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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
voluntarie connivence or negligence of the keeper or some other way as it were made by God for so we reade that Peter escaped out of prison the doores beeing opened by the Angel before him Act. 12. but this is not rashly to be done for the aforesaid reasons but vpon good warrant when God shall as it were make a way for a man to set him free Quest. 8. What kind of iudgement they procure to themselues which resist the magistrate 1. Whereas the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth both condemnation as Beza damnation as the vulgar Latine iudgement as the Syrian interpreter punishment as Piscator some take this to be vnderstood not of eternall punishment but of the temporall inflicted by the Magistrate when as the powers beeing offended doe either punish rebells with death or cast them into prison Haymo so also Vatablus 2. Lyranus contrariwise interpreteth it de aeterna morte of euerlasting death not excluding also temporall punishment so also Martyr 3. Some vnderstand poenam punishment generally without limitation Olevian Piscator Iunius annot 4. Some will haue the punishment in this life vnderstood whether inflicted by the Magistrate or by God himselfe who will take reuenge for the transgression of his owne ordinance as is euident in the fearefull punishment of rebellious Cote Dathan and Abiram Numb 16. Pareus Gualter and so before them Chrysostome and Theophylact cum à Deo tum ab hominibus poenas daturum he shall endure punishment both from God and men 5. But all these are better ioyned together that such as resist the Magistrate are punished by the publike lawes and God often taketh reuenge also beside they make themselues guiltie of euerlasting damnation which is due vnto the transgression of Gods commandement and the violating of his ordinance Faius 6. Tolet hath here this conceite by himselfe it is said they shall receiue iudgement because beeing not restrained by the Magistrate whom they stand not in awe of they cast themselues into those sinnes for the which damnationem incurrunt they incurre damnation but here the Apostle speaketh of that punishment which is due for the resisting of Gods ordinance 7. Pareus here obserueth well these two things that the purposes and endeauours of such are frustrate and beside they shew their madnes and foolishnes in beeing accessarie to their owne punishment for it is an vnwise part for one to procure his owne hurt Quest. 9. How the Prince is not to be feared for good workes but for euill 1. Concerning the words in the originall they stand thus Princes are not a feare of good workes and so the vulgar Latine that is for good workes as the Syrian interpreter putteth it in the datiue bonis operibus to good workes so also Tertullian readeth in scorpian and Beza followeth this sense and the meaning is that they are not a terror or to be feared ratione boni operis by reason of the good worke Lyran. or his qui sunt boni operis to them which are of good workes Gorrhan so before him Chrysostome bene agentibus to those which doe well good workes are here to be vnderstood not as Diuines take them for morall workes but for ciuill workes agreeable to the publike lawes which are either against the diuine lawe whereof the Magistrate ought to haue speciall care or against the positiue constitution Pareus 2. Touching the occasion of these words Tolet will haue them to depend of the former sentence and to shewe the cause why they which resist the powers doe receiue iudgement to themselues because they contemne the Magistrate who is ordained to restraine euill workes and so they without restraint fall into euill and so incurre punishment but the better coherence is to make this an other argument to mooue obedience to the higher powers from the vtilitie thereof as Chrysostome or à duplici sine from the twofold ende of magistracie which is for the punishment of the euill and praise of the good 3. They which doe good workes must feare the Magistrate still but timore reverentiae non seruili c. with a reuerent not a seruile feare as the malefactors doe which hauing a guiltie conscience are afraide of punishment to be inflicted by the Magistrate Gorrhan Quest. 10. What it is to haue praise of the power v. 3. 1. Whereas often it falleth out that the Magistrate doth punish the good and encourage the wicked how then is this true which the Apostle saith doe well and thou shalt haue the praise of the same the answear is that first we must distinguish betweene the power it selfe and authoritie which is ordained of God to these ends for the reward of the good and punishment of the euill and the abuse of this power secondly although gouernours abusing their power do offend in some particulars yet in generall more good commeth by their gouernement then hurt as vnder cruell Nero there was some execution of iustice for Paul was preserued by the Romane captaine from the conspiracie of the Iewes and appealed vnto Caesar which was then Nero and his appeale was receiued 2. It will be obiected that euen vnder good Princes where there is punishment for offenders yet the righteous receiue not their reward 1. Origen thus vnderstandeth these words thou shalt haue praise of the same c. that is in the day of iudgement ex istis legibus landem habebis apud Deum by these lawes thou shalt haue praise with God for keeping them c. but the Apostle speaketh not of hauing praise by the lawes but of the power that is the Magistrate 2. Augustine thinketh it is one thing to be praised of the power that is to be commended and rewarded by it an other laudem habere ex illa to haue praise of it that is exhibit se laude dignum he sheweth himselfe worthie of praise whether he be actually praised or not of the power Tolet alloweth this sense though he take the distinction betweene these phrases to be somewhat curious so also Haymo but the Apostle speaketh not simply of hauing praise and commendation but of hauing it from the Prince 3. the ordinar glosse thus thou shalt haue praise of the power si iusta est ipso laudante if it be iust it will praise thee si iniusta occasionem prebente if vniust it will giue thee occasion of praise so also Gorrhan it shall praise thee either causaliter by beeing the cause of thy praise or occasionaliter by beeing the occasion c. causa erit maigris coronae it shall be the cause of thy greater crowne gloss interlin laudaberis apud Deum thou shalt be praised with God Haymo but the Apostle speaketh of receiuing praise from the power as Chrysostome and Theophylact well obserue erit laudum tuarum praeco futurus he shall be a setter forth of thy praise 4. Bucer thinketh that the Apostle alludeth vnto the custome of the Grecians and Romanes among whom they which had done any
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.
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