why should they after their conversion vse lesse libertie 8. Chrysostome yeeldeth this reason ne notarentur à Christianis least they should haue beene noted and obserued of Christians if they should haue onely abstained from swines flesh and other forbidden meates they thought it better to betake themselues onely to the eating of herbes vt non legalis observatio sed iciunium magis videretur that it might be thought rather a kind of fasting and abstinence then a legall observation thus also Pareus but it seemeth that they were not ashamed to be counted obseruers of the law because they charged others which did not obserue this difference of meates as transgressors of the lawe 9. Wherefore I take rather that this is the Apostles meaning not that any did in those times altogether abstaine from all kind of meats and thought it lawfull onely to eate herbs but that where other choice of meat was not they had rather eate of herbs then either of meates offered to idols or forbidden by the lawe Tolet so Faius malebat c. he had rather eate herbs then of such kind of flesh likewise Piscator yet Chrysostome and Augustines sense are not much to be misliked Quest. 4. Whether any things be indifferent in their nature as beeing neither good nor euill of themselues The occasion of this question is out of the 3. verse where the Apostle maketh the difference of meates as a thing in it selfe indifferent and would not haue him that did eate and make no difference to despise him that did not him that did not eate and made a difference to iudge him that did eat here then this in generall would be considered whether any thing in it owne nature is neither good nor euill as neither commanded by the law of God nor forbidden but left indifferent betweene both 1. That nothing is indifferent it may be thus obiected 1. betweene good and euill there is no meane but euerie action is either good or euill agreeable or not agreeable vnto the lawe of God 2. euerie thing is done of faith or without faith if of faith it is good if without it is euill therefore there is no indifferent thing but it is either good or euill Answ. Some things are simply good or euill in their owne nature and of themselues as the things which are commanded by the lawe of God are simply good the things forbidden are simply euill some things are neither good nor euill in their owne nature but yet in respect of the intention ende and minde of the doer though indifferent in themselues they may not be indifferent by this distinction the obiections proposed are easily answered 1. Euerie action is good or euill not in it selfe but in regard of the intention or ende as to eate or not to eate flesh of it selfe is neither good nor euill but not to eate it as thinking flesh to be vnholy or to merit by it is euill and so likewise to eate it vncharitably with offence of the weake 2. So to doe a thing of faith or not of faith respecteth the intention and perswasion of the doer not the thing it selfe in it owne nature Now on the contrarie side that some things are indifferent in their owne nature neither good nor euill it is thus prooued 1. The things which God hath neither forbidden nor commanded he hath left free and indifferent but some things are such as vpon certaine dayes to eate or not to eate flesh is neither commanded nor inhibited therefore in it owne nature it is a thing indifferent 2. Those things which neither commend vs to God nor yet doe displease God are indifferent but some things are such as meate doth not commend vs vnto God as S. Paul saith 1. Cor. 8.8 3. Those things which neither helpe to nor hinder vs from saluation are indifferent but such are meat drinke apparell v. 17. of this chapter Ergo. Quest. 5. How the Apostle maketh the eating or not eating of flesh and the observing of dayes indifferent which elsewhere he condemneth The occasion of this question ariseth out of the 4.5.6 verses where the Apostle seemeth to make these things indifferent yet he condemneth the obseruation of dayes Galat. 4.10 Ye obserue moneths times and yeares and he reprooueth Peter Gal. 2. because he abstained from certaine meates and 2. Tim. 4 he calleth it a doctrine of deuils Answ. 1. Tolet would thus reconcile these places that these things were indifferent till the Church had determined otherwise at that time nondum erat per Ecclesiam declaratum c. it was not declared by the Church what they should doe in this case annot 1. in fine But this was not all the reason for the Apostles in their preaching did not cease to teach the people that the ceremonies of Moses lawe were abrogated as is euident Act. 21.21 S. Paul was so knowne to teach the people that they were no longer to keepe the custome of Moses lawe and further after that the Apostles had made a decree of these things that they should onely abstaine from strangled and blood Act. 15. yet S. Paul circumcised Timothie Act. 16. and he was shorne as a votarie Act. 21. 2. Lyranus otherwise answeareth that vntill the passion of Christ all the ceremonies of Moses lawe were in force but post publicationem Evangelij after the publication of the Gospell the obseruation of them was mortifera damnable for that was as it were to denie Christ to be come but tempore intermedio in the time betweene these it was lawfull to obserue them This is verie true that for a time the Apostles suffered the Iewes converted to the faith to retaine some ceremonies of the lawe least they might at the first haue beene discouraged from receiuing the Gospell and Augustine doth fitly resemble the abrogating of the ceremonies vnto the decent buriall of humane bodies which are not as soone as they are dead cast forth as stinking carions but are brought decently to the sepulchre so the ceremonies which were instituted of God were not at once to be cast off as though there were no difference betweene them and humane inventions but they must haue a time after their death as it were in Christs death to be brought honourably to the grave but whosoeuer should reviue them afterward he should not be pius deductor funeris sed impius sepultura violator a devout solemnizer of the funerall but a prophane raker in the graue and violater of the sepulture 3. Adde hereunto that to the Galatians the Apostle doth not so much reprooue them for obseruing those ceremonies as that they did keepe them opinione necessitatis with an opinion of necessitie neither was S. Peter reprooued of S. Paul simply for the forbearing of some meates which he might haue done to avoide scandall and offence but because by his example he constrained the Gentiles to doe the like and in that place the Apostle speaketh not of abstinencie but of the precept of abstinencie
both of God and men 2. de syncero iudicio loquitur he speaketh of the syncere iudgement of the godly that will approoue the faithfull seruants of Christ in these things though the world hate them Calvin yea euen the wicked and profane testimonium fecerit shall sometime giue testimonie of the godly 3. marke the order first he pleaseth God and then is approoued of men for he that is approoued of men is not alwaies pleasing vnto God 4. so then as the seruants of Christ are not to seeke the approbation of men so neither must they contemne it as the Apostle said before Rom. 12.17 pronouncing things honest in the sight of all men Quest. 35. How we ought to follow peace and those things which concerne edifying v. 19. 1. These two seeking of peace and edifying ought to be the two cheefe orders of euery action charitie seeketh peace and edifying is by faith Gryneus 2. As before he spake principally of the inward and spirituall peace so now he mooueth vnto ecclesiasticall and externall peace which yssueth out of the other and to vse those meanes whereby this peace may be furthered as patience forbearance charitie the contratie whereof breed dissentions and discord 3. We must follow this peace that is seeke it earnestly and with ardent desire Origen noteth here that where as peace by mens contentions is chased away fugitans consectanda est she must be followed fleeing away and as it were be called backe againe 4. But it sufficeth not to followe peace but edifying also for there is a peace which edifieth not as to haue peace with the wicked and superstitious is not to edifie but destroy the faith therefore truth and peace must be ioyned together as the Prophet saith Zachar. 8.19 Loue truth and peace 5. This phrase of edifying is familiar with S. Paul the Church of God is as a spirituall house and the Temple of God consisting of living stones 1. Pet. 2.5 euerie one then must bring somewhat toward the building and repairing of this house and though the Pastors and teachers are the principall and chiefe builders yet euerie one must by his good example seeke to edifie an other 6. Peace and loue must goe before whereby these liuely stones must be ioyned and as it were cemented together before they can be put to the building of this spirituall house 36. Quest. What the Apostle meaneth by the worke of God v. 21. 1. Destroy not the worke of God Chrysostome interpreteth this to be salutem fratris the saluation of our brother Origen adificium charitatis the building of charitie Haymo man himselfe as he consisteth of a soule and bodie Hugo the grace of God the interlin glosse which Gorrhan followeth faith and other vertues but this worke of God in our brother is faith as our Sauiour saith Ioh. 6.29 This is the worke of God that ye beleeue Par. Mart. Tolet this faith in our weake brother though it be imperfect is Gods worke which we must nourish and not seeke to extinguish as it is saide of our blessed Sauiour that he should not quench the smoking flaxe 2. But this must be vnderstood de inconsulto conatu of their vnaduised endeauour who as much as in them lieth seeke to destroy Gods worke not de effectu of the effect for the worke of God can not be destroied Gryn 3. And whereas he saith destroy not Gods worke for meates sake it followeth not but that meate is also Gods worke and creature but yet mans saluation is a greater worke man was not made for meate but meate for man as Ambrose saith or he opposeth Gods worke and mans worke which is to eate or not to eate flesh Gorrhan or he speaketh not of the nature of meate sed de scandoloso vsu but of the scandalous vse Pareus 37. Quest. In what sense the Apostle saith It is good neither to eate flesh nor drinke wine c. v. 21. 1. It is good he speaketh not of that kind of abstinence which is from surfeting and drunkennes or whereby the bodie is tamed and the minde made apter vnto good things for this is simply good but this abstinence is onely from meates to auoid offence and so it is good onely not to eate with this condition if thy brother be offended Mart. and the Apostle speaketh comparatiuely it is good that is better not to eate in this case Bucer 2. He giueth instance of meates and wine which are not simply necessarie vnto mans life for it is possible to liue without them but à necessarijs non suspectis from necessarie food and not suspected we must not abstaine though our brother should be offended as if one should take offence at our eating of bread without it a man can not liue But there are some things though not necessarie simply to maintaine life yet for the preseruation of health as some must needes drinke wine as S. Paul counselled Timothie to drinke a little wine for his healths sake in this case a man ought to forbeare for a time with a little detriment of his health for our brothers saluation is to be preferred before the health of the bodie but if he that is offended will not be perswaded then he is no longer to be counted weake but obstinate and in this case we are not bound to forbeare 3. But it will be further obiected what if our weake brother will not be perswaded but continueth still in the same minde is a man bound to abstaine from those things for euer No he is not for now his infirmitio is turned to obstinacie for in this case our blessed Sauiour regarded not the scandall of the Pharisies which were offended at him because they were wilfully blind And whereas S. Paul saith he would not eate flesh as long as the world standeth rather then he would offend his brother 1. Cor. 8.3 he must be vnderstood to speake with a condition si opus erat if it were needefull for him so to doe and if his brothers infirmitie did still occasion it and he speaketh of the preparation of his minde that he is readie if there be no other let to abstaine for euer 4. Hierome in diuers places epist. ad Furi ad Salv. ad Eustach vrgeth this place to prooue the abstinence of professed virgins and other into Monasticall life because the Apostle here saith it is good not to eate flesh c. as though it were euill to eate but the Apostle simply forbiddeth not to eate flesh or drinke wine but with this condition if it be done with offence And Origens iudgement here is to be prefered who maketh eating or not eating to be a thing of it selfe neither good nor euill but indifferent and his reason is potest non manducare carnem malus homo an euill man may not eate flesh nor drinke wine which he sheweth to haue beene the vse of certaine heretikes But in two cases meates which are by nature cleane become vncleane in vse one is
the distinction of the offices here named by the Apostle in generall 15. qu. What is to be vnderstood by the proportion or analogie of faith v. 6. 16. qu. Of these seuerall offices here rehearsed by the Apostle in particular 17. qu. Of the Christian affection of loue and the properties thereof 18. qu. Of certaine externall offices of loue as in giuing honour one to an other 19. qu. The duties and properties of our loue toward God 20. qu. Of the remedies against the calamities of this life namely hope patience praier 21. qu. Of the communicating to the necessitie of the Saints and of hospitalitie 22. qu. How our enemies are to be blessed blesse them which persecute you 23. qu. Of the reasons which should mooue vs to loue our enemies 24. qu. Whether it be not lawefull vpon any occasion to pray against our enemies 25. qu. Whether S. Paul in calling Ananias the high Priest painted wall Act. 23. obserueth his owne precept here 26. qu. How we should reioyce with thē that reioyce and weepe with them that weepe v. 15. 27. qu. What it is to be like affectioned one toward an other 28. qu. What it is to be high minded and to be wise in our selues 29. qu. How euill is not to be recompenced for euill v. 17. 30. qu. How honest things are to be procured before all men 31. qu. How we should haue peace with all men 32. qu. How we should not avenge our selues but leaue it vnto God 33. qu. Of doing good vnto our enemies 34. qu. What it is to heape coales of fire vpon the head of the enemie 35. qu. Of these words v. 21. Be not ouercome of euill but ouercome euill with goodnes Questions out of the 13. Chapter 1. qu. Of the occasion which mooved the Apostle in this Chapter to entreat of the dutie of the subiects to the Magistrate 2. qu. How euery soule should be subiect to the higher powers 3. qu. How the powers that be are said to be of God 4. qu. Whether euery superiour power be of God 5. qu. How farre euill gouernours haue their power from God whether by his permission and sufferance onely 6. qu. Why the Apostle saith againe the powers that be are ordained of God 7. qu. Of not resisting the power 8. qu. What kind of iudgement they procure to themselues which resist the Magistrate 9. qu. How the Prince is not to be feared for good works but for euill 10. qu. What it is to haue praise of the power v. 3. 11. qu. How the Magistrate is said to be Gods minister for our wealth or good 12. qu. How the Magistrate is said not to beare the sword for nought v. 4. 13. qu. Of the right vse of the sword both in time of peace and warre 14. qu. How it is said It is necessarie to be subiect for conscience sake 15. qu. Why tribute is to be paid v. 6. 16. qu. Of the diuerse kinds of tribute and to whom they are due 17. qu. The seuerall duties summed together which are due to the Magistrate 18. qu. How farre the Magistrate is to be obeyed and wherein not to be obeyed How farre the Ciuill state may proceede in resisting a Tyrant How farre priuate men may be warranted in denying obedience vnto Tyrants 19. qu. How we should not owe any thing to any man but loue one another 20. qu. How he that loueth his brother fulfilleth the law 21. qu. How a man is to loue his neighbour as himselfe 22. qu. Who is vnderstood by our neighbour 23. qu. How salvation is said to be neerer then when we beleeued 24. qu. How the night is said to be past the day at hand of the literall sense 25. qu. What time is vnderstood by the day and night 26. qu. How we should walke honestly 27. qu. How we must put on Christ. 28. qu. How the flesh is to be cared for Questions out of the 14. Chapter 1. qu. Who are the weake in faith and how they are to be receiued 2. qu. What is meant by controversies of disputations 3. qu. Why he is called weake that eateth herbes 4. qu. Whether any things be indifferent in their nature as beeing neither good nor euill of themselues 5. qu. How the Apostle maketh the eating or not eating of flesh and the obseruing of dayes indifferent which else where he condemneth 6. qu. Whom the Apostle speaketh of the Iewe or Gentile saying God hath receiued him c. 7. qu. Whether it be not lawfull at all for one to iudge an other 8. qu. What it is to stand or fall to his owne Master 9. qu. Of the meaning of these words God is able to make him stand v. 4. 10. qu. What it is to esteeme one day aboue an other v. 5. 11. qu. Of the meaning of these words Let euery one be fully perswaded in his mind v. 5. 12. qu. What it is to obserue or take care of the day vnto the Lord. 13. qu. Of the sense and meaning of the former words He that obserueth c. obserueth it to the Lord. 14. qu. How he that eateth not is said to giue thanks 15. qu. Whether S. Pauls defense that he which doth or omitteth any thing in matters of religion doth or not doth it vnto God be perpetuall 16. qu. Of the coherence of these words None of vs liueth to himselfe v. 17. c. 17. qu. How we are said to liue vnto the Lord. 18. qu. How Christ by his dying and rising againe is said to be Lord both of the dead and quicke 19. qu. Of the tribunall seat of Christ what it is and of other circumstances of the day of iudgement 20. qu. Whether the saying of the Prophet alleadged v. 11. be rightly cited by the Apostle 21. qu. When this prophesie shall be fulfilled that euery tongue shall confesse vnto God 22. qu. Whether euery one shall giue an account for himselfe appeare before Christs iudgement seat v. 12. 23. qu. Of scandals and offences the occasion and diuerse kinds thereof v. 13. 24. qu. Of the occasion of these words v. 14. I knowe and am perswaded c. and of the meaning thereof 25. qu. How nothing is said to be vncleane of it selfe v. 14. 26. qu. Of the legall difference of meates why it was commanded 27. qu. Of the manner how meates are sanctified and made cleane 28. qu. Why ones opinion and iudgment maketh that vncleane which is not and whether an erroneous conscience bindeth 29. qu. How our brother is said to be grieued and to be lost and destroyed v. 15. 30. qu. Whether any indeede can perish for whom Christ died 31. qu. What is meant by the good or commoditie which they must not cause to be blasphemed v. 16. 32. qu. How the kingdome of God is not said to be meate and drinke v. 17. 33. qu. Of righteousnesse peace and ioy in the holy Ghost 34. qu. Of these words he which in these things serueth Christ is acceptable to God
occasion by Gods patience and forbearance to continue in their sinnes and so the Lord may be said to harden the heart because the wicked abuse that occasion which is sent of God thus Origen lib. 3. periarchor Basil in his oration wherein he prooueth that God is not the author of euill but in this respect man rather should be said to harden his owne heart in abusing the occasion then God in giuing it 2. Augustine taketh this induration of the heart to be said of God when he withdraweth his grace as discedente sole aqua obduratur by the departure of the sunne the water is congealed and hardened serm 88. de tempor 3. But beside the subtracting and withholding of Gods grace he concurreth as a iust iudge by his secret power so working that both the inward suggestions of Sathan and the externall obiects doe all make together for the further hardening of their heart see before c. 1. qu. 63. Quest. 9. Whether hardnes of heart and finall impenitencie be a speciall kind of sinne 1. Pererius seemeth to collect so much by these two reasons 1. because here the Apostle ioyneth hardnesse and impenitencie of heart together that as hardnesse of heart is a speciall sinne so should the other be also 2. here is a speciall and most grieuous punishment inflicted the heaping and treasuring vp wrath But neither of these reasons conclude for both the hardnesse of heart is rather the generall effect of sinne and a perpetuall companion of an habite and custome in sinne then a speciall sinne and the punishment here described is against not one but all their sinnes wherein they continue without repentance 2. Vega lib 13. c. 20. super decret Trident. de iustificat sheweth that in these two cases impenitencie doth assume a newe kind of peculiar malice that is either in receiuing of the Sacraments for then especially men are commanded to prepare their hearts by repentance so that herein the commandement of God is transgressed and at the houre of death for then a man not repenting is accessarie to his owne death and so transgresseth that commandement thou shalt not kill But neither of these reasons are sufficient 1. when one commeth to the sacrament without due preparation and so receiueth it vnreuerently and profanely there is a newe sinne indeede committed which is profanenesse and contempt of sacred things but this is the fruit and effect of his impenitencie a newe sinne is added to his impenitencie rather then impenitencie it selfe is changed into a speciall sinne 2. And so likewise when one thorough impenitencie is carelesse of his saluation beeing at the point of death this carelesnes is also a fruit of impenitencie 3. Thomas thus decideth this questiō that if impenitencie be taken simply for perseuerance and continuance in sinne it is not a speciall sinne but a circumstance rather of sinne but if there be beside praepositum non poenitendi a purpose not to repent now impenitencie is become a speciall sinne Thomas 2.2 qu. 14. articl 2. But this seemeth to be no perfect distinction for wheresoeuer impenitencie is there is a purpose and resolution not to repent as long as the heart remaineth impenitent Thus much then may be added for the discussing of this question that impenitencie is two wayes to be considered either in respect of the obiect which is sinne that one hath committed and so it is a circumstance that accompanieth sinne or as it is ioyned with profanenes contempt of God and vacuitie of his feare and so it may haue toward God the nature of a speciall sinne Quest. 10. Whether it stand with Gods iustice to punish twice for the same sinnes Seeing that the Gentiles were punished before beeing deliuered vp to their vile affections c. 1.26 how then are they reserued here to a greater punishment against the day of wrath for the Prophet Nahum saith c. 1.9 non consurget duplex tribulatio double affliction or tribulation shall not rise vp Answ. 1. This is not the meaning of the Prophet that God cannot punish twice for the same sinne but there he speaketh of the destruction of the Assyrians that it should be at once God should not neede the second time to come vpon them which was fulfilled in the euersion and ouerthrowe of Nineueh it was at once destroyed for euer 2. This rule well holdeth in the course of iustice that one be not punished twice for the same sinne 1. if by that one punishment full satisfaction be made for sinne but the wicked by their temporall punishment cannot fully satisfie Gods iustice for their sinne 2. punishment begunne in this life and eternall punishment afterward are rather diuerse degrees of the whole punishment due vnto sinne then diuerse punishments as here in the course of humane iustice a malefactor may be both put to the racke to the wheele hanged and quartered and all these shall make but one condigne punishment for his offence Par. 3. and when one punishment worketh vnto amendement then a second is needlesse as the righteous onely are chastened in this life but the wicked because they profit not by temporall punishment vnto repentance haue their punishment begun in this life and finished in the next as the old world and Sodomites were both temporally and eternally punished Quest. 11. Whether euerie one shall be rewarded according to his workes ver 6. Against this saying of the Apostle v. 6. Who will reward euerie man according to his workes it will be obiected that they which repent them in their last houre and so are saued haue no time to shewe good workes and likewise infants therefore it appeareth not how they should be iudged according to their workes Answ. 1. They which haue grace to repent them in their last houre are not voide of good workes as the theife vpon the crosse shewed these good fruits of his faith he confessed Christ acknowledged his sinne reprooued the vnbeleeuing theife and prayed earnestly for euerlasting saluation And if he had liued longer he had no doubt a full purpose of heart to haue expressed his faith by his godly workes the like may be said of those which are at the point of death called to repentance 2. Concerning infants there is an other reason for either they be saued according to the grace of Gods free election or some are damned being left in their owne nature the children of wrath Now the Apostle speaketh not of infants here but of such as are of yeares to commit euil or doe good Pareus Quest. 12. How it standeth with Gods goodnesse to punish euill with euill It may be thus obiected that sinne is committed three wayes either in rewarding evill for good or euill for euill or in not recompensing good for good But God cannot sinne therefore it should seeme to be against the nature of the diuine goodnesse to punish sinne with eternall damnation and it is against Christs rule who commandeth that we should doe good against euill Answer 1. Two wayes may euill
nature was before and after mans fall and wherein they differ In the lawe of nature there are two principall things first the vnderstanding and iudgement in apprehending and conceiuing these naturall principles touching our dutie toward God and our neighbour the other is in the will and affection in giuing assent and approbation vnto those things so by the vnderstanding conceiued In both these there was greater perfection in the naturall light which Adam was created with and that which is now remaining in his posteritie 1. Concerning the vnderstanding whereas the obiect thereof is either touching mysticall and diuine things apppertaining vnto God or morall and ciuill duties 1. In both these the mind of man is naturally obscured that it doth not so clearely see what is good or euill in morall duties much lesse in spirituall as Adam did in the creationâ— for there are some mysteries concerning the Godhead as of the Trinitie of the creation of the world and of the end thereof of the power and omnipotencie of God and such like which Adam in his creation had a perfect knowledge of but now such things by the light of nature cannot be attained vnto they are reuealed by grace as our blessed Sauiour faith this is life eternall that they knowe thee to be the onely verie God 2. as some things we knowe not at all by nature which were infused to Adam so these principles that remaine are but darkely and obscurely now reuealed in nature which were manifest to Adam both in spirituall things and morall duties that as the Apostle saith by this light of nature they could but grope after God Act. 17.27 3. An other defect in the vnderstanding is that men by great difficultie and labour now attaine vnto these things which Adam had infused without labour whereof the Preacher speaketh when he saith He that encreaseth knowledge encreaseth sorrowe Eccles. 1.18 4. Curiositie is an other fault in the vnderstanding when men are caried away from seeking after things profitable and are tickeled with a desire to search out hid and mysticall things to high aboue their reach as our parent Eue when she began to listen to the serpents suggestion was tempted to desire some accession and encrease of knowledge more then they had therefore the Apostle would haue euerie one vnderstand according to sobrietie Rom. 12.4 5. Now our vnderstanding is ouercast with a vanitie of mind which breaketh out into idle vaine and vnprofitable thoughts which was not in Adam who before his fall should haue beene occupied in nothing els but in the meditation of God and good things according to which patterne Dauid desireth that the meditations of his heart might be acceptable vnto God Psal. 19.14 6. Adam had the knowledge of good by experience of euill by contemplation But after his fall he had an experimentall knowledge of euill which now remaineth in his posteritie And these differences there are betweene Adams naturall vnderstanding and ours 2. In the will of man by nature there are these defects and infirmities which Adam had not 1. In spirituall and morall good things the will hath no inclination at all sauing in some ciuill things but to will that which is good it hath no free will or power at all without grace as the Apostle saith 2. Cor. 3.5 We are not sufficient of our selues to thinke any thing 2. in generall the will consenteth to that which is good but it fayleth in particular as by nature man knoweth that it is euill to steale murther committ adulterie and yet when it commeth to a particular act he approoueth and followeth the contrarie as S. Paul saith Rom. 7.19 I doe not the good thing which I would but the euill which I would not that doe I But Adam both in generall and particular did knowe what was good and might if he would himselfe haue giuen consent thereunto 3. Mans will is so froward by nature and peruerse that when as naturally euerie one desireth to be happie yet he willingly committeth those things against his intendment which make him vnhappier as a thiefe stealeth to keepe himselfe from famine and so from miserie and thus ut miser sic malus fit ideo miserior ect quia malus est least he should be miserable he becommeth euill beeing so much the more miserable because he is euill And by this meanes it falleth out that he becommeth that which he intended not 4. Further whereas the law of nature is that a man should not offer that to another which he would not haue done to himselfe yet now this naturall light is obscured with selfeloue that a man will not haue wrong done to himselfe yet he will wrong an other 5. The lawe of nature is that the reason should gouerne and the affections should be subiect to reason thus was it in Adan so is it nowe for the lust and concupiscence often preuaileth and swayeth against reason 6. the lawe is constant and vnchangeable and the will of man following the light of nature altreth nor but now the will of man is mutable and changeable 7. And whereas by the light of nature onely that which is good should be desired now the will is carried to followe things apparently euill as most notorious vices of adulterie drunkennesse pride and such like which by custome men delight in as Augustine saith peccata qumvis magna horrenda cum in consuetudinem venerint aut parua aut nulla esse creduntur sinnes though great and horrible when they are growne into custome are thought either to be no sinnes or verie small Enehurid c. 80. And in these particulars it is euident how farre the naturall light now remaining is declined from that perfection which it had in the first creation of man 31. Quest. Whether the light of nature though much obscured can altogether be blotted out of the minde of man Though the light of nature may be and is much dimmed and ouercast by the corruption of mans preposterous affections yet that is most true which Augustine resolueth vpon legem scriptam in cordibus hominum ne ipsa quidem delet iniquitas the law written in the hearts of men no not iniquitie and sinne it selfe can blot out lib. 2. confess c. 4. this conclusion may be further thus strengthened and confirmed 1. There are certaine generall principles and rules of nature which doe reuiue and remaine in most wicked men as euery one desireth to be happie neither is there any so carelesse of himselfe but would attaine vnto this ende though he may be deceiued in the means againe euery one by nature knoweth that euill is to be auoided and therefore he would not haue any wrong offered vnto him by an other because he taketh it to be euill and he likewise knoweth that good is to be desired and therefore that which he would haue an other to doe vnto him he desireth so to be done because he thinketh it to be good These generall rules and principles of
nature none are ignorant of but when they come to draw out particular conclusions out of these generall rules there they faile either beeing blinded in their iudgement or corrupted by euill manners and custome whereupon it commeth that men take those things in their practise to be good and commendable which are euill as among the Germanes as Caesar writeth lib. 6. de bell Gall. robberie was counted no fault neither was the vnnaturall loue of boyes among the Grecians and Romanes held to be vnlawfull and infamous 2. An other proofe hereof that the light of nature is not vtterly extinguished is by the force and working of the conscience which is readie to accuse the offender and to prick and sting his soule as Cain by this light of his conscience was driuen to confesse that his sinne was greater then could be forgiuen 3. An other argument hereof which the Apostle also toucheth here is the practise of naturall men who did performe diuers commendable things by the light of nature agreeable to equitie as appeareth by diuers politike lawes and positiue constitutions of the Gentiles by the which these two assertions and conclusions of Plato are found to be true legem esse inventionem veritatis that the law is the inuention of truth that is the law of nature and legeÌ„ est imitationeÌ„ veritatis the law is the imitation of truth that is positiue laws grounded vpon the law of nature 32. Qu. Whether ignorance of the law of nature in man doth make any way excusable 1. First though the light of nature be now much darkned and obscured yet thereby a man notwithstanding this naturall darknes and ignorance is left without excuse as the Apostle saith c. 1.20 to the intent that they should be without excuse and the equitie thereof thus further appeareth the Prophet Dauid saith Psal. 79.6 Powre out thy wrath vpon the heathen that haue not knowne thee and S. Paul 2. Thess. 1.8 in flaming fire rendring vengeance vnto them that doe not know God But Gods iudgement is most iust he would not punish men without their fault seeing then that euen they which know not God shall be iudged it remaineth that their ignorance is not without their owne fault that is an excellent saying of Augustine inexcusabilis est omnis peccator vel reatu originis c. euery sinner is inexcusable either by originall guilt or by voluntarie additament whether we know or be ignorant for ignorance in them that would not vnderstand is sinne without doubt in them that could not it is the punishment of sinne and so in both non est iust a excusatio sed iust a damnatio there is no iust excuse but damnation is iust c. epistol 105. So both waies is the ignorant man left without excuse for that perfect light of nature which was giuen at the first to man was lost by his sinne so that this ignorance is the iust punishment of sinne and that light of nature which remaineth was by the Gentiles abused that they would not vnderstand that which nature reuealed 2. Yet although the ignorance of the law altogether excuse not as it serueth not the malefactors turne to say he knew not the law of the Prince against the which he hath offended yet it doth somewhat extenuate the offence for the faults committed by the ignorant are lesse then those which such fall into that haue knowledge according to that saying of our blessed Sauiour Luk. 12.47 The seruant that knew his masters well and prepared not himselfe neither did according to his will shall be beaten with many stripes but he that knew it not and did commit things worthie of stripes shall be beaten with few stripes for vnto him that is ignorant are wanting two things knowledge and a good will but he that sinneth wittingly hath but one want onely good will and inclination and the one hath both voluntatem facti peccati the will of the deede and the sinne but he that falleth of ignorance hath onely a will to the deed not to the sinne though the deede be sinne see further of this matter 4. chap. 1. quest 57. 33. Quest. That the light of nature is not sufficient of it selfe to direct a man to bring forth any vertuous act without the grace of Christ. It was the common opinion of the Philosophers that there were the seedes of all vertuâ— graft in the minde of man by nature which seedes growing to ripenes were able to bring forth right vertuous actions But the contrarie is euident that this naturall seede is imperfect and of it selfe vtterly vnable to bring forth any such fruit 1. The Apostle saith that he which soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reape corruptioâ— but he that soweth to the spirit shall of the spirit reape life euerlasting it is then the seede oâ— the spirit that sanctifieth to life euerlasting he that is lead onely by the light of nature soâ—eth to the flesh and the fruit thereof is corruptible S. Iohn also saith he that is borne of Gâ—â— sinneth not for his seede remaineth in him 1. Ioh. 3.9 he then that is onely borne of natâ—â—e hath not this seede remaining in him and therefore can not chuse but sinne 2. If the morall law without the grace of Christ were of no efficacie to bring a man to righteousnes but rather serued to reueale sinne as the Apostle saith Rom. 4.13 Thâ— law causeth wrath and Rom. 7.11 Sinne tooke occasion by the commandement and deceâ—â—â— me and thereby slew me much lesse is the law of nature auaileable to direct one vnto yet â—â—ous acts but rather it is an occasion to the wicked that abuse it of further stumbling 〈◊〉 as a light suddenly flashing vpon ones eyes walking in darknes doth dazle them the moâ—â— and causeth him to stumble 3. This further appeareth how vnsufficient this naturall light is because in many thorough custome and continuance in sinne their very conscience is corrupt that they are nâ—â— touched with any remorse for euill but as the Prophet saith Ier. 3.3 Thou hadst a whoâ—â— forehead thou wouldest not be ashamed so they grew to be impudent and shameles in their euill doing and as their conscience was feared as with an hoat yron so their iudgement â—â—blinded taking good for euill and euill for good Isa. 5.20 4. If it be obiected that the Gentiles did many commendable things there are found â—mong them many worthie examples of iustice temperance fortitude yet these were sâ—â—â— from true vertues for both these semblable vertues were obscured with many other viâ—â— which raigned in them and they aimed at doing such things at a wrong ende they referrâ—â— all this their endeauour either to their owne profit or els to get praise thereby so that thâ—â— did ouercome other inferiour lusts desires with the predominant humour of couetousâ— and ambition like as in a bodie full of diseases and infirmities there may be one which not exceed the rest draw the
goodnes therefore nothing can be good but that which is according to his will which is no where reuealed but in his word then no worke can be good vnlesse it be wrought according to the prescript of Gods word 2. there can come no good worke from man who is prone to euill and to nothing but euill by nature vnlesse then a man be regenerate and borne a new which is by faith in Christ be can doe no acceptable worke Both these are euident out of Scripture 1. that without faith it is vnpossible to please God Hebr. 11.6 and whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne Rom. 14.23 2. and that by faith we are regenerate and made the sonnes of God Ioh. 1.12 As many as receiued him to them he gaue power to be the sonnes of God euen to them that beleeue in his name All such workes then as haue neither warrant out of Gods word not yet proceede from faith such as all superstitious works are so much commended and commanded in Poperie are not to be counted good works Gualter 5. Controv. Whether any good workes of the faithfull be perfect 1. The Romanists doe hold that some workes of the righteous are so perfect that they be not sinne so much as venially in them they haue no blemish at all Concil Tridentin can 25. de iustificat Pererius vrgeth that act of Abrahams obedience in sacrificing his sonne which was not onely omnis peccati vacuum c. void of all sinne but it was perfectly good as appeareth by that excellent promise which the Lord made thereupon to Abraham so it is said of Dauid that he was a man according to Gods owne heart disput 4. in c. 2. numer 33. Contra. 1. That act of Abrahams obedience was not rewarded for the perfection of the worke but because it proceeded from faith he beleeued God and therefore it was counted vnto him for righteousnes 2. And it is hard to say whether Abraham did not cast some doubts in his mind when he was first commanded of God to sacrifice his onely sonne there might be some naturall reasoning within him which notwithstanding he did ouercome by faith Ambrose thinketh lib. 1. de Abrah c. 8. that when Abraham said to his seruants Tâ—rie you here with the asse for I and the child will goe yonder and worship and come againe to you captiose loquebatur c. spake cunningly or captiously least his seruants should perceiue whereabout he went 3. And as for Dauid he had many infirmities and imperfections from some of which euen his best works might not be free he was said to be according to Gods heart both comparatiuely in respect of Saul and others and because he fought God vnfainedly not in shew and hypocritie as Saul did otherwise that he was not imply according to Gods heart the great sinnes wherein he fell doe declare 2. But that there is some blemish imperfection and defect euen in the best works of the Saints though we affirme not as Pererius slandereth Luther that all the workes of the regenerate are sinne it is thus made euident out of the Scripture 1. The Prophet Isai saith c. 64.6 All our righteousnes is as stained clouts euen their best actions were defiled and polluted to this place diuers answers are found 1. Pererius out of Augustine thus interpreteth that iustnia nostra diuine comparata iustitiae c. out righteousnes beeing compared to the diuine iustice is like vnto a filthie and menstrâ—â—â— cloath this is then spoken comparatiuely to this purpose August serm 43. Contra. And we herein concurre with Augustine that although the worke of the Saints seeme 〈◊〉 perfect and excellent before men yet in regard of that perfection which God requireth of vs they are found to come farre short so that if they be compared with the iustice of God not which he hath in himselfe but which he commandeth and requireth of vs our best works will appeare to be imperfect and full of wants 2. He vrgeth Hieromes exposition who applieth this place to the incredulous Iewes after the comming of the Messiah whose sained legall holines was as vncleane thing in the sight of God because they beleeued not in Christ exhibited to the world Contra. It is euident by the text it selfe that be Prophet speaketh of that age then present v. 10. Zion is a wildernes Ierusalem is a deseâ— 3. Therefore Pererius insisteth vpon this third inpretation that the Prophet speaketh of the hypocrites among the Iewes and of their legall righteousnes which was an vncleare thing beeing not sanctified by the spirit of God and the Prophet speaketh in the first person as including himselfe as the manner of the Prophets is for humilitie sake condescending vnto the infirmitie of the people and therein also shewing his charitable affection and compassion toward them Contra. It is euident 1. that the Prophet speaketh not onely of their legall obseruations but of all their morall obedience whatsoeuer for the words are generall All our righteousnes is as a stained clout 2. neither doth he meane the hypocrites onely but he comprehendeth all the people excluding no not the better sort as he saith v. 8. But now O Lord thou art our father and v. 9. Lowe beseech thee behold we are all thy people but the wicked and hypocrites are not alone Gods people neither is God said to be their father for the godly and faithfuls sake among them they may be so counted but not alone by themselues 2. To this purpose may be vrged that place Psal. 143.2 Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant for in thy sight shall none that liueth be iustified c. Hence it is euident â—hat no not the iust in their best works are iustified in the sight of God but the Lord can finde sufficient matter against them euen in their most perfect works as Iob saith c. 9.30 If I wash my selfe with snow water c. yet shalt thou plunge me in the pit c. Pererius here sheweth fiue reasons why the iust desire that God would not enter into iudgement with them 1. because of the vncertentie of their election and present iustice 2. many of them may fall into deadly and great sinnes which they are not sure whether they be remitted 3. yea and the best men haue their veniall faults which can not altogether be taken heed of in this life 4. and euen in their best works plures negligentiae immiscentur many negligences and scapes are intermingled 5. their good workes are of God and not of themselues and therefore they can not in the rigour of iustice expect a reward at Gods hand Perer. disput 4. numer 37. Contra. 1. Of these fiue causes some are false some are impertinent and some directly make against him 1. That the righteous and faithfull are not certaine of their election nor of remission of sinnes is false and contrarie to the Scriptures for S. Paul was both sure of his election desiring to be dissolued and to be
the one or to the diseased patient for the other Mart. So likewise that mans sinne setteth forth the goodnesse of God it is not of the nature of sinne sed ex infinita bonitate sapientia potentia Dei but of the infinite goodnesse wisedome and power of God who can turne mens sinnes to his further glorie Perer. And further here we are to distinguish betweene malum culpae malum poena the euill of the offence and the euill of punishment the first simply and by it it selfe maketh not to Gods glorie but the punishment of sinne which is occasioned by sinne God ordaineth for the declaration of his iustice Lyran. Quest. 12. Whether none euill is to be done at all that good may come thereof 1. This is a most true conclusion in diuinitie that no euill must be done or sinne committed that some good may be caused thereby for the contrarie the Apostle here condemneth and saith their damnation is iust that thus obiect Why doe we not euill that good may come thereof the reason hereof is this no sinne is eligible for whatsoeuer is eligible and to be made choice of is good but sinne is no wayes good for then it should not be sinne yet sinne may be the occasion of the further setting forth of Gods glorie as the offences of theeues and murtherers may be the matter for the iustice of the iudge to worke vpon and diseases are occasions for the skilfull Physitian to shewe his skill yet as therefore a man will not choose to be diseased that the Physitian may growe famous in healing him so neither are sinnes to be of purpose committed that Gods iustice should be thereby set forth Mart. 2. But here the former distinction taketh place betweene malum culpae malum poena the euill of sinne and the euill of punishment the first is no wayes to be chosen a lesse sinne is not to be committed to avoide a greater for if no euill is to be done for a good ende then the lesse euill or sinne is not to be committed to avoide a greater for the avoiding of euill is also a good thing Caietan But of other things which are not euill in their nature but are counted euill in respect of temporall losse there one may make choice of the lesse Pareus as Dauid did rather chuse to haue the pestilence sent vpon the land then famine or captiuitie and here that similitude of Gregorie may haue place vt qus murorum ambitu clauditur vndique c. as he that is compassed and closed in with a wall that he cannot escape there taketh his flight vbi breuior murus invenitur where the wall is the lowest so of such temporall euills a man may make choice of that which bringeth the least inconuenience 3. And concerning the first sort of euills there is also a kind of choice to be made when there is a necessitie as when one is driuen to such a streight as that hauing taken a rash oath to doe an vnlawfull thing and the oath beeing made he must either breake his oath and so commit periurie or keepe his oath and so breake charitie it is the lesse of the two euills to breake a wicked oath then to fulfill it as Herod did in putting Iohn Baptist to death for in violating the oath creatorâ—m offendimus we doe but offend the Creator but in performing a cruell and bloodie oath we both transgresse Gods commandements as also offer wrong vnto our brother thus was it decreed Concil Toletan 8. vbi periculi necessitas as compuleru c. where the necessitie of the danger compelleth which necessitie is when a thing is once committed and cannot be vndone againe as in taking a rash oath which necessitie or perplexitie as Caietan well noteth is not ex parte rerum on the behalfe of the things for it is not necessarie for a man if it were in his power either to sweare falsly or to breake charitie but it is ex parte hominis on the behalfe of man who cannot revoke and vncall that which he hath once done Caietan 4. But against this position the example of Lot will be obiected who to preserue the young men from the beastly rage of the Sodomites would haue prostituted his daughters vnto them if this fact were not good why doth S. Peter call him iust Lot 2. Pet. 2. if it were then one may doe good that euill may be occasioned thereby Concerning this act of Lot there are diuerse opinions some doe commend and iustifie it as Ambrose lib. 1. de Abraham c. 6. Chrysostome hom 43. so also Thomas Caietan Some doe blame Lot in so doing and disallowe this fact as August qu. 42. in Genes Lyran Gloss. interlin Tostatus Lyppom in catena and this seemeth to be the better opinion as Augustine determineth â—oli facere magnum scelus tuum dum magis horrescis alienum doe not make thine offence great while thou fearest an others sinne yet two things doe excuse Lot his zealous care to preserue the young men from violence and his perplexed and troubled minde not well considering what he did And whereas S. Peter calleth him iust Lot that is not vnderstood in respect of this particular fact but of his vpright life who was not touched with the vncleane conuersation of the citie but grieued thereat 5. Here further may be noted a certaine ouersight of Gregorie who disputing this point that of two euills the lesse is to be chosen giueth this instance that the Apostle saying to avoide fornication let euerie one haue his wife concessit minimo vt maior a declinaret he permitted the lesse euill to avoide the greater so he thinketh it not to be without fault to marrie though it be lesse and he would prooue it by these words of the Apostle I speake this by permission not by commandement non est sine vitio quod ignoscitur non praecipitur that is not without fault which is pardoned not commanded Gregor lib. 32. Moral c. 27. Contra. 1. If it were an euill or sinne to marrie then God should be the author of sinne who was the institutor of mariage if men do abuse the mariage by their in temperancie that is their fault not any euill in the thing 2. The Apostle doth not pardon them their mariage but he permitteth them to marrie as a thing lawfull for all if they will vse the remedie but not necessarily imposed by way of commandement for they which haue the gift of continencie are not bound to marrie 3. the Apostle then in allowing to marrie to avoide fornication doth not preferre the lesse euill before the greater but prescribeth the remedie which is good to preuent the greater inconuenience of euill which would followe if the remedie were not vsed 13. Quest. Whether God doe not euill that good may come thereof in reprobating the vessels of wrath to shew his power Obiect 1. The Apostle saith Rom. 9.22 What and if God would to shew
in Oecumen 2. or I finde by the lawe that when I would doe good euill is present Vatab. Genevens Calvin but here the preposition per by is inserted which is not in the originall 3. Erasmus to the same purpose I finde the lawe this to worke in me that I vnderstand when I would doe well that evill is present c. but here many words are added not in the originall Of them that vnderstand the lawe of the members 1. Beza thus interpreteth I finde legem impositam this lawe to be imposed vpon me by reason of the corruption of my nature so also Mart. that when I would doe good euill is present 2. some directly vnderstand legem carnis the lawe of the flesh the concupiscence which hindreth him beeing willing to doe good so Tolet Osiand and these two last expositions are most agreeable to the text because it is added as a reason because euill is present with me in which words he sheweth what lawe he meaneth that which is opposite vnto him which is further explained in the verses following Quest. 29. How the Apostle saith v. 21. euill is present with me 1. Ambrose hath here a curious observation euill is said to be present adiacere to be readie at hand because it lutketh in the flesh as at the doore that when one is inclined and willing to do good sinne is at hand to hinder And he giueth this reason why sinne hath the habitation in the flesh rather then in the soule because the flesh onely is deriued ex traduce by propagation and not the soule which if it were propagated as well as the flesh sinne rather should haue the feare in the soule because it sinneth rather then the flesh which is but the organe or instrument of sinne likewise expoundeth Tolet adiacet mihi it is naturally resiant in my flesh as he said before that to will is present with me that is naturally in his minde annot 21. 2. But 1. Ambrose reason concludeth not for though the flesh haue the beginning by propagation and not the soule and so the first pollution is by the flesh yet sinne disperseth it selfe into the whole nature of man both soule and bodie as the Apostle sheweth Coloss. 2.18 that there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a mind of flesh or fleshly minde 2. neither naturally is the mind willing or apt vnto that which is good for why then should the Apostle exhort to be renewed in the spirit of the minde Ephes. 4.23 the aptnesse and inclination of the mind vnto good is by grace the meaning then of this phrase is nothing else but to shewe the readinesse and strength of our naturall concupiscence which lyeth in waite and is at hand to hinder euerie good worke and to stirre vs vp vnto euill Quest. 30. Of these words I delight in the law of God c. v. 22 23. of the number of these lawes and what they are 1. Concerning the number 1. some referre these laws vnto two the law of God and the law of the minde they make one and the same the law of the members and the law of sinne also they thinke to be one Pareus Martyr Tolet. annot 22. 2. Photius in Oecumenius maketh three lawes he distinguisheth the law of God and the law of the minde the law of the members and the law of sinne he confoundeth 3. But Hierom. epist. ad Hedib qu. 8. and Ambr. in Luc. 17. doe recite fowre lawes as they are here named by the Apostle the law of God the law of the minde the law of the members and the law of sinne so also Calvin Hyper. and the Apostle indeede setteth downe so many 2. The like difference is what these lawes should be 1. Oecumenius thus describeth these lawes two are without vs the law of God the knowledge whereof we haue by the preaching of the Gospel and the law of the members which commeth by the suggestion of Satan ministring euill cogitations two of them are within vs the law of the minde that is the law of nature which is imprinted in the minde and the law of sinne which is the euill custome of sinning 2. Pererius will haue the law of God to be the written law and the law of the mind the naturall law the law of the members the naturall concupiscence and inclination vnto the seuerall proper obiects of the desire the law of sinne is deordinatio earundem virium the disordering of the naturall faculties and abusing of them vnto euill But all these faile herein 1. the law of the minde is not naturall for naturally the minde is not apt vnto that which is good without the worke of grace 2. and the law of the members is internall and within vs. 3. neither is this the naturall facultie of desiring which is not euill but the disordered pravitie of nature 3. Pet. Mertyr as he maketh the law of God and the law of the minde to be the same yet in a diuers respect for it is called the law of God in respect of the author and of the minde in regard of the subiect so in his iudgement the same is called the law of sinne because concupiscence in it selfe is sinne as the efficient and the law of the members because they are as the instruments 4. But I rather consent vnto M. Calvin who vnderstandeth the law of God to be the morall law the rule of equitie and the law of the minde to be the obedience and conformitie which the mind regenerate hath with the law of God and by the law of the members the concupiscence which is in the members consenting to the law of sinne 5. And further the law of the members and the law of sinne are not severed in subiect they are both in the members but thus they differ Some thinke the law of the members to be the corruption and pravitie of our nature called before the bodie of sinne c. 6.6 and the law of sinne the euill concupiscence springing from thence so Vatablus the law of the members is vis in carne the strength of the flesh resisting the law of the minde and the law of sinne is affectus carnis the carnall affections so Haymo interpreteth the law of the members onus pondus mortalitatis the burthen of mortalitie and the law of sinne to be euill concupiscence custome and delight in sinne so Lyranus vnderstandeth by the law of the members fomitem peccati vel inclinationem pravam the food and matter of sinne or the corrupt inclination and the law of sinne consuetudinem pravam the euill custome of sinning 6. But I rather with Beza by the law of sinne vnderstand the corruption of nature by the law of the members the euill concupiscence springing from thence for otherwise the opposition betweene the law of God and the minde on the one side and the law of the members and of sinne on the other will not be correspondent and answerable together for the law of the members must be
proceede from the pravitie of the flesh 2. And the Apostle saith is enmitie not an enemie as the Latine readeth for then it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the neuter not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the feminine and here the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the accent in the first syllable which signifieth enmitie not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accented in the last syllable which is the adiective in the femine gender enemious and the Apostle speaketh in the abstract not by the figure Metalepsis taking it for the concrete enmitie for enemie the substantiue for the adiectiue as Pareus nor yet doth he so speake vt vehementior fit oratio to make his speach more vehement and forcible Martyr but hereby is expressed the irreconciliable enmitie betweene the flesh and the spirit for that which is an enemie may be reconciled as Esau was to Iacob but enmitie can neuer be reconciled Faius 3. Now the Apostle here giueth a reason of the former verse why the wisdome of the flesh is death because it is enmitie with God from whome commeth life but yet the wisdome of the spirit is not so the cause of life and peace with God as the wisdome of the flesh is of death for this is the meritorious cause of the one so is not the wisdome of the spirit that is regeneration of the other but it is as the meane and way whereby we are assured of saluation and to haue peace with God but that which procureth and worketh it is faith in Christ Rom. 5.1 therefore here the Reader must take heede of a corrupt note of Lyranus that the confidence of the spirit meretur vitam gratiae in prasenti c. doth merit the life of grace in this present and the peace of glorie in the next 4. And as the wisedome of the flesh is enmitie with God so the wisdome of the spirit is enmitie and freindship which is defined to be a mutuall goodwill which is declared by freindly partes and offices for vertues sake thus then Aristotles rule is found to be false inter valide in aequales non dari amicitiam that there cannot be freindship betweene such as are much vnequall for in the beginning there was freindship betweene the creator and his creature and this auncient amitie is renewed and restored by Christ who vouchsafeth to call his Apostles freinds Ioh. 15.14 5. But by flesh 1. neither with the Manichees must we vnderstand the substance of the flesh for by flesh he meaneth the prauitie and corruption of the flesh 2. nor yet with Chrysostome doe we interpret it to be carnalem vitam onely a carnall life which onely sheweth the corrupt actions but it signifieth the prauitie of our nature 3. neither doe we with Ambrose onely referre it to the vnderstanding quae non potest capere divina which is not capable of diuine things for here the continuance rather and rebellion of the flesh is signified then the impotencie and weaknes of it 4. nor yet by the flesh is vnderstood onely the sensuall part and by the spirit rationabilitas mentis the reasonablenes of the soule but euen the minde also is carnall as Theophylact calleth it carneam mentem a carnall mind as v. 9. if any haue not the spirit of Christ but their owne naturall spirit they alwaies haue 6. And whereas it is said it is not subiect to the law of God neither can be 1. neither is it to be restrained to that particular law of the Gospel of rendring good for euill which carnall men transgresse that render euill for euill as Haymo 2. not yet because they thinke God can doe nothing beside that which is to be seene and found in nature gloss ordinar for this but one particular act of carnalitie 3. nor yet is it to be vnderstood with this limitation â—â—m eo perseueret if a man continue in the flesh he cannot so long be subiect vnto the law of God Oecumen for the Apostle speaketh of the wisedome of the flesh it selfe not of those that are in it which can neuer be changed to become subiect vnto God but they which are in the flesh may cease to be in the flesh and so please God 4. and this doth manifestly conuince the Pelagians of error which hold that a naturall man might fulfill the law of God and of the Popish schoolmen who affirmed that a man without grace might keepe the law quoad substantiam operis in respect of the substance of the worke though not ad intentionem legis after the intention of the law Quest. 10. How they which are in the flesh cannot please God v. 8. 1. Not they which follow the law secundum literam according to the letter as Origen the Apostle speaketh generally of all as well Iewes as others that are in the flesh 2. Neither as the Maniches by the flesh is vnderstood the bodie for so none in this life should please God 3. Nor yet as Hierome in his passionate and too much loue of virginitie and partiall and preiudicate opinion of marriage that they which inseruiunt officio coniugali serue the marriage duties were in the flesh and thus also Pope Syricius did descant vpon these words applying them against marriage epistol ad Himmer Tarracon but they are said to be in the flesh qui post concupiscentias eunt which follow the lust and concupiscence of the flesh 4. But this must be vnderstood with a limitation quamdiu tales fuerint as long as they are such as Theophylact with other Greeke expositors as Augustine doth set it forth by this example as the same water may be both frozen with cold and be made hoate with the fire so the same soule of man may be first subiect to the flesh then to the spirit Quest. 11. Of the dwelling of the spirit of God in vs v. 9. Seeing the spirit of God dwelleth c. not if the spirit as the vulgar latine hath it and so the Romanists read and so Lyranus expoundeth the former words yee are not in the flesh i. esse non debetis ye ought not to be for so Chrysostome and Oecumenius well obserue non â—â—a ponit vt quidubitet he saith not thus as doubting but certainely beleeuing that they had the spirit 2. And in that he saith the spirit dwelleth 1. he sheweth that the spirit is otherwise in them then in other things for he is euery where and in all things immensitate essentia in his infinite essence but he is in the faithfull praesentia efficacia gratia by the presence and efficacie of his grace 2. in that the spirit is said to dwell thereby is signified that he is not in vs tanquam hospes as a straunger but indigena perpetuus an indweller for euer as Iob. 14.16 he shall abide with you for euer Pareus 3. and as a dweller in an house doth not onely occupie it but also in ea imperat doth command and beare rule and sway in
the elect perish Answ. It followeth not the branches may perish therefore the elect 1. That the elect cannot possibly fall away is shewed before contr 1. the Scripture saith they that trust in Iehovah shall be as mount Sinai which is not mooued but standeth fast for euer Psal. 125.1 not that the elect are so stable of themselues that they cannot be mooued for there is no creature but of it selfe is mutable and subiect to change but the Lord vpholdeth such by his grace as it is said Psal. 37.24 Though the righteous fall be shall not be cast off for the Lord putteth vnder his hand 2. We must distinguish of the branches some are true and right branches and they are the faithfull and elect which cannot be broken off some are counterfeit branches which were neuer elected and they may fall off so Christ sheweth Ioh. 15. that the vine may haue some vnfruitfull branches which are cast off but the fruitfull branches he neuer casteth away so the Apostle c. 9.7 doth make a difference among the children of Abraham all were not his right children that were of his seede Controv. 9. Against the heresie of Valentinus and Basilides that held some things to be euill some good by nature Whereas S. Paul maketh mention of the wild oliue and of the true oliue v. 17. Origen taketh occasion to confute the heresie of the foresaid heretikes and their followers whose assertion was this that there were two natures of soules some were made good and they should be saued and neuer fall away some were euill and they could not but perish 1. Origen refelleth this hereticall paradox out of this place for here some branches of the oliue tree were broken off because of their vnbeleefe and so of good became bad and the branches of the wild oliue were planted in and so of bad became good this difference was not in the diuersitie of their nature and further he vrgeth these words of our Blessed Sauiour Math. 12.33 Either make the tree euill and the fruit euill or make the tree good and the fruit good whereupon he inferreth vt ostenderet arborem bonam vel malam non nasci sed fieri to shewe that a tree is not borne good or euill but is so made 2. Thus farre Origen proceedeth well but after going about to shew the cause whence it commeth that some trees are good some bad he falleth into other errors himselfe 1. ascribing this difference onely to the power of free will for these are his words vnusquisque ex arbitrij potestate aut bona oliva aut oleafter efficitur euery one by the power of free will is made either a true oliue or a wild oliue which he prooueth by the example of the creatures which are all of one nature but by certaine accidentall qualities bring forth diuerse kinds as of trees hearbs and such like so there is one and the same nature of reasonable creatures the difference is out of the diuers motions of their free will and to this ende he presseth that saying of our blessed Sauiour wake the tree good and his fruit good as though it were in mans power to make himselfe a good tree 2. he addeth that whereas God so in his prouidence disposeth that there are outward exhortations ministred sometime to good sometime to euill it is in mans power obedire si velit to obey if he will him that provoketh him vnto goodnes and if he will to despise him 3. and to mend the matter withall he saith further that by this libertie of will he that is ramus oliuae a branch of the right oliue may fall away to misbeleefe and an other that is but a wild oliue may conuert vnto the faith and become a branch of the true oliue Thus Origen playeth the Philosopher rather then the diuine Contra. 1. The Apostle is contrarie to Origen for he saith v. 20. Thou standest by faith therefore not by free will for faith is not of our selues it is the gift of God Eph. 2.8 neither is the example of the creatures like for the diuersitie of their kinds proceedeth of the seuerall properties of their different natures whereas the difference betweene men is not from their nature but by the grace of God which separateth them 1. Cor. 4.7 Who separateth thee and what hast thou that thou hast not receiued and whereas Christ saith facite make ye this word as Pet. Martyr well sheweth non efficientiam sed hypothesin significat doth signifie not an efficiencie but a supposition as if he should haue said you must thus thinke and imagine with your selues that the tree must first be good before it can bring forth good fruit and this to be the meaning appeareth by the words following how can ye speake good things when ye are euill 2. Neither is it mans power to giue care vnto wholesome doctrine and obey it if he will for then why is it said of Lydia Act. 16.14 whose heart God opened that she attended to the things that Paul spake 3. Neither is it possible for them that were true branches of the right oliue to be broken off they were neuer truly graffed in that are broken off though they so seemed as they which are said to be blotted out of the booke of life were neuer indeede there written at all Rev. 17.8 and thus witnesseth S. Iohn 1. epist. 2.19 They went out from vs but they were not of vs for if they had beene of vs they would haue continued with vs. 10. Controv. That there was the same spirit of faith and the same spirituall substance of the Sacraments vnder the old Testament and in the new v. 17. And made partaker of the roote P. Martyr doth well obserue out of these words so also Pareus with others that there was eadem substantia res spiritus c. the same substance matter spirit in both Testaments though their Sacraments in respect of the outward signes and ceremonies were diuers for there was but one roote of faith both of the Iewes and Gentiles we are not planted into an other oliue but are made partakers of the fatnes of the same oliue tree this is contrarie to the doctrine of the Romanists which denie that the Sacraments of the old Testament had the same spirituall substance with the Sacraments of the new See further Synops. Centur. 2. err 97. 11. Controv. That the Scriptures are the iudge of euery one in particular Whereas Gretserus in the colloquie at Ratisbone sess 9. p. 111. denied impudently that the Scripture iudged him because it no where said Thou Gretser errest and cried out with â— blasphemous mouth let the Scripture iudge me indicet me spiritus si potest let the holy spirit iudge me if he can Pareus out of this place taxeth his ignorance and impudencie for the Apostle speaketh in particular v. 20. Thou standest by faith 21. take heede he spare not thee and in like manner the commandements were propounded in particular as speaking
readeth consentientes humilibus consenting to the humble that is saith Origen amare humiles to loue the humble he consenteth with the humble quei cum humilibus se humiliat which humbleth himselfe with those that are humble Haymo humiliorum imitatores imitators of those which are humble gloss interlin consenting to the humble that is in heart and not with the mouth onely gloss ordin Gorrhan all these vnderstand by the humble the lowely referring it to their persons 2. Some vnderstand this word of the things rather then of the persons and take it in the neuter gender that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the humble may answear vnto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the high things before spoken of Calvin Beza Pareus so also Osiander humilia curate tractate c. respect and handle humble things likewise Tolet let them embrace base things quae vilea mundus reputat which the world counteth base And this sense is to be admitted by reason of the opposition of the words though not onely 3. Faius saith non tam res ipsae quam hominum affectus spectantur not so much the things themselues as the affections of men are here considered true it is that the obiect cannot be seuered from the affection but it is euident that the Apostle by high and lowe things meaneth the obiect of pride and humilitie 4. Pet. Martyr comprehendeth both base things and base persons that we should apply our selues vnto both neither dispising the one not refusing the other euen meane and base ministeries and seruices to profit our brother as our B. Sauiour disdained not to wash his Apostles feere and this is most agreeable to the Apostles meaning now the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not well translated by the Latine interpreter consentientes consenting it properly signifieth impetu quodam correpti carried us it were with force shewing how prone we ought to be to descend to lowe and base things Beza rendreth it obsecundantes submitting your selues the Syrian interpreter adhaerentes cleauing Vatablus accomodantes applying your selues our English making your selves equall c. giueth the meaning rather then the sense of the word Be not wise in your selues 1. Chrysostome thus interpreteth it ne putetis vos sufficere vobis ipsis thinke not that your are sufficient for your selues God hath so made vs vt alter alterum opera iudigeat that one standeth in neede of an other so also Theophylact vnderstandeth it of those which dispise the counsel of others and yet Moses dispised not the counsell of his father in lawe 2. Ambrose thinketh they are said to be wise in themselues which turne their wsedome altogether to their owne profit and not to the good of others so also the interlin gloss and Gorrhan ne prudentiam apud vos tantum exerceatis c. exercise not your wisedome onely for your selues but for your neighbours also 3. Basil regul brev resp 260. interpreteth those to be wise to themselues qui solam humanam prudentiam c. which onely haue humane wisedome and regard not the diuine will and pleasure such we call worldly wise 4. Haymo he is wise in himselfe who non authori sapientia deputat c. doth not ascribe vnto the author of wisedome that wisedome which he hath 5. But all these are the effects of arrogancie he which taketh himselfe to be wise dispiseth the counsell of others consulteth not with God neither ascribeth the praise to him here then the Apostle toucheth the verie roote and beginning of pride which is propriae prudentiae opinio the opinion of a mans owne wisedome Marlorat so that here the Apostle remooueth an other let and impediment of humilitie which is arrogancie and that is apud seipsum nimium sapere to be too wise in himselfe such the Prophet Isay speaketh against we vnto them that are wise in their owne eyes and prudent in their owne sight Isay. 5.21 Pareus so Origen before them hic cum arrogantia stultus est c. qui suam stultitiam quasi sapientiam colit he is arrogant and foolish who adoreth his owne folishnesse as if it were wisedome c. But here Lyranus aduertiseth well that prudence and wisedome is here not taken properly but in a certaine similitude for vera prudentia non nisi in bonis true wisedome and prudence is onely found in the good it is craft not wisedome which the wicked haue Now this arrogancie is the cause of all errors which are of three sorts either errors in opinion and iudgement or in practise of religion or in life and conuersation for hereupon some haue deuised newe doctrines and strange worship not contenting themselues with the simplicitie of Gods word as though they were wiser then God and they giue themselues euer vnto grosse sinnes in their life holding scorne to be admonished by others Gualter Quest. 25. How euill is not to be recompenced for euill v. 17. 1. Chrysostome noteth the generalitie of the speach recompence to no man whether beleeuer or vnbeleeuer not to a beleeuer because he is thy brother not to an infidel and vnbeleeuer that thou mayest winne him Haymo 2. Origen obserueth that reddere malum to render euill is a greater sinne quam inferre malum then to offer euil at the first for it may be that he did it ignorantly non sensisse malum c. that he perceiued it not to be euill which he did but he that recompenceth euill sheweth that he was not ignorant that it was euill 3. this precept concerneth onely particular wrongs it is not extended to magistrates that render euill vnto offenders according to the lawe in Deut. an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth and yet punishment is not euill because it is opus iustitiae a worke of iustice Gorrhan Martyr 4. here that pharisaicall doctrine is reprooued that they were to hate their enemies and loue their friends 5. and if it be a sinne to render euill for euill much more to recompence euill for good the one is incident into our humane corrupt nature but the other is plaine diabolicall 6. Calvin thinketh that this precept is somewhat larger then that which followeth avenge not your selues for in some cases euill may be rendered for euill sine manifesta vltione without manifest reuenge as when one refuseth to giue entertainment succour to one in his need and so the other to requite him withdraweth his hand in his necessitie so also Gualt but Martyr misliketh this I cannot see saith he how he which willingly doth render euill for euill doth not intend to take revenge and the Apostle he thinketh doth inculcate the same precept againe because it is so necessarie thus also Pareus but this difference betweene them may be soone taken away for Calvin saith onely without manifest reuenge there may be a reuenge in all kind of retalion but in some the revenge is more manifest then in other Quest. 26. How honest things are to be procured before all men
mourned for Saul 9. in receiuing them to mercie when they returne to grace as Ioseph did his brethren 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. Concerning the power of free-will 1. Wherea◠〈◊〉 Apostle in this 12. chapter beginneth to giue precepts of righteousnes and to exhort 〈◊〉 holinesse hence the enemies to the garce of God take occasion to establish their opinion concerning free-will that a man assisted by Gods grace is able to performe all these precepts Stapletons reasons are these Antid p. 777. 1. The precepts of the morall lawe are agreeable to the lawe of nature and to the lawe of nations therefore they haue not such difficultie but that they may be kept 2. All things are possible to the grace of God which grace of God is had and obtained by prayer 3. God commandeth in vaine if his precepts cannot be performed so also Erasmus praecepta frigent si nihil tribuitur voluntari the precepts are cold if nothng be yeelded to the will of man c. 4. Either God is vniust in commanding that which cannot be performed or imprudent in requiring such obedience which he thought might be performed and cannot 5. And men herein haue an excuse of their disobedience because it is not in their power to doe that which they are bidden Contra. 1. The perfect obedience which the lawe requireth farre exceedeth that righteousnesse which the Lawe of nature and of nations exacteth for that onely requireth an externall discipline but the morall lawe prescribeth a perfect conformitie of the creature with the Creator 2. To the grace of God giuen in perfection nothing is hard and impossible but so is it not giuen to any in this life but in a certaine measure and degree the regenerate by grace are made able in some measure to keepe Gods commandements but not perfectly 3. Neither are the precepts of God in vaine though men are vnable to keepe them for there are diuerse other ends as the vnregenerate are either thereby stirred vp and called or are made inexcusable the regenerate by such precepts are raised vp from negligence and slouthfulnesse haue a rule giuen them to followe and doe see their owne weakenesse and are encouraged and prouoked to goe on still vnto perfection to attaine as neere it as they can 4. God is neither vniust in so commanding for the creature is bound to yeeld perfect obedience to the Creator and the creature both once had receiued strength in the creation which through wilfull transgression was lost and now a way is shewed by restauration in Christ how the will of God may be fulfilled neither is God imprudent for he is not deceiued in those ends which he propoundeth to himselfe in giuing such precepts vnto men 5. Man can haue no excuse for his disobedience seeing once he had receiued strength to performe the Creators will which was lost by mans willing transgression and because he seeketh not to haue his disobedience satisfied by the perfect obedience of Christ and so he contemneth grace offered 2. Now touching the doctrine of truth concerning freewill this we affirme that man by nature hath no power or actiuitie at all vnto that which is good but is altogether a seruant to sinne and that without grace in Christ no man can choose and followe that which is good this is euident by these texts of Scripture Genes 6.5 all the imaginations of the thoughts of mans heart are onely euill continually if all are euill and onely and continually what place or time is left here to that which is good in mans corrupt heart Math. 7.18 a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit it is against the nature of things for euill to bring forth good or good euill euerie thing bringeth forth by nature that which is like vnto it Rom. 6.20 Ye were seruants of sinne Eph. 2.5 we were dead by our sinnes seruants are not freemen neither can the dead doe any worke of the liuing no more can a man by nature doe any thing that is good 1. Cor. 2.14 the naturall man perceiueth not the things of the spirit of God if he perceiue not nor knowe them he cannot choose to doe them for there is nothing in the election of the will which is not first in the conception of the vnderstanding But it will be obiected 1. Then is not the will of man free if it haue not power indifferently to good or euill Answ. The will of man is free from coaction and compulsion but not from necessitie for the determination of the will to one thing taketh not away the libertie and freedome thereof for the will of God by the perfection of nature is enclined onely to that which is good in the Angels by the perfection of grace and to euill the will is onely inclined by the peruersnesse of the will either simply and vnchangeably as in reprobate Angels and men or for a time and in some sort though not simply as in the vnregenerate yet in all these the will worketh freely without any forcing 2. Obiect Though a man without grace can doe no good thing yet his will assisted by grace is enabled to euerie good thing Answ. 1. That good thing which is wrought in the regenerate by the grace of Christ proceedeth not at all from their owne freewill grace worketh the will is wrought vpon for Christ saith without me ye can doe nothing Ioh. 15.5 2. this grace worketh not perfitly in any in this life but is begun onely here for the Apostle saith if we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and the truth is not in vs 1. Ioh. 1.8 See further hereof Synops. Centur 4. err 42. to err 45. Controv. 2. Whether the Masse be a sacrifice properly so called The Romanists would prooue it out of this place v. 1. because the Apostle exhorteth to giue vp our bodies a liuing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sacrifice 1. hence they reason thus Christians haue a sacrifice properly so called which is the oblation of some externall and sensible thing vnto God by the lawfull Minister but there is no such externall sacrifice to be found among Christian saving the Masse it remaineth then that the Masse is that externall sacrifice 2. Euerie Priest must haue a sacrifice to offer but there is no other sacrifice offered vp by the Priests of the newe testament but the Masse Ergo to this purpose Bellarm. lib. 1. de Miss cap. 2. 15. Contra. 1. Christians neede not any externall sacrifice to offer vnto God such as were the legall sacrifices of beasts but they haue a true sacrifice though not to offer vp daily themselues which was once killed and sacrificed vpon the crosse which now is not daily to be offered vp but the memorie of that sacrifice is to be reuiued by the celebration of the Sacrament as our Sauiour saith this doe in remembrance of me And beside this sacrifice once offered for all there are other sacrifices not properly so called but
Synops. Centur. 1. err 69. Controv. 10. The Pope not the head of the Church v. 5. We are one bodie in Christ Beside that in this place the Church is said to be the bodie of Christ and so he consequently the head thereof as S. Paul calleth directly Ephes. 1.22 Coloss. 1.18 and so this beeing a title peculiar to Christ to be head of the Church no mortall man can arrogate it to himselfe it may be thus further shewed 1. the Apostles did not take vpon them to be heads of the Church for S. Paul both here and 1. Cor. 12. doth reckon himselfe in the number of the members 2. the Church hath not two heads Christ is one the Pope cannot be another 3. the head giueth direction and influence to the bodie none of these offices can the Pope doe vnto the Church 4. the Church is not the spouse or bodie of the Pope therefore he is not the head thereof 5. from Peter to Clemens 8. 200. Popes haue died but the head of the Church dieth not for then the Church should die with it 6. from Euaristus to Pius 5. the Papall sea was vacant at times 38. yeares 8. moneths and 29. dayes as Mercator casteth it in his cronologie then so long was the Church without an head if the Pope were the head 7. there haue beene at one time 2. and sometime three Popes then should the Church haue had so many heads ex Pareo Controv. 11. That to loue our enemies is a precept and commanded not counselled as indifferent v. 14. Blesse them which persecute you c. The Romanists doe hold that a man is not bound extra casum necessitatis but in case of necessitie to succour his enemie and to apply any particular prayer vnto him but onely in generall in case of necessitie to doe it it is a precept but otherwise and in other cases it is a counsell onely to this purpose Thomas 22. qu. 25. whom Pererius followeth 2. disput numer 8. Tolet addeth further for a man to be readie in minde not onely not to reuenge himselfe but to suffer more wrong as to hold his other cheeke when he is smitten vpon the one is a precept but in fact to doe it is but a counsell onely annot 30. in fine and a precept and counsell they say doe thus differ the first belongeth to all Christians and to leaue it vndone is sinne the other is onely for such as are perfect which though to leaue vndone be no sinne yet to do it is of great merit Cont. 1. S. Pauls precept is here generall to blesse our persecutors there is no case or time excepted Christian charitie must not be restrained nor limited who then seeth not but that this minsing and cutting of the Apostolicall precept is against the rule of charitie 2. to be alwaies readie in mind and in fact when occasion requireth to keepe patience toward our enemie is a precept and commanded but according to the strict letter to turne the cheeke to the enemie when one is striken is neither precept nor counsell for our Blessed Sauiour beeing smitten on the one cheeke did not turne the other who was most perfect in all his actions 3. a difference betweene precepts and counsels we graunt in respect of the matter and subiect the one is of things necessarie the other of matters in their owne nature indifferent such as that is 1. Cor. 7.15 of bestowing ones virgine but otherwise they are both generall and not to be omitted and neither are meritorious See further Synops. Centur. 2. err 84. 6. Morall obseruations Observ. 1. Of the necessitie of good works and a godly life v. 1. I beseech you brethren c. S. Paul hauing hitherto in this epistle laid downe thâ— doctrine of iustification and of other principall points of Christian religion now beginneth to exhort vnto holines and to the shewing forth of the fruits of our regeneration as here in this place he entreateth them to giue vp themselues and their bodies to the seruice of God for this is the end of our redemption and deliuerance to serue the Lord Luk. 1.74 A. Fulvius when he had taken away his sonne from following Cataline he killed him saying non Catalina te genui sed patriae I did not beget thee for Cataline but for the countrie but it may be better said of vs that God hath not created vs to serue the Deuill the world or the flesh but to serue him When Phillip King of Macedon beeing somewhat pleasant did daunce and leape among the poore captiues insulting ouer them and vpbrayding their miserie Demades said vnto him in this manner cum fortuna tibi Agamemnonis personam imposuerit uonne te pudet Thersitem agere seing fortune hath put vpon thee the person of Agamemnon that is of a King art not thou ashamed to play Thersites who was a base contemptible and odious rayling companion so when God hath called vs to this high dignitie to be called his sonnes and hath made vs heires of his kingdome yea Kings in Christ it is a shame for vs to abase our selues to the vile condition of beeing seruants vnto sinne Observ. 2. We must not conforme our selues to the fashion of this world v. 2. And be ye not fashioned c. Chrysostome obserueth well that the figure and fashion of this world is but a transitorie thing it is tanquam persona scenica non consistens rerum substantia as a person counterfetted vpon the stage not a thing of any substance and therefore it were a vaine thing to conforme our selues to it therefore the Apostle saith We should vse this world as if we vsed it not for the fashion of this world goeth away 1. Cor. 7.31 Observ. 3. Against curiositie v. 3. That no man vnderstand aboue that which is meete c. This maketh against those which are curious searchers and priers into Gods secrets neglecting those things which are for their necessarie knowledge and vse Sirach giueth good counsell Ecclesiastic 3.22 Seeke not out the things that are too hard for thee c. but what God hath commanded thinke vpon that with reuerence c. Augustine saith well melius est dubitare de occultis quam litigare de incertis c. it is better to doubt of hid matters then to contend about vncertaine The Philosopher was worthely reprooued of his maid who while he was vewing the starres fell into a pit that was before him such are they which seeke after things to high aboue their reach and let goe things more profitable Observ. 4. Against pride and vaine glorie v. 3. That euery one vnderstand according to sobrietie Chrysostome hath here an excellent morall against arrogancie when men doe attribute more to themselues then there is cause and are puffed vp with pride 1. he compareth the arrogant man to a verie foole for their speaches are alike vaine and foolish the proud man saith I will set my throne aboue the starres Isay. 14. I haue
things without any scruple of conscience giueth God thankes pro pastu largiore for his more plentifull feeding so he which eateth onely of some things yea of herbes giueth thankes also pro victu â—enuiore for his food though but slender as the wiseman preferreth a dinner of greene herbs with loue and eaten in the feare of God before a stalled oxe with hatred Prou. 15.17 7. But it will be obiected that this seemeth not to be a good argument he that eateth giueth God thankes therefore he eateth to the Lord for one may giue God thankes even when he eateth and drinketh to gluttonie and drunkennes the answear is that he which eateth doth well ex parte cibi on the behalfe of the meate which is sanctified by giuing of thanks as the Apostle saith 1. Tim. 4.8 that euerie creature is sanctified by the word of God and prayer But if any doe exceede in eating and drinking the fault is not in the meate as though he did eate any vncleane thing but in the person that eateth Quest. 15. Whether S. Pauls defense that he which doth or omitteth any thing in matters of religion doth or not doth it vnto God be perpetuall Here are diuerse necessarie points to be considered for the solution of this question for if this doctrine of S. Paul were vniversall and generall that one should not regard what an other doth but euerie man should be left vnto himselfe and that it were not lawfull to censure any ones doings then many wicked persons should goe vncontrolled and doe what they lift wherefore these considerations are here necessarie 1. of what things the Apostle entreateth 2. and of what manner of iudgement 3. of what persons he speaketh 4. in what time 5. in what manner these things were done 6. and to what ende 1. Concerning the things he speaketh not of things in their owne nature good or euill directly forbiddeÌ„ or commanded but of things indifferent in themselues and such as sometime were commanded in the lawe as abstinence from some kind of meate obseruing of dayes so Chrysostome well noteth sed cum de dogmatis illi sermo est c. but when the Apostle speaketh of points of doctrine he is in an other tune whosoeuer shall teach otherwise c. is accursed Galat. 10. 2. The iudgement and iudging one of an other which the Apostle speaketh against is not so much the iudgment of the thing which may be done with charitable moderation as of the person whom we must not take vpon vs to censure condemne in such things Beza 3. The Apostle speaketh not of obstinate and refractorie persons for to such S. Paul would not haue giuen place at all for though he caused Timothie to be circumcised for feare of offending the weake Act. 16.1 yet would he not circumcise Titus least he should haue yeilded to the obstinate and peruerse in iudgement Galat. 2.3 so Chrysostome saith novella erat adbuc Romanorum fides the faith of the Romanes was but yet young and neophytorum in gratiam ista disserit he disputeth thus for their sakes which were newely planted in 4. The time also must be considered nondum tempus erat it was not yet time Chrysostome so we are to distinguish of three times the one vnder the lawe when all these things were necessarie to be obserued and kept of the Iewes an other vnder the Gospel published to the world when all Iudaicall rites were as vnlawfull then there was tempus intermedium a time betweene both when after Christ was ascended the commonwealth of the Israelites was yet standing and Evangelium tanquam in cunabulis the Gospell was as in the cradle it was requisite that some thing should be yeelded to the infirmitie of the Iewes for a while 5. The maner was this these things were obserued sine opinione necessitatis meriti without opinion of necessitie or merit Osi. and Calv. well distinguisheth here between obseruatio the obseruation it selfe opinio the opinion conceiued thereof which is superstitious the other the Apostle tolerateth for a time in the weake in respect of their infirmitie but in the epistle to the Colossians c. 2. Gal. c. 4. c. 5. he condemneth them which retained the ceremonies of the lawe with an opinion of necessitie for Christ should profit them nothing Gal. â— â— which were so superstitiously addicted to the legall rites and ceremonies 6. The ende also maketh a great difference for these eating or not eating discerning meates or not discerning did both to the glorie of God but they which either sought their owne glorie as among the Galathians that sought to get disciples vnto them c. 4.17 and to make a faire shewe in the flesh c. 6.2 were not at all to be borne with so likewise the Popish festivals which are dedicated vnto the honour of Saints and not of God are not within the compasse of the Apostles rule here Gualter Quest. 16. Of the coherence of these words none of vs liueth to himselfe v. 7. c. 1. Chrysostome thinketh that this saying is applyed onely to the weake that it is impossible that God should contemne them but that in convenient time ista correcturus sit he will amend those things and confirme them because they liue and die vnto him and so there should be reference to the 4. ver God is able to make him stand 2. Some will haue it a confirmation of the former verse why all our actions should be directed to the glorie of God because he is our Lord and Master Hyper. Martyr 3. Tolet maketh it an other reason of that saying v. 5. that euerie one should abound in his owne conscience and not examine an others doings 4. Gualter will haue it to be a reason taken from the generall ende of man he was created vnto the glorie of God and his we are therefore all our actions must be referred to his glorie and then he addeth non haerendum in cibis that we should not insist in meats but seeke whether in our meates or in any thing else to please God 5. But it is rather a newe argument to prooue the thing in question that one should not iudge or condemne an other because they are the Lords seruants and so it answeareth to the 4. v. he standeth or falleth to his owne Master Beza Gryneus Faius and so he giueth the same reason of the second instance concerning the observing or not observing of dayes as he did of the other particular before touching eating or not eating Quest. 17. How we are saide to liue vnto the Lord. 1. Origen vnderstandeth it of the spirituall life vnto righteousnes and death vnto sinne so we liue vnto God because novitas vitae c. Christo reputatur the newnes of life is imputed vnto Christ it is not of our selues and à Christo sumit mortis exemplum euery one from Christ taketh his example of dying who died first vnto sinne But in this sense to liue and die should
si quis per offensionem manducat if one eate with the offence of his brother the other is si quis existimat c. if any think the meate which he eateth to be vncleane these two cases excepted it is neither good nor euil to eate but a thing indifferent and as the Apostle saith it is good not to eat if the brother be offended so also it is good to eate and drinke si in hoc aedifâ—â—â—tur frater if thy brother be edified hereby 5. Whereby thy brother stumbleth or is offended or made weake c. 1. the Greek scholiast noteth that the Apostle vsing this varietie of words doth secretly taxe those that are weake for it is incident to them that are blind to stumble and to the careles to trippe and fall and to the sicke to be weake 2. Some take these three to signifie the same thing Martyr Pareus and so the Syriake interpreter doth render them all by one word offenditur is offended others doe distinguish them thus Lyranus he stumbleth which eateth against his conscience he is offended or scandalized that seeth an other to eate taking him therein to be a transgressor he is made weake dubitando de veritate catholicae fidei doubting of the veritie of the catholike faith the interlinear glosse maketh these three to differ in degree one from an other to stumble is when there is cause or danger of damnation to be scandalized is to be grieued to be made weake is quando dubitet et si non offenditur when he doubteth though he be not offended so M. Calvin also distinguisheth them to be weake is cum trepidatio aliqua conscientiae inijcitur when some doubtfulnesse is cast into the minde to be offended when the conscience grauiori perturbatione concutitur is smitten with a greater perturbation and he is said to stumble qui alienatur à studio religionis who is alienated from the care of religion to the same purpose also Gualter But it hath beene shewed before that to be scandalized and offended is more then to trippe and stumble and therefore I rather approoue this difference which maketh the first of these the lesser and the second the greater as the ordinar gloss saith he stumbleth who is troubled and knoweth not what to hold or he which falleth not away but breaketh out into blasphemies Tolet. he is scandalized qui à certa side discedit which departeth from the right faith gloss ordin Tolet so also Gorrhan and Hugo out of Guillebertus he stumbleth qui tardus credit that hereby is more slowe to beleeue he is scandalized that perisheth Faius likewise maketh this difference to stumble is when some hurt followeth to be scandalized is when one is staied in the way tanquam remora interiecta as if some thing were cast in the way as when one doth not onely trippe or stumble but falleth flat downe to be made weake is haesitare in fide to wauer and be doubtfull in matters of faith 3. So the Apostle sheweth diuerse degrees of offence the first is to be made weake which before he called to be grieued v. 15. then he stumbleth and is offended which Saint Paul calleth the wounding of the weake conscience 1. Cor. 8.9 and the third degree is to be scandalized that is to fall away quite which the Apostle called before to be destroyed v. 15. and to perish 1. Cor. 8.11 by these steppes and degrees men are admonished when they see the weake brother to beginne to be grieued to leaue off before his conscience come to be wounded and he altogether to fall away Quest. 38. Whether it be sufficient for one to haue his faith before God v. 22. 1. Hast thou faith or without an interrogation thou hast faith 1. for the coherence this is answear to the third obiection that might be made the first is v. 20. all things are pure why then may not one eate that which is pure the Apostle answeareth that though in themselues all meates are pure yet it is euill to eate with offence the second obiection how can it be euill to eate that which is cleane the Apostle maketh the same answear it is euill to eate with offence Pareus maketh these two obiections the same but Tolet doth make them two the one arising out of the answear to the former and now the third obiection might be thus framed by the stronger I haue faith and knowledge that it is lawfull to vse any meates why then should I not exercise and make knowne my faith by my practise the Apostle answeareth that in this case it shall suffice to approoue his faith vnto God and not to make open ostentation thereof 2. Haue it with thy selfe before God 1. iactantiam resecat ne magis in ostentatione sit quod credimus quam in virtute he cutteth off boasting least that which we beleeue should seeme more to consist in ostentation then in power Origen to the same purpose Chysost he seemeth vanae gloria arguere c. to accuse the more perfect of vaine glorie 2. and here an other secret obiection is met withall shall my faith then lie hid no it is knowne vnto God Par. 3. or thus it might be obiected shall I then change or leaue my faith and conscience in this thing no I wish thee not so to do but comfort thy selfe therein before God Tolet. 4. or thus what doe I gaine then by my faith if I may not shewe it yes nihil deerit fidei tuae thou loosest by this meanes nothing of thy faith for God seeth thy heart and knoweth thy faith Gorrh. 5. and thus againe I haue faith why then may I not vse it yes vse it but according to his will that gaue it vse it as before God without offence vnto thy brother so will God haue it vsed gloss ordin 3. But will some say then by this rule of the Apostle a man may conceale his faith in time of persecution and it may be lawfull to be present at Masse and other idolatrous service so that a man haue faith in his heart toward God Answ. 1. No this followeth not for this were contrarie to the saying of the Apostle Rom. 10.10 with the heart man beleeveth vnto righteousnesse c. and with the mouth he confesseth vnto salvation 2. Chrysostome saith that the Apostle speaketh not of that faith quae ad dogmata pertinet which belongeth vnto doctrine that is as Haymo explaineth not of the faith of the Trinitie and other things necessarie to saluation but de rebus medijs of things indifferent and this faith that is knowledge and perswasion of vsing indifferent things is not alwayes and in vnseasonable time to be vttered but to be shewed as it may tend to the edifying not the offending of our brother Martyr Quest. 39. How many things are to be avoided in the vse and eating of meats Because the Apostle in one case namely of offence sheweth how it is euill to eate meats it shall not be
he hath some good thing in him which is temporally rewarded in this life therefore all that the wicked and infidels doe is not sinne To this purpose Pererius disput 5. in 14. c. Contra. 1. We denie not but that the wiser sort of the Gentiles might doe some externall workes agreeable to the lawe in outward appearance but they were farre from the perfection and internall obedience required by the lawe and therefore could not be voide of sinne 2. Those ciuill duties of rendring loue for loue which belong vnto common ciuilitie as they are not simply condemned yet our Sauiour in requiring greater perfection in his disciples sheweth that those duties were spotted with Pharisaicall leauen and were not approoued in Gods sight as good workes 3. If man had kept that perfection wherein he was created he might haue beene sufficiently directed by the rule of reason but now his reason is not right it is corrupted and obscured by sinne and therefore can give him no direction to that which is truely and properly good as other creatures know naturally what is good for their life so man by nature knoweth what is naturally good for himselfe but it followeth not that he should therefore by nature doe any thing morally good 4. That saying of Gregorie beeing allowed it is not to the purpose for that rich man might haue some knowledge of God whereby he might be directed beside the helpe of nature and yet it followeth not that euerie one which enioyeth the temporall things of this life should be temporally rewarded for his good parts for we see that many in this world which haue least parts of morall and ciuill goodnes haue a better earthly portion then those in whom more goodnesse appeareth And yet further this temporall recompence onely sheweth that their acts are not truely good and in the sight of God for then they should not onely haue a temporall but an eternall reward Now on the other side it shall be prooued that all the actions of infidels and wicked persons that haue no ture faith what goodly shew soeuer they make in the world are no better before God then sinfull workes 1. Our blessed Sauiour saith Matth. 7. an euill tree cannot bring forth good fruite but they which haue no faith are euill trees Ergo. 2. Likewise Ioh. 13. our Sauiour saith without me ye can do nothing therefore without faith no good thing can be wrought 3. And in this place the Apostle saith Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne 4. Further no worke can be accepted of God vnlesse the person that worketh it be first accepted but none can please God without any faith Heb. 11.6 Againe Augustine saith finibus non officijs virtutes à vitijs discernendae sunt vertues must be discerned from vices by the endes not by the offices and actions but the infidels doe nothing to a right end 5. Augustine in many places condemneth the workes of infidels how good soeuer they appeare as in Psal. 21. Let no man account any worke good before faith vbi fides non erat bonum opus non erit bonum enim opus intentio facit intentionem fides derigit c. for where no faith is there is no good worke an intention maketh a good worke and the intention is directed by faith Pererius to these arguments by certaine distinctions 1. that no infidel ratione infidelitatis as his workes proceede from his infidelitie can doe any good thing but he hath bona naturae some good things by nature by the which he may doe some things that are good 2. Or some things are simply good and worthie of eternall life and are acceptable to God such good things cannot be done without faith but notwithstanding some morall good things may 3. Or it is so said that the workes of infidels are sinne because vt plurimum for the most part they are such not all 4. And there is a double kind of intention a generall and particular though the generall intention be euill yet in some particular action an infidel may haue a good intention as to giue almes in meere commiseration and though they look not vnto God as the supernaturall ende yet they may be by nature guided to make God the naturall ende of their actions as by nature they know there is a God 5. And sine generali concursu without Gods generall assistance man indeede can do nothing either naturally or morally good but Gods speciall assistance is onely required vnto those workes which are acceptable to God and worthie of life eternall Contra. 1. We graunt that by naturall helpes man may doe things naturally good but no vertuous action can proceede from an infidel because all his actions sauour of infidelitie 2. No not the best workes of the faithfull are in themselues meritorious and worthie of eternall life because they are imperfect they are crowned of grace not for merit neither is there any worke truely good but it is thorough Christ acceptable vnto God that is good if it be not pleasing vnto God it is not good 3. Not onely some but all the workes of infidels are sinfull for whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne the sentence is generall 4. It is not enough to haue a particular intention but it must ayme at the generall ende of all which is the glorie of God and though by nature men are taught that there is a God yet can not they referre their actions to him as the generall end without faith 5. This generall concurrence is not sufficient to bring forth a good worke but speciall grace in Christ the Mediator is necessarie so our blessed Sauiour saith without me that is the Mediator Sauiour of the world not cōsidered only as the Creator you can do nothing Now concerning this question that the workes of infidels are sinne these things may further be remembred 1. that among the auncient writers Origen and Augustine are directly of opinion that an infidel can doe no good worke as Origen saith speaking of infidels and heretikes videndum est ne forte si aliquid boni operis apud illos geri videatur quia non sit ex fide convertatur in peccatum it is to be considered if that whatsoeuer good worke seeme to be done among them because it is not of faith it be turned into sinne Augustines opinion is shewed before And though Pererius take vpon him by certaine querkes to shift off Augustines testimonies yet Tolet ingeniously confesseth that both Origen and Augustine so affirme annot 15. 2. The Romanists themselues are here diuided in opinion for Gregorius Ariminens Capreolus Catharinus with other of that side are confuted by Pererius for thus affirming with the Protestants Perer. 4. disput ad 8. 3. Yet doe we not say as the Rhemists charge vs here annot 4. that it was sinne in the heathen to honour their parents to releeve the poore to doe iustly the actions in the substance thereof were not sinne but in respect of
reprobation in this place as of Election 10. contr Whether as well the decree of reprobation as of election be without the foresight of workes 11. contr Of the difference betweene the decree of election and reprobation and of the agreement betweene them 12. contr Whether mercie be a naturall propertie in God or an effect onely of his will against Socinus 13. contr Whether the mercie of God in the forgiuenesse of sinne be an effect of Gods free and absolute will onely and be not grounded vpon Christ against the heresie of Socinus and Ostorodius 15. contr Of the sufficiencie of Scripture 16. contr Of the certaintie of saluation 17. contr Against the works of preparation Controversies vpon the 10. Chapter 1. contr Against inherent iustice 2. contr Against the workes of preparation which are done without faith 3. contr That it is impossible for any in this life to keepe the lawe 4. contr Against the doubting of salvation 5. contr Against vnwritten traditions 6. contr Against freewill 7. contr Against Limbu Patrum that Christ went not downe thither to deliuer the Patriarkes 8. contr Whether the righteousnesse of faith and the righteousnes of the law be one and the same or contrarie the one to the other 9. contr Whether the righteousnesse of the lawe and that which is by the law doe differ 10. contr That Baptisme doth not giue or conferre grace 11. contr Against the dissembling of our faith and profession 12. contr That faith is not onely in the vnderstanding 13. contr The Scriptures the onely sufficient rule of faith 14. contr How the Apostle saith there is no difference between the Iew and the Grecian v. 12. 15. contr Against the maintainers of vniversall grace 16. contr That faith iustifieth not by the act thereof but onely as it apprehendeth Christ. 17. contr That faith onely iustifieth not invocation 18. contr Against the invocation of Saints 19. contr That we must pray with confidence and assurance 20. contr Against the vaine pompe of the Pope of Rome in offering his feete to be kissed 21. contr Against humane traditions 22. contr That the Ministers and Preachers of the Gospel haue a lawfull calling against Stapleton 23. contr That the Hebrew text is more authenticall then the vulgar Latin translation 24. contr Against the works of preparation 25. contr Against the Iewes that will not haue the Prophet to speake of them in these words I haue stretched out my hands c. Controversies out of the 11. Chapter 1. contr That none which are elected can finally fall away 2. contr Whether the complaint of Elias of the paucitie of true worshippers be well applied to the decay of religion vnder the Pope at the time of the first reformation 3. contr That works are excluded both from election and iustification 4. contr Against free-will 5. contr That vniversalitie and multitude is not alwaies a note of the true Church 6. contr Of the sufficiencie of Scripture and of the right way to interpret the same 7. contr Against the Iewes 8. contr Whether any of the true branches may be broken off 9. contr Against the heresie of Valentinus and Basilides that held some things to be euill some good by nature 10. contr That there was the same spirit of faith and the same spirituall substance of the Sacraments vnder the old Testament and in the New 11. contr That the Scriptures are the iudge of euery one in particular 12. contr Against the Popish vncertentie and doubtfulnes of saluation 13. contr Against the Manichees and Marcionites 14. contr Against the works of preparation 15. contr Against the erroneous opinion of Origen concerning the purgatorie of hell Controversies vpon the 12. Chapter 1. contr Concerning the power of free-will 2. contr Whether the Masse be a sacrifice properly so called 3. contr Of the difference betweene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worship and seruice whether they signifie two kinds of religious worships the one peculiar to God the other to the creatures 4. contr Of the comparison betweene virginitie and mariage 5. contr The minde it selfe and not the sensuall part onely hath neede of renovation 6. contr Of the perfections of the Scripture against traditions 7. contr Against free-will 8. contr Against the arrogancie of the Pope 9. contr Against the superstitious orders of the Popish Clergie 10. controv The Pope not the head of the Church 11. contr That to loue our enemie is a precept and commanded not counselled as indifferent Controversies vpon the 13. Chapter 1. contr Whether the Pope and other Ecclesiasticall persons ought to be subiect to the Ciuill power 2. contr Whether the Pope haue a spirituall power ouer Kings and Princes 3. contr That the tyrannie and idolatrie of the Pope may be gain said and resisted 4. contr Whether the Ciuill magistrate haue any power or authoritie in matters of religion 5. contr Whether Ecclesiasticall persons as Bishops and others may haue the temporall sword committed vnto them 6. contr Whether it be lawfull for a Christian to be a Magistrate and to vse the sword in the time of peace and warre 7. contr Whether lawes Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall doe bind simply in conscience 8. contr Whether Ecclesiasticall persons are exempted from tribute 9. contr Whether the fulfilling of the law be possible in this life 10. contr Against the Marcionites which denied the morall precepts to be now in force but to be ceased 11. contr Against iustification by the works of the law Controversies vpon the 14. Chapter 1. contr Whether to abstaine from certaine meates be an act of religion and a part of Gods worship or a thing in it selfe indifferent 2. contr That faith is not onely an assenting of the wil but an act also of the vnderstanding and it is ioyned with knowledge 3. contr That it is necessarie that festivall daies should be obserued among Christians 4. contr That festiuall daies ought not to be consecrated to the honour of Saints 6. contr Whether all the festivalls of Christians are alike arbitrarie to be altered and chaunged as shall seeme good to the Church 7. contr Against Purgatorie 8. contr Whether Christ by his obedience and suffering merited for himselfe eternall glorie and dominion 9. contr Of bowing the knee to the name of Iesus whether it be necessarily inferred out of this place v. 11. and Phil. 2.10 10. contr That Christ is prooued to be God by this saying of the Prophet cited v. 11. as I liue euery knee shall bow vnto me against the blasphemie of Georg. Eniedinus 11. contr That morall works which are done without faith are sin howsoeuer outwardly they appeare good Controversies out of the 15. Chapter 1. contr Whether S. Peter were iustly reprehended of S. Paul for refusing to eate with the Gentiles 2. contr That Christ is not set forth onely as an example for vs to imitate but as our Sauiour to redeeme vs. 3. contr Against the enemies and adversaries to the Scriptures the
such examples of vnnaturall inhumanitie as Cambyses Remus Romulus and such like Gualter such was Cain Ismael Esau to their brethren The Stoicks among the heathen depriued a wise man of all affection and so doe the wicked Catabaptists among Christians Bucer 22. Such as can neuer be reconciled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some reade absque faedere without fidelitie Lat. such as breake all truces and leagues but they were noted before trucebreakers Lyranus taketh them to be such as would hold no friendship with any but such men were also spoken of before loc 10. they are therefore such as were implurable that beeing once offended would neuer be reconciled againe Mart. Pareus with others such was Saul that would by no meanes be appeased toward Dauid Marlorat 23. Mercilesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as had no bowels of compassion neither pitied the miseries and calamities of others as among the heathen their cruell warres and bloodshed when they spared neither man woman nor children and their bloody spectacles and sword-playes when they delighted to see the blood of man shed before their face were euident proofes hereof Gualter Chrysostome thus distinguisheth these last fowre they are coneuant breakers that keepe no fidelitie with the same kind as man with man they are without naturall affection which are vnkind to their kindred and such are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which breake ciuill leagues and the last includeth mercie to be shewed euen vnto enemies Quest. 74. Of the true reading of the last verse v. 31. and the meaning thereof 1. The vulgar Latine which Lyranus followeth and Tolet the Rhemists with other Romanists reade thus when they knewe the iustice of God vnderstood not that they which doe such things are worthie of death c. and this reading seemeth also Cyprian to followe epistol 68. But in the originall these words non intellexerunt they vnderstood not are wanting and are inserted beside the text and they doe also quite inuert the sense of the text for they make it a lesse thing to consent vnto euill doers and approoue them then to commit euill not onely they which doe them but also they which consent vnto them as the vulgar Latine text standeth whereas the Apostle euidētly maketh two degrees of sinners they which commit euill and those worse which are patrons and fauourers of euill And so Chrysostome well expoundeth shewing how the Apostle taketh away two pretexts and excuses of the Gentiles one was their ignorance which they could not pretend because they knewe by nature what the iustice of God required the other was their infirmitie but that they could not alleadge seeing they did commit such things in fact but approoued also and commended the euill doers 2. By the iustice of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here vnderstood not the morall lawe which the Gentiles had not but the iudiciarie iustice of God in punishing of sinne for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is defined iniusti facti corectio a correcting of that which is vniustly or vnlawfully done Michael Ephesus in ethic Aristot. lib. 5. c. 7. The Gentiles knewe this iustice of God in punishing of sinne both by the light of nature by the testimonie of their owne conscience and by the examples of Gods iustice shewed in the world Pareus Euen Draco which appointed death for all offences was taught by the law of nature that all sinne deserued death Mart. So Abimelech and Pharaoh knew by the light of nature that mariage was not to be violated and therefore they caused Sarah to be restored to Abraham Gualter 3. By death here is vnderstood any kind of punishment tending to the ruine and destruction of the offender Pareus yea also the Gentiles had some knowledge of euerlasting punishment for they had an opinion of hell as Virgil sheweth lib. 6. Aenead as they promised the pleasant Elysian fields after death vnto well doers Plato lib. 10. de repub Cicero in som. Scipton 75. Quest. What a dangerous thing it is to be a fauourer and procurer of sinne in others 1. The vulgar Latine reading thus not onely they which doe such things are worthie of death but they which consent vnto them that doe and Lyranus Toletus with others doe thinke that here to consent with sinners is put as the lesse that no not the consenters onely were free but were worthie of death But it is rather expressed as an higher degree of sinne as Theophylact saith quodque deterius est and that which is worse they gaue assent vnto those which doe euill so also Erasmus Osiander Pererius with others 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not an assent onely but an approbation and patronage as Beza and Pareus read patrocinantur they giue patronage but Piscator rather vseth the word applaudunt because to applaud and approoue is more then patronize for one may be a patron of that vpon some occasion which he doth not altogether approoue 3. The heathen generally were guiltie hereof in defending and maintaining publikely euen those things which by the light of nature they knew to be euill as idolatrie fornication and such like when Alexander had killed Clitus his friend and was striken in conscience for the same he had miserable comforters applied vnto him Anaxarchus Aristander Callisthenes which were all but patrons of his sinne and made him worse the first as an Epicure told him that all was lawfull which Princes did the second beeing a Stoike referred all to fate and destinie the third vsed morall and ciuill perswasions but none of them shewed him the greatnes of his sinne Gryneus 4. Of these fauourers there are two kinds some doe affoard their helpe and assistance to euill doers some hold their peace when they should reprooue And there is a double kind of reproofe or correction fraterna correctio brotherly correction vnto the which all are bound but not alwaies sed pro debito tempore loco but in due time and place there is correctio punitionis correction by way of punishment vnto the which all superiours are bound and at all times as they shall see it to make best for the amendment of sinners Lyr. But both these kind of corrections were much neglected among the heathen 5. Now of these there were three sorts some might commit sinne in themselues and yet not consent vnto it in others and these were worthie of death some might giue consent in not punishing sinne in others though they did it not themselues and these also were worthie of death and some did both practise it in their owne person and fauour it in others and these were worthie of double death Haymo 76. Quest. How one may be accessarie to an others sinne This may be done diuers waies 1. they which command others to doe euill as Saul bid Doeg fall vpon the innocent Priests 1. Sam. 22. are guiltie of others sinnes 2. They which are readie to obey such wicked commandements as Ioab vpon Dauids letter caused
for their person and the person is the state condition or qualitie of a thing now to knowe whether all accepting of the person be vnlawfull first the diuerse kinds of persons and qualities must be considered whereof there are 3. sorts 1. some personall conditions there are which are annexed to promises or comminations diuine and humane as faith obedience in the elect impenitencie impietie vnbeleefe in the wicked this accepting of persons is not vniust as Abraham was respected of God for his faith so also Dauid and Saul reiected for his hypocrisie 2. Some personall respects are so annexed to the cause as thereby it is aggravated or extenuated as he that striketh a magistrate is worthie of greater punishment then he that striketh an other and this respect of persons is also iust â—â— some personall respects are beside the cause as riches pouertie in the case of adulterie theft and such like and such accepting of the person is vniust Secondly the accepting â—â— persons is either in iudgement when it is in the two first senses lawfull but not in the thuâ—â— or extra iudicium out of iudgement and it is of three sorts 1. dilectionis of loue which in common duties is vnlawfull as when a rich man is preferred before a poore man for his riches which is condemned by S. Iames c. 2. v. 2.3 but in speciall and proper duties it is lawfull as in preferring the loue of our parents before others 2. electionis of election â—â— choice as when men of qualitie and gifts are advanced to places of office before them which are not so qualified this respect of persons is lawfull as beeing agreeable both vnto nature and to positiue lawes 3. donationis in matters of gift and donation as one for giueth his debt to one not to another this also is lawfull because here is no wrong done a man may dispose of his owne as it pleaseth him see more hereof before quest 23. 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. Against the power of free will in good things v. 5. Thou after thine hardnesse and heart that cannot repent heapest vnto thy selfe wrath c. Pererius out of this place inferreth that it is in potestate hominis bene vel male agere in the power of man to doe well or euill for it should otherwise be vniust to punish a man for doing euill and for want of repentance whereas he can doe no other disput 2. in c. 2. numer 23. Answ. 1. That man hath free will to doe euill without any compulsion violence or constraint it is confessed of all but this is a freedome à coactione from compulsion or enforcing not à necessitate from necessitie a man cannot now chuse but sinne because his nature is enthralled by the fall of man yet he sinneth willingly no man compelleth him But vnto that which is good man hath no will or inclination of himselfe but by the grace of God as the Prophet saith Ierem. 4.22 They are wise to doe euill but to doe well they haue no knowledge and our Blessed Sauiour saith Ioh. 15.5 Without me ye can doe nothing 2. yet though man cannot repent of himselfe nor yet doe any good thing he is worthily punished because man by his voluntarie transgression when it was in his power not to haue transgressed did abuse his free will giuen in the creation vnto sinne and so enthralled him selfe and his posteritie Once therefore man had free will if he could haue kept it but now that is become necessarie to doe euill which was before free man therefore is iustly punished notwithstanding this necessitie of sinning because he lost this libertie and freedome by his owne default 3. And let it here further be obserued how Pererius beside the falsitie of his assertion is become a falsarie in charging vs with vntrue opinions such as Protestants hold not as first that we should say hominem ad vtrumque impelli à Deo c. that man whether to doe good or euill is compelled and enforced of God whereas we abhorre and detest that as a most wicked heresie that God is the author of any euill or the moouer stirrer or prouoker thereunto Againe he obiecteth that we hold that mans free will is velut quoddam inanime c. is a certaine dead thing without life that it doth nothing of it selfe but is a bare title without any matter whereas we affirme that man is not as a stocke or stone but hath a naturall power to will to elect to desire but to will or doe that which is good it hath no power man willeth desireth chooseth but to doe these things well it is of grace in respect of the generall inclination of the will vnto the obiect it is actiue but in respect of the goodnesse of the will in beeing mooued vnto that which is good it is meerely passiue see Synop. pag. 858. Controv. 2. Of iustification by the imputatiue iustice of faith Whereas the Apostle saith v. 2. We know that the iudgement of God is according to truth Bellarmine hence thus reasoneth against imputatiue iustice Gods iudgement is according to truth but so is not imputed iustice it is not verily and in deede and according to truth but the habituall infused and inherent iustice is according to truth lib. 2. de iustificaton c. 3. Contra. 1. Bellarmine doth mistake the Apostles meaning for according to the truth is not secundum realem existentiam according to the reall existence of a thing but secundum equitatem according to equitie 2. So then the iustice of Christ imputed by faith is according to truth that is the rule of iustice because thereby full satisfaction is made for sinne by faith in Christ but that habituall and inherent iustice is not according to the rule of iustice because it is imperfect and thereby Gods iustice cannot be satisfied Pareus 3. Controv. Against the merit of workes v. 6. Who will reward euery man according to his works out of this place the Romanists contend for the merit of good works the Rhemists vpon this place affirme that life euerlasting is giuen for and according to their good workes there reasons and arguments are these 1. The Apostle vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall render which signifieth a iust retribution and so it is taken Matth. 20.8 Bellar. l. 5. de iustificat c. 2. 2. Tolet. annotat 6. vrgeth that place Matth. 25.34 Inherit ye the kingdome prepared for you c. for I was an hungred and ye gaue me meate c. 3. Likewise it is thus obiected God shall reward the wicked according to the merit of their euill workes Ergo the righteous shall be rewarded according to the merit of their good workes Ans. 1. Tolet. annot 6. rehearseth fiue seuerall answers which he supposeth to be vsed by the Protestants 1. some he saith by his workes vnderstand Christs workes according to the which God should reward the righteous 2. some thus he shall render vnto euery man according
him without faith or any speciall assistance from God may by his owne strength doe something morally good it a vt nullum peceatum in eo admittat so that therein he shall not commit any sinne lib. 5. iustificat c. 5. That the falsitie of this assertion may the better appeare 1. We must distinguish of the light that is giuen vnto man which is threefold 1. There is the light of nature which Christ giueth vnto euerie one that commeth into the world as he is their Creator Ioh. 1.9 this is giuen vnto all by nature they are endued with a reasonable soule and in the same by nature is imprinted this light 2. there is beside this naturall light an other speciall light and direction concurring with that naturall light which though it be not so generall as the other yet it is common to many vnregenerate men that haue not the knowledge of God as the Lord saith to Abimelech Gen. 20.6 I kept thee that thou shouldst not sinne against me this common grace many of the heathen had whereby they were preserued from many notorious crimes which other did fall into 3. There is beside these the grace of Christ whereby we are regenerate and enabled to doe that which is acceptable vnto God through Christ of this grace we meane that without it the light of nature is not sufficient to bring forth any good worke 2. Secondly we graunt that this light of nature beeing illuminated by the grace of Gods spirit and lightened and perfected by faith is able to bring men to performe good workes agreeable to the lawe As is euident in the fathers before the flood and after the flood in Noah Sem Abraham and other of the faithfull when as the lawe and Scriptures were yet vnwritten that by the grace of God which lightened their naturall vnderstanding they wrought righteousnesse and pleased God 3. But this must be receiued withall that Gods grace and the light of nature doe not concurre together as cooperators and fellowe workers but it is grace onely that worketh the nature of man is wrought vpon the spirit of God is onely actiue the power of nature is passiue in all good workes and therefore in this sense we mislike that position of Pereius legem naturalem Christi gratia illustratam valere ad piè vinendum that the lawe of nature lightened by the grace of Christ avayleth to liue well for thus the lawe of nature it made a ioynt worker with grace vnto godlinesse of life we say it is wrought vpon by grace it worketh not but onely as a naturall facultie and agent the spirituall goodnesse is all of grace 4. But that no vertuous act or morall good worke can be performed by the light of nature onely without grace it is euident out of these and such other places of Scripture Gen. 6.5 The imaginations of the thoughts of mans heart are onely euill continually Ioh. 3.6 That which is borne of the flesh is flesh Ioh. 15.5 Without me ye can doe nothing Rom. 14.23 Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne All these places euidently shewe that there is no actiuitie power abilitie or inclination to any thing by nature without grace see further Synops Centur. 4. err 43. pag. 845. Controv. 10. Of the imperfection of the vulgar Latine translation v. 15. Erasmus noteth a great defect of the Latine translation in the reading of this verse for whereas in the Greeke text it is put absolutely in the genetiue case their thought accusing one another or excusing which is expressed by the genitive case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the originall because they want the ablatiue the Latine translator putteth it in the genitiue cogitationum of their thoughts accusing or excusing Gorrhan would thus helpe this matter that it must be referred to the word conscience going before their conference bearing witnesse that is not onely the conscience of their workes but euen of their thoughts but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and comming betweene them sheweth that these words doe not hang one vpon another he saith this is more Grecorum after the manner of the Greekes which vse the genitiue for the ablatiue but seeing the Latines haue their ablatiue cases wherein things absolutely spoken vse to be put the Latine interpreter should haue followed the vse of the Latine tongue therefore I say and conclude with Erasmus here they which thinke the Latine interpreter did not erre vnum bunc locum si possunt expediant let them free this place if they can Controv. 11. That the Sacraments doe not conferre grace v. 25. Circumcision availeth if thou keepe the lawe the opinion of the Romanists is that circumcision did actually conferre vpon infants remission of sinnes mundabat cos à peccato originali and did clense them from originall sinne Perer. disput 17. c. 2. numer 105. so also Gorrhan Contra. 1. But the contrarie is euident here for the Apostle saith If thou be a breaker of the lawe thy circmcision is made vncircumcision it was no more avayleable then if they had no circumcision at all But if they had actually receiued remission of sinnes in circumcision it must needs be better then vncircumicision whatsoeuer desert followed afterward 2. That which cleanseth the soule hath praise with God v. 19. now the circumcision of the flesh hath no praise with God but the circumcision of the spirit the circumcision then of the flesh doth not cleanse or purge the soule to this purpose Hierome invisibilia non indigent visibilibus visibibilia indigent invisibilibus eo quod visibilia sunt imago invisibilium invisibilia sunt veritas visibilium invisible things doe not neede visible but the visible haue neede of the invisible because the visible are the image of the invisible but the invisible are the veritie of the visible the circumcision then of the flesh needeth the circumcision of the heart but the circumcision of the heart needeth not the circumcision of the flesh for the truth hath no need of the image but the image hath need of the truth c. remission of sinnes then is not tied to the sacrament it may be conferred without it but the sacrament needeth the inward operation of the spirit to make it effectuall as the Apostle saith cleansing it by the lauer of the water in the word the water is the instrument of cleansing but the efficient and working cause is the word the sacraments then conferre not grace but the spirit in and with the Sacrament and also without it worketh grace Controv. 12. That the Sacraments depend not vpon the worthinesse of the Minister or receiuer This may be obserued against that paradox of the old Donatists who measured the sacraments by the worthines of the Minister vpon which ground they refused baptisme ministred by heretikes or euill liuers and after such baptisme they baptized againe the Donatists held baptisme ministred by schismatickes or heretikes to be no baptisme Augustin lib. 2. de baptis c.
16. that is which had receiued the lawe 3. By wrath some would vnderstand the wrath and indignation in the transgressor his contumacie and rage against God who hath by lawe restrained him of his licentious libertie Origen and Haymo referre it to the penaltie of the law as an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth but it rather signifieth the wrath and indignation of God in iudging and punishing of sinne not onely temporally but eternally Calvin 4. Now the lawe worketh wrath not of it selfe for it is holy iust and good but in respect of the weakenes and corruption of man which taketh occasion by the lawe as contrarie vnto it to be the worse as we see that in nature one contrarie by the resistance of an other becommeth so much the more violent as expereince sheweth in the breaking out of lightening and thunder and in the terrible noise of gunshot where two contraries meete together the fierie hoat nature of the brimstone and the cold qualitie of the saltpeter both tempered together in the gunpowder Mart. 5. But although the lawe occasionaliter by way of occasion procureth wrath yet it hath an other ende and effect vnto the godly for vnto them it is a schoolemaster to bring them vnto Christ so that Christ is the ende of the lawe not onely because he hath abolished the ceremonies of the lawe and so is the ende and fulfilling thereof but because the law directeth vs vnto Christ who hath fulfilled the lawe for vs which it was impossible for vs to keepe 6. Now the holy Apostle doth of purpose thus speake of the law as saying that by it commeth the knowledge of sinne that it causeth wrath that it is the ministerie of death that by this meanes he might abate that great opinion and estimation of the law which the Iewes conceiued of it hoping thereby to be iustified but otherwise as the law is considered in it selfe he giueth it the due commendation as afterward is shewed in the 7. chapter like as now the Preachers of the Gospel doe giue vnto good works their due praise and commendation but yet they detract from them as not beeing able to iustifie vs. Mart. 26. Quest. Of the meaning of these words v. 15. Where no law is there is no transgression 1. Origen here obserueth that the Apostle saith not where is law there is transgression for then all those holy men which liued vnder the law should be held to be vnder transgression but he saith in the negatiue where there is no law there is no transgression But this collection is not good for the contrarie must be inferred out of the Apostles words where there is no law there is no transgression therefore where there is a law there is transgression or els there should be no coherence in the Apostles words whereas this is added as a proofe of the former clause that the law causeth wrath 2. Now touching the coherence Gorrhan maketh here two arguments why the inheritance can not be by the law because by it there is neither remissio poenae remission of the punishment the law causing wrath nor yet remissio culpae remission of the fault because by the law commeth transgression Gryneus maketh this the coherence because idem est index c. there is the same foreshowne both of the transgression and punishment namely the law But thus better doth the sentence hang together the Apostle prooueth that the law causeth wrath by the cause thereof for that it causeth transgression so then transgression is set in the middes betweene the law and wrath for the law bringeth forth transgression and transgression wrath Pareus 3. But this should seeme to be no good argument no law no transgression therefore where there is law there is transgression as it followeth not no creature no man Ergo a creature a man Ans. The Apostle here reasoneth not à genere-ad speciem from the genus to the species as in the instance proposed but from the contrarie by the like connexion of the causes and effects as this followeth well in the like where the Sunne is not risen there is â—â— day light therefore the Sunne beeing risen it is day Pareus 4. Now concerning the meaning of these words Haymo thinketh it may be vnderstood either of the lawe of nature and so infants not yet hauing vnderstanding of this lawe cannot be transgressors against it or of the Evangelicall lawe which the Pagans not hauing are not held to be so great offenders as they which haue reciued it or of the morall lawe of Moses where that lawe is not non est tanta praevaricatio neque sic imputatur there is not so great transgression neither is it so much imputed This latter sense is to be preferred for thoroughout this chapter the Apostle vnderstandeth the lawe of Moses 5. And further for the true vnderstanding of these words it must be obserued 1. that the Apostle saith not where is no lawe there is no iniquitie for the old world and the Sodomites committed iniquitie before the lawe was written but he saith there is no transgression which is referred to the lawe written gloss ordin 2. this is simply true of things indifferent as were the ceremonies before they were commanded by lawe for then it was no sinne to omit them but of things euill in their owne nature it must be vnderstood after a sort that there was not so great transgression before the law was giuen as after Lyran. 3. and hereof these two reasons may be giuen both quia homines nituntur in vetitum men are most bent vnto that which is forbidden and so by the prohibition of the lawe the stubbornenesse of mans heart was increased as also because by the lawe came the knowledge of sinne and so the seruant that knoweth his masters will and doth it not is worthie of more stripes Lyran. 4. So then the Apostle denieth not but that sinne which is committed against the conscience euen where there is no lawe is sinne non est reus tantae transgressionis c. he is not guiltie of so great transgression as he which knoweth the lawe and breaketh it Calvin Quest. 27. Who are meant by Abrahams seede which is of the Lawe v. 16. 1. The Apostle in this verse vrgeth two arguments to prooue that the inheritance is not of the law but of faith because it is of grace for to be iustified by faith and by grace with the Apostle are all one and because the promise is firme but if it were by the law it should be vncertaine and not firme because of mans weaknes who is not able to performe the law Calvin Chrysostome further saith that the Apostle here speaketh of two chiefe good things or benefits the one is quod quia data sunt firma sunt the things which are giuen are firme the other quod vniverso semini data sunt they are giuen to the whole seede of Abraham 2. By the seede which is of the law
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
veniall sinne annot 1. Ioh. 1. sect 5. Contra 1. We confesse that the guilt and punishment of originall sinne is washed away by faith in Christs blood but yet the staine and blot remaineth still though in Christ we are deliuered from the punishment due vnto sinne yet the euill qualitie of our nature is not purged away namely our naturall pronenes and aptnes to euill which shall not fully be purged vntill the resurrection when we shall put off all corruption together with mortalitie to this purpose Augustine saith well Meminisse debemus omnium peccatorum plenam remissionem c. we must remember that there is full remission of our sinnes in baptisme hominis vero qualitatem non totam continuo mutari c. yet the qualitie or condition of man is not straite chaunged de peccator merit remissi lib. 1. c. 25. 2. and that originall corruption hath the verie nature of sinne euen after baptisme the Apostle sheweth euidently Rom. 7.7 where he calleth the concupiscence of our nature sinne see further hereof Synops. Centur. 3. er 11. Controv. 14. What originall sinne is against the Romanists and â—some others and specially against them which hold it to be Adams sinne imputed onely to his posteritie 1. Faber Erasmus in their annotations vpon this place seeme to be of opinion that originall sinne is onely a pronenesse and aptnesse vnto sinne which is graft in vs by nature But this is refelled by the Apostle here who saith that in Adam all haue sinned and therefore death also is entred vpon all death is the stipend of sinne if then death actually is gone ouer all so also sinne 2. Flacius Illyricus held originall sinne to be a kind of substance But this is a dangerous opinion God onely is the Creator of substances and natures but he made not sinne 3. As he giueth too much to originall sinne making it a substantiall thing in man so the Romanists too much extenuate it allowe it too little 1. Pighius and Catharinus thinke that originall sinne is nothing else but the preuarication and transgression of our first parents made their posterities onely by imputation because Adam in himselfe contained all mankind and God made his couenant not onely with him but with all his posteritie beeing then in his loines and so his sinne is imputed vnto them but there is nothing in men naturally that hath the proper nature of sinne which is defined to be dictum factum vel concupitum c. somewhat said done or coueted against the law of God which cannot be in infants to this purpose Catharinus and before him Pighius in 1. contr de peccat origin Contra. 1. Bellarmine lib. 5. de amissi grat c. 16. and Pererius disput 16. in 5. c. ad Roman would confute this opinion and prooue that originall sinne is a reall and inherent corruption in the nature of man and not imputed onely because as we were sinners in Adam so we are made iust by Christ which is not by the imputation of his righteousnesse but by an inherent iustice which is giuen vnto vs by the merits of Christ c. But this were to confute one error by another for the Apostle euidently and expressely sheweth c. 4.3 that Abrahams faith was imputed and counted vnto him for righteousnesse and therefore the iustice whereby we are counted iust before God is the iustice of Christ imputed to vs by faith so also Adams sinne is imputed to his posteritie but beside there is an euilnes and prauitie of nature procured by the transgression of Adam as beside the imputed righteousnes of Christ there is also in the faithfull an inherent righteousnesse also which is their holines and sanctification but they are not thereby iustified before God 2. We haue better reasons out of the Scripture to refute this assertion for where there is no sinne death hath no power because all are sinners by nature they all die otherwise the Apostle had not reasoned well that death raigned from Adam to Moses because all had sinned v. 14. And v. 19. the Apostle saith that by one mans disobedience many are peccatores constituti made sinners which is more then to be counted sinners or to haue sinne imputed 3. That definition is of actuall sinne which is of such things as are said done or coueted against the law of God But sinne is more generally taken for any thing which is contrarie to the law of God now the naturall rebellion and resistance of the flesh in not beeing subiect to the will of the spirit but continually striuing against it which is to be seene euen in children who seeth not that it is contrarie to the law of God and hath in it the nature of sinne 4. Dauid complaineth that he was borne in sinne and conceiued in iniquitie Psal. 51. and S. Paul Rom. 7. calleth his naturall corruption sinne dwelling in him So that these holy men confessed that they were sinfull by nature Otherwise if there were not in vs originall sinne by nature of our owne but onely Adams imputed it would follow that his posteritie should be punished not for their owne but anothers sinne which were against the rule of Gods iustice Martyr Controv. 15. That originall sinne is not onely the privation of originall iustice Bellarmine with other of the Romanists will not haue originall sinne to be any euill positiue qualitie in man but onely carentia iustitiae originalis habitualis aversio à Deo a wanting of originall iustice and an habituall aversion from and a forsaking of God Bellar. lib. 5. de amission grat c. 15. Lyranus addeth an other clause that originall sinne is a defect or want of originall iustice cum debito habendi eam with a due debt or obligation to haue the same c. Now their cheefe reason that originall sinne is no euill habite or positiue qualitie but onely a defect or privation is this because God is the author of all positiue things that haue a beeing or existence but he is no way the cause of originall sinne Bellarm. ibid. Thoring replic ad addit 5. Paul Burgens And if it were an habite Adam could not haue transmitted it to his posteritie Bellarm. ibid. Contra. 1. Paulus Burgens taketh exception to Lyranus difinition of originall sinne that it is not a meere priuation but habitus corruptus a corrupt habite like as in a disease there is not onely a priuation of health but there is also some positiue thing habet humores male dispositos the humors also are euill affected and disposed and so is it in originall sinne there is an euill qualitie and habite beside the want of originall iustice and therefore it is called concupiscence quae sonat aliquod positivum which foundeth and signifieth some positiue thing c. This exception of Burgensis is iust and his opinion herein is agreeable to the Apostle who calleth originall sinne peccatum inhabitans an in-dwelling sinne Rom. 7.20 and corpus mortis the bodie
of death originall sinne then hath a kind of existence for how else could it be called a bodie of sinne or death see more hereof elsewhere Synops. Cen. 4. err 14. 2. Concerning the reasons obiected 1. God is the author of euerie substance and of euery naturall qualitie but not of vnnaturall dispositions or qualities as neither of diseases in the bodie nor of vices in the minde this euill qualitie was procured by mans voluntarie transgression 2. and though habites which are personall and obtained by vse and industrie are not transmitted to posteritie yet this euill habite was not personall in Adam as he is considered vt singularis persona as a singular person but by him it entred into the nature of man as he was totius humanae naturae principiū the beginning of the whole nature of man 3. Burgensis taketh another exception vnto Lyranus addition and he thinketh that Adams posteritie is not bound to haue the originall iustice which was giuen to Adam for they haue no such bond either by the law of nature for that originall iustice was supernaturally added or by any diuine precept for God gaue vnto Adam no other precept but that one not to eate of the forbidden fruite and therefore they were not bound at all to haue or reteine Adams originall iustice Thus Burgens Contra. 1. Herein I rather consent vnto Thoring the Replic vpon Burgens who thus argueth that this debt or bond to haue originall iustice was grounded vpon the law of nature which is the rule of right reason for by nature euery one is tied to seeke the perfection and conseruation of it kind and this originall iustice tended vnto the perfection of man which though it were supernaturally added vnto man yet it was not giuen him alone sed pro tota natura for the whole nature of man and so he concludeth well that man is culpable in not hauing this originall iustice though not culpâ actuali quae est suppositi by any actuall fault which belongeth to the person or subiect yet culpâ originali quae est natura by an originall fault which is in nature To this purpose the Replic And this may be added further that if Adams posteritie were not debters in respect of this originall iustice then were they not bound to keepe the law which requireth perfect righteousnesse and so it would follow that they are not transgressors against the law if they were not bound to keepe it the first exception then of Burgensis may be recieued but not the second 2. Pighius also who denieth originall sinne to be a privation or want of originall iustice holdeth it to be no sinne to want that iustice which is not enioyned by any law vnto mankind for no law can be produced which bindeth infantes to haue that originall iustice and therein he concurreth with Burgensis Contra. But this obiection is easily refuted for first man was created according to Gods image in righteousnesse and holines which image Adams posteritie is bound to retaine but he by his sinne defaced that image and in stead thereof begate children after his owne image Gen. 5.3 in the state of corruption And whereas Pighius replieth out of Augustine that the image of God in man consisteth in the three faculties of the soule the vnderstanding memorie and will Augustine must not be so vnderstood as though herein consisted onely the image of God but as therein is shadowed forth the misterie of the Trinitie for the Apostle expressely sheweth that this image of God is seene in righteousnes and holines Ephes. 4.24 An other lawe is the lawe of nature which is the rule which euery one is to followe Cicero could say that convenientur viuere c. to liue agreeably to this law is the chiefe ende of man to this lawe euen infants are also bound there is a third lawe which is the morall which saith thou shalt not lust which prohibiteth not onely actuall but originall concupiscence And whereas Pighius here obiecteth that a lawe is giuen in vaine of such things as cannot be avoided therein he sheweth his ignorance for it is not in mans power to keep the lawe for then it had not beene necessarie for Christ to haue died for vs who came to performe that which was impossible by the lawe Rom. 8.3 yet was not the lawe giuen so in vaine for there are two speciall vses thereof both to giue vs direction how to liue well and to bring vs to the knowledge of sinne xe Mart. 4. This then is originall sinne 1. it consisteth partly of a defect and want of originall iustice in that the image of God after the which man was created in righteousnesse and holines was blotted out by the fall of man partly in an euill habite disposition and qualitie and disorder of all the faculties and powers both of bodie and soule This was the start of man after his fall and the same is the condition of all his posteritie by nature Augustine also maketh originall sinne a positiue qualitie placing it in the concupiscence of the flesh not the actuall concupiscence but that naturall corruption which although it be more generall then to containe it selfe within the compasse of concupiscence onely yet he so describeth it by the most manifest effect because our naturall corruption doth most of all shew and manifest it selfe in the concupisence and lust of our members 2. The subiect then and matter of originall sinne are all the faculties and powers of soule and bodie the former is the pravitie and deformitie of them the efficient cause was the peruersnes of Adams will the instrument is the carnall propagation the end or effect is euerlasting damnation both of bodie and soule without the mercie of God Martyr 3. Originall sinne is taken either actiuely for the sinne of Adam which was the cause of sinne in his posteritie which is called originale origmans originall sinne giuing beginning or passiuely for the naturall corruption raised in Adams ofspring by his transgression which is tearmed originale originatum originall sinne taking beginning 4. Of this originall sinne taken both waies there are three misserable effects 1. participatio culpa the participating in the fault or offence for we were all in Adams loines when he transgressed and so we all sinned in him as here the Apostle saith 2. imputatio reatus the imputation of the guilt and punishment of sinne we are the children of wrath by nature subiect both to temporall and eternall death 3. there is naturae depratatio vel deformitas the depravation and deformitie of nature wherein there dwelleth no good thing Rom. 17.18 Controv. 16. Of the wicked heresie of Marcion and Valentinus with the blasphemous Manichees 1. Origen out of the words of the former verse where the Apostle speaketh of our attonement and reconciliation by Christ confureth the heresie of Marcion and Valentinus whose opinion was that there was some substance quae naturaliter Deo sit inimica which naturally is
with other Schoolemen in 2. sentent distinct 33. some doe thinke they shall haue internum animi dolorem the inward greese of minde for the losse of the heauenly beatitude as holdeth Pet. Lombard 2. sentent distinct 33. with some other schoolmen to whome Bellarmine subscribeth lib. 6. de amiss grat c. 6. 1. For the first opinion that infants dying in their originall sinne are not excluded heauen these arguments are brought 1. The infants shall be afflicted with no sensible punishments because they had no euill mind will or purpose while they liued here 2. Neither is there any contrition or sorrow in this life required for originall sinne much lesse in the next to this purpose Pighius 3. Cartharinus among other reasons vrgeth that place Dan. 12.2 that many shall awake out of the dust some to euerlasting life some to shame whereupon he inferreth that all shall not rise to one of these ends but some and so there should be a third sort that should neither goe to heauen nor hell but enioy a third place 4. There shall be a new heauen and a new earth as the new heauens shall not be without inhabitants so neither the earth which is most like shall be the place for such infants Contra. 1. Though infants actually in their life shewed no euill purpose will or intent yet it is sufficient to their condemnation that they had an euill inclination by nature which would haue shewed it selfe if they had liued to yeres of discretion the onely cause why their euill inclination appeareth not for that their mind hath not fit organes or instruments to exercise the faculties thereof like as the young cubbes of foxes and wolues are killed and destroied when they are yet young though they haue yet done no harme because it is certaine if they should be suffered to grow they would follow their kind so the Scripture saith that the imaginations of mans heart are euill from his youth Gen. 9.21 2. And holy men euen for their originall sinne haue shewed great contrition and sorrow in this life as Dauid confessing his sinne beginneth with his very sinnefull birth and conception Psal. 5.1 so S. Paul crieth out Rom. 7. wretched man that I am who shall deliuer mee from the bodie of this death 3. In that place of Daniel many is taken for all as Augustine and Theodoret expound that place as S. Paul in the fift chapter to the Romans v. 17. by many vnderstandeth all as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners for otherwise it would follow that all should not arise that sleepe in the dust but onely some 4. And it is a weake reason there shall be inhabitants of the new earth therefore infants shall inhabite it Bellarmine thinketh that the earth shall be couered with waters and so haue no inhabitants at all but this is an idle speculation for the earth shall then be restored to a perfect estate not to lie hid vnder the waters and to what end there shall be a new earth it is curiositie to enquire the scripture hauing not expressed it And if it be appointed for the habitation of the Saints to passe from heauen to earth and to follow the Lambe wheresoeuer he goeth it is a worke consequent that infants shall be those Saints thus much shall suffice for the answer vnto these reasons 5. And further the opinion it selfe to make any kind of happines out of the kingdome of heauen and to inuent a third place betweene heauen and hell is contrarie to the Scripture which forteth all men into two rankes or companies which are appointed to two places they are either of the sheepe at Christs right hand which shall enter into life or of the gootes at his left hand for whom hell fire is prepared Matth. 25. And the Scripture testifieth that all that shall be saued shall walke in the light of the celestiall Ierusalem Reuel 22.4 and without it shall be dogges c. 12.15 none then can be saued out of it 2. Now we come to the other opinion of the Romanists that send infants dying without baptisme to hell but they onely attribute vnto them a punishment without any sense vnlesse it be the inward greefe and dolor of mind to see themselues excluded the kingdom of God Contra. First it is an vncharitable opinion to send all infants to hell that die vnbaptised for the grace of God is not tied to the outward element God can saue without water it is not the want of baptisme but the contempt thereof that condemneth the Scripture saith Mark 16.16 he that shall beleeue and be baptised shall be saued but he that will not beleeue not he which is not baptised shall be damned here are three opinions 1. the Papists generally hold that all infants dying without baptisme are damned but this is a cruell and vncharitable opinion as is shewed before See else where more hereof Synops. Centur. 3. er 3. 2. Some thinke that many of the infants of the Saintes are saued euen without baptisme by the couenant of grace made vnto the faithfull and their seede but not all for some of the children of the faithfull doe not belong vnto election such were Ismael Esau. Thus Pet. Martyr 3. But the better opinion is that all the infants of faithfull parents dying in their innocent estate before baptisme are saued by the generall couenant of grace made to the righteous and their seede because there is now no barre or impediment put in to binder the efficacie of that couenant as in those which liue vnto the yeares of discretion and depriue themselues by their impietie and vnbeleefe of the benefit of that couenant Secondly that such infants as are not saued by Christ dying before baptisme or after doe suffer the sensible paines of hell fire though in the least and easiest degree of all it is thus prooued 1. The Scripture saith Reuel 10.15 Whosoeuer was not found written in the booke of life was cast into the lake of fire Infants then which are condemned shall be punished in hell fire 2. We see that infants euen in this life doe suffer in their infancie paine and torment of bodie it therefore standeth with Gods iustice that infants euen for originall sinne should feele sensible torments 3. If they will graunt that they shall haue the inward dolor of the minde to see others admitted into the kingdome of God and themselues excluded why not also paine of bodie seeing the Scripture saith that there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth when men shall see the Patriarkes entring into heauen and themselues excluded and thrust out at the doores Luk. 13.28 4. Christ died for infants as well as for others and bare the punishment due vnto them for their sinnes but he suffered both the torments of bodie and minde therefore both were due vnto infants 5. Gregorie is of this opinion perpetua tormenta percipient qui nihil ex propria voluntaâ—â— peccauerunt they shall receiue euerlasting
neither the naturall desire as of meate and drinke is forbidden by this commandement as beeing a thing indifferent nor yet the supernaturall as to couet and desire such things as concerne the glorie of God and the saluation of our soules for these are good desires and conformable to the will of God but the euil and vnlawfull desires are forbidden either in the matter or manner 2. not the act of concupiscence onely but the verie facultie it selfe ipsa concupiscibilitas is forbidden as it is corrupt and auerse from God 3. and not onely the second motions which haue the consent of the will which the schoolmen call concupiscentiam formatam the formed and perfite concupiscence but euen the first motions which haue not the deliberate consent of the will which they call informem the vnformed concupiscence contrarie to the opinion of Pererius and other Romanists who thinketh concupiscentiam carnalem sed vt à voluntate approbatam c. that carnall concupiscence onely as it is approoued of the will to be forbidden in this commandement disput 8. numer 47. but the contrarie shall appeare afterward controv 8. that the law forbiddeth cupiditatem nudam the verie base and naked concupiscence as Beza calleth it because prauas cupiditates euill and disordred lusts and desires the very law of nature reprooued Augustine saith cupiditateÌ„ voco motum animi c. I call concupiscence the verie motion of the minde to enioy either himselfe or his neighbour or any other thing non propter Deum not for God de Doctrin Christian. lib. 3. c. 10. Quest. 12. Why the Apostle giueth instance in the tenth commandement thou shalt not lust and alleadgeth not all the words of the law 1. The Apostle could not giue instance in the grosser and more notorious sinnes which euen the wiser sort of the Gentiles abhorred nor yet in the vile and corrupt affections of man which the Philosophers also condemned but he singleth out those corruptions which could not be discerned by the light of nature especially so much obscured and darkned and could not be perfectly knowne but by the law of God Tolet. annot 9.2 And this the Apostle doth to shew the excellencie of the law of God beyond both the law of nature and the politike lawes of men for the first the law of nature is much obscured obliterated and empaired by the blindnesse and corruption of mans nature but the written law though it were much depriued by the corrupt gloses of the Scribes and Pharisies lex tamen scripta mâ—â— sit eadem yet the written law remained the same and beeing well examined was able to reprooue the false interpreters thereof and it is more perfect then other humane lawes which onely bridle the outward act of sinne but they can not meete with the inward concupiscence as the law of God doth 2. And S. Paul contenteth himselfe onely to repeat the first words of the commandement not adding the rest thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house c. as Moses doth for he hauing to doc in hominis durioribus with a rude people and of hard vnderstanding giueth instance in some sensible and particular obiects but S. Paul writing scientibus legem to men knowing the law thinketh it sufficient to giue them onely an hint by producing some words onely of the law Neither yet did Moses expresse all the particulars of this law but hauing reported some he concludeth with this generall clause nor any thing that is his And indeede in all the commandements Moses vseth the figure called synecdoché by one part signifying the rest and that both in the negative part wherein forbidding the most notorious vices he meeteth with the rest as our Sauiour sheweth Matth. 5. how the law bindeth not onely the hands but euen the heart and affections in the sinnes of murther adulterie and such like as also in the affirmative the contrarie vertues in euery commandement beeing comprehended in the prohibition of the contrarie vices so that Aristotles tenne predicaments are not so generall to containe whatsoeuer is in the world as Moses tenne commandements are to comprehend all vices committed in the world ex Martyr Quest. 13. What sinne the Apostle meaneth v. 8. sinne tooke an occasion c. 1. Some by sinne here vnderstand the deuill who taking occasion by the commandement did tempt man more strongly to breake it Methodius Ambrose Oecumenius sauing that the first by the law vnderstandeth the commandement giuen to Adam in Paradise the other two the law giuen by Moses But in this sense it cannot be properly said sinne reuiued if by sinne we vnderstand the deuill or thus sinne did dwell in the Apostle as he saith v. 10. 2. Chrysostome vnderstandeth this sinne to be vitium de fidiae the vice of flouthfulnes that man hauing receiued a law by his negligence was not the better for it but the worse But he expresseth not the whole minde of the Apostle 3. Anselmus will haue it to be peccati fomes the matter or nourishment of sinne which as Lyranus is called sinne for that it is the cause of sinne as the Sunne is said to be hoat beeing the cause of heat But the Apostle calleth it sinne properly because it was forbidden by the commandement 4. Hierom. epist. ad Hedib qu. 8. taketh this to be the sinne quod lege prohibetur which is forbidden by the commandement which while it is forbidden doth inflame the concupiscence the more but the Apostle speaketh not of actuall sinne before it is committed but of sinne dwelling in him v. 17. 5. This is none other but naturae corruptio the corruption of our nature Calvin lib. 1. de peccand the lust or desire of sinning Hyper. peccatum regnans in homine sinne raigning in man Tolet. annot 11. which is none other but the originall pravitie of our nature called before lust or concupiscence v. 7. it is pravitas nativa our naturall pravitie Pareus 14. Quest. How sinne tooke occasion by the law 1. The Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occasion is taken three waies first it properly signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the opportunitie of doing a thing but so the law was not the occasion as offering any opportunitie for there can be no opportunitie to doe euill 2. it signifieth any circumstance or accident whereby one is occasioned to doe any thing as the burning of an house may be said to be the occasion of building it againe 3. an occasion is that which draweth a man from doing that he intended as a rub in ones way turneth him beside the way Both these last waies sinne tooke occasion by the law for both the prauitie of our nature is more inflamed by the prohibition and we seeke to build our ruinous house which the law pulleth downe and beside because the law standeth vp in the way of sinne we decline it as a thing which hindreth vs in our pleasant and plaine iourney following after sinne and therefore we wish that it
synecdoche the principall part beeing taken for the whole the minde regenerate for all the regenerate part both in the minde and bodie because it chiefly sheweth it selfe there and the flesh for that part which is vnregenerate in the whole man both in the minde and bodie because it is chiefly exercised and executed by the bodie see before Quest. 26. 2. We are not to vnderstand here two distinct and seuerall parts the one working without the other as the Romanists which will haue the inner man to be the minde and the sensuall part the flesh for in this sense neither doth the minde alwaies serue God wherein there is ignorance infidelitie error nor yet doth the sensuall part alwaies serue sinne for many vertuous acts are exercised thereby see this opinion before confuted Quest. 31. But these two parts must be vnderstood as working together the flesh hindreth the spirit and blemisheth our best actions Faius 3. And whereas the Apostle saith that in my flesh I serue the law of sinne we must not imagine that the Apostle was giuen ouer vnto grosse carnall works as to commit murther adulterie but he sheweth the infirmitie of his flesh and specially he meaneth his naturall concupiscence and corruption of nature in the which he gaue instance before against the which pugnabat luctabatur he did striue and fight Martyr 4. Neither yet must we thinke that the Apostle seruing the spirit one way and the flesh an other was as a mutable or inconstant man or indifferent like as Ephraim is compared to a cake but turned and baked on the one side Hos. 7.8 or as they which Revel 3. are said to be luke warme neither hoat nor cold for these of a set purpose were such and willingly did dissemble but the Apostle setteth forth himselfe as a man neither perfectly sound nor yet sicke but in a state betweene both that although he laboured to attaine to perfection yet he was hindred by the infirmitie of his flesh like as an Israelite dwelling among the Iebusits Faius 5. And whereas the Apostle said before v. 15. it is not I that doe it but sinne that dwelleth in mee and yet here he saith I my selfe c. in my selfe serue the law of sinne the Apostle is not contrarie to himselfe for he speaketh here of his person that doth both there of of the cause Tolet. annot 25. and so he sheweth secundum repugnantia principia se repugnantia habere studia that according vnto the contrarie beginnings or causes he hath contrarie desires Pareus 36. Quest. Of that famous question whether S. Paul doe speake in his owne person or of an other here in this 7. chapter There are of this matter diuers opinions which yet may be sorted into these three orders 1. Some thinke that the Apostle speaketh in the person of a man not yet in the state of grace 2. Some of a man regenerate from v. 14. to the ende 3. Some that the Apostle indifferently assumeth the person of all mankind whether they be regenerate or not And in euery of these opinions there is great diuersitie 1. They which are of the first opinion 1. Some thinke that the Apostle speaketh in the person of a naturall man and sheweth what strength a mans free will hath by nature without grace so Iulianus the Pelagian with other of that sect whose epistles Augustine confuteth so Lyranus he speaketh in the person generis humani lapsi of humane kind after their fall 2. Some will haue the person of a man described sub lege ante legem degentis not liuing onely before the law but vnder it hauing some knowledge of sinne so Chrysostome Theophylact whome Tolet followeth annot 4. 3. Some thinke that the Apostle describeth a man not altogether vnder the law nor yet wholly vnder grace but of a man beginning to be conuerted quasi voluntate proposito ad meliora conversi as converted in minde and desire vnto better things Origen so also Basil. 〈◊〉 â—egal breviar and Haymo saith the Apostle speaketh ex persona hominis poenitentiam agentis in the person of a man penitent c. 2. They of the second sort doe thus differ 1. Augustine confesseth that sometime he was of opinion that the Apostle speaketh in the person of a carnall and vnregenerate man but afterward he changed his minde vpon better reasons thinking the Apostle to speake of a spirituall man in the state of grace lib. 1. Retract c. 23. lib. 6. cont Iulian. c. 11. but Augustine reteining this sense thinketh that the Apostle saying v. 15. I allow not that thing which I doe speaketh of the first motions onely of concupiscence quando illis non consenttatur when no consent is giuen vnto them lib. 3. cont Iulian. c. 26. which concupiscence the most perfect man in this life can not be void of so also Gregorie vnderstandeth simplices motus ceruis contra voluntatem the simple motions of the flesh against the will and hereunto agreeth Bellarm. lib. 5. de amission grat c. 10. Rhemist sect 6. vpon this chapter 2. Cassianus collat 23. c. 15. vnderstandeth a man regenerate but then by the inner man he would haue signified the contemplation of celestiall things by the flesh curam rerum temporalium the care of earthly things 3. Some thinke that the Apostle so describeth a regenerate man as yet that he may sometime become in a manner carnall we see in this example euen of Paul regenerate etiam regeneratum nonnunquam mancipium fieri peccati that a regenerate man may sometime become the slaue of sinne Rolloch 4. But the founder opinion is that the Apostle in his owne person speaketh of a regenerate man euen when he is at the best that he is troubled and exercised with sinnefull motions which the perfectest can not be ridde of till he be deliuered from his corruptible flesh of this opinion was Hilarie habemus nunc nobis admistam materiam quae mortis legi peccato obnoxia est c. we haue now mixed within vs a certaine matter which is subiect to the law of death and sinne c. and vntill our bodie be glorified non potest in nobis verae vita esse natura there can not be in vs the nature and condition of true life Hilar. in Psal. 118. Of the same opinion are all our foundest new writers Melancthon Martyr Calvin Beza Hyperius Pareus Faius with others 3. Of the third sort 1. some are indifferent whether we vnderstand the person of the regenerate or vnregenerate gloss ordinar and so Gorrhan sheweth how all this which the Apostle hath from v. 18. to the end may in one sense be vnderstood of the regenerate in an other of the vnregenerate 2. Some thinke that some things may be applied vnto the regenerate as I am carnall sold vnder sinne but some things onely can be applied to the regenerate as these words I delight in the law of God c. Perer. disput 21. num 38. and yet he
is to shewe what Christ hath wrought for vs not what he did against his aduersaries 5. Socinus will haue the meaning to be no more but this that Christ did not satisfie by his death for sinne but exauthoravit abolevit he did abolish sinne and take away the power and authoritie thereof for he came to doe that which the lawe could not doe which was not to punish and condemne sinne for that the lawe could doe but to deliuer vs from the seruitude of sinne Socinus part 2. c. 23. p. 195. Contra. 1. True it is that Christ by his death hath also abolished the kingdome of sinne that it shall no longer raigne in his members but first it was abolished by the sacrifice of Christs death who bare the punishment of our sinne in himselfe and this is the proper sense of the word to condemne that is inflict the punishment of sinne as in this chapter v. 34. who shall condemne vs so before c. 2. 1. c. 5.16 2. S. Paul doth not so much shew what Christ came to doe namely that the law could not doe but the reason why he came to doe it because the law could not by reason of the weaknes of our flesh 3. the law indeede did condemne and punish sinne but by the law euery one was to beare his owne sinne the law could not appoint one to beare the punishment for all as Christ did whose sufferings are made ours by faith 6. Some of our owne writers doe vnderstand this condemning of sinne of the abolishing of the kingdome thereof and of our sanctification and regeneration Bucer Musculu◠these differ both from the Papists whose opinion is set downe before that is who make regeneration a part of iustification the other a consequent onely and effect thereof and the Papists differ from Socinus opinion who presupposeth no satisfaction at all to be made for our sinnes by the death of Christ But yet these words can not properly be referred to the condemning of sinne in vs by the worke of regeneration for this Christ did in his flesh or by his flesh not in carne i. homine in the flesh that is man as Lyranus 7. Wherefore the meaning indeede is that Christ in his flesh beeing made a sacrifice for vs vpon the crosse did beare the punishment due vnto our sinne God condēned sinne in the flesh of his Sonne that is poenas peccato debitas exegit he did exact the punishment due vnto our sinne Pareus and by condemning it in the death of his Sonne hath freed vs from condemnation This to be the meaning 1. the vse of the word to condemne sheweth touched before 2. the scope of the Apostle which is to shew that there is no condemnation to those which are in Christ because Christ hath himselfe freed them therefrom by bearing the punishment of sinne 3. the consent of other places of Scripture prooue the same as Gal. 3.13 Christ hath redeemed vs from the curse of the law beeing made a curse for vs and 1. Pet. 2.24 Himselfe bare our sinnes in his bodie on the tree And thus diuers of the fathers expound this of Christs death as Chrysostome eo quod mortuus est peccatum vicit condemnavit in that he died he ouercame and condemned death and Origen per hostiam cornis c. by the sacrifice of his flesh he condemned sinne in the flesh 8. The other sense which the Greeke scholiast followeth that sinne was condemned in Christs flesh quia illam peccato inanem servavit because he kept it free from sinne and so internecio peccati est punitio the killing of sinne is the punishment thereof though it be also found and very comfortable yet it is not here so fit because it is said that God sending his Sonne condemned sinne in the flesh so that it is better referred to the suffering of Christ then to his actiue obedience Quest. 8. Who are after the flesh and sauour the things of the flesh v. 5. 1. Origens sense is here reiected who vnderstandeth the Iewes which carnally vnderstand the lawe them he will to be after the spirit which did follow the spirituall sense of the law for in all this discourse S. Paul treateth specially of the morall lawe of Moses as he gaue instance in the tenth precept thou shalt not lust c. 7.8 2. Nor yet as Tolet annot 15. with other Romanists must we vnderstand spiritum nationalem seu mentem the reason or mind for euen the mind in carnall men is carnall qua carnea sunt mente volutant they doe in their minde thinke of carnall things they haue mentem carneam a fleshly minde Theophyl and Chrysostome saith that a carnall life totem hominem carnem facit maketh the whole man flesh and if we giue our minde to the spirit ipsam spiritualem efficiemus we shall also make it spirituall to walke after the spirit is then to be guided by the grace of Gods spirit Theodor. 3. Sometime to be in the flesh signifieth to remaine in the bodie as 2. Cor. 10.3 though we walke in the flesh we doe not warre after the flesh sometime euen the regenerate are saide to be carnall in respect of that part which is in them carnall and vnregenerate but here it is taken in an other sense for them which are altogether lead by their carnall affections affectus carnis malitians dixit affectus spiritus gratiam the affectious of the flesh he calleth the malice thereof the affections of the spirit grace Chrysost. 4. Now carnall things or the things of the flesh are of three sorts Some are good as the knowledge of artes some indifferent as riches honour some euill as the workes of the flesh adulterie drunkennesse so that two wayes men here may erre either in the matter when they followe things in their nature euill as the sinnefull workes of the flesh or in the manner when they folowe things of this world in themselues indifferent but with an euill minde they doe not referre them to the glorie of God But they preferre things temporall Before eternall like as lingua febricitantis infecta cholera c. the tongue of a sicke man infected with choser taketh sweete things for bitter Lyran. neither yet is it vnlawfull for them which are spiritual to be occupied in the things of this life but they must referre all to Gods glorie and preferre things spirituall before externall like as lingua bene disposita a tongue which is not distempered doth iudge rightly of euery tast Quest. 9. How the wisedome of the flesh is enmitie against God 1. Pareus well noteth that the Apostle here vseth not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth prudence it selfe least he should seeme to haue condemned that naturall gift and facultie but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which noteth the act rather and execution of that facultie and he addeth to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the flesh not condemning or reiecting all prudent actions but such as
Obiect The Apostle saith v. 15. If ye liue after the flesh yee shall die but if ye mortifie the deedes of the bodie ye shall liue therefore mortification is the cause of life and saluation Contra. 1. Hence followeth that mortification is necessarie vnto saluation yet not as a cause but as a necessarie condition without the which there is no faith and consequently no saluation 2. eternall life is the gift of God c. 6.23 therefore not due vnto our merits euill workes are the cause of damnation because they iustly deserue it but it followeth not that good workes are the cause of saluation for they are both imperfect and so vnproportinable to the reward and they are due otherwise to be done and therefore merite not Controv. 4. Against the Arrians and Eunomians concerning the deitie of the holy Ghost v. 2. The law of the spirit of life c. hath freedome Chrysostome homil de adorand spirit from this place prooueth the deitie of the spirit against the Arrian and Eunomiâ—au heretikes who made great difference in the persons of the Trinitie the Sonne they affirmed to be a creature and much inferiour to the Father and the holy Ghost they made servum ministrum silij a seruant and minister of the Sonne Chrysostome confuteth them by this place for if the spirit be the author of libertie and freedome to others then is he most free himselfe and not a minister or seruant as the Apostle saith 2. Cor. 2.17 where the spirit of the Lord is there is libertie Controv. 5. Against the Pelagians that a man by nature cannot keepe and fulfill the law This error is confuted by the expresse words of the Apostle who saith that the law was weake by reason of the flesh and so not able to iustifie vs by the flesh the Apostle vnderstandeth not substantiam caruis the substance of the flesh as the Maniches were readie to catch at these and the like places to confirme their wicked opinion who held the flesh of man to be euill by nature nor yet the carnall rites and obseruations of the law which were not able to cleanse the obseruers of them as Origen here interpreteth and Lyranus following him But by the flesh we vnderstand with Chrysostome carnales sensus the carnall affections carnalitatem quae rebellabat the carnalitie of man which rebelled against the spirit gloss ordinar concupisentias carnis the concupiscence of the flesh Haymo prauitatem naturae the pravitie of nature Martyr which hindereth that none can keepe the law to be iustified by it This then manifestly conuinceth the Pelagians for if the flesh make the law weake and vnable to be kept then none by the strength of their nature and flesh can fulfill the law Controv. 6. The fulfilling of the law is not possible in this life no not to them which are in the state of grace 1. The Romanists out of these words of the Apostle v. 4. That the righteousnesse of the law may be fulfilled in vs which walke not after the flesh doe inferre that they which walke not after the flesh may fulfill the law so that either it must be denied that none in this life walke after the spirit or it must be graunted that by such the law may be fulfilled Pere disput 5. Bellarmine addeth that if the law cannot be fulfilled Christus non obtinuit quod vâ—luit Christ hath not compassed or obtained that which he intended for therefore he died that the iustice of the law might be fulfilled Contra. 1. Indeed Origen whose errors and erroneous interpretations our aduersaries themselues will be ashamed of sauing where they serue their turne first deuised this interpretation who by the law here vnderstandeth the law of the mind which is fulfilled quando lex peccati in membris c. when the law of sinne in the members resisteth it not and Haymo hath this glosse that we beeing redeemed by Christ might spiritually fulfill the workes of the law per cuius impletionem possumus iustificari by the fulfilling whereof we may be iustified But this place is better vnderstood of the obedience of Christ who fulfilled the law which is imputed vnto vs by faith and thus doe not onely expound our new writes Melancthon Bucer Hyperius Calvin Beza with others but some of the auncient expositors as Theophylact quae lex facere nitibatur ea Christus nostri gratia executus est those things which the law endeuoured Christ hath performed for vs so also Oecumenius scotus finis legis per Christum partus est exhibitus the scope and end of the law is obtained exhibited by Christ yet we must endeuour to keepe those things which are deliuered per conuersationem bonam fidem by a good conuersation and faith 2. And that this is the meaning of the Apostle 1. the phrase sheweth that the law might be fulfilled in vs he saith not by vs Beza 2. because there is none so perfect in this life that neither in thought word nor deed transgresseth not the law 3. The law was weake through the infirmitie of the flesh but the infirmitie and weakenes of the flesh remaineth still euen in the regenerate therefore neither in them the righteousnesse of the law can be fulfilled 4. To the contrarie arguments thus we answer 1. the Apostle saith not that they which walke after the spirit fulfill the law but the law is fulfilled in them that is imputed vnto them by faith in Christ. 2. though the faithfull cannot fulfill the law yet Christ performed what he intended that he might keepe the law for them and they be iustified by faith in him 3. this clause then which walke not after the flesh is added to shew who they are for whom Christ hath fulfilled the law and to what end namely to such as walke in newnes of life 5. Some doe thinke that the Apostle speaketh here of two kinds of fulfilling the law one imputatione by imputation of Christs obedience which is our iustification the other inchoatione by a beginning onely which is our sanctification begunne in this life and perfited in the next when it shall be fulfilled Martyr Pareus But the other sense is better for the Apostle speaketh of a present fulfilling of the law in them which walke according to the spirit not of a fulfilling respited and excepted in the next life which is most true but not agreeable to the Apostles meaning here 6. So the Apostle in this place setteth forth three benefits purchased vnto vs by Christ 1. remission of our sinnes in that Christ bare in himselfe the punishment due vnto our sins 2. then the imputation of Christs obedience and performing of the law 3. our sanctification that we by the spirit of Christ doe die vnto sinne and rise vnto newnes of life which our sanctification is necessarily ioyned with our iustification but no part thereof 1. because it is imperfect in this life it is perfect after a sort perfectione partium by
that our loue toward those blessed spirits is not comprehended in the duties of the second table the subiect whereof is our brother whom we daily see 1. Ioh. 4.20 neither can any one of the precepts thou shalt not kill thou shalt not steale be referred to the Angels in any sense but like as man is not commanded to loue himselfe which that nature teacheth him for it followeth necessarily if a man loue his neighbour as himselfe he must needs loue himselfe first so the loue of the holy angels the ministers of God doth necessarily followe vpon our louing of God which though it be not commanded in the first table yet it followeth necessarily vpon it 3. Wherefore by our neighbour we vnderstand not those which are so in habitation or with whom we haue affinitie or from whom we haue receiued any benefit sed omnium hominum intelligi opertet we must vnderstand euery man in generall quia nemo est quo cum sit operandum malum because we ought not to worke euill with any or to offer wrong vnto any gloss ordinar sufficiat nobis quod homo sit c. let it suffice vs that he is a man and of one and the same nature who standeth in neede of our helpe and there is none that liueth that may not stand in neede of an others helpe as Xerxes that great King and commander of Persia that brought so many hundred thousand men in Grecia was same to escape in a fishers boat Quest. 22. How salvation is said to be nearer then when we beleeued 1. Lyranus referreth this time of beleefe to the old Testament when the father 's beleeued onely in Christ to come but they sawe nothing performed so also Erasmus Tolet but Beza refuseth this because S. Paul speaketh specially to the conuerted Gentiles among the Romanes and not to the Iewes onely who liued vnder the old Testament 2. Some giue this sense salvation is nearer then when we beleeued that is then a man would beleeue there was such an open doore of saluation made as one would hardly beleeue it Hugo but the words we when we beleeued not any other beleeued of vs. 3. An other hath this glosse it is nearer that is magis debita per bona opera more due vnto vs by good workes then when we beleeued hauing yet no good workes Gorrhan but a liuely faith is neuer without workes 4. Chrysostome vnderstandeth it of the ende of the world when the salvation promised shall be accomplished tempore peocedente futura secula proprius accedunt for as time weareth so the world to come draweth neerer 5. But the Apostle rather confert incrementa cum initijs fidei compareth the encreasing of faith with the beginning and this is an other argument which he vseth to stirre vs vp to newnes of life as before he mooued by the opportunitie of time that now we should awake from sinne as one when the day is come riseth vp vnto his worke so here he perswadeth ab vtili from that which is profitable iam proprius acessimus ad metam we are nowe come neerer the marke then when we beganne to beleeue and therefore it behoueth vs to be the more earnest like as they which are set to runne a race the nearer they come to the marke the faster they runne least any should outstrippe them this difference is made betweene a natural and violent motion this is more speedie in the beginning and it slacketh toward the ende but the naturall is slowe in the beginning and more quicke and speedie toward the ende so the faithfull that are truely called will still encrease more and more Origen toucheth both these last expositions there is adventus lucis generalis specialis a generall comming and approaching of this light which shall be at the comming of Christ and this euery day groweth nearer and there is a particular comming of this light to euerie one si Christus in corde est diem nobis facit if Christ be in our heart he bringeth day and light with him Quest. 23. How the night is said to be past the day at hand of the literall sense 1. The night is past or well spent The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifieth praecedo provehor to goe forward to proceede and so reade Chrysostome Theodoret the vulgar Latine readeth praecessit is gone before so Cyprian in the same sense transivit is passed and Hierome in c. 26. Matth. praeterijt is gone ouer but the other is the better reading both because of the proper signification of the word and for that it followeth the day is at hand but if the night were all past and not rather spent and some part thereof behind the day should not be at hand onely but it should be present this Metaphor the Apostle vseth because there remaineth with vs some ignorance and darkenes still euen after our calling and we haue not in this life a perfect knowledge of Christ neither is it full day with vs till the next life 2. By the workes of darkenes are vnderstood the workes of sinne both because they proceede from darkenes and ignorance of God and they which followe them delight in darkenes and hate the light as also the ende of such workes is euerlasting darkenes and to be depriued for euer of the light of Gods kingdome 3. We must cast them away Which signifieth 1. that we should not defer our repentance from dead works like as he which awaketh when it is day doth hastily put from him his night garments 2. as we must speedily put them off so cum detestatione we must doe it with a kind of hatred and detestation as a man casteth from him with disdaine that which he abhorreth 3. and we must procul abijcere cast them farre away from vs neuer to entertaine them againe 4. We are bid to put on which metaphor noteth three things 1. diligence like as he which putteth on his garments or armour doth not onely cloath or arme one part of his bodie but euerie one so it is not enough to follow one or two good workes but we must giue our selues to euerie good worke as we cloath euerie part of our bodie 2. we must do it with delight like as there is comelines in clothing the bodie wherein we delight 3. herein is expressed conscience that hauing put on these garments or armour wee should not suddenly put them off as it is said in the Cantic 4.3 I haue put off my coat how shall I put it on so after we haue put on our coat so we should not put it off 5. The armour of light 1. They are called armour in these two respects because they are defensiva both defensiue we thereby resist the temptations of Sathan hauing the brest-plate of righteousnes and they are offensiva offensiue whereby we driue away also the tempter from vs such is the sword of the spirit whereby we quench all the fierie dartes of
ipsum by him that is Christ and two senses are made of it either post adventum after his comming for he tooke away the legall difference of meates and other ceremonies Tolet Perer. or by him in the creation because all things which were created seemed good Lyran. Gorrhan but although Ambrose doe follow this sense that by the benefit of Christ no meate is now vncleane yet this reading is not agreeable to the originall the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by it selfe with an aspiration not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himselfe 2. wherefore the Greeke interpreters doe better read per se by it selfe as Chrysostome Theophylact and Origen giueth this sense by it selfe that is natura sui by it nature the Apostles meaning is that no kind of meate by it selfe was vncleane in the nature thereof against the opinion of the Manichees that simply condemned meats as euill by their nature and creation 25. Quest. How nothing is said to be vncleane of it selfe v. 14. 1. Nothing of it selfe in the nature thereof as it was created of God is vncleane which was the wicked heresie of the Manichees who abstained from eating of flesh egges milke wine because they saide it was fel principis tenebrorum the gall of the Prince of darknes August lib. de haeres and their wicked assertion further was quod carnes diabolus operetur faeculenta materia mali that the deuill made flesh of the stinking matter of euill and so they blasphemed the Creator himselfe to whom euery thing seemed good which he made see Aug. lib. 30. cont Manich. c. 5.6 2. Neither are meates vncleane as wicked Marcion held that they which did eat things that had life were guiltie tanquam qui comedunt animas as if they did eate and deuoure soules haeres 42. those heretikes two waies did thinke flesh in it selfe vncleane because they were made of an euill matter by the deuill and in respect of the life and soule which was in them which they imagined likewise to be deuoured 3. Neither yet is it to be denied but that some meates are vncleane and hurtfull physice naturally as vnfit for the nourishment of the bodie as are all kind of venemous things but not ethice morally as though it were sinne to eate meate as a thing vncleane of it selfe 4. Yet though meate be not thus vncleane of it selfe and in it owne nature yet it may be said to be vncleane in respect of man 1. generally by reason of mans fall which brought a curse vpon the creatures from the which vncleanenes it is purified and sanctified by the word of God and praier as the Apostle saith 1. Tim. 4.8 2. there is beside a particular vncleannes in respect of him who abuseth meates to riot and excesse in which sense the Apostle saith To the defiled and vnbeleeuing nothing is pure Tit. 1.15 so Origen saith videndum est non solum quali sed quanto cibo quo in tempore c. we must see not onely what manner of meate but how much and in what time we doe eate for by this meanes those things which were cleane in themselues were vncleane vnto the defiled and vnbeleeuers 3. some meates were counted vncleane by the law which difference continued as long as Moses law as in force but now it is taken away by the libertie of the Gospel 4. and a thing is counted vncleane in respect of the opinion of the vse that to him that thinketh any thing vncleane to him it is vncleane as here the Apostle saith which must be vnderstood as long as he remaineth in that opinion 26. Quest. Of the legall difference of meates why it was commanded There were diuers ends of that legall prohibition and restraint 1. it was partly civill that by this meanes God might invre his people to obedience Ambros. 2. and partly morall to teach them temperance who otherwise were a stiffnecked people and too much addicted to their appetite Chrysost. 3. it was also physicall and naturall that for the auoiding of diseases whereunto they were much subiect in that climate which might proceed of the varietie of vnholesome meates and for the better preseruation of their health they were commanded to make this difference 4. there was a ceremoniall ende that the Iewes by this their abstinence and choice of meates might be discerned from the profane Gentiles who made no such difference 5. and beside there was a mysticall vse that by this legall difference of cleane meates and vncleane they might be put in mind of their spirituall cleannes in bodie and soule so Augustine saith that the Iewes abstained from some meates non cibos damnandi sed significandi gratia not for the condemning of meates but for signification sake 6. now after that the law was abrogated there was still retained some difference of meates as the Apostle enioyned the newly conuerted Gentiles to abstaine from strangled and blood to retaine concord and peace betweene the conuerted Gentiles and Iewes which abhorred such meates as were forbidden by the law but this prohibition continued onely for a time vntill the Gospel was more publikely receiued and the beleeuing Iewes better confirmed 7. but meates are not refrained but onely propter corporis castigationem for the chastising and taming of the flesh 27. Quest. Of the manner how meates are sanctified and made cleane Because the Apostle here speaketh of meates how they are cleane how vncleane Origen doth parallel this place with that 1. Tim. 4.5 It is sanctified by the word of God and prayer 1. The Rhemists thinke that this is not vnderstood of the vulgar and common benediction of meates and drinkes but of sanctifying and applying them to an higher vse euen for spirituall benefits annot 11. as they haue their hallowed bread water salt and such things which they vse in the seruice of God But 1. it is euident that the Apostle speaketh there of the sanctifying of meates for our ordinarie vse and receiuing of them 2. and seeing the word of God is requisite vnto sanctification such hallowing of creatures hauing no warrant in the word is but a superstitious inuention 2. Neither is it to be thought that the meates thus sanctified haue a kind of inherent holines infused into them which seemeth to haue beene the opinion of Origen who compareth the sanctifying of them vnto the napkins and partlets which were taken from Saint Pauls bodie tantum sanctificationis acceperunt c. they receiued such sanctification as that beeing applied to the sicke they healed their diseases But 1. there is great difference to be made betweene an ordinarie sanctifying of a thing to a continuall and perpetuall vse as of meates and drinkes and of an extraordinarie sanctifying by miracle as was in these partlets it was an extraordinarie worke at that time for the confirmation of their faith 2. neither was this vertue in these napkins but in S. Paul who had that gift to worke miracles both present and absent as when Elisha
he doth but as Tolet well obserueth non est fides sed error this opinion in makng difference of meates is no faith but error therefore an erroneous conscience cannot be said to be faith that before he called faith the knowledge of Gods word that all meates are cleane and therefore he sinneth because his mind is not setled and well perswaded out of Gods word that he doth please God in eating and yet eateth Pareus 4. But here it will be obiected why he that beleeueth all meates to be alike may lawefully eate them or not eate them but he which maketh difference of meats and so beleeueth not may lawfully abstaine yet he cannot with a good conscience eate the reason of this difference is because he that maketh conscience of meates if he doe eate sinneth against his conscience but he that by the word is taught to make no difference of meats though he abstaine doth not against his conscience for he refraineth not from meates as though he held them to be vncleane but for offence sake 5. It will be obiected againe what if one be offended with him that is not perswaded of the indifferencie of meates because he eateth not may not he without sinne eate though it be against his conscience rather then to offend his brother to this the answear is that offences are giuen to the weake not to the strong he is the stronger and more perfect that eateth of all alike he is the weaker that maketh difference of meates therefore this case was not likely to fall out that the weaker by not eating should offend the strong Tolet here hath an other answear that if this case should fall out for the weaker to offend the strong by his not eating he should rather eate then offend his brother for a positive lawe such as was that of making difference of meates must giue place to the naturall lawe which is not to offend our brother But this is no good answear for if there were such necessitie that a man must either offend against his owne conscience or his brothers it were of the two euills the lesse to grieue his brothers conscience then his owne And the lawe positiue is to giue place in right vnto the lawe of nature where the conscience is so perswaded but where the conscience is not resolued the lawe of nature will that a man haue rather respect to himselfe then an other and to tender his owne conscience before an others 6. Thus the Apostle hath giuen vs three rules in the vse of things indifferent and of all other first that a mans conscience condemne not himselfe in his action secondly though the conscience directly condemne him not yet he must proceede further that he cast no doubts thirdly and yet it sufficeth not to cast no doubts but he must labour to haue his conscience setled and grounded vpon faith which is a certaine knowledge with a firme assurance and perswasion out of the word of God of the lawfulnes of that thing which is to be done that therein he pleaseth God Quest. 42. Of the right meaning of these words whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne 1. Thomas deliuereth this for one exposition in his commentarie vpon this place that ex fide of faith is all one as if he had said contra fidem against the faith but not that onely which is against the faith but whatsoeuer is without faith is vnpleasing to God as the Apostle saith Heb. 11.6 without faith it is impossible to please God 2. Caietan expoundeth this saying not of all things in generall but of such quae debent procedere ex fide which ought to proceede of faith and so it is true that such things if they be not of faith and yet ought to proceede of faith are sinne the good morall workes then of the heathen are not therefore to be condemned as sinne because they were not of faith for they proceeded onely from the right vse of reason though there be no faith but in this place the Apostle treateth of such actions as should proceede of faith as is the ciscerning of meates cleane and vncleane this directly belonged vnto faith concerning the vse of Christian libertie Contra. 1. If by faith and to proceede of faith Caietan vnderstand onely points of doctrine which belong vnto the faith then it skilleth not for all other matters which concerne manners good life whether they be of faith or no which were verie absurd 2. neither can there be any right vse of reason in this our corrupt nature without faith 3. and touching the doctrine of faith Chrysostome thinketh that the Apostle doth not in this chapter intend any such thing he excludeth dogmata fidei the doctrines and principles of faith for they must be openly confessed it sufficeth not to haue that faith onely in our conscience before God as the Apostle saith of this faith touching the vse of indifferent things whereof he entreateh v. 12. Hast thou faith haue it with thy selfe before God 3. Pererius beside reckoneth vp three other interpretations 1. as some thinke the Apostle speaketh comparatiuely what soeuer is not of faith is sinne in respect of such workes as proceede of faith not simply 2. or sinne may be taken for the same as non placens not pleasing acceptable or availeable with God 3. and further this sentence neede not to be taken generally as though it were vniuersally true sed vt plurimum and maxima ex parte but for the most part But all these are mens fansies and vncertaine glosses 1. although one sinne may be greater then an other yet can it not be shewed that any thing is called by the name of sinne which is not so simply for sinne is defined to be the transgression of the lawe 1. Ioh. 1.6 whosoeuer sinneth transgresseth the lawe this is not then onely comparatiuely but simply sinne 2. we graunt that these two sinne and not to be pleasing to God may be converted whatsoeuer pleaseth not God is sinfull and whatsoeuer is sinnefull is not pleasing vnto God for whatsoeuer is not in Christ in whom onely God is well pleased cannot be pleasing vnto him and nothing doth separate vs and make vs not pleasing vnto God but sinne Isay. 50.1 for your iniquities are ye sold. 3. the third interpretation giueth the Apostle the plaine lie he saith whatsoeuer or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that is not of faith is sinne but they say not so for not all but the most part is so 4. But the generall receiued interpretation among the Romanists is this whatsoeuer is not of faith that is contra proprium dictamen conscientiae against the proper suggestion of the conscience Tolet contra conscientiam against the conscience glosse interlin reclamante conscientia his conscience gainsaying Perer. yea though it be erraus conscientia an erring conscience Eman. Sa. so they take faith not for that whereby we beleeue in Christ but for that whereby one beleeueth any thing to