vngodly L. it is not put interrogatiuely but passiuely in the originall 7 Doubtlesse one will scarce die for a righteous man but yet for a good man for one which is profitable to him Be. he readeth the sense not the words it may be one dare die 8 But God setteth out his loue toward vs seeing that while not seeing if that while S. we were yet sinners Christ died for vs. 9 Beeing iustified therefore by his blood much more shall we be saued thorough him from wrath 10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God God was reconciled to vs S. by the death of his Sonne much more beeing reconciled we shall be saued liue S. by his life 11 And not onely so but we also reioyce in God thorough our Lord Iesus Christ by whome we haue obtained V. Be. receiued Gr. reconciliation atonement B.G. 12 Wherefore as by one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne and so euen so B. death went ouer all men in whome namely Adam Be. not in as much as S.V.B. all men haue sinned 13 For vnto the time of the law was sinne in the world but sinne is not imputed while there is no law 14 But death raigned from Adam vnto Moses euen ouer them that sinned after the like manner after the similitude Gr. of the transgression of Adam which was the figure of him that was to come 15 But yet not as the offence so is also the gift for if by the offence of that one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace which is of one man by one man B.G. hath abounded vnto many 16 And not as that which entred by one which sinned not as the sinne of one S.L. for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sinning or that sinned or as by one that sinned death entred V. for that followeth in the next verse so is the gift for the fault sinne B. not iudgement S.L.V. because of the words following to condemnation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. came of one offence which must be supplied out of the next clause vnto condemnation but the gift is of many offences to iustification 17 For if by one offence Be. better then by the offence of one B.G.S.V.L. for so much is expressed in the words following death raigned thorough one much more shall they which receiue the abundance of grace that abundance of grace G. and of the gift of righteousnes raigne in life thorough one that is Iesus Christ 18 Likewise then as by one offence Be. not the offence of one cater see the former vers the fault came vpon all men to condemnation so by one iustification Be. not the iustification of one B.G. cum caeter for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put in the first place otherwise it should be put after as in the next verse the benefit redounded vnto all men to the iustification of life 19 For as by the disobedience of one many were made sinners so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous 20 Moreouer the Law entred thereupon by the way V. in the meane time B. that the offence should encrease B. Be. abound V. G. but where sinne increased grace abounded much more 21 That as sinne had raigned vnto death in death V. S. L. so is the word in the originall is in but he meaneth vnto death as appeareth by the other opposite part vnto eternall death so might grace also raigne by righteousnes vnto eternall life thorough Iesus Christ our Lord. 2. The Argument Methode and Parts In this chapter the Apostle pursueth the former proposition wherewith he concluded the fourth chapter that Christ died for our sinnes and now he sheweth the manifold benefits which we haue by the death of Christ with an ample proofe and demonstration of the same So then this chapter is deuided into two parts the first containing a rehersall of the benefits which we haue by Christs death to v. 6. the second a proofe and demonstration thereof to the ende of the chapter 1. In the first part there is 1. set forth the foundation of all other benefits which we obtaine by Christ namely iustification by faith v. 1. 2. then the benefits and graces either internall which are these sowre peace of conscience bold accesse to Gods presence perseuerance hope of glorie v. 2. or externall which is constancie and reioycing in tribulation which is amplyfied both by the effects patience experience hope which is described by the effect it maketh vs not ashamed v. 5. and by the efficient cause thereof the loue of God shed in our hearts by the holy Ghost v. 5. 2. Then followeth the probation hereof which consisteth of two arguments the one taken from the state and condition of such as were reconciled by Christ they were enimies this argument is handled from v. 6. to 12. the other argument standeth vpon a comparison and collation betweene Adam and Christ the losse which we had by the one and the benefit which we are made partakers of by the other from v. 12 to the ende In the first argument there is 1. the proposition that Christ died for the vngodly v. 6. ◠the illustration thereof à dissimili by an vnlike comparison betweene man and God the first part is expressed v. 7. that a man will not die for an vnrighteous man and an enemie which is shewed by the contrarie because hardly for a righteous man will one die vnlesse he be also a friend much lesse for an vnrighteous man and an enemie the other part of the comparison followeth 1. shewing that Christ died both for vs beeing vnrighteous v. 8. and enemies also v. 10. 2. then he inferreth two conclusions 1. the certaintie of our saluation beeing now iustified and made friends v. 9.10 2. the ioy and consolation which springeth and ariseth hereof v. 11. The second argument consisting of a comparison betweene Adam and Christ is thus handled there is the proposition concerning Adam shewing wherein he was like wherein vnlike vnto Christ to v. 18. then the reddition or second part concerning Christ v. 18. to the ende First Adam is like in three things 1. in his person he was but one and yet the author of sinne to all 2. in the obiect his sinne was communicated to all though himselfe but one 3. in the effect and issue this sinne brought forth death all this is propounded v. 12. that sinne entred by one man into all the world then it is prooued by 3. arguments 1. by the office of the lawe which is not to bring in sinne but to impute sinne v. 13. therefore though sinne were not so much imputed before the lawe as after yet was it in the world before 2. by the effects death was in the world before the lawe and it raigned also vpon infants that had not sinned actually as Adam had done and therefore sinne much more which brought forth death v. 14. 3. Adam was
it followeth v. 14. and againe it is too great bouldnesse to insert the word dead for thus we may make any sense of the Scripture 3. Wherefore the Apostles meaning is that from Adam vntill the lawe was giuen for of the time after the lawe there could be no question there was sinne in the world for though they had not the written lawe yet they had the lawe of nature in transgressing the which they sinned Lyran. Beza Mart. Quest. 27. What sinne the Apostle meaneth which was in the world vnto the time of the lawe 1. Some doe vnderstand it onely of actuall sinne which was in the world in that the lawe of nature was transgressed though yet there were no written lawe giuen Tolet but it is euident in that the Apostle maketh direct mention of infants v. 14. which sinned not as Adam did that is actually that he meaneth originall sinne also 2. Pererius onely referreth it to originall sinne which though it were knowne vnto the Patriarkes yet it was not by the lawe of nature acknowledged for sinne so also Anselme Tolet replyeth that it cannot be so taken for neither vnder the law is originall sinne imputed vnto punishment But this reason is not sufficient for both before and after the lawe death raigned ouer all as brought in by originall sinne 3. But it is more agreeable to the Apostles minde to vnderstand sinne here generally both originall and actuall yet with speciall relation to originall sinne because the Apostles intendment is to shewe that all are sinners in Adam and so subiect vnto death and this appeareth to be the Apostles meaning v. 14. where he speaketh of the raigning of death ouer all as well those which committed actuall sinne as those which did not Thus Haymo interpreteth sinne was in the world originale actuale both originall and actuall Augustine likewise and Theodoret in the exposition of this place comprehend both so also Beza Pareus Quest. 28. How sinne is said to be imputed where there is no lawe ver 13. 1. Chrysostome here reporteth the opinion of some that make this a part of the obiection but he refuseth it and Tolet addeth this reason further because men doe not vse to obiect but that hath some shewe of probabilitie now none could doubt whether there were sinne in the world before the lawe for that was euident and apparant to all these words then the Apostle vttereth in his owne person 2. Oecumenius thinketh that the Apostle speaketh of the imputation of such sinnes as were against the ceremoniall lawe of Moses as touching circumcision sanctifying of the Sabboth and such like for other sinnes before the lawe of Moses were both knowne and imputed as is euident in the examples of Cain Lamech the Sodomites which were punished for their sinnes But the Apostle directly speaketh of such sinnes as were in the world before the lawe now the breach of ceremonies commanded by the lawe was counted no transgression before the lawe 3. Some by the imputation of sinne vnderstand the account made of sinne and take imputation for reputation as the Syrian interpreter and Beza in his last edition non putatur esse peccatum it is not thought to be sinne which is referred vnto the iudgement and opinion of men before the lawe came they had no perfect knowledge of sinne obscurum tum erat naturae lumen the light of nature was so obscure that men did not see their sinnes Mart. so also Osâ—ander non reputabatur it was not reputed sinne also Melancthon vbi non est lex non agnoscitur non accusatur c. where no lawe is sinne is not acknowledged accused to the same purpose M. Calvin though euen before the lawe their consciences accused them and there were diuerse examples of Gods iudgements vt plurimum tamen ad sua scelera connivebant yet for the most part they did winke at their sinnes c. Thus before them Augustine vnderstandeth it of the knowledge of sinne because per legem cognitio peccati by the lawe commeth the knowledge of sinne lib. 1. de peccat merit c. 10. and Oecumenius also to the same purpose taketh it comparatiuely magnitudo peccati non erat ita cognita c. the greatnesse of sinne was not knowne so before the lawe as afterward by the law and Haymo so expoundeth peccatum non agnoscebatur tam graue malum esse sinne was not knowne to be so great euill to the same purpose Lyranus Hug. Card. But these expositions seeme not to be agreeable to the scope of the Apostle for to what purpose should the Apostle vse this qualification sinne was in the world though it were not imputed and taken to be sinne before the law came for the Apostle doth not here intend to shew the effects or propertie of the law but his purpose is to prooue that men before the law came were punished with death euen because of their originall sinne 4. Origen taketh the imputation of sinne for the reputation but he followeth his former sense vnderstanding the law of nature that in children while yet they haue no vse of reason and so no knowledge of the law of nature that which they doe is not counted sinne But the Apostle euidently sheweth in the next verse speaking of Moses that he meaneth here the written law of Moses Origen fortifieth his opinion that the Apostle here meaneth the law of nature because if it be vnderstood of any other law diabolus angeli eius videdutur absolvi the Deuill and his angels may seeme to be absolved because they had no other law then the law of nature Contra. The Apostle speaketh not of the sinne of Angels but of men propagated from Adam whome he prooueth all to be sinners in Adam because they die in Adam but in the spirits there is neither propagation nor mortalitie 5. Ambrose referreth this imputation of sinne vnto the opinion which men had of God whom they thought not to regard nor punish the sinnes of men But the contrarie is euident in Pharaoh and Abimelech who knewe that they were punished for keeping Sarah Abrahams wife 6. Anselme and Pererius doe vnderstand this to be spoken onely of originall sinne that it was not acknowledged to be sinne before Moses lawe came by the light of nature though to the Patriarkes and holy men it were knowne But the contrarie is prooued by the Apostle that originall sinne was imputed to men euen before the law was giuen because death raigned ouer all euen ouer children so farre is he from saying that originall sinne was not imputed for where death was inflicted for sinne there sinne was imputed 7. This word of imputing of sinne is taken two wayes it signifieth either to haue the fault imputed or the punishment but here the latter rather to impute sinne is adiudicare 〈◊〉 reum to adiudge the guiltie person worthie of punishment in this sense is the word taken 2. Tim. 4.16 All haue forsaken me I pray God it be
not imputed vnto them that is that God doe not punish them for it so to Philemon 18. if he haue hurt thee any thing at all impute it vnto me that is let me satisfie for it Faius Tolet in this sense the Apostle saith Rom. 4.8 Blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth not his sinne his sinne shall not be laid to his charge in iudgement And so the Apostle saith here where no lawe is sinne is not imputted that is there is no punishment inflicted for sinne but by the prescript of a lawe seeing then that the punishment of death was inflicted vpon those which liued before the lawe it could not be for sinnes which they actually cōmitted which had no law to punish them therefore it was originall sinne which was punished by death and least it might be said that though there were no written lawe whereby sinne was imputed yet there was a naturall law which men transgressed and therefore were punished the Apostle sheweth in the next raise that euen death raigned ouer them which had committed no actuall sinne as Adam had done and therefore death was inflicted as a punishment not onely of actuall but originall sinne Beza 29. Quest. How death is said to haue raigned from Adam to Moses 1. Origen distinguisheth betweene the word pertransijt entred or passed which the Apostle vsed before v. 12. and regnavit raigned death entred ouer all both the iust and vniust but it raigned onely in those qui se peccato tota mento subiecerunt which did giue themselues wholly vnto sinne But the Apostle speaketh generally of all not onely of some that death raigned vpon by the generallitie of death he prooueth the generallitie of some and by this word regno he sheweth potentiam mortis the power of death tha◠none could resist it Martyr instar tyranni saeuijt it raged like a Tyrant Pareus 2. By death some vnderstand mons anima the death of the soule that is sinne which raigned from Adam vnto Moses Haymo Hug. but it is euident that the Apostle in this discourse distinguisheth death from sinne and prooueth by the effect the vniuersalitie of death brought in by sinne the generalitie of sinne also Origen seemeth to vnderstand mortem gehennae the death of hell vnto which all descended and therefore Christ went to hell to deliuer them this sense followeth also the ordinarie glosse and Gorrhan But in this sense it appeareth not why the Apostle should say vnto Moses for they hold that all the iust men euen vnder the law also went to hell But in truth the death of hell raigned not ouer the righteous either before the law or after from the which they were deliuered by Christ therefore the death of the bodie is here vnderstood which entred vpon all euen ouer infants which sinned not as Adam did 3. Vnto Moses 1. Origen by Moses vnderstandeth the Law and by the law the whole time of the law vsque ad adventum Christi vnto the comming of Christ who destroied the kingdome of sinne so also Haymo but in that the Apostle setteth Moses against Adam it is euident that he vnderstandeth the time when the law was giuen and what law he speaketh of is further shewed v. 20. The Law entred that offence should abound the dominion then of sinne and death there ended not 2. Some thinke this limitation is set because men were more afraid of death before Christs comming then after because they had not such hope of the resurrection Gorrhan but it is an hard and forced exposition to interpret vnto Moses vnto the comming of Christ as is shewed before 3. Some thinke it is said vnto Moses because then a remedie was giuen by the law in restraining of sinne and then first in Iudas capit destrui regnum mortis the kingdome of sinne beganne to be destroied and now euery where gloss ordinar but the law gaue no remedie against sinne for sinne then abounded much more v. 20. and the Apostle said before c. 4.15 That where no law is there is no transgression there is no such knowledge of sinne 4. Therefore vnto Moses noteth the time of the giuing of the law vsque ad legem per Mosen promulgatam vnto the law published by Moses gloss ordin not that death raigned not after Moses also but this is added to shew that death was in the world euen before the law Lyran. and so consequently sinne for of those greatest doubt might be made which liued before the law whether death entred vpon them as a punishment of their sinne 30. Quest. Of the meaning of these words which sinne not after the similitude of the transgression of Adam This verse hath diuers readings 1. some doe referre the last words after the similitude of the transgression of Adam vnto the first part of the sentence death raigned 2. some doe ioyne it with the next words before which sinned and of either of these there are seuerall opinions 1. They which distinguish the sentence and ioyne the first and last words together some as Chrysostome giue this sense that as death raigned vpon Adam so likewise it raigned ouer his posteritie but others doe make this the cause of death and mortalitie because they are borne like vnto Adam that is destitute of originall iustice Lyranus Tolet. annot 19. Tolet further would confirme this interpretation by diuers reasons 1. the preposition is 〈◊〉 which with a dative case sheweth the cause whereas an other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vsed to signifie in as Philip. 2.7 He was found in shape as a man and Rom. 8.3 In the similitats of sinneful flesh 2. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 similitude sheweth the similitude and likenes of nature 3. and this is most agreeable to the Apostles purpose to shew the cause why death raigned ouer all because they are borne sinners like vnto Adam Contra. 1. The Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometime taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as before in the 12. vers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whome and Tolet himselfe in that place sheweth that it is so vsed in other places of Scripture annot 15. 2. The word of similitude is better referred to the qualitie of Adams sinne then to the conformitie in nature 3. Neither needed the Apostle here shew the cause why death raigned ouer all but he bringeth in this as a proofe of that which he saide vers 12. that all sinned in Adam because all are subiect to death euen they which commit not actuall sinnes as infants it was therefore impertinent to repeat that which he intendeth to prooue 4. Now further this distinction of the verse is ouerthrowne by these two reasons 1. if the Apostle had saide ouer those which 〈…〉 and should haue put to no other addition he had contraried himselfe hauing set it downe vers 12. that in Adam all sinned and death therefore went ouer all how the◠could he say that death raigned ouer those that sinned not
2. there is not in infants the similitude of Adams transgression for his sinne was actuall so is not theirs if he had said onely after the similitude of Adam and not added transgression there had beene more probabilitie in it thus to diuide the sentence but in that he addeth after the similitude of the transgression it is more fitly ioyned to the former words which sinned not 2. Now of those which ioyne the last clause with the former words some read them affirmatiuely thus death raigned c. ouer them which sinned after the similitude c. and Origen receiuing this reading expoundeth it of those which committed mortall and great sinnes as Adam did and so distinguisheth betweene the entring of death which went ouer the righteous and the raigning of death onely ouer those which gaue themselues wholly ouer vnto sinne Ambrose vnderstandeth this clause of Idolaters for they sinne like vnto Adam who was not free from idolatrie in forsaking the Creator Some vnderstand it of children that they are saide to sinne after the similitude of Adam quia ex peccatore nascuntur peccatores because they are borne sinners of a sinners Gorrhan But all these goe against the receiued reading which hath a negative ouer them which sinned not as also the Syrian interpreter readeth 3. Of those which read with a negative ouer them which sinned not Hier. l. cont Pelag. expoundeth it of the particular sinne of Adam in eating of the forbidden fruit that death raigned euen ouer those which had not committed that sinne so also Theodor. and Chrysost. though he otherwise diuide the sentence as is shewed before But none beside Adam did commit that sinne whereas the Apostle in saying euen ouer them also which sinned not insinuateth that there were some ouer whome death raigned that sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression and some which did not 4. Athan. ser. 4. cont Arr. saith that they sinned like to Adam which committed mortall and great sinnes they sinned not like to Adam that sinned not mortally and yet died as Ieremie and Iohn Baptist that were sanctified in their mothers wombe But in this sense the Apostle onely should shew that death raigned onely ouer those which had committed actuall sinnes and so he should not prooue that which he said before that in Adam all sinned not onely those which commit actuall but are guiltie onely of originall sinne 5. Oecumenius doth interpret this place of those which were before the Law which did not transgresse in legem datam against any law giuen vnto them as Adam did but onely against the law of nature and so he seemeth to vnderstand it onely of those which committed actuall sinnes but then the Apostles reason should not be generall enough if he concluded not all as well Infants as others to be sinners in Adam 6. Most of our new writers vnderstand this not to sinne after the similitude of the transgression of Adam to be sine lege peccare to sinne without a law as all they did which were from Adam to Moses as well infants as men of yeares so Mart. Bulling Melanct. Calv. But this had beene then a needlesse addition seeing all without exception from Adam to Moses sinned in that manner without a law but the Apostle in saying euen ouer them also sheweth that there were some beside those which sinned after the transgression of Adam 7. Wherefore I preferre Augustines exposition who taketh those to sinne after the similitude of Adams transgression that committed actuall sinnes and those not to sinne after that similitude which had no actuall but onely originall sinnes so also Ansel. Lyran. Gorrh. glosse inter Haymo and of our new writers Beza Parâ— Ofianà Pisc. with other so also Per. 31. Qu. How Adam is said to be the figure of him that was to come v. 14. 1. Origen by him which is to come vnderstandeth the next world that as by Adam we all in this life become mortall so in the next world vita reguabit per Christum life shall raigne thorough Christ. 2. Some vnderstand this according to that place 1. Cor. 10.11 all those things happened vnto them in tâ—pes so whatsoeuer was before or vnder the law were figures of those things which should be accomplished in the times of the Messiah Faius and Origen also to the same purpose But it is euident that the Apostle compareth the person of Adam and Christ together and touching those things which were wrought and accomplished in this life not deferred till the next 3. Augustine sometime referreth that which is to come not vnto Christ but vnto Adams posteritie that such as he was after he had sinned such was his posteritie lib. 1. de peccat mort c. 11. so also Haymo bringeth this in for one exposition sicut Adam peccator extitit as Adam was a sinner so all his posteritie are borne sinners but the word beeing put in the singular number and with one article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of him or one to come sheweth that it must be vnderstood of some speciall one not of all Adams posteritie 4. The commentarie vnder S. Hieromes name but falsly here bewraieth it selfe to haue beene written by some Pelagian whose heresie was that Adams sinne is deriued to his posteritie by imitation not by propagation these are the words Adam hauing first transgressed the commandement of God exemplum est legem praevaricari volentibus is an example to those which will transgresse the law of God as Christ is an example to those which will imitate him in fulfilling his fathers wil But wherein Adam is a type of Christ the Apostle sheweth in the rest of this chap. following where no mention is made of any such exemplarie imitation 5. Some referre this to such things as happened to Adams person as Eve was formed out of Adams side beeing asleepe so out of Christs side hanging on the crosse issued water and blood the Sacraments of regeneration by the which the Church is sanctified and saued Gorrhan Lyranus Pererius And as Adam was made ex terra virgine of the earth a virgin so Christ was borne of Marie the Virgin Haymo But Bellarmine presseth this further that as Adam was made out of the earth beeing yet not accursed so Christ of Marie qua omnis maledictionis ac per hoc omnis peccati expers fuit which was free from all malediction and so from all sinne c. But beside that none of the rest which vrge this similitude doe straine it thus farre but onely thus that as Adam was made out of the earth divina virtutes by the diuine vertue Lyran. sine humano opere without mans helpe Gorrhan so Christ was borne of a Virgin this strained and forced collection should be contrarie to the Apostle for if Marie were without sinne how is it true which the Apostle said before in whome all euer haue sinned 6. Herein then Adam was a type of Christ not in respect of such things as were personall
veniall sinne annot 1. Ioh. 1. sect 5. Contra 1. We confesse that the guilt and punishment of originall sinne is washed away by faith in Christs blood but yet the staine and blot remaineth still though in Christ we are deliuered from the punishment due vnto sinne yet the euill qualitie of our nature is not purged away namely our naturall pronenes and aptnes to euill which shall not fully be purged vntill the resurrection when we shall put off all corruption together with mortalitie to this purpose Augustine saith well Meminisse debemus omnium peccatorum plenam remissionem c. we must remember that there is full remission of our sinnes in baptisme hominis vero qualitatem non totam continuo mutari c. yet the qualitie or condition of man is not straite chaunged de peccator merit remissi lib. 1. c. 25. 2. and that originall corruption hath the verie nature of sinne euen after baptisme the Apostle sheweth euidently Rom. 7.7 where he calleth the concupiscence of our nature sinne see further hereof Synops. Centur. 3. er 11. Controv. 14. What originall sinne is against the Romanists and â—some others and specially against them which hold it to be Adams sinne imputed onely to his posteritie 1. Faber Erasmus in their annotations vpon this place seeme to be of opinion that originall sinne is onely a pronenesse and aptnesse vnto sinne which is graft in vs by nature But this is refelled by the Apostle here who saith that in Adam all haue sinned and therefore death also is entred vpon all death is the stipend of sinne if then death actually is gone ouer all so also sinne 2. Flacius Illyricus held originall sinne to be a kind of substance But this is a dangerous opinion God onely is the Creator of substances and natures but he made not sinne 3. As he giueth too much to originall sinne making it a substantiall thing in man so the Romanists too much extenuate it allowe it too little 1. Pighius and Catharinus thinke that originall sinne is nothing else but the preuarication and transgression of our first parents made their posterities onely by imputation because Adam in himselfe contained all mankind and God made his couenant not onely with him but with all his posteritie beeing then in his loines and so his sinne is imputed vnto them but there is nothing in men naturally that hath the proper nature of sinne which is defined to be dictum factum vel concupitum c. somewhat said done or coueted against the law of God which cannot be in infants to this purpose Catharinus and before him Pighius in 1. contr de peccat origin Contra. 1. Bellarmine lib. 5. de amissi grat c. 16. and Pererius disput 16. in 5. c. ad Roman would confute this opinion and prooue that originall sinne is a reall and inherent corruption in the nature of man and not imputed onely because as we were sinners in Adam so we are made iust by Christ which is not by the imputation of his righteousnesse but by an inherent iustice which is giuen vnto vs by the merits of Christ c. But this were to confute one error by another for the Apostle euidently and expressely sheweth c. 4.3 that Abrahams faith was imputed and counted vnto him for righteousnesse and therefore the iustice whereby we are counted iust before God is the iustice of Christ imputed to vs by faith so also Adams sinne is imputed to his posteritie but beside there is an euilnes and prauitie of nature procured by the transgression of Adam as beside the imputed righteousnes of Christ there is also in the faithfull an inherent righteousnesse also which is their holines and sanctification but they are not thereby iustified before God 2. We haue better reasons out of the Scripture to refute this assertion for where there is no sinne death hath no power because all are sinners by nature they all die otherwise the Apostle had not reasoned well that death raigned from Adam to Moses because all had sinned v. 14. And v. 19. the Apostle saith that by one mans disobedience many are peccatores constituti made sinners which is more then to be counted sinners or to haue sinne imputed 3. That definition is of actuall sinne which is of such things as are said done or coueted against the law of God But sinne is more generally taken for any thing which is contrarie to the law of God now the naturall rebellion and resistance of the flesh in not beeing subiect to the will of the spirit but continually striuing against it which is to be seene euen in children who seeth not that it is contrarie to the law of God and hath in it the nature of sinne 4. Dauid complaineth that he was borne in sinne and conceiued in iniquitie Psal. 51. and S. Paul Rom. 7. calleth his naturall corruption sinne dwelling in him So that these holy men confessed that they were sinfull by nature Otherwise if there were not in vs originall sinne by nature of our owne but onely Adams imputed it would follow that his posteritie should be punished not for their owne but anothers sinne which were against the rule of Gods iustice Martyr Controv. 15. That originall sinne is not onely the privation of originall iustice Bellarmine with other of the Romanists will not haue originall sinne to be any euill positiue qualitie in man but onely carentia iustitiae originalis habitualis aversio à Deo a wanting of originall iustice and an habituall aversion from and a forsaking of God Bellar. lib. 5. de amission grat c. 15. Lyranus addeth an other clause that originall sinne is a defect or want of originall iustice cum debito habendi eam with a due debt or obligation to haue the same c. Now their cheefe reason that originall sinne is no euill habite or positiue qualitie but onely a defect or privation is this because God is the author of all positiue things that haue a beeing or existence but he is no way the cause of originall sinne Bellarm. ibid. Thoring replic ad addit 5. Paul Burgens And if it were an habite Adam could not haue transmitted it to his posteritie Bellarm. ibid. Contra. 1. Paulus Burgens taketh exception to Lyranus difinition of originall sinne that it is not a meere priuation but habitus corruptus a corrupt habite like as in a disease there is not onely a priuation of health but there is also some positiue thing habet humores male dispositos the humors also are euill affected and disposed and so is it in originall sinne there is an euill qualitie and habite beside the want of originall iustice and therefore it is called concupiscence quae sonat aliquod positivum which foundeth and signifieth some positiue thing c. This exception of Burgensis is iust and his opinion herein is agreeable to the Apostle who calleth originall sinne peccatum inhabitans an in-dwelling sinne Rom. 7.20 and corpus mortis the bodie
of death originall sinne then hath a kind of existence for how else could it be called a bodie of sinne or death see more hereof elsewhere Synops. Cen. 4. err 14. 2. Concerning the reasons obiected 1. God is the author of euerie substance and of euery naturall qualitie but not of vnnaturall dispositions or qualities as neither of diseases in the bodie nor of vices in the minde this euill qualitie was procured by mans voluntarie transgression 2. and though habites which are personall and obtained by vse and industrie are not transmitted to posteritie yet this euill habite was not personall in Adam as he is considered vt singularis persona as a singular person but by him it entred into the nature of man as he was totius humanae naturae principiū the beginning of the whole nature of man 3. Burgensis taketh another exception vnto Lyranus addition and he thinketh that Adams posteritie is not bound to haue the originall iustice which was giuen to Adam for they haue no such bond either by the law of nature for that originall iustice was supernaturally added or by any diuine precept for God gaue vnto Adam no other precept but that one not to eate of the forbidden fruite and therefore they were not bound at all to haue or reteine Adams originall iustice Thus Burgens Contra. 1. Herein I rather consent vnto Thoring the Replic vpon Burgens who thus argueth that this debt or bond to haue originall iustice was grounded vpon the law of nature which is the rule of right reason for by nature euery one is tied to seeke the perfection and conseruation of it kind and this originall iustice tended vnto the perfection of man which though it were supernaturally added vnto man yet it was not giuen him alone sed pro tota natura for the whole nature of man and so he concludeth well that man is culpable in not hauing this originall iustice though not culpâ actuali quae est suppositi by any actuall fault which belongeth to the person or subiect yet culpâ originali quae est natura by an originall fault which is in nature To this purpose the Replic And this may be added further that if Adams posteritie were not debters in respect of this originall iustice then were they not bound to keepe the law which requireth perfect righteousnesse and so it would follow that they are not transgressors against the law if they were not bound to keepe it the first exception then of Burgensis may be recieued but not the second 2. Pighius also who denieth originall sinne to be a privation or want of originall iustice holdeth it to be no sinne to want that iustice which is not enioyned by any law vnto mankind for no law can be produced which bindeth infantes to haue that originall iustice and therein he concurreth with Burgensis Contra. But this obiection is easily refuted for first man was created according to Gods image in righteousnesse and holines which image Adams posteritie is bound to retaine but he by his sinne defaced that image and in stead thereof begate children after his owne image Gen. 5.3 in the state of corruption And whereas Pighius replieth out of Augustine that the image of God in man consisteth in the three faculties of the soule the vnderstanding memorie and will Augustine must not be so vnderstood as though herein consisted onely the image of God but as therein is shadowed forth the misterie of the Trinitie for the Apostle expressely sheweth that this image of God is seene in righteousnes and holines Ephes. 4.24 An other lawe is the lawe of nature which is the rule which euery one is to followe Cicero could say that convenientur viuere c. to liue agreeably to this law is the chiefe ende of man to this lawe euen infants are also bound there is a third lawe which is the morall which saith thou shalt not lust which prohibiteth not onely actuall but originall concupiscence And whereas Pighius here obiecteth that a lawe is giuen in vaine of such things as cannot be avoided therein he sheweth his ignorance for it is not in mans power to keep the lawe for then it had not beene necessarie for Christ to haue died for vs who came to performe that which was impossible by the lawe Rom. 8.3 yet was not the lawe giuen so in vaine for there are two speciall vses thereof both to giue vs direction how to liue well and to bring vs to the knowledge of sinne xe Mart. 4. This then is originall sinne 1. it consisteth partly of a defect and want of originall iustice in that the image of God after the which man was created in righteousnesse and holines was blotted out by the fall of man partly in an euill habite disposition and qualitie and disorder of all the faculties and powers both of bodie and soule This was the start of man after his fall and the same is the condition of all his posteritie by nature Augustine also maketh originall sinne a positiue qualitie placing it in the concupiscence of the flesh not the actuall concupiscence but that naturall corruption which although it be more generall then to containe it selfe within the compasse of concupiscence onely yet he so describeth it by the most manifest effect because our naturall corruption doth most of all shew and manifest it selfe in the concupisence and lust of our members 2. The subiect then and matter of originall sinne are all the faculties and powers of soule and bodie the former is the pravitie and deformitie of them the efficient cause was the peruersnes of Adams will the instrument is the carnall propagation the end or effect is euerlasting damnation both of bodie and soule without the mercie of God Martyr 3. Originall sinne is taken either actiuely for the sinne of Adam which was the cause of sinne in his posteritie which is called originale origmans originall sinne giuing beginning or passiuely for the naturall corruption raised in Adams ofspring by his transgression which is tearmed originale originatum originall sinne taking beginning 4. Of this originall sinne taken both waies there are three misserable effects 1. participatio culpa the participating in the fault or offence for we were all in Adams loines when he transgressed and so we all sinned in him as here the Apostle saith 2. imputatio reatus the imputation of the guilt and punishment of sinne we are the children of wrath by nature subiect both to temporall and eternall death 3. there is naturae depratatio vel deformitas the depravation and deformitie of nature wherein there dwelleth no good thing Rom. 17.18 Controv. 16. Of the wicked heresie of Marcion and Valentinus with the blasphemous Manichees 1. Origen out of the words of the former verse where the Apostle speaketh of our attonement and reconciliation by Christ confureth the heresie of Marcion and Valentinus whose opinion was that there was some substance quae naturaliter Deo sit inimica which naturally is
state is now made firme and sure in Christ. Controv. 9. Against the sacrifice of the Masse v. 10. For in that he died he died once This place is verie pregnant against the Popish sacrifice of the Masse wherein they say they doe dayly offer vp Christs bodie in sacrifice vnto God for there is no oblation of Christ in sacrifice but by death he died but once and therfore one sacrifice of him in his death sufficeth for all and the Apostle saith Heb. 10.14 that he hath with one offring made perfect for euer them that are sanctified This then is a blasphemous derogation to make iteratiue sacrifices as though that one sacrifice had beene imperfect and whereas they alleadge that their Masse is a sacrifice applicatorie of Christs death such applications are superfluous seeing the death of Christ is effectually applyed by faith which is reviued strengthened and increased by the commemoration of Christs death in the Sacraments See more hereof Synops. Centur. 3. err 31. Controv. 10. Concerning freewill v. 12. Let not sinne raigne c. This place may be vrged by the adversaries of the grace of God to prooue that man hath some power in himselfe to resist sinne seeing otherwise the Apostles exhortation should be in vaine to exhort men vnto that which is not in their power Contra. 1. The Apostle elswhere euidently teacheth that man hath no power or inclination of himselfe to any thing that is good as 2. Corinth 3.5 Wee are not sufficient to thinke any thing of our selues but our sufficiencie is of God Philip. 2.23 it is God that worketh in you both the will and the deed of his good pleasure we must not then make the Apostle contrarie to himselfe as though in this place he should ascribe any thing to mans freewill 2. the Apostle speaketh here to men iustified and regenerate by the spirit of God by the which they are enabled to performe this whereunto they are exhorted so that this abilitie is not in themselues but from God 3. the Apostle sheweth a difference by thus exhorting betweene these actions which the Lord maketh in other creatures which either haue no sense at all or sense onely which creatures God vseth without any stirring at all feeling and inclination in them and those which he worketh in man whose reason will and vnderstanding he vseth by incicing and stirring it vp 4. So then these exhortations are not superfluous for thereby we are admonished rather what we ought to doe then what we are able to doe and by these exhortations of Gods word grace is wrought in vs to enable vs to doe that which of our selues we haue no power to doe See further Controv. 15. following Controv. 11. That concupiscence remaining in the regenerate is properly sinne v. 12. Let not sinne raigne The Apostle here speaketh of concupiscence which is sinne though it raigne not in vs the verie suggestions and carnall thoughts that arise in the regenerate haue the nature of sinne though they yeeld not consent vnto them Bellarmine with other of that side doe expound these and such like places wherein concupiscence is called sinne de causa vel effectu peccati of the cause or effect of sinne so concupiscence is improperly called sinne in their opinion either because it is the effect and fruit of Adams sinne as a writing is called ones hand because the hand writ it or because it bringeth forth sinne as we say frigus pigrum flouthfull cold because cold maketh one full of flouth Contra. 1. Concupiscence is sinne properly because it is contrarie to the lawe of God it striueth and rebelleth against it and continually stirreth vs vp to doe that which is contrarie to the Lawe sinne properly is the transgression of the lawe as the Apostle defineth it 1. Iohn 3.4 therefore concupiscence beeing contrarie to the lawe of God is properly sinne S. Paul also calleth it sinne dwelling in him Rom. 7.17 2. Whereas it may be obiected that all sinne is voluntarie but the motions and suggestions of the flesh are involuntarie we answear that all sinne is not voluntarie for then originall corruption should not be sinne which is euen in children which can giue no consent and yet in respect of the beginning and roote of this sinne which was Adams transgression it was voluntarie See more of this controversie Synops. Papism Centur. 4. err 16. Controv. 12. Whether a righteous man may fall into any mortall or deadly sinne v. 12. Let not sinne raigne there is then peccatum regnans sinne raigning as when one sinneth against his conscience and setteth his delight vpon it and followeth it with greedinesse and so for the time looseth the hope of forgiuenesse of sinne and maketh him subiect to euerlasting death without the mercie of God peccatum non regnans sinne not raigning is originall concupiscence suggestions motions of the flesh infirmities and such like Now the Romanists simply denie that a righteous man can commit any mortall sinne neither can any continuing the Sonne of God fall into it Rhemist 1. Ioh. 3. sect 3. Among the Protestant writers some thinke that the righteous may haue sinne for the time raigning in them as Aarons idolatrie and Dauids adulterie sheweth so Vrsinus vol. 1. pag. 107. but Zanchius denieth it miscellan p. 139. Contra. 1. Touching the assertion of the Romanists it is manifestly conuinced of error by the example of Dauid for it is absurd to thinke that in his fall he ceased to be the child of God for he that is once the sonne of God shall so continue to the ende Dauid was a righteous and faithfull man and yet fell into great and dangerous offences which they call deadly and mortall sinnes 2. The other may be reconciled by the diuerse taking and vnderstanding of raigning sinne for if that be vnderstood to be a raigning sinne which is committed of an obstinate minde with contempt of God without any feeling or remorse of conscience so we denie that any of the elect can fall into any such sinne but if that be taken for a raigning sinne when for a time the conscience is blinded and a man is ouercome and falleth yet rather of infirmitie then obstinacie yet afterward such vpon their repentance are restored in this sense sinne may raigne in the righteous as in Aaron Dauid but it is said improperly to raigne because this kingdome of sinne continueth not it is but for a time Controv. 13. Against the Manichees v. 22. In your mortall bodie Theophylact hence reprooueth the error of the Manichees who affirmed that the bodie of man is wicked and euill but seeing the Apostle compareth it to armour or weapons which the souldier vseth for his countrey the theife and rebell against it so the bodie is an indifferent thing it may either be abused as an instrument of sinne or by the grace of God it may be applyed to the seruice of the spirit as the Apostle sheweth v. 19. Giue your members as seruants vnto
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
were remooued as a rubbe or blocke out of our way Faius 2. Diuerse waies did sinne take occasion by the law 1. the corruption of mans nature turneth good things to the occasion of euill as the Pharisies by Christs comming and preaching had the more sinne and the Apostle saith Hebr. 10.29 Of how much more punishment suppose ye he is worthie which treadeth vnder foote the Sonne of God habet peius supplicium occasionem per exhibitum maius beneficium the greater punishment is occasioned by the greatnes of the benefit exhibited Chrysostome sinne then is encreased by the giuing of the law because of mens vnthankfulnes for so great benefite 2. And beside such is the corruption of mans nature vt ea quae prohibentur magis desiderentur which are forbidden are more desired Origen so was the commandement giuen to Adam an occasion that he coueted the more to eate of the forbidden fruite and like as there are foure diseases which are the worse for the applying of medecines vnto them as the gangrena and the leprosie called elephantiasis much like a restie horse that the more he is spurred kicked the more he giueth backe or as if a sicke man-beeing forbidden to drinke cold water should the more desire it Martyr 3. An other reason is because mans nature desireth libertie and therefore refuseth to be bridled by law and yet it is destructio libertatis the verie destruction and ouerthrow of libertie for a man to doe what he lift sine fraeno legis without the bridle of a law Lyranus 4. And further by the law commeth the knowledge of sinne and so mans corrupt nature hauing sinne shewed it doth then beginne to couet it as the Sunne light sheweth the beautie of a faire woman and then the lustfull eye is caried with a desire after her Gorrhan or like as Ambrose resembleth it as the art of Physicke sheweth the nature of persons to auoid them and yet one abuseth his knowledge in doing hurt by them lib. 1. de Iacob vita brat c. 4. And this was the reason why Solon would make no law against parricides least that men by that occasion might thinke of that sinne which they did not dreame of before 5. Adde hereunto that as a circumstance may accidentally stirre vp that which is a cause of it selfe of the action as Dauids walking vpon his house carried his eye to looke vpon the beautie of Bersheba and so to desire her the like occasion might sinne take by the law Pareus 6. And the Deuill tooke occasion by the law more strongly to tempt man to make his sinne the greater in transgressing of the law 7. And one contrarie accidentally is encreased by an other as hoat water is more strongly congealed Gorrhan 8. And euery nature adversantibus adversatur resisteth that which resisteth it as one stone breaketh an other Hugo so vice resisteth vertue 3. But it is further to be considered that the words are sinne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taking occasion for the law indeede gaue not occasion but sinne tooke it Beza Calvin 15. Quest. Of what time S. Paul speaketh when he knew not the law and afterward sinne tooke occasion by the law c. 1. Methodius vnderstandeth it of the time while yet Adam had not receiued the commandement of not eating the forbidden fruit but it hath beene shewed before that the Apostle speaketh here of the morall law giuen by Moses as appeareth by that particular instance of the tenth and last commandement 2. Origen will haue it vnderstood of the Apostles childhood and so also Hierome that then he knew not sinne but these things which the Apostle mentioneth as the working of concupiscence and the reviving of sinne are not incident into the age of children 3. Chrysostome vnderstandeth the time before the law when many sinnes were not knowne till the law came and so he thinketh that the Apostle in his owne person describeth the state of all those which liued before the law but in this sense the person of S. Paul should be excluded who liued not in those times 4. Wherefore he aimeth at that time when he was a Pharisie before he had the true knowledge of the law for the Pharisies contented themselues onely with the externall observation thereof as is euident Matth. 5. where our Sauiour deliuereth the law from their corrupt gloses Pareus Faius Quest. 16. What the Apostle meaneth by all concupisence v. 8. 1. Chrysostome vnderstandeth augmentum concupiscentiae the encrease of concupiscence which was more inflamed 2. Augustine summā consummatam concupiscence perfected which now after the law giuen did not onely couet euill things but lege prohibita forbidden by law 3. Ambrose because after the law came then all sinne came before there was sinne sed non omne quia crimen prauaricationis decrat but not all because the sinne of transgression and preuarication was not yet ex gloss 4. Martyr expoundeth it of all actuall sinnes but the Apostle speaketh onely of concupiscence 5. By all concupiscence then we may vnderstand with Hierome omnes perturbationes animae all the passions and perturbations of the mind epistol 151. and with Anselme cuiusque peccati contra quodcunque mandatum concupiscentiam the concupiscence of euerie sinne whatsoeuer against euery commandement with Faius euery kind of concupiscence not onely the concupiscence of the flesh but the concupiscence of the eyes which Saint Iohn speaketh of 1. epist. c. 2. with Gorrhan euery degree of concupiscence cogitationem consensum opus the thought the consent the action with Pareus all the vitious motions of the concupiscence primas secundas both the first and second with Oecumenius quas non noueram concupiscentias ex lege didici c. I learned by the law concupiscence which I knew not and those which I had learned I committed Quest. 17. In what sense the Apostle saith sinne was dead and he aliue without the law v. 8. 1. Methodius in Epiphan haeres 64. by sinne vnderstandeth the time of mans innocencie when the deuill lay as dead because yet there was no commandement giuen whereby man should be allured vnto sinne Ambrose by sinne likewise interpreteth the deuill but he referreth it to the time before the law when the deuill was secure hauing man sure enough in his possession But this opinion is reiected before for how could the Apostle say v. 20. that sinne dwelled in him if he meant the deuill by sinne and he saith that sinne reuiued when the law came then in this sense the deuill must be supposed to haue beene aliue before to haue beene busie in working before he tempted Adam 2. Theodoret and Caietane following him doe vnderstand this to be spoken of the time of mans innocencie when as sinne was dead there was no sinne at all before the law was giuen But beside that man could not be said to be aliue in Paradise without a law beeing created with the law of nature the Apostle saying that sinne by
the law wrought in him all manner of concupiscence supposeth some to haue beene before 3. Hierome epist. 121 and Origen following him do take this for the time of childhood for then sinne is dead because they haue no knowledge of it for if a child smite his father or mother it is counted no fault and when they come to yeares of discretion sinne reviveth But the reviuing of sinne sheweth that it liued before which cannot be said of children that sinne first liued and afterward died and then reviued againe 4. Augustine lib. 1. contr 2. epistol Pelag. thus vnderstandeth the Apostle that before the lawe of Moses was giuen man is said to haue liued as without lawe and sinne then to haue beene dead because it was not perfectly knowne before the lawe was giuen so also Chrysostome Haymo But if all this be referred to the time before the lawe was giuen Paul could not haue giuen instance in himselfe as he doth 5. Wherefore S. Pauls meaning is that he was aliue without the lawe that is vinere miâ—ividebar I seemed to be aliue vnto my selfe when as yet beeing a Pharisie he had not full vnderstanding of the lawe then sinne also seemed to be dead because as yet he did not feele the burthen of sinne nor his conscience did not pricke him while he contented himselfe with the outward obseruation of the lawe thus Pareus Osiander Beza Calvin And further it is here to be considered that there is a twofold death of sinne non vera a death not in truth when sinne lurketh onely and lyeth hid and sheweth not it selfe of this the Apostle speaketh here and there is mors vera a true death of sinne when we truely die vnto sinne in Christ which death the Apostle treated of before c. 6. Quest. 18. How sinne is said to haue reuiued 1. Origen here maketh mention of the error of the Pythagorian heretikes who imagine that the soules of men liued before in the bodies some of birds some of beasts when they liued as it were without a lawe and so sinne is said to reviue in the soule But this is a grosse error for in those creatures which haue no reason sinne cannot be said to liue or haue any beeing at all and therefore not to reviue 2. Bucer seemeth thus to vnderstand it that sinne liued before that is qualis coram Deâ— erat apparuit it appeared such as it was before God but now it is said to reuiue because it is made knowne to vs but the liuing and reliuing or reuiuing of sinne must be vnderstood in respect of the sinne 3. The most doe vnderstand it simply without any relation a former life of sinne capa apparere it beganne to appeare gloss ordinar interlin apparnit delictum esse it appeared to be sinne Theophylact incepit vires explicare Mart. it began to shewe the strength which sense is not much to be misliked 4. Some haue here reference vnto the first knowledge of sinne which Adam had after his transgression as Augustine vixerat aliquando in Paradiso quando contra datum praceptum satis apparebat admissum c. it liued sometime in Paradise when it sufficiently appeared by the transgression of the commandement c. but afterward it lieth as dead in children till they come to the knowledge of the law then peccatum in notitia 〈◊〉 hominis reviviscit quod in notitia primi hominis aliquando vixerat sin reviveth in the knowledge of man that is borne which sometime was aliue in the knowledge of the first man c. to this purpose August lib. 1. ad Bonifac. c. 9. which sense Pareus followeth likewise Tolet. Haymo addeth further that sinne liued not onely in Adam but in Cain who said his sinne was greater then could be forgiuen but it died in their posteritie which came vnto that error that they thought that to be no sinne which was sinne But seeing the Apostle speaketh of the reviving of sinne in himselfe we must not goe further then the Apostle to seeke out this first life of sinne 5. Wherefore as Beza well obserueth a threefold state and condition of the Apostles life is here to be considered when he liued sub ignorantiam legis vnder the ignorance of the law that sinne raigned afterward he liued sub cognitione legis vnder the knowledge of the law but onely of the outward letter obseruing the externall works onely of the law whereas he before made conscience of no sinne at this time sinne seemed to be dead he pleased himselfe in his outward obedience then he came to the sight of his sinne and so he died his conscience accused him that he was worthie of eternall death Quest. 19. How sinne is said to haue deciued v. 11. 1. The meaning is not as Methodius and Ambrose likewise Haymo that the deuill seduced Adam for not Adam but Eue was seduced as Saint Paul saith 1. Tim. 2.2 but the deceitfulnes of sinne consisteth herein 1. inducitur error practicus there is brought in a practicall error that the sinner is deceiued by the pleasantnes of the obiect thinking that to be good which is euill Tolet annot 14. as Eue was deceiued by the pleasantnes of the apple 2. operit laqueum peccati it hideth the poison and not the sinne Hugo it sheweth the baite and hideth the hooke 3. cogitationem auertit à supplicijs it turneth aside our cogitation from the punishment of sinne and perswadeth a man that either the sinne is not so great and shall haue either no punishment or but a small and so it bringeth a man to vnbeleefe not to giue credit to the word of God who threatneth sinners as the Deuill first perswaded Eva that she should not die at all Martyr 3. Some will haue this word expounded non de re ipsa sed de notitia not of the thing it selfe but of the knowledge that at length he perceiued how farre he had beene deceiued and lead out of the way Hyper. But it rather sheweth the proper effect of sinne taking occasion by the law which is to deceiue the other to acknowledge our error is the effect of the law and not of sinne as Pellican well vnderstandeth here sinne taking occasion by the law doth draw vs out of the way as a sicke man taketh occasion to act those things which are forbidden ex mandato medici by the charge giuen by the Physitian to the contrarie 4. Then the Apostle sheweth three effects of sinne taking occasion by the law first it deceiueth then it worketh all manner of concupiscence and then it killeth it bringeth death to the soule Mart. so impostura causa est concupiscentiae c. imposture or deceit is the cause of concupiscence and concupiscence of death Oecumen Thus euery man is tempted seduced and entised by his concupiscence as S. Iames saith 1.14 Quest. 20. How sinne is said to haue staine him 1. Not occisum me esse ostendit it sheweth that I was staiue and dead by the law
should bring forth fruit vnto God c. This place is well vrged by Pet. Martyr against the propitiatorie workes vnto iustification which the Romanists affirme may be done by men yet vnregenerate and not yet called Here the Apostle euidently sheweth that they which bring forth fruit vnto God must first be an others that is maried vnto Christ they cannot doe any thing that good is without him as our Blessed Sauiour himselfe saith Without me ye can doe nothing Ioh. 15.5 Controv. 6. Against the heretikes which condemned the lawe v. 5. The motions of sinnes which were by the lawe By these and such like places the Marcionites Valentinians Manichees tooke occasion to condemne the lawe as euill because thereby sinne was increased But Augustine answeareth de verbis Apostoli serm 4 that they doe imponere Christianis non simplicibus sed negligentibus c. deceiue Christians not so much simple as negligent for it is no hard matter saith he to refell their blasphemies by that which the Apostle writeth afterward in this chapter for v. 12. he saith the lawe is holy and the commandements iust and holy iust and good and in that the motions of sinne are said to be by the lawe id ex eo fit quia in carne sumus it commeth of this because we are in the flesh Mart. the lawe then tooke occasion by the weakenes of our flesh and so the euill motions did rise vp in vs. Controv. 7. That we are freed by grace from the strict and rigorous observation of the lawe Pererius disput 6. misliketh these assertions of M. Calvin and taketh vpon him to confute him diligenter meminerimus c. let vs diligently remēber that this is not a solution frō that righteousnesse which is taught in the lawe sed à rigida exactione ab ea quae iude sequitur maledictione but from the strict rigorous exacting of keeping the law the malediction and curse which followeth thereupon And he heapeth vp diuerse places of scripture to shewe that the obedience of the lawe is now exacted of vs as Rom. 2. Not the hearers of the lawe but the doers shall be iustified Rom. 3.31 Doe we destroy the lawe by faith God forbid yea we establish the lawe Perer. disput 6. Contra. 1. Pererius in confuting their opinion that hold we are freed from the obedience of the lawe fighteth with his owne shadowe and Calvin whom he refelleth as he is by him alleadged saith in expresse words that we are not freed from the righteousnesse of the lawe to keepe it And therefore he setteth downe his opinion falsly as though he or any other Protestant should affirme Christianos esse à legis observatione liberatos that Christians are freed from the observation of the law as he putteth the case 2. But their opinion that Christians are bound to keepe the lawe and are enabled to keepe it by grace and in keeping thereof are iustified is contrarie to the doctrine of the Apostle that we are iustified by faith without the works of the lawe Rom. 3.28 3. It is then a most true assertion that we are freed from the rigorous and strict obseruation of the lawe which was required of the Iewes to be iustified by the keeping of it and from the curse which followeth vpon the not keeping of the lawe for it is written Cursed is euerie one that continueth not in all things which are written in the booke of the lawe from which curse Christ hath deliuered vs beeing made a curse for vs as the Apostle sheweth Galat. 3.10.13 see further Synops. Centur. 4. err 60. Controv. 8. That concupiscence though it haue no deliberate consent of the will is sinne and forbidden by the commandement The contrarie is mentioned by the Romanists motus concupiscentia adres illicitas c. the motions of the concupiscence to vnlawfull things whereby man is stirred vp to desire any thing against the lawe of God vnlesse the will and consent be thereunto not to be sinne Pererius disput 8. with the rest of that ranke their reasons are these 1. Argum. That which is naturall in man non potest rationem habere mali cannot be counted euill but concupiscence is naturall and was in man before his fall and if any man should be now created of God in pure naturalls without originall sinne he should feele the motions of concupiscence not to be obedient vnto reason Pererius Stapleton addeth antidot p. 360. that the Scripture seemeth to command some concupiscence as the Apostle saith he that desireth the office of a Bishop he desireth a good worke 1. Timoth. 3.1 Contra. 1. As concupiscence is a naturall facultie it is neither sinne nor forbidden if the concupiscence be of things lawfull as of meate or drinke and in due manner not to couet them much and to a good ende to couet them to the glorie of God and our owne and our neighbours good but the concupiscence as it is tainted and corrupted with originall sinne is euill and forbidden by the commandement 2. This concupiscence in the vnregenerate is continually euill in the regenerate there may be a concupiscence of lawfull and indifferent things as either of those things which are proper and peculiar to a man as the desire of a man to his wife or of things which are common and appropriate to no man as to desire an office but yet euen the concupiscence in such things though it be lawfull yet it is not without some fault euen in the regenerate by reason of the corruption of their nature onely the concupiscence and desire of spirituall things is simply lawfull but such concupiscence is without the compasse of the commandement Thou shalt not couet 2. Argum. Involuntaria non sunt peccata c. that which is inuoluntarie is not sinne but such motions of concupiscence which haue not the consent of the will are inuoluntarie Pere Stapleton ibid. Contra. 1. The proposition is not generally true for not the will of man but the law of God is the rule of good and euill and originall sinne in infants is not voluntarie but it is propagated by a necessitie of nature corrupted by the fall of Adam and the Apostle saith Gala. 5.15 yee cannot doe those things which ye would 2. the sinnes which at the first are voluntarie afterward become necessarie as he that hath gotten an habite of intemperancie can hardly refraine though he would so that it is true which Aristotle saith lib. 3. Ethicor. c. 5. nemo volens malus nec invitus foelix no man is euill with his will not happie against his will So that it sufficeth that sinne was once voluntarie though it afterward became necessarie as originall sinne with the motions of concupiscence that doe proceed from it though now it be necessarie and cannot be auoided yet in Adam it was voluntarie by whose willing transgression a necessitie of sinning is transmitted to his posteritie 3. Argum. Whatsoeuer is truely and properly sinne is taken away in
qu. Why the Apostle onely maketh mention of sinnes past 36. qu. How God is said to be iust and a iustifier of him which is of the faith c. v. 26. 37. qu. How reioycing is excluded not by the law of works but by the law of faith 38. qu. Of the difference betweene these two phrases of faith through faith v. 30. 39. qu. How the Law is established by the doctrine of faith Questions vpon the fourth Chapter 1. qu. Vpon what occasion S. Paul bringeth in the example of Abraham 2. qu. Of the meaning of the first verse 3. qu. Of the meaning of the 2. verse 4. qu. How the Apostle alleadgeth that testimonie concerning the imputation of Abrahams faith for righteousnes v. 4. 5. qu. Of the meaning of the words who counted this for righteousnes vnto Abraham 6. qu. What it was that Abraham beleeued 7. qu. Why Abrahams faith was imputed to him at this time and not before 8. qu. What imputation is and what to be imputed 9. qu. How Abrahams faith was imputed to him for righteousnes 10. qu. Whether Abraham were iustified by any thing beside his faith 11. qu. How S. Paul and S. Iames are reconciled about the manner of Abrahams iustifying 12. qu. Of the explication of the 4. and 5. verses 13. qu. Of the diuers kinds of rewards 14. qu. How it standeth with Gods iustice to iustifie the wicked v. 5. 15. qu. How our sinnes are said to be forgiuen and couered v. 7. 16. qu. In what sense circumcision is said to be a signe and wherefore it was instituted 17. qu. In what sense circumcision is called a seale of the righteousnes of faith v. 11. 18. qu. Whether the mysterie of faith in the Messiah to come were generally known vnder the Law 19. qu. Certaine questions of circumcision and first of the externall signe why it was placed in the generative part 20. qu. Certaine doubts remooued and obiections answered concerning circumcision 21. qu. How Abraham is saide to be the father of them which beleeue v. 11 12. 22. qu. How Abraham is saide to be the father of circumcision v. 12. 23. qu. How and where Abraham was promised to be heire of the world v. 13. 24. qu. Wherein Abraham was made heire of the world and wherein this inheritance consisted 25. qu. How faith is said to be made voide if they which are of the law be heires 26. qu. How they law is said to cause wrath 27. qu. Of the meaning of these words v. 15. where no law is there is no transgression 27. qu. Who are meant by Abrahams seede which is of the law v. 16. 28. qu. Of the meaning of these words I haue made thee a father of many nations before God 29. qu. Of the meaning of these words v. 17. who quickneth the dead and calleth those things which be not c. 30. qu. How God is said to call those things which be not as though they were 31. qu. Whether it be peculiar to God onely to quicken and raise the dead 32. qu. How Abraham is said against hope to haue beleeued vnder hope 33. qu. How Abrahams bodie is said to be dead v. 19. 34. qu. What promise of God made to Abraham it was whereof he is saide not to haue doubted v. 20. 35. qu. Whether Abraham doubted of Gods promise 36. qu. How Abraham is said to haue giuen glorie vnto God v. 20. 37. qu. What was imputed to Abraham for righteousnes 38. qu. Of these words Now it is not written for him onely c. v. 23. 39. qu. How Abrahams faith is to be imitated by vs. 40. qu. Wherein Abrahams faith and ours differ and wherein they agree 41. qu. How Christ is said to haue bin deliuered vp for our sinnes v. 25. 42. qu. Why the Apostle thus distinguisheth the benefits of our redemption ascribing remission of sinnes to Christs death and iustification to his resurrection v. 25. Questions vpon the fifth Chapter 1. qu. What peace the Apostle meaneth v. 1. 2. qu. Of the second benefit proceeding of our iustification which is to stand and persevere in the state of grace 3. qu. Of the benefit of our iustification the hope of euerlasting glorie 4. qu. How we are said to reioyce in tribulation 5. qu. How S. Paul and S. Iames are reconciled together the one making patience the cause of trialls or probation the other the effect 6. qu. Of the coherence of these words with the former because the loue of God is shed abroad in our hearts v. 5. 7. qu. What kind of loue the Apostle speaketh of saying the loue of God is shed abroad c. 8. qu. Why the loue of God is said to be shed abroad in our hearts 9. qu. Why it is added by the holy Ghost which is giuen vs. 10. qu. How Christ is said to haue died according to the time v. 6. 11. qu. Of the meaning of the 7. v. One will scarce die for a righteous man c. 12. qu. Of the difference betweene Christs dying for vs and those which died for their countrey 13. qu. Of the greatnes of the loue of God toward man in sending Christ to die for vs v. 8. 14. qu. Whether mans redemption could not otherwise haue beene wrought but by the death of Christ. 15. qu. Wherein the force of the Apostles reason consisteth saying Much more beeing reconciled we shall be saued by his life v. 9. 16. qu. Why the Apostle saith not onely so but we also reioyce in God c. v. 11. 17. qu. Whether any thing neede to be supplied in the Apostles speach v. 12. to make the sense perfect 18. qu. Who was that one by whome sinne entred into the world v. 12. 19. qu. What sinne the Apostle speaketh of here originall or actuall by one man sinne entred 20. qu. How sinne is said to haue entred into the world 21. qu. And death by sinne what kind of death the Apostle speaketh of 22. qu. Whether the death of the bodie be naturall or inflicted by reason of sinne 23. qu. Of the meaning of the Apostle in these words in whome all haue sinned and of the best reading thereof v. 12. 24. qu. Whether the Apostle meaneth originall or actuall sinnes saying in whome all haue sinned 25. qu. Of the coherence of these words Vnto the time of the Law was sinne in the world 26. qu. How sinne is said to haue beene vnto the time of the Law 27. qu. What sinne the Apostle meaneth which was in the world vnto the time of the law 28. qu. How sinne is said not to be imputed where there is no law 29. qu. How death is saide to haue raigned from Adam to Moses 30. qu. Of the meaning of these words which sinne not after the transgression of Adam 31. qu. How Adam is said to be the figure of him that was to come v. 14. 32. qu. Of the names and tearmes which the Apostle vseth in this comparison 33. qu. Of the comparison betweene Adam
caeten Graec. which Stapleton followeth But Faius here well answereth that here money is considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of passion it is a thing vsed as an instrument it hath no action but an actiue power is here giuen vnto God 5. The blasphemous Manichees were here driuen to this strait because they would free God from beeing any way accessarie to euill that they made two gods one good the father of Christ and the author of the new Testament the other euill the author of the old and that God it was which is saide to haue hardened Pharaohs heart and to bid Shemei curse Dauid and of this god they vnderstood S. Paul to speake 2. Cor. 4.4 In whome the god of this world hath blinded the mindes But the Manichees doe here manifestly contradict the Apostle who saith Eph. 4.6 There is one God and father of all c. who is aboue all there are not then more Gods then one And in that other place by the god of this world the Apostle meaneth Sathan who is the prince of the darknes of this world who is so called because he is so held to be of the infidels Some thinke that God may as well be said to blind the minds of infidels as here to deliuer them vp to their owne concupiscence as P. Mart. following Augustine But the Scripture vseth not so to speake of God the God of this world is all one as to say the prince of the world which name Christ giueth vnto Sathan Ioh. 14.30 6. Wherefore there is more to be considered in these actions of hardening the heart deliuering vp vnto a reprobate sense then bare permission onely subtraction of grace these we refuse not so that permission be here vnderstood as ioyned with Gods will for otherwise to thinke that God permitteth any thing which he can not hinder were great blasphemie Faius yet God hath a further stroke in these actions then by permission onely and withholding of his grace 1. Augustine doubteth not to affirme that not onely the good wills and mindes of men which God maketh good of euill are in Gods hand but also the euill minds and wills of men are so in Gods power vt eos quo voluerit quando voluerit factat inclinari that the same God causeth to be enclined which way he will and when he will and he giueth instance in diuers places of Scripture as how God is saide to haue hardened Pharaohs heart that he bid Shemei curse Dauid non iubendo dixit sed eius voluntatem proprio suo vitio malam in hoc peccatam iusto suo indicio inclinavit not that he in deede badde him but by his iust iudgement he inclined his will beeing euill of it selfe into this sinne so it is saide 2. Chron. 25.20 But Amaziah would not heare for it was of God that he might deliuer them into his hand c likewise Ezek. 14.9 if the Prophet be deceiued when he hath spoken a thing the Lord hath deceiued that Prophet vpon these and other such places Augustine thus inferreth that it is manifest operari Deum in cordibus hominum ad inclinandus sorum voluntates quacunque voluerit c. that God worketh in the hearts of men to incline their wills which way he will either vnto good for his mercie sake or vnto euill according to their desert indicio suo aliquando aperto aliquando occulto semper nutem iusto by his iudgement sometime open sometime hid but alwaies iust thus August lib. 5. contr Iulian. c. 3. All these places alleadged shew that God in such actions is to be considered as an agent and yet is free from the imputation of any euill 2. Which that it may more fully appeare these considerations following are here necessarie 1. we must distinguish betweene the motion of the mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the disorder or euilnes of the motion Pareus and there are two things in sinne actio defectus the action it selfe and the defect or fault the action is of God but not the other Mart. so Hugo Cardinal Deus non incitat ad malas notiones in quantum sunt mala c. God doth not stirre vp vnto euill actions as they are euill but as they are actions 2. Beside sinnes are considered three waies first as they are transgressions of the law of God then as they are causes of other sinnes in neither of these respects doth sinne any way stand with the will and pleasure of God thirdly as they are poena praecedentium scelerum punishments of sinnes before-going and so they are of God so then as there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a disordered motion in sinne God no way is accessarie vnto them but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the infliction of them as a punishment proceedeth from the iust iudgement of God Pareus 3. As God is to be considered as a iust Iudge in punishing sinne by sinne so likewise as a wise foreseer and prouident worker and contriuer of all things to effect his good pleasure so then we affirme Deum iusto suo iudicio ordinare c. God doth so ordaine in his iust iudgement that men be deliuered vp to their owne concupiscence as the Iudge deliuereth male factours ouer to the tormentor or hangman Calvin carnifex agit vi authoritate iudicis c. the tormentor worketh by the authoritie of the Iudge yet carnisicis opus cum imperio iudicis non confundo I confound not the worke of the hangman with the commandement of the Iudge saith Beza So it is true as Faius here saith Deus arcano suo iudicio effecit c. God so wrought by his secret iudgement that they which were alreadie estranged from him magis averterentur should yet be estranged more But it will be thus obiected against this resolution 1. Iulianus the Pelagian thus cavilled If this concupiscence vnto the which the Gentiles were deliuered vp were a punishment of sinne then it is good and commendable Ans. It followeth not for by the same reason the deuill should deserue commendation because he is the executer of Gods reuenge and punishment 2. He obiecteth that they were left by the patience of God not per poâ—â—tiam compulsi not compelled by his power Ans. 1. God sheweth herein both his patience and his power as the Apostle sheweth Rom. 9.22 What if God would to shew his wrath and make his power knowne suffer with long patience the vessels of his wrath prepared to destruction c. 2. yet although God herein shew his power and secret iudgement in punishing them with their owne concupiscence yet he forceth not their wills but beeing euill of themselues he giueth them ouer further to all impietie 3. Obiect The Apostle saith Eph. 4.19 Which beeing past feeling haue giuen themselues vnto wantonnes c. they then giue themselues ouer God giueth them not vp Ans. It followeth not for both God doth deliuer them vp as a iust Iudge and
all vnrighteousnesse were deliuered vp but then nothing should haue remained afterward to shewe their reprobate mind in if they had beene full of all iniquitie before this then is rather a proofe of their reprobate minde by such fruits and effects as followed Tolet. Eras. Beza 4. Thus the Apostle setteth downe their faults in particular vt apertius accuset that he might accuse them more plainely gloss ordinar 5. But this further is to be obserued that the Apostle in this catologue of their sinnes sub alijs personis omnem sermonem producit doth frame his speach as vnder other persons not directly accusing the Romanes but shewing what they were vnder the generall view of the sinnes of the heathen 6. Now the Apostle saith they were full of all vnrighteousnesse shewing a difference betweene the Gentiles that were giuen ouer vnto all iniquitie and such as beleeued who may sometime faile in these sinnes but are not full fraught with them Mart. 7. And though all among the Gentiles were not alike guiltie of these sinnes yet an imputation is laid vpon all the Gentiles for these reasons 1. because the number was small of those which carried themselues more civilly and therefore they were not to be counted in so great a multitude 2. though some bridled their corrupt nature yet they were naturally giuen to these sinnes as well as others as Socrates beeing noted by a certaine Physiognomer that tooke vpon him to coniecture by his countenance of his disposition that he was giuen to incontinencie answered that by nature he was so but that he had corrected the euilnesse of his nature by Philosophie Gualter 3. the Apostle doth not onely rippe vp the sinnes of the Gentiles in fact but such as were committed in the minde as malice envie that they which were not detected of outward and grosse sinnes yet might finde themselues guiltie of the other Hyperius 4. And though all these sinnes are not found in euerie one yet alicuius ex illis conscij omnes all men are guilty of some one of them Calvin Quest. 72. Of the order obserued by the Apostle in this particular enumeration of the sinnes of the Gentiles 1. Hugo Cardinal thus scanneth the number that whereas here are rehearsed 21. sinnes in all of the heathen he would thus distinguish them that there are seuen capitall sinnes and each of them is three wayes committed corde ore opere in the heart mouth and worke and so the number of 7. beeing multiplyed by three we shall haue the iust summo of one and twentie in all But hauing propounded this diuision he there leaueth it not being able to assigne euerie one of these particular sinnes to one of these kinds 2. Gorrham doth thus more distinctly distribute these seuerall kinds first the Apostle setteth these sinnes downe in generall full of all vnrighteousnesse then in particular first the sinnes of transgression then of omission from these words disobedient to parents to the end The sinnes of transgression are 1. in fact 2. in word whisperers 3. then both in word and deede doers of wrong c. v. 30. The sinnes of transgression in fact are seene 1. in inferring some temporall damage either in the affection as malice or evilnesse or in the effect either concerning carnall pleasure as fornication or worldly profit couetousnesse or some other notable wrong which is called wickednesse 2. or in personall damage which is done to ones person which beginneth in the heart that is enuie and is finished in murther 3. then followeth spirituall damage or hurt which consisteth in deceit which is threefold in open debate in secret craft and in the sinister opinion of the minde in taking all in the worst part 2. In word men transgresse either against men in priuate whispering or open backebiting or against God in hating him or speaking euill of him 3. Then followe the transgressions partly in word partly in deede 1. in detracting and dishonouring of others doers of wrong or contumelious 2. in preferring themselues before others proud 3. in despising of others boasters 4. in corrupting of others inventors of euill things Next are the sinnes of omission 1. in respect of superiours both in rebellion to parents they are disobedient then they are vnwise in refusing their parents instruction and so became incomposite disorderly without any gouernement 2. or in respect of all where there are three sinnes first they are without naturall affection secondly sine faedere societatis without fidelitie or societie they can neuer be appeased thirdly sine miserecordia compâ—ssionis without compassion they are merciles 3. But I rather thinke with Calvin that it is too curious to obserue such order in the enumeration of the Gentiles sinnes which the Apostle intended not but onely to accumulate together the manifold corruptions that raigned among the heathen setting downe euerie sinne not in any certaine methode but as it came vnto his minde yet if these particular sinnes be sorted out to their seuerall kinds we shall finde that these transgressions are against all the precepts of the second table Pareus Quest. 73. Of the particular sinnes of the Gentiles here 〈◊〉 rehearsed by the Apostle 1. First is set downe the generall to all the particulars following 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnrighteousnes which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the transgression of the Lawe 1. Ioh. 3.4 some interpret it full omni peccati of all sinne Gorrham but that is too generall it signifieth rather all such iniustice quod coniungitur cum iuiuria proximi which is ioyned with the wrong of our neighbour Calvin some thus distinguish betweene iniquitie and sinne the first is referred to the euilnes of the minde the other to the outward execution in the bodie 2. The first speciall sinne is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fornication the vulgar Latine placeth next 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 malitia malitiousnesse and so Beza following his auncient Greeke copie and he thinketh it to be another generall word comprehending all the particulars following But the most Greeke copies and the Syrian translation make it the fourth particular sinne next to couetousnesse to Vatab. Mart. Gryneus Geneuens Gualter with others the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is deriued of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perneo to sell because such doe make sale of their bodies and prostitute them for gaine Gryneus the Latine word fornicatio fornication is deriued a fornicibus of the vaulted houses where such strumpets vsed to prostitute themselues Haymo By fornication is vnderstood omnis vsus praeter legitimum connubium any carnall vse beside lawfull mariage gloss interlin all vncleannesse and impuritie of the bodie Calvin And for two reasons is this one kind named rather then adulterie 1. quia ex leuiori granius evincitur c. because by the lesse sinne the greater is conuinced Ambrose if fornication be a sinne adulterie is much more Martyr 2. And because fornication was held to be no offence among the Gentiles therefore the Apostle
shal rise incorruptible but not all vnto glorie 4. Vnto these the Apostle addeth a fourth v. 10. namely peace which is the verie complement and perfection of our happines this peace is honorum omnium secura tranâ—quiâ— possessio a secure and peaceable possession of all good things and as Prosper saith as Beda here citeth him pax Christi sinem non habet the peace of Christ hath no ende the Saints shall be at peace with God they shall enioy the tranquilitie and peace of conscience to theÌ„selues and peace they shall haue without from all enemies whatsoeuer which shall be subdued vnto them 5. But it will be obiected that glorie and honour are peculiar and essentiall vnto God which he will not giue to any other Isay. 42.8 And thine is the glorie Matth. 6.13 Answer That essentiall and infinite honour and glorie which is in God is not communicated vnto any other but yet there are certaine influences and bright beames of that glorie which in Christ are imparted to his members as S. Peter saith that by these precious promises which are made vnto vs in Christ we are made partakers of the diuine nature 2. Pet. 1.4 Quest. 16. How it standeth with Gods iustice to punish eternally sinne temporally committed Obiect As God giueth eternall life vnto his faithfull seruants so he punisheth the wicked and impenitent with euerlasting damnation but sinne is a temporall transgression and for one to be punished eternally for a momentanie delight may seeme to exceede the rule of iustice Answ. Three wayes doth it appeare to be most iust that God should punish eternally sinne but temporally committed both in respect of the minde and intention of the sinner of the matter wherein he sinneth and of the person against whom he is an offender 1. First though the act of sinne be but temporall yet the mind of the sinner is infinite if he could euer liue he would euer sinne and therefore as Gregorie saith quia mens in hac vita nunquam voluit carere peccato iustum est vt nunquam careat supplicio c. because the mind in this life would neuer be without sinne it is iust that it should neuer be without punishment 2. If the matter and subiect of sinne be considered it is of and in the soule like as then the wounding of the bodie bringeth the death of the bodie after the which there is no returning into this life againe so sinne beeing the death of the soule it followeth that it should be perpetuall and for euer Hugo like as then Magistrates doe punish some offences as murther theft with death which doth vtterly exclude them from the societie of the liuing and cut them off for euer so is it iust with God to punish the sinnes committed against him with euerlasting paine Perer. 3. Sinne because it is a transgression of the lawe of God is so much the more hainous as he that smiteth the Prince doth more grieuously offend then he which striketh a priuate person so that sinne is of an infinite nature because of the infinite dignitie of the diuine maiestie against whom it is committed and therefore it deserueth an infinite punishment which because it cannot be infinite secundum intensionem in the intention and greatnesse of it it remaineth that it should be infinite secundum à urationem in respect of the continuance and enduring thereof Perer. 4. Further the equitie of Gods iudgement in punishing the temporall act of sinne eternally Hugo doth thus very well illustrate by these comparisons Like as when mariage is contracted per verba de praesenti by words vttered in the present tense though the contract be sone done yet the mariage remaineth all the life long so when the soule and sinne are contracted together it is no maruell if this contract holding during the life of the soule deserue euerlasting punishment And like as where the fuell and matter of the fire continueth the flame burneth still so sinne leauing a blot in the soule beeing the matter of hell fire is eternally punished because there is still matter for that euerlasting fire to worke vpon Thus then it is euident how the Lord euen in punishing sinne eternally doth reward men according to their workes for though the action of sinne be temporall voluntas tamen peâ—candi qua per poenitentiam non mutatur est perpetua yet the will to sinne which is not changed by repentance is perpetuall Gorrhan 17. Quest. How eternall life is to be sought v. 7. To them which in well doing seeke glorie honour c. In seeking of God who is eternall life three things must be considered locus tempus modus the place the time the manner 1. The place must be mundus quietus securus cleane quiet secure then first God is not to be sought vpon the bed of idlenes or carnall delight and therefore it is said Cantic 3. 1. In my bed I sought him but found him not that is no cleane place to seeke God in But yet the bed vndefiled is honourable Heb. 13.4 and the faithfull doe seeke God euen in their beds as Dauid saith Psal. 6.6 That he watered his couch with his teares Neither is God to be sought in the courts and streetes and tumultuous assemblies as Cantic 3.2 I sought him in the streetes but found him not and Hos. 5.6 They shall goe with their bullocks and sâ—eepe to seeke the Lord but shall not finde him such are no quiet places but God must be praied vnto in secret and sought in the quiet hauen of the conscience Neither is God to be sought in pompa where there is ostentation of pompe and vanitie as Christs parents found him not among their kinted but in the Temple disputing with the Doctors God is to be sought not in pompous shewes but in the assemblies of the Saints 2. Concerning the time God must be sought dum dies est dum prope est dum nobis predest while it is day while he is neare and at hand and when it may auaile vs. 1. First God is not to be sought in the night Cantic 3.1 I sought him in my bed by night c. but found him not so the Apostle saith The night is past the day is come let vs cast away the works of darknes God then is to be sought not in the time of ignorance and darknes but in the time of light and knowledge 2. The Lord must be sought when he may be found and is at hand Isa. 55.6 Seeke ye the Lord while he may be found call vpon him while he is neare while the Lord offereth grace vnto vs and standeth knocking at the doore of our hearts we must open vnto him 3. And in this life must we seeke God while mercie is shewed while the bridegroome crieth in the streetes Matth. 25.6 but when the doores are shut and this life is ended it is then too late to seeke for mercie 3. Touching the manner God must be sought in the heart in
that are perfect as namely the Apostles who are promised to fit vpon twelue feares and iudge the twelue tribes of Israel So likewise for them that shall be condemned some sine iudicij examine condemnabuntur shall be iudged without any examination or iudgement such are the infidels which shall rise againe non ad iudicium sed ad tormentum not vnto iudgement but vnto torment as it is saide in Psal. 1. The wicked shall not stand vp in iudgement and here the Apostle saith of such they shall perish without the law But they which professed the faith and yet liued not thereafter redarguentur vt pereant shall first be iudged and reprooued and then perish like as in a commonwealth the Prince aliter punit civem delinquentem aliter hostem rebellantem punisheth a citizen offending one way examining his offence according to the law and an enemie rebelling an other way he vseth martiall law against such giuing sentence presently to condemne them But this obseruation of Gregorie seemeth somewhat curious the Apostle intendeth not here any such thing to shew any difference in the processe of iudgement betweene the Iewes and Gentiles but that they both beeing in the same cause of transgression shall be partakers of the same punishment And that there shall be but one manner of proceeding in iudgement both in rewarding the righteous and in condemning the wicked it is euident by that description of Christs comming to iudgement Matth. 25.31 6. Augustine here propoundeth this doubt that whereas the Apostle saith Rom. 4.15 Where there is no law there is no transgression how then can the Gentiles be found to be transgressors without the law for answer hereunto he maketh three kind of lawes one is the written law which is giuen vnto the Iewes not to the Gentiles and of this law speaketh the Apostle here that they sinned without the law and so shall perish without the law that is the written law of Moses there is beside the law of nature whereof the Apostle speaketh afterward v. 14. They hauing not the law are a law vnto themselues against this law the Gentiles sinned and by this law they shall be iudged the third law is that which was giuen vnto Adam in Paradise by which not onely he but all his posteritie are found to be transgressors and in respect of this law euen infants are found trespassers because of originall sinne to this purpose Augustine in the place before cited 25. Quest. Of the occasion of these words v. 13. The hearers of the law are not righteous before God but the doers shall be iustified 1. Some take this to be a new argument to conuince the Iewes that they could not be iustified by the law because the keeping and fulfilling of the law is required to make one iust which no man can doe and so consequently beeing not iustified by the law they must seeke to be iustified by faith Calv. Pareus But as yet the Apostle is not entred into that matter to prooue iustification by faith and not by the law he hetherto laboureth to conuince both Iewes and Gentiles that they are vnder sinne 2. Some take this to be the order that the Apostle prooueth both Iewes and Gentiles to be equall both quo ad naturam in nature for God hath no respect of persons v. 11. they are all alike by nature and quoad poenam in their punishment they are equall the one shall perish without the law the other shall be iudged by the law v. 12. then quoad culpam they are equall in the fault because neither of them are doers of the law Gorrhaen 3. Some thinke that here the Apostle meeteth with an obiection of the Iewes who seeing the Apostle to equalize them with the Gentiles might haue obiected that they had the law and so had not the Gentiles the Apostle then answereth that this did not helpe them because they were hearers onely of the law and not doers Martyr Gryneus 4. Tolet thinketh that this sentence is brought in as a probation of the 10. verse the glorie shall be to euery one that doth good otherwise that part should be passed ouer without proofe and so he thinketh this clause not specially to be meant of the Iewes but of the Gentiles also because it is said the doers shall be iustified which was common both to the Iewes and Gentiles not the hearers and doers which was proper to the Iewes who had the law written which was read vnto them and they heard it Faius also thinketh this to be a proofe of the tenth verse Contra. 1. But if S. Paul should prooue here that glorie shall be to euerie one that doth good and he immediately inferreth that the Gentiles doe by nature the things of the lawe it would follow that by nature they might doe good and so by their naturall workes obtaine glorie which is not to be admitted 2. that part concerning glorie to them which did good had not so much neede of proofe as the other because there were verie fewe found among the Gentiles that did such good workes as should be recompensed with glorie and honour and the Apostles principall intendment is to conclude both Iewes and Gentiles to be vnder sinne 3. and further that the Apostle speaketh of the written lawe here it is euident because that onely was heard neither needed he againe to repeate hearers of the lawe and doers it beeing mentioned before 5. Wherefore this rather is the coherence of this verse that whereas S. Paul in the former verse had shewed first the Gentiles without the lawe and the Iewes vnder the lawe to be sinners he prooueth the latter part first that the Iewes should be iudged by the law because as long as they were hearers and not doers it could not helpe them they should not thereby be approoued and iustified and in the next verses following he sheweth how the Gentiles should perish without the law because although they had not the written law yet they had the lawe of nature imprinted in them which guided them to doe some things agreeable to the lawe and so made them inexcusable And thus this whole disputation of the Apostle hangeth well together Bucer Aretius Quest. 26. Of the meaning of these words Not the hearers of the Lawe c. but the doers shall be iustified ver 13. 1. There are two kind of hearers some onely heare with the eare but vnderstand not Matth. 13.13 they hearing heare not neither doe vnderstand and there is an hearing ioyned with vnderstanding v. 15. least they should heare with their eares and vnderstand with their hearts of the first kind of hearing speaketh the Apostle here 2. Doers of the lawe the lawe is fulfilled two wayes one is in supposition that if a man could by his owne strength keepe the lawe he should thereby be iustified there is another fulfilling which is by the perfect obedience of Christ imputed to vs by faith whereof the Apostle speaketh Philip. 3.9 Not hauing mine
acception of the word hath no place here for this declaration of one to be iust by works is before men before God there neede no such declaration for he knoweth what is in man but this iustification is before God which the Apostle here speaketh of it is therefore iustification in deede and not the declaration of it onely 6. Some thinke that the Apostle speaketh of the legall iustification which is by works which if any could doe they should be iustified thereby but it is impossible for any to keepe the law Calv. Pareus Beza annotat But it is euident that the Apostle speaketh not here of a thing impossible to be done and of iustification vpon that supposall if any could be doers of the law but he setteth this downe affirmatiuely and positiuely that they which liued according to the law should be iustified as he said before v. 6. that God will reward euery one according to his workes And as the hearers of the law onely are not iustified so the hearers and doers are iustified but some heare the law in fact verily and in deede therefore some also were verily and in deede doers of the law 7. The meaning then of this sentence is the same with that v. 6. God will approoue iustifie reward them that doe the works of the law whether Iew or Gentile yet it followeth not that a man is therefore iustified by the workes of the law But God approoueth and rewardeth the workers not the hearers or professors so here the Apostle entreareth not of the cause of iustification which is faith without the works of the law but of the difference betweene such as shall be iustified and such as are not Faius they onely which haue a liuely faith which worketh and keepeth the law in part and supplieth the rest which is wanting in themselues by the perfect obedience of Christ they shall be iustified not those which onely professe the law and keepe it not the Apostle then here sheweth who shall be iustified not for what 8. But this place maketh nothing at all for iustification by works 1. if a man is iustified by doing the works of the law either he is iust before he doe the works or nor iust if he be iust then he is iustified before he doe those workes then is he not iustified by those workes if he be not iust then can he doe no good workes whereby he is made iust for the workes done before faith as Tolet himselfe confesseth non possunt iustum afficere can not make one iust Here the Romanists haue no better answer then to confesse fidem sine operibuâ— primaâ— efficere iustificationem that faith without workes doth effect the first iustification which is encreased by workes which they call the second iustification Tolet. ibid. And thus they are driuen to consent with Protestants that iustification is by faith without works as for that distinction of the first and second iustification the vanitie of it is shewed before 2. If workes did iustifie then it would followe that the iustice whereby we are made iust should be an actuall iustice not habituall because that is actuall which worketh the contrarie whereof is maintained by Bellarmine who prooueth by sundrie reasons that one is formally made iust not by an actuall but an habituall iustice wherewith the minde is endued lib. 2. de iustific c. 15. Controv. 8. That it is not possible in this life to keepe the lawe 1. Pererius disput 7. numer 55. taketh vpon him to prooue against Calviu legem divinam impleri posse that the lawe of God may be kept in this life he meaneth by a man in the state of grace 1. Otherwise Dauid had not said true Psal. 18.21 I kept the wayes of the Lord and did not wickedly against my God 2. S. Paul saith he that loueth his brother hath fulfilled the Lawe Rom. 13. 3. What wisedome were there in God to command things impossible vnto man or what iustice to punish him for not keeping of that which was not in his power 2. Contra. 1. Dauids keeping of the wayes of God must be vnderstood either of some particular act of his obedience wherein he behaued himselfe vprightly as Psal. 7.3 If I haue done this thing or if there be any wickednesse in mine hands or els it must be vnderstood of his faithfull endeauour as farre as he was enabled by grace for Dauids sinnes which are mentioned in the Scripture doe euidently shewe that he did not keepe all the wayes of God 2. If a man could perfectly loue his brother as he ought he might fulfill the lawe but so can no man doe and there is as Hierome distinguisheth 2. kinds of iustice or fulfilling the lawe there is a perfect iustice which was onely in Christ and an other iustice quae nostrae competit fragilitati which agreeth vnto our frailtie dialog 1. cont Pelagian and thus may the lawe be fulfilled 3. The commandements are not simply impossible for man in his creation had power to keepe them if he would Gods wisedome is seene in giuing his lawe vnto man beeing vnable in himselfe to keepe it that it might be a schoolemaster to bring him vnto Christ Galat. 3.19 and his iustice appeareth in punishing man for transgressing that lawe which sometime he was able as he was created of God to keepe and now may perfectly performe it by faith in the obedience of Christ who hath deliuered vs from the curse of the lawe 3. Now that it is not possible for a man no not in the state of grace to keepe the lawe of God it is thus shewed out of the the Scripture 1. S. Paul saith Rom. 7.19 To will is present with me but I finde no meanes to performe that which is good a man regenerate now can doe no more then S. Paul could who confesseth that he was vnable to doe that which was good and agreeable to the lawe 2. If a man by grace could keepe the law by grace he hath power to redeeme himselfe from the curse of the lawe for as he which keepeth not euerie thing contained in the law is vnder the curse so he that keepeth all things which the lawe commandeth is free from the curse but no man can redeeme himselfe from the curse of the lawe for Christ hath redeemed vs from the curse of the lawe Galat. 3.13 3. Further The lawe is not of faith Galat. 3.12 but if the lawe might be kept by grace and faith then should it be of faith 4. And if a man regenerate were able to keepe the lawe then it were possible for a man in this life to be without sinne for where no transgression of the lawe is there should be no faâ—e for sinne is the transgression of the law 1. Ioh. 3.4 see more hereof Synops. Centur. 4. â—rr 63. pag. 916. Controv. 9. Whether by the light of nature onely a man may doe any thing morally good Bellarmine hath this position that a man if no tentation doe vrge
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.
16. that is which had receiued the lawe 3. By wrath some would vnderstand the wrath and indignation in the transgressor his contumacie and rage against God who hath by lawe restrained him of his licentious libertie Origen and Haymo referre it to the penaltie of the law as an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth but it rather signifieth the wrath and indignation of God in iudging and punishing of sinne not onely temporally but eternally Calvin 4. Now the lawe worketh wrath not of it selfe for it is holy iust and good but in respect of the weakenes and corruption of man which taketh occasion by the lawe as contrarie vnto it to be the worse as we see that in nature one contrarie by the resistance of an other becommeth so much the more violent as expereince sheweth in the breaking out of lightening and thunder and in the terrible noise of gunshot where two contraries meete together the fierie hoat nature of the brimstone and the cold qualitie of the saltpeter both tempered together in the gunpowder Mart. 5. But although the lawe occasionaliter by way of occasion procureth wrath yet it hath an other ende and effect vnto the godly for vnto them it is a schoolemaster to bring them vnto Christ so that Christ is the ende of the lawe not onely because he hath abolished the ceremonies of the lawe and so is the ende and fulfilling thereof but because the law directeth vs vnto Christ who hath fulfilled the lawe for vs which it was impossible for vs to keepe 6. Now the holy Apostle doth of purpose thus speake of the law as saying that by it commeth the knowledge of sinne that it causeth wrath that it is the ministerie of death that by this meanes he might abate that great opinion and estimation of the law which the Iewes conceiued of it hoping thereby to be iustified but otherwise as the law is considered in it selfe he giueth it the due commendation as afterward is shewed in the 7. chapter like as now the Preachers of the Gospel doe giue vnto good works their due praise and commendation but yet they detract from them as not beeing able to iustifie vs. Mart. 26. Quest. Of the meaning of these words v. 15. Where no law is there is no transgression 1. Origen here obserueth that the Apostle saith not where is law there is transgression for then all those holy men which liued vnder the law should be held to be vnder transgression but he saith in the negatiue where there is no law there is no transgression But this collection is not good for the contrarie must be inferred out of the Apostles words where there is no law there is no transgression therefore where there is a law there is transgression or els there should be no coherence in the Apostles words whereas this is added as a proofe of the former clause that the law causeth wrath 2. Now touching the coherence Gorrhan maketh here two arguments why the inheritance can not be by the law because by it there is neither remissio poenae remission of the punishment the law causing wrath nor yet remissio culpae remission of the fault because by the law commeth transgression Gryneus maketh this the coherence because idem est index c. there is the same foreshowne both of the transgression and punishment namely the law But thus better doth the sentence hang together the Apostle prooueth that the law causeth wrath by the cause thereof for that it causeth transgression so then transgression is set in the middes betweene the law and wrath for the law bringeth forth transgression and transgression wrath Pareus 3. But this should seeme to be no good argument no law no transgression therefore where there is law there is transgression as it followeth not no creature no man Ergo a creature a man Ans. The Apostle here reasoneth not à genere-ad speciem from the genus to the species as in the instance proposed but from the contrarie by the like connexion of the causes and effects as this followeth well in the like where the Sunne is not risen there is â—â— day light therefore the Sunne beeing risen it is day Pareus 4. Now concerning the meaning of these words Haymo thinketh it may be vnderstood either of the lawe of nature and so infants not yet hauing vnderstanding of this lawe cannot be transgressors against it or of the Evangelicall lawe which the Pagans not hauing are not held to be so great offenders as they which haue reciued it or of the morall lawe of Moses where that lawe is not non est tanta praevaricatio neque sic imputatur there is not so great transgression neither is it so much imputed This latter sense is to be preferred for thoroughout this chapter the Apostle vnderstandeth the lawe of Moses 5. And further for the true vnderstanding of these words it must be obserued 1. that the Apostle saith not where is no lawe there is no iniquitie for the old world and the Sodomites committed iniquitie before the lawe was written but he saith there is no transgression which is referred to the lawe written gloss ordin 2. this is simply true of things indifferent as were the ceremonies before they were commanded by lawe for then it was no sinne to omit them but of things euill in their owne nature it must be vnderstood after a sort that there was not so great transgression before the law was giuen as after Lyran. 3. and hereof these two reasons may be giuen both quia homines nituntur in vetitum men are most bent vnto that which is forbidden and so by the prohibition of the lawe the stubbornenesse of mans heart was increased as also because by the lawe came the knowledge of sinne and so the seruant that knoweth his masters will and doth it not is worthie of more stripes Lyran. 4. So then the Apostle denieth not but that sinne which is committed against the conscience euen where there is no lawe is sinne non est reus tantae transgressionis c. he is not guiltie of so great transgression as he which knoweth the lawe and breaketh it Calvin Quest. 27. Who are meant by Abrahams seede which is of the Lawe v. 16. 1. The Apostle in this verse vrgeth two arguments to prooue that the inheritance is not of the law but of faith because it is of grace for to be iustified by faith and by grace with the Apostle are all one and because the promise is firme but if it were by the law it should be vncertaine and not firme because of mans weaknes who is not able to performe the law Calvin Chrysostome further saith that the Apostle here speaketh of two chiefe good things or benefits the one is quod quia data sunt firma sunt the things which are giuen are firme the other quod vniverso semini data sunt they are giuen to the whole seede of Abraham 2. By the seede which is of the law
a figure of Christ therefore as Christs righteousnesse is extended euen vnto those before the lawe so also was Adams sinne v. 14. Then the Apostle sheweth wherein Adam is vnlike vnto Christ namely in these three things 1. in the efficacie and power the grace of God in Christ is much more able to saue vs then Adams fall was to condemne vs v. 15. 2. in the obiect Adams one offence was sufficient to condemne but by Christ we are deliuered from many offences v. 16. 3. in the ende Adams sinne brought forth death but Christs righteousnesse doth not onely deliuer vs from sinne and death but bringeth vs vnto righteousnesse and life yea and causeth vs to raigne in life it restoareth vs to a more glorious kingdome and inheritance then we lost in Adam v. 17. The reddition or second part of this comparison sheweth wherein Christ of whom Adam was a type and figure is answearable vnto Adam namely in these three things propounded v. 12. first in the singularitie of his person one mans iustification saueth vs as one mans offence condemned vs v. 18. 2. in the obiect as Adams sinne was communicated to many so is Christs obedience v. 19. And here the Apostle by the way preuenteth an obiection that if sinne came in by Adam why entred the lawe he answeareth to the ende that sinne might the more appeare and be increased not simply but that thereby the grace of God might abound the more 3. in the ende as sinne had raigned vnto death so grace might raigne vnto eternall life 3. The questions and doubts discussed Quest. 1. What peace the Apostle meaneth ver 1. v. 1. Beeing iustified by faith we haue peace toward God 1. Oecumenius whom Harme and Anselme Lyranus Hugo followe doe reade here in the imperatiue habeamus let vs haue not habemus we haue and they vnderstand peace with men that the Iewes should no longer contend with the Gentiles about their lawe as though iustification came thereby seeing the Apostle had sufficiently prooued alreadie that we are iustified by faith But this exposition cannot stand 1. because the Apostle speaketh of such peace as we haue with God not with man 2. he speaketh in the first person we haue but S. Paul was none of these which did contend about the Lawe 2. Origen Chrysostome Theodoret vnderstand it of peace with God but in this sense let vs beeing iustified by faith take heede that we offend not God by our sinnes and so make him our enemie mihi videtur saith Chrysostome de vita conuersatione disserere the Apostle seemeth vnto me now to reason of our life and conuersation so Origen let vs haue peace vt vltra non adversetur caro spiritus that our flesh no longer rebell against the spirit But the Apostle here exhorteth not sed gratulatur eorum faelicitati he doth rather set forth with ioy the happines of those which are iustified Erasmus and it is not an exhortation but a continuation rather of the former doctrine of iustification Tolet annot 1. and here he sheweth the benefits of our iustification whereof the first is peace of conscience Pareus and this is further euident by the words following By whom we haue accesse which words beeing not vttered by way of exhortation but of declaration shewe that the former words should so likewise be taken Erasmus 3. Ambrose reading in the Indicatiue habemus we haue expoundeth this peace of the tranquilitie and peace of conscience which we haue with God beeing once iustified by faith in Christ thus the Apostle himselfe expoundeth this peace v. 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne for they are our sinnes which make a separation betweene God and vs this sense followe Tolet annot 1. and in his commentarie Pareus Gryneus Faius with others 4. This then is resolued vpon that the Apostle speaketh here not of externall but internall peace there is pax temporis and pax pecteris a temporall and a pectorall or inward peace the other Christ giueth but through the malice of Sathan and the corruption of mans heart it may be interrupted and therefore Christ saith Matth. 10.34 That he came not to send peace but the sword but the other which is the inward peace of conscience Satan himselfe can not depriue vs of no man can take it from vs. But whereas there is a threefold combate within vs the fight betweene reason and affection betweene the flesh and the spirit and a wrestling with the terrors of Gods iudgements in the two first we cannot haue peace here but in part for still in the seruants of God there remaineth a combat betweene reason and affection the flesh and the spirit as S. Paul sheweth that it was so with him Rom. 7.23 he sawe another lawe in his members rebelling against the lawe of his minde and therefore we are not to hope to haue such peace vt non vltra caro adversetur spiritui that the flesh should no more rebell against the spirit as Origen thinketh but this inward peace is in respect of the terrors which are caused in vs by the feare of Gods iudgement against sinne from this terror we are deliuered by Christ Beza yet so as sometimes there may arise some feare doubts and perplexitie in the minde of the faithfull as it is written of Hilarion that beeing 70. yeare old and now neere vnto death he was somewhat perplexed and troubled in minde yet faith in the end ouercommeth all these dangers that we fall not vpon the rockes to make shipwracke of our faith and a good conscience 5. And we must here distinguish betweene pax conscientiae stupor conscienciae the peace of conscience and a carnall stupiditie for the one neuer felt the terror of Gods iudgments and therefore can haue no true peace the other hath felt them and is nowe by faith deliuered from them Calvin 6. Now whereas it is added We haue peace with God or toward God these things are here to be obserued 1. all the causes are here expressed of our iustification the materiall which is remission of our sinnes included in iustification the formall by faith the finall to haue peace with God the efficient through our Lord Iesus Christ Gorrhan 2. and in that he saith toward God Origen noteth that this is added to shewe that they haue neither peace in themselues because of the continuall combate betweene the flesh and the spirit not yet with Sathan and the world which continually tempt vs but with God we haue peace who is reconciled vnto vs in Christ and he saith toward God or with God to signifie that reconciliation is not onely made with God but that it is pleasing and acceptable vnto him that such a reconciliation is made Tolet. and further hereby is signified that this is a perpetuall peace because it is toward God with whom there is no change nor mutabilitie Faius Thorough Iesus Christ 1. Chrysostome seemeth thus to vnderstand
of him that was to come insinuating thereby that life and righteousnes came in by the second Adam as sinne and death entred by the first 5. But their opinion seemeth to be the better which supplie the reddition of this comparison concerning Christ in the words following Origen referreth vs to those words v. 15. the gift is not so as the offence but I rather with Beza and Pareus thinke that the second part of the comparison is suspended by a long parenthesis in the words comming betweene vnto the 18. and 19. verses where the Apostle setteth downe both parts of the comparison 18. Quest. Who was that one by whome sinne entred into the world v. 12. 1. Ambrose and Hierome vpon this place by this one man would vnderstand the woman because the beginning of sinne came in by her as Ecclesiastic 25.26 it is saide of the woman came the beginning of sinne and through her we all die and S. Paul saith 1. Timoth. 2.14 Adam was not deceiued but the woman was deceiued and was in the transgression But the woman here is not vnderstood seeing the word is put in the masculine gender and true it is that from the woman came the beginning of sinne by the seducing of man but the Apostle here speaketh of the propagation of sinne which was by the man not by the woman Perer. 2. Some will haue both the man and woman here vnderstood which both made as it were but one as when the Lord said Let vs make man according to our owne likenes both the man and woman are vnderstood Pareus so also the ordinarie gloss quia mulier de viâ—â— vtriusque vna caro because the woman is of the man and both made but one flesh 3. But by this one we better vnderstand Adam though both our parents sinned and the man was seduced and deceiued by the woman yet the man onely is named 1. not because the man is the head of the woman and so the sinne of the woman is imputed to the man because he might haue corrected her Hugo 2. nor because the man perfected the sinne of the woman which if he had not consented had not beene finished so the woman was principium incompletum was the incomplete or imperfect beginning of sinne the man was the complete and perfect beginning Gorrhan 3. neither is this the reason because the Apostle consuetudinem tenens c. doth followe the custome which ascribeth the succession of posteritie to the man not to the woman gloss ordinar 4. But this indeede is the reason the Apostle here sheweth not the order how sinne entred simply into the world for the woman sinned first and before the woman the serpent but how sinne was propagated into mankind now posteritas ex viro non ex mâ—liere nominatur the posteritie is named of the man not of the woman as the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 11.8 the man is not of the woman but the woman of the man to this purpose Origen so also Pet. Mart. ex quo tanquam principio peccatum per propagationem traductum fuit c. by the man as the first beginning sinne was traduced by propagation the Apostle then here speaketh of the beginning of the propagation of sinne not of the beginning of seduction which was by the woman or of imitation which was by the deuill who was a liar from the beginning and the father thereof Iob. 8.44 not by propagation but by seduction and imitation Mart. Quest. 19. What sinne the Apostle speaketh of here originall or actuall by one man sinne entred 1. Some vnderstand here originall sinne whereby the nature of man is corrupted and not actuall actuale non per vnum sed per plures intrat because actuall sinne entreth by many and not by one Gorrhan 2. Some comprehend here sinne generally both actuall and originall this word sinne non solum complectitur vitium originia sed omnia mala quae eo ex sequuntur doth no onely comprehend the originall corruption but all other euills that come from thence c. Martyr but of the propagation of originall sinne the Apostle speaketh afterward in the ende of the verse in as much as all men haue sinned c. 3. Wherefore the Apostle here vnderstandeth the actuall sinne which Adam committed for the word is put in the singular number and hath the article prefixed before it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sheweth some particular sinne afterward the Apostle calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 transgression and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disobedience which must be vnderstood of Adams transgression which was in him actuall but originall in respect of vs because it was the fountaine of all sinne but it was not originall sinne passive passiuely as now we call that originall sinne which is in the corrupt nature of man issuing from Adams sinne Pareus this sinne of Adam in respect of him was peccatum personale a personall sinne but as thereby the whole nature of man was corrupted it was peccatum naturae the sinne of nature Faius 4. Neither are we here to vnderstand all the actuall sinnes which Adam committed but onely his first transgression in eating of the forbidden fruit for like as the sinnes of parents now are not transmitted to their children so neither were all Adams sinnes propagated to posteritie but onely the first betweene the which and his other sinnes there is this difference that by the first bonum naturae the goodnesse of nature was lost by the other bonum gratiae personalis the goodnesse and grace in Adam was taken away And though Adam repented of his sinne and so were deliuered from the guilt thereof yet because that was a personall act it extendeth not beyond his person the corruption of nature could not be healed by his repentance Perer. disput 6. numer 29. Quest. 20. How sinne is said to haue entred into the world 1. Origen by the world vnderstandeth terrenam corporalem vitam the terrene and carnall life to the which the Saints are crucified but P. Mart. reiecteth this interpretation vpon this reason that by this meanes the Saints should not haue originall sinne if they be not comprehended vnder the name of the world 2. Some doe take the world for the place continent and place of the world but this is reiected by Pererius numer 32. vpon this reason because sinne did not in that sense first enter into the world by Adam for before him sinned the Angels that fell and the woman that was first deceiued 3. Neither by the world can we well vnderstand paradise for the woman had first sinned in Paradise before the man had consented 4. Therefore by the world we better vnderstand by a figure the inhabitants of the world the thing containing is taken for that which is contained totum genus humanum all mankind is here signified Gorrhan Martyr with others as afterward the Apostle expoundeth himselfe by the world vnderstanding all men And thus sinne entred into the world
first Adam sinned beeing in and a part of the world and in him all mankind sinned beeing then in his ioynes 21. Quest. And death by sinne what kind of death the Apostle speaketh of 1. Ambrose here vnderstandeth onely the death of the bodie when the soule is separated from the bodie There is an other death saith he which is called the second death in hell quam non peccato Adae patimur sed eius occasione proprijs peccatis acquiritur which we suffer not by reason of Adams sinne but by occasion thereof it is procured by our sinnes so Ambrose is herein deceiued for Adam was threatned to die the same day he should eate of the forbidden fruit Gen. 2.17 but he died not then the bodily death Augustine who seemeth to be of the same minde with Ambrose that the death of the bodie onely was threatened not the second death quod eam Deus occultam esse volait propter dispositionem novi Testamenti c. which God would haue kept secret because of the newe Testament wherein it should be manifestly declared Augustine I say thus answereth this reason that although Adam and Eue did not that day die the corporall death yet because from that time forward mutata in deterius vitiata natura their nature decayed and was corrupted and the necessitie of death was brought in they then beganne to die c. and Ambrose to the same purpose saith that there was after that no day not houre wherein they were not merit obnoxij subiect to death But the words of the text moriendo morieris in dying thou shalt die doe seeme to imply an actuall death which then they should die not a potentiall onely Pererius is of the same opinion numer 38. that S. Paul here speaketh of the death of the bodie because after our Parents had eaten of the forbidden fruit the Lord said to Adam Dust thou art and to dust thou shalt returne But this is no good argument they were subiect to the death of the bodie Ergo to no other death 2. Some were of opinion that the spirituall death is here onely meant because they did not the same day die the death of the bodie but liued 900. yeares after so Philo lib de â—legor leg Mosaic and Eucherius lib. 1. in Genes Gregor epistol 31. ad Eulog the Pelagians to whom consenteth impious Socinus were also of the same opinion that the spirituall death onely must be here vnderstood but vpon an other reason because they thought the death of the bodie to be naturall But neither of thâ—â— reasons conclude not the first for the same day they became mortall though actually they died not nor the second for Adam being created according to Gods image was made immortall he was not then mortall by nature 3. Pererius hath here an other conceit by himselfe that the death of the soule was also a companion of originall sinne if it be taken onely for the separation of the soule from God and the privation of eternall life but not as it signifieth beside the euerlasting torments of hell numer 39. But 1. this assertion includeth a contradiction for if the death of the soule depriue sinners of eternall life it consequently casteth them downe to hell 2. seeing Christ the second Adam deliuered vs from that thraldome whereunto we were brought by the sinne of the first Adam and he hath redeemed vs from the torments of hell it followeth that by Adams transgression we were made guiltie of hell 4. Wherefore the founder opinion is that sinne brought into the world the death both of bodie and soule as Haymo well interpreteth mors animae corporis in omnes homines pertransijt the death both of the bodie and soule went ouer all men c. Origen giueth this reason these two kinds of death are here signified quia corporalem mortem vmbram illiaâ— dixeris c. because you may call the corporall death a shadow of the other namely the the death of the soule that wheresoeuer that invadeth the other doth necessarily followe c. he thinketh the death of the soule to be here specially meant as in that place of Ezechiel The soule that sinneth shall die but so as the corporall death must necessarily followe Theophylacts reason concludeth as much who saith by the sinne of one sinne and death invaded the world abcessisseque hominis vnius id est Christi virtute and both are remooued and taken away by the vertue and strength of one that is Christ c. Thus then the argument is framed what is recouered in Christ was lost in Adam but Christ restoareth vs both to the eternall life of the soule and the life of the bodie in the resurrection therefore by Adams transgression we died both in bodie and soule Pareus Pet. Martyr addeth further that as there is a double life of the soule whereby we seeke such things at are heauenly and spirituall and of the bodie which seeketh those things that concerne the preseruation of the bodie so vtramque hanc vitam mors inflicta propter peccatum sustulit so both these liues death inflicted by sinne hath taken away Faius giueth this reason in Adam we are the children of wrath now the wrath of God invadeth not the bodie onely but the soule also By death then here we must vnderstand first the spirituall and eternall death of the soule which is to be cast out of Gods presence into hell whereunto all are subiect without the mercie of God in Christ secondly the death of the bodie which is the separation of the soule from the bodie thirdly all the forerunners and consequents of both these deaths as sickenesse weakenes corruption in the bodie griefe horror despaire and such like in the soule Pareus Quest. 22. Whether the death of the bodie be naturall or inflicted by reason of sinne 1. Seneca hath this saying mors hominis non poena est sed natura death is the nature of man not a punishment and of the same opinion seemeth Iosephus to be who writeth lib. 1. antiquit that Adam if he had not sinned futurum fuisse longissima vita tardissimaque senectute should haue had a long life and a slow old age c. he thinketh then that he should haue died though it had beene long first The Pelagians also were in the same error that Adam was by reason of his nature subiect to death not because of sinne as Agustine reporteth their opinion lib. 1. de peccat merit c. 9. and wicked Socinus agreeth with them that death is naturally incident to men as to briut beasts and that Adams posteritie is subiect to death propter propagationem generis non imputationem peccati because of the propagation of their kind and nature not for the imputation of sinne 2. But this opinion is diuersly confuted by the Scriptures 1. Man was at the first created according to Gods image then as God is immortal so man if he had not sinned should also haue
they also without the mercie of God were subiect by nature vnto euerlasting death 2. But Origen manifestly interpreteth the Apostle to speake of originall sinne for he saith as Leui was in Abrahams Ioynes when he payed tithes to Melchizedeck sic omnes homines erant iu lumbis Adae c. so all men that are born were in the Ioynes of Adam and when he was expelled out of Paradise they were expelled with him c. 3. touching the scope of the place that which followeth v. 13. vnto the time of the lawe was sinne in the world comprehendeth also originall sinne which Erasmus would haue vnderstood onely of actuall that this place might be taken so likewise as shall be further shewed when we come to that place 2. But Theodoret goeth yet further then Erasmus for he doth not onely exclude originall sinne here applying the Apostles words onely to actuall sinne but he thinketh further that Adams sinne was not the cause of the entrance of sinne vpon his posteritie but the occasion onely for they hauing sinned became mortall and beeing mortall they begat mortall children and so were subiect to perturbations and consequently vnto sinne and so he concludeth vim peccati non esse naturalem c. that the force of sinne is not naturall for then they which sinne should be free from punishment for that which is naturall cannot be helped sed naturam ad peccatum procliuem esse factam but yet nature was made prone and apt to sinne to this purpose Theodoret But the Apostle euidently sheweth that not onely death is entred into the world but sinne also for how could infants in the iustice of God be subiect vnto death if they were not also guiltie of sinne 3. But the Pelagians goe yet a steppe further and denie that there is any originall sinne at all and that Adams sinne is not transfused to his posteritie by any naturall propagation but onely a corrupt imitation which heresie shall be confuted among the controversies Quest. 25. Of the coherence of these words vnto the time of the lawe was sinne in the world 1. Some make this connexion that the Apostle directly prooueth his former assertion v. 12. that in Adam all sinned and therefore are subiect to death and this is prooued by the contrarie because before there was any lawe giuen men were not punished for their actuall sinnes which were then in the world for there is no imputation of sinne vnto punishment where is no lawe seeing then death was not inflicted for actuall sinnes it followeth that it was for originall sinne Tolet. But this is not the coherence for he taketh sinne onely for actuall sinne whereas the Apostle spoke before of originall sinne 2. Some will haue all this verse to containe an obiection and to be vttered by S. Paul in the person of the adversarie and obiecter Where no lawe is there is no sinne imputed but before Moses there was no lawe giuen therefore no such sinne was imputed But all the words of this verse cannot containe the obiection because the first clause vnto the time of the law was sinne in the world are contrarie to the obiection for it is affirmed that sinne was in the world which the obiectio excepteth against beside Beza well obserueth that where the Apostle speaketh in the person of an other he inserteth some note or signification thereof 3. Calvin suspendeth all this sentence by a parenthesis which Beza misliketh because it hath a very good coherence with the former verse 4. Some thinke that the Apostle here maketh not an obiection but rather preuenteth it and maketh answear vnto a supposed obiection for it might haue beene thus excepted a-against the former words in whom all haue sinned that there was no lawe giuen vntill Moses and where no lawe is there is no imputation of sinne to this obiection the Apostle answeareth by way of cōcession vnto part that though sinne be not imputed without a law yet sinne was in the world before the lawe as it appeareth by the effects thereof namely death which reigned ouer all as it followeth v. 14. to this purpose Martyr Piscator Lyran. 5. But this rather is the right coherence and connexion of these words with the former whereas the Apostle had inferred that all in Adam were sinners and so subiect to death instance might be giuen of those which liued vntill the time of the law that vnto them sinne was not imputed because they had no lawe giuen them Then the Apostle answeareth this obiection proouing that death came into the world because of originall sinne and first he taketh it for graunted that there was then sinne in the world before the Lawe v. 13. as also death then he reasoneth thus if death were in the world and not inflicted for actuall sinnes then was it imputed for originall but it was not inflicted for actuall sinnes which he proueth by two reasons first by that which was obiected there was no lawe giuen for actuall sinnes and therefore they were not imputed secondly by the instance of children which committed no actuall sinnes and yet died therefore death entred into the world because of originall sinne Pare Quest. 26. How sinne is said to haue beene vnto the time of the lawe 1. Some doe vnderstand this sentence inclusiuely including also the time of the lawe and expound vnto the lawe vnto the ende and terme of the lawe for sinne was both before and vnder the lawe which could not take away sinne vntill Christ came thus Augustine lib. 1. de peccat remission c. 10. and Thodoret likewise Haymo who vnderstandeth by the lawe finem legis initium gratiae the ende of the lawe and beginning of grace and maketh it like vnto this speach the Hunnes raigned vsque ad Attylam regem vnto king Attylas that is vnto his death But the words following are against this exposition sinne is not imputed where is no lawe for if the time vnder the lawe be here comprehended how could it be said that then sinne was not imputed whereas by the lawe it is most of all imputed 2. Origen hath this singular exposition by himselfe he vnderstandeth here not the written but the naturall lawe and he supplieth the word mortuum dead sinne is dead vnto the time of the lawe that is till children come to yeares of discretion to vnderstand the lawe of nature and light of reason sinne is not imputed vnto them As it is forbidden that a child should smite his parents but in a boy of 4. or 5. yeare old it is counted no sinne so to doe and to this purpose he also interpreteth the word world the Apostle saith not among men but in the world because in the world there are vnreasonable creatures which are not capable of sinne and so he thinketh that S. Paul vnderstandeth children which are not yet capable of reason to this effect Origen But first it is euident that the Apostle by the lawe vnderstandeth the written lawe of Moses as
to either of them but of that which by them redounded to many and this similitude and correspondencie is ex contrarijs by the contrarie as Origen well obserueth and that in these three respects what they are in themselues considered what to their posteritie and wherein 1. They were both authors and beginners Adam was the beginning of mankind quoad esse naturae in respect of the naturall generation Christ is the beginning quoad esse gratiae in respect of the spirituall regeneration by grace Lyran. 2. as Adams sinne did not hurt himselfe onely but his posteritie so the grace of Christ is communicated to all his spirituall generation 3. as death and sinne came in by Adam so life and righteousnes by Iesus Christ as the Apostle followeth this comparison in the rest of this chapter and â—â— large 1. Cor. 2.15 Here follow certaine questions touching this comparison made by the Apostle betweene Adam and Christ. 31. Quest. Of the names and tearmes which the Apostle vseth in this comparison 1. In the transgression and fall of Adam the Apostle vseth diuers words and tearmes which either expresse the cause of Adams fall the ruine and fall it selfe and the fruits for iâ— these three are Adam and Christ compared together 1. the cause is set forth in generall tearmes as it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sinne v. 12. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 transgression v. 14. or more speciall as it is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disobedience v. 19. 2. the fall of man is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lapsus the fall or ruine of man v. 15. 3. the effect are either the guiltines of sinne called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 16 or the punishment which is either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 death v. 12. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemnation euerlasting death v. 16. 2. In the iustification purchased by Christ are likewise expressed the causes the worke it selfe and the effects which follow 1. the causes the efficient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grace of God v. 15. called also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the abundance or redounding of grace v. 17. the formall cause is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the obedience of Christ v. 19. 2. the worke of our iustification is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gift v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gift by grace v. 15. and the gift of righteousnes v. 17. 3. then the fruit and effect thereof is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the iustification of life or vnto life v. 18. 3. But yet if we will more exactly distinguish these words this difference may be made betweene them these three words which the Apostle vseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 15 16. the first signifying grace the other two beeing translated the gift doe thus differ the first sheweth the grace and fauour from the which the benefit proceedeth the second is the coâ—â—lation of the benefit the third betokeneth the benefit it self which is conferred as if a Prince should giue a great treasure to redeeme one out of captiuitie this fauour of the Prince is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grace the free giuing of it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the donation the others enioying of it and receiuing of this libertie is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the benefit or gift Beza 4. So these other 3. words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iustifying iustification iustice doe thus differ the first signifieth the merit of Christs iustice whereby we are iustified the second the action it selfe of iustification whereby Christs iustice is communicated to vs the third the iustice it selfe which is imputed and communicated vnto vs Tolet. annotat 24. Quest. 33. Of the comparison betweene Adam and Christ in generall 1. Origen well obserueth that this comparison is per genus similis per speciem contraria it is alike in the generall resemblance but contrarie in the particular in two things there is a generall agreement and resemblance 1. that there is one that giueth beginning and is the author vnto the rest 2. in plures aliquid diffundtur on both sides as the beginning is from one so there is somewhat conueyed vnto many 2. The specificall difference consisteth in the contrarietie and disparitie and the excellencie the disparitie is that one was the author of sinne vnto condemnation the other of righteousnesse vnto life the excellencie is in that the gift is not so as the offence but much more powerfull and abundant of both these the disparitie and excellencie more followeth to be added in the two next questions So then here are three things to be considered in this comparison as Photius obserueth cited by Oecumenius similitudo contrarietas excellentia the similitude or likenes the contratietie and disparitie and the excellencie 3. Now whereas the Apostle from this verse vnto the 19. v. seemeth to vse diuerse iterations of the same thing we shall finde by a dilligent viewe and examination of the Apostles sentences that he doth not repeate the same things as Pellicane thinketh eadem repetit propter infirmas conscientias c. he repeateth the same things because of weake consciences which often thinke that sinne is more powerfull then grace c. But Oecumenius saith better nequaquam iterum atque iterum eadem repetit Apostolus c. the Apostle doth not againe and againe repeat the same things as one would thinke but diligentissime copulat he doth most dilligently couple and ioyne the principall heads together Quest. 34. Of the disparitie and vnlikenesse betweene Adam and Christ in this comparison The difference and disparitie betweene them is in these sixe seuerall points 1. In the persons compared Adam is considered as a meere man v. 12. but Christ was both God and man he is called Iesus Christ our Lord v. 21. 2. They differ in that which is conferred Adam propagateth to his posteritie sinne and death v. 12. Christ communicateth to his righteousnesse and life v. 15.16 3. The meanes are farre different Adams disobedience brought in sinne Christs obedience procureth life v. 18.19 4. The persons vpon whom these things are conferred differ for from Adam death and sinne are deriued vpon all in generall v. 12.18 but righteousnesse is communicated onely to those which receiue the abundance of grace by faith v. 17. 5. The manner how these things are conueyed are diuerse Adams sinne is transmitted by naturall propagation but life and righteousnesse by Christ are communicated by grace v. 15. the gift is by grace 6. The sequele and endes are contrary the offence is vnto condemnation v. 16. but iustification by Christ is vnto life eternall v. 18. Quest. 35. Of the excellencie and superioritie which the benefit by grace in Christ hath beyond our fall and losse in Adam 1. The first excellencie is generally in the power and efficacie of the worker for it was necessarie that he that should ouercom sinne and death should be superiour to both for if he had beene of equall power he could not haue dissolued
compared to the beasts that perish Psal. 49.12 but in Christ we are made like vnto the Angels In these and other points is our state more perfect in Christ then it should haue beene in Adam if he had not sinned Quest. 37. In what sense the grace of God is said to haue abounded vnto more v. 15. The vulgar Latine giueth occasion of this question which in the first clause readeth multi many be dead thorough the offence of one but in the second he saith grace in plures abundavit hath abounded vnto more and this reading seemeth Origen to follow Here then many doe busie themselues to shewe how grace in Christ hath abounded vnto more then sinne in Adam 1. Origen saith that they are said to be more because Adam himselfe from whom the death of sinne was deriued vnto others additur numero eorum c. is added to the number of them which haue receiued grace in Christ But this is too curious neither agreeable to the Apostles meaning for seeing the comparison is instituted betweene Adam and Christ though Adam indeede were saued by Christ yet each of these Adam and Christ with their ofspring must be considered here as in themselues neither can the adding of one to this number make them more which haue obtained grace in Christ then them which are lost in Adam 2. Some by those many which are dead in Adam vnderstand onely those which sinned by imitating of Adam that is commit actuall sinnes and so they reade the former verse affirmatiuely Death raigned ouer those which sinned after the like manner of the transgression of Adam and then the grace of Christ aboundeth vnto more euen vnto infants that sinned not in like manner as Adam did that is actually thus Ambros. gloss ordinar Gorrhan But in this sense infants should be out of the number of those that are dead in Adam whereas the Apostle saith in whom all haue sinned yea infants and all sinned in Adam 3. Pererius hath this quaint obseruation that there may be found of Adam carnally propagated and yet not infected with his sinne as the Blessed Virgin Marie yet none can be found spiritually regenerate but by the grace of Christ But this conceit of his is against the Apostle who saith that in Adam all sinned and Origen thus collecteth videsne vt à peccato nullum Paulus excuset see you not how the Apostle excuseth none from sinne If all haue sinned in Adam then cannot the Virgin Marie be exempted from originall sinne 4. Pererius hath an other conceit that the grace of Christ is said to haue abounded vnto more because that if God should create a newe kind of men not of Adam they should stand in neede of the grace of Christ and yet they not comming of Adam could not be infected with his sinne Perer. disput 10. But S. Paul speaketh not of a possibilitie of supposall how grace might abound vnto more but of the actuall and reall abounding of grace vnto many in Christ and if there were a newe creation of men they should be created in a perfect estate as Adam was before his fall and so should not keeping of that state haue neede of a redeemer in that behalfe 5. But this is a needelesse question seeing that in the originall in both places the Apostle vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 multi many not in the comparatiue plures more therefore this question is impertinent how the grace of Christ is said to haue abounded vnto more Neither doth the Apostle giue vnto the grace of Christ the preheminence in respect of the number but of the more powerfull effect as is shewed before quest 35. 6. Haymo in both places vnderstandeth the elect they are the many which are dead in Adam temporally and they are the many vnto whom grace hath much more abounded because in Adam onely they are infected with originall sinne in Christ both originall and actuall are pardoned But those whom the Apostle here calleth many ver 18. he expresseth to be all he meaneth then all mankind in generall which die in Adam Quest. 38. How all men are said to be iustified in Christ v. 18. 1. Huberus therein ioyning the right hand of fellowship with the old Pelagians hence would prooue the Vniuersalitie of grace that all in Christ are absolutely iustified as in Adam all die But then it would followe by the force of the Apostles comparison that all should verily be saued in Christ as they are by nature sinners in Adam see the confutation of this error at large among the controuersies 2. Some vnderstand this of the sufficiencie of iustification by Christ that it is sufficient for all if they had grace to receiue it Lyran. But the Apostle speaketh not of a possibilitie of iustification but of an actuall collation of this benefit as Adams sinne really and actually is transfused to his posteritie 3. Tolet vnderstandeth generally all men whosoeuer and by the iustification of life he would haue signified the resurrection which shall be of all men in generall both good and bad as all men are subiect to death in Adam both good and bad But the Apostle before v. 17. called that raigning in life which here he nameth the iustification of life but the wicked that rise againe shall not raigne in life therefore they are not partakers of the iustification of life 4. Haymo better vnderstandeth here the vniuersalitie of the elect omnes electos praedestinatos ad vitam all that are elect and predestinate vnto life that as Adam infected all his posteritie carnally descending of him so Christ iustifieth all which beleeue in him to the same purpose Augustine vnderstandeth omnes viuificandos all that are to be quickened and made aliue because none are iustified but in Christ lib. 6. cont Iulian. c. 12. so the interlinearie glosse vnderstandeth omnes sui all that are Christs all are iustified qui sunt Christi which are Christs Pareus Quest. 39. Why the Apostle saith v. 19. By one mans disobedience many were made sinners and not all 1. Origen by sinnes here vnderstandeth those which continue in a custome of sinne a righteous man may sinne but he therefore cannot be called a sinner and so not all borne of Adam but many are said to be sinners to the same purpose Tolet annot 25. But the Apostle speaketh here of Adams disobedience whereby many were sinners which is deriued by propagation and learned by imitation therefore he speaketh generally of all that sinned in Adam and not onely of some speciall sinners 2. Theodoret thinketh the Apostle nameth many because all did not continue in Adams sinne but some permanserunt in decretis naturae c. did remaine in the decree of nature and followed vertue as Abel Henoch Noe c. But euen those also were borne in sinne as the Apostle said before v. 12. that all sinned in Adam and they were sinners by nature though regenerate by Christ. 3. Tolet thinketh the Apostle hath
reference to the time before spoken of from Adam vnto Moses and therefore he saith many not all as he on the other side specially meaneth the times of the Gospell when likewise many and not all beleeued in Christ annot 22. so also Faius But then this comparison should be imperfect for as Adams sinne hath infected all his posteritie since the beginning of the world to the ende thereof so Christ is the Sauiour of the world both from Adam to Moses and since 4. Augustine taketh the Apostle to meane all but yet he saith many to shewe the multitude of those that are saued in Christ for there are aliqua omnia quae non sunt multa some things all that are not many as the fowre Gospels are all but not many and there be aliqua multa some things many that are not all as many beleeuers in Christ not all for all haue not faith 2. Thess. 3. c. It is true that the Apostle by many vnderstandeth all as he said in the former verse and sometime the scripture calleth them many which are all as in one place the Lord saith to Abraham I haue made thee a father of many nations Gen. 17. in an other in thy seede all the nations of the earth shall be blessed but yet the reason is not giuen why the Apostle saith many not all 5. Some thinke he so saith many because Christ is excluded that came of Adam Piscator But Christ though he descended of Adam yet not by ordinarie generation therefore in this generall speach he needed not to be excepted as he was not included when the Apostle saith in whom that is in Adam all haue sinned 6. The reason then is this multos apponit vni he opposeth many to one that Adam beeing one infected many beside himselfe with his sinne as Adams sinne rested not in his person but entred vpon many so Christs obedience and righteousnesse staied not in his person but was likewise communicated to many Beza Pareus Quest. 40. How many are said to be sinners in Adam 1. Chrysostome by sinners vnderstandeth morti obnoxiot those that are subiect to death by reason of Adams sinne and he addeth this reason ex illius inobedientia alium fieri peccatorem quam poterit habere consequentiam by his disobedience others to become sinners it hath no coherence or consequence Contra. 1. True it is that sometime the word peccatores sinners is taken in that sense for men subiect to death and punishment as Bathsheba saith to Dauid 1. King 1.21 else when my Lord the King shall sleepe with his fathers I and my sonne Salomon shall be sinners c. that is put to death as offenders But yet in this place the word is not so taken for as to be made iust in Christ signifieth not to haue the reward of iustice but to be iustified indeed so to be made sinners sheweth not the punishment but the guiltines of sinne deseruing punishment as then in the former verse the effects were compared together condemnation in Adam and iustification vnto life in Christ so here the causes are shewed sinne on the one side causing death and righteousnesse on the other which bringeth to life 2. though Chrysostome faile in the interpretation of this place yet he denieth not but that in Adams all sinned and in many places he testifieth euidently of originall sinne as he calleth to radicale peccatum the rooted sinne hom 40. in 1. epist. ad Corinth And therefore the Pelagians did him wrong to make him an author of their opinion who denied originall sinne from which imputation of the Pelagians Augustine cleareth Chrysostome writing against their heresie and this point is cleared in this place for if all are subiect to death in Adam which Chrysostome here confesseth then all haue sinned in Adam for death could not enter vpon all without sinne 2. As Chrysostome vnderstandeth here onely temporall death whereunto all are subiect in Adam so some by condemnation mentioned v. 17. doe likewise insinuate the sentence onely of mortalitie Tolet. Origen vnderstandeth the expulsion of Adam out of Paradise but by the contrarie seeing the Apostle by iustification vnto life vnderstandeth the raigning in life eternall by death and condemnation is signified animae corporis damnatio the damnation of bodie and soule so expoundeth gloss interlin Gorrhan with others 3. Origen by sinners vnderstandeth consuetudinem studium peccandi the custome and studie of sinning as though the Apostle had meant onely actuall sinne but that proceedeth not from Adams disobedience properly as originall sinne doth 4. Neither yet doth the Apostle onely meane originall sinne which is by Adams disobedience in ipsius posteros propagatum propagated vnto his posteritie Faius for it is more to be a sinner then to sinne in Adam which the Apostle said before v. 12. 5. Wherefore the Apostle by sinners vnderstandeth both such as sinne originally in Adam peccatum contrabendâ— by the contagion or contraction of sinne and peccatum inteâ—andâ— which sinne actually by imitation Gorrh. so that we are not onely naturally euill by sinful propagation as the Apostle said before v. 12. in whom all haue sinned and so are by nature guiltie of death and condemnation v. 18. but beside as an effect of our naturall corruption there is a generall pravitie of nature and an habite of euill engendred in vs whereby we can doe no other then sinne so Adams disobedience hath made vs not onely naturaliter pravos naturally euill sed habitualiter peccatores habitually sinners Pareus Quest. 41. How the lawe is said to haue entred thereupon ver 20. 1. The occasion of these words is not so much to shewe that sinne raigned in the world euen after the lawe as it was in the world before the lawe from Adam to Moses v. 14. but the Apostle hauing shewed at large how we are deliuered from sinne and death brought in by Adam onely by Christ he preuenteth the obiection of the Iewes for it might haue beene replyed wherefore then serued the lawe if there were no remedie against sinne thereby the Apostle then answeareth that the lawe was so farre from sauing men from their sinnes that they were thereby the more encreased thus Chrysostome and Pet. Martyr with others 2. But this is not to be vnderstood of the lawe of nature as Origen who to decline the imputation of the lawe laid vpon it by wicked Marcion that it was giuen to an euill ende to encrease sinne will haue the Apostle to speake of the lawe of nature for the Apostle making mention of the lawe before v. 13. vnderstandeth the written lawe as he expoundeth v. 14. where he expressely speaketh of Moses neither was the lawe of nature giuen to that ende to encrease sinne no more then the morall lawe was but sinne entred occasionaliter by occasion onely of the lawe as shall be shewed in the next question 3. The lawe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 entred thereupon 1. the Latine interpreter readeth subintravit
it entred in by the way as though it had entred in secretly so also Erasmus and Gorrhan giueth the reason because it was giuen but vnto one people and secretly in the desert but the lawe beeing so publikely deliuered in such great power and signes could not be said secretly to enter 2. Origen giueth this sense that the lawe of the members entred sub obtentu legis naturalis vnder the pretext and colour of the lawe of nature it entred as it were by stealth but the Apostle speaketh not here of the lawe of nature as is shewed before 3. Chrysostome whom Tolet followeth thus interpreteth the lawe is said to haue entred by the way vt ostenderet vsum illius temporarium to shewe that the vse thereof was but for a time but this is a perpetuall vse of the lawe to manifest and reueale sinne though indeed the vse of the ceremoniall lawe were but to continue for a time 4. Some thinke the lawe is said to haue entred as vnder hand post effuscationem 〈◊〉 naturalis after the lawe of nature was obscured so Ambrose Lyran. but though the lawe of nature had not beene obscured yet the written lawe should haue beene giuen by 〈◊〉 which men should haue beene prepared to receiue the Gospell Tolet. annot 26. therefore it is said to haue entred thereto or thereupon that is beside that naturall corruption and depriuation of nature in Adam the lawe also was giuen accessit ad morbum illium it came vpon or was added vnto that naturall disease that sinne thereby beeing more encreased might more commend the riches of Gods mercie in Christ Beza Pareus Quest. 42. How the offence is said to haue abounded by the entring of the lawe ver 20. The lawe is to be considered three wayes in respect of the nature thereof in respect of man to whom it is giuen and of God the author and giuer of the lawe 1. The lawe beeing considered in it selfe it holy spirituall and good and so properly is not the cause of the encrease of sinne but onely in respect of the euent as Chrysostome Gennadius and most of the Greeke interpreters expound it the lawe then causeth sinne to encrease non causaliter sed consecutiue not as the cause but in regard of the euent or consequent and that not ex parte legis on the behalfe of the lawe but by the malice of mans heart Lyran non ex â—â—tura legis not by the nature of the lawe but by the slougth and carelesnesse of them which receiue the lawe Chrysost. and sinne is thus occasionally encreased sower wayes 1. because ruimur in vetitum c. we alwaies rush vpon that which is forbidden like as a riuer meeting with some stone or let in the way maketh the greater noise whereof these reasons may be giuen first because things forbidden are not in our power and therefore our desire is more toward them whereas we neglect things easie and such as we can do when we list secondly the nature of humane affections is the more they are suppressed and kept in the more to be inflamed as fide when it is kept in breaketh out more violently this is vsually seene in the passions of anger and griefe Perer. numer 78. Adde hereunto the peruersenesse of mans will which is opposite to the will of God and most of all is bent to follow those things which the Lord forbiddeth 2. Sinne is increased by the lawe because he sinneth more that knoweth the will of God and doth it not then he that is ignorant of it 3. by the lawe which containeth varietie of precepts the number of sinnes is multiplyed innumera praecepta lex dedit the law gaue a number of precepts Chrysostom 4. the lawe terrifieth the conscience and so accuseth and condemneth and sheweth punishment due vnto sinne and so exaggerateth it Mart. 2. If the lawe be considered in regard of the effect which it worketh in the hearts of men then this particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that may be taken causally because by the lawe properly sinne is manifested and reuealed as the Apostle sheweth Rom. 3.20 that by the lawe commeth the knowledge of sinne Perer. 3. If we turne our selues to God the author of the lawe then in respect of his counsell the lawe may be vnderstood causally to encrease sinne in regard of a further ende which God propoundeth to himselfe namely that by the abounding of sinne grace may yet more abound Martyr so the ordinarie glosse hath here this profitable note Magnum Deiconsilium fuit c. it was the great and deepe counsell of God that by the lawe sinne should abound that men in seueritie and austeritie of the lawe seeing their owne infirmitie infirmi ad â—â—dicum confugerent c. beeing weake should runne vnto the Physitian and seeke for the helpe of grace c. Quest. 43. How grace is said to haue abounded more 1. Athanasius referreth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vbi where to the nature of man that in the same nature grace abounded by the comming of Christ in the flesh where sinne abounded before tractas de salutar advent but this seemeth to be too curious 2. Lyranus hath reference to the lawe that whereas sinne abounded vnder the lawe grace also abounded vnder the lawe because Christ was made vnder the lawe as the Apostle sheweth Galat. 4.4 But here grace is opposed and set against the lawe therefore in both the opposite partes there cannot be reference to the same lawe 3. The ordinarie glosse hath two expositions grace is said to abound because it profiteth them whom the deuill could not ouercome grace worketh on them vpon whom the kingdome of sinne had no power but then the same thing should be compared with it selfe for in that the kingdome of sinne and Sathan preuailed not against them it was the worke of grace 4. Otherwise thus quia peccatum ad tempus regnavit because sinne raigned but for a time but grace for euer but vnlesse grace had destroyed the kingdome of sinne it should haue raigned for euer 5. Origen saith grace abounded more in that it doth not onely hominem absoluere à peccatis prateritis free a man from sinnes past but also strengthen him against sinnes to come 6. Chrysostome thus grace hath superabounded not onely in taking away the punishment and remitting our sinnes but in giuing vs life and making vs iust 7. Some giue this sense that grace hath abounded not onely in taking away originall sinne but all other actuall sinnes added beside Piscator Gorrhan 8. But it is better to vnderstand this superabounding of grace of all those priuiledges and excellencies which the benefit by Christ hath beyond our losse and fall in Adam as the Apostle shewed before Bez. Fai. So euery way grace exceedeth both in respect of the poteÌ„tis of God whose grace appeareth to be the greater by the greatnes of our sinne which non 〈◊〉 superat sed absorbet it doth not onely ouercome
but euen swallowe vp Calvin and in respect of our selues who the more we feele the burthen and ouerflowing of our sinne the more we haue occasion to extoll and magnifie the grace of God Osiander So here are two ends of the lawe expressed the neâ—â—â—â— ende is the manifestation and encrease of sinne the remote ende is the more abounding of grace but here is the difference the first ende is vniuersall for in all men both beleeuers and vnbeleeuers the law worketh the encrease insight and knowledge of sinne but the other ende is particular and peculiar 〈◊〉 to the faithfull that by the abounding of sinne grace may more abound toward them which is not properly caused by the encrease of sinne but thorough the mercie of God Pareus Quest. 44. Of the raigne of sinne vnto death and of grace vnto life 1. Before the Apostle had ascribed the kingdome vnto death v. 14. Death raigned from Adam c. but here vnto sinne because death indeede raigneth by sinne as the Apostle saith The sting of death is sinne 1. Cor. 15.56 death could haue no power ouer vs but thorough sinne Martyr 2. But to speake more distinctly where the Apostle giueth the kingdome vnto death he speaketh of the times before the law when as death did apparantly raigne in the world but sinne was not so apparant till the lawe came but sinne is said to haue raigned after the lawe was giuen because sinne then more abounded So that three estates of the world are here described the first from Adam to Moses when sinne was in the world but death raigned the third is from the comming of Christ who raigned by righteousnesse vnto life destroying both the kingdome of sinne and death Tolet. 3. By death Chrysostome seemeth to vnderstand the death of the bodie mors ex haec presenti vita eijcit death doth cast vs out of this life c. but eternall death is here also comprehended potestatem habuit deijciendi c. it had power to cast vs downe to eternall death Lyran. as may appeare by the other opposite part of eternall life Piscator 4. But whereas in the first clause mention is made onely of the raigning of sinne vnto death but in the other there are three mentioned grace righteousnesse and life Origen thinketh that the deuill must be vnderstood to be set against the grace of Christ ab inuentis rebus author inventi nominatur the author of the invention is named in the things invented c. for sinne came in by the deuill some thinke that the wrath of God must be supplied which raigned by sinne Piscator but I thinke rather with Calvin that beside the necessarie parts of the comparison the Apostle maketh mention of grace vt fortius in figuret memoria c. that it might better sticke in our memorie that all is of grace 5. The Apostle speaketh of the time past sinne had raigned because that although sinne doe still raigne in the children of disobedience yet in the faithfull it raigneth no more Par. 6. By righteousnesse some vnderstand iustitiam operum the righteousnesse of 〈◊〉 gloss interlin so also Bellarmine lib. 2. de iustificat c. 6. but the iustice of Christ is rather vnderstood as the Greeke interpreters well expound and as is euident by the clause in the ende By our Lord Iesus Christ who is notwithstanding both our iustification and sanctification 7. The ordinarie glosse here well obserueth that in the kingdome of sinne mention is not made of Adam from whom sinne came because the Apostle speaketh not onely of originall but of actuall sinnes both which are remitted in Christ. 8. Thorough Iesus Christ our Lord Iesus per gratiam Dominus per iustitiam nostre per gloriam Iesus by grace Lord by his iustice and ours because he bringeth vs to glorie Gorrhan 4. Places of Doctrine Doct. 1. Of the difference betweene Christian and worldly hope v. 5. Hope maketh not ashamed This is the propertie of the hope of Christians that is neuer confoundeth them or maketh ashamed because it is founded vpon Gods promises who both is immutable and changeth not and is also omnipotent able to performe whatsoeuer he promiseth But so it is not in humane or worldly hope for that often putteth man to rebuke because he is deceiued in his hope and faileth in the thing hoped for and the reason is for that he reposeth his confidence in man who is either deceitfull and hopeth not his promise or is not of power to performe it therefore the Prophet saith Cursed be the man that trusteth in man and maketh flesh his arme Ierem. 17.5 Doct. 2. Of the properties and effects of faith v. 2. Beeing iustified by faith 1. Vnto faith is ascribed iustification as in these words and remission of sinnes in purifying the heart Act. 15.9 2. faith is the foundation of thing hoped for Heb. 11.1 3. it is the cause of the producing and bringing forth of good fruit Iam. 2.8 Shewe me thy faith out of thy workes c. 4. it ouercommeth the tentations of Sathan for by the sheild of faith we quench all his fierie darts Ephes. 6.18 5. by faith we attaine vnto the vnderstanding of the word of God which otherwise is vnprofitable Isay. 7.9 Vnlesse yee beleeue ye shall not vnderstand as some translations doe reade and the Apostle saith that the word did not profit the Israelites because it was not mixed with faith Heb. 4.2 6. faith obtaineth our requests in prayer Iam. 2.16 the prayer of faith saueth the sicke 7. it worketh the saluation of the soule Luk. 7.50 Thy faith hath saued thee Doct. 3. Of the raigne and dominion of death v. 14. Death raigned from Adam to Moses Before sinne entred into the world death had no dominion but now it hath gotten a tyrannicall and generall dominion ouer men both of all sorts and conditions both young and old and in all ages as here it is said to raigne euen from Adam to Moses that age was not exempted from the dominion of death wherein sinne seemed least to abound but Christ hath ouercome death and destroyed the dominion thereof both in that he hath taken away the sting thereof which is sinne that death is not hurtfull vnto them that beleeue but bringeth their soules vnto euerlasting rest and in the generall resurrection our bodies which death had seazed on shall be restored vnto life as our Blessed Sauiour saith I am the resurrection and the life c. Ioh. 15.25 Doct. 4. Of the difference of sinnes v. 14. Euen ouer them that sinned not after the like manner c. Here the Apostle setteth downe this distinction of actuall and originall sinne some doe sinne in like manner as Adam did that is actually some not in like manner that is there is a secret and hid sinne in the corruption of nature which is not actuall but in time breaketh forth into act as the seede sheweth it selfe in the hearbe Doct. 5. There is no saluation
against him such were the Angelâ— but it is not true of those whom God was offended with for their transgression and yet he loued them not onely as his creatures but as his children whom he purposed to redeeme in Christ 2. So then in a diuerse respect God both was angrie with them as sinners and yet he loued them vnder this condition that they should be saued by the redemption of Christ in him they were elected and beloued before the foundation of the world the argument then followeth not God loued them in sending his sonne to die for them and so reconcile them therefore it was needelesse that Christ should die for them which were beloued of God alreadie for God loued them in Christ whom he had ordained before to be their Mediator and Redeemer 2. Obiect As herein God shewed his loue toward vs so it would seeme a cruell part in God so to be delighted in the death of his sonne Answ. 2. God had no delight in his sonnes death in respect of his suffering and torments but as it was a satisfaction for the sinne of the world and the price of our redemption 2. and Christ the sonne of God was not forced hereunto but offred himselfe willingly of his infinite loue to die for man 3. Obiect It had beene a greater loue if the father himselfe had died for vs then in sending his Sonne thus Pareus reporteth how a Iewe obiected vnto him as he tooke his Iourney toward Silesia ann 78. Answ. First we must not curiously search into Gods secrets to knowe the reason of his will why the sonne of God rather then the father tooke our flesh and died for vs Secondly yet these reasons may be alleadged hereof 1. the father and sonne beeing but one God the father as God did worke with his sonne in finishing our redemption 2. because God was offended and it was God that must satisfie for none else could doe it therefore there must be one person in the Godhead that must satisfie namely the Sonne and one that must be satisfied namely the father 3. what greater loue could God the father shewe then in giuing his owne Sonne the most deare thing vnto him 4. It was the Redeemers and Sauiours part to restore vs vnto the dignitie of the sonnes of God vnto whom did this more properly belong then vnto the Sonne of God Controv. 8. That Christs death was a full satisfaction for our sinnes against Socinus his cauills Obiect If Christs death were a satisfaction vnto the iustice of God for the sinnes of the worldâ— then 1. it must haue beene performed by the same person that had offended 2. the iustice of God required a punishment equivalent to the offence namely euerlasting destruction and malediction which Christ sustained not 3. the Scripture no where speaketh of any such satisfaction for vs by the death of Christ. Answ. 1. As in humane Courts there is a double kind of iustice either strict or rigorous iustice or iustice moderated and tempered with equitie and clemencie as if a king inflict vpon a traytor either the punishment of death or the muâ—ct of ten thousand talents in the rigor of iustice he may exact either but if he shall in his clemencie accept an 100. talents of an other that shall vndertake for the offender here now is iustice tempered with mercie So is it with God he dealeth with some in strict iustice as with the reprobate Angels and reprobate men that doe despise Christ and his redemption but with his elect by dealeth in the other kind of tempered iustice accepting the satisfaction of Christ for them not a stranger from them but made man like vnto them 2. Though Christ suffred not eternall paines yet in respect both of the excellencie of his person that suffered and the bitternesse of that agonie which he endured did beare that punishment which in Gods gracious acceptance was equiualent vnto euerlasting paine 3. And though the Scripture vse not the verie tearme of satisfaction yet there are words of like fâ—â—ree and efficacie applyed to the death of Christ as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ransome redemption and such like as Matth. 20.28 to giue his life for the ransome of many Rom. 2.14 are iustified c. by the redemption that is in Christ Iesus and in many such places thâ—â— like phrases are found Controv. 9. That Christs death was not onely satisfactorie but meditarious against Socinus Obiect 1. No satisfaction of a due debt hath merit in it for no more is paid then is due Christ then by his death merited not because he payed our due debt neither doth the Scripture ascribe any merit to Christs death Answ. 1. It is true that he which satisfieth for his owne debt therein doth not merit for he paieth but that he oweth but he that satisfieth for an others debt meriteth two waies first in respect of the debter in paying that he oweth not then in respect of the Creditor who by an agreement couenanteth to accept the satisfaction of the vndertaker not as a recompence onely for the debt but as a merit to deserue further grace and fauour for the debter So Christ hath truely merited in respect of vs in paying our debt for vs and in respect of God who accepteth the death of his sonne as truely meritorious of his grace and fauour for vs. 2. And further herein appeareth the merit of Christs death 1. in respect of the excellencie of the person that died 2. of the perfect obedience and fulfilling of the law 3. his great loue and willingnesse in suffring 4. and beside his satisfaction he was a faithfull martyr and witnesse of the truth Reuel 3.14 3. The Scripture though in direct tearmes it ascribeth not merit vnto the death of Christ yet it vseth words equivalent as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acquisitio purchasing includeth merit as Act. 20.28 Christ is said to haue purchased his Church by his blood and Ephes 1.14 It is called the redemption of the possession purchased c. which is all one as if he had said merited See more in Pareus dub 7. Here followe certaine questions and controversies of waight touching originall sinne Controv. 10. That there is originall sinne in men by the corruption of nature against the opinion of the Hebrewes The Hebrewes doe reiect this saying of the Apostle that sinne entred into the world and death by sinne and they vrge vs to shewe some authorities out of the old Testament to prooue the propagation of Adams sinne to his posteritie Paulus Burgensis addit 2. thus consureth their opinion 1. That death which was inflicted vpon Adam for his transgression remaineth quoad 〈◊〉 as it is a punishment is euident by that place Genes 3.3 Dust thou art and to dust 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 returne which sentence of mortalitie is executed as we see by experience vpon all Adâ—â—s posteritie 2. Then he prooueth quod illud peccatum transijt ad posteras quoad culpam that 〈◊〉 sinne did
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.
neither the naturall desire as of meate and drinke is forbidden by this commandement as beeing a thing indifferent nor yet the supernaturall as to couet and desire such things as concerne the glorie of God and the saluation of our soules for these are good desires and conformable to the will of God but the euil and vnlawfull desires are forbidden either in the matter or manner 2. not the act of concupiscence onely but the verie facultie it selfe ipsa concupiscibilitas is forbidden as it is corrupt and auerse from God 3. and not onely the second motions which haue the consent of the will which the schoolmen call concupiscentiam formatam the formed and perfite concupiscence but euen the first motions which haue not the deliberate consent of the will which they call informem the vnformed concupiscence contrarie to the opinion of Pererius and other Romanists who thinketh concupiscentiam carnalem sed vt à voluntate approbatam c. that carnall concupiscence onely as it is approoued of the will to be forbidden in this commandement disput 8. numer 47. but the contrarie shall appeare afterward controv 8. that the law forbiddeth cupiditatem nudam the verie base and naked concupiscence as Beza calleth it because prauas cupiditates euill and disordred lusts and desires the very law of nature reprooued Augustine saith cupiditateÌ„ voco motum animi c. I call concupiscence the verie motion of the minde to enioy either himselfe or his neighbour or any other thing non propter Deum not for God de Doctrin Christian. lib. 3. c. 10. Quest. 12. Why the Apostle giueth instance in the tenth commandement thou shalt not lust and alleadgeth not all the words of the law 1. The Apostle could not giue instance in the grosser and more notorious sinnes which euen the wiser sort of the Gentiles abhorred nor yet in the vile and corrupt affections of man which the Philosophers also condemned but he singleth out those corruptions which could not be discerned by the light of nature especially so much obscured and darkned and could not be perfectly knowne but by the law of God Tolet. annot 9.2 And this the Apostle doth to shew the excellencie of the law of God beyond both the law of nature and the politike lawes of men for the first the law of nature is much obscured obliterated and empaired by the blindnesse and corruption of mans nature but the written law though it were much depriued by the corrupt gloses of the Scribes and Pharisies lex tamen scripta mâ—â— sit eadem yet the written law remained the same and beeing well examined was able to reprooue the false interpreters thereof and it is more perfect then other humane lawes which onely bridle the outward act of sinne but they can not meete with the inward concupiscence as the law of God doth 2. And S. Paul contenteth himselfe onely to repeat the first words of the commandement not adding the rest thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house c. as Moses doth for he hauing to doc in hominis durioribus with a rude people and of hard vnderstanding giueth instance in some sensible and particular obiects but S. Paul writing scientibus legem to men knowing the law thinketh it sufficient to giue them onely an hint by producing some words onely of the law Neither yet did Moses expresse all the particulars of this law but hauing reported some he concludeth with this generall clause nor any thing that is his And indeede in all the commandements Moses vseth the figure called synecdoché by one part signifying the rest and that both in the negative part wherein forbidding the most notorious vices he meeteth with the rest as our Sauiour sheweth Matth. 5. how the law bindeth not onely the hands but euen the heart and affections in the sinnes of murther adulterie and such like as also in the affirmative the contrarie vertues in euery commandement beeing comprehended in the prohibition of the contrarie vices so that Aristotles tenne predicaments are not so generall to containe whatsoeuer is in the world as Moses tenne commandements are to comprehend all vices committed in the world ex Martyr Quest. 13. What sinne the Apostle meaneth v. 8. sinne tooke an occasion c. 1. Some by sinne here vnderstand the deuill who taking occasion by the commandement did tempt man more strongly to breake it Methodius Ambrose Oecumenius sauing that the first by the law vnderstandeth the commandement giuen to Adam in Paradise the other two the law giuen by Moses But in this sense it cannot be properly said sinne reuiued if by sinne we vnderstand the deuill or thus sinne did dwell in the Apostle as he saith v. 10. 2. Chrysostome vnderstandeth this sinne to be vitium de fidiae the vice of flouthfulnes that man hauing receiued a law by his negligence was not the better for it but the worse But he expresseth not the whole minde of the Apostle 3. Anselmus will haue it to be peccati fomes the matter or nourishment of sinne which as Lyranus is called sinne for that it is the cause of sinne as the Sunne is said to be hoat beeing the cause of heat But the Apostle calleth it sinne properly because it was forbidden by the commandement 4. Hierom. epist. ad Hedib qu. 8. taketh this to be the sinne quod lege prohibetur which is forbidden by the commandement which while it is forbidden doth inflame the concupiscence the more but the Apostle speaketh not of actuall sinne before it is committed but of sinne dwelling in him v. 17. 5. This is none other but naturae corruptio the corruption of our nature Calvin lib. 1. de peccand the lust or desire of sinning Hyper. peccatum regnans in homine sinne raigning in man Tolet. annot 11. which is none other but the originall pravitie of our nature called before lust or concupiscence v. 7. it is pravitas nativa our naturall pravitie Pareus 14. Quest. How sinne tooke occasion by the law 1. The Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occasion is taken three waies first it properly signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the opportunitie of doing a thing but so the law was not the occasion as offering any opportunitie for there can be no opportunitie to doe euill 2. it signifieth any circumstance or accident whereby one is occasioned to doe any thing as the burning of an house may be said to be the occasion of building it againe 3. an occasion is that which draweth a man from doing that he intended as a rub in ones way turneth him beside the way Both these last waies sinne tooke occasion by the law for both the prauitie of our nature is more inflamed by the prohibition and we seeke to build our ruinous house which the law pulleth downe and beside because the law standeth vp in the way of sinne we decline it as a thing which hindreth vs in our pleasant and plaine iourney following after sinne and therefore we wish that it
baptisme both originall sinne and the corrupt motions springing from thence therefore such motions in the baptized are not sinne Contra. 1. As originall sinne is taken away in baptisme so all other sinnes are for baptisme serueth for the remission of all sinnes Act. 2.38 euen then sinnes are wholly remooued in baptisme it would follow that they which are baptized should haue no sinnes at all 2. Wherefore in baptisme reatus tollitur the guilt of sinne is taken away yet sinne it selfe remaineth but it is not imputed neither doth sinne remaine in the full strength but the power thereof is subdued and the kingdome of sinne in the regenerate vanquished but yet there remaine some reliques of sinne still as long as we are in this flesh and this daily experience sheweth how they which are regenerate are not altogether freed from the inhabitation and in-dwelling of sinne though it raigne not in them 3. And whereas Pererius obiecteth Augustine who confuting that slander of the Pelagians who affirmed that the Catholiks should hold baptismum non auferre sed radere peccata that baptisme doth not take away sinne but as it were shaue it because concupiscence remaineth the roote of sinne denieth that the Catholikes teach any such thing but that baptisme indeede doth auferre crimina take away sinnes lib. 13. cont 2. epist. Pelag. Augustine must be vnderstood to speake of the guilt of concupiscence which is remooued in baptisme as he saith lib. 6. c. 8. cont Iulian. quamvis eius reatus qui fuerat generatione contractus sit regeneratione transactus though the guilt thereof contracted in the generation be transacted and done away in regeneration yet it remaineth still in homine secum confligente in man hauing a conflict with himselfe c. 4. Argum. The laâ—â— commandeth not things impossible which can not be auoided but these first motions of concupiscence no man can shunne or auoide Augustine saith nec impossibile Deus hominis imperare potuit quia iustus c. neither could God command any impossible thing to man because he is iust nec damnaturus est hominem pro eo c. neither will he condemne a man for that which he that is godly can not auoid serm 61. de tempor Perer. ibid. Contra. 1. The law simply is not impossible to man considered as he was at the first created of God in that it is now impossible it is by reason of the weaknes and frailtie of mans flesh Rom. 8.3 which imbecillitie of nature came in by mans voluntarie transgression 2. The Law though impossible to be kept by a naturall man was giuen vnto other ends then that he should or could perfectly keepe it and in keeping thereof be iustified but it was giuen as a schoolemaster to bring vs vnto Christ Gal. 3.19 that finding themselues weake they might seeke to be cloathed with the righteousnes of Christ. 3. Augustine speaketh of a possibilitie by grace not in nature Nemo quantum possumus melius novis quam qui ipsum posse donavit no man can better tell what we can doe then he which gaue vs power c. which Augustine affirmeth not as though any man had power by grace to keepe all which is commanded but onely to shewe against the Manichees hominem posse vitare peccata that a man by grace may decline some sinnes which they denied 5. Argum. S. Iames saith c. 1.16 When lust hath conceiued it bringeth forth sinne and when sinne is perfected it bringeth forth death hence it followeth that either concupiscence is not sinne it onely bringeth forth sinne or if it be it is no mortall sinne for sinne onely when it is perfited bringeth forth death Contra. 1. It followeth not concupiscence bringeth forth sinne therefore it is no sinne it followeth that it is not that sinne which it begetteth or bringeth forth but yet one sinne may beget an other this is like as if a man should thus reason a man begetteth a man therefore he is not a man he is not indeede that man which he begetteth yet a man therefore because he begetteth a man and so one sinne may bring forth an other 2. neither doth it followe sinne which is perfited bringeth forth death Ergo sinne not perfited bringeth forth death which is as if one should thus reason the father begetteth a mortall man therefore the grandfather doth not sinne perfited is said to bring forth death as the nearest cause but yet sinne not perfected or produced as the remote cause also bringeth forth death for otherwise neither originall sinne not yet the second motions of concupiscence which haue the consent of the will should be worthie of death before they doe breake forth into act Now our contrarie arguments that euen concupiscence it selfe without the consent of the will either of things vnlawfull or of things lawfull vnlawfully is sinne are these and such like as followe Argum. 1. Whatsoeuer is forbidden by the lawe is sinne for sinne is defined to be the transgression of the lawe 1. Iob. 3.4 but the verie first motions of concupiscence are forbidden by the lawe and are a transgression thereof Ergo. So Augustine multum honi facit c. he performeth a great good that doth as it is written thou shalt not goe after thy desires Eccles. 18. sed non perfectum bonum facit c. but he doth not that which is perfectly good who fulfilleth not that which is written thou shalt not lust c. lib. de mixt concupiscent c. 23. c. 29. Answ. Pererius answeareth 1. that the motions of concupiscence hauing not the consent of the will are not forbidden by the commandement 2. and S. Augustine meaneth not that the precept thou shalt not lust cannot be fulfilled here so farre as it bindeth a man but as it excludeth concupiscence altogether which cannot be till the next life disputat 9. numer 50. Contra. 1. The Apostle meaneth the verie lusts and vnlawfull desire of the heart without consent of the will as he saith v. 15. what I hate that doe I his concupiscence tempted him euen against his will and whereas he saith he had not knowne lust without the law he meaneth the verie first motions for the second motions which haue the will concurring as enuie hatred and such like many of the heathen which knewe not the lawe condemned by the light of nature as euill 2. it is true that to be without concupiscence is not incident to this life yet is it a breach of the commandement for the precept so farre bindeth as it is commanded if then we be commanded not to couet at all and yet we doe couet we are bound to keepe it and in not keeping of it we sinne 3. further if the last commandement as not of coueting a mans wife restraine not the verie first rising deâ—â—â—es it should not differ from the 7. precept which restraineth the lusts of the heart that haue the will consenting Matth. 5.28 Argum. 2. That which hindereth vs from doing our
of death Pareus so also Osiander doctrina euangelij side apprehensa the doctrine of the Gospel apprehended by faith doth deliuer me likewise Rolloc liberatio hac non est regeneratio sed peccatorum remissio this dedeliuerance is not regeneration but remission of sinnes and his reason is because the Apostle speaketh of a full and absolute deliuerance from sinne and death which is in remission of sinnes not in regeneration which is but in part 5. But I rather ioyne both these together regeneration and remission of sinnes from the which we are deliuered by the grace of Christ as Augustine comprehendeth both for sometime he expoundeth the Apostles words of the remission of sinnes lib. 1. de mixt concupis c. 32. how hath he deliuered vs nisi quia concupiscentiae reatum peccatorum omnium facta remissione c. but that the spirit of life hath dissolued the guilt of concupiscence remission of all sinnes beeing made sometime he applieth them to this worke of regeneration the law of the spirit of life hath deliuered thee from the law of sinne and death ne scilicet concupiscentia c. re in peccatum mortem pertrahat c. lest concupiscence challenging thy consent should draw thee into sinne and death lib. 1. cont 2. epist. Pelagian c. 10. And Calvin also though he cheefely insist vpon the second as he is alleadged before yet he omitteth not the first by the spirit of life vnderstanding the spirit of God which hath besprinkled our soules with the blood of Christ not onely to cleanse them à labe peccati quoad reatum from the staine of sinne in respect of the guilt sed in veram puritatem sanctificat but to sanctifie vs with true puritie c. And the ioyning of these two together doth best fit the occasion of these words and most agreeth vnto the words themselues for the Apostle hauing before spoken both of our iustification in Christ and our sanctification in not walking after the flesh now bringeth in this as a reason of both which is the spirit of life in Christ applied vnto vs by faith and concerning the words the spirit of regeneration answereth to the law that is the force of sinne and the life of grace to the law of death from the first we are deliuered by the spirit of sanctification from the other by the life of righteousnesse in our iustification 6. But Origens exposition is farre wide who by the spirit of life vnderstandeth the spirituall sense of the law and so he will haue in the law both literam occidentem spiritum viâ—ificantem the killing letter and the quickning spirit for the Apostle here directly against the law opposeth the spirit of grace and life in Christ. Quest. 3. What is vnderstood by the law of sinne and death 1. Some by the law of sinne vnderstand the morall law which was the ministrie of death and by it came the knowledge of sinne So Ambrose who propoundeth this obiection that seeing the Gospell and law of faith is likewise vnto sinne the sauour of death vnto death vnto some the sauour of life vnto life as the Apostle saith 2. Cor. 2. why faith if it worke the same thing which the law doth may not be said also to be lex mortis the law of death maketh this answer qui non obediunt fidei non occiduntur à fide sed à lege c. they which obey not faith are not killed by faith but by the law because they which came not vnto the faith are condemned by the law as guiltie of sinne and death c. But this were to confound the law and faith as though the law commanded and prescribed the Euangelicall faith for the law punisheth onely the breach and transgression thereof but the law commandeth one thing namely doe this and thou shalt liue saith onely in the Gospel requireth of vs to beleeue Rom. 4. 10.9 Pet. Martyr giueth this answer that the Gospel quamdiu fâ—ris sovat c. so long as it onely foundeth outwardly and the spirit worketh not within doth differ nothing from the law but when the spirit worketh inwardly together with the preaching of the Gospel then it hath the effect to saluation which the law cannot haue because it requireth other things then the Gospel the Gospel then is not the ministrie of death as the law not for that it doth not punish vnbeleeuers as the law doth the disobedient but in respect of the doctrine of saluation by faith which men are capable of by grace whereas the doctrine of workes by the law can bring no saluation vnto any no not beeing in the state of grace Together with Ambrose Vatablus and Pareus by the law of death will haue the law of Moses to be vnderstood quia peccatum deteget occidit because it discouereth sinne and killeth it iudging it worthie of death so also Bellarmine lib. 4. de iustificat c. 13. ration 5. and gloss interlin But if the law doe condemne sinne and sentence it with death it is not the law of sinne beeing against it it is called the ministerie of condemnation 2. Cor. 3.9 but so it is nostro vitio by our fault not of it selfe but that is said to be the law of a thing which it properly prescribeth and aymeth at 2. Origen seemeth to vnderstand the ceremoniall law which was impossible to be obserued as he giueth instance of the law of the Sabboth and of sacrifices as before by the spirit he interpreteth the spirituall sense of the law But the Apostles intent is not here to compare the literall and spirituall sense of the law together but to shew what libertie we haue obtained by Christ from sinne and condemnation 3. Some by the law of sinne and death vnderstand carnis imperium the dominion or power of the flesh or of sinne raigning in the flesh and the tyrannie of death which followeth Calvin the law of sinne is the law of the members which the Apostle spake of before Chrysostome Pet. Martyr the accusing of sinne and power of death Osiander or ab obligatione from the bond and obligation of sinne and death Lyranus à iure peccati c. from the right or power of sinne and death as Erasmus we are deliuered both from the power and guilt of sinne for Moses law the Apostle no where calleth the law of sinne Chrysostome So here there is mention made of three lawes two good the law of grace which taketh away sinne the law of Moses which is mentioned in the next v. which sheweth sinne but taketh it not away and one euill law namely of sinne which maketh vs guiltie gloss ordin Quest. 4. Of the best reading of the 3. verse 1. Erasmus and Vatablus doe supplie the word effecit or praestitit did or performed in this sense that which was impossible to the law c. God sending his Sonne c. did c. This reading also follow the Ecclesiasticall expositors collected by Marlorat
endebted to the diuine iustice quod siue exigatur siue donetur nulla est iniquitas which though it be exacted or pardoned there is no iniquitie ad Simplic lib. 1. qu. 2. In this assertion there is no inconueniencie to say that God beholding and foreseeing all men by the voluntarie transgression of Adam in the state of corruption did of his free mercy elect some to be saued in Christ the others he left in their corruption and so for their sinnes decreed thē to damnation for here can be no imputation of iniustice at all for it is free where one hath diuerse debters to remit the debt vnto one and to exact it of another So then if the reason be demanded why some are reiected of God it may be answeared that mans voluntarie transgression bringing all his posteririe into bondage beeing foreseene of God is a sufficent cause of their reiection but if it be further demaunded why God out of this masse of corruption hath elected some and not others there no other reason can be giuen but the good pleasure of God Ephes. 1.5 so that the absolute decree of reprobation is grounded vpon the foresight of mans corruption but of the comparatiue as why one is reiected and left and not an other no reason can be rendred but Gods gracious and free purpose Against this opinion of Augustine there are two principall obiections 1. Pererius disput 12. thus obiecteth the Angels had no originall sinne they were all created in the state of grace and yet some of them were elected some reprobate therefore sinne is not the cause of reprobation Ans. 1. As the Angels were created in the state of grace so also was Adam in Paradise and as Adam fell by voluntarie transgression and so enthralled his posteritie so did the Angels that fell abuse the gift of freewill and so for their pride were iustly condemned for euer so then the foresight of the apostasie of the reprobate Angels was the cause of their reiection and condemnation as the Apostle saith Iud. 6. The Angels which kept not their first estate he hath reserued in euerlasting chaines as man then hath originall sinne out of the which proceed actuall sinnes which are the ground and cause of reprobation and condemnation so the Apostate Angels for their sinne of pride were reiected onely here is the difference that the Angels fell irrecouerable falling by their owne pride beeing not seduced but man falling by the sedition and tentation of the deuill hath a redeemer in Gods mercie prouided for him 2. Pareus thus obiecteth the foresight of originall corruption is generall and common to all mankind therefore it cannot be the cause of the reprobation of some onely dub 8. argum 4. so also Vrsinus catech 3. p. 357. Ans. Not simply the foresight of originall corruption which all are subiect vnto but it beeing considered together with Gods decree because he purposed to deliuer some and not others is the cause of reprobation 3. Some doe wholly referre the decree of reprobation and election onely to the will and purpose of God and thinke that no other cause can be rendred why God hath elected some and condemned others but the absolute will pleasure and purpose of God their reasons are these 1. As God loued Iacob before he had done any good so he hated Esau without any respect vnto the euill which he did Rom. 9.11 2. The Apostle also saith v. 18. That God hath mercie on whom he will and whom he will be hardeneth Gods will is the cause of both 3. And God is compared to the potter that as he hath power ouer the clay to make thereout vessels of honour or dishonour as he thinketh good so much more the Lord may out of the same masse make some vessels of mercie some of euerlasting shame 4. Our Blessed Sauiour maketh this the reason why God had hid the misterie of saluation from the wise men and reuealed it to babes because O Father thy good pleasure was such Matth. 11.25 Ans. 1. Why God loued not Esau as well as Iacob the cause was onely the gracious purpose of God and hereof neither the good workes of the one nor the euill workes of the other were the cause yet both of them beeing considered in their originall corruption as it was Gods mercie to deliuer the one so it was no iniustice to leaue the other 2. here the hatred of God is taken onely for the not conferring of his grace and loue which God freely bestowed without respect vnto workes but that hatred which is an ordaining of men vnto euerlasting punishment is not without respect vnto their sinnes 2. Mercie presupposeth miserie and hardening a corrupt inclination in the heart before for the which it is hardened here then mans miserable estate is insinuated out of the which some by Gods mercie are deliuered 3. By that similitude the Apostle sheweth what God may doe by his absolute power not what he doth he dealeth not with men as the potter with the clay though he might that is stricto absoluto iure by his strict and absolute right but aequissimis rationibus vpon most equall and iust conditions he might doe as the potter doth but yet he taketh not that rigorous and strict course 4. It is indeed Gods good pleasure to reueale the secrets of his will to whom he pleaseth and to hide them from whom he will because he is not bound vnto any he may doe with his owne as he please and bestow his graces freely but if he should keepe them from all none had cause to complaine seeing their naturall blindnes and corruption was brought vpon them by the voluntarie corruption of Adam and though it was Gods gracious favour to reueale vnto some his will yet the rest were hardened and blinded iustly through their owne wilfulnesse and obstinacie against the truth And further against this opinion of the absolute decree of reprobation without any respect vnto the sinnes of men originall and actuall these two strong obiections are made first there would be an imputation of iniustice vpon God if he should decree any to be condemned but for sinne for like as none are indeed in time condemned but for sin as the Apostle saith Ephes. 5.6 For such things commeth the wrath of God vpon the children of disobedience c. so the decree of damnation before all time must be vpon the foresight of sinne Secondly whereas God in Scripture is set forth to be exceeding aboundant in mercie as Psal. 25.10 All the waies of the Lord are mercie and truth and Psal. 144.9 His mercies are ouer or aboue all his workes and Iames 2.13 mercie reioyceth against iudgement Now the Lord should be accused of seueritie and inclemencie and farre more readie and prompt vnto iustice then mercie if he out of his owne will should decree more to be condemned then to be saued these obiections the former position of the absolute decree of damnation beeing maintained cannot possibly
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
and of the Apostles by Christ excepting Paul whereas for the former the text saith that Ionas fled from the presence of the Lord that called him who were called extraordinarily if the Apostles were not both in respect of the caller which was Christ God in the flesh and of their extraordinarie and miraculous gifts Now the ordinarie calling is in a Church alreadie setled and constituted the extraordinarie when a Church is to be setled and it is of two sorts either when there is no Church at all as the Apostles were sent vnto the Gentiles who were altogether straungers from God or when the Church is wholly corrupted with false doctrine and corrupt manners as the Prophets were raised vp in Israel when they were fallen to idolatrie and noâ—â— in this last age when Christians vnder Antichrist were becom idolaters God hath stirred vp many zealous preachers as Hus Hierome Luther Calvin with other excellent instruments Doct. 7. Of the peace which the Gospel bringeth v. 15. How beautifull are the feete of them which bring glad tidings of peace Whereas without Christ God was offended with the world and there was no peace but the earth was full of tribulation 2. Chron. 15.4 God by Christ reconciled the world to himselfe and sent peace according to the song of the Angels at the birth of Christ glorie to God in heauen and in the earth peace which peace is threefold first toward God in the assurance of the remission of sinnes Rom. 5.1 peace of conscience in that sinne hath no more power ouer vs to perplex and trouble our mindes and peace with our brethren of these two our Sauiour speaketh Matth. 9.57 Haue salt in your selues haue peace one with an other But whereas Christ saith he came not to send peace but debate Luk. 12.51 that is to be vnderstood of the peace of the world which hateth the light and with it the children of light can haue no peace 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. Against inherent iustice v. 3. They beeing ignorant of the righteousnesse of God c. Stapleton Antidot p. 601. contendeth this place to be vnderstood of inherent not of iustice imputed for that which is imputed saith he is not giuen neither receiueth he any iustice to whom it is imputed onely but remaineth still wicked in himselfe Contra. 1. The righteousnesse which is inherent in a man is the righteousnesse of works which the Apostle calleth their owne righteousnesse but the righteousnesse of God is not the righteousnesse of workes but that which is of faith as the Apostle sheweth v. 6. there he calleth that the righteousnesse of faith which here he nameth the righteousnesse of God but this is no other then righteousnesse imputed now faith is imputed for righteousnesse without workes Rom. 4.5 6. thus then the argument is framed the righteousnesse of God is the righteousnesse of faith this is prooued both out of this place v. 4. and c. 3.22 the righteousnesse of God by faith but the righteousnesse of faith is by imputation c. 4.5 6. therfore the righteousnes of God is righteousnes imputed 2. That iustice is not onely giuen which is actually conferred but that also which is accounted and imputed as the debt which is freely pardoned is as fully discharged as if the debt were paied and they which are iustified by righteousnesse imputed remaine not wicked because they are counted righteous in Christ beeing iustified by faith and are sanctified in some measure and so are regenerate and become new beeing mortified vnto sinne by which their mortification and dying vnto sinne they are not iustified before God but onely by faith in Christ. Controv. 2. Against the workes of preparation which are done without faith v. 4. Christ is the ende of the law Here Chrysostome well noteth that if Christ be the end of the lawe it followeth that qui Christum non habet etsi legis iustitiam habere videatur eam tamen non habeat he which hath not Christ though he seeme to haue the righteousnesse of the lawe yet he hath it not c. without Christ then and faith in him there is no true righteousnesse before God for without faith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11.6 what is become then of the Popish workes of preparation which should goe before iustification as though a man hauing not faith yet by his workes might prepare and make himselfe fit for iustification following for all such workes which come before faith and so are not sanctified in Christ are before God no better then sinnes Controv. 3. That it is impossible for any in this life to keepe the lawe v. 5. The man that doth these things shall liue thereby 1. Hence it is euident that no man can performe the lawe in euerie point for the lawe requireth perfect obedience in all things and as he that keepeth it shall liue thereby so he that fayleth in any part thereof is vnder the curse of the lawe as S. Paul sheweth Galat. 3.10 2. If it be answeared that it is impossible to keepe the lawe by the power onely of free-will but by grace it is possible to be kept S. Iohn sheweth that euen the regenerate by grace are not without sinne 1. Ioh. 1.8 and consequently they transgresse the lawe 〈◊〉 sinne is the transgression of the lawe 1. Ioh. 3.4 3. And whereas Stapleton obiecteth antid p. 637. that then this should be a ridiculous deceitfull and idle promise He that doth these things shall liue thereby if none were able to doe them and it were like as a father should promise his sonne an inheritance if he could get a kingdome which were impossible for him to doe Contra. 1. Though the condition be impossible to vs to be fulfilled yet is it possible in Christ who hath performed the perfect obedience of the lawe 2. and though it be not possible to keepe the lawe perfectly yet by grace we are made able in some measure to keep the lawe and the rest where we faile is supplied by the perfect obedience of Christ. 3. neither is the example like for the sonne is not bound by any dutie to fulfill that condition but we are debters vnto God for the keeping of the lawe which if it be now impossible it is mans owne fault who in his creation was made righteous and endued with sufficient strength to keepe the law See further hereof Synops. Centur. 4. err 63. Contr. 4. Against the doubting of saluation v. 6. Say not in thine heart who shall ascend c. 1. The Apostle sheweth the contrarie effects of the lawe and Gospell they which depend vpon the righteousnesse of the law are continually in doubt how they shall come to heauen and how they shall escape hell but the righteousnesse of faith remooueth all these doubts because their faith is grounded vpon the word of God which teacheth them that Christ ascended into heauen for them and that he died for them they neede none other to ascend to prepare
according to the possibilitie onely of our owne strength 4. neither is the instance brought in to the purpose for when a man is bidde to run perfectly the meaning is he should runne as fast as a perfect man may runne not one that is lame or halting so man in the state of his perfection might haue fulfilled the lawe though now he cannot since his nature hath beene lamed by sinne therefore by his owne example such charitie is commanded as man before his fall might haue performed 2. Now to the argument we answer 1. that he indeede that can loue his neighbour as he ought may fulfill the lawe but so none can loue Martyr and so to the same purpose Calvin that the Apostle sub conditione loquitur speaketh as it were vnder condition that is if a man can so loue his neighbour which condition no man can fulfill 2. But because the Apostle vseth this as an argument to perswade vnto loue because it is the fulfilling of the lawe we will graunt that the Apostle speaketh here of such a fulfilling as is possible but that is not a perfect keeping of the lawe which none can attaine vnto but as Beza saith non vnum praeceptum obijt he that loueth his brother is not readie to keepe one precept onely but all so as Pareus well distinguisheth he speaketh of fulfilling the lawe partibus non gradibus in the parts not in the degrees as he which loueth his brother will shewe it in all the parts of the lawe he will neither steale nor commit adulterie nor doe any other hurt vnto him but perfectly in the highest decree of charitie no man can keepe the lawe for the Apostle saith In many things we offend all Iam. 3.11 then no man can perfectly fulfill the lawe in this life 3. Gualter here hath an other answear that the Apostle speaketh not of the fulfilling of the whole lawe but onely de externis officijs of the externall duties yet he insisteth not vpon this answear for the Apostle speaketh of coueting which is no externall thing but acted in the heart the best answear then is that the Apostle speaketh not of an absolute or plenarie fulfilling of the lawe which is not in mans power but of a totall and generall fulfilling and keeping of euery commandement that loue will not content it selfe with doing of our dutie in one or two commandements but in the rest also 10. Controv. Against the Marcionites which denied the morall precepts to be now in force but to be ceased The Marcionites as Origen sheweth dialog 2. against them would prooue from hence that the old law euen in respect of the morall precepts was ceased because it is here saide loue is the fulfilling of the law Contra. But Origen answeareth well that charitie is an epitome or summe of the law but the epitome or summe taketh not away the things which are therein contained nay rather the contrarie followeth because charitie is the fulfilling of the morall law and charitie alwaies remaineth therefore also the morall law continueth still is not abrogated though the ceremonies be ceased neither are the iudicialls necessarily now enforced 11. Controv. Against iustification by the workes of the law v. 10. Loue is the fulfilling of the law From this place Stapleton inferreth that the keeping of the law is our iustice and that by the works of charitie we are iustified and thus he reasoneth The keeping of the law is iustice but he that loueth his brother keepeth the law Ergo to this purpose Stapl. Antidot p. 973. Contr. 1. The proposition is true if it be vnderstood of the perfect keeping of the law for if any in all points could keepe the law he should thereby be iustified as S. Paul alleadgeth out of the law Rom. 10.5 He that doth these things shall liue thereby 2. but so no man is able to fulfill the law in some measure the faithfull guided by grace doe performe the precepts of the law but perfectly in all points they can not keepe it for then they might be without sinne for sinne is the transgression of the law 1. Ioh. 3.4 and whosoeuer transgresseth the law sinneth but no man is in this world without sinne as the same Apostle saith If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues 1. Ioh. 1.8 6. Morall obseruations 1. Observ. Of the office of the Magistrate in encouraging the good and punishing the euill v. 3. Princes are not to be feared for good works but for euill c. This ought to teach Magistrates that they should not abuse their authoritie in afflicting the good and sparing the euill as Iezabel did who maintained idolatrie sorcerie and adulterie in Israel 2. king 4.22 but persecuted the true Prophets but they must vse their authoritie to feare the euill and to be patrons to the good as the Apostle here saith they must be feared for euill works and not for good 2. Observ. That Magistrates should procure the common good and exercise true iudgement v. 4. He is the minister of God for thy wealth or good Here are two excellent parts of the Magistrates office described first because he is Gods minister he must consider that the iudgement is the Lords and therefore they ought to deale vprightly as Iehosaphac charged his iudges and officers 2. Chron. 19.6 Take heede what ye doe for ye execute not the iudgements of man but of the Lord c. and further the magistrate must propound to himselfe the good of the people not seeke his priuate gaine for he is ordained for their wealth for this is the difference betweene a good gouernor and an oppressor that the one studieth to profit the Commonwealth the other seeketh by laying heauie burthens vpon the people to enrich himselfe 3. Observ. How the Magistrate may comfort himselfe in his gouernment Whereas many cares and troubles are incident into the office of the Magistrate many dangers imminent and conspiracies intended he is herein to comfort himselfe that he is Gods minister and therefore he neede not to doubt but that God will assist his owne ordinance for it were impossible if the Lord did not guard and defend them that Princes could escape such perills as they are subiect vnto that saying then must animate and comfort them Touch not mine Annointed c. 1. Chron. 16.22 4. Observ. Of the vigilant care and painfull office of the Magistrate v. 6. Applying themselues to the same ende this sheweth that the Magistrate is called not to a place of pleasure and ease but of labour and care they must endeauour and applie themselues to this ende that is to seeke and procure the good of their subiects they watch when others sleepe and take care when their subiects are secure this well perceiued the King that said if one knew the cares that belong vnto the crowne and diademe they would not take it vp though it lay in the durt before them This should teach men not ambitiously to aspire to places of
he doth but as Tolet well obserueth non est fides sed error this opinion in makng difference of meates is no faith but error therefore an erroneous conscience cannot be said to be faith that before he called faith the knowledge of Gods word that all meates are cleane and therefore he sinneth because his mind is not setled and well perswaded out of Gods word that he doth please God in eating and yet eateth Pareus 4. But here it will be obiected why he that beleeueth all meates to be alike may lawefully eate them or not eate them but he which maketh difference of meats and so beleeueth not may lawfully abstaine yet he cannot with a good conscience eate the reason of this difference is because he that maketh conscience of meates if he doe eate sinneth against his conscience but he that by the word is taught to make no difference of meats though he abstaine doth not against his conscience for he refraineth not from meates as though he held them to be vncleane but for offence sake 5. It will be obiected againe what if one be offended with him that is not perswaded of the indifferencie of meates because he eateth not may not he without sinne eate though it be against his conscience rather then to offend his brother to this the answear is that offences are giuen to the weake not to the strong he is the stronger and more perfect that eateth of all alike he is the weaker that maketh difference of meates therefore this case was not likely to fall out that the weaker by not eating should offend the strong Tolet here hath an other answear that if this case should fall out for the weaker to offend the strong by his not eating he should rather eate then offend his brother for a positive lawe such as was that of making difference of meates must giue place to the naturall lawe which is not to offend our brother But this is no good answear for if there were such necessitie that a man must either offend against his owne conscience or his brothers it were of the two euills the lesse to grieue his brothers conscience then his owne And the lawe positiue is to giue place in right vnto the lawe of nature where the conscience is so perswaded but where the conscience is not resolued the lawe of nature will that a man haue rather respect to himselfe then an other and to tender his owne conscience before an others 6. Thus the Apostle hath giuen vs three rules in the vse of things indifferent and of all other first that a mans conscience condemne not himselfe in his action secondly though the conscience directly condemne him not yet he must proceede further that he cast no doubts thirdly and yet it sufficeth not to cast no doubts but he must labour to haue his conscience setled and grounded vpon faith which is a certaine knowledge with a firme assurance and perswasion out of the word of God of the lawfulnes of that thing which is to be done that therein he pleaseth God Quest. 42. Of the right meaning of these words whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne 1. Thomas deliuereth this for one exposition in his commentarie vpon this place that ex fide of faith is all one as if he had said contra fidem against the faith but not that onely which is against the faith but whatsoeuer is without faith is vnpleasing to God as the Apostle saith Heb. 11.6 without faith it is impossible to please God 2. Caietan expoundeth this saying not of all things in generall but of such quae debent procedere ex fide which ought to proceede of faith and so it is true that such things if they be not of faith and yet ought to proceede of faith are sinne the good morall workes then of the heathen are not therefore to be condemned as sinne because they were not of faith for they proceeded onely from the right vse of reason though there be no faith but in this place the Apostle treateth of such actions as should proceede of faith as is the ciscerning of meates cleane and vncleane this directly belonged vnto faith concerning the vse of Christian libertie Contra. 1. If by faith and to proceede of faith Caietan vnderstand onely points of doctrine which belong vnto the faith then it skilleth not for all other matters which concerne manners good life whether they be of faith or no which were verie absurd 2. neither can there be any right vse of reason in this our corrupt nature without faith 3. and touching the doctrine of faith Chrysostome thinketh that the Apostle doth not in this chapter intend any such thing he excludeth dogmata fidei the doctrines and principles of faith for they must be openly confessed it sufficeth not to haue that faith onely in our conscience before God as the Apostle saith of this faith touching the vse of indifferent things whereof he entreateh v. 12. Hast thou faith haue it with thy selfe before God 3. Pererius beside reckoneth vp three other interpretations 1. as some thinke the Apostle speaketh comparatiuely what soeuer is not of faith is sinne in respect of such workes as proceede of faith not simply 2. or sinne may be taken for the same as non placens not pleasing acceptable or availeable with God 3. and further this sentence neede not to be taken generally as though it were vniuersally true sed vt plurimum and maxima ex parte but for the most part But all these are mens fansies and vncertaine glosses 1. although one sinne may be greater then an other yet can it not be shewed that any thing is called by the name of sinne which is not so simply for sinne is defined to be the transgression of the lawe 1. Ioh. 1.6 whosoeuer sinneth transgresseth the lawe this is not then onely comparatiuely but simply sinne 2. we graunt that these two sinne and not to be pleasing to God may be converted whatsoeuer pleaseth not God is sinfull and whatsoeuer is sinnefull is not pleasing vnto God for whatsoeuer is not in Christ in whom onely God is well pleased cannot be pleasing vnto him and nothing doth separate vs and make vs not pleasing vnto God but sinne Isay. 50.1 for your iniquities are ye sold. 3. the third interpretation giueth the Apostle the plaine lie he saith whatsoeuer or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that is not of faith is sinne but they say not so for not all but the most part is so 4. But the generall receiued interpretation among the Romanists is this whatsoeuer is not of faith that is contra proprium dictamen conscientiae against the proper suggestion of the conscience Tolet contra conscientiam against the conscience glosse interlin reclamante conscientia his conscience gainsaying Perer. yea though it be erraus conscientia an erring conscience Eman. Sa. so they take faith not for that whereby we beleeue in Christ but for that whereby one beleeueth any thing to
iudgements from heauen tanquam è sublimi loco as out of an high place in the sight of all Faius so manifest that no man can denie it Beza 7. But the best sense is that men shoud not thinke these plagues sent vpon the world to be ordinarie and naturall though God therein may vse naturall and secondarie causes sed à Deo inflicta but that they are inflicted of God Martyr Pareus 5. Vpon all vngodlinesse 1. Origen restraineth this clause that though the wrath of God be said to be reuealed against all impietie non tamen in omnes homines yet not against all men but onely against those among the Gentiles which had the knowledge of the truth such were their wise men and Philosophers 2. But Tolet by diuerse reasons sheweth that all the Gentiles are here comprehended whether the wise or vnwise 1. by the generalitie of the words against all impietie and vnrighteousnesse 2. because they all had the knowledge of God by the creatures 3. v. 26. the Apostle maketh mention of their women whom he would not haue counted among the Philosophers and wiser sort 4. the Apostles intent is to prooue that all the Gentiles were vnder the wrath of God and therefore also the knowledge of the Gospel and of faith in Christ was necessarie vnto all both the wise and vnwise 3. but as Tolet here reasoneth well so yet herein he is deceiued he thinketh as this sentence concerneth all the Gentiles so the former that the iust shall liue by faith he taketh to be meant onely of the Iewes whereas v. 17. the Apostle made euident mention both of Iew and Grecian that the Gospel was the power of God to saluation to euerie of them that beleeued Faius 6. All impietie and vnrighteousnesse 1. Tolet following Theodoret thinketh that these two are applyed to idolatrie which is both impietie because it denieth vnto God his worship and iniustice in giuing that which is due vnto God vnto idols 2. But the vsuall interpretation is better which Origen also hath impiet as peccare in Deum est iniquit as in homines impietie is to sinne against God iniquitie against men so also Chrysostome non de dogmatis tantum dicit sed de vita he speaketh not onely of the errors of doctrine but of the sinnes of the life c. So impietie comprehendeth the transgressions against the first table vnrighteousnesse against the second Pareus 3. some by all impietie c. vnderstand all impious and vnrighteous persons Perer. rather it signifieth super omnes impietatis partes c. vpon all the partes of impietie and vnrighteousnesse Gorrham whereof these two reasons may be yeelded 1. that none should be excepted though they seemed neuer so righteous they might haue some impietie in them Beza 2. and to shew the obiect of Gods wrath which was not properly men but the impietie and vnrightousenesse of men Pareus Quest. 48. What it is to withhold the truth in vnrighteousnesse v. 18. 1. Anselme vnderstandeth this of those qui veritatem id est Dei scientiam habent tamen male vivunt which haue the truth that is the knowledge of God but yet doe liue ill 2. Basil of those qui donis Dei ad proprias voluntates abutuntur which hauing the gifts of God doe abuse them to their owne pleasure But the first restraineth this word veritie or truth as though it onely concerned the knowledge of diuine things whereas there is a truth also in moral duties the second seemeth onely to include those which sinne malitiously and of set purpose whereas all the Gentiles were guiltie of this in detayning the truth in vnrighteousnesse 3. Oecumenius expoundeth it of those which did know the truth in themselues and did keepe it in ne alys splendeat that it should not appeare vnto others But in this sense onely the Philosophers and wise men among the heathen should be touched whereas S. Paul sheweth what was the condition of all the Gentiles in generall 4. Augustine Ambrose Chrysostome Hayme doe specially apply it to the knowledge of God which the Gentiles had by the creatures and abused it in leauing the Creator and worshipping the creature quod per opera Dei cognovisti per opera hominum perdidisti that which thou knewest by the works of God thou hast lost by the handieworke of men August serm 55. de verbo Domini secund Ioan. And Chrysostome thus resembleth it like as one hauing the kings treasure committed vnto him to bestowe in the kings affaires should spend it vpon harlots and other Iewde persons so also Tolet. Perer. But in this sense the Apostles reason should be too much restrained who spake before of all impietie and vnrighteousnesse both against God and man 5. By truth then we here better vnderstand veras notitias de Deo colendo proximo diligendo the true notice both of worshipping God and louing our neighbour such as the Gentiles had by the knowledge of nature which notice of the truth they by their owne concupiscence and vnrighteousnesse abused and did contrarie things to this their knowledge both in their duties toward God and their neighbours Pareus Martyr Hyperius And here the Apostle vseth a sic similitude taken from Tyrants who oppresse the innocent and imprison them so the Gentiles did as it were imprison the truth which they had by nature in their owne corrupt affections which were as setters gives vnto the truth which would haue shewed it selfe but was kept vnder 6. But seeing the truth is powerfull and prevalent why should it be kept vnder more at one time then at an other Ans. The truth is alwaies powerfull but the difference is not in the truth it selfe but in the instrument which we vse in apprehending it our naturall strength is of small force but when the grace of God assisteth vs then the truth breaketh forth and can be no longer kept vnder Martyr 49. Quest. What the Apostle meaneth by these words v. 19. That which may be knowe of God is manifest in them c. 1. The Apostle here preuenteth an obiection for whereas he had said that the Gentiles did hold the truth in vnrighteousnes it might be obiected that they had not the knowledge of the truth at all the Apostle therefore sheweth that they had the knowledge of God by the light of nature and by the sight of the creatures Pareus 2. Chrysostome Oecumenius likewise Ambrose Augustin this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which may be knowne of God they restraine vnto the knowledge of the creatures making the next verse an exposition of this the inuisible things c. are seene by the creation But the Apostle euidently distinguisheth this knowledge from that for this is saide to be manifest in them the other is without them here therefore he meaneth that naturall light and those principles of truth both concerning God that he is and what he is and touching morall equitie which are by nature imprinted in the minde Pareus
especially nameth it for euen Solon which was counted one of the wisest men among the Grecians did vse to buy harlots for the yong men and among the Carthaginians it was a common vse for the virgins before their mariage to prostitute themselues publikely in the Temple of Venus that they might bring a dowrie with them by that filthy lucre home to their husbands Gualter 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wickednes studium improbo agendi a studie or desire to doe mischiefe Pareus the Syrian translatour readeth amaritudinem bitternes some versutiam craft or subtiltie Vatab. which is interpreted to be a setled purpose or endeauour to doe hurt Gennad ex Oecumenio Beza his coniecture is that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came into the text because of the neere affinitie that it hath with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for his auncient copie hath it not But I preferre herein Piscators coniecture that thinketh the Apostle of purpose put these words together that had some allusion the one to the other as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 couetousnesse which is the desire of hauing much though it be with wrong vnto others and so is the word deriued of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hauing much Mart. some referre it not onely to the desire of wealth but of carnall pleasure Haymo but this was touched before vnder the word fornication the Romanes know by wofull experience what a mischiefe couetousnesse brought with it for this was the cause of the warres betweene Caesar and Pompey and betweene Augustus Lepidus and Antonie Gualter it comprehendeth omnes furti imposturae species all the kinds of theft and other impostures Bucer which are transgressions against the 8. precept 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nequitia malitiousnesse it somtime is taken generally as it is opposed vnto vertue but here it rather signifieth inclinationem ad deteriora a generall inclination vnto 〈◊〉 Tolet. some take it for the sinne of spirituall slouth when one is wearie of well doing Mart. But I preferre the former sense that thereby is signified a generall inclination to euill and especially ad luxum libidinem to excesse riot and wantonesse Erasm. as they which are giuen to drunkennesse are vsed to blasphemie rayling fithie communication and such like Gualter 6. Full of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 envie the Apostle changeth here his forme of speach both because of the elegance of the Greeke tongue and for that these sinnes following are speciall transgressions against our neighbour envie hath a double passion for an envious man would not haue an other to be that which he is seeing another in better case then himselfe it grieueth him that he is not so to this difference there is betweene envie and zeale that is taken alwaies in the worst part so is not the other for there may be both a good and bad zeale Haymo and commonly men doe enuie those whom they cannot otherwise hurt for if they could they would soone take them out of the way Bucer 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 murther is the next which is set next after enuie as the mother thereof for Caine first hated and envied Abel before he killed him Mart. the Latine interpretet readeth in the plurall murthers because there are two kinds of murther one in will and purpose the other in act but in the original the word is put in the singular yet thereby al kinds of murther are vnderstood which is committed diuerse wayes 1. in heart euerie one that hateth his brother is a manslayer 1. Ioh. 3. 2. in giuing counsell or vsing perswasion so the Iewes are said to haue killed Christ Iames. 5.6 3. by writing as Dauid killed Vriah 4. by striking with the hand as Ioab killed Abner 5. by taking away necessarie things such as the life should be maintained with as he which withholdeth the poore mans couering wherein he should sleepe Exod. 22.27 6. by not shewing mercie in releeuing as the rich glutton refused to giue the crummes to poore Lazarus 7. in not rescuing and deliuering such as are vniustly oppressed as the wise man saith deliuer them that are drawne to death Prouerb 24.11 Gorrham yet all kind of killing is not here vnderstood vnlesse it proceede of a corrupt affection either of reuenge or a desire of gaine that putting to death which proceedeth of the execution of iustice is no sinne Bucer 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contention which is set next after murther because it followeth vpon murther Mart. contention Basil describeth thus which for vaine glorie sake facit vt alij similiter faciant procureth others to doe the like re bre 66. Haymo thus vbi non ratione aliquid c. when any thing is not defended and maintained with reason but with a pertinacie of minde gloss ordinar thus est impugantio veritatis it is an impugning of the truth by clamorous contention against the which the Apostle speaketh 1. Cor. 11.12 if any man lust to be contentious we haue no such custome nor the Church of God 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deceit some take it for that speciall kind of deceit which men vse in vndermining anothers life that whom they cannot ouercome by strength they supplant by treacherie as Ioab did Abner Mart. Basil defineth it exquisita diligentia ad insidiandum a most exquisite diligence to lie in wait But here it is taken generally for all kind of dissimulation and deceit Calv. cum aliud simulatur aliud agitur when one thing is dissembled another thing done gloss interlin Haymo maketh this difference betweene dolus insidiae frans deceit which is in the minde lying in wait which is in act and craft which is in the deceiuing of mutuall faith 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 churlishnesse morositie Basil defineth it to be latens in moribus vitium a sinne lurking in mens manners Theophylact taketh it to be a kind of dissimulation some take it for vnthankefulnesse gloss Hugo but it rather signifieth morositie churlish behauiour which Aristotle taketh to be a vice in construing all in the worse part so Beza Gry◠Gualt Plutarke did taxe Herodotus for this writing a booke of the morositie of Herodotus these fiue last rehearsed are offences against the sixt precept for they practise against the life and health of our neighbour either secretly as by enuie fraud or openly in murther contention or both wayes as in malignitie or morositie Fareus 11. The next is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a whisperer such an one as secretly practiseth by carying of tales to dissolue friendship and sowe enmitie and thinketh by such meanes to insinuate himselfe such the wiseman speaketh of c. 6.20 without wood the fire is quenched and without a talebarer strife ceaseth whisperers are enter amicos discordias seminantes such as sowe dissention among friends gloss interlin 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a backebiter he differeth from a whisperer 1. in that he speaketh euill openly of an other the whisperer doth
of faith in any other gift it can not stand together for where merit and worke is the wages is not counted by fauour and so freely but by debt Rom. 4.4 2. The better answer then is that we are iustified freely although the condition of faith be required because faith doth not iustifie vt actus quidem noster est as it is an act of ours but all the vertue thereof proceedeth from the obiect as the Israelites beeing healed by looking vpon the brasen serpent obtained not their health by the very act of opening their eyes but by the obiect which they beheld which was the serpent And like as when a rich man giueth his almes vnto the poore though he stretch out his hand to receiue it yet is it said notwithstanding to be a free gift Tolet. annot 20. 3. But adde here further that as when a blind man putteth forth his hand but he that giueth is faine to direct it to receiue the almes or if a man haue a weake and withered hand which he is not able to stretch out vnlesse the other that giueth doe lift it vp in this case euery way the gift is free So our will is not of it selfe apt to beleeue or will any thing aright vnlesse the Lord direct it faith then beeing both the worke of God in straining our will and faith receiuing all the vertue from the obiect which it apprehendeth namely Christ it remaineth that faith notwithstanding we are iustified freely Faius 33. Quest. v. 25. To declare his iustice or righteousnes what iustice the Apostle vnderstandeth here 1. Chrysostome vnderstandeth the declaration of Gods iustice by the effects thereof like as God declareth his riches not that he is rich in himselfe but in making others rich and his power not in that he euer liueth himselfe but in raising others to life so his iustice is declared not in beeing iust in himselfe but in making others iust But this iustifying of sinners is a worke of Gods mercie not of his iustice 2. Theodoret herein will haue Gods iustice to be manifested because he did sustaine the sinnes of the world with patience forbearing to punish them but this likewise was an effect of his goodnes and mercie not of his iustice 3. Ambrose vnderstandeth this iustice of God in keeping and performing his promise but the iustice of God is not here to be taken in a diuers sense then before v. 22. the righteousnes of God by the faith of Iesus Christ. 4. Some doe take the iustice of God here for his goodnes mercie and clemencie as the Prophet Dauid vseth to pray Iudge me according to thy righteousnes that is thy goodnes Pareus but this seemeth not to be so proper here 5. Some vnderstand the iustice of God in not leauing sinne vnpunished Lyran. it was the iustice of God that the price of our redemption should not be paid otherwise then by the blood of Christ but this is not the iustice of faith which the Apostle spake of before 6. Therefore this iustice which the Lord manifested and declared is none other but the righteousnes of faith before touched and as the words here following doe shew by the forgiuenes of sinnes God reuealed and manifested this to be the true iustice whereby men are iustified before him euen the righteousnes of faith so August lib. de spir lit cap. 13. Anselme Tolet Osiander 34. Quest. What is meant by sinnes that are past v. 25. 1. Some think that this is vnderstood of the fathers in the law which were kept in Limbus who though thorough remission of their sinnes they were freed from punishment yet they were not receiued vnto glorie gloss ordin Gorrhan But Tolet confuteth this interpretation though he allow the opinion as not agreeable to the Apostles minde for the words are not to be so limited and restrained but generally the Apostle vnderstandeth such sinnes as he spake of before v. 23. All haue sinned and are depriued of the glorie of God And if the sinnes were not yet remitted vntill Christs comming vnto the Patriarks they could not be freed no not from the punishment 2. The Novatians vnderstand those former sinnes which were passed of sinnes going before vocation and iustification denying all remedie vnto sinnes committed afterward But this were to make the death of Christ of small force if there were no place for forgiuenes euen after one is iustified Dauid fell into those two grieuous sinnes of murther and adulterie after he was called and yet was restored againe 3. Catharinus with other Romanists vnderstand likewise sinnes going before iustification and baptisme the rest that follow after they say must be purged by other meanes as by repentance and satisfaction But the Apostle speaketh generally of all sinnes If any man sinne we haue an advocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust 1. Ioh. 2.2 Christ is our aduocate as well for sinnes before baptisme as after but see more for the confutation of thir error among the Controversies 4. The Apostle then compareth not the persons but the sinnes and the times and sheweth that euen the sinnes committed vnder the law and from the beginning of the world were redeemed by no other way then by faith in Christ God by his patience did forbeare to punish those sinnes as not imputing them because of the Redeemer which was to come Agreeable hereunto is that place Heb. 9.15 For this cause is he the Mediatour of the new Testament that thorough death which was for the transgression in the former Testament they which were called might receiue the promise of euerlasting inheritance By conference of these places together it is euident that by sinnes that are past are meant not the sinnes going before baptisme or iustification but the sinnes committed vnder the old Testament to shew that there was no remission of sinnes from the beginning of the world but by faith in Christ. And this further appeareth because the Apostle faith v. 26. to shew at this time his righteousnes c. he setteth the present time of the Gospel and the reuelation of grace against the former times 35. Quest. Why the Apostle onely maketh mention of sinnes past Now the Apostle so extendeth the effect and fruit of our redemption by Christ vnto the sinnes passed as that the sinnes present and to come also shall be by vertue thereof remitted but he maketh mention only of the sinnes past and before committed for these reasons 1. Hereby the Apostle sheweth the imbecillitie of the law of Moses and the ceremonies thereof that they were expiationes non verae sed vmbratiles not true expiations but onely in shadow Pareus as the Apostle saith Heb. 9.9 that those gifts and sacrifices could not make holy concerning the conscience and so Thomas yeeldeth this reason vpon this place God remitted the sinnes before passed quae lex remittere non potuit which the law could not remit 2. Adamus Safhout addeth that the Apostle maketh mention onely of former sinnes to
signifie non deinceps vivendum esse peccatis sed iustitiae that we should not liue afterward vnto sinne but vnto righteousnes for it were a signe of great vnthankfulnes hauing receiued so great a benefit in the forgiuenes of sinnes past if we should estsoone fall into the same againe 3. Pererius giueth two other reasons first that because it seemed an hard and impossible thing that sinnes before done should be remitted by the Redemption of Christ following many yeares after for the cause must be secundum existentiam haue a beeing before the effect therefore the Apostle to take away this scruple and difficultie maketh expresse mention of precedent sinnes to the which the vertue of Christs death was applied by faith 4. But Pererius other reason is false and friuolous that those former sinnes are mentioned to shew that there was no full remission of them for though they were remitted quanâ—â—â— ad culpam poenam aeternam in respect of the fault and euerlasting punishment yet the fathers vntill Christs comming were kept in Limbo and had no entrance into heauen â—at seeing by the blood of Iesus their sinnes were remitted they also by the vertue of the same blood had power to enter into heauen as the Apostle saith Hebr. 10.19 By the blood of Iesus we may be bold to enter into the holy place And againe v. 14. he saith With one offering hath he consecrated for euer them that are sanctified if then the beleeuing fathers of the old Testament were sanctified by Christs blood they were consecrated for euer that is perfectly but more followeth afterward of this matter among the Controversies 5. The true reason therefore why the Apostle giueth instance in sinnes which were past is to shew that from the beginning of the world there was no remission of sinnes from Adam vnto Moses and from Moses vnto Christ but onely by faith in his blood And therfore Iohn Baptist pointeth at Christ and saith Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world Some doe alleadge that place Apoc. 13.4 whose names are not written in the booke of life of the Lamb which was slaine from the beginning of the world Pareus Faius but this place seemeth not to be so fitly alleadged to that purpose for these words from the beginning of the world are rather to be ioyned with the former words whose names are not written in the booke of life c. from the beginning of the world so Aretus distinguisheth whome Beza and Pererius follow And so are the words ioyned c. 17.8 6. And further as hereby is expressed that all the sinnes of such as beleeued were remitted in Christ which were done before so much more the sinnes of the age then present and which should be committed afterward are forgiuen by no other way as the Apostle saith Heb. 13.8 Iesus Christ yesterday and to day and the same also is for euer Pareus 36. Quest. How God is said to be iust and a iustifier of him which is of the faith c. v. 26. 1. Some vnderstand this iustice of God generally of his holines vprightnes integritie which appeared in the worke of our redemption throughout Pareus wherein most of all shined forth the power of God his wisdome and benignitie vnto man his power in iustifying the wicked which was no lesse worke then in first creating him his wisdome in iustifying him by the death of Christ so fit and conuenient a meane for the reparation of man his benignitie appeared in beeing so mindfull of man as to appoint a way for his redemption Hugo 2. Ambrose doth vnderstand God to be iust that is faithfull in keeping his promises so also Beza 3. Some thus interpret iust that is benignus bonus good and gracious Osiand but Gods iustice is one thing his clemencie an other 4. Tolet vnderstandeth God to be iust in that he would not be satisfied for the sinne of man non accepto pretio sanguinis vnlesse he had first receiued the price of Christs blood so also Pareus 5. Oecumenius applieth it to Gods iustice which should be shewed in the iust punishment of those which should refuse grace offered but the Apostle speaketh of the time present not to come 6. The meaning then is this that he might be iust that is appeare and be acknowledged onely to be iust and all men lyars that is sinners and vniust as he saide before and as he is iust in himselfe so this iustice is communicated vnto vs by faith in Christ to this purpose Calvin Bucer Pellican so also the interlin glosse that he might be iust aliter non posse ipsoâ—vare otherwise he could not helpe to iustifie others if he were not most iust in himselfe God then is onely iust in himselfe and as he is the fountaine of all iustice so he doth iustifie others by that way which he hath appointed namely by faith in Christ. 37. Qu. How reioycing is excluded not by the law of works but by the law of faith 1. There are two kinds of reioycing one is in our redemption purchased by Christ whereof the Apostle speaketh 1. Cor. 1.31 He that reioyceth let him reioyce in the Lord there is an other reioycing in man as the Apostle saith in the same place v. 29. that no flesh should reioyce in his presence of the latter kind of reioycing which is in mens works speaketh the Apostle here 2. But the ordin glosse vnderstandeth this de laudabili gloriatione of the commendable reioycing and by excluded he vnderstandeth manifested or expressed as goldsmiths doe exclude and set out the stones set in siluer but this is a very vnfit interpretation the reioycing which the Apostle will haue here excluded is the reioycing before men as he sheweth afterward c. 4.2 3. By the law of works he vnderstandeth not onely the ceremonials iudicials of the law which are abolished vnder the Gospel as Lyranus but the morall also for the Apostle shewes c. 4.2 that Abraham might reioyce in works before men but not with God where he meaneth works of the morall law for the ceremonies were not yet instituted 4. Neither by the law of works doth the Apostle vnderstand such workes as are done without faith and by the law of faith the law of workes with faith but he excludeth all works whatsoeuer for seeing that such works they say proceede partly of freewill then this reioycing should not be taken away for where the freewill of man worketh there is merit and where there is merit there is reioycing Pareus 5. By the law of workes and the law of faith is vnderstood the rule and doctrine of works and the rule and doctrine of faith for in the Hebrew phrase the law is taken for the strength of a thing for doctrine or direction as afterward c. 7. he saith the law of the spirit the law of the members the law of the minde Mart. Faius 6. And Moses law is called the law of works not because it
God who is like me that shall call and declare it c. and what is at hand and what things are to come c. Doct. 8. Of the nature condition and properties of faith v. 13. Who aboue hope beleeued vnder hope faith then is a grace and gift of God whereby we giue a firme and sure assent vnto his promises in Christ euen aboue and against naturall reason in faith then these things are considered 1. the author thereof God faith of Gods gift Ephes. 2.8 2. the obiect or matter of faith in generall is the word of God but the particular and proper obiect which is called obiectum adaequatum is the promise of saluation in Christ. 3. the qualitie and property which maketh the forme of faith is to be firme and sure without wauering and to beleeue euen beyond and against the apprehension of naturall reason Pet. Martyr 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. That the Apostle excludeth all kind of workes from iustification v. 2. If Abraham be iustified by workes The Romanists are here of opinion that the Apostle onely excludeth such workes as were done onely by the strength of nature without faith in the Mediator so Staplet Antid pag. 46. who vrgeth this reason among other to confirme his opinion the Apostle onely excludeth such workes which expect not an eternall reward with God but the workes done in faith doe expect an eternall reward therefore such workes he excludeth not Contra. 1. But the contrarie is euident that the Apostle shutteth out all workes whatsoeuer from the matter of iustification 1. he speaketh of the workes of Abraham now a faithfull man not an vnbeleeuer 2. he mentioneth workes in generall without any distinction denying iustification vnto them and ascribing it vnto faith 3. euerie thing which is rewarded ex debito of due debt is excluded from iustification but to euerie worke is the wages due of debt as vers 4. To him that worketh the wages is counted by debt therefore euerie worke is excluded 2. Concerning his reason if he vnderstand the reward which is due of debt and not giuen by fauour then euen the workes of faithfull men cannot expect such a reward if he meane a reward giuen by fauour then as well the workes which are so rewarded as those which shall not are excluded 3. And as the workes of faith are excluded together with workes done before and without faith so also not onely doth the Apostle speaking of workes meane the rewardes onely but euen the workes of the morall law also for the Apostle nameth workes in generall and he directly afterward speaketh of the morall law v. 15. The law causeth wrath and where no law is there is no transgression which though it be true of euery law in generall yet this generally is seene in the morall law Controv. 2. Whether blessednesse consist onely in the conuersion of sinners v. 7. The Romanists here obiect that as the Apostle out of the Psalmes ascribeth beatitude to the remission and forgiuenesse of sinnes so elswhere in Scripture it is giuen vnto innocencie of life and to other vertues as Psal. 119. Blessed are the vndefiled in heart and Matth. 5. Blessed are the mercifull blessed are the pure in heart c. 1. Peter Martyr answeareth here by a distinction of beatitude which is either inchoata begunne onely and that is in our iustification or perfecta it is perfect and absolute in the kingdome of God so he will haue the Apostle here to speake of the blessednesse which is begunne in our iustification but in the other places the blessednesse in the next life is promised 2. Calvin saith that all these beatitudes which are pronounced doe presuppose the happinesse which is in beeing iustified by faith without the which all the other promises are in vaine 3. But the more full answear is that the Apostle here sheweth the cause and manner of our iustification which is by faith in Christ but in the other places it is onely declared to whom this iustification belongeth and who they are that shall be blessed namely the mercifull and vndefiled in heart but the Apostle sheweth why they are blessed because they beleeue in Christ Pareus dub 5. Controv. 3. Whether sinne is wholly purged and taken away in the iustification of the faithfull The Romanists are of opinion that not onely the guilt of sinne is taken away in iustification but sinne it selfe is altogether purged and so for sinnes to be couered idem plane valet atque esse sublata nulla prorsus relicta is all one as to be taken away and not to remaine at all Perer. disput 3. numer 11. Tolet. annot 10. and they impute this opinion to the Protestants peccata non auferri c. that sinnes are not taken away in iustification but remaine the same they were onely they are not imputed after iustification their reasons are these 1. It was the opinion of the Pelagians confuted by Augustine that in baptisme there is not giuen remission of all sinnes nec auferre crimina sed radere and that it doth not take away sinne but onely prone it as it were and pare it the roote remaineth still August lib. 1. contra 2. epist. Pelagian c. 13. like vnto this error they make the opinion of Protestants Perer. ibid. 2. It were no iustice in God if sinne remained still not to impute it not to impute sinne vnto the sinner seemeth not to stand with the rule of equitie Tolet. ibid. 3. The Scripture so speaketh of the remission of sinnes as though they were wholly remooued as Isaiah 44. I haue taken away thine iniquitie as a cloud 1. Cor. 6. but ye are washed ye are sanctified Iob. 1. Behold the lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world Isaiah 1. If your sinnes were as redde as scarlet they should be made white as snowe Hes. 14.3 Take away all iniquitie and receiue vs graciously Coloss. 2.14 Putting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against vs these and the like places are produced by Tolet and Pererius in the foresaid places to prooue the full remoouing and abolishing of all sinne in our iustification 4. Otherwise Christs merit should be of lesse force and efficacie then the sinne of Adam if it should not wholly remooue and take away sinne brought in by Adam Tolet. 5. Pererius inferreth as much out of the Apostles words here if our sinnes be hid and couered then are they not seene of God si non videntur à Deo nulla vtique sunt if they are not seene then are they none at all for if sinne still remained in the faithfull which God hateth then he should finde somewhat in them worthie of hatred and so what he hateth consequently he punisheth Perer. numer 11. Contra. 1. Our aduersaries doe not truely propound the state of this question betweene them and the Protestants for we affirme not that the same sinnes remaine before iustification and after there is great difference between peccatum
inhabitants regnans sinne dwelling in vs and raigning in vs before iustification it both dwelleth in the faithfull and raigneth but after it dwelleth but raigneth not againe before the righteous are iustified by faith there is no sanctitie in them but vpon their iustification presently followeth sanctification whereby they are become holy and full of good workes though some reliques of sinne remaine There are three things then specially here to be considered in sinne macula culpa poena the blot of sinne the fault or offence and the punishment now after we are iustified by faith the fault is remitted the punishment acquired but some blot and blemish remaineth Now that in the iustified and regenerate remaineth some seede and reliques of sinne it thus is manifest 1. The Apostle confesseth that there was sinne dwelling in him Rom. 7.20 2. Dauid when he thus spake Psal. 32. Blessed is he whose wickednesse is forgiuen had now many yeares beene the seruant of God and yet he confesseth he had sinnes which had neede of forgiuenesse Bucer 3. the verie word it selfe of not imputing of sinne presupposeth a being of sinne for that which is not at all cannot be said not to be imputed for of that which is not there can be neither action nor passion Faius and that which is couered appeareth not not because it is not but because it is couered 2. Now for answear vnto the arguments obiected 1. the error of the Pelagians rather cleaueth vnto the Romanists then the Protestants who affirme that in baptisme there is sealed remission of all sinnes as well going before baptisme as following after whereas the Papists extend the vertue of baptisme vnto the sinnes onely before going neither doe we say that the sprigges onely of sinne are pruned the roote remayning still but that the very roote thereof is killed though some sprigges doe sprout still yet they shall neuer branch out to beare the like bitter fruit as before And as we are free herein from the error of the Pelagians so let them take heede that the error of Origen be not here worthily fastened vpon them who vpon this place of the Apostle writeth to this effect that when the soule of a sinner leaueth and forsaketh sinne then his iniquities are said to be remitted and when it beginneth to doe well then it hideth and couereth sinne bonis recentibus with newe good things But when it is come to perfection vt nullum in ea vestigium inveniri possit nequitiae that not a footesteppe of sinne can be found in it c. then the Lord is said not to impute sinne c. Here Origen concurreth with the Romanists or they rather with him that there remaineth no relique of sinne in the faithfull after iustification and that they couer and hide their sinnes by their good workes which doth quite ouerthrowe and peruert the Apostles sense who alleadgeth these testimonies out of the Psalmes to prooue that righteousnesse is imputed without workes which were no proofe at all if sinnes were couered and hid by good workes Beza annot 2. Not to impute sinne vnto a sinner continuing and remaining still in the strength of his sinne were indeede no iustice but to a sinner that repenteth of his sinne and amendeth it is iust with God not to impute sinne for the worthinesse of Christ. 3. All these testimonies produced of the taking and washing away sinne are vnderstood of remitting the fault and offence and acquitting the punishment it followeth not but that there remaineth some blot and blemish still 4. Christs merit is as effectuall to take away sinne as Adam was to bring it in and in the ende Christ shall vtterly abolish the verie relikes and remainder of sinne which though Christ by his infinite power could effect all at once yet it pleaseth him to worke it by degrees to beginne our iustification here and to finish it in his kingdome 5. How our sinne is couered in Gods sight and how the Lord is said not to see it Augustine sheweth well si texit peccata Deus noluit advertere si noluit advertere noluit animadvertere si noluit animadvertere noluit punire c. if God haue hid our sinne he would not marke it if he would not marke it neither would he chastice it if not chastice it then not punish it neither must ye so vnderstand that the Prophet said our sinnes are hid quasi ibi sunt c. vivunt as though they be there and are aliue c. to this purpose Augustine who by the hiding and Gods not seeing of our sinnes vnderstandeth his not seeing them vnto punishment And although sinne in it selfe be hated and detested of God yet it followeth not that the faithfull should be hated for sinne dwelling in them because they hate it and iudge it in themselues sinne then is to be considered two wayes in it selfe and as it cleaueth and adheareth to the person yet seeing the person of the faithfull wherein it is found is not addicted and wholly enclined vnto it but likewise hateth and abhorreth it the Lord loueth their person accepted in Christ though he hate that which is euill in them as they themselues also doe Controv. 4. Against workes of satisfaction v. 8. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne The opinion of the Romanists is here confuted that after remission of the offence in sinne and the guilt of eternall death there remaineth yet some temporall punishment to be satisfied for and yet there is full remission of sinne for the temporall punishment is extra substantiam peccati c. is not of or belonging to the substance of sinne but as an adiunct and a thing annexed to it Perer. disput 3. numer 13. Contra. 1. It followeth necessarily that where sinne is punished it is imputed and laid vnto the sinners charge But vnto them that are iustified nothing is laid vnto their charge as the Apostle saith Rom. 8.33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen it is God that iustifieth therefore where sinne is not imputed and remembred no more there it is not thought of to be punished for how should it stand with equitie for God to punish the sinne which is remitted 2. No punishment is properly of the nature and substance of sinne but necessarie consequents and effects thereof euerlasting punishment it selfe is not belonging to the substance of sinne as Pererius confesseth that inest peccato secundum substantiam it belongeth to sinne in respect of the substance thereof for God hath appointed and decreed eternall death as the iust punishment of sinne but no substantiall part of sinne hath God ordained for then be should ordaine that which is euill If then one part of the punishment of sinne be discharged then the other also or else there should not be a full remission of sinne Controv. 5. Of imputatiue iustice against inherent righteousnesse v. 8. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne This is an
beene immortall 2. the Apostle saith Rom. 6.23 the wages of sinne is death he speaketh of death in generall euerie kind of death both spirituall and corporall is the reward of sinne 3. the propagation of sinne doth indeede bring with it also propagation of death as the Apostle here saith sinne entred by Adam and death by sinne if sinne then had not entred neither should death haue entred 3. But thus it is obiected on the contrarie that death to mankind is naturall and not brought in by sinne 1. Obiect The bodie of man is compounded of dissonant and contrarie qualities and therefore naturally is apt to be dissolued and if there be a naturall aptnesse and power to die there should also haue followed a naturall act of dying Answ. 1. Pererius answeareth that indeede if man be considered secundum nudam natura conditionem according to the bare and naked condition of his nature he was by nature mortall as other creatures but beeing considered as he receiued a supernaturall grace from God death was not naturall but a punishment of sinne Perer. numer 34. But this answear is insufficient and vntrue for there should not haue beene so much as any possibilitie of death in the world if sinne had not entred he then answeareth onely concerning the act of dying which should be suspended by a supernaturall gift he taketh not away the possibilitie of dying and this supernaturall gift was no other then the dignitie and excellencie of mans nature made by creation immortall if he had not sinned 2. wherefore our more full answear is that mans bodie though consisting of diuerse elements yet was made of such an harmonaicall constitution and temper as no dissolution should haue followed if he had not sinned such as shall be the state and condition of our bodies in the resurrection 2. Obiect If death be the punishment of sinne God should be the author of death because he is the author of punishment Answ. 1. Pererius saith that God is not directly the cause of death but either consequenter by way of consequent because he made man of a dissoluble matter whereupon death ensueth or occasionaliter by way of occasion because he tooke away from man that supernaturall gift whereby he should haue beene preserued from mortallitie but God efficiciter is not the efficient cause of death which is a meere priuation But this answear also is insufficient for neither should death haue followed by reason of any such dissoluble matter if Adam had not sinned neither needed there any such supernaturall gift beside the priuiledge and dignitie of mans creation 2. wherefore we answer further that as God created light darkenes he created not but disposed of it so he made not death but as it is a punishment God as a disposer rather and a iust iudge then an author inflicteth it 3. Obiect Christ died and yet had no sinne therefore death is a naturall thing not imposed as a punishment for sinne Answ. 1. Origen here answeareth that as Christ knewe no sinne yet per assumptionem â—â— uis dicitur factus esse peccatum c. yet by the taking of our flesh he is said to be made sinne for vs so also he died for vs c. the death then which he vndertooke was not a punishment vpon him in respect of his owne sinne which he had not but of ours which was imputed vnto him 2. Origen saith further mortem quam nulli debuit sponte non necessitate suscepit the death which he ought to none he did willingly vndertake not of necessitie as Christ himselfe saith I haue power to lay down my life and power to take it againe 3. adde herevnto that mors in eo imperium non habuit c. death had no power or command ouer lum Mart. for he rose againe from death triumphantly which sheweth that he yeelded not vnto death of necessitie for then he could not haue shaken off so soone the bands of death againe Quest. 23. Of the meaning of the Apostle in these words in whom all haue sinned and of the best reading thereof ver 12. 1. Erasmus will haue the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be interpreted eo quod or quandoquidem in so much or because so also Calvin Martyr Osiander and our English translations and Erasmus reason is because the Scripture vseth an other phrase in that sense as 1. Cor. 15.22 as in Adam all die the words are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this reason may be easily taken away for sometime in Scripture the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Heb. 9.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the testament is confirmed in the dead Beza and Heb. 9.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in meates And this interpretation of Erasmus is the rather to be misliked because he would not haue this vnderstood of originall sinne but of euery ones proper and particular sinnes as Theodoret before him and so we should want a speciall place for the proofe of originall sinne 2. Wherefore the better reading is in whom that is in Adam all haue sinned so reade Origen Chrysostome Phatius in Oecumenius Theophylact whom Beza Pareus followe and there are three things which may serue for the antecedent to this relatiue in whom either sinne or death or that one man namely Adam before spoken of but not the first because sinne in the Greeke tongue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the feminine gender and so cannot answer vnto the Greeke relatiue which is of the masculine gender nor the second for it were an improper speech to say in the which death all haue sinned for as Augustine saith in peccato moriuntur homines non in morte peccant men die in sinne they are not said to sinne in death and so Augustine resolueth that in primo homine omnes peccasse intelliguntur all are vnderstood to haue sinned in the first man Adam c. and to this purpose Augustine in the same place alleadgeth Hilarius Quest. 24. Whether the Apostle meane originall or actuall sinnes saying in whom all haue sinned 1. Erasmus in his annotations vpon this place contending that it should be rather read for as much as all men haue sinned then in whom all men haue sinned thinketh that this place is not vnderstood of originall but of actuall sinnes who although he professe that he is an enemie to the heresie of the Pelagians which denie originall sinne yet contendeth both by the authoritie of the Fathers as Hierome and Origen and by the scope of the place that the Apostle must be vnderstood to speake of actuall sinnes But all this may easily be answered 1. those commentaries which passe vnder the name of Hierome are verily thought not to be his but Augustine coniectureth that they might be written by Pelagius that supposed author excepteth Abraham Isaac Iacob that they were free from this death namely the spiriturall death of the soule whereas euen
Sathans worke the strong man could not be bound but by a stronger then he Mart. And more particularly this excellencie appeareth in the author and efficient cause Adams sinne was vnius puri hominis of one and the same a meere man but the gift was Christi hominis Dei of Christ God and man Lyran. that was of our but this non solum patris sed filij gratia was not onely the grace of God the father but of his sonne Chrysost. 2. An other point of excellencie is generally in the worke it selfe and the manner of it 1. if sinne beeing a privative were so forcible vnto condemnation much more the iustice and grace of Christ beeing a thing positive is auaileable fortior vita quam mors iustitia quà m peccatum life is stronger then death and righteousnes then sinne Origen 2. fortius est mortuum resuscitare c. it is a more powerfull thing to raise one beeing dead then to kill one that is aliue Osiand 3. Chrysostome addeth further magis videtur rationi consonum c. it seemeth more agreeable to reason that one man should purchase saluation and redemption then condemnation to and for an other if then that were done which was more against reason for one to worke an others condemnation much more the other 3. As our redemption and iustification by Christ is more excellent then our condemnation by Adam in respect of the more excellent and powerfull cause as the Apostle sheweth v. 15. as is before expressed so it excelleth in regard of the more excellent fruits and effects whereof one is declared v. 16. that whereas one offence of Adam entred vnto the condemnation of many in Christ not onely that sinne is pardoned but all other our actuall sinnes non solum illud peccatum per gratiam est oblatum sed reliqua omnia not onely that fault is taken away by grace but all the rest also Chrysost. 4. An other effect is that in Christ we receiue abundance of grace v. 17. non tantum peccata sublata sed iustitia prastita our sinnes are not onely taken away but righteousnes also is giuen vs Chrysost. which he further thus setteth forth by this similitude like as if a Prince should deliuer a man that is enthralled with his wife and children and not onely restoare him to libertie but set him in a princely throne or as if a medecine should be giuen not onely to heale the disease but whereby the bodie should be made much stronger Lyrau so Christ non solum iustificat à peccatis sed etiam inducit ad gloriam doth not onely iustifie vs from our sinnes but also bringeth vs to glorie Lyran. 5. Chrysostome addeth one excellent priuiledge further which we obtaine in Christ that whereas death came by Adam in Christ we obtaine that by death we receiue no hurt sed plurimi luchri tulerimus but much good as 1. death perswadeth vs and the remembrance thereof to liue soberly and honestly 2. hic sunt Martyrum coronae death was the occasion of the crowne of martyrdome 3. and thereby we are made fitte for immortalitie 6. Origen herein placeth the excellencie of this effect that not onely death no longer raigneth sed duo conferuntur bona two good things are conferred life is giuen in stead of death Christ our life raigneth in vs and we also shall raigne in life with him This then is the abundance of grace that we receiue in Christ. 1. in that we are not onely purged from our sinnes but iustified in Christ. 2. and sanctified in him 3. made fellow heires with Christ and restored to be the sonnes of God 4. and brought to euerlasting glorie 36. Quest. Some other opinions refused wherein this excellencie should consist 1. Some thinke that herein consisteth the excellencie of grace because the sinne of Adam was deriued onely vnto men the grace of Christ is reuealed to Angels Perer. disput 12. This is true that euen the Angels doe stand by Christ but it is not the meaning of Saint Paul here for he speaketh expressely of the abounding of this gift of iustification vnto men v. 18. 2. Pererius further saith that by originall sinne which we haue from Adam we are onely made subiect poenae damni to the penaltie of losse which is the privation of the grace and glorie of God but in Christ we are deliuered from the penaltie not onely damni of the losse but sensus of feeling and suffering the torments of hell But the Apostle is contrarie who saith that by the offence of one sinne came vpon all to condemnation v. 18. the euerlasting condemnation then of bodie and soule is due vnto men by nature in respect of originall sinne without the mercie of God in Christ and elswhere the Apostle saith we are all the children of wrath by nature Eph. 2.2 to the children of wrath belongeth all kind of punishment not onely in the priuation of life and glorie but in the actuall feeling and suffering of eternall torments 3. The ordinarie glosse saith that death in Adam raigned onely temporaliter temporally but grace and life in Christ eternally but death in Adam should haue raigned eternally if Christ had not redeemed vs not onely temporall but eternall death is the reward of 〈◊〉 then seeing all sinned in Adam all by nature are subiect euen to eternall death 4. Pet. Martyr obserueth out of Oecumenius an other point of excellencie in Christ aboue Adam for Adams sinne cooperans habuit omne nostrum peccatum had euerie one of our sinnes to helpe and worke together with it but the grace of Christ came vpon all sine nostra cooperatione without our ioynt working for not onely the faithfull and beleeuers but infidels also and vnbeleeuers shall rise againe from death But Pet. Martyr taketh these exceptions to this obseruation 1. Adams sinne without our actuall sinnes was sufficient to condemne his posteritie 2. though the vnbeleeuers shall rise againe it shall be to their further condemnation it shall be no benefit vnto them 3. though Gods grace doe worke without vs yet there is somewhat required in the faithfull that they should beleeue though that also be the gift and worke of God in vs. 5. Wherefore the true excellencie of the grace of Christ aboue the sinne and condemnation by Adam consisteth in those points declared in the former question because in Christ we are restored to a more excellent state then we lost in Adam 1. by Adam we are depriued of a temporall paradise in Christ we are restored to an heauenly 2. in Adam we are excluded from the eating of the materiall tree of life but in Christ we feede of the bread of heauen which giueth eternall life 3. in Adam it was giuen vs posse non mori non peccare a possibilitie not to sinne not to die but in Christ we shall obtaine non posse peccare mori that we cannot die nor sinne in the next life 4. by Adams sinne we are
or life without Christ. v. 17. Much more shall they which receiue c. raigne in life c. As in Adam sinne and death entred and so raigned ouer all so life raigneth by Iesus Christ then they which are not graft by faith into Christ but remaine onely in Adam cannot be pertakers of life they are still vnder the kingdome of sinne and death wherefore the Turkes Iewes and all other that are without the knowledge and faith of Christ howsoeuer they dreame of a kind of Paradise and terrene happinesse after this life yet they can haue no assurance of life seeing they are strangers from Christ So S. Peter saith Act. 4.12 That there is no other name giuen vnder heauen whereby we must be saued Doct. 6. That life doth accompanie righteousnesse v. 17. The Apostle saith that they which receiue the gift of righteousnesse shall raigne in life then as sinne raigned vnto death so righteousnesse raigneth vnto life wheresoeuer then righteousnesse is found whether inherent as in the Angels or imputed as in the faithfull who haue the righteousnesse of Christ imputed vnto them by faith there is the kingdome of life then they which doe feele the kingdome of righteousnesse to be begunne in them who both by faith are iustified in Christ and their faith is effectuall working by loue they are assured to enter into life as S. Paul knewe after he had kept the faith and fought a good fight that there was a crowne of righteousnesse laid vp for him 2. Tim. 4.8 Doct. 7. Of the vse of the lawe v. 20. The lawe entred c. that the offence should abound c. This is the proper vse of the lawe to bring a man to the knowledge of his sinne and to shewe him in what state he standeth by nature a transgressor of the lawe and so subiect to the curse but we must not rest in this vse of the lawe there is a second and more principall ende that by the abounding of sinne grace may more abound and in this sense the Apostle calleth the lawe a schoolemaster to bring vs to Christ Galath 3.19 that we by the lawe seeing our owne weakenesse and vnsufficiencie should seeke vnto Christ Iesus to finde righteousnes in him which cannot be obtained by the lawe 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. Whether a good conscience and integritie of life be the cause of peace with God Pererius disput 1. in c. 5. numer 2. vrgeth that place of the Prophet Isay c. 32.17 s he worke of iustice shall be peace euen the worke of iustice and quietnesse and assurance for euer whereupon he inferreth that opera iustitiae c. the workes of iustice and the keeping of Gods commandements doe worke in vs this tranquilitie and peace of the minde Contra. It might be here answeared that peace of conscience is the worke of our true iustice that is Christ who is called the Lord our iustice or righteousnesse Ierem. 23.10 but that this interpretation agreeth not with the former words v. 16. Iudgement shall dwell in the desert and iustice in the fruitfull field where the Prophet speaketh of the externall practise and exercise of iustice 2. Iunius seemeth to vnderstand these disiunctiuely the fruites of the spirit which should be powred vpon them v. 15. should bring faith iustice peace as the Apostle sheweth these to be the fruites of the spirit Rom. 14.17 righteousnesse peace ioy in the holy Ghost so also Faius But this distinction here cannot be admitted because it is directly said the worke of iustice shall be peace tranquilitie 3. But the best answer is that righteousnesse procureth peace not effective because it worketh this inward peace which is wrought in vs by the grace of iustification but declarative it declareth confirmeth and assureth vnto vs our peace as S. Peter exhorteth that we make our election and calling sure by good workes 2. Pet. 1.9 not that our workes make our election sure in it selfe which dependeth on the purpose of God but it is made sure vnto vs so the peace of conscience wrought in vs by faith is confirmed and ratified vnto vs by a good life euen as good workes are testimonies of our faith and in that sense are said by S. Iames c. 2. to iustifie Controv. 2. Against invocation of Saints 1. By whome we haue accesse through faith this text is well vrged by Peter Martyr and Pareus against the invocation of Saints for if by Christ we haue accesse vnto God what neede we the helpe of other mediators and intercessours the Papists then doe much derogate vnto the glorie of Christ in bringing an other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to enter vs and cause vs to haue accesse vnto God And further two arguments may be vrged out of the Apostles words he saith we haue accesse by him through faith but Saints are not the obiect of our faith we must onely beleeue in God Ioh. 14.1 Ye beleeue in God beleeue also in me 2. we haue accesse vnto this grace namely whereby we are iustified but by the Saints we are not iustified therefore by them we haue not accesse and entrance Controv. 3. Of the certaintie of saluation and of finall perseuerance v. 5. We haue accesse vnto this grace wherein we stand Calvin out of this place refuteth two errors of Popish sophistrie the one that the faithfull for the present cannot be certaine of the grace of God and of the remission of their sinnes the other that they are not sure of finall perseuerance But to stand in grace signifieth to be sure of the grace and fauour of God one may attaine vnto the fauour of the Prince but he is not sure to continue in it But Gods fauour in Christ is most constant whom Christ loueth he loueth to the end Iob. 13.1 Tolet here foisteth in one of his Popish drugs that tranquilitie and peace of conscience and certaintie of remission of sinnes is not the fruit or worke of faith in the faithfull for the wicked that knowe not their sinnes haue also a quiet conscience Tolet. annot 1. Contra. There is great difference between a senslesse and a quiet cōscience the wicked feele not the pricke of conscience because their sinnes are concealed from them but the faithfull haue peace of conscience after the sight of their sinnes which they know to be remitted in Christ So Paul was aliue without the law but afterward when sinne reviued he died Rom. 7.9 where then the conscience is cast into a slumber of securitie sinne reviuing awaketh troubleth it but where sinne is remitted in Christ the conscience ceaseth to be troubled and perplexed as in the wicked Controv. 4. That the tribulation of the Saints is not meritorious though it be said to worke patience We must vnderstand that the Apostle diuersely vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worketh for it is sometime ascribed vnto the principall efficient cause as vnto God the author and worker of all good things in vs 2. Cor. 5.5 sometime
also passe ouer vnto his posteritie euen in respect of the fault this he prooueth by the testimonie of the Hebrewes themselues iust by the words which they vse in circumcision which are these Deus noster pars nostra protector noster praecepit erui carneâ— nostram ab infâ—â—â—â— propter foedus suum quod posuit in causa nostra God our portion and our protector hath commanded that our flesh should be deliuered from hell for his couenant like which he hath placed in our flesh c. But infants which are circumcised haue not deserued hell by any actuall sinnes which they had committed therefore they are guiltie of hell in respect of originall sinne To this purpose also he produceth the testimonie of R. Salmo who giueth this note vpon that place Genes 2.4 These are the generations of heauen and earth c. that in two places onely this word teldoth generations is written fully namely with chalom in the beginning and ende in this place before Adams fall for in the beginning men were created secundum plenitudinem 〈◊〉 perfectioâ—â—â— in their fulnesse and perfection but after Adam had sinned their generations were corrupted and therefore Gen. 4. and other where that word it not expressed fully with chalom in the ende the other place is Ruth 4. These are the generations of Pâ—â—â—rs c. these the word toldoth is written fully because Christ the sonne of Dauid was the Sonne of Pâ—â—res for vntill he came the generation of man should not be restored â—â— Burgens 3. But there are euident places beside out of the old testament for the proofe of originall sinne as Genes 9.21 the imagination of mans heart is euill from his youth and Dauid confesseth Psal. 54. I was borne in iniquitie and in sinne hath my mothere conceiued me c. Controv. 11. That Adams sinne is entred into his posteritie by propagation not imitation onely against the Pelagians The Pelagians held these two hereticall positions concerning this matter 1. That Adams sinne is deriued into his posteritie nor by any naturall propagation but by corrupt imitation 2. the other that death is entred into Adams posteritie not as a punishment of Adams sinne but as a defect of nature issuing out of the fraile and brittle composition and constitution of mans bodie these strange assertions are thus confuted by Augustine 1. If the Apostle had spoken here of the beginning of sinne by imitation not by propagation non eius principium fecisset Adamum sed diabolum c. he would not haue made Adam the beginning but the deuill c. for he sinned first he was a lier from the beginning Iohn 8.44 2. As he in whom all are quickned and made aliue beside that he gaue an example of righteousnesse to those that imitate him dat etiam occultissimam fidelibus gratiam c. giueth also secret grace vnto the faithfull c. so he in whom all die beside the example of imitation in transgressing Gods commandement occulta etiam labe c. he also infected all his ofspring with the secret contagion of concupiscence Augustine lib. 1. de peccator merit remissi c. 9. 3. Further Augustine presseth these words of the Apostle Rom. 5.16 the fault is of one offence to condemnation but if men are onely guiltie of condemnation for their actuall sinnes he should haue said condemnationem fieri ex multis peccatis c. that condemnation came through many offences not through one epist. 89. ad Hilarium 4. And in an other place he vrgeth this reason because many in sinning doe not propound vnto themselues the example of Adam but haue other occasions which moue them as when a theefe killeth a man he did it nihil de Adamo cogitans thinking nothing of Adam but to this end that he might haue his gould c. Adams eating of an apple which was forbidden can yeeld no example of imitation to a murtherer and there are many wicked men in the world that neuer heard of Adams transgression to this purpose Augustine lib. 6. cont Iulian. c. 12. 5. Beside the Apostles words euidently conuinceth them for the Apostle saith as sinne entred so death by sinne then as death actually is propagated so also sinne Tolet. annot 15. And death is entred vpon all because all haue sinned seeing then infants die it followeth that they sinne but not actually therefore they haue originall sinne P. Martyr 6. Hence it is euident that the commentaries which passe vnder Hieromes name are forged for that author saith vpon this place insaniunt qui de Adamo per traducem ad â—â— asserunt venisse peccarum they are madde which affirme that sinne is come vpon vs as traduced and deriued from Adam c. for Hierome liuing in the same time that Pelagius broached his heresie did condemne and detect it as Augustine and other orthodoxall writers did Controv. 12. Of the manner how originall sinne is propagated against the Pelagians where it is disputed whether the soule be deriued from the parents The Pelagians to strengthen their error in denying the propagation of originall sinne from Adam to his posteritie obiected thus the seate and place of sinne is the soule but the soule is not propagated nor deriued by generation from the parents therefore neither sinne To this obiection diuerse answers are made 1. Some thinke that originall sinne is conueied by that carnall pleasure and delight which the parents haue in the act of generation but this is not so for these two reasons 1. because that carnall pleasure is not sinne 〈◊〉 some euill affection beside do concurre with it for without that delight there is no generation which if it were necessarily accompanied with sinne the Scriptures would not haue giuen libertie to marrie if it were in it selfe a sinnefull act 2. And if it were admitted that this naturall delight were sinne yet there by that infirmitie onely should be conueied whereas originall sinne is a generall corruption of nature 2. Some thinke that God createth the soules of men agreeable to their corrupt bodies like as he giueth vnto dogs and other creatures spirits answerable to their state and condition But this opinion is reiected likewise for if God should create or make any soule euill he should be the author of sinne 3. Some doe thinke that the soule of man is deriued also ex traduce as they tearme it and propagated from the parentes as the bodie is this opinion Tertullian seemed to fauour and Augustine holdeth it probable Genes ad liter c. 10. some of their reasons are these 1. because in the making of the woman it is not said that God breathed into her the breath of life as it is expressed of Adam and therefore it is like that she had as her bodie so her soule from Adam Answer Nay rather the contrarie is inferred because no mention is made of the soule and spirit of Eue that it had the like beginning which Adams had otherwise he would haue said this
is soule of my soule as he saith bone of my bones flesh of my flesh 2. Gen. 46.26 it is said that 66. soules came out of the loines of Iacob Answ. here the soule is taken for person and by a synecdoche the whole man is vnderstood by a part and that is said of the whole because of the vnitie of the person and the neare coniunction of the soule and bodie which is true onely in the one part namely the bodie which onely came out of the parentes loines in the same sense Marie is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mother of God because Christ both God and man was borne of her and yet he was borne onely as man 3. If the soule be not propagated by generation but created in the bodie then it would follow that God on the seauenth day had not made an end of the creation Answ it followeth not God ceased from creating any new kind but now the inspiring of the soule is but a continnuing of that way of the soule which God in the first creation made for it The better opinion then is animas creando infundi infundendo creari that the soules are infused by creation and created by infusion the reasons of which opinion are these 1. the direct words of Scripture Zacha. 12.1 God is said to haue formed the spirit of man within him And Hebr. 12.9 he is called the father of spirits 2. an other ground of this opinion is taken from the nature and condition of the soule it is a spirituall and immateriall essence immortall and incorruptible and therefore cannot come of corruptible and corporall seed 3. Christs soule came the same way which other mens soules doe for otherwise he should not be like vs in all things sinne excepted but his soule was not propagated from Marie for if he had both his bodie and soule from her he might as well be said to haue beene in the loines of Abraham when he paied tithes to Melchisedech as Levi Hebr. 7.10 and yet though Leui had his bodie onely not his soule from the loines of Abraham he is said to be in his loines because he came from thence by the ordinarie and common generation but so did not Christ seeing then this opinion is refused of the generation and derivation of the soule we also reiect this answer concerning the propagating of originall sinne 4. This then is our more full answer vnto this obiection of the Pelagians 1. although we can not giue a sufficient reason of this how originall sinne should be propagated yet it is enough for vs that it is so that we are all by nature the children of wrath 2. it is not true that onely the flesh and bodie of man is propagated from the parents for then man should conferre lesse in his generation then brute beasts from whom not the bodies onely but the spirits doe issue in the generation of their kind so then totus homo ex toto homine nascitur whole man is generated of whole man and anima licet non materialiter tamen originaliter the soule though not materially yet originally is taken from Adam Pareus we doe not say that the soule of man is deriued from the soule of the father yet man consisting of bodie and soule is begotten of his father the Lord beeing the father of spirits concurring in that naturall act of carnall generation 3. it is denied that the soule onely is the feate of sinne it is the corruption of the whole man consisting both of bodie and soule the whole man then is corrupted and so the feate and place of sinne Pareus and how the soule beeing created pure commeth to be infected with sinne Lyranus wel sheweth sicut liquor bonus inficitur ex corruptione vasis c. as a good liquor is infected by the corruption of the vessell so originall sinne provenit ex carne causaliter sed tamen in anima est subiective formaliter commeth of the flesh as the cause but it is in the soule as the subiect and formally like as sickenes and infirmitie commeth of corrupt and vnholesome meats as the cause but the meate is not capable of sickenes as the subiect the bodie is the subiect of sickenes to this purpose Lyranus Faius expresseth it by this similitude the pure soule is infected with the contagion of impute seed sicut manu immunda flos insignis polâ—â—â—tur c. like as a faire flower is polluted with vncleane hands Pet. Martyr yet more distinctly sheweth the manner how this pollution entreth into the soule corporis impuritate imbecillitate sua by two waies the impuritie of the bodie and it owne weaknesseâ— for both the soule is weake and not able to resist the corrupt inclination of the flesh it is not created in such strength and perfection as Adams soule was and the bodie is vnapt and vnfit for any spirituall worke and this may suffice for an answer vnto this obiection of the Pelagians concerning the originall of the soule Controv. 13. Against the Pelagians and Papists that originall sinne is not quite taken away in baptisme 1. The Pelagians obiect further that there is no originall sinne propagated vnto Adams posteritie or at the least remaining in them for that which is taken away and blotted out remaineth not now originall sinne is taken away in baptisme and therefore it is no more extant Answer There must be two things considered in sinne the act thereof as the matter and the guilt now there is herein a great difference betweene originall and other actuall sinnes for in those the act is transitorie and remaineth not and the guilt is remitted by faith in Christ in originall sinne though the guilt thereof be remitted in baptisme yet the matter thereof which is the corruption and deprauation of mans nature remaineth it passeth not away as the transitorie act of other actuall sinnes and for the more full demonstration hereof Augustine vseth two similitudes like as the corne is sowen without chaffe or straw and yet the corne that springeth of the seed hath both and as they which were circumcised beget children that are vncircumcised and had neede of a new circumcision so the fathers beeing regenerate by a new birth yet doe beget vnregenerate children the sanctitie of the parents no more passeth to their children then their knowledge and other vertues Mart. 2. The Romanists denie not but there remaineth a corruption of nature still in the children of God after Baptisme but they say it remaineth vt poena exercenda vertâ—tis materia not as a fault but as a punishment and matter or occasion for the exercising of vertue Lyran. And it was concluded in the Councell of Trent in baptisme tolli omne illud quod veram habet propriam rationem peccati all that to be taken away which hath the proper and true nature of sinne Concil Trident. sess 5. the Rhemists also affirme that children baptized haue neither mortall nor
an enemie to God for if it were so that this enemie were natura non voluntatis in nature not in the will of man there would be no reconciliation for things in nature contrarie and enemies one to the other cannot be reconciled 2. The Manichees also are here confuted who did hold that sinne was of God as the anchor and beginner thereof for they did make two beginnings one of good the other of euill and two Princes one of light the other of darkenes this wicked fansie is here confuted for the Apostle sheweth that sinne entred by Adam and so descended to his posteritie Faius Controv. 17. That all sinnes are mortall and worthie of death by nature v. 12. And death by sinne if then death came in by sinne yea children hauing onely originall sinne are subiect to death hence it is euident that all sinnes are in themselues worthie of death so that it is a vaine distinction which the Romanists make betweene veniall and mortall sinnes as though some sinnes were pardonable in their owne nature In that some sinnes are pardonable it is of grace and mercie in God not in the qualitie and propertie of the sinne Martyr Indeede there is some sinne remissible some irremissible as sinne against the holy Ghost but this difference ariseth not so much from the nature of the sinne as from the qualitie of the offender whose heart is so hardened that he cannot repent him of the blasphemie against the spirit Neither yet doth it followe if all sinnes are mortall in their owne nature that therefore all sinnes are equall for as there are degrees in the punishment of death so there are degrees in the sinnes themselues and though euen great offences are pardonable in the mercie of God yet pardon in such sinnes is more hardly obtained Controv. 18. That Henoch and Elias are not yet aliue in their bodies v. 12. And so death went ouer all men Hence then it is concluded that Elias and Heâ—â—â— doe not yet liue in their bodies whom the Romanists hold shall come in the ende of the world to preach against Antichrist Gorrhan would thus helpe the matter that deâ—h entred vpon them reatis non actu not in act but in the guilt their death is deferred it is not taken away c. for they hold that they shall be killed by Antichrist in the ende of the word Contra. 1. That it is appointed vnto men to die the Apostle testifieth Heb. 9.27 none are exempted from the common law of death as it is said 2. Sam. 14.14 We must needes die and we are as water spilt vpon the ground that cannot be gathered vp againe and the Psalmist saith Psal. 88.48 What man liueth and shall not see death Therefore Henoch and Elias are subiect to this generall law of death 2. And if they were yet aliue they must be either in the celestiall or terrestiall Paradise but the terrestiall was destroied in the flood and there they could not be preserued and from the celestiall Paradise none can returne to die againe that is no place or habitation for mortall creatures See further hereof Synops. Centur. 5. er 32. Controv. 19. The Virgin Marie conceiued in originall sinne The Romanists in their annotations vpon the 14. v. doe affirme that whereas all other are conceiued and borne in originall sinne Christ onely is excepted and his mother for his honour and by his speciall protection as many godly men iudge preserued from the some c. Contra. 1. But this error is euidently confuted by the Apostles words who saith that in him that is in Adam all haue sinned therefore euen the Virgin Marie also for onely Christ was conceiued by the holy Ghost without the seed of man of a virgin and therefore he onely was conceiued without sinne 2. and it was more for Christs honour to be borne of a sinner himselfe no sinner to shewe his puritie and perfection then come cleane and vndefiled euen out a vessel not naturally cleansed from sinne 3. If the holy Virgin must be conceiued without sinne because of her Sonne that was borne without sinne then by the same reason the mother of Marie must haue the same priuiledge because she brought forth Marie without sinne and so her mother before her and thus this priuiledge must runne vp still vnto Christs progenitors 4. Why are they afraid to determine this point absolutely that Marie was conceiued without sinne but set it downe onely as a priuate opinion of some godly men whereas Sixtus the 4. hath decreed it was so and thereupon for the strengthening of his opinion instituted the feast of the conception of the Virgin Marie and added these words to the salutation of Marie benedicta sit Anna mater tua de qua sine macula tua processit caro virginea and blessed be Anna thy mother from whom thy virgins flesh proceeded without spot 5. they will not denie but that Bernard the Master of sentences Thomas Aquin. and before them Augustine were godly and deuout men all which held the contrarie that the Virgin Marie was not conceiued without sinne August de Genes ad liter lib. 10. c. 18. Bernard epist. 174. Magister lib. 3. distinct â— Thom. Aquin. vpon that place Controv. 20. Against merits v. 16. The gift is of many offences hence is inferred that seeing our iustification by Christ is called a grace and gift that it proceedeth from the free loue grace and fauour of God Pareus here well inferreth facessant ergo merita congrus c. away with all merits either of congruitie as preparations vnto grace or of condignitie vnto saluation for if our iustification and saluation were of merit or worke it were not of grace as the Apostle concludeth Rom. 11.6 If it be of grace it is no more of workes for then worke were no more worke c. 21. Controv. That the punishment of originall sinne is euerlasting death v. 18. By the offence of one the fault came of all vnto condemnation c. Here are two opinions to be refuted the first is of those which either promised vnto Infants dying without baptisme in originall sinne the kingdome of heauen as one Vincentius did hold whome Augustine confuseth lib. 1. de origin animae c. 9. or els did assure vnto them an happie estate in some middle place betweene heauen and hell as the Pelagians August haeres 88. vnto which opinion Pighius and Cathariâ—us two Popish champions come very neere who thinke that Infants dying in their infancie and so in originall sinne should enioy an happie and blessed estate here in earth after the generall resurrection The other opinion is generally of the Romanists which hold that Infants dying without baptisme shall haue poenam damni the punishment onely of losse in beeing depriued of the vision of God but they shall not haue poenata sensus the punishment or torment of sense or feeling and here some doe exempt them from all torment both inward and outward as Thomas
torments which had not sinned by their owne will in 9. c. Iob. so also Augustine but he saith mitissima omnium pana erit eorum their punishment shall be most gentle and easie of all other which beside originall sinne haue added none other sinnes c. and this may be safely affirmed with Augustine But that when followeth hath more doubt non audeo dicere quodijs vt nulli essent quà m vt ibi essent sotius expediret I dare not say that it were better for them not to be at all then to be there Augustine Enchirid. c. 93. Controv. 22. That Christs essentiall iustice is not infused into vs. v. 17. Much more shall they which receiue abundance of grace c. Osiander did hold not Lucas Osiander who hath written breefe annotations vpon the old and new Testament but another of that name before him that the iustice of Christ is some reall thing infused into the faithfull and that it was his essentiall iustice as he is God that is communicated to the faithfull ex Faio in v. 17. But the Apostle euidently refuteth this error c. 4.22 where he sheweth that it was imputed vnto Abraham for righteousnes because he beleeued in God if we are iustified by faith then not by the essentiall iustice of Christ which still remaineth in Christs person as the subiect thereof but the righteousnesse whereby we are iustified before God is the righteousnes of Christ as he is man which is apprehended by faith and this also is euident in this place where the Apostle ascribeth iustification to the abundance of grace receiued and how is it receiued but by faith Controv. 23. Against the patrones of vniuersall grace v. 18. By the iustifying of one the benefit abounded toward all men c. Hence of 〈◊〉 Huberus and before him the Pelagians would prooue that the benefit of iustification is as vniuersall toward all euen infidels and vnbeleeuers as the condemnation that came in by Adam for the Apostle on both sides nameth all for otherwise the benefite by Christ should be inferiour vnto the losse in Adam which redounded generally vpon all Contra. 1. This tearme of vniuersalitie all must be restrained according to the nature of the subiect as Adam transfused his sinne vnto all which were his ofspring so Christ also iustifieth all his that is all which beleeue in him so by all the Apostle vnderstandeth the vniuersall companie of the faithfull 2. the preheminence of the benefit consisteth not in the equalitie of the number that Christ should saue as many as are lost in Adam for then there should be onely an equalitie not a superioritie 3. But herein is the prerogatiue of grace seene 1. in the excellencie of the effect for life is a more excellent thing then death and righteousnesse then sinne 2. in the powerfulnesse of the worke it sheweth a greater power to saue then to destroie to iustifie then condemne for it is an easier matter to destroie then to saue to pull downe then to build vp to mortifie then to reviue and raise to life 3. the preheminence is in the amplitude and largnes of grace in that we are iustified not onely from one but all kind of sinnes as well actuall as originall whereas originall sinne is onely deriued from Adam See more hereof quest 15. Controv. 24. Against the Popish inherent iustice v. 9. So by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous c. The Romanists as Bellar. lib. 2. de iustificat c. 1. Pererius disputa 17. doe much vrge this argument against imputatiue iustice that we are not iustified by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed by faith but by an inherent righteousnesse wrought in vs by Christ whereby we are formally made iust because we are so made righteous and iust in Christ as we became sinners in Adam but that was not by imputation of Adams sinne but by sinne dwelling in them whereby they are formally made sinners therefore we are formally made righteous by an inherent iustice remayning in vs and not imputed onely Pererius further vrgeth the phrase iusti constituentur many shall be made iust which is not all one as to be reputed iust or to be iust by imputation but to be iust indeed Contra. 1. The comparison betweene Adams disobedience and Christs obedience doth hold verie well euen in this point of imputation for as there is in making of vs sinners both an imputation of Adams sinne to his posteritie as comming out of his loines as also an habituall prauitie and corruption of nature the effect thereof so their is a double operation of Christs obedience both it is imputed vnto vs by faith whereby we are iustified before God and thereby there is wrought in vs holines and righteousnesse which is our sanctification but by this because it is imperfect in this life we are not iustified before God 2. and whereas the Apostle vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constituentur shall be made or constituted iust we confesse that he meaneth they shall be made iust indeede in Christ but therefore the word is put in the future tence because in this life our sanctification is but begun it shall not be absolutely perfect till the next life when all imperfection and impuritie of our nature shall be cleane taken away and then shall we be made perfectly iust indeed See a more full answer to this obiection Synops. Centur. 4. er 56. 3. But if they shall further replie that we are rather made sinners by the reall corruption of our nature then by the imputation of Adams sinne and so consequently we should rather be iustified by an inherent righteousnesse then imputed onely we answer that herein appeareth the preheminence of grace that Christs righteousnesse onely imputed is more able to iustifie vs then Adams sinne onely imputed was to condemne vs. Controv. 25. That we are iustified both by the actiue and passiue obedience of Christ. Piscator in his annotations vpon this verse vrgeth this point that we are not iustified by the obedience of Christ in his life which was his actiue obedience but by his passiue obedience in his death because if we be iustified by his righteousnesse acted in his life then should he not haue needed to haue died for vs for beeing iustified alreadie by the righteousnesse of his life there was no cause for Christ to be punished for vs beeing alreadie made iust by his righteous life Contra. 1. Though the Apostle doe principally meane the particular obedience of Christ in submitting himselfe to his fathers will in his death to giue his life for his sheepe as it is opposed to Adams particular disobedience in eating of the forbidden fruite which was in re facillima in a thing most easie to haue beene kept whereas Christs obedience was in re dissicillima in a most hard difficult thing to giue himselfe for vs euen vnto death yet this his particular obedience in his death depended vpon the generall obedience of
the grace working together is that wherewith the will of man worketh for the effecting of that which it willeth This distinction must be qualified for to make the will of man a ioynt worker with grace is against the Apostle who saith that it is God which worketh in vs both the will and the deede Philip. 2.13 But thus it may be admitted that mans will beeing once mooued and regenerate by grace is not idle but then worketh with grace not of it owne strength but as it is still mooued and stirred by grace see further hereof Synops. Centur. 4. err 30. 3. Of this sort is that distinction of grace praeveniens subsequens grace preuenting and going before and following grace which are not indeede two diuerse or seuerall graces but diuerse effects of one and the same grace Gods grace preuenteth mans will and changeth it of vnwilling making it willing and then it followeth to make the will of man fruitful and effectuall and this we acknowledge but the grace subsequent or following is not merited or procured by the well vsing of the first preventing grace in which sense this distinction is to be reiected 6. Morall obseruations Observ. 1. To followe the workes of the flesh is enmitie against God v. 10. When we were yet enimies c. They which delight in such workes as God hateth are enimies to God whereupon Origen giueth this note quomodo reconciliat us est qui causam mimici secum gerit c. how can he be said to be reconciled to God which yet retaineth the cause of enmitie c. he then which continueth in such workes as are hatefull vnto God cannot be said to be reconciled by the blood of Christ as the Apostle further sheweth That no vnrighteous person shall inherite the kingdome of God 1. Cor. 6.9 Observ. 2. Of the reconciling of enemies v. 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled c. As God did reconcile vs to himselfe beeing yet his enemies so we are taught herein to be like vnto our heauenly father to be willing to be reconciled and to be at atonement with our enemies as Abraham made a league with Abimelech and as Iacob did the like with Laban who pursued him to haue wrought him some mischiefe Observ. 3. Wherein we ought to reioyce v. 11. We reioyce in God through our Lord Iesus c. The Apostle here sheweth wherein the ioy of a Christian consisteth that whereas the world reioyceth some in riches some in honour some in pleasure some in their strength humane wisedome and the like the Christian man is taught to reioyce in his redemption and saluation in Christ as our Blessed Sauiour would haue his Apostles to reioyce because their names were written in heauen Luk. 10.20 Obser. 4. Of the two kingdomes of grace and sinne life and death v. 17. If by one offence death raigned c. The Apostle here pointeth our two kingdomes the one of sinne and death the other of righteousnesse and life there are node in the world but belong vnto one of these kingdomes Therefore it must be our great care to examine our selues vnto which kingdome we are subiects by nature all are vnder the kingdome of darkenesse and from thence we cannot be deliuered but by Christ as the Apostle saith Coloss. 1.13 who hath deliuered vs from the Prince of darkenesse and hath translated vs to the kingdome of his deare Sonne we must therefore examine our selues whether we haue faith in Christ 2. Cor. 13.5 Observ. 5. Why the Lord suffereth his sometime to fall and to be plunged in sinne v. 20. Where sinne abounded there grace abounded much more c. God then sometime seemeth to leaue his children to themselues that they afterward beeing recouered and restored by grace may haue more experience of the goodnesse and mercie of God and of the excellencie of grace as Dauid after his fall repenting of his sinne celebrateth the multitude of Gods mercies Psal. 51.1 and Peter after he was converted was bid to strengtheâ— his brethren Luk. 22.32 as then beeing more able to comfort others by the experience of Gods mercie which he had himselfe receiued Observ. 6. None ought to despaire of forgiuenesse of sinne v 20. Grace abounded much more Grace is more predominant then sinne and the Apostle in the comparison set forth betweene Christ and Adam sheweth before that grace in Christ is more able to saue vs then sinne was in Adam to condemne vs let no man then despare of mercie and say with Cain his sinne is greater then can be forgiuen but rather with S. Paul Iesus Christ came into the world to saue sinners of whom I am chiefe 1. Tim. 1.15 CHAP. VI. 3. The text with the diuerse readings WHat shall we say then shall we continue in sinne that grace may abound or be encreased Be. 2. God forbid let it not be Gr. we that are dead to sinne how yet shall we liue therein 3. Knowe ye not brethren L. addit that as many of vs as haue beene baptized all we which haue beene baptized B. G. but the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Iesus Christ haue beene baptized into his death 4 We are buried together with him by baptisme into his death that like as Christ was raised did rise vp S. L. but the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was raised vp to the glorie Be. S.G. by the glorie L. B. V. but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by is here taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in of the father so we also should walke in newenesse of life 5 For if we be graft together with him G. Be. ad by the similitude of his death Be. S. B. rather then to the similitude G.L. for we are graft into Christ not into thâ—â— similitude so shall we be by the similtude which must be supplied out of the former clause some insert be partakers B. V. but the other word graft is better vnderstood of his resurrection 6 Knowing this that our old man is crucified with him that the bodie of sinne might be destroyed or abolished S.V. that henceforth we should not serue sinne 7 For he that is dead is iustified L.V. S.B. freed G.S. Be. but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifieth is iustified from sinne 8 Wherefore if we be dead with Christ we beleeue that we shall also liue with him 9 Knowing that Christ beeing raised not rising S. L. see ver 4. from the dead dieth no more death hath no more dominion ouer him 10 For in that he died he died once to sinne but in that he liueth he liueth vnto God 11 Likewise thinke yee also that yee are dead to sinne but are aliue to God in Iesus Christ our Lord. 12 Let not sinne therefore raigne in your mortall bodie that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof obey the lusts thereof S. L. but here the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is omitted 13 Neither yeeld your
deuill 2. Neither yet is it taken for fomes peccati the matter or occasion of sinne as Pererius which is the appetite or desire that stirreth vp to sinne Tolet misliketh this because sinne must be taken here in the same sense as it was vsed before in the ende of the former chapter where it is taken for sinne it selfe and Pet. Martyr addeth this reason because insulâ—â—â— peccati the assaults of sinne remaine still in the regenerate 3. but sinne is here taken for the corruption and depravation of our nature in the former chapter thereby was specially signified reatus the guilt of originall sinne deriued from Adam Beza for there are these two things in sinne the guilt deriued from Adam and the corruption of our nature which is the effect thereof Pareus Quest. 2. What it is to die vnto sinne v. 2. 1. The Apostle answeareth the former obiection negatiuely denying the consequent that it followeth not that because where sinne abounded grace abounded more that therefore we should sinne that grace may more abound and of this his answear the Apostle in this chapter giueth two reasons the one from the contraries that seeing we are dead vnto sinne we cannot still liue vnto it the other from the condition and propertie of seruants who must be wholly addicted to their seruice whose seruants they are then seeing we are the seruants of Christ we must no longer serue sinne v. 16. to the ende of the chapters 2. They are said to be dead vnto sinne that obey not the lusts thereof that are as dead men not to be mooued vnto sinne not to doe the workes thereof but this death of sinne is inchoatae onely begunne in this life it shall not be perfected till all corruption and mortalitie be taken away 3. There is great difference betweene these two phrases to die vnto sinne which the Apostle vseth here and to be dead in sinne Ephes. 2.1 the first is taken actiuely for the mortifying of sinne the other passiuely to be mortified in or by sinne and in this phrase the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in must be supplied as Coloss. 2.13 in the Latine tongue mori peccato to die to sinne is put in the datiue but mori peccato in the ablative signifieth to die with or by sinne Tolet And in this latter sense they are said to be dead absolutely without any other addition as v. 13. of this chapter and in other places Beza 4. Chrysostome here giueth this note that whereas sometime the Apostle saith sinne is dead here he saith we are dead to sinne quoniam auditorem excitare studet in illum transfert mortem because he could quicken the desire of the hearer he transferreth death to him that he beeing dead in sinne should abstaine therefrom Quest. 3. What it is to be baptized into Iesus Christ v. 3. 1. Origen thinketh that this is so said to make a difference betweene the baptisme of Christ wherewith we are baptized and the baptisme of Iohn which is not of Christ but of the lawe But seeing Iohn baptized in his name that was to come how was it not of Christ and if Iohns baptisme were of the lawe then Christ should haue beene baptized with an other kind of baptisme then his members which is not to be admitted 2. Some thinke as Ambrose in this place that the Apostles altered the forme of baptisme which was at the first prescribed to be done in the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost But it is not like that the Apostles would change that prescript forme which was appointed by Christ himselfe the Apostle maketh mention of Christ though he intend the whole Trinitie because as Origen saith whom Haymo followeth it was not convenient that the Apostle speaking of death vt nominaret vel patrem vel spiritum c. should name either the Father or the holy Ghost because the Sonne of God onely died for vs c. or rather mention is made onely of Christ because baptisme was of his institution and the benefits represented in baptisme were procured and purchased by Christ. 3. Some giue this sense to be baptized into Christ is to be baptized with that baptisme which hath the vertue and efficacie from Christ ex Tolet. Chrysostome vnderstandeth according to the similitude and example of Christ for that which the crosse and the grave were to Christ baptismus est factus nobis baptisme is become to vs. 4. Erasmus thus we are baptised into Christ that is in corpus eius mysticum into his mysticall bodie c. but the Apostle speaketh of Christ himselfe though it be true that they which are graft into Christ are also members of his mysticall bodie 5. The vulgar Latine readeth in Christo to be baptized in Christ not into Christ that is in fide Christi in the faith of Christ Lyran. or in institutione eius by his institution gloss interlin some also which followe the Greeke text and read into Christ doe thus interpret in nomine Christi in the name of Christ Mart. Pareus Faius But it is one thing to be baptized in Christ an other into Christ. 6. Wherefore by this phrase better is signified that we are by baptisme incorporated into Christ in Christo coalescentes we growe vp together with Christ Beza Genevens inâ—â—â—â—us Christum we put on Christ Calvin inserimur Christo we are graft into Christ Tolet. vt implantaremur that by baptisme we should be planted in Christ Osiander which phrase the Apostle vseth afterward v. 5. if we be grafted with him c. Quest. 4. Of the diuerse significations of the word baptisme and to be baptized 1. Haymo here maketh 4. kinds of baptisme 1. one with water onely such was the baptisme of Iohn that gaue not remission of sinnes 2. the baptisme of the spirit such was the baptisme of the Apostles in the day of Pentecost 3. the baptisme both with the spirit and water such as is now in vse in the Church 4. the baptisme of blood such as Martyrs are baptized with But 1. it is vntrue that Iohn onely baptized with water not with the spirit for he baptized for the remission of sinnes and when Christ was baptized the spirit descended in the likenesse of a doue 2. the other two baptismes of the spirit and the baptisme of blood are not properly baptismes but onely in a metaphoricall speach 2. This word baptisme is taken two waies either properly for the washing with water in the sacrament or figuratiuely as either for the receiuing of the gifts of the spirit as Acts 1.5 our Sauiour promiseth that his Apostles should be baptized with the holy Ghosts or as for the doctrine which accompanied Iohns Baptisme as Acts. 18.25 Apollos is said to haue knowne nothing but Iohns baptisme that is his doctrine Beza Acts 19.5 3. And as baptisme is diuersely taken so there are diuerse things in baptisme to be considered three visible three invisible the three visible the Minister that baptiseth
in the first the reason is not shewed why we are said to be graft into Christ but onely the similitude explained how he is said to be graft and we also 5. Erasmus because the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 planted together referreth it to the planting of the Iewes and Gentiles together into one bodie But Tolet well obserueth annot 5. that the Apostle speaketh of our planting into Christ not of one into an other 6. The meaning then of this phrase is this that Christ is the vine and we the branches as our Sauiour sheweth Iob. 15. and so we are by faith whereof baptisme is the Sacrament and seale planted and graft into Christ and doe receiue of his grace and spirit as the branches receiue the iuyce of the tree and as the tree and branches die together and growe together so Christs death causeth vs to die to sinne and his resurrection maketh vs to rise vnto newnesse of life Pareus But as similitudes must not be vrged in euerie point so must not this for betweene the naturall grafting of plants and our supernaturall and spirituall planting into Christ there is great difference for in the one the stocke for the most part is the worst but the science or plant is of a better kind and correcteth the euilnes of the stocke but here it is farre otherwise for we are of our selues wild plants and the stocke into the which we are planted is good and full of sappe Martyr Quest. 8. What resurrection the Apostle speaketh of v. 5. 1. There is some difference in the reading of the words Chrysostome who thinketh that the Apostle speaketh here de futura resurrectione of the resurrection to come will not haue the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 similitude supplyed non subiunxit similitudini resurrectionis the Apostle added not and to the similitude of the resurrection But then the Greeke construction cannot hang together if for of the resurrection beeing in the genitiue case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 graft in which before is ioyned with a datiue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the similitude Haymo will haue it put in the datiue to the resurrection but in the originall it is in the genetive Therefore the word similitude must be supplied that as he said before we are graft into the similitude of his death so we shall be to the similitude of his resurrection and so Origen also readeth 2. Concerning the meaning of these words Chrysostome Origen Tertullian Haymo with others vnderstand them of the second resurrection and they vrge this reason because the Apostle putteth the word in the future erimus we shall be Chrysostome and whereas else where the Apostle speaketh in the time past hath raised vs vp together Ephes. 2.5 but here in the future Origen thereupon inferreth that there are two resurrections one of the mind in this life the other of the bodie in the next But this is no argument taken from the time for the Apostle speaketh in the future tense because our renouation is not perfect in this life but we must daily rise from the dead workes of sinne to the newnes of life Beza 3. The Apostle then here specially intendeth the first resurrection vnto newenesse of life as he said before as Christ was raised vp from the dead by the glorie of the father not to the glorie of the father as Beza and the Syrian interpreter for the praeposition is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per thorough yet it signifieth that Christ beeing raised vp by the glorious power of the Godhead for he hath one power with his father was raised vp to liue in glorie as the Apostle faith afterward v. 10. he liueth vnto God so we should walke in newenesse of life 4. Yet from hence also we haue an assurance of the resurrection of our bodies Calvin that by Christs resurrection we now are raised vp to the life of righteousnesse and afterward to the life of glorie as the Apostle ioyneth them both together Coloss. 2.3 for yee are dead and your life is hid with Christ in God when Christ which is our life shall appeare then shall yee also appeare with him in glorie Mart. Quest. 9. What is vnderstood by the old man v. 6. 1. The old man some take for the bodie the newe for the soule as Haymo alleadgeth out of Augustine but euen the prauitie of the affections and mind are part of this old man and therefore the Apostle saith Ephes. 4.23 be renewed in the spirit of your minde 2. Neither is the old man here taken for mans nature but the corruption thereof as Theodoret veterem hominem non naturam appellat sed pravam mentem the old man he calleth not our nature but the depraued minde and in that he saith our old man he distinguisheth the old man from our selues then we our selues are not this old man but it is aliqâ—â—d nostrum something of ours Pareus 3. Now it is called the old man in two respects first as Adam the old man is compared with the latter Adam and from Adam is deriued originall sinne which bringeth forth such euill fruites in vs before we are regenerate secondly in respect of our selues because our former conuersation is old beeing compared with our renovation and regeneration Beza the first both is according to the first Adam in sinne our second and new birth is according to the latter Adam in holines and righteousnesse 4. To this our state in the old man belong these three things 1. the guiltines of sinne 2. the custome and continuance in sinne 3. fomes peccati the occasion procurement enrising vnto sinne which proceedeth from the sinne of our parents ex Thom. 5. But whereas the ordinar gloss giueth this note that whereas the oldnes of our nature consisteth in two things in culpa poena in the fault and punishment Christus sus simpla vetustaie duplicem nostram consumpsit Christ by his single oldnes that is his death hath taken away both ours c. this can no way agree with the scope of the Apostle for if the old man be of Adam and we are made newe in Christ then cannot the old man be said to be in Christ. Quest. 10. What is meant by the bodie of sinne v. 6. that the bodie of sinne might be destroyed 1. Haymo propoundeth this interpretation among others that as Christ is the head of the elect and they with all their vertuous actions are his bodie so the deuill is as the head of sinne and the vngodly with all their sinnes are his bodie so that this bodie of sinne should haue relation vnto the deuill as the head but this bodie of sinne the Apostle called before our old man it hath relation to our selues not vnto the deuill 2. Some do take this bodie for our flesh in qua peccatum haeret whereto sinne cleaueth Beza Genevens and before them Theodoret but this cannot agree with the phrase which the Apostle
statutes that were not good Gorrhan here answereth that they were good in themselues but became euill ipsorum vitio by their fault Iunius vnderstandeth that place of the hard iudiciall laws and sentences of death both ordinarie and extraordinarie But rather it is referred to the ceremoniall laws which were as a yoke and burthen laid vpon the people which they were not able to beare as S. Peter expoundeth Act. 15.10 Quest. 23. How the lawe is said to be spirituall 1. Origen thinketh it is called spirituall because it must be vnderstood not literally but spiritually But the Apostle treateth here of the morall lawe where was no place for allegories 2. Theodoret because it was giuen of God who is a spirit 3. Ambrose because the lawe directed vs to the worship of God who is a most pure spirit 4. Augustine because it cannot be fulfilled nisi à viris spiritualibus but of spirituall men but no man in this life is so spirituall that he can keep the law 5. Thomas because concordat cum spiritu hominis it agreeth with the spirit of man that is reason so also Lyranus because it directeth man to followe the instinct of the spirit or reason so also Gorrhan spiritum hominis aleus it nourisheth the spirit of man But the verie spirit of man is corrupt and contrarie to the law by nature and therefore the Apostle saith Ephes. 4.23 be renewed in the spirit of your mind 6. Pet. Martyr giueth this reason why it is called spirituall because it requireth not onely the externall obedience in the outward workes but the spirituall in the heart and affections 7. But hereunto it may be added that it is spirituall because it requireth a spirituall that is a perfect obedience both in bodie and soule and an angelicall and diuine obedience to followe vertue and shunne vice so Chrysostome and Theophylact and Calvin Pareus Osiand following them 8. that seemeth to be somewhat curious which the ordinar gloss here obserueth that the Lawe is onely called spirituall because therein are those things quae Dit sunt which are Gods but the Gospel is called lex spiritus the lawe of the spirit because there Deus ipse est God himselfe is Quest. 24. How the Apostle saith he is carnall and sold vnder sinne v. 17. 1. Pererius well obserueth here that one may be said to be carnall two waies quia serâ—â— carni because he serueth the flesh or he which by reason of his corrupt nature procliuis est is prone vnto concupiscence to this purpose Pareus that in the first sense the vnregenerate are said to be carnall in the other the regenerate because they are yet infirmitatibus abnoxque subiect to infirmities quia nondums habent spirituale corpus because they haue not yet a spirituall bodie freed from all infirmities such as they shall haue in the resurrection August lib. ad Bonifac. c. 10. so we haue inchoatam non plenam liberationem a deliuerance begunne in Christ but not yet perfect till our last enemie death shall be destroied 2. Likewise where the Apostle saith he was sold 1. Some take the word properly for such a selling wherein there is a buyer a thing sold and a price which they referre either vnto Adams selling himselfe to the deuill for an apple Lyran. gloss ordinar or to a mans selling of himselfe by his actuall sinnes for the sweetnesse of pleasure which is as the price which men sell themselues to the deuill for Tolet. annot 16. Gorrhan But in this sense S. Paul beeing a spirituall and regenerate man cannot be said to be sold. 2. wherefore this metaphor is not largely to be taken as when Ahab is said to haue sold himselfe to worke wickednes 1. King 21.25 for there are two kinds of slaues one that selleth himselfe into captiuitie and willingly obeyeth a tyrant or one which against his will is brought into servitude as Ioseph was sold by his brethren into captiuitie and this is S. Pauls case here Pareus And Augustine noteth that sometime selling in Scripture is taken for a simple tradition or deliuering ouer without any price lib. 7. in Iudic. c. 17. and so indeed the Hebrew word machar signifieth as well to deliuer as to sell as Isay 52.3 the Israelites are said to be sold for naught and the Lord will redeeme them for naught But these two are said in a diuerse sense Men are said to be sold for naught in respect of God he receiueth no honour but rather dishonour by their selling ouer vnto sinne they are redeemed for naught in Christ in respect of themselues because they gaue nothing for their redemption but yet in respect of Christ and his price they were not redeemed for naught but by the most pretious blood of Christ Mart. Pererius thinketh they are said to be redeemed for naught comparatively because that momentarie pleasure for the which a sinner selleth himselfe is nothing to the price and dignitie of his soule numer 72. but rather selling is here taken for a plaine deliuering ouer as is before shewed out of Augustine Now two waies are the regenerate sold ouer to sinne in respect of their originall corruption and of their carnall infirmities which remaine still in their corrupt nature to the which they are subiect still Pareus but the vnregenerate are said to be sold ouer as Ahab was because they giue themselues wholly ouer vnto sinne Beza doth well expresse these two kinds of seruitude or selling ouer by the like difference in humane servitude for some are slaves because they are borne of serâ—ile and bond parents others make themselues bond like vnto the first are the regenerate and the vnregenerate as the second Quest. 25. Of these words v. 15. I allow not what I doe what I would that doe I not 1. Chrysostome thinking that the Apostle speaketh this in the person of an vnregenerate man referreth this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know not or vnderstand nor to the vnderstanding not that a sinner knoweth not when he sinneth sed tenebrosa quadaÌ„ vertigine obvoluor but I am ouertaken with a kind of dizines that I know not how I was ouertaken so also Origen non rem ipsam sed causam rei dicitur ignorare he is said not to know not the thing but the cause thereof that is how and by what means he came to sinne But it is euident by the words following what I would c. that the Apostle speaketh of his will rather then vnderstanding 2. Pererius likewise inclining to thinke that this is spoken in the person of a carnall man will haue this vnderstood of a generall and vniversall knowledge will and hatred that men in generall knowe and will vertue and hate vice but not in particular But the Apostle here speaketh of doing and not doing which must be referred to particular actions 3. Augustine verie well interpreteth non agnosco I know not that is non approbo non consentio I approoue not consent not
but this supplie is not necessarie the sense is full and perfect without it as afterward shall appeare 2. Some doe transpose the words thus because the law was weake by reason of the flesh Syrian interpreter but in the originall the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein do follow after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the law it were an hard construction to set the relatiue before the antecedent 3. Neither neede we with Camerarius to supplie the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for or because as thus to read because of that which was impossible to the law c. which reading Pareus followeth and Beza misliketh not 4 Neither need we here to admit an Hebraisme with Tolet who will haue the participle sending according to the phrase of the Hebrew to be taken for he sent because he would coine those words and for sinne vnto the last clause which doe hang on the words going before 5. Neither is it put in the nominatiue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this sense such was the weaknes of the law as Beza for here also diuerse words must be supplied 6. But the best reading is to put it in the accusatiue the thing impossible to the law in as much as it was weake c. and to referre it to the last clause condemned sinne in the flesh by way of opposition in this sense God sending his Sonne c. condemned sinne in the flesh which was impossible to the law as the Latine well obserueth and so our English translations doe well expresse it thus for that which was impossible to the law c. Quest. 5. What is meant by the similitude of sinnefull flesh 1. The Maniches and Marcionites did wrest the Apostles words to signifie that Christ had no true humane flesh but a similitude and likenes onely But Basil epistol 65. well answereth them that this word similitude must not simply be referred to flesh but to sinnefull flesh for Christ was like vnto vs in all things sinne onely excepted 2. The Commentatie which goeth vnder Hieromes name saith it is called the similitude of sinnefull flesh quia erat ad peccandum proclivior because it was prone vnto sinne but yet he took it without sinne for Christs flesh beeing conceiued without sinne had no pronnes or aptnes at all vnto sinne vnlesse he meane humane flesh in generall and not that particular flesh which was assumed by Christ. 3. Some by the similitude of sinnefull flesh interpret similem per passibilitatem mortâ—â—tatem like in mortalitie and suffering gloss inter Lyranus so also Melancthon peccatur in speciem visa est it seemed as sinnefull flesh because he sustained the punishment doe vnto our sinnes likewise Osiander because he bare our punishment he was taken of some to be a great sinner But this sense is to much restrained and too particular 4. Nor yet doth Erasmus well translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in specie in the shew of sinnefull flesh for so the Angels and Christ himselfe before his incarnation appeared in humane shape 5. But Theophylact well interpreteth he had our flesh secundam substantiam sed peccaâ—â— expertem in substance but void of sinne so also Basil with other Greeke expositors carâ—â—â— nostram in naturalibus affectibus he tooke our flesh with the naturall affections he tooke our verie flesh as Phil. 2.7 he was found in shape as a man Pareus Beza with others Quest. 6. Of these words and for sinne condemned sinne in the flesh 1. Origen by sinne vnderstandeth sacrifice for sinne so many of our new wiâ—â—â— Melancthon Bucer Calvin Osiander Martyr so also Pererius Vatablus disput 4.10 so they interpret pro peccato 1. per peccatum by sinne by sinne that is by his sacrifice so sinne he condemned sinne in the flesh but though elsewhere sinne is taken in that sense for sacrifice for sinne as 2. Cor. 5.21 he made him to be sinne for vs which knewe no sinne yet it is but an hard construction here for the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not by or thorough but pro for 2. Augustines exposition is yet more hard who by sinne vnderstandeth the flesh of Christ which he tooke like vnto sinnefull flesh and therefore it is called sinne lib. 3. contra 2. epist. Pelag. c. 6. but the Apostle saith afterward he condemned sinne in the flesh this should be superfluously put if by sinne he had meant the flesh before 3. Hillarius in Psal. 67. by sinne which is condemned interpreteth the deuill who was condemned and iudged in Christs death by that sinne which he had committed by the Iewes in putting Christ to death this seemeth hard also 4. Anselme by death in the first place will haue death signified which is the effect of sinne and so Christ by his death condemned sinne but the Greeke preposition will not beare this sense 5. Chrysostome and Theodoret whom Tolet followeth deuise this sense that Christ condemned sinne tanquam reum iniquitatis as guiltie of great sinne and iniquitie because it rose vp against Christ beeing innocent and caused him to die so they doe giue vnto sinne a certaine person which for the great offence which is had committed was condemned 6. But all these expositions fayle herein because they ioyne these words and for sinne to the last clause condemned whereas they are a part of the former member how God sent his Sonne in the similitude of sinnefull flesh and for sinne that is vt tolleret peccatum to take away sinne so Beza Pareus Rolloch and this exposition Oecumenius also maketh mention of so that this is the ende why God sent his Sonne to take away sinne 7. There is also an other exposition which the ordin gloss hath and Gorrhan peccatum de peccato sinne of sinne they interpret to be the corruption of our nature springing from the sinne of Adam But this fayleth with the rest in seuering the words from the former sentence Quest. 7. How Christ condemned sinne in the flesh 1. Tolet vnderstandeth it of the dominion of sinne which it had before in our members but now in Christ sinne is depriued of his dominion 2. Beza referreth it to the sanctification of our nature in Christ which he tooke without sinne and by flesh he vnderstandeth the humane nature sanctified in Christ 3. Chrysostome ioyneth these two together that Christ both non peccavit sinned not at all and so sinne ouercame not him and in that he died vicit condemnavit peccatum he ouercame and condemned sinne likewise Haymo saith Christ two wayes condemned sinne because he sinned not in his flesh mortificando in cruce and he condemned it by mortifying the same vpon the crosse 4. Erasmus giueth this sense convicit coarguit peccatores he convinced and reprooued sinners that is he shewed them to be hypocrites and deceiuers which hitherto had deluded the world with a false shewe of iustice and yet they put Christ to death as a transgressor of the law but the Apostles intendment
same way for all vnto eternall life Controv. 18. That election is certaine and infallible of grace without merit and of some selected not generally of all 1. The Apostle ioyning all these together predestination vocation iustification glorification sheweth the inseperable coherence of them that they which are called by grace and iustified cannot misse of their glorification because the Lord cannot be deceiued neither is he mutable 2. Neither is there here any place for merit for after iustification followeth glorification if man were to merit his saluation the Apostle would not here haue admitted it and if any inferre that merites are comprehended in iustification we answer that God is here said to iustifie it is his â—is act but if mans merits iustifie then man iustifieth himselfe 3. And further this place maketh against vniuersall election for seeing men are predestinate but they are afterward called and iustified it followeth because all are not called nor iustified by Christ that therefore all were not elected vnto saluation Controv. 19. That the elect cannot fall away from the grace and fauour of God and be wholly giuen ouer vnto sinne v. 35. What shall seperate vs from the loue of Christ c. Notwithstanding this euident testimonie of the Apostle Pererius affirmeth that one which is predestinate may be fine gratia Dei without the grace of God and in deadly sinne his reasons are these 1. It was Iovinians heresie that he which was once iustified could not fall from the grace of God into deadly sinne Hierom. lib. 2. advers Iouinian 2. He vrgeth the examples of Adam Aaron Dauid the Apostles which fled from Christ who all lost the grace they had and fell into greeuous sinnes 3. If grace could not be lost then these exhortations of Scripture should be superfluous Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall 1. Cor. 10.12 And worke out your saluation with feare and trembling Phil. 2.13 and such like Contra. 1. The error of Iouinian was that one beeing in the state of grace could not fall into sinne which opinion the Protestants abhorre for though we say that the elect cannot fall away from the grace and fauour of God yet they fall into sinne and the workes of grace may be intermitted in them yet wholly giuen ouer vnto sinne they cannot be which Pererius vnderstandeth by falling into deadly sin so then Iouinian is in one extreame as also are the Anabaptists Libertines family of loue which hold that a man regenerate cannot sinne at all and the Papists are in an other that the elect may be wholly giuen ouer vnto sinne the Protestants hold the meane betweene both that as they are not free from sinne altogether so they are not giuen ouer vnto sinne altogether 2. These examples doe not shew that they were wholly giuen ouer to sinne or that when they were in sinne they were excluded from the fauour of God though they were for the time depriued of the sense and feeling thereof 3. And these exhortations are meanes to keepe the elect from falling away from God and a Christian hauing a sollicitous care to please God is a fruit of election it is an argument of their standing where such care is not of their falling 4. But both these positions are warranted by the Scripture 1. that they whom God loueth cannot loose the grace and fauour of God for whom he loueth he loueth to the end Ioh. 13.1 and the gifts and calling of God are without repentance Rom. 11.29 2. neither can sinne raigne in the elect of God though they may fall into some sinnes yet the Lord raiseth them vp againe by repentance so the Apostle saith be that is borne of God sinneth not 1. Ioh. 3.9 which Augustine interpreteth non debet peccare he ought not sinne Oecumen non vult he will not sinne Caietane following an other interpretation of Augustines non ex ea parte they sinne not as they are regenerate Heirome they cannot sinne as beeing as they remaine the sonnes of God But the meaning is he cannot be giuen ouer vnto the studie and dominion of sinne but though he sinne yet it is not either totally or finally 20. Controv. Whether a reprobate may haue the grace of God and true iustice Pererius as he denieth constancie and continuance in grace to the elect so he affirmeth that some which are ordained vnto euerlasting coÌ„demnation may be for a while right good men Dei gratia praeditos and endued with the grace of God which he would prooue 1. by the fall of the Angels who were created with grace 2. by the example of Saul and Iudas who were at the first good men and had the grace of God 3. so Salomon had the spirit of God and yet in the ende was a reprobate and cast-away Perer. 27. disput Contr. 1. We must distinguish of grace there are common graces and gifts of the spirit which may be conferred vpon the reprobate as the Apostle sheweth that they may be lightened be partakers of the holy Ghost and tast of the good word of God c. Heb. 6.4 5. and yet fall away that is may haue these things in some measure but there is the liuely sanctifying grace of Gods spirit whereby we are truly inlightened which is not giuen to any but vnto the elect which grace was promised vnto S. Paul 2. Cor. 12.9 My grace is sufficient for thee so then we answer that the Angels which fell receiued in their creation an excellent portion and measure of grace but not the like powerfull and effectuall grace which the elect Angels had 2. Saul king of Israel and Iudas one of the Apostles had many goodly gifts and graces of the first sort but true iustice pietie and grace they neuer had 3. But concerning Salomon he is much deceiued in holding him to be damned which though some haue affirmed as Gregor lib. 2. Moral c. 3. Salomon sapientiam non perseveraturus accepit c. Salomon receiued wisdome but not to persevere so also Rabanus in 2. Reg. c. 23. and Lyranus 1. King c. 7. who vrgeth this reason that Salomon neuer repented of his idolatrie because his Idols remained still vnto Iosias time 2. king 23.13 which sheweth that he continued in his idolatrie and Pererius concurring doth presse this reason because no mention is made of Salomons repentance in the Scripture disput 27. Contra. 1. As these authors hold Salomon a reprobate so as graue authors hold the contrarie Heirome vpon the 43. of Ezechiel saith is was the opinion of the Hebrewes that Salomon made the booke of the preacher as a testimonie of his repentance Hilarie in Psal. 52. agreeth that Salomon was elected and Paul Burgens addition sup c. 2.2 Reg. â— 2. The text saith not that Iosias put downe the idols which Salomon had made but he defiled the high places which he had built now the high places mentioned in the raigne of diuerse good kings as it is said of Asa
not onely be that is Isaac Beza Genevens some and not only illa she vnderstanding Sarah that is the onely non accepit devinum responsum receiued not a diuine answear Ireneus lib. 4. 〈◊〉 or promissionem 〈◊〉 promise gloss ordinar or a sonne by the helpe of grace Lyranusâ— â—t the better supply is to put it neither in the masculine or feminine but in the neuter aâ—â— not onely hoc this that is it was not thus onely in Ismael and Isaac but in this other example which he nowe proâ—oundeth see the like phrase before c. 5.11 and 8.23 2. For whereas diuerse exceptions might haue beene taken 〈◊〉 former example as that they were of two mothers and alâ—â— same of diuerse conditions the one free the other bound now the Apostle produceth an other example wherein neither of these two exceptions can haue place for Iacob and Esau came of one mother and they were borne at one birth 3. The vulgar Latine readeth Rebecca ex vna concubitu at one lying in conception but in the Greeke it is not so but she 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hauing conceiued by one in the same sense the Syrian translator companying with him though it be not vnlike but that as they were borne together so they were conceiued together 4. But Chrysostome here hath a strange opinion that the Apostle leaueth this question vndiscussed why the Lord did make choice of Iacob and refused Esau he onely answeareth one question by an other for the Iewes might haue demanded why they were reiected and the Gentiles accepted and he answeareth by the like question concerning the fathers Isaac and Iacob were taken Ismael and Esau refused and goeth no further like as in the 5. chapter he sheweth that Christs righteousnesse is deriued to vs as Adams sinne is propagâ—ted but there he leaueth and proceedeth not to shewe how sinne is propagated from Adam But Chrysostome is in both deceiued for both in that place he prooueth the propagation of sinne from Adam to his posteritie by the effect thereof namely death all is sinne in Adam because by sinne death entered and in this place he sheweth the first cause of the election of Iacob and the reprobation of Esau namely the free purpose of God v. 11. that the purpose of God might remaine Quest. 13. Whether these examples concerne temporall or eternall election and reprobation It is by some obiected that these examples of Isaac and Ismael Iacob and Esau doe only shewe their temporall reiection not their depriuing of eternall life but they are set forth onely as types of the reiection of the Iewes 1. For the text cited out of Genesis chap. 15. speaketh of servitude that the elder shall serue the younger but one may be in seruitude and yet not eternally reiected 2. And this prophesie was not personally fulfilled in Iacob and Esau but in their posteritie 3. That other place Malach. 1.2 sheweth wherein the loue of God consisted toward Iacob and his hatred toward Esau because he gaue vnto Iacob the land of promise but vnto Esau he made his mountaine wast and gaue him a drie and barren countrie Thus Erasmus obiected in his diatrib pro liber arbit and of late Humius and Huberus Contra. To these obiections of Erasmus Luther hath sufficiently made answer lib. de orbit c. 166. much differing herein from the Lutherans so called in these times 1. First here Luther and so Pet. Martyr vpon this place answer by way of concession that if it were admitted that Saint Paul onely speaketh of their temporall reiection yet it is a strange argument to shew that election is not by works seeing euen the disposing of this temporall inheritance was not by workes but according to the purpose of God secondly it is denied that this testimonie onely concerned the temporall inheritance for this externall promise of the inheritance of Canaan had relation to Christ and the spirituall promises were therein exhibited and so the Apostle draweth his argument à sig no ad rem significatam from the signe to the thing signified Iun. lib. 2. parallel 10. so also Pareus dub 9. this right giuen vnto the younger ouer the elder was effectus singularis gratiae complectens ea omnia quae ad foedus Dei c. it was an effect of speciall grace comprehending all things belonging to the couenant and euerlasting life 2. As this prophesie was historically fulfilled in their posteritie so also it must haue some effect in their persons for it is said to Esau Gen. 27.40 Thou shalt be thy brothers seruant which seeing it was not fulfilled visibly for Esau had a more flourishing outward state than Iacob it had a spirituall accomplishment in them Esau beeing a seruant in respect of Iacob because he was cut of from the couenant off grace And though there be not euident testimonie of the reprobation of Ismael and Esau yet it is most probable seeing Ismael was a mocker and persecutor of Izaak Gala. 4.29 and Esau is called a prophane person that they were reprobates vnlesse it can be shewed that they returned in their life time to the fellowship of the Church for without the Church there is no saluation Par. dub 4. 3. In Malachie the Lord vseth this as an argument of his loue to Iacob and hatred to Esau because he had giuen a pleasant land to the one and a barren ground to the other but yet the Lord riseth higher and sheweth how that with Esau he is angrie for euer and that he will be magnified in Iacob that place then cannot be restrained to temporall things 4. And if these examples onely concerned temporall things then had not the Apostle alleadged them to the purpose which was to shew who were the children of God and the children of the promise v. 8. but this is not to be thought of the Apostle that he cited Scripture impertinently See further hereof Synops. Quest. 14. How this saying of the Prophet Esau haue I hated agreeth with that Wisedom 11 2â— Thou hatest nothing which thou shalt made 1. Catharinus to dissolue this knot referreth this hatred of Esau vnto things temporall that Iacob is said to be loued and Esau hated because Iacob had the better blessing and more temporall gifts bestowed vpon him and Esau seemed to be neglected like as the younger sonnes may say their father hateth them when the inheritance is giuen vnto the Elder But it hath beene shewed before that these examples are alleadged by the Apostle to shew who were the children of promise and who not and therefore they cannot be restrained to temporall things 2. Augustine saith non edit Deus Esau hominem sed adit peccatorem God hated not Esau as a man but as a sinner lib. ad Simplâ—â—ian qu. 2. and he explaneth his mind thus further distinguishing betweene these three creaturam peccatum poenam peccati the creature the sinne of the creature and the punishment the first God hateth not nor the last the one he made
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
his iust iudgement to leaue some in their sinnes c. and not beeing made partakers of Christ to condemne them for euer Iudicious Polanus hath the like definition of reprobation in his partitions It is the decree whereby God purposed to himselfe to leaue those of whom it pleased him not to haue mercie in euerlasting destruction vnto the which they should be obnoxious for their sinnes for the declaration of his iustice In these distinctions all the causes are touched of euerlasting damnation and the â—â—re-ordaining thereunto the efficient is Gods decree and purpose the materiall is sinne the formall the deniall of mercie and the leauing them to themselues the finall cause is the setting forth of the iustice of God And thus I trust it hath beene sufficiently shewed how the decree of reprobation may safely be held to proceede from the prescience of originall and actuall sinne and not to be an absolute act of Gods will and purpose as the decree of election is and in this resolution of this question whatsoeuer I haue before thought and written otherwise I set vp my rest as the safest from any inconuenience and the fittest to giue satisfaction to the contrarie obiections which are such as here follow 1. Obiect Seeing the number of the reprobate farre exceedeth the number of the elect how is Gods mercie magnified aboue his iustice Ans. They which hold an absolute reprobation without relation vnto sinne cannot here remooue this doubt for if God out of his owne will should cast off more then he receiueth he should be farre more iust then mercifull But this beeing first laid as a foundation that God casteth off none but for sin in that he saueth some out of that masse of corruption whereas he might iustly leaue all his mercie exceedeth his iustice and in these three points 1. in that God in the beginning made man righteous Ecclesi 7.31 and gaue him free-will so to haue continued if he would and if he had not willingly transgressed he should haue remained in the state of grace and fauour with God and not haue tasted of his iustice 2. after man had fallen and brought all his posteritie into the bondage of corruption Gods mercie appeared in sauing some whereas he might in iustice haue condemned all as he did the reprobate Angels that kept not their first state 3. his mercie is euident euen toward those which are left in their corruption that the Lord denieth not vnto them meanes whereby they might be called if they had grace to vse them and he suffereth euen the vessels of wrath with much patience not presently cutting theÌ„ off as he might in al these points Gods mercie exceedeth his iustice 2. Obiect When God had made Adam righteous it was in his power to haue kept him from falling that all might haue beene saued is not God therein accessarie to their sin is suffering that which he might haue hindered Ans. 1. 〈◊〉 was fit that the Creator hauing made man with free will should suffer the creature freely to exercise that naturall power and facultie which was giuen him as other creatures doâ—â— their kind 2. although God permitted Adam to fall yet he knew how to vse it for 〈◊〉 further demonstration of his glorie and in this behalfe it is iust with God to suffer euill â—â—â—â—e in the world which he knoweth how to turne vnto good as he suffered Iob to be 〈◊〉 of Sathan for the triall of his faith 3. But in that God saueth some out of that masse of corruption and perdition and not all how is he not now partial and an accepter of persons in dealing vnequally with those which are in equall state and condition Ans. Where one is bound to giue equally to all there it is partialitie and iniustice not to giue vnto all alike but in free and voluntarie gifts one may giue vnequally vnto those which are of equall sort without any touch at all as when a man hath two debters he may forgiue vnto one his debt and yet require it of another So God is not bound to giue his grace vnto any especially where they haue willingly fallen from his grace as Adam did in Paradise and we in him we beeing then all now endebted vnto Gods iustice in our naturall corruption God may haue mercie where and on whom he will it is lawfull for him to do with his owne as he will Matth. 20.15 4. Obiect It seemeth to be an hard and cruell part to destroie any for the setting forth of ones power and magnificence as the Turke and other Tyrants make no account of mens liues to serue their pleasure Ans. 1. No earthly potentate hath that power ouer his subiects which God hath ouer his creatures therefore though it be vniust in the one it is not in the other 2. for one to destroy another for his honour and glorie sake may seeme hard but to bequeath them to destruction worthily for their faults to get glorie thereby is not vniust so although God in the destruction and condemnation of the wicked intend his glorie yet they are worthily condemned for their sinne Obiect 5. He that willeth the end willeth also the meanes that bring and lead vnto that end if God haue appointed the damnation of the reprobate then he willeth also sinne which is the meanes to that end Ans. He that simply willeth the end willeth also the meanes but God simply willeth not the damnation of any but for their sinne Obiect 6. If God haue foreseene the sinnes of the reprobate and willeth their iust damnation for sinne how is it said he would haue all to be saued Ans. God simply willeth not the damnation of any but for sinne and no other thing appeareth in the reuealed will of God in that he offereth meanes of saluation to all but that he would haue all to be saued this then is to be vnderstood of the absolute and reuealed will of God 7. Obiect If God foresee the sinnes of the reprobate and decree their punishment why doth God complaine of sinners seeing his will in them is fulfilled Ans. Augustine answeareth 1. God iustly complaineth of sinners quia non cogit eos peccare because he doth not constraine them to sinne howsoeuer Gods decree cannot be altered yet their will is not forced they sinne willingly and so are iustly condemned 2. and when God complaineth of sinners by this meanes those on whom God sheweth mercie are called compunguntur corde and are pricked in heart howsoeuer the other are hardened Obiect 8. If the case so stand that the reprobate are appointed to damnation then it skilleth not what a man doth for though he should repent him yet if he be a reprobate it cannot helpe him Ans. If â—â—â—were apparant who were elected who a reprobate then indeed all contrarie endeauour were in vaine but seeing we haue no other way to prooue our election then by our faith and fruits we must thereby labour to make our election sure 2.
opinion examined that our sinnes are remitted onely by Christs death not for the the obedience and merit of his life Controversies vpon the 5. Chapter 1. contr Whether a good conscience and integritie of life be the cause of peace with God 2. contr Against invocation of Saints 3. contr Of the certaintie of salvation and of perseverance 4. contr That the tribulation of the Saints is not meritorius though it be said to worke patience 5. contr That we are not iustified by the inherent habite of charitie 6. contr Against the heresie of impious Socinus who denieth that Christ died for our sinnes and payed the ransome for them 7. contr Against other obiections of Socinus and other impugning the fruit and efficacie of Christs death in reconciling vs to God his Father 8. con That Christs death was a full satisfaction for our sins against Socinus his cauils 9. contr That Christs death was not onely satisfactorie but meritorious against Socinus Certaine controversies touching Originall sinne 10. cont That there is originall sinne in men by the corruption of nature against the opinion of the Hebrewes 11. contr That Adaws sinne is entred into his posteritie by propagation not imitation onely against the Pelagians 12. contr Of the manner how originall sinne is propagated against the Pelagians where it is disputed whether the soule be deriued from the Parents 13. contr Against the Pelagians and Papists that originall sinne is not quite taken away in Baptisme 14. contr What originall sinne is against the Romanists and some some others and specially against them which hold it to be Adams sinne imputed onely to his posteritie 15. contr That originall sinne is not onely the privation of originall iustice 16. contr Of the wicked heresie of Marcion and Valentinus with the blasphemous Manichees 17. cont That all sinnes are mortall and worthie of death by nature 18. contr That Henoch and Elias are not yet aliue in the bodie 19. contr The Virgin Marie conceiued in originall sinne 20. contr Againe meritts 21. contr That the punishment of originall sinne is euerlasting death 22. contr That Christs essentiall iustice is not infused into vs. 23. contr Against the Patrons of vniuersall grace 24. contr Against the Popish inherent iustice 25. contr That we are iustified both by the actiue and passiue obedience of Christ. 26. contr Against the Philosophers who placed righteousnes in their owne workes 27. contr Against the Manichees and Pelagians the one giuing too much the other too little to the lawe 28. contr Of the assurance of salvation 29. contr Of the diuerse kinds of grace against the Romanists Controversies out of the 6. Chapter 1. contr Against the administring of the Sacraments in an vnknowne tongue 2. contr Concerning inherent iustice 3. contr That the Sacrament of Baptisme doth not conferre grace by the outward worke 4. contr That Baptisme serueth as well for the remission of sinnes to come as of sinnes past 5. contr Whether in Baptisme our sinnes be cleane taken away 6. contr Of the baptisme of infants 7. contr Of the assurance of salvation 8. contr That Christ shall not die in the next world againe for those which were not healed here 9. contr Against the Sacrifice of the Masse 10. contr Concerning freewill 11. contr That concupiscence remaining in the regenerate is properly sinne 12. contr Whether a righteous man may fal into any mortall or deadly sinne 13. contr Against the Manichees 14. contr Concerning inherent iustice 15. contr Against the power of freewill in the fruits of righteousnesse 16. contr Whether all death is the wages of sinne 17. contr Against the distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes 18. contr That everlasting life cannot be merited by good workes Controversies vpon the 7. Chapter 1. contr Against Purgatorie 2. contr Of the lawfulnes of second marriage 3. contr Whether the marriage bond be indissoluable before the one partie be dead 4. contr That the disparitie of profession is no cause of the dissolution of marriage 5. contr Whether the bill of diuorce permitted to the Iewes did lawfully dissolue matrimonie vnder the Law 6. contr Against the workes of propitiation 7. contr Against the Heretikes which condemned the Lawe 8. contr That we are freed by grace from the strict and rigorous observation of the lawe 9. contr That concupiscence though it haue no deliberate consent of the will is sinne forbidden by the commandement 10. contr That the commandement thou shalt not lust is but one 11. contr Against freewill Controversies out of the 8. Chapter 1. contr That concupiscence remaining euen in the regenerate is sinne and in it selfe worthie of condemnation 2. controver That none are perfect in this life 3. controver That regeneration is not the cause that there is no condemnation to the faithfull 4. contr Against the Arrians and Eunomians concerning the dietie of the holy Ghost 5. contr Against the Pelagians that a man by nature cannot keepe and fulfill the lawe 6. contr The fulfilling of the lawe is not possible in this life no not to them which are in the state of grace 7. con That not the carnall eating of Christs flesh is the cause of the resurrection but the spirituall v. 11. 8. contr Against merits 9. contr Whether in this life one by faith may be sure of salvation 10. contr Against the invocation of Saints 11. contr That a strange tongue is not to be vsed in the seruice of God 12. contr That euerlasting glorie cannot be merited 13. contr That hope iustifieth not 14. contr Whether hope relie vpon the merit of our workes 15. contr Against the naturall power and integritie of mans will 16. contr That predestination dependeth not vpon the foresight of faith or good workes 17. contr Against the opinion of Ambrosius Catharinus concerning predestination 18. contr That election is certaine and infallible of grace without merit and of some selected not generally of all 19. contr That the elect cannot full away from the grace and fauour of God and be wholly giuen ouer vnto sinne 20. contr Whether a reprobate may haue the grace of God and true iustice 21. contr That the elect by faith may be assured of euerlasting salvation Controversies out of the 9. Chapter 1. contr That succession of Bishops is no sure note of the Church of Christ. 2. contr Against the old heretikes the Manichees Arrians Nestorians confuted out of the 5. ver 3. contr Against the prophane and impious collections of Eniedinus and Socinus late heretikes 4. contr That the water in baptisme doth not sanctifie or giue grace 5. contr Against the vaine observation of Astrologers in casting of nativities 6. contr That the soules had no beeing in a former life before they came into the body 7. contr Whether the foresight of faith or workes be the cause of election 8. contr That not onely election vnto grace but vnto glorie also is onely of the good will of God 9. contr That the Apostle treateth as well of
Mart. there might haue beene an other way in respect of Gods power to whome all things are possible sed nullus humanae miseriae convenientoir but none more conuenient in regard of mans miserie for what can more comfort vs deliuer vs from despaire then that it pleased God that a man like our selues should die for vs gloss ord and though there must haue been an other way found out Liberandi to deliuer man tamen non redimendi yet not of redeeming man Gorrhan for man could not properly be saide to be redeemed vnlesse the ransome had beene paied and the punishment due vnto man satisfied which was by the death of Christ. 15. Quest. Wherein the force of the Apostles reason consisteth saying Much more beeing reconciled we shall be saued by his life v. 9. 1. The ordinarie glosse thus collecteth because it is more to take away sinne then iustos cooperantes salvare to saue those that are iust and fellow workers as though this were the Apostles argument it was an harder matter to worke our iustification which was done without vs then now to purchase saluation whereunto man himselfe worketh But this is farre from the Apostles meaning to make man a ioynt worker with Christ in the matter of iustification for he ascribeth all here vnto the death and life of Christ. 2. Wherefore the force of this comparison beeing from the greater to the lesse consisteth in these three points 1. for whome Christ hath done this 2. how he hath wrought it 3. and what 1. The first is obserued by Chrysostome he iustified vs by faith in his blood when we were enemies now amici facti sumus we are made his friends and therefore he will much more saue vs. 2. The next is obserued by Oecumenius and Chrysostome also toucheth it it is not necessarie 〈◊〉 post hac silius moriatur that afterward the Sonne should die any more if then iustification be alreadie wrought for vs which required Christs death much more now shall we obtaine the perfecting of saluation to the which Christs death againe is not required Pareus and before him Gorrhan doe place the comparison in the opposition betweene life and death if he could iustifie vs by dying multo magis vivens c. much more beeing aliue can he saue vs. 3 It is more to iustifie and reconcile sinners then to saue them beeing iustified Christ hath done the first much lesse need we doubt of the second Pet. Mart. But Lyranus hath here a corrupt glosse giuing this reason why it is a greater worke to iustifie a sinner then to glorifie him beeing iustified because one can not merit his iustification but he that is iustified may per gratiam mereri de condigno vitam beatam c. may by grace deserue of condignitie a blessed life c. This is contrarie to the Apostle who saith Rom. 6.23 that the gift of God is eternall life c. it can not then be any wise merited 3. Now saluation is ascribed to the life of Christ not as though the life of Christ rising from the dead were the price of our redemption but because Christ by his resurrection and life did perfect our saluation and he now euer liueth to be an intercessor for vs vnto his father and to bring vs vnto glorie wherefore to finish and make perfect our iustification the life of Christ and his resurrection must be ioyned with his death and suffering as the Apostle concluded before in the verie last words of the former chapter Pareus 16. Quest. Why the Apostle saith not onely so but we also reioyce in God c. v. 11. 1. Some doe make this connexion that we onely shall not be saued by Christ in the life to come but now also reioyce in the hope thereof Lyran. Gorrhan and before them Theoâ—â—et likewise Anselme we glorie in this quia consider amus nos futuros cum illo in gloria we consider we shall be with him in glorie 2. Oecumenius giueth this sence least any might thinke it a shame vnto vs that we could not be otherwise redeemed then by the death of Christ the Apostle addeth that we â—â—eede not be ashamed thereof but rather glorie therein because it was a signe of the great loue of God that he spared not his owne Sonne for vs. 3. Some referre it to our glorying in tribulations Sa but it is more to glorie in God â—â—en to reioyce in tribulation 4. But the Apostle setteth downe here the highest degree of the reioycing of Christians they doe not onely reioyce vnder the hope of glorie nor in tribulation which two degrees the Apostle mentioned before ver 2. but they reioyce in God which is to reioyce quod Deum propitium habeas that thou hast God thy mercifull father Pareus â—â—â—â—care Deum habere patrem c. to boast that we haue God our father protector and â—â—â—ender Tolet. gloriamur Deum esse nostrum we reioyce that God is ours Calvin gloriaâ—â—â— de ipsius in nos clementia we glorie of his clemencie and loue toward vs Osiander And â—â—s the Apostle here amplifieth three effects of iustification before propounded v. 1 2. to â—â—â—e peace with God to stand in the state of grace and to reioyce so here he saith we are reconciled by his blood then we are saued by his life and so haue a perpetuitie and certentie in our state and we dare also glorie in God Pareus 17. Quest. Whether any thing neede to be supplied in the Apostles speach v. 12. to make the sense perfect v. 12. As by one sinne entred into the world c. 1. Some doe thinke that the redditiue of this similitude is wanting for vnto this as by one c. should answer the other part so c. Origen giueth this reason thereof that S. Paul omitted the other part so by one mans obedience came righteousnes propter negligentiores least the negligent and carelesse sort should haue presumed too much but this can be no reason because the Apostle both before and after had expressed as much that we obtaine life and righteousnes by Christ. 2. Bullinger consenteth with Origen that there is in this speach of the Apostle an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some inconsequence and that he omitted the other part through vehemencie 3. Erasmus thinketh that here is an anantapodoton a comparison without a reddition which he would haue vnderstood by supplying the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so in the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and death by sinne that is so death came by sinne as by one man sinne entred but all this belongeth to the proposition or first part of the comparison As sinne came in by one and death by sinne the reddition must be that so righteousnes came in by Christ and life thereby for otherwise there should be small coherence in the words 4. Tolet thinketh that the reddition is included in those words in the ende of the 14.1 where Adam is saide to be the figure