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
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
also that he was endued with an humane soule which though it be not here comprehended vnder the name of flesh yet it followeth by necessarie consequence that hauing an humane bodie he likewise receiued of God a reasonable soule as he himselfe saith Matth. 26.38 My soule is heauie vnto death his diuine spirit was not subiect to griefe or heauines This ouerthroweth the heresie of the Apollinarists which denied Christ to haue an humane soule but affirmed that his flesh was animated by his diuine nature 7. Controv. That the Romane faith is not the same now which was commended by the Apostle v. 8. Your faith is published through the whole world Pererius among other commendations of the Romane faith alleadgeth this That the Romane Church hath kept inviolablely the faith once receiued by the Apostles and therefore the fathers Ireneus Tertullian Opsatus by this argument vsed to confute heretikes because they dissented from the faith of the Church of Rome The Rhemists also alleadge diuers testimonies of the fathers in the commendation of the Romane faith as of Cyprian who saith whose faith was praised to whom misbeleefe can haue no accesse epist. 55. nu 6. likewise Hierome the Romane faith commended by the Apostles mouth will receiue no such deceits nor can be changed possibly though as Angel taught otherwise beeing sensed by S. Pauls authoritie adv Ruffin l. 3. c. 4. Contra. 1. The meaning of these fathers is not to giue such priuiledge vnto the Romane Church as that it should neuer faile in faith for Cyprian though in error himselfe chargeth Stephanus Bishop of Rome with error and Hierome sheweth that Liberius Bishop of Rome fell into heresie catalog and he himselfe reprooueth the custome of the Church of Rome and preferreth the custome of the Catholike Church in all the world◠Evagrio 2. But they giue this commendation of the Romane faith which was commended by the Apostle which while the Church of Rome held as it did vntill those times it could not possibly erre Now beeing fallen from that faith more then any Christian Church in the world it hath lost this commendation which S. Paul gaue of the faith of the Romanes therefore as P. Martyr well saith dolendae magis sunt vices Romana Ecclesia c. this change of the Church of Rome is much to be lamented which beeing sometime so highly commended by the Apostle is now become the seat of Antichrist as at Ierusalem Antioch Alexandria Constantinople which were sometime famous Churches the Mahometarie profession is now receiued and the Christians that are there are addicted to infinite superstitions 8. Controv. That the Pope is not vniuersall Bishop v. 5. By whome we haue receiued grace and Apostleship c. among all the Gentiles hence the Romanists may pretend the Popes vniuersall Pastorship ouer all the world because he succeedeth the Apostles Contra. 1. Other Bishops also as well as the Pope succeeded the Apostles therefore they also may chalenge as well as he to be vniuersall Bishops 2. But neither they nor he doe succeede the Apostles in their speciall calling to be Apostles but in their generall ministerie in office in beeing Pastours and Bishops 3. The Pope chalengeth to be Peters successour not Pauls but Peter was the Apostle of the circumcision not of the vncircumcised Gentiles 4. Gregorie the 1. Bishop of Rome condemneth the title of vniuersall Bishop and thus wrote concerning Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople who affected that title lib. 6. epist. 30. Ego fideliter dico quia quisquis se vniuersalem sacerdotem vocat vel vocari desidevat in electione sua Antichristū praecurrit c. I speak confidently that whosoeuer calleth himselfe vniuersal Priest or desireth to be so called in his pride forerunneth Antichrist likewise in the Africane Councell it was thus decreed the Bishop of the first Sea shall not be called the Prince of Praists or the chiefe Priest but onely Bishop of the first Sea Vniuersalis autem nec etiam Romanus pontifex appelletur c. But no not the Bishop of Rome shall be called Vniversall distinct 100. primae sedis Controv. 9. Against the Popish distinction between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to worship and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to serue ver 9. Whom I serue in my spirit 1. The Romanists make this difference they take the first to signifie religious worship due onely vnto God the other to betoken seruice which is giuen vnto Saints and men Bel. lib. 1. de Sanctor beatitud c. 12. Erasmus much dissenteth not sauing that he vnderstandeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be worship which is giuen Diuis aut Deo to Saints or God Contra. That these words are indiffently taken for the same is euident both by the Scripture and prophane writings 1. as the Apostle here saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom I worship so in other places he vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to serue Act. 10.19 Rom. 7.6 and 12.11 Ephes. 6.7 Philip. 2.22 Pareus And as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to serue is giuen vnto God so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they would haue onely to signifie to worship is vsed of men as in Leviticus 23.7 where it is said thou shalt doe no seruile worke the words are as the Septuag translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 likewise Deuter. 28.48 where it is said thou shalt serue thine enemies the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. likewise these words are in forren writers taken in the same sense as Pet. Martyr sheweth out of Suidas that at the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that the first word afterward was taken to be of the same sense with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to worship So also Xenophon lib. 3. Cyropaid bringeth in the husband thus speaking vnto Cyrus concerning his wife that he had rather giue his life then she should serue the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza also sheweth the same out of Pindarus in Olymp. od 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a reward for seruice So that the vanitie of this distinction sufficiently appeareth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is derived of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is added for more vehemencie and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to tremble because it is the vse of seruants to be much afraide and tremble at the presence of their Masters Erasmus This diuise then will not serue their turne to coine two kinds of religious seruice by this curious distinction one peculiar vnto God the other vnto Saints Controv. 10. That God onely is spiritually to be serued and worshipped v. 9. Whome I serue in the spirit God onely is so to be serued as our Blessed Sauiour saith Matth. 4.10 thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serue Origen saith lib. 1. in epist. ad Roman Nos nullam creaturam sed patrem filium spiritum sanctum adoramus colimus we worship no creature but
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
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
4 Therefore my brethren or euen so B.G. ye are made dead also or mortified Be. L.A. dead B.G. to the law by the bodie in the bodie Be. T. of Christ that ye should be vnto an other euen vnto him that is raised not risen L.T. from the dead that we should fructifie L. bring forth fruit Be. B.G. vnto God 5 For when we were in the flesh the motions infirmities T. affections Be. lusts B. passions L. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. of sinnes which were by the law did worke L.B. had force Be. G. were effectuall in our members to bring forth fruit vnto death 6 But now we are deliuered from the law that beeing dead not of death L. or we beeing dead vnto it B.G.T. see the question following vpon this place wherein we were holden that we should serue in the newnes of the spirit not in the oldnes of the letter 7 What shall we say then is the law sinne God forbid let it not be Gr. yea I knew not sinne but by the law for I had not knowne lust except the law had said Thou shalt not lust 8 But sinne taking occasion by the commandement wrought in me all manner of concupiscence B.G.T. some read thus sinne taking occasion by the commandement c. Be. L. see v. 11. following for without the law sinne was dead 9 For I once was aliue without the law but when the commandement came sinne revived but I died 10 And the commandement which was ordained vnto life the same was found to be to me vnto death 11 For sinne tooke occasion by the commandement and deceiued me and thereby flew me 12 Wherefore the law is holy and the commandement is holy and iust and good 13 Was that then which was good made death vnto me God forbid but sinne that sinne might appeare wrought death in me by that which is good L. G. T. A. some thus but sinne was death vnto me that sinne might appeare in working in me death by that which is good Be. B. that sinne might be out of measure sinnefull by the commandement 14 For we know that the law is spirituall but I am carnall sold vnder sinne 15 For what I worke I acknowledge not allow not G. vnderstand not L. for not what I would that doe I but what I hate that I doe 16 If I doe then that which I would not I consent to the law that it is good 17 Now it is no more I that worke it but sinne that dwelleth in me 18 For I know that good dwelleth not in me that is in my flesh for to will is present with me but how to performe that which is good I find not 19 For I doe not the good which I would but the euill which I would not that doe I. 20 Now if I doe that I would not it is no more I that worke it but sinne that dwelleth in me 21 I find then a law L. Gr. this law to be imposed Be. by the law B. Ge. that when I would doe good euill is present with me see the question following vpon this verse 22 For I delight in the law of God concerning the inner man 23 But I see an other law in my members rebelling against the law of my minde and leading me captiue to the law in the law L. of sinne which is in my members 24 O wretched man that I am who shall deliuer me out of this bodie of death Be. T. the bodie of this death L. B.G. 25 I thanke God through Iesus Christ our Lord Then I my selfe in my minde serue the law of God but in my flesh the law of sinne 2. The Argument Method and Parts IN this Chapter the Apostle sheweth how we are freed and exempted from the seruice of the law yet so as that he commendeth the law in it selfe and deliuereth it from all blame laying the imputation vpon his owne weaknes and infirmitie where he taketh occasion to shew the combate betweene the flesh and the spirit This Chapter then hath three parts 1. he sheweth how we are deliuered from the law to v. 7. 2. he excuseth and commendeth the law to v. 14. 3. he sheweth the infirmitie that remaineth in the regenerate and the combate betweene the flesh and the spirit 1. In the first part the Apostle sheweth that we are not freed and discharged from the morall obedience of the law but from the seruitude and bondage thereof in respect of the curse and irritation and prouocation to sinne this is set forth by an allegorie taken from the lawe of matrimonie the proposition is contained v. 1.2 3. consisting of three parts like as the woman is 1. free from her husband when he is dead v. 2. 2. after his death she may take an other husband and therein is no adultresse v. 2. 3. the third is implyed that she may also bring forth by an other the reddition followeth which hath three correspondent parts so we are 1. dead to the law 2. we are married to Christ. 3. to bring forth fruit vnto him v. 4. this last part is amplified by the contrarie that as sinne by the lawe did fructifie vnto death v. 5. so we now beeing freed should fructifie vnto the spirit v. 6. 2. Then he taketh vpon him the defense of the law that whereas he had said v. 5. that the matrons of sinne which were by the Law c. did bring forth fruit vnto death hereupon two obiections might arise that the lawe is the cause of sinne and of death to both which he answeareth The first obiection is propounded v. 7. is the law sinne then he answereth 1. in bringing a reason from the effect that the law connot be sinne nor the cause thereof because it reuealeth and discouereth sinne v. 7. 2. he sheweth how not the law but sinne taking occasion by the law wrought concupiscence reuiued in him deceiued him and in the end slew him all which he giueth instance of in his owne person v. 8. to v. 12. 3. he sheweth what the law is in it selfe iust and holy v. 12. the second obiection followeth v. 13. that it might seeme that the law beeing good wrought death in him then the answer is that not the lawe but sinne by the lawe wrought death 3. The Apostle in this third part sheweth first the combate betweene the flesh and the spirit to v. 24. then the issue thereof v. 24.25 the combate is set forth in three degrees 1. in that he by sinne is brought to doe that euill which he would not where he sheweth the opposition betweene the lawe commanding and his will consenting and sinne ouer-ruling him and his flesh obeying v. 14. to v. 18. 2. the next degree is that he is hindered by sinne from doing the good which he would this is prounded v. 18. then prooued by the contrarie effects v. 19. and by the contrarie causes the lawe moouing to good whereunto he consenteth and sinne hindring him v. 20.21 3. the third degree consisteth in
set against the law of the minde and the law of sinne against the law of God like as then the regenerate minde is conformable to the law of God so the vnregenerate members are captived to the law of sinne in the members which is the corruption of nature euen originall sinne 31. Quest. Why these are called lawes and why they are said the one to be in the inner man the other in the members 1. For the first 1. Chrysostome giueth this reason it is called the law of sinne propter vehementem exactam obedientiam because of the exact and forced obedience which is giuen vnto it for the laws of tyrants are so called abusive though not properly Calvin lex quia dominatur it is a law because it ruleth gloss 2. Lyranus a law is called à ligando of binding ducit membra ligata ad mala it leadeth the members and holdeth or tieth them to that which is euill they can doe no other 3. Pererius sicut lex dirigit c. as the law directeth to that which is good so the lawe of sinne to that which is euill 4. legitime factum est it commeth iustly to passe that illi non serviat suum inferius t. caro that mans inferiour that is his flesh should not serue him seeing he serued not his superiour namely God gloss ordinar Anselmus so it is called a lawe as in iustice imposed of God vpon man for his disobedience 2. For the second the one is called the lawe of the minde and inner man the other the lawe of the members and outward man 1. not that the minde and reason onely wherein the naturall lawe is written is the inner man and the sensitive part is the flesh as Lyranus Gorrhan with others which opinion is confuted before quest 26. for euen the minde is corrupt and so carnall in the vnregenerate as the Apostle speaketh of some which were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corrupt in their minde 2. Timoth. 3.8 2. But the regenerate part is called the inner man and the vnregenerate both in soule and bodie the outward 1. because intus potissimum regnat it raigneth chiefely within and is discerned chiefely and knowne in the mind Mart. 2. quia in cordis conuersione c. because it consisteth in the heart nec patet hominum oculis and is not open and apparent vnto the sight of men Pareus in which sense it is called the hid man of the heart 1. Pet. 3.4 3. and because non externa vel mâ—â—dana quaerit it seeketh not things externall belonging to the world whereas appetitus carnis vagi sunt extra hominem the fleshly appetite is wandring and as it were without a man Calvin and as Caietane carnalibus officijs immersae sunt the faculties of the outward man are drenched as it were and wholly spent in carnall offices 4. and the regenerate part is called by the name of the inner man and the minde per excellenciam because of the excellencie for as the minde is more excellent then the bodie so is the spirit then the flesh Calvin Quest. 32. Of the Apostles exclamation O wretched man that I am 1. The word which the Apostle here vseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth one that is perpetus pugnis fatigatus wearied with continuall combates Beza like as a champion which striuing along time is like at last to be ouercome of his aduersaries vnlesse he be helped the vulgar latine readeth O vnhappie man but that is not so fit 2. neither doth the Apostle thus crie out either as a man in despaire or doubting by whom he should be deliuered but he sheweth his great desire vox est anhelantis it is the voice of one breathing and panting desiring to be deliuered from this seruitude Calvin 3. and by this exclamation certaminis gravitatem ostendit he sheweth the greatnes of this combate out of the which he was not able to wrestle by his owne strength and if Paul were not able who is it is then a patheticall speach like vnto that Psal. 86. Who will giue me the wings as it were of a done Faius 4. And in this crying out the Apostle sheweth the state of all men in this life into what miserie they are brought by their sinne and likewise his desire longing to be deliuered therfrom Pareus Quest. 33. What the Apostle vnderstandeth by this bodie of death from the which he desireth to be deliuered 1. Ambrose by the bodie of death vnderstandeth vniuersitatem vitiorum a general collection of sinnes which he called before the bodie of sinne but there was not in the Apostle such a gathering together and confluence of all sinne 2. Pererius chargeth Calvin to agree with Ambrose who vnderstandeth by the bodie of death massam vel congeriem peccati ex qua homo constatus the masse and heape of sinne whereof man consisteth and thereupon he crieth out ô hominem impurum atque impium O wicked and filthie man that is not ashamed so to charge the Apostle c. Whereas Calvin onely saith that there were in the Apostle reliquiae peccati some reliques of sinne of that masse of sinne and corruption which is in man Calvin then and Melancthon do thus vnderstand the Apostle naturam hanc carnalem immersam esse peccato that this carnall nature is wholly drowned and drenched in sinne so also Martyr vitiatam corruptam naturam intelligit he vnderstandeth our corrupt nature but the Apostle speaketh of death here not of sinne 3. neither is the bodie of death taken here properly for sinne as Faius thinketh it was called before the bodie of sinne c. 6. and it is considered tanquam moles onus incumbens as a masse or burthen lying vpon vs so also Roloch it is taken for sinne in this place which is in the bodie and in the whole man likewise Piscator mortem intelligit peccatum inhabitans by death he vnderstandeth the sinne that dwelleth in vs and so before them Vatablus à concupiscentia c. he wisheth to be deliuered from concupiscence which did make him guiltie of eternall death and before him Photius in Oecumenius applyeth it to the corporall and sinnefull actions which bring the death of the soule But in their meaning the Apostle should say in effect who shall deliuer me from this sinnefull bodie what could an vnregenerate man haue said more 4. neither yet doe I approoue of their opinion which referre it onely to the mortalitie of the bodie as Theophylact morti subiecti subiect to death Lyranus quia sancti resurgent c. because the Saints shall rise in an immortall bodie and Pererius à corpore mortis huius from the bodie of this death that is subiect to mortalitie and corruption for the Apostle hath respect thus crying out vnto the conflict between the flesh and the spirit from which he desireth to be deliuered 5. Cassianus by the bodie of death would haue vnderstood the terrene busines and necessitie quae spirituales
it so the spirit dwelleth in the faithfull as the ruler and commander in the house the spirit and the flesh may be in the same house together if the flesh be as the seruant and the spirit as the master but if the flesh haue the masterie the spirit departeth like as where extreame cold hath taken possession there can be no heate at all but if the extremitie of cold be abated then there may be place for heate Martyr 4. And here we must distinguish as Origen well doth between the extraordinarie gifts of the spirits such as the Prophets and Apostles had when the spirit came vpon them in the likenes of fierie tongues and the ordinarie gifts for where the spirit is those extraordinarie graces alwaies follow not but those which the Lord seem to be conuenient for God giueth vnto euery one as he will 2. Cor. 12.11 3. And whereas the Apostle saith he that hath not the spirit of Christ is not his Origen well thus expoundeth creatura eius est sed non discipulus he is his creature still as all other things are but he is not his Disciple nor a member of his mysticall bodie 12. Quest. Of the meaning of these words v. 10. The bodie is dead because of sinne the spirit is life c. 1. Origen vnderstandeth the two parts of man the bodie and the soule and he giue in this sense the bodie is dead because of sinne mors imponitur ne peccet death is imposed vpon the bodie that it should not sinne alwaies remembring the ende and so the spirit vivit ad faciendam institiam liueth to worke righteousnes but the Apostle sheweth the cause of death in the one namely sinne and of life in the other namely righteousnes rather then the ende of both 2. Ambrose seemeth by the bodie to vnderstand the whole man that is dead because of sinne and by the spirit the holy Ghost â—â— author of life because he is giuen to iustifie vs so also Chrysostome will haue the holy Ghâ—â—t to be vnderstood which onely is not life in himselfe but giueth life vnto others so also Martyr but the other opposite part of the bodâ—â— sheweth that the spirit hath relation also vnto man 3. Some vnderstand the first clause of mortification as if the Apostle should say the â—â— die is dead quantum attinet ad peccati operationem in respect of the operation of sinne Oecumen Piscat but in this sense the same thing should be expressed in both clauses the mortifying of sinne and liuing vnto righteousnes which the opposition betweene the contraâ—â— parts of the bodie and spirit wil not heare 4. Calvin and so Osiander will haue the bodie to signifie the vnregenerate part the spirit the spirituall and regenerate but in this sense the Apostle vseth to oppose the flesh in the spirit not the bodie and the spirit 5. Wherefore by bodie we may better vnderstand that mortall part of man which is subiect to death and by the spirit the inward part of man namely his soule regenerate which liueth by faith Beza thinketh that the life of the soule is here vnderstood when it is separate from the bodie Chrysostome referreth it to the life of the resurrection Lyranus to the life of grace now in present But we may better comprehend both that both now for the present the spirit of man liueth by grace as the iust is said to liue by faith and that also is a pledge of life euerlasting afterward And this sense is most agreeable to the scope of the Apostle for hitherto he hath shewed how the spirit of Christ hath freed vs from the law of sinne in the flesh now he commeth to set forth the other part of our libertie which is from death and first presently in the spirit we liue by faith and then afterward the bodie also shall liue in the resurrection by the spirit of Christ which the Apostle sheweth in the next verse Quest. 13. How the quickening of the dead is ascribed to the spirit of Christ seeing all both good and bad shall rise 1. M. Calvins opinion is here refused who thinketh that the Apostle doth not here speake of the last and finall resurrection sed de continua spiritus operatione but of the continuall working of the spirit in vs in mortifying the reliques of sinne so also Piscator vificabit corpora vestra ad sanctificationem shall quicken your bodies vnto sanctification c. But in that sense our bodies are said to be mortua dead not mortalia mortall and the Apostle speaking of the time to come pointeth at the resurrection which shall be not that which is present in rising vnto newnes of life 2. There are three arguments of the resurrection here expressed by the Apostle the first from the power of God he that raised Christ from the dead shall also raise vs vp secondly from the correspondencie of Christ with his members as Christ was raised from the dead so shall we that are his members thirdly from the office of the spirit who shall raise vs vp that are his temples wherein he dwelleth Pareus 3. As God is said to haue raised Christ vp by his spirit so Christ raised vp himselfe by his eternall spirit omnia quippe divina pâ—â—er per Filium in Spiritu Sancto operatur all diuine things the father worketh by the Sonne in the holy Ghost Oecumen 4. Although our redemption purchased vnto vs by Christ was sufficient at once to haue redeemed both our soules and bodies tamen ordinate nobis datur it is giuen vnto vs in order and by degrees that as Christ had first a passible bodie before he had a glorious bodie so our bodies must first be mortall before they can haue immortalitie Lyran. 5. Now although the members of Christ shall be raised vp by his spirit yet the wicked also which haue not the spirit of Christ shall also rise againe but vnto iudgement they shall be raised vp by the omnipotent power of God but the righteous shall be raised by the spirit of Christ and therefore it is not said he shall raise but vinificabit he shall quicken your mortall bodie quod ipsa resurrectione maius est c. which is a greater worke then the resurrection and onely graunted to the righteous Chrysostome whom Martyr and Pareus followe Quest. 14. What it is to be lead by the spirit of God 1. There are two kind of actions of the spirit generall wherbey all things mooue liue and haue their beeing and speciall whereby the Lord worketh in the hearts of his children such is the worke of sanctification Calv. 2. And in that they are said to be lead we must not thinke that any are compelled by the spirit but this signifieth vehementem inclinationem non coactionem a vehement inclination not coaction Gorrhan God by his spirit ex nolentibus volentes facit of vnwilling maketh vs willing so he draweth vs volentes willing consequenter not antecedenter we are willing
be in effect the same for the death of sinne is the life of righteousnesse whereas the Apostle maketh a distribution of these two whether we liue or die c. and both of the dead and the quicke 2. Chrysostome vnderstandeth the Apostle to speake of euerlasting life and death vitam nostram divitias mortem damnum existimat he counteth our life riches and our death losse vnto himselfe But seeing that Chrysostome confesseth that in the next words whether we liue or die we are the Lords that à morte fidei ad mortem naturalem periransit he paseth from the death of faith to speake of the naturall death the Apostle must be so vnderstood to speake of the naturall life before for this argument thus hangeth together either we liue and die vnto God or vnto our selues not vnto our selues therefore vnto God 3. There is also a ciuill life and that of two kinds either it is taken in the good part as a man is said to liue vnto himselfe that is sui iuris is a freeman not at the command of an other or in the euill as they are said to liue vnto themselues which liue priuately and separated from the societie of others as single men solitarie persons the couetous which both liue vnto themselues not seeking the profit of any and die vnto themselues none haue any losse by their death they haue neither wiues nor children to care for but the Apostle meaneth not any such ciuill kind of life he speaketh of the naturall life and death taken after an Evangelicall sense to liue and die vnto the glorie of God 4. Haymo in one sense would haue this especially to be vnderstood of Martyrs which doe liue and die vnto God who is glorified by their life and death but the Apostle speaketh generally of all the faithfull and not of Martyrs onely as Reuel 13.14 they are said to die in the Lord which die in the faith of Christ. 5. Wherefore first it is agreed that the Apostle speaketh of the naturall life and death and then in this sense to liue vnto God comprehendeth these fowre things 1. to acknowledge God to be our Lord and that we are not our owne 2. and therefore we must seeke to doe Gods will and not our owne 3. as we beginne with Gods will so must we ende with his glorie making it the scope of our whole life and the actions thereof 4. and in all our troubles and afflictions we must put our trust in God and relie vpon his care as one that care 〈◊〉 vs likewise to die vnto the Lord is 1. to acknowledge that as we receiued our life from him so death commeth not without his sending 2. to take therefore patiently diseases and death it selfe as sent of God 3. as in our life so in our death to glorifie God and not to doe any thing whereby he might be dishonoured 4. to haue good hope and confidence in our death that God will raise vs vp to life againe Quest. 18. How Christ by his dying and rising againe is said to be Lord both of the dead and quicke 1. The Apostle maketh mention of the death of Christ his resurrection and life by the first acquisivit dominium he purchased this dominion by the second occupavit he tooke possession of this dominion 2. And although Christ had purchased this dominion in his death yet he had not the exercise of this dominion vntill he was risen againe for it is one thing Dominium esse to be a Lord an other dominari to hane rule the one is per potestatem by his power the other per potestatis exercitionem by the exercising of this power for by death was Christs soule separated from his bodie which till they were vnited againe he could not exercise his dominion perfectly as man Tolet and then a thing is said to be when it is made manifest by his resurrection his power and conquest ouer death was made knowne and so the interlinear gloss well interpreteth vt dominari intelligatur that he might be knowne to beare rule 3. And the Apostle speaketh not here 1. of that dominion which Christ hath as God for that he had before and should haue exercised still though he had not died 2. nor yet as Origen here resolueth is mention made of his death and life because Christ was an example of obedience vnto vs how to liue vnto righteousnesse and die vnto sinne and therefore he is Lord of both for this sauoureth too much of Pelagianisme to make Christ an example onely by the imitation whereof we should learne to be mortified 3. neither yet is his death mentioned to shewe this dominion to be merited for Christ merited not at all for himselfe as shall be shewed among the controversies contr 8. 4. but onely that dominion is signified which Christ purchased in redeeming vs by death as man As God he had an vniuersall dominion but as man he hath a particular dominion and right ouer vs as his inheritance purchased by his blood 4. Ouer the dead and the quicke 1. Origen vnderstandeth the spirituall life and death but the Apostle speaketh of the naturall as Christ truely died and rose againe 2. the dead are set beâ—ore the quicke to shewe Christs vniuersall dominion not onely ouer the then liuing but euen ouer the dead also that had beene liuing before Pareus 3. and he mentioneth the liuing least it might be thought that the iudgement onely in the world to come of the dead was committed vnto Christ and not of the liuing here Gorrhan Hugo 4. and whereas our Blessed Sauiour saith Matth. 22. That he is not the God of the dead and the Apostle here saith that he might be Lord of the dead and quicke they are not contrarie the one to the other for in the one place they are said to be dead according to the Sadduces sense that had no beeing at all but were vtterly perished and extinct both in bodie and soule of such the Lord is not God for he is not a God of that which is not Martyr as he is not their God as they are dead but as he purposeth to raise them to life againe but here by the dead the Apostle vnderstandeth them that are aliue in soule though dead in bodie 5. Chrysostome addeth that the Apostle here Iudaizantem pudefacit doth shame him that did Iudaize that seeing Christ had done so great things in dying and rising again for them they should not be so vnthankfull vt ad legem recurrerent as to runne vnto the law againe Quest. 13. Of the tribunall seate of Christ what it is and of other circumstances of the day of iudgement Here Origen hath a wittie discourse of the day of iudgement and the manner thereof wherein some things he saith well and he misseth as his manner is in other the summe is this which shall be reduced to these three heads which are confusedly there handled and shuffled together 1. who shall iudge
experience he may see his owne folly Theodoret also to the same purpose vseth this similitude that God leaueth men to themselues tanquam cymbam absque rectore as aship left without a pilote Theophylact likeneth God herein to a Phisitian who hauing to deale with an vnruly patient that will not obey his precepts taketh no more care of him likewise Ambrose thus expoundeth tradere est permittere non incitare to deliuer vp is to permit not to iâ—â—ite or stirre vp Damascen lib. 4. de fide orthodox c. 20. sheweth that it is the vse of Scripture to call the permission of God his action that he is said to doe that which he onely permitteth and suffereth yea Pererius here addeth further that the permission of God sometime nomine praecepti appellatur is called by the name of precept as whereas Christ saith according to Matthew c. 19.8 Moses suffered you for the hardnesse of your heart to put away your wiues according to S. Marke c. 10.3 he saith What did Moses command you Setus in his commentarie maketh two kindes of permission est vna generalis there is one generall when any man is suffered to sinne but this permission is not called a deliuering vp altera est singularis quaedam valde formidabilis there is an other a singular and most fearefull kinde of permission when God for the punishment of former sinnes suffereth one to be blinded and hardened in his sinne which kinde of permission the Apostle speaketh of here Of this opinion generally are the Romanists that this deliuering vp is vnderstood of permission as Lyranus with the ordinarie gloss Varablus Tolet. the Rhemists Contra. 1. To make God onely a sufferer or permitter of things to be done doth admit a double inconuenience first they make God an idle beholder of mens actions like as Homer bringeth in Iuppiter feasting and spotting himselfe in Aethiopia while the Grecians did take Troy and againe they make God accessarie and consenting vnto euill for like as the father or master of the house if he should suffer his seruants to liue riotously and giue themselues to all licentiousnesse though he doe not encourage them to it yet in not hindering them he seemeth to giue consent the like inconuenience also would follow if God should be a permitter or sufferer onely of such things to be done Pareus 2. But it will be here obiected that if God suffer not sinne to be done in the world it could not be how then is not he accessarie to that which he doth not hinder Answ. God is here otherwise to be considered then as man we can not suffer any euill to be done before vs which is in our power to hinder but we must be guiltie of it But the Lord is alwaies most iust euill should not be done in the world if it did not stand with Gods will and pleasure who notwithstanding is therein iust and good as Augustine saith probando patientiam dat locum poenitentiae nolens aliquem perire c. the Lord therein sheweth his patience in giuing way vnto repentance because he would not haue any perish c. and so he concludeth Deus non facit voluntates malas sed vtitur ijs vt voluerit cum aliquid iniquè velle non possit though God make not mens wills euill yet he vseth them as it pleaseth him and yet he willeth not any thing vniustly August contr Iulian lib. 5. c. 3. 3. Chrysostomes similitudes are not fit for the captaine which leaueth his armie is a betraier of them and the very cause of their deliuering vp but so is not God the author of euill and the father can not turne his sonne from his licentious life but God is able to turne the heart Martyr 4. Seeing the Scripture ascribeth vnto God manifest action as shall appeare afterward as he is said to haue hardened Pharaohs heart and to bid Shemei curse Dauid and such like it is a forcing of Scripture to applie that vnto a bare permission which sheweth an actiue and working power Pareus 2. An other way how God is saide to deliuer them vp is by the subtraction and withdrawing of his grace as he which taketh away the proppe or pillar that beareth vp a great stone or weight may be said to be the cause of the fall thereof Thomas Thus Gregorie expoundeth God is said to harden the heart quando cor reprobum per gratiam non emollit when he doth not mollifie with his grace a reprobate heart So also Augustine Deus non indurat cor impertiendo malitiam sed non largiendo gratiam c. God doth not harden the heart by imparting vnto it malice but in not giuing vnto it grace So also Thomas vpon this place God directly doth not deliuer ouer men to vncleannes by inclining the affections sed indirectè tradit in peccatum in quantum subtrahit gratiam but he doth indirectly deliuer them to sinne by withdrawing his grace This interpretation may safely be admitted but yet it seemeth not fully to expresse the meaning of the Apostles phrase for deliuering vp signifieth more then a subtraction onely or depriuing one of grace 3. Some doe expound the Apostle thus that God is said to harden the heart and to deliuer vp vnto coâ—câ—piscence and such like by ministring occasion which is peruerted by the wicked vnto euill for as vnto those that loue God all things are turned to the best so vnto those that hate God all things make for their ruine and destruction thus the miracles and wonders wrought in Egypt and the messages which Moses brought from God vnto Pharaoh were a meanes to harden Pharaohs heart not so intended by God but so peruerted by Pharaohs malice Thus God is saide to doe those things because by occasion of such things as the Lord doth other things fall out In this sense it is said that he which loueth iniquitie hateth his owne soule not that he intendeth directly the death of his soule but because he doth such things as procure the death of his soule So the Lord bestowed many benefits and temporall blessings vpon the heathen which they abused to couetousnes and wantonnes in following of their owne lusts This interpretation followeth Pet. Martyr and Pererius But this seemeth to be no fit exposition God deliuered them vp that is they abusing the blessings of God vnto wantonnes deliuered themselues vp for the Apostle here sheweth that this deliuering of them vp was inflicted as a punishment vpon the Gentiles for their idolatrie and therefore God must be considered here as a iust Iudge who had an hand in this their punishment otherwise then by ministring occasion onely 4. Some doe thus interpret tradidit illos Deus id est delictum in Dominum God deliuered them vp that is their sinne committed against God deliuered them as we say perdidit illum pecunia his money was his destruction whereas it was not the money but the abuse of the money which hurt him so
other vnto it which bodie notwithstanding is farre from perâ—â—â— health though the smaller infirmities are not felt where a greater disease hath takeÌ„ possessiâ—â— 5. Now if our nature be vnsufficient to produce any good morall worke much lesses it able to direct a man vnto godly liuing for the truth onely maketh one free Ioh. 8.32 vnto such godly works we had neede to haue the grace of God to direct vs Psal. 4.6 maâ— say who will shew vs any good but Lord lift thou vp the light of thy countenance vpon vs. 34. Qu. Of the testimonie of the conscience and the accusing or excusing of the thoughts v. 16. Their conscience also bearing witnes and their thoughts c. 1. Faius thinketh thâ— three effects of the conscience are here expressed the first to testifie that is to propose the things done vnto the minde then to accuse and thereby to defend or excuse But rather theâ— first is the generall to testifie and beare witnesse which is expressed afterward in these two particulars that according as the things committed are good or euill so the conscienceâ— beareth witnesse by accusing or defending Gorrhan Pareus 2. Their thoughts are said â—â— accuse one an other 1. non cogitationibus inter se digladiantibus not as though the thoughtâ— did at the same time striue together about the same fact that some thoughts accused aâ—â— other excused 2. not yet is it meant of diuers men as that the thoughts accused the vnbeleeuers and excused the beleeuers gloss interlin Gorrh. or the accusing thoughts conceiued puniendos such as were to be punished the excusing servandos such as were to be saued Graeca caten 3. but in one and the same man as his facts were euill his conscience accused and as they were wel done his conscience excused him Par. Tol. 4. Some think that wheâ—â— in euery iudgement there must be three actor retis index â—he actuarie the guiltie person and the iudge that in diuers respects the conscience is all these the conscience accusing is thâ— actor the conscience accused is the guiltie partie and the iudge also is the conscience Faius But the partie accused is rather the man himselfe whome his conscience accuseth or excuseth and the conscience is the witnes the iudge supreame is God sitting in the conscience and the subalternate iudge is the light of nature imprinted in the heart which Lyranus calleth naturale indicatorium hominis the naturall iudgement place of man All these are here expressed by the Apostle he saith the effect of the law is written in their heart the iudgement seate is the heart the iudge the naturall law their written then the partie accused or defended are themselues and the witnesse and giuer of euidence is the conscience 5. Photius ex Oecumen here noteth that the conscience is not said to iustifie or condemne but onely to accuse or excuse sententiam iudex ipse fert the sentence the iudge himselfe giueth c. which is now for the present the euidence of naturall light in the soule but the superiour iudge is God himselfe in the day of iudgement 6. Here Origen disputeth very curiously what this conscience should be and he resolueth that the spirit of the conscience is an other thing beside the soule beeing ioyned vnto it as an inseparable companion in the bodie but if the soule of man be not ruled by it it shall be separated from the soule afterward and the spirit shall returne to God and the soule shall goe to torment to this purpose he expoundeth these words of the vnfaithfull seruant Matth. 24.51 He will separate him and giue him his portion with hypocrites as though the soule and the spirit should be separated a sunder Contr. True it is that there are two faculties in the soule there is in the minde the notion and apprehension of the naturall principles which are graft in vs by nature and then the conscience in the heart Pareus but that these should be diuers in substance and that one may be separated from the other is a strange conceit for the very spirits and soules of the wicked shall be tormented in hell not their soules onely as S. Peter speaketh of the spirits in prison which were disobedient in the daies of Noah 1. Pet. 3.19 by separating in that place our Sauiour meaneth the cutting such off and separating of them from the liuing 35. Qu. Why the Apostle maketh mention of the day of iudgement v. 16. 1. Some ioyne this verse with the 13. Not the hearers of the law but the doers shall be iustified in the day c. and all the rest comming between they enclose in a parenthesis so Beza Pareus and the Greeke catena Beza giueth this reason because if it should be referred to the next words before their thoughts accusing one an other or excusing which is spoken onely of the Gentiles this generall iudgement should be supposed to be onely for the Gentiles But the same inconuenience will follow if it be ioyned to the 13. v. which is specially meant of the Iewes that the day of iudgement would be thought onely to concerne them it is therefore no good consequent because the Gentiles are mentioned before that this iudgement should be onely for them for how followeth it the conscience of the Gentiles shall in that day accuse or excuse them therefore no mans conscience els 2. Wherefore this verse is better annexed to the next words before then to the other words so farre off to the which they can not well be ioyned without great divulsion of the sentence and suspending of the sense the meaning then is this not that the conscience accuseth not or excuseth none till that generall day of iudgement but 1. it is felt now sed tum maxime omnium sentietur but then it shall be felt most of all Osiand so also Lyran. 2. And now many men beeing carried away with the delights of this life present cogitationes accusatrices non audiunt doe not heare or regard their thoughts accusing them but in that day they shall be brought to light euery mans conscience shall touch him Mart. 3. Hactenus occultus est testis hetherto the conscience is but a secret witnes onely knowne to him that hath it but then omnibus apparebunt they shall be made manifest and apparant to all Tolet. 4. and by this the Apostle sheweth ne morte cas extingui that such accusing or excusing thoughts are not extinguished no not by death And Origen here well noteth that the thoughts shall accuse or excuse them in the day of iudgement not which they shall haue then but which they haue now for cogitationum malaruÌ„ quaedam notae certaine marks of euill thoughts doe remaine in the soule which shall be manifested then Origen ficut stile en cera nota imprimitur as a seale leaueth a print in the waxe Haymo 36. Qu. Why it is called the day and of the application of other words v. 16. 1. At the day
And although by our redemption we are not deliuered or taken from God but reconciled vnto him yet are we deliuered from his wrath Rom. 5.9 and so from his punishing iustice 5. Argum. We are improperly said to be redeemed from that to the which the price was not paied but to the curse of the lawe and wrath that is the punishment of sinne the price was not paied for the bearing of the curse and the sustaining of the wrath of God for vs was the price it selfe therefore we are improperly said to be redeemed from the curse and wrath Answ. 1. The proposition is false for the captiue may be said to be redeemed from that to the which the price is not payed as from the gives fetters prison sword death though principally the redemption is from the hands of him which holdeth any in captiuitie so we may be redeemed from the curse of the lawe though the price were not payed vnto it 2. the curse of the lawe and wrath may be taken two wayes passiuely for the effect of the curse and wrath which is the punishment of sinne and in this sense the price is not paid to the curse or actiuely for the wrath of God and his irefull iudgement pronouncing the sentence of the curse and in this sense the price may be said to be paied vnto the curse that is the iustice and wrath of God inflicting the curse 6. Argum. The operation or curse of the lawe is euerlasting death but Christ did not vndergoe euerlasting death for vs therefore he was not made a curse for vs but onely for our cause he fell into some kind of curse for vs. Answ. 1. The proposition is generally true for the curse or operation doth not onely signifie the punishment due vnto the breach of the lawe but the sentence also pronounced against the transgressors of the lawe as it is said Deut. 21.23 cursed is euerie one that hangeth vpon a tree but euerie one that so hanged was not euerlastingly condemned as the theife that was converted vpon the crosse 2. yet it is most true that Christ in some sense suffred eternall death for vs for in euerlasting death two things are to be considered the greatnesse and infinitnes of the infernall agonies and dolors with the abiection and forsaking of God the other is the perpetuall continuance of such euerlasting horror and abiection the second Christ must needs be freed from both because of his omnipotencie it was impossible for him to be for euer kept vnder the thraldome of death and his innocencie that hauing satisfied for sinne beeing himselfe without sinne he could not be held in death and in respect of his office which was to be our deliuerer yet the verie infernall paines and sorrowe Christ did suffer for vs because our Redeemer was to suffer that which was due vnto vs and why els was our Sauiour so much perplexed before his passion which in respect of the outward tormēt of the body was exceeded by many Martyrs in their sufferings if he feared not some greater thing then the death of the bodie 3. And although sometime in Scripture the preposition for signifieth onely the ende or cause as Christ is said to haue died for our sinnes 1. Ioh. 3.16 yet it signifieth also for and in ones stead to doe any thing as Rom. 5.7 for a good man one dare die that is in his stead that he should not die and so Christ died for vs that is in our place and stead that we should not die eternally ex Pareo 7. Argum. As we are said to be sold vnder sinne so we are bought and redeemed by Christ but we were sold vnder sinne without any price payed therefore so also are we redeemed without the paying of any price Answ. The proposition is not true for it is a metaphoricall speach that we are sold vnder sinne thereby is signified the alienation and abiection from God by our sinnes but we are said to be redeemed properly wherein it was necessarie that a price should be paied for vs both to satisfie the iust wrath and indignation of God against sinne as also because of Gods immutable sentence thou shalt die the death which sentence must take place let the Lord should be found a lier and his word not to be true Christ therefore in redeeming vs by his death payed that price and ransome for vs which we otherwise should haue payed 8. Argum. Where there is a true and proper redemption the price is paied to him which holdeth the captiues in bondage but in this redemption purchased by Christ the price was not so paied for then the deuill should haue had it whose captiues we were therefore it is not properly a redemption Answ. 1. It is not true that we are principally and originally the deuills captiues first we are the Lords captiues as of an angrie and offended Iudge by our sinnes but secondarily we were captiued vnto Sathan because the Iudge deliuereth ouer sinners vnto him as the tormentor that power therefore which Sathan hath ouer sinners is a secondarie power receiued from God this is manifested in the parable Matth. 18.34 where the king deliuereth ouer the wicked seruant vnto the tormentor 2. The price then of our redemption was paied vnto God who had deliuered vs ouer as captiues for our sinnes and so the Apostle saith that Christ offred himselfe by his eternall spirit vnto God Heb. 9.14 not that God thirsted for the blood of his sonne but after 〈◊〉 salvation quia salus erat in sanguine because there was health in his blood as Bernard saith for thereby Gods iustice was satisfied and the veritie of his sentence established thou shalt die the death 3. But whereas it is further obiected that the price could not be payed vnto God 1. because God procured his owne sonne to pay the price of our redemption but be that detaineth captiues doth not procure their deliuerance 2. in paying the price of redemption there is some vantage accruing and growing to him to whom the price is paied but in our redemption there was no gaine or advantage vnto God we further answear thus 1. that in such a redemption wherein the Iudge desireth the life and safetie of the prisoner the Iudge himselfe may procure him to be redeemed and that out of his owne treasure 2. neither in such a kind of redemption doth the iudge seeke for any advantage to himselfe but onely the preservation of the lawes and common iustice as Zaleucus the gouernor of the Loerensians hauing made a lawe that he which was taken in adulterie should loose both his eyes did cause one of his sonnes eyes to be put out for the offence and one of his owne eyes by this he gained nothing but the commendation of iustice and so in our redemption the iustice of God is set forth otherwise there can be no lucre or advantage growing properly vnto God 4. Wherefore notwithstanding all these cauills and sophistications Christ properly and
the father of many nations 3. by the vnlikelihood of the obiect set before his eyes that his seede should be as the starres of heauen in multitude Par. omnia difficultatem sonant all things were full of difficultie both actus fidei the act of his faith which was of things that appeared not and modus the manner it was against hope and fructus the fruit and ende which was to be the father of many nations Gorrh. Quest. 33. How Abrahams bodie is said to be dead verse 19. Whereas Abraham 37. yeares after this begat diuerse children of Keturah whom he married after Sarah it is questioned how Abrahams bodie at an 100. yeare old is said to be dead that is vnapt for generation 1. Origen to dissolue this doubt vnderstandeth this deadnesse of Abrahams bodie of his spirituall abstinence and mortification such as the Apostle speaketh of mortifie your earthly members But if in this sense Abrahams bodie be said to be mortified now then it would followe that it was not so mortified afterward when he had children at a greater age by an other wise 2. Pererius hath one solution in his questions vpon the 18. of Genesis that this deadnesse of Abrahams bodie was onely in respect of his owne opinion for it is said he considered not his owne bodie but this deadnes and vnaptnesse of his bodie was not in his owne opinion but verily and in deede as appeareth by the reason which is yeelded because he was an hundred yeare old 3. Augustine bringeth in two solutions lib. 16. de ciuit c. 28. the first is that Abrahams bodie was not simply dead and vnfit for generation but onely in respect of Sarah he might be able to beget children of a younger woman though not of Sarah so Lyraus Gorrhan with others But then this deadnes had not beene in Abraham's bodie but in Sarahs whereas the Apostle setteth downe both the deadnes of Abrahams bodie and of Sarahs wombe as two seuerall impediments 4. Augustine hath an other solution though he preferre the other that Abrahams body was indeede dead and vnapt for generation but his bodie was reuiued and he receiued a generatiue facultie of God by faith which continued also after Sarahs death thus answeareth also Thomas vpon this place Tolet. annot 21. Calvin Beza Martyr But it will be thus obiected against this interpretation 1. Augustine thus reasoneth that it is not like Abrahams bodie was dead for procreation at an 100. yeares seeing that although now a man of these yeares cannot beget a sonne yet it was not vnlike then for many not yeares onely but ages after Abrahams time no lesse then a 1700. yeares Plinius writeth of Cato and king Massinissa that begat children after 80. yeares and I haue known an old man in this age at those yeares to haue begotten children Answ. 1. If for a man at an 100. yeares to beget children were not then vnvsuall when the age of man extended neere vnto 200. yeares the like might be said also of Sarah that it was not vnvsuall for women to beare at 90. Tolet. 2. It must be considered that Abraham was worne with labour and trauaile and so he might the sooner growe old and his bodie weake Calvin as we see in these dayes some mens bodies are as weake at 60. yeares as some mens at 70. or 80. Tolet. 3. and further the disvse and discontinuance of Abrahams bodie all his life time in that generatiue facultie made it more vnapt now in his old age for procreation 2. Obiect Pererius thus obiecteth that the Apostle maketh this an act onely of Sarahs faith not of Abrahams that she receiued strength to receiue seede Heb. 11.11 whereas if Abrahams generatiue facultie had beene decayed the Apostle would also haue noted it to be an act of faith in him Answ. 1. In matters of fact it is no found reasoning from the Scriptures negatiuely it followeth not that if a thing be found not rehearsed in some place of Scripture that therefore it was not done 2. that may be omitted in one place of Scripture which is supplied in an other as both Genes 17.17 Abraham standeth vpon both these difficulties that a child should be borne vnto him at an hundred yeares and Sarah should beare at ninetie and the Apostle setteth downe both these as impediments in this place the deadnesse of Abrahams bodie and of Sarahs wombe the Scripture then noting both as difficulties and lettes we are not curiously to take exception to the contrarie Now although elsewhere Hexapl. in Gen. c. 17. quest 7.8 I seemed to encline vnto Augustines first solution yet now vpon better ground and plaine euidence of Scripture I approoue the latter rather that Abraham had effoetum corpus a bodie vnapt for generation indeede Haymo Beza and herein I subscribe vnto Chrysostome who rehearseth fowre impediments and difficulties which yet Abrahams faith ouer came 1. he beleeued contra spem against hope because non habebat alium quempiam c. he had not any other whom he knewe in that manner to haue receiued children whereas they which followed afterward of Abrahams posteritie had the example of Abraham set before them 2. then Abraham had himselfe corpus emortuum a dead bodie this was a second impediment 3.4 then Sarahs wombe was dead which he calleth the third and fourth impediment which Theophylact thus expoundeth that Sarahs wombe was two wayes mortified semo sterilitate with old age and barrennesse Quest. 34. What promise of God made to Abraham it was whereof he is said not to haue doubted v. 20. 1. Tolet annot 22. thinketh that the Apostle hath reference in this place vnto three promises renewed to Abraham the last is mentioned first v. 17. when he offred vp Izaak without doubting beleeuing God who quickneth the dead the first v. 18. which was made concerning the number of his seede Gen. 15. and then the renewing of the promise that he should haue a sonne of Sarah Gen. 17. the Apostle inferreth v. 19. and of that promise the Apostle speaketh here But if the Apostle in the first place should haue mentioned the last promise made at the offring of Izaak it had beene out of order to mention the last first and it hath beene shewed before that there the Apostle toucheth the first promise made to Abraham concerning his seede quest 29. 2. Some thinke that the Apostle here onely aymeth at the second promise made concerning Izaak as the Latine translator readeth in repromissione in the repromission or promise renewed and so Lyran. Gorrhan take it but the Apostle addeth v. 22. it was imputed to him for righteousnesse which imputation was at the first promise concerning Izaak Gen. 15. when Abraham beleeued 3. Neither yet is this to be restrained onely to the first promise for at that time no mention was made of Sarah but Abraham is promised a sonne onely out of his owne bowels Gen. 15. but the Apostle saith here that he considered not his owne bodie c.
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
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
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
with other Schoolemen in 2. sentent distinct 33. some doe thinke they shall haue internum animi dolorem the inward greese of minde for the losse of the heauenly beatitude as holdeth Pet. Lombard 2. sentent distinct 33. with some other schoolmen to whome Bellarmine subscribeth lib. 6. de amiss grat c. 6. 1. For the first opinion that infants dying in their originall sinne are not excluded heauen these arguments are brought 1. The infants shall be afflicted with no sensible punishments because they had no euill mind will or purpose while they liued here 2. Neither is there any contrition or sorrow in this life required for originall sinne much lesse in the next to this purpose Pighius 3. Cartharinus among other reasons vrgeth that place Dan. 12.2 that many shall awake out of the dust some to euerlasting life some to shame whereupon he inferreth that all shall not rise to one of these ends but some and so there should be a third sort that should neither goe to heauen nor hell but enioy a third place 4. There shall be a new heauen and a new earth as the new heauens shall not be without inhabitants so neither the earth which is most like shall be the place for such infants Contra. 1. Though infants actually in their life shewed no euill purpose will or intent yet it is sufficient to their condemnation that they had an euill inclination by nature which would haue shewed it selfe if they had liued to yeres of discretion the onely cause why their euill inclination appeareth not for that their mind hath not fit organes or instruments to exercise the faculties thereof like as the young cubbes of foxes and wolues are killed and destroied when they are yet young though they haue yet done no harme because it is certaine if they should be suffered to grow they would follow their kind so the Scripture saith that the imaginations of mans heart are euill from his youth Gen. 9.21 2. And holy men euen for their originall sinne haue shewed great contrition and sorrow in this life as Dauid confessing his sinne beginneth with his very sinnefull birth and conception Psal. 5.1 so S. Paul crieth out Rom. 7. wretched man that I am who shall deliuer mee from the bodie of this death 3. In that place of Daniel many is taken for all as Augustine and Theodoret expound that place as S. Paul in the fift chapter to the Romans v. 17. by many vnderstandeth all as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners for otherwise it would follow that all should not arise that sleepe in the dust but onely some 4. And it is a weake reason there shall be inhabitants of the new earth therefore infants shall inhabite it Bellarmine thinketh that the earth shall be couered with waters and so haue no inhabitants at all but this is an idle speculation for the earth shall then be restored to a perfect estate not to lie hid vnder the waters and to what end there shall be a new earth it is curiositie to enquire the scripture hauing not expressed it And if it be appointed for the habitation of the Saints to passe from heauen to earth and to follow the Lambe wheresoeuer he goeth it is a worke consequent that infants shall be those Saints thus much shall suffice for the answer vnto these reasons 5. And further the opinion it selfe to make any kind of happines out of the kingdome of heauen and to inuent a third place betweene heauen and hell is contrarie to the Scripture which forteth all men into two rankes or companies which are appointed to two places they are either of the sheepe at Christs right hand which shall enter into life or of the gootes at his left hand for whom hell fire is prepared Matth. 25. And the Scripture testifieth that all that shall be saued shall walke in the light of the celestiall Ierusalem Reuel 22.4 and without it shall be dogges c. 12.15 none then can be saued out of it 2. Now we come to the other opinion of the Romanists that send infants dying without baptisme to hell but they onely attribute vnto them a punishment without any sense vnlesse it be the inward greefe and dolor of mind to see themselues excluded the kingdom of God Contra. First it is an vncharitable opinion to send all infants to hell that die vnbaptised for the grace of God is not tied to the outward element God can saue without water it is not the want of baptisme but the contempt thereof that condemneth the Scripture saith Mark 16.16 he that shall beleeue and be baptised shall be saued but he that will not beleeue not he which is not baptised shall be damned here are three opinions 1. the Papists generally hold that all infants dying without baptisme are damned but this is a cruell and vncharitable opinion as is shewed before See else where more hereof Synops. Centur. 3. er 3. 2. Some thinke that many of the infants of the Saintes are saued euen without baptisme by the couenant of grace made vnto the faithfull and their seede but not all for some of the children of the faithfull doe not belong vnto election such were Ismael Esau. Thus Pet. Martyr 3. But the better opinion is that all the infants of faithfull parents dying in their innocent estate before baptisme are saued by the generall couenant of grace made to the righteous and their seede because there is now no barre or impediment put in to binder the efficacie of that couenant as in those which liue vnto the yeares of discretion and depriue themselues by their impietie and vnbeleefe of the benefit of that couenant Secondly that such infants as are not saued by Christ dying before baptisme or after doe suffer the sensible paines of hell fire though in the least and easiest degree of all it is thus prooued 1. The Scripture saith Reuel 10.15 Whosoeuer was not found written in the booke of life was cast into the lake of fire Infants then which are condemned shall be punished in hell fire 2. We see that infants euen in this life doe suffer in their infancie paine and torment of bodie it therefore standeth with Gods iustice that infants euen for originall sinne should feele sensible torments 3. If they will graunt that they shall haue the inward dolor of the minde to see others admitted into the kingdome of God and themselues excluded why not also paine of bodie seeing the Scripture saith that there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth when men shall see the Patriarkes entring into heauen and themselues excluded and thrust out at the doores Luk. 13.28 4. Christ died for infants as well as for others and bare the punishment due vnto them for their sinnes but he suffered both the torments of bodie and minde therefore both were due vnto infants 5. Gregorie is of this opinion perpetua tormenta percipient qui nihil ex propria voluntaâ—â— peccauerunt they shall receiue euerlasting
the party that is baptized and the water the three inuisible are the soule of the partie baptized which is cleansed and faith in those that are of yeares and the holy Ghost which worketh the remission of sinnes Haymo Quest. 5. What it is to be baptized into the death of Christ. v. 3. The Apostle vseth to this purpose three phrases to be baptized into the death of Christ to be buried by baptisme into his death v. 4. and to be graft into the similitude of his death v. 5. all these shall be handled together 1. Cyrillus thinketh it is said the similitude of his death because Christ rose againe from death and so it was rather an image and shadowe of death then a death in deede but thus he should confound these two which the Apostle ioyneth together the similitude of his death and of his resurrection 2. Origen noteth certaine heretikes who gathered hereupon that Christ died not indeed but onely had a certaine similitude of death visus est magis mori quà m vere mortuâ— est he seemed rather to die then indeede died But if it were so then as Origen inferred nec vera erat resurrectio neither was Christs resurrection in truth nec vere saluati sâ—â—â—â— neither should we be truely saued 3. Therefore Origen giueth this sense it is called the similitude of death because Christ so died vnto sinne that yet there was no sinne found in him which cannot agree vnto vs for to be without sinne solius Christi est it onely belongeth to Christ But this is not the Apostles meaning for he said before we were baptized into the death of Christ which is the same as to be graft into the similitude of his death 4. Origen also hath an other exposition that Christ is exemplum nobis ad imitationem propositum an example set before vs to imitate but this is daungerous because of the error of the Pelagians who thinke that our conformitie with Christ ariseth of our imitation of him as they held that originall sinne is nothing else but a corrupt imitation of Adam whereas indeed on the contrarie our imitating of Christ proceedeth of our conformitie with him and the word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 similitude or likenes but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is more then a bare likenesse it sheweth a conformitie vnto Christ Beza 5. Basil. lib. de baptis vnderstandeth it of baptisme which he saith is a similitude of the crosse and passion of Christ but the Apostle rather sheweth the effects and fruites of baptisme and baptisme representeth all the partes of regeneration both dying and beeing buried vnto sinne and rising vnto newnesse of life it is not a representation of his death onely 6. Chrysostome thus vnderstandeth the similitude of his death because Christs death was carnis of his flesh our death is peccati of sinne so also Haymo following Chrysostome in hoc est similitudo quod ille mortuus est corpore nos vitijs herein is the similitude he died in bodie and we to our sinne But here is more then a similitude onely vnto the death of Christ we receiue vertue and efficacie from his death to die vnto sinne 7. Some apply it vnto the manner of baptisme as Ambrose cum mergeris mortis suscipis sepulturae similitudinem when thou art drenched in the water then thou hast a certaine similitude of the death and resurrection of Christ lib. 2. de Sacram. c. 7. so Chrysostome nos quidem aqua ille tellure we are buried in the water he in the earth c. so also Lyranus baptizatus megitur in aqua he that is baptised is drenched in the water so also Gorrhan tertia immersio repraesentat triduum mortis the thrise dipping in the water representeth the three dayes of Christs death and the lifting vp out of the water his resurrection But if this were the meaning then of necessitie this ceremonie should be vsed in baptisme to goe into or to be drenched in the water 8. Wherefore to be baptized into Christs death and to be buried into his death and to be graft into the similitude of his death are applications in particular of that which the Apostle said before in generall that we are baptized into Christ for in baptisme all the fruits of Christs death buriall and resurrection are sealed vnto vs first on Gods behalfe the benefits procured by Christs death sepulture and resurrection are offred vnto vs in baptisme which is the Sacrament of faith whereby we are graft into Christ and we in baptisme doe for our parts professe to renounce the deuill the world and the flesh Pareus Our sinnes then are two waies mortified and buried first by the remission and not imputing of our sinnes purchased by the death of Christ which is our iustification then by our daily dying and beeing buried vnto sinne which is our sanctification Melancthon and both these are represented in baptisme and communicated vnto vs by faith in Christ by the vertue of whose death we die vnto sinne and by the power of his resurrection we rise vp to newenesse of life like as the branches receiue iuyce and sappe from the tree And though the death of Christ were in respect of the nature that died corporall yet in respect of the person which died beeing God and man the effects were spirituall in causing vs to die vnto sinne and to rise vp to newenesse of life Gorrhan Quest. 7. Of the meaning of this phrase to be graft c. 1. Chrysostome thus applyeth this similitude as the bodie of Christ beeing in the earth fructum edidit orbis salutem c. brought forth fruit the saluation of the world so ours being buried in baptisme fructum attulit iustitiam bringeth forth fruit namely righteousnes but in this application here onely is shewed a likenes betweene Christ and vs the efficacie is not mentioned which we receiue from Christ. 2. Haymo thus expoundeth it Christ as a tree pascit vmbram praestat both feedeth and giueth shadowe he feedeth the angels contemplatione by contemplation of him homines cognitione men he feedeth by the knowledge of him but here no reason is shewed why we are said to be graft into Christ. 3. Origen thus vrgeth the similitude omnis planta post hyemis mortem resurrectionem veris expectat euerie plant after the death as it were of winter expecteth the resurrection as it were of the spring so Christs death was as the winter and his resurrection as the spring and this world is vnto vs as winter but the spring shall be in the resurrection 4. Oecumenius vseth this allusion like as the plant that which is set into the ground quandam mortificationem sustinet c. vndergoeth a kind of mortifying and then sprouteth out againe so Christ as a plant was laid in the earth but rose againe and we also beeing as plants buried in water in baptisme doe come forth to bring forth fruit But in these two explications as
here vseth that the bodie of sinne may be destroyed for the bodie is not crucified or destroyed but sinne which dwelleth in the bodie 3. Origen hath an other exposition by the bodie of sinne we may vnderstand proprium aliquod corpus the proper bodie of sinne whereof these are the members fornication vncleannes inordinate affection with other particular sinnes as S. Paul calleth them Coloss. 3.4 and this sense followeth Chrysostome this bodie of sinne he vnderstandeth to be vniuersam malitiā nostram the whole malice of our nature so Lyran. congeries peccatorum the companie of sinnes is called the bodie of sinne as there is a bodie also of vertues and good workes Gorrhan as Matth. 6.22 If thine eye be single the whole bodie shall be light if it be wicked the whole bodie shall be darke 4. And this multitude and companie of sinnes is so called for diuerse reasons 1. because as the bodie hath diuerse members so our inborne concupiscence brancheth forth into diuerse sinnes Mart. 2. propter robur tyrannidem because of the strength and tyrannie which it exerciseth in the children of disobedience Faius 3. quod ab eo facile homines divelli non possunt because men cannot easily be plucked from their sinnes no more then from their bodie Phocius 4. because men are addicted to their sinnes and loue it as themselues Photius ibid. 5. But in this place the Apostle vseth this phrase the bodie of sinne because he had spoken of crucifying before bodies vse to be crucified Pareus and we are as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it were concorporated with Christ which word the Apostle vseth Ephes. 3.6 and we were crucified in his bodie vpon the crosse together with him 5. But here we must take heede of the error of Florius Illyricus who did hold that originall sinne was a substance and not an accident onely because it is called here a bodie and the old man But this is a metaphoricall speach it is called a bodie by a certaine similitude as it is shewed before and the Apostle calleth it afterward verse 12. sinne in the mortall bodie it is therefore a kinde of spirituall bodie in these our mortall bodies 6. But in that the Apostle addeth that we should not serue sinne he sheweth that the regenerate are not quite freed from sinne but sinne doth not raigne in them neither are they seruants any longer vnto it so we must make a difference betweene these two peccare and peccato servire to sinne and to serue sinne the regenerate doe sinne while they are in the flesh but they doe no longer serue sinne Bucor Quest. 11. How the dead are said to be freed from sinne v 7. 1. Some do vnderstand this of the spirituall death in baptisme before spoken of Lyran. Ofiand P. Martyr thinketh that the Apostle speaketh of mortification which is the effect of iustification not de morte naturae of the death of nature But then this had beene a repetition of that which he said before vers 6. whereas it containeth rather a reason thereof 2. Some vnderstanding this to be spoken of the naturall death of the bodie from whence the Apostle taketh his similitude by beeing freed or iustified from sinne doe meane purgatum esse à peccatis to be purged from sinne Basil. lib. de baptis But this cannot be that all the dead should be purged from their sinne though they cease from the actions thereof 3. This better is interpreted of the naturall death that they which are dead do thenceforth cease from the actions of sinne and so Chrysostome vnderstandeth here the word iustified liber est à peccatis is free from sinne that is the actions of sinne cease Calvin like as a seruant when he dieth is free from the seruice of his master as Iob. 3.19 so he which is dead is free from the dominion of sinnes past then the theefe ceaseth to steale the adulterer to commit adulterie the word then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is iustified is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is freed which word the Apostle vseth v. 18. and it is a synecdoche when one kind is taken for the whole to be iustified and absolued in iudgement is one kind of freedome and it is taken here for the generall to be set free as a theefe dying is set free by death as if he had beene iustified and absolued in iudgement Piscator 4. But hence it followeth not that the dead doe not sinne afterward they are free from the sinnes committed in the bodie yet the wicked euen after death beeing tormented in hell doe not cease to sinne beeing full of despaire blasphemie impenitencie and therefore their sinnes not ceasing their punishments cannot determine Let this be obserued against the opinion of the Origenists who inferre that because when men are dead there is an ende of their sinne that at the length there shall be an ende of their punishment and God shall haue mercie vpon them Quest. 12. What life the Apostle speaketh of v. 8. We beleeue that we shall also liue with him 1. Some vnderstand it of life euerlasting in coelo post generalem resurrectionem in heauen after the generall resurrection Haymo so also Origen Chrysostome Theodoret but it is euident that the Apostle speaketh of the life of grace v. 11. ye are dead to finde but are aliue to God c. 2. Neither is it to be vnderstood onely de vita gratiae of the life of grace as Lyran Tolet annot 8. and Basil vnderstandeth it of the newenesse of life lib. de baptism for the AApostle thus expoundeth himselfe 2. Tim. 2.11.12 if we be dead with him we shall also liue with him that is shall raigne with him as the Apostle saith in the next verse following if we suffer we shall also raigne with him 3. Wherefore the Apostle by liuing with Christ vnderstandeth generally both the life of grace present and of glorie afterward Mart. and this life is distinguished into three degrees 1. our regeneration in rising vnto newenes of life 2. our perseuerance in continuing vnto the end 3. the third degree is in euerlasting life after the resurrection Pareus Quest. 13. How death is said to haue had dominion ouer Christ v. 9. In that the Apostle saith v. 9. Death hath no more dominiō ouer him it is inferred that death had sometime dominion ouer him 1. Origen to remooue this doubt how death may be said to haue had dominion of Christ vnderstandeth it of his going downe to hell ad locum vbi mors regnavit vnto the place where death raigned but thus the doubt remaineth still for Christ whom he would haue descend to hell went thither as a conquerour hell had no dominion ouer him therefore that cannot be the meaning 2. and Haymo his interpretation is as harsh who by death vnderstandeth the deuil which had dominion by his ministers as he entred into the heart of Iudas Christo permittente by the permission of Christ it is
an others subiects euen Gods and though the wicked doe obey sinne willingly yet it is of necessitie also because it is not in their power to resist sinne 2. Gregorie better observeth vpon this place that the Apostle saith not let not sinne be but let it not raigne quia non esse non potest it cannot but be in our members but it may not raigne 3. Pererius here confuteth Beza for giuing this note vpon this place the Apostle sheweth how farre we are dead to sinne while we are in this life vt reluctetur spiritus non tamen vincat that the spirit alway resisteth but ouercommeth not c. whereupon he thus cauilleth that if the spirit ouercome not the flesh then is it ouercome of the flesh But Beza his meaning onely is that our sanctification is not perfect in this life but that there remaineth some relique of sinne which alwayes resisteth the spirit as the Apostle sheweth in his owne example c. 7. so the spirit ouercommeth in part because sinne raigneth not in the regenerate but there is not a perfect victorie in this life because sinne hath a dwelling still and beeing in vs in this mortall flesh though the kingdome thereof be subdued Quest. 18. What the Apostle meaneth by mortall bodie ver 12. Let not sinne raigne in your mortall bodie c. 1. Chrysostome thinketh this is added by way of encouragement to signifie certamina in hac re temporaria esse that the strife and combate herein is but temporarie so also Photius he sheweth quod temporaria sit contra peccatum lucta that the fight against sinne is but temporall because the bodie is mortall and for a time 2. Origen hath two interpretations first the Apostle speaketh of the dead bodie to shewe that sinne neede not raigne in vs for he that is dead is free from sinne but the Apostle saith not in mortuo sed mortali corpore in the dead but in the mortall bodie there is great difference betweene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dead v. 7. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mortall which is the word vsed here 3. Further he saith that the Apostle calleth this bodie mortall ad distinctionem alterius corporis quod immortale est to distinguish it from that other bodie which is immortall when sinne shall haue no dominion or command at all ouer vs this sense Tolet also followeth 4. The ordinarie glosse further addeth that here is a secret promise of immortalitie si non regnet peccatum if sinne raigne not the bodie nowe mortall shall be afterward immortall 5. Theophylact thinketh that mention is made of the mortall bodie to signifie that all the pleasures of the bodie are but momentanie minus sunt stabiles corporis voluptates and therefore they are not much to be desired to the same purpose Bucer ne innitamur rei fallacissima that beeing admonished by our owne frailtie we should not trust to so vncertaine and deceitfull a thing 6. Theophylact noteth beside that hereby the Apostle insinuateth mortalitatem hanc fuisse corpori à delicto inditam that this mortalitie was inflicted vpon the bodie by reason of sinne and so we should by the meditation of death and mortalitie be terrified from sinne 7. But as these notes and collections may safely be receiued so this further may be added that the Apostle maketh mention specially of the mortall bodie because the partes and members thereof are the instruments of sinne that although the minde are inward faculties be tempted yet that we should resist and not bring the euill motions and suggestions into execution and this may appeare to be the Apostles meaning by the next words v. 13. neither giue your members as weapons of vnrighteousnesse c. Beza 8. Some thinke that the Apostle insinuateth the daunger of eternall death that if sinne doe raigne corpus moriturum est in aeternum the bodie shall die eternally gloss interlin but the bodie is said to be mortall in respect of the present mortall state because it is subiect to death 9. P. Martyr thinketh the meaning to be this because the concupiscence which the Apostle would not haue here to raigne in vs is per corpus derivatum deriued from Adam to vs by the bodie But I preferre the former interpretations but especially the 7. yet so as that with Ambrose by mortall bodie we vnderstand the whole state of man both the powers of soule and bodie by the figure synecdoche when one part is taken for the whole So also Pareus Faius Quest. 19. Of those words that yee should obey it in the lustes c. v. 12. 1. The Syrian interpreter readeth that yee should obey the lusts thereof but here the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is omitted which is referred to the first antecedent sinne that ye should not obey it that is sinne which is put in the feminine gender in the lusts thereof that is of the bodie and therefore Beza to take away the anbiguitie explaineth it thus that yee should obey sinne in the lusts thereof 2. The Apostle putteth it in the plurall lusts because from the prauitie and corruption of our nature doe arise many and diuerse lusts and concupiscences Martyr 3. Thus sinne is compared to a tyrant raigning and raging the lusts are as the edicts and precepts of sinne whereby it raigneth and ruleth men yeelding to their corrupt concupiscence as are the vassals and slaues of sinne Calvin 4. The Apostle expoundeth himselfe what he meant before by the raigning of sinne that is to obey it no man in this mortall bodie can be void of concupiscence and vnlawfull desires but the faithfull must striue against them and not become subiect vnto them Pellican 5. This obedience consisteth in two things the one to be at command to obey and yeeld subiection vnto sinne the other to take vp armes in the defence of sinne which is touched in the verse following Pareus 6. Concupiscence is taken two waies sometime it is the name fomitis innati of that inborne occasion and originall of sinne sometime actus interioris of the inward act of the minde whereof there are three degrees there is propassio the propassion or first motion then delectatio the delight thirdly consensus the consent the Apostle here speaketh not of the first motion which no man can helpe but of the second and third which by Gods grace may be staied that a man neither delight in or consent vnto those euill motions which arise in his mind gloss ordinar 7. Neither is this a superfluous exhortation vnto them whom he said before v. 11. to be dead to sinne that sinne should not raigne in them because our mortification is not here perfect but euery day more and more we must proceed therein and by such exhortations is our mortification still perfited Pareus 8. And here by lusts we must vnderstand not the naturall desire and lust of the bodie as after meate drinke sleepe and such like but the vnnaturall vnnecessarie and
and this is euident both in that originall sinne remaineth after baptisme which the Apostle calleth peccatum inhabitans sinne dwelling in him Rom. 7.10 euen after he had beene baptised 2. whereas Pererius obiecteth that saying of Beza to confirme his opinion that in those which are truely sanctified in Christ sinne once dyeth â—â—â—is is so weakned vt pristinas vires nunquam accipiat c. that it shall neuer receiue the former strength but daily as the bodie in the graue rotteth away donec penitus intereat c. â—â—till it altogether perish c. In these words Beza affirmeth not that in baptisme there is a persue death of sinne but that sinne beginning to die is weakned more and more and neuer returneth to the former strength which is most true that the regenerate doe more and more die vnto sinne and euery day the power of sinne is decayed in them till at length together with morralitie they put of all corruption See further Synops. Centur. 3. er 10. Controv. 6. Of the baptisme of infants 1. The Anabaptists doe thus inferre out of this place of the Apostle v. 5. we are buried by baptisme into his death c. they which are baptised must professe their mortification and dying vnto sinne which infants cannot doe and therefore they are not to be baptised And Christ bid his Apostles to goe teach all nations and baptize them infants are not capable of doctrine and fit to be taught therefore they are not to be baptized Contra. 1. They which neither in baptisme nor after make profession of their mortification are not to be baptized they which are of yeeres must so professe in their baptisme it is sufficient for infants to doe it afterward for the vse of baptisme is not for the time present onely but for afterward otherwise we should neede often to be baptized 2. Infants are within the couenant for God promised to be the God of the faithfull and of their seede and therefore the signe of the couenant is not to be denied vnto them and seeing infants were circumcised vnder the lawe in stead whereof baptisme is succeeded infants by the same warrant are to be baptized vnlesse we will make the state of infants vnder the Gospell inferiour vnto the condition of infants vnder the lawe 3. When the Apostles were bidden to preach and baptize a course was prescribed them and that or those times to beginne with preaching and then to baptize for first they which were of yeares must beleeue which was wrought in them by preaching the word for faith commeth by hearing before they could be admitted to baptisme 4. But it will be obiected that this vse of baptizing infants is not Apostolicall it was brought in by Hyginus Bishop of Rome and Tertullian lib. de baptism misliketh that vse Contra. 1. Hyginus onely made a decree concerning Godfathers and Godmothers as they are called that vndertake for infants in baptisme which sheweth that the baptizing of infants was in practise before 2. Tertullian in his old age fell into the heresie of Montanus and therefore much is not to be ascribed to his iudgement concerning this matter Martyr Controv. 7. Of the confidence and assurance of saluation v. 8. Wee beleeue that we shall also liue with him c. Hence it is well inferred that the faithfull are assured by faith both of their perseuerance in the state of grace in this life and of euerlasting life in the next for we beleeue saith the Apostle that we shall liue c. we nothing doubt of it and in the same sense the Apostle said before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 knowing ver 6. and againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 knowing v. 11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gather ye or conclude ye as the word is taken Rom. 3.28 and here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we beleeue all which words implie a certaintie without doubting Contrarie hereunto is the doctrine of the Romanists which hold it to be a point of presumption to haue assurance of saluation and whereas we vrge S. Pauls example that was sure nothing could separate him from the loue of God in Christ they answear that S. Paul and other holy men had it by speciall reuelation Contra. S. Paul maketh it not his speciall case to be assured of saluation but here he speaketh generally of all the faithfull we knowe Tolet also one of their owne writers thus expoundeth this place we beleeue credimus intellectus c. we beleeue in the vnderstanding that spirituall life is giuen vs with the death of sinne confidimus etiam nos in ea per seueraturos and we are confident that we shall perseuere therein See further hereof Synop. Centur. 4. err 25. Controv. 8. That Christ shall not die in the next world againe for those which were not healed here v. 9. Death hath no more dominion ouer him c. Origen by this text confuteth their error who hold that Christ should suffer in the next world the like things as he did here for them quos dispensationis eius medicina sanara non poserat whom the medicine of his dispensation could not heale in this present world and they vsed this reason because in the next world they shall either doe well still or euill non erunt profundo silentia there shall not be silence altogether then as Lucifer fell in the beginning so may they be apt to fall then having the vse of freewill for virtus est mutabilis vertue is changeable Origen thus refuteth this error 1. because it is contrarie directly to the Apostles words here that Christ died once for all death shall haue no more dominion ouer him such vs the force and efficacie of the crosse of Christ vt sufficiat ad sanitatem remedium non solum praesentis futuri seculi sed etiam praeteritorum c. that it sufficeth not onely for the health and remedie of the present and world to come but of the ages past non solum humano ordini c. and not onely for the order and condition of men but euen for the celestiall orders also c. Christ by his death redeemed the one from their sinnes and setled and established the other 2. and though the nature of man be mutable here yet so shall it not be there vbi ad culmen virtutis ascenderit when it is come to the height and perfection of vertue for there shall be charitie which as the Apostle saith nunquam excidit neuer falleth away 3. The Apostle could say that neither life nor death things present nor to come nor any thing else could separate him from the loue of God in Christ how much lesse shall the libertie of freewill be able then to separate vs. 4. And Lucifer did fall antequam ad beneficia filij Dei charitatis vinculis stringeretur when as yet the bond of charitie had not fastened him to the benefits of the Sonne of God But it is now otherwise with those celestiall spirits whose
state is now made firme and sure in Christ. Controv. 9. Against the sacrifice of the Masse v. 10. For in that he died he died once This place is verie pregnant against the Popish sacrifice of the Masse wherein they say they doe dayly offer vp Christs bodie in sacrifice vnto God for there is no oblation of Christ in sacrifice but by death he died but once and therfore one sacrifice of him in his death sufficeth for all and the Apostle saith Heb. 10.14 that he hath with one offring made perfect for euer them that are sanctified This then is a blasphemous derogation to make iteratiue sacrifices as though that one sacrifice had beene imperfect and whereas they alleadge that their Masse is a sacrifice applicatorie of Christs death such applications are superfluous seeing the death of Christ is effectually applyed by faith which is reviued strengthened and increased by the commemoration of Christs death in the Sacraments See more hereof Synops. Centur. 3. err 31. Controv. 10. Concerning freewill v. 12. Let not sinne raigne c. This place may be vrged by the adversaries of the grace of God to prooue that man hath some power in himselfe to resist sinne seeing otherwise the Apostles exhortation should be in vaine to exhort men vnto that which is not in their power Contra. 1. The Apostle elswhere euidently teacheth that man hath no power or inclination of himselfe to any thing that is good as 2. Corinth 3.5 Wee are not sufficient to thinke any thing of our selues but our sufficiencie is of God Philip. 2.23 it is God that worketh in you both the will and the deed of his good pleasure we must not then make the Apostle contrarie to himselfe as though in this place he should ascribe any thing to mans freewill 2. the Apostle speaketh here to men iustified and regenerate by the spirit of God by the which they are enabled to performe this whereunto they are exhorted so that this abilitie is not in themselues but from God 3. the Apostle sheweth a difference by thus exhorting betweene these actions which the Lord maketh in other creatures which either haue no sense at all or sense onely which creatures God vseth without any stirring at all feeling and inclination in them and those which he worketh in man whose reason will and vnderstanding he vseth by incicing and stirring it vp 4. So then these exhortations are not superfluous for thereby we are admonished rather what we ought to doe then what we are able to doe and by these exhortations of Gods word grace is wrought in vs to enable vs to doe that which of our selues we haue no power to doe See further Controv. 15. following Controv. 11. That concupiscence remaining in the regenerate is properly sinne v. 12. Let not sinne raigne The Apostle here speaketh of concupiscence which is sinne though it raigne not in vs the verie suggestions and carnall thoughts that arise in the regenerate haue the nature of sinne though they yeeld not consent vnto them Bellarmine with other of that side doe expound these and such like places wherein concupiscence is called sinne de causa vel effectu peccati of the cause or effect of sinne so concupiscence is improperly called sinne in their opinion either because it is the effect and fruit of Adams sinne as a writing is called ones hand because the hand writ it or because it bringeth forth sinne as we say frigus pigrum flouthfull cold because cold maketh one full of flouth Contra. 1. Concupiscence is sinne properly because it is contrarie to the lawe of God it striueth and rebelleth against it and continually stirreth vs vp to doe that which is contrarie to the Lawe sinne properly is the transgression of the lawe as the Apostle defineth it 1. Iohn 3.4 therefore concupiscence beeing contrarie to the lawe of God is properly sinne S. Paul also calleth it sinne dwelling in him Rom. 7.17 2. Whereas it may be obiected that all sinne is voluntarie but the motions and suggestions of the flesh are involuntarie we answear that all sinne is not voluntarie for then originall corruption should not be sinne which is euen in children which can giue no consent and yet in respect of the beginning and roote of this sinne which was Adams transgression it was voluntarie See more of this controversie Synops. Papism Centur. 4. err 16. Controv. 12. Whether a righteous man may fall into any mortall or deadly sinne v. 12. Let not sinne raigne there is then peccatum regnans sinne raigning as when one sinneth against his conscience and setteth his delight vpon it and followeth it with greedinesse and so for the time looseth the hope of forgiuenesse of sinne and maketh him subiect to euerlasting death without the mercie of God peccatum non regnans sinne not raigning is originall concupiscence suggestions motions of the flesh infirmities and such like Now the Romanists simply denie that a righteous man can commit any mortall sinne neither can any continuing the Sonne of God fall into it Rhemist 1. Ioh. 3. sect 3. Among the Protestant writers some thinke that the righteous may haue sinne for the time raigning in them as Aarons idolatrie and Dauids adulterie sheweth so Vrsinus vol. 1. pag. 107. but Zanchius denieth it miscellan p. 139. Contra. 1. Touching the assertion of the Romanists it is manifestly conuinced of error by the example of Dauid for it is absurd to thinke that in his fall he ceased to be the child of God for he that is once the sonne of God shall so continue to the ende Dauid was a righteous and faithfull man and yet fell into great and dangerous offences which they call deadly and mortall sinnes 2. The other may be reconciled by the diuerse taking and vnderstanding of raigning sinne for if that be vnderstood to be a raigning sinne which is committed of an obstinate minde with contempt of God without any feeling or remorse of conscience so we denie that any of the elect can fall into any such sinne but if that be taken for a raigning sinne when for a time the conscience is blinded and a man is ouercome and falleth yet rather of infirmitie then obstinacie yet afterward such vpon their repentance are restored in this sense sinne may raigne in the righteous as in Aaron Dauid but it is said improperly to raigne because this kingdome of sinne continueth not it is but for a time Controv. 13. Against the Manichees v. 22. In your mortall bodie Theophylact hence reprooueth the error of the Manichees who affirmed that the bodie of man is wicked and euill but seeing the Apostle compareth it to armour or weapons which the souldier vseth for his countrey the theife and rebell against it so the bodie is an indifferent thing it may either be abused as an instrument of sinne or by the grace of God it may be applyed to the seruice of the spirit as the Apostle sheweth v. 19. Giue your members as seruants vnto
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
his delight and ioying in good in his inner man but he is captiued by the lawe of his members vnto sinne v. 22.23 The issue is this first he desireth and expecteth to be deliuered from this spirituall bondage and captiuitie ver 24. secondly he giueth thanks for this freedome in Christ that he is not yet wholly captiued vnto sinne but in his spirit he serueth the lawe of God 3. The questions and doubts discussed Quest. 1. How the law is said to haue dominion ouer a man as long as he liueth 1. We must here distinguish betweene these two cessare legem the law to cease and dominionem legis cessare the dominion of the law to cease Theodoret thinketh that the Apostle treateth of the ceasing of the law so also Gorrhan but that the law is not ceased the Apostle sheweth afterward giuing an instance in one of the commandements Thou shalt not lust but the dominion of the law is ceased which serued to condemne but we are vnder grace which hath deliuered vs from the bondage of the law Tolet. annot 1. 2. By the lawe 1. neither with Sedulius doe we vnderstand the lawe of nature for he speaketh vnto the Iewes that knewe the lawe whereas the lawe of nature was knowne also vnto the Gentiles 2. neither with Ambrose by the lawe doe we meane the Gospel for we are not dead vnto this lawe as the Apostle saith v. 4. we are dead to the law 3. neither is the lawe of the members here vnderstood as Origen which is alwaies euill rebelling against the lawe of the word but the lawe which the Apostle here speaketh of is holy and good ver 12. 4. nor yet doe we vnderstand the ciuill lawe of the Romanes to whom the Apostle doth write as knowing their owne lawes as Haymo and Lyranus indifferently vnderstandeth Lex Mosaica vel Civilis the Mosaicall or Ciuill lawe 5. The Apostle then maketh mention of the morall law of Moses as is euident by that instance which afterward he bringeth in of that commandement Thou shalt not couet Tolet. Mart. Pareus 3. These words while he liveth are diuersly interpreted 1. some referre it to the law as long as the lawe liveth or remaineth so Origen Ambrose Erasmus and Origen addeth this reason because the man is afterward resembled to the lawe who beeing dead the woman is free but this reason sheweth that it must be referred rather to the man then the law 2. and so indeede it is more fitly said of the man while he liueth then of the lawe and in grammaticall construction it is better referred to the nearer word then the further off Beza 3. some doe ioyne it vnto man which word because in the Greeke signifieth both sexes Chrysostome thinketh that the death of both is insinuated for if the woman be free when her husband is dead much more when she is dead also but then this verse should be confounded in sense with that which followeth whereas the Apostle speaketh first in generall of the lawe which onely beareth rule ouer a man while he liueth and then of the particular lawe of matrimonie 4. some thinke that these words while he or it liueth are indifferently referred either to the lawe or man for both we are said to be dead to the lawe v. 4. and the lawe also is said to be dead v. 6. Mart. but it is better ioyned with man as the nearest word 4. Tolet thinketh that the Apostle speaketh not here generally of the law of Moses but of the particular law of matrimonie annot 4. but as is before shewed it is better to vnderstand the Apostle to speake generally here of the law which bindeth a man onely while he liueth and so we are dead in Christ and no longer bound to the law and then he doth illustrate the same by the particular law of marriage the law was as the man or rather sinne that receiued strength by the law we as the wife the law beeing dead in Christ in respect of the bondage thereof we are free Pareus 2. Quest. Whether the woman be simply free if the man be once dead v. 3. If the man be dead she is free Lyranus giueth this note that if the man should chance to die and yet be raised againe as some were the woman were not bound in that case to receiue the man as her husband nisi de condecentia but in decencie onely and supervenienti novo consensu by a new consent and contract Pererius affirmeth the same and giueth instance of Lazarus that if any should rise againe as he did non futuram vxorem eius quae ante fuerat she should not be his wife that was before but vpon a new contract Contra. Though this be but a curious and vnnecessarie question yet because the occasion is ministred by them it shall not be amisse herein to examine the truth Indeede when we shall rise againe to an immortall state as in the generall resurrection neither the man shall be bound to the wife nor the wife to the husband because they shall neither marrie nor be giuen in marriage but when any is miraculously raised againe to the mortall state and condition of this life the case is otherwise as may appeare by these reasons 1. Other coniunctions which are not so neare as betweene the father or mother and the children doe not cease neither are extinct by such a temporall death as it is saide Heb. 11.35 The women receiued their dead raised to life that is the mothers acknowledged their children raised againe as the widow of Sarepta and the Shunamite had their sonnes restored vnto them againe beeing dead the one by the Prophet Elias the other by the Prophet Elisha the question is whether those children so raised were freed from the obedience of their parents I thinke not no more is the wife in that case freed from her husband because the coniunction is nearer betweene the man and wife as Gen. 2.24 Therefore shall a man leaue his father and mother and cleaue to his wife 2. When the Sadduces put the question to Christ of a woman that was married to seuen brethren whose wife she should be in the resurrection our Sauiour answered them not that the woman was free from them all by death but because that in the resurrection they neither marrie not are married but are as the Angels in heauen Matth. 22.30 So then the reason why they are free after death is not simply because they are dead but because they shall rise to an incorruptible state and not returne from death againe to their former mortall condition 3. Pererius himselfe confesseth that if one that is baptized or hath receiued orders should be raised from death he should not neede to be baptized or consecrated againe because those Sacraments do imprint in the soule an indeleble character so doth not matrimonie But this may serue as an argument against his conceit that matrimonie in this case shall no more be iterated
then the other for there is no such character imprinted more in them then in matrimonie for he which is baptized or consecrated may vtterly fall away and become an Apostata from the faith what then is become of this badge or character See further Synops. Cent. 2. er 96. if then there is no more character left in the one then in the other if by a temporall death for a time the efficacie of baptisme and orders be not extinguished neither is the bond of matrimonie loosed for such is no perfect death but a kind of slumber or traunce for a while which I hope they will not say dissolueth the mariage bond Quest. 3. Whether that the woman haue not the like libertie and freedome in respect of the bond of mariage as the man hath v. 3. But if the man be dead the woman is free c. The woman is not free but by the death of the man because this is affirmed onely of the womans freedom not of the mans it may seeme that the man may be otherwise free then by the death of the woman And indeed Ambrose is of this opinion writing vpon the 7. chap. of the 1. to the Corinthians that the man may marrie againe his wife beeing lawfully repudiated euen while she liueth but so cannot the woman and his reason is quia inferior non omnino hac lege vtitur qua superior the inferior is not to vse the same lawe or priuiledge which the superiour doth Caietanus herein agreeing with Ambrose alleadgeth the custome which the Iewes had it was lawfull among them for the man to giue his wife a bill of diuorcement but not for the woman to giue it vnto the man Contra. 1. S. Ambrose opinion herein is contrarie to the Apostle S. Paul who saith that the man hath not power ouer his owne bodie but his wife as the wife hath not power ouer her owne bodie but the husband 1. Cor. 7.4 so in matrimoniall duties he maketh them both equall as Lyranus well inferreth here idem est iudicium de viro the same law or iudgment also is for the man 2. Herein then I rather subscribe to Hieromes opinion quicquid viris iubetur hoc consequenter redundat in foeminas that which is commanded vnto men redoundeth also vnto women for an adulterous woman is not to be dismissed and an adulterous husband to be retained aliae sunt leges Caesarum aliae Christs aliud Papinianus aliud Paulus noster praecipit c. the lawes of Caesar and of Christ are diuerse one thing Papinianus prescribeth an other thing Paul Hierm. ad Occan. 3. And that libertie among the Iewes was granted vnto them for their hardnes of heart it was a permission no dispensation a toleration not a concession and yet the woman had libertie by that custome beeing sent away by a bill of diuorcement to marrie againe as the man did 4. Yet thus much must be acknowledged that whereas it was permitted that many of the fathers should haue diuers wiues yet it was a monstrous thing and neuer tolerated for a woman to haue many husbands that there is some difference herein betweene the condition of the man and woman that in respect of the generall law of nature for procreation the man is more priuiledged who may beget by diuerse women whereas one woman cannot conceiue by diurse men so that in the woman such change should shew her lust onely and wantonnes which in the man was exercised for the desert of procreation yet the speciall law and couenant of matrimonie considered the man hath no more libertie to goe vnto strange flesh then the woman Quest. 4. Why the Apostle saith we are dead to the law v. 4. and not rather the law is dead to vs. 1. Some thinke that in this similitude the man is compared to the law and we are resembled to the woman and so the Apostle in the application of the similitude should haue rather said the law is dead to vs because the man is free when the man is dead but the Apostle chaungeth of purpose his speach he would not say the law is dead but we are dead to the law imbecillitaris Iudaeorum rationem habens c. hauing respect vnto the weaknes of the Iewes left they might haue beene offended beeing so much addicted to the law and last he might haue giuen occasion to those heretikes which are enemies to the old Testament thereby to accuse the law Theodoret so also Calvin comparing the law to the husband voluit exigua inversione c. he would a little deliuer the envie of so hard a tearme auandae offensionis causa noluit exprimere he would not expressely say the lawe is dead to avoide offence Bucer so also Pet. Martyr Pareus But Beza misliketh this exposition for the lawe cannot be said to be dead vnlesse the ceremoniall lawe be vnderstood which the Apostle speaketh not of but of the morall lawe Tolet addeth this reason because the Apostle expressely distinguisheth these three virum mulierem legem the man the woman the lawe and concludeth that by the death of the man we are freed from the lawe 2. Chrysostome salveth the matter thus that the Apostle speaketh of a double libertie both by the death of the man and woman together for if the woman be dead as well as the man she is much more free and so in the application the Apostle indifferently putteth the case of the death of vnto the lawe as the woman or of the lawe to vs as the man But the similitude onely runneth vpon the freedome of the woman by the death of the man the application should be so likewise 3. Haymo vnderstandeth here two husbands and one woman or wife the law is one husband vnder whom the woman that is the soule is said to be the other is sinne whereof the Apostle speaketh v. 3. while the man liueth for while sinne liueth in man he is subiect to the lawe But the other husband which the Apostle speaketh of is Christ raigning in vs by his spirit as v. 4. that we should be vnto an other vnlesse he will say that the Apostle speaketh of three husbands which he doth not for an other doth insinuate but one beside 4. Some thinke that in the application of this similitude we are not so curiously to insist vpon the particular points of this resemblance betweene the man and wife whether the law be as the husband or the man regenerate as the wife by the death of either of them indiffereÌ„tly followeth freedom if either we be dead to the law or the law to vs Faius But the Apostle in the similitude presseth onely the death of the man whereby the woman is free likewise Gorrhan expoundeth ye are mortified or dead to the lawe that is ye are no mâ—â— bound to the lawe as if the law were dead but to be dead to the lawe and the lawe to be dead to vs though in effect they are all one yet
tooke away the handwriting of the lawe which was against vs Calvin so Oecumen by the bodie of Christ pro nobis interemptum slaine for vs so also Ambrose tradens corpus suum Servator mortem vicit peccatum damnavit our Sauiour deliuering vp his bodie ouercame death and condemned sinne c. So we are dead vnto the lawe in the bodie of Christ because he in his body was made a curse for vs to redeeme vs from the curse of the law Par. Quest. 7. Of the meaning of these words v. 6. beeing dead vnto it There are 3. readings of these words 1. some reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are deliuered from the law of death so the vulgar Latine and Ambrose with Anselme Haymo and Origen also maketh mention hereof though he approoue an other reading But the morall lawe is not properly called the law of death which title better agreath vnto sinne which indeed is the law of death Beza obserueth that no Greek copie but one which he had seen so readeth 2. Some read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being dead in the nominative which some expound thus in the which we were held as dead Origen but here is a traiection or transposing of the words which stand thus in the originall dead wherein c. not wherein we were dead some vse a harder kind of traiection we which are dead are deliuered whereas the order of the words is this we are deliuered from the lawe beeing dead c. some vse no traiection at all but supply the pronounc it or that dead vnto it wherein c. and they vnderstand the lawe Theophylact Erasmus Bucer Calvin P. Mart. 3. But the better reading is in the genetive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and some ioyne it with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lawe the lawe beeing dead wherein c. but it is rather put absolutely and the pronoune that or it must be supplyed that beeing dead wherein we were holden not in Oecumenius sense who vnderstandeth it actiuely we are dead by sinne but passiuely with Chrysostome that beeing dead namely sinne wherein we were holden id quod detinebat peccatum c. that which did hold vs namely sinne hath now nothing to hold vs with Quest. 8. What is meant by the newenesse of the spirit and the oldnesse of the letter 1. Origen vnderstandeth by the oldnes of the letter the ceremonies of the lawe as circumcision the Iewish Sabbaths by the newenesse of the letter the spirituall and allegoticall sense so also Haymo saith he serueth God in the newenes of the spirit that spiritually practiseth the circumcision of the heart not the carnall obseruation of the ceremonies But S. Paul treateth here of the morall not the ceremoniall lawe as Tolet well obserueth annot 18. 2. Chrysostome and Theophylact following him vnderstand the oldnes of the letter of the externall obedience which was practised vnder the law the newenesse of the spirit they expound to be the inward obedience of the heart wrought in vs by the spirit of Christ But we must here take heede that we doe not so thinke that the literall sense of the lawe onely concerned outward obedience for it required the perfect loue of God and our neighbour and restrained the verie inward concupiscence Neither must we imagine that all they which liued vnder the lawe onely serued God in the oldnes of the letter yeelding onely externall obedience as Chrysostome seemeth to insinuate that they were commanded onely to abstaine from murther adulterie and such like but we are restrained from anger wantonnes the inward motions for many of the holy men vnder the lawe had the newenesse of spirit in the renovation of their inward desires as the faithfull haue vnder the Gospell 3. Some by the oldnesse of the letter vnderstand sinne which was not reformed by the letter of the lawe by the newenesse of the spirit the fruits of righteousnesse as Hierome epist. ad Hedib quest 8. vivamus sub pracepto qui prius in modum brutorum c. let vs liue vnder the precept which before as bruite beasts said let vs eate and drinke c. so also Tolet annot 8. but if by the oldnes of the letter we vnderstand sinne how can any be said to serue God in sinne 4. Ambrose by the newenesse of the spirit doth vnderstand legem fidei the lawe of faith by the oldnes of the letter the law of works but the Apostle here speaketh of our obedience and sanctifie which is the fruits indeede of iustification rather then iustification it selfe 5. Wherefore the Apostle rather by the oldnes of the letter vnderstandeth the outward and externall obedience onely ot iosam legis notitiam the idle and fruitlesse knowledge of the lawe without the true conuersion of the heart the newenes of the spirit is the true sanctitie both of bodie and soule wrought in vs by the spirit of God which is called newe compared with our former state and condition vnder the old man and in respect of our newe mariage with Christ Pareus so Calvin non habemus in lege nisi externam literam c. we haue not in the lawe but onely the externall letter which doth bridle our outward actions but doth not restraine our concupiscence so Pet. Martyr vnderstandeth quoddam obedientia genus a certaine kind of outward obedience but not such as God requireth to the same purpose Osrander the newenes of the spirit is when we serue God move spontaneo spiritu with a readie and willing spirit they serued God in the oldnes of the letter that is indignabundo spiritus with an vnwilling mind And the law as Beza well noteth is called the letter quia surdis canit because it speaketh as vnto deafe men till they be regenerate and renewed by the spirit of grace 6. So here are three things set one against the other solutio contra detentionem libertie or freedome against detayning or holding the newenesse against the oldnes the spirit against the letter Gorrhan Quest. 9. How S. Paul beeing brought vp in the knowledge of the law could say I knew not lust 7. and I was aliue without the law v. 9. 1. The occasion of this question is because elswhere the Apostle professeth his integrity as Philip. 3.6 touching the righteousnesse which is in the law I was vnreproouable and Act. 23.1 he saith I haue in all good conscience serued God vnto this day how then could he be ignorant of the law or be without the law Ans. 1. It may be answered that either S. Paul spake of his first age in the time of his childhood when he knew not the law or he speaketh figuratiuely in the person of an other But neither of these is likely not the first for the things which the Apostle here toucheth show the law wrought in him all manner of concupiscence are not incident into the age of children or vnexperienced young men nor the other for thoroughout this whole chapter the
the law wrought in him all manner of concupiscence supposeth some to haue beene before 3. Hierome epist. 121 and Origen following him do take this for the time of childhood for then sinne is dead because they haue no knowledge of it for if a child smite his father or mother it is counted no fault and when they come to yeares of discretion sinne reviveth But the reviuing of sinne sheweth that it liued before which cannot be said of children that sinne first liued and afterward died and then reviued againe 4. Augustine lib. 1. contr 2. epistol Pelag. thus vnderstandeth the Apostle that before the lawe of Moses was giuen man is said to haue liued as without lawe and sinne then to haue beene dead because it was not perfectly knowne before the lawe was giuen so also Chrysostome Haymo But if all this be referred to the time before the lawe was giuen Paul could not haue giuen instance in himselfe as he doth 5. Wherefore S. Pauls meaning is that he was aliue without the lawe that is vinere miâ—ividebar I seemed to be aliue vnto my selfe when as yet beeing a Pharisie he had not full vnderstanding of the lawe then sinne also seemed to be dead because as yet he did not feele the burthen of sinne nor his conscience did not pricke him while he contented himselfe with the outward obseruation of the lawe thus Pareus Osiander Beza Calvin And further it is here to be considered that there is a twofold death of sinne non vera a death not in truth when sinne lurketh onely and lyeth hid and sheweth not it selfe of this the Apostle speaketh here and there is mors vera a true death of sinne when we truely die vnto sinne in Christ which death the Apostle treated of before c. 6. Quest. 18. How sinne is said to haue reuiued 1. Origen here maketh mention of the error of the Pythagorian heretikes who imagine that the soules of men liued before in the bodies some of birds some of beasts when they liued as it were without a lawe and so sinne is said to reviue in the soule But this is a grosse error for in those creatures which haue no reason sinne cannot be said to liue or haue any beeing at all and therefore not to reviue 2. Bucer seemeth thus to vnderstand it that sinne liued before that is qualis coram Deâ— erat apparuit it appeared such as it was before God but now it is said to reuiue because it is made knowne to vs but the liuing and reliuing or reuiuing of sinne must be vnderstood in respect of the sinne 3. The most doe vnderstand it simply without any relation a former life of sinne capa apparere it beganne to appeare gloss ordinar interlin apparnit delictum esse it appeared to be sinne Theophylact incepit vires explicare Mart. it began to shewe the strength which sense is not much to be misliked 4. Some haue here reference vnto the first knowledge of sinne which Adam had after his transgression as Augustine vixerat aliquando in Paradiso quando contra datum praceptum satis apparebat admissum c. it liued sometime in Paradise when it sufficiently appeared by the transgression of the commandement c. but afterward it lieth as dead in children till they come to the knowledge of the law then peccatum in notitia 〈◊〉 hominis reviviscit quod in notitia primi hominis aliquando vixerat sin reviveth in the knowledge of man that is borne which sometime was aliue in the knowledge of the first man c. to this purpose August lib. 1. ad Bonifac. c. 9. which sense Pareus followeth likewise Tolet. Haymo addeth further that sinne liued not onely in Adam but in Cain who said his sinne was greater then could be forgiuen but it died in their posteritie which came vnto that error that they thought that to be no sinne which was sinne But seeing the Apostle speaketh of the reviving of sinne in himselfe we must not goe further then the Apostle to seeke out this first life of sinne 5. Wherefore as Beza well obserueth a threefold state and condition of the Apostles life is here to be considered when he liued sub ignorantiam legis vnder the ignorance of the law that sinne raigned afterward he liued sub cognitione legis vnder the knowledge of the law but onely of the outward letter obseruing the externall works onely of the law whereas he before made conscience of no sinne at this time sinne seemed to be dead he pleased himselfe in his outward obedience then he came to the sight of his sinne and so he died his conscience accused him that he was worthie of eternall death Quest. 19. How sinne is said to haue deciued v. 11. 1. The meaning is not as Methodius and Ambrose likewise Haymo that the deuill seduced Adam for not Adam but Eue was seduced as Saint Paul saith 1. Tim. 2.2 but the deceitfulnes of sinne consisteth herein 1. inducitur error practicus there is brought in a practicall error that the sinner is deceiued by the pleasantnes of the obiect thinking that to be good which is euill Tolet annot 14. as Eue was deceiued by the pleasantnes of the apple 2. operit laqueum peccati it hideth the poison and not the sinne Hugo it sheweth the baite and hideth the hooke 3. cogitationem auertit à supplicijs it turneth aside our cogitation from the punishment of sinne and perswadeth a man that either the sinne is not so great and shall haue either no punishment or but a small and so it bringeth a man to vnbeleefe not to giue credit to the word of God who threatneth sinners as the Deuill first perswaded Eva that she should not die at all Martyr 3. Some will haue this word expounded non de re ipsa sed de notitia not of the thing it selfe but of the knowledge that at length he perceiued how farre he had beene deceiued and lead out of the way Hyper. But it rather sheweth the proper effect of sinne taking occasion by the law which is to deceiue the other to acknowledge our error is the effect of the law and not of sinne as Pellican well vnderstandeth here sinne taking occasion by the law doth draw vs out of the way as a sicke man taketh occasion to act those things which are forbidden ex mandato medici by the charge giuen by the Physitian to the contrarie 4. Then the Apostle sheweth three effects of sinne taking occasion by the law first it deceiueth then it worketh all manner of concupiscence and then it killeth it bringeth death to the soule Mart. so impostura causa est concupiscentiae c. imposture or deceit is the cause of concupiscence and concupiscence of death Oecumen Thus euery man is tempted seduced and entised by his concupiscence as S. Iames saith 1.14 Quest. 20. How sinne is said to haue staine him 1. Not occisum me esse ostendit it sheweth that I was staiue and dead by the law
statutes that were not good Gorrhan here answereth that they were good in themselues but became euill ipsorum vitio by their fault Iunius vnderstandeth that place of the hard iudiciall laws and sentences of death both ordinarie and extraordinarie But rather it is referred to the ceremoniall laws which were as a yoke and burthen laid vpon the people which they were not able to beare as S. Peter expoundeth Act. 15.10 Quest. 23. How the lawe is said to be spirituall 1. Origen thinketh it is called spirituall because it must be vnderstood not literally but spiritually But the Apostle treateth here of the morall lawe where was no place for allegories 2. Theodoret because it was giuen of God who is a spirit 3. Ambrose because the lawe directed vs to the worship of God who is a most pure spirit 4. Augustine because it cannot be fulfilled nisi à viris spiritualibus but of spirituall men but no man in this life is so spirituall that he can keep the law 5. Thomas because concordat cum spiritu hominis it agreeth with the spirit of man that is reason so also Lyranus because it directeth man to followe the instinct of the spirit or reason so also Gorrhan spiritum hominis aleus it nourisheth the spirit of man But the verie spirit of man is corrupt and contrarie to the law by nature and therefore the Apostle saith Ephes. 4.23 be renewed in the spirit of your mind 6. Pet. Martyr giueth this reason why it is called spirituall because it requireth not onely the externall obedience in the outward workes but the spirituall in the heart and affections 7. But hereunto it may be added that it is spirituall because it requireth a spirituall that is a perfect obedience both in bodie and soule and an angelicall and diuine obedience to followe vertue and shunne vice so Chrysostome and Theophylact and Calvin Pareus Osiand following them 8. that seemeth to be somewhat curious which the ordinar gloss here obserueth that the Lawe is onely called spirituall because therein are those things quae Dit sunt which are Gods but the Gospel is called lex spiritus the lawe of the spirit because there Deus ipse est God himselfe is Quest. 24. How the Apostle saith he is carnall and sold vnder sinne v. 17. 1. Pererius well obserueth here that one may be said to be carnall two waies quia serâ—â— carni because he serueth the flesh or he which by reason of his corrupt nature procliuis est is prone vnto concupiscence to this purpose Pareus that in the first sense the vnregenerate are said to be carnall in the other the regenerate because they are yet infirmitatibus abnoxque subiect to infirmities quia nondums habent spirituale corpus because they haue not yet a spirituall bodie freed from all infirmities such as they shall haue in the resurrection August lib. ad Bonifac. c. 10. so we haue inchoatam non plenam liberationem a deliuerance begunne in Christ but not yet perfect till our last enemie death shall be destroied 2. Likewise where the Apostle saith he was sold 1. Some take the word properly for such a selling wherein there is a buyer a thing sold and a price which they referre either vnto Adams selling himselfe to the deuill for an apple Lyran. gloss ordinar or to a mans selling of himselfe by his actuall sinnes for the sweetnesse of pleasure which is as the price which men sell themselues to the deuill for Tolet. annot 16. Gorrhan But in this sense S. Paul beeing a spirituall and regenerate man cannot be said to be sold. 2. wherefore this metaphor is not largely to be taken as when Ahab is said to haue sold himselfe to worke wickednes 1. King 21.25 for there are two kinds of slaues one that selleth himselfe into captiuitie and willingly obeyeth a tyrant or one which against his will is brought into servitude as Ioseph was sold by his brethren into captiuitie and this is S. Pauls case here Pareus And Augustine noteth that sometime selling in Scripture is taken for a simple tradition or deliuering ouer without any price lib. 7. in Iudic. c. 17. and so indeed the Hebrew word machar signifieth as well to deliuer as to sell as Isay 52.3 the Israelites are said to be sold for naught and the Lord will redeeme them for naught But these two are said in a diuerse sense Men are said to be sold for naught in respect of God he receiueth no honour but rather dishonour by their selling ouer vnto sinne they are redeemed for naught in Christ in respect of themselues because they gaue nothing for their redemption but yet in respect of Christ and his price they were not redeemed for naught but by the most pretious blood of Christ Mart. Pererius thinketh they are said to be redeemed for naught comparatively because that momentarie pleasure for the which a sinner selleth himselfe is nothing to the price and dignitie of his soule numer 72. but rather selling is here taken for a plaine deliuering ouer as is before shewed out of Augustine Now two waies are the regenerate sold ouer to sinne in respect of their originall corruption and of their carnall infirmities which remaine still in their corrupt nature to the which they are subiect still Pareus but the vnregenerate are said to be sold ouer as Ahab was because they giue themselues wholly ouer vnto sinne Beza doth well expresse these two kinds of seruitude or selling ouer by the like difference in humane servitude for some are slaves because they are borne of serâ—ile and bond parents others make themselues bond like vnto the first are the regenerate and the vnregenerate as the second Quest. 25. Of these words v. 15. I allow not what I doe what I would that doe I not 1. Chrysostome thinking that the Apostle speaketh this in the person of an vnregenerate man referreth this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know not or vnderstand nor to the vnderstanding not that a sinner knoweth not when he sinneth sed tenebrosa quadaÌ„ vertigine obvoluor but I am ouertaken with a kind of dizines that I know not how I was ouertaken so also Origen non rem ipsam sed causam rei dicitur ignorare he is said not to know not the thing but the cause thereof that is how and by what means he came to sinne But it is euident by the words following what I would c. that the Apostle speaketh of his will rather then vnderstanding 2. Pererius likewise inclining to thinke that this is spoken in the person of a carnall man will haue this vnderstood of a generall and vniversall knowledge will and hatred that men in generall knowe and will vertue and hate vice but not in particular But the Apostle here speaketh of doing and not doing which must be referred to particular actions 3. Augustine verie well interpreteth non agnosco I know not that is non approbo non consentio I approoue not consent not
homines à coelestium meditatione retrahit which draweth spirituall men from the meditation of heauenly things but the Apostle spake before of the combate betweene the flesh and the spirit and they are not all carnall which are occupied in the necessarie affaires of this life 6. Tolet ioyning the pronoune this vnto death not vnto the bodie reading thus from the bodie of this death will haue reference to be made vnto the tyrannie of the lawe of concupiscence whereof he spake before but the pronoune is better ioyned to bodie as the Syrian interpreter Erasmus and Beza well obserue for of his flesh and members he spake before but of death he made no mention This demonstrative then this is better referred to bodie 7. Wherefore the Apostle calling his present state out of the which he desireth to be deliuered this bodie of death ioyneth both mortalitie and sinne together he meaneth his mortall bodie subiect to sinne as Hierome expoundeth quod morti perturbationibus est oppositum which is opposed to death and perturbations apolog advers Ruffin and so Beza the Apostle by the bodie designeth carneam corporis molem the fleshie masse of the bodie which is nothing else but mussa mortis peccati a lumpe of death and sinne so Origen it is called the bodie of death in quo habitat peccatum quod est mortis causa wherein sinne dwelleth which is the cause of death 8. And this deliuerance which the Apostle longeth for is not the spirituall deliuerance in this life from the captiuitie of sinne as Tolet but the finall deliuerance from the bondage of mortalitie and corruption which we looke for in the resurrection as Augustine expoundeth lib. 1. cont epist. Pelag. c. 11. and so the Apostles meaning is non finiri hoc confluctus c. that these conflicts cannot be ended as long as we carrie this mortall bodie about with vs Pareus And here we may consider a threefold state of mans bodie the one in Paradise cum non potuit mori when it was in mans power if he had not sinned not to die at all vnder the state and condition of sinne where non potest non mori he cannot but die a necessitie of death is laid vpon all Adams posteritie vnder the state of glorie non possumus mori we cannot die we shall be exempted from the condition of all mortalitie Pererius Quest. 25. Why the Apostle giueth thanks to God ver 25. 1. There is some difference in the reading of these words the Latine interpreter thus readeth the grace of God thorough Iesus Christ so also Origen before who maketh it an answear to the former words of the Apostle who shall deliuer 〈◊〉 likewise Augustine followeth this reading serm 45. de tempor but all the Greek copies haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I giue thankes and the Apostle did not aske the question before who should deliuer him but suspirat potâ—â—s be sigheth and sheweth his desire to be deliuered Beza 2. For the meaning of the words 1. some thinke that the Apostle giueth thanks for his redemption in Christ Mart. that he is deliuered à reatu peccati from the guilt of sinne originall and actuall Roloch and that his sinnes are not imputed Osiander and before them Oecumenius quod me liberavit per mortem filij that he hath deliuered me by the death of his Sonne But this deliverance the Apostle had alreadie obtained he speaketh in the future sense who shall deliuer me 2. Theophylact referreth it to the former benefit quod viriliter adversatur peccato that he did manfully resist sinne which strength he had not either by the law of nature or by the law of Moses but by grace in Christ So also Pareus thinketh the Apostle doth giue thankes that he doth not succumbere in certamine sed vincere giue ouer in this combate but at the length ouercommeth But the Apostle wisheth yet a further deliuerance which as yet he had not because he speaketh of the time not to come who shall deliuer me and yet he giueth thankes for it as enioying the fame in hope 3. Tolet and Pererius thinke that the Apostle giueth thankes that he was deliuered from concupiscence quod non mentem trahit in consensum that it did not draw his mind to consent and so he was deliuered from it as it was malum culpae as there was sinne or fault in it that is to consent vnto it but not as it was malum poenae a punishment that is concupiscere to couet or desire simply without assent so also Lyranus But if the Apostle did not sometime thorough his infirmitie giue consent vnto his concupiscence how could he say it did lead him captiue vnto the law of sinne more it is prooued at large afterward that the commandement thou shalt not lust whereof the Apostle confesseth himselfe a transgressor v. 7.18 doth not onely restraine the first motions of concupiscence which haue not the consent of the will but the second also which haue controv 8.4 Vatablus will haue this thanksgiuing to be referred to the deliuerance which the Apostle expected in the life to come 5. But it is better to ioyne them together as Augustine doth serm 45. de tempor the grace of God nunc perfecte innovat hominem c. doth now perfectly renew a man by deliuering him from all his sinnes ad corporis immortalitatem perducit and bringeth him also to the immortalitie of the bodie Lyranus likewise comprehendeth both these deliuerances that both the regenerate are here deliuered from their sinnes and in the next life shall be freed from all corruption as the Apostle saith Philip. 3.21 Who shall change our vile bodie that it may be fashioned like vnto his glorious bodie so Chrysostome saith the Apostle giueth thanks quod non solum principibus malis liberamur sed eoruÌ„ quae futura sunt capaces facti sumus that we are not onely deliuered from the former euills namely our sinnes but are made capable of the good things to come thus also Pellican the Saints reioyce se primitijs spiritus donatos c. that they are endued with the first fruits of the spirit which giue them certaine hope of the inheritance to come and Beza the Apostle sheweth that he resteth in that hope quam habet in Christo fundatam which he hath grounded on Christ. 35. Quest. Of these words I in my minde serue the law of God c. 1. By the mind the Apostle vnderstandeth the inner man reformed by grace by the flesh the part vnregenerate so that in this speach of the Apostle a double figure is to be admitted first a metonymie in that the subiect is taken for the adiunct the minde for the sanctitie and holines wrought in the minde by grace as Vatablus well interpreteth secundum spiritum meum doctum à spiritu sancto in my spirit taught by the holy spirit and the flesh for the carnall sensualitie whereby it is lead there is also a
he be called a man of desires that is beloued and excepted of God yet had his sinnes which he confessed in his owne name and person as Dauid is said to be a man after Gods owne heart yet he had his sinnes and imperfections Arguments for the affirmatiue part that S. Paul speaketh in his owne person as of a man regenerate First these two points must be premised that the Apostle speaketh of himselfe not of another still continuing his speach in the first person I am carnall I will I consent I delight and so throughout that it should be a great forcing of the Apostles speach to make him to speake of another and not of himselfe secondly the Apostle from the 14. v. to the end speaketh of his present state who was then regenerate as may appeare because while he was yet vnder the law he speaketh as of the time past v. 9. I was aliue and v. 10. sinne seduced me but from the 14. v. he speaketh of the time present I am carnall and so throughout to the end of the chapter Argum. 1. Hence then is framed our first reason the Apostle speaketh of himselfe as he then was because he speaketh in the present tence but then he was a man regenerate Ergo. Theophylact answereth the Apostle saith I serue v. 15. that is serviebam I did serue Contra. As the Apostle saith I serue so he saith I delight in the law of God v. 22. and in this verse 25. I thanke God c. which immediately goe before the other I serue but those words must be vnderstood as they are vttered of the time present therefore the other also Argum. 2. Gregorie vrgeth these words v. 18. to will is present with me he that saith he will per infusionem gratiae quae in se iam lateant semina ostendit doth shew what seede lyeth hid in him by the infusion of grace lib. 29. moral c. 15. Ans. Euen the vnregenerate by nature doe will that is good they may imperfecte velle 〈◊〉 siue gratia in peccato imperfectly will that is good without grace euen in the state of sinne Tolet. in tractat c. 9. Contra. There is bonum naturale morale spirituale that which is naturally good morally good spiritually good the first one by nature may desire as bâ—ute beasts doe the same and therein they doe neither good nor euill the second also in some sort as the heathen followed after morall vertues but they did it not without sinne because they had no faith but that which is spiritually good the carnall haue no mind at all vnto for it is God which worketh both the will and the deed Phil. 2.13 Argum. 3. Augustine presseth these words v. 17. It is not I that doe it but sinne that dwelleth in mee this is not vox peccatoris sed iusti the voice of a sinner but of a righteous man lib. 1. cont 2. epist. Pelag. c. 10. Ans. A sinner may be said not to doe euill not because he doth not consent vnto it but because he is not onely mooued of himselfe but drawen by his concupiscence Tolet. ibid. Contra. There is nothing in a man to giue consent vnto any action but either his spirituall or carnall part but in the vnregenerate there is nothing spirituall but all is naturall therfore whatsoeuer such an one doth he wholly consenteth he himselfe is not one thing and his sinne another to giue consent but he is wholly mooued and lead of sinne Argum. 4. Augustine addeth further the Apostle thus beginneth the 8. chapter there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus which words follow as inferred vpon the other which sheweth that the Apostle spake before of those which were in Christ Iesus Ans. Nay rather those words following vpon the other who shall deliuer me c. which the Apostle vttereth of a man not yet deliuered or freed from his sinne and maketh answer the grace of God c. shew that he spake before as of our not beeing in the state of grace Tolet. ibid. Contra. 1. It is the bondage of corruption which the Apostle desireth to be deliuered from as is shewed before qu. 33. neither doth the Apostle answer the grace of God c. but I giue thankes to God as likewise hath beene declared qu. 34. before but one not in the state of grace cannot giue thanks vnto God therefore the immediate connexion of these words c. 8. sheweth that he spake before of those which are in Christ. Argum. 5. Further Augustine thus reasoneth a carnall man cannot delight in the law of God in the inner man as Saint Paul doth neither indeed is there any inner man that it regenerate and renewed in those which are carnall Pareus Ans. 1. The vnregenerate may delight in the law as Herod did and it is nothing else but velle bonum to will that which is good Tolet. ibid. and they haue also the inner man which is the mind as the outward man is the bodie Contra. 1. The carnall cannot delight in the law but they hate it as Psal. 50.17 this hatest to be reformed and hast cast my words behind thee Herod gaue care to Iohn Baptist not of loue but for feare for afterward he put him to death Hypocrits and carnall men may stand in some awe and feare a while but it is not of loue nor in truth or from the heart 2. the inner part is that with spirituall and renewed but in the wicked their verie mind is defiled Tit. 1.15 therefore in them there is no inner man see before qu. 26. Argum. 6. The Apostle desireth to be deliuered from his corruptible and sinfull bodie hoping then for perfect libertie but in the resurrection the carnall shall haue no such libertie they shall rise to greater miserie Augustine Ans. The deliuerance there spoken of is by iustification from sinne not in the resurrection Tolet. ibid. Contra. The Apostle euidently speaketh of beeing deliuered from this bodie of death that is his mortall bodie which shall not be till the resurrection Argu. 7. The children of God that are regenerate do onely find in themselues the fight combate betweene the spirit and flesh Gala. 5.17 as the Apostle doth here v. 22. Pareus Argum. 8. The vnregenerate doe not vse to giue thanks vnto God but they sacrifice to their owne net as the Prophet saith Hab. 1.16 they giue the praise to themselues But S. Paul here giueth thankes Faius Argum. 9. No man but by the spirit of God can hate and disalow that which is committed against the law of God as the Apostle doth here v. 15. Hyperius Argum. 10. To what end should the Apostle thus at large shew the effects and end of the law for their cause qui prorsus sunt à Deo alieni which are altogether straungers from God and care not for his law Faius by these and such like reasons it is concluded that S. Paul speaketh in the person of a man regenerate Quest. 37.
Whether S. Paul was troubled with the tentations of the flesh and with what 1. S. Paul was before his calling tempted and carried away with diuerse lusts as he confesseth Tit. 3.3 then giuing consent vnto them following theÌ„ with delight after his calling he felt also the pricking and stirring of his flesh but it had not dominion ouer him as before as here the Apostle sheweth how he did finde the lawe of his members rebelling against the law of his minde and spirit and these temptations of the flesh the Lord suffered the Apostle to be troubled with least he should be extolled by reason of his other excellent gifts as he himselfe sheweth 2. Cor. 12.7 whereupon Gregory well saith custos virtutis infirmitas infirmitie is the gardian and keeper of vertue ad ima pertrahit caro ne extollat spiritus ad alta sustollit spiritus ne prosternat caro the flesh draweth vs downe that the spirit lift vs not vp and the spirit doth reare vs vp that the flesh should not altogether cast vs downe lib. 19. Moral c. 4. 2. But whereas the Apostle saith There was giuen vnto me the pricke of the flesh c. 2. Cor. 12.7 1. neither thereby is signified the afflictions and griefes which the persecutors put his bodie vnto as Chrysost. Theodoret. 2. or the paine of the head gloss ordinar or the cholike as Lyranus or some other such bodily infirmitie which would haue much hindered the Apostle in his ministerie 3. nor yet much lesse was this pricke the lust of his flesh as Hierome thinketh epist. 22. and Haymo so also Pererius disput 23. for it is not like that Pauls bodie beeing tamed and kept vnder with fastings watchings labour had any such fleshy desire 4. But hereby is better to vnderstand omne tentationum genus c. euery kind of carnall temptation wherewith S. Paul was exercised Calvin Beza 4. Places of Doctrine Doct. 1. All things fall out to the wicked for their hurt v. 8. Sinne tooke occasion by the commandement Pet. Mart. hereupon well observeth that all things to the vnregenerate fall out vnto euill for if the lawe doe giue advantage to sinne which is holy iust and good of it selfe how much are other things turned to their hurt as all things to them that loue God fall out to their good Rom. 8.28 Doct. 2. Of the necessarie vse of the lawe v. 8. Without the lawe sinne is dead That is it lyeth hid and is vnknowne hence both Pareus and Piscator note concionem legis in Ecclesia necessariam that the preaching of the lawe is necessarie in the Church that sinne may be knowne and come to light and thus the lawe by reuealing our sinne is a schoolmaster to lead vs to Christ Galat. 3.19 to finde righteousnesse in him which we haue not in our selues Doct. 3. Of the effects of the lawe v. 9. When the commandement came sinne reuived There are 3. effects of the lawe here expressed by the Apostle two it bringeth forth of it selfe the manifestation of sinne and thereupon the sentence of death the third it worketh not of it selfe but accidentally namely the encrease of sinne through the perversnes of mans nature which striueth against that which is forbidden Par. Doct. 4. Of a fiuefold state of man v. 23. I see an other law in my members c. 1. In Paradise man had naturall concupiscence but without disorder or rebellion against the mind 2. before the law concupiscence rebelled against reason and without resistance 3. vnder the law men resisted concupiscence but could not vanquish it 4. vnder grace they striue against it and preuaile 5. in heauen these shall be no concupiscence at all Perer. disput 17. Doct. 5. How death is to be desired v. 24. Who shall deliuer me S. Paul desireth to be dissolued to make an ende of sinne and thus death may be wished for as the onely remedie of our miserie the wicked doe oftentimes desire death but it is rather vitae fastidio quam impietatis taedio for that they are wearie of their life not of sinne Calvin 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. Against Purgatorie v. 1. The Law hath dominion ouer a man as long as he liueth This sheweth the presumption of the Pope who taketh vpon him to prescribe lawes and rules vnto those which are dead and their soules as they imagine in purgatorie for no lawe imposed vpon the liuing doth bind them when they are dead and concerning the authoritie of man it determineth in this life Matth. 10.28 Feare not them which kill the bodie and are not able to kill the soule the Pope then is no more able to free and absolue the soule after death then he is to kill and condemne it Controv. 2. Of the lawfulnes of second marriage v. 2. If the man be dead she is deliuered from the law of the man Hence the lawfulnes of second marriage is prooued for if the woman be free when the man is dead and so likewise the man then is it lawfull for them to marrie againe for now they are as though they neuer had beene bound Hierome then herein was deceiued who seemeth to speake hardly of second marriages though in words he will not condemne them for he saith that a woman marrying after the first marriage doth not differ much from an harlot lib. 1. cont Iovinian and they which are twice maried he compareth to the vncleane beasts in Noahs arke But Hierome is to be pardoned this ouersight who too much extolling virginitie which he confesseth he had lost himselfe ad Eduoch was caried away in heate and passion so to â—â—iâ—e of second marriages 2. The Romanists though they dare not condemne second marriages simply yet in that they denied such to be admitted to orders as haue beene twice married they shew what base conceit they haue thereof Pererius to helpe this matter saith that S. Paul would a Bishop to be the husband of one wife not because he condemned second marriages sed quod â—â— maximè ducebat dignitatem sacramentum Episcopi c. but because it best become the dignitie and sacrament Episcopall to be the husband of one wife as Christ is the spouse of one Church c. disput 1. num 2. Contra. 1. S. Paul meaneth such as had but one wife at one time not one after an other for there were many in those daies which were newly conuerted from Iudaisme that had more then one wife at once for among the Iewes it was tolerated and euen by their owne decrees he was counted infamous qui duas simul vxores habet which had two wiues at once decret Gregor lib. 1. tit 21. c. 4. not he which had two one after an other see 〈◊〉 elswhere Synops. Cent. 1. err 78. 2. A dignitie Episcopall we acknowledge but no Sacrament for Christ instituted onely two baptisme and the Eucharist which answer vnto the two principall Sacraments of the old Testament Circumcision and the Paschal lambe 3.
dutie vnto God in louing him with all our heart and strength and in obeying of his will is sinne but this doth concupiscence for it hindered the Apostle v. 19. I doe not that good thing which I would Ans. Pererius answereth that concupiscence doth not hinder vs from louing of God doing of his will so far as we are bound to this life for God may be loued with all the heart two wayes one is modus perfectionis the way of perfection which is when the heart actually loueth nothing but God and thus God shall be loued onely in heauen the other way is so farre as it bindeth a man in this life when the heart is habitually inclined vnto God so that it admit nothing against it as this kind of loue is not hindered as he saith by the first motions of concupiscence to the same purpose he alleadgeth Thomas that a precept is two wayes fulfilled the one is perfectly quando pervenitur ad finem when we attaine vnto the ende intended by him which giueth the precept the other imperfectly cum non receditur ab ordine ad finem when we depart not from the way which leadeth to the ende as when the captaine biddeth his souldiours fight to obtaine the victorie he which fighteth and hath the victorie perfitly fulfilleth his will he also which fighteth and doth his best doth his will also though he get not the victorie the first kind of fulfilling the precept shall be in patria in our countrey the other is in via in the way Contra. 1. We grant that there shall be a greater perfection of obedience in the next life then can be attained vnto here but euen that perfect obedience is propounded vnto vs here and required of vs Matth. 5.28 Ye shall be perfect as your heauenly father is perfect whereupon Augustine cur non praeciperetur in hac vita ista perfectio c. why should not this perfection be commanded euen in this life though no man can attaine vnto it here non 〈◊〉 recte curritur c. for we cannot runne right if it be vnknowne whether we should runne c. lib. de spirit liter c. vltim And seeing Christs righteousnesse and obedience of the lawe was most perfect and he came to performe that which was required of vs it followeth that God in the strict rule of his iustice required of vs perfect obedience which not to performe is sinne 2. If God doe command the ende as our perfection then he which commeth short and faileth of the ende fulfilleth not the commandement as if the souldier be commanded not to giue ouer till he haue the victorie breaketh his generalls charge if he get not the superioritie of the enemie And he which misseth of the ende must needes also recedere ab ordine ad finem faile in the meanes to the ende for otherwise he might atchieue the ende 3. And that concupiscence hindreth our obedience euen in this life the Apostle sheweth v. 19. I doe not the good thing which I would 3. Argum. The Apostle directly calleth euen concupiscence wherewith he is vnwilling sinne v. 20. If I doe that I would not it is no more I that doe it but the sinne that dwelleth in me Ergo it is sinne Answ. Pererius answeareth that it is called sinne either because it is effectus peccati the effect of sinne as the writing is called the hand because it was written with the hand or because it bringeth forth sinne as frigus cold is called pigrum slouthfull because it maketh one so Contra. 1. But that is properly and truely sinne which causeth death for death came in by sinne as the Apostle saith of concupiscence that it slue him and was vnto him the cause of death v. 10.11 2. S. Augustine also confesseth that concupiscence is not onely poena peccati the punishment of sinne and causa peccati the cause of sinne sed ipsum peccatum but sinne it selfe Pererius answeareth that Augustine vnderstandeth not peccatum morale a morall sinne but vitium naturae corruptae a fault or vice of our corrupt nature as the vices in the bodie as blindnes or deafenes are called peccata seu errata naturae the faults or errors of nature because they are against the integritie and perfection of the nature of the bodie so the rebelling of the carnall concupiscence against the lawe of reason is against the integritie and perfection of the soule and so an error of nature Contra. 1. We grant that there are naturall faults both in the soule as forgetfulnesse ignorance dulnesse of vnderstanding in the bodie weakenesse infirmitie blindnesse and such like which are the fruits and effects of sinne but not sinne themselues but concupiscence is none of that kind for all these infirmities are effects and passions but the concupiscence rebelling against the minde is actiue and working and Augustine himselfe giueth a reason why he calleth it sinne quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis because there is in it disobedience against the lawe of the minde gouerned by grace so that it disobeyeth not only the law of the mind but resisteth the motions of the spirit now all disobedience to the will of God is sinne 2. and that it is not naturall but a morall and spirituall sinne appeareth by the effects because it causeth the spirituall death of the soule Argument 4. Vnlesse the precept Thou shall not lust did prohibite the verie first motions that haue not the consent of the will then should there be no difference betweene this and the other precepts which doe condemne also ipsos prauos affectos the euill affections as of wrath enuie in the sixt of lust and carnall desire to the which the will is inclined in the seauenth so then this commandement ipsos appetitus quibus titillamur doth condemne the verie appetite which tickleth vs though it haue not our consent Calvin Pererius answereth that the other commandements onely prohibite ipsos externos actus the eternall acts of stealing committing adulterie and such like numer 58. Contra. 1. Our Blessed Sauiour confuteth him who Matth. 5. sheweth how in the former commandements the verie affections and inward purposes are restrained as of anger in the sixt thou shalt not kill of lusting after a woman in the heart in the seauenth thou shalt not commit adulterie 2. yea Pererius confuteth himselfe confessing afterward numer 60. praeceptis illis legalibus â—on solum externa peccata c. in those legall precepts not the externall workes of sinne onely to be prohibited but the verie inward concupiscence But we haue staied somewhat to long in this controuersie Controv. 9. That the commandement Thou shalt not lust is but one 1. The Romane catechisme which the Romanists generally follow deuide the last commandement into two the first forbidding the coueting of things of pleasure as the neighbours wife the other things of profit as our neighbours house and goods and they make the two first commandements thou shalt
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
is to shewe what Christ hath wrought for vs not what he did against his aduersaries 5. Socinus will haue the meaning to be no more but this that Christ did not satisfie by his death for sinne but exauthoravit abolevit he did abolish sinne and take away the power and authoritie thereof for he came to doe that which the lawe could not doe which was not to punish and condemne sinne for that the lawe could doe but to deliuer vs from the seruitude of sinne Socinus part 2. c. 23. p. 195. Contra. 1. True it is that Christ by his death hath also abolished the kingdome of sinne that it shall no longer raigne in his members but first it was abolished by the sacrifice of Christs death who bare the punishment of our sinne in himselfe and this is the proper sense of the word to condemne that is inflict the punishment of sinne as in this chapter v. 34. who shall condemne vs so before c. 2. 1. c. 5.16 2. S. Paul doth not so much shew what Christ came to doe namely that the law could not doe but the reason why he came to doe it because the law could not by reason of the weaknes of our flesh 3. the law indeede did condemne and punish sinne but by the law euery one was to beare his owne sinne the law could not appoint one to beare the punishment for all as Christ did whose sufferings are made ours by faith 6. Some of our owne writers doe vnderstand this condemning of sinne of the abolishing of the kingdome thereof and of our sanctification and regeneration Bucer Musculu◠these differ both from the Papists whose opinion is set downe before that is who make regeneration a part of iustification the other a consequent onely and effect thereof and the Papists differ from Socinus opinion who presupposeth no satisfaction at all to be made for our sinnes by the death of Christ But yet these words can not properly be referred to the condemning of sinne in vs by the worke of regeneration for this Christ did in his flesh or by his flesh not in carne i. homine in the flesh that is man as Lyranus 7. Wherefore the meaning indeede is that Christ in his flesh beeing made a sacrifice for vs vpon the crosse did beare the punishment due vnto our sinne God condēned sinne in the flesh of his Sonne that is poenas peccato debitas exegit he did exact the punishment due vnto our sinne Pareus and by condemning it in the death of his Sonne hath freed vs from condemnation This to be the meaning 1. the vse of the word to condemne sheweth touched before 2. the scope of the Apostle which is to shew that there is no condemnation to those which are in Christ because Christ hath himselfe freed them therefrom by bearing the punishment of sinne 3. the consent of other places of Scripture prooue the same as Gal. 3.13 Christ hath redeemed vs from the curse of the law beeing made a curse for vs and 1. Pet. 2.24 Himselfe bare our sinnes in his bodie on the tree And thus diuers of the fathers expound this of Christs death as Chrysostome eo quod mortuus est peccatum vicit condemnavit in that he died he ouercame and condemned death and Origen per hostiam cornis c. by the sacrifice of his flesh he condemned sinne in the flesh 8. The other sense which the Greeke scholiast followeth that sinne was condemned in Christs flesh quia illam peccato inanem servavit because he kept it free from sinne and so internecio peccati est punitio the killing of sinne is the punishment thereof though it be also found and very comfortable yet it is not here so fit because it is said that God sending his Sonne condemned sinne in the flesh so that it is better referred to the suffering of Christ then to his actiue obedience Quest. 8. Who are after the flesh and sauour the things of the flesh v. 5. 1. Origens sense is here reiected who vnderstandeth the Iewes which carnally vnderstand the lawe them he will to be after the spirit which did follow the spirituall sense of the law for in all this discourse S. Paul treateth specially of the morall lawe of Moses as he gaue instance in the tenth precept thou shalt not lust c. 7.8 2. Nor yet as Tolet annot 15. with other Romanists must we vnderstand spiritum nationalem seu mentem the reason or mind for euen the mind in carnall men is carnall qua carnea sunt mente volutant they doe in their minde thinke of carnall things they haue mentem carneam a fleshly minde Theophyl and Chrysostome saith that a carnall life totem hominem carnem facit maketh the whole man flesh and if we giue our minde to the spirit ipsam spiritualem efficiemus we shall also make it spirituall to walke after the spirit is then to be guided by the grace of Gods spirit Theodor. 3. Sometime to be in the flesh signifieth to remaine in the bodie as 2. Cor. 10.3 though we walke in the flesh we doe not warre after the flesh sometime euen the regenerate are saide to be carnall in respect of that part which is in them carnall and vnregenerate but here it is taken in an other sense for them which are altogether lead by their carnall affections affectus carnis malitians dixit affectus spiritus gratiam the affectious of the flesh he calleth the malice thereof the affections of the spirit grace Chrysost. 4. Now carnall things or the things of the flesh are of three sorts Some are good as the knowledge of artes some indifferent as riches honour some euill as the workes of the flesh adulterie drunkennesse so that two wayes men here may erre either in the matter when they followe things in their nature euill as the sinnefull workes of the flesh or in the manner when they folowe things of this world in themselues indifferent but with an euill minde they doe not referre them to the glorie of God But they preferre things temporall Before eternall like as lingua febricitantis infecta cholera c. the tongue of a sicke man infected with choser taketh sweete things for bitter Lyran. neither yet is it vnlawfull for them which are spiritual to be occupied in the things of this life but they must referre all to Gods glorie and preferre things spirituall before externall like as lingua bene disposita a tongue which is not distempered doth iudge rightly of euery tast Quest. 9. How the wisedome of the flesh is enmitie against God 1. Pareus well noteth that the Apostle here vseth not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth prudence it selfe least he should seeme to haue condemned that naturall gift and facultie but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which noteth the act rather and execution of that facultie and he addeth to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the flesh not condemning or reiecting all prudent actions but such as
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
Redeemer and our conuersion and turning to God which conditions God receiueth not of vs but conferreth vpon vs the first without vs the two other he worketh in vs that all may be of grace these things beeing thus promised the contrarie arguments are thus answeared 1. The Apostle speaketh of Gods first decree and purpose to shewe mercie in electing some by his grace which indeede is an absolute act of Gods will without any other motiue and if we vnderstand it of Gods mercie in forgiuenesse of sinne it is his will also it should not be done without Christ Ioh. 6.40 This is his will that euerie one which beleeueth â—â— the Sonne should haue eternall life the argument then followeth not God hath mercie on whom he will therefore without Christ. 2. Therefore God forgiueth sinnes for his owne sake because he forgiueth them for Christ who is the Iehovah and eternall God that forgiueth sinnes 3. Neither are Gods iustice and mercie shewed in the same subiect Gods iustice is seene in the satisfaction of his Sonne but his mercie toward vs. 4. 1. The argument followeth not God can therefore he will 2. neither doth that rule alwaies hold that one may remit of his owne right as much as he will this must be added if it be without wrong done to an other as the Parent cannot remit vnto his child feare and obedience because this is against the lawe of iustice and so against God 3. so in this case God cannot remit sinnes without some satisfaction not in respect of his infinite power but of his iustice which is not to suffer his Maiestie to be violated without iust punishment for this were to denie himselfe 5. 1. Neither is it true that God onely requireth of sinners repentance for the punishment due vnto sinne must be satisfied for which Christ did for vs. 2. neither if innocencie of life were sufficient is it in our power to performe it 3. and further God doth not pardon sinne for that which he requireth of vs it is his mercie in Christ for the which he pardoneth that which he requireth of vs is a condition to be performed by vs not the cause 6. It is false that the faith of Abel and Henoch and of other holy Patriarkes had no relation to Christ for although expresse mention be not made thereof yet alwaies it must be vnderstood for the Apostle saith Coloss. 1.23 that it pleased God by Christ to reconcile all things to himselfe and all the promises in him are yea and Amen 2. Cor. 1.20 therefore the promises made to the fathers were grounded vpon Christ and they were reconciled vnto God by no other way then by faith in him 7. If God had required satisfaction of our selues for sinne then indeede had our sinne beene remembred but although Christ hath satisfied for our sinnes yet to vs they are freely forgiuen and so not remembred any more 8. The Apostle saith Ephes. 4.32 Forgiuing one an other as God for Christs sake forgaue vs though Christ hath satisfied for vs yet God requireth no satisfaction at our hands therefore herein we are to imitate God to forgiue one an others priuate offences without satisfaction as God forgaue vs But in publike offences and ciuill debts this rule holdeth not for if in such trespasses no satisfaction should be made the course of iustice should be perverted 9. The remitting of the debt excludeth all solution and paiment of debt by the partie to whom the debt is remitted and not otherwise and so the Lord requireth not of vs any satisfaction or solution of our debt which is discharged by Christ. The like answear may be made vnto the other obiections 1. God loued the elect with an eternall loue and herein appeared his loue that he sent his Sonne to die for the elect yet in respect of their sinfull estate they had neede of a reconciler so they were eternally beloued in Gods election and yet in respect of their present state God was offended with them as a father that purposeth to make his sonne his heire may yet in the meane time be angrie with him for his misdemenour See before c. 5. coher 7. a more full answear 2. We are saued freely by grace notwithstanding the redemption by Christ as the Apostle sheweth Rom. 3.24 if satisfaction had beene required of vs or if we were to haue ransomed our selues it had not beene freely by grace but now it is 3. God was not delighted in the death of his Sonne in that simply he was put to cruel death but in that thereby all the elect were saued which sheweth not crueltie but mercie in God in accepting the death of one for all 4. Neither was Christ forced the innocent to die for sinners but he willingly offered himselfe to die for vs therein was no tyrannie at all 5. As though God the Father and God the Sonne are not all one in substance the same mercie proceedeth from them both and the Sonne as he is God remitteth not without the satisfaction of the Mediator 6. Eternall death is to be considered in the infinitenesse and greatnes of the torments of soule and bodie and in the eternitie and euerduring thereof Christ did endure the one that is vnspeakeable torments in bodie and soule for vs but not the other because of the dignitie of his person which suffered and the necessitie of the worke of our redemption which he perfected which could not haue beene performed if eternitie of punishment had beene vpon the redeemer inflicted Now how contrarie this blasphemous assertion of these heretikes is to the Scriptures is euerie where euident for there is no truth that hath more plentifull euidence out of the Scriptures then that Christ by his death did satisfie for our sinnes and by faith in him we obtaine remission of our sinnes and not otherwise as Galat. 1.4 Which gaue himselfe for our sinnes that he might deliuer vs from this present euill world Galat. 3.13 Christ hath redeemed vs from the curse of the law when he was made a curse for vs Eph. 1.7 By whom we haue redemption thorough his blood euen the forgiuenes of sinnes 1. Pet. 2.23 Who his owne selfe bare our sinnes in his bodie vpon the tree c. 1. Pet. 3.18 Christ hath once suffered for our sinnes the iust for the vniust that he might bring vs to God c. and an hundreth such places and more may be produced out of the old and new Testament for the confirmation of this truth he that is desirous to see more of this matter I referre him to learned Pareus treatise dub 13. vpon this chapter Controv. 14. Against the maintainers of Vniuersall grace v. 18. He hath mercie on whom he will and whom he will he hardeneth Hence then it is inferred that he hath decreed to haue mercie on some and not vpon others then they are in error which thinke that God doth indifferently offer grace to all and that he hath elected all vnto life if
sacrificing of it so here the Apostle saith exhibite or giue vp there is the oblation then the thing offred is their bodies and they must make it a sacrifice not by slaying it but by mortifying their lusts 3. Pererius observeth fowre things in this sacrifice which were obserued in the legall oblations 1. the sacrifice must be entire and perfect without spot so here it must be a liuing sacrifice 2. it was holy and for euer separated froÌ„ prophane and common vses so it is here prescribed to be holie 3. The sacrifice was consumed vpon the altar and so was a sweete savour vnto God here it is said also acceptable vnto God 4. they put to their sacrifices salt which signified spirituall vnderstanding and here it is added which is your reasonable service 4. But Gorrhan more distinctly thus setteth forth the parts and causes of this spirituall sacrifice we haue 1. the efficient in this word giue vp it must proceed from a true and sincere devotion 2. then the materiall cause your bodies 3. the forme it must be liuing holy resonable 4. then the ende it must be to please God acceptable vnto God Quest. 5. Of the conditions of this spirituall sacrifice in particular 1. The Apostle exhorteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to exhibite present giue vp themselues 1. herein alluding to the rite of the sacrifices which were first exhibited and presented vnto God at the altar Beza this word is vsed of our blessed Sauiour how they brought him into the temple and presented him before the Lord Luk. 2.23 2. we are said also to exhibite that which was before promised and so we exhibite our selues vnto God by the holines of life to whose seruice we were promised and devoted in baptisme Erasm. 3. Chrysostome further noteth in this word that we must so giue vp our selues no more to be our owne as they qui donant alijs bellicosos equos c. which doe yeeld vnto others warlike horse for seruice doe challenge no more propertie in them so debemus membra nostra Deo tanquam Imperatori we doe owe our members vnto God as our Emperour Theophyl 4. and hereby is signified that they should sponte offerre offer vp willingly as in the lawe they must offer all their offrings with a willing heart Gorrh. 5. and whereas it was peculiar vnto the Priest to offer externall sacrifices all Christians are admitted to offer this spirituall sacrifice as S. Peter saith Ye are an holy priesthood to offer vp spirituall sacrifices acceptable to God thorough Iesus Christ Tolet. 2. Your bodies 1. by bodies he vnderstandeth by a synecdoche of a part for the whole whole man both bodie and soule and by an other figure called a Metonimie he putteth the subiect for the adiunct the bodie for the affections in the bodie or which shewe themselues most in and by the bodie so that the bodie here non tam nomen naturae est quà m vitij is not so much the name of nature as of vice Mart. as els where the Apostle saith Col. 3.5 mortifie your earthly members Par. 2. we must then offer vp vnto God not our soules onely and so as we haue receiued both our bodies and soules from God we must render them vnto him againe contrarie to the opinion of the Platonists who held that the soule onely came from God the substance of the bodie from the elements the complexion from the celestiall spheres the affections from the spirits and therefore they thought it sufficient if the minde onely and soule were rendred vnto God ex Martyro 3. now our bodies two wayes are offred to God one is as Origen and Chrysostome here obserue by mortifying of the carnall affections as he which mortifieth pride doth sacrifice a bullock he which bridleth his anger a ramme he which keepeth vnder his lust a goate Origen so the Apostle saith 1. Corinthians 9.27 I doe chastice or tame my bodie the other way is in making the bodie an instrument of euery good worke as Augustine obserueth lib. 10. de ciuit c. 6. and so the Apostle exhorteth Giue your members seruants to righteousnesse Rom. 6.19 4. Lyranus addeth further the Apostle saith your bodies non aâ—iena not the bodies of others against those which thinke to be saued by other mens repentance 3. A living sacrifice 1. which is added not to signifie that they should not thinke to kill themselues and so sacrifice their bodies as Chrysostome Theodoret for the Romanes were no so absurd to collect any such thing out of S. Pauls words 2. nor yet saith the Apostle living to note a difference betweene the sacrifices of the law which were first killed and then sacrificed and the sacrifices of liuing Christians gloss ordin Tolet Osiand Perer. 3. Neither is there a relation to the vsage of the lawe which counteth all dead things vncleane Hyper. it sheweth a difference rather from the legall vsages 4. neither as Caietan observeth doth the Apostle by this tearme distinguish this spirituall sacrifice from martyrdome which was performed by death for as Tolet well obserueth the Apostle exhorteth generally Christians to sacrifice themselues in holy obedience vnto God which not onely though principally is seene in Martyrdome which none can vndertake that haue not first mortified their bodies with the affections thereof 5. Pet. Martyr by this liuing sacrifice vnderstandeth a willing sacrifice which is not vi sed ex animo by force but from the heart 6. but it signifieth more namely the spirituall life of the soule which is by faith in Christ Galat. 2.20 Mart. as Origen well obserueth he calleth it a liuing sacrifice qua Christum id est vitam in se gerit which beareth Christ the true life as the Apostle saith Eph. 2.1 who hath quickned vs c. Gryneus which life of the soule is neuer idle but continually bringeth forth good workes for idlenes is a kind of death of the soule as Seneca passing by the house of one Vacia who liued in pleasure and idle said hic situs est Vacia here lyeth Vacia as though it were rather his sepulchre then his habitation so also Haymo he is a liuing sacrifice qui viuit virtutibus moritur vitijs who liueth vnto vertue and is dead vnto sinne and Chrysostome vpon this place sheweth at large how all the members must be mortified that they may liue vnto the seruice of God neque offerri poteriroculus c. for neither can an eye he offered that serueth fornication not an hand that oppresseth neque lingua turpia loquens not a tongue speaking filthie things nor feete theatra visitantes that runne to theatres and playes But this outward conformitie of the members is rather signified in the next word holy 4. Holy 1. Which some thinke is added by way of distinction from the legall sacrifises which beeing corporall were not holy Greek catena 2. some note a difference betweene the sacrifices of the Pagans which were not holy and of Christians they many times
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
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