from this vniuersalitie he that attempteth to except you goeth about to deceiue you Gregor lib. 4. epist. 31. acknowledgeth Mauritius the Emperour his Lord c. 5. To conclude reason it selfe perswadeth thus much that all the citizens as parts and members of the Commonwealth should be subiect to the head and gouernor thereof Ecclesiasticall persons then if they be citizens and members of the Commonwealth must be in subiection to the Ciuill head not onely decretiva sed coactiva obligatione not onely to receiue direction but by a coactiue bond and obligation for otherwise they are not parts and members of the Ciuill bodie See further hereof Synops. Cent. 1. err 98.100 2. Controv. Whether the Pope haue a spirituall power aboue Kings and Princes The Pope is not contented to exempt himselfe and his Clergie from the command of the Ciuill Magistrate but he arrogateth vnto himselfe a superior power to be aboue Emperors and Kings Innocentius 3. decret 1. titul 33. de maiorit C. solitae thus decreeth Imperium non praeest Sacerdotio sed subest the Empire is not superior to the Priesthood but vnder it and Bonifacius 8. extrav de maiorit C. vnam sanctam decreeth thus that omnes Christi fideles de necessitate salutis c. all the faithfull of Christ vpon necessitie of saluation are subiect to the Romane Bishop qui vtrumque gladium habet c. who hath both swords and iudgeth all and himselfe is iudged of none And in the same place he compareth the Ecclesiasticall and Ciuil power to the two great lights which God made and there is as great difference betweene them as betweene the Sunne and Moone Bellarmine though in words he denie the Pope to haue vllam temporalem iurisdictionem directe any temporall iurisdiction directly yet he hath power indirecte indirectly to dispose of temporall things yea of Princes kingdomes and dominions in ordine ad bonum spirituale as it serueth for the promoting of the spirituall good and so in effect the Pope shall haue absolute power of temporall things to dispose at his will and pleasure as he seeth to make for the maintenance of his iurisdiction which they vnderstand to be this spirituall good Some and the chiefe of their arguments for this vnreasonable opinion are these 1. The Pope hath both the swords the spirituall and the materiall sword as the Apostles said Luk. 22. behold two swords and Christ answered it is enough he is therefore aboue the Ciuill power which hath but one sword Ans. 1. Bellarm. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 7. disclaimeth this argument and sheweth that there is no such meaning in that place by the two swords to vnderstand a double power of the Pope but they were two materiall swords in deede which were shewed vnto Christ. 2. and this beeing but a deuised allegorie not expressed in Scripture is of no force to proue any doctrine 2. Bonifacius further vrgeth in the saide place that the Church is superior to the Ciuill state because they receiue tithes of them Ans. 1. We graunt that the Church which giueth spirituall things and receiueth temporall is superior and more worthie in respect of the spirituall things which it giueth but it is not therefore superior in temporall dominion 2. neither were they in the law alwaies superior which receiued tithes for beside the tithes which were giuen to the Levites the rich also reserued a tith for the poore and strangers Deut. 14.28 3. and though this be admitted that the paiment of the ceremoniall tith was a signe of subiection as the Apostle reasoneth for the preheminence of Melchisedeck Heb. 7.5 because that tith was giuen vnto the Levites in the Lords right who were then a type and figure of Christ yet now all ceremonies beeing ceased tithes are giuen vnto the Church not in the name of the Leviticall tenths but as the salarie and stipend of the ministers for their maintenance so that now they are no signe of such superioritie for the hire is giuen to the labourer as well by those that are superiors as inferiors 3. Argum. The Bishops doe annoint kings at their inauguration and doe blesse them but the lesse is blessed of the greater Heb. 7. therefore the Ecclesiasticall state is greater Ans. 1. By this meanes not the Pope onely but euery Bishop which doth annoint the Prince at his coronation should be greater then the Prince 2. he that blesseth by a Propheticall benediction as did the Prophets and Priests which was by the special appointment of God was greater but euery one that ordinarily blesseth is not greater for the subiects vse to blesse their Prince in their vsuall acclamations and this is but benedictio ritualis a kind of rituall no reall blessing which is vsed in such inauguration as an externall complement and matter of solemnitie as so is the annointing which argueth no more a superioritie then the receiuing of the sword from the high Marshall and of the great seale from the Chancelor as the vse was in Princes coronations 4. Argum. The Lord said to Ieremie chap. 1.10 I haue set thee ouer nations and kingdomes to pull vp and destroy which Ieremie was not of the princely race but of the stocke of the Priests therefore the Ecclesiasticall power is aboue kings Ans. 1. The particular and extraordinarie example of one Prophet can be no rule to the Pope 2. and his power was spirituall not in the actuall deposing of kings but in prophecying of their ruine 5. Argum. The Apostle saith 1. Cor. 2. that the spirituall man iudgeth all things but he is iudged of none this spirituall man is the Pope c. Ans. 1. The Apostle speaketh not there of a spirituall man by calling or profession but of one illuminate by the spirit and he is set against the carnall and naturall man such a spirituall man beeing guided by the spirit is able to iudge and discerne all things and he himselfe can not be iudged of those which are carnall 2. such a spirituall man the Pope is not but the man of sinne who sauoureth not the things of the spirit of God but of the flesh 6. Argum. The power of binding and loosing is the greatest power in earth but this power was giuen vnto Peter and his successors therefore the Pope hath the greatest power in earth Ans. 1. The power of binding and loosing by the word of God is the greatest power in spirituall things but not in temporall 2. the Pope hath not this power he bindeth not by the word but by his bulls booke bell and candle 3. if he had this power he should not haue it alone for it was not giuen onely to Peter but to all the Apostles and their successors the Pastors of the Church to whome it is said Matth. 18. Whatsoeuer yee loose in earth c. 7. Argum. Bellarmine thus reasoneth 1. the superior power may command the inferior therefore the Ecclesiasticall beeing superior may command the Politike state 2. and
temporall things may be by the spirituall power disposed in ordine ad spirituale bonum as they are in the way to further the spirituall good 3. If the Pope had not this power ouer the Temporall state the Church should not be perfect neque sufficeret sibi ad suum finem neither should haue sufficient meanes to attaine the ende which is eternall happines 4. And if the Pope had not power to depose kings the Church should be compelled to suffer an hereticall or infidell king which is not to be admitted Ans. 1. Euery superior power can not command the inferior vnlesse it be a power cum imperio ioyned with authoritie it is not true of such a power which consisteth onely in a ministeriall employment as in teaching exhorting comforting and such like so the Ecclesiasticall in respect of the matter wherein it is occupied which is spirituall but in respect of externall power and authoritie it is not superior 2. True it is that temporall things ought to be referred vnto the spirituall ende but the spirituall Pastors haue no power to dispose of temporall things to that ende but to direct the temporall power to instruct and exhort and teach how they should vse their temporall things for the setting forth of Gods glorie the maintenance of the truth and the ministerie thereof and if they fayle in this dutie they must leaue the rest vnto God againe the spirituall good which the Pope intendeth is his owne greatnes and the aduancement of his Papall Sea which is a meere worldly and temporall thing and further this power of directing temporall things to a spirituall ende euery faithfull Pastor hath and the Pope hath it not because he preacheth not 3. The Church is perfect enough without any such power for till a 1000. yeares after Christ when Popes beganne to vsurpe vpon the temporall power the Church was sufficient without any such vsurpation to attaine the ende proposed vnto the faithfull and had better direction vnto saluation then vnder the Papall tyrannie 4. The Church is patiently to suffer the gouernment yea of an heretike or infidell as Ieremie mooueth the people to pray for the prosperitie of Nabucadnezzer c. 29. Paul would haue praiers and supplications made euen for the heathen kings yea for Nero then liuing and raigning yea and the Church of God more flourished in vertue and godlines then afterward vnder Christian gouernors as Hierome witnesseth in the life of Malchus after the Church beganne to haue Christian Magistrates facta est opibus maior virtutibus minor it became greater in wealth but lesse in vertue And if it were necessarie to haue an euill Prince deposed it followeth not that this power should be devolved to the Pope it belongeth to the states and Peeres of the land where the lawes doe authorise them to see vnto such matters 8. Argum. They vrge examples and bring forth presidents for this supreame authoritie of the Papall Sea 1. The high Priest cast out Vzziah out of the temple when he would haue vsurped the Priests office and Iehoida the high Priest caused Athaliah to be slaine 2. Ambrose excommunicated Theodosius the Emperour 3. Gregorie the 2. excommunicated Leo the Emperour and depriued him of his tribute and revenewes Zacharias deposed Childerik king of France and set vp Pipinus in his place Gregorie 7. deposed Henrie 4. Emperor Innocentius 3. deposed Otho 4. Innocentius 4. Fredericke the 4. Clemens the 6. Lodovike the 4. 4. Leo the 3. translated the Empire from the Greekes to the Germanes and Gregorie the 5. made that order that the Emperor should be chosen by 7. Electors which remaineth vnto this day Ans. First in generall examples doe not prooue specially such as are either vnlike or forged or such examples as are vniust and vnlawfull of one of these sorts are all the examples produced 1. The Priests did not cause Vzziah to goe out of the Sanctuarie vntill the leprosie appeared in him and for that they had a direct commandement not to suffer a leprous person to enter into the Sanctuarie if the Pope could shew such a warrant for the deposing of kings he should say somewhat to the purpose neither was Vzziah for all this deposed from his kingdome but liued apart by himselfe and the kingdome was administred by Iotham his sonne 2. Chron. 26.21 The example also of Iehoida is much vnlike for he not as the high Priest but as the Tutor and protector of the young king and with the advise and consent of the fathers of Israel caused seditious Athaliah to be slaine 2. Chron. 23.3 2. Ambrose deposed not Theodosius but suspended him from the Communion till he had giuen satisfaction to the Church neither was he Bishop of Rome but of Millaine if this example prooued any thing not the Pope onely but euery other Bishop might depose kings 3. Touching all those examples alleadged they are vnlawfull and vniust and the Pope beganne to discouer himselfe to be Antichrist in so abasing the Imperiall power and taking vpon him to dispose of kingdomes as the Deuill challenged to be Lord of the world and to giue the kingdomes thereof to whome he would no better right hath the Pope the eldest sonne of Sathan to pull downe and set vp kings And though in those blind and superstitious daies when iniquitie was strong the Pope preuailed in his presumptuous enterprises yet he had not alwaies the like successe Bonifacius 8. attempted to haue deposed Philippus the faire king of France Benedict the 13. would haue done the like to Charles the 6. Iulius the 2. against Lewes the 12. but their presumptuous enterprises were frustrate What Pius the 5. attempted against Queene Elizabeth and of late Paulus the 5. against the Venetian state and with what friuolous successe is euident to the world all these examples are vniust because the Pope was Iudge in his owne cause and resisted the lawfull powers which are ordained of God 4. Neither is it true that Leo the 3. translated the Empire from the Greekes to the Germanes for he could not conferre that vpon an other which he neuer had himselfe the truth is that Charles by force inuaded the Empire of the East Aventinus sheweth the occasion by reason that a woman then had the gouernment of the Empire at Constantinople the Romanes tooke an occasion to nominate a new Emperor and whereas Charles at that time tenebat omnes provincias quae ad vrbem Romam pertinebant did hold all the Prouinces which belonged to the citie of Rome Papa Senatus populus Romanus illum designabant Imperatorem the Pope Senate and people of Rome did appoint him to be Emperor c. So then it was not the Popes act alone but of the whole Senate and people of Rome neither was it there act simply Carolus had made a way before hauing all the Romane Prouinces in his possession As touching the supposed sanction and order for the electing of the Emperor neither was it the Popes sole
inward circumcision of the heart which is by faith 2. Anselmus thinketh that the Apostle reporteth here that which he said before that Abraham is the father of them which beleeue though they be vncircumcised but he toucheth here rather the other part that Abraham is the father of the circumcision also which he further explaineth that he meaneth not such as onely haue the carnall circumcision but such as walke in the steppes of Abraham 3. By walking in the steppes the Apostle vnderstandeth not here the fruites and effects of faith but rather faith it selfe in which respect Abraham is said to be the father of the faithfull Beza annot And herein they must followe the steppes of Abraham 1. he was not counted iust not by any merits or workes of his but by faith 2. this faith was ioyned with a constant and full assurance herein they must be like vnto Abraham 4. Origen here obserueth that though at this time he were called Abram not Abraham when he was pronounced iust by faith Gen. 15. yet the Apostle retaineth that name which was afterward imposed by the Lord quod enim divinitus sumitur obseruari in posterum convenit for that which is once appointed of God it is fit afterward to be observed Quest. 23. How and where Abraham was promised to be heire of the world v. 13. 1. Gryneus by the world vnderstandeth by a Synecdoche of the whole taken for a part the land of Canaan which was promised to Abraham and his seede but the Apostle speaketh here not of a temporall but of a spirituall promise 2. Faius Osiander with others doe apply it vnto Canaan also but mystically as it was a type and figure of the kingdome of heauen 3. Lyranus will haue this fulfilled in Christ to whom was giuen all power in heauen and earth so also Peter Martyr and Caluin who alleadgeth that place Heb. 1.2 Whom he hath made heire of all things 4. Pareus by the world vnderstandeth the world of the faithfull and beleeuers dispersed ouer the world and so in effect it is the same which he said before that Abraham should be the father of all which beleeue whether of the circumcision or vncircumcision So also Origen here referreth vs vnto that promise Gen. 15. that in Abraham all the kinreds of the earth should be blessed likewise Beza 5. As this last seemeth to be the fittest interpretation so I thinke it best to ioyne both these last together that Abraham was made heire of the world that is the father of all beleeuers in the world yet so as this was chiefely performed in Christ as it is said Psalme â—â— I will giue the heathen for thine inheritance and the vttermost parts of the earth for thy possession And so S. Paul also Galath 3. vnderstandeth the seede of Abraham vnto whom the promise was made of Christ to this purpose the ordinarie glosse that Abraham was heres mundi secundum propositum exemplum heire of the world in respect of his example of beleeuing but Christ secundum potestatem in regard of his power Quest. 24. Wherein Abraham was made heire of the world and wherein this inheritance consisted 1. This inheriting of the world is not meant of any temporall dominion which snoâ—â— fall vnto the posteritie of Abraham as the Iewes dreamed for the obiect of faith is spirituall not temporall as it is defined by the Apostle to be the euidence of things that are not seene Heb. 11.1 2. It must therefore be referred vnto Christ. 1. Abraham in Christs right is promiseâ—â— the inheritance of the world which should be chiefely accomplished in the celestiall inheritance 2. and now in the earth this spirituall inheriting of the world is vnderstood of the Church of Christ which is dispersed thorough the world 3. and beside the faithfull onely haue true tight and interest vnto the temporall things of this life which the wicked 〈◊〉 bold as vsurpers as the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 3.21 all things are yours and ye Christs and Christ Gods Pareus Quest. 25. How faith is said to be made voide if they which are of the lawe be heires 1. Haymo by the promise here vnderstandeth the blessing which was promised to Abraham should in his seede come vpon all nations so that if they which were of the lawe and circumcision should onely be heires vnto Abraham that promise should not be accomplished that all nations should in his feede be blessed 2. Origen thus expoundeth evacuabitur id that should be evacuated and made voide that Abraham was iustified by faith his meaning is that the word of God should not be found true so also Osiander taketh here faith for the constancie of Gods promises it would follow that God did not stand to his promise seeing the promise was made to the faith of Abraham but faith is not taken in that sense in this chapter but thereby is meant beleefe in God and the relying vpon his promises 3. Bucer and Calvin giue this sense that seeing faith is ioyned with an assured confidence and trust if the promise were made to the keeping of the law which beeing a thing impossible would make doubtfulnesse and distrust in the minde this were contrarie vnto the nature of faith and so in this respect faith should be made voide 4. Tolet here referreth vs to that place Galat. 3.17 where the Apostle reasoneth from the time that the lawe which came 400. yeares after the promise could not make voide the promise which was made before but if the inheritance came by the lawe then should the promise which was made first be of no effect which were verie absurd and inconuenient 5. But the Apostle rather reasoneth here from the contrarie and diuerse nature of the lawe and promise for the lawe requireth workes and so the reward is of due debt the promise is of faith and so the reward is of grace and fauour these then doe one destroy an other for that which is of fauour cannot be of desert and due debt if the inheritance then come by the lawe of workes the lawe of faith is made voide and so Gods promise should be frustrate which is impossible Pareus in ver 14. Quest. 26. How the lawe is said to cause wrath 1. This is not brought in as an argument and proofe of the former speach that the promise is of no effect if the inheritance were by the lawe but it is a new argument to prooue that inheritance is not by the lawe by the contrarie effect because the promise procureth a blessing but the lawe wrath and so malediction therefore the inheritance is not by the law 2. Origen by the lawe vnderstandeth the lawe of the members which maketh vs captiue vnto sinne and indeede causeth wrath and where this law is not there is no transgression Haymo thinketh it may be of the lawe of nature but it is euident that the Apostle speaketh of the written lawe of Moses as he calleth the Iewes Abrahams seede of the lawe v.
all the time of the world since the persecution of Abel but the second sense before seemeth to be the fittest 57. Quest. Wherein the faithfull are compared vnto sheepe We are counted as sheepe for the slaughter v. 36. 1. Gorrhan here obserueth eight seuerall points wherein they are resembled vnto sheepe 1. for their innocencie 2. their patience 3. their immolation and offering vp in sacrifice 4. their doctrine is as the milke 5. their godly conuersation as the fleece 6. the tyrants and persecutors are toward them as wolues 7. they are fruitfull in bringing forth many children vnto God as sheepe that bring out twinnes 8. they are obedient to Christ our chiefe shepheard as the sheepe heare the voice of the shepheard 2. But these resemblances are somewhat farre fetched and concerne not the scope of the Apostle here herein therefore this similitude consisteth 1. as Chrysostome Theophylast Haymo quia occiduntur sine reluctatione they are slaine without any resistance 2. sunt simplices they are simple as beseemeth the flocke of Christ. Martyr 3. like as butchers draw out the sheepe to be killed at their pleasure so tyrants vpon euery occasion make slaughter of Gods seruants euen as butchers slay their sheepe as it happened in France in the great massaker at Paris Lyons Orleans and other places Gryneus 4. like as sheepe are killed for their flesh and fleece so tyranni bona martyrum rapiebant did ceaze vpon the goods of the Martyrs 5. herein appeareth the conformitie betweene Christ and his members who was as a sheepe lead to the slaughter Isa. 53.7 Bucer 6. adde hereunto they are counted sicut â—ves morbidae as specked and diseased sheepe and so killed Gorrhan 58. Quest. How the faithfull are said to be more then conquerours 1. The vulgar Latine readeth onely superamus we ouercome so also Haymo and the Syrian translator so interpreteth but the word in the originall is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we doe more then ouercome 2. Which is diuersly expounded 1. Basil in Psal. 114. giueth this sense he ouercommeth which giueth not place to those troubles which are necessarily inflicted vpon him he doth more then ouercome qui vltro accersit molestiâ—â— c. which willingly doth offer himselfe â—â— endure more then is laid vpon him as Origen giueth instance in Iob who beside the plagues which were laid vpon him by the malice of Sathan did of himself 〈◊〉 vnto his sorâ—â—â—â—es as in renting his garments and scraping his sore wounds with a posthead c. but this obseruation seemeth somewhat curious 2. Chrysostome and Theophylâ—â—◠〈◊〉 referre it both vnto the afflictions which they suffer the persons which doe suffer and the persecutors which procure their suffrings in the first which are teâ—tations to trie them they are more then conquerors triumphyng in those things in quibus infidias patimur wherein we are sought to be supplanted and concerning the persons of the sufferers they ouercome with great facilitie sine sudore labore without sweat or labour and concerning the persecutors flagellati flagellatores vicimus we beeing whipped ouercame the whippers the patience of the Saints which is invincible vanquisheth and wearieth the tormentors 3. But the fittest sense is that we are more then conquerours because the Saints are nor only not broken and terrified with their manifold suffrings but doe also glorie and reioyce in their tribulation Beza and are brought vnto an heauenly kingdome wherein the excellencie of the victorie appeareth Osiand Quest. 59. Of the diuerse interpretations in generall of the 38.39 vers I am perswaded that neither life nor death c. 1. Hugo Card. here obserueth that the Apostle rehearseth an eleuen seuerall impediments which might hinder the certaintie of our saluation which is numerus transgressione the number of transgression because it exceedeth the number of the commandements by one and so hereby he thinketh whatsoeuer to be meant whereby a man may be seduced or induced to transgresse but this obseruation beside that it is curious is builded vpon a false ground for there are but onely tenne particulars named by the Apostle the eleuenth utque fortitudo nor strength is inserted by the Latine translator not beeing in the originall and Augustine omitteth it in citing of this text lib. de grat liber arb c. 17. though it be found in the allegation of Hierome epist. ad Algas qu. 9. yet seeing neither the Greeke originall nor the auncient Syriake translation hath it it is better omitted 2. Gorrhan setteth out this enumeration of the Apostle in diuerse heads as all kind of actions doe either tend ad esse or bene esse to the beeing of man or his well beeing the being of man is either preserued and that is by life or destroyed by death that which tendeth vnto mans well beeing is either by the spirituall creature onely or by the corporall onely or from the creature partly spirituall partly corporall which is man the spirituall creature is expressed by 3. names Angels principalities powers the corporall is distinguished in respect of things present or to come the creature both spirituall and temporall is set forth with three diuerse actions as of violence signified by fortitude or strength of craft and subtiâ—â—ie called depth or of prosperitie called here height But this curious diuision agreeth not with the simple and plaine enumeration which the Apostle vseth and beside he groundeth this conceit vpon the Latine text which addeth one word fortitude more then is in the originall he fayleth also in the particular explication of things present things to come bright depth as shall be seene afterward 3. Origen observeth well that as the Apostle had rehearsed before omnes humanas tentationes all humane tentations v. 35. as famine nakednesse the sword and such like nowe be reckoneth vp tentations maiores humanis greater then humane tentations as he speaketh of Angels principalities powers But that other note of his is not so good that whereas before the Apostle spake confidenter confidently saying in all these we are more then conquerours yet here valde tenuiter aijâ— he saith somewhat slenderly or faintely not that we are more then conquerours as before but nothing can separate vs c. whereas in truth the Apostle saying I am perswaded speaketh no lesse confidently then before Quest. 60. Of the diuerse interpretations in particular 1. Death nor life 1. Origen vnderstandeth by death the death of the soule which is a separation from God and by life the life of sinne 2. Chrysostome applyeth it to euerlasting death and an other immortall life that though they could promise vnto vs an other immortall life to separate vs from Christ we ought not to giue consent 3. Osiander interpreteth mors horrenda vita aerumâ—â—sa an horrible death and a miserable life 4. Lyranus vnderstandeth amor vitae the loue of this life and the feare of death the one threatened by persecutors the other promised 5. But it may be more generally taken for omnia
in fulfilling and performing it he hath perfited the ceremoniall law beeing the substance whereof the ceremonies were but shadowes he hath performed the morall law both in his actiue obedience in fulfilling euery part thereof by his holy life and by his passiue obedience in bearing the curse and punishment due by the law for vs and in this sense Augustine saith Christus sinis legis perficiens non interficiens Christ is the perfiting not the destroying end of the law tract 55. in Iohn Of all these the second and last interpretation are most agreeable to the scope of the Apostle who in these words bringeth a proofe of that which he said before that the Iewes were ignorant of the righteousnesse of God because they were ignorant of Christ the true end of the law both directly in respect of Christ who fulfilled the law and was in all things obedient vnto it which thing the law intended and indirectly in respect of vs whose weakenesse it discouereth in not beeing able to keepe the law and so directeth vs to Christ beeing therein a schoolemaster to vs as the Apostle saith Gal. 3. â—â— Quest. 7. How Christ is said to be the end of the law seeing the law requireth nothing but the iustice of workes The law is taken two wayes 1. more largely for the whole doctrine contained in Moses and the Prophets and in this sense the law directly maketh mention of Christ as in this place Saint Paul doth prooue the righteousnesse of faith by the testimonie of Moses as our Sauiour himselfe also saith had you beleeued Moses you would haue beleeued me he wrote of â—â— Ioh. 5.46 2. The law is taken more strictly for the precepts onely of the morall law wherein although faith in Christ be not directly commanded yet it is implied and intended in which sense Christ is said to be the end of the law in these three respects 1. in respect of his personall obedience and righteousnesse which the law required 2. in regard of the satisfaction by Christs death for the punishment due by the law 3. and in iustifying vs by faith in him that is our righteousnesse whereunto the law bringeth vs as a schoolemaster leading vs vp by the hand as the glasse shewing the spottes doth admonish the beholder to mend them so the law discouering our sinnes sendeth vs to seeke out the onely true Physitian to heale them Quest. 8. That Christ is not the end of the law that we by grace in him should be iustified in keeping of the law 1. Pererius saith that Christ is said to be the end that is the perfection and consummatioÌ„ of the law quia fide in Christo impetratur gratia c. because that by faith in Christ grace is obtained to fulfill and keepe the law disput 1. numer 2. and Stapleton Antidot p. 617. insisteth vpon the same point that by this fulfilling of the law which we obtaine by faith in Christ we are iustified Contra. 1. We denie not but this also is one of the ends of our comming to Christ to shew our obedience in keeping Gods commandements as Zacharie saith in his song Luk. 2.75 That we beeing deliuered out of the hand of our enemies should serue him c. in holines and righteousnesse all the daies of our life yet this is neither required as the principall end which is to be iustified by faith in Christ as here the Apostle saith neither is this our obedience enioyned to that end that we should be iustified thereby for we are iustified by faith before we can bring forth any fruits of obedience and therefore by such workes as follow our iustification we are not iustified and beside our obedience is imperfect and can not iustifie vs in the sight of God but this our obedience is necessarie to shew our conformitie vnto Christ and to iustifie our thankfulnes for the benefit receiued by Christ and to be a pledge and an assurance of our perfect regeneration in the next life 2. Herein then Christ is the end of the law that we by faith in him which hath fulfilled the law perfitly should be iustified without the fulfilling of the law in our selues 1. for the Apostle saith not Christ is the end of the law to euery one fulfilling the law but to euery one that beleeueth 2. this end would take away the force of Christs death for to giue vs grace to fulfill the law our selues it was not necessarie that Christ should haue died for he might by his diuine power without his death haue conferred that grace vpon vs. 3. and againe if Christ gaue vs power to keepe the law our selues this were to establish our owne righteousnesse for that is our owne righteousnesse which is performed by vs though not by our owne strength but the doctrine of faith doth not establish our owne righteousnesse Quest. 9. What life temporall or spirituall is promised to the keepers of the law v. 5. 1. Origen vpon this place thinketh that the law onely promised to the obseruers thereof temporall not eternall life so likewise Theodoret Ambrose Anselme Lyranus Tolet annot 5. Pererius disput 1. numer 3. doe vnderstand it of escaping onely corporall death which was inflicted vpon the transgressors of the law as idolaters adulterers murtherers But this were no great benefit seeing many vngodly men might be free from these offences which by the law were punished by death and yet in other points might be offenders against the law 2. Augustine lib. de spirit lit c. vnderstandeth it of the spirituall life of faith and iustification thereby per fidem concilians iustificationem facet legis iustitiam vivat in ea c. he that hath obtained iustification by faith doth the righteousnesse of the law and may liue thereby But this were to confound the law and the Gospel whereas the Apostle here speaketh onely of the righteousnesse which the law requireth 3. The law then promised eternall life vnto the obseruers thereof but that it was impossible for any perfitly to keepe the law so Chrysostome well interpreteth that men should haue beene iustified in keeping of the law if it had beene possible but because it was not possible iustitia illa intercidit that iustice falleth to ground our Sauiour also saith If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandements Matth. 19.16 meaning eternall life as the young man had asked the question what he should doe to haue eternall life Pererius answeareth that this must be vnderstood of a iust man which out of a liuely charitie keepeth the commandements But Christ there speaketh not of the iustice of faith working by loue but of such keeping and obseruing of the commandements as the law required if any could haue attained vnto it for as the question was not of beleeuing but of doing what shall I doe so Christ maketh his answer of such iustice as was required by the law 4. But if the law doe promise and propound eternall life to the obseruers
were not lawfull to vse the defense of the Magistrate against wrongs nay that it was not lawfull for the Magistrate to take reuenge of euill doers therefore the Apostle verie fitly falleth into this discourse Gualter 7. And lastly because the Magistrates were then infidels least that the faithfull might take themselues free from the command of Infidels as subiects from their Magistrates seruants from their Masters the Apostle doth interlace this treatise Calvin Gualter for these and such like reasons doth the Apostle so inculcate this doctrine of ciuill obedience as in this place and 1. Tim. 12. Tit. 3.1 and S. Peter agreeth 1. Pet. 2.13.14 Quest. 2. How euerie soule should be subiect to the higher powers 1. Euerie soule 1. The soule is put a part for the whole by the figure synecdoche according to the phrase of Scripture as Haymo giueth instance of that place Gen. 46. how Iacob went downe to Egypt with 70. soules and Act. 27. there were 275. soules with Paul in the ship as sometime the flesh the other part of man is taken for the whole as all flesh shall see the saluation of the Lord. 2. But Origens conceit is here somwhat curious as Martyr and Erasmus note that it is not said euery spirit but euery soule for the spirituall man which hath renounced the world hath nothing wherein to be subiect to the superior powers as the Apostle said gold silver haue we none he that hath none of these nō habet vnde subiaceat potestat ib. hath nothing wherein to be subiect to the powers c. But euen the Apostles thēselues were obedient vnto them 3. he saith euery soule quia debet esse voluntaria subiectio because this subiection must be voluntarie not onely in bodie but in soule Gorrhan 4. and further by this is signified that all mortall men none excepted should be so subiect and therefore he saith euery soule 5. Caietane yet noteth further that not onely our bodies and our substance but euen our soules should be subiect vnto the secular powers in ijs quae possunt legitime imperare in those things wherein they may lawfully command Be subiect The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to be subordinate where 1. is insinuated the order of gouernment which whosoeuer resisteth bringeth in disorder and confusion 2. and Chrysostome noteth that he saith not be obedient but be subiect which is a generall word comprehending all other duties and seruices 3. but this must be limited vnto those things which are lawfully commanded for otherwise if they shall require any thing against the glorie of God and our conscience we must follow the example of the Apostles Act. 4. to obey God rather then man Gualt so Haymo well obserueth that as man consisteth of bodie and soule so he must inviolably in his soule servare fidem Deo keepe his faith vnto God and in his bodie serue the powers To the superior or chiefe powers 1. The vulgar Latin readeth sublimiaribus higher powers which Erasmus and Beza thinke not to be so fit because the word in the originall is not in the imperatiue and this would giue occasion to some to thinke that obedience should be giuen onely to the chiefe magistrate But they are called high in respect of the people ouer whom they are set not compared among themselues for not onely the King as the chiefe but other inferiour officers and ministers are to be obeied as S. Peter sheweth 1. epist. 2.3.14 2. Caietane obserueth that this word high or excelling is added to exclude tyrants who are not excelling Lords and so he taketh the Apostle to speake de legitimis potestatb of lawfull powers but I preferre the ordinarie glosse which vnderstandeth the Apostle of secular powers sive bonis sive malis whether good or euill and Peter Martyr obserueth well that here we must not inquire quo iure quave iniuria by what right or wrong these powers obtained their authoritie for the Romanes by force not by right were at this time Lords of the world but the Magistrates for the present are to be obeied 3. Chrysostome also noteth well that the Apostle speaketh not of the person of the gouernors sed de ipsa re but of the thing it selfe of their authoritie and power that howsoeuer they are vnworthie of their authoritie which abuse it yet the power which they haue is to be obeied 4. Lyranus and Haymo before him thinke this place to be vnderstood of spirituall gouernors and Prelates as well as secular and ciuill but Chrysostome and Basil. lib. de constitut Monach. c. 23. doe better interpret this place of ciuill gouernors and Basils reason is because the Apostle afterward maketh mention of tribute which is due onely to the secular power And therefore Calvine iustly taketh exception to the Romanists which out of this place would conclude that obedience is to be giuen also to the Prelates of the Church Pererius here disput 1. numer 3. opposeth Basil vnto Calvin who should thinke that obedience to Prelates may be concluded out of this place but Basil in the place before alleadged directly sheweth that the Apostle speaketh de potestatibus mundi of the worldly not of spirituall powers onely he reasoneth from hence from the lesse to the greater that if such obedience be to be giuen to temporall gouernors quanto magis c. how much more to spirituall and then for proofe hereof he alleadgeth that place Heb. 13.17 Obey those which haue the ouersight of you 3. Quest. How the powers that be are said to be of God 1. God in the beginning gaue a threefold power vnto man first ouer himselfe God gaue vnto man freewill whereby he should gouerne all his actions then he gaue him power ouer the other creatures and thirdly he gaue vnto man power ouer man first in families as vnto the father ouer his children to the master ouer his seruants to the husband ouer his wife then in the politike regiment of what kind soeuer it be whether Monarchicall of one Aristocraticall of many and those the best or Democraticall which is the popular state all these had their beginning from God some mediatly some immediatly Pareus But it will be asked how and when this order of gouernment was first instituted of God the answer is that God imprinted in man by nature this originall light to see the necessitie of gouernment without the which there would be no order as we see that the vnreasonable creatures as the silly bees haue their gouernor the cranes also and sheepe Chrysostome addeth further maruell not that God hath appointed rule and gouernment among men cum istud in corpore fecerit seeing he hath done the like in the bodie for some parts are made to direct and guide the rest this naturall instinct of gouernment the Lord estsoone confirmed by precept as Gen. 9.6 Whosoeuer sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shedde which is not vnderstood of euery one for
Prince maketh some of his subiects to whom he committeth his authoritie iudges of the rest 5. Obiect Tolet annot 11. thus reasoneth from the authoritie which the spirituall power hath ouer mens persons and bodies to free and exempt them as it shall make most for their soules health toward the obtaining of euerlasting life 1. Like as a king hath power to take mens sonnes and daughters for his seruice and their vineyards and possessions to giue them to his seruants as Samuel describeth the office of a king 1. Sam. 8. so much more hath the spirituall power authoritie to doe it toward the aduancement of Gods kingdome 2. our Sauiour Matth. 17.26 freeth the sonnes of kings that is omnes credentes all that beleeue from paying of tribute which notwithstanding was paid propter vitandum scandalum to avoide scandall 3. S. Paul had power to retaine and keepe Onesimus from his master Philemons seruice yet he did remit somewhat of his power that his Master might not seeme to doe it of necessitie but willingly Philem. 1.4 Contra. 1. Popes are partiall iudges in their owne case and therefore it skilleth not what immunities they haue giuen to the Clergie and no man can conferre more power vpon an other then he hath himselfe seeing then that the Pope himselfe is not exempted from the power of the Magistrate he much lesse can exempt others 2. Samuel in that place describeth not the office of a King what it ought to be but what Princes should doe for their will and pleasure and so the Pope herein taketh vpon him to tyrannize in the Church 3. that place is vnderstood of the naturall sonnes of Kings who are free from tribute and so Christ beeing lineally descended of Dauid might haue challenged that priuiledge thus beside our owne interpreters Pererius one of Tolets owne order expoundeth that place de naturalibus filijs of the naturall sonnes of Kings disput 2. num 12. for otherwise a great inconveniencie would followe that all Christians should be exempted and treed from paying of tribute 4. S. Paul had a speciall interest in Philemon to command him because as Theophylact well interpreteth te in Christo genui I haue begotten thee in Christ this was his speciall case this can not then be drawne to an ordinarie present and example and againe this maketh directly against the Papists that if S. Paul which had this Apostolike authoritie would not keepe Onesimus from his master without his consent it is great boldnes and presumption for the Pope who begetteth none vnto the faith by preaching as S. Paul did and so hath no such interest in that behalfe neither is he an Apostle to arrogate that to himselfe which S. Paul would not vsurpe Now notwithstanding these obiections that Ecclesiasticall persons and causes though in things meerely Ecclesiasticall and proper to the ministerie as are the preaching of the word and the administration of the Sacraments they are to be ruled onely by the word and are not subiect to men yet are in respect of their ciuill obedience as they are citizens and parts of the Commonwealth and in some sort as ministers also subiect to the censure and command of the ciuill Magistrate some of our arguments are these 1. The Kings of Iudah exercised power ouer Ecclesiasticall persons both in ciuill and criminall causes and partly also Ecclesiasticall as Dauid appointed vnto the Levites their courses Salomon displaced Abiathar from the Priesthood Bellarmine answereth that these Kings were also Prophets and so God did extraordinarily commit vnto them some things which belonged onely vnto the Priests lib. 1. de concil c. 20. Contra. Not onely Dauid and Salomon which were Prophets did exercise this power ouer Ecclesiasticall persons and causes but the rest also of the succeeding godly kings of Iudah as Iehosaphat gaue commission to the Priests and Iudges to abolish idolatrie Ioas reprooued the negligence of the Priests Iosias purged the land of idols and put downe the Chemarims and vnlawfull order of Priests 2. The Apostles words are generall Let euery soule be subiect to the higher power therefore Ecclesiasticall persons also Ans. 1. Origen by euery soule vnderstandeth animalis homo a naturall man spirituall men then are exempted Contra. 1. In the Hebrew phrase euery soule is taken for euery person therefore that distinction betweene the spirit and the soule proceedeth from the ignorance of the Hebrew phrase 2. Origen in that place saith that he which hath no siluer or gold or possessions hath nothing to be subiect for but the Papall Clergie haue all these and in great abundance therefore euen by Origens sentence for such things they ought to be subiect vnto the Ciuill powers 2. Ans. Bellarmine telleth vs that the Apostle speaketh generally of obedience to be giuen as well to spirituall as temporall powers and that the meaning is that euery subiect should yeeld obedience to his superiour and so the Clergie should giue obedience to the Pope and the Laitie to their Prince lib. 2. de Rom. Pontif. c. 29. resp ad argum 3. Contr. 1. The Apostle speaketh here of that power which hath the sword but the Ecclesiasticall state doth not handle the sword therefore the Apostle speaketh onely of subiection to the Ciuill power to whom the sword is committed 2. and this were to make a diuision and rent in kingdomes if all that are therein should not be subiects to the king of the countrey as in France all the French should not be in subiection to the French king but the Clergie of France should be subiects to the Pope Martyr 3. Ans. The Papall Clergie are bound by oath vnto their Bishops and they to the Pope and therefore without breach to their oath they can not be subiect to temporall gouernors Contr. Such oaths are contrarie to the Apostles precept of obedience to be giuen to the Ciuil magistrate and therfore pro impijs illicitis rescindi debent they must be cut off and disanulled as vnlawfull and impious Gualter 3. Argum. Our blessed Sauiour was himselfe subiect not onely priuately vnto his parents but publikely to the Magistrate to whome he caused poll money to be paid for himselfe and Peter refusing to vse that priuiledge which he might haue challenged to himselfe as beeing descended lineally of king Dauid wherein he was an example vnto vs of obedience to be yeelded vnto Ciuill gouernors So also S. Paul following his masters steps was obedient to the magistrate and appealed vnto Cesar Act. 16. 4. Argum. This was the doctrine of the Church in the pure ages as Chrysostome vpon this place saith Euery soule should be subiect si Apostolus si Evangelista si Propheta sive quisquis tandem fueris if thou art an Apostle or Euangelist or whatsoeuer els Bernard epist 42. thus inferreth vpon this place si omnis anima vestra quis vos excipit ab vniversitate si quis tentat excipere conatur deripere if euery soule then yours who can except you
for their person and the person is the state condition or qualitie of a thing now to knowe whether all accepting of the person be vnlawfull first the diuerse kinds of persons and qualities must be considered whereof there are 3. sorts 1. some personall conditions there are which are annexed to promises or comminations diuine and humane as faith obedience in the elect impenitencie impietie vnbeleefe in the wicked this accepting of persons is not vniust as Abraham was respected of God for his faith so also Dauid and Saul reiected for his hypocrisie 2. Some personall respects are so annexed to the cause as thereby it is aggravated or extenuated as he that striketh a magistrate is worthie of greater punishment then he that striketh an other and this respect of persons is also iust â—â— some personall respects are beside the cause as riches pouertie in the case of adulterie theft and such like and such accepting of the person is vniust Secondly the accepting â—â— persons is either in iudgement when it is in the two first senses lawfull but not in the thuâ—â— or extra iudicium out of iudgement and it is of three sorts 1. dilectionis of loue which in common duties is vnlawfull as when a rich man is preferred before a poore man for his riches which is condemned by S. Iames c. 2. v. 2.3 but in speciall and proper duties it is lawfull as in preferring the loue of our parents before others 2. electionis of election â—â— choice as when men of qualitie and gifts are advanced to places of office before them which are not so qualified this respect of persons is lawfull as beeing agreeable both vnto nature and to positiue lawes 3. donationis in matters of gift and donation as one for giueth his debt to one not to another this also is lawfull because here is no wrong done a man may dispose of his owne as it pleaseth him see more hereof before quest 23. 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. Against the power of free will in good things v. 5. Thou after thine hardnesse and heart that cannot repent heapest vnto thy selfe wrath c. Pererius out of this place inferreth that it is in potestate hominis bene vel male agere in the power of man to doe well or euill for it should otherwise be vniust to punish a man for doing euill and for want of repentance whereas he can doe no other disput 2. in c. 2. numer 23. Answ. 1. That man hath free will to doe euill without any compulsion violence or constraint it is confessed of all but this is a freedome à coactione from compulsion or enforcing not à necessitate from necessitie a man cannot now chuse but sinne because his nature is enthralled by the fall of man yet he sinneth willingly no man compelleth him But vnto that which is good man hath no will or inclination of himselfe but by the grace of God as the Prophet saith Ierem. 4.22 They are wise to doe euill but to doe well they haue no knowledge and our Blessed Sauiour saith Ioh. 15.5 Without me ye can doe nothing 2. yet though man cannot repent of himselfe nor yet doe any good thing he is worthily punished because man by his voluntarie transgression when it was in his power not to haue transgressed did abuse his free will giuen in the creation vnto sinne and so enthralled him selfe and his posteritie Once therefore man had free will if he could haue kept it but now that is become necessarie to doe euill which was before free man therefore is iustly punished notwithstanding this necessitie of sinning because he lost this libertie and freedome by his owne default 3. And let it here further be obserued how Pererius beside the falsitie of his assertion is become a falsarie in charging vs with vntrue opinions such as Protestants hold not as first that we should say hominem ad vtrumque impelli à Deo c. that man whether to doe good or euill is compelled and enforced of God whereas we abhorre and detest that as a most wicked heresie that God is the author of any euill or the moouer stirrer or prouoker thereunto Againe he obiecteth that we hold that mans free will is velut quoddam inanime c. is a certaine dead thing without life that it doth nothing of it selfe but is a bare title without any matter whereas we affirme that man is not as a stocke or stone but hath a naturall power to will to elect to desire but to will or doe that which is good it hath no power man willeth desireth chooseth but to doe these things well it is of grace in respect of the generall inclination of the will vnto the obiect it is actiue but in respect of the goodnesse of the will in beeing mooued vnto that which is good it is meerely passiue see Synop. pag. 858. Controv. 2. Of iustification by the imputatiue iustice of faith Whereas the Apostle saith v. 2. We know that the iudgement of God is according to truth Bellarmine hence thus reasoneth against imputatiue iustice Gods iudgement is according to truth but so is not imputed iustice it is not verily and in deede and according to truth but the habituall infused and inherent iustice is according to truth lib. 2. de iustificaton c. 3. Contra. 1. Bellarmine doth mistake the Apostles meaning for according to the truth is not secundum realem existentiam according to the reall existence of a thing but secundum equitatem according to equitie 2. So then the iustice of Christ imputed by faith is according to truth that is the rule of iustice because thereby full satisfaction is made for sinne by faith in Christ but that habituall and inherent iustice is not according to the rule of iustice because it is imperfect and thereby Gods iustice cannot be satisfied Pareus 3. Controv. Against the merit of workes v. 6. Who will reward euery man according to his works out of this place the Romanists contend for the merit of good works the Rhemists vpon this place affirme that life euerlasting is giuen for and according to their good workes there reasons and arguments are these 1. The Apostle vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall render which signifieth a iust retribution and so it is taken Matth. 20.8 Bellar. l. 5. de iustificat c. 2. 2. Tolet. annotat 6. vrgeth that place Matth. 25.34 Inherit ye the kingdome prepared for you c. for I was an hungred and ye gaue me meate c. 3. Likewise it is thus obiected God shall reward the wicked according to the merit of their euill workes Ergo the righteous shall be rewarded according to the merit of their good workes Ans. 1. Tolet. annot 6. rehearseth fiue seuerall answers which he supposeth to be vsed by the Protestants 1. some he saith by his workes vnderstand Christs workes according to the which God should reward the righteous 2. some thus he shall render vnto euery man according
righteousnesse Controv. 14. Concerning inherent iustice v. 13. Neither giue your members as weapons of vnrighteousnesse c. Bellarmine inferreth out of this place that as sinne was a thing inherent and dwelling in vs before our conuersion so instead thereof must succeede righteousnes per iustitiam intelligit aliquid inherens by righteousnesse he vnderstandeth a thing inherent in vs from whence proceed good workes Contra. 1. We doe not denie but that there is in the regenerate a righteousnesse inherent and dwelling in them which is their state of sactification or regeneration but by this inherent iustice are we not iustified before God but by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed onely for here the Apostle treateth not of iustification but of our sanctification and mortification which are necessarie fruits of iustification and doe followe it but they are not causes of our iustification 2. Wherefore this is no good consequent There is in the righteous an inherent iustice Erg. by this iustice they are iustified before God See further hereof Synops. Centur. 4. err 56. Controv. 15. Against the power of freewill in the fruits of righteousnesse v 20. When ye were the seruants of sinne ye were freed from righteousnesse Beza doth vrge this place strongly against the popish freewill for in that they are said to be free from iustice that is as Anselme interpreteth alieni à iustitia estranged from iustice it sheweth that they haue no inclination at all vnto iustice it beareth no sway at all nullum erat eius imperium it had no command at all ouer you Pererius disput 5. numer 33. maketh an offer to confute this assertion of Beza but with bad successe for those verie authors whom he produceth make against him first he alleadgeth Anselme following Augustine liberum arbitrium saith Augustine vsque adeo iâ— peccatoribus non perijt vt per ipsum maximè peccent c. freewill is so farre from beeing lost in the wicked that thereby they doe sinne most of all c. But who denieth this the wicked haue freewill indeed free from compulsion it is voluntarie but inclined onely vnto euill which Anselme calleth libertatem culpabilem a culpable freedome and he therefore fitly distinguisheth betweene these two phrases of the Apostle he saith they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 free not freed from iustice least that sinne might be imputed vnto any other then to themselues but afterward v. 22. he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liberati freed from sinne to shewe that this freedome is not of our selues but onely from God and so he concludeth haec voluntas quae libera est in malis c. ideo in bonis libera non est quia non liberatur ab eo qui eam solus c. this will which is free in euill because they delight in euill is not therefore free in good things because it is not freed by him who onely can make it free from sinne c. With like successe he citeth Thomas in his Commentarie here who thus writeth semper itaque homo sive in peccato fuerit sive in gratia liber est à coactione non tamen semper liber est ab omni inclinatione man therefore alwaies whether he be in sinne or in grace is free from coaction and compulsion but he is not alway free from an inclination c. where he affirmeth the same thing which we doe that the will of men is free alwaies from compulsion for it alwaies willeth freely without constraint that which it willeth but it is not free at any time from an euill inclination it is not free à necessitate from a necessitie of inclining vnto that which is euill of it owne naturall disposition Controv. 16. Whether all death be the wages or stipend of sinne v. 13. The stipend of sinne is death Socinus part 3. c. 8. pag. 294. graunteth that eternall death is the reward of sinne and the necessitie of mortalitie and dying but not â—â—â— corporall death it selfe for Adam before sinne entred was created in a mortall state and condition and Christ hath redeemed vs from all sinne and the punishment thereof therefore corporall death is no punishment of sinne because it remaineth still neither hath Christ redeemed vs from it Contra. 1. It is euident in that the Apostle speaketh of death here absolutely without any restraint or limitation that he meaneth death in generall of what kind soeuer and of the corporall death he speaketh directly c. 5.12 by one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne which is specially vnderstood of the bondage of mortalitie which Adam by his transgression brought vpon his posteritie 2. It is friuolous distinction to make a difference betweene death and the necessitie of dying for what else is mortalitie then a necessitie of dying which if it be brought in by sinne then death also it selfe 3. Adam though he were created with a possibilitie of dying if he sinned yet this possibilitie should neuer haue come into act if he had not actually sinned 4. Christ hath indeed deliuered vs from all punishment of sinne both temporall and eternall as he hath deliuered vs from sinne for as our sinnes are remitted neuer to be laid vnto our iudgement and yet the reliques and remainder of sinne are not vtterly extinguished so the Lord hath effectually and actually deliuered vs from eternall death that it shall neuer come neare vs but from temporall death as it is a punishment onely for he hath made it an entrance to a better life and he hath taken away the power thereof that it shall not seaze vpon vs for euer because he shall raise vs vp at the last day and then perfectly triumph ouer death for euer 5. Origen here vnderstandeth neither eternall nor temporall death but that qua separatur anima per peccatum à Deo whereby the soule is separated from God by sinne But then the Apostle had made an iteration of the same thing for sinne it selfe is the spirituall death of the soule and therefore the death here spoken of is an other death beside that namely that which followeth as the stipend of sinne which is euerlasting death vnto the which is in the next clause opposed eternall death Controv. 17. Against the distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes v. 23. The stipend or wages of sinne is death Faius by this place doth well confute that Popish distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes they say that veniall sinnes are those which in their owne nature are not worthie of death but the Apostle here noteth in generall of all sinne whatsoeuer that the stipend and wages thereof is death because all sinne is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the transgression of the law 1. Ioh. 3.5 and death is the wages of them that transgresse the 〈◊〉 that glosse then of Haymo vpon this place may seeme somewhat straunge hoc non de omnibus peccatis intelligendum est sed de criminalibus c. this is not to be vnderstood of all sinnes
his clay as he will for the the vse and service of the house so God the Creator may dispose some to honour some to dishonour as he seeth it to make most for his glorie 3. as the clay if it could speake is not to reason with the potter so neither is man to question with God for making him so 4. and as the potter nihil adimit into c. taketh nothing from the clay of what forme soeuer he make it so neither doth the Creator any wrong to the creature howsoeuer he dispose of it Calvin who thinketh that the Apostle in this place hath reference rather to that place Isay 49.9.10 then to the other Ierem. 18.2 where the Prophet is bid to goe downe to the potters house But the Apostle rather alludeth vnto both these places as Martyr obserueth 5. But against this application of the similitude it will be thus obiected 1. Obiect Erasmus obiecteth as he is here cited and confuted by Pet. Mart. that the Apostle treating onely of the temporall reiection of the Iewes alludeth to that place of Ieremie which must be vnderstood of the temporall reiecting and casting off the Iewes Ans. P. Mart. here answeareth that 1. neither in that place doth the Prophet onely speake of temporall things but as they were types and shadowes also of spirituall which must be ioyned together in those propheticall predictions 2. neither doth the Apostle onely here speake of the temporall reiection and forsaking of the Iewes but of the spirituall as is euident c. 10.1 mine hearts desire is that they might be saued c. he maketh expresse mention of their saluation 2. The Apostle seemeth to change the question which was not whether the Lord had power as the potter to dispose of his vessels as it pleaseth him but why the Lord should complaine and be angrie with his worke which is made according to his owne will Answ. 1. Tolet and Faius here answear that for God to complaine or be angrie is the same as to make a vessel of dishonour he maketh some vessels of dishonour that is he is angrie with them and complaineth of them but this answear satisfieth not for God complaineth in Scripture and sheweth his anger against those which were before ordained to destruction therefore Pareus here better maketh this answear that as the potter hath a double right to breake in peices the vessel which he maketh both in respect of his power because he is the potter the maker and fashioner of it and in respect of the vessel it selfe if it chance to be tainted with some euill sauour he may with much better right breake it into shiuers so God beside that by the right of his Creatorship he may dissolue that which he made he also is iustly angrie with the creature for the sinne and corruption thereof which it hath voluntarily committed Quest. 22. What the Apostle meaneth by the same lumpe or masse v. 21. 1. Some by the same masse vnderstand the sinne of idolatrie wherewith the Israelites were infected in Egypt as well as the Egyptians and yet the Lord out of this masse saued the Israelites and destoyed the Egyptians But Pet. Martyr refuseth this interpretation 1. because that which is generally deliuered by the Apostle they restraine to particular kindâ— of men 2. the Apostle treateth not of the punishments inflicted by God vpon some rather then others the reason whereof is euident in the diuersitie of mens workes but he speaketh of the decree and purpose of God from the beginning 2. Method l. de resurrect as he is cited by Oecumen vnderstandeth this lumpe or massâ— of the elements out of the which the Lord shall frame the bodies of men in the resurrectioâ— some to rise to honour some to dishonor But there is great difference between the decree oâ— election reprobation whereof he treateth here and the executioÌ„ thereof in the resurrectiâ—â— 3. The most doe vnderstand the masse of corruption when as all mankind by the transgression of Adam was polluted and enthralled vnder sinne so Augustine Vterque electus reprobus ex eadem massa tota damnata originaliter c. Both the elect and reprobate are originally out of the same masse of damnation yet God as a potter out of the same masse maketh one vessell to honour an other to dishonour c. decivitat Dei lib. 15. c. 1. Pet. Martyr also consenteth consideravit hominem Paulus post peccatum Paul here considereth man after his fall as beeing most vile and abiect both in bodie and minde c. likewise Pareus vnderstandeth here massam corruptam the masse of corruption because by this meanes the iustice of God better appeareth in iudging the reprobate and shewing mercie on the elect dub 17. Bellarmine also lib. 2. de amiss grat will haue by this masse vnderstood genus humanum peccato corruptum whole mankind beeing corrupt by sinne Beza refuseth this interpretation vpon these reasons 1. because in this sense the Lord cannot be said to make vessels of dishonour but rather to leaue them in their naturall corruption beeing alreadie vessels of dishonour 2. if God should first behold men as corrupt by sinne before he decreed and determined what should become of them this might be some imputation to his wisedome as first creating men before he had appointed how to dispose of them 3. and in this sense the reason of Gods iustice were euident in leauing men alreadie corrupt so that there would be no place for that obiection of Gods iniustice here propounded by the Apostle 4. Therefore Beza with whom Faius concurreth doth by this masse vnderstand the first creation of man out of the dust of the earth as the verie terme of clay which the Apostle vseth sheweth out of the which Adam was taken 5. But I thinke that by this masse we may more safely vnderstand generally the same originall and beginning of man whether in the creation before sinne yet entred or in his corrupt state for if it should be restrained onely to the latter it were a limitation of Gods power as though he had not absolute right to dispose of his creature as it pleased him without respect vnto sinne neither yet must the latter be excluded because the Prophet taketh clay in that sense for mankind as it now standeth in the state of corruption Isa. 45.9 shewing that God may dispose of men in this world according to his good pleasure And Pareus though he resolue dub 17. that this masse is better taken for the state of corruption yet in his annotation vpon the 22. v. he comprehendeth both that God hath power ex eadem massa damnata imo ex nondum creata out of the same damned masse yea out of the same masse not yet created to make some after one fashion some after another for the Apostle in alleadging this similitude of the potter doth not so much shewe what God doth as what he may doe euen as the potter hath absolute power to dispose
Gods mercie herein exceedeth his iustice that whereas all men by nature are the children of wrath and God might iustly â—aue them in their sinne as he did the reprobate Angels yet out of that masse of corruption he saueth some to bring them vnto glorie so then vnlesse the fall and transgression of man he presupposed there is no way to magnifie Gods mercie aboue his iustice Thus Thomas Aquin though he mislike Augustines opinion who maketh the foresight of originall â—â—â—ne the ground of the decree of reprobation and thinketh that God absolutely reiecteth the reprobate without any foresight of sinne yet is constrained to seeke shelter here for the â—â—â—iding of this obiection 5. Wherefore fully to decide this great question and controversie touching the decree â—â— reprobation we will determine of it in this manner 1. There is reprobatio indefinita definita a reprobation indefinite that is that some â—â—e elected some reiected and a definite reprobation whereby some are certainely reiected and not others of the first the cause is onely in God for the demonstration of his mercie â—â—â—ard the elect and of his iustice and power toward the reprobate as the Apostle sheweth v. 22.23 and so the wise man saith Prov. 16.4 that God made all things euen the wicked for himselfe and to this purpose Thomas well saith that the reason of election and reprobation is taken from the goodnesse of God quae multiformiter in rebus representatur which by his meanes is diuersely represented and set forth in the creatures when aâ— some things are in an high some in a low degree If all should be elected Gods iustice should not appeare if all were condemned where were his mercie But of the definite and certaine reprobation why some are in particular reiected the cause is the foresight of their sinne 2. Againe reprobation is considered two waies absolute comparate absolutely as in reiecting these and these and comparatiuely in reiecting these rather then those of the first the reason is the generall corruption of mankind which transgressed in Adam who abused his freewill in choosing euill it beeing in his power to haue made choice of the good and so he brought all his posteritie into bondage vnto sinne in which state of corruption God iustly might haue left all if it had pleased him but of the comparatiue reprobation why God left others in their naturall corruption and freed others no reason can be giuen but the good pleasure of God as Saint Paul saith Ephes. 2.3 We were by nature the children of wrath as well as others but God who is rich in mercie through his great loue c. hath quickned vs so Augustine well saith quare hunc Deus trahat illum non trahat no◠〈◊〉 dijudicare si non vis errare why God draweth one out of that masse of corruption and not an other take not vpon thee to iudge if thou wilt not erre epistol 105. 3. We must distinguish betweene absolutum ius Dei and ordinatum the absolute right which God hath ouer his creatures and his moderate or subordinate right By his absolute right the Creator hath power to dispose of his creature as it pleaseth him to life or to death as the potter hath power of the same clay to make some vessels of honour some of dishonour and if the Lord should thus deale with his creature euen without any respect vnto sinne no man could accuse or challenge God But he dealeth not thus with vs secundum spiritum absolutum ius according to his strict and absolute right but according to his subordinate right whereby he proceedeth not against the creature either in condemning it or decreeing the same to be condemned without iust cause giuen by the creature And thus the Apostle dealeth in this place by the similitude of the potter v. 20.22 he sheweth what absolute power and right God hath if he would please to vse it and v. 22.23 he speaketh of the other ordinarie right and power which God indeed vseth in proceeding against the vessels of wrath prepared by their owne sinnes vnto destruction Pareus And Tolet here well obserueth that the Apostle maketh two answers vnto the obiection propounded one to stop the mouthes of gainesayers in vrging the absolute power of God the other to satisfie the faithfull in shewing that God doth not execute his wrath vpon any but for their sinne annot 28. Concerning this distinction of the strict or absolute right and power of God and his ordinarie or rather subordinate right though it be admitted on both sides both by Protestant and Popish writers yet there is this difference 1. Some doe thinke and so professe and teach that God vseth as well his absolute as subordinate power in the decree of reprobation and thus Bucer Calvin Zanchius affirme that God by his absolute will hath reprobate and reiected some without respect vnto their sinnes 2. Pareus who also acknowledgeth Gods power herein yet he would not haue this doctrine handled either in schooles or before the people but according to Gods subordinate power in reiecting no otherwise then for sinne p. 912. 3. Both these thinke that God bringeth this his absolute power into act but I thinke it more safe to hold that God might if it please him vse that absolute power which if he did none could accuse him of iniustice but he dealeth otherwise in this mysterie of reprobation refusing none but iustly for their sinne and this is that which Augustine affirmeth by way of supposition in this manner Si hominum genus quod creatum constâ—â— primitus nihilo c. if mankind which at the beginning God created of nothing were not brought forth endebted both to sinne and death and yet the almightie Creator should condemne some of them to euerlasting destruction who could say vnto him Lord why hast thou done so God in his infinite power might haue done thus but not according to the ordinarie course of iustice Then seeing I absolutely subscribe vnto the iudgement of Augustine seene before in the 2. opinion produced that mans originall corruption is the first ground of the decree of reprobation out of the which God in mercie saued some by the election of grace leauing others which adding to their originall corruption other actuall sinnes are made worthie of condemnation and so Augustine well concludeth investigabilis Dei miserecordia c. the mercie of God is vnsearcheable whereby he hath mercie on whom he will no merits of his going before and vnsearcheable is his truth whereby he hardeneth whom he will eius praecedentibus meritis his merites going before but the same with his vpon whom God sheweth mercie Learned Pareus hereunto agreeth dub 17. massa damnata propriè est obiectum c. the damned masse is properly the obiect of election reprobation Vrsinus also as Pareus hath set forth his workes defineth reprobation to be the immutable and eternall decree of God whereby he hath decreed in
the elect perish Answ. It followeth not the branches may perish therefore the elect 1. That the elect cannot possibly fall away is shewed before contr 1. the Scripture saith they that trust in Iehovah shall be as mount Sinai which is not mooued but standeth fast for euer Psal. 125.1 not that the elect are so stable of themselues that they cannot be mooued for there is no creature but of it selfe is mutable and subiect to change but the Lord vpholdeth such by his grace as it is said Psal. 37.24 Though the righteous fall be shall not be cast off for the Lord putteth vnder his hand 2. We must distinguish of the branches some are true and right branches and they are the faithfull and elect which cannot be broken off some are counterfeit branches which were neuer elected and they may fall off so Christ sheweth Ioh. 15. that the vine may haue some vnfruitfull branches which are cast off but the fruitfull branches he neuer casteth away so the Apostle c. 9.7 doth make a difference among the children of Abraham all were not his right children that were of his seede Controv. 9. Against the heresie of Valentinus and Basilides that held some things to be euill some good by nature Whereas S. Paul maketh mention of the wild oliue and of the true oliue v. 17. Origen taketh occasion to confute the heresie of the foresaid heretikes and their followers whose assertion was this that there were two natures of soules some were made good and they should be saued and neuer fall away some were euill and they could not but perish 1. Origen refelleth this hereticall paradox out of this place for here some branches of the oliue tree were broken off because of their vnbeleefe and so of good became bad and the branches of the wild oliue were planted in and so of bad became good this difference was not in the diuersitie of their nature and further he vrgeth these words of our Blessed Sauiour Math. 12.33 Either make the tree euill and the fruit euill or make the tree good and the fruit good whereupon he inferreth vt ostenderet arborem bonam vel malam non nasci sed fieri to shewe that a tree is not borne good or euill but is so made 2. Thus farre Origen proceedeth well but after going about to shew the cause whence it commeth that some trees are good some bad he falleth into other errors himselfe 1. ascribing this difference onely to the power of free will for these are his words vnusquisque ex arbitrij potestate aut bona oliva aut oleafter efficitur euery one by the power of free will is made either a true oliue or a wild oliue which he prooueth by the example of the creatures which are all of one nature but by certaine accidentall qualities bring forth diuerse kinds as of trees hearbs and such like so there is one and the same nature of reasonable creatures the difference is out of the diuers motions of their free will and to this ende he presseth that saying of our blessed Sauiour wake the tree good and his fruit good as though it were in mans power to make himselfe a good tree 2. he addeth that whereas God so in his prouidence disposeth that there are outward exhortations ministred sometime to good sometime to euill it is in mans power obedire si velit to obey if he will him that provoketh him vnto goodnes and if he will to despise him 3. and to mend the matter withall he saith further that by this libertie of will he that is ramus oliuae a branch of the right oliue may fall away to misbeleefe and an other that is but a wild oliue may conuert vnto the faith and become a branch of the true oliue Thus Origen playeth the Philosopher rather then the diuine Contra. 1. The Apostle is contrarie to Origen for he saith v. 20. Thou standest by faith therefore not by free will for faith is not of our selues it is the gift of God Eph. 2.8 neither is the example of the creatures like for the diuersitie of their kinds proceedeth of the seuerall properties of their different natures whereas the difference betweene men is not from their nature but by the grace of God which separateth them 1. Cor. 4.7 Who separateth thee and what hast thou that thou hast not receiued and whereas Christ saith facite make ye this word as Pet. Martyr well sheweth non efficientiam sed hypothesin significat doth signifie not an efficiencie but a supposition as if he should haue said you must thus thinke and imagine with your selues that the tree must first be good before it can bring forth good fruit and this to be the meaning appeareth by the words following how can ye speake good things when ye are euill 2. Neither is it mans power to giue care vnto wholesome doctrine and obey it if he will for then why is it said of Lydia Act. 16.14 whose heart God opened that she attended to the things that Paul spake 3. Neither is it possible for them that were true branches of the right oliue to be broken off they were neuer truly graffed in that are broken off though they so seemed as they which are said to be blotted out of the booke of life were neuer indeede there written at all Rev. 17.8 and thus witnesseth S. Iohn 1. epist. 2.19 They went out from vs but they were not of vs for if they had beene of vs they would haue continued with vs. 10. Controv. That there was the same spirit of faith and the same spirituall substance of the Sacraments vnder the old Testament and in the new v. 17. And made partaker of the roote P. Martyr doth well obserue out of these words so also Pareus with others that there was eadem substantia res spiritus c. the same substance matter spirit in both Testaments though their Sacraments in respect of the outward signes and ceremonies were diuers for there was but one roote of faith both of the Iewes and Gentiles we are not planted into an other oliue but are made partakers of the fatnes of the same oliue tree this is contrarie to the doctrine of the Romanists which denie that the Sacraments of the old Testament had the same spirituall substance with the Sacraments of the new See further Synops. Centur. 2. err 97. 11. Controv. That the Scriptures are the iudge of euery one in particular Whereas Gretserus in the colloquie at Ratisbone sess 9. p. 111. denied impudently that the Scripture iudged him because it no where said Thou Gretser errest and cried out with â— blasphemous mouth let the Scripture iudge me indicet me spiritus si potest let the holy spirit iudge me if he can Pareus out of this place taxeth his ignorance and impudencie for the Apostle speaketh in particular v. 20. Thou standest by faith 21. take heede he spare not thee and in like manner the commandements were propounded in particular as speaking
words would beget an erroneous sense for all things that are are not ordained of God as warre sickenes pouertie for then it were not lawfull to preuent any of these for Gods ordinance must not be resisted 2. Origen omitteth this clause altogether and Erasmus coniectureth that this clause might be inserted by some interpreter by way of explanation but seeing Chrysostome hath it and the Syrian interpreter with other auncient copies this conceite cannot be admitted 3. Neither yet is it a repetition of the same thing which the Apostle set downe before euerie power is of God to shewe God to be author and founder of these powers as Oecum for there had beene here no great neede or vse of such repetition 4. Haymo thinketh that the Apostle in the second place vnderstandeth iura potestatum the rights belonging to these powers that not onely the power it selfe but the right of gouerning is of God but these two cannot well be distinguished the power and the right of the power Beza thinketh that in the first place the Apostle in generall shewed the dignitie of the magistracie in the second the distribution of the same dignitie because there are diuerse degrees of magistracie to shewe ipsis â—â—fimis ordinibus c. that we are to yeeld obedience to the lowest orders of gouernement but this was comprehended in the former sentence Euerie power is of God that is whether superiour or inferiour none are excluded 5. Some doe inferre because the Apostle saith They are ordained c. that there is an order and certaine degrees in gouernement some are superiour to others Bonifacius 8. in the extravagant vnam sanctam but it is euident by the words following where the power is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ordinance of God that this ordaining hath reference vnto Gods institution not to the distinction and order of degrees in the powers But whereas Boniface in that place vpon this supposed ground buildeth the preheminence of the Ecclesiasticall power aboue the Ciuill and so would make the Pope the Lord peramount aboue all the vanitie of this conceite shall be examined among the controversies following 6. Theodoret by ordaining vnderstandeth the diuine prouidence the ordinar glosse interpreteth rationabiliter disposita reasonably disposed but more is signified then so for there are many things disposed of in the world by Gods prouidence which yet it is lawfull to resist as Tolet noteth annot 4. 7. Wherefore the emphasis or force of this sentence lyeth in the word ordained which amplifieth that which the Apostle said before that these powers are not simply of God as other things but specially ordained that is by speciall precept from God there are other things of God as famine warre sickenes pouertie but not ordained by precept and commandement Thus Tolet likewise Faius that by ordaining is vnderstood praeceptum esse à Deo that it is commanded of God that obedience should be yeelded to magistrates so also before them both Hyperius and three wayes may these powers be said to be ordained or ordered first in respect of God because thy are by him instituted and appointed secondly in regard of themselues the Lord hath set them certaine limits and bounds whereby they should be ordered thirdly in respect of those which are to be ordered God would haue order among men some to rule some to obey like as in a campe there are some leaders and captaines others are appointed to followe and to be ranged in their rankes as the souldiers Pareus Quest. 7. Of not resisting the power 1. He that resisteth the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifieth disordered or counter-ordered ordered against which sheweth that all rebellion is a disorder 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a verie confusion Pareus 2. Diuerse wayes is the power resisted either aperta vi by open violence and rebellion or fraude by deceipt and craft when the power is deceiued and misinformed which is an ordinarie thing in Princes Courts Martyr Tolet addeth a third qui praecepta negligit c. he that neglecteth the precepts of the Prince and withholdeth duties as to pay tribute and such like therein sheweth himselfe contrarie to Gods ordinance 3. Chrysostome obserueth the phrase that the Apostle saith not he which obeyeth the Magistrate therein submitteth himselfe to Gods ordinance but by the contrarie he that resisteth the power resisteth Gods ordinance to shewe that non gratiam sed debitum illis obediendo praestemus c. that we doe not shewe them a pleasure in obeying but pay our debt and further he inferreth that no man should thinke subiectionem turpem that this subiection is vile seeing God hath appointed it 4. Origen here also noteth that we must not vnderstand such powers as persecute the faith for in such a case it is better to obey God then man and the reason is as Tolet obserueth quia nemo debet potestati obedire contra Deum no man must obey the power against God of whom the power is 5. Gorrhan maketh this obiection that if it be not lawfull to resist any power which is of God then not the power of Sathan he answeareth that it doth not followe because that is potestas permissionis non commissionis a power of permission not of commission or rather it is not so much a power which the deuill exerciseth as an abuse of power and therefore we are to resist him And so concerning such powers which commaund or allure to any thing which is euill Augustines rule must be followed contemne potestatem timendo maiorem potestatem contemne the power by fearing a greater power 6. Pet. Martyr well obserueth here that although it be not lawfull to resist the powers by rising vp or practising against them yet one may make an escape by fleeing away from the force of the magistrate as Dauid was let downe at a window out of his owne house by his wife and so escaped Sauls hands and so was Paul at Damascus let downe in a basket by a windowe as 2. Cor. 11. but the case is otherwise when one is apprehended and committed to prison for then he thinketh it not lawfull for a man though vniustly imprisoned to breake prison because it is against the lawe audaciam idem faciendi c. and it would minister boldnesse to malefactors to commit the like adde hereunto that thereby an other mans life is endaungered as the keeper vpon the escape of his prisoners is like to be punished and further it were a betraying of their cause to make a priuie escape this made S. Paul that though his bonds were loosed and the prison doores opened yet he would not flee away nay he refused to be sent away priuily when the gouernours sent vnto them to depart Act. 16. yet euerie escape of the innocent out of prison is not to be condemned if it be not procured by some sinister practise by themselues as by fraud or violence but by some other meanes as the
voluntarie connivence or negligence of the keeper or some other way as it were made by God for so we reade that Peter escaped out of prison the doores beeing opened by the Angel before him Act. 12. but this is not rashly to be done for the aforesaid reasons but vpon good warrant when God shall as it were make a way for a man to set him free Quest. 8. What kind of iudgement they procure to themselues which resist the magistrate 1. Whereas the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth both condemnation as Beza damnation as the vulgar Latine iudgement as the Syrian interpreter punishment as Piscator some take this to be vnderstood not of eternall punishment but of the temporall inflicted by the Magistrate when as the powers beeing offended doe either punish rebells with death or cast them into prison Haymo so also Vatablus 2. Lyranus contrariwise interpreteth it de aeterna morte of euerlasting death not excluding also temporall punishment so also Martyr 3. Some vnderstand poenam punishment generally without limitation Olevian Piscator Iunius annot 4. Some will haue the punishment in this life vnderstood whether inflicted by the Magistrate or by God himselfe who will take reuenge for the transgression of his owne ordinance as is euident in the fearefull punishment of rebellious Cote Dathan and Abiram Numb 16. Pareus Gualter and so before them Chrysostome and Theophylact cum à Deo tum ab hominibus poenas daturum he shall endure punishment both from God and men 5. But all these are better ioyned together that such as resist the Magistrate are punished by the publike lawes and God often taketh reuenge also beside they make themselues guiltie of euerlasting damnation which is due vnto the transgression of Gods commandement and the violating of his ordinance Faius 6. Tolet hath here this conceite by himselfe it is said they shall receiue iudgement because beeing not restrained by the Magistrate whom they stand not in awe of they cast themselues into those sinnes for the which damnationem incurrunt they incurre damnation but here the Apostle speaketh of that punishment which is due for the resisting of Gods ordinance 7. Pareus here obserueth well these two things that the purposes and endeauours of such are frustrate and beside they shew their madnes and foolishnes in beeing accessarie to their owne punishment for it is an vnwise part for one to procure his owne hurt Quest. 9. How the Prince is not to be feared for good workes but for euill 1. Concerning the words in the originall they stand thus Princes are not a feare of good workes and so the vulgar Latine that is for good workes as the Syrian interpreter putteth it in the datiue bonis operibus to good workes so also Tertullian readeth in scorpian and Beza followeth this sense and the meaning is that they are not a terror or to be feared ratione boni operis by reason of the good worke Lyran. or his qui sunt boni operis to them which are of good workes Gorrhan so before him Chrysostome bene agentibus to those which doe well good workes are here to be vnderstood not as Diuines take them for morall workes but for ciuill workes agreeable to the publike lawes which are either against the diuine lawe whereof the Magistrate ought to haue speciall care or against the positiue constitution Pareus 2. Touching the occasion of these words Tolet will haue them to depend of the former sentence and to shewe the cause why they which resist the powers doe receiue iudgement to themselues because they contemne the Magistrate who is ordained to restraine euill workes and so they without restraint fall into euill and so incurre punishment but the better coherence is to make this an other argument to mooue obedience to the higher powers from the vtilitie thereof as Chrysostome or à duplici sine from the twofold ende of magistracie which is for the punishment of the euill and praise of the good 3. They which doe good workes must feare the Magistrate still but timore reverentiae non seruili c. with a reuerent not a seruile feare as the malefactors doe which hauing a guiltie conscience are afraide of punishment to be inflicted by the Magistrate Gorrhan Quest. 10. What it is to haue praise of the power v. 3. 1. Whereas often it falleth out that the Magistrate doth punish the good and encourage the wicked how then is this true which the Apostle saith doe well and thou shalt haue the praise of the same the answear is that first we must distinguish betweene the power it selfe and authoritie which is ordained of God to these ends for the reward of the good and punishment of the euill and the abuse of this power secondly although gouernours abusing their power do offend in some particulars yet in generall more good commeth by their gouernement then hurt as vnder cruell Nero there was some execution of iustice for Paul was preserued by the Romane captaine from the conspiracie of the Iewes and appealed vnto Caesar which was then Nero and his appeale was receiued 2. It will be obiected that euen vnder good Princes where there is punishment for offenders yet the righteous receiue not their reward 1. Origen thus vnderstandeth these words thou shalt haue praise of the same c. that is in the day of iudgement ex istis legibus landem habebis apud Deum by these lawes thou shalt haue praise with God for keeping them c. but the Apostle speaketh not of hauing praise by the lawes but of the power that is the Magistrate 2. Augustine thinketh it is one thing to be praised of the power that is to be commended and rewarded by it an other laudem habere ex illa to haue praise of it that is exhibit se laude dignum he sheweth himselfe worthie of praise whether he be actually praised or not of the power Tolet alloweth this sense though he take the distinction betweene these phrases to be somewhat curious so also Haymo but the Apostle speaketh not simply of hauing praise and commendation but of hauing it from the Prince 3. the ordinar glosse thus thou shalt haue praise of the power si iusta est ipso laudante if it be iust it will praise thee si iniusta occasionem prebente if vniust it will giue thee occasion of praise so also Gorrhan it shall praise thee either causaliter by beeing the cause of thy praise or occasionaliter by beeing the occasion c. causa erit maigris coronae it shall be the cause of thy greater crowne gloss interlin laudaberis apud Deum thou shalt be praised with God Haymo but the Apostle speaketh of receiuing praise from the power as Chrysostome and Theophylact well obserue erit laudum tuarum praeco futurus he shall be a setter forth of thy praise 4. Bucer thinketh that the Apostle alludeth vnto the custome of the Grecians and Romanes among whom they which had done any
as a support and supply of the manifold charges which the Prince is put vnto in maintaining his officers and Ministers in founding and raising Churches schooles hospitals in waging battell and such like our Blessed Sauiour refused not to pay poll money to the officers Matth. 17. Doct. 5. A Christian is bound to pay his debts v. 6. Owe nothing to any man c. Though charitie require that no extremitie should be vsed in rigorous exacting of debts yet euerie one that is endebted ought to haue a care of discharging his debts as Christian religion doth not ouerthrowe the generall policies of states and commonwealths so neither doth it dissolue priuate contracts and couenants the Prophet did by a miracle bring vp the axe that was fallen into the water to restore it againe to the owner of whom it was borrowed 2. King 6.5 Doct. 6. That Christian religion taketh not away the obedience of subiects This euidently appeareth out of the whole chapter wherein the Apostle sheweth fowre speciall bands of obedience 1. the authoritie of God who instituted magistrates 2. the feare and awe of conscience which is more then the feare of any humane lawes 3. the dutie of charitie which is to yeeld vnto euery one their owne 4. the puritie of Euangelicall doctrine which forbiddeth all vice and commandeth vertue Therefore the Romanists doe cause the Gospell of Christ to be slaundered so much diminishing and empayring the authoritie of Magistrates by exemption of Ecclesiasticall and other priuiledged persons But Tolet annot 12. here telleth vs that notwithstanding some persons are exempted yet for all this the Ecclesiasticall state doth confirme and corroborate the secular obedience as by the Magistrates authoritie is diminished in some sort the particular power of parents ouer their children of Masters ouer their seruants and yet also their authoritie is confirmed and strengthened by the care and prouision of the superiour Magistrate and so is the secular state confirmed by the Eccesiasticall though it seeme in some respect to be empayred Contra. 1. The example is not alike for the lawe commandeth obedience of children to their parents of seruants to their Masters it exempteth them not as they free Ecclesiasticall persons altogether yet in case the parent or master may command any thing against the state for then they are not to be obeyed neither is the ciuill Magistrate to require any thing against God 2. the Ecclesiasticall state by preaching confirmeth obedience to the Prince and the Prince by his authoritie countenanceth the Ministers but when as subiects are so freed that the Prince hath no power ouer thē it is a manifest empairing of their authoritie 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. Whether the Pope and other Ecclesiasticall persons ought to be subiect to the Ciuill power This doctrine is agreeable to the rule of truth the word of God that all persons as well Ecclesiasticall as temporall ought to be subiect and obedient to the Ciuill power both touching their causes and persons which is denied by the Romanists whose obiections to prooue the exemption and immunitie of both are these 1. Obiect The superiour ought not to be subiect to the inferiour but the Ecclesiasticall power is superious vnto the Ciuill as beeing occupied in a more excellent matter about spirituall things therefore it ought not to be subiect and Bonifacius the 8 in the extravagant which beginneth vnum sanctum inferreth as much out of this place v. 1. the powers that be are ordained of God that there are degrees and order between the powers themselues some are superiour to others Contra. 1. We graunt that wherein the Ecclesiasticall function is superiour as in the preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments therein it is not subiect to the Ciuill power to receiue direction from them but from the word of God but yet in other things which appertaine vnto the bodily life and concerne ciuill subiection and obedience they ought to be subiect 2. And yet euen in things meerely Ecclesiasticall the Prince hath a compulsiue power to see that the Ministers of the Church doe their duties and that they preach no false doctrine and to remooue such as are scandalous either by doctrine or life 3. there is no such matter of order or difference betweene the powers themselues gathered out of this place their ordaining hath relation to God by whom they were instituted not to any such distinction and order among themselues 2. Obiect The Imperiall constitutions doe exempt Cleargie men from the iudgement of secular Courts Novel 79.83.123 Contra. 1. Then their immunities such as they are they enioy onely by humane priuiledge not by diuine right 2. neither are they by the lawe exempted from the ciuill power in criminall causes but onely in certaine ciuill for the lawe saith omnes secundum leges vivant etiamsi ad diuinam abmum pertineant let all liue according to the lawes though they belong vnto the house of God lib. 10. de mandat princip 3. though Princes of their munificence graunted certaine immunities and priuiledges to Clergie men as to free them frō personall seruice as to goe to warre to watch to ward and such like and from base and servile workes as to digge to plowe to cart as also from extraordinarie taxes and burthens yet they are not for all this discharged of their ciuill obedience these freedomes were giuen them that they might better attend vpon their Ecclesiasticall function not to the preiudice of the secular power 4. and although Princes should wholly exempt the Clergie from the Civill power the question is not what they haue done but what they may do for Princes haue not power vt rescindant leges Dei to cut off the lawes of God which do subiect all soules vnto the higher powes Mart. neither can Princes free any from the naturall and diuine bond to the which they are obliged as to exempt the child from the obedience of the father and the wife from her husband and so consequently the subiect from the Prince the seruant from the Master 5. adde hereunto that some of these priviledges which are thus vrged are conficta forged some malis artibus extenta extented by cunning Gualter 3. Obiect It is not fit that the sheepe should iudge the sheepeheard Princes are as sheepe vnto their ecclesiasticall Pastors therefore they ought not to iudge them Contra. 1. Princes are not to iudge them concerning their doctrine and the word of God in respect whereof they are fed and feede not but in all other ciuill things the Magistrate is as a Pastor and sheepehead himselfe and therefore in these things he hath a command ouer ecclesiasticall persons 4. Obiect Ministers are the seruants of the most high God and chiefe king of the world therefore it is not fit that a terrene gouernour should iudge them Contra. The Prince also is the seruant of God and is in Gods place in earth to iudge other seruants of God like as a
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 soâ—d 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
reprobation in this place as of Election 10. contr Whether as well the decree of reprobation as of election be without the foresight of workes 11. contr Of the difference betweene the decree of election and reprobation and of the agreement betweene them 12. contr Whether mercie be a naturall propertie in God or an effect onely of his will against Socinus 13. contr Whether the mercie of God in the forgiuenesse of sinne be an effect of Gods free and absolute will onely and be not grounded vpon Christ against the heresie of Socinus and Ostorodius 15. contr Of the sufficiencie of Scripture 16. contr Of the certaintie of saluation 17. contr Against the works of preparation Controversies vpon the 10. Chapter 1. contr Against inherent iustice 2. contr Against the workes of preparation which are done without faith 3. contr That it is impossible for any in this life to keepe the lawe 4. contr Against the doubting of salvation 5. contr Against vnwritten traditions 6. contr Against freewill 7. contr Against Limbu Patrum that Christ went not downe thither to deliuer the Patriarkes 8. contr Whether the righteousnesse of faith and the righteousnes of the law be one and the same or contrarie the one to the other 9. contr Whether the righteousnesse of the lawe and that which is by the law doe differ 10. contr That Baptisme doth not giue or conferre grace 11. contr Against the dissembling of our faith and profession 12. contr That faith is not onely in the vnderstanding 13. contr The Scriptures the onely sufficient rule of faith 14. contr How the Apostle saith there is no difference between the Iew and the Grecian v. 12. 15. contr Against the maintainers of vniversall grace 16. contr That faith iustifieth not by the act thereof but onely as it apprehendeth Christ. 17. contr That faith onely iustifieth not invocation 18. contr Against the invocation of Saints 19. contr That we must pray with confidence and assurance 20. contr Against the vaine pompe of the Pope of Rome in offering his feete to be kissed 21. contr Against humane traditions 22. contr That the Ministers and Preachers of the Gospel haue a lawfull calling against Stapleton 23. contr That the Hebrew text is more authenticall then the vulgar Latin translation 24. contr Against the works of preparation 25. contr Against the Iewes that will not haue the Prophet to speake of them in these words I haue stretched out my hands c. Controversies out of the 11. Chapter 1. contr That none which are elected can finally fall away 2. contr Whether the complaint of Elias of the paucitie of true worshippers be well applied to the decay of religion vnder the Pope at the time of the first reformation 3. contr That works are excluded both from election and iustification 4. contr Against free-will 5. contr That vniversalitie and multitude is not alwaies a note of the true Church 6. contr Of the sufficiencie of Scripture and of the right way to interpret the same 7. contr Against the Iewes 8. contr Whether any of the true branches may be broken off 9. contr Against the heresie of Valentinus and Basilides that held some things to be euill some good by nature 10. contr That there was the same spirit of faith and the same spirituall substance of the Sacraments vnder the old Testament and in the New 11. contr That the Scriptures are the iudge of euery one in particular 12. contr Against the Popish vncertentie and doubtfulnes of saluation 13. contr Against the Manichees and Marcionites 14. contr Against the works of preparation 15. contr Against the erroneous opinion of Origen concerning the purgatorie of hell Controversies vpon the 12. Chapter 1. contr Concerning the power of free-will 2. contr Whether the Masse be a sacrifice properly so called 3. contr Of the difference betweene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worship and seruice whether they signifie two kinds of religious worships the one peculiar to God the other to the creatures 4. contr Of the comparison betweene virginitie and mariage 5. contr The minde it selfe and not the sensuall part onely hath neede of renovation 6. contr Of the perfections of the Scripture against traditions 7. contr Against free-will 8. contr Against the arrogancie of the Pope 9. contr Against the superstitious orders of the Popish Clergie 10. controv The Pope not the head of the Church 11. contr That to loue our enemie is a precept and commanded not counselled as indifferent Controversies vpon the 13. Chapter 1. contr Whether the Pope and other Ecclesiasticall persons ought to be subiect to the Ciuill power 2. contr Whether the Pope haue a spirituall power ouer Kings and Princes 3. contr That the tyrannie and idolatrie of the Pope may be gain said and resisted 4. contr Whether the Ciuill magistrate haue any power or authoritie in matters of religion 5. contr Whether Ecclesiasticall persons as Bishops and others may haue the temporall sword committed vnto them 6. contr Whether it be lawfull for a Christian to be a Magistrate and to vse the sword in the time of peace and warre 7. contr Whether lawes Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall doe bind simply in conscience 8. contr Whether Ecclesiasticall persons are exempted from tribute 9. contr Whether the fulfilling of the law be possible in this life 10. contr Against the Marcionites which denied the morall precepts to be now in force but to be ceased 11. contr Against iustification by the works of the law Controversies vpon the 14. Chapter 1. contr Whether to abstaine from certaine meates be an act of religion and a part of Gods worship or a thing in it selfe indifferent 2. contr That faith is not onely an assenting of the wil but an act also of the vnderstanding and it is ioyned with knowledge 3. contr That it is necessarie that festivall daies should be obserued among Christians 4. contr That festiuall daies ought not to be consecrated to the honour of Saints 6. contr Whether all the festivalls of Christians are alike arbitrarie to be altered and chaunged as shall seeme good to the Church 7. contr Against Purgatorie 8. contr Whether Christ by his obedience and suffering merited for himselfe eternall glorie and dominion 9. contr Of bowing the knee to the name of Iesus whether it be necessarily inferred out of this place v. 11. and Phil. 2.10 10. contr That Christ is prooued to be God by this saying of the Prophet cited v. 11. as I liue euery knee shall bow vnto me against the blasphemie of Georg. Eniedinus 11. contr That morall works which are done without faith are sin howsoeuer outwardly they appeare good Controversies out of the 15. Chapter 1. contr Whether S. Peter were iustly reprehended of S. Paul for refusing to eate with the Gentiles 2. contr That Christ is not set forth onely as an example for vs to imitate but as our Sauiour to redeeme vs. 3. contr Against the enemies and adversaries to the Scriptures the