iudged in this that he beleeued not though for other things which he doth he shall not be iudged as it is said he that beleeueth shall not be iudged or condemned that is he shall not be iudged secundum hoc quod credit in that that he beleeueth yet in other things he shall be iudged 2. Such an one not beleeuing in Christ yet doing well though he haue not eternall life yet gloria operum poterit non perire by the glorie of his workes he may be kept from perishing to this purpose Origen lib. 2. in c. 2. ad Roman 2. Contra. 1. The first position of Origen that any thing done without faith can be acceptable to God is contrarie to the Scripture Heb. 11.6 Without faith it is impossible to please God neither doth that argument followe from the contrarie for one euill worke is sufficient to condemne a man but one good worke is not sufficient to obtaine reward for he that doth one good worke may haue many euill workes beside for the which he deserueth to be punished that other glosse of his of the iudging of beleeuers and the not iudging of vnbeleeuers is coÌ„futed by the words of our Sauiour Ioh. 5.24 he that beleeueth hath euerlasting life and shall not come into condemnation he is not freed then from iudgement onely in part because he beleeueth but simplie he shall neuer enter into condemnation for he which hath a liuely faith which is effectuall working by loue hath not onely a naked faith but is full of good workes and where he is wanting his imperfect obedience is supplied by the perfect obedience of Christ apprehended by faith 2. Neither doth the Scripture allowe any third place beside heauen and hell after this life that any not hauing eternall life should be preserued from perishing for they which are not counted among the sheepe at the right hand of Christ for whom the kingdome is prepared they belong vnto the goates at the left hand and shall goe into euerlasting fire prepared for the deuill and his Angels 3. This straight and inconuenience Origen is driuen vnto because he taketh these Iewes and Grecians to be vnbeleeuers whereas the Apostle vnderstandeth such among the Gentiles as beleeued in God and liued thereafter such were they which liued with Melchisedek Iob the Niniuites Cornelius as Chrysostome vpon this place sheweth whom Faius followeth 22. Quest. Of the diuerse acceptions of the word person v. 11. This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is either giuen vnto God or to creatures and the same either without life or to such as haue life as to man 1. It is attributed to God three wayes 1. the face of God signifieth his iudgement against sinners 1. Pet. 3.12 the face of God is against those which doe euill 2. it is taken for the spirituall presence of Christ 2. Cor. 2.10 I forgaue it for your sakes in the sight or face 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ. 3. it is taken for the diuine hypostasis in the Trinitie as Christ is said to be the engraued forme of the person of his father Heb. 1.3 2. Things without life are said to haue a certaine face as Luke 12.56 the face of heauen 3. Properly this word face is giuen vnto man and it 1. either signifieth his countenance as Iesus is said to haue fallen vpon his face Matth. 26.39 2. or the bodilie presence as the Apostle saith he was kept from the Thessalonians concerning his face but not in heart 1. Thessal 2.17.3 or it is taken for some respect of the gifts of bodie minde or some externall condition as of honour riches or such like in this sense it is said of Christ Mark 12.14 thou carest not for the person of any and S. Iude saith of certaine false teachers that they haue mens persons in admiration for aduantage sake Iud. v. 16 and in this sense it is taken here Gryneus 4. The person then of man betokeneth some qualitie or condition in him for the which he is respected either naturall as the gifts of the minde sharpnes of wit memorie vnderstanding or of the bodie as strength come lines beutie or such as are attained vnto by labour and industrie as learning knowledge of arts wisdome or externall in worldly respects as if he be rich honourable of authoritie or such like 5. Further some respect of persons is necessarily ioyned with the cause as a fault in an aged man or minister or one that hath knowledge is greater then a slippe of a young man or one that is ignorant some respect of persons is diuided from the cause as whether he be rich or poore honourable or base and in this sense persons are not to be respected Martyr 23. Qu. How God is said not to accept the persons of men The Apostle hauing made mention of the equall condition of the Iewes and Gentiles both in punishment and reward addeth this as a reason because God is no accepter of persons in respect of their nation and kinred So S. Peter saith God is no accepter of persons 〈◊〉 in euery nation he that feareth God c. is accepted with him Act. 10.34 35 here the respecting of persons is vnderstood of the nation or countrey likewise S. Paul saith Gal. 3.28 that in Christ There is neither Iew nor Grecian bond nor free male nor female that is in Christ there is no respect of persons Deut. 16.19 Thou shalt not accept any person neither take any reward to preferre any for gifts or rewards beside the merit of his cause is to haue respect of persons God then accepteth no mans person he preferreth not any for his riches countrey honour strength or any other such qualitie but iudgeth euery man as his cause is and aâ— his works are But thus it will be obiected on the contrarie 1. Obiect Moses entreateth the Lord to spare his people for Abraham Isaak and â—â—kobs sake Exod. 32. herein then the Lord had respect of persons Ans. Some giue this answer that in temporall things such as was the forbearing to punish the people God may haue respect to persons but not in eternall Mart. But it may be better answered that God had not respect to the persons of these Patriarks but to his gracious promise which he had made vnto them as there Moses saith Remember Abraham c. to whome thou swarest by thy selfe c. 2. Obiect S. Paul would haue vs doe good to all but specially to the houshold 〈◊〉 faith Gal. 6.10 here the person is respected Ans. The person is not respected here but the cause for the faithfull are preferred in respect of their faith which is the cause why they haue the preheminence 3. Obiect But God doth elect some vnto saluation some are reiected whereas all by nature are the children of wrath and in the same common condition to giue then vnequall things as life or death to those which are in the same equall condition seemeth to be done with respect of persons Ans. 1.
to their faith which sheweth it selfe by their works 3. some he saith thus interpret he shall render according to their workes that is post opera sua after their works 4. some say they shall be rewarded according to their works but with the temporall blessings in this world not with life eternall 5. some graunt that the righteous shall be rewarded according to their workes if any could be found that had such workes which are worthie of reward the like answers Pererius imagineth to be made by the Protestants numer 39. but neither of them name what Protestants they are that thus answer we insist vpon none of these solutions 2. But we can otherwise satisfie all these reasons obiected 1. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to render signifieth not onely a iust retribution but a gift of fauour as in that place giuen in instance Matth. 20.8 the reward is said to be rendred not onely to them which had laboured first which might seeme to haue deserued it but vnto those that came at the last houre to whome it was giuen of fauour and therefore simply v. 14. it is expressed by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to giue 2. In that place Matth. 25. it is shewed to whome not for what the reward shall be giuen good works are required as a condition in those which are to be saued not as a meritorious cause of their saluation Pareus for in the same place our Sauiour sheweth the originall and fountaine of their saluation Come ye blessed of my father inherit the kingdome prepared for you from the foundations of the world their saluation then dependeth vpon the free and gratious election of God not vpon their works Faius 3. The argument followeth not from the merit of euill workes to the merit of good workes for there is great difference in the way of meriting betweene them 1. good works are the gifts of God and proceede from him but euill workes haue their beginning from man 2. good works are imperfect and therefore merit not euill workes are perfectly euill and therefore are worthie of punishment 3. good works are commanded and so it is our dutie to doe them and therefore thereby we doe not merit but euill workeâ— are forbidden and there is no dutie but rather the transgression of dutie in doing them Gryneus 4. And concerning this place it prooueth no merit of workes the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to workes not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propter opera for workes so that this sheweth the measure rather then the merit of workes As this phrase is taken Matth. 9.29 according to your faith be it vnto you and Matth. 22.3 according to their workes doe not And this phrase is thus expounded Revel 22.12 My reward is with me to render vnto euery one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according as his worke is Pareus so then according to their workes noteth the qualitie not the merit of their worke that is good workes shall be recompensed with reward and euill workes with punishment Faius And mention is made here of works that God shall iudge according as he findeth mens works to shew that he is no accepter of persons neither regardeth the outward appearance but that which is in truth Gualter And that it is not one and the same thing to reward for works and according to works Gregorie well sheweth in Psal. 149. v. 9. aliud est secundum opera reddere aliud pâ—â—pter ipsa opera reddere in eo enim quod secundum opera dicitur ipsa operum qualitas intell giuer c. it is one thing to render according vnto works an other for works for in that it is said according vnto works the qualitie of the worke is vnderstood that whose works appeare to be good his recompence should be glorious c. Pererius thus answereth to this place of Gregorie that he speaketh of the substance quantitie and qualitie of works in themselues which beeing compared with the celestiall glorie are not worthie thereof but as they are considered in Christ by whose vertue and merit they are made meritorious so are they worthie of that euerlasting reward to the same purpose also Tolet. annotat 6. Contra. But Gregorie must be vnderstood to speake of the works of the faithfull which receiue all their actiuitie worthines and acceptance from Christ and the Apostle likewise speaketh of the faithfull Rom. 8.18 I account that the afflictions of this present time are not worthie of the glorie which shall be shewed vs euen then the works and sufferings of the faithfull are excluded from meriting Faius 3. Now further that no works of the Saints are meritorious it may further be shewed by these reasons 1. there must be a proportion betweene the merit and the reward but betweene our works and the euerlasting reward there is no proportion the reward by many degrees exceeding the worthines of the best works 2. there are no good works without faith for without faith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11.6 wherefore whatsoeuer is promised to works per fidem consequimur we doe obtaine by faith 3. that which a man meriteth must be of his owne not of his of whome he meriteth now our good works are of God they are not of our selues and therefore by them we can not merit at Gods hand 4. that wherein men are endebted vnto God can not merit for then be should be endebted vnto vs not we vnto him for the wages is not of fauour but of debt Rom. 4.4 But all which we can doe is no more but our dutie we owe our best seruice vnto God as our blessed Sauiour saith When ye haue done all those things which are commanded you say we are vnprofitable seruants we haue done that which was our dutie to doe Luk. 17.10 But here some will answer that we are said to be vnprofitable seruants onely in respect of God because he is not profited or furthered by our seruice but yet good works are profitable to our selues Contra. True it is that good works are profitable because thereby we testifie our faith we doe good vnto others and make our owne saluation sure but it followeth not because they are profitable that therefore they merit eternall life Martyr they are as Bernard saith via regui non causa regnandi the way vnto the kingdome not the cause of the kingdome 4. Controv. Which are to be counted good workes v. 7. Which by continuance in good works seeke c. The Romanists doe not hold those onely to be good works which are commanded by God but such also as are enioyned by the Church and the gouernors thereof Concil Tridentiâ— sess 6. c. 10. And according to this rule they count the saying and hearing of Masse going in pilgrimage inuocating of Saints praying for the dead offering vnto images good works Contra. There are two euident rules to examine good works by 1. because God onely is good and the fountaine and author of
Obiect The Apostle saith v. 15. If ye liue after the flesh yee shall die but if ye mortifie the deedes of the bodie ye shall liue therefore mortification is the cause of life and saluation Contra. 1. Hence followeth that mortification is necessarie vnto saluation yet not as a cause but as a necessarie condition without the which there is no faith and consequently no saluation 2. eternall life is the gift of God c. 6.23 therefore not due vnto our merits euill workes are the cause of damnation because they iustly deserue it but it followeth not that good workes are the cause of saluation for they are both imperfect and so vnproportinable to the reward and they are due otherwise to be done and therefore merite not Controv. 4. Against the Arrians and Eunomians concerning the deitie of the holy Ghost v. 2. The law of the spirit of life c. hath freedome Chrysostome homil de adorand spirit from this place prooueth the deitie of the spirit against the Arrian and Eunomiâ—au heretikes who made great difference in the persons of the Trinitie the Sonne they affirmed to be a creature and much inferiour to the Father and the holy Ghost they made servum ministrum silij a seruant and minister of the Sonne Chrysostome confuteth them by this place for if the spirit be the author of libertie and freedome to others then is he most free himselfe and not a minister or seruant as the Apostle saith 2. Cor. 2.17 where the spirit of the Lord is there is libertie Controv. 5. Against the Pelagians that a man by nature cannot keepe and fulfill the law This error is confuted by the expresse words of the Apostle who saith that the law was weake by reason of the flesh and so not able to iustifie vs by the flesh the Apostle vnderstandeth not substantiam caruis the substance of the flesh as the Maniches were readie to catch at these and the like places to confirme their wicked opinion who held the flesh of man to be euill by nature nor yet the carnall rites and obseruations of the law which were not able to cleanse the obseruers of them as Origen here interpreteth and Lyranus following him But by the flesh we vnderstand with Chrysostome carnales sensus the carnall affections carnalitatem quae rebellabat the carnalitie of man which rebelled against the spirit gloss ordinar concupisentias carnis the concupiscence of the flesh Haymo prauitatem naturae the pravitie of nature Martyr which hindereth that none can keepe the law to be iustified by it This then manifestly conuinceth the Pelagians for if the flesh make the law weake and vnable to be kept then none by the strength of their nature and flesh can fulfill the law Controv. 6. The fulfilling of the law is not possible in this life no not to them which are in the state of grace 1. The Romanists out of these words of the Apostle v. 4. That the righteousnesse of the law may be fulfilled in vs which walke not after the flesh doe inferre that they which walke not after the flesh may fulfill the law so that either it must be denied that none in this life walke after the spirit or it must be graunted that by such the law may be fulfilled Pere disput 5. Bellarmine addeth that if the law cannot be fulfilled Christus non obtinuit quod vâ—luit Christ hath not compassed or obtained that which he intended for therefore he died that the iustice of the law might be fulfilled Contra. 1. Indeed Origen whose errors and erroneous interpretations our aduersaries themselues will be ashamed of sauing where they serue their turne first deuised this interpretation who by the law here vnderstandeth the law of the mind which is fulfilled quando lex peccati in membris c. when the law of sinne in the members resisteth it not and Haymo hath this glosse that we beeing redeemed by Christ might spiritually fulfill the workes of the law per cuius impletionem possumus iustificari by the fulfilling whereof we may be iustified But this place is better vnderstood of the obedience of Christ who fulfilled the law which is imputed vnto vs by faith and thus doe not onely expound our new writes Melancthon Bucer Hyperius Calvin Beza with others but some of the auncient expositors as Theophylact quae lex facere nitibatur ea Christus nostri gratia executus est those things which the law endeuoured Christ hath performed for vs so also Oecumenius scotus finis legis per Christum partus est exhibitus the scope and end of the law is obtained exhibited by Christ yet we must endeuour to keepe those things which are deliuered per conuersationem bonam fidem by a good conuersation and faith 2. And that this is the meaning of the Apostle 1. the phrase sheweth that the law might be fulfilled in vs he saith not by vs Beza 2. because there is none so perfect in this life that neither in thought word nor deed transgresseth not the law 3. The law was weake through the infirmitie of the flesh but the infirmitie and weakenes of the flesh remaineth still euen in the regenerate therefore neither in them the righteousnesse of the law can be fulfilled 4. To the contrarie arguments thus we answer 1. the Apostle saith not that they which walke after the spirit fulfill the law but the law is fulfilled in them that is imputed vnto them by faith in Christ. 2. though the faithfull cannot fulfill the law yet Christ performed what he intended that he might keepe the law for them and they be iustified by faith in him 3. this clause then which walke not after the flesh is added to shew who they are for whom Christ hath fulfilled the law and to what end namely to such as walke in newnes of life 5. Some doe thinke that the Apostle speaketh here of two kinds of fulfilling the law one imputatione by imputation of Christs obedience which is our iustification the other inchoatione by a beginning onely which is our sanctification begunne in this life and perfited in the next when it shall be fulfilled Martyr Pareus But the other sense is better for the Apostle speaketh of a present fulfilling of the law in them which walke according to the spirit not of a fulfilling respited and excepted in the next life which is most true but not agreeable to the Apostles meaning here 6. So the Apostle in this place setteth forth three benefits purchased vnto vs by Christ 1. remission of our sinnes in that Christ bare in himselfe the punishment due vnto our sins 2. then the imputation of Christs obedience and performing of the law 3. our sanctification that we by the spirit of Christ doe die vnto sinne and rise vnto newnes of life which our sanctification is necessarily ioyned with our iustification but no part thereof 1. because it is imperfect in this life it is perfect after a sort perfectione partium by
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
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.
Trinitie concurreth in their diuine power and essence as they are one God yet with a speciall relation to their persons as God the Father Sonne and holy Ghost both created redeemed the world and sanctifie the elect but the worke of the creation is specially ascribed to the person of the Father the redemption to the person of the Sonne the worke of sanctification to the person of the holy Ghost considered together with their infinite and omnipotent Godhead Quest. 17. Whether to beleeue in the heart be not sufficient vnto salvation without confession of the mouth v. 10. With the heart man beleeueth vnto righteousnesse and with the mouth he confesseth to salvation 1. Lyranus thinketh that the Apostle onely giueth instance here of those which are in casis mortis at the point of death in whom it is sufficient to beleeue and confesse when they haue no time to worke But the Apostle describeth one generall way and rule whereby all are iustified 2. The Greeke scholiast thinketh that whereas the beleefe of the heart is sufficient yet mention is made of confession in two respects both in regard of others which by this confession are to be instructed and the time of persecution when it is necessarie to make publike confession of the faith But this which the Apostle requireth is to be performed of euerie beleeuer and at all times 3. Bellarmine inferreth out of this place fidem non sufficere ad salutem that faith is not sufficient vnto saluation but that the confession of the mouth and other works are also required as causes concurring vnto saluation which place he saith is so euident that in the colloquie at Altenburge one for ad salutē to saluation would haue put de salute of saluatiō But we are not driuen to such a straight as to vse any such shift we will send Bellarmine to his auncient Cardinal Tolet who vpon this place thus writeth oris confessio nos non iustificat à peccato c. sed iustificati tenemur eam palam profiteri c. the confession of the mouth doth not iustifie vs but beeing iustified we are bound publikely to professe it that we may obtaine euerlasting saluation c. confession then of the mouth is not required as a cause of saluation because it is no part of iustificatiō but as a necessary effect that followeth 4. Pet. Martyr thinketh that by saluation here is not vnderstood as in the former verse the remission of sinnes but vlteriorem perfectionem a further degree of perfection in them that are iustified as the Apostle in the same sense biddeth vs to works out our saluation with trembling and feare Phil. 2. so also Gorrhan interpreteth ad salutem to saluation ad salutis perfectionem to the perfection of saluation But this were to giue way vnto them which ascribe onely the beginning of saluation vnto faith and the perfection vnto works 5. Wherefore the Apostle maketh not here confession the cause of saluation as beleefe is of iustification but faith is the cause also of confession which is required not as a cause but tanquam medium as a way and meane vnto saluation for iustification and saluation are here to be considered as the beginning and ende by faith we are iustified which faith must bring forth liuely fruits as the confession of the mouth and the profession of the life before we can attaine to saluation to this purpose Pareus dub 8. likewise M. Calvine saith the Apostle sheweth onely how a true faith may be distinguished from a fained faith the faith which iustifieth must be such a faith as bringeth forth liuely fruits as the franke confession of the mouth And Beza addeth that the Apostle maketh faith and beleefe here the cause both of iustification and of saluation because the confession of the mouth to the which saluation is ascribed is an effect and fruit of faith and so according to that rule in Logike causa causae est causa causati the cause of the cause is the cause of that which is caused by that cause And so as Beza well concludeth confession is via qua pervenitur the way whereby we come vnto eternall life as also other good workes in the life are the way but not the cause which as Origen collecteth are here also included vnder confession for he can not confesse Christ to be risen from the dead which doth not walke in newnes of life as the Apostle saith which God hath ordained for vs to walke in them Eph. 2.10 now we vse to walke in the way 18. Quest. Of these words Whosoeuer calleth vpon the name of the Lord shall be saued v. 13. 1. The word here translated saued in that place of the Prophet Ioel 2.32 signifieth to be deliuered which in effect is all one the Septuagint reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall be saued doe put the consequent for the antecedent for he that is deliuered shall consequently be saued the Prophet there prophesieth of the spirituall benefits which the Church of God should receiue by the Messiah and so we are here to vnderstand not any temporall but a spirituall and eternall deliuerance 2. This sentence is brought in by the Apostle vpon these two occasions both to prooue his former generall proposition that God is rich in mercie to all both Iew and Gentile for the Prophet generally saith whosoeuer excluding none whether Iew or Gentile Calvin as also the Apostle sheweth the difference betweene the iustice of the lawe which requireth doing and the iustice of faith which requireth nothing but beleeuing and confession in the invocating of the name of God Melancth 3. Calleth 1. Gryneus thinketh that invocation the principall part of the worship of God is here taken for the whole as also Origen saith invocare nomen adorare Deum vnum to invocate the name of God and to worship God are one and the same But as Pet. Martyr thinketh invocation here rather is taken properly for the prayers of the faithfull 2. neither doth he speake of any invocation but of that which is in faith whereof the Apostle maketh mention 1. Cor. 12.3 No man can say that Iesus is the Lord but by the holy Ghost so the ordinar gloss he that prayeth invocateth but this he can not doe nisi prius credat vnlesse he beleeue before 4. Shall be saued He saith not he shall obtaine that which he prayeth for for many times one may pray ignorantly for that which is not meet for him but yet by his faithfull prayer he shall come vnto saluation Mart. 5. By the name of the Lord Origen well vnderstandeth Christ Iesus as he sheweth by that place of S. Paul 1. Cor. 1.3 with all that call on the name of our Lord Iesus and he further thus inferreth if that Enoch Moses Aaron did call vpon God and he heard them sine dubio c. without doubt they called vpon the Lord Iesus and Gorrhan giueth this reason why Christ is said to be the
the which naturall reason iuduceth was some way sufficient to the Gentiles vnto saluation c. But nothing can be acceptable to God without faith not that generall faith and knowledge of one God but the knowledge of God in Christ for he is the way and doore and without him is no entrace into life 6. Wherefore the Apostle here describeth the Gentiles in generall euen before the times of the Gospel and such as had no other direction then by the lawe of nature which they had as the Apostle sheweth by these two arguments both by the externall workes of the lawe and by the inward testimonie of their conscience But the Apostle faith not they fulfilled the lawe they onely did certaine things prescribed in the lawe Martyr And he speaketh rather de notitia naturali quam de implenda legis facultate of the naturall knowledge which they had not of any power or facultie to fulfill the lawe Calvin Beza And he meaneth not all the Gentiles in generall but the wiser sort among them as Solon Socrates Aristides the Sciptoes Catoes with other who outwardly did some externall workes which the lawe commanded though they wanted the inward obedience Pareus Quest. 27. How any thing can be said to be written in the heart by nature seeing the minde is commonly held to be as a bare and naked table v. 15. Which shewe the effect of the lawe written in their heart It is the opinion of the best Philosophers as of Plato in Philebo that the soule of man by nature is like vnto a booke wherein nothing is written or like vnto a bare naked table Aristot. lib. 3. de anima c. 4. how then doth the Apostle here say that the lawe is written in their heart Answ. 1. Plato was of opinion that all things were at the first written in the soule but when it commeth into the bodie is blotted out againe and forgotten and vpon this ground that opinion is mentioned by the Platonists that scire est reminisci to know is nothing els but to remember But this assertion presupposeth that the soule of man had a beeing without the bodie and that there is a certaine promptuarie or seminare of soules from whence the soules are deriued into the bodies But this opinion is contrarie to the Scripture which affirmeth that God formeth the spirit of man within him Zach. 12.1 the soule of man is created within him in his bodie infundendo creatur creando infunditur it is created by infusion into the bodie and iufused by creation 2. therefore a better answer is that whereas Aristole saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that nothing is written in the vnderstanding it must be vnderstood actually yet potentia in possibilitie euerie thing is written there because the vnderstanding is apt and hath a capacitie to receiue and apprehend euerie thing 3. neither is that axiome of Philosophie generally to be vnderstood but to be restrained to such principles as are not engendred in the mind without instruction experience and obseruation as is the knowledge of arts otherwise there are some principles which are by nature imprinted in the soule as first the naturall conclusions which the soule apprehendeth of it selfe without any other demonstration as that God is to be worshipped parents are to be honoured that good and honest things are to be desired secondly there are certaine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 generall notions which are at the first apprehended onely by the sense as that the fire burneth that the whole is greater then the part and such like ex Perer. Quest. 28. Of the Lawe of nature what it is It shall not be amisse by occasion of these words of the Apostle who speaketh here of the lawe of nature written in the heart a little to digresse and briefly touch certaine questions of this matter and first we will see what this lawe of nature is and of what precepts it consisteth 1. It is euident by the Apostle here that there is a lawe of nature which he prooueth by â—o effects the one externall in the performance of some things agreeable to the lawe the other internall in the testimonie of the conscience But in this inward testimonie there are two things to be considered there is first that which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the comprehension of certaine practicall principles and a naturall discerning betweene good and euill iust and vniust then there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the conscience which either accuseth one for doing euill or excuseth him in choosing of that which is good the synteresis doth frame the proposition the syneidesis or cosncience the assumption as thus the naturall lawe reacheth that parents must be honoured and that they which disobey parents are worthie of punishment thus the proposition is framed out of the principles of nature then the conscience of the guiltie person supplyeth the assumption But we Cham Esau Absolom haue disobeyed our parents therefore we deserue punishment and the like practicall syllogismes may be made in other commandements Gryneus 1. Melancthon thus defineth the lawe of nature it is a knowledge of certaine principles belonging to the practise of life and of the conclusions thence necessarily inferred agreeable with the eternall rule of truth which God hath planted in the mind of man to be a testimonie vnto man that there is a God which ruleth and iudgeth the actions of men c. In this description there are the former causes expressed of the law of nature 1. the materiall cause or the obiect thereof wherein it is occupied and whereof it consisteth namely of certaine practicall principles with the conclusions gathered thereupon for the speciall scope of this naturall direction is for the the practise of life and not for speculation and in this naturall knowledge are not onely contained the first principles as parents are to be honoured but the conclusions thence diducted as out of this principle in generall euery one is taught by the light of nature in particular to conclude that therefore he must honour his parents 2. the formall cause is the agreement with the rule of truth and the equitie of Gods written lawe for the lawe of nature is a summarie abridgement of the morall lawe 3. then the efficient cause and author is God who hath written and imprinted this law in the heart of man as Ambrose thus defineth this naturall law quam Deus omnium creator singulorum hominum pectoribus iufudit which God the Creator of all hath infused into euerie mans breast epist. 71.4 then the end is that it should be a testimonie of the diuine prouidence and iudgement whereby he ruleth all things and in the ende will iudge the actions of men This description of the lawe of nature agreeth with the Apostles definition here it is the effect of the lawe written in our hearts the effect or worke sheweth the matter of the lawe the forme written the efficient for it is Gods writing the ende
euill but all good workes are of grace for God worketh in vs both the will and the deed Phil. 2.13 and that euen good workes which are of grace are excluded the Apostle sheweth elsewhere Ephes. 2.8 By grace are ye saued c. not of workes least any man should boast of himselfe for ye are his workemanship created in Christ Iesus vnto good workes c. 2. The Apostle indeed speaketh of the election of grace but yet the rule is generall that grace and workes in the matters of saluation cannot be matched together for he prooueth election to be of grace and not of workes by his generall axiome or proposition because that which is of grace cannot be of workes and if election be of grace and not of workes then euerlasting life also which dependeth of our election must of necessitie be of grace also Argum. 4. That which is of workes is by debt as the Apostle saith Rom. 4.4 To him that worketh the wages is not counted by fauour but by debt But God is endebted to no man therefore life eternall is not of workes because it is not by debt Answer Pererius here answereth by indistinction that there is a lawfull kind of meriting de condigno of worthines the one is perfect and absolute which presupposeth no gift of grace whereof it dependeth such were the workes of Christ which were absolutely meritorious ex rigore iustitiae euen according to the strict rule of iustice by the reason of the excellencie of his diuine nature beeing vnited in one person to his humanitie there is another kind of merit ex suppositione diuinae gratiae vpon the presupposall of diuine grace so the workes of men proceeding of grace and their free will working together are merita apud Deâ—â—â— merites with God like as naturall things though they haue that vertue and actiuitie from God are the true causes of their effects Pere disput 10. numer 53. Contra. 1. This answer ouerthroweth it selfe for if mens good workes proceed of the grace and gift of God then cannot God be any waies endebted for his owne as Dauid saith 1. Chron. 29.14 All things come of thee and of thine owne hand haue we giuen thee and the Apostle saith Rom. 11.35 Who hath giuen vnto him first and he shall be recompenced if then we might challenge any thing at Gods hands as a debt by way of recompence we must first giue vnto him 2. There is not the like reason of naturall and supernaturall things the naturall causes haue their vertue at once from God and then they afterward worke according vnto that nature and propertie wherewith they were once endued but in supernaturall the grace of God is necessarie ad omnes actus to euery act as the horse when he goeth of his owne accord is the naturall cause of his going but the order that directeth him is the cause of his going in the way and of his going to such a place so grace is the cause of our well doings we concurre indeed as naturall causes of the action but the goodnes of the action is onely from God 3. God then is not endebted vnto man for the merite of his worke neither in iustice in respect of vs is he bound to recompence vs but yet he is another way endebted in respect of his promise and so it is iust with him in regard of his word and promise to performe that which he hath promised which promise he made onely of his free grace and this point is touched also by Pererius praesertius vero adiuncta Dei promissione de remunerandis c. especially the promise of God being adioyned for the rewarding of the good workes of the righteous c. in regard of this promise we graunt which is meerely of grace not for the merite of the worke the Lord worketh himselfe a voluntarie debter of eternall life Argum. 5. The Apostle saith Rom. 8.18 That the afflictions of this present life are not worthie of the glorie which shall be shewed c. here he euidently sheweth that our workes are not meritorious or worthy of eternall life Answer Pererius here also thus distinguisheth that workes may three wayes be considered in respect of the naturall cause as they proceed from mans freewill in respect of the matter wherein they are expressed and the time of continuance which are but temporall and for a time and thirdly as they are wrought in vs by the grace of God in the two first respects they haue no cause of merit but in the third conuenientem habent proportionem equalitatis dignitatis c. they haue a fit proportion of equalitie and worthines with the reward of eternall life thus Pere disput 11. Contra. 1. The verie scope of the place taketh away this distinction for the Apostle v. 17. saith If we suffer with Christ c. he speaketh of such sufferings and afflictions as are endured for Christ which are the workes of grace for a man of himselfe without grace cannot suffer for Christ therefore euen good workes as they proceed in vs of grace are not meritorious or worthy of eternall life 2. Good workes are so farre from beeing meritorious causes of eternall life that they are not alwaies and in all causa sine qua non the cause without the which we cannot attaine vnto life as in infants and in them which are of yeares though without good workes they cannot be saued yet good workes are rather a beginning of eternall life then the cause thereof 3. To conclude this point therefore in a merit there must fowre things concurre 1. it must be a free seruice which we otherwise are not bound vnto 2. it must be of our owne 3. it must be perfect 4. it must be proportionable to the reward But our workes faile in all these 1. we can performe nothing vnto God but that we are alreadie bound to doe 2. neither haue we any good thing of our owne which we haue not receiued 3. and our best workes are imperfect 4. and betweene our temporall seruice and an euerlasting reward there is no proportion therefore we cannot merite See more hereof Synops. Centur. 4. er 79. 6. Morall obseruations Observ. 1. Of perseuerance v. 4. So we also walke in newnes of life Origen hence well collecteth that this newnes of life semel facta non sufficiat once done sufficeth not ipsa novitas innovanda est this newnes must still be renewed from day to day as the Apostle saith 2. Cor. 4.16 our inward man is renewed daily for as that which waxeth old is euery day oulder and oulder so that which is new must continually be renewed otherwise it ceaseth to be new so that we must walke on still perseuere and encrease in this newnes of life Observ. 2. Of the continuall strife with sinne v. 13. Neither giue your members weapons The Apostle vsing this phrase of weapons sheweth that there is a warre in vs some fight for sinne and make their members weapons
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
father as Rom. 1.23 2. Cor. 1.3 and 11.31 2. Not euery one that is called God in Scripture is consequently that chiefe and great God 3. Christ is said to be ouer all that is men as the most excellent man of all not ouer all whatsoeuer 4. He is said to be ouer all with a limitation for he is not ouer him that hath subdued all things vnto him 1. Cor. 15.27 5. And in that he is ouer all he hath it not by nature but of gift Philip. 2.9 Contra. Erasmus seemeth first to haue giuen occasion to these newfangled Dogmatists who likewise in his annotations vpon this place thinketh this Scripture not so fit to prooue the diuine nature of Christ adding that herein there is no daunger seeing there are more direct places to prooue Christs Godhead by But Pet. Martyr here answeareth well non convenit vt Ecclesiae armamentarium sine causa exhauriatur c. it is not conuenient that the armorie of the Church should without cause be diminished seeing the fathers as Origen Chrysost Theophylact Cyprian cont lud lib. 2. c. 5. Hilarius in Psal. 122. doe all alleadge this place for the proofe of Christs deitie it is not fit that we should suffer it to be wrestled out of our hands their cauills are thus answeared 1. Where the father is said to be blessed for euer the Sonne is not excluded and in some places Christ is said expressely to be blessed for euer as Matth. 21.9 Blessed is be that commeth in the name of the Lord and if the Creator be blessed for euer Christ is included by whom all things were created Ioh. 1. Coloss. 1. 2. He which is said to be God ouer all as Christ here must of necessitie be that chiefe and great God 3. Some indeede reade super omnia ouer all things as Origen the Syrian and Latine interpreter and this is agreeable to that place Coloss. 1.17 He is before all things and in him all things consist and the Apostle nameth both things visible and invisible and so Origen well expoundeth he is aboue all things that is powers principalities and euerie thing that is named 4. He is aboue all things that is all creatures and aboue all as the father is aboue all and yet neither aboue the Sonne or the holy Ghost the father then is here excepted for Christ and his father are one non post patrem ipse sed de patre he is not after the father but of the father Origen 5. S. Paul in that place speaketh of the exaltation of Christ as he is Mediator and according to his humane nature and so he hath it by gift but as he is God he is ouer all by his eternall generation as the onely begotten Sonne of God Controv. 4. That the water in Baptisme doth not sanctifie or giue grace Chrysostome sheweth here a fit analogie and resemblance betweene the birth of Izaak oâ— Sara by the word of promise v. 9. and our spirituall regeneration in baptisme the barren wombe of Sarah he likeneth to the water which of it selfe hath no efficacie erat vterni ille aqua frigidior propter sterilitatem senectutem that wombe was more vnapt for generation then water because of the barrennesse and old age thereof like as then Izaak was borne of that barren wombe by the word of promise ita nos oportet ex verbo nasci so we are borne of the word To this purpose Chrysostome who maketh the element of water of it selfe but a dead thing and like vnto Sarahs barren wombe which could not haue conceiued but by the word of promise So the Apostle saith Ephes. 5.25 Cleansing it by the washing of water thorough the word the water cleanseth but by the operation of the word This then ouerthroweth that opinion of the Romanists which affirme that the sacramentall signe in the sacraments conferre grace See further hereof Synops. Centur. 2. err 76. Controv. 5. Against the vaine observation of Astrologers in casting of nativities v. 10. Rebecca when she had conceiued by one c. Augustine lib. 2. de doctrin Christian. c. 21. by this Scripture confuteth the folly of Mathematicians who in casting of mens natiuities doe obserue the aspect of the planets and so doe calculate and coniecture of the disposition of men for Esau and Iacob were borne at the same time of one and the same parents and yet they were of diuerse dispositions and qualities and conditions of life Controv. 6. That the soules had no beeng in a former life before they came into the bodie It was Origens error who therein did too much Platonize that the soules in the former life according to their workes good or euill were accordingly appointed of God to saluation or damnation But this error is euidently conuinced by the Apostle here for Esau and Iacob had neither done good nor euill before they were borne Lyranus addeth two other reasons to convince this error 1. if there had beene an other life before then the world was not created in the beginning as it is said Gen. 1.1 for that the soules had a beeing and beginning before 2. and temporale non potest esse causa aeterni no temporall thing can be the cause of that which is eternall the actions then and workes of the soule could not be the cause of the act of Gods eternall will Controv. 7. Whether the foresight of faith or workes be the cause of election This was in time past maintained by the followers of the Pelagian sect as it appeareth by the epistles of Prosper and Hilarius Arelatens sent to Augustine and not much differing is the opinion of the Greeke expositors as Theodoret in these words that the purpose of God might remaine according to election vnderstandeth the purpose of men foreseene of God according to the which he electeth But the Apostle euidently calleth it the purpose of God and therefore not of men Chrysost. and Photius cited by Oecumenius doe here vnderstand the purpose of God but where it is added according to election they say this election presupposeth a difference and diuersitie of wills foreseene of God The late Lutherans tread in the same steppesâ— who at the first did hold that the foresight of faith was the cause of election but now they haue somewhat refined that assertion and their opinion now is fidem non esse electionis causam meritoriam sed instrument alem that faith is not the meritorious but the instrumentall cause of election their arguments are these 1. Argum. Photius thus reasoneth electio de illis fit qui aliqua in re differunt election is said to be of those which differ in some thing God then did see some difference in them which he elected from others Contra. 1. Augustine at the first was somewhat mooued with this argument which made him deuise an other sense of the Apostles words to this effect that it was said vnto the children beeing not yet borne and before they had done either good
Pet. 1.10 2. for one to be a reprobate and yet to repent are contraries for he that is a reprobate can neuer haue grace to repent and he that hath grace truely to repent may be assured he is no reprobate Obiect 9. But if God haue foreseene the sinnes of the reprobate and that which God foreseeth must needs come to passe then the reprobate sinne of necessitie they cannot doe otherwise how then can they be iustly punished for that which they cannot auoid Ans. There is a double kind of necessitie the one is called antecedens necâ—â—â—â—â—tas an antecedent necessitie or going before which proceedeth from necessarie and working causes as when a thing is forced by violence and strength as a stone out of the hand it is necessarie it should goe there is consequens necessitas a following necessitie or by way of consequent which is vpon supposition of the effect as when we see one fit this beeing supposed that we see him fit it is now necessarie beeing done and yet he was not forced to fit so it is in this case the reprobate doe sinne necessarily not by a necessitie forcing their will but an infallible necessitie following the effect for they therefore sinne not because God did foresee they would sinne but therefore God foresaw it because they would sinne The reprobate then do sinne freely without any compulsion and therein are guiltie though they were foreseene to sinne and because of the corruption of their nature could doe no other And thus is this doctrine deliuered from all those cauils and obiections and man iâ— found onely to be the cause of his owne ruine and destruction but the beginning of our saluation is from God according to that saying of the Prophet Hoshea c. 13.9 perditio tâ—â— ex te Israel salus ex me thy perdition O Israel is of thy selfe thy salvation of me and so I ende and conclude this point with that saying of Tertullian Deus de suo optimus de nostro iustus c. God is good and mercifull of his owne and iust in that which is ours c. lib. de resurrect that is the originall of mercie is from God but the occasion of his iustice is from sinne which is of our selues Controv. 11. Of the difference betweene the decree of election and reprobation and of the agreement betweene them Whereas in both these there are two things to be considered the decree and the execution thereof here are diuerse opinions Some will haue a correspondencie in election and reprobation in both and these also are deuided Some only in the former that is the decree Some will haue a difference in both as well in the manner of the decree as in the execution 1. Of the first opinion were the Pelagians and some of the Romanists which hold that both the decree of election is grounded vpon the foresight of faith and the good vse of freewill as also the execution of that decree in the giuing of eternall life they will haue procured by good works as reprobation both in the decree and execution proceedeth from sinne and the foresight thereof So the whole worke of election they will haue to take beginning from man as reprobation doth Thus the Rhemists hold that election is not without the condition and respect to workes annot Heb. c. 5. sect 7. Becanus the new diuinitie Reader in Mentz hath this assertion that predestination is ex praescientia conditionata c. of a conditionall prescience whereby God foresaw that one would well vse the grace offered and not an other c. 1. de praedestinat loc 5. But herein other Romanists do dissent from them as Bellarmine Tolet Pererius as hath beene shewed before controv 7. 2. Other Romanists will haue an agreement both in the decree and execution but after an other manner as Pererius following Thom. Aquin. disput 5. numer 34. disput 12. numer 66. saith that God is the cause of reprobation as well as election quantum ad duo principium terminum in respect of these two the beginning and the ende concerning the beginning which is the decree he saith there is nulla causa meritoria ex parte hominis no meritorious cause of either on mans behalfe but in respect of the last effect there is a meritorious cause in man both of his good works vnto eternall life and of euill workes to condemnation But Pererius in two points is farre wide both in making good workes meritorious of eternall life which is the free gift of God Rom. 6.23 and in assigning the beginning or first cause of reprobation and so of condemnation in the will of God and not in the sinne of man contrarie to that saying of the Prophet alleadged before Hos. 13.9 Thy perdition is of thy selfe O Israel as their Latine text readeth 3. Some doe make great difference in the execution of these decrees for good workes are not meritorious of saluation as euill workes are of damnation the reason of which difference is because euill workes are perfitly euill but our good workes are imperfect and so not proportionable to the most excellent and perfect reward and good workes are not our owne nor of our selues as euill workes are and therefore they merit not but the decree as well of election as reprobation they hold to be alike without any relation vnto workes good or euill thus worthie Calvin Beza Martyr with other of our learned new writers 4. But it is the safer way thoroughout from the beginning of the decree to the execution to hold a perpetuall difference betweene election and reprobation that we are elected freely without respect vnto faith or workes for otherwise we should haue chosen God first and not he vs and so we are also saued freely not for our workes and yet neither without them But in the way of damnation neither were the wicked decreed to be condemned neither yet shall they actually be condemned but for their sinne and the foresight thereof 1. because the beginning of damnation is from man but the decree of reprobation is the beginning of damnation therefore that decree must proceed from the foresight of something worthie of damnation in man 2. that for the which God condemneth man he decreed him to be condemned but for sinne is man condemned 3. otherwise if it it were Godâ— absolute will to reiect more then he electeth his iustice should exceede his mercie see before contr 10. Controv. 12. Whether mercie be a naturall propertie in God or an effect onely of his will against Socinus v. 18. He hath mercie on whom he will Socinus that blasphemous heretike lib. 1. c. 1. by occasion of these words goeth about to prooue that Mercie is not a naturall propertie in God but a voluntarie act 1. Because the Apostle saith He hath mercie on whom he will 2. God alwaies vseth his naturall properties but mercie he alwaies sheweth not as toward impenitent sinners 3. Contrarie properties are not naturally in God but his mercie
opinion examined that our sinnes are remitted onely by Christs death not for the the obedience and merit of his life Controversies vpon the 5. Chapter 1. contr Whether a good conscience and integritie of life be the cause of peace with God 2. contr Against invocation of Saints 3. contr Of the certaintie of salvation and of perseverance 4. contr That the tribulation of the Saints is not meritorius though it be said to worke patience 5. contr That we are not iustified by the inherent habite of charitie 6. contr Against the heresie of impious Socinus who denieth that Christ died for our sinnes and payed the ransome for them 7. contr Against other obiections of Socinus and other impugning the fruit and efficacie of Christs death in reconciling vs to God his Father 8. con That Christs death was a full satisfaction for our sins against Socinus his cauils 9. contr That Christs death was not onely satisfactorie but meritorious against Socinus Certaine controversies touching Originall sinne 10. cont That there is originall sinne in men by the corruption of nature against the opinion of the Hebrewes 11. contr That Adaws sinne is entred into his posteritie by propagation not imitation onely against the Pelagians 12. contr Of the manner how originall sinne is propagated against the Pelagians where it is disputed whether the soule be deriued from the Parents 13. contr Against the Pelagians and Papists that originall sinne is not quite taken away in Baptisme 14. contr What originall sinne is against the Romanists and some some others and specially against them which hold it to be Adams sinne imputed onely to his posteritie 15. contr That originall sinne is not onely the privation of originall iustice 16. contr Of the wicked heresie of Marcion and Valentinus with the blasphemous Manichees 17. cont That all sinnes are mortall and worthie of death by nature 18. contr That Henoch and Elias are not yet aliue in the bodie 19. contr The Virgin Marie conceiued in originall sinne 20. contr Againe meritts 21. contr That the punishment of originall sinne is euerlasting death 22. contr That Christs essentiall iustice is not infused into vs. 23. contr Against the Patrons of vniuersall grace 24. contr Against the Popish inherent iustice 25. contr That we are iustified both by the actiue and passiue obedience of Christ. 26. contr Against the Philosophers who placed righteousnes in their owne workes 27. contr Against the Manichees and Pelagians the one giuing too much the other too little to the lawe 28. contr Of the assurance of salvation 29. contr Of the diuerse kinds of grace against the Romanists Controversies out of the 6. Chapter 1. contr Against the administring of the Sacraments in an vnknowne tongue 2. contr Concerning inherent iustice 3. contr That the Sacrament of Baptisme doth not conferre grace by the outward worke 4. contr That Baptisme serueth as well for the remission of sinnes to come as of sinnes past 5. contr Whether in Baptisme our sinnes be cleane taken away 6. contr Of the baptisme of infants 7. contr Of the assurance of salvation 8. contr That Christ shall not die in the next world againe for those which were not healed here 9. contr Against the Sacrifice of the Masse 10. contr Concerning freewill 11. contr That concupiscence remaining in the regenerate is properly sinne 12. contr Whether a righteous man may fal into any mortall or deadly sinne 13. contr Against the Manichees 14. contr Concerning inherent iustice 15. contr Against the power of freewill in the fruits of righteousnesse 16. contr Whether all death is the wages of sinne 17. contr Against the distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes 18. contr That everlasting life cannot be merited by good workes Controversies vpon the 7. Chapter 1. contr Against Purgatorie 2. contr Of the lawfulnes of second marriage 3. contr Whether the marriage bond be indissoluable before the one partie be dead 4. contr That the disparitie of profession is no cause of the dissolution of marriage 5. contr Whether the bill of diuorce permitted to the Iewes did lawfully dissolue matrimonie vnder the Law 6. contr Against the workes of propitiation 7. contr Against the Heretikes which condemned the Lawe 8. contr That we are freed by grace from the strict and rigorous observation of the lawe 9. contr That concupiscence though it haue no deliberate consent of the will is sinne forbidden by the commandement 10. contr That the commandement thou shalt not lust is but one 11. contr Against freewill Controversies out of the 8. Chapter 1. contr That concupiscence remaining euen in the regenerate is sinne and in it selfe worthie of condemnation 2. controver That none are perfect in this life 3. controver That regeneration is not the cause that there is no condemnation to the faithfull 4. contr Against the Arrians and Eunomians concerning the dietie of the holy Ghost 5. contr Against the Pelagians that a man by nature cannot keepe and fulfill the lawe 6. contr The fulfilling of the lawe is not possible in this life no not to them which are in the state of grace 7. con That not the carnall eating of Christs flesh is the cause of the resurrection but the spirituall v. 11. 8. contr Against merits 9. contr Whether in this life one by faith may be sure of salvation 10. contr Against the invocation of Saints 11. contr That a strange tongue is not to be vsed in the seruice of God 12. contr That euerlasting glorie cannot be merited 13. contr That hope iustifieth not 14. contr Whether hope relie vpon the merit of our workes 15. contr Against the naturall power and integritie of mans will 16. contr That predestination dependeth not vpon the foresight of faith or good workes 17. contr Against the opinion of Ambrosius Catharinus concerning predestination 18. contr That election is certaine and infallible of grace without merit and of some selected not generally of all 19. contr That the elect cannot full away from the grace and fauour of God and be wholly giuen ouer vnto sinne 20. contr Whether a reprobate may haue the grace of God and true iustice 21. contr That the elect by faith may be assured of euerlasting salvation Controversies out of the 9. Chapter 1. contr That succession of Bishops is no sure note of the Church of Christ. 2. contr Against the old heretikes the Manichees Arrians Nestorians confuted out of the 5. ver 3. contr Against the prophane and impious collections of Eniedinus and Socinus late heretikes 4. contr That the water in baptisme doth not sanctifie or giue grace 5. contr Against the vaine observation of Astrologers in casting of nativities 6. contr That the soules had no beeing in a former life before they came into the body 7. contr Whether the foresight of faith or workes be the cause of election 8. contr That not onely election vnto grace but vnto glorie also is onely of the good will of God 9. contr That the Apostle treateth as well of
experience he may see his owne folly Theodoret also to the same purpose vseth this similitude that God leaueth men to themselues tanquam cymbam absque rectore as aship left without a pilote Theophylact likeneth God herein to a Phisitian who hauing to deale with an vnruly patient that will not obey his precepts taketh no more care of him likewise Ambrose thus expoundeth tradere est permittere non incitare to deliuer vp is to permit not to iâ—â—ite or stirre vp Damascen lib. 4. de fide orthodox c. 20. sheweth that it is the vse of Scripture to call the permission of God his action that he is said to doe that which he onely permitteth and suffereth yea Pererius here addeth further that the permission of God sometime nomine praecepti appellatur is called by the name of precept as whereas Christ saith according to Matthew c. 19.8 Moses suffered you for the hardnesse of your heart to put away your wiues according to S. Marke c. 10.3 he saith What did Moses command you Setus in his commentarie maketh two kindes of permission est vna generalis there is one generall when any man is suffered to sinne but this permission is not called a deliuering vp altera est singularis quaedam valde formidabilis there is an other a singular and most fearefull kinde of permission when God for the punishment of former sinnes suffereth one to be blinded and hardened in his sinne which kinde of permission the Apostle speaketh of here Of this opinion generally are the Romanists that this deliuering vp is vnderstood of permission as Lyranus with the ordinarie gloss Varablus Tolet. the Rhemists Contra. 1. To make God onely a sufferer or permitter of things to be done doth admit a double inconuenience first they make God an idle beholder of mens actions like as Homer bringeth in Iuppiter feasting and spotting himselfe in Aethiopia while the Grecians did take Troy and againe they make God accessarie and consenting vnto euill for like as the father or master of the house if he should suffer his seruants to liue riotously and giue themselues to all licentiousnesse though he doe not encourage them to it yet in not hindering them he seemeth to giue consent the like inconuenience also would follow if God should be a permitter or sufferer onely of such things to be done Pareus 2. But it will be here obiected that if God suffer not sinne to be done in the world it could not be how then is not he accessarie to that which he doth not hinder Answ. God is here otherwise to be considered then as man we can not suffer any euill to be done before vs which is in our power to hinder but we must be guiltie of it But the Lord is alwaies most iust euill should not be done in the world if it did not stand with Gods will and pleasure who notwithstanding is therein iust and good as Augustine saith probando patientiam dat locum poenitentiae nolens aliquem perire c. the Lord therein sheweth his patience in giuing way vnto repentance because he would not haue any perish c. and so he concludeth Deus non facit voluntates malas sed vtitur ijs vt voluerit cum aliquid iniquè velle non possit though God make not mens wills euill yet he vseth them as it pleaseth him and yet he willeth not any thing vniustly August contr Iulian lib. 5. c. 3. 3. Chrysostomes similitudes are not fit for the captaine which leaueth his armie is a betraier of them and the very cause of their deliuering vp but so is not God the author of euill and the father can not turne his sonne from his licentious life but God is able to turne the heart Martyr 4. Seeing the Scripture ascribeth vnto God manifest action as shall appeare afterward as he is said to haue hardened Pharaohs heart and to bid Shemei curse Dauid and such like it is a forcing of Scripture to applie that vnto a bare permission which sheweth an actiue and working power Pareus 2. An other way how God is saide to deliuer them vp is by the subtraction and withdrawing of his grace as he which taketh away the proppe or pillar that beareth vp a great stone or weight may be said to be the cause of the fall thereof Thomas Thus Gregorie expoundeth God is said to harden the heart quando cor reprobum per gratiam non emollit when he doth not mollifie with his grace a reprobate heart So also Augustine Deus non indurat cor impertiendo malitiam sed non largiendo gratiam c. God doth not harden the heart by imparting vnto it malice but in not giuing vnto it grace So also Thomas vpon this place God directly doth not deliuer ouer men to vncleannes by inclining the affections sed indirectè tradit in peccatum in quantum subtrahit gratiam but he doth indirectly deliuer them to sinne by withdrawing his grace This interpretation may safely be admitted but yet it seemeth not fully to expresse the meaning of the Apostles phrase for deliuering vp signifieth more then a subtraction onely or depriuing one of grace 3. Some doe expound the Apostle thus that God is said to harden the heart and to deliuer vp vnto coâ—câ—piscence and such like by ministring occasion which is peruerted by the wicked vnto euill for as vnto those that loue God all things are turned to the best so vnto those that hate God all things make for their ruine and destruction thus the miracles and wonders wrought in Egypt and the messages which Moses brought from God vnto Pharaoh were a meanes to harden Pharaohs heart not so intended by God but so peruerted by Pharaohs malice Thus God is saide to doe those things because by occasion of such things as the Lord doth other things fall out In this sense it is said that he which loueth iniquitie hateth his owne soule not that he intendeth directly the death of his soule but because he doth such things as procure the death of his soule So the Lord bestowed many benefits and temporall blessings vpon the heathen which they abused to couetousnes and wantonnes in following of their owne lusts This interpretation followeth Pet. Martyr and Pererius But this seemeth to be no fit exposition God deliuered them vp that is they abusing the blessings of God vnto wantonnes deliuered themselues vp for the Apostle here sheweth that this deliuering of them vp was inflicted as a punishment vpon the Gentiles for their idolatrie and therefore God must be considered here as a iust Iudge who had an hand in this their punishment otherwise then by ministring occasion onely 4. Some doe thus interpret tradidit illos Deus id est delictum in Dominum God deliuered them vp that is their sinne committed against God deliuered them as we say perdidit illum pecunia his money was his destruction whereas it was not the money but the abuse of the money which hurt him so
appointed for generation so the Syrian translator re quae non est ex natura vsae sunt they vsed the thing both which was not of nature c. 3. So likewise the men with men wrought filthines actiuely in forcing vpon other vnnaturall acts of vncleannes and passiuely in suffering others to doe it this was the sinne of Sodome for the which they were destroied Socrates is noted among the Philosophers for masculine venerie which Plato condemneth And the Apostle may seeme to haue speciall relation here vnto the abominable vncleannes of the Romanes and specially 〈◊〉 who was a monstrous beast for such sinnes against nature Pareus Chrysostome 〈◊〉 elegantly sheweth how whereas by Gods ordinance in lawfull copulation by mariage two became one flesh both sexes were ioned together in one by this Sodomiticall vnâ—â—â—nnes the same flesh is diuided into two the men with men working vncleannes with women and so serue in stead of two sexes 68. Quest. How one sinne is punished by an other vpon these words And receiued in themselues such recompence of their error c. v. 27. 1. There are some sinnes which are as punishments of former sinnes which are non tormenta peccantium sed incrementa vitiorum not so much the torment of sinners as the encreasing of sinne as Augustine saith And here we may make a foure-fold distinction of sinnes 1. some are not onely sinnes but the causes also of sinnes following as Gregorie giueth instance of one giuen vnto riot and excesse in eating and drinking which causeth him through the lustines of his flesh to commit adulterie here his Epicures life is both a sinne and the cause of an other sinne namely adulterie 2. Some sinnes are both the cause of an other sinne following and the punishment of a former as if the adulterer proceed further to commit murther here adulterie is the punishment of his gluttonie and the cause of murther 3. And there is a sinne which is the punishment of a former sinne though it bring forth no new sinne as murther here is the punishment of adulterie 4. Some sinnes are neither the causes nor punishment of other sinnes but simply sinnes in themselues as namely when any one repenteth of his sinne and proceedeth no further 2. But here it will be obiected that euery sinne is voluntarie but the punishment of sinne is involuntarie how then can sinne be a punishment and euery punishment of sinne is iust and so of God but sinne is vniust and not of God therefore not a punishment To this obiection diuers answers are made 1. The master of the sentences lib. 2. distinct 36. giueth this solution that sinne is said to be a punishment not as it is a fault committed by the will but in respect of the effect which it worketh in the soule which is the corrupting of the minde and making it guiltie of damnation But in this sense euery sinne should be a punishment of sinne because the minde is thus corrupted and made guiltie euen by the first sinnes which one committeth 2. Therefore Thomas Aquinas addeth further that sinne in respect of the nature thereof because it is voluntarie is not a punishment but in respect of the cause which is the subtraction or remoouing of the grace of God whereby he falleth into further sinne And further he explaneth the matter thus that sinne is a punishment 3. waies either in respect of somewhat going before as the absence or subtracting of the grace of God or somewhat which accompanieth sinne either in the minde as the corrupting and polluting of it or without as crosses and troubles which are sent for sinne or els in respect of somewhat ensuing and following as the torment of conscience But all these the subtracting of grace outward trouble and remorse of conscience may concurre in the first sinnes which are not the punishment of any precedent sinnes therfore a further reason hereof is to be found out 3. Wherfore God in punishing one sinne by an other is to be considered as a iust Iudge that not onely by subtracting his grace as Pererius not by giuing Sathan power ouer sinners to draw them further into sinne as Hyperius but by the secret working of his iustice in ordering and directing all things according to his will he so disposeth and effecteth that the wicked are giuen ouer to greater impietie and iniquitie to commit sinne with greedines so then this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recompence hath neither reference vnto the sinners themselues who regard herein nothing but their owne inordinate pleasure not yet vnto Sathans worke who intendeth nothing but the contumely of God and the destruction of the vngodly but it is referred vnto God who in punishing sinne by sinne onely respecteth the due course of his iustice in thus recompencing their former error God then is no way accessarie to their sinnes but concurreth as a iust Iudge in punishing their former sinnes with greater following Pareus Faius here noteth well a difference betweene the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Apostle here vseth which signifieth a iust and full recompence answering and correspondent vnto the merit of their sinne which word is onely vsed of euill works but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a reward is giuen vnto good works as be conferred of grace not answering vnto any merit before going 3. As thus it hath beene shewed how sinne is the punishment of sinne so also one sinne may be the cause of an other and that either directly or indirectly directly when as a man by one sinne is inclined to commit an other and that three waies 1. in respect of the ende as when one through couetousnes committeth murther to enioy an others wealth 2. or by suggesting the matter of an other sinne as gluttonie bringeth forth adulterie 3. or in respect of the efficient and moouing cause as when one by practise and continuance in sinne is growne into an habit of sinning which still stirreth him vp to heape sinne to sinne Indirectly one sinne causeth an other by remoouing that which should keepe one from sinne as namely when the sinne first committed excludeth the grace of God whereby one should be preserued from sinne Thom. prim secund qu. 80. art 2. 69. Quest. How the Gentiles are said not to regard to know God v. 28. 1. Origen thinketh that the Apostle setteth downe here three kinds of impieties against God first of them which worshipped idols to v. 23. which was the generall sinne of the Gentiles secondly of those which worshipped the creature rather then the creator v. 25. such were the Philosophers and Astronomers which were skilfull in the obseruation of naturall things thirdly he thinketh heretikes here to be noted that regard not to know God But the Apostle seemeth still to continue in the same argument setting forth the sinnes of the Gentiles that as before he shewed how they polluted and defiled themselues so now he describeth other sinnes as fruits of their idolatrie namely such as are
other vngodlinesse expelleth godlinesse and so euerie one is iudged in truth according to that present state wherein he is whatsoeuer he had beene before Quest. 4. Whether a iudge be bound herein to be like vnto God to iudge according to the truth which he knoweth Some here resolue that a Iudge is bound to followe the euidence which is brought in before him though he know the truth to be otherwise in his owne conscience indicandum est secundum veritatem manifestam id est probatam they must iudge according to the manifest truth which is prooued and not according to the secret truth Gorrham Hugo Cardinal and so their resolution is that a iudge is not bound to absolue a man publikely condemned though he knowe him to be innocent Contra. 1. Indeede a iudge cannot followe that truth which is hid and secret and no way made knowne vnto him and in this case if an innocent man be condemned the Iudge is free because he followeth the euidence hauing no other direction to the contrarie But if the Iudge knowe in his conscience that he is innocent he is by no meanes to consent to his condemnation whatsoeuer euidence is brought in to the contrarie for he is to iudge according to the truth as God iudgeth now there can be but one truth neither can the action of that Iudge be warranted which is against his knowledge for whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne Rom. 14. But see this question handled at large Hexapl. in Exod. c. 23. qu. 13.14 whether I must desire the Reader to haue recourse because it were superfluous to handle the same things in diuerse places Quest. 6. Of the reasons why the Lord vseth patience and forbearance toward sinners 1. The Apostle vseth three words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 goodnesse bountifulnesse which is seene in the generall benefits which God vouchsafeth to the wicked as in granting them the Sunshine and raine and such other temporall blessings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 patience and forbearance which is in bearing with the wicked and not punishing them in their sinnes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 longanimitie and long sufferance when God still deferreth his punishments though men heape sinne to sinne the first and chiefest cause of this long sufferance in God is the expectation of mens repentance that they should thereby come to amendement of life as S. Peter saith 2. epist. c. 3.9 God is patient toward vs and would haue no man to perish but would haue all men come to repentance 2. As Gods mercie and goodnes herein appeareth so also the malice of men in abusing the Lords patience and their more iust condemnation in the end is made manifest as the old world was most iustly destroyed after they had been warned an 120. yeares by the preaching of Noah 3. God taketh occasion by the malice impenitencie and hardnesse of heart in the wicked to shewe his powerfull and wonderfull workes as Pharaohs hardnesse of heart gaue occasion to the Lord to shewe his wondrous workes in Egypt 4. While the impenitent abusing Gods long animitie are more hardned in their sinnes others in the meane time make good vse of the diuine patience and are conuerted vnto repentance as in Egypt though Pharaoh became worse yet many of the Egyptians were humbled by these plagues and were turned vnto God and ioyned vnto his people 5. God vseth patience toward some for the ensample encouragement and confirmation of others that they should not despaire of the goodnesse of God as S. Paul saith that Iesus Christ might first shew on me all long suffering vnto the example of them that in time to come shall beleeue in him to eternall life 1. Timoth. 1.16 Quest. 7. Whether the leading of men to repentance by Gods long sufferance argueth that they are not reprobate It will be here obiected that seeing the long sufferance of God calleth all vnto repentance and whom he would haue repent he would haue saued it seemeth then that none are reiected or reprobate whom the Lord so inviteth and calleth vnto repentance Answer 1. Such as are effectually called vnto repentance by Gods patience and long suffering are indeede elected for the elect onely are effectually called to repentance but such as abuse Gods patience and are impenitent still may notwithstanding be in the state of reprobation for though the same meanes be offred vnto them to bring them to repentance yet they haue not the grace the decree then concerning the reiecting of such impenitent persons and the offer of such meanes as might leade them vnto repentance may verie well stand together because it is of their owne hardnes of heart that the meanes offred are not effectuall 2. And thus also another obiection may be answeared that if it be Gods will that such should come to repentance whether the malice of man therein can resist the will of God for if it were Gods absolute will and good pleasure that such should come vnto repentance no man could resist it God is able to change and turne the most impenitent and hard heart if it pleased him But here we must distinguish betweene effectuall calling which alwaies taketh place and none can hinder it and calling not effectuall yet sufficient if men did not put in a barre by their owne hardnes of heart Gods absolute will then is not resisted when men come not to repentance for his will is to leaue such to themselues by his iust iudgement and not to giue them of his effectuall grace Faius Now hereof no other reason can be giuen why God doth not giue his effectuall grace to all but his good pleasure as our Blessed Sauiour saith Matth. 11.26 It is so father because thy good pleasure is such Quest. 7. How the bountifulnes of God in leading men to repentance and the reuelation of his wrath spoken of ch 1.18 may stand together The reuelation of Gods wrath and iustice against all vnrighteousnes and his goodnes and mercie in expecting the conuersion and repentance of sinners are not contrarie the one to the other for if men haue grace to come to amendment of life by Gods long sufferance then his mercie taketh place in forgiuing them their sinne and acquiting them of their punishment which is satisfied for in Christ But if they become impenitent and abuse Gods patience then his iustice sheweth it selfe in their condigne and deserued punishment So Gods bountie and mercie appeareth in forbearing to punish if they will repent and his wrath is reuealed vpon their impenitencie and abusing of Gods long sufferance Pareus Quest. 8. How God is said to harden the heart seeing the wicked doe harden their owne hearts v. 5. After thine hardnes and heart that cannot repent this hardnesse of heart is naturally in mans heart and is encreased by his owne peruersnes and obstinacie yet God sometime also is said to harden the heart as the Scripture saith he hardened the heart of Pharaoh This is done three wayes 1. because men take
desiring him Isa. 26.8 The desire of my soule is to thy name our eyes must be toward him Psal. 121.1 I will lift vp mine eyes to the mountaines from whence my helpe commeth our talke must be of him Psal. 119.13 With my lippes haue I declared all the iudgements of thy mouth our hands must be lift vp vnto him in our prayer We must lift vp pure handâ— 1. Tim. 2.8 our feete must be readie to goe to serue him Psalm 18.33 He maketh my feete like hindes feete Gorrhan 18. Quest. Whome the Apostle meaneth by contentious and such as disobey the truth v. 8. But vnto them that are contentious 1. Some doe vnderstand those that did wilfully maintaine and defend their errors whence was beginning of sects and schismes Origen Anselme 2. Chrysostome Theodoret applie it vnto those which sinned of malice and of an obstinate and set purpose 2. But Ambrose specially referreth it vnto those who despised the iudgement of God and abused his long suffering and patience thinking that they should not be called to account for their sinnes and this seemeth to be most agreeable to the Apostles meaning for he spake before of such v. 4. as despised the bountifulnes of God which did lead and cal them to repentance by the contentious then are vnderstood such as were refractorie and rebellious against God And disobey the truth 1. Some vnderstand the truth of the Gospel Anselme Aretius 2. some generally the truth of doctrine by preaching Lyran. Osiand But the Apostle speaketh principally of the Gentiles which had neither heard of the Gospel and wanted the light of true doctrine 3. Ambrose doth restraine it to those that beleeue not the iudgement to come by Christ but that is too peculiar 4. some doe vnderstand onely the light of nature Beza Gryneus Pareus of which truth the Apostle spake before c. 1.18 which withheld the truth in vnrighteousnes 5. But seeing the Apostle comprehendeth the Iewes as well as the Gentiles the truth is more generally to be taken for any direction vnto that which was right whether by the law of nature which the Gentiles had or the written law which the Iewes had so Chrysostome taketh it in this generall sense qui lucem fugit tenebras eligens which doth flee the truth choosing darknes c. 19. Quest. Of the punishment due vnto the wicked Indignation wrath tribulation anguish c. v. 8. 1. Some doe ioyne all these together as depending vpon one sentence so Ambrose Theodoret Origen but they are distinguished into two periods one endeth at wrath the other beginneth at tribulation the first sheweth the qualitie of the works which are punished the other the persons that shall be iudged indifferently both Iewes and Gentiles Tolet. or the first containeth the thesis or generall preposition the other an hypothesis with particular application to the Iewes and Gentiles 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indignation some take for the more vehement motion of anger and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 anger for the lesse Origen Martyr but the first rather signifieth the lighter commotion and stirring of the minde the other the inflammation of the minde with a purpose of reuenge Tolet. Pareus and this anger and indignation are not to be referred vnto the men themselues as Origen but vnto God who is not subiect vnto any such perturbations but here figuratiuely anger the cause is taken for the effects the iudgement of God vpon the wicked the effects of his anger Pareus 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tribulation and anguish 1. some applie vnto the inward vexation and anguish of the minde which the wicked feele in this life these are before iudgement and the other two indignation wrath after gloss ordinar Aret. and hereupon Origen maketh a difference betweene the tribulation of the wicked quam subsequitur angustia which anguish and vexation of the minde followeth and the affliction of the righteous wherein they are not straightened but enlarged in their inward man 2. But this tribulation and anguish is better referred to the infernall punishment where shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth Pareus which some thus well distinguish referring tribulation to the externall punishment of hell fire and anguish to the worme of conscience that neuer diâ—th Oâ—â—and Gorrhan But yet so there eternall punishment is here described as that the horror of conscience euen in this life the forerunner of that euerlasting horror in hell may very well be included also 4. Vpon the soule of euery man which is not onely an Hebraisme that is vpon euery man Tolet. for according to the Hebrew phrase it had beene sufficient to say vpon euery soule therefore hereby is also signified the horrible punishment of their soules specially yet together with their bodies Pareus for à parte totum intelligit he vnderstandeth the whole by a part Haymo 20. Quest. Why the Iew is set before the Grecian v. 9. Of the Iew first and of the Grecian 1. Tolet thinketh that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first here signifieth ordinem praeminentiam statuum the order and preheminence or prerogatiue of states betweene the Iewes and Gentiles for the Iewes were preferred before the Gentiles because they were the people of God But although this reason may be yeelded in the next verse where mention is made of glorie and honour vpon euery one that doth good the Iew first and then the Gentile yet it can be no prerogatiue for the Iew to be first in punishment 2. Therefore I preferre their iudgement which thinke that the Iew in the order of punishment is placed first because they knew Gods will and had better helpes and therefore they were worthie of greater punishment if they did not their masters will so Ambrose Iudaeus credens propter Abraham honorificentior diffidens peius tractandus the beleeuing Iew was more honoured for Abrahams sake but the vnbeleeuing Iew was worthie of greater blame so also Athanas. ad Antioch qu. 144. so primum significat grauitatem poena this word first doth in this place signifie the greatnesse of punishment in the other prarogativam pramij the prerogatiue of reward Faius 21. Quest. What Iewes and Gentiles the Apostle here meaneth 1. Origen will haue neither the vnbeleeuing Iew here to be matched with the beleeuing Gentile for then the Iewe should not haue the preheminence nor yet the beleeuing Iewe with the vnbeleeuing Gentile for then they were not fit to be ioyned together but he vnderstandeth as well the vnbeleeuing Iewes as Gentiles and hath these strong positions 1. that euen they which beleeued not among the Gentiles yet doing well might be rewarded though they had not faith in Christ for as they were condemned for their euill works so if they did well they should be counted worthie of reward and whereas that place will be obiected He that beleeueth not is condemned alreadie Ioh. 3.18 he giueth this interpretation secundum hoc quod non credidit iudicatus est c. he is
eviciâ—â—â— probavimus we haue prooued before Oecumen Genevens we haue sufficiently shewed by reason that all are vnder sinne so also the Syrian interpreter readeth pronuntiaviâ—â—s we haue pronounced and gloss interl rationibus ostendimus we haue shewed by reason 2. Vnder sinne which signifieth three things 1. that although the act of sinne doe passe yet there remaineth still a blot in the soule and conscience and a guiltines of sinne as Iosu. 22.17 we are not clensed from the wickednes of Peor vnto this day Perer. 2. to be vnder sinne is tenerireatu to be held guiltie of sinne Pareus to be subiect vnto the curse and malediction due vnto sinne Piscat and so guiltie to euerlasting damnation 3. and beside it signifieth the seruitude vnder sinne that they doe walke and liue in sinne and can not be deliuered from the tyrannie thereof Tolet. as to be vnder the law is to be in subiection thraldome and vnder the curse of it Pareus 16. Quest. Whence the Apostle alleadgeth these testimonies v. 10. to 18. 1. All these allegations according to the vulgar Latin edition are taken out of the 13. Psalme where all those sentences stand together in this order wherein they are cited here And one Lindanus a Popish writer would prooue hereby the Hebrew text to haue beene corrupted by the Iewes because onely v. 10 11 12. are there found Psal. 14. according to the Hebrew originall and he affirmeth that he had seene an Hebrew copie thought to haue beene Augustins the Monke that was sent into England where these eight verses doe stand in the Hebrew text as they are here alleadged by S. Paul But Pererius misliketh this assertion 1. he vrgeth Hieromes opinion who was more auncient then that Augustine who findeth not all these sentences in the Hebrew 2. it is not like that the Iewes could all conspire to corrupt the Greeke text who otherwise are found to haue beene alwaies most carefull to preserue the Scriptures vncorrupted neither had they any reason to rase out any of those sentences seeing therein is contained no manifest prophecie of Christ. 3. and concerning that Hebrew copie Ioannes Isaac sometime professor of the Hebrew tongue at Coâ—â—â— writing against Lindanus thinketh it was patched together by some vnskilfull Hebriciâ—â— who might turne the Latine into Hebrew 2. Pererius thinketh that the Hebrew text is not corrupted in that place yet he would haue the vulgar Latine translation to be retained because of the antiquitie thereof which â—â—serteth all those verses in the 14. Psalme But if he acknowledge the Hebrew to be perfect and the Latine translation to put in more then is in the Hebrew why should not the Latine text be corrected according to the Hebrew 3. Therefore the truth is as Hierome thinketh proem l. 16. comment in Esaiam that this whole text is not taken out of the 14. Psalme sed partim ex Isaia partim ex Psalmis esse contextum but is framed together partly out of the Prophet Isai partly out of the Psalmes the 10 11 12 verses here are alleadged out of the 14. and 53. Psalme the first part of the 14. v. is out of the 5. Psal. v. 10. the second out of the 140. Psal. v. 3. the 14. v. out of the 10. Psal. v. 7. the 15 16 17. v. out of Isa. 59.7 8. the 18. v. out of Psal. 36.1 Pareus the same is also affirmed by Origen that these testimonies are cited partly out of the Psalmes partly out of the Prophet Isai but the 16. v. Destruction and calamitie are in their waies he saith non recordor vbi scriptum sis c. I remember not where it is written but I thinke it may be found in some one of the Prophets c. this may seeme strange that Origen so diligent a searcher of the Scriptures should not finde where these words are seeing they follow in the very same place of the Prophet Isai as Hierome also obserueth 4. But that is well obserued by Origen that whereas S. Paul doth not follow the very same words which are in the Psalme puto dari in hoc Apostolicam authoritatem I thinke saith he that this is done by Apostolike authoritie to teach vs when we vse the testimonie of Scripture sensum magis ex eo quam verba rapiamus that we rather take the sense then the words c. 17. Qu. Of the matter and order obserued by the Apostle in citing these testimonies In these testimonies the Apostle first sheweth the sinnes of men then their punishment their sinnes either of omission in leauing some duties vndone to v. 13. then of commission in committing such things as were euill to v. 16. the sinnes of omission are either concerning faith or manners concerning faith three waies nec credunt per fidem they neither beleeue by faith there is none iust nec intelligunt per scripturam neither doe they vnderstand by the Scripture nor seeke God per investigationem by searching after him v. 10 11. Concerning manners 1. they decline out of the way in turning away from God 2. they are become vnprofitable that is to their brethren 3. neither doe they good that is to themselues v. 12. The sinnes committed are of two sorts ad inducendum alios in errorem to bring others into error ad incutiendum terrorem and to smite into them terror the first is done three waies 1. openly in corrupting with euill words their mouth is an open sepulchre 2. secretly in deceiuing they haue vsed their tongues to deceit 3. in cloaking their malice with fained words the poison of aspes is vnder their lippes They doe strike terror into them 1. mala imprecando in wishing euill their mouth is full of cursing 2. necem intentando by threatning death and destruction there is bitternes in their mouth 3. in shedding of blood Then followeth their punishment which is of two sorts 1. poena non culpa a punishment and no fault either eternall destruction or temporall calamitie with the meritorious cause in their waies 2. there is a punishment which is both a punishment and a sinne which is first their wilfull ignorance and blindnes v. 17. they haue not knowne the way of peace then their obstinacie the feare of God is not before their eyes Gorrhan But this distribution may seeme to be too curious we therefore will content our selues with this plaine enumeration of sinnes which are here set downe by the Apostle 1. be accuseth all men of iniustice and vnrighteousnes there is none righteous v. 10. 2. of ignorance and blindnes there is none that vnderstandeth v. 11. 3. of apostasie and falling away from God to abominable idolatrie v. 12. 4. of deceit and craft 5. of cursing and bitternes v. 13. 6. of crueltie their feete are swift to shed blood 7. they are turbulent and enemies to peace v. 17. 8. they are prophane casting off all feare of God v. 18. Pareus 18. Quest. How none are said to be iust seeing Noah and other
to followe and he is made in that respect the father of the faithfull but the faithfull and beleeuers now are onely the children of faithfull Abraham 2. Now Abrahams faith and ours herein agree 1. in the generall obiect which is God that quickeneth and raiseth the dead 2. in the manner condition and qualitie for Abrahams faith was firme and certaine he was fully perswaded and such must our faith be 3. the end and scope of his faith and ours is the Messiah the promised seede 4. the effect is the same the imputation of righteousnesse Pareus Quest. 41. How Christ is said to haue beene deliuered vp for our sinnes v. 25. Christ was diuerse wayes and by diuerse deliuered vp 1. he was deliuered vp by the determinate counsell of God Rom. 8.31 he spared not his owne sonne but gaue him vp 〈◊〉 vs all vnto death 2. He was deliuered vp by himselfe Galath 2.20 Who hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me Ephes. 5.25 as Christ loued his Church and gaue himselfe for it 3. By Iudas Matth. 26.21 One of you shall betray me 4. He was deliuered vp by the Iewes as Pilate saith vnto Iesus Ioh. 18.35 thine owne nation and the high Priests haue deliuered thee vnto me 5. He was also deliuered vp by Pilate to be crucified Ioh. 19.16 6. And lastly he was deliuered vp by Sathan Ioh. 13.2 the deuill had put it into the heart of Iudas to betray him Gorrhan Tolet. So then Christ was deliuered vp à patre permittente of his father permitting à scipso sâ— lutem hominis procurante of himselfe procuring mans saluation à Iudae prodente of Iudaâ— betraying him à Iudao invidente of the Iewes enuying him à Pilato iudicante of Pilatâ— iudging him à diabolo suggerente of the deuill suggesting Gorrh. But the Apostle here speaketh of the first kind of deliuering vp by God his father â—â— that the ineffable counsell of Gods wisedome and mercie toward vs may appeare 2. that it might be knowne that Christ died not by chance or of any weakenesse or imbecilitie â—â— by the counsell of God wherein appeareth Christs great loue in willingly offring himselâ—â— for vs Pareus 3. that the same author may be knowen both of Christs deliuering to death and of his raising againe God raised him vp v. 24. Tolet. 42. Quest. Why the Apostle thus distinguisheth the benefits of our redemption ascribing remission of sinnes to Christs death and iustification to his resurrection v. 25. v. 25. Who was deliuered vp for our sinnes and is risen againe for our iustification here the Apostle seemeth to ascribe our iustification vnto the resurrection of Christ where he must not be so vnderstood as though Christs death onely merited for vs remission of sinnes and not iustification also for elswhere this our Apostle doth place our iustification in our redemption by the death of Christ Rom. 3.24 We are iustified freely by his grace thorough the redemption that is in Christ Iesus and S. Peter likewise faith 1. epist. 2.24 Who his owne selfe bare our sinnes in his bodie on the tree that we beeing deliuered from sinne might liue vnto righteousnes c. Diuers interpretations then are giuen of these words to remooue this doubt 1. Some doe giue this reason of this distinction that Christ is said to be risen for our iustification that is to be an example of newnesse of life as Augustine applieth this sentence super Psalm 101. ser. 2. pasch serm 2. Christus crucifixus est vt ostenderet veteris homiris occasum c. resurrexit vt in vita sua ostenderet vitae nostrae novitatem Christ was crucified to shew in vs the dying of the old man and he rose againe to shew in his liuing againe our newnes of life c. to the same purpose Origen and Anselme vpon this place and likewise Thomas 3. part quest 56. artic 2 that quantum ad efficientiam in respect of the efficacie both the passion and resurrection of Christ are the causes of both sed quantum ad exemplaritatem c. but in respect of the exemplarie vertue and force the passion of Christ is the cause of remission of sinnes and his resurrection the cause of newnes of life this interpretation is approoued by gloss ordinar Gorrhan Bellarm. lib. 2. de effect sacram c. 9. resp ad argum 5. Pererius disput 10. numer 49. and by Stapl. Antidot pag. 259. But Tolet annot 25. misliketh this sense vpon this reason because as the one clause of this sentence is to be taken so is the other but the Apostle saying who was deliuered to death for our sinnes insinuateth a satisfaction made by his death for our sinnes not an example shewed of mortification therefore in the other part he must be vnderstood likewise to speake of the cause of our iustification not of an example onely And further there is difference betweene iustification and newnesse of life the Apostle saith c. 6.4 As Christ was raised from the dead c. so we should walke in newnesse of life here the Apostle speaketh of the exemplarie imitation of Christs resurrection in newnes of life which is our sanctification and regeneration but iustification is a diuers thing from sanctification which is as the frait and the other the cause thereof 2. Caietane thus expoundeth we are said to be iustified by Christs resurrection because we are iustified by faith which is confirmed by Christs resurrection and so products sumus ad iustificationem per fidem resurrectionis we are brought vnto iustification by the faith of the resurrection And they adde further that our faith is specially directed vnto Christs resurrection for the Iewes and heathen did confesse that Christ died but not that he rose againe to this purpose Vatablus Christ rose for our iustification that we should beleeue him to be the Sonne of God and so by that faith be iustified to the same purpose Faius But Peter Martyr resureth this opinion because our faith must as well aime at the death of Christ as at his resurrection and although the Iewes knew that Christ died yet they did not acknowledge that he died for our sinnes Tolet addeth this reason further that like as the death of Christ was not an argument onely and confirmation of our faith but the very cause of the remission of our sinnes so his resurrection must be held to be not an argument and proofe of our faith but the very cause of our iustification 3. Tolet here bringeth in an other exposition which he doth father vpon Theodoret Christ rose for our iustification vt communem omnibus resurrectionem procuraret to procure the common resurrection of vs all for vnlesse Christ had risen againe we should not haue risen againe But 1. no where in Scripture is our resurrection called by the name of iustification 2. and our resurrection was as well merited by Christs death as by his resurrection 3. if Christ indeede had not risen at all neither should we haue
risen but his bodie might haue beene kept incorruptible in his graue vnto the ende of the world and then he might haue risen and we with him but then should we haue beene iustified he rose therefore for our iustification not for our resurrection 4. Some will haue these two benefits of remission and iustification to be indifferently referred as well to the death as to the resurrection of Christ as Theophylact mortuus est exe tatus à morte c. he died and was raised from death to free and exempt vs from our euill works and to make vs iust to the same purpose Haymo vt credentes eum passum c. that beleeuing him to haue suffered for our saluation and to haue risen from the dead per hanc fidem mereamur iustificari we may be counted worthie to be iustified by this faith So Emmanuel Sa. vtrunque factum propter vtrunque both of these were wrought by both these But if both these benefits were in like sort and manner wrought by both those actions of Christ there should appeare no reason of this distinction which the Apostle vseth 5. An other exposition is Christ rose for our iustification that is ad eam demonstradam for the manifestation and demonstration of it Piscator he had purchased indeede both our redemption from our sinnes and our iustification by his death and passion but resurrectione gloriosa testatus est he witnessed by his resurrection that he had ouercome hell and death for vs Osiand But the Apostle sheweth the very reall cause of our iustification not the testification onely thereof by Christs resurrection as his deliuering to death was the very cause of the remission of our sinnes 6. Some giue this sense he is said to haue risen for our iustification quia salutis predicatio redemptionis applicatio generalis c. because the preaching of saluation and the generall application of redemption was to followe after the resurrection Tolet. annot 25. to the same purpose Pet. Martyr our redemption was purchased by the death of Christ but that the same might be applyed vnto vs spiritu sancto opus fuit it was needefull the spirit of God should be sent These by iustification vnderstand the application publication and preaching of iustification But this seemeth not be so fit neither for as in the one part of the sentence the Apostle toucheth the true working and efficient cause of the remission of sinnes Christs deliuering vnto death and not the application or publication so must the other part of our iustification be vnderstood And Christ might if it had pleased him haue giuen his Apostle a commission to preach his death and passion before his resurrection yet had we not beene fully iustified vntill he had risen againe 7. But among the rest that exposition which goeth vnder the name of Ambrose in the commentarie vpon this place seemeth to be most vnreasonable that the Apostle thus deuideth these benefits to shewe that as many as were baptized before the passion of Christ solam remissionem peccatorum accepisse receiued onely remission of sinnes but after Christs resurrection as well they which were baptized before as after esse omnes vere iustification were all truely iustified This one place doth giue iust occasion of suspition that those commentaries were not composed by Ambrose for remission of sinnes cannot be separated from iustification whosouer hath the one hath likewise the other because they are pronounced blessed whose sinnes are remitted before ver 7. but there can be no blessednesse without iustification 8. Hugo is somewhat curious to shewe the reason why remission of sinnes is ascribed vnto Christs passion and iustification vnto his resurrection first he saith that Christs passion is both causa meritum figura the cause merit and figure or forme of remission but it is the cause and merit onely of iustification and newenesse of life not the forme it is the cause moouing that we should liue in sinne for which Christ hath died and Christ by his death merited forgiuenesse of our sinne and he hath giuen in his death a forme that as he died in respect of his bodily life so we should die vnto sinne now of newenesse of life Christs death is both the cause mouing and meriting of newenesse of life but not a figure so it agreeth in three points with the remission of sinnes and in two onely with iustification Likewise Christs resurrection was both the cause mouing vnto newenesse of life are the forme and figure that as Christ rose againe so we should rise vnto newenesse of life but of remission of sinnes it was onely the cause moouing not the forme but of neither was it any meritorious cause for Christ hauing put off his mortall bodie in the resurrection was not in statu merendi in the state of meriting so the resurrection of Christ agreeth with iustification in two points in beeing the cause and figure or forme but with remission of sinnes onely in one in beeing the cause therefore iustification is rather ascribed to Christs resurrection then vnto his passion to this purpose Hugo But he faileth in this his subtile and curious distinction 1. for seeing that the passion of Christ in two points as be himselfe obserueth agreeth with iustification namely in beeing the cause and merit thereof and the resurrection in two likewise in beeing the cause and figure or forme iustification should rather in this regard be ascribed vnto Christs passion because it was merited by it and not by the other and the rather because the Apostle hath nothing to doe with the exemplarie forme of the one or the other but to shewe the true causes and so the passion of Christ shall agree in two respects with iustification and the resurrection of Christ but in one 9. To drawe then this question to an ende there are two answers which I insist vpon as the best and so I will ioyne them both together 1. The Apostle doth put iustification vnto the resurrection of Christ because although it were merited by his death yet it had the complement and perfection by the resurrection of Christ for if Christ had not risen againe he had not shewed himselfe conquerour of death and so the worke of our redemption had beene vnperfect thus Calvin Beza Gualter and to this purpose Rollecus distinguisheth well betweene meritum efficacia the merit of iustification in respect of Christ and the efficacie thereof in respect of vs Christ did meritoriously worke our iustification and saluation by his death and passion but the efficacie thereof and perfection of the worke to vs-ward dependeth vpon his resurrection the like distinction the Apostle vseth saying Rom. 10.10 With the heart man beleeueth vnto righteousnes and with the mouth man confesseth to saluation not really distinguishing them in the causes one from the other but shewing that the complement and perfection of the worke consisteth in both 2. Hereunto adde that although these two benefits of our
redemption remission of sinnes and iustification are in themselues and in the vse of them common and vndeuided and are indifferently sometime ascribed to Christs death and passion Rom. 3.24 Ephes. 1.7 and sometime to his resurrection Rom. 10.9 yet in respect of their proper causes they are discerned rather then distinguished as the remission of sinnes is properly referred to Christs passion iustification to his resurrection Pareus and the reason is yeelded by Thomas effectus habet aliqualiter similitudinem causae the effect hath in some sort the similitude of the cause our mortification in the remission of sinne answeareth to Christs death our iustification and spirituall life to Christs rising againe to life Mart. Thus the workes of our creation redemption sanctification are indifferently ascribed to the whole Trinitie as works of their deitie and yet are discerned in respect of their seuerall persons And this shall suffice of this intricate and difficult question 4. Places of doctrine Doct. 1. Iustification by workes sheweth pride and vaine-glorie v. 2. If Abraham were iustified by workes he hath wherein to reioyce or glorie c. It is euident then that for one to stand vpon the iustice of his workes it commeth of pride and vaine boasting it maketh a man to extoll and advance himselfe against the grace of God but God resisteth the proude and giueth grace to the humble the proud Pharisie was not iustified but the humble Publican then let proud Pharisies and vaine-glorious Papists knowe that as long as they stand vpon the merit of their workes they shall neuer be truely iustified But yet whereas the Apostle addeth he hath wherein to reioyce but not with God we learne that all reioycing in good workes and in the keeping of a good conscience is not denyed we may modestly professe and protest before men what the grace of God hath wrought in vs but we must not glorie therein as thereby iustified before God as the Apostle else where saith 1. Cor. 4.4 I knowe nothing by my selfe yet am I not thereby iustified Pareus Doct. 2. Of the nature and substance of the Sacraments v. 11. Circumcision is called the seale of the righteousnes of faith this is not proper and peculiar to circumcision but it sheweth the vse and end of all sacraments which is to seale confirme vnto vs the promises of God in Christ So here are collected all the causes of the Sacraments 1. the efficient cause and author is God onely because he onely is able to giue efficacie and vertue vnto the sacraments as God was the author of circumcision so of all other the Sacraments both of the old and newe Testament 2. the materiall cause is the visible and externall signe 3. the forme is the rite and manner of institution 4. the ende to seale vnto vs the promises of God for remission of our sinnes in Christ Faius pag. 238. Doct. 3. Of the baptisme of infants From the circumcision of infants in the old Testament is inferred the baptisme also of infants vnder the newe for there is the same reason of both the Sacraments and S. Paul doubteth not to call baptisme circumcision Col. 2.11 And if circumcision beeing graunted to infants then baptisme should be denied nowe this were to make God more equall vnto the Iewes and their seede which were the carnall offspring of Abraham then vnto beleeuing Christians which are the spirituall sonnes of Abraham If it be obiected that we knowe not whether infants haue rem sacramenti the thing represented in the Sacrament neither should we put to the signe we answear 1. that this were to reason against God for the same question may be mooued concerning circumcision 2. no more doth the minister know the minde and intention of all those which communicate in the Lords Supper 3. infants are baptized though they haue no vnderstanding as yet of the Sacrament to shewe that they belong vnto the couenant of grace whence their saluation dependeth and not of the outward signe and both presently the Church receiueth edifying when they see infants baptized and the children themselues are admonished and stirred vp when they come to yeares of discretion to learne the true signification and vse of their baptisme which they receiued in their infancie Peter Martyr Doct. 4. Of the vnitie of the Church and the communion of Saints v. 11. That he should be the father of all them that beleeue In that Abraham is called the father of all that beleeue whether of the circumcision or vncircumcision hence it is euident that there is but one Church and one way of iustification for all whether circumcised or vncircumcised vnder the Lawe or the Gospel and that there is a communion and common fellowship of all beleeuers as beeing all brethren and children of faithfull Abraham So the Apostle saith Ephes. 4.4 There is one bodie one spirit c. one Lord one faith one baptisme Doct. 5. Faith requisite in those which are made partakers of the Sacraments v. 11. The seale of the righteousnesse of faith which he had Circumcision profited not Abraham without faith neither can any Sacrament to them which are of discretion and able to vnderstand and discerne be of any force without faith and therefore S. Pauls rule is 1. Cor. 11.28 That a man should examine himselfe when he commeth to the Lords table and to this examination it belongeth to prooue whether they be in faith 2. Cor. 13.5 Doct. 6. The faithfull are the true owners and heares of the world the wicked are vsurpers v. 13. The promise to be heire of the world was made to Abraham thorough faith to them then that beleeue who are the right seede of faithfull Abraham doe the promises belong both of this life and of the next as the Apostle saith 1. Tim. 4.8 That godlinesse haue both the promise of this life and of that which is to come the faithfull then may vse the blessings of this life with a good conscience as pledges of the life to come but the wicked are vsurpers and therefore defile themselues in abusing the things of this life Gryneus Doct. 7. The difference betweene the true God and the false v. 17. He beleeued God who quickeneth the dead Hence are gathered three arguments of the Godhead 1. his omnipotencie both in giuing a beeing vnto things which are not be calleth the things that are not as though they were and in restoring vnto things the beeing which they had 2. his eternitie he is the first and the last both at the first he created all things and shall in the last day raise them vp to life againe 3. his omniscience he can foretell things to come in calling them that is giuing them a beeing which yet are nothing These things cannot idols doe nor any strange gods by these arguments the Prophet Isa confoundeth the Idols of the heathens shewing that they are not like vnto the true God Isa. 44.6 I am the first and the last and without me there is no
reference to the time before spoken of from Adam vnto Moses and therefore he saith many not all as he on the other side specially meaneth the times of the Gospell when likewise many and not all beleeued in Christ annot 22. so also Faius But then this comparison should be imperfect for as Adams sinne hath infected all his posteritie since the beginning of the world to the ende thereof so Christ is the Sauiour of the world both from Adam to Moses and since 4. Augustine taketh the Apostle to meane all but yet he saith many to shewe the multitude of those that are saued in Christ for there are aliqua omnia quae non sunt multa some things all that are not many as the fowre Gospels are all but not many and there be aliqua multa some things many that are not all as many beleeuers in Christ not all for all haue not faith 2. Thess. 3. c. It is true that the Apostle by many vnderstandeth all as he said in the former verse and sometime the scripture calleth them many which are all as in one place the Lord saith to Abraham I haue made thee a father of many nations Gen. 17. in an other in thy seede all the nations of the earth shall be blessed but yet the reason is not giuen why the Apostle saith many not all 5. Some thinke he so saith many because Christ is excluded that came of Adam Piscator But Christ though he descended of Adam yet not by ordinarie generation therefore in this generall speach he needed not to be excepted as he was not included when the Apostle saith in whom that is in Adam all haue sinned 6. The reason then is this multos apponit vni he opposeth many to one that Adam beeing one infected many beside himselfe with his sinne as Adams sinne rested not in his person but entred vpon many so Christs obedience and righteousnesse staied not in his person but was likewise communicated to many Beza Pareus Quest. 40. How many are said to be sinners in Adam 1. Chrysostome by sinners vnderstandeth morti obnoxiot those that are subiect to death by reason of Adams sinne and he addeth this reason ex illius inobedientia alium fieri peccatorem quam poterit habere consequentiam by his disobedience others to become sinners it hath no coherence or consequence Contra. 1. True it is that sometime the word peccatores sinners is taken in that sense for men subiect to death and punishment as Bathsheba saith to Dauid 1. King 1.21 else when my Lord the King shall sleepe with his fathers I and my sonne Salomon shall be sinners c. that is put to death as offenders But yet in this place the word is not so taken for as to be made iust in Christ signifieth not to haue the reward of iustice but to be iustified indeed so to be made sinners sheweth not the punishment but the guiltines of sinne deseruing punishment as then in the former verse the effects were compared together condemnation in Adam and iustification vnto life in Christ so here the causes are shewed sinne on the one side causing death and righteousnesse on the other which bringeth to life 2. though Chrysostome faile in the interpretation of this place yet he denieth not but that in Adams all sinned and in many places he testifieth euidently of originall sinne as he calleth to radicale peccatum the rooted sinne hom 40. in 1. epist. ad Corinth And therefore the Pelagians did him wrong to make him an author of their opinion who denied originall sinne from which imputation of the Pelagians Augustine cleareth Chrysostome writing against their heresie and this point is cleared in this place for if all are subiect to death in Adam which Chrysostome here confesseth then all haue sinned in Adam for death could not enter vpon all without sinne 2. As Chrysostome vnderstandeth here onely temporall death whereunto all are subiect in Adam so some by condemnation mentioned v. 17. doe likewise insinuate the sentence onely of mortalitie Tolet. Origen vnderstandeth the expulsion of Adam out of Paradise but by the contrarie seeing the Apostle by iustification vnto life vnderstandeth the raigning in life eternall by death and condemnation is signified animae corporis damnatio the damnation of bodie and soule so expoundeth gloss interlin Gorrhan with others 3. Origen by sinners vnderstandeth consuetudinem studium peccandi the custome and studie of sinning as though the Apostle had meant onely actuall sinne but that proceedeth not from Adams disobedience properly as originall sinne doth 4. Neither yet doth the Apostle onely meane originall sinne which is by Adams disobedience in ipsius posteros propagatum propagated vnto his posteritie Faius for it is more to be a sinner then to sinne in Adam which the Apostle said before v. 12. 5. Wherefore the Apostle by sinners vnderstandeth both such as sinne originally in Adam peccatum contrabendâ— by the contagion or contraction of sinne and peccatum inteâ—andâ— which sinne actually by imitation Gorrh. so that we are not onely naturally euill by sinful propagation as the Apostle said before v. 12. in whom all haue sinned and so are by nature guiltie of death and condemnation v. 18. but beside as an effect of our naturall corruption there is a generall pravitie of nature and an habite of euill engendred in vs whereby we can doe no other then sinne so Adams disobedience hath made vs not onely naturaliter pravos naturally euill sed habitualiter peccatores habitually sinners Pareus Quest. 41. How the lawe is said to haue entred thereupon ver 20. 1. The occasion of these words is not so much to shewe that sinne raigned in the world euen after the lawe as it was in the world before the lawe from Adam to Moses v. 14. but the Apostle hauing shewed at large how we are deliuered from sinne and death brought in by Adam onely by Christ he preuenteth the obiection of the Iewes for it might haue beene replyed wherefore then serued the lawe if there were no remedie against sinne thereby the Apostle then answeareth that the lawe was so farre from sauing men from their sinnes that they were thereby the more encreased thus Chrysostome and Pet. Martyr with others 2. But this is not to be vnderstood of the lawe of nature as Origen who to decline the imputation of the lawe laid vpon it by wicked Marcion that it was giuen to an euill ende to encrease sinne will haue the Apostle to speake of the lawe of nature for the Apostle making mention of the lawe before v. 13. vnderstandeth the written lawe as he expoundeth v. 14. where he expressely speaketh of Moses neither was the lawe of nature giuen to that ende to encrease sinne no more then the morall lawe was but sinne entred occasionaliter by occasion onely of the lawe as shall be shewed in the next question 3. The lawe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 entred thereupon 1. the Latine interpreter readeth subintravit
torments which had not sinned by their owne will in 9. c. Iob. so also Augustine but he saith mitissima omnium pana erit eorum their punishment shall be most gentle and easie of all other which beside originall sinne haue added none other sinnes c. and this may be safely affirmed with Augustine But that when followeth hath more doubt non audeo dicere quodijs vt nulli essent quà m vt ibi essent sotius expediret I dare not say that it were better for them not to be at all then to be there Augustine Enchirid. c. 93. Controv. 22. That Christs essentiall iustice is not infused into vs. v. 17. Much more shall they which receiue abundance of grace c. Osiander did hold not Lucas Osiander who hath written breefe annotations vpon the old and new Testament but another of that name before him that the iustice of Christ is some reall thing infused into the faithfull and that it was his essentiall iustice as he is God that is communicated to the faithfull ex Faio in v. 17. But the Apostle euidently refuteth this error c. 4.22 where he sheweth that it was imputed vnto Abraham for righteousnes because he beleeued in God if we are iustified by faith then not by the essentiall iustice of Christ which still remaineth in Christs person as the subiect thereof but the righteousnesse whereby we are iustified before God is the righteousnes of Christ as he is man which is apprehended by faith and this also is euident in this place where the Apostle ascribeth iustification to the abundance of grace receiued and how is it receiued but by faith Controv. 23. Against the patrones of vniuersall grace v. 18. By the iustifying of one the benefit abounded toward all men c. Hence of 〈◊〉 Huberus and before him the Pelagians would prooue that the benefit of iustification is as vniuersall toward all euen infidels and vnbeleeuers as the condemnation that came in by Adam for the Apostle on both sides nameth all for otherwise the benefite by Christ should be inferiour vnto the losse in Adam which redounded generally vpon all Contra. 1. This tearme of vniuersalitie all must be restrained according to the nature of the subiect as Adam transfused his sinne vnto all which were his ofspring so Christ also iustifieth all his that is all which beleeue in him so by all the Apostle vnderstandeth the vniuersall companie of the faithfull 2. the preheminence of the benefit consisteth not in the equalitie of the number that Christ should saue as many as are lost in Adam for then there should be onely an equalitie not a superioritie 3. But herein is the prerogatiue of grace seene 1. in the excellencie of the effect for life is a more excellent thing then death and righteousnesse then sinne 2. in the powerfulnesse of the worke it sheweth a greater power to saue then to destroie to iustifie then condemne for it is an easier matter to destroie then to saue to pull downe then to build vp to mortifie then to reviue and raise to life 3. the preheminence is in the amplitude and largnes of grace in that we are iustified not onely from one but all kind of sinnes as well actuall as originall whereas originall sinne is onely deriued from Adam See more hereof quest 15. Controv. 24. Against the Popish inherent iustice v. 9. So by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous c. The Romanists as Bellar. lib. 2. de iustificat c. 1. Pererius disputa 17. doe much vrge this argument against imputatiue iustice that we are not iustified by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed by faith but by an inherent righteousnesse wrought in vs by Christ whereby we are formally made iust because we are so made righteous and iust in Christ as we became sinners in Adam but that was not by imputation of Adams sinne but by sinne dwelling in them whereby they are formally made sinners therefore we are formally made righteous by an inherent iustice remayning in vs and not imputed onely Pererius further vrgeth the phrase iusti constituentur many shall be made iust which is not all one as to be reputed iust or to be iust by imputation but to be iust indeed Contra. 1. The comparison betweene Adams disobedience and Christs obedience doth hold verie well euen in this point of imputation for as there is in making of vs sinners both an imputation of Adams sinne to his posteritie as comming out of his loines as also an habituall prauitie and corruption of nature the effect thereof so their is a double operation of Christs obedience both it is imputed vnto vs by faith whereby we are iustified before God and thereby there is wrought in vs holines and righteousnesse which is our sanctification but by this because it is imperfect in this life we are not iustified before God 2. and whereas the Apostle vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constituentur shall be made or constituted iust we confesse that he meaneth they shall be made iust indeede in Christ but therefore the word is put in the future tence because in this life our sanctification is but begun it shall not be absolutely perfect till the next life when all imperfection and impuritie of our nature shall be cleane taken away and then shall we be made perfectly iust indeed See a more full answer to this obiection Synops. Centur. 4. er 56. 3. But if they shall further replie that we are rather made sinners by the reall corruption of our nature then by the imputation of Adams sinne and so consequently we should rather be iustified by an inherent righteousnesse then imputed onely we answer that herein appeareth the preheminence of grace that Christs righteousnesse onely imputed is more able to iustifie vs then Adams sinne onely imputed was to condemne vs. Controv. 25. That we are iustified both by the actiue and passiue obedience of Christ. Piscator in his annotations vpon this verse vrgeth this point that we are not iustified by the obedience of Christ in his life which was his actiue obedience but by his passiue obedience in his death because if we be iustified by his righteousnesse acted in his life then should he not haue needed to haue died for vs for beeing iustified alreadie by the righteousnesse of his life there was no cause for Christ to be punished for vs beeing alreadie made iust by his righteous life Contra. 1. Though the Apostle doe principally meane the particular obedience of Christ in submitting himselfe to his fathers will in his death to giue his life for his sheepe as it is opposed to Adams particular disobedience in eating of the forbidden fruite which was in re facillima in a thing most easie to haue beene kept whereas Christs obedience was in re dissicillima in a most hard difficult thing to giue himselfe for vs euen vnto death yet this his particular obedience in his death depended vpon the generall obedience of
homines à coelestium meditatione retrahit which draweth spirituall men from the meditation of heauenly things but the Apostle spake before of the combate betweene the flesh and the spirit and they are not all carnall which are occupied in the necessarie affaires of this life 6. Tolet ioyning the pronoune this vnto death not vnto the bodie reading thus from the bodie of this death will haue reference to be made vnto the tyrannie of the lawe of concupiscence whereof he spake before but the pronoune is better ioyned to bodie as the Syrian interpreter Erasmus and Beza well obserue for of his flesh and members he spake before but of death he made no mention This demonstrative then this is better referred to bodie 7. Wherefore the Apostle calling his present state out of the which he desireth to be deliuered this bodie of death ioyneth both mortalitie and sinne together he meaneth his mortall bodie subiect to sinne as Hierome expoundeth quod morti perturbationibus est oppositum which is opposed to death and perturbations apolog advers Ruffin and so Beza the Apostle by the bodie designeth carneam corporis molem the fleshie masse of the bodie which is nothing else but mussa mortis peccati a lumpe of death and sinne so Origen it is called the bodie of death in quo habitat peccatum quod est mortis causa wherein sinne dwelleth which is the cause of death 8. And this deliuerance which the Apostle longeth for is not the spirituall deliuerance in this life from the captiuitie of sinne as Tolet but the finall deliuerance from the bondage of mortalitie and corruption which we looke for in the resurrection as Augustine expoundeth lib. 1. cont epist. Pelag. c. 11. and so the Apostles meaning is non finiri hoc confluctus c. that these conflicts cannot be ended as long as we carrie this mortall bodie about with vs Pareus And here we may consider a threefold state of mans bodie the one in Paradise cum non potuit mori when it was in mans power if he had not sinned not to die at all vnder the state and condition of sinne where non potest non mori he cannot but die a necessitie of death is laid vpon all Adams posteritie vnder the state of glorie non possumus mori we cannot die we shall be exempted from the condition of all mortalitie Pererius Quest. 25. Why the Apostle giueth thanks to God ver 25. 1. There is some difference in the reading of these words the Latine interpreter thus readeth the grace of God thorough Iesus Christ so also Origen before who maketh it an answear to the former words of the Apostle who shall deliuer 〈◊〉 likewise Augustine followeth this reading serm 45. de tempor but all the Greek copies haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I giue thankes and the Apostle did not aske the question before who should deliuer him but suspirat potâ—â—s be sigheth and sheweth his desire to be deliuered Beza 2. For the meaning of the words 1. some thinke that the Apostle giueth thanks for his redemption in Christ Mart. that he is deliuered à reatu peccati from the guilt of sinne originall and actuall Roloch and that his sinnes are not imputed Osiander and before them Oecumenius quod me liberavit per mortem filij that he hath deliuered me by the death of his Sonne But this deliverance the Apostle had alreadie obtained he speaketh in the future sense who shall deliuer me 2. Theophylact referreth it to the former benefit quod viriliter adversatur peccato that he did manfully resist sinne which strength he had not either by the law of nature or by the law of Moses but by grace in Christ So also Pareus thinketh the Apostle doth giue thankes that he doth not succumbere in certamine sed vincere giue ouer in this combate but at the length ouercommeth But the Apostle wisheth yet a further deliuerance which as yet he had not because he speaketh of the time not to come who shall deliuer me and yet he giueth thankes for it as enioying the fame in hope 3. Tolet and Pererius thinke that the Apostle giueth thankes that he was deliuered from concupiscence quod non mentem trahit in consensum that it did not draw his mind to consent and so he was deliuered from it as it was malum culpae as there was sinne or fault in it that is to consent vnto it but not as it was malum poenae a punishment that is concupiscere to couet or desire simply without assent so also Lyranus But if the Apostle did not sometime thorough his infirmitie giue consent vnto his concupiscence how could he say it did lead him captiue vnto the law of sinne more it is prooued at large afterward that the commandement thou shalt not lust whereof the Apostle confesseth himselfe a transgressor v. 7.18 doth not onely restraine the first motions of concupiscence which haue not the consent of the will but the second also which haue controv 8.4 Vatablus will haue this thanksgiuing to be referred to the deliuerance which the Apostle expected in the life to come 5. But it is better to ioyne them together as Augustine doth serm 45. de tempor the grace of God nunc perfecte innovat hominem c. doth now perfectly renew a man by deliuering him from all his sinnes ad corporis immortalitatem perducit and bringeth him also to the immortalitie of the bodie Lyranus likewise comprehendeth both these deliuerances that both the regenerate are here deliuered from their sinnes and in the next life shall be freed from all corruption as the Apostle saith Philip. 3.21 Who shall change our vile bodie that it may be fashioned like vnto his glorious bodie so Chrysostome saith the Apostle giueth thanks quod non solum principibus malis liberamur sed eoruÌ„ quae futura sunt capaces facti sumus that we are not onely deliuered from the former euills namely our sinnes but are made capable of the good things to come thus also Pellican the Saints reioyce se primitijs spiritus donatos c. that they are endued with the first fruits of the spirit which giue them certaine hope of the inheritance to come and Beza the Apostle sheweth that he resteth in that hope quam habet in Christo fundatam which he hath grounded on Christ. 35. Quest. Of these words I in my minde serue the law of God c. 1. By the mind the Apostle vnderstandeth the inner man reformed by grace by the flesh the part vnregenerate so that in this speach of the Apostle a double figure is to be admitted first a metonymie in that the subiect is taken for the adiunct the minde for the sanctitie and holines wrought in the minde by grace as Vatablus well interpreteth secundum spiritum meum doctum à spiritu sancto in my spirit taught by the holy spirit and the flesh for the carnall sensualitie whereby it is lead there is also a
proceede from the pravitie of the flesh 2. And the Apostle saith is enmitie not an enemie as the Latine readeth for then it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the neuter not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the feminine and here the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the accent in the first syllable which signifieth enmitie not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accented in the last syllable which is the adiective in the femine gender enemious and the Apostle speaketh in the abstract not by the figure Metalepsis taking it for the concrete enmitie for enemie the substantiue for the adiectiue as Pareus nor yet doth he so speake vt vehementior fit oratio to make his speach more vehement and forcible Martyr but hereby is expressed the irreconciliable enmitie betweene the flesh and the spirit for that which is an enemie may be reconciled as Esau was to Iacob but enmitie can neuer be reconciled Faius 3. Now the Apostle here giueth a reason of the former verse why the wisdome of the flesh is death because it is enmitie with God from whome commeth life but yet the wisdome of the spirit is not so the cause of life and peace with God as the wisdome of the flesh is of death for this is the meritorious cause of the one so is not the wisdome of the spirit that is regeneration of the other but it is as the meane and way whereby we are assured of saluation and to haue peace with God but that which procureth and worketh it is faith in Christ Rom. 5.1 therefore here the Reader must take heede of a corrupt note of Lyranus that the confidence of the spirit meretur vitam gratiae in prasenti c. doth merit the life of grace in this present and the peace of glorie in the next 4. And as the wisedome of the flesh is enmitie with God so the wisdome of the spirit is enmitie and freindship which is defined to be a mutuall goodwill which is declared by freindly partes and offices for vertues sake thus then Aristotles rule is found to be false inter valide in aequales non dari amicitiam that there cannot be freindship betweene such as are much vnequall for in the beginning there was freindship betweene the creator and his creature and this auncient amitie is renewed and restored by Christ who vouchsafeth to call his Apostles freinds Ioh. 15.14 5. But by flesh 1. neither with the Manichees must we vnderstand the substance of the flesh for by flesh he meaneth the prauitie and corruption of the flesh 2. nor yet with Chrysostome doe we interpret it to be carnalem vitam onely a carnall life which onely sheweth the corrupt actions but it signifieth the prauitie of our nature 3. neither doe we with Ambrose onely referre it to the vnderstanding quae non potest capere divina which is not capable of diuine things for here the continuance rather and rebellion of the flesh is signified then the impotencie and weaknes of it 4. nor yet by the flesh is vnderstood onely the sensuall part and by the spirit rationabilitas mentis the reasonablenes of the soule but euen the minde also is carnall as Theophylact calleth it carneam mentem a carnall mind as v. 9. if any haue not the spirit of Christ but their owne naturall spirit they alwaies haue 6. And whereas it is said it is not subiect to the law of God neither can be 1. neither is it to be restrained to that particular law of the Gospel of rendring good for euill which carnall men transgresse that render euill for euill as Haymo 2. not yet because they thinke God can doe nothing beside that which is to be seene and found in nature gloss ordinar for this but one particular act of carnalitie 3. nor yet is it to be vnderstood with this limitation â—â—m eo perseueret if a man continue in the flesh he cannot so long be subiect vnto the law of God Oecumen for the Apostle speaketh of the wisedome of the flesh it selfe not of those that are in it which can neuer be changed to become subiect vnto God but they which are in the flesh may cease to be in the flesh and so please God 4. and this doth manifestly conuince the Pelagians of error which hold that a naturall man might fulfill the law of God and of the Popish schoolmen who affirmed that a man without grace might keepe the law quoad substantiam operis in respect of the substance of the worke though not ad intentionem legis after the intention of the law Quest. 10. How they which are in the flesh cannot please God v. 8. 1. Not they which follow the law secundum literam according to the letter as Origen the Apostle speaketh generally of all as well Iewes as others that are in the flesh 2. Neither as the Maniches by the flesh is vnderstood the bodie for so none in this life should please God 3. Nor yet as Hierome in his passionate and too much loue of virginitie and partiall and preiudicate opinion of marriage that they which inseruiunt officio coniugali serue the marriage duties were in the flesh and thus also Pope Syricius did descant vpon these words applying them against marriage epistol ad Himmer Tarracon but they are said to be in the flesh qui post concupiscentias eunt which follow the lust and concupiscence of the flesh 4. But this must be vnderstood with a limitation quamdiu tales fuerint as long as they are such as Theophylact with other Greeke expositors as Augustine doth set it forth by this example as the same water may be both frozen with cold and be made hoate with the fire so the same soule of man may be first subiect to the flesh then to the spirit Quest. 11. Of the dwelling of the spirit of God in vs v. 9. Seeing the spirit of God dwelleth c. not if the spirit as the vulgar latine hath it and so the Romanists read and so Lyranus expoundeth the former words yee are not in the flesh i. esse non debetis ye ought not to be for so Chrysostome and Oecumenius well obserue non â—â—a ponit vt quidubitet he saith not thus as doubting but certainely beleeuing that they had the spirit 2. And in that he saith the spirit dwelleth 1. he sheweth that the spirit is otherwise in them then in other things for he is euery where and in all things immensitate essentia in his infinite essence but he is in the faithfull praesentia efficacia gratia by the presence and efficacie of his grace 2. in that the spirit is said to dwell thereby is signified that he is not in vs tanquam hospes as a straunger but indigena perpetuus an indweller for euer as Iob. 14.16 he shall abide with you for euer Pareus 3. and as a dweller in an house doth not onely occupie it but also in ea imperat doth command and beare rule and sway in
it so the spirit dwelleth in the faithfull as the ruler and commander in the house the spirit and the flesh may be in the same house together if the flesh be as the seruant and the spirit as the master but if the flesh haue the masterie the spirit departeth like as where extreame cold hath taken possession there can be no heate at all but if the extremitie of cold be abated then there may be place for heate Martyr 4. And here we must distinguish as Origen well doth between the extraordinarie gifts of the spirits such as the Prophets and Apostles had when the spirit came vpon them in the likenes of fierie tongues and the ordinarie gifts for where the spirit is those extraordinarie graces alwaies follow not but those which the Lord seem to be conuenient for God giueth vnto euery one as he will 2. Cor. 12.11 3. And whereas the Apostle saith he that hath not the spirit of Christ is not his Origen well thus expoundeth creatura eius est sed non discipulus he is his creature still as all other things are but he is not his Disciple nor a member of his mysticall bodie 12. Quest. Of the meaning of these words v. 10. The bodie is dead because of sinne the spirit is life c. 1. Origen vnderstandeth the two parts of man the bodie and the soule and he giue in this sense the bodie is dead because of sinne mors imponitur ne peccet death is imposed vpon the bodie that it should not sinne alwaies remembring the ende and so the spirit vivit ad faciendam institiam liueth to worke righteousnes but the Apostle sheweth the cause of death in the one namely sinne and of life in the other namely righteousnes rather then the ende of both 2. Ambrose seemeth by the bodie to vnderstand the whole man that is dead because of sinne and by the spirit the holy Ghost â—â— author of life because he is giuen to iustifie vs so also Chrysostome will haue the holy Ghâ—â—t to be vnderstood which onely is not life in himselfe but giueth life vnto others so also Martyr but the other opposite part of the bodâ—â— sheweth that the spirit hath relation also vnto man 3. Some vnderstand the first clause of mortification as if the Apostle should say the â—â— die is dead quantum attinet ad peccati operationem in respect of the operation of sinne Oecumen Piscat but in this sense the same thing should be expressed in both clauses the mortifying of sinne and liuing vnto righteousnes which the opposition betweene the contraâ—â— parts of the bodie and spirit wil not heare 4. Calvin and so Osiander will haue the bodie to signifie the vnregenerate part the spirit the spirituall and regenerate but in this sense the Apostle vseth to oppose the flesh in the spirit not the bodie and the spirit 5. Wherefore by bodie we may better vnderstand that mortall part of man which is subiect to death and by the spirit the inward part of man namely his soule regenerate which liueth by faith Beza thinketh that the life of the soule is here vnderstood when it is separate from the bodie Chrysostome referreth it to the life of the resurrection Lyranus to the life of grace now in present But we may better comprehend both that both now for the present the spirit of man liueth by grace as the iust is said to liue by faith and that also is a pledge of life euerlasting afterward And this sense is most agreeable to the scope of the Apostle for hitherto he hath shewed how the spirit of Christ hath freed vs from the law of sinne in the flesh now he commeth to set forth the other part of our libertie which is from death and first presently in the spirit we liue by faith and then afterward the bodie also shall liue in the resurrection by the spirit of Christ which the Apostle sheweth in the next verse Quest. 13. How the quickening of the dead is ascribed to the spirit of Christ seeing all both good and bad shall rise 1. M. Calvins opinion is here refused who thinketh that the Apostle doth not here speake of the last and finall resurrection sed de continua spiritus operatione but of the continuall working of the spirit in vs in mortifying the reliques of sinne so also Piscator vificabit corpora vestra ad sanctificationem shall quicken your bodies vnto sanctification c. But in that sense our bodies are said to be mortua dead not mortalia mortall and the Apostle speaking of the time to come pointeth at the resurrection which shall be not that which is present in rising vnto newnes of life 2. There are three arguments of the resurrection here expressed by the Apostle the first from the power of God he that raised Christ from the dead shall also raise vs vp secondly from the correspondencie of Christ with his members as Christ was raised from the dead so shall we that are his members thirdly from the office of the spirit who shall raise vs vp that are his temples wherein he dwelleth Pareus 3. As God is said to haue raised Christ vp by his spirit so Christ raised vp himselfe by his eternall spirit omnia quippe divina pâ—â—er per Filium in Spiritu Sancto operatur all diuine things the father worketh by the Sonne in the holy Ghost Oecumen 4. Although our redemption purchased vnto vs by Christ was sufficient at once to haue redeemed both our soules and bodies tamen ordinate nobis datur it is giuen vnto vs in order and by degrees that as Christ had first a passible bodie before he had a glorious bodie so our bodies must first be mortall before they can haue immortalitie Lyran. 5. Now although the members of Christ shall be raised vp by his spirit yet the wicked also which haue not the spirit of Christ shall also rise againe but vnto iudgement they shall be raised vp by the omnipotent power of God but the righteous shall be raised by the spirit of Christ and therefore it is not said he shall raise but vinificabit he shall quicken your mortall bodie quod ipsa resurrectione maius est c. which is a greater worke then the resurrection and onely graunted to the righteous Chrysostome whom Martyr and Pareus followe Quest. 14. What it is to be lead by the spirit of God 1. There are two kind of actions of the spirit generall wherbey all things mooue liue and haue their beeing and speciall whereby the Lord worketh in the hearts of his children such is the worke of sanctification Calv. 2. And in that they are said to be lead we must not thinke that any are compelled by the spirit but this signifieth vehementem inclinationem non coactionem a vehement inclination not coaction Gorrhan God by his spirit ex nolentibus volentes facit of vnwilling maketh vs willing so he draweth vs volentes willing consequenter not antecedenter we are willing
are not inheritors as Abraham gaue gifts vnto his other sonnes but left the inheritance to Izaak but here all the sonnes of God are heires 2. Haymo observeth that here an inheritance is confirmed in the death of the father but God dieth not though now he seeme to be absent from vs and afterward when we are admitted to our inheritance we shall see him as he is gloss ordinar and yet Christ dying left vs as an inheritance his peace but this is most strange that here the heire must first die and be mortified before he can come to the inheritance whereas in the world he dieth that leaueth the inheritance 3. And among men the inheritance must be deuided into parts if all the sonnes be heires but here tota habetur à quolibet bono the whole inheritance is enioyed of 〈◊〉 one admitted thereunto though not alike but in degrees Lyran. 4. â—nd this our inheritance is not limited as the Apostle saith all things are yours 1. Cor. 3.21 whether things present or to come for the present Christ hath left vs his peace my peace I giue vnto you and he hath left vs his Testament as his will that we should beleeue it Haymo who further sheweth how we shall be heires with Christ both of his glorie for when he appeareth we shall be like him 1. Ioh. 3.3 and of his dominion and power as he promiseth his Apostles that they shall sit vpon twelue seates and iudge the twelue tribes of Israel Matth. 19. And this prerogatiue shall not be giuen onely to the Apostles but euen the Saints shall iudge the world as the Apostle sheweth 1. Cor. 6.3 Par. This twofold inheritance of Christs glorie and dominion is well touched by Origen Christus non solum in partem haereditatis sed etiam in consortium potentiae adducit Christ doth bring vs not only into a part of his inheritance but into the fellowship of his power But whereas Christ onely is named to be heire I will giue the nations for thine inheritance Psal. 2. we must vnderstand that he onely is the naturall heire beeing the onely begotten sonne of God but we are heires by adoption and grace and so are admitted to be heires with Christ. 5. But here Chrysostom hath an harsh note that the Iewes vnder the lawe were not heires as our Sauiour saith Matth. 8. that the children of the kingdome shall be cast out whereas our Sauiour there speaketh of the hypocrites and false worshippers among the Iewes not generally of all as there are also among Christians many hypocrites and false children that shall neuer be heires And the Apostle in saying Galat. 4.1 The heire as long as he is a child differeth nothing from a seruant c. euidently sheweth that euen the faithfull vnder the lawe were heires though kept vnder the ceremonies and rudiments of the lawe for a time as children that shall be heires vnder tutors and gouernours Quest. 22. How these words are to be vnderstood if so be yee suffer with him 1. They which followe the Latine translation here si tamen c. yet if or if notwithstanding we suffer with him doe thinke that our sufferings are the cause of our glorie afterward so Stapleton and the Rhemists inferre that as Christs passions were a cause of his glorie so is it in his members but the Apostle remooueth this conceit inferring in the next verse That the afflictions of this life are not worthie of the glorie c. but betweene the cause and the effect there is a worthinesse and a due proportion See further hereof among the controversies following 2. Ambrose whom Calvin and Beza followe thinke this is required as a condition that they which looke to be glorified must first be partakers of Christs suffrings and so our suffrings are necessarie as a condition and the way wherein we should walke and as a 〈◊〉 of our obedience not as a cause this sense may safely be admitted And here a difference is to be made between the legall conditions and Euangelicall for there 1. the condition requireâ— was exactly to be performed and a perfect obedience was required to satisfie the lawe but in the Gospel our willingnesse and godly endeauour is accepted in Christ though we come short of the precept 2. there the reward could not be had without the condition performed here though if time and place serue we must shewe our obedience yet in some cases the promise is had without the condition as the theefe vpon the crosse was saued without any such condition of obedience 3. the obedience of the lawe was exacted as a cause of the reward propounded but in the Gospell it is necessarie onely as a fruit of our obedience the cause is the mercie of God and his gracious promises in Christ. 3. Chrysostome will haue the Apostle to reason here from the greater to the lesse that if God did so much for vs when we had done nothing at all much more will he reward vs if we suffer for him 4. But here I subscribe rather to Pet. Martyr who thinketh that the Apostle maketh mention here of the suffrings of the Saints because they are argumenta indicia arguments and tokens that they are the heires of God for in their constant suffrings they haue experience of the power and goodnesse of God whereby they are kept and preserued vnto saluation Pareus indifferently followeth this and the second interpretation Quest. 23. How we are said to suffer together with Christ. 1. Not in compassion onely toward the suffrings of Christ but by imitation in beeing partakers of the like afflictions must we suffer with him Erasmus 2. Neither doe the Saints by the merit of their suffrings attaine vnto the kingdome of heauen as Christ did by his as the Rhemists here note but we must suffer with Christ onely to shewe our obedience and conformitie to our head 3. Nor yet is it enough to suffer for many are punished for their euill doing and there are that will endure much in the world vpon vaine-glorie but our suffrings must be for righteousnes sake as Christs were 4. And herein must our suffrings be like vnto Christs that as he yeelded himselfe to the death of the crosse 1. both to shewe his obedience vnto the will of God 2. and to take away our sinne so we likewise in our afflictions should shew our obedience because so is the will of God and that we thereby should seeke to mortifie sinne in vs Mart. 5. Now the passions of the Saints are of two sorts they are either internall in mortifying the lusts of the flesh or externall in suffring persecution and trouble for Christs sake 6. And as we suffer with Christ when we beare the like rebukes for the truth as he did so also Christ suffereth in vs and together with vs the afflictions of his members he taketh to be his owne as he said to Saul why persecutest thou me Quest. 24. Of the meaning of the 18.
amorem tautopere hoc ardet desiderio for the loue of Christ he is so much inflamed with this desire it followeth not therefore he desireth to be separated from Christ therefore from his loue he wisheth not to be depriued amicita Christi sed fructu amicitiae of the friendship of Christ but onely of the fruit of his friendship which was euerlasting felicitie Pareus 2. Obiect If S. Paul herein respected the glorie of God in the saluation of the Iewes why did he not likewise wish to be separated for the saluation of the Gentiles Answ. S. Paul no doubt was readie to doe the like for them but there was not the like occasion for the Gentiles flocked to Christ and receiued the Gospell but the Iewes were stubborne and euerie where resisted their calling and therefore for them he maketh this vowe Mart. 3. Obiect But S. Paul knewe that he could not indeede be separated from Christ as he professed before c. 8.38 that nothing could separate him from the loue of God in Christ. Ans. 1. Lyranus thinketh that this vowe of Paul as likewise that of Moses was secundum dispositionem inferioris partis animae according to the disposition of the inferiour part of the mind where the affections are for loue nec mensuram scit nec modum knoweth neither measure nor manner not in the deliberate and reasonable part of the minde 2. But the better answear is that it was votum conditionale a conditionall not an absolute vowe if it were the will of God as Christs petition was for the passing away of the cuppe of his death if it were his fathers will Pareus so the Apostle speaketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after a sort and with condition if it might be Gryneus And to the same purpose before them Oecumenius 〈◊〉 absolute haec dixit tanquam possibilia sed sub conditione he spake not these things absolutely as if they were possible but with a condition for if Paul for the loue of Christ could haue beene separated from Christ he should againe haue beene so much the more firmely ioyned vnto Christ for if loue be the cause of vnion then so great loue of the Apostle would haue caused so much nearer coniunction 4. Obiect Though a man be bound by the rule of charitie to giue his temporall life for an others spirituall life yet he is not bound to giue his soule euerlastingly to perish if it were in his choice that others should not so perish like as one is not bound to redeeme an others bodily life by the losse of his so neither the spirituall life of the soule by the losse of his owne Tolet thus obiecteth annot 4. and therefore he inferreth that in this sense it had beene an inordinate and vaine desire in the Apostle Answ. 1. Some thinke that euery man is bound to redeeme the saluation of others by the losse of his owne sauing that fewe can attaine vnto such perfection of charitie for the rule of charitie is this that we should doe that for others which we would haue done for our selues now a man had rather that an other should giue himselfe to ransome him then he should perish and Christ was enflamed with such charitie that he became a curse for vs and the like minde should be in Christs members to wish to be accursed for their brethren as Origen inferreth Quid mirum si cum Dominus pro servis sit factus maledictum servus pro â—â—â—â—ribus anathema fiat what maruell is it when the Lord was made a curse for the seruants if a seruant become an anathema for his brethren Pareus also giueth instance in Christ who was made a curse for vs dub 1. Contra. 1. That saying of our Sauiour whatsoeuer you would that one should doe vnto you doe vnto them Augustine well vnderstandeth â—â—â—â—cta iusta voluntate of a right and iust minde not otherwise for if a man could be content vpon a lewde mind that his wife should commit adulterie with an other it followeth not that the other should yeeld his wife to his wicked desire so for a man to wish that an other would giue his soule for his were no iust or equall desire 2. Christ though he did beare the punishment due to vs and did beare the curse of the lawe yet he was neuer avulsâ—â— Ã Deo separated or pulled away from God Mart. and there is great difference between the person of the Redeemer and his exceeding loue and those which are redeemed who herein cannot be imitators of Christ. 2. As these doe iustifie Pauls desire hauing relation onely to the loue of his brethren so Chrysostome aymeth onely at the glorie of God that in respect thereof Paul made no account of his saluation but he expressely maketh not mention thereof for modestie sake lest he should seeme to boast too much of his loue toward Christ But Tolet sheweth the insufficiencie of this reason because Paul had professed before that nothing could separate him from the loue of Christ he might also as modestly haue wished here to be an anathema for Christ. 3. I preferre therefore Calvins solution that neither Saint Paul had here respect vnto the glorie of God alone or vnto the saluation of his brethren alone sed charitatem hominum in studio gloriae Dei contungimus but we ioyne the loue of men with a desire of the glorie of God c. he wisheth the saluation of his brethren with respect vnto the glorie of God as Moses in the like case in making request for his people therein desired the promoting of Gods glorie Now the Apostle saith for his brethren vt inserviret causae to apply himselfe to the cause in hand which was to testifie the great desire that he had to their saluation yet as ioyned with the glorie of Christ as is euident v. 5. where he addeth who is God ouer all Blessed for euer Mart. So then not withstanding these or any other such like obiections I preferre Chrysostomes interpretation of these words of the Apostle who in the zeale to Gods glorie loue to his brethren wisheth that he were cut off from Christ so they might be saued according to that saying in the Gospell that it were better that one of the members should perish then that the whole body should be cast into hell for the Apostle had herein respect vnto the glorie of God should haue more appeared in the sauing of the multitude of that nation as the whole bodie he beeing cut off but as one member then that he should be saued and the whole bodie perish to this purpose Chrysost. vpon that place in the Gospel Anselme likewise vpon this place saith that Paul optabat perire desired to perish so the rest might be saued and this sense he confirmeth by the like desire of two great Prophets Moses and Micah this latter c. 2.11 wisheth thus I would I were a man not hauing the spirit and that I did speake lies voluit se
be answeared 4. Whereas to shunne these rockes of offence and to preuent these obiections some here haue found out a middle or meane way to referre the decree of reprobation partly to the will of God as the efficient partly to the foresight of sinne as the materiall cause thereof And here these distinctions are brought in 1. Lyranus thus distinguisheth that reprobation is either taken large largely and so it signifieth onely simplicem negationem ad gloriam a simple deniall of glorie and this hath no cause in Gods prescience but onely in the will of God or it is taken proprie properly for ordinario ad poenam an ordaining vnto punishment and so it is not willed or decreed of God nisi propter culpam but for sinne Bellarmine also fleeth to the same distinction of negatiue reprobation which is not to haue mercie positive to decree vnto condemnation of this the foresight of sinne he saith is the cause of the other the free will of God But seeing this negatiue reprobation containeth a priuation and deniall of euerlasting glorie this also must arise from the foresight of sinne for God excludeth none out of his kingdome but for sinne as the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 6.9 Know ye not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God 2. Gorrhan hath this distinction there is a double kind of reprobation temporalis the temporall which is non appositio gratiae the not affording or giuing of grace and eterna voluntas non apponendi the eternall which is the will or purpose of not giuing of grace this is without the foresight of any merite but not the other like vnto this is that difference which some make betweene the decree and the execution of the decree the first is without respect vnto sinne but sinne commeth betweene before the other But this doth not satisfie as Pareus well obserueth for the same cause mooued God to decree punishment which mooueth him in time to execute punishment 3. Some doe thus consider of predestination that it is of two sorts there is decretum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a decree simply called of those things whereof God is the author and efficient cause himselfe such is the decree of election vnto life there is decretum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secundum quod a decree after a sort which may also be called permissivum the decree of permission as the other is effectivum an effecting and working decree of this latter sort is the decree of reprobation the meanes which lead thereunto God onely permitteth and effecteth not as the sinne and iniquitie of men for the which they are worthily condemned to this purpose Rollocus in 8. ad Roman p. 181.182 But this doth not satisfie for the decree of damnation is as well an effecting decree as is the decree of election God willeth and decreeth the damnation of the wicked as effectually in his iustice as he effectually willeth the saluation of the elect as the wise man saith in the Proverbs 16.4 That the Lord hath made all things for his owne sake yea euen the wicked for the day of euill 4. Iunius against Pukâ—us resp ad ration 72. maketh two degrees of reprobation decretum praeteritionis the decree of preterition which is the purpose of God not to shew mercie and this is absolute without any respect vnto sinne then there is decretum ex praescientia the decree of reprobation issuing forth of God prescience and so none are decreed to be condemned but for sinne some call the first decretum non miserandi the decree not to shew mercie the other decretum puniendi the decree of punishment Pareus dub 8. p. 913. citeth Mr. Perkins who calleth them decretum deserendi the decree of desertion and ordinatio ad poenam an ordaining to punishment Pareus out of his owne iudgement saith that there are two acts of reprobation negativus the negatiue that is not to haue mercie and affirmativus the affirmatiue which is to condemne the negatiue act is either reprobation from grace or from glorie the first of these which is a reiection from grace be thinketh onely to proceed from the good pleasure of God but not the other all these distinctions are the same in effect which else where I haue followed allowing that distinction especially of Iunius as giuing full satisfaction in this matter But now I find some doubts and obiections which are not yet remooued by these distinctions 1. Seeing damnation necessarily followeth reiection and where grace is denied glorie cannot follow if the deniall of the one should be the absolute act of Gods will so by consequence should the other also 2. And the Scripture sheweth that the cause why God reiecteth man is for that they reiect God first as Samuel saith concerning Saul 1. Sam. 15.23 Because thou hast cast away the word of the Lord the Lord hath cast away thee and Rom. 1.24.27 the Apostle sheweth that the giuing vp of the Gentils vnto their hearts lusts was a iust recompence of their error therefore because the substraction and deniall of grace the hardening of the heart the blinding of the mind are punishments of sinne and sinne goeth before the punishment thereof it followeth that these things as they are not temporally inflicted but for sinne so neither are they eternally decreed but vpon the foresight of sinne 3. If God should absolutely reiect any otherwise thou for sinne and more are reiected then elected then should Gods iustice farre exceed his mercie and his seueritie farre surpasse his clemencie To this last obiection Thomas Aquin. maketh this answer by a distinction that bonum proportionatum communi status naturae c. the good things which are proportioned to the common state and condition of nature are found in the most but bonum quod excedit comâ—â—â—â— statum c. the good things which exceed the commoÌ„ state are found in few as they are found more which haue sufficient knowledge and direction for the gouernment of their life then they which want it such as are idiots and fooles but there are few which are found that haue the profunditie and depth of knowledge and of this kind of euerlasting life it exceedeth the common state and condition of humane nature and therefore it is no maruel if it be found in the fewest and smallest number to this purpose Thomas 1. part qu. 25. artic 7. But this answer is not sufficient he hath giuen a good reason why eternall life is not merited or procured by mans deserts because it is a gift which exceedeth the proportion and condition of mans nature but yet the reason appeareth not neither is the doubt satisfied why seeing God aboundeth in mercy euerlasting life is not giuen vnto the most therefore Thomus addeth further that Gods mercie appeareth in that he directeth some vnto life from the which the most decline by the common cause and inclination of nature And indeed this is the best and most sufficient answear that
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.
quae tanquam ardentes faces taciuntur in coelum which as burning brands are cast vp into heauen so also Osiander semper habemus c. we alwaies haue somewhat either to aske for our selues or our brethren or to giue thanks for I take of all the rest these two that we must be readie vpon euery occasion to turne vs vnto God by praier and when we pray to pray instantly and feruently 3. But here the question will be asked why the Lord heareth not our praiers presently that we neede not continue so in praier and our Sauiour saith God at the instance of the praiers of his children will auenge him quickly Luk. 18.8 The answear is that God heareth quickly and performeth our requests quickly as he is said to doe a thing quickly that doth it quamprimum se offer at occasio as soone as opportunitie serueth so that mora non est in Deo sed in sensu nostro the stay is not in God but in our sense Martyr like as a carver first finisheth one part of his worke then an other so God bringeth forth euery thing in due time Olevian and further by this meanes when God deferreth our requests our faith is exercised and tried and illustrius est c. the benefit is so much the greater when it commeth Gualter and further we must pray continually because so is the will and pleasure of God as the Apostle saith 1. Thess. 5.17 Pray continually in all things giue thanks for this is the will of God in Christ Iesus Olevian 21. Quest. Of the communicating to the necessitie of the Saints and of hospitalitie v. 13. Communicating to the necessitie of the Saints c. 1. The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vses rather then necessities as the vulgar Latin readeth and Erasmus least we should thinke that they are not to be succoured but in extreame necessitie Beza Tolet answeareth that yet the other word necessitie is better retained because all that want are in necessitie annot 23. but the word should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it were to be translated necessities as Erasmus noteth also 2. And yet though we are commanded to minister to the vses of the Saints we must not giue supplie delicijs to their dainties and bestow superfluously vpon them Theophyl as afterward in time of superstition liberalitie was turned into superfluitle 3. Origen maketh mention of an other reading as though the word should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 memories which Ambrose followeth and giueth this sense that we should remember the Saints to imitate and follow their life and godly example but the vsuall reading is rather to be receiued and so Chrysostome Theophylact and the Syrian interpreter read 4. And where the Apostle saith communicating Haymo following Origen obserueth that the Apostle saith not giue as it were of almes but communicate honestiori vocabulo vsus est the Apostle vseth a fitter terme to shew that the Saints had as it were an interest in their goods and beside as Calvin obserueth this word sheweth a communicating in affection that they should release them as though they themselues suffered with them as the Apostle saith remember thâ—se that are in bonds as if your selues were bound with theÌ„ Chrysost. obserueth further vpon this word communicate quod plus accipiant quaÌ„ praestant they receiue more then they bestow res ista negotiatio est for this matter is a kind of marchandise the one coÌ„municateth teÌ„poral things the other spiritual making them partakers of their prayers 5. But Tolets glosse is here very corrupt sit particeps meritorum he that giueth is partaker of their merits which the Saints haue in their sufferings for the passions of the Saints merit not though the Lord crowne their sufferings in mercie the Apostle saith the afflictions or sufferings of this life are not worthie of the glorie which shall be reuealed Rom. 8. but God indeede shall reward the works of charitie exercised vpon the Saints in which sense our Sauiour saith Luk. 18. make ye friends of the vnrighteous mammon that when ye want they may receiue you into euerlasting habitations for although good works are not the cause of euerlasting life yet they are a rule according to the which God will giue euerlasting life Martyr 6. Now the Apostle nameth the Saints which were the faithfull redeemed by Christs blood and sanctified by his spirit shewing that although charitie should be extended to all yet specially we should preferre domesticos fidei such as are of the houshold of faith Gualt as the Apostle saith Gal. 6.10 and by this is signified that we should not exercise our charitie on them onely which are knowne vnto vs but euen vpon strangers and all the godly Osiand as the Samaritane did shew mercie on him that fell among the cues and further here we learne what the dutie is which we should performe vnto the Saints not in caruing and painting their images when they are dead but in succouring their necessities while they liue Pareus 7. So here there are three speciall motiues vnto this dutie of beneficence compassio necessitatis dilectio sanctitatis liberalitas communicationis the compassion of necessitie the loue of sanctitie and in communicating liberalitie Gorrhan Following or pursuing hospitalitie 1. Chrysostome obserueth how the Apostle in euery one of these precepts vseth emphaticall phrases as he said before continue in prayer not pray onely and communitie to the vses of the Saints not giue so here he saith not embrace hospitalitie but pursue follow it 2. in those daies the Apostles and other disciples went preaching from citie to citie and they had not their publica hospitia common hospitals to receiue strangers and therefore this exhortation was then most needefull Osiand 3. Origen obserueth and so Haymo that where he saith follow hospitalitie he would not that we should onely receiue them that come vnto vs sed requiramus but we should seeke them and follow them and vrge them to come home vnto vs as Abraham and Lot did the same note hath Chrysostome and Martyr Gualter for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to pursue to apprehend one that fleeth and so the Saints which otherwise of modestie would not offer themselues should be invited and intreated and followed after Tolet. 4. Gorrhan further noteth in this word that it signifieth that assidue we should continually practise hospitalitie â—â— frequentia hospitum sit nobis onerosa that the frequencie of strangers should not be burthensome vnto vs. 5. And seeing that hospitalitie was euen commended among the heathen who worshipped Iuppiter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the God of hospitalitie yet the Athenians made it a capital offence not to shew the way to a stranger much more should it be practised among Christians and the Apostle here doth not exhort vnto any base seruice for it is a princely and noble worke to giue hospitalitie as it is said of Titus the Emperour that he was wont to
readeth consentientes humilibus consenting to the humble that is saith Origen amare humiles to loue the humble he consenteth with the humble quei cum humilibus se humiliat which humbleth himselfe with those that are humble Haymo humiliorum imitatores imitators of those which are humble gloss interlin consenting to the humble that is in heart and not with the mouth onely gloss ordin Gorrhan all these vnderstand by the humble the lowely referring it to their persons 2. Some vnderstand this word of the things rather then of the persons and take it in the neuter gender that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the humble may answear vnto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the high things before spoken of Calvin Beza Pareus so also Osiander humilia curate tractate c. respect and handle humble things likewise Tolet let them embrace base things quae vilea mundus reputat which the world counteth base And this sense is to be admitted by reason of the opposition of the words though not onely 3. Faius saith non tam res ipsae quam hominum affectus spectantur not so much the things themselues as the affections of men are here considered true it is that the obiect cannot be seuered from the affection but it is euident that the Apostle by high and lowe things meaneth the obiect of pride and humilitie 4. Pet. Martyr comprehendeth both base things and base persons that we should apply our selues vnto both neither dispising the one not refusing the other euen meane and base ministeries and seruices to profit our brother as our B. Sauiour disdained not to wash his Apostles feere and this is most agreeable to the Apostles meaning now the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not well translated by the Latine interpreter consentientes consenting it properly signifieth impetu quodam correpti carried us it were with force shewing how prone we ought to be to descend to lowe and base things Beza rendreth it obsecundantes submitting your selues the Syrian interpreter adhaerentes cleauing Vatablus accomodantes applying your selues our English making your selves equall c. giueth the meaning rather then the sense of the word Be not wise in your selues 1. Chrysostome thus interpreteth it ne putetis vos sufficere vobis ipsis thinke not that your are sufficient for your selues God hath so made vs vt alter alterum opera iudigeat that one standeth in neede of an other so also Theophylact vnderstandeth it of those which dispise the counsel of others and yet Moses dispised not the counsell of his father in lawe 2. Ambrose thinketh they are said to be wise in themselues which turne their wsedome altogether to their owne profit and not to the good of others so also the interlin gloss and Gorrhan ne prudentiam apud vos tantum exerceatis c. exercise not your wisedome onely for your selues but for your neighbours also 3. Basil regul brev resp 260. interpreteth those to be wise to themselues qui solam humanam prudentiam c. which onely haue humane wisedome and regard not the diuine will and pleasure such we call worldly wise 4. Haymo he is wise in himselfe who non authori sapientia deputat c. doth not ascribe vnto the author of wisedome that wisedome which he hath 5. But all these are the effects of arrogancie he which taketh himselfe to be wise dispiseth the counsell of others consulteth not with God neither ascribeth the praise to him here then the Apostle toucheth the verie roote and beginning of pride which is propriae prudentiae opinio the opinion of a mans owne wisedome Marlorat so that here the Apostle remooueth an other let and impediment of humilitie which is arrogancie and that is apud seipsum nimium sapere to be too wise in himselfe such the Prophet Isay speaketh against we vnto them that are wise in their owne eyes and prudent in their owne sight Isay. 5.21 Pareus so Origen before them hic cum arrogantia stultus est c. qui suam stultitiam quasi sapientiam colit he is arrogant and foolish who adoreth his owne folishnesse as if it were wisedome c. But here Lyranus aduertiseth well that prudence and wisedome is here not taken properly but in a certaine similitude for vera prudentia non nisi in bonis true wisedome and prudence is onely found in the good it is craft not wisedome which the wicked haue Now this arrogancie is the cause of all errors which are of three sorts either errors in opinion and iudgement or in practise of religion or in life and conuersation for hereupon some haue deuised newe doctrines and strange worship not contenting themselues with the simplicitie of Gods word as though they were wiser then God and they giue themselues euer vnto grosse sinnes in their life holding scorne to be admonished by others Gualter Quest. 25. How euill is not to be recompenced for euill v. 17. 1. Chrysostome noteth the generalitie of the speach recompence to no man whether beleeuer or vnbeleeuer not to a beleeuer because he is thy brother not to an infidel and vnbeleeuer that thou mayest winne him Haymo 2. Origen obserueth that reddere malum to render euill is a greater sinne quam inferre malum then to offer euil at the first for it may be that he did it ignorantly non sensisse malum c. that he perceiued it not to be euill which he did but he that recompenceth euill sheweth that he was not ignorant that it was euill 3. this precept concerneth onely particular wrongs it is not extended to magistrates that render euill vnto offenders according to the lawe in Deut. an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth and yet punishment is not euill because it is opus iustitiae a worke of iustice Gorrhan Martyr 4. here that pharisaicall doctrine is reprooued that they were to hate their enemies and loue their friends 5. and if it be a sinne to render euill for euill much more to recompence euill for good the one is incident into our humane corrupt nature but the other is plaine diabolicall 6. Calvin thinketh that this precept is somewhat larger then that which followeth avenge not your selues for in some cases euill may be rendered for euill sine manifesta vltione without manifest reuenge as when one refuseth to giue entertainment succour to one in his need and so the other to requite him withdraweth his hand in his necessitie so also Gualt but Martyr misliketh this I cannot see saith he how he which willingly doth render euill for euill doth not intend to take revenge and the Apostle he thinketh doth inculcate the same precept againe because it is so necessarie thus also Pareus but this difference betweene them may be soone taken away for Calvin saith onely without manifest reuenge there may be a reuenge in all kind of retalion but in some the revenge is more manifest then in other Quest. 26. How honest things are to be procured before all men
to restraine the euill there is no inconvenience for so the Apostle would haue the Corinthians to ende among themselues the controversies that did rise and not one to haile an other before the Magistrate 1. Cor. 6. but for such matters they should be as Magistrates to themselues where no question the Minister and Pastor is not excluded among others but that he may and ought to haue a chiefe hand in the carriage of such matters and so Augustine expoundeth that place in Psal. 118. concion 24. When they bring saith he their causes vnto vs non audemus dicere c. we dare not say man who appointed me a iudge among you constituit enim talibus causis Ecclesiasticos Apostolus cogniturus in foro prohibens litigare Christianos for the Apostle hath appointed ecclesiasticall persons to take cognizance of such causes forbidding Christians to striue in courts c. so it seemeth in those daies that godly Bishops and Pastors were emploied in ending controversies and suits among the people and further Augustine hath this excellent saying touching this matter otium sanctum quaerit charitas veritatis negotium iustum suscipit necessitas charitatis quam sarcinam si nullus imponat percipiendo vacandum est veritati si autem imponitur suscipienda est propter charitatis necessitatem c. the loue of the truth desireth an holy kind of ease and leisure and the necessitie of charitie vndertaketh iust busines which burthen if none impose we must attend the searching of the truth but if it be imposed it must be vndertaken for the necessitie of charities sake lib. 19. de civit Dei c. 19. In the which saying of Augustine I obserue three things 1. what causes were referred vnto Ecclesiasticall persons not criminall but civill not matters which touched the life but controversies which violated charitie 2. how and vpon what occasion they dealt in such causes they hunted not after them neither sought them but they were brought vnto them they ambitiously intruded not themselues into the Magistrates office 3. with what moderation they did onely attend such matters of necessitie and in such sort as it hindred not their better studies and searching of the truth which excuseth not them which so entermeddle in ciuill busines as they neglect their calling So then to conclude this point there are some things in the Civill and Ecclesiasticall power that are compatible some incompatible and can not be ioyned together like as a ciuill Magistrate ought not to preach or minister the Sacraments so neither can a Minister meddle with the sword but some things are compatible as the ciuill power to maintaine peace extendeth it selfe to the externall policie of the Church â— and so are helpers to the Ecclesiasticall state so the Ministers may be assistants to the ciuill state to advise and direct them See further hereof Synops. Centur. 1. err 52. Controv. 6. Whether it be lawfull for a Christian to be a Magistrate and to vse the sword in time of peace and warre v. 4. He beareth not the sword in vaine Hauing hitherto out of this chapter resisted diuerse erroneous opinions of the Romanists we haue now occasion to deale with the fantasticall and brainesicke position of the Anabaptists who denie that any Christian ought to take vpon him to be a Magistrate or to vse the sword in exercising ciuill iustice at home or militarie discipline abroad not much vnlike was the saying of Iudus Gaulonita of whom Iosephus maketh mention in the beginning of his 18. booke antiquit Iudaic. who affirmed that the Iewes were not bound propter libertatem legis by the libertie of their lawe to yeeld obedience to Caesar or to any profane Prince c. in the Councell also of Vienna was condemned a certaine sect called Beghardi who held that a man might attaine to that perfection as that he was not bound to the observation of any precepts nor was subiect to the obedience of any we will examine some of the Anabaptists reasons 1. Argum. The Apostle saith that Christ made some Apostles some Evangelists c. Ephes. 4. not that he made them Princes and rulers Ans. 1. Christ came not to invert or innovate the ciuill state which was instituted before but to appoint a newe order of teachers for the building of his Church 2. and the Apostle speaketh there onely of such Ministers as were called to teach those indeede he made not Princes this letteth not but other of his members not called to teach may be Rulers 2. Argum. Christ forbiddeth his Apostles to be Lords and Rulers as the heathen were But with you it shall not be so Math. 20. and this he saith not onely to his Apostles but to all Mark 13.27 That which I say vnto you I say vnto all c. Answ. In that place Matth. 20. Christ forbiddeth not all Christians Lordly dominion but onely his Apostles that were apointed to preach the word that there might be still a difference betweene the Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall power but in the other place our Sauiour speaketh of spirituall watchfulnesse which concerneth not onely the Apostles but all Christians and therefore speaketh to all 3. Argum. S. Paul forbiddeth the Corinthians all strifes and controversies which doe appertaine vnto the Magistrate 1. Cor. 6. Ans. The Apostle doth not simply forbid all suites but 1. before the heathen iudges 2. among brethren 3. for small causes and trifling matters 4. and with a desire and mind to procure trouble one to an other for otherwise S. Paul had transgressed against his owne rule when he appealed vnto Caesar. 4. Argum. Our Blessed Sauiour forbiddeth to seeke reuenge but if one smite vs on the one cheeke to turne the other also Matth. 5. Ans. All priuate reuenge is forbidden but the Magistrate is Gods minister and therefore as reuenge belongeth vnto God so the Magistrate in Gods place may take reuenge and one may implore his helpe as he may commit his cause to God so it be not done with a revengefull minde 5. Argum. Our Sauiour biddeth vs to loue our enemies but to wage battell with them and to put malefactors to death is not to loue them Ergo. Answ. We are bidden to loue our enemies not simply but 1. as they are men 2. as they are our enemies that we should not attempt any thing against them of a priuate grudge or with a reuengefull minde 3. and we must not seeke their destruction but amendement yet we are not to loue our enemies 1. as they are euill least we should loue in them their vices which God hateth 2. as they are enimies of God and his Church 3. and in forbearing to punish them to their owne hurt and euill example of others So the Magistrate may loue the malefactor in seeking his amendement and yet may punish his vice in him so the Prince may loue his enemies in seeking all meanes to winne them and yet wage battell with them as enemies to God and the commonwealth 6.
the manner and circumstances because they were not directed to a tight ende 4. Concerning the meaning of this place which we vrge against the Romanists Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne how it is expounded by the Papists and their exposition refelled See before quest 36. and of this whole question see cap. 2. quest 27. and controv 9. 6. Morall obseruations Observ. 1. That we ought to beare with the weake v. 1. Him that is weake in the faith receiue Like as in a familie the greater doe tender the children and young ones so Christians should cherish and foster the weake and younglings in faith not to be rash or harsh censurers of them but to beare with them in the spirit of meekenesse as the Apostle saith c. 15.1 We which are strong ought to beare the infirmities of the weake Observ. 2. Not to be austere in censuring our brethren v. 3. For God hath receiued him Our weake brother though he haue many infirmities we are not to reiect seeing God hath receiued him this maketh against those which vpon euerie slip and infirmitie are readie to censure their brethren as reprobates and cast-awayes but charitie would haue vs hope the best of the saluation of our brethren and to thinke of them notwithstanding some infirmities as receiued of God and such as for whom Christ died v. 15. Observ. 3. Of giuing thankes for meate v. 6. He that eateth eateth to the Lord for he giueth God thankes c. This sheweth what was the vse of Christians in those dayes to giue thanks before their receiuing of meat so it was the godly custome in Samuels time for the people not to eat in their solemne feasts and sacrifices till Samuel came and blessed the sacrifice and meate 1. Sam. 9.13 This holy vse was continued by our blessed Sauiour Matth. 26.27 and S. Paul exhorteth that whether we eate or drinke or whatsoeuer we doe els we should doe all to the glorie of God 1. Cor. 10.31 Observ. 4. The consolation of the faithfull both in life and death v. 8. Whether we liue we liue vnto the Lord whether we die c. As this teacheth vs to put away all securitie while we liue and to frame our liues vnto Gods glorie for as Chrysostome saith liberi non sumus Dominum habemus we are not our owne men we haue a Lord and Master whom we must serue so in our death the Lord watcheth ouer vs that although the world and all that therein is doe forsake vs yet he that liueth vnto the Lord shall die also vnto the Lord and liue for euer with him as they are pronounced blessed which die in the Lord Rev. 14.13 Observ. 5. That euery one must giue account vnto God and that all shall be iudged v. 12. Chrysostome hath here an excellent morall to shewe that all the wicked and vngodly shall be punished 1. Seeing by daily experience it is confirmed that many wicked ones are punished in this life as were the old world and the Sodomites what equitie can there be in it vt qui eadem pariter peccarunt easdem poenas non luant that they which commited the same sinnes should not suffer the same punishment non omnes hic punit vt alijs poenitentiae spatium tribuat c. he punisheth not all here to giue space of repentance vnto others neither are all punished onely there ne plerisque causa detur illius negandi providentiam least some might take occasion to denie Gods providence 2. But it will be said how can God punish for euer seeing we sinned here but a short time do we not see that in the course of humane iustice he that committed murther but once and it was quickly done is perpetually condemned to the mines and we read of a man that was lame had the palsey thirtie eight yeares which punishment was for his sinnes for Christ said vnto him sinne no more in like manner it is iust with God to punish the temporall and momentanie act of sinne eternally 3. And how is not the sinner worthie of punishment beeing so often admonished and threatned before and hauing so easie a way shewed him vnto life the Publican said but only God be mercifull vnto me a sinner quid hic sudoris quid laboris what great labour and paynes was it to doe this 4. And if there were no hell to punish the wicked neither should the deuill be punished and it should fare alike with the good and bad stabit cum Nerone Paulus Nero shall be as good a man as Paul 5. And thinkest thou then there is no hell quis daemonum hoc asseret is there any of the deuils that will say so nay they confessed there was an hell crying out to Christ commest thou to torment vs before our time how then dost thou not tremble to denie that which the deuill confesseth 6. euen among the Barbarians that haue no knowledge of God the Iudges and Magistrates bonos honorant malos puniunt doe honour the good and punish the euill and shall not God much more to this purpose Chrysostome Observ. 6. Of the tearme of the day of iudgement and what vse we should make of it v. 10. We shall all stand before the iudgement seat of Christ. Therefore euerie one ought to be exceeding carefull in this life how he walketh and to watch ouer his thoughts words and workes that he may appeare in that day with ioy S. Paul saith to the same purpose 2. Cor. 5.10 we must all appeare before the iudgement seat of Christ c. and then he inserteth v. 11. knowing the terror of the Lord we perswade c. the terror then of this day ought to perswade vs to walk circūspectly Origen here well saith quisuam est qui se ata decipiat c. who is there that will so much deceiue himselfe vt ad iudicium Christi ad tribunal cognitionis cius se non putet venturum who thinketh he shall not come vnto the iudgement of Christ and to his throne of knowledge c. Observ. 7. How dangerous a thing it is to giue offence v. 13. Iudge this rather that no man put a stumbling blocke c. Chrysostome saith wel tu si reliquis perditionis causa fueris graviora patieris c. thou if thou shalt be the cause of other mens perdition shalt be worse punished then they which are by thee subverted as the serpent was more punished then the woman and the woman more then the man Iezabel maiores poenas dedit and Iezabel had a greater punishment then Ahab because she did instigate and set on the king and was the cause of his ruine in taking away Naboths vineyard we must then take heed of offences that we scandalize not the Gentiles and Grecians by our euill life for thus will they obiect how shall I know that God hath cōmanded easie and possible things cum tu ex progenitoribus Christianos c. seeing thou beeing a Christian from
The spirit maketh request with sighes The meaning is this that many times when the children of God are ouerwhelmed with griefe and knowe not themselues what they pray but onely sobbe and sigh that the spirit vnderstandeth their meaning and euen those sighs and groanes which come of the spirit doe pray for them Augustine writeth excellently hereof epist. 121. that the brethren in Egypt are said crebras habere orationes sed eas brevissimas raptim iaculatas to make often prayers but the same verie short and as it were of a sudden cast out c. whereupon he thus inferreth hanc intentionem sicut non est obtrâ—denda si per durare non potest ita si perduraverit non esse cito rumpendam the intention of prayer as it must not be forced if it doth not continue so if it hold still it must not suddenly be interrupted and broken off and so he concludeth ab sit ab oratione multa locutio sud non desit multa precatso in our prayer let there be absent much speach but let there not be wanting much praying c. for as long as the intention and devotion holdeth the prayer cannot be too much but to goe on still in words the intention beeing slacked is much babling and talking not praying 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. That concupiscence remaining euen in the regenerate is sinne and in it selfe worthie of condemnation v. 1. There is no condemnation Bellarmine hence inferreth the contrarie that in these words the Apostle doth not so much shewe that there is no condemnaâ—on to those that are iustified as that there is no matter of condemnation in them nihil condemnatione dignum nothing worthie of condemnation l. 5. de amiss grat c. 7. arg 3. and consequently concupiscence in them is not sinne Contra. 1. The contrarie rather is inferred out of the Apostles words that concupiscence is in it selfe worthie of condemnation of the which the Apostle treated before in the former chapter but it is not vnto damnation neither it nor any other sinne vnto those which are iustified by faith in Christ. 2. and the Apostle expresseth the verie cause they are iustified in Christ and therefore though sinne remaine in them yet it is not imputed therefore it is great bouldnes to denie that which the Apostle in so direct words expresseth that vnto those which are iustified in Christ there is no condemnation not for that there is nothing worthie of condemnation in them for then they should be altogether without sinne but because they are iustified 3. the Apostle saith not there is no sinne but no condemnation Melancth not that the same sinnes remaine in those which are iustified which were in them before as Pererius slanndereth Calvin to say disput 1. numer 5. but there be still some imperfections and reliques of sinne remaining but not raigning which notwithstanding are not imputed vnto the faithfull neither are able to condemne them and Calvin saith no more but that the Apostle ioyneth three things together imperfectionem the imperfections which are alwayes in the Saints Dei indulgentiam Gods indulgence whereby their sinnes are forgiuen and regenerationem spiritus the regeneration of the spirit for carni suae indulgens he that is giuen to the flesh doth flatter himselfe in vaine to be freed from his sinne Calvin then cannot the same sinnes remaine seeing in the regenerate the flesh is mortified and sinne subdued Controv. 2. That none are perfect in this life Origens ouersight is here to be noted who thinking that the Apostle spake in the former chapter of those which partly serued the lawe of God in the spirit and partly the Lawe of sinne in the flesh saith that now he speaketh of those which ex integro in Christo sunt which wholly are in Christ not partly of the spirit partly of the flesh but are perfect Contra. 1. First Origen confoundeth iustification and sanctification for the faithfull are indeed wholly graft into Christ by faith and yet they may haue some infirmities of the flesh remaining 2. there neuer liued any of that perfection neuer to be tempted of the flesh but onely Christ but yet they which are in Christ doe not walke after the flesh that is non carnem ducem sequuntur they doe not followe the flesh as their guide though they be sometime tempted of the flesh but they follow the guiding and direction of the spirit Beza in annot 3. and it hath beene sufficiently shewed before quest 36. of the former chapter that the Apostle there speaketh in his owne person as of a man regenerate and so in this place he meaneth the same whom in his owne person he described before Controv. 3. That regeneration is not the cause that there is no condemnation to the faithfull The Romanists doe make this the cause why there is no condemnation to those which are in Christ because they walke not after the flesh but after the spirit Tolet. annot 1. Bellarm 5. de amission grat c. 10. respons ad obiect 7. so likewise Stapleton Antidot p. 435. who thus obiecteth 1. Ob. He vrgeth the Apostles words here there is no condeÌ„nation c. which walke not after the flesh therefore for that they walke not after the flesh there is no condemnation to such Contra. The Apostle saith not there is no condemnation because they walke not but to them that walke not regeneration is required as a necessarie condition annexed to iustification not as the cause so that here is an answear to two questions together how we are iustified namely by faith in Christ and who are iustified they which bring forth good fruits the one is internall their iustification the other externall namely sanctification Beza 2. Ob. The Apostle saith that the lawe of the spirit which Beza interpreteth to be the grace of regeneration doth free vs from the lawe of sinne and death v. 2. Ergo it is the cause of iustification Contra. 1. This interpretation beeing admitted that followeth not which is inferred for the words are not from sinne but from the lawe of sinne that is from the dominion of sinne and so indeede the grace of regeneration freeth vs that sinne hath no more dominion ouer vs. 2. but it is better with Ambrose to vnderstand by the law of the spirit legem fidei the lawe of faith whereby we are freed from sinne and death 3. Ob. If righteousnesse beeing present do not iustifie vs then beeing absent it condemneth not Contra. 1. Is followeth not for a thing may be insufficient to a worke beeing present and yet if it be remooued it is sufficient to hinder the worke as good diet in a sicke man may hinder his recouerie and yet if he vse it it is not alwayes sufficient to helpe him 2. and yet here is a difference in this example for good diet is an helping cause vnto health but good workes are no cause of saluation but onely a condition necessarily required and annexed 4.