in chaunging it for some better thing 4. Wherefore the Apostle specially meaneth that all things that is all afflictions and tribulations shall be turned to the good of the Saints as Chrysostome interpreteth omnia etiam tristia includit in saying all he includeth also heauie things c. so Calvin Martyr Pareus with others though it be verie true that not onely afflictions but all things whatsoeuer shall fall out for the best And here Bernard well obserueth that all things so worke together vt inter haec omnia etiam quae nihil sunt numerentur c. that among all these things euen those are numbred which are indeed nothing as sickenes death and such like which haue no nature of their owne but are naturae corruptiones corruptions of nature 4. To those which loue God 1. the Apostle rather saith which loue God then which beleeue in God for these causes 1. for that the loue of God doth most shew it selfe in affliction when a faithfull man is willing to endure all things for the exceeding loue of God 2. and hereby Saint Paul doth distinguish a true faith working by loue from a sained faith which hath no such loue Mar. 3. and least any should thinke that by the merite of their loue toward God this benefit is obtained for all things to worke for the best the Apostle addeth which are called to shew that God first loueth them in calling of them before they could loue God Calvin and so the ordinarie gloss well noteth because the Apostle addeth which are called non aliunde est quà m à praedestinatione c. it is not from any other cause that all things worke together to their good then of predestination it is not of their merit 3. Origen whereas all things are said to worke together c. to them that loue God inferreth that to them which are not yet so perfit to loue God but reteine still the spirit of feare some things may fall out for the best but not all But though there may be diuerse degrees in the loue of God and so some more or lesse are made partakers of this benefit yet not onely some things but all to such as loue God shall fall out for the best so long as they remaine in the loue of God But if they haue not the loue of God at all then nothing shall be for the best but euen the good things shall fall out vnto their hurt as Chrysostome well collecteth that as to those which loue God etiam quae nocitura videntur euen those things which seemed hurtfull are for their profite so to them which loue not God quae profutura videntur damna sunt things which seemed to profite are hurtfull 5. Called of this purpose 1. Chrysostome Origen Theodoret Oecumenius doe vnderstand this not of the purpose of God but of man that God called those whom he foresaw to haue a purpose to consent vnto their calling But this is a very erroneous interpretation God in Scripture is said to call men not according to the purpose of men but according to his owne purpose as c. 9.11 that the purpose of God might remaine according to election 1. Tim. 1.9 Who hath saued vs according to his owne purpose and grace Ephes. 1.5 Who hath predestinate vs according to the good pleasure of his will in these and such other places this purpose is interpreted to be the purpose of God not of men and herein Tolet annot 31. and Pererius numer 107. doe well concurre together in giuing testimonie to the truth in reiecting the erroneous interpretation of the Greeke expositors 2. so then here the Apostle insinuateth a distinction of callings some are onely externall and not effectuall some are internall by the efficacie of grace according to the purpose of God so our Sauiour in the Gospell many are called but few chosen he speaketh of the externall calling onely but the Apostle here mentioneth the other effectuall calling which alwayes and onely followeth election Quest. 45. Of the meaning of these words v. 29. Those whom he knew before he also predestinate c. 1. They are deceiued which here doe vnderstand this foreknowledge of God of the foresight of their faith which should beleeue as Haymo quos praesciuit credituros c. whom he foresaw should beleeue them he predestinate so also Osiander with other Lutherans who doe hold election to depend ex prouisa fide of the foresight of faith whereas faith is the fruit and effect of predestination not the cause thereof whereof more followeth to be handled among the controversies 2. And as we make not Gods prescience here the cause of predestination so neither with Caietane doe we make predestination the cause of Gods prescience ratio quod sciat ill◠fore est quod volendo decrevit illa fore the cause that God knoweth things to come is because he willed and decreed them to be and Origen before had the like conceit in eo quod futurum sit id quod nondum est in hoc voluntas magis est quà m praescientia conditoris in this that what yet is not shall be therein the will rather of the Creator then his prescience is seene c. for in the order of nature first the knowledge of a thing which is in the vnderstanding goeth before the determination and decree which is in the will 3. Neither here doe we admit their distinction who would haue the foreknowledge of God onely to concerne the reprobate and predestination the elect and so they set praescites they which are foreseene or foreknowne against the predestinate for the Apostle here saith that God predestinate whom he knewe before then are not the wicked onely said to be foreseene of God but the elect also Beza nay Origen well obserueth that in the Scripture the wicked are not said to be foreseene of God at all not that any thing can escape Gods knowledge sed quia omne quod malum est scientia eius praescientia habetur indignum but because whatsoeuer is euill is counted vnworthie of the knowledge or foreknowledge of God 4. Some doe take this foreknowledge of God pro verbo elegendi for the word of electing as 1. Pet. 1.2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God Calvin but here election and foreknowledge are distinguished foreknowledge goeth before election 5. Wherefore by prescience here we vnderstand not simply the foreknowledge of God but his foreacknowledging which is a knowledge with approbation the word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he knewe before but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praecognovit he acknowledged before in this sense it is said The Lord knoweth who are his 2. Timoth. 2.19 and Rom. 11.2 Hath God cast away his people whom he knewe before that is loued approoued for they had no good workes which the Lord did foresee thus Martyr Bullinger Pareus with others and Pererius significat scientiam approbationis it signifieth the knowledge of approbation disput 21. num
omnium operum prouisionem before the foresight of any workes Bellar. lib. 2. de grat c. 10. and Pererius is of the same iudgement disput 22.23 vpon this chapter but our Rhemists are more grosse in this point they say that Christ hath not appointed men by his absolute election c. without any condition or respect of their workes Hebr. c. 5. sect 7. Now this opinion that predestination is grounded vpon the foresight of faith or good workes is thus euidently confuted Argum. 1. That which is Gods worke in man is no cause in mans behalfe why he should be elected but faith and to beleeue is the worke of God Ioh. 6.29 This is the worke of God that yee beleeue c. Ephes. 2.8 By grace are ye saued through faith not of your selues it is the gift of God therefore the foresight of faith is not the cause of election 2. Argum. That which is the effect of predestination is not the cause but faith and good workes are the fruit and effect as Act. 13.48 As many as were ordained to eternall life beleeued he saith not as many as were foreseene to beleeue were ordained c. Eph. 2.4 He hath chosen vs that we should be holy it is the end and fruit of our election our holines therefore not the procuring or inducing cause 3. Argum. There is one and the same reason and manner and cause of election vnto all but some are saued without prouision or foresight of their workes as infants which die in their infancie for their good workes which are not could not be foreseene it cannot be here answered that their good workes are foreseene which they would haue done if they had liued for if one may be elected for the foresight of good workes which he might haue done by the same reason one might be condemned vpon the foresight of euill works which he might haue committed but this standeth not with the iustice of God 4. Argum. First the end is propounded then the meanes are thought of as tending to that end the meanes are no inducement to decree or set downe the end of a thing life eternall is the end the meanes and way thereunto are faith and vertuous workes these then foreseene of God could not be a motiue to decree the end 5. Augustine was sometime of opinion that although God hath not chosen the good workes of men in his prescience elegit tamem fidem in praescientia yet in his prescience he made choice of faith in exposition huius epistol But afterward Augustine retracteth this opinion lib. 1. Retractat c. 23. ingeniously confessing nondum diligenter quaefieram c. quaenam sit electio gratiae I had not diligently enquired not found out what is the election of grace which is no grace si vlla merita praecedant if any merits goe before 6. Some Popish writers haue deuised how to reconcile Augustine with the rest of the fathers and they haue found out this distinction that there are two kinds of predestination one ad gratiam to receiue grace and this they say is without any foresight of faith or works and the other is ad gratiam vnto glorie and life eternall which proceedeth from the foresight of faith and workes of this kind of predestination speake the Greeke fathers and Augustine of the other Thus Ruard Tapper Dryedon Gabriel Vasquez as they are cited and approoued by Parerius disput 24. Contra. 1. Augustine euidently speaketh of predestination to eternall life where he deliuereth his first opinion of the foresight of faith for these are his words Quid elegit Deus in eo what did God elect in him whom he did predestinate vnto life eternall 2. That is a vaine and idle distinction for predestination comprehendeth both the ende and the meanes thereunto as the Apostle saith Ephes. 1.11 in whom we are chosen when we were predestinate c. that we which first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of his glorie here both the meanes to beleeue or trust in Christ and the end euerlasting glorie are both comprehended vnder predestination 3. in this distinction there is a vaine and absurd tautologie for who would aske this question whether the foresight of grace and faith in a man were the cause that God ordained him to haue grace and faith 7. Tolet to helpe out this matter saith that the foresight of faith as a motiue vnto election and the election by grace may well stand together for here faith foreseene is not considered as a merit but as causa sine qua non a cause without the which God hath purposed not to call those which shall be saued but notwithstanding it is bene placitum the good pleasure of God not the merit of man annot 31. Contra. In this question of predestination we must distinguish betweene the decree it selfe and the execution of the decree in the execution good workes are required not as a meritorious cause of life eternall but onely as such a cause without the which life eternall cannot be â—â—ad and this we graunt but if Gods decree should arise of any such foresight it is now an inducement and motiue not a cause onely sine quae non without the which not and so Gods good pleasure should not be the first cause higher then the which the Apostle goeth not Ephes. 1.5 if the foresight of faith or good workes should induce the Lord to elect for now election should not stand vpon the will and pleasure of God but vpon the will and inclination of man Controv. 17. Against the opinion of Ambrosius Catharinus concerning predestination This Popish writers opinion is that God hath ordained all men vnto eternall life yet with this difference Some he hath absolutely appointed vnto saluation without any condition whose head is Christ and then the blessed Virgin Marie the number of those thus predestinate is certaine and none of them can perish there is an other sort of men which are ordained vnto saluation not absolutely but vnder condition of their obedience vpon the foresight of their merits and some of those come vnto eternall life some doe not of this opinion Sixtus Senensis Catharinus scholar professeth himselfe to haue beene Biblioth lib. 6. annot 248. and that he preached it for tenne yeares together and in diuerse cheefe cities of Italie till he saw the inconuenience and manifold difficulties that would follow vpon that doctrine and then he gaue ouer Contra. This opinion hath diuerse absurdities 1. it alloweth some to be saued which are not predestinate vnto life contrarie to the Scripture which onely promiseth euerlasting deliuerance and saluation vnto them which are written in the booke of life Dan. 12.1 Reuel 17.8 c. 20.12 2. It maketh Gods ordinance and decree to be vncertaine that many whom he appointeth to saluation yet are not saued 3. it maketh a diuersitie in the ordinance of God to saluation that some are absolutely elected some vpon condition onely whereas there is one end and the
father as Rom. 1.23 2. Cor. 1.3 and 11.31 2. Not euery one that is called God in Scripture is consequently that chiefe and great God 3. Christ is said to be ouer all that is men as the most excellent man of all not ouer all whatsoeuer 4. He is said to be ouer all with a limitation for he is not ouer him that hath subdued all things vnto him 1. Cor. 15.27 5. And in that he is ouer all he hath it not by nature but of gift Philip. 2.9 Contra. Erasmus seemeth first to haue giuen occasion to these newfangled Dogmatists who likewise in his annotations vpon this place thinketh this Scripture not so fit to prooue the diuine nature of Christ adding that herein there is no daunger seeing there are more direct places to prooue Christs Godhead by But Pet. Martyr here answeareth well non convenit vt Ecclesiae armamentarium sine causa exhauriatur c. it is not conuenient that the armorie of the Church should without cause be diminished seeing the fathers as Origen Chrysost Theophylact Cyprian cont lud lib. 2. c. 5. Hilarius in Psal. 122. doe all alleadge this place for the proofe of Christs deitie it is not fit that we should suffer it to be wrestled out of our hands their cauills are thus answeared 1. Where the father is said to be blessed for euer the Sonne is not excluded and in some places Christ is said expressely to be blessed for euer as Matth. 21.9 Blessed is be that commeth in the name of the Lord and if the Creator be blessed for euer Christ is included by whom all things were created Ioh. 1. Coloss. 1. 2. He which is said to be God ouer all as Christ here must of necessitie be that chiefe and great God 3. Some indeede reade super omnia ouer all things as Origen the Syrian and Latine interpreter and this is agreeable to that place Coloss. 1.17 He is before all things and in him all things consist and the Apostle nameth both things visible and invisible and so Origen well expoundeth he is aboue all things that is powers principalities and euerie thing that is named 4. He is aboue all things that is all creatures and aboue all as the father is aboue all and yet neither aboue the Sonne or the holy Ghost the father then is here excepted for Christ and his father are one non post patrem ipse sed de patre he is not after the father but of the father Origen 5. S. Paul in that place speaketh of the exaltation of Christ as he is Mediator and according to his humane nature and so he hath it by gift but as he is God he is ouer all by his eternall generation as the onely begotten Sonne of God Controv. 4. That the water in Baptisme doth not sanctifie or giue grace Chrysostome sheweth here a fit analogie and resemblance betweene the birth of Izaak oâ— Sara by the word of promise v. 9. and our spirituall regeneration in baptisme the barren wombe of Sarah he likeneth to the water which of it selfe hath no efficacie erat vterni ille aqua frigidior propter sterilitatem senectutem that wombe was more vnapt for generation then water because of the barrennesse and old age thereof like as then Izaak was borne of that barren wombe by the word of promise ita nos oportet ex verbo nasci so we are borne of the word To this purpose Chrysostome who maketh the element of water of it selfe but a dead thing and like vnto Sarahs barren wombe which could not haue conceiued but by the word of promise So the Apostle saith Ephes. 5.25 Cleansing it by the washing of water thorough the word the water cleanseth but by the operation of the word This then ouerthroweth that opinion of the Romanists which affirme that the sacramentall signe in the sacraments conferre grace See further hereof Synops. Centur. 2. err 76. Controv. 5. Against the vaine observation of Astrologers in casting of nativities v. 10. Rebecca when she had conceiued by one c. Augustine lib. 2. de doctrin Christian. c. 21. by this Scripture confuteth the folly of Mathematicians who in casting of mens natiuities doe obserue the aspect of the planets and so doe calculate and coniecture of the disposition of men for Esau and Iacob were borne at the same time of one and the same parents and yet they were of diuerse dispositions and qualities and conditions of life Controv. 6. That the soules had no beeng in a former life before they came into the bodie It was Origens error who therein did too much Platonize that the soules in the former life according to their workes good or euill were accordingly appointed of God to saluation or damnation But this error is euidently conuinced by the Apostle here for Esau and Iacob had neither done good nor euill before they were borne Lyranus addeth two other reasons to convince this error 1. if there had beene an other life before then the world was not created in the beginning as it is said Gen. 1.1 for that the soules had a beeing and beginning before 2. and temporale non potest esse causa aeterni no temporall thing can be the cause of that which is eternall the actions then and workes of the soule could not be the cause of the act of Gods eternall will Controv. 7. Whether the foresight of faith or workes be the cause of election This was in time past maintained by the followers of the Pelagian sect as it appeareth by the epistles of Prosper and Hilarius Arelatens sent to Augustine and not much differing is the opinion of the Greeke expositors as Theodoret in these words that the purpose of God might remaine according to election vnderstandeth the purpose of men foreseene of God according to the which he electeth But the Apostle euidently calleth it the purpose of God and therefore not of men Chrysost. and Photius cited by Oecumenius doe here vnderstand the purpose of God but where it is added according to election they say this election presupposeth a difference and diuersitie of wills foreseene of God The late Lutherans tread in the same steppesâ— who at the first did hold that the foresight of faith was the cause of election but now they haue somewhat refined that assertion and their opinion now is fidem non esse electionis causam meritoriam sed instrument alem that faith is not the meritorious but the instrumentall cause of election their arguments are these 1. Argum. Photius thus reasoneth electio de illis fit qui aliqua in re differunt election is said to be of those which differ in some thing God then did see some difference in them which he elected from others Contra. 1. Augustine at the first was somewhat mooued with this argument which made him deuise an other sense of the Apostles words to this effect that it was said vnto the children beeing not yet borne and before they had done either good
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.
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
in Ezek. Hilar. lib. 8. de Trin. so also Haymo gloss interlin Tolet Gorrhan Lyran. but this seemeth to be too curious for this phrase by whom is as well giuen vnto the Father 1. Cor. 1.9 as vnto the Sonne 4. Wherefore this clause of whome through whome and for whome c. is better referred to the whole Trinity as Chrysost. interpreteth ipse fecit ipso conservat he made he preserueth all things so also Augustine as the ordin glosse citeth him sheweth how euery one of these prepositions of through for may be applied vnto euery one of the glorious persons of the Trinitie and so all things are of God as the first cause by him as the preseruer of all things and in him as the end and perfection Thomas so all things are à seipso nullo alio movente from himselfe none other moouing him per seipsum nullo alio adiuvante by himselfe none other helping and propter seipsum onely for himselfe and for none other cause for he made all things for his owne glosse Calvin 5. Whereas the vulgar Latin readeth in the third place in ipso in him in the originall the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ipsum for him which sheweth that God is the ende and perfection of all that all things were ordained for him that is to set forth his glorie and so readeth Chrysostome 4. Places of Doctrine Doct. 1. Of Gods prescience v. 2. God hath not cast away his people which he knew before Concerning Gods prescience and foreknowledge 1. It is a certaine truth that there is in God from the beginning a prescience of all things in the world before they were Act. 15.18 From the beginning of the world God knoweth all his workes 2. There is in God a double kind of prescience one is cognationis of knowledge onely and speculatiue whereby he foreseeth onely things that shall be or it is also approbationis a prescience ioyned with approbation and liking which is also called practica his practicall prescience 3. This latter kind of prescience in God which is ioyned with his will and approbation is the cause of things the other is not 4. The prescience of God is certaine and infallible for God is not as man that he can lie or be deceaued whatsoeuer he foreseeth shall be shall certainely come to passe 5. Gods prescience doth not impose a necessitie vpon such things as fall out in the world but onely in respect of the first cause which is the infallible knowledge of God and so all things euen those which seeme to happen by chaunce are necessarie necessitate infallibilitatis by an infallible necessitie in respect of Gods prescience which cannot be deceiued but in respect of the second causes euery thing remaineth in it owne nature such things as haue necessarie causes are foreseene of God as necessarie certaine and definite such was the betraying of Christ by Iudas before so decreed and determined of God Act. 13. but such things as are contingent and casuall doe so remaine still in themselues though in respect of Gods foresight are necessarie as 1. Sam. 23.11 the Lord answeareth Dauid that if he stayed still in Keilah Saul would come downe and the Lord of the towne would deliuer him into Sauls hands this was a thing contingent coniectâ— all onely and probable but in respect of Gods foreknowledge it was certaine that Dauid should not stay there and so neither Saul would come downe 6. Gods prescience and foreknowledge is thus distinguished from election and predestination either it signifieth the generall prescience and foreknowledge of God of all things both the good which the Lord himselfe decreed to doe or the euill which he decreed to permit and so prescience differeth from election as the whole from the part for election is but a part of Gods generall prescience and prouidence or Gods prescience and foreknowledge is taken for election it selfe and so it is all one with election as here the Apostle saith God hath not cast away his people whom he knowe before and thirdly Gods foreknowledge signifieth his loue and approbation of those whom he electeth as S. Peter saith 1. epist. 1.2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God and thus Gods foreknowledge differeth from election as the cause from the effect for the loue acceptance and approbation of God is the cause of election Doct. 2. Gods generall promises or threatnings must haue a particular application v. 1. I demaund then hath God cast away his people God forbid c. The Apostle had in the ende of the former chapter alleadged out of the Prophet a generall complaint against Israel All the day long haue I stretched out my hand to a disobedient people which menacing speach though generally propounded yet the Apostle would not haue generally vnderstood of all the people for they were not all cast off but onely the peruerse and obstinate So likewise the promises of God made vnto Abraham and his seede did not concerne all but onely those which were the true Israel and children of the promise as the Apostle shewed before c. 9.7.8 Doct. 3. Against the old Pagane names of dayes and moneths v. 4. Which haue not bowed the knee to Baal c. In the place 1. King 19. whence this is cited it is added further nor kissed him with their mouth whereupon Pet. Martyr obserueth that they did neither honour Baal with the kisses of their mouth nor yet in naming him with their lippes whereupon the Lord saith he would not be called of the people Baali that is my husband or Lord but ishi mi vir my man or husband and the reason is added For I will take the name of Baalam out of their mouth Hosh. 2. â—â— though the Lord were indeede Baal that is the Lord and husband of his people yet because they gaue that name to their idoles the Lord would none of it and so Pet. Martyr inferreth further that he wondreth how those Pagan tearmes of the moneths as March so called of Mars and of the dayes of the weeke as moonday of the moone and twesday of Mars which planets the beathen made their gods were at the first taken vp of the Christians which might better saue beene layed downe though nowe there is no such danger as in the beginning when Christians were newly conuerted from Pagan Idolatrie Doct. 4. Of the grace of God with the diuerse kinds properties and effects thereof v. 6. If it be of grace c. 1. The grace of God either signifieth his free loue and mercie which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the gifts of grace which are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. the grace loue and fauour of God in the first sense is either eternall in his election before the world was or temporall in the actuall vocation of the elect and this grace is either praeveâ—â—â—â—â— a preuenting grace whereby he calleth and converteth as Psal. 59.10 My mercifull God will prevent me or it
in faith Pareus 4. And although S. Paul had giuen such excellent commendation before of their faith yet they might notwithstanding haue neede to be strengthened as Peter when he beganne to sinke in the waters had faith when he cried to Christ Saue me or els I perish yet Christ saith vnto him Why didst thou doubt O thou of little faith his faith had neede to be encreased 5. So here are three reasons of the Apostles desire to see them 1. that he might bestow vpon them some spirituall gift 2. to confirme and strengthen them 3. to be mutually comforted with them Aretius 33. Quest. Of the impediments whereby S. Paul was letted to come vnto the Romanes v. 13. I haue oftentimes purposed to come vnto you but haue beene let hitherto 1. Chrysostome thinketh he was hindred and letted by the Lord and so also Theophylact Dei iussis prohibeor I am inhibited by the commandement of God as Origen giueth instance of that place Act. 16.7 where Paul was not suffered by the spirit to goe into Bithynia 2. But Basil thinketh he was hindred by Satan as the Apostle saith he was letted by Sathan to come vnto the Thessalonians 1. Thessalon 2.18 where is to be considered a double difference betweene Gods hindering and Sathans first Sathan may hinder the outward actions but the inward purpose and desire he can not let but God can stay both secondly when Sathan hindereth it is by Gods permission for otherwise he could doe nothing but God often hindereth without the ministerie of Sathan at all Now in this place the first opinion is more agreeable because he entreated of God by prayer that he might haue a prosperous iourney therefore it seemeth that he letted him vnto whome he praied that he might haue opportunitie giuen him Tolet. 3. Origen ioyneth both together that he might be hindered first in the Lords purpose and then impediments might be cast in his way by Sathan so also Pareus Genevens and Aretius But for the former reason the first opinion is rather to be receiued 4. It beeing resolued vpon that God staied S. Pauls comming yet there is some diuersitie concerning the causes why the Lord should thus let him â—â— Sedulius thinketh that God saw not the hearts of the Romanes yet prepared to beleeue and therefore the Lord sent Paul then and not before quando praescâ—â—t eos creditâ—nos when he foresaw that they would beleeue But Sedulius is herein deceiued thinking that it was in the Romanes free-will to prepare their owne hearts to beleeue whereas euery good gift is of God Sam. 1.17 And if it were in mans power to beleeue every one might attaine vnto faith that would but the Apostle saith 2. Thess. 3.2 all men haue not saith And againe seeing the Apostle giueth such commendation of the Romanes saith there is no doubt but God had prepared their hearts 2. Hugo thinketh that Saint Paul was prohibited propter peccata Romanorum because of the sinnes of the Romanes This indeede sometimes is a let as Paul and Barnabas did shake off the dust of their feete against the Iewes and would no more preach vnto them because of their obstinacie and wilfull refusal Act. 13.51 Hyperius But this seemeth not to haue beene the cause here seeing the Apostle giueth such commendation of their faith v. 8. and of their goodnes c. 15.14 and obedience to the faith c. 16.19 3. There are also externall lets and impediments as his bonds imprisonment persecution Tolet. and he suffered by the way shipwracke and other casualties Aretius 4. But the most likely reason why the Lord staied S. Pauls comming to Rome was the necessitie of other Churches which the Lord would haue first established Gregorie teacheth this reason lib. 21. Moral c. 13. that God therefore letted him that he might more profit those Churches where he remained and S. Paul himselfe rendreth this reason Rom. 15.20 Therefore I haue beene oft let to come vnto you but now seeing I haue no more place in these quarters and also haue beene desirous many yeares againe to come vnto you c. his employment in other Churches deferred his comming to Rome Beza annot 34. Quest. Why S. Paul expresseth not the cause in particular which letted him 1. Gualter giueth this reason why the Apostle hauing diuers lets as namely new occasions continually offered in preaching the Gospel and beside his persecutions and afflictions and manifold troubles yet he maketh mention of none of these quia de his non poterat sine iactantiae suspicione because he could not speake of these things without suspition of boasting 2. But I rather approoue Chrysostomes reason non scrutatur Dominipropositum the Apostle doth not search into Gods purpose why such an Apostle was kept so long from such a famous citie when there was great hope of winning many vnto Christ it was sufficient that he was letted he is not curious to know the cause teaching vs thereby ne factorum rationem vnquam à Deo exigamus that we neuer require a reason of Gods works 3. And indeede Gods secret counsell herein is diuers waies vnsearchable 1. in respect of the teachers why sometime God sendeth many sometime few why some and not others why some are true pastors some wolues some true teachers some false 2. in regard of them which be taught why God sendeth preachers to one place and not vnto an other why Christ wrought miracles in Corazin and Bethsaida not in Tyrus and Sidon to bring them to repentance Matth. 11.21 3. and for the places why the Spirit suffered not Paul to preach in Asia and Bithynta Act. 16.6 7. And why in our daies in some certaine cities as at Constance God suffered the preaching of his Gospel to be intermitted 4. for the time why the Gospel is preached in some age and not in an other and some enioy it long some but a short time 5. for the manner why sometime the Gospel is preached obscurely and darkely sometime openly and manifestly why some preach it of enuie some of sincerities All these considerations doe set forth vnto vs how the iudgements of God are hid and vnsearchable Gryneus 4. And by this reason may the like obiection be answered why the Apostle was letted seeing his purpose was good that he might haue some fruite among them Because the Apostle beeing the Lords minister was not to prescribe the times and occasions fittest for the worke of the Gospel but to depend vpon God therein who best knewe how to sort out the best time for euerie purpose Quest. 35. Whether S. Pauls desire to goe to Rome beeing therein letted were contrarie to Gods will and so sinned therein 1. S. Pauls desire was not absolute but conditionall if it were the will of God for so he saith that I might haue a prosperous iourney by the will of God to come vnto you 2. But here we must consider of the will of God as it is secret and hid and as it is manifest and
Christ and his constancie and immutabilitie that whom he loueth he loueth to the end all which tend to make vs sure of our election and saluation in Christ. 3. Saint Paul did not thinke himselfe to be iustified by the peace of his conscience for that is a fruite of iustification not the cause thereof But Saint Paul knew himselfe to be iustified by faith and thereof was assured the testimonie of the conscience which ariseth of our good fruits is an argument of our liuely faith whereby we are iustified 4. we confesse that none in this life can attaine to a perfect assurance without some doubting but there is difference betweene an infallible and certaine assurance and a perfect assurance this sheweth the degree the other the kind and manner 2. To Pererius we answer that we are assured by the light of faith infused that we are saued and his exceptions we except against 1. it is not naturall sense and experience that assumeth I am saued but this is the particular act or sense of faith relying vpon Gods promises there is a generall assent vnto and apprehension of Gods promises which maketh the proposition he that beleeueth in Christ shall be saued then is there a particular application which is the speciall act of faith but I beleeue which a man is assured of by his workes then the conclusion followeth I shall be saued the propositions beeing grounded vpon the promise of God is the obiect of faith the assumption inferred out of the proposition is the act of faith Therefore that is a friuolous obiection that the assumption I doe beleeue is not de fide of faith and it hath not the expresse word of God for fides non creditur sed sentitur faith is not beleeued but it is felt and perceiued it apprehendeth the generall promises of God and particularly applieth them 2. It is vntrue that the actions proceeding of the spirit and such as come from man himselfe are aliue for there is no good thing in vs which the spirit worketh not naturall ciuill workes haue a semblance indeede and shew of goodnes but there is not any true goodnes in them 3. but this is not to the purpose for though a man haue many sinnes which he knoweth not and his workes be imperfect this in a faithfull man hindreth not the assurance of his saluation which is not grounded vpon his workes but vpon his faith indeed if a man were iustified by workes he could neuer attaine vnto any securitie or certaintie of saluation but it is faith that layeth hold on the perfect obedience and righteousnesse of Christ that bringeth vs to this assurance 4. And as for their speciall reuelation whereby they pretend that Saint Paul and other holy men were made sure of their saluation the Apostle taketh away this pretext in making his case common herein with other faithful men saying that there was not a crowne of righteousnesse laid vp onely for him but for all them that loue his appearing 2. Tim. 4.8 a more excellent degree of assurance the Apostle had but the diuersitie of degree taketh not away the truenes of the thing a true assurance of saluation all the faithfull haue though not in the like degree measure Now on the contrarie side that it is possible for a Christian by faith to assure himselfe of his euerlasting saluation and that de facto in very deed euery faithfull man is so assured we prooue it by these testimonies of Scripture As Rom. 8.16 The spirit beareth witnesse with our spirit that we are the children of God 1. Cor. 2.12 We haue receiued the spirit of God that we may know the things that are giuen vs of God 2. Cor. 13.5 Know ye not your owne selues that Iesus Christ is in you vnlesse ye be reprobates and such other places many might be produced which shew that we haue a certaine knowledge and assurance by faith of heauenly things Pererius answereth 1. that either these places must be vnderstood of a morall coniecturall and humane kind of certitude assurance not diuine and infallible as in the first place though the testimonie of the spirit be most certaine in it selfe yet we onely by coniectures gather that it is the testimonie of the spirit 3. or the Apostle speaketh of that speciall assurance by reuelation which the Apostles had in those daies as in the second place 3. or he meaneth the knowledge onely of the doctrine and principles of faith not of beeing in the state of grace as in the third Pere disput 8. Contra. 1. The Apostle speaketh not simply of the testimonie of the spirit as it is in it selfe but as it is to vs it beareth witnesse with our spirit that we are the children of God and thereby we crie Abba father like as then children doe call vnto their fathers with a confident assurance not a coniecturrall opinion the like certaintie haue the faithfull that they are the sonnes of God and that he is their father 2. the Apostle speaketh not of the Apostles and teachers onely of those times but generally of all the faithfull which haue not receiued the spirit of the world but the spirit of God 3. And the Apostle in the third place expressely mentioneth such a knowledge which the reprobates haue not and they which haue it are not reprobates but the knowledge of the doctrine of faith euen the reprobates haue but it is not sanctified vnto them 4. Now then to conclude this point there is a threefold kind of certitude there is one in opinion onely when a man deceiueth himselfe in his perswasion and thinketh that to be which is not there is an other certaintie in the truth of the thing as the Deuils know the truth of the articles of faith though they haue no comfort in them and there is an assurance as well of the truth of the thing as in perswasion and assent of him which beleeueth such is the assurance of faith the first is onely in the will and affection without any ground the second in the intellectuall part onely the third is in both So then in a faithfull man both his vnderstanding is illuminate to perceiue celestiall things and his heart and affection is inclined firmely to beleeue and applie them to himselfe 5. Some of the Romanists doe not much differ from vs in this point of the certaintie of saluation as Pererius disput â— alleadgeth Vega and Ricuram Tapperus who affirme that a man may be so certaine of grace vt omnicareat formidine haesitatione that he may be without all feare and doubting See further of this Controversie Synops. Centur. 4. er 20. Controv. 10. Against the invocation of Saints v. 15. Whereby we crie Abba father Hence Bucer well obserueth that the spirit of God teacheth vs to call vnto God and crie in our hearts Abba father the spirit sendeth vs not vnto Saints the prodigall child comming home to his father wâ—nâ— not to any of his fathers seruants to
the other he ordained but he hateth the third that is sinne which he made not like as a iudge condemning a theefe neither hateth his person nor the punishment which is according to iustice but the crime of thes◠c. vpon this answer insisteth Pererius and before him Haymo non edit naturam quam fecit sed peccatum quod non fecit he hated not the nature which he made but the sinne which he made not so aso Gorrhan and the ordinarie gloss he hated nothing in Esau nisi originale peccatum but his originall sinne c. But the Apostle here speaketh of an hatred before Esau had done any euill and before the fight thereof 3. Neither doth it satisfie to say it is spoken comparatiuely Esau was hated that is lesse beloued as a man is bid to hate father and mother to cleaue to his wife that is loue them lesse then his wife for the Apostle calleth them the vessels of wrath afterward whom he is here said to hate therefore such are not beloued at all 4. This then is the solution hatred in God signifieth three things 1. the negation and deniall of his loue and of this degree of hatred sinne is not the cause but the will of God that electeth whom he will and refuseth whom he pleaseth thus God hateth Esau and all the reprobate 2. the decree of punishment and this proceedeth from the foresight of sinne and thus God is said to haue the wicked 3. it signifieth the anger of God and his abhorring of that which he hateth and thus God is said to hate iniquitte and of this hatred is that saying to be vnderstood thou hatest nothing that thou hast made for God in this sense hateth not his creatures but sinne in them Pareus dub 11. Quest. 15. Of the meaning of these words I will haue mercie on whom I will haue mercie 1. Origen and Heirome epist. ad Heath qu. 10. doe thinke that this is an obiection made by some as it were contradicting the Apostle But this is the Apostles answer rather to the former obiection is their iniquitie with God that he should elect one and reiect an other both of them beeing in the same state and condition to the which the Apostle maketh answer God forbid and giueth a reason of his answer here out of the Scripture 2. Chrysostome thinketh whom Theophylact followeth that by this sentence the Apostle staieth mans curiositie from requiring the cause why some are elected some are refused which is best knowne vnto God as the Lord answeared Moses who was desirous to know why all of the Israelites beeing guiltie of the same sinne in worshipping the golden calfe yet were not alike punished to whom the Lord answeareth thus in effect non est tuum scire Moses c. Moses it belongeth not to thee to know who are worthy of my mercie c. But in this sense there were small coherence in the Apostles speach for then there should be no answer made vnto the former obiection which the Apostle remooueth here Tolet annot 22. neither was this sentence vttered vpon any such occasion concerning the punishing of sinne of the Israelites and sparing of others but whereas Moses had made request to see Gods glorie and the Lord had granted him to see his backer partes and so in part yeelded vnto his request then this is added as a reason thereof I will haue mercie Mar. 3. Ambrose is farre wide who maketh this the sense of these words I will haue mercie on him on whom I will haue mercie that is quem praescivi whom I foresaw like after his error to returne vnto me so the ord gloss cui praescio misericordiam whom I foresaw mercie is to be shewed vpon the like glosse Thomas maketh mention of in his Commentarie I will haue mercie on him quem dignum praenonero misericordia whome I foresaw to be worthy of mercie But this is not agreeable to the Apostles minde 1. there had beene no occasion of any such obiection if the cause were in the foresight of mens worthines why some are elected and not others for then there had beene no shew of iniustice at all in God the reason had beene plaine Tolet annot 22. 2. this to giue vnto those which are worthie respicit iustitiam Dei respecteth the iustice of God whereas the Apostle here referreth all vnto Gods mercie Martyr 3. neither can that be a cause of election which is an effect thereof for to beleeue and to be obedient are effects of election then the foresight thereof cannot be the cause Pere dsiput 7. err 39. 4. Neither is this onely an Hebrew phraise signifying the same thing as Tolet ibid. as the Hebrewes for more vehemencie sake doe expresse the same thing by an emphaticall repetition neither yet are these words so curiously to be distinguished with Anselme as to referre thē to Gods mercy in calling in beleeuing in working that whom he sheweth mercy vpon in calling he will shew further mercie in giuing grace to beleeue and whom he giueth grace vnto beleeue they shall haue grace also to worke by their faith Lyranus and Pererius vnderstand the three degrees of Gods mercie in predestinating in giuing present grace and glorie to come and so make this the sense I will haue mercie in giuing grace to him on whom I haue mercie in electing him and to whom I giue finall grace I will shew mercie in giuing him future glorie Iunius much differeth not I will haue mercie ex facto in fact and indeed vpon whom I haue mercie decreto in my decree of election parallel 11. But Pareus better sheweth the reason of the ingemination and repeating of these words to shew 1. this mercie gratuitam to be franke and free and that there can be no reason or cause yeilded why God sheweth mercie but his owne gracious inclination to mercie 2. arbitrariam that it is arbritarie depending onely vpon the will of God 3. constantem that it is constant and immutable where he sheweth mercie he will haue mercie to the end 4. immensam this mercie is infinite and without measure not onely in bestowing one grace but many 5. Further it is to be obserued that thought the same word to haue mercie be reteined both in the Greeke translation of the Septuagint and in the latine in both partes of the sentence yet in the Hebrew there are two words the one in the former clause of the sentence canan which signifieth to shew grace and fauour the other in the latter part is racham to shew bowels of compassion and beside the Septuagint doe put the verbe in the present-tense in the latter part of both the clauses whereas in the originall the same tense and time is kept in both but this is no great difference the sense still notwithstanding remaineth the same 6. This then is the Apostles meaning whereas it was obiected that if God elect some and not others their case beeing the same the Lord
might seeme to be partiall and vniust he answereth in effect thus much that whereas all are endebted to God and without Gods mercie like to perish here is no iniustice if God remit his debt to one and not to an other as Augustine saith debitum si non reddis habes quod gratuleris si reddis non habes quod queraris if thou doe not pay the debt which thou owest thou hast cause to be thankfull if thou doest thou hast no cause to complaine So then the Apostle here sheweth that betweene the decree of election and reprobation and the execution thereof there came betweene certaine subordinate causes all are sinners in Adam for mercie presupposeth miserie where the Lord then findeth all in miserie there if he shew mercie to some and not to others no man can accuse him of iniustice because he is not endebted or tied in his iustice vnto any but all are by nature the children of wrath if then he saue some out of that masse of corruption it is a worke of his mercie and no iniustice is to be imputed vnto him where in iustice nothing is due to any to this purpose Beza annot Quest. 16. How it is said It is not in him that willeth nor in him that runneth but in God that sheweth mercie 1. Origen and Heirom ad Hedib qu. 10. thinke that the Apostle speaketh here in the person of one that contradicteth and obiecteth against that which he had said and Chrysostome saith that the Apostle hero aliam obiectionem inducit bringeth in an other obiection But it is euident by this note of illation so then that the Apostle thus inferreth and includeth out of the former places of Scripture alleadged 2. Origen and Photius with other Greeke expositors supplie here the word solum onely as if the Apostle should meane It is not onely in him that runneth or in him that willeth but in God that sheweth mercie and Origen will haue this sentence to be vnderstood comparatiuely as those two other places Psal. 127. Except the Lord build the house they labour but in vaine that build it and 1. Cor. 3. Neither be that planteth is any thing nor he that watereth but God that giueth increase But these places are not like for the first is a ciuill action to build an house wherein the will of man hath some libertie though it cannot prosper without the blessing of God and like as the outward ministerie of man is nothing auailable vnto saluation without the assistance and concurrence of the spirit so neither can the will or endeauour of man doe any thing of it selfe toward the attaining of saluation but all must be ascribed to Gods mercie Martyr and beside the antithesis or opposition but in God that sheweth mercie excludeth that glosse onely for Gods mercie and mans will cannot in this opposition be ioyned as workers together seeing the one is excluded and the other admitted Pareus Calvin here also presseth Augustines reason that if the Apostles words admitted any such sense then they might as well be inuerted to say It is not in God that sheweth mercie but in him that willeth and runneth that is it is not onely in the one no more then in the other 3. Some of the Romanists that will not haue mans free will vtterly excluded in the worke of saluation haue this deuise that although there be somewhat in him that willeth and runneth yet all is ascribed to Gods mercie because miserecordia Dei praeuenit voluntarem hominis c. the mercie of God preuenteth the will of man c. and mans will beeing thus prepared then worketh together with grace Pererius numer 46. taking vpon him herein to confute Calvin Thomas Aquine in his Commentarie here moouing this question why seeing that as free will is not sufficient without grace so neither grace sufficeth without freewill yet all is ascribed to Gods mercie answeareth by a distinction because the grace of God is agens principale the principall agent mans will secundum instrumentale is the second agent and the instrument to the which the worke is not ascribed but to the principall agent as the axe is not said to make a chest but the artificer that worketh with it Contra. Pet. Martyr vseth the same similitude but to a diuers ende mans will indeede God vseth as an instrument but not any goodnes in mans will which it should of it selfe without grace the will of man concurreth as a naturall instrument in respect of the naturall facultie of calling but it hath no inclination to that which is good but as it pleaseth God to mooue it Mans will then is a naturall instrument of the action but not a morall instrument of the goodnes of the action this is wrought wholly by the mercie and grace of God therefore the ordinarie glosse here concludeth well out of Augustine restat vt totum Deo datur it remaineth that the whole be giuen vnto God volentem praevenit vt velit subsequitur â—e frustra velit he preuenteth man to make him will and followeth him with his grace that he doe not will in vaine c. And I preferre here the iudgement of Tolet and Bellarmine before other Romanists the first inferreth out of this place non fuit nisi ex sola voluntate Dei the calling of the Gentiles was onely of the will of God annot 23. the other likewise so expoundeth this place that it is onely the mercie of God nothing at all in the will of man that he perseuereth to the ende lib. 2. de grat c. 12. 4. Ambrose by mercie vnderstandeth the discerning iudgement of God as he giueth instance in Dauid and Saul how both of them asked pardon of God but God discerned vter bono animo peteret which of them asked of a good minde and so he will haue the meaning to be that it was not enough for a man to will and endeauour vnlesse God did confirme and allow of his endeauour But there is great difference betweene the mercie of God and the iudgement and approbation of God for but part of the worke is ascribed to the one whereas the whole is due to the other ex Mart. 5. Now touching the true meaning of the words 1. neither with Anastasius qu. 59. are they to be restrained to Esaus running and coursing in the field to hunt for venison for his father 2. nor yet with Tolet to Iacobs running to the flocke to fetch a kid Gen. 27. the Apostles doctrine is more generall 3. nor yet as the same Tolet annot 23. is this sentence onely to be applied in generall to the calling of the Gentiles and the reiection of the Iewes but with August epist. 101. doe we interpret this place of the particular predestination of euery one that it dependeth not vpon the foresight of the will and works of men but onely on the mercie of God 4. Osiander vnderstandeth it of the willing and running of naturall and vnregenerate men among
is not gainsaied or resisted 4. And the force of the obiection consisteth in these two points 1. Ob. That which 〈◊〉 according to Gods will he cannot iustly be offended with but that some are hardened 〈◊〉 agreeable to Gods will here we must answear by a distinction of Gods will for that which is not contrarie to Gods reuealed will he cannot be displeased withall but if the question be of his secret and hid will the proposition is not true 2. Ob. That which cannot be avoided is not iustly punished but the hardening of 〈◊〉 reprobate cannot be avoided therefore c. Answ. Here must be admitted a distinction of necessitie there is necessitas coactiaâ—â— compelling and enforcing necessitie when the will is not free but vrged and compelled and necessitas naturae the necessitie of nature as men considering their naturall corruption cannot but sinne there is necessitas infallibilitatis a necessitie infallible as that which God hath decreed cannot otherwise be Martyr of the two latter kinds of necessitie the proposition is not true but onely of the first that which cannot be avoided is not iustly punished if a man be willing to avoide it seeing then the will of wicked 〈◊〉 is wholly â—â—â—ried after sinne howsoeuer there is a necessitie in their nature and in respect of Gods decree not to doe otherwise yet because they are not compelled but they sinne willingly they are notwithstanding iustly punished Quest. 20. Of the Apostles answer to the former obiection who art thou O man that pleadest c. v. 20. 1. The Apostles answear is first personall shewing the insolencie and presumption of man that dare take vpon him thus as it were to call the creator to account for his workes of such the Prophet Isay saith 49.10 Woe vnto him that striueth with his maker the other answear is reall that is concerning the thing it selfe which consisteth of a secret concession that both are true that God hardeneth whom he will and that none can resist Gods will or doe otherwise then he hath determined and these is a nogation insinuated that yet notwithstanding God is not vniust which he sheweth by the absolute power that God hath euer his creature by the similitude of the potter Gryneus Tolet maketh here two answears of the Apostle in this similitude proposed one to stay the curiositie of such gain sayers v. 20. the other to satisfie the humble and willing to learne that God casteth off none without their owne demerits v. 22. 2. Origen well obserueth here a difference betweene those which aske questions and make obiections of curiositie for they deserue no other answear but this tu quis es who are thou man c. and such as desire to be satisfied for their own instruction non puio quod si fidelis servus prudens interroget c. I doe not thinke that if a faithfull and wise seruant should haue asked any question beeing desirous to vnderstand that it should haue beene so answeared him but his desire should haue beene satisfied as Daniels was c. 9. 3. Augustine concerning this answear of the Apostle lib. 83. qu. 68. maketh mention of two cauils of certaine heretikes here obiected the one of the Marcionites and Manichees that Paul hauing nothing to answearto these obiections fell to chiding some other thought the Scriptures were corrupted and that these words were inferred by others To both these cauils Augustine answeareth thus in effect to the first that seeing the Apostle spake by the spirit of God it were blasphemie to thinke that he had nothing to say and to the other if this be admitted that the Scriptures are corrupted we shold haue no certainty of any thing Quest. 21. How the similitude which the Apostle bringeth in of the potter is to be vnderstood 1. Hierome epist. ad Hedib que 9.10 maketh this a dissimilitude rather then a similitude in this sense O man thinke not that God hath made thee like a peice of clay without any will or motion for the clay cannot answear the potter any thing but thou makest answear to God O man who art thou that answearest c. to the same purpose Photius in Oecumenius as he is here cited by Tolet ann 26. But seeing that the Scriptures vnto the which the Apostle here alludeth doe often compare God to a potter and men vnto the clay vnder the potters hand this interpretation seemeth to crosse altogether the Apostles meaning that neither God should be as the potter nor men as the clay 2. Chrysostome thinketh that S. Paul onely alleadgeth this similitude to this ende ad obedientiae silentium exprimendum c. to shewe how we should be obedient and silent not to be inquisitiue in these things as the clay is vnder the potters hand suffring him to worke his pleasure But as we confesse this to be true so there is more comprehended in this similitude which giueth vnto God an absolute power ouer men to dispose of them as it pleaseth him as the potter doth of his clay 3. Origen would expound this place by the like 2. Tim. 2.21 If any purge himselfe from these he shall be a vessel vnto honour here saith Origen memoravit rationem c. he remembreth the reason wherefore some are made vessels to honour some to dishonour if any man purge himselfe c. so Iacob was a vessel to honour because he purged himselfe c. to the same purpose Ambrose in his commentarie here But 1. these two places are not alike for S. Paul there speaketh neither of the decree of election nor of the cause of our vocation 〈◊〉 calling but de officio of the office and calling of a Christian how he ought to be vnlike to the reprobate and carrie himselfe as a vessell sanctified and purged for the glorie of God as Calvin well interpreteth that place 2. and if it were thus that God vpon the foresight of works good or euill should elect or reiect then should he not haue the like power which the potter hath ouer the clay Mart. 4. Wherefore the Apostle in the enforcing of this similitude reasoneth à minori from the lesse to the greater that if a potter haue such power ouer his vessels which he maketh God hath much more ouer his creature to frame and fashion it as it may best serue for his glorie But yet this similitude is not in euerie point to be pressed but in diuerse things there is a dissimilitude 1. God maketh man of nothing but the potter hath a matter prepared before out of the which he maketh his vessels Pareus 2. the clay hath no motion or vnderstanding as man hath Faius 3. and it is a greater matter to destroy a man then a peice of clay Faius But herein this similitude holdeth 1. like as there is no difference in the matter out of the which the potter frameth diuerse vessels so all men by nature were as one corrupt masse 2. As the potter hath absolute power to doe with
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
endebted to the diuine iustice quod siue exigatur siue donetur nulla est iniquitas which though it be exacted or pardoned there is no iniquitie ad Simplic lib. 1. qu. 2. In this assertion there is no inconueniencie to say that God beholding and foreseeing all men by the voluntarie transgression of Adam in the state of corruption did of his free mercy elect some to be saued in Christ the others he left in their corruption and so for their sinnes decreed thē to damnation for here can be no imputation of iniustice at all for it is free where one hath diuerse debters to remit the debt vnto one and to exact it of another So then if the reason be demanded why some are reiected of God it may be answeared that mans voluntarie transgression bringing all his posteririe into bondage beeing foreseene of God is a sufficent cause of their reiection but if it be further demaunded why God out of this masse of corruption hath elected some and not others there no other reason can be giuen but the good pleasure of God Ephes. 1.5 so that the absolute decree of reprobation is grounded vpon the foresight of mans corruption but of the comparatiue as why one is reiected and left and not an other no reason can be rendred but Gods gracious and free purpose Against this opinion of Augustine there are two principall obiections 1. Pererius disput 12. thus obiecteth the Angels had no originall sinne they were all created in the state of grace and yet some of them were elected some reprobate therefore sinne is not the cause of reprobation Ans. 1. As the Angels were created in the state of grace so also was Adam in Paradise and as Adam fell by voluntarie transgression and so enthralled his posteritie so did the Angels that fell abuse the gift of freewill and so for their pride were iustly condemned for euer so then the foresight of the apostasie of the reprobate Angels was the cause of their reiection and condemnation as the Apostle saith Iud. 6. The Angels which kept not their first estate he hath reserued in euerlasting chaines as man then hath originall sinne out of the which proceed actuall sinnes which are the ground and cause of reprobation and condemnation so the Apostate Angels for their sinne of pride were reiected onely here is the difference that the Angels fell irrecouerable falling by their owne pride beeing not seduced but man falling by the sedition and tentation of the deuill hath a redeemer in Gods mercie prouided for him 2. Pareus thus obiecteth the foresight of originall corruption is generall and common to all mankind therefore it cannot be the cause of the reprobation of some onely dub 8. argum 4. so also Vrsinus catech 3. p. 357. Ans. Not simply the foresight of originall corruption which all are subiect vnto but it beeing considered together with Gods decree because he purposed to deliuer some and not others is the cause of reprobation 3. Some doe wholly referre the decree of reprobation and election onely to the will and purpose of God and thinke that no other cause can be rendred why God hath elected some and condemned others but the absolute will pleasure and purpose of God their reasons are these 1. As God loued Iacob before he had done any good so he hated Esau without any respect vnto the euill which he did Rom. 9.11 2. The Apostle also saith v. 18. That God hath mercie on whom he will and whom he will be hardeneth Gods will is the cause of both 3. And God is compared to the potter that as he hath power ouer the clay to make thereout vessels of honour or dishonour as he thinketh good so much more the Lord may out of the same masse make some vessels of mercie some of euerlasting shame 4. Our Blessed Sauiour maketh this the reason why God had hid the misterie of saluation from the wise men and reuealed it to babes because O Father thy good pleasure was such Matth. 11.25 Ans. 1. Why God loued not Esau as well as Iacob the cause was onely the gracious purpose of God and hereof neither the good workes of the one nor the euill workes of the other were the cause yet both of them beeing considered in their originall corruption as it was Gods mercie to deliuer the one so it was no iniustice to leaue the other 2. here the hatred of God is taken onely for the not conferring of his grace and loue which God freely bestowed without respect vnto workes but that hatred which is an ordaining of men vnto euerlasting punishment is not without respect vnto their sinnes 2. Mercie presupposeth miserie and hardening a corrupt inclination in the heart before for the which it is hardened here then mans miserable estate is insinuated out of the which some by Gods mercie are deliuered 3. By that similitude the Apostle sheweth what God may doe by his absolute power not what he doth he dealeth not with men as the potter with the clay though he might that is stricto absoluto iure by his strict and absolute right but aequissimis rationibus vpon most equall and iust conditions he might doe as the potter doth but yet he taketh not that rigorous and strict course 4. It is indeed Gods good pleasure to reueale the secrets of his will to whom he pleaseth and to hide them from whom he will because he is not bound vnto any he may doe with his owne as he please and bestow his graces freely but if he should keepe them from all none had cause to complaine seeing their naturall blindnes and corruption was brought vpon them by the voluntarie corruption of Adam and though it was Gods gracious favour to reueale vnto some his will yet the rest were hardened and blinded iustly through their owne wilfulnesse and obstinacie against the truth And further against this opinion of the absolute decree of reprobation without any respect vnto the sinnes of men originall and actuall these two strong obiections are made first there would be an imputation of iniustice vpon God if he should decree any to be condemned but for sinne for like as none are indeed in time condemned but for sin as the Apostle saith Ephes. 5.6 For such things commeth the wrath of God vpon the children of disobedience c. so the decree of damnation before all time must be vpon the foresight of sinne Secondly whereas God in Scripture is set forth to be exceeding aboundant in mercie as Psal. 25.10 All the waies of the Lord are mercie and truth and Psal. 144.9 His mercies are ouer or aboue all his workes and Iames 2.13 mercie reioyceth against iudgement Now the Lord should be accused of seueritie and inclemencie and farre more readie and prompt vnto iustice then mercie if he out of his owne will should decree more to be condemned then to be saued these obiections the former position of the absolute decree of damnation beeing maintained cannot possibly
Pet. 1.10 2. for one to be a reprobate and yet to repent are contraries for he that is a reprobate can neuer haue grace to repent and he that hath grace truely to repent may be assured he is no reprobate Obiect 9. But if God haue foreseene the sinnes of the reprobate and that which God foreseeth must needs come to passe then the reprobate sinne of necessitie they cannot doe otherwise how then can they be iustly punished for that which they cannot auoid Ans. There is a double kind of necessitie the one is called antecedens necâ—â—â—â—â—tas an antecedent necessitie or going before which proceedeth from necessarie and working causes as when a thing is forced by violence and strength as a stone out of the hand it is necessarie it should goe there is consequens necessitas a following necessitie or by way of consequent which is vpon supposition of the effect as when we see one fit this beeing supposed that we see him fit it is now necessarie beeing done and yet he was not forced to fit so it is in this case the reprobate doe sinne necessarily not by a necessitie forcing their will but an infallible necessitie following the effect for they therefore sinne not because God did foresee they would sinne but therefore God foresaw it because they would sinne The reprobate then do sinne freely without any compulsion and therein are guiltie though they were foreseene to sinne and because of the corruption of their nature could doe no other And thus is this doctrine deliuered from all those cauils and obiections and man iâ— found onely to be the cause of his owne ruine and destruction but the beginning of our saluation is from God according to that saying of the Prophet Hoshea c. 13.9 perditio tâ—â— ex te Israel salus ex me thy perdition O Israel is of thy selfe thy salvation of me and so I ende and conclude this point with that saying of Tertullian Deus de suo optimus de nostro iustus c. God is good and mercifull of his owne and iust in that which is ours c. lib. de resurrect that is the originall of mercie is from God but the occasion of his iustice is from sinne which is of our selues Controv. 11. Of the difference betweene the decree of election and reprobation and of the agreement betweene them Whereas in both these there are two things to be considered the decree and the execution thereof here are diuerse opinions Some will haue a correspondencie in election and reprobation in both and these also are deuided Some only in the former that is the decree Some will haue a difference in both as well in the manner of the decree as in the execution 1. Of the first opinion were the Pelagians and some of the Romanists which hold that both the decree of election is grounded vpon the foresight of faith and the good vse of freewill as also the execution of that decree in the giuing of eternall life they will haue procured by good works as reprobation both in the decree and execution proceedeth from sinne and the foresight thereof So the whole worke of election they will haue to take beginning from man as reprobation doth Thus the Rhemists hold that election is not without the condition and respect to workes annot Heb. c. 5. sect 7. Becanus the new diuinitie Reader in Mentz hath this assertion that predestination is ex praescientia conditionata c. of a conditionall prescience whereby God foresaw that one would well vse the grace offered and not an other c. 1. de praedestinat loc 5. But herein other Romanists do dissent from them as Bellarmine Tolet Pererius as hath beene shewed before controv 7. 2. Other Romanists will haue an agreement both in the decree and execution but after an other manner as Pererius following Thom. Aquin. disput 5. numer 34. disput 12. numer 66. saith that God is the cause of reprobation as well as election quantum ad duo principium terminum in respect of these two the beginning and the ende concerning the beginning which is the decree he saith there is nulla causa meritoria ex parte hominis no meritorious cause of either on mans behalfe but in respect of the last effect there is a meritorious cause in man both of his good works vnto eternall life and of euill workes to condemnation But Pererius in two points is farre wide both in making good workes meritorious of eternall life which is the free gift of God Rom. 6.23 and in assigning the beginning or first cause of reprobation and so of condemnation in the will of God and not in the sinne of man contrarie to that saying of the Prophet alleadged before Hos. 13.9 Thy perdition is of thy selfe O Israel as their Latine text readeth 3. Some doe make great difference in the execution of these decrees for good workes are not meritorious of saluation as euill workes are of damnation the reason of which difference is because euill workes are perfitly euill but our good workes are imperfect and so not proportionable to the most excellent and perfect reward and good workes are not our owne nor of our selues as euill workes are and therefore they merit not but the decree as well of election as reprobation they hold to be alike without any relation vnto workes good or euill thus worthie Calvin Beza Martyr with other of our learned new writers 4. But it is the safer way thoroughout from the beginning of the decree to the execution to hold a perpetuall difference betweene election and reprobation that we are elected freely without respect vnto faith or workes for otherwise we should haue chosen God first and not he vs and so we are also saued freely not for our workes and yet neither without them But in the way of damnation neither were the wicked decreed to be condemned neither yet shall they actually be condemned but for their sinne and the foresight thereof 1. because the beginning of damnation is from man but the decree of reprobation is the beginning of damnation therefore that decree must proceed from the foresight of something worthie of damnation in man 2. that for the which God condemneth man he decreed him to be condemned but for sinne is man condemned 3. otherwise if it it were Godâ— absolute will to reiect more then he electeth his iustice should exceede his mercie see before contr 10. Controv. 12. Whether mercie be a naturall propertie in God or an effect onely of his will against Socinus v. 18. He hath mercie on whom he will Socinus that blasphemous heretike lib. 1. c. 1. by occasion of these words goeth about to prooue that Mercie is not a naturall propertie in God but a voluntarie act 1. Because the Apostle saith He hath mercie on whom he will 2. God alwaies vseth his naturall properties but mercie he alwaies sheweth not as toward impenitent sinners 3. Contrarie properties are not naturally in God but his mercie
they will themselues as Because telleth vs that God simplici affectu desideravit omnes ad aeternam beatitudinem pervenire that God simply desired that all might come to eternall life de praedestinat Calvinist c. 8.4 And this assertion may seeme to be fauoured by these places of Scripture Rom. 11.32 God hath shut vp all in vnbeleefe that he might haue mercie vpon all and 1. Timoth. 2.4 God would haue all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth Contra. Diuerse answeares are here found out 1. Some say that secundum quid after a sort God would haue all to be saued in that he offereth meanes of saluation to al but simply he willeth onely the saluation of the elect which he effecteth and worketh accordingly 2. the schoolemen haue here a distinction that there is voluntas signi beneplaciti Gods secret will and his reuealed and signified will by his reuealed will he would haue all to be saued by his secret will onely the elect 3. Augustine hath two answeares sometime he vnderstandeth these places distributive by way of distribution by all men he interpreteth all sorts of men according to that saying Reuel 5.9 Thou hast redeemed vs vnto God thorough thy blood out of euerie tribe and language c. sometime he taketh it restrictive by way of restraint and limitation vnderstanding all the elect he will haue all to be saued because none can be saued but by his wil as that saying is to be taken Ioh. 1.9 Which lighteneth euerie man that commeth into the world not that euerie one is lightened but euerie one which is lightened is lightened by him And this interpretation in restraining such vniuersall promises to the faithfull onely is agreeable to the Scripture for whereas the Apostle saith in generall Rom. 11.32 God hath shut vp all in vnbeleefe that he might haue mercie vpon all he restraineth it onely vnto those which beleeue Galat. 3.22 The Scripture hath concluded all vnder sinne that the promise by the faith of Iesus Christ should be giuen to all that beleeue Pareus 4. But yet none of these answears doe fully satisfie this therefore may further be added that in the beginning God made man righteous and gaue him free will and sufficient strength to haue beene kept from tentation if he would himselfe but man abused his free-will and transgressed and fell yet God offreth outward meanes vnto all of their calling which if they refuse there is no want on Gods behalfe but on their owne this then is our answear that God would all men to be saued that is not that God purposeth all to be saued or giueth grace to all to be saued but that there appeareth no let on Gods behalfe why all are not saued either the creation considered or Gods generall vocation but man is the cause of his owne perdition or ruine Controv. 15. Of the sufficiencie of Scripture v. 17. The Scripture saith c. Hence may be answeared that cauill of the Iesuites against the Scripture that it cannot be the iudge of Controversies because the iudge must speake but the Scripture is a dumbe letter and speaketh not But this the Apostle denieth here for he saith the Scripture saith to Pharaoh the Scripture speaketh it is not then a dumbe and mute Iudge therefore the voice of the Scripture must be heard as the onely sufficient Iudge to decide and determine all controversies of doctrine and this the Apostle euidently sheweth by the frequent alleadging and citing of the Scripture in this chapter shewing that he appealeth thereunto as the supreame and highest Iudge of all truth Controv. 16. Of the certaintie of saluation v. 24. Euen vs whom he hath called c. The Apostle doubteth not to affirme not onely of himselfe but of others also that are called that they are prepared vnto glorie so then we neede not expect some speciall revelation to make vs assured of our saluation as the Romanists affirme we are made certaine of our election by our vocation Par. and afterward the Apostle saith v. 33. he that beleeueth shall not be ashamed he then that is sure he shall not be confounded or ashamed what cause hath he to doubt of his saluation Mart. Controv. 17. Against the workes of preparation v. 30. The Gentiles which followed not righteousnesse haue attained vnto righteousnesse silence it is manifest that a man cannot make a way or doe any thing by way of preparation to further his calling seeing the Gentiles were cōuerted vnto God when they sought it not so it is true which the Apostle saith els-where Philip. 2.13 it is God which worketh in you both the will and deed of his good pleasure See further Synops. Centur. 4. err 81. 6. Morall obseruations Observ. 1. It is not sufficient for children to come of good parents The examples of Ismael and Esau borne of faithfull and righteous parents yet themselues prophane and vnrighteous do teach vs that it is not sufficient for children to boast of the nobilitie and vertue of their ancestours vnlesse they doe also imitate and followe their steppes so the Iewes did vaunt themselues of their father Abraham but our Blessed Sauiour denieth them to be Abrahams children vnlesse they did the workes of Abraham Observ. 2. How parents may be comforted in their vngodly children These examples also may giue contentment and comfort vnto parents when as their childrē prooue prophane and licentious to looke vnto the counsell of God who gaue grace vnto Iacob but forsooke Esau let their be no diligence and care wanting in the Parents to giue vnto their children good education and if other things fall not out answearable to their godly desire they must rest contented in Gods will and counsell which may be hidde and secret but is neuer vniust as Abraham is commended for his care in the instruction of his children Gen. 18.18 yet Ismael became a licentious and irreligious man Observ. 3. Against curiositie v. 20. Who art thou O man that pleadest c. Though the Apostle stay all curious inquiring after Gods secrets yet men are not hereby forbidden and discouraged from a modest desire to search and knowe the truth for our Sauiour doth himselfe bid vs search the Scriptures Ioh. 6.39 and Origen here well noteth non puto quod si prudens fidelis servus interroget c. I doe not thinke if a wise and faithfull seruant should aske and enquire after Gods will that he should receiue such an answear who art thou c. which he sheweth by the example of Daniel who had his desire granted Dan. 9. Observ. 4. Of contentment of mind v. 20. Shall the thing framed say why hast thou made me thus c. Like as in the doctrine of election euerie one must rest contented with Gods good pleasure so for the state and condition of this life we must accept thankfully of that whereto the Lord hath disposed vs if a man be rich of poore high or lowe let him be content
tast of his mercie v. 32. and ascribe nothing to themselues 3. The conclusion consisteth 1. of an exclamation with an admiration of Gods wisdome and knowledge as vnsearchable which is shewed 1. by the secrecie thereof not to be found out by a creature v. 34. 2. by the bountie of God not prouoked by any mans giuing first vnto him 3. because God is the beginning and end of all things 2. then followeth the Apostles vow and wish that all glorie may be ascribed vnto God v. 36. 3. The questions and doubts discussed Quest. 1. Of the scope and intent of the Apostle in this chapter 1. Whereas the Apostle had in the ende of the former chapter shewed out of Isay how the Iewes for their obstinacie were reiected and the Gentiles called now he sheweth in this chapter for the comfort of the Iewes that all generally were not cast off but onely the vnbeleuers Origen and so least that the Iewes might haue despaired and some might also haue obiected as though hereby Gods promises to his people should haue beene made of no effect he sheweth this reiection of the Iewes not to be generall Par. and this he doth ne insultarent Gentiles least the Gentiles might haue insulted ouer the Iewes gloss ordin 2. So then partly to minister consolation to the Iewes Bucer partly to represse the insolencie of the Gentiles the Apostle sheweth three things concerning the reiection of the Iewes that it is not vniversalis vniuersall to v. 11. nor inutilitis vnprofitable to v. 25. nor irrecuperabilis irrecouerable from v. 25. to the ende Lyran. 3. And touching the first that their fall is not generall he sheweth first that all are not reiected as by his owne example then that some are assumed as seuen thousand were in Elias dayes and yet some reiected v. 8.9 Gorrhan Quest. 2. Why the Apostle maketh mention of the tribe of Beniamin whereof he was v. 1. I also am an Israelite of the seede of Abraham of the tribe of Beniamin c. 1. Pet. Martyr thinketh that Saint Paul would signifie here that he was not obscurely borne but of a noble tribe euen of Beniamin which came not of any of Iacobs handmaides but of Rachel his principall wife and out of the which Saul the first King of Israel was chosen 2. Tolet giueth a contrarie reason that least Saint Pauls calling might be ascribed to the dignitie of his tribe he sheweth he was of Beniamin which was vltima minima the last and least of all the tribes 3. the interlin glosse thinketh it is added because mention is made next before of the seed of Abraham lest he might be thought to be of Abraham by Ismael But this doubt was remooued before in that he saith he was an Israelite 4. Gorrhan giueth this coniecture alludit genus operi sequeti S. Pauls kindred and tribe is mentioned as agreeable to the worke that followed for as Rachel died in the birth of Beniamin so the Synagogue in the birth of Paul and as Iosephs cup was found in Beniamins sackes mouth so the word of Christ in the mouth of Paul and as Iacob saith of Beniamin Gen. 49. that he is a wolfe devouring the pray so Saint Paul spoiled the Iewish Synagogue and brought many as a pray vnto Christ. 5. But these collections are to curious S. Paul onely hereby sheweth that he was a Iew by nation not a Proselyte conuerted to the faith by rehearsing three of their principall Fathers Israel Abraham Beniamin Pareus that his kindred was so farre off from beeing an hinderance to him that he was chosen to be praeco gratia a preacher of grace Bucer and therefore all the Iewes were not reiected Quest. 3. How God is said not to cast off that people whom he knewe before v. 2. 1. Chrysostome taketh here Gods foreknowledge for his prescience by the which he did foresee the people whom he had chosen aptum fore fidem recepturum to be apt and readie to receiue the faith But herein the Greekes erred in attributing too much to mans freewill and the contrarie is euident out of the Scripture and reasons diduced from them that Gods prescience was no cause why he elected the people of Israel As 1. Deut. 7.7 the Lord saith he did not set his loue vpon them or choose them because they were moe in number c. he did of his meere loue choose them not for any respect vnto any thing in them 2. how could he foresee any goodnesse in them in whom naturally there is nothing but evill 3. and the Lord here saith v. 4. I haue reserued seuen thousand he ascribeth it to their own will but to his owne grace that they were so reserued 2. Some will haue this vnderstood comparatiuely ipsum praesciuit ante Gentes God did foresee them to be his people before the Gentiles so Oecumenius vnderstandeth it of the prioritie of the calling of the Iewes before the Gentiles But as Beza well obserueth the Apostle here speaketh not of vocation but of the decree of eternall predestination 3. Some interpret it thus which he knew before that is had before enlarged with many excellent benefits but it is euident by the circumstance of the place that the Apostle speaketh here of election before all time not of the collation of benefites in time ex Tolet annot 1. 4. Wherefore we must vnderstand that Gods prescience is taken foure waies 1. either largely for his foresight whereby he seeth and knoweth all things which are done in the world as Peter saith to our Sauiour Ioh. 21.17 Lord thou knowest all things and this generall prescience in God belongeth to his vnderstanding rather then will and is no cause of things for all that God in this sense knoweth he decreeth not 2. Gods prescience is taketh more strictly for his foreknowledge of those things which he decreeth to be both of good which he purposeth to worke and of euill which he purposeth to permit and this prescience is practicall the former is onely speculatiue 3. it is vsed yet in a more strict sense as when it signifieth the approbation and acceptance of God in his eternall loue as Rom. 8.29 Whome he knew before he predestinate and so praenoscere is probare to foreknow is to approoue as Origen saith and so Gods prescience differeth from election as the cause from the effect as it signifieth election and predestination it selfe and so Augustine taketh it here praescivit id est praedestinavit he foreknew that is predestinate so also Haymo Lyranus and so the meaning is whome he knew before ab aeterno electum amplexus whom he loued and embraced beeing elected from the beginning Beza and here the word praecognoscendi of foreknowing signifieth beneplacitum the good pleasure of God whereby he chose them to be his children Calvin for there is difference betweene these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to foresee and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to foreknow this signifieth a foreknowledge with
visible Churches are now extinguished but we must distinguish betweene the externall and internall calling they which haue the first without the second may fall away but where the externall and internall are ioyned together as they shall concurre in the conuersion of the Iewes there they are vnchangeable 3. If that were the Apostles meaning that God repenteth not of his gifts bestowed vpon any because if they refuse them they may redound to the benefit of others this had bin very impertinent to the Apostles purpose who hereby intendeth to prooue the vocation of the Iewes because the Lord had so promised and purposed whereof he vseth not to repent 4. Wherefore I preferre herein the iudgement of Tolet a more worthie man both for his iudgement and dignitie in the Papall Church who thus interpreteth these gifts not to be repented of quia quos Deus his semel prosequi decrevit non deserit because whome God once decreed to bestow them vpon be forsaketh not so likewise Lyranus expoundeth this place the gifts and calling of God are without repentance that is sine mutabilitate c. without change or mutabilitie for with God there is no changing c. so also Haymo poenitentiaâ— pro mutatione accipitur c. repentance is taken in the Scripture for change as the Lord said to Samuel It repenteth me that I haue made Saul king c. igitur sine mutatione c. therefore without change are the gifts and calling of God in those things whereof we read before whome he hath predestinate he hath called c. not in them of whome it is said many be called few be chosen c. 18. Controv. Against election vpon the foresight of works and against merits Whereas the Apostle saith v. 35. who hath giuen vnto him first Calvin vrgeth this place against merits for if God should giue saluation vnto man for his good works homo prior daret bona opera Deo c. it would follow that man should first giue good works vnto God likewise Beza prooueth by this place that election is not vpon the foresight of faith or works for then we should giue vnto God first Pet. Martyr also doth applie this place both against merits and election by works But Pererius disput 4. numer 15. vpon this chapter chargeth Calvin and Beza either with ignorance or malice for this collection and to make his matter good he bringeth in this distinction that there is duplex salus hominis a twofold saluation of man one is begunne in this life the other is perfected in the next the first is conferred onely by the franke mercie and goodnes of God the other is giuen vpon respect of merits and yet though life euerlasting be merited man can not be said to giue vnto man first quia prior Deus gratiam dedit c. because God gaue vnto him grace first whereby he might merit likewise he distinguisheth of election there is one election ad primam gratiam to the first grace and that is without respect vnto works there is an other election vnto eternall life and thereof causa est praevisio honorum operum the cause is the foresight of good works Contra. 1. If good works are the gift of God and God must first giue grace to doe good works then can they not merit for he that meriteth must doe it ex proprio of his owne if it be not his owne then he can not challenge any merit as the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 4.7 what hast thou which thou hast not receiued if thou hast receiued it why reioycest thou as though thou hadst not receiued it c. 2. though God giue grace at the first yet if man after doe bring merits and then eternall life followeth he doth giue vnto God first in respect of the finall reward though not in respect of the precedent grace 3. The Apostle acknowledgeth but one kind of predestination whereupon vocation followeth and then iustification and last of all glorification Rom. 8.30 whence this argument may be framed that predestination which is vnto saluation is also vnto glorification but predestination vnto vocation which is vnto the first grace is by our aduersaries owne confession without respect of works therefore so is the predestination vnto glorification 19. Controv. Against vniversall grace Whereas the Apostle saith v. 32. God hath shut vp all in vnbeleefe that he might haue mercie on all c. the Patrons of vniuersall grace doe thus reason against particular election onely of some they whome God hath mercie on are elected not damned but God hath mercie vpon all therefore all are elected and none decreed to be damned Ans. 1. That all are not elected but onely a certaine number and the rest are reiected it is euident out of the Scriptures Rom. 9.18 He hath mercie on whome he will and whome he will he hardeneth therefore he hath not mercie on all and Rom. 11.7 Election hath obtained it and the rest haue beene hardened and againe many are called few chosen all then are not chosen for if God had elected all to saluation and yet all not saued it would argue either a change in Gods will or a want of power in God that he can not bring his purpose to effect and that the goodnes of his will should be ouercome by the malice of mans will but none can resist the will of God Rom. 9.19 2. Concerning the argument first the proposition is not true for there are certaine common mercies which God may shew euen toward those that are excluded from saluation it is true onely of those speciall mercies which belong vnto saluation but those are not extended vnto all 3. Neither is the assumption true in their sense God doth not shew mercie indifferently vpon all in calling them to saluation but this particle all must be vnderstood here distributive by way of distribution by all the Apostle meaneth both Iewes and Gentiles all kinds and sorts of men 6. Morall obseruations 1. Observ. Ministers must not leaue their calling v. 4. What saith the answer of God P. Martyr here noteth how the great Prophet Elias herein shewed his infirmitie that beeing wearied with the incredulitie and obstinacie of the people he desired to die and so would shake off his calling which infirmitie the Lord here correcteth in the Prophet whereby Ministers are taught that they should not be dismaied and discouraged to leaue their places notwithstanding the obstinacie of the people as long as there be any which will heare them Theodoret lib. 2. c. 31. maketh mention of one Molitius who did leaue a certaine Church in Armenia beeing offended with the frowardnes and disobedience of the people who afterward was chosen Bishop of Antioch and for defending the orthodoxall faith against the Arrians was banished which might be thought to haue happened vnto him as a chastisment from God because he forsooke his former charge Martyr 2. Observ. That we must wholly be addicted to the seruice of God v.