ex conspectu mutuo maior laetitia oriatur by the mutuall sight one of an other greater ioy is caused in 4. ad Galatas See further Synops. Centur. 2. err 63. 5. Controv. That festivall daies ought not to be consecrated to the honour of Saints The Romanists hold the contrarie reasoning thus for their opinion 1. Argum. God is honoured in his Saints the festivals therefore which are instituted to the honour of the Saints are referred to and determined in God Ans. 1. No will-worship tendeth to the honour of God but the odoration of Saints is a will-worship therefore God can not thereby receiue honour 2. God rather is thereby dishonoured for they giue the honour due vnto God vnto creatures inuocating the name of Saints saying O S. Peter S. Paul heare vs. 2. Argum. The memorie of the Saints is to be honoured but festivals are dedicated to the memorie of Saints Ergo. Ans. 1. Popish festivals are not dedicated onely to the memorie of Saints but to their worship which is idolatrie 2. and the Saints may better be remembred then by erecting holy daies in their names namely by imitating of their godly zeale and setting before our eyes their good example see Hebr. 13.7 3. Argum. These festivals of the Saints haue beene receiued and confirmed by long custome and therefore are not to be reiected Ans. Cyrpian saith epist. ad Pompeium writing against the epistle of Stephanus Bishop of Rome consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est custome without truth is but the oldnes of error Our arguments for the contrarie part that no festivals are to be consecrated to the honour of Saints are these and such like 1. All religious worship is due vnto God onely him onely shalt thou serue Matth. 4. but to dedicate daies vnto the honour of any is a religious worship Ergo. Augustine saith honoramus sanctos charitate non servitute we honour Saints with charitie not seruice de vera relig c. 55. 2. Argum. Festivall daies are not onely for the rest of the bodie but for the sanctifying of the soule but this is onely Gods worke therefore to him onely the right of festivall daies belongeth 3. In the old Testament there were no holy daies consecrated to the Patriarks as Abraham Isaak Iacob nor to any of the Prophets therefore neither ought any be so dedicated in the New 4. Christians are not to imitate Pagans in the rites of religion but in dedicating daies vnto Saints they imitate the Pagans apparently for so the Pagans did consecrate feasts to their inferiour gods as the Saturnals to Saturne the Bacchinals to Bacchus and such other herein Papists doe follow their example changing onely the names and this was done by the authoritie of one of their owne Popes Greg. l. 9. ep 71. festa Paganorum sensim esse c. the Pagan feasts are by little and little to be changed into Christian feasts and some things must be done to the similitude of theirs that they may more easily be brought to the Christian faith c. 6. Controv. Whether all the festivalls of Christians are alike arbitrarie to be altered and changed as shall seeme good to the Church Herein not onely the Papists are our aduersaries but some of our owne writers seeme to incline vnto this opinion The Papists affirme that the Sabbath is but an Apostolicall tradition and that it was charged from the last day of the weeke to the first by the authoritie of the Church Rhemist whereupon it will follow that the Church may alter it by the same authoritie if it shall so seeme good vnto an other day Learned Pareus hath also this position dub 4. hypoth 3. feriae Christianorum quantum ad genus sunt necessariae vt tamen quantum ad speciem maneant liberae c. the holy daies of Christians though they be necessarie in generall yet in particular are free that they may be changed and transferred if there be cause from one day to an other c. and he seemeth to account the dominicall day inter res medias among things indifferent hypoth 4. But I preferre herein the iudgement of that excellent diuine D. Fulke who concerning other festiuals of Christ and the holy Ghost thinketh that they may be changed as the Church shall see cause from certaine daies vnto other occurrent times and occasions or from the daies now observed to other as things in themselues indifferent but concerning the Lords day he writeth in these words But to change the Lords day and to keepe it on monday twesday or any other day the Church hath none authoritie for it is not a matter of indifferencie but a necessarie prescription of Christ himselfe deliuered to vs by his Apostles annot Revel c. 1. sect 7. The reason hereof is 1. because we finde that in the Apostles time the first day of the weeke was appointed to be the Lords day Act. 20.7 1. Cor. 16.2 Revel 1.10 who beeing directed by the spirit of God no doubt but herein also they followed either the expresse commandement of Christ or the speciall direction of the spirit 2. because there can not come the like reason of the altering of the Lords day while the world endureth as was in the first change namely for the commemoration of Christs resurrection 3. the Sabbath could not be changed but by the same authoritie whereby it was first instituted which was by God himselfe Wherefore to conclude this point the festiuals of Christians may be diuided into three sorts 1. some are of necessitie to be kept and bind in conscience as the Lords onely 2. other festiuals though not so necessarie yet are conuenient to be retained and can not be remooued without great scandall as the feasts of the Nativitie Circumcision Annuntiation Ascension of Christ and of the comming of the holy Ghost 3. some are meerely arbitrarie in the Church as all other festiuals of the Apostles See further hereof Synops. Centur. 2. err 87. and Hexapl. in Genes c. 2. 7. Conntrov Against Purgatorie v. 8. Whether we liue or die we are the Lords hence may be confuted the Popish opinion of purgatorie for they which are the Lords are alreadie purged by the blood of Christ and neede no other purgation by fire if they be not purged they are not the Lords for no vncleane thing can come into his sight so the Spirit saith Blessed are they which die in the Lord they rest from their labours Revel 14.13 all that die in the faith of Iesus die in the Lord if they die in the Lord they rest from their labours but they which are in purgatorie are in labour and sorrow still See further Synops. Centur. 2. err 11. 8. Controv. Whether Christ by his obedience and suffering merited for himselfe eternall glorie and dominion 1. It is the opinion of the Schoolemen that as Christ merited by his death for his members redemption from death and sinne so by his perfect obedience and most holy passion he
word 2. Cor. 13.7 though we be as reprobates that is in mans iudgement In the other place he speaketh of the full possession of the inheritance not of the perfect assurance 2. the epistle to the Philippians was written after that to the Romanes as hath beene shewed therefore it is impertinently alleadged to prooue greater perfection to haue beene in the Apostle when he writte to the Romanes then when he indited the epistle to the Philippians 3. The same assurance of saluation which S. Paul professeth Rom. 8. he sheweth also 2. Cor. 2.9 the things which eye hath not seene c. which God hath prepared for those that loue him But God hath reuealed them vnto vs by his spirit c. Here the Apostle in saying vs perswaded himselfe to be one of those to whom these things were reuealed and prepared 2. But Chrysostome better sheweth the reason why it is profitable to distinguish of the time of the writing of these epistles because the Apostle handleth the same things diuersely treating of circumcision and other Ceremonies for to the Romanes he saith concerning such things c. 14. him that is weake in the faith receiue vnto you But to the Galatians he writeth more sharpely c. 5.2 If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing and to the Colossians he calleth them the ordinances of the world the commandements and doctrines of men Coloss. 2.20.22 the reason of which difference Chrysostome alleadgeth to be this quia principio condescendere oportuit successu temporis non item because in the beginning the Apostle was to condiscend and yeelde somewhat but not so afterward like as physitians and schoolemasters doe more gently and tenderly vse their patients and young schollers at the first then afterward Quest. 19. Of the order of placing the Epistles and why this to the Romanes is set first 1. Athanasius in Synops. placeth the 7. canonicall epistles before S. Pauls which are foureteene in all and of them the epistle to the Hebrewes he maketh the tenth next before the epistles to Timothie Luther setteth the epistle to the Hebrewes after S. Iohns epistles and diuideth it from S. Pauls Tertullian lib. 5. cont Marcionem placeth them in this order the epistles to the Galatians Corinthians Romanes Thessalonians Ephesians Colossians Philippians But the best order is that which is vsually receiued to the Romanes Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians Thessalonians to Timothie Titus Philemon to the Hebrewes 2. And why the epistle to the Romanes is prefixed before the rest the reasons are these 1. not for that it was the first in time for the contrarie is shewed before 2. nor so much for the prolixitie and largenes thereof as the prophesie of I say in that behalfe is set first Pareus 3. or for the dignitie of that nation because the Romanes were chiefe Lords of the world Aretius for this had beene but a temporall respect 4. or for the dignitie and excellencie of the Romane Church for he giueth the preheminence to the Iewes whom he calleth the oliue tree and the Gentiles the banches of the wilde oliue tree c. 11.5 But the chiefe reason was because of the excellent matter this epistle treateth of that principall question of iustification by faith which is handled also in the epistle to the Galatians but here more at large and of the chiefe questions beside of Christian religion as of the workes of nature c. 1.2 the force of the lawe c. 7. the fruites of iustifying faith c. 5. of election and reprobation c. 9. of the calling of the Gentiles and the reiection of the Iewes c. 11. of the diuersitie of gifts c. 12. of the dutie towards Magistrates c. 12. of the vse of indifferent things c. 14.15 so that this epistle is as a catechisme and introduction to Christian religion and therefore is worthily set before the rest Aretius Pareus Quest. 20. Vnto whom this epistle to the Romanes was written and from whence 1. It was not written generally to the whole Romane state for the Emperor of Rome with his Princes ministers and officers were persecutors of the Church of God but it was directed to those among the Romanes whether of that nation or strangers both Iewes and Gentiles that had imbraced the Gospell of Christ Aretius Faius As now in the Romane papall state we doubt not but there are many which professe the gospell of Christ and are members of the true Church 2. And although this epistle were personally directed to the Romanes yet it entreateth of the common faith which concerneth the whole Church of God and to the vse thereof is generall and that which was written vnto them is written vnto vs. As that which our Blessed Sauiour said vnto his Apostles he said vnto all Mark 13.37 So that which the Apostles did write to some speciall Churches they did write vnto all Gryneus 3. This epistle was written from Corinthus as not onely the subscription sheweth both in the Greek and Syriake but Origen beside doth collect so much by these three arguments out of the text it selfe 1. It was sent by Phebe a seruant of the Church of Cenchrea Rom. 16.1 which Cenchrea is neere vnto Corinth yea portus ipse Corinthe the verie hauen of Corinth 2. he saith Gaius mine host and of the whole Church saluteth you c. 16.23 which Gaius dwelt at Corinth as the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 1.14 I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gains 3. he addeth further Erastus the chamberlaine of the citie saluteth you which Erastus is the same whom Paul left at Corinth 2. Timoth. 4.20 Quest. 21. Of the excellencie and worthines of this epistle Three things doe commend this epistle 1. the matter 2. the forme 3. the kind and methode 1. Concerning the matter it containeth the chiefe articles and most waightie points of the Christian faith as is partly shewed before qu. 6. Origen further setteth it forth thus multa de lege Mosis connectuntur c. many things are knit together in this epistle as of the lawe of Moses of the calling of the Gentiles of Israel which is according to the flesh and of Israel not according to the flesh of the circumcision of the heart and of the flesh of the spirituall lawe and the lawe of the letter of the Lawe of the members and the lawe of the mind of the lawe of sinne of the inward and outward man to this purpose Origen praefat in epistol ad Romanos 2. The forme and methode of this epistle is most exact consisting of the definition of that which is handled and the tractation and explication thereof for the most perfect and artificiall Methode is that which beginneth with the definition as the Apostle sheweth what the Gospel is it is the power of God to saluation to euerie one that beleeueth c. 1. v. 16. in the which definition are expressed all the causes thereof the efficient and author God the ende saluation the materiall cause Christ Iesus the formall faith and
proceede from a louing minde Tolet. 2. I thanke my God 1. he saith my God not theirs to signifie that their faith was imperfect as Ambrose for in the words following he setteth forth an ample commendation of their faith 2. some thinke he so saith because he acknowledged this benefit that the Romanes beleeued to be as conferred vpon himselfe Tolet. 3. But the manner of the Saints is so to speake as Dauid doth often in the Psalmes ex privato sensu diuinae bonitatis of a priuate and more liuely sense and feeling which they haue of the goodnesse of God and in respect of some singular gifts which they haue receiued Marty so also Chrysostome id magno facit affectu he doth it with a great affection And so the Prophets and other holy men cum qui communis est omnium Deus sibt proprium facientes making the common God of all peculiar to themselues euen as the Lord did call himselfe the God of Abraham Isaac and Iacob tanquam seorsim illorum tantum esset as though he were seuerally their God onely 3. Thorough Iesus Christ. He offreth thanks throrough Christ 1. the meaning whereof is not as Ambrose to giue thanks for a benefit receiued by Christ. 2. but as Origen per Christum tanquam sacerdotem he offreth this sacrifice of thanks by Christ as the high Priest by whom all our oblations are acceptable vnto God for we must take the same way in giuing of thanks which the father doth in conferring graces that as he bestoweth his graces vpon vs in Christ so in him againe we should returne our thanks Aretius 4. For you all 1. not as in their stead as Dauid desired to die for Ionathan but because of them that they had receiued such an excellent gift of faith 2. the Apostle sui oblitus forgetteth himselfe and giueth thanks for the Church Pareus 3. he giueth thanks for them all incipientibus proficientibus perfectis for the beginners for them which profited and proceeded and for them which were perfect Gorrham Quest. 24. How the faith of the Romanes was published through the world 1. Origen by the whole world vnderstandeth the Angels in heauen which did reioyce for the conuersion of men in earth but this sauoureth of his accustomed curious speculations the like phrase the Apostle vseth of the Thessalonians 1. epist. 1.8 Your faith spread abroad in all quarters he meaneth then the world of men not of Angels 2. Hierome maketh this the sense because the same faith which the Romanes had receiued was preached by the Apostles in all the world but the Apostle here doth giue a speciall commendation of the faith of the Romanes 3. therefore here an hyperbole or rather a Synecdoche is to be admitted that many parts of the world are taken for all because the more knowne parts of the world were now subiect to the Romanes so S. Luke saith c. 2.1 There came a commandement from Augustus Caesar that all the world should be taxed Pareus And Chrysostome giueth this reason Rome was quasi in quodam orbis vertice collocata placed as in the toppe of the world whence it might be seene and discerned of all the earth Quest. 25. Of the singular faith of the Romanes 1. First their faith was commendable and famous for the worthinesse and excellencie thereof both for the soundnesse of doctrine which they had receiued as S. Paul testifieth c. 16.17 I beseech you obserue those which cause diuision and dissention among you contrary to the doctrine which ye haue learned and beside their knowledge was ioyned with goodnes and feruent loue as he againe saith c. 15.12 I am perswaded of you that ye are full of goodnes and filled with all knowledge and that yee are able to admonish one another 2. Againe they had many lets and impediments which made their faith the more famous 1. diuitijs delicijs corrupti erant they were corrupt with riches and other delicates and so were hindred from beleeuing 2. qui praedicabant erant piscatores they which preached the Gospell were fishermen and Iewes which nation was odious vnto the Gentiles 3. they taught to worship a man that was crucified 4. vitam exagebant austeriorem they exacted a more strict and austere kinde of life Chrysostome 5. vnto this may be added that the most grieuous persecution of the faith was at Rome and the Christians there were as vnder the paw of the lion and so in greatest danger yet notwithstanding all these lets and impediments they receiued the Christian saith 3. And further the Romane Church is commended in respect of the founders thereof and the planters of their faith which was first founded by S. Paul and then by Peter who both liued and preached there and there ended their life from thence also it is thought that Iohn the Euangelist was banished into the Isle Pathmos Chrysostome therefore thus saith of Rome ob id maximè Romam praedico beatam c. I do chiefely for this count Rome happie because Peter and Paul did so loue it that they taught the faith of Christ there and finished their life among them hom vlt. in epist. ad Roman 4. But concerning the last commendation of the Romanes faith which Pererius produceth that the Church of Rome inviolatam intaminatam conservauit c. hath kept inviolably and pure the faith receiued from the Apostles that it is manifestly false shall afterward be shewed in the places of controuersie Quest. 29. Whether the Church of Rome were first founded by S. Peter 1. It is the receiued opinion of the Romanists that Peter was the first founder of the Romane faith for the proofe whereof they alleadge certaine authorities as of Eusebius who writeth that in the 2. yeare of Claudius Peter came to Rome and there confounded Simon Magus and preached the faith to the Romanes at which time they entreated Marke to write the Gospel as they had heard it from S. Peters mouth Euseb. 2. histor Ecclesiast c. 13.14 likewise Chrysostome affirmeth the same that Peter preached at Rome first qui praedicabant erant piscatores they that preached were fishers ex Perer. Bellarmine to the same purpose also produceth Epiphanius Orosius Leo with others that the faith was first planted by Peter at Rome lib. 2. de Pontif. Rom. c. 1. 2. Contra. 1. Concerning Peters comming to Rome there is great vncertaintie Hierome and Eusebius say it was in the 2. yeare of Claudius But Beda in 15. c. Actor affirmeth it to haue beene in the 4. yeare of Claudius Onuphrius assigneth the 3. yeare of Claudius in Chronic. Damasus saith that he came to Rome in the beginning of Neroes Empire and sate there 25. yeares whereas Nero raigned but 14. yeares in all and he further affirmeth that Peters disputation and combate with Simon Magus was in the presence of Neto the Emperor which Eusebius reporteth to haue beene vnder Claudius 2. Chrysostome speaketh of the preaching of fishermen but not of the first
occasion by Gods patience and forbearance to continue in their sinnes and so the Lord may be said to harden the heart because the wicked abuse that occasion which is sent of God thus Origen lib. 3. periarchor Basil in his oration wherein he prooueth that God is not the author of euill but in this respect man rather should be said to harden his owne heart in abusing the occasion then God in giuing it 2. Augustine taketh this induration of the heart to be said of God when he withdraweth his grace as discedente sole aqua obduratur by the departure of the sunne the water is congealed and hardened serm 88. de tempor 3. But beside the subtracting and withholding of Gods grace he concurreth as a iust iudge by his secret power so working that both the inward suggestions of Sathan and the externall obiects doe all make together for the further hardening of their heart see before c. 1. qu. 63. Quest. 9. Whether hardnes of heart and finall impenitencie be a speciall kind of sinne 1. Pererius seemeth to collect so much by these two reasons 1. because here the Apostle ioyneth hardnesse and impenitencie of heart together that as hardnesse of heart is a speciall sinne so should the other be also 2. here is a speciall and most grieuous punishment inflicted the heaping and treasuring vp wrath But neither of these reasons conclude for both the hardnesse of heart is rather the generall effect of sinne and a perpetuall companion of an habite and custome in sinne then a speciall sinne and the punishment here described is against not one but all their sinnes wherein they continue without repentance 2. Vega lib 13. c. 20. super decret Trident. de iustificat sheweth that in these two cases impenitencie doth assume a newe kind of peculiar malice that is either in receiuing of the Sacraments for then especially men are commanded to prepare their hearts by repentance so that herein the commandement of God is transgressed and at the houre of death for then a man not repenting is accessarie to his owne death and so transgresseth that commandement thou shalt not kill But neither of these reasons are sufficient 1. when one commeth to the sacrament without due preparation and so receiueth it vnreuerently and profanely there is a newe sinne indeede committed which is profanenesse and contempt of sacred things but this is the fruit and effect of his impenitencie a newe sinne is added to his impenitencie rather then impenitencie it selfe is changed into a speciall sinne 2. And so likewise when one thorough impenitencie is carelesse of his saluation beeing at the point of death this carelesnes is also a fruit of impenitencie 3. Thomas thus decideth this questiō that if impenitencie be taken simply for perseuerance and continuance in sinne it is not a speciall sinne but a circumstance rather of sinne but if there be beside praepositum non poenitendi a purpose not to repent now impenitencie is become a speciall sinne Thomas 2.2 qu. 14. articl 2. But this seemeth to be no perfect distinction for wheresoeuer impenitencie is there is a purpose and resolution not to repent as long as the heart remaineth impenitent Thus much then may be added for the discussing of this question that impenitencie is two wayes to be considered either in respect of the obiect which is sinne that one hath committed and so it is a circumstance that accompanieth sinne or as it is ioyned with profanenes contempt of God and vacuitie of his feare and so it may haue toward God the nature of a speciall sinne Quest. 10. Whether it stand with Gods iustice to punish twice for the same sinnes Seeing that the Gentiles were punished before beeing deliuered vp to their vile affections c. 1.26 how then are they reserued here to a greater punishment against the day of wrath for the Prophet Nahum saith c. 1.9 non consurget duplex tribulatio double affliction or tribulation shall not rise vp Answ. 1. This is not the meaning of the Prophet that God cannot punish twice for the same sinne but there he speaketh of the destruction of the Assyrians that it should be at once God should not neede the second time to come vpon them which was fulfilled in the euersion and ouerthrowe of Nineueh it was at once destroyed for euer 2. This rule well holdeth in the course of iustice that one be not punished twice for the same sinne 1. if by that one punishment full satisfaction be made for sinne but the wicked by their temporall punishment cannot fully satisfie Gods iustice for their sinne 2. punishment begunne in this life and eternall punishment afterward are rather diuerse degrees of the whole punishment due vnto sinne then diuerse punishments as here in the course of humane iustice a malefactor may be both put to the racke to the wheele hanged and quartered and all these shall make but one condigne punishment for his offence Par. 3. and when one punishment worketh vnto amendement then a second is needlesse as the righteous onely are chastened in this life but the wicked because they profit not by temporall punishment vnto repentance haue their punishment begun in this life and finished in the next as the old world and Sodomites were both temporally and eternally punished Quest. 11. Whether euerie one shall be rewarded according to his workes ver 6. Against this saying of the Apostle v. 6. Who will reward euerie man according to his workes it will be obiected that they which repent them in their last houre and so are saued haue no time to shewe good workes and likewise infants therefore it appeareth not how they should be iudged according to their workes Answ. 1. They which haue grace to repent them in their last houre are not voide of good workes as the theife vpon the crosse shewed these good fruits of his faith he confessed Christ acknowledged his sinne reprooued the vnbeleeuing theife and prayed earnestly for euerlasting saluation And if he had liued longer he had no doubt a full purpose of heart to haue expressed his faith by his godly workes the like may be said of those which are at the point of death called to repentance 2. Concerning infants there is an other reason for either they be saued according to the grace of Gods free election or some are damned being left in their owne nature the children of wrath Now the Apostle speaketh not of infants here but of such as are of yeares to commit euil or doe good Pareus Quest. 12. How it standeth with Gods goodnesse to punish euill with euill It may be thus obiected that sinne is committed three wayes either in rewarding evill for good or euill for euill or in not recompensing good for good But God cannot sinne therefore it should seeme to be against the nature of the diuine goodnesse to punish sinne with eternall damnation and it is against Christs rule who commandeth that we should doe good against euill Answer 1. Two wayes may euill
his delight and ioying in good in his inner man but he is captiued by the lawe of his members vnto sinne v. 22.23 The issue is this first he desireth and expecteth to be deliuered from this spirituall bondage and captiuitie ver 24. secondly he giueth thanks for this freedome in Christ that he is not yet wholly captiued vnto sinne but in his spirit he serueth the lawe of God 3. The questions and doubts discussed Quest. 1. How the law is said to haue dominion ouer a man as long as he liueth 1. We must here distinguish betweene these two cessare legem the law to cease and dominionem legis cessare the dominion of the law to cease Theodoret thinketh that the Apostle treateth of the ceasing of the law so also Gorrhan but that the law is not ceased the Apostle sheweth afterward giuing an instance in one of the commandements Thou shalt not lust but the dominion of the law is ceased which serued to condemne but we are vnder grace which hath deliuered vs from the bondage of the law Tolet. annot 1. 2. By the lawe 1. neither with Sedulius doe we vnderstand the lawe of nature for he speaketh vnto the Iewes that knewe the lawe whereas the lawe of nature was knowne also vnto the Gentiles 2. neither with Ambrose by the lawe doe we meane the Gospel for we are not dead vnto this lawe as the Apostle saith v. 4. we are dead to the law 3. neither is the lawe of the members here vnderstood as Origen which is alwaies euill rebelling against the lawe of the word but the lawe which the Apostle here speaketh of is holy and good ver 12. 4. nor yet doe we vnderstand the ciuill lawe of the Romanes to whom the Apostle doth write as knowing their owne lawes as Haymo and Lyranus indifferently vnderstandeth Lex Mosaica vel Civilis the Mosaicall or Ciuill lawe 5. The Apostle then maketh mention of the morall law of Moses as is euident by that instance which afterward he bringeth in of that commandement Thou shalt not couet Tolet. Mart. Pareus 3. These words while he liveth are diuersly interpreted 1. some referre it to the law as long as the lawe liveth or remaineth so Origen Ambrose Erasmus and Origen addeth this reason because the man is afterward resembled to the lawe who beeing dead the woman is free but this reason sheweth that it must be referred rather to the man then the law 2. and so indeede it is more fitly said of the man while he liueth then of the lawe and in grammaticall construction it is better referred to the nearer word then the further off Beza 3. some doe ioyne it vnto man which word because in the Greeke signifieth both sexes Chrysostome thinketh that the death of both is insinuated for if the woman be free when her husband is dead much more when she is dead also but then this verse should be confounded in sense with that which followeth whereas the Apostle speaketh first in generall of the lawe which onely beareth rule ouer a man while he liueth and then of the particular lawe of matrimonie 4. some thinke that these words while he or it liueth are indifferently referred either to the lawe or man for both we are said to be dead to the lawe v. 4. and the lawe also is said to be dead v. 6. Mart. but it is better ioyned with man as the nearest word 4. Tolet thinketh that the Apostle speaketh not here generally of the law of Moses but of the particular law of matrimonie annot 4. but as is before shewed it is better to vnderstand the Apostle to speake generally here of the law which bindeth a man onely while he liueth and so we are dead in Christ and no longer bound to the law and then he doth illustrate the same by the particular law of marriage the law was as the man or rather sinne that receiued strength by the law we as the wife the law beeing dead in Christ in respect of the bondage thereof we are free Pareus 2. Quest. Whether the woman be simply free if the man be once dead v. 3. If the man be dead she is free Lyranus giueth this note that if the man should chance to die and yet be raised againe as some were the woman were not bound in that case to receiue the man as her husband nisi de condecentia but in decencie onely and supervenienti novo consensu by a new consent and contract Pererius affirmeth the same and giueth instance of Lazarus that if any should rise againe as he did non futuram vxorem eius quae ante fuerat she should not be his wife that was before but vpon a new contract Contra. Though this be but a curious and vnnecessarie question yet because the occasion is ministred by them it shall not be amisse herein to examine the truth Indeede when we shall rise againe to an immortall state as in the generall resurrection neither the man shall be bound to the wife nor the wife to the husband because they shall neither marrie nor be giuen in marriage but when any is miraculously raised againe to the mortall state and condition of this life the case is otherwise as may appeare by these reasons 1. Other coniunctions which are not so neare as betweene the father or mother and the children doe not cease neither are extinct by such a temporall death as it is saide Heb. 11.35 The women receiued their dead raised to life that is the mothers acknowledged their children raised againe as the widow of Sarepta and the Shunamite had their sonnes restored vnto them againe beeing dead the one by the Prophet Elias the other by the Prophet Elisha the question is whether those children so raised were freed from the obedience of their parents I thinke not no more is the wife in that case freed from her husband because the coniunction is nearer betweene the man and wife as Gen. 2.24 Therefore shall a man leaue his father and mother and cleaue to his wife 2. When the Sadduces put the question to Christ of a woman that was married to seuen brethren whose wife she should be in the resurrection our Sauiour answered them not that the woman was free from them all by death but because that in the resurrection they neither marrie not are married but are as the Angels in heauen Matth. 22.30 So then the reason why they are free after death is not simply because they are dead but because they shall rise to an incorruptible state and not returne from death againe to their former mortall condition 3. Pererius himselfe confesseth that if one that is baptized or hath receiued orders should be raised from death he should not neede to be baptized or consecrated againe because those Sacraments do imprint in the soule an indeleble character so doth not matrimonie But this may serue as an argument against his conceit that matrimonie in this case shall no more be iterated
Apostle giueth instance in himselfe as v. 24. O wretched man that I am and 25. I thank my God and so he doth here the Apostle then speaketh here neither of his present state nor yet of his first age but of the middle part of his life when he liued a Pharisie 2. That commendation then which S. Paul giueth of his former life while he was a Pharisie did onely concerne his outward cariage which was to the iudgement of the world without reproofe and he kept a good conscience according to his knowledge yet was it farre from a pure conscience because he had no knowledge then of our faith in Christ whose way he persecuted whereby the heart is purified Act. 15.9 Notwithstanding then his outward shew of obedience his heart and affections were not right within and so he had not the true vse and vnderstanding of the law as Augustine saith lib. 1. ad Bonifac. c. 9. potuit intus esse in affectionibus pravus prauaricator legis c. he might inwardly in his peruerse affections be a transgressor of the law and yet outwardly fulfill the workes of the law c. So Saint Paul himselfe confesseth Tit. 3.3 We our selues were sometime vnwise c. seruing lusts c. Quest. 10. What law the Apostle speaketh of v. 7. is the law of sinne 1. Some thinke that the Apostle by the law here vnderstandeth the precept which was giuen to Adam in Paradise not to eate of the forbidden fruite of this opinion was Methobus in Epiphanius haeres 64. and Heirome maketh mention of it epist. ad Hedib qu. 8. but he reiecteth it Theodoret hath the like conceit that the law is here vnderstood to be the law of Moses mandatum vocat quod Adamo datum est but that he calleth the commandement which was giuen to Adam Theodoret in Commentar But 1. Photius in Oecummenius reiecteth this opinion because no where doth the Apostle call that particular commandement giuen vnto Adam the law 2. Tolet further addeth these reasons the Apostle speaketh of the verie inward desire and concupiscence but the act was forbidden Adam that he should not eate of the forbidden fruite and againe the Apostle in saying I knew not sinne but by the law insinuateth that sinne was before but he knew it 〈◊〉 but before that commandement was giuen vnto Adam it had beene no sinne in him to haue eaten and receiued the fruite of the tree 2. Some thinke that the Apostle speaketh not of the law of Moses but of the law of nature for before the witten law was giuen men had knowledge of sinne as Cain knew he had sinned and Abimelech was not ignorant that adulterie was sinne thus Heirome and before him Origen But 1. Photius in Oecumenius thus refelleth this opinion that the Apostle speaketh not of the law of nature because the Apostle had said before yee are dead to the law v. 4. in this sense then some should be found naturali lege priuati depriued of the naturall law and againe the Apostle saith I was aliue sometime without the law but neither Adam nor any other liuing were at any time without the law of nature 2. Tolet addeth that if the Apostle had meant the law of nature he would not haue said I knew not sinne but by the law but rather sinne was not but by the law 3. And concerning the obiection of Cain and Abimelechs knowledge of sinne Chrysostome answereth that the Apostle saith omnem concupistratuâ— vehementiam significans sinne wrought in me all manner of concupiscence signifying the vehemenencie of it c. that although these sinnes did raigne before yet they appeared not to be so great sinnes as afterward by the law and Theophylact addeth noscibatur peccatum sed nondum erat concupiscentia interdicta sinne was knowne before the law that is outward and notorious sinnes but yet the inward concupiscence was not restrained 3. Tolet thinketh that together with the morall law the Apostle meaneth the ceremoniall and iudiciall law because by them also were the knowledge of sinne But the Apostle giuing instance of the inward vnlawfull concupiscence which was not punished by the iudiciall nor ceremoniall law sheweth that he speaketh not of them 4. Wherefore it is euident that the Apostle meaneth none other but the written morall law of Moses because he giueth instance of the last commandement thou shalt not couet Martyr Pareus Quest. 11. What lust or concupiscence the Apostle speaketh of I had not knowne lust c. except c. 1. Some thinke that here by concupiscence the Apostle intendeth all sinne whatsoeuer as Anselme and the ordinarie glosse following Augustine bona est lex qua â—â—â—dum concupiscentiam prohibet omnia peccata prohibet c. the law is good which while it forbiddeth concupiscence forbiddeth all sinnes c. Heirome epist. 152. refuseth their opinion which take this for the commandement and by concupiscence he thinketh to be vnderstood omnes animi perturbationes all the preturbations and passions of the minde whatsoeuer as of feare greefe desire But it is euident in that the Apostle propoundeth the verie words of the line that he hath reference to that precept thou shalt not lust whereby indeed all corrupt concupiscence and desire whatsoeuer is forbidden 2. By this concupiscence is not vnderstood onely the act of concupiscence as Pererius holdeth with other Romanists we vnderstand not saith he ipsam concupiscendi facultatem sed actum ipsum concupiscendi the facultie of coueting but the act it selfe disput 8. numer 47. nor yet the second motions of concupiscence onely whereunto the will consenteth but euen the first vnlawfull desires and motions which haue not the consent of the wil. And that this may the better appeare it shall not be amisse further to shew what concupiscence is and the diuerse kinds thereof there is a threefold concupiscence naturalis sensitivus voluntarius the naturall which is euen in stirps and plants as to couet and draw vnto them their food and nourishment and this is properly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 desire the sensitiue is in bruit beasts the voluntarie and sensitiue both in man and they are called by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concupiscence 2. further this concupiscence is deuided into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the facultie it selfe and the exercising or act thereof and both of them are considered either physice as they are naturall as to couet meate drinke and such like which are things indifferent or morally as they haue relation to the commandement 3. and herein there is to be considered both the maâ—ter and obiect of concupiscence and the manner as if either things vnlawfull be desired as the wife horse seruant of our neighbour which appertaine not to vs or if we exceed measure in desire of things vnlawfull as of meate drinke apparell riches and such like or desire them to an euill end 3. Now to apply this which hath beene said to our purpose 1.