away the feare and awe of the gods from cities and brought in error And if the first vse had remained castius dij obseruarentur the gods should more chastly and sincerely haue beene worshipped still to this purpose Augustine reporteth the words of Varro lib. 4. de ciuit dei c. 31. 4. The daily offence and hinderance that commeth by images set vp in the Churches sheweth the inconueniencie of them for they drawe away mens minds from true deuotion and their eyes are first set to gaze vpon such obiects therefore the Lacedemonians forbad that any images should be set vp in their Counsell house least that by the sight thereof their mindes might be drawne away from the busines of the commonwealth which they came together to consult about Augustine also giueth this reason concion 2. in Psal. 103. because by the verie place some honour is giuen to images when they are set vp in Churches Martyr 5. The first that are found to haue made account of images among Christians for any religious vse was Marcellina the companion of the heretike Carpocrates who priuately had the images of Christ Paul Homer Pythagoras which she vsed to burne incense vnto Augustin lib. de haeres ad Quodvult Deum But among the auncient Christians the publike vse of images in places of prayer was condemned Epiphanius comming to a Church in the diocesse of the Bishop of Ierusalem there seeing a picture in a cloath caused it to be cut in peices and he writ an epistle vnto the Bishop of Ierusalem that he should not suffer any such thing to be done in his Churches which epistle Hierome translated into Latinâ— therein shewing his consent with him In the Elibetan Councell can 36. it was decreed that no pictures should be made vpon the walls of the Churches Leo Isauricus had a Councell at Constantinople wherein images were condemned yet after this they were restoared by Irene the Empresse and Tharasuos patriarke of Constantinople in the 2. Nicene synode And about the same time Carolus the great held a Councell in Germanie where the decrees of the said Nicene synode were abrogated ex Martyr Now on the contrarie it will be thus obiected for the vse of images 1. The Lord in diuerse visions did shewe himselfe in certaine representations as Dan. 7. like an auncient man and Matth. 3. the holy Ghost appeared in the likenesse of a doue Answ. 1. That which God did grant vnto certaine persons vpon some certaine and speciall occasions must not be drawne into a generall rule neither is it lawfull to leaue a generall precept vnlesse some speciall prohibition can be shewed Pareus 2. So the Lord in Scripture is likened vnto a lion they may as well inferre thereupon that they may so picture him Gualter 3. And there is great difference betweene the writing of Scripture and a picture for the Scripture speaking of such visions and representations expoundeth it selfe and sheweth the meaning thereof but a picture is dumbe and idle Martyr 4. and though such visions may be historically represented yet it followeth not that they should be set vp for any religious vse Faius 2. Obiect Many miracles haue bin done before images as Eusebius maketh mention of a brasen image of Christ at Cesarea and there was an other image of a woman by touching the hemme of his garment vnder the which grew an herbe that after it came vp so high as the skirts of the image had a soueraigne power against all diseases Answer 1. This image the historie beeing admitted was not set vp in any religious place but openly in the citie as a monument of that miraculous worke 2. God might in the beginning of Christianitie shew such miracles as Peters shadow healed the sicke for the confirmation of the Christian faith which miracles are now ceased 3. this miracle beeing admitted yet euen such images when they are abused to idolatrie may notwithstanding be broken downe as the brasen serpent had a speciall vertue to heale the biting of serpents in them that looked vpon it yet notwithstanding Hâ—z Isiah brake it doune when it began to be abused to superstition 2. Obiect God hath punished such as offered any contumelic or disgrace to such images as beeing the signes of God as Socrates writeth lib. 7. tripartit histor how Iulian remooued the said image of Christ at Cesarea and caused his owne to be set vp instead thereof but it was cast downe by lightening and when the heathen had drawne the other image in disgrace round about the streetes the Christians tooke it vp and preserued it c. Ans. 1. Images set vp for such idolatrous and superstitious vses are no signes of God and therefore the honour giuen vnto such is a contumelic and dishonour vnto God for the will of him that giueth honour is not the rule of honour but of him that is honoured 2. yet euen the disgrace and despight offered to such false signes of God redoundeth sometime vnto God when they are done with an intention to dishonour God Pareus as Iulian did disgrace that image vpon his hatred to Christ and therefore the Lord did therein shew his power see further against the adoration of images Hexap in Exod. c. 20. Command 2. Controv. 4. 22. Controv. Of the corrupt reading of the vulgar Latine translation v. 32. The Latin translation thus standeth Who when they knew the iustice of God did not vnderstand that they which doe such things are wortie of death not onely they which doe them but they also which consent vnto the doers c. whereas according to the originall the words are thus truly translated The which knowing the iustice of God how that they which commit such things are worthie of death not onely doe the same but haue pleasure in them c. B. or fauour those that doe them So that the Latin translation faileth 1. both in the words for these words did not vnderstand and they which doe them are not in the originall 2. as also in the sense for according vnto the Greeke reading the Apostle maketh it a more heinous thing to fauour and patronize euill doers then to be a doer of euill but after the other reading the latter is the greater 3. beside after the vulgar Latin the words include a contradiction for when they knew the iustice of God how could they chuse but vnderstand it 4. Chrysostome Oecumenius Theophylact doe read and interpret this place according vnto the Greeke text Bellarmine here answereth 1. that some Greeke copies had had these word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they vnderstood not as appeareth in Origens commentarie and Titlemannus affirmeth that he had seene an ancient Greeke copie with those words 2. it is a greater sinne to doe euill as to commit murther then onely to consent 3. they might haue a theoricall knowledge and yet faile in practise and so not vnderstand in effect 4. Cyprian Ambrose Sedulius Hayme Anselme doe read here according to the vulgar Latine so we
of faith in any other gift it can not stand together for where merit and worke is the wages is not counted by fauour and so freely but by debt Rom. 4.4 2. The better answer then is that we are iustified freely although the condition of faith be required because faith doth not iustifie vt actus quidem noster est as it is an act of ours but all the vertue thereof proceedeth from the obiect as the Israelites beeing healed by looking vpon the brasen serpent obtained not their health by the very act of opening their eyes but by the obiect which they beheld which was the serpent And like as when a rich man giueth his almes vnto the poore though he stretch out his hand to receiue it yet is it said notwithstanding to be a free gift Tolet. annot 20. 3. But adde here further that as when a blind man putteth forth his hand but he that giueth is faine to direct it to receiue the almes or if a man haue a weake and withered hand which he is not able to stretch out vnlesse the other that giueth doe lift it vp in this case euery way the gift is free So our will is not of it selfe apt to beleeue or will any thing aright vnlesse the Lord direct it faith then beeing both the worke of God in straining our will and faith receiuing all the vertue from the obiect which it apprehendeth namely Christ it remaineth that faith notwithstanding we are iustified freely Faius 33. Quest. v. 25. To declare his iustice or righteousnes what iustice the Apostle vnderstandeth here 1. Chrysostome vnderstandeth the declaration of Gods iustice by the effects thereof like as God declareth his riches not that he is rich in himselfe but in making others rich and his power not in that he euer liueth himselfe but in raising others to life so his iustice is declared not in beeing iust in himselfe but in making others iust But this iustifying of sinners is a worke of Gods mercie not of his iustice 2. Theodoret herein will haue Gods iustice to be manifested because he did sustaine the sinnes of the world with patience forbearing to punish them but this likewise was an effect of his goodnes and mercie not of his iustice 3. Ambrose vnderstandeth this iustice of God in keeping and performing his promise but the iustice of God is not here to be taken in a diuers sense then before v. 22. the righteousnes of God by the faith of Iesus Christ. 4. Some doe take the iustice of God here for his goodnes mercie and clemencie as the Prophet Dauid vseth to pray Iudge me according to thy righteousnes that is thy goodnes Pareus but this seemeth not to be so proper here 5. Some vnderstand the iustice of God in not leauing sinne vnpunished Lyran. it was the iustice of God that the price of our redemption should not be paid otherwise then by the blood of Christ but this is not the iustice of faith which the Apostle spake of before 6. Therefore this iustice which the Lord manifested and declared is none other but the righteousnes of faith before touched and as the words here following doe shew by the forgiuenes of sinnes God reuealed and manifested this to be the true iustice whereby men are iustified before him euen the righteousnes of faith so August lib. de spir lit cap. 13. Anselme Tolet Osiander 34. Quest. What is meant by sinnes that are past v. 25. 1. Some think that this is vnderstood of the fathers in the law which were kept in Limbus who though thorough remission of their sinnes they were freed from punishment yet they were not receiued vnto glorie gloss ordin Gorrhan But Tolet confuteth this interpretation though he allow the opinion as not agreeable to the Apostles minde for the words are not to be so limited and restrained but generally the Apostle vnderstandeth such sinnes as he spake of before v. 23. All haue sinned and are depriued of the glorie of God And if the sinnes were not yet remitted vntill Christs comming vnto the Patriarks they could not be freed no not from the punishment 2. The Novatians vnderstand those former sinnes which were passed of sinnes going before vocation and iustification denying all remedie vnto sinnes committed afterward But this were to make the death of Christ of small force if there were no place for forgiuenes euen after one is iustified Dauid fell into those two grieuous sinnes of murther and adulterie after he was called and yet was restored againe 3. Catharinus with other Romanists vnderstand likewise sinnes going before iustification and baptisme the rest that follow after they say must be purged by other meanes as by repentance and satisfaction But the Apostle speaketh generally of all sinnes If any man sinne we haue an advocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust 1. Ioh. 2.2 Christ is our aduocate as well for sinnes before baptisme as after but see more for the confutation of thir error among the Controversies 4. The Apostle then compareth not the persons but the sinnes and the times and sheweth that euen the sinnes committed vnder the law and from the beginning of the world were redeemed by no other way then by faith in Christ God by his patience did forbeare to punish those sinnes as not imputing them because of the Redeemer which was to come Agreeable hereunto is that place Heb. 9.15 For this cause is he the Mediatour of the new Testament that thorough death which was for the transgression in the former Testament they which were called might receiue the promise of euerlasting inheritance By conference of these places together it is euident that by sinnes that are past are meant not the sinnes going before baptisme or iustification but the sinnes committed vnder the old Testament to shew that there was no remission of sinnes from the beginning of the world but by faith in Christ. And this further appeareth because the Apostle faith v. 26. to shew at this time his righteousnes c. he setteth the present time of the Gospel and the reuelation of grace against the former times 35. Quest. Why the Apostle onely maketh mention of sinnes past Now the Apostle so extendeth the effect and fruit of our redemption by Christ vnto the sinnes passed as that the sinnes present and to come also shall be by vertue thereof remitted but he maketh mention only of the sinnes past and before committed for these reasons 1. Hereby the Apostle sheweth the imbecillitie of the law of Moses and the ceremonies thereof that they were expiationes non verae sed vmbratiles not true expiations but onely in shadow Pareus as the Apostle saith Heb. 9.9 that those gifts and sacrifices could not make holy concerning the conscience and so Thomas yeeldeth this reason vpon this place God remitted the sinnes before passed quae lex remittere non potuit which the law could not remit 2. Adamus Safhout addeth that the Apostle maketh mention onely of former sinnes to
soule as the Apostle also saith I liue by faith in the Sonne of God Galat. 2.20 then is it not a disposition onely for a disposition vnto life is not life but faith is the life of the soule 2. whereas Pererius obiecteth these places Galat. 5.5 By the spirit thorough faith we waite or expect the hope of righteousnesse whereupon he would inferre that faith worketh the hope rather of righteousnesse then righteousnesse it selfe and so prepareth rather and disposeth to iustification then iustifieth to this we answear 1. that by the hope of righteousnesse may be vnderstood the reward of righteousnesse hoped for hope is taken for the thing hoped for Beza 2. or by the hope of righteousnesse is signified perseuerance and continuance in this hope Calvin 3. or rather these words must not be taken in sensu diuiso sed composito not in a diuided but an whole sense that we must not ioyne only to expect and waite with faith but rather thus to put them together We waite for the hope of righteousnesse by faith Genevens 2. Againe the Romanists affirme that faith is said to iustifie because it is the roote onely foundation and beginning of iustification and whereas the Apostle notwithstanding saith Ephes. 3.17 beeing rooted and grounded in loue he saith the Apostle speaketh not of the foundation of iustification simplie but as it is complet and perfit and meritorious of euerlasting life and so charitie is the foundation because it formeth and perfecteth all other vertues and it is that whereby we are formallie and actually iustified Pererius disput 18. numer 88. Contra. 1. Faith is not the beginning onely of iustification but the verie perfection thereof for beeing iustified by faith we are at peace with God but an imperfect and begunne onely iustification could not worke peace in vs. 2. The Apostle speaketh in that place of the loue of God toward vs in Christ which he calleth the loue of Christ v. 19. not of the charitie and loue which is wrought in man and that loue indeede is the verie foundation of our hope 3. but it is vntrue that charitie formeth all other vertues or that thereby we are formally and actually iustified for it is faith that giueth life vnto other vertues which without faith cannot be acceptable vnto God whom it is impossible to please without faith Heb. 11.6 and not charitie but faith is the forme of iustification for the life of the soule is ascribed vnto faith Galat. 2.20 3. They say further that faith doth not iustifie passiuely as it is an instrument to apprehend Christs righteousnesse but by the dignitie worthinesse and meritorious worke thereof Bellar. lib. 1. de iustificat c. 17. Contra. 1. The contrarie is euident out of Scripture that faith iustifieth not as it is an act or worke for how then should faith iustifie without workes if it selfe did iustifie as a worke or act If here it be answered that the Apostle excludeth onely the works of the law such as faith is not the Apostle els where excludeth all workes in generall as Ephes. 2.8 by grace are ye saued thorough faith c. not of workes c. 2. faith then iustifieth relate by way of relation to Christ as Rom. 5.19 By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous and organice as it is an hand to lay hold of and apprehend the righteousnesse of Christ as the Apostle againe saith Rom. 5.17 Much more shall they which receiue the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousnesse raigne in life thorough one c. iustification then is a gift receiued and apprehended by faith In this sense then it is said faith iustifieth as an organe instrument and hand apprehending receiuing and applying the righteousnesse of Christ like as the plough is said to make a man rich beeing the iustrument of his labour whereby the earth is tilled and made fruitfull 3. And here I will oppose the graue testimonie of Tolet against Bellarmine one Cardinall against an other thus he writeth fidem non habere ex se efficaciam vllam vt actus noster est reconciliandi sed totam eius virâ—â—â—â— procedere ex obiecto nempe Christo that faith hath no efficacie as it is our act to reconcile vs vnto God but the whole vertue thereof proceedeth from the obiect namely Christ As when the Israelits looked vpon the brasen serpent and were healed their sight as it was an act of the eyes had no vertue to heale but the whole efficacie was from the serpent which they beheld Tolet. annot 20. Controv. 20. Whether faith alone iustifieth Bellarmine consenting with the rest of the Romanists doth mightily striue lib. 1. de iustifâ—â— c. 12. that faith alone doth not iustifie and he much insisteth vpon this argument faith cannot be alone without loue hope and other vertues and graces therefore it cannot iustifie alone Contra. 1. But it followeth not for faith beeing separate from loue and hope is no faith it is dead and therefore faith beeing destroyed it can bring forth no act like as it folâ—â—weth not the care onely heareth or the eye seeth therefore the one can heare the other 〈◊〉 if it were alone that is pulled and seuered from the bodie 2. That faith onely iustifieth though faith beeing alone iustifieth not it is thus made eâ—â—dent 1. because it is the office of faith onely to apprehend and receiue the promises it is â—â— hand of the soule so is not charitie hope or any of the rest 2. faith iustifieth without â—â—e workes of the lawe but all other vertues as hope charitie are commanded in the law â—â—â—refore without them is our iustification wrought 3. though the Apostle vse not here â—â—t particle onely yet els where he vseth a tearme equivalent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nisi but a man is not â—â—â—â—â—fied c. but by faith And many of the fathers haue by way of interpretation expresseâ—â— but to the word onely as Origen vpon this place the Apostle faith that the iustification 〈◊〉 fidei of faith alone sufficeth so Ambrose vpon the 4. chap. of this epistle saith Abraham sola fide iustificatus Abraham was iustified by faith onely Hilarie in c. 8. Matth. fides sola iustificat faith onely iustifieth Hierome Rom. 4. impium per solam fidem iustificat Deus God iustifieth the wicked returning by faith onely to this purpose also see Chrysostome Cyprian Augustine Nazianzen Basil Ruffinus cited by D. Fulke who all affirme that faith onely iustifieth so that appeareth to be a malitious cauil of the Rhemists that onely is foisted in by vs see annot in 3. Rom. sect 8. If sometime the fathers seeme to dispute against onely faith they are to be vnderstood to speake of solitarie saith separate from good workes as Augustine thus putteth the case whereas the Apostle saith that a man is iustified without works he must not be vnderstood vt accepta fide si vixerit dicamus eum iustumesse si male vixerit that after he
impute is to make one the cause of some commoditie and discommoditie ac si ille talis rei author esset as if he were the author of it c. 1. so then faith is said not to be imputed but reputed for iustice because the act of faith is imputed for iustice for when it doth not bring iustice of it owne nature vt est actus hominis as it is an act of man yet it is so accepted of God 2. and therefore he misliketh the word imputed because we thereupon gather that there is no iustice giuen vnto man whereby he is made iust but the iustice of Christ reputed but he affirmeth that there is a iustice verily giuen vnto man by faith which God accepteth for iustice as the fight of the brasen serpent did verily heale not by the vertue of the fight sed ex diuino beneplacito because it so pleased God 3. for if the word imputed not reputed had beene here vsed the Apostle would haue said he imputed vnto him c. not it was imputed to this purpose Tolet annot 7. Contra. 1. We say that iustice is both imputed and reputed vnto vs by faith for first Christs righteousnesse is imputed and made ours by faith and then it is reputed and accepted as if we had our selues performed it neither can there be any reputed iustice but it must first be by imputation For God in his iustice cannot hold or repute him for iust that is not iust vnlesse for an others rigteousnesse he be reputed and counted iust 2. That figure of beholding the brasen serpent doth make more for imputation of iustice then reputation onely for they which looked vpon the serpent were not reputed as healed but verily were healed from the biting of the serpent by the imputation and application of the vertue apprehended by the sight of the serpent so we are truely healed from our sinnes by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse 3. that which S. Paul vttereth in the passiue it was imputed Moses expressed in the actiue he imputed so that the sense is all one and seeing Tolet following the vulgar Latine readeth v. 8. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne why should not the same sense of the word be retained here 6. Wherefore then all these cauills beeing thus remooued we inferre that Abraham was iustified by faith not materialiter materially as it was an act but relate and obiectur as it hath relation vnto the obiect the iustice of Christ and organice instrumentally as it applyeth and apprehendeth the righteousnesse of Christ. Quest. 10. Whether Abraham were iustified by any thing beside his faith 1. It will be obiected that Genes 22.18 after the Lord had tried Abrahams obedience and faithfulnesse in offring his sonne the Angel said vnto him in the name of the Lord because thou hast done this thing I will surely blesse thee c. here the Lord seemeth to blesse Abraham for his obedience not because of his faith to this we answear that it is not said that Abraham was iustified by this fact he was iustified long before by his faith but that the Lord rewarded Abrahams obedience with ample and large promises and so the Lord crowneth in mercie the workes and obedience in his servant 2. Obiect As it is said here that this faith and beleefe was imputed vnto Abraham for righteousnesse so Psal. 106.31 Phineas act in killing the adulterer and the adulteresse is said to haue beene imputed to him for righteousnesse Answ. There is an vniuersall and particular iustice that is personae of the person the other is facts of some particular fact so in this place in the Psalme the Prophet speaketh not of that vniuersal iustice whereby one is counted iust before God but of the particular iustification approbation of Phineas his fact which otherwise might haue seemed to be vnlawful because he did take the sword being a priuate man but because he did it in the zeale of Gods glorie the Lord approoued it Phinehas by that act beeing but one could not be iustified before God for the law saith cursed is he that continueth not in all things which are written in the lawe one act then of obedience could not iustifie Phinehas before God but that particular act was accepted and approoued so Deut. 14.13 the restoring of the pledge before the Sunne goe downe is said to be ones righteousnesse that is the Lord would accept it as a worke of righteousnesse pleasing and acceptable vnto him But in this place the Apostle speaketh of vniuersall iustice whereby a man is iustified and counted iust before God to this purpose Pareus dub 3. Martyr Faius Quest. 11. How S. Paul and S. Iames are reconciled about the manner of Abrahams iustifying S. Paul saith here v. 3. that Abraham beleeued God and it was counted vnto him for righteousnesse but S. Iames saith c. 2.23 Was not Abraham our father iustified by works when he offred his sonne Isaac 1. Tolet would thus reconcile them that S. Paul should speake of works going before Abrahams iustification and without them he was iustified but S. Iames of workes that followed after whereby Abraham was iustified But this solution will not serue his turne for Abraham before this time when he is said to haue beene iustified by his faith had done many excellent workes after he had beleeued Gods promises in obeying his calling and leauing his countrey which things he did by faith and yet he was iustified without any such workes S. Paul then excludeth euen such workes as followed his iustification 2. Wherefore the true reconciling of them is this 1. that S. Paul and S. Iames speake not of the same kind of iustification the one reasoneth of the manner and causes of our iustifying before God the other of the signes thereof before men 2. they speake of a diuerse subiect S. Paul of Abraham iustificando to be iustified S. Iames iustificati of the same beeing iustified 3. S. Paul of the iustifying of the person S. Iames of the iustifying of a particular fact Gryneus see in the former chapter controv 21. Quest. 12. Of the explication of the 4. and 5. verses v. 4. To him that worketh 1. Here are three expositions set one against the other of him that worketh and worketh not but beleeueth of the debt and fauour or grace of the wages and imputation Mart. and by him that worketh is vnderstood him that worketh with an intent therby to merit or to be iustified for he that beleeueth also worketh but he is said not to work secundū quid after a sort because he doth it not to that end to merit by it 2. This the Apostle speaketh by way of concession vsing a civill axiome taken from humane affaires not that indeede before God any wages by debt is due vnto any that worketh Beza the Apostle then speaketh thus by way of supposition ex hypothesi Faius 3. This Origen not well vnderstanding but supposing that the Apostle indeed