beene immortall 2. the Apostle saith Rom. 6.23 the wages of sinne is death he speaketh of death in generall euerie kind of death both spirituall and corporall is the reward of sinne 3. the propagation of sinne doth indeede bring with it also propagation of death as the Apostle here saith sinne entred by Adam and death by sinne if sinne then had not entred neither should death haue entred 3. But thus it is obiected on the contrarie that death to mankind is naturall and not brought in by sinne 1. Obiect The bodie of man is compounded of dissonant and contrarie qualities and therefore naturally is apt to be dissolued and if there be a naturall aptnesse and power to die there should also haue followed a naturall act of dying Answ. 1. Pererius answeareth that indeede if man be considered secundum nudam natura conditionem according to the bare and naked condition of his nature he was by nature mortall as other creatures but beeing considered as he receiued a supernaturall grace from God death was not naturall but a punishment of sinne Perer. numer 34. But this answear is insufficient and vntrue for there should not haue beene so much as any possibilitie of death in the world if sinne had not entred he then answeareth onely concerning the act of dying which should be suspended by a supernaturall gift he taketh not away the possibilitie of dying and this supernaturall gift was no other then the dignitie and excellencie of mans nature made by creation immortall if he had not sinned 2. wherefore our more full answear is that mans bodie though consisting of diuerse elements yet was made of such an harmonaicall constitution and temper as no dissolution should haue followed if he had not sinned such as shall be the state and condition of our bodies in the resurrection 2. Obiect If death be the punishment of sinne God should be the author of death because he is the author of punishment Answ. 1. Pererius saith that God is not directly the cause of death but either consequenter by way of consequent because he made man of a dissoluble matter whereupon death ensueth or occasionaliter by way of occasion because he tooke away from man that supernaturall gift whereby he should haue beene preserued from mortallitie but God efficiciter is not the efficient cause of death which is a meere priuation But this answear also is insufficient for neither should death haue followed by reason of any such dissoluble matter if Adam had not sinned neither needed there any such supernaturall gift beside the priuiledge and dignitie of mans creation 2. wherefore we answer further that as God created light darkenes he created not but disposed of it so he made not death but as it is a punishment God as a disposer rather and a iust iudge then an author inflicteth it 3. Obiect Christ died and yet had no sinne therefore death is a naturall thing not imposed as a punishment for sinne Answ. 1. Origen here answeareth that as Christ knewe no sinne yet per assumptionem â—â— uis dicitur factus esse peccatum c. yet by the taking of our flesh he is said to be made sinne for vs so also he died for vs c. the death then which he vndertooke was not a punishment vpon him in respect of his owne sinne which he had not but of ours which was imputed vnto him 2. Origen saith further mortem quam nulli debuit sponte non necessitate suscepit the death which he ought to none he did willingly vndertake not of necessitie as Christ himselfe saith I haue power to lay down my life and power to take it againe 3. adde herevnto that mors in eo imperium non habuit c. death had no power or command ouer lum Mart. for he rose againe from death triumphantly which sheweth that he yeelded not vnto death of necessitie for then he could not haue shaken off so soone the bands of death againe Quest. 23. Of the meaning of the Apostle in these words in whom all haue sinned and of the best reading thereof ver 12. 1. Erasmus will haue the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be interpreted eo quod or quandoquidem in so much or because so also Calvin Martyr Osiander and our English translations and Erasmus reason is because the Scripture vseth an other phrase in that sense as 1. Cor. 15.22 as in Adam all die the words are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this reason may be easily taken away for sometime in Scripture the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Heb. 9.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the testament is confirmed in the dead Beza and Heb. 9.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in meates And this interpretation of Erasmus is the rather to be misliked because he would not haue this vnderstood of originall sinne but of euery ones proper and particular sinnes as Theodoret before him and so we should want a speciall place for the proofe of originall sinne 2. Wherefore the better reading is in whom that is in Adam all haue sinned so reade Origen Chrysostome Phatius in Oecumenius Theophylact whom Beza Pareus followe and there are three things which may serue for the antecedent to this relatiue in whom either sinne or death or that one man namely Adam before spoken of but not the first because sinne in the Greeke tongue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the feminine gender and so cannot answer vnto the Greeke relatiue which is of the masculine gender nor the second for it were an improper speech to say in the which death all haue sinned for as Augustine saith in peccato moriuntur homines non in morte peccant men die in sinne they are not said to sinne in death and so Augustine resolueth that in primo homine omnes peccasse intelliguntur all are vnderstood to haue sinned in the first man Adam c. and to this purpose Augustine in the same place alleadgeth Hilarius Quest. 24. Whether the Apostle meane originall or actuall sinnes saying in whom all haue sinned 1. Erasmus in his annotations vpon this place contending that it should be rather read for as much as all men haue sinned then in whom all men haue sinned thinketh that this place is not vnderstood of originall but of actuall sinnes who although he professe that he is an enemie to the heresie of the Pelagians which denie originall sinne yet contendeth both by the authoritie of the Fathers as Hierome and Origen and by the scope of the place that the Apostle must be vnderstood to speake of actuall sinnes But all this may easily be answered 1. those commentaries which passe vnder the name of Hierome are verily thought not to be his but Augustine coniectureth that they might be written by Pelagius that supposed author excepteth Abraham Isaac Iacob that they were free from this death namely the spiriturall death of the soule whereas euen
not imputed vnto them that is that God doe not punish them for it so to Philemon 18. if he haue hurt thee any thing at all impute it vnto me that is let me satisfie for it Faius Tolet in this sense the Apostle saith Rom. 4.8 Blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth not his sinne his sinne shall not be laid to his charge in iudgement And so the Apostle saith here where no lawe is sinne is not imputted that is there is no punishment inflicted for sinne but by the prescript of a lawe seeing then that the punishment of death was inflicted vpon those which liued before the lawe it could not be for sinnes which they actually cōmitted which had no law to punish them therefore it was originall sinne which was punished by death and least it might be said that though there were no written lawe whereby sinne was imputed yet there was a naturall law which men transgressed and therefore were punished the Apostle sheweth in the next raise that euen death raigned ouer them which had committed no actuall sinne as Adam had done and therefore death was inflicted as a punishment not onely of actuall but originall sinne Beza 29. Quest. How death is said to haue raigned from Adam to Moses 1. Origen distinguisheth betweene the word pertransijt entred or passed which the Apostle vsed before v. 12. and regnavit raigned death entred ouer all both the iust and vniust but it raigned onely in those qui se peccato tota mento subiecerunt which did giue themselues wholly vnto sinne But the Apostle speaketh generally of all not onely of some that death raigned vpon by the generallitie of death he prooueth the generallitie of some and by this word regno he sheweth potentiam mortis the power of death tha◠none could resist it Martyr instar tyranni saeuijt it raged like a Tyrant Pareus 2. By death some vnderstand mons anima the death of the soule that is sinne which raigned from Adam vnto Moses Haymo Hug. but it is euident that the Apostle in this discourse distinguisheth death from sinne and prooueth by the effect the vniuersalitie of death brought in by sinne the generalitie of sinne also Origen seemeth to vnderstand mortem gehennae the death of hell vnto which all descended and therefore Christ went to hell to deliuer them this sense followeth also the ordinarie glosse and Gorrhan But in this sense it appeareth not why the Apostle should say vnto Moses for they hold that all the iust men euen vnder the law also went to hell But in truth the death of hell raigned not ouer the righteous either before the law or after from the which they were deliuered by Christ therefore the death of the bodie is here vnderstood which entred vpon all euen ouer infants which sinned not as Adam did 3. Vnto Moses 1. Origen by Moses vnderstandeth the Law and by the law the whole time of the law vsque ad adventum Christi vnto the comming of Christ who destroied the kingdome of sinne so also Haymo but in that the Apostle setteth Moses against Adam it is euident that he vnderstandeth the time when the law was giuen and what law he speaketh of is further shewed v. 20. The Law entred that offence should abound the dominion then of sinne and death there ended not 2. Some thinke this limitation is set because men were more afraid of death before Christs comming then after because they had not such hope of the resurrection Gorrhan but it is an hard and forced exposition to interpret vnto Moses vnto the comming of Christ as is shewed before 3. Some thinke it is said vnto Moses because then a remedie was giuen by the law in restraining of sinne and then first in Iudas capit destrui regnum mortis the kingdome of sinne beganne to be destroied and now euery where gloss ordinar but the law gaue no remedie against sinne for sinne then abounded much more v. 20. and the Apostle said before c. 4.15 That where no law is there is no transgression there is no such knowledge of sinne 4. Therefore vnto Moses noteth the time of the giuing of the law vsque ad legem per Mosen promulgatam vnto the law published by Moses gloss ordin not that death raigned not after Moses also but this is added to shew that death was in the world euen before the law Lyran. and so consequently sinne for of those greatest doubt might be made which liued before the law whether death entred vpon them as a punishment of their sinne 30. Quest. Of the meaning of these words which sinne not after the similitude of the transgression of Adam This verse hath diuers readings 1. some doe referre the last words after the similitude of the transgression of Adam vnto the first part of the sentence death raigned 2. some doe ioyne it with the next words before which sinned and of either of these there are seuerall opinions 1. They which distinguish the sentence and ioyne the first and last words together some as Chrysostome giue this sense that as death raigned vpon Adam so likewise it raigned ouer his posteritie but others doe make this the cause of death and mortalitie because they are borne like vnto Adam that is destitute of originall iustice Lyranus Tolet. annot 19. Tolet further would confirme this interpretation by diuers reasons 1. the preposition is 〈◊〉 which with a dative case sheweth the cause whereas an other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vsed to signifie in as Philip. 2.7 He was found in shape as a man and Rom. 8.3 In the similitats of sinneful flesh 2. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 similitude sheweth the similitude and likenes of nature 3. and this is most agreeable to the Apostles purpose to shew the cause why death raigned ouer all because they are borne sinners like vnto Adam Contra. 1. The Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometime taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as before in the 12. vers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whome and Tolet himselfe in that place sheweth that it is so vsed in other places of Scripture annot 15. 2. The word of similitude is better referred to the qualitie of Adams sinne then to the conformitie in nature 3. Neither needed the Apostle here shew the cause why death raigned ouer all but he bringeth in this as a proofe of that which he saide vers 12. that all sinned in Adam because all are subiect to death euen they which commit not actuall sinnes as infants it was therefore impertinent to repeat that which he intendeth to prooue 4. Now further this distinction of the verse is ouerthrowne by these two reasons 1. if the Apostle had saide ouer those which 〈…〉 and should haue put to no other addition he had contraried himselfe hauing set it downe vers 12. that in Adam all sinned and death therefore went ouer all how the◠could he say that death raigned ouer those that sinned not
Sathans worke the strong man could not be bound but by a stronger then he Mart. And more particularly this excellencie appeareth in the author and efficient cause Adams sinne was vnius puri hominis of one and the same a meere man but the gift was Christi hominis Dei of Christ God and man Lyran. that was of our but this non solum patris sed filij gratia was not onely the grace of God the father but of his sonne Chrysost. 2. An other point of excellencie is generally in the worke it selfe and the manner of it 1. if sinne beeing a privative were so forcible vnto condemnation much more the iustice and grace of Christ beeing a thing positive is auaileable fortior vita quam mors iustitia quà m peccatum life is stronger then death and righteousnes then sinne Origen 2. fortius est mortuum resuscitare c. it is a more powerfull thing to raise one beeing dead then to kill one that is aliue Osiand 3. Chrysostome addeth further magis videtur rationi consonum c. it seemeth more agreeable to reason that one man should purchase saluation and redemption then condemnation to and for an other if then that were done which was more against reason for one to worke an others condemnation much more the other 3. As our redemption and iustification by Christ is more excellent then our condemnation by Adam in respect of the more excellent and powerfull cause as the Apostle sheweth v. 15. as is before expressed so it excelleth in regard of the more excellent fruits and effects whereof one is declared v. 16. that whereas one offence of Adam entred vnto the condemnation of many in Christ not onely that sinne is pardoned but all other our actuall sinnes non solum illud peccatum per gratiam est oblatum sed reliqua omnia not onely that fault is taken away by grace but all the rest also Chrysost. 4. An other effect is that in Christ we receiue abundance of grace v. 17. non tantum peccata sublata sed iustitia prastita our sinnes are not onely taken away but righteousnes also is giuen vs Chrysost. which he further thus setteth forth by this similitude like as if a Prince should deliuer a man that is enthralled with his wife and children and not onely restoare him to libertie but set him in a princely throne or as if a medecine should be giuen not onely to heale the disease but whereby the bodie should be made much stronger Lyrau so Christ non solum iustificat à peccatis sed etiam inducit ad gloriam doth not onely iustifie vs from our sinnes but also bringeth vs to glorie Lyran. 5. Chrysostome addeth one excellent priuiledge further which we obtaine in Christ that whereas death came by Adam in Christ we obtaine that by death we receiue no hurt sed plurimi luchri tulerimus but much good as 1. death perswadeth vs and the remembrance thereof to liue soberly and honestly 2. hic sunt Martyrum coronae death was the occasion of the crowne of martyrdome 3. and thereby we are made fitte for immortalitie 6. Origen herein placeth the excellencie of this effect that not onely death no longer raigneth sed duo conferuntur bona two good things are conferred life is giuen in stead of death Christ our life raigneth in vs and we also shall raigne in life with him This then is the abundance of grace that we receiue in Christ. 1. in that we are not onely purged from our sinnes but iustified in Christ. 2. and sanctified in him 3. made fellow heires with Christ and restored to be the sonnes of God 4. and brought to euerlasting glorie 36. Quest. Some other opinions refused wherein this excellencie should consist 1. Some thinke that herein consisteth the excellencie of grace because the sinne of Adam was deriued onely vnto men the grace of Christ is reuealed to Angels Perer. disput 12. This is true that euen the Angels doe stand by Christ but it is not the meaning of Saint Paul here for he speaketh expressely of the abounding of this gift of iustification vnto men v. 18. 2. Pererius further saith that by originall sinne which we haue from Adam we are onely made subiect poenae damni to the penaltie of losse which is the privation of the grace and glorie of God but in Christ we are deliuered from the penaltie not onely damni of the losse but sensus of feeling and suffering the torments of hell But the Apostle is contrarie who saith that by the offence of one sinne came vpon all to condemnation v. 18. the euerlasting condemnation then of bodie and soule is due vnto men by nature in respect of originall sinne without the mercie of God in Christ and elswhere the Apostle saith we are all the children of wrath by nature Eph. 2.2 to the children of wrath belongeth all kind of punishment not onely in the priuation of life and glorie but in the actuall feeling and suffering of eternall torments 3. The ordinarie glosse saith that death in Adam raigned onely temporaliter temporally but grace and life in Christ eternally but death in Adam should haue raigned eternally if Christ had not redeemed vs not onely temporall but eternall death is the reward of 〈◊〉 then seeing all sinned in Adam all by nature are subiect euen to eternall death 4. Pet. Martyr obserueth out of Oecumenius an other point of excellencie in Christ aboue Adam for Adams sinne cooperans habuit omne nostrum peccatum had euerie one of our sinnes to helpe and worke together with it but the grace of Christ came vpon all sine nostra cooperatione without our ioynt working for not onely the faithfull and beleeuers but infidels also and vnbeleeuers shall rise againe from death But Pet. Martyr taketh these exceptions to this obseruation 1. Adams sinne without our actuall sinnes was sufficient to condemne his posteritie 2. though the vnbeleeuers shall rise againe it shall be to their further condemnation it shall be no benefit vnto them 3. though Gods grace doe worke without vs yet there is somewhat required in the faithfull that they should beleeue though that also be the gift and worke of God in vs. 5. Wherefore the true excellencie of the grace of Christ aboue the sinne and condemnation by Adam consisteth in those points declared in the former question because in Christ we are restored to a more excellent state then we lost in Adam 1. by Adam we are depriued of a temporall paradise in Christ we are restored to an heauenly 2. in Adam we are excluded from the eating of the materiall tree of life but in Christ we feede of the bread of heauen which giueth eternall life 3. in Adam it was giuen vs posse non mori non peccare a possibilitie not to sinne not to die but in Christ we shall obtaine non posse peccare mori that we cannot die nor sinne in the next life 4. by Adams sinne we are
reference to the time before spoken of from Adam vnto Moses and therefore he saith many not all as he on the other side specially meaneth the times of the Gospell when likewise many and not all beleeued in Christ annot 22. so also Faius But then this comparison should be imperfect for as Adams sinne hath infected all his posteritie since the beginning of the world to the ende thereof so Christ is the Sauiour of the world both from Adam to Moses and since 4. Augustine taketh the Apostle to meane all but yet he saith many to shewe the multitude of those that are saued in Christ for there are aliqua omnia quae non sunt multa some things all that are not many as the fowre Gospels are all but not many and there be aliqua multa some things many that are not all as many beleeuers in Christ not all for all haue not faith 2. Thess. 3. c. It is true that the Apostle by many vnderstandeth all as he said in the former verse and sometime the scripture calleth them many which are all as in one place the Lord saith to Abraham I haue made thee a father of many nations Gen. 17. in an other in thy seede all the nations of the earth shall be blessed but yet the reason is not giuen why the Apostle saith many not all 5. Some thinke he so saith many because Christ is excluded that came of Adam Piscator But Christ though he descended of Adam yet not by ordinarie generation therefore in this generall speach he needed not to be excepted as he was not included when the Apostle saith in whom that is in Adam all haue sinned 6. The reason then is this multos apponit vni he opposeth many to one that Adam beeing one infected many beside himselfe with his sinne as Adams sinne rested not in his person but entred vpon many so Christs obedience and righteousnesse staied not in his person but was likewise communicated to many Beza Pareus Quest. 40. How many are said to be sinners in Adam 1. Chrysostome by sinners vnderstandeth morti obnoxiot those that are subiect to death by reason of Adams sinne and he addeth this reason ex illius inobedientia alium fieri peccatorem quam poterit habere consequentiam by his disobedience others to become sinners it hath no coherence or consequence Contra. 1. True it is that sometime the word peccatores sinners is taken in that sense for men subiect to death and punishment as Bathsheba saith to Dauid 1. King 1.21 else when my Lord the King shall sleepe with his fathers I and my sonne Salomon shall be sinners c. that is put to death as offenders But yet in this place the word is not so taken for as to be made iust in Christ signifieth not to haue the reward of iustice but to be iustified indeed so to be made sinners sheweth not the punishment but the guiltines of sinne deseruing punishment as then in the former verse the effects were compared together condemnation in Adam and iustification vnto life in Christ so here the causes are shewed sinne on the one side causing death and righteousnesse on the other which bringeth to life 2. though Chrysostome faile in the interpretation of this place yet he denieth not but that in Adams all sinned and in many places he testifieth euidently of originall sinne as he calleth to radicale peccatum the rooted sinne hom 40. in 1. epist. ad Corinth And therefore the Pelagians did him wrong to make him an author of their opinion who denied originall sinne from which imputation of the Pelagians Augustine cleareth Chrysostome writing against their heresie and this point is cleared in this place for if all are subiect to death in Adam which Chrysostome here confesseth then all haue sinned in Adam for death could not enter vpon all without sinne 2. As Chrysostome vnderstandeth here onely temporall death whereunto all are subiect in Adam so some by condemnation mentioned v. 17. doe likewise insinuate the sentence onely of mortalitie Tolet. Origen vnderstandeth the expulsion of Adam out of Paradise but by the contrarie seeing the Apostle by iustification vnto life vnderstandeth the raigning in life eternall by death and condemnation is signified animae corporis damnatio the damnation of bodie and soule so expoundeth gloss interlin Gorrhan with others 3. Origen by sinners vnderstandeth consuetudinem studium peccandi the custome and studie of sinning as though the Apostle had meant onely actuall sinne but that proceedeth not from Adams disobedience properly as originall sinne doth 4. Neither yet doth the Apostle onely meane originall sinne which is by Adams disobedience in ipsius posteros propagatum propagated vnto his posteritie Faius for it is more to be a sinner then to sinne in Adam which the Apostle said before v. 12. 5. Wherefore the Apostle by sinners vnderstandeth both such as sinne originally in Adam peccatum contrabendâ— by the contagion or contraction of sinne and peccatum inteâ—andâ— which sinne actually by imitation Gorrh. so that we are not onely naturally euill by sinful propagation as the Apostle said before v. 12. in whom all haue sinned and so are by nature guiltie of death and condemnation v. 18. but beside as an effect of our naturall corruption there is a generall pravitie of nature and an habite of euill engendred in vs whereby we can doe no other then sinne so Adams disobedience hath made vs not onely naturaliter pravos naturally euill sed habitualiter peccatores habitually sinners Pareus Quest. 41. How the lawe is said to haue entred thereupon ver 20. 1. The occasion of these words is not so much to shewe that sinne raigned in the world euen after the lawe as it was in the world before the lawe from Adam to Moses v. 14. but the Apostle hauing shewed at large how we are deliuered from sinne and death brought in by Adam onely by Christ he preuenteth the obiection of the Iewes for it might haue beene replyed wherefore then serued the lawe if there were no remedie against sinne thereby the Apostle then answeareth that the lawe was so farre from sauing men from their sinnes that they were thereby the more encreased thus Chrysostome and Pet. Martyr with others 2. But this is not to be vnderstood of the lawe of nature as Origen who to decline the imputation of the lawe laid vpon it by wicked Marcion that it was giuen to an euill ende to encrease sinne will haue the Apostle to speake of the lawe of nature for the Apostle making mention of the lawe before v. 13. vnderstandeth the written lawe as he expoundeth v. 14. where he expressely speaketh of Moses neither was the lawe of nature giuen to that ende to encrease sinne no more then the morall lawe was but sinne entred occasionaliter by occasion onely of the lawe as shall be shewed in the next question 3. The lawe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 entred thereupon 1. the Latine interpreter readeth subintravit
not onely be that is Isaac Beza Genevens some and not only illa she vnderstanding Sarah that is the onely non accepit devinum responsum receiued not a diuine answear Ireneus lib. 4. 〈◊〉 or promissionem 〈◊〉 promise gloss ordinar or a sonne by the helpe of grace Lyranusâ— â—t the better supply is to put it neither in the masculine or feminine but in the neuter aâ—â— not onely hoc this that is it was not thus onely in Ismael and Isaac but in this other example which he nowe proâ—oundeth see the like phrase before c. 5.11 and 8.23 2. For whereas diuerse exceptions might haue beene taken 〈◊〉 former example as that they were of two mothers and alâ—â— same of diuerse conditions the one free the other bound now the Apostle produceth an other example wherein neither of these two exceptions can haue place for Iacob and Esau came of one mother and they were borne at one birth 3. The vulgar Latine readeth Rebecca ex vna concubitu at one lying in conception but in the Greeke it is not so but she 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hauing conceiued by one in the same sense the Syrian translator companying with him though it be not vnlike but that as they were borne together so they were conceiued together 4. But Chrysostome here hath a strange opinion that the Apostle leaueth this question vndiscussed why the Lord did make choice of Iacob and refused Esau he onely answeareth one question by an other for the Iewes might haue demanded why they were reiected and the Gentiles accepted and he answeareth by the like question concerning the fathers Isaac and Iacob were taken Ismael and Esau refused and goeth no further like as in the 5. chapter he sheweth that Christs righteousnesse is deriued to vs as Adams sinne is propagâ—ted but there he leaueth and proceedeth not to shewe how sinne is propagated from Adam But Chrysostome is in both deceiued for both in that place he prooueth the propagation of sinne from Adam to his posteritie by the effect thereof namely death all is sinne in Adam because by sinne death entered and in this place he sheweth the first cause of the election of Iacob and the reprobation of Esau namely the free purpose of God v. 11. that the purpose of God might remaine Quest. 13. Whether these examples concerne temporall or eternall election and reprobation It is by some obiected that these examples of Isaac and Ismael Iacob and Esau doe only shewe their temporall reiection not their depriuing of eternall life but they are set forth onely as types of the reiection of the Iewes 1. For the text cited out of Genesis chap. 15. speaketh of servitude that the elder shall serue the younger but one may be in seruitude and yet not eternally reiected 2. And this prophesie was not personally fulfilled in Iacob and Esau but in their posteritie 3. That other place Malach. 1.2 sheweth wherein the loue of God consisted toward Iacob and his hatred toward Esau because he gaue vnto Iacob the land of promise but vnto Esau he made his mountaine wast and gaue him a drie and barren countrie Thus Erasmus obiected in his diatrib pro liber arbit and of late Humius and Huberus Contra. To these obiections of Erasmus Luther hath sufficiently made answer lib. de orbit c. 166. much differing herein from the Lutherans so called in these times 1. First here Luther and so Pet. Martyr vpon this place answer by way of concession that if it were admitted that Saint Paul onely speaketh of their temporall reiection yet it is a strange argument to shew that election is not by works seeing euen the disposing of this temporall inheritance was not by workes but according to the purpose of God secondly it is denied that this testimonie onely concerned the temporall inheritance for this externall promise of the inheritance of Canaan had relation to Christ and the spirituall promises were therein exhibited and so the Apostle draweth his argument à sig no ad rem significatam from the signe to the thing signified Iun. lib. 2. parallel 10. so also Pareus dub 9. this right giuen vnto the younger ouer the elder was effectus singularis gratiae complectens ea omnia quae ad foedus Dei c. it was an effect of speciall grace comprehending all things belonging to the couenant and euerlasting life 2. As this prophesie was historically fulfilled in their posteritie so also it must haue some effect in their persons for it is said to Esau Gen. 27.40 Thou shalt be thy brothers seruant which seeing it was not fulfilled visibly for Esau had a more flourishing outward state than Iacob it had a spirituall accomplishment in them Esau beeing a seruant in respect of Iacob because he was cut of from the couenant off grace And though there be not euident testimonie of the reprobation of Ismael and Esau yet it is most probable seeing Ismael was a mocker and persecutor of Izaak Gala. 4.29 and Esau is called a prophane person that they were reprobates vnlesse it can be shewed that they returned in their life time to the fellowship of the Church for without the Church there is no saluation Par. dub 4. 3. In Malachie the Lord vseth this as an argument of his loue to Iacob and hatred to Esau because he had giuen a pleasant land to the one and a barren ground to the other but yet the Lord riseth higher and sheweth how that with Esau he is angrie for euer and that he will be magnified in Iacob that place then cannot be restrained to temporall things 4. And if these examples onely concerned temporall things then had not the Apostle alleadged them to the purpose which was to shew who were the children of God and the children of the promise v. 8. but this is not to be thought of the Apostle that he cited Scripture impertinently See further hereof Synops. Quest. 14. How this saying of the Prophet Esau haue I hated agreeth with that Wisedom 11 2â— Thou hatest nothing which thou shalt made 1. Catharinus to dissolue this knot referreth this hatred of Esau vnto things temporall that Iacob is said to be loued and Esau hated because Iacob had the better blessing and more temporall gifts bestowed vpon him and Esau seemed to be neglected like as the younger sonnes may say their father hateth them when the inheritance is giuen vnto the Elder But it hath beene shewed before that these examples are alleadged by the Apostle to shew who were the children of promise and who not and therefore they cannot be restrained to temporall things 2. Augustine saith non edit Deus Esau hominem sed adit peccatorem God hated not Esau as a man but as a sinner lib. ad Simplâ—â—ian qu. 2. and he explaneth his mind thus further distinguishing betweene these three creaturam peccatum poenam peccati the creature the sinne of the creature and the punishment the first God hateth not nor the last the one he made
And although by our redemption we are not deliuered or taken from God but reconciled vnto him yet are we deliuered from his wrath Rom. 5.9 and so from his punishing iustice 5. Argum. We are improperly said to be redeemed from that to the which the price was not paied but to the curse of the lawe and wrath that is the punishment of sinne the price was not paied for the bearing of the curse and the sustaining of the wrath of God for vs was the price it selfe therefore we are improperly said to be redeemed from the curse and wrath Answ. 1. The proposition is false for the captiue may be said to be redeemed from that to the which the price is not payed as from the gives fetters prison sword death though principally the redemption is from the hands of him which holdeth any in captiuitie so we may be redeemed from the curse of the lawe though the price were not payed vnto it 2. the curse of the lawe and wrath may be taken two wayes passiuely for the effect of the curse and wrath which is the punishment of sinne and in this sense the price is not paid to the curse or actiuely for the wrath of God and his irefull iudgement pronouncing the sentence of the curse and in this sense the price may be said to be paied vnto the curse that is the iustice and wrath of God inflicting the curse 6. Argum. The operation or curse of the lawe is euerlasting death but Christ did not vndergoe euerlasting death for vs therefore he was not made a curse for vs but onely for our cause he fell into some kind of curse for vs. Answ. 1. The proposition is generally true for the curse or operation doth not onely signifie the punishment due vnto the breach of the lawe but the sentence also pronounced against the transgressors of the lawe as it is said Deut. 21.23 cursed is euerie one that hangeth vpon a tree but euerie one that so hanged was not euerlastingly condemned as the theife that was converted vpon the crosse 2. yet it is most true that Christ in some sense suffred eternall death for vs for in euerlasting death two things are to be considered the greatnesse and infinitnes of the infernall agonies and dolors with the abiection and forsaking of God the other is the perpetuall continuance of such euerlasting horror and abiection the second Christ must needs be freed from both because of his omnipotencie it was impossible for him to be for euer kept vnder the thraldome of death and his innocencie that hauing satisfied for sinne beeing himselfe without sinne he could not be held in death and in respect of his office which was to be our deliuerer yet the verie infernall paines and sorrowe Christ did suffer for vs because our Redeemer was to suffer that which was due vnto vs and why els was our Sauiour so much perplexed before his passion which in respect of the outward tormēt of the body was exceeded by many Martyrs in their sufferings if he feared not some greater thing then the death of the bodie 3. And although sometime in Scripture the preposition for signifieth onely the ende or cause as Christ is said to haue died for our sinnes 1. Ioh. 3.16 yet it signifieth also for and in ones stead to doe any thing as Rom. 5.7 for a good man one dare die that is in his stead that he should not die and so Christ died for vs that is in our place and stead that we should not die eternally ex Pareo 7. Argum. As we are said to be sold vnder sinne so we are bought and redeemed by Christ but we were sold vnder sinne without any price payed therefore so also are we redeemed without the paying of any price Answ. The proposition is not true for it is a metaphoricall speach that we are sold vnder sinne thereby is signified the alienation and abiection from God by our sinnes but we are said to be redeemed properly wherein it was necessarie that a price should be paied for vs both to satisfie the iust wrath and indignation of God against sinne as also because of Gods immutable sentence thou shalt die the death which sentence must take place let the Lord should be found a lier and his word not to be true Christ therefore in redeeming vs by his death payed that price and ransome for vs which we otherwise should haue payed 8. Argum. Where there is a true and proper redemption the price is paied to him which holdeth the captiues in bondage but in this redemption purchased by Christ the price was not so paied for then the deuill should haue had it whose captiues we were therefore it is not properly a redemption Answ. 1. It is not true that we are principally and originally the deuills captiues first we are the Lords captiues as of an angrie and offended Iudge by our sinnes but secondarily we were captiued vnto Sathan because the Iudge deliuereth ouer sinners vnto him as the tormentor that power therefore which Sathan hath ouer sinners is a secondarie power receiued from God this is manifested in the parable Matth. 18.34 where the king deliuereth ouer the wicked seruant vnto the tormentor 2. The price then of our redemption was paied vnto God who had deliuered vs ouer as captiues for our sinnes and so the Apostle saith that Christ offred himselfe by his eternall spirit vnto God Heb. 9.14 not that God thirsted for the blood of his sonne but after 〈◊〉 salvation quia salus erat in sanguine because there was health in his blood as Bernard saith for thereby Gods iustice was satisfied and the veritie of his sentence established thou shalt die the death 3. But whereas it is further obiected that the price could not be payed vnto God 1. because God procured his owne sonne to pay the price of our redemption but be that detaineth captiues doth not procure their deliuerance 2. in paying the price of redemption there is some vantage accruing and growing to him to whom the price is paied but in our redemption there was no gaine or advantage vnto God we further answear thus 1. that in such a redemption wherein the Iudge desireth the life and safetie of the prisoner the Iudge himselfe may procure him to be redeemed and that out of his owne treasure 2. neither in such a kind of redemption doth the iudge seeke for any advantage to himselfe but onely the preservation of the lawes and common iustice as Zaleucus the gouernor of the Loerensians hauing made a lawe that he which was taken in adulterie should loose both his eyes did cause one of his sonnes eyes to be put out for the offence and one of his owne eyes by this he gained nothing but the commendation of iustice and so in our redemption the iustice of God is set forth otherwise there can be no lucre or advantage growing properly vnto God 4. Wherefore notwithstanding all these cauills and sophistications Christ properly and
to followe and he is made in that respect the father of the faithfull but the faithfull and beleeuers now are onely the children of faithfull Abraham 2. Now Abrahams faith and ours herein agree 1. in the generall obiect which is God that quickeneth and raiseth the dead 2. in the manner condition and qualitie for Abrahams faith was firme and certaine he was fully perswaded and such must our faith be 3. the end and scope of his faith and ours is the Messiah the promised seede 4. the effect is the same the imputation of righteousnesse Pareus Quest. 41. How Christ is said to haue beene deliuered vp for our sinnes v. 25. Christ was diuerse wayes and by diuerse deliuered vp 1. he was deliuered vp by the determinate counsell of God Rom. 8.31 he spared not his owne sonne but gaue him vp 〈◊〉 vs all vnto death 2. He was deliuered vp by himselfe Galath 2.20 Who hath loued me and giuen himselfe for me Ephes. 5.25 as Christ loued his Church and gaue himselfe for it 3. By Iudas Matth. 26.21 One of you shall betray me 4. He was deliuered vp by the Iewes as Pilate saith vnto Iesus Ioh. 18.35 thine owne nation and the high Priests haue deliuered thee vnto me 5. He was also deliuered vp by Pilate to be crucified Ioh. 19.16 6. And lastly he was deliuered vp by Sathan Ioh. 13.2 the deuill had put it into the heart of Iudas to betray him Gorrhan Tolet. So then Christ was deliuered vp à patre permittente of his father permitting à scipso sâ— lutem hominis procurante of himselfe procuring mans saluation à Iudae prodente of Iudaâ— betraying him à Iudao invidente of the Iewes enuying him à Pilato iudicante of Pilatâ— iudging him à diabolo suggerente of the deuill suggesting Gorrh. But the Apostle here speaketh of the first kind of deliuering vp by God his father â—â— that the ineffable counsell of Gods wisedome and mercie toward vs may appeare 2. that it might be knowne that Christ died not by chance or of any weakenesse or imbecilitie â—â— by the counsell of God wherein appeareth Christs great loue in willingly offring himselâ—â— for vs Pareus 3. that the same author may be knowen both of Christs deliuering to death and of his raising againe God raised him vp v. 24. Tolet. 42. Quest. Why the Apostle thus distinguisheth the benefits of our redemption ascribing remission of sinnes to Christs death and iustification to his resurrection v. 25. v. 25. Who was deliuered vp for our sinnes and is risen againe for our iustification here the Apostle seemeth to ascribe our iustification vnto the resurrection of Christ where he must not be so vnderstood as though Christs death onely merited for vs remission of sinnes and not iustification also for elswhere this our Apostle doth place our iustification in our redemption by the death of Christ Rom. 3.24 We are iustified freely by his grace thorough the redemption that is in Christ Iesus and S. Peter likewise faith 1. epist. 2.24 Who his owne selfe bare our sinnes in his bodie on the tree that we beeing deliuered from sinne might liue vnto righteousnes c. Diuers interpretations then are giuen of these words to remooue this doubt 1. Some doe giue this reason of this distinction that Christ is said to be risen for our iustification that is to be an example of newnesse of life as Augustine applieth this sentence super Psalm 101. ser. 2. pasch serm 2. Christus crucifixus est vt ostenderet veteris homiris occasum c. resurrexit vt in vita sua ostenderet vitae nostrae novitatem Christ was crucified to shew in vs the dying of the old man and he rose againe to shew in his liuing againe our newnes of life c. to the same purpose Origen and Anselme vpon this place and likewise Thomas 3. part quest 56. artic 2 that quantum ad efficientiam in respect of the efficacie both the passion and resurrection of Christ are the causes of both sed quantum ad exemplaritatem c. but in respect of the exemplarie vertue and force the passion of Christ is the cause of remission of sinnes and his resurrection the cause of newnes of life this interpretation is approoued by gloss ordinar Gorrhan Bellarm. lib. 2. de effect sacram c. 9. resp ad argum 5. Pererius disput 10. numer 49. and by Stapl. Antidot pag. 259. But Tolet annot 25. misliketh this sense vpon this reason because as the one clause of this sentence is to be taken so is the other but the Apostle saying who was deliuered to death for our sinnes insinuateth a satisfaction made by his death for our sinnes not an example shewed of mortification therefore in the other part he must be vnderstood likewise to speake of the cause of our iustification not of an example onely And further there is difference betweene iustification and newnesse of life the Apostle saith c. 6.4 As Christ was raised from the dead c. so we should walke in newnesse of life here the Apostle speaketh of the exemplarie imitation of Christs resurrection in newnes of life which is our sanctification and regeneration but iustification is a diuers thing from sanctification which is as the frait and the other the cause thereof 2. Caietane thus expoundeth we are said to be iustified by Christs resurrection because we are iustified by faith which is confirmed by Christs resurrection and so products sumus ad iustificationem per fidem resurrectionis we are brought vnto iustification by the faith of the resurrection And they adde further that our faith is specially directed vnto Christs resurrection for the Iewes and heathen did confesse that Christ died but not that he rose againe to this purpose Vatablus Christ rose for our iustification that we should beleeue him to be the Sonne of God and so by that faith be iustified to the same purpose Faius But Peter Martyr resureth this opinion because our faith must as well aime at the death of Christ as at his resurrection and although the Iewes knew that Christ died yet they did not acknowledge that he died for our sinnes Tolet addeth this reason further that like as the death of Christ was not an argument onely and confirmation of our faith but the very cause of the remission of our sinnes so his resurrection must be held to be not an argument and proofe of our faith but the very cause of our iustification 3. Tolet here bringeth in an other exposition which he doth father vpon Theodoret Christ rose for our iustification vt communem omnibus resurrectionem procuraret to procure the common resurrection of vs all for vnlesse Christ had risen againe we should not haue risen againe But 1. no where in Scripture is our resurrection called by the name of iustification 2. and our resurrection was as well merited by Christs death as by his resurrection 3. if Christ indeede had not risen at all neither should we haue
risen but his bodie might haue beene kept incorruptible in his graue vnto the ende of the world and then he might haue risen and we with him but then should we haue beene iustified he rose therefore for our iustification not for our resurrection 4. Some will haue these two benefits of remission and iustification to be indifferently referred as well to the death as to the resurrection of Christ as Theophylact mortuus est exe tatus à morte c. he died and was raised from death to free and exempt vs from our euill works and to make vs iust to the same purpose Haymo vt credentes eum passum c. that beleeuing him to haue suffered for our saluation and to haue risen from the dead per hanc fidem mereamur iustificari we may be counted worthie to be iustified by this faith So Emmanuel Sa. vtrunque factum propter vtrunque both of these were wrought by both these But if both these benefits were in like sort and manner wrought by both those actions of Christ there should appeare no reason of this distinction which the Apostle vseth 5. An other exposition is Christ rose for our iustification that is ad eam demonstradam for the manifestation and demonstration of it Piscator he had purchased indeede both our redemption from our sinnes and our iustification by his death and passion but resurrectione gloriosa testatus est he witnessed by his resurrection that he had ouercome hell and death for vs Osiand But the Apostle sheweth the very reall cause of our iustification not the testification onely thereof by Christs resurrection as his deliuering to death was the very cause of the remission of our sinnes 6. Some giue this sense he is said to haue risen for our iustification quia salutis predicatio redemptionis applicatio generalis c. because the preaching of saluation and the generall application of redemption was to followe after the resurrection Tolet. annot 25. to the same purpose Pet. Martyr our redemption was purchased by the death of Christ but that the same might be applyed vnto vs spiritu sancto opus fuit it was needefull the spirit of God should be sent These by iustification vnderstand the application publication and preaching of iustification But this seemeth not be so fit neither for as in the one part of the sentence the Apostle toucheth the true working and efficient cause of the remission of sinnes Christs deliuering vnto death and not the application or publication so must the other part of our iustification be vnderstood And Christ might if it had pleased him haue giuen his Apostle a commission to preach his death and passion before his resurrection yet had we not beene fully iustified vntill he had risen againe 7. But among the rest that exposition which goeth vnder the name of Ambrose in the commentarie vpon this place seemeth to be most vnreasonable that the Apostle thus deuideth these benefits to shewe that as many as were baptized before the passion of Christ solam remissionem peccatorum accepisse receiued onely remission of sinnes but after Christs resurrection as well they which were baptized before as after esse omnes vere iustification were all truely iustified This one place doth giue iust occasion of suspition that those commentaries were not composed by Ambrose for remission of sinnes cannot be separated from iustification whosouer hath the one hath likewise the other because they are pronounced blessed whose sinnes are remitted before ver 7. but there can be no blessednesse without iustification 8. Hugo is somewhat curious to shewe the reason why remission of sinnes is ascribed vnto Christs passion and iustification vnto his resurrection first he saith that Christs passion is both causa meritum figura the cause merit and figure or forme of remission but it is the cause and merit onely of iustification and newenesse of life not the forme it is the cause moouing that we should liue in sinne for which Christ hath died and Christ by his death merited forgiuenesse of our sinne and he hath giuen in his death a forme that as he died in respect of his bodily life so we should die vnto sinne now of newenesse of life Christs death is both the cause mouing and meriting of newenesse of life but not a figure so it agreeth in three points with the remission of sinnes and in two onely with iustification Likewise Christs resurrection was both the cause mouing vnto newenesse of life are the forme and figure that as Christ rose againe so we should rise vnto newenesse of life but of remission of sinnes it was onely the cause moouing not the forme but of neither was it any meritorious cause for Christ hauing put off his mortall bodie in the resurrection was not in statu merendi in the state of meriting so the resurrection of Christ agreeth with iustification in two points in beeing the cause and figure or forme but with remission of sinnes onely in one in beeing the cause therefore iustification is rather ascribed to Christs resurrection then vnto his passion to this purpose Hugo But he faileth in this his subtile and curious distinction 1. for seeing that the passion of Christ in two points as be himselfe obserueth agreeth with iustification namely in beeing the cause and merit thereof and the resurrection in two likewise in beeing the cause and figure or forme iustification should rather in this regard be ascribed vnto Christs passion because it was merited by it and not by the other and the rather because the Apostle hath nothing to doe with the exemplarie forme of the one or the other but to shewe the true causes and so the passion of Christ shall agree in two respects with iustification and the resurrection of Christ but in one 9. To drawe then this question to an ende there are two answers which I insist vpon as the best and so I will ioyne them both together 1. The Apostle doth put iustification vnto the resurrection of Christ because although it were merited by his death yet it had the complement and perfection by the resurrection of Christ for if Christ had not risen againe he had not shewed himselfe conquerour of death and so the worke of our redemption had beene vnperfect thus Calvin Beza Gualter and to this purpose Rollecus distinguisheth well betweene meritum efficacia the merit of iustification in respect of Christ and the efficacie thereof in respect of vs Christ did meritoriously worke our iustification and saluation by his death and passion but the efficacie thereof and perfection of the worke to vs-ward dependeth vpon his resurrection the like distinction the Apostle vseth saying Rom. 10.10 With the heart man beleeueth vnto righteousnes and with the mouth man confesseth to saluation not really distinguishing them in the causes one from the other but shewing that the complement and perfection of the worke consisteth in both 2. Hereunto adde that although these two benefits of our
redemption remission of sinnes and iustification are in themselues and in the vse of them common and vndeuided and are indifferently sometime ascribed to Christs death and passion Rom. 3.24 Ephes. 1.7 and sometime to his resurrection Rom. 10.9 yet in respect of their proper causes they are discerned rather then distinguished as the remission of sinnes is properly referred to Christs passion iustification to his resurrection Pareus and the reason is yeelded by Thomas effectus habet aliqualiter similitudinem causae the effect hath in some sort the similitude of the cause our mortification in the remission of sinne answeareth to Christs death our iustification and spirituall life to Christs rising againe to life Mart. Thus the workes of our creation redemption sanctification are indifferently ascribed to the whole Trinitie as works of their deitie and yet are discerned in respect of their seuerall persons And this shall suffice of this intricate and difficult question 4. Places of doctrine Doct. 1. Iustification by workes sheweth pride and vaine-glorie v. 2. If Abraham were iustified by workes he hath wherein to reioyce or glorie c. It is euident then that for one to stand vpon the iustice of his workes it commeth of pride and vaine boasting it maketh a man to extoll and advance himselfe against the grace of God but God resisteth the proude and giueth grace to the humble the proud Pharisie was not iustified but the humble Publican then let proud Pharisies and vaine-glorious Papists knowe that as long as they stand vpon the merit of their workes they shall neuer be truely iustified But yet whereas the Apostle addeth he hath wherein to reioyce but not with God we learne that all reioycing in good workes and in the keeping of a good conscience is not denyed we may modestly professe and protest before men what the grace of God hath wrought in vs but we must not glorie therein as thereby iustified before God as the Apostle else where saith 1. Cor. 4.4 I knowe nothing by my selfe yet am I not thereby iustified Pareus Doct. 2. Of the nature and substance of the Sacraments v. 11. Circumcision is called the seale of the righteousnes of faith this is not proper and peculiar to circumcision but it sheweth the vse and end of all sacraments which is to seale confirme vnto vs the promises of God in Christ So here are collected all the causes of the Sacraments 1. the efficient cause and author is God onely because he onely is able to giue efficacie and vertue vnto the sacraments as God was the author of circumcision so of all other the Sacraments both of the old and newe Testament 2. the materiall cause is the visible and externall signe 3. the forme is the rite and manner of institution 4. the ende to seale vnto vs the promises of God for remission of our sinnes in Christ Faius pag. 238. Doct. 3. Of the baptisme of infants From the circumcision of infants in the old Testament is inferred the baptisme also of infants vnder the newe for there is the same reason of both the Sacraments and S. Paul doubteth not to call baptisme circumcision Col. 2.11 And if circumcision beeing graunted to infants then baptisme should be denied nowe this were to make God more equall vnto the Iewes and their seede which were the carnall offspring of Abraham then vnto beleeuing Christians which are the spirituall sonnes of Abraham If it be obiected that we knowe not whether infants haue rem sacramenti the thing represented in the Sacrament neither should we put to the signe we answear 1. that this were to reason against God for the same question may be mooued concerning circumcision 2. no more doth the minister know the minde and intention of all those which communicate in the Lords Supper 3. infants are baptized though they haue no vnderstanding as yet of the Sacrament to shewe that they belong vnto the couenant of grace whence their saluation dependeth and not of the outward signe and both presently the Church receiueth edifying when they see infants baptized and the children themselues are admonished and stirred vp when they come to yeares of discretion to learne the true signification and vse of their baptisme which they receiued in their infancie Peter Martyr Doct. 4. Of the vnitie of the Church and the communion of Saints v. 11. That he should be the father of all them that beleeue In that Abraham is called the father of all that beleeue whether of the circumcision or vncircumcision hence it is euident that there is but one Church and one way of iustification for all whether circumcised or vncircumcised vnder the Lawe or the Gospel and that there is a communion and common fellowship of all beleeuers as beeing all brethren and children of faithfull Abraham So the Apostle saith Ephes. 4.4 There is one bodie one spirit c. one Lord one faith one baptisme Doct. 5. Faith requisite in those which are made partakers of the Sacraments v. 11. The seale of the righteousnesse of faith which he had Circumcision profited not Abraham without faith neither can any Sacrament to them which are of discretion and able to vnderstand and discerne be of any force without faith and therefore S. Pauls rule is 1. Cor. 11.28 That a man should examine himselfe when he commeth to the Lords table and to this examination it belongeth to prooue whether they be in faith 2. Cor. 13.5 Doct. 6. The faithfull are the true owners and heares of the world the wicked are vsurpers v. 13. The promise to be heire of the world was made to Abraham thorough faith to them then that beleeue who are the right seede of faithfull Abraham doe the promises belong both of this life and of the next as the Apostle saith 1. Tim. 4.8 That godlinesse haue both the promise of this life and of that which is to come the faithfull then may vse the blessings of this life with a good conscience as pledges of the life to come but the wicked are vsurpers and therefore defile themselues in abusing the things of this life Gryneus Doct. 7. The difference betweene the true God and the false v. 17. He beleeued God who quickeneth the dead Hence are gathered three arguments of the Godhead 1. his omnipotencie both in giuing a beeing vnto things which are not be calleth the things that are not as though they were and in restoring vnto things the beeing which they had 2. his eternitie he is the first and the last both at the first he created all things and shall in the last day raise them vp to life againe 3. his omniscience he can foretell things to come in calling them that is giuing them a beeing which yet are nothing These things cannot idols doe nor any strange gods by these arguments the Prophet Isa confoundeth the Idols of the heathens shewing that they are not like vnto the true God Isa. 44.6 I am the first and the last and without me there is no
sinnes for we hold also with S. Paul the imputation of Christs righteousnesse by faith as S. Paul saith Philip. 3.9 That I may be found in him not hauing mine owne righteousnesse which is by the lawe but that which is of the faith of Christ c. 2. But though we graunt as well an imputation of righteousnes as a not imputation of sinne concurring vnto iustification yet we denie that any inherent iustice or renouation of life is any part of this iustification neither doth the Apostle meane any such iustification here Christ rose for our iustification not thereby onely to giue vs an example of newenesse of life as Bellarmine and Pererius expound it wherein Tolet his owne fellowe Iesuite and Cardinall is against him as is before shewed qu. 42. but Christs resurrection is the cause and ground of our iustification which is imputed by faith as Ambrose expoundeth resurrexit c. vt nos gratia iustificationis donaret he rose againe to endue vs with the grace of iustification vt iustitiam credentium confirmaret to confirme the iustice of those which beleeue saith Hierome ista resurrectio credita nos iustificat this resurrection beeing beleeued doth iustifie vs saith Augustine 3. an inherent iustice we confesse which is our sanctification the fruit and effect of our iustification by faith but because it is imperfect in vs and not able to satisfie the iustice of God we denie that we are thereby iustified in his sight Controv. 19. Against Socinus corrupt interpretation of these words v. 25. Was deliuered vp for our sinnes Socinus will not haue this phrase to signifie any satisfactioÌ„ made by Christ for our sinnes but onely to betoken the cause or occasion of Christs death as the Lord is said to giue Israâ—l vp for the sinnes of Ieroboam who sinned and caused Israel to sinne 1. king 14.16 thus â—icked Socinus de Seruat part 2. p. 108. Contra. 1. Though sometime this phrase signifie the cause yet it is false that it so onely signifieth for the Scripture speaketh euidently that Christ was our reconciliation and that we haue redemption in him Rom. 3.24 25. our sinnes then onely were not the cause or occasion of his death but he so died for our sinnes as that he by his blood satisfied for them 2. It was the Pelagian blasphemie that Christ died for our sinnes to be an example onely vnto vs to die vnto sinne for thus the power and force of Christs death is extenuated which indeede causeth vs to die vnto sinne it doth not teach vs onely and shew vs the way this were to extoll the power of mans corrupt will against the grace of God 3. The instance of Ieroboam is altogether impertinent Israel was deliuered vp for Ieroboams sinnes which they imitated and followed if Christ were so deliuered vp for our sinnes then they must make him also to be a sinner with vs and to be polluted with our sinnes ex Perer dub 8. 20. Controv. Piscators opinion examined that our sinnes are remitted onely by Christs death not for the obedience and merit of his life These are Piscators words in his annotation vpon the 25. v. Omnia nostra pectata expiatâ— sunt per solam mortem Christi all our sinnes are expiated onely by the death of Christ and therefore neither originall sinne is purged by his holy conception nor the sinnes of omission by his holy life but by Christs death onely to this purpose many places of Scripture are cited and alleadged by him as Matth. 20.28 The Sonne of man came to giue his life a ransome for many Matth. 26.28 Which namely blood is shed for many for the remission of sinnes Act. 20.28 Christ hath purchased his Church by his blood Likewise he affirmeth that by Christs obedience in his death and vpon the crosse partâ—â— esse nobis vitam aeâ—ernam euerlasting life is obtained for vs as Hebr. 10.19 By the blood of Iesus we may be hold to enter into the holy place and other places are cited to the same effect Contra. 1. It is true that Christ onely by his death and other his holy sufferings paied the ransome and bare the punishment due vnto our sinne but seeing Christs blood had beene of no value if he had not beene most perfectly righteous his obedience and righteousnes must as well concurre vnto the remission of sinnes as his death and this is that which S. Peter saith 1. Pet. 1.19 We are redeemed with the pretious blood of Christ as of a Lâ—â—â—e vndefiled and without spot and c. 3.18 Christ hath once suffered for sinnes the iust for the vniust the innocencie then and integritie of Christ must be ioyned with Christs blood to make it an acceptable sacrifice 2. Whereas there are two parts of our iustification the remission and not imputing of sinnes and the imputation of Christs righteousness which two are not separated neither can the one stand without the other neither can there be any remission of sinnes vnlesse Christs righteousnes be imputed as S. Paul saith 1. Cor. 5.21 He hath made him to be sinne 〈◊〉 that knew no sinne that we should be made the righteousnes of God in him the merit of Christs obedience and righteousnes must needes concurre in the remission of sinnes yea Piscator in his annotation vpon the 4. v. confesseth that these words blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen idem valere to be as much in effect as to say blessed are they to whom iustice is imputed 3. But that seemeth to be a more straunge assertion to denie that possessio vitae eternat tanquam effectum adscribitur obedientiae Christi the possession of eternall life is ascribed as an effect to Christs obedience which is directly affirmed by the Apostle Hebr. 7.26 Such an high Priest it became vs to haue which is holy harmelesse vndefiled separate from sinners and made higher then the heauens what hath made Christ higher then the heauens but his holines perfection integritie and therefore he is able perfectly to saue them that come vnto God v. 25. 4. And further that we are iustified by Christs obedience the Apostle sheweth Rom. 5.13 As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous here the Apostle saith directly that we are made righteous by the obedience of Christ. Piscator here answereth that by Christs obedience here is vnderstood his obedience in submitting himselfe willingly vnto death in which it was his fathers will he should suffer for vs. Contra. Our iustification consisteth of two parts of the remission of our sinnes and the making of vs iust before God the one is procured by Christs death the other is purchased by his obedience and righteousnes and that the Apostle speaketh not onely of Christs obedience vnto death but generally of his whole course of righteousnes both in life and death is euident because he calleth it the gift of righteousnes v. 17. and the raigning of grace
by righteousnes thorough Iesus Christ v. 21. And further this is yet more euident where the Apostle saith Rom. 4.25 Christ was deliuered to death for our sinnes and is risen againe for our iustification whence it is gathered that iustification is more then remission of sinnes onely which as it was wrought by his death so the other was compassed by all other his holy actions Piscator answereth that iustification is here affirmed of the resurrection because it is an euident demonstration of our iustification which was obtained by the death of Christ. But I preferre rather Augustines interpretation lib. 10. cont Faust. c. 10. Ista resurrectio credita nos iustificat c. this resurrection of Christ beeing beleeued doth iustifie vs non quod reliqua opera merita Christi excluduntur c. not that the rest of his merits and works are excluded sed omnia consummantur c. but because all was perfected and finished in his death and resurrection here Augustine affirmeth two things both that all Christs merits and works concurre in our iustification as also that the beleeuing of Christs resurrection is as verily a cause of our iustification not a demonstration onely as his death was of the remission of our sinnes See before this place more fully expounded quest 42. and Piscators exposition refuted artic 5. So then to finish this matter if Christs death onely effected and wrought our iustification then should the rest of his workes and actions be superfluous whereas whatsoeuer he did in life or death was wrought for vs as Thomas in his commentarie vpon this place alleadgeth out of Damascen omnes passiones actiones illius humanitatis fuerunt nobis salutifera vtpote ex virtute divinitatis prouenientes all the passions and actions of his humanitie did tend vnto our saluation as proceeding from the vertue of his Diuinitie 6. Morall observations v. 7. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen Peter Martyr here noteth well that our sinnes onely doe hinder our blessednes for iustificatio est inchoata beatitudo our iustification is an happines inchoate or begun so then when our sinnes shall be fully taken away then our beatitude and blessed estate shall no longer be deferred as our happines begunne bringeth with it the remission of sinne so when it is finished all our sinnes with the remainder of them shall be cleane purged v. 13. The promise that he should be heire of the world Although the faithfull haue the promises of this life so farre as the Lord seeth it to be expedient for them yet their peculiar inheritance is the kingdome of heauen the children of God therefore must comfort themselues in the hope and expectation of their proper inheritance though in the meane time they be stripped and dispossessed of the things of this life As Abraham had the land of Canaan promised him and yet he himselfe had no inheritance in it no not the breadth of a foote Act. 7.5 so we must be reuiued with the hope of our celestiall inheritance though we possesse little in this world as Abraham was promised to be heire of the world not so much of that present as of that to come v. 18. Abraham aboue hope beleeued vnder hope This teacheth vs that we should neuer despair or cast off our hope but comfort our selues in God though we see no meanes as Abraham beleeued Gods promise concerning the multiplying of his seede though he saw no reason thereof in nature such a godly resolution was in Iob cap. 13.15 Though he slay me yet will I trust in him Then God showeth himselfe strongest when we are weakest and his glorie most appeareth when he helpeth vs beeing forsaken of all other worldly meanes v. 20. And gaue glorie vnto God As Abraham praised and glorified God for his mercie and truth so we ought to magnifie God and set forth his praise for all his mercies toward vs the Lord is not so well pleased with any spirituall sacrifice and seruice as when he returne vnto the praise of euery good blessing as the Prophet Dauid saide Psal. 116.12 What shall I render vnto the Lord for all his benefits I will take the cuppe of sauing health and call vpon the name of the Lord this is all the recompence that either God expecteth at our hands or we are able to performe to giue him thanks for all his benefits v. 23. Now it was not written for him onely c. but for vs c. Seeing then that the Scriptures are written generally for all the faithfull we haue all interest in them and therefore euerie one of Gods children should hereby receiue encouragement diligently and carefully to search the Scriptures as appertaining and belonging euen vnto him as our Sauiour saith Ioh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures for in them you thinke to haue eternall life who would not search his ground verie deepe if he thought he should finde gold there so much more should we be diligent in searching the Scriptures which shewe vs the way to eternall life which is farre beyond all the treasures of the world v. 25. Who was deliuered to death for our sinnes Seeing then that Christ died not in vaine but brought that worke to perfection for the which he died this now maketh much for the comfort of Gods children that their sinnes are verily done away in Christ and blotted out in his death this was S. Pauls comfort that Christ came into the world to same sinners of whom he was the chiefe 1. Tim. 1.15 This also teacheth vs to die vnto sinne which was the cause that Christ was giuen vp vnto death as Origen well obserueth quomodo non alienum nobis inimicum omne ducitur peccatum c. how shall not euerie sinne seeme strange and as an enemie vnto vs for the which Christ was deliuered vp vnto death The fifth chapter 1. The text with the diuers readings v. 1. Then beeing iustified by faith we haue peace not let vs haue peace S. L. toward God thorough our Lord Iesus Christ 2 By whome also we haue had accesse thorough faith into this grace wherein we stand by the which we stand Be. and reioyce vnder the hope Be. G.V. in the hope L.S. of the glorie of God of the sonnes of God L. but this is added 3 Neither that onely but also we reioyce in tribulation knowing that tribulation of afflection V.S. oppression Be. bringeth forth patience worketh G. in vs S. but this is not in the originall 4 And patieâ—â—â—e proofe B.S.L.V. or experience Be. G. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. and proofe or experience hope 5 And hope maketh not ashamed because the loue of God is shedde abroad in our hearts by the holy Ghost which is giuen vnto vs 6 For Christ when we were yet weake at his time B.G. that is the appointed time S. according to the time Gr. died for the vngodly not to what ende when we were yet weake died Christ for the
vngodly L. it is not put interrogatiuely but passiuely in the originall 7 Doubtlesse one will scarce die for a righteous man but yet for a good man for one which is profitable to him Be. he readeth the sense not the words it may be one dare die 8 But God setteth out his loue toward vs seeing that while not seeing if that while S. we were yet sinners Christ died for vs. 9 Beeing iustified therefore by his blood much more shall we be saued thorough him from wrath 10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God God was reconciled to vs S. by the death of his Sonne much more beeing reconciled we shall be saued liue S. by his life 11 And not onely so but we also reioyce in God thorough our Lord Iesus Christ by whome we haue obtained V. Be. receiued Gr. reconciliation atonement B.G. 12 Wherefore as by one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne and so euen so B. death went ouer all men in whome namely Adam Be. not in as much as S.V.B. all men haue sinned 13 For vnto the time of the law was sinne in the world but sinne is not imputed while there is no law 14 But death raigned from Adam vnto Moses euen ouer them that sinned after the like manner after the similitude Gr. of the transgression of Adam which was the figure of him that was to come 15 But yet not as the offence so is also the gift for if by the offence of that one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace which is of one man by one man B.G. hath abounded vnto many 16 And not as that which entred by one which sinned not as the sinne of one S.L. for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sinning or that sinned or as by one that sinned death entred V. for that followeth in the next verse so is the gift for the fault sinne B. not iudgement S.L.V. because of the words following to condemnation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. came of one offence which must be supplied out of the next clause vnto condemnation but the gift is of many offences to iustification 17 For if by one offence Be. better then by the offence of one B.G.S.V.L. for so much is expressed in the words following death raigned thorough one much more shall they which receiue the abundance of grace that abundance of grace G. and of the gift of righteousnes raigne in life thorough one that is Iesus Christ 18 Likewise then as by one offence Be. not the offence of one cater see the former vers the fault came vpon all men to condemnation so by one iustification Be. not the iustification of one B.G. cum caeter for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put in the first place otherwise it should be put after as in the next verse the benefit redounded vnto all men to the iustification of life 19 For as by the disobedience of one many were made sinners so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous 20 Moreouer the Law entred thereupon by the way V. in the meane time B. that the offence should encrease B. Be. abound V. G. but where sinne increased grace abounded much more 21 That as sinne had raigned vnto death in death V. S. L. so is the word in the originall is in but he meaneth vnto death as appeareth by the other opposite part vnto eternall death so might grace also raigne by righteousnes vnto eternall life thorough Iesus Christ our Lord. 2. The Argument Methode and Parts In this chapter the Apostle pursueth the former proposition wherewith he concluded the fourth chapter that Christ died for our sinnes and now he sheweth the manifold benefits which we haue by the death of Christ with an ample proofe and demonstration of the same So then this chapter is deuided into two parts the first containing a rehersall of the benefits which we haue by Christs death to v. 6. the second a proofe and demonstration thereof to the ende of the chapter 1. In the first part there is 1. set forth the foundation of all other benefits which we obtaine by Christ namely iustification by faith v. 1. 2. then the benefits and graces either internall which are these sowre peace of conscience bold accesse to Gods presence perseuerance hope of glorie v. 2. or externall which is constancie and reioycing in tribulation which is amplyfied both by the effects patience experience hope which is described by the effect it maketh vs not ashamed v. 5. and by the efficient cause thereof the loue of God shed in our hearts by the holy Ghost v. 5. 2. Then followeth the probation hereof which consisteth of two arguments the one taken from the state and condition of such as were reconciled by Christ they were enimies this argument is handled from v. 6. to 12. the other argument standeth vpon a comparison and collation betweene Adam and Christ the losse which we had by the one and the benefit which we are made partakers of by the other from v. 12 to the ende In the first argument there is 1. the proposition that Christ died for the vngodly v. 6. ◠the illustration thereof à dissimili by an vnlike comparison betweene man and God the first part is expressed v. 7. that a man will not die for an vnrighteous man and an enemie which is shewed by the contrarie because hardly for a righteous man will one die vnlesse he be also a friend much lesse for an vnrighteous man and an enemie the other part of the comparison followeth 1. shewing that Christ died both for vs beeing vnrighteous v. 8. and enemies also v. 10. 2. then he inferreth two conclusions 1. the certaintie of our saluation beeing now iustified and made friends v. 9.10 2. the ioy and consolation which springeth and ariseth hereof v. 11. The second argument consisting of a comparison betweene Adam and Christ is thus handled there is the proposition concerning Adam shewing wherein he was like wherein vnlike vnto Christ to v. 18. then the reddition or second part concerning Christ v. 18. to the ende First Adam is like in three things 1. in his person he was but one and yet the author of sinne to all 2. in the obiect his sinne was communicated to all though himselfe but one 3. in the effect and issue this sinne brought forth death all this is propounded v. 12. that sinne entred by one man into all the world then it is prooued by 3. arguments 1. by the office of the lawe which is not to bring in sinne but to impute sinne v. 13. therefore though sinne were not so much imputed before the lawe as after yet was it in the world before 2. by the effects death was in the world before the lawe and it raigned also vpon infants that had not sinned actually as Adam had done and therefore sinne much more which brought forth death v. 14. 3. Adam was
a figure of Christ therefore as Christs righteousnesse is extended euen vnto those before the lawe so also was Adams sinne v. 14. Then the Apostle sheweth wherein Adam is vnlike vnto Christ namely in these three things 1. in the efficacie and power the grace of God in Christ is much more able to saue vs then Adams fall was to condemne vs v. 15. 2. in the obiect Adams one offence was sufficient to condemne but by Christ we are deliuered from many offences v. 16. 3. in the ende Adams sinne brought forth death but Christs righteousnesse doth not onely deliuer vs from sinne and death but bringeth vs vnto righteousnesse and life yea and causeth vs to raigne in life it restoareth vs to a more glorious kingdome and inheritance then we lost in Adam v. 17. The reddition or second part of this comparison sheweth wherein Christ of whom Adam was a type and figure is answearable vnto Adam namely in these three things propounded v. 12. first in the singularitie of his person one mans iustification saueth vs as one mans offence condemned vs v. 18. 2. in the obiect as Adams sinne was communicated to many so is Christs obedience v. 19. And here the Apostle by the way preuenteth an obiection that if sinne came in by Adam why entred the lawe he answeareth to the ende that sinne might the more appeare and be increased not simply but that thereby the grace of God might abound the more 3. in the ende as sinne had raigned vnto death so grace might raigne vnto eternall life 3. The questions and doubts discussed Quest. 1. What peace the Apostle meaneth ver 1. v. 1. Beeing iustified by faith we haue peace toward God 1. Oecumenius whom Harme and Anselme Lyranus Hugo followe doe reade here in the imperatiue habeamus let vs haue not habemus we haue and they vnderstand peace with men that the Iewes should no longer contend with the Gentiles about their lawe as though iustification came thereby seeing the Apostle had sufficiently prooued alreadie that we are iustified by faith But this exposition cannot stand 1. because the Apostle speaketh of such peace as we haue with God not with man 2. he speaketh in the first person we haue but S. Paul was none of these which did contend about the Lawe 2. Origen Chrysostome Theodoret vnderstand it of peace with God but in this sense let vs beeing iustified by faith take heede that we offend not God by our sinnes and so make him our enemie mihi videtur saith Chrysostome de vita conuersatione disserere the Apostle seemeth vnto me now to reason of our life and conuersation so Origen let vs haue peace vt vltra non adversetur caro spiritus that our flesh no longer rebell against the spirit But the Apostle here exhorteth not sed gratulatur eorum faelicitati he doth rather set forth with ioy the happines of those which are iustified Erasmus and it is not an exhortation but a continuation rather of the former doctrine of iustification Tolet annot 1. and here he sheweth the benefits of our iustification whereof the first is peace of conscience Pareus and this is further euident by the words following By whom we haue accesse which words beeing not vttered by way of exhortation but of declaration shewe that the former words should so likewise be taken Erasmus 3. Ambrose reading in the Indicatiue habemus we haue expoundeth this peace of the tranquilitie and peace of conscience which we haue with God beeing once iustified by faith in Christ thus the Apostle himselfe expoundeth this peace v. 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne for they are our sinnes which make a separation betweene God and vs this sense followe Tolet annot 1. and in his commentarie Pareus Gryneus Faius with others 4. This then is resolued vpon that the Apostle speaketh here not of externall but internall peace there is pax temporis and pax pecteris a temporall and a pectorall or inward peace the other Christ giueth but through the malice of Sathan and the corruption of mans heart it may be interrupted and therefore Christ saith Matth. 10.34 That he came not to send peace but the sword but the other which is the inward peace of conscience Satan himselfe can not depriue vs of no man can take it from vs. But whereas there is a threefold combate within vs the fight betweene reason and affection betweene the flesh and the spirit and a wrestling with the terrors of Gods iudgements in the two first we cannot haue peace here but in part for still in the seruants of God there remaineth a combat betweene reason and affection the flesh and the spirit as S. Paul sheweth that it was so with him Rom. 7.23 he sawe another lawe in his members rebelling against the lawe of his minde and therefore we are not to hope to haue such peace vt non vltra caro adversetur spiritui that the flesh should no more rebell against the spirit as Origen thinketh but this inward peace is in respect of the terrors which are caused in vs by the feare of Gods iudgement against sinne from this terror we are deliuered by Christ Beza yet so as sometimes there may arise some feare doubts and perplexitie in the minde of the faithfull as it is written of Hilarion that beeing 70. yeare old and now neere vnto death he was somewhat perplexed and troubled in minde yet faith in the end ouercommeth all these dangers that we fall not vpon the rockes to make shipwracke of our faith and a good conscience 5. And we must here distinguish betweene pax conscientiae stupor conscienciae the peace of conscience and a carnall stupiditie for the one neuer felt the terror of Gods iudgments and therefore can haue no true peace the other hath felt them and is nowe by faith deliuered from them Calvin 6. Now whereas it is added We haue peace with God or toward God these things are here to be obserued 1. all the causes are here expressed of our iustification the materiall which is remission of our sinnes included in iustification the formall by faith the finall to haue peace with God the efficient through our Lord Iesus Christ Gorrhan 2. and in that he saith toward God Origen noteth that this is added to shewe that they haue neither peace in themselues because of the continuall combate betweene the flesh and the spirit not yet with Sathan and the world which continually tempt vs but with God we haue peace who is reconciled vnto vs in Christ and he saith toward God or with God to signifie that reconciliation is not onely made with God but that it is pleasing and acceptable vnto him that such a reconciliation is made Tolet. and further hereby is signified that this is a perpetuall peace because it is toward God with whom there is no change nor mutabilitie Faius Thorough Iesus Christ 1. Chrysostome seemeth thus to vnderstand
Mart. there might haue beene an other way in respect of Gods power to whome all things are possible sed nullus humanae miseriae convenientoir but none more conuenient in regard of mans miserie for what can more comfort vs deliuer vs from despaire then that it pleased God that a man like our selues should die for vs gloss ord and though there must haue been an other way found out Liberandi to deliuer man tamen non redimendi yet not of redeeming man Gorrhan for man could not properly be saide to be redeemed vnlesse the ransome had beene paied and the punishment due vnto man satisfied which was by the death of Christ. 15. Quest. Wherein the force of the Apostles reason consisteth saying Much more beeing reconciled we shall be saued by his life v. 9. 1. The ordinarie glosse thus collecteth because it is more to take away sinne then iustos cooperantes salvare to saue those that are iust and fellow workers as though this were the Apostles argument it was an harder matter to worke our iustification which was done without vs then now to purchase saluation whereunto man himselfe worketh But this is farre from the Apostles meaning to make man a ioynt worker with Christ in the matter of iustification for he ascribeth all here vnto the death and life of Christ. 2. Wherefore the force of this comparison beeing from the greater to the lesse consisteth in these three points 1. for whome Christ hath done this 2. how he hath wrought it 3. and what 1. The first is obserued by Chrysostome he iustified vs by faith in his blood when we were enemies now amici facti sumus we are made his friends and therefore he will much more saue vs. 2. The next is obserued by Oecumenius and Chrysostome also toucheth it it is not necessarie 〈◊〉 post hac silius moriatur that afterward the Sonne should die any more if then iustification be alreadie wrought for vs which required Christs death much more now shall we obtaine the perfecting of saluation to the which Christs death againe is not required Pareus and before him Gorrhan doe place the comparison in the opposition betweene life and death if he could iustifie vs by dying multo magis vivens c. much more beeing aliue can he saue vs. 3 It is more to iustifie and reconcile sinners then to saue them beeing iustified Christ hath done the first much lesse need we doubt of the second Pet. Mart. But Lyranus hath here a corrupt glosse giuing this reason why it is a greater worke to iustifie a sinner then to glorifie him beeing iustified because one can not merit his iustification but he that is iustified may per gratiam mereri de condigno vitam beatam c. may by grace deserue of condignitie a blessed life c. This is contrarie to the Apostle who saith Rom. 6.23 that the gift of God is eternall life c. it can not then be any wise merited 3. Now saluation is ascribed to the life of Christ not as though the life of Christ rising from the dead were the price of our redemption but because Christ by his resurrection and life did perfect our saluation and he now euer liueth to be an intercessor for vs vnto his father and to bring vs vnto glorie wherefore to finish and make perfect our iustification the life of Christ and his resurrection must be ioyned with his death and suffering as the Apostle concluded before in the verie last words of the former chapter Pareus 16. Quest. Why the Apostle saith not onely so but we also reioyce in God c. v. 11. 1. Some doe make this connexion that we onely shall not be saued by Christ in the life to come but now also reioyce in the hope thereof Lyran. Gorrhan and before them Theoâ—â—et likewise Anselme we glorie in this quia consider amus nos futuros cum illo in gloria we consider we shall be with him in glorie 2. Oecumenius giueth this sence least any might thinke it a shame vnto vs that we could not be otherwise redeemed then by the death of Christ the Apostle addeth that we â—â—eede not be ashamed thereof but rather glorie therein because it was a signe of the great loue of God that he spared not his owne Sonne for vs. 3. Some referre it to our glorying in tribulations Sa but it is more to glorie in God â—â—en to reioyce in tribulation 4. But the Apostle setteth downe here the highest degree of the reioycing of Christians they doe not onely reioyce vnder the hope of glorie nor in tribulation which two degrees the Apostle mentioned before ver 2. but they reioyce in God which is to reioyce quod Deum propitium habeas that thou hast God thy mercifull father Pareus â—â—â—â—care Deum habere patrem c. to boast that we haue God our father protector and â—â—â—ender Tolet. gloriamur Deum esse nostrum we reioyce that God is ours Calvin gloriaâ—â—â— de ipsius in nos clementia we glorie of his clemencie and loue toward vs Osiander And â—â—s the Apostle here amplifieth three effects of iustification before propounded v. 1 2. to â—â—â—e peace with God to stand in the state of grace and to reioyce so here he saith we are reconciled by his blood then we are saued by his life and so haue a perpetuitie and certentie in our state and we dare also glorie in God Pareus 17. Quest. Whether any thing neede to be supplied in the Apostles speach v. 12. to make the sense perfect v. 12. As by one sinne entred into the world c. 1. Some doe thinke that the redditiue of this similitude is wanting for vnto this as by one c. should answer the other part so c. Origen giueth this reason thereof that S. Paul omitted the other part so by one mans obedience came righteousnes propter negligentiores least the negligent and carelesse sort should haue presumed too much but this can be no reason because the Apostle both before and after had expressed as much that we obtaine life and righteousnes by Christ. 2. Bullinger consenteth with Origen that there is in this speach of the Apostle an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some inconsequence and that he omitted the other part through vehemencie 3. Erasmus thinketh that here is an anantapodoton a comparison without a reddition which he would haue vnderstood by supplying the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so in the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and death by sinne that is so death came by sinne as by one man sinne entred but all this belongeth to the proposition or first part of the comparison As sinne came in by one and death by sinne the reddition must be that so righteousnes came in by Christ and life thereby for otherwise there should be small coherence in the words 4. Tolet thinketh that the reddition is included in those words in the ende of the 14.1 where Adam is saide to be the figure
first Adam sinned beeing in and a part of the world and in him all mankind sinned beeing then in his ioynes 21. Quest. And death by sinne what kind of death the Apostle speaketh of 1. Ambrose here vnderstandeth onely the death of the bodie when the soule is separated from the bodie There is an other death saith he which is called the second death in hell quam non peccato Adae patimur sed eius occasione proprijs peccatis acquiritur which we suffer not by reason of Adams sinne but by occasion thereof it is procured by our sinnes so Ambrose is herein deceiued for Adam was threatned to die the same day he should eate of the forbidden fruit Gen. 2.17 but he died not then the bodily death Augustine who seemeth to be of the same minde with Ambrose that the death of the bodie onely was threatened not the second death quod eam Deus occultam esse volait propter dispositionem novi Testamenti c. which God would haue kept secret because of the newe Testament wherein it should be manifestly declared Augustine I say thus answereth this reason that although Adam and Eue did not that day die the corporall death yet because from that time forward mutata in deterius vitiata natura their nature decayed and was corrupted and the necessitie of death was brought in they then beganne to die c. and Ambrose to the same purpose saith that there was after that no day not houre wherein they were not merit obnoxij subiect to death But the words of the text moriendo morieris in dying thou shalt die doe seeme to imply an actuall death which then they should die not a potentiall onely Pererius is of the same opinion numer 38. that S. Paul here speaketh of the death of the bodie because after our Parents had eaten of the forbidden fruit the Lord said to Adam Dust thou art and to dust thou shalt returne But this is no good argument they were subiect to the death of the bodie Ergo to no other death 2. Some were of opinion that the spirituall death is here onely meant because they did not the same day die the death of the bodie but liued 900. yeares after so Philo lib de â—legor leg Mosaic and Eucherius lib. 1. in Genes Gregor epistol 31. ad Eulog the Pelagians to whom consenteth impious Socinus were also of the same opinion that the spirituall death onely must be here vnderstood but vpon an other reason because they thought the death of the bodie to be naturall But neither of thâ—â— reasons conclude not the first for the same day they became mortall though actually they died not nor the second for Adam being created according to Gods image was made immortall he was not then mortall by nature 3. Pererius hath here an other conceit by himselfe that the death of the soule was also a companion of originall sinne if it be taken onely for the separation of the soule from God and the privation of eternall life but not as it signifieth beside the euerlasting torments of hell numer 39. But 1. this assertion includeth a contradiction for if the death of the soule depriue sinners of eternall life it consequently casteth them downe to hell 2. seeing Christ the second Adam deliuered vs from that thraldome whereunto we were brought by the sinne of the first Adam and he hath redeemed vs from the torments of hell it followeth that by Adams transgression we were made guiltie of hell 4. Wherefore the founder opinion is that sinne brought into the world the death both of bodie and soule as Haymo well interpreteth mors animae corporis in omnes homines pertransijt the death both of the bodie and soule went ouer all men c. Origen giueth this reason these two kinds of death are here signified quia corporalem mortem vmbram illiaâ— dixeris c. because you may call the corporall death a shadow of the other namely the the death of the soule that wheresoeuer that invadeth the other doth necessarily followe c. he thinketh the death of the soule to be here specially meant as in that place of Ezechiel The soule that sinneth shall die but so as the corporall death must necessarily followe Theophylacts reason concludeth as much who saith by the sinne of one sinne and death invaded the world abcessisseque hominis vnius id est Christi virtute and both are remooued and taken away by the vertue and strength of one that is Christ c. Thus then the argument is framed what is recouered in Christ was lost in Adam but Christ restoareth vs both to the eternall life of the soule and the life of the bodie in the resurrection therefore by Adams transgression we died both in bodie and soule Pareus Pet. Martyr addeth further that as there is a double life of the soule whereby we seeke such things at are heauenly and spirituall and of the bodie which seeketh those things that concerne the preseruation of the bodie so vtramque hanc vitam mors inflicta propter peccatum sustulit so both these liues death inflicted by sinne hath taken away Faius giueth this reason in Adam we are the children of wrath now the wrath of God invadeth not the bodie onely but the soule also By death then here we must vnderstand first the spirituall and eternall death of the soule which is to be cast out of Gods presence into hell whereunto all are subiect without the mercie of God in Christ secondly the death of the bodie which is the separation of the soule from the bodie thirdly all the forerunners and consequents of both these deaths as sickenesse weakenes corruption in the bodie griefe horror despaire and such like in the soule Pareus Quest. 22. Whether the death of the bodie be naturall or inflicted by reason of sinne 1. Seneca hath this saying mors hominis non poena est sed natura death is the nature of man not a punishment and of the same opinion seemeth Iosephus to be who writeth lib. 1. antiquit that Adam if he had not sinned futurum fuisse longissima vita tardissimaque senectute should haue had a long life and a slow old age c. he thinketh then that he should haue died though it had beene long first The Pelagians also were in the same error that Adam was by reason of his nature subiect to death not because of sinne as Agustine reporteth their opinion lib. 1. de peccat merit c. 9. and wicked Socinus agreeth with them that death is naturally incident to men as to briut beasts and that Adams posteritie is subiect to death propter propagationem generis non imputationem peccati because of the propagation of their kind and nature not for the imputation of sinne 2. But this opinion is diuersly confuted by the Scriptures 1. Man was at the first created according to Gods image then as God is immortal so man if he had not sinned should also haue
they also without the mercie of God were subiect by nature vnto euerlasting death 2. But Origen manifestly interpreteth the Apostle to speake of originall sinne for he saith as Leui was in Abrahams Ioynes when he payed tithes to Melchizedeck sic omnes homines erant iu lumbis Adae c. so all men that are born were in the Ioynes of Adam and when he was expelled out of Paradise they were expelled with him c. 3. touching the scope of the place that which followeth v. 13. vnto the time of the lawe was sinne in the world comprehendeth also originall sinne which Erasmus would haue vnderstood onely of actuall that this place might be taken so likewise as shall be further shewed when we come to that place 2. But Theodoret goeth yet further then Erasmus for he doth not onely exclude originall sinne here applying the Apostles words onely to actuall sinne but he thinketh further that Adams sinne was not the cause of the entrance of sinne vpon his posteritie but the occasion onely for they hauing sinned became mortall and beeing mortall they begat mortall children and so were subiect to perturbations and consequently vnto sinne and so he concludeth vim peccati non esse naturalem c. that the force of sinne is not naturall for then they which sinne should be free from punishment for that which is naturall cannot be helped sed naturam ad peccatum procliuem esse factam but yet nature was made prone and apt to sinne to this purpose Theodoret But the Apostle euidently sheweth that not onely death is entred into the world but sinne also for how could infants in the iustice of God be subiect vnto death if they were not also guiltie of sinne 3. But the Pelagians goe yet a steppe further and denie that there is any originall sinne at all and that Adams sinne is not transfused to his posteritie by any naturall propagation but onely a corrupt imitation which heresie shall be confuted among the controversies Quest. 25. Of the coherence of these words vnto the time of the lawe was sinne in the world 1. Some make this connexion that the Apostle directly prooueth his former assertion v. 12. that in Adam all sinned and therefore are subiect to death and this is prooued by the contrarie because before there was any lawe giuen men were not punished for their actuall sinnes which were then in the world for there is no imputation of sinne vnto punishment where is no lawe seeing then death was not inflicted for actuall sinnes it followeth that it was for originall sinne Tolet. But this is not the coherence for he taketh sinne onely for actuall sinne whereas the Apostle spoke before of originall sinne 2. Some will haue all this verse to containe an obiection and to be vttered by S. Paul in the person of the adversarie and obiecter Where no lawe is there is no sinne imputed but before Moses there was no lawe giuen therefore no such sinne was imputed But all the words of this verse cannot containe the obiection because the first clause vnto the time of the law was sinne in the world are contrarie to the obiection for it is affirmed that sinne was in the world which the obiectio excepteth against beside Beza well obserueth that where the Apostle speaketh in the person of an other he inserteth some note or signification thereof 3. Calvin suspendeth all this sentence by a parenthesis which Beza misliketh because it hath a very good coherence with the former verse 4. Some thinke that the Apostle here maketh not an obiection but rather preuenteth it and maketh answear vnto a supposed obiection for it might haue beene thus excepted a-against the former words in whom all haue sinned that there was no lawe giuen vntill Moses and where no lawe is there is no imputation of sinne to this obiection the Apostle answeareth by way of cōcession vnto part that though sinne be not imputed without a law yet sinne was in the world before the lawe as it appeareth by the effects thereof namely death which reigned ouer all as it followeth v. 14. to this purpose Martyr Piscator Lyran. 5. But this rather is the right coherence and connexion of these words with the former whereas the Apostle had inferred that all in Adam were sinners and so subiect to death instance might be giuen of those which liued vntill the time of the law that vnto them sinne was not imputed because they had no lawe giuen them Then the Apostle answeareth this obiection proouing that death came into the world because of originall sinne and first he taketh it for graunted that there was then sinne in the world before the Lawe v. 13. as also death then he reasoneth thus if death were in the world and not inflicted for actuall sinnes then was it imputed for originall but it was not inflicted for actuall sinnes which he proueth by two reasons first by that which was obiected there was no lawe giuen for actuall sinnes and therefore they were not imputed secondly by the instance of children which committed no actuall sinnes and yet died therefore death entred into the world because of originall sinne Pare Quest. 26. How sinne is said to haue beene vnto the time of the lawe 1. Some doe vnderstand this sentence inclusiuely including also the time of the lawe and expound vnto the lawe vnto the ende and terme of the lawe for sinne was both before and vnder the lawe which could not take away sinne vntill Christ came thus Augustine lib. 1. de peccat remission c. 10. and Thodoret likewise Haymo who vnderstandeth by the lawe finem legis initium gratiae the ende of the lawe and beginning of grace and maketh it like vnto this speach the Hunnes raigned vsque ad Attylam regem vnto king Attylas that is vnto his death But the words following are against this exposition sinne is not imputed where is no lawe for if the time vnder the lawe be here comprehended how could it be said that then sinne was not imputed whereas by the lawe it is most of all imputed 2. Origen hath this singular exposition by himselfe he vnderstandeth here not the written but the naturall lawe and he supplieth the word mortuum dead sinne is dead vnto the time of the lawe that is till children come to yeares of discretion to vnderstand the lawe of nature and light of reason sinne is not imputed vnto them As it is forbidden that a child should smite his parents but in a boy of 4. or 5. yeare old it is counted no sinne so to doe and to this purpose he also interpreteth the word world the Apostle saith not among men but in the world because in the world there are vnreasonable creatures which are not capable of sinne and so he thinketh that S. Paul vnderstandeth children which are not yet capable of reason to this effect Origen But first it is euident that the Apostle by the lawe vnderstandeth the written lawe of Moses as
it followeth v. 14. and againe it is too great bouldnesse to insert the word dead for thus we may make any sense of the Scripture 3. Wherefore the Apostles meaning is that from Adam vntill the lawe was giuen for of the time after the lawe there could be no question there was sinne in the world for though they had not the written lawe yet they had the lawe of nature in transgressing the which they sinned Lyran. Beza Mart. Quest. 27. What sinne the Apostle meaneth which was in the world vnto the time of the lawe 1. Some doe vnderstand it onely of actuall sinne which was in the world in that the lawe of nature was transgressed though yet there were no written lawe giuen Tolet but it is euident in that the Apostle maketh direct mention of infants v. 14. which sinned not as Adam did that is actually that he meaneth originall sinne also 2. Pererius onely referreth it to originall sinne which though it were knowne vnto the Patriarkes yet it was not by the lawe of nature acknowledged for sinne so also Anselme Tolet replyeth that it cannot be so taken for neither vnder the law is originall sinne imputed vnto punishment But this reason is not sufficient for both before and after the lawe death raigned ouer all as brought in by originall sinne 3. But it is more agreeable to the Apostles minde to vnderstand sinne here generally both originall and actuall yet with speciall relation to originall sinne because the Apostles intendment is to shewe that all are sinners in Adam and so subiect vnto death and this appeareth to be the Apostles meaning v. 14. where he speaketh of the raigning of death ouer all as well those which committed actuall sinne as those which did not Thus Haymo interpreteth sinne was in the world originale actuale both originall and actuall Augustine likewise and Theodoret in the exposition of this place comprehend both so also Beza Pareus Quest. 28. How sinne is said to be imputed where there is no lawe ver 13. 1. Chrysostome here reporteth the opinion of some that make this a part of the obiection but he refuseth it and Tolet addeth this reason further because men doe not vse to obiect but that hath some shewe of probabilitie now none could doubt whether there were sinne in the world before the lawe for that was euident and apparant to all these words then the Apostle vttereth in his owne person 2. Oecumenius thinketh that the Apostle speaketh of the imputation of such sinnes as were against the ceremoniall lawe of Moses as touching circumcision sanctifying of the Sabboth and such like for other sinnes before the lawe of Moses were both knowne and imputed as is euident in the examples of Cain Lamech the Sodomites which were punished for their sinnes But the Apostle directly speaketh of such sinnes as were in the world before the lawe now the breach of ceremonies commanded by the lawe was counted no transgression before the lawe 3. Some by the imputation of sinne vnderstand the account made of sinne and take imputation for reputation as the Syrian interpreter and Beza in his last edition non putatur esse peccatum it is not thought to be sinne which is referred vnto the iudgement and opinion of men before the lawe came they had no perfect knowledge of sinne obscurum tum erat naturae lumen the light of nature was so obscure that men did not see their sinnes Mart. so also Osâ—ander non reputabatur it was not reputed sinne also Melancthon vbi non est lex non agnoscitur non accusatur c. where no lawe is sinne is not acknowledged accused to the same purpose M. Calvin though euen before the lawe their consciences accused them and there were diuerse examples of Gods iudgements vt plurimum tamen ad sua scelera connivebant yet for the most part they did winke at their sinnes c. Thus before them Augustine vnderstandeth it of the knowledge of sinne because per legem cognitio peccati by the lawe commeth the knowledge of sinne lib. 1. de peccat merit c. 10. and Oecumenius also to the same purpose taketh it comparatiuely magnitudo peccati non erat ita cognita c. the greatnesse of sinne was not knowne so before the lawe as afterward by the law and Haymo so expoundeth peccatum non agnoscebatur tam graue malum esse sinne was not knowne to be so great euill to the same purpose Lyranus Hug. Card. But these expositions seeme not to be agreeable to the scope of the Apostle for to what purpose should the Apostle vse this qualification sinne was in the world though it were not imputed and taken to be sinne before the law came for the Apostle doth not here intend to shew the effects or propertie of the law but his purpose is to prooue that men before the law came were punished with death euen because of their originall sinne 4. Origen taketh the imputation of sinne for the reputation but he followeth his former sense vnderstanding the law of nature that in children while yet they haue no vse of reason and so no knowledge of the law of nature that which they doe is not counted sinne But the Apostle euidently sheweth in the next verse speaking of Moses that he meaneth here the written law of Moses Origen fortifieth his opinion that the Apostle here meaneth the law of nature because if it be vnderstood of any other law diabolus angeli eius videdutur absolvi the Deuill and his angels may seeme to be absolved because they had no other law then the law of nature Contra. The Apostle speaketh not of the sinne of Angels but of men propagated from Adam whome he prooueth all to be sinners in Adam because they die in Adam but in the spirits there is neither propagation nor mortalitie 5. Ambrose referreth this imputation of sinne vnto the opinion which men had of God whom they thought not to regard nor punish the sinnes of men But the contrarie is euident in Pharaoh and Abimelech who knewe that they were punished for keeping Sarah Abrahams wife 6. Anselme and Pererius doe vnderstand this to be spoken onely of originall sinne that it was not acknowledged to be sinne before Moses lawe came by the light of nature though to the Patriarkes and holy men it were knowne But the contrarie is prooued by the Apostle that originall sinne was imputed to men euen before the law was giuen because death raigned ouer all euen ouer children so farre is he from saying that originall sinne was not imputed for where death was inflicted for sinne there sinne was imputed 7. This word of imputing of sinne is taken two wayes it signifieth either to haue the fault imputed or the punishment but here the latter rather to impute sinne is adiudicare 〈◊〉 reum to adiudge the guiltie person worthie of punishment in this sense is the word taken 2. Tim. 4.16 All haue forsaken me I pray God it be
2. there is not in infants the similitude of Adams transgression for his sinne was actuall so is not theirs if he had said onely after the similitude of Adam and not added transgression there had beene more probabilitie in it thus to diuide the sentence but in that he addeth after the similitude of the transgression it is more fitly ioyned to the former words which sinned not 2. Now of those which ioyne the last clause with the former words some read them affirmatiuely thus death raigned c. ouer them which sinned after the similitude c. and Origen receiuing this reading expoundeth it of those which committed mortall and great sinnes as Adam did and so distinguisheth betweene the entring of death which went ouer the righteous and the raigning of death onely ouer those which gaue themselues wholly ouer vnto sinne Ambrose vnderstandeth this clause of Idolaters for they sinne like vnto Adam who was not free from idolatrie in forsaking the Creator Some vnderstand it of children that they are saide to sinne after the similitude of Adam quia ex peccatore nascuntur peccatores because they are borne sinners of a sinners Gorrhan But all these goe against the receiued reading which hath a negative ouer them which sinned not as also the Syrian interpreter readeth 3. Of those which read with a negative ouer them which sinned not Hier. l. cont Pelag. expoundeth it of the particular sinne of Adam in eating of the forbidden fruit that death raigned euen ouer those which had not committed that sinne so also Theodor. and Chrysost. though he otherwise diuide the sentence as is shewed before But none beside Adam did commit that sinne whereas the Apostle in saying euen ouer them also which sinned not insinuateth that there were some ouer whome death raigned that sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression and some which did not 4. Athan. ser. 4. cont Arr. saith that they sinned like to Adam which committed mortall and great sinnes they sinned not like to Adam that sinned not mortally and yet died as Ieremie and Iohn Baptist that were sanctified in their mothers wombe But in this sense the Apostle onely should shew that death raigned onely ouer those which had committed actuall sinnes and so he should not prooue that which he said before that in Adam all sinned not onely those which commit actuall but are guiltie onely of originall sinne 5. Oecumenius doth interpret this place of those which were before the Law which did not transgresse in legem datam against any law giuen vnto them as Adam did but onely against the law of nature and so he seemeth to vnderstand it onely of those which committed actuall sinnes but then the Apostles reason should not be generall enough if he concluded not all as well Infants as others to be sinners in Adam 6. Most of our new writers vnderstand this not to sinne after the similitude of the transgression of Adam to be sine lege peccare to sinne without a law as all they did which were from Adam to Moses as well infants as men of yeares so Mart. Bulling Melanct. Calv. But this had beene then a needlesse addition seeing all without exception from Adam to Moses sinned in that manner without a law but the Apostle in saying euen ouer them also sheweth that there were some beside those which sinned after the transgression of Adam 7. Wherefore I preferre Augustines exposition who taketh those to sinne after the similitude of Adams transgression that committed actuall sinnes and those not to sinne after that similitude which had no actuall but onely originall sinnes so also Ansel. Lyran. Gorrh. glosse inter Haymo and of our new writers Beza Parâ— Ofianà Pisc. with other so also Per. 31. Qu. How Adam is said to be the figure of him that was to come v. 14. 1. Origen by him which is to come vnderstandeth the next world that as by Adam we all in this life become mortall so in the next world vita reguabit per Christum life shall raigne thorough Christ. 2. Some vnderstand this according to that place 1. Cor. 10.11 all those things happened vnto them in tâ—pes so whatsoeuer was before or vnder the law were figures of those things which should be accomplished in the times of the Messiah Faius and Origen also to the same purpose But it is euident that the Apostle compareth the person of Adam and Christ together and touching those things which were wrought and accomplished in this life not deferred till the next 3. Augustine sometime referreth that which is to come not vnto Christ but vnto Adams posteritie that such as he was after he had sinned such was his posteritie lib. 1. de peccat mort c. 11. so also Haymo bringeth this in for one exposition sicut Adam peccator extitit as Adam was a sinner so all his posteritie are borne sinners but the word beeing put in the singular number and with one article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of him or one to come sheweth that it must be vnderstood of some speciall one not of all Adams posteritie 4. The commentarie vnder S. Hieromes name but falsly here bewraieth it selfe to haue beene written by some Pelagian whose heresie was that Adams sinne is deriued to his posteritie by imitation not by propagation these are the words Adam hauing first transgressed the commandement of God exemplum est legem praevaricari volentibus is an example to those which will transgresse the law of God as Christ is an example to those which will imitate him in fulfilling his fathers wil But wherein Adam is a type of Christ the Apostle sheweth in the rest of this chap. following where no mention is made of any such exemplarie imitation 5. Some referre this to such things as happened to Adams person as Eve was formed out of Adams side beeing asleepe so out of Christs side hanging on the crosse issued water and blood the Sacraments of regeneration by the which the Church is sanctified and saued Gorrhan Lyranus Pererius And as Adam was made ex terra virgine of the earth a virgin so Christ was borne of Marie the Virgin Haymo But Bellarmine presseth this further that as Adam was made out of the earth beeing yet not accursed so Christ of Marie qua omnis maledictionis ac per hoc omnis peccati expers fuit which was free from all malediction and so from all sinne c. But beside that none of the rest which vrge this similitude doe straine it thus farre but onely thus that as Adam was made out of the earth divina virtutes by the diuine vertue Lyran. sine humano opere without mans helpe Gorrhan so Christ was borne of a Virgin this strained and forced collection should be contrarie to the Apostle for if Marie were without sinne how is it true which the Apostle said before in whome all euer haue sinned 6. Herein then Adam was a type of Christ not in respect of such things as were personall
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
compared to the beasts that perish Psal. 49.12 but in Christ we are made like vnto the Angels In these and other points is our state more perfect in Christ then it should haue beene in Adam if he had not sinned Quest. 37. In what sense the grace of God is said to haue abounded vnto more v. 15. The vulgar Latine giueth occasion of this question which in the first clause readeth multi many be dead thorough the offence of one but in the second he saith grace in plures abundavit hath abounded vnto more and this reading seemeth Origen to follow Here then many doe busie themselues to shewe how grace in Christ hath abounded vnto more then sinne in Adam 1. Origen saith that they are said to be more because Adam himselfe from whom the death of sinne was deriued vnto others additur numero eorum c. is added to the number of them which haue receiued grace in Christ But this is too curious neither agreeable to the Apostles meaning for seeing the comparison is instituted betweene Adam and Christ though Adam indeede were saued by Christ yet each of these Adam and Christ with their ofspring must be considered here as in themselues neither can the adding of one to this number make them more which haue obtained grace in Christ then them which are lost in Adam 2. Some by those many which are dead in Adam vnderstand onely those which sinned by imitating of Adam that is commit actuall sinnes and so they reade the former verse affirmatiuely Death raigned ouer those which sinned after the like manner of the transgression of Adam and then the grace of Christ aboundeth vnto more euen vnto infants that sinned not in like manner as Adam did that is actually thus Ambros. gloss ordinar Gorrhan But in this sense infants should be out of the number of those that are dead in Adam whereas the Apostle saith in whom all haue sinned yea infants and all sinned in Adam 3. Pererius hath this quaint obseruation that there may be found of Adam carnally propagated and yet not infected with his sinne as the Blessed Virgin Marie yet none can be found spiritually regenerate but by the grace of Christ But this conceit of his is against the Apostle who saith that in Adam all sinned and Origen thus collecteth videsne vt à peccato nullum Paulus excuset see you not how the Apostle excuseth none from sinne If all haue sinned in Adam then cannot the Virgin Marie be exempted from originall sinne 4. Pererius hath an other conceit that the grace of Christ is said to haue abounded vnto more because that if God should create a newe kind of men not of Adam they should stand in neede of the grace of Christ and yet they not comming of Adam could not be infected with his sinne Perer. disput 10. But S. Paul speaketh not of a possibilitie of supposall how grace might abound vnto more but of the actuall and reall abounding of grace vnto many in Christ and if there were a newe creation of men they should be created in a perfect estate as Adam was before his fall and so should not keeping of that state haue neede of a redeemer in that behalfe 5. But this is a needelesse question seeing that in the originall in both places the Apostle vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 multi many not in the comparatiue plures more therefore this question is impertinent how the grace of Christ is said to haue abounded vnto more Neither doth the Apostle giue vnto the grace of Christ the preheminence in respect of the number but of the more powerfull effect as is shewed before quest 35. 6. Haymo in both places vnderstandeth the elect they are the many which are dead in Adam temporally and they are the many vnto whom grace hath much more abounded because in Adam onely they are infected with originall sinne in Christ both originall and actuall are pardoned But those whom the Apostle here calleth many ver 18. he expresseth to be all he meaneth then all mankind in generall which die in Adam Quest. 38. How all men are said to be iustified in Christ v. 18. 1. Huberus therein ioyning the right hand of fellowship with the old Pelagians hence would prooue the Vniuersalitie of grace that all in Christ are absolutely iustified as in Adam all die But then it would followe by the force of the Apostles comparison that all should verily be saued in Christ as they are by nature sinners in Adam see the confutation of this error at large among the controuersies 2. Some vnderstand this of the sufficiencie of iustification by Christ that it is sufficient for all if they had grace to receiue it Lyran. But the Apostle speaketh not of a possibilitie of iustification but of an actuall collation of this benefit as Adams sinne really and actually is transfused to his posteritie 3. Tolet vnderstandeth generally all men whosoeuer and by the iustification of life he would haue signified the resurrection which shall be of all men in generall both good and bad as all men are subiect to death in Adam both good and bad But the Apostle before v. 17. called that raigning in life which here he nameth the iustification of life but the wicked that rise againe shall not raigne in life therefore they are not partakers of the iustification of life 4. Haymo better vnderstandeth here the vniuersalitie of the elect omnes electos praedestinatos ad vitam all that are elect and predestinate vnto life that as Adam infected all his posteritie carnally descending of him so Christ iustifieth all which beleeue in him to the same purpose Augustine vnderstandeth omnes viuificandos all that are to be quickened and made aliue because none are iustified but in Christ lib. 6. cont Iulian. c. 12. so the interlinearie glosse vnderstandeth omnes sui all that are Christs all are iustified qui sunt Christi which are Christs Pareus Quest. 39. Why the Apostle saith v. 19. By one mans disobedience many were made sinners and not all 1. Origen by sinnes here vnderstandeth those which continue in a custome of sinne a righteous man may sinne but he therefore cannot be called a sinner and so not all borne of Adam but many are said to be sinners to the same purpose Tolet annot 25. But the Apostle speaketh here of Adams disobedience whereby many were sinners which is deriued by propagation and learned by imitation therefore he speaketh generally of all that sinned in Adam and not onely of some speciall sinners 2. Theodoret thinketh the Apostle nameth many because all did not continue in Adams sinne but some permanserunt in decretis naturae c. did remaine in the decree of nature and followed vertue as Abel Henoch Noe c. But euen those also were borne in sinne as the Apostle said before v. 12. that all sinned in Adam and they were sinners by nature though regenerate by Christ. 3. Tolet thinketh the Apostle hath
but euen swallowe vp Calvin and in respect of our selues who the more we feele the burthen and ouerflowing of our sinne the more we haue occasion to extoll and magnifie the grace of God Osiander So here are two ends of the lawe expressed the neâ—â—â—â— ende is the manifestation and encrease of sinne the remote ende is the more abounding of grace but here is the difference the first ende is vniuersall for in all men both beleeuers and vnbeleeuers the law worketh the encrease insight and knowledge of sinne but the other ende is particular and peculiar 〈◊〉 to the faithfull that by the abounding of sinne grace may more abound toward them which is not properly caused by the encrease of sinne but thorough the mercie of God Pareus Quest. 44. Of the raigne of sinne vnto death and of grace vnto life 1. Before the Apostle had ascribed the kingdome vnto death v. 14. Death raigned from Adam c. but here vnto sinne because death indeede raigneth by sinne as the Apostle saith The sting of death is sinne 1. Cor. 15.56 death could haue no power ouer vs but thorough sinne Martyr 2. But to speake more distinctly where the Apostle giueth the kingdome vnto death he speaketh of the times before the law when as death did apparantly raigne in the world but sinne was not so apparant till the lawe came but sinne is said to haue raigned after the lawe was giuen because sinne then more abounded So that three estates of the world are here described the first from Adam to Moses when sinne was in the world but death raigned the third is from the comming of Christ who raigned by righteousnesse vnto life destroying both the kingdome of sinne and death Tolet. 3. By death Chrysostome seemeth to vnderstand the death of the bodie mors ex haec presenti vita eijcit death doth cast vs out of this life c. but eternall death is here also comprehended potestatem habuit deijciendi c. it had power to cast vs downe to eternall death Lyran. as may appeare by the other opposite part of eternall life Piscator 4. But whereas in the first clause mention is made onely of the raigning of sinne vnto death but in the other there are three mentioned grace righteousnesse and life Origen thinketh that the deuill must be vnderstood to be set against the grace of Christ ab inuentis rebus author inventi nominatur the author of the invention is named in the things invented c. for sinne came in by the deuill some thinke that the wrath of God must be supplied which raigned by sinne Piscator but I thinke rather with Calvin that beside the necessarie parts of the comparison the Apostle maketh mention of grace vt fortius in figuret memoria c. that it might better sticke in our memorie that all is of grace 5. The Apostle speaketh of the time past sinne had raigned because that although sinne doe still raigne in the children of disobedience yet in the faithfull it raigneth no more Par. 6. By righteousnesse some vnderstand iustitiam operum the righteousnesse of 〈◊〉 gloss interlin so also Bellarmine lib. 2. de iustificat c. 6. but the iustice of Christ is rather vnderstood as the Greeke interpreters well expound and as is euident by the clause in the ende By our Lord Iesus Christ who is notwithstanding both our iustification and sanctification 7. The ordinarie glosse here well obserueth that in the kingdome of sinne mention is not made of Adam from whom sinne came because the Apostle speaketh not onely of originall but of actuall sinnes both which are remitted in Christ. 8. Thorough Iesus Christ our Lord Iesus per gratiam Dominus per iustitiam nostre per gloriam Iesus by grace Lord by his iustice and ours because he bringeth vs to glorie Gorrhan 4. Places of Doctrine Doct. 1. Of the difference betweene Christian and worldly hope v. 5. Hope maketh not ashamed This is the propertie of the hope of Christians that is neuer confoundeth them or maketh ashamed because it is founded vpon Gods promises who both is immutable and changeth not and is also omnipotent able to performe whatsoeuer he promiseth But so it is not in humane or worldly hope for that often putteth man to rebuke because he is deceiued in his hope and faileth in the thing hoped for and the reason is for that he reposeth his confidence in man who is either deceitfull and hopeth not his promise or is not of power to performe it therefore the Prophet saith Cursed be the man that trusteth in man and maketh flesh his arme Ierem. 17.5 Doct. 2. Of the properties and effects of faith v. 2. Beeing iustified by faith 1. Vnto faith is ascribed iustification as in these words and remission of sinnes in purifying the heart Act. 15.9 2. faith is the foundation of thing hoped for Heb. 11.1 3. it is the cause of the producing and bringing forth of good fruit Iam. 2.8 Shewe me thy faith out of thy workes c. 4. it ouercommeth the tentations of Sathan for by the sheild of faith we quench all his fierie darts Ephes. 6.18 5. by faith we attaine vnto the vnderstanding of the word of God which otherwise is vnprofitable Isay. 7.9 Vnlesse yee beleeue ye shall not vnderstand as some translations doe reade and the Apostle saith that the word did not profit the Israelites because it was not mixed with faith Heb. 4.2 6. faith obtaineth our requests in prayer Iam. 2.16 the prayer of faith saueth the sicke 7. it worketh the saluation of the soule Luk. 7.50 Thy faith hath saued thee Doct. 3. Of the raigne and dominion of death v. 14. Death raigned from Adam to Moses Before sinne entred into the world death had no dominion but now it hath gotten a tyrannicall and generall dominion ouer men both of all sorts and conditions both young and old and in all ages as here it is said to raigne euen from Adam to Moses that age was not exempted from the dominion of death wherein sinne seemed least to abound but Christ hath ouercome death and destroyed the dominion thereof both in that he hath taken away the sting thereof which is sinne that death is not hurtfull vnto them that beleeue but bringeth their soules vnto euerlasting rest and in the generall resurrection our bodies which death had seazed on shall be restored vnto life as our Blessed Sauiour saith I am the resurrection and the life c. Ioh. 15.25 Doct. 4. Of the difference of sinnes v. 14. Euen ouer them that sinned not after the like manner c. Here the Apostle setteth downe this distinction of actuall and originall sinne some doe sinne in like manner as Adam did that is actually some not in like manner that is there is a secret and hid sinne in the corruption of nature which is not actuall but in time breaketh forth into act as the seede sheweth it selfe in the hearbe Doct. 5. There is no saluation
or life without Christ. v. 17. Much more shall they which receiue c. raigne in life c. As in Adam sinne and death entred and so raigned ouer all so life raigneth by Iesus Christ then they which are not graft by faith into Christ but remaine onely in Adam cannot be pertakers of life they are still vnder the kingdome of sinne and death wherefore the Turkes Iewes and all other that are without the knowledge and faith of Christ howsoeuer they dreame of a kind of Paradise and terrene happinesse after this life yet they can haue no assurance of life seeing they are strangers from Christ So S. Peter saith Act. 4.12 That there is no other name giuen vnder heauen whereby we must be saued Doct. 6. That life doth accompanie righteousnesse v. 17. The Apostle saith that they which receiue the gift of righteousnesse shall raigne in life then as sinne raigned vnto death so righteousnesse raigneth vnto life wheresoeuer then righteousnesse is found whether inherent as in the Angels or imputed as in the faithfull who haue the righteousnesse of Christ imputed vnto them by faith there is the kingdome of life then they which doe feele the kingdome of righteousnesse to be begunne in them who both by faith are iustified in Christ and their faith is effectuall working by loue they are assured to enter into life as S. Paul knewe after he had kept the faith and fought a good fight that there was a crowne of righteousnesse laid vp for him 2. Tim. 4.8 Doct. 7. Of the vse of the lawe v. 20. The lawe entred c. that the offence should abound c. This is the proper vse of the lawe to bring a man to the knowledge of his sinne and to shewe him in what state he standeth by nature a transgressor of the lawe and so subiect to the curse but we must not rest in this vse of the lawe there is a second and more principall ende that by the abounding of sinne grace may more abound and in this sense the Apostle calleth the lawe a schoolemaster to bring vs to Christ Galath 3.19 that we by the lawe seeing our owne weakenesse and vnsufficiencie should seeke vnto Christ Iesus to finde righteousnes in him which cannot be obtained by the lawe 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. Whether a good conscience and integritie of life be the cause of peace with God Pererius disput 1. in c. 5. numer 2. vrgeth that place of the Prophet Isay c. 32.17 s he worke of iustice shall be peace euen the worke of iustice and quietnesse and assurance for euer whereupon he inferreth that opera iustitiae c. the workes of iustice and the keeping of Gods commandements doe worke in vs this tranquilitie and peace of the minde Contra. It might be here answeared that peace of conscience is the worke of our true iustice that is Christ who is called the Lord our iustice or righteousnesse Ierem. 23.10 but that this interpretation agreeth not with the former words v. 16. Iudgement shall dwell in the desert and iustice in the fruitfull field where the Prophet speaketh of the externall practise and exercise of iustice 2. Iunius seemeth to vnderstand these disiunctiuely the fruites of the spirit which should be powred vpon them v. 15. should bring faith iustice peace as the Apostle sheweth these to be the fruites of the spirit Rom. 14.17 righteousnesse peace ioy in the holy Ghost so also Faius But this distinction here cannot be admitted because it is directly said the worke of iustice shall be peace tranquilitie 3. But the best answer is that righteousnesse procureth peace not effective because it worketh this inward peace which is wrought in vs by the grace of iustification but declarative it declareth confirmeth and assureth vnto vs our peace as S. Peter exhorteth that we make our election and calling sure by good workes 2. Pet. 1.9 not that our workes make our election sure in it selfe which dependeth on the purpose of God but it is made sure vnto vs so the peace of conscience wrought in vs by faith is confirmed and ratified vnto vs by a good life euen as good workes are testimonies of our faith and in that sense are said by S. Iames c. 2. to iustifie Controv. 2. Against invocation of Saints 1. By whome we haue accesse through faith this text is well vrged by Peter Martyr and Pareus against the invocation of Saints for if by Christ we haue accesse vnto God what neede we the helpe of other mediators and intercessours the Papists then doe much derogate vnto the glorie of Christ in bringing an other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to enter vs and cause vs to haue accesse vnto God And further two arguments may be vrged out of the Apostles words he saith we haue accesse by him through faith but Saints are not the obiect of our faith we must onely beleeue in God Ioh. 14.1 Ye beleeue in God beleeue also in me 2. we haue accesse vnto this grace namely whereby we are iustified but by the Saints we are not iustified therefore by them we haue not accesse and entrance Controv. 3. Of the certaintie of saluation and of finall perseuerance v. 5. We haue accesse vnto this grace wherein we stand Calvin out of this place refuteth two errors of Popish sophistrie the one that the faithfull for the present cannot be certaine of the grace of God and of the remission of their sinnes the other that they are not sure of finall perseuerance But to stand in grace signifieth to be sure of the grace and fauour of God one may attaine vnto the fauour of the Prince but he is not sure to continue in it But Gods fauour in Christ is most constant whom Christ loueth he loueth to the end Iob. 13.1 Tolet here foisteth in one of his Popish drugs that tranquilitie and peace of conscience and certaintie of remission of sinnes is not the fruit or worke of faith in the faithfull for the wicked that knowe not their sinnes haue also a quiet conscience Tolet. annot 1. Contra. There is great difference between a senslesse and a quiet cōscience the wicked feele not the pricke of conscience because their sinnes are concealed from them but the faithfull haue peace of conscience after the sight of their sinnes which they know to be remitted in Christ So Paul was aliue without the law but afterward when sinne reviued he died Rom. 7.9 where then the conscience is cast into a slumber of securitie sinne reviuing awaketh troubleth it but where sinne is remitted in Christ the conscience ceaseth to be troubled and perplexed as in the wicked Controv. 4. That the tribulation of the Saints is not meritorious though it be said to worke patience We must vnderstand that the Apostle diuersely vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worketh for it is sometime ascribed vnto the principall efficient cause as vnto God the author and worker of all good things in vs 2. Cor. 5.5 sometime
against him such were the Angelâ— but it is not true of those whom God was offended with for their transgression and yet he loued them not onely as his creatures but as his children whom he purposed to redeeme in Christ 2. So then in a diuerse respect God both was angrie with them as sinners and yet he loued them vnder this condition that they should be saued by the redemption of Christ in him they were elected and beloued before the foundation of the world the argument then followeth not God loued them in sending his sonne to die for them and so reconcile them therefore it was needelesse that Christ should die for them which were beloued of God alreadie for God loued them in Christ whom he had ordained before to be their Mediator and Redeemer 2. Obiect As herein God shewed his loue toward vs so it would seeme a cruell part in God so to be delighted in the death of his sonne Answ. 2. God had no delight in his sonnes death in respect of his suffering and torments but as it was a satisfaction for the sinne of the world and the price of our redemption 2. and Christ the sonne of God was not forced hereunto but offred himselfe willingly of his infinite loue to die for man 3. Obiect It had beene a greater loue if the father himselfe had died for vs then in sending his Sonne thus Pareus reporteth how a Iewe obiected vnto him as he tooke his Iourney toward Silesia ann 78. Answ. First we must not curiously search into Gods secrets to knowe the reason of his will why the sonne of God rather then the father tooke our flesh and died for vs Secondly yet these reasons may be alleadged hereof 1. the father and sonne beeing but one God the father as God did worke with his sonne in finishing our redemption 2. because God was offended and it was God that must satisfie for none else could doe it therefore there must be one person in the Godhead that must satisfie namely the Sonne and one that must be satisfied namely the father 3. what greater loue could God the father shewe then in giuing his owne Sonne the most deare thing vnto him 4. It was the Redeemers and Sauiours part to restore vs vnto the dignitie of the sonnes of God vnto whom did this more properly belong then vnto the Sonne of God Controv. 8. That Christs death was a full satisfaction for our sinnes against Socinus his cauills Obiect If Christs death were a satisfaction vnto the iustice of God for the sinnes of the worldâ— then 1. it must haue beene performed by the same person that had offended 2. the iustice of God required a punishment equivalent to the offence namely euerlasting destruction and malediction which Christ sustained not 3. the Scripture no where speaketh of any such satisfaction for vs by the death of Christ. Answ. 1. As in humane Courts there is a double kind of iustice either strict or rigorous iustice or iustice moderated and tempered with equitie and clemencie as if a king inflict vpon a traytor either the punishment of death or the muâ—ct of ten thousand talents in the rigor of iustice he may exact either but if he shall in his clemencie accept an 100. talents of an other that shall vndertake for the offender here now is iustice tempered with mercie So is it with God he dealeth with some in strict iustice as with the reprobate Angels and reprobate men that doe despise Christ and his redemption but with his elect by dealeth in the other kind of tempered iustice accepting the satisfaction of Christ for them not a stranger from them but made man like vnto them 2. Though Christ suffred not eternall paines yet in respect both of the excellencie of his person that suffered and the bitternesse of that agonie which he endured did beare that punishment which in Gods gracious acceptance was equiualent vnto euerlasting paine 3. And though the Scripture vse not the verie tearme of satisfaction yet there are words of like fâ—â—ree and efficacie applyed to the death of Christ as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ransome redemption and such like as Matth. 20.28 to giue his life for the ransome of many Rom. 2.14 are iustified c. by the redemption that is in Christ Iesus and in many such places thâ—â— like phrases are found Controv. 9. That Christs death was not onely satisfactorie but meditarious against Socinus Obiect 1. No satisfaction of a due debt hath merit in it for no more is paid then is due Christ then by his death merited not because he payed our due debt neither doth the Scripture ascribe any merit to Christs death Answ. 1. It is true that he which satisfieth for his owne debt therein doth not merit for he paieth but that he oweth but he that satisfieth for an others debt meriteth two waies first in respect of the debter in paying that he oweth not then in respect of the Creditor who by an agreement couenanteth to accept the satisfaction of the vndertaker not as a recompence onely for the debt but as a merit to deserue further grace and fauour for the debter So Christ hath truely merited in respect of vs in paying our debt for vs and in respect of God who accepteth the death of his sonne as truely meritorious of his grace and fauour for vs. 2. And further herein appeareth the merit of Christs death 1. in respect of the excellencie of the person that died 2. of the perfect obedience and fulfilling of the law 3. his great loue and willingnesse in suffring 4. and beside his satisfaction he was a faithfull martyr and witnesse of the truth Reuel 3.14 3. The Scripture though in direct tearmes it ascribeth not merit vnto the death of Christ yet it vseth words equivalent as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acquisitio purchasing includeth merit as Act. 20.28 Christ is said to haue purchased his Church by his blood and Ephes 1.14 It is called the redemption of the possession purchased c. which is all one as if he had said merited See more in Pareus dub 7. Here followe certaine questions and controversies of waight touching originall sinne Controv. 10. That there is originall sinne in men by the corruption of nature against the opinion of the Hebrewes The Hebrewes doe reiect this saying of the Apostle that sinne entred into the world and death by sinne and they vrge vs to shewe some authorities out of the old Testament to prooue the propagation of Adams sinne to his posteritie Paulus Burgensis addit 2. thus consureth their opinion 1. That death which was inflicted vpon Adam for his transgression remaineth quoad 〈◊〉 as it is a punishment is euident by that place Genes 3.3 Dust thou art and to dust 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 returne which sentence of mortalitie is executed as we see by experience vpon all Adâ—â—s posteritie 2. Then he prooueth quod illud peccatum transijt ad posteras quoad culpam that 〈◊〉 sinne did
also passe ouer vnto his posteritie euen in respect of the fault this he prooueth by the testimonie of the Hebrewes themselues iust by the words which they vse in circumcision which are these Deus noster pars nostra protector noster praecepit erui carneâ— nostram ab infâ—â—â—â— propter foedus suum quod posuit in causa nostra God our portion and our protector hath commanded that our flesh should be deliuered from hell for his couenant like which he hath placed in our flesh c. But infants which are circumcised haue not deserued hell by any actuall sinnes which they had committed therefore they are guiltie of hell in respect of originall sinne To this purpose also he produceth the testimonie of R. Salmo who giueth this note vpon that place Genes 2.4 These are the generations of heauen and earth c. that in two places onely this word teldoth generations is written fully namely with chalom in the beginning and ende in this place before Adams fall for in the beginning men were created secundum plenitudinem 〈◊〉 perfectioâ—â—â— in their fulnesse and perfection but after Adam had sinned their generations were corrupted and therefore Gen. 4. and other where that word it not expressed fully with chalom in the ende the other place is Ruth 4. These are the generations of Pâ—â—â—rs c. these the word toldoth is written fully because Christ the sonne of Dauid was the Sonne of Pâ—â—res for vntill he came the generation of man should not be restored â—â— Burgens 3. But there are euident places beside out of the old testament for the proofe of originall sinne as Genes 9.21 the imagination of mans heart is euill from his youth and Dauid confesseth Psal. 54. I was borne in iniquitie and in sinne hath my mothere conceiued me c. Controv. 11. That Adams sinne is entred into his posteritie by propagation not imitation onely against the Pelagians The Pelagians held these two hereticall positions concerning this matter 1. That Adams sinne is deriued into his posteritie nor by any naturall propagation but by corrupt imitation 2. the other that death is entred into Adams posteritie not as a punishment of Adams sinne but as a defect of nature issuing out of the fraile and brittle composition and constitution of mans bodie these strange assertions are thus confuted by Augustine 1. If the Apostle had spoken here of the beginning of sinne by imitation not by propagation non eius principium fecisset Adamum sed diabolum c. he would not haue made Adam the beginning but the deuill c. for he sinned first he was a lier from the beginning Iohn 8.44 2. As he in whom all are quickned and made aliue beside that he gaue an example of righteousnesse to those that imitate him dat etiam occultissimam fidelibus gratiam c. giueth also secret grace vnto the faithfull c. so he in whom all die beside the example of imitation in transgressing Gods commandement occulta etiam labe c. he also infected all his ofspring with the secret contagion of concupiscence Augustine lib. 1. de peccator merit remissi c. 9. 3. Further Augustine presseth these words of the Apostle Rom. 5.16 the fault is of one offence to condemnation but if men are onely guiltie of condemnation for their actuall sinnes he should haue said condemnationem fieri ex multis peccatis c. that condemnation came through many offences not through one epist. 89. ad Hilarium 4. And in an other place he vrgeth this reason because many in sinning doe not propound vnto themselues the example of Adam but haue other occasions which moue them as when a theefe killeth a man he did it nihil de Adamo cogitans thinking nothing of Adam but to this end that he might haue his gould c. Adams eating of an apple which was forbidden can yeeld no example of imitation to a murtherer and there are many wicked men in the world that neuer heard of Adams transgression to this purpose Augustine lib. 6. cont Iulian. c. 12. 5. Beside the Apostles words euidently conuinceth them for the Apostle saith as sinne entred so death by sinne then as death actually is propagated so also sinne Tolet. annot 15. And death is entred vpon all because all haue sinned seeing then infants die it followeth that they sinne but not actually therefore they haue originall sinne P. Martyr 6. Hence it is euident that the commentaries which passe vnder Hieromes name are forged for that author saith vpon this place insaniunt qui de Adamo per traducem ad â—â— asserunt venisse peccarum they are madde which affirme that sinne is come vpon vs as traduced and deriued from Adam c. for Hierome liuing in the same time that Pelagius broached his heresie did condemne and detect it as Augustine and other orthodoxall writers did Controv. 12. Of the manner how originall sinne is propagated against the Pelagians where it is disputed whether the soule be deriued from the parents The Pelagians to strengthen their error in denying the propagation of originall sinne from Adam to his posteritie obiected thus the seate and place of sinne is the soule but the soule is not propagated nor deriued by generation from the parents therefore neither sinne To this obiection diuerse answers are made 1. Some thinke that originall sinne is conueied by that carnall pleasure and delight which the parents haue in the act of generation but this is not so for these two reasons 1. because that carnall pleasure is not sinne 〈◊〉 some euill affection beside do concurre with it for without that delight there is no generation which if it were necessarily accompanied with sinne the Scriptures would not haue giuen libertie to marrie if it were in it selfe a sinnefull act 2. And if it were admitted that this naturall delight were sinne yet there by that infirmitie onely should be conueied whereas originall sinne is a generall corruption of nature 2. Some thinke that God createth the soules of men agreeable to their corrupt bodies like as he giueth vnto dogs and other creatures spirits answerable to their state and condition But this opinion is reiected likewise for if God should create or make any soule euill he should be the author of sinne 3. Some doe thinke that the soule of man is deriued also ex traduce as they tearme it and propagated from the parentes as the bodie is this opinion Tertullian seemed to fauour and Augustine holdeth it probable Genes ad liter c. 10. some of their reasons are these 1. because in the making of the woman it is not said that God breathed into her the breath of life as it is expressed of Adam and therefore it is like that she had as her bodie so her soule from Adam Answer Nay rather the contrarie is inferred because no mention is made of the soule and spirit of Eue that it had the like beginning which Adams had otherwise he would haue said this
veniall sinne annot 1. Ioh. 1. sect 5. Contra 1. We confesse that the guilt and punishment of originall sinne is washed away by faith in Christs blood but yet the staine and blot remaineth still though in Christ we are deliuered from the punishment due vnto sinne yet the euill qualitie of our nature is not purged away namely our naturall pronenes and aptnes to euill which shall not fully be purged vntill the resurrection when we shall put off all corruption together with mortalitie to this purpose Augustine saith well Meminisse debemus omnium peccatorum plenam remissionem c. we must remember that there is full remission of our sinnes in baptisme hominis vero qualitatem non totam continuo mutari c. yet the qualitie or condition of man is not straite chaunged de peccator merit remissi lib. 1. c. 25. 2. and that originall corruption hath the verie nature of sinne euen after baptisme the Apostle sheweth euidently Rom. 7.7 where he calleth the concupiscence of our nature sinne see further hereof Synops. Centur. 3. er 11. Controv. 14. What originall sinne is against the Romanists and â—some others and specially against them which hold it to be Adams sinne imputed onely to his posteritie 1. Faber Erasmus in their annotations vpon this place seeme to be of opinion that originall sinne is onely a pronenesse and aptnesse vnto sinne which is graft in vs by nature But this is refelled by the Apostle here who saith that in Adam all haue sinned and therefore death also is entred vpon all death is the stipend of sinne if then death actually is gone ouer all so also sinne 2. Flacius Illyricus held originall sinne to be a kind of substance But this is a dangerous opinion God onely is the Creator of substances and natures but he made not sinne 3. As he giueth too much to originall sinne making it a substantiall thing in man so the Romanists too much extenuate it allowe it too little 1. Pighius and Catharinus thinke that originall sinne is nothing else but the preuarication and transgression of our first parents made their posterities onely by imputation because Adam in himselfe contained all mankind and God made his couenant not onely with him but with all his posteritie beeing then in his loines and so his sinne is imputed vnto them but there is nothing in men naturally that hath the proper nature of sinne which is defined to be dictum factum vel concupitum c. somewhat said done or coueted against the law of God which cannot be in infants to this purpose Catharinus and before him Pighius in 1. contr de peccat origin Contra. 1. Bellarmine lib. 5. de amissi grat c. 16. and Pererius disput 16. in 5. c. ad Roman would confute this opinion and prooue that originall sinne is a reall and inherent corruption in the nature of man and not imputed onely because as we were sinners in Adam so we are made iust by Christ which is not by the imputation of his righteousnesse but by an inherent iustice which is giuen vnto vs by the merits of Christ c. But this were to confute one error by another for the Apostle euidently and expressely sheweth c. 4.3 that Abrahams faith was imputed and counted vnto him for righteousnesse and therefore the iustice whereby we are counted iust before God is the iustice of Christ imputed to vs by faith so also Adams sinne is imputed to his posteritie but beside there is an euilnes and prauitie of nature procured by the transgression of Adam as beside the imputed righteousnes of Christ there is also in the faithfull an inherent righteousnesse also which is their holines and sanctification but they are not thereby iustified before God 2. We haue better reasons out of the Scripture to refute this assertion for where there is no sinne death hath no power because all are sinners by nature they all die otherwise the Apostle had not reasoned well that death raigned from Adam to Moses because all had sinned v. 14. And v. 19. the Apostle saith that by one mans disobedience many are peccatores constituti made sinners which is more then to be counted sinners or to haue sinne imputed 3. That definition is of actuall sinne which is of such things as are said done or coueted against the law of God But sinne is more generally taken for any thing which is contrarie to the law of God now the naturall rebellion and resistance of the flesh in not beeing subiect to the will of the spirit but continually striuing against it which is to be seene euen in children who seeth not that it is contrarie to the law of God and hath in it the nature of sinne 4. Dauid complaineth that he was borne in sinne and conceiued in iniquitie Psal. 51. and S. Paul Rom. 7. calleth his naturall corruption sinne dwelling in him So that these holy men confessed that they were sinfull by nature Otherwise if there were not in vs originall sinne by nature of our owne but onely Adams imputed it would follow that his posteritie should be punished not for their owne but anothers sinne which were against the rule of Gods iustice Martyr Controv. 15. That originall sinne is not onely the privation of originall iustice Bellarmine with other of the Romanists will not haue originall sinne to be any euill positiue qualitie in man but onely carentia iustitiae originalis habitualis aversio à Deo a wanting of originall iustice and an habituall aversion from and a forsaking of God Bellar. lib. 5. de amission grat c. 15. Lyranus addeth an other clause that originall sinne is a defect or want of originall iustice cum debito habendi eam with a due debt or obligation to haue the same c. Now their cheefe reason that originall sinne is no euill habite or positiue qualitie but onely a defect or privation is this because God is the author of all positiue things that haue a beeing or existence but he is no way the cause of originall sinne Bellarm. ibid. Thoring replic ad addit 5. Paul Burgens And if it were an habite Adam could not haue transmitted it to his posteritie Bellarm. ibid. Contra. 1. Paulus Burgens taketh exception to Lyranus difinition of originall sinne that it is not a meere priuation but habitus corruptus a corrupt habite like as in a disease there is not onely a priuation of health but there is also some positiue thing habet humores male dispositos the humors also are euill affected and disposed and so is it in originall sinne there is an euill qualitie and habite beside the want of originall iustice and therefore it is called concupiscence quae sonat aliquod positivum which foundeth and signifieth some positiue thing c. This exception of Burgensis is iust and his opinion herein is agreeable to the Apostle who calleth originall sinne peccatum inhabitans an in-dwelling sinne Rom. 7.20 and corpus mortis the bodie
of death originall sinne then hath a kind of existence for how else could it be called a bodie of sinne or death see more hereof elsewhere Synops. Cen. 4. err 14. 2. Concerning the reasons obiected 1. God is the author of euerie substance and of euery naturall qualitie but not of vnnaturall dispositions or qualities as neither of diseases in the bodie nor of vices in the minde this euill qualitie was procured by mans voluntarie transgression 2. and though habites which are personall and obtained by vse and industrie are not transmitted to posteritie yet this euill habite was not personall in Adam as he is considered vt singularis persona as a singular person but by him it entred into the nature of man as he was totius humanae naturae principiū the beginning of the whole nature of man 3. Burgensis taketh another exception vnto Lyranus addition and he thinketh that Adams posteritie is not bound to haue the originall iustice which was giuen to Adam for they haue no such bond either by the law of nature for that originall iustice was supernaturally added or by any diuine precept for God gaue vnto Adam no other precept but that one not to eate of the forbidden fruite and therefore they were not bound at all to haue or reteine Adams originall iustice Thus Burgens Contra. 1. Herein I rather consent vnto Thoring the Replic vpon Burgens who thus argueth that this debt or bond to haue originall iustice was grounded vpon the law of nature which is the rule of right reason for by nature euery one is tied to seeke the perfection and conseruation of it kind and this originall iustice tended vnto the perfection of man which though it were supernaturally added vnto man yet it was not giuen him alone sed pro tota natura for the whole nature of man and so he concludeth well that man is culpable in not hauing this originall iustice though not culpâ actuali quae est suppositi by any actuall fault which belongeth to the person or subiect yet culpâ originali quae est natura by an originall fault which is in nature To this purpose the Replic And this may be added further that if Adams posteritie were not debters in respect of this originall iustice then were they not bound to keepe the law which requireth perfect righteousnesse and so it would follow that they are not transgressors against the law if they were not bound to keepe it the first exception then of Burgensis may be recieued but not the second 2. Pighius also who denieth originall sinne to be a privation or want of originall iustice holdeth it to be no sinne to want that iustice which is not enioyned by any law vnto mankind for no law can be produced which bindeth infantes to haue that originall iustice and therein he concurreth with Burgensis Contra. But this obiection is easily refuted for first man was created according to Gods image in righteousnesse and holines which image Adams posteritie is bound to retaine but he by his sinne defaced that image and in stead thereof begate children after his owne image Gen. 5.3 in the state of corruption And whereas Pighius replieth out of Augustine that the image of God in man consisteth in the three faculties of the soule the vnderstanding memorie and will Augustine must not be so vnderstood as though herein consisted onely the image of God but as therein is shadowed forth the misterie of the Trinitie for the Apostle expressely sheweth that this image of God is seene in righteousnes and holines Ephes. 4.24 An other lawe is the lawe of nature which is the rule which euery one is to followe Cicero could say that convenientur viuere c. to liue agreeably to this law is the chiefe ende of man to this lawe euen infants are also bound there is a third lawe which is the morall which saith thou shalt not lust which prohibiteth not onely actuall but originall concupiscence And whereas Pighius here obiecteth that a lawe is giuen in vaine of such things as cannot be avoided therein he sheweth his ignorance for it is not in mans power to keep the lawe for then it had not beene necessarie for Christ to haue died for vs who came to performe that which was impossible by the lawe Rom. 8.3 yet was not the lawe giuen so in vaine for there are two speciall vses thereof both to giue vs direction how to liue well and to bring vs to the knowledge of sinne xe Mart. 4. This then is originall sinne 1. it consisteth partly of a defect and want of originall iustice in that the image of God after the which man was created in righteousnesse and holines was blotted out by the fall of man partly in an euill habite disposition and qualitie and disorder of all the faculties and powers both of bodie and soule This was the start of man after his fall and the same is the condition of all his posteritie by nature Augustine also maketh originall sinne a positiue qualitie placing it in the concupiscence of the flesh not the actuall concupiscence but that naturall corruption which although it be more generall then to containe it selfe within the compasse of concupiscence onely yet he so describeth it by the most manifest effect because our naturall corruption doth most of all shew and manifest it selfe in the concupisence and lust of our members 2. The subiect then and matter of originall sinne are all the faculties and powers of soule and bodie the former is the pravitie and deformitie of them the efficient cause was the peruersnes of Adams will the instrument is the carnall propagation the end or effect is euerlasting damnation both of bodie and soule without the mercie of God Martyr 3. Originall sinne is taken either actiuely for the sinne of Adam which was the cause of sinne in his posteritie which is called originale origmans originall sinne giuing beginning or passiuely for the naturall corruption raised in Adams ofspring by his transgression which is tearmed originale originatum originall sinne taking beginning 4. Of this originall sinne taken both waies there are three misserable effects 1. participatio culpa the participating in the fault or offence for we were all in Adams loines when he transgressed and so we all sinned in him as here the Apostle saith 2. imputatio reatus the imputation of the guilt and punishment of sinne we are the children of wrath by nature subiect both to temporall and eternall death 3. there is naturae depratatio vel deformitas the depravation and deformitie of nature wherein there dwelleth no good thing Rom. 17.18 Controv. 16. Of the wicked heresie of Marcion and Valentinus with the blasphemous Manichees 1. Origen out of the words of the former verse where the Apostle speaketh of our attonement and reconciliation by Christ confureth the heresie of Marcion and Valentinus whose opinion was that there was some substance quae naturaliter Deo sit inimica which naturally is
an enemie to God for if it were so that this enemie were natura non voluntatis in nature not in the will of man there would be no reconciliation for things in nature contrarie and enemies one to the other cannot be reconciled 2. The Manichees also are here confuted who did hold that sinne was of God as the anchor and beginner thereof for they did make two beginnings one of good the other of euill and two Princes one of light the other of darkenes this wicked fansie is here confuted for the Apostle sheweth that sinne entred by Adam and so descended to his posteritie Faius Controv. 17. That all sinnes are mortall and worthie of death by nature v. 12. And death by sinne if then death came in by sinne yea children hauing onely originall sinne are subiect to death hence it is euident that all sinnes are in themselues worthie of death so that it is a vaine distinction which the Romanists make betweene veniall and mortall sinnes as though some sinnes were pardonable in their owne nature In that some sinnes are pardonable it is of grace and mercie in God not in the qualitie and propertie of the sinne Martyr Indeede there is some sinne remissible some irremissible as sinne against the holy Ghost but this difference ariseth not so much from the nature of the sinne as from the qualitie of the offender whose heart is so hardened that he cannot repent him of the blasphemie against the spirit Neither yet doth it followe if all sinnes are mortall in their owne nature that therefore all sinnes are equall for as there are degrees in the punishment of death so there are degrees in the sinnes themselues and though euen great offences are pardonable in the mercie of God yet pardon in such sinnes is more hardly obtained Controv. 18. That Henoch and Elias are not yet aliue in their bodies v. 12. And so death went ouer all men Hence then it is concluded that Elias and Heâ—â—â— doe not yet liue in their bodies whom the Romanists hold shall come in the ende of the world to preach against Antichrist Gorrhan would thus helpe the matter that deâ—h entred vpon them reatis non actu not in act but in the guilt their death is deferred it is not taken away c. for they hold that they shall be killed by Antichrist in the ende of the word Contra. 1. That it is appointed vnto men to die the Apostle testifieth Heb. 9.27 none are exempted from the common law of death as it is said 2. Sam. 14.14 We must needes die and we are as water spilt vpon the ground that cannot be gathered vp againe and the Psalmist saith Psal. 88.48 What man liueth and shall not see death Therefore Henoch and Elias are subiect to this generall law of death 2. And if they were yet aliue they must be either in the celestiall or terrestiall Paradise but the terrestiall was destroied in the flood and there they could not be preserued and from the celestiall Paradise none can returne to die againe that is no place or habitation for mortall creatures See further hereof Synops. Centur. 5. er 32. Controv. 19. The Virgin Marie conceiued in originall sinne The Romanists in their annotations vpon the 14. v. doe affirme that whereas all other are conceiued and borne in originall sinne Christ onely is excepted and his mother for his honour and by his speciall protection as many godly men iudge preserued from the some c. Contra. 1. But this error is euidently confuted by the Apostles words who saith that in him that is in Adam all haue sinned therefore euen the Virgin Marie also for onely Christ was conceiued by the holy Ghost without the seed of man of a virgin and therefore he onely was conceiued without sinne 2. and it was more for Christs honour to be borne of a sinner himselfe no sinner to shewe his puritie and perfection then come cleane and vndefiled euen out a vessel not naturally cleansed from sinne 3. If the holy Virgin must be conceiued without sinne because of her Sonne that was borne without sinne then by the same reason the mother of Marie must haue the same priuiledge because she brought forth Marie without sinne and so her mother before her and thus this priuiledge must runne vp still vnto Christs progenitors 4. Why are they afraid to determine this point absolutely that Marie was conceiued without sinne but set it downe onely as a priuate opinion of some godly men whereas Sixtus the 4. hath decreed it was so and thereupon for the strengthening of his opinion instituted the feast of the conception of the Virgin Marie and added these words to the salutation of Marie benedicta sit Anna mater tua de qua sine macula tua processit caro virginea and blessed be Anna thy mother from whom thy virgins flesh proceeded without spot 5. they will not denie but that Bernard the Master of sentences Thomas Aquin. and before them Augustine were godly and deuout men all which held the contrarie that the Virgin Marie was not conceiued without sinne August de Genes ad liter lib. 10. c. 18. Bernard epist. 174. Magister lib. 3. distinct â— Thom. Aquin. vpon that place Controv. 20. Against merits v. 16. The gift is of many offences hence is inferred that seeing our iustification by Christ is called a grace and gift that it proceedeth from the free loue grace and fauour of God Pareus here well inferreth facessant ergo merita congrus c. away with all merits either of congruitie as preparations vnto grace or of condignitie vnto saluation for if our iustification and saluation were of merit or worke it were not of grace as the Apostle concludeth Rom. 11.6 If it be of grace it is no more of workes for then worke were no more worke c. 21. Controv. That the punishment of originall sinne is euerlasting death v. 18. By the offence of one the fault came of all vnto condemnation c. Here are two opinions to be refuted the first is of those which either promised vnto Infants dying without baptisme in originall sinne the kingdome of heauen as one Vincentius did hold whome Augustine confuseth lib. 1. de origin animae c. 9. or els did assure vnto them an happie estate in some middle place betweene heauen and hell as the Pelagians August haeres 88. vnto which opinion Pighius and Cathariâ—us two Popish champions come very neere who thinke that Infants dying in their infancie and so in originall sinne should enioy an happie and blessed estate here in earth after the generall resurrection The other opinion is generally of the Romanists which hold that Infants dying without baptisme shall haue poenam damni the punishment onely of losse in beeing depriued of the vision of God but they shall not haue poenata sensus the punishment or torment of sense or feeling and here some doe exempt them from all torment both inward and outward as Thomas
torments which had not sinned by their owne will in 9. c. Iob. so also Augustine but he saith mitissima omnium pana erit eorum their punishment shall be most gentle and easie of all other which beside originall sinne haue added none other sinnes c. and this may be safely affirmed with Augustine But that when followeth hath more doubt non audeo dicere quodijs vt nulli essent quà m vt ibi essent sotius expediret I dare not say that it were better for them not to be at all then to be there Augustine Enchirid. c. 93. Controv. 22. That Christs essentiall iustice is not infused into vs. v. 17. Much more shall they which receiue abundance of grace c. Osiander did hold not Lucas Osiander who hath written breefe annotations vpon the old and new Testament but another of that name before him that the iustice of Christ is some reall thing infused into the faithfull and that it was his essentiall iustice as he is God that is communicated to the faithfull ex Faio in v. 17. But the Apostle euidently refuteth this error c. 4.22 where he sheweth that it was imputed vnto Abraham for righteousnes because he beleeued in God if we are iustified by faith then not by the essentiall iustice of Christ which still remaineth in Christs person as the subiect thereof but the righteousnesse whereby we are iustified before God is the righteousnes of Christ as he is man which is apprehended by faith and this also is euident in this place where the Apostle ascribeth iustification to the abundance of grace receiued and how is it receiued but by faith Controv. 23. Against the patrones of vniuersall grace v. 18. By the iustifying of one the benefit abounded toward all men c. Hence of 〈◊〉 Huberus and before him the Pelagians would prooue that the benefit of iustification is as vniuersall toward all euen infidels and vnbeleeuers as the condemnation that came in by Adam for the Apostle on both sides nameth all for otherwise the benefite by Christ should be inferiour vnto the losse in Adam which redounded generally vpon all Contra. 1. This tearme of vniuersalitie all must be restrained according to the nature of the subiect as Adam transfused his sinne vnto all which were his ofspring so Christ also iustifieth all his that is all which beleeue in him so by all the Apostle vnderstandeth the vniuersall companie of the faithfull 2. the preheminence of the benefit consisteth not in the equalitie of the number that Christ should saue as many as are lost in Adam for then there should be onely an equalitie not a superioritie 3. But herein is the prerogatiue of grace seene 1. in the excellencie of the effect for life is a more excellent thing then death and righteousnesse then sinne 2. in the powerfulnesse of the worke it sheweth a greater power to saue then to destroie to iustifie then condemne for it is an easier matter to destroie then to saue to pull downe then to build vp to mortifie then to reviue and raise to life 3. the preheminence is in the amplitude and largnes of grace in that we are iustified not onely from one but all kind of sinnes as well actuall as originall whereas originall sinne is onely deriued from Adam See more hereof quest 15. Controv. 24. Against the Popish inherent iustice v. 9. So by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous c. The Romanists as Bellar. lib. 2. de iustificat c. 1. Pererius disputa 17. doe much vrge this argument against imputatiue iustice that we are not iustified by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed by faith but by an inherent righteousnesse wrought in vs by Christ whereby we are formally made iust because we are so made righteous and iust in Christ as we became sinners in Adam but that was not by imputation of Adams sinne but by sinne dwelling in them whereby they are formally made sinners therefore we are formally made righteous by an inherent iustice remayning in vs and not imputed onely Pererius further vrgeth the phrase iusti constituentur many shall be made iust which is not all one as to be reputed iust or to be iust by imputation but to be iust indeed Contra. 1. The comparison betweene Adams disobedience and Christs obedience doth hold verie well euen in this point of imputation for as there is in making of vs sinners both an imputation of Adams sinne to his posteritie as comming out of his loines as also an habituall prauitie and corruption of nature the effect thereof so their is a double operation of Christs obedience both it is imputed vnto vs by faith whereby we are iustified before God and thereby there is wrought in vs holines and righteousnesse which is our sanctification but by this because it is imperfect in this life we are not iustified before God 2. and whereas the Apostle vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constituentur shall be made or constituted iust we confesse that he meaneth they shall be made iust indeede in Christ but therefore the word is put in the future tence because in this life our sanctification is but begun it shall not be absolutely perfect till the next life when all imperfection and impuritie of our nature shall be cleane taken away and then shall we be made perfectly iust indeed See a more full answer to this obiection Synops. Centur. 4. er 56. 3. But if they shall further replie that we are rather made sinners by the reall corruption of our nature then by the imputation of Adams sinne and so consequently we should rather be iustified by an inherent righteousnesse then imputed onely we answer that herein appeareth the preheminence of grace that Christs righteousnesse onely imputed is more able to iustifie vs then Adams sinne onely imputed was to condemne vs. Controv. 25. That we are iustified both by the actiue and passiue obedience of Christ. Piscator in his annotations vpon this verse vrgeth this point that we are not iustified by the obedience of Christ in his life which was his actiue obedience but by his passiue obedience in his death because if we be iustified by his righteousnesse acted in his life then should he not haue needed to haue died for vs for beeing iustified alreadie by the righteousnesse of his life there was no cause for Christ to be punished for vs beeing alreadie made iust by his righteous life Contra. 1. Though the Apostle doe principally meane the particular obedience of Christ in submitting himselfe to his fathers will in his death to giue his life for his sheepe as it is opposed to Adams particular disobedience in eating of the forbidden fruite which was in re facillima in a thing most easie to haue beene kept whereas Christs obedience was in re dissicillima in a most hard difficult thing to giue himselfe for vs euen vnto death yet this his particular obedience in his death depended vpon the generall obedience of
righteousnesse Controv. 14. Concerning inherent iustice v. 13. Neither giue your members as weapons of vnrighteousnesse c. Bellarmine inferreth out of this place that as sinne was a thing inherent and dwelling in vs before our conuersion so instead thereof must succeede righteousnes per iustitiam intelligit aliquid inherens by righteousnesse he vnderstandeth a thing inherent in vs from whence proceed good workes Contra. 1. We doe not denie but that there is in the regenerate a righteousnesse inherent and dwelling in them which is their state of sactification or regeneration but by this inherent iustice are we not iustified before God but by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed onely for here the Apostle treateth not of iustification but of our sanctification and mortification which are necessarie fruits of iustification and doe followe it but they are not causes of our iustification 2. Wherefore this is no good consequent There is in the righteous an inherent iustice Erg. by this iustice they are iustified before God See further hereof Synops. Centur. 4. err 56. Controv. 15. Against the power of freewill in the fruits of righteousnesse v 20. When ye were the seruants of sinne ye were freed from righteousnesse Beza doth vrge this place strongly against the popish freewill for in that they are said to be free from iustice that is as Anselme interpreteth alieni à iustitia estranged from iustice it sheweth that they haue no inclination at all vnto iustice it beareth no sway at all nullum erat eius imperium it had no command at all ouer you Pererius disput 5. numer 33. maketh an offer to confute this assertion of Beza but with bad successe for those verie authors whom he produceth make against him first he alleadgeth Anselme following Augustine liberum arbitrium saith Augustine vsque adeo iâ— peccatoribus non perijt vt per ipsum maximè peccent c. freewill is so farre from beeing lost in the wicked that thereby they doe sinne most of all c. But who denieth this the wicked haue freewill indeed free from compulsion it is voluntarie but inclined onely vnto euill which Anselme calleth libertatem culpabilem a culpable freedome and he therefore fitly distinguisheth betweene these two phrases of the Apostle he saith they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 free not freed from iustice least that sinne might be imputed vnto any other then to themselues but afterward v. 22. he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liberati freed from sinne to shewe that this freedome is not of our selues but onely from God and so he concludeth haec voluntas quae libera est in malis c. ideo in bonis libera non est quia non liberatur ab eo qui eam solus c. this will which is free in euill because they delight in euill is not therefore free in good things because it is not freed by him who onely can make it free from sinne c. With like successe he citeth Thomas in his Commentarie here who thus writeth semper itaque homo sive in peccato fuerit sive in gratia liber est à coactione non tamen semper liber est ab omni inclinatione man therefore alwaies whether he be in sinne or in grace is free from coaction and compulsion but he is not alway free from an inclination c. where he affirmeth the same thing which we doe that the will of men is free alwaies from compulsion for it alwaies willeth freely without constraint that which it willeth but it is not free at any time from an euill inclination it is not free à necessitate from a necessitie of inclining vnto that which is euill of it owne naturall disposition Controv. 16. Whether all death be the wages or stipend of sinne v. 13. The stipend of sinne is death Socinus part 3. c. 8. pag. 294. graunteth that eternall death is the reward of sinne and the necessitie of mortalitie and dying but not â—â—â— corporall death it selfe for Adam before sinne entred was created in a mortall state and condition and Christ hath redeemed vs from all sinne and the punishment thereof therefore corporall death is no punishment of sinne because it remaineth still neither hath Christ redeemed vs from it Contra. 1. It is euident in that the Apostle speaketh of death here absolutely without any restraint or limitation that he meaneth death in generall of what kind soeuer and of the corporall death he speaketh directly c. 5.12 by one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne which is specially vnderstood of the bondage of mortalitie which Adam by his transgression brought vpon his posteritie 2. It is friuolous distinction to make a difference betweene death and the necessitie of dying for what else is mortalitie then a necessitie of dying which if it be brought in by sinne then death also it selfe 3. Adam though he were created with a possibilitie of dying if he sinned yet this possibilitie should neuer haue come into act if he had not actually sinned 4. Christ hath indeed deliuered vs from all punishment of sinne both temporall and eternall as he hath deliuered vs from sinne for as our sinnes are remitted neuer to be laid vnto our iudgement and yet the reliques and remainder of sinne are not vtterly extinguished so the Lord hath effectually and actually deliuered vs from eternall death that it shall neuer come neare vs but from temporall death as it is a punishment onely for he hath made it an entrance to a better life and he hath taken away the power thereof that it shall not seaze vpon vs for euer because he shall raise vs vp at the last day and then perfectly triumph ouer death for euer 5. Origen here vnderstandeth neither eternall nor temporall death but that qua separatur anima per peccatum à Deo whereby the soule is separated from God by sinne But then the Apostle had made an iteration of the same thing for sinne it selfe is the spirituall death of the soule and therefore the death here spoken of is an other death beside that namely that which followeth as the stipend of sinne which is euerlasting death vnto the which is in the next clause opposed eternall death Controv. 17. Against the distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes v. 23. The stipend or wages of sinne is death Faius by this place doth well confute that Popish distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes they say that veniall sinnes are those which in their owne nature are not worthie of death but the Apostle here noteth in generall of all sinne whatsoeuer that the stipend and wages thereof is death because all sinne is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the transgression of the law 1. Ioh. 3.5 and death is the wages of them that transgresse the 〈◊〉 that glosse then of Haymo vpon this place may seeme somewhat straunge hoc non de omnibus peccatis intelligendum est sed de criminalibus c. this is not to be vnderstood of all sinnes
4 Therefore my brethren or euen so B.G. ye are made dead also or mortified Be. L.A. dead B.G. to the law by the bodie in the bodie Be. T. of Christ that ye should be vnto an other euen vnto him that is raised not risen L.T. from the dead that we should fructifie L. bring forth fruit Be. B.G. vnto God 5 For when we were in the flesh the motions infirmities T. affections Be. lusts B. passions L. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. of sinnes which were by the law did worke L.B. had force Be. G. were effectuall in our members to bring forth fruit vnto death 6 But now we are deliuered from the law that beeing dead not of death L. or we beeing dead vnto it B.G.T. see the question following vpon this place wherein we were holden that we should serue in the newnes of the spirit not in the oldnes of the letter 7 What shall we say then is the law sinne God forbid let it not be Gr. yea I knew not sinne but by the law for I had not knowne lust except the law had said Thou shalt not lust 8 But sinne taking occasion by the commandement wrought in me all manner of concupiscence B.G.T. some read thus sinne taking occasion by the commandement c. Be. L. see v. 11. following for without the law sinne was dead 9 For I once was aliue without the law but when the commandement came sinne revived but I died 10 And the commandement which was ordained vnto life the same was found to be to me vnto death 11 For sinne tooke occasion by the commandement and deceiued me and thereby flew me 12 Wherefore the law is holy and the commandement is holy and iust and good 13 Was that then which was good made death vnto me God forbid but sinne that sinne might appeare wrought death in me by that which is good L. G. T. A. some thus but sinne was death vnto me that sinne might appeare in working in me death by that which is good Be. B. that sinne might be out of measure sinnefull by the commandement 14 For we know that the law is spirituall but I am carnall sold vnder sinne 15 For what I worke I acknowledge not allow not G. vnderstand not L. for not what I would that doe I but what I hate that I doe 16 If I doe then that which I would not I consent to the law that it is good 17 Now it is no more I that worke it but sinne that dwelleth in me 18 For I know that good dwelleth not in me that is in my flesh for to will is present with me but how to performe that which is good I find not 19 For I doe not the good which I would but the euill which I would not that doe I. 20 Now if I doe that I would not it is no more I that worke it but sinne that dwelleth in me 21 I find then a law L. Gr. this law to be imposed Be. by the law B. Ge. that when I would doe good euill is present with me see the question following vpon this verse 22 For I delight in the law of God concerning the inner man 23 But I see an other law in my members rebelling against the law of my minde and leading me captiue to the law in the law L. of sinne which is in my members 24 O wretched man that I am who shall deliuer me out of this bodie of death Be. T. the bodie of this death L. B.G. 25 I thanke God through Iesus Christ our Lord Then I my selfe in my minde serue the law of God but in my flesh the law of sinne 2. The Argument Method and Parts IN this Chapter the Apostle sheweth how we are freed and exempted from the seruice of the law yet so as that he commendeth the law in it selfe and deliuereth it from all blame laying the imputation vpon his owne weaknes and infirmitie where he taketh occasion to shew the combate betweene the flesh and the spirit This Chapter then hath three parts 1. he sheweth how we are deliuered from the law to v. 7. 2. he excuseth and commendeth the law to v. 14. 3. he sheweth the infirmitie that remaineth in the regenerate and the combate betweene the flesh and the spirit 1. In the first part the Apostle sheweth that we are not freed and discharged from the morall obedience of the law but from the seruitude and bondage thereof in respect of the curse and irritation and prouocation to sinne this is set forth by an allegorie taken from the lawe of matrimonie the proposition is contained v. 1.2 3. consisting of three parts like as the woman is 1. free from her husband when he is dead v. 2. 2. after his death she may take an other husband and therein is no adultresse v. 2. 3. the third is implyed that she may also bring forth by an other the reddition followeth which hath three correspondent parts so we are 1. dead to the law 2. we are married to Christ. 3. to bring forth fruit vnto him v. 4. this last part is amplified by the contrarie that as sinne by the lawe did fructifie vnto death v. 5. so we now beeing freed should fructifie vnto the spirit v. 6. 2. Then he taketh vpon him the defense of the law that whereas he had said v. 5. that the matrons of sinne which were by the Law c. did bring forth fruit vnto death hereupon two obiections might arise that the lawe is the cause of sinne and of death to both which he answeareth The first obiection is propounded v. 7. is the law sinne then he answereth 1. in bringing a reason from the effect that the law connot be sinne nor the cause thereof because it reuealeth and discouereth sinne v. 7. 2. he sheweth how not the law but sinne taking occasion by the law wrought concupiscence reuiued in him deceiued him and in the end slew him all which he giueth instance of in his owne person v. 8. to v. 12. 3. he sheweth what the law is in it selfe iust and holy v. 12. the second obiection followeth v. 13. that it might seeme that the law beeing good wrought death in him then the answer is that not the lawe but sinne by the lawe wrought death 3. The Apostle in this third part sheweth first the combate betweene the flesh and the spirit to v. 24. then the issue thereof v. 24.25 the combate is set forth in three degrees 1. in that he by sinne is brought to doe that euill which he would not where he sheweth the opposition betweene the lawe commanding and his will consenting and sinne ouer-ruling him and his flesh obeying v. 14. to v. 18. 2. the next degree is that he is hindered by sinne from doing the good which he would this is prounded v. 18. then prooued by the contrarie effects v. 19. and by the contrarie causes the lawe moouing to good whereunto he consenteth and sinne hindring him v. 20.21 3. the third degree consisteth in
homines à coelestium meditatione retrahit which draweth spirituall men from the meditation of heauenly things but the Apostle spake before of the combate betweene the flesh and the spirit and they are not all carnall which are occupied in the necessarie affaires of this life 6. Tolet ioyning the pronoune this vnto death not vnto the bodie reading thus from the bodie of this death will haue reference to be made vnto the tyrannie of the lawe of concupiscence whereof he spake before but the pronoune is better ioyned to bodie as the Syrian interpreter Erasmus and Beza well obserue for of his flesh and members he spake before but of death he made no mention This demonstrative then this is better referred to bodie 7. Wherefore the Apostle calling his present state out of the which he desireth to be deliuered this bodie of death ioyneth both mortalitie and sinne together he meaneth his mortall bodie subiect to sinne as Hierome expoundeth quod morti perturbationibus est oppositum which is opposed to death and perturbations apolog advers Ruffin and so Beza the Apostle by the bodie designeth carneam corporis molem the fleshie masse of the bodie which is nothing else but mussa mortis peccati a lumpe of death and sinne so Origen it is called the bodie of death in quo habitat peccatum quod est mortis causa wherein sinne dwelleth which is the cause of death 8. And this deliuerance which the Apostle longeth for is not the spirituall deliuerance in this life from the captiuitie of sinne as Tolet but the finall deliuerance from the bondage of mortalitie and corruption which we looke for in the resurrection as Augustine expoundeth lib. 1. cont epist. Pelag. c. 11. and so the Apostles meaning is non finiri hoc confluctus c. that these conflicts cannot be ended as long as we carrie this mortall bodie about with vs Pareus And here we may consider a threefold state of mans bodie the one in Paradise cum non potuit mori when it was in mans power if he had not sinned not to die at all vnder the state and condition of sinne where non potest non mori he cannot but die a necessitie of death is laid vpon all Adams posteritie vnder the state of glorie non possumus mori we cannot die we shall be exempted from the condition of all mortalitie Pererius Quest. 25. Why the Apostle giueth thanks to God ver 25. 1. There is some difference in the reading of these words the Latine interpreter thus readeth the grace of God thorough Iesus Christ so also Origen before who maketh it an answear to the former words of the Apostle who shall deliuer 〈◊〉 likewise Augustine followeth this reading serm 45. de tempor but all the Greek copies haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I giue thankes and the Apostle did not aske the question before who should deliuer him but suspirat potâ—â—s be sigheth and sheweth his desire to be deliuered Beza 2. For the meaning of the words 1. some thinke that the Apostle giueth thanks for his redemption in Christ Mart. that he is deliuered à reatu peccati from the guilt of sinne originall and actuall Roloch and that his sinnes are not imputed Osiander and before them Oecumenius quod me liberavit per mortem filij that he hath deliuered me by the death of his Sonne But this deliverance the Apostle had alreadie obtained he speaketh in the future sense who shall deliuer me 2. Theophylact referreth it to the former benefit quod viriliter adversatur peccato that he did manfully resist sinne which strength he had not either by the law of nature or by the law of Moses but by grace in Christ So also Pareus thinketh the Apostle doth giue thankes that he doth not succumbere in certamine sed vincere giue ouer in this combate but at the length ouercommeth But the Apostle wisheth yet a further deliuerance which as yet he had not because he speaketh of the time not to come who shall deliuer me and yet he giueth thankes for it as enioying the fame in hope 3. Tolet and Pererius thinke that the Apostle giueth thankes that he was deliuered from concupiscence quod non mentem trahit in consensum that it did not draw his mind to consent and so he was deliuered from it as it was malum culpae as there was sinne or fault in it that is to consent vnto it but not as it was malum poenae a punishment that is concupiscere to couet or desire simply without assent so also Lyranus But if the Apostle did not sometime thorough his infirmitie giue consent vnto his concupiscence how could he say it did lead him captiue vnto the law of sinne more it is prooued at large afterward that the commandement thou shalt not lust whereof the Apostle confesseth himselfe a transgressor v. 7.18 doth not onely restraine the first motions of concupiscence which haue not the consent of the will but the second also which haue controv 8.4 Vatablus will haue this thanksgiuing to be referred to the deliuerance which the Apostle expected in the life to come 5. But it is better to ioyne them together as Augustine doth serm 45. de tempor the grace of God nunc perfecte innovat hominem c. doth now perfectly renew a man by deliuering him from all his sinnes ad corporis immortalitatem perducit and bringeth him also to the immortalitie of the bodie Lyranus likewise comprehendeth both these deliuerances that both the regenerate are here deliuered from their sinnes and in the next life shall be freed from all corruption as the Apostle saith Philip. 3.21 Who shall change our vile bodie that it may be fashioned like vnto his glorious bodie so Chrysostome saith the Apostle giueth thanks quod non solum principibus malis liberamur sed eoruÌ„ quae futura sunt capaces facti sumus that we are not onely deliuered from the former euills namely our sinnes but are made capable of the good things to come thus also Pellican the Saints reioyce se primitijs spiritus donatos c. that they are endued with the first fruits of the spirit which giue them certaine hope of the inheritance to come and Beza the Apostle sheweth that he resteth in that hope quam habet in Christo fundatam which he hath grounded on Christ. 35. Quest. Of these words I in my minde serue the law of God c. 1. By the mind the Apostle vnderstandeth the inner man reformed by grace by the flesh the part vnregenerate so that in this speach of the Apostle a double figure is to be admitted first a metonymie in that the subiect is taken for the adiunct the minde for the sanctitie and holines wrought in the minde by grace as Vatablus well interpreteth secundum spiritum meum doctum à spiritu sancto in my spirit taught by the holy spirit and the flesh for the carnall sensualitie whereby it is lead there is also a
baptisme both originall sinne and the corrupt motions springing from thence therefore such motions in the baptized are not sinne Contra. 1. As originall sinne is taken away in baptisme so all other sinnes are for baptisme serueth for the remission of all sinnes Act. 2.38 euen then sinnes are wholly remooued in baptisme it would follow that they which are baptized should haue no sinnes at all 2. Wherefore in baptisme reatus tollitur the guilt of sinne is taken away yet sinne it selfe remaineth but it is not imputed neither doth sinne remaine in the full strength but the power thereof is subdued and the kingdome of sinne in the regenerate vanquished but yet there remaine some reliques of sinne still as long as we are in this flesh and this daily experience sheweth how they which are regenerate are not altogether freed from the inhabitation and in-dwelling of sinne though it raigne not in them 3. And whereas Pererius obiecteth Augustine who confuting that slander of the Pelagians who affirmed that the Catholiks should hold baptismum non auferre sed radere peccata that baptisme doth not take away sinne but as it were shaue it because concupiscence remaineth the roote of sinne denieth that the Catholikes teach any such thing but that baptisme indeede doth auferre crimina take away sinnes lib. 13. cont 2. epist. Pelag. Augustine must be vnderstood to speake of the guilt of concupiscence which is remooued in baptisme as he saith lib. 6. c. 8. cont Iulian. quamvis eius reatus qui fuerat generatione contractus sit regeneratione transactus though the guilt thereof contracted in the generation be transacted and done away in regeneration yet it remaineth still in homine secum confligente in man hauing a conflict with himselfe c. 4. Argum. The laâ—â— commandeth not things impossible which can not be auoided but these first motions of concupiscence no man can shunne or auoide Augustine saith nec impossibile Deus hominis imperare potuit quia iustus c. neither could God command any impossible thing to man because he is iust nec damnaturus est hominem pro eo c. neither will he condemne a man for that which he that is godly can not auoid serm 61. de tempor Perer. ibid. Contra. 1. The law simply is not impossible to man considered as he was at the first created of God in that it is now impossible it is by reason of the weaknes and frailtie of mans flesh Rom. 8.3 which imbecillitie of nature came in by mans voluntarie transgression 2. The Law though impossible to be kept by a naturall man was giuen vnto other ends then that he should or could perfectly keepe it and in keeping thereof be iustified but it was giuen as a schoolemaster to bring vs vnto Christ Gal. 3.19 that finding themselues weake they might seeke to be cloathed with the righteousnes of Christ. 3. Augustine speaketh of a possibilitie by grace not in nature Nemo quantum possumus melius novis quam qui ipsum posse donavit no man can better tell what we can doe then he which gaue vs power c. which Augustine affirmeth not as though any man had power by grace to keepe all which is commanded but onely to shewe against the Manichees hominem posse vitare peccata that a man by grace may decline some sinnes which they denied 5. Argum. S. Iames saith c. 1.16 When lust hath conceiued it bringeth forth sinne and when sinne is perfected it bringeth forth death hence it followeth that either concupiscence is not sinne it onely bringeth forth sinne or if it be it is no mortall sinne for sinne onely when it is perfited bringeth forth death Contra. 1. It followeth not concupiscence bringeth forth sinne therefore it is no sinne it followeth that it is not that sinne which it begetteth or bringeth forth but yet one sinne may beget an other this is like as if a man should thus reason a man begetteth a man therefore he is not a man he is not indeede that man which he begetteth yet a man therefore because he begetteth a man and so one sinne may bring forth an other 2. neither doth it followe sinne which is perfited bringeth forth death Ergo sinne not perfited bringeth forth death which is as if one should thus reason the father begetteth a mortall man therefore the grandfather doth not sinne perfited is said to bring forth death as the nearest cause but yet sinne not perfected or produced as the remote cause also bringeth forth death for otherwise neither originall sinne not yet the second motions of concupiscence which haue the consent of the will should be worthie of death before they doe breake forth into act Now our contrarie arguments that euen concupiscence it selfe without the consent of the will either of things vnlawfull or of things lawfull vnlawfully is sinne are these and such like as followe Argum. 1. Whatsoeuer is forbidden by the lawe is sinne for sinne is defined to be the transgression of the lawe 1. Iob. 3.4 but the verie first motions of concupiscence are forbidden by the lawe and are a transgression thereof Ergo. So Augustine multum honi facit c. he performeth a great good that doth as it is written thou shalt not goe after thy desires Eccles. 18. sed non perfectum bonum facit c. but he doth not that which is perfectly good who fulfilleth not that which is written thou shalt not lust c. lib. de mixt concupiscent c. 23. c. 29. Answ. Pererius answeareth 1. that the motions of concupiscence hauing not the consent of the will are not forbidden by the commandement 2. and S. Augustine meaneth not that the precept thou shalt not lust cannot be fulfilled here so farre as it bindeth a man but as it excludeth concupiscence altogether which cannot be till the next life disputat 9. numer 50. Contra. 1. The Apostle meaneth the verie lusts and vnlawfull desire of the heart without consent of the will as he saith v. 15. what I hate that doe I his concupiscence tempted him euen against his will and whereas he saith he had not knowne lust without the law he meaneth the verie first motions for the second motions which haue the will concurring as enuie hatred and such like many of the heathen which knewe not the lawe condemned by the light of nature as euill 2. it is true that to be without concupiscence is not incident to this life yet is it a breach of the commandement for the precept so farre bindeth as it is commanded if then we be commanded not to couet at all and yet we doe couet we are bound to keepe it and in not keeping of it we sinne 3. further if the last commandement as not of coueting a mans wife restraine not the verie first rising deâ—â—â—es it should not differ from the 7. precept which restraineth the lusts of the heart that haue the will consenting Matth. 5.28 Argum. 2. That which hindereth vs from doing our
dutie vnto God in louing him with all our heart and strength and in obeying of his will is sinne but this doth concupiscence for it hindered the Apostle v. 19. I doe not that good thing which I would Ans. Pererius answereth that concupiscence doth not hinder vs from louing of God doing of his will so far as we are bound to this life for God may be loued with all the heart two wayes one is modus perfectionis the way of perfection which is when the heart actually loueth nothing but God and thus God shall be loued onely in heauen the other way is so farre as it bindeth a man in this life when the heart is habitually inclined vnto God so that it admit nothing against it as this kind of loue is not hindered as he saith by the first motions of concupiscence to the same purpose he alleadgeth Thomas that a precept is two wayes fulfilled the one is perfectly quando pervenitur ad finem when we attaine vnto the ende intended by him which giueth the precept the other imperfectly cum non receditur ab ordine ad finem when we depart not from the way which leadeth to the ende as when the captaine biddeth his souldiours fight to obtaine the victorie he which fighteth and hath the victorie perfitly fulfilleth his will he also which fighteth and doth his best doth his will also though he get not the victorie the first kind of fulfilling the precept shall be in patria in our countrey the other is in via in the way Contra. 1. We grant that there shall be a greater perfection of obedience in the next life then can be attained vnto here but euen that perfect obedience is propounded vnto vs here and required of vs Matth. 5.28 Ye shall be perfect as your heauenly father is perfect whereupon Augustine cur non praeciperetur in hac vita ista perfectio c. why should not this perfection be commanded euen in this life though no man can attaine vnto it here non 〈◊〉 recte curritur c. for we cannot runne right if it be vnknowne whether we should runne c. lib. de spirit liter c. vltim And seeing Christs righteousnesse and obedience of the lawe was most perfect and he came to performe that which was required of vs it followeth that God in the strict rule of his iustice required of vs perfect obedience which not to performe is sinne 2. If God doe command the ende as our perfection then he which commeth short and faileth of the ende fulfilleth not the commandement as if the souldier be commanded not to giue ouer till he haue the victorie breaketh his generalls charge if he get not the superioritie of the enemie And he which misseth of the ende must needes also recedere ab ordine ad finem faile in the meanes to the ende for otherwise he might atchieue the ende 3. And that concupiscence hindreth our obedience euen in this life the Apostle sheweth v. 19. I doe not the good thing which I would 3. Argum. The Apostle directly calleth euen concupiscence wherewith he is vnwilling sinne v. 20. If I doe that I would not it is no more I that doe it but the sinne that dwelleth in me Ergo it is sinne Answ. Pererius answeareth that it is called sinne either because it is effectus peccati the effect of sinne as the writing is called the hand because it was written with the hand or because it bringeth forth sinne as frigus cold is called pigrum slouthfull because it maketh one so Contra. 1. But that is properly and truely sinne which causeth death for death came in by sinne as the Apostle saith of concupiscence that it slue him and was vnto him the cause of death v. 10.11 2. S. Augustine also confesseth that concupiscence is not onely poena peccati the punishment of sinne and causa peccati the cause of sinne sed ipsum peccatum but sinne it selfe Pererius answeareth that Augustine vnderstandeth not peccatum morale a morall sinne but vitium naturae corruptae a fault or vice of our corrupt nature as the vices in the bodie as blindnes or deafenes are called peccata seu errata naturae the faults or errors of nature because they are against the integritie and perfection of the nature of the bodie so the rebelling of the carnall concupiscence against the lawe of reason is against the integritie and perfection of the soule and so an error of nature Contra. 1. We grant that there are naturall faults both in the soule as forgetfulnesse ignorance dulnesse of vnderstanding in the bodie weakenesse infirmitie blindnesse and such like which are the fruits and effects of sinne but not sinne themselues but concupiscence is none of that kind for all these infirmities are effects and passions but the concupiscence rebelling against the minde is actiue and working and Augustine himselfe giueth a reason why he calleth it sinne quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis because there is in it disobedience against the lawe of the minde gouerned by grace so that it disobeyeth not only the law of the mind but resisteth the motions of the spirit now all disobedience to the will of God is sinne 2. and that it is not naturall but a morall and spirituall sinne appeareth by the effects because it causeth the spirituall death of the soule Argument 4. Vnlesse the precept Thou shall not lust did prohibite the verie first motions that haue not the consent of the will then should there be no difference betweene this and the other precepts which doe condemne also ipsos prauos affectos the euill affections as of wrath enuie in the sixt of lust and carnall desire to the which the will is inclined in the seauenth so then this commandement ipsos appetitus quibus titillamur doth condemne the verie appetite which tickleth vs though it haue not our consent Calvin Pererius answereth that the other commandements onely prohibite ipsos externos actus the eternall acts of stealing committing adulterie and such like numer 58. Contra. 1. Our Blessed Sauiour confuteth him who Matth. 5. sheweth how in the former commandements the verie affections and inward purposes are restrained as of anger in the sixt thou shalt not kill of lusting after a woman in the heart in the seauenth thou shalt not commit adulterie 2. yea Pererius confuteth himselfe confessing afterward numer 60. praeceptis illis legalibus â—on solum externa peccata c. in those legall precepts not the externall workes of sinne onely to be prohibited but the verie inward concupiscence But we haue staied somewhat to long in this controuersie Controv. 9. That the commandement Thou shalt not lust is but one 1. The Romane catechisme which the Romanists generally follow deuide the last commandement into two the first forbidding the coueting of things of pleasure as the neighbours wife the other things of profit as our neighbours house and goods and they make the two first commandements thou shalt
it so the spirit dwelleth in the faithfull as the ruler and commander in the house the spirit and the flesh may be in the same house together if the flesh be as the seruant and the spirit as the master but if the flesh haue the masterie the spirit departeth like as where extreame cold hath taken possession there can be no heate at all but if the extremitie of cold be abated then there may be place for heate Martyr 4. And here we must distinguish as Origen well doth between the extraordinarie gifts of the spirits such as the Prophets and Apostles had when the spirit came vpon them in the likenes of fierie tongues and the ordinarie gifts for where the spirit is those extraordinarie graces alwaies follow not but those which the Lord seem to be conuenient for God giueth vnto euery one as he will 2. Cor. 12.11 3. And whereas the Apostle saith he that hath not the spirit of Christ is not his Origen well thus expoundeth creatura eius est sed non discipulus he is his creature still as all other things are but he is not his Disciple nor a member of his mysticall bodie 12. Quest. Of the meaning of these words v. 10. The bodie is dead because of sinne the spirit is life c. 1. Origen vnderstandeth the two parts of man the bodie and the soule and he giue in this sense the bodie is dead because of sinne mors imponitur ne peccet death is imposed vpon the bodie that it should not sinne alwaies remembring the ende and so the spirit vivit ad faciendam institiam liueth to worke righteousnes but the Apostle sheweth the cause of death in the one namely sinne and of life in the other namely righteousnes rather then the ende of both 2. Ambrose seemeth by the bodie to vnderstand the whole man that is dead because of sinne and by the spirit the holy Ghost â—â— author of life because he is giuen to iustifie vs so also Chrysostome will haue the holy Ghâ—â—t to be vnderstood which onely is not life in himselfe but giueth life vnto others so also Martyr but the other opposite part of the bodâ—â— sheweth that the spirit hath relation also vnto man 3. Some vnderstand the first clause of mortification as if the Apostle should say the â—â— die is dead quantum attinet ad peccati operationem in respect of the operation of sinne Oecumen Piscat but in this sense the same thing should be expressed in both clauses the mortifying of sinne and liuing vnto righteousnes which the opposition betweene the contraâ—â— parts of the bodie and spirit wil not heare 4. Calvin and so Osiander will haue the bodie to signifie the vnregenerate part the spirit the spirituall and regenerate but in this sense the Apostle vseth to oppose the flesh in the spirit not the bodie and the spirit 5. Wherefore by bodie we may better vnderstand that mortall part of man which is subiect to death and by the spirit the inward part of man namely his soule regenerate which liueth by faith Beza thinketh that the life of the soule is here vnderstood when it is separate from the bodie Chrysostome referreth it to the life of the resurrection Lyranus to the life of grace now in present But we may better comprehend both that both now for the present the spirit of man liueth by grace as the iust is said to liue by faith and that also is a pledge of life euerlasting afterward And this sense is most agreeable to the scope of the Apostle for hitherto he hath shewed how the spirit of Christ hath freed vs from the law of sinne in the flesh now he commeth to set forth the other part of our libertie which is from death and first presently in the spirit we liue by faith and then afterward the bodie also shall liue in the resurrection by the spirit of Christ which the Apostle sheweth in the next verse Quest. 13. How the quickening of the dead is ascribed to the spirit of Christ seeing all both good and bad shall rise 1. M. Calvins opinion is here refused who thinketh that the Apostle doth not here speake of the last and finall resurrection sed de continua spiritus operatione but of the continuall working of the spirit in vs in mortifying the reliques of sinne so also Piscator vificabit corpora vestra ad sanctificationem shall quicken your bodies vnto sanctification c. But in that sense our bodies are said to be mortua dead not mortalia mortall and the Apostle speaking of the time to come pointeth at the resurrection which shall be not that which is present in rising vnto newnes of life 2. There are three arguments of the resurrection here expressed by the Apostle the first from the power of God he that raised Christ from the dead shall also raise vs vp secondly from the correspondencie of Christ with his members as Christ was raised from the dead so shall we that are his members thirdly from the office of the spirit who shall raise vs vp that are his temples wherein he dwelleth Pareus 3. As God is said to haue raised Christ vp by his spirit so Christ raised vp himselfe by his eternall spirit omnia quippe divina pâ—â—er per Filium in Spiritu Sancto operatur all diuine things the father worketh by the Sonne in the holy Ghost Oecumen 4. Although our redemption purchased vnto vs by Christ was sufficient at once to haue redeemed both our soules and bodies tamen ordinate nobis datur it is giuen vnto vs in order and by degrees that as Christ had first a passible bodie before he had a glorious bodie so our bodies must first be mortall before they can haue immortalitie Lyran. 5. Now although the members of Christ shall be raised vp by his spirit yet the wicked also which haue not the spirit of Christ shall also rise againe but vnto iudgement they shall be raised vp by the omnipotent power of God but the righteous shall be raised by the spirit of Christ and therefore it is not said he shall raise but vinificabit he shall quicken your mortall bodie quod ipsa resurrectione maius est c. which is a greater worke then the resurrection and onely graunted to the righteous Chrysostome whom Martyr and Pareus followe Quest. 14. What it is to be lead by the spirit of God 1. There are two kind of actions of the spirit generall wherbey all things mooue liue and haue their beeing and speciall whereby the Lord worketh in the hearts of his children such is the worke of sanctification Calv. 2. And in that they are said to be lead we must not thinke that any are compelled by the spirit but this signifieth vehementem inclinationem non coactionem a vehement inclination not coaction Gorrhan God by his spirit ex nolentibus volentes facit of vnwilling maketh vs willing so he draweth vs volentes willing consequenter not antecedenter we are willing
The spirit maketh request with sighes The meaning is this that many times when the children of God are ouerwhelmed with griefe and knowe not themselues what they pray but onely sobbe and sigh that the spirit vnderstandeth their meaning and euen those sighs and groanes which come of the spirit doe pray for them Augustine writeth excellently hereof epist. 121. that the brethren in Egypt are said crebras habere orationes sed eas brevissimas raptim iaculatas to make often prayers but the same verie short and as it were of a sudden cast out c. whereupon he thus inferreth hanc intentionem sicut non est obtrâ—denda si per durare non potest ita si perduraverit non esse cito rumpendam the intention of prayer as it must not be forced if it doth not continue so if it hold still it must not suddenly be interrupted and broken off and so he concludeth ab sit ab oratione multa locutio sud non desit multa precatso in our prayer let there be absent much speach but let there not be wanting much praying c. for as long as the intention and devotion holdeth the prayer cannot be too much but to goe on still in words the intention beeing slacked is much babling and talking not praying 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. That concupiscence remaining euen in the regenerate is sinne and in it selfe worthie of condemnation v. 1. There is no condemnation Bellarmine hence inferreth the contrarie that in these words the Apostle doth not so much shewe that there is no condemnaâ—on to those that are iustified as that there is no matter of condemnation in them nihil condemnatione dignum nothing worthie of condemnation l. 5. de amiss grat c. 7. arg 3. and consequently concupiscence in them is not sinne Contra. 1. The contrarie rather is inferred out of the Apostles words that concupiscence is in it selfe worthie of condemnation of the which the Apostle treated before in the former chapter but it is not vnto damnation neither it nor any other sinne vnto those which are iustified by faith in Christ. 2. and the Apostle expresseth the verie cause they are iustified in Christ and therefore though sinne remaine in them yet it is not imputed therefore it is great bouldnes to denie that which the Apostle in so direct words expresseth that vnto those which are iustified in Christ there is no condemnation not for that there is nothing worthie of condemnation in them for then they should be altogether without sinne but because they are iustified 3. the Apostle saith not there is no sinne but no condemnation Melancth not that the same sinnes remaine in those which are iustified which were in them before as Pererius slanndereth Calvin to say disput 1. numer 5. but there be still some imperfections and reliques of sinne remaining but not raigning which notwithstanding are not imputed vnto the faithfull neither are able to condemne them and Calvin saith no more but that the Apostle ioyneth three things together imperfectionem the imperfections which are alwayes in the Saints Dei indulgentiam Gods indulgence whereby their sinnes are forgiuen and regenerationem spiritus the regeneration of the spirit for carni suae indulgens he that is giuen to the flesh doth flatter himselfe in vaine to be freed from his sinne Calvin then cannot the same sinnes remaine seeing in the regenerate the flesh is mortified and sinne subdued Controv. 2. That none are perfect in this life Origens ouersight is here to be noted who thinking that the Apostle spake in the former chapter of those which partly serued the lawe of God in the spirit and partly the Lawe of sinne in the flesh saith that now he speaketh of those which ex integro in Christo sunt which wholly are in Christ not partly of the spirit partly of the flesh but are perfect Contra. 1. First Origen confoundeth iustification and sanctification for the faithfull are indeed wholly graft into Christ by faith and yet they may haue some infirmities of the flesh remaining 2. there neuer liued any of that perfection neuer to be tempted of the flesh but onely Christ but yet they which are in Christ doe not walke after the flesh that is non carnem ducem sequuntur they doe not followe the flesh as their guide though they be sometime tempted of the flesh but they follow the guiding and direction of the spirit Beza in annot 3. and it hath beene sufficiently shewed before quest 36. of the former chapter that the Apostle there speaketh in his owne person as of a man regenerate and so in this place he meaneth the same whom in his owne person he described before Controv. 3. That regeneration is not the cause that there is no condemnation to the faithfull The Romanists doe make this the cause why there is no condemnation to those which are in Christ because they walke not after the flesh but after the spirit Tolet. annot 1. Bellarm 5. de amission grat c. 10. respons ad obiect 7. so likewise Stapleton Antidot p. 435. who thus obiecteth 1. Ob. He vrgeth the Apostles words here there is no condeÌ„nation c. which walke not after the flesh therefore for that they walke not after the flesh there is no condemnation to such Contra. The Apostle saith not there is no condemnation because they walke not but to them that walke not regeneration is required as a necessarie condition annexed to iustification not as the cause so that here is an answear to two questions together how we are iustified namely by faith in Christ and who are iustified they which bring forth good fruits the one is internall their iustification the other externall namely sanctification Beza 2. Ob. The Apostle saith that the lawe of the spirit which Beza interpreteth to be the grace of regeneration doth free vs from the lawe of sinne and death v. 2. Ergo it is the cause of iustification Contra. 1. This interpretation beeing admitted that followeth not which is inferred for the words are not from sinne but from the lawe of sinne that is from the dominion of sinne and so indeede the grace of regeneration freeth vs that sinne hath no more dominion ouer vs. 2. but it is better with Ambrose to vnderstand by the law of the spirit legem fidei the lawe of faith whereby we are freed from sinne and death 3. Ob. If righteousnesse beeing present do not iustifie vs then beeing absent it condemneth not Contra. 1. Is followeth not for a thing may be insufficient to a worke beeing present and yet if it be remooued it is sufficient to hinder the worke as good diet in a sicke man may hinder his recouerie and yet if he vse it it is not alwayes sufficient to helpe him 2. and yet here is a difference in this example for good diet is an helping cause vnto health but good workes are no cause of saluation but onely a condition necessarily required and annexed 4.
opinion examined that our sinnes are remitted onely by Christs death not for the the obedience and merit of his life Controversies vpon the 5. Chapter 1. contr Whether a good conscience and integritie of life be the cause of peace with God 2. contr Against invocation of Saints 3. contr Of the certaintie of salvation and of perseverance 4. contr That the tribulation of the Saints is not meritorius though it be said to worke patience 5. contr That we are not iustified by the inherent habite of charitie 6. contr Against the heresie of impious Socinus who denieth that Christ died for our sinnes and payed the ransome for them 7. contr Against other obiections of Socinus and other impugning the fruit and efficacie of Christs death in reconciling vs to God his Father 8. con That Christs death was a full satisfaction for our sins against Socinus his cauils 9. contr That Christs death was not onely satisfactorie but meritorious against Socinus Certaine controversies touching Originall sinne 10. cont That there is originall sinne in men by the corruption of nature against the opinion of the Hebrewes 11. contr That Adaws sinne is entred into his posteritie by propagation not imitation onely against the Pelagians 12. contr Of the manner how originall sinne is propagated against the Pelagians where it is disputed whether the soule be deriued from the Parents 13. contr Against the Pelagians and Papists that originall sinne is not quite taken away in Baptisme 14. contr What originall sinne is against the Romanists and some some others and specially against them which hold it to be Adams sinne imputed onely to his posteritie 15. contr That originall sinne is not onely the privation of originall iustice 16. contr Of the wicked heresie of Marcion and Valentinus with the blasphemous Manichees 17. cont That all sinnes are mortall and worthie of death by nature 18. contr That Henoch and Elias are not yet aliue in the bodie 19. contr The Virgin Marie conceiued in originall sinne 20. contr Againe meritts 21. contr That the punishment of originall sinne is euerlasting death 22. contr That Christs essentiall iustice is not infused into vs. 23. contr Against the Patrons of vniuersall grace 24. contr Against the Popish inherent iustice 25. contr That we are iustified both by the actiue and passiue obedience of Christ. 26. contr Against the Philosophers who placed righteousnes in their owne workes 27. contr Against the Manichees and Pelagians the one giuing too much the other too little to the lawe 28. contr Of the assurance of salvation 29. contr Of the diuerse kinds of grace against the Romanists Controversies out of the 6. Chapter 1. contr Against the administring of the Sacraments in an vnknowne tongue 2. contr Concerning inherent iustice 3. contr That the Sacrament of Baptisme doth not conferre grace by the outward worke 4. contr That Baptisme serueth as well for the remission of sinnes to come as of sinnes past 5. contr Whether in Baptisme our sinnes be cleane taken away 6. contr Of the baptisme of infants 7. contr Of the assurance of salvation 8. contr That Christ shall not die in the next world againe for those which were not healed here 9. contr Against the Sacrifice of the Masse 10. contr Concerning freewill 11. contr That concupiscence remaining in the regenerate is properly sinne 12. contr Whether a righteous man may fal into any mortall or deadly sinne 13. contr Against the Manichees 14. contr Concerning inherent iustice 15. contr Against the power of freewill in the fruits of righteousnesse 16. contr Whether all death is the wages of sinne 17. contr Against the distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes 18. contr That everlasting life cannot be merited by good workes Controversies vpon the 7. Chapter 1. contr Against Purgatorie 2. contr Of the lawfulnes of second marriage 3. contr Whether the marriage bond be indissoluable before the one partie be dead 4. contr That the disparitie of profession is no cause of the dissolution of marriage 5. contr Whether the bill of diuorce permitted to the Iewes did lawfully dissolue matrimonie vnder the Law 6. contr Against the workes of propitiation 7. contr Against the Heretikes which condemned the Lawe 8. contr That we are freed by grace from the strict and rigorous observation of the lawe 9. contr That concupiscence though it haue no deliberate consent of the will is sinne forbidden by the commandement 10. contr That the commandement thou shalt not lust is but one 11. contr Against freewill Controversies out of the 8. Chapter 1. contr That concupiscence remaining euen in the regenerate is sinne and in it selfe worthie of condemnation 2. controver That none are perfect in this life 3. controver That regeneration is not the cause that there is no condemnation to the faithfull 4. contr Against the Arrians and Eunomians concerning the dietie of the holy Ghost 5. contr Against the Pelagians that a man by nature cannot keepe and fulfill the lawe 6. contr The fulfilling of the lawe is not possible in this life no not to them which are in the state of grace 7. con That not the carnall eating of Christs flesh is the cause of the resurrection but the spirituall v. 11. 8. contr Against merits 9. contr Whether in this life one by faith may be sure of salvation 10. contr Against the invocation of Saints 11. contr That a strange tongue is not to be vsed in the seruice of God 12. contr That euerlasting glorie cannot be merited 13. contr That hope iustifieth not 14. contr Whether hope relie vpon the merit of our workes 15. contr Against the naturall power and integritie of mans will 16. contr That predestination dependeth not vpon the foresight of faith or good workes 17. contr Against the opinion of Ambrosius Catharinus concerning predestination 18. contr That election is certaine and infallible of grace without merit and of some selected not generally of all 19. contr That the elect cannot full away from the grace and fauour of God and be wholly giuen ouer vnto sinne 20. contr Whether a reprobate may haue the grace of God and true iustice 21. contr That the elect by faith may be assured of euerlasting salvation Controversies out of the 9. Chapter 1. contr That succession of Bishops is no sure note of the Church of Christ. 2. contr Against the old heretikes the Manichees Arrians Nestorians confuted out of the 5. ver 3. contr Against the prophane and impious collections of Eniedinus and Socinus late heretikes 4. contr That the water in baptisme doth not sanctifie or giue grace 5. contr Against the vaine observation of Astrologers in casting of nativities 6. contr That the soules had no beeing in a former life before they came into the body 7. contr Whether the foresight of faith or workes be the cause of election 8. contr That not onely election vnto grace but vnto glorie also is onely of the good will of God 9. contr That the Apostle treateth as well of
Simon Magus seeing would by money haue purchased the like power Act. 8. 9. It was giuen them in all their doctrine to be free from error as Christ promiseth Ioh. 16.13 that the spirit should leade them in all truth 10. The Apostles in the knowledge of the mysteries and high things of the Gospel exceeded all other as S. Paul saith Ephes. 17. According to his rich grace whereby he hath beene abundant toward vs in all wisedome and vnderstanding 11. Two other prerogatiues Pererius addeth the one vncertaine the other false first he saith that the Apostles composed and framed the symbole containing the 12. articles of the faith commonly called the Apostles Creede which is not certaine both because some of the articles as that of the descension came in many yeares after the Apostles as is elsewhere shewed and if the Apostles had set downe this rule of faith it is not like that diuerse Churches would after them haue framed so many diuerse formes beside of the Creed 12. But the last priuiledge that the Apostles post acceptum spiritum sanctum fuerint impeccabiles quantum ad peccatum mortale after they had receiued the spirit were without sinne c. for 1. in this sense that distinction of veniall and mortall sinne is not to be allowed that some are veniall in their owne nature by the grace of God all sinnes were veniall to the Apostles and to all other beleeuers but in it owne nature euery sinne deserueth death and so is mortall Rom. 6.23 2. and that the Apostles were apt to sinne is euident by Peters ouersight for the which he was openly rebuked of S. Paul Gal. 2.11 where he saith he was to be blamed 10. Quest. How S. Paul is said to be set or put apart for the Gospel of God The word which the Apostle here vseth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 separated or set apart 1. Ambrose thinketh that here there is an allusion to the sect of the Pharisies whereof S. Paul was who were so called because they were in a more strict kind of liuing separated from others 2. Whereas S. Paul saith likewise Galat. 2.15 that God separated him from his mothers wombe some interpret ab vtero synagogae he was separate from the wombe of the Synagogue gloss interlin à doctrina Phariseorum from the doctrine of the Pharisies gloss ordinar but this S. Paul expresseth in the words following and called me by his grace Gal. 2.15 3. Hug. Cardin. segregatus à grege he is saide to be separated from the rest of the flocke but so were the other Apostles also 4. Oecumen alij ad alia ego ad Euangelium some were set apart for other things I for the Gospel but this was generall also to all the other Apostles 4. Anselmus he is said to be segregatus set apart prae caeteris discipulis c. in respect of other disciples which were with him then at Antioch when the Spirit said Separate me Barnabas and Saul Act. 13. but the Apostle speaketh of a separation euen from his mothers wombe as he expoundeth himselfe Gal. 2.15 5. As these haue speciall reference to Pauls actuall separation when he was called so others referre it to the electing and foreordaining Paul to this worke in the counsell of God But Origen and Sedulius ascribe this separation to Paul merits that the Lord foresaw his merits and labours which he should take in the Gospel and therefore elected him to be an Apostle But Tolet well confureth this because it is contrarie to S. Pauls owne doctrine Rom. 9. who ascribeth election to the mercie and grace of God and he himselfe professeth that he was called by the grace of God Gal. 2.15 therefore not by any merits 6. Chrysostome vnderstandeth this separation of his preordaining vnto the Apostleship as the Lord likewise saith to Ieremie c. 1.5 Before thou camest out of the wombe I sanctified thee and so inculcat divinam electionem he doth vrge his diuine election that his Epistle might be receiued with great authoritie so also Peter Mart. he sheweth his calling initium habuisse ex praedestinatione to haue taken beginning from Gods predestination which he maketh mention of to shew a difference betweene his calling to be an Apostle who was thereunto also elected and theirs which were called but not elected as was Iudas Hyperi◠And further apponit vitae priori he setteth this against his former life while he was a persecuter all that he did was per accidens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as by the way and out of course but this was that whereunto he was ordained Aretius 7. But beside this eternall separation in Gods prescience here is somewhat noted quod Paulus ab alijs Apostolis habuit peculiare which Paul had peculiar euen from other Apostles he was appointed an Apostle to preach among all the Gentiles as it followeth v. 5. for the rest of the Apostles remaining in Iudea he first with Barnabas was separated to preach to the Gentiles Act. 23. Tolet. And so consequently his office was to preach to the Romanes among other Gentiles Aretius Here also he insinuateth his extraordinarie calling to be an Apostle diuers from the rest he was separate from them beeing an Apostle aboue the number of the twelue Mathias was chosen in the place of Iudas and so did but fill vp that number but S. Paul was ouer and aboue Tolet. so S. Paul was separate first vnto eternall saluation then vnto the knowledge of Christ and thereby to be an Apostle Faius 11. Quest. Of the description of the Gospel v. 1 2 3. v. 1. The Gospel of God which was promised c. 1. The Gospel is taken two waies either for the doctrine concerning Iesus Christ which containeth foure things 1. of the comming of Christ in the flesh which comprehendeth the whole historie of the incarnation of Christ and all his acts both his holy sermons and speaches and his holy and powerfull workes 2. the effects of his comming as the remission of sinne the subduing of the kingdome of Satan the reconciling vs to God opening the kingdome of heauen and the like 3. the third is the veritie of those things which in the Gospel are prescribed to be beleeued the holy doctrine and precepts of the Gospel 4. the obseruation of such things as Christ commanded Matth. 28.20 Teaching them to obserue all things which I haue commanded you Tolet. secondly the Gospel is taken for the publishing preaching and annuntiation of it in which sense the Apostle saith If our Gospel be hid it is hid to thē which are lost 2. Here all the parts of the Gospel are expressed 1. the efficient it is called the Gospel of God to shew that it was no humane inuention Gualter 2. the forme thereof it was promised before as the Apostle saith Gal. 3.23 Before faith came c. we were shut vp vnto the faith which should be reuealed Gryu which promises concerning Christ to come were made vnto the
especially nameth it for euen Solon which was counted one of the wisest men among the Grecians did vse to buy harlots for the yong men and among the Carthaginians it was a common vse for the virgins before their mariage to prostitute themselues publikely in the Temple of Venus that they might bring a dowrie with them by that filthy lucre home to their husbands Gualter 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wickednes studium improbo agendi a studie or desire to doe mischiefe Pareus the Syrian translatour readeth amaritudinem bitternes some versutiam craft or subtiltie Vatab. which is interpreted to be a setled purpose or endeauour to doe hurt Gennad ex Oecumenio Beza his coniecture is that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came into the text because of the neere affinitie that it hath with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for his auncient copie hath it not But I preferre herein Piscators coniecture that thinketh the Apostle of purpose put these words together that had some allusion the one to the other as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 couetousnesse which is the desire of hauing much though it be with wrong vnto others and so is the word deriued of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hauing much Mart. some referre it not onely to the desire of wealth but of carnall pleasure Haymo but this was touched before vnder the word fornication the Romanes know by wofull experience what a mischiefe couetousnesse brought with it for this was the cause of the warres betweene Caesar and Pompey and betweene Augustus Lepidus and Antonie Gualter it comprehendeth omnes furti imposturae species all the kinds of theft and other impostures Bucer which are transgressions against the 8. precept 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nequitia malitiousnesse it somtime is taken generally as it is opposed vnto vertue but here it rather signifieth inclinationem ad deteriora a generall inclination vnto 〈◊〉 Tolet. some take it for the sinne of spirituall slouth when one is wearie of well doing Mart. But I preferre the former sense that thereby is signified a generall inclination to euill and especially ad luxum libidinem to excesse riot and wantonesse Erasm. as they which are giuen to drunkennesse are vsed to blasphemie rayling fithie communication and such like Gualter 6. Full of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 envie the Apostle changeth here his forme of speach both because of the elegance of the Greeke tongue and for that these sinnes following are speciall transgressions against our neighbour envie hath a double passion for an envious man would not haue an other to be that which he is seeing another in better case then himselfe it grieueth him that he is not so to this difference there is betweene envie and zeale that is taken alwaies in the worst part so is not the other for there may be both a good and bad zeale Haymo and commonly men doe enuie those whom they cannot otherwise hurt for if they could they would soone take them out of the way Bucer 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 murther is the next which is set next after enuie as the mother thereof for Caine first hated and envied Abel before he killed him Mart. the Latine interpretet readeth in the plurall murthers because there are two kinds of murther one in will and purpose the other in act but in the original the word is put in the singular yet thereby al kinds of murther are vnderstood which is committed diuerse wayes 1. in heart euerie one that hateth his brother is a manslayer 1. Ioh. 3. 2. in giuing counsell or vsing perswasion so the Iewes are said to haue killed Christ Iames. 5.6 3. by writing as Dauid killed Vriah 4. by striking with the hand as Ioab killed Abner 5. by taking away necessarie things such as the life should be maintained with as he which withholdeth the poore mans couering wherein he should sleepe Exod. 22.27 6. by not shewing mercie in releeuing as the rich glutton refused to giue the crummes to poore Lazarus 7. in not rescuing and deliuering such as are vniustly oppressed as the wise man saith deliuer them that are drawne to death Prouerb 24.11 Gorrham yet all kind of killing is not here vnderstood vnlesse it proceede of a corrupt affection either of reuenge or a desire of gaine that putting to death which proceedeth of the execution of iustice is no sinne Bucer 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contention which is set next after murther because it followeth vpon murther Mart. contention Basil describeth thus which for vaine glorie sake facit vt alij similiter faciant procureth others to doe the like re bre 66. Haymo thus vbi non ratione aliquid c. when any thing is not defended and maintained with reason but with a pertinacie of minde gloss ordinar thus est impugantio veritatis it is an impugning of the truth by clamorous contention against the which the Apostle speaketh 1. Cor. 11.12 if any man lust to be contentious we haue no such custome nor the Church of God 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deceit some take it for that speciall kind of deceit which men vse in vndermining anothers life that whom they cannot ouercome by strength they supplant by treacherie as Ioab did Abner Mart. Basil defineth it exquisita diligentia ad insidiandum a most exquisite diligence to lie in wait But here it is taken generally for all kind of dissimulation and deceit Calv. cum aliud simulatur aliud agitur when one thing is dissembled another thing done gloss interlin Haymo maketh this difference betweene dolus insidiae frans deceit which is in the minde lying in wait which is in act and craft which is in the deceiuing of mutuall faith 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 churlishnesse morositie Basil defineth it to be latens in moribus vitium a sinne lurking in mens manners Theophylact taketh it to be a kind of dissimulation some take it for vnthankefulnesse gloss Hugo but it rather signifieth morositie churlish behauiour which Aristotle taketh to be a vice in construing all in the worse part so Beza Gry◠Gualt Plutarke did taxe Herodotus for this writing a booke of the morositie of Herodotus these fiue last rehearsed are offences against the sixt precept for they practise against the life and health of our neighbour either secretly as by enuie fraud or openly in murther contention or both wayes as in malignitie or morositie Fareus 11. The next is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a whisperer such an one as secretly practiseth by carying of tales to dissolue friendship and sowe enmitie and thinketh by such meanes to insinuate himselfe such the wiseman speaketh of c. 6.20 without wood the fire is quenched and without a talebarer strife ceaseth whisperers are enter amicos discordias seminantes such as sowe dissention among friends gloss interlin 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a backebiter he differeth from a whisperer 1. in that he speaketh euill openly of an other the whisperer doth
such examples of vnnaturall inhumanitie as Cambyses Remus Romulus and such like Gualter such was Cain Ismael Esau to their brethren The Stoicks among the heathen depriued a wise man of all affection and so doe the wicked Catabaptists among Christians Bucer 22. Such as can neuer be reconciled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some reade absque faedere without fidelitie Lat. such as breake all truces and leagues but they were noted before trucebreakers Lyranus taketh them to be such as would hold no friendship with any but such men were also spoken of before loc 10. they are therefore such as were implurable that beeing once offended would neuer be reconciled againe Mart. Pareus with others such was Saul that would by no meanes be appeased toward Dauid Marlorat 23. Mercilesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as had no bowels of compassion neither pitied the miseries and calamities of others as among the heathen their cruell warres and bloodshed when they spared neither man woman nor children and their bloody spectacles and sword-playes when they delighted to see the blood of man shed before their face were euident proofes hereof Gualter Chrysostome thus distinguisheth these last fowre they are coneuant breakers that keepe no fidelitie with the same kind as man with man they are without naturall affection which are vnkind to their kindred and such are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which breake ciuill leagues and the last includeth mercie to be shewed euen vnto enemies Quest. 74. Of the true reading of the last verse v. 31. and the meaning thereof 1. The vulgar Latine which Lyranus followeth and Tolet the Rhemists with other Romanists reade thus when they knewe the iustice of God vnderstood not that they which doe such things are worthie of death c. and this reading seemeth also Cyprian to followe epistol 68. But in the originall these words non intellexerunt they vnderstood not are wanting and are inserted beside the text and they doe also quite inuert the sense of the text for they make it a lesse thing to consent vnto euill doers and approoue them then to commit euill not onely they which doe them but also they which consent vnto them as the vulgar Latine text standeth whereas the Apostle euidētly maketh two degrees of sinners they which commit euill and those worse which are patrons and fauourers of euill And so Chrysostome well expoundeth shewing how the Apostle taketh away two pretexts and excuses of the Gentiles one was their ignorance which they could not pretend because they knewe by nature what the iustice of God required the other was their infirmitie but that they could not alleadge seeing they did commit such things in fact but approoued also and commended the euill doers 2. By the iustice of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here vnderstood not the morall lawe which the Gentiles had not but the iudiciarie iustice of God in punishing of sinne for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is defined iniusti facti corectio a correcting of that which is vniustly or vnlawfully done Michael Ephesus in ethic Aristot. lib. 5. c. 7. The Gentiles knewe this iustice of God in punishing of sinne both by the light of nature by the testimonie of their owne conscience and by the examples of Gods iustice shewed in the world Pareus Euen Draco which appointed death for all offences was taught by the law of nature that all sinne deserued death Mart. So Abimelech and Pharaoh knew by the light of nature that mariage was not to be violated and therefore they caused Sarah to be restored to Abraham Gualter 3. By death here is vnderstood any kind of punishment tending to the ruine and destruction of the offender Pareus yea also the Gentiles had some knowledge of euerlasting punishment for they had an opinion of hell as Virgil sheweth lib. 6. Aenead as they promised the pleasant Elysian fields after death vnto well doers Plato lib. 10. de repub Cicero in som. Scipton 75. Quest. What a dangerous thing it is to be a fauourer and procurer of sinne in others 1. The vulgar Latine reading thus not onely they which doe such things are worthie of death but they which consent vnto them that doe and Lyranus Toletus with others doe thinke that here to consent with sinners is put as the lesse that no not the consenters onely were free but were worthie of death But it is rather expressed as an higher degree of sinne as Theophylact saith quodque deterius est and that which is worse they gaue assent vnto those which doe euill so also Erasmus Osiander Pererius with others 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not an assent onely but an approbation and patronage as Beza and Pareus read patrocinantur they giue patronage but Piscator rather vseth the word applaudunt because to applaud and approoue is more then patronize for one may be a patron of that vpon some occasion which he doth not altogether approoue 3. The heathen generally were guiltie hereof in defending and maintaining publikely euen those things which by the light of nature they knew to be euill as idolatrie fornication and such like when Alexander had killed Clitus his friend and was striken in conscience for the same he had miserable comforters applied vnto him Anaxarchus Aristander Callisthenes which were all but patrons of his sinne and made him worse the first as an Epicure told him that all was lawfull which Princes did the second beeing a Stoike referred all to fate and destinie the third vsed morall and ciuill perswasions but none of them shewed him the greatnes of his sinne Gryneus 4. Of these fauourers there are two kinds some doe affoard their helpe and assistance to euill doers some hold their peace when they should reprooue And there is a double kind of reproofe or correction fraterna correctio brotherly correction vnto the which all are bound but not alwaies sed pro debito tempore loco but in due time and place there is correctio punitionis correction by way of punishment vnto the which all superiours are bound and at all times as they shall see it to make best for the amendment of sinners Lyr. But both these kind of corrections were much neglected among the heathen 5. Now of these there were three sorts some might commit sinne in themselues and yet not consent vnto it in others and these were worthie of death some might giue consent in not punishing sinne in others though they did it not themselues and these also were worthie of death and some did both practise it in their owne person and fauour it in others and these were worthie of double death Haymo 76. Quest. How one may be accessarie to an others sinne This may be done diuers waies 1. they which command others to doe euill as Saul bid Doeg fall vpon the innocent Priests 1. Sam. 22. are guiltie of others sinnes 2. They which are readie to obey such wicked commandements as Ioab vpon Dauids letter caused
Vriah to be killed and the same Ioab also was Dauids instrument to number the people though be misliked it himselfe 3. They which giue counsell or any kind of helpe or assistance to the euill for which cause Iehosaphat was reprooued of the Prophet Iehu because he aided the idolatrous king of Israel in battell and here they also are included which doe promote vnworthie and vnmeete persons to office and therefore S. Paul chargeth Timothie to lay hands suddenly on none neither to be partaker of other sinnes 1. Tim. 5.4 They which commend the wicked in their euill doing and so extenuate their sinne as Psal. 10.5 the wicked man is said to blesse the couetous 5. They which by any signe in word or deede seeme to giue consent vnto the sinnes of others as Saul kept their garments which stoned Steuen and to gaue consent vnto his death 6. They which are partakers with others in their sinne and part stakes with them as Psal. 50.18 When thou seest a theese thou runnest with him and art paraker with the adulterer 7. They which doe not rebuke and correct others when it is in their power which was the sinne of Hell who vsed too much connivence and forbearance toward his sonnes 1. Sam. 2.8 They which giue intertainement vnto the wicked as vnto theeues robbers strumpets and such like 9. Such as conceale and keepe secret others sinnes whereby their heart is hardened and so they continue in their sinne Hyper. Quest. 77. Whether all the Gentiles were guiltie of these sinnes which are here rehearsed by the Apostle Many among the Gentiles in respect of the rest were men of ciuill life and gaue example of diuerse morall vertues such among the Grecians were Aristides Phacion Socrates among the Romanes the Scipioes Catoes with others But yet none of them are exempted out of the Apostles reprehension 1. because none of them were free from the most of these sinnes though they were not guiltie of all 2. they wanted true faith and therefore their vertues were but speciosa peccata goodly sinnes 3. And in respect of their naturall corrupâ— disposition euen the best of them were enclined vnto all these sinnes sauing that the Lord bridled in some of them the corruption and badnesse of their nature that there might be some order and gouernement among the heathen otherwise their common wealths would soone haue come to confusion 4. And those which gaue any good example among the heathen were so fewe that they are not to be named among the rest Peter Martyr 4. Places of doctrine v. 1. Paul a seruant of Iesus Christ. Christs seruice is perfect freedome there are three kinds of seruice 1. the seruice of God which is either generall belonging to all Christians which is the seruice of their profession whereof the Apostle speaketh Rom. 6.19 or speciall which is in that vocation to the which any are called whereof see Matth. 25.14 Luk. 12.43 2. Ciuill seruice which may very well stand with the seruice of God see 1. Cor. 7.11 3. there is the seruice of sinne Rom. 8.16 and seruice to please men Gal. 1.10 and this seruice is contrarie to the seruice of God Pareus Called to be an Apostle There are two kinds of calling one is vnto saluation the other is to some office in this life The first is either externall which is generall to all by the light of nature and knowledge of the creatures especiall by the preaching of the word or internall by the inward working of Gods spirit which is peculiar to the elect The calling to some function in this life is either priuate as of men to their seuerall vocations or publike which is either Ciuill of Magistrates in the time of peace leaders and Captaines in the time of warre or Ecclesiasticall which is either immediate from God as of the Prophets and Apostles or mediate by men which is either ordinarie such as is the ordination of Bishops and Ministers now or extraordinarie by lot as was the election of Matthias Act. 1. To be an Apostle There is a threefold difference betweene Apostles and other Pastors 1. They were immediatly called of Christ the other mediately are appointed by men 2. in respect of their doctrine and writings both the authoritie thereof they are free from error and are part of the Canonicall Scripture but so are not the doctrine and writings of the other they must be subiect to the writings of the Apostles as also their doctrine was confirmed and ratified by miracles Mart. 3. in their authoritie and office the Apostles were not tied vnto any place but were sent to preach to the whole world but Pastours now haue their particular and speciall Churches Pareus Set apart God the father set apart Paul to be an Apostle Gal. 1.1 and Iesus Christ Act. 9. and the holy Ghost Act. 13.2 these three then are one God for it belongeth onely vnto God to send Prophets and Apostles and Pastors to his Church therefore all such are condemned whome the Lord hath not sent Ierem. 14.15 Gospel of God which is afterward vers 16. and chap. 15.19 and in other places called the Gospel of Christ which is an euident testimonie of Christs eternall Godhead Pareus v. 2. Which he had promised before c. Concerning the Gospel of Christ 1. Euangelium the Evangel signifieth a ioyfull message of the grace of Christ 2. though the Gospel be diuers in circumstance for there is Gospel promised by the Prophets and the Gospel performed by Christs comming yet it is one and the same in substance 3. the efficient and author thereof is God it is called the Gospel of God the materiall cause is Iesus Christ God and man the formall the declaration and manifestation of him to be the Sonne of God v. 4. the end is to saluation v. 16. the effects obedience to the faith v. 5. v. 3. concerning his Sonne here the person of Christ is described to be both God and man Man as he was borne of the seede of Dauid and he was also declared to be the Sonne of God Piscator According to the flesh In that the Sonne of God is said to be made of the seede of Dauid after the flesh it sheweth against the Nestorian heretikes that there are not two Sonnes but one Sonne the same both God and man and that according to the flesh he was made there the propertie of his natures is still reserued against the Eutychians and Suenkefeldians which destroied the vnitie of Christs humane nature By reason of this vnion of the diuine and humane nature of Christ that which was done in one of his natures is ascribed to his whole person and here we are to consider of a threefold communion of the properties of Christs diuine and humane natures one vnto the other 1. some things are really common to both his whole person and natures as such things which belong to the office of the Redeemer as to sanctifie
may set one auncient writer against an other to this purpose Bellarm. lib. 3. de verb. Dei c. 14. Contra. 1. Though some Greeke copies might haue those words yet the most and the most auncient haue them not as is euident by the Greeke commentaries and the Syrian translator followeth the Greeke text as it is now extant 2. The Apostle speaketh not of a bare consent vnto euill but of fauouring patronizing and taking pleasure in them which is more then to doe euill for this one may doe of infirmitie the other proceedeth of a setled malice 3. the vnderstanding is in the iudgement of the minde not in the practise and therefore to know a thing and yet not to know or vnderstand it includes a contradiction 4. the Greeke authors and commentaries are more to be respected in this case for the finding out of the best reading in the Greeke then the Latine writers 23. Controv. Against the Popish distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes v. 32. Worthie of death Hence the Rhemists inferre that some sinnes are mortall that is worthie of damnation some veniall that is pardonable of their owne nature and not worthie of damnation Contra. 1. This distinction is contrarie to the Scripture which saith the wages of sinne is death Rom. 6.23 no sinne is excepted and whosoeuer continueth not in all things written in the law is vnder the curse Gal. 3.10 And if any sinne were veniall in it owne nature it would follow that Christ died not for all sinnes for those sinnes which are pardonable in themselues neede not Christs pardon 2. Indeede there are degrees of sinne and some are worthie of greater condemnation then others and are more easily pardoned yet in Gods iustice euery sinne deserueth death which are through Gods mercie made veniall both the lesse and greater sinnes so that one and the same sinne may be mortall to the impenitent and yet veniall to the penitent beleeuer 6. Morall observations 1. Observ. v. 1. Called to be an Apostle none then must take vpon them any Ecclesiasticall function but they which are thereunto called and appointed of God Heb. 5.4 2. Observ. v. 5. For obedience to the faith the Lord straightly chargeth that obedience should be giuen to the faith of his Sonne whence are these sayings Psal. 2.12 Kisse the Sonne Matth. 17.5 Heare him they then professe not the Gospel of Christ truly who make onely a shew thereof in words but denie obedience in deede 3. Observ. v. 7. Grace to you and peace this inward peace of conscience is that peace which can not be taken from vs all other things in the world are temporall but the grace and fauour of God and this inward peace ne morie ipsa abscinduntur are not cut off by death it selfe Chrysost. for this peace we ought all to labour which Christ hath left vnto vs after an other manner then the world leaueth peace Ioh. 14.27 4. Observ. v. 8. I giue thanks c. for you all This is true charitie to pray one for an other and to giue thankes vnto God for the graces bestowed vpon others as if they were conferred vpon our selues And as here the Apostle praieth for the Church so the Church praieth for the Apostle S. Peter Act. 12.5 the Pastor and people are hereby taught one to pray for an other 5. Observ. v. 12. That I might haue consolation together with you Herein the Apostles modestie appeareth who taketh not himselfe to be so perfect but that he might receiue some comfort euen by the faith of the Romanes Let no man therefore despise the gifts and graces of others for euery one may profit by an other euen as one member helpeth an other 7. Observ. v. 13. I haue beene letted hetherto Seeing the purposes of holy men as here this of S. Paul was hindred it teachet vs that we should commend and commit all our purposes and counsels to Gods prouidence and fatherly direction 8. Observ. v. 17. The iust shall liue by faith Hence Chrysostome inferreth that men should take heede of curiositie to know a reason of Gods works but they onely must beleeue As Abraham was not curious when God bad him sacrifice his sonne but he obeyed without any further reasoning or disputation But the Israelites when they vnderstood that the Cananites were as gyants because they saw no reason or likelihood to ouercome them doubted and so fell in the wildernes so he concludeth vides quantum sit incredulitatis barathrum you see what a dangerous downefall incredulitie is and what a safe defence faith is 9. Observ. v. 24. Wherefore God gaue them vp to the lusts c. The Lord sometime gaue the idolatrous Samaritans ouer to lyons 2. King 17. but he giueth ouer these idolatrous Gentiles to their owne hearts lusts and vile affections which did more tyranize ouer them then lyons and tygres for when the bodie is giuen vp to wild beasts and depriued of life nothing happeneth against the condition of our mortall nature but when the minde is ruled by lust and so the affection preuaileth against reason this is monstrous and vnnaturall Perer. disputat 20. 10. Observ. Which is to be blessed for euer We are taught by the example of the Apostle when as we speake of the maiestie of God to breake forth into his praise as the Apostle doth here and c. 9.5 1. Tim. 1.17 11. Observ. Chrysostome further obserueth that as God still remaineth blessed though his glorie were defaced by the idolaters as much as in them lay so likewise the members of Christ when they are reuiled and railed vpon are not thereby hurt nonne vides adamanters cum percutitur percutit iterū like as the adamant when it is smitten it smiteth againe and leaueth a dint in the hammer that striketh it The second Chapter 1. The text with the diuers readings THerefore thou art inexcusable O man O sonne of man T. whosoeuer thou art that iudgest thy neighbour T. but this is not in the originall for wherein thou iudgest an other L.T. in that that thou iudgest an other G. or in that wherein thou iudgest an other but in the originall it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for wherein the antecedent is omitted thou condemnest thy selfe for thou that iudgest doest the same things not thou doest the same things which thou iudgest L. in the originall it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou iudging that is which iudgest the relatiue is referred to the person not to the thing 2 But we know are sure B. that the iudgement of God is according to truth against those V. B.T.Be G. vpon those L. the preposition is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in against which commit such things 3 And thinkest thou this O thou man that iudgest them which doe such things condemnest them which c. Be. but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here vsed signifieth properly to iudge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to condemne that thou shalt escape the iudgement of God 4 Or despisest thou the riches
occasion by Gods patience and forbearance to continue in their sinnes and so the Lord may be said to harden the heart because the wicked abuse that occasion which is sent of God thus Origen lib. 3. periarchor Basil in his oration wherein he prooueth that God is not the author of euill but in this respect man rather should be said to harden his owne heart in abusing the occasion then God in giuing it 2. Augustine taketh this induration of the heart to be said of God when he withdraweth his grace as discedente sole aqua obduratur by the departure of the sunne the water is congealed and hardened serm 88. de tempor 3. But beside the subtracting and withholding of Gods grace he concurreth as a iust iudge by his secret power so working that both the inward suggestions of Sathan and the externall obiects doe all make together for the further hardening of their heart see before c. 1. qu. 63. Quest. 9. Whether hardnes of heart and finall impenitencie be a speciall kind of sinne 1. Pererius seemeth to collect so much by these two reasons 1. because here the Apostle ioyneth hardnesse and impenitencie of heart together that as hardnesse of heart is a speciall sinne so should the other be also 2. here is a speciall and most grieuous punishment inflicted the heaping and treasuring vp wrath But neither of these reasons conclude for both the hardnesse of heart is rather the generall effect of sinne and a perpetuall companion of an habite and custome in sinne then a speciall sinne and the punishment here described is against not one but all their sinnes wherein they continue without repentance 2. Vega lib 13. c. 20. super decret Trident. de iustificat sheweth that in these two cases impenitencie doth assume a newe kind of peculiar malice that is either in receiuing of the Sacraments for then especially men are commanded to prepare their hearts by repentance so that herein the commandement of God is transgressed and at the houre of death for then a man not repenting is accessarie to his owne death and so transgresseth that commandement thou shalt not kill But neither of these reasons are sufficient 1. when one commeth to the sacrament without due preparation and so receiueth it vnreuerently and profanely there is a newe sinne indeede committed which is profanenesse and contempt of sacred things but this is the fruit and effect of his impenitencie a newe sinne is added to his impenitencie rather then impenitencie it selfe is changed into a speciall sinne 2. And so likewise when one thorough impenitencie is carelesse of his saluation beeing at the point of death this carelesnes is also a fruit of impenitencie 3. Thomas thus decideth this questiō that if impenitencie be taken simply for perseuerance and continuance in sinne it is not a speciall sinne but a circumstance rather of sinne but if there be beside praepositum non poenitendi a purpose not to repent now impenitencie is become a speciall sinne Thomas 2.2 qu. 14. articl 2. But this seemeth to be no perfect distinction for wheresoeuer impenitencie is there is a purpose and resolution not to repent as long as the heart remaineth impenitent Thus much then may be added for the discussing of this question that impenitencie is two wayes to be considered either in respect of the obiect which is sinne that one hath committed and so it is a circumstance that accompanieth sinne or as it is ioyned with profanenes contempt of God and vacuitie of his feare and so it may haue toward God the nature of a speciall sinne Quest. 10. Whether it stand with Gods iustice to punish twice for the same sinnes Seeing that the Gentiles were punished before beeing deliuered vp to their vile affections c. 1.26 how then are they reserued here to a greater punishment against the day of wrath for the Prophet Nahum saith c. 1.9 non consurget duplex tribulatio double affliction or tribulation shall not rise vp Answ. 1. This is not the meaning of the Prophet that God cannot punish twice for the same sinne but there he speaketh of the destruction of the Assyrians that it should be at once God should not neede the second time to come vpon them which was fulfilled in the euersion and ouerthrowe of Nineueh it was at once destroyed for euer 2. This rule well holdeth in the course of iustice that one be not punished twice for the same sinne 1. if by that one punishment full satisfaction be made for sinne but the wicked by their temporall punishment cannot fully satisfie Gods iustice for their sinne 2. punishment begunne in this life and eternall punishment afterward are rather diuerse degrees of the whole punishment due vnto sinne then diuerse punishments as here in the course of humane iustice a malefactor may be both put to the racke to the wheele hanged and quartered and all these shall make but one condigne punishment for his offence Par. 3. and when one punishment worketh vnto amendement then a second is needlesse as the righteous onely are chastened in this life but the wicked because they profit not by temporall punishment vnto repentance haue their punishment begun in this life and finished in the next as the old world and Sodomites were both temporally and eternally punished Quest. 11. Whether euerie one shall be rewarded according to his workes ver 6. Against this saying of the Apostle v. 6. Who will reward euerie man according to his workes it will be obiected that they which repent them in their last houre and so are saued haue no time to shewe good workes and likewise infants therefore it appeareth not how they should be iudged according to their workes Answ. 1. They which haue grace to repent them in their last houre are not voide of good workes as the theife vpon the crosse shewed these good fruits of his faith he confessed Christ acknowledged his sinne reprooued the vnbeleeuing theife and prayed earnestly for euerlasting saluation And if he had liued longer he had no doubt a full purpose of heart to haue expressed his faith by his godly workes the like may be said of those which are at the point of death called to repentance 2. Concerning infants there is an other reason for either they be saued according to the grace of Gods free election or some are damned being left in their owne nature the children of wrath Now the Apostle speaketh not of infants here but of such as are of yeares to commit euil or doe good Pareus Quest. 12. How it standeth with Gods goodnesse to punish euill with euill It may be thus obiected that sinne is committed three wayes either in rewarding evill for good or euill for euill or in not recompensing good for good But God cannot sinne therefore it should seeme to be against the nature of the diuine goodnesse to punish sinne with eternall damnation and it is against Christs rule who commandeth that we should doe good against euill Answer 1. Two wayes may euill
shal rise incorruptible but not all vnto glorie 4. Vnto these the Apostle addeth a fourth v. 10. namely peace which is the verie complement and perfection of our happines this peace is honorum omnium secura tranâ—quiâ— possessio a secure and peaceable possession of all good things and as Prosper saith as Beda here citeth him pax Christi sinem non habet the peace of Christ hath no ende the Saints shall be at peace with God they shall enioy the tranquilitie and peace of conscience to theÌ„selues and peace they shall haue without from all enemies whatsoeuer which shall be subdued vnto them 5. But it will be obiected that glorie and honour are peculiar and essentiall vnto God which he will not giue to any other Isay. 42.8 And thine is the glorie Matth. 6.13 Answer That essentiall and infinite honour and glorie which is in God is not communicated vnto any other but yet there are certaine influences and bright beames of that glorie which in Christ are imparted to his members as S. Peter saith that by these precious promises which are made vnto vs in Christ we are made partakers of the diuine nature 2. Pet. 1.4 Quest. 16. How it standeth with Gods iustice to punish eternally sinne temporally committed Obiect As God giueth eternall life vnto his faithfull seruants so he punisheth the wicked and impenitent with euerlasting damnation but sinne is a temporall transgression and for one to be punished eternally for a momentanie delight may seeme to exceede the rule of iustice Answ. Three wayes doth it appeare to be most iust that God should punish eternally sinne but temporally committed both in respect of the minde and intention of the sinner of the matter wherein he sinneth and of the person against whom he is an offender 1. First though the act of sinne be but temporall yet the mind of the sinner is infinite if he could euer liue he would euer sinne and therefore as Gregorie saith quia mens in hac vita nunquam voluit carere peccato iustum est vt nunquam careat supplicio c. because the mind in this life would neuer be without sinne it is iust that it should neuer be without punishment 2. If the matter and subiect of sinne be considered it is of and in the soule like as then the wounding of the bodie bringeth the death of the bodie after the which there is no returning into this life againe so sinne beeing the death of the soule it followeth that it should be perpetuall and for euer Hugo like as then Magistrates doe punish some offences as murther theft with death which doth vtterly exclude them from the societie of the liuing and cut them off for euer so is it iust with God to punish the sinnes committed against him with euerlasting paine Perer. 3. Sinne because it is a transgression of the lawe of God is so much the more hainous as he that smiteth the Prince doth more grieuously offend then he which striketh a priuate person so that sinne is of an infinite nature because of the infinite dignitie of the diuine maiestie against whom it is committed and therefore it deserueth an infinite punishment which because it cannot be infinite secundum intensionem in the intention and greatnesse of it it remaineth that it should be infinite secundum à urationem in respect of the continuance and enduring thereof Perer. 4. Further the equitie of Gods iudgement in punishing the temporall act of sinne eternally Hugo doth thus very well illustrate by these comparisons Like as when mariage is contracted per verba de praesenti by words vttered in the present tense though the contract be sone done yet the mariage remaineth all the life long so when the soule and sinne are contracted together it is no maruell if this contract holding during the life of the soule deserue euerlasting punishment And like as where the fuell and matter of the fire continueth the flame burneth still so sinne leauing a blot in the soule beeing the matter of hell fire is eternally punished because there is still matter for that euerlasting fire to worke vpon Thus then it is euident how the Lord euen in punishing sinne eternally doth reward men according to their workes for though the action of sinne be temporall voluntas tamen peâ—candi qua per poenitentiam non mutatur est perpetua yet the will to sinne which is not changed by repentance is perpetuall Gorrhan 17. Quest. How eternall life is to be sought v. 7. To them which in well doing seeke glorie honour c. In seeking of God who is eternall life three things must be considered locus tempus modus the place the time the manner 1. The place must be mundus quietus securus cleane quiet secure then first God is not to be sought vpon the bed of idlenes or carnall delight and therefore it is said Cantic 3. 1. In my bed I sought him but found him not that is no cleane place to seeke God in But yet the bed vndefiled is honourable Heb. 13.4 and the faithfull doe seeke God euen in their beds as Dauid saith Psal. 6.6 That he watered his couch with his teares Neither is God to be sought in the courts and streetes and tumultuous assemblies as Cantic 3.2 I sought him in the streetes but found him not and Hos. 5.6 They shall goe with their bullocks and sâ—eepe to seeke the Lord but shall not finde him such are no quiet places but God must be praied vnto in secret and sought in the quiet hauen of the conscience Neither is God to be sought in pompa where there is ostentation of pompe and vanitie as Christs parents found him not among their kinted but in the Temple disputing with the Doctors God is to be sought not in pompous shewes but in the assemblies of the Saints 2. Concerning the time God must be sought dum dies est dum prope est dum nobis predest while it is day while he is neare and at hand and when it may auaile vs. 1. First God is not to be sought in the night Cantic 3.1 I sought him in my bed by night c. but found him not so the Apostle saith The night is past the day is come let vs cast away the works of darknes God then is to be sought not in the time of ignorance and darknes but in the time of light and knowledge 2. The Lord must be sought when he may be found and is at hand Isa. 55.6 Seeke ye the Lord while he may be found call vpon him while he is neare while the Lord offereth grace vnto vs and standeth knocking at the doore of our hearts we must open vnto him 3. And in this life must we seeke God while mercie is shewed while the bridegroome crieth in the streetes Matth. 25.6 but when the doores are shut and this life is ended it is then too late to seeke for mercie 3. Touching the manner God must be sought in the heart in
to himselfe thereby to set forth God iustice but this euent followed this word that doth not then shewe the cause but the order rather and euent of the thing Perer. where is not relation to Dauid that he did it to this end but vnto God who turned this euill vnto good 2. or these words that thou maist be iustified are not to be referred to the words immediately going before but to the 3. verse I knowe mine iniquities Dauid therefore sheweth not quo sine prius fecerit mal◠with what intent he did euil before sed quo fine nunc faciat bonis but with what end he now did well in confessing his sinne namely that God might receiue glorie thereby 3. Vatablus also referreth these words vnto the 2. verse where he saith wash me thoroughly from my sinnes and then these words in sense are to be annexed that thou maist be iustified c. this was not then sinis peccati sed precationis not the ende of Dauids sinne but of his prayer that God in forgiuing his sinne might appeare to be iust and true of his promises in forgiuing the sinnes of the elect Quest. 11. Of the meaning of the 5 6 7 8. verses 1. Now followeth the third obiection issuing out of the former for if Gods iustice and truth in keeping his promises doe appeare in remmitting the sinnes of the faithfull that notwithstanding their sinnes yet he is faithfull in performing his promises then it would followe that our vnrighteousnesse commendeth the iustice of God and hereupon ensue three other inconueniences 1. That God should be vnrighteous in punishing that which maketh for his glorie 2. nay he should not be said to be so much as a sinner by whom the the glorie of God is promoted v. 7. Why am I yet comdemned as a sinner 3. and it would followe that if by our sinnes the iustice of God were set forth we should still commit sinne and doe euill that good might come thereof the setting forth of Gods glorie Gorrhan 2. Whereas the Apostle saith according to the Greeke text I speake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to man Origen seemeth to approoue and followe another reading as though it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against man for the Greeke preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an accusatiue case signifieth according but with a genitiue against and so he would ioyne it to the former words is God vnrighteous which inferreth or inflicteth punishment against man But there is an other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I speake which should be quite cut off in this sense beside this phrase I speake according to man is vsuall with the Apostle which he vseth vpon diuerse occasions 1. to decline envie when he is forced to speake of himselfe and his owne doings he thus speaketh according to the wisedome of men 1. Cor. 15.31 2. Cor. 11.16 2. sometime he vseth this forme of speach when he taketh somewhat from the common vse of men for a more liuely demonstration of that which he hath in hand Rom. 6.19 1. Cor. 9.8 3. sometime according to man is as much as according to the flesh and after the guise of carnall men and so the Apostle here speaketh in the person of a carnall man Beza annot 3. But whereas v. 7. the Apostle saith why am I yet condemned as a sinner the most interpreters agree to make it a part of the same obiection that God should seeme vniust in punishing sinners by whom his glorie is set forth Tolet maketh it rather an answear to the obiection that S. Paul prooueth by two arguments that God is not vnrighteous one by his office that he is iudge of the world the other by the execution of his iustice that if God were not iust I should not be punished as a sinner but the former words going immediately before if the veritie of God hath more abounded thorough my lie vnto his glorie sheweth that it is part of the obiection which also is continued still in the verse following And c. why doe we not euill c. 4. By veritie here v. 7. is not vnderstood the veritie of doctrine and by a lie erroneous and false doctrine as Origen here sheweth by diuerse particular instances of the false positions of the Philosophers how the veritie and truth of God hath thereby more manifestly appeared But by vertue rather the iustice of God and constancie in keeping his promises is vnderstood and by a lie the perfidiousnesse of men whereof the Apostle spake before v. 3. 5. Now to this obiection the Apostle maketh 4. answers 1. he reiecteth this impious calumniation as blasphemous and absurd thinking it worthie of no better answer saying God forbid 2. he addeth a reason taken from Gods office he is the iudge of the world both present and to come who doth both gouerne the world in equitie and shall as the supreame iudge giue vnto euerie man according to his workes he therefore cannot be vniust 3. to the last part of the obiection he saith first that they doe blaspheme the Apostle v. 8. in raising such a slaunder of him as though he should teach any such doctrine that men should doe euill that good may come thereof 4. then he saith their damnation is iust which words some doe vnderstand actiuely that the Apostle condemned such positions referring whose to the obiections but it is better vnderstood passiuely of their persons that for this their blasphemie they deserue to be condemned of God Pareus 6. Thus the Apostle answeareth pithily to these cauills and obiections repelling them that howsoeuer men may imagine yet God is most iust in punishing of sinners though thereby his glorie is set forth So that thus much is insinuated in the Apostles answer that it followeth not that God should therefore forbeare the punishment of the wicked because by their iniquitie his iustice and goodnesse is more set forth because it is not of their sinne that any good commeth thereof but of Gods goodnesse they per se by themselues are no causes of the setting forth of Gods glorie but per accidens by an accident God thereby taketh occasion to manifest his iustice in their condigne punishment as he did in the destruction of Pharaoh his wisedome as he did vse the malice and envie of Iosephs brethren to effect his purpose in bringing him to honour his clemencie in doing good to his Church as by Iudas treacherie Christ was deliuered vp to death for the redemption of the world But therefore none of their sinnes were excused because they had no such intent to set forth Gods glorie but God who brought light of darknesse was able by their works of darkenesse to manifest the light of his truth Pareus Like as when the Iudge condemneth a malefactor his vprightnesse appeareth in his iust condemnation and the greater the disease is the more commendable is the skill of the Physitian in healing it yet no thankes is due either to the malefactor for
prepared for you for when I was hungred ye gaue me meate he sheweth not the cause of their saluation but the condition state qualitie of those which should be saued to this purpose Faius see further before c. 1. quest 26. and controv 7. Quest. 25. How by the lawe came the knowledge of sinne 1. The Apostle here confirmeth that which he said before that none are iustified by the workes of the lawe by the contrarie vse of the lawe because thereby commeth the knowledge of sinne therefore iustice and righteousnesse is not attained thereby 2. The lawe Origen vnderstandeth of the lawe of nature Augustine onely of the morall lawe lib. de spirit liter c. 8. but indeed the lawe is vnderstood here in generall both the naturall for euen before the lawe written by the lawe of nature Abimelech knew that adulterie was sinne Genes 20. but the morall more by the which came a more full knowledge of sinne likewise by the ceremoniall and iudiciall lawe sinne was manifested but after a diuerse manner ex accidente accidentally because the one was appointed in expiationem for the expiation the other in poenam for the punishment of sinne Tolet. annot 14. 3. Now diuerse wayes doth the written lawe whereof the Apostle specially speaketh reueale sinne 1. Ambrose sheweth that before the law written there was some knowledge of sinne as he giueth instance in Ioseph who detested the sinne of adulterie to the which his mistresse enticed him but it is so said quia lex ostendit peccata non impune futura because the lawe sheweth that sinnes shall not goe vnpunished so also Theodulus 2. and by the written lawe peccata clarius fuerunt cognita sinnes were more euidently knowne and some were knowne to be sinnes that were not so taken before leviora quaque non cognoscebantur esse peccata the smaller sinnes were not knowne as concupiscence Hierome as the Apostle saith he had not knowne lust vnlesse the law had said thou shalt not lust quaedam etiam grauiora c. and some things by the lawe were knowne to be greater then before gloss ordinar 3. Oecumenius thus expoundeth because sinne was encreased by the knowledge of the lawe for he that sinneth wittingly is so much the more a grieuous offender 4. And before the lawe written sinne was knowne as beeing against reason but by the law it is discerned as beeing against the will of God and so the nature and qualitie of sinne is more fully and perfectly knowne by the lawe Perer. 5. and euen the knowledge of sinne before the lawe written did issue out of the grounds and principles of the morall lawe which were imprinted by nature in the minde Faius 4. But whereas the lawe sheweth as well what things are honest and vertuous as it discouereth sinne the Apostle onely toucheth that vse of the lawe which is to reueale sinne both because it was more pertinent to his purpose which was to shewe that there is no iustification by the lawe because thereby we haue the knowledge of sinne and for that men are more prone vnto the things forbidden in the lawe then to the duties commanded so that the lawe doth not so much teach our dutie to God and our neighbour as that we doe not performe that which is our dutie Beza 5. Now further whereas the Apostle saith by the lawe commeth the knowledge of sinne we must supply the word onely not that the lawe doth nothing else but reueale sinne for it iudgeth and condemneth sinne likewise but here the opposition is between the knowledge of sinne and the remission thereof the lawe onely giueth the one the agnition or knowledge of sinne not the remission Perer. by the lawe is cognitio peccati non consumptio the knowledge of sinne not the consumption of sinne gloss 6. But it will be obiected that in Leuiticus there are oblations prescribed for sinne and the Priest was to pray for such as had sinned and it should be forgiuen them Gorrhan answeareth that it was onely a legall remission quoad poenam non quoad culpam onely concerning the punishment of the lawe not of the fault But Lyranus answeareth better that such sacrifice for sinne was protestatio Christi passuri a protestation or profession of Christ which was to suffer so that such remission of sinnes though it were vnder the lawe yet was not by vertue and force of the lawe but by faith in Christ for the sinnes of the offerers were forgiuen at the prayers of the Priests which could not be heard if they were not of faith 7. It will here be further obiected that the politike and ciuill lawes of Princes intend more then the shewing of sinne they also doe helpe to reforme sinne and reclaime men from it therefore Gods lawe should doe more then manifest sinne Answ. 1. Humane lawes doe onely require an externall ciuill iustice but the lawe of God discouereth the corruption of the heart so that herein there is great difference betweene them Melancth 2. Humane lawes may by proposing of rewards and punishments helpe to perswade and induce men but they cannot instill or infuse obedience into the heart 3. God also intendeth more then the reuealing of sinne by his lawe for if any could keepe it they should liue thereby which while none is able to doe yet the law beside the discouering of sinne ferueth as a Schoolmaster to bring vs to Christ so that it is thorough mans owne infirmitie that the lawe giueth not life and it sheweth Gods power and wisedome that turneth the lawe vnto our good namely to bring vs vnto Christ which by our infirmitie is become vnto vs the minister of death 8. So then there are two other speciall vses and benefits of the lawe beside the reuealing of sinne the one that concerning faith it is a Schoolmaster to bring vs to Christ and touching manners and life it sheweth vs the way wherein we should walke Mars 9. There is a double knowledge of sinne by the lawe there is one which is weake and vnprofitable which neither thoroughly terrifieth the conscience nor reformeth the life such was the knowledge which the heathen had of sinne as the poets in their satyricall verses did set forth the sinnes of their times but themselues followed them there is an other effectuall knowledge of the lawe whereby the soule is humbled and this is of two sorts when such as is ioyned onely with terror of conscience without any hope such was the knowledge of sinne which Cain and Iudas had that betrayed Christ or it hath beside some liuely hope and comfort such was Dauids agnition and confession of his sinne But this comfort is no worke of the lawe it is wrought in vs by the spirit of grace Martyr Quest. 26. Of the meaning of these words The righteousnesse of God is made manifests without the lawe 1. Ambrose by the iustice of God vnderstandeth that iustice wherewith God is iust â—estans promissa sua in keeping his promises Origen
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
of faith in any other gift it can not stand together for where merit and worke is the wages is not counted by fauour and so freely but by debt Rom. 4.4 2. The better answer then is that we are iustified freely although the condition of faith be required because faith doth not iustifie vt actus quidem noster est as it is an act of ours but all the vertue thereof proceedeth from the obiect as the Israelites beeing healed by looking vpon the brasen serpent obtained not their health by the very act of opening their eyes but by the obiect which they beheld which was the serpent And like as when a rich man giueth his almes vnto the poore though he stretch out his hand to receiue it yet is it said notwithstanding to be a free gift Tolet. annot 20. 3. But adde here further that as when a blind man putteth forth his hand but he that giueth is faine to direct it to receiue the almes or if a man haue a weake and withered hand which he is not able to stretch out vnlesse the other that giueth doe lift it vp in this case euery way the gift is free So our will is not of it selfe apt to beleeue or will any thing aright vnlesse the Lord direct it faith then beeing both the worke of God in straining our will and faith receiuing all the vertue from the obiect which it apprehendeth namely Christ it remaineth that faith notwithstanding we are iustified freely Faius 33. Quest. v. 25. To declare his iustice or righteousnes what iustice the Apostle vnderstandeth here 1. Chrysostome vnderstandeth the declaration of Gods iustice by the effects thereof like as God declareth his riches not that he is rich in himselfe but in making others rich and his power not in that he euer liueth himselfe but in raising others to life so his iustice is declared not in beeing iust in himselfe but in making others iust But this iustifying of sinners is a worke of Gods mercie not of his iustice 2. Theodoret herein will haue Gods iustice to be manifested because he did sustaine the sinnes of the world with patience forbearing to punish them but this likewise was an effect of his goodnes and mercie not of his iustice 3. Ambrose vnderstandeth this iustice of God in keeping and performing his promise but the iustice of God is not here to be taken in a diuers sense then before v. 22. the righteousnes of God by the faith of Iesus Christ. 4. Some doe take the iustice of God here for his goodnes mercie and clemencie as the Prophet Dauid vseth to pray Iudge me according to thy righteousnes that is thy goodnes Pareus but this seemeth not to be so proper here 5. Some vnderstand the iustice of God in not leauing sinne vnpunished Lyran. it was the iustice of God that the price of our redemption should not be paid otherwise then by the blood of Christ but this is not the iustice of faith which the Apostle spake of before 6. Therefore this iustice which the Lord manifested and declared is none other but the righteousnes of faith before touched and as the words here following doe shew by the forgiuenes of sinnes God reuealed and manifested this to be the true iustice whereby men are iustified before him euen the righteousnes of faith so August lib. de spir lit cap. 13. Anselme Tolet Osiander 34. Quest. What is meant by sinnes that are past v. 25. 1. Some think that this is vnderstood of the fathers in the law which were kept in Limbus who though thorough remission of their sinnes they were freed from punishment yet they were not receiued vnto glorie gloss ordin Gorrhan But Tolet confuteth this interpretation though he allow the opinion as not agreeable to the Apostles minde for the words are not to be so limited and restrained but generally the Apostle vnderstandeth such sinnes as he spake of before v. 23. All haue sinned and are depriued of the glorie of God And if the sinnes were not yet remitted vntill Christs comming vnto the Patriarks they could not be freed no not from the punishment 2. The Novatians vnderstand those former sinnes which were passed of sinnes going before vocation and iustification denying all remedie vnto sinnes committed afterward But this were to make the death of Christ of small force if there were no place for forgiuenes euen after one is iustified Dauid fell into those two grieuous sinnes of murther and adulterie after he was called and yet was restored againe 3. Catharinus with other Romanists vnderstand likewise sinnes going before iustification and baptisme the rest that follow after they say must be purged by other meanes as by repentance and satisfaction But the Apostle speaketh generally of all sinnes If any man sinne we haue an advocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust 1. Ioh. 2.2 Christ is our aduocate as well for sinnes before baptisme as after but see more for the confutation of thir error among the Controversies 4. The Apostle then compareth not the persons but the sinnes and the times and sheweth that euen the sinnes committed vnder the law and from the beginning of the world were redeemed by no other way then by faith in Christ God by his patience did forbeare to punish those sinnes as not imputing them because of the Redeemer which was to come Agreeable hereunto is that place Heb. 9.15 For this cause is he the Mediatour of the new Testament that thorough death which was for the transgression in the former Testament they which were called might receiue the promise of euerlasting inheritance By conference of these places together it is euident that by sinnes that are past are meant not the sinnes going before baptisme or iustification but the sinnes committed vnder the old Testament to shew that there was no remission of sinnes from the beginning of the world but by faith in Christ. And this further appeareth because the Apostle faith v. 26. to shew at this time his righteousnes c. he setteth the present time of the Gospel and the reuelation of grace against the former times 35. Quest. Why the Apostle onely maketh mention of sinnes past Now the Apostle so extendeth the effect and fruit of our redemption by Christ vnto the sinnes passed as that the sinnes present and to come also shall be by vertue thereof remitted but he maketh mention only of the sinnes past and before committed for these reasons 1. Hereby the Apostle sheweth the imbecillitie of the law of Moses and the ceremonies thereof that they were expiationes non verae sed vmbratiles not true expiations but onely in shadow Pareus as the Apostle saith Heb. 9.9 that those gifts and sacrifices could not make holy concerning the conscience and so Thomas yeeldeth this reason vpon this place God remitted the sinnes before passed quae lex remittere non potuit which the law could not remit 2. Adamus Safhout addeth that the Apostle maketh mention onely of former sinnes to
signifie non deinceps vivendum esse peccatis sed iustitiae that we should not liue afterward vnto sinne but vnto righteousnes for it were a signe of great vnthankfulnes hauing receiued so great a benefit in the forgiuenes of sinnes past if we should estsoone fall into the same againe 3. Pererius giueth two other reasons first that because it seemed an hard and impossible thing that sinnes before done should be remitted by the Redemption of Christ following many yeares after for the cause must be secundum existentiam haue a beeing before the effect therefore the Apostle to take away this scruple and difficultie maketh expresse mention of precedent sinnes to the which the vertue of Christs death was applied by faith 4. But Pererius other reason is false and friuolous that those former sinnes are mentioned to shew that there was no full remission of them for though they were remitted quanâ—â—â— ad culpam poenam aeternam in respect of the fault and euerlasting punishment yet the fathers vntill Christs comming were kept in Limbo and had no entrance into heauen â—at seeing by the blood of Iesus their sinnes were remitted they also by the vertue of the same blood had power to enter into heauen as the Apostle saith Hebr. 10.19 By the blood of Iesus we may be bold to enter into the holy place And againe v. 14. he saith With one offering hath he consecrated for euer them that are sanctified if then the beleeuing fathers of the old Testament were sanctified by Christs blood they were consecrated for euer that is perfectly but more followeth afterward of this matter among the Controversies 5. The true reason therefore why the Apostle giueth instance in sinnes which were past is to shew that from the beginning of the world there was no remission of sinnes from Adam vnto Moses and from Moses vnto Christ but onely by faith in his blood And therfore Iohn Baptist pointeth at Christ and saith Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world Some doe alleadge that place Apoc. 13.4 whose names are not written in the booke of life of the Lamb which was slaine from the beginning of the world Pareus Faius but this place seemeth not to be so fitly alleadged to that purpose for these words from the beginning of the world are rather to be ioyned with the former words whose names are not written in the booke of life c. from the beginning of the world so Aretus distinguisheth whome Beza and Pererius follow And so are the words ioyned c. 17.8 6. And further as hereby is expressed that all the sinnes of such as beleeued were remitted in Christ which were done before so much more the sinnes of the age then present and which should be committed afterward are forgiuen by no other way as the Apostle saith Heb. 13.8 Iesus Christ yesterday and to day and the same also is for euer Pareus 36. Quest. How God is said to be iust and a iustifier of him which is of the faith c. v. 26. 1. Some vnderstand this iustice of God generally of his holines vprightnes integritie which appeared in the worke of our redemption throughout Pareus wherein most of all shined forth the power of God his wisdome and benignitie vnto man his power in iustifying the wicked which was no lesse worke then in first creating him his wisdome in iustifying him by the death of Christ so fit and conuenient a meane for the reparation of man his benignitie appeared in beeing so mindfull of man as to appoint a way for his redemption Hugo 2. Ambrose doth vnderstand God to be iust that is faithfull in keeping his promises so also Beza 3. Some thus interpret iust that is benignus bonus good and gracious Osiand but Gods iustice is one thing his clemencie an other 4. Tolet vnderstandeth God to be iust in that he would not be satisfied for the sinne of man non accepto pretio sanguinis vnlesse he had first receiued the price of Christs blood so also Pareus 5. Oecumenius applieth it to Gods iustice which should be shewed in the iust punishment of those which should refuse grace offered but the Apostle speaketh of the time present not to come 6. The meaning then is this that he might be iust that is appeare and be acknowledged onely to be iust and all men lyars that is sinners and vniust as he saide before and as he is iust in himselfe so this iustice is communicated vnto vs by faith in Christ to this purpose Calvin Bucer Pellican so also the interlin glosse that he might be iust aliter non posse ipsoâ—vare otherwise he could not helpe to iustifie others if he were not most iust in himselfe God then is onely iust in himselfe and as he is the fountaine of all iustice so he doth iustifie others by that way which he hath appointed namely by faith in Christ. 37. Qu. How reioycing is excluded not by the law of works but by the law of faith 1. There are two kinds of reioycing one is in our redemption purchased by Christ whereof the Apostle speaketh 1. Cor. 1.31 He that reioyceth let him reioyce in the Lord there is an other reioycing in man as the Apostle saith in the same place v. 29. that no flesh should reioyce in his presence of the latter kind of reioycing which is in mens works speaketh the Apostle here 2. But the ordin glosse vnderstandeth this de laudabili gloriatione of the commendable reioycing and by excluded he vnderstandeth manifested or expressed as goldsmiths doe exclude and set out the stones set in siluer but this is a very vnfit interpretation the reioycing which the Apostle will haue here excluded is the reioycing before men as he sheweth afterward c. 4.2 3. By the law of works he vnderstandeth not onely the ceremonials iudicials of the law which are abolished vnder the Gospel as Lyranus but the morall also for the Apostle shewes c. 4.2 that Abraham might reioyce in works before men but not with God where he meaneth works of the morall law for the ceremonies were not yet instituted 4. Neither by the law of works doth the Apostle vnderstand such workes as are done without faith and by the law of faith the law of workes with faith but he excludeth all works whatsoeuer for seeing that such works they say proceede partly of freewill then this reioycing should not be taken away for where the freewill of man worketh there is merit and where there is merit there is reioycing Pareus 5. By the law of workes and the law of faith is vnderstood the rule and doctrine of works and the rule and doctrine of faith for in the Hebrew phrase the law is taken for the strength of a thing for doctrine or direction as afterward c. 7. he saith the law of the spirit the law of the members the law of the minde Mart. Faius 6. And Moses law is called the law of works not because it
1. Ioh. 2.2 He is the reconciliation for our sinnes 2. to be our Redeemer v. 24. Through the redemption that is in Christ. 3. to be our Mediator 1. Tim. 2.6 Our Mediator betweene God and man c. 4. to be our doctor and teacher Matth. 23.8 One is your Doctor to wit Christ. 5. to be our aduocate and intercessor 1. Ioh. 2.1 We haue an advocate with the Father Christ Iesus the Iust. 6. to be our defender and deliuerer Isay. 19.20 He shall send them a Sauiour and a great man that shall deliuer them 7. to be our Lawgiuer Iam. 4.12 There is one Lawgiuer which is able to saue and destroy 8. to be a faithfull and true witnesse Apocal. 3.14 These things saith Amen the faithfull and true witnesse 9. to be our iudge Act. 10.42 It is he that is ordained of God iudge of the quicke and dead 10. to be our Sauiour Philip. 3.20 From whence we looke for our Sauiour euen the Lord Iesus so Christ is all things vnto his seruants reis propitiatore â—aptiuis redemptor c. a reconciliation to the guiltie a redeemer to the captiues a Mediator vnto them at variance with God a teacher to the ignorant a lawgiuer to the dissolute an intercessor to them accused a defender to the assaulted a witnesse to the defamed a iudge to the oppressed and to the elect a Sauiour Gorrhan Doct. 12. The same faith both vnder the lawe and Gospel v. 25. Thomas well obserueth vpon this place that seeing the sinnes which were passed and committed vnder the lawe were forgiuen by no other way then in Christ that the righteousnesse of faith was at all times necessarie as S. Peter saith Act. 4.12 Among men there is giuen no other name vnder heauen whereby we must be saued and S. Paul saith 2. Cor. 14.13 That we haue the same spirit of faith 13. Doct. Of our redemption by Christ and the manner thereof v. 24. Thorough the redemption that is in Christ c. 1. This our redemption consisteth in our deliuerance from the power of Sathan sinne and death and in reconciling of vs vnto God 2. there is a double redemption the first in the forgiuenes of our sinnes nowe present the second when we shall be redeemed from corruption and mortalitie in the resurrection 3. This our redemption is not metaphorically so called but it is a verie true redemption there beeing all things concurring in redemption the captiues which are men the redeemer Christ the price his blood and from whom we are redemed from Sathan hell and damnation see contr 22. following 4. They which detaine the captiues are first God as a iust Iudge whom they had offended then Sathan as Gods minister sinne is as the bands death as the tormentor hell as the prison Pareus loc 5. 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. That the Sacraments of the old Testament did not iustifie ex opere operato by the worke wrought and so consequently neither the newe There are diuerse opinions among the Romanists concerning this point in question 1. Some of them think that the Sacraments of the old Testament did not iustifie at all though they were receiued in faith because they were not giuen to that ende to iustifie sed vt oneri essent but to be a burthen so Magister sentent 4. distinct 1. 2. Some are of the contrarie opinion that circumcision did iustifie ex opere operato by the work wrought though there were no faith in the receiuer as Alexander Bonaventure Scotus Gabriel as Bellarmine citeth them 3. But the common opinion on that side is that the sacraments of the old Testament did onely iustifie and conferre grace ex opere operantis by the worke or disposition of the receiuer and this they hold to be the difference betweene the old sacraments and the newe nostra conferunt gratiam illa sola significabant ours doe conferre grace theirs onely signified grace Bellar. and that those Sacraments did not conferre grace Bellarmine would prooue it out of this place v. 1. What is the profit of circumcision c. to the which question the Apostle maketh answear Much euerie way for chiefely because vnto them were committed the oracles of God herein was the preheminence of the Iewe before the Gentiles not that he was iustified by his circumcision but because the Lord gaue his oracles to the circumcised Bellar. lib. 2. de sacram c. 14. Now vpon this conclusion of Bellarmine thus it may be further inferred the sacraments of the old Testament did not iustifie by the worke wrought or conferre grace this Bellarmine graunteth but there was the same substance and efficacie of the old and newe sacraments for the Apostle saith that circumcision was the seale of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4.11 and so is baptisme Col. 2.12 And Christ was the substance both of their sacraments and ours for the rocke was Christ 1. Cor. 10.4 the conclusion then followeth that seeing their sacraments did not conferre grace no more doe the sacraments of the Gospel the difference then betweene the old sacraments and the newe is not the substance which is Christ and the proper effect thereof which is to be seales of faith but in respect of the more cleare signification and so in the more liuely illustration and confirmation of our faith for the more full discussing of this matter I referre the reader to the treatise of controuersies Synops. Centur. 2. err 97. Controv. 2. Of the Apochryphal Scriptures v. 2. Vnto them were committed the oracles of God Faius well obserueth hereupon thaâ— seeing all the old Scriptures which were Canonicall were committed vnto the Hebrewes then those books which were called Apochryphal that is of hidden and obscure authoritie are not to be accounted any part of the diuine Canonical Scripture such are the books oâ— the Macchabees of Tobi Iudith with the rest that goe vnder the name of Apochyphaâ— for they were not commended to the Church of the Hebrews because they are not writteâ— in the Hebrewe tongue neither did the Iewes place them in the canon of the Scriptures as Iosephus setteth it downe lib. 1. contra Appion see further Synops. Centur. â—â— error 1. Controv. 3. That the wicked and vnbeleeuers doe not eate the bodie of Christ in the Eucharist v. 3. The Apostle saith Shall their vnbeleefe make the faith of God without effect hence then it will be inferred by the Romanists that the promise of Christs presence in the Sacrament is not evacuated notwithstanding the vnbeleefe of the communicants Answ. True it is that the vnbeleefe of some doth not make Gods promises voide and of none effect in respect of God himselfe who for his part is readie to performe his promise or couenant where the condition is performed and on the behalfe of the elect to whom Gods promises are effectuall they receiuing them by faith but it followeth not that the promises of God should be effectuall vnto vnbeleeuers for Gods promises are made vnto
done and the will of man doth it so homo iustificatur non per legis imperium sed per liberum arbitrium man is iustified not by the precept of the lawe but by free will this error Augustine confuseth by the Apostles words here who saith The righteousnesse of God is made manifest he saith not the righteousnesse of man or of our owne will but the righteousnesse oâ— God non qusa Dous iustus est sed qua induit hominem cum iustificat impium not theâ— whereby God is iust in himselfe but whereby he doth cloath man when he iustifieth the sinner Controv. 10. That the veritie of Christs death is indifferently extended both to sinnes before baptisme and after It is the opinion of the Romanists that sinnes before baptisme and after are not remitted after one and the same manner for the sinnes before baptisme are freely forgiuen by the merit of Christs blood both quoad culpam poenam omnem in respect of the fault and of all punishment due thereunto but for sinnes after baptisme other remedies are requisite they are remitted freely for the offence it selfe and the eternall punishment but the temporall punishment remayning must be purged by satisfactorie and penall workes Perer. disput 14. numer 63. they reason thus 1. Catharius vrgeth to this purpose this place of the Apostle v. 25. To declare his righteousnesse by the remission of sinnes past which he vnderstandeth to be the sinnes before baptisme 2. Pererius vrgeth the example of Dauid vpon whom though his sinne were remitted yet this was inflicted as a punishment that the child which was borne in adulterie should die 3. This course is held also among men who though they sometime are content to remit the offence yet wil impose vpon the offender some kind of punishment as Absalom though he were reconciled to his father and called home out of exile yet Dauid would not suffer him a good while to come into his presence Perer. disput 24. numer 65. 4. For these workes of penance and satisfaction the Councel of Colen in their antididugina doe produce these and the like places as 2. Cor. 2.12 this godlie sorrowe c. what great care hath it wrought in you yea what punishmeÌ„t they imposed a certaine punishment vpon themselues for their sinne Apocal. 2.5 repent and doe thy first works these were the works of satisfaction ex Martyr Contra. 1. It hath beene before shewed v. 34. that the Apostle by sinnes which are passed vnderstandeth not sinnes committed by any in particular before baptisme but generally all the sinnes of the faithfull which were done vnder the old Testament before the comming of Christ to that place I referre the Reader 2. That chasticement which befell Dauid after his sinne was remitted was inflicted not as a punishment of his sinne but both as a correction to make Dauid more circumspect afterward and for the example of others for that he had caused the enemies of God to blaspheme and so it is as Chrysostome well saith Deus imponit nobis poenam non de peccatis 〈◊〉 supplicium sed ad futura nos corrigens God imposeth punishment vpon vs not taking reuenge of our sinnes but correcting of vs for afterward homil de poeniten 3. If a man forgiue a trespasse and yet retaine a grudge in his minde still to watch the other a shrowd turne therein he sheweth his infirmitie and God is no wayes like vnto man Dauid kept Absalom from the Court that the young man might know himselfe and be thoroughly humbled he knewe him also to be of an aspiring and turbulent spirit and therefore did confine him but this was not imposed as any satisfactioÌ„ for his former sinne 4. The punishment which the Apostle speaketh of was that castigation which they inflicted vpon the incestuous young man in executing the Apostles sentence most seuerely against him it was not a punishment laid vpon the offender to satisfie the iustice of God for his sinne but to giue contentment and satisfaction to the Church whom he had offended And in this sense also a sinner may take punishment of himselfe and so preuent Gods iudgement as the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 11.31 if we would iudge our selues we should not be iudged not that by any satisfaction Gods wrath is appeased and his iudgement staid but God looketh vnto our repentance testified by this iudging of our selues and so in mercie stayeth his hand So also the Church of Ephesus is bid to repent and doe their first workes not as a satisfaction for their sinne but as signes of true repentance which is in vaine without amendement of life 5. But that we are purged from all sinne both before and after baptisme without any works of satisfaction in our selues the Scripture euidently testifieth Ioh. 1.7 The blood of Iesus Christ his Sonne clenseth vs from all sinne and Apoc. 1.5 And washed vs from our sinnes in his blood all our sinnes are equally indifferently purged by the blood of Christ there is no difference whether they be committed before or after baptisme sauing that the â—â—nnes committed after our calling as they are more grieuous so they require a more earnest repentance See of this controversie further Synops. Centur. 3. err 11. 11. Controv. That the beleeuing fathers before Christ were not kept in Limbo Pererius because the Apostle maketh mention onely of sinnes before passed and done thinketh this to be the reason thereof because the fathers that died before Christ though they obtained remission of sinnes by faith in Christ yet detinebantur in Limbo they were deteined in Limbus which they imagine to be a dungeon of darknes and a member of hel vntill they were deliuered thence by Christs descending thither Perer. disput 15. num 73. Contra. This Popish dreame fansie of this Limbus patrum may be easily ouerthrowne by the Scriptures 1. he that beleeueth hath euerlasting life Ioh. 5.24 the Patriarks beleeued they therefore had euerlasting life they were not then excluded heauen 2. they had the same spirit of faith with vs 2. Cor. 4.13 but by faith the Saints now departing are receiued into the kingdome of God therefore they also by faith entred into heauen 3. the faithfull then departing went to Abrahams bosome as is euident in the parable Luk. 16. but Abrahams bosome is in heauen it is a place of blisse and happines as our Sauiour saith Matt. 8.11 they shall sit downe with Abraham Izaak and Iacob in the kingdom of heauen Ergo. See more hereof Synops. Centur. 2. err 9. 12. Controv. Against the Marcionite heretikes v. 24. Thorough the redemption that is in Christ hence the old Marcionite heretikes obiected thus that man was not the workmanship or creature of God nemo enim emit quod suum est for no man vseth to buie that which is his owne alreadie But Origen taketh away this cauill hom 6. in Exod. omnes eramus Dei c. we were all sometimes belonging vnto God but we sold
away our selues for our sinnes then Christ came and by the price of his blood redeemed vs againe and restored vs to our former libertie so the Prophet Isai saith 50.1 For your iniquities are ye sold. Now whereas in Scripture redemption is taken sometime for a franke deliuerance where no price is paid yet here the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken properly for such redemption where the price is paid which was Christs blood as 1. Cor. 6.20 You are bought for a price c. 13. Controv. Against the Novatian heretikes Whereas the Apostle saith v. 25. to declare his righteousnes by the forgiuenes of sinnes that are past the Novatians hereupon denied remission of sinnes to those which fell away after they were called who beeing pressed and vrged by arguments out of the Scripture in the contrarie confessed and graunted that God indeede by his absolute power might giue remission of sinnes vnto such as fell away but the Church had no authoritie to graunt reconciliation vnto such But 1. they remembred not the answer of our blessed Sauiour made to Peter how often one should forgiue his brother not onely seuen times but seuentie times seuen times 2. Dauid sinned grieuously after he was called yet was restored to the Church so was the incestuous young man after due repentance for his incest 3. for how els should the blood of Christ clense vs from all sinne 1. Ioh. 1.7 if that there were not remission of sinnes and reconciliation euen for offences committed after our calling 14. Controv. Against inherent iustice v. 28. We conclude that a man is iustified by faith c. This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be iustified or made iust the Romanists contend to signifie ex impio iustum effici of a wicked man to be made iust and righteous Staplet in Antâ—dot and so their opinion is that there is in iustification an habituall righteousnes infused into the soule whereby a man is iustified 1. This they would prooue by the grammaticall sense of the word because words compounded with facio to doe as magnifico purifico certifico to magnifie purifie certifie signifie to make one great pure certaine and so to iustifie should be taken to make one iust 2. The Apostle expresseth it by an other phrase Rom. 5.19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be made or constituted righteous before God 3. It is not agreeable to the nature and puritie of God to absolue and hold for innocent those who are wicked and vngodly Contra. 1. This word to iustifie though sometime it signifie to teach one iustice and righteousnes as Dan. 12.3 they which iustifie others c. that is teach them or turne them to righteousnes and sometime to perseuere or continue in iustice as Apoc. 22.11 he that is iust iustificetur adhuc let him be more iust yet vsually in Scripture it is taken to absolue to pronounce and hold iust and that in a double sense as either to acknowledge and declare him to be iust that is iust as wisdome is said to be iustified of her children Matth. 11.19 so is it taken before in this chapter v. 4. that thou mightest be iustified in thy words c. or 〈◊〉 to count him iust who is vniust in himselfe that is absolue free and discharge him as c. 8.33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen it is God that iustifieth that is acquiteth dischargeth who shall condemne so is it vsed in the same sense Act. 13.39 From all things from the which ye could not be iustified by the law of Moses by him euery one that beleeueth is iustified Neither doth that grammaticall construction alwaies hold for Marie saith My soule doth magnifie the Lord that is declareth or setteth forth Gods greatnes here it can not signifie to make great Lombards obseruation then is not found that to iustifie in Scripture signifieth foure things 1. to be absolued and freed from sinne by the death of Christ. 2. beeing freed from sinne to be made iust by charitie 3. to be cleansed from sinne by faith in the death of Christ. 4. by faith and imitation of Christs death to bring forth the works of righteousnes Lobmard lib. 3. distinct 19. for of these foure significations the 1. and 3. are all one which may be acknowledged but the 2. and 4. are not found in Scripture 2. We are also made and constituted righteous before God not by any inherent righteousnes in our selues but by the righteousnes of faith as the Apostle saith that I may be found in him not hauing mine owne righteousnes which is of the law but that which is thorough the faith of Christ. 3. Yet it is most agreeable to the puritie of the diuine nature to accept vs as iust in Christ who is most absolutely righteous before God and so to impute his righteousnes vnto vs by faith so sanctifying also our hearts by his holy spirit that we should delight in the works of righteousnes 4. If we should be iustified by any inherent and inhabiting iustice and not by righteousnes imputed by faith these inconueniences would follow 1. that iustification and sanctification should be confounded for that sanctitie which is wrought in the faithfull is a fruit of iustification by faith 2. this holines and charitie which is in the faithfull is a worke of the law which requireth that we should loue God and our neighbour but faith and the worke of the law can not stand together 3. this habite of pietie and charitie is imperfect in vs for no man loueth God and his neighbour as he ought now that which is imperfect can not iustifie See further of inherent iustice Synops. Centur. 4. err 56. 15. Controv. Against the Popish distinction of the first and second iustification The Romanists generally doe hold that there are two kind of iustifications the first which is an infused habite of iustice formed by charitie to the which we are prepared by faith other dispositions of the mind and this they say is without works the other is the encrease of this iustification by the works of charitie the grace of God concurring with mans free-will and this they say is by works and truly meritorious sic Stapl. in Antidot Perer. disput in 2. c. ad Rom. disput 16 17. Contra. 1. The Scripture acknowledgeth but one kind of iustification in all which is both begunne continued and ended by faith as c. 1.17 The righteousnes of God is reuealed from faith to faith and c. 3.30 For it is one God who shall iustifie circumcision of faith and vncircumcision through faith here the whole worke of iustification is ascribed to faith and Rom. 8.20 whome he iustified he glorified there is nothing that commeth betweene this one iustification and glorification 2. They confound iustification and sanctification for that which they call the second iustification is nothing els but sanctification which is the bringing forth of the fruits of holines after that we are iustified by faith these
speaketh of such as are rewarded for their worke before God and not seeing quod vllum opus ex debitâ— remunerationem Dei poscat that any worke by due debt can require reward at Gods hand he turneth the Apostles meaning an other way and by debts vnderstandeth sinnes as they are called in the Lords prayer and so he also thinketh he speaketh of the wages of sinne as S. Paul saith Rom. 6. That the wages or stipend of sinne is death But the Apostle here speaketh euidently of the wages due vnto good workes not to euill the wages is not counted by fauour but in rendring the wages of sinne there is no fauour but iustice 4. The Schoolemen likewise are grossely deceiued who thinking the Apostle doth set downe this as a positiue rule before God haue here deuised two interpretations 1. they vnderstand this working and not working of the works following iustification and so he that worketh is rewarded uot of fauour onely because of his faith but for the debt also of his workes gloss interlin but he that worketh not that is hath no time to worke is rewarded onely of grace But this glosse is conuinced of many errors 1. in ioyning faith and workes together whereas the Apostle before c. 3.28 ascribed iustification to faith without workes 2. to say that our workes are rewarded by debt is to make God endebted vnto man for the worke which is not farre from blasphemie 3. he that hath true iustifying faith can neuer be without some workes or fruits thereof be his time neuer so short as appeareth in the theife vpon the crosse 5. Gorrhan beside this exposition hath an other to vnderstand the Apostle to speake of workes going before iustification and then he giueth this sense that to him which doth some good workes before faith if he should be rewarded the reward should be of debt which is false for then it should not be of grace but to him that worketh not any such worke before faith righteousnesse is imputed by faith c. Here also are diuerse errors 1. â—o imagine that there can be any good workes at all before faith 2. he imagineth the Apostles speach to be conditionalll if any reward be giuen wheras the Apostle setteth it down â—â—sitiuely the wages is counted not if it be 3. the Apostle speaketh in all that discourse of all workes whether going before iustification or following after for all workes of the lawe are excluded c. 3.28 now all good workes are such as the lawe requireth therefore euen such good workes are shut out from iustifying as well such as followe iustification as goe before 4. all these errors arise out of the misvnderstanding of this place where the Apostle speaketh by way of supposition from the ciuill vse of rewards among men that if there were any such meritorious working before God the wages should in like manner be due by debt Quest. 13. Of the diuerse kinds of rewards 1. Wages or reward is either due by debt per proportionem operae cum re by the proportion of the worke with the reward after a Geometricall kind of proportion as when a labourer is couenanted with to haue so much for his worke as in a due estimation it is valued at there is a wages which is of fauour by promise and not by debt and then it signifieth the same thing that fructus a kind of fruit or commoditie that followeth ones labour as Psal. 127. the fruit of the wombe is called a reward and so life eternall is called a reward because the Lord hath promised to giue it as a fruit following the labour of his Saints Fai. 2. And further life eternall is called a reward by a certaine similitude because that as in ciuill workes the reward commeth after the worke is done so life eternall followeth after mens fruitfull labour in this life Mart. and againe it is called a reward in respect of the thing done not for the manner of the doing because that as the wages is giuen to the worker of debt so is saluation rendred to him which beleeueth of grace Pareus 3. But properly eternall life is not a wages or reward for these reasons 1. because the things are not equall which are giuen and receiued the eternall reward farre exceedeth the worth of our temporarie and imperfect obedience 2. he that meriteth the wages most doe it ex proprio of his owne but we haue nothing which we haue not receiued it is not our owne 3. he that meriteth must be no way bound vnto him that payeth the wages for his seruice but all that we doe or can doe it is our dutie to doe Quest. 14. How it standeth with Gods iustice to iustifie the wicked v. 5. v. 5. But beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly this may seeme to be contrarie to that Exod. 34.7 where the Lord saith he will not hold the wicked innocent and Prou. 17. it is called an abhomination to iustifie the wicked 1. Bucer hereunto answeareth that S. Paul here speaketh of the first iustification which if it should not be of the wicked none at all should be iustified for we are all the children of wrath and the Lord findeth vs all wicked before we are iustified But Moses speaketh of him which continueth in his sinne and disobedience afterward 2. Gryneus thus answereth that although it be not lawfull for a man to iustifie the wicked yet God may doe it that is omni lege superior aboue all lawe and the reason of this difference is because God onely hath right and power to forgiue sinnes because they are committed chiefly against him Faius 3. Pareus addeth further that then it is vniust to iustifie the wicked when as it is done without cause and against the rule of iustice there beeing no satisfaction made by the offender himselfe or some other for him but with God it is so for he iustifieth the wicked hauing receiued a sufficient satisfaction by the death of Christ who hath payed the price of our redemption 4. To this also may be adioyned that this must be vnderstood in sen su diuiso in a diuided sense that God iustifieth the wicked not him that remaineth wicked but was so before he was iustified Faius Anselmus vnderstandeth him to be wicked that beleeueth not he then which beleeueth is no longer to be counted wicked so then whom God iustifieth be also sanctifieth and of an vnrighteous man he is made righteous which righteousnesse is imperfect here in this life and therefore it cannot iustifie Par. dub 4. Quest. 15. How our sinnes are said to be forgiuen and couered v. 7. 1. First it is here to be observed that whereas S. Paul bringeth in this testimonie out of the Psalmes Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sinnes are couered to prooue the former proposition that God imputeth righteousnesse without workes that these two to remit and couer sinnes and to impute righteousnesse are taken for one and the same thing for
it is the obedience and righteousnesse of Christ whereby both our sinnes are remitted and iustice imputed vnto vs As Luk. 18.13 the Publican saith O God be mercifull vnto me a sinner and it is said of him v. 14. that he went home iustified c. so then for God to shewe mercie in forgiuing sinne and for man to be iustified doe both concurre together and the one doth necessarily followe the other 2. Further the privatiue graces of the spirit as in the remitting of sinne the hiding of iniquitie and the not imputing of sinne are not seuered from the positiue graces as in the imputing of righteousnesse Gryneus 3. Now sometime sinne in Scripture is said to be remitted sometime to be hid and couered and further to be not imputed likewise to be washed away which are all the same in effect but yet in a diuerse respect for there are fowre things to be considered in sinne 1. the first is the inordinate act of sinne which beeing once done cannot be vndone this is said to be couered not as though it were not but because it is not imputed the Lord seeth it not to punish it 2. there is in sinne the offence committed against God which the Lord is said to forgiue and remit like as one man remitteth and forgiueth the iniurie and wrong done against him 3. there is the blot and staine of sinne whereby the soule is defiled and polluted and that is said to be washed away 4. there is the guilt of eternall death in respect whereof sinne is said not to be imputed Faius 4. Now the reason why these are all one to impute righteousnesse to remit sinne is this because these are immediately contrarie one to the other to be a sinner and to be iust he that is a sinner is not iust and so consequently he that is iust is reputed no sinner Par. dub 5. Quest. 16. In what sense circumcision is said to be a signe and wherefore it was instituted 1. It was signum memorativum a signe of remembrance or commemoration of the couenant which was made betweene God and Abraham and of the promises which he receiued namely these three 1. of the multiplying of his seede 2. of inheriting the land of Canaan 3. of the Messiah which should be borne of his seede 2. It was signum representativum a representing signe of the excellent faith of Abraham as it is afterward called a seale of the righteousnesse of faith 3. it was signum distinctivum a signe of the distinguishing the Hebrewes from all other people 4. it was signum demonstrativum a signe demonstrating or shewing the naturall disease of man euen originall sinne and the cure thereof by Christ. 5. it was signum praesigurativum a signe prefiguring baptisme and the spirituall circumcision of the heart Perer. Quest. 17. In what sense circumcision is called a seale of the righteousnesse of faith v. 11. 1. Origen thinketh that it is so called because in circumcision was sealed and lay hid and secret the righteousnesse of faith which should afterward be reuealed and vnfolded in Christ and that it was a signe in respect of the beleeuing Gentiles and a seale vnto the vnbeleeuing Iewes shutting them vp in vnbeleefe vntill they should be called in the ende of the world But 1. in this sense it was not a seale to shut vp and keepe secret seeing that Abraham was commended for his beleefe and the iustice of faith was not vnknowne or as aâ— hid and secret thing to the fathers 2. Neither doth S. Paul here speake of vnbeleeuers but of those which beleeue whose father Abraham was 2. Chrysostome and Theodoret expound circumcision to be a seale that is testimonium fidei acceptae a testimonie of faith receiued but a seale serueth more then for a witnesse or testimonie there are witnesses vsed beside 3. Thomas thinketh it was called a seale that is expressum signum an expresse signe hauing a similitude of the thing signified as because hs was promised to be a father of many nations he receiued this signe in the generatiue part But though a seale haue the marke or print of the stampe yet is it not called a seale for that but in respect of the thing sealed and â—â—â—ified 4. Neither doth it onely signifie signum distinctivum a distinguishing signe of the people of the Hebrewes from others for it had beene enough to say it was a signe 5. But because a seale is more then a bare signe it is for confirmation as kings letters paâ—â—â—ts are sealed for better assurance circumcision therefore serued as a seale vt obsignaret 〈◊〉 fidei to seale the righteousnesse of faith by the which seale the promises of God cordibus imprimuntur are imprinted in the hearts Calvin Quest. 18. Whether the mysterie of faith in the Mâ—ssiah to come were generally knowne vnder the lawe The occasion of this question here is because the Apostle saith that circumcision was the seale of the righteousnesse of faith seeing then that all the people were circumcised it may seeme that generally all of them had this knowledge of the Messiah to come 1. Augustine as P. Martyr citeth him seemeth to be of opinion lib. 3. de doctrin Christian that onely the Patriarkes and Prophets and more excellent men beeing illuminate by the spirit did apprehend this mysterie of faith in the Messiah to come and that the common people did onely knowe in generall that God was worshipped by those signes and ceremonies which were prescribed in the lawe but the ende and scope of them they did not knowe But by three aguments it may appeare that the knowledge of the Messiah was more generall 1. the Prophets did euerie where shewe the insufficiencie of the externall ceremonies and sacrifices that they were not those things which God required at their hands so that the people could not be ignorant by the continuall doctrine of the Prophets that some further thing was signified thereby 2. yea the Prophet Isay hath most direct prophesies of the Messiah that by his stripes we are healed and that God had laid vpon him the iniquities of vs all c. 53. 3. at the comming of Christ it is euident that there was a generall expectation of Christ as Philip said to Nathanael Ioh. 1.45 We haue found 〈◊〉 of whom Moses did write in the lawe and the Prophets and the woman of Samaria said Iob. 4.25 I knowe well that Messiah shall come 2. But though the knowledge of the Messiah were more generally reuealed then to the Patriarkes and Prophets onely yet is it not to be thought that the people did know in particular the meaning of euerie ceremonie but onely generally that they aimed at the Messiah neither yet had all the people this knowledge there were some carnall men among them which onely did adhere vnto the externall signes ex Mart. Quest. 19. Certaine questions of circumcision and first of the externall signe why it was placed in the generative part 1. Hereof these three
inhabitants regnans sinne dwelling in vs and raigning in vs before iustification it both dwelleth in the faithfull and raigneth but after it dwelleth but raigneth not againe before the righteous are iustified by faith there is no sanctitie in them but vpon their iustification presently followeth sanctification whereby they are become holy and full of good workes though some reliques of sinne remaine There are three things then specially here to be considered in sinne macula culpa poena the blot of sinne the fault or offence and the punishment now after we are iustified by faith the fault is remitted the punishment acquired but some blot and blemish remaineth Now that in the iustified and regenerate remaineth some seede and reliques of sinne it thus is manifest 1. The Apostle confesseth that there was sinne dwelling in him Rom. 7.20 2. Dauid when he thus spake Psal. 32. Blessed is he whose wickednesse is forgiuen had now many yeares beene the seruant of God and yet he confesseth he had sinnes which had neede of forgiuenesse Bucer 3. the verie word it selfe of not imputing of sinne presupposeth a being of sinne for that which is not at all cannot be said not to be imputed for of that which is not there can be neither action nor passion Faius and that which is couered appeareth not not because it is not but because it is couered 2. Now for answear vnto the arguments obiected 1. the error of the Pelagians rather cleaueth vnto the Romanists then the Protestants who affirme that in baptisme there is sealed remission of all sinnes as well going before baptisme as following after whereas the Papists extend the vertue of baptisme vnto the sinnes onely before going neither doe we say that the sprigges onely of sinne are pruned the roote remayning still but that the very roote thereof is killed though some sprigges doe sprout still yet they shall neuer branch out to beare the like bitter fruit as before And as we are free herein from the error of the Pelagians so let them take heede that the error of Origen be not here worthily fastened vpon them who vpon this place of the Apostle writeth to this effect that when the soule of a sinner leaueth and forsaketh sinne then his iniquities are said to be remitted and when it beginneth to doe well then it hideth and couereth sinne bonis recentibus with newe good things But when it is come to perfection vt nullum in ea vestigium inveniri possit nequitiae that not a footesteppe of sinne can be found in it c. then the Lord is said not to impute sinne c. Here Origen concurreth with the Romanists or they rather with him that there remaineth no relique of sinne in the faithfull after iustification and that they couer and hide their sinnes by their good workes which doth quite ouerthrowe and peruert the Apostles sense who alleadgeth these testimonies out of the Psalmes to prooue that righteousnesse is imputed without workes which were no proofe at all if sinnes were couered and hid by good workes Beza annot 2. Not to impute sinne vnto a sinner continuing and remaining still in the strength of his sinne were indeede no iustice but to a sinner that repenteth of his sinne and amendeth it is iust with God not to impute sinne for the worthinesse of Christ. 3. All these testimonies produced of the taking and washing away sinne are vnderstood of remitting the fault and offence and acquitting the punishment it followeth not but that there remaineth some blot and blemish still 4. Christs merit is as effectuall to take away sinne as Adam was to bring it in and in the ende Christ shall vtterly abolish the verie relikes and remainder of sinne which though Christ by his infinite power could effect all at once yet it pleaseth him to worke it by degrees to beginne our iustification here and to finish it in his kingdome 5. How our sinne is couered in Gods sight and how the Lord is said not to see it Augustine sheweth well si texit peccata Deus noluit advertere si noluit advertere noluit animadvertere si noluit animadvertere noluit punire c. if God haue hid our sinne he would not marke it if he would not marke it neither would he chastice it if not chastice it then not punish it neither must ye so vnderstand that the Prophet said our sinnes are hid quasi ibi sunt c. vivunt as though they be there and are aliue c. to this purpose Augustine who by the hiding and Gods not seeing of our sinnes vnderstandeth his not seeing them vnto punishment And although sinne in it selfe be hated and detested of God yet it followeth not that the faithfull should be hated for sinne dwelling in them because they hate it and iudge it in themselues sinne then is to be considered two wayes in it selfe and as it cleaueth and adheareth to the person yet seeing the person of the faithfull wherein it is found is not addicted and wholly enclined vnto it but likewise hateth and abhorreth it the Lord loueth their person accepted in Christ though he hate that which is euill in them as they themselues also doe Controv. 4. Against workes of satisfaction v. 8. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne The opinion of the Romanists is here confuted that after remission of the offence in sinne and the guilt of eternall death there remaineth yet some temporall punishment to be satisfied for and yet there is full remission of sinne for the temporall punishment is extra substantiam peccati c. is not of or belonging to the substance of sinne but as an adiunct and a thing annexed to it Perer. disput 3. numer 13. Contra. 1. It followeth necessarily that where sinne is punished it is imputed and laid vnto the sinners charge But vnto them that are iustified nothing is laid vnto their charge as the Apostle saith Rom. 8.33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen it is God that iustifieth therefore where sinne is not imputed and remembred no more there it is not thought of to be punished for how should it stand with equitie for God to punish the sinne which is remitted 2. No punishment is properly of the nature and substance of sinne but necessarie consequents and effects thereof euerlasting punishment it selfe is not belonging to the substance of sinne as Pererius confesseth that inest peccato secundum substantiam it belongeth to sinne in respect of the substance thereof for God hath appointed and decreed eternall death as the iust punishment of sinne but no substantiall part of sinne hath God ordained for then be should ordaine that which is euill If then one part of the punishment of sinne be discharged then the other also or else there should not be a full remission of sinne Controv. 5. Of imputatiue iustice against inherent righteousnesse v. 8. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne This is an
promised but that he had also a particular confidence of his acceptance with God and remission of his sinnes in the Messiah promised doth euidently appeare by these two arguments 1. The Apostle saith that Abraham was partaker by faith of that blessednesse which the Prophet Dauid speaketh of v. 7. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen then it followeth ver 9. Came the blessednesse vpon the circumcision or vpon the vncircumcision 2. the like faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse which is imputed to vs v. 23. but our faith is to beleeue that Christ was put to death for our sinnes and rose for our iustification v. 25. therefore Abrahams faith was an assurance of remission of his sinnes in Christ. Controv. 15. That faith doth not iustifie by the merit or act thereof but onely instrumentally as it applyeth and apprehendeth the righteousnesse of Christ. Bellarmine hath an other sophisticall collection vpon these words v. 22. therefore it was imputed to him for righteousnesse here saith at the Apostle rendreth the reason why faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse because he in beleeuing gaue glorie vnto god therefore he was iustified merito fidei by the merit or worthinesse of faith which notwithstanding was his grace and gift Bellar. lib. 1. de iustif c. 17. Contra. 1. Abraham was not iustified because he in beleeuing gaue glorie vnto God that indeede was an act and fruit of his faith but it was his faith onely for the which he was iustified as the Apostle saith afterward v. 24. it shall be likewise imputed to vs for righteousnes which beleeue c. 2. the Apostle saith to him that worketh not but beleeueth c. faith is counted for righteousnesse then it will followe that where faith is counted or imputed for righteousnesse there is no worke faith then iustifieth not as a worke by the act of beleeuing for then faith should not iustifie without works which is the scope of all the Apostles discourse that by faith righteousnes is imputed without workes v. 6. faith then doth not iustifie actiuely as it is a worke but passiuely as it apprehendeth the righteousnesse of Christ. 3. If faith be the gift of God as Bellarmine confesseth then can it not merit for he that meriteth must merit of his owne where there is grace and fauour as in the bestowing of gifts freely there is no merit v. 4. 4. I will here oppose against Bellarmine the iudgement of Tolet and so set one Iesuite against an other and a Cardinall against his fellowe he thus ingeniously writeth vpon these words non existimes Paulum merito fiderascribere iustitium c. thinke not that Paul ascribeth righteousnesse to the merit of faith as though because he beleeued he was worthie of the righteousnesse of God but he signifieth Deum ex gratia acceptare fidem nostram in iustitiam that God of grace and fauour accepteth our faith for righteousnesse Controv. 16. The people are not to be denied the reading of the Scriptures v. 23. Now it is not written for him onely but for vs c. Hence it is euident that the Romanists offer great wrong vnto the people of God in barring them from the reading of the Scriptures for they are to be admitted to the reading of the Scriptures for whom they are written but they are written for all that beleeue in Christ the reading then of the Scripture serueth to coÌ„firme our faith therfore they belong generally vnto the faithfull Par. But it will be obiected that the vnlearned doe not vnderstand the Scriptures and therefore they are to depend vpon the fathers of the Church for the vnderstanding of them and not to venture vpon them themselues Answ. 1. Nay the sense of the Scripture is most safely taken from the Scripture which is the best interpreter of it selfe 2. the Fathers and expossitors are to be heard and consulted with so farre forth as they agree with the Scriptures but the sense of the Scripture 〈◊〉 not depend vpon their fancies which haue no warrant by Scripture as Hierome vpon theâ— 23. chap. of Mathew giueth instance of a certaine interpretation of one of the Fatherâ— that Zacharias the sonne of Barachias mentioned there v. 35. to haue beene slaine betweene the Temple and the Altar was Zacharie the father of Iohn Baptist And Hierome searching out which of the Fathers had made this interpretation found that it was Basil and then he concludeth this seeing it hath no warrant out of the Scriptures eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur is as easily reiected as it is affirmed See further of the vulgar reading of Scripture and of the manner of interpreting the same Synops. Centur. 1. err 3. and err 9. Controv. 17. Against the heretikes which condemned the old Testament and God the author thereof v. 24. Which beleeued in him that raised vp Iesus c. Origen very well inferreth vpon these wordes that seeing the God whom Abraham beleeued was able to quicken the dead was the same that raised Iesus from the dead non erat alius Deus legis alius Domini nostri Iesu Christ. c. there was not then one God of the law and another of our Lord Iesus Christ c. But there was the same God of the old and new Testament which is obserued by Origen against the wicked Marcionites and Manichies who condemned the old Testament and the author thereof So also whereas the same heretickes vrged these wordes of the Apostle v. 15. where no law is there is no transgression and thereupon inferring the contrarie where there is a law there is transgression would thereby conclude that the law is the cause of transgression and so condemne the law Origen doth thus returne this their collection vpon themselues that as where the law is there is transgression of the law so where faith is there is transgression against faith but as faith is not the cause vt quis praeuaricetur à fide that one transgresse against faith neither shall the law be the cause of transgression against the law Controv. 18. Whether iustification consist onely in the remission of sinnes v. 25. Who was deliuered to death for our sinnes and is risen againe for our iustification Pererius taketh occasion here to inuergh against Protestants thus affirming of vs qui â—â—â—â—em vim iustificationis ponunt in sola remissione peccatorum donationem vero iustitiae c. which doe place all the force of iustification onely in the remission of sinnes but the donation of iustice whereby the minde is rectified and newenesse of life wrought in vs they do reiect and abandon Perer. disput 10. err 49. and to the same purpose Bellar. lib. 2. de iustif c. 6. and the Rhemists take vpon them to confute the Protestants because they hold iustification to be onely remission of sinnes and no grace inherent in vs annot in 4. ad Rom. Sect. 6. Contra. 1. It is a false imputation that we place iustification onely in the remission of
purpose alleadge Augustine who vnderstandeth here the loue non qua ipse nos diligit sed qua facit nos dilectores sui not wherewith God loueth vs but whereby he maketh vs louers of of him c. and he would prooue the same by the Apostles phrase absurdissime dicitur c. that is most absurdly said to be shed in our hearts quod extra nos est c. which is without vs onely in God Contra. 1. Against Oecumenius we set Chrysostome an other Greeke father who vnderstandeth the Apostle to speake of the loue of God toward vs dilectioni Dei rem omnem acceptam fert he ascribeth the whole matter vnto the loue of God 2. Augustine shall answear Augustine who elsewhere interpreteth this place of the loue of God toward vs as where he thus saith ipse spiritus sanctus dilectio est non enim habet homo vnde Deum diligâ—â— nisi ex Deo vnde Apostolus the holy spirit himselfe is this loue for man cannot tell how to loue God but from God whereupon the Apostle saith the loue of God is shed abroad c. 3. And in this verie place of Augustine he speaketh of such loue of God in vs whereby the Lord maketh vs loue him so that he includeth also the loue of God first toward vs whence issueth our loue toward him 4. And the loue of God in God toward vs may without absurditie at all be said to be shed abroad in our hearts as in true friendship the loue of a friend may be said to be shedde on him whom he loueth so Gods loue is shed forth in vs by the fruits and effects which it worketh in vs Pareus dub 4. 2. Some thinke that both the loue of God toward vs and our loue toward God are comprehensive in the Apostles speach as Origen vpon this place alloweth both so also Gorrhan and Pererius disputat 2. numer 9. who hereupon inferreth that there may be more literall senses then one of one place of Scripture Contra. One Scripture may haue one generall sense which may comprehend diuers particulars or it may haue one literall sense with diuers applications as typicall or tropologicall figuratiue or morall but it can not haue more then one literall sense or exposition specially one beeing different from the other not any scales included in it or inferred or diducted out of it for then the spirit in the Scripture should speake doubtfully and ambiguously like vnto the oracles of Apollo which were so deliuered as that they might be taken in a diuers yea a contrarie sense See further of this point Synops. Centur. 1. err 7. But that the loue wherewith man loueth God is not here at all vnderstood it shall appeare by diuers reasons here following 3. The best interpretation then is that the Apostle speaketh here of the loue of God wherewith we are beloued of him in Christ. 1. Beza vrgeth this reason because afterward v. 8. the Apostle speaketh of that loue God setteth forth his loue toward vs c. and in both places mention is made of the same loue of God the ground and foundation whereof is Christ that was giuen to die for vs. 2. Pareus insisteth vpon this reason the loue of God here spoken of is alleadged as the cause of our reioycing and of the steadfastnes of our hope but our loue of God beeing weake and imperfect can not be that cause 3. Peter Martyr and Pareus doe further presse the scope of the place the Apostle assumeth this as an argument of our hope because Christ was giuen to die for vs which proceeded not from the loue of vs toward God but from his loue toward vs. 4. Faius vrgeth the force of the Apostles phrase this loue is said to be shed abundantly in our hearts but our loue toward God is not such an abundant and surpassing loue it is a slender scant and weake loue he meaneth then the superabundant loue of God toward vs which as the Apostle saith Phil. 4.7 passeth all vnderstanding 5. I will adioyne also Tolets reason annot 5. in c. 5. the charitie and loue whereby we loue God is but one grace and vertue but the Apostle speaking of the shedding forth of this loue by the holy Ghost meaneth the effusion and powring out of all the graces which are wrought in vs by the spirit he meaneth then the loue of God toward vs from which fountaine issue faith all the graces and gifts of the spirit 6. Adde hereunto the consonant exposition of many of the Fathers as of Chrysostome cited before of Hierome who thus writeth quomodo Deus nos diligat ex hoc cognoscimus c. how God loueth vs we know by this that he hath not onely by the death of his Sonne forgiuen our sinnes but hath also giuen vs the holy Ghost c. Likewise Ambrose pignus charitatis Dei bohemus in nobis c. we haue the pledge of the loue of God by the holy spirit giuen vnto vs c. Theophylact also interpreteth de charitate Dei quam erga nos ostendit c. of the loue of God which he sheweth toward vs c. Likewise expound Theodoret Sedulius with others 8. Quest. Why the loue of God is said to be shed abroad in our hearts 1. Some doe giue this sense effusa est sicut oleum c. this loue is shed abroad like oyle 〈◊〉 cor occupando in possessing and occupying the whole heart according to that saying Matth. 22. Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart Gorrh. but the loue of 〈◊〉 is not here taken actively for that loue whereby we loue God as is shewed in the former question 2. Tolet thus expoundeth it abundantissime facti sunt amici Dei they are not sparingly but abundantly made the sonnes of God likewise the ordinarie glosse referreth it to the greatnes of Gods loue late nos diligit he doth loue vs largely that is greatly 3. Some referre it to the cleare manifestation of the loue of God in our hearts clare nobis manifeâ—â—ta sicut cum lux diffunditur c. the loue of God is clearely manifested to vs as when the â—ight is spread and dispersed abroad Gorrhan 4. But hereby rather is expressed the abundance of those graces which are powred vpon vs by the spirit so Chrysostome non moâ—ce nos honoravit c. he hath not sparingly honoured vs but he hath shed forth vpon vs his loue as the fountaine of all good things so also Oecumenius quia vbere datus est c. because the spirit is plentifully giuen vs and in the same sense the Prophet saith Ioel 2. I will powre out my spirit vpon all flesh Faius 9. Quest. Why it is added by the holy Ghost which is giuen vs. 1. The spirit of God is mentioned as the efficient cause of this worke the loue of God is said to be shed in our hearts by the holy Ghost because the spirit of God beareth witnes
those clauses the things not the persons and the first they expound of iust punishment which none willingly suffer in the second the good and honest cause for which one may be found readie to die But the phrase to die for the iust will not beare that sense a man is not saide to die for iust punishment but by it or with it and yet in this sense some haue beene found which willingly suffered their iust punishment as the theise conuerted vpon the crosse who said vnto his fellow Luk. 23.41 We are righteously here 7. The best interpretation then is that by the iust we vnderstand such an one as is in himselfe a righteous and vertuous man by the good such as haue deserued well of vs that are liberall and bountifull men from whome we haue receiued good so Beza interpreteth one that is profitable to him of whome he hath receiued good Genevens so also Catharinus a Popish writer and some by the good vnderstand such as are deare vnto them as their children parents friends countrey as some such were found among the Romans that gaue their liues for their friends and countrey P. Mart. And this exposition may be confirmed by the opposite part that Christ died for vs beeing sinners v. 8. yea his enemies v. 10. whereas men will not die for the righteous and hardly for their friends 12. Quest. Of the difference betweene Christs dying for vs and those which died for their countrey We read in the forren histories of the Gentiles that some haue giuen their liues for their countrey as Codrus for the Athenians Menoecius for the Thebanes who killed himselfe and fell among his enemies for the deliuerance of his countrey so Curtius threw himselfe into a gulph to preserue Rome from the pestilence But there was great difference betweene the death of these and of Christ. 1. They were not innocent as Christ was and therefore as their life was not so holy so could not their death be so pretious nor their person to honourable 2. They did not willingly offer themselues vnto any iudge to be condemned as Christ did but in other manner and sort aduentured their liues 3. They did it not of loue but of vain-glorie and desire of praise 4. They by the instigation of Sathan were mooued so to doe hauing no cogitation therein to please God but Christ gaue himselfe to death 〈◊〉 obedience to the will of his heauenly father 5. They at such time gaue their liues when as their case was desperate and so were impatient to abide the extreame haâ—â—d and they died beeing mortall men that could not liue long as Solon when he encouraged the citizens to take armes against Pisistratus the tyrant beeing asked what made him bold so to doe answered his old age he knew he could not liue long But Christ died for vs hauing no necessitie to die in himselfe 6. Their death was glorious and honourable vnto them but Christ offered himselfe to the ignominious and shamefull death of the crosse 7. They died for a temporall deliuerance but we by Christs death are eternally deliuered 8. And that which maketh the greatest honour of all they died for their countrey and friends but our blessed Sauiour for his enemies ex Martyr Pareus 9. Origen addeth further that although there may be found among the heathen that died for their countrey yet there is none of them which died for all the world as Christ onely did which by his death totius mundi peccata absolvit did absolue all the world of their sinnes 13. Quest. Of the greatnes of the loue of God toward man in sending Christ to die for vs v. 8. This exceeding great loue of God is set forth by three circumstances what they were for whome Christ died sinners and enemies to God what Christ was that suffered euen the Sonne of God and what he endured and suffered euen to die for them 1. The condition of them for whome Christ died is set forth by three names they are said to be weake as not able to helpe or deliuer themselues vngodly as they which had left the worship of the onely true God and had defiled themselues with idolatrie sinners which had euery way transgressed the law of God Tolet. annot 10. Origen here comprehendeth all kind of sinnes for either one of ignorance and infirmitie sinneth and he is called weake or he is an obstinate and malitious offender who is called the sinner Sinners in Scripture are said to be those not which commit any sinne but those in whome sinne dwelleth and raigneth as Ioh. 9.31 and such were we by nature Beza yea we were not onely sinners but enemies vnto God which setteth his loue forth so much the more that he sought our good not onely beeing euill but also aduersaries vnto him So that while we were sinners and so God hated vs in respect of our sinnes yet at the same instant amabat secundum quod opus eius he loued vs as his owne worke gloss ordin 2. Gods loue further appeareth in sending his owne Sonne into the world nothing is dearer to a man then his owne sonne and therefore Gods loue doth herein most shew it selfe in that he sent not either Angel or Arkangel or any other of his glorious creatures to die for vs but his owne sonne Martyr 3. And this Sonne of God was not onely made man for vs and liued in the flesh and suffered many things for our sake but he died for vs it had beene a sufficient demonstration of his loue to haue humbled himselfe to take vpon him the nature of man and to walke and conuerse among sinnefull men But in that he died and that for his enemies it sheweth an vnspeakable loue there is no greater loue among men then when one bestoweth his life for his friends Ioh. 15.13 But Christs loue here exceeded that he gaue his life for his enemies Gorrhan 14. Quest. Whether mans redemption could not otherwise haue beene wrought then by the death of Christ. 1. It was not necessarie that Christ should die for our redemption either by the necessitie of coaction as though God had beene by some vrgent occasion compelled thereunto set God is not forced he worketh most freely nor yet by necessitie of nature as it is impossible in the diuine nature that God should lie or be vntrue but no externall worke done by God proceedeth from the necessitie of his nature there was then no absolute necessitie that Christ should die for vs nor yet any hypotheticall or conditionall necessitie the end beeing considered namely the saluation of man for it had beene possible for God by other meanes then by the death of his Sonne to haue wrought the saluation of man 2. Yet was it necessarie that Christ should die for mankind the wisdome and counsell of God considered because there was no other way whereby the greatnes of the loue of God could be shewed vnto man then by giuing his owne Sonne to die for vs P.
of him that was to come insinuating thereby that life and righteousnes came in by the second Adam as sinne and death entred by the first 5. But their opinion seemeth to be the better which supplie the reddition of this comparison concerning Christ in the words following Origen referreth vs to those words v. 15. the gift is not so as the offence but I rather with Beza and Pareus thinke that the second part of the comparison is suspended by a long parenthesis in the words comming betweene vnto the 18. and 19. verses where the Apostle setteth downe both parts of the comparison 18. Quest. Who was that one by whome sinne entred into the world v. 12. 1. Ambrose and Hierome vpon this place by this one man would vnderstand the woman because the beginning of sinne came in by her as Ecclesiastic 25.26 it is saide of the woman came the beginning of sinne and through her we all die and S. Paul saith 1. Timoth. 2.14 Adam was not deceiued but the woman was deceiued and was in the transgression But the woman here is not vnderstood seeing the word is put in the masculine gender and true it is that from the woman came the beginning of sinne by the seducing of man but the Apostle here speaketh of the propagation of sinne which was by the man not by the woman Perer. 2. Some will haue both the man and woman here vnderstood which both made as it were but one as when the Lord said Let vs make man according to our owne likenes both the man and woman are vnderstood Pareus so also the ordinarie gloss quia mulier de viâ—â— vtriusque vna caro because the woman is of the man and both made but one flesh 3. But by this one we better vnderstand Adam though both our parents sinned and the man was seduced and deceiued by the woman yet the man onely is named 1. not because the man is the head of the woman and so the sinne of the woman is imputed to the man because he might haue corrected her Hugo 2. nor because the man perfected the sinne of the woman which if he had not consented had not beene finished so the woman was principium incompletum was the incomplete or imperfect beginning of sinne the man was the complete and perfect beginning Gorrhan 3. neither is this the reason because the Apostle consuetudinem tenens c. doth followe the custome which ascribeth the succession of posteritie to the man not to the woman gloss ordinar 4. But this indeede is the reason the Apostle here sheweth not the order how sinne entred simply into the world for the woman sinned first and before the woman the serpent but how sinne was propagated into mankind now posteritas ex viro non ex mâ—liere nominatur the posteritie is named of the man not of the woman as the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 11.8 the man is not of the woman but the woman of the man to this purpose Origen so also Pet. Mart. ex quo tanquam principio peccatum per propagationem traductum fuit c. by the man as the first beginning sinne was traduced by propagation the Apostle then here speaketh of the beginning of the propagation of sinne not of the beginning of seduction which was by the woman or of imitation which was by the deuill who was a liar from the beginning and the father thereof Iob. 8.44 not by propagation but by seduction and imitation Mart. Quest. 19. What sinne the Apostle speaketh of here originall or actuall by one man sinne entred 1. Some vnderstand here originall sinne whereby the nature of man is corrupted and not actuall actuale non per vnum sed per plures intrat because actuall sinne entreth by many and not by one Gorrhan 2. Some comprehend here sinne generally both actuall and originall this word sinne non solum complectitur vitium originia sed omnia mala quae eo ex sequuntur doth no onely comprehend the originall corruption but all other euills that come from thence c. Martyr but of the propagation of originall sinne the Apostle speaketh afterward in the ende of the verse in as much as all men haue sinned c. 3. Wherefore the Apostle here vnderstandeth the actuall sinne which Adam committed for the word is put in the singular number and hath the article prefixed before it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sheweth some particular sinne afterward the Apostle calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 transgression and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disobedience which must be vnderstood of Adams transgression which was in him actuall but originall in respect of vs because it was the fountaine of all sinne but it was not originall sinne passive passiuely as now we call that originall sinne which is in the corrupt nature of man issuing from Adams sinne Pareus this sinne of Adam in respect of him was peccatum personale a personall sinne but as thereby the whole nature of man was corrupted it was peccatum naturae the sinne of nature Faius 4. Neither are we here to vnderstand all the actuall sinnes which Adam committed but onely his first transgression in eating of the forbidden fruit for like as the sinnes of parents now are not transmitted to their children so neither were all Adams sinnes propagated to posteritie but onely the first betweene the which and his other sinnes there is this difference that by the first bonum naturae the goodnesse of nature was lost by the other bonum gratiae personalis the goodnesse and grace in Adam was taken away And though Adam repented of his sinne and so were deliuered from the guilt thereof yet because that was a personall act it extendeth not beyond his person the corruption of nature could not be healed by his repentance Perer. disput 6. numer 29. Quest. 20. How sinne is said to haue entred into the world 1. Origen by the world vnderstandeth terrenam corporalem vitam the terrene and carnall life to the which the Saints are crucified but P. Mart. reiecteth this interpretation vpon this reason that by this meanes the Saints should not haue originall sinne if they be not comprehended vnder the name of the world 2. Some doe take the world for the place continent and place of the world but this is reiected by Pererius numer 32. vpon this reason because sinne did not in that sense first enter into the world by Adam for before him sinned the Angels that fell and the woman that was first deceiued 3. Neither by the world can we well vnderstand paradise for the woman had first sinned in Paradise before the man had consented 4. Therefore by the world we better vnderstand by a figure the inhabitants of the world the thing containing is taken for that which is contained totum genus humanum all mankind is here signified Gorrhan Martyr with others as afterward the Apostle expoundeth himselfe by the world vnderstanding all men And thus sinne entred into the world
his life whereby he merited the imputation of his righteousnesse for the merite of Christs passion depended vpon the holines and worthines of his person which was manifested in his life 2. There are two partes of our iustification remission of our sinnes and the making of vnrighteous the one was the proper worke of Christs death that paied the ransome due vnto our sinnes the other of his perfect holines and righteousnesse which was manifested in his rising from the dead and therefore the Apostle ioyneth them both together Rom. 4.28 Who was deliuered to death for our sinnes and is risen againe for our iustification see further of this matter Controv. 20. in c. 4. Controv. 26. Against the Philosophers who placed righteousnesse in their owne workes The heathen Philosophers and wise men were vtterly ignorant of this making of men righteous by an others obedience for they held them onely to be righteous which by continuall exercise and practise of vertue attained vnto an habite of well doing which they ascribed onely to their owne industrie and endeuour Contra. These wise heathen in many things bewrayed their grosse and palpable ignorance 1. they knew not what remission of sinnes was neither how sinne entred into the world or how it was taken away they thought that by their well doing onely afterward the former memorie of their sinnes was worne out whereas it is in God onely to blot out the remembrance of sinne 2. they ascribed their vertues such as they were to their owne free-will and endeuour whereas Christian religion teacheth vs that God is the author of all good things and that man of himselfe is not able to thinke or conceiue a good thought 3. they erred in seeking to be made righteous and iust by their owne workes which beeing imperfect and diuerse waies blemished are not able to iustifie vs before God who is absolutely perfect true it is that euery Christian must endeuour to liue well and aduance his faith with fruitfull workes but it is Christs perfect obedience and not our owne which is imperfect that maketh vs truly righteous before God Controv. 27. Against the Manichees and Pelagians the one giuing too much the other too little to the law v. 30. The law entred that the offence should abound c. the Manichees vrge these and such like places against the law as though it were euill not distinguishing betweene the proper effects of the law which it worketh of it selfe as the Prophet Dauid expresseth them Psal. 19. It conuerteth the soule giueth wisedome to the simple giueth light to the eyes c. and the effects of the law which it worketh by reason of the weaknesse of man as it serueth to reueale the knowledge of sinne and to make it more abound But the Apostle himselfe that here thus testifieth of the law confesseth that in it selfe the law is holy Rom. 7.12 for although we are not able to performe that which the law commandeth yet the things are holy iust and good which the law requireth and the desire of the godly longeth after them As the Manichees detracted from the law so the Pelagians ascribed too much vnto it for they held that the law was sufficient to saluation and that if a man did once vnderstand what was to be done by the strength of nature he could doe it the law then serued to reueale vnto them the will of God and there owne strength sufficed in their opinion to performe it They beeing further vrged that the grace of God was necessarie did in words acknowledge it but by grace they vnderstood first the nature of man which was first giuen him of God then the doctrine onely and knowledge of the law The Popish schoolemen differed not much from this opinion who hled that a man by the strength of nature may keepe the precepts of the law quoad substantiam operis in respect of the substance of the worke but not quoad intentionem praecipientis according to the intention of the lawegiuer But it is euident out of the Scripture that no not the regenerate much lesse naturall men are able to keepe the commandements of God perfitly as S. Paul sheweth by his owne example Rom. 7. And if it were as the Pelagians held that the lawe were sufficient to saluation then Christ died in vaine Controv. 28. Of the assurance of saluation v. 21. Grace might raigne by righteousnesse vnto eternall life c. Hence it is euident that life is a consequent of righteousnesse as death is of sinne and that the faithfull are as sure to obtaine life if they haue righteousnesse as Adam and Adams children were sure to die after they haue sinned So Chrysostome vpon this place collecteth well Noli itaque cum iustitiam habeas de vita dubitare vitam enim excellit iustitia mater quippe illius est do not therefore doubt of life and saluation if thou haue iustice for iustice excelleth life beeing the mother thereof This is contrarie to the erroneous and vncomfortable doctrine of the moderne Papists that it is presumption for any man to be assured of his saluation see further hereof elswhere Synops. Centur. 4. err 25. Controv. 29 Of the diuerse kinds of grace against the Romanists v. 21. So might grace also raigne c. The Popish Schoolemen haue certaine distinctions of grace which either are not at all to be admitted or else they must be first qualified before they can be receiued 1. Of the first kind is that distinction of grace that there is gratia gratis data gratia gratum faciens grace freely giuen and grace that maketh vs acceptable vnto God two exceptions may be taken hereunto 1. there is no grace but is freely giuē otherwise it were not of grace that is of fauour but they in making one kind of grace onely that is freely giuen they insinuate that there are other graces which are not freely giuen 2. the grace which maketh vs acceptable to God they hold to be a grace or habite infused for the which we are accepted wherein they erre in ascribing that to a created or infused grace which is onely the worke of the free grace and fauour of God toward vs this word grace is either taken actively for the loue grace and fauour of God or passiuely for those seuerall gifts and graces which are wrought in vs by the fauour of God the first grace is as the cause the other graces are the effects the first is without vs the other within vs the first is the originall grace in God the other are created graces Now we hold that we are made acceptable vnto God onely by the first grace of God toward vs which is grounded in Christ the Romanists ascribe our acceptance with God to the other see further hereof Synops. Centur. 4. err 27. 2. Of the other sort is the distinction of grace operans cooperans working and working together as the working grace is that which alone changeth the will and maketh it willing
the grace working together is that wherewith the will of man worketh for the effecting of that which it willeth This distinction must be qualified for to make the will of man a ioynt worker with grace is against the Apostle who saith that it is God which worketh in vs both the will and the deede Philip. 2.13 But thus it may be admitted that mans will beeing once mooued and regenerate by grace is not idle but then worketh with grace not of it owne strength but as it is still mooued and stirred by grace see further hereof Synops. Centur. 4. err 30. 3. Of this sort is that distinction of grace praeveniens subsequens grace preuenting and going before and following grace which are not indeede two diuerse or seuerall graces but diuerse effects of one and the same grace Gods grace preuenteth mans will and changeth it of vnwilling making it willing and then it followeth to make the will of man fruitful and effectuall and this we acknowledge but the grace subsequent or following is not merited or procured by the well vsing of the first preventing grace in which sense this distinction is to be reiected 6. Morall obseruations Observ. 1. To followe the workes of the flesh is enmitie against God v. 10. When we were yet enimies c. They which delight in such workes as God hateth are enimies to God whereupon Origen giueth this note quomodo reconciliat us est qui causam mimici secum gerit c. how can he be said to be reconciled to God which yet retaineth the cause of enmitie c. he then which continueth in such workes as are hatefull vnto God cannot be said to be reconciled by the blood of Christ as the Apostle further sheweth That no vnrighteous person shall inherite the kingdome of God 1. Cor. 6.9 Observ. 2. Of the reconciling of enemies v. 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled c. As God did reconcile vs to himselfe beeing yet his enemies so we are taught herein to be like vnto our heauenly father to be willing to be reconciled and to be at atonement with our enemies as Abraham made a league with Abimelech and as Iacob did the like with Laban who pursued him to haue wrought him some mischiefe Observ. 3. Wherein we ought to reioyce v. 11. We reioyce in God through our Lord Iesus c. The Apostle here sheweth wherein the ioy of a Christian consisteth that whereas the world reioyceth some in riches some in honour some in pleasure some in their strength humane wisedome and the like the Christian man is taught to reioyce in his redemption and saluation in Christ as our Blessed Sauiour would haue his Apostles to reioyce because their names were written in heauen Luk. 10.20 Obser. 4. Of the two kingdomes of grace and sinne life and death v. 17. If by one offence death raigned c. The Apostle here pointeth our two kingdomes the one of sinne and death the other of righteousnesse and life there are node in the world but belong vnto one of these kingdomes Therefore it must be our great care to examine our selues vnto which kingdome we are subiects by nature all are vnder the kingdome of darkenesse and from thence we cannot be deliuered but by Christ as the Apostle saith Coloss. 1.13 who hath deliuered vs from the Prince of darkenesse and hath translated vs to the kingdome of his deare Sonne we must therefore examine our selues whether we haue faith in Christ 2. Cor. 13.5 Observ. 5. Why the Lord suffereth his sometime to fall and to be plunged in sinne v. 20. Where sinne abounded there grace abounded much more c. God then sometime seemeth to leaue his children to themselues that they afterward beeing recouered and restored by grace may haue more experience of the goodnesse and mercie of God and of the excellencie of grace as Dauid after his fall repenting of his sinne celebrateth the multitude of Gods mercies Psal. 51.1 and Peter after he was converted was bid to strengtheâ— his brethren Luk. 22.32 as then beeing more able to comfort others by the experience of Gods mercie which he had himselfe receiued Observ. 6. None ought to despaire of forgiuenesse of sinne v 20. Grace abounded much more Grace is more predominant then sinne and the Apostle in the comparison set forth betweene Christ and Adam sheweth before that grace in Christ is more able to saue vs then sinne was in Adam to condemne vs let no man then despare of mercie and say with Cain his sinne is greater then can be forgiuen but rather with S. Paul Iesus Christ came into the world to saue sinners of whom I am chiefe 1. Tim. 1.15 CHAP. VI. 3. The text with the diuerse readings WHat shall we say then shall we continue in sinne that grace may abound or be encreased Be. 2. God forbid let it not be Gr. we that are dead to sinne how yet shall we liue therein 3. Knowe ye not brethren L. addit that as many of vs as haue beene baptized all we which haue beene baptized B. G. but the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Iesus Christ haue beene baptized into his death 4 We are buried together with him by baptisme into his death that like as Christ was raised did rise vp S. L. but the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was raised vp to the glorie Be. S.G. by the glorie L. B. V. but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by is here taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in of the father so we also should walke in newenesse of life 5 For if we be graft together with him G. Be. ad by the similitude of his death Be. S. B. rather then to the similitude G.L. for we are graft into Christ not into thâ—â— similitude so shall we be by the similtude which must be supplied out of the former clause some insert be partakers B. V. but the other word graft is better vnderstood of his resurrection 6 Knowing this that our old man is crucified with him that the bodie of sinne might be destroyed or abolished S.V. that henceforth we should not serue sinne 7 For he that is dead is iustified L.V. S.B. freed G.S. Be. but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifieth is iustified from sinne 8 Wherefore if we be dead with Christ we beleeue that we shall also liue with him 9 Knowing that Christ beeing raised not rising S. L. see ver 4. from the dead dieth no more death hath no more dominion ouer him 10 For in that he died he died once to sinne but in that he liueth he liueth vnto God 11 Likewise thinke yee also that yee are dead to sinne but are aliue to God in Iesus Christ our Lord. 12 Let not sinne therefore raigne in your mortall bodie that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof obey the lusts thereof S. L. but here the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is omitted 13 Neither yeeld your
members as weapons of vnrighteousnesse vnto sinne but yeeld giue G. B. exhibite L. apply V. S. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your selues vnto God as aliue vnto God from the dead and yeelde your members as weapons of righteousnesse vnto God 14 For sinne shall not haue dominion let it not raigne S. but the word is in the future tense for ye are not vnder the lawe but vnder grace 15 What then shall we sinne because we are not vnder the lawe but vnder grace God forbid let it not be Gr. as v. 1. 16 Knowe ye not that to whom ye yeeld your selues as seruants to obey his seruants ye are to whom ye obey whether it be of sinne vnto death or of obedience of the hearing of the eare S. vnto righteousnes 17 But God be thanked that ye haue beene the seruants of sinne but ye haue obeyed from the heart that forme of doctrine whereunto ye were deliuered 18 Beeing then made free from sinne ye are become the seruants of righteousnes 19 I speake after the manner of men I speake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some humane thing Gr. L.V. because of the infirmitie of your flesh for as ye haue yeelded your members seruants to serue L. to the seruice S. but the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seruants to vncleanes and iniquitie to commit iniquitie so now yeeld your members seruants to righteousnes and holines vnto sanctification L. V. S. 20 For when ye were the seruants of sinne ye were free vnto righteousnes from righteousnesse G. B. that is the meaning but the word in the originall is put in the datiue 21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed for the end of those things is death 22 But now beeing freed from sinne and made the seruants of God ye haue your fruit vnto holines in holines G. holy fruits S. and the ende euerlasting life 23 For the stipend stipends Gr. wages G. reward B. of sinne is death but the gift of God the grace of God L. the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a grace a gift is eternall life through Iesus Christ our Lord. 2. The Argument Method and Parts In this Chapter the Apostle sheweth the necessarie coniunction betweene iustification and holines and newenes of life and there are two parts thereof in the first to ver 12. he layeth downe the doctrine then he exhorteth v. 12. to the end In the doctrine he prooueth the necessitie 1. of mortification and dying to sinne propounded v. 1.2 from the efficacie of baptisme which signifieth that we are dead and buried with Christ v. 3.4 and from the ende of Christs crucifying v. 6.2 of sanctification propounded v. 8. prooued from the mysterie of baptisme v. 4.5 from the vertue of Christs resurrection who is risen and dieth no more ver 9.10 and then he concludeth ver 11. 1. The exhortation followeth which hath two parts 1. one dehorting from sinne which is propounded and explaned v. 12.13 then amplified by three arguments 1. from their present state and condition beeing vnder grace v. 14. with the preuenting of an obiection v. 15.2 from the inconveniencie of the seruice of sinne which is vnto death set forth by the contrarie v. 16.3 from the efficacie of the doctrine which they obeyed v. 17.2 the other part stirreth vp to newenesse of life propounded v. 18. amplified 1. à pari v. 19.20 as when they serued sinne they were free from righteousnesse so beeing freed from sinne they must be the seruants of righteousnesse ab effectis from the effects of sinne shame and death v. 21. which are amplified by the contrarie effects of sanctification holinesse v. 22. and eternall life set forth by the contrarie on the diuerse manner sinne deserueth death as the iust stipend but life eternall is not deserued it is Gods free gift v. 23. 3. The questions and doubts discussed Quest. 1. Of the meaning of these words shall we continue in sinne v. 1. 1. The Apostle preuenteth here an obiection which might be occasioned by the former words in the end of the fift chapter where the Apostle said where sinne abounded grace abounded much more by occasion of which words the Apostle might feare least two sorts of men might take advantage the false teachers which did continually picke quarrells with the Apostles doctrine as some affirmed that he said we might doe euill that good might come thereof c. 3.8 He might feare also least the weake might receiue encouragement hereby to nourish theâ— infirmities still 2. But either of these so inferring did misconster the Apostles words and in this kind of reasoning there are three Paralogismes or fallacies committed 1. they take non causam pro causa that which is not the cause for the cause for the abounding of sinne is not the cause of the abounding of grace Augustine saith non peccantis merito sed gratiae supervenient â—â—â—uxilio c. where sinne abounded grace abounded more not by the merit of the sinne 〈◊〉 by the meanes of helpe by grace c. the Apostles speach is to be vnderstood occasionaliter by way of occasion and they take it causaliter by way of a cause Hugo sinne in it owne nature is no more the cause of grace then the disease is of medicine Maâ—â— qui laudat beneficium medecinae non prodesse dicit morbos c. he that praiseth the benefit 〈◊〉 Phisicke doth not commend the disease Augustin so then mans vnrighteousnesse doth not in it selfe set forth the iustice of God but ex accidente by an accident Pareus proveniter bonitate Dei qui bona elicit ex malis it commeth of the goodnesse of God who decreeâ—â— good out of euill Lyran. 2. the second fallacie is in that they thus obiecting make the Apostles words more generall then he meant or intended them for the abounding of sinne is not the occasion of the abounding of grace in all but onely in those which acknowledge and confesse their sinnes Martyr as it is euident in damnatione malorum in the condemnation of the wicked Lyran. there Gods iustice rather then his grace and mercie sheweth it selfe 3. a third fallacie is they apply that to the time to come which the Apostle onely vttered of time past the abounding of sinne in men before their conuersion and repentance setteth forth the aboundance of the grace and mercie of God in the forgiuenesse of their sinnes past but not so if sinne abounded after their conuersion and calling Mart. 3. The Apostle propoundeth this obiection in the person of the aduersarie by way of interrogation thereby expressing both affectum indignantis the affection of one angrie and displeased that his doctrine should be thus perverted and he sheweth also securitatem conscientiae the securitie of his conscience that he was free from any such thought 4. By sinne neither doth the Apostle vnderstand the author of sinne namely the deuill as Origen for then one should be said improperly to remaine in sinne that is in the
deuill 2. Neither yet is it taken for fomes peccati the matter or occasion of sinne as Pererius which is the appetite or desire that stirreth vp to sinne Tolet misliketh this because sinne must be taken here in the same sense as it was vsed before in the ende of the former chapter where it is taken for sinne it selfe and Pet. Martyr addeth this reason because insulâ—â—â— peccati the assaults of sinne remaine still in the regenerate 3. but sinne is here taken for the corruption and depravation of our nature in the former chapter thereby was specially signified reatus the guilt of originall sinne deriued from Adam Beza for there are these two things in sinne the guilt deriued from Adam and the corruption of our nature which is the effect thereof Pareus Quest. 2. What it is to die vnto sinne v. 2. 1. The Apostle answeareth the former obiection negatiuely denying the consequent that it followeth not that because where sinne abounded grace abounded more that therefore we should sinne that grace may more abound and of this his answear the Apostle in this chapter giueth two reasons the one from the contraries that seeing we are dead vnto sinne we cannot still liue vnto it the other from the condition and propertie of seruants who must be wholly addicted to their seruice whose seruants they are then seeing we are the seruants of Christ we must no longer serue sinne v. 16. to the ende of the chapters 2. They are said to be dead vnto sinne that obey not the lusts thereof that are as dead men not to be mooued vnto sinne not to doe the workes thereof but this death of sinne is inchoatae onely begunne in this life it shall not be perfected till all corruption and mortalitie be taken away 3. There is great difference betweene these two phrases to die vnto sinne which the Apostle vseth here and to be dead in sinne Ephes. 2.1 the first is taken actiuely for the mortifying of sinne the other passiuely to be mortified in or by sinne and in this phrase the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in must be supplied as Coloss. 2.13 in the Latine tongue mori peccato to die to sinne is put in the datiue but mori peccato in the ablative signifieth to die with or by sinne Tolet And in this latter sense they are said to be dead absolutely without any other addition as v. 13. of this chapter and in other places Beza 4. Chrysostome here giueth this note that whereas sometime the Apostle saith sinne is dead here he saith we are dead to sinne quoniam auditorem excitare studet in illum transfert mortem because he could quicken the desire of the hearer he transferreth death to him that he beeing dead in sinne should abstaine therefrom Quest. 3. What it is to be baptized into Iesus Christ v. 3. 1. Origen thinketh that this is so said to make a difference betweene the baptisme of Christ wherewith we are baptized and the baptisme of Iohn which is not of Christ but of the lawe But seeing Iohn baptized in his name that was to come how was it not of Christ and if Iohns baptisme were of the lawe then Christ should haue beene baptized with an other kind of baptisme then his members which is not to be admitted 2. Some thinke as Ambrose in this place that the Apostles altered the forme of baptisme which was at the first prescribed to be done in the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost But it is not like that the Apostles would change that prescript forme which was appointed by Christ himselfe the Apostle maketh mention of Christ though he intend the whole Trinitie because as Origen saith whom Haymo followeth it was not convenient that the Apostle speaking of death vt nominaret vel patrem vel spiritum c. should name either the Father or the holy Ghost because the Sonne of God onely died for vs c. or rather mention is made onely of Christ because baptisme was of his institution and the benefits represented in baptisme were procured and purchased by Christ. 3. Some giue this sense to be baptized into Christ is to be baptized with that baptisme which hath the vertue and efficacie from Christ ex Tolet. Chrysostome vnderstandeth according to the similitude and example of Christ for that which the crosse and the grave were to Christ baptismus est factus nobis baptisme is become to vs. 4. Erasmus thus we are baptised into Christ that is in corpus eius mysticum into his mysticall bodie c. but the Apostle speaketh of Christ himselfe though it be true that they which are graft into Christ are also members of his mysticall bodie 5. The vulgar Latine readeth in Christo to be baptized in Christ not into Christ that is in fide Christi in the faith of Christ Lyran. or in institutione eius by his institution gloss interlin some also which followe the Greeke text and read into Christ doe thus interpret in nomine Christi in the name of Christ Mart. Pareus Faius But it is one thing to be baptized in Christ an other into Christ. 6. Wherefore by this phrase better is signified that we are by baptisme incorporated into Christ in Christo coalescentes we growe vp together with Christ Beza Genevens inâ—â—â—â—us Christum we put on Christ Calvin inserimur Christo we are graft into Christ Tolet. vt implantaremur that by baptisme we should be planted in Christ Osiander which phrase the Apostle vseth afterward v. 5. if we be grafted with him c. Quest. 4. Of the diuerse significations of the word baptisme and to be baptized 1. Haymo here maketh 4. kinds of baptisme 1. one with water onely such was the baptisme of Iohn that gaue not remission of sinnes 2. the baptisme of the spirit such was the baptisme of the Apostles in the day of Pentecost 3. the baptisme both with the spirit and water such as is now in vse in the Church 4. the baptisme of blood such as Martyrs are baptized with But 1. it is vntrue that Iohn onely baptized with water not with the spirit for he baptized for the remission of sinnes and when Christ was baptized the spirit descended in the likenesse of a doue 2. the other two baptismes of the spirit and the baptisme of blood are not properly baptismes but onely in a metaphoricall speach 2. This word baptisme is taken two waies either properly for the washing with water in the sacrament or figuratiuely as either for the receiuing of the gifts of the spirit as Acts 1.5 our Sauiour promiseth that his Apostles should be baptized with the holy Ghosts or as for the doctrine which accompanied Iohns Baptisme as Acts. 18.25 Apollos is said to haue knowne nothing but Iohns baptisme that is his doctrine Beza Acts 19.5 3. And as baptisme is diuersely taken so there are diuerse things in baptisme to be considered three visible three invisible the three visible the Minister that baptiseth
the party that is baptized and the water the three inuisible are the soule of the partie baptized which is cleansed and faith in those that are of yeares and the holy Ghost which worketh the remission of sinnes Haymo Quest. 5. What it is to be baptized into the death of Christ. v. 3. The Apostle vseth to this purpose three phrases to be baptized into the death of Christ to be buried by baptisme into his death v. 4. and to be graft into the similitude of his death v. 5. all these shall be handled together 1. Cyrillus thinketh it is said the similitude of his death because Christ rose againe from death and so it was rather an image and shadowe of death then a death in deede but thus he should confound these two which the Apostle ioyneth together the similitude of his death and of his resurrection 2. Origen noteth certaine heretikes who gathered hereupon that Christ died not indeed but onely had a certaine similitude of death visus est magis mori quà m vere mortuâ— est he seemed rather to die then indeede died But if it were so then as Origen inferred nec vera erat resurrectio neither was Christs resurrection in truth nec vere saluati sâ—â—â—â— neither should we be truely saued 3. Therefore Origen giueth this sense it is called the similitude of death because Christ so died vnto sinne that yet there was no sinne found in him which cannot agree vnto vs for to be without sinne solius Christi est it onely belongeth to Christ But this is not the Apostles meaning for he said before we were baptized into the death of Christ which is the same as to be graft into the similitude of his death 4. Origen also hath an other exposition that Christ is exemplum nobis ad imitationem propositum an example set before vs to imitate but this is daungerous because of the error of the Pelagians who thinke that our conformitie with Christ ariseth of our imitation of him as they held that originall sinne is nothing else but a corrupt imitation of Adam whereas indeed on the contrarie our imitating of Christ proceedeth of our conformitie with him and the word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 similitude or likenes but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is more then a bare likenesse it sheweth a conformitie vnto Christ Beza 5. Basil. lib. de baptis vnderstandeth it of baptisme which he saith is a similitude of the crosse and passion of Christ but the Apostle rather sheweth the effects and fruites of baptisme and baptisme representeth all the partes of regeneration both dying and beeing buried vnto sinne and rising vnto newnesse of life it is not a representation of his death onely 6. Chrysostome thus vnderstandeth the similitude of his death because Christs death was carnis of his flesh our death is peccati of sinne so also Haymo following Chrysostome in hoc est similitudo quod ille mortuus est corpore nos vitijs herein is the similitude he died in bodie and we to our sinne But here is more then a similitude onely vnto the death of Christ we receiue vertue and efficacie from his death to die vnto sinne 7. Some apply it vnto the manner of baptisme as Ambrose cum mergeris mortis suscipis sepulturae similitudinem when thou art drenched in the water then thou hast a certaine similitude of the death and resurrection of Christ lib. 2. de Sacram. c. 7. so Chrysostome nos quidem aqua ille tellure we are buried in the water he in the earth c. so also Lyranus baptizatus megitur in aqua he that is baptised is drenched in the water so also Gorrhan tertia immersio repraesentat triduum mortis the thrise dipping in the water representeth the three dayes of Christs death and the lifting vp out of the water his resurrection But if this were the meaning then of necessitie this ceremonie should be vsed in baptisme to goe into or to be drenched in the water 8. Wherefore to be baptized into Christs death and to be buried into his death and to be graft into the similitude of his death are applications in particular of that which the Apostle said before in generall that we are baptized into Christ for in baptisme all the fruits of Christs death buriall and resurrection are sealed vnto vs first on Gods behalfe the benefits procured by Christs death sepulture and resurrection are offred vnto vs in baptisme which is the Sacrament of faith whereby we are graft into Christ and we in baptisme doe for our parts professe to renounce the deuill the world and the flesh Pareus Our sinnes then are two waies mortified and buried first by the remission and not imputing of our sinnes purchased by the death of Christ which is our iustification then by our daily dying and beeing buried vnto sinne which is our sanctification Melancthon and both these are represented in baptisme and communicated vnto vs by faith in Christ by the vertue of whose death we die vnto sinne and by the power of his resurrection we rise vp to newenesse of life like as the branches receiue iuyce and sappe from the tree And though the death of Christ were in respect of the nature that died corporall yet in respect of the person which died beeing God and man the effects were spirituall in causing vs to die vnto sinne and to rise vp to newenesse of life Gorrhan Quest. 7. Of the meaning of this phrase to be graft c. 1. Chrysostome thus applyeth this similitude as the bodie of Christ beeing in the earth fructum edidit orbis salutem c. brought forth fruit the saluation of the world so ours being buried in baptisme fructum attulit iustitiam bringeth forth fruit namely righteousnes but in this application here onely is shewed a likenes betweene Christ and vs the efficacie is not mentioned which we receiue from Christ. 2. Haymo thus expoundeth it Christ as a tree pascit vmbram praestat both feedeth and giueth shadowe he feedeth the angels contemplatione by contemplation of him homines cognitione men he feedeth by the knowledge of him but here no reason is shewed why we are said to be graft into Christ. 3. Origen thus vrgeth the similitude omnis planta post hyemis mortem resurrectionem veris expectat euerie plant after the death as it were of winter expecteth the resurrection as it were of the spring so Christs death was as the winter and his resurrection as the spring and this world is vnto vs as winter but the spring shall be in the resurrection 4. Oecumenius vseth this allusion like as the plant that which is set into the ground quandam mortificationem sustinet c. vndergoeth a kind of mortifying and then sprouteth out againe so Christ as a plant was laid in the earth but rose againe and we also beeing as plants buried in water in baptisme doe come forth to bring forth fruit But in these two explications as
in the first the reason is not shewed why we are said to be graft into Christ but onely the similitude explained how he is said to be graft and we also 5. Erasmus because the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 planted together referreth it to the planting of the Iewes and Gentiles together into one bodie But Tolet well obserueth annot 5. that the Apostle speaketh of our planting into Christ not of one into an other 6. The meaning then of this phrase is this that Christ is the vine and we the branches as our Sauiour sheweth Iob. 15. and so we are by faith whereof baptisme is the Sacrament and seale planted and graft into Christ and doe receiue of his grace and spirit as the branches receiue the iuyce of the tree and as the tree and branches die together and growe together so Christs death causeth vs to die to sinne and his resurrection maketh vs to rise vnto newnesse of life Pareus But as similitudes must not be vrged in euerie point so must not this for betweene the naturall grafting of plants and our supernaturall and spirituall planting into Christ there is great difference for in the one the stocke for the most part is the worst but the science or plant is of a better kind and correcteth the euilnes of the stocke but here it is farre otherwise for we are of our selues wild plants and the stocke into the which we are planted is good and full of sappe Martyr Quest. 8. What resurrection the Apostle speaketh of v. 5. 1. There is some difference in the reading of the words Chrysostome who thinketh that the Apostle speaketh here de futura resurrectione of the resurrection to come will not haue the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 similitude supplyed non subiunxit similitudini resurrectionis the Apostle added not and to the similitude of the resurrection But then the Greeke construction cannot hang together if for of the resurrection beeing in the genitiue case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 graft in which before is ioyned with a datiue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the similitude Haymo will haue it put in the datiue to the resurrection but in the originall it is in the genetive Therefore the word similitude must be supplied that as he said before we are graft into the similitude of his death so we shall be to the similitude of his resurrection and so Origen also readeth 2. Concerning the meaning of these words Chrysostome Origen Tertullian Haymo with others vnderstand them of the second resurrection and they vrge this reason because the Apostle putteth the word in the future erimus we shall be Chrysostome and whereas else where the Apostle speaketh in the time past hath raised vs vp together Ephes. 2.5 but here in the future Origen thereupon inferreth that there are two resurrections one of the mind in this life the other of the bodie in the next But this is no argument taken from the time for the Apostle speaketh in the future tense because our renouation is not perfect in this life but we must daily rise from the dead workes of sinne to the newnes of life Beza 3. The Apostle then here specially intendeth the first resurrection vnto newenesse of life as he said before as Christ was raised vp from the dead by the glorie of the father not to the glorie of the father as Beza and the Syrian interpreter for the praeposition is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per thorough yet it signifieth that Christ beeing raised vp by the glorious power of the Godhead for he hath one power with his father was raised vp to liue in glorie as the Apostle faith afterward v. 10. he liueth vnto God so we should walke in newenesse of life 4. Yet from hence also we haue an assurance of the resurrection of our bodies Calvin that by Christs resurrection we now are raised vp to the life of righteousnesse and afterward to the life of glorie as the Apostle ioyneth them both together Coloss. 2.3 for yee are dead and your life is hid with Christ in God when Christ which is our life shall appeare then shall yee also appeare with him in glorie Mart. Quest. 9. What is vnderstood by the old man v. 6. 1. The old man some take for the bodie the newe for the soule as Haymo alleadgeth out of Augustine but euen the prauitie of the affections and mind are part of this old man and therefore the Apostle saith Ephes. 4.23 be renewed in the spirit of your minde 2. Neither is the old man here taken for mans nature but the corruption thereof as Theodoret veterem hominem non naturam appellat sed pravam mentem the old man he calleth not our nature but the depraued minde and in that he saith our old man he distinguisheth the old man from our selues then we our selues are not this old man but it is aliqâ—â—d nostrum something of ours Pareus 3. Now it is called the old man in two respects first as Adam the old man is compared with the latter Adam and from Adam is deriued originall sinne which bringeth forth such euill fruites in vs before we are regenerate secondly in respect of our selues because our former conuersation is old beeing compared with our renovation and regeneration Beza the first both is according to the first Adam in sinne our second and new birth is according to the latter Adam in holines and righteousnesse 4. To this our state in the old man belong these three things 1. the guiltines of sinne 2. the custome and continuance in sinne 3. fomes peccati the occasion procurement enrising vnto sinne which proceedeth from the sinne of our parents ex Thom. 5. But whereas the ordinar gloss giueth this note that whereas the oldnes of our nature consisteth in two things in culpa poena in the fault and punishment Christus sus simpla vetustaie duplicem nostram consumpsit Christ by his single oldnes that is his death hath taken away both ours c. this can no way agree with the scope of the Apostle for if the old man be of Adam and we are made newe in Christ then cannot the old man be said to be in Christ. Quest. 10. What is meant by the bodie of sinne v. 6. that the bodie of sinne might be destroyed 1. Haymo propoundeth this interpretation among others that as Christ is the head of the elect and they with all their vertuous actions are his bodie so the deuill is as the head of sinne and the vngodly with all their sinnes are his bodie so that this bodie of sinne should haue relation vnto the deuill as the head but this bodie of sinne the Apostle called before our old man it hath relation to our selues not vnto the deuill 2. Some do take this bodie for our flesh in qua peccatum haeret whereto sinne cleaueth Beza Genevens and before them Theodoret but this cannot agree with the phrase which the Apostle
here vseth that the bodie of sinne may be destroyed for the bodie is not crucified or destroyed but sinne which dwelleth in the bodie 3. Origen hath an other exposition by the bodie of sinne we may vnderstand proprium aliquod corpus the proper bodie of sinne whereof these are the members fornication vncleannes inordinate affection with other particular sinnes as S. Paul calleth them Coloss. 3.4 and this sense followeth Chrysostome this bodie of sinne he vnderstandeth to be vniuersam malitiā nostram the whole malice of our nature so Lyran. congeries peccatorum the companie of sinnes is called the bodie of sinne as there is a bodie also of vertues and good workes Gorrhan as Matth. 6.22 If thine eye be single the whole bodie shall be light if it be wicked the whole bodie shall be darke 4. And this multitude and companie of sinnes is so called for diuerse reasons 1. because as the bodie hath diuerse members so our inborne concupiscence brancheth forth into diuerse sinnes Mart. 2. propter robur tyrannidem because of the strength and tyrannie which it exerciseth in the children of disobedience Faius 3. quod ab eo facile homines divelli non possunt because men cannot easily be plucked from their sinnes no more then from their bodie Phocius 4. because men are addicted to their sinnes and loue it as themselues Photius ibid. 5. But in this place the Apostle vseth this phrase the bodie of sinne because he had spoken of crucifying before bodies vse to be crucified Pareus and we are as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it were concorporated with Christ which word the Apostle vseth Ephes. 3.6 and we were crucified in his bodie vpon the crosse together with him 5. But here we must take heede of the error of Florius Illyricus who did hold that originall sinne was a substance and not an accident onely because it is called here a bodie and the old man But this is a metaphoricall speach it is called a bodie by a certaine similitude as it is shewed before and the Apostle calleth it afterward verse 12. sinne in the mortall bodie it is therefore a kinde of spirituall bodie in these our mortall bodies 6. But in that the Apostle addeth that we should not serue sinne he sheweth that the regenerate are not quite freed from sinne but sinne doth not raigne in them neither are they seruants any longer vnto it so we must make a difference betweene these two peccare and peccato servire to sinne and to serue sinne the regenerate doe sinne while they are in the flesh but they doe no longer serue sinne Bucor Quest. 11. How the dead are said to be freed from sinne v 7. 1. Some do vnderstand this of the spirituall death in baptisme before spoken of Lyran. Ofiand P. Martyr thinketh that the Apostle speaketh of mortification which is the effect of iustification not de morte naturae of the death of nature But then this had beene a repetition of that which he said before vers 6. whereas it containeth rather a reason thereof 2. Some vnderstanding this to be spoken of the naturall death of the bodie from whence the Apostle taketh his similitude by beeing freed or iustified from sinne doe meane purgatum esse à peccatis to be purged from sinne Basil. lib. de baptis But this cannot be that all the dead should be purged from their sinne though they cease from the actions thereof 3. This better is interpreted of the naturall death that they which are dead do thenceforth cease from the actions of sinne and so Chrysostome vnderstandeth here the word iustified liber est à peccatis is free from sinne that is the actions of sinne cease Calvin like as a seruant when he dieth is free from the seruice of his master as Iob. 3.19 so he which is dead is free from the dominion of sinnes past then the theefe ceaseth to steale the adulterer to commit adulterie the word then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is iustified is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is freed which word the Apostle vseth v. 18. and it is a synecdoche when one kind is taken for the whole to be iustified and absolued in iudgement is one kind of freedome and it is taken here for the generall to be set free as a theefe dying is set free by death as if he had beene iustified and absolued in iudgement Piscator 4. But hence it followeth not that the dead doe not sinne afterward they are free from the sinnes committed in the bodie yet the wicked euen after death beeing tormented in hell doe not cease to sinne beeing full of despaire blasphemie impenitencie and therefore their sinnes not ceasing their punishments cannot determine Let this be obserued against the opinion of the Origenists who inferre that because when men are dead there is an ende of their sinne that at the length there shall be an ende of their punishment and God shall haue mercie vpon them Quest. 12. What life the Apostle speaketh of v. 8. We beleeue that we shall also liue with him 1. Some vnderstand it of life euerlasting in coelo post generalem resurrectionem in heauen after the generall resurrection Haymo so also Origen Chrysostome Theodoret but it is euident that the Apostle speaketh of the life of grace v. 11. ye are dead to finde but are aliue to God c. 2. Neither is it to be vnderstood onely de vita gratiae of the life of grace as Lyran Tolet annot 8. and Basil vnderstandeth it of the newenesse of life lib. de baptism for the AApostle thus expoundeth himselfe 2. Tim. 2.11.12 if we be dead with him we shall also liue with him that is shall raigne with him as the Apostle saith in the next verse following if we suffer we shall also raigne with him 3. Wherefore the Apostle by liuing with Christ vnderstandeth generally both the life of grace present and of glorie afterward Mart. and this life is distinguished into three degrees 1. our regeneration in rising vnto newenes of life 2. our perseuerance in continuing vnto the end 3. the third degree is in euerlasting life after the resurrection Pareus Quest. 13. How death is said to haue had dominion ouer Christ v. 9. In that the Apostle saith v. 9. Death hath no more dominiō ouer him it is inferred that death had sometime dominion ouer him 1. Origen to remooue this doubt how death may be said to haue had dominion of Christ vnderstandeth it of his going downe to hell ad locum vbi mors regnavit vnto the place where death raigned but thus the doubt remaineth still for Christ whom he would haue descend to hell went thither as a conquerour hell had no dominion ouer him therefore that cannot be the meaning 2. and Haymo his interpretation is as harsh who by death vnderstandeth the deuil which had dominion by his ministers as he entred into the heart of Iudas Christo permittente by the permission of Christ it is
harder to say that the deuill had dominion then death ouer Christ. 3. Origen hath an other exposition that Christ dominatum pertulerit mortis quia formam servi susceperat did beare the dominion of death because he tooke vpon him the forme of a seruant and vpon all such death hath dominion but it was not necessarie that Christ should haue died though he had taken vpon him our nature seeing he was without sinne which causeth death 4. Wherefore death is said to haue had dominion quia sponte volens se subiecit mâ—rti because he willingly submitted himselfe to death for our sinne Mart. Calvin Quest. 14. How Christ is said to haue died to sinne v. 10. 1. Hilarie lib. 9. de Trinitat thus readeth that which died died once to sinne and vnderstandeth it of Christs bodie making the article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a relatiue of the neuter gender so also Laurentius Valla and Iacobus Stapulens but this would seeme to fauour the Nestorian heresie that diuideth Christs person to say that Christ died not but his bodie died and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be taken for the coniunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that he died as Galath 2.20 in that now I liue to this purpose Erasmus Beza 2. For the meaning Hilarie thus expoundeth Christ died to sinne quia mortuus corpore because he died in the bodie wherein was the similitude of sinne lib. 9. de Trinit so also Augustine in Enchirid. 3. Haymo thus mortuus est semel peccato id est semper he died once to sinne that is alwaies because he neuer had sinne at all 4. Some vnderstand sinne as the cause wherefore Christ died that the sinnes of the world were the cause why Christ died so Ambrose he died for sinne that is for or because of sinners serm 18. in Psal. 18. 5. But the better sense is that Christ died to sinne that is tollendo to take away sinne so Chrysostome mortuus est vt illud tollerat he died for sinne to take it away Christ died otherwise to sinne then we doe ille expiando nos amitiendo he to expiate and purge our sinnes we to leaue it Pareus Quest. 15. How Christ is said now to liue vnto God ver 10. 1. Oecumenius thus vnderstandeth he liueth to God eo quod sit Deus because he is God that is by his diuine vertue 2. Pareus thus ad gloriam Dei patris he liueth to the glorie of God his father that by his life the Church should be glorified but thus Christ liued in the dayes of his flesh both by the power of God and to the glorie of his father as our Blessed Sauiour himselfe saith Ioh. 6.57 As the liuing father hath sent me so liue I by the father 3. Neither is Christ said so to liue vnto God as we are said in the next verse to be aliue vnto God that is by the spirit of grace for so Christ liued vnto God all the dayes of his flesh 4. Chrysostome thus expoundeth it to liue to God sine fine vinere is to liue without ende that is eternally neuer any more to die 5. But not onely the eternitie of Christs life is hereby expressed but the glorie and maiestie also as Haymo interpreteth he liueth in gloriam paternae maiestatis in the glorie of the maiestie of his father as Reuel 18. And am aliue but was dead and behold I am aliue for euermore c. 6. And by this phrase is expressed the indissoluble vnion which Christ hath with God the father the Apostle hereby doth not onely signifie that he now liueth in eternall happines sed indivulse Deo haerere but is inseparably ioyned vnto God Martyr Quest. 16. Of these words v. 11. likewise thinke yee c. 1. Likewise thinke ye 1. Origen saith the Apostle vseth this word because this death which he speaketh of namely dying to sinne in cogitatione consistit non in effectu consisteth in the cogitation not in any externall effect 2. Chrysostome because that which he speaketh of non potest ad oculum repraesentari cannot be represented to the eye but is apprehended by faith 3. Haymo giueth this sense they must in memoriam reducere often bring to remembrance and bethinke themselues that they are dead to sinne so also Tolet annot 15. and Faius 4. but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth rather collect yee gather ye it is the inference of the conclusion from the head to the members that we are certainely dead by the commemoration of his death so is the word vsed c. 3.28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we conclude Beza Pareus 2. Dead to sinne but aliue to God Some doe interpret this of the life of the Saints in the resurrection when they shall liue to God for euer neuer to die any more but the Apostle speaketh of the life of grace as the next verse sheweth 3. In Iesus Christ c. 1. Origen maketh this the sense to liue in righteousnesse holines peace is to liue in Christ because Christ is all these and to the same purpose Chrysostome he that hath obtained Christ hath receiued euery vertue and grace with him 2. Gorrhan referreth it to the imitation of Christ making the seuere parts of Christs life an example of so many degrees of our spirituall life to his conception answeareth propositum the purpose of newe life to his natiuitie our regeneration to his death our labour in dying to sinne to his sepulture cessatio vitiorum the ceasâ—ing of sinne to his resurrection answeareth nova vita iustorum the newe life of the righteous to his asscention processus virtâ—tum our proceeding in vertue to his sitting at the right hand of God gloria beatorum the glorie of the Blessed Saints 3. But here is more signified then a similitude or conformitie to and an imitation of Christ the Apostle expresseth the author and efficient cause of our dying vnto sinne and liuing vnto God namely Christ Iesus Christo auxiliante Christ helping vs Oecumen Christi opere by the worke of Christ gloss interlin per Christum mediatorem by Christ our Mediator Lyran. as the Apostle saith Galath 2.20 I liue by faith in the Sonne of God Bucer Pareus with others Quest. 17. How sinne is said not to raigne c. ver 12. 1. Chrysostome and Theodorets obseruation seemeth here to be somewhat curious that the Apostle speaketh of the raigning not of the tyrannizing of sinne the difference betweene which two is this the one is of necessitie the other is voluntarie he would not haue them willingly to submit themselues in obedience vnto sinne although it doe play the tyrant in suggesting euill thoughts and desires yet they should resist them and not suffer sinne to haue a peaceable kingdome to this purpose Theodoret But this distinction is not necessarie for the kingdome of sinne in man is a meere tyrannie the kingdome properly in man is peculiar to the spirit because sinne vsurpeth vpon them that by right are
an others subiects euen Gods and though the wicked doe obey sinne willingly yet it is of necessitie also because it is not in their power to resist sinne 2. Gregorie better observeth vpon this place that the Apostle saith not let not sinne be but let it not raigne quia non esse non potest it cannot but be in our members but it may not raigne 3. Pererius here confuteth Beza for giuing this note vpon this place the Apostle sheweth how farre we are dead to sinne while we are in this life vt reluctetur spiritus non tamen vincat that the spirit alway resisteth but ouercommeth not c. whereupon he thus cauilleth that if the spirit ouercome not the flesh then is it ouercome of the flesh But Beza his meaning onely is that our sanctification is not perfect in this life but that there remaineth some relique of sinne which alwayes resisteth the spirit as the Apostle sheweth in his owne example c. 7. so the spirit ouercommeth in part because sinne raigneth not in the regenerate but there is not a perfect victorie in this life because sinne hath a dwelling still and beeing in vs in this mortall flesh though the kingdome thereof be subdued Quest. 18. What the Apostle meaneth by mortall bodie ver 12. Let not sinne raigne in your mortall bodie c. 1. Chrysostome thinketh this is added by way of encouragement to signifie certamina in hac re temporaria esse that the strife and combate herein is but temporarie so also Photius he sheweth quod temporaria sit contra peccatum lucta that the fight against sinne is but temporall because the bodie is mortall and for a time 2. Origen hath two interpretations first the Apostle speaketh of the dead bodie to shewe that sinne neede not raigne in vs for he that is dead is free from sinne but the Apostle saith not in mortuo sed mortali corpore in the dead but in the mortall bodie there is great difference betweene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dead v. 7. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mortall which is the word vsed here 3. Further he saith that the Apostle calleth this bodie mortall ad distinctionem alterius corporis quod immortale est to distinguish it from that other bodie which is immortall when sinne shall haue no dominion or command at all ouer vs this sense Tolet also followeth 4. The ordinarie glosse further addeth that here is a secret promise of immortalitie si non regnet peccatum if sinne raigne not the bodie nowe mortall shall be afterward immortall 5. Theophylact thinketh that mention is made of the mortall bodie to signifie that all the pleasures of the bodie are but momentanie minus sunt stabiles corporis voluptates and therefore they are not much to be desired to the same purpose Bucer ne innitamur rei fallacissima that beeing admonished by our owne frailtie we should not trust to so vncertaine and deceitfull a thing 6. Theophylact noteth beside that hereby the Apostle insinuateth mortalitatem hanc fuisse corpori à delicto inditam that this mortalitie was inflicted vpon the bodie by reason of sinne and so we should by the meditation of death and mortalitie be terrified from sinne 7. But as these notes and collections may safely be receiued so this further may be added that the Apostle maketh mention specially of the mortall bodie because the partes and members thereof are the instruments of sinne that although the minde are inward faculties be tempted yet that we should resist and not bring the euill motions and suggestions into execution and this may appeare to be the Apostles meaning by the next words v. 13. neither giue your members as weapons of vnrighteousnesse c. Beza 8. Some thinke that the Apostle insinuateth the daunger of eternall death that if sinne doe raigne corpus moriturum est in aeternum the bodie shall die eternally gloss interlin but the bodie is said to be mortall in respect of the present mortall state because it is subiect to death 9. P. Martyr thinketh the meaning to be this because the concupiscence which the Apostle would not haue here to raigne in vs is per corpus derivatum deriued from Adam to vs by the bodie But I preferre the former interpretations but especially the 7. yet so as that with Ambrose by mortall bodie we vnderstand the whole state of man both the powers of soule and bodie by the figure synecdoche when one part is taken for the whole So also Pareus Faius Quest. 19. Of those words that yee should obey it in the lustes c. v. 12. 1. The Syrian interpreter readeth that yee should obey the lusts thereof but here the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is omitted which is referred to the first antecedent sinne that ye should not obey it that is sinne which is put in the feminine gender in the lusts thereof that is of the bodie and therefore Beza to take away the anbiguitie explaineth it thus that yee should obey sinne in the lusts thereof 2. The Apostle putteth it in the plurall lusts because from the prauitie and corruption of our nature doe arise many and diuerse lusts and concupiscences Martyr 3. Thus sinne is compared to a tyrant raigning and raging the lusts are as the edicts and precepts of sinne whereby it raigneth and ruleth men yeelding to their corrupt concupiscence as are the vassals and slaues of sinne Calvin 4. The Apostle expoundeth himselfe what he meant before by the raigning of sinne that is to obey it no man in this mortall bodie can be void of concupiscence and vnlawfull desires but the faithfull must striue against them and not become subiect vnto them Pellican 5. This obedience consisteth in two things the one to be at command to obey and yeeld subiection vnto sinne the other to take vp armes in the defence of sinne which is touched in the verse following Pareus 6. Concupiscence is taken two waies sometime it is the name fomitis innati of that inborne occasion and originall of sinne sometime actus interioris of the inward act of the minde whereof there are three degrees there is propassio the propassion or first motion then delectatio the delight thirdly consensus the consent the Apostle here speaketh not of the first motion which no man can helpe but of the second and third which by Gods grace may be staied that a man neither delight in or consent vnto those euill motions which arise in his mind gloss ordinar 7. Neither is this a superfluous exhortation vnto them whom he said before v. 11. to be dead to sinne that sinne should not raigne in them because our mortification is not here perfect but euery day more and more we must proceed therein and by such exhortations is our mortification still perfited Pareus 8. And here by lusts we must vnderstand not the naturall desire and lust of the bodie as after meate drinke sleepe and such like but the vnnaturall vnnecessarie and
inordinate lasts as specially after these things which concerne the tast feeling and such like Faius Quest. 20. How we are not to giue our members as weapons vnto sinne v. 13. 1. Chrysostome here noteth that the bodie as a middle and indifferent thing betweene sinne and righteousnesse it may be both vsed as weapons for sinne and as an instrument of righteousnesse as both the souldier vseth armour of defence for his countrie and the theefe against it and he maketh mention here of two Kings God and sinne shewing what great difference and oddes there is betweene them that it should be a shame for vs to leaue the seruice of God and to betake vs to the vile seruitude of sinne 2. Origen here also ascribeth a difference in the Apostles phraise he speaking of iniquitie maketh mention onely of our members which must not be giuen as weapons vnto it but he willeth vs to giue our selues vnto God because when first we haue deuoted our selues our inward minde and desire to Gods seruice so we shall make also our members instruments of holines 3. Theophylact noteth that sinne is called by the name of iniquitie because he that sinneth in scipsum vel in proximum iniurius est is iniurious and vniust against himselfe or his neighbour 4. By members we must not vnderstand onely the externall partes of the bodie as the eyes eares hands but the inward also as will affection heart that none of these must become the instruments of vnrighteousnesse Pareus 5. The Apostle setteth downe two partes of our seruice vnto God as he did before of seruice to sinne the first is obedience and subiection giue your selues vnto God the other is to striue and fight for the kingdome of righteousnesse as before he forbad them to vse their members as weapons for sinne Pareus 6. The Apostle inserting these words as aliue from the dead giueth a reason why we should not serue sinne but bequeath our selues to the seruice of God because we hauing receiued so great a benefit as to be raised in Christ from the death of sinne should now as no more dead but as liuing serue God and therefore in this regard iustum est it is iust as Chrysostome inferreth so the Apostle saith are aliue and therefore potestis yea may and ye were dead and therefore debetis ye ought to giue your selues vnto God gloss interline Origen maketh it as an effect and consequent of the former that in giuing your selues to God yea by this meanes shall die vnto sinne and liue vnto righteousnesse but it is rather a reason taken from the ende of our spirituall mortification as is obserued before out of Chrysostome Quest. 21. What it is not to be vnder the law but vnder grace v. 14. There are two things which doe encourage men to fight bonitas causa facilitas victoriae the goodnes of the cause and the facilitie of the victorie both these arguments the Apostle vseth here the goodnesse of the cause he shewed before which was to take part with God and to fight his battels against sinne the easines of the victorie he now setteth forth because we are not vnder the law but vnder grace which doth helpe vs and giue vs strength to resist sinne But these words are diuersely expounded 1. Origen vnderstandeth here the law of the members which continually resisteth against the law of the minde But as Beza well noteth the law of the members is not put absolutely without any other addition as it is here but alwaies something is added by way of explanation 2. Neither doth the Apostle speake here of the ceremoniall or iudiciall law from both which we are free from the first wholly both from the obligation but not from the substance in obseruing the equitie of these lawes the Apostle speaketh of neither of these but of the morall law against the which the concupiscence of the flesh continually inciteth and stirreth men vp 3. The Apostle then speaketh here of the morall law in the which three things are to be considered the substance in the obseruation thereof and the consequents either iustification in obseruing it or malediction if it be not obserued the question is in which of these respects we are said to be free from the law and not vnder it in this place it is confessed of of all that we are free from the iustification by the workes of the law the question is here of the other two the malediction of the law and the obseruation or obedience of it some take the first to be here meant that not to be vnder the law but vnder grace is not to be vnder the curse of the law but to haue remission of sinnes in Christ so Haymo ye are not vnder the law quae punit damnat peccatores which punisheth and condemneth sinners but vnder the grace of Christ that is the remission of sinnes to the same purpose Vatablus to be vnder grace is to haue the conscience assured omne peccatum nobis remissum esse c. that all sinne is remitted vs by the mercie of God so also Calvin they are not vnder the law that is opera eorum non exiguntur ad severum legis examen their workes are not now exacted according to the seuere censure and examination of the law thus also Melancthor Piscator likewise legi satisfecistis in Christo yea haue satisfied the law in Christ But Beza refuteth this interpretation vpon this reason because the Apostle speaketh not here of the remission of sinnes but of mortification and of the fruites of righteousnesse begunne in vs by the spirit 4. Some doe vnderstand it of the obseruation of the law in respect of the manner not of the substance for we are still vnder the obedience of the law to performe the holy workes and duties which are therein prescribed but we are not now vnder the law for the manner of our obedience to be forced thereunto by feare and terrour but the grace of God maketh vs willing and able in some measure to keepe the law which prescribed what was to be done but helped not toward the doing thereof thus Augustine Lex reos faciebat iubendo non adiuvando gratia adiuvat vt quisqne sit legis factor the law made men guiltie in commanding not in helping but grace helpeth euery one to be a doer of the law And to this purpose he maketh sowre degrees of men ante legem sub lege sub gratia in pace before the law vnder the law vnder grace in peace ante legem non pugnamus before the law we do not so much as fight or striue against sinne at all vnder the law pugnamus sed vincimur we fight but are ouercome vnder grace pugnamus vincimus we fight and by grace ouercome sinne in pace ne pugnamus quidem but in the state of peace which is in the kingdome of heauen we shall not so much as fight because then all our spirituall enemies shall be
Cor. 15.32 S. Paul had fought with beasts at Ephesus after the manner of men as others vsed to doe 4. sometime it is referred to the humane and ordinarie phrase of speaking as in this place 4. Places of Doctrine 1. Doct. That baptisme is not to be iterated v. 3. Haue beene baptised into his death c. Hence it is inferred that baptisme is not to be iterated or more then once to be administred because as men are but once naturally borne and are once to die so because in baptisme our spirituall birth and death are represented it sufficeth once to be baptised this maketh against the Hemerobaptistae which thinke it necessarie daily and often to be baptised but as man hath but one naturall birth so our supernaturall birth in baptisme is sufficient 2. Doct. That infants haue sinne In that the Apostle saith of all that they are baptised into the death of Christ that is to die vnto sinne that the bodie of sinne might be destroied as he saith v. 6. hence Augustine concludeth lib. 6. cont Iulian. c. 1. that children haue sinne for to what end else should they be baptised to die vnto sinne 3. Doct. Of the comparing and conferring of Scriptures together v. 3. All we which haue beene baptised vnto Iesus Christ c. Hence Origen noteth because the Apostle addeth not all we that are baptised in the name of the Father the Sonne and holy Ghost that it is his manner when he citeth any Scripture not to alleadg the whole text but those things onely quae praesentis causae requirit assertio which the state of the present cause requireth Pareus further addeth that what is breefely touched in some place of Scripture is more at large handled in another as here the misterie of baptisme is opened which is but breefely set forth in the first institution of baptisme where Christ onely biddeth to preach and baptise in the name of the Trinitie 4. Doct. Of the misteries set forth in baptisme v. 3. Here are three misticall points expressed in baptisme 1. in that we are said to be baptised into Christ whereby is signified our implanting and grafting into Christ which word the Apostle vseth v. 5.2 there is a communicating of the death and resurrection of Christ his death with all the fruites thereof is applied vnto vs 3. our renouation and newnes of life with our spirituall dying vnto sinne is also shadowed forth in baptisme Pareus 5. Doct. Of the distinction of sinne raigning and not raigning v. 12. Let not sinne raigne c. All sinne in the wicked and vnregenerate is peccation regnans raigning sinne whether it be originall or actuall because they giue the reine vnto sinne and obey the lusts thereof In the regenerate though to speake properly there be no absolute kingdome of sinne because it cannot possesse them totally and finally but at length they wrestle forth yet euery sinne in the regenerate committed against their conscience and depriuing them for the time of the hope of remission of sinnes is a raigning sinne when they doe not resist it but obey the lusts thereof such was Dauids adulterie sinne not raigning in them is their originall concupiscence their infirmities sinnes of ignorance omission and such like which they doe daiely mourne for and striue against 6. Doct. What manner of seruice must be performed to righteousnesse v. 19. As you haue giuen your members servants to vncleannes c. so c. We must serue righteousnesse as before we serued sinne 1. libenter willingly and cheerefully 2. vigilanter 3. celeriter speedely not putting off our seruice 4. potenter mightily with all our strength and power 5. ardenter earnestly zealously not coldly or slackely 6. indesinenter constantly without ceasing intermission or giuing ouer Gorrhan 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. Against the administring of the sacraments in an vnknowne tongue v. 3. Know ye not c. Hayma taketh this to be a reprehension of the Apostle reproouing them for their ignorance as if he should haue said certe id puto ignoratis I verily thinke ye are ignorant and if ye be I will shew it vnto you c. But Origen better inferreth that the Apostle speaketh taquam scientibus edoctis as to men of knowledge c wel taught hereupon he sheweth that in the Apostles time the vse was otherwise then in his daies non et numie fieri videmus typus tantum modo mysteriorum bis qui baptizantur sed virtus corum ratio tradebatur then not onely the type it selfe and misterie of the sacrament was deliuered to those which were baptized as now is vsed to be done but the efficacie and reason thereof c. the meaning of the sacrament explaned so that none were ignorant what was signified thereby as the Apostle speaking here of baptisme and of the spirituall vse and signification therof appealeth vpon their knowledge which sheweth the superstition of the Romanists who cause the sacraments to be administred vnto their people in the latine tongue and so they are kept in ignorance not knowing the right vse of the sacraments but resting onely in the outward ceremonies superstitious vsages which they haue brought in and added to the sacraments Controv. 2. Concerning inherent iustice Stapleton a notable champion for the Romanists Antidot p. 312. thus reasoneth out of the Apostles words v. 2. for inherent iustice they which are dead to sinne are wholly renewed in the inward man and so by their renouation are acceptable vnto God and thereby iustified but by the grace of Christ we die vnto sinne not to liue vnto the same any more Ergo thereby we are accepted of God and reconciled to him Contra. The proposition diuersely fayleth 1. this renouation of the inward man is not totall or perfect but onely in part though sinne doe no longer raigne in them that are iustified yet the reliques thereof remaine still the vnderstanding will and affections are but reformed in part for the Apostle faith we know in part 1. Cor. 13.9 and as our knowledge is such is our charitiâ— indeede in the next world when we are glorified all imperfection shall be done away and we shall be perfect as God is perfect but while we dwell in these houses of clay we are compassed with many imperfections 2. This our renovation though it be not perfect yet is accepted thorough the perfect obedience of Christ but it is not accepted as our iustification whereby we are reconciled vnto God for that which instifieth vs must be perfect which is onely the righteousnesse of Christ applyed vnto vs by faith See further touching inherent iustice Synops. Centur. 4. exr 56. and Contr. 14. following Controv. 3. That the Sacrament of baptisme doth not conferre grace by the outward worke v. 3. Knowe yee not that all we which haue beene baptized into Iesus Christ haue beene baptized into his death c. Hence the Romanists would inferre that baptisme doth worke in all regeneration for
all that are baptized into the death of Christ are regenerate but all that are baptized into Christ are baptized into his death therefore all that are baptised are regenerate and so the verie sacrament doth by the externall act conferre grace to this purpose the Romanists Contra. 1. The conclusion should be all that are baptized into Christ are regenerate and that we grant all they which receiue baptisme aright that is by faith apprehend the promise of remission of sinnes either then as they which are of yeeres or after as infants when they come to yeeres of discretion they are regenerate so the conclusion is true of all the faithfull that are baptized for the Apostle speaketh here onely of such including himselfe in the number so also he saith Galat. 3.27 All yee that are baptized into Christ haue put on Christ but they onely are baptized into him that by faith are graft into him and made liuely members of his mysticall bodie And thus much Lombard lib. 4. distinct 4. affirmeth out of Hierome in Ecclesia qui plena fide non accipiunt baptisma c. in the Church they which with a full faith doe not receiue baptisme doe take the water not the spirit c. 2. And these reasons may be alleadged hereof 1. iustification doth often goe before baptisme as Abraham first beleeued and then was circumcised and Cornelius after he had shewed his faith was baptized by S. Peter Act. 10. 2. Origen doth inferre as much out of the Apostles words here because the Apostle saith we are buried with him by baptisme into his death docens per hoc quia si quis prius mortuus est peccato is necessariò in baptisme consepultus est Christo he teacheth hereby that if one be dead before vnto sinne then of necessitie he is buried with Christ in baptisme but if any before doe not die vnto sinne he cannot be buried with Christ nemo enim aliquando vivus sepelitur c. for no man is at any time buried aliue c. thus Origen and before him Tertullian lib. de poenitent Dieu baptized non vt delinquere desinamus sed qua desivimus c. he bid to be baptized not that we should leaue off to sinne but because we had left alreadie c. Tolet here answeareth that his meaning is that they which are to be baptized must come with a purpose amplius non peccaâ—â—i not to sinne any more and further to Origen though he name him not he maketh this answear that we are said to be buried in baptisme not because we first die vnto sinne before we are baptized but for that baptisme signifieth that we are dead to sinne as the graue sheweth that they which are buried are dead non solum id significat sed efficit and it doth not onely signifie it but effecteth what it signifieth c. Tolet. annot 3. Contra. 1. Tertullian saith more then so they which come to be baptized corde iam lati sunt c. are alreadie washed in heart but their hearts cannot be washed and cleansed without remission of their sinnes 2. The graue signifieth in deed that they which are buried are dead but they were dead before neither doth the grave make them dead it receiueth them first beeing dead so then if we be buried in baptisme it sheweth that a spirituall death must goe before as the people which came vnto Iohns baptisme confessed and repented of their sinnes Matth. 3. yet this death to sinne is encreased ratified and confirmed in baptisme 3. But if iustification and remission of sinnes goe often before baptisme it will be demanded to what ende we are then baptised We answear 1. because God hath so commanded and therfore it were great contempt not to obey the Lords commandement 2. the benefits receiued before by those visible signes are enlarged and encreased 3. and although they are iustified before God yet it is not knowne vnto the Church into the fellowship whereof they are receiued by that outward Sacrament 4. baptisme also sealeth the assurance of the kingdome of God which they receiue in their iustification but it is sealed confirmed and ratified by the sacrament of baptisme like as Princes gifts after they are granted doe passe vnder the great seale Martyr See more of this controversie Synops. Centur. 2. err 96. Controv. 4. That baptisme serveth as well for the remission of sinnes to come as of sinnes past v. 3. We haue beene baptized into Iesus Christ Baptisme then is a seale of our vniting graffing and incorporating into Christ by faith by whom we haue remission of all our sinnes past present and to come and therefore the vse of baptisme extendeth it selfe vnto the whole life of man that by the effectual and liuely remembrance thereof he is confirmed and strengthened in the hope of the remission of all his sinnes in Christ so Chrysostome well saith vpon the 5. verse non ad hoc tantum valet baptismus quod prior a delicta deles sed quod ad futura cauenda monet baptisme onely avayleth not hereto that it blotteth out our sinnes past but armeth vs to take heede of sinnes to come c. Contrarie vnto this truth is the Popish doctrine that baptisme is prima tabula post â—â—fragium c. the first table as they call it after shipwrack and penance is the second table so that they will haue baptisme serue onely for the remission of sinnes past This conceit of baptisme beganne to be taken vp long agoe this made Constantius deferre his baptisme til he was old and the like is reported of Nazianzen in his life and hereupon grewe that common error that before baptisme men tooke vnto themselues a greater libertie to sâ—â—â— as in Augustines time they vsed to say sine illum facere nondum est baptizatus let him alone he is not yet baptized See also further of this point Synops. Centur. 3. error 11. Controv. 5. Whether in baptisme our sinnes be cleane taken away v. 6. Knowing that our old man is crucified with him c. Hence Pererius with other Romanists would inferre in baptismo tolli deleri penitus peccata c. that in baptisme our sinnes are wholly remooued and blotted out that those sinnes which were before baptisme are after baptisme none at all and not as the heretikes say so the Romanistes blaspheme the Protestants that sinnes remaine after baptisme but they are not imputed to this purpose Pere disput 2. annot 9. Contra. 1. Pererius with the rest of that sect doe misreport our opinion for we doe not say that in baptisme our sinnes are onely hid and not imputed and yet remaine still but we hold that our sinnes are blotted out and remooued for euer quoad culpam reatum poenam in respect of the fault guilt and punishment but there remaineth macula a blot still and staine of sinne the corruption and imperfection of our nature with some reliques and remainder of sinne doe still remaine
and this is euident both in that originall sinne remaineth after baptisme which the Apostle calleth peccatum inhabitans sinne dwelling in him Rom. 7.10 euen after he had beene baptised 2. whereas Pererius obiecteth that saying of Beza to confirme his opinion that in those which are truely sanctified in Christ sinne once dyeth â—â—â—is is so weakned vt pristinas vires nunquam accipiat c. that it shall neuer receiue the former strength but daily as the bodie in the graue rotteth away donec penitus intereat c. â—â—till it altogether perish c. In these words Beza affirmeth not that in baptisme there is a persue death of sinne but that sinne beginning to die is weakned more and more and neuer returneth to the former strength which is most true that the regenerate doe more and more die vnto sinne and euery day the power of sinne is decayed in them till at length together with morralitie they put of all corruption See further Synops. Centur. 3. er 10. Controv. 6. Of the baptisme of infants 1. The Anabaptists doe thus inferre out of this place of the Apostle v. 5. we are buried by baptisme into his death c. they which are baptised must professe their mortification and dying vnto sinne which infants cannot doe and therefore they are not to be baptised And Christ bid his Apostles to goe teach all nations and baptize them infants are not capable of doctrine and fit to be taught therefore they are not to be baptized Contra. 1. They which neither in baptisme nor after make profession of their mortification are not to be baptized they which are of yeeres must so professe in their baptisme it is sufficient for infants to doe it afterward for the vse of baptisme is not for the time present onely but for afterward otherwise we should neede often to be baptized 2. Infants are within the couenant for God promised to be the God of the faithfull and of their seede and therefore the signe of the couenant is not to be denied vnto them and seeing infants were circumcised vnder the lawe in stead whereof baptisme is succeeded infants by the same warrant are to be baptized vnlesse we will make the state of infants vnder the Gospell inferiour vnto the condition of infants vnder the lawe 3. When the Apostles were bidden to preach and baptize a course was prescribed them and that or those times to beginne with preaching and then to baptize for first they which were of yeares must beleeue which was wrought in them by preaching the word for faith commeth by hearing before they could be admitted to baptisme 4. But it will be obiected that this vse of baptizing infants is not Apostolicall it was brought in by Hyginus Bishop of Rome and Tertullian lib. de baptism misliketh that vse Contra. 1. Hyginus onely made a decree concerning Godfathers and Godmothers as they are called that vndertake for infants in baptisme which sheweth that the baptizing of infants was in practise before 2. Tertullian in his old age fell into the heresie of Montanus and therefore much is not to be ascribed to his iudgement concerning this matter Martyr Controv. 7. Of the confidence and assurance of saluation v. 8. Wee beleeue that we shall also liue with him c. Hence it is well inferred that the faithfull are assured by faith both of their perseuerance in the state of grace in this life and of euerlasting life in the next for we beleeue saith the Apostle that we shall liue c. we nothing doubt of it and in the same sense the Apostle said before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 knowing ver 6. and againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 knowing v. 11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gather ye or conclude ye as the word is taken Rom. 3.28 and here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we beleeue all which words implie a certaintie without doubting Contrarie hereunto is the doctrine of the Romanists which hold it to be a point of presumption to haue assurance of saluation and whereas we vrge S. Pauls example that was sure nothing could separate him from the loue of God in Christ they answear that S. Paul and other holy men had it by speciall reuelation Contra. S. Paul maketh it not his speciall case to be assured of saluation but here he speaketh generally of all the faithfull we knowe Tolet also one of their owne writers thus expoundeth this place we beleeue credimus intellectus c. we beleeue in the vnderstanding that spirituall life is giuen vs with the death of sinne confidimus etiam nos in ea per seueraturos and we are confident that we shall perseuere therein See further hereof Synop. Centur. 4. err 25. Controv. 8. That Christ shall not die in the next world againe for those which were not healed here v. 9. Death hath no more dominion ouer him c. Origen by this text confuteth their error who hold that Christ should suffer in the next world the like things as he did here for them quos dispensationis eius medicina sanara non poserat whom the medicine of his dispensation could not heale in this present world and they vsed this reason because in the next world they shall either doe well still or euill non erunt profundo silentia there shall not be silence altogether then as Lucifer fell in the beginning so may they be apt to fall then having the vse of freewill for virtus est mutabilis vertue is changeable Origen thus refuteth this error 1. because it is contrarie directly to the Apostles words here that Christ died once for all death shall haue no more dominion ouer him such vs the force and efficacie of the crosse of Christ vt sufficiat ad sanitatem remedium non solum praesentis futuri seculi sed etiam praeteritorum c. that it sufficeth not onely for the health and remedie of the present and world to come but of the ages past non solum humano ordini c. and not onely for the order and condition of men but euen for the celestiall orders also c. Christ by his death redeemed the one from their sinnes and setled and established the other 2. and though the nature of man be mutable here yet so shall it not be there vbi ad culmen virtutis ascenderit when it is come to the height and perfection of vertue for there shall be charitie which as the Apostle saith nunquam excidit neuer falleth away 3. The Apostle could say that neither life nor death things present nor to come nor any thing else could separate him from the loue of God in Christ how much lesse shall the libertie of freewill be able then to separate vs. 4. And Lucifer did fall antequam ad beneficia filij Dei charitatis vinculis stringeretur when as yet the bond of charitie had not fastened him to the benefits of the Sonne of God But it is now otherwise with those celestiall spirits whose
state is now made firme and sure in Christ. Controv. 9. Against the sacrifice of the Masse v. 10. For in that he died he died once This place is verie pregnant against the Popish sacrifice of the Masse wherein they say they doe dayly offer vp Christs bodie in sacrifice vnto God for there is no oblation of Christ in sacrifice but by death he died but once and therfore one sacrifice of him in his death sufficeth for all and the Apostle saith Heb. 10.14 that he hath with one offring made perfect for euer them that are sanctified This then is a blasphemous derogation to make iteratiue sacrifices as though that one sacrifice had beene imperfect and whereas they alleadge that their Masse is a sacrifice applicatorie of Christs death such applications are superfluous seeing the death of Christ is effectually applyed by faith which is reviued strengthened and increased by the commemoration of Christs death in the Sacraments See more hereof Synops. Centur. 3. err 31. Controv. 10. Concerning freewill v. 12. Let not sinne raigne c. This place may be vrged by the adversaries of the grace of God to prooue that man hath some power in himselfe to resist sinne seeing otherwise the Apostles exhortation should be in vaine to exhort men vnto that which is not in their power Contra. 1. The Apostle elswhere euidently teacheth that man hath no power or inclination of himselfe to any thing that is good as 2. Corinth 3.5 Wee are not sufficient to thinke any thing of our selues but our sufficiencie is of God Philip. 2.23 it is God that worketh in you both the will and the deed of his good pleasure we must not then make the Apostle contrarie to himselfe as though in this place he should ascribe any thing to mans freewill 2. the Apostle speaketh here to men iustified and regenerate by the spirit of God by the which they are enabled to performe this whereunto they are exhorted so that this abilitie is not in themselues but from God 3. the Apostle sheweth a difference by thus exhorting betweene these actions which the Lord maketh in other creatures which either haue no sense at all or sense onely which creatures God vseth without any stirring at all feeling and inclination in them and those which he worketh in man whose reason will and vnderstanding he vseth by incicing and stirring it vp 4. So then these exhortations are not superfluous for thereby we are admonished rather what we ought to doe then what we are able to doe and by these exhortations of Gods word grace is wrought in vs to enable vs to doe that which of our selues we haue no power to doe See further Controv. 15. following Controv. 11. That concupiscence remaining in the regenerate is properly sinne v. 12. Let not sinne raigne The Apostle here speaketh of concupiscence which is sinne though it raigne not in vs the verie suggestions and carnall thoughts that arise in the regenerate haue the nature of sinne though they yeeld not consent vnto them Bellarmine with other of that side doe expound these and such like places wherein concupiscence is called sinne de causa vel effectu peccati of the cause or effect of sinne so concupiscence is improperly called sinne in their opinion either because it is the effect and fruit of Adams sinne as a writing is called ones hand because the hand writ it or because it bringeth forth sinne as we say frigus pigrum flouthfull cold because cold maketh one full of flouth Contra. 1. Concupiscence is sinne properly because it is contrarie to the lawe of God it striueth and rebelleth against it and continually stirreth vs vp to doe that which is contrarie to the Lawe sinne properly is the transgression of the lawe as the Apostle defineth it 1. Iohn 3.4 therefore concupiscence beeing contrarie to the lawe of God is properly sinne S. Paul also calleth it sinne dwelling in him Rom. 7.17 2. Whereas it may be obiected that all sinne is voluntarie but the motions and suggestions of the flesh are involuntarie we answear that all sinne is not voluntarie for then originall corruption should not be sinne which is euen in children which can giue no consent and yet in respect of the beginning and roote of this sinne which was Adams transgression it was voluntarie See more of this controversie Synops. Papism Centur. 4. err 16. Controv. 12. Whether a righteous man may fall into any mortall or deadly sinne v. 12. Let not sinne raigne there is then peccatum regnans sinne raigning as when one sinneth against his conscience and setteth his delight vpon it and followeth it with greedinesse and so for the time looseth the hope of forgiuenesse of sinne and maketh him subiect to euerlasting death without the mercie of God peccatum non regnans sinne not raigning is originall concupiscence suggestions motions of the flesh infirmities and such like Now the Romanists simply denie that a righteous man can commit any mortall sinne neither can any continuing the Sonne of God fall into it Rhemist 1. Ioh. 3. sect 3. Among the Protestant writers some thinke that the righteous may haue sinne for the time raigning in them as Aarons idolatrie and Dauids adulterie sheweth so Vrsinus vol. 1. pag. 107. but Zanchius denieth it miscellan p. 139. Contra. 1. Touching the assertion of the Romanists it is manifestly conuinced of error by the example of Dauid for it is absurd to thinke that in his fall he ceased to be the child of God for he that is once the sonne of God shall so continue to the ende Dauid was a righteous and faithfull man and yet fell into great and dangerous offences which they call deadly and mortall sinnes 2. The other may be reconciled by the diuerse taking and vnderstanding of raigning sinne for if that be vnderstood to be a raigning sinne which is committed of an obstinate minde with contempt of God without any feeling or remorse of conscience so we denie that any of the elect can fall into any such sinne but if that be taken for a raigning sinne when for a time the conscience is blinded and a man is ouercome and falleth yet rather of infirmitie then obstinacie yet afterward such vpon their repentance are restored in this sense sinne may raigne in the righteous as in Aaron Dauid but it is said improperly to raigne because this kingdome of sinne continueth not it is but for a time Controv. 13. Against the Manichees v. 22. In your mortall bodie Theophylact hence reprooueth the error of the Manichees who affirmed that the bodie of man is wicked and euill but seeing the Apostle compareth it to armour or weapons which the souldier vseth for his countrey the theife and rebell against it so the bodie is an indifferent thing it may either be abused as an instrument of sinne or by the grace of God it may be applyed to the seruice of the spirit as the Apostle sheweth v. 19. Giue your members as seruants vnto
but onely of those which are criminall such as S. Iohn speaketh of c. 5. there is a sinne vnto death I say not that thou shouldest pray for it c. for the Apostle speaketh there of sinne against the holy Ghost which shall neuer be forgiuen for the which it is in vaine to pray If the Apostle there should meane all criminall sinnes then it would follow that we should not pray for the conuersion of heretikes adulterers murtherers and such like We confesse that there are some mortall sinnes some veniall but not in their nature to the faithfull and penitent all sinnes are veniall to the vnbeleeuers and impenitent sinnes are morttall it is the mercie of the forgiuer not the qualitie of the sinne that maketh it veniall yet this taketh not away the difference of sinnes as though they were equall for small sinnes are more easily pardoned and great sinnes where they are forgiuen are more hardly pardoned where they be not they are more or lesse punished according to the greatnes of the sinne see further of this point Synops. Centur. 4. er 6. Controv. 18. That euerlasting life cannot be merited by good workes Arg. 1. v. 23. But the gift of God is eternall life The Apostle in chaunging and inuerting the order of his speach whereas he had said the stipend of sinne is death faith not the stipend of righteousnes is eternall life but the gift of God c. euidently sheweth that euerlasting life is not due as a reward merited by our workes but as a gift of grace through Christ Iesus Thus Chrysostome expoundeth this place he saith not merces benefactorum vestrorum vna aeterna sed donum Dei life eternall is the reward of good workes but it is the gift of God Theodoret non dixit eam esse mercedem sed gratiam c. he saith not eternall life is a reward but grace or fauour Nam licet quis summam absolutam iustitiam praestiterit for although one could performe a perfect iustice yet temporall things are not correspondent to eternall Theophylact non quasi retributionem laborum dat eam Deus sed ex gratia per Christum qui hac omnia nobis promeruerit God giueth not eternal life as a recompence of our labour but by grace through Christ who hath merited all these things for vs. Answ. Our aduersaries-doe all here concur in this answer that euerlasting life is therfore called a grace quia bis meritis redditur quae gratia contulit because it is rendred for and vnto those workes which were wrought in vs by grace so Pererius eternall life though it be due vnto good workes yet it is giuen freely nam merita illa principaliter à Dei gratia profecta sunt for these merites to which it is due doe principally proceed from the grace of God c. Pere disput 7. numer 42. so also Tolet in his annotat and the Rhemistes vpon this place also Stapleton hath the same answer which they all would seeme to take from Augustine who saith the Apostle might haue said the stipend of our iustice is eternall life but he called it the grace of God that we should vnderstand ipsa bona opera quibus vita eterna redditur ad Dei gratiam pertinere that good workes themselues to the which eternall life is giuen doe belong vnto the grace of God August de grat liber 8.9 Contra. 1. Whereas Augustine saith recte potuisse dicere the Apostle might haue well said otherwise it is enough for vs that the Apostle did not in this place say otherwise and as Pet. Martyr saith by this meanes most euident places of Scripture might be auoided if we may say aliter potuisset dici it might otherwise thus or thus haue beene said 2. but for the thing it selfe Augustine is so farre from approouing the merite of workes to eternall life that he maketh the good workes themselues to belong vnto grace as he saith else where pro hac gratiam qua ex fide viuimus accepturi sumus aliam gratiam in qua sine fine in calis vinimus for this grace wherein we liue by faith we shall receiue an other grace and fauour wherein we shall liue without end in heauen in Psal. 14.4 3. for how can God be a debter to vs to bestow a second grace because he conferred an other grace before we are endebted to God for the former grace he is not a debter to vs to bestow a second grace as Bearnerd well saith merita omnia Dei dona sunt ita homo magis propter ipsa Deo debiter est quam Deus homini our merits are Gods gifts and so for them man is more debted to God then God to man de annunt Mar. serm 1. Argum. 2. Where the crowne is of mercie it is not of merite but the crowne of euerlasting life is in mercie Psal. 103.4 which crowneth thee with mercie and compassions Answ. Pererius hath here two answers 1. that either by mercie we may vnderstand Gods protection in this life whereby he compssaeth his children as with a crowne 2. or if we take it for the crowne of euerlasting life it is called a mercie because the merites for the which it is rendred promanant principaliter ex gratia per misericordiam data doe principally flow forth from grace giuen them in mercie Pere disput 9. Contra. 1. If Gods protection in this life be of mercie without our desert then much more euerlasting saluation is of mercie which is lesse merited 2. the other is a meere cauill for what graces soeuer any haue receiued in this life how perfect soeuer they be here they shall haue need of mercie in the day of iudgement as the Apostle saith 2. Tim. 1.18 the Lord graunt that he may finde mercie with the Lord at that day c. beside the mercies receiued in this life he wisheth he may also finde mercie then so Augustine collecteth vpon these words Iam. 2.13 there shall be iudgement mercilesse to him that sheweth no mercie that they which haue liued well shall haue iudgement cum misericordia with mercie they which haue liued euill shall haue iudgement without mercie where then there is need of mercie there is no standing vpon merite Argum. 3. That which is of grace cannot be also of works as the Apostle reasoneth Rom. 11.6 if it be of grace it is no more of workes or else grace were no more grace c. but eternall life is of grace Ergo not of workes Answer 1. The Apostle may either here speake of the naturall workes of men and so such workes do destroie grace not of the workes of grace which are indeed meritorious of eternall life 2. the Apostle speaketh of election which is of grace non propter hominum opera prvoisa not vpon the foresight of mans workes Thus Pererius disput 8. numer 48. Contra. 1. The Apostle excludeth euen the workes of grace for the question is of good workes not of
then the other for there is no such character imprinted more in them then in matrimonie for he which is baptized or consecrated may vtterly fall away and become an Apostata from the faith what then is become of this badge or character See further Synops. Cent. 2. er 96. if then there is no more character left in the one then in the other if by a temporall death for a time the efficacie of baptisme and orders be not extinguished neither is the bond of matrimonie loosed for such is no perfect death but a kind of slumber or traunce for a while which I hope they will not say dissolueth the mariage bond Quest. 3. Whether that the woman haue not the like libertie and freedome in respect of the bond of mariage as the man hath v. 3. But if the man be dead the woman is free c. The woman is not free but by the death of the man because this is affirmed onely of the womans freedom not of the mans it may seeme that the man may be otherwise free then by the death of the woman And indeed Ambrose is of this opinion writing vpon the 7. chap. of the 1. to the Corinthians that the man may marrie againe his wife beeing lawfully repudiated euen while she liueth but so cannot the woman and his reason is quia inferior non omnino hac lege vtitur qua superior the inferior is not to vse the same lawe or priuiledge which the superiour doth Caietanus herein agreeing with Ambrose alleadgeth the custome which the Iewes had it was lawfull among them for the man to giue his wife a bill of diuorcement but not for the woman to giue it vnto the man Contra. 1. S. Ambrose opinion herein is contrarie to the Apostle S. Paul who saith that the man hath not power ouer his owne bodie but his wife as the wife hath not power ouer her owne bodie but the husband 1. Cor. 7.4 so in matrimoniall duties he maketh them both equall as Lyranus well inferreth here idem est iudicium de viro the same law or iudgment also is for the man 2. Herein then I rather subscribe to Hieromes opinion quicquid viris iubetur hoc consequenter redundat in foeminas that which is commanded vnto men redoundeth also vnto women for an adulterous woman is not to be dismissed and an adulterous husband to be retained aliae sunt leges Caesarum aliae Christs aliud Papinianus aliud Paulus noster praecipit c. the lawes of Caesar and of Christ are diuerse one thing Papinianus prescribeth an other thing Paul Hierm. ad Occan. 3. And that libertie among the Iewes was granted vnto them for their hardnes of heart it was a permission no dispensation a toleration not a concession and yet the woman had libertie by that custome beeing sent away by a bill of diuorcement to marrie againe as the man did 4. Yet thus much must be acknowledged that whereas it was permitted that many of the fathers should haue diuers wiues yet it was a monstrous thing and neuer tolerated for a woman to haue many husbands that there is some difference herein betweene the condition of the man and woman that in respect of the generall law of nature for procreation the man is more priuiledged who may beget by diuerse women whereas one woman cannot conceiue by diurse men so that in the woman such change should shew her lust onely and wantonnes which in the man was exercised for the desert of procreation yet the speciall law and couenant of matrimonie considered the man hath no more libertie to goe vnto strange flesh then the woman Quest. 4. Why the Apostle saith we are dead to the law v. 4. and not rather the law is dead to vs. 1. Some thinke that in this similitude the man is compared to the law and we are resembled to the woman and so the Apostle in the application of the similitude should haue rather said the law is dead to vs because the man is free when the man is dead but the Apostle chaungeth of purpose his speach he would not say the law is dead but we are dead to the law imbecillitaris Iudaeorum rationem habens c. hauing respect vnto the weaknes of the Iewes left they might haue beene offended beeing so much addicted to the law and last he might haue giuen occasion to those heretikes which are enemies to the old Testament thereby to accuse the law Theodoret so also Calvin comparing the law to the husband voluit exigua inversione c. he would a little deliuer the envie of so hard a tearme auandae offensionis causa noluit exprimere he would not expressely say the lawe is dead to avoide offence Bucer so also Pet. Martyr Pareus But Beza misliketh this exposition for the lawe cannot be said to be dead vnlesse the ceremoniall lawe be vnderstood which the Apostle speaketh not of but of the morall lawe Tolet addeth this reason because the Apostle expressely distinguisheth these three virum mulierem legem the man the woman the lawe and concludeth that by the death of the man we are freed from the lawe 2. Chrysostome salveth the matter thus that the Apostle speaketh of a double libertie both by the death of the man and woman together for if the woman be dead as well as the man she is much more free and so in the application the Apostle indifferently putteth the case of the death of vnto the lawe as the woman or of the lawe to vs as the man But the similitude onely runneth vpon the freedome of the woman by the death of the man the application should be so likewise 3. Haymo vnderstandeth here two husbands and one woman or wife the law is one husband vnder whom the woman that is the soule is said to be the other is sinne whereof the Apostle speaketh v. 3. while the man liueth for while sinne liueth in man he is subiect to the lawe But the other husband which the Apostle speaketh of is Christ raigning in vs by his spirit as v. 4. that we should be vnto an other vnlesse he will say that the Apostle speaketh of three husbands which he doth not for an other doth insinuate but one beside 4. Some thinke that in the application of this similitude we are not so curiously to insist vpon the particular points of this resemblance betweene the man and wife whether the law be as the husband or the man regenerate as the wife by the death of either of them indiffereÌ„tly followeth freedom if either we be dead to the law or the law to vs Faius But the Apostle in the similitude presseth onely the death of the man whereby the woman is free likewise Gorrhan expoundeth ye are mortified or dead to the lawe that is ye are no mâ—â— bound to the lawe as if the law were dead but to be dead to the lawe and the lawe to be dead to vs though in effect they are all one yet
the sense is dâ—lerse 5. Hugo Cardinal maketh three in the similitude the man the wife and the lawe of matrimonie and three in the application the lawe as the man the soule as the wife and sinne as the mariage but saith he in this is the diuersitie in the similitude the man dieth but in the application the woman dieth that is the soule vnto sinne But if this difference and dissimilitude be admitted then the Apostle should not haue fitly applyed to his purpose the similitude which he had propounded 6. Augustine better by the husband vnderstandeth sinne by the wife man lib. 83. qu. 66. but this is not a full explication of the Apostles minde for here it is not expressed what part the lawe beareth in this similitude 7. Therefore Tolet thus explaineth this similitude he saith by the Apostle here triplicen distingui there is distinguished a threefold state of man the old man the newe man which is regenerate and the naturall man considered as Gods creature which was first vnder the condition and seruitude of the old man and then vnder the newe the old corrupt man and the newe regenerate man he maketh the two husbands and man considered in himselfe is as the wife so we are said to be mortified to the lawe that is the old man is dead were sinne and so vnto the lawe because sinne beeing destroyed the dominion of the lawe also is abolished to this purpose Tolet. annot 5. Beza somewhat diuersly thus applyeth the similitude he maketh two mariages in the first sinne is as the husbaÌ„d which had the strength by the lawe the flesh was as the wife and the particular sinnes were the fruits â— in the second mariage the spirit of grace by Christ is as the newe husband the regenerate man the wife and the children the fruits of holines and in this sense we are said to be mortified to the law in respect of the first husband which is within vs These two expositions much differ nor but in this that Tolet maketh one and the same wife which was before married vnto sinne and afterward to the spirit Beza maketh two wiues the first the state of the vnregenerate the second of the regenerate man But the Apostle seemeth to speake of one and the same wife which is the soule of man first subdued vnto sinne and then in subiection to Christ so then not the wife is said to be mortified for how then should she be ioyned to an other husband but the first husband that is the old man is mortified to the lawe because when sinne liued the lawe did beare dominion in accusing condemning vs Now that the law is not as the husband but sinne the Apostle euidently sheweth v. 5. When we were in the 〈◊〉 the motions of sinne which were by the law had force in our members to bring forth fruit was death here the Apostle expresseth fowre things in this first mariage the wife we are the flesh the husband the motions of sinne for that is the husband which begetteth children which are the evill fruits vnto death the fourth thing is the lawe of the man touched before in the similitude v. 2. and here the lawe is that which gaue strength vnto sinne 7. But an other reason also may be yeelded why the Apostle saith we are mortified to the lawe because in this reddition he ioyntly applyeth the two similitudes before alleadged the one that the lawe hath no dominion ouer one but while he liueth v. 1. the other that the woman is bound to the man but while he liueth in the application he putteth both together to answear to the first he saith we are mortified to the lawe and so it hath no more power ouer vs and touching the second he saith that beeing dead wherein we were holden namely sinne v. 5. we should be now for an other husband Quest. 5. How we are said to be mortified to and freed from the lawe We are not freed from the lawe in respect of the obedience thereto for the morall law is in force still and Christ came to confirme the lawe not to destroy it but we are freed from it as the bare letter of the lawe is set against the spirit 1. because the lawe commanded onely but gaue no grace to performe as the Gospell doth 2. the law onely manifested our sinnes in not beeing able to keepe the lawe which are healed in the Gospel 3. the law commanding made the froward nature of man so much more sinnefull in crossing the commandement 4. Men then obeyed the lawe for feare and by constraint which nowe they doe willingly by grace 5. but in these two things chiefely consisteth our libertie and freedome from the lawe à rigida exactione we are freed from the strict obseruation of the lawe which Christ hath fulfilled for vs. 6. ab ea qua inde sequitur maledictione and from the malediction and curse which followeth thereupon which Christ hath freed vs from being made a curse for vs Calvin 7. Pareus sheweth how in these three things the servitude of the lawe consisted 1. in the declaration of sinne 2. in the condemning of it 3. in encreasing sinne per accidens by an accident because our corrupt nature is carried to do that so much the more which is forbidden So the libertie of the lawe consisteth in these three points opposite to the other three 1. the lawe doth not now set forth our sinnes which are not imputed vnto vs beeing iustified by faith in Christ. 2. it condemneth vs not for there is no condemnation to those which are in Christ. 3. neither doth it stirre vs vp to sinne beeing dead to sinne in Christ the two first parts of libertie we doe fully enioy in this life but the third is onely begunne here because we are still compassed about with many infirmities but it is not fully perfited vntill the next Quest. 6. What is meant by the bodie of Christ v. 4. 1. Some vnderstand by the bodie of Christ completionem veritatis the fulfilling and accomplishment of the figures of the lawe which was but a type of things to come in exhibiting the truth Gorrhan 2. some incarnationis mysterium the mysterie of the incarnation of Christ gloss interlin 3. Lyranus incorporationem cum Christo in baptismo our incorporating with Christ when we were made his members in baptisme 4. Beza readeth in corpore in the bodie to shewe our conformitie with Christ that we as his members are in him by him dead vnto the law Pet. Mart. also approueth this sense effecti iam membra Domini c. beeing made the members of our Lord we doe followe our head 5. But by the bodie of Christ rather we vnderstand the passion of Christ in his bodie vpon the crosse that is per victimam Christum c. by Christ our sacrifice who satisfied for vs Melanct. by the bodie of Christ dum cruci affixum est while it was nailed to the crosse where he
tooke away the handwriting of the lawe which was against vs Calvin so Oecumen by the bodie of Christ pro nobis interemptum slaine for vs so also Ambrose tradens corpus suum Servator mortem vicit peccatum damnavit our Sauiour deliuering vp his bodie ouercame death and condemned sinne c. So we are dead vnto the lawe in the bodie of Christ because he in his body was made a curse for vs to redeeme vs from the curse of the law Par. Quest. 7. Of the meaning of these words v. 6. beeing dead vnto it There are 3. readings of these words 1. some reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are deliuered from the law of death so the vulgar Latine and Ambrose with Anselme Haymo and Origen also maketh mention hereof though he approoue an other reading But the morall lawe is not properly called the law of death which title better agreath vnto sinne which indeed is the law of death Beza obserueth that no Greek copie but one which he had seen so readeth 2. Some read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being dead in the nominative which some expound thus in the which we were held as dead Origen but here is a traiection or transposing of the words which stand thus in the originall dead wherein c. not wherein we were dead some vse a harder kind of traiection we which are dead are deliuered whereas the order of the words is this we are deliuered from the lawe beeing dead c. some vse no traiection at all but supply the pronounc it or that dead vnto it wherein c. and they vnderstand the lawe Theophylact Erasmus Bucer Calvin P. Mart. 3. But the better reading is in the genetive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and some ioyne it with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lawe the lawe beeing dead wherein c. but it is rather put absolutely and the pronoune that or it must be supplyed that beeing dead wherein we were holden not in Oecumenius sense who vnderstandeth it actiuely we are dead by sinne but passiuely with Chrysostome that beeing dead namely sinne wherein we were holden id quod detinebat peccatum c. that which did hold vs namely sinne hath now nothing to hold vs with Quest. 8. What is meant by the newenesse of the spirit and the oldnesse of the letter 1. Origen vnderstandeth by the oldnes of the letter the ceremonies of the lawe as circumcision the Iewish Sabbaths by the newenesse of the letter the spirituall and allegoticall sense so also Haymo saith he serueth God in the newenes of the spirit that spiritually practiseth the circumcision of the heart not the carnall obseruation of the ceremonies But S. Paul treateth here of the morall not the ceremoniall lawe as Tolet well obserueth annot 18. 2. Chrysostome and Theophylact following him vnderstand the oldnes of the letter of the externall obedience which was practised vnder the law the newenesse of the spirit they expound to be the inward obedience of the heart wrought in vs by the spirit of Christ But we must here take heede that we doe not so thinke that the literall sense of the lawe onely concerned outward obedience for it required the perfect loue of God and our neighbour and restrained the verie inward concupiscence Neither must we imagine that all they which liued vnder the lawe onely serued God in the oldnes of the letter yeelding onely externall obedience as Chrysostome seemeth to insinuate that they were commanded onely to abstaine from murther adulterie and such like but we are restrained from anger wantonnes the inward motions for many of the holy men vnder the lawe had the newenesse of spirit in the renovation of their inward desires as the faithfull haue vnder the Gospell 3. Some by the oldnesse of the letter vnderstand sinne which was not reformed by the letter of the lawe by the newenesse of the spirit the fruits of righteousnesse as Hierome epist. ad Hedib quest 8. vivamus sub pracepto qui prius in modum brutorum c. let vs liue vnder the precept which before as bruite beasts said let vs eate and drinke c. so also Tolet annot 8. but if by the oldnes of the letter we vnderstand sinne how can any be said to serue God in sinne 4. Ambrose by the newenesse of the spirit doth vnderstand legem fidei the lawe of faith by the oldnes of the letter the law of works but the Apostle here speaketh of our obedience and sanctifie which is the fruits indeede of iustification rather then iustification it selfe 5. Wherefore the Apostle rather by the oldnes of the letter vnderstandeth the outward and externall obedience onely ot iosam legis notitiam the idle and fruitlesse knowledge of the lawe without the true conuersion of the heart the newenes of the spirit is the true sanctitie both of bodie and soule wrought in vs by the spirit of God which is called newe compared with our former state and condition vnder the old man and in respect of our newe mariage with Christ Pareus so Calvin non habemus in lege nisi externam literam c. we haue not in the lawe but onely the externall letter which doth bridle our outward actions but doth not restraine our concupiscence so Pet. Martyr vnderstandeth quoddam obedientia genus a certaine kind of outward obedience but not such as God requireth to the same purpose Osrander the newenes of the spirit is when we serue God move spontaneo spiritu with a readie and willing spirit they serued God in the oldnes of the letter that is indignabundo spiritus with an vnwilling mind And the law as Beza well noteth is called the letter quia surdis canit because it speaketh as vnto deafe men till they be regenerate and renewed by the spirit of grace 6. So here are three things set one against the other solutio contra detentionem libertie or freedome against detayning or holding the newenesse against the oldnes the spirit against the letter Gorrhan Quest. 9. How S. Paul beeing brought vp in the knowledge of the law could say I knew not lust 7. and I was aliue without the law v. 9. 1. The occasion of this question is because elswhere the Apostle professeth his integrity as Philip. 3.6 touching the righteousnesse which is in the law I was vnreproouable and Act. 23.1 he saith I haue in all good conscience serued God vnto this day how then could he be ignorant of the law or be without the law Ans. 1. It may be answered that either S. Paul spake of his first age in the time of his childhood when he knew not the law or he speaketh figuratiuely in the person of an other But neither of these is likely not the first for the things which the Apostle here toucheth show the law wrought in him all manner of concupiscence are not incident into the age of children or vnexperienced young men nor the other for thoroughout this whole chapter the
the law wrought in him all manner of concupiscence supposeth some to haue beene before 3. Hierome epist. 121 and Origen following him do take this for the time of childhood for then sinne is dead because they haue no knowledge of it for if a child smite his father or mother it is counted no fault and when they come to yeares of discretion sinne reviveth But the reviuing of sinne sheweth that it liued before which cannot be said of children that sinne first liued and afterward died and then reviued againe 4. Augustine lib. 1. contr 2. epistol Pelag. thus vnderstandeth the Apostle that before the lawe of Moses was giuen man is said to haue liued as without lawe and sinne then to haue beene dead because it was not perfectly knowne before the lawe was giuen so also Chrysostome Haymo But if all this be referred to the time before the lawe was giuen Paul could not haue giuen instance in himselfe as he doth 5. Wherefore S. Pauls meaning is that he was aliue without the lawe that is vinere miâ—ividebar I seemed to be aliue vnto my selfe when as yet beeing a Pharisie he had not full vnderstanding of the lawe then sinne also seemed to be dead because as yet he did not feele the burthen of sinne nor his conscience did not pricke him while he contented himselfe with the outward obseruation of the lawe thus Pareus Osiander Beza Calvin And further it is here to be considered that there is a twofold death of sinne non vera a death not in truth when sinne lurketh onely and lyeth hid and sheweth not it selfe of this the Apostle speaketh here and there is mors vera a true death of sinne when we truely die vnto sinne in Christ which death the Apostle treated of before c. 6. Quest. 18. How sinne is said to haue reuiued 1. Origen here maketh mention of the error of the Pythagorian heretikes who imagine that the soules of men liued before in the bodies some of birds some of beasts when they liued as it were without a lawe and so sinne is said to reviue in the soule But this is a grosse error for in those creatures which haue no reason sinne cannot be said to liue or haue any beeing at all and therefore not to reviue 2. Bucer seemeth thus to vnderstand it that sinne liued before that is qualis coram Deâ— erat apparuit it appeared such as it was before God but now it is said to reuiue because it is made knowne to vs but the liuing and reliuing or reuiuing of sinne must be vnderstood in respect of the sinne 3. The most doe vnderstand it simply without any relation a former life of sinne capa apparere it beganne to appeare gloss ordinar interlin apparnit delictum esse it appeared to be sinne Theophylact incepit vires explicare Mart. it began to shewe the strength which sense is not much to be misliked 4. Some haue here reference vnto the first knowledge of sinne which Adam had after his transgression as Augustine vixerat aliquando in Paradiso quando contra datum praceptum satis apparebat admissum c. it liued sometime in Paradise when it sufficiently appeared by the transgression of the commandement c. but afterward it lieth as dead in children till they come to the knowledge of the law then peccatum in notitia 〈◊〉 hominis reviviscit quod in notitia primi hominis aliquando vixerat sin reviveth in the knowledge of man that is borne which sometime was aliue in the knowledge of the first man c. to this purpose August lib. 1. ad Bonifac. c. 9. which sense Pareus followeth likewise Tolet. Haymo addeth further that sinne liued not onely in Adam but in Cain who said his sinne was greater then could be forgiuen but it died in their posteritie which came vnto that error that they thought that to be no sinne which was sinne But seeing the Apostle speaketh of the reviving of sinne in himselfe we must not goe further then the Apostle to seeke out this first life of sinne 5. Wherefore as Beza well obserueth a threefold state and condition of the Apostles life is here to be considered when he liued sub ignorantiam legis vnder the ignorance of the law that sinne raigned afterward he liued sub cognitione legis vnder the knowledge of the law but onely of the outward letter obseruing the externall works onely of the law whereas he before made conscience of no sinne at this time sinne seemed to be dead he pleased himselfe in his outward obedience then he came to the sight of his sinne and so he died his conscience accused him that he was worthie of eternall death Quest. 19. How sinne is said to haue deciued v. 11. 1. The meaning is not as Methodius and Ambrose likewise Haymo that the deuill seduced Adam for not Adam but Eue was seduced as Saint Paul saith 1. Tim. 2.2 but the deceitfulnes of sinne consisteth herein 1. inducitur error practicus there is brought in a practicall error that the sinner is deceiued by the pleasantnes of the obiect thinking that to be good which is euill Tolet annot 14. as Eue was deceiued by the pleasantnes of the apple 2. operit laqueum peccati it hideth the poison and not the sinne Hugo it sheweth the baite and hideth the hooke 3. cogitationem auertit à supplicijs it turneth aside our cogitation from the punishment of sinne and perswadeth a man that either the sinne is not so great and shall haue either no punishment or but a small and so it bringeth a man to vnbeleefe not to giue credit to the word of God who threatneth sinners as the Deuill first perswaded Eva that she should not die at all Martyr 3. Some will haue this word expounded non de re ipsa sed de notitia not of the thing it selfe but of the knowledge that at length he perceiued how farre he had beene deceiued and lead out of the way Hyper. But it rather sheweth the proper effect of sinne taking occasion by the law which is to deceiue the other to acknowledge our error is the effect of the law and not of sinne as Pellican well vnderstandeth here sinne taking occasion by the law doth draw vs out of the way as a sicke man taketh occasion to act those things which are forbidden ex mandato medici by the charge giuen by the Physitian to the contrarie 4. Then the Apostle sheweth three effects of sinne taking occasion by the law first it deceiueth then it worketh all manner of concupiscence and then it killeth it bringeth death to the soule Mart. so impostura causa est concupiscentiae c. imposture or deceit is the cause of concupiscence and concupiscence of death Oecumen Thus euery man is tempted seduced and entised by his concupiscence as S. Iames saith 1.14 Quest. 20. How sinne is said to haue staine him 1. Not occisum me esse ostendit it sheweth that I was staiue and dead by the law
as Bucer Hyper. for the Apostle speaketh of sinnes not of the law which sheweth the reward of sinne to be death 2. nor yet is the meaning it flie me per perpeirationem peccati by the committing of sinne Hugo inducendo ad opus in bringing sinne into act Lyran. for though one sinne may bring forth an other yet sinne is one thing death an other which is the stipend or wages of sinne 3. Osiander thus lepit eum adigere ad desperationem it begonne to driue him to despaire but the Apostle speaketh not of his particulate case but of the generall effect of sinne whereof he giueth instance in himselfe 4. therefore the meaning rather is concilionit vnibi mortem it procured death vnto me Pere ad mortem eternam tradit it deliuereth me ouer to eternall death Gorrhan addicit morti maketh one guiltie of death Fuius which must be vnderstood of the proper fruit and effect of sinne without the grace and mercie of God Quest. 21. How the law is said to be holy iust good and likewise the commandement 1. Concerning the first the commendation and titles of the law 1. Thomas and Caietane referre the holines of the law to the ceremoniall precepts the iustnes to the iudiciâ—s the goodnes to the morall 2. Lyranus it was holy in teaching our dutie to God iust in prescribing duties toward our neighbor good in respect of our selues teaching vs what is good and right 3. Haymo doth not distinguish these but saith the law is holy iust good because it commandeth holines equitie goodnes and intendeth to make the obseruers such so also Calvin Martyr with others 4. But Theodoret better distinguisheth them thus whom Oecomenius followeth the law is holy in respect of the matter because it prescribeth holy things iust in propounding rewards and punishments good in respect of the end to bring the obseruer vnto goodnes of life 5. Pareus distinguisheth them in like manner but he addeth further that all these titles are giuen vnto the law in the foresaid respects both with relation to the author who is most holy iust and good and to the doctrine it selfe of the law which is likewise holy iust and good and in regard of the effects of holines goodnes which is wrought in man before his fall and it shall bring forth in the state of glorie though now it faileth of the effect by reason of mans infirmitie 2. Whereas the Apostle speaketh both of the law and precept or commandement 1. Vatablus taketh them for the same herein following Origen but then the Apostle should seeme to commit a tautalogie 2. Oecumenius taketh the law for Moses law the precept for that which was giuen to Adam but this opinion is refused before 3. Theophylact will haue the commandement as generall the law as the particular because there are other commandements beside the law 4. so also Osiander Nazianzen as Faius reporteth him will haue the law so called in respect of vs because it containeth a rule of such things as are to be done and a commandement as it is prescribed of God 5. The most of our new writers do thus distinguish them the law quicquid ea pracipitur whatsoeuer is coÌ„manded therein Martyr Calvin and before them Hugo Cardin. 6. But I preferre Beza his interpretation whom Pareus followeth who by the law vnderstandeth generally the whole decaloge by the commandement that particular precept wherein he gaue instance before namely that Thou shalt not lust yet Haymo will haue one commandement here taken for all 22. Quest. How sinne is said to be out of measure sinnefull 1. Methodius in Epiphanius whom Gorrhan followeth still continueth his interpretation vnderstanding here the Deuill that he is this sinne out of measure by his manifold temptations causing men to sinne but the Apostle speaketh properly of sinne which is discerned and knowne by the law and so is not the Deuill Pareus 2. Ambrose as he is alleadged by Pet. Mart. doth inferre vpon these words out of measure that there is a certaine measure and degree of sinne the which if a sinner once passe his punishment shall be no longer deferred as he sheweth by the iudgement of God vpon the Sodomites and Cananites but this is not the Apostles meaning here 3. Faius will haue this vnderstood not of sinne it selfe but of the sinner that he is become by transgressing the law in a manner sinne it selfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sinner is made as it were sinne But the Apostle still speaketh of the fruits of sinne in the sinner and as Origen saith finxit personam peccati he signeth a certaine person of sinne 4. The meaning then is this that sinne by the commandement was more inflamed and encreased quia minus peccati est si quod non prohibetur admittas it is a lesse sinne to commit that which is not forbidden Origen and so Ambrose because sinne of knowledge is worse then sinne of ignorance because it sheweth contempt l. de Iob. c. 4. and hereby the multitude of sinnes is expressed invalescenie cupiditate ruimus in omnia concupiscence and lust encreasing we rush into all sinnes Martyr and so Augustine expoundeth it of the abounding of sinne lib. 1. quest ad Simplic qu. 1. the vehemencie and rage of sinne is hereby signified which as it were rising against the lawe sinneth so much the more like as an horse that is vnbroken the more he is curbed with the bridle the more he stingeth out Par. and as he which is sicke of a feuer is more inflamed by wine which is by reason of the infirmitie the wine is not properly the cause LyraÌ„ 5. But whereas Hierome epist. ad Algas thinketh that the Apostle committeth here solecisme because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sinner is of the masculine gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sinne of the feminine Erasmus well obserueth that here is no solecisme at all for it is vsuall in the Aâ—oâ—â—e dialect to ioyne an adiectiue of the masculine with a substantine of the feminine as Beza obserueth the like Rom. 1.20 where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eternall the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power beeing of the feminine gender 6. But whereas the Apostle saith the law is iust it followeth not hereupon that we are iustified thereby for the Apostle else where saith Gal. 3.11 that no man is iustified by the law Gorrhan giueth this solution that the Apostle meaneth the ceremoniall law but euen the Apostle excludeth the morall law from beeing able to iustifie vs the best answer is that the Apostle sheweth what the law is in it selfe it was giuen to iustifie vs but that which was ordained vnto life is found to be vnto death as the Apostle said before v. 10. by reason of the iufirmitie of man and the corruption of his nature And againe whereas the Apostle saith here the lawe is good and yet the Lord by his Prophet saith Ezech. 20.25 I gaue them
set against the law of the minde and the law of sinne against the law of God like as then the regenerate minde is conformable to the law of God so the vnregenerate members are captived to the law of sinne in the members which is the corruption of nature euen originall sinne 31. Quest. Why these are called lawes and why they are said the one to be in the inner man the other in the members 1. For the first 1. Chrysostome giueth this reason it is called the law of sinne propter vehementem exactam obedientiam because of the exact and forced obedience which is giuen vnto it for the laws of tyrants are so called abusive though not properly Calvin lex quia dominatur it is a law because it ruleth gloss 2. Lyranus a law is called à ligando of binding ducit membra ligata ad mala it leadeth the members and holdeth or tieth them to that which is euill they can doe no other 3. Pererius sicut lex dirigit c. as the law directeth to that which is good so the lawe of sinne to that which is euill 4. legitime factum est it commeth iustly to passe that illi non serviat suum inferius t. caro that mans inferiour that is his flesh should not serue him seeing he serued not his superiour namely God gloss ordinar Anselmus so it is called a lawe as in iustice imposed of God vpon man for his disobedience 2. For the second the one is called the lawe of the minde and inner man the other the lawe of the members and outward man 1. not that the minde and reason onely wherein the naturall lawe is written is the inner man and the sensitive part is the flesh as Lyranus Gorrhan with others which opinion is confuted before quest 26. for euen the minde is corrupt and so carnall in the vnregenerate as the Apostle speaketh of some which were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corrupt in their minde 2. Timoth. 3.8 2. But the regenerate part is called the inner man and the vnregenerate both in soule and bodie the outward 1. because intus potissimum regnat it raigneth chiefely within and is discerned chiefely and knowne in the mind Mart. 2. quia in cordis conuersione c. because it consisteth in the heart nec patet hominum oculis and is not open and apparent vnto the sight of men Pareus in which sense it is called the hid man of the heart 1. Pet. 3.4 3. and because non externa vel mâ—â—dana quaerit it seeketh not things externall belonging to the world whereas appetitus carnis vagi sunt extra hominem the fleshly appetite is wandring and as it were without a man Calvin and as Caietane carnalibus officijs immersae sunt the faculties of the outward man are drenched as it were and wholly spent in carnall offices 4. and the regenerate part is called by the name of the inner man and the minde per excellenciam because of the excellencie for as the minde is more excellent then the bodie so is the spirit then the flesh Calvin Quest. 32. Of the Apostles exclamation O wretched man that I am 1. The word which the Apostle here vseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth one that is perpetus pugnis fatigatus wearied with continuall combates Beza like as a champion which striuing along time is like at last to be ouercome of his aduersaries vnlesse he be helped the vulgar latine readeth O vnhappie man but that is not so fit 2. neither doth the Apostle thus crie out either as a man in despaire or doubting by whom he should be deliuered but he sheweth his great desire vox est anhelantis it is the voice of one breathing and panting desiring to be deliuered from this seruitude Calvin 3. and by this exclamation certaminis gravitatem ostendit he sheweth the greatnes of this combate out of the which he was not able to wrestle by his owne strength and if Paul were not able who is it is then a patheticall speach like vnto that Psal. 86. Who will giue me the wings as it were of a done Faius 4. And in this crying out the Apostle sheweth the state of all men in this life into what miserie they are brought by their sinne and likewise his desire longing to be deliuered therfrom Pareus Quest. 33. What the Apostle vnderstandeth by this bodie of death from the which he desireth to be deliuered 1. Ambrose by the bodie of death vnderstandeth vniuersitatem vitiorum a general collection of sinnes which he called before the bodie of sinne but there was not in the Apostle such a gathering together and confluence of all sinne 2. Pererius chargeth Calvin to agree with Ambrose who vnderstandeth by the bodie of death massam vel congeriem peccati ex qua homo constatus the masse and heape of sinne whereof man consisteth and thereupon he crieth out ô hominem impurum atque impium O wicked and filthie man that is not ashamed so to charge the Apostle c. Whereas Calvin onely saith that there were in the Apostle reliquiae peccati some reliques of sinne of that masse of sinne and corruption which is in man Calvin then and Melancthon do thus vnderstand the Apostle naturam hanc carnalem immersam esse peccato that this carnall nature is wholly drowned and drenched in sinne so also Martyr vitiatam corruptam naturam intelligit he vnderstandeth our corrupt nature but the Apostle speaketh of death here not of sinne 3. neither is the bodie of death taken here properly for sinne as Faius thinketh it was called before the bodie of sinne c. 6. and it is considered tanquam moles onus incumbens as a masse or burthen lying vpon vs so also Roloch it is taken for sinne in this place which is in the bodie and in the whole man likewise Piscator mortem intelligit peccatum inhabitans by death he vnderstandeth the sinne that dwelleth in vs and so before them Vatablus à concupiscentia c. he wisheth to be deliuered from concupiscence which did make him guiltie of eternall death and before him Photius in Oecumenius applyeth it to the corporall and sinnefull actions which bring the death of the soule But in their meaning the Apostle should say in effect who shall deliuer me from this sinnefull bodie what could an vnregenerate man haue said more 4. neither yet doe I approoue of their opinion which referre it onely to the mortalitie of the bodie as Theophylact morti subiecti subiect to death Lyranus quia sancti resurgent c. because the Saints shall rise in an immortall bodie and Pererius à corpore mortis huius from the bodie of this death that is subiect to mortalitie and corruption for the Apostle hath respect thus crying out vnto the conflict between the flesh and the spirit from which he desireth to be deliuered 5. Cassianus by the bodie of death would haue vnderstood the terrene busines and necessitie quae spirituales
synecdoche the principall part beeing taken for the whole the minde regenerate for all the regenerate part both in the minde and bodie because it chiefly sheweth it selfe there and the flesh for that part which is vnregenerate in the whole man both in the minde and bodie because it is chiefly exercised and executed by the bodie see before Quest. 26. 2. We are not to vnderstand here two distinct and seuerall parts the one working without the other as the Romanists which will haue the inner man to be the minde and the sensuall part the flesh for in this sense neither doth the minde alwaies serue God wherein there is ignorance infidelitie error nor yet doth the sensuall part alwaies serue sinne for many vertuous acts are exercised thereby see this opinion before confuted Quest. 31. But these two parts must be vnderstood as working together the flesh hindreth the spirit and blemisheth our best actions Faius 3. And whereas the Apostle saith that in my flesh I serue the law of sinne we must not imagine that the Apostle was giuen ouer vnto grosse carnall works as to commit murther adulterie but he sheweth the infirmitie of his flesh and specially he meaneth his naturall concupiscence and corruption of nature in the which he gaue instance before against the which pugnabat luctabatur he did striue and fight Martyr 4. Neither yet must we thinke that the Apostle seruing the spirit one way and the flesh an other was as a mutable or inconstant man or indifferent like as Ephraim is compared to a cake but turned and baked on the one side Hos. 7.8 or as they which Revel 3. are said to be luke warme neither hoat nor cold for these of a set purpose were such and willingly did dissemble but the Apostle setteth forth himselfe as a man neither perfectly sound nor yet sicke but in a state betweene both that although he laboured to attaine to perfection yet he was hindred by the infirmitie of his flesh like as an Israelite dwelling among the Iebusits Faius 5. And whereas the Apostle said before v. 15. it is not I that doe it but sinne that dwelleth in mee and yet here he saith I my selfe c. in my selfe serue the law of sinne the Apostle is not contrarie to himselfe for he speaketh here of his person that doth both there of of the cause Tolet. annot 25. and so he sheweth secundum repugnantia principia se repugnantia habere studia that according vnto the contrarie beginnings or causes he hath contrarie desires Pareus 36. Quest. Of that famous question whether S. Paul doe speake in his owne person or of an other here in this 7. chapter There are of this matter diuers opinions which yet may be sorted into these three orders 1. Some thinke that the Apostle speaketh in the person of a man not yet in the state of grace 2. Some of a man regenerate from v. 14. to the ende 3. Some that the Apostle indifferently assumeth the person of all mankind whether they be regenerate or not And in euery of these opinions there is great diuersitie 1. They which are of the first opinion 1. Some thinke that the Apostle speaketh in the person of a naturall man and sheweth what strength a mans free will hath by nature without grace so Iulianus the Pelagian with other of that sect whose epistles Augustine confuteth so Lyranus he speaketh in the person generis humani lapsi of humane kind after their fall 2. Some will haue the person of a man described sub lege ante legem degentis not liuing onely before the law but vnder it hauing some knowledge of sinne so Chrysostome Theophylact whome Tolet followeth annot 4. 3. Some thinke that the Apostle describeth a man not altogether vnder the law nor yet wholly vnder grace but of a man beginning to be conuerted quasi voluntate proposito ad meliora conversi as converted in minde and desire vnto better things Origen so also Basil. 〈◊〉 â—egal breviar and Haymo saith the Apostle speaketh ex persona hominis poenitentiam agentis in the person of a man penitent c. 2. They of the second sort doe thus differ 1. Augustine confesseth that sometime he was of opinion that the Apostle speaketh in the person of a carnall and vnregenerate man but afterward he changed his minde vpon better reasons thinking the Apostle to speake of a spirituall man in the state of grace lib. 1. Retract c. 23. lib. 6. cont Iulian. c. 11. but Augustine reteining this sense thinketh that the Apostle saying v. 15. I allow not that thing which I doe speaketh of the first motions onely of concupiscence quando illis non consenttatur when no consent is giuen vnto them lib. 3. cont Iulian. c. 26. which concupiscence the most perfect man in this life can not be void of so also Gregorie vnderstandeth simplices motus ceruis contra voluntatem the simple motions of the flesh against the will and hereunto agreeth Bellarm. lib. 5. de amission grat c. 10. Rhemist sect 6. vpon this chapter 2. Cassianus collat 23. c. 15. vnderstandeth a man regenerate but then by the inner man he would haue signified the contemplation of celestiall things by the flesh curam rerum temporalium the care of earthly things 3. Some thinke that the Apostle so describeth a regenerate man as yet that he may sometime become in a manner carnall we see in this example euen of Paul regenerate etiam regeneratum nonnunquam mancipium fieri peccati that a regenerate man may sometime become the slaue of sinne Rolloch 4. But the founder opinion is that the Apostle in his owne person speaketh of a regenerate man euen when he is at the best that he is troubled and exercised with sinnefull motions which the perfectest can not be ridde of till he be deliuered from his corruptible flesh of this opinion was Hilarie habemus nunc nobis admistam materiam quae mortis legi peccato obnoxia est c. we haue now mixed within vs a certaine matter which is subiect to the law of death and sinne c. and vntill our bodie be glorified non potest in nobis verae vita esse natura there can not be in vs the nature and condition of true life Hilar. in Psal. 118. Of the same opinion are all our foundest new writers Melancthon Martyr Calvin Beza Hyperius Pareus Faius with others 3. Of the third sort 1. some are indifferent whether we vnderstand the person of the regenerate or vnregenerate gloss ordinar and so Gorrhan sheweth how all this which the Apostle hath from v. 18. to the end may in one sense be vnderstood of the regenerate in an other of the vnregenerate 2. Some thinke that some things may be applied vnto the regenerate as I am carnall sold vnder sinne but some things onely can be applied to the regenerate as these words I delight in the law of God c. Perer. disput 21. num 38. and yet he
Whether S. Paul was troubled with the tentations of the flesh and with what 1. S. Paul was before his calling tempted and carried away with diuerse lusts as he confesseth Tit. 3.3 then giuing consent vnto them following theÌ„ with delight after his calling he felt also the pricking and stirring of his flesh but it had not dominion ouer him as before as here the Apostle sheweth how he did finde the lawe of his members rebelling against the law of his minde and spirit and these temptations of the flesh the Lord suffered the Apostle to be troubled with least he should be extolled by reason of his other excellent gifts as he himselfe sheweth 2. Cor. 12.7 whereupon Gregory well saith custos virtutis infirmitas infirmitie is the gardian and keeper of vertue ad ima pertrahit caro ne extollat spiritus ad alta sustollit spiritus ne prosternat caro the flesh draweth vs downe that the spirit lift vs not vp and the spirit doth reare vs vp that the flesh should not altogether cast vs downe lib. 19. Moral c. 4. 2. But whereas the Apostle saith There was giuen vnto me the pricke of the flesh c. 2. Cor. 12.7 1. neither thereby is signified the afflictions and griefes which the persecutors put his bodie vnto as Chrysost. Theodoret. 2. or the paine of the head gloss ordinar or the cholike as Lyranus or some other such bodily infirmitie which would haue much hindered the Apostle in his ministerie 3. nor yet much lesse was this pricke the lust of his flesh as Hierome thinketh epist. 22. and Haymo so also Pererius disput 23. for it is not like that Pauls bodie beeing tamed and kept vnder with fastings watchings labour had any such fleshy desire 4. But hereby is better to vnderstand omne tentationum genus c. euery kind of carnall temptation wherewith S. Paul was exercised Calvin Beza 4. Places of Doctrine Doct. 1. All things fall out to the wicked for their hurt v. 8. Sinne tooke occasion by the commandement Pet. Mart. hereupon well observeth that all things to the vnregenerate fall out vnto euill for if the lawe doe giue advantage to sinne which is holy iust and good of it selfe how much are other things turned to their hurt as all things to them that loue God fall out to their good Rom. 8.28 Doct. 2. Of the necessarie vse of the lawe v. 8. Without the lawe sinne is dead That is it lyeth hid and is vnknowne hence both Pareus and Piscator note concionem legis in Ecclesia necessariam that the preaching of the lawe is necessarie in the Church that sinne may be knowne and come to light and thus the lawe by reuealing our sinne is a schoolmaster to lead vs to Christ Galat. 3.19 to finde righteousnesse in him which we haue not in our selues Doct. 3. Of the effects of the lawe v. 9. When the commandement came sinne reuived There are 3. effects of the lawe here expressed by the Apostle two it bringeth forth of it selfe the manifestation of sinne and thereupon the sentence of death the third it worketh not of it selfe but accidentally namely the encrease of sinne through the perversnes of mans nature which striueth against that which is forbidden Par. Doct. 4. Of a fiuefold state of man v. 23. I see an other law in my members c. 1. In Paradise man had naturall concupiscence but without disorder or rebellion against the mind 2. before the law concupiscence rebelled against reason and without resistance 3. vnder the law men resisted concupiscence but could not vanquish it 4. vnder grace they striue against it and preuaile 5. in heauen these shall be no concupiscence at all Perer. disput 17. Doct. 5. How death is to be desired v. 24. Who shall deliuer me S. Paul desireth to be dissolued to make an ende of sinne and thus death may be wished for as the onely remedie of our miserie the wicked doe oftentimes desire death but it is rather vitae fastidio quam impietatis taedio for that they are wearie of their life not of sinne Calvin 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. Against Purgatorie v. 1. The Law hath dominion ouer a man as long as he liueth This sheweth the presumption of the Pope who taketh vpon him to prescribe lawes and rules vnto those which are dead and their soules as they imagine in purgatorie for no lawe imposed vpon the liuing doth bind them when they are dead and concerning the authoritie of man it determineth in this life Matth. 10.28 Feare not them which kill the bodie and are not able to kill the soule the Pope then is no more able to free and absolue the soule after death then he is to kill and condemne it Controv. 2. Of the lawfulnes of second marriage v. 2. If the man be dead she is deliuered from the law of the man Hence the lawfulnes of second marriage is prooued for if the woman be free when the man is dead and so likewise the man then is it lawfull for them to marrie againe for now they are as though they neuer had beene bound Hierome then herein was deceiued who seemeth to speake hardly of second marriages though in words he will not condemne them for he saith that a woman marrying after the first marriage doth not differ much from an harlot lib. 1. cont Iovinian and they which are twice maried he compareth to the vncleane beasts in Noahs arke But Hierome is to be pardoned this ouersight who too much extolling virginitie which he confesseth he had lost himselfe ad Eduoch was caried away in heate and passion so to â—â—iâ—e of second marriages 2. The Romanists though they dare not condemne second marriages simply yet in that they denied such to be admitted to orders as haue beene twice married they shew what base conceit they haue thereof Pererius to helpe this matter saith that S. Paul would a Bishop to be the husband of one wife not because he condemned second marriages sed quod â—â— maximè ducebat dignitatem sacramentum Episcopi c. but because it best become the dignitie and sacrament Episcopall to be the husband of one wife as Christ is the spouse of one Church c. disput 1. num 2. Contra. 1. S. Paul meaneth such as had but one wife at one time not one after an other for there were many in those daies which were newly conuerted from Iudaisme that had more then one wife at once for among the Iewes it was tolerated and euen by their owne decrees he was counted infamous qui duas simul vxores habet which had two wiues at once decret Gregor lib. 1. tit 21. c. 4. not he which had two one after an other see 〈◊〉 elswhere Synops. Cent. 1. err 78. 2. A dignitie Episcopall we acknowledge but no Sacrament for Christ instituted onely two baptisme and the Eucharist which answer vnto the two principall Sacraments of the old Testament Circumcision and the Paschal lambe 3.
haue no other Gods c. and thou shalt make to thy selfe no grauen image c. but one 2. Contra. 1. The Apostle calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a commandement in the singular number not commandements 2. if they were two commandements it should not be knowne in what order they should be set which before the other for Exod. 20. it is first said thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house but Deuter. 5.21 thou shalt not couet thy neighbours wife is put in the first place 3. beside if euery particular act of coueting should make a diuerse commandement the number of them should be infinite Pareus 3. Pet. Martyr herein concurreth that the precept thou shalt not lust is but one but he hath here a singular opinion by himselfe that the two first commandements thou shalt haue no other Gods c. and thou shalt not make to thy selfe c. are but one and the first commandement he would haue that to be which is set as a preface before the rest I am the Lord thy God which brought c. for here it is enacted that the Lord onely is the true God and in this first commandement the Gospel is offred vnto vs for in that mention is made of their deliuerance out of Egypt there the promise concerning Christ is contained But this is onely a priuate opinion and a singular conceit of so learned a man by himselfe which may be thus reasoned against 1. all the commandements are propounded imparatively thou shalt not doe this or thou shalt not doe that but those words are vttered enuntiative they are propounded onely not spoken by way of commanding 2. and if he will haue the temporall deliuerance out of Egypt to containe a promise of Christ it is so much the rather no part of the morall commandements for the law and faith are opposite one containeth not nor includeth an other as the Apostle saith the law is not of faith Gal. 3.12 no more is faith of the law 10. Controv. Against free will v. 19. The euill that I would not that doe I. The Rhemists note here that this maketh nothing against free will but plainely prooueth it because to consent or not consent is alwaies free though the operation may be hindred by some externall force Contra. 1. The will of the vnregenerate is free from coaction and compulsion but not from a necessitie alwaies of willing that is euill 2. and in the regenerate of which state the Apostle speaketh in his owne person the will is reformed by grace to will that which is good as our blessed Sauiour saith Ioh. 8.33 If the Sonne make you free then you are free in deede this place then euidently maketh against the naturall strength of free will vnto that which is good 6. Morall obseruations 1. Observ. Euery one must descend into himselfe v. 7. I knew not sinne but by the law As Paul here giueth instance in himselfe and examineth his sinnes by the law so euery one is taught by his example to enter into himselfe and call his life and acts to account as Dauid saith Psal. 32.5 I acknowledged my sinne vnto thee c. 2. Observ. Against phanaticall spirits that excuse sinne v. 17. It is no more I that doe it men that are giuen ouer to all carnall lusts must not thinke to excuse themselues thus that it is sinne that doth it and not themselues for they must also say with the Apostle v. 16. I doe that which I would not they cannot then apply this to themselues qui non pugnant which doe not fight or striue against sinne 3. Observ. Of delighting in the lawe of God v. 22. I delight c. Hypocrites may seeme to conforme themselues often to the obedience of the lawe as Herod that a while heard Iohn gladly but it is not in loue or with delight which is onely in them that are regenerate as the Prophet Dauid saith that the lawe of God was sweeter vnto him then the honie or honie combe Psal. 19. Observ. 4. Of the fight and combate betweene the spirit and the flesh v. 23. I see an other lawe c. Onely the righteous doe feele this strife in themselues the spirit drawing them one way and the flesh an other as the Apostle here sheweth in himselfe and so as Gregorie saith fit certo moderamine c. this is done in such moderation that the Saints while they are in spirit carried one way and hindered by the flesh nec desperationis lapsum nec elationis incurrunt they neither fall into despaire nor yet are lifted vp in mind the like combate betweene the spirit and flesh we may finde to haue been in Dauid Psal. 73. 2.17 in Elias 1. King 19.4 in Ieremie c. 20.7 the like temptations Hierome felt in himselfe pallebant or a iciunijs mens desiderijs ardebat in frigido corpore my face was pale with fasting and yet my minde burned with desire euen in a chill bodie epist. 22. this is much to the comfort of Gods children not to despaire when they are likewise tempted CHAP. VIII 1. The text with the diuerse readings v. 1. Now then there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Iesus which walke walking Gr. not after the flesh but after the spirit which walke not after the flesh L. S. detr 2 For the law of the spirit of life which is in Christ Iesus hath freed me thee S. from the law of sinne and of death 3 For that which was impossible to the law in as much as it was weake because of the flesh God sending his owne Sonne in the similitude of sinnefull flesh flesh of sinne Gr. in a forme like vnto flesh subiect to sinne Be. this is the sense but not the meaning of the words and for sinne not of sinne L.V. the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for condemned sinne in the flesh in his flesh S. ad 4 That the righteousnes the iustification L.T.S. the right Be. the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the law might be fulfilled in vs which walke not after the flesh but after the spirit 5 For they which are after the flesh which are in the flesh S. which are carnall V.B. doe sauour the things of the flesh Be. G. doe thinke the things of the flesh S. are carnally minded B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. but they that are after the spirit the things of the spirit 6 For the wisdome of the flesh is death but the wisdome of the Spirit is life and peace 7 Because the wisdome of the flesh the affection of the flesh V. the fleshly mind B. the vnderstanding of the flesh S. is enmitie against God for it is not subiect to the law of God neither in deede can be 8 So then they that are in the flesh can not please God 9 Now ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit seeing the Spirit of God not if so be the spirit of God L.S.B. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for as much as 2. Thess. 1.6 dwelleth in you but if any haue not the Spirit of Christ the same is not his 10 And if Christ be in you the bodie is dead because of sinne but the Spirit is life because of righteousnes for righteousnes sake B.G. 11 But if the Spirit of him that raised vp Iesus from the dead dwell in you he that raised Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortall bodies by his spirit because of his Spirit V.L.S.B. but the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put to a genitiue case rather signifieth by that dwelleth in you 12 Therefore brethren we are debters not to the flesh to liue after the flesh 13 For if ye liue after the flesh ye shall die but if ye mortifie the deedes of the bodie flesh L. by the Spirit ye shall liue 14 For as many as are led driuen V. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Spirit they are the sonnes of God 15 For ye haue not receiued the spirit of bondage againe vnto feare but ye haue receiued the spirit of adoption of Sonnes S. of the Sonnes of God L. add whereby wherein L. we crie Abba father 16 The same spirit beareth witnesse with our spirit that we are the sonnes of God 17 If we be sonnes children G. we are also heires euen the heires of God and ioynt heires heires annexed G. partakers of the inheritance of S. coheires Be. V. with Christ if so be we suffer together with him that we may be also glorified together with him 18 For I count that the afflictions of this present time are not answerable or meete V. Be. S. worthie L. B. G. but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worthie beeing construed with the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rather taken in the first sense to the glorie which shall be reuealed vnto vs. 19 For the earnest expectation B. fervent desire G. expecting with lifting vp the head Be. or fastening of the eyes S. as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth of the creature the created world Be. waiteth when the sonnes of God should be reuealed 20 Because the creature the created world Be. is subiect to vanitie not of it owne will but by reason of him which hath made it subiect subdued it vnder hope G.B. but these words vnder hope are better referred to the next verse B. S. 21 Vnder hope that the creature also shall be deliuered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious libertie of the sonnes of God 22 For we knowe that euerie creature the world created Be. all the creatures S. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 groaneth together or sigheth and trauaileth in paine together with vs vnto this present 23 And not onely the creature but we also which haue the first fruits of the spirit euen we doe sigh groane L. V. mourne B. in our selues waiting for the adoption of the sonnes of God L. ad euen the redemption of the bodie 24 For we are saued by hope but hope that is seene is not hope for that which one seeth why not how G. B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should he hope for 25 But if we hope for that we see not we doe with patience abide it expect it Be. 26 Likewise the spirit also helpeth our infirmities for this what we should pray for as we ought we knowe not but the spirit it selfe maketh intercession maketh request L.G. with sighes groanes B.S.V. which cannot be expressed 27 But he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the meaning sense Be. vnderstanding S. desire L. affection V. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sense meaning of the spirit for he maketh intercession for the Saints according to God that is according to his will S. G. according to his pleasure B. 28 Also we knowe that to those which loue God all things work together God helpeth them in euerie thing S. ad for the best vnto good Gr. euen vnto them which are called of his purpose predestinate to be called S. called to be Saints ad of his purpose L. 29 For those whom he knewe before he also predestinate to be like fashioned or conformable to the image of his sonne that he might be the first borne among many brethren 30 Moreouer whom he predestinate them also he called and whom he called them also he iustified and whom he iustified them also he glorified 31 What shall we then say to these things if God be for vs on our side B. G. who can be against vs 32 Who spared not his owne Sonne but gaue him vp for vs all how shall he not also with him giue vs all things 33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge or put in any accusation against Be. of Gods chosen it is God that iustifieth 34 Who is he that condemneth who shall condemne det G. it is Christ which is dead or rather which is risen againe who is at the right hand of God and maketh intercession B. Be. L. maketh request G. for vs. 35 Who shall separate vs from the loue of Christ shall tribulation or anguish or persecution or famine or nakednes or perill or the sword 36 As it is written For thy sake are we killed all day long we are counted as sheepe for the slaughter 37 Neuerthelesse in all these things we are more then conquerors we doe ouercome L. S.V.B. but the compound word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth more then simply to ouercome thorough him that loued vs. 38. For I am perswaded am certaine V. B. that neither death nor life nor Angels nor principalities nor powers not things present nor things to come nor strength ad L. 39. Nor height nor depth nor any other creature shall be able to separate vs from the loue of God which is in Christ Iesus our Lord. 2. The Argument Method and Parts In this Chapter the Apostle concluding the doctrine of iustification remooueth and taketh away the impediments 1. the reliques remainder of sinne in the sonnes of God doe not hinder their iustification to v. 17.2 neither are their afflictions an impediment which he exhorteth them by diuerse reasons patiently to suffer to v. 31.3 then he concludeth with the certaintie of saluation in the elect v. 31. to the end 1. The first impediment that the reliques of sinne which remaine in the seruants of Christ whereof the Apostle gaue instance in himselfe in the former Chapter doe not hinder their saluation he taketh away but with a double limitation if they be in Christ and doe not walke after the flesh both which are propounded v. 1. and afterward amplified and handled more at large The first limitation he setteth forth 1. by the fruites and effects of the spirit in the faithfull in freeing them from sinne and so from death and condemnation whereof he giueth instance in himselfe v. 2. from the end of Christs incarnation and death which was to destroie sinne and fulfill righteousnesse which the law could
of death Pareus so also Osiander doctrina euangelij side apprehensa the doctrine of the Gospel apprehended by faith doth deliuer me likewise Rolloc liberatio hac non est regeneratio sed peccatorum remissio this dedeliuerance is not regeneration but remission of sinnes and his reason is because the Apostle speaketh of a full and absolute deliuerance from sinne and death which is in remission of sinnes not in regeneration which is but in part 5. But I rather ioyne both these together regeneration and remission of sinnes from the which we are deliuered by the grace of Christ as Augustine comprehendeth both for sometime he expoundeth the Apostles words of the remission of sinnes lib. 1. de mixt concupis c. 32. how hath he deliuered vs nisi quia concupiscentiae reatum peccatorum omnium facta remissione c. but that the spirit of life hath dissolued the guilt of concupiscence remission of all sinnes beeing made sometime he applieth them to this worke of regeneration the law of the spirit of life hath deliuered thee from the law of sinne and death ne scilicet concupiscentia c. re in peccatum mortem pertrahat c. lest concupiscence challenging thy consent should draw thee into sinne and death lib. 1. cont 2. epist. Pelagian c. 10. And Calvin also though he cheefely insist vpon the second as he is alleadged before yet he omitteth not the first by the spirit of life vnderstanding the spirit of God which hath besprinkled our soules with the blood of Christ not onely to cleanse them à labe peccati quoad reatum from the staine of sinne in respect of the guilt sed in veram puritatem sanctificat but to sanctifie vs with true puritie c. And the ioyning of these two together doth best fit the occasion of these words and most agreeth vnto the words themselues for the Apostle hauing before spoken both of our iustification in Christ and our sanctification in not walking after the flesh now bringeth in this as a reason of both which is the spirit of life in Christ applied vnto vs by faith and concerning the words the spirit of regeneration answereth to the law that is the force of sinne and the life of grace to the law of death from the first we are deliuered by the spirit of sanctification from the other by the life of righteousnesse in our iustification 6. But Origens exposition is farre wide who by the spirit of life vnderstandeth the spirituall sense of the law and so he will haue in the law both literam occidentem spiritum viâ—ificantem the killing letter and the quickning spirit for the Apostle here directly against the law opposeth the spirit of grace and life in Christ. Quest. 3. What is vnderstood by the law of sinne and death 1. Some by the law of sinne vnderstand the morall law which was the ministrie of death and by it came the knowledge of sinne So Ambrose who propoundeth this obiection that seeing the Gospell and law of faith is likewise vnto sinne the sauour of death vnto death vnto some the sauour of life vnto life as the Apostle saith 2. Cor. 2. why faith if it worke the same thing which the law doth may not be said also to be lex mortis the law of death maketh this answer qui non obediunt fidei non occiduntur à fide sed à lege c. they which obey not faith are not killed by faith but by the law because they which came not vnto the faith are condemned by the law as guiltie of sinne and death c. But this were to confound the law and faith as though the law commanded and prescribed the Euangelicall faith for the law punisheth onely the breach and transgression thereof but the law commandeth one thing namely doe this and thou shalt liue saith onely in the Gospel requireth of vs to beleeue Rom. 4. 10.9 Pet. Martyr giueth this answer that the Gospel quamdiu fâ—ris sovat c. so long as it onely foundeth outwardly and the spirit worketh not within doth differ nothing from the law but when the spirit worketh inwardly together with the preaching of the Gospel then it hath the effect to saluation which the law cannot haue because it requireth other things then the Gospel the Gospel then is not the ministrie of death as the law not for that it doth not punish vnbeleeuers as the law doth the disobedient but in respect of the doctrine of saluation by faith which men are capable of by grace whereas the doctrine of workes by the law can bring no saluation vnto any no not beeing in the state of grace Together with Ambrose Vatablus and Pareus by the law of death will haue the law of Moses to be vnderstood quia peccatum deteget occidit because it discouereth sinne and killeth it iudging it worthie of death so also Bellarmine lib. 4. de iustificat c. 13. ration 5. and gloss interlin But if the law doe condemne sinne and sentence it with death it is not the law of sinne beeing against it it is called the ministerie of condemnation 2. Cor. 3.9 but so it is nostro vitio by our fault not of it selfe but that is said to be the law of a thing which it properly prescribeth and aymeth at 2. Origen seemeth to vnderstand the ceremoniall law which was impossible to be obserued as he giueth instance of the law of the Sabboth and of sacrifices as before by the spirit he interpreteth the spirituall sense of the law But the Apostles intent is not here to compare the literall and spirituall sense of the law together but to shew what libertie we haue obtained by Christ from sinne and condemnation 3. Some by the law of sinne and death vnderstand carnis imperium the dominion or power of the flesh or of sinne raigning in the flesh and the tyrannie of death which followeth Calvin the law of sinne is the law of the members which the Apostle spake of before Chrysostome Pet. Martyr the accusing of sinne and power of death Osiander or ab obligatione from the bond and obligation of sinne and death Lyranus à iure peccati c. from the right or power of sinne and death as Erasmus we are deliuered both from the power and guilt of sinne for Moses law the Apostle no where calleth the law of sinne Chrysostome So here there is mention made of three lawes two good the law of grace which taketh away sinne the law of Moses which is mentioned in the next v. which sheweth sinne but taketh it not away and one euill law namely of sinne which maketh vs guiltie gloss ordin Quest. 4. Of the best reading of the 3. verse 1. Erasmus and Vatablus doe supplie the word effecit or praestitit did or performed in this sense that which was impossible to the law c. God sending his Sonne c. did c. This reading also follow the Ecclesiasticall expositors collected by Marlorat
but this supplie is not necessarie the sense is full and perfect without it as afterward shall appeare 2. Some doe transpose the words thus because the law was weake by reason of the flesh Syrian interpreter but in the originall the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein do follow after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the law it were an hard construction to set the relatiue before the antecedent 3. Neither neede we with Camerarius to supplie the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for or because as thus to read because of that which was impossible to the law c. which reading Pareus followeth and Beza misliketh not 4 Neither need we here to admit an Hebraisme with Tolet who will haue the participle sending according to the phrase of the Hebrew to be taken for he sent because he would coine those words and for sinne vnto the last clause which doe hang on the words going before 5. Neither is it put in the nominatiue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this sense such was the weaknes of the law as Beza for here also diuerse words must be supplied 6. But the best reading is to put it in the accusatiue the thing impossible to the law in as much as it was weake c. and to referre it to the last clause condemned sinne in the flesh by way of opposition in this sense God sending his Sonne c. condemned sinne in the flesh which was impossible to the law as the Latine well obserueth and so our English translations doe well expresse it thus for that which was impossible to the law c. Quest. 5. What is meant by the similitude of sinnefull flesh 1. The Maniches and Marcionites did wrest the Apostles words to signifie that Christ had no true humane flesh but a similitude and likenes onely But Basil epistol 65. well answereth them that this word similitude must not simply be referred to flesh but to sinnefull flesh for Christ was like vnto vs in all things sinne onely excepted 2. The Commentatie which goeth vnder Hieromes name saith it is called the similitude of sinnefull flesh quia erat ad peccandum proclivior because it was prone vnto sinne but yet he took it without sinne for Christs flesh beeing conceiued without sinne had no pronnes or aptnes at all vnto sinne vnlesse he meane humane flesh in generall and not that particular flesh which was assumed by Christ. 3. Some by the similitude of sinnefull flesh interpret similem per passibilitatem mortâ—â—tatem like in mortalitie and suffering gloss inter Lyranus so also Melancthon peccatur in speciem visa est it seemed as sinnefull flesh because he sustained the punishment doe vnto our sinnes likewise Osiander because he bare our punishment he was taken of some to be a great sinner But this sense is to much restrained and too particular 4. Nor yet doth Erasmus well translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in specie in the shew of sinnefull flesh for so the Angels and Christ himselfe before his incarnation appeared in humane shape 5. But Theophylact well interpreteth he had our flesh secundam substantiam sed peccaâ—â— expertem in substance but void of sinne so also Basil with other Greeke expositors carâ—â—â— nostram in naturalibus affectibus he tooke our flesh with the naturall affections he tooke our verie flesh as Phil. 2.7 he was found in shape as a man Pareus Beza with others Quest. 6. Of these words and for sinne condemned sinne in the flesh 1. Origen by sinne vnderstandeth sacrifice for sinne so many of our new wiâ—â—â— Melancthon Bucer Calvin Osiander Martyr so also Pererius Vatablus disput 4.10 so they interpret pro peccato 1. per peccatum by sinne by sinne that is by his sacrifice so sinne he condemned sinne in the flesh but though elsewhere sinne is taken in that sense for sacrifice for sinne as 2. Cor. 5.21 he made him to be sinne for vs which knewe no sinne yet it is but an hard construction here for the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not by or thorough but pro for 2. Augustines exposition is yet more hard who by sinne vnderstandeth the flesh of Christ which he tooke like vnto sinnefull flesh and therefore it is called sinne lib. 3. contra 2. epist. Pelag. c. 6. but the Apostle saith afterward he condemned sinne in the flesh this should be superfluously put if by sinne he had meant the flesh before 3. Hillarius in Psal. 67. by sinne which is condemned interpreteth the deuill who was condemned and iudged in Christs death by that sinne which he had committed by the Iewes in putting Christ to death this seemeth hard also 4. Anselme by death in the first place will haue death signified which is the effect of sinne and so Christ by his death condemned sinne but the Greeke preposition will not beare this sense 5. Chrysostome and Theodoret whom Tolet followeth deuise this sense that Christ condemned sinne tanquam reum iniquitatis as guiltie of great sinne and iniquitie because it rose vp against Christ beeing innocent and caused him to die so they doe giue vnto sinne a certaine person which for the great offence which is had committed was condemned 6. But all these expositions fayle herein because they ioyne these words and for sinne to the last clause condemned whereas they are a part of the former member how God sent his Sonne in the similitude of sinnefull flesh and for sinne that is vt tolleret peccatum to take away sinne so Beza Pareus Rolloch and this exposition Oecumenius also maketh mention of so that this is the ende why God sent his Sonne to take away sinne 7. There is also an other exposition which the ordin gloss hath and Gorrhan peccatum de peccato sinne of sinne they interpret to be the corruption of our nature springing from the sinne of Adam But this fayleth with the rest in seuering the words from the former sentence Quest. 7. How Christ condemned sinne in the flesh 1. Tolet vnderstandeth it of the dominion of sinne which it had before in our members but now in Christ sinne is depriued of his dominion 2. Beza referreth it to the sanctification of our nature in Christ which he tooke without sinne and by flesh he vnderstandeth the humane nature sanctified in Christ 3. Chrysostome ioyneth these two together that Christ both non peccavit sinned not at all and so sinne ouercame not him and in that he died vicit condemnavit peccatum he ouercame and condemned sinne likewise Haymo saith Christ two wayes condemned sinne because he sinned not in his flesh mortificando in cruce and he condemned it by mortifying the same vpon the crosse 4. Erasmus giueth this sense convicit coarguit peccatores he convinced and reprooued sinners that is he shewed them to be hypocrites and deceiuers which hitherto had deluded the world with a false shewe of iustice and yet they put Christ to death as a transgressor of the law but the Apostles intendment
is to shewe what Christ hath wrought for vs not what he did against his aduersaries 5. Socinus will haue the meaning to be no more but this that Christ did not satisfie by his death for sinne but exauthoravit abolevit he did abolish sinne and take away the power and authoritie thereof for he came to doe that which the lawe could not doe which was not to punish and condemne sinne for that the lawe could doe but to deliuer vs from the seruitude of sinne Socinus part 2. c. 23. p. 195. Contra. 1. True it is that Christ by his death hath also abolished the kingdome of sinne that it shall no longer raigne in his members but first it was abolished by the sacrifice of Christs death who bare the punishment of our sinne in himselfe and this is the proper sense of the word to condemne that is inflict the punishment of sinne as in this chapter v. 34. who shall condemne vs so before c. 2. 1. c. 5.16 2. S. Paul doth not so much shew what Christ came to doe namely that the law could not doe but the reason why he came to doe it because the law could not by reason of the weaknes of our flesh 3. the law indeede did condemne and punish sinne but by the law euery one was to beare his owne sinne the law could not appoint one to beare the punishment for all as Christ did whose sufferings are made ours by faith 6. Some of our owne writers doe vnderstand this condemning of sinne of the abolishing of the kingdome thereof and of our sanctification and regeneration Bucer Musculu◠these differ both from the Papists whose opinion is set downe before that is who make regeneration a part of iustification the other a consequent onely and effect thereof and the Papists differ from Socinus opinion who presupposeth no satisfaction at all to be made for our sinnes by the death of Christ But yet these words can not properly be referred to the condemning of sinne in vs by the worke of regeneration for this Christ did in his flesh or by his flesh not in carne i. homine in the flesh that is man as Lyranus 7. Wherefore the meaning indeede is that Christ in his flesh beeing made a sacrifice for vs vpon the crosse did beare the punishment due vnto our sinne God condēned sinne in the flesh of his Sonne that is poenas peccato debitas exegit he did exact the punishment due vnto our sinne Pareus and by condemning it in the death of his Sonne hath freed vs from condemnation This to be the meaning 1. the vse of the word to condemne sheweth touched before 2. the scope of the Apostle which is to shew that there is no condemnation to those which are in Christ because Christ hath himselfe freed them therefrom by bearing the punishment of sinne 3. the consent of other places of Scripture prooue the same as Gal. 3.13 Christ hath redeemed vs from the curse of the law beeing made a curse for vs and 1. Pet. 2.24 Himselfe bare our sinnes in his bodie on the tree And thus diuers of the fathers expound this of Christs death as Chrysostome eo quod mortuus est peccatum vicit condemnavit in that he died he ouercame and condemned death and Origen per hostiam cornis c. by the sacrifice of his flesh he condemned sinne in the flesh 8. The other sense which the Greeke scholiast followeth that sinne was condemned in Christs flesh quia illam peccato inanem servavit because he kept it free from sinne and so internecio peccati est punitio the killing of sinne is the punishment thereof though it be also found and very comfortable yet it is not here so fit because it is said that God sending his Sonne condemned sinne in the flesh so that it is better referred to the suffering of Christ then to his actiue obedience Quest. 8. Who are after the flesh and sauour the things of the flesh v. 5. 1. Origens sense is here reiected who vnderstandeth the Iewes which carnally vnderstand the lawe them he will to be after the spirit which did follow the spirituall sense of the law for in all this discourse S. Paul treateth specially of the morall lawe of Moses as he gaue instance in the tenth precept thou shalt not lust c. 7.8 2. Nor yet as Tolet annot 15. with other Romanists must we vnderstand spiritum nationalem seu mentem the reason or mind for euen the mind in carnall men is carnall qua carnea sunt mente volutant they doe in their minde thinke of carnall things they haue mentem carneam a fleshly minde Theophyl and Chrysostome saith that a carnall life totem hominem carnem facit maketh the whole man flesh and if we giue our minde to the spirit ipsam spiritualem efficiemus we shall also make it spirituall to walke after the spirit is then to be guided by the grace of Gods spirit Theodor. 3. Sometime to be in the flesh signifieth to remaine in the bodie as 2. Cor. 10.3 though we walke in the flesh we doe not warre after the flesh sometime euen the regenerate are saide to be carnall in respect of that part which is in them carnall and vnregenerate but here it is taken in an other sense for them which are altogether lead by their carnall affections affectus carnis malitians dixit affectus spiritus gratiam the affectious of the flesh he calleth the malice thereof the affections of the spirit grace Chrysost. 4. Now carnall things or the things of the flesh are of three sorts Some are good as the knowledge of artes some indifferent as riches honour some euill as the workes of the flesh adulterie drunkennesse so that two wayes men here may erre either in the matter when they followe things in their nature euill as the sinnefull workes of the flesh or in the manner when they folowe things of this world in themselues indifferent but with an euill minde they doe not referre them to the glorie of God But they preferre things temporall Before eternall like as lingua febricitantis infecta cholera c. the tongue of a sicke man infected with choser taketh sweete things for bitter Lyran. neither yet is it vnlawfull for them which are spiritual to be occupied in the things of this life but they must referre all to Gods glorie and preferre things spirituall before externall like as lingua bene disposita a tongue which is not distempered doth iudge rightly of euery tast Quest. 9. How the wisedome of the flesh is enmitie against God 1. Pareus well noteth that the Apostle here vseth not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth prudence it selfe least he should seeme to haue condemned that naturall gift and facultie but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which noteth the act rather and execution of that facultie and he addeth to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the flesh not condemning or reiecting all prudent actions but such as
are not inheritors as Abraham gaue gifts vnto his other sonnes but left the inheritance to Izaak but here all the sonnes of God are heires 2. Haymo observeth that here an inheritance is confirmed in the death of the father but God dieth not though now he seeme to be absent from vs and afterward when we are admitted to our inheritance we shall see him as he is gloss ordinar and yet Christ dying left vs as an inheritance his peace but this is most strange that here the heire must first die and be mortified before he can come to the inheritance whereas in the world he dieth that leaueth the inheritance 3. And among men the inheritance must be deuided into parts if all the sonnes be heires but here tota habetur à quolibet bono the whole inheritance is enioyed of 〈◊〉 one admitted thereunto though not alike but in degrees Lyran. 4. â—nd this our inheritance is not limited as the Apostle saith all things are yours 1. Cor. 3.21 whether things present or to come for the present Christ hath left vs his peace my peace I giue vnto you and he hath left vs his Testament as his will that we should beleeue it Haymo who further sheweth how we shall be heires with Christ both of his glorie for when he appeareth we shall be like him 1. Ioh. 3.3 and of his dominion and power as he promiseth his Apostles that they shall sit vpon twelue seates and iudge the twelue tribes of Israel Matth. 19. And this prerogatiue shall not be giuen onely to the Apostles but euen the Saints shall iudge the world as the Apostle sheweth 1. Cor. 6.3 Par. This twofold inheritance of Christs glorie and dominion is well touched by Origen Christus non solum in partem haereditatis sed etiam in consortium potentiae adducit Christ doth bring vs not only into a part of his inheritance but into the fellowship of his power But whereas Christ onely is named to be heire I will giue the nations for thine inheritance Psal. 2. we must vnderstand that he onely is the naturall heire beeing the onely begotten sonne of God but we are heires by adoption and grace and so are admitted to be heires with Christ. 5. But here Chrysostom hath an harsh note that the Iewes vnder the lawe were not heires as our Sauiour saith Matth. 8. that the children of the kingdome shall be cast out whereas our Sauiour there speaketh of the hypocrites and false worshippers among the Iewes not generally of all as there are also among Christians many hypocrites and false children that shall neuer be heires And the Apostle in saying Galat. 4.1 The heire as long as he is a child differeth nothing from a seruant c. euidently sheweth that euen the faithfull vnder the lawe were heires though kept vnder the ceremonies and rudiments of the lawe for a time as children that shall be heires vnder tutors and gouernours Quest. 22. How these words are to be vnderstood if so be yee suffer with him 1. They which followe the Latine translation here si tamen c. yet if or if notwithstanding we suffer with him doe thinke that our sufferings are the cause of our glorie afterward so Stapleton and the Rhemists inferre that as Christs passions were a cause of his glorie so is it in his members but the Apostle remooueth this conceit inferring in the next verse That the afflictions of this life are not worthie of the glorie c. but betweene the cause and the effect there is a worthinesse and a due proportion See further hereof among the controversies following 2. Ambrose whom Calvin and Beza followe thinke this is required as a condition that they which looke to be glorified must first be partakers of Christs suffrings and so our suffrings are necessarie as a condition and the way wherein we should walke and as a 〈◊〉 of our obedience not as a cause this sense may safely be admitted And here a difference is to be made between the legall conditions and Euangelicall for there 1. the condition requireâ— was exactly to be performed and a perfect obedience was required to satisfie the lawe but in the Gospel our willingnesse and godly endeauour is accepted in Christ though we come short of the precept 2. there the reward could not be had without the condition performed here though if time and place serue we must shewe our obedience yet in some cases the promise is had without the condition as the theefe vpon the crosse was saued without any such condition of obedience 3. the obedience of the lawe was exacted as a cause of the reward propounded but in the Gospell it is necessarie onely as a fruit of our obedience the cause is the mercie of God and his gracious promises in Christ. 3. Chrysostome will haue the Apostle to reason here from the greater to the lesse that if God did so much for vs when we had done nothing at all much more will he reward vs if we suffer for him 4. But here I subscribe rather to Pet. Martyr who thinketh that the Apostle maketh mention here of the suffrings of the Saints because they are argumenta indicia arguments and tokens that they are the heires of God for in their constant suffrings they haue experience of the power and goodnesse of God whereby they are kept and preserued vnto saluation Pareus indifferently followeth this and the second interpretation Quest. 23. How we are said to suffer together with Christ. 1. Not in compassion onely toward the suffrings of Christ but by imitation in beeing partakers of the like afflictions must we suffer with him Erasmus 2. Neither doe the Saints by the merit of their suffrings attaine vnto the kingdome of heauen as Christ did by his as the Rhemists here note but we must suffer with Christ onely to shewe our obedience and conformitie to our head 3. Nor yet is it enough to suffer for many are punished for their euill doing and there are that will endure much in the world vpon vaine-glorie but our suffrings must be for righteousnes sake as Christs were 4. And herein must our suffrings be like vnto Christs that as he yeelded himselfe to the death of the crosse 1. both to shewe his obedience vnto the will of God 2. and to take away our sinne so we likewise in our afflictions should shew our obedience because so is the will of God and that we thereby should seeke to mortifie sinne in vs Mart. 5. Now the passions of the Saints are of two sorts they are either internall in mortifying the lusts of the flesh or externall in suffring persecution and trouble for Christs sake 6. And as we suffer with Christ when we beare the like rebukes for the truth as he did so also Christ suffereth in vs and together with vs the afflictions of his members he taketh to be his owne as he said to Saul why persecutest thou me Quest. 24. Of the meaning of the 18.
to make request by the merit and efficacie of his death and the continuall demostration of his loue to this purpose Chrysostome though it must be confessed that Christ beeing God and man otherwise maketh intercession for vs then either God the father or the holy spirit which tooke not our â—â—ure vpon them 4. that Christ vseth no formall or interstinct prayers it is euident by that place Ioh. 11.41 Howbeit thou hearest me alwayes but because of the people that stood by I said it that they may beleeue that thou hast sent me hence two reasons may be gathered that if Christ pray he alwayes prayeth he alwaies is heard his intercession then is his continuall will and desire which is heard Christ spake in his prayer that others hearing might beleeue but now there is no such cause in heauen therefore nowe no such occasion is of formall and distinct prayers 5. Tolets argument is nothing for the Saints now make no formall prayers in heauen but by their voices and desires Reuel 6.9 the soules vnder the altar crie vnto God and Christ is a Priest for euer after the order of Milchisedech in that the fruits of his passion and mediation continue for euer though such distinct and and formall prayers be 〈◊〉 powred out Quest. 54. Whether Christs intercession and interpellation for vs do extenuate the merit of his death 1. Obiect This doubt may be mooued because that seemeth not to be of sufficient merit which needeth a further supply now if Christs mediation for vs be a supply vnto his death and passion then was not that alone sufficient Answ. 1. The intercession of Christ is not to merit our redemption which is purchased by his death but to apply vnto vs ratifie and confirme our saluation merited by Christs death so that the worke of our redemption is perfited by Christs death and in respect of the worke it selfe nothing can be added but on our part because we are weake and doe often fall into sinne our saluation had neede continually to be confirmed and applyed vnto vs to which ende Christs mediation helpeth 2. like as other meanes as the hearing of the word prayer the receiuing of the Sacraments doe not argue any imperfection and insufficiencie in the worke of our redemption but in vs that haue neede of such helpes and supplyes whereby Christs death is applyed 3. And whereas Christs mediation is grounded vpon the merit of his death and passion it is so farre from detracting to the merit thereof that it rather amplyfieth and setteth forth the dignitie of it Quest. 55. What charitie the Apostle speaketh of from which nothing can separate vs. 1. Chrysostome Oecumen Theophyl Origen and most of the Greeke and Latine exposition as Augustine Aâ—b do vnderstand this of the actiue loue which we beare toward God but it is better referred vnto the passiue loue wherewith we are beloued of God for 1. this is more agreeable to the Apostles scope who hitherto hath vrged the loue and mercie of God toward vs in our predestination vocation iustification in giuing his owne Sonne for vs Mat. 2. the Apostle so expoundeth himselfe v. 39. the loue of God which is in Christ Iesus Gryn so also is it taken c. 5.5 the loue of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 3. and our loue toward God sepenumero fluctuas doth oftentimes waver and sadeth in it as in Dauid 2. Sam. 11.4 and so it were a verie vnstable foundation for vs to stay vpon 〈◊〉 The Apostles meaning then is that no kind of trouble or affliction which the world taketh to be signes of Gods anger can yet separate vs from the loue of God and make vs lesse beloued of him 2. Then the Apostle rehearseth sixe seuerall kinds of affliction which are incident to the children of God the vulgar Latine numbreth seuen adding one more namely persecution which is not in the originall Lyranus sorteth them into this order these passions and sufferings of the Saints are either death it selfe signified by the sword or dispositions to death either nearer or more remote and further off the nearer are either in respect of the thing â—â— danger or in the apprehension thereof anguish the more remote are either in substractione necessarij in the subtracting of necessarie things as of food in famine of rayment in nakednesse or in illatione nocumenti in the offring and bringing in of some hurt as in tribulation But the sorting out of these into their seuerall places doth invert the order wherein the Apostle hath placed them which it is safest to followe 3. The Syrian translator readeth for vs who shall separate me which reading Beza seemeth to approoue because thereby the Apostle sheweth how euerie one should make particular application of his faith to himselfe and the Apostle was not so secure of other mens faith as so to pronounce of them But the Greeke text is more authenticall which readeth vs and Osiander verie well obserueth thereupon that the Apostle speaketh not of his owne person alone but of all the faithfull in generall to shewe this certaintie of saluation to belong vnto all that beleeue Quest. 56. Of these words v. 36. For thy sake are we killed all the day long 1. Calvin observeth and P. Martyr noteth the same that the 44. Psalme from whence this testimonie is alleadged describeth rather the persecution of the Church of God vnder Antiochus then vnder the Chaldeans for they were carried into captiuitie and afflicted by the Chaldeans for their idolatrie but vnder Antiochus they suffred for giuing testimonie to the lawe and therefore it is said for thy sake are we killed c. 2. For thy sake Simply to be killed or put to death is not commendable but it is the cause which maketh the suffrings of the Martyrs glorious and honourable and there are three things requisite in true Martyrdome first the cause they must suffer for Christs sake Matth. 5.11 then their person that they be righteous and innocent men of integritie not offenders and euill liuers for then they cannot suffer for righteousnesse sake Matth. 5.10 lastly the ende must be considered that they doe it not for vaine glorie but in loue to God and his Church as the Apostle saith If I giue my bodie to be burned and haue no loue it profiteth me nothing Martyr 3. All the day 1. Chrysostome referreth it to the minde which is alwayes readie and prepared to suffer for Christ. 2. Origen omni vitae tempore all the time of the life so also Haymo iugiter continually Pellican sine intermissione without intermission Pareus 3. Pet. Martyr vnderstandeth it of the continuall expectation of death in the time of persecution so also M. Calvin 4. Osiander applyeth it to the number of those which are persecuted to death the tyrants are not content with the death of some few sed grassantur in quam plurimos they rage against many 5. Gryneus vnderstandeth by all the day
all the time of the world since the persecution of Abel but the second sense before seemeth to be the fittest 57. Quest. Wherein the faithfull are compared vnto sheepe We are counted as sheepe for the slaughter v. 36. 1. Gorrhan here obserueth eight seuerall points wherein they are resembled vnto sheepe 1. for their innocencie 2. their patience 3. their immolation and offering vp in sacrifice 4. their doctrine is as the milke 5. their godly conuersation as the fleece 6. the tyrants and persecutors are toward them as wolues 7. they are fruitfull in bringing forth many children vnto God as sheepe that bring out twinnes 8. they are obedient to Christ our chiefe shepheard as the sheepe heare the voice of the shepheard 2. But these resemblances are somewhat farre fetched and concerne not the scope of the Apostle here herein therefore this similitude consisteth 1. as Chrysostome Theophylast Haymo quia occiduntur sine reluctatione they are slaine without any resistance 2. sunt simplices they are simple as beseemeth the flocke of Christ. Martyr 3. like as butchers draw out the sheepe to be killed at their pleasure so tyrants vpon euery occasion make slaughter of Gods seruants euen as butchers slay their sheepe as it happened in France in the great massaker at Paris Lyons Orleans and other places Gryneus 4. like as sheepe are killed for their flesh and fleece so tyranni bona martyrum rapiebant did ceaze vpon the goods of the Martyrs 5. herein appeareth the conformitie betweene Christ and his members who was as a sheepe lead to the slaughter Isa. 53.7 Bucer 6. adde hereunto they are counted sicut â—ves morbidae as specked and diseased sheepe and so killed Gorrhan 58. Quest. How the faithfull are said to be more then conquerours 1. The vulgar Latine readeth onely superamus we ouercome so also Haymo and the Syrian translator so interpreteth but the word in the originall is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we doe more then ouercome 2. Which is diuersly expounded 1. Basil in Psal. 114. giueth this sense he ouercommeth which giueth not place to those troubles which are necessarily inflicted vpon him he doth more then ouercome qui vltro accersit molestiâ—â— c. which willingly doth offer himselfe â—â— endure more then is laid vpon him as Origen giueth instance in Iob who beside the plagues which were laid vpon him by the malice of Sathan did of himself 〈◊〉 vnto his sorâ—â—â—â—es as in renting his garments and scraping his sore wounds with a posthead c. but this obseruation seemeth somewhat curious 2. Chrysostome and Theophylâ—â—◠〈◊〉 referre it both vnto the afflictions which they suffer the persons which doe suffer and the persecutors which procure their suffrings in the first which are teâ—tations to trie them they are more then conquerors triumphyng in those things in quibus infidias patimur wherein we are sought to be supplanted and concerning the persons of the sufferers they ouercome with great facilitie sine sudore labore without sweat or labour and concerning the persecutors flagellati flagellatores vicimus we beeing whipped ouercame the whippers the patience of the Saints which is invincible vanquisheth and wearieth the tormentors 3. But the fittest sense is that we are more then conquerours because the Saints are nor only not broken and terrified with their manifold suffrings but doe also glorie and reioyce in their tribulation Beza and are brought vnto an heauenly kingdome wherein the excellencie of the victorie appeareth Osiand Quest. 59. Of the diuerse interpretations in generall of the 38.39 vers I am perswaded that neither life nor death c. 1. Hugo Card. here obserueth that the Apostle rehearseth an eleuen seuerall impediments which might hinder the certaintie of our saluation which is numerus transgressione the number of transgression because it exceedeth the number of the commandements by one and so hereby he thinketh whatsoeuer to be meant whereby a man may be seduced or induced to transgresse but this obseruation beside that it is curious is builded vpon a false ground for there are but onely tenne particulars named by the Apostle the eleuenth utque fortitudo nor strength is inserted by the Latine translator not beeing in the originall and Augustine omitteth it in citing of this text lib. de grat liber arb c. 17. though it be found in the allegation of Hierome epist. ad Algas qu. 9. yet seeing neither the Greeke originall nor the auncient Syriake translation hath it it is better omitted 2. Gorrhan setteth out this enumeration of the Apostle in diuerse heads as all kind of actions doe either tend ad esse or bene esse to the beeing of man or his well beeing the being of man is either preserued and that is by life or destroyed by death that which tendeth vnto mans well beeing is either by the spirituall creature onely or by the corporall onely or from the creature partly spirituall partly corporall which is man the spirituall creature is expressed by 3. names Angels principalities powers the corporall is distinguished in respect of things present or to come the creature both spirituall and temporall is set forth with three diuerse actions as of violence signified by fortitude or strength of craft and subtiâ—â—ie called depth or of prosperitie called here height But this curious diuision agreeth not with the simple and plaine enumeration which the Apostle vseth and beside he groundeth this conceit vpon the Latine text which addeth one word fortitude more then is in the originall he fayleth also in the particular explication of things present things to come bright depth as shall be seene afterward 3. Origen observeth well that as the Apostle had rehearsed before omnes humanas tentationes all humane tentations v. 35. as famine nakednesse the sword and such like nowe be reckoneth vp tentations maiores humanis greater then humane tentations as he speaketh of Angels principalities powers But that other note of his is not so good that whereas before the Apostle spake confidenter confidently saying in all these we are more then conquerours yet here valde tenuiter aijâ— he saith somewhat slenderly or faintely not that we are more then conquerours as before but nothing can separate vs c. whereas in truth the Apostle saying I am perswaded speaketh no lesse confidently then before Quest. 60. Of the diuerse interpretations in particular 1. Death nor life 1. Origen vnderstandeth by death the death of the soule which is a separation from God and by life the life of sinne 2. Chrysostome applyeth it to euerlasting death and an other immortall life that though they could promise vnto vs an other immortall life to separate vs from Christ we ought not to giue consent 3. Osiander interpreteth mors horrenda vita aerumâ—â—sa an horrible death and a miserable life 4. Lyranus vnderstandeth amor vitae the loue of this life and the feare of death the one threatened by persecutors the other promised 5. But it may be more generally taken for omnia
Gods mercie herein exceedeth his iustice that whereas all men by nature are the children of wrath and God might iustly â—aue them in their sinne as he did the reprobate Angels yet out of that masse of corruption he saueth some to bring them vnto glorie so then vnlesse the fall and transgression of man he presupposed there is no way to magnifie Gods mercie aboue his iustice Thus Thomas Aquin though he mislike Augustines opinion who maketh the foresight of originall â—â—â—ne the ground of the decree of reprobation and thinketh that God absolutely reiecteth the reprobate without any foresight of sinne yet is constrained to seeke shelter here for the â—â—â—iding of this obiection 5. Wherefore fully to decide this great question and controversie touching the decree â—â— reprobation we will determine of it in this manner 1. There is reprobatio indefinita definita a reprobation indefinite that is that some â—â—e elected some reiected and a definite reprobation whereby some are certainely reiected and not others of the first the cause is onely in God for the demonstration of his mercie â—â—â—ard the elect and of his iustice and power toward the reprobate as the Apostle sheweth v. 22.23 and so the wise man saith Prov. 16.4 that God made all things euen the wicked for himselfe and to this purpose Thomas well saith that the reason of election and reprobation is taken from the goodnesse of God quae multiformiter in rebus representatur which by his meanes is diuersely represented and set forth in the creatures when aâ— some things are in an high some in a low degree If all should be elected Gods iustice should not appeare if all were condemned where were his mercie But of the definite and certaine reprobation why some are in particular reiected the cause is the foresight of their sinne 2. Againe reprobation is considered two waies absolute comparate absolutely as in reiecting these and these and comparatiuely in reiecting these rather then those of the first the reason is the generall corruption of mankind which transgressed in Adam who abused his freewill in choosing euill it beeing in his power to haue made choice of the good and so he brought all his posteritie into bondage vnto sinne in which state of corruption God iustly might haue left all if it had pleased him but of the comparatiue reprobation why God left others in their naturall corruption and freed others no reason can be giuen but the good pleasure of God as Saint Paul saith Ephes. 2.3 We were by nature the children of wrath as well as others but God who is rich in mercie through his great loue c. hath quickned vs so Augustine well saith quare hunc Deus trahat illum non trahat no◠〈◊〉 dijudicare si non vis errare why God draweth one out of that masse of corruption and not an other take not vpon thee to iudge if thou wilt not erre epistol 105. 3. We must distinguish betweene absolutum ius Dei and ordinatum the absolute right which God hath ouer his creatures and his moderate or subordinate right By his absolute right the Creator hath power to dispose of his creature as it pleaseth him to life or to death as the potter hath power of the same clay to make some vessels of honour some of dishonour and if the Lord should thus deale with his creature euen without any respect vnto sinne no man could accuse or challenge God But he dealeth not thus with vs secundum spiritum absolutum ius according to his strict and absolute right but according to his subordinate right whereby he proceedeth not against the creature either in condemning it or decreeing the same to be condemned without iust cause giuen by the creature And thus the Apostle dealeth in this place by the similitude of the potter v. 20.22 he sheweth what absolute power and right God hath if he would please to vse it and v. 22.23 he speaketh of the other ordinarie right and power which God indeed vseth in proceeding against the vessels of wrath prepared by their owne sinnes vnto destruction Pareus And Tolet here well obserueth that the Apostle maketh two answers vnto the obiection propounded one to stop the mouthes of gainesayers in vrging the absolute power of God the other to satisfie the faithfull in shewing that God doth not execute his wrath vpon any but for their sinne annot 28. Concerning this distinction of the strict or absolute right and power of God and his ordinarie or rather subordinate right though it be admitted on both sides both by Protestant and Popish writers yet there is this difference 1. Some doe thinke and so professe and teach that God vseth as well his absolute as subordinate power in the decree of reprobation and thus Bucer Calvin Zanchius affirme that God by his absolute will hath reprobate and reiected some without respect vnto their sinnes 2. Pareus who also acknowledgeth Gods power herein yet he would not haue this doctrine handled either in schooles or before the people but according to Gods subordinate power in reiecting no otherwise then for sinne p. 912. 3. Both these thinke that God bringeth this his absolute power into act but I thinke it more safe to hold that God might if it please him vse that absolute power which if he did none could accuse him of iniustice but he dealeth otherwise in this mysterie of reprobation refusing none but iustly for their sinne and this is that which Augustine affirmeth by way of supposition in this manner Si hominum genus quod creatum constâ—â— primitus nihilo c. if mankind which at the beginning God created of nothing were not brought forth endebted both to sinne and death and yet the almightie Creator should condemne some of them to euerlasting destruction who could say vnto him Lord why hast thou done so God in his infinite power might haue done thus but not according to the ordinarie course of iustice Then seeing I absolutely subscribe vnto the iudgement of Augustine seene before in the 2. opinion produced that mans originall corruption is the first ground of the decree of reprobation out of the which God in mercie saued some by the election of grace leauing others which adding to their originall corruption other actuall sinnes are made worthie of condemnation and so Augustine well concludeth investigabilis Dei miserecordia c. the mercie of God is vnsearcheable whereby he hath mercie on whom he will no merits of his going before and vnsearcheable is his truth whereby he hardeneth whom he will eius praecedentibus meritis his merites going before but the same with his vpon whom God sheweth mercie Learned Pareus hereunto agreeth dub 17. massa damnata propriè est obiectum c. the damned masse is properly the obiect of election reprobation Vrsinus also as Pareus hath set forth his workes defineth reprobation to be the immutable and eternall decree of God whereby he hath decreed in
and iustice are contrarie therefore they are not both naturally in God 4. Naturall properties are not vnequally in God but his iustice and mercie are vnequall for his mercie exceedeth his iustice 5. Mercie is nothing els but a griefe conceived vpon an others miserie but there is no such thing in God Contra. Before these arguments be answeared these considerations must be premised 1. that mercie is otherwise in God then in man in man indeede it is a griefe or compassion conceiued vpon an others miserie but in God it is onely a propension and readinesse of the diuine will to helpe those which are in miserie 2. Mercie in God either signifieth the inclination power facultie and propertie to shewe mercie and this is naturall in God or the act and exercising of that propertie toward the creature and this is so naturall in God as yet it is directed by his will 3. a thing is said to be naturall two wayes either that which onely proceedeth from the instinct of nature as the fire naturally burneth or that whereunto nature inclineth yet not without direction of the will as thus a man is said to speake to vnderstand naturally So God is both wayes naturally mercifull in himselfe the first way toward his creatures the second now to the arguments we answear 1. The Apostle speaketh not of the naturall propertie but of the act of mercie which is directed by the will of God 2. all the naturall properties which are in God he alwaies vseth not nor towards all as his iustice power long animitie mercie they are alwaies in God but he exerciseth them as it pleaseth him 3. iustice and mercie are not contrarie but crueltie is opposed to mercie neither is there any contrarietie in God but in the effects in diuerse subiects as the Sunne with the same heat mollifieth the waxe and hardeneth the clay 4. neither are these properties vnequall in God but the effects and acts onely are vnequall as it pleaseth God to dispose in his freewill 5. humane mercie is such as is described but the diuine mercie is of an other nature as hath beene shewed now the contrarie arguments that mercie is a naturall propertie in God are these 1. The Scripture describeth God by his mercie Exod. 34. he is called the father of mercie rich in mercie God is described by his naturall properties 2. all vertues in God are essentiall and naturall but mercie is one of Gods vertues 3. iustice is naturall in God but mercie is a part of Gods vniuersall iustice 4. mercie and compassion is naturall in men they which haue it not are called inhumane they are beasts rather then men therefore much more is it naturall in God for euery good thing in the creature proceedeth from the fountaine of goodnes in the Creator See more hereof in Pareus dub 12. Controv. 13. Whether the mercie of God in the forgiuenesse of sinne be an effect of Gods free and absolute will onely and be not grounded vpon Christ against the heresie of Socinus and Ostorodius v. 18. He hath mercie on whom he will Blasphemous Socinus and Ostorodius a Samosatenian heretike directly impugning the eternall dietie of Christ by occasion of these words doe affirme that God of his free mercie without any satisfaction purchased by Christs death forgiueth sinnes vnto the penitent Socinus first maketh these and such like obiections 1. The Apostle here saith he hath mercie on whom he will therefore of his owne will be remitteth sinnes without Christ. 2. He doth forgiue sinnes for his owne sake Isai. 43.25 therefore not for Christ. 3. If God should forgiue sinnes for Christs satisfaction then both mercie and iustice should be seene at once in the worke of our saluation by Christ. 4. God may remit sinnes without satisfaction for he may depart from his right and remit of his owne as it pleaseth him 5. God requireth onely repentance and innocencie of life in them whose sinnes are pardoned and he forgiueth onely for that which he requireth 6. Many examples are extant in the old Testament of sinnes pardoned and mercie shewed without Christ as in Abel Henoch and others that pleased God by faith beleeuing onely that God is that he is a rewarder of the righteous Heb. 11.6 therefore without Christ. 7. God promiseth Ierem. 31. to be mercifull vnto their iniquites and to remember them no more but where he requireth satisfaction for sinne he remembreth it and is not mercifull vnto it 8. We are commanded one to forgiue an other as God in Christ forgaue vs but we must forgiue without any satisfaction Ergo so God forgaue vs. 9. The remission of the debt excludeth all payment and satisfaction for it to this purpose Socinus lib. de Servator The other impious heretike thus also obiecteth 1. Gods loue is set forth to vs in Scripture before Christ died for vs Ioh. 3.16 Ephe. 1.4 but Christs satisfaction sheweth that God was offended with vs before 2. God did remit our sinnes freely by grace Rom. 3.24 but grace and satisfaction are contrarie 3. This doctrine of satisfaction by Christs death maketh God cruell that would not receiue mankind vnto his fauour but by the most cruell death of his Sonne 4. It maketh God a Tyrant in punishing the innocent for offenders 5. The Sonne should be more mercifull then his Father for he forgiueth without satisfaction so doth not his Father 6. If Christ had truely satisfied for vs he should haue suffered eternall death and so neuer haue risen againe which had beene impossible these and other such obiections this wicked Ostorodius hath in a booke written in the Germane tongue against Tradelius cited by Pareus dub 13. Contra. Before we come to answear these obiections the state of the question must first be opened 1. the question here is not of the power propertie and facultie of shewing mercie which is naturall in God and absolute in him without any condition 2. but of the act and exercising of this propertie which is either generall toward all creatures and toward all men both good and bad vpon whom he suffereth the sunne to shine and the raine to fall Matth. 5.45 or speciall toward the elect in giuing them his grace and forgiuing their sinnes whereof the Apostle speaketh Tit. 3.4 When the bountifulnes and loue of God our Sauiour toward men appeared c. according to his mercie be saued vs. 3. this speciall act of Gods mercie must be considered two wayes according to the causes foregoing which are none other but onely the good pleasure of God no merit of any creature no not of Christ himselfe was the cause of his mercie toward the elect but as the Apostle saith he hath mercie on whom he will but there are certaine conditions which doe accompanie or followe this free act of Gods loue and mercie for the effecting of the worke thereof in the sanctification and glorification of the elect which are these three the ransome made by Christ faith in the
Redeemer and our conuersion and turning to God which conditions God receiueth not of vs but conferreth vpon vs the first without vs the two other he worketh in vs that all may be of grace these things beeing thus promised the contrarie arguments are thus answeared 1. The Apostle speaketh of Gods first decree and purpose to shewe mercie in electing some by his grace which indeede is an absolute act of Gods will without any other motiue and if we vnderstand it of Gods mercie in forgiuenesse of sinne it is his will also it should not be done without Christ Ioh. 6.40 This is his will that euerie one which beleeueth â—â— the Sonne should haue eternall life the argument then followeth not God hath mercie on whom he will therefore without Christ. 2. Therefore God forgiueth sinnes for his owne sake because he forgiueth them for Christ who is the Iehovah and eternall God that forgiueth sinnes 3. Neither are Gods iustice and mercie shewed in the same subiect Gods iustice is seene in the satisfaction of his Sonne but his mercie toward vs. 4. 1. The argument followeth not God can therefore he will 2. neither doth that rule alwaies hold that one may remit of his owne right as much as he will this must be added if it be without wrong done to an other as the Parent cannot remit vnto his child feare and obedience because this is against the lawe of iustice and so against God 3. so in this case God cannot remit sinnes without some satisfaction not in respect of his infinite power but of his iustice which is not to suffer his Maiestie to be violated without iust punishment for this were to denie himselfe 5. 1. Neither is it true that God onely requireth of sinners repentance for the punishment due vnto sinne must be satisfied for which Christ did for vs. 2. neither if innocencie of life were sufficient is it in our power to performe it 3. and further God doth not pardon sinne for that which he requireth of vs it is his mercie in Christ for the which he pardoneth that which he requireth of vs is a condition to be performed by vs not the cause 6. It is false that the faith of Abel and Henoch and of other holy Patriarkes had no relation to Christ for although expresse mention be not made thereof yet alwaies it must be vnderstood for the Apostle saith Coloss. 1.23 that it pleased God by Christ to reconcile all things to himselfe and all the promises in him are yea and Amen 2. Cor. 1.20 therefore the promises made to the fathers were grounded vpon Christ and they were reconciled vnto God by no other way then by faith in him 7. If God had required satisfaction of our selues for sinne then indeede had our sinne beene remembred but although Christ hath satisfied for our sinnes yet to vs they are freely forgiuen and so not remembred any more 8. The Apostle saith Ephes. 4.32 Forgiuing one an other as God for Christs sake forgaue vs though Christ hath satisfied for vs yet God requireth no satisfaction at our hands therefore herein we are to imitate God to forgiue one an others priuate offences without satisfaction as God forgaue vs But in publike offences and ciuill debts this rule holdeth not for if in such trespasses no satisfaction should be made the course of iustice should be perverted 9. The remitting of the debt excludeth all solution and paiment of debt by the partie to whom the debt is remitted and not otherwise and so the Lord requireth not of vs any satisfaction or solution of our debt which is discharged by Christ. The like answear may be made vnto the other obiections 1. God loued the elect with an eternall loue and herein appeared his loue that he sent his Sonne to die for the elect yet in respect of their sinfull estate they had neede of a reconciler so they were eternally beloued in Gods election and yet in respect of their present state God was offended with them as a father that purposeth to make his sonne his heire may yet in the meane time be angrie with him for his misdemenour See before c. 5. coher 7. a more full answear 2. We are saued freely by grace notwithstanding the redemption by Christ as the Apostle sheweth Rom. 3.24 if satisfaction had beene required of vs or if we were to haue ransomed our selues it had not beene freely by grace but now it is 3. God was not delighted in the death of his Sonne in that simply he was put to cruel death but in that thereby all the elect were saued which sheweth not crueltie but mercie in God in accepting the death of one for all 4. Neither was Christ forced the innocent to die for sinners but he willingly offered himselfe to die for vs therein was no tyrannie at all 5. As though God the Father and God the Sonne are not all one in substance the same mercie proceedeth from them both and the Sonne as he is God remitteth not without the satisfaction of the Mediator 6. Eternall death is to be considered in the infinitenesse and greatnes of the torments of soule and bodie and in the eternitie and euerduring thereof Christ did endure the one that is vnspeakeable torments in bodie and soule for vs but not the other because of the dignitie of his person which suffered and the necessitie of the worke of our redemption which he perfected which could not haue beene performed if eternitie of punishment had beene vpon the redeemer inflicted Now how contrarie this blasphemous assertion of these heretikes is to the Scriptures is euerie where euident for there is no truth that hath more plentifull euidence out of the Scriptures then that Christ by his death did satisfie for our sinnes and by faith in him we obtaine remission of our sinnes and not otherwise as Galat. 1.4 Which gaue himselfe for our sinnes that he might deliuer vs from this present euill world Galat. 3.13 Christ hath redeemed vs from the curse of the law when he was made a curse for vs Eph. 1.7 By whom we haue redemption thorough his blood euen the forgiuenes of sinnes 1. Pet. 2.23 Who his owne selfe bare our sinnes in his bodie vpon the tree c. 1. Pet. 3.18 Christ hath once suffered for our sinnes the iust for the vniust that he might bring vs to God c. and an hundreth such places and more may be produced out of the old and new Testament for the confirmation of this truth he that is desirous to see more of this matter I referre him to learned Pareus treatise dub 13. vpon this chapter Controv. 14. Against the maintainers of Vniuersall grace v. 18. He hath mercie on whom he will and whom he will he hardeneth Hence then it is inferred that he hath decreed to haue mercie on some and not vpon others then they are in error which thinke that God doth indifferently offer grace to all and that he hath elected all vnto life if
vnto euery one Thou shalt not c. and therefore the Scriptures is not onely a generall iudge but in particular doth confound all such impudent gainsayers 12. Controv. Against the Popist vncertentie and doubtfulnes of saluation v. 20. Thou standest by faith be not high minded but feare c. Stapleton Antidot p. 725. and Bellarmine likewise lib. 3. de iustificat c. 12. doe inferre vpon this place that faith bringeth no firme perswasion or certentie of saluation because where feare is there is no certentie but doubtfulnes but faith is ioyned with feare as here the Apostle sheweth and where he saith Philip. 2.12 worke out your saluation with feare and trembling Ans. To remooue this sophisticall cauill certaine distinctions must here be admitted 1. first of faith 2. then of those which haue faith 3. and of feare 4. of such as stand by faith 5. of the diuers respects to be had in the faithfull 1. Faith is taken diuersly as it sometime signifieth the externall profession of faith which the hypocrites may haue as Simon Magus Act. 8. sometime it is taken for the bare knowledge and apprehension of faith as it is comprehended in the articles of the faith there is also faith of miracles and there is a true liuely saith which is a sure perswasion and firme apprehension of the promises of grace in Christ. Augustine distinguisheth betweene fides quae creditur the faith which is beleeued which is onely a knowledge of the things beleeued and fides qua creditur faith whereby we beleeue the first faith bringeth no certentie but the second doth 2. There are some which onely in externall profession are counted among the beleeuers and haue a temporarie faith as many hypocrites and of such the Apostle speaketh here be not high minded but feare for the true beleeuers are so guided by Gods grace that they shall not be carried away with pride that they neede to feare finally to fall away But Stapleton here obiecteth that the Apostle speaketh onely of true beleeuers such as stand by saith but hypocrites doe not stand by faith and againe the Apostle would not haue saide well but rather that he had euill spoken if he meant such as had onely a shew of faith Ans. Yes such as did communicate onely in the externall profession might be said to stand by such faith as they had not by a true faith and beleefe of the heart but by an outward confession of the faith with the mouth And the Apostle might and did say well that such were indeede graft in into the outward societie of the Church in stead of the Iewes though they were not truly by faith graft into Christ. 3. There are also two kinds of feare there is a seruile and slauish feare which indeede is full of doubtfulnes and perplexitie and there is a filiall feare which is nothing els but a carefulnes to please God and to take heede not to offend and this feare may be in the faithfull but the other can not stand with faith 4. And the Apostle speaketh not here of the faithfull in particular for they are without feare of falling finally but generally of the whole bodie of the beleeuing Gentiles concerning the which these three things might be feared 1. that all among them were not true beleeuers but many hypocrites might be mingled among the rest 2. though there is no feare of the vniversall Church that it can euer decay yet particular Churches may faile as where the seauen famous Churches of Asia sometime were there is no visible Church now to be seene 3. we may be afraid of our posteritie least they should fall away from the faith of their fathers wherefore of the generall bodie of a particular Church it may be vnderstood thou also shalt be cut off v. 22. not of the faithfull in particular who can not finally fall away 5. A faithfull man must be considered as consisting both of a spirituall and regenerate part and of a carnall then as in respect of the goodnes of God apprehended by faith in our inward man we haue assurance not to fall yet the flesh continually suggesteth doubtfull thoughts and our carnall infirmitie putteth vs in feare which notwithstanding is subdued by the strength of faith like as when one is set in the toppe of an high tower and looketh downeward he can not but feare but yet considering the place where he standeth which keepeth him from falling he recouereth himselfe and ouercommeth his feare so faith doth preuaile against carnall infirmitie and maketh vs in the end to be out of doubt of our saluation Martyr And thus those sophisticall cauills are sufficiently answeared Now on the contrarie side that the faithfull are sure of their perseuerance and continuance to the ende and so are without doubt and feare of saluation it is thus made manifest out of Scripture 1. The gifts of God are without repentance v. 31. but faith is the gift of God therefore God repenteth him not to whomsoeuer he giueth faith faith then remaineth to the ende if it be saide that God repenteth him not in taking away faith but man in casting away faith I answer that none cast away faith but those that are forsaken of the grace of God but the elect are neuer forsaken totally or finally Heb. 13.5 I will not faile thee nor forsake thee 2. Gods loue is immutable and vnchangeable Ierem. 31.3 with an euerlasting loue haue I loued thee Ioh. 13.1 whome he loueth he loueth to the end but they which are thus beloued of God can not fall they are sure to perseuere 3. That which God vpholdeth is sure to stand but God vpholdeth the faithfull 1. Pet. 1.5 They are kept by the power of God through faith vnto saluation Psal. 37.24 Though he fall he shall not be cast off for the Lord putteth vnder his hand 4. The praier of Christ is effectuall he is alwaies heard of his father but he praieth that his seruants may be kept from euill Ioh. 17.15 therefore they are sure to be kept from euill and to perseuere to the ende as S. Paul saith confidently 2. Tim. 4.18 The Lord will deliuer me from euery euill worke and will preserue me to his heauenly kingdome 5. Eph. 1.14 the Apostle saith Ye are sealed with the spirit of promise which is the earnest of our inheritance vntill the redemption of the possession purchased c. if the spirit be an earnest vntill we haue possession of our inheritance then are the faithfull sure to continue to the ende 6. He that falleth from faith sinneth vnto death but the faithfull are borne of God and can not sinne vnto death because their seede remaineth in them 1. Ioh. 3.9 they therefore can not fall finally from the faith 7. The Lord hath promised that the faithfull shall not be tempted aboue that they are able but he will giue an issue together with the temptation 1. Cor. 10.13 therefore the faithfull are sure that their faith shall
4. I haue reserued vnto my selfe seuen thousand c. The faithfull then are separated from the world and reserued vnto God wherein appeareth both the loue of God toward the elect in sequestring them from the rest of the world and in his speciall protection of them as also what our dutie is againe toward God to deuote our selues wholly to his seruice seeing we are his and not our owne as the Apostle saith Rom. 14.7 none of vs liueth to himselfe neither doth any die to himselfe c. 3. Observ. Of our thankefulnes to be rendred to God for his election of grace both in our life and death especially in the charitable disposing of our last will and testament v. 5. There is a remnant thorough the election of grace Chrysostome by occasion of these words and the next which follow if it be of grace it is no more of works falleth into a vehement exhortation vnto thankfulnes to God againe because when we could not be saued by works dono Dei gratis salvati sumus we were saued by the franke gift of God and this our thankfulnes must first be shewed in our life temporis commoditate vt oportet vtere vse the opportunitie of thy life and time before death commeth when all opportunitie of working is taken away nondum solutum est theatrum sed adhuc in ipsa intrò stas cavea c. the stage or theatre is not yet dissolued but thou standest yet in the lists thou maist play thy prices at the last But if a man haue beene forgetfull of his dutie while he liued yet there is a way to make some part of amends at his death and how is that si Christum in testamento cum baredibus tuis conscripseris if thou in thy will appoint Christ among thine heires for what excuse canst thou haue if thou make not Christ coheire with thy sonnes seeing he maketh thee his coheire in heauen contribuâ—illi pecunias tibi iam deinceps inutiles c. commit thy money to him which is now like to be vnprofitable to thee neither canst thou any longer be master of it And if Christ be left coheire with thy sonnes orphaniam illorum alleviabit c. the will releeue their orphancie and keepe them from violence and wrong how miserable then are they which hauing no children parasitis potius adulatoribus sua distribuenda relinqunt c. do rather deuide their goods to parasites and flatterers then to Christ Consider how it is the mercie of God that giueth thee time to dispose of thy estate whereas many subitaneo raptu decesseriut are taken away by sodaine death Nay if thou wilt not make Christ coheire with thy children numera Dominum cum servis yet count thy Lord among thy seruants thou at thy death settest thy seruants free free then Christ in his members from famine hunger necessitie thus excellently Chrysostome handleth this matter of wills and testaments 4. Observ. Against rash iudgement v. 4. I haue reserued seuen thousand Calvin here obserueth well that like as there were many true worshippers in Elias time though he knew them not so ne temerè omnes adiudicemus diabolo we should not rashly send all to the deuill that are not knowne vnto vs neither yet appeare to be the seruants of God so the Apostle c. 14.4 who art thou which condemnest an other mans servant he standeth or falleth to his owne master 5. Observ. All things fall out for the best vnto the faithfull and to the wicked all things are accursed v. 9. Let their table he made a snare c. As vnto the wicked their prosperitie here vnderstood by the table becommeth a snare so ot the godly things which are in themselues heauie and hard are turned to be easie and pleasant the treacherie of Iosephs brethren turned to his aduancement the afflictions of the Israelites in Egypt hastened their deliuerance euen in the wildernes the Lord spread a table for them and so it falleth out as the Apostle saith c. 8.28 All things worke together for the best to those which loue God c. 6. Observ. Not to envie at the prosperitie of the wicked v. 9. Let their table be made a snare this teacheth vs not to be grieued when we see the wicked to flourish for their prosperitie will turne to their ruine as Pharaohs pride brought him to his destruction while he followed the Israelites in the red sea see to this purpose the 73. Psalme where the Prophet Dauid confesseth his infirmitie how he fretted at the prosperitie of the wicked 7. Observ. To take heede that the word of God be not a snare Origen further obserueth vpon this text how euen the table of Gods word which men fit to heare as at a table is turned to a snare to those which doe not heare it with vnderstanding and gather spirituall meate out of it to such it is as S. Paul saith the fauour of death vnto death 2. Cor. 2. 8. Observ. How we may profit by the fall of others v. 11. To prouoke them to follow them c. Like as by the fall of the Iewes saluation came vnto the Gentiles so by the sinne of others we are admonished to take heede vnto our selues to giue warning vnto others and to take occasion to reforme and amend such as haue offended see Galat. 6.1 9. Observ. How the Ministerie is truly honoured and magnified v. 13. I magnifie mine office The honour of the ministerie consisteth not in riches or pompe which are but accidentall things but in the conuerting of many vnto Christ as the Apostle saith in the next verse that I might saue some It is peculiar vnto God to saue but the Lord communicateth this excellencie to the Ministers which are the instruments to shew the necessitie of preaching and the reuerence thereunto belonging 10. Observ. How the faithfull comfort themselues in the power of God v. 23. God is able to graffe them in againe Thus the children of God in all their afflictions are taught to comfort themselues that God is able to deliuer them as our blessed Sauiour saith my Father is greater then all and none are able to take you out of my fathers hand Ioh. 10.29 11. Observ. How we should be affected toward the Iewes v. 28. Beloued for the fathers sake Beza well obserueth that Christians should not neglect or despise the Iewes but pray for their conuersion and prouoke them by their godly conuersation not by our superstitious vsages and corrupt manners to hinder their calling for the which the Papists and carnall professors haue much to answer to God 12. Observ. The comfort of the faithfull in the vnchangeable gifts of grace v. 29. The gifts and calling of God are without repentance This is much for our comfort that our faith can not faile for God repenteth him not of his gifts neither can the faithfull loose their faith which God by his spirit preserueth as S. Peter saith 1. epist. 1. c. 5. which are
this reason nihil proficit legis imperium the commandement of the law preuaileth not shewing this to be the difference betweene the law which commandeth and so doe the Prophets the interpreters of the law they vse not to entreat but it is peculiar to the Gospel to beseech and entreat to this purpose also Pet. Martyr but this is not alwaies so for in the Gospel and Apostolicall writings we shall finde many precepts and straight charges 4. Pet. Martyr further alleadgeth that as it is said in the Proverbs The poore man speaketh by entreatie but the rich answeareth roughly Prov. â—8 so the Apostles beeing as it were abiects and of small account in the world vse perswasions by entreatie but S. Paul contrariwise there standeth most vpon his Apostolike authoritie where he was most despised as Act. 13. where he censureth Elymas the sorcerer 5. But this was the Apostles reason why he entreateth that he might winne them rather by loue as he saith to Philemon v. 8. Though I be very bold in Christ to command thee yet for loues sake I rather beseech thee and as Seneca well saith generosus est animus hominis facilius ducitur quam trahitur the minde of a man is generous it is more easily lead then drawne and therefore the Apostle entreateth rather then commandeth the more easily by gentlenes to perswade them Lyran. Par. 2. Quest. Why the Apostle addeth By the mercies By the mercies 1. As the Apostle before had shewed how the Gentiles had receiued mercie of God in that they were receiued to grace while the Iewes the auncient people of God were reiected so now he entreateth them by that mercie which they had receiued 2. and he beseecheth them per miserationes by the mercifulnes of God rather then per misericordiam Dei the mercie of God for this sheweth onely the mercifull inclination of God in himselfe the other betokeneth his actuall compassion extended to others Tolet. 3. and the Apostle vseth the word in the plurall number mercies to amplifie and set forth the manifold mercies of God Beza in our election redemption by Christ iustification sanctification 4. Origen here more curiously obserueth that by mercies Christ is to be vnderstood as God is called the father of mercies 2. Cor. 1.3 that is of Christ as he is called the father of wisdome and of righteousnes because Christ is both the wisdome and righteousnes and so also the mercie of God 5. some haue speciall relation here to Pauls Apostleship to the which he was in Gods mercie called and appointed glosse ordinar Gorrhan but then the exhortation had not beene so forceable to mooue them by the mercies shewed to him he rather vrgeth the mercies which they themselues had receiued 6. Lyranus vnderstandeth the mercie of God peccata relaxantem which remitted and released their sinnes but the Apostle saying in the plurall mercies vnderstandeth not that mercie onely but all other mercies in Christ their election vocation iustification by faith c. 7. And this is of all other the most forcible motiue by the mercies of God per illas obsecro per quas salvati I entreat you by those mercies by the which ye are saued Chrysost. who is so stonie hearted as not to be perswaded vnto his dutie by the mercies of God vnto whome he oweth himselfe and whatsoeuer he hath as mothers vse to entreat their children by the wombe that bare them and the pappes that gaue them sucke which kind of perswasion is most effectuall 3. Quest. Of sacrifices in generall v. 1. vpon these words A liuing sacrifice c. 1. Haymo here maketh a question why the law prescribeth the sacrifices of beasts and other creatures if they were not acceptable vnto God and auaileable to the forgiuenes of sinnes and he giueth two reasons hereof both because the Israelites were prone to idolatrie and therefore least they should haue sacrificed to idols the Lord would rather that his creatures should in that externall manner be offered to himselfe as also that thereby might be shadowed forth the sacrifice of Christ by whom we should obtaine remission of sinnes 2. Ambrose likewise here mooueth this question why God would haue the sacrifices which were offered vp to be slaine whereupon he answeareth that it was so done for these two reasons both that they which offred the sacrifice might thereby see what they themselues had deserued and that thereby also the death of Christ might be shadowed forth 3. But whereas they had two speciall kind of sacrifices in the law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of thanksgiuing and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for expiation and remission of sinnes the Apostle alludeth here onely to their eucharisticall sacrifices for Christs sacrifice is onely expiatorie for sinne which were of diuerse sorts according to things which they offred as either prayers or first fruites or some order of life as was the vowe of the Nazarites or some oblation but here the Apostle hath reference to the last kind in bringing some oblation which should be themselues 4. Concerning the name of sacrifice the Greeke word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is deriued of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth mactare to slay a sacrifice the Latine word victima and hostia Haymo thinketh to haue this derivation the first is so called à vinciendo of binding because the sacrifices were first bound to the altar the other ab ostio because they were slaine at the doore of the tabernacle But he hath two other derivations taken from the rites of the Pagans that was called hostia which was offred vp to their gods when they went against their enemies that victima which was offred vp for the victorie obtained and thus much Ovid insinuateth in these verses lib. 1. Fastor Victima quae dextra cecidit victrice vocatur Hostibus à victis hostia nomen habet c. By the victors hand the victima doth fall For foes subdued they hostia it doe call Quest. 4. The generall observations of the sacrifice which the Apostle here requireth 1. Lyranus thinketh that the Apostle here requireth seuen conditions or properties in this spirituall sacrifice 1. it must be voluntaria of a free and willing mind present or giue vp 2. it must be in carne propria in their owne flesh not in an others your bodies 3. it must mortifie concupiscence in that he calleth it a sacrifice 4. it must bring forth good workes and therefore is called living 5. it must be continuall therefore it is called holy that is firme 6. it must be bene ordinaâ—a well ordered and disposed to no other ende then to the praise of God and therefore he saith pleasing vnto God 7. it must be discreta done in discretion and so he addeth which is the reasonable seruice of God 2. Tolet onely obserueth three things here required in this spirituall sacrifice all which were seene in the externall there was the oblation the beast which was offred and the slaying or
good workes though they may defend and arme vs against the assaults of Sathan yet it is the righteousnesse onely of Christ that couereth vs as a garment in the sight of God Par. 2. How Christ is put on it is diuersly scanned 1. Some make fowre wayes of the putting on of Christ as the glasse receiueth the image by impression so some put on Christ for a time but it passeth away as an image in a glasse as the wooll receiueth the die or colour per assumptionem by assuming the same as the example is as it were put on per imitationem by imitation and the yron taketh the fire per penetrationem by penetration but all these do onely shewe the putting on of Christ vnto sanctification whereas he is put on also vnto iustification 2. some then make two puttings on of Christ the one is by faith in Christ whereby we are iustified like as Adam was cloathed with skinnes of slaine beasts to signifie our spirituall cloathing by the death of Christ this sense followeth Pet. Martyr Pareus the other by imitating of Christ in holines as Origen saith that he which putteth on all vertues putteth on Christ qui haec omnia habet habet Christum he that hath all these things hath Christ but Chrysostome saith better he that hath put on Christ omnem virtutem habet hath euery vertue indeed of the workes of sanctification Beza vnderstandeth this putting on of Christ and Osiand likewise Tolet referreth it to the imitation of Christs vertues but the better sense is to ioyne them both together it signifieth more then imitation only as Chriâ—â—tum fide apprehendere to apprehend Christ by faith and then by his spirit to be made fit â—ot vnto euery good work Caâ— for the word putting on signifieth not onely partem aliquaÌ„â—rgumenti some part only of the couering but the apparelling of the whole man both inward and outward Faius 3. But seeing the Apostle saith that Christ is put on by baptisme S. Paul here speaketh â—o them which were baptised how then doth he bid them now put on Christ the answear 〈◊〉 that as August saith some do put on Christ ad sacramenti perceptionem to the receiuing of the sacrament onely some vsque ad vitae sanctificationem vnto the sanctification of life the Apostle speaketh here of the latter for so Christ not once onely in baptisme but all our life long is to be put on 4. Gorrhan is here somewhat curious in distinguishing these three put on the Lord which signifieth power Iesus clemencie Christ wisedome the first is seene in subduing sinne with power the second clementer indulgendo in gently pardoning the penitent the third prudenter instruendo in prudently instructing the ignorant But this I omit as too curious 5. Chrysostome taketh here occasion to shew how Christ is all things vnto vs as here he is our vesture and apparell he is our way and life our foode our foundation our spouse our master our friend our brother our advocate our habitatioÌ„ as he saith he dwelleth in me and I in him yea he is our suppliant we pray you in Christs stead be reconciled vnto God 1. Cor. 5.20 Quest. 27. How the flesh is to be cared for v. 14. Take no care for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof 1. I will omit here to note the elegancies which Erasmus obserueth in the Apostles phrase and stile how in the originall the Apostles words doe fall well to the eare in the orderly compounding and one part doth answear an other his sentences are full of Metaphors and there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the like ending of the words in the sound and pronouncing 2. But I preferre Chrysostomes note that as the Apostle before did not forbid simply to drinke but to be drunken nor to marrie but to commit fornication so here he simply restraineth not all care for the flesh sed ad concupiscentias addidit but he addeth not to concupiscence and as Origen saith in necessarijs cura habenda est in necessarie things a care is to be had sed non in delicijs but not in pleasure and delights so that here is forbidden not necessitas sed superfluitas necessitie but superfluitie Lyran. for whereas the Apostle vseth the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prouidence care providentia dici non potest c. it cannot be called providence which prouideth hell fire for the flesh while it liueth in pleasure Theophy 3. This then sheweth the hypocrisie of those which place the greatest part of their religion in macerating and pinching of their flesh as many superstitious friers doe of whom the Apostle speaketh Coloss. 2.23 that they haue it in no estimation to satisfie the flesh whereas S. Paul alloweth Timothie to drinke wine for his often infirmities sake 1. Tim. 5.23 Pareus 4. Haymo well obserueth that the Apostle saith not ne cogitetis that ye thinke not sed ne perficiatis but that ye fulfill not the lusts of the flesh for not to thinke of them here is impossible 4. Places of Doctrine Doct. 1. That God is author of order and so consequently of governement v. 1. There is no power but of God God is the author of order the deuill bringeth in confusion as in heauen and earth God hath set all things in an excellent order so he would haue order kept among men that some should command and rule others be ruled obey that they should not be as fishes and creeping things that haue no ruler Habuc 1.14 Doct. 2. That it is lawfull for the Magistrate to vse the sword v. 4. He beareth not the sword for naught The Magistrate then may lawfully vse the sword both in time of peace to punish offenders euen vnto death if the qualitie of their offence deserue it and in time of war to resist the coÌ„mon enemie yea not onely in ciuill matters may he punish offenders with the sword but in Ecclesiasticall also as heresie blasphemie for these also are the workes of the flesh Galat. 5.20 and the Prince is to be feared for all euill workes v. 3. Doct. 3. That Magistrates must be obeyed not for feare but for conscience sake v. 3. This maketh against those which thinke they haue satisfied their dutie if they doe outwardly performe their obedience but the Apostle requireth more the inward disposing of the mind and conscience to obedience that if there were no lawe to compell a man yet his owne conscience and the feare of God should keepe and hold him in awe and reverence of the Magistrate as the Preacher saith Curse not the King no not in thy thought Ec. 10.20 Doct. 4. That tribute must be paid v. 7. Giue to all men their dutie tribute to whom tribute c. It is then a requisite and meere thing that tribute should be payed vnto the Prince 1. as a signe of subiection 2. as a recompence of the great care and paines which the Magistrate taketh in watching ouer his people 3.
things without any scruple of conscience giueth God thankes pro pastu largiore for his more plentifull feeding so he which eateth onely of some things yea of herbes giueth thankes also pro victu â—enuiore for his food though but slender as the wiseman preferreth a dinner of greene herbs with loue and eaten in the feare of God before a stalled oxe with hatred Prou. 15.17 7. But it will be obiected that this seemeth not to be a good argument he that eateth giueth God thankes therefore he eateth to the Lord for one may giue God thankes even when he eateth and drinketh to gluttonie and drunkennes the answear is that he which eateth doth well ex parte cibi on the behalfe of the meate which is sanctified by giuing of thanks as the Apostle saith 1. Tim. 4.8 that euerie creature is sanctified by the word of God and prayer But if any doe exceede in eating and drinking the fault is not in the meate as though he did eate any vncleane thing but in the person that eateth Quest. 15. Whether S. Pauls defense that he which doth or omitteth any thing in matters of religion doth or not doth it vnto God be perpetuall Here are diuerse necessarie points to be considered for the solution of this question for if this doctrine of S. Paul were vniversall and generall that one should not regard what an other doth but euerie man should be left vnto himselfe and that it were not lawfull to censure any ones doings then many wicked persons should goe vncontrolled and doe what they lift wherefore these considerations are here necessarie 1. of what things the Apostle entreateth 2. and of what manner of iudgement 3. of what persons he speaketh 4. in what time 5. in what manner these things were done 6. and to what ende 1. Concerning the things he speaketh not of things in their owne nature good or euill directly forbiddeÌ„ or commanded but of things indifferent in themselues and such as sometime were commanded in the lawe as abstinence from some kind of meate obseruing of dayes so Chrysostome well noteth sed cum de dogmatis illi sermo est c. but when the Apostle speaketh of points of doctrine he is in an other tune whosoeuer shall teach otherwise c. is accursed Galat. 10. 2. The iudgement and iudging one of an other which the Apostle speaketh against is not so much the iudgment of the thing which may be done with charitable moderation as of the person whom we must not take vpon vs to censure condemne in such things Beza 3. The Apostle speaketh not of obstinate and refractorie persons for to such S. Paul would not haue giuen place at all for though he caused Timothie to be circumcised for feare of offending the weake Act. 16.1 yet would he not circumcise Titus least he should haue yeilded to the obstinate and peruerse in iudgement Galat. 2.3 so Chrysostome saith novella erat adbuc Romanorum fides the faith of the Romanes was but yet young and neophytorum in gratiam ista disserit he disputeth thus for their sakes which were newely planted in 4. The time also must be considered nondum tempus erat it was not yet time Chrysostome so we are to distinguish of three times the one vnder the lawe when all these things were necessarie to be obserued and kept of the Iewes an other vnder the Gospel published to the world when all Iudaicall rites were as vnlawfull then there was tempus intermedium a time betweene both when after Christ was ascended the commonwealth of the Israelites was yet standing and Evangelium tanquam in cunabulis the Gospell was as in the cradle it was requisite that some thing should be yeelded to the infirmitie of the Iewes for a while 5. The maner was this these things were obserued sine opinione necessitatis meriti without opinion of necessitie or merit Osi. and Calv. well distinguisheth here between obseruatio the obseruation it selfe opinio the opinion conceiued thereof which is superstitious the other the Apostle tolerateth for a time in the weake in respect of their infirmitie but in the epistle to the Colossians c. 2. Gal. c. 4. c. 5. he condemneth them which retained the ceremonies of the lawe with an opinion of necessitie for Christ should profit them nothing Gal. â— â— which were so superstitiously addicted to the legall rites and ceremonies 6. The ende also maketh a great difference for these eating or not eating discerning meates or not discerning did both to the glorie of God but they which either sought their owne glorie as among the Galathians that sought to get disciples vnto them c. 4.17 and to make a faire shewe in the flesh c. 6.2 were not at all to be borne with so likewise the Popish festivals which are dedicated vnto the honour of Saints and not of God are not within the compasse of the Apostles rule here Gualter Quest. 16. Of the coherence of these words none of vs liueth to himselfe v. 7. c. 1. Chrysostome thinketh that this saying is applyed onely to the weake that it is impossible that God should contemne them but that in convenient time ista correcturus sit he will amend those things and confirme them because they liue and die vnto him and so there should be reference to the 4. ver God is able to make him stand 2. Some will haue it a confirmation of the former verse why all our actions should be directed to the glorie of God because he is our Lord and Master Hyper. Martyr 3. Tolet maketh it an other reason of that saying v. 5. that euerie one should abound in his owne conscience and not examine an others doings 4. Gualter will haue it to be a reason taken from the generall ende of man he was created vnto the glorie of God and his we are therefore all our actions must be referred to his glorie and then he addeth non haerendum in cibis that we should not insist in meats but seeke whether in our meates or in any thing else to please God 5. But it is rather a newe argument to prooue the thing in question that one should not iudge or condemne an other because they are the Lords seruants and so it answeareth to the 4. v. he standeth or falleth to his owne Master Beza Gryneus Faius and so he giueth the same reason of the second instance concerning the observing or not observing of dayes as he did of the other particular before touching eating or not eating Quest. 17. How we are saide to liue vnto the Lord. 1. Origen vnderstandeth it of the spirituall life vnto righteousnes and death vnto sinne so we liue vnto God because novitas vitae c. Christo reputatur the newnes of life is imputed vnto Christ it is not of our selues and à Christo sumit mortis exemplum euery one from Christ taketh his example of dying who died first vnto sinne But in this sense to liue and die should
be in effect the same for the death of sinne is the life of righteousnesse whereas the Apostle maketh a distribution of these two whether we liue or die c. and both of the dead and the quicke 2. Chrysostome vnderstandeth the Apostle to speake of euerlasting life and death vitam nostram divitias mortem damnum existimat he counteth our life riches and our death losse vnto himselfe But seeing that Chrysostome confesseth that in the next words whether we liue or die we are the Lords that à morte fidei ad mortem naturalem periransit he paseth from the death of faith to speake of the naturall death the Apostle must be so vnderstood to speake of the naturall life before for this argument thus hangeth together either we liue and die vnto God or vnto our selues not vnto our selues therefore vnto God 3. There is also a ciuill life and that of two kinds either it is taken in the good part as a man is said to liue vnto himselfe that is sui iuris is a freeman not at the command of an other or in the euill as they are said to liue vnto themselues which liue priuately and separated from the societie of others as single men solitarie persons the couetous which both liue vnto themselues not seeking the profit of any and die vnto themselues none haue any losse by their death they haue neither wiues nor children to care for but the Apostle meaneth not any such ciuill kind of life he speaketh of the naturall life and death taken after an Evangelicall sense to liue and die vnto the glorie of God 4. Haymo in one sense would haue this especially to be vnderstood of Martyrs which doe liue and die vnto God who is glorified by their life and death but the Apostle speaketh generally of all the faithfull and not of Martyrs onely as Reuel 13.14 they are said to die in the Lord which die in the faith of Christ. 5. Wherefore first it is agreed that the Apostle speaketh of the naturall life and death and then in this sense to liue vnto God comprehendeth these fowre things 1. to acknowledge God to be our Lord and that we are not our owne 2. and therefore we must seeke to doe Gods will and not our owne 3. as we beginne with Gods will so must we ende with his glorie making it the scope of our whole life and the actions thereof 4. and in all our troubles and afflictions we must put our trust in God and relie vpon his care as one that care 〈◊〉 vs likewise to die vnto the Lord is 1. to acknowledge that as we receiued our life from him so death commeth not without his sending 2. to take therefore patiently diseases and death it selfe as sent of God 3. as in our life so in our death to glorifie God and not to doe any thing whereby he might be dishonoured 4. to haue good hope and confidence in our death that God will raise vs vp to life againe Quest. 18. How Christ by his dying and rising againe is said to be Lord both of the dead and quicke 1. The Apostle maketh mention of the death of Christ his resurrection and life by the first acquisivit dominium he purchased this dominion by the second occupavit he tooke possession of this dominion 2. And although Christ had purchased this dominion in his death yet he had not the exercise of this dominion vntill he was risen againe for it is one thing Dominium esse to be a Lord an other dominari to hane rule the one is per potestatem by his power the other per potestatis exercitionem by the exercising of this power for by death was Christs soule separated from his bodie which till they were vnited againe he could not exercise his dominion perfectly as man Tolet and then a thing is said to be when it is made manifest by his resurrection his power and conquest ouer death was made knowne and so the interlinear gloss well interpreteth vt dominari intelligatur that he might be knowne to beare rule 3. And the Apostle speaketh not here 1. of that dominion which Christ hath as God for that he had before and should haue exercised still though he had not died 2. nor yet as Origen here resolueth is mention made of his death and life because Christ was an example of obedience vnto vs how to liue vnto righteousnesse and die vnto sinne and therefore he is Lord of both for this sauoureth too much of Pelagianisme to make Christ an example onely by the imitation whereof we should learne to be mortified 3. neither yet is his death mentioned to shewe this dominion to be merited for Christ merited not at all for himselfe as shall be shewed among the controversies contr 8. 4. but onely that dominion is signified which Christ purchased in redeeming vs by death as man As God he had an vniuersall dominion but as man he hath a particular dominion and right ouer vs as his inheritance purchased by his blood 4. Ouer the dead and the quicke 1. Origen vnderstandeth the spirituall life and death but the Apostle speaketh of the naturall as Christ truely died and rose againe 2. the dead are set beâ—ore the quicke to shewe Christs vniuersall dominion not onely ouer the then liuing but euen ouer the dead also that had beene liuing before Pareus 3. and he mentioneth the liuing least it might be thought that the iudgement onely in the world to come of the dead was committed vnto Christ and not of the liuing here Gorrhan Hugo 4. and whereas our Blessed Sauiour saith Matth. 22. That he is not the God of the dead and the Apostle here saith that he might be Lord of the dead and quicke they are not contrarie the one to the other for in the one place they are said to be dead according to the Sadduces sense that had no beeing at all but were vtterly perished and extinct both in bodie and soule of such the Lord is not God for he is not a God of that which is not Martyr as he is not their God as they are dead but as he purposeth to raise them to life againe but here by the dead the Apostle vnderstandeth them that are aliue in soule though dead in bodie 5. Chrysostome addeth that the Apostle here Iudaizantem pudefacit doth shame him that did Iudaize that seeing Christ had done so great things in dying and rising again for them they should not be so vnthankfull vt ad legem recurrerent as to runne vnto the law againe Quest. 13. Of the tribunall seate of Christ what it is and of other circumstances of the day of iudgement Here Origen hath a wittie discourse of the day of iudgement and the manner thereof wherein some things he saith well and he misseth as his manner is in other the summe is this which shall be reduced to these three heads which are confusedly there handled and shuffled together 1. who shall iudge
ex conspectu mutuo maior laetitia oriatur by the mutuall sight one of an other greater ioy is caused in 4. ad Galatas See further Synops. Centur. 2. err 63. 5. Controv. That festivall daies ought not to be consecrated to the honour of Saints The Romanists hold the contrarie reasoning thus for their opinion 1. Argum. God is honoured in his Saints the festivals therefore which are instituted to the honour of the Saints are referred to and determined in God Ans. 1. No will-worship tendeth to the honour of God but the odoration of Saints is a will-worship therefore God can not thereby receiue honour 2. God rather is thereby dishonoured for they giue the honour due vnto God vnto creatures inuocating the name of Saints saying O S. Peter S. Paul heare vs. 2. Argum. The memorie of the Saints is to be honoured but festivals are dedicated to the memorie of Saints Ergo. Ans. 1. Popish festivals are not dedicated onely to the memorie of Saints but to their worship which is idolatrie 2. and the Saints may better be remembred then by erecting holy daies in their names namely by imitating of their godly zeale and setting before our eyes their good example see Hebr. 13.7 3. Argum. These festivals of the Saints haue beene receiued and confirmed by long custome and therefore are not to be reiected Ans. Cyrpian saith epist. ad Pompeium writing against the epistle of Stephanus Bishop of Rome consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est custome without truth is but the oldnes of error Our arguments for the contrarie part that no festivals are to be consecrated to the honour of Saints are these and such like 1. All religious worship is due vnto God onely him onely shalt thou serue Matth. 4. but to dedicate daies vnto the honour of any is a religious worship Ergo. Augustine saith honoramus sanctos charitate non servitute we honour Saints with charitie not seruice de vera relig c. 55. 2. Argum. Festivall daies are not onely for the rest of the bodie but for the sanctifying of the soule but this is onely Gods worke therefore to him onely the right of festivall daies belongeth 3. In the old Testament there were no holy daies consecrated to the Patriarks as Abraham Isaak Iacob nor to any of the Prophets therefore neither ought any be so dedicated in the New 4. Christians are not to imitate Pagans in the rites of religion but in dedicating daies vnto Saints they imitate the Pagans apparently for so the Pagans did consecrate feasts to their inferiour gods as the Saturnals to Saturne the Bacchinals to Bacchus and such other herein Papists doe follow their example changing onely the names and this was done by the authoritie of one of their owne Popes Greg. l. 9. ep 71. festa Paganorum sensim esse c. the Pagan feasts are by little and little to be changed into Christian feasts and some things must be done to the similitude of theirs that they may more easily be brought to the Christian faith c. 6. Controv. Whether all the festivalls of Christians are alike arbitrarie to be altered and changed as shall seeme good to the Church Herein not onely the Papists are our aduersaries but some of our owne writers seeme to incline vnto this opinion The Papists affirme that the Sabbath is but an Apostolicall tradition and that it was charged from the last day of the weeke to the first by the authoritie of the Church Rhemist whereupon it will follow that the Church may alter it by the same authoritie if it shall so seeme good vnto an other day Learned Pareus hath also this position dub 4. hypoth 3. feriae Christianorum quantum ad genus sunt necessariae vt tamen quantum ad speciem maneant liberae c. the holy daies of Christians though they be necessarie in generall yet in particular are free that they may be changed and transferred if there be cause from one day to an other c. and he seemeth to account the dominicall day inter res medias among things indifferent hypoth 4. But I preferre herein the iudgement of that excellent diuine D. Fulke who concerning other festiuals of Christ and the holy Ghost thinketh that they may be changed as the Church shall see cause from certaine daies vnto other occurrent times and occasions or from the daies now observed to other as things in themselues indifferent but concerning the Lords day he writeth in these words But to change the Lords day and to keepe it on monday twesday or any other day the Church hath none authoritie for it is not a matter of indifferencie but a necessarie prescription of Christ himselfe deliuered to vs by his Apostles annot Revel c. 1. sect 7. The reason hereof is 1. because we finde that in the Apostles time the first day of the weeke was appointed to be the Lords day Act. 20.7 1. Cor. 16.2 Revel 1.10 who beeing directed by the spirit of God no doubt but herein also they followed either the expresse commandement of Christ or the speciall direction of the spirit 2. because there can not come the like reason of the altering of the Lords day while the world endureth as was in the first change namely for the commemoration of Christs resurrection 3. the Sabbath could not be changed but by the same authoritie whereby it was first instituted which was by God himselfe Wherefore to conclude this point the festiuals of Christians may be diuided into three sorts 1. some are of necessitie to be kept and bind in conscience as the Lords onely 2. other festiuals though not so necessarie yet are conuenient to be retained and can not be remooued without great scandall as the feasts of the Nativitie Circumcision Annuntiation Ascension of Christ and of the comming of the holy Ghost 3. some are meerely arbitrarie in the Church as all other festiuals of the Apostles See further hereof Synops. Centur. 2. err 87. and Hexapl. in Genes c. 2. 7. Conntrov Against Purgatorie v. 8. Whether we liue or die we are the Lords hence may be confuted the Popish opinion of purgatorie for they which are the Lords are alreadie purged by the blood of Christ and neede no other purgation by fire if they be not purged they are not the Lords for no vncleane thing can come into his sight so the Spirit saith Blessed are they which die in the Lord they rest from their labours Revel 14.13 all that die in the faith of Iesus die in the Lord if they die in the Lord they rest from their labours but they which are in purgatorie are in labour and sorrow still See further Synops. Centur. 2. err 11. 8. Controv. Whether Christ by his obedience and suffering merited for himselfe eternall glorie and dominion 1. It is the opinion of the Schoolemen that as Christ merited by his death for his members redemption from death and sinne so by his perfect obedience and most holy passion he
an other as he receiued vs but we in receiuing one an other doe not satisfie one for an other for Christ hath receiued vs in a farre more excellent manner then we can one receiue an other 3. As Christ receiued vs not onely in taking our nature vpon him Lyran. but in bearing our sinnes and in offering himselfe vnto death for vs Origen restraineth it to this particular point in question concerning meates that we should iudge none to be vncleane and therefore to be refused as Christ refused not vs for the vncleannes of sinne but the sense is more generall and the Apostle hath speciall reference to the vnitie betweene Gentiles and Iewes that one should receiue an other seeing Christ made no difference betweene them but died for both 4. To the glorie of God 1. Chrysostome and Theophylact doe ioyne this with the former clause that we should one receiue an other to the glorie of God but Origen better coupleth it with the latter part as Christ receiued vs c. Calvin Tolet ioyne it vnto both clauses but it agreeth better with the latter Beza 2. Martyr vnderstandeth it of the glorie of God which Christ propounded to himselfe in receiuing vs Origen of the effect which followeth that we beeing receiued by Christ should by our life glorifie God but it is better vnderstood of the glorie of God cuius nos facit participes whereof he maketh vs partakers Pareus he hath receiued vs vt nos faceret immortales to make vs likewise immortall gloss interlin 3. and herein the Apostle sheweth the excellencie of that benefit which we receiue by Christ he receiued vs beeing enemies much more should we receiue our brethren he receiued vs to euerlasting glorie much more should we receiue our brethren vnto concord and peace so this our receiuing one of an other is nothing to the greatnes of this benefit in Christ who hath receiued vs to a farre more excellent state then we can one receiue an other 14. Quest. How Christ is said to haue beene the Minister of circumcision v. 8. 1. Origen vnderstandeth this of the circumcision which Christ tooke in his flesh vt nosceretur ex semine Abrahae veniens c. that it might be knowne that he came of the seede of Abraham to whome the promise was made that in his seede all the nations of the world should be blessed and beside the Apostle insinuateth hereby that the Gentiles should not iudge the Iewes for observing the ceremonies of the law seeing Christ was in his flesh made the minister of circumcision Chrysostome following the same sense giueth an other reason why Christ was circumcised vt totam legem impleret that he might fulfill the whole law for vs and so appease his fathers wrath and deliuer vs from the curse of the law But in this sense Christ can not properly be said actiuely to be the minister of circumcision which was rather ministred to him when he was circumcised 2. Origen hath an other sense vnderstanding it of spirituall circumcision which is in the heart according to that saying of S. Paul Rom. 2.29 the circumcision is of the heart in the spirit not in the letter and Haymo following this sense applieth it to the spirituall circumcision which concurreth with baptisme of the which S. Paul speaketh Colos. 2.11 In whom also ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands by putting off the sinnefull bodie of the flesh c. in that ye are buried with him through baptisme thus also Iunius in his parall But this spirituall circumcision is not peculiar to the Iewes but common also to the beleeuing Gentiles whereas the Apostle speaketh here of the prioritie and prerogatiue of the Iewes 3. Haymo hath also an other interpretation that Christ is said to be the minister of circumcision because before the time of his incarnation he beeing the word of his father did minister circumcision to the Israelites eam dando praecipiendo by giuing and commanding it vnto them to be obserued this sense Faius misliketh not lex ipsa per Christum in monte data est the law was giuen by Christ in the mount But it is euident that the Apostle speaketh here of Christ come in the flesh to confirme the promises made to the fathers 4. Wherefore by circumcision here the circumcised Iewes are vnderstood by the figure called a metonymie the adiunct beeing taken for the subiect as c. 4.12 Abraham is called the father of the circumcision and Gal. 2.8 Peter is saide to haue the Apostleship of the circumcision and yet withall it sheweth that Christ did submit himselfe to the whole law and to the ceremonies thereof as Gal. 4.4 he is said to be made vnder the law thus Calvin Martyr Beza Gualter Lyran Tolet Pareus with many other expositors and this sense best agreeth with the Apostles purpose who prooueth that distributiuely and in parts which before he affirmed how Christ had receiued all to the glorie of the father which first he sheweth to haue beene performed in Christs owne person to the Iewes and afterward to the Gentiles this then is the meaning of the words The Minister 1. which sheweth the great humilitie of Christ that he refused no ministerie nor seruice to doe good to his nation as he saith himselfe in the Gospel that he came not to be ministred but to minister and in the same sense S. Paul saith Phil. 1. that he tooke vpon him the forme of a seruant 2. and this ministrie consisted not onely in his preaching though therein he watched with all diligence but in all other ministeries in the flesh his incarnation passion resurrection because he came to fulfill the promises made to the fathers 3. and he specially laboured and ministred in preaching the word teaching vs wherein the ministerie of the word consisteth not in a bare naked title or in ceremonies solemnities processions as the Papall priesthood and ministerie is chiefly busied in such things but in teaching and exhorting wherein our blessed Sauiour laboured most faithfully and thereunto watched by three meanes especially prayer vnto God holines of life and by the power of miracles Of the circumcision that is of the circumcised Iewes to whome he both preached himselfe saying he was sent onely to the lost sheepe of Israel and also gaue a charge to his Apostles and disciples onely to preach to the Iewes not to the Gentiles and though Christ preached also in the coasts of the Samaritans yet that was not vsuall but onely by the way and somewhat extraordinarily to make a way for the calling of the Gentiles for otherwise his chiefest aboad was in Iewrie For the truth of God c. 1. that is that God might appeare to be true in his promises made vnto the fathers concerning the Messiah whome he promised to send so it was not for any merit in the Iewes that Christ was first sent vnto them but that the promises of God might be fulfilled 2. yet in a diuers manner
v. 5. he was wounded for our transgressions and it followeth he was broken for our iniquities and againe the chasticement of our peace was vpon him and with his stripes are wee healed verse 6. the Lord hath laied vpon him the iniquities of vs all verse 8. For the transgression of my people was he plagued v. 10. he shall make his soule an offering for sinne v. 11. he shall beare their iniquities v. 12. he bare the sinnes of many and praied for the transgressors what could be more euidently expressed or how in more full and effectuall tearmes could the force and efficacie of Christs death redeeming and iustifying vs from our sinnes be described 3. Controv. Against the enemies and adversaries to the Scriptures the Marcionites Libertines with others v. 4. Whatsoeuer is written c. Those heretikes which impugne the Scriptures doe either condemne them as vnnecessarie or of no vse or reiect them as superfluous for such as are perfect or hold them as defectiue and imperfect and such as haue neede of other helps and supplies the first are the Manichees and Marcionites which condemne the bookes of Moses and the old Testament the second the Libertines which doe cleaue vnto their fantasticall dreames which they call revelations and say the Scriptures are onely for such as are weake the third are the Romanists which doe beside the Scriptures receiue many traditions which they call verbum Dei non scriptum the word of God not written which they make of equall authoritie with the Scriptures 1. Against the first Origen in his commentarie here sheweth how the things written aforetime in the old Testament were written for our learning and giueth instance of these places Thou shalt not muzle the mouth of the oxe c. which S. Paul applieth to the Ministers of the Gospel 1. Cor. 9. and that allegorie of Abrahams two sonnes the one by a free woman the other by a bond which S. Paul expoundeth of the two testaments Gal. 4. and that of Manna and the rocke which signified Christ 1. Cor. 10. by this induction Origen confuteth those heretikes which refused the old Testament 2. The Libertines also and Anabaptists are confuted which thinke the Scriptures serue onely for the weake seeing the Apostle who counteth himselfe among the strong v. 1. here saith whatsoeuer is written is written for our learning the Apostle confesseth that he among the rest receiued instruction and learning from the Scriptures Those then are impudent and shamelesse creatures which doe take themselues to be more perfect then S. Paul as needing not the helpe of the Scriptures 3. Our adversaries the Papists are here in an other extreame for as the Libertines allow the Scriptures onely for the vse of the simple so they contrariwise denie them to the simple and vnlearned and challenge a propertie in them onely to themselues that are professed among them of the Clergie and to such other to whome they shall permit the reading of the Scriptures But S. Paul here writing to the whole Church of the beleeuing Romans both learned and vnlearned both Pastors and people saith generally they are written for our learning and so our blessed Sauiour speaking vnto the people of the Iewes saith Search the Scriptures Ioh. 5.39 And as for that other part of Pharisaicall leauen in adding vnwritten traditions beside the Scriptures it is also reiected by warrant of the Apostles words here whatsoeuer things are written are written for our learning things then not written are not for our learning as hauing no certentie nor foundation And S. Paul els where setting forth the manifold vse and profit of the Scriptures addeth That the man of God may be absolute and made perfect c. 1. Tim. 3.17 if perfection of knowledge and to euery good worke may be attained vnto out of the Scriptures all other additions are superfluous See further hereof Synops. Centur. 1. err 12. 4. Controv. Of the authoritie of the Scriptures that it dependeth not vpon the approbation or allowance of the Church Whatsoeuer is written c. From hence also may be confuted an other point of Popish doctrine that the Scriptures receiue their authoritie and allowance from the Church for the word of God in the Scriptures is sufficient of it selfe and we doe beleeue the Scriptures because we are perswaded by the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures that they are the word of God 1. For if the Scriptures should receiue their authoritie from the Church then it would follow that God must submit himselfe to the iudgement and approbation of men and the Prophet Dauid saith Euery man is a lyer can they then which are natura mendaces lyers by nature giue approbation and authoritie to the truth and further seeing faith commeth by hearing of the word of God Rom. 10.17 and the faithfull are begotten by the immortall seede of Gods word as the holy Apostle Saint Peter saith how can they that are begotten beget credite and authoritie vnto that which first begat them 2. We graunt that there are certaine motiues and externall inducements to prepare vs to this perswasion of the Scriptures that they are the word of God as 1. That they were written by Prophets which were stirred vp of God and inspired with his spirit for how otherwise could plaine and simple men as Amos that was a keeper of cattel the Apostles that were fisher men be made able to such great workes 2. they were confirmed by miracles 3. the predictions of the Prophets as of Daniel and the rest were fulfilled in their time and place but God onely can foretell and foreshew things to come 4. Beside the Scriptures haue beene miraculously preserued as the bookes of the Law in the time of the captiuitie and vnder the tyrannie of Antiochus that committed them to the fire so since both the old and new Testament haue beene by impious Tyrants as Iulian the Gothes and Vandales sought for to be vtterly extinguished but yet God hath preserued them whereas many humane writings of Philosophers Historiographers and others haue perished by fire as when Ptolomes librarie was burned at Alexandria and by other casualities 5. adde hereunto the consent of all nations that haue receiued the Christian faith who with one consent haue acknowledged the Scriptures for the word of God All these and such other motiues may be inducements vnto vs at the first to receiue the Scriptures but the full perswasion is wrought in vs by the spirit of God in the reading and learning of the Scriptures themselues that we may say touching these motiues as the Samaritanes did vnto the woman that called them to see Christ that they beleeued him not so much vpon her report as for that they had heard him themselues Ioh. 4. 3. But that saying of Augustine will be obiected Evangelio non crederem nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae me commoverit authoritas I had not beleeued the Gospel if the authoritie of the Catholike Church had not mooued mee I answer
qu. Why the Apostle onely maketh mention of sinnes past 36. qu. How God is said to be iust and a iustifier of him which is of the faith c. v. 26. 37. qu. How reioycing is excluded not by the law of works but by the law of faith 38. qu. Of the difference betweene these two phrases of faith through faith v. 30. 39. qu. How the Law is established by the doctrine of faith Questions vpon the fourth Chapter 1. qu. Vpon what occasion S. Paul bringeth in the example of Abraham 2. qu. Of the meaning of the first verse 3. qu. Of the meaning of the 2. verse 4. qu. How the Apostle alleadgeth that testimonie concerning the imputation of Abrahams faith for righteousnes v. 4. 5. qu. Of the meaning of the words who counted this for righteousnes vnto Abraham 6. qu. What it was that Abraham beleeued 7. qu. Why Abrahams faith was imputed to him at this time and not before 8. qu. What imputation is and what to be imputed 9. qu. How Abrahams faith was imputed to him for righteousnes 10. qu. Whether Abraham were iustified by any thing beside his faith 11. qu. How S. Paul and S. Iames are reconciled about the manner of Abrahams iustifying 12. qu. Of the explication of the 4. and 5. verses 13. qu. Of the diuers kinds of rewards 14. qu. How it standeth with Gods iustice to iustifie the wicked v. 5. 15. qu. How our sinnes are said to be forgiuen and couered v. 7. 16. qu. In what sense circumcision is said to be a signe and wherefore it was instituted 17. qu. In what sense circumcision is called a seale of the righteousnes of faith v. 11. 18. qu. Whether the mysterie of faith in the Messiah to come were generally known vnder the Law 19. qu. Certaine questions of circumcision and first of the externall signe why it was placed in the generative part 20. qu. Certaine doubts remooued and obiections answered concerning circumcision 21. qu. How Abraham is saide to be the father of them which beleeue v. 11 12. 22. qu. How Abraham is saide to be the father of circumcision v. 12. 23. qu. How and where Abraham was promised to be heire of the world v. 13. 24. qu. Wherein Abraham was made heire of the world and wherein this inheritance consisted 25. qu. How faith is said to be made voide if they which are of the law be heires 26. qu. How they law is said to cause wrath 27. qu. Of the meaning of these words v. 15. where no law is there is no transgression 27. qu. Who are meant by Abrahams seede which is of the law v. 16. 28. qu. Of the meaning of these words I haue made thee a father of many nations before God 29. qu. Of the meaning of these words v. 17. who quickneth the dead and calleth those things which be not c. 30. qu. How God is said to call those things which be not as though they were 31. qu. Whether it be peculiar to God onely to quicken and raise the dead 32. qu. How Abraham is said against hope to haue beleeued vnder hope 33. qu. How Abrahams bodie is said to be dead v. 19. 34. qu. What promise of God made to Abraham it was whereof he is saide not to haue doubted v. 20. 35. qu. Whether Abraham doubted of Gods promise 36. qu. How Abraham is said to haue giuen glorie vnto God v. 20. 37. qu. What was imputed to Abraham for righteousnes 38. qu. Of these words Now it is not written for him onely c. v. 23. 39. qu. How Abrahams faith is to be imitated by vs. 40. qu. Wherein Abrahams faith and ours differ and wherein they agree 41. qu. How Christ is said to haue bin deliuered vp for our sinnes v. 25. 42. qu. Why the Apostle thus distinguisheth the benefits of our redemption ascribing remission of sinnes to Christs death and iustification to his resurrection v. 25. Questions vpon the fifth Chapter 1. qu. What peace the Apostle meaneth v. 1. 2. qu. Of the second benefit proceeding of our iustification which is to stand and persevere in the state of grace 3. qu. Of the benefit of our iustification the hope of euerlasting glorie 4. qu. How we are said to reioyce in tribulation 5. qu. How S. Paul and S. Iames are reconciled together the one making patience the cause of trialls or probation the other the effect 6. qu. Of the coherence of these words with the former because the loue of God is shed abroad in our hearts v. 5. 7. qu. What kind of loue the Apostle speaketh of saying the loue of God is shed abroad c. 8. qu. Why the loue of God is said to be shed abroad in our hearts 9. qu. Why it is added by the holy Ghost which is giuen vs. 10. qu. How Christ is said to haue died according to the time v. 6. 11. qu. Of the meaning of the 7. v. One will scarce die for a righteous man c. 12. qu. Of the difference betweene Christs dying for vs and those which died for their countrey 13. qu. Of the greatnes of the loue of God toward man in sending Christ to die for vs v. 8. 14. qu. Whether mans redemption could not otherwise haue beene wrought but by the death of Christ. 15. qu. Wherein the force of the Apostles reason consisteth saying Much more beeing reconciled we shall be saued by his life v. 9. 16. qu. Why the Apostle saith not onely so but we also reioyce in God c. v. 11. 17. qu. Whether any thing neede to be supplied in the Apostles speach v. 12. to make the sense perfect 18. qu. Who was that one by whome sinne entred into the world v. 12. 19. qu. What sinne the Apostle speaketh of here originall or actuall by one man sinne entred 20. qu. How sinne is said to haue entred into the world 21. qu. And death by sinne what kind of death the Apostle speaketh of 22. qu. Whether the death of the bodie be naturall or inflicted by reason of sinne 23. qu. Of the meaning of the Apostle in these words in whome all haue sinned and of the best reading thereof v. 12. 24. qu. Whether the Apostle meaneth originall or actuall sinnes saying in whome all haue sinned 25. qu. Of the coherence of these words Vnto the time of the Law was sinne in the world 26. qu. How sinne is said to haue beene vnto the time of the Law 27. qu. What sinne the Apostle meaneth which was in the world vnto the time of the law 28. qu. How sinne is said not to be imputed where there is no law 29. qu. How death is saide to haue raigned from Adam to Moses 30. qu. Of the meaning of these words which sinne not after the transgression of Adam 31. qu. How Adam is said to be the figure of him that was to come v. 14. 32. qu. Of the names and tearmes which the Apostle vseth in this comparison 33. qu. Of the comparison betweene Adam
and Christ in generall 34. qu. Of the disparitie and vnlikenes betweene Adam and Christ in this comparison 35. qu. Of the excellencie and superioritie which the benefit by grace in Christ hath beyond our fall and losse in Adam 36. qu. Some other opinions refused wherein this excellencie should consist 37. qu. In what sense the grace of God is said to haue abounded vnto more 38. qu. How all men are said to be iustified in Christ v. 18. 39. qu. Why the Apostle saith v. 19. By one mans disobedience many were made sinners and not all 40. qu. How many are said to be sinners in Adam 41. qu. How the law is said to haue entred thereupon v. 20. 42. qu. How the offence is saide to haue abounded by the entring of the law v. 20. 43. qu. How grace is said to haue abounded more 44. qu. Of the raigne of sinne vnto death and of grace vnto life Questions vpon the sixt Chapter 1. qu. Of the meaning of these words Shall we continue in sinne v. 1. 2. qu. What it is to die vnto sinne 3. qu. What it is to be baptized into Iesus Christ. 4. qu. Of the diuers significations of the word Baptisme and to be baptized 5. qu. What it is to be baptized into the death of Christ v. 3. 7. qu. Of the meaning of this phrase to be graft c. 8. qu. What resurrection the Apostle speaketh of v. 5. 9. qu. What is vnderstood by the old man v. 6. 10. qu. What is meant by the bodie of sinne v. 6. that the bodie of sinne might be destroied 11. qu. How the dead are said to be freed frō sinne v. 7. 12. qu. What life the Apostle speaketh of v. 8. We beleeue that we shall also liue with him 13. qu. How death is said to haue bad dominion ouer Christ v. 9. 14. qu. How Christ is said to haue died to sinne v. 10. 15. qu. How Christ is said now to liue vnto God v. 10. 16. qu. Of these words v. 11. Likewise think ye c. 17. qu. How sinne is said not to raigne c. v. 12. 18. qu. What the Apostle meaneth by mortall bodie v. 12. 19. qu. Of these words that we should obey it in the lusts c. v. 12. 20. qu. How we are not to giue our members as weapons vnto sinne v. 13. 21. qu. What it is not to be vnder the law but vnder grace v. 14. 23. qu. Whether the Fathers also that liued vnder the law were not vnder grace 24. qu. What the Apostle meaneth by the forme of doctrine whereunto they were deliuered 25. qu. How we are made seruants of righteousnes 26. qu. Of the meaning of these words I speake after the manner of men because of your infirmitie v. 19. Questions vpon the seauenth Chapter 1. qu. How the law is said to haue dominion ouer a man as long as he liueth 2. qu. Whether the woman be simply free if the man be once dead 3. qu. Whether the woman haue not the like libertie and freedome in respect of the bond of mariage as the man hath 4. qu. Why the Apostle saith we are dead to the law v. 4. and not rather the law is dead to vs. 5. qu. How we are said to be mortified to and freed from the law 6. qu. What is meant by the bodie of Christ. 7. qu. Of the meaning of these words beeing dead vnto it 8. qu. What is meant by the newnes of the spirit and oldnes of the letter 9. qu. How S. Paul beeing brought vp in the knowledge of the law could say I knew not lust v. 7. and I was aliue without the law v. 9. 10. qu. What law the Apostle speaketh of v. 7. is the law of sinne 11. qu. What lust or concupiscence the Apostle speaketh of I had not knowne lust c. except c. 12. qu. Why the Apostle giueth instance in the tenth Command Thou shalt not lust and alledgeth not all the words of the law 13. qu. What sinne the Apostle meaneth v. 8. sinne tooke an occasion c. 14. qu. How sinne tooke occasion by the Law 15. qu. Of what time S. Paul speaketh when he knew not the law and afterward sinne tooke occasion by the law c. 16. What the Apostle meaneth by all concupiscence 17. qu. In what sense the Apostle saith Sinne was dead and he aliue without the law v. 8. 18. qu. How sinne is said to haue revived 19. qu. How sinne is said to haue deceiued 20. qu. How sinne is said to haue slaine him 21. qu. How the law is said to be holy iust good and likewise the commandement 22. qu. How sinne is said to be out of measure sinnefull 23. qu. How the law is said to be spirituall 24. qu. How the Apostle saith he is carnall and sold vnder sinne v. 17. 25. qu. Of these words v. 15. I allow not what I doe what I would that doe I not 26. qu. What the Apostle vnderstandeth by flesh I know that in me that is my flesh dwelleth no good thing c. v. 18. 27. qu. How the Apostle saith To will is present with me c. but I find no meanes to performe c. v. 18. 28. qu. Of the meaning of these words v. 21. I finde a law c. 29. qu. How the Apostle saith Euill is present with me v. 21. 30. qu. Of these words I delight in the law of God c. v. 22 23. of the number of these laws and what they are 31. qu. Why these are called Laws and why they are said the one to be in the inner man the other in the members 32. qu. Of the Apostles exclamation O wretched man that I am 33. qu. What the Apostle vnderstandeth by this bodie of death from the which he desireth to be deliuered 34. qu. Why the Apostle giueth thankes to God v. 25. 35. qu. Of these words I in my minde serue the law of God c. 36. qu. Of that famous question whether S. Paul doe speake in his owne person or of an other here in this chapter Questions vpon the eight Chapter 1. qu. Who are said to be in Christ. 2. qu. What is meant by the law of the spirit of life 3. qu. What is vnderstood by the law of sinne and death 4. qu. Of the best reading of the 3. v. 5. qu. What is meant by the similitude of sinfull flesh 6. qu. Of these words And for sinne condemned sinne in the flesh 7. qu. How Christ condemned sinne in the flesh 8. qu. Who are after the flesh and sauour the things of the flesh 9. qu. How the wisdome of the flesh is enmitie against God 10. qu. How they which are in the flesh cannot please God v. 8. 11. qu. Of the dwelling of the spirit of God in vs v. 9. 12. qu. Of the meaning of these words v. 10. The bodie is dead because of sinne the spirit is life c. 13. qu. How the quickning of the dead is ascribed to the
that this Epistle was written by Paul and is of diuine authoritie by the epistle it selfe 2. contr That S. Pauls epistles are not so obscure that any should be terrified from the reading thereof 3. contr Against the Ebionites which retained the rites and ceremonies of Moses 4. contr Against the Marcionites that reiected the lawe of Moses 5. contr Against the Romanists which depraue the doctrine taught by S. Paul in his Epistle 6. contr Against Socinus that blasphemously subverteth the doctrine of our redemption by Christ and iustification by faith 7. contr Whether Paul may be thought to haue beene married Controversies vpon the 1. Chapter 1. contr Against the Manichees which refuse Moses and the Prophets 2. contr Against Election by the foresight of workes 3. contr Against the Nestorians and Vbiquitaries 4. contr Against the heresie of one Georgius Eniedinus a Samosatenian heretike in Transilvania 5. cont Against the Marcionites that Christ had a true bodie 6. contr Against the Apollinaâ—â—sts that Christ had no humane soule 7. contr That the Romane faith is not the same now which was commended by the Apostle 8. contr That the Pope is not vniversall Bishop 9. contr Against the Popish distinction betweene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to worship and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to serue v. 9. whom I serue in my spirit 10. contr That God onely spiritually is to be serued and worshipped 11. contr Of the vaine vse of Popish pilgrimages 12. contr None to be barred from the knowledge of Gods word 13. contr Against diuerse hereticall assertions of Socinus touching the iustice of God 14. contr Against inherent iustice 15. contr That the Sacraments did not conferre grace 16. contr That faith onely iustifieth 17. contr How the Gospel is the power of God to salvation to euerie one that beleeueth 18. contr Of the difference between the law and the Gospel 19. contr Whether by naturall meanes the Gentiles might haue attained to the knowledge of the onely true God without the speciall assistance of Gods grace 20. contr Against some Philosophers that the world is not eternall 21. contr Against the adoration and setting vp of images in Churches and places of prayer v. 23. they turned the glorie of the incorruptible God to the similitude of an image 22. contr Of the corrupt reading of the vulgar Latine translation v. 32. 23. contr Against the Popish distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes Controversies out of the 2. Chapter 1. contr Against the power of freewill in good things 2. contr Of iustification by the imputatiue iustice of faith 3. contr Against the merit of workes 4. contr Which are to be counted good works 5. con Whether any good works of the faithfull be perfect 6. contr Whether men ought to doe well for hope of recompence or reward 7. contr Against iustification by workes vpon these words v. 13. Not the heares of the lawe but the doers shall be iustified 8. contr That it is not possible in this life to keepe the lawe 9. contr Whether by the light of nature onely a man may doe any thing morally good 10. contr Of the imperfection of the vulgar Latine translation 11. contr That the Sacraments do not conferre grace 12. contr That the Sacraments depend not vpon the worthines of the Minister or receiuer 13. contr Against the Marcionites and other which condemned the old Testament and the ceremonies thereof 14. contr Against the Anabaptists which reiect the Sacraments of the newe Testament 15. contr That the want of Baptisme condemneth not 16. contr That the wicked and vnbeleeuers eate not the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament Controversies vpon the 3. Chapter 1. contr That the Sacraments of the old Testament did not iustifie ex opere operato by the work wrought and so consequenly neither the newe 2. contr Of the Apochryphall Scriptures 3. contr That the wicked and vnbeleeuers doe not eate the bodie of Christ in the Eucharist 4. contr That the Romane Church hath not the promise of the perpetuall presence of Gods spirit 5. contr The Virgin Marie not exempted from sinne 6. contr The reading of the Scripture is not to be denied to any 7. contr Against the adversaries of the law the Marcionites and other heretikes 8. contr Against the counsels of perfection 9. contr Against the Pelagians which established free-will 10. contr That the vertue of Christs death is indifferently extended both to sinnes before baptisme and after 11. contr That the beleeuing fathers before Christ were not kept in Limbo 12. contr Against the Marcionite heretikes 13. contr Against the Novatian heretikes 14. contr Against inherent iustice 15. contr Against the Popish distinction of the first and second iustification 16. contr Against the works of preparation going before iustification 17. contr What iustifying faith is 18. contr What manner of faith it is that iustifieth 19. contr Of the manner how faith iustifieth 20. contr Whether faith alone iustifieth 21. contr How S. Paul and S. Iames are reconciled together 23. contr Against Socinus that Christ properly redeemed vs by paying the ransome for vs and not metaphorically 23. contr That Christ truely reconciled vs by his blood against an other blasphemous assertion of Socinus Controversies out of the 4. Chapter 1. contr That the Apostle excludeth all kind of workes from iustification 2. contr Whether blessednes consist onely in the conversion of sinners v. 7. 3. contr Whether sinne is wholly purged and taken away in the iustification of the faithfull 4. contr Against workes of satisfaction 5. contr Of imputatiue iustice against inherent righteousnes 6. contr That the Sacraments doe not conferre grace by the externall participation onely 7. contr That there is the same substance and efficacie of the Sacraments of the old and newe Testament 8. contr That circumcision was not onely a signe signifying or distinguishing but a seale confirming the promise of God 9. contr Whether circumcision were availeable for the remission of sinne 10. contr Of the presumptuous titles of the Pope calling himselfe the father and head of the faithfull 11. contr Against the Chiliasts or Millenaries that hold that Christ should raigne a 1000. yeares in the earth 12. contr Of the certaintie of faith v. 16. that the promise might be sure 13. contr Whether faith be an act of the vnderstanding onely 14. contr That iustifying faith is not a generall apprehension or beleeuing of the articles of the faith but an assurance of the remission and forgiuenesse of sinnes in Christ. 15. contr That faith doth not iustifie by the merit or act thereof but onely instrumentally as it applyeth and apprehendeth the righteousnesse of Christ. 16. contr The people are no to be denied the reading of the Scriptures 17. contr Against the heretikes which condemned the old Testament and the author thereof 18. contr Whether iustification consist onely in the remission of sinnes 19. contr Against Socinus corrupt interpretation of these words v. 25. was deliuered vp for our sinnes 20. contr Piscators