the vertue and faith of the parents But although the beleeuing parents may obtaine graces by their faith for others yet formally none are iustified before God but by their owne faith or some grace infused by the spirit of God for as the parents sinnes cannot condemne the child so the parents faith cannot saue the infant 2. Gorrhan thinketh that circumcision herein was avayleable quia peccatum originale delebat because it blotted out originall sinne But it is euident by this place that the circumcision of the flesh did not outwardly conferre grace for then circumcision could neuer be turned to vncircumcision that is to be of no more force without keeping of the law then if they had not beene circumcised at all 3. Augustine as Pet. Martyr alleadgeth him not citing the place reporteth the opinion of some which affirmed that a man beeing once baptized though he were an euill liuer yet in the ende should be saued but should suffer many things in this life the like opinion the Iewes might haue of their circumcision and so it might be profitable to infants but more profitable to those that also kept the law But the Apostle denieth circumcision to be profitable any thing at all without keeping the law because it is turned into vncircumcision it is no more availeable then if they were not circumcised at all 4. Wherefore the best solution is that the Apostle speaketh not here of infants sed de adultis but of those which were of yeares and discretion that circumcision did not profit them vnlesse they kept the law as baptisme now is not any helpe vnto saluation to Christians that lead an euill life As for infants they were then saued by the couenant of grace sealed in circumcision as now in baptisme 43. Quest. What vncircumcised the Apostle here speaketh of whether such of the Gentiles as were conuerted to the faith and what keeping of the law he meaneth 1. Calvin thinketh that the Apostle saying v. 26. if the vncircumcision keepe the ordinances of the law speaketh ex hypothesi by way of supposition if any such could be found that did keepe the law which no man could so also Pareus de obedientia plena loquitur ad quam obligabat circumcisio he speaketh of the full and perfect obedience of the law vnto the which circumcision did bind and he speaketh ex hypothesi by supposition if the vncircumcision keepe But it is euident that the Apostle speaketh not by way of supposition as of a thing impossible to be done but supposing if it were done for then it would follow that circumcision were not profitable at all because he saith circumcision is profitable if thou keepe the lawe if the Apostle should speake of the perfect keeping of the lawe which is impossible then all profitable vse is denied to circumcision but he â—ealed not so much detract from that holy institution of God circumcision indeede did bind them to keepe the whole law but it did profit them if there were an endeauour in them and care to keepe the lawe though they perfectly keepe it not 2. But Lyranus here hath a verie vnfound assertion that the Apostle should here speake of such vncircumcised Gentiles which did the workes of the Lawe ex rationis naturalis dictamine erant Deo accepti by the direction onely of naturall reason and were acceptable to God which cannot be that any not hauing faith by the light onely of nature should be accepted of God for without faith it is impossible to please him Heb. 11.6 3. The interlinearie glosse hath an other exposition by the ordinances of the law vnderstanding fidem Christi the faith of Christ whom the lawe did foretell should come for our iustification but faith in Christ is no worke or ordinance of the lawe for the Apostle concludeth that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the lawe Rom. 3.28 which were no good conclusion if faith in Christ were a worke of the lawe yet I denie not but the Apostle speaketh of such keeping of the lawe as proceeded from faith 4. Wherefore the Apostle here vnderstandeth such Gentiles as were conuerted to the faith as Origen expoundeth qui ex praeputio ad Christi fidem venerunt which came vnto the faith of Christ from vncircumcision for the idolaters among the Gentiles beeing not conuerted vnto Christ could not doe the workes of the lawe fayling in the first commandement which forbiddeth idolatrie such faithfull therefore among the Gentiles are vnderstood which had the knowledge of God Faius such as Iob was and to fulfill or keep the lawe here is taken pro legis seruandae studio for the studie and endeauour to keepe the law Faius so also Gryneus he saith in effect si Ethnicus aliquis fidei obedientiam praestaret if any Ethnicke or Gentile should performe the obedience of faith he should condemne a Christian that onely is baptized and performeth not such obedience But here it will be thus obiected on the contrarie 1. Obiect The Apostle saith v. 27. If vncircumcision by nature keepe the lawe shall it not iudge thee the Apostle then meaneth those which by the light of nature onely keepe the lawe Answ. 1. Some doe thus expound ex natura per gratiam reparata by nature repaired by grace gloss interlin so also Gorrhan saith that this keeping of the law is vnderstood to be by faith which is of nature preparative by way of preparation but of grace completive by way of perfection for the illumination of the soule is of grace the consent is of the will reformed by grace Contra. 1. It is an erroneous assertion that faith is partly of nature partly of grace it is wholly the worke of the spirit 1. Cor. 12.9 the will indeede consenteth yet not by it owne naturall power God as Augustine saith ex nolentibus volâ—tes facit of nilling maketh vs willing and the will concurreth not actively in any good worke or formally but passiuely and materially as not working but beeing wrought vpon 2. If nature should here be so taken restoared by grace there should be no difference in this behalfe betweene the Gentile and the Iewe for euen the Iewe also by grace illuminating his nature was enabled to keepe the Lawe though imperfectly but the Apostle seemeth here to speake of somewhat peculiar to the vncircumcised Gentiles 2. The Syriake interpreter in his annotations thinketh that by nature is here onely opposed to the lawe and the letter not excluding all other helpes beside nature but onely the helpe of the written law but then one that worketh by grace may be said to worke by nature which are opposite the one to the other c. 11.6 if by grace then not of workes that is naturally done without the helpe of grace 3. Wherefore the words are thus rather to be placed and that which is by nature vncircumcision keeping the Lawe as the words stand in the originall not thus vncircumcision which by nature keepeth the lawe as
leadeth vs vnto the righteousnesse of the law one way by the proper scope and intent thereof and to Christ an other way indirectly and by an accident because when we see our weaknes in performing of the law we are driuen to seeke vnto Christ that hath kept the law for vs. 2. the same answer serueth for the next obiection Christ is the end of the law one way as is said and the righteousnesse of the law an other 3. they differ rather as a thing perfect and imperfect of two diuerse kindes not as an infant and a man of yeares but as reasonable and vnreasonable creatures they agree onely in generall they are both a kind of iustice and haue one efficient cause God is the giuer and worker of the one iustice and of the other but they differ in the seuerall properties the one is imputed the other inherent and is by faith the other by workes 2. Neither yet doe these two kinds of righteousnesse differ as contrarie the one to the other as some thinke 1. one good thing is not contrarie to another but both the righteousnesse of the law and of faith are good 2. neither doth God command contrarie things but both the iustice of the law and of faith are commanded 3. and one contrarie doth expel an other but the righteousnesse of the law doth necessarily follow and accompanie faith though not to be iustified by it as sanctification doth accompanie iustification 3. Neither doe they differ onely ratione non re not in the thing or indeed but in a certaine respect as Gryneus saith they are vna specie of one and the same kind and that the distinction and difference betweene them is not realis sed rationis is not reall but rationall as the Peripaterike Philosophers doe make morall vertue and vniuersall iustice one and the same re subiecto in the matter it selfe and subiect and to differ onely ratione in a certaine respect for as it is considered as an habite of the word it is called vertue but as it giueth vnto euery one his own it is iustice so he thinketh these two kinds of iustice do differ not in nature and substance but onely in a certaine respect and rationall difference But vnder correction of so worthie a man there is a greater difference then thus betweene the the iustice of the law and the iustice of faith 1. Gryneus himselfe confesseth in the same place that they differ subiecto in the subiect for the iustice of faith is subiective in Christ by way of a subiect the iustice of the law hath man for his subiect therefore they differ otherwise then in a diuerse respect 2. that which differeth in forme matter qualitie subiect differeth more then onely in a certaine respect But the iustice of the law and of faith differ in all these 1. in forme the iustice of the law saith doe this and thou shalt be saued faith saith beleeue onely c. 2. in matter they differ the one consisteth of workes the other of faith 3. in qualitie the one is imperfect the iustice apprehended by faith is absolute and perfect 4. in subiect the iustice of faith is imputed vnto vs beeing inherent in Christ the iustice of the law is inherent in man and not imputed 4. Wherefore these two iustices 1. are neither one and the same as Stapleton 2. nor contrarie 3. not differing onely in a certaine respect as Gryneus 4. but they differ as diuers species or kinds of the same gender they are both iustice but the one inherent the other imputed the one consisteth in doing the other in beleeuing Par. dub 5. and Pet. Mar. will haue them differ as in Logike the difference and propertie of a thing the difference is that which giueth essence vnto a thing as Christs iustice applied by faith maketh our iustification the propertie is that which followeth the nature of a thing and so the iustice of the law in our holines and sanctification doth follow necessarily our iustification by faith Controv. 9. Whether the righteousnesse of the law and that which is by the law doe differ Pererius disput 2. maketh three kinds of iustice 1. one is iustitia legis the iustice of the law or the law of iustice which is that iustice when God by his grace doth helpe vs to fulfill the law 2. the iustice of faith is that which is giuen vnto those that beleeue in Christ. 3. iustitia ex lege iustice by the law is that which a man doth of himselfe without faith and grace onely by the strength of freewill and this is that iustice which the Apostle here setteth against the iustice of faith This distinction also hath Stapleton making the like difference betweene iustitia legis and iustitia ex lege righteousnesse of the law and righteousnesse by the law and Bellarmine as is before alleadged qu. 29. Contra. 1. As the righteousnesse of faith and by faith with Saint Paul are one and the same as Rom. 4.11 it is said to be of faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and here v. 6. righteousnesse which is by faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so neither doe the righteousnesse of the law and by the law differ for both of them haue the same definition he that doth the law shall liue thereby so that these termes of the law by the law through the law in the law in the matter of iustification are all one and in effect the same as that which he calleth the righteousnesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the law Rom. 8.4 the same is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the law c. 10.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through the law Gal. 2.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the law Gal. 10.11 1. Concerning that distinction it faileth in one of the parts thereof for that which they call iustitiam ex lege righteousnesse by the law which a man doth without grace and faith onely schooled by the law and mooued by the terrour thereof that is no iustice at all for the law is holy and good Rom. 7.12 and the workes thereof holy and good but without faith and grace no man can doe any good thing neither doth Saint Paul dispute of any such imagined iustice but euen of those workes of the law which are done by men sanctified by grace as the Apostle giueth instance in Abraham and Dauid sanctified men Rom. 4. who yet by the workes of grace were not iustified 3. Indeed Augustine hath such a distinction betweene the righteousnes legis of the law which is fulfilled in vs by grace and ex lege by the law which is that righteousnesse which a man worketh by his owne freewill as is before alleadged qu. 29. But Augustines meaning is not that a man is iustified by either of these kinds of righteousnesse therefore that distinction as he vseth it is impertinent to this purpose for we affirme that the righteousnesse of the law whereby they pretended to be iustified is indifferently called of the law
beleefe in vs and on Gods behalfe his efficacious power Gryneus In the amplyfying and tractation of this definition all the rest of the epistle is bestowed as this proposition that we are iustified by the Gospel that is by faith and beleefe in Christ is further amplified by the contrarie that we cannot be iustified either by the workes of nature c. 11.2 or of the Lawe c. 3. but by grace and faith c. 4. by the effects of iustifying faith inward the peace of conscience c. 5. outward the fruites of holinesse c. 6. by the contrarie operation of the lawe which reuealeth sinne c. 7. but the Gospel freeth from condemnation c. 8. by the cause the free election of God c. 9. by the subiect the Gentiles called the Iewes reiected c. 11. See more hereof concerning the Methode in the generall argument of the epistle before 3. For the kind of epistle It is principally definitiue and demonstratiue for he defineth and determineth that we are iustified neither by the workes of nature nor of the law but by faith in Christ and prooueth the same by most euident demonstration Beside this epistle hath somewhat of all other kinds of epistles which are called accessaria accessarie and secundarie as it is both gratulatorie reioycing for their faith c. 1. and it is reprehensorie rebuking the Gentiles for their licentiousnes it is also exhortatorie exhorting to holinesse of life c. 6.12 and it is deprecatorie he praieth and maketh request praying for encrease of grace in them and for himselfe that he might haue some good occasion to come vnto them Aretius 4. Places of doctrine 1. Doct. Of the godly custome and vse of the Church in laying the foundation of religion which is Catechising This commendable vse was taken vp by the Apostles themselues as the Apostle sheweth Hebr. 6.1 he calleth it the doctrine of beginnings and the laying of the foundation as of repentance faith baptisme the resurrection of eternall iudgement And so in this epistle the Apostle deliuereth a perfect forme of catechisme which consisteth of three parts of the miserie of man by nature his reparation and restitution by grace and then of his thankfulnes afterward in his obedience of life for the benefits receiued which three parts the Apostle doth at large handle in this epistle what man is by nature he sheweth c. 1.2.3 what by grace c. 4.5.8 and of the fruits of regeneration he entreateth c. 6. c. 12. So that it is false which Bellarmine affirmeth that the Apostle deliuered no forme of catechising to the Church l. 4. de verb. Dei c. 4. for he doth it most plainly euidently in this epistle Pareus 5. Places of controversie 1. Contr. That it is knowne that this Epistle was written by S. Paul and is of diuine authoritie by the Epistle it selfe Bellarmine affirmeth that to know that any Scripture is diuine or Canonicall it can not be concluded out of the Scripture it selfe neither which were the writings of S. Paul or that the Gospel of S. Matthew was written by Matthew without the tradition of the Church Bellar. lib. 4. de verb. c. 4. Contra. 1. That the Epistles of Saint Paul are of diuine and Canonicall authoritie it appeareth euidently out of the writings themselues for they beeing written by Saint Paul who had the spirit of God 1. Corinth 7.40 and had Christ speaking in him 2. Cor. 13.13 and was taught of God from whome he receiued his doctrine by reuelation Gal. 1.12 it is not to be doubted but that his holy writings proceeded from the spirit of God and so are of diuine authoritie and he himselfe doubteth not to make them canonicall as he saith Gal. 6.16 Whosoeuer walketh according to this canon or rule c. And he denounceth anathema if any yea an Angel should teach any other Gospel then he had preached Gal. 1. 2. Likewise that S. Paul was the author and writer of them it is euident both by the inscription and title and by the salutation in the ende of euery epistle and the benediction which he vseth The grace of our Lord Iesus Christ be with you all which he saith is the token or marke to know his epistles by 2. Thess. 3.17 3. The tradition of the Church is an vncerten thing that which is vncerten can not be a rule and measure of that which is most certen the testimonie of men can not assure vs of the testimonie of God Christ saith Ioh. 5.33 Ye sent vnto Iohn and he bare witnesse vnto the truth but I receiue not the record of men c. 36. I haue a greater witnes then the witnes of Iohn c. 2. Contr. That S. Pauls epistles are not so obscure that any should be terrified from the reading thereof In the Preface to Toletus commentarie the epistles of S. Paul are affirmed to be hard out of Hierome and Origen contr Whitakerum hareticum against Whitaker that heretike as it pleaseth that rayling taxer to call that learned godly man Contr. 1. True it is that as S. Peter saith some things are hard in S. Pauls epistles 1. Pet. 3.16 he saith not that many things are hard or that the Epistles are hard but onely some few things in them this letteth not but that his Epistles may safely be read of all that read them with an humble minde desirous to profit thereby the danger is onely to the vnlearned and vnstable which peruert them as they doe the rest of the Scriptures as S. Peter in the same place saith 2. And euen those hard places may be made easie by diligent reading as Chrysostome giueth this instance like as we know their minde whome we loue and obserue and are familiar with them vtique si lectioni cum animi alacritate volueritis attendere c. so you if you will with cheerfull attention giue your selues to reading ye shall neede no other helpe c. hinc vt innumera mala nata sunt quod scripturae ignorantur hence so many euills haue sprung vp because the Scriptures are not knowne hence so many heresies c. the ignorance then not the reading of Scripture breedeth heresies and thus he concludeth oculos ad splendorem Apostolicorum verborum aperiamtu let vs open our eyes to receiue the brightnes of the Apostolicall words c. they doe not then cast darknes vpon our eyes but bring brightnes and clearnes Chrysost. argum in epist. ad Rom. 3. Controv. Against the Ebionites which reteined the rites and ceremonies of Moses Whereas the Ebionites thought the rites of the Law necessarie and ioyned them together with the Gospel which heresie did much trouble the Church in the Apostles time and is at large confuted in the epistles of S. Paul to the Galatians and Colossians the same also in this epistle is conuinced and confounded for the Apostle renounceth the workes of the Law whether the ceremoniall and morall as hauing no part in the matter of iustification which he concludeth to be by faith without
oppressors of the people of God and therefore the vision which the Prophet receiued c. 2. was to Minister comfort againe the present afflictions of Gods Church Ans. It is the manner which the Lord obserueth in the visions and prophesies by occasion of temporall deliuerances to raise vp the mindes of his people to looke for their euerlasting deliuerer as Psal. 72. vnder the type of Salomon the kingdome of the Messiah is properly described and Dan. 9. the Prophet prayeth for the deliuerance of his people out of the captiuitie of Babel and he receiueth that prophesie of the 70. weekes concerning the Messiah who should deliuer them from their sinnes And so in this place the Prophet praying for the deliuerance of the people from their oppressors receiueth a vision concerning the Messiah in whom whosoeuer beleeueth shall liue for euer Pererius 5. Theodoret thinketh that this saying of the Prophet concerned not those times then present but was a prophesie of the times of Christ that then the iust by faith should liue so also Ireneus lib. 4. c. 67. But the Apostle otherwise applyeth it Galat. 3.11 that neither vnder the lawe nor vnder the Gospel any were iustified by the lawe but by saith for his words there are generall And that no man is iustified by the lawe in the sight of God it is euident for the iust shall liue by faith 6. Ambrose and so likewise Chrysostome because the word is put in the future tense shall liue doe vnderstand this not of this present life but of eternall life to come But it is euident that S. Paul Galat. 3.11 vnderstandeth this life of iustification and so the Apostle calleth iustification by faith the life of the soule Galat. 2.20 I liue by faith of the Sonne of God and the future tense with the Hebrewes indifferently is oftentimes put for the present yet the Apostle so vnderstandeth the present life of the soule by faith and grace as that he excludeth not the other sense concerning eternall life as he applyeth this sentence of the Prophet to the second comming of Christ Heb. 10.37 Tolet. 7. Now whereas Moses saith as S. Paul citeth him Rom. 10.5 The man that doth these things shall liue the Prophet may seeme to be contrarie vnto him saying the iust by faith shall liue but they are easily reconciled Moses speaketh of the iustice of the lawe which none could attaine vnto the Prophet of the iustice of the Gospel which the faithfull obtaine by faith in Christ Mart. 8. Thus the Apostle setteth downe the chiefe benefits which we haue by faith saluation v. 16. it is the power of God to saluation iustice or righteousnesse the iust by faith life shall liue Matyr Quest. 47. How the wrath of God is said to be reuealed from heauen against all vnrighteousnesse ver 18. 1. This clause is a probation of the former that there is no way whereby one is iustified before God but by faith which the Apostle prooueth by the contrarie because either by workes or faith must men he iustified but not by workes as he prooueth first in this chapter by particular induction in the Gentiles that their workes deserued nothing but Gods wrath and in the Iewes c. 2. This is the reason of the connexion of this verse with the former Beza Aretius Mart. And the causes why the Apostle thus beginneth to reprooue the Gentiles are these 1. S. Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles and therefore he first dealeth with them 2. because the qualitie and nature of faith and of the grace of God can not be well vnderstood vnlesse we first looke into our selues and consider the vilenesse of our owne workes 2. And because such is mans pride by nature vt opera sua maximifaciat that he setteth much by his owne workes therefore the Apostle doth first beginne to beat downe the pride of man 3. It is the manner of the Prophets and of our Blessed Sauiour in their prophesies and sermons to beginne with the Lawe and then to proceede to the promises of the Gospel Hyper. 2. By the wrath of God is signified declaratio irae Dei the declaration of the wrath of God Aretius there is in God no motion or perturbation as in man wrath according to the Hebrewe phrase is taken for reuenge or punishment Erasmus 3. Reuealed 1. three waies is the wrath of God reuealed against sinne 1. by the light of nature for euery mans conscience accuseth or excuseth him 2. by the Gospel which threateneth euerlasting punishment to the wicked and vnbeleeuers 3. and by daily experience which sheweth that God is angrie with the sinnes of the world Pareus 2. God doth by daily experience testifie his wrath against the vngodly of the world and euen at this time when the Apostle thus wrote the world was plagued with warre famine and other grieuous calamities for the contempt of the Gospel Gualter 3. but this revelation also may be applyed to the Gospel wherein is reuealed the wrath of God against sinners as Mat. 3. Iohn Baptist preached Now is the axe laid to the root of the tree and our Blessed Sauiour saith Luk. 13.3 vnlesse ye repent yee shall likewise perish 4. vnder the lawe also the wrath of God was declared against the vngodly as in the destruction of Sodome and of the Egyptians in the red Sea but the wrath of God did then onely shew it selfe in such externall and temporarie punishments But the gospel doth threaten euerlasting condemnation as Matth. 10.28 feare not them which kill the bodie but rather feare him who is able to destroy both bodie and soule in hell Perer. And the Law did onely in theft generally condemne all infidelitie but the Gospel in hypothesi in particular condemneth incredulitie and vnbeleefe in Christ Pareus And then it beeing a time of ignorance the iudgements of God though they were in the world yet were not marked and obserued but now they are euident to all men Aretius 4. From heauen 1. Ambrose expoundeth ipsos coelos demonstrare c. that the heauens doe declare the wrath of God against sinners and shall be their accusers who refused to worship God which made the heauens so sometime the Lord calleth the heauens and earth to be witnesses against men Isa. 2.1 Gryneus 2. Origen giueth this sense quia spirituales nequitiae in coelestibus sunt because the spirituall wickednesses that is the euill spirits are aboue in the celestiall places who are ministers of Gods iudgements vpon the wicked 3. Chrysostome Theophylact Oecumenius referre it to the reuelation of the last and finall iudgement from heauen at the second comming of Christ. 4. Caietan and gloss ordinar thus vnderstand it quia Euangelium de toelo est because the Gospel is from heauen wherein this wrath of God is reuealed 5. Some hereby vnderstand the vniuersalitie of Gods iudgements that they shall be vpon all men vnder heauen wheresoeuer they are Per. 6. Some referre it to the manifest appearance of Gods
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
owne righteousnesse which is of the lawe but that which is thorough the faith of Christ of these the Apostle speaketh here that in part doe themselues liue according to the lawe and shewe their faith by their fruits supplying that which is wanting in them by the obedience of Christ by faith 3. There are two kinds of iustification one is verily and indeede before God which is by faith in Christ Rom. 3.26 the other is in the opinion of men Luk. 16.15 Ye are they which iustifie your selues before men of the former the Apostle speaketh here Gryneus see further for the exposition of this place controv 7. following Quest. 27. How the Gentiles which had not the lawe did by nature the things contained in the lawe This place is diuersly expounded 1. Some doe here vnderstand the Gentiles converted to the faith of Christ which doe naturally the worke of the lawe that is to beleeue in Christ not that faith is naturall but because duce natura credunt they beleeue nature so guiding them and while they beleeue opus legis oftendunt they shewe the worke of the Lawe to this purpose Ambrose whose meaning seemeth to be this that the Gentiles which receiued the Gospel were mooued by the light of nature seeing the great miracles which Christ did to acknowledge him to be the Messiah But 1. this is an improper speech to say that to beleeue is to doe the things of the lawe neither is faith a worke of the lawe for then he that is iustified by faith might be said to be iustified by the lawe which the Apostle euerie where opposeth and setteth one against the other and faith is called the work of God not of the lawe as Ioh. 6.29 This is the worke of God that ye beleeue c. 2. Neither by the light of nature can any come to beleeue but he hath neede of speciall illumination Iohn 6.44 No man can come vnto me except my father drawe him 2. Augustine likewise lib. de spirit liter c. 26. vnderstandeth this place of the Gentiles conuerted to the faith of Christ and so also lib. 4. con Iuli. c. 3. And thus he seemeth to prooue it because afterward v. 26. he saith If circumcision keepe the ordinances of the lawe shall not his vncircumcision be counted for circumcision here the Apostle speaketh of a Gentile conuerted for otherwise how could he keepe the lawe and it is like that in all these places the Apostle speaketh of the same kind of Gentiles and they are said naturally to doe the things of the lawe quia vt crederint ipsa in eis per Christi gratiam sanata est natura because that they might beleeue their nature was healed by grace to this purpose Augustine But this exposition may be thus obiected against 1. though it be admitted that afterward the Apostle speaketh of a Gentile conuerted to the faith it followeth not that he should so meane here for in this place the Apostle maketh mention of such Gentiles as had no other direction but the lawe of nature and their conscience and so are said to sinne without the law but in the other place he compareth with the Iewes such vncircumcised Gentiles which kept the ordinances of the lawe and had the true circumcision of the heart which they could not attaine vnto by the light of nature And so Origen though before he vnderstand the vnbeleeuing Gentiles qu. 21. yet there he thinketh the Apostle to meane the Gentiles conuerted see qu. 43. following Some thinke that the Apostle is there to be vnderstood to speake by way of supposition if circumcision keepe the ordinances of the lawe not that it did but if it did Calvin but it is there better referred to the conuerted Gentile O siand see afterward question 43. 2. If to doe by nature the things of the law were to doe it by nature illuminated by grace and faith then were there no difference here betweene Iewe and Gentile for the Iewe also did so keepe the lawe 3. and whereas it is said they hauing not the law he sheweth that they haue no other helpe but the lawe of nature whereas the conuerted Gentiles did such things by the instinct of grace and faith rather then by the light of nature 4. And whereas Augustine thus obiecteth that if it be the lawe of nature which is written in their hearts the Gospel should haue no priuiledge more then the lawe which the Lord is said to write in their hearts Ierem. 31.33 It may be answeared that the one is written in the heart ratione luminis naturalis by the meanes of the naturall light the other is written ratione luminis fidei by the light of faith and by the first naturall onely and morall duties are imprinted in the heart by the other beside these all other mysticall points of religion which nature cannot bring one vnto without faith this is the priuiledge then of the Gospel more then the lawe of nature hath Tolet. And Ieremie speaketh there of a supernaturall inscription and writing in the heart by grace the Apostle here of the naturall Pareus dub 14. 3. Some doe take the Gentiles here to be vnderstood not conuerted to the Gospell but such as liued before the times of the Gospel but beside the light of nature had auxilium diuinae gratiae the helpe of Gods grace whereby they kept the morall precepts of the lawe Thus Thomas interpreteth and Vega lib. 6. super decret concil Tridentin c. 21. so also Tolet that they did the workes of the lawe non quidem sine fide gratia but not without faith and grace annot 25. But this opinion is confuted by Medina lib. 4. de certa fide c. 7. and Pererius disput 8. numer 61. and it may be further refelled thus 1. If that were S. Pauls meaning that the Gentiles by their naturall light helped by faith did keepe the lawe they should not in this behalfe differ from the Iewes who did keepe the lawe by the same meanes also the light of nature assisted by grace 2. the Apostle saith they hauing not the lawe are a lawe to themselues but they which are ayded by grace are not a lawe to themselues they are guided and directed by grace 4. Some here vnderstand such among the Gentiles as had the true knowledge of God such were Melchisedeck Iob the Niniuites Cornelius Chrysost. Faius But these were not many among the Gentiles the Apostle seemeth to speake more generally of a great number among the Gentiles 5. Some thinke that the Gentiles by the light of nature though they beleeued not in God might doe workes of the lawe worthie of reward to this purpose Origen whose opinion is before confuted qu. 21. Lyranus seemeth also to incline hereunto obseruatio legis naturalis cum fide cultu vnius Dei ad quod inducit ratio naturalis aliquo modo sufficit c. the naturall obseruation of the lawe with the faith and worship of one God to
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
holy men are reported to haue beene iust in their time 1. Origen thinketh that whereas the Scripture saith in thy sight shall no man liuing be iustified it is spoken by way of comparison that none compared to God are iust and so Lyranus thinketh it is vnderstood de iustitia perfecta of perfect righteousnes there may be iustitia politica a politike and ciuill iustice in liuing according to the rule of nature and iustâ—â—â—â— legalis a legall iustice in keeping Moses ordinances but no perfect iustice Contra. If this were the meaning then they which are iustified by faith in Christ should be here also included for they beeing compared to Gods perfect and exact iustice can not be said to be iust but the Apostle speaketh not of faith he sheweth onely what men are by nature 2. And by the same reason doe we also reiect an other interpretation of Origen that no man liuiâ—â— here is iustified before God that is in this life none can be pronounced to be iust But although in the next world our iustice shall be perfected yet it is begun here otherwise wâ— should neuer come there 3. Chrysostome vnderstandeth this to be spoken onely of the Iewes which are noted of three things 1. that they all had transgressed 2. they onely committed euill and wrought no good 3. they did it with all vehemencic and endeauour so also Anselme thinketh that Paul speaketh of the Iewes 4. Some vnderstand contrariwise onely the Gentiles and vncircumcised Greeke schol and Theodoret thinketh that Psal. 14. there is speciall reference to the rayling of Rabsacah which is declared Isa. 36. But the words of the Prophet are generall and he intendeth by this Scripture to prooue that all both Iew and Gentile were vnder sinne 5. Ambrose and Augustine thinke that these words are vttered onely of the euill and wicked sort not of the righteous so also glosse ordinar But the Apostle generally concludeth of all that they are vnder sinne and that they had neede of the grace of God 6. Pererius mentioneth an other exposition that some would haue it vnderstood of veniall that is the smaller offences which no man liueth without but euery one is subiect vnto But the Apostle reckoneth vp afterwards many grieuous sinnes as their throat is an open sepulchre their feete are swift to shed blood c. these were not small offences but most grieuous and grosse sinnes 7. Pererius thinketh that this is spoken by an hyperbole none are saide to be iust that is the most so that a few onely are excepted 8. But the Apostle vnderstandeth vniuersally all men that there is none iust as afterward he concludeth v. 19. that all the world be culpable before God and whereas some men are called and counted righteous that is ex gratia by grace but yet by nature all both Iewes and Gentiles are sinners that they can not by their owne works be iustified but onely by grace and faith in Christ. Faius Tolet. annot 10. 9. Origen here maketh a question how it could be saide that there was none neither among the Iewes nor Gentiles that did any good seeing there were many among them which did cloath the naked feede the hungrie and did other good things he hereunto maketh this answer that like as one that laieth a foundation and buildeth vpon it a wall or two yet can not be saide to haue built an house till he haue finished it so although those might doe some good things yet they attained not vnto perfect goodnes which was onely to be found in Christ. But this is not the Apostles meaning onely to exclude men from the perfection of iustice for euen the faithfull beleeuers were short of that perfection which is required he therefore sheweth what men are by nature all vnder sinne and in the state of damnation without grace and faith in Christ if any performe any good worke either it is of grace and so not of themselues or if they did it by the light of nature they did it not as they ought and so it was farre from a good worke in deede Perer. num 37. Tolet. annot 10. 19. Quest. Of the particular explication of the sinnes wherewith the Apostle here chargeth both Iewes and Gentiles v. 10. There is none righteous in the Psalme it is there is none that doth good but the sense is the same for he that is righteous doth that which is good he that doth not good is not iust or righteous so he proueth the antecedent by the consequent No not one though this be not in that place of the Psalme according to the Hebrew it is added for a more full explanation to shew that none are excluded some vnderstand this of iustification by faith in Christ there was none which beleeued in him gloss interlin Gorrhan but the Apostle sheweth what euery one was by nature otherwise there were alwaies some in the world to whome the Lord gaue faith and beleefe in him v. 11. There is none that vnderstandeth the Apostle here omitteth some words of the Psalme for there it is set downe affirmatiuely the Lord looked downe from heauen whether any would vnderstand but S. Paul keeping the sense Beza expresseth it by a negation Pareus The Apostle condemneth them all of ignorance which is the mother of prophannes Tolet vnderstandeth this peculiarly of the Gentiles who were idolaters and had not the right knowledge of God some doe specially refer it to their ignorance concerning Christ that they did not know him to be God gloss interlin Gorrhan But it is more generall they had no knowledge of God at all no true and effectuall knowledge which might bring them to the seruice and obedience of God Mart. There is none that seeketh God This Tolet specially vnderstandeth of the Iewes who though they knew God yet they did not seeke him to liue according to his commandement but it is more generall comprehending both Iewes and Gentiles some haue particular reference to Christ that they did not seeke to know him whome they might haue found out to be God by his miraculous workes gloss interl But the Apostle comprehendeth more times then that onely wherein Christ liued Lyranus hath here a corrupt glosse they did not seeke God per opera meritoria by the merit of their works but so God shall neuer be fouÌ„d the prophannes then of men in general is here set forth that had no care to seeke vnto God and to depend vpon him but they were addicted to themselues and their owne lusts conforming themselues vnto this present world Rom. 12.2 Gryneus v. 12. They haue all gone out of the way They fell away beeing destitute of grace from the way which leadeth vnto life vnto the broad way that bringeth vnto euerlasting destruction Gryneus and they became vnprofitable beeing cut off from God as the branch from the vine they could bring forth no fruit Tolet. the Hebrew word signifieth to rot and corrupt so they became as rotten and
taketh this iustice to be Christ rather it signifieth the iustice or righteousnesse which is by faith to Christ so called both because of the efficient cause thereof namely God who worketh it in vs and in regard of the effect because it onely is able to stand before God Calvin 2. Without the Lawe 1. Origen here vnderstandeth the lawe of nature and giueth thiâ— exposition ad iustitiam Dei cognoscendam nihil opitulabatur lex naturae the law of nature did helpe nothing at all to the knowledge of the iustice of God but it was manifested by the written lawe of Moses but the Apostle excludeth not here the written lawe for them it were no consequent speach vnto the former where the Apostle denied iustification vnto all workes of the lawe in generall the same lawe then must be here vnderstood which he treated before that is generally both the naturall and written law 2. Augustine ioyneth this word without the lawe not vnto manifested but vnto righteousnesse so the righteousnesse without the lawe he expoundeth sine adminiculo legis without the helpe of the law lib. de spirit liter c. 9. but this sense first Beza confuteth by the order and placing of the words which stand thus without the lawe is righteousnesse made manifest not righteousnes without the lawe as S. Iames saith faith without works is dead not without works faith is dead for in this transposing of the words the sense is much altered Tolet addeth this reason that righteousnesse without the lawe that is the workes of the lawe was knowne euen vnto the faithfull vnder the lawe therefore the words without the lawe must be ioyned rather vnto manifested then to righteousnesse 3. But yet Tolet is here deceiued for he thus interpreteth absque lege without the lawe that is cossante lege the lawe ceasing and beeing abrogate the Euangelicall faith was manifested for although the workes of the morall law are commanded in the Gospel yet they bind not by reason of the legall bond or obligation but by vertue and force of newe institution thereof by Christ But our Sauiour faith directly that he came not to destroy the lawe and the Prophets Matth. 5.17 but if the morall lawe were first abrogated though it were againe reuiued by Christ it must first be dissolued 4. Ambrose well referreth without the lawe to manifested but he seemeth to restraine it to the lawe of ceremonies sine lege apparuit sed sine lege sabbati circumcisionis it appeared without the lawe but without the lawe of the Sabboth and circumcision and newe Moone c. But in all this disputation the Apostle chiefely entreateth of the morall lawe by the which specially came the knowledge of sinne 5. some referre this to the manifestation of the Gospel by the preaching of the Apostles when the Gentiles were called which had no knowledge of the lawe Mart. and many also among the Iewes which though they had not the lawe yet cared not for it as they say Ioh. 7.48 Doth any of the rulers or Pharisies beleeue in him but this people which knoweth not the lawe Gorrhan â—â— they vnderstand without the lawe that is without the knowledge of the lawe But the Apostle speaketh of that iustice which was manifested both to the Gentiles and the Iewes which had yet the knowledge of the lawe 6. Gryneus whereas the Apostle saith first that righteousnesse is reuealed without the lawe and yet immediately after he saith hauing witnesse of the law and the Prophets would reconcile them thus vnderstanding lawe in the first place of the letter of the lawe which doth not set forth the iustice of God by faith and in the other place the spirituall sense of the lawe 7. But the meaning rather of the Apostle is this that it is not the office of the lawe to teach faith and that beside the lawe there is an other doctrine in the Church concerning faith which doctrine of saluation and iustice by faith neither the naturall nor morall lawe can teach and though in the time of the lawe this doctrine of faith was taught the faithfull yet the knowledge thereof came not by the lawe And for the full reconciling here of the Apostle to himselfe three things are to be considered 1. that in the first place the lawe is vnderstood strictly for the doctrine of the morall lawe whether written or naturall which doth not properly teach faith in Christ afterward the lawe is taken for the bookâ— of Moses wherein many Euangelicall promises are contained beside the legall precepâ—â— Beza annot â—2 The lawe doth properly vrge workes it doth not professedly teach faith and yet it excludeth it not Pareus but accidentally it bringeth vs to Christ as forcing vs when we see our disease to seeke for a remedie 3. this doctrine of faith was manifested without the lawe that is more clearely taught and preached at the comming of Christ yet it was knowne vnto Moses and the Prophets though more obscurely for in that it is said to be manifested nor made or created it sheweth that it was before though not so manifest Perer. disput â—0 Faius So then those words but now doe both note the diuersitie of time and they are aduersatiue particulars shewing that our iustice is not reuealed in the lawe but otherwise and els where Quest. 27. How the righteousnesse of faith had witnesse of the lawe and the Prophets Fowre wayes are the law and Prophets found to beare witnesse and testimonie vnto the Gospell of faith 1. by the euident prophesies of Christ as our blessed Sauiour saith Ioh. 5.46 Moses wrote of me and S. Paul said before c. 2. Which he had promised before by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures and S. Peter saith Act. 10.43 To him also giue all the Prophets witnesse such euident testimonies out of the lawe and Prophets are these which are cited by the Apostles as that Rom. 10.6 The righteousnesse of faith speaketh on this wise say not in thy heart who shall ascend into heauen that is to bring Christ from aboue c. so the Apostle citeth an euident testimonie out of the 31. of Ieremie Hebr. 8.8 how the Lord would make a newe testament with the house of Iuda and many such testimonies in the newe Testament are taken out of the old 2. A second kind of testimonie were the types and figures which went before in the old Testament as the Paschal lambe the Manna the rocke the cloud did shadow forth Christ likewise some acts of the Patriarkes and Prophets did prefigure out Christ as Abrahams sacrificing of Isaac Salomons building of the Temple Ionas beeing in the bellie of the whale with such like 3. The sacrifices and oblations and the blood of rammes and goates did signifie the vnspotted lambe of God that should be slaine for the sinnes of the world Mart. 4. The lawe also by the effect thereof did beare witnesse vnto Christ as Augustine saith lex hoc ipso quod iubendo minando
106.31 the phrase is put with a preposition litzedakah it was imputed to him for righteousnes so that beside the identitie of the phrase there is no difference to say it was imputed vnto him for righteousnes or as righteousnes this reading of the Apostle is warranted by that other place in the Psalme 4. S. Paul with the Septuagint read he beleeued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God but in the Hebrew it is Iâ—iehovah in God Augustines distinction therefore doth not alwaies hold that it is one thing Deo credere to beleeue God an other in Deum credere to beleeue in God Mart. for these two both in the Hebrew and Greeke phrase are taken for the same though in the Latin tongue there is a difference 5. Quest. Of the meaning of the words Who counted this for righteousnes vnto Abraham 1. Some of the Hebrewes peruerting that place Gen. 15.6 doe vnderstand it of Abraham that he imputed this faith vnto himselfe for righteousnes but beside that it is a very improper and vnfit thing that a man should impute vnto himselfe his owne righteousnes the Apostle taketh away this doubt v. 9. weere he saith was imputed to Abraham he could not be both the imputer and the person also to whome the thing is imputed 2. And as vnreasonable is their glosse who vnderstand an other third person not expressed that the world imputed it to Abraham that is held him for that cause to be a righteous man ex Beza annot for how should the world be here vnderstood whereof there was no mention before the words then doe easily demonstrate who it was that imputed it namely he in whome Abraham beleeued he beleeued God and he that is God counted it vnto him for righteousnes 3. Tertullian lib. de patient doth read it in the passiue and referreth it vnto Abraham iustitiae deputatus est he was deputed for righteous whereas the Apostle doth not speake of the imputation of his person but of his faith as he saith v. 9. faith was imputed to Abraham 6. Quest. What it was that Abraham beleeued The Apostle may seeme vnfitly to alleadge that place of Abrahams faith which was onely concerning the promise of multiplying his seede which kind of beleefe is of an other nature then iustification by faith to this obiection diuers answers are made 1. Pererius here hath one answer that S. Paul speaketh not of the first iustification of Abraham when of a sinner he became righteous but of his second iustification which was an encreasing of the first and this is done per quemlibet actum meritorium by any meritorious act so that to beleeue any promise of God by such a faith informed by charitie is meritorious of a further degree of iustice But beside other errors which are here couched together as of the first and second iustice that charitie is the forme of faith that we are iustified by the merit of faith all which are before confuted in the controversies of the former chapter I doe here oppose against Pererius one of his owne order namely Tolet. annot 5. who directly prooueth that S. Paul speaketh of Abrahams first iustification which he prooueth by that place Iam. 2.25 that when Abrahams faith was imputed to him for righteousnes he was called the friend of God now saith he secunda iustitia non amicum sed gratiorem amicum fecit the second iustice doth not make one Gods friend for he was Gods friend before when he was first iustified but it maketh him a better and more acceptable friend 2. Peter Martyr hath here two answers 1. he that spake here vnto Abraham was Christ and therefore in beleeuing God he beleeued Christ and so this saith was imputed vnto him for righteousnes 2. all the promises of God were grounded vpon the mercie and goodnes of God and the mercie of God is grounded on Christ the Patriarkes then though it were but a temporall promise which was made yet in beleeuing of it did repose their trust vpon Gods mercie in Christ but both these answers are vnsufficient for they shew not directly that Abraham was iustified by faith but onely by a certaine consequence 3. Therefore the best answer is that Abraham in this multiplying of his seede did vnderstand Christ for his faith had respect not onely vnto this promise of the multiplying of his seede as the starres of heauen Gen. 15.5 but to the other promises before going as that in his seede all the families of the earth should be blessed Gen. 12. And that in these promises the Messiah is vnderstood thus it may appeare 1. because so S. Paul expoundeth seede of Christ Gal. 3. and the Hebrews also doe vnderstand this seede wherein all the families of the earth shall be blessed of Christ. 2. this multiplying of Abrahams seede as the sand of the sea or starres of heauen was not fulfilled in the carnall seede of Abraham which contained it selfe within the compasse of Canaan but it was accomplished in the spirituall seede of Abraham in the conuersion of the Gentiles to the faith of Christ. 3. neither could that blessing of all the families of the earth be vnderstood of any carnall blessing but of the spirituall benediction of the Gentiles conuerted to the faith of Christ as it is said Isa. 53.11 My righteous seruant by his knowledge shall iustifie many 4. yea in that they are promised to be as the starres of heauen that is shall haue celestiall glorie this promise the seede of Abraham could not attaine vnto but by Christ the king of glorie Psal. 24.8 5. our blessed Sauiour saith that Abraham was glad to see his day he saw it and reioyced which sheweth that he had an euident knowledge and expresse faith of Christ. Pareus Perer. 4. But Stapleton in Antidot denieth that this faith of Abraham was a speciall faith of the remission of sinnes but onely the Catholike faith which is to assent vnto euery word of God Contra. 1. If Abraham did assent vnto the word of God then also to this word concerning the remission of sinnes in Christ vnlesse they will denie that Abraham had any word at all for the remission of his sinnes whereupon then arised that his singular ioy in Christ for wherein can a man ioy then in the remission of his sinnes and consequently that his name is written in heauen Luk. 10.20 2. If they hold the hope and assurance of remission of sinnes to be no part of the Catholike faith as indeede the Papists doe not make it let them keepe such Catholike faith to themselues we will none of it what comfort can one haue in that faith which can not assure him of Gods fauour and of the remission of his sinnes 7. Quest. Why Abrahams faith was imputed vnto him at this time and not before Although Moses then first maketh mention of Abrahams iustification by faith Gen. 15.6 yet it hath relation to all other acts of his faith going before for it was an act of faith that
predestinated he also called 2. it betokeneth the profession of Christianitie as the Apostle exhorteth Ephes. 4. that they should walke worthie of their calling 3. it signifieth to bid command a thing to be which was not as Psal. 105. God is said to haue called for a famine vpon the whole land 4. it is vsed for the distinct and exact knowledge of God as Psal. 147. he numbreth the starres and calleth them all by their names so the Lord saith to Moses I haue called thee by name But here it is taken the third way the Lord calleth things that are not as though they were that is causeth them to be Perer. 2. Concerning the meaning of these words 1. Origen Haymo Anselmus doe vnderstand this to be spoken of the Gentiles which in respect of their infidelitie were no people before as c. 9.25 the Apostle in this sense alleadgeth out of the Prophet Hosea I will calâ— them my people which are not my people to the same purpose Lyranus with the interlinearie glosse I will call the things which are not that is the Gentiles which are of no reputation and make them as the things that are that is as the Iewes But as yet the Iewes were not a constituted people Abraham had at this time no seede at all and therefore they were no more a people then the Gentiles 2. Ambrose likewise vnderstandeth here the Gentiles but in an other respect they were not of the seede of Abraham and yet they should be counted his children as though they were of his seede But the Apostle speaketh here of all Abrahams seede that he beleeued he should be the father of many nations not onely of the Gentiles but the Iewes also 3. So likewise Beza in his annot and Bucer in his commentarie do distinguish these two clauses that the first which quickeneth the dead should be vnderstood of the circumcised Iewes which came out of Abrahams loynes beeing in a manner dead the other which calleth things that are not c. of the Gentiles that of no people were made a people like as Iohn Baptist said that God out of the verie stones was able to raise vp children to Abraham But we refuse this also vpon the former reason because the Apostle speaketh here of the whole posteritie of Abraham whether Iewes or Gentiles he as yet hauing 〈◊〉 feede at all and therefore it could not be distinguished 4. The ordinarie glosse hath reference here to Gods election elegit qui non sunt he elected those which as yet were not they were not yet to whom the promise was made sed quibus promissum est ipsâ— promissi sunt but they are also promised to whom the promise is made But the Apostle speaketh not here of Gods election which was before all time but of a promise made vnto Abraham in time which he beleeued that he should be the father of many nations 5. It remaineth then that the Apostle here hath reference vnto the creation of the world when all things were made of nothing which is described by the name of calling vt maiorem eius rei facilitatem in Deo declaret to shewe the greater facilitie and easines of this worke in God with whom it is as easie to make a thing to be as for vs to name or call it thus Chrysostome Faius But this faith of Abraham concerning Gods creating power hath here a speciall accoÌ„modation that as God was able to make the things that are of nothing so Abraham doubted not but that God was able to giue vnto him a feede as the starres of heauen in multitude he yet hauing no feede at all this I take to be the true meaning Quest. 31. Whether it be peculiar to God onely to quicken and raise the dead 1. It will be here obiected that this seemeth not to be peculiar vnto God to quicken the dead seeing not onely Prophets and Apostles haue raised the dead but the Pythonisse also called vp Samuel and in forren histories Aesculapius is reported to haue by medicine reviued two Capaneus and Lycurgus and Polyitus raised Glaucus Minoes sonne and Draco raised an other Draco Apollodor biblioth lib. 3. p. 134. Answ. 1. This power of quickning the dead is peculiar vnto God for as he was the first author and Creator of life so he onely is able to restore life the Scripture saith Ioh. 5.26 as the father hath life in himselfe so he hath giuen to the Sonne to haue life in himselfe this power then to giue and communicate life vnto others is onely in him that is the fountaine of life that hath life in himselfe 2. The Apostles and Prophets indeede verily raised vp the dead yet not in their owne power but by the vertue and power of Christ as Peter saith Act. 3.12 Why looke ye on vs â—â— though by our owne power or godlinesse we had made this man goe 3. Concerning those forren reports they are either to be held meere fables or els illusions of Sathan as that was of the appearing of Samuel which was not the Prophet in his owne person but the deuill in his likenes Pareus dub 7. Quest. 32. How Abraham is said against hope to haue beleeued vnder hope 1. Faius will not haue the preprosition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be intepreted contra against but praeter beside for faith though it be saith he aboue nature yet it is not against nature but for an olde man to beget a child of an old woman after childbearing it was against the ordinarie course of nature 2. Some read aboue hope Geneuens the sense is good for Abrahams hope was from beyond the expectation of nature but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not properly beare that interpretation 3. The Syrian interpreter readeth absque spe without hope but not so properly for Abraham though he sawe no likelihood in nature of feede yet was not without hope 4. They which read contra spem against hope 1. Some haue reference vnto his former hope which he had of children when as yet he was young and his wife young also this hope of hauing a child both of them beeing old was contrarie to that hope gloss ordinar 2. Origen distinguisheth the times that whereas Abraham had no hope of any issue thus complaining vnto God Genes 15.2 behold I got childlesse yet afterward vpon Gods promise he conceiued hope 3. but rather the diuerse kinds or obiects of this hope are to be distinguished then the times for Abraham at one and the same time against hope beleeued vnder hope as Chrysostome expoundeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beside or against hope contra spem naturae in spem gratia against all hope of nature he beleeued vnder the hope of grace and of the power of God Haymo Lyran. 5. Hence then appeareth the greatnesse of Abrahams faith 1. both by the nature thereof which was against reason and the vsuall and ordinarie course 2. and by the difficultie of the thing promised to be
compared to the beasts that perish Psal. 49.12 but in Christ we are made like vnto the Angels In these and other points is our state more perfect in Christ then it should haue beene in Adam if he had not sinned Quest. 37. In what sense the grace of God is said to haue abounded vnto more v. 15. The vulgar Latine giueth occasion of this question which in the first clause readeth multi many be dead thorough the offence of one but in the second he saith grace in plures abundavit hath abounded vnto more and this reading seemeth Origen to follow Here then many doe busie themselues to shewe how grace in Christ hath abounded vnto more then sinne in Adam 1. Origen saith that they are said to be more because Adam himselfe from whom the death of sinne was deriued vnto others additur numero eorum c. is added to the number of them which haue receiued grace in Christ But this is too curious neither agreeable to the Apostles meaning for seeing the comparison is instituted betweene Adam and Christ though Adam indeede were saued by Christ yet each of these Adam and Christ with their ofspring must be considered here as in themselues neither can the adding of one to this number make them more which haue obtained grace in Christ then them which are lost in Adam 2. Some by those many which are dead in Adam vnderstand onely those which sinned by imitating of Adam that is commit actuall sinnes and so they reade the former verse affirmatiuely Death raigned ouer those which sinned after the like manner of the transgression of Adam and then the grace of Christ aboundeth vnto more euen vnto infants that sinned not in like manner as Adam did that is actually thus Ambros. gloss ordinar Gorrhan But in this sense infants should be out of the number of those that are dead in Adam whereas the Apostle saith in whom all haue sinned yea infants and all sinned in Adam 3. Pererius hath this quaint obseruation that there may be found of Adam carnally propagated and yet not infected with his sinne as the Blessed Virgin Marie yet none can be found spiritually regenerate but by the grace of Christ But this conceit of his is against the Apostle who saith that in Adam all sinned and Origen thus collecteth videsne vt à peccato nullum Paulus excuset see you not how the Apostle excuseth none from sinne If all haue sinned in Adam then cannot the Virgin Marie be exempted from originall sinne 4. Pererius hath an other conceit that the grace of Christ is said to haue abounded vnto more because that if God should create a newe kind of men not of Adam they should stand in neede of the grace of Christ and yet they not comming of Adam could not be infected with his sinne Perer. disput 10. But S. Paul speaketh not of a possibilitie of supposall how grace might abound vnto more but of the actuall and reall abounding of grace vnto many in Christ and if there were a newe creation of men they should be created in a perfect estate as Adam was before his fall and so should not keeping of that state haue neede of a redeemer in that behalfe 5. But this is a needelesse question seeing that in the originall in both places the Apostle vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 multi many not in the comparatiue plures more therefore this question is impertinent how the grace of Christ is said to haue abounded vnto more Neither doth the Apostle giue vnto the grace of Christ the preheminence in respect of the number but of the more powerfull effect as is shewed before quest 35. 6. Haymo in both places vnderstandeth the elect they are the many which are dead in Adam temporally and they are the many vnto whom grace hath much more abounded because in Adam onely they are infected with originall sinne in Christ both originall and actuall are pardoned But those whom the Apostle here calleth many ver 18. he expresseth to be all he meaneth then all mankind in generall which die in Adam Quest. 38. How all men are said to be iustified in Christ v. 18. 1. Huberus therein ioyning the right hand of fellowship with the old Pelagians hence would prooue the Vniuersalitie of grace that all in Christ are absolutely iustified as in Adam all die But then it would followe by the force of the Apostles comparison that all should verily be saued in Christ as they are by nature sinners in Adam see the confutation of this error at large among the controuersies 2. Some vnderstand this of the sufficiencie of iustification by Christ that it is sufficient for all if they had grace to receiue it Lyran. But the Apostle speaketh not of a possibilitie of iustification but of an actuall collation of this benefit as Adams sinne really and actually is transfused to his posteritie 3. Tolet vnderstandeth generally all men whosoeuer and by the iustification of life he would haue signified the resurrection which shall be of all men in generall both good and bad as all men are subiect to death in Adam both good and bad But the Apostle before v. 17. called that raigning in life which here he nameth the iustification of life but the wicked that rise againe shall not raigne in life therefore they are not partakers of the iustification of life 4. Haymo better vnderstandeth here the vniuersalitie of the elect omnes electos praedestinatos ad vitam all that are elect and predestinate vnto life that as Adam infected all his posteritie carnally descending of him so Christ iustifieth all which beleeue in him to the same purpose Augustine vnderstandeth omnes viuificandos all that are to be quickened and made aliue because none are iustified but in Christ lib. 6. cont Iulian. c. 12. so the interlinearie glosse vnderstandeth omnes sui all that are Christs all are iustified qui sunt Christi which are Christs Pareus Quest. 39. Why the Apostle saith v. 19. By one mans disobedience many were made sinners and not all 1. Origen by sinnes here vnderstandeth those which continue in a custome of sinne a righteous man may sinne but he therefore cannot be called a sinner and so not all borne of Adam but many are said to be sinners to the same purpose Tolet annot 25. But the Apostle speaketh here of Adams disobedience whereby many were sinners which is deriued by propagation and learned by imitation therefore he speaketh generally of all that sinned in Adam and not onely of some speciall sinners 2. Theodoret thinketh the Apostle nameth many because all did not continue in Adams sinne but some permanserunt in decretis naturae c. did remaine in the decree of nature and followed vertue as Abel Henoch Noe c. But euen those also were borne in sinne as the Apostle said before v. 12. that all sinned in Adam and they were sinners by nature though regenerate by Christ. 3. Tolet thinketh the Apostle hath
shew in his vocation and calling both toward God and our neighbour so Haymo velox ad omne opus bonum swift to euery good worke this sense follow Martyr here is forbidden tarditas inadeundis muneribus slacknes in doing our dutie so also Osiander Pareus 19. Quest. The duties and properties of our loue toward God v. 11. Feruent in spirit 1. some vnderstand by the spirit charitie kindled in the heart by the spirit Tolet Faius and so interpret it of the duties of loue toward our brethren but zeale and feruencie of spirit especially is seene in matters toward God his glorie and honour is the obiect of our zeale and feruencie of spirit 2. Lyranus by spirit vnderstandeth the minde and affection but referreth it to the former precepts of loue toward our brethren 3. Origen interpreteth spirit to be the holy spirit of God we which liue sub lege spiritus vnder the law of the spirit and referreth it wholly vnto our dutie toward God in fervore spiritus calore fidei cuncta peragamus let vs doe all by the feruencie of the spirit and heat of faith 4. Basil maketh the obiect also of this feruencie to be the doing of the will of God but by the feruencie of spirit he vnderstandeth ardens studium an ardent desire and continuall diligence to doe the will of God in the loue of Christ regul brev resp 259. 5. But whereas the spirit may be taken both waies for the holy spirit and for the minde of man Peter Martyr thinketh that both here may be vnderstood so also Oleviane si spiritus Dei zelum in cordibus accenderit if the spirit of God doe kindle zeale in our hearts and that is Chrysostomes meaning when he saith si vtramque hanc flammam adeptus fueris if thou hast obtained both these flames c. that is the spirit of God inflaming the soule with charitie Seruing the Lord because there is great affinitie betweene these two words in the Greeke tongue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 time and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord there are which preferre the first reading 1. Ambrose giueth this sense that men should applie themselues wisely to the time and not â—ashly and vnaduisedly without due respect of time and place euery where and vpon euery occasion to vtter our conscience thus Paul serued the time when he circvmcised Timothie but Titus he would not be induced to circumcise and Ambrose giueth this reason why he misliketh the former reading because hauing deliuered so many precepts before wherein God is serued it had beene superfluous for the Apostle to adde this But Tolet taketh away this reason because in those daies of persecution it was necessarie to exhort the brethren to cleaue vnto God and to professe his worship notwithstanding trouble and persecution this sense of Ambrose followeth Calvin that they must accommodare se tempori accommodate themselues to the time and Pellican sciat se attemperare omnibus horâ—s euery one must know how to temper himselfe for euery season so also Gualter who expoundeth this place by that Eccles. 3. 1. that there is a time for all things 2. Some following the same reading expound it of the occasion and opportunitie that we ought to take to doe good Martyr 3. Erasmus also giueth this sense that we must beare patiently si quid pro tempore acciderit incommodi if any thing fall out for the time incommodiously 4. Origen hath an other interpretation that because the time is short they that haue should be as though they had not as the Apostle saith in the same sense Eph. 5. redeeming the time because the daies are euill But Beza giueth this reason why this reading can not be receiued at all because no such phrase is found in the Scripture to serue the time in any such sense temporizers and time-seruers rather are reprooued in Scripture then commanded The other reading then is the better which Chrysostome Theophylact Haymo follow the Syrian interpreter Hierome epist. ad Marceâ— Lyranus Beza Tolet Olevian Faius Pareus with others And according to this reading 1. Chrysostome maketh this to depend vpon the former precepts because what is done toward our brother redoundeth to God and he will reward it 2. Pareus thinketh it concerneth the masters and Lords of the world that they should consider that they haue also a Lord in heauen but this is too particular 3. Haymo maketh it an absolute precept that we should serue the Lord not be seruants to vice or our owne pleasure 4. Gryneus thinketh this sentence containeth an opposition betweene the seruice of the Gentiles which was yeelded vnto idols and the seruice of Christians which must be giuen vnto God 5. Faius taketh it to containe a secret reason why we should serue God because he is our Lord and to the Lord belongeth seruice 6. Tolet thinketh that the Apostle had relation to those times when the Christian saith was persecutoribus exposita exposed to persecution and therefore the Apostle exhorteth to the seruice of God and franke profession thereof notwithstanding those troubles 7. But I approoue rather Beza his collection which thinketh this is added to the former precepts of Christian charitie vt à monitis Philosophorum distinguantur to distinguish them from the precepts of Philosophers c. the ende whereof was vaine-glorie but these duties must be performed by Christians to the glorie of God so Pareus in omnibus Dei gloriam spectemus we should in euery thing looke vnto Gods glorie so Lyranus hoc fiat principaliter propter Deum this should be done principally for God 20. Quest. Of the remedies against the calamities of this life namely hope patience prayer v. 12. Reioycing in hope 1. Chrysostome taketh this to be added by the Apostle as an encouragement to all the former duties namely the expectation of the reward spes ad omnia audentem facit hope maketh one bold to all things Gorrhan followeth this sense 2. Lyranus maketh the coherence with the former precept of seruing God because his seruice bringeth a reward with it so also Tolet spes confirmat animas in obsequia Dei hope confirmeth the minde in the obedience of God 3. Hugo hath particular relation vnto the precept of louing our enemies which none can doe without hope of reward but that precept followeth afterward v. 14. 4. But I consent rather vnto them which take this aphorisâ—â—â— of the Apostle to be de remedijs calamitatum of the remedies against calamities which are these three following hope patience prayer Pareus so also Oleviane thinketh that the Apostle here sheweth quomodo superare debâ—amus obstacula how we should ouercome the obstacles and impediments In hope Hope is nothing els but a grace and facultie wrought in the minde by the holy Ghost whereby we hope in due time for the accomplishment of that saluation now begun which we are assured of by faith where in the nature of hope we consider the obiect of hope then the
vnsound opinion 1. Bellarmine thus reasoneth that the Apostles did reach the Church at the first without Scriptures therefore they are not simply necessarie but onely for the greater profit of the Church like as an horse is necessarie for ones iourney for his more speedie trauaile but not simply necessarie because he may go a foot Bellar. l. 4. de verb. c. 4. Contra. 1. True it is that the writing of the Scriptures are not simply necessarie in respect of God for he by his absolute power could find a way to teach his Church otherwise but in respect of Gods ordinance which hath appointed the Scriptures for edifying of his Church they are necessarie as bread is necessarie for mans sustentation though God can nourish and maintaine life without bread 2. It is not true that the Apostles did teach without Scriptures for they had the prophetical writings first and afterward their owne and while the Apostles themselues were liuing and present the writing of the Gospel was not so necessarie as afterward 3. The writing then of the Gospel was necessarie 1. both in respect of that age present for the preuenting and stay of heresies which might be more strongely resisted and gainesayed by an euident and extant rule of faith 2. in regard of those Churches to whom the Apostles preached not by liuely voice it was necessarie that they should haue some perfect direction by writing 3. and that the ages also to come might haue a rule of their faith Arg. 2. The Church may as well now be instructed without the Scriptures as it was for the space of 2000. yeares before the lawe was written Bellar. ibid. Contra. 1. In the first age of the world the light of nature was not so much obscured as afterward when the law was written and therefore the argument followeth not the Scriptures were not necessarie then therefore not now 2. because the old world wanted the Scriptures to direct them that was the cause why they were giuen ouer generally to all kind of prophanenesse and therefore to preuent the like mischiefe afterward the Lord thought good to giue his written word to his Church Argum. 3. The Apostles did preach much more then they did write and many things they deliuered to the Church by tradition so that not the Scriptures by themselues are a totall rule and direction of the faith but partiall together with the traditions and ordinances of the Church Contra. 1. The Apostles did indeed speake more then they did or could write but yet they preached the same things and deliuered no other precepts concerning faith and manners but the same which they committed to writing 2. many things concerning orders and especially in particular Churches the Apostles left by tradition but no other precepts and rules of faith then they had written 3. The Scriptures are no partiall but a totall and perfect rule of faith for mensura adaequata esse debet mensurate the measure must be equall vnto that which is measured it must neither be longer nor shorter if then the Scripture should come short of faith it were no perfect rule nay it were no rule at all Pareus Now on the contrarie that the Scriptures are necessarie thus it is made plaine 1. From the author the Prophets and Apostles did write by the instinct of the spirit but the spirit mooueth not to any vnnecessarie or superfluous worke 2. from the office of the Apostles which was to teach all nations Matth 28.19 which seeing they could not doe in their owne persons it was necessarie that they should preach vnto them by their writings 3. from the ende and vse of the Scriptures 1. whether for instruction in doctrine for all Scriptures are written for our learning Rom. 15.4 or direction vnto vertuous liuing or decision of Questions and confuting of errors it was necessarie that the Scriptures should be writen to these vses as the Apostle sheweth 1. Timoth. 3.16 that the man of God may be perfect The Scriptures then were necessarie to be extant for the aforesaid purposes in so much that the Apostle saith if any Angel from heauen doe preach any other Gospel c. let him be accursed whereupon Chrysostome saith Paulus etiam Angelis de coelo descendentibus proponit Scripturas Paul euen propoundeth the Scriptures to the Angels descending from heauen in Galat. c. 1. 6. Morall observations 1. Observ. Of the happinesse of these times vnder the Gospel in comparison of the former times vnder the Lawe In that the Lord hath clearely manifested and opened vnto his Church by Iesus Christ the high mysteries which lay hid before therein appeareth the singular loue of God to his Church and the great preheminence which the faithfull now haue in comparison of the people of God vnder the Law as our Sauiour saith vnto his Apostles Blessed are your eyes for they see and your eares for they heare for verily I say vnto you that many Prophets and righteous men haue desired to see those things which you see and could not see them c. Matth. 13.16 17. the vse hereof is to stirre vs vp vnto thankefulnesse vnto God for this so great mercie shewed vnto his Church 2. Observ. The dangerous estate of those which are found to be contemners of the Gospel and Newe Lawe The greater light is reuealed and the more knowledge that men haue the greater obedience doth God looke for at their hand disobedience then now vnto the Gospel of truth is so much more greiuous then was transgression vnder the law as the times of light and knowledge in brightnesse exceede the dayes of ignorance and blindnesse thus the Apostle reasoneth the night is past and the day is at hand let vs therefore cast away the workes of darkenesse and put on the armour of light Rom. 13.12 So also Hebr. 2.2 the Apostle saith if the word spoken by Angels was stedfast and euerie transgression c. receiued a iust recompence of reward how much more if we neglect so great saluation c. More special obseruations vpon the whole Epistle 1. The Argument and Methode of S. Pauls epistles in generall and specially of this Epistle 1. Nicephorus lib. 2. c. 34. maketh the end and scope of Saint Paules Epistles to consist in these two things 1. that the Apostle what he preached beeing present he committed to writing to put them in memorie when he was absent 2. And that which he did more obscurely deliuer by word of mouth or passed ouer in silence he did in his writings handle and set forth more fully and plainely But the Apostle had diuerse other occasions offred him in his epistles then fell out in his sermons and therefore it is to be thought that although his sermons and writings agreed in the substance of doctrine yet he as occasion did mooue him in his epistles otherwise handleth matters then he did in his preaching 2. His Epistles then may be reduced to these fiue kinds 1. Some belong vnto doctrine wherein he layeth
word 2. Cor. 13.7 though we be as reprobates that is in mans iudgement In the other place he speaketh of the full possession of the inheritance not of the perfect assurance 2. the epistle to the Philippians was written after that to the Romanes as hath beene shewed therefore it is impertinently alleadged to prooue greater perfection to haue beene in the Apostle when he writte to the Romanes then when he indited the epistle to the Philippians 3. The same assurance of saluation which S. Paul professeth Rom. 8. he sheweth also 2. Cor. 2.9 the things which eye hath not seene c. which God hath prepared for those that loue him But God hath reuealed them vnto vs by his spirit c. Here the Apostle in saying vs perswaded himselfe to be one of those to whom these things were reuealed and prepared 2. But Chrysostome better sheweth the reason why it is profitable to distinguish of the time of the writing of these epistles because the Apostle handleth the same things diuersely treating of circumcision and other Ceremonies for to the Romanes he saith concerning such things c. 14. him that is weake in the faith receiue vnto you But to the Galatians he writeth more sharpely c. 5.2 If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing and to the Colossians he calleth them the ordinances of the world the commandements and doctrines of men Coloss. 2.20.22 the reason of which difference Chrysostome alleadgeth to be this quia principio condescendere oportuit successu temporis non item because in the beginning the Apostle was to condiscend and yeelde somewhat but not so afterward like as physitians and schoolemasters doe more gently and tenderly vse their patients and young schollers at the first then afterward Quest. 19. Of the order of placing the Epistles and why this to the Romanes is set first 1. Athanasius in Synops. placeth the 7. canonicall epistles before S. Pauls which are foureteene in all and of them the epistle to the Hebrewes he maketh the tenth next before the epistles to Timothie Luther setteth the epistle to the Hebrewes after S. Iohns epistles and diuideth it from S. Pauls Tertullian lib. 5. cont Marcionem placeth them in this order the epistles to the Galatians Corinthians Romanes Thessalonians Ephesians Colossians Philippians But the best order is that which is vsually receiued to the Romanes Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians Thessalonians to Timothie Titus Philemon to the Hebrewes 2. And why the epistle to the Romanes is prefixed before the rest the reasons are these 1. not for that it was the first in time for the contrarie is shewed before 2. nor so much for the prolixitie and largenes thereof as the prophesie of I say in that behalfe is set first Pareus 3. or for the dignitie of that nation because the Romanes were chiefe Lords of the world Aretius for this had beene but a temporall respect 4. or for the dignitie and excellencie of the Romane Church for he giueth the preheminence to the Iewes whom he calleth the oliue tree and the Gentiles the banches of the wilde oliue tree c. 11.5 But the chiefe reason was because of the excellent matter this epistle treateth of that principall question of iustification by faith which is handled also in the epistle to the Galatians but here more at large and of the chiefe questions beside of Christian religion as of the workes of nature c. 1.2 the force of the lawe c. 7. the fruites of iustifying faith c. 5. of election and reprobation c. 9. of the calling of the Gentiles and the reiection of the Iewes c. 11. of the diuersitie of gifts c. 12. of the dutie towards Magistrates c. 12. of the vse of indifferent things c. 14.15 so that this epistle is as a catechisme and introduction to Christian religion and therefore is worthily set before the rest Aretius Pareus Quest. 20. Vnto whom this epistle to the Romanes was written and from whence 1. It was not written generally to the whole Romane state for the Emperor of Rome with his Princes ministers and officers were persecutors of the Church of God but it was directed to those among the Romanes whether of that nation or strangers both Iewes and Gentiles that had imbraced the Gospell of Christ Aretius Faius As now in the Romane papall state we doubt not but there are many which professe the gospell of Christ and are members of the true Church 2. And although this epistle were personally directed to the Romanes yet it entreateth of the common faith which concerneth the whole Church of God and to the vse thereof is generall and that which was written vnto them is written vnto vs. As that which our Blessed Sauiour said vnto his Apostles he said vnto all Mark 13.37 So that which the Apostles did write to some speciall Churches they did write vnto all Gryneus 3. This epistle was written from Corinthus as not onely the subscription sheweth both in the Greek and Syriake but Origen beside doth collect so much by these three arguments out of the text it selfe 1. It was sent by Phebe a seruant of the Church of Cenchrea Rom. 16.1 which Cenchrea is neere vnto Corinth yea portus ipse Corinthe the verie hauen of Corinth 2. he saith Gaius mine host and of the whole Church saluteth you c. 16.23 which Gaius dwelt at Corinth as the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 1.14 I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gains 3. he addeth further Erastus the chamberlaine of the citie saluteth you which Erastus is the same whom Paul left at Corinth 2. Timoth. 4.20 Quest. 21. Of the excellencie and worthines of this epistle Three things doe commend this epistle 1. the matter 2. the forme 3. the kind and methode 1. Concerning the matter it containeth the chiefe articles and most waightie points of the Christian faith as is partly shewed before qu. 6. Origen further setteth it forth thus multa de lege Mosis connectuntur c. many things are knit together in this epistle as of the lawe of Moses of the calling of the Gentiles of Israel which is according to the flesh and of Israel not according to the flesh of the circumcision of the heart and of the flesh of the spirituall lawe and the lawe of the letter of the Lawe of the members and the lawe of the mind of the lawe of sinne of the inward and outward man to this purpose Origen praefat in epistol ad Romanos 2. The forme and methode of this epistle is most exact consisting of the definition of that which is handled and the tractation and explication thereof for the most perfect and artificiall Methode is that which beginneth with the definition as the Apostle sheweth what the Gospel is it is the power of God to saluation to euerie one that beleeueth c. 1. v. 16. in the which definition are expressed all the causes thereof the efficient and author God the ende saluation the materiall cause Christ Iesus the formall faith and
the meaning of the Apostle is this that this was not the proper end vse of this naturall knowledge to make them inexcusable but it is vsus accidentarius an accidentall vse which happeneth thorough mens ingratitude that abusing this naturall knowledge which yet remaineth in man after his fall they thereby are depriued of all excuse or pretext of ignorance Pareus so also Gualter quod gentium vitio factum est Deo per accidens tribuitur that which came to passe by the fault of the heathen is attributed vnto God accidentally this sense is well expressed in the vulgar Latine it a vt sint c. so that they are inexcusable as our common English translation also readeth 55. Quest. Whether there is any naturall knowledge of God in man 1. Pererius here reporteth the opinion of some Schoolemen whome he calleth Nominals Deum non posse naturali ratione c. that God can not demonstratiuely be prooued by naturall reason disput 16. And Pareus maketh mention dub 16. of one Osterodius who directly affirmeth that man hath no knowledge of God by nature or by the contemplation of the creatures but onely by outward fame and heare-say his reasons are these 1. Because many in India and Brasile are found vtterly ignorant of God because they haue not heard that there is a God 2. If there were any such naturall knowledge all should haue it but euen among the Philosophers some were found which denied that there was any God 3. The Apostle speaketh of the workes of the new creation namely of his miraculous works v. 20. whereby God is knowne Contra. 1. The very Indians are not without knowledge of God though they abuse it for some of them worship the Deuill for their god 2. Those Philosophers of malice not of ignorance denied that there was a God 3. The Apostle speaketh euidently of such workes as were manifest and made knowne to all men so were not Christs miraculous workes they came not to the knowledge of all the world 2. Now that there is some knowledge of God euen by nature is euident by the Apostle in this place 1. he saith that God hath manifested vnto them that which naturally may be knowne of him and that the inuisible things of God are seene and vnderstood by his works v. 20. Pareus 2. For how els should all men be inexcusable if they had not by nature some knowledge of God whereas many haue not otherwise heard of God Perer. 3. Cicero an heathen man confesseth lib. 2. de natura Deorum quid potest esse tam apertum c. quà m esse aliquod numen praestantâ—ssimae mentis qua haec regántur what is so manifest when we looke vp to the heauens c. as that there is some diuine nature most excellent whereby all those things are gouerned 4. This was the end wherefore God erected the world that thereby man might learne to know his Creator 5. And if man naturally had not knowledge of God then naturally he were not bound to loue God aboue ll for how naturally can be loue and honour him whome he acknowledgeth not Perer. 56. Quest. Whether the naturall knowledge which the Heathen had of God was sufficient vnto saluation 1. It was neuer doubted of among Christians whether a man by his naturall strength without Gods supernaturall grace might be iustified before God and so attaine vnto euerlasting life for this were to ascribe all vnto mans free will to denie the grace of God But this hath bin called into question whether that this naturall knowledge of God without any supernaturall instruction or reuelation had not beene sufficient concerning knowledge vnto saluation Chrysostome affirmeth hom 37. in Matth. that of those which died before the comming of Christ fides Christi qui nondum venerat non petebatur the faith of Christ which was not yet come was not required c. likewise Iustin. Apolog. 2. qui cum ratione olim vixerunt Christianos esse appellandos c. they which liued in time past according to the rule of reason are to be called Christians although they knew not Christ such as were among the Grecians Socrates Heraclitus with others Clemens Alexandrin lib. 6. stromat saith that they which were before Christ were made iust either by the law of Moses or by Philosophie but they wanted onely faith in Christ and therefore they expected the comming of Christ and his Apostles in hell eorumque ibi praedicatione Christi fidem percepisse and there by their preaching they attained vnto faith and so were saued And further these reasons may be alleadged for this opinion that this naturall knowledge was sufficient 1. God requireth not things impossible but it had beene impossible for the Gentiles beside their naturall knowledge to attaine vnto faith which commeth by hearing the word which they had not 2. To know that God is and that he is a rewarder of them that seeke him had bin sufficient Heb. 11.6 but this they might haue attained vnto by nature 3. The Gentiles by their naturall knowledge of God might haue beene able to lead their life aright and to direct their actions both toward God and man and therefore it might haue beene sufficient Contra. 1. Though it be impossible to attaine vnto faith without the ordinarie meanes yet it is not to be doubted but that if the Gentiles had thankfully acknowledged their Creator and not abused their naturall knowledge God would haue giuen them further instruction as he did afterward in sending the Apostles to preach the Gospel to all the world 2. To beleeue that God is and a rewarder of them that seeke him is the worke of faith and not of naturall knowledge as the Apostle there sheweth 3. Some morall ciuill duties the light of nature might haue directed them vnto but to order their waies aright toward God and men their naturall direction had not sufficed without the grace of God for then some might haue beene found among them who had attained vnto this sufficiencie by their naturall light onely 2. Now on the contrarie side that beside our naturall knowledge faith in Christ is necessarie and that without it there is no saluation thus it appeareth by the Scriptures 1. Christ saith Ioh. 14.6 I am the way the truth and the life and Ioh. 10.9 I am the doore so that none can enter into life but by this way and doore he is the lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world Ioh. 1.29 he is the Mediator betweene God and man 1. Tim. 2.5 And S. Peter saith Act. 4.12 that among men there is giuen none other name vnder heauen whereby we must be saued all these places doe euidently testifie that without the knowledge of Christ there is no saluation 2. Further the necessitie of faith also appeareth 1. because by faith we are iustified as the Apostle alleadgeth here out of the Prophet the iust shall liue by faith and without iustification there is no saluation
Vriah to be killed and the same Ioab also was Dauids instrument to number the people though be misliked it himselfe 3. They which giue counsell or any kind of helpe or assistance to the euill for which cause Iehosaphat was reprooued of the Prophet Iehu because he aided the idolatrous king of Israel in battell and here they also are included which doe promote vnworthie and vnmeete persons to office and therefore S. Paul chargeth Timothie to lay hands suddenly on none neither to be partaker of other sinnes 1. Tim. 5.4 They which commend the wicked in their euill doing and so extenuate their sinne as Psal. 10.5 the wicked man is said to blesse the couetous 5. They which by any signe in word or deede seeme to giue consent vnto the sinnes of others as Saul kept their garments which stoned Steuen and to gaue consent vnto his death 6. They which are partakers with others in their sinne and part stakes with them as Psal. 50.18 When thou seest a theese thou runnest with him and art paraker with the adulterer 7. They which doe not rebuke and correct others when it is in their power which was the sinne of Hell who vsed too much connivence and forbearance toward his sonnes 1. Sam. 2.8 They which giue intertainement vnto the wicked as vnto theeues robbers strumpets and such like 9. Such as conceale and keepe secret others sinnes whereby their heart is hardened and so they continue in their sinne Hyper. Quest. 77. Whether all the Gentiles were guiltie of these sinnes which are here rehearsed by the Apostle Many among the Gentiles in respect of the rest were men of ciuill life and gaue example of diuerse morall vertues such among the Grecians were Aristides Phacion Socrates among the Romanes the Scipioes Catoes with others But yet none of them are exempted out of the Apostles reprehension 1. because none of them were free from the most of these sinnes though they were not guiltie of all 2. they wanted true faith and therefore their vertues were but speciosa peccata goodly sinnes 3. And in respect of their naturall corrupâ— disposition euen the best of them were enclined vnto all these sinnes sauing that the Lord bridled in some of them the corruption and badnesse of their nature that there might be some order and gouernement among the heathen otherwise their common wealths would soone haue come to confusion 4. And those which gaue any good example among the heathen were so fewe that they are not to be named among the rest Peter Martyr 4. Places of doctrine v. 1. Paul a seruant of Iesus Christ. Christs seruice is perfect freedome there are three kinds of seruice 1. the seruice of God which is either generall belonging to all Christians which is the seruice of their profession whereof the Apostle speaketh Rom. 6.19 or speciall which is in that vocation to the which any are called whereof see Matth. 25.14 Luk. 12.43 2. Ciuill seruice which may very well stand with the seruice of God see 1. Cor. 7.11 3. there is the seruice of sinne Rom. 8.16 and seruice to please men Gal. 1.10 and this seruice is contrarie to the seruice of God Pareus Called to be an Apostle There are two kinds of calling one is vnto saluation the other is to some office in this life The first is either externall which is generall to all by the light of nature and knowledge of the creatures especiall by the preaching of the word or internall by the inward working of Gods spirit which is peculiar to the elect The calling to some function in this life is either priuate as of men to their seuerall vocations or publike which is either Ciuill of Magistrates in the time of peace leaders and Captaines in the time of warre or Ecclesiasticall which is either immediate from God as of the Prophets and Apostles or mediate by men which is either ordinarie such as is the ordination of Bishops and Ministers now or extraordinarie by lot as was the election of Matthias Act. 1. To be an Apostle There is a threefold difference betweene Apostles and other Pastors 1. They were immediatly called of Christ the other mediately are appointed by men 2. in respect of their doctrine and writings both the authoritie thereof they are free from error and are part of the Canonicall Scripture but so are not the doctrine and writings of the other they must be subiect to the writings of the Apostles as also their doctrine was confirmed and ratified by miracles Mart. 3. in their authoritie and office the Apostles were not tied vnto any place but were sent to preach to the whole world but Pastours now haue their particular and speciall Churches Pareus Set apart God the father set apart Paul to be an Apostle Gal. 1.1 and Iesus Christ Act. 9. and the holy Ghost Act. 13.2 these three then are one God for it belongeth onely vnto God to send Prophets and Apostles and Pastors to his Church therefore all such are condemned whome the Lord hath not sent Ierem. 14.15 Gospel of God which is afterward vers 16. and chap. 15.19 and in other places called the Gospel of Christ which is an euident testimonie of Christs eternall Godhead Pareus v. 2. Which he had promised before c. Concerning the Gospel of Christ 1. Euangelium the Evangel signifieth a ioyfull message of the grace of Christ 2. though the Gospel be diuers in circumstance for there is Gospel promised by the Prophets and the Gospel performed by Christs comming yet it is one and the same in substance 3. the efficient and author thereof is God it is called the Gospel of God the materiall cause is Iesus Christ God and man the formall the declaration and manifestation of him to be the Sonne of God v. 4. the end is to saluation v. 16. the effects obedience to the faith v. 5. v. 3. concerning his Sonne here the person of Christ is described to be both God and man Man as he was borne of the seede of Dauid and he was also declared to be the Sonne of God Piscator According to the flesh In that the Sonne of God is said to be made of the seede of Dauid after the flesh it sheweth against the Nestorian heretikes that there are not two Sonnes but one Sonne the same both God and man and that according to the flesh he was made there the propertie of his natures is still reserued against the Eutychians and Suenkefeldians which destroied the vnitie of Christs humane nature By reason of this vnion of the diuine and humane nature of Christ that which was done in one of his natures is ascribed to his whole person and here we are to consider of a threefold communion of the properties of Christs diuine and humane natures one vnto the other 1. some things are really common to both his whole person and natures as such things which belong to the office of the Redeemer as to sanctifie
iudged in this that he beleeued not though for other things which he doth he shall not be iudged as it is said he that beleeueth shall not be iudged or condemned that is he shall not be iudged secundum hoc quod credit in that that he beleeueth yet in other things he shall be iudged 2. Such an one not beleeuing in Christ yet doing well though he haue not eternall life yet gloria operum poterit non perire by the glorie of his workes he may be kept from perishing to this purpose Origen lib. 2. in c. 2. ad Roman 2. Contra. 1. The first position of Origen that any thing done without faith can be acceptable to God is contrarie to the Scripture Heb. 11.6 Without faith it is impossible to please God neither doth that argument followe from the contrarie for one euill worke is sufficient to condemne a man but one good worke is not sufficient to obtaine reward for he that doth one good worke may haue many euill workes beside for the which he deserueth to be punished that other glosse of his of the iudging of beleeuers and the not iudging of vnbeleeuers is coÌ„futed by the words of our Sauiour Ioh. 5.24 he that beleeueth hath euerlasting life and shall not come into condemnation he is not freed then from iudgement onely in part because he beleeueth but simplie he shall neuer enter into condemnation for he which hath a liuely faith which is effectuall working by loue hath not onely a naked faith but is full of good workes and where he is wanting his imperfect obedience is supplied by the perfect obedience of Christ apprehended by faith 2. Neither doth the Scripture allowe any third place beside heauen and hell after this life that any not hauing eternall life should be preserued from perishing for they which are not counted among the sheepe at the right hand of Christ for whom the kingdome is prepared they belong vnto the goates at the left hand and shall goe into euerlasting fire prepared for the deuill and his Angels 3. This straight and inconuenience Origen is driuen vnto because he taketh these Iewes and Grecians to be vnbeleeuers whereas the Apostle vnderstandeth such among the Gentiles as beleeued in God and liued thereafter such were they which liued with Melchisedek Iob the Niniuites Cornelius as Chrysostome vpon this place sheweth whom Faius followeth 22. Quest. Of the diuerse acceptions of the word person v. 11. This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is either giuen vnto God or to creatures and the same either without life or to such as haue life as to man 1. It is attributed to God three wayes 1. the face of God signifieth his iudgement against sinners 1. Pet. 3.12 the face of God is against those which doe euill 2. it is taken for the spirituall presence of Christ 2. Cor. 2.10 I forgaue it for your sakes in the sight or face 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ. 3. it is taken for the diuine hypostasis in the Trinitie as Christ is said to be the engraued forme of the person of his father Heb. 1.3 2. Things without life are said to haue a certaine face as Luke 12.56 the face of heauen 3. Properly this word face is giuen vnto man and it 1. either signifieth his countenance as Iesus is said to haue fallen vpon his face Matth. 26.39 2. or the bodilie presence as the Apostle saith he was kept from the Thessalonians concerning his face but not in heart 1. Thessal 2.17.3 or it is taken for some respect of the gifts of bodie minde or some externall condition as of honour riches or such like in this sense it is said of Christ Mark 12.14 thou carest not for the person of any and S. Iude saith of certaine false teachers that they haue mens persons in admiration for aduantage sake Iud. v. 16 and in this sense it is taken here Gryneus 4. The person then of man betokeneth some qualitie or condition in him for the which he is respected either naturall as the gifts of the minde sharpnes of wit memorie vnderstanding or of the bodie as strength come lines beutie or such as are attained vnto by labour and industrie as learning knowledge of arts wisdome or externall in worldly respects as if he be rich honourable of authoritie or such like 5. Further some respect of persons is necessarily ioyned with the cause as a fault in an aged man or minister or one that hath knowledge is greater then a slippe of a young man or one that is ignorant some respect of persons is diuided from the cause as whether he be rich or poore honourable or base and in this sense persons are not to be respected Martyr 23. Qu. How God is said not to accept the persons of men The Apostle hauing made mention of the equall condition of the Iewes and Gentiles both in punishment and reward addeth this as a reason because God is no accepter of persons in respect of their nation and kinred So S. Peter saith God is no accepter of persons 〈◊〉 in euery nation he that feareth God c. is accepted with him Act. 10.34 35 here the respecting of persons is vnderstood of the nation or countrey likewise S. Paul saith Gal. 3.28 that in Christ There is neither Iew nor Grecian bond nor free male nor female that is in Christ there is no respect of persons Deut. 16.19 Thou shalt not accept any person neither take any reward to preferre any for gifts or rewards beside the merit of his cause is to haue respect of persons God then accepteth no mans person he preferreth not any for his riches countrey honour strength or any other such qualitie but iudgeth euery man as his cause is and aâ— his works are But thus it will be obiected on the contrarie 1. Obiect Moses entreateth the Lord to spare his people for Abraham Isaak and â—â—kobs sake Exod. 32. herein then the Lord had respect of persons Ans. Some giue this answer that in temporall things such as was the forbearing to punish the people God may haue respect to persons but not in eternall Mart. But it may be better answered that God had not respect to the persons of these Patriarks but to his gracious promise which he had made vnto them as there Moses saith Remember Abraham c. to whome thou swarest by thy selfe c. 2. Obiect S. Paul would haue vs doe good to all but specially to the houshold 〈◊〉 faith Gal. 6.10 here the person is respected Ans. The person is not respected here but the cause for the faithfull are preferred in respect of their faith which is the cause why they haue the preheminence 3. Obiect But God doth elect some vnto saluation some are reiected whereas all by nature are the children of wrath and in the same common condition to giue then vnequall things as life or death to those which are in the same equall condition seemeth to be done with respect of persons Ans. 1.
that are perfect as namely the Apostles who are promised to fit vpon twelue feares and iudge the twelue tribes of Israel So likewise for them that shall be condemned some sine iudicij examine condemnabuntur shall be iudged without any examination or iudgement such are the infidels which shall rise againe non ad iudicium sed ad tormentum not vnto iudgement but vnto torment as it is saide in Psal. 1. The wicked shall not stand vp in iudgement and here the Apostle saith of such they shall perish without the law But they which professed the faith and yet liued not thereafter redarguentur vt pereant shall first be iudged and reprooued and then perish like as in a commonwealth the Prince aliter punit civem delinquentem aliter hostem rebellantem punisheth a citizen offending one way examining his offence according to the law and an enemie rebelling an other way he vseth martiall law against such giuing sentence presently to condemne them But this obseruation of Gregorie seemeth somewhat curious the Apostle intendeth not here any such thing to shew any difference in the processe of iudgement betweene the Iewes and Gentiles but that they both beeing in the same cause of transgression shall be partakers of the same punishment And that there shall be but one manner of proceeding in iudgement both in rewarding the righteous and in condemning the wicked it is euident by that description of Christs comming to iudgement Matth. 25.31 6. Augustine here propoundeth this doubt that whereas the Apostle saith Rom. 4.15 Where there is no law there is no transgression how then can the Gentiles be found to be transgressors without the law for answer hereunto he maketh three kind of lawes one is the written law which is giuen vnto the Iewes not to the Gentiles and of this law speaketh the Apostle here that they sinned without the law and so shall perish without the law that is the written law of Moses there is beside the law of nature whereof the Apostle speaketh afterward v. 14. They hauing not the law are a law vnto themselues against this law the Gentiles sinned and by this law they shall be iudged the third law is that which was giuen vnto Adam in Paradise by which not onely he but all his posteritie are found to be transgressors and in respect of this law euen infants are found trespassers because of originall sinne to this purpose Augustine in the place before cited 25. Quest. Of the occasion of these words v. 13. The hearers of the law are not righteous before God but the doers shall be iustified 1. Some take this to be a new argument to conuince the Iewes that they could not be iustified by the law because the keeping and fulfilling of the law is required to make one iust which no man can doe and so consequently beeing not iustified by the law they must seeke to be iustified by faith Calv. Pareus But as yet the Apostle is not entred into that matter to prooue iustification by faith and not by the law he hetherto laboureth to conuince both Iewes and Gentiles that they are vnder sinne 2. Some take this to be the order that the Apostle prooueth both Iewes and Gentiles to be equall both quo ad naturam in nature for God hath no respect of persons v. 11. they are all alike by nature and quoad poenam in their punishment they are equall the one shall perish without the law the other shall be iudged by the law v. 12. then quoad culpam they are equall in the fault because neither of them are doers of the law Gorrhaen 3. Some thinke that here the Apostle meeteth with an obiection of the Iewes who seeing the Apostle to equalize them with the Gentiles might haue obiected that they had the law and so had not the Gentiles the Apostle then answereth that this did not helpe them because they were hearers onely of the law and not doers Martyr Gryneus 4. Tolet thinketh that this sentence is brought in as a probation of the 10. verse the glorie shall be to euery one that doth good otherwise that part should be passed ouer without proofe and so he thinketh this clause not specially to be meant of the Iewes but of the Gentiles also because it is said the doers shall be iustified which was common both to the Iewes and Gentiles not the hearers and doers which was proper to the Iewes who had the law written which was read vnto them and they heard it Faius also thinketh this to be a proofe of the tenth verse Contra. 1. But if S. Paul should prooue here that glorie shall be to euerie one that doth good and he immediately inferreth that the Gentiles doe by nature the things of the lawe it would follow that by nature they might doe good and so by their naturall workes obtaine glorie which is not to be admitted 2. that part concerning glorie to them which did good had not so much neede of proofe as the other because there were verie fewe found among the Gentiles that did such good workes as should be recompensed with glorie and honour and the Apostles principall intendment is to conclude both Iewes and Gentiles to be vnder sinne 3. and further that the Apostle speaketh of the written lawe here it is euident because that onely was heard neither needed he againe to repeate hearers of the lawe and doers it beeing mentioned before 5. Wherefore this rather is the coherence of this verse that whereas S. Paul in the former verse had shewed first the Gentiles without the lawe and the Iewes vnder the lawe to be sinners he prooueth the latter part first that the Iewes should be iudged by the law because as long as they were hearers and not doers it could not helpe them they should not thereby be approoued and iustified and in the next verses following he sheweth how the Gentiles should perish without the law because although they had not the written law yet they had the lawe of nature imprinted in them which guided them to doe some things agreeable to the lawe and so made them inexcusable And thus this whole disputation of the Apostle hangeth well together Bucer Aretius Quest. 26. Of the meaning of these words Not the hearers of the Lawe c. but the doers shall be iustified ver 13. 1. There are two kind of hearers some onely heare with the eare but vnderstand not Matth. 13.13 they hearing heare not neither doe vnderstand and there is an hearing ioyned with vnderstanding v. 15. least they should heare with their eares and vnderstand with their hearts of the first kind of hearing speaketh the Apostle here 2. Doers of the lawe the lawe is fulfilled two wayes one is in supposition that if a man could by his owne strength keepe the lawe he should thereby be iustified there is another fulfilling which is by the perfect obedience of Christ imputed to vs by faith whereof the Apostle speaketh Philip. 3.9 Not hauing mine
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.
away our selues for our sinnes then Christ came and by the price of his blood redeemed vs againe and restored vs to our former libertie so the Prophet Isai saith 50.1 For your iniquities are ye sold. Now whereas in Scripture redemption is taken sometime for a franke deliuerance where no price is paid yet here the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken properly for such redemption where the price is paid which was Christs blood as 1. Cor. 6.20 You are bought for a price c. 13. Controv. Against the Novatian heretikes Whereas the Apostle saith v. 25. to declare his righteousnes by the forgiuenes of sinnes that are past the Novatians hereupon denied remission of sinnes to those which fell away after they were called who beeing pressed and vrged by arguments out of the Scripture in the contrarie confessed and graunted that God indeede by his absolute power might giue remission of sinnes vnto such as fell away but the Church had no authoritie to graunt reconciliation vnto such But 1. they remembred not the answer of our blessed Sauiour made to Peter how often one should forgiue his brother not onely seuen times but seuentie times seuen times 2. Dauid sinned grieuously after he was called yet was restored to the Church so was the incestuous young man after due repentance for his incest 3. for how els should the blood of Christ clense vs from all sinne 1. Ioh. 1.7 if that there were not remission of sinnes and reconciliation euen for offences committed after our calling 14. Controv. Against inherent iustice v. 28. We conclude that a man is iustified by faith c. This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be iustified or made iust the Romanists contend to signifie ex impio iustum effici of a wicked man to be made iust and righteous Staplet in Antâ—dot and so their opinion is that there is in iustification an habituall righteousnes infused into the soule whereby a man is iustified 1. This they would prooue by the grammaticall sense of the word because words compounded with facio to doe as magnifico purifico certifico to magnifie purifie certifie signifie to make one great pure certaine and so to iustifie should be taken to make one iust 2. The Apostle expresseth it by an other phrase Rom. 5.19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be made or constituted righteous before God 3. It is not agreeable to the nature and puritie of God to absolue and hold for innocent those who are wicked and vngodly Contra. 1. This word to iustifie though sometime it signifie to teach one iustice and righteousnes as Dan. 12.3 they which iustifie others c. that is teach them or turne them to righteousnes and sometime to perseuere or continue in iustice as Apoc. 22.11 he that is iust iustificetur adhuc let him be more iust yet vsually in Scripture it is taken to absolue to pronounce and hold iust and that in a double sense as either to acknowledge and declare him to be iust that is iust as wisdome is said to be iustified of her children Matth. 11.19 so is it taken before in this chapter v. 4. that thou mightest be iustified in thy words c. or 〈◊〉 to count him iust who is vniust in himselfe that is absolue free and discharge him as c. 8.33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen it is God that iustifieth that is acquiteth dischargeth who shall condemne so is it vsed in the same sense Act. 13.39 From all things from the which ye could not be iustified by the law of Moses by him euery one that beleeueth is iustified Neither doth that grammaticall construction alwaies hold for Marie saith My soule doth magnifie the Lord that is declareth or setteth forth Gods greatnes here it can not signifie to make great Lombards obseruation then is not found that to iustifie in Scripture signifieth foure things 1. to be absolued and freed from sinne by the death of Christ. 2. beeing freed from sinne to be made iust by charitie 3. to be cleansed from sinne by faith in the death of Christ. 4. by faith and imitation of Christs death to bring forth the works of righteousnes Lobmard lib. 3. distinct 19. for of these foure significations the 1. and 3. are all one which may be acknowledged but the 2. and 4. are not found in Scripture 2. We are also made and constituted righteous before God not by any inherent righteousnes in our selues but by the righteousnes of faith as the Apostle saith that I may be found in him not hauing mine owne righteousnes which is of the law but that which is thorough the faith of Christ. 3. Yet it is most agreeable to the puritie of the diuine nature to accept vs as iust in Christ who is most absolutely righteous before God and so to impute his righteousnes vnto vs by faith so sanctifying also our hearts by his holy spirit that we should delight in the works of righteousnes 4. If we should be iustified by any inherent and inhabiting iustice and not by righteousnes imputed by faith these inconueniences would follow 1. that iustification and sanctification should be confounded for that sanctitie which is wrought in the faithfull is a fruit of iustification by faith 2. this holines and charitie which is in the faithfull is a worke of the law which requireth that we should loue God and our neighbour but faith and the worke of the law can not stand together 3. this habite of pietie and charitie is imperfect in vs for no man loueth God and his neighbour as he ought now that which is imperfect can not iustifie See further of inherent iustice Synops. Centur. 4. err 56. 15. Controv. Against the Popish distinction of the first and second iustification The Romanists generally doe hold that there are two kind of iustifications the first which is an infused habite of iustice formed by charitie to the which we are prepared by faith other dispositions of the mind and this they say is without works the other is the encrease of this iustification by the works of charitie the grace of God concurring with mans free-will and this they say is by works and truly meritorious sic Stapl. in Antidot Perer. disput in 2. c. ad Rom. disput 16 17. Contra. 1. The Scripture acknowledgeth but one kind of iustification in all which is both begunne continued and ended by faith as c. 1.17 The righteousnes of God is reuealed from faith to faith and c. 3.30 For it is one God who shall iustifie circumcision of faith and vncircumcision through faith here the whole worke of iustification is ascribed to faith and Rom. 8.20 whome he iustified he glorified there is nothing that commeth betweene this one iustification and glorification 2. They confound iustification and sanctification for that which they call the second iustification is nothing els but sanctification which is the bringing forth of the fruits of holines after that we are iustified by faith these
disput 19. err 94. Ans. 1. The Eunuchs faith was not onely an historicall knowledge that Christ was the Sonne of God which the Deuills also knew and confessed but he beleeued to haue remission of his sinnes in his name and therefore he was baptised for baptisme in the name of Christ was for remission of sinnes Act. 2.38 the same may be said of the keeper of the prison who was baptised with his houshold 2. Neither was Abrahams faith onely a generall apprehension that Christ should come of his seede but he made particular application of that promise euen to himselfe trusting to be saued by the Messiah and therefore our Sauiour saith of him Ioh. 8.56 Your father Abraham reioyced to see my day he saw it and was glad 3. Pererius third exception is that a man can not in this life by faith be certaine of remission of sinnes some of his arguments are these 1. Iob faith c. 9.15 Though I were iust yet could I not answer and v. 20. Though I would iustifie my selfe mine owne mouth would condemne me c. And S. Paul saith I know nothing by my selfe yet am I not thereby iustified 2. The Apostle biddeth â—s to worke out our saluation with feare and trembling Philip. 2.12 S. Paul also was not so sure of his iustification but that he still remained in doubt and feare 1. Cor. 9.27 I beate downe my bodie and bring it in subiection least after I had preached to others I my selfe should be a reprobate 3. This certentie of remission of sinnes should be either humane or diuine the humane is of three sorts either by the outward sense or by the inward act of vnderstanding or by euident demonstration but none of these it is the diuine is also of two sorts either by the generall apprehension of the articles of faith but this worketh no such certentie for then euery Christian that knoweth and beleeueth the articles of faith should haue it or by speciall and particular reuelation which euery one can not haue Perer. disput 19. numer 97. Contra. 1. Iob and Paul in those places speake onely of such iustification which might be grounded vpon their owne worthines by such iustification indeede they could haue no assurance but they renounced it I am not thereby iustified saith the Apostle that is by his owne conscience which yet accused him not 2. The Apostle both teacheth others to take heede of carnall securitie and presumption and shewed the practise of it in himselfe one may be sure of remission of sinnes and yet walke in feare and reuerence this certentie then of remission of sinnes onely excludeth carnall securitie not reuerent and faithfull feare neither did S. Paul feare to become a reprobrate but least if he should doe contrarie to his doctrine it should be a reproofe vnto him for he himselfe was most sure of his saluation as he professeth confidently that nothing could separate him from the loue of God in Christ Rom. 8.38 3. This certentie indeede we willingly graunt is not humane but diuine neither is it so diuine as that it needeth alwaies an extraordinarie and speciall reuelation and yet it is more than an vniuersall and generall apprehension of the articles of the faith for betweene these two there is a third a particular application by faith of the generall promises of God whereby a faithfull man groweth into this assurance 4. And whereas he further obiecteth that seeing euery mortall sinne hindreth iustification if a man can not assure himselfe to be free from sinne neither can he be assured of the remission of his sinnes we answer that if a man did thinke by his owne puritie to obtaine remission of his sinnes he can not possibly be assured of forgiuenes so long as he hath sinne but seeing we hope to be iustified by faith in Christ by his righteousnes and not our owne notwithstanding that the faithfull are compassed about with infirmities yet this hindreth not the certentie of iustification by faith So then a faithfull man must be considered two waies in his spirituall part which is quickned and lightened by faith and in his carnall infirmitie which yet remaineth in the regenerate which causeth sometimes doubtfulnes in the seruants of God but the spirituall man preuaileth and faith ouercommeth our carnall infirmities that although they be and remaine in vs yet they doe not raigne 5. This then notwithstanding all these former obiections remaineth as an vndoubted principle of our faith that a faithfull man may be assured by faith of his iustification and of the free remission and forgiuenes of his sinnes in Christ which appeareth to be 1. by the nature and propertie of faith which is to be without wauering Iam. 1.6 Let him aske in faith and wauer not 2. by the effects of faith which worketh boldnes confidence and assurance and peace with God Rom. 5.1 but we could haue no peace of conscience if we were not assured of forgiuenes 3. by the experience which the faithfull had as S. Paul by faith was most assured perswaded of the loue of God toward him in Christ Rom. 8.38 whereof proceeded that his praier to be dissolued and to be with Christ Phil. 1. see further hereof Synops. Centur. 4. err 56. 18. Controv. What manner of faith it is that iustifieth Pererius saith that iustification may be taken two waies either for the preparation and tending vnto iustice or the very production of iustice it selfe as the word generation in naturall Philosophie is sometime taken for the very production of the forme and the perfection of generation or for the first alteration and change of the matter which is but in the way and tending vnto generation the Apostle speaketh of the first kind of iustifying in this place faith is saide to iustifie that is faith not yet formed with charitie prepareth and maketh a way vnto iustification which is per charitatis infusionem by the infusion of charitie disput 18. numer 86. so his opinion is that faith which is said to iustifie is seuered from charitie it is fides informis expers charitatis an imperfect and vnformed faith voide of charitie Contra. This assertion is flat contrarie and opposite to the Scripture for the Apostle sheweth that it is faith working by loue which saueth Gal. 5.6 and S. Iames saith that faith without works can not saue c. 2.14 but such a faith is dead and it is no other but the faith which deuills haue for the deuills beleeue and tremble v. 19. Let the Romanists content themselues with such a bare and naked iustifying faith but we are sure that such a faith which is separate from loue can not helpe vs. Controv. 19. Of the manner how faith iustifieth Here the Romanists haue these positions 1. they say faith iustifieth because it disposeth prepareth and maketh a way to iustification so Bellarm. Staplet c. Contra. 1. The Scripture saith the Iust shall liue by faith if faith bringeth and worketh the life of the
impute is to make one the cause of some commoditie and discommoditie ac si ille talis rei author esset as if he were the author of it c. 1. so then faith is said not to be imputed but reputed for iustice because the act of faith is imputed for iustice for when it doth not bring iustice of it owne nature vt est actus hominis as it is an act of man yet it is so accepted of God 2. and therefore he misliketh the word imputed because we thereupon gather that there is no iustice giuen vnto man whereby he is made iust but the iustice of Christ reputed but he affirmeth that there is a iustice verily giuen vnto man by faith which God accepteth for iustice as the fight of the brasen serpent did verily heale not by the vertue of the fight sed ex diuino beneplacito because it so pleased God 3. for if the word imputed not reputed had beene here vsed the Apostle would haue said he imputed vnto him c. not it was imputed to this purpose Tolet annot 7. Contra. 1. We say that iustice is both imputed and reputed vnto vs by faith for first Christs righteousnesse is imputed and made ours by faith and then it is reputed and accepted as if we had our selues performed it neither can there be any reputed iustice but it must first be by imputation For God in his iustice cannot hold or repute him for iust that is not iust vnlesse for an others rigteousnesse he be reputed and counted iust 2. That figure of beholding the brasen serpent doth make more for imputation of iustice then reputation onely for they which looked vpon the serpent were not reputed as healed but verily were healed from the biting of the serpent by the imputation and application of the vertue apprehended by the sight of the serpent so we are truely healed from our sinnes by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse 3. that which S. Paul vttereth in the passiue it was imputed Moses expressed in the actiue he imputed so that the sense is all one and seeing Tolet following the vulgar Latine readeth v. 8. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne why should not the same sense of the word be retained here 6. Wherefore then all these cauills beeing thus remooued we inferre that Abraham was iustified by faith not materialiter materially as it was an act but relate and obiectur as it hath relation vnto the obiect the iustice of Christ and organice instrumentally as it applyeth and apprehendeth the righteousnesse of Christ. Quest. 10. Whether Abraham were iustified by any thing beside his faith 1. It will be obiected that Genes 22.18 after the Lord had tried Abrahams obedience and faithfulnesse in offring his sonne the Angel said vnto him in the name of the Lord because thou hast done this thing I will surely blesse thee c. here the Lord seemeth to blesse Abraham for his obedience not because of his faith to this we answear that it is not said that Abraham was iustified by this fact he was iustified long before by his faith but that the Lord rewarded Abrahams obedience with ample and large promises and so the Lord crowneth in mercie the workes and obedience in his servant 2. Obiect As it is said here that this faith and beleefe was imputed vnto Abraham for righteousnesse so Psal. 106.31 Phineas act in killing the adulterer and the adulteresse is said to haue beene imputed to him for righteousnesse Answ. There is an vniuersall and particular iustice that is personae of the person the other is facts of some particular fact so in this place in the Psalme the Prophet speaketh not of that vniuersal iustice whereby one is counted iust before God but of the particular iustification approbation of Phineas his fact which otherwise might haue seemed to be vnlawful because he did take the sword being a priuate man but because he did it in the zeale of Gods glorie the Lord approoued it Phinehas by that act beeing but one could not be iustified before God for the law saith cursed is he that continueth not in all things which are written in the lawe one act then of obedience could not iustifie Phinehas before God but that particular act was accepted and approoued so Deut. 14.13 the restoring of the pledge before the Sunne goe downe is said to be ones righteousnesse that is the Lord would accept it as a worke of righteousnesse pleasing and acceptable vnto him But in this place the Apostle speaketh of vniuersall iustice whereby a man is iustified and counted iust before God to this purpose Pareus dub 3. Martyr Faius Quest. 11. How S. Paul and S. Iames are reconciled about the manner of Abrahams iustifying S. Paul saith here v. 3. that Abraham beleeued God and it was counted vnto him for righteousnesse but S. Iames saith c. 2.23 Was not Abraham our father iustified by works when he offred his sonne Isaac 1. Tolet would thus reconcile them that S. Paul should speake of works going before Abrahams iustification and without them he was iustified but S. Iames of workes that followed after whereby Abraham was iustified But this solution will not serue his turne for Abraham before this time when he is said to haue beene iustified by his faith had done many excellent workes after he had beleeued Gods promises in obeying his calling and leauing his countrey which things he did by faith and yet he was iustified without any such workes S. Paul then excludeth euen such workes as followed his iustification 2. Wherefore the true reconciling of them is this 1. that S. Paul and S. Iames speake not of the same kind of iustification the one reasoneth of the manner and causes of our iustifying before God the other of the signes thereof before men 2. they speake of a diuerse subiect S. Paul of Abraham iustificando to be iustified S. Iames iustificati of the same beeing iustified 3. S. Paul of the iustifying of the person S. Iames of the iustifying of a particular fact Gryneus see in the former chapter controv 21. Quest. 12. Of the explication of the 4. and 5. verses v. 4. To him that worketh 1. Here are three expositions set one against the other of him that worketh and worketh not but beleeueth of the debt and fauour or grace of the wages and imputation Mart. and by him that worketh is vnderstood him that worketh with an intent therby to merit or to be iustified for he that beleeueth also worketh but he is said not to work secundū quid after a sort because he doth it not to that end to merit by it 2. This the Apostle speaketh by way of concession vsing a civill axiome taken from humane affaires not that indeede before God any wages by debt is due vnto any that worketh Beza the Apostle then speaketh thus by way of supposition ex hypothesi Faius 3. This Origen not well vnderstanding but supposing that the Apostle indeed
inward circumcision of the heart which is by faith 2. Anselmus thinketh that the Apostle reporteth here that which he said before that Abraham is the father of them which beleeue though they be vncircumcised but he toucheth here rather the other part that Abraham is the father of the circumcision also which he further explaineth that he meaneth not such as onely haue the carnall circumcision but such as walke in the steppes of Abraham 3. By walking in the steppes the Apostle vnderstandeth not here the fruites and effects of faith but rather faith it selfe in which respect Abraham is said to be the father of the faithfull Beza annot And herein they must followe the steppes of Abraham 1. he was not counted iust not by any merits or workes of his but by faith 2. this faith was ioyned with a constant and full assurance herein they must be like vnto Abraham 4. Origen here obserueth that though at this time he were called Abram not Abraham when he was pronounced iust by faith Gen. 15. yet the Apostle retaineth that name which was afterward imposed by the Lord quod enim divinitus sumitur obseruari in posterum convenit for that which is once appointed of God it is fit afterward to be observed Quest. 23. How and where Abraham was promised to be heire of the world v. 13. 1. Gryneus by the world vnderstandeth by a Synecdoche of the whole taken for a part the land of Canaan which was promised to Abraham and his seede but the Apostle speaketh here not of a temporall but of a spirituall promise 2. Faius Osiander with others doe apply it vnto Canaan also but mystically as it was a type and figure of the kingdome of heauen 3. Lyranus will haue this fulfilled in Christ to whom was giuen all power in heauen and earth so also Peter Martyr and Caluin who alleadgeth that place Heb. 1.2 Whom he hath made heire of all things 4. Pareus by the world vnderstandeth the world of the faithfull and beleeuers dispersed ouer the world and so in effect it is the same which he said before that Abraham should be the father of all which beleeue whether of the circumcision or vncircumcision So also Origen here referreth vs vnto that promise Gen. 15. that in Abraham all the kinreds of the earth should be blessed likewise Beza 5. As this last seemeth to be the fittest interpretation so I thinke it best to ioyne both these last together that Abraham was made heire of the world that is the father of all beleeuers in the world yet so as this was chiefely performed in Christ as it is said Psalme â—â— I will giue the heathen for thine inheritance and the vttermost parts of the earth for thy possession And so S. Paul also Galath 3. vnderstandeth the seede of Abraham vnto whom the promise was made of Christ to this purpose the ordinarie glosse that Abraham was heres mundi secundum propositum exemplum heire of the world in respect of his example of beleeuing but Christ secundum potestatem in regard of his power Quest. 24. Wherein Abraham was made heire of the world and wherein this inheritance consisted 1. This inheriting of the world is not meant of any temporall dominion which snoâ—â— fall vnto the posteritie of Abraham as the Iewes dreamed for the obiect of faith is spirituall not temporall as it is defined by the Apostle to be the euidence of things that are not seene Heb. 11.1 2. It must therefore be referred vnto Christ. 1. Abraham in Christs right is promiseâ—â— the inheritance of the world which should be chiefely accomplished in the celestiall inheritance 2. and now in the earth this spirituall inheriting of the world is vnderstood of the Church of Christ which is dispersed thorough the world 3. and beside the faithfull onely haue true tight and interest vnto the temporall things of this life which the wicked 〈◊〉 bold as vsurpers as the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 3.21 all things are yours and ye Christs and Christ Gods Pareus Quest. 25. How faith is said to be made voide if they which are of the lawe be heires 1. Haymo by the promise here vnderstandeth the blessing which was promised to Abraham should in his seede come vpon all nations so that if they which were of the lawe and circumcision should onely be heires vnto Abraham that promise should not be accomplished that all nations should in his feede be blessed 2. Origen thus expoundeth evacuabitur id that should be evacuated and made voide that Abraham was iustified by faith his meaning is that the word of God should not be found true so also Osiander taketh here faith for the constancie of Gods promises it would follow that God did not stand to his promise seeing the promise was made to the faith of Abraham but faith is not taken in that sense in this chapter but thereby is meant beleefe in God and the relying vpon his promises 3. Bucer and Calvin giue this sense that seeing faith is ioyned with an assured confidence and trust if the promise were made to the keeping of the law which beeing a thing impossible would make doubtfulnesse and distrust in the minde this were contrarie vnto the nature of faith and so in this respect faith should be made voide 4. Tolet here referreth vs to that place Galat. 3.17 where the Apostle reasoneth from the time that the lawe which came 400. yeares after the promise could not make voide the promise which was made before but if the inheritance came by the lawe then should the promise which was made first be of no effect which were verie absurd and inconuenient 5. But the Apostle rather reasoneth here from the contrarie and diuerse nature of the lawe and promise for the lawe requireth workes and so the reward is of due debt the promise is of faith and so the reward is of grace and fauour these then doe one destroy an other for that which is of fauour cannot be of desert and due debt if the inheritance then come by the lawe of workes the lawe of faith is made voide and so Gods promise should be frustrate which is impossible Pareus in ver 14. Quest. 26. How the lawe is said to cause wrath 1. This is not brought in as an argument and proofe of the former speach that the promise is of no effect if the inheritance were by the lawe but it is a new argument to prooue that inheritance is not by the lawe by the contrarie effect because the promise procureth a blessing but the lawe wrath and so malediction therefore the inheritance is not by the law 2. Origen by the lawe vnderstandeth the lawe of the members which maketh vs captiue vnto sinne and indeede causeth wrath and where this law is not there is no transgression Haymo thinketh it may be of the lawe of nature but it is euident that the Apostle speaketh of the written lawe of Moses as he calleth the Iewes Abrahams seede of the lawe v.
Gods promises taketh him in effect not to say the truth and so dishonoureth him 5. Tolet nihil impossibile Deo credidit he beleeued that nothing was impossible vnto God 6. Lyranus he ascribed the promise not vnto his merit or worthinesse but vnto the goodnesse of God 7. But with Beza I ioyne all these together agnito collandato Deo c. he acknowledged and praised God that he is true and gratious so Bucerus illum verum omnipotentem credit illum invocat colit c. he beleeueth him to be both true and omnipotent and doth call vpon him worship and adore him Thus Abrahams faith is set forth quod credidit confidenter that he beleeued confidently He did not doubt of the promise of God thorough vnbeleefeâ— gratanter he beleeued thankefully because he gaue God the glorie and certainely he was fully assured Gorrhan Quest. 37. What was imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse v. 22. Therefore euen it was imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse 1. Tolet will haue this referred not simply vnto Abrahams saith to prooue that not his workes but his faith were imputed vnto him for righteousnesse but vnto the qualitie of his faith which was perfect because he was assured he beleeued confidently But seeeing the Apostle addeth that it was not written for Abraham onely but for vs also that faith should be imputed to vs for righteousnesse it is euident that the Apostle hath not relation vnto the particular qualitie of Abrahams faith but generally vnto the condition and nature of faith whereby all that beleeue are iustified for otherwise none should be iustified but they which haue the like perfect faith as Abraham had 2. Origens collection here also is not found that because the Greeke coniunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is here vsed inferreth that the like may be said of other his vertues as pietie mercie charitie quod reputata est ad iustitiam that it was reputed vnto him for iustice But this glosse is contrarie vnto the text which saith Abraham beleeued God and it was counted vnto him for righteousnesse this iustice is imputed vnto his faith not to any other of his vertues for it is the office onely of faith to beleeue and not of the rest now the Apostle inserteth the coniunction and because the sentence is so expressed by Moses which dependeth on the other clause Abraham beleeued God then it followeth and it was counted to him for righteousnesse Quest. 38. Of these words Now it is not written for him onely c. ver 23. 1. Here then is confuted their error who thinke that the Prophets did write vpon speciall and particular occasions onely for that age wherein they liued But the Apostle sheweth that this Scripture was written for our vse as he saith againe c. 15.4 Whatsoeuer is written is written for our learning Pareus 2. But all things which are written of Abraham are not written for our imitation as his arming of himselfe to recouer Lot that was taken captiue his offring vp of his sonne in sacrifice and such like acts for we must distinguish betweene the vniuersall or generall calling of those holy men which was to be worshippers of God and their particular which was for some speciall seruice in their generall calling the holy Patriarkes are by vs to be imitated and in such actions as thereunto belonged as Abraham is set forth to vs an example for beleeuing but the particular acts which they did by some speciall and extraordinarie direction of the spirit are not by vs to be imitated Martyr 3. Yet there is somewhat to be obserued euen in the singular and extraordinarie acts of the fathers worthie of our imitation As in Abrahams readinesse to sacrifice his sonne thus much we learne that as he preferred the commandement of God before the life of his sonne so we should preferre the will of God before all other things Martyr And so Origen here obserueth well est viri sapientis c. it is the part of a wise man to obserue quoâ—â—â—â— vnum quodque opus quod de Abrahame scribitur c. how euerie worke which is written of Abraham may be fulfilled in him 4. The same Origen also here hath an other good observation not onely the things written of Abraham are written for vs sed quae de Isaac scripta sunt similiter accipienda c. 〈◊〉 the things written of Isaac are so to be taken likewise and so of Iacob c. for the Apostles rule is generall as is alleadged before that whatsoeuer is written is written for our â—â—â—â—ing Quest. 39. How Abrahams faith is to be imitated by vs. v. 24. But also for vs to whom it shall be imputed c. 1. Here the Apostle sheweth that our faith must be answerable vnto Abrahams in these three things 1. first in the benefit of imputation of righteousnes as iustice came vnto Abraham by imputation so also it is giuen vnto vs the same kind of iustice before was alwaies in the Church from the beginning of the world to the ende 2. he sheweth to whom this benefit of imputation is imputed namely vnto beleeuers such as Abraham was vnbeleeuers then are excluded 3. what must be beleeued euen the same thing which AbrahaÌ„ beleeued of God that he was able to quicken the dead so we must beleeue in God that raised vp Iesus from the dead in which faith two things are contained the manner we must beleeue in God which noteth a firme and stedfast assurance and the matter which sheweth three things the author God that raised Iesus that is raised and the end in confessing him to be our Lord that is our Sauiour Mediator and Redeemer 2. But it will be obiected that Abrahams faith is inimitable because it was great and miraculous and a perfect faith Answ. 1. It was a perfect faith in comparison of ours but not perfect in it selfe for there is no mortall mans faith so perfect but it is mingled with some doubting 2. we are not required to imitate his faith in the quantitie and greatnesse thereof but in the qualitie that we beleeue in God as he did Faius and yet Abrahams faith was a great faith rather in respect of the fathers which liued vnder the old Testament then of the faithfull vnder the newe Quest. 40. Wherein Abrahams faith and ours differ and wherein they agree 1. They differ in promissionis specie in the kind and qualitie of the promise for Abraham was promised beside the spirituall blessing in the Messiah the possession of the land of Canaan the multiplying of his seede the victorie of his enemies the inheritance of the world to vs is onely promised the inheritance of the kingdome of God 2. in obiecto fidei in the particular obiect of faith Abraham beleeued in him which doth quicken the dead but we beleeue in him that raised Iesus from the dead which particular point of faith was not so plainly reuealed to Abraham 3. Abrahams faith was exemplarie for vs
sacraments are seales to assure vs of Gods promises made in Christ and that they serue for the strengthning and confirmation of our faith his best reason is this qualis obsecro fides est quae vacillat c. what manner of faith is that I pray you which wauereth and had neede to be confirmed if by faith we are assured of Gods promises what vse is then of the Sacraments to assure vs of that whereof we are by faith assured alreadie Perer. disput 4. numer 22. to the same purpose Staplet Antid pag. 225. Contra. 1. The truth of our opinion that the Sacraments are seales to assure vs and meanes to confirme our faith is euident both by the Apostles words who calleth circumcision not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a signe but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a seale which is more then a signe for a seale is added for confirmation secondly the same is prooued by the nature of signes giuen in couenants which is to assure the parties of the truth and constancie of the couenant made now circumcision was a signe of the couenant betweene God and his people and therefore a signe of assurance and certaintie 2. And although it be the speciall office of faith to assure vs of Gods promises which on Gods behalfe are most sure and neede no ratification yet because our faith is here weake and imperfect it hath neede of proppes to confirme and strengthen it Mart. Controv. 9. Whether circumcision were auayleable for the remission of sinnes 1. Diuerse of the auncient and learned fathers are of opinion that circumcision had no spirituall vse but onely serued as a marke of distinction to discerne Abrahams posteritie from other nations and to be a signe vnto them what faith Abraham was of whom they should imitate and of this opinion these reasons are yeelded 1. Iustinus Martyr dialog cum Tryphon and Epiphanius haeres 30. doe giue this reason why circumcision was not giuen ad iustificationem for iustification or sanctificationis gratiâ for sanctification because it was a signe giuen onely vnto the men and not to the women quicquid ad iustitiam virtutem pertinet c. whatsoeuer belongeth vnto iustice and vertue was giuen vnto women as well as men Iustine 2. Tertullian saith that circumcision was giuen as a signe for those times non in salutis praerogativum not to be a prerogatiue of saluation because Abraham ante placuerat Deo quam circumcideretur had pleased God before he was circumcised lib. aduers. Iudaeos 3. Chrysostome prooueth quod circumcisio nihil ad animae virtutem conduceret that circumcision did nothing avayle for any vertue of the minde by this reason because it was appointed to be ministred vnto infants vpon the eight day that it might thereby appeare that it did nihil animae conducere nothing profit the soule hom 39. in Genes 4. Theodoret saith corporalis circumcisio solius obtinet locum signaculi corporall circumcision is onely in stead of a seale his reason is that circumcision is called carnall and it was a corporall thing and therefore had no such spirituall vse 5. Vnto these reasons may be added that the Israelites were not circumcised for the space of 40. yeares in the wildernesse which sheweth that it was no spirituall remedie for then they should not haue beene suffered to want it so long 6. Beside Iosephus and Philo who haue written most diligently of the ceremonies of the Iewes and the signification thereof neither of them make mention of remission of sinnes signified thereby Contr. But these reasons are easily answeared 1. Though the women were not circumcised yet were they not therefore excluded from the couenant Pererius thinketh that there might be some other meanes prouided for the women but if there had beene any such thing prescribed to women such as circumcision was for men the Scripture would not haue beene silent therein Peter Martyr answeareth better that although circumcision were only enioyned vnto the men yet the vse and fruit thereof also was extended to the women because they were numbred and counted with the men the virgins belonged to their fathers and the married women to their husbands 2. True it is that Abraham pleased God and was iustified before he receiued circumcision this prooueth that Abraham indeede was not iustified by circumcision not that thereby was not sealed the remission of sinnes 3. And the circumcision ministred vnto infants vpon the 8. day doth not take away the spirituall vse thereof for then neither should baptisme haue any spirituall vse concerning the cleansing of the soule because infants which haue yet no discretion are baptized The Sacrament of circumcision then and of baptisme now is giuen vnto infants to consecrate them vnto God that thereby they may be put in minde of their profession when they come to yeares of discretion 4. And whereas S. Paul calleth it circumcision in the flesh he there speaketh of circumcision as separate from faith as it is onely vnto carnall men whereas the right circumcision beeing receiued according to the institution consisteth both of the carnall and externall circumcision of the flesh and of the internall and spirituall circumcision of the heart 5. The omitting of circumcision 40. yeares in the wildernesse sheweth that iustification and remission of sinnes was not tied to the signe that it was no signe of spirituall grace in the remission of sinnes it prooueth not for them which died in the wildernes vncircumcised it may be affirmed that they were in like case with those which died before circumcision was instituted or with children which died before the eight day of circumcision the want of the signe in these cases was not preiudiciall vnto them 6. Iosephus and Philo might conceale this secret that circumcision was a seale of remission of sinnes least the Gentiles into whose hands they knew their writings should come might thereby haue taken occasion to haue scorned and derided the mysteries which they vnderstood not 2. A second opinion is of the Romanists who make this difference betweene circumcision and other Sacraments of the old Testament and baptisme in the newe that in baptisme grace is conferred but in the other there was onely significatio gratiae non effectio a signifying onely not an effecting of grace so Pererius out of Thomas disputat 6. numer 32. Contra. But beside that we shewed before controv 7. that there was the same spirituall effect of the Sacraments of the old and newe Testament they differed onely in respect◠of the more cleare light and liuely representation in the newe Sacraments then in the olde there was more then a bare signification onely of spirituall grace in circumcision for it is called a seale not a signe onely 3. Yet some other of the Romanists as diuerse of their Schoolemen as Alexander Gabriel Bonaventure Scotus as they are cited by Bellarmine lib. 2. de effect Sacramentor c. 13. are of opinion circumcisionem ex opere operato contulisse iustificationem that circumcision by
the very worke wrought did conferre iustification But this is euidently contrarie to the Apostle in this place who directly noteth that Abraham was iustified by faith when as yet he was vncircumcised and vpon this Iustinus Martyr inferreth that Abraham had not receiued circumcision ad iustificationem for his iustification because he was iustified before by faith whereby he beleeued God dialog cum Tryphon And Ireneus vrgeth the same argument advers haeres lib. 4. c. 30. that Abraham was not iustified by circumcision because sine circumcisione placuit Deo he pleased God without circumcision 4. As these doe ascribe too much vnto circumcision so Ambrose seemeth to detract too much from it inferring thus that because Abraham receiued circumcision as a signe of the righteousnesse of faith non ergo habet circumcisio aliquid dignitatis sed signum est tantum therefore circumcision hath no dignitie at all but is onely a signe to this purpose Ambrose in his commentarie here 5. Wherefore the best opinion is that circumcision though it did not conferre remission of sinnes yet it was more then a bare signifying signe it was a seale and pleadge whereby the promises of God were ratified and confirmed and specially concerning remission of sinnes in Christ And therefore the Apostle saith it was not onely a signe but a seale which serueth to confirme and ratifie see before of this controv 8. And herein we mislike not the opinion of Thomas and other schoolemen that in circumcision there was conferred grace non virtute circumcisionis sed fidei passionis Christi not by vertue of circumcision but of faith in the passion of Christ whereof circumcision was a signe Perer. disput 6. numer 2. saving that they thinke that in the newe Sacraments there is an actuall collation of grace by the verie externall participation of the Sacrament But that circumcision was as much an instrument of grace not by the vertue of the Sacrament but of faith whereof it was a seale as baptisme is Augustine directly testifieth writing to this purpose that circumcision which was then a seale of the righteousnesse of faith ad significationem purgationis valebat c. sicut baptismus c. was avayleable for the purgation of sinne as baptisme was availeable vnto regeneration after it was instituted c. to this purpose Augustine de Nupt. concupiscent c. 11. Likewise Gregorie quod apud nos valet gratia baptismatis hoc agit apud veteres c. that which the grace of baptisme is avayleable vnto amongst vs to the same ende serued in the old Testament either faith alone for children or for the elder sort the vertue of sacrifices for those which came of Abrahams stocke the mysterie of circumcision Gregor lib. 4. Iob. Controv. 10. Of the presumptuous titles of the Pope calling himselfe the father and head of the faithfull Abraham is called the father of those which beleeue because he gaue them an example both of the true iustifying faith and of holy obedience If the Pope would be the father of the Church and of beleeuers he must goe before them in puritie of faith and manners and yet if he did so he should thinke it his greatest honour to be counted the child of faithfull Abraham he must not arrogate vnto him the title which the Scripture giueth vnto Abraham to be the father of the faithfull But seeing they which are Abrahams children must walke in the steppes of Abrahams faith which is to be iustified without workes the Pope holding iustification by the merit of workes cannot be so much as the child of faithfull and beleeuing Abraham Controv. 11. Against the Chiliastes or Millenaries that hold that Christ should raigne a 1000. yeares in the earth v. 13. The promise that Abraham should be the heire of the world The Chiliastes whose opinion was that Christ after the resurrection should raigne in the earth in all externall happinesse and pleasure for a thousand yeares doe apply this place to their owne conceit that this should be the inheritance of the world promised to Abraham As likewise they vrge that place Luk. 22.30 of eating and drinking with Christ in his kingdome and that Apocal. 20.4 how the Saints should raigne with Christ a 1000. yeares in the earth of this opinion were Papius Ireneus Tertullian Lactantius with others Lactantius dreameth that in those thousand yeares the rockes shall droppe honie and the riuers runne with wine and milke Contra. But these are mens dreames and fansies 1. the Apostle saith that the kingdome of God is not meate and drinke Rom. 14.17 therefore we must not imagine that Christ shall raigne with his Saints in any such carnall pleasure 2. whereas the Scripture speaketh of eating and drinking in the kingdome of heauen thereby Ambrose vpon Luke well vnderstandeth communicationem aeterna falicitatis the communicating and participating of euerlasting felicitie and happinesse as the Scripture vseth by such phrases taken from temporall and earthly delights to expresse spirituall ioyes 3. by the thousand yeares mentioned Apocal. 20. Augustine vnderstandeth all the time of the flourishing of the Gospell here in earth during which time Sathan is bound and his kingdome destroyed by the preaching of the Gospell so also Pet. Martyr thinketh that a certaine time is there taken for an indefinite and vncertaine But because all such propheticall predictions doe note a certaine limitation of time and yeares I subscribe rather vnto their opinion who thinke that a thousand yeares precisely are spoken of wherein Sathan should be bound which Iunius will haue to ende at the time of Hildebrande but they rather ende some 300. yeares after for otherwise Sathan should be held to be bound in the 300. yeares of persecution vnder the Pagan Emperours which is not to be admitted Controv. 12. Of the certaintie of faith v. 16. That the promise might be sure 1. This is an euident place against that Popish vncertaintie of remission of sinnes for they hold it a presumption for a man to be sure of Gods fauour and of their iustification by faith in Christ but this is contrarie to the Scriptures the Apostle saith Rom. 8.16 The spirit beareth witnesse with our spirit that we are the children of God but nothing is more certaine then the testimonie of the spirit Againe the same Apostle saith Beeing iustified by faith we are at peace with God but the conscience cannot be at peace and setled if it were not sure of the remission of sinnes in Christ S. Paul also himselfe is perswaded that nothing could separate him from the loue of God in Christ Rom. 8.38 which perswasion was not peculiar to the Apostle by any speciall reuelation but wrought in him by faith as it is in others as he sheweth 2. Timoth. 4.8 2. This certaintie of our assurance is builded vpon these two grounds 1. the firmener and stablenesse of the word and promise of God which cannot faile 2. the nature of faith which is to giue an vnfained and
vndoubted assent vnto the promises of God Mart. Origen giueth this reason those things are said to be firmer which are by grace then those things which are by the law quia illa extra nos sunt haec intra nos c. because those things are without vs written in tables of stone these are within vs vero spiritu Dei inscripta beeing written by the verie spirit of God 3. But it will be thus obiected against this assurance and certaintie 1. Obiect Gods promises as likewise his menasings are conditionall as that of Ionah that Nineveh should be destroyed within fortie dayes and that pronounced by Isay to king Hezekiah that he should die 2. No man is sure of perseuerance and continuance to the ende 3. Vnlesse a man were sure to be without sinne which is impossible in this life he cannot be certaine of his saluation 4. There is not the perfectest man but sometime he feeleth his mind to be full of doubting Contra. 1. Some promises and threatnings of God are conditionall and they hold not the condition not beeing kept such are these giuen in instance but some are without condition of our obedience but are of Gods meere grace which require nothing but a liuely faith to apprehend it 2. The faithfull doe pray for perseuerance in all their prayers but prayer as S. Iames sheweth must be made without hesitation or doubting therefore the faithfull may be in time and in the ende are assured of their perseuerance to the ende 3. Not the assurance to be without sinne but that our sinnes are forgiuen vs is required for then neither S. Paul who was not without sinne could haue beene assured of Gods fauour in Christ as he was 4. There may rise doubts in the minds of the faithfull from the weaknes and infirmitie of the flesh and yet they may notwithstanding haue a perswasion for these doe arise and spring of diuers causes and beginnings the infirmitie of the flesh may cause one sometime to doubt and yet the spirit of grace may worke assurance in the minde which in the ende preuaileth and ouercommeth all doubts Like as reason doth tell a man that the Sunne is bigger then the whole earth and yet his sense may cause him to doubt of it Martyr Origen in this purpose vpon these words v. 19. and he not weake in faith c. inferreth that there may be then an infirmitie and weaknes in faith quod si est infirmitas est sine dubio ibi sanitas and if there be infirmitie there is also health and sanitie Now this doubting which riseth in the minde proceedeth not from the nature of faith but from man's infirmitie like as there is nothing more certaine in any science then the principles and axiomes in the Mathematicks yet one may doubt thereof not of any defect in the art but thorough his owne vnskilfulnes so a faithfull man may doubt not because in faith there is any vncertentie but it is raised by his owne infirmitie which infirmitie is of two sorts either when one is perswaded of that which he knoweth but there remaine yet other things to be knowne which he comprehendeth not or when he knoweth and beleeueth the things which are set before him but thorough his weaknes can not giue full assent vnto them the first of these is a fayling in his vnderstanding the second in his heart and affection But the spirit of God subdueth at the last all these defects and doubting and worketh a full perswasion in the heart The argument then followeth not a faithfull man may sometime cast doubts in his minde therefore by faith he can not be assured for neither doth a faithfull man doubt totaliten wholly dubitatio proficiscitur ex infirmitate his doubting proceedeth of his infirmitie certitudo ex fide but his assurance is of faith not yet finaliter this his doubting is not finall at length by faith he ouercommeth all such infirmities Martyr 13. Controv. Whether faith be an act of the vnderstanding onely Bellarmine vpon these words v. 19. not considering his owne bodie and v. 21. plenissime scitus fully knowing inferreth that faith is not a certaine fidence confidence or assurance but onely an act of the vnderstanding for to consider belongeth to the vnderstanding and so doth a full and firme knowledge Bellarm. lib. 1. de iustificat c. 6. Contra. 1. In that Abraham considered not his bodie it sheweth that his faith ouercame all impediments yea it euen preuailed against his naturall reason this maketh rather against Bellarmine for here an act of the vnderstanding which is to haue considered the weaknesse of his bodie is denied he considered not and yet if this prooued any thing it sheweth onely that faith ioyned with the consideration and vnderstanding of the minde not that it consisteth onely of it 2. Concerning the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is better translated beeing fully assured and perswaded then fully knowing perswasion is not onely a certaine knowledge and apprehension of the minde but a full assent also of the will grounded vpon the firme and resolute iudgement of the vnderstanding and in this sense doth the Apostle vse the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 certentie full perswasion 1. Thess. 1.5 where he saith our Gospel was not vnto you in word onely c. but in the holy Ghost and much assurance as he deliuered vnto them the most euident and certaine doctrine of the Gospel so it wrought in them a steadfast and setled assurance of their saluation 3. And that this perswasion which Abraham had was ioyned with a confidence and assurance the words euidently shew v. 20. Neither did he doubt of the promise through vnbeleefe which the Latine translator readeth non haesitavit he staggered or stucke not And that faith hath alwaies assurance and confidence ioyned with it Saint Iames also testifieth chap. 1.6 Let him aske in faith and wauer not see more hereof Synops. Centur. 4. nr ◠45 14. Controv. That iustifying faith is not a generall apprehension or beleeuing of the Articles of faith but an assurance of the remission and forgiuenes of sinnes in Christ. Bellarmine further collecteth vpon this place v. 20. Beeing fully perswaded that he which had promised was able to doe it c. that this faith whereby Abraham was iustified was not any assurance of the remission of sinnes but fides dogmatica vel historica a dogmaticall or historicall faith a beleefe of the omnipotencie of God Bellar. lib. 1. de iustif c. 11. to the same purpose the Rhemists giue here the like note that Abrahams faith was a beleefe of an article reuealed vnto him from God and so inferre that it shall be sufficient for vs to beleeue the articles of Christs death and resurrection without any scuh confidence which they call a found faith Contra. 1. That Abrahams faith was not onely a generall beleefe or assent that Gods speach was true and that he was able to effect that which he
is soule of my soule as he saith bone of my bones flesh of my flesh 2. Gen. 46.26 it is said that 66. soules came out of the loines of Iacob Answ. here the soule is taken for person and by a synecdoche the whole man is vnderstood by a part and that is said of the whole because of the vnitie of the person and the neare coniunction of the soule and bodie which is true onely in the one part namely the bodie which onely came out of the parentes loines in the same sense Marie is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mother of God because Christ both God and man was borne of her and yet he was borne onely as man 3. If the soule be not propagated by generation but created in the bodie then it would follow that God on the seauenth day had not made an end of the creation Answ it followeth not God ceased from creating any new kind but now the inspiring of the soule is but a continnuing of that way of the soule which God in the first creation made for it The better opinion then is animas creando infundi infundendo creari that the soules are infused by creation and created by infusion the reasons of which opinion are these 1. the direct words of Scripture Zacha. 12.1 God is said to haue formed the spirit of man within him And Hebr. 12.9 he is called the father of spirits 2. an other ground of this opinion is taken from the nature and condition of the soule it is a spirituall and immateriall essence immortall and incorruptible and therefore cannot come of corruptible and corporall seed 3. Christs soule came the same way which other mens soules doe for otherwise he should not be like vs in all things sinne excepted but his soule was not propagated from Marie for if he had both his bodie and soule from her he might as well be said to haue beene in the loines of Abraham when he paied tithes to Melchisedech as Levi Hebr. 7.10 and yet though Leui had his bodie onely not his soule from the loines of Abraham he is said to be in his loines because he came from thence by the ordinarie and common generation but so did not Christ seeing then this opinion is refused of the generation and derivation of the soule we also reiect this answer concerning the propagating of originall sinne 4. This then is our more full answer vnto this obiection of the Pelagians 1. although we can not giue a sufficient reason of this how originall sinne should be propagated yet it is enough for vs that it is so that we are all by nature the children of wrath 2. it is not true that onely the flesh and bodie of man is propagated from the parents for then man should conferre lesse in his generation then brute beasts from whom not the bodies onely but the spirits doe issue in the generation of their kind so then totus homo ex toto homine nascitur whole man is generated of whole man and anima licet non materialiter tamen originaliter the soule though not materially yet originally is taken from Adam Pareus we doe not say that the soule of man is deriued from the soule of the father yet man consisting of bodie and soule is begotten of his father the Lord beeing the father of spirits concurring in that naturall act of carnall generation 3. it is denied that the soule onely is the feate of sinne it is the corruption of the whole man consisting both of bodie and soule the whole man then is corrupted and so the feate and place of sinne Pareus and how the soule beeing created pure commeth to be infected with sinne Lyranus wel sheweth sicut liquor bonus inficitur ex corruptione vasis c. as a good liquor is infected by the corruption of the vessell so originall sinne provenit ex carne causaliter sed tamen in anima est subiective formaliter commeth of the flesh as the cause but it is in the soule as the subiect and formally like as sickenes and infirmitie commeth of corrupt and vnholesome meats as the cause but the meate is not capable of sickenes as the subiect the bodie is the subiect of sickenes to this purpose Lyranus Faius expresseth it by this similitude the pure soule is infected with the contagion of impute seed sicut manu immunda flos insignis polâ—â—â—tur c. like as a faire flower is polluted with vncleane hands Pet. Martyr yet more distinctly sheweth the manner how this pollution entreth into the soule corporis impuritate imbecillitate sua by two waies the impuritie of the bodie and it owne weaknesseâ— for both the soule is weake and not able to resist the corrupt inclination of the flesh it is not created in such strength and perfection as Adams soule was and the bodie is vnapt and vnfit for any spirituall worke and this may suffice for an answer vnto this obiection of the Pelagians concerning the originall of the soule Controv. 13. Against the Pelagians and Papists that originall sinne is not quite taken away in baptisme 1. The Pelagians obiect further that there is no originall sinne propagated vnto Adams posteritie or at the least remaining in them for that which is taken away and blotted out remaineth not now originall sinne is taken away in baptisme and therefore it is no more extant Answer There must be two things considered in sinne the act thereof as the matter and the guilt now there is herein a great difference betweene originall and other actuall sinnes for in those the act is transitorie and remaineth not and the guilt is remitted by faith in Christ in originall sinne though the guilt thereof be remitted in baptisme yet the matter thereof which is the corruption and deprauation of mans nature remaineth it passeth not away as the transitorie act of other actuall sinnes and for the more full demonstration hereof Augustine vseth two similitudes like as the corne is sowen without chaffe or straw and yet the corne that springeth of the seed hath both and as they which were circumcised beget children that are vncircumcised and had neede of a new circumcision so the fathers beeing regenerate by a new birth yet doe beget vnregenerate children the sanctitie of the parents no more passeth to their children then their knowledge and other vertues Mart. 2. The Romanists denie not but there remaineth a corruption of nature still in the children of God after Baptisme but they say it remaineth vt poena exercenda vertâ—tis materia not as a fault but as a punishment and matter or occasion for the exercising of vertue Lyran. And it was concluded in the Councell of Trent in baptisme tolli omne illud quod veram habet propriam rationem peccati all that to be taken away which hath the proper and true nature of sinne Concil Trident. sess 5. the Rhemists also affirme that children baptized haue neither mortall nor
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
the party that is baptized and the water the three inuisible are the soule of the partie baptized which is cleansed and faith in those that are of yeares and the holy Ghost which worketh the remission of sinnes Haymo Quest. 5. What it is to be baptized into the death of Christ. v. 3. The Apostle vseth to this purpose three phrases to be baptized into the death of Christ to be buried by baptisme into his death v. 4. and to be graft into the similitude of his death v. 5. all these shall be handled together 1. Cyrillus thinketh it is said the similitude of his death because Christ rose againe from death and so it was rather an image and shadowe of death then a death in deede but thus he should confound these two which the Apostle ioyneth together the similitude of his death and of his resurrection 2. Origen noteth certaine heretikes who gathered hereupon that Christ died not indeed but onely had a certaine similitude of death visus est magis mori quà m vere mortuâ— est he seemed rather to die then indeede died But if it were so then as Origen inferred nec vera erat resurrectio neither was Christs resurrection in truth nec vere saluati sâ—â—â—â— neither should we be truely saued 3. Therefore Origen giueth this sense it is called the similitude of death because Christ so died vnto sinne that yet there was no sinne found in him which cannot agree vnto vs for to be without sinne solius Christi est it onely belongeth to Christ But this is not the Apostles meaning for he said before we were baptized into the death of Christ which is the same as to be graft into the similitude of his death 4. Origen also hath an other exposition that Christ is exemplum nobis ad imitationem propositum an example set before vs to imitate but this is daungerous because of the error of the Pelagians who thinke that our conformitie with Christ ariseth of our imitation of him as they held that originall sinne is nothing else but a corrupt imitation of Adam whereas indeed on the contrarie our imitating of Christ proceedeth of our conformitie with him and the word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 similitude or likenes but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is more then a bare likenesse it sheweth a conformitie vnto Christ Beza 5. Basil. lib. de baptis vnderstandeth it of baptisme which he saith is a similitude of the crosse and passion of Christ but the Apostle rather sheweth the effects and fruites of baptisme and baptisme representeth all the partes of regeneration both dying and beeing buried vnto sinne and rising vnto newnesse of life it is not a representation of his death onely 6. Chrysostome thus vnderstandeth the similitude of his death because Christs death was carnis of his flesh our death is peccati of sinne so also Haymo following Chrysostome in hoc est similitudo quod ille mortuus est corpore nos vitijs herein is the similitude he died in bodie and we to our sinne But here is more then a similitude onely vnto the death of Christ we receiue vertue and efficacie from his death to die vnto sinne 7. Some apply it vnto the manner of baptisme as Ambrose cum mergeris mortis suscipis sepulturae similitudinem when thou art drenched in the water then thou hast a certaine similitude of the death and resurrection of Christ lib. 2. de Sacram. c. 7. so Chrysostome nos quidem aqua ille tellure we are buried in the water he in the earth c. so also Lyranus baptizatus megitur in aqua he that is baptised is drenched in the water so also Gorrhan tertia immersio repraesentat triduum mortis the thrise dipping in the water representeth the three dayes of Christs death and the lifting vp out of the water his resurrection But if this were the meaning then of necessitie this ceremonie should be vsed in baptisme to goe into or to be drenched in the water 8. Wherefore to be baptized into Christs death and to be buried into his death and to be graft into the similitude of his death are applications in particular of that which the Apostle said before in generall that we are baptized into Christ for in baptisme all the fruits of Christs death buriall and resurrection are sealed vnto vs first on Gods behalfe the benefits procured by Christs death sepulture and resurrection are offred vnto vs in baptisme which is the Sacrament of faith whereby we are graft into Christ and we in baptisme doe for our parts professe to renounce the deuill the world and the flesh Pareus Our sinnes then are two waies mortified and buried first by the remission and not imputing of our sinnes purchased by the death of Christ which is our iustification then by our daily dying and beeing buried vnto sinne which is our sanctification Melancthon and both these are represented in baptisme and communicated vnto vs by faith in Christ by the vertue of whose death we die vnto sinne and by the power of his resurrection we rise vp to newenesse of life like as the branches receiue iuyce and sappe from the tree And though the death of Christ were in respect of the nature that died corporall yet in respect of the person which died beeing God and man the effects were spirituall in causing vs to die vnto sinne and to rise vp to newenesse of life Gorrhan Quest. 7. Of the meaning of this phrase to be graft c. 1. Chrysostome thus applyeth this similitude as the bodie of Christ beeing in the earth fructum edidit orbis salutem c. brought forth fruit the saluation of the world so ours being buried in baptisme fructum attulit iustitiam bringeth forth fruit namely righteousnes but in this application here onely is shewed a likenes betweene Christ and vs the efficacie is not mentioned which we receiue from Christ. 2. Haymo thus expoundeth it Christ as a tree pascit vmbram praestat both feedeth and giueth shadowe he feedeth the angels contemplatione by contemplation of him homines cognitione men he feedeth by the knowledge of him but here no reason is shewed why we are said to be graft into Christ. 3. Origen thus vrgeth the similitude omnis planta post hyemis mortem resurrectionem veris expectat euerie plant after the death as it were of winter expecteth the resurrection as it were of the spring so Christs death was as the winter and his resurrection as the spring and this world is vnto vs as winter but the spring shall be in the resurrection 4. Oecumenius vseth this allusion like as the plant that which is set into the ground quandam mortificationem sustinet c. vndergoeth a kind of mortifying and then sprouteth out againe so Christ as a plant was laid in the earth but rose againe and we also beeing as plants buried in water in baptisme doe come forth to bring forth fruit But in these two explications as
not doe v. 3. The other condition and limitation that they must not walke after the flesh if they would haue Christ to profite them 1. he prooueth by this argument iustification and righteousnesse is not for them that cannot please God v. 8. the conclusion followeth that righteousnesse and iustification is not appointed for such v. 4. the assumption he prooueth by shewing the contrarie effects of the flesh and the spirit as 1. they sauour the things of the flesh v. 5. the wisedome of the flesh bringeth forth death v. 1. it is enmitie against God v. 7. but the spirit worketh the contrarie to all these 2. Then followeth an application of this generall doctrine to the comfort of the Romans that they are not in the flesh 1. from the efficient the spirit of God dwelleth in them v. 9. 2. from the coniunction they haue with Christs they are Christs which he sheweth by their present mortification v. 10. and the hope of the resurrection v. 10. 3. Then he inferreth a vehement exhortation that they should not walke after the flesh v. 12. 1. from the effects that would follow they should die set forth by the contrarie v. 14. which he prooueth by two effects the externall is their inuocation of God v. 15. the internall the testimonie of the spirit v. 16. 2. In the second part he exhorteth vnto the patient bearing of affliction by diuerse arguments 1. from the end the partaking of glorie after our sufferings v. 17. 2. from the impuritie of our afflictions and the reward v. 18. 3. from the lesse to greater the creature groneth and trauaileth and waiteth for deliuerance v. 19.20.21.22 much more we v. 23. 4. from the nature of hope which is not of things that are seene v. 24.25 5. from the effects wrought by the spirit by occasion of affliction which is prayer with sighes which are not in vaine the Lord heareth them v. 26.27 6. from other effects in generall they worke for the best v. 28. in particular they make vs conformable vnto Christ v. 29. which he sheweth by the first cause the purpose of God in the decree of predestination which vocation iustification glorification follow v. 30. 3. In the third part he sheweth the immutable state and condition of the elect 1. from the power of God v. 31. 2. from his beneficence who together with Christ giueth all good things v. 32. 3. from his mercie iustifying vs in Christ from all our sinnes v. 33.34 4. from the effects of faith in Christ which is victorie in all afflictions v. 37. and therefore they cannot separate vs from Christ v. 35. 5. frō the immutable loue of God in Christ which is so sure a bond as nothing can breake it as the Apostle sheweth by a particular induction v. 38.39 3. The questions and doubts discussed Quest. 1. Who are said to be in Christ. v. 1. There is no condemnation to those c. 1. P. Martyr here well obserueth the wisedome of the Apostle who before speaking of the humane infirmities and of the force of sinne in our members gaue instance in himselfe that no man though neuer so holy should be thought to be freed altogether from sinne in this life but now comming to set forth the priuiledge of those which are in Christ he makes it not his own particular case but inferreth a generall conclusion that there is no condemnation not onely to him but not to any that are in Christ Iesus And here the argument well followeth from the particular to the generall for like as that which is incident by nature to one man is common to another so the priuiledge of grace is common to all that are sanctified 2. to be in Christ Tolet interpreteth to haue the grace of regeneration whereby we are deliuered from the seruitude of sinne and so the Syrian interpreter seemeth to thinke who ioyneth the words thus together which walke not after the flesh in Christ but these are two diuerse effects to be graft into Christ which is by faith and not to walke after the flesh which is the fruits of faith per fidem facti sumus vnum in Christo we are by faith made one with Christ Beza insui per fidem graft in by faith 3. indeed vpon this coniunction with Christ followeth a materiall coniunction that as we are made one flesh with him so also one spirit he is not onely partaker with vs of the same nature but we doe receiue of his spirit that like as the braunch doth receiue not onely substance from the vine but sap and life as in matrimonie there is a coniunction not onely of bodies but euen of the affections so is it betweene Christ and his members but this is onely the materiall coniunction as Pet. Martyr calleth it the formall coniunction is by faith Quest. 2. What is meant by the law of the spirit of life 1. The law of the spirit of life 1. Chrysostome by the law of the spirit vnderstandeth the holy spirit whereby we are sanctified and this difference he maketh betweene the law of Moses and this law that is said to be spirituall because it was giuen by the spirit but this is said to be the law of the spirit quia spiritum suppeditat because it supplieth the spirit to those which receiue it So also Bellarmine vnderstandeth it of the spirit which is shed into our hearts enabling vs to keepe the law lib. 4. de iustificat likewise Thomas interpreteth it to be spiritus inhabitans the spirit that dwelleth in vs and sanctifieth vs so also Tolet annot 2. Pere And these make this grace of the spirit infused a cause of our spiritual deliuerance from sinne 2. Calvin also vnderstandeth the grace of the spirit which sanctifieth vs but this is added saith he not as a cause sed modum tradi quo solvimur à reatu but the way is shewed whereby we are freed from the guilt of sinne so also Hyperius Piscator vnderstandeth here the spirit of sanctification But seeing our sanctification is imperfect this were a weake ground for vs to stay vpon to assure vs that we are farre from condemnation 3. Beza neither taketh this for the law of the spirit nor for the law of faith but he vnderstandeth perfectam naturae nostrae in Christo sanctificationem the perfit sanctification of our nature in Christ whereby we are deliuered But this righteousnesse of Christ if it be not applied vnto vs by faith how can it deliuer vs. 4. Some by the law of the spirit of life doe interpret with Ambrose legem fides the law of faith and with Haymo gratiam sancti Euangeli the grace of the holy Gospel which teacheth faith Pareus Faius the doctrine of the Gospell is called the law of the spirit and life because it is the ministrie of the spirit and life the law was spirituall in as much as it prescribed and commanded spirituall obedience but was not the ministerie of the spirit and life but rather
and keepers thereof how doth the Prophet Ezech. c. 20.25 call them statutes that are not good the answer is that the law of it selfe promiseth life but in respect of mans weaknes that is not able to keepe the law it is not good because it bringeth death and so Moses saith Deut. 30.15 I haue set before you this day life and death c. the law was life to them that had power to keepe it which none haue in this life but death vnto the trangressors Faius Quest. 10. Whether Paul did of purpose alleadge that place of Moses Deuter. 30.12 or allude onely vnto it 1. Some thinke that Moses in that place directly speaketh of the law according to the literall sense and Saint Paul by a certaine allusion applieth that vnto faith which Moses vttereth of the law so Theodoret Chrysostome Oecumenius likewise Tostatus vpon that place Paul per quandam concordantiam transtulit ad fidem Paul by a certaine agreement hath translated this place and applyed it vnto faith Vatablus also saith that Paul followeth not Moses sense but some words But this would extenuate the force of S. Pauls argument if he should allude onely vnto this place of Scripture and not confirme that which he intended by the same and the Apostle himselfe saith that the iustice of faith thus speaketh that is as Origen expoundeth Christ who is our iustice by faith thus speaketh by the mouth of Moses wherefore Moses in that place speaketh of the iustice of faith 2. Some thinke that S. Paul followeth not the litterall but the mysticall sense of Moses thus Lyranus thinketh that the booke called Deuteronomie the second law was a figure of the Gospel which was indeede a newe and a second law and that this was figuratiuely spoken of the gospel that as they needed not goe to heauen or to the furthest parts of the Sea to fetch the Law because it was neere them as it were put into their mouth by Moses so neither neede they nowe seeke farre for the knowledge of Christ either to heauen or hell seeing he was euidently preached by the Apostles this sense also followeth Bellarmine de grat liber arbit lib. 5. c. 6. But that Moses speaketh not of the precepts of the law in that place is euident because he sheweth the facilitie of them it is in thy mouth and heart to do it c. but it was not so easie a thing to performe the Lawe Bellarmine answeareth with Tostatus that Moses speaketh not of the performing but of the knowledge of the lawe whereas the words are directly to do it Sotus in his commentarie thinketh that Moses speaketh of the externall obseruation of the law which was readie at hand but for the internall and spirituall obedience they were to expect further grace But Moses speaketh directly of the inward obedience it is in thy mouth and in thy heart c. 3. Some thinke that the Apostle applyeth that testimonie vttered by Moses of the lawe vnto the Gospel by an argument from the lesse to the greater that if Moses gaue such commendation of the lawe much more is it true of the Gospel But the Apostle sheweth the iustice of faith to be a farre different thing from the iustice and righteousnes of the law and therefore not to differ onely as the lesse and greater but as things of a diuerse nature 4. Wherefore it may be more safely affirmed that the Apostle citeth this verie place out of Moses as Origen thinketh haec à Deuteronomio assumpta sunt these words are taken out of Deuteronomie yet the Apostle as an interpreter alledgeth them omitting some things in Moses and inserting some other by way of exposition as that is to bring Christ againe from aboue and to bring Christ againe from the dead and some words he altereth as that which Moses calleth the Sea S. Paul nameth the deepe which in effect is the same to this purpose Iun. in parall 16. lib. 2. Faius and Pet. Martyr affirmeth that it is so euident a thing that Moses here speaketh of Christ that certaine great Rabbines among the Iewes confesse that Moses in all that 30. chapter of Deuteronomie hath reference to Christ yet Pareus inclineth to thinke S. Paul here vseth but an allusion to that place of Moses dub 6. Quest. 11. Whether Moses in that place directly speaketh of the righteousnesse of faith 1. Tolet annot 6. and likewise Caietan which take this place to be alleadged by Moses in the litterall sense doe thinke that Moses speaketh of the circumsion and conuersion of the heart vnto God which belongeth vnto the righteousnesse of faith that when God should conuert and turne their heartes they should then not find it an hard and difficult thing to keepe the commandements of God Pet. Martyr much dissenteth not that Moses then simply speaketh not of the precept of the law but vt iam per gratiam facile factu erat but as now made easie by grace and faith in Christ so also M. Calvin denieth not but that Moses in that place speaketh of the obseruation of the law but ex suo fonte diducit he fetcheth it from the fountaine and originall thereof namely the iustice of faith 2. Some thinke that Moses in that place speaketh not onely of the law sed de vniuerso doctrina but of the whole doctrine which he hath taught which was not onely legall but contained many euangelicall promises But the words of Saint Paul are against both these interpretations The righteousnesse which is of faith speaketh on this wise c. and this is the word of faith which we preach therefore Moses onely in that place speaketh of the word of faith 3. Wherefore their opinion is to be preferred who thinke that Moses in that place directly treateth of the doctrine of faith and not by way of consequent onely as Iunius well obserueth because Moses saith this commandement which I command thee this day but that day Moses deliuered not the precepts of the law which were giuen before but of faith and so the Apostle ex consilio Mosis by the counsell and according to the meaning of Moses himselfe applyeth this place vnto Christ Iun. lib. 2. parall 16. so also Faius est apposita loci applicatio c. it is a fit application of that place likewise Osiander it is no doubt but that S. Paul appositissime allegaverit most fitly aptly applied that place of Moses to his purpose Quest. 12. By what occasion Moses maketh mention in that place of the Gospel and of the meaning of the words 1. Origen thinketh that Moses and the Apostles intendment is this to shew that Christ is euerie where that he is not onely in heauen and in earth but in euerie place to the same purpose Haymo he instructeth vs by these words ne putemus Christum localem esse that we should not thinke that Christ is confined to a place But this is not to the Apostles purpose for of this
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
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
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
he had done any of these things which belong vnto our redemption for himselfe and not wholly and altogether for vs. 3. And further it would followe diuinos honores mereri posse that diuine honour may be merited for this honour to haue euerie knee to bowe is due vnto the Godhead Isa. 45.23 4. That glorie which was due vnto Christ before in respect of the vnion of his natures was not merited by his passion but this glorie and exaltation of Christ was so due as our B. Sauiour saith Iob. 17.5 now glorifie me thou father with thine owne selfe with the glorie which I had with thee before the world was See further hereof in D. Fulkes answear to the Rhemists Philip. 2. sect 1. and Synops. Centur. 4. err 30. Controv. 9. Of bowing the knee to the name of Iesus whether it be necessarily inferred out of this place ver 11. and Philip. 2.10 Though we doe not simply condemne the bowing at the name of Iesus if it be vsed onely vt ritus indifferens as an indifferent rite and gesture Pareus yet if it be commanded as a necessarie part of externall worship and commanded by precept it is superstitious as it is prescribed and practised in Poperie which may appeare by this that they bowe the knee at the name of Iesus rather then at the name of Christ or of God the father and the holy Ghost And whereas the Apostle speaketh of bowing the knee at the name of Iesus it is not literally to be taken for by the name of Iesus is not signified the name written or pronounced for this was the error of Osiander as Beza obserueth 2. Philip. 9. which confounded the name Iesus with Iehova but the power and Maiestie of Christ as this word name is vsed by the Apostle Ephes. 1.21 Christ is set at the right hand of God farre aboue all principalities and euerie name that is named c. Neither is the bowing of the knee here taken literally as Origen sheweth in this place quod non est carnaliter accipiendum vt putemus coelestia genu flectere c. sed genu flectere subiecta esse cuncta culius Dei obedire declarat which is not to be taken carnally that we should thinke the heauenly things to bowe the knees as the Sunne and Moone starres and Angels c. but to bowe the knee declareth all things to be subiect vnto God and to be obedient to his worship c. It seemeth then that in Origens time this gesture of bowing the knee at the name of Iesus was not taken vp therefore it is to be held no necessarie thing nor prescribed by commandement See further Synops. Papism Centur. 2. er 51. Controv. 10. That Christ is prooued to be God by this saying of the Prophet cited v. 11. as I liue euerie knee shall how vnto me against the blasphemie of Georgius Eniedinus From this place thus it is inferred and concluded concerning the deitie of Christ he to whom euerie knee boweth is verie God Isay 45.23 but vnto Christ euerie knee shall bow Rom. 14.11 Philip. 2.10 Ergo he is God Georgius Eniedmus a blasphemous Samosatenian heretike taketh two exceptions to this argument 1. he denieth the assumption that the knee is bowed vnto Christ for one may sit in the tribunall seate and yet the knee may be bowed vnto an other even to God himselfe who shall iudge in that day Rom. 2.16 2. he distinguisheth of the proposition which is true onely of him to whom worship is giuen and the knee bowed ratione essentiae in respect of his essence but now the knee is bowed to Christ not in respect of his essence but of his dignitie as vnto the ordinarie Iudge not as vnto the chiefe Prince Contra. 1. The Apostle sheweth directly that the knee is bowed vnto Christ as the Iudge because he had prooued before that he was Lord both of quicke and dead to whom else then should the knee be bowed but vnto the Lord and Iudge The Father shall iudge by his Sonne to whom he hath committed all iudgement Iohn 5.22 and yet Christ iudgeth also by his owne power for there is but one Godhead and one power of both therefore it followeth not God the Father iudgeth therefore not the Sonne 2. Christ is worshipped not onely in respect of his office and dignitie of iudging but in the vnitie of essence with his father as he saith Ioh. 5.19 Whatsoeuer things the father doth the Sonne doth the same and v. 26. As the father hath life in himselfe so he hath giuen vnto the Sonne to haue life in him but what is the life of God els then the essence of God Christ then is by nature and essence the same with the father and so is one God to be worshipped and adored with him and whereas it is said the Father hath giuen him c. this must be vnderstood not de dono gratia sed communicatione naturae not of the gift of grace but of communication by nature so that for the Father to giue vnto the Sonne is all one as to say Pater genuit filium the father hath begot the Sonne from euerlasting And that Christ is one God with the father by identitie of essence may appeare by the accusation of the Iewes that he beeing a man made himselfe God Ioh. 10.33 they did not challenge him as if he would be some secundarie Iudge or Prince but equall vnto God which is there iustified and maintained by our Sauiour See Pareus further hereof dub 8. Controv. 11. That morall workes which are done without faith are sinne how soeuer outwardly they appeare good 1. The Romanists for the most part doe hold the contrarie that a naturall man onely directed by the vse of his reason and vnderstanding may do some things morally good which haue not the nature of sinne their arguments some of them are these 1. S. Paul saith c. 2.14 that the Gentiles doe by nature the things contained in the law they then therein sinned not 2. Our Sauiour did not mislike those ciuill offices which were performed by the Pharisies in louing those which loued them Matth. 5.46 3. A man is a reasonable creature and this were against his nature non posse facere aliquid secundum rectam rationem not to doe any thing according to the right vse of reason for euen God hath giuen this facilitie to euerie naturall thing to attaine vnto the naturall ende thereof much more vnto man 4. Gregor homil de Diuit Lazar. vpon these words of Abraham vnto the rich man thou hast receiued good things in thy life indicatur dives iste boni aliquid habnisse propter quod in hac vita acceperit bona c. hereby it is shewed that the rich man had some good thing for the which he received good things in this life and Lazarus had some euill thing that was purged in his life c. herevpon Pererius inferreth that there is no man so euill but
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
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