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
Magistrate himselfe 6. Chrysostome and Theophylact here mooue this doubt how the Apostle enioyneth the subiect to feare the Magistrate and before he freeth good subiects from it and would haue them onely to feare that doe euill he answeareth by a distinction of feare that feare which is ex mala conscientia of an euill conscience good subiects are free from but yet they haue a kind of feare which is nothing els but a reuerence of the Magistrate Pet. Martyr addeth that though a good man feareth not the power for any thing that is done and past yet he may feare ne quid in posterum committat that he commit nothing in time to come as Ambrose hath the like distinction of feare aliud est timere quia peccasti aliud timere ne pecces ibi formido est de supplicio hic sollicitudo de praemio it is one thing to feare because thou hast sinned an other to feare least thou sinne there is fearefulnesse of the punishment here carefulnes of the reward 7. Honour also is to be yeelded to the Magistrate which is nothing els but an externall signification of our inward reuerent opinion which we haue of one for his excellencie and greatnesse wherein these three things are considered the inward reuerence the outward gesture the obiect the excellencie of the person betweene honour and glorie this is the difference honour is giuen propter officij dignitatem for the dignitie of the place and office glorie propter virtutem because of his vertue to a good magistrate both are due to an euill honour is to be shewed for his place though he deserve no glorie for any vertue and a private person may be worthie of glorie for his vertue though not of honour which is the Magistrates due Quest. 16. The seuerall duties summed together which are due to the Magistrate Gorrhan reduceth them to these seuen 1. we owe vnto the Magistrate subiection 1. Pet. 2.13 submit your selues 2. honour 1. Pet. 2.17 feare God honour the King 3. feare Prov. 24.21 Feare God and the King 4. fidelitie as in Ittai that said to Dauid 2. Sam. 15.21 In what place my Lord the King shall be whether in death or life euen there will thy seruant be 5. obedience as the people said to Ioshua 1.17 as we obeyed Moses in all things so will we obey thee 6. paying of tribute Matth. 22.21 Giue vnto Caesar the things that are Caesars 7. prayer 1. Tim. 2.2 The Apostle willeth supplications to be made for Kings Pareus obserueth that fiue things belong to the honouring of our superiours 1. reuerence because of the diuine ordinance 2. loue because of their labour and care in watching ouer vs. 3. thankefulnesse for the benefits which we enioy vnder them 4. obedience in all lawfull things 5. equitie and charitie in couering and extenuating the faults and infirmitie s in gouernours Quest 17. How farre the Magistrate is to be obeyed and wherein not to be obeyed It may seeme that in no wise it is lawfull to resist the Magistrate but that obedience must be absolutely yeelded vnto him vpon these reasons 1. The ordinance of God is not to be resisted euill Magistrates are the ordinance of God therefore euen the euill must be obeyed and not resisted 2. S. Peter biddeth seruants to obey their Masters not onely the good and curteous but euen the froward 1. Pet. 2.8 so likewise subiects must obey their Magistrates 3. It is not lawfull to recompence euill for euill Rom. 12.17 therefore the subiect beeing oppressed is not to resist 4. It is not lawfull for a priuate person to vse the sword for it is said onely of the Magistrate he beareth not the sword in vaine but to resist the Magistrate is to take the sword Er. Ans. 1. True it is that the ordinance of God is not to be resisted so it be not against God for like as the inferiour Magistrate to whom the Prince committeth the sword is not to vse it against his Prince so neither is the Prince to be obeyed vsing his authoritie against God in commāding impious and vnhonest things we must giue vnto Caesar the things that are Caesars and vnto God the things which are Gods we may not giue vnto the Prince the things which are Gods that is the conscience And in this case the Apostles giue vs a rule to obey God rather then man Act. 4.19 when obedience then is denied in vniust vnlawfull things not the authority which is Gods ordināce but the abuse of the authoritie is gainsaid 2. True it is that both euill Masters and euill Magistrates are to be obeyed but with this limitation that nothing be enioyned against the conscience and so much is implyed by the words following v. 19. This is thanke worthie if a man for conscience toward God endure griefe suffring wrongfully so that when any thing is commanded against the conscience a man is to suffer rather an so the power is obeyed not in doing but in suffring 3. To disobey vnlawfull commandements is no requitall of euill for euill nor yet for a man to vse lawfull defense but if the subiect should beare armes against his Prince and seeke to assault his bodie or life which is vnlawfull that were indeede to recompence euill for euill 4. There are three degrees of not obeying an euill Magistrate in not doing that which is commanded and here the subiect vseth not the sword at all he onely refuseth to doe any thing against his conscience in vsing his lawfull defense against wrongs offered tending to apparent impietie here he taketh the sword no otherwise then as the lawes arme a priuate man to defend himselfe in case of necessitie against a theife and robber the third is in assaulting the Prince by force which is a taking of the sword and most vnlawfull Now on the other side certaine cases shall be propounded wherein obedience is to be denied to vniust Magistrates and some kind of resistance to be vsed And here a distinction is to be made of subiects some are either publike persōs and the same either Ecclesiasticall as the Pastors and ministers of the Church or ciuill as inferiour Magistrates or more priuate persons according to this diuision we are to see how farre each of these may proceede in denying their obedience to the Magistrate commanding vniust things 1. Concerning the Pastors of the Church these propositions may be set downe 1. that they are not to attempt any thing at all by the sword and outward violence against the Magistrate for it is forbidden that a Bishop should be a striker 1. Tim. 3.3 Ambrose saith coactus repugnare non noui potero flere potero gemere aduersus arma milites lachrymae me◠erma sunt beeing vrged I knowe not how to resist I can mourne I can weepe against armed souldiers my weapons are teares orat in Auxent and in an other place epist. 33. nogamus Auguste non pugnamus we entreat O Soueraigne we fight not
such examples of vnnaturall inhumanitie as Cambyses Remus Romulus and such like Gualter such was Cain Ismael Esau to their brethren The Stoicks among the heathen depriued a wise man of all affection and so doe the wicked Catabaptists among Christians Bucer 22. Such as can neuer be reconciled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some reade absque faedere without fidelitie Lat. such as breake all truces and leagues but they were noted before trucebreakers Lyranus taketh them to be such as would hold no friendship with any but such men were also spoken of before loc 10. they are therefore such as were implurable that beeing once offended would neuer be reconciled againe Mart. Pareus with others such was Saul that would by no meanes be appeased toward Dauid Marlorat 23. Mercilesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as had no bowels of compassion neither pitied the miseries and calamities of others as among the heathen their cruell warres and bloodshed when they spared neither man woman nor children and their bloody spectacles and sword-playes when they delighted to see the blood of man shed before their face were euident proofes hereof Gualter Chrysostome thus distinguisheth these last fowre they are coneuant breakers that keepe no fidelitie with the same kind as man with man they are without naturall affection which are vnkind to their kindred and such are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which breake ciuill leagues and the last includeth mercie to be shewed euen vnto enemies Quest. 74. Of the true reading of the last verse v. 31. and the meaning thereof 1. The vulgar Latine which Lyranus followeth and Tolet the Rhemists with other Romanists reade thus when they knewe the iustice of God vnderstood not that they which doe such things are worthie of death c. and this reading seemeth also Cyprian to followe epistol 68. But in the originall these words non intellexerunt they vnderstood not are wanting and are inserted beside the text and they doe also quite inuert the sense of the text for they make it a lesse thing to consent vnto euill doers and approoue them then to commit euill not onely they which doe them but also they which consent vnto them as the vulgar Latine text standeth whereas the Apostle euidētly maketh two degrees of sinners they which commit euill and those worse which are patrons and fauourers of euill And so Chrysostome well expoundeth shewing how the Apostle taketh away two pretexts and excuses of the Gentiles one was their ignorance which they could not pretend because they knewe by nature what the iustice of God required the other was their infirmitie but that they could not alleadge seeing they did commit such things in fact but approoued also and commended the euill doers 2. By the iustice of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here vnderstood not the morall lawe which the Gentiles had not but the iudiciarie iustice of God in punishing of sinne for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is defined iniusti facti corectio a correcting of that which is vniustly or vnlawfully done Michael Ephesus in ethic Aristot. lib. 5. c. 7. The Gentiles knewe this iustice of God in punishing of sinne both by the light of nature by the testimonie of their owne conscience and by the examples of Gods iustice shewed in the world Pareus Euen Draco which appointed death for all offences was taught by the law of nature that all sinne deserued death Mart. So Abimelech and Pharaoh knew by the light of nature that mariage was not to be violated and therefore they caused Sarah to be restored to Abraham Gualter 3. By death here is vnderstood any kind of punishment tending to the ruine and destruction of the offender Pareus yea also the Gentiles had some knowledge of euerlasting punishment for they had an opinion of hell as Virgil sheweth lib. 6. Aenead as they promised the pleasant Elysian fields after death vnto well doers Plato lib. 10. de repub Cicero in som. Scipton 75. Quest. What a dangerous thing it is to be a fauourer and procurer of sinne in others 1. The vulgar Latine reading thus not onely they which doe such things are worthie of death but they which consent vnto them that doe and Lyranus Toletus with others doe thinke that here to consent with sinners is put as the lesse that no not the consenters onely were free but were worthie of death But it is rather expressed as an higher degree of sinne as Theophylact saith quodque deterius est and that which is worse they gaue assent vnto those which doe euill so also Erasmus Osiander Pererius with others 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not an assent onely but an approbation and patronage as Beza and Pareus read patrocinantur they giue patronage but Piscator rather vseth the word applaudunt because to applaud and approoue is more then patronize for one may be a patron of that vpon some occasion which he doth not altogether approoue 3. The heathen generally were guiltie hereof in defending and maintaining publikely euen those things which by the light of nature they knew to be euill as idolatrie fornication and such like when Alexander had killed Clitus his friend and was striken in conscience for the same he had miserable comforters applied vnto him Anaxarchus Aristander Callisthenes which were all but patrons of his sinne and made him worse the first as an Epicure told him that all was lawfull which Princes did the second beeing a Stoike referred all to fate and destinie the third vsed morall and ciuill perswasions but none of them shewed him the greatnes of his sinne Gryneus 4. Of these fauourers there are two kinds some doe affoard their helpe and assistance to euill doers some hold their peace when they should reprooue And there is a double kind of reproofe or correction fraterna correctio brotherly correction vnto the which all are bound but not alwaies sed pro debito tempore loco but in due time and place there is correctio punitionis correction by way of punishment vnto the which all superiours are bound and at all times as they shall see it to make best for the amendment of sinners Lyr. But both these kind of corrections were much neglected among the heathen 5. Now of these there were three sorts some might commit sinne in themselues and yet not consent vnto it in others and these were worthie of death some might giue consent in not punishing sinne in others though they did it not themselues and these also were worthie of death and some did both practise it in their owne person and fauour it in others and these were worthie of double death Haymo 76. Quest. How one may be accessarie to an others sinne This may be done diuers waies 1. they which command others to doe euill as Saul bid Doeg fall vpon the innocent Priests 1. Sam. 22. are guiltie of others sinnes 2. They which are readie to obey such wicked commandements as Ioab vpon Dauids letter caused
did commit the same things themselues Theodoret. But the Apostles words beeing generall Thou art inexcusable O man whosoeuer thou art are not to be so restrained 3. Chrysostome thinketh the Romanes are here specially taxed who were the Lords of other nations and so tooke vpon them to iudge others But the Apostle hetherto in generall hath reasoned against all the Gentiles 4. Some thinke that the Apostle speaketh of the iudgement of the Philosophers such as were Socrates Cato who erred in the same things whereof they reprooued others Hyper. But the Apostle in generall speaketh to euery man whatsoeuer 5. Yea some doe make the Apostles speach yet more particular that he should specially meane Seneca with whome he was familiar But as yet S. Paul had not beene at Rome and therefore if Seneca were knowne vnto the Apostle this their knowledge beganne after the writing of this epistle 6. Wherefore I rather thinke with Pareus that the Apostle noteth all such in generall among the Gentiles who found fault with others beeing guiltie of the same faults themselues yet so as the Iewes be not excluded though principally the Gentiles be taxed see the analysis before he speaketh of a generall iudgement whereby one iudgeth an other that is subscribeth to Gods iudgement that they which doe such things are worthie of death so Chrysostome Vniuersi mortales licet non omnes thronos iudiciales c. for all mortall men though they haue not iudiciall thrones c. yet they iudge either in word or in the secret of their conscience Ambrose thinketh that the Apostle here preuenteth an obiection that whereas he had before noted such as committed sinne themselues and fauoured it in others they might thinke to be free which condemned it in others though they did it themselues therefore the Apostle sheweth that euen such could no way escape the iudgement of God 2. Quest. Whether one offend in iudging an other wherein he is guiltie himselfe It may be thus obiected that if a man make himselfe inexcusable in iudging an other for the same crime which he knoweth by himselfe then it is not safe for such an one to iudge an other as our Sauiour reprooueth those which brought the woman taken in adulterie because they themselues also were not without sinne Ioh. 8. Ans. 1. The iudge which condemneth an other is in the same fault either occultè in foro conscientiae secretly and in the court of their conscience and then they sinne not in iudging of an other or they are publikely detected of the same sinne and then they sinne not in that they giue iust sentence vpon other but in respect of the scandall and offence giuen to others Thomas non peccat quia reprehendit sed quia inordinatè reprehendit he sinneth not because he reprehendeth him but because he doth it inordinately Gorrh. 2. so that the power of the office must be distinguished from the vice of the person such a iudge neither offendeth against the lawes which command malefactors to be punished nor against the offendor which hath deserued that punishment but he sinneth in giuing offence to others Pareus 3. our blessed Sauiour misliketh not the action that they accused the adulteresse for he himselfe admonisheth her to sinne no more but the manner that they did it in hatred delighting in the punishment of an other and in hypocrisie not looking into themselues Martyr 4. Herein Dauid offended who pronounced sentence of death against the man of whome Nathan put the case in his parable not yet perceiuing that he himselfe was the man against whom he pronounced sentence Erasm. such many were there among the heathen Diogenes accused Grammarians which diligently sought out Vlysses faults and were ignorant of their owne and Musitians which tuned their instruments beeing themselues of vntuneable manners Astronomers for that they gazed vpon the starres and saw not the things before their owne feere Orators because they were carefull to speake iust things but not to doe them the common people praised them which contemned money and yet they themselues were addicted to the desire of money ex Gryn 5. Now whereas our Sauiour saith Iudge not that ye be not iudged Matth. 7. he speaketh not there against ciuill iudgement or brotherly admonition but against hastie and precipitate iudgement and vncharitable curiositie when men pried and searched into the faults of others not with a desire to amend them but to the end tha◠their faults might be rather excused with the multitude of otehr delinquents Martyr Quest. 3. Of these words v. 2. We knowe that the iudgement of God is according to truth 1. We knowe some will haue this principally referred to the Iewes we knowe by the Scriptures Tolet. we the Apostles and spirituall men Gorrh. we knowe both by the light of nature and by the testimonie of the word Pareus But the Apostle hauing here to deale against all men in generall doth vrge this naturall principle that God seeth more sharpely then men and therefore is a most iust iudge Beza so that he saith in effect we knowe that is it is certaine Osiander 2. The iudgement of God Chrysostome referreth this to the finall iudgement at the last day that howsoeuer some may escape vnpunished in this world yet the iudgement of the next world shall be according to truth so also Osiander but euen in this world the Lord also often sheweth his vpright and iust iudgement Ambrose maketh this the connexion of the sentence that if man iudge the sinnes which he seeth in another God shall much more But these words are rather a confirmation of the former sentence that he which iudged an other and yet committed the same things could not so escape for though he were blind in his owne iudgement God would finde him out his hypocrisie could not be hid 3. According to truth where the iudgement of God is opposed to the iudgement of man in these two things first mans iudgement is partiall he often iudgeth according to the person not the qualitie of the offence Calvin and againe there are many secret things which God will bring to light but man cannot iudge them Lyran. Socrates who publikely disputed of vertue yet priuately was an idolater Cato 2 Censor of others yet was an vsuter and did prostitute his wife these men though they seemed without reproofe vnto others yet the Lord that iudgeth according to truth would finde out their sinnes Beza 4. Origen here mooueth this question if God iudge according to the truth so that the euill receiue euill things and the good good things at the hands of God how then commeth it to passe that a man who hath liued wickedly and repenteth him findeth remission of sinnes and fauour with God and an other which hath liued well and afterward falleth into euill is punished the answer is that God iudgeth here according to truth for in the one ingressa piet as impietatem depellet godlinesse entreth and expelleth vngodlinesse and in the
two kinds of circumcisions rather then two parts of one and the same circumcision which are sometime ioyned together both the inward and outward as they were in Abraham sometime separate one from the other and this separation is of two sorts it is either salutaris healthfull or not for when the inward circumcision is without the outward it is profitable as in Noah but when the outward is and not the inward it is vnprofitable as in Iudas Iscariot 6. Origens obseruation seemeth here to be somewhat curious thus distinguishing the circumcision of the flesh that because there is some part of the flesh cut off and lost some part remaineth still the lost and cut off part saith he hath a resemblance of that flesh whereof it is said all flesh is grasse the other part which remaineth is a figure of that flesh whereof the Scripture speaketh all flesh shall see the saluation of God But thus Origen confoundeth the circumcision of the flesh and the spirit making them all one Further to shewe these two circumcisions of the heart and spirit he alleadgeth how the Israelites were circumcised againe by Iosuah who was a type of Christ that circumciseth the heart who were circumcised before by Moses in the desert wherein Origen is greatly deceiued for it is euident by the text Iosuah 5.5 that they which were circumcised by Iosuah had not beene circumcised before 4. Places of doctrine 1. Doct. v. 1. In that thou iudgest another thou condemnest thy selfe he which doth giue sentence vpon another for that wherein he is guilty therein is a iudge against himselfe so Iuda did iudge Thamar for her incontinencie beeing in greater fault himselfe and Dauid pronouncing sentence of death against him that had taken away his poore neighbours sheepe did by his owne mouth condemne himselfe Piscator see further addition 1. following 2. Doct. v. 11. There is no respect of persons with God c. In that God freely without respect vnto any workes electeth some vnto eternall life it is done without respect of persons for though God decree vnequall things vnto those that are in equall case for all by nature are the children of wrath yet it followeth not that God hath respect of persons for he doth it not either against any law for God is not tied vnto any lawe nor yet vpon any finiâ—ter cause either for feare for there is none greater than God to be feared of him or sauour for there are no merits or deserts which God respecteth in his election And when God commeth to giue the reward then he distributeth vnto euerie man according to their workes see further addit 3. following 3. Doct. v. 16. At the day when God shall iudge here the certaintie of the day of iudgement is expressed with the manner thereof 1. who shall iudge God 2. whom men and what not their open and manifest workes onely but their secret things 3. by whome in Iesus Christ in his humane shape 4. According to what rule namely the Gospell is be saith Ioh. 12. that his word shall iudge them Gualter 4. Doct. v. 21. Thou which teachest another c. the carnall Iewe though he did not himselfe as he taught yet was not his teaching and doctrine therefore to be refused so our Sauiour saith Matth. 23.3 Whatsoeuer they bid you obserue and doe but after their workes doe ye not Mart. 5. Doct. v. 25. Circumcision is profitable c. Baptisme succeedeth in the place of circumcision as the Apostle sheweth Coloss. 2.11 In whom ye are circumcised c. thorough the circumcision of Christ in that yee are bound in him thorough baptisme c. then like as infants were circumcised so are they now to be baptised but baptisme is not now tied vnto the eight day as it was then for by the libertie of the Gospell are we deliuered from the obseruation of the circumstances of the time and place 6. Doct. v. 28. Neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh as these were not two diuerse circumcisions but two acts of the one and same circumcision the internal and externall so there are two acts in one and the same baptisme there is the baptisme of the spirit and the baptisme of water which both are ioyned together in the lawfull vse they haue the baptisme of the spirit to whom the Sacrament is vpon vrgent necessitie denied but infidels vnbeleeuers and euill liuers haue onely the baptisme of water for he that beleeueth not shall be condemned Pareus 7. So likewise in the Eucharist there is an externall act of eating and an internall the vnworthie receiuers haue onely the latter the faithfull when they communicate haue both and in case the Sacrament be denied they may spiritually eat Christ without the Sacrament our Sauiour saith Ioh. 6.54 Whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life And though they doe spiritually eate Christ before they receiue the Sacrament for otherwise they would not desire it yet the Sacrament also must be celebrated for their further comfort and strengthening and the testifying of their faith Gryneus Certaine additions to the former doctrines Addit 1. Concerning the iudgement which a man giueth against himselfe which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus much may further be obserued out of the 1. verse 1. What it is namely the testimonie of ones conscience of his owne guiltinesse before God 2. Whence it is partly by the prouidence of God which striketh into a mans conscience this sense of sinne partly by the force of the conscience it selfe conuincing one of sinne 3. Of whom it is namely of all men 4. It is necessarie and profitable to diuerse ends 1. to humble vs in respect of Gods iudgement for if our conscience condemne vs God can much more who is greater then our conscience 1. Ioh. 3.20 2. It is for our comfort working in vs bouldnesse if our hearts condemne vs not 1. Ioh. 3.21 3. it will make vs not to be too seuere in iudging of others our owne heart condemning vs. Addit 2. Out of the 5. v. concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the hardnesse of the heart we are to consider 1. What it is namely the contumacie and rebellion of the heart against the lawe of God 2. Whence it is originally by the corruption of mans nature Sathan concurreth as the efficient the occasion are the externall obiects and God by his secret iudgement yet most iust hath an ouerruling hand herein 3. the effect is the treasuring vp of the wrath of God 4. it is curable not by mans free will for it is not subiect to the lawe of God neither can be Rom. 8.8 but by the grace of Gods spirit as Dauid prayeth Psal. 51.12 Create in me a newe heart Addit 3. The accepting or respect of persons called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is when things equal are giuen to them which are vnequall or contrariwise things vnequall to them which are equall onely
morally he should be a lyar in act Pareus so then euery man is said to be a liar quia mentiri potest quamvis non mentiatur because he may and can lie though alwaies he doe not lie Tolet. 6. Quest. How the Prophet Dauid is to be vnderstood saying Euery man is a lyar Psal. 116.11 1. Some doe thus interpret nihil est firmum vel stabile in rebus humanis nothing is firme or stable in humane matters Theodoret to the same purpose also Euthymius fallax est humanae vita faelicitas the happines of mans life here is deceitfull But this beeing a most true position how could the Prophet say I said in my hast as correcting his hastie and vnaduised speach in thus saying 2. Some preferre this sense that Dauid beeing much troubled and perplexed with his manifold afflictions and sometime tempted with diffidence doth correct himselfe and confesseth that God notwithstanding was true though all men were liars Perer. but it is euident by the Prophets words that this is not a correcting but a corrected speach which he spake in his hast 3. Origen deliuereth a third sense that Dauid hauing reuealed vnto him the truth by faith saying a little before I beleeued and therefore I spake doth thankfully acknowledge that he had receiued the reuelation of the truth from God whereas all other men as Philosophers and the wise among the heathen were liars their writings were full of error and falshood But that by all he vnderstandeth not onely the vnbeleeuing Gentiles but all men in generall is euident v. 12. following as hath beene shewed before 4. Calvin whome the Genevens follow thus expoundeth nihil esse certi neque ab homine neque in homine that there is no certentie neither from man to be looked nor yet in man but this beeing a most true and aduised assertion why then should the Prophet there say he spake it in hast for so the word there signifieth as likewise Psal. 31.22 I said in my hast I am cast out of thy sight 5. Vatablus thinketh that Dauid meaneth those which said when Saul persecuted him that he should neuer enioy the kingdome and therefore he trusting to Gods promises saith they were all liers But why then should Dauid say I said in my hast as confessing that he thus spake in his heat and hast 6. Wherefore the meaning of the Prophet Dauid there is this that beeing oppressed with his manifold and great afflictions he had some distrustfull thoughts in so much that he began to thinke that euen Samuel and Nathan which had made vnto him such promises concerning the kingdome were but men and had spoken as men vnto him And this sense may be confirmed by the like place Psal. 31.22 cited before I said in my hast Iun. Caietan Iansenius But two obiections will be made against this interpretation 1. If Dauid be thus vnderstood this allegation should seeme to be impertinent for the Apostle groundeth vpon that saying of Dauid as a certen and vndoubted axiome which Dauid their vttered in hast Ans. 1. It is not necessarie to graunt that S. Paul citeth this place out of that Psalme the like saying is found Psal. 39.5 Euery man is altogether vanitie 2. but it may safely be admitted that the Apostle hath reference to this very place Psal. 116. and yet he keepeth the Prophets sense for though Dauid were deceiued in the particular application to Samuel and other Prophets yet the speach was true in generall euery man is a liar here was Dauids error that he tooke them to speake as other men this generall ground of Dauids speach the Apostle followeth here 2. Obiect The word there vsed bechaphzi Vatablus translateth in praecipiti mea fugâ— in my hastie flight the vulgar latine in excessu meo when I was beside my selfe for feare it neede not be translated in my hast Ans. 1. The word chapaz signifieth indeede all these to make hast to be astonished to mooue for feare to precipitate but the more vsuall and proper signification is to make hast as Exod. 12.10 Ye shall eate it in hast Psal. 104.7 they hast away 2. and whether it be translated in my hast or in my feare the sense is all one that Dauid spake thus in his heat and passion 3. and that it is not meant of his externall flight of bodie but rather of the acceleration and hast of his affections is euident by the like place Psal. 31.22 I said in my hast I am cast out of thy sight Quest. 7. Of the occasion of these words cited out of the 51. Psalme that thou mightest be iustified c. against thee onely haue I sinned The words in the 51. Psalme immediatly going before are these v. 4. Against thee onely haue I sinne and committed euill in thy sight how Dauid is said to haue sinned onely against God it is diuersely scanned 1. Gregorie thus expoundeth tibi soli peccavi against thee onely haue I sinned quia tu solus es sine peccato because thou onely art without sinne man is not said to sinne against man quia eum aut par aut grauior culpa inquinat because either he is defiled with the same or a greater sinne But though euerie man be a sinner this is no reason but that one man may trespasse against another 2. Origen thus expoundeth Dauid by these words of S. Paul 1. Cor. 2.15 the spirituall man discerneth all things yet he is iudged of none therefore against thee onely haue I sinned because others cannot iudge me quia spiritualis sum because I am spirituall c. But Dauid in this act was not spirituall but carnall 3. Caietan thinketh that Dauid so speaketh because he was king and had no superiour iudge to whom he was subiect and therefore he is said onely to sinne against God because he onely was his superiour Iudge But Dauid standeth not here vpon any personall prerogatiue he setteth forth the qualitie of his offence 4. An other exposition which P. Martyr mentioneth is he saith he sinned onely against God because he sinned against his lawe for although he had trespassed against Vrias and Bathshebe his wife yet those were sinnes none otherwise then as they were prohibited by Gods lawe But in this sense not onely Dauid but euerie one beside should be faid to sinne against God 5 Some giue this sense against thee onely that is chiefely he had so profaned Gods couenant abused his benefits caused the name of God by this his fall to be blasphemed that he had offended God most of all Mart. Gualter But they are two diuerse things to sinne onely against God and chiefely to offend him 6. Wherefore Dauid here hath relation to the secresie of his sinne which was caried so politikely that the world perceiued it not yea Ioab though he was priuie to Vrias death yet knew not the cause Vatab. Iun. and thus before them D. Kimhi this sense is warranted 2. Sam. 12.12 where the Lord saith thou didst
hath receiued saith if he liue we should call him iust if he liue euill c. lib. 83. quest quest 76. Controv. 21. How S. Paul and S. Iames are reconciled together Whereas S. Paul here saith v. 28. We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the lawe but S. Iames affirmeth c. 2.24 You see then how that of workes a man is iustified and not of faith onely c. they may seeme at the first sight to be contrarie they are then thus reconciled 1. Not as Erasmus and Caietanus who doubt of the authoritie of the epistle of S. Iames for though it were a while doubted of yet was it at length receiued by a generall consent of the Church to be of Apostolik authoritie as it is acknowledged to be by Origen hom iâ— Ios. Cyprian in symbol Epiphan haeres 76. Augustine lib. 2. de doctrin Christ. c. 8. Daâ—â—as lib. 4. c. 8. and others 2. Not yet is the solution of the Romanists false and friuolous that S. Paul speaketh of workes going before iustification which are without faith and grace and S. Iames of the workes of grace which followe the first iustification for S. Paul euen excludeth the workes of Abraham which were workes of grace Rom. 4.2 3. The best solution then is this that the Apostles neither speake of the same kind of faith not yet of the same manner of iustifiying 1. S. Paul speaketh of the true liuely faith which iustifieth before God but S. Iames derogateth not from the true faith but from the faith which was in shewe onely which he calleth a dead faith and consequently no faith and such a faith as deuils may haue S. Paul then saying that a liuely faith iustifieth before God and S. Iames that a dead faith iustifieth not no not before men much lesse before God are not contrarie the one to the other 2. Neither doe the Apostles take the word iustifying in the same sense S. Paul speaketh of iustification before God but S. Iames of the declaration and shewing forth of our iustification by our workes before men as is euident thus the Apostle saith euidently v. 18. shewe thou me thy faith out of thy workes c. Againe he saith that Abraham was iustified by workes when he offred his sonne Izaak which must be vnderstood that his iustification was thereby testified manifested and declared for by faith before God he had beene iustified before as the Apostle alleadgeth in the same place v. 23. Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse which testimonie is giuen of Abrahams faith before he offred vp his sonne So then S. Paul saying workes doe not iustifie before God and S. Iames that workes doe iustifie before men that is declare and testifie their iustification do not contradict the one the other 22. Controv. Against Socinus that Christ properly redeemed vs by paying the ransome for vs and not metaphorically 1. Argum. Impious Socinus as Pareus rehearseth his wicked opinion and confuseth it denieth that Christ died for vs or paied any ransome at all for our redemption but he is said to redeeme that is to deliuer vs without paying any price at all as Exod. 15.13 and in other places the Lord is saide to haue redeemed that is deliuered his people from the Egyptian seruitude Ans. 1. It followeth not because to redeeme is sometime taken in that sense that it should be so euery where 2. there is great difference betweene corporall and spirituall deliuerance the first was and might be done onely by the power of God without paying any price at all the other could not be compassed without paying of a price both because of Gods iustice that they which sinne should die Rom. 1.32 and the truth of his word because he had said to man that if he sinned he should die the death 2. Argum. Psal. 31.5 Dauid speaking of Christ saith Thou hast redeemed me O Lord God of truth here Christ is saide to haue beene redeemed but he was not redeemed with the paying of any price Ergo neither did he redeeme vs in that manner Ans. 1. If this Psalme be vnderstood of Christ we confesse that to redeeme is taken improperly in that sense but then it followeth not because it is vsed improperly in one place therefore it should be so in all 2. But if the Psalme be vnderstood of Dauid who was the type of Christ the word is taken properly for euen Dauid was no otherwise freed from his sinne then by the price of Christs death 3. Argum. The deliuerance of the Israelites by Moses from the bondage of Egypt was a type and figure of our spirituall deliuerance by Christ but that was done onely by the power of God without any price payed therefore so was the other Answ. 1. The argument followeth not for the figure and the thing figured agree not in all things there is more in the substance then in the type 2. There is great difference betweene Moses Christs deliuerance Moses was a meere man and a seruant of the house Christ was God and man the Lord of all Moses deliuered onely from corporall bondage and seruitude Christ from spirituall bondage vnder sinne from the wrath and curse of God Moses redeemed the Israelites without his own death or shedding of his blood but Christ our redeemer gaue his life and shed his blood for vs Moses gaue them the inheritance of the earthly Canaan Christ hath purchased for vs an euerlasting inheritance 4. Argum. Redemption is properly said to be from him of whom the captiues are holden but we are said to be redeemed either from our iniquities Tit. 2.14 or from our vaine conuersation 1. Pet. 1.18 or from the curse of the lawe Galat. 3.13 of the which we were not held captiue but no where are we said to be redeemed from God or from his iustice c. Answ. 1. Touching the proposition or first part of the argument 1. it is false that redeÌ„ption is onely from him that keepeth vs in bondage for although principally captiues are freed from him whose captiues they are yet they are deliuered also from their verie bands imprisonment and other such like instruments of their captiuitie such are our sinnes as the bands and fetters that kept vs in thraldome vnder the deuill 2. there is a difference betweene corporall and spirituall bondage for there the price is paid to the enemie as to the great Turke to get the captiues out of his hand but here the price is paied to God not to deliuer vs from him but to reconcile vs vnto him like as when a subiect rebelling against his Prince is imprisoned and condemned to die till some mediation and satisfaction be made for him then his sinne is pardoned and he is reconciled to his prince 4. Concerning the second part of the reason 1. it is false that we were not detained captiues by our sinnes for they are as the snare of the deuil 2. Tim. 2.26 2.
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
be palpable ignorance a mans conscience beeing contrarie to the reuealed will and law of God bindeth not 3. But thus it will be obiected on the contrarie error and falsitie is not to take place and preuaile before the truth therefore an erroneous conscience should not bind Ans. 1. It simply bindeth not but for a time vntill the truth be fully knowne 2. and error and falsitie bindeth not sed quia creditur veritas because it is apprehended and beleeued as a truth Further it will be obiected If it be sinne for a man to goe against his conscience in a thing indifferent then he will be driuen into this perplexitie that whether he doe against his conscience or not he sinneth for if one should be perswaded that it is not lawfull to eate flesh he sinneth because he is in error though it be of infirmitie and if he should eate beeing otherwise perswaded in his minde he should sinne likewise in going against his conscience Ans. 1. Here is no absolute necessitie of any such perplexitie but onely an hypotheticall necessitie this error of the conscience beeing presupposed but it is not simply necessarie that he should sinne the one way or the other because he may cast off and leaue his error 2. and though there be an error committed both waies yet it is lesse to sinne of infirmitie and error of iudgement then wittingly offend as he doth which violateth his conscience 29. Quest. How our brother is said to be grieued and to be lost and destroied v. 15. v. 15. If thy brother be grieued c. 1. The Apostle in this verse vseth two effectuall reasons to mooue the stronger not to offend the weake the first is taken from the dutie of charitie which will not hurt or grieue an other as one member doth foster and cherish not hurt an other 2. he saith grieued which is lesse then to be scandalized if the lesse be against charitie then that which is greater much more 3. the brother is grieued diuers waies 1. Oecumenius thinketh he is grieued for the sharpe admonition and reprehension of the strong 2. or because seeing others to cate he by their example least he should be blamed is induced to doe the like and afterward grieueth at it Pareus 3. or he is grieued beeing by this meanes made to stagger and to doubt of the truth of the Catholike faith 4. or he is grieued thinking him to be a transgressor of the law that eateth Lyranus 4. And whereas he saith he walketh not according to charitie minus dicit plus significat he expresseth the lesse but in deede meaneth more for he walketh against charitie 2. Why doest thou destroy him with thy meate c. Here is an other reason taken from the daunger which is incurred by our weake brother as much as in vs lieth we cause him to perish for whome Christ died that he should not perish this reason is thus amplified by Chrysostome Christ refused not death for him thou ne cibos contemnis wilt not for thy brothers cause neglect thy meate Christ died for his enemie thou wilt not doe this for thy brother Christ died for all non luchraturus omnes though he should not gaine all quod suum est adimplevit yet he did that which belonged vnto him thou maist with thy meate winne thy brother and yet wilt not forbeare atque hoc cum sit ipse Dominus and Christ did this beeing Lord of all thou doest not this small matter beeing but his brother and fellow-seruant 30. Quest. Whether any in deede can perish for whome Christ died This doubt ariseth by reason of the Apostles words Destroy not him with thy meate for whome Christ died as though any could perish that Christ died for 1. Some doe thinke that one may perish in deede for whome Christ died dum fidem amittat qua cum vulnerata conscientia stare non potest c. while he looseth his faith which can not stand with a wounded conscience and so perish Osiander therein consenting with other of the Lutherans Chrysostome seemeth in this place to incline to the same opinion Christus tamet si non esset omnes luchraturus nihilominus pro omnibus mortuus est quod suum erat adimplens c. Christ though he was not to gaine all vnto him yet he died for all fulfilling that which was his part to doe c. Contra. But the contrarie is euident that they for whome Christ died in the counsell of God can not possibly perish 1. For of all that is giuen to Christ he looseth nothing Ioh. 6.39 but they are giuen to Christ for whome he dieth and they are of Christs sheepe whom none can take out of his hands Ioh. 10.28 2. neither can their faith which doe truly beleeue in Christ perish because they are sustained by Christ as he saith of Peter I haue praied for thee that thy faith faile not neither can the conscience of the faithfull be so wounded or wasted totally and finally but that faith though during that time obscured as in Dauid when he sinned against Vriah be not wholly extinguished 3. Chrysostome may be vnderstood to speake of the sufficiencie of Christs death that he died sufficiently for all which we acknowledge not of the efficacie that he died effectually for all for he saith he was not to gaine all and Augustine consenteth Electorum si quisquam perit fallitur Deus c. if any of the Elect perish God is deceiued but none of them doth perish quia non fallitur Deus because God is not deceiued lib. de corrupt grat c. 7. 2. Some by perishing here vnderstand nothing but to be offended and scandalized and take this to be an argument from a comparison that one should not pluris facere escam quam fratris salutem set more by meate then his brothers saluation which is hindred by the offence giuen vnto him and this argument is enforced by shewing the price and value of our brother for whome Christ died if Christ gaue his life to redeeme him much more should we giue a piece of flesh to helpe to saue him Beza annot to the same purpose Ambrose ex cuius morte quantum valeat fratris salus cognoscitur by whose death it appeareth how much the saluation of our brother is set by So Haymo by perishing vnderstandeth offending and scandalizing but to destroy is more then to offend and to perish or be destroied as the Apostle vseth this word in the passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Cor. 8.11 is more then to be offended the Greeke Scholiast interpreteth ne à fide eijcias least thou cast him out from the faith and then he which leaueth the faith must needes perish And like as to offend or cause our brother to stumble is more then to griue him so to destroy him is more then to offend or cause him to stumble for thus the Apostle proceedeth by degrees 3. An other sense is that he is occasio
he preached to the Iewes in his owne person to the Gentiles by his Apostles the Iewes had promises made to the fathers which were to be performed quasi ex debito as it were of debt not in regard of the Iewes to whome God was not endebted but of the truth of God with whome it is iust to performe that which he promised Lyran. but the Gentiles were called of Gods mercie onely without any such promise which though it were made de gentibus of and concerning the Gentiles and their vocation yet it was not made gentibus to the Gentiles as the promises were made to the fathers Pareus Thus our blessed Sauiour is set forth vnto vs vt minister humilis as an humble minister magister vtilis a profitable master because it is added for the truth and amicus stabilis a stable and faithfull friend to confirme the promises Gorrhan 15. Quest. Of the vocation and calling of the Gentiles why it is said to be of mercie and of the Iewes in truth v. 9. And let the Gentiles praise God c. This naming and mentioning of the Gentiles sheweth that the other part must be vnderstood of the Iewes that Christ was first a minister vnto them Iunius in his parallels thinketh that Christ was a Minister of the spirituall circumcision spoken of by S. Paul Coloss. 2.11 both vnto Iewes and Gentiles and that S. Paul doth not expressely speake of the Iewes though first he shew how Christ receiued them because partly that needed no proofe as the assumption of the Gentiles did and partly it may be vnderstood by the other part of the distribution concerning the Gentiles but it is better as is shewed in the former question by circumcision to vnderstand the circumcised nation of the Iewes and so both partes of the distribution are made more euident For his mercie It was Gods mercie also to make those gracious promises to the Iewes but because no promise was made to the Gentiles but concerning them neither are the promises concerning them so frequent in the Prophets as those made to the Iewes therefore the Apostle doth vnto the Iewes ascribe the veritie of Gods promises and to the Gentiles mercie so Hierome well obserueth this difference vpon these words Psal. 85.11 Mercie and truth are met Iudaeis repromissum est quod veniet Salvator nobis ex Gentibus non est repromissum c. It was promised to the Iewes that the Sauiour should come but to vs of the Gentiles it was not promised therefore it was mercie onely in the people of the Gentiles and truth in the people of the Iewes because that came which was promised c. so the Apostle excludeth the Gentiles from the promises they were straungers from the covenant of promise and this difference Gualter well obserueth in that place Micah c. 7.20 Thou wilt performe thy truth to Iacob and thy mercie to Abraham it was mercie in making the first gracious truth and graunt to Abraham and to his seede and then truth in performing the promises to Iacob made to his father Abraham Yet these two truth and mercie are not so to be distinguished as the one should be without the other for the calling of the Iewes as it was in truth so was it of mercie and the vocation of the Gentiles as it was of mercie so also in truth for the truth of the Prophesies and predictions made concerning the Gentiles was to take place but mercie is ascribed to the Gentiles quia magis apparet in conuersione Gentium because it appeared more in the conuersion of the Gentiles to whom no promises were made at all Gorrhan This is vsuall in the Apostles distributions onely to distinguish the partes according to diuerse degrees of more or lesse not that one member altogether excludeth the other as specially appeareth in these two places c. 4.25 Christ died for our sinnes and rose againe for our iustification and c. 10.10 With the heart man beleeueth vnto righteousnesse and with the mouth he confesseth to salvation Thus the Iewes and Gentiles are made equall in their calling and assuming to Christ both beeing so assumed of mercie that all envie and dissention might be taken away and both of them provoked to praise God for his mercie Quest. 16. Of the places of Scripture produced by the Apostle to prooue the calling of the Gentiles v. 9.10.11.12 v. 9. I will confesse thee among the Gentiles 1. This cannot be vnderstood of the person of Dauid for he made this song a little before his death as appeareth 2. Sam. 22. when God had deliuered him from all his enemies he could not then in his owne person set forth the praise of God among the Gentiles in his graue 2. Iunius in his parallels thinketh that Dauid speaketh this of himselfe but vnder the person of Christ that he in him which should come of his seed as one of his faithfull members should set forth the praises of God among the Gentiles as Levi is said Heb. 7. to haue beene tithed in Abraham 3. Pet. Mar. vnderstandeth the bodie of Christ the Church of God in whose person Dauid speaketh 4. rather Dauid speaketh here in the person of Christ who in his members doth continually set forth the praises of God among the Gentiles filius Dei laudat patrem per ora opera Gentium the Sonne praiseth the Father by the mouthes and workes of the Gentiles Haymo and because facit confiteri he maketh them confesse vnto the praise of God 5. so first here the consequent is prooued by the antecedent because God cannot be praised nisi in caetu sidelium but in the congregation of the faithfull Calvin the Gentiles cannot please God vnlesse they first should become the people of God and then the force of the argument lieth in this prediction and promise made by Dauid which must be fulfilled but Dauid promiseth that the Gentiles when they are called shall praise God therefore they shall be called v. 10. Reioyce yee Gentiles with his people 1. some thinke this place to be taken out of Psalem 67.5 Let the people praise thee O God c. Calvin Gualter but there the other words with thy people are not found Thomas as Erasmus obserueth well will haue it cited out of the 25. of Isay but it is euident to be found Deuter. 32.43 Yee nations praise his people or reioyce with his people 2. But the Iewes will obiect that the Apostle doth not cite that place aright for the words in the Hebrew are praise yee nations his people not with his people or and his people Answ. This place must either be read thus praise ye Gentiles his people or ye Gentiles his people praise him or ye Gentiles with his people c. the first is not so fit for Moses in that song doth reprooue the people of Israel and threatneth that for their disobedience they shall be cast off v. 21. I will mooue them to iealousie with those which are no people and