men by their sinne are strangers and as banished men from God and his kingdom which is not recouerable by mans workes neither is there any way to come vnto God and euerlasting saluation but onely by faith in Christ So that all religions whatsoeuer are condemned beside the Christian faith as not beeing able to bring vs vnto God Pareus Quest. 30. Of iustification freely by grace v. 24. 1. Here the Apostle expresseth all the causes of our iustification 1. the efficient which is the grace of God that is not the doctrine of the Gospel freely reuealed as the Pelagians vnsterstand it nor the graces of the spirit infused as the Romanists but by the grace of God we vnderstand the free mercie and goodnesse of God toward mankind 2. the formall cause and manner is in that we are freely iustified without any merit of our owne the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 freely is sometime taken in an other sense as Galat. 2.22 if righteousnesse were by the law then Christ died 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without cause but here it signifieth firely 3. the meritorious and working cause is Christ Iesus who hath redeemed vs and the instrumentall cause is faith 4. the ende in respect of vs is our saluation and iustification in respect of God the manifestation of his righteousnes to his glorie 2. Thorough the redemption 1. This word is taken improperly for any deliuerance out of daunger as God is said to haue redeemed his people out of the thraldome and captiuitie of Egypt but properly it signifieth such deliuerance as when any thing beeing in an others occupying is freed and exempted by paying the price and such redemption is either corporall as when men are deliuered from externall and corporall bondage or spirituall such is our redemption by Christ whose death the price of our redemption was in respect of the deede corporall beeing historically done but in regard of the effect and fruit it was spirituall in redeeming vs from the spirituall bondage of sinne the deuill and hell 2. This redemption is taken two waies either properly for the very worke of our redemption purchased by the death of Christ or for the effect thereof the consummation of that worke of our redemption in euerlasting life as it is taken Rom. 8.22 Pareus 3. But it will be obiected that we are not freely iustified seeing that Christ hath paied the ransome for vs how then is that said to be freely done where a price is paied Answ. It is free ex parte hominū on mans behalfe because no price for their redemption is exacted of them but ex parte Christi on Christs part it was not free because he paied a most sufficient and exact price for our redemption So the Prophet saith Come buie without money Isa 55.1 they are saide to buie saluation because it is bought for them by Christ and yet without money because Christ paied the debt for them Tolet. So in the worke of our redemption are seene both the iustice and free mercie of God the first in that Gods wrath was so testified by the death of Christ the other toward vs in that God hath giuen his sinne freely to die for vs. 31. Quest. How God is said to haue proposed or set forth Christ to be our reconciliation 1. Whome God hath set forth or proposed Ambrose readeth disposed and some vnderstand it of the publike exhibiting and proposing of Christ in the preaching of the Gospel Tolet. but this word rather sheweth the euerlasting purpose and decree of God from the beginning of the world to giue his sonne for our redemption so is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken Rom. 8.28 euen to them that are called of his purpose Faius And hence may two obiections be answered 1. how it might stand with the iustice of God that his most innocent Sonne should die for others Answ. This was Gods purpose from the beginning of the world it was the decree of the whole Trinitie that the Sonne of God should be the Redeemer of the world yea and Christ also offered himselfe 1. Tim. 2.8 Faius 2. Some obiect how the death of Christ and whence it should haue vertue to reconcile vs vnto God what proportion is there betweene the infinite sea of mens sinnes and the short death of Christ that was not extended beyond three daies Answ. The vertue of Christs death dependeth of the purpose of God he so appointed decreed and purposed that by this meanes the world should be redeemed the Lord in his infinite power could haue appointed other meanes but he thought none fitter for the recouering of our decaied estate Pareus 2. Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the reconciliation which some thinke may be taken in the masculine gender that he is our reconciliator Tolet. annot 21. where there is a manifest allusion vnto the propitiation of the Arke which was called cappareth the propitiatorie Christ was then signified by that golden propitiatorie which couered the Arke from whence the Lord deliuered his oracles Origen is here somewhat curious in his typicall applications by the gold vnderstanding the puritie of Christ by the length breadth his diuinitie and humanitie but I omit them as too curious obseruations Beza thinketh that the Apostle in saying whome God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath proposed alludeth vnto the propitiatorie which was then kept within the vaile but now is publikely proposed and exhibited that vaile beeing remooued but the Apostle in this word proposed hath reference rather to the purpose and counsell of God as is before shewed 3. Through faith in his blood 1. by blood is vnderstood by a synecdoche the whole sacrifice of Christ which was the consummation of his obedience And he saith in his blood that is by his blood as the instrument of our redemption for there are two instruments of our redemption one on Christs part his death and shedding of his blood the other on ours which is our faith Mart. these words in his blood some doe referre vnto the word reconciliation Theodoret Anselme Tolet some vnto the next words before through faith as the Syrian interpreter But it may very well be ioyned with both that our reconciliation was purchased by Christs blood and Christs blood can not profit vs vnlesse we beleeue it to haue beene shedde for vs. Pareus 32. Quest. How we are said to be iustified freely seeing faith is required which is an act in the beleeuer 1. This obiection may further be vrged thus that is freely bestowed which is conferred without any helpe or worke in the receiuer seeing then a man must bring faith which is a worke of the will how is he said to be iustified freely Ans. 1. Tolet first hath this answer that we are said to be iustified freely through faith because faith is the free gift of God and it is giuen vs freely to merit our saluation by faith But he himselfe misliketh this answer for to be iustified freely and by the merit
world 3. Obiect v. 7. which ariseth likewise out of the former testimonie cited out of the Psalme if by mens lies Gods truth is commended then the liar is vniustly punished the answer followeth v. 9. the Apostle calleth it a blasphemie and worthie of iust damnation if any shall iustifie themselues in their euill doing and of purpose doe euill to set forth the iustice of God v. 8. The second part is from v. 9. to 21. where he prooueth the Iewes and Gentiles both to be vnder sinne which is propounded v. 9. prooued by particular induction of their sinnes grounded vpon some testimonies of Scripture v. 10. to 19. then applied to the Iew as well as to the Gentile by three arguments v. 19.1 from the relation which the law hath to those which are vnder the law 2. then from two ends that euery mouth may be stopped all occasion of boasting may be taken away 3. and that all the world may be found culpable The third part followeth wherein the Apostle prooueth that all must be iustified by faith in Christ which he prooueth by a distribution either by the workes of the law or by faith not by the law by the contrarie effect v. 20. Then he confirmeth the other part that we are iustified by faith without the law which proposition is contained v. 1.22 23. by shewing the causes of iustification and who are iustified euen all that beleeue and why v. 23. Then this proposition is confirmed 1. by shewing all the causes the efficient principall the grace of God then Christ by his blood the instrument is faith the formall cause remission of sinnes the ende the setting forth of Gods iustice v. 24 25 26. 2. by the effects it excluding all boasting v. 27. 3. the conclusion followeth v. 28. 4. which is confirmed 1. by remoouing an absurditie because God otherwise should seeme to be God onely of the Iewes v. 29.30 2. by preuenting an obiection v. 31. 3. The questions and doubts discussed 1. Quest. Of the priuiledges of the Iewes and their preheminence before the Gentiles v. 1. What is the preferment of the Iew c. Whereas the Apostle seemed in the end of the former chapter to make the Iewes and Gentiles equall and had extenuated the circumcision of the flesh now it might be obiected by the Iew that by this meanes they should haue no preheminence or preferment more then the Gentile had the Apostle then meeteth with that secret obiection and sheweth wherein consisted the excellencie of the Iew. 1. The Iewes had many priuiledges which the Gentiles had not as 1. they were called to be the peculiar people of God and the Lord professed himselfe to be their God 2. i◠that nation continued the true knowledge of God euen vnto the comming of Christ 3. of them came many holy Patriarks and Prophets that were in high fauour and acceptance with God 4. among them and for their sakes the Lord wrought many miracles and wonders 5. they had many visions prophesies and dreames 6. God gaue vnto them the Sacraments and sacrifices as circumcision the Paschal lamb 7. the Messiah was promised to descend of that nation 8. But the Apostle omitteth these and specially insisteth vpon this that the law and oracles of God were committed vnto them 2. Chiefly or first because vnto them were credited c. This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erasmus taketh for to signifie the order of the Apostles speach as before c. 1.8 but there the Apostle beginneth his epistle which he doth not here 2. Some referre it to the number of the priuiledges rehearsed by the Apostle whereof this was the first and the rest follow in the epistle But the Apostle maketh mention of no other priuiledge but this 3. Origen whome Sedulius followeth hath here reference to the Gentiles that vnto the Iewes first were committed the oracles then to the Gentiles but the promises here spoken of were onely made vnto the Iewes 4. Therefore this word first here signifieth chiefe that this was the chiefe priuiledge and immunitie which the Iewes had 3. And the Apostle giueth instance of this that they had the Scriptures 1. because it was most generall multa concludit and concluded many things beside Tolet. 2. herein consisted a chiefe difference betweene the Gentiles which had but the law of nature to direct them and the Iewes which had also the written law of God Perer. 3. and the Apostle omitteth their temporall priuiledges insisting vpon a spirituall as beeing more pretious and durable Gorrhan 4. By oracles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some seeme to vnderstand onely the law which was giuen by Moses as Chrysostome Theodoret but thereby are signified all the propheticall writings which the Iewes had both the law and the Prophets gloss interlin though speciall reference be made to the law as S. Steuen saith that Moses receiued the liuely oracles Act. 7.38 Pare 5. But it will be obiected that God also to others communicated his oracles as to Pharaoh Nabuchadnezzer which were not of Israel it may be answered that 1. God did impart those things not to many of the Gentiles but to a few 2. and that of some particular things 3. neither were such oracles and visions committed to their trust but onely for a time reuealed 4. and that for his peoples sake rather then their owne 6. In that the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the oracles of God were committed to their credit or credited vnto them 1. the Syrian interpreter is deceiued who maketh it the nominatiue that the oracles of God were credited or beleeued 2. and Origens obseruation is much like that the oracles of God were committed vnto them which did vnderstand and beleeue them but the letter of the law was giuen to all for by the words following v. 3. what though some did not beleeue it is euident that the Apostle here speaketh of a generall priuiledge which was not made void by some mens vnbeleefe 3. Erasmus saith that those oracles were committed vnto them alijs magis profutura quam ipsis to profit other rather then themselues as though they were committed vnto them to keepe for others vse But Beza noteth better that they had those things committed vnto them non vt alienae rei depositum not as an other mans thing laid to pledge but as their owne proper treasure if they could haue vsed it well 4. And indeede they were faithfull keepers of the Scriptures preseruing them from falsitie and corruption and are to this day though they vnderstand them not and in the daies of our Sauiour when many other corruptions both of life and doctrine were obiected against them yet they were not charged to be falsifiers of Scripture Faius 5. Chrysostome hath here a good note nusquam illorum virtutes sed Dei beneficia in illos enumerat the Apostle doth not recken vp their owne vertues among their priuiledges but he counteth the benefits of God toward them 6. And this word is credited
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
to either of them but of that which by them redounded to many and this similitude and correspondencie is ex contrarijs by the contrarie as Origen well obserueth and that in these three respects what they are in themselues considered what to their posteritie and wherein 1. They were both authors and beginners Adam was the beginning of mankind quoad esse naturae in respect of the naturall generation Christ is the beginning quoad esse gratiae in respect of the spirituall regeneration by grace Lyran. 2. as Adams sinne did not hurt himselfe onely but his posteritie so the grace of Christ is communicated to all his spirituall generation 3. as death and sinne came in by Adam so life and righteousnes by Iesus Christ as the Apostle followeth this comparison in the rest of this chapter and â—â— large 1. Cor. 2.15 Here follow certaine questions touching this comparison made by the Apostle betweene Adam and Christ. 31. Quest. Of the names and tearmes which the Apostle vseth in this comparison 1. In the transgression and fall of Adam the Apostle vseth diuers words and tearmes which either expresse the cause of Adams fall the ruine and fall it selfe and the fruits for iâ— these three are Adam and Christ compared together 1. the cause is set forth in generall tearmes as it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sinne v. 12. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 transgression v. 14. or more speciall as it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disobedience v. 19. 2. the fall of man is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lapsus the fall or ruine of man v. 15. 3. the effect are either the guiltines of sinne called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 16 or the punishment which is either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 death v. 12. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemnation euerlasting death v. 16. 2. In the iustification purchased by Christ are likewise expressed the causes the worke it selfe and the effects which follow 1. the causes the efficient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grace of God v. 15. called also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the abundance or redounding of grace v. 17. the formall cause is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the obedience of Christ v. 19. 2. the worke of our iustification is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gift v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gift by grace v. 15. and the gift of righteousnes v. 17. 3. then the fruit and effect thereof is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the iustification of life or vnto life v. 18. 3. But yet if we will more exactly distinguish these words this difference may be made betweene them these three words which the Apostle vseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 15 16. the first signifying grace the other two beeing translated the gift doe thus differ the first sheweth the grace and fauour from the which the benefit proceedeth the second is the coâ—â—lation of the benefit the third betokeneth the benefit it self which is conferred as if a Prince should giue a great treasure to redeeme one out of captiuitie this fauour of the Prince is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grace the free giuing of it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the donation the others enioying of it and receiuing of this libertie is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the benefit or gift Beza 4. So these other 3. words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iustifying iustification iustice doe thus differ the first signifieth the merit of Christs iustice whereby we are iustified the second the action it selfe of iustification whereby Christs iustice is communicated to vs the third the iustice it selfe which is imputed and communicated vnto vs Tolet. annotat 24. Quest. 33. Of the comparison betweene Adam and Christ in generall 1. Origen well obserueth that this comparison is per genus similis per speciem contraria it is alike in the generall resemblance but contrarie in the particular in two things there is a generall agreement and resemblance 1. that there is one that giueth beginning and is the author vnto the rest 2. in plures aliquid diffundtur on both sides as the beginning is from one so there is somewhat conueyed vnto many 2. The specificall difference consisteth in the contrarietie and disparitie and the excellencie the disparitie is that one was the author of sinne vnto condemnation the other of righteousnesse vnto life the excellencie is in that the gift is not so as the offence but much more powerfull and abundant of both these the disparitie and excellencie more followeth to be added in the two next questions So then here are three things to be considered in this comparison as Photius obserueth cited by Oecumenius similitudo contrarietas excellentia the similitude or likenes the contratietie and disparitie and the excellencie 3. Now whereas the Apostle from this verse vnto the 19. v. seemeth to vse diuerse iterations of the same thing we shall finde by a dilligent viewe and examination of the Apostles sentences that he doth not repeate the same things as Pellicane thinketh eadem repetit propter infirmas conscientias c. he repeateth the same things because of weake consciences which often thinke that sinne is more powerfull then grace c. But Oecumenius saith better nequaquam iterum atque iterum eadem repetit Apostolus c. the Apostle doth not againe and againe repeat the same things as one would thinke but diligentissime copulat he doth most dilligently couple and ioyne the principall heads together Quest. 34. Of the disparitie and vnlikenesse betweene Adam and Christ in this comparison The difference and disparitie betweene them is in these sixe seuerall points 1. In the persons compared Adam is considered as a meere man v. 12. but Christ was both God and man he is called Iesus Christ our Lord v. 21. 2. They differ in that which is conferred Adam propagateth to his posteritie sinne and death v. 12. Christ communicateth to his righteousnesse and life v. 15.16 3. The meanes are farre different Adams disobedience brought in sinne Christs obedience procureth life v. 18.19 4. The persons vpon whom these things are conferred differ for from Adam death and sinne are deriued vpon all in generall v. 12.18 but righteousnesse is communicated onely to those which receiue the abundance of grace by faith v. 17. 5. The manner how these things are conueyed are diuerse Adams sinne is transmitted by naturall propagation but life and righteousnesse by Christ are communicated by grace v. 15. the gift is by grace 6. The sequele and endes are contrary the offence is vnto condemnation v. 16. but iustification by Christ is vnto life eternall v. 18. Quest. 35. Of the excellencie and superioritie which the benefit by grace in Christ hath beyond our fall and losse in Adam 1. The first excellencie is generally in the power and efficacie of the worker for it was necessarie that he that should ouercom sinne and death should be superiour to both for if he had beene of equall power he could not haue dissolued
8. contr 16. Controv. 8. That not onely election vnto grace but vnto glorie also is onely of the good will of God Stapleton antidot p. 126. will haue this place of the Apostle to be vnderstood onely of election vnto grace which is the first effect and fruit thereof and this onely proceedeth frō the free grace and mercie of God but the election vnto glorie which is the last effect thereof is not without the foresight of workes he reasoneth thus Argum. Election to glorie is not onely of him that calleth for it is also by iustification for whom he iustified he also glorified Rom. 8.30 but the election whereof the Apostle speaketh here is onely of the caller therefore he speaketh not here of election vnto glorie but of election onely to the first grace Contra. 1. Other Romanists herein dissent from Stapleton as Bellarmine lib. 2. de grat c. 15. sheweth that men are freely elected not onely vnto grace but vnto glorie so also Peter disput 5. and before them Thomas in his commentarie denieth that praescientia meritorum the foresight of merits is the cause of predestination to glorie likewise Lyran. here 2. And for the argument Glorification as well as grace is onely of God that calleth as the efficient cause iustification goeth before glorification not as an efficient or meritorious cause but as a meane appointed of God to that ende 3. But that the Apostle speaketh euidently of election as well vnto glorie as vnto grace it is euident 1. he treateth of election vnto the promise for he maketh expresse mention of the children of the promise v. 8. but the promise comprehendeth both the first grace in our vocation and the rest that followe iustification glorification 2. he speaketh of election ioyned with the dilection and loue of God Iacob haue I loued but whom God loued he loueth to the ende and bringeth them vnto eternall life 3. v. 23. the Apostle in direct tearmes maketh mention of the vessels of mercie prepared to glorie he therefore speaketh here of election to glorie Controv. 9. That the Apostle treateth as well of reprobation in this place as of election Huberus who defendeth vniuersal grace will haue the Apostle here onely to speake of election and not of reprobation for he holdeth all generally to be elected the same is the assertion of Stapleton antid p. 565. against Calvin that S. Paul treateth onely of election here and not of reprobation at all he reasoneth thus Argum. 1. Onely election is of God that calleth the purpose of God is according to election therefore the purpose of God is of election Answ. 1. The purpose of God is according to election but not onely which must be assumed or els nothing can be concluded but the purpose of God is as well concerning reprobation as election the purpose and counsell of God is generall to both and it sorteth it else either into the purpose of election or reprobation 2. And that the Apostle intendeth in this discourse as well to speake of reprobation as of election it thus appeareth 1. by the text it selfe he expressely mentioneth both the loue of God to Iacob and his hatred of Esau v. 22.23 he speaketh of the vessels of wrath and of the vessels of mercie 2. so much also is insinuated by the nature and propertie of election for an election of some supposeth that there is a reiection and reprobation of others As when Moses saith vnto Israel the Lord chose you aboue all people it followeth that as they were elected so all the rest were refused and reiected Controv. 10. Whether as well the decree of reprobation as of election be without the foresight of works Here are two opinions opposite in two extreames one to the other the one was of the Pelagians who vtterly condemned the absolute decree of reprobation without any respect of works and Catharinus also in his commentaries vpon this epistle some other doe make the decree of reprobation and damnation to be a free act of the will and purpose of God as election is But beside these there is a third opinion betweene both that the decree of reprobation neither issueth onely from the free and absolute will of God not yet altogether dependeth of the foresight of sinne but proceedeth in part from them both We will now examine these opinions in order 1. Of the first sort that hold the decree of reprobation altogether to proceede from the foresight of sinne some doe hold strange paradoxes as Catharinus before named whose opinion is this that God appointed all to be saued but some absolutely as Marie and other holy men and women some conditionally if they beleeued and did works they should be saued if otherwise they should be damned not much differing is the opinion of Becanus a late Popish writer who affirmeth that God simply in the beginning appointed all to be saued voluntate primaria by his first and principall will but secundaria voluntate by his secundarie will he would some to be condemned for their sinne cap. 1. loc 12. de pradestinat c. 5. loc 4. But the former of these opinions is distasted by the Romanists themselues as Pererius in c. 8. ad Rom. disput 25. refuseth it vpon this reason because vna est ratio c. there is one and the same reason of all that are predestinate vnto saluation how then can some be certainly appointed and absolutely some vncertainly and conditionally for all which are ordained vnto life are written in the booke of life out of the which none can be blotted out And against Becanus assertion it may thus be obiected 1. If God indeede would haue all to be saued why are not all saued for none can resist the will of God this then sheweth either God to be impotent in not performing his will or variable in changing his purpose concerning those whom he first intended to be saued neither of which imputations must be laid vpon God 2. seeing God getteth glorie as well by shewing his power and exercising his iustice vpon the wicked as by shewing mercie vpon the elect the one is as primarily the will of God as the other for God primarily intendeth his owne glorie but in the punishment of the wicked Gods glorie is set forth therefore the decree of iustice as well as of mercie standeth with the primarie and principall will of God 2. Augustine though nothing fauouring these erroneous conceits yet he referreth reprobation vnto the foresight of originall sinne and considereth man in massa corrupta in the masse of corruption as all haue transgressed in Adam Vniversa massa poenas dedit c. the whole masse of mankind is worthie of punishment and if the punishment of damnation should be rendred vnto all non iniuste proculdubio redderetur it should not be rendred vniustly c. and again in an other place vna quaedam massa peccati supplicium debens diuina iustitiae c. there is one masse of sinne which is
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
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
make them his Mediators but he came to his father and humbled himselfe vnto him Luk. 1. â— and so our Blessed Sauiour teacheth vs to pray Our Father c. and here the Apostle saith that by the spirit we crie Abba father See further of this matter Synops. Centur. 2. er 30. Controv. 11. That a strange tongue is not to be vsed in the seruice of God v. 15. Abba father It followeth not because that certaine straunge words are reteined in the Scriptures as Messiâ—s Cephas Maranatha Rabbi Osanna Alleluia Abba which words were naturally knowne vnto the Iewes that hence it followeth that the scriptures and prayers may be read and rehearsed in a strange language for these words by reason of the neere coniunction betweene the Gentiles and Iewes conuerted to the faith were well knowne and vnderstood of the Gentiles euen as the word Amen is now vsed and vnderstood of all from the vse of one or two words which are strange and yet vnderstood the argument followeth not for the vsing generally of a strange language and the same vnknowne See further also hereof Synops. Controv. 12. That euerlasting glorie cannot be merited v. 18. The afflictions of this present time are not worthie of the glorie c. notwithstanding the euidence of this place which ouercommeth the Popish doctrine of the meriting of heauen yet our aduersaries with tooth and naile as they say will hold their owne and thus take vpon them to prooue the merite of the actions and sufferings of the Saints 1. Stapleton thus reasoneth it is required as a condition of vs that if we suffer with Christ we shall be glorified with him but the condition performed the reward of necessitie followeth 2. The sufferings of Christ did merite vnto him heauen Phil. 2.7 therefore our sufferings also doe merite heauen for vs Staplet 486.489 3. The Rhemists here vrge that place 2. Cor. 4.17 Our light affliction worketh for vs an exceeding weight of glorie whence they inferre that our tribulations are meritorious 4. And whereas the Scripture setteth forth the mercie of God in the saluation of man which excludeth merit Stapleton answereth that the free mercie of God is seene in the remission of sinnes and about the first iustification not in giuing the reward of glorie Staplet ibid. 5. And to this place of the Apostle they make this answer 1. Lyranus saith that as our works proceede from our free will they merit not but as they are wrought in vs by the spirit so they merit of condignitie 2. to the same purpose Bellarmine saith that they are not meritorious of themselues ex natura sua of their owne nature sed ex dignitate principij of the worthines of the cause that is the grace of Christ which worketh them lib. 5. de iustific c. 14. ration 1. And the Rhemists are bold to adde further that the sufferings of Christ in themselues in respect of their greatnes were not meritorious but in respect of the worthines of his person 3. Thomas saith that although there can be no merit in men toward God secundum absolutam equalitatem in an absolute equalitie yet there may be secundum praesuppositionem diuina ordinationis the diuine ordinance beeing presupposed 4. Tolet annot and Pere disput 10. answer that the Apostle here speaketh not of the dignitie and merit of the sufferings of the Saints but sheweth that they being in themselues compared with the celestiall glorie are not proportionable either for the continuance or in the sense of sorrow now and of ioy afterward Contra. 1. The condition performed assureth vs of a reward but of grace not of merit for like as adoptiue sonnes among men are admitted to the inheritance by the grace and fauour of the adoptor not by their merit so much more is the euerlasting inheritance giuen by the grace of adoption 2. Concerning Christs meritorious sufferings 1. he merited not for himselfe but for vs for as he was not borne for himselfe so neither died he for himselfe as he did not rise for himselfe as Ambrose well saith fi nobis non resurrexit vtique non resurrexit c. if he rose not for vs he rose not at all for he had no reason to rise for himselfe de fide resurrect c. 24. And the Apostle Phil. 2. sheweth not the merit but the order and way how Christ after he had suffered was to enter into glorie as our Sauiour saith Luk. 24.26 Ought not Christ to haue suffered those things and enter into his glorie 2. Christs sufferings were vnlike ours for they were perfit and the redemption for sinne ours are either chasticements for our sinne or trials of our faith and so part of our obedience and therefore they cannot merit as Christs did 3. Our light and momentarie afflictions are said to worke our glorie not as meritorious causes but as preparatiues and as the way which God hath appointed vs to walke in And so Origen rehearsing here that place of the Apostle expoundeth it ex momentance leui tribulationum nostrarum labore semina quaedam collecta immensum nobis gloria pendus preparabunt certaine seeds gathered by the light and momentarie labour of our tribulations doe prepare for vs an exceeding weight of glorie c. but Origen in the same place vtterly reiecteth all meriting nihil dignum inveniri vel comparari ad futuram gloriam potest there can be nothing found worthie or to be compared vnto the glorie to come 4. The Scripture includeth merit not onely from the beginning but from the whole worke of our saluation as Tit. 3.4 Not by the workes which we had done but by his mercie he saued vs and seeing the reward and inheritance dependeth of our adoption and adoption of our election both which are of grace how is not the inheritance also of grace 5. None of these answers are sufficient to obscure the euidence of this place 1. seeing good workes proceed not of free will but are wrought by the spirit they therefore merit not for he that meriteth must merit of his owne 2. neither can good workes merite of grace for these are opposite one to the other that which is by workes cannot be by grace for then worke were no more worke neither that which is by grace can be by worke for then grace were no more grace as the Apostle reasoneth Rom. 11.6 therefore they vnskilfully confound them together grace and workes which the Apostle distinguisheth And to say that Christs passions were not meritorious in themselues is a blasphemous speach for his actions could not be seuered froÌ„ his person for otherwise they were not Christs actions therefore they were in themselues as they proceeded from Christ meritorious 3. It is Gods ordinance indeed that man should doe workes and suffer with Christ to shew their conformitie and obedience but not that they should merit thereby for as the same Thomas saith compensatio meriti est actus iustitiae c. the rewarding and compensation
father as Rom. 1.23 2. Cor. 1.3 and 11.31 2. Not euery one that is called God in Scripture is consequently that chiefe and great God 3. Christ is said to be ouer all that is men as the most excellent man of all not ouer all whatsoeuer 4. He is said to be ouer all with a limitation for he is not ouer him that hath subdued all things vnto him 1. Cor. 15.27 5. And in that he is ouer all he hath it not by nature but of gift Philip. 2.9 Contra. Erasmus seemeth first to haue giuen occasion to these newfangled Dogmatists who likewise in his annotations vpon this place thinketh this Scripture not so fit to prooue the diuine nature of Christ adding that herein there is no daunger seeing there are more direct places to prooue Christs Godhead by But Pet. Martyr here answeareth well non convenit vt Ecclesiae armamentarium sine causa exhauriatur c. it is not conuenient that the armorie of the Church should without cause be diminished seeing the fathers as Origen Chrysost Theophylact Cyprian cont lud lib. 2. c. 5. Hilarius in Psal. 122. doe all alleadge this place for the proofe of Christs deitie it is not fit that we should suffer it to be wrestled out of our hands their cauills are thus answeared 1. Where the father is said to be blessed for euer the Sonne is not excluded and in some places Christ is said expressely to be blessed for euer as Matth. 21.9 Blessed is be that commeth in the name of the Lord and if the Creator be blessed for euer Christ is included by whom all things were created Ioh. 1. Coloss. 1. 2. He which is said to be God ouer all as Christ here must of necessitie be that chiefe and great God 3. Some indeede reade super omnia ouer all things as Origen the Syrian and Latine interpreter and this is agreeable to that place Coloss. 1.17 He is before all things and in him all things consist and the Apostle nameth both things visible and invisible and so Origen well expoundeth he is aboue all things that is powers principalities and euerie thing that is named 4. He is aboue all things that is all creatures and aboue all as the father is aboue all and yet neither aboue the Sonne or the holy Ghost the father then is here excepted for Christ and his father are one non post patrem ipse sed de patre he is not after the father but of the father Origen 5. S. Paul in that place speaketh of the exaltation of Christ as he is Mediator and according to his humane nature and so he hath it by gift but as he is God he is ouer all by his eternall generation as the onely begotten Sonne of God Controv. 4. That the water in Baptisme doth not sanctifie or giue grace Chrysostome sheweth here a fit analogie and resemblance betweene the birth of Izaak oâ— Sara by the word of promise v. 9. and our spirituall regeneration in baptisme the barren wombe of Sarah he likeneth to the water which of it selfe hath no efficacie erat vterni ille aqua frigidior propter sterilitatem senectutem that wombe was more vnapt for generation then water because of the barrennesse and old age thereof like as then Izaak was borne of that barren wombe by the word of promise ita nos oportet ex verbo nasci so we are borne of the word To this purpose Chrysostome who maketh the element of water of it selfe but a dead thing and like vnto Sarahs barren wombe which could not haue conceiued but by the word of promise So the Apostle saith Ephes. 5.25 Cleansing it by the washing of water thorough the word the water cleanseth but by the operation of the word This then ouerthroweth that opinion of the Romanists which affirme that the sacramentall signe in the sacraments conferre grace See further hereof Synops. Centur. 2. err 76. Controv. 5. Against the vaine observation of Astrologers in casting of nativities v. 10. Rebecca when she had conceiued by one c. Augustine lib. 2. de doctrin Christian. c. 21. by this Scripture confuteth the folly of Mathematicians who in casting of mens natiuities doe obserue the aspect of the planets and so doe calculate and coniecture of the disposition of men for Esau and Iacob were borne at the same time of one and the same parents and yet they were of diuerse dispositions and qualities and conditions of life Controv. 6. That the soules had no beeng in a former life before they came into the bodie It was Origens error who therein did too much Platonize that the soules in the former life according to their workes good or euill were accordingly appointed of God to saluation or damnation But this error is euidently conuinced by the Apostle here for Esau and Iacob had neither done good nor euill before they were borne Lyranus addeth two other reasons to convince this error 1. if there had beene an other life before then the world was not created in the beginning as it is said Gen. 1.1 for that the soules had a beeing and beginning before 2. and temporale non potest esse causa aeterni no temporall thing can be the cause of that which is eternall the actions then and workes of the soule could not be the cause of the act of Gods eternall will Controv. 7. Whether the foresight of faith or workes be the cause of election This was in time past maintained by the followers of the Pelagian sect as it appeareth by the epistles of Prosper and Hilarius Arelatens sent to Augustine and not much differing is the opinion of the Greeke expositors as Theodoret in these words that the purpose of God might remaine according to election vnderstandeth the purpose of men foreseene of God according to the which he electeth But the Apostle euidently calleth it the purpose of God and therefore not of men Chrysost. and Photius cited by Oecumenius doe here vnderstand the purpose of God but where it is added according to election they say this election presupposeth a difference and diuersitie of wills foreseene of God The late Lutherans tread in the same steppesâ— who at the first did hold that the foresight of faith was the cause of election but now they haue somewhat refined that assertion and their opinion now is fidem non esse electionis causam meritoriam sed instrument alem that faith is not the meritorious but the instrumentall cause of election their arguments are these 1. Argum. Photius thus reasoneth electio de illis fit qui aliqua in re differunt election is said to be of those which differ in some thing God then did see some difference in them which he elected from others Contra. 1. Augustine at the first was somewhat mooued with this argument which made him deuise an other sense of the Apostles words to this effect that it was said vnto the children beeing not yet borne and before they had done either good
or euill the elder shall serue the younger least the purpose of God should remaine according to election which he supposeth to rise of some difference in the parties elected to this purpose Augustine lib. ad Simplician quest 2. But this parenthesis or interlaced sentence is â—â—tered by the Apostle affirmatively That the purpose of God might remaine c. it cannot therefore be drawne to a negatiue sense And indeede Augustine whether vpon this or some other reason otherwise expoundeth these words epist. 115. 2. But the best answear is that the proposition is not true for election in God presupposeth not a difference God may make election euen in things in themselues equall by the right of his Creatorship and make a difference as euidently appeareth in the creation of the world when all things were equall at the first in that indigested himpe and masse whereout the creatures were made and yet our of it were different creatures made some lightsome as the Sunne and starres some darke and obscure as the earth and earthly things And so the Lord in his decree of predestination made a difference in his election according to his good pleasure of things which differed not before And so there is a difference indeede in those which are elected from others sed non invenit Deus sed ponit ipse in hominibus differentiam but God findeth not any such difference in men but he maketh it Pet. Martyr the difference then dependeth not of the nature of the things but of the purpose and counsell of God 2. Arg. 1. S. Paul saith Ephes. 1.4 He hath elected vs in him that is in Christ but none are in Christ without faith that then which ioyneth vs to Christ is the cause of election 2. againe 2. Thess. 2.13 we are said to be chosen to saluation in faith 3. and Heb. 11.6 It is impossible to please God without faith the elect are pleasing to God therefore by faith they were accepted 4. and seeing faith is the instrumentall cause of saluation why not also of election Thus the Lutherans reason for the foresight of faith Contra. 1. Not euerie thing whereby we are ioyned vnto Christ is the cause of election but that whereby we were first giuen vnto Christ which is the absolute and free mercie of God who elected vs of his free grace and mercie and in Christ appointed to bring those whom he elected vnto eternall life And the Apostle doth expound himselfe what he meaneth by beeing elected in Christ that is he hath predestinate vs to be adopted thorough Christ faith then in Christ is not the cause of election but a meane subordinate to bring the elect vnto saluation 2. We are said to be chosen in faith not faith foreseene as the cause of election but in faith present as a meane vnto saluation 3. The same answear may serue to the third place obiected which must be vnderstood likewise de fide praesenti non praevisa of faith present not of faith foreseene for God thorough his mercie elected vs beeing yet his enemies his loue therefore was before any foresight of faith by his mercie he made vs acceptable vnto himselfe by the election of grace before he sawe any thing in vs. 4. It followeth not that euerie thing which is the cause of saluation should be the cause of election it is true in the generall cause which is the mercie of God which causeth as well the one as the other but not in the next and immediate causes as for example the father is the cause of his son and the son of the nephew and yet the son is not the cause of the father so election is the cause of faith and faith of saluation but it therefore followeth not that faith should be the cause of election And Hunnius that was at the first a great patrone of this cause in the ende argueth that faith in the mysterie of election was to be considered neither vt causam meritoriam as a meritorious or instrumentall cause sed vt partem illius ordinis c. but as a part of that order which God had appointed that is a meane vnto saluation Pareus dub 6. 3. Arg. If God simply should elect some and refuse others without foresight of their faith how is he not an accepter of persons Ans. The accepting of person is when against the rule of iustice a man of no good parts or qualites is preferred before him that is well qualified But there is no feare of this in Gods election for he findeth all alike in themselues none endued with any good gifts or qualities but as he giueth them therefore herein he is no accepter of persons in preferring one before an other all beeing alike Now on the contrarie side that the foresight of faith or any thing in man is not the cause of election but onely the good pleasure and will of God it may be thus further confirmed 1. The Apostle in saying not by workes but by him that calleth excludeth whatsoeuer in man for if either the foresight of faith or of any other thing and not onely of works should be the cause of election then it should not be onely in the caller as the Apostle here saith Mart. Pareus Tolet annot 19. 2. The effect of election is not the cause faith with the fruits thereof are the effects of election Ephes. 1.4 he hath chosen vs that we should be holy Pareus 3. The eternall decree of God is not founded in that which is temporarie the faith or good workes of men are but temporarie things and therefore they cannot be the ground and foundation of Gods eternall decree Faius 4. Faith is the worke of God Ioh. 6.29 therefore not the cause of his election so the same thing should be the cause of it selfe and so also be before it selfe Pareus 5. If election depended vpon the foresight of good workes then it would followe that we are iustified by workes for from election and predestination proceedeth our vocation and from vocation iustification and if election be out of the foresight of works then iustification also which followeth election by degrees Mart. 6. Lyranus addeth this reason further Deus non vult finem propter ea quae sunt ad finem God will not appoint the ende for those things which tend vnto the ende but rather these are for the ende now faith and works are but the way to the ende and therefore they cannot be the cause of the appointment of the end that is that men should attaine vnto euerlasting glorie Lyran. vpon this place 7. Tolet also annot 16. vrgeth this reason whereas the Apostle saith v. 14. is there iniquitie with God if he had meant that the difference in the decree of election ariseth out of the foresight of faith then the reason had beene apparent and there had beene no shew at all of any iniustice in God and so no place for this obiection at all See further of this question before c.
his iust iudgement to leaue some in their sinnes c. and not beeing made partakers of Christ to condemne them for euer Iudicious Polanus hath the like definition of reprobation in his partitions It is the decree whereby God purposed to himselfe to leaue those of whom it pleased him not to haue mercie in euerlasting destruction vnto the which they should be obnoxious for their sinnes for the declaration of his iustice In these distinctions all the causes are touched of euerlasting damnation and the â—â—re-ordaining thereunto the efficient is Gods decree and purpose the materiall is sinne the formall the deniall of mercie and the leauing them to themselues the finall cause is the setting forth of the iustice of God And thus I trust it hath beene sufficiently shewed how the decree of reprobation may safely be held to proceede from the prescience of originall and actuall sinne and not to be an absolute act of Gods will and purpose as the decree of election is and in this resolution of this question whatsoeuer I haue before thought and written otherwise I set vp my rest as the safest from any inconuenience and the fittest to giue satisfaction to the contrarie obiections which are such as here follow 1. Obiect Seeing the number of the reprobate farre exceedeth the number of the elect how is Gods mercie magnified aboue his iustice Ans. They which hold an absolute reprobation without relation vnto sinne cannot here remooue this doubt for if God out of his owne will should cast off more then he receiueth he should be farre more iust then mercifull But this beeing first laid as a foundation that God casteth off none but for sin in that he saueth some out of that masse of corruption whereas he might iustly leaue all his mercie exceedeth his iustice and in these three points 1. in that God in the beginning made man righteous Ecclesi 7.31 and gaue him free-will so to haue continued if he would and if he had not willingly transgressed he should haue remained in the state of grace and fauour with God and not haue tasted of his iustice 2. after man had fallen and brought all his posteritie into the bondage of corruption Gods mercie appeared in sauing some whereas he might in iustice haue condemned all as he did the reprobate Angels that kept not their first state 3. his mercie is euident euen toward those which are left in their corruption that the Lord denieth not vnto them meanes whereby they might be called if they had grace to vse them and he suffereth euen the vessels of wrath with much patience not presently cutting theÌ„ off as he might in al these points Gods mercie exceedeth his iustice 2. Obiect When God had made Adam righteous it was in his power to haue kept him from falling that all might haue beene saued is not God therein accessarie to their sin is suffering that which he might haue hindered Ans. 1. 〈◊〉 was fit that the Creator hauing made man with free will should suffer the creature freely to exercise that naturall power and facultie which was giuen him as other creatures doâ—â— their kind 2. although God permitted Adam to fall yet he knew how to vse it for 〈◊〉 further demonstration of his glorie and in this behalfe it is iust with God to suffer euill â—â—â—â—e in the world which he knoweth how to turne vnto good as he suffered Iob to be 〈◊〉 of Sathan for the triall of his faith 3. But in that God saueth some out of that masse of corruption and perdition and not all how is he not now partial and an accepter of persons in dealing vnequally with those which are in equall state and condition Ans. Where one is bound to giue equally to all there it is partialitie and iniustice not to giue vnto all alike but in free and voluntarie gifts one may giue vnequally vnto those which are of equall sort without any touch at all as when a man hath two debters he may forgiue vnto one his debt and yet require it of another So God is not bound to giue his grace vnto any especially where they haue willingly fallen from his grace as Adam did in Paradise and we in him we beeing then all now endebted vnto Gods iustice in our naturall corruption God may haue mercie where and on whom he will it is lawfull for him to do with his owne as he will Matth. 20.15 4. Obiect It seemeth to be an hard and cruell part to destroie any for the setting forth of ones power and magnificence as the Turke and other Tyrants make no account of mens liues to serue their pleasure Ans. 1. No earthly potentate hath that power ouer his subiects which God hath ouer his creatures therefore though it be vniust in the one it is not in the other 2. for one to destroy another for his honour and glorie sake may seeme hard but to bequeath them to destruction worthily for their faults to get glorie thereby is not vniust so although God in the destruction and condemnation of the wicked intend his glorie yet they are worthily condemned for their sinne Obiect 5. He that willeth the end willeth also the meanes that bring and lead vnto that end if God haue appointed the damnation of the reprobate then he willeth also sinne which is the meanes to that end Ans. He that simply willeth the end willeth also the meanes but God simply willeth not the damnation of any but for their sinne Obiect 6. If God haue foreseene the sinnes of the reprobate and willeth their iust damnation for sinne how is it said he would haue all to be saued Ans. God simply willeth not the damnation of any but for sinne and no other thing appeareth in the reuealed will of God in that he offereth meanes of saluation to all but that he would haue all to be saued this then is to be vnderstood of the absolute and reuealed will of God 7. Obiect If God foresee the sinnes of the reprobate and decree their punishment why doth God complaine of sinners seeing his will in them is fulfilled Ans. Augustine answeareth 1. God iustly complaineth of sinners quia non cogit eos peccare because he doth not constraine them to sinne howsoeuer Gods decree cannot be altered yet their will is not forced they sinne willingly and so are iustly condemned 2. and when God complaineth of sinners by this meanes those on whom God sheweth mercie are called compunguntur corde and are pricked in heart howsoeuer the other are hardened Obiect 8. If the case so stand that the reprobate are appointed to damnation then it skilleth not what a man doth for though he should repent him yet if he be a reprobate it cannot helpe him Ans. If â—â—â—were apparant who were elected who a reprobate then indeed all contrarie endeauour were in vaine but seeing we haue no other way to prooue our election then by our faith and fruits we must thereby labour to make our election sure 2.
Pet. 1.10 2. for one to be a reprobate and yet to repent are contraries for he that is a reprobate can neuer haue grace to repent and he that hath grace truely to repent may be assured he is no reprobate Obiect 9. But if God haue foreseene the sinnes of the reprobate and that which God foreseeth must needs come to passe then the reprobate sinne of necessitie they cannot doe otherwise how then can they be iustly punished for that which they cannot auoid Ans. There is a double kind of necessitie the one is called antecedens necâ—â—â—â—â—tas an antecedent necessitie or going before which proceedeth from necessarie and working causes as when a thing is forced by violence and strength as a stone out of the hand it is necessarie it should goe there is consequens necessitas a following necessitie or by way of consequent which is vpon supposition of the effect as when we see one fit this beeing supposed that we see him fit it is now necessarie beeing done and yet he was not forced to fit so it is in this case the reprobate doe sinne necessarily not by a necessitie forcing their will but an infallible necessitie following the effect for they therefore sinne not because God did foresee they would sinne but therefore God foresaw it because they would sinne The reprobate then do sinne freely without any compulsion and therein are guiltie though they were foreseene to sinne and because of the corruption of their nature could doe no other And thus is this doctrine deliuered from all those cauils and obiections and man iâ— found onely to be the cause of his owne ruine and destruction but the beginning of our saluation is from God according to that saying of the Prophet Hoshea c. 13.9 perditio tâ—â— ex te Israel salus ex me thy perdition O Israel is of thy selfe thy salvation of me and so I ende and conclude this point with that saying of Tertullian Deus de suo optimus de nostro iustus c. God is good and mercifull of his owne and iust in that which is ours c. lib. de resurrect that is the originall of mercie is from God but the occasion of his iustice is from sinne which is of our selues Controv. 11. Of the difference betweene the decree of election and reprobation and of the agreement betweene them Whereas in both these there are two things to be considered the decree and the execution thereof here are diuerse opinions Some will haue a correspondencie in election and reprobation in both and these also are deuided Some only in the former that is the decree Some will haue a difference in both as well in the manner of the decree as in the execution 1. Of the first opinion were the Pelagians and some of the Romanists which hold that both the decree of election is grounded vpon the foresight of faith and the good vse of freewill as also the execution of that decree in the giuing of eternall life they will haue procured by good works as reprobation both in the decree and execution proceedeth from sinne and the foresight thereof So the whole worke of election they will haue to take beginning from man as reprobation doth Thus the Rhemists hold that election is not without the condition and respect to workes annot Heb. c. 5. sect 7. Becanus the new diuinitie Reader in Mentz hath this assertion that predestination is ex praescientia conditionata c. of a conditionall prescience whereby God foresaw that one would well vse the grace offered and not an other c. 1. de praedestinat loc 5. But herein other Romanists do dissent from them as Bellarmine Tolet Pererius as hath beene shewed before controv 7. 2. Other Romanists will haue an agreement both in the decree and execution but after an other manner as Pererius following Thom. Aquin. disput 5. numer 34. disput 12. numer 66. saith that God is the cause of reprobation as well as election quantum ad duo principium terminum in respect of these two the beginning and the ende concerning the beginning which is the decree he saith there is nulla causa meritoria ex parte hominis no meritorious cause of either on mans behalfe but in respect of the last effect there is a meritorious cause in man both of his good works vnto eternall life and of euill workes to condemnation But Pererius in two points is farre wide both in making good workes meritorious of eternall life which is the free gift of God Rom. 6.23 and in assigning the beginning or first cause of reprobation and so of condemnation in the will of God and not in the sinne of man contrarie to that saying of the Prophet alleadged before Hos. 13.9 Thy perdition is of thy selfe O Israel as their Latine text readeth 3. Some doe make great difference in the execution of these decrees for good workes are not meritorious of saluation as euill workes are of damnation the reason of which difference is because euill workes are perfitly euill but our good workes are imperfect and so not proportionable to the most excellent and perfect reward and good workes are not our owne nor of our selues as euill workes are and therefore they merit not but the decree as well of election as reprobation they hold to be alike without any relation vnto workes good or euill thus worthie Calvin Beza Martyr with other of our learned new writers 4. But it is the safer way thoroughout from the beginning of the decree to the execution to hold a perpetuall difference betweene election and reprobation that we are elected freely without respect vnto faith or workes for otherwise we should haue chosen God first and not he vs and so we are also saued freely not for our workes and yet neither without them But in the way of damnation neither were the wicked decreed to be condemned neither yet shall they actually be condemned but for their sinne and the foresight thereof 1. because the beginning of damnation is from man but the decree of reprobation is the beginning of damnation therefore that decree must proceed from the foresight of something worthie of damnation in man 2. that for the which God condemneth man he decreed him to be condemned but for sinne is man condemned 3. otherwise if it it were Godâ— absolute will to reiect more then he electeth his iustice should exceede his mercie see before contr 10. Controv. 12. Whether mercie be a naturall propertie in God or an effect onely of his will against Socinus v. 18. He hath mercie on whom he will Socinus that blasphemous heretike lib. 1. c. 1. by occasion of these words goeth about to prooue that Mercie is not a naturall propertie in God but a voluntarie act 1. Because the Apostle saith He hath mercie on whom he will 2. God alwaies vseth his naturall properties but mercie he alwaies sheweth not as toward impenitent sinners 3. Contrarie properties are not naturally in God but his mercie
the propertie of opposition between grace and works remaineth as well in the election to the second grace as to the first if grace be admitted works are excluded for they cannot stand together 2. And all kind of works are excluded from election for good works are not the cause but the effect and fruits of election as Haymo here sheweth out of Saint Paul Eph. 1.6 he hath chosen vs in him that we should be holy c. Controv. 4. Against freewill Chrysostome vpon these words v. 4. I haue reserued to my selfe c. graunteth that God attulit potiorem partem brought the better part but they which were called brought their will volentes sulvat he saueth those which are willing Tolet annot 4. subscribeth vnto Chrysostome herein and refuseth Augustine who ascribeth all vnto grace and further he affirmeth that the nature of grace is not taken away though somewhat be presupposed in man dum modo non sit illud meritorium so it be not held to be meritorious or the cause of grace As when a Prince doth propound ample rewards to all commers though they that come onely haue the rewards yet their comming is no meritorious cause of receiuing the reward but the grace and fauour of the Prince so God elected some to be iustified by faith quos praevidit libero arbitrio concursuros whom he foresawe would concurre with their free-will to this purpose Tolet. Contra. 1. Chrysostomes speach that God saueth onely those which are willing if it be vnderstood with these two cautions that this willingnes is wrought by grace and yet beeing so wrought it is no cause of iustification may safely be receiued for true it is that none are saued against their will But yet God ex nolentibus volentes facit of vnwilling maketh them willing if Chrysostome be otherwise vnderstood as ascribing here strength to mans freewill it is a great error 2. And herein I preferre Augustines iudgement who well obserueth de bon perseueran c. 18. that the Lord here saith not relicti sunt mihi they were reserued for me or they reserued themselues for me but I haue reserued to shewe that it was Gods grace whereby some were reserued and not the act of their owne will Haymo also hath the same note he saith not relicti sunt are left but I haue left or reserued that is per gratiam reservani I haue reserued by grace gloss interlin 3. If any thing be presupposed in man as helping vnto his calling it hindreth and obscureth the worke of grace if it be but a preparation onely though not meritorious and it is directly against the Scripture that a man hath any will to come to God of himselfe as Ioh. 6.44 No man can come vnto me except the father drawe him Rom. 9.16 it is not in him that willeth or runneth but in God that sheweth mercie Philip. 2.13 It is God that worketh in you both the will and the deede how then can mans will of it selfe concurre with the grace of God that example alleadged is not like for to come to receiue the Princes reward is a ciuill thing wherein mans will hath some freedome but in spirituall actions it hath no libertie at all vntill it be freed by grace as our Blessed Sauiour saith Ioh. 8.36 if the Sonne shall make you free then are you free indeede Controv. 5. That vniuersalitie and multItude is not alwaies a note of the true Church v. 4. I haue reserued to my selfe seuen thousand Like as the paucitie and fewenes of professors in Elias time was no preiudice to the truth nor yet the multitude of idolaters a proofe that they were the Church so neither is the great number of nations people powers Cardinals Bishops Priests Monkes an argument for the Papall Church for in Noahs time the visible Church was contained in his familie and his Arke did beare the little barke of the Church of God and in Sodome onely in Lots house was there an exercise of true pietie yea our Sauiour calleth his a little flocke though therefore the Church of Christ consisted of smaller numbers then it doth which still encreaseth and shall we trust more and more toward the comming of Christ yet the smalnes of the number should be no matter of exception as it was not either in the time of Elias or of our Blessed Sauiour and his Apostles when as a thousand to one were enemies to true godlines see before Synops. Centur. 1. nr 19. Controv. 6. Of the sufficiencie of Scripture and of the right way to interpret the same v. 8. According as it is written By this often allegation of Scriptures and by collation of one with an other as here the Apostle compareth Isaias and Dauid together we gather a double vse of Scripture the one that all doctrine of faith must be derived from thence as throughout this epistle the Apostle for the proofe of his doctrine onely alleadgeth the Scriptures and therefore our Blessed Sauiour faith Ioh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures c. for they are they which testifie of we Christ admitteth no other witnesse of him and his doctrine but the Scriptures And in that the Apostle doth illustrate and interpret one place of Scripture by an other we see that the Scripture is the best interpreter of it selfe that which in one place is obseurely insinuated otherwhere it may be found more plainly and perspicuously expressed See more hereof Synops. Centur. 1. err 10.12 Controv. 7. Against the Iewes Chrysostome vpon these words bowe downe their backes alwayes v. 10. sheweth how this prophesie is now verified in the perpetuall desolation of the Iewes for whereas the Israelites were 200. yeares in Egypt God yet in his mercie deliuered them though they there committed fornication and were guiltie of diuerse other sinnes afterward beeing deliuered after the Lord had a long time suffered and endured them with patience at the length he punished them with 70. yeares captiuitie beeing deliuered from thence they were vexed vnder Antiochus three yeares but now more then three hundred yeares are past and yet they haue not so much as alicuius spei vmbram the shadowe of any hope when as they neither commit idolatrie nor some other sinnes for the which they were before punished Whereupon it must needes followe that the Iewes to this day are afflicted for not beleeving in Christ. To this purpose Chrysostome wrote more then a thousand yeeres since and so he then prophetically expounded that the Iewes backes should for euer be bowed downe and kept vnder vntill such time as they should vniuersally be called God open their eyes at the length that they seeing the cause why the wrath of God is thus kindled against them may at the last with faith and repentance turne vnto him Controv. 8. Whether any of the true branches may be broken off v. 17. Though some of the branches be broken off c. It may seeme then that some branches may be broken off and so some of
c. for if Origens sense onely should be receiued it would be presupposed that first there must be patience and then God is induced by their patience to dwell with them 2. Here the Apostle doth attribute the same effects vnto God patience and consolation which before he gaue vnto the Scriptures but in a diuers manner for God is in deede the author of them sed verbo vt instrumento vtitur but he vseth the word as his instrument to worke them as Theophylact saith Deum cum sacris Scripturis vna largiri c. that God together with and by the Scriptures doth giue patience and consolation c. But God is the author and giuer of patience Philip. 1.29 To you it is giuen for Christ not onely to beleeue c. but also to suffer and of consolation 2. Cor. 4. which comforteth vs in all our tribulations 3. And S. Paul hauing shewed before the vse of the Scripture now thereunto ioyneth praier thereby signifying cum Scripturis nobis opus esse precibus that together with the Scriptures we had neede of praier that God would assist vs Oecumen for if in other things a man can doe nothing without Gods assistante much lesse can he profit by the reading of Scripture without Gods direction Origen whom Haymo followeth observeth that this was more then ordinarie prayer Paul after the maner of the Prophets and Patriarks whose blessings vpon their children are repeated in the Scripture benedictiones tribuit Romanis doth giue this benediction to the Romanes 4. S. Paul wisheth that they be of one minde among themselues where he toucheth all the causes of this concord the author and efficient cause God the materiall to be like minded the formall according to Christ the finall cause in the next verse that they may withone voice praise God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idem sapere to thinke the same thing 1. which some referre onely to the affection that euerie one idipsum de altero sentiat doe thinke the same thing of an other Theoph. vt sit idem sensus quod est charitatis that there be the same sense and opinion which is the part of charitie Pellican so also Beza that ye be mutually affected with one minde and Tolet giueth this reason because it is added one toward an other which sheweth it must be referred rather to the affection then vnderstanding 2. Chrysostome applyeth it to the care which one should haue of an others good vt quod pro se quisque curat c. that what euerie one is carefull of for himselfe he should therein take care for an other 3. Lyranus giueth this sense mecum desiderantes c. that yee should be like minded vnto me in wishing one an others profit 4. Pareus vnderstandeth consensum in fide a mutuall consent in faith that they be of one iudgement and opinion concerning the vse of indifferent things and other matters in question 5. But I rather with Haymo referre it both to the consenting in iudgement and concord in affection vt vnum sentiatis de fide spe charitate that they be of one sense and iudgement concerning faith hope and charitie 5. But the Apostle seemeth to wish a thing impossible that there should be such a generall consent in iudgement seeing that all men haue not the same gifts and S. Paul saith there must be heresies 1. Cor. 11.19 Ans. 1. Though God suffer heresies to be which are raised by Satans malice against the truth yet among the true members of the Church there may and ought to be one iudgement in the truth 2. and though some difference in matters indifferent may be found in the true Church of Christ yet this letteth not but that in the chiefe articles of faith and in fundamentall points there should be an agreement and consent 6. The Apostle adding according to Iesus Christ sheweth a difference of concord alia quaedam dilectio est there is an other kind of loue then in Christ and Origen well saith posset fieri vt in malitia aliqui vnanimiter consentirent vnum saperent in peius it may be that some in malice may consent with one mind and be of one iudgement to the worse c. 12. Quest. Of the end of concord which is to glorifie God the father of our Lord Iesus 1. The ende of our concord is to glorifie God and this concord consisteth both of the consent in heart and minde and in the agreement in outward profession which the Apostle here ioyneth together that with one minde and one mouth ye may glorifie God as S. Paul putteth them together Rom. 10.10 with the heart man beleeueth vnto righteousnes and with the mouth he confesseth to saluation 2. He saith not vt cantu boatu in templis glorificetis Deum that you glorifie God with roaring and singing in Churches as they doe in Poperie for there is a consent onely of voice without any agreement in heart Pellican 3. And seeing God is onely glorified where there is concord it sheweth that by discord Gods glorie is hindred both in themselues because their praiers vnto God want their due effect and in others which by their dissentions take occasion to blaspheme and speake euill of God 4. The Apostle addeth God and the father of our Lord Iesus Christ c. 1. He is the father of Christ both as he is God in his eternall generation and as man in his generation in time as he was borne of the virgin Marie but he is Christs God onely as he is man Haymo 2. this clause is added by way of limitation to distinguish the true God from the false gods of the heathen and by way of explanation that they must worship one God not as in the old Testament when as the doctrine of the Trinitie was not yet manifested but now as the father of Christ so they must glorifie one God not according to the prescript rule of the law but after the rule of the Gospel Tolet. 3. and hereby we are giuen to vnderstand that God can not otherwise be glorified then as the father of Iesus Christ for without him nothing is acceptable vnto God 13. Quest. Of the meaning of the 7. v. Receiue ye one an other as Christ receiued vs c. 1. By receiuing the Apostle vnderstandeth bearing helping one an other iudging charitably one of an other both the strong not to despise the weake nor the weake to iudge or thinke hardly of the strong 2. As Christ c. This note of similitude as sheweth not an equalitie in like degree but the qualitie of the thing that it be done in truth and sinceritie as Ioh. 17. Christ saith that they may be one as we are one c. there may be a likenes in the qualitie and manner though a difference remaine in the proportion and degree and therefore Socinus cavill is soone answered that Christ did not satisfie for vs by his death because we are here willed to receiue one