Simon Magus seeing would by money haue purchased the like power Act. 8. 9. It was giuen them in all their doctrine to be free from error as Christ promiseth Ioh. 16.13 that the spirit should leade them in all truth 10. The Apostles in the knowledge of the mysteries and high things of the Gospel exceeded all other as S. Paul saith Ephes. 17. According to his rich grace whereby he hath beene abundant toward vs in all wisedome and vnderstanding 11. Two other prerogatiues Pererius addeth the one vncertaine the other false first he saith that the Apostles composed and framed the symbole containing the 12. articles of the faith commonly called the Apostles Creede which is not certaine both because some of the articles as that of the descension came in many yeares after the Apostles as is elsewhere shewed and if the Apostles had set downe this rule of faith it is not like that diuerse Churches would after them haue framed so many diuerse formes beside of the Creed 12. But the last priuiledge that the Apostles post acceptum spiritum sanctum fuerint impeccabiles quantum ad peccatum mortale after they had receiued the spirit were without sinne c. for 1. in this sense that distinction of veniall and mortall sinne is not to be allowed that some are veniall in their owne nature by the grace of God all sinnes were veniall to the Apostles and to all other beleeuers but in it owne nature euery sinne deserueth death and so is mortall Rom. 6.23 2. and that the Apostles were apt to sinne is euident by Peters ouersight for the which he was openly rebuked of S. Paul Gal. 2.11 where he saith he was to be blamed 10. Quest. How S. Paul is said to be set or put apart for the Gospel of God The word which the Apostle here vseth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 separated or set apart 1. Ambrose thinketh that here there is an allusion to the sect of the Pharisies whereof S. Paul was who were so called because they were in a more strict kind of liuing separated from others 2. Whereas S. Paul saith likewise Galat. 2.15 that God separated him from his mothers wombe some interpret ab vtero synagogae he was separate from the wombe of the Synagogue gloss interlin à doctrina Phariseorum from the doctrine of the Pharisies gloss ordinar but this S. Paul expresseth in the words following and called me by his grace Gal. 2.15 3. Hug. Cardin. segregatus à grege he is saide to be separated from the rest of the flocke but so were the other Apostles also 4. Oecumen alij ad alia ego ad Euangelium some were set apart for other things I for the Gospel but this was generall also to all the other Apostles 4. Anselmus he is said to be segregatus set apart prae caeteris discipulis c. in respect of other disciples which were with him then at Antioch when the Spirit said Separate me Barnabas and Saul Act. 13. but the Apostle speaketh of a separation euen from his mothers wombe as he expoundeth himselfe Gal. 2.15 5. As these haue speciall reference to Pauls actuall separation when he was called so others referre it to the electing and foreordaining Paul to this worke in the counsell of God But Origen and Sedulius ascribe this separation to Paul merits that the Lord foresaw his merits and labours which he should take in the Gospel and therefore elected him to be an Apostle But Tolet well confureth this because it is contrarie to S. Pauls owne doctrine Rom. 9. who ascribeth election to the mercie and grace of God and he himselfe professeth that he was called by the grace of God Gal. 2.15 therefore not by any merits 6. Chrysostome vnderstandeth this separation of his preordaining vnto the Apostleship as the Lord likewise saith to Ieremie c. 1.5 Before thou camest out of the wombe I sanctified thee and so inculcat divinam electionem he doth vrge his diuine election that his Epistle might be receiued with great authoritie so also Peter Mart. he sheweth his calling initium habuisse ex praedestinatione to haue taken beginning from Gods predestination which he maketh mention of to shew a difference betweene his calling to be an Apostle who was thereunto also elected and theirs which were called but not elected as was Iudas Hyperi◠And further apponit vitae priori he setteth this against his former life while he was a persecuter all that he did was per accidens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as by the way and out of course but this was that whereunto he was ordained Aretius 7. But beside this eternall separation in Gods prescience here is somewhat noted quod Paulus ab alijs Apostolis habuit peculiare which Paul had peculiar euen from other Apostles he was appointed an Apostle to preach among all the Gentiles as it followeth v. 5. for the rest of the Apostles remaining in Iudea he first with Barnabas was separated to preach to the Gentiles Act. 23. Tolet. And so consequently his office was to preach to the Romanes among other Gentiles Aretius Here also he insinuateth his extraordinarie calling to be an Apostle diuers from the rest he was separate from them beeing an Apostle aboue the number of the twelue Mathias was chosen in the place of Iudas and so did but fill vp that number but S. Paul was ouer and aboue Tolet. so S. Paul was separate first vnto eternall saluation then vnto the knowledge of Christ and thereby to be an Apostle Faius 11. Quest. Of the description of the Gospel v. 1 2 3. v. 1. The Gospel of God which was promised c. 1. The Gospel is taken two waies either for the doctrine concerning Iesus Christ which containeth foure things 1. of the comming of Christ in the flesh which comprehendeth the whole historie of the incarnation of Christ and all his acts both his holy sermons and speaches and his holy and powerfull workes 2. the effects of his comming as the remission of sinne the subduing of the kingdome of Satan the reconciling vs to God opening the kingdome of heauen and the like 3. the third is the veritie of those things which in the Gospel are prescribed to be beleeued the holy doctrine and precepts of the Gospel 4. the obseruation of such things as Christ commanded Matth. 28.20 Teaching them to obserue all things which I haue commanded you Tolet. secondly the Gospel is taken for the publishing preaching and annuntiation of it in which sense the Apostle saith If our Gospel be hid it is hid to thē which are lost 2. Here all the parts of the Gospel are expressed 1. the efficient it is called the Gospel of God to shew that it was no humane inuention Gualter 2. the forme thereof it was promised before as the Apostle saith Gal. 3.23 Before faith came c. we were shut vp vnto the faith which should be reuealed Gryu which promises concerning Christ to come were made vnto the
may set one auncient writer against an other to this purpose Bellarm. lib. 3. de verb. Dei c. 14. Contra. 1. Though some Greeke copies might haue those words yet the most and the most auncient haue them not as is euident by the Greeke commentaries and the Syrian translator followeth the Greeke text as it is now extant 2. The Apostle speaketh not of a bare consent vnto euill but of fauouring patronizing and taking pleasure in them which is more then to doe euill for this one may doe of infirmitie the other proceedeth of a setled malice 3. the vnderstanding is in the iudgement of the minde not in the practise and therefore to know a thing and yet not to know or vnderstand it includes a contradiction 4. the Greeke authors and commentaries are more to be respected in this case for the finding out of the best reading in the Greeke then the Latine writers 23. Controv. Against the Popish distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes v. 32. Worthie of death Hence the Rhemists inferre that some sinnes are mortall that is worthie of damnation some veniall that is pardonable of their owne nature and not worthie of damnation Contra. 1. This distinction is contrarie to the Scripture which saith the wages of sinne is death Rom. 6.23 no sinne is excepted and whosoeuer continueth not in all things written in the law is vnder the curse Gal. 3.10 And if any sinne were veniall in it owne nature it would follow that Christ died not for all sinnes for those sinnes which are pardonable in themselues neede not Christs pardon 2. Indeede there are degrees of sinne and some are worthie of greater condemnation then others and are more easily pardoned yet in Gods iustice euery sinne deserueth death which are through Gods mercie made veniall both the lesse and greater sinnes so that one and the same sinne may be mortall to the impenitent and yet veniall to the penitent beleeuer 6. Morall observations 1. Observ. v. 1. Called to be an Apostle none then must take vpon them any Ecclesiasticall function but they which are thereunto called and appointed of God Heb. 5.4 2. Observ. v. 5. For obedience to the faith the Lord straightly chargeth that obedience should be giuen to the faith of his Sonne whence are these sayings Psal. 2.12 Kisse the Sonne Matth. 17.5 Heare him they then professe not the Gospel of Christ truly who make onely a shew thereof in words but denie obedience in deede 3. Observ. v. 7. Grace to you and peace this inward peace of conscience is that peace which can not be taken from vs all other things in the world are temporall but the grace and fauour of God and this inward peace ne morie ipsa abscinduntur are not cut off by death it selfe Chrysost. for this peace we ought all to labour which Christ hath left vnto vs after an other manner then the world leaueth peace Ioh. 14.27 4. Observ. v. 8. I giue thanks c. for you all This is true charitie to pray one for an other and to giue thankes vnto God for the graces bestowed vpon others as if they were conferred vpon our selues And as here the Apostle praieth for the Church so the Church praieth for the Apostle S. Peter Act. 12.5 the Pastor and people are hereby taught one to pray for an other 5. Observ. v. 12. That I might haue consolation together with you Herein the Apostles modestie appeareth who taketh not himselfe to be so perfect but that he might receiue some comfort euen by the faith of the Romanes Let no man therefore despise the gifts and graces of others for euery one may profit by an other euen as one member helpeth an other 7. Observ. v. 13. I haue beene letted hetherto Seeing the purposes of holy men as here this of S. Paul was hindred it teachet vs that we should commend and commit all our purposes and counsels to Gods prouidence and fatherly direction 8. Observ. v. 17. The iust shall liue by faith Hence Chrysostome inferreth that men should take heede of curiositie to know a reason of Gods works but they onely must beleeue As Abraham was not curious when God bad him sacrifice his sonne but he obeyed without any further reasoning or disputation But the Israelites when they vnderstood that the Cananites were as gyants because they saw no reason or likelihood to ouercome them doubted and so fell in the wildernes so he concludeth vides quantum sit incredulitatis barathrum you see what a dangerous downefall incredulitie is and what a safe defence faith is 9. Observ. v. 24. Wherefore God gaue them vp to the lusts c. The Lord sometime gaue the idolatrous Samaritans ouer to lyons 2. King 17. but he giueth ouer these idolatrous Gentiles to their owne hearts lusts and vile affections which did more tyranize ouer them then lyons and tygres for when the bodie is giuen vp to wild beasts and depriued of life nothing happeneth against the condition of our mortall nature but when the minde is ruled by lust and so the affection preuaileth against reason this is monstrous and vnnaturall Perer. disputat 20. 10. Observ. Which is to be blessed for euer We are taught by the example of the Apostle when as we speake of the maiestie of God to breake forth into his praise as the Apostle doth here and c. 9.5 1. Tim. 1.17 11. Observ. Chrysostome further obserueth that as God still remaineth blessed though his glorie were defaced by the idolaters as much as in them lay so likewise the members of Christ when they are reuiled and railed vpon are not thereby hurt nonne vides adamanters cum percutitur percutit iterū like as the adamant when it is smitten it smiteth againe and leaueth a dint in the hammer that striketh it The second Chapter 1. The text with the diuers readings THerefore thou art inexcusable O man O sonne of man T. whosoeuer thou art that iudgest thy neighbour T. but this is not in the originall for wherein thou iudgest an other L.T. in that that thou iudgest an other G. or in that wherein thou iudgest an other but in the originall it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for wherein the antecedent is omitted thou condemnest thy selfe for thou that iudgest doest the same things not thou doest the same things which thou iudgest L. in the originall it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou iudging that is which iudgest the relatiue is referred to the person not to the thing 2 But we know are sure B. that the iudgement of God is according to truth against those V. B.T.Be G. vpon those L. the preposition is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in against which commit such things 3 And thinkest thou this O thou man that iudgest them which doe such things condemnest them which c. Be. but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here vsed signifieth properly to iudge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to condemne that thou shalt escape the iudgement of God 4 Or despisest thou the riches
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
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
but onely of those which are criminall such as S. Iohn speaketh of c. 5. there is a sinne vnto death I say not that thou shouldest pray for it c. for the Apostle speaketh there of sinne against the holy Ghost which shall neuer be forgiuen for the which it is in vaine to pray If the Apostle there should meane all criminall sinnes then it would follow that we should not pray for the conuersion of heretikes adulterers murtherers and such like We confesse that there are some mortall sinnes some veniall but not in their nature to the faithfull and penitent all sinnes are veniall to the vnbeleeuers and impenitent sinnes are morttall it is the mercie of the forgiuer not the qualitie of the sinne that maketh it veniall yet this taketh not away the difference of sinnes as though they were equall for small sinnes are more easily pardoned and great sinnes where they are forgiuen are more hardly pardoned where they be not they are more or lesse punished according to the greatnes of the sinne see further of this point Synops. Centur. 4. er 6. Controv. 18. That euerlasting life cannot be merited by good workes Arg. 1. v. 23. But the gift of God is eternall life The Apostle in chaunging and inuerting the order of his speach whereas he had said the stipend of sinne is death faith not the stipend of righteousnes is eternall life but the gift of God c. euidently sheweth that euerlasting life is not due as a reward merited by our workes but as a gift of grace through Christ Iesus Thus Chrysostome expoundeth this place he saith not merces benefactorum vestrorum vna aeterna sed donum Dei life eternall is the reward of good workes but it is the gift of God Theodoret non dixit eam esse mercedem sed gratiam c. he saith not eternall life is a reward but grace or fauour Nam licet quis summam absolutam iustitiam praestiterit for although one could performe a perfect iustice yet temporall things are not correspondent to eternall Theophylact non quasi retributionem laborum dat eam Deus sed ex gratia per Christum qui hac omnia nobis promeruerit God giueth not eternal life as a recompence of our labour but by grace through Christ who hath merited all these things for vs. Answ. Our aduersaries-doe all here concur in this answer that euerlasting life is therfore called a grace quia bis meritis redditur quae gratia contulit because it is rendred for and vnto those workes which were wrought in vs by grace so Pererius eternall life though it be due vnto good workes yet it is giuen freely nam merita illa principaliter à Dei gratia profecta sunt for these merites to which it is due doe principally proceed from the grace of God c. Pere disput 7. numer 42. so also Tolet in his annotat and the Rhemistes vpon this place also Stapleton hath the same answer which they all would seeme to take from Augustine who saith the Apostle might haue said the stipend of our iustice is eternall life but he called it the grace of God that we should vnderstand ipsa bona opera quibus vita eterna redditur ad Dei gratiam pertinere that good workes themselues to the which eternall life is giuen doe belong vnto the grace of God August de grat liber 8.9 Contra. 1. Whereas Augustine saith recte potuisse dicere the Apostle might haue well said otherwise it is enough for vs that the Apostle did not in this place say otherwise and as Pet. Martyr saith by this meanes most euident places of Scripture might be auoided if we may say aliter potuisset dici it might otherwise thus or thus haue beene said 2. but for the thing it selfe Augustine is so farre from approouing the merite of workes to eternall life that he maketh the good workes themselues to belong vnto grace as he saith else where pro hac gratiam qua ex fide viuimus accepturi sumus aliam gratiam in qua sine fine in calis vinimus for this grace wherein we liue by faith we shall receiue an other grace and fauour wherein we shall liue without end in heauen in Psal. 14.4 3. for how can God be a debter to vs to bestow a second grace because he conferred an other grace before we are endebted to God for the former grace he is not a debter to vs to bestow a second grace as Bearnerd well saith merita omnia Dei dona sunt ita homo magis propter ipsa Deo debiter est quam Deus homini our merits are Gods gifts and so for them man is more debted to God then God to man de annunt Mar. serm 1. Argum. 2. Where the crowne is of mercie it is not of merite but the crowne of euerlasting life is in mercie Psal. 103.4 which crowneth thee with mercie and compassions Answ. Pererius hath here two answers 1. that either by mercie we may vnderstand Gods protection in this life whereby he compssaeth his children as with a crowne 2. or if we take it for the crowne of euerlasting life it is called a mercie because the merites for the which it is rendred promanant principaliter ex gratia per misericordiam data doe principally flow forth from grace giuen them in mercie Pere disput 9. Contra. 1. If Gods protection in this life be of mercie without our desert then much more euerlasting saluation is of mercie which is lesse merited 2. the other is a meere cauill for what graces soeuer any haue receiued in this life how perfect soeuer they be here they shall haue need of mercie in the day of iudgement as the Apostle saith 2. Tim. 1.18 the Lord graunt that he may finde mercie with the Lord at that day c. beside the mercies receiued in this life he wisheth he may also finde mercie then so Augustine collecteth vpon these words Iam. 2.13 there shall be iudgement mercilesse to him that sheweth no mercie that they which haue liued well shall haue iudgement cum misericordia with mercie they which haue liued euill shall haue iudgement without mercie where then there is need of mercie there is no standing vpon merite Argum. 3. That which is of grace cannot be also of works as the Apostle reasoneth Rom. 11.6 if it be of grace it is no more of workes or else grace were no more grace c. but eternall life is of grace Ergo not of workes Answer 1. The Apostle may either here speake of the naturall workes of men and so such workes do destroie grace not of the workes of grace which are indeed meritorious of eternall life 2. the Apostle speaketh of election which is of grace non propter hominum opera prvoisa not vpon the foresight of mans workes Thus Pererius disput 8. numer 48. Contra. 1. The Apostle excludeth euen the workes of grace for the question is of good workes not of
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
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
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
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
shall sweare 3. Some thinke this is a prophesie of the calling of the Gentiles that then euery tongue should confesse Bullin but the Apostle speaketh not of all sorts kinds of men in generall but of euery one in particular as it followeth in the next verse Euery one of vs shall giue account for himselfe 4. Wherefore although this prophesie is in part fulfilled in this life for both the faithfull doe publikely professe the name of Christ in the world now and euen the wicked are many times forced to acknowledge Gods iustice yet it shall not fully be accomplished vntill Christ come in the clouds when all flesh shall appeare before Christ and euen the wicked in that day will they nill they shall be forced to acknowledge Christ to be their Iudge when they shall wish the hills to fall and couer them from his presence Revel 6. so then although we see not all things now subdued to Christ Hebr. 2.8 yet when the last enemie is destroied which is death then all things shall be subdued vnto him when he shall haue deliuered vp the kingdome to his father 1. Cor. 15.27 28. 22. Quest. Whether euery one shall giue account for himselfe and appeare before Christs iudgement seat v. 12. 1. Obiect Pastors which are set ouer mens soules shall giue account for them Heb. 13.17 therefore not euery one for himselfe Ans. It followeth not for some shall giue account both for themselues and others as Pastors some for themselues onely as euery particular person and the Pastor shall not answer for others as in their place and as they are their owne proper faults for so they shall answer for them euery one for himselfe but for their negligence and want of care whereby they suffered their sheepe and flocke to miscarrie 2. Obiect The faithfull shall not be iudged at all Ioh. 3.18 He that beleeueth in him shall not be iudged Ans. There is iudicium condemnationis a iudgement of condemnation and so onely they which beleeue not shall be iudged which either had no faith at all or lost that which they had and there is iudicium retributionis a iudgement of retribution and so all generally shall be iudged the righteous vnto life and the wicked vnto condemnation Lyran. but in that place rather the meaning is he that beleeueth shall not be condemned 3. Obiect The Psalmist saith The wicked shall not stand in iudgement Psal. 1. then euery one shall not giue account at that day Hugo here answereth by this distinction that there is iudicium condemnationis a iudgement of condemnation and iudicium disputationis a iudgement of scanning and disceptation the vnbeleeuers vnderstood there by the wicked shall stand in the first iudgement not in the second there iniquitie is so notorious that it neede no scanning or discussing but those which were beleeuers and yet were euill liuers shall haue the other iudgement they shall be sifted and their sinnes examined But this is no sufficient answer 1. for in the day of iudgement all those which shall be condemned shall haue their sinnes obiected against them their owne consciences accusing them as is set forth in that forme of iudiciall proceeding described by our blessed Sauiour Matth. 25. all the goats at the left hand shall haue their sinnes laid vnto their charge 2. neither is the scanning and discussing of their sinnes properly a iudgement but an euidence and preparing vnto iudgement when the definitive sentence is giuen 3. in that place of the Psalme by not standing vp in iudgement is not meant their not appearing but the manner that they shall not stand forth with boldnes as the faithfull shall but with heauie and cast-downe countenance wishing that any thing might hide them from the presence of him which sitteth vpon the throne Revel 6.16 whereas the righteous shall stand forth boldly as the Prophet saith Isa. 8.18 Behold here am I and the children which thou hast giuen me 23. Quest. Of scandals and offences the occasion and diuers kinds thereof v. 13. 1. Chrysostome thinketh that the Apostle saying let no man put a stumbling blocke or occasion of falling before his brother doth admonish hereby both the strong and the weake for as the one might be offended with an others eating so the other with his not eating but the weake properly are said to be offended not the strong 2. Some take these for both one offence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and scandale 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Origen thinketh it is so called when any thing is found in the way whereat pedes offenduntur c. the feete of the walkers doe stumble or are offended so the Syrian interpreter vseth here but one word to expresse both some take the first to be the greater as an offence they will haue to be the occasion culpae mortalis of a mortall or deadly sinne the scandall venialis of a lesse or veniall sinne Gorrhan M. Beza inclineth to this opinion taking the first to be the worst so the Geneva translation interpreteth the first an occasion to fall the latter a stumbling blocke but this difference rather may be made that an offence is as when one impiugit sed non corruit stumbleth but falleth not a scandall is cum impingit cum ruina when one stumbleth and falleth so the lesse offence is when one is grieued and troubled but not altogether discouraged the greater called a scandall when one is so offended that he falleth away quite from the faith Pareus Tolet but yet this difference is not perpetuall these words are for the most part confounded in vse and one taken for an other 3. A scandall or offence is seene in things good or euill or indifferent in good things none are offended but the wicked as Tertullian saith res bonae neminem scandalizant nisi malam mentem good things doe scandalize none but such minds as are euill as the Pharisies were offended at Christs works such a scandall is to be contemned neither are good things to be omitted because of such scandals in euill things men are offended when as they are encouraged by the euill examples of others to doe the like and these offences are in any wise to be auoided in things indifferent if any be offended of ignorance and infirmitie as in the eating of meates we must forbeare and not giue offence as the Apostle saith here but if of malice and wilfulnes they are offended such offences are not to be regarded 4. And there are three kind of persons that may be offended the good and faithfull the euill and the weake betweene both the good are offended and grieued when they see euill committed the euill are offended at good things the weake at the vse of things indifferent the first and the third offences we must shunne as S. Paul saith Giue none offence neither to the Iew nor the Grecian nor to the Church of God 1. Cor. 10.32 that is neither to the weake nor to the strong 5. There are
did commit the same things themselues Theodoret. But the Apostles words beeing generall Thou art inexcusable O man whosoeuer thou art are not to be so restrained 3. Chrysostome thinketh the Romanes are here specially taxed who were the Lords of other nations and so tooke vpon them to iudge others But the Apostle hetherto in generall hath reasoned against all the Gentiles 4. Some thinke that the Apostle speaketh of the iudgement of the Philosophers such as were Socrates Cato who erred in the same things whereof they reprooued others Hyper. But the Apostle in generall speaketh to euery man whatsoeuer 5. Yea some doe make the Apostles speach yet more particular that he should specially meane Seneca with whome he was familiar But as yet S. Paul had not beene at Rome and therefore if Seneca were knowne vnto the Apostle this their knowledge beganne after the writing of this epistle 6. Wherefore I rather thinke with Pareus that the Apostle noteth all such in generall among the Gentiles who found fault with others beeing guiltie of the same faults themselues yet so as the Iewes be not excluded though principally the Gentiles be taxed see the analysis before he speaketh of a generall iudgement whereby one iudgeth an other that is subscribeth to Gods iudgement that they which doe such things are worthie of death so Chrysostome Vniuersi mortales licet non omnes thronos iudiciales c. for all mortall men though they haue not iudiciall thrones c. yet they iudge either in word or in the secret of their conscience Ambrose thinketh that the Apostle here preuenteth an obiection that whereas he had before noted such as committed sinne themselues and fauoured it in others they might thinke to be free which condemned it in others though they did it themselues therefore the Apostle sheweth that euen such could no way escape the iudgement of God 2. Quest. Whether one offend in iudging an other wherein he is guiltie himselfe It may be thus obiected that if a man make himselfe inexcusable in iudging an other for the same crime which he knoweth by himselfe then it is not safe for such an one to iudge an other as our Sauiour reprooueth those which brought the woman taken in adulterie because they themselues also were not without sinne Ioh. 8. Ans. 1. The iudge which condemneth an other is in the same fault either occultè in foro conscientiae secretly and in the court of their conscience and then they sinne not in iudging of an other or they are publikely detected of the same sinne and then they sinne not in that they giue iust sentence vpon other but in respect of the scandall and offence giuen to others Thomas non peccat quia reprehendit sed quia inordinatè reprehendit he sinneth not because he reprehendeth him but because he doth it inordinately Gorrh. 2. so that the power of the office must be distinguished from the vice of the person such a iudge neither offendeth against the lawes which command malefactors to be punished nor against the offendor which hath deserued that punishment but he sinneth in giuing offence to others Pareus 3. our blessed Sauiour misliketh not the action that they accused the adulteresse for he himselfe admonisheth her to sinne no more but the manner that they did it in hatred delighting in the punishment of an other and in hypocrisie not looking into themselues Martyr 4. Herein Dauid offended who pronounced sentence of death against the man of whome Nathan put the case in his parable not yet perceiuing that he himselfe was the man against whom he pronounced sentence Erasm. such many were there among the heathen Diogenes accused Grammarians which diligently sought out Vlysses faults and were ignorant of their owne and Musitians which tuned their instruments beeing themselues of vntuneable manners Astronomers for that they gazed vpon the starres and saw not the things before their owne feere Orators because they were carefull to speake iust things but not to doe them the common people praised them which contemned money and yet they themselues were addicted to the desire of money ex Gryn 5. Now whereas our Sauiour saith Iudge not that ye be not iudged Matth. 7. he speaketh not there against ciuill iudgement or brotherly admonition but against hastie and precipitate iudgement and vncharitable curiositie when men pried and searched into the faults of others not with a desire to amend them but to the end tha◠their faults might be rather excused with the multitude of otehr delinquents Martyr Quest. 3. Of these words v. 2. We knowe that the iudgement of God is according to truth 1. We knowe some will haue this principally referred to the Iewes we knowe by the Scriptures Tolet. we the Apostles and spirituall men Gorrh. we knowe both by the light of nature and by the testimonie of the word Pareus But the Apostle hauing here to deale against all men in generall doth vrge this naturall principle that God seeth more sharpely then men and therefore is a most iust iudge Beza so that he saith in effect we knowe that is it is certaine Osiander 2. The iudgement of God Chrysostome referreth this to the finall iudgement at the last day that howsoeuer some may escape vnpunished in this world yet the iudgement of the next world shall be according to truth so also Osiander but euen in this world the Lord also often sheweth his vpright and iust iudgement Ambrose maketh this the connexion of the sentence that if man iudge the sinnes which he seeth in another God shall much more But these words are rather a confirmation of the former sentence that he which iudged an other and yet committed the same things could not so escape for though he were blind in his owne iudgement God would finde him out his hypocrisie could not be hid 3. According to truth where the iudgement of God is opposed to the iudgement of man in these two things first mans iudgement is partiall he often iudgeth according to the person not the qualitie of the offence Calvin and againe there are many secret things which God will bring to light but man cannot iudge them Lyran. Socrates who publikely disputed of vertue yet priuately was an idolater Cato 2 Censor of others yet was an vsuter and did prostitute his wife these men though they seemed without reproofe vnto others yet the Lord that iudgeth according to truth would finde out their sinnes Beza 4. Origen here mooueth this question if God iudge according to the truth so that the euill receiue euill things and the good good things at the hands of God how then commeth it to passe that a man who hath liued wickedly and repenteth him findeth remission of sinnes and fauour with God and an other which hath liued well and afterward falleth into euill is punished the answer is that God iudgeth here according to truth for in the one ingressa piet as impietatem depellet godlinesse entreth and expelleth vngodlinesse and in the
goodnes therefore nothing can be good but that which is according to his will which is no where reuealed but in his word then no worke can be good vnlesse it be wrought according to the prescript of Gods word 2. there can come no good worke from man who is prone to euill and to nothing but euill by nature vnlesse then a man be regenerate and borne a new which is by faith in Christ be can doe no acceptable worke Both these are euident out of Scripture 1. that without faith it is vnpossible to please God Hebr. 11.6 and whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne Rom. 14.23 2. and that by faith we are regenerate and made the sonnes of God Ioh. 1.12 As many as receiued him to them he gaue power to be the sonnes of God euen to them that beleeue in his name All such workes then as haue neither warrant out of Gods word not yet proceede from faith such as all superstitious works are so much commended and commanded in Poperie are not to be counted good works Gualter 5. Controv. Whether any good workes of the faithfull be perfect 1. The Romanists doe hold that some workes of the righteous are so perfect that they be not sinne so much as venially in them they haue no blemish at all Concil Tridentin can 25. de iustificat Pererius vrgeth that act of Abrahams obedience in sacrificing his sonne which was not onely omnis peccati vacuum c. void of all sinne but it was perfectly good as appeareth by that excellent promise which the Lord made thereupon to Abraham so it is said of Dauid that he was a man according to Gods owne heart disput 4. in c. 2. numer 33. Contra. 1. That act of Abrahams obedience was not rewarded for the perfection of the worke but because it proceeded from faith he beleeued God and therefore it was counted vnto him for righteousnes 2. And it is hard to say whether Abraham did not cast some doubts in his mind when he was first commanded of God to sacrifice his onely sonne there might be some naturall reasoning within him which notwithstanding he did ouercome by faith Ambrose thinketh lib. 1. de Abrah c. 8. that when Abraham said to his seruants Tâ—rie you here with the asse for I and the child will goe yonder and worship and come againe to you captiose loquebatur c. spake cunningly or captiously least his seruants should perceiue whereabout he went 3. And as for Dauid he had many infirmities and imperfections from some of which euen his best works might not be free he was said to be according to Gods heart both comparatiuely in respect of Saul and others and because he fought God vnfainedly not in shew and hypocritie as Saul did otherwise that he was not imply according to Gods heart the great sinnes wherein he fell doe declare 2. But that there is some blemish imperfection and defect euen in the best works of the Saints though we affirme not as Pererius slandereth Luther that all the workes of the regenerate are sinne it is thus made euident out of the Scripture 1. The Prophet Isai saith c. 64.6 All our righteousnes is as stained clouts euen their best actions were defiled and polluted to this place diuers answers are found 1. Pererius out of Augustine thus interpreteth that iustnia nostra diuine comparata iustitiae c. out righteousnes beeing compared to the diuine iustice is like vnto a filthie and menstrâ—â—â— cloath this is then spoken comparatiuely to this purpose August serm 43. Contra. And we herein concurre with Augustine that although the worke of the Saints seeme 〈◊〉 perfect and excellent before men yet in regard of that perfection which God requireth of vs they are found to come farre short so that if they be compared with the iustice of God not which he hath in himselfe but which he commandeth and requireth of vs our best works will appeare to be imperfect and full of wants 2. He vrgeth Hieromes exposition who applieth this place to the incredulous Iewes after the comming of the Messiah whose sained legall holines was as vncleane thing in the sight of God because they beleeued not in Christ exhibited to the world Contra. It is euident by the text it selfe that be Prophet speaketh of that age then present v. 10. Zion is a wildernes Ierusalem is a deseâ— 3. Therefore Pererius insisteth vpon this third inpretation that the Prophet speaketh of the hypocrites among the Iewes and of their legall righteousnes which was an vncleare thing beeing not sanctified by the spirit of God and the Prophet speaketh in the first person as including himselfe as the manner of the Prophets is for humilitie sake condescending vnto the infirmitie of the people and therein also shewing his charitable affection and compassion toward them Contra. It is euident 1. that the Prophet speaketh not onely of their legall obseruations but of all their morall obedience whatsoeuer for the words are generall All our righteousnes is as a stained clout 2. neither doth he meane the hypocrites onely but he comprehendeth all the people excluding no not the better sort as he saith v. 8. But now O Lord thou art our father and v. 9. Lowe beseech thee behold we are all thy people but the wicked and hypocrites are not alone Gods people neither is God said to be their father for the godly and faithfuls sake among them they may be so counted but not alone by themselues 2. To this purpose may be vrged that place Psal. 143.2 Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant for in thy sight shall none that liueth be iustified c. Hence it is euident â—hat no not the iust in their best works are iustified in the sight of God but the Lord can finde sufficient matter against them euen in their most perfect works as Iob saith c. 9.30 If I wash my selfe with snow water c. yet shalt thou plunge me in the pit c. Pererius here sheweth fiue reasons why the iust desire that God would not enter into iudgement with them 1. because of the vncertentie of their election and present iustice 2. many of them may fall into deadly and great sinnes which they are not sure whether they be remitted 3. yea and the best men haue their veniall faults which can not altogether be taken heed of in this life 4. and euen in their best works plures negligentiae immiscentur many negligences and scapes are intermingled 5. their good workes are of God and not of themselues and therefore they can not in the rigour of iustice expect a reward at Gods hand Perer. disput 4. numer 37. Contra. 1. Of these fiue causes some are false some are impertinent and some directly make against him 1. That the righteous and faithfull are not certaine of their election nor of remission of sinnes is false and contrarie to the Scriptures for S. Paul was both sure of his election desiring to be dissolued and to be
holy men are reported to haue beene iust in their time 1. Origen thinketh that whereas the Scripture saith in thy sight shall no man liuing be iustified it is spoken by way of comparison that none compared to God are iust and so Lyranus thinketh it is vnderstood de iustitia perfecta of perfect righteousnes there may be iustitia politica a politike and ciuill iustice in liuing according to the rule of nature and iustâ—â—â—â— legalis a legall iustice in keeping Moses ordinances but no perfect iustice Contra. If this were the meaning then they which are iustified by faith in Christ should be here also included for they beeing compared to Gods perfect and exact iustice can not be said to be iust but the Apostle speaketh not of faith he sheweth onely what men are by nature 2. And by the same reason doe we also reiect an other interpretation of Origen that no man liuiâ—â— here is iustified before God that is in this life none can be pronounced to be iust But although in the next world our iustice shall be perfected yet it is begun here otherwise wâ— should neuer come there 3. Chrysostome vnderstandeth this to be spoken onely of the Iewes which are noted of three things 1. that they all had transgressed 2. they onely committed euill and wrought no good 3. they did it with all vehemencic and endeauour so also Anselme thinketh that Paul speaketh of the Iewes 4. Some vnderstand contrariwise onely the Gentiles and vncircumcised Greeke schol and Theodoret thinketh that Psal. 14. there is speciall reference to the rayling of Rabsacah which is declared Isa. 36. But the words of the Prophet are generall and he intendeth by this Scripture to prooue that all both Iew and Gentile were vnder sinne 5. Ambrose and Augustine thinke that these words are vttered onely of the euill and wicked sort not of the righteous so also glosse ordinar But the Apostle generally concludeth of all that they are vnder sinne and that they had neede of the grace of God 6. Pererius mentioneth an other exposition that some would haue it vnderstood of veniall that is the smaller offences which no man liueth without but euery one is subiect vnto But the Apostle reckoneth vp afterwards many grieuous sinnes as their throat is an open sepulchre their feete are swift to shed blood c. these were not small offences but most grieuous and grosse sinnes 7. Pererius thinketh that this is spoken by an hyperbole none are saide to be iust that is the most so that a few onely are excepted 8. But the Apostle vnderstandeth vniuersally all men that there is none iust as afterward he concludeth v. 19. that all the world be culpable before God and whereas some men are called and counted righteous that is ex gratia by grace but yet by nature all both Iewes and Gentiles are sinners that they can not by their owne works be iustified but onely by grace and faith in Christ. Faius Tolet. annot 10. 9. Origen here maketh a question how it could be saide that there was none neither among the Iewes nor Gentiles that did any good seeing there were many among them which did cloath the naked feede the hungrie and did other good things he hereunto maketh this answer that like as one that laieth a foundation and buildeth vpon it a wall or two yet can not be saide to haue built an house till he haue finished it so although those might doe some good things yet they attained not vnto perfect goodnes which was onely to be found in Christ. But this is not the Apostles meaning onely to exclude men from the perfection of iustice for euen the faithfull beleeuers were short of that perfection which is required he therefore sheweth what men are by nature all vnder sinne and in the state of damnation without grace and faith in Christ if any performe any good worke either it is of grace and so not of themselues or if they did it by the light of nature they did it not as they ought and so it was farre from a good worke in deede Perer. num 37. Tolet. annot 10. 19. Quest. Of the particular explication of the sinnes wherewith the Apostle here chargeth both Iewes and Gentiles v. 10. There is none righteous in the Psalme it is there is none that doth good but the sense is the same for he that is righteous doth that which is good he that doth not good is not iust or righteous so he proueth the antecedent by the consequent No not one though this be not in that place of the Psalme according to the Hebrew it is added for a more full explanation to shew that none are excluded some vnderstand this of iustification by faith in Christ there was none which beleeued in him gloss interlin Gorrhan but the Apostle sheweth what euery one was by nature otherwise there were alwaies some in the world to whome the Lord gaue faith and beleefe in him v. 11. There is none that vnderstandeth the Apostle here omitteth some words of the Psalme for there it is set downe affirmatiuely the Lord looked downe from heauen whether any would vnderstand but S. Paul keeping the sense Beza expresseth it by a negation Pareus The Apostle condemneth them all of ignorance which is the mother of prophannes Tolet vnderstandeth this peculiarly of the Gentiles who were idolaters and had not the right knowledge of God some doe specially refer it to their ignorance concerning Christ that they did not know him to be God gloss interlin Gorrhan But it is more generall they had no knowledge of God at all no true and effectuall knowledge which might bring them to the seruice and obedience of God Mart. There is none that seeketh God This Tolet specially vnderstandeth of the Iewes who though they knew God yet they did not seeke him to liue according to his commandement but it is more generall comprehending both Iewes and Gentiles some haue particular reference to Christ that they did not seeke to know him whome they might haue found out to be God by his miraculous workes gloss interl But the Apostle comprehendeth more times then that onely wherein Christ liued Lyranus hath here a corrupt glosse they did not seeke God per opera meritoria by the merit of their works but so God shall neuer be fouÌ„d the prophannes then of men in general is here set forth that had no care to seeke vnto God and to depend vpon him but they were addicted to themselues and their owne lusts conforming themselues vnto this present world Rom. 12.2 Gryneus v. 12. They haue all gone out of the way They fell away beeing destitute of grace from the way which leadeth vnto life vnto the broad way that bringeth vnto euerlasting destruction Gryneus and they became vnprofitable beeing cut off from God as the branch from the vine they could bring forth no fruit Tolet. the Hebrew word signifieth to rot and corrupt so they became as rotten and
disput 19. err 94. Ans. 1. The Eunuchs faith was not onely an historicall knowledge that Christ was the Sonne of God which the Deuills also knew and confessed but he beleeued to haue remission of his sinnes in his name and therefore he was baptised for baptisme in the name of Christ was for remission of sinnes Act. 2.38 the same may be said of the keeper of the prison who was baptised with his houshold 2. Neither was Abrahams faith onely a generall apprehension that Christ should come of his seede but he made particular application of that promise euen to himselfe trusting to be saued by the Messiah and therefore our Sauiour saith of him Ioh. 8.56 Your father Abraham reioyced to see my day he saw it and was glad 3. Pererius third exception is that a man can not in this life by faith be certaine of remission of sinnes some of his arguments are these 1. Iob faith c. 9.15 Though I were iust yet could I not answer and v. 20. Though I would iustifie my selfe mine owne mouth would condemne me c. And S. Paul saith I know nothing by my selfe yet am I not thereby iustified 2. The Apostle biddeth â—s to worke out our saluation with feare and trembling Philip. 2.12 S. Paul also was not so sure of his iustification but that he still remained in doubt and feare 1. Cor. 9.27 I beate downe my bodie and bring it in subiection least after I had preached to others I my selfe should be a reprobate 3. This certentie of remission of sinnes should be either humane or diuine the humane is of three sorts either by the outward sense or by the inward act of vnderstanding or by euident demonstration but none of these it is the diuine is also of two sorts either by the generall apprehension of the articles of faith but this worketh no such certentie for then euery Christian that knoweth and beleeueth the articles of faith should haue it or by speciall and particular reuelation which euery one can not haue Perer. disput 19. numer 97. Contra. 1. Iob and Paul in those places speake onely of such iustification which might be grounded vpon their owne worthines by such iustification indeede they could haue no assurance but they renounced it I am not thereby iustified saith the Apostle that is by his owne conscience which yet accused him not 2. The Apostle both teacheth others to take heede of carnall securitie and presumption and shewed the practise of it in himselfe one may be sure of remission of sinnes and yet walke in feare and reuerence this certentie then of remission of sinnes onely excludeth carnall securitie not reuerent and faithfull feare neither did S. Paul feare to become a reprobrate but least if he should doe contrarie to his doctrine it should be a reproofe vnto him for he himselfe was most sure of his saluation as he professeth confidently that nothing could separate him from the loue of God in Christ Rom. 8.38 3. This certentie indeede we willingly graunt is not humane but diuine neither is it so diuine as that it needeth alwaies an extraordinarie and speciall reuelation and yet it is more than an vniuersall and generall apprehension of the articles of the faith for betweene these two there is a third a particular application by faith of the generall promises of God whereby a faithfull man groweth into this assurance 4. And whereas he further obiecteth that seeing euery mortall sinne hindreth iustification if a man can not assure himselfe to be free from sinne neither can he be assured of the remission of his sinnes we answer that if a man did thinke by his owne puritie to obtaine remission of his sinnes he can not possibly be assured of forgiuenes so long as he hath sinne but seeing we hope to be iustified by faith in Christ by his righteousnes and not our owne notwithstanding that the faithfull are compassed about with infirmities yet this hindreth not the certentie of iustification by faith So then a faithfull man must be considered two waies in his spirituall part which is quickned and lightened by faith and in his carnall infirmitie which yet remaineth in the regenerate which causeth sometimes doubtfulnes in the seruants of God but the spirituall man preuaileth and faith ouercommeth our carnall infirmities that although they be and remaine in vs yet they doe not raigne 5. This then notwithstanding all these former obiections remaineth as an vndoubted principle of our faith that a faithfull man may be assured by faith of his iustification and of the free remission and forgiuenes of his sinnes in Christ which appeareth to be 1. by the nature and propertie of faith which is to be without wauering Iam. 1.6 Let him aske in faith and wauer not 2. by the effects of faith which worketh boldnes confidence and assurance and peace with God Rom. 5.1 but we could haue no peace of conscience if we were not assured of forgiuenes 3. by the experience which the faithfull had as S. Paul by faith was most assured perswaded of the loue of God toward him in Christ Rom. 8.38 whereof proceeded that his praier to be dissolued and to be with Christ Phil. 1. see further hereof Synops. Centur. 4. err 56. 18. Controv. What manner of faith it is that iustifieth Pererius saith that iustification may be taken two waies either for the preparation and tending vnto iustice or the very production of iustice it selfe as the word generation in naturall Philosophie is sometime taken for the very production of the forme and the perfection of generation or for the first alteration and change of the matter which is but in the way and tending vnto generation the Apostle speaketh of the first kind of iustifying in this place faith is saide to iustifie that is faith not yet formed with charitie prepareth and maketh a way vnto iustification which is per charitatis infusionem by the infusion of charitie disput 18. numer 86. so his opinion is that faith which is said to iustifie is seuered from charitie it is fides informis expers charitatis an imperfect and vnformed faith voide of charitie Contra. This assertion is flat contrarie and opposite to the Scripture for the Apostle sheweth that it is faith working by loue which saueth Gal. 5.6 and S. Iames saith that faith without works can not saue c. 2.14 but such a faith is dead and it is no other but the faith which deuills haue for the deuills beleeue and tremble v. 19. Let the Romanists content themselues with such a bare and naked iustifying faith but we are sure that such a faith which is separate from loue can not helpe vs. Controv. 19. Of the manner how faith iustifieth Here the Romanists haue these positions 1. they say faith iustifieth because it disposeth prepareth and maketh a way to iustification so Bellarm. Staplet c. Contra. 1. The Scripture saith the Iust shall liue by faith if faith bringeth and worketh the life of the
risen but his bodie might haue beene kept incorruptible in his graue vnto the ende of the world and then he might haue risen and we with him but then should we haue beene iustified he rose therefore for our iustification not for our resurrection 4. Some will haue these two benefits of remission and iustification to be indifferently referred as well to the death as to the resurrection of Christ as Theophylact mortuus est exe tatus à morte c. he died and was raised from death to free and exempt vs from our euill works and to make vs iust to the same purpose Haymo vt credentes eum passum c. that beleeuing him to haue suffered for our saluation and to haue risen from the dead per hanc fidem mereamur iustificari we may be counted worthie to be iustified by this faith So Emmanuel Sa. vtrunque factum propter vtrunque both of these were wrought by both these But if both these benefits were in like sort and manner wrought by both those actions of Christ there should appeare no reason of this distinction which the Apostle vseth 5. An other exposition is Christ rose for our iustification that is ad eam demonstradam for the manifestation and demonstration of it Piscator he had purchased indeede both our redemption from our sinnes and our iustification by his death and passion but resurrectione gloriosa testatus est he witnessed by his resurrection that he had ouercome hell and death for vs Osiand But the Apostle sheweth the very reall cause of our iustification not the testification onely thereof by Christs resurrection as his deliuering to death was the very cause of the remission of our sinnes 6. Some giue this sense he is said to haue risen for our iustification quia salutis predicatio redemptionis applicatio generalis c. because the preaching of saluation and the generall application of redemption was to followe after the resurrection Tolet. annot 25. to the same purpose Pet. Martyr our redemption was purchased by the death of Christ but that the same might be applyed vnto vs spiritu sancto opus fuit it was needefull the spirit of God should be sent These by iustification vnderstand the application publication and preaching of iustification But this seemeth not be so fit neither for as in the one part of the sentence the Apostle toucheth the true working and efficient cause of the remission of sinnes Christs deliuering vnto death and not the application or publication so must the other part of our iustification be vnderstood And Christ might if it had pleased him haue giuen his Apostle a commission to preach his death and passion before his resurrection yet had we not beene fully iustified vntill he had risen againe 7. But among the rest that exposition which goeth vnder the name of Ambrose in the commentarie vpon this place seemeth to be most vnreasonable that the Apostle thus deuideth these benefits to shewe that as many as were baptized before the passion of Christ solam remissionem peccatorum accepisse receiued onely remission of sinnes but after Christs resurrection as well they which were baptized before as after esse omnes vere iustification were all truely iustified This one place doth giue iust occasion of suspition that those commentaries were not composed by Ambrose for remission of sinnes cannot be separated from iustification whosouer hath the one hath likewise the other because they are pronounced blessed whose sinnes are remitted before ver 7. but there can be no blessednesse without iustification 8. Hugo is somewhat curious to shewe the reason why remission of sinnes is ascribed vnto Christs passion and iustification vnto his resurrection first he saith that Christs passion is both causa meritum figura the cause merit and figure or forme of remission but it is the cause and merit onely of iustification and newenesse of life not the forme it is the cause moouing that we should liue in sinne for which Christ hath died and Christ by his death merited forgiuenesse of our sinne and he hath giuen in his death a forme that as he died in respect of his bodily life so we should die vnto sinne now of newenesse of life Christs death is both the cause mouing and meriting of newenesse of life but not a figure so it agreeth in three points with the remission of sinnes and in two onely with iustification Likewise Christs resurrection was both the cause mouing vnto newenesse of life are the forme and figure that as Christ rose againe so we should rise vnto newenesse of life but of remission of sinnes it was onely the cause moouing not the forme but of neither was it any meritorious cause for Christ hauing put off his mortall bodie in the resurrection was not in statu merendi in the state of meriting so the resurrection of Christ agreeth with iustification in two points in beeing the cause and figure or forme but with remission of sinnes onely in one in beeing the cause therefore iustification is rather ascribed to Christs resurrection then vnto his passion to this purpose Hugo But he faileth in this his subtile and curious distinction 1. for seeing that the passion of Christ in two points as be himselfe obserueth agreeth with iustification namely in beeing the cause and merit thereof and the resurrection in two likewise in beeing the cause and figure or forme iustification should rather in this regard be ascribed vnto Christs passion because it was merited by it and not by the other and the rather because the Apostle hath nothing to doe with the exemplarie forme of the one or the other but to shewe the true causes and so the passion of Christ shall agree in two respects with iustification and the resurrection of Christ but in one 9. To drawe then this question to an ende there are two answers which I insist vpon as the best and so I will ioyne them both together 1. The Apostle doth put iustification vnto the resurrection of Christ because although it were merited by his death yet it had the complement and perfection by the resurrection of Christ for if Christ had not risen againe he had not shewed himselfe conquerour of death and so the worke of our redemption had beene vnperfect thus Calvin Beza Gualter and to this purpose Rollecus distinguisheth well betweene meritum efficacia the merit of iustification in respect of Christ and the efficacie thereof in respect of vs Christ did meritoriously worke our iustification and saluation by his death and passion but the efficacie thereof and perfection of the worke to vs-ward dependeth vpon his resurrection the like distinction the Apostle vseth saying Rom. 10.10 With the heart man beleeueth vnto righteousnes and with the mouth man confesseth to saluation not really distinguishing them in the causes one from the other but shewing that the complement and perfection of the worke consisteth in both 2. Hereunto adde that although these two benefits of our
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
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
here vseth that the bodie of sinne may be destroyed for the bodie is not crucified or destroyed but sinne which dwelleth in the bodie 3. Origen hath an other exposition by the bodie of sinne we may vnderstand proprium aliquod corpus the proper bodie of sinne whereof these are the members fornication vncleannes inordinate affection with other particular sinnes as S. Paul calleth them Coloss. 3.4 and this sense followeth Chrysostome this bodie of sinne he vnderstandeth to be vniuersam malitiā nostram the whole malice of our nature so Lyran. congeries peccatorum the companie of sinnes is called the bodie of sinne as there is a bodie also of vertues and good workes Gorrhan as Matth. 6.22 If thine eye be single the whole bodie shall be light if it be wicked the whole bodie shall be darke 4. And this multitude and companie of sinnes is so called for diuerse reasons 1. because as the bodie hath diuerse members so our inborne concupiscence brancheth forth into diuerse sinnes Mart. 2. propter robur tyrannidem because of the strength and tyrannie which it exerciseth in the children of disobedience Faius 3. quod ab eo facile homines divelli non possunt because men cannot easily be plucked from their sinnes no more then from their bodie Phocius 4. because men are addicted to their sinnes and loue it as themselues Photius ibid. 5. But in this place the Apostle vseth this phrase the bodie of sinne because he had spoken of crucifying before bodies vse to be crucified Pareus and we are as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it were concorporated with Christ which word the Apostle vseth Ephes. 3.6 and we were crucified in his bodie vpon the crosse together with him 5. But here we must take heede of the error of Florius Illyricus who did hold that originall sinne was a substance and not an accident onely because it is called here a bodie and the old man But this is a metaphoricall speach it is called a bodie by a certaine similitude as it is shewed before and the Apostle calleth it afterward verse 12. sinne in the mortall bodie it is therefore a kinde of spirituall bodie in these our mortall bodies 6. But in that the Apostle addeth that we should not serue sinne he sheweth that the regenerate are not quite freed from sinne but sinne doth not raigne in them neither are they seruants any longer vnto it so we must make a difference betweene these two peccare and peccato servire to sinne and to serue sinne the regenerate doe sinne while they are in the flesh but they doe no longer serue sinne Bucor Quest. 11. How the dead are said to be freed from sinne v 7. 1. Some do vnderstand this of the spirituall death in baptisme before spoken of Lyran. Ofiand P. Martyr thinketh that the Apostle speaketh of mortification which is the effect of iustification not de morte naturae of the death of nature But then this had beene a repetition of that which he said before vers 6. whereas it containeth rather a reason thereof 2. Some vnderstanding this to be spoken of the naturall death of the bodie from whence the Apostle taketh his similitude by beeing freed or iustified from sinne doe meane purgatum esse à peccatis to be purged from sinne Basil. lib. de baptis But this cannot be that all the dead should be purged from their sinne though they cease from the actions thereof 3. This better is interpreted of the naturall death that they which are dead do thenceforth cease from the actions of sinne and so Chrysostome vnderstandeth here the word iustified liber est à peccatis is free from sinne that is the actions of sinne cease Calvin like as a seruant when he dieth is free from the seruice of his master as Iob. 3.19 so he which is dead is free from the dominion of sinnes past then the theefe ceaseth to steale the adulterer to commit adulterie the word then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is iustified is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is freed which word the Apostle vseth v. 18. and it is a synecdoche when one kind is taken for the whole to be iustified and absolued in iudgement is one kind of freedome and it is taken here for the generall to be set free as a theefe dying is set free by death as if he had beene iustified and absolued in iudgement Piscator 4. But hence it followeth not that the dead doe not sinne afterward they are free from the sinnes committed in the bodie yet the wicked euen after death beeing tormented in hell doe not cease to sinne beeing full of despaire blasphemie impenitencie and therefore their sinnes not ceasing their punishments cannot determine Let this be obserued against the opinion of the Origenists who inferre that because when men are dead there is an ende of their sinne that at the length there shall be an ende of their punishment and God shall haue mercie vpon them Quest. 12. What life the Apostle speaketh of v. 8. We beleeue that we shall also liue with him 1. Some vnderstand it of life euerlasting in coelo post generalem resurrectionem in heauen after the generall resurrection Haymo so also Origen Chrysostome Theodoret but it is euident that the Apostle speaketh of the life of grace v. 11. ye are dead to finde but are aliue to God c. 2. Neither is it to be vnderstood onely de vita gratiae of the life of grace as Lyran Tolet annot 8. and Basil vnderstandeth it of the newenesse of life lib. de baptism for the AApostle thus expoundeth himselfe 2. Tim. 2.11.12 if we be dead with him we shall also liue with him that is shall raigne with him as the Apostle saith in the next verse following if we suffer we shall also raigne with him 3. Wherefore the Apostle by liuing with Christ vnderstandeth generally both the life of grace present and of glorie afterward Mart. and this life is distinguished into three degrees 1. our regeneration in rising vnto newenes of life 2. our perseuerance in continuing vnto the end 3. the third degree is in euerlasting life after the resurrection Pareus Quest. 13. How death is said to haue had dominion ouer Christ v. 9. In that the Apostle saith v. 9. Death hath no more dominiō ouer him it is inferred that death had sometime dominion ouer him 1. Origen to remooue this doubt how death may be said to haue had dominion of Christ vnderstandeth it of his going downe to hell ad locum vbi mors regnavit vnto the place where death raigned but thus the doubt remaineth still for Christ whom he would haue descend to hell went thither as a conquerour hell had no dominion ouer him therefore that cannot be the meaning 2. and Haymo his interpretation is as harsh who by death vnderstandeth the deuil which had dominion by his ministers as he entred into the heart of Iudas Christo permittente by the permission of Christ it is
an others subiects euen Gods and though the wicked doe obey sinne willingly yet it is of necessitie also because it is not in their power to resist sinne 2. Gregorie better observeth vpon this place that the Apostle saith not let not sinne be but let it not raigne quia non esse non potest it cannot but be in our members but it may not raigne 3. Pererius here confuteth Beza for giuing this note vpon this place the Apostle sheweth how farre we are dead to sinne while we are in this life vt reluctetur spiritus non tamen vincat that the spirit alway resisteth but ouercommeth not c. whereupon he thus cauilleth that if the spirit ouercome not the flesh then is it ouercome of the flesh But Beza his meaning onely is that our sanctification is not perfect in this life but that there remaineth some relique of sinne which alwayes resisteth the spirit as the Apostle sheweth in his owne example c. 7. so the spirit ouercommeth in part because sinne raigneth not in the regenerate but there is not a perfect victorie in this life because sinne hath a dwelling still and beeing in vs in this mortall flesh though the kingdome thereof be subdued Quest. 18. What the Apostle meaneth by mortall bodie ver 12. Let not sinne raigne in your mortall bodie c. 1. Chrysostome thinketh this is added by way of encouragement to signifie certamina in hac re temporaria esse that the strife and combate herein is but temporarie so also Photius he sheweth quod temporaria sit contra peccatum lucta that the fight against sinne is but temporall because the bodie is mortall and for a time 2. Origen hath two interpretations first the Apostle speaketh of the dead bodie to shewe that sinne neede not raigne in vs for he that is dead is free from sinne but the Apostle saith not in mortuo sed mortali corpore in the dead but in the mortall bodie there is great difference betweene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dead v. 7. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mortall which is the word vsed here 3. Further he saith that the Apostle calleth this bodie mortall ad distinctionem alterius corporis quod immortale est to distinguish it from that other bodie which is immortall when sinne shall haue no dominion or command at all ouer vs this sense Tolet also followeth 4. The ordinarie glosse further addeth that here is a secret promise of immortalitie si non regnet peccatum if sinne raigne not the bodie nowe mortall shall be afterward immortall 5. Theophylact thinketh that mention is made of the mortall bodie to signifie that all the pleasures of the bodie are but momentanie minus sunt stabiles corporis voluptates and therefore they are not much to be desired to the same purpose Bucer ne innitamur rei fallacissima that beeing admonished by our owne frailtie we should not trust to so vncertaine and deceitfull a thing 6. Theophylact noteth beside that hereby the Apostle insinuateth mortalitatem hanc fuisse corpori à delicto inditam that this mortalitie was inflicted vpon the bodie by reason of sinne and so we should by the meditation of death and mortalitie be terrified from sinne 7. But as these notes and collections may safely be receiued so this further may be added that the Apostle maketh mention specially of the mortall bodie because the partes and members thereof are the instruments of sinne that although the minde are inward faculties be tempted yet that we should resist and not bring the euill motions and suggestions into execution and this may appeare to be the Apostles meaning by the next words v. 13. neither giue your members as weapons of vnrighteousnesse c. Beza 8. Some thinke that the Apostle insinuateth the daunger of eternall death that if sinne doe raigne corpus moriturum est in aeternum the bodie shall die eternally gloss interlin but the bodie is said to be mortall in respect of the present mortall state because it is subiect to death 9. P. Martyr thinketh the meaning to be this because the concupiscence which the Apostle would not haue here to raigne in vs is per corpus derivatum deriued from Adam to vs by the bodie But I preferre the former interpretations but especially the 7. yet so as that with Ambrose by mortall bodie we vnderstand the whole state of man both the powers of soule and bodie by the figure synecdoche when one part is taken for the whole So also Pareus Faius Quest. 19. Of those words that yee should obey it in the lustes c. v. 12. 1. The Syrian interpreter readeth that yee should obey the lusts thereof but here the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is omitted which is referred to the first antecedent sinne that ye should not obey it that is sinne which is put in the feminine gender in the lusts thereof that is of the bodie and therefore Beza to take away the anbiguitie explaineth it thus that yee should obey sinne in the lusts thereof 2. The Apostle putteth it in the plurall lusts because from the prauitie and corruption of our nature doe arise many and diuerse lusts and concupiscences Martyr 3. Thus sinne is compared to a tyrant raigning and raging the lusts are as the edicts and precepts of sinne whereby it raigneth and ruleth men yeelding to their corrupt concupiscence as are the vassals and slaues of sinne Calvin 4. The Apostle expoundeth himselfe what he meant before by the raigning of sinne that is to obey it no man in this mortall bodie can be void of concupiscence and vnlawfull desires but the faithfull must striue against them and not become subiect vnto them Pellican 5. This obedience consisteth in two things the one to be at command to obey and yeeld subiection vnto sinne the other to take vp armes in the defence of sinne which is touched in the verse following Pareus 6. Concupiscence is taken two waies sometime it is the name fomitis innati of that inborne occasion and originall of sinne sometime actus interioris of the inward act of the minde whereof there are three degrees there is propassio the propassion or first motion then delectatio the delight thirdly consensus the consent the Apostle here speaketh not of the first motion which no man can helpe but of the second and third which by Gods grace may be staied that a man neither delight in or consent vnto those euill motions which arise in his mind gloss ordinar 7. Neither is this a superfluous exhortation vnto them whom he said before v. 11. to be dead to sinne that sinne should not raigne in them because our mortification is not here perfect but euery day more and more we must proceed therein and by such exhortations is our mortification still perfited Pareus 8. And here by lusts we must vnderstand not the naturall desire and lust of the bodie as after meate drinke sleepe and such like but the vnnaturall vnnecessarie and
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
homines à coelestium meditatione retrahit which draweth spirituall men from the meditation of heauenly things but the Apostle spake before of the combate betweene the flesh and the spirit and they are not all carnall which are occupied in the necessarie affaires of this life 6. Tolet ioyning the pronoune this vnto death not vnto the bodie reading thus from the bodie of this death will haue reference to be made vnto the tyrannie of the lawe of concupiscence whereof he spake before but the pronoune is better ioyned to bodie as the Syrian interpreter Erasmus and Beza well obserue for of his flesh and members he spake before but of death he made no mention This demonstrative then this is better referred to bodie 7. Wherefore the Apostle calling his present state out of the which he desireth to be deliuered this bodie of death ioyneth both mortalitie and sinne together he meaneth his mortall bodie subiect to sinne as Hierome expoundeth quod morti perturbationibus est oppositum which is opposed to death and perturbations apolog advers Ruffin and so Beza the Apostle by the bodie designeth carneam corporis molem the fleshie masse of the bodie which is nothing else but mussa mortis peccati a lumpe of death and sinne so Origen it is called the bodie of death in quo habitat peccatum quod est mortis causa wherein sinne dwelleth which is the cause of death 8. And this deliuerance which the Apostle longeth for is not the spirituall deliuerance in this life from the captiuitie of sinne as Tolet but the finall deliuerance from the bondage of mortalitie and corruption which we looke for in the resurrection as Augustine expoundeth lib. 1. cont epist. Pelag. c. 11. and so the Apostles meaning is non finiri hoc confluctus c. that these conflicts cannot be ended as long as we carrie this mortall bodie about with vs Pareus And here we may consider a threefold state of mans bodie the one in Paradise cum non potuit mori when it was in mans power if he had not sinned not to die at all vnder the state and condition of sinne where non potest non mori he cannot but die a necessitie of death is laid vpon all Adams posteritie vnder the state of glorie non possumus mori we cannot die we shall be exempted from the condition of all mortalitie Pererius Quest. 25. Why the Apostle giueth thanks to God ver 25. 1. There is some difference in the reading of these words the Latine interpreter thus readeth the grace of God thorough Iesus Christ so also Origen before who maketh it an answear to the former words of the Apostle who shall deliuer 〈◊〉 likewise Augustine followeth this reading serm 45. de tempor but all the Greek copies haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I giue thankes and the Apostle did not aske the question before who should deliuer him but suspirat potâ—â—s be sigheth and sheweth his desire to be deliuered Beza 2. For the meaning of the words 1. some thinke that the Apostle giueth thanks for his redemption in Christ Mart. that he is deliuered à reatu peccati from the guilt of sinne originall and actuall Roloch and that his sinnes are not imputed Osiander and before them Oecumenius quod me liberavit per mortem filij that he hath deliuered me by the death of his Sonne But this deliverance the Apostle had alreadie obtained he speaketh in the future sense who shall deliuer me 2. Theophylact referreth it to the former benefit quod viriliter adversatur peccato that he did manfully resist sinne which strength he had not either by the law of nature or by the law of Moses but by grace in Christ So also Pareus thinketh the Apostle doth giue thankes that he doth not succumbere in certamine sed vincere giue ouer in this combate but at the length ouercommeth But the Apostle wisheth yet a further deliuerance which as yet he had not because he speaketh of the time not to come who shall deliuer me and yet he giueth thankes for it as enioying the fame in hope 3. Tolet and Pererius thinke that the Apostle giueth thankes that he was deliuered from concupiscence quod non mentem trahit in consensum that it did not draw his mind to consent and so he was deliuered from it as it was malum culpae as there was sinne or fault in it that is to consent vnto it but not as it was malum poenae a punishment that is concupiscere to couet or desire simply without assent so also Lyranus But if the Apostle did not sometime thorough his infirmitie giue consent vnto his concupiscence how could he say it did lead him captiue vnto the law of sinne more it is prooued at large afterward that the commandement thou shalt not lust whereof the Apostle confesseth himselfe a transgressor v. 7.18 doth not onely restraine the first motions of concupiscence which haue not the consent of the will but the second also which haue controv 8.4 Vatablus will haue this thanksgiuing to be referred to the deliuerance which the Apostle expected in the life to come 5. But it is better to ioyne them together as Augustine doth serm 45. de tempor the grace of God nunc perfecte innovat hominem c. doth now perfectly renew a man by deliuering him from all his sinnes ad corporis immortalitatem perducit and bringeth him also to the immortalitie of the bodie Lyranus likewise comprehendeth both these deliuerances that both the regenerate are here deliuered from their sinnes and in the next life shall be freed from all corruption as the Apostle saith Philip. 3.21 Who shall change our vile bodie that it may be fashioned like vnto his glorious bodie so Chrysostome saith the Apostle giueth thanks quod non solum principibus malis liberamur sed eoruÌ„ quae futura sunt capaces facti sumus that we are not onely deliuered from the former euills namely our sinnes but are made capable of the good things to come thus also Pellican the Saints reioyce se primitijs spiritus donatos c. that they are endued with the first fruits of the spirit which giue them certaine hope of the inheritance to come and Beza the Apostle sheweth that he resteth in that hope quam habet in Christo fundatam which he hath grounded on Christ. 35. Quest. Of these words I in my minde serue the law of God c. 1. By the mind the Apostle vnderstandeth the inner man reformed by grace by the flesh the part vnregenerate so that in this speach of the Apostle a double figure is to be admitted first a metonymie in that the subiect is taken for the adiunct the minde for the sanctitie and holines wrought in the minde by grace as Vatablus well interpreteth secundum spiritum meum doctum à spiritu sancto in my spirit taught by the holy spirit and the flesh for the carnall sensualitie whereby it is lead there is also a
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
bloodshed doe bind simply in conscience at the least in generall because they are morall precepts directly tending to the observation of the morall lawe in such things we are bound in conscience to obey 3. Lawes made concerning ciuill duties which in themselues not beeing commanded are indifferent as of the eating of flesh keeping of watch paying of tribute and such like doe not simply bind in conscience neither in generall nor in particular but accidentally only they doe bind both in generall and particular in regard of the contempt of authoritie and scandall of our brethren 4. Likewise Ecclesiasticall lawes which doe limit the circumstance of times and place concerning external order vsages which do helpe toward the obseruation of the duties of the first table and the exercise of religion doe of themselues properly and simply bind in conscience at the least in generall because in such morall duties our obedience simply is required such are the publike orders of resorting duely vnto diuine seruice of receiuing the sacraments of paying tithes toward the maintenance of the Minister of silence in the church and not disturbing the Preacher and such like 5. Other orders of the Church which doe not so directly concerne the seruice of God but are touching things indifferent in themselues as of some gestures to be vsed rites and observations not offensiue they doe not bind at all in conscience but onely accidentally in respect of the scandall and offence which may be giuen and the breaking of order Now the position of the Romanists is that lawes both ciuill and Ecclesiasticall doe bind simply in conscience not onely in respect of the matter that is commanded beeing agreeable to the word of God or of the scandall and offence which may followe but the thing though in it selfe it be indifferent yet bindeth the conscience quia lege praecipitur because it is commanded by the lawe though by the occasion thereof no offence followe Perer. disput 2. numer 8. and by the binding of the conscience he saith is vnderstood mortall sinne which is committed in the omission of such things commāded their reasons are these 1. S. Paul biddeth vs to be subiect not onely for wrath but for conscience sake v. 5. therefore such lawes bind in conscience Answ. This conscience is to be vnderstood in generall in respect of him who commandeth who of conscience is to be obeyed as Gods Minister not in respect of the thing commanded which is not alwaies such as bindeth the conscience 2. S. Paul willeth obedience to be giuen vnto those which are set ouer vs Heb. 13.17 and our Sauiour faith he that heareth you heareth me Answ. Our Sauiour and the Apostle speake of obedience to be giuen in those things which concerne the doctrine of faith and the saluation of our soules not of euerie observation and order of the Church 3. Argum. The Apostles in their Synodall decree did bind the conscience of Christians to abstaine from strangled and blood and fornication Act. 13. Answ. 1. The former of these was no otherwise imposed vpon the conscience then for the avoiding of offence fornication is ioyned with the rest not because it was indeede as indifferent a thing but it was so counted among the heathen 2. neither haue the Pastors of the Church that power and authoritie to make lawes to binde the conscience as the Apostles had 4. Argum. S. Paul willeth that they which obserued not his precepts should be shunned of all 2. Thess. 3.14 Answ. Because the Apostle vrged nothing but the precepts of Christ therefore he requireth obedience simply and chargeth their conscience therewith But on the contrarie that all Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall lawes doe not simply and in themselues bind in conscience but in regard of the offence we shewe it thus 1. S. Iames saith c. 4.12 there is one lawgiuer which is able to save and to destroy God onely maketh lawes to bind the conscience 2. If euerie law did binde the conscience then by reason of such a multitude of lawes which are impossible to be kept mens consciences should be so snared and entangled as none should be free and so with the Pharisies they should bind heauie burthens and grieuous to be borne and lay them on mens shoulders Matth. 23.3 and S. Paul speaketh against such burdening with traditions as touch not tast not handle not Coloss. 2.21 3. Where the intendment of the lawe is not to bind the conscience there if no scandall followe the omission of the thing commanded doth not bind or pollute the conscience there may be a ciuill offence but no morall or mortall sinne but in diuerse such lawes which are made for ciuill order as in wearing of cappes prouiding of artillerie abstaining from flesh and such like the lawe intendeth not to charge the conscience but imposeth a ciuill mulct onely where such things are omitted therefore such offending if they pay the mulct they satisfie the law their conscience is free where the omission procedeth no◠of contempt nor giueth occasion of offence beside an other way the intentiō of the lawgiuer is kept whē the end and scope of the law is obserued though strictly the letter of the law be not kept as the eating of flesh vpon certaine dayes is prohibited for the benefit of the cōmonwealth that navigation and fishing by the vtterance of such commodities may be maintained now if any eate flesh not vpon any contempt of the lawe but vpon some other occurrent occasion so that the commonwealth be not thereby hindered nor his brother offended the intention of the lawe is kept though the letter of the law be transgressed and further in such penall lawes which onely concerne externall order intentio legislatoris non est obligare ad culpam sed ad poenam the intention of the lawegiuer is not to oblige or bind any to the guiltines of the offence but to the penaltie but in penall lawes which require the obseruation of any morall lawe it is otherwise for there beside the incurring of the outward mulct the offender also transgresseth the lawe of God Pererius then needed not here to haue found such fault with Calvins distinction between forum internum the internall court of the conscience and the externall court which onely bindeth vnto the duties of ciuilitie wherein the conscience before God is free for if vpon euery slippe of a ciuill order being not done with contempt the conscience should be burthened what an importable burthen should be laid vpon Christians whose conscience by this meanes thorough the multitude of lawes should be continually entangled Now then to conclude this point 1. Some lawes beeing vniustly made or commanding any vnlawfull thing doe neither bind the conscience in generall nor particular neither in themselues nor accidentally 2. Some lawes bind euerie way in generall in particular by themselues and accidentally and sub ratione diumi cultus as a part of Gods seruice as all lawes enforcing obedience to the morall precepts
shew that he is God because euerie knee shall bowe vnto him and euery tongue shall confesse him to be God adoration and praise which doe belong onely vnto God are giuen vnto Christ and in that place the Prophet yet speaketh more euidently am not I the Lord and there is no God beside me And here where the Apostle said v. 10. we must all stand before the iudgement seat of Christ v. 12. he saith We must giue account vnto God the tribunall seate then of Christ is the tribunall of God Doct. 7. Of the authoritie of the Scriptures v. 11. For it is written c. The Apostle speaking of our appearing before the iudgement seat of Christ doth not affirme it onely but prooueth it by the Scriptures teaching vs thereby that the Scriptures and written word of God are the only rule and line of our faith and that nothing ought to be imposed vpon the Church as a matter of beleefe but that which is warranted from thence the Scriptures are able to make the man of God perfect 2. Tim. 3.17 he then that seeketh any doctrine beside that which is taught in the Scriptures as not content with that which is perfect would adde further that which is superfluous idle and vnnecessarie Doct. 8. That no kind of meate is vncleane in it selfe v. 14. I knowe c. that there is nothing vncleane in it selfe c. All kind of meats then which are appointed for the food and nourishment of mans bodie are in themselues lawfull and cleane beeing receiued with giuing of thankes And if they be lawfull and cleane the restraint of them by any prohibition for religion and holines sake is superstitions and inclining to Iudaisme It is the mind onely and opinion that polluteth and defileth meats so the superstition of Papists in making conscience of some kind of meates is so farre from making them more holy and acceptable vnto God that they thereby defile and pollute the good creatures of God they should therfore remember that charge which was giuen vnto Peter from heauen Act. 10.15 What God hath cleansed pollute thou not 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. Whether to abstaine from certaine meates be an act of religion and a part of Gods worship or a thing in it selfe indifferent The latter is affirmed and maintained by Protestants the other is stifly defended by the Romanists but that the state of the question may better appeare first the diuerse kinds of fasting and abstinence are to be considered 1. There is a naturall abstinence which is onely from such meates as agree not with the stomack and are enemies to the helth of the bodie 2. A morall abstinence is from such meates and drinkes as a man findeth to distemper him and to disturbe his memorie and other faculties of his minde as the drinking of wine and strong drinke 3. A ciuill and politike abstinence is to refraine eating of flesh some certaine daies for the maintenance of navigation and the vtterance of fish and for sparing the breed of cattell as the Lenton fast is now kept in England 4. There was beside these a Iudaicall fast which was of two sorts either a totall and generall abstinence as from swines flesh and other meates counted vncleane by the law or an abstinence for a time which was either generall of the whole nation as to abstaine from eating of vnleavened bread for seauen daies in the feast of the Passeouer or particular of some professed persons as of them which had taken vpon them the vow of the Nazarites which was neither to take wine nor any strange drinke See the law of the Nazarites Numb 6. 5. Beside these there was an hereticall fast and abstinence of such as abstained from certaine meates counting them euill and vncleane in themselues which was the opinion of the Manichees and Tatiane heretikes which kind of impious abstinence the Apostle speaketh against 1. Tim. 4. 6. Adde vnto this the superstitious abstinence of the Papists which make the fasting and refraining from fleshmeates vpon the fift and sixt day of the weeke and in the time of Lâ—uâ— to be a necessarie part of Gods worship and a thing meritorious and satisfactorie This is the abstinence that now is in question 7. Yet a religious fast we acknowledge which is when vpon some daies appointed by the Church publikely or when any are disposed priuately to fast the more feruently to giue themselues vnto praier which the Apostle speaketh of 1. Cor. 7.5 But this is done without any opinion of merite or holines in the act it selfe but as it helpeth and confeâ—â—eth to a spirituall end the more earnest invocation of God and humble supplication before him 8. There was also a scrupulous kind of abstinence in the primitiue Church when some Christians did abstaine of conscience from eating things which were consecrate to Idols of the which S. Paul entreateth 1. Cor 8.10 Now the fast and abstinence which is controverted betweene vs and the Papists is the superstitious fast before the 6. whose opinion is this that to abstaine from flesh and other kinds of meates in the time of lent and vpon other daies of restraint is a necessarie part of the diuine worship meritorious and satisfactorie habet meritum satisfactionem apud Deum it meriteth and satisfieth before God c. Tolet in his annotations here and the precept of fasting obligat sub peccato mortali bindeth vnder the daunger of mortall sinne we will examine some of their reasons Argum. 1. The Apostles by their synodicall decree prouided that they should abstaine from certaine meates as strangled and blood Ans. 1. The Pastors of the Church haue not now the same power and authoritie to make Canons to bind the conscience which the Apostle had who were guided by the immediate direction of the spirit 2. they did not enioyne abstinence from flesh-meate egges milke and such like as the Romanists doe but onely from such meates as were forbidden by the law 3. neither did they enioyne this abstinence as a part of the divine worship for then it should bind still but onely for a time to avoid offence in respect of the Iewes newly conuerted Argum. 2. Those things which the Church commandeth are necessarily to be kept and observed for our Sauiour saith he that heareth you heareth mee c. But such is the Ecclesiasticall law and precept of fasting Ergo c. Ans. 1. Not euery thing the Church commandeth is to be obserued as a part of Gods worship but those things onely which the Church propoundeth by the warrant and authoritie of Gods word and so is our Blessed Sauiour to be vnderstood otherwise whosoeuer preacheth any other Gospel or any thing contrarie thereunto is to be held accursed 2. neither are we to regard what the false and Antichristian Church now commandeth no more then our B. Sauiour and his Apostles did hold themselues bound to the superstitious decrees of the Pharisies Argum. 3. The law of fasting is
and Christ in generall 34. qu. Of the disparitie and vnlikenes betweene Adam and Christ in this comparison 35. qu. Of the excellencie and superioritie which the benefit by grace in Christ hath beyond our fall and losse in Adam 36. qu. Some other opinions refused wherein this excellencie should consist 37. qu. In what sense the grace of God is said to haue abounded vnto more 38. qu. How all men are said to be iustified in Christ v. 18. 39. qu. Why the Apostle saith v. 19. By one mans disobedience many were made sinners and not all 40. qu. How many are said to be sinners in Adam 41. qu. How the law is said to haue entred thereupon v. 20. 42. qu. How the offence is saide to haue abounded by the entring of the law v. 20. 43. qu. How grace is said to haue abounded more 44. qu. Of the raigne of sinne vnto death and of grace vnto life Questions vpon the sixt Chapter 1. qu. Of the meaning of these words Shall we continue in sinne v. 1. 2. qu. What it is to die vnto sinne 3. qu. What it is to be baptized into Iesus Christ. 4. qu. Of the diuers significations of the word Baptisme and to be baptized 5. qu. What it is to be baptized into the death of Christ v. 3. 7. qu. Of the meaning of this phrase to be graft c. 8. qu. What resurrection the Apostle speaketh of v. 5. 9. qu. What is vnderstood by the old man v. 6. 10. qu. What is meant by the bodie of sinne v. 6. that the bodie of sinne might be destroied 11. qu. How the dead are said to be freed frō sinne v. 7. 12. qu. What life the Apostle speaketh of v. 8. We beleeue that we shall also liue with him 13. qu. How death is said to haue bad dominion ouer Christ v. 9. 14. qu. How Christ is said to haue died to sinne v. 10. 15. qu. How Christ is said now to liue vnto God v. 10. 16. qu. Of these words v. 11. Likewise think ye c. 17. qu. How sinne is said not to raigne c. v. 12. 18. qu. What the Apostle meaneth by mortall bodie v. 12. 19. qu. Of these words that we should obey it in the lusts c. v. 12. 20. qu. How we are not to giue our members as weapons vnto sinne v. 13. 21. qu. What it is not to be vnder the law but vnder grace v. 14. 23. qu. Whether the Fathers also that liued vnder the law were not vnder grace 24. qu. What the Apostle meaneth by the forme of doctrine whereunto they were deliuered 25. qu. How we are made seruants of righteousnes 26. qu. Of the meaning of these words I speake after the manner of men because of your infirmitie v. 19. Questions vpon the seauenth Chapter 1. qu. How the law is said to haue dominion ouer a man as long as he liueth 2. qu. Whether the woman be simply free if the man be once dead 3. qu. Whether the woman haue not the like libertie and freedome in respect of the bond of mariage as the man hath 4. qu. Why the Apostle saith we are dead to the law v. 4. and not rather the law is dead to vs. 5. qu. How we are said to be mortified to and freed from the law 6. qu. What is meant by the bodie of Christ. 7. qu. Of the meaning of these words beeing dead vnto it 8. qu. What is meant by the newnes of the spirit and oldnes of the letter 9. qu. How S. Paul beeing brought vp in the knowledge of the law could say I knew not lust v. 7. and I was aliue without the law v. 9. 10. qu. What law the Apostle speaketh of v. 7. is the law of sinne 11. qu. What lust or concupiscence the Apostle speaketh of I had not knowne lust c. except c. 12. qu. Why the Apostle giueth instance in the tenth Command Thou shalt not lust and alledgeth not all the words of the law 13. qu. What sinne the Apostle meaneth v. 8. sinne tooke an occasion c. 14. qu. How sinne tooke occasion by the Law 15. qu. Of what time S. Paul speaketh when he knew not the law and afterward sinne tooke occasion by the law c. 16. What the Apostle meaneth by all concupiscence 17. qu. In what sense the Apostle saith Sinne was dead and he aliue without the law v. 8. 18. qu. How sinne is said to haue revived 19. qu. How sinne is said to haue deceiued 20. qu. How sinne is said to haue slaine him 21. qu. How the law is said to be holy iust good and likewise the commandement 22. qu. How sinne is said to be out of measure sinnefull 23. qu. How the law is said to be spirituall 24. qu. How the Apostle saith he is carnall and sold vnder sinne v. 17. 25. qu. Of these words v. 15. I allow not what I doe what I would that doe I not 26. qu. What the Apostle vnderstandeth by flesh I know that in me that is my flesh dwelleth no good thing c. v. 18. 27. qu. How the Apostle saith To will is present with me c. but I find no meanes to performe c. v. 18. 28. qu. Of the meaning of these words v. 21. I finde a law c. 29. qu. How the Apostle saith Euill is present with me v. 21. 30. qu. Of these words I delight in the law of God c. v. 22 23. of the number of these laws and what they are 31. qu. Why these are called Laws and why they are said the one to be in the inner man the other in the members 32. qu. Of the Apostles exclamation O wretched man that I am 33. qu. What the Apostle vnderstandeth by this bodie of death from the which he desireth to be deliuered 34. qu. Why the Apostle giueth thankes to God v. 25. 35. qu. Of these words I in my minde serue the law of God c. 36. qu. Of that famous question whether S. Paul doe speake in his owne person or of an other here in this chapter Questions vpon the eight Chapter 1. qu. Who are said to be in Christ. 2. qu. What is meant by the law of the spirit of life 3. qu. What is vnderstood by the law of sinne and death 4. qu. Of the best reading of the 3. v. 5. qu. What is meant by the similitude of sinfull flesh 6. qu. Of these words And for sinne condemned sinne in the flesh 7. qu. How Christ condemned sinne in the flesh 8. qu. Who are after the flesh and sauour the things of the flesh 9. qu. How the wisdome of the flesh is enmitie against God 10. qu. How they which are in the flesh cannot please God v. 8. 11. qu. Of the dwelling of the spirit of God in vs v. 9. 12. qu. Of the meaning of these words v. 10. The bodie is dead because of sinne the spirit is life c. 13. qu. How the quickning of the dead is ascribed to the
that this Epistle was written by Paul and is of diuine authoritie by the epistle it selfe 2. contr That S. Pauls epistles are not so obscure that any should be terrified from the reading thereof 3. contr Against the Ebionites which retained the rites and ceremonies of Moses 4. contr Against the Marcionites that reiected the lawe of Moses 5. contr Against the Romanists which depraue the doctrine taught by S. Paul in his Epistle 6. contr Against Socinus that blasphemously subverteth the doctrine of our redemption by Christ and iustification by faith 7. contr Whether Paul may be thought to haue beene married Controversies vpon the 1. Chapter 1. contr Against the Manichees which refuse Moses and the Prophets 2. contr Against Election by the foresight of workes 3. contr Against the Nestorians and Vbiquitaries 4. contr Against the heresie of one Georgius Eniedinus a Samosatenian heretike in Transilvania 5. cont Against the Marcionites that Christ had a true bodie 6. contr Against the Apollinaâ—â—sts that Christ had no humane soule 7. contr That the Romane faith is not the same now which was commended by the Apostle 8. contr That the Pope is not vniversall Bishop 9. contr Against the Popish distinction betweene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to worship and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to serue v. 9. whom I serue in my spirit 10. contr That God onely spiritually is to be serued and worshipped 11. contr Of the vaine vse of Popish pilgrimages 12. contr None to be barred from the knowledge of Gods word 13. contr Against diuerse hereticall assertions of Socinus touching the iustice of God 14. contr Against inherent iustice 15. contr That the Sacraments did not conferre grace 16. contr That faith onely iustifieth 17. contr How the Gospel is the power of God to salvation to euerie one that beleeueth 18. contr Of the difference between the law and the Gospel 19. contr Whether by naturall meanes the Gentiles might haue attained to the knowledge of the onely true God without the speciall assistance of Gods grace 20. contr Against some Philosophers that the world is not eternall 21. contr Against the adoration and setting vp of images in Churches and places of prayer v. 23. they turned the glorie of the incorruptible God to the similitude of an image 22. contr Of the corrupt reading of the vulgar Latine translation v. 32. 23. contr Against the Popish distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes Controversies out of the 2. Chapter 1. contr Against the power of freewill in good things 2. contr Of iustification by the imputatiue iustice of faith 3. contr Against the merit of workes 4. contr Which are to be counted good works 5. con Whether any good works of the faithfull be perfect 6. contr Whether men ought to doe well for hope of recompence or reward 7. contr Against iustification by workes vpon these words v. 13. Not the heares of the lawe but the doers shall be iustified 8. contr That it is not possible in this life to keepe the lawe 9. contr Whether by the light of nature onely a man may doe any thing morally good 10. contr Of the imperfection of the vulgar Latine translation 11. contr That the Sacraments do not conferre grace 12. contr That the Sacraments depend not vpon the worthines of the Minister or receiuer 13. contr Against the Marcionites and other which condemned the old Testament and the ceremonies thereof 14. contr Against the Anabaptists which reiect the Sacraments of the newe Testament 15. contr That the want of Baptisme condemneth not 16. contr That the wicked and vnbeleeuers eate not the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament Controversies vpon the 3. Chapter 1. contr That the Sacraments of the old Testament did not iustifie ex opere operato by the work wrought and so consequenly neither the newe 2. contr Of the Apochryphall Scriptures 3. contr That the wicked and vnbeleeuers doe not eate the bodie of Christ in the Eucharist 4. contr That the Romane Church hath not the promise of the perpetuall presence of Gods spirit 5. contr The Virgin Marie not exempted from sinne 6. contr The reading of the Scripture is not to be denied to any 7. contr Against the adversaries of the law the Marcionites and other heretikes 8. contr Against the counsels of perfection 9. contr Against the Pelagians which established free-will 10. contr That the vertue of Christs death is indifferently extended both to sinnes before baptisme and after 11. contr That the beleeuing fathers before Christ were not kept in Limbo 12. contr Against the Marcionite heretikes 13. contr Against the Novatian heretikes 14. contr Against inherent iustice 15. contr Against the Popish distinction of the first and second iustification 16. contr Against the works of preparation going before iustification 17. contr What iustifying faith is 18. contr What manner of faith it is that iustifieth 19. contr Of the manner how faith iustifieth 20. contr Whether faith alone iustifieth 21. contr How S. Paul and S. Iames are reconciled together 23. contr Against Socinus that Christ properly redeemed vs by paying the ransome for vs and not metaphorically 23. contr That Christ truely reconciled vs by his blood against an other blasphemous assertion of Socinus Controversies out of the 4. Chapter 1. contr That the Apostle excludeth all kind of workes from iustification 2. contr Whether blessednes consist onely in the conversion of sinners v. 7. 3. contr Whether sinne is wholly purged and taken away in the iustification of the faithfull 4. contr Against workes of satisfaction 5. contr Of imputatiue iustice against inherent righteousnes 6. contr That the Sacraments doe not conferre grace by the externall participation onely 7. contr That there is the same substance and efficacie of the Sacraments of the old and newe Testament 8. contr That circumcision was not onely a signe signifying or distinguishing but a seale confirming the promise of God 9. contr Whether circumcision were availeable for the remission of sinne 10. contr Of the presumptuous titles of the Pope calling himselfe the father and head of the faithfull 11. contr Against the Chiliasts or Millenaries that hold that Christ should raigne a 1000. yeares in the earth 12. contr Of the certaintie of faith v. 16. that the promise might be sure 13. contr Whether faith be an act of the vnderstanding onely 14. contr That iustifying faith is not a generall apprehension or beleeuing of the articles of the faith but an assurance of the remission and forgiuenesse of sinnes in Christ. 15. contr That faith doth not iustifie by the merit or act thereof but onely instrumentally as it applyeth and apprehendeth the righteousnesse of Christ. 16. contr The people are no to be denied the reading of the Scriptures 17. contr Against the heretikes which condemned the old Testament and the author thereof 18. contr Whether iustification consist onely in the remission of sinnes 19. contr Against Socinus corrupt interpretation of these words v. 25. was deliuered vp for our sinnes 20. contr Piscators
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
members as weapons of vnrighteousnesse vnto sinne but yeeld giue G. B. exhibite L. apply V. S. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your selues vnto God as aliue vnto God from the dead and yeelde your members as weapons of righteousnesse vnto God 14 For sinne shall not haue dominion let it not raigne S. but the word is in the future tense for ye are not vnder the lawe but vnder grace 15 What then shall we sinne because we are not vnder the lawe but vnder grace God forbid let it not be Gr. as v. 1. 16 Knowe ye not that to whom ye yeeld your selues as seruants to obey his seruants ye are to whom ye obey whether it be of sinne vnto death or of obedience of the hearing of the eare S. vnto righteousnes 17 But God be thanked that ye haue beene the seruants of sinne but ye haue obeyed from the heart that forme of doctrine whereunto ye were deliuered 18 Beeing then made free from sinne ye are become the seruants of righteousnes 19 I speake after the manner of men I speake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some humane thing Gr. L.V. because of the infirmitie of your flesh for as ye haue yeelded your members seruants to serue L. to the seruice S. but the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seruants to vncleanes and iniquitie to commit iniquitie so now yeeld your members seruants to righteousnes and holines vnto sanctification L. V. S. 20 For when ye were the seruants of sinne ye were free vnto righteousnes from righteousnesse G. B. that is the meaning but the word in the originall is put in the datiue 21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed for the end of those things is death 22 But now beeing freed from sinne and made the seruants of God ye haue your fruit vnto holines in holines G. holy fruits S. and the ende euerlasting life 23 For the stipend stipends Gr. wages G. reward B. of sinne is death but the gift of God the grace of God L. the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a grace a gift is eternall life through Iesus Christ our Lord. 2. The Argument Method and Parts In this Chapter the Apostle sheweth the necessarie coniunction betweene iustification and holines and newenes of life and there are two parts thereof in the first to ver 12. he layeth downe the doctrine then he exhorteth v. 12. to the end In the doctrine he prooueth the necessitie 1. of mortification and dying to sinne propounded v. 1.2 from the efficacie of baptisme which signifieth that we are dead and buried with Christ v. 3.4 and from the ende of Christs crucifying v. 6.2 of sanctification propounded v. 8. prooued from the mysterie of baptisme v. 4.5 from the vertue of Christs resurrection who is risen and dieth no more ver 9.10 and then he concludeth ver 11. 1. The exhortation followeth which hath two parts 1. one dehorting from sinne which is propounded and explaned v. 12.13 then amplified by three arguments 1. from their present state and condition beeing vnder grace v. 14. with the preuenting of an obiection v. 15.2 from the inconveniencie of the seruice of sinne which is vnto death set forth by the contrarie v. 16.3 from the efficacie of the doctrine which they obeyed v. 17.2 the other part stirreth vp to newenesse of life propounded v. 18. amplified 1. à pari v. 19.20 as when they serued sinne they were free from righteousnesse so beeing freed from sinne they must be the seruants of righteousnesse ab effectis from the effects of sinne shame and death v. 21. which are amplified by the contrarie effects of sanctification holinesse v. 22. and eternall life set forth by the contrarie on the diuerse manner sinne deserueth death as the iust stipend but life eternall is not deserued it is Gods free gift v. 23. 3. The questions and doubts discussed Quest. 1. Of the meaning of these words shall we continue in sinne v. 1. 1. The Apostle preuenteth here an obiection which might be occasioned by the former words in the end of the fift chapter where the Apostle said where sinne abounded grace abounded much more by occasion of which words the Apostle might feare least two sorts of men might take advantage the false teachers which did continually picke quarrells with the Apostles doctrine as some affirmed that he said we might doe euill that good might come thereof c. 3.8 He might feare also least the weake might receiue encouragement hereby to nourish theâ— infirmities still 2. But either of these so inferring did misconster the Apostles words and in this kind of reasoning there are three Paralogismes or fallacies committed 1. they take non causam pro causa that which is not the cause for the cause for the abounding of sinne is not the cause of the abounding of grace Augustine saith non peccantis merito sed gratiae supervenient â—â—â—uxilio c. where sinne abounded grace abounded more not by the merit of the sinne 〈◊〉 by the meanes of helpe by grace c. the Apostles speach is to be vnderstood occasionaliter by way of occasion and they take it causaliter by way of a cause Hugo sinne in it owne nature is no more the cause of grace then the disease is of medicine Maâ—â— qui laudat beneficium medecinae non prodesse dicit morbos c. he that praiseth the benefit 〈◊〉 Phisicke doth not commend the disease Augustin so then mans vnrighteousnesse doth not in it selfe set forth the iustice of God but ex accidente by an accident Pareus proveniter bonitate Dei qui bona elicit ex malis it commeth of the goodnesse of God who decreeâ—â— good out of euill Lyran. 2. the second fallacie is in that they thus obiecting make the Apostles words more generall then he meant or intended them for the abounding of sinne is not the occasion of the abounding of grace in all but onely in those which acknowledge and confesse their sinnes Martyr as it is euident in damnatione malorum in the condemnation of the wicked Lyran. there Gods iustice rather then his grace and mercie sheweth it selfe 3. a third fallacie is they apply that to the time to come which the Apostle onely vttered of time past the abounding of sinne in men before their conuersion and repentance setteth forth the aboundance of the grace and mercie of God in the forgiuenesse of their sinnes past but not so if sinne abounded after their conuersion and calling Mart. 3. The Apostle propoundeth this obiection in the person of the aduersarie by way of interrogation thereby expressing both affectum indignantis the affection of one angrie and displeased that his doctrine should be thus perverted and he sheweth also securitatem conscientiae the securitie of his conscience that he was free from any such thought 4. By sinne neither doth the Apostle vnderstand the author of sinne namely the deuill as Origen for then one should be said improperly to remaine in sinne that is in the