage of corruption Gods mercie appeared in sauing some whereas he might in iustice haue condemned all as he did the reprobate Angels that kept not their first state 3. his mercie is euident euen toward those which are left in their corruption that the Lord denieth not vnto them meanes whereby they might be called if they had grace to vse them and he suffereth euen the vessels of wrath with much patience not presently cutting theÌ„ off as he might in al these points Gods mercie exceedeth his iustice 2. Obiect When God had made Adam righteous it was in his power to haue kept him from falling that all might haue beene saued is not God therein accessarie to their sin is suffering that which he might haue hindered Ans. 1. 〈◊〉 was fit that the Creator hauing made man with free will should suffer the creature freely to exercise that naturall power and facultie which was giuen him as other creatures doâ—â— their kind 2. although God permitted Adam to fall yet he knew how to vse it for 〈◊〉 further demonstration of his glorie and in this behalfe it is iust with God to suffer euill â—â—â—â—e in the world which he knoweth how to turne vnto good as he suffered Iob to be 〈◊〉 of Sathan for the triall of his faith 3. But in that God saueth some out of that masse of corruption and perdition and not all how is he not now partial and an accepter of persons in dealing vnequally with those which are in equall state and condition Ans. Where one is bound to giue equally to all there it is partialitie and iniustice not to giue vnto all alike but in free and voluntarie gifts one may giue vnequally vnto those which are of equall sort without any touch at all as when a man hath two debters he may forgiue vnto one his debt and yet require it of another So God is not bound to giue his grace vnto any especially where they haue willingly fallen from his grace as Adam did in Paradise and we in him we beeing then all now endebted vnto Gods iustice in our naturall corruption God may haue mercie where and on whom he will it is lawfull for him to do with his owne as he will Matth. 20.15 4. Obiect It seemeth to be an hard and cruell part to destroie any for the setting forth of ones power and magnificence as the Turke and other Tyrants make no account of mens liues to serue their pleasure Ans. 1. No earthly potentate hath that power ouer his subiects which God hath ouer his creatures therefore though it be vniust in the one it is not in the other 2. for one to destroy another for his honour and glorie sake may seeme hard but to bequeath them to destruction worthily for their faults to get glorie thereby is not vniust so although God in the destruction and condemnation of the wicked intend his glorie yet they are worthily condemned for their sinne Obiect 5. He that willeth the end willeth also the meanes that bring and lead vnto that end if God haue appointed the damnation of the reprobate then he willeth also sinne which is the meanes to that end Ans. He that simply willeth the end willeth also the meanes but God simply willeth not the damnation of any but for their sinne Obiect 6. If God haue foreseene the sinnes of the reprobate and willeth their iust damnation for sinne how is it said he would haue all to be saued Ans. God simply willeth not the damnation of any but for sinne and no other thing appeareth in the reuealed will of God in that he offereth meanes of saluation to all but that he would haue all to be saued this then is to be vnderstood of the absolute and reuealed will of God 7. Obiect If God foresee the sinnes of the reprobate and decree their punishment why doth God complaine of sinners seeing his will in them is fulfilled Ans. Augustine answeareth 1. God iustly complaineth of sinners quia non cogit eos peccare because he doth not constraine them to sinne howsoeuer Gods decree cannot be altered yet their will is not forced they sinne willingly and so are iustly condemned 2. and when God complaineth of sinners by this meanes those on whom God sheweth mercie are called compunguntur corde and are pricked in heart howsoeuer the other are hardened Obiect 8. If the case so stand that the reprobate are appointed to damnation then it skilleth not what a man doth for though he should repent him yet if he be a reprobate it cannot helpe him Ans. If â—â—â—were apparant who were elected who a reprobate then indeed all contrarie endeauour were in vaine but seeing we haue no other way to prooue our election then by our faith and fruits we must thereby labour to make our election sure 2.
punishment B. Par. immittit iram sendeth his wrath T. inducit iraâ—â— bringeth in his wrath that is punishment I speake according to man V.L. Or. as a man G. as the sonne of man T. after the manner of man B.Be. 6 God forbid farre be it or let it not be Or. els how shall God iudge the world Or. this world L.R. 7 For if the veritie of God hath more B. abounded thorough my lie in my lie L. so is the originall but the preposition in is taken for through why am I yet condemned as a sinner 8 And not rather as we are blasphemed orig as some speake euill of vs. Be. V. but the word in the orig is in the passive as we are slanderously reputed B. and some affirme that we say let vs doe euill that there may come good whose damnation is iust or whose damnation is reserued for iustice T. 9 What then are we more excellent no in no wise for we haue already or before prooued G. or pronounced T. not before accused Be. B. L shewed by rendring the cause V. the word properly so signifieth to giue a reason or shew the cause all both Iewes and Gentiles to be vnder sinne 10 As it is written There is none righteous no not one there is not any iust L.R. but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one is here omitted 11 There is none that vnderstandeth there is none that seeketh after B. God 12 They haue all gone out of the way they are together become vnprofitable there is none that doth good no not one vnto one Or. 13 Their throat is in an open sepulchre with their tongues they haue deceiued B. Or. vsed their tongues to deceit Be. G. the poison of aspes is vnder their lippes 14 Whos 's mouth is full of cursing and bitternes 15 Their feete are swift to shed blood 16 Destruction not hearts griefe B. the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrition destruction and calamitie V.B.G. miserie B. vnhappines L. griefe T. are in their waies 17 And the way of peace they haue not knowne 18 The feare of God is not before their eyes Or. not there is no feare of God before their eyes for the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not is an adverb 19 Now we know that whatsoeuer the Law saith it saith to them which are vnder the Law in the law Or. that euery mouth may be stopped and all the world may be culpable G. obnoxious V. Be. subiect L. R. endamaged B. subiect to condemnation B. the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to be vnder the sentence that is guiltie vnto God 20 Therefore not because L.B. because that V. for it is a conclusion inferred out of the former words by the works of the Law shall no flesh be iustified in his sight or before him L. for by the Law commeth the knowledge of sinne by the law sinne is knowne T. 21 But now is the righteousnes of God made manifest without the Law hauing witnes of the Law and the Prophets 22 To wit the righteousnes of God by the faith of Iesus Christ toward all vnto all B.G. but the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in omnes toward all and vpon all that beleeue the righteousnes of God by faith c. L.V.T. but it is better to ioyne it by way of exposition to the former verse for this righteousnes by faith is the same which in the former verse he called the righteousnes of God for there is no difference these words some make part of the next verse the 23. Genev but in the original they ende the 22. verse 23 For all haue sinned and are depriued of the glorie of God G. Be. or come short as of the marke not haue neede of the glorie of God L. B. or are destitute V. T. for that doth not sufficiently expresse the meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to come short 24 But are iustified beeing iustified L. Or. but the participle must be resolued into the verbe freely by his grace thorough the redemption that is in Christ Iesus 25 Whome God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood for the shewing of his righteousnes by the forgiuenes of the sinnes which were past before 26 Through the patience of God by the space which God gaue vs by his long suffering T. but this is interpreted rather then translated for the shewing of his righteousnes in this present time at this time G.B.L.T. but in the originall there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nunc now that is this present that he might be iust and a iustifier of him which is of the faith of Iesus Or. of Iesus Christ. L. of our Lord Iesus Christ. T. 27 Where is then the boasting reioycing G. it is excluded by what law of works nay but by the law of faith 28 Therefore we conclude G. or collect or gather B.V. as by reason and argument so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not we thinke L. or hold B. that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the Law 29 Is he God of the Iewes onely and not of the Gentiles also yes euen of the Gentiles also 30 For it is one God which shall iustifie iustifieth L.T. but the word in the originall is in the future tense the circumcision of faith through faith T. but the preposition here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of and the vncircumcision through faith 31 Doe we then make the Law of none effect through faith not destroy the law through faith L.B. for the same word was vsed before v. 3. shall their vnbeleefe make the faith of God without effect not destroy it God forbid yea we establish the Law 2. The Argument Method and parts IN this Chapter the Apostle proceedeth to prooue that the Iewes notwithstanding certaine priuiledges which they had yet because of their vnbeleefe were not better then the Gentiles and so he concludeth all vnder sinne and vnable to be iustified by their workes whereupon it followeth that they must be iustified by faith This chapter hath three parts The 1. from v. 1. to v. 9. wherein he remooueth certaine obiections which might be â—ooued by the Iewes which are three in number 1. Obiection is propounded v. 1. in making the case of the Iewes and Gentiles alike he should seeme to take away all priuiledge from the Iewes the answer followeth in graunâ—ing their priuiledge v. 2. and confirming the same by the constancie of Gods promises v. 3. which he prooueth by certaine testimonies out of the Psalmes v. 4. 2. Obiection is propounded v. 5. and it ariseth out of the testimonie before alleadged that if God be declared to be iust when he iudgeth and punisheth mens sinnes then he should not do well to punish that whereby his iustice is set forth v. 5. the answer followeth v. 6. taken froÌ„ the office of God he can not be but most iust seeing he shall iudge the
Obiect The Apostle saith v. 15. If ye liue after the flesh yee shall die but if ye mortifie the deedes of the bodie ye shall liue therefore mortification is the cause of life and saluation Contra. 1. Hence followeth that mortification is necessarie vnto saluation yet not as a cause but as a necessarie condition without the which there is no faith and consequently no saluation 2. eternall life is the gift of God c. 6.23 therefore not due vnto our merits euill workes are the cause of damnation because they iustly deserue it but it followeth not that good workes are the cause of saluation for they are both imperfect and so vnproportinable to the reward and they are due otherwise to be done and therefore merite not Controv. 4. Against the Arrians and Eunomians concerning the deitie of the holy Ghost v. 2. The law of the spirit of life c. hath freedome Chrysostome homil de adorand spirit from this place prooueth the deitie of the spirit against the Arrian and Eunomiâ—au heretikes who made great difference in the persons of the Trinitie the Sonne they affirmed to be a creature and much inferiour to the Father and the holy Ghost they made servum ministrum silij a seruant and minister of the Sonne Chrysostome confuteth them by this place for if the spirit be the author of libertie and freedome to others then is he most free himselfe and not a minister or seruant as the Apostle saith 2. Cor. 2.17 where the spirit of the Lord is there is libertie Controv. 5. Against the Pelagians that a man by nature cannot keepe and fulfill the law This error is confuted by the expresse words of the Apostle who saith that the law was weake by reason of the flesh and so not able to iustifie vs by the flesh the Apostle vnderstandeth not substantiam caruis the substance of the flesh as the Maniches were readie to catch at these and the like places to confirme their wicked opinion who held the flesh of man to be euill by nature nor yet the carnall rites and obseruations of the law which were not able to cleanse the obseruers of them as Origen here interpreteth and Lyranus following him But by the flesh we vnderstand with Chrysostome carnales sensus the carnall affections carnalitatem quae rebellabat the carnalitie of man which rebelled against the spirit gloss ordinar concupisentias carnis the concupiscence of the flesh Haymo prauitatem naturae the pravitie of nature Martyr which hindereth that none can keepe the law to be iustified by it This then manifestly conuinceth the Pelagians for if the flesh make the law weake and vnable to be kept then none by the strength of their nature and flesh can fulfill the law Controv. 6. The fulfilling of the law is not possible in this life no not to them which are in the state of grace 1. The Romanists out of these words of the Apostle v. 4. That the righteousnesse of the law may be fulfilled in vs which walke not after the flesh doe inferre that they which walke not after the flesh may fulfill the law so that either it must be denied that none in this life walke after the spirit or it must be graunted that by such the law may be fulfilled Pere disput 5. Bellarmine addeth that if the law cannot be fulfilled Christus non obtinuit quod vâ—luit Christ hath not compassed or obtained that which he intended for therefore he died that the iustice of the law might be fulfilled Contra. 1. Indeed Origen whose errors and erroneous interpretations our aduersaries themselues will be ashamed of sauing where they serue their turne first deuised this interpretation who by the law here vnderstandeth the law of the mind which is fulfilled quando lex peccati in membris c. when the law of sinne in the members resisteth it not and Haymo hath this glosse that we beeing redeemed by Christ might spiritually fulfill the workes of the law per cuius impletionem possumus iustificari by the fulfilling whereof we may be iustified But this place is better vnderstood of the obedience of Christ who fulfilled the law which is imputed vnto vs by faith and thus doe not onely expound our new writes Melancthon Bucer Hyperius Calvin Beza with others but some of the auncient expositors as Theophylact quae lex facere nitibatur ea Christus nostri gratia executus est those things which the law endeuoured Christ hath performed for vs so also Oecumenius scotus finis legis per Christum partus est exhibitus the scope and end of the law is obtained exhibited by Christ yet we must endeuour to keepe those things which are deliuered per conuersationem bonam fidem by a good conuersation and faith 2. And that this is the meaning of the Apostle 1. the phrase sheweth that the law might be fulfilled in vs he saith not by vs Beza 2. because there is none so perfect in this life that neither in thought word nor deed transgresseth not the law 3. The law was weake through the infirmitie of the flesh but the infirmitie and weakenes of the flesh remaineth still euen in the regenerate therefore neither in them the righteousnesse of the law can be fulfilled 4. To the contrarie arguments thus we answer 1. the Apostle saith not that they which walke after the spirit fulfill the law but the law is fulfilled in them that is imputed vnto them by faith in Christ. 2. though the faithfull cannot fulfill the law yet Christ performed what he intended that he might keepe the law for them and they be iustified by faith in him 3. this clause then which walke not after the flesh is added to shew who they are for whom Christ hath fulfilled the law and to what end namely to such as walke in newnes of life 5. Some doe thinke that the Apostle speaketh here of two kinds of fulfilling the law one imputatione by imputation of Christs obedience which is our iustification the other inchoatione by a beginning onely which is our sanctification begunne in this life and perfited in the next when it shall be fulfilled Martyr Pareus But the other sense is better for the Apostle speaketh of a present fulfilling of the law in them which walke according to the spirit not of a fulfilling respited and excepted in the next life which is most true but not agreeable to the Apostles meaning here 6. So the Apostle in this place setteth forth three benefits purchased vnto vs by Christ 1. remission of our sinnes in that Christ bare in himselfe the punishment due vnto our sins 2. then the imputation of Christs obedience and performing of the law 3. our sanctification that we by the spirit of Christ doe die vnto sinne and rise vnto newnes of life which our sanctification is necessarily ioyned with our iustification but no part thereof 1. because it is imperfect in this life it is perfect after a sort perfectione partium by
be answeared 4. Whereas to shunne these rockes of offence and to preuent these obiections some here haue found out a middle or meane way to referre the decree of reprobation partly to the will of God as the efficient partly to the foresight of sinne as the materiall cause thereof And here these distinctions are brought in 1. Lyranus thus distinguisheth that reprobation is either taken large largely and so it signifieth onely simplicem negationem ad gloriam a simple deniall of glorie and this hath no cause in Gods prescience but onely in the will of God or it is taken proprie properly for ordinario ad poenam an ordaining vnto punishment and so it is not willed or decreed of God nisi propter culpam but for sinne Bellarmine also fleeth to the same distinction of negatiue reprobation which is not to haue mercie positive to decree vnto condemnation of this the foresight of sinne he saith is the cause of the other the free will of God But seeing this negatiue reprobation containeth a priuation and deniall of euerlasting glorie this also must arise from the foresight of sinne for God excludeth none out of his kingdome but for sinne as the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 6.9 Know ye not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God 2. Gorrhan hath this distinction there is a double kind of reprobation temporalis the temporall which is non appositio gratiae the not affording or giuing of grace and eterna voluntas non apponendi the eternall which is the will or purpose of not giuing of grace this is without the foresight of any merite but not the other like vnto this is that difference which some make betweene the decree and the execution of the decree the first is without respect vnto sinne but sinne commeth betweene before the other But this doth not satisfie as Pareus well obserueth for the same cause mooued God to decree punishment which mooueth him in time to execute punishment 3. Some doe thus consider of predestination that it is of two sorts there is decretum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a decree simply called of those things whereof God is the author and efficient cause himselfe such is the decree of election vnto life there is decretum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secundum quod a decree after a sort which may also be called permissivum the decree of permission as the other is effectivum an effecting and working decree of this latter sort is the decree of reprobation the meanes which lead thereunto God onely permitteth and effecteth not as the sinne and iniquitie of men for the which they are worthily condemned to this purpose Rollocus in 8. ad Roman p. 181.182 But this doth not satisfie for the decree of damnation is as well an effecting decree as is the decree of election God willeth and decreeth the damnation of the wicked as effectually in his iustice as he effectually willeth the saluation of the elect as the wise man saith in the Proverbs 16.4 That the Lord hath made all things for his owne sake yea euen the wicked for the day of euill 4. Iunius against Pukâ—us resp ad ration 72. maketh two degrees of reprobation decretum praeteritionis the decree of preterition which is the purpose of God not to shew mercie and this is absolute without any respect vnto sinne then there is decretum ex praescientia the decree of reprobation issuing forth of God prescience and so none are decreed to be condemned but for sinne some call the first decretum non miserandi the decree not to shew mercie the other decretum puniendi the decree of punishment Pareus dub 8. p. 913. citeth Mr. Perkins who calleth them decretum deserendi the decree of desertion and ordinatio ad poenam an ordaining to punishment Pareus out of his owne iudgement saith that there are two acts of reprobation negativus the negatiue that is not to haue mercie and affirmativus the affirmatiue which is to condemne the negatiue act is either reprobation from grace or from glorie the first of these which is a reiection from grace be thinketh onely to proceed from the good pleasure of God but not the other all these distinctions are the same in effect which else where I haue followed allowing that distinction especially of Iunius as giuing full satisfaction in this matter But now I find some doubts and obiections which are not yet remooued by these distinctions 1. Seeing damnation necessarily followeth reiection and where grace is denied glorie cannot follow if the deniall of the one should be the absolute act of Gods will so by consequence should the other also 2. And the Scripture sheweth that the cause why God reiecteth man is for that they reiect God first as Samuel saith concerning Saul 1. Sam. 15.23 Because thou hast cast away the word of the Lord the Lord hath cast away thee and Rom. 1.24.27 the Apostle sheweth that the giuing vp of the Gentils vnto their hearts lusts was a iust recompence of their error therefore because the substraction and deniall of grace the hardening of the heart the blinding of the mind are punishments of sinne and sinne goeth before the punishment thereof it followeth that these things as they are not temporally inflicted but for sinne so neither are they eternally decreed but vpon the foresight of sinne 3. If God should absolutely reiect any otherwise thou for sinne and more are reiected then elected then should Gods iustice farre exceed his mercie and his seueritie farre surpasse his clemencie To this last obiection Thomas Aquin. maketh this answer by a distinction that bonum proportionatum communi status naturae c. the good things which are proportioned to the common state and condition of nature are found in the most but bonum quod excedit comâ—â—â—â— statum c. the good things which exceed the commoÌ„ state are found in few as they are found more which haue sufficient knowledge and direction for the gouernment of their life then they which want it such as are idiots and fooles but there are few which are found that haue the profunditie and depth of knowledge and of this kind of euerlasting life it exceedeth the common state and condition of humane nature and therefore it is no maruel if it be found in the fewest and smallest number to this purpose Thomas 1. part qu. 25. artic 7. But this answer is not sufficient he hath giuen a good reason why eternall life is not merited or procured by mans deserts because it is a gift which exceedeth the proportion and condition of mans nature but yet the reason appeareth not neither is the doubt satisfied why seeing God aboundeth in mercy euerlasting life is not giuen vnto the most therefore Thomus addeth further that Gods mercie appeareth in that he directeth some vnto life from the which the most decline by the common cause and inclination of nature And indeed this is the best and most sufficient answear that
as there is a saying in Philosophie that the corruption of one thing is the generation of an other not that it is the cause thereof but the efficient hauing expelled one forme doth bring in an other and as in a syllogisme out of false and vntrue propositions a true conclusion may be inferred not by the force of the premises but of the syllogisme and forme of reasoning so Gods prouidence as the chiefe efficient cause doth by occasion of that which is euill bring forth that which is good 3. Anselme thinketh that the reiection of the Iewes was the occasion of the calling of the Gentiles because thereupon followed their dispersion through the world and by that meanes they brought the Scriptures to the Gentiles But this was an occasion rather that after that the Iewes had reiected the preaching of the Apostles they turned to the Gentiles neither was there any such necessitie that the one should be reiected before the other could be called if it had so pleased God they might haue beene called together But this consequence that vpon the reiecting of the Iewes the Gentiles were called depended both vpon the will and pleasure of God who had appointed it should so be Martyr and vpon the conuenience of the thing the Iewes were high minded and could not endure that the Gentiles together with them should be the people of God but they were like the dogge in the maunger that would neither eate himselfe nor suffer the oxe to eat therefore it was requisite that their pride should be first abated and they humbled by seeing them to be called to be a people that were no people so the question here is not what God could doe but what the Iewes had done and would doe by their good will neither they themselues would come nor suffer the Gentiles to enter Pareus 4. And though the Iewes had not beene reiected at all yet the Gentiles also should haue beene called but in the second place as Chrysostome sheweth out of that place Act. 13.46 vobis oportuit primum annuntiari verbum the word of God ought first to haue bin preached vnto you but now through their incredulitie it came to passe vt inverteretur hic ordo that this order was inuerted so in the parable Luk. 14. after that they which were inuited to the feast refused then the good man of the house saith vnto his seruant exi cito goe forth quickly into the streets c. the Gentiles then should haue beene called though the Iewes had not beene incredulous but not so quickly Quest. 15. How the Iewes were prouoked to follow the Gentiles 1. Whereas the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth properly to prouoke to emulation the vulgar latine doth not well translate vt emulentur illos to imitate or emulate them referring it to the Iewes that they should emulate the Gentiles either imitande in imitating them as Lyranus expoundeth and before him Photius that saith the Gentiles were examplaria examples herein to the Iewes or invidendo in envying the faith and knowledge of the Gentiles Gorrhan 2. Some referre it to the Gentiles as Origen vnderstandeth it of the faith of the Gentiles which should prouoke the Iewes to emulation Anselme vnderstandeth it thus that the Gentiles should imitate the Iewes that is such as beleeued among them but this is impertinent to the Apostles purpose some as Chrysostome Theodoret Ambrose do applie it to the Gentiles that they should prouoke the Iewes by their example to beleeue 3. But it is better referred vnto God that he should prouoke the Iewes to emulation by the example of the Gentiles when they saw themselues the auncient people of God to be neglected and the Gentiles which were forelorne to be receaued in Martyr But Tolet refuseth this and would haue it referred either to the Gentiles or their faith because no mention is made of God before but of the Gentiles annot 9. yet I preferre Pet. Martyrs reason totum ad Deum refortur all is referred to God and Pareus prooueth it by that place Deut. 32.21 I will prouoke you to emulation by a nation that is no nation But Tolet obserueth well that the word their vsed by Moses is in hiphil of the word kanah which signifieth to emulate or enuie and in hiphil to cause to emulate and so the Apostle is to be translated here as likewise v. 14. If I might by any meanes prouoke them of my selfe where the Latine interpreter so readeth also and therefore he fayleth here in translating that they might emulate them whereas he should haue said to prouoke them to emulation 4. But it will be obiected that this is no commendable thing by enuie or emulation to be brought to be beleeue the answer is that God simply approoueth not such emulation or enuie but as he can vse that which is euill to good purposes so by this emulation it pleaseth him to incite and stirre vp the Iewes to returne vnto him like as the husband putteth away his adulterous wife that she thereby may be prouoked by a kind of emulation left an other should be receiued in her place to seeke to be reconciled Pareus 5. But here we must vnderstand that the better sort of the Iewes shall be prouoked not all for the obstinate thereby are made worse Martyr and further the Apostle must not be taken to speake of the Iewes in particular for they which stumble and fell away were not restored but of the nature in generall that though some were vnbeleeuers yet the whole nation was not cast off Calvin Beza Quest. 16. What is meant by the diminishing of the Iewes and their abundance v. 12. 1. Whereas the Apostle had shewed that the falling away of the Iewes was an occasion of the calling of the Gentiles it might be obiected that the conuersion of the Iewes might likewise be an occasion of the falling away of the Gentiles hereunto the Apostle answeareth negatiuely and he confirmeth his answear by an argument from the lesse to the greater that if their empayring and diminishing and pouertie as it were were the riches of the Gentiles much more their plentifull calling for God can turne that which is euill to the good of the Gentiles much more that which is good 2. By the riches of the world we vnderstand both the multitude of the Gentiles called to the knowledge of Christ Pareus and that wherewith they were enriched namely the knowledge of the Gospel Genevens 3. By the diminution 1. Haymo whom Lyranus and Gorrhan follow vnderstand the Apostles which were but few and as the abiects of the people yet they enriched the Gentiles by their preaching if the conuersion of a few was so profitable to the Iewes much more the conuersion of the whole nation in the end of the world but the Apostle expoundeth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ruine of the Iews which he vsed before by this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 diminution he meaneth not then