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
is expressed afterward their conscience accuseth or excuseth them Quest. 29. What precepts the lawe of nature containeth and prescribeth This may be shewed both generally in the diuerse kinds of those things whereof these precepts consist and in particular by a seuerall induction and instance in the precepts of the morall lawe 1. Man is bound to carrie himselfe vpright both toward God that is aboue him toward other men like himselfe and toward such things as are inferiour vnto him and vnder his rule and command as within him his bodie sense affections without him honour riches pleasure and such like In all these man receiueth some direction from the lawe of nature for the first he is taught to loue God and feare him aboue all as beeing the maker of all things for the second there are two naturall precepts one affirmatiue whatsoeuer you would that men should doe vnto you doe vnto them Matth. 7.12 the other negatiue quod tibi fieri non vis alteri ne feceris that which you would not haue done to you offer not to another for the third euen Cicero by the light of nature could say animus imperat corpori vt Rex ciuibus ratio libidimi vt seruis dominus the minde ruleth the bodie as the king his citizens reason the lust as the master gouerneth the seruants lib. 3. de repub which words are cited by Augustine lib. 4. cont Iulian. c. 12. euen by naturall reason man hath some direction to guide himselfe in the desiring and coueting of the temporall things of this life 2. Another generall demonstration there is of these naturall precepts for man hath some naturall inclinations common to all other things some incident onely to things that haue life and some peculiar to humane nature of the first kind is the desire which euerie thing hath for it owne preseruation and hence it is that a man naturally declineth all things which are hurtfull to his life and is inclined by nature to preserue his bodie and life as Tullie saith generi animantium omni est à natura tributum c. it is giuen by nature vnto euerie liuing thing to defend it owne bodie and life of the second sort is the procreation and education of children which is by nature giuen vnto vnreasonable creatures of the third kind are those things which specially belong vnto the nature of man as a desire to knowe the truth and to acknowledge God and liue sociably with other men so Tullie also saith eadem natura virationis hominem conciliat homini adorationis vitae societatem c. the same nature by the force of reason doth ioyne man to man both in the societie of speach and life lib. 1. de officijs 3. But more euidently shall it appeare what nature prescribeth by particular induction in the seuerall commandements of the morall lawe 1. Concerning the worship of the onely God the heathen by nature had some knowledge thereof as Cyrellus lib. 1 cont Iulian. citeth Pythagoras Deus vnus est c. God is one not without the gouernment of the world as some thinke sed in ipso est tot âs en toto orbe but he is in it wholly in the whole he considereth all generations the beginning of all things the father of all c. the same father sheweth how Orpheus recanted his error of the multitude of Gods and in the end ackowledged one onely God 2. And as touching the adoration of images Strabo writeth that the Persians had neither altars nor images and when they warred against the Greecians they ouerthrewe and burned their temples with their images the like Cornelius Tacit. writeth of the Germanes quod coelesti maiestati parum convenire putauerunt c. that they thought it not agreeable to the celestiall maiestie to include the gods within walls or to resemble them to any humane shape Numa Pompilius thought it vnlawfull to ascribe any forme either of man or beast vnto God that was invisible 3. Touching the abusing and profaning of the name of God Tullus Hostilius was killed with lightening and his house burned because he attempted by certaine irreligious excorcismes to call vp Iupiter Elicius Theophrastus as Plutarke writeth noted Pericles that beeing sicke shewed vnto his friend certaine enchanted toyes hanging about his necke 4. And the Gentiles also obserued their Sabboths and dayes of rest wherein it was of their blind and corrupt nature that they added many superstitious obseruations of their owne yet nature taught them that some time was to be set apart for the worship of their gods 5. The Gentiles also commended the honouring of parents and condemned disobedience vnto them therefore Solon beeing asked why he appointed no punishment for such as killed their parents answered because he thought that none would be so wicked to attempt any such thing 6. Such was the hatred of the detestable sinne of murther among the Romanes that for the space of 620. yeares from the first building of Rome none was found to haue beene killed within the citie walles by any priuate mans hand as Dion Holicarnass obserueth 7. Adulterie was odious by the light of nature among the Gentiles as appeareth by the iudgement of Pharaoh and Abimelech concerning Sara Abrahams wife Gen. 22. 20. 8. Theft by Draco his lawe was punished with death Solon thought that too grieuous a punishment and enioyned double restitution for theft the Indians and Scythians because they had not houses to keepe their goods in counted theft among the most grieuous offences the like opinion they had of fraud and impostures Cato beeing asked quod faenerari what it was to be an vsurer answeared quid hominem occidere what is it to kill a man 9. The Indians most seuerely punished those which were taken in a lie and generally among the heathen they so detested falshood and were iealous and suspicious of false testimonies that as Cicero saith it was generally receiued vt vel amplissimi homines ne in miximis rebus c. that no not the most excellent men euen in the smallest matters should giue testimonie in their owne cause and for the same reason they would not suffer any to be a witnesse against his enemie for it was supposed he would make a lie to endanger him whom he hated 10. The Gentiles also were not ignorant that it was vnlawfull to couer the things of another as when Xerxes dealt with Leonides to haue revoulted and promised to make him Monarch of Greece he receiued this answer from him If you had knowne saith Leonides what things are honest in mans life abstinuisses à concupiscendis alienis you would haue abstained from coueting other mens things And thus by this particular induction it is euident how the effect of the morall law is naturally written in the heart of man and that the lawe of nature if it be not blinded commandeth the same things which the written lawe of God ex Gualtero Quest. 30. What the lawe of
mourned for Saul 9. in receiuing them to mercie when they returne to grace as Ioseph did his brethren 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. Concerning the power of free-will 1. Whereaâ ãâã Apostle in this 12. chapter beginneth to giue precepts of righteousnes and to exhort ãâã holinesse hence the enemies to the garce of God take occasion to establish their opinion concerning free-will that a man assisted by Gods grace is able to performe all these precepts Stapletons reasons are these Antid p. 777. 1. The precepts of the morall lawe are agreeable to the lawe of nature and to the lawe of nations therefore they haue not such difficultie but that they may be kept 2. All things are possible to the grace of God which grace of God is had and obtained by prayer 3. God commandeth in vaine if his precepts cannot be performed so also Erasmus praecepta frigent si nihil tribuitur voluntari the precepts are cold if nothng be yeelded to the will of man c. 4. Either God is vniust in commanding that which cannot be performed or imprudent in requiring such obedience which he thought might be performed and cannot 5. And men herein haue an excuse of their disobedience because it is not in their power to doe that which they are bidden Contra. 1. The perfect obedience which the lawe requireth farre exceedeth that righteousnesse which the Lawe of nature and of nations exacteth for that onely requireth an externall discipline but the morall lawe prescribeth a perfect conformitie of the creature with the Creator 2. To the grace of God giuen in perfection nothing is hard and impossible but so is it not giuen to any in this life but in a certaine measure and degree the regenerate by grace are made able in some measure to keepe Gods commandements but not perfectly 3. Neither are the precepts of God in vaine though men are vnable to keepe them for there are diuerse other ends as the vnregenerate are either thereby stirred vp and called or are made inexcusable the regenerate by such precepts are raised vp from negligence and slouthfulnesse haue a rule giuen them to followe and doe see their owne weakenesse and are encouraged and prouoked to goe on still vnto perfection to attaine as neere it as they can 4. God is neither vniust in so commanding for the creature is bound to yeeld perfect obedience to the Creator and the creature both once had receiued strength in the creation which through wilfull transgression was lost and now a way is shewed by restauration in Christ how the will of God may be fulfilled neither is God imprudent for he is not deceiued in those ends which he propoundeth to himselfe in giuing such precepts vnto men 5. Man can haue no excuse for his disobedience seeing once he had receiued strength to performe the Creators will which was lost by mans willing transgression and because he seeketh not to haue his disobedience satisfied by the perfect obedience of Christ and so he contemneth grace offered 2. Now touching the doctrine of truth concerning freewill this we affirme that man by nature hath no power or actiuitie at all vnto that which is good but is altogether a seruant to sinne and that without grace in Christ no man can choose and followe that which is good this is euident by these texts of Scripture Genes 6.5 all the imaginations of the thoughts of mans heart are onely euill continually if all are euill and onely and continually what place or time is left here to that which is good in mans corrupt heart Math. 7.18 a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit it is against the nature of things for euill to bring forth good or good euill euerie thing bringeth forth by nature that which is like vnto it Rom. 6.20 Ye were seruants of sinne Eph. 2.5 we were dead by our sinnes seruants are not freemen neither can the dead doe any worke of the liuing no more can a man by nature doe any thing that is good 1. Cor. 2.14 the naturall man perceiueth not the things of the spirit of God if he perceiue not nor knowe them he cannot choose to doe them for there is nothing in the election of the will which is not first in the conception of the vnderstanding But it will be obiected 1. Then is not the will of man free if it haue not power indifferently to good or euill Answ. The will of man is free from coaction and compulsion but not from necessitie for the determination of the will to one thing taketh not away the libertie and freedome thereof for the will of God by the perfection of nature is enclined onely to that which is good in the Angels by the perfection of grace and to euill the will is onely inclined by the peruersnesse of the will either simply and vnchangeably as in reprobate Angels and men or for a time and in some sort though not simply as in the vnregenerate yet in all these the will worketh freely without any forcing 2. Obiect Though a man without grace can doe no good thing yet his will assisted by grace is enabled to euerie good thing Answ. 1. That good thing which is wrought in the regenerate by the grace of Christ proceedeth not at all from their owne freewill grace worketh the will is wrought vpon for Christ saith without me ye can doe nothing Ioh. 15.5 2. this grace worketh not perfitly in any in this life but is begun onely here for the Apostle saith if we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and the truth is not in vs 1. Ioh. 1.8 See further hereof Synops. Centur 4. err 42. to err 45. Controv. 2. Whether the Masse be a sacrifice properly so called The Romanists would prooue it out of this place v. 1. because the Apostle exhorteth to giue vp our bodies a liuing ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã sacrifice 1. hence they reason thus Christians haue a sacrifice properly so called which is the oblation of some externall and sensible thing vnto God by the lawfull Minister but there is no such externall sacrifice to be found among Christian saving the Masse it remaineth then that the Masse is that externall sacrifice 2. Euerie Priest must haue a sacrifice to offer but there is no other sacrifice offered vp by the Priests of the newe testament but the Masse Ergo to this purpose Bellarm. lib. 1. de Miss cap. 2. 15. Contra. 1. Christians neede not any externall sacrifice to offer vnto God such as were the legall sacrifices of beasts but they haue a true sacrifice though not to offer vp daily themselues which was once killed and sacrificed vpon the crosse which now is not daily to be offered vp but the memorie of that sacrifice is to be reuiued by the celebration of the Sacrament as our Sauiour saith this doe in remembrance of me And beside this sacrifice once offered for all there are other sacrifices not properly so called but
the which naturall reason iuduceth was some way sufficient to the Gentiles vnto saluation c. But nothing can be acceptable to God without faith not that generall faith and knowledge of one God but the knowledge of God in Christ for he is the way and doore and without him is no entrace into life 6. Wherefore the Apostle here describeth the Gentiles in generall euen before the times of the Gospel and such as had no other direction then by the lawe of nature which they had as the Apostle sheweth by these two arguments both by the externall workes of the lawe and by the inward testimonie of their conscience But the Apostle faith not they fulfilled the lawe they onely did certaine things prescribed in the lawe Martyr And he speaketh rather de notitia naturali quam de implenda legis facultate of the naturall knowledge which they had not of any power or facultie to fulfill the lawe Calvin Beza And he meaneth not all the Gentiles in generall but the wiser sort among them as Solon Socrates Aristides the Sciptoes Catoes with other who outwardly did some externall workes which the lawe commanded though they wanted the inward obedience Pareus Quest. 27. How any thing can be said to be written in the heart by nature seeing the minde is commonly held to be as a bare and naked table v. 15. Which shewe the effect of the lawe written in their heart It is the opinion of the best Philosophers as of Plato in Philebo that the soule of man by nature is like vnto a booke wherein nothing is written or like vnto a bare naked table Aristot. lib. 3. de anima c. 4. how then doth the Apostle here say that the lawe is written in their heart Answ. 1. Plato was of opinion that all things were at the first written in the soule but when it commeth into the bodie is blotted out againe and forgotten and vpon this ground that opinion is mentioned by the Platonists that scire est reminisci to know is nothing els but to remember But this assertion presupposeth that the soule of man had a beeing without the bodie and that there is a certaine promptuarie or seminare of soules from whence the soules are deriued into the bodies But this opinion is contrarie to the Scripture which affirmeth that God formeth the spirit of man within him Zach. 12.1 the soule of man is created within him in his bodie infundendo creatur creando infunditur it is created by infusion into the bodie and iufused by creation 2. therefore a better answer is that whereas Aristole saith ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that nothing is written in the vnderstanding it must be vnderstood actually yet potentia in possibilitie euerie thing is written there because the vnderstanding is apt and hath a capacitie to receiue and apprehend euerie thing 3. neither is that axiome of Philosophie generally to be vnderstood but to be restrained to such principles as are not engendred in the mind without instruction experience and obseruation as is the knowledge of arts otherwise there are some principles which are by nature imprinted in the soule as first the naturall conclusions which the soule apprehendeth of it selfe without any other demonstration as that God is to be worshipped parents are to be honoured that good and honest things are to be desired secondly there are certaine ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã generall notions which are at the first apprehended onely by the sense as that the fire burneth that the whole is greater then the part and such like ex Perer. Quest. 28. Of the Lawe of nature what it is It shall not be amisse by occasion of these words of the Apostle who speaketh here of the lawe of nature written in the heart a little to digresse and briefly touch certaine questions of this matter and first we will see what this lawe of nature is and of what precepts it consisteth 1. It is euident by the Apostle here that there is a lawe of nature which he prooueth by âo effects the one externall in the performance of some things agreeable to the lawe the other internall in the testimonie of the conscience But in this inward testimonie there are two things to be considered there is first that which is called ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which is the comprehension of certaine practicall principles and a naturall discerning betweene good and euill iust and vniust then there is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the conscience which either accuseth one for doing euill or excuseth him in choosing of that which is good the synteresis doth frame the proposition the syneidesis or cosncience the assumption as thus the naturall lawe reacheth that parents must be honoured and that they which disobey parents are worthie of punishment thus the proposition is framed out of the principles of nature then the conscience of the guiltie person supplyeth the assumption But we Cham Esau Absolom haue disobeyed our parents therefore we deserue punishment and the like practicall syllogismes may be made in other commandements Gryneus 1. Melancthon thus defineth the lawe of nature it is a knowledge of certaine principles belonging to the practise of life and of the conclusions thence necessarily inferred agreeable with the eternall rule of truth which God hath planted in the mind of man to be a testimonie vnto man that there is a God which ruleth and iudgeth the actions of men c. In this description there are the former causes expressed of the law of nature 1. the materiall cause or the obiect thereof wherein it is occupied and whereof it consisteth namely of certaine practicall principles with the conclusions gathered thereupon for the speciall scope of this naturall direction is for the the practise of life and not for speculation and in this naturall knowledge are not onely contained the first principles as parents are to be honoured but the conclusions thence diducted as out of this principle in generall euery one is taught by the light of nature in particular to conclude that therefore he must honour his parents 2. the formall cause is the agreement with the rule of truth and the equitie of Gods written lawe for the lawe of nature is a summarie abridgement of the morall lawe 3. then the efficient cause and author is God who hath written and imprinted this law in the heart of man as Ambrose thus defineth this naturall law quam Deus omnium creator singulorum hominum pectoribus iufudit which God the Creator of all hath infused into euerie mans breast epist. 71.4 then the end is that it should be a testimonie of the diuine prouidence and iudgement whereby he ruleth all things and in the ende will iudge the actions of men This description of the lawe of nature agreeth with the Apostles definition here it is the effect of the lawe written in our hearts the effect or worke sheweth the matter of the lawe the forme written the efficient for it is Gods writing the ende
law written Contra. 1. The Apostle inferreth not that euery mouth is stopped by the written testimonies but that generall word is vsed least the Iewes should thinke themselues excluded so then not that writing but the thing written that all men are sinners serueth to stoppe all mens mouthes and especially the Iewes it conuinceth both Iewes and Gentiles the Iewes both for the manner because the written law was giuen vnto them and for the matter also they were sinners the Gentiles it conuinceth for the matter they were guiltie of all these sinnes 2. Though law be there taken generally both for the naturall and written law by the which came the knowledge of sinne and yet both Cain and Iosephs brethren had beside the naturall law instructions receiued from their fathers yet in this place it is euident that the Apostle meaneth the written and speaking law whatsoeuer the law saith 2. Origen beside hath here an other strange conceit he thinketh that not onely men but Angels and spirits are here saide to be vnder the law because they also haue a law and rule giuen them to be ordered by but seeing the Angels are not saued by faith in Christ which the Apostle treateth of here he saith directly that by the works of the law no flesh shal be iustified in his sight the angels can not be said to be vnder the law for they are not in the flesh 3. Theodoret here hath this distinction that the law saith thus to them which are vnder the law seà non de ijs but not onely of them for the Prophets haue many comminations concerning the Egyptians Babylonians and other nations Pererius also hath this obseruation that wheÌ as any prophesie is directed against other nations they are touched by name but those things which are set downe in generall and absolutely without any such particular direction doe properly appertaine vnto those who are vnder the law c. And although the Scripture make mention of other nations yet the speciall intent thereof is to profit the Church of God Faius 4. Now the occasion of these words of the Apostle is this the Iewes hearing these generall sentences setting forth the iniquitie of the world might thinke that the Gentiles were specially meant and so shift them off from themselues Therefore the Apostle sheweth that these things were specially directed to the Iewes and that by these three arguments 1. from the relation which the law hath to them to whome it is giuen it seemeth specially to concerne them therefore because the Scriptures wherein these things were found written were giuen vnto the Iewes to them they were specially directed 2. from the end that euery mouth should be stopped if the Gentiles should be vnderstood and not the Iewes also then they might haue somewhat to glorie in and to exalt themselues against God therefore that all occasion of boasting should be taken away euen the Iewes are conuinced by these testimonies to be sinners 3. an other ende is that not onely all occasion of boasting should be taken away but that the whole world should be found ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã guiltie and culpable before God Chrysostome by this word vnderstandeth him qui sibi ipsi aâ defensionem non sufficit who is not sufficient or able to defend himselfe but it signifieth more one that is guiltie and subiect to condemnation Pareus 5. Tolet thinketh not this to be the occasion to meete with such a secret obiection of the Iewes for they could not be ignorant saith he but that whatsoeuer was written in the Scriptures was spoken to them but rather to shew the reason why they could not be iustified by the law because the law which was giuen vnto them condemned them annot 11. Contra. The Iewes did know that the Scriptures did speake vnto them but not of them they might flatter themselues as though such things were vttered against the Gentiles and therefore as Augustine saith in Iudaeis confringenda erat superbia c. the Iewes pride was to be taken downe exposit epist. ad Galat. and both these may very well stand together that an obiection of the Iewes is met withall and a reason also shewed that the law which condemned them could not iustifie them 6. But the Psalme whence the Apostle alleadgeth his first words toucheth those which said there is no god Psal. 14.1 but so did not the Iewes Hierome answereth they did confesse God with their mouth sed factis negabant but denied him in their works 23. Quest. How no flesh is iustified by the workes of the law v. 20. 1. By the works of the law in that he decreeth iustification to the very workes not to the persons or workers onely it is euident that the places before alleadged as v. 10. there is none righteous no not one are to be vnderstood generally of all and not of the most although some should be excluded that did some good workes either among the Iewes or Gentiles for euen the workes of the law which they did were not able to iustifie them Melancthon 2. By the workes are not here vnderstood those quae praecipiuntur which are commanded and required by the law for if a man could performe those works he should finde life thereby but such quae praestantur which are performed of men Beza either before grace which can not iustifie because they can not be good or acceptable to God without faith or in the state of grace which can not iustifie neither because they are imperfect Pareus 3. By the law here he vnderstandeth both the natural whereby the Gentiles were conuinced and the written law giuen to the Hebrewes for the Apostle disputeth generally against both the Gentiles and Hebrewes proouing them both to be transgressors of the law and so not able to be iustified thereby Pareus and by the works of the law are vnderstood not onely the ceremonials and iudicials as the ordinarie gloss but the morall works which the Gentiles did by the light of nature for otherwise the Iewes onely should be excluded whereas the disputation of the Apostle is generall both against Iewes and Gentiles Pareusâ Tolet. 4. The word flesh is diuersly taken in Scripture it signifieth the humane nature of man as Ioh. 1.6 the word was made flesh or the corruptible and mortall state of man as wheâ the Apostle saith flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdome of God or the sinfull state and condition of man in which sense it is saide they that are in the flesh can not please God in which sense Origen would haue it taken here that they which are carnall not spirituall aââ denied iustification by works but in this sense the meaning of the Apostle should be much peruerted who generally affirmeth that there is no iustification for any by the works of the law but by faith but yet the Apostle vseth this word flesh to put man in minde of his fresh condition and state beeing not apt of it selfe to bring forth
prepared for you for when I was hungred ye gaue me meate he sheweth not the cause of their saluation but the condition state qualitie of those which should be saued to this purpose Faius see further before c. 1. quest 26. and controv 7. Quest. 25. How by the lawe came the knowledge of sinne 1. The Apostle here confirmeth that which he said before that none are iustified by the workes of the lawe by the contrarie vse of the lawe because thereby commeth the knowledge of sinne therefore iustice and righteousnesse is not attained thereby 2. The lawe Origen vnderstandeth of the lawe of nature Augustine onely of the morall lawe lib. de spirit liter c. 8. but indeed the lawe is vnderstood here in generall both the naturall for euen before the lawe written by the lawe of nature Abimelech knew that adulterie was sinne Genes 20. but the morall more by the which came a more full knowledge of sinne likewise by the ceremoniall and iudiciall lawe sinne was manifested but after a diuerse manner ex accidente accidentally because the one was appointed in expiationem for the expiation the other in poenam for the punishment of sinne Tolet. annot 14. 3. Now diuerse wayes doth the written lawe whereof the Apostle specially speaketh reueale sinne 1. Ambrose sheweth that before the law written there was some knowledge of sinne as he giueth instance in Ioseph who detested the sinne of adulterie to the which his mistresse enticed him but it is so said quia lex ostendit peccata non impune futura because the lawe sheweth that sinnes shall not goe vnpunished so also Theodulus 2. and by the written lawe peccata clarius fuerunt cognita sinnes were more euidently knowne and some were knowne to be sinnes that were not so taken before leviora quaque non cognoscebantur esse peccata the smaller sinnes were not knowne as concupiscence Hierome as the Apostle saith he had not knowne lust vnlesse the law had said thou shalt not lust quaedam etiam grauiora c. and some things by the lawe were knowne to be greater then before gloss ordinar 3. Oecumenius thus expoundeth because sinne was encreased by the knowledge of the lawe for he that sinneth wittingly is so much the more a grieuous offender 4. And before the lawe written sinne was knowne as beeing against reason but by the law it is discerned as beeing against the will of God and so the nature and qualitie of sinne is more fully and perfectly knowne by the lawe Perer. 5. and euen the knowledge of sinne before the lawe written did issue out of the grounds and principles of the morall lawe which were imprinted by nature in the minde Faius 4. But whereas the lawe sheweth as well what things are honest and vertuous as it discouereth sinne the Apostle onely toucheth that vse of the lawe which is to reueale sinne both because it was more pertinent to his purpose which was to shewe that there is no iustification by the lawe because thereby we haue the knowledge of sinne and for that men are more prone vnto the things forbidden in the lawe then to the duties commanded so that the lawe doth not so much teach our dutie to God and our neighbour as that we doe not performe that which is our dutie Beza 5. Now further whereas the Apostle saith by the lawe commeth the knowledge of sinne we must supply the word onely not that the lawe doth nothing else but reueale sinne for it iudgeth and condemneth sinne likewise but here the opposition is between the knowledge of sinne and the remission thereof the lawe onely giueth the one the agnition or knowledge of sinne not the remission Perer. by the lawe is cognitio peccati non consumptio the knowledge of sinne not the consumption of sinne gloss 6. But it will be obiected that in Leuiticus there are oblations prescribed for sinne and the Priest was to pray for such as had sinned and it should be forgiuen them Gorrhan answeareth that it was onely a legall remission quoad poenam non quoad culpam onely concerning the punishment of the lawe not of the fault But Lyranus answeareth better that such sacrifice for sinne was protestatio Christi passuri a protestation or profession of Christ which was to suffer so that such remission of sinnes though it were vnder the lawe yet was not by vertue and force of the lawe but by faith in Christ for the sinnes of the offerers were forgiuen at the prayers of the Priests which could not be heard if they were not of faith 7. It will here be further obiected that the politike and ciuill lawes of Princes intend more then the shewing of sinne they also doe helpe to reforme sinne and reclaime men from it therefore Gods lawe should doe more then manifest sinne Answ. 1. Humane lawes doe onely require an externall ciuill iustice but the lawe of God discouereth the corruption of the heart so that herein there is great difference betweene them Melancth 2. Humane lawes may by proposing of rewards and punishments helpe to perswade and induce men but they cannot instill or infuse obedience into the heart 3. God also intendeth more then the reuealing of sinne by his lawe for if any could keepe it they should liue thereby which while none is able to doe yet the law beside the discouering of sinne ferueth as a Schoolmaster to bring vs to Christ so that it is thorough mans owne infirmitie that the lawe giueth not life and it sheweth Gods power and wisedome that turneth the lawe vnto our good namely to bring vs vnto Christ which by our infirmitie is become vnto vs the minister of death 8. So then there are two other speciall vses and benefits of the lawe beside the reuealing of sinne the one that concerning faith it is a Schoolmaster to bring vs to Christ and touching manners and life it sheweth vs the way wherein we should walke Mars 9. There is a double knowledge of sinne by the lawe there is one which is weake and vnprofitable which neither thoroughly terrifieth the conscience nor reformeth the life such was the knowledge which the heathen had of sinne as the poets in their satyricall verses did set forth the sinnes of their times but themselues followed them there is an other effectuall knowledge of the lawe whereby the soule is humbled and this is of two sorts when such as is ioyned onely with terror of conscience without any hope such was the knowledge of sinne which Cain and Iudas had that betrayed Christ or it hath beside some liuely hope and comfort such was Dauids agnition and confession of his sinne But this comfort is no worke of the lawe it is wrought in vs by the spirit of grace Martyr Quest. 26. Of the meaning of these words The righteousnesse of God is made manifests without the lawe 1. Ambrose by the iustice of God vnderstandeth that iustice wherewith God is iust âestans promissa sua in keeping his promises Origen
of death originall sinne then hath a kind of existence for how else could it be called a bodie of sinne or death see more hereof elsewhere Synops. Cen. 4. err 14. 2. Concerning the reasons obiected 1. God is the author of euerie substance and of euery naturall qualitie but not of vnnaturall dispositions or qualities as neither of diseases in the bodie nor of vices in the minde this euill qualitie was procured by mans voluntarie transgression 2. and though habites which are personall and obtained by vse and industrie are not transmitted to posteritie yet this euill habite was not personall in Adam as he is considered vt singularis persona as a singular person but by him it entred into the nature of man as he was totius humanae naturae principiuÌ the beginning of the whole nature of man 3. Burgensis taketh another exception vnto Lyranus addition and he thinketh that Adams posteritie is not bound to haue the originall iustice which was giuen to Adam for they haue no such bond either by the law of nature for that originall iustice was supernaturally added or by any diuine precept for God gaue vnto Adam no other precept but that one not to eate of the forbidden fruite and therefore they were not bound at all to haue or reteine Adams originall iustice Thus Burgens Contra. 1. Herein I rather consent vnto Thoring the Replic vpon Burgens who thus argueth that this debt or bond to haue originall iustice was grounded vpon the law of nature which is the rule of right reason for by nature euery one is tied to seeke the perfection and conseruation of it kind and this originall iustice tended vnto the perfection of man which though it were supernaturally added vnto man yet it was not giuen him alone sed pro tota natura for the whole nature of man and so he concludeth well that man is culpable in not hauing this originall iustice though not culpâ actuali quae est suppositi by any actuall fault which belongeth to the person or subiect yet culpâ originali quae est natura by an originall fault which is in nature To this purpose the Replic And this may be added further that if Adams posteritie were not debters in respect of this originall iustice then were they not bound to keepe the law which requireth perfect righteousnesse and so it would follow that they are not transgressors against the law if they were not bound to keepe it the first exception then of Burgensis may be recieued but not the second 2. Pighius also who denieth originall sinne to be a privation or want of originall iustice holdeth it to be no sinne to want that iustice which is not enioyned by any law vnto mankind for no law can be produced which bindeth infantes to haue that originall iustice and therein he concurreth with Burgensis Contra. But this obiection is easily refuted for first man was created according to Gods image in righteousnesse and holines which image Adams posteritie is bound to retaine but he by his sinne defaced that image and in stead thereof begate children after his owne image Gen. 5.3 in the state of corruption And whereas Pighius replieth out of Augustine that the image of God in man consisteth in the three faculties of the soule the vnderstanding memorie and will Augustine must not be so vnderstood as though herein consisted onely the image of God but as therein is shadowed forth the misterie of the Trinitie for the Apostle expressely sheweth that this image of God is seene in righteousnes and holines Ephes. 4.24 An other lawe is the lawe of nature which is the rule which euery one is to followe Cicero could say that convenientur viuere c. to liue agreeably to this law is the chiefe ende of man to this lawe euen infants are also bound there is a third lawe which is the morall which saith thou shalt not lust which prohibiteth not onely actuall but originall concupiscence And whereas Pighius here obiecteth that a lawe is giuen in vaine of such things as cannot be avoided therein he sheweth his ignorance for it is not in mans power to keep the lawe for then it had not beene necessarie for Christ to haue died for vs who came to performe that which was impossible by the lawe Rom. 8.3 yet was not the lawe giuen so in vaine for there are two speciall vses thereof both to giue vs direction how to liue well and to bring vs to the knowledge of sinne xe Mart. 4. This then is originall sinne 1. it consisteth partly of a defect and want of originall iustice in that the image of God after the which man was created in righteousnesse and holines was blotted out by the fall of man partly in an euill habite disposition and qualitie and disorder of all the faculties and powers both of bodie and soule This was the start of man after his fall and the same is the condition of all his posteritie by nature Augustine also maketh originall sinne a positiue qualitie placing it in the concupiscence of the flesh not the actuall concupiscence but that naturall corruption which although it be more generall then to containe it selfe within the compasse of concupiscence onely yet he so describeth it by the most manifest effect because our naturall corruption doth most of all shew and manifest it selfe in the concupisence and lust of our members 2. The subiect then and matter of originall sinne are all the faculties and powers of soule and bodie the former is the pravitie and deformitie of them the efficient cause was the peruersnes of Adams will the instrument is the carnall propagation the end or effect is euerlasting damnation both of bodie and soule without the mercie of God Martyr 3. Originall sinne is taken either actiuely for the sinne of Adam which was the cause of sinne in his posteritie which is called originale origmans originall sinne giuing beginning or passiuely for the naturall corruption raised in Adams ofspring by his transgression which is tearmed originale originatum originall sinne taking beginning 4. Of this originall sinne taken both waies there are three misserable effects 1. participatio culpa the participating in the fault or offence for we were all in Adams loines when he transgressed and so we all sinned in him as here the Apostle saith 2. imputatio reatus the imputation of the guilt and punishment of sinne we are the children of wrath by nature subiect both to temporall and eternall death 3. there is naturae depratatio vel deformitas the depravation and deformitie of nature wherein there dwelleth no good thing Rom. 17.18 Controv. 16. Of the wicked heresie of Marcion and Valentinus with the blasphemous Manichees 1. Origen out of the words of the former verse where the Apostle speaketh of our attonement and reconciliation by Christ confureth the heresie of Marcion and Valentinus whose opinion was that there was some substance quae naturaliter Deo sit inimica which naturally is
his life whereby he merited the imputation of his righteousnesse for the merite of Christs passion depended vpon the holines and worthines of his person which was manifested in his life 2. There are two partes of our iustification remission of our sinnes and the making of vnrighteous the one was the proper worke of Christs death that paied the ransome due vnto our sinnes the other of his perfect holines and righteousnesse which was manifested in his rising from the dead and therefore the Apostle ioyneth them both together Rom. 4.28 Who was deliuered to death for our sinnes and is risen againe for our iustification see further of this matter Controv. 20. in c. 4. Controv. 26. Against the Philosophers who placed righteousnesse in their owne workes The heathen Philosophers and wise men were vtterly ignorant of this making of men righteous by an others obedience for they held them onely to be righteous which by continuall exercise and practise of vertue attained vnto an habite of well doing which they ascribed onely to their owne industrie and endeuour Contra. These wise heathen in many things bewrayed their grosse and palpable ignorance 1. they knew not what remission of sinnes was neither how sinne entred into the world or how it was taken away they thought that by their well doing onely afterward the former memorie of their sinnes was worne out whereas it is in God onely to blot out the remembrance of sinne 2. they ascribed their vertues such as they were to their owne free-will and endeuour whereas Christian religion teacheth vs that God is the author of all good things and that man of himselfe is not able to thinke or conceiue a good thought 3. they erred in seeking to be made righteous and iust by their owne workes which beeing imperfect and diuerse waies blemished are not able to iustifie vs before God who is absolutely perfect true it is that euery Christian must endeuour to liue well and aduance his faith with fruitfull workes but it is Christs perfect obedience and not our owne which is imperfect that maketh vs truly righteous before God Controv. 27. Against the Manichees and Pelagians the one giuing too much the other too little to the law v. 30. The law entred that the offence should abound c. the Manichees vrge these and such like places against the law as though it were euill not distinguishing betweene the proper effects of the law which it worketh of it selfe as the Prophet Dauid expresseth them Psal. 19. It conuerteth the soule giueth wisedome to the simple giueth light to the eyes c. and the effects of the law which it worketh by reason of the weaknesse of man as it serueth to reueale the knowledge of sinne and to make it more abound But the Apostle himselfe that here thus testifieth of the law confesseth that in it selfe the law is holy Rom. 7.12 for although we are not able to performe that which the law commandeth yet the things are holy iust and good which the law requireth and the desire of the godly longeth after them As the Manichees detracted from the law so the Pelagians ascribed too much vnto it for they held that the law was sufficient to saluation and that if a man did once vnderstand what was to be done by the strength of nature he could doe it the law then serued to reueale vnto them the will of God and there owne strength sufficed in their opinion to performe it They beeing further vrged that the grace of God was necessarie did in words acknowledge it but by grace they vnderstood first the nature of man which was first giuen him of God then the doctrine onely and knowledge of the law The Popish schoolemen differed not much from this opinion who hled that a man by the strength of nature may keepe the precepts of the law quoad substantiam operis in respect of the substance of the worke but not quoad intentionem praecipientis according to the intention of the lawegiuer But it is euident out of the Scripture that no not the regenerate much lesse naturall men are able to keepe the commandements of God perfitly as S. Paul sheweth by his owne example Rom. 7. And if it were as the Pelagians held that the lawe were sufficient to saluation then Christ died in vaine Controv. 28. Of the assurance of saluation v. 21. Grace might raigne by righteousnesse vnto eternall life c. Hence it is euident that life is a consequent of righteousnesse as death is of sinne and that the faithfull are as sure to obtaine life if they haue righteousnesse as Adam and Adams children were sure to die after they haue sinned So Chrysostome vpon this place collecteth well Noli itaque cum iustitiam habeas de vita dubitare vitam enim excellit iustitia mater quippe illius est do not therefore doubt of life and saluation if thou haue iustice for iustice excelleth life beeing the mother thereof This is contrarie to the erroneous and vncomfortable doctrine of the moderne Papists that it is presumption for any man to be assured of his saluation see further hereof elswhere Synops. Centur. 4. err 25. Controv. 29 Of the diuerse kinds of grace against the Romanists v. 21. So might grace also raigne c. The Popish Schoolemen haue certaine distinctions of grace which either are not at all to be admitted or else they must be first qualified before they can be receiued 1. Of the first kind is that distinction of grace that there is gratia gratis data gratia gratum faciens grace freely giuen and grace that maketh vs acceptable vnto God two exceptions may be taken hereunto 1. there is no grace but is freely giueÌ otherwise it were not of grace that is of fauour but they in making one kind of grace onely that is freely giuen they insinuate that there are other graces which are not freely giuen 2. the grace which maketh vs acceptable to God they hold to be a grace or habite infused for the which we are accepted wherein they erre in ascribing that to a created or infused grace which is onely the worke of the free grace and fauour of God toward vs this word grace is either taken actively for the loue grace and fauour of God or passiuely for those seuerall gifts and graces which are wrought in vs by the fauour of God the first grace is as the cause the other graces are the effects the first is without vs the other within vs the first is the originall grace in God the other are created graces Now we hold that we are made acceptable vnto God onely by the first grace of God toward vs which is grounded in Christ the Romanists ascribe our acceptance with God to the other see further hereof Synops. Centur. 4. err 27. 2. Of the other sort is the distinction of grace operans cooperans working and working together as the working grace is that which alone changeth the will and maketh it willing
baptisme both originall sinne and the corrupt motions springing from thence therefore such motions in the baptized are not sinne Contra. 1. As originall sinne is taken away in baptisme so all other sinnes are for baptisme serueth for the remission of all sinnes Act. 2.38 euen then sinnes are wholly remooued in baptisme it would follow that they which are baptized should haue no sinnes at all 2. Wherefore in baptisme reatus tollitur the guilt of sinne is taken away yet sinne it selfe remaineth but it is not imputed neither doth sinne remaine in the full strength but the power thereof is subdued and the kingdome of sinne in the regenerate vanquished but yet there remaine some reliques of sinne still as long as we are in this flesh and this daily experience sheweth how they which are regenerate are not altogether freed from the inhabitation and in-dwelling of sinne though it raigne not in them 3. And whereas Pererius obiecteth Augustine who confuting that slander of the Pelagians who affirmed that the Catholiks should hold baptismum non auferre sed radere peccata that baptisme doth not take away sinne but as it were shaue it because concupiscence remaineth the roote of sinne denieth that the Catholikes teach any such thing but that baptisme indeede doth auferre crimina take away sinnes lib. 13. cont 2. epist. Pelag. Augustine must be vnderstood to speake of the guilt of concupiscence which is remooued in baptisme as he saith lib. 6. c. 8. cont Iulian. quamvis eius reatus qui fuerat generatione contractus sit regeneratione transactus though the guilt thereof contracted in the generation be transacted and done away in regeneration yet it remaineth still in homine secum confligente in man hauing a conflict with himselfe c. 4. Argum. The laââ commandeth not things impossible which can not be auoided but these first motions of concupiscence no man can shunne or auoide Augustine saith nec impossibile Deus hominis imperare potuit quia iustus c. neither could God command any impossible thing to man because he is iust nec damnaturus est hominem pro eo c. neither will he condemne a man for that which he that is godly can not auoid serm 61. de tempor Perer. ibid. Contra. 1. The law simply is not impossible to man considered as he was at the first created of God in that it is now impossible it is by reason of the weaknes and frailtie of mans flesh Rom. 8.3 which imbecillitie of nature came in by mans voluntarie transgression 2. The Law though impossible to be kept by a naturall man was giuen vnto other ends then that he should or could perfectly keepe it and in keeping thereof be iustified but it was giuen as a schoolemaster to bring vs vnto Christ Gal. 3.19 that finding themselues weake they might seeke to be cloathed with the righteousnes of Christ. 3. Augustine speaketh of a possibilitie by grace not in nature Nemo quantum possumus melius novis quam qui ipsum posse donavit no man can better tell what we can doe then he which gaue vs power c. which Augustine affirmeth not as though any man had power by grace to keepe all which is commanded but onely to shewe against the Manichees hominem posse vitare peccata that a man by grace may decline some sinnes which they denied 5. Argum. S. Iames saith c. 1.16 When lust hath conceiued it bringeth forth sinne and when sinne is perfected it bringeth forth death hence it followeth that either concupiscence is not sinne it onely bringeth forth sinne or if it be it is no mortall sinne for sinne onely when it is perfited bringeth forth death Contra. 1. It followeth not concupiscence bringeth forth sinne therefore it is no sinne it followeth that it is not that sinne which it begetteth or bringeth forth but yet one sinne may beget an other this is like as if a man should thus reason a man begetteth a man therefore he is not a man he is not indeede that man which he begetteth yet a man therefore because he begetteth a man and so one sinne may bring forth an other 2. neither doth it followe sinne which is perfited bringeth forth death Ergo sinne not perfited bringeth forth death which is as if one should thus reason the father begetteth a mortall man therefore the grandfather doth not sinne perfited is said to bring forth death as the nearest cause but yet sinne not perfected or produced as the remote cause also bringeth forth death for otherwise neither originall sinne not yet the second motions of concupiscence which haue the consent of the will should be worthie of death before they doe breake forth into act Now our contrarie arguments that euen concupiscence it selfe without the consent of the will either of things vnlawfull or of things lawfull vnlawfully is sinne are these and such like as followe Argum. 1. Whatsoeuer is forbidden by the lawe is sinne for sinne is defined to be the transgression of the lawe 1. Iob. 3.4 but the verie first motions of concupiscence are forbidden by the lawe and are a transgression thereof Ergo. So Augustine multum honi facit c. he performeth a great good that doth as it is written thou shalt not goe after thy desires Eccles. 18. sed non perfectum bonum facit c. but he doth not that which is perfectly good who fulfilleth not that which is written thou shalt not lust c. lib. de mixt concupiscent c. 23. c. 29. Answ. Pererius answeareth 1. that the motions of concupiscence hauing not the consent of the will are not forbidden by the commandement 2. and S. Augustine meaneth not that the precept thou shalt not lust cannot be fulfilled here so farre as it bindeth a man but as it excludeth concupiscence altogether which cannot be till the next life disputat 9. numer 50. Contra. 1. The Apostle meaneth the verie lusts and vnlawfull desire of the heart without consent of the will as he saith v. 15. what I hate that doe I his concupiscence tempted him euen against his will and whereas he saith he had not knowne lust without the law he meaneth the verie first motions for the second motions which haue the will concurring as enuie hatred and such like many of the heathen which knewe not the lawe condemned by the light of nature as euill 2. it is true that to be without concupiscence is not incident to this life yet is it a breach of the commandement for the precept so farre bindeth as it is commanded if then we be commanded not to couet at all and yet we doe couet we are bound to keepe it and in not keeping of it we sinne 3. further if the last commandement as not of coueting a mans wife restraine not the verie first rising deâââes it should not differ from the 7. precept which restraineth the lusts of the heart that haue the will consenting Matth. 5.28 Argum. 2. That which hindereth vs from doing our
smote and diuided the waters with Elias mantle the vertue was not in the garment for then he needed not to haue smitten but once but he calleth for the God of Elias so it is said there Act. 19. that God wrought no small miracles by the hands of Paul it was Paul then that wrought them not the napkins 3. Nor yet is this sanctification vnderstood of the reading of certaine lessons out of the Scriptures in the time of eating as some thinke Perer. numer 5. which indeede is a commendable vse see August epist. 109. and Basil. epist. 9. ad Gregor much lesse is this to sanctifie meates conceptis ex verbo det sententijs c. to pronounce and conceiue a certaine forme of words and sentences out of Scripture euen the bread and meate Bulling as the Papists hold that with speaking fiue words ouer the bread and wine in the Eucharist they can make the bodie of Christ for it is not the sound or syllables of the word pronounced that sanctifie but faith which is grounded vpon the word non quod dicitur sed quod creditur not that which is saide but that which is beleeued sanctifieth and so Origen well obserueth here per orationem non cuiuscunque sanctificantur c. they are not sanctified by the praier of euery one but of them which lift vp pure hands without wrath and doubting which praied in faith 4. Some by sanctifying vnderstand the preseruing of the meate from the power of the deuill qui solebat se cibis odoribus saporibus immiscere which was wont to insinuate himselfe and creepe as it were into the meates smells and tasts as Augustine sheweth lib. 4. de civit dei c. 15. and Gregor lib. 1. dialog c. 4. telleth of a certaine Nunne which was possessed with a deuill by eating of Iettice not blessed thus Pererius numer 6. and Gorrhan following the interlin glosse ne diabolus per eum noceat least the deuill hurt by the meates and hereupon the Papists vse to signe their meates with the signe of the crosse to chase away the deuill from their meates for other kind of giuing thanks among them is but sieldome and slenderly vsed But as I denie not but that some times the deuil may haue that power where it pleaseth God so to permit to enter into mens bodies by meates as without which was more vsually seene in those first ages of the Church while the gift of miracles yet continued yet this is not vsuall for then the greater part of the world which receiue their meate without such thanksgiuing should be possessed of the deuill the Apostle then meaneth not any such sanctifying much lesse by the signe of the crosse which is but a toy to chase away the deuill who is no otherwise ouercome then by resisting him by faith In deede thus the deuill may worke by meates to tempt men by the abuse thereof to drunkennes and lust which his tentations are preuented by the sober and godly vse of the creatures receiued with thanksgiuing 5. And by the word with Lyranus to vnderstand Christ the word of God incarnate who sanctifieth efficiendo by effecting and working as prayer doth impetrando by obtaining it is somewhat hard for Christ himselfe when he brake bread gaue thanks himselfe beeing this word the word here then signifieth not Christ but it must be vnderstood in that sense as our Sauiour saith Man liueth not by bread but by euery word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God Matth. 4.4 that is by the power blessing of God giuing strength vnto the creature to nourish 6. Neither by this sanctifying word doe we vnderstand sermonem qui est in gratiarum actione the speach which is vsed in giuing of thanks as the Greeke scholia interpreter for giuing of thanks is a kind of praier but the word and praier are here two distinct things and praier goeth before meate and giuing of thanks after it should not therefore be set before praier as here the Apostle saith by the word and praier 7. By the word of God then we vnderstand consilium institutum Dei the counsell will and institution of God Bulling which comprehendeth these foure things 1. knowledge that in the beginning God created all things for mans vse and that nothing is of it selfe vncleane 2. faith to beleeue that we are of the number of the faithfull to whome the libertie of vsing the creatures of God with a good conscience is restoared in Christ once lost in Adam Beza annot 1. Timoth. 4.5 3. iudgement that although sometime in the law there was a difference betweene cleane and vncleane meates yet now vnder the Gospel it is pronounced omnia pura puris all things to be pure to the pure Bulling 4. the commandement of Christ ex cuius mandato panem quotidianum petimus by whose appointment we doe aske our daily bread as we are taught in the Lords praier and thus much by the way of this question 28. Quest. Why ones opinion and iudgement maketh that vncleane which is not and whether an erroneous custome bindeth v. 14. To him that iudgeth any thing vncleane to him it is vncleane 1. The reason hereof is because the goodnes or badnes of an action is esteemed by the will and affection of the doer now he which thinketh a thing to be euill and yet doth it it sheweth that such an one hath deliberatam peccandi voluntatem a deliberate minde and purpose to sinne 2. But here certaine considerations are to be admitted how and in what things the iudgement of the conscience polluteth the action 1. the minde and opinion doth not simply change and alter the nature of the thing as though that should in deede be euill and vncleane which one thinketh so to be but it is onely vncleane to him that so thinketh not vnto an other that so thinketh not 2. an erroneous conscience doth not binde ad faciendum secundum eam sed non contra eam to doe according vnto it but not to doe any thing against it 3. the will must be esteemed non ex iudicio sequenti sed praecedenti not by the iudgement subsequent but precedent as if a man thinke it sinne to eate flesh and yet eateth it and afterward his iudgement is better informed that it is not sinne so to eate yet for all this he sinned before in that action because he was not then so resolued 4. Thus the case standeth in things indifferent that he sinneth against his conscience who vseth that as lawfull and indifferent which he for the time taketh to be vnlawfull but it is otherwise in things that are simply in themselues vnlawfull as the breach of any morall law as if a man should be so blinded as to thinke it lawfull to steale here his conscience is ouerruled by the word of God vnlesse he be ignorant of the law of God as few or none are for the law of nature teacheth the same things in this case vnlesse there
Whether a Iudge be bound herein to be like vnto God to iudge according to the truth which he knoweth 5. qu. Of the reasons why the Lord vseth patience and forbearance towards sinners 6. qu. Whether the leading of men to repentance by Gods long suffrance argueth that they are not reprobate 7. qu. How the bountifulnes of God in leading men to repentance and the reuelation of his wrath spoken of ch 1.18 may stand together 8. qu. How God is said to harden the heart seeing the wicked doe harden their owne hearts 9. qu. Whether hardnes of heart and finall impenitencie be a speciall kind of sinne 10. qu. Whether it stand with Gods iustice to punish twice for the same sinnes 11. qu. Whether euery one shall be rewarded according to his works 12. qu. How it standeth with Gods goodnes to punish euill with euill 13. qu. Of the true reading of the 7. vers 14. qu. What the Apostle meaneth by patience of good works 15. qu. What glorie honour and immortalitie the Apostle speaketh of v. 7. 16. qu. How it standeth with Gods iustice to punish eternally sinne temporally committed 17. qu. How eternall life is to be sought 18. qu. Whome the Apostle meaneth by contentious and such as disobey the truth 19. qu. Of the punishment due vnto the wicked indignation wrath tribulation anguish c. v. 8. 20. qu. Why the Iewe is set before the Grecian 21. qu. What Iewes and Gentiles the Apostle here meaneth 22. qu. Of the diuers acception of the word person v. 11. 23. qu. How God is said not to accept the persons of men 24. qu. Of the meaning of these words v. 22. As many as haue sinned without the law shall perish without the Law 25. qu. Of the occasion of these words v. 13. The hearers of the Law are not righteous before God but the doers shall be iustified 26. qu. Of the meaning of these words Not the hearers of the Law c. but the doers shall be iustified v. 13. 27. qu. How the Gentiles which had not the Law did by nature the things contained in the Law 28. qu. How any thing can be said to be written in the heart by nature seeing the mind is commonly held to be as a bare and naked table 29. qu. Of the Law of nature what it is 30. qu. What precepts the law of nature containeth and prescribeth 31. qu. What the law of nature was before and after mans fall and wherein they differ 32. qu. Whether the light of nature though much obscured can altogether be blotted out of the mind of man 33. qu. Whether ignorance of the law of nature in man doth make any way excusable 34. qu. That the light of nature is not sufficient of it selfe to direct a man to bring forth any vertuous act without the grace of Christ. 35. qu. Of the testimonie of the conscience the accusing or excusing of the thoughts 36. qu. Why the Apostle maketh mention of the day of iudgement v. 16. 37. qu. Why it is called the day and of the application of other words v. 16. 38. qu. Whence the Iewes were so called v. 17. Behold thou art called a Iewe. 39. qu. Of the priuiledges of the Iewes here recited by the Apostle 40. qu. How the Iewes are said to commit sasacriledge v. 22. 41. qu. How the name of God was blasphemed by the Iewes and whether this testimonie be rightly alleadged by the Apostle 42. qu. In what sense the Apostle saith Circumcision is profitable v. 25. 43. qu. How circumcision was availeable for infants 44. qu. What vncircumcised the Apostle here speaketh of whether such of the Gentiles as were conuerted to the faith and what keeping of the lawe he meaneth 45. qu. Of the explanation of certaine terms here vsed by the Apostle and of the letter and spirit 46. qu. Of two kinds of Iewes and two kinds of circumcision v. 28. Questions vpon the third Chapter 1. qu. Of the priviledges of the Iewes and of their preheminence before the Gentiles 2. qu. How mens vnbeleefe cannot make the faith of God without effect 3. qu. How God is said to be true 4. qu. How euery man is said to be a liar 5. qu. Whether euery man can be said to be a liar 6. qu. How the Prophet Dauid is to be vnderstood saying euery man is a liar Psal. 116.11 7. qu. Of the occasion of these words cited our of the 51. Psalme that thou mightest be iustified c. against thee onely haue I sinned 8. qu. Of the diuers acceptions of this word iustified 9. qu. Of the meaning of these words That thou mightest be iustified in thy words and ouercome when thou iudgest 10. qu. Whether a man may doe euill and commit sinne to that end to set forth Gods iustice 11. qu. Of the meaning of the 5 6 7 8 verses 12. qu. Whether none euill is to be done at all that good may come thereof 13. qu. Whether God doe not euill that good may come thereof in reprobating the vessels of wrath to shew his power 14. qu. In what sense the Apostle denieth the Iewes to be more excellent then the Gentiles v. 9. 15. qu. Of the meaning of certaine phrases which the Apostle vseth v. 9. We haue alreadie prooued and Vnder sinne 16. qu. Whence the Apostle alleadgeth those testimonies v. 10. to 18. 17. qu. Of the matter and order obserued by the Apostle in citing those testimonies 18. qu. How none are said to be iust seeing Noah and other holy men are reported to haue bin iust in their time 19. qu. Of the particular explication of the sinnes wherewith the Apostle here chargeth both Iewes and Gentiles 20. qu. v. 19. Whatsoeuer the Law saith what is here vnderstood by the Law and how diuersly this word is taken 21. qu. It saith to them which are vnder the Law who are here vnderstood to be vnder the law 23. qu. How no flesh is iustified by the works of the law v. 20. 24. qu. How the Apostle here denieth iustification by works seeing he said before c. 2. v. 13. that the doers of the Law are iustified 25. qu. How by the Law came the knowledge of sinne 26. qu. Of the meaning of these words The righteousnesse of God is made manifest without the law 27. qu. How the righteousnes of faith had witnes of the Law and Prophets 28. qu. Of these words v. 22. The righteousnes of God by the faith of Iesus Christ vnto all and vpon all 29. qu. What it is to be depriued of the glorie of God v. 23. 30. qu. Of iustification freely by grace v. 24. 31. qu. How God is said to haue purposed or set forth Christ to be our reconciliation 32. qu. How we are said to be iustified freely seeing faith is required which is an act in the beleeuer 33. qu. v. 25. To declare his iustice or righteousnes what iustice the Apostle vnderstandeth here 34. qu. What is meant by sinnes that are past v. 25. 35.
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
the obseruation of ceremonies and externall worship the Gospel in interiori cultu fidei in the inward worship by faith so that the law was lex puerorum the law of children which were kept vnder it as a schoolemaster but the Gospel is lex virorum the law of men come to ripe age August lib. de spirit lit 6. They differ also in the manner that which was couertly and darkely shadowed in the law is manifestly and apertly set forth in the Gospel 7. In the time they differ the law promised things to come the Gospel presently performed that which was in the law promised is Ignatius epist. ad Philadelp quod supra legem pracipuum habet Euangelium nempe praeseâtiam adventus Salvatoris what hath the Gospel aboue the law euen the presence of Christs aduent and comming 42. Quest. Why the Iewes are named before the Grecians v. 16. To the Iew first and also to the Grecian c. 1. Here by the Grecians generally all the Gentiles are vnderstood because they of all other nations seemed to be the wisest and therefore speciall instance is giuen in them that they also haue neede of the preaching of the Gospel Tolet. and at that time almost all nations vsed the Greeke tongue and therfore they are called by the name of Grecians Gualter especially when they are set against the Iewes Beza 2. Chrysostome thinketh that the Iew is named first not for any other excellencie or prerogatiue sed in hoc solo honoratur quod primus illam accepit but he is honoured onely in this because he first had the Gospel preached so he giueth onely vnto the Iew the prioritie of other 3. Origen thinketh that the Iew is set first because that like as the Grecian preferred himselfe before the Barbarian because of their lawes and ciuill life whereas the Barbarians liued without law so the Iew hath preheminence before the Grecian because they receiued their lawes from God 4. Lyranus giueth this reason the Iewes had a better preparation vnto the Gospel by the knowledge of the law and the Prophets then the Grecians who onely had the light of nature and the knowledge of the creatures 5. But the Iew hath a preheminence before the Gentile in respect of the prerogatiue which was giuen them of God vnto their fathers were the promises made and of them was descended the Messiah according to the flesh so that this word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã first doth not so much signifie ordinem temporis the order of time as ordinem dignitatis the order of dignitie as when Christ saith Seeke ye first the kingdome of God Matth. 6.33 that is chiefly and most of all Tolet. Pareus This order our blessed Sauiour obserued both in himselfe saying he was sent onely to the lost sheepe of Israel and gaue the like charge when he sent out his Apostles that they should not goe the way of the Gentiles Matth. 10.5 yea and at his ascension he appointed his Apostles to be his witnesses first in Iudea Ierusalem Samaria and then to the vttermost part of the earth Act. 1.8 This order the Apostles accordingly kept Act. 13.46 It was necessarie that the word of God should first haue him spoken vnto you 43. Quest. v. 17. The iustice or righteousnes of God is reuealed what iustice the Apostle meaneth 1. There is a iustice of God wherein he is righteous and iust in himselfe as Psal. 11.7 The righteous Lord loueth righteousnes but this the Apostle speaketh not of the essentiall iustice of God is not communicated to vs by faith 2. There is a iustice distributiue in God whereby he rendreth vnto euery man according to his works Origen vnderstandeth this iustice of God but this is not the iustice whereby a man is iustified to saluation for if the Lord should marke what is done amisse no man should be able to abide it Psal. 130.3 3. The iustice of God signifieth his veritie and truth in keeping his promises so Gorrham taketh it here true it is that God graciously performeth whatsoeuer is promised in Christ but yet his mercie must goe before in promising 4. Theodoret vnderstandeth the perfect iustice of Christ whereby he satisfied the wrath of God for our sinnes and accomplished our redemption and this perfect iustice of Christ is reuealed in the Gospel but the Apostle speaketh euidently of such iustice whereby a man is iustified before God which is not that perfect iustice inherent in Christ but the applying thereof vnto vs by faith 5. Therefore Chrysostomes exposition is the best who Homil. 3. taketh this for that iustice which is communicated and infused vnto vs by that iustice of Christ and so Augustine vnderstandeth that iustice not whereby God is iust in himselfe seâ qua hominem induit cum eum iustificat but wherewith he endueth man when he instifieth him lib. de spirit liter cap. 9. of this the Apostle speaketh chap. 3.28 We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the Lawe 6. But this iustice is not an habite infused into the mind whereby a man is made apt to exercise good workes as Pererius saith that this iustice comprehendeth two things remissionem peccatorum the remission of sinnes animi rectitudinem c. and the vprightnesse of the minde whereby it is now acceptable vnto God and is exercised in good workes for the Apostle saith of this iustice of God that it is Made manifest without the lawe by the faith of Iesus c. c. 3.21 But this infused habite which is charitie and the exercising of good workes is not reuealed without the lawe for the lawe requireth and commandeth charitie This iustice then consisteth onely in the remission of sinnes and in imputing vnto vs the righteousnesse of Christ by faith c. 4.5 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne Pareus 7. It is called the iustice of God both because it is giuen vs from God not procured by our owne workes and for that we thereby are made righteous not before men but in the sight of God Tolet. 8. And this iustice is sometime called the righteousnes of God Phil. 3.9 because he is the author thereof sometime of Christ he is our righteousnesse 1. Cor. 1.30 because by his obedience we are iustified sometime of faith Philip. 3.9 because faith is the instrument whereby Christs righteousnesse is applyed vnto vs Gryneus Quest. 44. Of the meaning of these words v. 17. is reuealed from faith to faith 1. Is reuealed 1. Which sheweth a double preheminence of the Gospel in respect of the matter it sheweth such things as cannot be otherwise knowne then by reuelation from God whereas the lawe of the Iewes and the Philosophie of the Gentiles treateth of common and knowne things and for the manner that which was obscurely set forth in the law is plainely declared in the Gospel Pareus 2. and it is so reuealed that it is not onely made knowne but indeede exhibited Beza 3. And
such examples of vnnaturall inhumanitie as Cambyses Remus Romulus and such like Gualter such was Cain Ismael Esau to their brethren The Stoicks among the heathen depriued a wise man of all affection and so doe the wicked Catabaptists among Christians Bucer 22. Such as can neuer be reconciled ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã some reade absque faedere without fidelitie Lat. such as breake all truces and leagues but they were noted before trucebreakers Lyranus taketh them to be such as would hold no friendship with any but such men were also spoken of before loc 10. they are therefore such as were implurable that beeing once offended would neuer be reconciled againe Mart. Pareus with others such was Saul that would by no meanes be appeased toward Dauid Marlorat 23. Mercilesse ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã such as had no bowels of compassion neither pitied the miseries and calamities of others as among the heathen their cruell warres and bloodshed when they spared neither man woman nor children and their bloody spectacles and sword-playes when they delighted to see the blood of man shed before their face were euident proofes hereof Gualter Chrysostome thus distinguisheth these last fowre they are coneuant breakers that keepe no fidelitie with the same kind as man with man they are without naturall affection which are vnkind to their kindred and such are ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which breake ciuill leagues and the last includeth mercie to be shewed euen vnto enemies Quest. 74. Of the true reading of the last verse v. 31. and the meaning thereof 1. The vulgar Latine which Lyranus followeth and Tolet the Rhemists with other Romanists reade thus when they knewe the iustice of God vnderstood not that they which doe such things are worthie of death c. and this reading seemeth also Cyprian to followe epistol 68. But in the originall these words non intellexerunt they vnderstood not are wanting and are inserted beside the text and they doe also quite inuert the sense of the text for they make it a lesse thing to consent vnto euill doers and approoue them then to commit euill not onely they which doe them but also they which consent vnto them as the vulgar Latine text standeth whereas the Apostle euideÌtly maketh two degrees of sinners they which commit euill and those worse which are patrons and fauourers of euill And so Chrysostome well expoundeth shewing how the Apostle taketh away two pretexts and excuses of the Gentiles one was their ignorance which they could not pretend because they knewe by nature what the iustice of God required the other was their infirmitie but that they could not alleadge seeing they did commit such things in fact but approoued also and commended the euill doers 2. By the iustice of God ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is here vnderstood not the morall lawe which the Gentiles had not but the iudiciarie iustice of God in punishing of sinne for so ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is defined iniusti facti corectio a correcting of that which is vniustly or vnlawfully done Michael Ephesus in ethic Aristot. lib. 5. c. 7. The Gentiles knewe this iustice of God in punishing of sinne both by the light of nature by the testimonie of their owne conscience and by the examples of Gods iustice shewed in the world Pareus Euen Draco which appointed death for all offences was taught by the law of nature that all sinne deserued death Mart. So Abimelech and Pharaoh knew by the light of nature that mariage was not to be violated and therefore they caused Sarah to be restored to Abraham Gualter 3. By death here is vnderstood any kind of punishment tending to the ruine and destruction of the offender Pareus yea also the Gentiles had some knowledge of euerlasting punishment for they had an opinion of hell as Virgil sheweth lib. 6. Aenead as they promised the pleasant Elysian fields after death vnto well doers Plato lib. 10. de repub Cicero in som. Scipton 75. Quest. What a dangerous thing it is to be a fauourer and procurer of sinne in others 1. The vulgar Latine reading thus not onely they which doe such things are worthie of death but they which consent vnto them that doe and Lyranus Toletus with others doe thinke that here to consent with sinners is put as the lesse that no not the consenters onely were free but were worthie of death But it is rather expressed as an higher degree of sinne as Theophylact saith quodque deterius est and that which is worse they gaue assent vnto those which doe euill so also Erasmus Osiander Pererius with others 2. The word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã signifieth not an assent onely but an approbation and patronage as Beza and Pareus read patrocinantur they giue patronage but Piscator rather vseth the word applaudunt because to applaud and approoue is more then patronize for one may be a patron of that vpon some occasion which he doth not altogether approoue 3. The heathen generally were guiltie hereof in defending and maintaining publikely euen those things which by the light of nature they knew to be euill as idolatrie fornication and such like when Alexander had killed Clitus his friend and was striken in conscience for the same he had miserable comforters applied vnto him Anaxarchus Aristander Callisthenes which were all but patrons of his sinne and made him worse the first as an Epicure told him that all was lawfull which Princes did the second beeing a Stoike referred all to fate and destinie the third vsed morall and ciuill perswasions but none of them shewed him the greatnes of his sinne Gryneus 4. Of these fauourers there are two kinds some doe affoard their helpe and assistance to euill doers some hold their peace when they should reprooue And there is a double kind of reproofe or correction fraterna correctio brotherly correction vnto the which all are bound but not alwaies sed pro debito tempore loco but in due time and place there is correctio punitionis correction by way of punishment vnto the which all superiours are bound and at all times as they shall see it to make best for the amendment of sinners Lyr. But both these kind of corrections were much neglected among the heathen 5. Now of these there were three sorts some might commit sinne in themselues and yet not consent vnto it in others and these were worthie of death some might giue consent in not punishing sinne in others though they did it not themselues and these also were worthie of death and some did both practise it in their owne person and fauour it in others and these were worthie of double death Haymo 76. Quest. How one may be accessarie to an others sinne This may be done diuers waies 1. they which command others to doe euill as Saul bid Doeg fall vpon the innocent Priests 1. Sam. 22. are guiltie of others sinnes 2. They which are readie to obey such wicked commandements as Ioab vpon Dauids letter caused
may set one auncient writer against an other to this purpose Bellarm. lib. 3. de verb. Dei c. 14. Contra. 1. Though some Greeke copies might haue those words yet the most and the most auncient haue them not as is euident by the Greeke commentaries and the Syrian translator followeth the Greeke text as it is now extant 2. The Apostle speaketh not of a bare consent vnto euill but of fauouring patronizing and taking pleasure in them which is more then to doe euill for this one may doe of infirmitie the other proceedeth of a setled malice 3. the vnderstanding is in the iudgement of the minde not in the practise and therefore to know a thing and yet not to know or vnderstand it includes a contradiction 4. the Greeke authors and commentaries are more to be respected in this case for the finding out of the best reading in the Greeke then the Latine writers 23. Controv. Against the Popish distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes v. 32. Worthie of death Hence the Rhemists inferre that some sinnes are mortall that is worthie of damnation some veniall that is pardonable of their owne nature and not worthie of damnation Contra. 1. This distinction is contrarie to the Scripture which saith the wages of sinne is death Rom. 6.23 no sinne is excepted and whosoeuer continueth not in all things written in the law is vnder the curse Gal. 3.10 And if any sinne were veniall in it owne nature it would follow that Christ died not for all sinnes for those sinnes which are pardonable in themselues neede not Christs pardon 2. Indeede there are degrees of sinne and some are worthie of greater condemnation then others and are more easily pardoned yet in Gods iustice euery sinne deserueth death which are through Gods mercie made veniall both the lesse and greater sinnes so that one and the same sinne may be mortall to the impenitent and yet veniall to the penitent beleeuer 6. Morall observations 1. Observ. v. 1. Called to be an Apostle none then must take vpon them any Ecclesiasticall function but they which are thereunto called and appointed of God Heb. 5.4 2. Observ. v. 5. For obedience to the faith the Lord straightly chargeth that obedience should be giuen to the faith of his Sonne whence are these sayings Psal. 2.12 Kisse the Sonne Matth. 17.5 Heare him they then professe not the Gospel of Christ truly who make onely a shew thereof in words but denie obedience in deede 3. Observ. v. 7. Grace to you and peace this inward peace of conscience is that peace which can not be taken from vs all other things in the world are temporall but the grace and fauour of God and this inward peace ne morie ipsa abscinduntur are not cut off by death it selfe Chrysost. for this peace we ought all to labour which Christ hath left vnto vs after an other manner then the world leaueth peace Ioh. 14.27 4. Observ. v. 8. I giue thanks c. for you all This is true charitie to pray one for an other and to giue thankes vnto God for the graces bestowed vpon others as if they were conferred vpon our selues And as here the Apostle praieth for the Church so the Church praieth for the Apostle S. Peter Act. 12.5 the Pastor and people are hereby taught one to pray for an other 5. Observ. v. 12. That I might haue consolation together with you Herein the Apostles modestie appeareth who taketh not himselfe to be so perfect but that he might receiue some comfort euen by the faith of the Romanes Let no man therefore despise the gifts and graces of others for euery one may profit by an other euen as one member helpeth an other 7. Observ. v. 13. I haue beene letted hetherto Seeing the purposes of holy men as here this of S. Paul was hindred it teachet vs that we should commend and commit all our purposes and counsels to Gods prouidence and fatherly direction 8. Observ. v. 17. The iust shall liue by faith Hence Chrysostome inferreth that men should take heede of curiositie to know a reason of Gods works but they onely must beleeue As Abraham was not curious when God bad him sacrifice his sonne but he obeyed without any further reasoning or disputation But the Israelites when they vnderstood that the Cananites were as gyants because they saw no reason or likelihood to ouercome them doubted and so fell in the wildernes so he concludeth vides quantum sit incredulitatis barathrum you see what a dangerous downefall incredulitie is and what a safe defence faith is 9. Observ. v. 24. Wherefore God gaue them vp to the lusts c. The Lord sometime gaue the idolatrous Samaritans ouer to lyons 2. King 17. but he giueth ouer these idolatrous Gentiles to their owne hearts lusts and vile affections which did more tyranize ouer them then lyons and tygres for when the bodie is giuen vp to wild beasts and depriued of life nothing happeneth against the condition of our mortall nature but when the minde is ruled by lust and so the affection preuaileth against reason this is monstrous and vnnaturall Perer. disputat 20. 10. Observ. Which is to be blessed for euer We are taught by the example of the Apostle when as we speake of the maiestie of God to breake forth into his praise as the Apostle doth here and c. 9.5 1. Tim. 1.17 11. Observ. Chrysostome further obserueth that as God still remaineth blessed though his glorie were defaced by the idolaters as much as in them lay so likewise the members of Christ when they are reuiled and railed vpon are not thereby hurt nonne vides adamanters cum percutitur percutit iteruÌ like as the adamant when it is smitten it smiteth againe and leaueth a dint in the hammer that striketh it The second Chapter 1. The text with the diuers readings THerefore thou art inexcusable O man O sonne of man T. whosoeuer thou art that iudgest thy neighbour T. but this is not in the originall for wherein thou iudgest an other L.T. in that that thou iudgest an other G. or in that wherein thou iudgest an other but in the originall it is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã for wherein the antecedent is omitted thou condemnest thy selfe for thou that iudgest doest the same things not thou doest the same things which thou iudgest L. in the originall it is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã thou iudging that is which iudgest the relatiue is referred to the person not to the thing 2 But we know are sure B. that the iudgement of God is according to truth against those V. B.T.Be G. vpon those L. the preposition is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in against which commit such things 3 And thinkest thou this O thou man that iudgest them which doe such things condemnest them which c. Be. but ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã here vsed signifieth properly to iudge ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to condemne that thou shalt escape the iudgement of God 4 Or despisest thou the riches
of his goodnes L.V. A.B. or benignitie gentlenes T. Be. rather then bountifulnes G. the word is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and patience and long sufferance or long animitie not knowing that the goodnes or benignitie of God leadeth thee or bringeth thee R. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to repentance not to penance R. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã signifieth rather repentance and change of the minde then outward penance 5 But thou after thine hardnes and heart that cannot repent dost treasure vp vnto thy selfe heapest vp L.B.G. gatherest to thy selfe V. but the word properly signifieth to stoare or treasure vp wrath in the day of wrath V.A.L. that is against the day of wrath Be. T.G. B. but in the originall it is in the day and of the reuelation T.A.L. declaration G. B. the word is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã reuelation of the iust iudgement of God 6 Who will render to euery man reward euery man B.G. but it is put in the originall in the datiue according to his workes 7 That is to them which by continuance in good workes or in well doing B.G.V. but the word in the originall is good workes not according to patience in good workes L.R. for ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã signifieth as well perseuerance and continuance as patience nor which by perseuerance seeke the glorie of good workes Be. good workes is better referred to continuance seeke glorie honour and immortalitie eternall life 8 But vnto them that are contentious verbat of contention L R. and disobey the truth and obey vnrighteousnes not giue credit to vnrighteousnes L. R. for both the words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã disobeying and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã obeying are of the same deriuation shall be indignation and wrath V. A.B.G.Be wrath and indignation L. T. but the first ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã excandescentis commotion or indignation is lesse then ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã wrath rage 9 Tribulation and anguish shall be against the soule Be. V.A. vpon the soule B.G.L. to euery soule T. the first rather see before v. 2. of euery man that doth euill of the Iew first and of the Grecian not to the Iewes first and to the Gentiles T. 10 But glorie honour and peace to euery one euery man B. that doth good to euery one that doth good glorie honour c. G. but here the words are transposed to the Iew first and also to the Grecian not to the Gentiles T. 11 For there is no respect of persons V.B.G. acception of persons Be. L. R. with God ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã acception of persons 12 For as many as haue sinned without the law not whosoeuer hath sinned L. B. for ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã whosoeuer is put in the plural shall perish also without the law and as many as haue sinned in the law shall be iudged by the law 13 For not the hearers of the law are iust with God before God G.T. in the sight of God B. the word is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã apud with but the doers of the law shall be iustified 14 For when the Gentiles which haue not the Law doe by nature not naturally L. R. the word is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã by nature the things of the Law contained in the law G. B. which are of the law but in the original it is the things of the law they hauing not the law are a law vnto themselues 15 Which shew the worke of the Law written in their hearts the effect of the law G. but the word is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã worke their conscience also bearing witnes not bearing them witnes L.T.B. for them is not in the original and their thoughts not of their thoughts L. for in the original it is put absolutely in the genitiue accusing one an other mutually or excusing 16 In the day at the day G.B. but in the original it is in the day when God shall iudge the secrets of men according to my Gospel by Iesus Christ. by Iesus Christ according to my Gospel B.G. but the words are here transposed 17 Behold thou art surnamed a Iew V.B.G.Be. not but if thou art surnamed L.R.T. the word is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã behold not ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã as though it were two words and restest in the law and gloriest in God makest thy beast of God B. but the preposition is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in 18 And knowest his will and triest the things that differ A. B. approouest the most profitable things L.T. approouest the more excellent things G.B. but the phrase is vsed in the first sense Philip. 1.10 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã properly signifieth things differing beeing instructed by the Law 19 And art perswaded or confident V. Be A.G. beleeuest B. presumest L. the word is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which S. Paul vseth of himselfe Rom. 8.38 that thou art a guide of the blind a light of them which are in darknes 20 An instructer of them which lacke discretion B. G. T. of the foolish L. the word is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã without wit or discretion a teacher of the vnlearned V. B. G. of infants verbal ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã L.B.T. he meaneth such as were infants in knowledge hauing the forme of knowledge and of truth in the Law 21 Thou therefore which teachest an other teachest thou not thy selfe thou that preachest a man should not steale doest thou steale 22 Thou which saiest a man should not commit adulterie doest thou commit adulterie thou that abhortest idols committest thou sacriledge A. B.G.Be read these two verses with an interrogation V.T.L. read without and so the next verse also 23 Thou that gloriest in the Law thorough transgression of the law B.V. prevarication L. breaking of the law B. G ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã transgression dishonourest thou God 24 For the Name of God thorough you is blasphemed among the Gentiles as it is written 25 For circumcision verily profiteth Be. V.G. auaileth B. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã profiteth if thou doe the law but if thou be a transgressor of the law thy circumcision is made vncircumcision 26 Therefore if the vncircumcision prepuce R. the word is praeputium in Latin but it can not be made an English word keepe the rites of the law Be. ordinances B. G. iustices L. A. the word is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã rites shall not his vncircumcision be counted for circumcision 27 And shall not vncircumcision by nature keeping the law not by nature keeping the law T. these words by nature are euidently ioyned with the first clause in the original iudge thee that by the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law 28 For not he that is in open shew outward B. G. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in manifest in open shew is a Iew not that which is in open shew in the flesh is circumcision 29 But he that is in secret is a Iew he is a Iew which is one within B. G. but the word is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in the
secret or hid part and the circumcision is of the heart in the spirit not in the letter whose praise that is of the Iew as the relatiue ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã of the masculine gender sheweth is not of men but of God 2. The parts Method and Argument THis Chapter hath two parts 1. the Apostle conuinceth all to be sinners and so to deserue condemnation much lesse to be iustified by their workes 2. he taketh away certaine pretexts and excuses which might be alleadged 1. As in the former chapter he conuinced the Gentiles of sinne and so to be subiect to Gods iust wrath because both they committed euill things themselues and fauoured those which did them so now he vrgeth an other argument from their owne conscience The reason standeth thus whosoeuer condemneth himselfe is inexcusable this is prooued in the second verse because the iudgement of God is according to truth to iudge euery man according to his owne conscience but all men doe condemne themselues because they iudge others for the same things which they doe themselues v. 1. therefore they are inexcusable v. 1. 2. The pretenses are 1. either generall of all men v. 3. to 11. or speciall first of the Gentiles v. 11. to 17. or of the Iewes v. 17. to the ende 1. The generall pretext or pretense 1. is propounded v. 3 4. that God beeing mercifull and long-suffering will not straightly punish and condemne euery one that is euill 2. the Apostles answer followeth 1. from the ende and cause of Gods long-suffering which is to call men to repentance v. 4. in the latter part 2. from the effect of impenitencie which is the heaping vp of wrath which is confirmed by the efficient cause the iustice of God v. 6. then by an anrithesis and opposition both of the rewards and punishments v. 7 8 9 10. which also is amplified and confirmed by the reason thereof that God is no accepter of persons v. 11. 2. The first speciall pretext is of the Gentiles which may be collected thus It is vniust for those which haue no law to be punished the Gentiles haue no law Ergo. The Apostle answereth to the maior or first part by a distinction that they which haue no law at all neither naturall nor written are not to be punished but if they haue either or both if they sinne against the law of nature or the written law they shall be iudged accordingly v. 12. the latter part of sinning against the written law is further illustrated by preuenting an obiection for the Iew might alleadge that he had the law and gaue eare vnto it therefore he should not be iudged thereby the Apostle answereth that not the hearers of the law but the doers should be iustified v. 13. The second part of the argument that the Gentiles had no lawe the Apostle denieth proouing that although they had not the written lawe yet they had the law of nature which he sheweth by two arguments taken from two effects the one because some of them by the light of nature did some things agreeable to the written law v. 14. and againe they had the testimonie of their owne conscience either accusing or excusing them v. 15. which is set forth by the circumstance of the time when this testimonie of their conscience shall most of all shew it selfe namely at the day of iudgement v. 16. Then follow the particular pretexts and excuses of the Iewes The first is that the Iewes had the knowledge of the law and therfore that they should not be damned together with the rest this defense of the Iewes is first propounded in their person in diuers particular points wherein the Iewes boasted as in the knowledge of the law in the teaching and instructing of others v. 17. to 20. then the Apostle adioyneth his answer denying the argument because although they had the Law yet they obserued it not which he prooueth by experience of their euill life v. 21 22 23. and by a testimonie of Scripture v. 24. The other pretext and defense of the Iewes was this circumcision is not vnprofitable the Iewes had circumcision therefore it was auaileable vnto them to this the Apostle maketh this answer to the proposition by this distinction that circumcision profited if it kept the law which is amplified by the contrarie that if it kept not the law it was no better then vncircumcision nay vncircumcision keeping the law should be preferred before circumcision not keeping the law v. 25 26 27. to the assumption he also answereth by a double distinction of a Iew outward and inward and of circumcision in the flesh and the spirit that a Iew outward should gaine nothing before God by his circumcision onely in the flesh and not in the heart v. 28 29. 3. The questions and doubts discussed 1. Quest. To whome the Apostle here speaketh Wherefore thou art inexcusable O man c. to the Gentiles or Iewes 1. Some thinke that the Apostle vseth here a transition and as he had hetherto discouered the sinnes of the Gentiles so now he turneth him vnto the Iewes to lay open their hypocrisie Lyran. And Tolet thinketh that the Apostle reasoneth from the lesse to the greater that if the Gentiles which had not the written law of God were not excusable much lesse the Iewes But the particle ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã wherefore sheweth that this is inferred out of that which went before and so is a continuance of the same argument 2. Some here comprehend not the Gentiles onely but the Iewes also that both the Iewes in condemning the idolatrie of the Gentiles and the Gentiles censuring the Iewes for their euill life and yet did the same things themselues should be both without excuse Haymo gloss ordin Anselm Perer. But it can not be shewed how the Iewes condemning the Gentiles of idolatrie were guiltie of the same themselues 3. The third opinion is that the Apostle still treateth of the Gentiles and hereof there are two reasons both because those words haue a necessarie connexion and reference to and with the former chapter and afterward v. 17. the Apostle beginneth by name to deale with the Iewes But they which agree that this is spoken of the Gentiles yet doe differ therein 1. Origen will haue this verse to be the conclusion of the former chapter wherein he committeth two faults first in ioyning together things of diuers natures for the Apostle there touched those which both fauoured euill in others and did practise it in themselues but now he taxeth an other sort of men that seemed to mislike sinne in others and yet did it themselues and againe Origen in diuiding the first verse from the second for we know that the iudgement of God is according to the truth which is a reason of the former doth separate and distinguish those things which should be conioyned 2. Some referre this to such as were Iudges among the Gentiles who though they made lawes to iudge and punish by yet
shal rise incorruptible but not all vnto glorie 4. Vnto these the Apostle addeth a fourth v. 10. namely peace which is the verie complement and perfection of our happines this peace is honorum omnium secura tranâquiâ possessio a secure and peaceable possession of all good things and as Prosper saith as Beda here citeth him pax Christi sinem non habet the peace of Christ hath no ende the Saints shall be at peace with God they shall enioy the tranquilitie and peace of conscience to theÌselues and peace they shall haue without from all enemies whatsoeuer which shall be subdued vnto them 5. But it will be obiected that glorie and honour are peculiar and essentiall vnto God which he will not giue to any other Isay. 42.8 And thine is the glorie Matth. 6.13 Answer That essentiall and infinite honour and glorie which is in God is not communicated vnto any other but yet there are certaine influences and bright beames of that glorie which in Christ are imparted to his members as S. Peter saith that by these precious promises which are made vnto vs in Christ we are made partakers of the diuine nature 2. Pet. 1.4 Quest. 16. How it standeth with Gods iustice to punish eternally sinne temporally committed Obiect As God giueth eternall life vnto his faithfull seruants so he punisheth the wicked and impenitent with euerlasting damnation but sinne is a temporall transgression and for one to be punished eternally for a momentanie delight may seeme to exceede the rule of iustice Answ. Three wayes doth it appeare to be most iust that God should punish eternally sinne but temporally committed both in respect of the minde and intention of the sinner of the matter wherein he sinneth and of the person against whom he is an offender 1. First though the act of sinne be but temporall yet the mind of the sinner is infinite if he could euer liue he would euer sinne and therefore as Gregorie saith quia mens in hac vita nunquam voluit carere peccato iustum est vt nunquam careat supplicio c. because the mind in this life would neuer be without sinne it is iust that it should neuer be without punishment 2. If the matter and subiect of sinne be considered it is of and in the soule like as then the wounding of the bodie bringeth the death of the bodie after the which there is no returning into this life againe so sinne beeing the death of the soule it followeth that it should be perpetuall and for euer Hugo like as then Magistrates doe punish some offences as murther theft with death which doth vtterly exclude them from the societie of the liuing and cut them off for euer so is it iust with God to punish the sinnes committed against him with euerlasting paine Perer. 3. Sinne because it is a transgression of the lawe of God is so much the more hainous as he that smiteth the Prince doth more grieuously offend then he which striketh a priuate person so that sinne is of an infinite nature because of the infinite dignitie of the diuine maiestie against whom it is committed and therefore it deserueth an infinite punishment which because it cannot be infinite secundum intensionem in the intention and greatnesse of it it remaineth that it should be infinite secundum à urationem in respect of the continuance and enduring thereof Perer. 4. Further the equitie of Gods iudgement in punishing the temporall act of sinne eternally Hugo doth thus very well illustrate by these comparisons Like as when mariage is contracted per verba de praesenti by words vttered in the present tense though the contract be sone done yet the mariage remaineth all the life long so when the soule and sinne are contracted together it is no maruell if this contract holding during the life of the soule deserue euerlasting punishment And like as where the fuell and matter of the fire continueth the flame burneth still so sinne leauing a blot in the soule beeing the matter of hell fire is eternally punished because there is still matter for that euerlasting fire to worke vpon Thus then it is euident how the Lord euen in punishing sinne eternally doth reward men according to their workes for though the action of sinne be temporall voluntas tamen peâcandi qua per poenitentiam non mutatur est perpetua yet the will to sinne which is not changed by repentance is perpetuall Gorrhan 17. Quest. How eternall life is to be sought v. 7. To them which in well doing seeke glorie honour c. In seeking of God who is eternall life three things must be considered locus tempus modus the place the time the manner 1. The place must be mundus quietus securus cleane quiet secure then first God is not to be sought vpon the bed of idlenes or carnall delight and therefore it is said Cantic 3. 1. In my bed I sought him but found him not that is no cleane place to seeke God in But yet the bed vndefiled is honourable Heb. 13.4 and the faithfull doe seeke God euen in their beds as Dauid saith Psal. 6.6 That he watered his couch with his teares Neither is God to be sought in the courts and streetes and tumultuous assemblies as Cantic 3.2 I sought him in the streetes but found him not and Hos. 5.6 They shall goe with their bullocks and sâeepe to seeke the Lord but shall not finde him such are no quiet places but God must be praied vnto in secret and sought in the quiet hauen of the conscience Neither is God to be sought in pompa where there is ostentation of pompe and vanitie as Christs parents found him not among their kinted but in the Temple disputing with the Doctors God is to be sought not in pompous shewes but in the assemblies of the Saints 2. Concerning the time God must be sought dum dies est dum prope est dum nobis predest while it is day while he is neare and at hand and when it may auaile vs. 1. First God is not to be sought in the night Cantic 3.1 I sought him in my bed by night c. but found him not so the Apostle saith The night is past the day is come let vs cast away the works of darknes God then is to be sought not in the time of ignorance and darknes but in the time of light and knowledge 2. The Lord must be sought when he may be found and is at hand Isa. 55.6 Seeke ye the Lord while he may be found call vpon him while he is neare while the Lord offereth grace vnto vs and standeth knocking at the doore of our hearts we must open vnto him 3. And in this life must we seeke God while mercie is shewed while the bridegroome crieth in the streetes Matth. 25.6 but when the doores are shut and this life is ended it is then too late to seeke for mercie 3. Touching the manner God must be sought in the heart in
desiring him Isa. 26.8 The desire of my soule is to thy name our eyes must be toward him Psal. 121.1 I will lift vp mine eyes to the mountaines from whence my helpe commeth our talke must be of him Psal. 119.13 With my lippes haue I declared all the iudgements of thy mouth our hands must be lift vp vnto him in our prayer We must lift vp pure handâ 1. Tim. 2.8 our feete must be readie to goe to serue him Psalm 18.33 He maketh my feete like hindes feete Gorrhan 18. Quest. Whome the Apostle meaneth by contentious and such as disobey the truth v. 8. But vnto them that are contentious 1. Some doe vnderstand those that did wilfully maintaine and defend their errors whence was beginning of sects and schismes Origen Anselme 2. Chrysostome Theodoret applie it vnto those which sinned of malice and of an obstinate and set purpose 2. But Ambrose specially referreth it vnto those who despised the iudgement of God and abused his long suffering and patience thinking that they should not be called to account for their sinnes and this seemeth to be most agreeable to the Apostles meaning for he spake before of such v. 4. as despised the bountifulnes of God which did lead and cal them to repentance by the contentious then are vnderstood such as were refractorie and rebellious against God And disobey the truth 1. Some vnderstand the truth of the Gospel Anselme Aretius 2. some generally the truth of doctrine by preaching Lyran. Osiand But the Apostle speaketh principally of the Gentiles which had neither heard of the Gospel and wanted the light of true doctrine 3. Ambrose doth restraine it to those that beleeue not the iudgement to come by Christ but that is too peculiar 4. some doe vnderstand onely the light of nature Beza Gryneus Pareus of which truth the Apostle spake before c. 1.18 which withheld the truth in vnrighteousnes 5. But seeing the Apostle comprehendeth the Iewes as well as the Gentiles the truth is more generally to be taken for any direction vnto that which was right whether by the law of nature which the Gentiles had or the written law which the Iewes had so Chrysostome taketh it in this generall sense qui lucem fugit tenebras eligens which doth flee the truth choosing darknes c. 19. Quest. Of the punishment due vnto the wicked Indignation wrath tribulation anguish c. v. 8. 1. Some doe ioyne all these together as depending vpon one sentence so Ambrose Theodoret Origen but they are distinguished into two periods one endeth at wrath the other beginneth at tribulation the first sheweth the qualitie of the works which are punished the other the persons that shall be iudged indifferently both Iewes and Gentiles Tolet. or the first containeth the thesis or generall preposition the other an hypothesis with particular application to the Iewes and Gentiles 2. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã indignation some take for the more vehement motion of anger and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã anger for the lesse Origen Martyr but the first rather signifieth the lighter commotion and stirring of the minde the other the inflammation of the minde with a purpose of reuenge Tolet. Pareus and this anger and indignation are not to be referred vnto the men themselues as Origen but vnto God who is not subiect vnto any such perturbations but here figuratiuely anger the cause is taken for the effects the iudgement of God vpon the wicked the effects of his anger Pareus 3. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã tribulation and anguish 1. some applie vnto the inward vexation and anguish of the minde which the wicked feele in this life these are before iudgement and the other two indignation wrath after gloss ordinar Aret. and hereupon Origen maketh a difference betweene the tribulation of the wicked quam subsequitur angustia which anguish and vexation of the minde followeth and the affliction of the righteous wherein they are not straightened but enlarged in their inward man 2. But this tribulation and anguish is better referred to the infernall punishment where shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth Pareus which some thus well distinguish referring tribulation to the externall punishment of hell fire and anguish to the worme of conscience that neuer diâth Oââand Gorrhan But yet so there eternall punishment is here described as that the horror of conscience euen in this life the forerunner of that euerlasting horror in hell may very well be included also 4. Vpon the soule of euery man which is not onely an Hebraisme that is vpon euery man Tolet. for according to the Hebrew phrase it had beene sufficient to say vpon euery soule therefore hereby is also signified the horrible punishment of their soules specially yet together with their bodies Pareus for à parte totum intelligit he vnderstandeth the whole by a part Haymo 20. Quest. Why the Iew is set before the Grecian v. 9. Of the Iew first and of the Grecian 1. Tolet thinketh that the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã first here signifieth ordinem praeminentiam statuum the order and preheminence or prerogatiue of states betweene the Iewes and Gentiles for the Iewes were preferred before the Gentiles because they were the people of God But although this reason may be yeelded in the next verse where mention is made of glorie and honour vpon euery one that doth good the Iew first and then the Gentile yet it can be no prerogatiue for the Iew to be first in punishment 2. Therefore I preferre their iudgement which thinke that the Iew in the order of punishment is placed first because they knew Gods will and had better helpes and therefore they were worthie of greater punishment if they did not their masters will so Ambrose Iudaeus credens propter Abraham honorificentior diffidens peius tractandus the beleeuing Iew was more honoured for Abrahams sake but the vnbeleeuing Iew was worthie of greater blame so also Athanas. ad Antioch qu. 144. so primum significat grauitatem poena this word first doth in this place signifie the greatnesse of punishment in the other prarogativam pramij the prerogatiue of reward Faius 21. Quest. What Iewes and Gentiles the Apostle here meaneth 1. Origen will haue neither the vnbeleeuing Iew here to be matched with the beleeuing Gentile for then the Iewe should not haue the preheminence nor yet the beleeuing Iewe with the vnbeleeuing Gentile for then they were not fit to be ioyned together but he vnderstandeth as well the vnbeleeuing Iewes as Gentiles and hath these strong positions 1. that euen they which beleeued not among the Gentiles yet doing well might be rewarded though they had not faith in Christ for as they were condemned for their euill works so if they did well they should be counted worthie of reward and whereas that place will be obiected He that beleeueth not is condemned alreadie Ioh. 3.18 he giueth this interpretation secundum hoc quod non credidit iudicatus est c. he is
Some giue this solution that there is no acception of persons in donis gratuitis in gifts of gratuitie and freely bestowed as election vocation are of the free gift of God he calleth and electeth whome he will but a person may be accepted in the distribution of that which doth of right appertaine vnto one and so the Lord accepteth no maâ person but rewardeth euery one according to his worke Peter disput 6. numer 42. 2. Beza thus answereth that in the decree of election there can be no acception of persons when God electeth some before they haue any beeing and so are yet no person at all 3. But this answer is more full and sufficient there are three things to be considered in the accepting of persons 1. when some externall condition is respected beside the merit of the cause 2. and this is done contrarie to the law of equitie 3. and not without iniurâ done vnto an other when of partiall affection that is taken from one which is his right and adiudged to an other But none of these are seene in Gods election 1. he respecteth not any condition or qualitie in them which are elected but he maketh choice of them of his owne good pleasure 2. he is not tied to any law and so transgresseth no law 3. he doth not wrong vnto any in exempting some from destruction which in the rigour of his iustice is due vnto all like as Augustine putteth the case of two debters if the Creditour doe forgiue his debt vnto one and exact it of an other he doth no wrong it is free for him to doe what he will with his owne Matt. 20.15 Pareus Faius so as Augustine well determineth ibi acceptio personarum recte dicitur vbi ille qui iudicat relinquens causae meritum c. there acception of persons is rightly saide to be when he that iudgeth leauing the merit of the cause doth finde somewhat in the person for the which he giueth sentence with one against an other c. lib. 2. ad 2. epist. Pelagian c. 7. But to doth not God for he findeth no difference in the persons but all beeing in the same cause of damnation he of his owne free will forgiueth his debt vnto some and requireth it of others 4. Obiect But it is an accepting of persons as well cum aequalibus in aequalia tribnuntur c. when vnequall things are giuen to those which are equall in cause as when all are guiltie and yet one is saued an other condemned as when the persons are vnequall as the innocent condenmed and the guiltie freed God seemeth in the first kind to haue respect vnto persons freeing some from condemnation which belongeth in the rioour of Gods iustice to all Answ. 1. It is not simply an accepting of persons to giue vnequally where the cause is equall but when this is done with respect vnto some qualitie in the person as because he is rich or honourable or such like and the other is not But God doth not so he electeth some before other not for any respect to their persons but of his meere grace and fauour 2. betweene the decree of Gods election and the execution thereof there commeth the faith and pietie of the elect which maketh a manifest difference betweene them and the reprobate which freeth God from all partialitie who iudgeth men according to the qualitie of their workes See more afterward 3. addition to the places of doctrine 24. Quest. Of the meaning of these words v. 12. As many as haue sinned without the law shall perish without the law 1. Ambrose exposition here seemeth somewhat strange who vnderstandeth this not of the law of nature but of the law of Moses to the which the Gentiles were bound to giue assent and therefore duplici nomine sunt rei they are guiltie two waies because they did not giue assent vnto the law giuen by Moses nor receiued Christ c. Pererius refelleth this interpretation because the law of Moses did onely bind the Hebrewes neither were any of the Prophets commanded to publish the law of Moses to the Gentiles as afterward the Apostles were commanded to preach it to the Gentiles But Tolet somewhat qualifieth and excuseth Ambrose making this his meaning that he speaketh onely of the Gentiles who liued after the publishing and preaching of the Gospel who then were bound to beleeue and to receiue the writings of Moses and the Prophets which prophesied of Christ yet in this sense he thinketh that Ambrose expresseth not the Apostles full meaning who speaketh generally of the Gentiles both before and at the comming of Christ. 2. Chrysostome whome Anselme followeth doth interpret this to be iudged without a law levius puniri to be more easily punished for the Gentile hauing not the law as the Iew had is thereby somewhat excused But the Apostles purpose is not to shew any inequalitie of punishment betweene the Iew and Gentile but onely howsoeuer they are vnequall in knowledge yet because they are equall in sinne they shall both indifferently be punished 3. Some contrariwise doe make the case of the Gentiles more grieuous they shall perish without the law meaning the written law but the Iewes shall be iudged onely that is not punished eternally but for a time who afterward shall be saued this opinion is imputed to Origen hom 3. in Levit. and he insinuateth as much in his commentarie vpon this place Augustine reselleth this opinion concion 25. in Psal. 118. And it is euidently confuted by the saying of our Sauiour Matth. 11. that it shall be more easie for the Sodomites in the day of iudgement then for the vnbeleeuing Iewes Perer and they that haue done euill whether Iew or Gentile shall goe into euerlasting fire Matth. 25.46 Here then iudgement is taken for condemnation as it is vsuall in the Scripture as Ioh. 5.29 They that haue done euill shall come forth to the resurrection ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã of iudgement that is condemnation Tolet. 4. Pererius here maketh mention of the like opinion of certaine of their Catholikes who by iudging here vnderstand certaine transitorie paines in purgatorie which such shall endure but they shall not finally perish because they hold the foundation namely faith in Christ But Pererius confuseth them because the Apostle speaketh of such Iewes as beleeued not in Christ and therefore did not hold the foundation 5. Gregorie hath this obseruation vpon those words he maketh two degrees of those which shall be saued in the day of iudgement and two likewise of them which shall be condemned first alij iudicantur regnant some shall be examined first for their life and afterwards enter into Gods kingdome such as repented them of their former sinnes and did good workes such Christ shall say vnto for I was hungrie and ye gaue me meate c. alij electorum non iudicantur reginant others of the elect should not be iudged at all but presently reigne with Christ such are they
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
nature was before and after mans fall and wherein they differ In the lawe of nature there are two principall things first the vnderstanding and iudgement in apprehending and conceiuing these naturall principles touching our dutie toward God and our neighbour the other is in the will and affection in giuing assent and approbation vnto those things so by the vnderstanding conceiued In both these there was greater perfection in the naturall light which Adam was created with and that which is now remaining in his posteritie 1. Concerning the vnderstanding whereas the obiect thereof is either touching mysticall and diuine things apppertaining vnto God or morall and ciuill duties 1. In both these the mind of man is naturally obscured that it doth not so clearely see what is good or euill in morall duties much lesse in spirituall as Adam did in the creationâ for there are some mysteries concerning the Godhead as of the Trinitie of the creation of the world and of the end thereof of the power and omnipotencie of God and such like which Adam in his creation had a perfect knowledge of but now such things by the light of nature cannot be attained vnto they are reuealed by grace as our blessed Sauiour faith this is life eternall that they knowe thee to be the onely verie God 2. as some things we knowe not at all by nature which were infused to Adam so these principles that remaine are but darkely and obscurely now reuealed in nature which were manifest to Adam both in spirituall things and morall duties that as the Apostle saith by this light of nature they could but grope after God Act. 17.27 3. An other defect in the vnderstanding is that men by great difficultie and labour now attaine vnto these things which Adam had infused without labour whereof the Preacher speaketh when he saith He that encreaseth knowledge encreaseth sorrowe Eccles. 1.18 4. Curiositie is an other fault in the vnderstanding when men are caried away from seeking after things profitable and are tickeled with a desire to search out hid and mysticall things to high aboue their reach as our parent Eue when she began to listen to the serpents suggestion was tempted to desire some accession and encrease of knowledge more then they had therefore the Apostle would haue euerie one vnderstand according to sobrietie Rom. 12.4 5. Now our vnderstanding is ouercast with a vanitie of mind which breaketh out into idle vaine and vnprofitable thoughts which was not in Adam who before his fall should haue beene occupied in nothing els but in the meditation of God and good things according to which patterne Dauid desireth that the meditations of his heart might be acceptable vnto God Psal. 19.14 6. Adam had the knowledge of good by experience of euill by contemplation But after his fall he had an experimentall knowledge of euill which now remaineth in his posteritie And these differences there are betweene Adams naturall vnderstanding and ours 2. In the will of man by nature there are these defects and infirmities which Adam had not 1. In spirituall and morall good things the will hath no inclination at all sauing in some ciuill things but to will that which is good it hath no free will or power at all without grace as the Apostle saith 2. Cor. 3.5 We are not sufficient of our selues to thinke any thing 2. in generall the will consenteth to that which is good but it fayleth in particular as by nature man knoweth that it is euill to steale murther committ adulterie and yet when it commeth to a particular act he approoueth and followeth the contrarie as S. Paul saith Rom. 7.19 I doe not the good thing which I would but the euill which I would not that doe I But Adam both in generall and particular did knowe what was good and might if he would himselfe haue giuen consent thereunto 3. Mans will is so froward by nature and peruerse that when as naturally euerie one desireth to be happie yet he willingly committeth those things against his intendment which make him vnhappier as a thiefe stealeth to keepe himselfe from famine and so from miserie and thus ut miser sic malus fit ideo miserior ect quia malus est least he should be miserable he becommeth euill beeing so much the more miserable because he is euill And by this meanes it falleth out that he becommeth that which he intended not 4. Further whereas the law of nature is that a man should not offer that to another which he would not haue done to himselfe yet now this naturall light is obscured with selfeloue that a man will not haue wrong done to himselfe yet he will wrong an other 5. The lawe of nature is that the reason should gouerne and the affections should be subiect to reason thus was it in Adan so is it nowe for the lust and concupiscence often preuaileth and swayeth against reason 6. the lawe is constant and vnchangeable and the will of man following the light of nature altreth nor but now the will of man is mutable and changeable 7. And whereas by the light of nature onely that which is good should be desired now the will is carried to followe things apparently euill as most notorious vices of adulterie drunkennesse pride and such like which by custome men delight in as Augustine saith peccata qumvis magna horrenda cum in consuetudinem venerint aut parua aut nulla esse creduntur sinnes though great and horrible when they are growne into custome are thought either to be no sinnes or verie small Enehurid c. 80. And in these particulars it is euident how farre the naturall light now remaining is declined from that perfection which it had in the first creation of man 31. Quest. Whether the light of nature though much obscured can altogether be blotted out of the minde of man Though the light of nature may be and is much dimmed and ouercast by the corruption of mans preposterous affections yet that is most true which Augustine resolueth vpon legem scriptam in cordibus hominum ne ipsa quidem delet iniquitas the law written in the hearts of men no not iniquitie and sinne it selfe can blot out lib. 2. confess c. 4. this conclusion may be further thus strengthened and confirmed 1. There are certaine generall principles and rules of nature which doe reuiue and remaine in most wicked men as euery one desireth to be happie neither is there any so carelesse of himselfe but would attaine vnto this ende though he may be deceiued in the means againe euery one by nature knoweth that euill is to be auoided and therefore he would not haue any wrong offered vnto him by an other because he taketh it to be euill and he likewise knoweth that good is to be desired and therefore that which he would haue an other to doe vnto him he desireth so to be done because he thinketh it to be good These generall rules and principles of
nature none are ignorant of but when they come to draw out particular conclusions out of these generall rules there they faile either beeing blinded in their iudgement or corrupted by euill manners and custome whereupon it commeth that men take those things in their practise to be good and commendable which are euill as among the Germanes as Caesar writeth lib. 6. de bell Gall. robberie was counted no fault neither was the vnnaturall loue of boyes among the Grecians and Romanes held to be vnlawfull and infamous 2. An other proofe hereof that the light of nature is not vtterly extinguished is by the force and working of the conscience which is readie to accuse the offender and to prick and sting his soule as Cain by this light of his conscience was driuen to confesse that his sinne was greater then could be forgiuen 3. An other argument hereof which the Apostle also toucheth here is the practise of naturall men who did performe diuers commendable things by the light of nature agreeable to equitie as appeareth by diuers politike lawes and positiue constitutions of the Gentiles by the which these two assertions and conclusions of Plato are found to be true legem esse inventionem veritatis that the law is the inuention of truth that is the law of nature and legeÌ est imitationeÌ veritatis the law is the imitation of truth that is positiue laws grounded vpon the law of nature 32. Qu. Whether ignorance of the law of nature in man doth make any way excusable 1. First though the light of nature be now much darkned and obscured yet thereby a man notwithstanding this naturall darknes and ignorance is left without excuse as the Apostle saith c. 1.20 to the intent that they should be without excuse and the equitie thereof thus further appeareth the Prophet Dauid saith Psal. 79.6 Powre out thy wrath vpon the heathen that haue not knowne thee and S. Paul 2. Thess. 1.8 in flaming fire rendring vengeance vnto them that doe not know God But Gods iudgement is most iust he would not punish men without their fault seeing then that euen they which know not God shall be iudged it remaineth that their ignorance is not without their owne fault that is an excellent saying of Augustine inexcusabilis est omnis peccator vel reatu originis c. euery sinner is inexcusable either by originall guilt or by voluntarie additament whether we know or be ignorant for ignorance in them that would not vnderstand is sinne without doubt in them that could not it is the punishment of sinne and so in both non est iust a excusatio sed iust a damnatio there is no iust excuse but damnation is iust c. epistol 105. So both waies is the ignorant man left without excuse for that perfect light of nature which was giuen at the first to man was lost by his sinne so that this ignorance is the iust punishment of sinne and that light of nature which remaineth was by the Gentiles abused that they would not vnderstand that which nature reuealed 2. Yet although the ignorance of the law altogether excuse not as it serueth not the malefactors turne to say he knew not the law of the Prince against the which he hath offended yet it doth somewhat extenuate the offence for the faults committed by the ignorant are lesse then those which such fall into that haue knowledge according to that saying of our blessed Sauiour Luk. 12.47 The seruant that knew his masters well and prepared not himselfe neither did according to his will shall be beaten with many stripes but he that knew it not and did commit things worthie of stripes shall be beaten with few stripes for vnto him that is ignorant are wanting two things knowledge and a good will but he that sinneth wittingly hath but one want onely good will and inclination and the one hath both voluntatem facti peccati the will of the deede and the sinne but he that falleth of ignorance hath onely a will to the deed not to the sinne though the deede be sinne see further of this matter 4. chap. 1. quest 57. 33. Quest. That the light of nature is not sufficient of it selfe to direct a man to bring forth any vertuous act without the grace of Christ. It was the common opinion of the Philosophers that there were the seedes of all vertuâ graft in the minde of man by nature which seedes growing to ripenes were able to bring forth right vertuous actions But the contrarie is euident that this naturall seede is imperfect and of it selfe vtterly vnable to bring forth any such fruit 1. The Apostle saith that he which soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reape corruptioâ but he that soweth to the spirit shall of the spirit reape life euerlasting it is then the seede oâ the spirit that sanctifieth to life euerlasting he that is lead onely by the light of nature soâeth to the flesh and the fruit thereof is corruptible S. Iohn also saith he that is borne of Gââ sinneth not for his seede remaineth in him 1. Ioh. 3.9 he then that is onely borne of natââe hath not this seede remaining in him and therefore can not chuse but sinne 2. If the morall law without the grace of Christ were of no efficacie to bring a man to righteousnes but rather serued to reueale sinne as the Apostle saith Rom. 4.13 Thâ law causeth wrath and Rom. 7.11 Sinne tooke occasion by the commandement and deceâââ me and thereby slew me much lesse is the law of nature auaileable to direct one vnto yet ââous acts but rather it is an occasion to the wicked that abuse it of further stumbling ãâã as a light suddenly flashing vpon ones eyes walking in darknes doth dazle them the moââ and causeth him to stumble 3. This further appeareth how vnsufficient this naturall light is because in many thorough custome and continuance in sinne their very conscience is corrupt that they are nââ touched with any remorse for euill but as the Prophet saith Ier. 3.3 Thou hadst a whoââ forehead thou wouldest not be ashamed so they grew to be impudent and shameles in their euill doing and as their conscience was feared as with an hoat yron so their iudgement ââblinded taking good for euill and euill for good Isa. 5.20 4. If it be obiected that the Gentiles did many commendable things there are found âmong them many worthie examples of iustice temperance fortitude yet these were sâââ from true vertues for both these semblable vertues were obscured with many other viââ which raigned in them and they aimed at doing such things at a wrong ende they referrââ all this their endeauour either to their owne profit or els to get praise thereby so that thââ did ouercome other inferiour lusts desires with the predominant humour of couetousâ and ambition like as in a bodie full of diseases and infirmities there may be one which not exceed the rest draw the
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 âealed 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 volâtes 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
the Syrian translatour placeth them so by nature must be ioyned to vncircumcision not to keeping the lawe and it is a description of the Gentiles which haue vncircumcision by nature Pareus 2. Obiect The words of the Apostle are ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã consummans as the Latine interpreter readeth perfecting the law which phrase Origen thus distinguisheth from the former word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to keepe the lawe which the Apostle vseth v. 26. he that liueth according to the letter of the lawe is said to keepe it but he that keepeth it according to the spirituall sense is said to perfect or accomplish it Contra. But Beza here well obserueth that both these are here taken for one that the perfect keeping of the lawe is not here opposed to the imperfect keeping but the keeping and obseruing of the lawe is set against the not hauing care to keepe it but to rest onely in the outward signe and ceremonie Quest. 44. Of the explanation of certaine termes here vsed by the Apostle and of the letter and the spirit 1. v. 26. Where the Apostle saith if vncircumcision keepe the lawe by a Metonimie he vnderstandeth the vncircumcised the signe is taken for the thing signified but afterward it is taken for the signe it selfe 2. His vncircumcision shall be counted for circumcision that is it shall be as no circumcision Chrysostome readeth it shall be turned into circumcision it shall be all one as if he were circumcised 3. By the ordinances of the lawe ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã some vnderstand the ceremonies and rites of the law But rather the morall duties of the lawe are thereby signified which the Gentiles performed hauing not the written lawe otherwise the rites and ceremonies of the lawe they could not obserue without the knowledge of the written lawe 4. Shall iudge thee To iudge is taken three wayes 1. Personally as it is said the Saints shall iudge the world 1. Cor. 6. shall personally stand against them in iudgement 2. actually as to iudge may be taken to accuse or testifie against as it is said v. 15. their thoughts accusing them 3. or by example as it is said the Ninevites and the Queene of the South shall iudge the Israelites so is it taken here the Gentiles going beyond the Iewes in example of life shall condemne them that is shewe them to be worthie of iudgement for their euill life Mart. Calvin Pareus 5. What is meant by the letter and spirit there are diuerse expositions 1. Sometime Augustine by the letter vnderstandeth the litterall sense of the lawe by the spirit the spirituall sense exposit in epist. ad Roman so also Origen he transgresseth the lawe qui spiritualem eius non tenet sensum who keepeth not the spirituall sense but euen the spirituall sense of the lawe if it were apprehended onely and the heart not thereby circumcised and reformed was in the Apostles sense but literall 2. some by the letter vnderstand legem scriptam the lawe written as separate from the grace of Christ as the Syrian interpreter readeth scripturam the Scripture which is so called because it was written in tables of stone gloss interlin 3. But it is better here more specially applyed to circumcision so that the letter and circumcision are here taken pro literali circumcisione for litterall circumcision Calvin Pareus that is the externall signe and ceremonie of circumcision onely according to the letter of the lawe which was made literalibus cultris with literall that is externall knifes Gorrhan and by the spirit is not vnderstood the soule as Tolet following Chrysostome but the efficacie of grace wrought in the soule by the spirit of God and so Augustine taketh it els where thus describing the circumcision of the heart quam facit non litera legis docent minans sed spiritus Dei sanans adiuvans which not the letter of the law teaching and threatning but the spirit of God worketh healing and helping lib. de spirit liter c. 8. so then there is no difference quoad rem in respect of the thing which is propounded betweene the spirit and the letter sed quoad animi affectum but in respect of the affection of the mind and the inward operation of the spirit Mart. for euen he that heareth the Gospell but beleeueth it not may be said to be a Gospeller according to the letter not after the spirit 6. By transgressing the lawe is meant the voluntarie breaking thereof not the fayling therein thorough ignorance or infirmitie Mart. as Origen noteth Paul himselfe did not alwaies keepe the lawe non tamen fuit praevaricator legis yet he was not a prevaricator or transgressor of the lawe 7. v. 28. He is not a Iewe which is a Iewe outward here must be vnderstood the word onely he was not a Iewe indeed that was onely so outwardly And in this sense the Apostle saith els where he was not sent to baptize that is onely Martyr Quest. 45. Of two kinds of Iewes and two kinds of circumcision v. 28. v. 28. He is not a Iewe which is one outwardly c. 1. The Apostle here maketh a double comparison both of the persons setting a circumcised Iewe not keeping the lawe against an vncircumcised Gentile keeping of the lawe and of the things betweene inward circumcision of the heart and outward in the flesh onely Mart. 2. And here there is a fowrefold antithesis or exposition 1. From the formes the one is within the other without in outward appearance onely 2. from the subiect one is in the heart the other in the flesh 3. from the efficient one is wrought by the spirit the other is in the letter it consisteth in literall and ceremoniall observations 4. from the ende the one hath praise of God the other is commended onely of men Gryneus 3. Hence the Apostle prooueth by three arguments that the spirituall circumcision is better then the carnall 1. That is best which is in secret and in truth then that which is openly and in shewe onely 2. and that which is wrought by the spirit is more excellent then that which is in the letter 3. and that hath the preheminence whose praise is of God 4. This distinction of spirituall and morall circumcision S. Paul hath out of Moses Deut. 10.16 Circumcise the foreskinne of your heart Deut. 30.6 The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart which the Apostle further describeth thus Coloss. 2.11 In whom yee are also circumcised with circumcision made without hands by putting off the sinfull bodie of the flesh thorough the circumcision of Christ. And as there are two kinds of circumcision so there is also a twofold vncircumcision as Burgens noteth addition 1. out of the Prophet Ieremie c. 9.26 All the nations are vncircumcised and all the house of Israel are vncircumcised in the heart there is then an vncircumcision of the heart and an other of the flesh 5. Yet this must not be so vnderstood as though there were
two kinds of circumcisions rather then two parts of one and the same circumcision which are sometime ioyned together both the inward and outward as they were in Abraham sometime separate one from the other and this separation is of two sorts it is either salutaris healthfull or not for when the inward circumcision is without the outward it is profitable as in Noah but when the outward is and not the inward it is vnprofitable as in Iudas Iscariot 6. Origens obseruation seemeth here to be somewhat curious thus distinguishing the circumcision of the flesh that because there is some part of the flesh cut off and lost some part remaineth still the lost and cut off part saith he hath a resemblance of that flesh whereof it is said all flesh is grasse the other part which remaineth is a figure of that flesh whereof the Scripture speaketh all flesh shall see the saluation of God But thus Origen confoundeth the circumcision of the flesh and the spirit making them all one Further to shewe these two circumcisions of the heart and spirit he alleadgeth how the Israelites were circumcised againe by Iosuah who was a type of Christ that circumciseth the heart who were circumcised before by Moses in the desert wherein Origen is greatly deceiued for it is euident by the text Iosuah 5.5 that they which were circumcised by Iosuah had not beene circumcised before 4. Places of doctrine 1. Doct. v. 1. In that thou iudgest another thou condemnest thy selfe he which doth giue sentence vpon another for that wherein he is guilty therein is a iudge against himselfe so Iuda did iudge Thamar for her incontinencie beeing in greater fault himselfe and Dauid pronouncing sentence of death against him that had taken away his poore neighbours sheepe did by his owne mouth condemne himselfe Piscator see further addition 1. following 2. Doct. v. 11. There is no respect of persons with God c. In that God freely without respect vnto any workes electeth some vnto eternall life it is done without respect of persons for though God decree vnequall things vnto those that are in equall case for all by nature are the children of wrath yet it followeth not that God hath respect of persons for he doth it not either against any law for God is not tied vnto any lawe nor yet vpon any finiâter cause either for feare for there is none greater than God to be feared of him or sauour for there are no merits or deserts which God respecteth in his election And when God commeth to giue the reward then he distributeth vnto euerie man according to their workes see further addit 3. following 3. Doct. v. 16. At the day when God shall iudge here the certaintie of the day of iudgement is expressed with the manner thereof 1. who shall iudge God 2. whom men and what not their open and manifest workes onely but their secret things 3. by whome in Iesus Christ in his humane shape 4. According to what rule namely the Gospell is be saith Ioh. 12. that his word shall iudge them Gualter 4. Doct. v. 21. Thou which teachest another c. the carnall Iewe though he did not himselfe as he taught yet was not his teaching and doctrine therefore to be refused so our Sauiour saith Matth. 23.3 Whatsoeuer they bid you obserue and doe but after their workes doe ye not Mart. 5. Doct. v. 25. Circumcision is profitable c. Baptisme succeedeth in the place of circumcision as the Apostle sheweth Coloss. 2.11 In whom ye are circumcised c. thorough the circumcision of Christ in that yee are bound in him thorough baptisme c. then like as infants were circumcised so are they now to be baptised but baptisme is not now tied vnto the eight day as it was then for by the libertie of the Gospell are we deliuered from the obseruation of the circumstances of the time and place 6. Doct. v. 28. Neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh as these were not two diuerse circumcisions but two acts of the one and same circumcision the internal and externall so there are two acts in one and the same baptisme there is the baptisme of the spirit and the baptisme of water which both are ioyned together in the lawfull vse they haue the baptisme of the spirit to whom the Sacrament is vpon vrgent necessitie denied but infidels vnbeleeuers and euill liuers haue onely the baptisme of water for he that beleeueth not shall be condemned Pareus 7. So likewise in the Eucharist there is an externall act of eating and an internall the vnworthie receiuers haue onely the latter the faithfull when they communicate haue both and in case the Sacrament be denied they may spiritually eat Christ without the Sacrament our Sauiour saith Ioh. 6.54 Whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life And though they doe spiritually eate Christ before they receiue the Sacrament for otherwise they would not desire it yet the Sacrament also must be celebrated for their further comfort and strengthening and the testifying of their faith Gryneus Certaine additions to the former doctrines Addit 1. Concerning the iudgement which a man giueth against himselfe which is called ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã thus much may further be obserued out of the 1. verse 1. What it is namely the testimonie of ones conscience of his owne guiltinesse before God 2. Whence it is partly by the prouidence of God which striketh into a mans conscience this sense of sinne partly by the force of the conscience it selfe conuincing one of sinne 3. Of whom it is namely of all men 4. It is necessarie and profitable to diuerse ends 1. to humble vs in respect of Gods iudgement for if our conscience condemne vs God can much more who is greater then our conscience 1. Ioh. 3.20 2. It is for our comfort working in vs bouldnesse if our hearts condemne vs not 1. Ioh. 3.21 3. it will make vs not to be too seuere in iudging of others our owne heart condemning vs. Addit 2. Out of the 5. v. concerning ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the hardnesse of the heart we are to consider 1. What it is namely the contumacie and rebellion of the heart against the lawe of God 2. Whence it is originally by the corruption of mans nature Sathan concurreth as the efficient the occasion are the externall obiects and God by his secret iudgement yet most iust hath an ouerruling hand herein 3. the effect is the treasuring vp of the wrath of God 4. it is curable not by mans free will for it is not subiect to the lawe of God neither can be Rom. 8.8 but by the grace of Gods spirit as Dauid prayeth Psal. 51.12 Create in me a newe heart Addit 3. The accepting or respect of persons called ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is when things equal are giuen to them which are vnequall or contrariwise things vnequall to them which are equall onely
acception of the word hath no place here for this declaration of one to be iust by works is before men before God there neede no such declaration for he knoweth what is in man but this iustification is before God which the Apostle here speaketh of it is therefore iustification in deede and not the declaration of it onely 6. Some thinke that the Apostle speaketh of the legall iustification which is by works which if any could doe they should be iustified thereby but it is impossible for any to keepe the law Calv. Pareus Beza annotat But it is euident that the Apostle speaketh not here of a thing impossible to be done and of iustification vpon that supposall if any could be doers of the law but he setteth this downe affirmatiuely and positiuely that they which liued according to the law should be iustified as he said before v. 6. that God will reward euery one according to his workes And as the hearers of the law onely are not iustified so the hearers and doers are iustified but some heare the law in fact verily and in deede therefore some also were verily and in deede doers of the law 7. The meaning then of this sentence is the same with that v. 6. God will approoue iustifie reward them that doe the works of the law whether Iew or Gentile yet it followeth not that a man is therefore iustified by the workes of the law But God approoueth and rewardeth the workers not the hearers or professors so here the Apostle entreareth not of the cause of iustification which is faith without the works of the law but of the difference betweene such as shall be iustified and such as are not Faius they onely which haue a liuely faith which worketh and keepeth the law in part and supplieth the rest which is wanting in themselues by the perfect obedience of Christ they shall be iustified not those which onely professe the law and keepe it not the Apostle then here sheweth who shall be iustified not for what 8. But this place maketh nothing at all for iustification by works 1. if a man is iustified by doing the works of the law either he is iust before he doe the works or nor iust if he be iust then he is iustified before he doe those workes then is he not iustified by those workes if he be not iust then can he doe no good workes whereby he is made iust for the workes done before faith as Tolet himselfe confesseth non possunt iustum afficere can not make one iust Here the Romanists haue no better answer then to confesse fidem sine operibuâ primaâ efficere iustificationem that faith without workes doth effect the first iustification which is encreased by workes which they call the second iustification Tolet. ibid. And thus they are driuen to consent with Protestants that iustification is by faith without works as for that distinction of the first and second iustification the vanitie of it is shewed before 2. If workes did iustifie then it would followe that the iustice whereby we are made iust should be an actuall iustice not habituall because that is actuall which worketh the contrarie whereof is maintained by Bellarmine who prooueth by sundrie reasons that one is formally made iust not by an actuall but an habituall iustice wherewith the minde is endued lib. 2. de iustific c. 15. Controv. 8. That it is not possible in this life to keepe the lawe 1. Pererius disput 7. numer 55. taketh vpon him to prooue against Calviu legem divinam impleri posse that the lawe of God may be kept in this life he meaneth by a man in the state of grace 1. Otherwise Dauid had not said true Psal. 18.21 I kept the wayes of the Lord and did not wickedly against my God 2. S. Paul saith he that loueth his brother hath fulfilled the Lawe Rom. 13. 3. What wisedome were there in God to command things impossible vnto man or what iustice to punish him for not keeping of that which was not in his power 2. Contra. 1. Dauids keeping of the wayes of God must be vnderstood either of some particular act of his obedience wherein he behaued himselfe vprightly as Psal. 7.3 If I haue done this thing or if there be any wickednesse in mine hands or els it must be vnderstood of his faithfull endeauour as farre as he was enabled by grace for Dauids sinnes which are mentioned in the Scripture doe euidently shewe that he did not keepe all the wayes of God 2. If a man could perfectly loue his brother as he ought he might fulfill the lawe but so can no man doe and there is as Hierome distinguisheth 2. kinds of iustice or fulfilling the lawe there is a perfect iustice which was onely in Christ and an other iustice quae nostrae competit fragilitati which agreeth vnto our frailtie dialog 1. cont Pelagian and thus may the lawe be fulfilled 3. The commandements are not simply impossible for man in his creation had power to keepe them if he would Gods wisedome is seene in giuing his lawe vnto man beeing vnable in himselfe to keepe it that it might be a schoolemaster to bring him vnto Christ Galat. 3.19 and his iustice appeareth in punishing man for transgressing that lawe which sometime he was able as he was created of God to keepe and now may perfectly performe it by faith in the obedience of Christ who hath deliuered vs from the curse of the lawe 3. Now that it is not possible for a man no not in the state of grace to keepe the lawe of God it is thus shewed out of the the Scripture 1. S. Paul saith Rom. 7.19 To will is present with me but I finde no meanes to performe that which is good a man regenerate now can doe no more then S. Paul could who confesseth that he was vnable to doe that which was good and agreeable to the lawe 2. If a man by grace could keepe the law by grace he hath power to redeeme himselfe from the curse of the lawe for as he which keepeth not euerie thing contained in the law is vnder the curse so he that keepeth all things which the lawe commandeth is free from the curse but no man can redeeme himselfe from the curse of the lawe for Christ hath redeemed vs from the curse of the lawe Galat. 3.13 3. Further The lawe is not of faith Galat. 3.12 but if the lawe might be kept by grace and faith then should it be of faith 4. And if a man regenerate were able to keepe the lawe then it were possible for a man in this life to be without sinne for where no transgression of the lawe is there should be no faâe for sinne is the transgression of the law 1. Ioh. 3.4 see more hereof Synops. Centur. 4. ârr 63. pag. 916. Controv. 9. Whether by the light of nature onely a man may doe any thing morally good Bellarmine hath this position that a man if no tentation doe vrge
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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.
world 3. Obiect v. 7. which ariseth likewise out of the former testimonie cited out of the Psalme if by mens lies Gods truth is commended then the liar is vniustly punished the answer followeth v. 9. the Apostle calleth it a blasphemie and worthie of iust damnation if any shall iustifie themselues in their euill doing and of purpose doe euill to set forth the iustice of God v. 8. The second part is from v. 9. to 21. where he prooueth the Iewes and Gentiles both to be vnder sinne which is propounded v. 9. prooued by particular induction of their sinnes grounded vpon some testimonies of Scripture v. 10. to 19. then applied to the Iew as well as to the Gentile by three arguments v. 19.1 from the relation which the law hath to those which are vnder the law 2. then from two ends that euery mouth may be stopped all occasion of boasting may be taken away 3. and that all the world may be found culpable The third part followeth wherein the Apostle prooueth that all must be iustified by faith in Christ which he prooueth by a distribution either by the workes of the law or by faith not by the law by the contrarie effect v. 20. Then he confirmeth the other part that we are iustified by faith without the law which proposition is contained v. 1.22 23. by shewing the causes of iustification and who are iustified euen all that beleeue and why v. 23. Then this proposition is confirmed 1. by shewing all the causes the efficient principall the grace of God then Christ by his blood the instrument is faith the formall cause remission of sinnes the ende the setting forth of Gods iustice v. 24 25 26. 2. by the effects it excluding all boasting v. 27. 3. the conclusion followeth v. 28. 4. which is confirmed 1. by remoouing an absurditie because God otherwise should seeme to be God onely of the Iewes v. 29.30 2. by preuenting an obiection v. 31. 3. The questions and doubts discussed 1. Quest. Of the priuiledges of the Iewes and their preheminence before the Gentiles v. 1. What is the preferment of the Iew c. Whereas the Apostle seemed in the end of the former chapter to make the Iewes and Gentiles equall and had extenuated the circumcision of the flesh now it might be obiected by the Iew that by this meanes they should haue no preheminence or preferment more then the Gentile had the Apostle then meeteth with that secret obiection and sheweth wherein consisted the excellencie of the Iew. 1. The Iewes had many priuiledges which the Gentiles had not as 1. they were called to be the peculiar people of God and the Lord professed himselfe to be their God 2. iâ that nation continued the true knowledge of God euen vnto the comming of Christ 3. of them came many holy Patriarks and Prophets that were in high fauour and acceptance with God 4. among them and for their sakes the Lord wrought many miracles and wonders 5. they had many visions prophesies and dreames 6. God gaue vnto them the Sacraments and sacrifices as circumcision the Paschal lamb 7. the Messiah was promised to descend of that nation 8. But the Apostle omitteth these and specially insisteth vpon this that the law and oracles of God were committed vnto them 2. Chiefly or first because vnto them were credited c. This word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Erasmus taketh for to signifie the order of the Apostles speach as before c. 1.8 but there the Apostle beginneth his epistle which he doth not here 2. Some referre it to the number of the priuiledges rehearsed by the Apostle whereof this was the first and the rest follow in the epistle But the Apostle maketh mention of no other priuiledge but this 3. Origen whome Sedulius followeth hath here reference to the Gentiles that vnto the Iewes first were committed the oracles then to the Gentiles but the promises here spoken of were onely made vnto the Iewes 4. Therefore this word first here signifieth chiefe that this was the chiefe priuiledge and immunitie which the Iewes had 3. And the Apostle giueth instance of this that they had the Scriptures 1. because it was most generall multa concludit and concluded many things beside Tolet. 2. herein consisted a chiefe difference betweene the Gentiles which had but the law of nature to direct them and the Iewes which had also the written law of God Perer. 3. and the Apostle omitteth their temporall priuiledges insisting vpon a spirituall as beeing more pretious and durable Gorrhan 4. By oracles ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã some seeme to vnderstand onely the law which was giuen by Moses as Chrysostome Theodoret but thereby are signified all the propheticall writings which the Iewes had both the law and the Prophets gloss interlin though speciall reference be made to the law as S. Steuen saith that Moses receiued the liuely oracles Act. 7.38 Pare 5. But it will be obiected that God also to others communicated his oracles as to Pharaoh Nabuchadnezzer which were not of Israel it may be answered that 1. God did impart those things not to many of the Gentiles but to a few 2. and that of some particular things 3. neither were such oracles and visions committed to their trust but onely for a time reuealed 4. and that for his peoples sake rather then their owne 6. In that the Apostle saith ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the oracles of God were committed to their credit or credited vnto them 1. the Syrian interpreter is deceiued who maketh it the nominatiue that the oracles of God were credited or beleeued 2. and Origens obseruation is much like that the oracles of God were committed vnto them which did vnderstand and beleeue them but the letter of the law was giuen to all for by the words following v. 3. what though some did not beleeue it is euident that the Apostle here speaketh of a generall priuiledge which was not made void by some mens vnbeleefe 3. Erasmus saith that those oracles were committed vnto them alijs magis profutura quam ipsis to profit other rather then themselues as though they were committed vnto them to keepe for others vse But Beza noteth better that they had those things committed vnto them non vt alienae rei depositum not as an other mans thing laid to pledge but as their owne proper treasure if they could haue vsed it well 4. And indeede they were faithfull keepers of the Scriptures preseruing them from falsitie and corruption and are to this day though they vnderstand them not and in the daies of our Sauiour when many other corruptions both of life and doctrine were obiected against them yet they were not charged to be falsifiers of Scripture Faius 5. Chrysostome hath here a good note nusquam illorum virtutes sed Dei beneficia in illos enumerat the Apostle doth not recken vp their owne vertues among their priuiledges but he counteth the benefits of God toward them 6. And this word is credited
corrupt branches Pareus There is none that doth good no not one here none are excluded some thus giue the sense none sauing one namely Christ gloss interlin Gorrhan and so Augustine before them but the originall will not beare that sense the words are none vnto one that is no not one v. 13. Their throat is an open sepulchre 1. They are instar voraginis like vnto a gulph to destroy men and therefore are compared to a sepulchre 2. and an open sepulchre quod tetros spargit odores which sendeth forth stinking smells so they doe vtter filthie and vaine words 3. and they are likened to an open sepulchre quia vsus scelerum verecundiam sustulit their custome in sinne hath taken away all shamefastnes and modestie they are impudent in their sinne Origen 4. and as an open graue can neuer be satiate but it receiueth one bodie after an other so they doe still seeke to deuoure men and as it were eate them vp with their filthie and slanderous tongues They haue vsed their tongues to deceit where they can not openly deuoure they attempt to doe it by craft and deceit gloss interlin The poison of aspes is vnder their lippes The biting and venemous tongue is thus resembled 1. because this serpent doth morsu inficere infect and poison by biting Gryneus 2. it is insanabile a poison incurable gloss interlin Pellic. 3. and they are incorrigible and intractable like as the serpent stoppeth the eares and will not heare the voice of the charmer v. 14. Their mouth is full of cursing and bitternes 1. Their mouth is said to be full because ex pleno oris vasculo out of their mouth as a full vessell doe continually flow forth bitter and cruell words Origen 2. as they haue gall and bitternes in their heart Act. 8.23 so they doe vtter it with their mouth Gryneus 3. thus the Apostle sheweth how they abuse all the instruments of speaking their throat their tongues their lippes their mouth Tolet. 4. And as before they were giuen to flatterie and deceit so they sometime brake forth into open blasphemie both against God and man Calvin 5. Haymo specially refereth it to the bitter and blasphemous words which the Iewes vttered against Christ charging him to haue a deuill and crying out against him to be crucified v. 15. Their feete are swift to shed blood 1. The Apostle hetherto alleadged those testimonies out of the Psalmes now he citeth the Prophet Isa because in the mouth of two or three witnesses euery word shall be established Faius 2. by the feete are vnderstood their affections as Origen expoundeth consilium quo agimus iter vitae the counsell whereby we take in hand the trauell of this life and hereby their readines is signified vpon euery occasion to shed blood Tolet. 3. as Doeg by his false tongue caused many innocent Priests to be slaine Gryneus 4. and by this phrase of shedding is shewed how they doe vilipend the blood of the Saints powring it out as water Gorrhan v. 16. Destruction and calamitie are in their waies 1. Whereas the word is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã contrition Origen vnderstandeth it of their sinne and disobedience whereby they doe ââârere iugum domini cast off and beat in pieces the Lords yoake so also the Greeke scholâââ as by the way he vnderstandeth life so by contrition sinne whereby the life is worne as the way is beaten with trampling 2. some vnderstand it passiuely of the destruction and ââlâmitie which was brought vpon them by the Romanes gloss interlin Haymo Gorrhaâ 3. but it is better taken actiuely for the destruction and calamitie which they bring vpon others they are the authors and deuisers of nothing but mischiefe Gryn Calv. Pare as the Romane histories doe write of Hannibal who in his dreame following one that was sent of Iupiter to be his guide into Italie seemed to see behind him an huge serpent deuouring and destroying all as he went whereby was signified the horrible vastitie which he should bring vpon Italie v. 17. The way of peace they haue not knowne 1. Origen vnderstandeth Christ to be ãâã way of peace whome they acknowledged not so also Haymo Gorrhan gloss 3. but thereby is signified their turbulent nature who delighted in warre and filled the world with tumults and troubles Gryneus Pareus and although some among the heathen did seeke to preserue the peace and tranquilitie of the commonwealth yet it did not helpe them any thing toward their euerlasting peace Osiand v. 18. The feare of God is not before their eyes 1. As the feare of God is the beginning of true wisdome and pietie so the want of that feare giueth way vnto all impietie and therefore sine retinaculo currunt ad malum they runne into all kind of mischiefe without any stay Lyran. These doe not say there is no God yet they doe not feare God August ex Beda and so are giuen ouer to all impietie 20. Quest. v. 19. Whatsoeuer the Law saith what is here vnderstood by the law and how diuersly this word is taken Hierome epist. 151. noteth this word Law to haue sixe seuerall significations in the Scripture 1. it is taken precisely for the Law giuen by Moses which contained both morall precepts iudiciall and ceremoniall as Ioh. 1.17 The Law was giuen by Moses 2. the law signifieth not the precepts onely but the historie of the old Testament as S. Paul calleth Abrahams historie concerning his two sonnes the law Gal. 4.22 3. the book of the Psalmes is called the law Ioh. 15.25 It is written in the law they hated me without a cause 4. the prophesie of Isai is called the law 1. Cor. 14.21 In their law it is written by men of other tongues c. will I speake vnto this people which testimonie is taken out of Isa c. 28.21 5. the spirituall sense and meaning of the old Testament is called the law as the Apostle saith The Law is spirituall Rom. 7. 6. the law is taken for that naturall light which is imprinted in the minde by nature as S. Paul saith c. 2.14 The Gentiles which haue not the law are a law vnto themselues Here then by the Law the Apostle generally vnderstandeth the old Testament as the booke of the Psalmes and the Prophets 21. Quest. It saith to them which are vnder the law who are here vnderstood to be vnder the law 1. Origen taketh here the law for the naturall law vnder the which not onely the Iewes but the Gentiles also are vnder and this he would prooue by two reasons 1. because it followeth afterward that euery mouth may be stopped but the mouthes of the Gentiles could not be stopped by the written law which was not giuen vnto them 2. the Apostle also saith afterward that by the law commeth the knowledge of sinne which is not the written but the naturall law for both Cain and the brethren of Ioseph did confesse and acknowledge their sinne before yet there was any
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 ââ 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 precepââ Beza annot â2 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 â0 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
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 Antâdot 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã 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
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 ââ 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 snoââ 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 promiseââ 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 ãâã 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.
16. that is which had receiued the lawe 3. By wrath some would vnderstand the wrath and indignation in the transgressor his contumacie and rage against God who hath by lawe restrained him of his licentious libertie Origen and Haymo referre it to the penaltie of the law as an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth but it rather signifieth the wrath and indignation of God in iudging and punishing of sinne not onely temporally but eternally Calvin 4. Now the lawe worketh wrath not of it selfe for it is holy iust and good but in respect of the weakenes and corruption of man which taketh occasion by the lawe as contrarie vnto it to be the worse as we see that in nature one contrarie by the resistance of an other becommeth so much the more violent as expereince sheweth in the breaking out of lightening and thunder and in the terrible noise of gunshot where two contraries meete together the fierie hoat nature of the brimstone and the cold qualitie of the saltpeter both tempered together in the gunpowder Mart. 5. But although the lawe occasionaliter by way of occasion procureth wrath yet it hath an other ende and effect vnto the godly for vnto them it is a schoolemaster to bring them vnto Christ so that Christ is the ende of the lawe not onely because he hath abolished the ceremonies of the lawe and so is the ende and fulfilling thereof but because the law directeth vs vnto Christ who hath fulfilled the lawe for vs which it was impossible for vs to keepe 6. Now the holy Apostle doth of purpose thus speake of the law as saying that by it commeth the knowledge of sinne that it causeth wrath that it is the ministerie of death that by this meanes he might abate that great opinion and estimation of the law which the Iewes conceiued of it hoping thereby to be iustified but otherwise as the law is considered in it selfe he giueth it the due commendation as afterward is shewed in the 7. chapter like as now the Preachers of the Gospel doe giue vnto good works their due praise and commendation but yet they detract from them as not beeing able to iustifie vs. Mart. 26. Quest. Of the meaning of these words v. 15. Where no law is there is no transgression 1. Origen here obserueth that the Apostle saith not where is law there is transgression for then all those holy men which liued vnder the law should be held to be vnder transgression but he saith in the negatiue where there is no law there is no transgression But this collection is not good for the contrarie must be inferred out of the Apostles words where there is no law there is no transgression therefore where there is a law there is transgression or els there should be no coherence in the Apostles words whereas this is added as a proofe of the former clause that the law causeth wrath 2. Now touching the coherence Gorrhan maketh here two arguments why the inheritance can not be by the law because by it there is neither remissio poenae remission of the punishment the law causing wrath nor yet remissio culpae remission of the fault because by the law commeth transgression Gryneus maketh this the coherence because idem est index c. there is the same foreshowne both of the transgression and punishment namely the law But thus better doth the sentence hang together the Apostle prooueth that the law causeth wrath by the cause thereof for that it causeth transgression so then transgression is set in the middes betweene the law and wrath for the law bringeth forth transgression and transgression wrath Pareus 3. But this should seeme to be no good argument no law no transgression therefore where there is law there is transgression as it followeth not no creature no man Ergo a creature a man Ans. The Apostle here reasoneth not à genere-ad speciem from the genus to the species as in the instance proposed but from the contrarie by the like connexion of the causes and effects as this followeth well in the like where the Sunne is not risen there is ââ day light therefore the Sunne beeing risen it is day Pareus 4. Now concerning the meaning of these words Haymo thinketh it may be vnderstood either of the lawe of nature and so infants not yet hauing vnderstanding of this lawe cannot be transgressors against it or of the Evangelicall lawe which the Pagans not hauing are not held to be so great offenders as they which haue reciued it or of the morall lawe of Moses where that lawe is not non est tanta praevaricatio neque sic imputatur there is not so great transgression neither is it so much imputed This latter sense is to be preferred for thoroughout this chapter the Apostle vnderstandeth the lawe of Moses 5. And further for the true vnderstanding of these words it must be obserued 1. that the Apostle saith not where is no lawe there is no iniquitie for the old world and the Sodomites committed iniquitie before the lawe was written but he saith there is no transgression which is referred to the lawe written gloss ordin 2. this is simply true of things indifferent as were the ceremonies before they were commanded by lawe for then it was no sinne to omit them but of things euill in their owne nature it must be vnderstood after a sort that there was not so great transgression before the law was giuen as after Lyran. 3. and hereof these two reasons may be giuen both quia homines nituntur in vetitum men are most bent vnto that which is forbidden and so by the prohibition of the lawe the stubbornenesse of mans heart was increased as also because by the lawe came the knowledge of sinne and so the seruant that knoweth his masters will and doth it not is worthie of more stripes Lyran. 4. So then the Apostle denieth not but that sinne which is committed against the conscience euen where there is no lawe is sinne non est reus tantae transgressionis c. he is not guiltie of so great transgression as he which knoweth the lawe and breaketh it Calvin Quest. 27. Who are meant by Abrahams seede which is of the Lawe v. 16. 1. The Apostle in this verse vrgeth two arguments to prooue that the inheritance is not of the law but of faith because it is of grace for to be iustified by faith and by grace with the Apostle are all one and because the promise is firme but if it were by the law it should be vncertaine and not firme because of mans weaknes who is not able to performe the law Calvin Chrysostome further saith that the Apostle here speaketh of two chiefe good things or benefits the one is quod quia data sunt firma sunt the things which are giuen are firme the other quod vniverso semini data sunt they are giuen to the whole seede of Abraham 2. By the seede which is of the law
vnto our soules that we are the sonnes of God Rom. 8.16 Osiand Pareus facit nos intelligere charitatem Dei c. the spirit of God maketh vs to vnderstand and feele the loue of God toward vs. 2. And this worke is ascribed to the spirit not excluding the Father and the Sonne to whome this loue toward mankind is common but the Apostle obserueth the propertie of their persons because as election is giuen vnto God the father and Redemption to the Son so loue is the proper worke of the spirit both to cause vs to feele the loue of God and to make vs to loue God againe 3. And here we are not to vnderstand onely the gifts of the spirit but the spirit it selfe which dwelleth in vs not in his essence which is infinite but by his power illuminating directing conuerting vs Faius so Tolet well saith that the spirit non solum dona sua nobis communicat sed per ea in nobis inhabitat c. doth not onely communicate his gifts vnto vs but also by them dwelleth in vs. 4. In that the holy Ghost is said to be giuen vs thereby is signified quod non proprijs viâtutibus c. that we haue obtained the spirit not by our owne vertue but by the free loue of God Oecumen and the person of the holy Ghost is noted in that he is said to be giuen and the giuers are the Father and the Sonne Hug. Card. 10. Quest. How Christ is said to haue died according to the time v. 6. 1. Some doe referre these words to the former clause and read thus when we were yet weake according to the time that is we were weake in the time of the law when grace yet appeared not so Chrysost. Theodor. and Erasmus thinketh this is added as a mitigation of their infirmity but it is against the Apostles vse to qualifie the corruption euilnes of mans nature and he speaketh to the Gentiles that had not the law as well as to the Iewes 2. The most doe applie it vnto the latter clause that Christ died in his time and here there are diuers opinions 1. Some vnderstand it of the short time which Christs death continued namely but three daies Ambrose so also Lyran. but that time beeing assigned see Christs resurrection is not fitly expounded of his death 2. Sedulius thus interpreteth quââ in vltimo mundi tempore mortuus est because he died in the last time or age of the world 3. According to the time that is he died temporally in the flesh which is mortall for eternitie knoweth no time Haymo 4. Hierom. epist. ad Algas referreth it to the opportunitie of time Christ died in a fit time when the world stood most in neede of his redemption 5. But the best exposition is that Christ died in the fulnes of time as the Apostle speaketh Gal. 4.4 the time decreed and appointed of his father thus expoundeth Theodor. and Theophyl tempore decenti destinato in a meete time and appointed of God so also Beza Par. Tol. with others 11. Quest. Of the meaning of the 7. v. One will scarce die for a righteous man c. 1. The Syrian interpreter readeth in the first place scarce will any die for the wicked which reading Beza seemeth not to mislike but that all the Greeke copies are otherwise and Iunius thinketh that here one word by the writers was taken for an other because of the neere similitude in the Syrian tongue and thinketh it should rather be read according to the Greeke copie for the righteous not for the wicked 2. Some doe take here these two the righteous and the good to be one and the same and some confounding these two doe not vnderstand these words of the person of the iust and good man but of the cause Hier. epist. ad Alg. and so this should be the sense that although scarce and sieldome yet sometime one may be found to die for a iust and good cause some likewise taking these two for one applie it vnto the person of the righteous and good man Chrysost. Lyran. Tolet. Par. Faius But the Apostle first saying negatiuely one wilâ scarce die c. and afterward vsing a kind of correction that one may die for a good man doth euidently distinguish these two clauses 3. The most then doe diuide these two and take the iust and righteous and the good to be diuersly taken by the Apostle 1. Wicked Marcion as Hierome reporteth by the iust did vnderstand the God of the old Testament for whome fewe offered themselues to death by the good the God of the new Testament that is Christ for whom many are found readie to die But this opinion beside the blasphemie thereof in making two diuers Gods and authors of the Old and new Testament containeth apparant absurditie and falshood for both many gaue their liues in the old Testament in defence of the law of God as the three children Dan. 3. and many in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes as the historie of the Macchabees testifieth and beside many thousand Martyrs are found to haue died for Christ whereas the Apostle speaketh of very few that will die for a good man 2. Arrius contrariwise by the iust vnderstandeth Christ and by the good the Father of whome Christ testifieth that none is good but God But if Christ be this iust one for whom so many thousand Martyrs willingly gaue their liues how saith the Apostle that scarse any will die for a iust man 3. Eucherius by the iust interpreteth the Law and old Testament by the good Christ and the new Testament for few Martyrs are found in the old Testament and many in the new But beside that it is against the scope and mind of the Apostle to vnderstand this of dying for Christ who by this comparison setteth forth the loue of Christ who died for euill men euen for his enemies whereas few are found readie to die for the righteous and good the words of the Apostle will not beare this sense who in saying for a good man it may be that one dare die noteth the paucitie and fewnes of them whereas many thousands haue died for Christ in the New Testament 4. Some by the iust vnderstand the vertuous by the good the innocent for whome one may die in commiseration and pitie toward him Haymo Thom. Aquin. Gorrhan or because innocencie is fauoured of men iustitia habet aliquid severitatis iustice hath some rigour and seueritie in it Hug. Cardinal But a man can not be iust but he must also be innocent these two then are not thus distinguished 5. Caietane vnderstandeth by the iust an ordinarie vertuous or righteous man by the good some excelling in the works of supererogation for such one perhaps dare die But such works of supererogation we acknowledge not all that a man hath is too little for himselfe he hath no superfluitie to supererogate to an other 6. Osiander and Emmanuel Sa doe vnderstand in both
they also without the mercie of God were subiect by nature vnto euerlasting death 2. But Origen manifestly interpreteth the Apostle to speake of originall sinne for he saith as Leui was in Abrahams Ioynes when he payed tithes to Melchizedeck sic omnes homines erant iu lumbis Adae c. so all men that are born were in the Ioynes of Adam and when he was expelled out of Paradise they were expelled with him c. 3. touching the scope of the place that which followeth v. 13. vnto the time of the lawe was sinne in the world comprehendeth also originall sinne which Erasmus would haue vnderstood onely of actuall that this place might be taken so likewise as shall be further shewed when we come to that place 2. But Theodoret goeth yet further then Erasmus for he doth not onely exclude originall sinne here applying the Apostles words onely to actuall sinne but he thinketh further that Adams sinne was not the cause of the entrance of sinne vpon his posteritie but the occasion onely for they hauing sinned became mortall and beeing mortall they begat mortall children and so were subiect to perturbations and consequently vnto sinne and so he concludeth vim peccati non esse naturalem c. that the force of sinne is not naturall for then they which sinne should be free from punishment for that which is naturall cannot be helped sed naturam ad peccatum procliuem esse factam but yet nature was made prone and apt to sinne to this purpose Theodoret But the Apostle euidently sheweth that not onely death is entred into the world but sinne also for how could infants in the iustice of God be subiect vnto death if they were not also guiltie of sinne 3. But the Pelagians goe yet a steppe further and denie that there is any originall sinne at all and that Adams sinne is not transfused to his posteritie by any naturall propagation but onely a corrupt imitation which heresie shall be confuted among the controversies Quest. 25. Of the coherence of these words vnto the time of the lawe was sinne in the world 1. Some make this connexion that the Apostle directly prooueth his former assertion v. 12. that in Adam all sinned and therefore are subiect to death and this is prooued by the contrarie because before there was any lawe giuen men were not punished for their actuall sinnes which were then in the world for there is no imputation of sinne vnto punishment where is no lawe seeing then death was not inflicted for actuall sinnes it followeth that it was for originall sinne Tolet. But this is not the coherence for he taketh sinne onely for actuall sinne whereas the Apostle spoke before of originall sinne 2. Some will haue all this verse to containe an obiection and to be vttered by S. Paul in the person of the adversarie and obiecter Where no lawe is there is no sinne imputed but before Moses there was no lawe giuen therefore no such sinne was imputed But all the words of this verse cannot containe the obiection because the first clause vnto the time of the law was sinne in the world are contrarie to the obiection for it is affirmed that sinne was in the world which the obiectio excepteth against beside Beza well obserueth that where the Apostle speaketh in the person of an other he inserteth some note or signification thereof 3. Calvin suspendeth all this sentence by a parenthesis which Beza misliketh because it hath a very good coherence with the former verse 4. Some thinke that the Apostle here maketh not an obiection but rather preuenteth it and maketh answear vnto a supposed obiection for it might haue beene thus excepted a-against the former words in whom all haue sinned that there was no lawe giuen vntill Moses and where no lawe is there is no imputation of sinne to this obiection the Apostle answeareth by way of coÌcession vnto part that though sinne be not imputed without a law yet sinne was in the world before the lawe as it appeareth by the effects thereof namely death which reigned ouer all as it followeth v. 14. to this purpose Martyr Piscator Lyran. 5. But this rather is the right coherence and connexion of these words with the former whereas the Apostle had inferred that all in Adam were sinners and so subiect to death instance might be giuen of those which liued vntill the time of the law that vnto them sinne was not imputed because they had no lawe giuen them Then the Apostle answeareth this obiection proouing that death came into the world because of originall sinne and first he taketh it for graunted that there was then sinne in the world before the Lawe v. 13. as also death then he reasoneth thus if death were in the world and not inflicted for actuall sinnes then was it imputed for originall but it was not inflicted for actuall sinnes which he proueth by two reasons first by that which was obiected there was no lawe giuen for actuall sinnes and therefore they were not imputed secondly by the instance of children which committed no actuall sinnes and yet died therefore death entred into the world because of originall sinne Pare Quest. 26. How sinne is said to haue beene vnto the time of the lawe 1. Some doe vnderstand this sentence inclusiuely including also the time of the lawe and expound vnto the lawe vnto the ende and terme of the lawe for sinne was both before and vnder the lawe which could not take away sinne vntill Christ came thus Augustine lib. 1. de peccat remission c. 10. and Thodoret likewise Haymo who vnderstandeth by the lawe finem legis initium gratiae the ende of the lawe and beginning of grace and maketh it like vnto this speach the Hunnes raigned vsque ad Attylam regem vnto king Attylas that is vnto his death But the words following are against this exposition sinne is not imputed where is no lawe for if the time vnder the lawe be here comprehended how could it be said that then sinne was not imputed whereas by the lawe it is most of all imputed 2. Origen hath this singular exposition by himselfe he vnderstandeth here not the written but the naturall lawe and he supplieth the word mortuum dead sinne is dead vnto the time of the lawe that is till children come to yeares of discretion to vnderstand the lawe of nature and light of reason sinne is not imputed vnto them As it is forbidden that a child should smite his parents but in a boy of 4. or 5. yeare old it is counted no sinne so to doe and to this purpose he also interpreteth the word world the Apostle saith not among men but in the world because in the world there are vnreasonable creatures which are not capable of sinne and so he thinketh that S. Paul vnderstandeth children which are not yet capable of reason to this effect Origen But first it is euident that the Apostle by the lawe vnderstandeth the written lawe of Moses as
it followeth v. 14. and againe it is too great bouldnesse to insert the word dead for thus we may make any sense of the Scripture 3. Wherefore the Apostles meaning is that from Adam vntill the lawe was giuen for of the time after the lawe there could be no question there was sinne in the world for though they had not the written lawe yet they had the lawe of nature in transgressing the which they sinned Lyran. Beza Mart. Quest. 27. What sinne the Apostle meaneth which was in the world vnto the time of the lawe 1. Some doe vnderstand it onely of actuall sinne which was in the world in that the lawe of nature was transgressed though yet there were no written lawe giuen Tolet but it is euident in that the Apostle maketh direct mention of infants v. 14. which sinned not as Adam did that is actually that he meaneth originall sinne also 2. Pererius onely referreth it to originall sinne which though it were knowne vnto the Patriarkes yet it was not by the lawe of nature acknowledged for sinne so also Anselme Tolet replyeth that it cannot be so taken for neither vnder the law is originall sinne imputed vnto punishment But this reason is not sufficient for both before and after the lawe death raigned ouer all as brought in by originall sinne 3. But it is more agreeable to the Apostles minde to vnderstand sinne here generally both originall and actuall yet with speciall relation to originall sinne because the Apostles intendment is to shewe that all are sinners in Adam and so subiect vnto death and this appeareth to be the Apostles meaning v. 14. where he speaketh of the raigning of death ouer all as well those which committed actuall sinne as those which did not Thus Haymo interpreteth sinne was in the world originale actuale both originall and actuall Augustine likewise and Theodoret in the exposition of this place comprehend both so also Beza Pareus Quest. 28. How sinne is said to be imputed where there is no lawe ver 13. 1. Chrysostome here reporteth the opinion of some that make this a part of the obiection but he refuseth it and Tolet addeth this reason further because men doe not vse to obiect but that hath some shewe of probabilitie now none could doubt whether there were sinne in the world before the lawe for that was euident and apparant to all these words then the Apostle vttereth in his owne person 2. Oecumenius thinketh that the Apostle speaketh of the imputation of such sinnes as were against the ceremoniall lawe of Moses as touching circumcision sanctifying of the Sabboth and such like for other sinnes before the lawe of Moses were both knowne and imputed as is euident in the examples of Cain Lamech the Sodomites which were punished for their sinnes But the Apostle directly speaketh of such sinnes as were in the world before the lawe now the breach of ceremonies commanded by the lawe was counted no transgression before the lawe 3. Some by the imputation of sinne vnderstand the account made of sinne and take imputation for reputation as the Syrian interpreter and Beza in his last edition non putatur esse peccatum it is not thought to be sinne which is referred vnto the iudgement and opinion of men before the lawe came they had no perfect knowledge of sinne obscurum tum erat naturae lumen the light of nature was so obscure that men did not see their sinnes Mart. so also Osâander non reputabatur it was not reputed sinne also Melancthon vbi non est lex non agnoscitur non accusatur c. where no lawe is sinne is not acknowledged accused to the same purpose M. Calvin though euen before the lawe their consciences accused them and there were diuerse examples of Gods iudgements vt plurimum tamen ad sua scelera connivebant yet for the most part they did winke at their sinnes c. Thus before them Augustine vnderstandeth it of the knowledge of sinne because per legem cognitio peccati by the lawe commeth the knowledge of sinne lib. 1. de peccat merit c. 10. and Oecumenius also to the same purpose taketh it comparatiuely magnitudo peccati non erat ita cognita c. the greatnesse of sinne was not knowne so before the lawe as afterward by the law and Haymo so expoundeth peccatum non agnoscebatur tam graue malum esse sinne was not knowne to be so great euill to the same purpose Lyranus Hug. Card. But these expositions seeme not to be agreeable to the scope of the Apostle for to what purpose should the Apostle vse this qualification sinne was in the world though it were not imputed and taken to be sinne before the law came for the Apostle doth not here intend to shew the effects or propertie of the law but his purpose is to prooue that men before the law came were punished with death euen because of their originall sinne 4. Origen taketh the imputation of sinne for the reputation but he followeth his former sense vnderstanding the law of nature that in children while yet they haue no vse of reason and so no knowledge of the law of nature that which they doe is not counted sinne But the Apostle euidently sheweth in the next verse speaking of Moses that he meaneth here the written law of Moses Origen fortifieth his opinion that the Apostle here meaneth the law of nature because if it be vnderstood of any other law diabolus angeli eius videdutur absolvi the Deuill and his angels may seeme to be absolved because they had no other law then the law of nature Contra. The Apostle speaketh not of the sinne of Angels but of men propagated from Adam whome he prooueth all to be sinners in Adam because they die in Adam but in the spirits there is neither propagation nor mortalitie 5. Ambrose referreth this imputation of sinne vnto the opinion which men had of God whom they thought not to regard nor punish the sinnes of men But the contrarie is euident in Pharaoh and Abimelech who knewe that they were punished for keeping Sarah Abrahams wife 6. Anselme and Pererius doe vnderstand this to be spoken onely of originall sinne that it was not acknowledged to be sinne before Moses lawe came by the light of nature though to the Patriarkes and holy men it were knowne But the contrarie is prooued by the Apostle that originall sinne was imputed to men euen before the law was giuen because death raigned ouer all euen ouer children so farre is he from saying that originall sinne was not imputed for where death was inflicted for sinne there sinne was imputed 7. This word of imputing of sinne is taken two wayes it signifieth either to haue the fault imputed or the punishment but here the latter rather to impute sinne is adiudicare ãâã reum to adiudge the guiltie person worthie of punishment in this sense is the word taken 2. Tim. 4.16 All haue forsaken me I pray God it be
2. there is not in infants the similitude of Adams transgression for his sinne was actuall so is not theirs if he had said onely after the similitude of Adam and not added transgression there had beene more probabilitie in it thus to diuide the sentence but in that he addeth after the similitude of the transgression it is more fitly ioyned to the former words which sinned not 2. Now of those which ioyne the last clause with the former words some read them affirmatiuely thus death raigned c. ouer them which sinned after the similitude c. and Origen receiuing this reading expoundeth it of those which committed mortall and great sinnes as Adam did and so distinguisheth betweene the entring of death which went ouer the righteous and the raigning of death onely ouer those which gaue themselues wholly ouer vnto sinne Ambrose vnderstandeth this clause of Idolaters for they sinne like vnto Adam who was not free from idolatrie in forsaking the Creator Some vnderstand it of children that they are saide to sinne after the similitude of Adam quia ex peccatore nascuntur peccatores because they are borne sinners of a sinners Gorrhan But all these goe against the receiued reading which hath a negative ouer them which sinned not as also the Syrian interpreter readeth 3. Of those which read with a negative ouer them which sinned not Hier. l. cont Pelag. expoundeth it of the particular sinne of Adam in eating of the forbidden fruit that death raigned euen ouer those which had not committed that sinne so also Theodor. and Chrysost. though he otherwise diuide the sentence as is shewed before But none beside Adam did commit that sinne whereas the Apostle in saying euen ouer them also which sinned not insinuateth that there were some ouer whome death raigned that sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression and some which did not 4. Athan. ser. 4. cont Arr. saith that they sinned like to Adam which committed mortall and great sinnes they sinned not like to Adam that sinned not mortally and yet died as Ieremie and Iohn Baptist that were sanctified in their mothers wombe But in this sense the Apostle onely should shew that death raigned onely ouer those which had committed actuall sinnes and so he should not prooue that which he said before that in Adam all sinned not onely those which commit actuall but are guiltie onely of originall sinne 5. Oecumenius doth interpret this place of those which were before the Law which did not transgresse in legem datam against any law giuen vnto them as Adam did but onely against the law of nature and so he seemeth to vnderstand it onely of those which committed actuall sinnes but then the Apostles reason should not be generall enough if he concluded not all as well Infants as others to be sinners in Adam 6. Most of our new writers vnderstand this not to sinne after the similitude of the transgression of Adam to be sine lege peccare to sinne without a law as all they did which were from Adam to Moses as well infants as men of yeares so Mart. Bulling Melanct. Calv. But this had beene then a needlesse addition seeing all without exception from Adam to Moses sinned in that manner without a law but the Apostle in saying euen ouer them also sheweth that there were some beside those which sinned after the transgression of Adam 7. Wherefore I preferre Augustines exposition who taketh those to sinne after the similitude of Adams transgression that committed actuall sinnes and those not to sinne after that similitude which had no actuall but onely originall sinnes so also Ansel. Lyran. Gorrh. glosse inter Haymo and of our new writers Beza Parâ Ofianà Pisc. with other so also Per. 31. Qu. How Adam is said to be the figure of him that was to come v. 14. 1. Origen by him which is to come vnderstandeth the next world that as by Adam we all in this life become mortall so in the next world vita reguabit per Christum life shall raigne thorough Christ. 2. Some vnderstand this according to that place 1. Cor. 10.11 all those things happened vnto them in tâpes so whatsoeuer was before or vnder the law were figures of those things which should be accomplished in the times of the Messiah Faius and Origen also to the same purpose But it is euident that the Apostle compareth the person of Adam and Christ together and touching those things which were wrought and accomplished in this life not deferred till the next 3. Augustine sometime referreth that which is to come not vnto Christ but vnto Adams posteritie that such as he was after he had sinned such was his posteritie lib. 1. de peccat mort c. 11. so also Haymo bringeth this in for one exposition sicut Adam peccator extitit as Adam was a sinner so all his posteritie are borne sinners but the word beeing put in the singular number and with one article ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã of him or one to come sheweth that it must be vnderstood of some speciall one not of all Adams posteritie 4. The commentarie vnder S. Hieromes name but falsly here bewraieth it selfe to haue beene written by some Pelagian whose heresie was that Adams sinne is deriued to his posteritie by imitation not by propagation these are the words Adam hauing first transgressed the commandement of God exemplum est legem praevaricari volentibus is an example to those which will transgresse the law of God as Christ is an example to those which will imitate him in fulfilling his fathers wil But wherein Adam is a type of Christ the Apostle sheweth in the rest of this chap. following where no mention is made of any such exemplarie imitation 5. Some referre this to such things as happened to Adams person as Eve was formed out of Adams side beeing asleepe so out of Christs side hanging on the crosse issued water and blood the Sacraments of regeneration by the which the Church is sanctified and saued Gorrhan Lyranus Pererius And as Adam was made ex terra virgine of the earth a virgin so Christ was borne of Marie the Virgin Haymo But Bellarmine presseth this further that as Adam was made out of the earth beeing yet not accursed so Christ of Marie qua omnis maledictionis ac per hoc omnis peccati expers fuit which was free from all malediction and so from all sinne c. But beside that none of the rest which vrge this similitude doe straine it thus farre but onely thus that as Adam was made out of the earth divina virtutes by the diuine vertue Lyran. sine humano opere without mans helpe Gorrhan so Christ was borne of a Virgin this strained and forced collection should be contrarie to the Apostle for if Marie were without sinne how is it true which the Apostle said before in whome all euer haue sinned 6. Herein then Adam was a type of Christ not in respect of such things as were personall
reference to the time before spoken of from Adam vnto Moses and therefore he saith many not all as he on the other side specially meaneth the times of the Gospell when likewise many and not all beleeued in Christ annot 22. so also Faius But then this comparison should be imperfect for as Adams sinne hath infected all his posteritie since the beginning of the world to the ende thereof so Christ is the Sauiour of the world both from Adam to Moses and since 4. Augustine taketh the Apostle to meane all but yet he saith many to shewe the multitude of those that are saued in Christ for there are aliqua omnia quae non sunt multa some things all that are not many as the fowre Gospels are all but not many and there be aliqua multa some things many that are not all as many beleeuers in Christ not all for all haue not faith 2. Thess. 3. c. It is true that the Apostle by many vnderstandeth all as he said in the former verse and sometime the scripture calleth them many which are all as in one place the Lord saith to Abraham I haue made thee a father of many nations Gen. 17. in an other in thy seede all the nations of the earth shall be blessed but yet the reason is not giuen why the Apostle saith many not all 5. Some thinke he so saith many because Christ is excluded that came of Adam Piscator But Christ though he descended of Adam yet not by ordinarie generation therefore in this generall speach he needed not to be excepted as he was not included when the Apostle saith in whom that is in Adam all haue sinned 6. The reason then is this multos apponit vni he opposeth many to one that Adam beeing one infected many beside himselfe with his sinne as Adams sinne rested not in his person but entred vpon many so Christs obedience and righteousnesse staied not in his person but was likewise communicated to many Beza Pareus Quest. 40. How many are said to be sinners in Adam 1. Chrysostome by sinners vnderstandeth morti obnoxiot those that are subiect to death by reason of Adams sinne and he addeth this reason ex illius inobedientia alium fieri peccatorem quam poterit habere consequentiam by his disobedience others to become sinners it hath no coherence or consequence Contra. 1. True it is that sometime the word peccatores sinners is taken in that sense for men subiect to death and punishment as Bathsheba saith to Dauid 1. King 1.21 else when my Lord the King shall sleepe with his fathers I and my sonne Salomon shall be sinners c. that is put to death as offenders But yet in this place the word is not so taken for as to be made iust in Christ signifieth not to haue the reward of iustice but to be iustified indeed so to be made sinners sheweth not the punishment but the guiltines of sinne deseruing punishment as then in the former verse the effects were compared together condemnation in Adam and iustification vnto life in Christ so here the causes are shewed sinne on the one side causing death and righteousnesse on the other which bringeth to life 2. though Chrysostome faile in the interpretation of this place yet he denieth not but that in Adams all sinned and in many places he testifieth euidently of originall sinne as he calleth to radicale peccatum the rooted sinne hom 40. in 1. epist. ad Corinth And therefore the Pelagians did him wrong to make him an author of their opinion who denied originall sinne from which imputation of the Pelagians Augustine cleareth Chrysostome writing against their heresie and this point is cleared in this place for if all are subiect to death in Adam which Chrysostome here confesseth then all haue sinned in Adam for death could not enter vpon all without sinne 2. As Chrysostome vnderstandeth here onely temporall death whereunto all are subiect in Adam so some by condemnation mentioned v. 17. doe likewise insinuate the sentence onely of mortalitie Tolet. Origen vnderstandeth the expulsion of Adam out of Paradise but by the contrarie seeing the Apostle by iustification vnto life vnderstandeth the raigning in life eternall by death and condemnation is signified animae corporis damnatio the damnation of bodie and soule so expoundeth gloss interlin Gorrhan with others 3. Origen by sinners vnderstandeth consuetudinem studium peccandi the custome and studie of sinning as though the Apostle had meant onely actuall sinne but that proceedeth not from Adams disobedience properly as originall sinne doth 4. Neither yet doth the Apostle onely meane originall sinne which is by Adams disobedience in ipsius posteros propagatum propagated vnto his posteritie Faius for it is more to be a sinner then to sinne in Adam which the Apostle said before v. 12. 5. Wherefore the Apostle by sinners vnderstandeth both such as sinne originally in Adam peccatum contrabendâ by the contagion or contraction of sinne and peccatum inteâandâ which sinne actually by imitation Gorrh. so that we are not onely naturally euill by sinful propagation as the Apostle said before v. 12. in whom all haue sinned and so are by nature guiltie of death and condemnation v. 18. but beside as an effect of our naturall corruption there is a generall pravitie of nature and an habite of euill engendred in vs whereby we can doe no other then sinne so Adams disobedience hath made vs not onely naturaliter pravos naturally euill sed habitualiter peccatores habitually sinners Pareus Quest. 41. How the lawe is said to haue entred thereupon ver 20. 1. The occasion of these words is not so much to shewe that sinne raigned in the world euen after the lawe as it was in the world before the lawe from Adam to Moses v. 14. but the Apostle hauing shewed at large how we are deliuered from sinne and death brought in by Adam onely by Christ he preuenteth the obiection of the Iewes for it might haue beene replyed wherefore then serued the lawe if there were no remedie against sinne thereby the Apostle then answeareth that the lawe was so farre from sauing men from their sinnes that they were thereby the more encreased thus Chrysostome and Pet. Martyr with others 2. But this is not to be vnderstood of the lawe of nature as Origen who to decline the imputation of the lawe laid vpon it by wicked Marcion that it was giuen to an euill ende to encrease sinne will haue the Apostle to speake of the lawe of nature for the Apostle making mention of the lawe before v. 13. vnderstandeth the written lawe as he expoundeth v. 14. where he expressely speaketh of Moses neither was the lawe of nature giuen to that ende to encrease sinne no more then the morall lawe was but sinne entred occasionaliter by occasion onely of the lawe as shall be shewed in the next question 3. The lawe ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã entred thereupon 1. the Latine interpreter readeth subintravit
it entred in by the way as though it had entred in secretly so also Erasmus and Gorrhan giueth the reason because it was giuen but vnto one people and secretly in the desert but the lawe beeing so publikely deliuered in such great power and signes could not be said secretly to enter 2. Origen giueth this sense that the lawe of the members entred sub obtentu legis naturalis vnder the pretext and colour of the lawe of nature it entred as it were by stealth but the Apostle speaketh not here of the lawe of nature as is shewed before 3. Chrysostome whom Tolet followeth thus interpreteth the lawe is said to haue entred by the way vt ostenderet vsum illius temporarium to shewe that the vse thereof was but for a time but this is a perpetuall vse of the lawe to manifest and reueale sinne though indeed the vse of the ceremoniall lawe were but to continue for a time 4. Some thinke the lawe is said to haue entred as vnder hand post effuscationem ãâã naturalis after the lawe of nature was obscured so Ambrose Lyran. but though the lawe of nature had not beene obscured yet the written lawe should haue beene giuen by ãâã which men should haue beene prepared to receiue the Gospell Tolet. annot 26. therefore it is said to haue entred thereto or thereupon that is beside that naturall corruption and depriuation of nature in Adam the lawe also was giuen accessit ad morbum illium it came vpon or was added vnto that naturall disease that sinne thereby beeing more encreased might more commend the riches of Gods mercie in Christ Beza Pareus Quest. 42. How the offence is said to haue abounded by the entring of the lawe ver 20. The lawe is to be considered three wayes in respect of the nature thereof in respect of man to whom it is giuen and of God the author and giuer of the lawe 1. The lawe beeing considered in it selfe it holy spirituall and good and so properly is not the cause of the encrease of sinne but onely in respect of the euent as Chrysostome Gennadius and most of the Greeke interpreters expound it the lawe then causeth sinne to encrease non causaliter sed consecutiue not as the cause but in regard of the euent or consequent and that not ex parte legis on the behalfe of the lawe but by the malice of mans heart Lyran non ex ââtura legis not by the nature of the lawe but by the slougth and carelesnesse of them which receiue the lawe Chrysost. and sinne is thus occasionally encreased sower wayes 1. because ruimur in vetitum c. we alwaies rush vpon that which is forbidden like as a riuer meeting with some stone or let in the way maketh the greater noise whereof these reasons may be giuen first because things forbidden are not in our power and therefore our desire is more toward them whereas we neglect things easie and such as we can do when we list secondly the nature of humane affections is the more they are suppressed and kept in the more to be inflamed as fide when it is kept in breaketh out more violently this is vsually seene in the passions of anger and griefe Perer. numer 78. Adde hereunto the peruersenesse of mans will which is opposite to the will of God and most of all is bent to follow those things which the Lord forbiddeth 2. Sinne is increased by the lawe because he sinneth more that knoweth the will of God and doth it not then he that is ignorant of it 3. by the lawe which containeth varietie of precepts the number of sinnes is multiplyed innumera praecepta lex dedit the law gaue a number of precepts Chrysostom 4. the lawe terrifieth the conscience and so accuseth and condemneth and sheweth punishment due vnto sinne and so exaggerateth it Mart. 2. If the lawe be considered in regard of the effect which it worketh in the hearts of men then this particle ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that may be taken causally because by the lawe properly sinne is manifested and reuealed as the Apostle sheweth Rom. 3.20 that by the lawe commeth the knowledge of sinne Perer. 3. If we turne our selues to God the author of the lawe then in respect of his counsell the lawe may be vnderstood causally to encrease sinne in regard of a further ende which God propoundeth to himselfe namely that by the abounding of sinne grace may yet more abound Martyr so the ordinarie glosse hath here this profitable note Magnum Deiconsilium fuit c. it was the great and deepe counsell of God that by the lawe sinne should abound that men in seueritie and austeritie of the lawe seeing their owne infirmitie infirmi ad ââdicum confugerent c. beeing weake should runne vnto the Physitian and seeke for the helpe of grace c. Quest. 43. How grace is said to haue abounded more 1. Athanasius referreth the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã vbi where to the nature of man that in the same nature grace abounded by the comming of Christ in the flesh where sinne abounded before tractas de salutar advent but this seemeth to be too curious 2. Lyranus hath reference to the lawe that whereas sinne abounded vnder the lawe grace also abounded vnder the lawe because Christ was made vnder the lawe as the Apostle sheweth Galat. 4.4 But here grace is opposed and set against the lawe therefore in both the opposite partes there cannot be reference to the same lawe 3. The ordinarie glosse hath two expositions grace is said to abound because it profiteth them whom the deuill could not ouercome grace worketh on them vpon whom the kingdome of sinne had no power but then the same thing should be compared with it selfe for in that the kingdome of sinne and Sathan preuailed not against them it was the worke of grace 4. Otherwise thus quia peccatum ad tempus regnavit because sinne raigned but for a time but grace for euer but vnlesse grace had destroyed the kingdome of sinne it should haue raigned for euer 5. Origen saith grace abounded more in that it doth not onely hominem absoluere à peccatis prateritis free a man from sinnes past but also strengthen him against sinnes to come 6. Chrysostome thus grace hath superabounded not onely in taking away the punishment and remitting our sinnes but in giuing vs life and making vs iust 7. Some giue this sense that grace hath abounded not onely in taking away originall sinne but all other actuall sinnes added beside Piscator Gorrhan 8. But it is better to vnderstand this superabounding of grace of all those priuiledges and excellencies which the benefit by Christ hath beyond our losse and fall in Adam as the Apostle shewed before Bez. Fai. So euery way grace exceedeth both in respect of the poteÌtis of God whose grace appeareth to be the greater by the greatnes of our sinne which non ãâã superat sed absorbet it doth not onely ouercome
or life without Christ. v. 17. Much more shall they which receiue c. raigne in life c. As in Adam sinne and death entred and so raigned ouer all so life raigneth by Iesus Christ then they which are not graft by faith into Christ but remaine onely in Adam cannot be pertakers of life they are still vnder the kingdome of sinne and death wherefore the Turkes Iewes and all other that are without the knowledge and faith of Christ howsoeuer they dreame of a kind of Paradise and terrene happinesse after this life yet they can haue no assurance of life seeing they are strangers from Christ So S. Peter saith Act. 4.12 That there is no other name giuen vnder heauen whereby we must be saued Doct. 6. That life doth accompanie righteousnesse v. 17. The Apostle saith that they which receiue the gift of righteousnesse shall raigne in life then as sinne raigned vnto death so righteousnesse raigneth vnto life wheresoeuer then righteousnesse is found whether inherent as in the Angels or imputed as in the faithfull who haue the righteousnesse of Christ imputed vnto them by faith there is the kingdome of life then they which doe feele the kingdome of righteousnesse to be begunne in them who both by faith are iustified in Christ and their faith is effectuall working by loue they are assured to enter into life as S. Paul knewe after he had kept the faith and fought a good fight that there was a crowne of righteousnesse laid vp for him 2. Tim. 4.8 Doct. 7. Of the vse of the lawe v. 20. The lawe entred c. that the offence should abound c. This is the proper vse of the lawe to bring a man to the knowledge of his sinne and to shewe him in what state he standeth by nature a transgressor of the lawe and so subiect to the curse but we must not rest in this vse of the lawe there is a second and more principall ende that by the abounding of sinne grace may more abound and in this sense the Apostle calleth the lawe a schoolemaster to bring vs to Christ Galath 3.19 that we by the lawe seeing our owne weakenesse and vnsufficiencie should seeke vnto Christ Iesus to finde righteousnes in him which cannot be obtained by the lawe 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. Whether a good conscience and integritie of life be the cause of peace with God Pererius disput 1. in c. 5. numer 2. vrgeth that place of the Prophet Isay c. 32.17 s he worke of iustice shall be peace euen the worke of iustice and quietnesse and assurance for euer whereupon he inferreth that opera iustitiae c. the workes of iustice and the keeping of Gods commandements doe worke in vs this tranquilitie and peace of the minde Contra. It might be here answeared that peace of conscience is the worke of our true iustice that is Christ who is called the Lord our iustice or righteousnesse Ierem. 23.10 but that this interpretation agreeth not with the former words v. 16. Iudgement shall dwell in the desert and iustice in the fruitfull field where the Prophet speaketh of the externall practise and exercise of iustice 2. Iunius seemeth to vnderstand these disiunctiuely the fruites of the spirit which should be powred vpon them v. 15. should bring faith iustice peace as the Apostle sheweth these to be the fruites of the spirit Rom. 14.17 righteousnesse peace ioy in the holy Ghost so also Faius But this distinction here cannot be admitted because it is directly said the worke of iustice shall be peace tranquilitie 3. But the best answer is that righteousnesse procureth peace not effective because it worketh this inward peace which is wrought in vs by the grace of iustification but declarative it declareth confirmeth and assureth vnto vs our peace as S. Peter exhorteth that we make our election and calling sure by good workes 2. Pet. 1.9 not that our workes make our election sure in it selfe which dependeth on the purpose of God but it is made sure vnto vs so the peace of conscience wrought in vs by faith is confirmed and ratified vnto vs by a good life euen as good workes are testimonies of our faith and in that sense are said by S. Iames c. 2. to iustifie Controv. 2. Against invocation of Saints 1. By whome we haue accesse through faith this text is well vrged by Peter Martyr and Pareus against the invocation of Saints for if by Christ we haue accesse vnto God what neede we the helpe of other mediators and intercessours the Papists then doe much derogate vnto the glorie of Christ in bringing an other ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to enter vs and cause vs to haue accesse vnto God And further two arguments may be vrged out of the Apostles words he saith we haue accesse by him through faith but Saints are not the obiect of our faith we must onely beleeue in God Ioh. 14.1 Ye beleeue in God beleeue also in me 2. we haue accesse vnto this grace namely whereby we are iustified but by the Saints we are not iustified therefore by them we haue not accesse and entrance Controv. 3. Of the certaintie of saluation and of finall perseuerance v. 5. We haue accesse vnto this grace wherein we stand Calvin out of this place refuteth two errors of Popish sophistrie the one that the faithfull for the present cannot be certaine of the grace of God and of the remission of their sinnes the other that they are not sure of finall perseuerance But to stand in grace signifieth to be sure of the grace and fauour of God one may attaine vnto the fauour of the Prince but he is not sure to continue in it But Gods fauour in Christ is most constant whom Christ loueth he loueth to the end Iob. 13.1 Tolet here foisteth in one of his Popish drugs that tranquilitie and peace of conscience and certaintie of remission of sinnes is not the fruit or worke of faith in the faithfull for the wicked that knowe not their sinnes haue also a quiet conscience Tolet. annot 1. Contra. There is great difference between a senslesse and a quiet coÌscience the wicked feele not the pricke of conscience because their sinnes are concealed from them but the faithfull haue peace of conscience after the sight of their sinnes which they know to be remitted in Christ So Paul was aliue without the law but afterward when sinne reviued he died Rom. 7.9 where then the conscience is cast into a slumber of securitie sinne reviuing awaketh troubleth it but where sinne is remitted in Christ the conscience ceaseth to be troubled and perplexed as in the wicked Controv. 4. That the tribulation of the Saints is not meritorious though it be said to worke patience We must vnderstand that the Apostle diuersely vseth the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã worketh for it is sometime ascribed vnto the principall efficient cause as vnto God the author and worker of all good things in vs 2. Cor. 5.5 sometime
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 âsome 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
an others subiects euen Gods and though the wicked doe obey sinne willingly yet it is of necessitie also because it is not in their power to resist sinne 2. Gregorie better observeth vpon this place that the Apostle saith not let not sinne be but let it not raigne quia non esse non potest it cannot but be in our members but it may not raigne 3. Pererius here confuteth Beza for giuing this note vpon this place the Apostle sheweth how farre we are dead to sinne while we are in this life vt reluctetur spiritus non tamen vincat that the spirit alway resisteth but ouercommeth not c. whereupon he thus cauilleth that if the spirit ouercome not the flesh then is it ouercome of the flesh But Beza his meaning onely is that our sanctification is not perfect in this life but that there remaineth some relique of sinne which alwayes resisteth the spirit as the Apostle sheweth in his owne example c. 7. so the spirit ouercommeth in part because sinne raigneth not in the regenerate but there is not a perfect victorie in this life because sinne hath a dwelling still and beeing in vs in this mortall flesh though the kingdome thereof be subdued Quest. 18. What the Apostle meaneth by mortall bodie ver 12. Let not sinne raigne in your mortall bodie c. 1. Chrysostome thinketh this is added by way of encouragement to signifie certamina in hac re temporaria esse that the strife and combate herein is but temporarie so also Photius he sheweth quod temporaria sit contra peccatum lucta that the fight against sinne is but temporall because the bodie is mortall and for a time 2. Origen hath two interpretations first the Apostle speaketh of the dead bodie to shewe that sinne neede not raigne in vs for he that is dead is free from sinne but the Apostle saith not in mortuo sed mortali corpore in the dead but in the mortall bodie there is great difference betweene ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã dead v. 7. and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã mortall which is the word vsed here 3. Further he saith that the Apostle calleth this bodie mortall ad distinctionem alterius corporis quod immortale est to distinguish it from that other bodie which is immortall when sinne shall haue no dominion or command at all ouer vs this sense Tolet also followeth 4. The ordinarie glosse further addeth that here is a secret promise of immortalitie si non regnet peccatum if sinne raigne not the bodie nowe mortall shall be afterward immortall 5. Theophylact thinketh that mention is made of the mortall bodie to signifie that all the pleasures of the bodie are but momentanie minus sunt stabiles corporis voluptates and therefore they are not much to be desired to the same purpose Bucer ne innitamur rei fallacissima that beeing admonished by our owne frailtie we should not trust to so vncertaine and deceitfull a thing 6. Theophylact noteth beside that hereby the Apostle insinuateth mortalitatem hanc fuisse corpori à delicto inditam that this mortalitie was inflicted vpon the bodie by reason of sinne and so we should by the meditation of death and mortalitie be terrified from sinne 7. But as these notes and collections may safely be receiued so this further may be added that the Apostle maketh mention specially of the mortall bodie because the partes and members thereof are the instruments of sinne that although the minde are inward faculties be tempted yet that we should resist and not bring the euill motions and suggestions into execution and this may appeare to be the Apostles meaning by the next words v. 13. neither giue your members as weapons of vnrighteousnesse c. Beza 8. Some thinke that the Apostle insinuateth the daunger of eternall death that if sinne doe raigne corpus moriturum est in aeternum the bodie shall die eternally gloss interlin but the bodie is said to be mortall in respect of the present mortall state because it is subiect to death 9. P. Martyr thinketh the meaning to be this because the concupiscence which the Apostle would not haue here to raigne in vs is per corpus derivatum deriued from Adam to vs by the bodie But I preferre the former interpretations but especially the 7. yet so as that with Ambrose by mortall bodie we vnderstand the whole state of man both the powers of soule and bodie by the figure synecdoche when one part is taken for the whole So also Pareus Faius Quest. 19. Of those words that yee should obey it in the lustes c. v. 12. 1. The Syrian interpreter readeth that yee should obey the lusts thereof but here the Greeke word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã it is omitted which is referred to the first antecedent sinne that ye should not obey it that is sinne which is put in the feminine gender in the lusts thereof that is of the bodie and therefore Beza to take away the anbiguitie explaineth it thus that yee should obey sinne in the lusts thereof 2. The Apostle putteth it in the plurall lusts because from the prauitie and corruption of our nature doe arise many and diuerse lusts and concupiscences Martyr 3. Thus sinne is compared to a tyrant raigning and raging the lusts are as the edicts and precepts of sinne whereby it raigneth and ruleth men yeelding to their corrupt concupiscence as are the vassals and slaues of sinne Calvin 4. The Apostle expoundeth himselfe what he meant before by the raigning of sinne that is to obey it no man in this mortall bodie can be void of concupiscence and vnlawfull desires but the faithfull must striue against them and not become subiect vnto them Pellican 5. This obedience consisteth in two things the one to be at command to obey and yeeld subiection vnto sinne the other to take vp armes in the defence of sinne which is touched in the verse following Pareus 6. Concupiscence is taken two waies sometime it is the name fomitis innati of that inborne occasion and originall of sinne sometime actus interioris of the inward act of the minde whereof there are three degrees there is propassio the propassion or first motion then delectatio the delight thirdly consensus the consent the Apostle here speaketh not of the first motion which no man can helpe but of the second and third which by Gods grace may be staied that a man neither delight in or consent vnto those euill motions which arise in his mind gloss ordinar 7. Neither is this a superfluous exhortation vnto them whom he said before v. 11. to be dead to sinne that sinne should not raigne in them because our mortification is not here perfect but euery day more and more we must proceed therein and by such exhortations is our mortification still perfited Pareus 8. And here by lusts we must vnderstand not the naturall desire and lust of the bodie as after meate drinke sleepe and such like but the vnnaturall vnnecessarie and
his delight and ioying in good in his inner man but he is captiued by the lawe of his members vnto sinne v. 22.23 The issue is this first he desireth and expecteth to be deliuered from this spirituall bondage and captiuitie ver 24. secondly he giueth thanks for this freedome in Christ that he is not yet wholly captiued vnto sinne but in his spirit he serueth the lawe of God 3. The questions and doubts discussed Quest. 1. How the law is said to haue dominion ouer a man as long as he liueth 1. We must here distinguish betweene these two cessare legem the law to cease and dominionem legis cessare the dominion of the law to cease Theodoret thinketh that the Apostle treateth of the ceasing of the law so also Gorrhan but that the law is not ceased the Apostle sheweth afterward giuing an instance in one of the commandements Thou shalt not lust but the dominion of the law is ceased which serued to condemne but we are vnder grace which hath deliuered vs from the bondage of the law Tolet. annot 1. 2. By the lawe 1. neither with Sedulius doe we vnderstand the lawe of nature for he speaketh vnto the Iewes that knewe the lawe whereas the lawe of nature was knowne also vnto the Gentiles 2. neither with Ambrose by the lawe doe we meane the Gospel for we are not dead vnto this lawe as the Apostle saith v. 4. we are dead to the law 3. neither is the lawe of the members here vnderstood as Origen which is alwaies euill rebelling against the lawe of the word but the lawe which the Apostle here speaketh of is holy and good ver 12. 4. nor yet doe we vnderstand the ciuill lawe of the Romanes to whom the Apostle doth write as knowing their owne lawes as Haymo and Lyranus indifferently vnderstandeth Lex Mosaica vel Civilis the Mosaicall or Ciuill lawe 5. The Apostle then maketh mention of the morall law of Moses as is euident by that instance which afterward he bringeth in of that commandement Thou shalt not couet Tolet. Mart. Pareus 3. These words while he liveth are diuersly interpreted 1. some referre it to the law as long as the lawe liveth or remaineth so Origen Ambrose Erasmus and Origen addeth this reason because the man is afterward resembled to the lawe who beeing dead the woman is free but this reason sheweth that it must be referred rather to the man then the law 2. and so indeede it is more fitly said of the man while he liueth then of the lawe and in grammaticall construction it is better referred to the nearer word then the further off Beza 3. some doe ioyne it vnto man which word because in the Greeke signifieth both sexes Chrysostome thinketh that the death of both is insinuated for if the woman be free when her husband is dead much more when she is dead also but then this verse should be confounded in sense with that which followeth whereas the Apostle speaketh first in generall of the lawe which onely beareth rule ouer a man while he liueth and then of the particular lawe of matrimonie 4. some thinke that these words while he or it liueth are indifferently referred either to the lawe or man for both we are said to be dead to the lawe v. 4. and the lawe also is said to be dead v. 6. Mart. but it is better ioyned with man as the nearest word 4. Tolet thinketh that the Apostle speaketh not here generally of the law of Moses but of the particular law of matrimonie annot 4. but as is before shewed it is better to vnderstand the Apostle to speake generally here of the law which bindeth a man onely while he liueth and so we are dead in Christ and no longer bound to the law and then he doth illustrate the same by the particular law of marriage the law was as the man or rather sinne that receiued strength by the law we as the wife the law beeing dead in Christ in respect of the bondage thereof we are free Pareus 2. Quest. Whether the woman be simply free if the man be once dead v. 3. If the man be dead she is free Lyranus giueth this note that if the man should chance to die and yet be raised againe as some were the woman were not bound in that case to receiue the man as her husband nisi de condecentia but in decencie onely and supervenienti novo consensu by a new consent and contract Pererius affirmeth the same and giueth instance of Lazarus that if any should rise againe as he did non futuram vxorem eius quae ante fuerat she should not be his wife that was before but vpon a new contract Contra. Though this be but a curious and vnnecessarie question yet because the occasion is ministred by them it shall not be amisse herein to examine the truth Indeede when we shall rise againe to an immortall state as in the generall resurrection neither the man shall be bound to the wife nor the wife to the husband because they shall neither marrie nor be giuen in marriage but when any is miraculously raised againe to the mortall state and condition of this life the case is otherwise as may appeare by these reasons 1. Other coniunctions which are not so neare as betweene the father or mother and the children doe not cease neither are extinct by such a temporall death as it is saide Heb. 11.35 The women receiued their dead raised to life that is the mothers acknowledged their children raised againe as the widow of Sarepta and the Shunamite had their sonnes restored vnto them againe beeing dead the one by the Prophet Elias the other by the Prophet Elisha the question is whether those children so raised were freed from the obedience of their parents I thinke not no more is the wife in that case freed from her husband because the coniunction is nearer betweene the man and wife as Gen. 2.24 Therefore shall a man leaue his father and mother and cleaue to his wife 2. When the Sadduces put the question to Christ of a woman that was married to seuen brethren whose wife she should be in the resurrection our Sauiour answered them not that the woman was free from them all by death but because that in the resurrection they neither marrie not are married but are as the Angels in heauen Matth. 22.30 So then the reason why they are free after death is not simply because they are dead but because they shall rise to an incorruptible state and not returne from death againe to their former mortall condition 3. Pererius himselfe confesseth that if one that is baptized or hath receiued orders should be raised from death he should not neede to be baptized or consecrated againe because those Sacraments do imprint in the soule an indeleble character so doth not matrimonie But this may serue as an argument against his conceit that matrimonie in this case shall no more be iterated
then the other for there is no such character imprinted more in them then in matrimonie for he which is baptized or consecrated may vtterly fall away and become an Apostata from the faith what then is become of this badge or character See further Synops. Cent. 2. er 96. if then there is no more character left in the one then in the other if by a temporall death for a time the efficacie of baptisme and orders be not extinguished neither is the bond of matrimonie loosed for such is no perfect death but a kind of slumber or traunce for a while which I hope they will not say dissolueth the mariage bond Quest. 3. Whether that the woman haue not the like libertie and freedome in respect of the bond of mariage as the man hath v. 3. But if the man be dead the woman is free c. The woman is not free but by the death of the man because this is affirmed onely of the womans freedom not of the mans it may seeme that the man may be otherwise free then by the death of the woman And indeed Ambrose is of this opinion writing vpon the 7. chap. of the 1. to the Corinthians that the man may marrie againe his wife beeing lawfully repudiated euen while she liueth but so cannot the woman and his reason is quia inferior non omnino hac lege vtitur qua superior the inferior is not to vse the same lawe or priuiledge which the superiour doth Caietanus herein agreeing with Ambrose alleadgeth the custome which the Iewes had it was lawfull among them for the man to giue his wife a bill of diuorcement but not for the woman to giue it vnto the man Contra. 1. S. Ambrose opinion herein is contrarie to the Apostle S. Paul who saith that the man hath not power ouer his owne bodie but his wife as the wife hath not power ouer her owne bodie but the husband 1. Cor. 7.4 so in matrimoniall duties he maketh them both equall as Lyranus well inferreth here idem est iudicium de viro the same law or iudgment also is for the man 2. Herein then I rather subscribe to Hieromes opinion quicquid viris iubetur hoc consequenter redundat in foeminas that which is commanded vnto men redoundeth also vnto women for an adulterous woman is not to be dismissed and an adulterous husband to be retained aliae sunt leges Caesarum aliae Christs aliud Papinianus aliud Paulus noster praecipit c. the lawes of Caesar and of Christ are diuerse one thing Papinianus prescribeth an other thing Paul Hierm. ad Occan. 3. And that libertie among the Iewes was granted vnto them for their hardnes of heart it was a permission no dispensation a toleration not a concession and yet the woman had libertie by that custome beeing sent away by a bill of diuorcement to marrie againe as the man did 4. Yet thus much must be acknowledged that whereas it was permitted that many of the fathers should haue diuers wiues yet it was a monstrous thing and neuer tolerated for a woman to haue many husbands that there is some difference herein betweene the condition of the man and woman that in respect of the generall law of nature for procreation the man is more priuiledged who may beget by diuerse women whereas one woman cannot conceiue by diurse men so that in the woman such change should shew her lust onely and wantonnes which in the man was exercised for the desert of procreation yet the speciall law and couenant of matrimonie considered the man hath no more libertie to goe vnto strange flesh then the woman Quest. 4. Why the Apostle saith we are dead to the law v. 4. and not rather the law is dead to vs. 1. Some thinke that in this similitude the man is compared to the law and we are resembled to the woman and so the Apostle in the application of the similitude should haue rather said the law is dead to vs because the man is free when the man is dead but the Apostle chaungeth of purpose his speach he would not say the law is dead but we are dead to the law imbecillitaris Iudaeorum rationem habens c. hauing respect vnto the weaknes of the Iewes left they might haue beene offended beeing so much addicted to the law and last he might haue giuen occasion to those heretikes which are enemies to the old Testament thereby to accuse the law Theodoret so also Calvin comparing the law to the husband voluit exigua inversione c. he would a little deliuer the envie of so hard a tearme auandae offensionis causa noluit exprimere he would not expressely say the lawe is dead to avoide offence Bucer so also Pet. Martyr Pareus But Beza misliketh this exposition for the lawe cannot be said to be dead vnlesse the ceremoniall lawe be vnderstood which the Apostle speaketh not of but of the morall lawe Tolet addeth this reason because the Apostle expressely distinguisheth these three virum mulierem legem the man the woman the lawe and concludeth that by the death of the man we are freed from the lawe 2. Chrysostome salveth the matter thus that the Apostle speaketh of a double libertie both by the death of the man and woman together for if the woman be dead as well as the man she is much more free and so in the application the Apostle indifferently putteth the case of the death of vnto the lawe as the woman or of the lawe to vs as the man But the similitude onely runneth vpon the freedome of the woman by the death of the man the application should be so likewise 3. Haymo vnderstandeth here two husbands and one woman or wife the law is one husband vnder whom the woman that is the soule is said to be the other is sinne whereof the Apostle speaketh v. 3. while the man liueth for while sinne liueth in man he is subiect to the lawe But the other husband which the Apostle speaketh of is Christ raigning in vs by his spirit as v. 4. that we should be vnto an other vnlesse he will say that the Apostle speaketh of three husbands which he doth not for an other doth insinuate but one beside 4. Some thinke that in the application of this similitude we are not so curiously to insist vpon the particular points of this resemblance betweene the man and wife whether the law be as the husband or the man regenerate as the wife by the death of either of them indiffereÌtly followeth freedom if either we be dead to the law or the law to vs Faius But the Apostle in the similitude presseth onely the death of the man whereby the woman is free likewise Gorrhan expoundeth ye are mortified or dead to the lawe that is ye are no mââ bound to the lawe as if the law were dead but to be dead to the lawe and the lawe to be dead to vs though in effect they are all one yet
the sense is dâlerse 5. Hugo Cardinal maketh three in the similitude the man the wife and the lawe of matrimonie and three in the application the lawe as the man the soule as the wife and sinne as the mariage but saith he in this is the diuersitie in the similitude the man dieth but in the application the woman dieth that is the soule vnto sinne But if this difference and dissimilitude be admitted then the Apostle should not haue fitly applyed to his purpose the similitude which he had propounded 6. Augustine better by the husband vnderstandeth sinne by the wife man lib. 83. qu. 66. but this is not a full explication of the Apostles minde for here it is not expressed what part the lawe beareth in this similitude 7. Therefore Tolet thus explaineth this similitude he saith by the Apostle here triplicen distingui there is distinguished a threefold state of man the old man the newe man which is regenerate and the naturall man considered as Gods creature which was first vnder the condition and seruitude of the old man and then vnder the newe the old corrupt man and the newe regenerate man he maketh the two husbands and man considered in himselfe is as the wife so we are said to be mortified to the lawe that is the old man is dead were sinne and so vnto the lawe because sinne beeing destroyed the dominion of the lawe also is abolished to this purpose Tolet. annot 5. Beza somewhat diuersly thus applyeth the similitude he maketh two mariages in the first sinne is as the husbaÌd which had the strength by the lawe the flesh was as the wife and the particular sinnes were the fruits â in the second mariage the spirit of grace by Christ is as the newe husband the regenerate man the wife and the children the fruits of holines and in this sense we are said to be mortified to the law in respect of the first husband which is within vs These two expositions much differ nor but in this that Tolet maketh one and the same wife which was before married vnto sinne and afterward to the spirit Beza maketh two wiues the first the state of the vnregenerate the second of the regenerate man But the Apostle seemeth to speake of one and the same wife which is the soule of man first subdued vnto sinne and then in subiection to Christ so then not the wife is said to be mortified for how then should she be ioyned to an other husband but the first husband that is the old man is mortified to the lawe because when sinne liued the lawe did beare dominion in accusing condemning vs Now that the law is not as the husband but sinne the Apostle euidently sheweth v. 5. When we were in the ãâã the motions of sinne which were by the law had force in our members to bring forth fruit was death here the Apostle expresseth fowre things in this first mariage the wife we are the flesh the husband the motions of sinne for that is the husband which begetteth children which are the evill fruits vnto death the fourth thing is the lawe of the man touched before in the similitude v. 2. and here the lawe is that which gaue strength vnto sinne 7. But an other reason also may be yeelded why the Apostle saith we are mortified to the lawe because in this reddition he ioyntly applyeth the two similitudes before alleadged the one that the lawe hath no dominion ouer one but while he liueth v. 1. the other that the woman is bound to the man but while he liueth in the application he putteth both together to answear to the first he saith we are mortified to the lawe and so it hath no more power ouer vs and touching the second he saith that beeing dead wherein we were holden namely sinne v. 5. we should be now for an other husband Quest. 5. How we are said to be mortified to and freed from the lawe We are not freed from the lawe in respect of the obedience thereto for the morall law is in force still and Christ came to confirme the lawe not to destroy it but we are freed from it as the bare letter of the lawe is set against the spirit 1. because the lawe commanded onely but gaue no grace to performe as the Gospell doth 2. the law onely manifested our sinnes in not beeing able to keepe the lawe which are healed in the Gospel 3. the law commanding made the froward nature of man so much more sinnefull in crossing the commandement 4. Men then obeyed the lawe for feare and by constraint which nowe they doe willingly by grace 5. but in these two things chiefely consisteth our libertie and freedome from the lawe à rigida exactione we are freed from the strict obseruation of the lawe which Christ hath fulfilled for vs. 6. ab ea qua inde sequitur maledictione and from the malediction and curse which followeth thereupon which Christ hath freed vs from being made a curse for vs Calvin 7. Pareus sheweth how in these three things the servitude of the lawe consisted 1. in the declaration of sinne 2. in the condemning of it 3. in encreasing sinne per accidens by an accident because our corrupt nature is carried to do that so much the more which is forbidden So the libertie of the lawe consisteth in these three points opposite to the other three 1. the lawe doth not now set forth our sinnes which are not imputed vnto vs beeing iustified by faith in Christ. 2. it condemneth vs not for there is no condemnation to those which are in Christ. 3. neither doth it stirre vs vp to sinne beeing dead to sinne in Christ the two first parts of libertie we doe fully enioy in this life but the third is onely begunne here because we are still compassed about with many infirmities but it is not fully perfited vntill the next Quest. 6. What is meant by the bodie of Christ v. 4. 1. Some vnderstand by the bodie of Christ completionem veritatis the fulfilling and accomplishment of the figures of the lawe which was but a type of things to come in exhibiting the truth Gorrhan 2. some incarnationis mysterium the mysterie of the incarnation of Christ gloss interlin 3. Lyranus incorporationem cum Christo in baptismo our incorporating with Christ when we were made his members in baptisme 4. Beza readeth in corpore in the bodie to shewe our conformitie with Christ that we as his members are in him by him dead vnto the law Pet. Mart. also approueth this sense effecti iam membra Domini c. beeing made the members of our Lord we doe followe our head 5. But by the bodie of Christ rather we vnderstand the passion of Christ in his bodie vpon the crosse that is per victimam Christum c. by Christ our sacrifice who satisfied for vs Melanct. by the bodie of Christ dum cruci affixum est while it was nailed to the crosse where he
Apostle giueth instance in himselfe as v. 24. O wretched man that I am and 25. I thank my God and so he doth here the Apostle then speaketh here neither of his present state nor yet of his first age but of the middle part of his life when he liued a Pharisie 2. That commendation then which S. Paul giueth of his former life while he was a Pharisie did onely concerne his outward cariage which was to the iudgement of the world without reproofe and he kept a good conscience according to his knowledge yet was it farre from a pure conscience because he had no knowledge then of our faith in Christ whose way he persecuted whereby the heart is purified Act. 15.9 Notwithstanding then his outward shew of obedience his heart and affections were not right within and so he had not the true vse and vnderstanding of the law as Augustine saith lib. 1. ad Bonifac. c. 9. potuit intus esse in affectionibus pravus prauaricator legis c. he might inwardly in his peruerse affections be a transgressor of the law and yet outwardly fulfill the workes of the law c. So Saint Paul himselfe confesseth Tit. 3.3 We our selues were sometime vnwise c. seruing lusts c. Quest. 10. What law the Apostle speaketh of v. 7. is the law of sinne 1. Some thinke that the Apostle by the law here vnderstandeth the precept which was giuen to Adam in Paradise not to eate of the forbidden fruite of this opinion was Methobus in Epiphanius haeres 64. and Heirome maketh mention of it epist. ad Hedib qu. 8. but he reiecteth it Theodoret hath the like conceit that the law is here vnderstood to be the law of Moses mandatum vocat quod Adamo datum est but that he calleth the commandement which was giuen to Adam Theodoret in Commentar But 1. Photius in Oecummenius reiecteth this opinion because no where doth the Apostle call that particular commandement giuen vnto Adam the law 2. Tolet further addeth these reasons the Apostle speaketh of the verie inward desire and concupiscence but the act was forbidden Adam that he should not eate of the forbidden fruite and againe the Apostle in saying I knew not sinne but by the law insinuateth that sinne was before but he knew it ãâã but before that commandement was giuen vnto Adam it had beene no sinne in him to haue eaten and receiued the fruite of the tree 2. Some thinke that the Apostle speaketh not of the law of Moses but of the law of nature for before the witten law was giuen men had knowledge of sinne as Cain knew he had sinned and Abimelech was not ignorant that adulterie was sinne thus Heirome and before him Origen But 1. Photius in Oecumenius thus refelleth this opinion that the Apostle speaketh not of the law of nature because the Apostle had said before yee are dead to the law v. 4. in this sense then some should be found naturali lege priuati depriued of the naturall law and againe the Apostle saith I was aliue sometime without the law but neither Adam nor any other liuing were at any time without the law of nature 2. Tolet addeth that if the Apostle had meant the law of nature he would not haue said I knew not sinne but by the law but rather sinne was not but by the law 3. And concerning the obiection of Cain and Abimelechs knowledge of sinne Chrysostome answereth that the Apostle saith omnem concupistratuâ vehementiam significans sinne wrought in me all manner of concupiscence signifying the vehemenencie of it c. that although these sinnes did raigne before yet they appeared not to be so great sinnes as afterward by the law and Theophylact addeth noscibatur peccatum sed nondum erat concupiscentia interdicta sinne was knowne before the law that is outward and notorious sinnes but yet the inward concupiscence was not restrained 3. Tolet thinketh that together with the morall law the Apostle meaneth the ceremoniall and iudiciall law because by them also were the knowledge of sinne But the Apostle giuing instance of the inward vnlawfull concupiscence which was not punished by the iudiciall nor ceremoniall law sheweth that he speaketh not of them 4. Wherefore it is euident that the Apostle meaneth none other but the written morall law of Moses because he giueth instance of the last commandement thou shalt not couet Martyr Pareus Quest. 11. What lust or concupiscence the Apostle speaketh of I had not knowne lust c. except c. 1. Some thinke that here by concupiscence the Apostle intendeth all sinne whatsoeuer as Anselme and the ordinarie glosse following Augustine bona est lex qua âââdum concupiscentiam prohibet omnia peccata prohibet c. the law is good which while it forbiddeth concupiscence forbiddeth all sinnes c. Heirome epist. 152. refuseth their opinion which take this for the commandement and by concupiscence he thinketh to be vnderstood omnes animi perturbationes all the preturbations and passions of the minde whatsoeuer as of feare greefe desire But it is euident in that the Apostle propoundeth the verie words of the line that he hath reference to that precept thou shalt not lust whereby indeed all corrupt concupiscence and desire whatsoeuer is forbidden 2. By this concupiscence is not vnderstood onely the act of concupiscence as Pererius holdeth with other Romanists we vnderstand not saith he ipsam concupiscendi facultatem sed actum ipsum concupiscendi the facultie of coueting but the act it selfe disput 8. numer 47. nor yet the second motions of concupiscence onely whereunto the will consenteth but euen the first vnlawfull desires and motions which haue not the consent of the wil. And that this may the better appeare it shall not be amisse further to shew what concupiscence is and the diuerse kinds thereof there is a threefold concupiscence naturalis sensitivus voluntarius the naturall which is euen in stirps and plants as to couet and draw vnto them their food and nourishment and this is properly called ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã desire the sensitiue is in bruit beasts the voluntarie and sensitiue both in man and they are called by the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã concupiscence 2. further this concupiscence is deuided into ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the facultie it selfe and the exercising or act thereof and both of them are considered either physice as they are naturall as to couet meate drinke and such like which are things indifferent or morally as they haue relation to the commandement 3. and herein there is to be considered both the maâter and obiect of concupiscence and the manner as if either things vnlawfull be desired as the wife horse seruant of our neighbour which appertaine not to vs or if we exceed measure in desire of things vnlawfull as of meate drinke apparell riches and such like or desire them to an euill end 3. Now to apply this which hath beene said to our purpose 1.
neither the naturall desire as of meate and drinke is forbidden by this commandement as beeing a thing indifferent nor yet the supernaturall as to couet and desire such things as concerne the glorie of God and the saluation of our soules for these are good desires and conformable to the will of God but the euil and vnlawfull desires are forbidden either in the matter or manner 2. not the act of concupiscence onely but the verie facultie it selfe ipsa concupiscibilitas is forbidden as it is corrupt and auerse from God 3. and not onely the second motions which haue the consent of the will which the schoolmen call concupiscentiam formatam the formed and perfite concupiscence but euen the first motions which haue not the deliberate consent of the will which they call informem the vnformed concupiscence contrarie to the opinion of Pererius and other Romanists who thinketh concupiscentiam carnalem sed vt à voluntate approbatam c. that carnall concupiscence onely as it is approoued of the will to be forbidden in this commandement disput 8. numer 47. but the contrarie shall appeare afterward controv 8. that the law forbiddeth cupiditatem nudam the verie base and naked concupiscence as Beza calleth it because prauas cupiditates euill and disordred lusts and desires the very law of nature reprooued Augustine saith cupiditateÌ voco motum animi c. I call concupiscence the verie motion of the minde to enioy either himselfe or his neighbour or any other thing non propter Deum not for God de Doctrin Christian. lib. 3. c. 10. Quest. 12. Why the Apostle giueth instance in the tenth commandement thou shalt not lust and alleadgeth not all the words of the law 1. The Apostle could not giue instance in the grosser and more notorious sinnes which euen the wiser sort of the Gentiles abhorred nor yet in the vile and corrupt affections of man which the Philosophers also condemned but he singleth out those corruptions which could not be discerned by the light of nature especially so much obscured and darkned and could not be perfectly knowne but by the law of God Tolet. annot 9.2 And this the Apostle doth to shew the excellencie of the law of God beyond both the law of nature and the politike lawes of men for the first the law of nature is much obscured obliterated and empaired by the blindnesse and corruption of mans nature but the written law though it were much depriued by the corrupt gloses of the Scribes and Pharisies lex tamen scripta mââ sit eadem yet the written law remained the same and beeing well examined was able to reprooue the false interpreters thereof and it is more perfect then other humane lawes which onely bridle the outward act of sinne but they can not meete with the inward concupiscence as the law of God doth 2. And S. Paul contenteth himselfe onely to repeat the first words of the commandement not adding the rest thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house c. as Moses doth for he hauing to doc in hominis durioribus with a rude people and of hard vnderstanding giueth instance in some sensible and particular obiects but S. Paul writing scientibus legem to men knowing the law thinketh it sufficient to giue them onely an hint by producing some words onely of the law Neither yet did Moses expresse all the particulars of this law but hauing reported some he concludeth with this generall clause nor any thing that is his And indeede in all the commandements Moses vseth the figure called synecdoché by one part signifying the rest and that both in the negative part wherein forbidding the most notorious vices he meeteth with the rest as our Sauiour sheweth Matth. 5. how the law bindeth not onely the hands but euen the heart and affections in the sinnes of murther adulterie and such like as also in the affirmative the contrarie vertues in euery commandement beeing comprehended in the prohibition of the contrarie vices so that Aristotles tenne predicaments are not so generall to containe whatsoeuer is in the world as Moses tenne commandements are to comprehend all vices committed in the world ex Martyr Quest. 13. What sinne the Apostle meaneth v. 8. sinne tooke an occasion c. 1. Some by sinne here vnderstand the deuill who taking occasion by the commandement did tempt man more strongly to breake it Methodius Ambrose Oecumenius sauing that the first by the law vnderstandeth the commandement giuen to Adam in Paradise the other two the law giuen by Moses But in this sense it cannot be properly said sinne reuiued if by sinne we vnderstand the deuill or thus sinne did dwell in the Apostle as he saith v. 10. 2. Chrysostome vnderstandeth this sinne to be vitium de fidiae the vice of flouthfulnes that man hauing receiued a law by his negligence was not the better for it but the worse But he expresseth not the whole minde of the Apostle 3. Anselmus will haue it to be peccati fomes the matter or nourishment of sinne which as Lyranus is called sinne for that it is the cause of sinne as the Sunne is said to be hoat beeing the cause of heat But the Apostle calleth it sinne properly because it was forbidden by the commandement 4. Hierom. epist. ad Hedib qu. 8. taketh this to be the sinne quod lege prohibetur which is forbidden by the commandement which while it is forbidden doth inflame the concupiscence the more but the Apostle speaketh not of actuall sinne before it is committed but of sinne dwelling in him v. 17. 5. This is none other but naturae corruptio the corruption of our nature Calvin lib. 1. de peccand the lust or desire of sinning Hyper. peccatum regnans in homine sinne raigning in man Tolet. annot 11. which is none other but the originall pravitie of our nature called before lust or concupiscence v. 7. it is pravitas nativa our naturall pravitie Pareus 14. Quest. How sinne tooke occasion by the law 1. The Greeke word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã occasion is taken three waies first it properly signifieth ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the opportunitie of doing a thing but so the law was not the occasion as offering any opportunitie for there can be no opportunitie to doe euill 2. it signifieth any circumstance or accident whereby one is occasioned to doe any thing as the burning of an house may be said to be the occasion of building it againe 3. an occasion is that which draweth a man from doing that he intended as a rub in ones way turneth him beside the way Both these last waies sinne tooke occasion by the law for both the prauitie of our nature is more inflamed by the prohibition and we seeke to build our ruinous house which the law pulleth downe and beside because the law standeth vp in the way of sinne we decline it as a thing which hindreth vs in our pleasant and plaine iourney following after sinne and therefore we wish that it
were remooued as a rubbe or blocke out of our way Faius 2. Diuerse waies did sinne take occasion by the law 1. the corruption of mans nature turneth good things to the occasion of euill as the Pharisies by Christs comming and preaching had the more sinne and the Apostle saith Hebr. 10.29 Of how much more punishment suppose ye he is worthie which treadeth vnder foote the Sonne of God habet peius supplicium occasionem per exhibitum maius beneficium the greater punishment is occasioned by the greatnes of the benefit exhibited Chrysostome sinne then is encreased by the giuing of the law because of mens vnthankfulnes for so great benefite 2. And beside such is the corruption of mans nature vt ea quae prohibentur magis desiderentur which are forbidden are more desired Origen so was the commandement giuen to Adam an occasion that he coueted the more to eate of the forbidden fruite and like as there are foure diseases which are the worse for the applying of medecines vnto them as the gangrena and the leprosie called elephantiasis much like a restie horse that the more he is spurred kicked the more he giueth backe or as if a sicke man-beeing forbidden to drinke cold water should the more desire it Martyr 3. An other reason is because mans nature desireth libertie and therefore refuseth to be bridled by law and yet it is destructio libertatis the verie destruction and ouerthrow of libertie for a man to doe what he lift sine fraeno legis without the bridle of a law Lyranus 4. And further by the law commeth the knowledge of sinne and so mans corrupt nature hauing sinne shewed it doth then beginne to couet it as the Sunne light sheweth the beautie of a faire woman and then the lustfull eye is caried with a desire after her Gorrhan or like as Ambrose resembleth it as the art of Physicke sheweth the nature of persons to auoid them and yet one abuseth his knowledge in doing hurt by them lib. 1. de Iacob vita brat c. 4. And this was the reason why Solon would make no law against parricides least that men by that occasion might thinke of that sinne which they did not dreame of before 5. Adde hereunto that as a circumstance may accidentally stirre vp that which is a cause of it selfe of the action as Dauids walking vpon his house carried his eye to looke vpon the beautie of Bersheba and so to desire her the like occasion might sinne take by the law Pareus 6. And the Deuill tooke occasion by the law more strongly to tempt man to make his sinne the greater in transgressing of the law 7. And one contrarie accidentally is encreased by an other as hoat water is more strongly congealed Gorrhan 8. And euery nature adversantibus adversatur resisteth that which resisteth it as one stone breaketh an other Hugo so vice resisteth vertue 3. But it is further to be considered that the words are sinne ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã taking occasion for the law indeede gaue not occasion but sinne tooke it Beza Calvin 15. Quest. Of what time S. Paul speaketh when he knew not the law and afterward sinne tooke occasion by the law c. 1. Methodius vnderstandeth it of the time while yet Adam had not receiued the commandement of not eating the forbidden fruit but it hath beene shewed before that the Apostle speaketh here of the morall law giuen by Moses as appeareth by that particular instance of the tenth and last commandement 2. Origen will haue it vnderstood of the Apostles childhood and so also Hierome that then he knew not sinne but these things which the Apostle mentioneth as the working of concupiscence and the reviving of sinne are not incident into the age of children 3. Chrysostome vnderstandeth the time before the law when many sinnes were not knowne till the law came and so he thinketh that the Apostle in his owne person describeth the state of all those which liued before the law but in this sense the person of S. Paul should be excluded who liued not in those times 4. Wherefore he aimeth at that time when he was a Pharisie before he had the true knowledge of the law for the Pharisies contented themselues onely with the externall observation thereof as is euident Matth. 5. where our Sauiour deliuereth the law from their corrupt gloses Pareus Faius Quest. 16. What the Apostle meaneth by all concupisence v. 8. 1. Chrysostome vnderstandeth augmentum concupiscentiae the encrease of concupiscence which was more inflamed 2. Augustine summaÌ consummatam concupiscence perfected which now after the law giuen did not onely couet euill things but lege prohibita forbidden by law 3. Ambrose because after the law came then all sinne came before there was sinne sed non omne quia crimen prauaricationis decrat but not all because the sinne of transgression and preuarication was not yet ex gloss 4. Martyr expoundeth it of all actuall sinnes but the Apostle speaketh onely of concupiscence 5. By all concupiscence then we may vnderstand with Hierome omnes perturbationes animae all the passions and perturbations of the mind epistol 151. and with Anselme cuiusque peccati contra quodcunque mandatum concupiscentiam the concupiscence of euerie sinne whatsoeuer against euery commandement with Faius euery kind of concupiscence not onely the concupiscence of the flesh but the concupiscence of the eyes which Saint Iohn speaketh of 1. epist. c. 2. with Gorrhan euery degree of concupiscence cogitationem consensum opus the thought the consent the action with Pareus all the vitious motions of the concupiscence primas secundas both the first and second with Oecumenius quas non noueram concupiscentias ex lege didici c. I learned by the law concupiscence which I knew not and those which I had learned I committed Quest. 17. In what sense the Apostle saith sinne was dead and he aliue without the law v. 8. 1. Methodius in Epiphan haeres 64. by sinne vnderstandeth the time of mans innocencie when the deuill lay as dead because yet there was no commandement giuen whereby man should be allured vnto sinne Ambrose by sinne likewise interpreteth the deuill but he referreth it to the time before the law when the deuill was secure hauing man sure enough in his possession But this opinion is reiected before for how could the Apostle say v. 20. that sinne dwelled in him if he meant the deuill by sinne and he saith that sinne reuiued when the law came then in this sense the deuill must be supposed to haue beene aliue before to haue beene busie in working before he tempted Adam 2. Theodoret and Caietane following him doe vnderstand this to be spoken of the time of mans innocencie when as sinne was dead there was no sinne at all before the law was giuen But beside that man could not be said to be aliue in Paradise without a law beeing created with the law of nature the Apostle saying that sinne by
as Bucer Hyper. for the Apostle speaketh of sinnes not of the law which sheweth the reward of sinne to be death 2. nor yet is the meaning it flie me per perpeirationem peccati by the committing of sinne Hugo inducendo ad opus in bringing sinne into act Lyran. for though one sinne may bring forth an other yet sinne is one thing death an other which is the stipend or wages of sinne 3. Osiander thus lepit eum adigere ad desperationem it begonne to driue him to despaire but the Apostle speaketh not of his particulate case but of the generall effect of sinne whereof he giueth instance in himselfe 4. therefore the meaning rather is concilionit vnibi mortem it procured death vnto me Pere ad mortem eternam tradit it deliuereth me ouer to eternall death Gorrhan addicit morti maketh one guiltie of death Fuius which must be vnderstood of the proper fruit and effect of sinne without the grace and mercie of God Quest. 21. How the law is said to be holy iust good and likewise the commandement 1. Concerning the first the commendation and titles of the law 1. Thomas and Caietane referre the holines of the law to the ceremoniall precepts the iustnes to the iudiciâs the goodnes to the morall 2. Lyranus it was holy in teaching our dutie to God iust in prescribing duties toward our neighbor good in respect of our selues teaching vs what is good and right 3. Haymo doth not distinguish these but saith the law is holy iust good because it commandeth holines equitie goodnes and intendeth to make the obseruers such so also Calvin Martyr with others 4. But Theodoret better distinguisheth them thus whom Oecomenius followeth the law is holy in respect of the matter because it prescribeth holy things iust in propounding rewards and punishments good in respect of the end to bring the obseruer vnto goodnes of life 5. Pareus distinguisheth them in like manner but he addeth further that all these titles are giuen vnto the law in the foresaid respects both with relation to the author who is most holy iust and good and to the doctrine it selfe of the law which is likewise holy iust and good and in regard of the effects of holines goodnes which is wrought in man before his fall and it shall bring forth in the state of glorie though now it faileth of the effect by reason of mans infirmitie 2. Whereas the Apostle speaketh both of the law and precept or commandement 1. Vatablus taketh them for the same herein following Origen but then the Apostle should seeme to commit a tautalogie 2. Oecumenius taketh the law for Moses law the precept for that which was giuen to Adam but this opinion is refused before 3. Theophylact will haue the commandement as generall the law as the particular because there are other commandements beside the law 4. so also Osiander Nazianzen as Faius reporteth him will haue the law so called in respect of vs because it containeth a rule of such things as are to be done and a commandement as it is prescribed of God 5. The most of our new writers do thus distinguish them the law quicquid ea pracipitur whatsoeuer is coÌmanded therein Martyr Calvin and before them Hugo Cardin. 6. But I preferre Beza his interpretation whom Pareus followeth who by the law vnderstandeth generally the whole decaloge by the commandement that particular precept wherein he gaue instance before namely that Thou shalt not lust yet Haymo will haue one commandement here taken for all 22. Quest. How sinne is said to be out of measure sinnefull 1. Methodius in Epiphanius whom Gorrhan followeth still continueth his interpretation vnderstanding here the Deuill that he is this sinne out of measure by his manifold temptations causing men to sinne but the Apostle speaketh properly of sinne which is discerned and knowne by the law and so is not the Deuill Pareus 2. Ambrose as he is alleadged by Pet. Mart. doth inferre vpon these words out of measure that there is a certaine measure and degree of sinne the which if a sinner once passe his punishment shall be no longer deferred as he sheweth by the iudgement of God vpon the Sodomites and Cananites but this is not the Apostles meaning here 3. Faius will haue this vnderstood not of sinne it selfe but of the sinner that he is become by transgressing the law in a manner sinne it selfe ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the sinner is made as it were sinne But the Apostle still speaketh of the fruits of sinne in the sinner and as Origen saith finxit personam peccati he signeth a certaine person of sinne 4. The meaning then is this that sinne by the commandement was more inflamed and encreased quia minus peccati est si quod non prohibetur admittas it is a lesse sinne to commit that which is not forbidden Origen and so Ambrose because sinne of knowledge is worse then sinne of ignorance because it sheweth contempt l. de Iob. c. 4. and hereby the multitude of sinnes is expressed invalescenie cupiditate ruimus in omnia concupiscence and lust encreasing we rush into all sinnes Martyr and so Augustine expoundeth it of the abounding of sinne lib. 1. quest ad Simplic qu. 1. the vehemencie and rage of sinne is hereby signified which as it were rising against the lawe sinneth so much the more like as an horse that is vnbroken the more he is curbed with the bridle the more he stingeth out Par. and as he which is sicke of a feuer is more inflamed by wine which is by reason of the infirmitie the wine is not properly the cause LyraÌ 5. But whereas Hierome epist. ad Algas thinketh that the Apostle committeth here solecisme because ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã sinner is of the masculine gender and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã sinne of the feminine Erasmus well obserueth that here is no solecisme at all for it is vsuall in the Aâoââe dialect to ioyne an adiectiue of the masculine with a substantine of the feminine as Beza obserueth the like Rom. 1.20 where ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is put for ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã eternall the other word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã power beeing of the feminine gender 6. But whereas the Apostle saith the law is iust it followeth not hereupon that we are iustified thereby for the Apostle else where saith Gal. 3.11 that no man is iustified by the law Gorrhan giueth this solution that the Apostle meaneth the ceremoniall law but euen the Apostle excludeth the morall law from beeing able to iustifie vs the best answer is that the Apostle sheweth what the law is in it selfe it was giuen to iustifie vs but that which was ordained vnto life is found to be vnto death as the Apostle said before v. 10. by reason of the iufirmitie of man and the corruption of his nature And againe whereas the Apostle saith here the lawe is good and yet the Lord by his Prophet saith Ezech. 20.25 I gaue them
statutes that were not good Gorrhan here answereth that they were good in themselues but became euill ipsorum vitio by their fault Iunius vnderstandeth that place of the hard iudiciall laws and sentences of death both ordinarie and extraordinarie But rather it is referred to the ceremoniall laws which were as a yoke and burthen laid vpon the people which they were not able to beare as S. Peter expoundeth Act. 15.10 Quest. 23. How the lawe is said to be spirituall 1. Origen thinketh it is called spirituall because it must be vnderstood not literally but spiritually But the Apostle treateth here of the morall lawe where was no place for allegories 2. Theodoret because it was giuen of God who is a spirit 3. Ambrose because the lawe directed vs to the worship of God who is a most pure spirit 4. Augustine because it cannot be fulfilled nisi à viris spiritualibus but of spirituall men but no man in this life is so spirituall that he can keep the law 5. Thomas because concordat cum spiritu hominis it agreeth with the spirit of man that is reason so also Lyranus because it directeth man to followe the instinct of the spirit or reason so also Gorrhan spiritum hominis aleus it nourisheth the spirit of man But the verie spirit of man is corrupt and contrarie to the law by nature and therefore the Apostle saith Ephes. 4.23 be renewed in the spirit of your mind 6. Pet. Martyr giueth this reason why it is called spirituall because it requireth not onely the externall obedience in the outward workes but the spirituall in the heart and affections 7. But hereunto it may be added that it is spirituall because it requireth a spirituall that is a perfect obedience both in bodie and soule and an angelicall and diuine obedience to followe vertue and shunne vice so Chrysostome and Theophylact and Calvin Pareus Osiand following them 8. that seemeth to be somewhat curious which the ordinar gloss here obserueth that the Lawe is onely called spirituall because therein are those things quae Dit sunt which are Gods but the Gospel is called lex spiritus the lawe of the spirit because there Deus ipse est God himselfe is Quest. 24. How the Apostle saith he is carnall and sold vnder sinne v. 17. 1. Pererius well obserueth here that one may be said to be carnall two waies quia serââ carni because he serueth the flesh or he which by reason of his corrupt nature procliuis est is prone vnto concupiscence to this purpose Pareus that in the first sense the vnregenerate are said to be carnall in the other the regenerate because they are yet infirmitatibus abnoxque subiect to infirmities quia nondums habent spirituale corpus because they haue not yet a spirituall bodie freed from all infirmities such as they shall haue in the resurrection August lib. ad Bonifac. c. 10. so we haue inchoatam non plenam liberationem a deliuerance begunne in Christ but not yet perfect till our last enemie death shall be destroied 2. Likewise where the Apostle saith he was sold 1. Some take the word properly for such a selling wherein there is a buyer a thing sold and a price which they referre either vnto Adams selling himselfe to the deuill for an apple Lyran. gloss ordinar or to a mans selling of himselfe by his actuall sinnes for the sweetnesse of pleasure which is as the price which men sell themselues to the deuill for Tolet. annot 16. Gorrhan But in this sense S. Paul beeing a spirituall and regenerate man cannot be said to be sold. 2. wherefore this metaphor is not largely to be taken as when Ahab is said to haue sold himselfe to worke wickednes 1. King 21.25 for there are two kinds of slaues one that selleth himselfe into captiuitie and willingly obeyeth a tyrant or one which against his will is brought into servitude as Ioseph was sold by his brethren into captiuitie and this is S. Pauls case here Pareus And Augustine noteth that sometime selling in Scripture is taken for a simple tradition or deliuering ouer without any price lib. 7. in Iudic. c. 17. and so indeed the Hebrew word machar signifieth as well to deliuer as to sell as Isay 52.3 the Israelites are said to be sold for naught and the Lord will redeeme them for naught But these two are said in a diuerse sense Men are said to be sold for naught in respect of God he receiueth no honour but rather dishonour by their selling ouer vnto sinne they are redeemed for naught in Christ in respect of themselues because they gaue nothing for their redemption but yet in respect of Christ and his price they were not redeemed for naught but by the most pretious blood of Christ Mart. Pererius thinketh they are said to be redeemed for naught comparatively because that momentarie pleasure for the which a sinner selleth himselfe is nothing to the price and dignitie of his soule numer 72. but rather selling is here taken for a plaine deliuering ouer as is before shewed out of Augustine Now two waies are the regenerate sold ouer to sinne in respect of their originall corruption and of their carnall infirmities which remaine still in their corrupt nature to the which they are subiect still Pareus but the vnregenerate are said to be sold ouer as Ahab was because they giue themselues wholly ouer vnto sinne Beza doth well expresse these two kinds of seruitude or selling ouer by the like difference in humane servitude for some are slaves because they are borne of serâile and bond parents others make themselues bond like vnto the first are the regenerate and the vnregenerate as the second Quest. 25. Of these words v. 15. I allow not what I doe what I would that doe I not 1. Chrysostome thinking that the Apostle speaketh this in the person of an vnregenerate man referreth this word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I know not or vnderstand nor to the vnderstanding not that a sinner knoweth not when he sinneth sed tenebrosa quadaÌ vertigine obvoluor but I am ouertaken with a kind of dizines that I know not how I was ouertaken so also Origen non rem ipsam sed causam rei dicitur ignorare he is said not to know not the thing but the cause thereof that is how and by what means he came to sinne But it is euident by the words following what I would c. that the Apostle speaketh of his will rather then vnderstanding 2. Pererius likewise inclining to thinke that this is spoken in the person of a carnall man will haue this vnderstood of a generall and vniversall knowledge will and hatred that men in generall knowe and will vertue and hate vice but not in particular But the Apostle here speaketh of doing and not doing which must be referred to particular actions 3. Augustine verie well interpreteth non agnosco I know not that is non approbo non consentio I approoue not consent not
in Oecumen 2. or I finde by the lawe that when I would doe good euill is present Vatab. Genevens Calvin but here the preposition per by is inserted which is not in the originall 3. Erasmus to the same purpose I finde the lawe this to worke in me that I vnderstand when I would doe well that evill is present c. but here many words are added not in the originall Of them that vnderstand the lawe of the members 1. Beza thus interpreteth I finde legem impositam this lawe to be imposed vpon me by reason of the corruption of my nature so also Mart. that when I would doe good euill is present 2. some directly vnderstand legem carnis the lawe of the flesh the concupiscence which hindreth him beeing willing to doe good so Tolet Osiand and these two last expositions are most agreeable to the text because it is added as a reason because euill is present with me in which words he sheweth what lawe he meaneth that which is opposite vnto him which is further explained in the verses following Quest. 29. How the Apostle saith v. 21. euill is present with me 1. Ambrose hath here a curious observation euill is said to be present adiacere to be readie at hand because it lutketh in the flesh as at the doore that when one is inclined and willing to do good sinne is at hand to hinder And he giueth this reason why sinne hath the habitation in the flesh rather then in the soule because the flesh onely is deriued ex traduce by propagation and not the soule which if it were propagated as well as the flesh sinne rather should haue the feare in the soule because it sinneth rather then the flesh which is but the organe or instrument of sinne likewise expoundeth Tolet adiacet mihi it is naturally resiant in my flesh as he said before that to will is present with me that is naturally in his minde annot 21. 2. But 1. Ambrose reason concludeth not for though the flesh haue the beginning by propagation and not the soule and so the first pollution is by the flesh yet sinne disperseth it selfe into the whole nature of man both soule and bodie as the Apostle sheweth Coloss. 2.18 that there is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a mind of flesh or fleshly minde 2. neither naturally is the mind willing or apt vnto that which is good for why then should the Apostle exhort to be renewed in the spirit of the minde Ephes. 4.23 the aptnesse and inclination of the mind vnto good is by grace the meaning then of this phrase is nothing else but to shewe the readinesse and strength of our naturall concupiscence which lyeth in waite and is at hand to hinder euerie good worke and to stirre vs vp vnto euill Quest. 30. Of these words I delight in the law of God c. v. 22 23. of the number of these lawes and what they are 1. Concerning the number 1. some referre these laws vnto two the law of God and the law of the minde they make one and the same the law of the members and the law of sinne also they thinke to be one Pareus Martyr Tolet. annot 22. 2. Photius in Oecumenius maketh three lawes he distinguisheth the law of God and the law of the minde the law of the members and the law of sinne he confoundeth 3. But Hierom. epist. ad Hedib qu. 8. and Ambr. in Luc. 17. doe recite fowre lawes as they are here named by the Apostle the law of God the law of the minde the law of the members and the law of sinne so also Calvin Hyper. and the Apostle indeede setteth downe so many 2. The like difference is what these lawes should be 1. Oecumenius thus describeth these lawes two are without vs the law of God the knowledge whereof we haue by the preaching of the Gospel and the law of the members which commeth by the suggestion of Satan ministring euill cogitations two of them are within vs the law of the minde that is the law of nature which is imprinted in the minde and the law of sinne which is the euill custome of sinning 2. Pererius will haue the law of God to be the written law and the law of the mind the naturall law the law of the members the naturall concupiscence and inclination vnto the seuerall proper obiects of the desire the law of sinne is deordinatio earundem virium the disordering of the naturall faculties and abusing of them vnto euill But all these faile herein 1. the law of the minde is not naturall for naturally the minde is not apt vnto that which is good without the worke of grace 2. and the law of the members is internall and within vs. 3. neither is this the naturall facultie of desiring which is not euill but the disordered pravitie of nature 3. Pet. Mertyr as he maketh the law of God and the law of the minde to be the same yet in a diuers respect for it is called the law of God in respect of the author and of the minde in regard of the subiect so in his iudgement the same is called the law of sinne because concupiscence in it selfe is sinne as the efficient and the law of the members because they are as the instruments 4. But I rather consent vnto M. Calvin who vnderstandeth the law of God to be the morall law the rule of equitie and the law of the minde to be the obedience and conformitie which the mind regenerate hath with the law of God and by the law of the members the concupiscence which is in the members consenting to the law of sinne 5. And further the law of the members and the law of sinne are not severed in subiect they are both in the members but thus they differ Some thinke the law of the members to be the corruption and pravitie of our nature called before the bodie of sinne c. 6.6 and the law of sinne the euill concupiscence springing from thence so Vatablus the law of the members is vis in carne the strength of the flesh resisting the law of the minde and the law of sinne is affectus carnis the carnall affections so Haymo interpreteth the law of the members onus pondus mortalitatis the burthen of mortalitie and the law of sinne to be euill concupiscence custome and delight in sinne so Lyranus vnderstandeth by the law of the members fomitem peccati vel inclinationem pravam the food and matter of sinne or the corrupt inclination and the law of sinne consuetudinem pravam the euill custome of sinning 6. But I rather with Beza by the law of sinne vnderstand the corruption of nature by the law of the members the euill concupiscence springing from thence for otherwise the opposition betweene the law of God and the minde on the one side and the law of the members and of sinne on the other will not be correspondent and answerable together for the law of the members must be
set against the law of the minde and the law of sinne against the law of God like as then the regenerate minde is conformable to the law of God so the vnregenerate members are captived to the law of sinne in the members which is the corruption of nature euen originall sinne 31. Quest. Why these are called lawes and why they are said the one to be in the inner man the other in the members 1. For the first 1. Chrysostome giueth this reason it is called the law of sinne propter vehementem exactam obedientiam because of the exact and forced obedience which is giuen vnto it for the laws of tyrants are so called abusive though not properly Calvin lex quia dominatur it is a law because it ruleth gloss 2. Lyranus a law is called à ligando of binding ducit membra ligata ad mala it leadeth the members and holdeth or tieth them to that which is euill they can doe no other 3. Pererius sicut lex dirigit c. as the law directeth to that which is good so the lawe of sinne to that which is euill 4. legitime factum est it commeth iustly to passe that illi non serviat suum inferius t. caro that mans inferiour that is his flesh should not serue him seeing he serued not his superiour namely God gloss ordinar Anselmus so it is called a lawe as in iustice imposed of God vpon man for his disobedience 2. For the second the one is called the lawe of the minde and inner man the other the lawe of the members and outward man 1. not that the minde and reason onely wherein the naturall lawe is written is the inner man and the sensitive part is the flesh as Lyranus Gorrhan with others which opinion is confuted before quest 26. for euen the minde is corrupt and so carnall in the vnregenerate as the Apostle speaketh of some which were ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã corrupt in their minde 2. Timoth. 3.8 2. But the regenerate part is called the inner man and the vnregenerate both in soule and bodie the outward 1. because intus potissimum regnat it raigneth chiefely within and is discerned chiefely and knowne in the mind Mart. 2. quia in cordis conuersione c. because it consisteth in the heart nec patet hominum oculis and is not open and apparent vnto the sight of men Pareus in which sense it is called the hid man of the heart 1. Pet. 3.4 3. and because non externa vel mââdana quaerit it seeketh not things externall belonging to the world whereas appetitus carnis vagi sunt extra hominem the fleshly appetite is wandring and as it were without a man Calvin and as Caietane carnalibus officijs immersae sunt the faculties of the outward man are drenched as it were and wholly spent in carnall offices 4. and the regenerate part is called by the name of the inner man and the minde per excellenciam because of the excellencie for as the minde is more excellent then the bodie so is the spirit then the flesh Calvin Quest. 32. Of the Apostles exclamation O wretched man that I am 1. The word which the Apostle here vseth ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã signifieth one that is perpetus pugnis fatigatus wearied with continuall combates Beza like as a champion which striuing along time is like at last to be ouercome of his aduersaries vnlesse he be helped the vulgar latine readeth O vnhappie man but that is not so fit 2. neither doth the Apostle thus crie out either as a man in despaire or doubting by whom he should be deliuered but he sheweth his great desire vox est anhelantis it is the voice of one breathing and panting desiring to be deliuered from this seruitude Calvin 3. and by this exclamation certaminis gravitatem ostendit he sheweth the greatnes of this combate out of the which he was not able to wrestle by his owne strength and if Paul were not able who is it is then a patheticall speach like vnto that Psal. 86. Who will giue me the wings as it were of a done Faius 4. And in this crying out the Apostle sheweth the state of all men in this life into what miserie they are brought by their sinne and likewise his desire longing to be deliuered therfrom Pareus Quest. 33. What the Apostle vnderstandeth by this bodie of death from the which he desireth to be deliuered 1. Ambrose by the bodie of death vnderstandeth vniuersitatem vitiorum a general collection of sinnes which he called before the bodie of sinne but there was not in the Apostle such a gathering together and confluence of all sinne 2. Pererius chargeth Calvin to agree with Ambrose who vnderstandeth by the bodie of death massam vel congeriem peccati ex qua homo constatus the masse and heape of sinne whereof man consisteth and thereupon he crieth out ô hominem impurum atque impium O wicked and filthie man that is not ashamed so to charge the Apostle c. Whereas Calvin onely saith that there were in the Apostle reliquiae peccati some reliques of sinne of that masse of sinne and corruption which is in man Calvin then and Melancthon do thus vnderstand the Apostle naturam hanc carnalem immersam esse peccato that this carnall nature is wholly drowned and drenched in sinne so also Martyr vitiatam corruptam naturam intelligit he vnderstandeth our corrupt nature but the Apostle speaketh of death here not of sinne 3. neither is the bodie of death taken here properly for sinne as Faius thinketh it was called before the bodie of sinne c. 6. and it is considered tanquam moles onus incumbens as a masse or burthen lying vpon vs so also Roloch it is taken for sinne in this place which is in the bodie and in the whole man likewise Piscator mortem intelligit peccatum inhabitans by death he vnderstandeth the sinne that dwelleth in vs and so before them Vatablus à concupiscentia c. he wisheth to be deliuered from concupiscence which did make him guiltie of eternall death and before him Photius in Oecumenius applyeth it to the corporall and sinnefull actions which bring the death of the soule But in their meaning the Apostle should say in effect who shall deliuer me from this sinnefull bodie what could an vnregenerate man haue said more 4. neither yet doe I approoue of their opinion which referre it onely to the mortalitie of the bodie as Theophylact morti subiecti subiect to death Lyranus quia sancti resurgent c. because the Saints shall rise in an immortall bodie and Pererius à corpore mortis huius from the bodie of this death that is subiect to mortalitie and corruption for the Apostle hath respect thus crying out vnto the conflict between the flesh and the spirit from which he desireth to be deliuered 5. Cassianus by the bodie of death would haue vnderstood the terrene busines and necessitie quae spirituales
homines à coelestium meditatione retrahit which draweth spirituall men from the meditation of heauenly things but the Apostle spake before of the combate betweene the flesh and the spirit and they are not all carnall which are occupied in the necessarie affaires of this life 6. Tolet ioyning the pronoune this vnto death not vnto the bodie reading thus from the bodie of this death will haue reference to be made vnto the tyrannie of the lawe of concupiscence whereof he spake before but the pronoune is better ioyned to bodie as the Syrian interpreter Erasmus and Beza well obserue for of his flesh and members he spake before but of death he made no mention This demonstrative then this is better referred to bodie 7. Wherefore the Apostle calling his present state out of the which he desireth to be deliuered this bodie of death ioyneth both mortalitie and sinne together he meaneth his mortall bodie subiect to sinne as Hierome expoundeth quod morti perturbationibus est oppositum which is opposed to death and perturbations apolog advers Ruffin and so Beza the Apostle by the bodie designeth carneam corporis molem the fleshie masse of the bodie which is nothing else but mussa mortis peccati a lumpe of death and sinne so Origen it is called the bodie of death in quo habitat peccatum quod est mortis causa wherein sinne dwelleth which is the cause of death 8. And this deliuerance which the Apostle longeth for is not the spirituall deliuerance in this life from the captiuitie of sinne as Tolet but the finall deliuerance from the bondage of mortalitie and corruption which we looke for in the resurrection as Augustine expoundeth lib. 1. cont epist. Pelag. c. 11. and so the Apostles meaning is non finiri hoc confluctus c. that these conflicts cannot be ended as long as we carrie this mortall bodie about with vs Pareus And here we may consider a threefold state of mans bodie the one in Paradise cum non potuit mori when it was in mans power if he had not sinned not to die at all vnder the state and condition of sinne where non potest non mori he cannot but die a necessitie of death is laid vpon all Adams posteritie vnder the state of glorie non possumus mori we cannot die we shall be exempted from the condition of all mortalitie Pererius Quest. 25. Why the Apostle giueth thanks to God ver 25. 1. There is some difference in the reading of these words the Latine interpreter thus readeth the grace of God thorough Iesus Christ so also Origen before who maketh it an answear to the former words of the Apostle who shall deliuer ãâã likewise Augustine followeth this reading serm 45. de tempor but all the Greek copies haue ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I giue thankes and the Apostle did not aske the question before who should deliuer him but suspirat potââs be sigheth and sheweth his desire to be deliuered Beza 2. For the meaning of the words 1. some thinke that the Apostle giueth thanks for his redemption in Christ Mart. that he is deliuered à reatu peccati from the guilt of sinne originall and actuall Roloch and that his sinnes are not imputed Osiander and before them Oecumenius quod me liberavit per mortem filij that he hath deliuered me by the death of his Sonne But this deliverance the Apostle had alreadie obtained he speaketh in the future sense who shall deliuer me 2. Theophylact referreth it to the former benefit quod viriliter adversatur peccato that he did manfully resist sinne which strength he had not either by the law of nature or by the law of Moses but by grace in Christ So also Pareus thinketh the Apostle doth giue thankes that he doth not succumbere in certamine sed vincere giue ouer in this combate but at the length ouercommeth But the Apostle wisheth yet a further deliuerance which as yet he had not because he speaketh of the time not to come who shall deliuer me and yet he giueth thankes for it as enioying the fame in hope 3. Tolet and Pererius thinke that the Apostle giueth thankes that he was deliuered from concupiscence quod non mentem trahit in consensum that it did not draw his mind to consent and so he was deliuered from it as it was malum culpae as there was sinne or fault in it that is to consent vnto it but not as it was malum poenae a punishment that is concupiscere to couet or desire simply without assent so also Lyranus But if the Apostle did not sometime thorough his infirmitie giue consent vnto his concupiscence how could he say it did lead him captiue vnto the law of sinne more it is prooued at large afterward that the commandement thou shalt not lust whereof the Apostle confesseth himselfe a transgressor v. 7.18 doth not onely restraine the first motions of concupiscence which haue not the consent of the will but the second also which haue controv 8.4 Vatablus will haue this thanksgiuing to be referred to the deliuerance which the Apostle expected in the life to come 5. But it is better to ioyne them together as Augustine doth serm 45. de tempor the grace of God nunc perfecte innovat hominem c. doth now perfectly renew a man by deliuering him from all his sinnes ad corporis immortalitatem perducit and bringeth him also to the immortalitie of the bodie Lyranus likewise comprehendeth both these deliuerances that both the regenerate are here deliuered from their sinnes and in the next life shall be freed from all corruption as the Apostle saith Philip. 3.21 Who shall change our vile bodie that it may be fashioned like vnto his glorious bodie so Chrysostome saith the Apostle giueth thanks quod non solum principibus malis liberamur sed eoruÌ quae futura sunt capaces facti sumus that we are not onely deliuered from the former euills namely our sinnes but are made capable of the good things to come thus also Pellican the Saints reioyce se primitijs spiritus donatos c. that they are endued with the first fruits of the spirit which giue them certaine hope of the inheritance to come and Beza the Apostle sheweth that he resteth in that hope quam habet in Christo fundatam which he hath grounded on Christ. 35. Quest. Of these words I in my minde serue the law of God c. 1. By the mind the Apostle vnderstandeth the inner man reformed by grace by the flesh the part vnregenerate so that in this speach of the Apostle a double figure is to be admitted first a metonymie in that the subiect is taken for the adiunct the minde for the sanctitie and holines wrought in the minde by grace as Vatablus well interpreteth secundum spiritum meum doctum à spiritu sancto in my spirit taught by the holy spirit and the flesh for the carnall sensualitie whereby it is lead there is also a
synecdoche the principall part beeing taken for the whole the minde regenerate for all the regenerate part both in the minde and bodie because it chiefly sheweth it selfe there and the flesh for that part which is vnregenerate in the whole man both in the minde and bodie because it is chiefly exercised and executed by the bodie see before Quest. 26. 2. We are not to vnderstand here two distinct and seuerall parts the one working without the other as the Romanists which will haue the inner man to be the minde and the sensuall part the flesh for in this sense neither doth the minde alwaies serue God wherein there is ignorance infidelitie error nor yet doth the sensuall part alwaies serue sinne for many vertuous acts are exercised thereby see this opinion before confuted Quest. 31. But these two parts must be vnderstood as working together the flesh hindreth the spirit and blemisheth our best actions Faius 3. And whereas the Apostle saith that in my flesh I serue the law of sinne we must not imagine that the Apostle was giuen ouer vnto grosse carnall works as to commit murther adulterie but he sheweth the infirmitie of his flesh and specially he meaneth his naturall concupiscence and corruption of nature in the which he gaue instance before against the which pugnabat luctabatur he did striue and fight Martyr 4. Neither yet must we thinke that the Apostle seruing the spirit one way and the flesh an other was as a mutable or inconstant man or indifferent like as Ephraim is compared to a cake but turned and baked on the one side Hos. 7.8 or as they which Revel 3. are said to be luke warme neither hoat nor cold for these of a set purpose were such and willingly did dissemble but the Apostle setteth forth himselfe as a man neither perfectly sound nor yet sicke but in a state betweene both that although he laboured to attaine to perfection yet he was hindred by the infirmitie of his flesh like as an Israelite dwelling among the Iebusits Faius 5. And whereas the Apostle said before v. 15. it is not I that doe it but sinne that dwelleth in mee and yet here he saith I my selfe c. in my selfe serue the law of sinne the Apostle is not contrarie to himselfe for he speaketh here of his person that doth both there of of the cause Tolet. annot 25. and so he sheweth secundum repugnantia principia se repugnantia habere studia that according vnto the contrarie beginnings or causes he hath contrarie desires Pareus 36. Quest. Of that famous question whether S. Paul doe speake in his owne person or of an other here in this 7. chapter There are of this matter diuers opinions which yet may be sorted into these three orders 1. Some thinke that the Apostle speaketh in the person of a man not yet in the state of grace 2. Some of a man regenerate from v. 14. to the ende 3. Some that the Apostle indifferently assumeth the person of all mankind whether they be regenerate or not And in euery of these opinions there is great diuersitie 1. They which are of the first opinion 1. Some thinke that the Apostle speaketh in the person of a naturall man and sheweth what strength a mans free will hath by nature without grace so Iulianus the Pelagian with other of that sect whose epistles Augustine confuteth so Lyranus he speaketh in the person generis humani lapsi of humane kind after their fall 2. Some will haue the person of a man described sub lege ante legem degentis not liuing onely before the law but vnder it hauing some knowledge of sinne so Chrysostome Theophylact whome Tolet followeth annot 4. 3. Some thinke that the Apostle describeth a man not altogether vnder the law nor yet wholly vnder grace but of a man beginning to be conuerted quasi voluntate proposito ad meliora conversi as converted in minde and desire vnto better things Origen so also Basil. ãâã âegal breviar and Haymo saith the Apostle speaketh ex persona hominis poenitentiam agentis in the person of a man penitent c. 2. They of the second sort doe thus differ 1. Augustine confesseth that sometime he was of opinion that the Apostle speaketh in the person of a carnall and vnregenerate man but afterward he changed his minde vpon better reasons thinking the Apostle to speake of a spirituall man in the state of grace lib. 1. Retract c. 23. lib. 6. cont Iulian. c. 11. but Augustine reteining this sense thinketh that the Apostle saying v. 15. I allow not that thing which I doe speaketh of the first motions onely of concupiscence quando illis non consenttatur when no consent is giuen vnto them lib. 3. cont Iulian. c. 26. which concupiscence the most perfect man in this life can not be void of so also Gregorie vnderstandeth simplices motus ceruis contra voluntatem the simple motions of the flesh against the will and hereunto agreeth Bellarm. lib. 5. de amission grat c. 10. Rhemist sect 6. vpon this chapter 2. Cassianus collat 23. c. 15. vnderstandeth a man regenerate but then by the inner man he would haue signified the contemplation of celestiall things by the flesh curam rerum temporalium the care of earthly things 3. Some thinke that the Apostle so describeth a regenerate man as yet that he may sometime become in a manner carnall we see in this example euen of Paul regenerate etiam regeneratum nonnunquam mancipium fieri peccati that a regenerate man may sometime become the slaue of sinne Rolloch 4. But the founder opinion is that the Apostle in his owne person speaketh of a regenerate man euen when he is at the best that he is troubled and exercised with sinnefull motions which the perfectest can not be ridde of till he be deliuered from his corruptible flesh of this opinion was Hilarie habemus nunc nobis admistam materiam quae mortis legi peccato obnoxia est c. we haue now mixed within vs a certaine matter which is subiect to the law of death and sinne c. and vntill our bodie be glorified non potest in nobis verae vita esse natura there can not be in vs the nature and condition of true life Hilar. in Psal. 118. Of the same opinion are all our foundest new writers Melancthon Martyr Calvin Beza Hyperius Pareus Faius with others 3. Of the third sort 1. some are indifferent whether we vnderstand the person of the regenerate or vnregenerate gloss ordinar and so Gorrhan sheweth how all this which the Apostle hath from v. 18. to the end may in one sense be vnderstood of the regenerate in an other of the vnregenerate 2. Some thinke that some things may be applied vnto the regenerate as I am carnall sold vnder sinne but some things onely can be applied to the regenerate as these words I delight in the law of God c. Perer. disput 21. num 38. and yet he
rather inclineth to thinke that the Apostle taketh vpon him the person of a man regenerate And Origen seemeth to haue beene of this minde that sometime the Apostle speaketh in his owne person as I thanke God through Iesus Christ and sometime in the person of a weake man and young beginner as in the rest 3. Some take all this discourse of the Apostle neither to touch the regenerate or vnregenerate in the particular but the nature of mankind in generall as Hierome noteth that the Apostle saide not O wretched sinner but O wretched man vt totam complecteretur naturam omnium hominum non tantum peccatorum c. that he might comprehend the nature of all men and not onely of sinners lib. 2. cont Pelag. so also Erasmus humani generis in se personam recipit c. he taketh vpon him the person of mankind wherein is both the Gentile without the law the carnall Iew vnder the law and the spirituall man made free by grace Annot. in hunc locum Now of all these opinions which are tenne in all we embrace the fourth of the second fort and this diuersitie of opinion may be reduced to this point whether the Apostle speake in his owne person of a man regenerate or in an assumed person of a man vnregenerate the other particular differences haue beene dispersedly touched before Now then the arguments shall be produced with their answers which are vrged on both sides and first for the negative that the Apostle giueth not instance here of a man regenerate and spirituall but carnall and vnregenerate Argum. 1. Origen vrgeth these reasons first the righteous man is not said to be carnall 2. Cor. 10.3 We doe not marrie after the flesh But the Apostle here saith v. 14. I am carnall 2. Of the righteous the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 6.20 ye are bought for a price but here the Apostle saith v. 14. I am sold vnder sinne 3. Of the righteous it is said c. 8.9 the spirit of God dwelleth in you but here the Apostle confesseth that no good thing dwelleth in him 4. Origen also presseth these words v. â8 in my flesh I serue the lawe of sinne if the Apostle should speake thus of himselfe desparationem mihi videtur incutere it were able to strike despaire vnto vs that there is no man who doth not serue sinne in the flesh 5. The regenerate such as Paul was doe not onely will that which is good but performe it also but this man cannot doe that he would of whom the Apostle speaketh ver 15. Tolet. 6. The righteous and iust man cannot be said to be captiued vnto sinne as the Apostle saith of that man whose person he beareth v. 23. Cassianus collat 22. in fine 7. The Apostle speaking of himselfe and of others which are regenerate said before v. 5.6 When we were in the flesh c. the motions of sinnes c. had force in our members c. but now we are deliuered from the law c. But here the Apostle speaketh of a man that is captiued vnto the motions of the flesh so that the Apostle if he should speake here of a regenerate man would contradict himselfe 8. The scope of the Apostle is to shewe the invaliditie of the lawe that it cannot take away sinne but sinne rather is encreased thereby by reason of the weakenes of mans nature it is therefore more agreeable to the Apostles intent to giue instance of a carnall man in whom sinne yet raigneth then of a regenerate man that by grace is brought to yeeld obedience to the law Tolet. c. 10. in tractat 9. Hierome and before him Origen thus shewe that the Apostle here assumeth the person of an other like as Daniel beeing a iust man yet prayeth in the person of sinners saying c. 9. we haue sinned we haue done wickedly Hierome epist. 151. ad Algasiam The former arguments answeared 1. The regenerate simply are not called carnall but secundum quid after a sort they are carnall in respect of the vnregenerate part as the Apostle speaking to the Corinthians that were beleeuers and iustified sanctified 1. Cor. 6.11 yet calleth them carnall in regard of the sects and diuisions among them 1. Cor. 3.1 And one is said to be carnall two wayes either he which is altogether obedient to the flesh and fleshly lusts or he that doth not yeeld himselfe vnto them but striueth against them and yet against his will feeleth the violent motions thereof so the Apostle confesseth that though he warre not after the flesh yeâ he walketh after the flesh 2. Cor. 10.3 2. The righteous is bought for a price and redeemed from his sinnes and yet in respect of his vnregenerate part the corruption of nature and reliques of sinne remaining he is said to be sold vnder sinne not simply as the vnregenerate is giuen ouer wholly but in part only 3. In the faithfull as they are regenerate the spirit of God dwelleth but in their vnregenerate part sinne inhabiteth there is no inconuenience to graunt that two diuerse inhabitants may dwell in one and the same house in two diuerse parts for the Apostle speaking of the regenerate saith Galat. 5.17 The spirit lusteth against the flesh and the flesh against the spirit and these are contrarie one to the other they which feele not this fight and combate are either Angelicall as the Saints in heauen or they haue not yet receiued the spirit at all as they which are carnall 4. There are two kinds of seruices to sinne the one is a willing seruice such as is in the vnregenerate the other vnwilling and in a manner forced as in the regenerate 5. The vnregenerate haue no will at all to doe good for the wisedome of the flesh is not subiect to the Lawe of God neither can be Rom. 8.7 the regenerate receiue grace to will and sometime to performe though not as they would they are therefore regenerate though not perfectly as none are in this life 6. There are two kinds of captiuitie the one when one is wholly captiued vnder the bondage of his owne voluntarie sinne the other is a forced captiuitie vnder the bondage of originall sinne this is in the righteous not the other 7. The Apostle is not contrarie to himselfe for it is one thing to obey the lusts of the flesh as the vnregenerate and carnall an other to feele the motions of the flesh and to striue against them as in the regenerate 8. The Apostles intent and meaning is to shewe that the law in it selfe is good and iust and that it commeth by reason of mans owne infirmitie that it is otherwise to him and thereupon the Apostle to set forth the perfection of the lawe giueth instance in the regenerate that they are not able to keepe the law much lesse the vnregenerate so that it is more agreeable to the scope and purpose of the Apostle to speake of a man regenerate then of one vnregenerate 9. Euen Daniel though
Whether S. Paul was troubled with the tentations of the flesh and with what 1. S. Paul was before his calling tempted and carried away with diuerse lusts as he confesseth Tit. 3.3 then giuing consent vnto them following theÌ with delight after his calling he felt also the pricking and stirring of his flesh but it had not dominion ouer him as before as here the Apostle sheweth how he did finde the lawe of his members rebelling against the law of his minde and spirit and these temptations of the flesh the Lord suffered the Apostle to be troubled with least he should be extolled by reason of his other excellent gifts as he himselfe sheweth 2. Cor. 12.7 whereupon Gregory well saith custos virtutis infirmitas infirmitie is the gardian and keeper of vertue ad ima pertrahit caro ne extollat spiritus ad alta sustollit spiritus ne prosternat caro the flesh draweth vs downe that the spirit lift vs not vp and the spirit doth reare vs vp that the flesh should not altogether cast vs downe lib. 19. Moral c. 4. 2. But whereas the Apostle saith There was giuen vnto me the pricke of the flesh c. 2. Cor. 12.7 1. neither thereby is signified the afflictions and griefes which the persecutors put his bodie vnto as Chrysost. Theodoret. 2. or the paine of the head gloss ordinar or the cholike as Lyranus or some other such bodily infirmitie which would haue much hindered the Apostle in his ministerie 3. nor yet much lesse was this pricke the lust of his flesh as Hierome thinketh epist. 22. and Haymo so also Pererius disput 23. for it is not like that Pauls bodie beeing tamed and kept vnder with fastings watchings labour had any such fleshy desire 4. But hereby is better to vnderstand omne tentationum genus c. euery kind of carnall temptation wherewith S. Paul was exercised Calvin Beza 4. Places of Doctrine Doct. 1. All things fall out to the wicked for their hurt v. 8. Sinne tooke occasion by the commandement Pet. Mart. hereupon well observeth that all things to the vnregenerate fall out vnto euill for if the lawe doe giue advantage to sinne which is holy iust and good of it selfe how much are other things turned to their hurt as all things to them that loue God fall out to their good Rom. 8.28 Doct. 2. Of the necessarie vse of the lawe v. 8. Without the lawe sinne is dead That is it lyeth hid and is vnknowne hence both Pareus and Piscator note concionem legis in Ecclesia necessariam that the preaching of the lawe is necessarie in the Church that sinne may be knowne and come to light and thus the lawe by reuealing our sinne is a schoolmaster to lead vs to Christ Galat. 3.19 to finde righteousnesse in him which we haue not in our selues Doct. 3. Of the effects of the lawe v. 9. When the commandement came sinne reuived There are 3. effects of the lawe here expressed by the Apostle two it bringeth forth of it selfe the manifestation of sinne and thereupon the sentence of death the third it worketh not of it selfe but accidentally namely the encrease of sinne through the perversnes of mans nature which striueth against that which is forbidden Par. Doct. 4. Of a fiuefold state of man v. 23. I see an other law in my members c. 1. In Paradise man had naturall concupiscence but without disorder or rebellion against the mind 2. before the law concupiscence rebelled against reason and without resistance 3. vnder the law men resisted concupiscence but could not vanquish it 4. vnder grace they striue against it and preuaile 5. in heauen these shall be no concupiscence at all Perer. disput 17. Doct. 5. How death is to be desired v. 24. Who shall deliuer me S. Paul desireth to be dissolued to make an ende of sinne and thus death may be wished for as the onely remedie of our miserie the wicked doe oftentimes desire death but it is rather vitae fastidio quam impietatis taedio for that they are wearie of their life not of sinne Calvin 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. Against Purgatorie v. 1. The Law hath dominion ouer a man as long as he liueth This sheweth the presumption of the Pope who taketh vpon him to prescribe lawes and rules vnto those which are dead and their soules as they imagine in purgatorie for no lawe imposed vpon the liuing doth bind them when they are dead and concerning the authoritie of man it determineth in this life Matth. 10.28 Feare not them which kill the bodie and are not able to kill the soule the Pope then is no more able to free and absolue the soule after death then he is to kill and condemne it Controv. 2. Of the lawfulnes of second marriage v. 2. If the man be dead she is deliuered from the law of the man Hence the lawfulnes of second marriage is prooued for if the woman be free when the man is dead and so likewise the man then is it lawfull for them to marrie againe for now they are as though they neuer had beene bound Hierome then herein was deceiued who seemeth to speake hardly of second marriages though in words he will not condemne them for he saith that a woman marrying after the first marriage doth not differ much from an harlot lib. 1. cont Iovinian and they which are twice maried he compareth to the vncleane beasts in Noahs arke But Hierome is to be pardoned this ouersight who too much extolling virginitie which he confesseth he had lost himselfe ad Eduoch was caried away in heate and passion so to ââiâe of second marriages 2. The Romanists though they dare not condemne second marriages simply yet in that they denied such to be admitted to orders as haue beene twice married they shew what base conceit they haue thereof Pererius to helpe this matter saith that S. Paul would a Bishop to be the husband of one wife not because he condemned second marriages sed quod ââ maximè ducebat dignitatem sacramentum Episcopi c. but because it best become the dignitie and sacrament Episcopall to be the husband of one wife as Christ is the spouse of one Church c. disput 1. num 2. Contra. 1. S. Paul meaneth such as had but one wife at one time not one after an other for there were many in those daies which were newly conuerted from Iudaisme that had more then one wife at once for among the Iewes it was tolerated and euen by their owne decrees he was counted infamous qui duas simul vxores habet which had two wiues at once decret Gregor lib. 1. tit 21. c. 4. not he which had two one after an other see ãâã elswhere Synops. Cent. 1. err 78. 2. A dignitie Episcopall we acknowledge but no Sacrament for Christ instituted onely two baptisme and the Eucharist which answer vnto the two principall Sacraments of the old Testament Circumcision and the Paschal lambe 3.
should bring forth fruit vnto God c. This place is well vrged by Pet. Martyr against the propitiatorie workes vnto iustification which the Romanists affirme may be done by men yet vnregenerate and not yet called Here the Apostle euidently sheweth that they which bring forth fruit vnto God must first be an others that is maried vnto Christ they cannot doe any thing that good is without him as our Blessed Sauiour himselfe saith Without me ye can doe nothing Ioh. 15.5 Controv. 6. Against the heretikes which condemned the lawe v. 5. The motions of sinnes which were by the lawe By these and such like places the Marcionites Valentinians Manichees tooke occasion to condemne the lawe as euill because thereby sinne was increased But Augustine answeareth de verbis Apostoli serm 4 that they doe imponere Christianis non simplicibus sed negligentibus c. deceiue Christians not so much simple as negligent for it is no hard matter saith he to refell their blasphemies by that which the Apostle writeth afterward in this chapter for v. 12. he saith the lawe is holy and the commandements iust and holy iust and good and in that the motions of sinne are said to be by the lawe id ex eo fit quia in carne sumus it commeth of this because we are in the flesh Mart. the lawe then tooke occasion by the weakenes of our flesh and so the euill motions did rise vp in vs. Controv. 7. That we are freed by grace from the strict and rigorous observation of the lawe Pererius disput 6. misliketh these assertions of M. Calvin and taketh vpon him to confute him diligenter meminerimus c. let vs diligently remeÌber that this is not a solution froÌ that righteousnesse which is taught in the lawe sed à rigida exactione ab ea quae iude sequitur maledictione but from the strict rigorous exacting of keeping the law the malediction and curse which followeth thereupon And he heapeth vp diuerse places of scripture to shewe that the obedience of the lawe is now exacted of vs as Rom. 2. Not the hearers of the lawe but the doers shall be iustified Rom. 3.31 Doe we destroy the lawe by faith God forbid yea we establish the lawe Perer. disput 6. Contra. 1. Pererius in confuting their opinion that hold we are freed from the obedience of the lawe fighteth with his owne shadowe and Calvin whom he refelleth as he is by him alleadged saith in expresse words that we are not freed from the righteousnesse of the lawe to keepe it And therefore he setteth downe his opinion falsly as though he or any other Protestant should affirme Christianos esse à legis observatione liberatos that Christians are freed from the observation of the law as he putteth the case 2. But their opinion that Christians are bound to keepe the lawe and are enabled to keepe it by grace and in keeping thereof are iustified is contrarie to the doctrine of the Apostle that we are iustified by faith without the works of the lawe Rom. 3.28 3. It is then a most true assertion that we are freed from the rigorous and strict obseruation of the lawe which was required of the Iewes to be iustified by the keeping of it and from the curse which followeth vpon the not keeping of the lawe for it is written Cursed is euerie one that continueth not in all things which are written in the booke of the lawe from which curse Christ hath deliuered vs beeing made a curse for vs as the Apostle sheweth Galat. 3.10.13 see further Synops. Centur. 4. err 60. Controv. 8. That concupiscence though it haue no deliberate consent of the will is sinne and forbidden by the commandement The contrarie is mentioned by the Romanists motus concupiscentia adres illicitas c. the motions of the concupiscence to vnlawfull things whereby man is stirred vp to desire any thing against the lawe of God vnlesse the will and consent be thereunto not to be sinne Pererius disput 8. with the rest of that ranke their reasons are these 1. Argum. That which is naturall in man non potest rationem habere mali cannot be counted euill but concupiscence is naturall and was in man before his fall and if any man should be now created of God in pure naturalls without originall sinne he should feele the motions of concupiscence not to be obedient vnto reason Pererius Stapleton addeth antidot p. 360. that the Scripture seemeth to command some concupiscence as the Apostle saith he that desireth the office of a Bishop he desireth a good worke 1. Timoth. 3.1 Contra. 1. As concupiscence is a naturall facultie it is neither sinne nor forbidden if the concupiscence be of things lawfull as of meate or drinke and in due manner not to couet them much and to a good ende to couet them to the glorie of God and our owne and our neighbours good but the concupiscence as it is tainted and corrupted with originall sinne is euill and forbidden by the commandement 2. This concupiscence in the vnregenerate is continually euill in the regenerate there may be a concupiscence of lawfull and indifferent things as either of those things which are proper and peculiar to a man as the desire of a man to his wife or of things which are common and appropriate to no man as to desire an office but yet euen the concupiscence in such things though it be lawfull yet it is not without some fault euen in the regenerate by reason of the corruption of their nature onely the concupiscence and desire of spirituall things is simply lawfull but such concupiscence is without the compasse of the commandement Thou shalt not couet 2. Argum. Involuntaria non sunt peccata c. that which is inuoluntarie is not sinne but such motions of concupiscence which haue not the consent of the will are inuoluntarie Pere Stapleton ibid. Contra. 1. The proposition is not generally true for not the will of man but the law of God is the rule of good and euill and originall sinne in infants is not voluntarie but it is propagated by a necessitie of nature corrupted by the fall of Adam and the Apostle saith Gala. 5.15 yee cannot doe those things which ye would 2. the sinnes which at the first are voluntarie afterward become necessarie as he that hath gotten an habite of intemperancie can hardly refraine though he would so that it is true which Aristotle saith lib. 3. Ethicor. c. 5. nemo volens malus nec invitus foelix no man is euill with his will not happie against his will So that it sufficeth that sinne was once voluntarie though it afterward became necessarie as originall sinne with the motions of concupiscence that doe proceed from it though now it be necessarie and cannot be auoided yet in Adam it was voluntarie by whose willing transgression a necessitie of sinning is transmitted to his posteritie 3. Argum. Whatsoeuer is truely and properly sinne is taken away in
dutie vnto God in louing him with all our heart and strength and in obeying of his will is sinne but this doth concupiscence for it hindered the Apostle v. 19. I doe not that good thing which I would Ans. Pererius answereth that concupiscence doth not hinder vs from louing of God doing of his will so far as we are bound to this life for God may be loued with all the heart two wayes one is modus perfectionis the way of perfection which is when the heart actually loueth nothing but God and thus God shall be loued onely in heauen the other way is so farre as it bindeth a man in this life when the heart is habitually inclined vnto God so that it admit nothing against it as this kind of loue is not hindered as he saith by the first motions of concupiscence to the same purpose he alleadgeth Thomas that a precept is two wayes fulfilled the one is perfectly quando pervenitur ad finem when we attaine vnto the ende intended by him which giueth the precept the other imperfectly cum non receditur ab ordine ad finem when we depart not from the way which leadeth to the ende as when the captaine biddeth his souldiours fight to obtaine the victorie he which fighteth and hath the victorie perfitly fulfilleth his will he also which fighteth and doth his best doth his will also though he get not the victorie the first kind of fulfilling the precept shall be in patria in our countrey the other is in via in the way Contra. 1. We grant that there shall be a greater perfection of obedience in the next life then can be attained vnto here but euen that perfect obedience is propounded vnto vs here and required of vs Matth. 5.28 Ye shall be perfect as your heauenly father is perfect whereupon Augustine cur non praeciperetur in hac vita ista perfectio c. why should not this perfection be commanded euen in this life though no man can attaine vnto it here non ãâã recte curritur c. for we cannot runne right if it be vnknowne whether we should runne c. lib. de spirit liter c. vltim And seeing Christs righteousnesse and obedience of the lawe was most perfect and he came to performe that which was required of vs it followeth that God in the strict rule of his iustice required of vs perfect obedience which not to performe is sinne 2. If God doe command the ende as our perfection then he which commeth short and faileth of the ende fulfilleth not the commandement as if the souldier be commanded not to giue ouer till he haue the victorie breaketh his generalls charge if he get not the superioritie of the enemie And he which misseth of the ende must needes also recedere ab ordine ad finem faile in the meanes to the ende for otherwise he might atchieue the ende 3. And that concupiscence hindreth our obedience euen in this life the Apostle sheweth v. 19. I doe not the good thing which I would 3. Argum. The Apostle directly calleth euen concupiscence wherewith he is vnwilling sinne v. 20. If I doe that I would not it is no more I that doe it but the sinne that dwelleth in me Ergo it is sinne Answ. Pererius answeareth that it is called sinne either because it is effectus peccati the effect of sinne as the writing is called the hand because it was written with the hand or because it bringeth forth sinne as frigus cold is called pigrum slouthfull because it maketh one so Contra. 1. But that is properly and truely sinne which causeth death for death came in by sinne as the Apostle saith of concupiscence that it slue him and was vnto him the cause of death v. 10.11 2. S. Augustine also confesseth that concupiscence is not onely poena peccati the punishment of sinne and causa peccati the cause of sinne sed ipsum peccatum but sinne it selfe Pererius answeareth that Augustine vnderstandeth not peccatum morale a morall sinne but vitium naturae corruptae a fault or vice of our corrupt nature as the vices in the bodie as blindnes or deafenes are called peccata seu errata naturae the faults or errors of nature because they are against the integritie and perfection of the nature of the bodie so the rebelling of the carnall concupiscence against the lawe of reason is against the integritie and perfection of the soule and so an error of nature Contra. 1. We grant that there are naturall faults both in the soule as forgetfulnesse ignorance dulnesse of vnderstanding in the bodie weakenesse infirmitie blindnesse and such like which are the fruits and effects of sinne but not sinne themselues but concupiscence is none of that kind for all these infirmities are effects and passions but the concupiscence rebelling against the minde is actiue and working and Augustine himselfe giueth a reason why he calleth it sinne quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis because there is in it disobedience against the lawe of the minde gouerned by grace so that it disobeyeth not only the law of the mind but resisteth the motions of the spirit now all disobedience to the will of God is sinne 2. and that it is not naturall but a morall and spirituall sinne appeareth by the effects because it causeth the spirituall death of the soule Argument 4. Vnlesse the precept Thou shall not lust did prohibite the verie first motions that haue not the consent of the will then should there be no difference betweene this and the other precepts which doe condemne also ipsos prauos affectos the euill affections as of wrath enuie in the sixt of lust and carnall desire to the which the will is inclined in the seauenth so then this commandement ipsos appetitus quibus titillamur doth condemne the verie appetite which tickleth vs though it haue not our consent Calvin Pererius answereth that the other commandements onely prohibite ipsos externos actus the eternall acts of stealing committing adulterie and such like numer 58. Contra. 1. Our Blessed Sauiour confuteth him who Matth. 5. sheweth how in the former commandements the verie affections and inward purposes are restrained as of anger in the sixt thou shalt not kill of lusting after a woman in the heart in the seauenth thou shalt not commit adulterie 2. yea Pererius confuteth himselfe confessing afterward numer 60. praeceptis illis legalibus âon solum externa peccata c. in those legall precepts not the externall workes of sinne onely to be prohibited but the verie inward concupiscence But we haue staied somewhat to long in this controuersie Controv. 9. That the commandement Thou shalt not lust is but one 1. The Romane catechisme which the Romanists generally follow deuide the last commandement into two the first forbidding the coueting of things of pleasure as the neighbours wife the other things of profit as our neighbours house and goods and they make the two first commandements thou shalt
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. froÌ 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
proceede from the pravitie of the flesh 2. And the Apostle saith is enmitie not an enemie as the Latine readeth for then it should be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in the neuter not ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in the feminine and here the word is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã with the accent in the first syllable which signifieth enmitie not ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã accented in the last syllable which is the adiective in the femine gender enemious and the Apostle speaketh in the abstract not by the figure Metalepsis taking it for the concrete enmitie for enemie the substantiue for the adiectiue as Pareus nor yet doth he so speake vt vehementior fit oratio to make his speach more vehement and forcible Martyr but hereby is expressed the irreconciliable enmitie betweene the flesh and the spirit for that which is an enemie may be reconciled as Esau was to Iacob but enmitie can neuer be reconciled Faius 3. Now the Apostle here giueth a reason of the former verse why the wisdome of the flesh is death because it is enmitie with God from whome commeth life but yet the wisdome of the spirit is not so the cause of life and peace with God as the wisdome of the flesh is of death for this is the meritorious cause of the one so is not the wisdome of the spirit that is regeneration of the other but it is as the meane and way whereby we are assured of saluation and to haue peace with God but that which procureth and worketh it is faith in Christ Rom. 5.1 therefore here the Reader must take heede of a corrupt note of Lyranus that the confidence of the spirit meretur vitam gratiae in prasenti c. doth merit the life of grace in this present and the peace of glorie in the next 4. And as the wisedome of the flesh is enmitie with God so the wisdome of the spirit is enmitie and freindship which is defined to be a mutuall goodwill which is declared by freindly partes and offices for vertues sake thus then Aristotles rule is found to be false inter valide in aequales non dari amicitiam that there cannot be freindship betweene such as are much vnequall for in the beginning there was freindship betweene the creator and his creature and this auncient amitie is renewed and restored by Christ who vouchsafeth to call his Apostles freinds Ioh. 15.14 5. But by flesh 1. neither with the Manichees must we vnderstand the substance of the flesh for by flesh he meaneth the prauitie and corruption of the flesh 2. nor yet with Chrysostome doe we interpret it to be carnalem vitam onely a carnall life which onely sheweth the corrupt actions but it signifieth the prauitie of our nature 3. neither doe we with Ambrose onely referre it to the vnderstanding quae non potest capere divina which is not capable of diuine things for here the continuance rather and rebellion of the flesh is signified then the impotencie and weaknes of it 4. nor yet by the flesh is vnderstood onely the sensuall part and by the spirit rationabilitas mentis the reasonablenes of the soule but euen the minde also is carnall as Theophylact calleth it carneam mentem a carnall mind as v. 9. if any haue not the spirit of Christ but their owne naturall spirit they alwaies haue 6. And whereas it is said it is not subiect to the law of God neither can be 1. neither is it to be restrained to that particular law of the Gospel of rendring good for euill which carnall men transgresse that render euill for euill as Haymo 2. not yet because they thinke God can doe nothing beside that which is to be seene and found in nature gloss ordinar for this but one particular act of carnalitie 3. nor yet is it to be vnderstood with this limitation ââm eo perseueret if a man continue in the flesh he cannot so long be subiect vnto the law of God Oecumen for the Apostle speaketh of the wisedome of the flesh it selfe not of those that are in it which can neuer be changed to become subiect vnto God but they which are in the flesh may cease to be in the flesh and so please God 4. and this doth manifestly conuince the Pelagians of error which hold that a naturall man might fulfill the law of God and of the Popish schoolmen who affirmed that a man without grace might keepe the law quoad substantiam operis in respect of the substance of the worke though not ad intentionem legis after the intention of the law Quest. 10. How they which are in the flesh cannot please God v. 8. 1. Not they which follow the law secundum literam according to the letter as Origen the Apostle speaketh generally of all as well Iewes as others that are in the flesh 2. Neither as the Maniches by the flesh is vnderstood the bodie for so none in this life should please God 3. Nor yet as Hierome in his passionate and too much loue of virginitie and partiall and preiudicate opinion of marriage that they which inseruiunt officio coniugali serue the marriage duties were in the flesh and thus also Pope Syricius did descant vpon these words applying them against marriage epistol ad Himmer Tarracon but they are said to be in the flesh qui post concupiscentias eunt which follow the lust and concupiscence of the flesh 4. But this must be vnderstood with a limitation quamdiu tales fuerint as long as they are such as Theophylact with other Greeke expositors as Augustine doth set it forth by this example as the same water may be both frozen with cold and be made hoate with the fire so the same soule of man may be first subiect to the flesh then to the spirit Quest. 11. Of the dwelling of the spirit of God in vs v. 9. Seeing the spirit of God dwelleth c. not if the spirit as the vulgar latine hath it and so the Romanists read and so Lyranus expoundeth the former words yee are not in the flesh i. esse non debetis ye ought not to be for so Chrysostome and Oecumenius well obserue non ââa ponit vt quidubitet he saith not thus as doubting but certainely beleeuing that they had the spirit 2. And in that he saith the spirit dwelleth 1. he sheweth that the spirit is otherwise in them then in other things for he is euery where and in all things immensitate essentia in his infinite essence but he is in the faithfull praesentia efficacia gratia by the presence and efficacie of his grace 2. in that the spirit is said to dwell thereby is signified that he is not in vs tanquam hospes as a straunger but indigena perpetuus an indweller for euer as Iob. 14.16 he shall abide with you for euer Pareus 3. and as a dweller in an house doth not onely occupie it but also in ea imperat doth command and beare rule and sway in
afterward not before Pareus 3. And although men are so led by the spirit as that they followe his direction willingly yet they followe also necessarily this leading and moouing of the spirit is effectuall and cannot be resisted Melancth yet this taketh not away the libertie of the will in it selfe like as a blind man followeth his leader willingly though it be not free for him to goe which way he will the will of man remaineth free in it selfe as when one is set in two wayes he may take which he will yet by an accident the will may notwithstanding it is free in it selfe be determined and limited certainely to one thing as a blinde man by his leader is directed to take one certaine way so the spirit of God directeth and guideth the will vnto that which is good and the corruption of our nature to that which is euill 4. Chrysostome here further noteth that it is not said they which liue by the spirit and Theophylact they which haue receiued the spirit but they which are lead by the spirit to shew that the spirit must be the guide and ruler of our life quemadmodum navigij nauclerus as the Pilot is of the ship and the rider of the horse hereby then is expressed the continuall actiuitie and operation of the spirit in vs. 5. And this similitude may be taken either from those which are guided and directed as the blind man in the way or from them which wanting strength of their owne are borne and carried of others and so we are both wayes lead by the spirit for we neither can see the way vnto that which is good vnlesse the spirit direct vs neither haue we power and strength to followe it vnlesse the spirit drawe vs. Quest. 15. What is vnderstood by the spirit of bondage 1. Not the euill spirit namely Sathan by whom they are lead which walke after the flesh as Augustine vpon this place for the Apostle speaketh not of two diuerse spirits but diuerse effects of one and the same spirit working feare and bondage by the lawe and freedome by the Gospell 2. Neither yet is this spirit the soule of man which sometime is in the seruitude of sinne sometime it enioyeth the libertie of the spirit for v. 16. the Apostle maketh a manifest difference betweene this spirit and our spirit 3. Nor yet is this spirit not the holy Ghost but the lawe so called because it was giuen by the spirit as Chrysost. for euen the fathers vnder the law had the spirit of God as shall be shewed in the next question 4. But by the spirit the holy Ghost is signified which by the lawe worketh feare by the Gospell confidence and assurance Quest. 16. Whether the fathers vnder the lawe had onely the spirit of seruitude 1. Chrysostome hath here many strange assertions of the people of the Iewes that liued vnder the lawe as 1. Spiritum sanctum non acceperant c. the people of the Iewes had not receiued the holy spirit the lawe is called spirituall so also the manna which they did eate and the rocke whereof they dranke are called spirituall quia supra naturam perfecta erant they were perfect aboue nature And to make this his assertion good he saith that they opere tenus continebantur were restrained onely by the lawe from the outward act we from the verie inward thoughts they onely vsed corporall purgations and had a promise onely of temporall blessings as of a land that flowed with milke and honie Contra. 1. The Scripture euidently testifieth that Moses and the rest of the Prophets were endued with the spirit of God and it is said of Saul the spirit of God departed from him then he had it before and seeing they receiued Christ when they did eate manna and drinke of the rocke they had also his spirit for without Christs spirit they could not spiritually eate or drinke Christ. 2. and that the lawe of Moses restrained not the outward act onely but the heart and affections our Blessed Sauiour sheweth Matth. 5. where he deliuereth not a newe exposition of the lawe but he doth cleare it from the corrupt glosses of the Iewes 3. and though they had many more carnall rites then we haue yet euen in those externall ceremonies spirituall graces were represented as the Apostle saith that circumcision was the seale of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4.11 4. yea and vnder those temporall promises they looked for celestiall as the Apostle sheweth that they sought an heauenly countrey Heb. 11.16 2. Some thinke that here two diuerse states are not compared together of the fathers that liued vnder the lawe and of vs that are vnder the gospell but onely two diuerse degrees of our conversion as first by the lawe we are made to knowe our selues and thereby terrified and afterward we finde Evangelicall comfort by faith in Christ Martyr and so M. Calvin thinketh that the things themselues the ministerie and operation of the lawe and of the Gospell are here set one against an other rather then the persons 3. But here is both an opposition of the persons and things together as Origen doth illustrate this place by that Galat. 4. where they which were vnder the lawe are likened vnto children which were vnder tutors and gouernors and we in the Gospell are like the heire that is come to age and hath no more neede of tutors but yet our state is not set as opposite to theirs as though they had onely the spirit of bondage onely they differ in degrees for they also had the spirit of Christ but not in that euident and conspicuous manner which we haue Pareus And here we may deuide the Iewes into 3. sorts some were altogether carnall which had no knowledge of Christ such onely had the spirit of bondage some were perfect and spirituall as Moses and the Prophets who had the spirit of Christ though for the time they serued vnder ceremonies some were weake yet hauing knowledge of the Messiah they receiued also of his spirit though not in the same degree with the other Martyr Quest. 17. Of the diuerse kinds of feare v. 15. Ye haue not receiued the spirit of bondage to feare 1. There are two kinds of feare a seruile feare when one is mooued onely by the feare of punishment and so kept in awe and obedience and there is filialis timor a filiall feare such as is in children when one feareth to offend God not so much because of punishment as because he findeth the Lord gracious and good vnto him of this feare the Prophet speaketh when he saith the feare of God endureth for euer of the other S. Iohn perfect loue excelleth feare Angustine thus resembleth these two kind of feares the seruile feare is like as an adulterous woman is afraid of her husband least he should come and finde her in her wickednesse the other feare is seene in a chast wife who feareth to offend her husband least he should depart
Obiect The Apostle saith v. 15. If ye liue after the flesh yee shall die but if ye mortifie the deedes of the bodie ye shall liue therefore mortification is the cause of life and saluation Contra. 1. Hence followeth that mortification is necessarie vnto saluation yet not as a cause but as a necessarie condition without the which there is no faith and consequently no saluation 2. eternall life is the gift of God c. 6.23 therefore not due vnto our merits euill workes are the cause of damnation because they iustly deserue it but it followeth not that good workes are the cause of saluation for they are both imperfect and so vnproportinable to the reward and they are due otherwise to be done and therefore merite not Controv. 4. Against the Arrians and Eunomians concerning the deitie of the holy Ghost v. 2. The law of the spirit of life c. hath freedome Chrysostome homil de adorand spirit from this place prooueth the deitie of the spirit against the Arrian and Eunomiâau heretikes who made great difference in the persons of the Trinitie the Sonne they affirmed to be a creature and much inferiour to the Father and the holy Ghost they made servum ministrum silij a seruant and minister of the Sonne Chrysostome confuteth them by this place for if the spirit be the author of libertie and freedome to others then is he most free himselfe and not a minister or seruant as the Apostle saith 2. Cor. 2.17 where the spirit of the Lord is there is libertie Controv. 5. Against the Pelagians that a man by nature cannot keepe and fulfill the law This error is confuted by the expresse words of the Apostle who saith that the law was weake by reason of the flesh and so not able to iustifie vs by the flesh the Apostle vnderstandeth not substantiam caruis the substance of the flesh as the Maniches were readie to catch at these and the like places to confirme their wicked opinion who held the flesh of man to be euill by nature nor yet the carnall rites and obseruations of the law which were not able to cleanse the obseruers of them as Origen here interpreteth and Lyranus following him But by the flesh we vnderstand with Chrysostome carnales sensus the carnall affections carnalitatem quae rebellabat the carnalitie of man which rebelled against the spirit gloss ordinar concupisentias carnis the concupiscence of the flesh Haymo prauitatem naturae the pravitie of nature Martyr which hindereth that none can keepe the law to be iustified by it This then manifestly conuinceth the Pelagians for if the flesh make the law weake and vnable to be kept then none by the strength of their nature and flesh can fulfill the law Controv. 6. The fulfilling of the law is not possible in this life no not to them which are in the state of grace 1. The Romanists out of these words of the Apostle v. 4. That the righteousnesse of the law may be fulfilled in vs which walke not after the flesh doe inferre that they which walke not after the flesh may fulfill the law so that either it must be denied that none in this life walke after the spirit or it must be graunted that by such the law may be fulfilled Pere disput 5. Bellarmine addeth that if the law cannot be fulfilled Christus non obtinuit quod vâluit Christ hath not compassed or obtained that which he intended for therefore he died that the iustice of the law might be fulfilled Contra. 1. Indeed Origen whose errors and erroneous interpretations our aduersaries themselues will be ashamed of sauing where they serue their turne first deuised this interpretation who by the law here vnderstandeth the law of the mind which is fulfilled quando lex peccati in membris c. when the law of sinne in the members resisteth it not and Haymo hath this glosse that we beeing redeemed by Christ might spiritually fulfill the workes of the law per cuius impletionem possumus iustificari by the fulfilling whereof we may be iustified But this place is better vnderstood of the obedience of Christ who fulfilled the law which is imputed vnto vs by faith and thus doe not onely expound our new writes Melancthon Bucer Hyperius Calvin Beza with others but some of the auncient expositors as Theophylact quae lex facere nitibatur ea Christus nostri gratia executus est those things which the law endeuoured Christ hath performed for vs so also Oecumenius scotus finis legis per Christum partus est exhibitus the scope and end of the law is obtained exhibited by Christ yet we must endeuour to keepe those things which are deliuered per conuersationem bonam fidem by a good conuersation and faith 2. And that this is the meaning of the Apostle 1. the phrase sheweth that the law might be fulfilled in vs he saith not by vs Beza 2. because there is none so perfect in this life that neither in thought word nor deed transgresseth not the law 3. The law was weake through the infirmitie of the flesh but the infirmitie and weakenes of the flesh remaineth still euen in the regenerate therefore neither in them the righteousnesse of the law can be fulfilled 4. To the contrarie arguments thus we answer 1. the Apostle saith not that they which walke after the spirit fulfill the law but the law is fulfilled in them that is imputed vnto them by faith in Christ. 2. though the faithfull cannot fulfill the law yet Christ performed what he intended that he might keepe the law for them and they be iustified by faith in him 3. this clause then which walke not after the flesh is added to shew who they are for whom Christ hath fulfilled the law and to what end namely to such as walke in newnes of life 5. Some doe thinke that the Apostle speaketh here of two kinds of fulfilling the law one imputatione by imputation of Christs obedience which is our iustification the other inchoatione by a beginning onely which is our sanctification begunne in this life and perfited in the next when it shall be fulfilled Martyr Pareus But the other sense is better for the Apostle speaketh of a present fulfilling of the law in them which walke according to the spirit not of a fulfilling respited and excepted in the next life which is most true but not agreeable to the Apostles meaning here 6. So the Apostle in this place setteth forth three benefits purchased vnto vs by Christ 1. remission of our sinnes in that Christ bare in himselfe the punishment due vnto our sins 2. then the imputation of Christs obedience and performing of the law 3. our sanctification that we by the spirit of Christ doe die vnto sinne and rise vnto newnes of life which our sanctification is necessarily ioyned with our iustification but no part thereof 1. because it is imperfect in this life it is perfect after a sort perfectione partium by
a strange tongue in their seruice 2. Now God was called the Lord of Sabaoth 1. some thinke in respect of the starres and host of heauen which the heathen worshipped to shew that he was superior to the gods of the heathen 2. some vnderstand the Angels by these hosts Lyranus 3. some Angels Men and Deuils and therefore the Prophet doth say thrice holy holy holy Lord God of Sabaoth Isay. 6. Gorrhan 4. some thinke that there is a relation to the hostes of the Israelites in the middest whereof the Arke went in the wildernes 5. But rather generally here must be vnderstood the whole host of heauen and earth Mar. as Gen. 2. â and not onely in respect of the number of them but propter ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã for the decent and comely order wherein all things were made Faius 6. and this title is giuen vnto God in the old Testament not in the New to signifie that the law was then data in timore giuen in feare but in the new in loue Hug. 28. Quest. What is vnderstood by seede 1. Origen by this seede vnderstandeth Christ who as the seede is left in the earth so he was to be buried and rise againe and so fructifie to the euerlasting good of his Church but for this seede we had all beene as Sodome still in our sinnes Iunius in his parallels vpon this place misliketh not this application to Christ thinking that whereas the Prophet hath the word sarid remnant the Apostle of purpose turned it seede with reference to Christ that came of the Iewes but Beza and Martyr reiect this as not agreeable to the scope of the Apostle here 2. Photius in Oecumen vnderstandeth the Apostles but for whose preaching the whole world had beene left in their sinnes as Sodome 3. Gorrhan interpreteth this seede to be the word without the which we had beene as Sodome and Gomorrha paret essemus in poena quia similes in culpa we should haue beene equall in punishment because like in sinne glosse ordinar 4. But the Prophet hath relation to the ouerthrow and destruction of Sodome and Gomorrha wherein there were none left Chrysost. saue onely Lot and his companie who were strangers and so not of the citie so without Gods mercie the people had beene vtterly destroied in the captiuitie of Babylon if the Lord had not reserued a remnant to himselfe and so when Christ came to offer them spirituall deliuerance the whole nation generally refused him onely a small number cleaued vnto Christ thus Martyr Pareus 29. Quest. How the Gentiles obtained righteousnes that sought it not and the Iewes missed of it that sought it 1. Whereas this might seeme a strange paradox that they which seeke righteousnes should not haue it and they which seeke it not obtained it Origen thinketh here by a distinction to dissolue this knot it is one thing saith he sectari to follow which is vnderstood of a prescript forme of doctrine such as the written law was which the Gentiles had not and therefore could not follow it it is an other thing to follow the law of nature which the Gentiles had and followed but the Apostle here speaketh not of any law which the Gentiles followed at all but that they obtained that which they neither sought not followed 2. Chrysostome thinketh that the Apostle sheweth here the reason of the electing of the Gentiles and reiecting of the Iewes namely the faith of the one and the incredulitie of the other But these are not the causes of the decree of election and reprobation but the effects for three things the Apostle treateth of in this chapter concerning election and reprobation of the beginning thereof in Gods decree of the ende which is the glorie of God which two the Apostle hath handled hitherto and of the meanes saith of the one and incredulitie of the other which the Apostle toucheth here 3. Tolet here distinguisheth betweene the law of righteousnes and righteousnes it selfe the Iewes followed the law but not righteousnes because they did not the works of the law but abounded in sinne but it is euident that the Apostle by the law of righteousnes vnderstandeth the perfection which the law required which were the works of the law vnto the which the Iewes attained not 4. Some by the law vnderstand onely the ceremonies and rites of the law by obseruing whereof the Iewes could not attaine vnto righteousnesse but it is euident that throughout this epistle the Apostle vnderstandeth euen the workes of the morall law as c. 7. he directly maketh mention of that law whereof one precept is thou shalt not lust 5. Some make a difference here betweene iustitiam legis ex lege the iustice of the law and iustice by the law the iustice of the law is such workes which the law requireth but the iustice by the law is such workes as men doe according to the prescript of the law of their owne strength without faith the Apostle reiecteth this in the matter of iustification but not the other to this purpose Bellarmine lib. 1. iustificat c. 19. And so the Apostle here saith that the Iewes sought the law of righteousnesse but while by their owne power they sought to fulfill it they could not attaine vnto it he alleageth to this purpose Angustine who saith iustitiam legis non implet iustitia quae ex lege est c. the righteousnesse which is of the law fulfilleth not the righteousnesse of the law c. and the righteousnes by the law he interpreteth to be that quam homo suis viribus facit c. which a man doth by his owne strength But 1. it is euident that the Apostle indifferently vseth these phrases the righteousnesse of the law and by or from the law as he taketh the righteousnesse ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã of God Rom. 3.22 and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã by or from God Phil. 3.9 for one and the same so whether we say the righteousnesse of faith which the Apostle calleth the law of faith Rom. 3.27 and the word of faith Rom. 10.8 or the righteousnesse ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã by or through faith there is no difference but in words 2. Origen hath the like curious distinction vpon these words of the Apostle Rom. 3.30 who shall iustifie circumcision of faith and vncircumcision through faith betweene ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã of faith and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã through faith he maketh this difference that to be iustified ex fide of faith is to beginne with faith and end with works and to be iustified through faith is to beginne with works and end with faith c. whereas the Apostle intendeth one and the same manner of iustification the like curiositie there is in this distinction betweene the righteousnesse of the law and by the law 3. And the verie words of the Apostle They followed the righteousnesse of the law shew as much which he interpreteth afterward They sought it by the workes of the
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
point there was no question 2. Theodoret expoundeth it of curiositie that no one should curiously enquire how Christ ascended into heauen for vs and ouercame death to the same purpose Pet. Martyr quis ascendet in coelum vt haec videat c. say not who shall ascend into heauen to see this or goe downe to the deepe to be certified of Christs victorie the word is in thy mouth and heart it sufficeth thee to beleeue these things to haue beene performed by Christ. 3. Anselme doth vnderstand Moses and Paul to speake of incredulitie that no man should doubt of the ascension and descension of Christ so also the ordinarie gloss do not say who hath ascended into heauen that is none shall ascend to heauen pro iustitia fidei observata for obseruing the righteousnes of faith nor shall descend to hell for not obseruing it for this were to denie the ascension and descension of Christ. 4. Lyranus applieth it to the certaintie of the knowledge of the Gospel tollitur omnis excusatio c. all excuse is taken away they cannot be ignorant of the Gospel beeing preached and testified by the Apostles as the Iewes needed not vnder Moses to haue sent farre or neere to haue the law made knowne vnto them seeing it was at home euen at their doores to the same purpose Bellarmine lib. 5. de grat liber arbit c. 6. so also Osiander applieth it to the certaintie of the preaching of the Gospel by the Apostles which shall be so liuely declared that they shall not neede to wish any to goe to heauen or to descend into the deep to bring vnto them the word of promise seeing Christ hath alreadie performed these things for them 5. Chrysostome vnderstandeth this place of the facilitie of the iustice of faith in respect of the lawe that there is no great thing required to be performed by our selues as to ascend to heauen or descend into the deepe licet tibi domi sedenti salutem consequi thou mayest euen sitting at home obtaine saluation though thou goe not ouer thy threshhold Faius also to the like purpose sheweth how Moses in that place and S. Paul here shewe how the lawe is fulfilled for vs in Christ that God requireth not of vs any difficult or impossible worke to be performed by vs to ascend into heauen or descend to hell to be deliuered froÌ the one and to obtaine the other by our owne workes for this were to call both the ascension and resurrection of Christ into question but Christ by his resurrection ascension had performed for vs the worke of our redemption This is some part of the Apostles meaning but not all 6. Wherefore this is the meaning of the Apostle as he shewed before what the iustice of the lawe required namely perfect obedience to be performed in our selues which being a thing impossible there must needes remaine a doubt and despaire both of obtaining heauen and in escaping hell so now he declareth the nature and propertie of iustifying faith first per ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã by remoouing that which is contrarie to faith secondly per ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã by declaring that which is thereunto agreeable And for the first whereas there are two speciall doubts that trouble the mind how we may obtaine heauen and escape hell the Apostle sheweth that the righteousnesse of faith taketh away both these doubts first no man is nowe to say in his heart who shall ascend for me into heauen to bring me thither for Christ hath done it alreadie and this were to bring Christ againe from thence to become man for vs and so to ascend againe neither is any man now to make questioÌ how he shall escape hell or who shall descend thither for him for Christ by his death hath deliuered vs from thence faith in Christ doth deliuer vs from all doubt he therefore that hath his faith grounded vpon the passion resurrection ascention of Christ shall no longer be perplexed in his mind as they are which hope to be iustified by the law thus Calv. Beza Par. So then he sheweth two notable differeÌces between the law the gospel the one requireth things impossible to be done namely the complete and perfect obedience of the lawe and so leaueth the minde in doubt and despaire of saluation but the Gospell requireth not any thing impossible to be done by vs but onely to beleeue in Christ and so it freeth vs from all doubt and despaire Quest. 13. Of these words the word is neere thee c. 1. Whereas the Latine translator hath what saith the Scripture this word Scripture is not in the originall therefore the same nominatiue case must be supplyed which is expressed before the righteousnesse of faith speaketh on this wise c. as before he shewed what was not agreeable to the doctrine of faith to make doubts of saluation or to seeke to be iustified by the lawe so now he declareth the true propertie of iustifying faith which requireth no great act to be performed by our selues but onely to beleeue in Christ. 2. The Septuagint adde beside in thy mouth and in thy heart in thy hands which addition Pet. Martyr thinketh nothing to hinder but to helpe the Apostles meaning because that which we beleeue in the heart and confesse with the mouth must be confirmed by the worke of our hands but it rather crosseth the Apostles meaning to make mention here of workes which the iustice of the lawe required but the iustice of faith saith otherwise and Lyranus glosse is here superfluous and idle that the Apostle speaketh in casis mortis in the case of death when as there is no time of working that then it is sufficient to beleeue with the heart and confesse with the mouth whereas the Apostle generally treateth of the iustice of faith how it is sufficient to saluation vnto all 3. And whereas the Apostle saith it is neere thee in thy mouth c. 1. The meaning is not it is neere thee that is consentancum rationi agreeable to reason Hug. gloss for Christ preached things farre beyond humane reason 2. Vatablus referreth it to the preaching of the Apostles this word of faith was in their mouth and heart 3. Osiander likewise applyeth it to the multitude of beleeuers this doctrine of faith which so many thousands beleeued was not remote or farre off 4. Pet. Martyr expoundeth it of the knowledge and vnderstanding of the mysteries which were hid before nobis fit prope per fidem quod per naturam est remotissimum that is neere vnto vs by faith which was before most remote and farre off 5. But the fittest interpretation is that the Apostle sheweth the facilitie of the righteousnesse of faith that God requireth no hard worke of vs to crosse the Seas and climbe vp the mountaines or take long iourneys to seeke out our saluation but by the grace of Gods spirit this faith is planted in our hearts and confessed with our
readeth consentientes humilibus consenting to the humble that is saith Origen amare humiles to loue the humble he consenteth with the humble quei cum humilibus se humiliat which humbleth himselfe with those that are humble Haymo humiliorum imitatores imitators of those which are humble gloss interlin consenting to the humble that is in heart and not with the mouth onely gloss ordin Gorrhan all these vnderstand by the humble the lowely referring it to their persons 2. Some vnderstand this word of the things rather then of the persons and take it in the neuter gender that ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to the humble may answear vnto ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the high things before spoken of Calvin Beza Pareus so also Osiander humilia curate tractate c. respect and handle humble things likewise Tolet let them embrace base things quae vilea mundus reputat which the world counteth base And this sense is to be admitted by reason of the opposition of the words though not onely 3. Faius saith non tam res ipsae quam hominum affectus spectantur not so much the things themselues as the affections of men are here considered true it is that the obiect cannot be seuered from the affection but it is euident that the Apostle by high and lowe things meaneth the obiect of pride and humilitie 4. Pet. Martyr comprehendeth both base things and base persons that we should apply our selues vnto both neither dispising the one not refusing the other euen meane and base ministeries and seruices to profit our brother as our B. Sauiour disdained not to wash his Apostles feere and this is most agreeable to the Apostles meaning now the other word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is not well translated by the Latine interpreter consentientes consenting it properly signifieth impetu quodam correpti carried us it were with force shewing how prone we ought to be to descend to lowe and base things Beza rendreth it obsecundantes submitting your selues the Syrian interpreter adhaerentes cleauing Vatablus accomodantes applying your selues our English making your selves equall c. giueth the meaning rather then the sense of the word Be not wise in your selues 1. Chrysostome thus interpreteth it ne putetis vos sufficere vobis ipsis thinke not that your are sufficient for your selues God hath so made vs vt alter alterum opera iudigeat that one standeth in neede of an other so also Theophylact vnderstandeth it of those which dispise the counsel of others and yet Moses dispised not the counsell of his father in lawe 2. Ambrose thinketh they are said to be wise in themselues which turne their wsedome altogether to their owne profit and not to the good of others so also the interlin gloss and Gorrhan ne prudentiam apud vos tantum exerceatis c. exercise not your wisedome onely for your selues but for your neighbours also 3. Basil regul brev resp 260. interpreteth those to be wise to themselues qui solam humanam prudentiam c. which onely haue humane wisedome and regard not the diuine will and pleasure such we call worldly wise 4. Haymo he is wise in himselfe who non authori sapientia deputat c. doth not ascribe vnto the author of wisedome that wisedome which he hath 5. But all these are the effects of arrogancie he which taketh himselfe to be wise dispiseth the counsell of others consulteth not with God neither ascribeth the praise to him here then the Apostle toucheth the verie roote and beginning of pride which is propriae prudentiae opinio the opinion of a mans owne wisedome Marlorat so that here the Apostle remooueth an other let and impediment of humilitie which is arrogancie and that is apud seipsum nimium sapere to be too wise in himselfe such the Prophet Isay speaketh against we vnto them that are wise in their owne eyes and prudent in their owne sight Isay. 5.21 Pareus so Origen before them hic cum arrogantia stultus est c. qui suam stultitiam quasi sapientiam colit he is arrogant and foolish who adoreth his owne folishnesse as if it were wisedome c. But here Lyranus aduertiseth well that prudence and wisedome is here not taken properly but in a certaine similitude for vera prudentia non nisi in bonis true wisedome and prudence is onely found in the good it is craft not wisedome which the wicked haue Now this arrogancie is the cause of all errors which are of three sorts either errors in opinion and iudgement or in practise of religion or in life and conuersation for hereupon some haue deuised newe doctrines and strange worship not contenting themselues with the simplicitie of Gods word as though they were wiser then God and they giue themselues euer vnto grosse sinnes in their life holding scorne to be admonished by others Gualter Quest. 25. How euill is not to be recompenced for euill v. 17. 1. Chrysostome noteth the generalitie of the speach recompence to no man whether beleeuer or vnbeleeuer not to a beleeuer because he is thy brother not to an infidel and vnbeleeuer that thou mayest winne him Haymo 2. Origen obserueth that reddere malum to render euill is a greater sinne quam inferre malum then to offer euil at the first for it may be that he did it ignorantly non sensisse malum c. that he perceiued it not to be euill which he did but he that recompenceth euill sheweth that he was not ignorant that it was euill 3. this precept concerneth onely particular wrongs it is not extended to magistrates that render euill vnto offenders according to the lawe in Deut. an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth and yet punishment is not euill because it is opus iustitiae a worke of iustice Gorrhan Martyr 4. here that pharisaicall doctrine is reprooued that they were to hate their enemies and loue their friends 5. and if it be a sinne to render euill for euill much more to recompence euill for good the one is incident into our humane corrupt nature but the other is plaine diabolicall 6. Calvin thinketh that this precept is somewhat larger then that which followeth avenge not your selues for in some cases euill may be rendered for euill sine manifesta vltione without manifest reuenge as when one refuseth to giue entertainment succour to one in his need and so the other to requite him withdraweth his hand in his necessitie so also Gualt but Martyr misliketh this I cannot see saith he how he which willingly doth render euill for euill doth not intend to take revenge and the Apostle he thinketh doth inculcate the same precept againe because it is so necessarie thus also Pareus but this difference betweene them may be soone taken away for Calvin saith onely without manifest reuenge there may be a reuenge in all kind of retalion but in some the revenge is more manifest then in other Quest. 26. How honest things are to be procured before all men
notable exploit were praised publikely or priuately but S. Paul speaketh in generall of the office of all Magistrates whatsoeuer 5. Pet. Martyr thinketh that it is no small part of praise absolvi in iudicio to be absolued in iudgement as it was no small praise to Cato beeing so often accused still to be freed and absolued it is also a great praise for a man to be so innocent that nothing can be obiected against him in iudgement as Fimbria beeing asked what he could obiect vnto Scevola so innocent and harmelesse a man answeared quia telum toto suo corpore non receperit because he receiued not his weapon whole into his bodie but it is one thing to receiue praise and reward another to be freed onely from punishment 6. Wherefore I take this to be the better answear that first the Apostle speaketh here of the power it selfe and of the true ende wherefore it was ordained and not of the personall faults in those that abuse this power for if the good be not rewarded as well as the euill punished it is the fault of the gouernors adde hereunto because it is not possible for a Prince to reward all good subiects that by praise we must vnderstand omnia commoda privilegi\%a c. all the priuiledges and commodities which are by the lawes offered to good subiects Pareus they are praised that is counted worthie qui participent omnibus ijs bonis c. to be made partakers of all those benefits and commodities for the which commonwealths came first together Bullinger as good subiects enioy libertie possession of their lands and goods defense from wrong and such like and as occasion may serue may receiue also praise and encouragement from the Magistrate Quest. 10. How the Magistrate is said to be Gods minister for our wealth or good 1. Some vnderstand this onely of the power to punish loco Dei vindicat he taketh revenge in Gods place gloss interlin Lyranus 2. Haymo giueth these two senses he is Gods minister to defend thee from wrong or for thy good that thou doe no evill but this expresseth but one part of this ministring power 3. therefore Chrysostome better voluntati Dei cooperatur c. he worketh according to Gods will in punishing of the euill and in rewarding the good and therefore he is called his minister so also Theophylact voluntati Dei obsequitur he obeyeth the will of God as in commanding chastitie in forbidding auarice and theft like as the Lord is so must the minister be but God loueth the iust and punisheth the wicked therefore so should the magistrate do that is Gods minister 3. and generally they are Gods ministers 1. because they are ordained of God 2. they are as gods in earth in respect of their preheminence and authoritie ouer others 3. in regard of their office because they doe execute iustice in the earth in awarding rewards to the righteous and punishments to the wicked 4. whereas the Prince is called ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the minister of God which name and title also agreeth to the spirituall pastors who are the ministers of God yet they are ministers in a diuerse kind both agree in their institution which is from God and in the generall ende which is to seeke the good of Gods people yet they differ both in the obiect for the pastors charge is onely about spirituall things the Prince is occupied also in caring for temporall as also in the meanes for the Prince by his sword and coactiue power procureth the good of his subiects but the pastor seeketh it by the preaching of the word the administration of the Sacraments and discipline and other spirituall meanes For thy good That which the Apostle called before ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã praise now he nameth ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã good which is either naturall morall ciuill or spirituall good the Magistrate procureth all these the naturall good as in preseruing the liues and bodies of his subiects the morall good in commanding vertue and punishing vice the civill in maintaining their goods and possessions their spirituall good in setting forth and defending the true religion Pareus 11. Quest. How the Magistrate is said not to beare the sword for nought v. 4. 1. Lyranus doth indifferently vnderstand this of the materiall sword which the ciuill power hath or of the Ecclesiasticall but the whole course of the Apostles speach sheweth that he speaketh of the Civill power to whome tribute and such other customes belong 2. By the sword he vnderstandeth the power of exercising and drawing forth the sword against offenders and he alludeth to the custome of Princes which haue the sword carried before them and other ensignes of their authoritie 3. There are three vses of the civill sword the one is ad vindictam to be reuenged of the euill ad protectionem bonorum for the protection of the good and ad executionem iustitiae for the execution of iustice 4. He beareth not the sword ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in vaine that is temere rashly Beza because he hath his authoritie from God nor sine causa the vulgar Latin without some certaine cause or ende namely the punishment of the euill 5. And so he is called a reuenger vnto wrath 1. which some vnderstand of the diuine wrath which is executed by the Magistrate or to shew the wrath of God in time to come Gorrh. Hug. 2. rather by wrath we vnderstand the punishment it selfe inflicted which is an effect of wrath Pareus Tolet Sa. Quest. 12. Of the right vse of the sword both in time of peace and warre 1. Concerning the vse of the sword in time of peace three things are requisite 1. that there should be good lawes enacted and established 2. that there should be vpright iudgement according to those lawes 3. that of such iudgements once giuen there should be iust execution 1. In the making of lawes three things must concurre the matter of the lawe the end and scope and the extent 1. for the matter it must be agreeable to the lawe of nature and to the will of God Princes must not make lawes according to their owne minde but such as may be consonant to the pure and perfect will of God hereupon it was that the law-makers among the Gentiles would alwaies ascribe the invention of their lawes to some one of the gods to winne more credit vnto them Zoroastres who gaue lawes to the Bactrianes and Persians did make Oromazen whom they held to be a god the author of his lawes Trismegistus among the Egyptians Mercurius Minos among the Cretensians Iuppiter Carundas among the Carthaginians made Saturnus his author Lycurgus among the Lacedemonians Apollo Solon Draco among the Athenians Minerva Xamolpis among the Scythians Vesta Numa among the Romanes the goddes Egeria and Mahomet commended his Alcaron to the Arabians vnder the name of Gabriel the Arkeangel But these were their fabulous conceits we haue indeede the booke of God a perfect
and equitie to his subiects and forceth them to Idolatrie and false religion 2. if that without such defence they cannot be safe their liues bodies and consciences 3. that vnder pretence of such defense they seeke not their owne reuenge with other respects vnto themselues 4. that all things be done with moderation not to the vndoeing of the state but the preseruation of it his reasons are these 1. From the institution of God and the end of the ordinance of Magistracie which is to be auenged of euill doers and for the praise of the good they doe not beare the sword for naught the inferiour Magistrates then hauing the sword may exercise their power in restraining the tyrannie of superior gouernours and for this cause inferiour Magistrates are ioyned with the superior not onely as helpers but to moderate their licentious and outragious gouerment and therefore where they bridle the insolencie of Tyrants vtuntur gladio per legitimam vocationem diuinitus sibi tradito they vse the sword deliuered vnto them from God by a lawfull vocation 2. Like as a furious and mad man may be remooued from the gouerment as Nabuchadnezer was cast forth by publike authoritie Dan. 4.31 so a Tyrant also who differeth not from a mad and furious man 3. They which haue power to constitute the Magistrate as where they enter by election of the Senat consent of the people or by other electors appointed haue power also to restraine their immoderate gouerment 4. This is confirmed by many commendable examples out of sacred and forren stories the people resisted Saul that he should not put Ionathan his sonne to death 1. Sam. 14.45 the Israelites in the time of the Iudges often were deliuered by their Iudges whom God raised vp from their oppressors Athalias was remooued from her tyrannicall gouernment 2. kin 11. the Macchabees defended theÌselues and their country against the rage and furie of the Syrian Kings the Romans expelled their vitious Kings so did they depose their cruell Emperors as Nero Maximinus Traianus is commended for that saying when he gaue the sword vnto a chiefe officer hoc pro me vtere si iusta imperavero contra me si iniusta c. vse that for me if I command iust things and against me if vniust The Prince Electors remooued Wencelaus a man giuen to idlenes and luxurious life from the Empire in his stead appointing Rupertus the Countie of Palatine one of the Electors to this purpose Pareus But here certaine differences are to be obserued for where either there is an extraordinarie calling as in the time of the Iudges or where the kingdome is vsurped without any right as by Athaliah or where the land is oppressed by forren invaders as in the time of the Macchabees or where the gouernment is altogether Electiue as the Empire of Germanie in all these cases there is lesse question of resistance to be made by the generall consent of the states And yet where none of these concurre God forbid that the Commonwealth and Church should be left without remedie the former conditions obserued when either havock is made of the Commonwelth or of the Church and religion How farre priuate men may be warranted in denying obedience vnto Tyrants Here Pareus hath two propositions 1. That it is not lawfull for a priuate man without a lawfull calling to take armes either before the daunger to invade a tyrant or to defend theÌselues in the time of daunger or to revenge himselfe after daunger if he may be defended by an ordinarie power c. for vnlawfully to resist the power is to resist Gods ordinance and one ought rather to die then to sinne and here that saying of the Lacedemonians taketh place si duriora morte imperetis potius moriemur if ye command things more heauie then death we will chuse rather to die 2. His other position is That it is lawfull for subiects beeing meere priuate men if a Tyrant as a theefe and violater of chastitie doe offer them violence and they neither can implore the ordinarie power nor by any other meanes escape the daunger to defend themselues and theirs for the present against a Tyrant as against a private person that maketh an assault for if it should not be lawfull to make such resistance in case of necessitie there should be no remedie left against the furious outrage of Tyrants which would tend to the vtter dissolution of humane societie and beside against whom defense by the Magistrate is lawfull in case of necessitie where that cannot be had a priuate defense is allowed for then leges armant privatos the lawes doe arme priuate men but it is lawfull for the inferior Magistrates to defend the priuate subiects in cases before limited against the furie and outrage of Tyrants Ergo c. to this purpose Pareus But this last position of his must receiue some further qualification for if a priuate man might lawfully defend himselfe when any notorious wrong is offered to him by a Tyrant men in this case should be iudges of their owne wrongs and as their iudgement is partiall in their owne case so they would take great libertie to defend themselues wherefore these conditions must further be here obserued 1. It must be considered whether in these wrongs that are offered the Tyrant doe transgresse his owne lawes if he doe then he is held to be but as privatus grassator a priuate assaulter otherwise if the lawes beare him out in these wrongs they are rather to suffer and endure then vse any resistance as the band of Christian souldiers which were put to the sword for their Christian faith at the commandement of the cruell Emperor Maximianus resisted not but yeelded themselues Otto Phrinsigens lib. 2. c. 45 because then the lawes of the Empire were for the maintenance of Idolatrie and a whole Citie of Phrygia professing Christianitie was destroyed and burnt with fire vsing no resistance Euseb. lib. 8. c. 11. 2. The subiect must wisely discerne whether he be forced to be an agent or patient in these wrongs he is rather to die then to be compelled to consent to any euill as a woman attempted by a Tyrant to adulterie should resist rather vnto death then prostitute her body but if they be patients onely and are not forced to doe any thing or consent against their conscience the case is otherwise 3. It must be also waighed wherein this wrong is offered if it be onely in the goods and substance of the subiect no resistance is to be made for the goods of the subiect are more lyeable to the command of the Magistrate then any thing beside so Naboth refused to yeeld his inheritance and patrimonie vnto Ahab but without any resistance but if a mans life be assaulted or the chastitie of his wife or the libertie and safetie of his children against all colour of law nature teacheth a man here to vse defence 4. Further the cause must be considered for the which
which belong to the first or second table 3. Some laws doe so bind in themselues and not accidentally onely in respect of the offence and not onely generally in regard of our obedience required to the Magistrate in all lawfull things but in particular in the very thing commanded yet not as a part of the diuine worship but sub ratione ordinis vel disciplinae ordinatae c. by reason of the order and discipline enioyned toward the better performance of some dutie toward God or our neighbour as the law which bindeth men to come to Church the better to serue God and politike lawes that are made against deceit vsed in the making of clothes and other waies to the hinderance of our brethren which is against charitie and such like 4. Some lawes doe not bind in conscience at all in themselues neither generally not in particular but onely accidentally in regard of scandall and offence which may be giuen by mens disobedience as in such penall lawes which are made onely for ciuill orders and vsages where God is not dishonoured nor charitie violated let there be no contempt of authorie nor offence giuen though it be a breach of ciuill order yet thereby the conscience is not burdened before God This I say not to giue any encouragement willingly to transgresse the publike orders for then they runne into contempt of authoritie but I advise euerie man as neere as he can to conforme himselfe to the obseruation euen of ciuill orders but to this ende to helpe the conscience of the weake that they should not thinke in euery such omission their conscience to be charged before God See further Synops. Centur. 1. error 49. Controv. 8. Whether Ecclesiasticall persons are exempted from tribute v. 7. Giue to all men their dutie tribute to whom tribute c. This is an euident place to conuince the Romanists who hold their Clergie together with their possessions and goods to be freed and exempted from temporall taxes and payments The old Popish opinion was that they were freed by the lawe of God but now they challenge this immunitie onely by the charter and priuiledge graunted them by Princes Rhemist Rom. 13. annot 5. Thomas Aquin. addeth further that though they were at the first exempted by Princes yet it is agreeable to the lawe of nature But if they onely claime this exemption from the graunt of temporall Princes why did then Alexan. the 6. as Boniface the 8. hath inserted his decree in the sixt of his decretalls lib. 3. titul 23. c. 1. by his constitution prouide that secular powers should not presume to exact of Ecclesiasticall persons toll money or other exactions pro rebus vel possessionibus for their goods or possessions which they had gotten or should get We will now examine some of their reasons 1. The lands of Pharaohs Priests were exempted from tribute Gen. 47.22 therefore the possessions of the Church should be free Answ. The lands of the Priests whom Iunius taketh rather for the Princes Courtiers of Pharaohs houshold for the word cohen signifieth both a Prince and a Priest were not soâd vnto Pharaoh as other lands were for by reason of the ordinarie allowed them from the King in the time of dearth they were constrained to sell their land for foode and so their possessions were free from the fift part which other payed they might notwithstanding be subiect and lyable to other charges 2. The King of Persia charged his officer to lay vpon the Priests and Leuites no toll nor custome Ezra 7.24 Answ. The reason thereof was for that the Priests had no possessions as likewise Caesar writeth in his commentaries that the Priests called Druidae among the French paid no taxe money nor custome at all as other did and the reason was because they possessed nothing as Plinie witnesseth l. 16. c. 24. Now on the contrarie that Clergie men are bound as well as others for their persons and lands to pay tribute and yeeld their subiection vnto temporall gouernours it is euident by these reasons 1. By the precept of Christ giue vnto Caesar the things that are Caesars he spake then to the Priests and by his owne example he refused not to pay poll money Matth. 17. and he confessed to Pilate Iohn 18. that he could haue no power against him if it were not giuen him from aboue he acknowledgeth himselfe personally subiect vnto Pilate 2. He which holdeth terrene things is in reason to be subiect to the terrene and temporall power Origen saith qui habet pecuniam aut possessiones aut aliquid in seculo audiat c. he which hath money or possessions or any thing in the world to him it is said let every soule be subiect c. 3. And S. Paul chargeth all subiects to pay tribute because it is a duty to the Magistrate in respect of his care and vigilancie who watcheth ouer the subiects for their good Yet we denie not but that Ecclesiasticall persons may enioy those priviledges and immunities which haue beene graunted them by Princes whose libertie therein is to be commended so that they abuse them not to idlenes and wantonnes as sometimes the Abbyes in England did See before controv 1. argum 1. and Synops. Centur. 1. err 99. Controv. 9. Whether the fulfilling of the lawe be possible in this life v. 8. He that loueth an other hath fulfilled the lawe Hereupon our aduersaries the Romanists doe inferre that the law may be fulfilled by loue in this life Rhemist and Tolet whereas we obiect that no perfection can be attained vnto in this life hath this distinction that there is great difference between dilectionem in se perfectam eam quae est in praecepto loue which is perfect in it selfe and loue which is in the precept and commanded as if one bid a man runne perfectly or swiftly he meaneth not that he should runne so fast as an hart or hind but so fast as a man may runne so perfect charitie in it selfe is not commanded which can not be in this life but such charitie as a man in the state of grace beeing thereby helped may attaine vnto And thus he reasoneth if by loue the law could not be fulfilled S. Paul would not haue exhorted thereunto for it were in vaine to exhort vnto that which cannot be done an 11. Contra. 1. Touching the distinction it is no wayes to be admitted 1. for as God is so is his commandement he is perfect therefore he commandeth that which is perfect the loue then commanded in the lawe is a perfect loue and not onely according to the possibilitie of mans strength 2. further the written morall lawe commandeth the same thing which the naturall law did which was infused into Adam in his creation but that was perfect loue and charitie for he was created according to the image of God in righteousnesse and holinesse 3. and we are commanded to be perfect as our heauenly father is perfect Matth. 5. therefore not
according to the possibilitie onely of our owne strength 4. neither is the instance brought in to the purpose for when a man is bidde to run perfectly the meaning is he should runne as fast as a perfect man may runne not one that is lame or halting so man in the state of his perfection might haue fulfilled the lawe though now he cannot since his nature hath beene lamed by sinne therefore by his owne example such charitie is commanded as man before his fall might haue performed 2. Now to the argument we answer 1. that he indeede that can loue his neighbour as he ought may fulfill the lawe but so none can loue Martyr and so to the same purpose Calvin that the Apostle sub conditione loquitur speaketh as it were vnder condition that is if a man can so loue his neighbour which condition no man can fulfill 2. But because the Apostle vseth this as an argument to perswade vnto loue because it is the fulfilling of the lawe we will graunt that the Apostle speaketh here of such a fulfilling as is possible but that is not a perfect keeping of the lawe which none can attaine vnto but as Beza saith non vnum praeceptum obijt he that loueth his brother is not readie to keepe one precept onely but all so as Pareus well distinguisheth he speaketh of fulfilling the lawe partibus non gradibus in the parts not in the degrees as he which loueth his brother will shewe it in all the parts of the lawe he will neither steale nor commit adulterie nor doe any other hurt vnto him but perfectly in the highest decree of charitie no man can keepe the lawe for the Apostle saith In many things we offend all Iam. 3.11 then no man can perfectly fulfill the lawe in this life 3. Gualter here hath an other answear that the Apostle speaketh not of the fulfilling of the whole lawe but onely de externis officijs of the externall duties yet he insisteth not vpon this answear for the Apostle speaketh of coueting which is no externall thing but acted in the heart the best answear then is that the Apostle speaketh not of an absolute or plenarie fulfilling of the lawe which is not in mans power but of a totall and generall fulfilling and keeping of euery commandement that loue will not content it selfe with doing of our dutie in one or two commandements but in the rest also 10. Controv. Against the Marcionites which denied the morall precepts to be now in force but to be ceased The Marcionites as Origen sheweth dialog 2. against them would prooue from hence that the old law euen in respect of the morall precepts was ceased because it is here saide loue is the fulfilling of the law Contra. But Origen answeareth well that charitie is an epitome or summe of the law but the epitome or summe taketh not away the things which are therein contained nay rather the contrarie followeth because charitie is the fulfilling of the morall law and charitie alwaies remaineth therefore also the morall law continueth still is not abrogated though the ceremonies be ceased neither are the iudicialls necessarily now enforced 11. Controv. Against iustification by the workes of the law v. 10. Loue is the fulfilling of the law From this place Stapleton inferreth that the keeping of the law is our iustice and that by the works of charitie we are iustified and thus he reasoneth The keeping of the law is iustice but he that loueth his brother keepeth the law Ergo to this purpose Stapl. Antidot p. 973. Contr. 1. The proposition is true if it be vnderstood of the perfect keeping of the law for if any in all points could keepe the law he should thereby be iustified as S. Paul alleadgeth out of the law Rom. 10.5 He that doth these things shall liue thereby 2. but so no man is able to fulfill the law in some measure the faithfull guided by grace doe performe the precepts of the law but perfectly in all points they can not keepe it for then they might be without sinne for sinne is the transgression of the law 1. Ioh. 3.4 and whosoeuer transgresseth the law sinneth but no man is in this world without sinne as the same Apostle saith If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues 1. Ioh. 1.8 6. Morall obseruations 1. Observ. Of the office of the Magistrate in encouraging the good and punishing the euill v. 3. Princes are not to be feared for good works but for euill c. This ought to teach Magistrates that they should not abuse their authoritie in afflicting the good and sparing the euill as Iezabel did who maintained idolatrie sorcerie and adulterie in Israel 2. king 4.22 but persecuted the true Prophets but they must vse their authoritie to feare the euill and to be patrons to the good as the Apostle here saith they must be feared for euill works and not for good 2. Observ. That Magistrates should procure the common good and exercise true iudgement v. 4. He is the minister of God for thy wealth or good Here are two excellent parts of the Magistrates office described first because he is Gods minister he must consider that the iudgement is the Lords and therefore they ought to deale vprightly as Iehosaphac charged his iudges and officers 2. Chron. 19.6 Take heede what ye doe for ye execute not the iudgements of man but of the Lord c. and further the magistrate must propound to himselfe the good of the people not seeke his priuate gaine for he is ordained for their wealth for this is the difference betweene a good gouernor and an oppressor that the one studieth to profit the Commonwealth the other seeketh by laying heauie burthens vpon the people to enrich himselfe 3. Observ. How the Magistrate may comfort himselfe in his gouernment Whereas many cares and troubles are incident into the office of the Magistrate many dangers imminent and conspiracies intended he is herein to comfort himselfe that he is Gods minister and therefore he neede not to doubt but that God will assist his owne ordinance for it were impossible if the Lord did not guard and defend them that Princes could escape such perills as they are subiect vnto that saying then must animate and comfort them Touch not mine Annointed c. 1. Chron. 16.22 4. Observ. Of the vigilant care and painfull office of the Magistrate v. 6. Applying themselues to the same ende this sheweth that the Magistrate is called not to a place of pleasure and ease but of labour and care they must endeauour and applie themselues to this ende that is to seeke and procure the good of their subiects they watch when others sleepe and take care when their subiects are secure this well perceiued the King that said if one knew the cares that belong vnto the crowne and diademe they would not take it vp though it lay in the durt before them This should teach men not ambitiously to aspire to places of
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
two kind of scandals there is datum vel acceptum giuen or taken and not giuen offence is giuen when either a word or deede good or euill or a thing indifferent but vnseasonably vsed is so committed and done that an other is thereby made worse of such offences it is saide Woe vnto him by whome offences commeth an offence taken and not giuen is when any thing in it selfe good or indifferent beeing vsed tempestively and in season turneth to the euill of him which by his owne fault is thereby made worse these kind of offences neede not trouble vs the first is called scandalum activum an active scandall the other passivum passive 6. Here Lyranus putteth the question how farre spirituall things and temporall are to be left and dismissed for feare of scandall and thus he determineth things spirituall are either such as are simply necessarie to saluation which to omit were deadly sinne and such things must not in any case be omitted as to preach the Gospel to exercise our faith by good works some spirituall things are not so necessarie of themselues but are vsed as helps which may be omitted to auoide offence if it be ex ignorantia of ignorance not of malice as Augustine putteth the case of forbearing to vse Ecclesiasticall discipline when tenait in periculum schismatis it tendeth to danger of a schisme so temporall things are either our owne and so they must giue place to scandall and offence if it be of ignorance or they are not our owne but committed to our trust which trust we must not deceiue though it be with the scandall and offence of others 7. Pererius knitteth together these three distinctions before seuerally handled 1. of the thing wherein offence is giuen which is either good and therein we are to contemne all scandall and offence or euill in deede or in shew and appearance as in the vndiscreete vse of things indifferent and in these we must be carefull not to offend 2. of the persons to whome offence is giuen who are either men separated and diuided from the Church as heretikes to whome we must giue no way at all in the vse of things indifferent or they are the weake who for a time are tolerated and borne with in the Church and these must not be offended 3. of the manner of offence or scandall which is either ex malicia of malice when one will not be perswaded but continueth wilfull and obstinate or it is ex ignorantia of ignorance and it is called scandalum pusillorum the scandall of the little ones and they must not be contemned as our blessed Sauiour saith Matth. 18.10 See that ye despise not one of these little ones 24. Quest. Of the occasion of these words v. 14. I know and am perswaded c. and of the meaning thereof 1. For the occasion 1. Chrysostome thinketh that as hetherto the Apostle seemed to find fault with the strong which iudged their weake brethren now he beginneth to instruct the conscience of the weake but it appeareth by the words following v. 15. that the Apostle still exhorteth the strong not to giue any occasion of offence to the weake and so Lyranus well obserueth that as hetherto he mooued them not to contemne their brethren so now not to scandalize or offend them 2. Gorrhan thinketh the Apostle doth here expound himselfe why before v. 13. he bid them to giue no occasion of stumbling or falling not that the eating of meate is euill in it selfe but because of the opinion of the weake 3. But the Apostle rather meeteth here with an obiection which might be made in the person of the strong that he was for his part well perswaded in Christ that nothing was of it selfe vncleane howsoeuer it might be to others the Apostle graunting all this yet will haue the stronger to forbeare eating least they might grieue the tender conscience of the weake brethren 2. I know and am perswaded c. The word is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I am assured certen or perswaded Pererius here taketh occasion to shew that this word in Scripture doth not alwaies signifie certitudinem fidei divinae a diuine certentie of faith sed probabilem perswasionem but a probable perswasion as the Apostle saith of the Hebrewes c. 6.9 We haue perswaded our selues better things of you and in this epistle c. 13.14 I am perswaded of you that ye are full of goodnes S. Paul did not thus beleeue of others fide divina by a diuine faith c. thus Perer disput 1. numer 1. Contra. 1. Though it might be admitted that S. Paul by reuelation of the spirit might know and discerne what was in others as he would pronounce of some that their names were written in the booke of life Philip. 4.3 2. yet will we not insist vpon this but denie the argument rather that because this word I am perswaded sometime signifieth a coniecturall and probable perswasion onely that it should therefore so be taken alwaies for though we can not haue a coniecturall hope and perswasion of an others saluation as beeing grounded vpon an opinion onely yet one may attaine to a certaine perswasion of his owne state such as grounded vpon knowledge as here the Apostle ioyneth both together I know and am perswaded and it is the same which before was expressed by the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to be fully assured and perswaded v. 5. 3. Thorough the Lord Iesus 1. some referre these words to the sentence following that thorough or in the Lord Iesus nothing is vncleane in it selfe because Christ by his comming hath abrogated the ceremonies of Moses law who made some meates cleane some vncleane Martyr Bullinger but neither by Moses law were any meates counted vncleane in themselues that is by their nature therefore this clause is better ioyned with the former words I know and am perswaded by the Lord Iesus so Chrysostome ab illo doctiu as taught of him non est humanae cogitationis ista sententia this that I say is not an humane thought but I am taught it by Christ. 4. Nothing common so the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã signifieth 1. Origen thinketh that meates were called common and vncleane because men did eate them whose minde beeing polluted with many sinnes and made the habitation of many vncleane spirits was made common and so the meates were defiled and made common 2. but Haymo saith that those meates were called common quibus gentes communiter vtebantur which were commonly vsed by the Gentiles beeing prohibited to the Iewes by the law as vessels which were consecrated to the vse of the Temple were holy other were common and profane and the reason of that appellation profanum profane is this as if it were perro fanum that is farre off from the vse of the temple So then common is as much as to say vncleane as it is interpreted Act. 10.14 5. Nothing is common by it selfe 1. The vulgar Latin readeth per
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
weak should be respected in the observation of dayes and difference of meates that not onely in those things but in all other the like infirmities the stronger should support the weake Pareus so also Gualter doctrinam generaliorem subucit de Christiana lenitate he now supplyeth a more generall doctrine concerning Christian lenitie so also Osiand Quest. 2. Whome and wherein the strong should support the weake 1. We which are strong 1. Chrysostome observeth well how the Apostle allureth the strong and speaketh lovingly vnto them not onely in calling them strong but in suum ordinem eos collocavit he placeth them in his owne order and this he doth because he had seemed before somewhat sharpely to take them vp for vsing their Christian libertie so freely without respect had vnto their weake brethren 2. the strong ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or mightie are not here onely those which were instructed concerning the indifferent vse of all meates as Haymo but such as were plenius edocti more fully taught and instructed in matters of faith Par. and such also as were purioris vitae more perfect and pure in life Origen for the Apostle speaketh generally of all infirmities of the brethren touching doctrine or manners 2. Ought to beare 1. we ought debemus non donamus it is our dutie so to doe not a gift Chrysost. 2. to beare ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is not onely to tolerate and support their infirmities sed in se suscipere vt curant but to take them in hand to cure them Bulling erigere non contemnere to raise them vp not to despise or contemne them gloss interlin it is a metaphor taken from the fashion of building where the pillars doe carrie the weight and burthen of the house as the faithfull are called pillers Reuel 3.17 and as it is said that Salomon laied great stones to make the foundation of the temple to support the rest 1. King 5.17 Hugo or it may be taken from the frame and constitution of a mans bodie where the sinewes and bones are made to beare vp the flesh and other tender parts Lyran. 3. The infirmities of the weake 1. The Apostle vseth two words he saith not the weake but the infirmities of the weake vt ad maiorem commiserationem alliciat to draw them to greater commiseration Theophyl 2. it is a metaphor taken from children or sicke persons which are weake and impotent and there is no man but will be readie to pitie and helpe such 3. these infirmities are not onely concerning the difference of meates as Haymo but the Apostle meaneth others also qui alio infirmitatis genere labârant which are troubled with any other kind of infirmitie as if one be giuen to anger to rayling and such like Chrysost. 4. but the Apostle speaketh of infirmities onely non hic agitur de sceleribus he entreateth not of great offences as of theft murder and such like for these are not to be borne with at all Osiand he meaneth not then vitia âperta manifest sinnes which are directly against the word but onely of slippes in life and doctrine which proceed of ignorance and common infirmitie 5. These then are the infirmities here mentioned either concerning spirituall things or temporall the spirituall concerne either saith as ignorance error not beeing fundamentall or manners as are the slippes and fayling in life and conuersation which ouerthrow not good manners in temporall things there are diuerse kind of infirmities 1. as in the state and condition as the rich must support the necessities of the poore 2. or in respect of the sex the husband must beare with the wife as the weaker vessell 3. or of the bodie such are the infirmities of sicknes and old age wherein the weake are also to be supported But the two first kinds of infirmities touching faith and manners are specially here vnderstood and intended by the Apostle though it may be extended also to corporall necessities as Origen inferreth he that is richer in substance onus pauperioris portet let him beare the burthen of the poore so also Chrysost. si dives fueris c. if thou be rich please not thy selfe but the poore Quest. 3. Of the reasons why the weake should be supported 1. Christ supporteth and beareth our infirmities no man is so perfect qui non in aliquo apud Deum inveniatur infirmus which is not in some one thing or other week before God and had neede to be supported of Christ we therefore as Christ hath borne the infirmities of vs all so we should one beare an others infirmities Origen 2. Thou art strong repende Deo mercedem qui te talem fecit shewe thy thankefulnes to God who hath made thee strong and thus shalt thou doe it if thou dost correct the infirmitie of the weake Chrysost. 3. Si condescenderis nihil damniferes if thou condescend to the weake thou shalt suffer no losse but if thou condescend not the other is in great danger it is no losse to thee but againe to him therefore beare with him Chrysost. 4. Illi non possunt se ad nos erigere they cannot rise vp to vs therefore we should condescend and apply our selues to them gloss interlin 5. Nullus est qui non in se habeat aliquid c. there is none that hath not somewhat himselfe to be supported and therefore the Apostle saith Galat. 6. Beare one anothers burthen Gorrhan therefore he that is strong wherein he is strong must beare with the weake that wherein he is weake he may be supported likewise of his brother 6. The Apostle also perswadeth herevnto by his owne example counting himselfe among the number we which are strong who will thinke scorne to beare with the weake vnto whom S. Paul so great an Apostle vouchsafeth to condescend Gualter 7. This is the end why God hath giuen vnto some greater gifts and more strength then vnto others that by their strength they might support the weake Pareus 8. And hereunto we are perswaded both iure naturae by the law of nature which mooueth and stirreth vp men to helpe and succour the weake and iure divino by the lawe of God which prescribeth that if our enemies asse should lie downe vnder his burthen we should helpe him vp Deut. 22.4 how much more ought we to shewe this compassion to our weake brother Quest. 4. How the Apostle here counteth himselfe among the strong els where maintaining himselfe among the weake The occasion of this doubt is mooued by Origen out of that place 1. Cor. 9. v. 22. to the weake I became as weake how then doth the Apostle here call himselfe strong and beside he seemeth to praise himselfe contrarie to the saying of the wiseman Prou. 27.2 Let thy neighbour praise thee and not thine owne mouth c. Answ. 1. Origen answeareth to the first doubt that the Apostle in that place doth not say he is weake sed fieri infirmum but that he was made or became weak
that this Epistle was written by Paul and is of diuine authoritie by the epistle it selfe 2. contr That S. Pauls epistles are not so obscure that any should be terrified from the reading thereof 3. contr Against the Ebionites which retained the rites and ceremonies of Moses 4. contr Against the Marcionites that reiected the lawe of Moses 5. contr Against the Romanists which depraue the doctrine taught by S. Paul in his Epistle 6. contr Against Socinus that blasphemously subverteth the doctrine of our redemption by Christ and iustification by faith 7. contr Whether Paul may be thought to haue beene married Controversies vpon the 1. Chapter 1. contr Against the Manichees which refuse Moses and the Prophets 2. contr Against Election by the foresight of workes 3. contr Against the Nestorians and Vbiquitaries 4. contr Against the heresie of one Georgius Eniedinus a Samosatenian heretike in Transilvania 5. cont Against the Marcionites that Christ had a true bodie 6. contr Against the Apollinaââsts that Christ had no humane soule 7. contr That the Romane faith is not the same now which was commended by the Apostle 8. contr That the Pope is not vniversall Bishop 9. contr Against the Popish distinction betweene ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to worship and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to serue v. 9. whom I serue in my spirit 10. contr That God onely spiritually is to be serued and worshipped 11. contr Of the vaine vse of Popish pilgrimages 12. contr None to be barred from the knowledge of Gods word 13. contr Against diuerse hereticall assertions of Socinus touching the iustice of God 14. contr Against inherent iustice 15. contr That the Sacraments did not conferre grace 16. contr That faith onely iustifieth 17. contr How the Gospel is the power of God to salvation to euerie one that beleeueth 18. contr Of the difference between the law and the Gospel 19. contr Whether by naturall meanes the Gentiles might haue attained to the knowledge of the onely true God without the speciall assistance of Gods grace 20. contr Against some Philosophers that the world is not eternall 21. contr Against the adoration and setting vp of images in Churches and places of prayer v. 23. they turned the glorie of the incorruptible God to the similitude of an image 22. contr Of the corrupt reading of the vulgar Latine translation v. 32. 23. contr Against the Popish distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes Controversies out of the 2. Chapter 1. contr Against the power of freewill in good things 2. contr Of iustification by the imputatiue iustice of faith 3. contr Against the merit of workes 4. contr Which are to be counted good works 5. con Whether any good works of the faithfull be perfect 6. contr Whether men ought to doe well for hope of recompence or reward 7. contr Against iustification by workes vpon these words v. 13. Not the heares of the lawe but the doers shall be iustified 8. contr That it is not possible in this life to keepe the lawe 9. contr Whether by the light of nature onely a man may doe any thing morally good 10. contr Of the imperfection of the vulgar Latine translation 11. contr That the Sacraments do not conferre grace 12. contr That the Sacraments depend not vpon the worthines of the Minister or receiuer 13. contr Against the Marcionites and other which condemned the old Testament and the ceremonies thereof 14. contr Against the Anabaptists which reiect the Sacraments of the newe Testament 15. contr That the want of Baptisme condemneth not 16. contr That the wicked and vnbeleeuers eate not the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament Controversies vpon the 3. Chapter 1. contr That the Sacraments of the old Testament did not iustifie ex opere operato by the work wrought and so consequenly neither the newe 2. contr Of the Apochryphall Scriptures 3. contr That the wicked and vnbeleeuers doe not eate the bodie of Christ in the Eucharist 4. contr That the Romane Church hath not the promise of the perpetuall presence of Gods spirit 5. contr The Virgin Marie not exempted from sinne 6. contr The reading of the Scripture is not to be denied to any 7. contr Against the adversaries of the law the Marcionites and other heretikes 8. contr Against the counsels of perfection 9. contr Against the Pelagians which established free-will 10. contr That the vertue of Christs death is indifferently extended both to sinnes before baptisme and after 11. contr That the beleeuing fathers before Christ were not kept in Limbo 12. contr Against the Marcionite heretikes 13. contr Against the Novatian heretikes 14. contr Against inherent iustice 15. contr Against the Popish distinction of the first and second iustification 16. contr Against the works of preparation going before iustification 17. contr What iustifying faith is 18. contr What manner of faith it is that iustifieth 19. contr Of the manner how faith iustifieth 20. contr Whether faith alone iustifieth 21. contr How S. Paul and S. Iames are reconciled together 23. contr Against Socinus that Christ properly redeemed vs by paying the ransome for vs and not metaphorically 23. contr That Christ truely reconciled vs by his blood against an other blasphemous assertion of Socinus Controversies out of the 4. Chapter 1. contr That the Apostle excludeth all kind of workes from iustification 2. contr Whether blessednes consist onely in the conversion of sinners v. 7. 3. contr Whether sinne is wholly purged and taken away in the iustification of the faithfull 4. contr Against workes of satisfaction 5. contr Of imputatiue iustice against inherent righteousnes 6. contr That the Sacraments doe not conferre grace by the externall participation onely 7. contr That there is the same substance and efficacie of the Sacraments of the old and newe Testament 8. contr That circumcision was not onely a signe signifying or distinguishing but a seale confirming the promise of God 9. contr Whether circumcision were availeable for the remission of sinne 10. contr Of the presumptuous titles of the Pope calling himselfe the father and head of the faithfull 11. contr Against the Chiliasts or Millenaries that hold that Christ should raigne a 1000. yeares in the earth 12. contr Of the certaintie of faith v. 16. that the promise might be sure 13. contr Whether faith be an act of the vnderstanding onely 14. contr That iustifying faith is not a generall apprehension or beleeuing of the articles of the faith but an assurance of the remission and forgiuenesse of sinnes in Christ. 15. contr That faith doth not iustifie by the merit or act thereof but onely instrumentally as it applyeth and apprehendeth the righteousnesse of Christ. 16. contr The people are no to be denied the reading of the Scriptures 17. contr Against the heretikes which condemned the old Testament and the author thereof 18. contr Whether iustification consist onely in the remission of sinnes 19. contr Against Socinus corrupt interpretation of these words v. 25. was deliuered vp for our sinnes 20. contr Piscators