a figure of Christ therefore as Christs righteousnesse is extended euen vnto those before the lawe so also was Adams sinne v. 14. Then the Apostle sheweth wherein Adam is vnlike vnto Christ namely in these three things 1. in the efficacie and power the grace of God in Christ is much more able to saue vs then Adams fall was to condemne vs v. 15. 2. in the obiect Adams one offence was sufficient to condemne but by Christ we are deliuered from many offences v. 16. 3. in the ende Adams sinne brought forth death but Christs righteousnesse doth not onely deliuer vs from sinne and death but bringeth vs vnto righteousnesse and life yea and causeth vs to raigne in life it restoareth vs to a more glorious kingdome and inheritance then we lost in Adam v. 17. The reddition or second part of this comparison sheweth wherein Christ of whom Adam was a type and figure is answearable vnto Adam namely in these three things propounded v. 12. first in the singularitie of his person one mans iustification saueth vs as one mans offence condemned vs v. 18. 2. in the obiect as Adams sinne was communicated to many so is Christs obedience v. 19. And here the Apostle by the way preuenteth an obiection that if sinne came in by Adam why entred the lawe he answeareth to the ende that sinne might the more appeare and be increased not simply but that thereby the grace of God might abound the more 3. in the ende as sinne had raigned vnto death so grace might raigne vnto eternall life 3. The questions and doubts discussed Quest. 1. What peace the Apostle meaneth ver 1. v. 1. Beeing iustified by faith we haue peace toward God 1. Oecumenius whom Harme and Anselme Lyranus Hugo followe doe reade here in the imperatiue habeamus let vs haue not habemus we haue and they vnderstand peace with men that the Iewes should no longer contend with the Gentiles about their lawe as though iustification came thereby seeing the Apostle had sufficiently prooued alreadie that we are iustified by faith But this exposition cannot stand 1. because the Apostle speaketh of such peace as we haue with God not with man 2. he speaketh in the first person we haue but S. Paul was none of these which did contend about the Lawe 2. Origen Chrysostome Theodoret vnderstand it of peace with God but in this sense let vs beeing iustified by faith take heede that we offend not God by our sinnes and so make him our enemie mihi videtur saith Chrysostome de vita conuersatione disserere the Apostle seemeth vnto me now to reason of our life and conuersation so Origen let vs haue peace vt vltra non adversetur caro spiritus that our flesh no longer rebell against the spirit But the Apostle here exhorteth not sed gratulatur eorum faelicitati he doth rather set forth with ioy the happines of those which are iustified Erasmus and it is not an exhortation but a continuation rather of the former doctrine of iustification Tolet annot 1. and here he sheweth the benefits of our iustification whereof the first is peace of conscience Pareus and this is further euident by the words following By whom we haue accesse which words beeing not vttered by way of exhortation but of declaration shewe that the former words should so likewise be taken Erasmus 3. Ambrose reading in the Indicatiue habemus we haue expoundeth this peace of the tranquilitie and peace of conscience which we haue with God beeing once iustified by faith in Christ thus the Apostle himselfe expoundeth this peace v. 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne for they are our sinnes which make a separation betweene God and vs this sense followe Tolet annot 1. and in his commentarie Pareus Gryneus Faius with others 4. This then is resolued vpon that the Apostle speaketh here not of externall but internall peace there is pax temporis and pax pecteris a temporall and a pectorall or inward peace the other Christ giueth but through the malice of Sathan and the corruption of mans heart it may be interrupted and therefore Christ saith Matth. 10.34 That he came not to send peace but the sword but the other which is the inward peace of conscience Satan himselfe can not depriue vs of no man can take it from vs. But whereas there is a threefold combate within vs the fight betweene reason and affection betweene the flesh and the spirit and a wrestling with the terrors of Gods iudgements in the two first we cannot haue peace here but in part for still in the seruants of God there remaineth a combat betweene reason and affection the flesh and the spirit as S. Paul sheweth that it was so with him Rom. 7.23 he sawe another lawe in his members rebelling against the lawe of his minde and therefore we are not to hope to haue such peace vt non vltra caro adversetur spiritui that the flesh should no more rebell against the spirit as Origen thinketh but this inward peace is in respect of the terrors which are caused in vs by the feare of Gods iudgement against sinne from this terror we are deliuered by Christ Beza yet so as sometimes there may arise some feare doubts and perplexitie in the minde of the faithfull as it is written of Hilarion that beeing 70. yeare old and now neere vnto death he was somewhat perplexed and troubled in minde yet faith in the end ouercommeth all these dangers that we fall not vpon the rockes to make shipwracke of our faith and a good conscience 5. And we must here distinguish betweene pax conscientiae stupor conscienciae the peace of conscience and a carnall stupiditie for the one neuer felt the terror of Gods iudgments and therefore can haue no true peace the other hath felt them and is nowe by faith deliuered from them Calvin 6. Now whereas it is added We haue peace with God or toward God these things are here to be obserued 1. all the causes are here expressed of our iustification the materiall which is remission of our sinnes included in iustification the formall by faith the finall to haue peace with God the efficient through our Lord Iesus Christ Gorrhan 2. and in that he saith toward God Origen noteth that this is added to shewe that they haue neither peace in themselues because of the continuall combate betweene the flesh and the spirit not yet with Sathan and the world which continually tempt vs but with God we haue peace who is reconciled vnto vs in Christ and he saith toward God or with God to signifie that reconciliation is not onely made with God but that it is pleasing and acceptable vnto him that such a reconciliation is made Tolet. and further hereby is signified that this is a perpetuall peace because it is toward God with whom there is no change nor mutabilitie Faius Thorough Iesus Christ 1. Chrysostome seemeth thus to vnderstand
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
reckoneth a number of vertues he was probatus per tribulationes approoued by many tentations and tribulations Lyran. and beside iudicio non errabat he erred not in iudgment he was in all points orthodoxall 4. and hereby the Apostle doth incourage him to proceede in his constancie and he propoundeth also his example to the Romanes 2. Salute them of Aristobulus houshold 1. Lyranus thinketh that this Aristobulus had made an house ad fideles congregandum to gather the faithfull together and is principally vnderstood in this salutation tanquam principalis in domo as the principall in the house Hugo thinketh he was not then at Rome and therefore is not saluted Gualter coniectureth he might be dead but it is more like he was à fide Christi alienus a stranger from the faith of Christ and yet no great enemie because there were some faithfull in his house Pareus Osiander 2. and whereas these are not saluted by name Chrysostome thinketh non tales fuisse quales priores that they were not such as the former and because he giueth them no such commendation as the other that they were beloued his helpers or approoued Origen thinketh nihil habebant tale in meritis they were not of such worthines as the other 3. these the Apostle encourageth that they should go on in their Christian profession though they serued an vnbeleeuing Master 3. Salute Herodian my kinsman 1. natione religione both in nation and religion Lyran. and it seemeth that he was of neerer alliance vnto S. Paul then by nation onely as Andronicus and Iunia before mentioned v. 7. 2. Origen obserueth that whereas he gaue other titles vnto those cousens that they were his concaptiues and famous among the Apostles that there was great difference in those whom S. Paul calleth his kinsman 4. Greet them which are of the house of Narcissus 1. Ambrose thinketh that this Narcissus was a presbiter of Rome so also Hay Lyranus addeth discurrens per civitates that he went vp and downe from citie to citie to confirme the faithfull and that he was not at this time at Rome but imployed abroad But if this Narcissus had beene of the Church S. Paul would not haue omitted him for of his absence from Rome the Apostle being so far off was ignorant 2. Beza interpreting of the familiars or friends of Narcissus seemeth to thinke that this Narcissus was conuerted to the faith otherwise his familiars and acquaintance were not like to be Christians 3. But I thinke rather with Martyr Calvin Gualter Pareus that this Narcissus was the same whom Suetonius reporteth to haue beene in great fauour with Claudius the Emperour he was exceeding rich worth tenne millions that is an 100. hundred thousand pounds in so much that when Caesar complained of the smalnes of his treasure the saying was that if two of his seruants Narcissus and Pollas would make him their associate he should of money enough he was a craftie and wicked fellow and beeing mightie in the Emperours fauour he practised the death of some of the nobilitie as of Appius Syllanus vpon suspicion of treason at length he had a miserable ende beeing murthered by the meanes of Agrippina who first caused Claudius the Emperour to be poisoned while Narcissus was at the bath it seemeth that euen in this wicked mans house there were some Christians and as M. Calvin saith domum quasi inferis similem Christi gratia visicari that an house like vnto hell was visited by the grace of Christ. 4. But if this were that Narcissus as Pareus thinketh then was it not so long before S. Paul came the second time to Corinth when he should write this epistle to the Romanes about the 7. or 8. yeare of Nero as he thinketh for that Narcissus was slaine not long after Claudius the Emperours death and after he was taken away it is like his houshold was dissolued See before in the ende of the 5. quest 5. Origen obserueth that whereas it is added which are in the Lord man omnes in Domino fuisse that all of Narcissus familie were not in the Lord they were not all Christians 6. Hugo noteth that here the Apostle saluteth them as they were diuided into sundrie congregations as our Sauiour did feede the people causing them to sit downe by rankes Quest. 11. Of other salutations of the Apostle of some of speciall note v. 12.13 1. Tryphena and Tryphosa are first commended for their labour 1. some thinke this labour was of three sorts in exhortatione ministerio sanctorum in pressuris in exhortation ministring to the Saints in afflictions for the Gospell gloss ordinar but rather the seruices of these women are to be vnderstood which they bestowed in the entertainement of the Saints such as before Marie was commended for Pareus P. Martyr thinketh they might haue such a ministerie in the Church as Phebe had one of the widowes Gualter taketh it for the domesticall care in houshold affaires and in the education of children but they are commended rather for their publike and profitable seruice to the Church 2. Chrysostome thinketh this setteth forth their commendation because they are said non solum operari sed laborare not onely to worke but to labour 3. and Origen addeth further that they are said to labour in the Lord many doe labour but not for the Lord. 4. Chrysostome noteth this as a part of commendation that whereas Marie is said to haue laboured they continue labouring still in laudem cedit continenter aliquid factitare it is to ones praise to continue in doing a thing Theophyl 2. Persis is commended beyond the other 1. because he calleth her beloued ostendens maiorem esse shewing her therein to be greater Chrysost. 2. and de multo labore testimonium fert he giueth testimonie of her much labour Chrysost. Origen 3. and somewhat there is in it that of the other he saith they labour of this she hath laboured noting some speciall labour and trouble which she had sustained for the Gospel 3. Rufus elected in the Lord. 1. Origen thinketh he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elected in respect of his election he knewe him to be of the number of the elect but there were other beside here named which belonged to Gods election 2. Haymo and Lyranus because he was promotus ad sacerdotium promoted to the ministerie or Priesthood 3. But he is rather so called because he was an excellent and chiefe man in pietie as Beza calleth him selected so also Tolet and Theophilact hath no other meaning here is a double good filius mater reprehensibilis the sonne and mother are reprehensible an elect and choise mother had an elect and choice sonne 4. Paul calleth this matrone his mother and of Rufus his in affection the others in nature as he willeth that the elder women should be reuerenced as mothers 1. Tim. 5.2 as he called Phebe his sister v. 1. 5. Origen obserueth that Paul and Rufus had one
epistle written vnto the dispersed brethren in all these countreys and againe if Peter had come from Rome when Claudius expelled the Iewes it is like mention should haue been made as well of Peters comming from thence as of Aquila and Priscilla Act. 18.2 4. Then after this councell it is not like that Peter went to Rome for these two reasons because the Iewes had been lately expelled from thence and S. Paul was by consent appointed to be the Apostle of the vncircumcision Peter of the circumcision he then went not to preach to the Romanes which belonged vnto Pauls lot 5. When S. Paul writ the epistle to the Romanes which might be in the last yeare of Claudius Peter was not at Rome for theÌ„ Paul would not haue left him out vnsaluted c. 16. 6. And after this when Paul was brought prisoner to Rome which might be in the 2. of Nero and there continued in bonds to the 4. of Nero all this while Peter was not there for then S. Paul in his epistles written from Rome where he sendeth commendations from diuerse of the brethren as from Epaphras Luke and Demas Coloss. 4.12.14 and to Philemon v. 23. from Marcus Aristarchus Demas Luke his cohelpers would not haue forgotten also to send greeting from S. Peter if he had beene at Rome againe he saith 2. Tim. 4.11 onely Luke is with me then was not Peter with him and he further saith v. 16. at my first answearing no man assisted me but all forsooke me but if S. Peter had beene there he would not in all likelihoode haue forsaken him Thus then it is euident that to the ende of S. Pauls first captiuitie at Rome which was in the 4. of Nero Pareus placeth it in the 11. and 12. of Nero it is prooued by the continuance of the sacred historie that Peter was not at Rome then could he not come thither in the 2. of Claudius which was 16. yeares before and sit Bishop there 25. yeeres After this time it cannot be certainely prooued whether he came to Rome therefore it cannot be receiued and beleeued as an article of faith Our second generall argument is taken from the great vncertaintie and manifold contradictions of the auncient writers concerning the time of S. Peters comming and continuing at Rome 1. They dissent about the time of Peters coÌ„ming to Rome Eutropius saith that Peter was at Rome the 1. yeare of Caius Caligula who was Emperour 5. yeares next before Claudius and that Philo an embassadour from the Iewes there spake with him Orosius saith he came thither in the beginning of Claudius raigne Hierome in the second yeare fasciculus temporum in the 4. Nauclerus saith he came to Rome in the beginning of Claudius raigne but was not installed Bishop till the 4. yeare the Passionall saith he came not thither till the 13. yeare of Claudius Eusebius l. 2. c. 13. saith he came to Rome in the raigne of Claudius but he assigneth not the yeare Damasus saith he came in the raigne of Nero. 2. There is also great difference about the time and place of S. Peters death Lyranus in his annotations Matth. 23. thinketh he was crucified at Ierusalem so also Linus others say at Rome Epiphanius in Nason assigne the 12. yeare of Nero the most the 14. yeere Ambrose serm 67. saith that S. Paul and S. Peter vna die vno loco c. in one day and the same place endured the sentence of the same Tyrant Hierome thinketh they suffered the same day but Paul a yeare after Peter Abdias saith that Peter suffred at Rome in the time of S. Pauls free imprisonment which was in the 3. or 4. yeare of Nero so that Saint Paul should surviue him 10. yeares Ireneus saith that Marke surviued Peter and writ his Gospel after his death lib. 3. c. 1. and Eusebius writeth that Marke was put to death in the 8. of Nero l. 2. c. 24. then if these authors say true must Peter be put to death before the 8. yeere of Nero. 3. A third difference is in the time of Peters beeing Bishop at Rome Eusebius giueth him 25. yeares Hierome 27. Beda 29. Damasus holding that he came to Rome in the raigne of Nero cannot giue him aboue halfe so many if he were put to death by Nero otherwise the 25. yeares which he giueth him will reach to Domitians raigne See Christoph. Carlil p. 7.14 of his first discourse Let now the indifferent Reader iudge whether in such vncertaintie it be not more probable that Peter was neuer at Rome or if he were not as Bishop there beeing an Apostle and that of the circumcision at the least his beeing there cannot be prooued by Scripture and so cannot be affirmed as an article of faith See further Synops. Pap. Centur. 1. err 38. 6. Morall obseruations Observ. 1. Whom we are to commend v. 1. I commend Phebe S. Paul commendeth Phebe for her singular seruice performed to the church in going hospitalitie to the Saints which teacheth vs whom we should commend by our testimonie that we take heed that we giue not our commendation of any vnworthie person for then we should be found to be false witnesses as we should not depraue the good gifts in any so neither should we commend them which haue few or no coÌ„mendable parts vnder Christs kingdom it is prophesied that a niggard shall no more be called liberall nor a churle rich Isa 32.5 but euerie one shall be called and commended according to his worth a good caveat for these dayes wherein flatterie so much preuaileth especially about great persons that in such great and enormous vices do often maske vnder the name and title of honour Observ. 2. Of hospitalitie v. 2. She hath given hospitalitie to many These duties belong vnto hospitalitie affectuosa invitatio a most affectionate and earnest inviting as the disciples compelled Christ as yet vnknowne vnto them to stay with them 2. laeta susceptio a ioyfull receiuing and entertaining as Zacheus receiued Christ ioyfully and gladly into his house 3. larga procuratio large and liberall prouision as Abraham went himselfe and fetch a calse and killed it 4. quiescendi opportunitas opportunitie and fit place to rest in as the Shunamite prouided for the Prophet a chamber 2. King 4. 5. securitas protectio securitie and protection as Lot did safegard his ghests the two young men came into his house 6. amicabilis diductio a friendly bringiâ—â— on the way in their departure as Abraham did Gen. 18. Observ. 3. Of the true ornaments of women 3. Greet Priscilla and Aquila c. This woman with her husband are commended for beeing assistants and helpers vnto Paul in his ministrie and in preseruing his life with endangering their owne such was their pietie and zeale behold these are the vertues and true ornaments of women how many Queenes saith Chrysostome are buried in silence and obliuion whereas this tentmakers wife est in ore omnium is in euerie ones mouth and
other Apostles which were iudged to be Apochryphall bookes and of no authoritie 1. because in the writings of those which succeeded the Apostles no mention is made of them 2. the stile is diuerse from the stile of the Apostles 3. and the doctrine contained in those bookes dissenting from the doctrine of the Apostles 3. Beside these two latter sorts of bookes all the rest are vndoubtedly held to be Canonicall and of equall authoritie and therefore that distinction of Sixtus Senensis is to be taken heede of who calleth some bookes of the New Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 canonicall of the first sort some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 canonicall of the second sort which were sometime doubted of for by this meanes should they not be of equall and the like authoritie And beside he saith that these latter were held by some of the fathers to be Apochryphall bookes vnderstanding Apochryphal bookes for such as had an hid and vnknowne author But indeede the Apochrypha are so called not for that their author was vnknowne for then diuerse of the Canonicall bookes should be Apochrypha but because they were of an hid and obscure authoritie in which sense none of the fathers euer held any of the Canonical bookes of the New Testament to be Apochrypha 4. As the Heretikes brought in counterfeit bookes of their owne into the New Testament so they reiected diuerse parts of the Canonical bookes 1. Faustus the Manichie held diuerse things to be false in the New Testament Augustin lib. 33. cont Faust. c. 3. 2. The Ebionites receiued none but the Gospel according to Saint Matthew Iren. l. 1. c. 26. 3. the Marcionites onely allowed S. Lukes Gospel Epiphan haeres 42.4 the Acts of the Apostles and S. Pauls epistles the Tatiane and Seueriane heretikes reiected Euseb. l. 4. c. 29. 5. Marcion and Basilides the epistles to Timothie Titus and to the Hebrewes Hierom. praefat ad Titum 4. Places of doctrine in generall 1. Doct. Of the excellencie of the Newe Testament aboue and beyond the Old 1. It excelleth in the the matter and doctrine the law promiseth life onely to those that keep it the Gospel vnto those which beleeue in Christ Rom. 10.5 6. 2. In the subiect the lawe was written in tables of stone but the Gospel is written by the spirit of God in the fleshie tables of our hearts 2. Cor. 3.2 3. In the end the old Testament was the ministration of death and the killing letter the other is the ministration of the spirit which giueth life 2. Cor 3.6 7. 4. In the condition and qualitie the law imposed the hard yoke and seruitude of ceremonies which was impossible to be borne Act. 15.10 but Christs yoke is easie Math. 11. which of seruants adopteth vs to be the sonnes of God Rom. 8.15 5. In the minister Moses was the typical Mediator of the Olde Testament but Christ the Lord and builder of the house is the Mediator of the New Heb. 3.3 6. In the fruites and effects the Old Testament could not purge the conscience from sinne but the sprinkling of the blood of Christ purgeth the conscience from dead workes Heb. 9.13 14. 7. In the manner the old Testament was folded vp in types and figures as Moses vailed the glorie of his face but now we see the glorie of the Lord in the Gospell with open face 2. Cor. 3.18 8. In the ratification the old Testament was confirmed with the blood of beasts the New by the death of Christ quest 17.18 9. In the seales the old was attended vpon by bloodie sacrifices and other such like hard Sacraments as circumcision which was painefull to the flesh the New hath easie and vnbloodie sacraments as the seales neither so many in number namely Baptisme and the Eucharist 10. Another excellencie is in persons whom this New Testament concerneth which is not giuen onely to one people and nation as the old was but vnto the Catholike Church of God dispersed ouer the face of the earth as the Apostles are commanded to goe and teach all nations Matth. 28.19 In these respects the Apostle thus giueth preheminence to the New Testament before the old Heb. 8.6 he hath obtained a more excellent office in as much as he is the Mediator of a better Testament which is established vpon better promises Not that Christ was not Mediator also of the old Testament for without him neither can there be any Church nor couenant made with the Church but because Christ but shadowed forth in the old Testament is more fully reuealed and manifested in the New 5. Places of confutation 1. Controv. Against those which thinke it is against the nature of the New Testament to be committed to writing Of this opinion are certaine of a fantasticall spirit which to this purpose abuse that place of Ieremie 32.33 I will write my lawe in their hearts and that of S. Paul 2. Cor 3.3 You are our epistle written not with inke but with the spirit whence they would inferre that the Newe Testament is not to be written but that it consisteth in reuelation and the instinct of the Spirit Contra. 1. If the Newe Testament were not to be extant in writing then the Apostles had done a superfluous and vnnecessarie worke in writing the bookes of the Newe Testament whereunto they were directed by the spirit of God and S. Iohn is directly commanded to write Apocal. 14.13 and S. Paul saith that all Scripture is giuen by inspiration 2. Tim. 3.16 The spirit of God then mooued them to put in writing these holy bookes of the Newe Testament which are part of the Scripture 2. It followeth not because the Lord writeth the Gospel in our hearts by his spirit that therefore it is not to be written for by the writing thereof which is preached and read saith is wrought in the heart by the operation of the spirit as the Apostle saith Rom. 10.17 that faith commeth by hearing and hearing by the word And againe the Prophet there sheweth a difference betweene the lawe and the Gospell the law gaue Precepts but could not incline the heart to obedience but the Gospel doth not onely command faith but by the operation of the spirit worketh the same thing which it requireth 3. In the other place of the Apostle 1. they would make the Apostle contrarie to himselfe as though he should speak against the writing of Euangelical precepts whereas the Apostle did write that very epistle with inke 2. he speaketh not of the Gospel but of the Corinthians whom he calleth his Epistle 3. and by the latter in that place he vnderstandeth not the writing with inke or such like but the externall doctrine without the grace and life of the spirit such as the doctrine of the Law was 2. Controv. Against the Romanists which hold that the writing of the Gospel and other Scriptures is not simply necessarie to saluation First we will examine the arguments which are brought by them to confirme this their
appeareth Act. 5. where the whole Councell followed his sentence by profession he was a Pharisie Philip. 3.5 which was the most tolerable sect among the Iewes 4. Concerning his life and conuersation euen before his conuersion he did lead an vnblameable life touching the law beeing very zealous in defending the rites and ceremonies thereof but he was withall a most fierce persecutor of the Church of Christ Philip. 3.6 and after his conuersion he was a zealous a preacher of the Gospel 5. Touching his gifts he was not onely learned in their owne law but also well studied in humane learning as appeareth by the alledging of forten testimonies as of Aratus Act. 17. of Menander 1. Cor. 15. of Epimenides Tit. 1. He excelled in the gift of vtterance and had a singular grace of speach as is euident by the Apologies and extemporall speaches which he made Act. 22.23 Beside he was forceable in perswasion pithie in argument and readie in disputation as appeareth by the conflicts which he had diuers times with the Iewes and with the Philosophers at Athens Act. 17. His labour and paines was answerable to his gifts the grace of God was not in vaine in him for he laboured both by writing and preaching more then all the Apostles beside 1. Cor. 15.10 he caused the Gospel to abound from Ierusalem to Illyricum Rom. 15.19 euen vnto Spaine v. 24. in all Asia minor and in the most famous countries of Europe he preached the Gospel of Iesus Christ. 6. Now concerning the ende of this holy Apostle in the 23. yeare of his Apostleship after his conuersion which is held to haue beene in the 3. yeare after the ascension of Christ in the 20. yeare of Tiberius in the 2. yeare of Nero he was carried prisoner to Rome and there remained in free custodie two yeares from thence it is thought he was deliuered and went and preached the Gospel in the West parts as Hierome collecteth out of that place 2. Tim. 4.17 that the Lord deliuered him out of the lyons mouth meaning Nero that by me the preaching of the Gospel might bâ— fully knowne and all the Gentiles might heare Afterward in the 14. yeare of Nero and the 35. of his Apostleship and 37. after Christ ascension and from the natiuitie of Christ 70. he was beheaded at Rome and during his bonds he writ 7. of his Epistles but whether in his first or second bonds it is vncerten Paraeus Aretius thinketh he wrote them in the time of his first imprisonment but that is not so certen But there are other particular matters recorded which fell out in S. Pauls death which are not of like certentie Hierome thinketh that S. Paul and S. Peter suffered in one day at Rome and some adde that when he was beheaded in stead of blood there issued forth milke to shew his innocencie August in orat de sanctis But Nicephorus reporteth a thing more strange that Paul before he suffered had conference with Nero and told him that he would returne vnto him the third day after and so his shadow appeared accordingly which Nero catched at but it fled from him Niceph. l. 2. c. 36. The first of these is probable though not necessarie to be beleeued the second is not impossible though of no great certentie the third seemeth to be fabulous as many such miracles haue beene deuised in former times of the Saints to encrease superstition Aretius 3. Quest. Of S. Pauls place of birth 1. Absurd is the opinion of the Ebionites as Epiphanius reporteth and confuteth their heresie haeres 30. that S. Paul was a Grecian by nation and borne of Greeke parents but comming to Ierusalem he was in loue with the Priests daughter and desiring her to wife he became a Proselyre and was content to be circumcised But this is contrarie to Paul himselfe who affirmeth that he was an Hebrew of the Hebrewes and of the tribe of Beniamin Philip. 3.5 2. Hierome sometime seemeth to be of opinion that Paul was borne at Giscalis a towne of Iudea which beeing taken by the Romanes he departed to Tharsus with his parents and thereupon he was counted of Tharsus libr. de Ecclesiast script but after this in an epistle to Algasia he resolueth that he was borne at Tarsus Beda is of the same opinion that Paul was borne at Giscalis in c. 21. Actor and Andreas Masius in c. 19. Iosua 3. But the more generall and receiued opinion is that Paul was borne at Tarsus and not at Giscalis which is thus confirmed 1. Giscalis was a towne of Galile not of Iudea and taken by Titus the Emperour after S. Pauls death who was crowned with Martyrdome in the 13. yeare of Nero Ioseph l. 4. de bello Iudaic. it was not then taken by the Romanes so long before 2. S. Paul was a Romane borne Act. 22.26.28 that is borne in a citie priuiledged with the Romane liberties but so was not Giscalis Tharsus was as Dio testifieth lib. 47. and Plin. lib. 5. c. 27.3 Ignatius writing to them of Tharsus calleth them cives discipulos Pauli S. Pauls disciples and citizens 4. But the Apostle himselfe putteth this matter out of doubt affirming that he was borne in Tarsus in Cilicia Act. 22.2 4. Quest. Whether S. Paul were noble by birth 1. August serm 15. de verb. Apost thinketh that S. Paul was of noble birth vpon those words Philip. 3.3 Though I might haue confidence in the flesh for it had beene no great matter saith he for the Apostle to haue contemned nobilitie hauing none himselfe And beside he was of the sect of the Pharisies which was a noble sect among the Iewes they were not of the contemptible sort to this purpose Augustine Whereunto this may be added that the high Priest would not haue giuen so great authoritie vnto S. Paul as he did if he had bin of obscure birth or parentage 2. But Chrysostome seemeth to be of the contrarie opinion fuisse Paulum inopem coriarium that Paul was a poore handicraft man a worker of leather hom 4. in 2. epist. ad Timoth And hereof this argument is yeelded that S. Paul was not of noble birth because he was exercised in an handicraft in making of tents and therein brought vp before his calling as may be gathered Act. 18.3 But it was not the vse of noble men to follow such base trades And S. Paul saith not many noble are called 1. Cor. 1.25 which is vnderstood chiefly of the calling of the Apostles 3. The resolution is this that though S. Paul were not noble according to the Romane estimation of nobilitie beeing of an handicraft which suited not with nobilitie among the Romanes yet among the Iewes he was not of vnnoble birth v. ho counted nobilitie by the noblenes of the tribe and the antiquitie of the familie in which respect Ioseph the husband of Marie was noble though a carpenter by his trade as beeing descended of the royall tribe of Dauid So Paul was noble
Paul a prisoner of Iesus Christ These epistles the order whereof cannot be prooued otherwise out of the epistles themselues are best holden to haue beene written in that order wherein they are placed 11. The last of all the epistles written in S. Pauls first bands seemeth to be the epistle to the Hebrewes Pareus maketh it the first written from Rome but because he saith they of Italie salute you c. 13.23 it may seeme he was dismissed from Rome and preached in Italie Baronius and before him Aretius thinke it was the last of all S. Pauls epistles but that is not like because it seemeth when he writ this epistle he was deliuered from his bonds at Rome and was in Italie therefore I thinke that it was vpon the same reason the last which S. Paul did write in his first imprisonment as Pererius 12. The next was the epistle to Philemon but written in S. Pauls last bonds Pareus and Aretius thinke the Epistle to the Colossians was written first but Chrysostome giueth the prioritie of this epistle to Philemon vpon this reason because Coloss. 4.9 the Apostle maketh mention of Onesimus a faithfull and beloued brother whom he sent with Tiobicus vnto the Colossians but it is like he had first reconciled him to his master Philemon whose seruant he had beene without whose minde he would doe nothing Philem. 14. him therefore it is like he first of all sent to Philemon his master with that epistle before he would employ him 13. Then followeth the epistle to the Colossians wherein he prayeth them to be mindfull of his bonds These two last epistles 1. I neither thinke with Pererius to haue beene written in S. Pauls first bonds because he calleth himselfe now in the epistle to Philemon which was written before this to the Colossians Paul aged and though he writeth v. 21. as hoping to be deliuered yet it pleased God otherwise 2. neither yet doe I thinke with Pareus that all but the Epistle to the Hebrewes written from Rome are to be referred to S. Pauls last bonds because in some of them he writeth very confidently of his deliuerance as Philip. 1.25 This I am sure of that I shall abide c. these two then with the latter epistle to Timothie were written in S. Pauls last bonds 14. The last was the second epistle to Timothie which was after the other to the Colossians for Demas was now fallen away 2. Timoth. 4.10 who yet continued with Paul when he writ to the Colossians c. 4.14 Aretius And that this was the last of all is euident 2. Tim. 4.6 where he saith I am readie to be offred vp and the time of my departure is at band Chrysost. Pareus But Pererius much differeth and dissenteth as touching the order of time of the writing of these epistles whose placing of them with the reasons of his opinion shall briefely be examined 1. The Epistles to the Corinthians he thinketh to haue beene written before the 1. epistle to Timothie which is affirmed to haue beene written in the third place before either of these epistles for if Paul writ the 1. epistle to the Corinthians from Ephesus as Pererius confesseth and it is euident 1. Cor. 16.8 then must the 1. epistle to Timothie be the former for when S. Paul writ to Timothie he had not yet beene at Ephesus but he purposed to see Timothie shortly 1. Tim. 3.14 2. Next to the epistles to the Corinthians he placeth the former to Timothie which must goe before vpon the reason alleadged 3. After the epistles to the Corinthians he setteth the Epistle to Titus which followed indeede in that order as is shewed before sauing that he thinketh it was not written from Nicopolis which is most probable because he saith c. 3.12 Be diligent to come vnto me to Nicopolis for I am determined there to winter for although these words may beare that sense that he was not yet come to Nicopolis but had it in his minde to be there yet the subscription to the epistle affirming that it was written from Nicopolis ought to sway that way especially the text fauouring that sense 4. The epistle to the Galatians he thinketh to haue had the 5. place next to that to Titus with Chrysostome But Theodorets opinon is rather to be received who thinketh it was written from Rome and therefore after the epistle to the Romanes as is shewed before loc 9. 5. The Epistle to the Romanes was the last of those which S. Paul writ before he was in bonds at Rome as hath beene shewed before loc 7. 6. Then followe the other epistles to the Galatians Ephesians Philippians Philemon Colossians Hebrewes sauing that Pererius will haue the epistle to the Galatians before this to the Romanes and the epistle to the Hebrewes last of all but the two epistles to Timohie whereas the Epistles to Philemon and the Colossians were after it see before loc 13. 7. Last of all Pererius placeth the second to Timothie which was written last of all when Paul was readie to be offred vp as he writeth 2. Tim. 4.6 and that the time of his departure was at hand Baronius therefore is deceiued who thinkeh it was written before the epistles to the Philippians Ephesians Colossians Philemon and to the Hebrewes And whereas it will be obiected that S. Paul when he writ this epistle was deliuered out of the mouth of the lion meaning Nero 2. Timoth. 4.17 and therefore this epistle was written in his first not in his second bonds Chrysostome and Theodoret doe answear that S. Paul speaketh here of his first bonds that at his first answearing he was deliuered But 〈◊〉 the former places he speaketh of his state and condition wherein he then presently was euery day expecting death and looking for the time of his dissolution Quest. 18. That it is no point of curiositie but a thing verie requisite to knowe the diuerse times of the writing of S. Pauls Epistles 1. Not for that reason which Origen supposeth to know how the Apostle profited vâ—detur in hac epistola perfectior fuisse quam in caeteris he seemeth to haue beene more perfect in this epistle then in the rest for to the Corinthians he writeth 1. Cor. 9. Least when I haue preached to others I should be a reprobate he so saith quasi res non indubitata esset as though it were a thing which he was not fully resolued of and to the Philippians he saith 3.12 not as though I had alreadie attained vnto it But in this epistle he speaketh as a man thoroughly resolued he was perswaded that nothing could separate him from the loue of God in Christ c. 8.38 39. sic fere Origenes Contra. 1. The places alleadged prooue no such vncertaintie of assurance of saluation in Paul for in the first he speaketh not of reprobation before God but in the opinion of men least they might iudge him as a reprobate if his life should be contrarie to his doctrine in which sense he vseth the
the more inexcusable because they knew their masters will and did it not 5. Thou allowest or triest the things that are excellent they had a discerning iudgement by the knowledge of the law to know good from euill iust things from vniust 6. Then that which was the cause of this their discerning they were instructed in the law and trained vp in the precepts thereof 7. Then follow their titles which they tooke vpon them to be masters and teachers of others a guide to the blind a light of them which were in darknes both of the Gentiles which were blind in respect of other nations and the more simple and ignorant Iewes But these priuiledges did nothing profit them because they followed not that which they taught others Pareus 39. Quest. How the Iewes are said to commit sacriledge v. 22. 1. They were not guiltie of sacriledge in giuing the diuine worship vnto idols as Gorrh. for the Iewes after their returne out of captiuitie excepting some in the time of the Macchabees who for feare were compelled to worship idols were free from idolatrie and if it had beene so S. Paul would haue directly charged them with idolatrie as he did before with adulterie 2. Neither is hereby vnderstood contemptus divinae maiestatis the contempt of the diuine maiestie Calv. Piscat for that is afterward touched by the Apostle v. 23. Thorough breaking of the law dishonourest thou God 3. Nor with Origen is the meaning Christum verum templum Dei violas thou dost violate Christ the true temple of God for in ioyning sacriledge with idolatrie he meaneth some externall sinne and the violence offered to the name of Christ is compreheÌ„ded vnder blasphemie which is obiected v. 24.4 Gryneus vnderstandeth it of arrogating to their owne merits that which was peculiar to the grace of God Pareus of the polluting of Gods seruice with their inuentions but some externall sacriledge is signified as is faide 5. Some referre it to that particular sinne of robbing and spoiling the house of God as the sonnes of Eli appropriated to themselues the things offered to God Martyr but S. Paul seemeth specially to touch the sinnes of that age present thou art called a Iew. 6. Some take this sacriledge to be meant of buying and selling the Priests office Osiand and in taking to their owne vse things ordained for the temple Lyran. Syriack interpret Haymo But the Iewes which were at Rome were not guiltie of those abuses committed against the Temple at Ierusalem 7. Therfore this sacriledge was rather the couetousnes of the Iewes who attrectabant idolathyta did handle things offered to idols and so committed sacriledge in vsing those things to their priuate commoditie which were consecrate to idolatrie which by the law of God should haue beene destroied Chrysost. Theophyl as the manner of the Iewes is at this day to buie chalices and other implements which are stolne out of the idolatrous Churches of the Romanists this is called sacriledge because such things as were dedicate to idolatrie no man was to conuert to his owne vse Gualt and Calvin misliketh not this sense 40. Quest. How the name of God was blasphemed by the Iewes and whether this testimonie be rightly alleadged by the Apostle v. 24. The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you as it is written There are two kinds of blasphemie one is in word wher the name of God is taken in vaine whereof we haue an example Levit. 24. when the blasphemer was stoned to death Grâ—â— and here there is great difference betweene these two blasphemare blasphemiam dieâ—â— to blaspheme and to say a blasphemie he blasphemeth which of set purpose profaneth and abuseth the name of God but one may through infirmitie and perturbation of mind spâ—â—â—â— that which is blasphemie and yet not blaspheme as Iob that complained that God had peruerted or ouerthrowne him Iob 18.6 the other kind of blasphemie is when that is giuen vnto God which appertaineth not vnto him as that he is cruell vniust or that is denied vnto him which is due vnto him as if any denie his prouidence mercie wisdome Faius 2. Here the Iewes are said to blaspheme God diuers waies 1. they did both themselues contumelia Deum afficere offer contumelie vnto the name of God in blaspheming Christ ad id alios inducunt and they teach others to doe so likewise Theoph. Gorrh. 2. they blasphemed God in the contempt of his law for he that willingly transgresseth the law contemneth it and the author of it Basil. reg brev resp 4. 3. and they did not onely blaspheme God themselues male vivendo in euill liuing but occasionem praebendo in giuing occasion to the Gentiles to speake euill of God and of his religion because he had chosen such a wicked and disobedient people Lyran. and of this latter kind of dishonouring and blaspheming God speaketh the Apostle here 3. Now for the allegation it selfe 1. some thinke that the Apostle borroweth this testimonie from the Prophet Isa 52.5 They that rule ouer them make them to houle saith the Lord and my name all the day continually is blasphemed so Origen Theophyl Tolet but the two things will be here alleadged 1. that the Apostle neither followeth the Prophets words for here are neither thorough you nor among the Gentiles 2. nor yet keepeth his sense for he speaketh of the blasphemie of the Chaldeans who insulted against God as though he were not able to deliuer his people Ans. 1. First of all those words are in the translation of the Septuagint which the Apostle followeth as beeing best knowne vnto the Grecians and Romanes and because there is eadem sententia the same sentence and sense Lyran. 2. And in that the Chaldeans blasphemed God as though he either would not or could not deliuer his people the occasion was ministred by themselues who for their sinnes were carried into captiuitie vpon which occasion their enemies blasphemed 2. Some referre vs to that place Ezek. 36.23 And I will sanctifie my great name which was polluted among the heathen among whome ye haue polluted it Hierome Ostand Calvin where it is euident that the Iewes by their euill life caused the name of God to be polluted among the heathen 3. But the Apostle rather hath reference to both those places not so much alledging a testimonie as shewing the agreement of that prophesie to those times then present that the Iewes by their euill life caused the name of God to be blasphemed and euill spoken of among the Gentiles Mart. Pareus 41. Quest. In what sense the Apostle saith Circumcision is profitable v. 25. Seeing the Apostle in other places vtterly reiecteth circumcision as Gal. 5.2 If ye be circumcised Christ shall not profit you any thing and v. 5. for in Iesus Christ neither doth circumcision attaâ—le any thing c. hence two doubts arise 1. how the Apostle saith here Circumcision is profitable if thou doe the law 2. seeing none could keepe
redemption remission of sinnes and iustification are in themselues and in the vse of them common and vndeuided and are indifferently sometime ascribed to Christs death and passion Rom. 3.24 Ephes. 1.7 and sometime to his resurrection Rom. 10.9 yet in respect of their proper causes they are discerned rather then distinguished as the remission of sinnes is properly referred to Christs passion iustification to his resurrection Pareus and the reason is yeelded by Thomas effectus habet aliqualiter similitudinem causae the effect hath in some sort the similitude of the cause our mortification in the remission of sinne answeareth to Christs death our iustification and spirituall life to Christs rising againe to life Mart. Thus the workes of our creation redemption sanctification are indifferently ascribed to the whole Trinitie as works of their deitie and yet are discerned in respect of their seuerall persons And this shall suffice of this intricate and difficult question 4. Places of doctrine Doct. 1. Iustification by workes sheweth pride and vaine-glorie v. 2. If Abraham were iustified by workes he hath wherein to reioyce or glorie c. It is euident then that for one to stand vpon the iustice of his workes it commeth of pride and vaine boasting it maketh a man to extoll and advance himselfe against the grace of God but God resisteth the proude and giueth grace to the humble the proud Pharisie was not iustified but the humble Publican then let proud Pharisies and vaine-glorious Papists knowe that as long as they stand vpon the merit of their workes they shall neuer be truely iustified But yet whereas the Apostle addeth he hath wherein to reioyce but not with God we learne that all reioycing in good workes and in the keeping of a good conscience is not denyed we may modestly professe and protest before men what the grace of God hath wrought in vs but we must not glorie therein as thereby iustified before God as the Apostle else where saith 1. Cor. 4.4 I knowe nothing by my selfe yet am I not thereby iustified Pareus Doct. 2. Of the nature and substance of the Sacraments v. 11. Circumcision is called the seale of the righteousnes of faith this is not proper and peculiar to circumcision but it sheweth the vse and end of all sacraments which is to seale confirme vnto vs the promises of God in Christ So here are collected all the causes of the Sacraments 1. the efficient cause and author is God onely because he onely is able to giue efficacie and vertue vnto the sacraments as God was the author of circumcision so of all other the Sacraments both of the old and newe Testament 2. the materiall cause is the visible and externall signe 3. the forme is the rite and manner of institution 4. the ende to seale vnto vs the promises of God for remission of our sinnes in Christ Faius pag. 238. Doct. 3. Of the baptisme of infants From the circumcision of infants in the old Testament is inferred the baptisme also of infants vnder the newe for there is the same reason of both the Sacraments and S. Paul doubteth not to call baptisme circumcision Col. 2.11 And if circumcision beeing graunted to infants then baptisme should be denied nowe this were to make God more equall vnto the Iewes and their seede which were the carnall offspring of Abraham then vnto beleeuing Christians which are the spirituall sonnes of Abraham If it be obiected that we knowe not whether infants haue rem sacramenti the thing represented in the Sacrament neither should we put to the signe we answear 1. that this were to reason against God for the same question may be mooued concerning circumcision 2. no more doth the minister know the minde and intention of all those which communicate in the Lords Supper 3. infants are baptized though they haue no vnderstanding as yet of the Sacrament to shewe that they belong vnto the couenant of grace whence their saluation dependeth and not of the outward signe and both presently the Church receiueth edifying when they see infants baptized and the children themselues are admonished and stirred vp when they come to yeares of discretion to learne the true signification and vse of their baptisme which they receiued in their infancie Peter Martyr Doct. 4. Of the vnitie of the Church and the communion of Saints v. 11. That he should be the father of all them that beleeue In that Abraham is called the father of all that beleeue whether of the circumcision or vncircumcision hence it is euident that there is but one Church and one way of iustification for all whether circumcised or vncircumcised vnder the Lawe or the Gospel and that there is a communion and common fellowship of all beleeuers as beeing all brethren and children of faithfull Abraham So the Apostle saith Ephes. 4.4 There is one bodie one spirit c. one Lord one faith one baptisme Doct. 5. Faith requisite in those which are made partakers of the Sacraments v. 11. The seale of the righteousnesse of faith which he had Circumcision profited not Abraham without faith neither can any Sacrament to them which are of discretion and able to vnderstand and discerne be of any force without faith and therefore S. Pauls rule is 1. Cor. 11.28 That a man should examine himselfe when he commeth to the Lords table and to this examination it belongeth to prooue whether they be in faith 2. Cor. 13.5 Doct. 6. The faithfull are the true owners and heares of the world the wicked are vsurpers v. 13. The promise to be heire of the world was made to Abraham thorough faith to them then that beleeue who are the right seede of faithfull Abraham doe the promises belong both of this life and of the next as the Apostle saith 1. Tim. 4.8 That godlinesse haue both the promise of this life and of that which is to come the faithfull then may vse the blessings of this life with a good conscience as pledges of the life to come but the wicked are vsurpers and therefore defile themselues in abusing the things of this life Gryneus Doct. 7. The difference betweene the true God and the false v. 17. He beleeued God who quickeneth the dead Hence are gathered three arguments of the Godhead 1. his omnipotencie both in giuing a beeing vnto things which are not be calleth the things that are not as though they were and in restoring vnto things the beeing which they had 2. his eternitie he is the first and the last both at the first he created all things and shall in the last day raise them vp to life againe 3. his omniscience he can foretell things to come in calling them that is giuing them a beeing which yet are nothing These things cannot idols doe nor any strange gods by these arguments the Prophet Isa confoundeth the Idols of the heathens shewing that they are not like vnto the true God Isa. 44.6 I am the first and the last and without me there is no
purpose alleadge Augustine who vnderstandeth here the loue non qua ipse nos diligit sed qua facit nos dilectores sui not wherewith God loueth vs but whereby he maketh vs louers of of him c. and he would prooue the same by the Apostles phrase absurdissime dicitur c. that is most absurdly said to be shed in our hearts quod extra nos est c. which is without vs onely in God Contra. 1. Against Oecumenius we set Chrysostome an other Greeke father who vnderstandeth the Apostle to speake of the loue of God toward vs dilectioni Dei rem omnem acceptam fert he ascribeth the whole matter vnto the loue of God 2. Augustine shall answear Augustine who elsewhere interpreteth this place of the loue of God toward vs as where he thus saith ipse spiritus sanctus dilectio est non enim habet homo vnde Deum diligâ—â— nisi ex Deo vnde Apostolus the holy spirit himselfe is this loue for man cannot tell how to loue God but from God whereupon the Apostle saith the loue of God is shed abroad c. 3. And in this verie place of Augustine he speaketh of such loue of God in vs whereby the Lord maketh vs loue him so that he includeth also the loue of God first toward vs whence issueth our loue toward him 4. And the loue of God in God toward vs may without absurditie at all be said to be shed abroad in our hearts as in true friendship the loue of a friend may be said to be shedde on him whom he loueth so Gods loue is shed forth in vs by the fruits and effects which it worketh in vs Pareus dub 4. 2. Some thinke that both the loue of God toward vs and our loue toward God are comprehensive in the Apostles speach as Origen vpon this place alloweth both so also Gorrhan and Pererius disputat 2. numer 9. who hereupon inferreth that there may be more literall senses then one of one place of Scripture Contra. One Scripture may haue one generall sense which may comprehend diuers particulars or it may haue one literall sense with diuers applications as typicall or tropologicall figuratiue or morall but it can not haue more then one literall sense or exposition specially one beeing different from the other not any scales included in it or inferred or diducted out of it for then the spirit in the Scripture should speake doubtfully and ambiguously like vnto the oracles of Apollo which were so deliuered as that they might be taken in a diuers yea a contrarie sense See further of this point Synops. Centur. 1. err 7. But that the loue wherewith man loueth God is not here at all vnderstood it shall appeare by diuers reasons here following 3. The best interpretation then is that the Apostle speaketh here of the loue of God wherewith we are beloued of him in Christ. 1. Beza vrgeth this reason because afterward v. 8. the Apostle speaketh of that loue God setteth forth his loue toward vs c. and in both places mention is made of the same loue of God the ground and foundation whereof is Christ that was giuen to die for vs. 2. Pareus insisteth vpon this reason the loue of God here spoken of is alleadged as the cause of our reioycing and of the steadfastnes of our hope but our loue of God beeing weake and imperfect can not be that cause 3. Peter Martyr and Pareus doe further presse the scope of the place the Apostle assumeth this as an argument of our hope because Christ was giuen to die for vs which proceeded not from the loue of vs toward God but from his loue toward vs. 4. Faius vrgeth the force of the Apostles phrase this loue is said to be shed abundantly in our hearts but our loue toward God is not such an abundant and surpassing loue it is a slender scant and weake loue he meaneth then the superabundant loue of God toward vs which as the Apostle saith Phil. 4.7 passeth all vnderstanding 5. I will adioyne also Tolets reason annot 5. in c. 5. the charitie and loue whereby we loue God is but one grace and vertue but the Apostle speaking of the shedding forth of this loue by the holy Ghost meaneth the effusion and powring out of all the graces which are wrought in vs by the spirit he meaneth then the loue of God toward vs from which fountaine issue faith all the graces and gifts of the spirit 6. Adde hereunto the consonant exposition of many of the Fathers as of Chrysostome cited before of Hierome who thus writeth quomodo Deus nos diligat ex hoc cognoscimus c. how God loueth vs we know by this that he hath not onely by the death of his Sonne forgiuen our sinnes but hath also giuen vs the holy Ghost c. Likewise Ambrose pignus charitatis Dei bohemus in nobis c. we haue the pledge of the loue of God by the holy spirit giuen vnto vs c. Theophylact also interpreteth de charitate Dei quam erga nos ostendit c. of the loue of God which he sheweth toward vs c. Likewise expound Theodoret Sedulius with others 8. Quest. Why the loue of God is said to be shed abroad in our hearts 1. Some doe giue this sense effusa est sicut oleum c. this loue is shed abroad like oyle 〈◊〉 cor occupando in possessing and occupying the whole heart according to that saying Matth. 22. Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart Gorrh. but the loue of 〈◊〉 is not here taken actively for that loue whereby we loue God as is shewed in the former question 2. Tolet thus expoundeth it abundantissime facti sunt amici Dei they are not sparingly but abundantly made the sonnes of God likewise the ordinarie glosse referreth it to the greatnes of Gods loue late nos diligit he doth loue vs largely that is greatly 3. Some referre it to the cleare manifestation of the loue of God in our hearts clare nobis manifeâ—â—ta sicut cum lux diffunditur c. the loue of God is clearely manifested to vs as when the â—ight is spread and dispersed abroad Gorrhan 4. But hereby rather is expressed the abundance of those graces which are powred vpon vs by the spirit so Chrysostome non moâ—ce nos honoravit c. he hath not sparingly honoured vs but he hath shed forth vpon vs his loue as the fountaine of all good things so also Oecumenius quia vbere datus est c. because the spirit is plentifully giuen vs and in the same sense the Prophet saith Ioel 2. I will powre out my spirit vpon all flesh Faius 9. Quest. Why it is added by the holy Ghost which is giuen vs. 1. The spirit of God is mentioned as the efficient cause of this worke the loue of God is said to be shed in our hearts by the holy Ghost because the spirit of God beareth witnes
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
the grace working together is that wherewith the will of man worketh for the effecting of that which it willeth This distinction must be qualified for to make the will of man a ioynt worker with grace is against the Apostle who saith that it is God which worketh in vs both the will and the deede Philip. 2.13 But thus it may be admitted that mans will beeing once mooued and regenerate by grace is not idle but then worketh with grace not of it owne strength but as it is still mooued and stirred by grace see further hereof Synops. Centur. 4. err 30. 3. Of this sort is that distinction of grace praeveniens subsequens grace preuenting and going before and following grace which are not indeede two diuerse or seuerall graces but diuerse effects of one and the same grace Gods grace preuenteth mans will and changeth it of vnwilling making it willing and then it followeth to make the will of man fruitful and effectuall and this we acknowledge but the grace subsequent or following is not merited or procured by the well vsing of the first preventing grace in which sense this distinction is to be reiected 6. Morall obseruations Observ. 1. To followe the workes of the flesh is enmitie against God v. 10. When we were yet enimies c. They which delight in such workes as God hateth are enimies to God whereupon Origen giueth this note quomodo reconciliat us est qui causam mimici secum gerit c. how can he be said to be reconciled to God which yet retaineth the cause of enmitie c. he then which continueth in such workes as are hatefull vnto God cannot be said to be reconciled by the blood of Christ as the Apostle further sheweth That no vnrighteous person shall inherite the kingdome of God 1. Cor. 6.9 Observ. 2. Of the reconciling of enemies v. 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled c. As God did reconcile vs to himselfe beeing yet his enemies so we are taught herein to be like vnto our heauenly father to be willing to be reconciled and to be at atonement with our enemies as Abraham made a league with Abimelech and as Iacob did the like with Laban who pursued him to haue wrought him some mischiefe Observ. 3. Wherein we ought to reioyce v. 11. We reioyce in God through our Lord Iesus c. The Apostle here sheweth wherein the ioy of a Christian consisteth that whereas the world reioyceth some in riches some in honour some in pleasure some in their strength humane wisedome and the like the Christian man is taught to reioyce in his redemption and saluation in Christ as our Blessed Sauiour would haue his Apostles to reioyce because their names were written in heauen Luk. 10.20 Obser. 4. Of the two kingdomes of grace and sinne life and death v. 17. If by one offence death raigned c. The Apostle here pointeth our two kingdomes the one of sinne and death the other of righteousnesse and life there are node in the world but belong vnto one of these kingdomes Therefore it must be our great care to examine our selues vnto which kingdome we are subiects by nature all are vnder the kingdome of darkenesse and from thence we cannot be deliuered but by Christ as the Apostle saith Coloss. 1.13 who hath deliuered vs from the Prince of darkenesse and hath translated vs to the kingdome of his deare Sonne we must therefore examine our selues whether we haue faith in Christ 2. Cor. 13.5 Observ. 5. Why the Lord suffereth his sometime to fall and to be plunged in sinne v. 20. Where sinne abounded there grace abounded much more c. God then sometime seemeth to leaue his children to themselues that they afterward beeing recouered and restored by grace may haue more experience of the goodnesse and mercie of God and of the excellencie of grace as Dauid after his fall repenting of his sinne celebrateth the multitude of Gods mercies Psal. 51.1 and Peter after he was converted was bid to strengtheâ— his brethren Luk. 22.32 as then beeing more able to comfort others by the experience of Gods mercie which he had himselfe receiued Observ. 6. None ought to despaire of forgiuenesse of sinne v 20. Grace abounded much more Grace is more predominant then sinne and the Apostle in the comparison set forth betweene Christ and Adam sheweth before that grace in Christ is more able to saue vs then sinne was in Adam to condemne vs let no man then despare of mercie and say with Cain his sinne is greater then can be forgiuen but rather with S. Paul Iesus Christ came into the world to saue sinners of whom I am chiefe 1. Tim. 1.15 CHAP. VI. 3. The text with the diuerse readings WHat shall we say then shall we continue in sinne that grace may abound or be encreased Be. 2. God forbid let it not be Gr. we that are dead to sinne how yet shall we liue therein 3. Knowe ye not brethren L. addit that as many of vs as haue beene baptized all we which haue beene baptized B. G. but the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Iesus Christ haue beene baptized into his death 4 We are buried together with him by baptisme into his death that like as Christ was raised did rise vp S. L. but the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was raised vp to the glorie Be. S.G. by the glorie L. B. V. but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by is here taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in of the father so we also should walke in newenesse of life 5 For if we be graft together with him G. Be. ad by the similitude of his death Be. S. B. rather then to the similitude G.L. for we are graft into Christ not into thâ—â— similitude so shall we be by the similtude which must be supplied out of the former clause some insert be partakers B. V. but the other word graft is better vnderstood of his resurrection 6 Knowing this that our old man is crucified with him that the bodie of sinne might be destroyed or abolished S.V. that henceforth we should not serue sinne 7 For he that is dead is iustified L.V. S.B. freed G.S. Be. but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifieth is iustified from sinne 8 Wherefore if we be dead with Christ we beleeue that we shall also liue with him 9 Knowing that Christ beeing raised not rising S. L. see ver 4. from the dead dieth no more death hath no more dominion ouer him 10 For in that he died he died once to sinne but in that he liueth he liueth vnto God 11 Likewise thinke yee also that yee are dead to sinne but are aliue to God in Iesus Christ our Lord. 12 Let not sinne therefore raigne in your mortall bodie that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof obey the lusts thereof S. L. but here the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is omitted 13 Neither yeeld your
the sense is dâ—lerse 5. Hugo Cardinal maketh three in the similitude the man the wife and the lawe of matrimonie and three in the application the lawe as the man the soule as the wife and sinne as the mariage but saith he in this is the diuersitie in the similitude the man dieth but in the application the woman dieth that is the soule vnto sinne But if this difference and dissimilitude be admitted then the Apostle should not haue fitly applyed to his purpose the similitude which he had propounded 6. Augustine better by the husband vnderstandeth sinne by the wife man lib. 83. qu. 66. but this is not a full explication of the Apostles minde for here it is not expressed what part the lawe beareth in this similitude 7. Therefore Tolet thus explaineth this similitude he saith by the Apostle here triplicen distingui there is distinguished a threefold state of man the old man the newe man which is regenerate and the naturall man considered as Gods creature which was first vnder the condition and seruitude of the old man and then vnder the newe the old corrupt man and the newe regenerate man he maketh the two husbands and man considered in himselfe is as the wife so we are said to be mortified to the lawe that is the old man is dead were sinne and so vnto the lawe because sinne beeing destroyed the dominion of the lawe also is abolished to this purpose Tolet. annot 5. Beza somewhat diuersly thus applyeth the similitude he maketh two mariages in the first sinne is as the husbaÌ„d which had the strength by the lawe the flesh was as the wife and the particular sinnes were the fruits â— in the second mariage the spirit of grace by Christ is as the newe husband the regenerate man the wife and the children the fruits of holines and in this sense we are said to be mortified to the law in respect of the first husband which is within vs These two expositions much differ nor but in this that Tolet maketh one and the same wife which was before married vnto sinne and afterward to the spirit Beza maketh two wiues the first the state of the vnregenerate the second of the regenerate man But the Apostle seemeth to speake of one and the same wife which is the soule of man first subdued vnto sinne and then in subiection to Christ so then not the wife is said to be mortified for how then should she be ioyned to an other husband but the first husband that is the old man is mortified to the lawe because when sinne liued the lawe did beare dominion in accusing condemning vs Now that the law is not as the husband but sinne the Apostle euidently sheweth v. 5. When we were in the 〈◊〉 the motions of sinne which were by the law had force in our members to bring forth fruit was death here the Apostle expresseth fowre things in this first mariage the wife we are the flesh the husband the motions of sinne for that is the husband which begetteth children which are the evill fruits vnto death the fourth thing is the lawe of the man touched before in the similitude v. 2. and here the lawe is that which gaue strength vnto sinne 7. But an other reason also may be yeelded why the Apostle saith we are mortified to the lawe because in this reddition he ioyntly applyeth the two similitudes before alleadged the one that the lawe hath no dominion ouer one but while he liueth v. 1. the other that the woman is bound to the man but while he liueth in the application he putteth both together to answear to the first he saith we are mortified to the lawe and so it hath no more power ouer vs and touching the second he saith that beeing dead wherein we were holden namely sinne v. 5. we should be now for an other husband Quest. 5. How we are said to be mortified to and freed from the lawe We are not freed from the lawe in respect of the obedience thereto for the morall law is in force still and Christ came to confirme the lawe not to destroy it but we are freed from it as the bare letter of the lawe is set against the spirit 1. because the lawe commanded onely but gaue no grace to performe as the Gospell doth 2. the law onely manifested our sinnes in not beeing able to keepe the lawe which are healed in the Gospel 3. the law commanding made the froward nature of man so much more sinnefull in crossing the commandement 4. Men then obeyed the lawe for feare and by constraint which nowe they doe willingly by grace 5. but in these two things chiefely consisteth our libertie and freedome from the lawe à rigida exactione we are freed from the strict obseruation of the lawe which Christ hath fulfilled for vs. 6. ab ea qua inde sequitur maledictione and from the malediction and curse which followeth thereupon which Christ hath freed vs from being made a curse for vs Calvin 7. Pareus sheweth how in these three things the servitude of the lawe consisted 1. in the declaration of sinne 2. in the condemning of it 3. in encreasing sinne per accidens by an accident because our corrupt nature is carried to do that so much the more which is forbidden So the libertie of the lawe consisteth in these three points opposite to the other three 1. the lawe doth not now set forth our sinnes which are not imputed vnto vs beeing iustified by faith in Christ. 2. it condemneth vs not for there is no condemnation to those which are in Christ. 3. neither doth it stirre vs vp to sinne beeing dead to sinne in Christ the two first parts of libertie we doe fully enioy in this life but the third is onely begunne here because we are still compassed about with many infirmities but it is not fully perfited vntill the next Quest. 6. What is meant by the bodie of Christ v. 4. 1. Some vnderstand by the bodie of Christ completionem veritatis the fulfilling and accomplishment of the figures of the lawe which was but a type of things to come in exhibiting the truth Gorrhan 2. some incarnationis mysterium the mysterie of the incarnation of Christ gloss interlin 3. Lyranus incorporationem cum Christo in baptismo our incorporating with Christ when we were made his members in baptisme 4. Beza readeth in corpore in the bodie to shewe our conformitie with Christ that we as his members are in him by him dead vnto the law Pet. Mart. also approueth this sense effecti iam membra Domini c. beeing made the members of our Lord we doe followe our head 5. But by the bodie of Christ rather we vnderstand the passion of Christ in his bodie vpon the crosse that is per victimam Christum c. by Christ our sacrifice who satisfied for vs Melanct. by the bodie of Christ dum cruci affixum est while it was nailed to the crosse where he
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
creatures but to belong onely to the Creator 2. S. Peter saith if any speake let them speake as the words of God 1. Pet. 4.11 but the word of God thus speaketh not neuer did the Apostles vse in their thanksgiuings to ioyne Christ and his mother together nor yet any of the found auncient writers therefore it is a superstitious phrase taken vp by the Romanists without any warrant of Scripture or antiquitie 3. as prayer and invocation is due onely to God because in him onely we are to beleeue Ioh. 14.1 Rom. 10.14 so thanksgiuing beeing a kind of prayer and a part of religious worship is only to be giuen vnto God 4. we acknowledge the Virgin Marie to haue beene a chosen vessell of the Lord and graced with the greatest blessing that could be in this world to be the mother of our Lord and therefore of all generations to be held and called blessed as she her selfe prophesieth in her song and not to be held inferiour to any of Gods Saints but yet no religious worship is to be giuen to her neither therein is she to be partener with her Sonne Our blessed Sauiour foreseeing the superstition which in time to come might grow in too high conceit of this externall priviledge giuen to his mother as it were to preuent this inconveniencie doth of purpose extenuate this carnall respect and detracteth from it as when one cryed out happy is the wombe that bare thee c. he answered nay blessed are they which heare the word of God and keepe it Luk. 11. and an other time when his mother forgetting her selfe would haue prescribed vnto Christ what to doe to turne water into wine he sharpely rebuked her saying woman what haue I to doe with thee Ioh. 2. and after this when it was told him that his mother and brethren were without desirous to speake with him he not willing to be interrupted in his heauenly busines by any such temporall respect answeared he that doth the will of my Father which is in heauen he is my sister and brother and mother Matth. 12.50 Contr. 8. Whether S. Peter were euer at Rome and continued there Bishop 25. yeares Now in the last place because that in this last chapter wherein S. Paul sendeth salutations by name vnto many brethren at Rome and maketh no mention of S. Peter the Protestants do inferre that Peter was not then at Rome so either was not there at all or could not there so long continue as the Papists generally hold it shall not be amisse briefly to examine the truth herein and first we will answear the Papists obiections and then propound our owne reasons It is the generall receiued opinion of the Romish Catholikes that Peter should come thither in the 2. or 3. yeare of Claudius in the 45. yeare of Christ and continue there Bishop 25. yeares sauing that sometime he was absent thence by occasion of the affaires of the Church vnto the 14. yeare of Nero when he was beheaded in the 70. yeare of Christ so Bellar. l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 5. Rhemists in their table of S. Peter set after the Acts of the Apostles they reason and obiect thus 1. Ob. S. Peter writ his first epistle from Rome as it appeareth 1. ep 5.13 the Church which is at Babylon saluteth you and Marcus my sonne but this Babylon is Rome as it is called Rev. 17. and so Papias in Euseb. l. 2. c. 15. and Hierome de viris illustribus do vndestand it Rhemist annot 1. Pet. 5. v. 13. Ans. 1. This Babylon some take to be that great citie in Assyria Beza or rather it was the Egyptian Babylon that great citie now called Cayre or Alcayre which is 13. or 14. german miles about and this is most like because Marke was with Peter at this time who is held to haue beene constituted the first Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt where also he was put to death and buried as Nichep l. 2. c. 35. Doroth. in the life of Marke 2. the Apostle would not date his epistle from a place so called in an allegoricall sense epistles are dated from places and cities as they are vsually called 3. in the Revelation Rome is called mysticall Babylon not the first Rome but as it should be vnder Antichrist but S. Peter handleth no such thing in this place of the seate and place of Antichrist 4. Eusebius reiecteth diuerse of Papiâ—s fables lib. 3. c. 36. neither is euery thing that Hierome writeth Gospel 2. Ob. The sight of the monuments of S. Peters chaire sepulchre death at Rome doe euidently convince them which denie his beeing there Rhemist Ans. This is to prooue one vncertaine thing by an other for how doe they prooue that S. Peter sate in such a chaire or that his bodie lieth there buried when as they themselues haue deceiued the world with diuerse fables concerning this matter halfe of his bodie they say is at S. Peters in Rome and halfe at S. Pauls his head at S. Iohn Lateran his neather iaw with the beard vpon it at Poyters in Fraunce at Triers many of his bones at Geneva part of his braine which was found to be a pumice stone Therefore this argument taken from the sepulchre of Peter prooueth nothing their own fables take away the credit of their report 3. Ob. But diuerse auncient writers to testifie that S. Peter was at Rome and among the rest Egesip l. 3. c. 2. de excid Hierosol Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Euseb. l. 2. c. 13.15 Hier. in Cat. with diuerse other fathers Chrysost. Amb. August Cypr. cited by the Rhemists an 4. in 16. c. Rom. Answ. 1. In generall we say that the fathers might followe the receiued opinion of those dayes not obseruing how the mysterie of iniquitie then wrought and a way euen theÌ„ was a preparing for Antichrist and that their testimonie without warrant of Scripture is too weake a ground to build an article of faith vpon such as the Papists make this to be of Peters beeing at Rome and sitting Bishop there 2. either the fathers writings comming afterward to be handled with soule fingers may be thought herein to be corrupted or of small credit considering the great varietie of their reports which shall be examined among our arguments following 2. In particular iust exception may be taken to the fowre authors first alleadged Egesippus is held to be but a fabler and not that auncient Egesippus meÌ„tioned by Eusebius but an other of later time or a counterfeit author 1. that auncient Egesippus wrote the Acts of the Apostles their doctrine out of the Gospel secundum Hebraeos Syros according to the Hebrewes and Syrians but this fabulous Egesippus wrot in Greek 2. This last Egesippus maketh mention of Constantinople to which Rome should be equall in dignitie which was concluded after Constantines time after an 340. but the elder Egesippus liued an 146. or thereabout neere 200. yeare before 3. the fables themselues are vnsauourie