4 Therefore my brethren or euen so B.G. ye are made dead also or mortified Be. L.A. dead B.G. to the law by the bodie in the bodie Be. T. of Christ that ye should be vnto an other euen vnto him that is raised not risen L.T. from the dead that we should fructifie L. bring forth fruit Be. B.G. vnto God 5 For when we were in the flesh the motions infirmities T. affections Be. lusts B. passions L. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. of sinnes which were by the law did worke L.B. had force Be. G. were effectuall in our members to bring forth fruit vnto death 6 But now we are deliuered from the law that beeing dead not of death L. or we beeing dead vnto it B.G.T. see the question following vpon this place wherein we were holden that we should serue in the newnes of the spirit not in the oldnes of the letter 7 What shall we say then is the law sinne God forbid let it not be Gr. yea I knew not sinne but by the law for I had not knowne lust except the law had said Thou shalt not lust 8 But sinne taking occasion by the commandement wrought in me all manner of concupiscence B.G.T. some read thus sinne taking occasion by the commandement c. Be. L. see v. 11. following for without the law sinne was dead 9 For I once was aliue without the law but when the commandement came sinne revived but I died 10 And the commandement which was ordained vnto life the same was found to be to me vnto death 11 For sinne tooke occasion by the commandement and deceiued me and thereby flew me 12 Wherefore the law is holy and the commandement is holy and iust and good 13 Was that then which was good made death vnto me God forbid but sinne that sinne might appeare wrought death in me by that which is good L. G. T. A. some thus but sinne was death vnto me that sinne might appeare in working in me death by that which is good Be. B. that sinne might be out of measure sinnefull by the commandement 14 For we know that the law is spirituall but I am carnall sold vnder sinne 15 For what I worke I acknowledge not allow not G. vnderstand not L. for not what I would that doe I but what I hate that I doe 16 If I doe then that which I would not I consent to the law that it is good 17 Now it is no more I that worke it but sinne that dwelleth in me 18 For I know that good dwelleth not in me that is in my flesh for to will is present with me but how to performe that which is good I find not 19 For I doe not the good which I would but the euill which I would not that doe I. 20 Now if I doe that I would not it is no more I that worke it but sinne that dwelleth in me 21 I find then a law L. Gr. this law to be imposed Be. by the law B. Ge. that when I would doe good euill is present with me see the question following vpon this verse 22 For I delight in the law of God concerning the inner man 23 But I see an other law in my members rebelling against the law of my minde and leading me captiue to the law in the law L. of sinne which is in my members 24 O wretched man that I am who shall deliuer me out of this bodie of death Be. T. the bodie of this death L. B.G. 25 I thanke God through Iesus Christ our Lord Then I my selfe in my minde serue the law of God but in my flesh the law of sinne 2. The Argument Method and Parts IN this Chapter the Apostle sheweth how we are freed and exempted from the seruice of the law yet so as that he commendeth the law in it selfe and deliuereth it from all blame laying the imputation vpon his owne weaknes and infirmitie where he taketh occasion to shew the combate betweene the flesh and the spirit This Chapter then hath three parts 1. he sheweth how we are deliuered from the law to v. 7. 2. he excuseth and commendeth the law to v. 14. 3. he sheweth the infirmitie that remaineth in the regenerate and the combate betweene the flesh and the spirit 1. In the first part the Apostle sheweth that we are not freed and discharged from the morall obedience of the law but from the seruitude and bondage thereof in respect of the curse and irritation and prouocation to sinne this is set forth by an allegorie taken from the lawe of matrimonie the proposition is contained v. 1.2 3. consisting of three parts like as the woman is 1. free from her husband when he is dead v. 2. 2. after his death she may take an other husband and therein is no adultresse v. 2. 3. the third is implyed that she may also bring forth by an other the reddition followeth which hath three correspondent parts so we are 1. dead to the law 2. we are married to Christ. 3. to bring forth fruit vnto him v. 4. this last part is amplified by the contrarie that as sinne by the lawe did fructifie vnto death v. 5. so we now beeing freed should fructifie vnto the spirit v. 6. 2. Then he taketh vpon him the defense of the law that whereas he had said v. 5. that the matrons of sinne which were by the Law c. did bring forth fruit vnto death hereupon two obiections might arise that the lawe is the cause of sinne and of death to both which he answeareth The first obiection is propounded v. 7. is the law sinne then he answereth 1. in bringing a reason from the effect that the law connot be sinne nor the cause thereof because it reuealeth and discouereth sinne v. 7. 2. he sheweth how not the law but sinne taking occasion by the law wrought concupiscence reuiued in him deceiued him and in the end slew him all which he giueth instance of in his owne person v. 8. to v. 12. 3. he sheweth what the law is in it selfe iust and holy v. 12. the second obiection followeth v. 13. that it might seeme that the law beeing good wrought death in him then the answer is that not the lawe but sinne by the lawe wrought death 3. The Apostle in this third part sheweth first the combate betweene the flesh and the spirit to v. 24. then the issue thereof v. 24.25 the combate is set forth in three degrees 1. in that he by sinne is brought to doe that euill which he would not where he sheweth the opposition betweene the lawe commanding and his will consenting and sinne ouer-ruling him and his flesh obeying v. 14. to v. 18. 2. the next degree is that he is hindered by sinne from doing the good which he would this is prounded v. 18. then prooued by the contrarie effects v. 19. and by the contrarie causes the lawe moouing to good whereunto he consenteth and sinne hindring him v. 20.21 3. the third degree consisteth in
his delight and ioying in good in his inner man but he is captiued by the lawe of his members vnto sinne v. 22.23 The issue is this first he desireth and expecteth to be deliuered from this spirituall bondage and captiuitie ver 24. secondly he giueth thanks for this freedome in Christ that he is not yet wholly captiued vnto sinne but in his spirit he serueth the lawe of God 3. The questions and doubts discussed Quest. 1. How the law is said to haue dominion ouer a man as long as he liueth 1. We must here distinguish betweene these two cessare legem the law to cease and dominionem legis cessare the dominion of the law to cease Theodoret thinketh that the Apostle treateth of the ceasing of the law so also Gorrhan but that the law is not ceased the Apostle sheweth afterward giuing an instance in one of the commandements Thou shalt not lust but the dominion of the law is ceased which serued to condemne but we are vnder grace which hath deliuered vs from the bondage of the law Tolet. annot 1. 2. By the lawe 1. neither with Sedulius doe we vnderstand the lawe of nature for he speaketh vnto the Iewes that knewe the lawe whereas the lawe of nature was knowne also vnto the Gentiles 2. neither with Ambrose by the lawe doe we meane the Gospel for we are not dead vnto this lawe as the Apostle saith v. 4. we are dead to the law 3. neither is the lawe of the members here vnderstood as Origen which is alwaies euill rebelling against the lawe of the word but the lawe which the Apostle here speaketh of is holy and good ver 12. 4. nor yet doe we vnderstand the ciuill lawe of the Romanes to whom the Apostle doth write as knowing their owne lawes as Haymo and Lyranus indifferently vnderstandeth Lex Mosaica vel Civilis the Mosaicall or Ciuill lawe 5. The Apostle then maketh mention of the morall law of Moses as is euident by that instance which afterward he bringeth in of that commandement Thou shalt not couet Tolet. Mart. Pareus 3. These words while he liveth are diuersly interpreted 1. some referre it to the law as long as the lawe liveth or remaineth so Origen Ambrose Erasmus and Origen addeth this reason because the man is afterward resembled to the lawe who beeing dead the woman is free but this reason sheweth that it must be referred rather to the man then the law 2. and so indeede it is more fitly said of the man while he liueth then of the lawe and in grammaticall construction it is better referred to the nearer word then the further off Beza 3. some doe ioyne it vnto man which word because in the Greeke signifieth both sexes Chrysostome thinketh that the death of both is insinuated for if the woman be free when her husband is dead much more when she is dead also but then this verse should be confounded in sense with that which followeth whereas the Apostle speaketh first in generall of the lawe which onely beareth rule ouer a man while he liueth and then of the particular lawe of matrimonie 4. some thinke that these words while he or it liueth are indifferently referred either to the lawe or man for both we are said to be dead to the lawe v. 4. and the lawe also is said to be dead v. 6. Mart. but it is better ioyned with man as the nearest word 4. Tolet thinketh that the Apostle speaketh not here generally of the law of Moses but of the particular law of matrimonie annot 4. but as is before shewed it is better to vnderstand the Apostle to speake generally here of the law which bindeth a man onely while he liueth and so we are dead in Christ and no longer bound to the law and then he doth illustrate the same by the particular law of marriage the law was as the man or rather sinne that receiued strength by the law we as the wife the law beeing dead in Christ in respect of the bondage thereof we are free Pareus 2. Quest. Whether the woman be simply free if the man be once dead v. 3. If the man be dead she is free Lyranus giueth this note that if the man should chance to die and yet be raised againe as some were the woman were not bound in that case to receiue the man as her husband nisi de condecentia but in decencie onely and supervenienti novo consensu by a new consent and contract Pererius affirmeth the same and giueth instance of Lazarus that if any should rise againe as he did non futuram vxorem eius quae ante fuerat she should not be his wife that was before but vpon a new contract Contra. Though this be but a curious and vnnecessarie question yet because the occasion is ministred by them it shall not be amisse herein to examine the truth Indeede when we shall rise againe to an immortall state as in the generall resurrection neither the man shall be bound to the wife nor the wife to the husband because they shall neither marrie nor be giuen in marriage but when any is miraculously raised againe to the mortall state and condition of this life the case is otherwise as may appeare by these reasons 1. Other coniunctions which are not so neare as betweene the father or mother and the children doe not cease neither are extinct by such a temporall death as it is saide Heb. 11.35 The women receiued their dead raised to life that is the mothers acknowledged their children raised againe as the widow of Sarepta and the Shunamite had their sonnes restored vnto them againe beeing dead the one by the Prophet Elias the other by the Prophet Elisha the question is whether those children so raised were freed from the obedience of their parents I thinke not no more is the wife in that case freed from her husband because the coniunction is nearer betweene the man and wife as Gen. 2.24 Therefore shall a man leaue his father and mother and cleaue to his wife 2. When the Sadduces put the question to Christ of a woman that was married to seuen brethren whose wife she should be in the resurrection our Sauiour answered them not that the woman was free from them all by death but because that in the resurrection they neither marrie not are married but are as the Angels in heauen Matth. 22.30 So then the reason why they are free after death is not simply because they are dead but because they shall rise to an incorruptible state and not returne from death againe to their former mortall condition 3. Pererius himselfe confesseth that if one that is baptized or hath receiued orders should be raised from death he should not neede to be baptized or consecrated againe because those Sacraments do imprint in the soule an indeleble character so doth not matrimonie But this may serue as an argument against his conceit that matrimonie in this case shall no more be iterated
Apostle giueth instance in himselfe as v. 24. O wretched man that I am and 25. I thank my God and so he doth here the Apostle then speaketh here neither of his present state nor yet of his first age but of the middle part of his life when he liued a Pharisie 2. That commendation then which S. Paul giueth of his former life while he was a Pharisie did onely concerne his outward cariage which was to the iudgement of the world without reproofe and he kept a good conscience according to his knowledge yet was it farre from a pure conscience because he had no knowledge then of our faith in Christ whose way he persecuted whereby the heart is purified Act. 15.9 Notwithstanding then his outward shew of obedience his heart and affections were not right within and so he had not the true vse and vnderstanding of the law as Augustine saith lib. 1. ad Bonifac. c. 9. potuit intus esse in affectionibus pravus prauaricator legis c. he might inwardly in his peruerse affections be a transgressor of the law and yet outwardly fulfill the workes of the law c. So Saint Paul himselfe confesseth Tit. 3.3 We our selues were sometime vnwise c. seruing lusts c. Quest. 10. What law the Apostle speaketh of v. 7. is the law of sinne 1. Some thinke that the Apostle by the law here vnderstandeth the precept which was giuen to Adam in Paradise not to eate of the forbidden fruite of this opinion was Methobus in Epiphanius haeres 64. and Heirome maketh mention of it epist. ad Hedib qu. 8. but he reiecteth it Theodoret hath the like conceit that the law is here vnderstood to be the law of Moses mandatum vocat quod Adamo datum est but that he calleth the commandement which was giuen to Adam Theodoret in Commentar But 1. Photius in Oecummenius reiecteth this opinion because no where doth the Apostle call that particular commandement giuen vnto Adam the law 2. Tolet further addeth these reasons the Apostle speaketh of the verie inward desire and concupiscence but the act was forbidden Adam that he should not eate of the forbidden fruite and againe the Apostle in saying I knew not sinne but by the law insinuateth that sinne was before but he knew it 〈◊〉 but before that commandement was giuen vnto Adam it had beene no sinne in him to haue eaten and receiued the fruite of the tree 2. Some thinke that the Apostle speaketh not of the law of Moses but of the law of nature for before the witten law was giuen men had knowledge of sinne as Cain knew he had sinned and Abimelech was not ignorant that adulterie was sinne thus Heirome and before him Origen But 1. Photius in Oecumenius thus refelleth this opinion that the Apostle speaketh not of the law of nature because the Apostle had said before yee are dead to the law v. 4. in this sense then some should be found naturali lege priuati depriued of the naturall law and againe the Apostle saith I was aliue sometime without the law but neither Adam nor any other liuing were at any time without the law of nature 2. Tolet addeth that if the Apostle had meant the law of nature he would not haue said I knew not sinne but by the law but rather sinne was not but by the law 3. And concerning the obiection of Cain and Abimelechs knowledge of sinne Chrysostome answereth that the Apostle saith omnem concupistratuâ— vehementiam significans sinne wrought in me all manner of concupiscence signifying the vehemenencie of it c. that although these sinnes did raigne before yet they appeared not to be so great sinnes as afterward by the law and Theophylact addeth noscibatur peccatum sed nondum erat concupiscentia interdicta sinne was knowne before the law that is outward and notorious sinnes but yet the inward concupiscence was not restrained 3. Tolet thinketh that together with the morall law the Apostle meaneth the ceremoniall and iudiciall law because by them also were the knowledge of sinne But the Apostle giuing instance of the inward vnlawfull concupiscence which was not punished by the iudiciall nor ceremoniall law sheweth that he speaketh not of them 4. Wherefore it is euident that the Apostle meaneth none other but the written morall law of Moses because he giueth instance of the last commandement thou shalt not couet Martyr Pareus Quest. 11. What lust or concupiscence the Apostle speaketh of I had not knowne lust c. except c. 1. Some thinke that here by concupiscence the Apostle intendeth all sinne whatsoeuer as Anselme and the ordinarie glosse following Augustine bona est lex qua â—â—â—dum concupiscentiam prohibet omnia peccata prohibet c. the law is good which while it forbiddeth concupiscence forbiddeth all sinnes c. Heirome epist. 152. refuseth their opinion which take this for the commandement and by concupiscence he thinketh to be vnderstood omnes animi perturbationes all the preturbations and passions of the minde whatsoeuer as of feare greefe desire But it is euident in that the Apostle propoundeth the verie words of the line that he hath reference to that precept thou shalt not lust whereby indeed all corrupt concupiscence and desire whatsoeuer is forbidden 2. By this concupiscence is not vnderstood onely the act of concupiscence as Pererius holdeth with other Romanists we vnderstand not saith he ipsam concupiscendi facultatem sed actum ipsum concupiscendi the facultie of coueting but the act it selfe disput 8. numer 47. nor yet the second motions of concupiscence onely whereunto the will consenteth but euen the first vnlawfull desires and motions which haue not the consent of the wil. And that this may the better appeare it shall not be amisse further to shew what concupiscence is and the diuerse kinds thereof there is a threefold concupiscence naturalis sensitivus voluntarius the naturall which is euen in stirps and plants as to couet and draw vnto them their food and nourishment and this is properly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 desire the sensitiue is in bruit beasts the voluntarie and sensitiue both in man and they are called by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concupiscence 2. further this concupiscence is deuided into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the facultie it selfe and the exercising or act thereof and both of them are considered either physice as they are naturall as to couet meate drinke and such like which are things indifferent or morally as they haue relation to the commandement 3. and herein there is to be considered both the maâ—ter and obiect of concupiscence and the manner as if either things vnlawfull be desired as the wife horse seruant of our neighbour which appertaine not to vs or if we exceed measure in desire of things vnlawfull as of meate drinke apparell riches and such like or desire them to an euill end 3. Now to apply this which hath beene said to our purpose 1.
neither the naturall desire as of meate and drinke is forbidden by this commandement as beeing a thing indifferent nor yet the supernaturall as to couet and desire such things as concerne the glorie of God and the saluation of our soules for these are good desires and conformable to the will of God but the euil and vnlawfull desires are forbidden either in the matter or manner 2. not the act of concupiscence onely but the verie facultie it selfe ipsa concupiscibilitas is forbidden as it is corrupt and auerse from God 3. and not onely the second motions which haue the consent of the will which the schoolmen call concupiscentiam formatam the formed and perfite concupiscence but euen the first motions which haue not the deliberate consent of the will which they call informem the vnformed concupiscence contrarie to the opinion of Pererius and other Romanists who thinketh concupiscentiam carnalem sed vt à voluntate approbatam c. that carnall concupiscence onely as it is approoued of the will to be forbidden in this commandement disput 8. numer 47. but the contrarie shall appeare afterward controv 8. that the law forbiddeth cupiditatem nudam the verie base and naked concupiscence as Beza calleth it because prauas cupiditates euill and disordred lusts and desires the very law of nature reprooued Augustine saith cupiditateÌ„ voco motum animi c. I call concupiscence the verie motion of the minde to enioy either himselfe or his neighbour or any other thing non propter Deum not for God de Doctrin Christian. lib. 3. c. 10. Quest. 12. Why the Apostle giueth instance in the tenth commandement thou shalt not lust and alleadgeth not all the words of the law 1. The Apostle could not giue instance in the grosser and more notorious sinnes which euen the wiser sort of the Gentiles abhorred nor yet in the vile and corrupt affections of man which the Philosophers also condemned but he singleth out those corruptions which could not be discerned by the light of nature especially so much obscured and darkned and could not be perfectly knowne but by the law of God Tolet. annot 9.2 And this the Apostle doth to shew the excellencie of the law of God beyond both the law of nature and the politike lawes of men for the first the law of nature is much obscured obliterated and empaired by the blindnesse and corruption of mans nature but the written law though it were much depriued by the corrupt gloses of the Scribes and Pharisies lex tamen scripta mâ—â— sit eadem yet the written law remained the same and beeing well examined was able to reprooue the false interpreters thereof and it is more perfect then other humane lawes which onely bridle the outward act of sinne but they can not meete with the inward concupiscence as the law of God doth 2. And S. Paul contenteth himselfe onely to repeat the first words of the commandement not adding the rest thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house c. as Moses doth for he hauing to doc in hominis durioribus with a rude people and of hard vnderstanding giueth instance in some sensible and particular obiects but S. Paul writing scientibus legem to men knowing the law thinketh it sufficient to giue them onely an hint by producing some words onely of the law Neither yet did Moses expresse all the particulars of this law but hauing reported some he concludeth with this generall clause nor any thing that is his And indeede in all the commandements Moses vseth the figure called synecdoché by one part signifying the rest and that both in the negative part wherein forbidding the most notorious vices he meeteth with the rest as our Sauiour sheweth Matth. 5. how the law bindeth not onely the hands but euen the heart and affections in the sinnes of murther adulterie and such like as also in the affirmative the contrarie vertues in euery commandement beeing comprehended in the prohibition of the contrarie vices so that Aristotles tenne predicaments are not so generall to containe whatsoeuer is in the world as Moses tenne commandements are to comprehend all vices committed in the world ex Martyr Quest. 13. What sinne the Apostle meaneth v. 8. sinne tooke an occasion c. 1. Some by sinne here vnderstand the deuill who taking occasion by the commandement did tempt man more strongly to breake it Methodius Ambrose Oecumenius sauing that the first by the law vnderstandeth the commandement giuen to Adam in Paradise the other two the law giuen by Moses But in this sense it cannot be properly said sinne reuiued if by sinne we vnderstand the deuill or thus sinne did dwell in the Apostle as he saith v. 10. 2. Chrysostome vnderstandeth this sinne to be vitium de fidiae the vice of flouthfulnes that man hauing receiued a law by his negligence was not the better for it but the worse But he expresseth not the whole minde of the Apostle 3. Anselmus will haue it to be peccati fomes the matter or nourishment of sinne which as Lyranus is called sinne for that it is the cause of sinne as the Sunne is said to be hoat beeing the cause of heat But the Apostle calleth it sinne properly because it was forbidden by the commandement 4. Hierom. epist. ad Hedib qu. 8. taketh this to be the sinne quod lege prohibetur which is forbidden by the commandement which while it is forbidden doth inflame the concupiscence the more but the Apostle speaketh not of actuall sinne before it is committed but of sinne dwelling in him v. 17. 5. This is none other but naturae corruptio the corruption of our nature Calvin lib. 1. de peccand the lust or desire of sinning Hyper. peccatum regnans in homine sinne raigning in man Tolet. annot 11. which is none other but the originall pravitie of our nature called before lust or concupiscence v. 7. it is pravitas nativa our naturall pravitie Pareus 14. Quest. How sinne tooke occasion by the law 1. The Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occasion is taken three waies first it properly signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the opportunitie of doing a thing but so the law was not the occasion as offering any opportunitie for there can be no opportunitie to doe euill 2. it signifieth any circumstance or accident whereby one is occasioned to doe any thing as the burning of an house may be said to be the occasion of building it againe 3. an occasion is that which draweth a man from doing that he intended as a rub in ones way turneth him beside the way Both these last waies sinne tooke occasion by the law for both the prauitie of our nature is more inflamed by the prohibition and we seeke to build our ruinous house which the law pulleth downe and beside because the law standeth vp in the way of sinne we decline it as a thing which hindreth vs in our pleasant and plaine iourney following after sinne and therefore we wish that it
as Bucer Hyper. for the Apostle speaketh of sinnes not of the law which sheweth the reward of sinne to be death 2. nor yet is the meaning it flie me per perpeirationem peccati by the committing of sinne Hugo inducendo ad opus in bringing sinne into act Lyran. for though one sinne may bring forth an other yet sinne is one thing death an other which is the stipend or wages of sinne 3. Osiander thus lepit eum adigere ad desperationem it begonne to driue him to despaire but the Apostle speaketh not of his particulate case but of the generall effect of sinne whereof he giueth instance in himselfe 4. therefore the meaning rather is concilionit vnibi mortem it procured death vnto me Pere ad mortem eternam tradit it deliuereth me ouer to eternall death Gorrhan addicit morti maketh one guiltie of death Fuius which must be vnderstood of the proper fruit and effect of sinne without the grace and mercie of God Quest. 21. How the law is said to be holy iust good and likewise the commandement 1. Concerning the first the commendation and titles of the law 1. Thomas and Caietane referre the holines of the law to the ceremoniall precepts the iustnes to the iudiciâ—s the goodnes to the morall 2. Lyranus it was holy in teaching our dutie to God iust in prescribing duties toward our neighbor good in respect of our selues teaching vs what is good and right 3. Haymo doth not distinguish these but saith the law is holy iust good because it commandeth holines equitie goodnes and intendeth to make the obseruers such so also Calvin Martyr with others 4. But Theodoret better distinguisheth them thus whom Oecomenius followeth the law is holy in respect of the matter because it prescribeth holy things iust in propounding rewards and punishments good in respect of the end to bring the obseruer vnto goodnes of life 5. Pareus distinguisheth them in like manner but he addeth further that all these titles are giuen vnto the law in the foresaid respects both with relation to the author who is most holy iust and good and to the doctrine it selfe of the law which is likewise holy iust and good and in regard of the effects of holines goodnes which is wrought in man before his fall and it shall bring forth in the state of glorie though now it faileth of the effect by reason of mans infirmitie 2. Whereas the Apostle speaketh both of the law and precept or commandement 1. Vatablus taketh them for the same herein following Origen but then the Apostle should seeme to commit a tautalogie 2. Oecumenius taketh the law for Moses law the precept for that which was giuen to Adam but this opinion is refused before 3. Theophylact will haue the commandement as generall the law as the particular because there are other commandements beside the law 4. so also Osiander Nazianzen as Faius reporteth him will haue the law so called in respect of vs because it containeth a rule of such things as are to be done and a commandement as it is prescribed of God 5. The most of our new writers do thus distinguish them the law quicquid ea pracipitur whatsoeuer is coÌ„manded therein Martyr Calvin and before them Hugo Cardin. 6. But I preferre Beza his interpretation whom Pareus followeth who by the law vnderstandeth generally the whole decaloge by the commandement that particular precept wherein he gaue instance before namely that Thou shalt not lust yet Haymo will haue one commandement here taken for all 22. Quest. How sinne is said to be out of measure sinnefull 1. Methodius in Epiphanius whom Gorrhan followeth still continueth his interpretation vnderstanding here the Deuill that he is this sinne out of measure by his manifold temptations causing men to sinne but the Apostle speaketh properly of sinne which is discerned and knowne by the law and so is not the Deuill Pareus 2. Ambrose as he is alleadged by Pet. Mart. doth inferre vpon these words out of measure that there is a certaine measure and degree of sinne the which if a sinner once passe his punishment shall be no longer deferred as he sheweth by the iudgement of God vpon the Sodomites and Cananites but this is not the Apostles meaning here 3. Faius will haue this vnderstood not of sinne it selfe but of the sinner that he is become by transgressing the law in a manner sinne it selfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sinner is made as it were sinne But the Apostle still speaketh of the fruits of sinne in the sinner and as Origen saith finxit personam peccati he signeth a certaine person of sinne 4. The meaning then is this that sinne by the commandement was more inflamed and encreased quia minus peccati est si quod non prohibetur admittas it is a lesse sinne to commit that which is not forbidden Origen and so Ambrose because sinne of knowledge is worse then sinne of ignorance because it sheweth contempt l. de Iob. c. 4. and hereby the multitude of sinnes is expressed invalescenie cupiditate ruimus in omnia concupiscence and lust encreasing we rush into all sinnes Martyr and so Augustine expoundeth it of the abounding of sinne lib. 1. quest ad Simplic qu. 1. the vehemencie and rage of sinne is hereby signified which as it were rising against the lawe sinneth so much the more like as an horse that is vnbroken the more he is curbed with the bridle the more he stingeth out Par. and as he which is sicke of a feuer is more inflamed by wine which is by reason of the infirmitie the wine is not properly the cause LyraÌ„ 5. But whereas Hierome epist. ad Algas thinketh that the Apostle committeth here solecisme because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sinner is of the masculine gender and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sinne of the feminine Erasmus well obserueth that here is no solecisme at all for it is vsuall in the Aâ—oâ—â—e dialect to ioyne an adiectiue of the masculine with a substantine of the feminine as Beza obserueth the like Rom. 1.20 where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eternall the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power beeing of the feminine gender 6. But whereas the Apostle saith the law is iust it followeth not hereupon that we are iustified thereby for the Apostle else where saith Gal. 3.11 that no man is iustified by the law Gorrhan giueth this solution that the Apostle meaneth the ceremoniall law but euen the Apostle excludeth the morall law from beeing able to iustifie vs the best answer is that the Apostle sheweth what the law is in it selfe it was giuen to iustifie vs but that which was ordained vnto life is found to be vnto death as the Apostle said before v. 10. by reason of the iufirmitie of man and the corruption of his nature And againe whereas the Apostle saith here the lawe is good and yet the Lord by his Prophet saith Ezech. 20.25 I gaue them
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
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
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
nature none are ignorant of but when they come to draw out particular conclusions out of these generall rules there they faile either beeing blinded in their iudgement or corrupted by euill manners and custome whereupon it commeth that men take those things in their practise to be good and commendable which are euill as among the Germanes as Caesar writeth lib. 6. de bell Gall. robberie was counted no fault neither was the vnnaturall loue of boyes among the Grecians and Romanes held to be vnlawfull and infamous 2. An other proofe hereof that the light of nature is not vtterly extinguished is by the force and working of the conscience which is readie to accuse the offender and to prick and sting his soule as Cain by this light of his conscience was driuen to confesse that his sinne was greater then could be forgiuen 3. An other argument hereof which the Apostle also toucheth here is the practise of naturall men who did performe diuers commendable things by the light of nature agreeable to equitie as appeareth by diuers politike lawes and positiue constitutions of the Gentiles by the which these two assertions and conclusions of Plato are found to be true legem esse inventionem veritatis that the law is the inuention of truth that is the law of nature and legeÌ„ est imitationeÌ„ veritatis the law is the imitation of truth that is positiue laws grounded vpon the law of nature 32. Qu. Whether ignorance of the law of nature in man doth make any way excusable 1. First though the light of nature be now much darkned and obscured yet thereby a man notwithstanding this naturall darknes and ignorance is left without excuse as the Apostle saith c. 1.20 to the intent that they should be without excuse and the equitie thereof thus further appeareth the Prophet Dauid saith Psal. 79.6 Powre out thy wrath vpon the heathen that haue not knowne thee and S. Paul 2. Thess. 1.8 in flaming fire rendring vengeance vnto them that doe not know God But Gods iudgement is most iust he would not punish men without their fault seeing then that euen they which know not God shall be iudged it remaineth that their ignorance is not without their owne fault that is an excellent saying of Augustine inexcusabilis est omnis peccator vel reatu originis c. euery sinner is inexcusable either by originall guilt or by voluntarie additament whether we know or be ignorant for ignorance in them that would not vnderstand is sinne without doubt in them that could not it is the punishment of sinne and so in both non est iust a excusatio sed iust a damnatio there is no iust excuse but damnation is iust c. epistol 105. So both waies is the ignorant man left without excuse for that perfect light of nature which was giuen at the first to man was lost by his sinne so that this ignorance is the iust punishment of sinne and that light of nature which remaineth was by the Gentiles abused that they would not vnderstand that which nature reuealed 2. Yet although the ignorance of the law altogether excuse not as it serueth not the malefactors turne to say he knew not the law of the Prince against the which he hath offended yet it doth somewhat extenuate the offence for the faults committed by the ignorant are lesse then those which such fall into that haue knowledge according to that saying of our blessed Sauiour Luk. 12.47 The seruant that knew his masters well and prepared not himselfe neither did according to his will shall be beaten with many stripes but he that knew it not and did commit things worthie of stripes shall be beaten with few stripes for vnto him that is ignorant are wanting two things knowledge and a good will but he that sinneth wittingly hath but one want onely good will and inclination and the one hath both voluntatem facti peccati the will of the deede and the sinne but he that falleth of ignorance hath onely a will to the deed not to the sinne though the deede be sinne see further of this matter 4. chap. 1. quest 57. 33. Quest. That the light of nature is not sufficient of it selfe to direct a man to bring forth any vertuous act without the grace of Christ. It was the common opinion of the Philosophers that there were the seedes of all vertuâ— graft in the minde of man by nature which seedes growing to ripenes were able to bring forth right vertuous actions But the contrarie is euident that this naturall seede is imperfect and of it selfe vtterly vnable to bring forth any such fruit 1. The Apostle saith that he which soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reape corruptioâ— but he that soweth to the spirit shall of the spirit reape life euerlasting it is then the seede oâ— the spirit that sanctifieth to life euerlasting he that is lead onely by the light of nature soâ—eth to the flesh and the fruit thereof is corruptible S. Iohn also saith he that is borne of Gâ—â— sinneth not for his seede remaineth in him 1. Ioh. 3.9 he then that is onely borne of natâ—â—e hath not this seede remaining in him and therefore can not chuse but sinne 2. If the morall law without the grace of Christ were of no efficacie to bring a man to righteousnes but rather serued to reueale sinne as the Apostle saith Rom. 4.13 Thâ— law causeth wrath and Rom. 7.11 Sinne tooke occasion by the commandement and deceâ—â—â— me and thereby slew me much lesse is the law of nature auaileable to direct one vnto yet â—â—ous acts but rather it is an occasion to the wicked that abuse it of further stumbling 〈◊〉 as a light suddenly flashing vpon ones eyes walking in darknes doth dazle them the moâ—â— and causeth him to stumble 3. This further appeareth how vnsufficient this naturall light is because in many thorough custome and continuance in sinne their very conscience is corrupt that they are nâ—â— touched with any remorse for euill but as the Prophet saith Ier. 3.3 Thou hadst a whoâ—â— forehead thou wouldest not be ashamed so they grew to be impudent and shameles in their euill doing and as their conscience was feared as with an hoat yron so their iudgement â—â—blinded taking good for euill and euill for good Isa. 5.20 4. If it be obiected that the Gentiles did many commendable things there are found â—mong them many worthie examples of iustice temperance fortitude yet these were sâ—â—â— from true vertues for both these semblable vertues were obscured with many other viâ—â— which raigned in them and they aimed at doing such things at a wrong ende they referrâ—â— all this their endeauour either to their owne profit or els to get praise thereby so that thâ—â— did ouercome other inferiour lusts desires with the predominant humour of couetousâ— and ambition like as in a bodie full of diseases and infirmities there may be one which not exceed the rest draw the
acception of the word hath no place here for this declaration of one to be iust by works is before men before God there neede no such declaration for he knoweth what is in man but this iustification is before God which the Apostle here speaketh of it is therefore iustification in deede and not the declaration of it onely 6. Some thinke that the Apostle speaketh of the legall iustification which is by works which if any could doe they should be iustified thereby but it is impossible for any to keepe the law Calv. Pareus Beza annotat But it is euident that the Apostle speaketh not here of a thing impossible to be done and of iustification vpon that supposall if any could be doers of the law but he setteth this downe affirmatiuely and positiuely that they which liued according to the law should be iustified as he said before v. 6. that God will reward euery one according to his workes And as the hearers of the law onely are not iustified so the hearers and doers are iustified but some heare the law in fact verily and in deede therefore some also were verily and in deede doers of the law 7. The meaning then of this sentence is the same with that v. 6. God will approoue iustifie reward them that doe the works of the law whether Iew or Gentile yet it followeth not that a man is therefore iustified by the workes of the law But God approoueth and rewardeth the workers not the hearers or professors so here the Apostle entreareth not of the cause of iustification which is faith without the works of the law but of the difference betweene such as shall be iustified and such as are not Faius they onely which haue a liuely faith which worketh and keepeth the law in part and supplieth the rest which is wanting in themselues by the perfect obedience of Christ they shall be iustified not those which onely professe the law and keepe it not the Apostle then here sheweth who shall be iustified not for what 8. But this place maketh nothing at all for iustification by works 1. if a man is iustified by doing the works of the law either he is iust before he doe the works or nor iust if he be iust then he is iustified before he doe those workes then is he not iustified by those workes if he be not iust then can he doe no good workes whereby he is made iust for the workes done before faith as Tolet himselfe confesseth non possunt iustum afficere can not make one iust Here the Romanists haue no better answer then to confesse fidem sine operibuâ— primaâ— efficere iustificationem that faith without workes doth effect the first iustification which is encreased by workes which they call the second iustification Tolet. ibid. And thus they are driuen to consent with Protestants that iustification is by faith without works as for that distinction of the first and second iustification the vanitie of it is shewed before 2. If workes did iustifie then it would followe that the iustice whereby we are made iust should be an actuall iustice not habituall because that is actuall which worketh the contrarie whereof is maintained by Bellarmine who prooueth by sundrie reasons that one is formally made iust not by an actuall but an habituall iustice wherewith the minde is endued lib. 2. de iustific c. 15. Controv. 8. That it is not possible in this life to keepe the lawe 1. Pererius disput 7. numer 55. taketh vpon him to prooue against Calviu legem divinam impleri posse that the lawe of God may be kept in this life he meaneth by a man in the state of grace 1. Otherwise Dauid had not said true Psal. 18.21 I kept the wayes of the Lord and did not wickedly against my God 2. S. Paul saith he that loueth his brother hath fulfilled the Lawe Rom. 13. 3. What wisedome were there in God to command things impossible vnto man or what iustice to punish him for not keeping of that which was not in his power 2. Contra. 1. Dauids keeping of the wayes of God must be vnderstood either of some particular act of his obedience wherein he behaued himselfe vprightly as Psal. 7.3 If I haue done this thing or if there be any wickednesse in mine hands or els it must be vnderstood of his faithfull endeauour as farre as he was enabled by grace for Dauids sinnes which are mentioned in the Scripture doe euidently shewe that he did not keepe all the wayes of God 2. If a man could perfectly loue his brother as he ought he might fulfill the lawe but so can no man doe and there is as Hierome distinguisheth 2. kinds of iustice or fulfilling the lawe there is a perfect iustice which was onely in Christ and an other iustice quae nostrae competit fragilitati which agreeth vnto our frailtie dialog 1. cont Pelagian and thus may the lawe be fulfilled 3. The commandements are not simply impossible for man in his creation had power to keepe them if he would Gods wisedome is seene in giuing his lawe vnto man beeing vnable in himselfe to keepe it that it might be a schoolemaster to bring him vnto Christ Galat. 3.19 and his iustice appeareth in punishing man for transgressing that lawe which sometime he was able as he was created of God to keepe and now may perfectly performe it by faith in the obedience of Christ who hath deliuered vs from the curse of the lawe 3. Now that it is not possible for a man no not in the state of grace to keepe the lawe of God it is thus shewed out of the the Scripture 1. S. Paul saith Rom. 7.19 To will is present with me but I finde no meanes to performe that which is good a man regenerate now can doe no more then S. Paul could who confesseth that he was vnable to doe that which was good and agreeable to the lawe 2. If a man by grace could keepe the law by grace he hath power to redeeme himselfe from the curse of the lawe for as he which keepeth not euerie thing contained in the law is vnder the curse so he that keepeth all things which the lawe commandeth is free from the curse but no man can redeeme himselfe from the curse of the lawe for Christ hath redeemed vs from the curse of the lawe Galat. 3.13 3. Further The lawe is not of faith Galat. 3.12 but if the lawe might be kept by grace and faith then should it be of faith 4. And if a man regenerate were able to keepe the lawe then it were possible for a man in this life to be without sinne for where no transgression of the lawe is there should be no faâ—e for sinne is the transgression of the law 1. Ioh. 3.4 see more hereof Synops. Centur. 4. â—rr 63. pag. 916. Controv. 9. Whether by the light of nature onely a man may doe any thing morally good Bellarmine hath this position that a man if no tentation doe vrge
any thing that is good Beza 5. To iustifie is taken three wayes first to make one actually and verily iust so if any man could perfectly keepe the lawe he should thereby get an habituall and inherent iustice secondly it signifieth to be counted and declared iust as wisedome is said to be iustified of her children and thirdly it signifieth to forgiue discharge and acquite sinnes and so is it taken here that no man is iustified by the workes of the lawe that is thereby findeth forgiuenesse of his sinnes and so is taken for iust before God but this iustification is by faith in Christ by whome we are acquited of our sinnes and cloathed with his righteousnesse Martyr 6. The Apostle addeth in his sight to shewe a difference betweene iustification and righteousnesse before men which may be attained vnto by workes and the perfect righteousnesse which God requireth sometime this phrase in Gods sight is vsed to shewe a difference betweene that righteousnesse which is but in shewe and hypocrisie and that which it in truth as in this sense Zacharie and Elizabeth are said to haue beene iust before God Luk. 1.6 sometime it distinguisheth betweene the righteousnesse euen of good men and the righteousnesse before God as the Apostle graunteth that Abraham had wherein to glorie before men in respect of his workes but not before God Rom. 4.1 and so the Apostle taketh it here It is Christ onely that maketh vs holy and vnblameable in the sight of God Coloss. 1.22 Beza And further these reasons may be yeelded hereof why none can be iustified by works in Gods sight though before men they may 1. in respect of the Maiestie of God and most perfect puritie of his nature before whom the verie Angels doe couer their faces and feete Isay 6. and the heauens are not cleane in his eyes how much more is man abhominable Iob. 15.15 2. God looketh not vnto the outward shew but to the inward disposition of the heart which is perfect in none 3. the lawe of God is spirituall and requireth exact obedience of Gods commandements so that he which offendeth in one is guilty of all Iam. 2.10 this perfection none can attaine vnto Pareus Quest. 24. How the Apostle here denieth iustification by workes seeing he said before c. 2. v. 13. that the doers of the Lawe are iustified 1. The ordinar gloss giueth this solution secundum ceremonialia intellige vnderstand this according to the ceremonials he thinketh that the Apostle speaketh here of the ceremoniall workes of the lawe whereby none are iustified but in the other place of the morall workes which doe instifie But the Apostle here euen excludeth morall workes for of the morall lawe the words following are specially vnderstood by the lawe commeth the knowledge of sinne 2. Caietan thinketh that the Apostle speaketh here of iustification before God there of the iustice of workes before men but the verie words of the text doe ouerthrowe this interpretation for euen in that place the Apostle speaketh of those which are righteous before God which are not the hearers but the doers of the lawe 3. Ambrose to this purpose lex temporalem habet iustitiam fides aeternam the law may giue a temporall kind of iustice but faith an euerlasting be thinketh that men are said here not to be iustified by workes that is without faith but yet a temporall kind of iustice they might haue by the lawe without faith But the Apostle in both places as hath beene said speaketh of true iustice and righteousnesse before God 4. The moderne Papists tell vs here of two iustifications the first which is by faith onely without workes the second which is by workes which proceede of faith and grace of the first speaketh the Apostle here as they thinke and of the other in the former place Rom. 2.13 Perer. disput 8. to the same purpose Tolet that the Apostle speaketh here of workes going before faith which doe not iustifie there of workes which followe faith the other doe iustifie in encreasing iustification which was begunne before by faith annot 13. Contra. 1. This is but a Popish fiction of the first and second iustification the Apostle is saying Rom. 8.30 whom he iustified he glorified maketh but one iustification after the which followeth glorification 2. euen the Apostle excludeth here the workes of the regenerate which may appeare by these reasons 1. because there neede no question to be made of the workes of carnall men which are euill because they are without faith there can be no shewe at all that such workes should iustifie 2. the workes of Abraham were the workes of grace which the Apostle excludeth from iustification c. 4.2 3. This is the reason why workes cannot iustifie that all occcasion of reioycing may be taken away from men and euerie mouth may be stopped but now if men might be iustified by their works after they are called and haue faith they might glorie in such works by the which they say they doe merit and which in their opinion proceede in part from mans owne free will 5. Some thinke that the Apostle Rom. 2.13 speaketh ex hypothesi by way of supposition that the doers of the lawe shall be iustified that is if any could keepe and performe the lawe they should thereby be iustified But here he simply denieth iustification to workes because no man is able to keepe the lawe Pareus This is a good distinction and in other places it may well be receiued where the Scriptures seeme to attribute much vnto the law as he that doth these things shall liue thereby But here it is not so fit for in that place Rom. 2.13 the Apostle encreateth not of the causes of iustification but onely sheweth who they are which shall be iustified not hearers and professors but doers and followers 6. Peter Martyr saith that when iustification seemeth to be ascribed vnto workes it must be vnderstood in respect of faith and grace wherewith they are ioyned as a man is said to be a reasonable creature yet in respect of his soule onely though he consist both of soule and bodie yet it is faith properly that iustifieth and not workes which followe faith But the Apostle doth not at all in that place or any other ascribe iustification before God vnto workes 7. Wherefore the best solution is this that here S. Paul disputeth indeede of the proper and true causes of iustification which he simply denieth vnto workes and giueth vnto faith but there he sheweth who and vpon what condition men are iustified and who are not iustified namely such as hauing a liuely faith doe bring sorth the fruits thereof and doe their endeauour to keepe the lawe are iustified as the Apostle in the same sense had said before c. 2.6 that God will reward euerie man according to his workes And in the like sense Christ shall say vnto the righteous in the day of iudgement Matth. 25.34 Come ye blessed of my father inherite the kingdome
prepared for you for when I was hungred ye gaue me meate he sheweth not the cause of their saluation but the condition state qualitie of those which should be saued to this purpose Faius see further before c. 1. quest 26. and controv 7. Quest. 25. How by the lawe came the knowledge of sinne 1. The Apostle here confirmeth that which he said before that none are iustified by the workes of the lawe by the contrarie vse of the lawe because thereby commeth the knowledge of sinne therefore iustice and righteousnesse is not attained thereby 2. The lawe Origen vnderstandeth of the lawe of nature Augustine onely of the morall lawe lib. de spirit liter c. 8. but indeed the lawe is vnderstood here in generall both the naturall for euen before the lawe written by the lawe of nature Abimelech knew that adulterie was sinne Genes 20. but the morall more by the which came a more full knowledge of sinne likewise by the ceremoniall and iudiciall lawe sinne was manifested but after a diuerse manner ex accidente accidentally because the one was appointed in expiationem for the expiation the other in poenam for the punishment of sinne Tolet. annot 14. 3. Now diuerse wayes doth the written lawe whereof the Apostle specially speaketh reueale sinne 1. Ambrose sheweth that before the law written there was some knowledge of sinne as he giueth instance in Ioseph who detested the sinne of adulterie to the which his mistresse enticed him but it is so said quia lex ostendit peccata non impune futura because the lawe sheweth that sinnes shall not goe vnpunished so also Theodulus 2. and by the written lawe peccata clarius fuerunt cognita sinnes were more euidently knowne and some were knowne to be sinnes that were not so taken before leviora quaque non cognoscebantur esse peccata the smaller sinnes were not knowne as concupiscence Hierome as the Apostle saith he had not knowne lust vnlesse the law had said thou shalt not lust quaedam etiam grauiora c. and some things by the lawe were knowne to be greater then before gloss ordinar 3. Oecumenius thus expoundeth because sinne was encreased by the knowledge of the lawe for he that sinneth wittingly is so much the more a grieuous offender 4. And before the lawe written sinne was knowne as beeing against reason but by the law it is discerned as beeing against the will of God and so the nature and qualitie of sinne is more fully and perfectly knowne by the lawe Perer. 5. and euen the knowledge of sinne before the lawe written did issue out of the grounds and principles of the morall lawe which were imprinted by nature in the minde Faius 4. But whereas the lawe sheweth as well what things are honest and vertuous as it discouereth sinne the Apostle onely toucheth that vse of the lawe which is to reueale sinne both because it was more pertinent to his purpose which was to shewe that there is no iustification by the lawe because thereby we haue the knowledge of sinne and for that men are more prone vnto the things forbidden in the lawe then to the duties commanded so that the lawe doth not so much teach our dutie to God and our neighbour as that we doe not performe that which is our dutie Beza 5. Now further whereas the Apostle saith by the lawe commeth the knowledge of sinne we must supply the word onely not that the lawe doth nothing else but reueale sinne for it iudgeth and condemneth sinne likewise but here the opposition is between the knowledge of sinne and the remission thereof the lawe onely giueth the one the agnition or knowledge of sinne not the remission Perer. by the lawe is cognitio peccati non consumptio the knowledge of sinne not the consumption of sinne gloss 6. But it will be obiected that in Leuiticus there are oblations prescribed for sinne and the Priest was to pray for such as had sinned and it should be forgiuen them Gorrhan answeareth that it was onely a legall remission quoad poenam non quoad culpam onely concerning the punishment of the lawe not of the fault But Lyranus answeareth better that such sacrifice for sinne was protestatio Christi passuri a protestation or profession of Christ which was to suffer so that such remission of sinnes though it were vnder the lawe yet was not by vertue and force of the lawe but by faith in Christ for the sinnes of the offerers were forgiuen at the prayers of the Priests which could not be heard if they were not of faith 7. It will here be further obiected that the politike and ciuill lawes of Princes intend more then the shewing of sinne they also doe helpe to reforme sinne and reclaime men from it therefore Gods lawe should doe more then manifest sinne Answ. 1. Humane lawes doe onely require an externall ciuill iustice but the lawe of God discouereth the corruption of the heart so that herein there is great difference betweene them Melancth 2. Humane lawes may by proposing of rewards and punishments helpe to perswade and induce men but they cannot instill or infuse obedience into the heart 3. God also intendeth more then the reuealing of sinne by his lawe for if any could keepe it they should liue thereby which while none is able to doe yet the law beside the discouering of sinne ferueth as a Schoolmaster to bring vs to Christ so that it is thorough mans owne infirmitie that the lawe giueth not life and it sheweth Gods power and wisedome that turneth the lawe vnto our good namely to bring vs vnto Christ which by our infirmitie is become vnto vs the minister of death 8. So then there are two other speciall vses and benefits of the lawe beside the reuealing of sinne the one that concerning faith it is a Schoolmaster to bring vs to Christ and touching manners and life it sheweth vs the way wherein we should walke Mars 9. There is a double knowledge of sinne by the lawe there is one which is weake and vnprofitable which neither thoroughly terrifieth the conscience nor reformeth the life such was the knowledge which the heathen had of sinne as the poets in their satyricall verses did set forth the sinnes of their times but themselues followed them there is an other effectuall knowledge of the lawe whereby the soule is humbled and this is of two sorts when such as is ioyned onely with terror of conscience without any hope such was the knowledge of sinne which Cain and Iudas had that betrayed Christ or it hath beside some liuely hope and comfort such was Dauids agnition and confession of his sinne But this comfort is no worke of the lawe it is wrought in vs by the spirit of grace Martyr Quest. 26. Of the meaning of these words The righteousnesse of God is made manifests without the lawe 1. Ambrose by the iustice of God vnderstandeth that iustice wherewith God is iust â—estans promissa sua in keeping his promises Origen
commeth the knowledge of sinne and the law is a schoolemaster to bring vs vnto Christ it sheweth vs our disease and sendeth vs to the Physitian Faius Sasbout but because this is not the proper effect of the law otherwise then by reason of our infirmitie the Apostle is to be vnderstood to speake of the practise and obedience of the law which Christ requireth of the faithfull who though they doe not looke thereby to be iustified yet by the spirit of sanctification are enabled to walk according to the same as the law commandeth that we should loue the Lord with all our heart and our neighbour as our selfe these precepts euery Christian is bound to keepe And in this sense our Sauiour specially saith Matth. 5. I came not in dissolue the Law but to fulfill it so Origen omnis qui credens Christo bene agit c. viâ—enâ—â— legem confirmat c. euery one which beleeueth in Christ and doth well doth confirme the law by his life to the same purpose Augustine fides impetrat gratiam qua lex impletâ—â— c. faith obtaineth grace whereby the law is fulfilled c. the Gospel giueth grace whereby men are directed to liue and walke according to the law Adde hereunto that without faith it is impossible to keepe the law or any part thereof as the law commandeth vs to loue God with all our heart but no man can loue God vnlesâ— he first know him and beleeue in him Againe the law commandeth the worship of God whereof inuocation is a part but none can call vpon him vpon whome they haue not beleeued Rom. 10. Mart. 6. Other expositions there be of this place Caietane saith that faith doth establish the law because by faith we beleeue that God is the author of the law without which faith iâ— would be of no greater authoritie with men then the laws of Lycurgus and Solon 7. Catharinus a Popish writer herein would haue the lawe holpen by the Gospell because those things which were handled obscurely in the lawe are manifested openly in the Gospell the lawe was kept then thorough a seruile feare but now vnder the Gospell for the loue of iustice But leauing those and other like expositions I insist vpon the fift before alleadged as most agreeable vnto S. Paul 8. Now then whereas the Apostle in some places speaketh of the abrogating of the law as Heb. 7.12 If the Priesthood be changed there must of necessitie be a change of the lawe and v. 18. the commandement that was afore is disanulled because of the weakenesse thereof and vnprofitablenes c. he is not herein contrarie to himselfe for either the Apostle speaketh of the ceremoniall lawe as in the first place but it is the morall law which is established by faith or be meaneth that the vnprofitable ende of the morall lawe which was to iustifie men is abrogated but here he speaketh of an other ende and vse of the lawe which is to be a direction vnto good life in which sense the lawe is established 9. Thus the Apostle hath answeared this obiection least he might haue seemed to abrogate the lawe because he denieth vnto it power to iustifie vnto this obiection he maketh a double answear first in denying that he doth not take away the effect of the lawe for where one ende of a thing is denied all are not taken away secondly he answeareth by the contrarie he is so farre from abrogating or disanulling the lawe that contrariwise he doth establish and confirme it as is shewed before 4. Places of doctrine Doct. 1. Of the preheminence or prerogatiue of the Church v. 1. What is the preferment of the Iewe c. here occasion is offred to consider of the preheminence and excellencie of the Church which consisteth in the consideration of the dignitie state and blessings wherein it excelleth other humane conditions and states This excellencie and preheminence of the Church is either of nature or grace but by nature all men are the children of wrath one as well as an other Ephes. 2.3 therefore all the prerogatiue of the Church is of grace This prerogatiue is either common to the old Church of the Iewes and the newe of the Christians or proper and peculiar the common is either internall in their vocation iustification sanctification by the spirit or externall in their publike profession of religion and adoption to be the people of God with their externall directions by the word and sacraments vnto saluation The peculiar and proper prerogatiue of the old Church is considered 1. in their state that they were a people seuered from the rest of the world and ioyned vnto God by a solemne couenant 2. in the blessings wherewith they were endued which were partly spirituall as the Scriptures of the Prophets were committed vnto them they had the legall sacraments of circumcision and the Paschal lambe the Priesthood of Leui partly temporal as the inheritance of Canaan which was tied vnto Abrahams posteritie The prerogatiue peculiar vnto the Church of the newe Testament consisteth 1. in their state in beeing an holy people taken out from the rest of the world and consecrated to the worship of God 2. in their blessings partly perpetuall as the doctrine of the newe Testament the sacraments baptisme and the supper of the Lord partly temporall as the gift of tongues and miracles which the Church had for a time for the necessarie propagation of the faith but are now ceased ex Pareo Doct. 2. Of the vtilitie and profit of the diuine oracles v. 2. Vnto them were coÌ„mitted the oracles of God The Scriptures called here the diuine oracles are profitable to diuerse ends 1. illuminant intellectum they doe lighten the vnderstanding Psal. 19.8 It giueth light vnto the eyes 2. inflammant affectum they inflame the affection as Luke 24.32 the two disciples said betweene themselues did not our hearts burne within vs while he talked with vs by the way 3. mundant culpam they doe cleanse the fault as Ioh. 15.3 now are ye cleane thorough the word which I haue spoken vnto you 4. conseruant contra tristitiam they doe comfort against heauinesse 5. roborant ad pâ—tientiam they do strengthen vnto patience both these the Apostle sheweth saying Rom. 15.4 that we through patience and consolation of the Scriptures might have hope 6. franâ—â—â—t cordis duritiam they breake the hardnesse of heart Ierem. 23.29 is not my word like an hammer that breaketh the stone 7. protegunt contra tentationes they defend and protect against the tentations of the deuill Prou. 30.5 Euerie word of God is pure it is a sheild c. Ephes. 6.17 the sword of the spirit is the word of God Gorrhan Doct. 3. Of the combination betweene God and his Church v. 3. Shall their vnbeleefe make the faith of God without effect Here are to be considered tria ingorum paria three paire of yokes and bands as it were betweene God and vs. 1. the couenant and
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
his life whereby he merited the imputation of his righteousnesse for the merite of Christs passion depended vpon the holines and worthines of his person which was manifested in his life 2. There are two partes of our iustification remission of our sinnes and the making of vnrighteous the one was the proper worke of Christs death that paied the ransome due vnto our sinnes the other of his perfect holines and righteousnesse which was manifested in his rising from the dead and therefore the Apostle ioyneth them both together Rom. 4.28 Who was deliuered to death for our sinnes and is risen againe for our iustification see further of this matter Controv. 20. in c. 4. Controv. 26. Against the Philosophers who placed righteousnesse in their owne workes The heathen Philosophers and wise men were vtterly ignorant of this making of men righteous by an others obedience for they held them onely to be righteous which by continuall exercise and practise of vertue attained vnto an habite of well doing which they ascribed onely to their owne industrie and endeuour Contra. These wise heathen in many things bewrayed their grosse and palpable ignorance 1. they knew not what remission of sinnes was neither how sinne entred into the world or how it was taken away they thought that by their well doing onely afterward the former memorie of their sinnes was worne out whereas it is in God onely to blot out the remembrance of sinne 2. they ascribed their vertues such as they were to their owne free-will and endeuour whereas Christian religion teacheth vs that God is the author of all good things and that man of himselfe is not able to thinke or conceiue a good thought 3. they erred in seeking to be made righteous and iust by their owne workes which beeing imperfect and diuerse waies blemished are not able to iustifie vs before God who is absolutely perfect true it is that euery Christian must endeuour to liue well and aduance his faith with fruitfull workes but it is Christs perfect obedience and not our owne which is imperfect that maketh vs truly righteous before God Controv. 27. Against the Manichees and Pelagians the one giuing too much the other too little to the law v. 30. The law entred that the offence should abound c. the Manichees vrge these and such like places against the law as though it were euill not distinguishing betweene the proper effects of the law which it worketh of it selfe as the Prophet Dauid expresseth them Psal. 19. It conuerteth the soule giueth wisedome to the simple giueth light to the eyes c. and the effects of the law which it worketh by reason of the weaknesse of man as it serueth to reueale the knowledge of sinne and to make it more abound But the Apostle himselfe that here thus testifieth of the law confesseth that in it selfe the law is holy Rom. 7.12 for although we are not able to performe that which the law commandeth yet the things are holy iust and good which the law requireth and the desire of the godly longeth after them As the Manichees detracted from the law so the Pelagians ascribed too much vnto it for they held that the law was sufficient to saluation and that if a man did once vnderstand what was to be done by the strength of nature he could doe it the law then serued to reueale vnto them the will of God and there owne strength sufficed in their opinion to performe it They beeing further vrged that the grace of God was necessarie did in words acknowledge it but by grace they vnderstood first the nature of man which was first giuen him of God then the doctrine onely and knowledge of the law The Popish schoolemen differed not much from this opinion who hled that a man by the strength of nature may keepe the precepts of the law quoad substantiam operis in respect of the substance of the worke but not quoad intentionem praecipientis according to the intention of the lawegiuer But it is euident out of the Scripture that no not the regenerate much lesse naturall men are able to keepe the commandements of God perfitly as S. Paul sheweth by his owne example Rom. 7. And if it were as the Pelagians held that the lawe were sufficient to saluation then Christ died in vaine Controv. 28. Of the assurance of saluation v. 21. Grace might raigne by righteousnesse vnto eternall life c. Hence it is euident that life is a consequent of righteousnesse as death is of sinne and that the faithfull are as sure to obtaine life if they haue righteousnesse as Adam and Adams children were sure to die after they haue sinned So Chrysostome vpon this place collecteth well Noli itaque cum iustitiam habeas de vita dubitare vitam enim excellit iustitia mater quippe illius est do not therefore doubt of life and saluation if thou haue iustice for iustice excelleth life beeing the mother thereof This is contrarie to the erroneous and vncomfortable doctrine of the moderne Papists that it is presumption for any man to be assured of his saluation see further hereof elswhere Synops. Centur. 4. err 25. Controv. 29 Of the diuerse kinds of grace against the Romanists v. 21. So might grace also raigne c. The Popish Schoolemen haue certaine distinctions of grace which either are not at all to be admitted or else they must be first qualified before they can be receiued 1. Of the first kind is that distinction of grace that there is gratia gratis data gratia gratum faciens grace freely giuen and grace that maketh vs acceptable vnto God two exceptions may be taken hereunto 1. there is no grace but is freely giuē otherwise it were not of grace that is of fauour but they in making one kind of grace onely that is freely giuen they insinuate that there are other graces which are not freely giuen 2. the grace which maketh vs acceptable to God they hold to be a grace or habite infused for the which we are accepted wherein they erre in ascribing that to a created or infused grace which is onely the worke of the free grace and fauour of God toward vs this word grace is either taken actively for the loue grace and fauour of God or passiuely for those seuerall gifts and graces which are wrought in vs by the fauour of God the first grace is as the cause the other graces are the effects the first is without vs the other within vs the first is the originall grace in God the other are created graces Now we hold that we are made acceptable vnto God onely by the first grace of God toward vs which is grounded in Christ the Romanists ascribe our acceptance with God to the other see further hereof Synops. Centur. 4. err 27. 2. Of the other sort is the distinction of grace operans cooperans working and working together as the working grace is that which alone changeth the will and maketh it willing
subdued we shall haue none to resist vs as to this purpose Augustine vpon this epistle To this sense of Augustines subscribeth reuerend Baza in his annotations vpon this place Osiand Faius Theophylact concurreth with Augustine Lex iubet tantú nihil opis afferi the law biddeth only it affordeth no helpe to the same purpose before him Chrysost. Ambrose in their Commentaries Thomas Aquine here sheweth how two waies one may be said to be vnder the law one may be said to be sponte voluntarie subiectus subiect to the law willingly as our blessed Sauiour is said to be made vnder the law Galath 4. likewise one may be subiect inuitus à lege coactus against his will and as vrged by the law through feare and terror but he which hath receiued grace and doth willingly that which the law commandeth not for feare but of loue he is said not to be vnder the law but vnder grace All these make this to be the meaning that seeing we are not vnder the law which gaue strength vnto sinne through our weaknes but gaue no strength to keepe it but haue receiued grace whereby the commandements are not grieuous vnto vs but easie and pleasant to be obserued that we need not feare left sinne should haue the dominion As the first doe vnderstand the Apostle here to speake of iustification so these apply these words vnto sanctification 5. But it is better to ioyne them both together by grace to vnderstand both iustifying grace whereby we are iustified by faith in Christ by the remission of our sinnes and the grace of sanctification whereby we doe mortifie our carnall lusts and rise vp daily vnto newnesse of life and so they are said to be vnder the law that are vnder their sinnes neither hauing remission of their sinnes past nor yet grace to resist them afterward to this purpose Chrysostome we haue not the law which onely commandeth sed gratiam quae praeterquam priora dimittit ad futura quoque cauenda animat but grace which beside that it forgiueth that which is past it doth arme vs to take heed of that which is to come likewise Ambrose vpon this place cui data est remissio peccati in posterum caeuet peccata c. he to whome is giuen remission of sinnes and taketh heed of sinne afterward sinne shall not haue dominion ouer him neither shall he be vnder the law c. Thus Pet. Martyr vnderstandeth the Apostle that both by grace in Christ our sinnes are not imputed and in him our obedience though imperfect is accepted Pareus also vnder grace comprehendeth both iustifying and sanctitying grace by the one our sinnes are pardoned and forgiuen vs by the other we are enabled to runne the wayes of Gods commaundements and in some good measure to keepe them 6. But we must here take heed of the leauen of the Popish Pharisies who thus interpret to be vnder grace esse in statu in quo datur gratia per quam impleri possunt praecepta to be in that state wherein grace is giuen by the which the commandements may be fulfilled Toâ—â—â— with whome concurreth Pererius taking vpon him to confute Calvin for affirming it to be impossible for a righteous man in this life implere vniversam legem to fulfill the whole law But their assertion is most false for if it were possible for any man in this life to keepe the law then might he be without sinne which is contrarie to the Scripture Iam. 3.2 in many things we sinne all 1. Ioh. 1.8 if we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and the truth is not in vs See more of this point Synops. Centur. 4. er 6. Quest. 23. Whether the Fathers also that liued vnder the law were not vnder grace 1. The time of the Law and the Gospel and the state of the Church vnder both must be considered not as one opposite to the other but as differing onely in some degree lesse or more the fathers were fully vnder the law which was then vrged with feare and terror but in part vnder grace which was not then fully reuealed but onely shadowed forth in types and figures the faithfull now in the time of the Gospel are fully vnder the state of grace the Messiah beeing now exhibited to the world whom the father 's beleeued in to come but vnder the law we are in part in respect of the substance thereof which now rather sheweth vs the way wherein we should walke then vrgeth and enforceth vs we are deliuered from the feare and terror of the law And that both they then and we now are vnder grace though not in the same degree S. Peter testifieth Act. 15.11 We beleeue through the grace of Iesus Christ to be saued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen as they 2. The fathers had euen the helpe and assistance of grace vnder the law to walke in obedience to the law verùm id non habebant ex lege but they had it not by the law Pet. Martyr Quest. 24. What the Apostle meaneth by the former doctrine whereunto they were deliuered 1. Origen according to his manner is here somewhat curious for he distinguisheth betweene doctrinam formam doctrinae doctrine it selfe and the forme of doctrine he saith that in this world onely we haue a forme or shadow of doctrine because here we onely know in part but in the next world we shall haue the doctrine it selfe But the Apostle intendeth not here to shew the difference betweene knowledge in this life and the next 2. Chrysostome seemeth to vnderstand onely the rule of good life by the forme of doctrine quis est typus doctrinae recte vivere what is the type or forme of doctrine to liue wel But this forme of doctrine is more generall it was not onely touching manners but concerned also points of faith and beleefe as is euident 2. Tim. 1.13 Keepe the patterne of wholesome words which thou hast heard of me in faith and loue 3. Neither is this forme of Doctrine euery rule of faith set downe by teachers the which people are put vpon at their first conuersion as the Rhemists here insinuate in their annotations for a forme of doctrine may be set downe by hereticall and false teachers as is prescribed by the Romanists to the Indians who in their first conuersion to Christianitie doe drinke in their drugges and errors of doctrine But this forme of doctrine was the rule of faith per Apostolos Christum praedicata preached by Christ and his Apostles as Lyranus well interpreteth 4. The doctrine then taught by the Apostles called here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the forme of Doctrine is compared to the stampe or seale and we are as the wax as Basil vseth this resemblance tractas de baptism which receiue the print and worke of this seale being changed into the same 5. And we are said to be deliuered which as Chrysostome saith sheweth auxilum diuinum the diuine helpe whereby we
the sense is dâ—lerse 5. Hugo Cardinal maketh three in the similitude the man the wife and the lawe of matrimonie and three in the application the lawe as the man the soule as the wife and sinne as the mariage but saith he in this is the diuersitie in the similitude the man dieth but in the application the woman dieth that is the soule vnto sinne But if this difference and dissimilitude be admitted then the Apostle should not haue fitly applyed to his purpose the similitude which he had propounded 6. Augustine better by the husband vnderstandeth sinne by the wife man lib. 83. qu. 66. but this is not a full explication of the Apostles minde for here it is not expressed what part the lawe beareth in this similitude 7. Therefore Tolet thus explaineth this similitude he saith by the Apostle here triplicen distingui there is distinguished a threefold state of man the old man the newe man which is regenerate and the naturall man considered as Gods creature which was first vnder the condition and seruitude of the old man and then vnder the newe the old corrupt man and the newe regenerate man he maketh the two husbands and man considered in himselfe is as the wife so we are said to be mortified to the lawe that is the old man is dead were sinne and so vnto the lawe because sinne beeing destroyed the dominion of the lawe also is abolished to this purpose Tolet. annot 5. Beza somewhat diuersly thus applyeth the similitude he maketh two mariages in the first sinne is as the husbaÌ„d which had the strength by the lawe the flesh was as the wife and the particular sinnes were the fruits â— in the second mariage the spirit of grace by Christ is as the newe husband the regenerate man the wife and the children the fruits of holines and in this sense we are said to be mortified to the law in respect of the first husband which is within vs These two expositions much differ nor but in this that Tolet maketh one and the same wife which was before married vnto sinne and afterward to the spirit Beza maketh two wiues the first the state of the vnregenerate the second of the regenerate man But the Apostle seemeth to speake of one and the same wife which is the soule of man first subdued vnto sinne and then in subiection to Christ so then not the wife is said to be mortified for how then should she be ioyned to an other husband but the first husband that is the old man is mortified to the lawe because when sinne liued the lawe did beare dominion in accusing condemning vs Now that the law is not as the husband but sinne the Apostle euidently sheweth v. 5. When we were in the 〈◊〉 the motions of sinne which were by the law had force in our members to bring forth fruit was death here the Apostle expresseth fowre things in this first mariage the wife we are the flesh the husband the motions of sinne for that is the husband which begetteth children which are the evill fruits vnto death the fourth thing is the lawe of the man touched before in the similitude v. 2. and here the lawe is that which gaue strength vnto sinne 7. But an other reason also may be yeelded why the Apostle saith we are mortified to the lawe because in this reddition he ioyntly applyeth the two similitudes before alleadged the one that the lawe hath no dominion ouer one but while he liueth v. 1. the other that the woman is bound to the man but while he liueth in the application he putteth both together to answear to the first he saith we are mortified to the lawe and so it hath no more power ouer vs and touching the second he saith that beeing dead wherein we were holden namely sinne v. 5. we should be now for an other husband Quest. 5. How we are said to be mortified to and freed from the lawe We are not freed from the lawe in respect of the obedience thereto for the morall law is in force still and Christ came to confirme the lawe not to destroy it but we are freed from it as the bare letter of the lawe is set against the spirit 1. because the lawe commanded onely but gaue no grace to performe as the Gospell doth 2. the law onely manifested our sinnes in not beeing able to keepe the lawe which are healed in the Gospel 3. the law commanding made the froward nature of man so much more sinnefull in crossing the commandement 4. Men then obeyed the lawe for feare and by constraint which nowe they doe willingly by grace 5. but in these two things chiefely consisteth our libertie and freedome from the lawe à rigida exactione we are freed from the strict obseruation of the lawe which Christ hath fulfilled for vs. 6. ab ea qua inde sequitur maledictione and from the malediction and curse which followeth thereupon which Christ hath freed vs from being made a curse for vs Calvin 7. Pareus sheweth how in these three things the servitude of the lawe consisted 1. in the declaration of sinne 2. in the condemning of it 3. in encreasing sinne per accidens by an accident because our corrupt nature is carried to do that so much the more which is forbidden So the libertie of the lawe consisteth in these three points opposite to the other three 1. the lawe doth not now set forth our sinnes which are not imputed vnto vs beeing iustified by faith in Christ. 2. it condemneth vs not for there is no condemnation to those which are in Christ. 3. neither doth it stirre vs vp to sinne beeing dead to sinne in Christ the two first parts of libertie we doe fully enioy in this life but the third is onely begunne here because we are still compassed about with many infirmities but it is not fully perfited vntill the next Quest. 6. What is meant by the bodie of Christ v. 4. 1. Some vnderstand by the bodie of Christ completionem veritatis the fulfilling and accomplishment of the figures of the lawe which was but a type of things to come in exhibiting the truth Gorrhan 2. some incarnationis mysterium the mysterie of the incarnation of Christ gloss interlin 3. Lyranus incorporationem cum Christo in baptismo our incorporating with Christ when we were made his members in baptisme 4. Beza readeth in corpore in the bodie to shewe our conformitie with Christ that we as his members are in him by him dead vnto the law Pet. Mart. also approueth this sense effecti iam membra Domini c. beeing made the members of our Lord we doe followe our head 5. But by the bodie of Christ rather we vnderstand the passion of Christ in his bodie vpon the crosse that is per victimam Christum c. by Christ our sacrifice who satisfied for vs Melanct. by the bodie of Christ dum cruci affixum est while it was nailed to the crosse where he
were remooued as a rubbe or blocke out of our way Faius 2. Diuerse waies did sinne take occasion by the law 1. the corruption of mans nature turneth good things to the occasion of euill as the Pharisies by Christs comming and preaching had the more sinne and the Apostle saith Hebr. 10.29 Of how much more punishment suppose ye he is worthie which treadeth vnder foote the Sonne of God habet peius supplicium occasionem per exhibitum maius beneficium the greater punishment is occasioned by the greatnes of the benefit exhibited Chrysostome sinne then is encreased by the giuing of the law because of mens vnthankfulnes for so great benefite 2. And beside such is the corruption of mans nature vt ea quae prohibentur magis desiderentur which are forbidden are more desired Origen so was the commandement giuen to Adam an occasion that he coueted the more to eate of the forbidden fruite and like as there are foure diseases which are the worse for the applying of medecines vnto them as the gangrena and the leprosie called elephantiasis much like a restie horse that the more he is spurred kicked the more he giueth backe or as if a sicke man-beeing forbidden to drinke cold water should the more desire it Martyr 3. An other reason is because mans nature desireth libertie and therefore refuseth to be bridled by law and yet it is destructio libertatis the verie destruction and ouerthrow of libertie for a man to doe what he lift sine fraeno legis without the bridle of a law Lyranus 4. And further by the law commeth the knowledge of sinne and so mans corrupt nature hauing sinne shewed it doth then beginne to couet it as the Sunne light sheweth the beautie of a faire woman and then the lustfull eye is caried with a desire after her Gorrhan or like as Ambrose resembleth it as the art of Physicke sheweth the nature of persons to auoid them and yet one abuseth his knowledge in doing hurt by them lib. 1. de Iacob vita brat c. 4. And this was the reason why Solon would make no law against parricides least that men by that occasion might thinke of that sinne which they did not dreame of before 5. Adde hereunto that as a circumstance may accidentally stirre vp that which is a cause of it selfe of the action as Dauids walking vpon his house carried his eye to looke vpon the beautie of Bersheba and so to desire her the like occasion might sinne take by the law Pareus 6. And the Deuill tooke occasion by the law more strongly to tempt man to make his sinne the greater in transgressing of the law 7. And one contrarie accidentally is encreased by an other as hoat water is more strongly congealed Gorrhan 8. And euery nature adversantibus adversatur resisteth that which resisteth it as one stone breaketh an other Hugo so vice resisteth vertue 3. But it is further to be considered that the words are sinne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taking occasion for the law indeede gaue not occasion but sinne tooke it Beza Calvin 15. Quest. Of what time S. Paul speaketh when he knew not the law and afterward sinne tooke occasion by the law c. 1. Methodius vnderstandeth it of the time while yet Adam had not receiued the commandement of not eating the forbidden fruit but it hath beene shewed before that the Apostle speaketh here of the morall law giuen by Moses as appeareth by that particular instance of the tenth and last commandement 2. Origen will haue it vnderstood of the Apostles childhood and so also Hierome that then he knew not sinne but these things which the Apostle mentioneth as the working of concupiscence and the reviving of sinne are not incident into the age of children 3. Chrysostome vnderstandeth the time before the law when many sinnes were not knowne till the law came and so he thinketh that the Apostle in his owne person describeth the state of all those which liued before the law but in this sense the person of S. Paul should be excluded who liued not in those times 4. Wherefore he aimeth at that time when he was a Pharisie before he had the true knowledge of the law for the Pharisies contented themselues onely with the externall observation thereof as is euident Matth. 5. where our Sauiour deliuereth the law from their corrupt gloses Pareus Faius Quest. 16. What the Apostle meaneth by all concupisence v. 8. 1. Chrysostome vnderstandeth augmentum concupiscentiae the encrease of concupiscence which was more inflamed 2. Augustine summā consummatam concupiscence perfected which now after the law giuen did not onely couet euill things but lege prohibita forbidden by law 3. Ambrose because after the law came then all sinne came before there was sinne sed non omne quia crimen prauaricationis decrat but not all because the sinne of transgression and preuarication was not yet ex gloss 4. Martyr expoundeth it of all actuall sinnes but the Apostle speaketh onely of concupiscence 5. By all concupiscence then we may vnderstand with Hierome omnes perturbationes animae all the passions and perturbations of the mind epistol 151. and with Anselme cuiusque peccati contra quodcunque mandatum concupiscentiam the concupiscence of euerie sinne whatsoeuer against euery commandement with Faius euery kind of concupiscence not onely the concupiscence of the flesh but the concupiscence of the eyes which Saint Iohn speaketh of 1. epist. c. 2. with Gorrhan euery degree of concupiscence cogitationem consensum opus the thought the consent the action with Pareus all the vitious motions of the concupiscence primas secundas both the first and second with Oecumenius quas non noueram concupiscentias ex lege didici c. I learned by the law concupiscence which I knew not and those which I had learned I committed Quest. 17. In what sense the Apostle saith sinne was dead and he aliue without the law v. 8. 1. Methodius in Epiphan haeres 64. by sinne vnderstandeth the time of mans innocencie when the deuill lay as dead because yet there was no commandement giuen whereby man should be allured vnto sinne Ambrose by sinne likewise interpreteth the deuill but he referreth it to the time before the law when the deuill was secure hauing man sure enough in his possession But this opinion is reiected before for how could the Apostle say v. 20. that sinne dwelled in him if he meant the deuill by sinne and he saith that sinne reuiued when the law came then in this sense the deuill must be supposed to haue beene aliue before to haue beene busie in working before he tempted Adam 2. Theodoret and Caietane following him doe vnderstand this to be spoken of the time of mans innocencie when as sinne was dead there was no sinne at all before the law was giuen But beside that man could not be said to be aliue in Paradise without a law beeing created with the law of nature the Apostle saying that sinne by
the law wrought in him all manner of concupiscence supposeth some to haue beene before 3. Hierome epist. 121 and Origen following him do take this for the time of childhood for then sinne is dead because they haue no knowledge of it for if a child smite his father or mother it is counted no fault and when they come to yeares of discretion sinne reviveth But the reviuing of sinne sheweth that it liued before which cannot be said of children that sinne first liued and afterward died and then reviued againe 4. Augustine lib. 1. contr 2. epistol Pelag. thus vnderstandeth the Apostle that before the lawe of Moses was giuen man is said to haue liued as without lawe and sinne then to haue beene dead because it was not perfectly knowne before the lawe was giuen so also Chrysostome Haymo But if all this be referred to the time before the lawe was giuen Paul could not haue giuen instance in himselfe as he doth 5. Wherefore S. Pauls meaning is that he was aliue without the lawe that is vinere miâ—ividebar I seemed to be aliue vnto my selfe when as yet beeing a Pharisie he had not full vnderstanding of the lawe then sinne also seemed to be dead because as yet he did not feele the burthen of sinne nor his conscience did not pricke him while he contented himselfe with the outward obseruation of the lawe thus Pareus Osiander Beza Calvin And further it is here to be considered that there is a twofold death of sinne non vera a death not in truth when sinne lurketh onely and lyeth hid and sheweth not it selfe of this the Apostle speaketh here and there is mors vera a true death of sinne when we truely die vnto sinne in Christ which death the Apostle treated of before c. 6. Quest. 18. How sinne is said to haue reuiued 1. Origen here maketh mention of the error of the Pythagorian heretikes who imagine that the soules of men liued before in the bodies some of birds some of beasts when they liued as it were without a lawe and so sinne is said to reviue in the soule But this is a grosse error for in those creatures which haue no reason sinne cannot be said to liue or haue any beeing at all and therefore not to reviue 2. Bucer seemeth thus to vnderstand it that sinne liued before that is qualis coram Deâ— erat apparuit it appeared such as it was before God but now it is said to reuiue because it is made knowne to vs but the liuing and reliuing or reuiuing of sinne must be vnderstood in respect of the sinne 3. The most doe vnderstand it simply without any relation a former life of sinne capa apparere it beganne to appeare gloss ordinar interlin apparnit delictum esse it appeared to be sinne Theophylact incepit vires explicare Mart. it began to shewe the strength which sense is not much to be misliked 4. Some haue here reference vnto the first knowledge of sinne which Adam had after his transgression as Augustine vixerat aliquando in Paradiso quando contra datum praceptum satis apparebat admissum c. it liued sometime in Paradise when it sufficiently appeared by the transgression of the commandement c. but afterward it lieth as dead in children till they come to the knowledge of the law then peccatum in notitia 〈◊〉 hominis reviviscit quod in notitia primi hominis aliquando vixerat sin reviveth in the knowledge of man that is borne which sometime was aliue in the knowledge of the first man c. to this purpose August lib. 1. ad Bonifac. c. 9. which sense Pareus followeth likewise Tolet. Haymo addeth further that sinne liued not onely in Adam but in Cain who said his sinne was greater then could be forgiuen but it died in their posteritie which came vnto that error that they thought that to be no sinne which was sinne But seeing the Apostle speaketh of the reviving of sinne in himselfe we must not goe further then the Apostle to seeke out this first life of sinne 5. Wherefore as Beza well obserueth a threefold state and condition of the Apostles life is here to be considered when he liued sub ignorantiam legis vnder the ignorance of the law that sinne raigned afterward he liued sub cognitione legis vnder the knowledge of the law but onely of the outward letter obseruing the externall works onely of the law whereas he before made conscience of no sinne at this time sinne seemed to be dead he pleased himselfe in his outward obedience then he came to the sight of his sinne and so he died his conscience accused him that he was worthie of eternall death Quest. 19. How sinne is said to haue deciued v. 11. 1. The meaning is not as Methodius and Ambrose likewise Haymo that the deuill seduced Adam for not Adam but Eue was seduced as Saint Paul saith 1. Tim. 2.2 but the deceitfulnes of sinne consisteth herein 1. inducitur error practicus there is brought in a practicall error that the sinner is deceiued by the pleasantnes of the obiect thinking that to be good which is euill Tolet annot 14. as Eue was deceiued by the pleasantnes of the apple 2. operit laqueum peccati it hideth the poison and not the sinne Hugo it sheweth the baite and hideth the hooke 3. cogitationem auertit à supplicijs it turneth aside our cogitation from the punishment of sinne and perswadeth a man that either the sinne is not so great and shall haue either no punishment or but a small and so it bringeth a man to vnbeleefe not to giue credit to the word of God who threatneth sinners as the Deuill first perswaded Eva that she should not die at all Martyr 3. Some will haue this word expounded non de re ipsa sed de notitia not of the thing it selfe but of the knowledge that at length he perceiued how farre he had beene deceiued and lead out of the way Hyper. But it rather sheweth the proper effect of sinne taking occasion by the law which is to deceiue the other to acknowledge our error is the effect of the law and not of sinne as Pellican well vnderstandeth here sinne taking occasion by the law doth draw vs out of the way as a sicke man taketh occasion to act those things which are forbidden ex mandato medici by the charge giuen by the Physitian to the contrarie 4. Then the Apostle sheweth three effects of sinne taking occasion by the law first it deceiueth then it worketh all manner of concupiscence and then it killeth it bringeth death to the soule Mart. so impostura causa est concupiscentiae c. imposture or deceit is the cause of concupiscence and concupiscence of death Oecumen Thus euery man is tempted seduced and entised by his concupiscence as S. Iames saith 1.14 Quest. 20. How sinne is said to haue staine him 1. Not occisum me esse ostendit it sheweth that I was staiue and dead by the law
Whether S. Paul was troubled with the tentations of the flesh and with what 1. S. Paul was before his calling tempted and carried away with diuerse lusts as he confesseth Tit. 3.3 then giuing consent vnto them following theÌ„ with delight after his calling he felt also the pricking and stirring of his flesh but it had not dominion ouer him as before as here the Apostle sheweth how he did finde the lawe of his members rebelling against the law of his minde and spirit and these temptations of the flesh the Lord suffered the Apostle to be troubled with least he should be extolled by reason of his other excellent gifts as he himselfe sheweth 2. Cor. 12.7 whereupon Gregory well saith custos virtutis infirmitas infirmitie is the gardian and keeper of vertue ad ima pertrahit caro ne extollat spiritus ad alta sustollit spiritus ne prosternat caro the flesh draweth vs downe that the spirit lift vs not vp and the spirit doth reare vs vp that the flesh should not altogether cast vs downe lib. 19. Moral c. 4. 2. But whereas the Apostle saith There was giuen vnto me the pricke of the flesh c. 2. Cor. 12.7 1. neither thereby is signified the afflictions and griefes which the persecutors put his bodie vnto as Chrysost. Theodoret. 2. or the paine of the head gloss ordinar or the cholike as Lyranus or some other such bodily infirmitie which would haue much hindered the Apostle in his ministerie 3. nor yet much lesse was this pricke the lust of his flesh as Hierome thinketh epist. 22. and Haymo so also Pererius disput 23. for it is not like that Pauls bodie beeing tamed and kept vnder with fastings watchings labour had any such fleshy desire 4. But hereby is better to vnderstand omne tentationum genus c. euery kind of carnall temptation wherewith S. Paul was exercised Calvin Beza 4. Places of Doctrine Doct. 1. All things fall out to the wicked for their hurt v. 8. Sinne tooke occasion by the commandement Pet. Mart. hereupon well observeth that all things to the vnregenerate fall out vnto euill for if the lawe doe giue advantage to sinne which is holy iust and good of it selfe how much are other things turned to their hurt as all things to them that loue God fall out to their good Rom. 8.28 Doct. 2. Of the necessarie vse of the lawe v. 8. Without the lawe sinne is dead That is it lyeth hid and is vnknowne hence both Pareus and Piscator note concionem legis in Ecclesia necessariam that the preaching of the lawe is necessarie in the Church that sinne may be knowne and come to light and thus the lawe by reuealing our sinne is a schoolmaster to lead vs to Christ Galat. 3.19 to finde righteousnesse in him which we haue not in our selues Doct. 3. Of the effects of the lawe v. 9. When the commandement came sinne reuived There are 3. effects of the lawe here expressed by the Apostle two it bringeth forth of it selfe the manifestation of sinne and thereupon the sentence of death the third it worketh not of it selfe but accidentally namely the encrease of sinne through the perversnes of mans nature which striueth against that which is forbidden Par. Doct. 4. Of a fiuefold state of man v. 23. I see an other law in my members c. 1. In Paradise man had naturall concupiscence but without disorder or rebellion against the mind 2. before the law concupiscence rebelled against reason and without resistance 3. vnder the law men resisted concupiscence but could not vanquish it 4. vnder grace they striue against it and preuaile 5. in heauen these shall be no concupiscence at all Perer. disput 17. Doct. 5. How death is to be desired v. 24. Who shall deliuer me S. Paul desireth to be dissolued to make an ende of sinne and thus death may be wished for as the onely remedie of our miserie the wicked doe oftentimes desire death but it is rather vitae fastidio quam impietatis taedio for that they are wearie of their life not of sinne Calvin 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. Against Purgatorie v. 1. The Law hath dominion ouer a man as long as he liueth This sheweth the presumption of the Pope who taketh vpon him to prescribe lawes and rules vnto those which are dead and their soules as they imagine in purgatorie for no lawe imposed vpon the liuing doth bind them when they are dead and concerning the authoritie of man it determineth in this life Matth. 10.28 Feare not them which kill the bodie and are not able to kill the soule the Pope then is no more able to free and absolue the soule after death then he is to kill and condemne it Controv. 2. Of the lawfulnes of second marriage v. 2. If the man be dead she is deliuered from the law of the man Hence the lawfulnes of second marriage is prooued for if the woman be free when the man is dead and so likewise the man then is it lawfull for them to marrie againe for now they are as though they neuer had beene bound Hierome then herein was deceiued who seemeth to speake hardly of second marriages though in words he will not condemne them for he saith that a woman marrying after the first marriage doth not differ much from an harlot lib. 1. cont Iovinian and they which are twice maried he compareth to the vncleane beasts in Noahs arke But Hierome is to be pardoned this ouersight who too much extolling virginitie which he confesseth he had lost himselfe ad Eduoch was caried away in heate and passion so to â—â—iâ—e of second marriages 2. The Romanists though they dare not condemne second marriages simply yet in that they denied such to be admitted to orders as haue beene twice married they shew what base conceit they haue thereof Pererius to helpe this matter saith that S. Paul would a Bishop to be the husband of one wife not because he condemned second marriages sed quod â—â— maximè ducebat dignitatem sacramentum Episcopi c. but because it best become the dignitie and sacrament Episcopall to be the husband of one wife as Christ is the spouse of one Church c. disput 1. num 2. Contra. 1. S. Paul meaneth such as had but one wife at one time not one after an other for there were many in those daies which were newly conuerted from Iudaisme that had more then one wife at once for among the Iewes it was tolerated and euen by their owne decrees he was counted infamous qui duas simul vxores habet which had two wiues at once decret Gregor lib. 1. tit 21. c. 4. not he which had two one after an other see 〈◊〉 elswhere Synops. Cent. 1. err 78. 2. A dignitie Episcopall we acknowledge but no Sacrament for Christ instituted onely two baptisme and the Eucharist which answer vnto the two principall Sacraments of the old Testament Circumcision and the Paschal lambe 3.
should bring forth fruit vnto God c. This place is well vrged by Pet. Martyr against the propitiatorie workes vnto iustification which the Romanists affirme may be done by men yet vnregenerate and not yet called Here the Apostle euidently sheweth that they which bring forth fruit vnto God must first be an others that is maried vnto Christ they cannot doe any thing that good is without him as our Blessed Sauiour himselfe saith Without me ye can doe nothing Ioh. 15.5 Controv. 6. Against the heretikes which condemned the lawe v. 5. The motions of sinnes which were by the lawe By these and such like places the Marcionites Valentinians Manichees tooke occasion to condemne the lawe as euill because thereby sinne was increased But Augustine answeareth de verbis Apostoli serm 4 that they doe imponere Christianis non simplicibus sed negligentibus c. deceiue Christians not so much simple as negligent for it is no hard matter saith he to refell their blasphemies by that which the Apostle writeth afterward in this chapter for v. 12. he saith the lawe is holy and the commandements iust and holy iust and good and in that the motions of sinne are said to be by the lawe id ex eo fit quia in carne sumus it commeth of this because we are in the flesh Mart. the lawe then tooke occasion by the weakenes of our flesh and so the euill motions did rise vp in vs. Controv. 7. That we are freed by grace from the strict and rigorous observation of the lawe Pererius disput 6. misliketh these assertions of M. Calvin and taketh vpon him to confute him diligenter meminerimus c. let vs diligently remēber that this is not a solution frō that righteousnesse which is taught in the lawe sed à rigida exactione ab ea quae iude sequitur maledictione but from the strict rigorous exacting of keeping the law the malediction and curse which followeth thereupon And he heapeth vp diuerse places of scripture to shewe that the obedience of the lawe is now exacted of vs as Rom. 2. Not the hearers of the lawe but the doers shall be iustified Rom. 3.31 Doe we destroy the lawe by faith God forbid yea we establish the lawe Perer. disput 6. Contra. 1. Pererius in confuting their opinion that hold we are freed from the obedience of the lawe fighteth with his owne shadowe and Calvin whom he refelleth as he is by him alleadged saith in expresse words that we are not freed from the righteousnesse of the lawe to keepe it And therefore he setteth downe his opinion falsly as though he or any other Protestant should affirme Christianos esse à legis observatione liberatos that Christians are freed from the observation of the law as he putteth the case 2. But their opinion that Christians are bound to keepe the lawe and are enabled to keepe it by grace and in keeping thereof are iustified is contrarie to the doctrine of the Apostle that we are iustified by faith without the works of the lawe Rom. 3.28 3. It is then a most true assertion that we are freed from the rigorous and strict obseruation of the lawe which was required of the Iewes to be iustified by the keeping of it and from the curse which followeth vpon the not keeping of the lawe for it is written Cursed is euerie one that continueth not in all things which are written in the booke of the lawe from which curse Christ hath deliuered vs beeing made a curse for vs as the Apostle sheweth Galat. 3.10.13 see further Synops. Centur. 4. err 60. Controv. 8. That concupiscence though it haue no deliberate consent of the will is sinne and forbidden by the commandement The contrarie is mentioned by the Romanists motus concupiscentia adres illicitas c. the motions of the concupiscence to vnlawfull things whereby man is stirred vp to desire any thing against the lawe of God vnlesse the will and consent be thereunto not to be sinne Pererius disput 8. with the rest of that ranke their reasons are these 1. Argum. That which is naturall in man non potest rationem habere mali cannot be counted euill but concupiscence is naturall and was in man before his fall and if any man should be now created of God in pure naturalls without originall sinne he should feele the motions of concupiscence not to be obedient vnto reason Pererius Stapleton addeth antidot p. 360. that the Scripture seemeth to command some concupiscence as the Apostle saith he that desireth the office of a Bishop he desireth a good worke 1. Timoth. 3.1 Contra. 1. As concupiscence is a naturall facultie it is neither sinne nor forbidden if the concupiscence be of things lawfull as of meate or drinke and in due manner not to couet them much and to a good ende to couet them to the glorie of God and our owne and our neighbours good but the concupiscence as it is tainted and corrupted with originall sinne is euill and forbidden by the commandement 2. This concupiscence in the vnregenerate is continually euill in the regenerate there may be a concupiscence of lawfull and indifferent things as either of those things which are proper and peculiar to a man as the desire of a man to his wife or of things which are common and appropriate to no man as to desire an office but yet euen the concupiscence in such things though it be lawfull yet it is not without some fault euen in the regenerate by reason of the corruption of their nature onely the concupiscence and desire of spirituall things is simply lawfull but such concupiscence is without the compasse of the commandement Thou shalt not couet 2. Argum. Involuntaria non sunt peccata c. that which is inuoluntarie is not sinne but such motions of concupiscence which haue not the consent of the will are inuoluntarie Pere Stapleton ibid. Contra. 1. The proposition is not generally true for not the will of man but the law of God is the rule of good and euill and originall sinne in infants is not voluntarie but it is propagated by a necessitie of nature corrupted by the fall of Adam and the Apostle saith Gala. 5.15 yee cannot doe those things which ye would 2. the sinnes which at the first are voluntarie afterward become necessarie as he that hath gotten an habite of intemperancie can hardly refraine though he would so that it is true which Aristotle saith lib. 3. Ethicor. c. 5. nemo volens malus nec invitus foelix no man is euill with his will not happie against his will So that it sufficeth that sinne was once voluntarie though it afterward became necessarie as originall sinne with the motions of concupiscence that doe proceed from it though now it be necessarie and cannot be auoided yet in Adam it was voluntarie by whose willing transgression a necessitie of sinning is transmitted to his posteritie 3. Argum. Whatsoeuer is truely and properly sinne is taken away in
haue no other Gods c. and thou shalt make to thy selfe no grauen image c. but one 2. Contra. 1. The Apostle calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a commandement in the singular number not commandements 2. if they were two commandements it should not be knowne in what order they should be set which before the other for Exod. 20. it is first said thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house but Deuter. 5.21 thou shalt not couet thy neighbours wife is put in the first place 3. beside if euery particular act of coueting should make a diuerse commandement the number of them should be infinite Pareus 3. Pet. Martyr herein concurreth that the precept thou shalt not lust is but one but he hath here a singular opinion by himselfe that the two first commandements thou shalt haue no other Gods c. and thou shalt not make to thy selfe c. are but one and the first commandement he would haue that to be which is set as a preface before the rest I am the Lord thy God which brought c. for here it is enacted that the Lord onely is the true God and in this first commandement the Gospel is offred vnto vs for in that mention is made of their deliuerance out of Egypt there the promise concerning Christ is contained But this is onely a priuate opinion and a singular conceit of so learned a man by himselfe which may be thus reasoned against 1. all the commandements are propounded imparatively thou shalt not doe this or thou shalt not doe that but those words are vttered enuntiative they are propounded onely not spoken by way of commanding 2. and if he will haue the temporall deliuerance out of Egypt to containe a promise of Christ it is so much the rather no part of the morall commandements for the law and faith are opposite one containeth not nor includeth an other as the Apostle saith the law is not of faith Gal. 3.12 no more is faith of the law 10. Controv. Against free will v. 19. The euill that I would not that doe I. The Rhemists note here that this maketh nothing against free will but plainely prooueth it because to consent or not consent is alwaies free though the operation may be hindred by some externall force Contra. 1. The will of the vnregenerate is free from coaction and compulsion but not from a necessitie alwaies of willing that is euill 2. and in the regenerate of which state the Apostle speaketh in his owne person the will is reformed by grace to will that which is good as our blessed Sauiour saith Ioh. 8.33 If the Sonne make you free then you are free in deede this place then euidently maketh against the naturall strength of free will vnto that which is good 6. Morall obseruations 1. Observ. Euery one must descend into himselfe v. 7. I knew not sinne but by the law As Paul here giueth instance in himselfe and examineth his sinnes by the law so euery one is taught by his example to enter into himselfe and call his life and acts to account as Dauid saith Psal. 32.5 I acknowledged my sinne vnto thee c. 2. Observ. Against phanaticall spirits that excuse sinne v. 17. It is no more I that doe it men that are giuen ouer to all carnall lusts must not thinke to excuse themselues thus that it is sinne that doth it and not themselues for they must also say with the Apostle v. 16. I doe that which I would not they cannot then apply this to themselues qui non pugnant which doe not fight or striue against sinne 3. Observ. Of delighting in the lawe of God v. 22. I delight c. Hypocrites may seeme to conforme themselues often to the obedience of the lawe as Herod that a while heard Iohn gladly but it is not in loue or with delight which is onely in them that are regenerate as the Prophet Dauid saith that the lawe of God was sweeter vnto him then the honie or honie combe Psal. 19. Observ. 4. Of the fight and combate betweene the spirit and the flesh v. 23. I see an other lawe c. Onely the righteous doe feele this strife in themselues the spirit drawing them one way and the flesh an other as the Apostle here sheweth in himselfe and so as Gregorie saith fit certo moderamine c. this is done in such moderation that the Saints while they are in spirit carried one way and hindered by the flesh nec desperationis lapsum nec elationis incurrunt they neither fall into despaire nor yet are lifted vp in mind the like combate betweene the spirit and flesh we may finde to haue been in Dauid Psal. 73. 2.17 in Elias 1. King 19.4 in Ieremie c. 20.7 the like temptations Hierome felt in himselfe pallebant or a iciunijs mens desiderijs ardebat in frigido corpore my face was pale with fasting and yet my minde burned with desire euen in a chill bodie epist. 22. this is much to the comfort of Gods children not to despaire when they are likewise tempted CHAP. VIII 1. The text with the diuerse readings v. 1. Now then there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Iesus which walke walking Gr. not after the flesh but after the spirit which walke not after the flesh L. S. detr 2 For the law of the spirit of life which is in Christ Iesus hath freed me thee S. from the law of sinne and of death 3 For that which was impossible to the law in as much as it was weake because of the flesh God sending his owne Sonne in the similitude of sinnefull flesh flesh of sinne Gr. in a forme like vnto flesh subiect to sinne Be. this is the sense but not the meaning of the words and for sinne not of sinne L.V. the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for condemned sinne in the flesh in his flesh S. ad 4 That the righteousnes the iustification L.T.S. the right Be. the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the law might be fulfilled in vs which walke not after the flesh but after the spirit 5 For they which are after the flesh which are in the flesh S. which are carnall V.B. doe sauour the things of the flesh Be. G. doe thinke the things of the flesh S. are carnally minded B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. but they that are after the spirit the things of the spirit 6 For the wisdome of the flesh is death but the wisdome of the Spirit is life and peace 7 Because the wisdome of the flesh the affection of the flesh V. the fleshly mind B. the vnderstanding of the flesh S. is enmitie against God for it is not subiect to the law of God neither in deede can be 8 So then they that are in the flesh can not please God 9 Now ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit seeing the Spirit of God not if so be the spirit of God L.S.B. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
in fulfilling and performing it he hath perfited the ceremoniall law beeing the substance whereof the ceremonies were but shadowes he hath performed the morall law both in his actiue obedience in fulfilling euery part thereof by his holy life and by his passiue obedience in bearing the curse and punishment due by the law for vs and in this sense Augustine saith Christus sinis legis perficiens non interficiens Christ is the perfiting not the destroying end of the law tract 55. in Iohn Of all these the second and last interpretation are most agreeable to the scope of the Apostle who in these words bringeth a proofe of that which he said before that the Iewes were ignorant of the righteousnesse of God because they were ignorant of Christ the true end of the law both directly in respect of Christ who fulfilled the law and was in all things obedient vnto it which thing the law intended and indirectly in respect of vs whose weakenesse it discouereth in not beeing able to keepe the law and so directeth vs to Christ beeing therein a schoolemaster to vs as the Apostle saith Gal. 3. â—â— Quest. 7. How Christ is said to be the end of the law seeing the law requireth nothing but the iustice of workes The law is taken two wayes 1. more largely for the whole doctrine contained in Moses and the Prophets and in this sense the law directly maketh mention of Christ as in this place Saint Paul doth prooue the righteousnesse of faith by the testimonie of Moses as our Sauiour himselfe also saith had you beleeued Moses you would haue beleeued me he wrote of â—â— Ioh. 5.46 2. The law is taken more strictly for the precepts onely of the morall law wherein although faith in Christ be not directly commanded yet it is implied and intended in which sense Christ is said to be the end of the law in these three respects 1. in respect of his personall obedience and righteousnesse which the law required 2. in regard of the satisfaction by Christs death for the punishment due by the law 3. and in iustifying vs by faith in him that is our righteousnesse whereunto the law bringeth vs as a schoolemaster leading vs vp by the hand as the glasse shewing the spottes doth admonish the beholder to mend them so the law discouering our sinnes sendeth vs to seeke out the onely true Physitian to heale them Quest. 8. That Christ is not the end of the law that we by grace in him should be iustified in keeping of the law 1. Pererius saith that Christ is said to be the end that is the perfection and consummatioÌ„ of the law quia fide in Christo impetratur gratia c. because that by faith in Christ grace is obtained to fulfill and keepe the law disput 1. numer 2. and Stapleton Antidot p. 617. insisteth vpon the same point that by this fulfilling of the law which we obtaine by faith in Christ we are iustified Contra. 1. We denie not but this also is one of the ends of our comming to Christ to shew our obedience in keeping Gods commandements as Zacharie saith in his song Luk. 2.75 That we beeing deliuered out of the hand of our enemies should serue him c. in holines and righteousnesse all the daies of our life yet this is neither required as the principall end which is to be iustified by faith in Christ as here the Apostle saith neither is this our obedience enioyned to that end that we should be iustified thereby for we are iustified by faith before we can bring forth any fruits of obedience and therefore by such workes as follow our iustification we are not iustified and beside our obedience is imperfect and can not iustifie vs in the sight of God but this our obedience is necessarie to shew our conformitie vnto Christ and to iustifie our thankfulnes for the benefit receiued by Christ and to be a pledge and an assurance of our perfect regeneration in the next life 2. Herein then Christ is the end of the law that we by faith in him which hath fulfilled the law perfitly should be iustified without the fulfilling of the law in our selues 1. for the Apostle saith not Christ is the end of the law to euery one fulfilling the law but to euery one that beleeueth 2. this end would take away the force of Christs death for to giue vs grace to fulfill the law our selues it was not necessarie that Christ should haue died for he might by his diuine power without his death haue conferred that grace vpon vs. 3. and againe if Christ gaue vs power to keepe the law our selues this were to establish our owne righteousnesse for that is our owne righteousnesse which is performed by vs though not by our owne strength but the doctrine of faith doth not establish our owne righteousnesse Quest. 9. What life temporall or spirituall is promised to the keepers of the law v. 5. 1. Origen vpon this place thinketh that the law onely promised to the obseruers thereof temporall not eternall life so likewise Theodoret Ambrose Anselme Lyranus Tolet annot 5. Pererius disput 1. numer 3. doe vnderstand it of escaping onely corporall death which was inflicted vpon the transgressors of the law as idolaters adulterers murtherers But this were no great benefit seeing many vngodly men might be free from these offences which by the law were punished by death and yet in other points might be offenders against the law 2. Augustine lib. de spirit lit c. vnderstandeth it of the spirituall life of faith and iustification thereby per fidem concilians iustificationem facet legis iustitiam vivat in ea c. he that hath obtained iustification by faith doth the righteousnesse of the law and may liue thereby But this were to confound the law and the Gospel whereas the Apostle here speaketh onely of the righteousnesse which the law requireth 3. The law then promised eternall life vnto the obseruers thereof but that it was impossible for any perfitly to keepe the law so Chrysostome well interpreteth that men should haue beene iustified in keeping of the law if it had beene possible but because it was not possible iustitia illa intercidit that iustice falleth to ground our Sauiour also saith If thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandements Matth. 19.16 meaning eternall life as the young man had asked the question what he should doe to haue eternall life Pererius answeareth that this must be vnderstood of a iust man which out of a liuely charitie keepeth the commandements But Christ there speaketh not of the iustice of faith working by loue but of such keeping and obseruing of the commandements as the law required if any could haue attained vnto it for as the question was not of beleeuing but of doing what shall I doe so Christ maketh his answer of such iustice as was required by the law 4. But if the law doe promise and propound eternall life to the obseruers
this reason nihil proficit legis imperium the commandement of the law preuaileth not shewing this to be the difference betweene the law which commandeth and so doe the Prophets the interpreters of the law they vse not to entreat but it is peculiar to the Gospel to beseech and entreat to this purpose also Pet. Martyr but this is not alwaies so for in the Gospel and Apostolicall writings we shall finde many precepts and straight charges 4. Pet. Martyr further alleadgeth that as it is said in the Proverbs The poore man speaketh by entreatie but the rich answeareth roughly Prov. â—8 so the Apostles beeing as it were abiects and of small account in the world vse perswasions by entreatie but S. Paul contrariwise there standeth most vpon his Apostolike authoritie where he was most despised as Act. 13. where he censureth Elymas the sorcerer 5. But this was the Apostles reason why he entreateth that he might winne them rather by loue as he saith to Philemon v. 8. Though I be very bold in Christ to command thee yet for loues sake I rather beseech thee and as Seneca well saith generosus est animus hominis facilius ducitur quam trahitur the minde of a man is generous it is more easily lead then drawne and therefore the Apostle entreateth rather then commandeth the more easily by gentlenes to perswade them Lyran. Par. 2. Quest. Why the Apostle addeth By the mercies By the mercies 1. As the Apostle before had shewed how the Gentiles had receiued mercie of God in that they were receiued to grace while the Iewes the auncient people of God were reiected so now he entreateth them by that mercie which they had receiued 2. and he beseecheth them per miserationes by the mercifulnes of God rather then per misericordiam Dei the mercie of God for this sheweth onely the mercifull inclination of God in himselfe the other betokeneth his actuall compassion extended to others Tolet. 3. and the Apostle vseth the word in the plurall number mercies to amplifie and set forth the manifold mercies of God Beza in our election redemption by Christ iustification sanctification 4. Origen here more curiously obserueth that by mercies Christ is to be vnderstood as God is called the father of mercies 2. Cor. 1.3 that is of Christ as he is called the father of wisdome and of righteousnes because Christ is both the wisdome and righteousnes and so also the mercie of God 5. some haue speciall relation here to Pauls Apostleship to the which he was in Gods mercie called and appointed glosse ordinar Gorrhan but then the exhortation had not beene so forceable to mooue them by the mercies shewed to him he rather vrgeth the mercies which they themselues had receiued 6. Lyranus vnderstandeth the mercie of God peccata relaxantem which remitted and released their sinnes but the Apostle saying in the plurall mercies vnderstandeth not that mercie onely but all other mercies in Christ their election vocation iustification by faith c. 7. And this is of all other the most forcible motiue by the mercies of God per illas obsecro per quas salvati I entreat you by those mercies by the which ye are saued Chrysost. who is so stonie hearted as not to be perswaded vnto his dutie by the mercies of God vnto whome he oweth himselfe and whatsoeuer he hath as mothers vse to entreat their children by the wombe that bare them and the pappes that gaue them sucke which kind of perswasion is most effectuall 3. Quest. Of sacrifices in generall v. 1. vpon these words A liuing sacrifice c. 1. Haymo here maketh a question why the law prescribeth the sacrifices of beasts and other creatures if they were not acceptable vnto God and auaileable to the forgiuenes of sinnes and he giueth two reasons hereof both because the Israelites were prone to idolatrie and therefore least they should haue sacrificed to idols the Lord would rather that his creatures should in that externall manner be offered to himselfe as also that thereby might be shadowed forth the sacrifice of Christ by whom we should obtaine remission of sinnes 2. Ambrose likewise here mooueth this question why God would haue the sacrifices which were offered vp to be slaine whereupon he answeareth that it was so done for these two reasons both that they which offred the sacrifice might thereby see what they themselues had deserued and that thereby also the death of Christ might be shadowed forth 3. But whereas they had two speciall kind of sacrifices in the law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of thanksgiuing and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for expiation and remission of sinnes the Apostle alludeth here onely to their eucharisticall sacrifices for Christs sacrifice is onely expiatorie for sinne which were of diuerse sorts according to things which they offred as either prayers or first fruites or some order of life as was the vowe of the Nazarites or some oblation but here the Apostle hath reference to the last kind in bringing some oblation which should be themselues 4. Concerning the name of sacrifice the Greeke word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is deriued of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth mactare to slay a sacrifice the Latine word victima and hostia Haymo thinketh to haue this derivation the first is so called à vinciendo of binding because the sacrifices were first bound to the altar the other ab ostio because they were slaine at the doore of the tabernacle But he hath two other derivations taken from the rites of the Pagans that was called hostia which was offred vp to their gods when they went against their enemies that victima which was offred vp for the victorie obtained and thus much Ovid insinuateth in these verses lib. 1. Fastor Victima quae dextra cecidit victrice vocatur Hostibus à victis hostia nomen habet c. By the victors hand the victima doth fall For foes subdued they hostia it doe call Quest. 4. The generall observations of the sacrifice which the Apostle here requireth 1. Lyranus thinketh that the Apostle here requireth seuen conditions or properties in this spirituall sacrifice 1. it must be voluntaria of a free and willing mind present or giue vp 2. it must be in carne propria in their owne flesh not in an others your bodies 3. it must mortifie concupiscence in that he calleth it a sacrifice 4. it must bring forth good workes and therefore is called living 5. it must be continuall therefore it is called holy that is firme 6. it must be bene ordinaâ—a well ordered and disposed to no other ende then to the praise of God and therefore he saith pleasing vnto God 7. it must be discreta done in discretion and so he addeth which is the reasonable seruice of God 2. Tolet onely obserueth three things here required in this spirituall sacrifice all which were seene in the externall there was the oblation the beast which was offred and the slaying or
according to the possibilitie onely of our owne strength 4. neither is the instance brought in to the purpose for when a man is bidde to run perfectly the meaning is he should runne as fast as a perfect man may runne not one that is lame or halting so man in the state of his perfection might haue fulfilled the lawe though now he cannot since his nature hath beene lamed by sinne therefore by his owne example such charitie is commanded as man before his fall might haue performed 2. Now to the argument we answer 1. that he indeede that can loue his neighbour as he ought may fulfill the lawe but so none can loue Martyr and so to the same purpose Calvin that the Apostle sub conditione loquitur speaketh as it were vnder condition that is if a man can so loue his neighbour which condition no man can fulfill 2. But because the Apostle vseth this as an argument to perswade vnto loue because it is the fulfilling of the lawe we will graunt that the Apostle speaketh here of such a fulfilling as is possible but that is not a perfect keeping of the lawe which none can attaine vnto but as Beza saith non vnum praeceptum obijt he that loueth his brother is not readie to keepe one precept onely but all so as Pareus well distinguisheth he speaketh of fulfilling the lawe partibus non gradibus in the parts not in the degrees as he which loueth his brother will shewe it in all the parts of the lawe he will neither steale nor commit adulterie nor doe any other hurt vnto him but perfectly in the highest decree of charitie no man can keepe the lawe for the Apostle saith In many things we offend all Iam. 3.11 then no man can perfectly fulfill the lawe in this life 3. Gualter here hath an other answear that the Apostle speaketh not of the fulfilling of the whole lawe but onely de externis officijs of the externall duties yet he insisteth not vpon this answear for the Apostle speaketh of coueting which is no externall thing but acted in the heart the best answear then is that the Apostle speaketh not of an absolute or plenarie fulfilling of the lawe which is not in mans power but of a totall and generall fulfilling and keeping of euery commandement that loue will not content it selfe with doing of our dutie in one or two commandements but in the rest also 10. Controv. Against the Marcionites which denied the morall precepts to be now in force but to be ceased The Marcionites as Origen sheweth dialog 2. against them would prooue from hence that the old law euen in respect of the morall precepts was ceased because it is here saide loue is the fulfilling of the law Contra. But Origen answeareth well that charitie is an epitome or summe of the law but the epitome or summe taketh not away the things which are therein contained nay rather the contrarie followeth because charitie is the fulfilling of the morall law and charitie alwaies remaineth therefore also the morall law continueth still is not abrogated though the ceremonies be ceased neither are the iudicialls necessarily now enforced 11. Controv. Against iustification by the workes of the law v. 10. Loue is the fulfilling of the law From this place Stapleton inferreth that the keeping of the law is our iustice and that by the works of charitie we are iustified and thus he reasoneth The keeping of the law is iustice but he that loueth his brother keepeth the law Ergo to this purpose Stapl. Antidot p. 973. Contr. 1. The proposition is true if it be vnderstood of the perfect keeping of the law for if any in all points could keepe the law he should thereby be iustified as S. Paul alleadgeth out of the law Rom. 10.5 He that doth these things shall liue thereby 2. but so no man is able to fulfill the law in some measure the faithfull guided by grace doe performe the precepts of the law but perfectly in all points they can not keepe it for then they might be without sinne for sinne is the transgression of the law 1. Ioh. 3.4 and whosoeuer transgresseth the law sinneth but no man is in this world without sinne as the same Apostle saith If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues 1. Ioh. 1.8 6. Morall obseruations 1. Observ. Of the office of the Magistrate in encouraging the good and punishing the euill v. 3. Princes are not to be feared for good works but for euill c. This ought to teach Magistrates that they should not abuse their authoritie in afflicting the good and sparing the euill as Iezabel did who maintained idolatrie sorcerie and adulterie in Israel 2. king 4.22 but persecuted the true Prophets but they must vse their authoritie to feare the euill and to be patrons to the good as the Apostle here saith they must be feared for euill works and not for good 2. Observ. That Magistrates should procure the common good and exercise true iudgement v. 4. He is the minister of God for thy wealth or good Here are two excellent parts of the Magistrates office described first because he is Gods minister he must consider that the iudgement is the Lords and therefore they ought to deale vprightly as Iehosaphac charged his iudges and officers 2. Chron. 19.6 Take heede what ye doe for ye execute not the iudgements of man but of the Lord c. and further the magistrate must propound to himselfe the good of the people not seeke his priuate gaine for he is ordained for their wealth for this is the difference betweene a good gouernor and an oppressor that the one studieth to profit the Commonwealth the other seeketh by laying heauie burthens vpon the people to enrich himselfe 3. Observ. How the Magistrate may comfort himselfe in his gouernment Whereas many cares and troubles are incident into the office of the Magistrate many dangers imminent and conspiracies intended he is herein to comfort himselfe that he is Gods minister and therefore he neede not to doubt but that God will assist his owne ordinance for it were impossible if the Lord did not guard and defend them that Princes could escape such perills as they are subiect vnto that saying then must animate and comfort them Touch not mine Annointed c. 1. Chron. 16.22 4. Observ. Of the vigilant care and painfull office of the Magistrate v. 6. Applying themselues to the same ende this sheweth that the Magistrate is called not to a place of pleasure and ease but of labour and care they must endeauour and applie themselues to this ende that is to seeke and procure the good of their subiects they watch when others sleepe and take care when their subiects are secure this well perceiued the King that said if one knew the cares that belong vnto the crowne and diademe they would not take it vp though it lay in the durt before them This should teach men not ambitiously to aspire to places of
which Bellarmine out of Adrianus Finus lib. 6 flagell Iudcor c. 80. and Damasus pontifical would prooue that S. Marke writ his Gospel first at Rome and afterward turned it into Greeke at Aquilea But this is verie improbable 1. Because the Greeke tongue was then more generally vsed then the Latine and S. Paul writing to the Romanes spake in the Greeke tongue for the reason so also would S. Matthewe haue done 2. If the Greeke were translated out of the Latine why then doe not the Romanists vse a Latine translation answerable to the Greeke whereas their vulgar translation much differeth from the Greeke some where it addeth as Mark. 1.1 the name Isaia the Prophet is inserted sometime it leaueth out as Mark. 6.11 all that clause is omitted verily verily I say vnto you it shall be easier for Sodome and Gomorrha in the day of iudgement then for that citie sometime it choppeth and changeth as c. 5.1 Garasenes for Gadarens It remaineth then that the Newe Testament was originally written in the Greeke tongue for the reasons before alleaged 3. The questions discussed Quest. 1. Of the word Testament what it signifieth and of what things it must be vnderstood 1. The Hebrew word berith signifieth both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a compact or couenant made betweene parties as Aquila translateth as Hierome witnesseth in Malach. 2. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a testament or disposition of ones last will as the word is vsed by the Apostle Heb. 9.17 2. Both these acceptions and takings of the word agree vnto the holy Gospel first it is a couenant betweene God and his people the Lord offring reconciliation on his part and requiring conditions to be performed on our part as in the Law obedience and perfect keeping of the lawe so now the obedience of faith in Christ our Mediator and Reconciler It is also a Testament not with any relation vnto vs but onely in respect of the Testator and will-maker Christ Iesus who ratified and confirmed both the Old and New Testament by his death in the one prefigured and promised in the other exhibited and performed the testamentorie tables are the holy Scriptures both of the Old and Newe Testament the witnesses are the Prophets and Apostles the writers also of this Testament the seales are the Sacraments both of the one and the other 3. The Old and newe couenant and Testament are one and the same in substance both in respect of the parties betweene whom the couenant and conuention is made God and his Church and of the ende and scope which is to bring vs vnto the euerlasting inheritance but the manner of dispensation is diuerse according to the condition of the times and the qualitie of the persons 4. This couenant made betweene God and man some distinguish into the couenant of nature and grace but euerie couenant now indeede is rather of grace the naturall couenant made betweene the Creator and Man in Paradise was violated by his transgression and disobedience the couenant which now remaineth is wholly to be ascribed vnto grace and it is either of some temporall grace and benefit and that either generall as was that which the Lord made with Noah not to destroy the world any more with waters Gen. 9. or particular as was the promise made to Abraham to inherite the land of Canaan Gen. 15.18 and that made to Phineas concerning the priesthoode Numb 25.12 either of spirituall graces as of the remission of sinnes and the inheriting of euerlasting life in Christ. 2. Quest. Of the diuerse significations of the old and newe Testament 1. The old Testament is 1. either taken for the doctrine of the lawe which required exact obedience to the commandements vnder the most grieuous commination of malediction vnto the transgressors yet couertly was propounded vnto them the doctrine of repentance and faith in Christ vnder the shadowes and rudiments of the Law which were imposed vpon that people partly to humble them and to bow downe their stiffe necks partly to discerne them from other nations and partly to lead them by the hand as vnto Christ so in this sense the old Testament 1. comprehendeth the doctrine of legall obedience 2. the ceremoniall and ministeriall part of their legall rites and seruice 3. the externall policie and regiment in these respects the old Testament is abolished and the Lord saith he will make a newe couenant with the house of Israel Ierem. 31.31 2. the old Testament is taken for the writings and tables of the scriptures in which sense it is not abolished one iotte thereof shall not perish Matth. 5.18 2. The Newe Testament also is taken diuersely 1. either for the spirituall doctrine which requireth obedience of faith in Christ without any legall obseruations 2. or for the Sacraments as Christ calleth the Eucharist the Newe Testament in his blood in the institution of his last supper 3. or for the writings of the Euangelists and Apostles So it is new 1. because it succeeded the old 2. because it setteth forth the newe doctrine of faith without legall rites 3. it hath new sacraments a new forme of worship a new kind of Church 4. it is confirmed after a newe manner not by the blood of beasts but by the most holy blood of the Blessed Mediator 3. Quest. Of the bookes of the newe Testament their number and authoritie 1. Concerning the number and authoritie of the bookes of the Newe Testament there is no question among the Christians though the obstinate Iewes wilfully refuse them all they are 27. in number which Athanasius in Synops. distinguisheth into these fiue orders 1. the foure Euangelists 2. the Acts of the Apostles 3. the 7. Canonicall Epistles one of S. Iames 2. of S. Peter 3. of S. Iohn and one of S. Iude 4. the 14. Canonicall epistles of S. Paul 5. the Propheticall booke of the Reuelation But all these may be reduced to 3. kinds the historicall doctrinall propheticall bookes as is before shewed in the argument 2. But these books of the New Testament were not alwaies receiued with the same approbation 1. Some were euer held to be of vndoubted authoritie as the 4. Euangelists the Acts of the Apostles the 1. of S. Peter the 1. of S. Iohn all S. Pauls Epistles excepting onely that to the Hebrewes 2. Some were doubted of by a fewe but of the most receiued as the 2. of Peter the 2. and 3. of Iohn one of Iames one of Iude that to the Hebrewes and the Apocalypse But at the length these bookes were receiued and acknowledged for Canonicall by a generall consent 3. Other bookes besides these were priuately receiued by some in the Church and were called Ecclesiasticall as the Acts of Paul the Epistle of Barnabas the Reuelation of Peter the Gospell according to the Hebrews 4. Some bookes were foisted in by Heretikes and more generally reiected of the Church as the Gospell of Andrew Thomas Matthias the Acts of Peter Thomas Matthias and of the
word 2. Cor. 13.7 though we be as reprobates that is in mans iudgement In the other place he speaketh of the full possession of the inheritance not of the perfect assurance 2. the epistle to the Philippians was written after that to the Romanes as hath beene shewed therefore it is impertinently alleadged to prooue greater perfection to haue beene in the Apostle when he writte to the Romanes then when he indited the epistle to the Philippians 3. The same assurance of saluation which S. Paul professeth Rom. 8. he sheweth also 2. Cor. 2.9 the things which eye hath not seene c. which God hath prepared for those that loue him But God hath reuealed them vnto vs by his spirit c. Here the Apostle in saying vs perswaded himselfe to be one of those to whom these things were reuealed and prepared 2. But Chrysostome better sheweth the reason why it is profitable to distinguish of the time of the writing of these epistles because the Apostle handleth the same things diuersely treating of circumcision and other Ceremonies for to the Romanes he saith concerning such things c. 14. him that is weake in the faith receiue vnto you But to the Galatians he writeth more sharpely c. 5.2 If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing and to the Colossians he calleth them the ordinances of the world the commandements and doctrines of men Coloss. 2.20.22 the reason of which difference Chrysostome alleadgeth to be this quia principio condescendere oportuit successu temporis non item because in the beginning the Apostle was to condiscend and yeelde somewhat but not so afterward like as physitians and schoolemasters doe more gently and tenderly vse their patients and young schollers at the first then afterward Quest. 19. Of the order of placing the Epistles and why this to the Romanes is set first 1. Athanasius in Synops. placeth the 7. canonicall epistles before S. Pauls which are foureteene in all and of them the epistle to the Hebrewes he maketh the tenth next before the epistles to Timothie Luther setteth the epistle to the Hebrewes after S. Iohns epistles and diuideth it from S. Pauls Tertullian lib. 5. cont Marcionem placeth them in this order the epistles to the Galatians Corinthians Romanes Thessalonians Ephesians Colossians Philippians But the best order is that which is vsually receiued to the Romanes Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians Thessalonians to Timothie Titus Philemon to the Hebrewes 2. And why the epistle to the Romanes is prefixed before the rest the reasons are these 1. not for that it was the first in time for the contrarie is shewed before 2. nor so much for the prolixitie and largenes thereof as the prophesie of I say in that behalfe is set first Pareus 3. or for the dignitie of that nation because the Romanes were chiefe Lords of the world Aretius for this had beene but a temporall respect 4. or for the dignitie and excellencie of the Romane Church for he giueth the preheminence to the Iewes whom he calleth the oliue tree and the Gentiles the banches of the wilde oliue tree c. 11.5 But the chiefe reason was because of the excellent matter this epistle treateth of that principall question of iustification by faith which is handled also in the epistle to the Galatians but here more at large and of the chiefe questions beside of Christian religion as of the workes of nature c. 1.2 the force of the lawe c. 7. the fruites of iustifying faith c. 5. of election and reprobation c. 9. of the calling of the Gentiles and the reiection of the Iewes c. 11. of the diuersitie of gifts c. 12. of the dutie towards Magistrates c. 12. of the vse of indifferent things c. 14.15 so that this epistle is as a catechisme and introduction to Christian religion and therefore is worthily set before the rest Aretius Pareus Quest. 20. Vnto whom this epistle to the Romanes was written and from whence 1. It was not written generally to the whole Romane state for the Emperor of Rome with his Princes ministers and officers were persecutors of the Church of God but it was directed to those among the Romanes whether of that nation or strangers both Iewes and Gentiles that had imbraced the Gospell of Christ Aretius Faius As now in the Romane papall state we doubt not but there are many which professe the gospell of Christ and are members of the true Church 2. And although this epistle were personally directed to the Romanes yet it entreateth of the common faith which concerneth the whole Church of God and to the vse thereof is generall and that which was written vnto them is written vnto vs. As that which our Blessed Sauiour said vnto his Apostles he said vnto all Mark 13.37 So that which the Apostles did write to some speciall Churches they did write vnto all Gryneus 3. This epistle was written from Corinthus as not onely the subscription sheweth both in the Greek and Syriake but Origen beside doth collect so much by these three arguments out of the text it selfe 1. It was sent by Phebe a seruant of the Church of Cenchrea Rom. 16.1 which Cenchrea is neere vnto Corinth yea portus ipse Corinthe the verie hauen of Corinth 2. he saith Gaius mine host and of the whole Church saluteth you c. 16.23 which Gaius dwelt at Corinth as the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 1.14 I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gains 3. he addeth further Erastus the chamberlaine of the citie saluteth you which Erastus is the same whom Paul left at Corinth 2. Timoth. 4.20 Quest. 21. Of the excellencie and worthines of this epistle Three things doe commend this epistle 1. the matter 2. the forme 3. the kind and methode 1. Concerning the matter it containeth the chiefe articles and most waightie points of the Christian faith as is partly shewed before qu. 6. Origen further setteth it forth thus multa de lege Mosis connectuntur c. many things are knit together in this epistle as of the lawe of Moses of the calling of the Gentiles of Israel which is according to the flesh and of Israel not according to the flesh of the circumcision of the heart and of the flesh of the spirituall lawe and the lawe of the letter of the Lawe of the members and the lawe of the mind of the lawe of sinne of the inward and outward man to this purpose Origen praefat in epistol ad Romanos 2. The forme and methode of this epistle is most exact consisting of the definition of that which is handled and the tractation and explication thereof for the most perfect and artificiall Methode is that which beginneth with the definition as the Apostle sheweth what the Gospel is it is the power of God to saluation to euerie one that beleeueth c. 1. v. 16. in the which definition are expressed all the causes thereof the efficient and author God the ende saluation the materiall cause Christ Iesus the formall faith and
beleefe in vs and on Gods behalfe his efficacious power Gryneus In the amplyfying and tractation of this definition all the rest of the epistle is bestowed as this proposition that we are iustified by the Gospel that is by faith and beleefe in Christ is further amplified by the contrarie that we cannot be iustified either by the workes of nature c. 11.2 or of the Lawe c. 3. but by grace and faith c. 4. by the effects of iustifying faith inward the peace of conscience c. 5. outward the fruites of holinesse c. 6. by the contrarie operation of the lawe which reuealeth sinne c. 7. but the Gospel freeth from condemnation c. 8. by the cause the free election of God c. 9. by the subiect the Gentiles called the Iewes reiected c. 11. See more hereof concerning the Methode in the generall argument of the epistle before 3. For the kind of epistle It is principally definitiue and demonstratiue for he defineth and determineth that we are iustified neither by the workes of nature nor of the law but by faith in Christ and prooueth the same by most euident demonstration Beside this epistle hath somewhat of all other kinds of epistles which are called accessaria accessarie and secundarie as it is both gratulatorie reioycing for their faith c. 1. and it is reprehensorie rebuking the Gentiles for their licentiousnes it is also exhortatorie exhorting to holinesse of life c. 6.12 and it is deprecatorie he praieth and maketh request praying for encrease of grace in them and for himselfe that he might haue some good occasion to come vnto them Aretius 4. Places of doctrine 1. Doct. Of the godly custome and vse of the Church in laying the foundation of religion which is Catechising This commendable vse was taken vp by the Apostles themselues as the Apostle sheweth Hebr. 6.1 he calleth it the doctrine of beginnings and the laying of the foundation as of repentance faith baptisme the resurrection of eternall iudgement And so in this epistle the Apostle deliuereth a perfect forme of catechisme which consisteth of three parts of the miserie of man by nature his reparation and restitution by grace and then of his thankfulnes afterward in his obedience of life for the benefits receiued which three parts the Apostle doth at large handle in this epistle what man is by nature he sheweth c. 1.2.3 what by grace c. 4.5.8 and of the fruits of regeneration he entreateth c. 6. c. 12. So that it is false which Bellarmine affirmeth that the Apostle deliuered no forme of catechising to the Church l. 4. de verb. Dei c. 4. for he doth it most plainly euidently in this epistle Pareus 5. Places of controversie 1. Contr. That it is knowne that this Epistle was written by S. Paul and is of diuine authoritie by the Epistle it selfe Bellarmine affirmeth that to know that any Scripture is diuine or Canonicall it can not be concluded out of the Scripture it selfe neither which were the writings of S. Paul or that the Gospel of S. Matthew was written by Matthew without the tradition of the Church Bellar. lib. 4. de verb. c. 4. Contra. 1. That the Epistles of Saint Paul are of diuine and Canonicall authoritie it appeareth euidently out of the writings themselues for they beeing written by Saint Paul who had the spirit of God 1. Corinth 7.40 and had Christ speaking in him 2. Cor. 13.13 and was taught of God from whome he receiued his doctrine by reuelation Gal. 1.12 it is not to be doubted but that his holy writings proceeded from the spirit of God and so are of diuine authoritie and he himselfe doubteth not to make them canonicall as he saith Gal. 6.16 Whosoeuer walketh according to this canon or rule c. And he denounceth anathema if any yea an Angel should teach any other Gospel then he had preached Gal. 1. 2. Likewise that S. Paul was the author and writer of them it is euident both by the inscription and title and by the salutation in the ende of euery epistle and the benediction which he vseth The grace of our Lord Iesus Christ be with you all which he saith is the token or marke to know his epistles by 2. Thess. 3.17 3. The tradition of the Church is an vncerten thing that which is vncerten can not be a rule and measure of that which is most certen the testimonie of men can not assure vs of the testimonie of God Christ saith Ioh. 5.33 Ye sent vnto Iohn and he bare witnesse vnto the truth but I receiue not the record of men c. 36. I haue a greater witnes then the witnes of Iohn c. 2. Contr. That S. Pauls epistles are not so obscure that any should be terrified from the reading thereof In the Preface to Toletus commentarie the epistles of S. Paul are affirmed to be hard out of Hierome and Origen contr Whitakerum hareticum against Whitaker that heretike as it pleaseth that rayling taxer to call that learned godly man Contr. 1. True it is that as S. Peter saith some things are hard in S. Pauls epistles 1. Pet. 3.16 he saith not that many things are hard or that the Epistles are hard but onely some few things in them this letteth not but that his Epistles may safely be read of all that read them with an humble minde desirous to profit thereby the danger is onely to the vnlearned and vnstable which peruert them as they doe the rest of the Scriptures as S. Peter in the same place saith 2. And euen those hard places may be made easie by diligent reading as Chrysostome giueth this instance like as we know their minde whome we loue and obserue and are familiar with them vtique si lectioni cum animi alacritate volueritis attendere c. so you if you will with cheerfull attention giue your selues to reading ye shall neede no other helpe c. hinc vt innumera mala nata sunt quod scripturae ignorantur hence so many euills haue sprung vp because the Scriptures are not knowne hence so many heresies c. the ignorance then not the reading of Scripture breedeth heresies and thus he concludeth oculos ad splendorem Apostolicorum verborum aperiamtu let vs open our eyes to receiue the brightnes of the Apostolicall words c. they doe not then cast darknes vpon our eyes but bring brightnes and clearnes Chrysost. argum in epist. ad Rom. 3. Controv. Against the Ebionites which reteined the rites and ceremonies of Moses Whereas the Ebionites thought the rites of the Law necessarie and ioyned them together with the Gospel which heresie did much trouble the Church in the Apostles time and is at large confuted in the epistles of S. Paul to the Galatians and Colossians the same also in this epistle is conuinced and confounded for the Apostle renounceth the workes of the Law whether the ceremoniall and morall as hauing no part in the matter of iustification which he concludeth to be by faith without
nations at Rome in so much that Iuvenal calleth it Graecam vrbem a Greeke citie because of the abundance of strangers there Erasmus 2. Beloued of God 1. because God loued vs before any merits of ours gloss ordinar 2. there is a twofold loue of God vna predestinationis one of predestination as it is said Iacob haue I loued Esau haue I hated alia presentis iustificationis another of present iustification as it is also said in the Prouerbs c. 8.17 I loue them that loue me of the former the Apostle speaketh in this place Hugo Cardin. delectis per praedestinationem beloued in Gods predestination Gorrham 3. herein Gods loue is vnlike vnto mans for man loueth vpon some cause or desert going before but God loued vs without any desert of ours Tolet so then the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beloued is here taken passiuely not actiuely not for the louers of God but for them which are beloued of God Aretius 3. Called Saints 1. Chrysostome here noteth that thrice S. Paul hath vsed this word called of himselfe v. 1. and tâ—ice of the Romanes v. 6.7 which he doth not superfluously but volent illis beneficij admouere willing to put theÌ„ in mind of the benefit that they should ascribe all to the calling of God and that S. Paul beeing called writeth to those that are called he prepareth them to heare him seeing he was ab eodem vocatus called by the same by whom they were called Aretius 2. they are called Saints that is called â—â— sint sancti to be Saints Tolet. and hereby the Apostle maketh a difference betweene their former state wherein they liued which was vnholy and impure and the condition to the which they were now called to be holy Aretius and hereby is taken away the difference betweene the Iewes and the Gentiles that the Iewes should not exalt themselues aâ— the onely holy people but the Gentiles also were called to the same glorious condition of holinesse Erasm. here the name of Saints non perfectionem denotat doth not note a perfection but signifieth him which was consecrate vnto God Gualter he is counted holy qui affectu tenet sanctitatem which retaineth holinesse in his affection though he haue some imperfections And though there might be some hypocrites and carnall professors among them yet respicit ad meliorem parâ—em he hath respect to the better part of the Church Aretius Quest. 22. What the Apostle vnderstandeth by grace and peace ver 7. In these words is contained the salutation it selfe wherein two things are expressed 1. what the Apostle wisheth vnto them and from whom 1. Grace and peace 1. Origen here noteth that this benediction of the Apostle was nothing inferiour vnto those blessings pronounced by the Patriarkes as the blessing of Noah vpon Sem and Iapheth and Melchisedekes benediction vpon Abraham because Paul also blessed by the spirit as he saith 1. Cor. 7.40 I thinke that I also haue the spirit of God But it is not vsuall in the old Testament to vse this blessing of grace and the reason may be this because the lawe was giuen by Moses but grace and truth came by Iesus Christ Ioh. 1.17 Hyperius 2. By grace Ambrose vnderstandeth remission of sinnes by peace reconcillation with God Lyranus gracia in praesenti gloria in futuro grace in this life present and glorie in the next Hugo gratias agant Deo pacem habeant cum proximo that they should giue thanks to God and haue peace with their neighbours Tolet by grace vnderstandeth donum animae c. a gift of the minde whereby a man is made acceptable vnto God but there is no gift conferred vpon the soule that can make it acceptable vnto God but the grace and fauour of God in Christ therefore by grace rather is signified the grace and fauour of God whereupon followeth the collation of all other graces beside and by peace prosperous successe but especially the tranquilitie of minde which is the speciall fruite of iustification by faith Rom. 5.1 Gryneus and so this benediction answeareth to the salutation of the Angels Luk. 2.14 Peace in earth toward men good will for the mercie and gracious fauour of God is the fountaine of our peace 2. From God the Father and the Lord Iesus Christ. 1. the Greeke construction is doubtfull whether we vnderstand thus the Father of vs and of our Lord Iesus Christ or referre the last clause to the first preposition and from the Lord Iesus Christ whereupon Fransiscus Dauid a Samosetian heretike taketh aduantage that Paul doth not wish grace from Iesus Christ but from the father onely But this cauill is easily remooued for Ioh. 2.2 the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from is repeated from God the father and from our Lord Iesus Christ and so must it be taken here Pareus 2. Some distinguish these two thus that grace is wished from God the father as the author of grace and peace from Iesus Christ who is our reconciler Aretius But Haymo misliketh that and would haue this grace and peace indifferently to be conferred and equally by God the father and the Lord Iesus 3. Tertullian giueth this reason why the title of God is giuen vnto the father of Lord vnto Christ least the Gentiles might hereby haue taken occasion to thinke of the pluralitie of gods but when the Apostle speaketh of Christ alone he saith who is God ouer all blessed for euer Rom. 9.5 Tertullian aduers. Praxeam But the reason rather is this why Christ is called Lord because the father hath committed vnto him all authoritie for he is called the Lord which hath plenarie power and authoritie and yet the father is so called God as that the Sonne is not excluded and the Son is also Lord as that the father be also included and this name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord answereth to the Hebrewe Iehouah which sheweth that Christ is verie God with his father Aretius 4. but further the question is mooued why there is no mention here made of the holy Ghost Haymo answereth that intelligitur in donis suis he is vnderstood in his gifts because grace and peace are also the gifts of the holy Ghost so also gloss ordinar But the better answer is that seeing these graces doe equally flowe from the whole Trinitie the Apostle by naming the father and the Sonne includeth also the holy Ghost and sometime he expresseth them all as 2. Cor. 13.13 The grace of our Lord Iesus Christ and the loue of God and the communion of the holy Ghost be with you all Quest. 23. Of Pauls giuing of thankes for the faith of the Romanes which was published abroad v. 8. 1. In this thanksgiuing fowre things are obserued to whom he giueth thankes to God by whome thorough Christ for whom for you all and for what because their faith was published through the world And this wise beginning S. Paul maketh thus insinuating himselfe that his admonition afterward might seeme to
be lawfull to sweare and vpon what occasion 1. That it is lawfull to sweare thus it appeareth 1. Christ came not to dissolue the lawe Matth. 5.17 now the lawe not onely permitteth but commandeth to sweare where cause is Deut. 6.13 and 10.20 2. the Lord himselfe sweareth Psal. 110.4 Heb. 6.17 therefore it is not sinne to sweare 3. the holy Fathers and Patriarkes vsed to take an oath where it was lawfully required as Abraham Gen. 21.24 Iacob Genes 31.53 Dauid 1◠Sam. 24.23 2. But it will be thus on the contrarie obiected 1. Christ saith Sweare not at all neither by heauen for it is the throne of God c. Answear Christ forbiddeth not to sweare by God but not by creatures as by the heauen the earth by the Temple by the head 2. where he saith let your communication be yea yea nay nay Christ forbiddeth not the lawfull vse of an oath when there is iust cause but the often and vnnecessarie vsing of it in common talke where then it concerneth the saluation or edification of our brethren it is lawfull to take an oath as it was requisite that the Romanes should be well perswaded of S. Pauls affection toward them who had yet neuer seene them as Chrysostome saith quouiam neminem hominum animi sui testem sistere poterat c. because he could not set forth any man to be a witnesse of his minde he calleth vpon God who searcheth the heart 3. It will be againe obiected that in the Newe Testament an oath is not lawfull as it was in the olde Basil. in Psalm 14. Answear The abuse of an oath was vnlawfull both in the Old Testament and in the Newe But to take an oath lawfully is as well permitted to the Church of Christ nowe as it was to the Church of the Iewes As the Prophet Isaiah prophesieth of the Newe Church that they shall sweare by Iehovah Isay. 19.18 and c. 43.23 Ierem. 4.3 Quest. 30. How Paul is said to serue in the spirit 1. Chrysostome by the spirit vnderstandeth the holy Ghost omnia spiritus sancti imputat virtuti he ascribeth all to the vertue of the holy spirit nothing to his owne diligence But in that he saith in my spirit this interpretation is auoided Paul would not so call the holy Ghost my spirit 2. Theodoret by spirit thinketh to be meant the gift and grace giuen vnto Paul whereby he was furnished for his Apostleship whereof he spake before v. 5. by whom we haue receiued grace and Apostleship so also Oecumenius he is said to serue him in tradito sibi dono in the gift giuen vnto him but so much is expressed in the words following In the Gospell of his sonne that sheweth his ministerie and employment in the Gospell 3. some giue this sense whom I serue in the spirit that is not in the flesh non in carnalibus observantijs not in carnall obseruations such as were the ceremonies of the lawe gloss interlin so also Aretius I serue God non vt hypocritae ceremonijs not as hipocrites with ceremonies but the mentioning of the Gospel following excludeth all legall ceremonies 4. Origen here maketh a distinction betweene the soule and the spirit which he taketh for the superior and higher part of the soule wherein he serued God Ambrose also by the spirit vnderstandeth the minde which is true that inwardly he serued Christ in his spirit and mind but the faine not considered in the naturall condition thereof as Origen seemeth to haue relation thereunto but renewed and regenerate by grace 5. S. Paul then by his spirit vnderstandeth his ardent and earnest affection wherein he serued God most earnestly and zealously in the ministerie of the Gospel Beza The like saying the Apostle hath 2. Tim. 1.3 I thanke God whome I serue from mine Elders with a pure conscience he serued God with an vpright and innocent heart not in shew and oftentation and in this sense our Sauiour saith Ioh. 4.24 They that worship God must worship him in spirit and in truth Martyr 31. Quest. v. 10. What prosperous iourney the Apostle meaneth v. 10. That I might haue a prosperous iourney by the will of God 1. Paul simply praieth not for a prosperous iourney but according to the will of God there is a prosperitie not according to the will of God as the wise man saith Prov. 1.32 The prosperitie of fooles destroyeth them Gorrham But the Apostle esteemeth not of such prosperous things quae sine voluntate dei eveniunt which come to passe without the will of God Haymo 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth that I may haue a iourney giuen me according to my minde Erasm. in which desire the Apostle non deprecatur omnia pericula doth not pray against all perills and daungers for he suffered shipwracke and endured other casualties in his iourney to Rome but he counted it a prosperous iourney which howsoeuer might bring him vnto them to bestow some spirituall gift vpon them Aretius Such a prosperous iourney was that which S. Paul tooke into Macedonia where though he suffered imprisonment and were beaten with roddes yet his iourney prospered in respect of the good successe which he had in preaching of the Gospel Martyr 3. And this desire of Paul to see the Romanes might be one cause of his appeale which he made to Rome Act. 25. Lyranus 32. Quest. Whether S. Paul needed to be mutually strengthened by the faith of the Romanes v. 12. That I might be comforted through our mutuall faith both yours and mine 1. Chrysostome thinketh that Paul spake not this quod ipse illorum opus habeat auxilio as though he had neede of their helpe seeing he was a pillar of the Church but that he so saith to qualifie his former speach v. 11. because he had saide that I might bestow vpon you some spirituall gift to strengthen you 2. But although the Apostles modestie appeare herein that ioyneth himselfe with them as hauing neede of their mutuall comfort yet in truth he professeth himselfe not to be so perfect as though he needed no helps non ponit se in supremo gradu he doth not place himselfe in the highest degree for he other where doth acknowledge his imperfection both in knowledge 1. Cor. 13. and in the gifts of regeneration Rom. 7. Pareus like as a minister comming to visit one that is sicke to comfort him may be comforted againe by him Olevian to this purpose P. Martyr 3. This mutuall consolation Theophytact vnderstandeth of the alleviating of their afflictions by their mutuall comforts Tolet with others of the mutuall ioy which they should haue one in an others mutuall faith Lyranus that they should be comforted by faith which was common to him and them for there is but one faith But as Chrysostome saith here this consolation may be taken pro fider incremento for the encrease of faith for the faithfull mutuis exhortationibus in fide proficiunt by mutuall exhortations doe profit
the obseruation of ceremonies and externall worship the Gospel in interiori cultu fidei in the inward worship by faith so that the law was lex puerorum the law of children which were kept vnder it as a schoolemaster but the Gospel is lex virorum the law of men come to ripe age August lib. de spirit lit 6. They differ also in the manner that which was couertly and darkely shadowed in the law is manifestly and apertly set forth in the Gospel 7. In the time they differ the law promised things to come the Gospel presently performed that which was in the law promised is Ignatius epist. ad Philadelp quod supra legem pracipuum habet Euangelium nempe praeseâ—tiam adventus Salvatoris what hath the Gospel aboue the law euen the presence of Christs aduent and comming 42. Quest. Why the Iewes are named before the Grecians v. 16. To the Iew first and also to the Grecian c. 1. Here by the Grecians generally all the Gentiles are vnderstood because they of all other nations seemed to be the wisest and therefore speciall instance is giuen in them that they also haue neede of the preaching of the Gospel Tolet. and at that time almost all nations vsed the Greeke tongue and therfore they are called by the name of Grecians Gualter especially when they are set against the Iewes Beza 2. Chrysostome thinketh that the Iew is named first not for any other excellencie or prerogatiue sed in hoc solo honoratur quod primus illam accepit but he is honoured onely in this because he first had the Gospel preached so he giueth onely vnto the Iew the prioritie of other 3. Origen thinketh that the Iew is set first because that like as the Grecian preferred himselfe before the Barbarian because of their lawes and ciuill life whereas the Barbarians liued without law so the Iew hath preheminence before the Grecian because they receiued their lawes from God 4. Lyranus giueth this reason the Iewes had a better preparation vnto the Gospel by the knowledge of the law and the Prophets then the Grecians who onely had the light of nature and the knowledge of the creatures 5. But the Iew hath a preheminence before the Gentile in respect of the prerogatiue which was giuen them of God vnto their fathers were the promises made and of them was descended the Messiah according to the flesh so that this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first doth not so much signifie ordinem temporis the order of time as ordinem dignitatis the order of dignitie as when Christ saith Seeke ye first the kingdome of God Matth. 6.33 that is chiefly and most of all Tolet. Pareus This order our blessed Sauiour obserued both in himselfe saying he was sent onely to the lost sheepe of Israel and gaue the like charge when he sent out his Apostles that they should not goe the way of the Gentiles Matth. 10.5 yea and at his ascension he appointed his Apostles to be his witnesses first in Iudea Ierusalem Samaria and then to the vttermost part of the earth Act. 1.8 This order the Apostles accordingly kept Act. 13.46 It was necessarie that the word of God should first haue him spoken vnto you 43. Quest. v. 17. The iustice or righteousnes of God is reuealed what iustice the Apostle meaneth 1. There is a iustice of God wherein he is righteous and iust in himselfe as Psal. 11.7 The righteous Lord loueth righteousnes but this the Apostle speaketh not of the essentiall iustice of God is not communicated to vs by faith 2. There is a iustice distributiue in God whereby he rendreth vnto euery man according to his works Origen vnderstandeth this iustice of God but this is not the iustice whereby a man is iustified to saluation for if the Lord should marke what is done amisse no man should be able to abide it Psal. 130.3 3. The iustice of God signifieth his veritie and truth in keeping his promises so Gorrham taketh it here true it is that God graciously performeth whatsoeuer is promised in Christ but yet his mercie must goe before in promising 4. Theodoret vnderstandeth the perfect iustice of Christ whereby he satisfied the wrath of God for our sinnes and accomplished our redemption and this perfect iustice of Christ is reuealed in the Gospel but the Apostle speaketh euidently of such iustice whereby a man is iustified before God which is not that perfect iustice inherent in Christ but the applying thereof vnto vs by faith 5. Therefore Chrysostomes exposition is the best who Homil. 3. taketh this for that iustice which is communicated and infused vnto vs by that iustice of Christ and so Augustine vnderstandeth that iustice not whereby God is iust in himselfe seâ qua hominem induit cum eum iustificat but wherewith he endueth man when he instifieth him lib. de spirit liter cap. 9. of this the Apostle speaketh chap. 3.28 We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the Lawe 6. But this iustice is not an habite infused into the mind whereby a man is made apt to exercise good workes as Pererius saith that this iustice comprehendeth two things remissionem peccatorum the remission of sinnes animi rectitudinem c. and the vprightnesse of the minde whereby it is now acceptable vnto God and is exercised in good workes for the Apostle saith of this iustice of God that it is Made manifest without the lawe by the faith of Iesus c. c. 3.21 But this infused habite which is charitie and the exercising of good workes is not reuealed without the lawe for the lawe requireth and commandeth charitie This iustice then consisteth onely in the remission of sinnes and in imputing vnto vs the righteousnesse of Christ by faith c. 4.5 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne Pareus 7. It is called the iustice of God both because it is giuen vs from God not procured by our owne workes and for that we thereby are made righteous not before men but in the sight of God Tolet. 8. And this iustice is sometime called the righteousnes of God Phil. 3.9 because he is the author thereof sometime of Christ he is our righteousnesse 1. Cor. 1.30 because by his obedience we are iustified sometime of faith Philip. 3.9 because faith is the instrument whereby Christs righteousnesse is applyed vnto vs Gryneus Quest. 44. Of the meaning of these words v. 17. is reuealed from faith to faith 1. Is reuealed 1. Which sheweth a double preheminence of the Gospel in respect of the matter it sheweth such things as cannot be otherwise knowne then by reuelation from God whereas the lawe of the Iewes and the Philosophie of the Gentiles treateth of common and knowne things and for the manner that which was obscurely set forth in the law is plainely declared in the Gospel Pareus 2. and it is so reuealed that it is not onely made knowne but indeede exhibited Beza 3. And
caeten Graec. which Stapleton followeth But Faius here well answereth that here money is considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of passion it is a thing vsed as an instrument it hath no action but an actiue power is here giuen vnto God 5. The blasphemous Manichees were here driuen to this strait because they would free God from beeing any way accessarie to euill that they made two gods one good the father of Christ and the author of the new Testament the other euill the author of the old and that God it was which is saide to haue hardened Pharaohs heart and to bid Shemei curse Dauid and of this god they vnderstood S. Paul to speake 2. Cor. 4.4 In whome the god of this world hath blinded the mindes But the Manichees doe here manifestly contradict the Apostle who saith Eph. 4.6 There is one God and father of all c. who is aboue all there are not then more Gods then one And in that other place by the god of this world the Apostle meaneth Sathan who is the prince of the darknes of this world who is so called because he is so held to be of the infidels Some thinke that God may as well be said to blind the minds of infidels as here to deliuer them vp to their owne concupiscence as P. Mart. following Augustine But the Scripture vseth not so to speake of God the God of this world is all one as to say the prince of the world which name Christ giueth vnto Sathan Ioh. 14.30 6. Wherefore there is more to be considered in these actions of hardening the heart deliuering vp vnto a reprobate sense then bare permission onely subtraction of grace these we refuse not so that permission be here vnderstood as ioyned with Gods will for otherwise to thinke that God permitteth any thing which he can not hinder were great blasphemie Faius yet God hath a further stroke in these actions then by permission onely and withholding of his grace 1. Augustine doubteth not to affirme that not onely the good wills and mindes of men which God maketh good of euill are in Gods hand but also the euill minds and wills of men are so in Gods power vt eos quo voluerit quando voluerit factat inclinari that the same God causeth to be enclined which way he will and when he will and he giueth instance in diuers places of Scripture as how God is saide to haue hardened Pharaohs heart that he bid Shemei curse Dauid non iubendo dixit sed eius voluntatem proprio suo vitio malam in hoc peccatam iusto suo indicio inclinavit not that he in deede badde him but by his iust iudgement he inclined his will beeing euill of it selfe into this sinne so it is saide 2. Chron. 25.20 But Amaziah would not heare for it was of God that he might deliuer them into his hand c likewise Ezek. 14.9 if the Prophet be deceiued when he hath spoken a thing the Lord hath deceiued that Prophet vpon these and other such places Augustine thus inferreth that it is manifest operari Deum in cordibus hominum ad inclinandus sorum voluntates quacunque voluerit c. that God worketh in the hearts of men to incline their wills which way he will either vnto good for his mercie sake or vnto euill according to their desert indicio suo aliquando aperto aliquando occulto semper nutem iusto by his iudgement sometime open sometime hid but alwaies iust thus August lib. 5. contr Iulian. c. 3. All these places alleadged shew that God in such actions is to be considered as an agent and yet is free from the imputation of any euill 2. Which that it may more fully appeare these considerations following are here necessarie 1. we must distinguish betweene the motion of the mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the disorder or euilnes of the motion Pareus and there are two things in sinne actio defectus the action it selfe and the defect or fault the action is of God but not the other Mart. so Hugo Cardinal Deus non incitat ad malas notiones in quantum sunt mala c. God doth not stirre vp vnto euill actions as they are euill but as they are actions 2. Beside sinnes are considered three waies first as they are transgressions of the law of God then as they are causes of other sinnes in neither of these respects doth sinne any way stand with the will and pleasure of God thirdly as they are poena praecedentium scelerum punishments of sinnes before-going and so they are of God so then as there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a disordered motion in sinne God no way is accessarie vnto them but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the infliction of them as a punishment proceedeth from the iust iudgement of God Pareus 3. As God is to be considered as a iust Iudge in punishing sinne by sinne so likewise as a wise foreseer and prouident worker and contriuer of all things to effect his good pleasure so then we affirme Deum iusto suo iudicio ordinare c. God doth so ordaine in his iust iudgement that men be deliuered vp to their owne concupiscence as the Iudge deliuereth male factours ouer to the tormentor or hangman Calvin carnifex agit vi authoritate iudicis c. the tormentor worketh by the authoritie of the Iudge yet carnisicis opus cum imperio iudicis non confundo I confound not the worke of the hangman with the commandement of the Iudge saith Beza So it is true as Faius here saith Deus arcano suo iudicio effecit c. God so wrought by his secret iudgement that they which were alreadie estranged from him magis averterentur should yet be estranged more But it will be thus obiected against this resolution 1. Iulianus the Pelagian thus cavilled If this concupiscence vnto the which the Gentiles were deliuered vp were a punishment of sinne then it is good and commendable Ans. It followeth not for by the same reason the deuill should deserue commendation because he is the executer of Gods reuenge and punishment 2. He obiecteth that they were left by the patience of God not per poâ—â—tiam compulsi not compelled by his power Ans. 1. God sheweth herein both his patience and his power as the Apostle sheweth Rom. 9.22 What if God would to shew his wrath and make his power knowne suffer with long patience the vessels of his wrath prepared to destruction c. 2. yet although God herein shew his power and secret iudgement in punishing them with their owne concupiscence yet he forceth not their wills but beeing euill of themselues he giueth them ouer further to all impietie 3. Obiect The Apostle saith Eph. 4.19 Which beeing past feeling haue giuen themselues vnto wantonnes c. they then giue themselues ouer God giueth them not vp Ans. It followeth not for both God doth deliuer them vp as a iust Iudge and
all vnrighteousnesse were deliuered vp but then nothing should haue remained afterward to shewe their reprobate mind in if they had beene full of all iniquitie before this then is rather a proofe of their reprobate minde by such fruits and effects as followed Tolet. Eras. Beza 4. Thus the Apostle setteth downe their faults in particular vt apertius accuset that he might accuse them more plainely gloss ordinar 5. But this further is to be obserued that the Apostle in this catologue of their sinnes sub alijs personis omnem sermonem producit doth frame his speach as vnder other persons not directly accusing the Romanes but shewing what they were vnder the generall view of the sinnes of the heathen 6. Now the Apostle saith they were full of all vnrighteousnesse shewing a difference betweene the Gentiles that were giuen ouer vnto all iniquitie and such as beleeued who may sometime faile in these sinnes but are not full fraught with them Mart. 7. And though all among the Gentiles were not alike guiltie of these sinnes yet an imputation is laid vpon all the Gentiles for these reasons 1. because the number was small of those which carried themselues more civilly and therefore they were not to be counted in so great a multitude 2. though some bridled their corrupt nature yet they were naturally giuen to these sinnes as well as others as Socrates beeing noted by a certaine Physiognomer that tooke vpon him to coniecture by his countenance of his disposition that he was giuen to incontinencie answered that by nature he was so but that he had corrected the euilnesse of his nature by Philosophie Gualter 3. the Apostle doth not onely rippe vp the sinnes of the Gentiles in fact but such as were committed in the minde as malice envie that they which were not detected of outward and grosse sinnes yet might finde themselues guiltie of the other Hyperius 4. And though all these sinnes are not found in euerie one yet alicuius ex illis conscij omnes all men are guilty of some one of them Calvin Quest. 72. Of the order obserued by the Apostle in this particular enumeration of the sinnes of the Gentiles 1. Hugo Cardinal thus scanneth the number that whereas here are rehearsed 21. sinnes in all of the heathen he would thus distinguish them that there are seuen capitall sinnes and each of them is three wayes committed corde ore opere in the heart mouth and worke and so the number of 7. beeing multiplyed by three we shall haue the iust summo of one and twentie in all But hauing propounded this diuision he there leaueth it not being able to assigne euerie one of these particular sinnes to one of these kinds 2. Gorrham doth thus more distinctly distribute these seuerall kinds first the Apostle setteth these sinnes downe in generall full of all vnrighteousnesse then in particular first the sinnes of transgression then of omission from these words disobedient to parents to the end The sinnes of transgression are 1. in fact 2. in word whisperers 3. then both in word and deede doers of wrong c. v. 30. The sinnes of transgression in fact are seene 1. in inferring some temporall damage either in the affection as malice or evilnesse or in the effect either concerning carnall pleasure as fornication or worldly profit couetousnesse or some other notable wrong which is called wickednesse 2. or in personall damage which is done to ones person which beginneth in the heart that is enuie and is finished in murther 3. then followeth spirituall damage or hurt which consisteth in deceit which is threefold in open debate in secret craft and in the sinister opinion of the minde in taking all in the worst part 2. In word men transgresse either against men in priuate whispering or open backebiting or against God in hating him or speaking euill of him 3. Then followe the transgressions partly in word partly in deede 1. in detracting and dishonouring of others doers of wrong or contumelious 2. in preferring themselues before others proud 3. in despising of others boasters 4. in corrupting of others inventors of euill things Next are the sinnes of omission 1. in respect of superiours both in rebellion to parents they are disobedient then they are vnwise in refusing their parents instruction and so became incomposite disorderly without any gouernement 2. or in respect of all where there are three sinnes first they are without naturall affection secondly sine faedere societatis without fidelitie or societie they can neuer be appeased thirdly sine miserecordia compâ—ssionis without compassion they are merciles 3. But I rather thinke with Calvin that it is too curious to obserue such order in the enumeration of the Gentiles sinnes which the Apostle intended not but onely to accumulate together the manifold corruptions that raigned among the heathen setting downe euerie sinne not in any certaine methode but as it came vnto his minde yet if these particular sinnes be sorted out to their seuerall kinds we shall finde that these transgressions are against all the precepts of the second table Pareus Quest. 73. Of the particular sinnes of the Gentiles here 〈◊〉 rehearsed by the Apostle 1. First is set downe the generall to all the particulars following 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vnrighteousnes which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the transgression of the Lawe 1. Ioh. 3.4 some interpret it full omni peccati of all sinne Gorrham but that is too generall it signifieth rather all such iniustice quod coniungitur cum iuiuria proximi which is ioyned with the wrong of our neighbour Calvin some thus distinguish betweene iniquitie and sinne the first is referred to the euilnes of the minde the other to the outward execution in the bodie 2. The first speciall sinne is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fornication the vulgar Latine placeth next 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 malitia malitiousnesse and so Beza following his auncient Greeke copie and he thinketh it to be another generall word comprehending all the particulars following But the most Greeke copies and the Syrian translation make it the fourth particular sinne next to couetousnesse to Vatab. Mart. Gryneus Geneuens Gualter with others the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is deriued of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perneo to sell because such doe make sale of their bodies and prostitute them for gaine Gryneus the Latine word fornicatio fornication is deriued a fornicibus of the vaulted houses where such strumpets vsed to prostitute themselues Haymo By fornication is vnderstood omnis vsus praeter legitimum connubium any carnall vse beside lawfull mariage gloss interlin all vncleannesse and impuritie of the bodie Calvin And for two reasons is this one kind named rather then adulterie 1. quia ex leuiori granius evincitur c. because by the lesse sinne the greater is conuinced Ambrose if fornication be a sinne adulterie is much more Martyr 2. And because fornication was held to be no offence among the Gentiles therefore the Apostle
it priuilie Theophyl 2. nullius faâ—ae parcunt they spare no mans fame but the other specially intendeth to set strife betweene friends Calv. 3. they differ in the end the detractor or backebiter intendeth to separate friendship the oher to hinder ones fame 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a hater of God which some take both actiuely and passiuely as Theophylact for such as both doe hate God and are haters of God some take it passiuely for such as are hated of God as the Latine interpreter and in this sense they thinke there is a relation to the former sinnes of whispering and backebiting that euen for such sinnes they may incurre damnation and be hated of God But Oecumenius saith well that it is not the Apostles purpose to shewe who were hated of God but to set downe the sinnes of the Gentiles whereof this was one that there were among them enemies to all religion plaine atheists that had no list to thinke heare or speake of God Mart. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that is contumelious or iniurious Lyranus taketh it for one that is contumelious in words so also Occumenius interpreteth them to be convitiatores raylers but it is rather an iniurie offered both in word and deede and that in a petulant and insolent manner sedet in fronte corde manu this sinne of contumelie it hath the seate both in the heart countenance and in the hand Pareus it is that sinne quae homines paruifacit which maketh no account of any such were they which both reboked the Apostles and scourged them Act. 4. Haymo and such were the people of the old world full of crueltie Gen. 6.11 Eucer 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he is the proud man that preferreth himselfe before another in honour riches and such like as Chrysostome saith that superbia in animo est idem quod in corpore tumor pride in the minde is the same that a swelling is in the bodie Gryneus 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a boaster a vaine glorious man that boasteth of that which he hath not Theophylact thinketh that the first is pride against God the other against men But the true difference is that the proud man boasteth of such things as he hath the boaster of that which he hath not Oecume such was that vaine glorious Thraso in Terence Pareus this difference there is betweene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first oftentat quod non est boasteth of that which he hath not the other dissimulat quod est dissembleth and hideth that which is and indeede he hath Erasm. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an inventor of euill things such as were not content with the old knowne sinnes but still invented newe which sheweth that they sinned not of ignorance but of malice Chrysost. Thophylact these were of two sorts for either nothing could be so well said or done but they would find some fault with it or els they would finde out some new deuises themselues tending either to mischiefe or filthie pleasure or such like As Tiberius the Emperor did promise great rewards to such as could find out newe Venereans and carnall pleasures Gual such also were Phaleris and Sardanapalus that made great promises to such as inuented strange torments or new pleasures Bacer in this number may be reckoned such as found out newe impostures in vsurie trafficke and in lawe suites Marlorat And Basil thus in generall describeth them qui praeter vsitata mala alia excogitant c. which beside the vsuall euills doe deuise others reg brev resp 78. 18. Disobedient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to parents for they which obey not God their heauenly father it is no maruell if they are disobedient to their earthly Parents Haymo Aristolte sheweth that children receiue three benefits by their parents causam essendi generando causam vivendi educando causam discendi informando they are the cause of their beeing by generation the cause of their liuing by education the cause of their learning by instruction Gryneus this is vnderstood not onely of naturall but of spirituall parents also and of others in authortie gloss interlin men are bound vnto their naturall parents because they haue from them their esse nutrimentum their beeing and nourishment vnto their spirituall because they haue of them their regimen documenta gouernment and instruction Lyran. here by the lesse sinne of disobedience are vnderstood all other wrongs offred to parents as in striking and killing of them which sinnes were common among the heathen as may appeare by so many lawes of the Gentiles made against parricide Gualter And euen in these dayes this sinne of disobedience to parents is too common for children growe stubborne and will not be ruled by their parents yea and they will presume to marrie without their parents consent Osiander 19. Without vnderstanding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyran. Gorrham doe referre this vnto the next sinne before going that herein they are vnwise because they doe not giue eare vnto their parents but it is more generall they are such as are not guided by reason but are voide of all iudgement in their actions beeing carried away with their preposterous and precipitate affections such were Pharaoh Saul with others that ranne headlong into their owne destruction such were Catiline among the Romanes and of late one Thomas Monerarius that tooke armes with a purpose to destroy all Princes and that vile person of Munster that made himselfe king of the Temple of God Marlorat And generally by the vnwise we vnderstand such as are voide of all iudgement both in diuine and humane things Par. 20. Couenant breakers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some reade incompositos Lat. Lyran. Gorrh. Tolet. vnderstanding such as are vnciuill and rude in their manners and behauiour Haymo calleth them lasciuious and inordinate persons But Theophylact so Erasmus also and Beza take them better for such as would not stand vnto their couenants and leagues such an one was Lysander among the Lacedemonians whose saying was that children should be deceiued with check stones and men with oaths Gualter The Olynthians were noted for breaking their truce and league with Philip king of Macedonia Libanius argument 1. Olynthias The Carthaginians were common breakers and violaters of their saith vnto these may be adioyned all such as denie such things as are committed to their trust or doe wast and consume them or any other which deceiue that trust which is reposed in them Bucor 21. Without naturall affection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some take it generally for such as are without all loue or humanitie Lat. Tolet. Lyran. as therefore the tribe of Dan did smite Lachis because they had no societie with any other people Gorham But specially is here signified the naturall affection as betweene parents and their children husband and wife kinred countrey the heathen were voide cuen of such naturall affection Mart. Beza as their stories are full of
such examples of vnnaturall inhumanitie as Cambyses Remus Romulus and such like Gualter such was Cain Ismael Esau to their brethren The Stoicks among the heathen depriued a wise man of all affection and so doe the wicked Catabaptists among Christians Bucer 22. Such as can neuer be reconciled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some reade absque faedere without fidelitie Lat. such as breake all truces and leagues but they were noted before trucebreakers Lyranus taketh them to be such as would hold no friendship with any but such men were also spoken of before loc 10. they are therefore such as were implurable that beeing once offended would neuer be reconciled againe Mart. Pareus with others such was Saul that would by no meanes be appeased toward Dauid Marlorat 23. Mercilesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as had no bowels of compassion neither pitied the miseries and calamities of others as among the heathen their cruell warres and bloodshed when they spared neither man woman nor children and their bloody spectacles and sword-playes when they delighted to see the blood of man shed before their face were euident proofes hereof Gualter Chrysostome thus distinguisheth these last fowre they are coneuant breakers that keepe no fidelitie with the same kind as man with man they are without naturall affection which are vnkind to their kindred and such are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which breake ciuill leagues and the last includeth mercie to be shewed euen vnto enemies Quest. 74. Of the true reading of the last verse v. 31. and the meaning thereof 1. The vulgar Latine which Lyranus followeth and Tolet the Rhemists with other Romanists reade thus when they knewe the iustice of God vnderstood not that they which doe such things are worthie of death c. and this reading seemeth also Cyprian to followe epistol 68. But in the originall these words non intellexerunt they vnderstood not are wanting and are inserted beside the text and they doe also quite inuert the sense of the text for they make it a lesse thing to consent vnto euill doers and approoue them then to commit euill not onely they which doe them but also they which consent vnto them as the vulgar Latine text standeth whereas the Apostle euidētly maketh two degrees of sinners they which commit euill and those worse which are patrons and fauourers of euill And so Chrysostome well expoundeth shewing how the Apostle taketh away two pretexts and excuses of the Gentiles one was their ignorance which they could not pretend because they knewe by nature what the iustice of God required the other was their infirmitie but that they could not alleadge seeing they did commit such things in fact but approoued also and commended the euill doers 2. By the iustice of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here vnderstood not the morall lawe which the Gentiles had not but the iudiciarie iustice of God in punishing of sinne for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is defined iniusti facti corectio a correcting of that which is vniustly or vnlawfully done Michael Ephesus in ethic Aristot. lib. 5. c. 7. The Gentiles knewe this iustice of God in punishing of sinne both by the light of nature by the testimonie of their owne conscience and by the examples of Gods iustice shewed in the world Pareus Euen Draco which appointed death for all offences was taught by the law of nature that all sinne deserued death Mart. So Abimelech and Pharaoh knew by the light of nature that mariage was not to be violated and therefore they caused Sarah to be restored to Abraham Gualter 3. By death here is vnderstood any kind of punishment tending to the ruine and destruction of the offender Pareus yea also the Gentiles had some knowledge of euerlasting punishment for they had an opinion of hell as Virgil sheweth lib. 6. Aenead as they promised the pleasant Elysian fields after death vnto well doers Plato lib. 10. de repub Cicero in som. Scipton 75. Quest. What a dangerous thing it is to be a fauourer and procurer of sinne in others 1. The vulgar Latine reading thus not onely they which doe such things are worthie of death but they which consent vnto them that doe and Lyranus Toletus with others doe thinke that here to consent with sinners is put as the lesse that no not the consenters onely were free but were worthie of death But it is rather expressed as an higher degree of sinne as Theophylact saith quodque deterius est and that which is worse they gaue assent vnto those which doe euill so also Erasmus Osiander Pererius with others 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not an assent onely but an approbation and patronage as Beza and Pareus read patrocinantur they giue patronage but Piscator rather vseth the word applaudunt because to applaud and approoue is more then patronize for one may be a patron of that vpon some occasion which he doth not altogether approoue 3. The heathen generally were guiltie hereof in defending and maintaining publikely euen those things which by the light of nature they knew to be euill as idolatrie fornication and such like when Alexander had killed Clitus his friend and was striken in conscience for the same he had miserable comforters applied vnto him Anaxarchus Aristander Callisthenes which were all but patrons of his sinne and made him worse the first as an Epicure told him that all was lawfull which Princes did the second beeing a Stoike referred all to fate and destinie the third vsed morall and ciuill perswasions but none of them shewed him the greatnes of his sinne Gryneus 4. Of these fauourers there are two kinds some doe affoard their helpe and assistance to euill doers some hold their peace when they should reprooue And there is a double kind of reproofe or correction fraterna correctio brotherly correction vnto the which all are bound but not alwaies sed pro debito tempore loco but in due time and place there is correctio punitionis correction by way of punishment vnto the which all superiours are bound and at all times as they shall see it to make best for the amendment of sinners Lyr. But both these kind of corrections were much neglected among the heathen 5. Now of these there were three sorts some might commit sinne in themselues and yet not consent vnto it in others and these were worthie of death some might giue consent in not punishing sinne in others though they did it not themselues and these also were worthie of death and some did both practise it in their owne person and fauour it in others and these were worthie of double death Haymo 76. Quest. How one may be accessarie to an others sinne This may be done diuers waies 1. they which command others to doe euill as Saul bid Doeg fall vpon the innocent Priests 1. Sam. 22. are guiltie of others sinnes 2. They which are readie to obey such wicked commandements as Ioab vpon Dauids letter caused
to euerie one that beleeueth then it followeth that euerie one that beleeueth is saued where els were the power of God to saluation if it were not effectuall to saue if then this power be in faith to saluation if it could not saue without the supply of other helpes this power should be turned into weakenesse that which is powerfull to saluation is sufficient to saluation Gods power worketh perfectly it hath no want nor requireth any helpe but in faith is the power of God to saluation Ergo c. Controv. 18. Of the difference between the Lawe and the Gospel v. 18. The wrath of God is reuealed from heauen against all vngodlines Bellarmine hence inferreth that comminations and terrors are as proper and peculiar to the Gospell as to the lawe lib. 4. de iustificat c. 2. Contra. True it is that the Gospel also hath many comminations against sinners and as by the Gospel the righteousnesse of God is reuealed from faith to faith v. 17. so the wrath of God is also reuealed thereby against all vnrighteousnesse but this is not the proper effect of the Gospel but accidentally for the Gospell by the vnthankfulnesse of them which beleeue it not beeing ordained for their saluation is turned vnto their condemnation And whereas the Lawe in generall condemneth all infidelitie and vnbeleefe the Gospell peculiarly condemneth vnbeleefe in Christ Pareus See further hereof Synops. Centur. 4. er 60. Controv. 19. Whether by naturall meanes the Gentiles might haue attained to the knowledge of the onely true God without the speciall assistance of Gods grace 1. Bellarmine affirmeth the contrarie Deum esse vnum esse cognosci posse lumine rationis absque speciali gratiae auxilio that it may be knowne that God is and that he is but one by the light of nature without the speciall helpe of grace and he insisteth vpon this place of the Apostle v. 20. thereout vrging these two arguments 1. because the Apostle saith the invisible things of the world are seene not by reuelation but by creation 2. and seeing the Gentiles are hereby made inexcusable because they notwithstanding this naturall knowledge of God committed idolatrie it sheweth that they knew God by the creatures or els they might haue excused themselues by pretense of their ignorance Bel. lib. 4. de grat c. 2. Contra. 1. Though we consent not to their opinion who hold that nothing at all can be knowen of God without his speciall assistance as Petrus ab Aliaco affirmeth in 1. sent qu. 3. which opinion see before confuted qu. 54. for many things touching the Godhead as his goodnesse wisedome power are seene in the creation 2. yet it cannot be prooued that the Gentiles did or could attaine vnto such a manifest knowledge of the onely true God onely by the light of nature without Gods further assistance And this is an euident argument hereof because neuer any of the Gentiles de facto in fact did attaine vnto such knowledge of God by the light of nature 3. And concerning the reasons vrged S. Paul sheweth that the invisible things of God were to be seene in the Creatures not that the Gentiles did therein see them but they might haue seene them if they had not bin wilfully blind and they were made inexcusable because they could not pleade simple ignorance but their owne wilfulnesse was the cause of their ignorance which tooke from them all excuse see hereof before qu. 52.54.57 So that Augustines resolution is good that the creatures doe indeede crie with a loud voice ipse fecit nos God made vs sed surdis canere c. but they thus speake vnto deafe men vnlesse God shew further mercie see further Synops Centur. 4. err 38. Controv. 20. Against some Philosophers that the world is not eternall v. 20. The invisible things of God to wit his eternall power and Godhead are seene c. If Gods eternitie is seene by the workes which he made then that which is made is not eternall 1. that which is made must haue one by whom it was made he then that made the world was before the world then as by the things made the maker is found to be eternall so the things made which had a beginning are concluded not to be eternall 2. beside where things are contrarie one vnto another there is no eternitie now in the world there are things contrarie as actions passions generation corruption seeing then the world consisteth of corruptible partes the whole must be also subiect to corruption Then is the opinion of Aristotle vaine and false that held the world to be eternall and of Plinie which calleth the world God and of Hermeas the Stoike that imagined a coeternitie of matter with God whereof he made the world ex Faio Controv. 21. Against the adoration and setting vp of images in Churches and places of prayer ver 23. they turned the glorie of the incorruptible God to the sâ—imilitude of an image Though the vse generally of all images be not condemned among Christians as the Turkes hold it vnlawfull to make the similitude of any thing for there may be a ciuill and historicall vse of pictures and images yet it is dangerous to set them vp in the publike places of Gods seruice either to fall downe and worship before them as the Romanists doe or to retaine them for a supposed ornament as the Lutherans The reasons against all such publike vse of imagerie are these 1. It is the direct commandement of God that he would haue no image made to represent him by Deut. 4.15 Take heede that ye corrupt not your selues or make you a grauen image or representation of any figure whether it be male or female the likenesse of any beast or the likenesse of any feathered foule c. the same prohibition is expressed in the second commandement of the Morall Law which is perpetuall and bindeth for euer Pare 2. Herein pseudo-Christians doe conforme themselues to the Gentiles by whom imagerie was brought in and herein they doe oppose themselues to the decision of the Turkes and Iewes for as the Gentiles did vse the pictures and images of beasts which they ioyned to their idols so is it among the Romanists as they make Iohn Baptist with a lambe in his lappe Vendeline with oxen Antonie with hogges Eustachius with buckes and dogs Gallus with a beare Gertrude with mise Martine and George vpon horsebacke These were the verie superstitious fashions of the heathen Gualter 3. Nay the verie Gentiles at the first did a long time forbeare the superstitious vse of images Plutarke writeth in the life of Numa Pompilius that he would suffer no images to be in Churches because he thought it not fit to make God like vnto man or any other thing who is an invisible spirit and so the Romanes continued without images for the space 170. yeares Varro also thus writeth hereof that they which first brought in images metum ciuitatibus ademerunt errorem addiderunt did take
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
secret or hid part and the circumcision is of the heart in the spirit not in the letter whose praise that is of the Iew as the relatiue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the masculine gender sheweth is not of men but of God 2. The parts Method and Argument THis Chapter hath two parts 1. the Apostle conuinceth all to be sinners and so to deserue condemnation much lesse to be iustified by their workes 2. he taketh away certaine pretexts and excuses which might be alleadged 1. As in the former chapter he conuinced the Gentiles of sinne and so to be subiect to Gods iust wrath because both they committed euill things themselues and fauoured those which did them so now he vrgeth an other argument from their owne conscience The reason standeth thus whosoeuer condemneth himselfe is inexcusable this is prooued in the second verse because the iudgement of God is according to truth to iudge euery man according to his owne conscience but all men doe condemne themselues because they iudge others for the same things which they doe themselues v. 1. therefore they are inexcusable v. 1. 2. The pretenses are 1. either generall of all men v. 3. to 11. or speciall first of the Gentiles v. 11. to 17. or of the Iewes v. 17. to the ende 1. The generall pretext or pretense 1. is propounded v. 3 4. that God beeing mercifull and long-suffering will not straightly punish and condemne euery one that is euill 2. the Apostles answer followeth 1. from the ende and cause of Gods long-suffering which is to call men to repentance v. 4. in the latter part 2. from the effect of impenitencie which is the heaping vp of wrath which is confirmed by the efficient cause the iustice of God v. 6. then by an anrithesis and opposition both of the rewards and punishments v. 7 8 9 10. which also is amplified and confirmed by the reason thereof that God is no accepter of persons v. 11. 2. The first speciall pretext is of the Gentiles which may be collected thus It is vniust for those which haue no law to be punished the Gentiles haue no law Ergo. The Apostle answereth to the maior or first part by a distinction that they which haue no law at all neither naturall nor written are not to be punished but if they haue either or both if they sinne against the law of nature or the written law they shall be iudged accordingly v. 12. the latter part of sinning against the written law is further illustrated by preuenting an obiection for the Iew might alleadge that he had the law and gaue eare vnto it therefore he should not be iudged thereby the Apostle answereth that not the hearers of the law but the doers should be iustified v. 13. The second part of the argument that the Gentiles had no lawe the Apostle denieth proouing that although they had not the written lawe yet they had the law of nature which he sheweth by two arguments taken from two effects the one because some of them by the light of nature did some things agreeable to the written law v. 14. and againe they had the testimonie of their owne conscience either accusing or excusing them v. 15. which is set forth by the circumstance of the time when this testimonie of their conscience shall most of all shew it selfe namely at the day of iudgement v. 16. Then follow the particular pretexts and excuses of the Iewes The first is that the Iewes had the knowledge of the law and therfore that they should not be damned together with the rest this defense of the Iewes is first propounded in their person in diuers particular points wherein the Iewes boasted as in the knowledge of the law in the teaching and instructing of others v. 17. to 20. then the Apostle adioyneth his answer denying the argument because although they had the Law yet they obserued it not which he prooueth by experience of their euill life v. 21 22 23. and by a testimonie of Scripture v. 24. The other pretext and defense of the Iewes was this circumcision is not vnprofitable the Iewes had circumcision therefore it was auaileable vnto them to this the Apostle maketh this answer to the proposition by this distinction that circumcision profited if it kept the law which is amplified by the contrarie that if it kept not the law it was no better then vncircumcision nay vncircumcision keeping the law should be preferred before circumcision not keeping the law v. 25 26 27. to the assumption he also answereth by a double distinction of a Iew outward and inward and of circumcision in the flesh and the spirit that a Iew outward should gaine nothing before God by his circumcision onely in the flesh and not in the heart v. 28 29. 3. The questions and doubts discussed 1. Quest. To whome the Apostle here speaketh Wherefore thou art inexcusable O man c. to the Gentiles or Iewes 1. Some thinke that the Apostle vseth here a transition and as he had hetherto discouered the sinnes of the Gentiles so now he turneth him vnto the Iewes to lay open their hypocrisie Lyran. And Tolet thinketh that the Apostle reasoneth from the lesse to the greater that if the Gentiles which had not the written law of God were not excusable much lesse the Iewes But the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore sheweth that this is inferred out of that which went before and so is a continuance of the same argument 2. Some here comprehend not the Gentiles onely but the Iewes also that both the Iewes in condemning the idolatrie of the Gentiles and the Gentiles censuring the Iewes for their euill life and yet did the same things themselues should be both without excuse Haymo gloss ordin Anselm Perer. But it can not be shewed how the Iewes condemning the Gentiles of idolatrie were guiltie of the same themselues 3. The third opinion is that the Apostle still treateth of the Gentiles and hereof there are two reasons both because those words haue a necessarie connexion and reference to and with the former chapter and afterward v. 17. the Apostle beginneth by name to deale with the Iewes But they which agree that this is spoken of the Gentiles yet doe differ therein 1. Origen will haue this verse to be the conclusion of the former chapter wherein he committeth two faults first in ioyning together things of diuers natures for the Apostle there touched those which both fauoured euill in others and did practise it in themselues but now he taxeth an other sort of men that seemed to mislike sinne in others and yet did it themselues and againe Origen in diuiding the first verse from the second for we know that the iudgement of God is according to the truth which is a reason of the former doth separate and distinguish those things which should be conioyned 2. Some referre this to such as were Iudges among the Gentiles who though they made lawes to iudge and punish by yet
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
shal rise incorruptible but not all vnto glorie 4. Vnto these the Apostle addeth a fourth v. 10. namely peace which is the verie complement and perfection of our happines this peace is honorum omnium secura tranâ—quiâ— possessio a secure and peaceable possession of all good things and as Prosper saith as Beda here citeth him pax Christi sinem non habet the peace of Christ hath no ende the Saints shall be at peace with God they shall enioy the tranquilitie and peace of conscience to theÌ„selues and peace they shall haue without from all enemies whatsoeuer which shall be subdued vnto them 5. But it will be obiected that glorie and honour are peculiar and essentiall vnto God which he will not giue to any other Isay. 42.8 And thine is the glorie Matth. 6.13 Answer That essentiall and infinite honour and glorie which is in God is not communicated vnto any other but yet there are certaine influences and bright beames of that glorie which in Christ are imparted to his members as S. Peter saith that by these precious promises which are made vnto vs in Christ we are made partakers of the diuine nature 2. Pet. 1.4 Quest. 16. How it standeth with Gods iustice to punish eternally sinne temporally committed Obiect As God giueth eternall life vnto his faithfull seruants so he punisheth the wicked and impenitent with euerlasting damnation but sinne is a temporall transgression and for one to be punished eternally for a momentanie delight may seeme to exceede the rule of iustice Answ. Three wayes doth it appeare to be most iust that God should punish eternally sinne but temporally committed both in respect of the minde and intention of the sinner of the matter wherein he sinneth and of the person against whom he is an offender 1. First though the act of sinne be but temporall yet the mind of the sinner is infinite if he could euer liue he would euer sinne and therefore as Gregorie saith quia mens in hac vita nunquam voluit carere peccato iustum est vt nunquam careat supplicio c. because the mind in this life would neuer be without sinne it is iust that it should neuer be without punishment 2. If the matter and subiect of sinne be considered it is of and in the soule like as then the wounding of the bodie bringeth the death of the bodie after the which there is no returning into this life againe so sinne beeing the death of the soule it followeth that it should be perpetuall and for euer Hugo like as then Magistrates doe punish some offences as murther theft with death which doth vtterly exclude them from the societie of the liuing and cut them off for euer so is it iust with God to punish the sinnes committed against him with euerlasting paine Perer. 3. Sinne because it is a transgression of the lawe of God is so much the more hainous as he that smiteth the Prince doth more grieuously offend then he which striketh a priuate person so that sinne is of an infinite nature because of the infinite dignitie of the diuine maiestie against whom it is committed and therefore it deserueth an infinite punishment which because it cannot be infinite secundum intensionem in the intention and greatnesse of it it remaineth that it should be infinite secundum à urationem in respect of the continuance and enduring thereof Perer. 4. Further the equitie of Gods iudgement in punishing the temporall act of sinne eternally Hugo doth thus very well illustrate by these comparisons Like as when mariage is contracted per verba de praesenti by words vttered in the present tense though the contract be sone done yet the mariage remaineth all the life long so when the soule and sinne are contracted together it is no maruell if this contract holding during the life of the soule deserue euerlasting punishment And like as where the fuell and matter of the fire continueth the flame burneth still so sinne leauing a blot in the soule beeing the matter of hell fire is eternally punished because there is still matter for that euerlasting fire to worke vpon Thus then it is euident how the Lord euen in punishing sinne eternally doth reward men according to their workes for though the action of sinne be temporall voluntas tamen peâ—candi qua per poenitentiam non mutatur est perpetua yet the will to sinne which is not changed by repentance is perpetuall Gorrhan 17. Quest. How eternall life is to be sought v. 7. To them which in well doing seeke glorie honour c. In seeking of God who is eternall life three things must be considered locus tempus modus the place the time the manner 1. The place must be mundus quietus securus cleane quiet secure then first God is not to be sought vpon the bed of idlenes or carnall delight and therefore it is said Cantic 3. 1. In my bed I sought him but found him not that is no cleane place to seeke God in But yet the bed vndefiled is honourable Heb. 13.4 and the faithfull doe seeke God euen in their beds as Dauid saith Psal. 6.6 That he watered his couch with his teares Neither is God to be sought in the courts and streetes and tumultuous assemblies as Cantic 3.2 I sought him in the streetes but found him not and Hos. 5.6 They shall goe with their bullocks and sâ—eepe to seeke the Lord but shall not finde him such are no quiet places but God must be praied vnto in secret and sought in the quiet hauen of the conscience Neither is God to be sought in pompa where there is ostentation of pompe and vanitie as Christs parents found him not among their kinted but in the Temple disputing with the Doctors God is to be sought not in pompous shewes but in the assemblies of the Saints 2. Concerning the time God must be sought dum dies est dum prope est dum nobis predest while it is day while he is neare and at hand and when it may auaile vs. 1. First God is not to be sought in the night Cantic 3.1 I sought him in my bed by night c. but found him not so the Apostle saith The night is past the day is come let vs cast away the works of darknes God then is to be sought not in the time of ignorance and darknes but in the time of light and knowledge 2. The Lord must be sought when he may be found and is at hand Isa. 55.6 Seeke ye the Lord while he may be found call vpon him while he is neare while the Lord offereth grace vnto vs and standeth knocking at the doore of our hearts we must open vnto him 3. And in this life must we seeke God while mercie is shewed while the bridegroome crieth in the streetes Matth. 25.6 but when the doores are shut and this life is ended it is then too late to seeke for mercie 3. Touching the manner God must be sought in the heart in
Some giue this solution that there is no acception of persons in donis gratuitis in gifts of gratuitie and freely bestowed as election vocation are of the free gift of God he calleth and electeth whome he will but a person may be accepted in the distribution of that which doth of right appertaine vnto one and so the Lord accepteth no ma◠person but rewardeth euery one according to his worke Peter disput 6. numer 42. 2. Beza thus answereth that in the decree of election there can be no acception of persons when God electeth some before they haue any beeing and so are yet no person at all 3. But this answer is more full and sufficient there are three things to be considered in the accepting of persons 1. when some externall condition is respected beside the merit of the cause 2. and this is done contrarie to the law of equitie 3. and not without iniur◠done vnto an other when of partiall affection that is taken from one which is his right and adiudged to an other But none of these are seene in Gods election 1. he respecteth not any condition or qualitie in them which are elected but he maketh choice of them of his owne good pleasure 2. he is not tied to any law and so transgresseth no law 3. he doth not wrong vnto any in exempting some from destruction which in the rigour of his iustice is due vnto all like as Augustine putteth the case of two debters if the Creditour doe forgiue his debt vnto one and exact it of an other he doth no wrong it is free for him to doe what he will with his owne Matt. 20.15 Pareus Faius so as Augustine well determineth ibi acceptio personarum recte dicitur vbi ille qui iudicat relinquens causae meritum c. there acception of persons is rightly saide to be when he that iudgeth leauing the merit of the cause doth finde somewhat in the person for the which he giueth sentence with one against an other c. lib. 2. ad 2. epist. Pelagian c. 7. But to doth not God for he findeth no difference in the persons but all beeing in the same cause of damnation he of his owne free will forgiueth his debt vnto some and requireth it of others 4. Obiect But it is an accepting of persons as well cum aequalibus in aequalia tribnuntur c. when vnequall things are giuen to those which are equall in cause as when all are guiltie and yet one is saued an other condemned as when the persons are vnequall as the innocent condenmed and the guiltie freed God seemeth in the first kind to haue respect vnto persons freeing some from condemnation which belongeth in the rioour of Gods iustice to all Answ. 1. It is not simply an accepting of persons to giue vnequally where the cause is equall but when this is done with respect vnto some qualitie in the person as because he is rich or honourable or such like and the other is not But God doth not so he electeth some before other not for any respect to their persons but of his meere grace and fauour 2. betweene the decree of Gods election and the execution thereof there commeth the faith and pietie of the elect which maketh a manifest difference betweene them and the reprobate which freeth God from all partialitie who iudgeth men according to the qualitie of their workes See more afterward 3. addition to the places of doctrine 24. Quest. Of the meaning of these words v. 12. As many as haue sinned without the law shall perish without the law 1. Ambrose exposition here seemeth somewhat strange who vnderstandeth this not of the law of nature but of the law of Moses to the which the Gentiles were bound to giue assent and therefore duplici nomine sunt rei they are guiltie two waies because they did not giue assent vnto the law giuen by Moses nor receiued Christ c. Pererius refelleth this interpretation because the law of Moses did onely bind the Hebrewes neither were any of the Prophets commanded to publish the law of Moses to the Gentiles as afterward the Apostles were commanded to preach it to the Gentiles But Tolet somewhat qualifieth and excuseth Ambrose making this his meaning that he speaketh onely of the Gentiles who liued after the publishing and preaching of the Gospel who then were bound to beleeue and to receiue the writings of Moses and the Prophets which prophesied of Christ yet in this sense he thinketh that Ambrose expresseth not the Apostles full meaning who speaketh generally of the Gentiles both before and at the comming of Christ. 2. Chrysostome whome Anselme followeth doth interpret this to be iudged without a law levius puniri to be more easily punished for the Gentile hauing not the law as the Iew had is thereby somewhat excused But the Apostles purpose is not to shew any inequalitie of punishment betweene the Iew and Gentile but onely howsoeuer they are vnequall in knowledge yet because they are equall in sinne they shall both indifferently be punished 3. Some contrariwise doe make the case of the Gentiles more grieuous they shall perish without the law meaning the written law but the Iewes shall be iudged onely that is not punished eternally but for a time who afterward shall be saued this opinion is imputed to Origen hom 3. in Levit. and he insinuateth as much in his commentarie vpon this place Augustine reselleth this opinion concion 25. in Psal. 118. And it is euidently confuted by the saying of our Sauiour Matth. 11. that it shall be more easie for the Sodomites in the day of iudgement then for the vnbeleeuing Iewes Perer and they that haue done euill whether Iew or Gentile shall goe into euerlasting fire Matth. 25.46 Here then iudgement is taken for condemnation as it is vsuall in the Scripture as Ioh. 5.29 They that haue done euill shall come forth to the resurrection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of iudgement that is condemnation Tolet. 4. Pererius here maketh mention of the like opinion of certaine of their Catholikes who by iudging here vnderstand certaine transitorie paines in purgatorie which such shall endure but they shall not finally perish because they hold the foundation namely faith in Christ But Pererius confuseth them because the Apostle speaketh of such Iewes as beleeued not in Christ and therefore did not hold the foundation 5. Gregorie hath this obseruation vpon those words he maketh two degrees of those which shall be saued in the day of iudgement and two likewise of them which shall be condemned first alij iudicantur regnant some shall be examined first for their life and afterwards enter into Gods kingdome such as repented them of their former sinnes and did good workes such Christ shall say vnto for I was hungrie and ye gaue me meate c. alij electorum non iudicantur reginant others of the elect should not be iudged at all but presently reigne with Christ such are they
that are perfect as namely the Apostles who are promised to fit vpon twelue feares and iudge the twelue tribes of Israel So likewise for them that shall be condemned some sine iudicij examine condemnabuntur shall be iudged without any examination or iudgement such are the infidels which shall rise againe non ad iudicium sed ad tormentum not vnto iudgement but vnto torment as it is saide in Psal. 1. The wicked shall not stand vp in iudgement and here the Apostle saith of such they shall perish without the law But they which professed the faith and yet liued not thereafter redarguentur vt pereant shall first be iudged and reprooued and then perish like as in a commonwealth the Prince aliter punit civem delinquentem aliter hostem rebellantem punisheth a citizen offending one way examining his offence according to the law and an enemie rebelling an other way he vseth martiall law against such giuing sentence presently to condemne them But this obseruation of Gregorie seemeth somewhat curious the Apostle intendeth not here any such thing to shew any difference in the processe of iudgement betweene the Iewes and Gentiles but that they both beeing in the same cause of transgression shall be partakers of the same punishment And that there shall be but one manner of proceeding in iudgement both in rewarding the righteous and in condemning the wicked it is euident by that description of Christs comming to iudgement Matth. 25.31 6. Augustine here propoundeth this doubt that whereas the Apostle saith Rom. 4.15 Where there is no law there is no transgression how then can the Gentiles be found to be transgressors without the law for answer hereunto he maketh three kind of lawes one is the written law which is giuen vnto the Iewes not to the Gentiles and of this law speaketh the Apostle here that they sinned without the law and so shall perish without the law that is the written law of Moses there is beside the law of nature whereof the Apostle speaketh afterward v. 14. They hauing not the law are a law vnto themselues against this law the Gentiles sinned and by this law they shall be iudged the third law is that which was giuen vnto Adam in Paradise by which not onely he but all his posteritie are found to be transgressors and in respect of this law euen infants are found trespassers because of originall sinne to this purpose Augustine in the place before cited 25. Quest. Of the occasion of these words v. 13. The hearers of the law are not righteous before God but the doers shall be iustified 1. Some take this to be a new argument to conuince the Iewes that they could not be iustified by the law because the keeping and fulfilling of the law is required to make one iust which no man can doe and so consequently beeing not iustified by the law they must seeke to be iustified by faith Calv. Pareus But as yet the Apostle is not entred into that matter to prooue iustification by faith and not by the law he hetherto laboureth to conuince both Iewes and Gentiles that they are vnder sinne 2. Some take this to be the order that the Apostle prooueth both Iewes and Gentiles to be equall both quo ad naturam in nature for God hath no respect of persons v. 11. they are all alike by nature and quoad poenam in their punishment they are equall the one shall perish without the law the other shall be iudged by the law v. 12. then quoad culpam they are equall in the fault because neither of them are doers of the law Gorrhaen 3. Some thinke that here the Apostle meeteth with an obiection of the Iewes who seeing the Apostle to equalize them with the Gentiles might haue obiected that they had the law and so had not the Gentiles the Apostle then answereth that this did not helpe them because they were hearers onely of the law and not doers Martyr Gryneus 4. Tolet thinketh that this sentence is brought in as a probation of the 10. verse the glorie shall be to euery one that doth good otherwise that part should be passed ouer without proofe and so he thinketh this clause not specially to be meant of the Iewes but of the Gentiles also because it is said the doers shall be iustified which was common both to the Iewes and Gentiles not the hearers and doers which was proper to the Iewes who had the law written which was read vnto them and they heard it Faius also thinketh this to be a proofe of the tenth verse Contra. 1. But if S. Paul should prooue here that glorie shall be to euerie one that doth good and he immediately inferreth that the Gentiles doe by nature the things of the lawe it would follow that by nature they might doe good and so by their naturall workes obtaine glorie which is not to be admitted 2. that part concerning glorie to them which did good had not so much neede of proofe as the other because there were verie fewe found among the Gentiles that did such good workes as should be recompensed with glorie and honour and the Apostles principall intendment is to conclude both Iewes and Gentiles to be vnder sinne 3. and further that the Apostle speaketh of the written lawe here it is euident because that onely was heard neither needed he againe to repeate hearers of the lawe and doers it beeing mentioned before 5. Wherefore this rather is the coherence of this verse that whereas S. Paul in the former verse had shewed first the Gentiles without the lawe and the Iewes vnder the lawe to be sinners he prooueth the latter part first that the Iewes should be iudged by the law because as long as they were hearers and not doers it could not helpe them they should not thereby be approoued and iustified and in the next verses following he sheweth how the Gentiles should perish without the law because although they had not the written law yet they had the lawe of nature imprinted in them which guided them to doe some things agreeable to the lawe and so made them inexcusable And thus this whole disputation of the Apostle hangeth well together Bucer Aretius Quest. 26. Of the meaning of these words Not the hearers of the Lawe c. but the doers shall be iustified ver 13. 1. There are two kind of hearers some onely heare with the eare but vnderstand not Matth. 13.13 they hearing heare not neither doe vnderstand and there is an hearing ioyned with vnderstanding v. 15. least they should heare with their eares and vnderstand with their hearts of the first kind of hearing speaketh the Apostle here 2. Doers of the lawe the lawe is fulfilled two wayes one is in supposition that if a man could by his owne strength keepe the lawe he should thereby be iustified there is another fulfilling which is by the perfect obedience of Christ imputed to vs by faith whereof the Apostle speaketh Philip. 3.9 Not hauing mine
owne righteousnesse which is of the lawe but that which is thorough the faith of Christ of these the Apostle speaketh here that in part doe themselues liue according to the lawe and shewe their faith by their fruits supplying that which is wanting in them by the obedience of Christ by faith 3. There are two kinds of iustification one is verily and indeede before God which is by faith in Christ Rom. 3.26 the other is in the opinion of men Luk. 16.15 Ye are they which iustifie your selues before men of the former the Apostle speaketh here Gryneus see further for the exposition of this place controv 7. following Quest. 27. How the Gentiles which had not the lawe did by nature the things contained in the lawe This place is diuersly expounded 1. Some doe here vnderstand the Gentiles converted to the faith of Christ which doe naturally the worke of the lawe that is to beleeue in Christ not that faith is naturall but because duce natura credunt they beleeue nature so guiding them and while they beleeue opus legis oftendunt they shewe the worke of the Lawe to this purpose Ambrose whose meaning seemeth to be this that the Gentiles which receiued the Gospel were mooued by the light of nature seeing the great miracles which Christ did to acknowledge him to be the Messiah But 1. this is an improper speech to say that to beleeue is to doe the things of the lawe neither is faith a worke of the lawe for then he that is iustified by faith might be said to be iustified by the lawe which the Apostle euerie where opposeth and setteth one against the other and faith is called the work of God not of the lawe as Ioh. 6.29 This is the worke of God that ye beleeue c. 2. Neither by the light of nature can any come to beleeue but he hath neede of speciall illumination Iohn 6.44 No man can come vnto me except my father drawe him 2. Augustine likewise lib. de spirit liter c. 26. vnderstandeth this place of the Gentiles conuerted to the faith of Christ and so also lib. 4. con Iuli. c. 3. And thus he seemeth to prooue it because afterward v. 26. he saith If circumcision keepe the ordinances of the lawe shall not his vncircumcision be counted for circumcision here the Apostle speaketh of a Gentile conuerted for otherwise how could he keepe the lawe and it is like that in all these places the Apostle speaketh of the same kind of Gentiles and they are said naturally to doe the things of the lawe quia vt crederint ipsa in eis per Christi gratiam sanata est natura because that they might beleeue their nature was healed by grace to this purpose Augustine But this exposition may be thus obiected against 1. though it be admitted that afterward the Apostle speaketh of a Gentile conuerted to the faith it followeth not that he should so meane here for in this place the Apostle maketh mention of such Gentiles as had no other direction but the lawe of nature and their conscience and so are said to sinne without the law but in the other place he compareth with the Iewes such vncircumcised Gentiles which kept the ordinances of the lawe and had the true circumcision of the heart which they could not attaine vnto by the light of nature And so Origen though before he vnderstand the vnbeleeuing Gentiles qu. 21. yet there he thinketh the Apostle to meane the Gentiles conuerted see qu. 43. following Some thinke that the Apostle is there to be vnderstood to speake by way of supposition if circumcision keepe the ordinances of the lawe not that it did but if it did Calvin but it is there better referred to the conuerted Gentile O siand see afterward question 43. 2. If to doe by nature the things of the law were to doe it by nature illuminated by grace and faith then were there no difference here betweene Iewe and Gentile for the Iewe also did so keepe the lawe 3. and whereas it is said they hauing not the law he sheweth that they haue no other helpe but the lawe of nature whereas the conuerted Gentiles did such things by the instinct of grace and faith rather then by the light of nature 4. And whereas Augustine thus obiecteth that if it be the lawe of nature which is written in their hearts the Gospel should haue no priuiledge more then the lawe which the Lord is said to write in their hearts Ierem. 31.33 It may be answeared that the one is written in the heart ratione luminis naturalis by the meanes of the naturall light the other is written ratione luminis fidei by the light of faith and by the first naturall onely and morall duties are imprinted in the heart by the other beside these all other mysticall points of religion which nature cannot bring one vnto without faith this is the priuiledge then of the Gospel more then the lawe of nature hath Tolet. And Ieremie speaketh there of a supernaturall inscription and writing in the heart by grace the Apostle here of the naturall Pareus dub 14. 3. Some doe take the Gentiles here to be vnderstood not conuerted to the Gospell but such as liued before the times of the Gospel but beside the light of nature had auxilium diuinae gratiae the helpe of Gods grace whereby they kept the morall precepts of the lawe Thus Thomas interpreteth and Vega lib. 6. super decret concil Tridentin c. 21. so also Tolet that they did the workes of the lawe non quidem sine fide gratia but not without faith and grace annot 25. But this opinion is confuted by Medina lib. 4. de certa fide c. 7. and Pererius disput 8. numer 61. and it may be further refelled thus 1. If that were S. Pauls meaning that the Gentiles by their naturall light helped by faith did keepe the lawe they should not in this behalfe differ from the Iewes who did keepe the lawe by the same meanes also the light of nature assisted by grace 2. the Apostle saith they hauing not the lawe are a lawe to themselues but they which are ayded by grace are not a lawe to themselues they are guided and directed by grace 4. Some here vnderstand such among the Gentiles as had the true knowledge of God such were Melchisedeck Iob the Niniuites Cornelius Chrysost. Faius But these were not many among the Gentiles the Apostle seemeth to speake more generally of a great number among the Gentiles 5. Some thinke that the Gentiles by the light of nature though they beleeued not in God might doe workes of the lawe worthie of reward to this purpose Origen whose opinion is before confuted qu. 21. Lyranus seemeth also to incline hereunto obseruatio legis naturalis cum fide cultu vnius Dei ad quod inducit ratio naturalis aliquo modo sufficit c. the naturall obseruation of the lawe with the faith and worship of one God to
the which naturall reason iuduceth was some way sufficient to the Gentiles vnto saluation c. But nothing can be acceptable to God without faith not that generall faith and knowledge of one God but the knowledge of God in Christ for he is the way and doore and without him is no entrace into life 6. Wherefore the Apostle here describeth the Gentiles in generall euen before the times of the Gospel and such as had no other direction then by the lawe of nature which they had as the Apostle sheweth by these two arguments both by the externall workes of the lawe and by the inward testimonie of their conscience But the Apostle faith not they fulfilled the lawe they onely did certaine things prescribed in the lawe Martyr And he speaketh rather de notitia naturali quam de implenda legis facultate of the naturall knowledge which they had not of any power or facultie to fulfill the lawe Calvin Beza And he meaneth not all the Gentiles in generall but the wiser sort among them as Solon Socrates Aristides the Sciptoes Catoes with other who outwardly did some externall workes which the lawe commanded though they wanted the inward obedience Pareus Quest. 27. How any thing can be said to be written in the heart by nature seeing the minde is commonly held to be as a bare and naked table v. 15. Which shewe the effect of the lawe written in their heart It is the opinion of the best Philosophers as of Plato in Philebo that the soule of man by nature is like vnto a booke wherein nothing is written or like vnto a bare naked table Aristot. lib. 3. de anima c. 4. how then doth the Apostle here say that the lawe is written in their heart Answ. 1. Plato was of opinion that all things were at the first written in the soule but when it commeth into the bodie is blotted out againe and forgotten and vpon this ground that opinion is mentioned by the Platonists that scire est reminisci to know is nothing els but to remember But this assertion presupposeth that the soule of man had a beeing without the bodie and that there is a certaine promptuarie or seminare of soules from whence the soules are deriued into the bodies But this opinion is contrarie to the Scripture which affirmeth that God formeth the spirit of man within him Zach. 12.1 the soule of man is created within him in his bodie infundendo creatur creando infunditur it is created by infusion into the bodie and iufused by creation 2. therefore a better answer is that whereas Aristole saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that nothing is written in the vnderstanding it must be vnderstood actually yet potentia in possibilitie euerie thing is written there because the vnderstanding is apt and hath a capacitie to receiue and apprehend euerie thing 3. neither is that axiome of Philosophie generally to be vnderstood but to be restrained to such principles as are not engendred in the mind without instruction experience and obseruation as is the knowledge of arts otherwise there are some principles which are by nature imprinted in the soule as first the naturall conclusions which the soule apprehendeth of it selfe without any other demonstration as that God is to be worshipped parents are to be honoured that good and honest things are to be desired secondly there are certaine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 generall notions which are at the first apprehended onely by the sense as that the fire burneth that the whole is greater then the part and such like ex Perer. Quest. 28. Of the Lawe of nature what it is It shall not be amisse by occasion of these words of the Apostle who speaketh here of the lawe of nature written in the heart a little to digresse and briefly touch certaine questions of this matter and first we will see what this lawe of nature is and of what precepts it consisteth 1. It is euident by the Apostle here that there is a lawe of nature which he prooueth by â—o effects the one externall in the performance of some things agreeable to the lawe the other internall in the testimonie of the conscience But in this inward testimonie there are two things to be considered there is first that which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the comprehension of certaine practicall principles and a naturall discerning betweene good and euill iust and vniust then there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the conscience which either accuseth one for doing euill or excuseth him in choosing of that which is good the synteresis doth frame the proposition the syneidesis or cosncience the assumption as thus the naturall lawe reacheth that parents must be honoured and that they which disobey parents are worthie of punishment thus the proposition is framed out of the principles of nature then the conscience of the guiltie person supplyeth the assumption But we Cham Esau Absolom haue disobeyed our parents therefore we deserue punishment and the like practicall syllogismes may be made in other commandements Gryneus 1. Melancthon thus defineth the lawe of nature it is a knowledge of certaine principles belonging to the practise of life and of the conclusions thence necessarily inferred agreeable with the eternall rule of truth which God hath planted in the mind of man to be a testimonie vnto man that there is a God which ruleth and iudgeth the actions of men c. In this description there are the former causes expressed of the law of nature 1. the materiall cause or the obiect thereof wherein it is occupied and whereof it consisteth namely of certaine practicall principles with the conclusions gathered thereupon for the speciall scope of this naturall direction is for the the practise of life and not for speculation and in this naturall knowledge are not onely contained the first principles as parents are to be honoured but the conclusions thence diducted as out of this principle in generall euery one is taught by the light of nature in particular to conclude that therefore he must honour his parents 2. the formall cause is the agreement with the rule of truth and the equitie of Gods written lawe for the lawe of nature is a summarie abridgement of the morall lawe 3. then the efficient cause and author is God who hath written and imprinted this law in the heart of man as Ambrose thus defineth this naturall law quam Deus omnium creator singulorum hominum pectoribus iufudit which God the Creator of all hath infused into euerie mans breast epist. 71.4 then the end is that it should be a testimonie of the diuine prouidence and iudgement whereby he ruleth all things and in the ende will iudge the actions of men This description of the lawe of nature agreeth with the Apostles definition here it is the effect of the lawe written in our hearts the effect or worke sheweth the matter of the lawe the forme written the efficient for it is Gods writing the ende
is expressed afterward their conscience accuseth or excuseth them Quest. 29. What precepts the lawe of nature containeth and prescribeth This may be shewed both generally in the diuerse kinds of those things whereof these precepts consist and in particular by a seuerall induction and instance in the precepts of the morall lawe 1. Man is bound to carrie himselfe vpright both toward God that is aboue him toward other men like himselfe and toward such things as are inferiour vnto him and vnder his rule and command as within him his bodie sense affections without him honour riches pleasure and such like In all these man receiueth some direction from the lawe of nature for the first he is taught to loue God and feare him aboue all as beeing the maker of all things for the second there are two naturall precepts one affirmatiue whatsoeuer you would that men should doe vnto you doe vnto them Matth. 7.12 the other negatiue quod tibi fieri non vis alteri ne feceris that which you would not haue done to you offer not to another for the third euen Cicero by the light of nature could say animus imperat corpori vt Rex ciuibus ratio libidimi vt seruis dominus the minde ruleth the bodie as the king his citizens reason the lust as the master gouerneth the seruants lib. 3. de repub which words are cited by Augustine lib. 4. cont Iulian. c. 12. euen by naturall reason man hath some direction to guide himselfe in the desiring and coueting of the temporall things of this life 2. Another generall demonstration there is of these naturall precepts for man hath some naturall inclinations common to all other things some incident onely to things that haue life and some peculiar to humane nature of the first kind is the desire which euerie thing hath for it owne preseruation and hence it is that a man naturally declineth all things which are hurtfull to his life and is inclined by nature to preserue his bodie and life as Tullie saith generi animantium omni est à natura tributum c. it is giuen by nature vnto euerie liuing thing to defend it owne bodie and life of the second sort is the procreation and education of children which is by nature giuen vnto vnreasonable creatures of the third kind are those things which specially belong vnto the nature of man as a desire to knowe the truth and to acknowledge God and liue sociably with other men so Tullie also saith eadem natura virationis hominem conciliat homini adorationis vitae societatem c. the same nature by the force of reason doth ioyne man to man both in the societie of speach and life lib. 1. de officijs 3. But more euidently shall it appeare what nature prescribeth by particular induction in the seuerall commandements of the morall lawe 1. Concerning the worship of the onely God the heathen by nature had some knowledge thereof as Cyrellus lib. 1 cont Iulian. citeth Pythagoras Deus vnus est c. God is one not without the gouernment of the world as some thinke sed in ipso est tot â—s en toto orbe but he is in it wholly in the whole he considereth all generations the beginning of all things the father of all c. the same father sheweth how Orpheus recanted his error of the multitude of Gods and in the end ackowledged one onely God 2. And as touching the adoration of images Strabo writeth that the Persians had neither altars nor images and when they warred against the Greecians they ouerthrewe and burned their temples with their images the like Cornelius Tacit. writeth of the Germanes quod coelesti maiestati parum convenire putauerunt c. that they thought it not agreeable to the celestiall maiestie to include the gods within walls or to resemble them to any humane shape Numa Pompilius thought it vnlawfull to ascribe any forme either of man or beast vnto God that was invisible 3. Touching the abusing and profaning of the name of God Tullus Hostilius was killed with lightening and his house burned because he attempted by certaine irreligious excorcismes to call vp Iupiter Elicius Theophrastus as Plutarke writeth noted Pericles that beeing sicke shewed vnto his friend certaine enchanted toyes hanging about his necke 4. And the Gentiles also obserued their Sabboths and dayes of rest wherein it was of their blind and corrupt nature that they added many superstitious obseruations of their owne yet nature taught them that some time was to be set apart for the worship of their gods 5. The Gentiles also commended the honouring of parents and condemned disobedience vnto them therefore Solon beeing asked why he appointed no punishment for such as killed their parents answered because he thought that none would be so wicked to attempt any such thing 6. Such was the hatred of the detestable sinne of murther among the Romanes that for the space of 620. yeares from the first building of Rome none was found to haue beene killed within the citie walles by any priuate mans hand as Dion Holicarnass obserueth 7. Adulterie was odious by the light of nature among the Gentiles as appeareth by the iudgement of Pharaoh and Abimelech concerning Sara Abrahams wife Gen. 22. 20. 8. Theft by Draco his lawe was punished with death Solon thought that too grieuous a punishment and enioyned double restitution for theft the Indians and Scythians because they had not houses to keepe their goods in counted theft among the most grieuous offences the like opinion they had of fraud and impostures Cato beeing asked quod faenerari what it was to be an vsurer answeared quid hominem occidere what is it to kill a man 9. The Indians most seuerely punished those which were taken in a lie and generally among the heathen they so detested falshood and were iealous and suspicious of false testimonies that as Cicero saith it was generally receiued vt vel amplissimi homines ne in miximis rebus c. that no not the most excellent men euen in the smallest matters should giue testimonie in their owne cause and for the same reason they would not suffer any to be a witnesse against his enemie for it was supposed he would make a lie to endanger him whom he hated 10. The Gentiles also were not ignorant that it was vnlawfull to couer the things of another as when Xerxes dealt with Leonides to haue revoulted and promised to make him Monarch of Greece he receiued this answer from him If you had knowne saith Leonides what things are honest in mans life abstinuisses à concupiscendis alienis you would haue abstained from coueting other mens things And thus by this particular induction it is euident how the effect of the morall law is naturally written in the heart of man and that the lawe of nature if it be not blinded commandeth the same things which the written lawe of God ex Gualtero Quest. 30. What the lawe of
nature was before and after mans fall and wherein they differ In the lawe of nature there are two principall things first the vnderstanding and iudgement in apprehending and conceiuing these naturall principles touching our dutie toward God and our neighbour the other is in the will and affection in giuing assent and approbation vnto those things so by the vnderstanding conceiued In both these there was greater perfection in the naturall light which Adam was created with and that which is now remaining in his posteritie 1. Concerning the vnderstanding whereas the obiect thereof is either touching mysticall and diuine things apppertaining vnto God or morall and ciuill duties 1. In both these the mind of man is naturally obscured that it doth not so clearely see what is good or euill in morall duties much lesse in spirituall as Adam did in the creationâ— for there are some mysteries concerning the Godhead as of the Trinitie of the creation of the world and of the end thereof of the power and omnipotencie of God and such like which Adam in his creation had a perfect knowledge of but now such things by the light of nature cannot be attained vnto they are reuealed by grace as our blessed Sauiour faith this is life eternall that they knowe thee to be the onely verie God 2. as some things we knowe not at all by nature which were infused to Adam so these principles that remaine are but darkely and obscurely now reuealed in nature which were manifest to Adam both in spirituall things and morall duties that as the Apostle saith by this light of nature they could but grope after God Act. 17.27 3. An other defect in the vnderstanding is that men by great difficultie and labour now attaine vnto these things which Adam had infused without labour whereof the Preacher speaketh when he saith He that encreaseth knowledge encreaseth sorrowe Eccles. 1.18 4. Curiositie is an other fault in the vnderstanding when men are caried away from seeking after things profitable and are tickeled with a desire to search out hid and mysticall things to high aboue their reach as our parent Eue when she began to listen to the serpents suggestion was tempted to desire some accession and encrease of knowledge more then they had therefore the Apostle would haue euerie one vnderstand according to sobrietie Rom. 12.4 5. Now our vnderstanding is ouercast with a vanitie of mind which breaketh out into idle vaine and vnprofitable thoughts which was not in Adam who before his fall should haue beene occupied in nothing els but in the meditation of God and good things according to which patterne Dauid desireth that the meditations of his heart might be acceptable vnto God Psal. 19.14 6. Adam had the knowledge of good by experience of euill by contemplation But after his fall he had an experimentall knowledge of euill which now remaineth in his posteritie And these differences there are betweene Adams naturall vnderstanding and ours 2. In the will of man by nature there are these defects and infirmities which Adam had not 1. In spirituall and morall good things the will hath no inclination at all sauing in some ciuill things but to will that which is good it hath no free will or power at all without grace as the Apostle saith 2. Cor. 3.5 We are not sufficient of our selues to thinke any thing 2. in generall the will consenteth to that which is good but it fayleth in particular as by nature man knoweth that it is euill to steale murther committ adulterie and yet when it commeth to a particular act he approoueth and followeth the contrarie as S. Paul saith Rom. 7.19 I doe not the good thing which I would but the euill which I would not that doe I But Adam both in generall and particular did knowe what was good and might if he would himselfe haue giuen consent thereunto 3. Mans will is so froward by nature and peruerse that when as naturally euerie one desireth to be happie yet he willingly committeth those things against his intendment which make him vnhappier as a thiefe stealeth to keepe himselfe from famine and so from miserie and thus ut miser sic malus fit ideo miserior ect quia malus est least he should be miserable he becommeth euill beeing so much the more miserable because he is euill And by this meanes it falleth out that he becommeth that which he intended not 4. Further whereas the law of nature is that a man should not offer that to another which he would not haue done to himselfe yet now this naturall light is obscured with selfeloue that a man will not haue wrong done to himselfe yet he will wrong an other 5. The lawe of nature is that the reason should gouerne and the affections should be subiect to reason thus was it in Adan so is it nowe for the lust and concupiscence often preuaileth and swayeth against reason 6. the lawe is constant and vnchangeable and the will of man following the light of nature altreth nor but now the will of man is mutable and changeable 7. And whereas by the light of nature onely that which is good should be desired now the will is carried to followe things apparently euill as most notorious vices of adulterie drunkennesse pride and such like which by custome men delight in as Augustine saith peccata qumvis magna horrenda cum in consuetudinem venerint aut parua aut nulla esse creduntur sinnes though great and horrible when they are growne into custome are thought either to be no sinnes or verie small Enehurid c. 80. And in these particulars it is euident how farre the naturall light now remaining is declined from that perfection which it had in the first creation of man 31. Quest. Whether the light of nature though much obscured can altogether be blotted out of the minde of man Though the light of nature may be and is much dimmed and ouercast by the corruption of mans preposterous affections yet that is most true which Augustine resolueth vpon legem scriptam in cordibus hominum ne ipsa quidem delet iniquitas the law written in the hearts of men no not iniquitie and sinne it selfe can blot out lib. 2. confess c. 4. this conclusion may be further thus strengthened and confirmed 1. There are certaine generall principles and rules of nature which doe reuiue and remaine in most wicked men as euery one desireth to be happie neither is there any so carelesse of himselfe but would attaine vnto this ende though he may be deceiued in the means againe euery one by nature knoweth that euill is to be auoided and therefore he would not haue any wrong offered vnto him by an other because he taketh it to be euill and he likewise knoweth that good is to be desired and therefore that which he would haue an other to doe vnto him he desireth so to be done because he thinketh it to be good These generall rules and principles of
the more inexcusable because they knew their masters will and did it not 5. Thou allowest or triest the things that are excellent they had a discerning iudgement by the knowledge of the law to know good from euill iust things from vniust 6. Then that which was the cause of this their discerning they were instructed in the law and trained vp in the precepts thereof 7. Then follow their titles which they tooke vpon them to be masters and teachers of others a guide to the blind a light of them which were in darknes both of the Gentiles which were blind in respect of other nations and the more simple and ignorant Iewes But these priuiledges did nothing profit them because they followed not that which they taught others Pareus 39. Quest. How the Iewes are said to commit sacriledge v. 22. 1. They were not guiltie of sacriledge in giuing the diuine worship vnto idols as Gorrh. for the Iewes after their returne out of captiuitie excepting some in the time of the Macchabees who for feare were compelled to worship idols were free from idolatrie and if it had beene so S. Paul would haue directly charged them with idolatrie as he did before with adulterie 2. Neither is hereby vnderstood contemptus divinae maiestatis the contempt of the diuine maiestie Calv. Piscat for that is afterward touched by the Apostle v. 23. Thorough breaking of the law dishonourest thou God 3. Nor with Origen is the meaning Christum verum templum Dei violas thou dost violate Christ the true temple of God for in ioyning sacriledge with idolatrie he meaneth some externall sinne and the violence offered to the name of Christ is compreheÌ„ded vnder blasphemie which is obiected v. 24.4 Gryneus vnderstandeth it of arrogating to their owne merits that which was peculiar to the grace of God Pareus of the polluting of Gods seruice with their inuentions but some externall sacriledge is signified as is faide 5. Some referre it to that particular sinne of robbing and spoiling the house of God as the sonnes of Eli appropriated to themselues the things offered to God Martyr but S. Paul seemeth specially to touch the sinnes of that age present thou art called a Iew. 6. Some take this sacriledge to be meant of buying and selling the Priests office Osiand and in taking to their owne vse things ordained for the temple Lyran. Syriack interpret Haymo But the Iewes which were at Rome were not guiltie of those abuses committed against the Temple at Ierusalem 7. Therfore this sacriledge was rather the couetousnes of the Iewes who attrectabant idolathyta did handle things offered to idols and so committed sacriledge in vsing those things to their priuate commoditie which were consecrate to idolatrie which by the law of God should haue beene destroied Chrysost. Theophyl as the manner of the Iewes is at this day to buie chalices and other implements which are stolne out of the idolatrous Churches of the Romanists this is called sacriledge because such things as were dedicate to idolatrie no man was to conuert to his owne vse Gualt and Calvin misliketh not this sense 40. Quest. How the name of God was blasphemed by the Iewes and whether this testimonie be rightly alleadged by the Apostle v. 24. The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you as it is written There are two kinds of blasphemie one is in word wher the name of God is taken in vaine whereof we haue an example Levit. 24. when the blasphemer was stoned to death Grâ—â— and here there is great difference betweene these two blasphemare blasphemiam dieâ—â— to blaspheme and to say a blasphemie he blasphemeth which of set purpose profaneth and abuseth the name of God but one may through infirmitie and perturbation of mind spâ—â—â—â— that which is blasphemie and yet not blaspheme as Iob that complained that God had peruerted or ouerthrowne him Iob 18.6 the other kind of blasphemie is when that is giuen vnto God which appertaineth not vnto him as that he is cruell vniust or that is denied vnto him which is due vnto him as if any denie his prouidence mercie wisdome Faius 2. Here the Iewes are said to blaspheme God diuers waies 1. they did both themselues contumelia Deum afficere offer contumelie vnto the name of God in blaspheming Christ ad id alios inducunt and they teach others to doe so likewise Theoph. Gorrh. 2. they blasphemed God in the contempt of his law for he that willingly transgresseth the law contemneth it and the author of it Basil. reg brev resp 4. 3. and they did not onely blaspheme God themselues male vivendo in euill liuing but occasionem praebendo in giuing occasion to the Gentiles to speake euill of God and of his religion because he had chosen such a wicked and disobedient people Lyran. and of this latter kind of dishonouring and blaspheming God speaketh the Apostle here 3. Now for the allegation it selfe 1. some thinke that the Apostle borroweth this testimonie from the Prophet Isa 52.5 They that rule ouer them make them to houle saith the Lord and my name all the day continually is blasphemed so Origen Theophyl Tolet but the two things will be here alleadged 1. that the Apostle neither followeth the Prophets words for here are neither thorough you nor among the Gentiles 2. nor yet keepeth his sense for he speaketh of the blasphemie of the Chaldeans who insulted against God as though he were not able to deliuer his people Ans. 1. First of all those words are in the translation of the Septuagint which the Apostle followeth as beeing best knowne vnto the Grecians and Romanes and because there is eadem sententia the same sentence and sense Lyran. 2. And in that the Chaldeans blasphemed God as though he either would not or could not deliuer his people the occasion was ministred by themselues who for their sinnes were carried into captiuitie vpon which occasion their enemies blasphemed 2. Some referre vs to that place Ezek. 36.23 And I will sanctifie my great name which was polluted among the heathen among whome ye haue polluted it Hierome Ostand Calvin where it is euident that the Iewes by their euill life caused the name of God to be polluted among the heathen 3. But the Apostle rather hath reference to both those places not so much alledging a testimonie as shewing the agreement of that prophesie to those times then present that the Iewes by their euill life caused the name of God to be blasphemed and euill spoken of among the Gentiles Mart. Pareus 41. Quest. In what sense the Apostle saith Circumcision is profitable v. 25. Seeing the Apostle in other places vtterly reiecteth circumcision as Gal. 5.2 If ye be circumcised Christ shall not profit you any thing and v. 5. for in Iesus Christ neither doth circumcision attaâ—le any thing c. hence two doubts arise 1. how the Apostle saith here Circumcision is profitable if thou doe the law 2. seeing none could keepe
the law how could circumcision profit them Ans. 1. In those places the Apostle speaketh of circumcision then abrogated in the times of the Gospel but here he hath respect vnto the times of the law while circumcision was an ordinarie sacrament of the old Testament 2. Circumcision was profitable because ex parte Dei on Gods behalfe it was a seale of all his gratious promises if on their part they did performe the condition which was to walke in obedience this condition was added to meete with their hypocrisie which stood vpon the outward ceremonie thinking it sufficient for them to be circumcised in the flesh whereas circumcision without obedience was no better then vncircumcision and to stirre vp the faithfull to expresse their faith by their obedience and to looke vnto Christ in whom their disobedience was pardoned and their imperfect obedience by his righteousnes supplied Pareus 3. Thus Augustine dissolueth this doubt shewing that there were two kind of precepts giuen the Iewes the morall and ceremoniall the morall were perpetuall not onely concerning those times but they doe bind also now vnder the new Testament the ceremonies were onely for those times si observabantur intelligebantur non modo nihil oberant sid proderant tanquam illi tempori illi genti congruentia if they were obserued and vnderstood they did not onely not hurt but they were profitable as agreeable to those times and to that people to this purpose August exposit inchoat ad Galat. this solution follow Hugo Cardinal distingue tempora salvatur Scriptura distinguish the times and the Scripture is reconciled here the Apostle speaketh of the times before the manifestation of the Gospel so also Gorrhan hic loquitur pro tempore adventus Christi here he speaketh of the time before the comming of Christ there of the time after 4. Some giue this solution further that in those times profuit circumcisio sed non ad salutem circumcision profited but not vnto saluation without the spirituall obseruation of the law gloss ordinar as Hierome in his commentarie vpon this place if he were the author sheweth that circumcision was profitable to these ends 1. vt agnosceretur populus Dei inter gentes that the people of God hereby might be discerned among the Gentiles and therefore the people were not circumcised in the desert because they onely were there though other reasons may be giuen thereof Mart. deinde vt corpora tum agnoscarentur in bello that the circumcised bodies of the Iewes might be discerned in warre further it signified their chastitie and thereby Christ was signified to come of the seede of Abraham who should make an ende of carnall circumcition These and other such profitable vses of circumcision may be alleadged But the Apostle meaneth onely the profitable vse thereof as furthering their saluation as it was a seale of the righteousnes of faith and brought with it the circumcision of the heart in the obedience of the law si Christo credas spiritualiter observes if thou beleeue in Christ and spiritually keepe the law gloss interlin 5. Origen hath two other expositions the first is that the Apostle speaketh not here of carnall circumcision but of the spirituall circumcision of the heart which the Apostle speaketh on afterward and this circumcision consisteth in ceasing from sinne which is not sufficient vnlesse also we doe the works of righteousnes in keeping of the law and his reason is because the Apostle saith If thou be a breaker of the law thy circumcision is made vncircumcision non est possibile carnalem circumcisionem in praeputium verti it is not possible for carnal circumcision to be turned to vncircumcision therfore such vncircumcisiō the Apostle speaketh not of Contra. 1. the Apostle in this place speaketh euidently of two circumcisions the one carnall which of it selfe is not profitable without the keeping of the lawe and the other spirituall which is the circumcision of the heart of the former he speaketh here because he saith to the Iewe thy circumcision which was the circumcision of the flesh wherein they gloried and the circumcision of the heart consisted not onely in ceasing from sinne but in keeping also the lawe it is in the spirit and is acceptable to God v. 29. but a cessation from sinne onely without obedience is not accepted of God 2. the meaning of the other words is that such remission facta est abominalis Deo c. is become abominable vnto God as if it were vncircumcision Lyran. non plus valet quam praeputium it auaileth no more then vncircumcision Gorrhan yea and Origen himselfe so expoundeth afterward his circumcision shall be turned into vncircumcision that is nihil profuturam it shall not profit him at all 6. Origen hath an other exposition he thinketh that the Apostle may also speake of such circumcision as remained a while among the faithfull after the comming of Christ that although the Apostle allowed not the Gentiles to be circumcised to whom he saith Galat. 5. That if they were circumcised Christ should not profit them yet he beareth with the Iewes to whom he speaketh here to be circumcised least they might haue beene hindred from comming vnto Christ so their circumcision he maketh like to Peters discerning of meates which were some cleane some vncleane by the Lawe and to Pauls purifying himselfe Contra. There is great difference betweene these speaches circumcision is profitable and circumcision hindreth or hurteth not After the Gospel was preached and some ceremonies of the Lawe yet in fact remained beeing in right abolished the toleration of such things for a time was no impediment to the beleeuing Iewes but yet it furthered them not no more then Timothie his circumcision did profit him or Pauls purifying which both were done not for any benefit to themselues but least they might haue giuen offence and so hindered others But the Apostle speaketh here of the profit which circumcision brought which was onely during the continuance of such legall sacraments which were profitable vnto them then as beeing seales vnto them of the righteousnesse of faith in Christ so then circumcision with other legall tites was profitable vnder the lawe but after the ceremonies were abolished they became vnprofitable in the meane time betweene both as they profited not such as beleeued of the circumcision so they hindred not if they did not repose their trust and confidence in them Therefore of all these expositions I resolue of the first that the Apostle here speaketh of circumcision as it was an ordinarie sacrament vnder the lawe not yet abolished Quest. 42. How circumcision was availeable for infants Obiect If circumcision did not profit except they kept the law this doubt will be made that then it was not profitable at all vnto infants who could not keepe the lawe Answ. 1. Hugo answeareth that circumcision did not profit infants ex virtute sua sed ex virtute fide parentium by it owne vertue but by
the vertue and faith of the parents But although the beleeuing parents may obtaine graces by their faith for others yet formally none are iustified before God but by their owne faith or some grace infused by the spirit of God for as the parents sinnes cannot condemne the child so the parents faith cannot saue the infant 2. Gorrhan thinketh that circumcision herein was avayleable quia peccatum originale delebat because it blotted out originall sinne But it is euident by this place that the circumcision of the flesh did not outwardly conferre grace for then circumcision could neuer be turned to vncircumcision that is to be of no more force without keeping of the law then if they had not beene circumcised at all 3. Augustine as Pet. Martyr alleadgeth him not citing the place reporteth the opinion of some which affirmed that a man beeing once baptized though he were an euill liuer yet in the ende should be saued but should suffer many things in this life the like opinion the Iewes might haue of their circumcision and so it might be profitable to infants but more profitable to those that also kept the law But the Apostle denieth circumcision to be profitable any thing at all without keeping the law because it is turned into vncircumcision it is no more availeable then if they were not circumcised at all 4. Wherefore the best solution is that the Apostle speaketh not here of infants sed de adultis but of those which were of yeares and discretion that circumcision did not profit them vnlesse they kept the law as baptisme now is not any helpe vnto saluation to Christians that lead an euill life As for infants they were then saued by the couenant of grace sealed in circumcision as now in baptisme 43. Quest. What vncircumcised the Apostle here speaketh of whether such of the Gentiles as were conuerted to the faith and what keeping of the law he meaneth 1. Calvin thinketh that the Apostle saying v. 26. if the vncircumcision keepe the ordinances of the law speaketh ex hypothesi by way of supposition if any such could be found that did keepe the law which no man could so also Pareus de obedientia plena loquitur ad quam obligabat circumcisio he speaketh of the full and perfect obedience of the law vnto the which circumcision did bind and he speaketh ex hypothesi by supposition if the vncircumcision keepe But it is euident that the Apostle speaketh not by way of supposition as of a thing impossible to be done but supposing if it were done for then it would follow that circumcision were not profitable at all because he saith circumcision is profitable if thou keepe the lawe if the Apostle should speake of the perfect keeping of the lawe which is impossible then all profitable vse is denied to circumcision but he â—ealed not so much detract from that holy institution of God circumcision indeede did bind them to keepe the whole law but it did profit them if there were an endeauour in them and care to keepe the lawe though they perfectly keepe it not 2. But Lyranus here hath a verie vnfound assertion that the Apostle should here speake of such vncircumcised Gentiles which did the workes of the Lawe ex rationis naturalis dictamine erant Deo accepti by the direction onely of naturall reason and were acceptable to God which cannot be that any not hauing faith by the light onely of nature should be accepted of God for without faith it is impossible to please him Heb. 11.6 3. The interlinearie glosse hath an other exposition by the ordinances of the law vnderstanding fidem Christi the faith of Christ whom the lawe did foretell should come for our iustification but faith in Christ is no worke or ordinance of the lawe for the Apostle concludeth that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the lawe Rom. 3.28 which were no good conclusion if faith in Christ were a worke of the lawe yet I denie not but the Apostle speaketh of such keeping of the lawe as proceeded from faith 4. Wherefore the Apostle here vnderstandeth such Gentiles as were conuerted to the faith as Origen expoundeth qui ex praeputio ad Christi fidem venerunt which came vnto the faith of Christ from vncircumcision for the idolaters among the Gentiles beeing not conuerted vnto Christ could not doe the workes of the lawe fayling in the first commandement which forbiddeth idolatrie such faithfull therefore among the Gentiles are vnderstood which had the knowledge of God Faius such as Iob was and to fulfill or keep the lawe here is taken pro legis seruandae studio for the studie and endeauour to keepe the law Faius so also Gryneus he saith in effect si Ethnicus aliquis fidei obedientiam praestaret if any Ethnicke or Gentile should performe the obedience of faith he should condemne a Christian that onely is baptized and performeth not such obedience But here it will be thus obiected on the contrarie 1. Obiect The Apostle saith v. 27. If vncircumcision by nature keepe the lawe shall it not iudge thee the Apostle then meaneth those which by the light of nature onely keepe the lawe Answ. 1. Some doe thus expound ex natura per gratiam reparata by nature repaired by grace gloss interlin so also Gorrhan saith that this keeping of the law is vnderstood to be by faith which is of nature preparative by way of preparation but of grace completive by way of perfection for the illumination of the soule is of grace the consent is of the will reformed by grace Contra. 1. It is an erroneous assertion that faith is partly of nature partly of grace it is wholly the worke of the spirit 1. Cor. 12.9 the will indeede consenteth yet not by it owne naturall power God as Augustine saith ex nolentibus volâ—tes facit of nilling maketh vs willing and the will concurreth not actively in any good worke or formally but passiuely and materially as not working but beeing wrought vpon 2. If nature should here be so taken restoared by grace there should be no difference in this behalfe betweene the Gentile and the Iewe for euen the Iewe also by grace illuminating his nature was enabled to keepe the Lawe though imperfectly but the Apostle seemeth here to speake of somewhat peculiar to the vncircumcised Gentiles 2. The Syriake interpreter in his annotations thinketh that by nature is here onely opposed to the lawe and the letter not excluding all other helpes beside nature but onely the helpe of the written law but then one that worketh by grace may be said to worke by nature which are opposite the one to the other c. 11.6 if by grace then not of workes that is naturally done without the helpe of grace 3. Wherefore the words are thus rather to be placed and that which is by nature vncircumcision keeping the Lawe as the words stand in the originall not thus vncircumcision which by nature keepeth the lawe as
him without faith or any speciall assistance from God may by his owne strength doe something morally good it a vt nullum peceatum in eo admittat so that therein he shall not commit any sinne lib. 5. iustificat c. 5. That the falsitie of this assertion may the better appeare 1. We must distinguish of the light that is giuen vnto man which is threefold 1. There is the light of nature which Christ giueth vnto euerie one that commeth into the world as he is their Creator Ioh. 1.9 this is giuen vnto all by nature they are endued with a reasonable soule and in the same by nature is imprinted this light 2. there is beside this naturall light an other speciall light and direction concurring with that naturall light which though it be not so generall as the other yet it is common to many vnregenerate men that haue not the knowledge of God as the Lord saith to Abimelech Gen. 20.6 I kept thee that thou shouldst not sinne against me this common grace many of the heathen had whereby they were preserued from many notorious crimes which other did fall into 3. There is beside these the grace of Christ whereby we are regenerate and enabled to doe that which is acceptable vnto God through Christ of this grace we meane that without it the light of nature is not sufficient to bring forth any good worke 2. Secondly we graunt that this light of nature beeing illuminated by the grace of Gods spirit and lightened and perfected by faith is able to bring men to performe good workes agreeable to the lawe As is euident in the fathers before the flood and after the flood in Noah Sem Abraham and other of the faithfull when as the lawe and Scriptures were yet vnwritten that by the grace of God which lightened their naturall vnderstanding they wrought righteousnesse and pleased God 3. But this must be receiued withall that Gods grace and the light of nature doe not concurre together as cooperators and fellowe workers but it is grace onely that worketh the nature of man is wrought vpon the spirit of God is onely actiue the power of nature is passiue in all good workes and therefore in this sense we mislike that position of Pereius legem naturalem Christi gratia illustratam valere ad piè vinendum that the lawe of nature lightened by the grace of Christ avayleth to liue well for thus the lawe of nature it made a ioynt worker with grace vnto godlinesse of life we say it is wrought vpon by grace it worketh not but onely as a naturall facultie and agent the spirituall goodnesse is all of grace 4. But that no vertuous act or morall good worke can be performed by the light of nature onely without grace it is euident out of these and such other places of Scripture Gen. 6.5 The imaginations of the thoughts of mans heart are onely euill continually Ioh. 3.6 That which is borne of the flesh is flesh Ioh. 15.5 Without me ye can doe nothing Rom. 14.23 Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne All these places euidently shewe that there is no actiuitie power abilitie or inclination to any thing by nature without grace see further Synops Centur. 4. err 43. pag. 845. Controv. 10. Of the imperfection of the vulgar Latine translation v. 15. Erasmus noteth a great defect of the Latine translation in the reading of this verse for whereas in the Greeke text it is put absolutely in the genetiue case their thought accusing one another or excusing which is expressed by the genitive case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the originall because they want the ablatiue the Latine translator putteth it in the genitiue cogitationum of their thoughts accusing or excusing Gorrhan would thus helpe this matter that it must be referred to the word conscience going before their conference bearing witnesse that is not onely the conscience of their workes but euen of their thoughts but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and comming betweene them sheweth that these words doe not hang one vpon another he saith this is more Grecorum after the manner of the Greekes which vse the genitiue for the ablatiue but seeing the Latines haue their ablatiue cases wherein things absolutely spoken vse to be put the Latine interpreter should haue followed the vse of the Latine tongue therefore I say and conclude with Erasmus here they which thinke the Latine interpreter did not erre vnum bunc locum si possunt expediant let them free this place if they can Controv. 11. That the Sacraments doe not conferre grace v. 25. Circumcision availeth if thou keepe the lawe the opinion of the Romanists is that circumcision did actually conferre vpon infants remission of sinnes mundabat cos à peccato originali and did clense them from originall sinne Perer. disput 17. c. 2. numer 105. so also Gorrhan Contra. 1. But the contrarie is euident here for the Apostle saith If thou be a breaker of the lawe thy circmcision is made vncircumcision it was no more avayleable then if they had no circumcision at all But if they had actually receiued remission of sinnes in circumcision it must needs be better then vncircumicision whatsoeuer desert followed afterward 2. That which cleanseth the soule hath praise with God v. 19. now the circumcision of the flesh hath no praise with God but the circumcision of the spirit the circumcision then of the flesh doth not cleanse or purge the soule to this purpose Hierome invisibilia non indigent visibilibus visibibilia indigent invisibilibus eo quod visibilia sunt imago invisibilium invisibilia sunt veritas visibilium invisible things doe not neede visible but the visible haue neede of the invisible because the visible are the image of the invisible but the invisible are the veritie of the visible the circumcision then of the flesh needeth the circumcision of the heart but the circumcision of the heart needeth not the circumcision of the flesh for the truth hath no need of the image but the image hath need of the truth c. remission of sinnes then is not tied to the sacrament it may be conferred without it but the sacrament needeth the inward operation of the spirit to make it effectuall as the Apostle saith cleansing it by the lauer of the water in the word the water is the instrument of cleansing but the efficient and working cause is the word the sacraments then conferre not grace but the spirit in and with the Sacrament and also without it worketh grace Controv. 12. That the Sacraments depend not vpon the worthinesse of the Minister or receiuer This may be obserued against that paradox of the old Donatists who measured the sacraments by the worthines of the Minister vpon which ground they refused baptisme ministred by heretikes or euill liuers and after such baptisme they baptized againe the Donatists held baptisme ministred by schismatickes or heretikes to be no baptisme Augustin lib. 2. de baptis c.
6. and the heretikes called Apostolin denied that wicked men could minister the Sacraments Bernard serm 66. in Cantic Contra. 1. This place of the Apostle that circumcision profiteth if one keepe the lawe doth not fauour any such opinion for the Apostle speaketh not of the dignitie and worthinesse of the sacraments which dependeth vpon the institution sed de fructu but of the fruit thereof Mart. Gualt 2. neither the vnworthinesse of the minister maketh the sacrament voide for Iudas baptized with the rest of the Apostles nor yet of the receiuer for he that eateth and drinketh vnworthily shall be guilty of the bodie and blood of the Lord if his vnworthinesse made it no Sacrament he should not be guilty of so great a sinne But the vnworthinesse both of the one and the other maketh the sacrament void and without fruite vnto themselues Controv. 13. Against the Marcionites and other which condemned the old Testament and the ceremonies thereof The Marcionites among the heathen reiected circumcision and condemned the author of the old Testament for the same and the Stoiks among the heathen denied the same as beeing an invention not beseeming God who thus obiected as Origen sheweth in this place 1. It was not a thing answearable to the clemencie and goodnesse of God to command infants so to be wounded and cruelly handled in their infancie 2. If the foreskinne of the flesh be a superfluous part why was it made if it be not why should it be cut off 3. by this meanes many were terrified from taking vpon them that religion which God desired to be propagated both for the shame and painfulnesse of circumcision and so it fell out to be impedimentum religionis non insigne an impediment rather then an argument and cognizance of religion These obiections are thus sufficiently answeared by Origen 1. He sheweth against the Gentiles that circumcision was had in honour euen amongst them and therefore they had no reason to scorne and deride that as a thing dishonest among the people of God which was of great estimation among them for among the Egyptians who were most addicted of all other people to superstitious rites and from whom all other nations borrowed their ceremonies there was none giuen to the studie of Astrologie Geometrie but was circumcised so were all their Priests and Ministers of sacred things 2. Against those which professed Christ and yet refused the old Testament with all the rites thereof he sheweth the conueniencie of circumcision that seeing we were to be redeemed by the blood of Christ before that price was paid for our redeemption it was necessarie for them which were instructed in the lawe vnumquemque pro se velut ad imitationem quandam futurae redemptionis sanguinem suum dare euerie one for himselfe to giue his blood in imitation of the redemption to come but now seeing the blood of Christ hath beene offered for vs it is not now necessarie that euerie one for himselfe should offer the blood of circumcision 3. Then he commeth to answear the particular obiections 1. If you blame God for imposing so hard a thing vpon infants why also doe ye not finde fault that Christ was circumcised the 8. day vulnera passionis excepit was wounded in his passion and shed his blood 2. And if this bloodie Sacrament terrified men from their religion then exempla martyrum prohibebant homines accedere ad fidem by the same reason the example of martyrs much more should haue hindered men from comming to the faith 3. And though there had beene no other mysterie in circumcision it was fit that the people of God should carrie some badge and cognizance to discerne them from other people and if the amputation or cutting off some part of the bodie were requisite what part was more fit then that quae obscaena videbatur which seemed to be obscene 4. And whereas they obiect if it be not a necessarie part it should not haue beene created if necessarie it should not be cut off they may be answeared by the like they will not denie but that the procreation of children is necessarie then by this reason virgins and all vnmarried persons and such as haue made themselues chast for the kingdome of God should be blamed quia necessariâ—s naturae officijs non ministrant because they doe not giue their seruice to the necessarie offices of nature 5. And so he concludeth thus As there were many washings and baptismes in the lawe before the baptisme of Christ many purifyings before the purifying by the spirit many sacrifices before that alone sufficient sacrifice was offred vpon the crosse so multorum sanguinis effusio processit the shedding of the blood of many went before vntill the redemption of all came by the blood of one And here the Apostle stoppeth their mouthes saying that circumcision was profitable how then doe they reiect it as a thing vaine and vnprofitable to this purpose Origen vpon this place Controv. 14. Against the Anabaptists which reiect the Sacraments of the newe Testament Whereas the Apostle saith v. 28. Neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh the Anabaptists take occasion by these and such like words to condemne all the Sacraments of the newe Testament and the outward ministerie thereof in like manner S. Paul saith 1. Cor. 7.19 Circumcision is nothing nor vncircumcision but the keeping of the commandements But their obiection may be answeared out of this place where the Apostle had said a little before v. 25. Circumcision is profitable if thou doe the lawe The Apostle then condemneth not outward circumcision simply but if it be externall onely and not ioyned with the inward circumcision Mart. Controv. 13. That the want of baptisme condemneth not v. 29. Seeing the Apostle saith that the outward circumcision is not that which hath praise of God but the inward in the spirit and the like may be said of baptisme which succeedeth in the place of circumcision then it followeth that like as many circumcised in heart were saued without the circumcision of the flesh so also many hauing the spirituall baptisme of the soule by faith in Christs blood may be saued the outward sacrament beeing not by them contemned or neglected but by some vrgent necessitie denied as Ambrose saith concerning Valentinian the younger Emperor who deceased without baptisme Christus te baptizavit quia humana officia defuerunt Christ baptized thee where other humane offices were wanting c. and againe detersa labe peccati ablutus ascendit quem sua fides lauit he is ascended to heauen beeing washed from his sinne whom his owne faith washed Ambros. tom 5. de obit Valentin The like may be affirmed of infants the seede of the faithfull that they dying without baptisme Christ baptizeth them they are within the couenant of grace and so stand according to Gods promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seede Gen. 17.7 Like as then the want of circumcision was
punishment B. Par. immittit iram sendeth his wrath T. inducit iraâ—â— bringeth in his wrath that is punishment I speake according to man V.L. Or. as a man G. as the sonne of man T. after the manner of man B.Be. 6 God forbid farre be it or let it not be Or. els how shall God iudge the world Or. this world L.R. 7 For if the veritie of God hath more B. abounded thorough my lie in my lie L. so is the originall but the preposition in is taken for through why am I yet condemned as a sinner 8 And not rather as we are blasphemed orig as some speake euill of vs. Be. V. but the word in the orig is in the passive as we are slanderously reputed B. and some affirme that we say let vs doe euill that there may come good whose damnation is iust or whose damnation is reserued for iustice T. 9 What then are we more excellent no in no wise for we haue already or before prooued G. or pronounced T. not before accused Be. B. L shewed by rendring the cause V. the word properly so signifieth to giue a reason or shew the cause all both Iewes and Gentiles to be vnder sinne 10 As it is written There is none righteous no not one there is not any iust L.R. but the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one is here omitted 11 There is none that vnderstandeth there is none that seeketh after B. God 12 They haue all gone out of the way they are together become vnprofitable there is none that doth good no not one vnto one Or. 13 Their throat is in an open sepulchre with their tongues they haue deceiued B. Or. vsed their tongues to deceit Be. G. the poison of aspes is vnder their lippes 14 Whos 's mouth is full of cursing and bitternes 15 Their feete are swift to shed blood 16 Destruction not hearts griefe B. the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrition destruction and calamitie V.B.G. miserie B. vnhappines L. griefe T. are in their waies 17 And the way of peace they haue not knowne 18 The feare of God is not before their eyes Or. not there is no feare of God before their eyes for the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not is an adverb 19 Now we know that whatsoeuer the Law saith it saith to them which are vnder the Law in the law Or. that euery mouth may be stopped and all the world may be culpable G. obnoxious V. Be. subiect L. R. endamaged B. subiect to condemnation B. the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to be vnder the sentence that is guiltie vnto God 20 Therefore not because L.B. because that V. for it is a conclusion inferred out of the former words by the works of the Law shall no flesh be iustified in his sight or before him L. for by the Law commeth the knowledge of sinne by the law sinne is knowne T. 21 But now is the righteousnes of God made manifest without the Law hauing witnes of the Law and the Prophets 22 To wit the righteousnes of God by the faith of Iesus Christ toward all vnto all B.G. but the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in omnes toward all and vpon all that beleeue the righteousnes of God by faith c. L.V.T. but it is better to ioyne it by way of exposition to the former verse for this righteousnes by faith is the same which in the former verse he called the righteousnes of God for there is no difference these words some make part of the next verse the 23. Genev but in the original they ende the 22. verse 23 For all haue sinned and are depriued of the glorie of God G. Be. or come short as of the marke not haue neede of the glorie of God L. B. or are destitute V. T. for that doth not sufficiently expresse the meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to come short 24 But are iustified beeing iustified L. Or. but the participle must be resolued into the verbe freely by his grace thorough the redemption that is in Christ Iesus 25 Whome God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood for the shewing of his righteousnes by the forgiuenes of the sinnes which were past before 26 Through the patience of God by the space which God gaue vs by his long suffering T. but this is interpreted rather then translated for the shewing of his righteousnes in this present time at this time G.B.L.T. but in the originall there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nunc now that is this present that he might be iust and a iustifier of him which is of the faith of Iesus Or. of Iesus Christ. L. of our Lord Iesus Christ. T. 27 Where is then the boasting reioycing G. it is excluded by what law of works nay but by the law of faith 28 Therefore we conclude G. or collect or gather B.V. as by reason and argument so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not we thinke L. or hold B. that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the Law 29 Is he God of the Iewes onely and not of the Gentiles also yes euen of the Gentiles also 30 For it is one God which shall iustifie iustifieth L.T. but the word in the originall is in the future tense the circumcision of faith through faith T. but the preposition here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of and the vncircumcision through faith 31 Doe we then make the Law of none effect through faith not destroy the law through faith L.B. for the same word was vsed before v. 3. shall their vnbeleefe make the faith of God without effect not destroy it God forbid yea we establish the Law 2. The Argument Method and parts IN this Chapter the Apostle proceedeth to prooue that the Iewes notwithstanding certaine priuiledges which they had yet because of their vnbeleefe were not better then the Gentiles and so he concludeth all vnder sinne and vnable to be iustified by their workes whereupon it followeth that they must be iustified by faith This chapter hath three parts The 1. from v. 1. to v. 9. wherein he remooueth certaine obiections which might be â—ooued by the Iewes which are three in number 1. Obiection is propounded v. 1. in making the case of the Iewes and Gentiles alike he should seeme to take away all priuiledge from the Iewes the answer followeth in graunâ—ing their priuiledge v. 2. and confirming the same by the constancie of Gods promises v. 3. which he prooueth by certaine testimonies out of the Psalmes v. 4. 2. Obiection is propounded v. 5. and it ariseth out of the testimonie before alleadged that if God be declared to be iust when he iudgeth and punisheth mens sinnes then he should not do well to punish that whereby his iustice is set forth v. 5. the answer followeth v. 6. taken froÌ„ the office of God he can not be but most iust seeing he shall iudge the
which the Apostle vseth els where as 1. Cor. 9.17 the dispensation is credited or committed vnto me maketh for the credit of those to whose fidelitie these oracles were committed facit ad honorem personae cui confidimus it maketh for the honour of the person which we trust as Ambrose saith maximam fuisse laudem Iudaeorum c. it was a great praise for the Iewes that they were counted worthie to receiue the law 7. And this word of crediting sheweth that what was committed vnto them exigendum cum vsuris was to be exacted with vsurie Gorrhan God would require an account of them of his law which he had credited and committed vnto them as is shewed in the parable of the talents Hugo 8. This then was the priuiledge and preheminence of the Iewes that they were first depositarij tum oeconomi first keepers of Gods oracles committed vnto them and afterward stewards and dispensers of them Calv. for the Apostles preached the word of God vnto the Gentiles as it is prophesied Isa. 2.3 The Law shall goe forth of Sion and the word of God from Ierusalem and so our blessed Sauiour saith Ioh. 4.22 that saluation is of the Iewes 9. But this further here is to be obserued that whereas v. 1. the Apostle propounded two questions one of the preheminence of the Iewes the other of the profit of circumcision he insisteth onely vpon the first and omitteth the other both because he had answered before concerning circumcision that it is profitable if one keepe the law c. 2.25 and he hasting to other things reserueth that matter to a fitter place c. 4. Pareus 2. Quest. How mens vnbeleefe can not make the faith of God without effect 1. By the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is rather vnderstood their perfidiousnes rebellion and falling away from God then the not beleeuing of his promises Beza and by the faith of God is meant his verilie and constancie in keeping his promises as Psal. 33.4 All his workes are faithfull Pareus the Apostle then vnderstandeth fidem datam faith giuen by God Bez. and the truth of his promises Bucer now as the former obiection might be made by the Iewes that if their case were no better then the Gentiles then they should haue no preheminence at all so this second obiection might be mooued by the Gentiles that although God for his part had made vnto the Iewes many gracious promises yet they by their deâ—â—elt had depriued themselues of the benefit thereof to this obiection then the Apostle maketh this answer that their vnbeleefe could not make the faith and promise of God of no effect 2. This some expound of the absolute promises of God for some of his promises are absolute as those made to the fathers of the giuing of the lawe and of the comming of Christ some were conditionall as that they should for euer inherite the land of Canaan if they walked in Gods commandements the first is called by the schoolemen prophesia predestinationes the prophesie of predestination the other the prophesie comminationis of commination and diuerse will haue the first kind to be here vnderstood as Lyranus Caietas Perer. Faius Pareus reiecteth this interpretation because all the promises of the Lawe and Gospel haue annexed the condition of obedience or faith 3. Some giue this sense by faith vnderstanding the beleefe of the faithfull reposed in Gods promises that the infidelitie of some could not evacuate the faith of others Origen but by the words following let God be true shew that the faith of God that is made by him not faith reposed in him is here signified 4. Some thus expound quantum ad Deâ—â— that God for his part is readie to keepe his promises if men performe the condition but if they by their infidelitie depriue themselues of the promise the fayling is in themselues and not in God Pareus dub 1. But this doth not fully satisfie for if the promises of God should haue beene altogether evacuated though not by any inconstancie in God but their infidelitie yet they should haue beene without effect which the Apostle denieth 5. Chrysostome thus inferreth that their incredulitie is so farre from laying any fault vpon God vt maiorem illius ostendit bonitatem that it more commendeth his goodnesse when he seemed to honour those which dishonoured him So also Beza the goodnesse of God is so much the more commendable quanto indigniores sunt quorum miseretur the more vnworthie they are that he hath mercie on But to the incredulous the promises of God were of no effect they were depriued Heb. 4.1 6. Therefore it must be obserued that the Apostle saith not all but some what though some did not beleeue Gualter they then which beleeued not non praeiudicabant caeteris â—â— not hinder or were preiudiciall to those which beleeued gloss ordinar he signifieth semâ— mansisse quosdam c. that there were alwaies found among them in that nation that beleeued in Gods promises and therefore the promises of God are not evacuate Calvin like as though the Sunne seeme not to rise vnto those which are blind yet he doth rise vnto those that are of perfect sight Gryneus as then the Sunne should rise though no man could see it yet God hath ordained both that the Sun should giue light and some should enioy it So God would shewe himselfe true and stedfast in his promises though all men should fall away from him yet he hath ordained that as he keepeth truth in his promises so there should be alwaies some in the Church which should beleeue them Quest. 3. How God is said to be true 1. The vulgar Latine readeth God is true and so some of the fathers haue followed that reading as Cyprian epist. 55. ad Cornel. and Ambrose lib. 3. de fide c. 3. and so the Syrian interpreter but in the originall Greeke it is in the imparatiue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let God be true which Origen thinketh must be vnderstood non praeceptive by way of precept but pronuntiative as pronouncing that God is true And here it is taken in the same sense as when we say in the Lord prayer let thy name be hallowed then fiat let him be is here all one as manifestetur let him be manifested to be true sit nobis verax intelligatur let him be true to vs that is be so taken and vnderstood to be Photius so also Basil lib. 4. cont Eunom 2. Now this difference is betweene veracitie and fidelitie the first is circa verba aboue words that no vntruth be vttered the other is circa pacta concerning couenants and premises in keeping and performing them faithfulnes and fidelitie alwaies includeth verilie but there may be veritie in speaking without fidelitie when as truth is onely vttered without any promise to performe any thing But here veracitie is taken for fidelitie as Psal. 8.15 the Lord is said to be great in kindnes and truth Tolet. 3. Now the Lord is
and deuising lies many times to beguile and deceiue Gryneus Martyr 2. Hugo thus distinguisheth these kinds of lying there is triplex vanitas a threefold vanitie which a threefold lying followeth there is vanitas essentiae the vanitie of mans nature and essence which is to be mutable and changeable and this is common to man with all other creatures and hence is the first kind before spoken of then there is vanitas miseriae the vanitie of miserie and wretchednes which is incident to all liuing things such is the miserie of mans nature that neither he can doe what he would neither yet often will doe that which he can hence is the peruersnes of the will in not performing and keeping that which is promised which is the second kind before spoken of the third is vanitas culpae the vanitie of sinne which is proper onely to the reasonable creature hence are the two last kinds before spoken of either to giue eare vnto lies or to deuise them 3. But there is great difference betweene mentiri mendacium dicere betweene lying and telling of a lie one is said to lie when he doth it anima fallendi with a mind to deceiue one may tell a lie and yet not lie himselfe when he reporteth that which is false as many such false and fabulous things are found in Herodotus and Plinic Faius 4. Augustine distinguisheth a lie into three kinds there is perniciosum officiosum iocosum a pernicious lie which is to deceiue and to doe hurt an officious lie which is made to preserue an others life and a lie made in merriment in sport none of these lies can be iustified but the first is the worst But here is no place at large to handle these things I referre the Reader to the questions vpon the 9. Commandement in Hexapla vpon Exodus chap. 20. 5. Quest. Whether euery man can be said to be a liar Origen here mooueth this doubt if euery man be a liar then Paul also was a liar and Dauid for they were men 1. Hierome vpon this place would haue this generall particle all to be restrained and to be taken for the most part as when S. Paul saith All seeke their owne and Psal. 14.5 All are gone out of the way But it is euident v. 12. of this chapter that the Apostle vnderstandeth all without any exception 2. Some by omnis euery one vnderstand the Iew or such as were incredulous gloss ordinar But Beza well maketh a difference betweene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disobedient vnfaithfull which he affirmed onely of some and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a liar which he ascribeth to all without exception 3. An other answer is that in respect of God all men are said to be liars because God onely is immutable But in this sense not onely men but Angels should be said to be liars for they also are mutable and changeable beeing compared with the Creator 4. There are then two answers which will fully satisfie 1. the Apostle speaketh of men as they are in themselues by nature so euery one is apt and prone vnto lying not as they are regenerate and renewed by grace and speake by the spirit of God as Dauid and Paul did Pereus this solution followeth Augustine in his commentarie vpon the 116. Psalme Euery 2. This some expound of the absolute promises of God for some of his promises are absolute as those made to the fathers of the giuing of the lawe and of the câ—â—â—â—ing of Christ some were conditionall as that they should for euer inherite the land of Canaan if they walked in Gods commandements the first is called by the schoolemen propâ—esia predestinationis the prophesie of predestination the other the prophesie comminationis of commination and diuerse will haue the first kind to be here vnderstood as Lyranus Caietan Perer. Faius Pareus reiecteth this interpretation because all the promises of the Lawe and Gospel haue annexed the condition of obedience or faith 3. Some giue this sense by faith vnderstanding the beleefe of the faithfull reposed in Gods promises that the infidelitie of some could not evacuate the faith of others Origen but by the words following let God be true shew that the faith of God that is made by him not faith reposed in him is here signified 4. Some thus expound quantum ad Deum that God for his part is readie to keepe his promises if men performe the condition but if they by their infidelitie depriue themselues of the promise the fayling is in themselues and not in God Pareus dub 1. But this doth not fully satisfie for if the promises of God should haue beene altogether evacuated though not by any inconstancie in God but their infidelitie yet they should haue beene without effect which the Apostle denieth 5. Chrysostome thus inferreth that their incredulitie is so farre from laying any fault vpon God vt maiorem illius ostendat bonitatem that it more commendeth his goodnesse when he seemed to honour those which dishonoured him So also Beza the goodnesse of God is so much the more commendable quanto indigniores sunt quorum miseretur the more vnworthie they are that he hath mercie on But to the incredulous the promises of God were of no effect they were depriued Heb. 4.1 6. Therefore it must be obserued that the Apostle saith not all but some what though some did not beleeue Gualter they then which beleeued not non praeindicabant caeteris did not hinder or were preiudiciall to those which beleeued gloss ordinar he signifieth sempa mansisse quosdam c. that there were alwaies found among them in that nation that beleeued in Gods promises and therefore the promises of God are not evacuate Calvin like as though the Sunne seeme not to rise vnto those which are blind yet he doth rise vnto those that are of perfect sight Gryneus as then the Sunne should rise though no mâ—â— could see it yet God hath ordained both that the Sun should giue light and some should enioy it So God would shewe himselfe true and stedfast in his promises though all mâ—â— should fall away from him yet he hath ordained that as he keepeth truth in his promises so there should be alwaies some in the Church which should beleeue them Quest. 3. How God is said to be true 1. The vulgar Latine readeth God is true and so some of the fathers haue followed that reading as Cyprian epist. 55. ad Cornel. and Ambrose lib. 3. de side c. 3. and so the Syrian interpreter but in the originall Greeke it is in the imparatiue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let God be true which Origen thinketh must be vnderstood non praeceptive by way of precept but pronuntiative as pronouncing that God is true And here it is taken in the same sense as when we say in the Lords prayer let thy name be hallowed then siat let him be is here all one as manifestetur let him be manifested to be true sit nobis verax
morally he should be a lyar in act Pareus so then euery man is said to be a liar quia mentiri potest quamvis non mentiatur because he may and can lie though alwaies he doe not lie Tolet. 6. Quest. How the Prophet Dauid is to be vnderstood saying Euery man is a lyar Psal. 116.11 1. Some doe thus interpret nihil est firmum vel stabile in rebus humanis nothing is firme or stable in humane matters Theodoret to the same purpose also Euthymius fallax est humanae vita faelicitas the happines of mans life here is deceitfull But this beeing a most true position how could the Prophet say I said in my hast as correcting his hastie and vnaduised speach in thus saying 2. Some preferre this sense that Dauid beeing much troubled and perplexed with his manifold afflictions and sometime tempted with diffidence doth correct himselfe and confesseth that God notwithstanding was true though all men were liars Perer. but it is euident by the Prophets words that this is not a correcting but a corrected speach which he spake in his hast 3. Origen deliuereth a third sense that Dauid hauing reuealed vnto him the truth by faith saying a little before I beleeued and therefore I spake doth thankfully acknowledge that he had receiued the reuelation of the truth from God whereas all other men as Philosophers and the wise among the heathen were liars their writings were full of error and falshood But that by all he vnderstandeth not onely the vnbeleeuing Gentiles but all men in generall is euident v. 12. following as hath beene shewed before 4. Calvin whome the Genevens follow thus expoundeth nihil esse certi neque ab homine neque in homine that there is no certentie neither from man to be looked nor yet in man but this beeing a most true and aduised assertion why then should the Prophet there say he spake it in hast for so the word there signifieth as likewise Psal. 31.22 I said in my hast I am cast out of thy sight 5. Vatablus thinketh that Dauid meaneth those which said when Saul persecuted him that he should neuer enioy the kingdome and therefore he trusting to Gods promises saith they were all liers But why then should Dauid say I said in my hast as confessing that he thus spake in his heat and hast 6. Wherefore the meaning of the Prophet Dauid there is this that beeing oppressed with his manifold and great afflictions he had some distrustfull thoughts in so much that he began to thinke that euen Samuel and Nathan which had made vnto him such promises concerning the kingdome were but men and had spoken as men vnto him And this sense may be confirmed by the like place Psal. 31.22 cited before I said in my hast Iun. Caietan Iansenius But two obiections will be made against this interpretation 1. If Dauid be thus vnderstood this allegation should seeme to be impertinent for the Apostle groundeth vpon that saying of Dauid as a certen and vndoubted axiome which Dauid their vttered in hast Ans. 1. It is not necessarie to graunt that S. Paul citeth this place out of that Psalme the like saying is found Psal. 39.5 Euery man is altogether vanitie 2. but it may safely be admitted that the Apostle hath reference to this very place Psal. 116. and yet he keepeth the Prophets sense for though Dauid were deceiued in the particular application to Samuel and other Prophets yet the speach was true in generall euery man is a liar here was Dauids error that he tooke them to speake as other men this generall ground of Dauids speach the Apostle followeth here 2. Obiect The word there vsed bechaphzi Vatablus translateth in praecipiti mea fugâ— in my hastie flight the vulgar latine in excessu meo when I was beside my selfe for feare it neede not be translated in my hast Ans. 1. The word chapaz signifieth indeede all these to make hast to be astonished to mooue for feare to precipitate but the more vsuall and proper signification is to make hast as Exod. 12.10 Ye shall eate it in hast Psal. 104.7 they hast away 2. and whether it be translated in my hast or in my feare the sense is all one that Dauid spake thus in his heat and passion 3. and that it is not meant of his externall flight of bodie but rather of the acceleration and hast of his affections is euident by the like place Psal. 31.22 I said in my hast I am cast out of thy sight Quest. 7. Of the occasion of these words cited out of the 51. Psalme that thou mightest be iustified c. against thee onely haue I sinned The words in the 51. Psalme immediatly going before are these v. 4. Against thee onely haue I sinne and committed euill in thy sight how Dauid is said to haue sinned onely against God it is diuersely scanned 1. Gregorie thus expoundeth tibi soli peccavi against thee onely haue I sinned quia tu solus es sine peccato because thou onely art without sinne man is not said to sinne against man quia eum aut par aut grauior culpa inquinat because either he is defiled with the same or a greater sinne But though euerie man be a sinner this is no reason but that one man may trespasse against another 2. Origen thus expoundeth Dauid by these words of S. Paul 1. Cor. 2.15 the spirituall man discerneth all things yet he is iudged of none therefore against thee onely haue I sinned because others cannot iudge me quia spiritualis sum because I am spirituall c. But Dauid in this act was not spirituall but carnall 3. Caietan thinketh that Dauid so speaketh because he was king and had no superiour iudge to whom he was subiect and therefore he is said onely to sinne against God because he onely was his superiour Iudge But Dauid standeth not here vpon any personall prerogatiue he setteth forth the qualitie of his offence 4. An other exposition which P. Martyr mentioneth is he saith he sinned onely against God because he sinned against his lawe for although he had trespassed against Vrias and Bathshebe his wife yet those were sinnes none otherwise then as they were prohibited by Gods lawe But in this sense not onely Dauid but euerie one beside should be faid to sinne against God 5 Some giue this sense against thee onely that is chiefely he had so profaned Gods couenant abused his benefits caused the name of God by this his fall to be blasphemed that he had offended God most of all Mart. Gualter But they are two diuerse things to sinne onely against God and chiefely to offend him 6. Wherefore Dauid here hath relation to the secresie of his sinne which was caried so politikely that the world perceiued it not yea Ioab though he was priuie to Vrias death yet knew not the cause Vatab. Iun. and thus before them D. Kimhi this sense is warranted 2. Sam. 12.12 where the Lord saith thou didst
his wrath and make his power knowne suffer with long patience the vessels of wrath prepared to destruction â—ere God should seeme to doe that which is euill as to prepare the vessels of wrath to destruction for a good ende namely to declare his power 2. Likewise to permit and suffer euill to be done in the world to exercise his iudgâ—ments or declare his prouidence seemeth to be euill as when he suffered Iosephs brethâ—â—â— to sell him into Egypt that Iacobs familie by this meanes might be prouided for for he which suffereth euill to be done when he may hinder it seemeth to consent vnto it and so is accessarie thereunto as a Magistrate sinneth in suffering adulterie murther and other sinnes to goe vnpunished Ans. Concerning the first obiection it is not euill that some are vessels of wrath prepared to destruction 1. because it is Gods will which is alwaies iust and holy yea Gods will is a perfect rule of iustice 2. and that which tendeth to Gods glorie can not be euill as God getteth himselfe glorie in the condemnation of the wicked 3. that which is lawfully done can not be euill but God in reiecting some doth that which he may doe by lawfull right to dispose of his owne as it pleaseth him as no man can reprooue the potter in making some vessels of honour some of dishonour of the same piece of clay 4. but seeing in the ende Gods reiecting and reprobating of some namely such as by their sinnes deserued eternall death appeareth to be most iust it must needs also be good for that which is iust is good 2. To the other obiection of Gods permission it may be likewise answered 1. to permit euill to be done and to consent to euill doe not necessarily follow one the other he that permitteth onely hath a will not to hinder but he that consenteth approoueth that which is done 2. and that God consenteth not to that which he permitteth is euident because he punisheth sinne which he suffreth to be done 3. God in permitting euill to be done onely consenteth to that good which he draweth out of euill and for the which he suffreth the same to be done 4. the case is not like betweene God permitting euill to be done and the Magistrate for 1. God is free and is not tied to any lawe but the Magistrate suffring euill therein doth contrarie to Gods lawe or mans 2. Man oftentimes of some sinister affection suffreth euill either because he is hindered by some greater power and cannot punish it or he is corrupted and so winketh at sinne but none of these are incident to God 3. If the Magistrate propound vnto himselfe some good ende in vsing connivence iâ— some sinnes yet he is not sure to effect it as God is 4. Beside it belongeth vnto the Creator to giue vnto his creatures freely to worke according to their nature for otherwise he should restraine the ordinarie course of things But this no way concerneth the Magistrate in his connivence ex Pareo Quest. 14. In what sense the Apostle denieth the lewes to be more excellent then the Gentiles v. 9 v. 9. What then are we more excellent there is a double sense of these words some thinke that this is spoken in the person of the faithfull which were vncircumcised as though they were more excellent then the Iewes which abused the blessings which the Lord had bestowed vpon them but if the Apostle had spoken here of the vncircumcised he would not haue named himselfe as one of them are we more excellent therefore the other sense is better that the Apostle speaketh here in the person of the Iewes least they might haue gloried too much in their preheminence and prerogatiues which the Apostle had yeelded vnto them before the Gentiles v. 1. 2. Now the Apostle in denying vnto the Iewes that excellencie which he before had yeelded vnto them v. 1. is not contrarie to himselfe for the reconciling whereof 1. Some thinke that S. Paul before spake of the excellencie of the Iewes beyond the Gentiles before the comming of Christ but here of their state in the Gospell when they had no such preheminence as the Apostle saith Coloss. 3. that in Christ there is neither Iewes transgressing against the lawe were no better then the Gentiles as Ezech. 5.10 she hath changed my iudgements into wickednesse more then the nations c. 2. Some giue this solution that then preheminence was in respect of the promises on Gods behalfe which he made vnto the Iewes but in respect of their owne nature they were sinners as well as others Thomas Pererius they had no preheminence by their owne merits to this purpose Gualter Hyperius Aretius with others But Tolet refuseth this vpon this reason because in this sense neither should a Christian man haue any preheminence before a Gentile seeing the one meriteth more at Gods hand then the other these things wherein they excell non 〈◊〉 proprijs acciperunt they haue not receiued by their owne merits annotat 6. 3. The preheminence then before graunted and now denied is neither in respect of the diuers times nor of their persons but of the cause in hand that although the Iewes had some ciuill and Ecclesiasticall prerogatiues they had the law circumcision which the Gentiles had not yet concerning their manner of iustification before God it was all one the Iew was no more iustified by works then the Gentile but both of them were iustified onely by faith Par. Tol. 15. Quest. Of the meaning of certaine phrases which the Apostle vseth v. 9. We haue alreadie prooued and vnder sinne 1. The Greeke word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. some translate criminati sumus we haue accused Greeke schol Beza Pareus but it had beene sufficient to haue said we haue shewed both Iewes and Gentiles to be vnder sinne this was a sufficient accusation it selfe without any such expresse addition that he had accused them Tolet. 2. Pererius maketh this the sense I haue alleadged this as a cause that all are vnder sinne namely as the cause and occasion why the Iewes in the matter of iustification are not preferred before the Gentiles Per. Haymo but that the Apostles speach should be imperfect saying thus much in effect we haue shewed this as the cause that all are vnder sinne not shewing whereof it should be a cause 3. Tolet deuiseth an other sense expounding it by the passiue we haue beene all accused that both Iewes and Gentiles are vnder sinne but the Greeke construction will not suffer this sense for Iewes and Gentiles is put in the accusatiue and so can not answer vnto the word accused 4. Some thus interpret causis redditis ostendimus we haue shewed by rendring the cause why all should be vnder sinne that the Apostle had not onely shewed this but tendred also the cause Chrysost. Ambr. Sedul Erasm. Vatabl. but Beza thinketh that the word is not found in that sense 5. Wherefore the best interpretation is this
corrupt branches Pareus There is none that doth good no not one here none are excluded some thus giue the sense none sauing one namely Christ gloss interlin Gorrhan and so Augustine before them but the originall will not beare that sense the words are none vnto one that is no not one v. 13. Their throat is an open sepulchre 1. They are instar voraginis like vnto a gulph to destroy men and therefore are compared to a sepulchre 2. and an open sepulchre quod tetros spargit odores which sendeth forth stinking smells so they doe vtter filthie and vaine words 3. and they are likened to an open sepulchre quia vsus scelerum verecundiam sustulit their custome in sinne hath taken away all shamefastnes and modestie they are impudent in their sinne Origen 4. and as an open graue can neuer be satiate but it receiueth one bodie after an other so they doe still seeke to deuoure men and as it were eate them vp with their filthie and slanderous tongues They haue vsed their tongues to deceit where they can not openly deuoure they attempt to doe it by craft and deceit gloss interlin The poison of aspes is vnder their lippes The biting and venemous tongue is thus resembled 1. because this serpent doth morsu inficere infect and poison by biting Gryneus 2. it is insanabile a poison incurable gloss interlin Pellic. 3. and they are incorrigible and intractable like as the serpent stoppeth the eares and will not heare the voice of the charmer v. 14. Their mouth is full of cursing and bitternes 1. Their mouth is said to be full because ex pleno oris vasculo out of their mouth as a full vessell doe continually flow forth bitter and cruell words Origen 2. as they haue gall and bitternes in their heart Act. 8.23 so they doe vtter it with their mouth Gryneus 3. thus the Apostle sheweth how they abuse all the instruments of speaking their throat their tongues their lippes their mouth Tolet. 4. And as before they were giuen to flatterie and deceit so they sometime brake forth into open blasphemie both against God and man Calvin 5. Haymo specially refereth it to the bitter and blasphemous words which the Iewes vttered against Christ charging him to haue a deuill and crying out against him to be crucified v. 15. Their feete are swift to shed blood 1. The Apostle hetherto alleadged those testimonies out of the Psalmes now he citeth the Prophet Isa because in the mouth of two or three witnesses euery word shall be established Faius 2. by the feete are vnderstood their affections as Origen expoundeth consilium quo agimus iter vitae the counsell whereby we take in hand the trauell of this life and hereby their readines is signified vpon euery occasion to shed blood Tolet. 3. as Doeg by his false tongue caused many innocent Priests to be slaine Gryneus 4. and by this phrase of shedding is shewed how they doe vilipend the blood of the Saints powring it out as water Gorrhan v. 16. Destruction and calamitie are in their waies 1. Whereas the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contrition Origen vnderstandeth it of their sinne and disobedience whereby they doe â—â—â—rere iugum domini cast off and beat in pieces the Lords yoake so also the Greeke scholâ—â—â— as by the way he vnderstandeth life so by contrition sinne whereby the life is worne as the way is beaten with trampling 2. some vnderstand it passiuely of the destruction and â—â—lâ—mitie which was brought vpon them by the Romanes gloss interlin Haymo Gorrhaâ— 3. but it is better taken actiuely for the destruction and calamitie which they bring vpon others they are the authors and deuisers of nothing but mischiefe Gryn Calv. Pare as the Romane histories doe write of Hannibal who in his dreame following one that was sent of Iupiter to be his guide into Italie seemed to see behind him an huge serpent deuouring and destroying all as he went whereby was signified the horrible vastitie which he should bring vpon Italie v. 17. The way of peace they haue not knowne 1. Origen vnderstandeth Christ to be 〈◊〉 way of peace whome they acknowledged not so also Haymo Gorrhan gloss 3. but thereby is signified their turbulent nature who delighted in warre and filled the world with tumults and troubles Gryneus Pareus and although some among the heathen did seeke to preserue the peace and tranquilitie of the commonwealth yet it did not helpe them any thing toward their euerlasting peace Osiand v. 18. The feare of God is not before their eyes 1. As the feare of God is the beginning of true wisdome and pietie so the want of that feare giueth way vnto all impietie and therefore sine retinaculo currunt ad malum they runne into all kind of mischiefe without any stay Lyran. These doe not say there is no God yet they doe not feare God August ex Beda and so are giuen ouer to all impietie 20. Quest. v. 19. Whatsoeuer the Law saith what is here vnderstood by the law and how diuersly this word is taken Hierome epist. 151. noteth this word Law to haue sixe seuerall significations in the Scripture 1. it is taken precisely for the Law giuen by Moses which contained both morall precepts iudiciall and ceremoniall as Ioh. 1.17 The Law was giuen by Moses 2. the law signifieth not the precepts onely but the historie of the old Testament as S. Paul calleth Abrahams historie concerning his two sonnes the law Gal. 4.22 3. the book of the Psalmes is called the law Ioh. 15.25 It is written in the law they hated me without a cause 4. the prophesie of Isai is called the law 1. Cor. 14.21 In their law it is written by men of other tongues c. will I speake vnto this people which testimonie is taken out of Isa c. 28.21 5. the spirituall sense and meaning of the old Testament is called the law as the Apostle saith The Law is spirituall Rom. 7. 6. the law is taken for that naturall light which is imprinted in the minde by nature as S. Paul saith c. 2.14 The Gentiles which haue not the law are a law vnto themselues Here then by the Law the Apostle generally vnderstandeth the old Testament as the booke of the Psalmes and the Prophets 21. Quest. It saith to them which are vnder the law who are here vnderstood to be vnder the law 1. Origen taketh here the law for the naturall law vnder the which not onely the Iewes but the Gentiles also are vnder and this he would prooue by two reasons 1. because it followeth afterward that euery mouth may be stopped but the mouthes of the Gentiles could not be stopped by the written law which was not giuen vnto them 2. the Apostle also saith afterward that by the law commeth the knowledge of sinne which is not the written but the naturall law for both Cain and the brethren of Ioseph did confesse and acknowledge their sinne before yet there was any
law written Contra. 1. The Apostle inferreth not that euery mouth is stopped by the written testimonies but that generall word is vsed least the Iewes should thinke themselues excluded so then not that writing but the thing written that all men are sinners serueth to stoppe all mens mouthes and especially the Iewes it conuinceth both Iewes and Gentiles the Iewes both for the manner because the written law was giuen vnto them and for the matter also they were sinners the Gentiles it conuinceth for the matter they were guiltie of all these sinnes 2. Though law be there taken generally both for the naturall and written law by the which came the knowledge of sinne and yet both Cain and Iosephs brethren had beside the naturall law instructions receiued from their fathers yet in this place it is euident that the Apostle meaneth the written and speaking law whatsoeuer the law saith 2. Origen beside hath here an other strange conceit he thinketh that not onely men but Angels and spirits are here saide to be vnder the law because they also haue a law and rule giuen them to be ordered by but seeing the Angels are not saued by faith in Christ which the Apostle treateth of here he saith directly that by the works of the law no flesh shal be iustified in his sight the angels can not be said to be vnder the law for they are not in the flesh 3. Theodoret here hath this distinction that the law saith thus to them which are vnder the law seà non de ijs but not onely of them for the Prophets haue many comminations concerning the Egyptians Babylonians and other nations Pererius also hath this obseruation that wheÌ„ as any prophesie is directed against other nations they are touched by name but those things which are set downe in generall and absolutely without any such particular direction doe properly appertaine vnto those who are vnder the law c. And although the Scripture make mention of other nations yet the speciall intent thereof is to profit the Church of God Faius 4. Now the occasion of these words of the Apostle is this the Iewes hearing these generall sentences setting forth the iniquitie of the world might thinke that the Gentiles were specially meant and so shift them off from themselues Therefore the Apostle sheweth that these things were specially directed to the Iewes and that by these three arguments 1. from the relation which the law hath to them to whome it is giuen it seemeth specially to concerne them therefore because the Scriptures wherein these things were found written were giuen vnto the Iewes to them they were specially directed 2. from the end that euery mouth should be stopped if the Gentiles should be vnderstood and not the Iewes also then they might haue somewhat to glorie in and to exalt themselues against God therefore that all occasion of boasting should be taken away euen the Iewes are conuinced by these testimonies to be sinners 3. an other ende is that not onely all occasion of boasting should be taken away but that the whole world should be found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 guiltie and culpable before God Chrysostome by this word vnderstandeth him qui sibi ipsi aâ— defensionem non sufficit who is not sufficient or able to defend himselfe but it signifieth more one that is guiltie and subiect to condemnation Pareus 5. Tolet thinketh not this to be the occasion to meete with such a secret obiection of the Iewes for they could not be ignorant saith he but that whatsoeuer was written in the Scriptures was spoken to them but rather to shew the reason why they could not be iustified by the law because the law which was giuen vnto them condemned them annot 11. Contra. The Iewes did know that the Scriptures did speake vnto them but not of them they might flatter themselues as though such things were vttered against the Gentiles and therefore as Augustine saith in Iudaeis confringenda erat superbia c. the Iewes pride was to be taken downe exposit epist. ad Galat. and both these may very well stand together that an obiection of the Iewes is met withall and a reason also shewed that the law which condemned them could not iustifie them 6. But the Psalme whence the Apostle alleadgeth his first words toucheth those which said there is no god Psal. 14.1 but so did not the Iewes Hierome answereth they did confesse God with their mouth sed factis negabant but denied him in their works 23. Quest. How no flesh is iustified by the workes of the law v. 20. 1. By the works of the law in that he decreeth iustification to the very workes not to the persons or workers onely it is euident that the places before alleadged as v. 10. there is none righteous no not one are to be vnderstood generally of all and not of the most although some should be excluded that did some good workes either among the Iewes or Gentiles for euen the workes of the law which they did were not able to iustifie them Melancthon 2. By the workes are not here vnderstood those quae praecipiuntur which are commanded and required by the law for if a man could performe those works he should finde life thereby but such quae praestantur which are performed of men Beza either before grace which can not iustifie because they can not be good or acceptable to God without faith or in the state of grace which can not iustifie neither because they are imperfect Pareus 3. By the law here he vnderstandeth both the natural whereby the Gentiles were conuinced and the written law giuen to the Hebrewes for the Apostle disputeth generally against both the Gentiles and Hebrewes proouing them both to be transgressors of the law and so not able to be iustified thereby Pareus and by the works of the law are vnderstood not onely the ceremonials and iudicials as the ordinarie gloss but the morall works which the Gentiles did by the light of nature for otherwise the Iewes onely should be excluded whereas the disputation of the Apostle is generall both against Iewes and Gentiles Pareusâ— Tolet. 4. The word flesh is diuersly taken in Scripture it signifieth the humane nature of man as Ioh. 1.6 the word was made flesh or the corruptible and mortall state of man as wheâ— the Apostle saith flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdome of God or the sinfull state and condition of man in which sense it is saide they that are in the flesh can not please God in which sense Origen would haue it taken here that they which are carnall not spirituall aâ—â— denied iustification by works but in this sense the meaning of the Apostle should be much peruerted who generally affirmeth that there is no iustification for any by the works of the law but by faith but yet the Apostle vseth this word flesh to put man in minde of his fresh condition and state beeing not apt of it selfe to bring forth
taketh this iustice to be Christ rather it signifieth the iustice or righteousnesse which is by faith to Christ so called both because of the efficient cause thereof namely God who worketh it in vs and in regard of the effect because it onely is able to stand before God Calvin 2. Without the Lawe 1. Origen here vnderstandeth the lawe of nature and giueth thiâ— exposition ad iustitiam Dei cognoscendam nihil opitulabatur lex naturae the law of nature did helpe nothing at all to the knowledge of the iustice of God but it was manifested by the written lawe of Moses but the Apostle excludeth not here the written lawe for them it were no consequent speach vnto the former where the Apostle denied iustification vnto all workes of the lawe in generall the same lawe then must be here vnderstood which he treated before that is generally both the naturall and written law 2. Augustine ioyneth this word without the lawe not vnto manifested but vnto righteousnesse so the righteousnesse without the lawe he expoundeth sine adminiculo legis without the helpe of the law lib. de spirit liter c. 9. but this sense first Beza confuteth by the order and placing of the words which stand thus without the lawe is righteousnesse made manifest not righteousnes without the lawe as S. Iames saith faith without works is dead not without works faith is dead for in this transposing of the words the sense is much altered Tolet addeth this reason that righteousnesse without the lawe that is the workes of the lawe was knowne euen vnto the faithfull vnder the lawe therefore the words without the lawe must be ioyned rather vnto manifested then to righteousnesse 3. But yet Tolet is here deceiued for he thus interpreteth absque lege without the lawe that is cossante lege the lawe ceasing and beeing abrogate the Euangelicall faith was manifested for although the workes of the morall law are commanded in the Gospel yet they bind not by reason of the legall bond or obligation but by vertue and force of newe institution thereof by Christ But our Sauiour faith directly that he came not to destroy the lawe and the Prophets Matth. 5.17 but if the morall lawe were first abrogated though it were againe reuiued by Christ it must first be dissolued 4. Ambrose well referreth without the lawe to manifested but he seemeth to restraine it to the lawe of ceremonies sine lege apparuit sed sine lege sabbati circumcisionis it appeared without the lawe but without the lawe of the Sabboth and circumcision and newe Moone c. But in all this disputation the Apostle chiefely entreateth of the morall lawe by the which specially came the knowledge of sinne 5. some referre this to the manifestation of the Gospel by the preaching of the Apostles when the Gentiles were called which had no knowledge of the lawe Mart. and many also among the Iewes which though they had not the lawe yet cared not for it as they say Ioh. 7.48 Doth any of the rulers or Pharisies beleeue in him but this people which knoweth not the lawe Gorrhan â—â— they vnderstand without the lawe that is without the knowledge of the lawe But the Apostle speaketh of that iustice which was manifested both to the Gentiles and the Iewes which had yet the knowledge of the lawe 6. Gryneus whereas the Apostle saith first that righteousnesse is reuealed without the lawe and yet immediately after he saith hauing witnesse of the law and the Prophets would reconcile them thus vnderstanding lawe in the first place of the letter of the lawe which doth not set forth the iustice of God by faith and in the other place the spirituall sense of the lawe 7. But the meaning rather of the Apostle is this that it is not the office of the lawe to teach faith and that beside the lawe there is an other doctrine in the Church concerning faith which doctrine of saluation and iustice by faith neither the naturall nor morall lawe can teach and though in the time of the lawe this doctrine of faith was taught the faithfull yet the knowledge thereof came not by the lawe And for the full reconciling here of the Apostle to himselfe three things are to be considered 1. that in the first place the lawe is vnderstood strictly for the doctrine of the morall lawe whether written or naturall which doth not properly teach faith in Christ afterward the lawe is taken for the bookâ— of Moses wherein many Euangelicall promises are contained beside the legall precepâ—â— Beza annot â—2 The lawe doth properly vrge workes it doth not professedly teach faith and yet it excludeth it not Pareus but accidentally it bringeth vs to Christ as forcing vs when we see our disease to seeke for a remedie 3. this doctrine of faith was manifested without the lawe that is more clearely taught and preached at the comming of Christ yet it was knowne vnto Moses and the Prophets though more obscurely for in that it is said to be manifested nor made or created it sheweth that it was before though not so manifest Perer. disput â—0 Faius So then those words but now doe both note the diuersitie of time and they are aduersatiue particulars shewing that our iustice is not reuealed in the lawe but otherwise and els where Quest. 27. How the righteousnesse of faith had witnesse of the lawe and the Prophets Fowre wayes are the law and Prophets found to beare witnesse and testimonie vnto the Gospell of faith 1. by the euident prophesies of Christ as our blessed Sauiour saith Ioh. 5.46 Moses wrote of me and S. Paul said before c. 2. Which he had promised before by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures and S. Peter saith Act. 10.43 To him also giue all the Prophets witnesse such euident testimonies out of the lawe and Prophets are these which are cited by the Apostles as that Rom. 10.6 The righteousnesse of faith speaketh on this wise say not in thy heart who shall ascend into heauen that is to bring Christ from aboue c. so the Apostle citeth an euident testimonie out of the 31. of Ieremie Hebr. 8.8 how the Lord would make a newe testament with the house of Iuda and many such testimonies in the newe Testament are taken out of the old 2. A second kind of testimonie were the types and figures which went before in the old Testament as the Paschal lambe the Manna the rocke the cloud did shadow forth Christ likewise some acts of the Patriarkes and Prophets did prefigure out Christ as Abrahams sacrificing of Isaac Salomons building of the Temple Ionas beeing in the bellie of the whale with such like 3. The sacrifices and oblations and the blood of rammes and goates did signifie the vnspotted lambe of God that should be slaine for the sinnes of the world Mart. 4. The lawe also by the effect thereof did beare witnesse vnto Christ as Augustine saith lex hoc ipso quod iubendo minando
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
onely contained the precept of works but gaue no power or grace to doe them as Tolet. annot 27. for neither doth the Gospel giue power by fulfilling of the law to attaine vnto saluation but it is called the law of works because it required works and keeping of the law vnto saluation for the Gospel also commandeth works but not with condition thereby to be saued it is called the law of faith because it requireth onely the condition of faith vnto saluation it saith beleeue and thou shalt be saued Faius And whereas it will be obiected that diuers had faith vnder the law the answer is that they had it not by the law but by the spirit of grace giuen vnto them Faius 7. And whereas the Apostle had said before v. 20. by the law commeth the knowledge of sinne it seemeth that euen reioycing is excluded by the law of works also which the Apostle denieth seeing the law doth not helpe to iustifie but condemneth But we must consider that here the Apostle speaketh of the law of works not in respect of our weaknes that are not able to keepe it but in regard of the institution thereof which promiseth life and saluation to those that keepe and obserue it Calvin the next verse beeing the 28. see handled at large with the questions thereout arising among the controv contr 14. to contr 22. 38. Quest. Of the difference betweene these two phrases of faith through faith v. 30. Whereas the Apostle saith it is one God which shall iustifie the circumcision of faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the vncircumcision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through faith this difference of phrase is diuersly scanned 1. Origen thinketh the Iewes here called the circumcision to be said to be iustified of faith because initio ex fide sumpto c. they beginning of faith are perfected by the fulfilling of workes and the vncircumcised Gentiles are saide to be iustified through faith quia a bonis operibus exorsi because beginning with good workes they are perfected by faith But Origen is herein both contrarie to the Apostle who concluded that a man is iustified by faith onely without the workes of the law and to himselfe who had said a little before fidem solam sufficere ad salutem that faith onely sufficeth to saluation 2. Gorrhan sheweth a more reasonable difference that the Iewes are said to be iustified of faith the Gentiles through faith because vnto the Iewes faith is both terminus à quo adquem the terme where they begun their iustification and where they ende but in the Gentiles it is onely terminus ad quem the terme vnto the which they tend and where they ende and Calvin seemeth to say as much in effect that the Iewes nascuntur gratia haeredes are borne as it were the heires of grace but to the Gentiles it is adventitium foedus a couenant happening vnto them otherwise But in this sense of faith should be ioyned to circumcision not to iustified and if the Iewes were of faith then they needed not to be iustified againe through faith 3. Faius hath the like conceit that by the circumcised of faith the Apostle meaneth the beleeuing Iewes which are said to be of the faith and so he would haue this particle againe repeated that the vncircumcision of faith are both iustified through faith but then the sentence should be very imperfect and of faith must be ioyned to iustifie as appeareth v. 28. 4. Tolet thinketh that although sometime these prepositions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of and through signifie the same thing yet here the Apostle giuing the one to the Iewes and the other to the Gentiles seemeth to make some difference betweene them least he should seeme to confound the Iewes and Gentiles together Tol. annot 28. But the Apostle in this matter of iustification maketh both Iewes and Gentiles equall how soeuer he otherwise denieth not vnto the Iewes their prerogatiues 5. Wherefore in this place it seemeth rather that the Apostle meaneth the same thing to iustifie of faith and through faith and by faith v. 28. as the Apostle saith c. 11.36 of him and through him are all things not insinuating by this diuersity of phrase any different thing in God and further as the circumcised Iewes are here said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the faith so are the Gentiles Gal. 4.7 Thus much therefore the Apostle signifieth that as there is no difference betweene these two to be iustified of faith and through faith so neither in this behalfe is there any difference betweene the iustification of the Iew and Gentiles Calvin 6. Peter Martyr noteth here how the Grecians standing vpon the curious and nice distinction of these two prepositions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if and per through dissented from the Latine Church about the proceeding of the holy Ghost they would haue the spirit to proceed ex patre per filium of the Father by and through the Sonne but the other to take away this difference affirmed that he proceeded ex patre ex filio both of the Father and of the Sonne 39. Quest. How the law is established by the doctrine of faith 1. Origen and Theodoret thinke that the law is established by faith because the law did write of Christ and commanded to beleeue in him as Deut. 18. A Prophet shall the Lord God raise from among your brethren like vnto me c. But the Euangelicall promises contained in the old Testament belong rather vnto the Gospel then the Law 2. Ambrose vnderstandeth it of the performing and fulfilling of the ceremonies mystica ceremoniala spiritualiter implentur the mysticall ceremonies of the law are spiritually fulfilled gloss ordinar to the same purpose Hierome the law is established when it appeareth that one Testament succeeded an other one circumcision an other and spirituall things succeed carnall c. But it is euident that the Apostle specially meaneth the morall law by the which commeth the knowledge of sinne v. 20. 3. Chrysostome giueth this sense quia fides voluntatem legis statuit because faith establisheth the will and intent of the law for the intendment of the law was to iustifie men by the works thereof now that which the law could not doe faith effecteth But in this point of iustification faith rather is contrarie to the law for the one requireth the condition of works the other onely of beleeuing 4. Beza and Pareus in these two points will haue the law established first because Christ satisfied the punishment of the law in dying for our sinnes according to the sentence of the law thou shalt die the death and in that Christ by his perfect obedience hath fulfiller the law But it seemeth that the Apostle speaketh in generall of the establishing of the law in all the members of Christ and not in Christ their head onely 5. Therefore in these two things rather is the law established because by it
1. Ioh. 2.2 He is the reconciliation for our sinnes 2. to be our Redeemer v. 24. Through the redemption that is in Christ. 3. to be our Mediator 1. Tim. 2.6 Our Mediator betweene God and man c. 4. to be our doctor and teacher Matth. 23.8 One is your Doctor to wit Christ. 5. to be our aduocate and intercessor 1. Ioh. 2.1 We haue an advocate with the Father Christ Iesus the Iust. 6. to be our defender and deliuerer Isay. 19.20 He shall send them a Sauiour and a great man that shall deliuer them 7. to be our Lawgiuer Iam. 4.12 There is one Lawgiuer which is able to saue and destroy 8. to be a faithfull and true witnesse Apocal. 3.14 These things saith Amen the faithfull and true witnesse 9. to be our iudge Act. 10.42 It is he that is ordained of God iudge of the quicke and dead 10. to be our Sauiour Philip. 3.20 From whence we looke for our Sauiour euen the Lord Iesus so Christ is all things vnto his seruants reis propitiatore â—aptiuis redemptor c. a reconciliation to the guiltie a redeemer to the captiues a Mediator vnto them at variance with God a teacher to the ignorant a lawgiuer to the dissolute an intercessor to them accused a defender to the assaulted a witnesse to the defamed a iudge to the oppressed and to the elect a Sauiour Gorrhan Doct. 12. The same faith both vnder the lawe and Gospel v. 25. Thomas well obserueth vpon this place that seeing the sinnes which were passed and committed vnder the lawe were forgiuen by no other way then in Christ that the righteousnesse of faith was at all times necessarie as S. Peter saith Act. 4.12 Among men there is giuen no other name vnder heauen whereby we must be saued and S. Paul saith 2. Cor. 14.13 That we haue the same spirit of faith 13. Doct. Of our redemption by Christ and the manner thereof v. 24. Thorough the redemption that is in Christ c. 1. This our redemption consisteth in our deliuerance from the power of Sathan sinne and death and in reconciling of vs vnto God 2. there is a double redemption the first in the forgiuenes of our sinnes nowe present the second when we shall be redeemed from corruption and mortalitie in the resurrection 3. This our redemption is not metaphorically so called but it is a verie true redemption there beeing all things concurring in redemption the captiues which are men the redeemer Christ the price his blood and from whom we are redemed from Sathan hell and damnation see contr 22. following 4. They which detaine the captiues are first God as a iust Iudge whom they had offended then Sathan as Gods minister sinne is as the bands death as the tormentor hell as the prison Pareus loc 5. 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. That the Sacraments of the old Testament did not iustifie ex opere operato by the worke wrought and so consequently neither the newe There are diuerse opinions among the Romanists concerning this point in question 1. Some of them think that the Sacraments of the old Testament did not iustifie at all though they were receiued in faith because they were not giuen to that ende to iustifie sed vt oneri essent but to be a burthen so Magister sentent 4. distinct 1. 2. Some are of the contrarie opinion that circumcision did iustifie ex opere operato by the work wrought though there were no faith in the receiuer as Alexander Bonaventure Scotus Gabriel as Bellarmine citeth them 3. But the common opinion on that side is that the sacraments of the old Testament did onely iustifie and conferre grace ex opere operantis by the worke or disposition of the receiuer and this they hold to be the difference betweene the old sacraments and the newe nostra conferunt gratiam illa sola significabant ours doe conferre grace theirs onely signified grace Bellar. and that those Sacraments did not conferre grace Bellarmine would prooue it out of this place v. 1. What is the profit of circumcision c. to the which question the Apostle maketh answear Much euerie way for chiefely because vnto them were committed the oracles of God herein was the preheminence of the Iewe before the Gentiles not that he was iustified by his circumcision but because the Lord gaue his oracles to the circumcised Bellar. lib. 2. de sacram c. 14. Now vpon this conclusion of Bellarmine thus it may be further inferred the sacraments of the old Testament did not iustifie by the worke wrought or conferre grace this Bellarmine graunteth but there was the same substance and efficacie of the old and newe sacraments for the Apostle saith that circumcision was the seale of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4.11 and so is baptisme Col. 2.12 And Christ was the substance both of their sacraments and ours for the rocke was Christ 1. Cor. 10.4 the conclusion then followeth that seeing their sacraments did not conferre grace no more doe the sacraments of the Gospel the difference then betweene the old sacraments and the newe is not the substance which is Christ and the proper effect thereof which is to be seales of faith but in respect of the more cleare signification and so in the more liuely illustration and confirmation of our faith for the more full discussing of this matter I referre the reader to the treatise of controuersies Synops. Centur. 2. err 97. Controv. 2. Of the Apochryphal Scriptures v. 2. Vnto them were committed the oracles of God Faius well obserueth hereupon thaâ— seeing all the old Scriptures which were Canonicall were committed vnto the Hebrewes then those books which were called Apochryphal that is of hidden and obscure authoritie are not to be accounted any part of the diuine Canonical Scripture such are the books oâ— the Macchabees of Tobi Iudith with the rest that goe vnder the name of Apochyphaâ— for they were not commended to the Church of the Hebrews because they are not writteâ— in the Hebrewe tongue neither did the Iewes place them in the canon of the Scriptures as Iosephus setteth it downe lib. 1. contra Appion see further Synops. Centur. â—â— error 1. Controv. 3. That the wicked and vnbeleeuers doe not eate the bodie of Christ in the Eucharist v. 3. The Apostle saith Shall their vnbeleefe make the faith of God without effect hence then it will be inferred by the Romanists that the promise of Christs presence in the Sacrament is not evacuated notwithstanding the vnbeleefe of the communicants Answ. True it is that the vnbeleefe of some doth not make Gods promises voide and of none effect in respect of God himselfe who for his part is readie to performe his promise or couenant where the condition is performed and on the behalfe of the elect to whom Gods promises are effectuall they receiuing them by faith but it followeth not that the promises of God should be effectuall vnto vnbeleeuers for Gods promises are made vnto
those which beleeue vnto vnbeleeuers therefore they doe not appertaine Pareus But it will be further obiected that the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 11.27 that he which eateth and drinketh vnworthily shall be guilty of the bodie and blood of Christ but they could not be guilty vnlesse they were partakers Answ. It doth not followe one may be guiltie of a thing which he is not partaker of as many may be guilty of violating the princely maiestie which had no interest therein neither were partakers thereof so then the wicked and vnbeleeuers are guilty non manducati sed non dâ—â—dicati corporis c. not of the eating but of not discerning the Lords bodie Gryneus Controv. 4. That the Romane Church hath not the promise of the perpetuall presence of Gods spirit The Romanists alleadge this place for themselues that the vnbeleefe of some make not the promises of God of no effect and therefore seeing the Lord hath promised to be present with and to giue his spirit to his Church they cannot faile thereof notwithstanding their sinnes and corruptions Answ. Christ promised the presence of his spirit to his disciples they must then first prooue themselues to be the disciples of Christ in following his doctrine and keeping his word in adding nothing thereto nor decreeing any thing against it before they can haue any interest in this promise God indeede hath promised to be present with his Church but a companie of mitred Bishops following humane traditions and leauing the word of God doe not make the true Church of Christ Martyr Controv. 5. The Virgin Marie not exempted from sinne v. 10. There is none that is righteous no not one Chrysostome handling these words in his commentarie vpon the 13. Psalme giueth instance how that when Christ was crucified this saying was then most of all verified that there was not one that did good discipuli omnes fugerunt c. all the disciples fledde Iohn went away Peter denied Mariae animam gladius dubitationis incredulitatis pervasit and a sword of doubtfulnesse and vnbeleefe did pierce the soule of Marie c. the like is affirmed by Chrysostome hom 49. in Genes and by Origen hom 17. in Luc. and by Augustine lib. question veter nov Testam qu. 73. But Pererius refusing the iudgement of these fathers confidently affirmeth that the Virgin Marie fuisse expertem omnis peccati etiam minimi levissimi per omnem vitam was free from the least and lightest sinne all her life and of Chrysostome he is bold to say veritatis pietatis terminos excessisse that he exceeded the bounds of veritie and pietie Perer. 〈◊〉 6. numer 33. Contra. But Pererius in thus affirming will make not Chrysostome onely and other ancient writers liers but Christ himselfe and his blessed mother for if Mary were without the least sinne why did our Blessed Saviour reprooue her for taking so much vpon her saying Iohn 2.4 Woman what haue I to doe with thee would he checke her without any fault and againe Marie her selfe saith in her song Luk. 2.47 My spirit reioyceth in God my Sauiour what needed she a Sauiour if she were free from sinne see further hereof Synops. Centur. 2 â—â—â— 79. Controv. 6. The reading of Scripture is not to be denied vnto any v. 10. As it is written c. in that the Apostle alleadgeth testimonies of Scripture to prooue all men to be sinners thereupon appeareth the necessitie of the reading of Scripture 〈◊〉 of the generall vse for all both laymen and others for by the Scriptures commeth the knowledge of sinne which concerneth all Chrysostome in his homilie of Lazarus and the rich man exhorteth all men to reade the Scriptures euen such as did trade in the world and kept families further shewing that they could not attaine vnto saluation vnlesse both day and night they were conuersant in the Scriptures yea he affirmeth that such of the common sort had more neede to reade the Scriptures then men of more holy life quod perpetus versantur in maiori discrimine because they are conversant in greater danger Here then that corrupt vsage of the Romane Church is to be taxed who denie the generall vse of the Scriptures vnto the people neither doe permit them to reade them shutting the Scriptures vp in an vnknowne language Martyr Controv. 7. Against the adversaries of the Lawe the Marcionites and other heretikes v. 20. By the lawe commeth the knowledge of sinne hereupon those wicked heretikes tooke occasion to speake against the lawe malaradix lex c. the law then is an euill root and an euill tree by the which commeth the knowledge of sinne to this Origen vpon this place answeareth well non dexit ex lege agnitio peccati sed per legem vt scias non ex ipsa â—tum sed per ipsam cognitum he saith not of the lawe is the knowlede of sinne but by the lawe to knowe that sinne did not spring of it but is onely knowne by it As physicke by the which we come to haue the knowledge of our diseases is not therefore euill thus Origen Controv. 8. Against the Counsels of perfection v. 19. That euerie mouth may be stopped c. here the opinion of the Romanists is euidently conuinced that beside the precepts which are commanded there are Euangelicall counsels which are more then one is bound to doe notwithstanding he that doth them is worthie of a greater reward such are these counsels of perfection as they call them â—â— vowe single life to giue all to the poore and to take vpon them voluntarie pouertie and such like and Origen hath the like conceit who in his commentarie vpon this third chapter giueth this corrupt glosse vpon these words of our Sauiour Luk. 17.10 When ye haue done all these things which are commanded you say we are vnprofitable seruants as long as a man saith he doth that which he is bound to doe he is an vnprofitable seruant si aâ—â—m addas aliquid praeceptis iam non eris invtilis servus but if you adde any thing to the precepts then are you no longer an vnprofitable seruant Contra. 1. Concerning Origens glosse we haue as great libertie to refuse it as Pererius had before to reiect Chrysostomes opinion concerning the Virgin Marie and to accuse him of falshood and impietie especially seeing that his glosse corrupteth the text for if we cannot doe those things which are commanded much lesse beside the commandement can any doe more then is required 2. the Apostle here in saying That euerie mouth may be â—â—ped ouerthroweth this arrogant and presumptuous opinion of such counsels of perfection for then a man should haue wherein to reioyce if he could doe more then is commanded and his mouth would not be stopped Controv. 9. Against the Pelagians which established freewill Augustine c. 9. lib. de spirit liter handling these words confuseth that presumptuous error of the Pelagians who affirme that the lawe onely sheweth what should be
And although by our redemption we are not deliuered or taken from God but reconciled vnto him yet are we deliuered from his wrath Rom. 5.9 and so from his punishing iustice 5. Argum. We are improperly said to be redeemed from that to the which the price was not paied but to the curse of the lawe and wrath that is the punishment of sinne the price was not paied for the bearing of the curse and the sustaining of the wrath of God for vs was the price it selfe therefore we are improperly said to be redeemed from the curse and wrath Answ. 1. The proposition is false for the captiue may be said to be redeemed from that to the which the price is not payed as from the gives fetters prison sword death though principally the redemption is from the hands of him which holdeth any in captiuitie so we may be redeemed from the curse of the lawe though the price were not payed vnto it 2. the curse of the lawe and wrath may be taken two wayes passiuely for the effect of the curse and wrath which is the punishment of sinne and in this sense the price is not paid to the curse or actiuely for the wrath of God and his irefull iudgement pronouncing the sentence of the curse and in this sense the price may be said to be paied vnto the curse that is the iustice and wrath of God inflicting the curse 6. Argum. The operation or curse of the lawe is euerlasting death but Christ did not vndergoe euerlasting death for vs therefore he was not made a curse for vs but onely for our cause he fell into some kind of curse for vs. Answ. 1. The proposition is generally true for the curse or operation doth not onely signifie the punishment due vnto the breach of the lawe but the sentence also pronounced against the transgressors of the lawe as it is said Deut. 21.23 cursed is euerie one that hangeth vpon a tree but euerie one that so hanged was not euerlastingly condemned as the theife that was converted vpon the crosse 2. yet it is most true that Christ in some sense suffred eternall death for vs for in euerlasting death two things are to be considered the greatnesse and infinitnes of the infernall agonies and dolors with the abiection and forsaking of God the other is the perpetuall continuance of such euerlasting horror and abiection the second Christ must needs be freed from both because of his omnipotencie it was impossible for him to be for euer kept vnder the thraldome of death and his innocencie that hauing satisfied for sinne beeing himselfe without sinne he could not be held in death and in respect of his office which was to be our deliuerer yet the verie infernall paines and sorrowe Christ did suffer for vs because our Redeemer was to suffer that which was due vnto vs and why els was our Sauiour so much perplexed before his passion which in respect of the outward tormēt of the body was exceeded by many Martyrs in their sufferings if he feared not some greater thing then the death of the bodie 3. And although sometime in Scripture the preposition for signifieth onely the ende or cause as Christ is said to haue died for our sinnes 1. Ioh. 3.16 yet it signifieth also for and in ones stead to doe any thing as Rom. 5.7 for a good man one dare die that is in his stead that he should not die and so Christ died for vs that is in our place and stead that we should not die eternally ex Pareo 7. Argum. As we are said to be sold vnder sinne so we are bought and redeemed by Christ but we were sold vnder sinne without any price payed therefore so also are we redeemed without the paying of any price Answ. The proposition is not true for it is a metaphoricall speach that we are sold vnder sinne thereby is signified the alienation and abiection from God by our sinnes but we are said to be redeemed properly wherein it was necessarie that a price should be paied for vs both to satisfie the iust wrath and indignation of God against sinne as also because of Gods immutable sentence thou shalt die the death which sentence must take place let the Lord should be found a lier and his word not to be true Christ therefore in redeeming vs by his death payed that price and ransome for vs which we otherwise should haue payed 8. Argum. Where there is a true and proper redemption the price is paied to him which holdeth the captiues in bondage but in this redemption purchased by Christ the price was not so paied for then the deuill should haue had it whose captiues we were therefore it is not properly a redemption Answ. 1. It is not true that we are principally and originally the deuills captiues first we are the Lords captiues as of an angrie and offended Iudge by our sinnes but secondarily we were captiued vnto Sathan because the Iudge deliuereth ouer sinners vnto him as the tormentor that power therefore which Sathan hath ouer sinners is a secondarie power receiued from God this is manifested in the parable Matth. 18.34 where the king deliuereth ouer the wicked seruant vnto the tormentor 2. The price then of our redemption was paied vnto God who had deliuered vs ouer as captiues for our sinnes and so the Apostle saith that Christ offred himselfe by his eternall spirit vnto God Heb. 9.14 not that God thirsted for the blood of his sonne but after 〈◊〉 salvation quia salus erat in sanguine because there was health in his blood as Bernard saith for thereby Gods iustice was satisfied and the veritie of his sentence established thou shalt die the death 3. But whereas it is further obiected that the price could not be payed vnto God 1. because God procured his owne sonne to pay the price of our redemption but be that detaineth captiues doth not procure their deliuerance 2. in paying the price of redemption there is some vantage accruing and growing to him to whom the price is paied but in our redemption there was no gaine or advantage vnto God we further answear thus 1. that in such a redemption wherein the Iudge desireth the life and safetie of the prisoner the Iudge himselfe may procure him to be redeemed and that out of his owne treasure 2. neither in such a kind of redemption doth the iudge seeke for any advantage to himselfe but onely the preservation of the lawes and common iustice as Zaleucus the gouernor of the Loerensians hauing made a lawe that he which was taken in adulterie should loose both his eyes did cause one of his sonnes eyes to be put out for the offence and one of his owne eyes by this he gained nothing but the commendation of iustice and so in our redemption the iustice of God is set forth otherwise there can be no lucre or advantage growing properly vnto God 4. Wherefore notwithstanding all these cauills and sophistications Christ properly and
truely redeemed vs by his blood which first appeareth both by euidēt testimonies of Scripture as Mark. 10.45 The Sonne of man came to giue his life a ransome for many Coloss. 1.14 In whom we haue redemption thorough his blood 1. Tim. 2.6 Who gaue himselfe a ransome for all men Apocal. 5.9 Thou hast redeemed vs vnto God by thy blood secondly all the parts requisite in redemption doe here concurre together 1. there must be captiues that are we 2. one to redeeme which is Christ. 3. a ransome must be paid that is Christs blood 4. and one to whom it must be paied that is God see further hereof in Pareus 〈◊〉 10. Controv. 23. That Christ truely reconciled vs by his blood against an other blasphemous assertion of Socinus v. 25. To be a reconciliation thorough faith in his blood against this Socinus obiecteth that Christ was no otherwise a reconciliation then the couer of the Arke in the old testament was called the propitiatorie not that thereby God was reconciled but that God shewed himselfe therein reconciled and appeased toward his people So also the sacrifices of the lawe are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a reconciliation yet there was no satisfaction made vnto God by them to this purpose that impious Socinus part 2. c. 2. pag. 81.82 as he is cited by Pareus dub 11. Contra. 1. It is false that the Arke and sacrifices of the old Testament did reconcile as Christ hath reconciled vs for there is great difference betweene dumbe and senselesse ceremonies the blood of beasts and the most holy and liuely blood of Christ. 2. the Arke and the sacrifices though in themselues and their owne vertue they did not reconcile vnto God yet typically and sacramentally they did reconcile as beeing types and figures of the true reconciliation by Christ. 3. And that Christ was verily and properly our reconciler vnto God appeareth in that the Apostle addeth in his blood which he offred vp to God his father which to what ende was it so offred vp but to be a reconciliation thus much of the controversall questions out of this chapter 6. Morall observations v. 3. Shall their vnbeleefe make the faith of God of none effect c. Origen hereupon hath this note infidelitas eorum qui vel non accedunt ad fidem c. their vnbeleefe which either come not to the faith or fall away from it when they laugh vs to scorne in our fasting almes deeds and other workes of faith fidem quae in nobis est non evacuant doe not euacuate or make voide the faith in vs our faith and pietie is not hindred by other mans incredulitie and prophanenesse And in that the Apostle doth here preuent the cauills and obiections of the Iewes it teacheth that the minister of Gods word should so set forth the doctrine of the truth whether in Church or Schooles as that he may meet with all contrarie obiections made against the truth both to satisfie the mindes of them that are desirous to learne to deliver them from all scruple and doubting and to stoppe the mouth of gainesayers Pareus in v. 1. v. 4. Yea let God be true Seeing God is alwaies found true of his promise but men are liars and deceitfull we are taught that in all our trialls and tentations we should certainly ground vpon the promises of God and not be carried away or swayed by the promises or threats of men to let goe our confidence in Gods promises as Dauid in all his afflictions when he was chased vp and downe and persecuted of Saul staied himselfe vpon the truth of Gods promises v. 4. That thou mightest be iustified When as God doth correct vs his children for our sinnes or otherwise exerciseth his iudgements in the world we should not seeme to accuse God or murmure against him but confesse God in all his works and iudgements to be iust and our selues to be sinners as Dan. 9.8 to vs appertaineth open shame c. yet compassion and forgiuenesse is in the Lord. v. 3. What though some did not beleeue As the Oracles of God committed to the Iewes yet were not in vaine though some beleeued not so the Minister of Gods word must not be discouraged and giue ouer his calling because he seeth in some his labour to take small effect Martyr for euen our Blessed Sauiour in that his most heauenly sermon of the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood was forsaken and left of many of his hearers yet many of his disciples went away in so much that he said vnto the twelue Will ye also goe away Ioh. 6.67 v. 9. Are we more excellent The Apostle that his reprehension might appeare more easie and tolerable ioyneth himselfe in the companie and maketh himselfe one of the number and indeed he was a part and member of Israel So the Prophets doe often ioyne thereselues with the rest of the people as partaking with their sinnes as Dan. 9.5 We haue sinned and committed iniquitie for like as the praise and commendation of the good and vertuous extendeth it selfe vnto all the congregation wherein there are notwithstanding some carnall men and hypocrites so the sinnes of the congregation doe euen touch and some way defile the godly because that they liuing among the wicked might offend in their connivence in not reproouing the sinnes of others as they ought or in not giuing themselues such good example of life as they should or some other kind of way might be touched v. 21. By the Lawe commeth the knowledge of sinne Then is the lawe first to be preached to make men to knowe themselues and to acknowledge their sinnes this was the course that Iohn Baptist tooke to preach repentance to the people and to bring them to confesse their sinnes and so to prepare a way for the Gospell of Christ for like as a wound cannot well be cured vnlesse first it be searched to the bottome so the heart must first be humbled before it can be truely capable of the comforts of the Gospel v. 31. Doe we then make the Lawe of God of none effect c. As the adversaries in S. Pauls time blamed his doctrine concerning iustification by faith onely as an enemie to the Lawe and good workes whereas the Apostle alwaies ioyneth sanctification with iustification workes with faith though he exclude workes in the act it selfe of our iustification So the aduersaries of the grace of God in these dayes the Papists and Romanists doe slaunder the doctrine of the Gospel which vrgeth iustification by faith onely as though it should beate downe and hinder the exercise of good workes But we say with the Apostle that by this doctrine of onely faith we doe not destroy the law but indeed establish it in as much as we hold faith without workes to be a dead and fruitlesse faith we do not separate work from faith though we exclude them from iustification faith which
speaketh of such as are rewarded for their worke before God and not seeing quod vllum opus ex debitâ— remunerationem Dei poscat that any worke by due debt can require reward at Gods hand he turneth the Apostles meaning an other way and by debts vnderstandeth sinnes as they are called in the Lords prayer and so he also thinketh he speaketh of the wages of sinne as S. Paul saith Rom. 6. That the wages or stipend of sinne is death But the Apostle here speaketh euidently of the wages due vnto good workes not to euill the wages is not counted by fauour but in rendring the wages of sinne there is no fauour but iustice 4. The Schoolemen likewise are grossely deceiued who thinking the Apostle doth set downe this as a positiue rule before God haue here deuised two interpretations 1. they vnderstand this working and not working of the works following iustification and so he that worketh is rewarded uot of fauour onely because of his faith but for the debt also of his workes gloss interlin but he that worketh not that is hath no time to worke is rewarded onely of grace But this glosse is conuinced of many errors 1. in ioyning faith and workes together whereas the Apostle before c. 3.28 ascribed iustification to faith without workes 2. to say that our workes are rewarded by debt is to make God endebted vnto man for the worke which is not farre from blasphemie 3. he that hath true iustifying faith can neuer be without some workes or fruits thereof be his time neuer so short as appeareth in the theife vpon the crosse 5. Gorrhan beside this exposition hath an other to vnderstand the Apostle to speake of workes going before iustification and then he giueth this sense that to him which doth some good workes before faith if he should be rewarded the reward should be of debt which is false for then it should not be of grace but to him that worketh not any such worke before faith righteousnesse is imputed by faith c. Here also are diuerse errors 1. â—o imagine that there can be any good workes at all before faith 2. he imagineth the Apostles speach to be conditionalll if any reward be giuen wheras the Apostle setteth it down â—â—sitiuely the wages is counted not if it be 3. the Apostle speaketh in all that discourse of all workes whether going before iustification or following after for all workes of the lawe are excluded c. 3.28 now all good workes are such as the lawe requireth therefore euen such good workes are shut out from iustifying as well such as followe iustification as goe before 4. all these errors arise out of the misvnderstanding of this place where the Apostle speaketh by way of supposition from the ciuill vse of rewards among men that if there were any such meritorious working before God the wages should in like manner be due by debt Quest. 13. Of the diuerse kinds of rewards 1. Wages or reward is either due by debt per proportionem operae cum re by the proportion of the worke with the reward after a Geometricall kind of proportion as when a labourer is couenanted with to haue so much for his worke as in a due estimation it is valued at there is a wages which is of fauour by promise and not by debt and then it signifieth the same thing that fructus a kind of fruit or commoditie that followeth ones labour as Psal. 127. the fruit of the wombe is called a reward and so life eternall is called a reward because the Lord hath promised to giue it as a fruit following the labour of his Saints Fai. 2. And further life eternall is called a reward by a certaine similitude because that as in ciuill workes the reward commeth after the worke is done so life eternall followeth after mens fruitfull labour in this life Mart. and againe it is called a reward in respect of the thing done not for the manner of the doing because that as the wages is giuen to the worker of debt so is saluation rendred to him which beleeueth of grace Pareus 3. But properly eternall life is not a wages or reward for these reasons 1. because the things are not equall which are giuen and receiued the eternall reward farre exceedeth the worth of our temporarie and imperfect obedience 2. he that meriteth the wages most doe it ex proprio of his owne but we haue nothing which we haue not receiued it is not our owne 3. he that meriteth must be no way bound vnto him that payeth the wages for his seruice but all that we doe or can doe it is our dutie to doe Quest. 14. How it standeth with Gods iustice to iustifie the wicked v. 5. v. 5. But beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly this may seeme to be contrarie to that Exod. 34.7 where the Lord saith he will not hold the wicked innocent and Prou. 17. it is called an abhomination to iustifie the wicked 1. Bucer hereunto answeareth that S. Paul here speaketh of the first iustification which if it should not be of the wicked none at all should be iustified for we are all the children of wrath and the Lord findeth vs all wicked before we are iustified But Moses speaketh of him which continueth in his sinne and disobedience afterward 2. Gryneus thus answereth that although it be not lawfull for a man to iustifie the wicked yet God may doe it that is omni lege superior aboue all lawe and the reason of this difference is because God onely hath right and power to forgiue sinnes because they are committed chiefly against him Faius 3. Pareus addeth further that then it is vniust to iustifie the wicked when as it is done without cause and against the rule of iustice there beeing no satisfaction made by the offender himselfe or some other for him but with God it is so for he iustifieth the wicked hauing receiued a sufficient satisfaction by the death of Christ who hath payed the price of our redemption 4. To this also may be adioyned that this must be vnderstood in sen su diuiso in a diuided sense that God iustifieth the wicked not him that remaineth wicked but was so before he was iustified Faius Anselmus vnderstandeth him to be wicked that beleeueth not he then which beleeueth is no longer to be counted wicked so then whom God iustifieth be also sanctifieth and of an vnrighteous man he is made righteous which righteousnesse is imperfect here in this life and therefore it cannot iustifie Par. dub 4. Quest. 15. How our sinnes are said to be forgiuen and couered v. 7. 1. First it is here to be observed that whereas S. Paul bringeth in this testimonie out of the Psalmes Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sinnes are couered to prooue the former proposition that God imputeth righteousnesse without workes that these two to remit and couer sinnes and to impute righteousnesse are taken for one and the same thing for
inward circumcision of the heart which is by faith 2. Anselmus thinketh that the Apostle reporteth here that which he said before that Abraham is the father of them which beleeue though they be vncircumcised but he toucheth here rather the other part that Abraham is the father of the circumcision also which he further explaineth that he meaneth not such as onely haue the carnall circumcision but such as walke in the steppes of Abraham 3. By walking in the steppes the Apostle vnderstandeth not here the fruites and effects of faith but rather faith it selfe in which respect Abraham is said to be the father of the faithfull Beza annot And herein they must followe the steppes of Abraham 1. he was not counted iust not by any merits or workes of his but by faith 2. this faith was ioyned with a constant and full assurance herein they must be like vnto Abraham 4. Origen here obserueth that though at this time he were called Abram not Abraham when he was pronounced iust by faith Gen. 15. yet the Apostle retaineth that name which was afterward imposed by the Lord quod enim divinitus sumitur obseruari in posterum convenit for that which is once appointed of God it is fit afterward to be observed Quest. 23. How and where Abraham was promised to be heire of the world v. 13. 1. Gryneus by the world vnderstandeth by a Synecdoche of the whole taken for a part the land of Canaan which was promised to Abraham and his seede but the Apostle speaketh here not of a temporall but of a spirituall promise 2. Faius Osiander with others doe apply it vnto Canaan also but mystically as it was a type and figure of the kingdome of heauen 3. Lyranus will haue this fulfilled in Christ to whom was giuen all power in heauen and earth so also Peter Martyr and Caluin who alleadgeth that place Heb. 1.2 Whom he hath made heire of all things 4. Pareus by the world vnderstandeth the world of the faithfull and beleeuers dispersed ouer the world and so in effect it is the same which he said before that Abraham should be the father of all which beleeue whether of the circumcision or vncircumcision So also Origen here referreth vs vnto that promise Gen. 15. that in Abraham all the kinreds of the earth should be blessed likewise Beza 5. As this last seemeth to be the fittest interpretation so I thinke it best to ioyne both these last together that Abraham was made heire of the world that is the father of all beleeuers in the world yet so as this was chiefely performed in Christ as it is said Psalme â—â— I will giue the heathen for thine inheritance and the vttermost parts of the earth for thy possession And so S. Paul also Galath 3. vnderstandeth the seede of Abraham vnto whom the promise was made of Christ to this purpose the ordinarie glosse that Abraham was heres mundi secundum propositum exemplum heire of the world in respect of his example of beleeuing but Christ secundum potestatem in regard of his power Quest. 24. Wherein Abraham was made heire of the world and wherein this inheritance consisted 1. This inheriting of the world is not meant of any temporall dominion which snoâ—â— fall vnto the posteritie of Abraham as the Iewes dreamed for the obiect of faith is spirituall not temporall as it is defined by the Apostle to be the euidence of things that are not seene Heb. 11.1 2. It must therefore be referred vnto Christ. 1. Abraham in Christs right is promiseâ—â— the inheritance of the world which should be chiefely accomplished in the celestiall inheritance 2. and now in the earth this spirituall inheriting of the world is vnderstood of the Church of Christ which is dispersed thorough the world 3. and beside the faithfull onely haue true tight and interest vnto the temporall things of this life which the wicked 〈◊〉 bold as vsurpers as the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 3.21 all things are yours and ye Christs and Christ Gods Pareus Quest. 25. How faith is said to be made voide if they which are of the lawe be heires 1. Haymo by the promise here vnderstandeth the blessing which was promised to Abraham should in his seede come vpon all nations so that if they which were of the lawe and circumcision should onely be heires vnto Abraham that promise should not be accomplished that all nations should in his feede be blessed 2. Origen thus expoundeth evacuabitur id that should be evacuated and made voide that Abraham was iustified by faith his meaning is that the word of God should not be found true so also Osiander taketh here faith for the constancie of Gods promises it would follow that God did not stand to his promise seeing the promise was made to the faith of Abraham but faith is not taken in that sense in this chapter but thereby is meant beleefe in God and the relying vpon his promises 3. Bucer and Calvin giue this sense that seeing faith is ioyned with an assured confidence and trust if the promise were made to the keeping of the law which beeing a thing impossible would make doubtfulnesse and distrust in the minde this were contrarie vnto the nature of faith and so in this respect faith should be made voide 4. Tolet here referreth vs to that place Galat. 3.17 where the Apostle reasoneth from the time that the lawe which came 400. yeares after the promise could not make voide the promise which was made before but if the inheritance came by the lawe then should the promise which was made first be of no effect which were verie absurd and inconuenient 5. But the Apostle rather reasoneth here from the contrarie and diuerse nature of the lawe and promise for the lawe requireth workes and so the reward is of due debt the promise is of faith and so the reward is of grace and fauour these then doe one destroy an other for that which is of fauour cannot be of desert and due debt if the inheritance then come by the lawe of workes the lawe of faith is made voide and so Gods promise should be frustrate which is impossible Pareus in ver 14. Quest. 26. How the lawe is said to cause wrath 1. This is not brought in as an argument and proofe of the former speach that the promise is of no effect if the inheritance were by the lawe but it is a new argument to prooue that inheritance is not by the lawe by the contrarie effect because the promise procureth a blessing but the lawe wrath and so malediction therefore the inheritance is not by the law 2. Origen by the lawe vnderstandeth the lawe of the members which maketh vs captiue vnto sinne and indeede causeth wrath and where this law is not there is no transgression Haymo thinketh it may be of the lawe of nature but it is euident that the Apostle speaketh of the written lawe of Moses as he calleth the Iewes Abrahams seede of the lawe v.
16. that is which had receiued the lawe 3. By wrath some would vnderstand the wrath and indignation in the transgressor his contumacie and rage against God who hath by lawe restrained him of his licentious libertie Origen and Haymo referre it to the penaltie of the law as an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth but it rather signifieth the wrath and indignation of God in iudging and punishing of sinne not onely temporally but eternally Calvin 4. Now the lawe worketh wrath not of it selfe for it is holy iust and good but in respect of the weakenes and corruption of man which taketh occasion by the lawe as contrarie vnto it to be the worse as we see that in nature one contrarie by the resistance of an other becommeth so much the more violent as expereince sheweth in the breaking out of lightening and thunder and in the terrible noise of gunshot where two contraries meete together the fierie hoat nature of the brimstone and the cold qualitie of the saltpeter both tempered together in the gunpowder Mart. 5. But although the lawe occasionaliter by way of occasion procureth wrath yet it hath an other ende and effect vnto the godly for vnto them it is a schoolemaster to bring them vnto Christ so that Christ is the ende of the lawe not onely because he hath abolished the ceremonies of the lawe and so is the ende and fulfilling thereof but because the law directeth vs vnto Christ who hath fulfilled the lawe for vs which it was impossible for vs to keepe 6. Now the holy Apostle doth of purpose thus speake of the law as saying that by it commeth the knowledge of sinne that it causeth wrath that it is the ministerie of death that by this meanes he might abate that great opinion and estimation of the law which the Iewes conceiued of it hoping thereby to be iustified but otherwise as the law is considered in it selfe he giueth it the due commendation as afterward is shewed in the 7. chapter like as now the Preachers of the Gospel doe giue vnto good works their due praise and commendation but yet they detract from them as not beeing able to iustifie vs. Mart. 26. Quest. Of the meaning of these words v. 15. Where no law is there is no transgression 1. Origen here obserueth that the Apostle saith not where is law there is transgression for then all those holy men which liued vnder the law should be held to be vnder transgression but he saith in the negatiue where there is no law there is no transgression But this collection is not good for the contrarie must be inferred out of the Apostles words where there is no law there is no transgression therefore where there is a law there is transgression or els there should be no coherence in the Apostles words whereas this is added as a proofe of the former clause that the law causeth wrath 2. Now touching the coherence Gorrhan maketh here two arguments why the inheritance can not be by the law because by it there is neither remissio poenae remission of the punishment the law causing wrath nor yet remissio culpae remission of the fault because by the law commeth transgression Gryneus maketh this the coherence because idem est index c. there is the same foreshowne both of the transgression and punishment namely the law But thus better doth the sentence hang together the Apostle prooueth that the law causeth wrath by the cause thereof for that it causeth transgression so then transgression is set in the middes betweene the law and wrath for the law bringeth forth transgression and transgression wrath Pareus 3. But this should seeme to be no good argument no law no transgression therefore where there is law there is transgression as it followeth not no creature no man Ergo a creature a man Ans. The Apostle here reasoneth not à genere-ad speciem from the genus to the species as in the instance proposed but from the contrarie by the like connexion of the causes and effects as this followeth well in the like where the Sunne is not risen there is â—â— day light therefore the Sunne beeing risen it is day Pareus 4. Now concerning the meaning of these words Haymo thinketh it may be vnderstood either of the lawe of nature and so infants not yet hauing vnderstanding of this lawe cannot be transgressors against it or of the Evangelicall lawe which the Pagans not hauing are not held to be so great offenders as they which haue reciued it or of the morall lawe of Moses where that lawe is not non est tanta praevaricatio neque sic imputatur there is not so great transgression neither is it so much imputed This latter sense is to be preferred for thoroughout this chapter the Apostle vnderstandeth the lawe of Moses 5. And further for the true vnderstanding of these words it must be obserued 1. that the Apostle saith not where is no lawe there is no iniquitie for the old world and the Sodomites committed iniquitie before the lawe was written but he saith there is no transgression which is referred to the lawe written gloss ordin 2. this is simply true of things indifferent as were the ceremonies before they were commanded by lawe for then it was no sinne to omit them but of things euill in their owne nature it must be vnderstood after a sort that there was not so great transgression before the law was giuen as after Lyran. 3. and hereof these two reasons may be giuen both quia homines nituntur in vetitum men are most bent vnto that which is forbidden and so by the prohibition of the lawe the stubbornenesse of mans heart was increased as also because by the lawe came the knowledge of sinne and so the seruant that knoweth his masters will and doth it not is worthie of more stripes Lyran. 4. So then the Apostle denieth not but that sinne which is committed against the conscience euen where there is no lawe is sinne non est reus tantae transgressionis c. he is not guiltie of so great transgression as he which knoweth the lawe and breaketh it Calvin Quest. 27. Who are meant by Abrahams seede which is of the Lawe v. 16. 1. The Apostle in this verse vrgeth two arguments to prooue that the inheritance is not of the law but of faith because it is of grace for to be iustified by faith and by grace with the Apostle are all one and because the promise is firme but if it were by the law it should be vncertaine and not firme because of mans weaknes who is not able to performe the law Calvin Chrysostome further saith that the Apostle here speaketh of two chiefe good things or benefits the one is quod quia data sunt firma sunt the things which are giuen are firme the other quod vniverso semini data sunt they are giuen to the whole seede of Abraham 2. By the seede which is of the law
God who is like me that shall call and declare it c. and what is at hand and what things are to come c. Doct. 8. Of the nature condition and properties of faith v. 13. Who aboue hope beleeued vnder hope faith then is a grace and gift of God whereby we giue a firme and sure assent vnto his promises in Christ euen aboue and against naturall reason in faith then these things are considered 1. the author thereof God faith of Gods gift Ephes. 2.8 2. the obiect or matter of faith in generall is the word of God but the particular and proper obiect which is called obiectum adaequatum is the promise of saluation in Christ. 3. the qualitie and property which maketh the forme of faith is to be firme and sure without wauering and to beleeue euen beyond and against the apprehension of naturall reason Pet. Martyr 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. That the Apostle excludeth all kind of workes from iustification v. 2. If Abraham be iustified by workes The Romanists are here of opinion that the Apostle onely excludeth such workes as were done onely by the strength of nature without faith in the Mediator so Staplet Antid pag. 46. who vrgeth this reason among other to confirme his opinion the Apostle onely excludeth such workes which expect not an eternall reward with God but the workes done in faith doe expect an eternall reward therefore such workes he excludeth not Contra. 1. But the contrarie is euident that the Apostle shutteth out all workes whatsoeuer from the matter of iustification 1. he speaketh of the workes of Abraham now a faithfull man not an vnbeleeuer 2. he mentioneth workes in generall without any distinction denying iustification vnto them and ascribing it vnto faith 3. euerie thing which is rewarded ex debito of due debt is excluded from iustification but to euerie worke is the wages due of debt as vers 4. To him that worketh the wages is counted by debt therefore euerie worke is excluded 2. Concerning his reason if he vnderstand the reward which is due of debt and not giuen by fauour then euen the workes of faithfull men cannot expect such a reward if he meane a reward giuen by fauour then as well the workes which are so rewarded as those which shall not are excluded 3. And as the workes of faith are excluded together with workes done before and without faith so also not onely doth the Apostle speaking of workes meane the rewardes onely but euen the workes of the morall law also for the Apostle nameth workes in generall and he directly afterward speaketh of the morall law v. 15. The law causeth wrath and where no law is there is no transgression which though it be true of euery law in generall yet this generally is seene in the morall law Controv. 2. Whether blessednesse consist onely in the conuersion of sinners v. 7. The Romanists here obiect that as the Apostle out of the Psalmes ascribeth beatitude to the remission and forgiuenesse of sinnes so elswhere in Scripture it is giuen vnto innocencie of life and to other vertues as Psal. 119. Blessed are the vndefiled in heart and Matth. 5. Blessed are the mercifull blessed are the pure in heart c. 1. Peter Martyr answeareth here by a distinction of beatitude which is either inchoata begunne onely and that is in our iustification or perfecta it is perfect and absolute in the kingdome of God so he will haue the Apostle here to speake of the blessednesse which is begunne in our iustification but in the other places the blessednesse in the next life is promised 2. Calvin saith that all these beatitudes which are pronounced doe presuppose the happinesse which is in beeing iustified by faith without the which all the other promises are in vaine 3. But the more full answear is that the Apostle here sheweth the cause and manner of our iustification which is by faith in Christ but in the other places it is onely declared to whom this iustification belongeth and who they are that shall be blessed namely the mercifull and vndefiled in heart but the Apostle sheweth why they are blessed because they beleeue in Christ Pareus dub 5. Controv. 3. Whether sinne is wholly purged and taken away in the iustification of the faithfull The Romanists are of opinion that not onely the guilt of sinne is taken away in iustification but sinne it selfe is altogether purged and so for sinnes to be couered idem plane valet atque esse sublata nulla prorsus relicta is all one as to be taken away and not to remaine at all Perer. disput 3. numer 11. Tolet. annot 10. and they impute this opinion to the Protestants peccata non auferri c. that sinnes are not taken away in iustification but remaine the same they were onely they are not imputed after iustification their reasons are these 1. It was the opinion of the Pelagians confuted by Augustine that in baptisme there is not giuen remission of all sinnes nec auferre crimina sed radere and that it doth not take away sinne but onely prone it as it were and pare it the roote remaineth still August lib. 1. contra 2. epist. Pelagian c. 13. like vnto this error they make the opinion of Protestants Perer. ibid. 2. It were no iustice in God if sinne remained still not to impute it not to impute sinne vnto the sinner seemeth not to stand with the rule of equitie Tolet. ibid. 3. The Scripture so speaketh of the remission of sinnes as though they were wholly remooued as Isaiah 44. I haue taken away thine iniquitie as a cloud 1. Cor. 6. but ye are washed ye are sanctified Iob. 1. Behold the lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world Isaiah 1. If your sinnes were as redde as scarlet they should be made white as snowe Hes. 14.3 Take away all iniquitie and receiue vs graciously Coloss. 2.14 Putting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against vs these and the like places are produced by Tolet and Pererius in the foresaid places to prooue the full remoouing and abolishing of all sinne in our iustification 4. Otherwise Christs merit should be of lesse force and efficacie then the sinne of Adam if it should not wholly remooue and take away sinne brought in by Adam Tolet. 5. Pererius inferreth as much out of the Apostles words here if our sinnes be hid and couered then are they not seene of God si non videntur à Deo nulla vtique sunt if they are not seene then are they none at all for if sinne still remained in the faithfull which God hateth then he should finde somewhat in them worthie of hatred and so what he hateth consequently he punisheth Perer. numer 11. Contra. 1. Our aduersaries doe not truely propound the state of this question betweene them and the Protestants for we affirme not that the same sinnes remaine before iustification and after there is great difference between peccatum
promised but that he had also a particular confidence of his acceptance with God and remission of his sinnes in the Messiah promised doth euidently appeare by these two arguments 1. The Apostle saith that Abraham was partaker by faith of that blessednesse which the Prophet Dauid speaketh of v. 7. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen then it followeth ver 9. Came the blessednesse vpon the circumcision or vpon the vncircumcision 2. the like faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse which is imputed to vs v. 23. but our faith is to beleeue that Christ was put to death for our sinnes and rose for our iustification v. 25. therefore Abrahams faith was an assurance of remission of his sinnes in Christ. Controv. 15. That faith doth not iustifie by the merit or act thereof but onely instrumentally as it applyeth and apprehendeth the righteousnesse of Christ. Bellarmine hath an other sophisticall collection vpon these words v. 22. therefore it was imputed to him for righteousnesse here saith at the Apostle rendreth the reason why faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousnesse because he in beleeuing gaue glorie vnto god therefore he was iustified merito fidei by the merit or worthinesse of faith which notwithstanding was his grace and gift Bellar. lib. 1. de iustif c. 17. Contra. 1. Abraham was not iustified because he in beleeuing gaue glorie vnto God that indeede was an act and fruit of his faith but it was his faith onely for the which he was iustified as the Apostle saith afterward v. 24. it shall be likewise imputed to vs for righteousnes which beleeue c. 2. the Apostle saith to him that worketh not but beleeueth c. faith is counted for righteousnesse then it will followe that where faith is counted or imputed for righteousnesse there is no worke faith then iustifieth not as a worke by the act of beleeuing for then faith should not iustifie without works which is the scope of all the Apostles discourse that by faith righteousnes is imputed without workes v. 6. faith then doth not iustifie actiuely as it is a worke but passiuely as it apprehendeth the righteousnesse of Christ. 3. If faith be the gift of God as Bellarmine confesseth then can it not merit for he that meriteth must merit of his owne where there is grace and fauour as in the bestowing of gifts freely there is no merit v. 4. 4. I will here oppose against Bellarmine the iudgement of Tolet and so set one Iesuite against an other and a Cardinall against his fellowe he thus ingeniously writeth vpon these words non existimes Paulum merito fiderascribere iustitium c. thinke not that Paul ascribeth righteousnesse to the merit of faith as though because he beleeued he was worthie of the righteousnesse of God but he signifieth Deum ex gratia acceptare fidem nostram in iustitiam that God of grace and fauour accepteth our faith for righteousnesse Controv. 16. The people are not to be denied the reading of the Scriptures v. 23. Now it is not written for him onely but for vs c. Hence it is euident that the Romanists offer great wrong vnto the people of God in barring them from the reading of the Scriptures for they are to be admitted to the reading of the Scriptures for whom they are written but they are written for all that beleeue in Christ the reading then of the Scripture serueth to coÌ„firme our faith therfore they belong generally vnto the faithfull Par. But it will be obiected that the vnlearned doe not vnderstand the Scriptures and therefore they are to depend vpon the fathers of the Church for the vnderstanding of them and not to venture vpon them themselues Answ. 1. Nay the sense of the Scripture is most safely taken from the Scripture which is the best interpreter of it selfe 2. the Fathers and expossitors are to be heard and consulted with so farre forth as they agree with the Scriptures but the sense of the Scripture 〈◊〉 not depend vpon their fancies which haue no warrant by Scripture as Hierome vpon theâ— 23. chap. of Mathew giueth instance of a certaine interpretation of one of the Fatherâ— that Zacharias the sonne of Barachias mentioned there v. 35. to haue beene slaine betweene the Temple and the Altar was Zacharie the father of Iohn Baptist And Hierome searching out which of the Fathers had made this interpretation found that it was Basil and then he concludeth this seeing it hath no warrant out of the Scriptures eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur is as easily reiected as it is affirmed See further of the vulgar reading of Scripture and of the manner of interpreting the same Synops. Centur. 1. err 3. and err 9. Controv. 17. Against the heretikes which condemned the old Testament and God the author thereof v. 24. Which beleeued in him that raised vp Iesus c. Origen very well inferreth vpon these wordes that seeing the God whom Abraham beleeued was able to quicken the dead was the same that raised Iesus from the dead non erat alius Deus legis alius Domini nostri Iesu Christ. c. there was not then one God of the law and another of our Lord Iesus Christ c. But there was the same God of the old and new Testament which is obserued by Origen against the wicked Marcionites and Manichies who condemned the old Testament and the author thereof So also whereas the same heretickes vrged these wordes of the Apostle v. 15. where no law is there is no transgression and thereupon inferring the contrarie where there is a law there is transgression would thereby conclude that the law is the cause of transgression and so condemne the law Origen doth thus returne this their collection vpon themselues that as where the law is there is transgression of the law so where faith is there is transgression against faith but as faith is not the cause vt quis praeuaricetur à fide that one transgresse against faith neither shall the law be the cause of transgression against the law Controv. 18. Whether iustification consist onely in the remission of sinnes v. 25. Who was deliuered to death for our sinnes and is risen againe for our iustification Pererius taketh occasion here to inuergh against Protestants thus affirming of vs qui â—â—â—â—em vim iustificationis ponunt in sola remissione peccatorum donationem vero iustitiae c. which doe place all the force of iustification onely in the remission of sinnes but the donation of iustice whereby the minde is rectified and newenesse of life wrought in vs they do reiect and abandon Perer. disput 10. err 49. and to the same purpose Bellar. lib. 2. de iustif c. 6. and the Rhemists take vpon them to confute the Protestants because they hold iustification to be onely remission of sinnes and no grace inherent in vs annot in 4. ad Rom. Sect. 6. Contra. 1. It is a false imputation that we place iustification onely in the remission of
sinnes for we hold also with S. Paul the imputation of Christs righteousnesse by faith as S. Paul saith Philip. 3.9 That I may be found in him not hauing mine owne righteousnesse which is by the lawe but that which is of the faith of Christ c. 2. But though we graunt as well an imputation of righteousnes as a not imputation of sinne concurring vnto iustification yet we denie that any inherent iustice or renouation of life is any part of this iustification neither doth the Apostle meane any such iustification here Christ rose for our iustification not thereby onely to giue vs an example of newenesse of life as Bellarmine and Pererius expound it wherein Tolet his owne fellowe Iesuite and Cardinall is against him as is before shewed qu. 42. but Christs resurrection is the cause and ground of our iustification which is imputed by faith as Ambrose expoundeth resurrexit c. vt nos gratia iustificationis donaret he rose againe to endue vs with the grace of iustification vt iustitiam credentium confirmaret to confirme the iustice of those which beleeue saith Hierome ista resurrectio credita nos iustificat this resurrection beeing beleeued doth iustifie vs saith Augustine 3. an inherent iustice we confesse which is our sanctification the fruit and effect of our iustification by faith but because it is imperfect in vs and not able to satisfie the iustice of God we denie that we are thereby iustified in his sight Controv. 19. Against Socinus corrupt interpretation of these words v. 25. Was deliuered vp for our sinnes Socinus will not haue this phrase to signifie any satisfactioÌ„ made by Christ for our sinnes but onely to betoken the cause or occasion of Christs death as the Lord is said to giue Israâ—l vp for the sinnes of Ieroboam who sinned and caused Israel to sinne 1. king 14.16 thus â—icked Socinus de Seruat part 2. p. 108. Contra. 1. Though sometime this phrase signifie the cause yet it is false that it so onely signifieth for the Scripture speaketh euidently that Christ was our reconciliation and that we haue redemption in him Rom. 3.24 25. our sinnes then onely were not the cause or occasion of his death but he so died for our sinnes as that he by his blood satisfied for them 2. It was the Pelagian blasphemie that Christ died for our sinnes to be an example onely vnto vs to die vnto sinne for thus the power and force of Christs death is extenuated which indeede causeth vs to die vnto sinne it doth not teach vs onely and shew vs the way this were to extoll the power of mans corrupt will against the grace of God 3. The instance of Ieroboam is altogether impertinent Israel was deliuered vp for Ieroboams sinnes which they imitated and followed if Christ were so deliuered vp for our sinnes then they must make him also to be a sinner with vs and to be polluted with our sinnes ex Perer dub 8. 20. Controv. Piscators opinion examined that our sinnes are remitted onely by Christs death not for the obedience and merit of his life These are Piscators words in his annotation vpon the 25. v. Omnia nostra pectata expiatâ— sunt per solam mortem Christi all our sinnes are expiated onely by the death of Christ and therefore neither originall sinne is purged by his holy conception nor the sinnes of omission by his holy life but by Christs death onely to this purpose many places of Scripture are cited and alleadged by him as Matth. 20.28 The Sonne of man came to giue his life a ransome for many Matth. 26.28 Which namely blood is shed for many for the remission of sinnes Act. 20.28 Christ hath purchased his Church by his blood Likewise he affirmeth that by Christs obedience in his death and vpon the crosse partâ—â— esse nobis vitam aeâ—ernam euerlasting life is obtained for vs as Hebr. 10.19 By the blood of Iesus we may be hold to enter into the holy place and other places are cited to the same effect Contra. 1. It is true that Christ onely by his death and other his holy sufferings paied the ransome and bare the punishment due vnto our sinne but seeing Christs blood had beene of no value if he had not beene most perfectly righteous his obedience and righteousnes must as well concurre vnto the remission of sinnes as his death and this is that which S. Peter saith 1. Pet. 1.19 We are redeemed with the pretious blood of Christ as of a Lâ—â—â—e vndefiled and without spot and c. 3.18 Christ hath once suffered for sinnes the iust for the vniust the innocencie then and integritie of Christ must be ioyned with Christs blood to make it an acceptable sacrifice 2. Whereas there are two parts of our iustification the remission and not imputing of sinnes and the imputation of Christs righteousness which two are not separated neither can the one stand without the other neither can there be any remission of sinnes vnlesse Christs righteousnes be imputed as S. Paul saith 1. Cor. 5.21 He hath made him to be sinne 〈◊〉 that knew no sinne that we should be made the righteousnes of God in him the merit of Christs obedience and righteousnes must needes concurre in the remission of sinnes yea Piscator in his annotation vpon the 4. v. confesseth that these words blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen idem valere to be as much in effect as to say blessed are they to whom iustice is imputed 3. But that seemeth to be a more straunge assertion to denie that possessio vitae eternat tanquam effectum adscribitur obedientiae Christi the possession of eternall life is ascribed as an effect to Christs obedience which is directly affirmed by the Apostle Hebr. 7.26 Such an high Priest it became vs to haue which is holy harmelesse vndefiled separate from sinners and made higher then the heauens what hath made Christ higher then the heauens but his holines perfection integritie and therefore he is able perfectly to saue them that come vnto God v. 25. 4. And further that we are iustified by Christs obedience the Apostle sheweth Rom. 5.13 As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous here the Apostle saith directly that we are made righteous by the obedience of Christ. Piscator here answereth that by Christs obedience here is vnderstood his obedience in submitting himselfe willingly vnto death in which it was his fathers will he should suffer for vs. Contra. Our iustification consisteth of two parts of the remission of our sinnes and the making of vs iust before God the one is procured by Christs death the other is purchased by his obedience and righteousnes and that the Apostle speaketh not onely of Christs obedience vnto death but generally of his whole course of righteousnes both in life and death is euident because he calleth it the gift of righteousnes v. 17. and the raigning of grace
vngodly L. it is not put interrogatiuely but passiuely in the originall 7 Doubtlesse one will scarce die for a righteous man but yet for a good man for one which is profitable to him Be. he readeth the sense not the words it may be one dare die 8 But God setteth out his loue toward vs seeing that while not seeing if that while S. we were yet sinners Christ died for vs. 9 Beeing iustified therefore by his blood much more shall we be saued thorough him from wrath 10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God God was reconciled to vs S. by the death of his Sonne much more beeing reconciled we shall be saued liue S. by his life 11 And not onely so but we also reioyce in God thorough our Lord Iesus Christ by whome we haue obtained V. Be. receiued Gr. reconciliation atonement B.G. 12 Wherefore as by one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne and so euen so B. death went ouer all men in whome namely Adam Be. not in as much as S.V.B. all men haue sinned 13 For vnto the time of the law was sinne in the world but sinne is not imputed while there is no law 14 But death raigned from Adam vnto Moses euen ouer them that sinned after the like manner after the similitude Gr. of the transgression of Adam which was the figure of him that was to come 15 But yet not as the offence so is also the gift for if by the offence of that one many be dead much more the grace of God and the gift by grace which is of one man by one man B.G. hath abounded vnto many 16 And not as that which entred by one which sinned not as the sinne of one S.L. for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sinning or that sinned or as by one that sinned death entred V. for that followeth in the next verse so is the gift for the fault sinne B. not iudgement S.L.V. because of the words following to condemnation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gr. came of one offence which must be supplied out of the next clause vnto condemnation but the gift is of many offences to iustification 17 For if by one offence Be. better then by the offence of one B.G.S.V.L. for so much is expressed in the words following death raigned thorough one much more shall they which receiue the abundance of grace that abundance of grace G. and of the gift of righteousnes raigne in life thorough one that is Iesus Christ 18 Likewise then as by one offence Be. not the offence of one cater see the former vers the fault came vpon all men to condemnation so by one iustification Be. not the iustification of one B.G. cum caeter for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put in the first place otherwise it should be put after as in the next verse the benefit redounded vnto all men to the iustification of life 19 For as by the disobedience of one many were made sinners so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous 20 Moreouer the Law entred thereupon by the way V. in the meane time B. that the offence should encrease B. Be. abound V. G. but where sinne increased grace abounded much more 21 That as sinne had raigned vnto death in death V. S. L. so is the word in the originall is in but he meaneth vnto death as appeareth by the other opposite part vnto eternall death so might grace also raigne by righteousnes vnto eternall life thorough Iesus Christ our Lord. 2. The Argument Methode and Parts In this chapter the Apostle pursueth the former proposition wherewith he concluded the fourth chapter that Christ died for our sinnes and now he sheweth the manifold benefits which we haue by the death of Christ with an ample proofe and demonstration of the same So then this chapter is deuided into two parts the first containing a rehersall of the benefits which we haue by Christs death to v. 6. the second a proofe and demonstration thereof to the ende of the chapter 1. In the first part there is 1. set forth the foundation of all other benefits which we obtaine by Christ namely iustification by faith v. 1. 2. then the benefits and graces either internall which are these sowre peace of conscience bold accesse to Gods presence perseuerance hope of glorie v. 2. or externall which is constancie and reioycing in tribulation which is amplyfied both by the effects patience experience hope which is described by the effect it maketh vs not ashamed v. 5. and by the efficient cause thereof the loue of God shed in our hearts by the holy Ghost v. 5. 2. Then followeth the probation hereof which consisteth of two arguments the one taken from the state and condition of such as were reconciled by Christ they were enimies this argument is handled from v. 6. to 12. the other argument standeth vpon a comparison and collation betweene Adam and Christ the losse which we had by the one and the benefit which we are made partakers of by the other from v. 12 to the ende In the first argument there is 1. the proposition that Christ died for the vngodly v. 6. ◠the illustration thereof à dissimili by an vnlike comparison betweene man and God the first part is expressed v. 7. that a man will not die for an vnrighteous man and an enemie which is shewed by the contrarie because hardly for a righteous man will one die vnlesse he be also a friend much lesse for an vnrighteous man and an enemie the other part of the comparison followeth 1. shewing that Christ died both for vs beeing vnrighteous v. 8. and enemies also v. 10. 2. then he inferreth two conclusions 1. the certaintie of our saluation beeing now iustified and made friends v. 9.10 2. the ioy and consolation which springeth and ariseth hereof v. 11. The second argument consisting of a comparison betweene Adam and Christ is thus handled there is the proposition concerning Adam shewing wherein he was like wherein vnlike vnto Christ to v. 18. then the reddition or second part concerning Christ v. 18. to the ende First Adam is like in three things 1. in his person he was but one and yet the author of sinne to all 2. in the obiect his sinne was communicated to all though himselfe but one 3. in the effect and issue this sinne brought forth death all this is propounded v. 12. that sinne entred by one man into all the world then it is prooued by 3. arguments 1. by the office of the lawe which is not to bring in sinne but to impute sinne v. 13. therefore though sinne were not so much imputed before the lawe as after yet was it in the world before 2. by the effects death was in the world before the lawe and it raigned also vpon infants that had not sinned actually as Adam had done and therefore sinne much more which brought forth death v. 14. 3. Adam was
a figure of Christ therefore as Christs righteousnesse is extended euen vnto those before the lawe so also was Adams sinne v. 14. Then the Apostle sheweth wherein Adam is vnlike vnto Christ namely in these three things 1. in the efficacie and power the grace of God in Christ is much more able to saue vs then Adams fall was to condemne vs v. 15. 2. in the obiect Adams one offence was sufficient to condemne but by Christ we are deliuered from many offences v. 16. 3. in the ende Adams sinne brought forth death but Christs righteousnesse doth not onely deliuer vs from sinne and death but bringeth vs vnto righteousnesse and life yea and causeth vs to raigne in life it restoareth vs to a more glorious kingdome and inheritance then we lost in Adam v. 17. The reddition or second part of this comparison sheweth wherein Christ of whom Adam was a type and figure is answearable vnto Adam namely in these three things propounded v. 12. first in the singularitie of his person one mans iustification saueth vs as one mans offence condemned vs v. 18. 2. in the obiect as Adams sinne was communicated to many so is Christs obedience v. 19. And here the Apostle by the way preuenteth an obiection that if sinne came in by Adam why entred the lawe he answeareth to the ende that sinne might the more appeare and be increased not simply but that thereby the grace of God might abound the more 3. in the ende as sinne had raigned vnto death so grace might raigne vnto eternall life 3. The questions and doubts discussed Quest. 1. What peace the Apostle meaneth ver 1. v. 1. Beeing iustified by faith we haue peace toward God 1. Oecumenius whom Harme and Anselme Lyranus Hugo followe doe reade here in the imperatiue habeamus let vs haue not habemus we haue and they vnderstand peace with men that the Iewes should no longer contend with the Gentiles about their lawe as though iustification came thereby seeing the Apostle had sufficiently prooued alreadie that we are iustified by faith But this exposition cannot stand 1. because the Apostle speaketh of such peace as we haue with God not with man 2. he speaketh in the first person we haue but S. Paul was none of these which did contend about the Lawe 2. Origen Chrysostome Theodoret vnderstand it of peace with God but in this sense let vs beeing iustified by faith take heede that we offend not God by our sinnes and so make him our enemie mihi videtur saith Chrysostome de vita conuersatione disserere the Apostle seemeth vnto me now to reason of our life and conuersation so Origen let vs haue peace vt vltra non adversetur caro spiritus that our flesh no longer rebell against the spirit But the Apostle here exhorteth not sed gratulatur eorum faelicitati he doth rather set forth with ioy the happines of those which are iustified Erasmus and it is not an exhortation but a continuation rather of the former doctrine of iustification Tolet annot 1. and here he sheweth the benefits of our iustification whereof the first is peace of conscience Pareus and this is further euident by the words following By whom we haue accesse which words beeing not vttered by way of exhortation but of declaration shewe that the former words should so likewise be taken Erasmus 3. Ambrose reading in the Indicatiue habemus we haue expoundeth this peace of the tranquilitie and peace of conscience which we haue with God beeing once iustified by faith in Christ thus the Apostle himselfe expoundeth this peace v. 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne for they are our sinnes which make a separation betweene God and vs this sense followe Tolet annot 1. and in his commentarie Pareus Gryneus Faius with others 4. This then is resolued vpon that the Apostle speaketh here not of externall but internall peace there is pax temporis and pax pecteris a temporall and a pectorall or inward peace the other Christ giueth but through the malice of Sathan and the corruption of mans heart it may be interrupted and therefore Christ saith Matth. 10.34 That he came not to send peace but the sword but the other which is the inward peace of conscience Satan himselfe can not depriue vs of no man can take it from vs. But whereas there is a threefold combate within vs the fight betweene reason and affection betweene the flesh and the spirit and a wrestling with the terrors of Gods iudgements in the two first we cannot haue peace here but in part for still in the seruants of God there remaineth a combat betweene reason and affection the flesh and the spirit as S. Paul sheweth that it was so with him Rom. 7.23 he sawe another lawe in his members rebelling against the lawe of his minde and therefore we are not to hope to haue such peace vt non vltra caro adversetur spiritui that the flesh should no more rebell against the spirit as Origen thinketh but this inward peace is in respect of the terrors which are caused in vs by the feare of Gods iudgement against sinne from this terror we are deliuered by Christ Beza yet so as sometimes there may arise some feare doubts and perplexitie in the minde of the faithfull as it is written of Hilarion that beeing 70. yeare old and now neere vnto death he was somewhat perplexed and troubled in minde yet faith in the end ouercommeth all these dangers that we fall not vpon the rockes to make shipwracke of our faith and a good conscience 5. And we must here distinguish betweene pax conscientiae stupor conscienciae the peace of conscience and a carnall stupiditie for the one neuer felt the terror of Gods iudgments and therefore can haue no true peace the other hath felt them and is nowe by faith deliuered from them Calvin 6. Now whereas it is added We haue peace with God or toward God these things are here to be obserued 1. all the causes are here expressed of our iustification the materiall which is remission of our sinnes included in iustification the formall by faith the finall to haue peace with God the efficient through our Lord Iesus Christ Gorrhan 2. and in that he saith toward God Origen noteth that this is added to shewe that they haue neither peace in themselues because of the continuall combate betweene the flesh and the spirit not yet with Sathan and the world which continually tempt vs but with God we haue peace who is reconciled vnto vs in Christ and he saith toward God or with God to signifie that reconciliation is not onely made with God but that it is pleasing and acceptable vnto him that such a reconciliation is made Tolet. and further hereby is signified that this is a perpetuall peace because it is toward God with whom there is no change nor mutabilitie Faius Thorough Iesus Christ 1. Chrysostome seemeth thus to vnderstand
those clauses the things not the persons and the first they expound of iust punishment which none willingly suffer in the second the good and honest cause for which one may be found readie to die But the phrase to die for the iust will not beare that sense a man is not saide to die for iust punishment but by it or with it and yet in this sense some haue beene found which willingly suffered their iust punishment as the theise conuerted vpon the crosse who said vnto his fellow Luk. 23.41 We are righteously here 7. The best interpretation then is that by the iust we vnderstand such an one as is in himselfe a righteous and vertuous man by the good such as haue deserued well of vs that are liberall and bountifull men from whome we haue receiued good so Beza interpreteth one that is profitable to him of whome he hath receiued good Genevens so also Catharinus a Popish writer and some by the good vnderstand such as are deare vnto them as their children parents friends countrey as some such were found among the Romans that gaue their liues for their friends and countrey P. Mart. And this exposition may be confirmed by the opposite part that Christ died for vs beeing sinners v. 8. yea his enemies v. 10. whereas men will not die for the righteous and hardly for their friends 12. Quest. Of the difference betweene Christs dying for vs and those which died for their countrey We read in the forren histories of the Gentiles that some haue giuen their liues for their countrey as Codrus for the Athenians Menoecius for the Thebanes who killed himselfe and fell among his enemies for the deliuerance of his countrey so Curtius threw himselfe into a gulph to preserue Rome from the pestilence But there was great difference betweene the death of these and of Christ. 1. They were not innocent as Christ was and therefore as their life was not so holy so could not their death be so pretious nor their person to honourable 2. They did not willingly offer themselues vnto any iudge to be condemned as Christ did but in other manner and sort aduentured their liues 3. They did it not of loue but of vain-glorie and desire of praise 4. They by the instigation of Sathan were mooued so to doe hauing no cogitation therein to please God but Christ gaue himselfe to death 〈◊〉 obedience to the will of his heauenly father 5. They at such time gaue their liues when as their case was desperate and so were impatient to abide the extreame haâ—â—d and they died beeing mortall men that could not liue long as Solon when he encouraged the citizens to take armes against Pisistratus the tyrant beeing asked what made him bold so to doe answered his old age he knew he could not liue long But Christ died for vs hauing no necessitie to die in himselfe 6. Their death was glorious and honourable vnto them but Christ offered himselfe to the ignominious and shamefull death of the crosse 7. They died for a temporall deliuerance but we by Christs death are eternally deliuered 8. And that which maketh the greatest honour of all they died for their countrey and friends but our blessed Sauiour for his enemies ex Martyr Pareus 9. Origen addeth further that although there may be found among the heathen that died for their countrey yet there is none of them which died for all the world as Christ onely did which by his death totius mundi peccata absolvit did absolue all the world of their sinnes 13. Quest. Of the greatnes of the loue of God toward man in sending Christ to die for vs v. 8. This exceeding great loue of God is set forth by three circumstances what they were for whome Christ died sinners and enemies to God what Christ was that suffered euen the Sonne of God and what he endured and suffered euen to die for them 1. The condition of them for whome Christ died is set forth by three names they are said to be weake as not able to helpe or deliuer themselues vngodly as they which had left the worship of the onely true God and had defiled themselues with idolatrie sinners which had euery way transgressed the law of God Tolet. annot 10. Origen here comprehendeth all kind of sinnes for either one of ignorance and infirmitie sinneth and he is called weake or he is an obstinate and malitious offender who is called the sinner Sinners in Scripture are said to be those not which commit any sinne but those in whome sinne dwelleth and raigneth as Ioh. 9.31 and such were we by nature Beza yea we were not onely sinners but enemies vnto God which setteth his loue forth so much the more that he sought our good not onely beeing euill but also aduersaries vnto him So that while we were sinners and so God hated vs in respect of our sinnes yet at the same instant amabat secundum quod opus eius he loued vs as his owne worke gloss ordin 2. Gods loue further appeareth in sending his owne Sonne into the world nothing is dearer to a man then his owne sonne and therefore Gods loue doth herein most shew it selfe in that he sent not either Angel or Arkangel or any other of his glorious creatures to die for vs but his owne sonne Martyr 3. And this Sonne of God was not onely made man for vs and liued in the flesh and suffered many things for our sake but he died for vs it had beene a sufficient demonstration of his loue to haue humbled himselfe to take vpon him the nature of man and to walke and conuerse among sinnefull men But in that he died and that for his enemies it sheweth an vnspeakable loue there is no greater loue among men then when one bestoweth his life for his friends Ioh. 15.13 But Christs loue here exceeded that he gaue his life for his enemies Gorrhan 14. Quest. Whether mans redemption could not otherwise haue beene wrought then by the death of Christ. 1. It was not necessarie that Christ should die for our redemption either by the necessitie of coaction as though God had beene by some vrgent occasion compelled thereunto set God is not forced he worketh most freely nor yet by necessitie of nature as it is impossible in the diuine nature that God should lie or be vntrue but no externall worke done by God proceedeth from the necessitie of his nature there was then no absolute necessitie that Christ should die for vs nor yet any hypotheticall or conditionall necessitie the end beeing considered namely the saluation of man for it had beene possible for God by other meanes then by the death of his Sonne to haue wrought the saluation of man 2. Yet was it necessarie that Christ should die for mankind the wisdome and counsell of God considered because there was no other way whereby the greatnes of the loue of God could be shewed vnto man then by giuing his owne Sonne to die for vs P.
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
it followeth v. 14. and againe it is too great bouldnesse to insert the word dead for thus we may make any sense of the Scripture 3. Wherefore the Apostles meaning is that from Adam vntill the lawe was giuen for of the time after the lawe there could be no question there was sinne in the world for though they had not the written lawe yet they had the lawe of nature in transgressing the which they sinned Lyran. Beza Mart. Quest. 27. What sinne the Apostle meaneth which was in the world vnto the time of the lawe 1. Some doe vnderstand it onely of actuall sinne which was in the world in that the lawe of nature was transgressed though yet there were no written lawe giuen Tolet but it is euident in that the Apostle maketh direct mention of infants v. 14. which sinned not as Adam did that is actually that he meaneth originall sinne also 2. Pererius onely referreth it to originall sinne which though it were knowne vnto the Patriarkes yet it was not by the lawe of nature acknowledged for sinne so also Anselme Tolet replyeth that it cannot be so taken for neither vnder the law is originall sinne imputed vnto punishment But this reason is not sufficient for both before and after the lawe death raigned ouer all as brought in by originall sinne 3. But it is more agreeable to the Apostles minde to vnderstand sinne here generally both originall and actuall yet with speciall relation to originall sinne because the Apostles intendment is to shewe that all are sinners in Adam and so subiect vnto death and this appeareth to be the Apostles meaning v. 14. where he speaketh of the raigning of death ouer all as well those which committed actuall sinne as those which did not Thus Haymo interpreteth sinne was in the world originale actuale both originall and actuall Augustine likewise and Theodoret in the exposition of this place comprehend both so also Beza Pareus Quest. 28. How sinne is said to be imputed where there is no lawe ver 13. 1. Chrysostome here reporteth the opinion of some that make this a part of the obiection but he refuseth it and Tolet addeth this reason further because men doe not vse to obiect but that hath some shewe of probabilitie now none could doubt whether there were sinne in the world before the lawe for that was euident and apparant to all these words then the Apostle vttereth in his owne person 2. Oecumenius thinketh that the Apostle speaketh of the imputation of such sinnes as were against the ceremoniall lawe of Moses as touching circumcision sanctifying of the Sabboth and such like for other sinnes before the lawe of Moses were both knowne and imputed as is euident in the examples of Cain Lamech the Sodomites which were punished for their sinnes But the Apostle directly speaketh of such sinnes as were in the world before the lawe now the breach of ceremonies commanded by the lawe was counted no transgression before the lawe 3. Some by the imputation of sinne vnderstand the account made of sinne and take imputation for reputation as the Syrian interpreter and Beza in his last edition non putatur esse peccatum it is not thought to be sinne which is referred vnto the iudgement and opinion of men before the lawe came they had no perfect knowledge of sinne obscurum tum erat naturae lumen the light of nature was so obscure that men did not see their sinnes Mart. so also Osâ—ander non reputabatur it was not reputed sinne also Melancthon vbi non est lex non agnoscitur non accusatur c. where no lawe is sinne is not acknowledged accused to the same purpose M. Calvin though euen before the lawe their consciences accused them and there were diuerse examples of Gods iudgements vt plurimum tamen ad sua scelera connivebant yet for the most part they did winke at their sinnes c. Thus before them Augustine vnderstandeth it of the knowledge of sinne because per legem cognitio peccati by the lawe commeth the knowledge of sinne lib. 1. de peccat merit c. 10. and Oecumenius also to the same purpose taketh it comparatiuely magnitudo peccati non erat ita cognita c. the greatnesse of sinne was not knowne so before the lawe as afterward by the law and Haymo so expoundeth peccatum non agnoscebatur tam graue malum esse sinne was not knowne to be so great euill to the same purpose Lyranus Hug. Card. But these expositions seeme not to be agreeable to the scope of the Apostle for to what purpose should the Apostle vse this qualification sinne was in the world though it were not imputed and taken to be sinne before the law came for the Apostle doth not here intend to shew the effects or propertie of the law but his purpose is to prooue that men before the law came were punished with death euen because of their originall sinne 4. Origen taketh the imputation of sinne for the reputation but he followeth his former sense vnderstanding the law of nature that in children while yet they haue no vse of reason and so no knowledge of the law of nature that which they doe is not counted sinne But the Apostle euidently sheweth in the next verse speaking of Moses that he meaneth here the written law of Moses Origen fortifieth his opinion that the Apostle here meaneth the law of nature because if it be vnderstood of any other law diabolus angeli eius videdutur absolvi the Deuill and his angels may seeme to be absolved because they had no other law then the law of nature Contra. The Apostle speaketh not of the sinne of Angels but of men propagated from Adam whome he prooueth all to be sinners in Adam because they die in Adam but in the spirits there is neither propagation nor mortalitie 5. Ambrose referreth this imputation of sinne vnto the opinion which men had of God whom they thought not to regard nor punish the sinnes of men But the contrarie is euident in Pharaoh and Abimelech who knewe that they were punished for keeping Sarah Abrahams wife 6. Anselme and Pererius doe vnderstand this to be spoken onely of originall sinne that it was not acknowledged to be sinne before Moses lawe came by the light of nature though to the Patriarkes and holy men it were knowne But the contrarie is prooued by the Apostle that originall sinne was imputed to men euen before the law was giuen because death raigned ouer all euen ouer children so farre is he from saying that originall sinne was not imputed for where death was inflicted for sinne there sinne was imputed 7. This word of imputing of sinne is taken two wayes it signifieth either to haue the fault imputed or the punishment but here the latter rather to impute sinne is adiudicare 〈◊〉 reum to adiudge the guiltie person worthie of punishment in this sense is the word taken 2. Tim. 4.16 All haue forsaken me I pray God it be
not imputed vnto them that is that God doe not punish them for it so to Philemon 18. if he haue hurt thee any thing at all impute it vnto me that is let me satisfie for it Faius Tolet in this sense the Apostle saith Rom. 4.8 Blessed is he to whom the Lord imputeth not his sinne his sinne shall not be laid to his charge in iudgement And so the Apostle saith here where no lawe is sinne is not imputted that is there is no punishment inflicted for sinne but by the prescript of a lawe seeing then that the punishment of death was inflicted vpon those which liued before the lawe it could not be for sinnes which they actually cōmitted which had no law to punish them therefore it was originall sinne which was punished by death and least it might be said that though there were no written lawe whereby sinne was imputed yet there was a naturall law which men transgressed and therefore were punished the Apostle sheweth in the next raise that euen death raigned ouer them which had committed no actuall sinne as Adam had done and therefore death was inflicted as a punishment not onely of actuall but originall sinne Beza 29. Quest. How death is said to haue raigned from Adam to Moses 1. Origen distinguisheth betweene the word pertransijt entred or passed which the Apostle vsed before v. 12. and regnavit raigned death entred ouer all both the iust and vniust but it raigned onely in those qui se peccato tota mento subiecerunt which did giue themselues wholly vnto sinne But the Apostle speaketh generally of all not onely of some that death raigned vpon by the generallitie of death he prooueth the generallitie of some and by this word regno he sheweth potentiam mortis the power of death tha◠none could resist it Martyr instar tyranni saeuijt it raged like a Tyrant Pareus 2. By death some vnderstand mons anima the death of the soule that is sinne which raigned from Adam vnto Moses Haymo Hug. but it is euident that the Apostle in this discourse distinguisheth death from sinne and prooueth by the effect the vniuersalitie of death brought in by sinne the generalitie of sinne also Origen seemeth to vnderstand mortem gehennae the death of hell vnto which all descended and therefore Christ went to hell to deliuer them this sense followeth also the ordinarie glosse and Gorrhan But in this sense it appeareth not why the Apostle should say vnto Moses for they hold that all the iust men euen vnder the law also went to hell But in truth the death of hell raigned not ouer the righteous either before the law or after from the which they were deliuered by Christ therefore the death of the bodie is here vnderstood which entred vpon all euen ouer infants which sinned not as Adam did 3. Vnto Moses 1. Origen by Moses vnderstandeth the Law and by the law the whole time of the law vsque ad adventum Christi vnto the comming of Christ who destroied the kingdome of sinne so also Haymo but in that the Apostle setteth Moses against Adam it is euident that he vnderstandeth the time when the law was giuen and what law he speaketh of is further shewed v. 20. The Law entred that offence should abound the dominion then of sinne and death there ended not 2. Some thinke this limitation is set because men were more afraid of death before Christs comming then after because they had not such hope of the resurrection Gorrhan but it is an hard and forced exposition to interpret vnto Moses vnto the comming of Christ as is shewed before 3. Some thinke it is said vnto Moses because then a remedie was giuen by the law in restraining of sinne and then first in Iudas capit destrui regnum mortis the kingdome of sinne beganne to be destroied and now euery where gloss ordinar but the law gaue no remedie against sinne for sinne then abounded much more v. 20. and the Apostle said before c. 4.15 That where no law is there is no transgression there is no such knowledge of sinne 4. Therefore vnto Moses noteth the time of the giuing of the law vsque ad legem per Mosen promulgatam vnto the law published by Moses gloss ordin not that death raigned not after Moses also but this is added to shew that death was in the world euen before the law Lyran. and so consequently sinne for of those greatest doubt might be made which liued before the law whether death entred vpon them as a punishment of their sinne 30. Quest. Of the meaning of these words which sinne not after the similitude of the transgression of Adam This verse hath diuers readings 1. some doe referre the last words after the similitude of the transgression of Adam vnto the first part of the sentence death raigned 2. some doe ioyne it with the next words before which sinned and of either of these there are seuerall opinions 1. They which distinguish the sentence and ioyne the first and last words together some as Chrysostome giue this sense that as death raigned vpon Adam so likewise it raigned ouer his posteritie but others doe make this the cause of death and mortalitie because they are borne like vnto Adam that is destitute of originall iustice Lyranus Tolet. annot 19. Tolet further would confirme this interpretation by diuers reasons 1. the preposition is 〈◊〉 which with a dative case sheweth the cause whereas an other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vsed to signifie in as Philip. 2.7 He was found in shape as a man and Rom. 8.3 In the similitats of sinneful flesh 2. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 similitude sheweth the similitude and likenes of nature 3. and this is most agreeable to the Apostles purpose to shew the cause why death raigned ouer all because they are borne sinners like vnto Adam Contra. 1. The Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometime taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as before in the 12. vers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whome and Tolet himselfe in that place sheweth that it is so vsed in other places of Scripture annot 15. 2. The word of similitude is better referred to the qualitie of Adams sinne then to the conformitie in nature 3. Neither needed the Apostle here shew the cause why death raigned ouer all but he bringeth in this as a proofe of that which he saide vers 12. that all sinned in Adam because all are subiect to death euen they which commit not actuall sinnes as infants it was therefore impertinent to repeat that which he intendeth to prooue 4. Now further this distinction of the verse is ouerthrowne by these two reasons 1. if the Apostle had saide ouer those which 〈…〉 and should haue put to no other addition he had contraried himselfe hauing set it downe vers 12. that in Adam all sinned and death therefore went ouer all how the◠could he say that death raigned ouer those that sinned not
reference to the time before spoken of from Adam vnto Moses and therefore he saith many not all as he on the other side specially meaneth the times of the Gospell when likewise many and not all beleeued in Christ annot 22. so also Faius But then this comparison should be imperfect for as Adams sinne hath infected all his posteritie since the beginning of the world to the ende thereof so Christ is the Sauiour of the world both from Adam to Moses and since 4. Augustine taketh the Apostle to meane all but yet he saith many to shewe the multitude of those that are saued in Christ for there are aliqua omnia quae non sunt multa some things all that are not many as the fowre Gospels are all but not many and there be aliqua multa some things many that are not all as many beleeuers in Christ not all for all haue not faith 2. Thess. 3. c. It is true that the Apostle by many vnderstandeth all as he said in the former verse and sometime the scripture calleth them many which are all as in one place the Lord saith to Abraham I haue made thee a father of many nations Gen. 17. in an other in thy seede all the nations of the earth shall be blessed but yet the reason is not giuen why the Apostle saith many not all 5. Some thinke he so saith many because Christ is excluded that came of Adam Piscator But Christ though he descended of Adam yet not by ordinarie generation therefore in this generall speach he needed not to be excepted as he was not included when the Apostle saith in whom that is in Adam all haue sinned 6. The reason then is this multos apponit vni he opposeth many to one that Adam beeing one infected many beside himselfe with his sinne as Adams sinne rested not in his person but entred vpon many so Christs obedience and righteousnesse staied not in his person but was likewise communicated to many Beza Pareus Quest. 40. How many are said to be sinners in Adam 1. Chrysostome by sinners vnderstandeth morti obnoxiot those that are subiect to death by reason of Adams sinne and he addeth this reason ex illius inobedientia alium fieri peccatorem quam poterit habere consequentiam by his disobedience others to become sinners it hath no coherence or consequence Contra. 1. True it is that sometime the word peccatores sinners is taken in that sense for men subiect to death and punishment as Bathsheba saith to Dauid 1. King 1.21 else when my Lord the King shall sleepe with his fathers I and my sonne Salomon shall be sinners c. that is put to death as offenders But yet in this place the word is not so taken for as to be made iust in Christ signifieth not to haue the reward of iustice but to be iustified indeed so to be made sinners sheweth not the punishment but the guiltines of sinne deseruing punishment as then in the former verse the effects were compared together condemnation in Adam and iustification vnto life in Christ so here the causes are shewed sinne on the one side causing death and righteousnesse on the other which bringeth to life 2. though Chrysostome faile in the interpretation of this place yet he denieth not but that in Adams all sinned and in many places he testifieth euidently of originall sinne as he calleth to radicale peccatum the rooted sinne hom 40. in 1. epist. ad Corinth And therefore the Pelagians did him wrong to make him an author of their opinion who denied originall sinne from which imputation of the Pelagians Augustine cleareth Chrysostome writing against their heresie and this point is cleared in this place for if all are subiect to death in Adam which Chrysostome here confesseth then all haue sinned in Adam for death could not enter vpon all without sinne 2. As Chrysostome vnderstandeth here onely temporall death whereunto all are subiect in Adam so some by condemnation mentioned v. 17. doe likewise insinuate the sentence onely of mortalitie Tolet. Origen vnderstandeth the expulsion of Adam out of Paradise but by the contrarie seeing the Apostle by iustification vnto life vnderstandeth the raigning in life eternall by death and condemnation is signified animae corporis damnatio the damnation of bodie and soule so expoundeth gloss interlin Gorrhan with others 3. Origen by sinners vnderstandeth consuetudinem studium peccandi the custome and studie of sinning as though the Apostle had meant onely actuall sinne but that proceedeth not from Adams disobedience properly as originall sinne doth 4. Neither yet doth the Apostle onely meane originall sinne which is by Adams disobedience in ipsius posteros propagatum propagated vnto his posteritie Faius for it is more to be a sinner then to sinne in Adam which the Apostle said before v. 12. 5. Wherefore the Apostle by sinners vnderstandeth both such as sinne originally in Adam peccatum contrabendâ— by the contagion or contraction of sinne and peccatum inteâ—andâ— which sinne actually by imitation Gorrh. so that we are not onely naturally euill by sinful propagation as the Apostle said before v. 12. in whom all haue sinned and so are by nature guiltie of death and condemnation v. 18. but beside as an effect of our naturall corruption there is a generall pravitie of nature and an habite of euill engendred in vs whereby we can doe no other then sinne so Adams disobedience hath made vs not onely naturaliter pravos naturally euill sed habitualiter peccatores habitually sinners Pareus Quest. 41. How the lawe is said to haue entred thereupon ver 20. 1. The occasion of these words is not so much to shewe that sinne raigned in the world euen after the lawe as it was in the world before the lawe from Adam to Moses v. 14. but the Apostle hauing shewed at large how we are deliuered from sinne and death brought in by Adam onely by Christ he preuenteth the obiection of the Iewes for it might haue beene replyed wherefore then serued the lawe if there were no remedie against sinne thereby the Apostle then answeareth that the lawe was so farre from sauing men from their sinnes that they were thereby the more encreased thus Chrysostome and Pet. Martyr with others 2. But this is not to be vnderstood of the lawe of nature as Origen who to decline the imputation of the lawe laid vpon it by wicked Marcion that it was giuen to an euill ende to encrease sinne will haue the Apostle to speake of the lawe of nature for the Apostle making mention of the lawe before v. 13. vnderstandeth the written lawe as he expoundeth v. 14. where he expressely speaketh of Moses neither was the lawe of nature giuen to that ende to encrease sinne no more then the morall lawe was but sinne entred occasionaliter by occasion onely of the lawe as shall be shewed in the next question 3. The lawe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 entred thereupon 1. the Latine interpreter readeth subintravit
it entred in by the way as though it had entred in secretly so also Erasmus and Gorrhan giueth the reason because it was giuen but vnto one people and secretly in the desert but the lawe beeing so publikely deliuered in such great power and signes could not be said secretly to enter 2. Origen giueth this sense that the lawe of the members entred sub obtentu legis naturalis vnder the pretext and colour of the lawe of nature it entred as it were by stealth but the Apostle speaketh not here of the lawe of nature as is shewed before 3. Chrysostome whom Tolet followeth thus interpreteth the lawe is said to haue entred by the way vt ostenderet vsum illius temporarium to shewe that the vse thereof was but for a time but this is a perpetuall vse of the lawe to manifest and reueale sinne though indeed the vse of the ceremoniall lawe were but to continue for a time 4. Some thinke the lawe is said to haue entred as vnder hand post effuscationem 〈◊〉 naturalis after the lawe of nature was obscured so Ambrose Lyran. but though the lawe of nature had not beene obscured yet the written lawe should haue beene giuen by 〈◊〉 which men should haue beene prepared to receiue the Gospell Tolet. annot 26. therefore it is said to haue entred thereto or thereupon that is beside that naturall corruption and depriuation of nature in Adam the lawe also was giuen accessit ad morbum illium it came vpon or was added vnto that naturall disease that sinne thereby beeing more encreased might more commend the riches of Gods mercie in Christ Beza Pareus Quest. 42. How the offence is said to haue abounded by the entring of the lawe ver 20. The lawe is to be considered three wayes in respect of the nature thereof in respect of man to whom it is giuen and of God the author and giuer of the lawe 1. The lawe beeing considered in it selfe it holy spirituall and good and so properly is not the cause of the encrease of sinne but onely in respect of the euent as Chrysostome Gennadius and most of the Greeke interpreters expound it the lawe then causeth sinne to encrease non causaliter sed consecutiue not as the cause but in regard of the euent or consequent and that not ex parte legis on the behalfe of the lawe but by the malice of mans heart Lyran non ex â—â—tura legis not by the nature of the lawe but by the slougth and carelesnesse of them which receiue the lawe Chrysost. and sinne is thus occasionally encreased sower wayes 1. because ruimur in vetitum c. we alwaies rush vpon that which is forbidden like as a riuer meeting with some stone or let in the way maketh the greater noise whereof these reasons may be giuen first because things forbidden are not in our power and therefore our desire is more toward them whereas we neglect things easie and such as we can do when we list secondly the nature of humane affections is the more they are suppressed and kept in the more to be inflamed as fide when it is kept in breaketh out more violently this is vsually seene in the passions of anger and griefe Perer. numer 78. Adde hereunto the peruersenesse of mans will which is opposite to the will of God and most of all is bent to follow those things which the Lord forbiddeth 2. Sinne is increased by the lawe because he sinneth more that knoweth the will of God and doth it not then he that is ignorant of it 3. by the lawe which containeth varietie of precepts the number of sinnes is multiplyed innumera praecepta lex dedit the law gaue a number of precepts Chrysostom 4. the lawe terrifieth the conscience and so accuseth and condemneth and sheweth punishment due vnto sinne and so exaggerateth it Mart. 2. If the lawe be considered in regard of the effect which it worketh in the hearts of men then this particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that may be taken causally because by the lawe properly sinne is manifested and reuealed as the Apostle sheweth Rom. 3.20 that by the lawe commeth the knowledge of sinne Perer. 3. If we turne our selues to God the author of the lawe then in respect of his counsell the lawe may be vnderstood causally to encrease sinne in regard of a further ende which God propoundeth to himselfe namely that by the abounding of sinne grace may yet more abound Martyr so the ordinarie glosse hath here this profitable note Magnum Deiconsilium fuit c. it was the great and deepe counsell of God that by the lawe sinne should abound that men in seueritie and austeritie of the lawe seeing their owne infirmitie infirmi ad â—â—dicum confugerent c. beeing weake should runne vnto the Physitian and seeke for the helpe of grace c. Quest. 43. How grace is said to haue abounded more 1. Athanasius referreth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vbi where to the nature of man that in the same nature grace abounded by the comming of Christ in the flesh where sinne abounded before tractas de salutar advent but this seemeth to be too curious 2. Lyranus hath reference to the lawe that whereas sinne abounded vnder the lawe grace also abounded vnder the lawe because Christ was made vnder the lawe as the Apostle sheweth Galat. 4.4 But here grace is opposed and set against the lawe therefore in both the opposite partes there cannot be reference to the same lawe 3. The ordinarie glosse hath two expositions grace is said to abound because it profiteth them whom the deuill could not ouercome grace worketh on them vpon whom the kingdome of sinne had no power but then the same thing should be compared with it selfe for in that the kingdome of sinne and Sathan preuailed not against them it was the worke of grace 4. Otherwise thus quia peccatum ad tempus regnavit because sinne raigned but for a time but grace for euer but vnlesse grace had destroyed the kingdome of sinne it should haue raigned for euer 5. Origen saith grace abounded more in that it doth not onely hominem absoluere à peccatis prateritis free a man from sinnes past but also strengthen him against sinnes to come 6. Chrysostome thus grace hath superabounded not onely in taking away the punishment and remitting our sinnes but in giuing vs life and making vs iust 7. Some giue this sense that grace hath abounded not onely in taking away originall sinne but all other actuall sinnes added beside Piscator Gorrhan 8. But it is better to vnderstand this superabounding of grace of all those priuiledges and excellencies which the benefit by Christ hath beyond our losse and fall in Adam as the Apostle shewed before Bez. Fai. So euery way grace exceedeth both in respect of the poteÌ„tis of God whose grace appeareth to be the greater by the greatnes of our sinne which non 〈◊〉 superat sed absorbet it doth not onely ouercome
but euen swallowe vp Calvin and in respect of our selues who the more we feele the burthen and ouerflowing of our sinne the more we haue occasion to extoll and magnifie the grace of God Osiander So here are two ends of the lawe expressed the neâ—â—â—â— ende is the manifestation and encrease of sinne the remote ende is the more abounding of grace but here is the difference the first ende is vniuersall for in all men both beleeuers and vnbeleeuers the law worketh the encrease insight and knowledge of sinne but the other ende is particular and peculiar 〈◊〉 to the faithfull that by the abounding of sinne grace may more abound toward them which is not properly caused by the encrease of sinne but thorough the mercie of God Pareus Quest. 44. Of the raigne of sinne vnto death and of grace vnto life 1. Before the Apostle had ascribed the kingdome vnto death v. 14. Death raigned from Adam c. but here vnto sinne because death indeede raigneth by sinne as the Apostle saith The sting of death is sinne 1. Cor. 15.56 death could haue no power ouer vs but thorough sinne Martyr 2. But to speake more distinctly where the Apostle giueth the kingdome vnto death he speaketh of the times before the law when as death did apparantly raigne in the world but sinne was not so apparant till the lawe came but sinne is said to haue raigned after the lawe was giuen because sinne then more abounded So that three estates of the world are here described the first from Adam to Moses when sinne was in the world but death raigned the third is from the comming of Christ who raigned by righteousnesse vnto life destroying both the kingdome of sinne and death Tolet. 3. By death Chrysostome seemeth to vnderstand the death of the bodie mors ex haec presenti vita eijcit death doth cast vs out of this life c. but eternall death is here also comprehended potestatem habuit deijciendi c. it had power to cast vs downe to eternall death Lyran. as may appeare by the other opposite part of eternall life Piscator 4. But whereas in the first clause mention is made onely of the raigning of sinne vnto death but in the other there are three mentioned grace righteousnesse and life Origen thinketh that the deuill must be vnderstood to be set against the grace of Christ ab inuentis rebus author inventi nominatur the author of the invention is named in the things invented c. for sinne came in by the deuill some thinke that the wrath of God must be supplied which raigned by sinne Piscator but I thinke rather with Calvin that beside the necessarie parts of the comparison the Apostle maketh mention of grace vt fortius in figuret memoria c. that it might better sticke in our memorie that all is of grace 5. The Apostle speaketh of the time past sinne had raigned because that although sinne doe still raigne in the children of disobedience yet in the faithfull it raigneth no more Par. 6. By righteousnesse some vnderstand iustitiam operum the righteousnesse of 〈◊〉 gloss interlin so also Bellarmine lib. 2. de iustificat c. 6. but the iustice of Christ is rather vnderstood as the Greeke interpreters well expound and as is euident by the clause in the ende By our Lord Iesus Christ who is notwithstanding both our iustification and sanctification 7. The ordinarie glosse here well obserueth that in the kingdome of sinne mention is not made of Adam from whom sinne came because the Apostle speaketh not onely of originall but of actuall sinnes both which are remitted in Christ. 8. Thorough Iesus Christ our Lord Iesus per gratiam Dominus per iustitiam nostre per gloriam Iesus by grace Lord by his iustice and ours because he bringeth vs to glorie Gorrhan 4. Places of Doctrine Doct. 1. Of the difference betweene Christian and worldly hope v. 5. Hope maketh not ashamed This is the propertie of the hope of Christians that is neuer confoundeth them or maketh ashamed because it is founded vpon Gods promises who both is immutable and changeth not and is also omnipotent able to performe whatsoeuer he promiseth But so it is not in humane or worldly hope for that often putteth man to rebuke because he is deceiued in his hope and faileth in the thing hoped for and the reason is for that he reposeth his confidence in man who is either deceitfull and hopeth not his promise or is not of power to performe it therefore the Prophet saith Cursed be the man that trusteth in man and maketh flesh his arme Ierem. 17.5 Doct. 2. Of the properties and effects of faith v. 2. Beeing iustified by faith 1. Vnto faith is ascribed iustification as in these words and remission of sinnes in purifying the heart Act. 15.9 2. faith is the foundation of thing hoped for Heb. 11.1 3. it is the cause of the producing and bringing forth of good fruit Iam. 2.8 Shewe me thy faith out of thy workes c. 4. it ouercommeth the tentations of Sathan for by the sheild of faith we quench all his fierie darts Ephes. 6.18 5. by faith we attaine vnto the vnderstanding of the word of God which otherwise is vnprofitable Isay. 7.9 Vnlesse yee beleeue ye shall not vnderstand as some translations doe reade and the Apostle saith that the word did not profit the Israelites because it was not mixed with faith Heb. 4.2 6. faith obtaineth our requests in prayer Iam. 2.16 the prayer of faith saueth the sicke 7. it worketh the saluation of the soule Luk. 7.50 Thy faith hath saued thee Doct. 3. Of the raigne and dominion of death v. 14. Death raigned from Adam to Moses Before sinne entred into the world death had no dominion but now it hath gotten a tyrannicall and generall dominion ouer men both of all sorts and conditions both young and old and in all ages as here it is said to raigne euen from Adam to Moses that age was not exempted from the dominion of death wherein sinne seemed least to abound but Christ hath ouercome death and destroyed the dominion thereof both in that he hath taken away the sting thereof which is sinne that death is not hurtfull vnto them that beleeue but bringeth their soules vnto euerlasting rest and in the generall resurrection our bodies which death had seazed on shall be restored vnto life as our Blessed Sauiour saith I am the resurrection and the life c. Ioh. 15.25 Doct. 4. Of the difference of sinnes v. 14. Euen ouer them that sinned not after the like manner c. Here the Apostle setteth downe this distinction of actuall and originall sinne some doe sinne in like manner as Adam did that is actually some not in like manner that is there is a secret and hid sinne in the corruption of nature which is not actuall but in time breaketh forth into act as the seede sheweth it selfe in the hearbe Doct. 5. There is no saluation
or life without Christ. v. 17. Much more shall they which receiue c. raigne in life c. As in Adam sinne and death entred and so raigned ouer all so life raigneth by Iesus Christ then they which are not graft by faith into Christ but remaine onely in Adam cannot be pertakers of life they are still vnder the kingdome of sinne and death wherefore the Turkes Iewes and all other that are without the knowledge and faith of Christ howsoeuer they dreame of a kind of Paradise and terrene happinesse after this life yet they can haue no assurance of life seeing they are strangers from Christ So S. Peter saith Act. 4.12 That there is no other name giuen vnder heauen whereby we must be saued Doct. 6. That life doth accompanie righteousnesse v. 17. The Apostle saith that they which receiue the gift of righteousnesse shall raigne in life then as sinne raigned vnto death so righteousnesse raigneth vnto life wheresoeuer then righteousnesse is found whether inherent as in the Angels or imputed as in the faithfull who haue the righteousnesse of Christ imputed vnto them by faith there is the kingdome of life then they which doe feele the kingdome of righteousnesse to be begunne in them who both by faith are iustified in Christ and their faith is effectuall working by loue they are assured to enter into life as S. Paul knewe after he had kept the faith and fought a good fight that there was a crowne of righteousnesse laid vp for him 2. Tim. 4.8 Doct. 7. Of the vse of the lawe v. 20. The lawe entred c. that the offence should abound c. This is the proper vse of the lawe to bring a man to the knowledge of his sinne and to shewe him in what state he standeth by nature a transgressor of the lawe and so subiect to the curse but we must not rest in this vse of the lawe there is a second and more principall ende that by the abounding of sinne grace may more abound and in this sense the Apostle calleth the lawe a schoolemaster to bring vs to Christ Galath 3.19 that we by the lawe seeing our owne weakenesse and vnsufficiencie should seeke vnto Christ Iesus to finde righteousnes in him which cannot be obtained by the lawe 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. Whether a good conscience and integritie of life be the cause of peace with God Pererius disput 1. in c. 5. numer 2. vrgeth that place of the Prophet Isay c. 32.17 s he worke of iustice shall be peace euen the worke of iustice and quietnesse and assurance for euer whereupon he inferreth that opera iustitiae c. the workes of iustice and the keeping of Gods commandements doe worke in vs this tranquilitie and peace of the minde Contra. It might be here answeared that peace of conscience is the worke of our true iustice that is Christ who is called the Lord our iustice or righteousnesse Ierem. 23.10 but that this interpretation agreeth not with the former words v. 16. Iudgement shall dwell in the desert and iustice in the fruitfull field where the Prophet speaketh of the externall practise and exercise of iustice 2. Iunius seemeth to vnderstand these disiunctiuely the fruites of the spirit which should be powred vpon them v. 15. should bring faith iustice peace as the Apostle sheweth these to be the fruites of the spirit Rom. 14.17 righteousnesse peace ioy in the holy Ghost so also Faius But this distinction here cannot be admitted because it is directly said the worke of iustice shall be peace tranquilitie 3. But the best answer is that righteousnesse procureth peace not effective because it worketh this inward peace which is wrought in vs by the grace of iustification but declarative it declareth confirmeth and assureth vnto vs our peace as S. Peter exhorteth that we make our election and calling sure by good workes 2. Pet. 1.9 not that our workes make our election sure in it selfe which dependeth on the purpose of God but it is made sure vnto vs so the peace of conscience wrought in vs by faith is confirmed and ratified vnto vs by a good life euen as good workes are testimonies of our faith and in that sense are said by S. Iames c. 2. to iustifie Controv. 2. Against invocation of Saints 1. By whome we haue accesse through faith this text is well vrged by Peter Martyr and Pareus against the invocation of Saints for if by Christ we haue accesse vnto God what neede we the helpe of other mediators and intercessours the Papists then doe much derogate vnto the glorie of Christ in bringing an other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to enter vs and cause vs to haue accesse vnto God And further two arguments may be vrged out of the Apostles words he saith we haue accesse by him through faith but Saints are not the obiect of our faith we must onely beleeue in God Ioh. 14.1 Ye beleeue in God beleeue also in me 2. we haue accesse vnto this grace namely whereby we are iustified but by the Saints we are not iustified therefore by them we haue not accesse and entrance Controv. 3. Of the certaintie of saluation and of finall perseuerance v. 5. We haue accesse vnto this grace wherein we stand Calvin out of this place refuteth two errors of Popish sophistrie the one that the faithfull for the present cannot be certaine of the grace of God and of the remission of their sinnes the other that they are not sure of finall perseuerance But to stand in grace signifieth to be sure of the grace and fauour of God one may attaine vnto the fauour of the Prince but he is not sure to continue in it But Gods fauour in Christ is most constant whom Christ loueth he loueth to the end Iob. 13.1 Tolet here foisteth in one of his Popish drugs that tranquilitie and peace of conscience and certaintie of remission of sinnes is not the fruit or worke of faith in the faithfull for the wicked that knowe not their sinnes haue also a quiet conscience Tolet. annot 1. Contra. There is great difference between a senslesse and a quiet cōscience the wicked feele not the pricke of conscience because their sinnes are concealed from them but the faithfull haue peace of conscience after the sight of their sinnes which they know to be remitted in Christ So Paul was aliue without the law but afterward when sinne reviued he died Rom. 7.9 where then the conscience is cast into a slumber of securitie sinne reviuing awaketh troubleth it but where sinne is remitted in Christ the conscience ceaseth to be troubled and perplexed as in the wicked Controv. 4. That the tribulation of the Saints is not meritorious though it be said to worke patience We must vnderstand that the Apostle diuersely vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worketh for it is sometime ascribed vnto the principall efficient cause as vnto God the author and worker of all good things in vs 2. Cor. 5.5 sometime
veniall sinne annot 1. Ioh. 1. sect 5. Contra 1. We confesse that the guilt and punishment of originall sinne is washed away by faith in Christs blood but yet the staine and blot remaineth still though in Christ we are deliuered from the punishment due vnto sinne yet the euill qualitie of our nature is not purged away namely our naturall pronenes and aptnes to euill which shall not fully be purged vntill the resurrection when we shall put off all corruption together with mortalitie to this purpose Augustine saith well Meminisse debemus omnium peccatorum plenam remissionem c. we must remember that there is full remission of our sinnes in baptisme hominis vero qualitatem non totam continuo mutari c. yet the qualitie or condition of man is not straite chaunged de peccator merit remissi lib. 1. c. 25. 2. and that originall corruption hath the verie nature of sinne euen after baptisme the Apostle sheweth euidently Rom. 7.7 where he calleth the concupiscence of our nature sinne see further hereof Synops. Centur. 3. er 11. Controv. 14. What originall sinne is against the Romanists and â—some others and specially against them which hold it to be Adams sinne imputed onely to his posteritie 1. Faber Erasmus in their annotations vpon this place seeme to be of opinion that originall sinne is onely a pronenesse and aptnesse vnto sinne which is graft in vs by nature But this is refelled by the Apostle here who saith that in Adam all haue sinned and therefore death also is entred vpon all death is the stipend of sinne if then death actually is gone ouer all so also sinne 2. Flacius Illyricus held originall sinne to be a kind of substance But this is a dangerous opinion God onely is the Creator of substances and natures but he made not sinne 3. As he giueth too much to originall sinne making it a substantiall thing in man so the Romanists too much extenuate it allowe it too little 1. Pighius and Catharinus thinke that originall sinne is nothing else but the preuarication and transgression of our first parents made their posterities onely by imputation because Adam in himselfe contained all mankind and God made his couenant not onely with him but with all his posteritie beeing then in his loines and so his sinne is imputed vnto them but there is nothing in men naturally that hath the proper nature of sinne which is defined to be dictum factum vel concupitum c. somewhat said done or coueted against the law of God which cannot be in infants to this purpose Catharinus and before him Pighius in 1. contr de peccat origin Contra. 1. Bellarmine lib. 5. de amissi grat c. 16. and Pererius disput 16. in 5. c. ad Roman would confute this opinion and prooue that originall sinne is a reall and inherent corruption in the nature of man and not imputed onely because as we were sinners in Adam so we are made iust by Christ which is not by the imputation of his righteousnesse but by an inherent iustice which is giuen vnto vs by the merits of Christ c. But this were to confute one error by another for the Apostle euidently and expressely sheweth c. 4.3 that Abrahams faith was imputed and counted vnto him for righteousnesse and therefore the iustice whereby we are counted iust before God is the iustice of Christ imputed to vs by faith so also Adams sinne is imputed to his posteritie but beside there is an euilnes and prauitie of nature procured by the transgression of Adam as beside the imputed righteousnes of Christ there is also in the faithfull an inherent righteousnesse also which is their holines and sanctification but they are not thereby iustified before God 2. We haue better reasons out of the Scripture to refute this assertion for where there is no sinne death hath no power because all are sinners by nature they all die otherwise the Apostle had not reasoned well that death raigned from Adam to Moses because all had sinned v. 14. And v. 19. the Apostle saith that by one mans disobedience many are peccatores constituti made sinners which is more then to be counted sinners or to haue sinne imputed 3. That definition is of actuall sinne which is of such things as are said done or coueted against the law of God But sinne is more generally taken for any thing which is contrarie to the law of God now the naturall rebellion and resistance of the flesh in not beeing subiect to the will of the spirit but continually striuing against it which is to be seene euen in children who seeth not that it is contrarie to the law of God and hath in it the nature of sinne 4. Dauid complaineth that he was borne in sinne and conceiued in iniquitie Psal. 51. and S. Paul Rom. 7. calleth his naturall corruption sinne dwelling in him So that these holy men confessed that they were sinfull by nature Otherwise if there were not in vs originall sinne by nature of our owne but onely Adams imputed it would follow that his posteritie should be punished not for their owne but anothers sinne which were against the rule of Gods iustice Martyr Controv. 15. That originall sinne is not onely the privation of originall iustice Bellarmine with other of the Romanists will not haue originall sinne to be any euill positiue qualitie in man but onely carentia iustitiae originalis habitualis aversio à Deo a wanting of originall iustice and an habituall aversion from and a forsaking of God Bellar. lib. 5. de amission grat c. 15. Lyranus addeth an other clause that originall sinne is a defect or want of originall iustice cum debito habendi eam with a due debt or obligation to haue the same c. Now their cheefe reason that originall sinne is no euill habite or positiue qualitie but onely a defect or privation is this because God is the author of all positiue things that haue a beeing or existence but he is no way the cause of originall sinne Bellarm. ibid. Thoring replic ad addit 5. Paul Burgens And if it were an habite Adam could not haue transmitted it to his posteritie Bellarm. ibid. Contra. 1. Paulus Burgens taketh exception to Lyranus difinition of originall sinne that it is not a meere priuation but habitus corruptus a corrupt habite like as in a disease there is not onely a priuation of health but there is also some positiue thing habet humores male dispositos the humors also are euill affected and disposed and so is it in originall sinne there is an euill qualitie and habite beside the want of originall iustice and therefore it is called concupiscence quae sonat aliquod positivum which foundeth and signifieth some positiue thing c. This exception of Burgensis is iust and his opinion herein is agreeable to the Apostle who calleth originall sinne peccatum inhabitans an in-dwelling sinne Rom. 7.20 and corpus mortis the bodie
of death originall sinne then hath a kind of existence for how else could it be called a bodie of sinne or death see more hereof elsewhere Synops. Cen. 4. err 14. 2. Concerning the reasons obiected 1. God is the author of euerie substance and of euery naturall qualitie but not of vnnaturall dispositions or qualities as neither of diseases in the bodie nor of vices in the minde this euill qualitie was procured by mans voluntarie transgression 2. and though habites which are personall and obtained by vse and industrie are not transmitted to posteritie yet this euill habite was not personall in Adam as he is considered vt singularis persona as a singular person but by him it entred into the nature of man as he was totius humanae naturae principiū the beginning of the whole nature of man 3. Burgensis taketh another exception vnto Lyranus addition and he thinketh that Adams posteritie is not bound to haue the originall iustice which was giuen to Adam for they haue no such bond either by the law of nature for that originall iustice was supernaturally added or by any diuine precept for God gaue vnto Adam no other precept but that one not to eate of the forbidden fruite and therefore they were not bound at all to haue or reteine Adams originall iustice Thus Burgens Contra. 1. Herein I rather consent vnto Thoring the Replic vpon Burgens who thus argueth that this debt or bond to haue originall iustice was grounded vpon the law of nature which is the rule of right reason for by nature euery one is tied to seeke the perfection and conseruation of it kind and this originall iustice tended vnto the perfection of man which though it were supernaturally added vnto man yet it was not giuen him alone sed pro tota natura for the whole nature of man and so he concludeth well that man is culpable in not hauing this originall iustice though not culpâ actuali quae est suppositi by any actuall fault which belongeth to the person or subiect yet culpâ originali quae est natura by an originall fault which is in nature To this purpose the Replic And this may be added further that if Adams posteritie were not debters in respect of this originall iustice then were they not bound to keepe the law which requireth perfect righteousnesse and so it would follow that they are not transgressors against the law if they were not bound to keepe it the first exception then of Burgensis may be recieued but not the second 2. Pighius also who denieth originall sinne to be a privation or want of originall iustice holdeth it to be no sinne to want that iustice which is not enioyned by any law vnto mankind for no law can be produced which bindeth infantes to haue that originall iustice and therein he concurreth with Burgensis Contra. But this obiection is easily refuted for first man was created according to Gods image in righteousnesse and holines which image Adams posteritie is bound to retaine but he by his sinne defaced that image and in stead thereof begate children after his owne image Gen. 5.3 in the state of corruption And whereas Pighius replieth out of Augustine that the image of God in man consisteth in the three faculties of the soule the vnderstanding memorie and will Augustine must not be so vnderstood as though herein consisted onely the image of God but as therein is shadowed forth the misterie of the Trinitie for the Apostle expressely sheweth that this image of God is seene in righteousnes and holines Ephes. 4.24 An other lawe is the lawe of nature which is the rule which euery one is to followe Cicero could say that convenientur viuere c. to liue agreeably to this law is the chiefe ende of man to this lawe euen infants are also bound there is a third lawe which is the morall which saith thou shalt not lust which prohibiteth not onely actuall but originall concupiscence And whereas Pighius here obiecteth that a lawe is giuen in vaine of such things as cannot be avoided therein he sheweth his ignorance for it is not in mans power to keep the lawe for then it had not beene necessarie for Christ to haue died for vs who came to performe that which was impossible by the lawe Rom. 8.3 yet was not the lawe giuen so in vaine for there are two speciall vses thereof both to giue vs direction how to liue well and to bring vs to the knowledge of sinne xe Mart. 4. This then is originall sinne 1. it consisteth partly of a defect and want of originall iustice in that the image of God after the which man was created in righteousnesse and holines was blotted out by the fall of man partly in an euill habite disposition and qualitie and disorder of all the faculties and powers both of bodie and soule This was the start of man after his fall and the same is the condition of all his posteritie by nature Augustine also maketh originall sinne a positiue qualitie placing it in the concupiscence of the flesh not the actuall concupiscence but that naturall corruption which although it be more generall then to containe it selfe within the compasse of concupiscence onely yet he so describeth it by the most manifest effect because our naturall corruption doth most of all shew and manifest it selfe in the concupisence and lust of our members 2. The subiect then and matter of originall sinne are all the faculties and powers of soule and bodie the former is the pravitie and deformitie of them the efficient cause was the peruersnes of Adams will the instrument is the carnall propagation the end or effect is euerlasting damnation both of bodie and soule without the mercie of God Martyr 3. Originall sinne is taken either actiuely for the sinne of Adam which was the cause of sinne in his posteritie which is called originale origmans originall sinne giuing beginning or passiuely for the naturall corruption raised in Adams ofspring by his transgression which is tearmed originale originatum originall sinne taking beginning 4. Of this originall sinne taken both waies there are three misserable effects 1. participatio culpa the participating in the fault or offence for we were all in Adams loines when he transgressed and so we all sinned in him as here the Apostle saith 2. imputatio reatus the imputation of the guilt and punishment of sinne we are the children of wrath by nature subiect both to temporall and eternall death 3. there is naturae depratatio vel deformitas the depravation and deformitie of nature wherein there dwelleth no good thing Rom. 17.18 Controv. 16. Of the wicked heresie of Marcion and Valentinus with the blasphemous Manichees 1. Origen out of the words of the former verse where the Apostle speaketh of our attonement and reconciliation by Christ confureth the heresie of Marcion and Valentinus whose opinion was that there was some substance quae naturaliter Deo sit inimica which naturally is
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
inordinate lasts as specially after these things which concerne the tast feeling and such like Faius Quest. 20. How we are not to giue our members as weapons vnto sinne v. 13. 1. Chrysostome here noteth that the bodie as a middle and indifferent thing betweene sinne and righteousnesse it may be both vsed as weapons for sinne and as an instrument of righteousnesse as both the souldier vseth armour of defence for his countrie and the theefe against it and he maketh mention here of two Kings God and sinne shewing what great difference and oddes there is betweene them that it should be a shame for vs to leaue the seruice of God and to betake vs to the vile seruitude of sinne 2. Origen here also ascribeth a difference in the Apostles phraise he speaking of iniquitie maketh mention onely of our members which must not be giuen as weapons vnto it but he willeth vs to giue our selues vnto God because when first we haue deuoted our selues our inward minde and desire to Gods seruice so we shall make also our members instruments of holines 3. Theophylact noteth that sinne is called by the name of iniquitie because he that sinneth in scipsum vel in proximum iniurius est is iniurious and vniust against himselfe or his neighbour 4. By members we must not vnderstand onely the externall partes of the bodie as the eyes eares hands but the inward also as will affection heart that none of these must become the instruments of vnrighteousnesse Pareus 5. The Apostle setteth downe two partes of our seruice vnto God as he did before of seruice to sinne the first is obedience and subiection giue your selues vnto God the other is to striue and fight for the kingdome of righteousnesse as before he forbad them to vse their members as weapons for sinne Pareus 6. The Apostle inserting these words as aliue from the dead giueth a reason why we should not serue sinne but bequeath our selues to the seruice of God because we hauing receiued so great a benefit as to be raised in Christ from the death of sinne should now as no more dead but as liuing serue God and therefore in this regard iustum est it is iust as Chrysostome inferreth so the Apostle saith are aliue and therefore potestis yea may and ye were dead and therefore debetis ye ought to giue your selues vnto God gloss interline Origen maketh it as an effect and consequent of the former that in giuing your selues to God yea by this meanes shall die vnto sinne and liue vnto righteousnesse but it is rather a reason taken from the ende of our spirituall mortification as is obserued before out of Chrysostome Quest. 21. What it is not to be vnder the law but vnder grace v. 14. There are two things which doe encourage men to fight bonitas causa facilitas victoriae the goodnes of the cause and the facilitie of the victorie both these arguments the Apostle vseth here the goodnesse of the cause he shewed before which was to take part with God and to fight his battels against sinne the easines of the victorie he now setteth forth because we are not vnder the law but vnder grace which doth helpe vs and giue vs strength to resist sinne But these words are diuersely expounded 1. Origen vnderstandeth here the law of the members which continually resisteth against the law of the minde But as Beza well noteth the law of the members is not put absolutely without any other addition as it is here but alwaies something is added by way of explanation 2. Neither doth the Apostle speake here of the ceremoniall or iudiciall law from both which we are free from the first wholly both from the obligation but not from the substance in obseruing the equitie of these lawes the Apostle speaketh of neither of these but of the morall law against the which the concupiscence of the flesh continually inciteth and stirreth men vp 3. The Apostle then speaketh here of the morall law in the which three things are to be considered the substance in the obseruation thereof and the consequents either iustification in obseruing it or malediction if it be not obserued the question is in which of these respects we are said to be free from the law and not vnder it in this place it is confessed of of all that we are free from the iustification by the workes of the law the question is here of the other two the malediction of the law and the obseruation or obedience of it some take the first to be here meant that not to be vnder the law but vnder grace is not to be vnder the curse of the law but to haue remission of sinnes in Christ so Haymo ye are not vnder the law quae punit damnat peccatores which punisheth and condemneth sinners but vnder the grace of Christ that is the remission of sinnes to the same purpose Vatablus to be vnder grace is to haue the conscience assured omne peccatum nobis remissum esse c. that all sinne is remitted vs by the mercie of God so also Calvin they are not vnder the law that is opera eorum non exiguntur ad severum legis examen their workes are not now exacted according to the seuere censure and examination of the law thus also Melancthor Piscator likewise legi satisfecistis in Christo yea haue satisfied the law in Christ But Beza refuteth this interpretation vpon this reason because the Apostle speaketh not here of the remission of sinnes but of mortification and of the fruites of righteousnesse begunne in vs by the spirit 4. Some doe vnderstand it of the obseruation of the law in respect of the manner not of the substance for we are still vnder the obedience of the law to performe the holy workes and duties which are therein prescribed but we are not now vnder the law for the manner of our obedience to be forced thereunto by feare and terrour but the grace of God maketh vs willing and able in some measure to keepe the law which prescribed what was to be done but helped not toward the doing thereof thus Augustine Lex reos faciebat iubendo non adiuvando gratia adiuvat vt quisqne sit legis factor the law made men guiltie in commanding not in helping but grace helpeth euery one to be a doer of the law And to this purpose he maketh sowre degrees of men ante legem sub lege sub gratia in pace before the law vnder the law vnder grace in peace ante legem non pugnamus before the law we do not so much as fight or striue against sinne at all vnder the law pugnamus sed vincimur we fight but are ouercome vnder grace pugnamus vincimus we fight and by grace ouercome sinne in pace ne pugnamus quidem but in the state of peace which is in the kingdome of heauen we shall not so much as fight because then all our spirituall enemies shall be
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
then the other for there is no such character imprinted more in them then in matrimonie for he which is baptized or consecrated may vtterly fall away and become an Apostata from the faith what then is become of this badge or character See further Synops. Cent. 2. er 96. if then there is no more character left in the one then in the other if by a temporall death for a time the efficacie of baptisme and orders be not extinguished neither is the bond of matrimonie loosed for such is no perfect death but a kind of slumber or traunce for a while which I hope they will not say dissolueth the mariage bond Quest. 3. Whether that the woman haue not the like libertie and freedome in respect of the bond of mariage as the man hath v. 3. But if the man be dead the woman is free c. The woman is not free but by the death of the man because this is affirmed onely of the womans freedom not of the mans it may seeme that the man may be otherwise free then by the death of the woman And indeed Ambrose is of this opinion writing vpon the 7. chap. of the 1. to the Corinthians that the man may marrie againe his wife beeing lawfully repudiated euen while she liueth but so cannot the woman and his reason is quia inferior non omnino hac lege vtitur qua superior the inferior is not to vse the same lawe or priuiledge which the superiour doth Caietanus herein agreeing with Ambrose alleadgeth the custome which the Iewes had it was lawfull among them for the man to giue his wife a bill of diuorcement but not for the woman to giue it vnto the man Contra. 1. S. Ambrose opinion herein is contrarie to the Apostle S. Paul who saith that the man hath not power ouer his owne bodie but his wife as the wife hath not power ouer her owne bodie but the husband 1. Cor. 7.4 so in matrimoniall duties he maketh them both equall as Lyranus well inferreth here idem est iudicium de viro the same law or iudgment also is for the man 2. Herein then I rather subscribe to Hieromes opinion quicquid viris iubetur hoc consequenter redundat in foeminas that which is commanded vnto men redoundeth also vnto women for an adulterous woman is not to be dismissed and an adulterous husband to be retained aliae sunt leges Caesarum aliae Christs aliud Papinianus aliud Paulus noster praecipit c. the lawes of Caesar and of Christ are diuerse one thing Papinianus prescribeth an other thing Paul Hierm. ad Occan. 3. And that libertie among the Iewes was granted vnto them for their hardnes of heart it was a permission no dispensation a toleration not a concession and yet the woman had libertie by that custome beeing sent away by a bill of diuorcement to marrie againe as the man did 4. Yet thus much must be acknowledged that whereas it was permitted that many of the fathers should haue diuers wiues yet it was a monstrous thing and neuer tolerated for a woman to haue many husbands that there is some difference herein betweene the condition of the man and woman that in respect of the generall law of nature for procreation the man is more priuiledged who may beget by diuerse women whereas one woman cannot conceiue by diurse men so that in the woman such change should shew her lust onely and wantonnes which in the man was exercised for the desert of procreation yet the speciall law and couenant of matrimonie considered the man hath no more libertie to goe vnto strange flesh then the woman Quest. 4. Why the Apostle saith we are dead to the law v. 4. and not rather the law is dead to vs. 1. Some thinke that in this similitude the man is compared to the law and we are resembled to the woman and so the Apostle in the application of the similitude should haue rather said the law is dead to vs because the man is free when the man is dead but the Apostle chaungeth of purpose his speach he would not say the law is dead but we are dead to the law imbecillitaris Iudaeorum rationem habens c. hauing respect vnto the weaknes of the Iewes left they might haue beene offended beeing so much addicted to the law and last he might haue giuen occasion to those heretikes which are enemies to the old Testament thereby to accuse the law Theodoret so also Calvin comparing the law to the husband voluit exigua inversione c. he would a little deliuer the envie of so hard a tearme auandae offensionis causa noluit exprimere he would not expressely say the lawe is dead to avoide offence Bucer so also Pet. Martyr Pareus But Beza misliketh this exposition for the lawe cannot be said to be dead vnlesse the ceremoniall lawe be vnderstood which the Apostle speaketh not of but of the morall lawe Tolet addeth this reason because the Apostle expressely distinguisheth these three virum mulierem legem the man the woman the lawe and concludeth that by the death of the man we are freed from the lawe 2. Chrysostome salveth the matter thus that the Apostle speaketh of a double libertie both by the death of the man and woman together for if the woman be dead as well as the man she is much more free and so in the application the Apostle indifferently putteth the case of the death of vnto the lawe as the woman or of the lawe to vs as the man But the similitude onely runneth vpon the freedome of the woman by the death of the man the application should be so likewise 3. Haymo vnderstandeth here two husbands and one woman or wife the law is one husband vnder whom the woman that is the soule is said to be the other is sinne whereof the Apostle speaketh v. 3. while the man liueth for while sinne liueth in man he is subiect to the lawe But the other husband which the Apostle speaketh of is Christ raigning in vs by his spirit as v. 4. that we should be vnto an other vnlesse he will say that the Apostle speaketh of three husbands which he doth not for an other doth insinuate but one beside 4. Some thinke that in the application of this similitude we are not so curiously to insist vpon the particular points of this resemblance betweene the man and wife whether the law be as the husband or the man regenerate as the wife by the death of either of them indiffereÌ„tly followeth freedom if either we be dead to the law or the law to vs Faius But the Apostle in the similitude presseth onely the death of the man whereby the woman is free likewise Gorrhan expoundeth ye are mortified or dead to the lawe that is ye are no mâ—â— bound to the lawe as if the law were dead but to be dead to the lawe and the lawe to be dead to vs though in effect they are all one yet
tooke away the handwriting of the lawe which was against vs Calvin so Oecumen by the bodie of Christ pro nobis interemptum slaine for vs so also Ambrose tradens corpus suum Servator mortem vicit peccatum damnavit our Sauiour deliuering vp his bodie ouercame death and condemned sinne c. So we are dead vnto the lawe in the bodie of Christ because he in his body was made a curse for vs to redeeme vs from the curse of the law Par. Quest. 7. Of the meaning of these words v. 6. beeing dead vnto it There are 3. readings of these words 1. some reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are deliuered from the law of death so the vulgar Latine and Ambrose with Anselme Haymo and Origen also maketh mention hereof though he approoue an other reading But the morall lawe is not properly called the law of death which title better agreath vnto sinne which indeed is the law of death Beza obserueth that no Greek copie but one which he had seen so readeth 2. Some read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being dead in the nominative which some expound thus in the which we were held as dead Origen but here is a traiection or transposing of the words which stand thus in the originall dead wherein c. not wherein we were dead some vse a harder kind of traiection we which are dead are deliuered whereas the order of the words is this we are deliuered from the lawe beeing dead c. some vse no traiection at all but supply the pronounc it or that dead vnto it wherein c. and they vnderstand the lawe Theophylact Erasmus Bucer Calvin P. Mart. 3. But the better reading is in the genetive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and some ioyne it with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lawe the lawe beeing dead wherein c. but it is rather put absolutely and the pronoune that or it must be supplyed that beeing dead wherein we were holden not in Oecumenius sense who vnderstandeth it actiuely we are dead by sinne but passiuely with Chrysostome that beeing dead namely sinne wherein we were holden id quod detinebat peccatum c. that which did hold vs namely sinne hath now nothing to hold vs with Quest. 8. What is meant by the newenesse of the spirit and the oldnesse of the letter 1. Origen vnderstandeth by the oldnes of the letter the ceremonies of the lawe as circumcision the Iewish Sabbaths by the newenesse of the letter the spirituall and allegoticall sense so also Haymo saith he serueth God in the newenes of the spirit that spiritually practiseth the circumcision of the heart not the carnall obseruation of the ceremonies But S. Paul treateth here of the morall not the ceremoniall lawe as Tolet well obserueth annot 18. 2. Chrysostome and Theophylact following him vnderstand the oldnes of the letter of the externall obedience which was practised vnder the law the newenesse of the spirit they expound to be the inward obedience of the heart wrought in vs by the spirit of Christ But we must here take heede that we doe not so thinke that the literall sense of the lawe onely concerned outward obedience for it required the perfect loue of God and our neighbour and restrained the verie inward concupiscence Neither must we imagine that all they which liued vnder the lawe onely serued God in the oldnes of the letter yeelding onely externall obedience as Chrysostome seemeth to insinuate that they were commanded onely to abstaine from murther adulterie and such like but we are restrained from anger wantonnes the inward motions for many of the holy men vnder the lawe had the newenesse of spirit in the renovation of their inward desires as the faithfull haue vnder the Gospell 3. Some by the oldnesse of the letter vnderstand sinne which was not reformed by the letter of the lawe by the newenesse of the spirit the fruits of righteousnesse as Hierome epist. ad Hedib quest 8. vivamus sub pracepto qui prius in modum brutorum c. let vs liue vnder the precept which before as bruite beasts said let vs eate and drinke c. so also Tolet annot 8. but if by the oldnes of the letter we vnderstand sinne how can any be said to serue God in sinne 4. Ambrose by the newenesse of the spirit doth vnderstand legem fidei the lawe of faith by the oldnes of the letter the law of works but the Apostle here speaketh of our obedience and sanctifie which is the fruits indeede of iustification rather then iustification it selfe 5. Wherefore the Apostle rather by the oldnes of the letter vnderstandeth the outward and externall obedience onely ot iosam legis notitiam the idle and fruitlesse knowledge of the lawe without the true conuersion of the heart the newenes of the spirit is the true sanctitie both of bodie and soule wrought in vs by the spirit of God which is called newe compared with our former state and condition vnder the old man and in respect of our newe mariage with Christ Pareus so Calvin non habemus in lege nisi externam literam c. we haue not in the lawe but onely the externall letter which doth bridle our outward actions but doth not restraine our concupiscence so Pet. Martyr vnderstandeth quoddam obedientia genus a certaine kind of outward obedience but not such as God requireth to the same purpose Osrander the newenes of the spirit is when we serue God move spontaneo spiritu with a readie and willing spirit they serued God in the oldnes of the letter that is indignabundo spiritus with an vnwilling mind And the law as Beza well noteth is called the letter quia surdis canit because it speaketh as vnto deafe men till they be regenerate and renewed by the spirit of grace 6. So here are three things set one against the other solutio contra detentionem libertie or freedome against detayning or holding the newenesse against the oldnes the spirit against the letter Gorrhan Quest. 9. How S. Paul beeing brought vp in the knowledge of the law could say I knew not lust 7. and I was aliue without the law v. 9. 1. The occasion of this question is because elswhere the Apostle professeth his integrity as Philip. 3.6 touching the righteousnesse which is in the law I was vnreproouable and Act. 23.1 he saith I haue in all good conscience serued God vnto this day how then could he be ignorant of the law or be without the law Ans. 1. It may be answered that either S. Paul spake of his first age in the time of his childhood when he knew not the law or he speaketh figuratiuely in the person of an other But neither of these is likely not the first for the things which the Apostle here toucheth show the law wrought in him all manner of concupiscence are not incident into the age of children or vnexperienced young men nor the other for thoroughout this whole chapter the
statutes that were not good Gorrhan here answereth that they were good in themselues but became euill ipsorum vitio by their fault Iunius vnderstandeth that place of the hard iudiciall laws and sentences of death both ordinarie and extraordinarie But rather it is referred to the ceremoniall laws which were as a yoke and burthen laid vpon the people which they were not able to beare as S. Peter expoundeth Act. 15.10 Quest. 23. How the lawe is said to be spirituall 1. Origen thinketh it is called spirituall because it must be vnderstood not literally but spiritually But the Apostle treateth here of the morall lawe where was no place for allegories 2. Theodoret because it was giuen of God who is a spirit 3. Ambrose because the lawe directed vs to the worship of God who is a most pure spirit 4. Augustine because it cannot be fulfilled nisi à viris spiritualibus but of spirituall men but no man in this life is so spirituall that he can keep the law 5. Thomas because concordat cum spiritu hominis it agreeth with the spirit of man that is reason so also Lyranus because it directeth man to followe the instinct of the spirit or reason so also Gorrhan spiritum hominis aleus it nourisheth the spirit of man But the verie spirit of man is corrupt and contrarie to the law by nature and therefore the Apostle saith Ephes. 4.23 be renewed in the spirit of your mind 6. Pet. Martyr giueth this reason why it is called spirituall because it requireth not onely the externall obedience in the outward workes but the spirituall in the heart and affections 7. But hereunto it may be added that it is spirituall because it requireth a spirituall that is a perfect obedience both in bodie and soule and an angelicall and diuine obedience to followe vertue and shunne vice so Chrysostome and Theophylact and Calvin Pareus Osiand following them 8. that seemeth to be somewhat curious which the ordinar gloss here obserueth that the Lawe is onely called spirituall because therein are those things quae Dit sunt which are Gods but the Gospel is called lex spiritus the lawe of the spirit because there Deus ipse est God himselfe is Quest. 24. How the Apostle saith he is carnall and sold vnder sinne v. 17. 1. Pererius well obserueth here that one may be said to be carnall two waies quia serâ—â— carni because he serueth the flesh or he which by reason of his corrupt nature procliuis est is prone vnto concupiscence to this purpose Pareus that in the first sense the vnregenerate are said to be carnall in the other the regenerate because they are yet infirmitatibus abnoxque subiect to infirmities quia nondums habent spirituale corpus because they haue not yet a spirituall bodie freed from all infirmities such as they shall haue in the resurrection August lib. ad Bonifac. c. 10. so we haue inchoatam non plenam liberationem a deliuerance begunne in Christ but not yet perfect till our last enemie death shall be destroied 2. Likewise where the Apostle saith he was sold 1. Some take the word properly for such a selling wherein there is a buyer a thing sold and a price which they referre either vnto Adams selling himselfe to the deuill for an apple Lyran. gloss ordinar or to a mans selling of himselfe by his actuall sinnes for the sweetnesse of pleasure which is as the price which men sell themselues to the deuill for Tolet. annot 16. Gorrhan But in this sense S. Paul beeing a spirituall and regenerate man cannot be said to be sold. 2. wherefore this metaphor is not largely to be taken as when Ahab is said to haue sold himselfe to worke wickednes 1. King 21.25 for there are two kinds of slaues one that selleth himselfe into captiuitie and willingly obeyeth a tyrant or one which against his will is brought into servitude as Ioseph was sold by his brethren into captiuitie and this is S. Pauls case here Pareus And Augustine noteth that sometime selling in Scripture is taken for a simple tradition or deliuering ouer without any price lib. 7. in Iudic. c. 17. and so indeed the Hebrew word machar signifieth as well to deliuer as to sell as Isay 52.3 the Israelites are said to be sold for naught and the Lord will redeeme them for naught But these two are said in a diuerse sense Men are said to be sold for naught in respect of God he receiueth no honour but rather dishonour by their selling ouer vnto sinne they are redeemed for naught in Christ in respect of themselues because they gaue nothing for their redemption but yet in respect of Christ and his price they were not redeemed for naught but by the most pretious blood of Christ Mart. Pererius thinketh they are said to be redeemed for naught comparatively because that momentarie pleasure for the which a sinner selleth himselfe is nothing to the price and dignitie of his soule numer 72. but rather selling is here taken for a plaine deliuering ouer as is before shewed out of Augustine Now two waies are the regenerate sold ouer to sinne in respect of their originall corruption and of their carnall infirmities which remaine still in their corrupt nature to the which they are subiect still Pareus but the vnregenerate are said to be sold ouer as Ahab was because they giue themselues wholly ouer vnto sinne Beza doth well expresse these two kinds of seruitude or selling ouer by the like difference in humane servitude for some are slaves because they are borne of serâ—ile and bond parents others make themselues bond like vnto the first are the regenerate and the vnregenerate as the second Quest. 25. Of these words v. 15. I allow not what I doe what I would that doe I not 1. Chrysostome thinking that the Apostle speaketh this in the person of an vnregenerate man referreth this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know not or vnderstand nor to the vnderstanding not that a sinner knoweth not when he sinneth sed tenebrosa quadaÌ„ vertigine obvoluor but I am ouertaken with a kind of dizines that I know not how I was ouertaken so also Origen non rem ipsam sed causam rei dicitur ignorare he is said not to know not the thing but the cause thereof that is how and by what means he came to sinne But it is euident by the words following what I would c. that the Apostle speaketh of his will rather then vnderstanding 2. Pererius likewise inclining to thinke that this is spoken in the person of a carnall man will haue this vnderstood of a generall and vniversall knowledge will and hatred that men in generall knowe and will vertue and hate vice but not in particular But the Apostle here speaketh of doing and not doing which must be referred to particular actions 3. Augustine verie well interpreteth non agnosco I know not that is non approbo non consentio I approoue not consent not
God and the spirituall man 1. Cor. 2.14.15 and afterward he denieth that they were such spirituall men but carnall c. 3.1 yet were they regenerate there is then in a regenerate man somewhat that is carnall and somewhat that is spirituall 2. The feare of sinne is in the rationall part but sinne is in the flesh therefore euen in the reason there may be somewhat carnall Tolet answereth that though sinne be in the reason yet it hath the effect cheefely by the flesh Contr. The will bringeth forth sinne and that belongeth to the rationall part the bodie doth but execute the edict of the reason and will therefore the rationall part beeing the place and feare of sinne is carnall yea Tolets owne words may be vrged against himselfe he confesseth peccatum adeo infirmam fecit rationalem partem that sinne hath made the rationall part so weake as that it cannot of it selfe perfectly will that which is good though the flesh should not contradict it c. there is then somewhat carnall in the soule because there is sinne 3. The Philosophers as Aristotle lib. 1. Ethicor. c. 13. made two parts of the minde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the reasonable and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is void of reason where the affections and passions of the mind are If the Apostle should make no other difference between the flesh and the spirit his Apostolicall Theologie would afford no greater comfort then prophane Philosophie Quest. 27. How the Apostle saith to will is present with me c. but I find no meanes to performe c. v. 18. 1. Tolet agreeing with those which vnderstand the Apostle here to speake of a man vnregenerate and in his sinne thinketh that a sinner euen without grace may will that which is good voluntate imperfecta with an imperfect will annot 20. But the Apostle affirmeth the contrarie Philip. 12.13 That it is God which worketh in vs both the will and the deed therefore a carnall man cannot haue any good will of himselfe 2. Pererius expounding the Apostle to speake here in the person of a man regenerate restraineth this will of the Apostle to concupiscence to will is present that is non concupiscere not to couet that which is euill but he could not performe this that is to haue no concupiscence though he did not consent vnto it but this opinion is refused before qu. 25.3 3. But euen they which are regenerate doe faile in the verie good workes which they do not that their will is altogether ineffectuall sed efficaciam operis negat respondere voluntati he denieth that the efficacie of the worke doth answer to his will Calvin he willeth and desireth being moued of the spirit but he cannot perfit the worke as he would he findeth alwaies some imperfection in the worke therfore the Apostle vseth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to perfit or performe aliquo tenus progrediuntur sancti c. the Saints doe make some proceeding but they are farre off from perfection Obiect But God worketh in his both the wil and the deed Ans. God indeed worketh both but not alwaies not alike the Saints sometime will and performe good things sometime they are willing but want strength But the Apostle speaketh not here as though alwaies his will came short but that ostner then he would his will was crossed in good things and therefore he vseth the word dwelling this grace and strength did not alwaies dwell and continue with him Pareus 4. But Pererius thus obiecteth 1. if Saint Pauls will consented at any time to his concupiscence how could he say v. 17. it is no more I that doe it but sinne 2. how could he delight in his minde in the law of God if there were sinne 3. if S. Paul did those things which he would not then fornication adulterie and such like Cont. 1. It was the part of the will vnregenerate which consented not to the will renewed which Saint Paul calleth his will and not the other because he cheifely desired good things 2. in the regenerate part he delighted in Gods law though in his vnregenerate sinne remaine 3. S. Paul speaketh not of such grosse sinnes but of the secret force of concupiscence which often carieth away euen the regenerate 28. Quest. Of the meaning of these words v. 21. I finde a law c. 1. Some doe vnderstand this lawe of the morall lawe giuen by Moses some of the law of concupiscence which afterward is called the law of the members and of both sorts there are diverse opinions Of the first there are two sorts some doe interpret it as though the Apostle should commend the lawe some that he setteth forth the weakenesse and want of strength in the lawe Of the former sort 1. Origen would haue the words transposed thus because when I would doe good and evill is present I finde a lawe and I delight in the lawe c. But this traiection of the words seemeth somewhat hard 2. Photius in Oecumenius doth transpose them thus I finde the lawe to be good vnto me willing to doe c. so also Augustine lib. 2. cont 2. epist. Pelag. c. 10. and Anselmus whom Bellarmine followeth ioyne good with the lawe but it may be gathered v. 19. I doe not the good thing I would that good must be ioyned with the word doe not with the law 3. Chrysostome thus interpreteth I finde the lawe faveâ—tum auxiliantem favouring and helping me so also Theophylact and Lyranus saith that the Apostle sheweth the consent betweene the written lawe and the naturall lawe which mooueth him to doe that which is good so also the Syrian interpreter I finde the lawe to consent to my minde 4. Some supply the word good I finde the lawe to be good Haymo Hugo Gorrhan Pareus 5. Pareus hath an other exposition that the lawe is taken here for studium legis the studie of the lawe and he thinketh the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is present or at hand may be supplyed out of the latter part of the verse in this sense I finde the studie of the lawe to be present with me when I would doe good But all these expositions tending to the commendation of the law are remooued because of the last words because euill is present with me for how can this be a reason that the lawe helpeth or consenteth or is good and profitable to him beeing willing to doe good to say with Pareus that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because may be taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although or with Faius for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but or that it is superfluously added it seemeth not to be so fit Of the other sort that hereby shewe the weakenes of the lawe which serueth to discouer sinne 1. Some giue this sense invento legem agnosco debilem I finde the lawe that is to be but weake it cannot helpe me or make me better but though I would doe good yet euill is present Photius
in Oecumen 2. or I finde by the lawe that when I would doe good euill is present Vatab. Genevens Calvin but here the preposition per by is inserted which is not in the originall 3. Erasmus to the same purpose I finde the lawe this to worke in me that I vnderstand when I would doe well that evill is present c. but here many words are added not in the originall Of them that vnderstand the lawe of the members 1. Beza thus interpreteth I finde legem impositam this lawe to be imposed vpon me by reason of the corruption of my nature so also Mart. that when I would doe good euill is present 2. some directly vnderstand legem carnis the lawe of the flesh the concupiscence which hindreth him beeing willing to doe good so Tolet Osiand and these two last expositions are most agreeable to the text because it is added as a reason because euill is present with me in which words he sheweth what lawe he meaneth that which is opposite vnto him which is further explained in the verses following Quest. 29. How the Apostle saith v. 21. euill is present with me 1. Ambrose hath here a curious observation euill is said to be present adiacere to be readie at hand because it lutketh in the flesh as at the doore that when one is inclined and willing to do good sinne is at hand to hinder And he giueth this reason why sinne hath the habitation in the flesh rather then in the soule because the flesh onely is deriued ex traduce by propagation and not the soule which if it were propagated as well as the flesh sinne rather should haue the feare in the soule because it sinneth rather then the flesh which is but the organe or instrument of sinne likewise expoundeth Tolet adiacet mihi it is naturally resiant in my flesh as he said before that to will is present with me that is naturally in his minde annot 21. 2. But 1. Ambrose reason concludeth not for though the flesh haue the beginning by propagation and not the soule and so the first pollution is by the flesh yet sinne disperseth it selfe into the whole nature of man both soule and bodie as the Apostle sheweth Coloss. 2.18 that there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a mind of flesh or fleshly minde 2. neither naturally is the mind willing or apt vnto that which is good for why then should the Apostle exhort to be renewed in the spirit of the minde Ephes. 4.23 the aptnesse and inclination of the mind vnto good is by grace the meaning then of this phrase is nothing else but to shewe the readinesse and strength of our naturall concupiscence which lyeth in waite and is at hand to hinder euerie good worke and to stirre vs vp vnto euill Quest. 30. Of these words I delight in the law of God c. v. 22 23. of the number of these lawes and what they are 1. Concerning the number 1. some referre these laws vnto two the law of God and the law of the minde they make one and the same the law of the members and the law of sinne also they thinke to be one Pareus Martyr Tolet. annot 22. 2. Photius in Oecumenius maketh three lawes he distinguisheth the law of God and the law of the minde the law of the members and the law of sinne he confoundeth 3. But Hierom. epist. ad Hedib qu. 8. and Ambr. in Luc. 17. doe recite fowre lawes as they are here named by the Apostle the law of God the law of the minde the law of the members and the law of sinne so also Calvin Hyper. and the Apostle indeede setteth downe so many 2. The like difference is what these lawes should be 1. Oecumenius thus describeth these lawes two are without vs the law of God the knowledge whereof we haue by the preaching of the Gospel and the law of the members which commeth by the suggestion of Satan ministring euill cogitations two of them are within vs the law of the minde that is the law of nature which is imprinted in the minde and the law of sinne which is the euill custome of sinning 2. Pererius will haue the law of God to be the written law and the law of the mind the naturall law the law of the members the naturall concupiscence and inclination vnto the seuerall proper obiects of the desire the law of sinne is deordinatio earundem virium the disordering of the naturall faculties and abusing of them vnto euill But all these faile herein 1. the law of the minde is not naturall for naturally the minde is not apt vnto that which is good without the worke of grace 2. and the law of the members is internall and within vs. 3. neither is this the naturall facultie of desiring which is not euill but the disordered pravitie of nature 3. Pet. Mertyr as he maketh the law of God and the law of the minde to be the same yet in a diuers respect for it is called the law of God in respect of the author and of the minde in regard of the subiect so in his iudgement the same is called the law of sinne because concupiscence in it selfe is sinne as the efficient and the law of the members because they are as the instruments 4. But I rather consent vnto M. Calvin who vnderstandeth the law of God to be the morall law the rule of equitie and the law of the minde to be the obedience and conformitie which the mind regenerate hath with the law of God and by the law of the members the concupiscence which is in the members consenting to the law of sinne 5. And further the law of the members and the law of sinne are not severed in subiect they are both in the members but thus they differ Some thinke the law of the members to be the corruption and pravitie of our nature called before the bodie of sinne c. 6.6 and the law of sinne the euill concupiscence springing from thence so Vatablus the law of the members is vis in carne the strength of the flesh resisting the law of the minde and the law of sinne is affectus carnis the carnall affections so Haymo interpreteth the law of the members onus pondus mortalitatis the burthen of mortalitie and the law of sinne to be euill concupiscence custome and delight in sinne so Lyranus vnderstandeth by the law of the members fomitem peccati vel inclinationem pravam the food and matter of sinne or the corrupt inclination and the law of sinne consuetudinem pravam the euill custome of sinning 6. But I rather with Beza by the law of sinne vnderstand the corruption of nature by the law of the members the euill concupiscence springing from thence for otherwise the opposition betweene the law of God and the minde on the one side and the law of the members and of sinne on the other will not be correspondent and answerable together for the law of the members must be
set against the law of the minde and the law of sinne against the law of God like as then the regenerate minde is conformable to the law of God so the vnregenerate members are captived to the law of sinne in the members which is the corruption of nature euen originall sinne 31. Quest. Why these are called lawes and why they are said the one to be in the inner man the other in the members 1. For the first 1. Chrysostome giueth this reason it is called the law of sinne propter vehementem exactam obedientiam because of the exact and forced obedience which is giuen vnto it for the laws of tyrants are so called abusive though not properly Calvin lex quia dominatur it is a law because it ruleth gloss 2. Lyranus a law is called à ligando of binding ducit membra ligata ad mala it leadeth the members and holdeth or tieth them to that which is euill they can doe no other 3. Pererius sicut lex dirigit c. as the law directeth to that which is good so the lawe of sinne to that which is euill 4. legitime factum est it commeth iustly to passe that illi non serviat suum inferius t. caro that mans inferiour that is his flesh should not serue him seeing he serued not his superiour namely God gloss ordinar Anselmus so it is called a lawe as in iustice imposed of God vpon man for his disobedience 2. For the second the one is called the lawe of the minde and inner man the other the lawe of the members and outward man 1. not that the minde and reason onely wherein the naturall lawe is written is the inner man and the sensitive part is the flesh as Lyranus Gorrhan with others which opinion is confuted before quest 26. for euen the minde is corrupt and so carnall in the vnregenerate as the Apostle speaketh of some which were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corrupt in their minde 2. Timoth. 3.8 2. But the regenerate part is called the inner man and the vnregenerate both in soule and bodie the outward 1. because intus potissimum regnat it raigneth chiefely within and is discerned chiefely and knowne in the mind Mart. 2. quia in cordis conuersione c. because it consisteth in the heart nec patet hominum oculis and is not open and apparent vnto the sight of men Pareus in which sense it is called the hid man of the heart 1. Pet. 3.4 3. and because non externa vel mâ—â—dana quaerit it seeketh not things externall belonging to the world whereas appetitus carnis vagi sunt extra hominem the fleshly appetite is wandring and as it were without a man Calvin and as Caietane carnalibus officijs immersae sunt the faculties of the outward man are drenched as it were and wholly spent in carnall offices 4. and the regenerate part is called by the name of the inner man and the minde per excellenciam because of the excellencie for as the minde is more excellent then the bodie so is the spirit then the flesh Calvin Quest. 32. Of the Apostles exclamation O wretched man that I am 1. The word which the Apostle here vseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth one that is perpetus pugnis fatigatus wearied with continuall combates Beza like as a champion which striuing along time is like at last to be ouercome of his aduersaries vnlesse he be helped the vulgar latine readeth O vnhappie man but that is not so fit 2. neither doth the Apostle thus crie out either as a man in despaire or doubting by whom he should be deliuered but he sheweth his great desire vox est anhelantis it is the voice of one breathing and panting desiring to be deliuered from this seruitude Calvin 3. and by this exclamation certaminis gravitatem ostendit he sheweth the greatnes of this combate out of the which he was not able to wrestle by his owne strength and if Paul were not able who is it is then a patheticall speach like vnto that Psal. 86. Who will giue me the wings as it were of a done Faius 4. And in this crying out the Apostle sheweth the state of all men in this life into what miserie they are brought by their sinne and likewise his desire longing to be deliuered therfrom Pareus Quest. 33. What the Apostle vnderstandeth by this bodie of death from the which he desireth to be deliuered 1. Ambrose by the bodie of death vnderstandeth vniuersitatem vitiorum a general collection of sinnes which he called before the bodie of sinne but there was not in the Apostle such a gathering together and confluence of all sinne 2. Pererius chargeth Calvin to agree with Ambrose who vnderstandeth by the bodie of death massam vel congeriem peccati ex qua homo constatus the masse and heape of sinne whereof man consisteth and thereupon he crieth out ô hominem impurum atque impium O wicked and filthie man that is not ashamed so to charge the Apostle c. Whereas Calvin onely saith that there were in the Apostle reliquiae peccati some reliques of sinne of that masse of sinne and corruption which is in man Calvin then and Melancthon do thus vnderstand the Apostle naturam hanc carnalem immersam esse peccato that this carnall nature is wholly drowned and drenched in sinne so also Martyr vitiatam corruptam naturam intelligit he vnderstandeth our corrupt nature but the Apostle speaketh of death here not of sinne 3. neither is the bodie of death taken here properly for sinne as Faius thinketh it was called before the bodie of sinne c. 6. and it is considered tanquam moles onus incumbens as a masse or burthen lying vpon vs so also Roloch it is taken for sinne in this place which is in the bodie and in the whole man likewise Piscator mortem intelligit peccatum inhabitans by death he vnderstandeth the sinne that dwelleth in vs and so before them Vatablus à concupiscentia c. he wisheth to be deliuered from concupiscence which did make him guiltie of eternall death and before him Photius in Oecumenius applyeth it to the corporall and sinnefull actions which bring the death of the soule But in their meaning the Apostle should say in effect who shall deliuer me from this sinnefull bodie what could an vnregenerate man haue said more 4. neither yet doe I approoue of their opinion which referre it onely to the mortalitie of the bodie as Theophylact morti subiecti subiect to death Lyranus quia sancti resurgent c. because the Saints shall rise in an immortall bodie and Pererius à corpore mortis huius from the bodie of this death that is subiect to mortalitie and corruption for the Apostle hath respect thus crying out vnto the conflict between the flesh and the spirit from which he desireth to be deliuered 5. Cassianus by the bodie of death would haue vnderstood the terrene busines and necessitie quae spirituales
synecdoche the principall part beeing taken for the whole the minde regenerate for all the regenerate part both in the minde and bodie because it chiefly sheweth it selfe there and the flesh for that part which is vnregenerate in the whole man both in the minde and bodie because it is chiefly exercised and executed by the bodie see before Quest. 26. 2. We are not to vnderstand here two distinct and seuerall parts the one working without the other as the Romanists which will haue the inner man to be the minde and the sensuall part the flesh for in this sense neither doth the minde alwaies serue God wherein there is ignorance infidelitie error nor yet doth the sensuall part alwaies serue sinne for many vertuous acts are exercised thereby see this opinion before confuted Quest. 31. But these two parts must be vnderstood as working together the flesh hindreth the spirit and blemisheth our best actions Faius 3. And whereas the Apostle saith that in my flesh I serue the law of sinne we must not imagine that the Apostle was giuen ouer vnto grosse carnall works as to commit murther adulterie but he sheweth the infirmitie of his flesh and specially he meaneth his naturall concupiscence and corruption of nature in the which he gaue instance before against the which pugnabat luctabatur he did striue and fight Martyr 4. Neither yet must we thinke that the Apostle seruing the spirit one way and the flesh an other was as a mutable or inconstant man or indifferent like as Ephraim is compared to a cake but turned and baked on the one side Hos. 7.8 or as they which Revel 3. are said to be luke warme neither hoat nor cold for these of a set purpose were such and willingly did dissemble but the Apostle setteth forth himselfe as a man neither perfectly sound nor yet sicke but in a state betweene both that although he laboured to attaine to perfection yet he was hindred by the infirmitie of his flesh like as an Israelite dwelling among the Iebusits Faius 5. And whereas the Apostle said before v. 15. it is not I that doe it but sinne that dwelleth in mee and yet here he saith I my selfe c. in my selfe serue the law of sinne the Apostle is not contrarie to himselfe for he speaketh here of his person that doth both there of of the cause Tolet. annot 25. and so he sheweth secundum repugnantia principia se repugnantia habere studia that according vnto the contrarie beginnings or causes he hath contrarie desires Pareus 36. Quest. Of that famous question whether S. Paul doe speake in his owne person or of an other here in this 7. chapter There are of this matter diuers opinions which yet may be sorted into these three orders 1. Some thinke that the Apostle speaketh in the person of a man not yet in the state of grace 2. Some of a man regenerate from v. 14. to the ende 3. Some that the Apostle indifferently assumeth the person of all mankind whether they be regenerate or not And in euery of these opinions there is great diuersitie 1. They which are of the first opinion 1. Some thinke that the Apostle speaketh in the person of a naturall man and sheweth what strength a mans free will hath by nature without grace so Iulianus the Pelagian with other of that sect whose epistles Augustine confuteth so Lyranus he speaketh in the person generis humani lapsi of humane kind after their fall 2. Some will haue the person of a man described sub lege ante legem degentis not liuing onely before the law but vnder it hauing some knowledge of sinne so Chrysostome Theophylact whome Tolet followeth annot 4. 3. Some thinke that the Apostle describeth a man not altogether vnder the law nor yet wholly vnder grace but of a man beginning to be conuerted quasi voluntate proposito ad meliora conversi as converted in minde and desire vnto better things Origen so also Basil. 〈◊〉 â—egal breviar and Haymo saith the Apostle speaketh ex persona hominis poenitentiam agentis in the person of a man penitent c. 2. They of the second sort doe thus differ 1. Augustine confesseth that sometime he was of opinion that the Apostle speaketh in the person of a carnall and vnregenerate man but afterward he changed his minde vpon better reasons thinking the Apostle to speake of a spirituall man in the state of grace lib. 1. Retract c. 23. lib. 6. cont Iulian. c. 11. but Augustine reteining this sense thinketh that the Apostle saying v. 15. I allow not that thing which I doe speaketh of the first motions onely of concupiscence quando illis non consenttatur when no consent is giuen vnto them lib. 3. cont Iulian. c. 26. which concupiscence the most perfect man in this life can not be void of so also Gregorie vnderstandeth simplices motus ceruis contra voluntatem the simple motions of the flesh against the will and hereunto agreeth Bellarm. lib. 5. de amission grat c. 10. Rhemist sect 6. vpon this chapter 2. Cassianus collat 23. c. 15. vnderstandeth a man regenerate but then by the inner man he would haue signified the contemplation of celestiall things by the flesh curam rerum temporalium the care of earthly things 3. Some thinke that the Apostle so describeth a regenerate man as yet that he may sometime become in a manner carnall we see in this example euen of Paul regenerate etiam regeneratum nonnunquam mancipium fieri peccati that a regenerate man may sometime become the slaue of sinne Rolloch 4. But the founder opinion is that the Apostle in his owne person speaketh of a regenerate man euen when he is at the best that he is troubled and exercised with sinnefull motions which the perfectest can not be ridde of till he be deliuered from his corruptible flesh of this opinion was Hilarie habemus nunc nobis admistam materiam quae mortis legi peccato obnoxia est c. we haue now mixed within vs a certaine matter which is subiect to the law of death and sinne c. and vntill our bodie be glorified non potest in nobis verae vita esse natura there can not be in vs the nature and condition of true life Hilar. in Psal. 118. Of the same opinion are all our foundest new writers Melancthon Martyr Calvin Beza Hyperius Pareus Faius with others 3. Of the third sort 1. some are indifferent whether we vnderstand the person of the regenerate or vnregenerate gloss ordinar and so Gorrhan sheweth how all this which the Apostle hath from v. 18. to the end may in one sense be vnderstood of the regenerate in an other of the vnregenerate 2. Some thinke that some things may be applied vnto the regenerate as I am carnall sold vnder sinne but some things onely can be applied to the regenerate as these words I delight in the law of God c. Perer. disput 21. num 38. and yet he
rather inclineth to thinke that the Apostle taketh vpon him the person of a man regenerate And Origen seemeth to haue beene of this minde that sometime the Apostle speaketh in his owne person as I thanke God through Iesus Christ and sometime in the person of a weake man and young beginner as in the rest 3. Some take all this discourse of the Apostle neither to touch the regenerate or vnregenerate in the particular but the nature of mankind in generall as Hierome noteth that the Apostle saide not O wretched sinner but O wretched man vt totam complecteretur naturam omnium hominum non tantum peccatorum c. that he might comprehend the nature of all men and not onely of sinners lib. 2. cont Pelag. so also Erasmus humani generis in se personam recipit c. he taketh vpon him the person of mankind wherein is both the Gentile without the law the carnall Iew vnder the law and the spirituall man made free by grace Annot. in hunc locum Now of all these opinions which are tenne in all we embrace the fourth of the second fort and this diuersitie of opinion may be reduced to this point whether the Apostle speake in his owne person of a man regenerate or in an assumed person of a man vnregenerate the other particular differences haue beene dispersedly touched before Now then the arguments shall be produced with their answers which are vrged on both sides and first for the negative that the Apostle giueth not instance here of a man regenerate and spirituall but carnall and vnregenerate Argum. 1. Origen vrgeth these reasons first the righteous man is not said to be carnall 2. Cor. 10.3 We doe not marrie after the flesh But the Apostle here saith v. 14. I am carnall 2. Of the righteous the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 6.20 ye are bought for a price but here the Apostle saith v. 14. I am sold vnder sinne 3. Of the righteous it is said c. 8.9 the spirit of God dwelleth in you but here the Apostle confesseth that no good thing dwelleth in him 4. Origen also presseth these words v. â—8 in my flesh I serue the lawe of sinne if the Apostle should speake thus of himselfe desparationem mihi videtur incutere it were able to strike despaire vnto vs that there is no man who doth not serue sinne in the flesh 5. The regenerate such as Paul was doe not onely will that which is good but performe it also but this man cannot doe that he would of whom the Apostle speaketh ver 15. Tolet. 6. The righteous and iust man cannot be said to be captiued vnto sinne as the Apostle saith of that man whose person he beareth v. 23. Cassianus collat 22. in fine 7. The Apostle speaking of himselfe and of others which are regenerate said before v. 5.6 When we were in the flesh c. the motions of sinnes c. had force in our members c. but now we are deliuered from the law c. But here the Apostle speaketh of a man that is captiued vnto the motions of the flesh so that the Apostle if he should speake here of a regenerate man would contradict himselfe 8. The scope of the Apostle is to shewe the invaliditie of the lawe that it cannot take away sinne but sinne rather is encreased thereby by reason of the weakenes of mans nature it is therefore more agreeable to the Apostles intent to giue instance of a carnall man in whom sinne yet raigneth then of a regenerate man that by grace is brought to yeeld obedience to the law Tolet. c. 10. in tractat 9. Hierome and before him Origen thus shewe that the Apostle here assumeth the person of an other like as Daniel beeing a iust man yet prayeth in the person of sinners saying c. 9. we haue sinned we haue done wickedly Hierome epist. 151. ad Algasiam The former arguments answeared 1. The regenerate simply are not called carnall but secundum quid after a sort they are carnall in respect of the vnregenerate part as the Apostle speaking to the Corinthians that were beleeuers and iustified sanctified 1. Cor. 6.11 yet calleth them carnall in regard of the sects and diuisions among them 1. Cor. 3.1 And one is said to be carnall two wayes either he which is altogether obedient to the flesh and fleshly lusts or he that doth not yeeld himselfe vnto them but striueth against them and yet against his will feeleth the violent motions thereof so the Apostle confesseth that though he warre not after the flesh yeâ— he walketh after the flesh 2. Cor. 10.3 2. The righteous is bought for a price and redeemed from his sinnes and yet in respect of his vnregenerate part the corruption of nature and reliques of sinne remaining he is said to be sold vnder sinne not simply as the vnregenerate is giuen ouer wholly but in part only 3. In the faithfull as they are regenerate the spirit of God dwelleth but in their vnregenerate part sinne inhabiteth there is no inconuenience to graunt that two diuerse inhabitants may dwell in one and the same house in two diuerse parts for the Apostle speaking of the regenerate saith Galat. 5.17 The spirit lusteth against the flesh and the flesh against the spirit and these are contrarie one to the other they which feele not this fight and combate are either Angelicall as the Saints in heauen or they haue not yet receiued the spirit at all as they which are carnall 4. There are two kinds of seruices to sinne the one is a willing seruice such as is in the vnregenerate the other vnwilling and in a manner forced as in the regenerate 5. The vnregenerate haue no will at all to doe good for the wisedome of the flesh is not subiect to the Lawe of God neither can be Rom. 8.7 the regenerate receiue grace to will and sometime to performe though not as they would they are therefore regenerate though not perfectly as none are in this life 6. There are two kinds of captiuitie the one when one is wholly captiued vnder the bondage of his owne voluntarie sinne the other is a forced captiuitie vnder the bondage of originall sinne this is in the righteous not the other 7. The Apostle is not contrarie to himselfe for it is one thing to obey the lusts of the flesh as the vnregenerate and carnall an other to feele the motions of the flesh and to striue against them as in the regenerate 8. The Apostles intent and meaning is to shewe that the law in it selfe is good and iust and that it commeth by reason of mans owne infirmitie that it is otherwise to him and thereupon the Apostle to set forth the perfection of the lawe giueth instance in the regenerate that they are not able to keepe the law much lesse the vnregenerate so that it is more agreeable to the scope and purpose of the Apostle to speake of a man regenerate then of one vnregenerate 9. Euen Daniel though
he be called a man of desires that is beloued and excepted of God yet had his sinnes which he confessed in his owne name and person as Dauid is said to be a man after Gods owne heart yet he had his sinnes and imperfections Arguments for the affirmatiue part that S. Paul speaketh in his owne person as of a man regenerate First these two points must be premised that the Apostle speaketh of himselfe not of another still continuing his speach in the first person I am carnall I will I consent I delight and so throughout that it should be a great forcing of the Apostles speach to make him to speake of another and not of himselfe secondly the Apostle from the 14. v. to the end speaketh of his present state who was then regenerate as may appeare because while he was yet vnder the law he speaketh as of the time past v. 9. I was aliue and v. 10. sinne seduced me but from the 14. v. he speaketh of the time present I am carnall and so throughout to the end of the chapter Argum. 1. Hence then is framed our first reason the Apostle speaketh of himselfe as he then was because he speaketh in the present tence but then he was a man regenerate Ergo. Theophylact answereth the Apostle saith I serue v. 15. that is serviebam I did serue Contra. As the Apostle saith I serue so he saith I delight in the law of God v. 22. and in this verse 25. I thanke God c. which immediately goe before the other I serue but those words must be vnderstood as they are vttered of the time present therefore the other also Argum. 2. Gregorie vrgeth these words v. 18. to will is present with me he that saith he will per infusionem gratiae quae in se iam lateant semina ostendit doth shew what seede lyeth hid in him by the infusion of grace lib. 29. moral c. 15. Ans. Euen the vnregenerate by nature doe will that is good they may imperfecte velle 〈◊〉 siue gratia in peccato imperfectly will that is good without grace euen in the state of sinne Tolet. in tractat c. 9. Contra. There is bonum naturale morale spirituale that which is naturally good morally good spiritually good the first one by nature may desire as bâ—ute beasts doe the same and therein they doe neither good nor euill the second also in some sort as the heathen followed after morall vertues but they did it not without sinne because they had no faith but that which is spiritually good the carnall haue no mind at all vnto for it is God which worketh both the will and the deed Phil. 2.13 Argum. 3. Augustine presseth these words v. 17. It is not I that doe it but sinne that dwelleth in mee this is not vox peccatoris sed iusti the voice of a sinner but of a righteous man lib. 1. cont 2. epist. Pelag. c. 10. Ans. A sinner may be said not to doe euill not because he doth not consent vnto it but because he is not onely mooued of himselfe but drawen by his concupiscence Tolet. ibid. Contra. There is nothing in a man to giue consent vnto any action but either his spirituall or carnall part but in the vnregenerate there is nothing spirituall but all is naturall therfore whatsoeuer such an one doth he wholly consenteth he himselfe is not one thing and his sinne another to giue consent but he is wholly mooued and lead of sinne Argum. 4. Augustine addeth further the Apostle thus beginneth the 8. chapter there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus which words follow as inferred vpon the other which sheweth that the Apostle spake before of those which were in Christ Iesus Ans. Nay rather those words following vpon the other who shall deliuer me c. which the Apostle vttereth of a man not yet deliuered or freed from his sinne and maketh answer the grace of God c. shew that he spake before as of our not beeing in the state of grace Tolet. ibid. Contra. 1. It is the bondage of corruption which the Apostle desireth to be deliuered from as is shewed before qu. 33. neither doth the Apostle answer the grace of God c. but I giue thankes to God as likewise hath beene declared qu. 34. before but one not in the state of grace cannot giue thanks vnto God therefore the immediate connexion of these words c. 8. sheweth that he spake before of those which are in Christ. Argum. 5. Further Augustine thus reasoneth a carnall man cannot delight in the law of God in the inner man as Saint Paul doth neither indeed is there any inner man that it regenerate and renewed in those which are carnall Pareus Ans. 1. The vnregenerate may delight in the law as Herod did and it is nothing else but velle bonum to will that which is good Tolet. ibid. and they haue also the inner man which is the mind as the outward man is the bodie Contra. 1. The carnall cannot delight in the law but they hate it as Psal. 50.17 this hatest to be reformed and hast cast my words behind thee Herod gaue care to Iohn Baptist not of loue but for feare for afterward he put him to death Hypocrits and carnall men may stand in some awe and feare a while but it is not of loue nor in truth or from the heart 2. the inner part is that with spirituall and renewed but in the wicked their verie mind is defiled Tit. 1.15 therefore in them there is no inner man see before qu. 26. Argum. 6. The Apostle desireth to be deliuered from his corruptible and sinfull bodie hoping then for perfect libertie but in the resurrection the carnall shall haue no such libertie they shall rise to greater miserie Augustine Ans. The deliuerance there spoken of is by iustification from sinne not in the resurrection Tolet. ibid. Contra. The Apostle euidently speaketh of beeing deliuered from this bodie of death that is his mortall bodie which shall not be till the resurrection Argu. 7. The children of God that are regenerate do onely find in themselues the fight combate betweene the spirit and flesh Gala. 5.17 as the Apostle doth here v. 22. Pareus Argum. 8. The vnregenerate doe not vse to giue thanks vnto God but they sacrifice to their owne net as the Prophet saith Hab. 1.16 they giue the praise to themselues But S. Paul here giueth thankes Faius Argum. 9. No man but by the spirit of God can hate and disalow that which is committed against the law of God as the Apostle doth here v. 15. Hyperius Argum. 10. To what end should the Apostle thus at large shew the effects and end of the law for their cause qui prorsus sunt à Deo alieni which are altogether straungers from God and care not for his law Faius by these and such like reasons it is concluded that S. Paul speaketh in the person of a man regenerate Quest. 37.
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
dutie vnto God in louing him with all our heart and strength and in obeying of his will is sinne but this doth concupiscence for it hindered the Apostle v. 19. I doe not that good thing which I would Ans. Pererius answereth that concupiscence doth not hinder vs from louing of God doing of his will so far as we are bound to this life for God may be loued with all the heart two wayes one is modus perfectionis the way of perfection which is when the heart actually loueth nothing but God and thus God shall be loued onely in heauen the other way is so farre as it bindeth a man in this life when the heart is habitually inclined vnto God so that it admit nothing against it as this kind of loue is not hindered as he saith by the first motions of concupiscence to the same purpose he alleadgeth Thomas that a precept is two wayes fulfilled the one is perfectly quando pervenitur ad finem when we attaine vnto the ende intended by him which giueth the precept the other imperfectly cum non receditur ab ordine ad finem when we depart not from the way which leadeth to the ende as when the captaine biddeth his souldiours fight to obtaine the victorie he which fighteth and hath the victorie perfitly fulfilleth his will he also which fighteth and doth his best doth his will also though he get not the victorie the first kind of fulfilling the precept shall be in patria in our countrey the other is in via in the way Contra. 1. We grant that there shall be a greater perfection of obedience in the next life then can be attained vnto here but euen that perfect obedience is propounded vnto vs here and required of vs Matth. 5.28 Ye shall be perfect as your heauenly father is perfect whereupon Augustine cur non praeciperetur in hac vita ista perfectio c. why should not this perfection be commanded euen in this life though no man can attaine vnto it here non 〈◊〉 recte curritur c. for we cannot runne right if it be vnknowne whether we should runne c. lib. de spirit liter c. vltim And seeing Christs righteousnesse and obedience of the lawe was most perfect and he came to performe that which was required of vs it followeth that God in the strict rule of his iustice required of vs perfect obedience which not to performe is sinne 2. If God doe command the ende as our perfection then he which commeth short and faileth of the ende fulfilleth not the commandement as if the souldier be commanded not to giue ouer till he haue the victorie breaketh his generalls charge if he get not the superioritie of the enemie And he which misseth of the ende must needes also recedere ab ordine ad finem faile in the meanes to the ende for otherwise he might atchieue the ende 3. And that concupiscence hindreth our obedience euen in this life the Apostle sheweth v. 19. I doe not the good thing which I would 3. Argum. The Apostle directly calleth euen concupiscence wherewith he is vnwilling sinne v. 20. If I doe that I would not it is no more I that doe it but the sinne that dwelleth in me Ergo it is sinne Answ. Pererius answeareth that it is called sinne either because it is effectus peccati the effect of sinne as the writing is called the hand because it was written with the hand or because it bringeth forth sinne as frigus cold is called pigrum slouthfull because it maketh one so Contra. 1. But that is properly and truely sinne which causeth death for death came in by sinne as the Apostle saith of concupiscence that it slue him and was vnto him the cause of death v. 10.11 2. S. Augustine also confesseth that concupiscence is not onely poena peccati the punishment of sinne and causa peccati the cause of sinne sed ipsum peccatum but sinne it selfe Pererius answeareth that Augustine vnderstandeth not peccatum morale a morall sinne but vitium naturae corruptae a fault or vice of our corrupt nature as the vices in the bodie as blindnes or deafenes are called peccata seu errata naturae the faults or errors of nature because they are against the integritie and perfection of the nature of the bodie so the rebelling of the carnall concupiscence against the lawe of reason is against the integritie and perfection of the soule and so an error of nature Contra. 1. We grant that there are naturall faults both in the soule as forgetfulnesse ignorance dulnesse of vnderstanding in the bodie weakenesse infirmitie blindnesse and such like which are the fruits and effects of sinne but not sinne themselues but concupiscence is none of that kind for all these infirmities are effects and passions but the concupiscence rebelling against the minde is actiue and working and Augustine himselfe giueth a reason why he calleth it sinne quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis because there is in it disobedience against the lawe of the minde gouerned by grace so that it disobeyeth not only the law of the mind but resisteth the motions of the spirit now all disobedience to the will of God is sinne 2. and that it is not naturall but a morall and spirituall sinne appeareth by the effects because it causeth the spirituall death of the soule Argument 4. Vnlesse the precept Thou shall not lust did prohibite the verie first motions that haue not the consent of the will then should there be no difference betweene this and the other precepts which doe condemne also ipsos prauos affectos the euill affections as of wrath enuie in the sixt of lust and carnall desire to the which the will is inclined in the seauenth so then this commandement ipsos appetitus quibus titillamur doth condemne the verie appetite which tickleth vs though it haue not our consent Calvin Pererius answereth that the other commandements onely prohibite ipsos externos actus the eternall acts of stealing committing adulterie and such like numer 58. Contra. 1. Our Blessed Sauiour confuteth him who Matth. 5. sheweth how in the former commandements the verie affections and inward purposes are restrained as of anger in the sixt thou shalt not kill of lusting after a woman in the heart in the seauenth thou shalt not commit adulterie 2. yea Pererius confuteth himselfe confessing afterward numer 60. praeceptis illis legalibus â—on solum externa peccata c. in those legall precepts not the externall workes of sinne onely to be prohibited but the verie inward concupiscence But we haue staied somewhat to long in this controuersie Controv. 9. That the commandement Thou shalt not lust is but one 1. The Romane catechisme which the Romanists generally follow deuide the last commandement into two the first forbidding the coueting of things of pleasure as the neighbours wife the other things of profit as our neighbours house and goods and they make the two first commandements thou shalt
not doe v. 3. The other condition and limitation that they must not walke after the flesh if they would haue Christ to profite them 1. he prooueth by this argument iustification and righteousnesse is not for them that cannot please God v. 8. the conclusion followeth that righteousnesse and iustification is not appointed for such v. 4. the assumption he prooueth by shewing the contrarie effects of the flesh and the spirit as 1. they sauour the things of the flesh v. 5. the wisedome of the flesh bringeth forth death v. 1. it is enmitie against God v. 7. but the spirit worketh the contrarie to all these 2. Then followeth an application of this generall doctrine to the comfort of the Romans that they are not in the flesh 1. from the efficient the spirit of God dwelleth in them v. 9. 2. from the coniunction they haue with Christs they are Christs which he sheweth by their present mortification v. 10. and the hope of the resurrection v. 10. 3. Then he inferreth a vehement exhortation that they should not walke after the flesh v. 12. 1. from the effects that would follow they should die set forth by the contrarie v. 14. which he prooueth by two effects the externall is their inuocation of God v. 15. the internall the testimonie of the spirit v. 16. 2. In the second part he exhorteth vnto the patient bearing of affliction by diuerse arguments 1. from the end the partaking of glorie after our sufferings v. 17. 2. from the impuritie of our afflictions and the reward v. 18. 3. from the lesse to greater the creature groneth and trauaileth and waiteth for deliuerance v. 19.20.21.22 much more we v. 23. 4. from the nature of hope which is not of things that are seene v. 24.25 5. from the effects wrought by the spirit by occasion of affliction which is prayer with sighes which are not in vaine the Lord heareth them v. 26.27 6. from other effects in generall they worke for the best v. 28. in particular they make vs conformable vnto Christ v. 29. which he sheweth by the first cause the purpose of God in the decree of predestination which vocation iustification glorification follow v. 30. 3. In the third part he sheweth the immutable state and condition of the elect 1. from the power of God v. 31. 2. from his beneficence who together with Christ giueth all good things v. 32. 3. from his mercie iustifying vs in Christ from all our sinnes v. 33.34 4. from the effects of faith in Christ which is victorie in all afflictions v. 37. and therefore they cannot separate vs from Christ v. 35. 5. frō the immutable loue of God in Christ which is so sure a bond as nothing can breake it as the Apostle sheweth by a particular induction v. 38.39 3. The questions and doubts discussed Quest. 1. Who are said to be in Christ. v. 1. There is no condemnation to those c. 1. P. Martyr here well obserueth the wisedome of the Apostle who before speaking of the humane infirmities and of the force of sinne in our members gaue instance in himselfe that no man though neuer so holy should be thought to be freed altogether from sinne in this life but now comming to set forth the priuiledge of those which are in Christ he makes it not his own particular case but inferreth a generall conclusion that there is no condemnation not onely to him but not to any that are in Christ Iesus And here the argument well followeth from the particular to the generall for like as that which is incident by nature to one man is common to another so the priuiledge of grace is common to all that are sanctified 2. to be in Christ Tolet interpreteth to haue the grace of regeneration whereby we are deliuered from the seruitude of sinne and so the Syrian interpreter seemeth to thinke who ioyneth the words thus together which walke not after the flesh in Christ but these are two diuerse effects to be graft into Christ which is by faith and not to walke after the flesh which is the fruits of faith per fidem facti sumus vnum in Christo we are by faith made one with Christ Beza insui per fidem graft in by faith 3. indeed vpon this coniunction with Christ followeth a materiall coniunction that as we are made one flesh with him so also one spirit he is not onely partaker with vs of the same nature but we doe receiue of his spirit that like as the braunch doth receiue not onely substance from the vine but sap and life as in matrimonie there is a coniunction not onely of bodies but euen of the affections so is it betweene Christ and his members but this is onely the materiall coniunction as Pet. Martyr calleth it the formall coniunction is by faith Quest. 2. What is meant by the law of the spirit of life 1. The law of the spirit of life 1. Chrysostome by the law of the spirit vnderstandeth the holy spirit whereby we are sanctified and this difference he maketh betweene the law of Moses and this law that is said to be spirituall because it was giuen by the spirit but this is said to be the law of the spirit quia spiritum suppeditat because it supplieth the spirit to those which receiue it So also Bellarmine vnderstandeth it of the spirit which is shed into our hearts enabling vs to keepe the law lib. 4. de iustificat likewise Thomas interpreteth it to be spiritus inhabitans the spirit that dwelleth in vs and sanctifieth vs so also Tolet annot 2. Pere And these make this grace of the spirit infused a cause of our spiritual deliuerance from sinne 2. Calvin also vnderstandeth the grace of the spirit which sanctifieth vs but this is added saith he not as a cause sed modum tradi quo solvimur à reatu but the way is shewed whereby we are freed from the guilt of sinne so also Hyperius Piscator vnderstandeth here the spirit of sanctification But seeing our sanctification is imperfect this were a weake ground for vs to stay vpon to assure vs that we are farre from condemnation 3. Beza neither taketh this for the law of the spirit nor for the law of faith but he vnderstandeth perfectam naturae nostrae in Christo sanctificationem the perfit sanctification of our nature in Christ whereby we are deliuered But this righteousnesse of Christ if it be not applied vnto vs by faith how can it deliuer vs. 4. Some by the law of the spirit of life doe interpret with Ambrose legem fides the law of faith and with Haymo gratiam sancti Euangeli the grace of the holy Gospel which teacheth faith Pareus Faius the doctrine of the Gospell is called the law of the spirit and life because it is the ministrie of the spirit and life the law was spirituall in as much as it prescribed and commanded spirituall obedience but was not the ministerie of the spirit and life but rather
of death Pareus so also Osiander doctrina euangelij side apprehensa the doctrine of the Gospel apprehended by faith doth deliuer me likewise Rolloc liberatio hac non est regeneratio sed peccatorum remissio this dedeliuerance is not regeneration but remission of sinnes and his reason is because the Apostle speaketh of a full and absolute deliuerance from sinne and death which is in remission of sinnes not in regeneration which is but in part 5. But I rather ioyne both these together regeneration and remission of sinnes from the which we are deliuered by the grace of Christ as Augustine comprehendeth both for sometime he expoundeth the Apostles words of the remission of sinnes lib. 1. de mixt concupis c. 32. how hath he deliuered vs nisi quia concupiscentiae reatum peccatorum omnium facta remissione c. but that the spirit of life hath dissolued the guilt of concupiscence remission of all sinnes beeing made sometime he applieth them to this worke of regeneration the law of the spirit of life hath deliuered thee from the law of sinne and death ne scilicet concupiscentia c. re in peccatum mortem pertrahat c. lest concupiscence challenging thy consent should draw thee into sinne and death lib. 1. cont 2. epist. Pelagian c. 10. And Calvin also though he cheefely insist vpon the second as he is alleadged before yet he omitteth not the first by the spirit of life vnderstanding the spirit of God which hath besprinkled our soules with the blood of Christ not onely to cleanse them à labe peccati quoad reatum from the staine of sinne in respect of the guilt sed in veram puritatem sanctificat but to sanctifie vs with true puritie c. And the ioyning of these two together doth best fit the occasion of these words and most agreeth vnto the words themselues for the Apostle hauing before spoken both of our iustification in Christ and our sanctification in not walking after the flesh now bringeth in this as a reason of both which is the spirit of life in Christ applied vnto vs by faith and concerning the words the spirit of regeneration answereth to the law that is the force of sinne and the life of grace to the law of death from the first we are deliuered by the spirit of sanctification from the other by the life of righteousnesse in our iustification 6. But Origens exposition is farre wide who by the spirit of life vnderstandeth the spirituall sense of the law and so he will haue in the law both literam occidentem spiritum viâ—ificantem the killing letter and the quickning spirit for the Apostle here directly against the law opposeth the spirit of grace and life in Christ. Quest. 3. What is vnderstood by the law of sinne and death 1. Some by the law of sinne vnderstand the morall law which was the ministrie of death and by it came the knowledge of sinne So Ambrose who propoundeth this obiection that seeing the Gospell and law of faith is likewise vnto sinne the sauour of death vnto death vnto some the sauour of life vnto life as the Apostle saith 2. Cor. 2. why faith if it worke the same thing which the law doth may not be said also to be lex mortis the law of death maketh this answer qui non obediunt fidei non occiduntur à fide sed à lege c. they which obey not faith are not killed by faith but by the law because they which came not vnto the faith are condemned by the law as guiltie of sinne and death c. But this were to confound the law and faith as though the law commanded and prescribed the Euangelicall faith for the law punisheth onely the breach and transgression thereof but the law commandeth one thing namely doe this and thou shalt liue saith onely in the Gospel requireth of vs to beleeue Rom. 4. 10.9 Pet. Martyr giueth this answer that the Gospel quamdiu fâ—ris sovat c. so long as it onely foundeth outwardly and the spirit worketh not within doth differ nothing from the law but when the spirit worketh inwardly together with the preaching of the Gospel then it hath the effect to saluation which the law cannot haue because it requireth other things then the Gospel the Gospel then is not the ministrie of death as the law not for that it doth not punish vnbeleeuers as the law doth the disobedient but in respect of the doctrine of saluation by faith which men are capable of by grace whereas the doctrine of workes by the law can bring no saluation vnto any no not beeing in the state of grace Together with Ambrose Vatablus and Pareus by the law of death will haue the law of Moses to be vnderstood quia peccatum deteget occidit because it discouereth sinne and killeth it iudging it worthie of death so also Bellarmine lib. 4. de iustificat c. 13. ration 5. and gloss interlin But if the law doe condemne sinne and sentence it with death it is not the law of sinne beeing against it it is called the ministerie of condemnation 2. Cor. 3.9 but so it is nostro vitio by our fault not of it selfe but that is said to be the law of a thing which it properly prescribeth and aymeth at 2. Origen seemeth to vnderstand the ceremoniall law which was impossible to be obserued as he giueth instance of the law of the Sabboth and of sacrifices as before by the spirit he interpreteth the spirituall sense of the law But the Apostles intent is not here to compare the literall and spirituall sense of the law together but to shew what libertie we haue obtained by Christ from sinne and condemnation 3. Some by the law of sinne and death vnderstand carnis imperium the dominion or power of the flesh or of sinne raigning in the flesh and the tyrannie of death which followeth Calvin the law of sinne is the law of the members which the Apostle spake of before Chrysostome Pet. Martyr the accusing of sinne and power of death Osiander or ab obligatione from the bond and obligation of sinne and death Lyranus à iure peccati c. from the right or power of sinne and death as Erasmus we are deliuered both from the power and guilt of sinne for Moses law the Apostle no where calleth the law of sinne Chrysostome So here there is mention made of three lawes two good the law of grace which taketh away sinne the law of Moses which is mentioned in the next v. which sheweth sinne but taketh it not away and one euill law namely of sinne which maketh vs guiltie gloss ordin Quest. 4. Of the best reading of the 3. verse 1. Erasmus and Vatablus doe supplie the word effecit or praestitit did or performed in this sense that which was impossible to the law c. God sending his Sonne c. did c. This reading also follow the Ecclesiasticall expositors collected by Marlorat
but this supplie is not necessarie the sense is full and perfect without it as afterward shall appeare 2. Some doe transpose the words thus because the law was weake by reason of the flesh Syrian interpreter but in the originall the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein do follow after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the law it were an hard construction to set the relatiue before the antecedent 3. Neither neede we with Camerarius to supplie the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for or because as thus to read because of that which was impossible to the law c. which reading Pareus followeth and Beza misliketh not 4 Neither need we here to admit an Hebraisme with Tolet who will haue the participle sending according to the phrase of the Hebrew to be taken for he sent because he would coine those words and for sinne vnto the last clause which doe hang on the words going before 5. Neither is it put in the nominatiue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this sense such was the weaknes of the law as Beza for here also diuerse words must be supplied 6. But the best reading is to put it in the accusatiue the thing impossible to the law in as much as it was weake c. and to referre it to the last clause condemned sinne in the flesh by way of opposition in this sense God sending his Sonne c. condemned sinne in the flesh which was impossible to the law as the Latine well obserueth and so our English translations doe well expresse it thus for that which was impossible to the law c. Quest. 5. What is meant by the similitude of sinnefull flesh 1. The Maniches and Marcionites did wrest the Apostles words to signifie that Christ had no true humane flesh but a similitude and likenes onely But Basil epistol 65. well answereth them that this word similitude must not simply be referred to flesh but to sinnefull flesh for Christ was like vnto vs in all things sinne onely excepted 2. The Commentatie which goeth vnder Hieromes name saith it is called the similitude of sinnefull flesh quia erat ad peccandum proclivior because it was prone vnto sinne but yet he took it without sinne for Christs flesh beeing conceiued without sinne had no pronnes or aptnes at all vnto sinne vnlesse he meane humane flesh in generall and not that particular flesh which was assumed by Christ. 3. Some by the similitude of sinnefull flesh interpret similem per passibilitatem mortâ—â—tatem like in mortalitie and suffering gloss inter Lyranus so also Melancthon peccatur in speciem visa est it seemed as sinnefull flesh because he sustained the punishment doe vnto our sinnes likewise Osiander because he bare our punishment he was taken of some to be a great sinner But this sense is to much restrained and too particular 4. Nor yet doth Erasmus well translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in specie in the shew of sinnefull flesh for so the Angels and Christ himselfe before his incarnation appeared in humane shape 5. But Theophylact well interpreteth he had our flesh secundam substantiam sed peccaâ—â— expertem in substance but void of sinne so also Basil with other Greeke expositors carâ—â—â— nostram in naturalibus affectibus he tooke our flesh with the naturall affections he tooke our verie flesh as Phil. 2.7 he was found in shape as a man Pareus Beza with others Quest. 6. Of these words and for sinne condemned sinne in the flesh 1. Origen by sinne vnderstandeth sacrifice for sinne so many of our new wiâ—â—â— Melancthon Bucer Calvin Osiander Martyr so also Pererius Vatablus disput 4.10 so they interpret pro peccato 1. per peccatum by sinne by sinne that is by his sacrifice so sinne he condemned sinne in the flesh but though elsewhere sinne is taken in that sense for sacrifice for sinne as 2. Cor. 5.21 he made him to be sinne for vs which knewe no sinne yet it is but an hard construction here for the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not by or thorough but pro for 2. Augustines exposition is yet more hard who by sinne vnderstandeth the flesh of Christ which he tooke like vnto sinnefull flesh and therefore it is called sinne lib. 3. contra 2. epist. Pelag. c. 6. but the Apostle saith afterward he condemned sinne in the flesh this should be superfluously put if by sinne he had meant the flesh before 3. Hillarius in Psal. 67. by sinne which is condemned interpreteth the deuill who was condemned and iudged in Christs death by that sinne which he had committed by the Iewes in putting Christ to death this seemeth hard also 4. Anselme by death in the first place will haue death signified which is the effect of sinne and so Christ by his death condemned sinne but the Greeke preposition will not beare this sense 5. Chrysostome and Theodoret whom Tolet followeth deuise this sense that Christ condemned sinne tanquam reum iniquitatis as guiltie of great sinne and iniquitie because it rose vp against Christ beeing innocent and caused him to die so they doe giue vnto sinne a certaine person which for the great offence which is had committed was condemned 6. But all these expositions fayle herein because they ioyne these words and for sinne to the last clause condemned whereas they are a part of the former member how God sent his Sonne in the similitude of sinnefull flesh and for sinne that is vt tolleret peccatum to take away sinne so Beza Pareus Rolloch and this exposition Oecumenius also maketh mention of so that this is the ende why God sent his Sonne to take away sinne 7. There is also an other exposition which the ordin gloss hath and Gorrhan peccatum de peccato sinne of sinne they interpret to be the corruption of our nature springing from the sinne of Adam But this fayleth with the rest in seuering the words from the former sentence Quest. 7. How Christ condemned sinne in the flesh 1. Tolet vnderstandeth it of the dominion of sinne which it had before in our members but now in Christ sinne is depriued of his dominion 2. Beza referreth it to the sanctification of our nature in Christ which he tooke without sinne and by flesh he vnderstandeth the humane nature sanctified in Christ 3. Chrysostome ioyneth these two together that Christ both non peccavit sinned not at all and so sinne ouercame not him and in that he died vicit condemnavit peccatum he ouercame and condemned sinne likewise Haymo saith Christ two wayes condemned sinne because he sinned not in his flesh mortificando in cruce and he condemned it by mortifying the same vpon the crosse 4. Erasmus giueth this sense convicit coarguit peccatores he convinced and reprooued sinners that is he shewed them to be hypocrites and deceiuers which hitherto had deluded the world with a false shewe of iustice and yet they put Christ to death as a transgressor of the law but the Apostles intendment
is to shewe what Christ hath wrought for vs not what he did against his aduersaries 5. Socinus will haue the meaning to be no more but this that Christ did not satisfie by his death for sinne but exauthoravit abolevit he did abolish sinne and take away the power and authoritie thereof for he came to doe that which the lawe could not doe which was not to punish and condemne sinne for that the lawe could doe but to deliuer vs from the seruitude of sinne Socinus part 2. c. 23. p. 195. Contra. 1. True it is that Christ by his death hath also abolished the kingdome of sinne that it shall no longer raigne in his members but first it was abolished by the sacrifice of Christs death who bare the punishment of our sinne in himselfe and this is the proper sense of the word to condemne that is inflict the punishment of sinne as in this chapter v. 34. who shall condemne vs so before c. 2. 1. c. 5.16 2. S. Paul doth not so much shew what Christ came to doe namely that the law could not doe but the reason why he came to doe it because the law could not by reason of the weaknes of our flesh 3. the law indeede did condemne and punish sinne but by the law euery one was to beare his owne sinne the law could not appoint one to beare the punishment for all as Christ did whose sufferings are made ours by faith 6. Some of our owne writers doe vnderstand this condemning of sinne of the abolishing of the kingdome thereof and of our sanctification and regeneration Bucer Musculu◠these differ both from the Papists whose opinion is set downe before that is who make regeneration a part of iustification the other a consequent onely and effect thereof and the Papists differ from Socinus opinion who presupposeth no satisfaction at all to be made for our sinnes by the death of Christ But yet these words can not properly be referred to the condemning of sinne in vs by the worke of regeneration for this Christ did in his flesh or by his flesh not in carne i. homine in the flesh that is man as Lyranus 7. Wherefore the meaning indeede is that Christ in his flesh beeing made a sacrifice for vs vpon the crosse did beare the punishment due vnto our sinne God condēned sinne in the flesh of his Sonne that is poenas peccato debitas exegit he did exact the punishment due vnto our sinne Pareus and by condemning it in the death of his Sonne hath freed vs from condemnation This to be the meaning 1. the vse of the word to condemne sheweth touched before 2. the scope of the Apostle which is to shew that there is no condemnation to those which are in Christ because Christ hath himselfe freed them therefrom by bearing the punishment of sinne 3. the consent of other places of Scripture prooue the same as Gal. 3.13 Christ hath redeemed vs from the curse of the law beeing made a curse for vs and 1. Pet. 2.24 Himselfe bare our sinnes in his bodie on the tree And thus diuers of the fathers expound this of Christs death as Chrysostome eo quod mortuus est peccatum vicit condemnavit in that he died he ouercame and condemned death and Origen per hostiam cornis c. by the sacrifice of his flesh he condemned sinne in the flesh 8. The other sense which the Greeke scholiast followeth that sinne was condemned in Christs flesh quia illam peccato inanem servavit because he kept it free from sinne and so internecio peccati est punitio the killing of sinne is the punishment thereof though it be also found and very comfortable yet it is not here so fit because it is said that God sending his Sonne condemned sinne in the flesh so that it is better referred to the suffering of Christ then to his actiue obedience Quest. 8. Who are after the flesh and sauour the things of the flesh v. 5. 1. Origens sense is here reiected who vnderstandeth the Iewes which carnally vnderstand the lawe them he will to be after the spirit which did follow the spirituall sense of the law for in all this discourse S. Paul treateth specially of the morall lawe of Moses as he gaue instance in the tenth precept thou shalt not lust c. 7.8 2. Nor yet as Tolet annot 15. with other Romanists must we vnderstand spiritum nationalem seu mentem the reason or mind for euen the mind in carnall men is carnall qua carnea sunt mente volutant they doe in their minde thinke of carnall things they haue mentem carneam a fleshly minde Theophyl and Chrysostome saith that a carnall life totem hominem carnem facit maketh the whole man flesh and if we giue our minde to the spirit ipsam spiritualem efficiemus we shall also make it spirituall to walke after the spirit is then to be guided by the grace of Gods spirit Theodor. 3. Sometime to be in the flesh signifieth to remaine in the bodie as 2. Cor. 10.3 though we walke in the flesh we doe not warre after the flesh sometime euen the regenerate are saide to be carnall in respect of that part which is in them carnall and vnregenerate but here it is taken in an other sense for them which are altogether lead by their carnall affections affectus carnis malitians dixit affectus spiritus gratiam the affectious of the flesh he calleth the malice thereof the affections of the spirit grace Chrysost. 4. Now carnall things or the things of the flesh are of three sorts Some are good as the knowledge of artes some indifferent as riches honour some euill as the workes of the flesh adulterie drunkennesse so that two wayes men here may erre either in the matter when they followe things in their nature euill as the sinnefull workes of the flesh or in the manner when they folowe things of this world in themselues indifferent but with an euill minde they doe not referre them to the glorie of God But they preferre things temporall Before eternall like as lingua febricitantis infecta cholera c. the tongue of a sicke man infected with choser taketh sweete things for bitter Lyran. neither yet is it vnlawfull for them which are spiritual to be occupied in the things of this life but they must referre all to Gods glorie and preferre things spirituall before externall like as lingua bene disposita a tongue which is not distempered doth iudge rightly of euery tast Quest. 9. How the wisedome of the flesh is enmitie against God 1. Pareus well noteth that the Apostle here vseth not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth prudence it selfe least he should seeme to haue condemned that naturall gift and facultie but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which noteth the act rather and execution of that facultie and he addeth to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the flesh not condemning or reiecting all prudent actions but such as
it so the spirit dwelleth in the faithfull as the ruler and commander in the house the spirit and the flesh may be in the same house together if the flesh be as the seruant and the spirit as the master but if the flesh haue the masterie the spirit departeth like as where extreame cold hath taken possession there can be no heate at all but if the extremitie of cold be abated then there may be place for heate Martyr 4. And here we must distinguish as Origen well doth between the extraordinarie gifts of the spirits such as the Prophets and Apostles had when the spirit came vpon them in the likenes of fierie tongues and the ordinarie gifts for where the spirit is those extraordinarie graces alwaies follow not but those which the Lord seem to be conuenient for God giueth vnto euery one as he will 2. Cor. 12.11 3. And whereas the Apostle saith he that hath not the spirit of Christ is not his Origen well thus expoundeth creatura eius est sed non discipulus he is his creature still as all other things are but he is not his Disciple nor a member of his mysticall bodie 12. Quest. Of the meaning of these words v. 10. The bodie is dead because of sinne the spirit is life c. 1. Origen vnderstandeth the two parts of man the bodie and the soule and he giue in this sense the bodie is dead because of sinne mors imponitur ne peccet death is imposed vpon the bodie that it should not sinne alwaies remembring the ende and so the spirit vivit ad faciendam institiam liueth to worke righteousnes but the Apostle sheweth the cause of death in the one namely sinne and of life in the other namely righteousnes rather then the ende of both 2. Ambrose seemeth by the bodie to vnderstand the whole man that is dead because of sinne and by the spirit the holy Ghost â—â— author of life because he is giuen to iustifie vs so also Chrysostome will haue the holy Ghâ—â—t to be vnderstood which onely is not life in himselfe but giueth life vnto others so also Martyr but the other opposite part of the bodâ—â— sheweth that the spirit hath relation also vnto man 3. Some vnderstand the first clause of mortification as if the Apostle should say the â—â— die is dead quantum attinet ad peccati operationem in respect of the operation of sinne Oecumen Piscat but in this sense the same thing should be expressed in both clauses the mortifying of sinne and liuing vnto righteousnes which the opposition betweene the contraâ—â— parts of the bodie and spirit wil not heare 4. Calvin and so Osiander will haue the bodie to signifie the vnregenerate part the spirit the spirituall and regenerate but in this sense the Apostle vseth to oppose the flesh in the spirit not the bodie and the spirit 5. Wherefore by bodie we may better vnderstand that mortall part of man which is subiect to death and by the spirit the inward part of man namely his soule regenerate which liueth by faith Beza thinketh that the life of the soule is here vnderstood when it is separate from the bodie Chrysostome referreth it to the life of the resurrection Lyranus to the life of grace now in present But we may better comprehend both that both now for the present the spirit of man liueth by grace as the iust is said to liue by faith and that also is a pledge of life euerlasting afterward And this sense is most agreeable to the scope of the Apostle for hitherto he hath shewed how the spirit of Christ hath freed vs from the law of sinne in the flesh now he commeth to set forth the other part of our libertie which is from death and first presently in the spirit we liue by faith and then afterward the bodie also shall liue in the resurrection by the spirit of Christ which the Apostle sheweth in the next verse Quest. 13. How the quickening of the dead is ascribed to the spirit of Christ seeing all both good and bad shall rise 1. M. Calvins opinion is here refused who thinketh that the Apostle doth not here speake of the last and finall resurrection sed de continua spiritus operatione but of the continuall working of the spirit in vs in mortifying the reliques of sinne so also Piscator vificabit corpora vestra ad sanctificationem shall quicken your bodies vnto sanctification c. But in that sense our bodies are said to be mortua dead not mortalia mortall and the Apostle speaking of the time to come pointeth at the resurrection which shall be not that which is present in rising vnto newnes of life 2. There are three arguments of the resurrection here expressed by the Apostle the first from the power of God he that raised Christ from the dead shall also raise vs vp secondly from the correspondencie of Christ with his members as Christ was raised from the dead so shall we that are his members thirdly from the office of the spirit who shall raise vs vp that are his temples wherein he dwelleth Pareus 3. As God is said to haue raised Christ vp by his spirit so Christ raised vp himselfe by his eternall spirit omnia quippe divina pâ—â—er per Filium in Spiritu Sancto operatur all diuine things the father worketh by the Sonne in the holy Ghost Oecumen 4. Although our redemption purchased vnto vs by Christ was sufficient at once to haue redeemed both our soules and bodies tamen ordinate nobis datur it is giuen vnto vs in order and by degrees that as Christ had first a passible bodie before he had a glorious bodie so our bodies must first be mortall before they can haue immortalitie Lyran. 5. Now although the members of Christ shall be raised vp by his spirit yet the wicked also which haue not the spirit of Christ shall also rise againe but vnto iudgement they shall be raised vp by the omnipotent power of God but the righteous shall be raised by the spirit of Christ and therefore it is not said he shall raise but vinificabit he shall quicken your mortall bodie quod ipsa resurrectione maius est c. which is a greater worke then the resurrection and onely graunted to the righteous Chrysostome whom Martyr and Pareus followe Quest. 14. What it is to be lead by the spirit of God 1. There are two kind of actions of the spirit generall wherbey all things mooue liue and haue their beeing and speciall whereby the Lord worketh in the hearts of his children such is the worke of sanctification Calv. 2. And in that they are said to be lead we must not thinke that any are compelled by the spirit but this signifieth vehementem inclinationem non coactionem a vehement inclination not coaction Gorrhan God by his spirit ex nolentibus volentes facit of vnwilling maketh vs willing so he draweth vs volentes willing consequenter not antecedenter we are willing
afterward not before Pareus 3. And although men are so led by the spirit as that they followe his direction willingly yet they followe also necessarily this leading and moouing of the spirit is effectuall and cannot be resisted Melancth yet this taketh not away the libertie of the will in it selfe like as a blind man followeth his leader willingly though it be not free for him to goe which way he will the will of man remaineth free in it selfe as when one is set in two wayes he may take which he will yet by an accident the will may notwithstanding it is free in it selfe be determined and limited certainely to one thing as a blinde man by his leader is directed to take one certaine way so the spirit of God directeth and guideth the will vnto that which is good and the corruption of our nature to that which is euill 4. Chrysostome here further noteth that it is not said they which liue by the spirit and Theophylact they which haue receiued the spirit but they which are lead by the spirit to shew that the spirit must be the guide and ruler of our life quemadmodum navigij nauclerus as the Pilot is of the ship and the rider of the horse hereby then is expressed the continuall actiuitie and operation of the spirit in vs. 5. And this similitude may be taken either from those which are guided and directed as the blind man in the way or from them which wanting strength of their owne are borne and carried of others and so we are both wayes lead by the spirit for we neither can see the way vnto that which is good vnlesse the spirit direct vs neither haue we power and strength to followe it vnlesse the spirit drawe vs. Quest. 15. What is vnderstood by the spirit of bondage 1. Not the euill spirit namely Sathan by whom they are lead which walke after the flesh as Augustine vpon this place for the Apostle speaketh not of two diuerse spirits but diuerse effects of one and the same spirit working feare and bondage by the lawe and freedome by the Gospell 2. Neither yet is this spirit the soule of man which sometime is in the seruitude of sinne sometime it enioyeth the libertie of the spirit for v. 16. the Apostle maketh a manifest difference betweene this spirit and our spirit 3. Nor yet is this spirit not the holy Ghost but the lawe so called because it was giuen by the spirit as Chrysost. for euen the fathers vnder the law had the spirit of God as shall be shewed in the next question 4. But by the spirit the holy Ghost is signified which by the lawe worketh feare by the Gospell confidence and assurance Quest. 16. Whether the fathers vnder the lawe had onely the spirit of seruitude 1. Chrysostome hath here many strange assertions of the people of the Iewes that liued vnder the lawe as 1. Spiritum sanctum non acceperant c. the people of the Iewes had not receiued the holy spirit the lawe is called spirituall so also the manna which they did eate and the rocke whereof they dranke are called spirituall quia supra naturam perfecta erant they were perfect aboue nature And to make this his assertion good he saith that they opere tenus continebantur were restrained onely by the lawe from the outward act we from the verie inward thoughts they onely vsed corporall purgations and had a promise onely of temporall blessings as of a land that flowed with milke and honie Contra. 1. The Scripture euidently testifieth that Moses and the rest of the Prophets were endued with the spirit of God and it is said of Saul the spirit of God departed from him then he had it before and seeing they receiued Christ when they did eate manna and drinke of the rocke they had also his spirit for without Christs spirit they could not spiritually eate or drinke Christ. 2. and that the lawe of Moses restrained not the outward act onely but the heart and affections our Blessed Sauiour sheweth Matth. 5. where he deliuereth not a newe exposition of the lawe but he doth cleare it from the corrupt glosses of the Iewes 3. and though they had many more carnall rites then we haue yet euen in those externall ceremonies spirituall graces were represented as the Apostle saith that circumcision was the seale of the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4.11 4. yea and vnder those temporall promises they looked for celestiall as the Apostle sheweth that they sought an heauenly countrey Heb. 11.16 2. Some thinke that here two diuerse states are not compared together of the fathers that liued vnder the lawe and of vs that are vnder the gospell but onely two diuerse degrees of our conversion as first by the lawe we are made to knowe our selues and thereby terrified and afterward we finde Evangelicall comfort by faith in Christ Martyr and so M. Calvin thinketh that the things themselues the ministerie and operation of the lawe and of the Gospell are here set one against an other rather then the persons 3. But here is both an opposition of the persons and things together as Origen doth illustrate this place by that Galat. 4. where they which were vnder the lawe are likened vnto children which were vnder tutors and gouernors and we in the Gospell are like the heire that is come to age and hath no more neede of tutors but yet our state is not set as opposite to theirs as though they had onely the spirit of bondage onely they differ in degrees for they also had the spirit of Christ but not in that euident and conspicuous manner which we haue Pareus And here we may deuide the Iewes into 3. sorts some were altogether carnall which had no knowledge of Christ such onely had the spirit of bondage some were perfect and spirituall as Moses and the Prophets who had the spirit of Christ though for the time they serued vnder ceremonies some were weake yet hauing knowledge of the Messiah they receiued also of his spirit though not in the same degree with the other Martyr Quest. 17. Of the diuerse kinds of feare v. 15. Ye haue not receiued the spirit of bondage to feare 1. There are two kinds of feare a seruile feare when one is mooued onely by the feare of punishment and so kept in awe and obedience and there is filialis timor a filiall feare such as is in children when one feareth to offend God not so much because of punishment as because he findeth the Lord gracious and good vnto him of this feare the Prophet speaketh when he saith the feare of God endureth for euer of the other S. Iohn perfect loue excelleth feare Angustine thus resembleth these two kind of feares the seruile feare is like as an adulterous woman is afraid of her husband least he should come and finde her in her wickednesse the other feare is seene in a chast wife who feareth to offend her husband least he should depart
discriâ—iâ—â— all perills which put the life in danger Mort. omnia extrema secunda adversa and â—ll exceeding great prosperitie or adversitie 2. Angels principalities powers 1. Origen vnderstandeth onely the euill Angels and adversarie powers so Osiander also 2. Chrysostome onely the good Angels and Hierome so also Lyranus and they vnderstand it by way of supposition that if the good Angels should seeke to withdraw vs from Christ which is impossible yet we should not giue 〈◊〉 vnto them so the Apostle hath the like supposition of the good Angels Galat. 1.8 Calv. 3. But we may better vnderstand the Angels good and bad Mart. Gryn Pareus who by principalities and powers vnderstandeth the kingdomes and commanders of the world but they are titles rather giuen to the Angels as Ephes. 1.21 Gryneus following Chrysostome 3. Things present nor things to come 1. Not in this world and the next as Origen 〈◊〉 hath a speculation of the passage of the soule out of the bodie which in that instant is many times seduced and deceiued by the euill spirits 2. But he meaneth the dangers of this life present or to come Mart. Par. 3. he maketh no mention of the things past for they are ouercome alreadie Lyran. and as for our sinnes past they are forgiuen vs in Christ Gryn 4. Neither height nor depth 1. Origen vnderstandeth it of the spirits in the ayre and in the deepe 2. Lyranus of the depth and profunditie of Sathan 3. Gorrhan of the height and depth of humane wisedome so also Mart. 4. Osiander of the diuerse kinds of death as by hanging aloft and beeing drowned in the deepe 5. Chrysostome and Theophylact better vnderstand things in heauen and earth the elements aboue and belowe Pareus ret sâ—premas infernas things aboue and beneath Bulling 6. Theodoret vnderstandeth heauen and hell 7. Oecumenius prosperitie and adversitie 5. Or any other creature 1. not beside those which are visible Origen for he had spoken of invisible things before 2. nor a newe creature beside those which God made as Ambrose as equus hipes an horse with two legges and such like gloss ordinar Hugo Gorrhan 3. But the Apostle absolvit inductionem doth make an ende of his induction because it had beene infinite to reckon vp all the creatures Martyr so Chrysostome if there be any other creature of what manner soeuer how great soeuer 4. Places of Doctrine Doct. 1. How the same worke may be both good and sinnefull as it proceedeth from God the deuill and man v. 3. Sending his Sonne c. God in sending his Sonne and giuing him vp vnto death onely intented his owne glorie and the salvation of man but Sathan stirred vp the Iewes of envie and malice to put that holy and Iust one to death so the same action as it proceeded from God was good as it came from Sathan man was euill So that God is no way the author of euill though he be author of that thing which is abused vnto euill Mart. This further is euident in the affliction of Iob which as God was the author worker of it tended to Gods glorie and the triall of Iobs faith but as Sathan had his finger in it he would thereby haue supplanted the faith of Iob. Doct. 2. Of the causes of saluation v. 3. Here all the causes of our saluation are expressed 1. The author and efficient cause is God who sent his Sonne to redeeme vs. 2. the materiall cause is Christ who came in the similitude of sinful flesh not that he had not true flesh as Marcion the heretike said but it was true flesh yet without sinne so in that behalfe like vnto sinfull flesh as hauing the true nature of our flesh but not the sinfull qualitie thereof 3. the forme is also set forth he condemned sin in the flesh that is suffred the punishment due vnto our sinne in his flesh 4. the impulsiue or motiue cause was the imbecilsitie weaknes of the law for if the law could haue saued vs Christ needed not haue died 5. the finall causes were these two 1. for sin that is he came to expiate purge and take away sinne 2. and that the lawe might be fulfilled and the righteousnesse of the lawe fulfilled by Christ imputed to vs by faith v. 4. Doct. 3. That the holy Ghost is God v. 9. The spirit of God dwelleth in you Hence Didymus inferred well that the holy spirit is God because he dwelleth in all the faithfull this infinitenes and immensitie of the spirit sheweth that he is God for who but God can dwell in so many temples at once and beside in that he is called the spirit of God that also prooueth him to be God for the spirit of God is of the same nature and substance with God Doct. 4. That the three glorious persons of the Blessed Trinitie are of one efficacie and power v. 11. The raising vp of the dead is a worke of Gods omnipotencie but God the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost doe all raise vp the dead as God is said to raise vp our dead bodies because his spirit dwelleth in vs God the father then raiseth and his spirit also raiseth and quickeneth the dead and Christ also raiseth the dead because the same spirit is here called the spirit of God and of Christ so Ioh. 6.54 He that eateth my flesh c. I will raise him vp at the last day Doct. 5. Of euerlasting glorie v. 18. Not worthie of the glorie which shall be reuealed in vs Thomas Aquin. obserueth 4. necessarie points out of these words concerning euerlasting life 1. it is called glorie to shew the excllencie of it for in this life noble wittes are desirous of nothing more then glorie it is set forth by the name of that thing which is most desired 2. it shall be which sheweth the eternitie of it for that which is now present is but short and momentarie 3. reuealed the glorie to come then is of it selfe invisible but God shall so illuminate our minds as that he himselfe will be seene of vs. 4. this glorie shall be shewed in vs which signifieth the stabilitie of this glorie it shall not depend of externall things as riches honour but within vs it shall be and possesse and replenish both our bodies and soules Doct. 6. Of the nature and properties of hope v. 24. Hope that is seene is no hope 1. the author and efficient cause of hope is God Rom. 15.13 The God of hope c. 2. the subiect is the faithfull heart 3. the obiect things which are not seene 4. the forme thereof is with patience to abide 5. the effect thereof is ioy in the spirit Rom. 1â— 1â— reioycing in hope 6. the ende is our saluation we are saued by hope 7. the contrarie to all is despaire and diffidence ex Gryneo Doct. 7. Of true prayer that consisteth not in the sound of the voice but in the sighes of the heart v. 26.
The spirit maketh request with sighes The meaning is this that many times when the children of God are ouerwhelmed with griefe and knowe not themselues what they pray but onely sobbe and sigh that the spirit vnderstandeth their meaning and euen those sighs and groanes which come of the spirit doe pray for them Augustine writeth excellently hereof epist. 121. that the brethren in Egypt are said crebras habere orationes sed eas brevissimas raptim iaculatas to make often prayers but the same verie short and as it were of a sudden cast out c. whereupon he thus inferreth hanc intentionem sicut non est obtrâ—denda si per durare non potest ita si perduraverit non esse cito rumpendam the intention of prayer as it must not be forced if it doth not continue so if it hold still it must not suddenly be interrupted and broken off and so he concludeth ab sit ab oratione multa locutio sud non desit multa precatso in our prayer let there be absent much speach but let there not be wanting much praying c. for as long as the intention and devotion holdeth the prayer cannot be too much but to goe on still in words the intention beeing slacked is much babling and talking not praying 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. That concupiscence remaining euen in the regenerate is sinne and in it selfe worthie of condemnation v. 1. There is no condemnation Bellarmine hence inferreth the contrarie that in these words the Apostle doth not so much shewe that there is no condemnaâ—on to those that are iustified as that there is no matter of condemnation in them nihil condemnatione dignum nothing worthie of condemnation l. 5. de amiss grat c. 7. arg 3. and consequently concupiscence in them is not sinne Contra. 1. The contrarie rather is inferred out of the Apostles words that concupiscence is in it selfe worthie of condemnation of the which the Apostle treated before in the former chapter but it is not vnto damnation neither it nor any other sinne vnto those which are iustified by faith in Christ. 2. and the Apostle expresseth the verie cause they are iustified in Christ and therefore though sinne remaine in them yet it is not imputed therefore it is great bouldnes to denie that which the Apostle in so direct words expresseth that vnto those which are iustified in Christ there is no condemnation not for that there is nothing worthie of condemnation in them for then they should be altogether without sinne but because they are iustified 3. the Apostle saith not there is no sinne but no condemnation Melancth not that the same sinnes remaine in those which are iustified which were in them before as Pererius slanndereth Calvin to say disput 1. numer 5. but there be still some imperfections and reliques of sinne remaining but not raigning which notwithstanding are not imputed vnto the faithfull neither are able to condemne them and Calvin saith no more but that the Apostle ioyneth three things together imperfectionem the imperfections which are alwayes in the Saints Dei indulgentiam Gods indulgence whereby their sinnes are forgiuen and regenerationem spiritus the regeneration of the spirit for carni suae indulgens he that is giuen to the flesh doth flatter himselfe in vaine to be freed from his sinne Calvin then cannot the same sinnes remaine seeing in the regenerate the flesh is mortified and sinne subdued Controv. 2. That none are perfect in this life Origens ouersight is here to be noted who thinking that the Apostle spake in the former chapter of those which partly serued the lawe of God in the spirit and partly the Lawe of sinne in the flesh saith that now he speaketh of those which ex integro in Christo sunt which wholly are in Christ not partly of the spirit partly of the flesh but are perfect Contra. 1. First Origen confoundeth iustification and sanctification for the faithfull are indeed wholly graft into Christ by faith and yet they may haue some infirmities of the flesh remaining 2. there neuer liued any of that perfection neuer to be tempted of the flesh but onely Christ but yet they which are in Christ doe not walke after the flesh that is non carnem ducem sequuntur they doe not followe the flesh as their guide though they be sometime tempted of the flesh but they follow the guiding and direction of the spirit Beza in annot 3. and it hath beene sufficiently shewed before quest 36. of the former chapter that the Apostle there speaketh in his owne person as of a man regenerate and so in this place he meaneth the same whom in his owne person he described before Controv. 3. That regeneration is not the cause that there is no condemnation to the faithfull The Romanists doe make this the cause why there is no condemnation to those which are in Christ because they walke not after the flesh but after the spirit Tolet. annot 1. Bellarm 5. de amission grat c. 10. respons ad obiect 7. so likewise Stapleton Antidot p. 435. who thus obiecteth 1. Ob. He vrgeth the Apostles words here there is no condeÌ„nation c. which walke not after the flesh therefore for that they walke not after the flesh there is no condemnation to such Contra. The Apostle saith not there is no condemnation because they walke not but to them that walke not regeneration is required as a necessarie condition annexed to iustification not as the cause so that here is an answear to two questions together how we are iustified namely by faith in Christ and who are iustified they which bring forth good fruits the one is internall their iustification the other externall namely sanctification Beza 2. Ob. The Apostle saith that the lawe of the spirit which Beza interpreteth to be the grace of regeneration doth free vs from the lawe of sinne and death v. 2. Ergo it is the cause of iustification Contra. 1. This interpretation beeing admitted that followeth not which is inferred for the words are not from sinne but from the lawe of sinne that is from the dominion of sinne and so indeede the grace of regeneration freeth vs that sinne hath no more dominion ouer vs. 2. but it is better with Ambrose to vnderstand by the law of the spirit legem fidei the lawe of faith whereby we are freed from sinne and death 3. Ob. If righteousnesse beeing present do not iustifie vs then beeing absent it condemneth not Contra. 1. Is followeth not for a thing may be insufficient to a worke beeing present and yet if it be remooued it is sufficient to hinder the worke as good diet in a sicke man may hinder his recouerie and yet if he vse it it is not alwayes sufficient to helpe him 2. and yet here is a difference in this example for good diet is an helping cause vnto health but good workes are no cause of saluation but onely a condition necessarily required and annexed 4.
Obiect The Apostle saith v. 15. If ye liue after the flesh yee shall die but if ye mortifie the deedes of the bodie ye shall liue therefore mortification is the cause of life and saluation Contra. 1. Hence followeth that mortification is necessarie vnto saluation yet not as a cause but as a necessarie condition without the which there is no faith and consequently no saluation 2. eternall life is the gift of God c. 6.23 therefore not due vnto our merits euill workes are the cause of damnation because they iustly deserue it but it followeth not that good workes are the cause of saluation for they are both imperfect and so vnproportinable to the reward and they are due otherwise to be done and therefore merite not Controv. 4. Against the Arrians and Eunomians concerning the deitie of the holy Ghost v. 2. The law of the spirit of life c. hath freedome Chrysostome homil de adorand spirit from this place prooueth the deitie of the spirit against the Arrian and Eunomiâ—au heretikes who made great difference in the persons of the Trinitie the Sonne they affirmed to be a creature and much inferiour to the Father and the holy Ghost they made servum ministrum silij a seruant and minister of the Sonne Chrysostome confuteth them by this place for if the spirit be the author of libertie and freedome to others then is he most free himselfe and not a minister or seruant as the Apostle saith 2. Cor. 2.17 where the spirit of the Lord is there is libertie Controv. 5. Against the Pelagians that a man by nature cannot keepe and fulfill the law This error is confuted by the expresse words of the Apostle who saith that the law was weake by reason of the flesh and so not able to iustifie vs by the flesh the Apostle vnderstandeth not substantiam caruis the substance of the flesh as the Maniches were readie to catch at these and the like places to confirme their wicked opinion who held the flesh of man to be euill by nature nor yet the carnall rites and obseruations of the law which were not able to cleanse the obseruers of them as Origen here interpreteth and Lyranus following him But by the flesh we vnderstand with Chrysostome carnales sensus the carnall affections carnalitatem quae rebellabat the carnalitie of man which rebelled against the spirit gloss ordinar concupisentias carnis the concupiscence of the flesh Haymo prauitatem naturae the pravitie of nature Martyr which hindereth that none can keepe the law to be iustified by it This then manifestly conuinceth the Pelagians for if the flesh make the law weake and vnable to be kept then none by the strength of their nature and flesh can fulfill the law Controv. 6. The fulfilling of the law is not possible in this life no not to them which are in the state of grace 1. The Romanists out of these words of the Apostle v. 4. That the righteousnesse of the law may be fulfilled in vs which walke not after the flesh doe inferre that they which walke not after the flesh may fulfill the law so that either it must be denied that none in this life walke after the spirit or it must be graunted that by such the law may be fulfilled Pere disput 5. Bellarmine addeth that if the law cannot be fulfilled Christus non obtinuit quod vâ—luit Christ hath not compassed or obtained that which he intended for therefore he died that the iustice of the law might be fulfilled Contra. 1. Indeed Origen whose errors and erroneous interpretations our aduersaries themselues will be ashamed of sauing where they serue their turne first deuised this interpretation who by the law here vnderstandeth the law of the mind which is fulfilled quando lex peccati in membris c. when the law of sinne in the members resisteth it not and Haymo hath this glosse that we beeing redeemed by Christ might spiritually fulfill the workes of the law per cuius impletionem possumus iustificari by the fulfilling whereof we may be iustified But this place is better vnderstood of the obedience of Christ who fulfilled the law which is imputed vnto vs by faith and thus doe not onely expound our new writes Melancthon Bucer Hyperius Calvin Beza with others but some of the auncient expositors as Theophylact quae lex facere nitibatur ea Christus nostri gratia executus est those things which the law endeuoured Christ hath performed for vs so also Oecumenius scotus finis legis per Christum partus est exhibitus the scope and end of the law is obtained exhibited by Christ yet we must endeuour to keepe those things which are deliuered per conuersationem bonam fidem by a good conuersation and faith 2. And that this is the meaning of the Apostle 1. the phrase sheweth that the law might be fulfilled in vs he saith not by vs Beza 2. because there is none so perfect in this life that neither in thought word nor deed transgresseth not the law 3. The law was weake through the infirmitie of the flesh but the infirmitie and weakenes of the flesh remaineth still euen in the regenerate therefore neither in them the righteousnesse of the law can be fulfilled 4. To the contrarie arguments thus we answer 1. the Apostle saith not that they which walke after the spirit fulfill the law but the law is fulfilled in them that is imputed vnto them by faith in Christ. 2. though the faithfull cannot fulfill the law yet Christ performed what he intended that he might keepe the law for them and they be iustified by faith in him 3. this clause then which walke not after the flesh is added to shew who they are for whom Christ hath fulfilled the law and to what end namely to such as walke in newnes of life 5. Some doe thinke that the Apostle speaketh here of two kinds of fulfilling the law one imputatione by imputation of Christs obedience which is our iustification the other inchoatione by a beginning onely which is our sanctification begunne in this life and perfited in the next when it shall be fulfilled Martyr Pareus But the other sense is better for the Apostle speaketh of a present fulfilling of the law in them which walke according to the spirit not of a fulfilling respited and excepted in the next life which is most true but not agreeable to the Apostles meaning here 6. So the Apostle in this place setteth forth three benefits purchased vnto vs by Christ 1. remission of our sinnes in that Christ bare in himselfe the punishment due vnto our sins 2. then the imputation of Christs obedience and performing of the law 3. our sanctification that we by the spirit of Christ doe die vnto sinne and rise vnto newnes of life which our sanctification is necessarily ioyned with our iustification but no part thereof 1. because it is imperfect in this life it is perfect after a sort perfectione partium by
death of the bodie for Christ doth not separate from Christ but ioyneth more surely vnto Christ. 2. Likewise Chrysostome derideth their conceit which take here anathema in the better part and interpret it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a treasure laid vp for thiâ— had beene no great matter for the Apostle to haue to wished qâ—is delicatulorum hominum sic non optaret the most nice and daintie man might haue so wished Chrysostome and againe in this sense the Apostle woul not haue said à Christo from Christ but coram Christo before Christ Mart. 3. Some referre this wish of the Apostle vnto the time before his conuersion and here are three opinions 1. Some giue this sense that for the zeale of the Iudaicall law he wished then to be separate from Christ and choose to be a persecutor of his disciples Lyran. and the ordinar gloss following Ambrose 2. the commentarie going vnder the name of Hierome saith that the Apostle doth now lament and bewayle his sinne for that before his conversion he wished to be separate from Christ for his brethren sake ex Pareo 3. Tolet preferreth this sense I wished to be an anathema from Christ that is to be a knowne persecutor of the Christians and to be held of them accursed for my brethrens sake Tolet. in commentar But these interpretations faile diuersly 1. this had beene no great matter for Paul yet beeing an enemie to Christ to haue wished for the loue vnto his brethren so to continue still Perer. disput 3. 2. neither had this beene to the Apostles purpose who intendeth by this his wish to shewe his loue vnto his brethren but if he had onely spoken of his desire before his conversion it might haue beene answeared that howsoeuer he might stand well affected to his brethren then his minde was altered now Mart. Perer. 3. The Apostle had taken a vaine oath herein for there was none which doubted of his hatred to the name of Christ before his calling that he needed not to haue confirmed it by an oath Pareus 4. neither doth he lament here for his owne sinne but for the present condition and state of his brethren as is euident v. 4. where he reckoneth vp the auntient priviledges of his nation which they had now depriued themselues of Mart. Pareus 4. Some thinke that the Apostles meaning is that he could haue wished his calling had beene deferred yet and that he for a time had beene separated from Christ and not to haue beene yet called but that his brethren might haue come to Christ before him but the same difficultie remaineth still for if S. Paul might haue wished before to be an anathema from Christ for the glorie of God why not also nowe ex Mart. 5. Some thinke that by an anathema is vnderstood onely dilatio visionis fruitionis Christi a deferring of the vision and enioying of Christ that S. Paul to conuert his brethren to the faith wished still to remaine in the flesh and to be absent from Christ as see the like Philip. 2.23 so Oecumenius Lyranus But this is not to be an anathema from Christ onely to haue the fruition of glorie deferred Perer. numer 12. 6. Some vnderstand this separation from Christ to be indeede depriued of the glorious vision of Christ but they will haue it limited for a time volebat ad tempus privari fruitione Christi he would for a time be depriued of the fruition of Christ for the good of his brethren Thomas in comment But he that is once separated and standeth as accursed from Christ cannot but alwaies so remaine 7. Some thinke that S. Paul spake thus impetu quodam charitatis wishing himselfe to be damned for his brethren by a violent passion of charitie and not well considering what he wished But then S. Paul had sinned if he made such a vowe or wish quadam incogitantia without any consideration or bethinking himselfe it had shewed great rashnesse ex Mart. Pareo 8. Some thinke that the Apostle vseth an hyperbolicall speach when one speaketh more then he intendeth as the Prophet Dauid saith They that hate me are more then the hatres of mine head Psal. 69.4 so here the Apostle the more to expresse his loue toward his brethren doth vse this hyperbolicall speach as though euen for their sakes he wished to be a castaway Dyonis Carthusian But thus they will onely make this a colourable and flourishing speach of the Apostle which was no doubt a zealous and serious wish and desire in him 9. Pareus maketh mention of an odde interpretation which he heard deliuered by one ann 1568. that afterward played the Apostata from Christ who by Christ in this place vnderstood the anoynted Priests alleadging for his authoritie Eusebius who in that prophesie Dan. 9. so vnderstandeth the word Messiah Christ But beside that the word Christ beeing absolutely put without any addition is not so taken in Scripture and Eusebius interpretation is therein distasted and misliked of the best interpreters this had beene a vaine and superfluous wish in S. Paul for in the beginning of his conversion he was odious to the high Priests and euen then they tooke counsell to kill him Act. 9.23 10. There remaine then two expositions which may be ioyned both together in one Chrysostome saith that S. Paul desired priuari fruitione gloria Christi to be depriued of the glorie and fruition of Christ Oecumenius goeth yet further that he wisheth vt per â—eam perditionem glorificaretur Christus that Christ by my vtter perishing may be glorified in the saluation of the Iewes and Cassianus c. 6. collat 23. interpreteth to be an anathema from Christ aeternis addici supplicijs to be addicted vnto euerlasting punishment Both these doe hang one vpon another for he which is depriued of euerlasting ioy is cast downe to euerlasting punishment This then is the Apostles desire aterni boni fruitione privari to be depriued of euerlasting happinesse Martyr excludi ab omni salutis expectatione to be excluded from all hope and expectation of saluation Calvin he wisheth aeternam abiectionem à Christo to be cast off for euer from Christ Pareus abijci in aeternos cruciatus to be cast into euerlasting torment Osiander And that this was the Apostles meaning appeareth by the like zealous desire in Moses who also wished to be blotted out of the booke of life rather then God should haue beene dishonoured in the destruction of Israel both of these were readie suo exitio aliorum saluti subvenire by their destruction to haue helped forward the saluation of others Gryneus Mart. But against this interpretation it is diuersly obiected 1. Obiect S. Paul could not wish to be separated from Christ but he must desire also to be alienated from his loue and fauour which thing to desire it had beene sinne Answ. Chrysostome answereth that the Apostle would not by any meanes be separated from the loue of Christ nam propter Christi
place 1. epist. 2.10 he keepeth the same words but he changeth the order ye were in times past not vnder mercie but now haue obtained mercie this part of the sentence he maketh the last which with the Prophet is the first to reconcile this doubt 1. the vulgar Latine retaineth both beloued which was not beloued and shee which obtained not mercie hath obtained mercie but Beza coniectureth well that one of these was put into the text out of the margen by the vnskilfull writers for there is but one in the originall 2. Hierome to whom Erasmus subscribeth thinketh there were two readings of this place some had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not beloued some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not pittied and the letter he would rather to be receiued but seeing the first reading is in the auncient originall as appeareth by the Syriake translation it is therefore the rather to be preferred 3. wherefore I approoue Iunius solution lib. 2. parall 13. and Pareus in this place that the Apostle in citing these testimonies doth followe the sense rather then the words for breuitie sake and the better to apply them to his present purpose 2. But as touching the scope of that place and the meaning of the words whereas the Prophet seemeth directly to speake of the Israelites the question is how the Apostle applyeth it to the Gentiles 1. Origen answeareth that God speaketh not in mountaines and rockes and other terrene places but in the heart there the conscience telleth euerie one whether he belong to the people of God or not c. But this is not sufficient to looke vnto the inward testimonie of the heart we must haue also externall testimonie from the Prophets of the calling of the Gentiles otherwise the Iewes will not be answeared 3. Therefore Chrysostome thinketh that the Apostle maketh this collection à pari from aparitie and equalitie Erasmus saith à simili from the like that seeing the Israelites for their sinne were cast off to be no people they were in the same case with the Gentiles that were no people also and therefore aequa ratione vocentur they may with as good right be called 3. some of our newe writers as Calvin Pet. Martyr thinke that the vocation of the Gentiles is prooued out of this place by a certaine consequent for the Prophets vse when they denounce iudgements against the people for their sinnes to raise them vp with spirituall comfort againe in Christ and vbi erigitur regnum Christi where the kingdome of Christ is set vp there must be a concurse of all people from all parts of the world Calvin 4. Augustine whom Haymo followeth vnderstandeth this place of the Iewes which were no people when they refused Christ and said we knowe not whom he is but were his people being afterward conuerted vnto Christ as 3. thousand were called at one sermon by S. Peter Act. 2. But this had not been to the Apostles purpose who intendeth to prooue the vocation of some from the Gentiles 5. Therefore the Prophet directly in that place prophesieth that they should become the people of God 1. because the Gentiles were knowne by this name not the people of God 2. and of the Israelites literally it cannot be vnderstood for they neuer returned againe to be a people Quest. 26. What is meant by the short summe or account which God shall make in the earth v. 28. 1. Touching the words here alleadged they are somewhat diuersly set downe in that place Isay. 10.21.22 for there the sentence standeth thus the consumption decreed shall overflowe with righteousnesse but here the word ouerflowe is omitted which some vnderstand of the ouerflowing of the iustice and righteousnesse of God by the knowledge of Christ into all the world Calvin some of the efficacie of the faith of the Gospel which shall ouerflowe to wash away and couer their sinnes as an ouerflowing streame doth wash and couer the earth Osiand and the word charatz determined and decreed is translated abbreviated and shortened thus the Septuagint doe reade that place keeping yet the sense which beeing a receiued translation thorough the world which had so continued 300. yeares the Apostle refuseth not to followe 2. Concerning the meaning 1. some interpret this word consummate to be Christ who was as it were abbreviated and shortened in respect of his incarnation Anacletus epist 2. Hier. epist. ad Algas qu. 10. 2. Origen applyeth it to Christs abridging of the law into two precepts the loue of God and our neighbour and to the short summe or compenâ—â—â—â— of the faith set forth in the Creede so also Cypr. de orat Dom. and Haymo 3. Tertullian vnderstandeth it of the doctrine of the Gospel which is abridged the multitude of legall cerimonies beeing cut off lib. advers Marcion so also Chrysostome and Theophylact. 4. Photius vnderstandeth it of the perfection of the Gospel after the which no other doctrine shall succeed as it succeeded the law 5. Ambrose lib. de Tobia c. 50. referreth it to the consummation or consumption of our sinnes in Christ. 6. Gorrhan wresteth it to the counsels of perfection giuen in the Gospel which the law had not but all these are wide for the Apostle here mindeth not any comparison betweene the law and Gospel 3. Therefore this sense is not agreeable to the scope of the Apostle to vnderstand by this short summe the finall remainder of the Israelites that should be saued that like as few of them returned from the captiuity of the Chaldeans which the Prophet historically intendeth so but a few of them should come vnto Christ from the captiuitie of sinne and Sathan and so the Apostle to this ende alleadgeth these testimonies to prooue by the Prophets the abiection of the Iewes as he out of the former affirmed the vocation of the Gentiles Quest. 27. Why God is called the Lord of hostes v. 29. 1. In the Greeke the Hebrew word Sabaoth is reteined which signifieth hostes 1. Faius giueth this reason why some Hebrew words are reteined in the Greeke and some Greeke in the Latine as kirieleeson Lord haue mercie vpon vs yea and some Latine words are still kept in the Greeke originall as Modius quadrans consul Centurio and the like that there might appeare vnum corpus ecclesiae but one bodie of the Church consisting of all these languages 2. But a better reason is rendred by Beza annotation that these Hebrew words beeing familiarly knowne were still vsed of the Christians because from the Iewes and Hebrewes first was deriued the Christians faith and so from the Greekes to the Romans And the reason why some latine termes were taken vp by the Grecians was the large dominion of the Romanes who together with the bounds of their Empire did also propagate their language 3. but these peregrine and strange words were not vsed vpon any superstition as though there were any holinesse in the words as the Romanists for that cause may seeme to commend the vse of
a strange tongue in their seruice 2. Now God was called the Lord of Sabaoth 1. some thinke in respect of the starres and host of heauen which the heathen worshipped to shew that he was superior to the gods of the heathen 2. some vnderstand the Angels by these hosts Lyranus 3. some Angels Men and Deuils and therefore the Prophet doth say thrice holy holy holy Lord God of Sabaoth Isay. 6. Gorrhan 4. some thinke that there is a relation to the hostes of the Israelites in the middest whereof the Arke went in the wildernes 5. But rather generally here must be vnderstood the whole host of heauen and earth Mar. as Gen. 2. ◠and not onely in respect of the number of them but propter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the decent and comely order wherein all things were made Faius 6. and this title is giuen vnto God in the old Testament not in the New to signifie that the law was then data in timore giuen in feare but in the new in loue Hug. 28. Quest. What is vnderstood by seede 1. Origen by this seede vnderstandeth Christ who as the seede is left in the earth so he was to be buried and rise againe and so fructifie to the euerlasting good of his Church but for this seede we had all beene as Sodome still in our sinnes Iunius in his parallels vpon this place misliketh not this application to Christ thinking that whereas the Prophet hath the word sarid remnant the Apostle of purpose turned it seede with reference to Christ that came of the Iewes but Beza and Martyr reiect this as not agreeable to the scope of the Apostle here 2. Photius in Oecumen vnderstandeth the Apostles but for whose preaching the whole world had beene left in their sinnes as Sodome 3. Gorrhan interpreteth this seede to be the word without the which we had beene as Sodome and Gomorrha paret essemus in poena quia similes in culpa we should haue beene equall in punishment because like in sinne glosse ordinar 4. But the Prophet hath relation to the ouerthrow and destruction of Sodome and Gomorrha wherein there were none left Chrysost. saue onely Lot and his companie who were strangers and so not of the citie so without Gods mercie the people had beene vtterly destroied in the captiuitie of Babylon if the Lord had not reserued a remnant to himselfe and so when Christ came to offer them spirituall deliuerance the whole nation generally refused him onely a small number cleaued vnto Christ thus Martyr Pareus 29. Quest. How the Gentiles obtained righteousnes that sought it not and the Iewes missed of it that sought it 1. Whereas this might seeme a strange paradox that they which seeke righteousnes should not haue it and they which seeke it not obtained it Origen thinketh here by a distinction to dissolue this knot it is one thing saith he sectari to follow which is vnderstood of a prescript forme of doctrine such as the written law was which the Gentiles had not and therefore could not follow it it is an other thing to follow the law of nature which the Gentiles had and followed but the Apostle here speaketh not of any law which the Gentiles followed at all but that they obtained that which they neither sought not followed 2. Chrysostome thinketh that the Apostle sheweth here the reason of the electing of the Gentiles and reiecting of the Iewes namely the faith of the one and the incredulitie of the other But these are not the causes of the decree of election and reprobation but the effects for three things the Apostle treateth of in this chapter concerning election and reprobation of the beginning thereof in Gods decree of the ende which is the glorie of God which two the Apostle hath handled hitherto and of the meanes saith of the one and incredulitie of the other which the Apostle toucheth here 3. Tolet here distinguisheth betweene the law of righteousnes and righteousnes it selfe the Iewes followed the law but not righteousnes because they did not the works of the law but abounded in sinne but it is euident that the Apostle by the law of righteousnes vnderstandeth the perfection which the law required which were the works of the law vnto the which the Iewes attained not 4. Some by the law vnderstand onely the ceremonies and rites of the law by obseruing whereof the Iewes could not attaine vnto righteousnesse but it is euident that throughout this epistle the Apostle vnderstandeth euen the workes of the morall law as c. 7. he directly maketh mention of that law whereof one precept is thou shalt not lust 5. Some make a difference here betweene iustitiam legis ex lege the iustice of the law and iustice by the law the iustice of the law is such workes which the law requireth but the iustice by the law is such workes as men doe according to the prescript of the law of their owne strength without faith the Apostle reiecteth this in the matter of iustification but not the other to this purpose Bellarmine lib. 1. iustificat c. 19. And so the Apostle here saith that the Iewes sought the law of righteousnesse but while by their owne power they sought to fulfill it they could not attaine vnto it he alleageth to this purpose Angustine who saith iustitiam legis non implet iustitia quae ex lege est c. the righteousnesse which is of the law fulfilleth not the righteousnesse of the law c. and the righteousnes by the law he interpreteth to be that quam homo suis viribus facit c. which a man doth by his owne strength But 1. it is euident that the Apostle indifferently vseth these phrases the righteousnesse of the law and by or from the law as he taketh the righteousnesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of God Rom. 3.22 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by or from God Phil. 3.9 for one and the same so whether we say the righteousnesse of faith which the Apostle calleth the law of faith Rom. 3.27 and the word of faith Rom. 10.8 or the righteousnesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by or through faith there is no difference but in words 2. Origen hath the like curious distinction vpon these words of the Apostle Rom. 3.30 who shall iustifie circumcision of faith and vncircumcision through faith betweene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of faith and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through faith he maketh this difference that to be iustified ex fide of faith is to beginne with faith and end with works and to be iustified through faith is to beginne with works and end with faith c. whereas the Apostle intendeth one and the same manner of iustification the like curiositie there is in this distinction betweene the righteousnesse of the law and by the law 3. And the verie words of the Apostle They followed the righteousnesse of the law shew as much which he interpreteth afterward They sought it by the workes of the
Redeemer and our conuersion and turning to God which conditions God receiueth not of vs but conferreth vpon vs the first without vs the two other he worketh in vs that all may be of grace these things beeing thus promised the contrarie arguments are thus answeared 1. The Apostle speaketh of Gods first decree and purpose to shewe mercie in electing some by his grace which indeede is an absolute act of Gods will without any other motiue and if we vnderstand it of Gods mercie in forgiuenesse of sinne it is his will also it should not be done without Christ Ioh. 6.40 This is his will that euerie one which beleeueth â—â— the Sonne should haue eternall life the argument then followeth not God hath mercie on whom he will therefore without Christ. 2. Therefore God forgiueth sinnes for his owne sake because he forgiueth them for Christ who is the Iehovah and eternall God that forgiueth sinnes 3. Neither are Gods iustice and mercie shewed in the same subiect Gods iustice is seene in the satisfaction of his Sonne but his mercie toward vs. 4. 1. The argument followeth not God can therefore he will 2. neither doth that rule alwaies hold that one may remit of his owne right as much as he will this must be added if it be without wrong done to an other as the Parent cannot remit vnto his child feare and obedience because this is against the lawe of iustice and so against God 3. so in this case God cannot remit sinnes without some satisfaction not in respect of his infinite power but of his iustice which is not to suffer his Maiestie to be violated without iust punishment for this were to denie himselfe 5. 1. Neither is it true that God onely requireth of sinners repentance for the punishment due vnto sinne must be satisfied for which Christ did for vs. 2. neither if innocencie of life were sufficient is it in our power to performe it 3. and further God doth not pardon sinne for that which he requireth of vs it is his mercie in Christ for the which he pardoneth that which he requireth of vs is a condition to be performed by vs not the cause 6. It is false that the faith of Abel and Henoch and of other holy Patriarkes had no relation to Christ for although expresse mention be not made thereof yet alwaies it must be vnderstood for the Apostle saith Coloss. 1.23 that it pleased God by Christ to reconcile all things to himselfe and all the promises in him are yea and Amen 2. Cor. 1.20 therefore the promises made to the fathers were grounded vpon Christ and they were reconciled vnto God by no other way then by faith in him 7. If God had required satisfaction of our selues for sinne then indeede had our sinne beene remembred but although Christ hath satisfied for our sinnes yet to vs they are freely forgiuen and so not remembred any more 8. The Apostle saith Ephes. 4.32 Forgiuing one an other as God for Christs sake forgaue vs though Christ hath satisfied for vs yet God requireth no satisfaction at our hands therefore herein we are to imitate God to forgiue one an others priuate offences without satisfaction as God forgaue vs But in publike offences and ciuill debts this rule holdeth not for if in such trespasses no satisfaction should be made the course of iustice should be perverted 9. The remitting of the debt excludeth all solution and paiment of debt by the partie to whom the debt is remitted and not otherwise and so the Lord requireth not of vs any satisfaction or solution of our debt which is discharged by Christ. The like answear may be made vnto the other obiections 1. God loued the elect with an eternall loue and herein appeared his loue that he sent his Sonne to die for the elect yet in respect of their sinfull estate they had neede of a reconciler so they were eternally beloued in Gods election and yet in respect of their present state God was offended with them as a father that purposeth to make his sonne his heire may yet in the meane time be angrie with him for his misdemenour See before c. 5. coher 7. a more full answear 2. We are saued freely by grace notwithstanding the redemption by Christ as the Apostle sheweth Rom. 3.24 if satisfaction had beene required of vs or if we were to haue ransomed our selues it had not beene freely by grace but now it is 3. God was not delighted in the death of his Sonne in that simply he was put to cruel death but in that thereby all the elect were saued which sheweth not crueltie but mercie in God in accepting the death of one for all 4. Neither was Christ forced the innocent to die for sinners but he willingly offered himselfe to die for vs therein was no tyrannie at all 5. As though God the Father and God the Sonne are not all one in substance the same mercie proceedeth from them both and the Sonne as he is God remitteth not without the satisfaction of the Mediator 6. Eternall death is to be considered in the infinitenesse and greatnes of the torments of soule and bodie and in the eternitie and euerduring thereof Christ did endure the one that is vnspeakeable torments in bodie and soule for vs but not the other because of the dignitie of his person which suffered and the necessitie of the worke of our redemption which he perfected which could not haue beene performed if eternitie of punishment had beene vpon the redeemer inflicted Now how contrarie this blasphemous assertion of these heretikes is to the Scriptures is euerie where euident for there is no truth that hath more plentifull euidence out of the Scriptures then that Christ by his death did satisfie for our sinnes and by faith in him we obtaine remission of our sinnes and not otherwise as Galat. 1.4 Which gaue himselfe for our sinnes that he might deliuer vs from this present euill world Galat. 3.13 Christ hath redeemed vs from the curse of the law when he was made a curse for vs Eph. 1.7 By whom we haue redemption thorough his blood euen the forgiuenes of sinnes 1. Pet. 2.23 Who his owne selfe bare our sinnes in his bodie vpon the tree c. 1. Pet. 3.18 Christ hath once suffered for our sinnes the iust for the vniust that he might bring vs to God c. and an hundreth such places and more may be produced out of the old and new Testament for the confirmation of this truth he that is desirous to see more of this matter I referre him to learned Pareus treatise dub 13. vpon this chapter Controv. 14. Against the maintainers of Vniuersall grace v. 18. He hath mercie on whom he will and whom he will he hardeneth Hence then it is inferred that he hath decreed to haue mercie on some and not vpon others then they are in error which thinke that God doth indifferently offer grace to all and that he hath elected all vnto life if
kind was the zeale of the false Apostles Gal. 4.17 They are ielous ouer you amisse they would exclude you that ye should altogether loue them they seemed to beare a great zeale and loue vnto the Galathians but it was onely for their owne aduantage and such was the zeale of Demetrius to Diana Act. 19. because his profit was hindered by the decay of Dianaes worship but a true and vnfained zeale is that when one seeketh onely the good of that which he loueth without respect to himselfe as Saint Paul was thus iealous ouer the Corinthians to seeke to ioyne them for their owne good vnto Christ. 2. Cor. 11.2 Now of this vnfained zeale there are two kinds one which hath knowledge the other is without and this is of two sorts for there is here a twofold knowledge required both of the thing which is desired and affected and of the wrong which is offered the Iewes wanted one of these for they had a knowledge of God though not perfect but they were ignorant of the other they thought the worship of God to â—â—nsist in the rites and ceremonies of the law and so Gods glorie to be hindered by the Preaching of the Gospel the Gentiles were ignorant of both for neither had they the knowledge of God at all neither did they know the way how to worship him and so were ignorant what hindered or furthered Gods glorie 3. Now in that the Apostle maketh this as a reason why he wished well vnto them and prayed for them because they had zeale though not according to knowledge this doth not iustifie their zeale or prooue that we may reioyce or take delight in any thing that is euill but because their zeale was a good thing in it selfe and they failed in the manner onely the Apostle so farre commendeth them as it is said that Christ loued the young man that professed his obedience and obseruance of the law though he were farre from perfection Mark 10.21 because he saw some good things in him So the Apostle commendeth the zeale of the Iewes here 4. Origen here obserueth that as the Apostle saith of zeale that they had a kind of zeale but not according to knowledge the like may be said of faith charitie and other graces that men may haue them after a sort but not according to knowledge as he hath faith without knowledge that is ignorant that faith without workes it dead and so he hath charitie without knowledge that beasteth of it before men Quest. 5. Why the Iewes are said to stablish their owne righteousnesse v. 3. 1. Theodoret thinketh it is called their owne righteousnesse because now the law was ceased and the obseruation of the rites and ceremonies thereof so also Gorrhan vnderstandeth it of the ceremonies of the law which now were abolished and of the traditions which themselues had invented but the Apostle meaneth principally the moral law and that workes thereof 2. Augustine thinketh it to be so called their owne righteousnesse that is an humanes and imperfect righteousnesse because they were not able to fulfill the law tract 26. in Iob. so also Anselme 3. Lyranus because the law was giuen them and so the righteousnesse thereof they tooke peculiarly to be theirs excluding the Gentiles 4. Chrysostome saith â—â— is tearmed theirs because it consisted in their owne labour whereas faith was the gift of God without their labour 5. Origen saith their owne righteousnes was that which so seemed vnto men but did not make them iust before God so also Tolet as the Apostle saith Rom. 4.2 If Abraham were iustified by workes he hath wherein to reioyce but not with God 6. But properly that is called man 's owne righteousnesse which is supposed to be inherent in him is wrought by his owne workes and labour that is Gods righteousnes which is without man and extrinsecally is applied vnto him by faith 3. This proper iustice of man signifieth not such righteousnesse as man seeketh to worke of himselfe but euen such as man worketh by grace for Gods righteousnesse and mans are opposed not onely in respect of the cause and beginning but in the forme and manner how it is applied the one by faith the other by workes and in the subiect the righteousnes of faith is inherent in Christ and applied to vs by faith the other hath man for the subiect thereof 4. The Iewes in refusing this righteousnesse of God commit three great faults 1. they are ignorant of true righteousnesse by faith 2. they ambitiously seeke to be iustified by their owne righteousnesse 3. they are contemners of Gods righteousnesse which is by faith and will by no meanes be subiect vnto it Quest. 6. How Christ is said to be the ende of the law The end of a thing is taken fowre waies 1. for the determination and extremitie and finall ending of it as Psal. 3.19 Whose end is damnation 2. it is also taken for that which first mooueth the agent and for the which all other things are intended 3. the end is the scope and marke which is aymed at as the end of faith is the saluation of our soules 1. Pet. 1. 4. the end also of a thing is the perfection thereof as loue is said to be the end of the commandements 1. Tim. 1.5 according to these diuerse acceptions is this place diuersely interpreted 1. Some take it in the first sense that Christ ended the ceremonies and legall rites in which it is said the law and the Prophets were vnto Iohn Matth. 11. but this is not the meaning here for thus Christ was an ende onely to the ceremoniall not to the morall law 2. The second way Christ is the end of the law but not directly for in generall the law was ordained to make man righteous and to iustifie him by the keeping thereof but seeing this righteousnesse could not be obtained by the law nor in the law the law bringeth vs vnto Christ and in him we obtaine righteousnesse which the law required but performed not so then the end of the law which was to iustifie a man is fulfilled in Christ thus Chrystsost quid vult lex hominem iustum facere c. what would the law make a man iust c. this the law could not effect but Christ hath effected it so Melancthon Christ is the perfection of the law donat id quod lex requirit he giueth that which the law requireth that is iustification by saith in Christ who hath fulfilled the law for vs so also Beza 3. Christ also is the end and scope aymed at in the old Testament all the Prophets gaue witnesse and testimonie vnto Christ as Lyranus citeth R. Selam and other learned Hebrewes that confessed that vniuersi Prophetae non sunt locuti nisi ad dies Messiae that all the Prophets did not otherwise speake but hauing relation to the Messiah as our Sauiour saith Ioh. 6.26 Moses wrote of mee 4. Christ also is the perfection and consummation of the law
and keepers thereof how doth the Prophet Ezech. c. 20.25 call them statutes that are not good the answer is that the law of it selfe promiseth life but in respect of mans weaknes that is not able to keepe the law it is not good because it bringeth death and so Moses saith Deut. 30.15 I haue set before you this day life and death c. the law was life to them that had power to keepe it which none haue in this life but death vnto the trangressors Faius Quest. 10. Whether Paul did of purpose alleadge that place of Moses Deuter. 30.12 or allude onely vnto it 1. Some thinke that Moses in that place directly speaketh of the law according to the literall sense and Saint Paul by a certaine allusion applieth that vnto faith which Moses vttereth of the law so Theodoret Chrysostome Oecumenius likewise Tostatus vpon that place Paul per quandam concordantiam transtulit ad fidem Paul by a certaine agreement hath translated this place and applyed it vnto faith Vatablus also saith that Paul followeth not Moses sense but some words But this would extenuate the force of S. Pauls argument if he should allude onely vnto this place of Scripture and not confirme that which he intended by the same and the Apostle himselfe saith that the iustice of faith thus speaketh that is as Origen expoundeth Christ who is our iustice by faith thus speaketh by the mouth of Moses wherefore Moses in that place speaketh of the iustice of faith 2. Some thinke that S. Paul followeth not the litterall but the mysticall sense of Moses thus Lyranus thinketh that the booke called Deuteronomie the second law was a figure of the Gospel which was indeede a newe and a second law and that this was figuratiuely spoken of the gospel that as they needed not goe to heauen or to the furthest parts of the Sea to fetch the Law because it was neere them as it were put into their mouth by Moses so neither neede they nowe seeke farre for the knowledge of Christ either to heauen or hell seeing he was euidently preached by the Apostles this sense also followeth Bellarmine de grat liber arbit lib. 5. c. 6. But that Moses speaketh not of the precepts of the law in that place is euident because he sheweth the facilitie of them it is in thy mouth and heart to do it c. but it was not so easie a thing to performe the Lawe Bellarmine answeareth with Tostatus that Moses speaketh not of the performing but of the knowledge of the lawe whereas the words are directly to do it Sotus in his commentarie thinketh that Moses speaketh of the externall obseruation of the law which was readie at hand but for the internall and spirituall obedience they were to expect further grace But Moses speaketh directly of the inward obedience it is in thy mouth and in thy heart c. 3. Some thinke that the Apostle applyeth that testimonie vttered by Moses of the lawe vnto the Gospel by an argument from the lesse to the greater that if Moses gaue such commendation of the lawe much more is it true of the Gospel But the Apostle sheweth the iustice of faith to be a farre different thing from the iustice and righteousnes of the law and therefore not to differ onely as the lesse and greater but as things of a diuerse nature 4. Wherefore it may be more safely affirmed that the Apostle citeth this verie place out of Moses as Origen thinketh haec à Deuteronomio assumpta sunt these words are taken out of Deuteronomie yet the Apostle as an interpreter alledgeth them omitting some things in Moses and inserting some other by way of exposition as that is to bring Christ againe from aboue and to bring Christ againe from the dead and some words he altereth as that which Moses calleth the Sea S. Paul nameth the deepe which in effect is the same to this purpose Iun. in parall 16. lib. 2. Faius and Pet. Martyr affirmeth that it is so euident a thing that Moses here speaketh of Christ that certaine great Rabbines among the Iewes confesse that Moses in all that 30. chapter of Deuteronomie hath reference to Christ yet Pareus inclineth to thinke S. Paul here vseth but an allusion to that place of Moses dub 6. Quest. 11. Whether Moses in that place directly speaketh of the righteousnesse of faith 1. Tolet annot 6. and likewise Caietan which take this place to be alleadged by Moses in the litterall sense doe thinke that Moses speaketh of the circumsion and conuersion of the heart vnto God which belongeth vnto the righteousnesse of faith that when God should conuert and turne their heartes they should then not find it an hard and difficult thing to keepe the commandements of God Pet. Martyr much dissenteth not that Moses then simply speaketh not of the precept of the law but vt iam per gratiam facile factu erat but as now made easie by grace and faith in Christ so also M. Calvin denieth not but that Moses in that place speaketh of the obseruation of the law but ex suo fonte diducit he fetcheth it from the fountaine and originall thereof namely the iustice of faith 2. Some thinke that Moses in that place speaketh not onely of the law sed de vniuerso doctrina but of the whole doctrine which he hath taught which was not onely legall but contained many euangelicall promises But the words of Saint Paul are against both these interpretations The righteousnesse which is of faith speaketh on this wise c. and this is the word of faith which we preach therefore Moses onely in that place speaketh of the word of faith 3. Wherefore their opinion is to be preferred who thinke that Moses in that place directly treateth of the doctrine of faith and not by way of consequent onely as Iunius well obserueth because Moses saith this commandement which I command thee this day but that day Moses deliuered not the precepts of the law which were giuen before but of faith and so the Apostle ex consilio Mosis by the counsell and according to the meaning of Moses himselfe applyeth this place vnto Christ Iun. lib. 2. parall 16. so also Faius est apposita loci applicatio c. it is a fit application of that place likewise Osiander it is no doubt but that S. Paul appositissime allegaverit most fitly aptly applied that place of Moses to his purpose Quest. 12. By what occasion Moses maketh mention in that place of the Gospel and of the meaning of the words 1. Origen thinketh that Moses and the Apostles intendment is this to shew that Christ is euerie where that he is not onely in heauen and in earth but in euerie place to the same purpose Haymo he instructeth vs by these words ne putemus Christum localem esse that we should not thinke that Christ is confined to a place But this is not to the Apostles purpose for of this
and of the Apostles by Christ excepting Paul whereas for the former the text saith that Ionas fled from the presence of the Lord that called him who were called extraordinarily if the Apostles were not both in respect of the caller which was Christ God in the flesh and of their extraordinarie and miraculous gifts Now the ordinarie calling is in a Church alreadie setled and constituted the extraordinarie when a Church is to be setled and it is of two sorts either when there is no Church at all as the Apostles were sent vnto the Gentiles who were altogether straungers from God or when the Church is wholly corrupted with false doctrine and corrupt manners as the Prophets were raised vp in Israel when they were fallen to idolatrie and noâ—â— in this last age when Christians vnder Antichrist were becom idolaters God hath stirred vp many zealous preachers as Hus Hierome Luther Calvin with other excellent instruments Doct. 7. Of the peace which the Gospel bringeth v. 15. How beautifull are the feete of them which bring glad tidings of peace Whereas without Christ God was offended with the world and there was no peace but the earth was full of tribulation 2. Chron. 15.4 God by Christ reconciled the world to himselfe and sent peace according to the song of the Angels at the birth of Christ glorie to God in heauen and in the earth peace which peace is threefold first toward God in the assurance of the remission of sinnes Rom. 5.1 peace of conscience in that sinne hath no more power ouer vs to perplex and trouble our mindes and peace with our brethren of these two our Sauiour speaketh Matth. 9.57 Haue salt in your selues haue peace one with an other But whereas Christ saith he came not to send peace but debate Luk. 12.51 that is to be vnderstood of the peace of the world which hateth the light and with it the children of light can haue no peace 5. Places of controversie Controv. 1. Against inherent iustice v. 3. They beeing ignorant of the righteousnesse of God c. Stapleton Antidot p. 601. contendeth this place to be vnderstood of inherent not of iustice imputed for that which is imputed saith he is not giuen neither receiueth he any iustice to whom it is imputed onely but remaineth still wicked in himselfe Contra. 1. The righteousnesse which is inherent in a man is the righteousnesse of works which the Apostle calleth their owne righteousnesse but the righteousnesse of God is not the righteousnesse of workes but that which is of faith as the Apostle sheweth v. 6. there he calleth that the righteousnesse of faith which here he nameth the righteousnesse of God but this is no other then righteousnesse imputed now faith is imputed for righteousnesse without workes Rom. 4.5 6. thus then the argument is framed the righteousnesse of God is the righteousnesse of faith this is prooued both out of this place v. 4. and c. 3.22 the righteousnesse of God by faith but the righteousnesse of faith is by imputation c. 4.5 6. therfore the righteousnes of God is righteousnes imputed 2. That iustice is not onely giuen which is actually conferred but that also which is accounted and imputed as the debt which is freely pardoned is as fully discharged as if the debt were paied and they which are iustified by righteousnesse imputed remaine not wicked because they are counted righteous in Christ beeing iustified by faith and are sanctified in some measure and so are regenerate and become new beeing mortified vnto sinne by which their mortification and dying vnto sinne they are not iustified before God but onely by faith in Christ. Controv. 2. Against the workes of preparation which are done without faith v. 4. Christ is the ende of the law Here Chrysostome well noteth that if Christ be the end of the lawe it followeth that qui Christum non habet etsi legis iustitiam habere videatur eam tamen non habeat he which hath not Christ though he seeme to haue the righteousnesse of the lawe yet he hath it not c. without Christ then and faith in him there is no true righteousnesse before God for without faith it is impossible to please God Heb. 11.6 what is become then of the Popish workes of preparation which should goe before iustification as though a man hauing not faith yet by his workes might prepare and make himselfe fit for iustification following for all such workes which come before faith and so are not sanctified in Christ are before God no better then sinnes Controv. 3. That it is impossible for any in this life to keepe the lawe v. 5. The man that doth these things shall liue thereby 1. Hence it is euident that no man can performe the lawe in euerie point for the lawe requireth perfect obedience in all things and as he that keepeth it shall liue thereby so he that fayleth in any part thereof is vnder the curse of the lawe as S. Paul sheweth Galat. 3.10 2. If it be answeared that it is impossible to keepe the lawe by the power onely of free-will but by grace it is possible to be kept S. Iohn sheweth that euen the regenerate by grace are not without sinne 1. Ioh. 1.8 and consequently they transgresse the lawe 〈◊〉 sinne is the transgression of the lawe 1. Ioh. 3.4 3. And whereas Stapleton obiecteth antid p. 637. that then this should be a ridiculous deceitfull and idle promise He that doth these things shall liue thereby if none were able to doe them and it were like as a father should promise his sonne an inheritance if he could get a kingdome which were impossible for him to doe Contra. 1. Though the condition be impossible to vs to be fulfilled yet is it possible in Christ who hath performed the perfect obedience of the lawe 2. and though it be not possible to keepe the lawe perfectly yet by grace we are made able in some measure to keep the lawe and the rest where we faile is supplied by the perfect obedience of Christ. 3. neither is the example like for the sonne is not bound by any dutie to fulfill that condition but we are debters vnto God for the keeping of the lawe which if it be now impossible it is mans owne fault who in his creation was made righteous and endued with sufficient strength to keepe the law See further hereof Synops. Centur. 4. err 63. Contr. 4. Against the doubting of saluation v. 6. Say not in thine heart who shall ascend c. 1. The Apostle sheweth the contrarie effects of the lawe and Gospell they which depend vpon the righteousnesse of the law are continually in doubt how they shall come to heauen and how they shall escape hell but the righteousnesse of faith remooueth all these doubts because their faith is grounded vpon the word of God which teacheth them that Christ ascended into heauen for them and that he died for them they neede none other to ascend to prepare
them a way into heauen not to descend to suffer death and deliuer them from hell 2. There is not then any question remaining in the faithfull of their saluation either debitando by doubting how they shall goe to heauen or trepidando in beeing afraid of hellâ— but because our faith is not here perfect there may be some strife and wrastling in the soule betweene the assurance of faith and carnall infirmitie sometime the faithfull may aske question luctando in wrestling and striving against carnall distrust saying if God be with vs who can be against vs but at the length faith prevayleth and triumpheth resoluing that with the Apostle who shall separate vs 3. But here we must make a difference of feare faith expelleth not all feare but onely the slauish and seruile feare of hell and damnation ioyned with distrust and torment of conscience yet a filiall feare and reverent awe of God remaineth in the servants of God which is chiefely for the time past they feare to offend so gracious a God and mercifull a father they feare not for the sinnes alreadie committed which they are assured are forgiues â—â— Christ. 4. And this assurance and firme perswasion of saluation the Apostle insinuateth afterward where he speaketh in the second person to euerie faithfull person If thou shalt confesse with thy mouth c. thou shalt be saued signifying thus much that euerie one examining himselfe by the beleefe of his heart and confession of his mouth may vndoubtedly conclude that he is saued This maketh against the Popish vncertaintie and doubting of saluation Whereof see more Synops. Controv. 5. Against vnwritten traditions v. 8. This is the word of faith which we preach c. The Apostle here sheweth that the Gospel which he preached was agreeable to the Scriptures he preached no other thing then he here writeth and he writeth nothing but was consonant to the old Scriptures as Ireneâ— thus testifieth per Apostolos Evangelium pervenit ad nos c. by the Apostles the Gospell came vnto vs which they then preached but afterward by the will of God in the Scriptures they deliuered fundamentum columnam fidei nostra the foundation and piller of our faith c. lib. 3. c. 1. The Romanists then may be ashamed to flie vnto that vile and base refuge of the old Manichees to say that the Apostles preached some things and committed other to writing See Synops. Controv. 6. Against freewill v. 8. The word is neere thee c. Erasmus in his defense of freewill against Luther vrgeth this place to shew the power and strength of freewill in keeping the commandements and he presseth those other words of Moses non est suprate it is not aboue thee that is beyond thy strength Contra. 1. But the Latine translator there fayleth in the rendring of the right sense of the words which are is not hid from thee not which is not aboue thee 2. he speaketh of the facilitie of the commandements not by the power of freewill but by faith in Christ who hath fulfilled the law for vs and by whose grace we are enabled in some good measure to keepe the commandements of God which are not greeuous vnto vs which are iustified by faith and sanctified by the spirit 3. and if it be admitted that Moses there speaketh of the law his meaning onely is that the knowledge of the law was not hid from them neither was it farre off that they had neede fetch it from heauen or from the vtmost partes of the Sea it was present with them and continually in their mouth beeing rehearsed by the Priests and Levites so that nulla ignorantiae excusatio sit reliqua their remained no excuse of ignorance thus Luther answeareth Erasmus and Bellarmine also acknowledgeth that Moses there speaketh de facilitate non observandae sed cognoscendae legis of the facilitie of knowing not doing the law lib. 5. de grat c. 6. Controv. 7. Against Limbus Patrum that Christ went not downe thither to deliuer the Patriarkes v. 7. Say not who shall descend into the deepe that is to bring Christ againe from the dead the ordinarie glosse would inferre vpon these words that Christ descended into Limbus to fetch the Fathers from thence for he that saith who hath descended in a manner denieth that none descended thither and so not the Patriarks and consequently neither Christ who descended not nisi pro illis liberandis but to deliuer them Contra. 1. But Lyranus refuseth this interpretation vpon these two reasons because it is neither agreeable to that place of Moses Deuter. 30. which will beare no such sense nor yet vnto the words following where he expoundeth the descending into the deepe of the raysing of Christ from the dead v. 9. 2. Some of our owne expositors doe interpret this clause descending into the deepe thus that Christ subierit inferâ—â— dolores hath vndergone the verie dolours of hell for vs Calvin Martyr expoundeth it of the place of hell as if one of curiositie should aske who should goe downe to hell to certifie vs that Christ hath ouercome hell and damnation for vs. some vnderstand it of the graue as Lyranus Osiander to say who shall descend into the deepe is all one as to denie that Christ is risen from the dead but Moses for the deepe saith Sea which cannot properly be taken for the graue Some thinke that by going to heauen and descending to the deepe are meant things of great difficultie and impossible to shew that the Gospel requireth no such thing of vs to goe to heauen or hell Faius But beside this last it may be added further that by the confession of the death of Christ we are consequently deliuered from the feare of descending to hell that is of beeing condemned because by Christs death we are deliuered from the feare of hell so that he which remaineth stil fearefull of hell doubteth of the truth of Christs death and resurrection to this purpose Pareus See before qu. 12. Controv. 8. Whether the righteousnesse of faith and the righteousnesse of the law be one and the same or contrarie the one to the other 1. Stapleton affirmeth them to be the same Antidot p. 618. by these arguments 1. the law leadeth vs to no other righteousnesse but to the righteousnesse of the law but it leadeth also to faith in Christ therefore faith in Christ is that righteousnesse 2. the end of the law is the righteousnesse of the law and Christ is the end of the law therefore faith in Christ is the end of of the law 3. that which is perfect and imperfect doe not differ in kind as an infant and a man of perfect age the iustice of the law is imperfect the iustice of faith perfect they then differ no otherwise Contra. 1. The law directly intendeth the iustice of the law and indirectly it leadeth vnto Christ so it is false that it leadeth and directeth onely to the iustice of the law it
or by the law and the Apostle herein maketh no difference 4. And as for that exact righteousnesse which the law requireth which indeed is that which is called iustitia legis the righteousnesse of the law it is no otherwise fulfilled in vs then by faith in Christ Rom. 8.4 the faithfull also receiue grace by the spirit of sanctification to keepe the law in some measure but they are said rather to walke according to the law and in Saint Iohns phraise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the commandements then to fulfill or keepe the law and commandements Controv. 10. That Baptisme doth not giue or conferre grace v. 8. This is the word of faith c. The ordinarie glosse out of Augustine doth inferre hence and out of that place Ioh. 15.1 Yee are cleane through the word c. that it is not the water which saueth in baptisme but the word for he saith not ye are cleane because of baptisme but through the word detrahe vorbum c. take away the word and what is water but water accedat verbum ad elementum c. let the word come to the element and it becommeth a Sacrament vnde est ista tanta virtius aquae c. where is this great vertue of the water that it toucheth the bodie and the heart is washed nisi faciente verbo c. but because the word worketh not because it is rehearsed but beleeued c. this iudgement of Augustine here cited in the glasse is agreeable to Saint Pauls doctrine Ephes. 5.26 cleansing it by the washing of water through the word the water then washeth not of it selfe but by the word then the element it selfe-confesseth not grace as the Romanists hold See further Synops. Centur. 2. err 69. Controv. 11. Against the dissembling of our faith and profession v. 9. If thou shalt confesse with thy mouth c. It is then necessarie to confesse the faith of Christ which is beleeued in the heart contrarie to the opinion of the Libertines which renew the old error of the Priscillianists and Carpocratian heretikes which thought it lawfull to dissemble their faith before the Magistrate so doe the familie of loue the Libertines of these daies and such carnall Gospellers which thinke it sure for them to goe vnto the Popish Masse and other superstitious rites keeping their conscience to themselues they are the Nicodemites of these daies But the Apostle reprooueth them all requiring this as necessarie vnto saluation to confesse Christ with the mouth And our Sauiour saith that who so is ashamed of him here he will be ashamed of him in his kingdome Markâ—â—â— 38. Controv. 12. That faith is not onely in the vnderstanding The Romanists as namely Bellarmine doe affirme that faith onely hath the seate in the intellectuall part lib. 1. de iustificat c. 6. and so they hold faith to be an act onely of the vnderstanding Rhemist annot 2. Cor. 13. sect 1. But the contrarie is euident here the Apostle saith with the heart man beleeueth c. now the heart is not the seate of vnderstanding but of the affections and yet the heart is taken according to the phrase of Scripture not for that vitall part of the bodie but for the soule and all the faculties thereof wherefore though knowledge and vnderstanding be requisite vnto faith yet the principall part thereof is an assured confidence and beleefe which is in the heart and affections not in the braine onely and vnderstanding See further Centur. 4. err 48. Controv. 13. The Scriptures the onely sufficient rule of faith v. 11. For the Scripture saith c. S. Paul hether to hath prooued the whole doctrine of saith by him deliuered by the testimonie of Scripture and Act. 26.22 he professeth that he taught none other things then Moses and the Prophets did we are then onely in matters of faith to haue recourse vnto the Scriptures not vnto vnwritten traditions whether the Papists would send vs for they are vncertaine mutable variable and therefore can be no rule of faith And further whereas the Apostle addeth the Scripture saith as before c. 9.17 hereby that cauill of the Iesuites is remooued which say that the Scripture is mute and dumbe and cannot be a iudge of controversies but the Apostle saith the Scripture speaketh that is God speaketh in the Scriptures and it speaketh and proclaimeth the truth to euery one therefore it is not a dumbe but a speaking iudge and therefore is sufficient to determine all controversies of religion and matters of faith See further Synos Centur. 1. err 5. Controv. 14. How the Apostle saith there is no difference betweene the Iew and the Grecian v. 12. Obiect The Apostle before gaue the prioritie vnto the Iewes c. 1.17 to the Iew first and also to the Grecian how then doth he say here there is no difference Ans. 1. We must distinguish the times there was in the old Testament a difference made because the Lord then had made choise onely of Israel before all the people in the world but now vnder the kingdome of the Messiah this difference is taken away Christ hath broken downe the wall of partâ—ing and of both made all one so distingue tempora concilaibis Scripturas distinguish the times and you shall reconcile the Scripture Pareus 2. Adde hereunto that because euen at the first preaching of the Gospel the Iewes had a preheminencie and the Gospel was first offered vnto them the distinction of times will not fully satisfie the Iews were not preferred quoad bona gratia in respect of spiritual grace but quoad praerogativam c. in respect of some prerogatiues they had which S. Paul sheweth what they were Rom. 3.2 and c. 9.5.6 Gorrhan Controv. 15. Against the maintainers of Vniversall grace Obiect Whereas the Apostle saith v. 12. rich vnto all he may seeme to fauour their opinion which hold that God hath vniuersally and indifferently decreed to shewe mercie vnto all and so in his owne purpose he hath not reiected any Answ. We must vnderstand the Apostle here not to speake absolute absolutely of all in generall but with these two qualifications he speaketh of all distributive by way of distribution all both Iewes and Gentiles he is rich to all not in particular but of what nation or kindred whatsoeuer Iew or Gentile for that the Apostle taketh vpon him to prooue that not to the Iewes onely but to the Gentiles also the promises of mercie in Christ doe belong secondly the Apostle nameth all limitate with a certaine limitation vnto all that call vpon him that is all beleeuers for they onely call vpon God that doe beleeue in him Controv. 16. That faith iustifieth not by the act thereof but onely as it apprehendeth Christ. Whereas the Apostle saith v. 13. Whosoeuer calleth vpon the name of the Lord shall be saâ—â—â—â— c. Bellarmine would hence inferre that faith doth not iustifie relative by way of reâ—ation vnto Christ by beleeuing in him but
doe by their imprecation inflict that punishment which is appointed of God 3. The things must be considered which are wished vnto any by these imprecations they are either temporall which may tend vnto their amendment as Ps. 89.16 fil their faces with shame that they may seek thy name these imprecations are more tollerable which a man sometime wisheth against himselfe that he may be afflicted with some crosse or other rather then to fall into sinne or they are eternall but euerlasting destruction cannot be denounced against any without Gods speciall warrant 4. The persons are to be distinguished which are cursed they are such of whom there is hope of amendment or such as are in a desperate state and professed enemies to God and godlines against whom such imprecations doe lie as S. Iohn will not haue vs to pray for those whom we see to sinne vnto death 1. epist. c. 5. 5. The manner and kind of imprecations must also be looked into some are extraordinarie whereunto men were directed by a propheticall and extraordinarie spirit of the lawfulnesse of such imprecations there is no question or ordinarie wherein these circumstances must be considered 1. the persons that curse they must thereunto be called as the publike Magistrate or minister and parents in their families 2. the persons that are cursed must be intractable and incorrigible and refuse all wholesome admonition 3. the manner must be this they must not curse absolutely but with a condition that such may be converted or confounded 4. with what affection not hating their persons but detesting their vices against the which they open their mouthes to curse Now in Dauids imprecation all the things before requited concurred it was Gods cause he had a propheticall spirit they were professed enemies to God the reasons before alleadged doe conclude only against priuate curses in our owne cause against persons not desperately euill and without any speciall direction Quest. 13. Of the ende of the stumbling of the Iewes v. 11. v. 11. Haue they stumbled that they should fall c. 1. Chrysostome here obserueth well the Apostles wisedome that when he speaketh of the execation and reiection of the Iewes he alleadgeth Scripture least he might be thought to speake of euil will consolationem à seipso ponit but the consolation he bringeth in his owne name that his loue toward them might appeare as here ye sheweth a double ende of their stumbling one that thereby saluation might come vnto the Gentiles the other that by the calling of the Gentiles the Iewes againe might be provoked and stirred vp to beleeue in Christ the first end serueth to beat downe the pride and insolencie of the Gentiles the other to comfort the Iewes that they should not thinke their fall to be irrecouerable 2. Haue they stumbled c. 1. The Latine translator addeth haue they so stumbled that they should fall which Tolet iustifieth and would haue the meaning to be this nor that the ende of the falling of the Iewes should be the calling of the Gentiles but that their fall was not without recouerie and Origen hath the like obseruation shewing here the diuerse kinds of falling some fall and neuer rise againe as Lucifer who shall neuer no not in the end of the world be restoared the fall of others is recouerable as here the Iewes did not so stumble vt ab omni legis observantia declinarent to decline from the whole obseruation of the law 2. But Erasmus well obserueth that here the Apostle speaketh not de magnitudine lapsus sed de eventu of the greatnes of their fal but of the euent for the Apostle throughout this whole epistle doth exaggerate the sinne of their incredulitie neither is this particle so in the originall neither doe the Greek expositors Chrysost. Theoph. Oecumen insert it 3. yet this must be added further to Erasmus observation that the calling of the Gentiles was not onely the euent which followed the incredulitie of the Iewes but it was the ende and scope for the which God suffered the Iewes to fall for this event must not be seuered from the providence of God Beza annot 4. nor yet is this question so propounded as though the Iewes did stumble and fall with any such intention to profit the Gentiles as Gryneus seemeth to note no man that is in his right minde will hurt himselfe which the Iewes should haue done if they of purpose had stumbled to fall But Photius obserueth that the Iewes as much as in them lay did so stumble vt corruerent to fall altogether nec sic affecti sunt c. neither were they so affected that any good should come thereby to themselues or others sed Deus illorum casu c. but God vsed their fall both for the saluation of the Gentiles and their owne emendation 5. Theophylact must here also be warily and aduisedly read the Iewes are not so fallen vt se nequeant quando velint attollere that they can not raise vp themselues againe when they will c. for this were as though the Iewes of purpose had fallen that the Gentiles might come in and then they would returne againe neither is it in any mans power to returne when he will for ones conuersion is as life from the dead v. 13. as one can not raise himselfe from the dead so neither can he conuert and turne vnto God 6. Haymo and Augustine before him put in the word solum onely that is they haue not stumble onely to fall as though no good should come thereby but God did not suffer them to stumble at all to fall God propounded not to himselfe their fall as an end of their stumble for God delighteth not in the destruction of any but God respected two singular good ends in the fall of the Iewes the vocation of the Gentiles and their owne conuersion Pareus Quest. 14. How the stumbling and falling of the Iewes brought salvation to the Gentiles v. 11. Through their fall salvation commeth to the Gentiles 1. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not well here translated delictum as the Latin interpreter which Anselme interpreteth peccatum sinne and vnderstandeth it of that speciall sinne of the Iewes in putting Christ to death so also Gorrhan but it here signifieth rather lapsum their fall as Erasmus well noteth to answear vnto the former question haue they stumbled that they should fall so also Tolet annot 9. 2. But we must not thinke that the fall of the Iewes was properly the cause of the calling of the Gentiles but it was the occasion rather for euill is not of it selfe the cause of that which is good but God by his power draweth good out of euill for otherwise as Lyranus alledgeth out of Augustine in his Euchiridion Deus non permitteret mala sieri nisi inde eliceret maior a bona God would neuer suffer euill to be vnlesse he did thereout draw greater good This is like as Pet. Martyr resembleth it
there is here a traiection of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that so whereas the words stand in this order in the originall by your mercie that they may obtaine mercie they must be placed thus that by your mercie they may obtaine mercie the verie like traiection of this verie word see 2. Cor. 2.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but my loue that ye may know for but that you may know my loue thus also Beza here and Tolet annot 23. addeth this reason why those words for your mercie should not be ioyned with the former clause so now haue they not beleeued but with the latter that they may also obtaine mercie that one part of this comparison may answear another as he said before you haue receiued mercie through their vnbeleefe so now it followeth that they also should receiue mercie through your mercie And Chrysostome sheweth the reason why it is said that you should receiue mercie through their mercie not through their vnbeleefe because ye the Gentiles shall not be so saued vt quemadmodum Iudaei exire debeatis that as the Iewes you should goe out or fall away again sed vt illos manendo per aemulationem attrahatis but that ye may draw them on by continuing in the faith 4. This then is the force of the Apostles argument 1. There are three things compared with three the vnbeleefe of the Gentiles with the vnbeleefe of the Iewes the mercie which the Gentiles receiued in time past with the mercie which the Iewes shall receiue and then the occasions of both are set one against the other the occasion of the mercie shewed to the Gentiles was the vnbeleefe of the Iewes and occasion of mercie shewed to the Iewes was mercie extended to the Gentiles by the which the Iewes were prouoked to emulation Par. 2. The argument is from the lesse to the greater if the infidelitie of the Iewes was the occasion of mercie to the Gentiles much more the mercie shewed to the Gentiles shall be an occasion of shewing mercie to the Iewes for there is a greater force in that which is good then in that which is euill Gryveus and if the Gentiles which neuer beleeued were called to the saith much more like is it that the Iewes which had bin sometime beleeuers should returne to their former saith Tolet. Quest. 31. How God hath concluded and shut vp all in vnbeleefe v. 32. 1. Not that God inijcerit ijs incredulitatem did cast vpon them incredulitie hoc explodendum est this conceite must he exploded of all Origen God is no way the author of euill Photius 2. Nor yet is the Lord said to shut them vp onely permittendo in suffering them to be incredulous Origen glosse ordinarie Tolet Gorrhan for God is to be considered here not as a patient onely and sufferer but as an agent in some sort and a iust iudge 3. Chrysostome thus interpreteth he shut vp all that is demonstrauit incredulos he hath shewed them to be incredulous in which sense the Apostle saith Gal. 3.22 The Scripture hath concluded all vnder sinne c. that is the law serueth to reueale sinne as Saint Paul saith Rom. 3.20 By the law commeth the knowledge of sinne But this is not all for the iudge doth not onely declare and giue sentence against the malefactor and bring his offence to light but he also condemneth him and seeth his sentence be executed vpon him 3. Hierome in the Commentarie vnder his name saith God hath shut vp all non vi sed ratione not by force but by good reason which reason is thus expressed by Oecumenius vt alios per aliorum seruaret contentionem that he might saue some by the prouocation of others the ordinarie glosse giueth this reason vt gratia numeris esset gratissima that the gift of grace might be most acceptable c. when they are brought as it were out of prison vnto libertie But although Gods iudgements proceed with great reason and equitie yet God doth not euill that good may come thereof the reason and way then yet appeareth not how God is said to conclude all vnder sinne 4. Wherefore it remaineth that God is said to shut vp men in vnbeleefe as in a prison in punishing them as a iust iudge with the fetters as it were and gives of their owne blindnes and hardenes of heart as it is said c. 1.26 God gaue them vp to vile affections and c. 11.8 God hath giuen them the spirit of slumber like as a iudge doth inflict imprisonment vpon offenders and restraint of libertie so men are kept in the prison of infidelitie by the iustice of God their sinnes so deseruing But here is the difference ciuill imprisonment is for sinne yet it is not sinne but spirituall imprisonment in blindnes and vnbeleefe is sinne and God after a wonderfull and secret manner yet most iustly doth punish sinne with sinne as Augustine saith Quis dicat Achabum non peccasse credendo spiritui mendaci c. who can say that Ahab sinnned not in beleeuing the false spirit and who will say that sinne was not the punishment of sinne venientem de iudicio Dei proceeding from the iudgement of God lib. 5. c. 3. contra Iulian. And further here is great difference betweene these two for God to be author of shutting vp vnder vnbeleefe and of the shutting vp of vnbeleefe the first God in his iustice causeth the other man is the cause of himselfe Quest. 32. Of the Apostles exclamation v. 33. The deepenesse of the riches c. 1. Touching the occasion of these words 1. Origen thinketh this to be it quia alterius malitiae opus alterum vertat in salutem because he turned the malice of one to the salvation of an other as the ruine of the Iewes was the occasion of calling the Gentiles so also Chrysostome the Apostle wondreth quod contraria contrarijs curaverit because the Lord healed one contrarie by an other the Gentiles became to be beleeuers by occasion of the vnbeleeuing Iewes but the generalitie of the Apostles words speaking of the wayes of God would not be restrained vnto one particular 2. Faius vnderstandeth the whole mysterie of the Gospel the which as S. Peter saith the Angels yet desire to behold but this is too generall 3. Augustine and Haymo restraine it to this particular of the mysterie in the vocation of the Gentiles and the reiection of the Iewes 4. But beside this it may be applyed to the whole mysterie of predestination how God resecteth some and electeth others wherein humane reason must be silent Gryneus Calvin Hyperius Mart. 2. For the reading of the words 1. Some doe thus read O the deepenesse of the riches of the wisedome and knowledge of God as the vulgar latine making wisedome and knowledge to depend of riches but in this reading the Greeke coniunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and which is set betweene riches and wisedome is omitted Chrysostome inserting that word thinketh that these two
the Preacher saith Eccles. 7.22.23 Giue not thy heart to all the words that men speake c. for oftentimes thine heart knoweth that thou also hast cursed others Gryneus 8. the excellencie of this vertue should mooue vs that whereas it is an ordinarie thing to loue our friends hoc Philosophici viri est euen the Philosophers could doe that it is a rare thing for one to loue his enemies istud angeli est such a man is an angell Chrysost. nay which is more herein we are not onely like to Angles but vnto Christ himselfe who prayed for those that did persecute him 9. to conclude the inheritance of blessing is ours if we blesse but if we curse ad nos non pertinebit benedictionis inberitas the inheritance of blessing shall not appertaine vnto vs See 1. Pet. 3.9 Pellican Quest. 23. Whether it be not lawfull vpon any occasion to pray against our enemies It is euident that both the Prophets sometime cursed their enemies as Elisha did the children that railed on him 2. King 2. and Dauid saith in the Psalmes as he is alleadged by S. Paul c. 11.10 Let their eyes be darkened and bowe downe their backe alwayes as likewise the Apostles as S. Peter cursed Simon Magus thy money perish with thee Act. 8. and S. Paul Elymas the sorcerer Act. 13.10 O full of all subtiltie and mischiefe the child of the deuill c. wherefore all imprecations are not Iawfull wherein these cautions must be obserued 1. Here the men of God when they vse imprecations and curses non respiciunt suam causam aut suas iniurias doe not looke vnto their owne cause nor their priuate iniuries but they consider how the glorie of God is hindered by the wicked and in that regard they pray against them as Dauid did against Achitophel yet he was most patient in his owne particular when Shemei reuiled him so first the cause must be considered it must not be priuate but publike Mart. 2. It must be considered with what spirit they are mooued which vse imprecations for the Prophets which vsed cursing did it ex speciali vocatione spiritus sancti insâ—â—â—iu by a speciall vocation and the instinct of the spirit Osiand and such curses as Augustine saith non sunt de malo voto imprecantis sed de praescio spiritu denuntiantis proceede not of the euill desire of the curser but of the foreseeing spirit of the denouncer lib. 16. contra Faustum cap. 22. 3. They must be considered who are accursed then the Prophets vsed to curse quando aliquos incurabiles deploratos esse vident when they sawe any to be incurable and past all hope Gualter they cursed onely those which were professed enemies of God and godlinesse 4. Adde hereunto the ende which one propoundeth to himselfe in his cursing it must not bee done livore vindictae with desire of reuenge but zelo iustitiae with zeale of iustice Gorrhan for like as iusta impiorum vltio c. the iust reuenge of the wicked agreeth vnto God who is charitie it selfe so in the zeale of iustice one may pray for the punishment of the wicked and not therein offend not beeing pricked forward with a revengefull minde in himselfe but looking to Gods iustice as our Blessed Sauiour by himselfe weepeth ouer Ierusalem because they knewe not the time of their visitation at idem cum agit cum partre but when he hath to deale with his father then he thanketh him that he had revealed those things to babes and hid them from the wise and prudent Matth. 11.25 Olevian So we of our owne priuate inclination should be readie to extend our loue vnto our enemies but God must be loued aboue all and when we set before vs his glorie and iustice we may safely pray for the remoouing of all impediments These cautions obserued all imprecations are not simply to be condemned See this question handled before also c. 11. quest 12. Quest. â—2 Whether Saint Paul in calling Ananias the high Priest painted wall Act. 23. obserueth his owne precept here 1. Oecumenius vpon that place thinketh that the high Priest was well enough knowne vnto S. Paul but that he per quandam dispensationem simulasse ignorantiam by a certaine dispensation did saine ignorance which if it be done in time and place is not faultie at all But this cannot stand with the Apostles grauitie and integritie to affirme that which was not true for then he should haue beene guiltie of a lie 2. Augustine hath an other answear lib. de serm Dom. c. 35. which Beda followeth that Paul spake figuratiuely that Christ beeing come the high Priesthood of the lawe was abolished as if he should haue said ego alium agnosco sacerdotem c. I acknowledge an other high Priest for whose name I doe beare these things whom it is not lawfull to curse But this had beene likewise farre from the Apostles simplicitie and howsoeuer he were not high Priest de iure in right yet he was de facto in fact at that time therefore this could not haue excused him 3. Augustine hath an other answear haec verba minus intelligentibus convitium sonant intelligentibus prophetiae est these words to them that vnderstand not seeme to be rayling but to those that rightly vnderstand them they are a prophesie c. so also Beda obserueth because the Apostle doth say in the indicatiue moode God shall strike thee not in the optatiue God strike thee so also Faius saith it is praedictio non imprecatio a prediction not an imprecation But although these words God will strike thee are a prediction yet that other tearme painted wall may seeme by S. Pauls answear to haue beene not farre from reviling which some thinke Paul would haue forborne if he had knowne him to be the high Priest 4. Caietan thinketh that S. Paul knewe him not to be the high Priest but yet he could not be ignorant that he was the iudge at that time yet it was lawfull for Paul by his Apostolike authoritie to denounce the curse of God against an vnrighteous iudge but at that time it was not expedient and therefore he alleadgeth the lawe not to excuse his sinne sed ad excusandum factum but to excuse his fact that he did it ignorantly But it was not lawefull by the lawe for an Apostle or any other to reuile the Iudge and the Apostle in citing the lawe maketh himselfe subiect to the lawe and as it was not expedient so neither was it lawfull for any to reuile the iudge 5. Beza here hath this answer 1. he thinketh that Ananias was not high Priest at all vnder Felix as he sheweth out of Iosephus but that one Ismael or Iosephus was high Priest to whom Ananias left nothing but a bare title but he vsuped the office of the high Priest 2. he saith it was no imprecation but a denouncing of the punishment as the Greeke phrase sheweth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it shall
God 2 Whosoeuer therefore setteth himselfe against the power resisteth B.G.L. but there is an other word for that afterward resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receiue to themselues condemnation iudgement V. 3 For rulers B. magistrates G. Be. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not to be feared are not a feare Gr. for good works but for euill wilt thou then not feare be without feare G. the power doe well so shalt thou haue praise of the same 4 For he is the minister of God for thy good wealth B.G. but if thou doe euill feare for he beareth not the sword in vaine without cause L. for nought G. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he is the minister of God and reuenger for wrath to take vengeance G. on him that doth euill 5 Wherefore it is necessarie to be subiect not because of wrath onely but also for conscience sake 6 For for this cause pay ye also tribute for they are Gods ministers bending themselues seruing L.B. applying themselues G. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with force and strength applying see c. 12.12 to the same purpose 6 Giue vnto all men their dutie tribute to whome ye owe tribute custome to whom custome feare to whome feare honour to whom honour 8 Owe nothing to any man but to loue one an other for he that loueth an other his neighbour L.S. hath fulfilled the Law 9 For this Thou shalt not commit adulterie Thou shalt not kill Thou shalt not steale Thou shalt not beare false witnesse Thou shalt not couet and if there be any other commandement it is briefly comprehended capitulated Gr. not restoared L. fulfilled S. in this saying namely B.Be. in this Gr. Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe 10 Charitie doth not euill to the neighbour therefore is charitie the fulfilling of the Law 11 And that considering knowing Gr. the season that it is now time the houre Gr. that we should be raised awake B. from sleeepe for now is saluation nearer vs better then our saluation is nearer L.B.G. then when we beleeued 12 The night is past on passed before L. praecessit but it is better interpreted processit is past on Be. and the day is approached is atiband G. is come nigh B. let vs therefore cast away the works of darknes and put on the armour of light the habit which beseemeth the light Be. ad 13 So that we walke honestly as in the day not in ryoting Be. or gluttonie G. in musike S. or drunkennes neither in chambring and wantonnes nor in strife and envying 14 But put ye on the Lord Iesus Christ and take no care make no perswasion Gr. B. for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof 2. The Argument method and parts IN this Chapter from the generall exhortation to the offices of charitie the Apostle commeth vnto particular duties as vnto the Magistrate and then falleth againe into the commendation of loue dehorting from grosse vices and corruptions of life so then of this chapter there are three parts 1. the first of dutie to be exhibited to the magistrate to v. 8. 2. of loue in generall v. 8 9 10. 3. the exhortation is extended from v. 11. to the ende 1. In the first the proposition is expressed v. 1. euery soule must be subiect to the magistrate which is confirmed by diuers reasons 1. from the author or efficient cause which is God amplified by the contrarie that may which resist magistrates resist against the ordinance of God 2. from the effects the punishment of those which disobey v. 2. 3. from the double ende of magistracie or gouernment the praise of wel-doers v. 3. and the punishment of them that doe euill v. 4. 4. from the inconuenience that ensueth he that disobeieth violateth a good conscience therefore for conscience sake we must be subiect v. 5. 5. from a part to the whole they pay tribute therefore they must yeeld obedience also in other things v. 6. 6. ab aequo from the equitie of it we must pay vnto all that which is due but subiection is due vnto the magistrate as he prooueth by diuers particulars v. 7. Ergo. 2. In the second part the Apostle exhorteth vnto mutuall loue 1. from the rule of equitie it is a common debt which one oweth vnto an other 2. from the effects it is the fulfilling of the law v. 8. which he prooueth 1. by a particular induction v. 9. 2. by remoouing of the contrarie effects loue doth none euill vnto our neighbour therefore it is the fulfilling of the law 3. Then the Apostle concludeth with a generall dehortation from certaine vices which is ioyned with an exhortation to the contrarie vertues And the same is either generall vrged by two arguments 1. one taken from the state of the regenerate saluation is nearer now then before v. 11. 2. the other from the circumstance of time which is propounded figuratiuely the night is past and the day is come v. 12. Then the particular exhortation followeth v. 13. with a dehortation from the contrarie vices and so he concludeth againe generally concerning both v. 14. 3. The questions and doubts discussed 1. Quest. Of the occasion which mooued the Apostle in this chapter to entreat of the dutie of subiects to the Magistrate 1. Chrysostome thinketh that the Apostle hauing treated in the former chapter of patience and not rendring euill for euill doth very oppotunely now mooue obedience vnto the Magistrate multo enim magis illis qui benefaciunt c. for much more ought we to obey them which deserue well of vs if we should not be auenged of them which doe euill 2. Beside he giueth an other reason that whereas the Christians had in those daies many troubles tentations and trialls it was needlesse van as tentationes superaddere to adde vaine idle tentations and occasions of trouble namely in resisting the Magistrates 3. Calvin thinketh that this precept was added especially because of the Iewes to whom it seemed a very vnmeete thing that progenies Abraha in servitute maneret that the progenie of Abraham should remaine in seruitude vnder heathen gouernors the same reason is touched by Peter Martyr 4. Pareus addeth that S. Pauls doctrine concerning Christian libertie as he said before c. 6. we are not vnder the law but vnder grace might haue beene misconstrued as though Christiās should not be subiect to ciuil laws therfore he seasonably vrgeth ciuil obediēce 5. Adde hereunto that the Christians were defamed as enemies vnto the policie of Commonwealths and ciuill Magistracie which false surmise was the cause of the persecuting of Christians as Clemens Alexandrin lib. 4. stromat therefore the Apostle to giue satisfaction to the Gentiles thus exhorteth this mooued Iustinus Martyr in his 2. apologie vnto Antonius the Emperor to cleare the Christians by many arguments of this surmised imputation Tolet. 6. And further whereas the Apostle before had taught that Christians should not avenge themselues some might haue gathered thereupon that it
rule and line of all iust lawes secondly the end and scope of lawes must be to suppresse vice and maintaine vertue the lawmaker must intend the publike good and not his private gaine thirdly for the extent of these lawes they must include all some must not be bound vnto the lawes and others free and therefore it is dangerous to giue priuiledges and immunities to some persons by vertue whereof they may without checke and controlment transgresse the lawes Papintanus is worthie of honourable memorie who choose rather to die then to excuse the parricide of Antonius Bassianus the Emperour 2. As good lawes must first be made so iudgement must be exercised according to those lawes that the iust case may be discerned from the false and good men from the euill Antishenes was wont to say that those commonwealths were declining wherein boni à malis nihil differunt good men did nothing differ from euill Now in the processe of iudgement these rules must be obserued 1. that the Iudge be willing to admit all complaints and to take knowledge of all causes and aggrevances this was the fault of Sauls governement that the oppressed could not haue iustice which made many that were aggreved to flocke and haue recourse vnto Dauid Absalom did not more insinuate himselfe into the hearts of the people then in shewing his affabilitie in hearing the griues and complaints of them In forren histories Philip King of Macedon was killed by Pausanias because he reiected his suite to haue iustice against Attalus that had wronged him and after laughed him to scorne and Demetrius of Macedon did much alienate the hearts of his people because he neglected their complaints and would cast their bils of supplication from the bridge of Axium into the riuer secondly after diligent inquisition of the cause there must be iust iudgment giuen without partiallitie feare fauour or any other sinister affection see Levit. 19.15 among the Thebanes a Iudge was pictured blindfold and without hands to signifie that he neither should be lead by partiall affection in iudgement or corrupted with bribes and the Athenians had a lawe that causes should be handled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without proems and prefaces to stirre vp affection 3. After iudgement must followe execution for otherwise the lawes are in vaine and iudgement according to the lawes if they be not put into execution where these two things must be obserued 1. that the execution be not too remisse for it is profitable often for the offender himselfe to be punished thereby to be brought vnto repentance who otherwise might continue in his sinne as the theife conuerted vpon the crosse was prepared by that ignominious punishment vnto repentance and it is good for the example and admonition of others that punishment be inflicted vpon the offenders 2. yet the punishment must not be hastened too much or be too severely adiudged but with such moderation as that the partie which suffereth be not in hazard of loosing both soule and bodie 2. Concerning the vse of the sword in warring and waging of battell 1. it is out of doubt that it is lawfull for the Magistrate to take in hand iust and lawfull warre for Abraham recouered Lot by force from them which had taken him captiue the Centurions faith is commended in the Gospell by our Sauiour and if it be the Magistrates office and part to defend euerie particular person from wrong much more the whole people 2. but warre must be enterprised not rashly or suddenly but with deliberation and not without waightie and vrgent cause 1. as when either the Magistrate is bound by some league to helpe his confederates as Ioshua did the Gibeonites 2. or when the enemies offer to invade the countrey they must by the Magistrates force be kept off as Dauid often encountred the Philistims that assaulted Israel 3. and in the quarrell of religion and defence of the truth the Magistrate may fall to battell as the other tenne tribes had thought to haue warred against Ruben Gad and the halfe tribe of Manasseh for setting vp an altar fearing that they had declined from the true worship of God Iosh. 22. Quest. 13. How it is said it is necessarie to be subiect for conscience sake v. 5. Therefore it is necessarie ye should be subiect 1. first some reade be ye subiect vnto the necessitie diuinae dispositionis of the diuine ordinance and so put necessitie in the datiue Gorrhan 2. the vulgar Latine which many followe put necessitie in the ablatiue necessitate subditi estote be subiect of necessitie but both these readings are diuerse from the originall where the word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be ye subiect in the imperatiue but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be subiect in the infinitiue as both Beza and Erasmus well observe so then the best reading is it is necessarie to be subiect 3. which neither must be vnderstood of a compelling necessitie as the interlin gloss quasi ex necessitate as of necessitie because he cannot excutere iugum Principis shake off the yoke of the Prince nor yet as Augustine is it referred to the necessitie of this life because we must necessarily vse temporall things as long as we are in this world which it is in the Magistrates power to depriue vs of but we vnderstand rather obligationem praecepti the bond of the precept which is of necessitie to be kept so that it is not a free thing whether men will be subiect or no but it is necessarie both in respect of the wrath and reuenge of the power and for conscience sake toward God so in effect here are three reasons couched together why we should be subiect to the Magistrate in respect of God it is his ordinance of the Magistrate because of wrath and punishment of our selues that we wound not our conscience the first is honestum honest the second vtile profitable the third delectabile pleasant and delightfull But also for conscience 1. Ambrose referreth this conscience to the feare of punishment in the world to come that men should not obey onely for feare of present punishment but because of the iudgement to come 2. Chrysostome applyeth this to the conscience of the great benefits which we receiue by the Magistrate that he which is disobedient offendeth against his conscience in beeing vnthankefull 3. Lyranus vnderstandeth it of the particular conscience which euerie man ought to haue debitum reddere to render that which he oweth to an other 4. Tolet interpreteth it of the conscience of other sinnes which they that are lawlesse and disobedient are apt to fall vnto 5. Hugo of the conscience quae naturaliter dictat c. which naturally suggesteth vnto a man that the superior is to be obeyed 6. Erasmus of an others conscience which is offended by the euill example of the disobedience 7. but here the conscience of the diuine precept must be vnderstood which to obey bringeth peace of
and equitie to his subiects and forceth them to Idolatrie and false religion 2. if that without such defence they cannot be safe their liues bodies and consciences 3. that vnder pretence of such defense they seeke not their owne reuenge with other respects vnto themselues 4. that all things be done with moderation not to the vndoeing of the state but the preseruation of it his reasons are these 1. From the institution of God and the end of the ordinance of Magistracie which is to be auenged of euill doers and for the praise of the good they doe not beare the sword for naught the inferiour Magistrates then hauing the sword may exercise their power in restraining the tyrannie of superior gouernours and for this cause inferiour Magistrates are ioyned with the superior not onely as helpers but to moderate their licentious and outragious gouerment and therefore where they bridle the insolencie of Tyrants vtuntur gladio per legitimam vocationem diuinitus sibi tradito they vse the sword deliuered vnto them from God by a lawfull vocation 2. Like as a furious and mad man may be remooued from the gouerment as Nabuchadnezer was cast forth by publike authoritie Dan. 4.31 so a Tyrant also who differeth not from a mad and furious man 3. They which haue power to constitute the Magistrate as where they enter by election of the Senat consent of the people or by other electors appointed haue power also to restraine their immoderate gouerment 4. This is confirmed by many commendable examples out of sacred and forren stories the people resisted Saul that he should not put Ionathan his sonne to death 1. Sam. 14.45 the Israelites in the time of the Iudges often were deliuered by their Iudges whom God raised vp from their oppressors Athalias was remooued from her tyrannicall gouernment 2. kin 11. the Macchabees defended thēselues and their country against the rage and furie of the Syrian Kings the Romans expelled their vitious Kings so did they depose their cruell Emperors as Nero Maximinus Traianus is commended for that saying when he gaue the sword vnto a chiefe officer hoc pro me vtere si iusta imperavero contra me si iniusta c. vse that for me if I command iust things and against me if vniust The Prince Electors remooued Wencelaus a man giuen to idlenes and luxurious life from the Empire in his stead appointing Rupertus the Countie of Palatine one of the Electors to this purpose Pareus But here certaine differences are to be obserued for where either there is an extraordinarie calling as in the time of the Iudges or where the kingdome is vsurped without any right as by Athaliah or where the land is oppressed by forren invaders as in the time of the Macchabees or where the gouernment is altogether Electiue as the Empire of Germanie in all these cases there is lesse question of resistance to be made by the generall consent of the states And yet where none of these concurre God forbid that the Commonwealth and Church should be left without remedie the former conditions obserued when either havock is made of the Commonwelth or of the Church and religion How farre priuate men may be warranted in denying obedience vnto Tyrants Here Pareus hath two propositions 1. That it is not lawfull for a priuate man without a lawfull calling to take armes either before the daunger to invade a tyrant or to defend thēselues in the time of daunger or to revenge himselfe after daunger if he may be defended by an ordinarie power c. for vnlawfully to resist the power is to resist Gods ordinance and one ought rather to die then to sinne and here that saying of the Lacedemonians taketh place si duriora morte imperetis potius moriemur if ye command things more heauie then death we will chuse rather to die 2. His other position is That it is lawfull for subiects beeing meere priuate men if a Tyrant as a theefe and violater of chastitie doe offer them violence and they neither can implore the ordinarie power nor by any other meanes escape the daunger to defend themselues and theirs for the present against a Tyrant as against a private person that maketh an assault for if it should not be lawfull to make such resistance in case of necessitie there should be no remedie left against the furious outrage of Tyrants which would tend to the vtter dissolution of humane societie and beside against whom defense by the Magistrate is lawfull in case of necessitie where that cannot be had a priuate defense is allowed for then leges armant privatos the lawes doe arme priuate men but it is lawfull for the inferior Magistrates to defend the priuate subiects in cases before limited against the furie and outrage of Tyrants Ergo c. to this purpose Pareus But this last position of his must receiue some further qualification for if a priuate man might lawfully defend himselfe when any notorious wrong is offered to him by a Tyrant men in this case should be iudges of their owne wrongs and as their iudgement is partiall in their owne case so they would take great libertie to defend themselues wherefore these conditions must further be here obserued 1. It must be considered whether in these wrongs that are offered the Tyrant doe transgresse his owne lawes if he doe then he is held to be but as privatus grassator a priuate assaulter otherwise if the lawes beare him out in these wrongs they are rather to suffer and endure then vse any resistance as the band of Christian souldiers which were put to the sword for their Christian faith at the commandement of the cruell Emperor Maximianus resisted not but yeelded themselues Otto Phrinsigens lib. 2. c. 45 because then the lawes of the Empire were for the maintenance of Idolatrie and a whole Citie of Phrygia professing Christianitie was destroyed and burnt with fire vsing no resistance Euseb. lib. 8. c. 11. 2. The subiect must wisely discerne whether he be forced to be an agent or patient in these wrongs he is rather to die then to be compelled to consent to any euill as a woman attempted by a Tyrant to adulterie should resist rather vnto death then prostitute her body but if they be patients onely and are not forced to doe any thing or consent against their conscience the case is otherwise 3. It must be also waighed wherein this wrong is offered if it be onely in the goods and substance of the subiect no resistance is to be made for the goods of the subiect are more lyeable to the command of the Magistrate then any thing beside so Naboth refused to yeeld his inheritance and patrimonie vnto Ahab but without any resistance but if a mans life be assaulted or the chastitie of his wife or the libertie and safetie of his children against all colour of law nature teacheth a man here to vse defence 4. Further the cause must be considered for the which
our neighbour when our Sauiour Christ in the Gospel speaketh of two great precepts the loue of God and of our neighbour 1. some thinke that the Apostle meaneth the fulfilling of the precepts of the second table and so M. Calvin hath one answer the Apostle in totam legem non respexit hath not respect to the whole law but onely to the duties toward our neighbours 2. Origen by this neighbour vnderstandeth Christ hunc proximum si diligamus c. if we loue this neighbour we fulfill all the law but this seemeth too curious 3. but the better answer is that the one includeth the other as S. Iohn saith How can one that loueth not his brother whome he seeth loue God whom he hath not seene 1. Ioh. 4.20 so Chrysostome alleadgeth those words of our Sauiour Peter louest thou me feede my sheepe c. the loue of God is seene then in the loue of our brother neque Deus sine proximo neque proximus sine Deo diligi potest neither is God loued without our brother nor our brother without God Haymo 3. Now the Apostle rehearseth not all the commandements but onely of the second table because he treateth of those duties which are to be performed vnto men and by the keeping of the second table it is better discerned who obserue the law then out of the first and he omitteth the first precept of the second table because he intended not to rehearse them all but supplieth them in those generall words if there be any other commandement neither doth he obserue the same order for he setteth the seuenth precept before the sixt because he purposed not to set downe the precepts neither all nor in their order but onely to giue an instance in some of them 20. Quest. How a man is to loue his neighbour as himselfe 1. Chrysostome thus expoundeth non solum dilectionem requirit sed etiam vehementem he doth not onely require loue but a vehement and earnest loue that is a man should loue his neighbour without dissimulation earnestly heartily as he loueth himselfe 2. And it comprehendeth more beside 1. no man hateth his owne flesh no more ought be to hate his neighbour 2. when any thing happeneth vnto our selues that is euill and grieuous we are sorie and troubled so should we be affected toward our brethren in their griefes 3. in our owne faults we are fauourable making the best of euery thing so we should not be rigidi austere and too censorious in sifting the infirmities of our brethren 4. in louing of our selues nunquam defatigamur we are neuer wearied so we should hold out still to loue our brethren 5. we wish all good things to our selues so should we doe to our neighbours 3. But this must be vnderstood of the naturall selfe-loue which euery man beareth toward himselfe not of that vitious loue whereby men thorough the corruption of their nature and euill custome are affected to their owne vices so a man must not loue himselfe vnto that which is euill for he that sinneth hateth his owne soule and therefore neither must one loue his neighbour as he corruptly loueth himselfe but either quia iustus aut vt sit iustus a man loueth himselfe either because he is iust or that he may be iust and so must he loue his neighbour gloss ordinar 4. Theophylact here obserueth that the Gospel requireth a more perfect loue then the Law doth namely that one should lay downe his life for his brethren but the Law biddeth vs onely to loue an other as our selues but the charitie which the lawe requireth comprehendeth this also for then a man loueth an other as himselfe when he is readie to doe that to an other which he would haue done for himselfe Math. 7.12 Now one would desire to be redeemed by an others life rather then his soule should perish so let him be affected to an other A man is not bound to giue his bodily life to redeeme an others for then he should loue him better then himselfe but to giue his bodily to deliuer an others soule from perishing is but to loue him as himselfe for so he would wish his friend to doe for him 5. But this rule taketh not away all inequalitie difference and degrees of loue for though euerie one is to be loued as our selues yet one is to be loued before an other our parents children and wiues are first to be respected in the duties of charite then strangers for S. Pauls rule is that men must first shewe godlinesse toward their owne house 1. Tim. 5.4 the qualitie of our loue is here signified that it should be simple sincere vnfained not the quantitie or the degree of our loue all are to be loued as our selues that is constantly vnfainedly hartily and yet one may be preferred before an other in our loue Quest. 21. Who is vnderstood by our neighbour 1. Origen expoundeth this neighbour to be Christ hinc ergo proximum si diligamus if then we loue this neighbour we shall fulfill the whole lawe and that Christ is our neighbour he prooueth by that parable of the Samaritane Luk. 10. who tooke the man which was wounded by theiues and laid him vpon his beast and brought him to the inne and gaue two pence to the host to see vnto him so Chirst he tooke vs vp beeing wounded of our sinnes and stripped and left naked by Sathan iumento corporis sui supposuit and laid vs vpon his bodie to be borne and brought vs ad stabulum Ecclesiae to the stable or fold of his Church and left the two pence of the old and newe Testament for the expenses of our cure and healing And he proceedeth further and sheweth how he which loueth Christ keepeth all the commandements for he whose delight is in Christ will not commit adulterie nor follow any other carnal pleasure because his delight is in Christ neither wil be steale from an other who is willing to leaue all he hath for Christ c. But Origens interpretation is too curious howsoeuer in that parable Christ may be vnderstood by that good Samaritane though euery point of the parable cannot fitly be allegorized yet it is euident that the Apostle here by neighbour vnderstandeth our brother for he speaketh of louing one an other 2. Hugo Cardinal out of Augustine here mooueth a question whether vnder this name of neighbour the Angels are comprehended and he bringeth two solutions one is that the Angels are excluded because the commandement speaketh of those qui diligendi sunt ex charitate which are to be loued in charitie but our charitie is not extended vnto the Angels the other solution is that seeing by neighbour euerie one is vnderstood vel cui praebexdum est officium miserecordiae vel à quo either to whom or from whom mercie and compassion is shewed then Angels may be well said to be our neighbours by whom we receiue so great benefits but the better answear is
prescribed was brought in And whence hath sprung the great innovation of religion in Poperie from the puritie of the ancient faith but from this that the Bishops of Rome excluding the authoritie of the Emperor first in the East and afterward in the West haue arrogated to themselues the sole authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall 4. Argum. Princes can not doe the lesse as preach the word minister the Sacraments therefore not the greater to make Ecclesiasticall lawes Ans. 1. It followeth not for though duties meerely Ecclesiasticall can not be executed by the Prince because he is not thereunto called yet externall iurisdiction he may exercise in the Church neither are these duties as the lesse and greater one to the other in the same kind they are in diuers respects both lesse and greater the preaching of the word is greater in respect of the spirituall power and the Ciuill in regard of the externall iurisdiction 2. neither is it alwaies true he that can not doe the lesse can not doe the greater where he is barred from the lesse by some defect either of right in beeing called thereunto or otherwise the thing not beseeming as in the ciuill functions it is not fit for the Prince to digge and dolve and yet he can doe the greater to make and ordaine laws so in the Church affaires he is not to preach because he wanteth a calling thereunto 5. Argum. They which can not iudge infallibly of the sense of Gods word can haue no Ecclesiasticall power Princes can not iudge Ergo. Ans. 1. The proposition is not true for neither can any Bishop iudge infallibly of the sense of Scripture nor any els since the time of the Apostles 2. but as the Pastors by prayer conference meditating vpon the Scriptures attaine to a competent measure of vnderstanding of the Scriptures sufficient to direct them so by the same meanes and by helpe of the learned the Prince also may be prepared to applie his iudiciarie power to the present necessitie of the Church 3. And I pray you what infallibilitie of iudgement hath beene in the Popes when as Iohn the 23. was condemned in the Councell of Constance for his monstrous opinions as that he should hold vitam aeternam non esse that there is no eternall life after this animam hominis cum corpore mori that the soule of man dieth with the bodie and that the bodie beeing dead shall not rise againe And seeing it hath beene often seene among them that the Pope hath made boyes and children Bishops as Bernard complained in his time scholares pueri impuberes adolescentes promoventur ad ecclesiasticas dignitates scholler boyes and beardlesse youthes are promoted to the dignities of the Church epist. 41. what infallibilitie of iudgement then can they boast of in their Clergie 6. Argum. Not the Princes and Ciuill magistrates shall giue account for the soules of the subiects but the Pastors onely Hebr. 13.17 therefore they haue no Ecclesiasticall power Ans. The argument followeth not Pastors must giue account for mens soules if they be lost by their default therefore Magistrates shall not for both shall giue account though not in the same manner the Pastors for seducing them by false doctrine the Magistrate in tolerating a corrupt worship or in making impious lawes for the maintenance of idolatrie as it is often obiected concerning Ieroboam that he made Israel to sinne And these and such like are the Aduersaries arguments against the Ecclesiasticall power of the Magistrate Now on the contrarie some arguments shall be propounded for the proofe and confirmation of the question 1. Argum. The Magistrate is the minister of God for the good of the subiect Rom. 13.5 but this good is not onely ciuill but spirituall therefore euen in spirituall things he must minister for their good the Papists will haue the Prince to be their minister and seruant indeede that he should put in execution the decrees of the Church but decree nothing himselfe but this were to giue no power at all vnto magistrats but as seruants which are commanded to doe their masters will the Prince hath a ministring power in spirituall things not a ministring seruice 2. Argum. Euery soule must be subiect to the higher power therefore euen the Ecclesiasticall state and euery person therein of what condition soeuer he be the Papists answer that they must be subiect as they are citizens and as they enioy possessions but not as they are Ecclesiasticall persons But the Apostles rule is generall euery soule must be subiect in what things soeuer so that the power which is of God be not abused against God true it is that in things meerely spirituall touching faith and doctrine they must not depend vpon the Ciuill power but as he enioyneth precepts according to the word yet in respect of the externall policie of the Church in giuing order and direction in censuring and punishing offenders and such like euen spirituall persons are subiect to the Ciuill power 3. That the Prince hath power euen in Ecclesiasticall matters shall be prooued by these particulars 1. that the cognizance and knowledge of religion is required in the Prince 2. that it belongeth vnto him by law to maintaine the truth and to inhibit all false religion 3. that he is to take order for the Ministers and Pastors that they do applie themselues faithfully to their calling and to censure them which are disorderly and exorbitant 4. that it is the Princes office to appoint Synods Councells nationall generall Prouinciall concerning Ecclesiasticall busines 1. The first is euident Deut. 17.19 where the king is commanded to read in the booke of the law all the daies of his life so also Ioshu 1.18 2. Moses prescribed vnto Israel a forme of worship Ioshua caused the people to be circumcised Iosh. 5. Dauid disposed the ministeriall offices of the Tabernacle and appointed the Leuites and Priests their orders and courses 1. Chron. 23. Hezekiah pulled downe the brasen serpent Iosias tooke away idols so did other Christian Emperors make Ecclesiasticall lawes as the first law Cunctus populus in the Code is concerning the beleefe of the Trinitie Martianus made a law against the Nestorians and Eutychians Iustinian inserteth diuers Ecclesiasticall lawes as that the Letanie should not be said by lay-men none of the Clergie beeing present Novell 123. c. 31. and that Bishops and Presbyters should rehearse the prayers in an audible voice to the vnderstanding of the people Novell 137. c. 6. and diuers such like 3. Salomon deposed Abiathar Iehosaphat appointed the Leuites to teach in the cities 2. Chron. 19. Constantinus the great heard the controversie betweene Donatus and Cecilianus and iudged it Euseb. lib. 10. c. 5. Theodosius commanded the Nestorian Bishops to be deposed leg 2. C. de sum Trinitat he appointed Nectorius to be Bishop of Constantinople Socrat. lib. 5. c. 19. Iustinian deposeth a Bishop that had a suspected woman in his house Novel 6. c. 5. yea the Bishop of
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
which belong to the first or second table 3. Some laws doe so bind in themselues and not accidentally onely in respect of the offence and not onely generally in regard of our obedience required to the Magistrate in all lawfull things but in particular in the very thing commanded yet not as a part of the diuine worship but sub ratione ordinis vel disciplinae ordinatae c. by reason of the order and discipline enioyned toward the better performance of some dutie toward God or our neighbour as the law which bindeth men to come to Church the better to serue God and politike lawes that are made against deceit vsed in the making of clothes and other waies to the hinderance of our brethren which is against charitie and such like 4. Some lawes doe not bind in conscience at all in themselues neither generally not in particular but onely accidentally in regard of scandall and offence which may be giuen by mens disobedience as in such penall lawes which are made onely for ciuill orders and vsages where God is not dishonoured nor charitie violated let there be no contempt of authorie nor offence giuen though it be a breach of ciuill order yet thereby the conscience is not burdened before God This I say not to giue any encouragement willingly to transgresse the publike orders for then they runne into contempt of authoritie but I advise euerie man as neere as he can to conforme himselfe to the obseruation euen of ciuill orders but to this ende to helpe the conscience of the weake that they should not thinke in euery such omission their conscience to be charged before God See further Synops. Centur. 1. error 49. Controv. 8. Whether Ecclesiasticall persons are exempted from tribute v. 7. Giue to all men their dutie tribute to whom tribute c. This is an euident place to conuince the Romanists who hold their Clergie together with their possessions and goods to be freed and exempted from temporall taxes and payments The old Popish opinion was that they were freed by the lawe of God but now they challenge this immunitie onely by the charter and priuiledge graunted them by Princes Rhemist Rom. 13. annot 5. Thomas Aquin. addeth further that though they were at the first exempted by Princes yet it is agreeable to the lawe of nature But if they onely claime this exemption from the graunt of temporall Princes why did then Alexan. the 6. as Boniface the 8. hath inserted his decree in the sixt of his decretalls lib. 3. titul 23. c. 1. by his constitution prouide that secular powers should not presume to exact of Ecclesiasticall persons toll money or other exactions pro rebus vel possessionibus for their goods or possessions which they had gotten or should get We will now examine some of their reasons 1. The lands of Pharaohs Priests were exempted from tribute Gen. 47.22 therefore the possessions of the Church should be free Answ. The lands of the Priests whom Iunius taketh rather for the Princes Courtiers of Pharaohs houshold for the word cohen signifieth both a Prince and a Priest were not soâ—d vnto Pharaoh as other lands were for by reason of the ordinarie allowed them from the King in the time of dearth they were constrained to sell their land for foode and so their possessions were free from the fift part which other payed they might notwithstanding be subiect and lyable to other charges 2. The King of Persia charged his officer to lay vpon the Priests and Leuites no toll nor custome Ezra 7.24 Answ. The reason thereof was for that the Priests had no possessions as likewise Caesar writeth in his commentaries that the Priests called Druidae among the French paid no taxe money nor custome at all as other did and the reason was because they possessed nothing as Plinie witnesseth l. 16. c. 24. Now on the contrarie that Clergie men are bound as well as others for their persons and lands to pay tribute and yeeld their subiection vnto temporall gouernours it is euident by these reasons 1. By the precept of Christ giue vnto Caesar the things that are Caesars he spake then to the Priests and by his owne example he refused not to pay poll money Matth. 17. and he confessed to Pilate Iohn 18. that he could haue no power against him if it were not giuen him from aboue he acknowledgeth himselfe personally subiect vnto Pilate 2. He which holdeth terrene things is in reason to be subiect to the terrene and temporall power Origen saith qui habet pecuniam aut possessiones aut aliquid in seculo audiat c. he which hath money or possessions or any thing in the world to him it is said let every soule be subiect c. 3. And S. Paul chargeth all subiects to pay tribute because it is a duty to the Magistrate in respect of his care and vigilancie who watcheth ouer the subiects for their good Yet we denie not but that Ecclesiasticall persons may enioy those priviledges and immunities which haue beene graunted them by Princes whose libertie therein is to be commended so that they abuse them not to idlenes and wantonnes as sometimes the Abbyes in England did See before controv 1. argum 1. and Synops. Centur. 1. err 99. Controv. 9. Whether the fulfilling of the lawe be possible in this life v. 8. He that loueth an other hath fulfilled the lawe Hereupon our aduersaries the Romanists doe inferre that the law may be fulfilled by loue in this life Rhemist and Tolet whereas we obiect that no perfection can be attained vnto in this life hath this distinction that there is great difference between dilectionem in se perfectam eam quae est in praecepto loue which is perfect in it selfe and loue which is in the precept and commanded as if one bid a man runne perfectly or swiftly he meaneth not that he should runne so fast as an hart or hind but so fast as a man may runne so perfect charitie in it selfe is not commanded which can not be in this life but such charitie as a man in the state of grace beeing thereby helped may attaine vnto And thus he reasoneth if by loue the law could not be fulfilled S. Paul would not haue exhorted thereunto for it were in vaine to exhort vnto that which cannot be done an 11. Contra. 1. Touching the distinction it is no wayes to be admitted 1. for as God is so is his commandement he is perfect therefore he commandeth that which is perfect the loue then commanded in the lawe is a perfect loue and not onely according to the possibilitie of mans strength 2. further the written morall lawe commandeth the same thing which the naturall law did which was infused into Adam in his creation but that was perfect loue and charitie for he was created according to the image of God in righteousnesse and holinesse 3. and we are commanded to be perfect as our heauenly father is perfect Matth. 5. therefore not
he doth but as Tolet well obserueth non est fides sed error this opinion in makng difference of meates is no faith but error therefore an erroneous conscience cannot be said to be faith that before he called faith the knowledge of Gods word that all meates are cleane and therefore he sinneth because his mind is not setled and well perswaded out of Gods word that he doth please God in eating and yet eateth Pareus 4. But here it will be obiected why he that beleeueth all meates to be alike may lawefully eate them or not eate them but he which maketh difference of meats and so beleeueth not may lawfully abstaine yet he cannot with a good conscience eate the reason of this difference is because he that maketh conscience of meates if he doe eate sinneth against his conscience but he that by the word is taught to make no difference of meats though he abstaine doth not against his conscience for he refraineth not from meates as though he held them to be vncleane but for offence sake 5. It will be obiected againe what if one be offended with him that is not perswaded of the indifferencie of meates because he eateth not may not he without sinne eate though it be against his conscience rather then to offend his brother to this the answear is that offences are giuen to the weake not to the strong he is the stronger and more perfect that eateth of all alike he is the weaker that maketh difference of meates therefore this case was not likely to fall out that the weaker by not eating should offend the strong Tolet here hath an other answear that if this case should fall out for the weaker to offend the strong by his not eating he should rather eate then offend his brother for a positive lawe such as was that of making difference of meates must giue place to the naturall lawe which is not to offend our brother But this is no good answear for if there were such necessitie that a man must either offend against his owne conscience or his brothers it were of the two euills the lesse to grieue his brothers conscience then his owne And the lawe positiue is to giue place in right vnto the lawe of nature where the conscience is so perswaded but where the conscience is not resolued the lawe of nature will that a man haue rather respect to himselfe then an other and to tender his owne conscience before an others 6. Thus the Apostle hath giuen vs three rules in the vse of things indifferent and of all other first that a mans conscience condemne not himselfe in his action secondly though the conscience directly condemne him not yet he must proceede further that he cast no doubts thirdly and yet it sufficeth not to cast no doubts but he must labour to haue his conscience setled and grounded vpon faith which is a certaine knowledge with a firme assurance and perswasion out of the word of God of the lawfulnes of that thing which is to be done that therein he pleaseth God Quest. 42. Of the right meaning of these words whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne 1. Thomas deliuereth this for one exposition in his commentarie vpon this place that ex fide of faith is all one as if he had said contra fidem against the faith but not that onely which is against the faith but whatsoeuer is without faith is vnpleasing to God as the Apostle saith Heb. 11.6 without faith it is impossible to please God 2. Caietan expoundeth this saying not of all things in generall but of such quae debent procedere ex fide which ought to proceede of faith and so it is true that such things if they be not of faith and yet ought to proceede of faith are sinne the good morall workes then of the heathen are not therefore to be condemned as sinne because they were not of faith for they proceeded onely from the right vse of reason though there be no faith but in this place the Apostle treateth of such actions as should proceede of faith as is the ciscerning of meates cleane and vncleane this directly belonged vnto faith concerning the vse of Christian libertie Contra. 1. If by faith and to proceede of faith Caietan vnderstand onely points of doctrine which belong vnto the faith then it skilleth not for all other matters which concerne manners good life whether they be of faith or no which were verie absurd 2. neither can there be any right vse of reason in this our corrupt nature without faith 3. and touching the doctrine of faith Chrysostome thinketh that the Apostle doth not in this chapter intend any such thing he excludeth dogmata fidei the doctrines and principles of faith for they must be openly confessed it sufficeth not to haue that faith onely in our conscience before God as the Apostle saith of this faith touching the vse of indifferent things whereof he entreateh v. 12. Hast thou faith haue it with thy selfe before God 3. Pererius beside reckoneth vp three other interpretations 1. as some thinke the Apostle speaketh comparatiuely what soeuer is not of faith is sinne in respect of such workes as proceede of faith not simply 2. or sinne may be taken for the same as non placens not pleasing acceptable or availeable with God 3. and further this sentence neede not to be taken generally as though it were vniuersally true sed vt plurimum and maxima ex parte but for the most part But all these are mens fansies and vncertaine glosses 1. although one sinne may be greater then an other yet can it not be shewed that any thing is called by the name of sinne which is not so simply for sinne is defined to be the transgression of the lawe 1. Ioh. 1.6 whosoeuer sinneth transgresseth the lawe this is not then onely comparatiuely but simply sinne 2. we graunt that these two sinne and not to be pleasing to God may be converted whatsoeuer pleaseth not God is sinfull and whatsoeuer is sinnefull is not pleasing vnto God for whatsoeuer is not in Christ in whom onely God is well pleased cannot be pleasing vnto him and nothing doth separate vs and make vs not pleasing vnto God but sinne Isay. 50.1 for your iniquities are ye sold. 3. the third interpretation giueth the Apostle the plaine lie he saith whatsoeuer or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that is not of faith is sinne but they say not so for not all but the most part is so 4. But the generall receiued interpretation among the Romanists is this whatsoeuer is not of faith that is contra proprium dictamen conscientiae against the proper suggestion of the conscience Tolet contra conscientiam against the conscience glosse interlin reclamante conscientia his conscience gainsaying Perer. yea though it be erraus conscientia an erring conscience Eman. Sa. so they take faith not for that whereby we beleeue in Christ but for that whereby one beleeueth any thing to
be lawfull that is his conscience Piscator commeth somewhat neere this exposition quicquid fit dubitante conscientia whatsoeuer is done with a doubtfull conscience is sinne Contra. 1. But faith cannot be here taken for the conscience 1. the Apostle said before haue faith in thy selfe that is in thy conscience faith then is an other thing beside the conscience 2. the weake haue conscience 1. Cor. 10.29 but they haue not faith touching this thing for of the strong onely the Apostle said before thou hast faith v. 22. 3. error non est fides error is non faith but the conscience is oftentimes erroneous this was Tolets owne reason before 4. fides non nititur hominum opinionibus c. faith is not grounded vpon mens opinions but vpon the vndoubted word of God Osiand 5. Origen saith that fides haereticorum non est fides the faith of heretikes is no faith but credulitie rather yet they haue a conscience 2. And if this sense were admitted it followeth strongly that if that be sinne which is not done with the particular faith of the conscience much more is that sinne which is not of that generall Christian faith whose obiect is Christ. 5. Wherefore by faith we vnderstand not euerie perswasion of the minde and conscience but that which is grounded vpon the word of God firmam animi certitudinem quae ex Dei veritate concepta sit an vndoubted certaintie of the minde conceiued out of the truth of God Calvin non quidvis fidei nomine censeri debet sed quod Scripturis conforme not everie thing must be counted for faith but that which is agreeable to the Scriptures Bucer when we beleeue talia verbo Dei requiri Deo placere that such things are required in the word of God and are pleasing vnto him Martyr the reason is because vbi verbum Dei non est nec fides where there is no word of God there is no faith Faius 6. Haymo doth restraine this generall speach onely to the eating of meates whatsoeuer belongeth to eating if it be not eaten with this faith that euerie thing is cleane that is treated of God is eaten with sinne But this is rather a generall rule both for this kind of actions and all other agreeable to that saying Hebr. 11.6 without faith it is impossible to please God 4. Places of Doctrine Doct. 1. That alwayes in the Church are to be found as some strong so others weake in faith v. 1. Him that is weake in faith This is the condition of the Church of God that as in a familie some are children some of riper age so there are in the same some that are but weakelings in the faith some of more perfect growth the reason of which difference is both in respect of the caller God calleth not all at one time neither giueth vnto all a like measure of gifts and of them which are called all doe not vse a like diligence in the exercising of their gifts and so it commeth to passe that some are weake some strong This difference S. Paul sheweth to haue beene among the Galathians c. 6.1 If any be prevented by any fault yee which are spirituall restore◠c. there were some among them subiect to infirmities some that were spirituall this sheweth the phantasticall error of such as require perfection in the Church and euerie member thereof and can brooke no imperfections Doct. 2. Not to contend about indifferent things v. 3. He that eateth let him not contemne him that eateth not ◠S. Paul would not haue them to be so earnest one in iudging an other concerning the vse of things indifferēt which hath beene the cause of great contentions in the Church as great stirres were raised by Victar B. of Rome about the vse of leauened and vnleauened bread as Eusebius testifieth lib. 5. c. 14. hereupon sprang the sects in Saxonie of the adiophorists and Flacians Pareus here also giueth instance of the English and Scottish Churches Anglicas quoque Scoticas Ecclesias simile certamen de rebus adiophoris in hanc vsque diem exercet the like strife about things indifferent doth trouble the English and Scottish Churches to this day c. But S. Paul concerning all these things giueth a rule afterward v. 17. the kingdome of God is not meate and drinke nor any such externall thing but righteousnesse c. Doct. 3. The best workes of the heathen sinfull v. 5. Let euerie one be fully perswaded in his minde c. Hence it is euident that Christians doing things forbidden and leauing things commanded because they are not herein perswaded doe therein sinne likewise the workes of the heathen wherein they did that which was commanded yet were sinfull because they wanted this perswasion Aristides exercising iustice did that which was commanded Alexander abstaining from violating the chastitie of Darius wife and daughters did shunne that which was prohibited yet both of them sinned hauing not this full perswasion and assurance of faith that therein they pleased God these their goodly and glorious workes were but speciosa peccata goodly sinnes non ex substantia operis sed vitio operantis not by the substance of the worke but the fault of the worker Doct. 4. That all things must be referred to Gods glorie as the chiefe end v. 6. He that eateth eateth to the Lord c. As God gaue beginning to all things so he is the chiefe and last end of all the heathen said that we were borne not for our selues only but partly for our friends partly for our countrey partly for God but the Scriptures teach vs that all things must be referred wholy vnto Gods glorie our friends and countrey are to be respected but for Gods cause as it shall make most and best for his glorie so the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 10.31 Whether ye eate or drinke or whatsoeuer yee doe doe all to the glorie of God Doct. 5. Of the generall extent and efficacie of Christs death in the old and newe Testament v. 9. That he might be Lord of the dead and quicke The dead are named first to shew that euen those which liued vnder the Lawe and before though then dead did belong vnto the kingdome and dominion of Christ as also they which then liued or should remaine in the earth vnto the ende of the world they all then make but one Church one mysticall bodie as Gregorie saith lib. 41. epist. 38. sancti ante legem sancti sub lege sancti sub gratia omnes hi corpus Domini sunt constitutere the Saints before the lawe vnder the lawe and vnder grace doe all make the bodie of Christ he is the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world Ioh. 1.29 of all that beleeue in him from the beginning of the world to the end thereof Doct. 6. Christs diuinitie prooued v. 18. All tongues shall confesse vnto God This prophesie of Isay c. 45.23 beeing applyed by S. Paul vnto Christ doth euidently
he hath some good thing in him which is temporally rewarded in this life therefore all that the wicked and infidels doe is not sinne To this purpose Pererius disput 5. in 14. c. Contra. 1. We denie not but that the wiser sort of the Gentiles might doe some externall workes agreeable to the lawe in outward appearance but they were farre from the perfection and internall obedience required by the lawe and therefore could not be voide of sinne 2. Those ciuill duties of rendring loue for loue which belong vnto common ciuilitie as they are not simply condemned yet our Sauiour in requiring greater perfection in his disciples sheweth that those duties were spotted with Pharisaicall leauen and were not approoued in Gods sight as good workes 3. If man had kept that perfection wherein he was created he might haue beene sufficiently directed by the rule of reason but now his reason is not right it is corrupted and obscured by sinne and therefore can give him no direction to that which is truely and properly good as other creatures know naturally what is good for their life so man by nature knoweth what is naturally good for himselfe but it followeth not that he should therefore by nature doe any thing morally good 4. That saying of Gregorie beeing allowed it is not to the purpose for that rich man might haue some knowledge of God whereby he might be directed beside the helpe of nature and yet it followeth not that euerie one which enioyeth the temporall things of this life should be temporally rewarded for his good parts for we see that many in this world which haue least parts of morall and ciuill goodnes haue a better earthly portion then those in whom more goodnesse appeareth And yet further this temporall recompence onely sheweth that their acts are not truely good and in the sight of God for then they should not onely haue a temporall but an eternall reward Now on the other side it shall be prooued that all the actions of infidels and wicked persons that haue no ture faith what goodly shew soeuer they make in the world are no better before God then sinfull workes 1. Our blessed Sauiour saith Matth. 7. an euill tree cannot bring forth good fruite but they which haue no faith are euill trees Ergo. 2. Likewise Ioh. 13. our Sauiour saith without me ye can do nothing therefore without faith no good thing can be wrought 3. And in this place the Apostle saith Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne 4. Further no worke can be accepted of God vnlesse the person that worketh it be first accepted but none can please God without any faith Heb. 11.6 Againe Augustine saith finibus non officijs virtutes à vitijs discernendae sunt vertues must be discerned from vices by the endes not by the offices and actions but the infidels doe nothing to a right end 5. Augustine in many places condemneth the workes of infidels how good soeuer they appeare as in Psal. 21. Let no man account any worke good before faith vbi fides non erat bonum opus non erit bonum enim opus intentio facit intentionem fides derigit c. for where no faith is there is no good worke an intention maketh a good worke and the intention is directed by faith Pererius to these arguments by certaine distinctions 1. that no infidel ratione infidelitatis as his workes proceede from his infidelitie can doe any good thing but he hath bona naturae some good things by nature by the which he may doe some things that are good 2. Or some things are simply good and worthie of eternall life and are acceptable to God such good things cannot be done without faith but notwithstanding some morall good things may 3. Or it is so said that the workes of infidels are sinne because vt plurimum for the most part they are such not all 4. And there is a double kind of intention a generall and particular though the generall intention be euill yet in some particular action an infidel may haue a good intention as to giue almes in meere commiseration and though they look not vnto God as the supernaturall ende yet they may be by nature guided to make God the naturall ende of their actions as by nature they know there is a God 5. And sine generali concursu without Gods generall assistance man indeede can do nothing either naturally or morally good but Gods speciall assistance is onely required vnto those workes which are acceptable to God and worthie of life eternall Contra. 1. We graunt that by naturall helpes man may doe things naturally good but no vertuous action can proceede from an infidel because all his actions sauour of infidelitie 2. No not the best workes of the faithfull are in themselues meritorious and worthie of eternall life because they are imperfect they are crowned of grace not for merit neither is there any worke truely good but it is thorough Christ acceptable vnto God that is good if it be not pleasing vnto God it is not good 3. Not onely some but all the workes of infidels are sinfull for whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne the sentence is generall 4. It is not enough to haue a particular intention but it must ayme at the generall ende of all which is the glorie of God and though by nature men are taught that there is a God yet can not they referre their actions to him as the generall end without faith 5. This generall concurrence is not sufficient to bring forth a good worke but speciall grace in Christ the Mediator is necessarie so our blessed Sauiour saith without me that is the Mediator Sauiour of the world not cōsidered only as the Creator you can do nothing Now concerning this question that the workes of infidels are sinne these things may further be remembred 1. that among the auncient writers Origen and Augustine are directly of opinion that an infidel can doe no good worke as Origen saith speaking of infidels and heretikes videndum est ne forte si aliquid boni operis apud illos geri videatur quia non sit ex fide convertatur in peccatum it is to be considered if that whatsoeuer good worke seeme to be done among them because it is not of faith it be turned into sinne Augustines opinion is shewed before And though Pererius take vpon him by certaine querkes to shift off Augustines testimonies yet Tolet ingeniously confesseth that both Origen and Augustine so affirme annot 15. 2. The Romanists themselues are here diuided in opinion for Gregorius Ariminens Capreolus Catharinus with other of that side are confuted by Pererius for thus affirming with the Protestants Perer. 4. disput ad 8. 3. Yet doe we not say as the Rhemists charge vs here annot 4. that it was sinne in the heathen to honour their parents to releeve the poore to doe iustly the actions in the substance thereof were not sinne but in respect of
Ambrose giueth two reasons why S. Paul did this ordinem servat vt ab ecclesia pro rectore suo fiat oratio he obserueth order that by the Church intercession may be made for their Rector and againe multi minimi dum congregantur vnanimes siunt magni many little ones while they are gathered together with one accord are become great the prayer of the congregation is effectuall all this being admitted yet this followeth well that seeing Paul craveth the assistance of the Romanes in their prayers who were farre inferiour vnto him that the efficacie of prayer dependeth not vpon the worthines of the person 6. Morall obseruations Observ. 1. How we ought to reade the Scriptures v. 4. Whatsoeuer things are written are written for our learning c. Thus ought euerie one to reade the Scriptures that he may edifie himselfe thereby either informe his iudgement correct some error of life be stirred vp to some holy dutie or other as Dan. c. 9. by reading the prophesie of Ieremie receiued some comfort concerning the deliuerance of Gods people out of captiuitie If euerie one that taketh Gods booke into his hand did make this the ende of his reading and hearing the Scriptures should not be turned ouer in vaine as now they are of many Some will not consult with Gods booke at all some looke into it but of curiositie to encrease their knowledge some of a corrupt minde to wrest the Scripture to confirme their errors but the true reading of Scripture is thereby to be edified Observ. 2. Praiers to be ioyned with preaching the word and reading of Scripture v. 5. Now the God of patience and consolation c. S. Paul vnto his exhortation addeth prayer shewing the right kinde of preaching to ioyne vnto the interpretation of Scripture prayer as Ezra 9.4 the Israelites in that their solemne feast did reade in the booke of the lawe fowre times a day and as often did they pray and confesse their sinnes so they which reade the Scriptures should with prayer make a way that God would open their vnderstanding and make their reading profitable vnto them Observ. 3. What an excellent thing it is to be of one minde v. 6. That ye with one minde and one mouth c. Origen here taketh occasion to set forth what an excellent thing vnanimitatis gratia the grace of vnanimitie is to be of one mind as Matth. 18. our blessed Sauiour promiseth that when two or three are gathered together in his name he will be present in the middes among them whereof see a president Act. 2.1 where the Apostles beeing with one heart assembled together in prayer receiued the holy Ghost Origen alleadgeth an other example taken out of the old Testament how in the diuision of Corah Dathan and Abiram whom the earth for their rebellion swallowed vp quicke the three sonnes of Core Assir Elkanah and Ebiasaph with one heart and consent did sequester themselues from that conspiracie and died not with their father see Numb 26.11 and 1. Chron. 6.23 where these sonnes of Core are named as surviuers to their father And for this cause he thinketh that S. Paul ioyneth with himselfe in his epistles sometime Softhenes sometime Syluanus and Timothie in the salutations to shew their consent of minde and vnanimitie vnto the which they exhorted others Observ. 4. How we ought to entertaine one an other with louing affection euen those which hate vs. v. 17. Receiue ye one an other c. Chrysostome hath here an excellent morall that though one be averse from vs we should not be averse in affection from him say not if he loue me I will loue him 1. this is as if thou shouldest say si me dexter oculus non dilexerit effâ—diam illum if my right eye doe not loue me I will pull it out if one of the parts of thy bodie be in danger to be cut off from the rest nihil non molimur quo iliud vniamus itreum we vse all meanes to vnite it againe so must we seeke by all meanes to winne those vnto vs by our loue that are alienated in minde from vs. 2. maior expectanda tibi merces c. thou aâ—â—o expect a greater reward if thou louest him that loueth not thee for he that loueth thee againe hath recompenced thee but he that being loued loueth thee not againe Deum tibi pro seipso debitorem constituit doth make God thy debter for him 3. co magis te imitatorem esse Christi declarabis thou shalt so much the more make thy selfe an imitator of Christ who prayed for his enemies 4. by this meanes nullam non animam emollies thou shalt mollifie any heart though neuer so hard for if one loue him of whoÌ„ he is loued much more shall they win loue that loue where they are hated 5. Dost thou not see turpes amatores alapas ferre c. that filthie louers do suffer blowes checks taunts at the hands of their paramours shall not the loue of God as much preuaile with vs as that diabolicall loue 6. Moses aversari non potuit illos qui illum toties aversati Moses could not be averse to those which had beene averse to him but wisheth rather to be blotted out of Gods booke then they should not be spared 7. aversaris hominem fidelem quem Christus cum adhuc infidelis esset non est aversatus dost thou turne away from a faithfull man whom Christ disdained not beeing yet an infidel but vouchsafed to die for him Observ. 5. How God is to be praised not with the mouth onely but the heart v. 6. That ye with one minde and one mouth may praise God c. Chrysostome also well sheweth how we should sing vnto God 1. Cythara Davidica nobis opus est we haue need of Dauids harpe for the deuill goeth about to strangle vs as he did Saul strangulat nos malis artibus he doth strangle vs with wicked workes he that singeth with his mouth and haltech in his life is like vnto Saul who was more inflamed at Dauids playing psallenti malis operibus repugnat he with euill workes resisteth and spurneth against the singer 2. when we are about to heare or sing Dauids Psalmes timet malius ille daemon c. the wicked spirit feareth least after we haue heard we should frame our life thereafter but when he seeth vs to continue the same which we were before nothing reformed isto protinus timore exuitur he is ridde of this feare 3. psallamus itaque operum cantionem c. let vs then sing a song of good life and workes and so cast out sinne worse then the deuill for the deuill oftentimes prodest vigilanti profiteth him that is watchfull and vigilant but sinne is altogether vnprofitable the deuill doth assault a man against his will voluntarius daemon est peccatum spontanea insania sinne is a voluntarie deuill and a selfewilled madnes incantemus igitur anima peccatis obsessae ex Scripturis let vs
Whether a Iudge be bound herein to be like vnto God to iudge according to the truth which he knoweth 5. qu. Of the reasons why the Lord vseth patience and forbearance towards sinners 6. qu. Whether the leading of men to repentance by Gods long suffrance argueth that they are not reprobate 7. qu. How the bountifulnes of God in leading men to repentance and the reuelation of his wrath spoken of ch 1.18 may stand together 8. qu. How God is said to harden the heart seeing the wicked doe harden their owne hearts 9. qu. Whether hardnes of heart and finall impenitencie be a speciall kind of sinne 10. qu. Whether it stand with Gods iustice to punish twice for the same sinnes 11. qu. Whether euery one shall be rewarded according to his works 12. qu. How it standeth with Gods goodnes to punish euill with euill 13. qu. Of the true reading of the 7. vers 14. qu. What the Apostle meaneth by patience of good works 15. qu. What glorie honour and immortalitie the Apostle speaketh of v. 7. 16. qu. How it standeth with Gods iustice to punish eternally sinne temporally committed 17. qu. How eternall life is to be sought 18. qu. Whome the Apostle meaneth by contentious and such as disobey the truth 19. qu. Of the punishment due vnto the wicked indignation wrath tribulation anguish c. v. 8. 20. qu. Why the Iewe is set before the Grecian 21. qu. What Iewes and Gentiles the Apostle here meaneth 22. qu. Of the diuers acception of the word person v. 11. 23. qu. How God is said not to accept the persons of men 24. qu. Of the meaning of these words v. 22. As many as haue sinned without the law shall perish without the Law 25. qu. Of the occasion of these words v. 13. The hearers of the Law are not righteous before God but the doers shall be iustified 26. qu. Of the meaning of these words Not the hearers of the Law c. but the doers shall be iustified v. 13. 27. qu. How the Gentiles which had not the Law did by nature the things contained in the Law 28. qu. How any thing can be said to be written in the heart by nature seeing the mind is commonly held to be as a bare and naked table 29. qu. Of the Law of nature what it is 30. qu. What precepts the law of nature containeth and prescribeth 31. qu. What the law of nature was before and after mans fall and wherein they differ 32. qu. Whether the light of nature though much obscured can altogether be blotted out of the mind of man 33. qu. Whether ignorance of the law of nature in man doth make any way excusable 34. qu. That the light of nature is not sufficient of it selfe to direct a man to bring forth any vertuous act without the grace of Christ. 35. qu. Of the testimonie of the conscience the accusing or excusing of the thoughts 36. qu. Why the Apostle maketh mention of the day of iudgement v. 16. 37. qu. Why it is called the day and of the application of other words v. 16. 38. qu. Whence the Iewes were so called v. 17. Behold thou art called a Iewe. 39. qu. Of the priuiledges of the Iewes here recited by the Apostle 40. qu. How the Iewes are said to commit sasacriledge v. 22. 41. qu. How the name of God was blasphemed by the Iewes and whether this testimonie be rightly alleadged by the Apostle 42. qu. In what sense the Apostle saith Circumcision is profitable v. 25. 43. qu. How circumcision was availeable for infants 44. qu. What vncircumcised the Apostle here speaketh of whether such of the Gentiles as were conuerted to the faith and what keeping of the lawe he meaneth 45. qu. Of the explanation of certaine terms here vsed by the Apostle and of the letter and spirit 46. qu. Of two kinds of Iewes and two kinds of circumcision v. 28. Questions vpon the third Chapter 1. qu. Of the priviledges of the Iewes and of their preheminence before the Gentiles 2. qu. How mens vnbeleefe cannot make the faith of God without effect 3. qu. How God is said to be true 4. qu. How euery man is said to be a liar 5. qu. Whether euery man can be said to be a liar 6. qu. How the Prophet Dauid is to be vnderstood saying euery man is a liar Psal. 116.11 7. qu. Of the occasion of these words cited our of the 51. Psalme that thou mightest be iustified c. against thee onely haue I sinned 8. qu. Of the diuers acceptions of this word iustified 9. qu. Of the meaning of these words That thou mightest be iustified in thy words and ouercome when thou iudgest 10. qu. Whether a man may doe euill and commit sinne to that end to set forth Gods iustice 11. qu. Of the meaning of the 5 6 7 8 verses 12. qu. Whether none euill is to be done at all that good may come thereof 13. qu. Whether God doe not euill that good may come thereof in reprobating the vessels of wrath to shew his power 14. qu. In what sense the Apostle denieth the Iewes to be more excellent then the Gentiles v. 9. 15. qu. Of the meaning of certaine phrases which the Apostle vseth v. 9. We haue alreadie prooued and Vnder sinne 16. qu. Whence the Apostle alleadgeth those testimonies v. 10. to 18. 17. qu. Of the matter and order obserued by the Apostle in citing those testimonies 18. qu. How none are said to be iust seeing Noah and other holy men are reported to haue bin iust in their time 19. qu. Of the particular explication of the sinnes wherewith the Apostle here chargeth both Iewes and Gentiles 20. qu. v. 19. Whatsoeuer the Law saith what is here vnderstood by the Law and how diuersly this word is taken 21. qu. It saith to them which are vnder the Law who are here vnderstood to be vnder the law 23. qu. How no flesh is iustified by the works of the law v. 20. 24. qu. How the Apostle here denieth iustification by works seeing he said before c. 2. v. 13. that the doers of the Law are iustified 25. qu. How by the Law came the knowledge of sinne 26. qu. Of the meaning of these words The righteousnesse of God is made manifest without the law 27. qu. How the righteousnes of faith had witnes of the Law and Prophets 28. qu. Of these words v. 22. The righteousnes of God by the faith of Iesus Christ vnto all and vpon all 29. qu. What it is to be depriued of the glorie of God v. 23. 30. qu. Of iustification freely by grace v. 24. 31. qu. How God is said to haue purposed or set forth Christ to be our reconciliation 32. qu. How we are said to be iustified freely seeing faith is required which is an act in the beleeuer 33. qu. v. 25. To declare his iustice or righteousnes what iustice the Apostle vnderstandeth here 34. qu. What is meant by sinnes that are past v. 25. 35.
qu. Why the Apostle onely maketh mention of sinnes past 36. qu. How God is said to be iust and a iustifier of him which is of the faith c. v. 26. 37. qu. How reioycing is excluded not by the law of works but by the law of faith 38. qu. Of the difference betweene these two phrases of faith through faith v. 30. 39. qu. How the Law is established by the doctrine of faith Questions vpon the fourth Chapter 1. qu. Vpon what occasion S. Paul bringeth in the example of Abraham 2. qu. Of the meaning of the first verse 3. qu. Of the meaning of the 2. verse 4. qu. How the Apostle alleadgeth that testimonie concerning the imputation of Abrahams faith for righteousnes v. 4. 5. qu. Of the meaning of the words who counted this for righteousnes vnto Abraham 6. qu. What it was that Abraham beleeued 7. qu. Why Abrahams faith was imputed to him at this time and not before 8. qu. What imputation is and what to be imputed 9. qu. How Abrahams faith was imputed to him for righteousnes 10. qu. Whether Abraham were iustified by any thing beside his faith 11. qu. How S. Paul and S. Iames are reconciled about the manner of Abrahams iustifying 12. qu. Of the explication of the 4. and 5. verses 13. qu. Of the diuers kinds of rewards 14. qu. How it standeth with Gods iustice to iustifie the wicked v. 5. 15. qu. How our sinnes are said to be forgiuen and couered v. 7. 16. qu. In what sense circumcision is said to be a signe and wherefore it was instituted 17. qu. In what sense circumcision is called a seale of the righteousnes of faith v. 11. 18. qu. Whether the mysterie of faith in the Messiah to come were generally known vnder the Law 19. qu. Certaine questions of circumcision and first of the externall signe why it was placed in the generative part 20. qu. Certaine doubts remooued and obiections answered concerning circumcision 21. qu. How Abraham is saide to be the father of them which beleeue v. 11 12. 22. qu. How Abraham is saide to be the father of circumcision v. 12. 23. qu. How and where Abraham was promised to be heire of the world v. 13. 24. qu. Wherein Abraham was made heire of the world and wherein this inheritance consisted 25. qu. How faith is said to be made voide if they which are of the law be heires 26. qu. How they law is said to cause wrath 27. qu. Of the meaning of these words v. 15. where no law is there is no transgression 27. qu. Who are meant by Abrahams seede which is of the law v. 16. 28. qu. Of the meaning of these words I haue made thee a father of many nations before God 29. qu. Of the meaning of these words v. 17. who quickneth the dead and calleth those things which be not c. 30. qu. How God is said to call those things which be not as though they were 31. qu. Whether it be peculiar to God onely to quicken and raise the dead 32. qu. How Abraham is said against hope to haue beleeued vnder hope 33. qu. How Abrahams bodie is said to be dead v. 19. 34. qu. What promise of God made to Abraham it was whereof he is saide not to haue doubted v. 20. 35. qu. Whether Abraham doubted of Gods promise 36. qu. How Abraham is said to haue giuen glorie vnto God v. 20. 37. qu. What was imputed to Abraham for righteousnes 38. qu. Of these words Now it is not written for him onely c. v. 23. 39. qu. How Abrahams faith is to be imitated by vs. 40. qu. Wherein Abrahams faith and ours differ and wherein they agree 41. qu. How Christ is said to haue bin deliuered vp for our sinnes v. 25. 42. qu. Why the Apostle thus distinguisheth the benefits of our redemption ascribing remission of sinnes to Christs death and iustification to his resurrection v. 25. Questions vpon the fifth Chapter 1. qu. What peace the Apostle meaneth v. 1. 2. qu. Of the second benefit proceeding of our iustification which is to stand and persevere in the state of grace 3. qu. Of the benefit of our iustification the hope of euerlasting glorie 4. qu. How we are said to reioyce in tribulation 5. qu. How S. Paul and S. Iames are reconciled together the one making patience the cause of trialls or probation the other the effect 6. qu. Of the coherence of these words with the former because the loue of God is shed abroad in our hearts v. 5. 7. qu. What kind of loue the Apostle speaketh of saying the loue of God is shed abroad c. 8. qu. Why the loue of God is said to be shed abroad in our hearts 9. qu. Why it is added by the holy Ghost which is giuen vs. 10. qu. How Christ is said to haue died according to the time v. 6. 11. qu. Of the meaning of the 7. v. One will scarce die for a righteous man c. 12. qu. Of the difference betweene Christs dying for vs and those which died for their countrey 13. qu. Of the greatnes of the loue of God toward man in sending Christ to die for vs v. 8. 14. qu. Whether mans redemption could not otherwise haue beene wrought but by the death of Christ. 15. qu. Wherein the force of the Apostles reason consisteth saying Much more beeing reconciled we shall be saued by his life v. 9. 16. qu. Why the Apostle saith not onely so but we also reioyce in God c. v. 11. 17. qu. Whether any thing neede to be supplied in the Apostles speach v. 12. to make the sense perfect 18. qu. Who was that one by whome sinne entred into the world v. 12. 19. qu. What sinne the Apostle speaketh of here originall or actuall by one man sinne entred 20. qu. How sinne is said to haue entred into the world 21. qu. And death by sinne what kind of death the Apostle speaketh of 22. qu. Whether the death of the bodie be naturall or inflicted by reason of sinne 23. qu. Of the meaning of the Apostle in these words in whome all haue sinned and of the best reading thereof v. 12. 24. qu. Whether the Apostle meaneth originall or actuall sinnes saying in whome all haue sinned 25. qu. Of the coherence of these words Vnto the time of the Law was sinne in the world 26. qu. How sinne is said to haue beene vnto the time of the Law 27. qu. What sinne the Apostle meaneth which was in the world vnto the time of the law 28. qu. How sinne is said not to be imputed where there is no law 29. qu. How death is saide to haue raigned from Adam to Moses 30. qu. Of the meaning of these words which sinne not after the transgression of Adam 31. qu. How Adam is said to be the figure of him that was to come v. 14. 32. qu. Of the names and tearmes which the Apostle vseth in this comparison 33. qu. Of the comparison betweene Adam
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
410 14. the wind 50. raptum 413.6 Iphicrate 414.46 all sinne 415 9 strong 418.6 should haue 420.50 in duritie 430. curiously f. earnestly 440.20 wherefore f. whereas 441.31 is f. of 442 56. Thus then f Then seeing 459 39 circumcision 465. bashar f. bashur 466. operation f. expectation 469 of â—ne f. Ive Centur. 5. f. 3.470 tobel f. tobel 471.53 which is f. with it is 478.13 mind f. word 479.25 whence f. where 38. safe f. sure 482.23 with f. which 485.32 titulare 488.37 any f. a. 489.30 ascribeth it not 490. impetum 492.6 Sidoniniaus f. Sodomites 497.27 exp to and. 499.30 interpretation 502.25 nation f. nature 41. Gentiles f. Iewes 49. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 503.42 a reason f. occasion 504. they f. their 506.25 of grace 507. fractorum 509.38 find out 40 infiltando 43. referreâ— 512 â— â—â—â—sion 51â— 4 impenitienda 11. repented of 49. explication 515. iniecerit 519.56 eternall 531. contribuo 537. saguina f. sanguina 539.11 conscilarium 540.37 clause 542.14 that he 544. on teaching 549.50 fratrem f. proprium 55◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 551.28 in obâ—â—â— 554.1 Psalliaâ— 3. fall f. fault 555.19 communicate 32 yea the. 567 44. mal ficij 18 non sua c perdunt 577.7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 35. provision 580. emanavit 581.35 causes f. clauses 587 30 debitum f delictum 596.18 hunc 45 exp that 50 omnem hominum 597.57 constancie f conscience 601.32 doe f may v 33 exp for 602 23 extorta extorted by c 604 2 decipere 8 directiva 609 8 exercise f excuse 32 exp rather 615 11 Iudis 619 43 were not 620 9 liberalitie 623 5 beloued 25 itineribus pedestribus 625.50 〈◊〉 641.44 could f. would 643 18 not now 48 over f euen 646 44 ipsa 649 30 feret f. fecerit 37 ends f. orders 65â— 48 Cleâ—â—â— f. Clemen 656 34 constituti 663 44 vnionis adoptionis 664 5 mercatur 668 24 time f. tearme 669 20 simplicitie 671 35.3 f. 5.673 â—0 numbring f. maintaining 675 46 world 57 crosse f. curse 654 49 fâ—cerat 690 41 Act 9 f. 29 691 46 acervos â—â—3 6 〈◊〉 693 8 misericordiam expectant 704 8 felicitas 723 18 whence f when 722 50 in f. a 724 17 annotation 725 4 Pallis 5 haue f. of 724 50 irreprehensibilis f. irreprehensibili 727 3 censetur 729 2 permanenduâ—â— â—6 them f. thence 43 but f. by 735 â—4 preferre 737.5 secula 20. velati 738.55 massas 740.34 is to be Non potest quisquam mare navigare increpidus nisi qui ante in fluminibus navigarit Ambros de Abraham lib 4. Sicut frumentú gemino molarum opere curatum niteâ—cir Hierome 〈◊〉 Prophetis Euangelio non tria sed vnum tabernaculum hom 5. in Leuit. Mark 14.15 Diuinae Scripturae triplicem habent gratiam deliciotae ad faporem solidae ad nutrimentú efficacesad medecinam in Cantic ser. 67. In Scripturis tibi loquitur Deus non minore fide quam si tibi ore ad os loqueretur de duplic Martyr Ecclesiae victoria est vos aperte dicere quod sentitis c sententias vestras prodidisse superasse est Hierome ad Cresiphon Zachar. 4.7 9. Nondum vindicatus est qui vindicat qâ—t in coeliâ— adoratur nondum vindicatur in terti de bon pattent Ille haereticum interficit qui haeriticum non patitur nostra autem correctio viuifecatio est lib. 3. â—on Pâ—lag Ingemui tantá nobis in esse negligentiam vt nec veritatem possemus astrucre cum alij valeant pro veritate inculcare mendacium de vir perfect Tanta debet esse merces euangelizantis regnum qua neque contristetur neque txtollatur in 1. Tim. 3 Illam stellam seruantes quae Magos perduxit ad Christum Act. 10.15 2. Pet. 3.15 1. Cor. 3.2 de sanct ser. 2â— in cap. 1. epist. ad Roman morali 2. Thess. 3.1 Hâ—mil de princip Apost rom 3. edit Parisien whether S. Paul wrote any Epistle to the Laodiceans lib. de Monog lib. 1. contr Iovinian lib. de oper Monach. initio coÌ„ment in epistol ad Titum see Synops. pag. 2055. edit 3. lib. 25. Moral cap. 17. 1. Doct. Of diuerse kindes of seruice 2. Doct of diuerse kindeâ— of callings 3. Doct. Of the difference betweene Apostles and other Pastors 4. Doct. The Father Sonne and holy Ghost one God 5. Doct. Christ God 6. Doct. Of the Gospel and the nature thereof 7. Doct. Christ God and man 8. Doct. Of the vnion of Christ 〈…〉 9. Doct. Of the 〈…〉 of the properties of Christs diuine and humane nature 10. Doct. Of prayer how it ought to be made 11. Doct. It is lawfull to take an oath 12. Doct. Meanes must be ioyned with prayer 13. Doct. Gods prouidence worketh by contrarie meanes 14. Doct. How the Apostles alleadged Scriptures 15. Doct. Of the diuers kindâ— of the knowledge of God 16. Doct. Of the diuers kindes of Idolatrie He that is guilty of the same sinnes 〈◊〉 condemn another but therein he also iudgeth himselfe No respect of persons with God in the elecâ—â—on of his Of their sinne of the last iudgment True doctrine not to be condemned for euill life Of the baptisme of infants Of the baptisme of the flesh and of the spirit Perer. disput 15. numer 73. 1. Obser. Some mens vnbeleefe hurteth not the faith of others 2. Obser. He that teacheth the truth must meet with the obiections of the aduersaries 3. Observ. We must trust God of his word 4. Observ. Not to accuse God but our selues 5. Obser. Ministers must not giue ouer though in some their labour be in vaine 6. Obser. How the Minister sometime in his discretion must make himselfe as one of the number 7. Observ. The lawe first to be preached 8. Observ. That the doctrine of iustification by faith onely is not enemie to good works 1. Observ. That our sinnes hinder our beatitude 2. The hope of our celestiall inheritance should qualifie our outward wants in this world 3. Neuer to cast off our hope â— to distrust in God 4. We must giue glorie and praise to God for all his benefits 5. The Scriptures are diligently to be searched of all 6. Our true consolation is that our sinnes are pardoned in Christ. 7. Christ dying for sinne doth teach vs to die vnto sinne Augustin de spirit liter c. 31. lib. 15. de Trinit cap. 16. Hier. epist. 151. lib. 13. de ciuit Dei c. 23. August lib. 4. cont 2. epist. Pelag. c. 4. lib. 3. de remission peccat c. 123. Bellar. lib. 4. de amiss grat c. 15. lib. de amist grat c. 10. com 3. lib. de correct grat c. 13. disput 1. num 2. Bernard serm de fallac pres vitae Calvin slaundered by Pererius August de nat grat 14. Hierom. lib. 2. contr Iovin Whether Salomon was a reprobate homil 2. de fest omnium sanct Matth. 5. â—â—â— Hexapl. in Exod in c 32. v. 31. lib. quis rerum divinarum fit haeres Ad Simplic lib. 1. qu. 2. Bellar. lib. 1. de amiss grat c. 12. in fine Bellarm. lib. 2. de amiss grat cap. 13. de natur Sâ—gâ— cap. 12. Hug. de S. Vict. lib. 1. de sacram par 5. c. 27. lib. 3. cont 2. epist. Pelag. c. 7. lib. 1. cont 2. epist Pelag. c. 21. lib. 2. de grat liber c. 17. Synops p 822. lib. de praedest grat c. 16. de persever lib. 2. c. 11. pag. 356. Wherein the Blessed Trinitie worketh ioyntly wherein seuerally lib. 4. de iustificat c 7. The Gospell to the world within the space of 20. or 30. yeares lib 3. cont 2. ep Pelag c. 7. serm de confes fidei Whom the Apostle meaneth by the God of this world 2. Cor. 4.4 The Gentiles should haue beene called though the Iewes had 〈◊〉 beene 〈◊〉 Origen confuteth one error by an other lib. 13. de Trin. cap. 2. Sermon 66. Commentar 2d Galat. 2. â—â—qui â—â—r Ambros de primatu ordiâ—as non potestatis Ad Salvinam In 16 c. ad Rom. 〈◊〉 catalog 1 a. dâ—spâ—â— c. 16. De sanct ser 26. In 16. c. ad Rom. moral vltiâ—n De diuers serum 41. 1. Cor. 15.10 Philip. 2.17 De sanct ser. 28. epist. 243. Cyprian de singularit Clerie cap. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Comment in 16. ad Roman Ephes. 4.23 Whether the offices of Pastors and Doctors ought necessarily and perpetually to be distinguished in the Church Of hope and the nature thereof Of patience Reasons moouing vnto patience Of praier What it is to pray continually Why the Lord deferreth the requests of his children Heb. 13.4 in diatrib advers Luther Whether it be lawfull for one vniustly imprisoned to breake prison Why the Gentiles made the gods the authors of their lawes What is to be required in iudgement Of the excelleÌ„cie of lawes How war is to be enterprised The Ministers of the Church are not to attempt any thing by the sword Kings may be admonished of thâ—â—â— faults so it be done with reuerence Ministers of the Church 〈◊〉 not bound to 〈◊〉 unicate holy things to Tyrants * Heb. 13.17 Kings are not to be censured by excommunication Princes excommunicate by the Pope are notwithstanding to be obeyed of their subiects Whether the lawe commandeth vs to loue the Angels The Magistrates authoritie is empayred not confirmed by the exemption of Ecclesiasticall persons Stapl. repetit schol contr 2. qu. 5. art 1. How farre the Ecclesiasticall persons may deale in ciuill matters Why the Lord would not haue Dauid to build him an house Whether penll lawes bind in conscience Whether Christ be to be imitated in all his workes Difference betweene a weak faith and a false faith August epist. 19. ad Hieron