Commentary on Romans, Biblical exegesis 1 · Chapter 5 · Section 6

Commentary on Romans · Biblical exegesis 1 · Chapter 5 · Section 6

p. 271Here followe certaine questions and controversies of waight, touching originall sinne.

Controv. 10. That there is originall sinne in men by the corruption of nature, against the opinion of the Hebrewes.

The Hebrewes doe reiect this saying of the Apostle, that sinne entred into the world, and death by sinne: and they vrge vsus to shewe some authorities out of the old Testament, to prooue the propagation of Adams sinne to his posteritie.

Paulus Burgensis addit. 2. thus consureth their opinion.

1. That death which was inflicted vponupon Adam for his transgression remaineth, quoad …, as it is a punishment, is euident by that place, Genes. 3.3. Dust thou art, and to dust … returne, which sentence of mortalitie is executed as we see by experience vponupon all Ad…s posteritie.

2. Then he prooueth, quod illud peccatum transijt ad posteras quoad culpam, that … sinne did also passe ouer vntounto his posteritie, euen in respect of the fault: this he prooueth by the testimonie of the Hebrewes themselues: iust by the words which they vse in circumcision, which are these, Deus noster, pars nostra, & protector noster, praecepit erui carne… nostram ab inf…, propter foedus suum quod posuit in causa nostra, God our portion, and our protector, hath commanded that our flesh should be deliuered from hell, for his couenant like which he hath placed in our flesh, &c. But infants which are circumcised hauehave not deserued hell by any actuall sinnes, which they had committed, therefore they are guiltie of hell in respect of originall sinne: To this purpose also he produceth the testimonie of R. Salmo, who giueth this note vponupon that place, Genes. 2.4. These are the generations of heauen and earth, &c. that in two places onelyonly this word teldoth, generations, is written fully, namely with chalom in the beginning and ende; in this place before Adams fall: for in the beginning men were created secundum plenitudinem … & perfectio…, in their fulnesse and perfection: but after Adam had sinned, their generations were corrupted, and therefore Gen. 4. and other where that word it not expressed fully, with chalom in the ende: the other place is, Ruth, 4. These are the generations of P…rs, &c. these the word toldoth, is written fully, because Christ the sonne of Dauid, was the Sonne of P…res, for vntill he came the generation of man should not be restored▪ … Burgens.

3. But there are euident places beside out of the old testament, for the proofe of originall sinne: as Genes. 9.21. the imagination of mans heart is euill from his youth: and Dauid confesseth, Psal. 54. I was borne in iniquitie, and in sinne hath my mothere conceiued me, &c.

p. 272Controv. 11. That Adams sinne is entred into his posteritie, by propagation, not imitation onelyonly, against the Pelagians.

The Pelagians held these two hereticall positions concerning this matter: 1. That Adams sinne is deriued into his posteritie, nor by any naturall propagation, but by corrupt imitation: 2. the other, that death is entred into Adams posteritie, not as a punishment of Adams sinne: but as a defect of nature issuing out of the fraile and brittle composition and constitution of mans bodie: these strange assertions, are thus confuted by Augustine.

1. If the Apostle had spoken here of the beginning of sinne by imitation, not by propagation, non eius principium fecisset Adamum, sed diabolum, &c. he would not hauehave made Adam the beginning, but the deuill &c. for he sinned first: he was a lier from the beginning, Iohn 8.44.

2. As he in whom all are quickned, and made aliue, beside that, he gaue an example of righteousnesse to those that imitate him, dat etiam occultissimam fidelibus gratiam, &c. giueth also secret grace vntounto the faithfull: &c. so he in whom all die, beside the example of imitation in transgressing Gods commandement; occulta etiam labe, &c. he also infected all his ofspring; with the secret contagion of concupiscence: Augustine. lib. 1. de peccator. merit. & remissi. c. 9.

3. Further Augustine presseth these words of the Apostle: Rom. 5.16. the fault is of one offence to condemnation, but if men are onelyonly guiltie of condemnation for their actuall sinnes: he should hauehave said, condemnationem fieri ex multis peccatis &c. that condemnation came through many offences, not through one: epist. 89. ad Hilarium.

4. And in an other place he vrgeth this reason: because many in sinning doe not propound vntounto themselues the example of Adam, but hauehave other occasions which moue them: as when a theefe killeth a man, he did it, nihil de Adamo cogitans, thinking nothing of Adam, but to this end, that he might hauehave his gould, &c. Adams eating of an apple which was forbidden, can yeeld no example of imitation to a murtherer: and there are many wicked men in the world, that neuer heard of Adams transgression: to this purpose Augustine: lib. 6. cont. Iulian. c. 12.

5. Beside the Apostles words euidently conuinceth them: for the Apostle saith as sinne entred, so death by sinne: then as death actually is propagated, so also sinne, Tolet. annot. 15. And death is entred vponupon all, because all hauehave sinned: seeing then infants die, it followeth that they sinne, but not actually, therefore they hauehave originall sinne: P. Martyr.

6. Hence it is euident, that the commentaries which passe vnderunder Hieromes name, are forged: for that author saith vponupon this place: insaniunt, qui de Adamo per traducem ad … asserunt venisse peccarum: they are madde, which affirme that sinne is come vponupon vsus, as traduced and deriued from Adam: &c. for Hierome liuing in the same time, that Pelagius broached his heresie, did condemne and detect it, as Augustine, and other orthodoxall writers did.

Controv. 12. Of the manner how originall sinne is propagated against the Pelagians: where it is disputed, whether the soule be deriued from the parents.

The Pelagians to strengthen their error in denying the propagation of originall sinne from Adam to his posteritie; obiected thus: the seate and place of sinne is the soule, but the soule is not propagated nor deriued by generation from the parents: therefore neither sinne.

To this obiection diuerse answers are made: 1. Some thinke that originall sinne is conueied by that carnall pleasure and delight, which the parents hauehave in the act of generation but this is not so, for these two reasons: 1. because that carnall pleasure is not sinne, … some euill affection beside do concurre with it: for without that delight there is no generation: which if it were necessarily accompanied with sinne, the Scriptures would not hauehave giuen libertie to marrie, if it were in it selfe a sinnefull act: 2. And if it were admitted, that this naturall delight were sinne, yet there by that infirmitie onelyonly should be conueied, whereas originall sinne is a generall corruption of nature.

2. Some thinke, that God createth the soules of men, agreeable to their corrupt bodies like as he giueth vntounto dogs, and other creatures spirits answerable to their state and condition: But this opinion is reiected likewise: for if God should create or make any soule euill p. 273he should be the author of sinne.

3. Some doe thinke, that the soule of man is deriued also ex traduce, as they tearme it, and propagated from the parentes, as the bodie is: this opinion Tertullian seemed to fauour, and Augustine holdeth it probable. Genes. ad. liter. c. 10. some of their reasons are these: 1. because in the making of the woman it is not said, that God breathed into her the breath of life, as it is expressed of Adam, and therefore it is like that she had, as her bodie, so her soule from Adam: Answer. Nay rather the contrarie is inferred, because no mention is made of the soule and spirit of Eue, that it had the like beginning which Adams had: otherwise he would hauehave said, this is soule of my soule, as he saith, bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh. 2. Gen. 46.26. it is said that, 66. soules came out of the loines of Iacob: Answ. here the soule is taken for person: and by a synecdoche, the whole man is vnderstood by a part: and that is said of the whole, because of the vnitie of the person, and the neare coniunction of the soule and bodie, which is true onelyonly in the one part, namely the bodie, which onelyonly came out of the parentes loines: in the same sense, Marie is said to be foreign, the mother of God, because Christ both God and man was borne of her, and yet he was borne onelyonly as man. 3. If the soule be not propagated by generation, but created in the bodie, then it would follow, that God on the seauenth day had not made an end of the creation. Answ: it followeth not, God ceased from creating any new kind, but now the inspiring of the soule is but a continnuing of that way of the soule, which God in the first creation made for it.

The better opinion then is, animas creando infundi, & infundendo creari: that the soules are infused by creation, and created by infusion, the reasons of which opinion are these. 1. the direct words of Scripture, Zacha. 12.1: God is said to hauehave formed the spirit of man within him: And Hebr. 12.9. he is called the father of spirits. 2. an other ground of this opinion is taken from the nature and condition of the soule: it is a spirituall and immateriall essence, immortall and incorruptible, and therefore cannot come of corruptible, and corporall seed: 3. Christs soule came the same way, which other mens soules doe, for otherwise he should not be like vsus in all things, sinne excepted: but his soule was not propagated from Marie: for if he had both his bodie and soule from her, he might as well be said to hauehave beene in the loines of Abraham when he paied tithes to Melchisedech, as Levi, Hebr. 7.10. and yet though Leui had his bodie onelyonly, not his soule, from the loines of Abraham, he is said to be in his loines, because he came from thence by the ordinarie and common generation, but so did not Christ: seeing then this opinion is refused of the generation and derivation of the soule; we also reiect this answer concerning the propagating of originall sinne.

4. This then is our more full answer vntounto this obiection of the Pelagians: 1. although we can not giuegive a sufficient reason of this, how originall sinne should be propagated, yet it is enough for vsus, that it is so, that we are all by nature the children of wrath. 2. it is not true, that onelyonly the flesh and bodie of man is propagated from the parents: for then man should conferre lesse in his generation, then brute beasts, from whom not the bodies onelyonly but the spirits doe issue in the generation of their kind: so then, totus homo ex toto homine nascitur, whole man is generated of whole man: and anima, licet non materialiter, tamen originaliter, the soule, though not materially, yet originally is taken from Adam: Pareus: we doe not say, that the soule of man is deriued from the soule of the father, yet man consisting of bodie and soule is begotten of his father, the Lord beeing the father of spirits, concurring in that naturall act of carnall generation. 3. it is denied, that the soule onelyonly is the feate of sinne: it is the corruption of the whole man consisting both of bodie and soule: the whole man then is corrupted, and so the feate and place of sinne: Pareus: and how the soule beeing created pure, commeth to be infected with sinne, Lyranus wel sheweth, sicut liquor bonus inficitur ex corruptione vasis &c. as a good liquor is infected by the corruption of the vessell: so originall sinne provenit ex carne causaliter, sed tamen in anima est subiective & formaliter: commeth of the flesh as the cause, but it is in the soule as the subiect and formally, like as sickenes and infirmitie commeth of corrupt and vnholesome meats, as the cause, but the meate is not capable of sickenes as the subiect, the bodie is the subiect of sickenes: to this purpose Lyranus: Faius expresseth it by this similitude: the pure soule is infected with the contagion of impute seed, sicut manu immunda flos insignis pol…tur, &c. like as a faire flower is polluted with vncleane hands: Pet. Martyr yet more distinctly sheweth the manner how this pollution entreth into the soule: & corporis impuritate, p. 274& imbecillitate sua: by two waies, the impuritie of the bodie, and it owne weaknesse… for both the soule is weake, and not able to resist the corrupt inclination of the flesh: it is not created in such strength and perfection, as Adams soule was: and the bodie is vnapt and vnfit for any spirituall worke: and this may suffice for an answer vntounto this obiection of the Pelagians concerning the originall of the soule.

Controv. 13. Against the Pelagians, and Papists, that originall sinne is not quite taken away in baptisme.

1. The Pelagians obiect further, that there is no originall sinne propagated vntounto Adams posteritie, or at the least remaining in them: for that which is taken away and blotted out, remaineth not, now originall sinne is taken away in baptisme, and therefore it is no more extant.

Answer. There must be two things considered in sinne: the act thereof as the matter, and the guilt: now there is herein a great difference betweene originall and other actuall sinnes, for in those the act is transitorie and remaineth not, and the guilt is remitted by faith in Christ: in originall sinne, though the guilt thereof be remitted in baptisme, yet the matter thereof, which is the corruption and deprauation of mans nature remaineth, it passeth not away, as the transitorie act of other actuall sinnes: and for the more full demonstration hereof, Augustine vseth two similitudes: like as the corne is sowen without chaffe or straw, and yet the corne that springeth of the seed hath both: and as they which were circumcised beget children, that are vncircumcised, and had neede of a new circumcision: so the fathers beeing regenerate by a new birth, yet doe beget vnregenerate children: the sanctitie of the parents no more passeth to their children, then their knowledge, and other vertues, Mart.

2. The Romanists denie not but there remaineth a corruption of nature still in the children of God after Baptisme, but they say it remaineth vt poena & exercenda vert…tis materia, not as a fault, but as a punishment, and matter or occasion for the exercising of vertue: Lyran. And it was concluded in the Councell of Trent, in baptisme tolli omne illud quod veram habet & propriam rationem peccati, all that to be taken away, which hath the proper and true nature of sinne, Concil. Trident. sess. 5. the Rhemists also affirme that children baptized hauehave neither mortall nor 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 vntounto 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 …some others, and specially against them, which hold it to be Adams sinne imputed onelyonly to his posteritie.

1. Faber & Erasmus in their annotations vponupon this place, seeme to be of opinion that originall sinne is onelyonly a pronenesse and aptnesse vntounto sinne, which is graft in vsus by nature: But this is refelled by the Apostle here, who saith, that in Adam all hauehave sinned, and therefore death also is entred vponupon 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly by imputation, because Adam in himselfe contained all mankind, and God made his couenant not onelyonly with him, but with all his posteritie, p. 275beeing then in his loines: and so his sinne is imputed vntounto 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 onelyonly: 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 vntounto vsus 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 vntounto him for righteousnesse: and therefore the iustice, whereby we are counted iust before God, is the iustice of Christ imputed to vsus 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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 vsus originall sinne by nature of our owne, but onelyonly 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 onelyonly the privation of originall iustice.

Bellarmine with other of the Romanists, will not hauehave originall sinne to be any euill positiue qualitie in man, but onelyonly 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 hauehave the same, &c. Now their cheefe reason, that originall sinne is no euill habite or positiue qualitie, but onelyonly a defect or privation, is this, because God is the author of all positiue things, that hauehave 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 hauehave 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 onelyonly 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.

p. 2762. Concerning the reasons obiected. 1. God is the author of euerie substance, and of eueryevery 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 vntounto Lyranus addition, and he thinketh that Adams posteritie is not bound to hauehave the originall iustice which was giuen to Adam: for they hauehave no such bond, either by the law of nature, for that originall iustice was supernaturally added, or by any diuine precept; for God gaue vntounto Adam no other precept; but that one, not to eate of the forbidden fruite; and therefore they were not bound at all to hauehave or reteine Adams originall iustice: Thus Burgens.

Contra. 1. Herein I rather consent vntounto Thoring the Replic. vponupon Burgens. who thus argueth, that this debt or bond, to hauehave originall iustice, was grounded vponupon the law of nature, which is the rule of right reason; for by nature eueryevery one is tied to seeke the perfection and conseruation of it kind: and this originall iustice tended vntounto the perfection of man; which though it were supernaturally added vntounto 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 vntounto mankind: for no law can be produced which bindeth infantes to hauehave 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 onelyonly 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 eueryevery 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 onelyonly 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 hauehave died for vsus, 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 giuegive vsus direction how to liue well, and to bring vsus 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 onelyonly, yet p. 277he 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 merciemercy 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 an enemie to God: for if it were so, that this enemie, were natura, non voluntatis, in nature, not in the will of man, there would be no reconciliation: for things in nature contrarie, and enemies one to the other, cannot be reconciled.

2. The Manichees also are here confuted, who did hold, that sinne was of God, as the anchor and beginner thereof: for they did make two beginnings one of good, the other of euill, and two Princes, one of light, the other of darkenes: this wicked fansie is here confuted, for the Apostle sheweth, that sinne entred by Adam, and so descended to his posteritie, Faius.

Controv. 17. That all sinnes are mortall, and worthie of death by nature.

v. 12. And death by sinne: if then death came in by sinne, yea children hauing onelyonly originall sinne are subiect to death: hence it is euident, that all sinnes are in themselues worthie of death: so that it is a vaine distinction, which the Romanists make betweene veniall, and mortall sinnes: as though some sinnes were pardonable in their owne nature: In that some sinnes are pardonable, it is of grace and merciemercy in God, not in the qualitie and propertie of the sinne, Martyr. Indeede there is some sinne remissible, some irremissible, as sinne against the holy Ghost: but this difference ariseth not so much from the nature of the sinne, as from the qualitie of the offender, whose heart is so hardened, that he cannot repent him of the blasphemie against the spirit: Neither yet doth it followe, if all sinnes are mortall in their owne nature, that therefore all sinnes are equall: for as there are degrees in the punishment of death, so there are degrees in the sinnes themselues: and though euen great offences are pardonable in the merciemercy of God, yet pardon in such sinnes is more hardly obtained.

Controv. 18. That Henoch and Elias are not yet aliue in their bodies.

v. 12. And so death went ouer all men: Hence then it is concluded, that Elias and He…, doe not yet liue in their bodies; whom the Romanists hold shall come in the ende of the world to preach against Antichrist: Gorrhan would thus helpe the matter, that de…h entred vponupon them reatis, non actu, not in act, but in the guilt: their death is deferred, it is not taken away, &c. for they hold that they shall be killed by Antichrist in the ende of the word.

p. 278Contra. 1. That it is appointed vntounto men to die, the Apostle testifieth Heb. 9.27. none are exempted from the common law of death: as it is said, 2. Sam. 14.14. We must needes die, and we are as water spilt vponupon the ground, that cannot be gathered vp againe: and the Psalmist saith, Psal. 88.48. What man liueth and shall not see death? Therefore Henoch and Elias are subiect to this generall law of death. 2. And if they were yet aliue, they must be either in the celestiall or terrestiall Paradise: but the terrestiall was destroied in the flood, and there they could not be preserued: and from the celestiall Paradise, none can returne to die againe, that is no place or habitation for mortall creatures: See further hereof Synops. Centur. 5. er. 32.

Controv. 19. The Virgin Marie conceiued in originall sinne.

The Romanists in their annotations vponupon the 14. v. doe affirme, that whereas all other are conceiued and borne in originall sinne, Christ onelyonly is excepted, and his mother for his honour, and by his speciall protection (as many godly men iudge) preserued from the some, &c.

Contra. 1. But this error is euidently confuted by the Apostles words, who saith, that in him, (that is in Adam) all hauehave sinned: therefore euen the Virgin Marie also: for onelyonly Christ was conceiued by the holy Ghost without the seed of man of a virgin, and therefore he onelyonly was conceiued without sinne. 2. and it was more for Christs honour to be borne of a sinner, himselfe no sinner, to shewe his puritie and perfection, then come cleane and vndefiled euen out a vessel not naturally cleansed from sinne. 3. If the holy Virgin must be conceiued without sinne, because of her Sonne, that was borne without sinne, then by the same reason the mother of Marie must hauehave the same priuiledge, because she brought forth Marie without sinne, and so her mother before her, and thus this priuiledge must runne vp still vntounto Christs progenitors.

4. Why are they afraid to determine this point absolutely, that Marie was conceiued without sinne, but set it downe onelyonly as a priuate opinion of some godly men: whereas Sixtus the 4. hath decreed it was so, and thereupon for the strengthening of his opinion, instituted the feast of the conception of the Virgin Marie, and added these words to the salutation of Marie, & benedicta sit Anna mater tua, de qua sine macula tua processit caro virginea, and blessed be Anna thy mother, from whom thy virgins flesh proceeded without spot: 5. they will not denie, but that Bernard, the Master, of sentences, Thomas Aquin. and before them Augustine, were godly and deuout men all which held the contrarie, that the Virgin Marie was not conceiued without sinne. August. de Genes. ad liter. lib. 10. c. 18. Bernard. epist. 174. Magister lib. 3. distinct. …. Thom. Aquin. vponupon that place.

Controv. 20. Against merits.

v. 16. The gift is of many offences: hence is inferred, that seeing our iustification by Christ is called a grace, and gift, that it proceedeth from the free louelove, grace, and fauour of God; Pareus here well inferreth, facessant ergo merita congrus, &c. away with all merits either of congruitie as preparations vntounto grace, or of condignitie vntounto saluation: for if our iustification and saluation were of merit or worke, it were not of grace: as the Apostle concludeth, Rom. 11.6. If it be of grace, it is no more of workes: for then worke were no more worke, &c.

21. Controv. That the punishment of originall sinne is euerlasting death.

v. 18. By the offence of one the fault came of all vntounto condemnation, &c. Here are two opinions to be refuted, the first is of those, which either promised vntounto Infants dying without baptisme in originall sinne, the kingdome of heauen, as one Vincentius did hold, whome Augustine confuseth, lib. 1. de origin. animae, c. 9. or els did assure vntounto them an happie estate in some middle place betweene heauen and hell, as the Pelagians, August. haeres. 88. vntounto which opinion Pighius and Cathari…us, two Popish champions, come very neere, who thinke that Infants dying in their infancie, and so in originall sinne, should enioy an happie and blessed estate here in earth after the generall resurrection.

The other opinion is generally of the Romanists, which hold, that Infants dying without baptisme, shall hauehave poenam damni, the punishment onelyonly of losse, in beeing depriued of the p. 279vision of God: but they shall not hauehave poenata sensus, the punishment or torment of sense or feeling: and here some doe exempt them from all torment both inward and outward, as Thomas with other Schoolemen, in 2. sentent. distinct. 33. some doe thinke, they shall hauehave internum animi dolorem, the inward greese of minde for the losse of the heauenly beatitude: as holdeth Pet. Lombard. 2. sentent. distinct. 33. with some other schoolmen, to whome Bellarmine subscribeth, lib. 6. de amiss. grat. c. 6.

1. For the first opinion that infants dying in their originall sinne are not excluded heauen, these arguments are brought.

1. The infants shall be afflicted, with no sensible punishments, because they had no euill mind, will, or purpose while they liued here.

2. Neither is there any contrition or sorrow in this life required for originall sinne, much lesse in the next: to this purpose Pighius.

3. Cartharinus among other reasons, vrgeth that place, Dan. 12.2. that many shall awake out of the dust, some to euerlasting life, some to shame: whereupon he inferreth, that all shall not rise to one of these ends, but some, and so there should be a third sort, that should neither goe to heauen, nor hell, but enioy a third place.

4. There shall be a new heauen and a new earth: as the new heauens shall not be without inhabitants, so neither the earth, which is most like, shall be the place for such infants.

Contra. 1. Though infants actually in their life shewed no euill purpose, will, or intent, yet it is sufficient to their condemnation, that they had an euill inclination by nature, which would hauehave shewed it selfe if they had liued to yeres of discretion: the onelyonly cause, why their euill inclination appeareth not, for that their mind hath not fit organes or instruments, to exercise the faculties thereof: like as the young cubbes of foxes and wolues are killed, and destroied, when they are yet young, though they hauehave yet done no harme, because it is certaine, if they should be suffered to grow, they would follow their kind: so the Scripture saith, that the imaginations of mans heart are euill from his youth, Gen. 9.21.

2. And holy men euen for their originall sinne hauehave shewed great contrition and sorrow in this life: as Dauid confessing his sinne, beginneth with his very sinnefull birth and conception, Psal. 5.1. so S. Paul crieth out, Rom. 7. wretched man that I am, who shall deliuer mee from the bodie of this death!

3. In that place of Daniel, many, is taken for all, as Augustine and Theodoret expound that place: as S. Paul in the fift chapter to the Romans v. 17. by many vnderstandeth all; as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners: for otherwise it would follow that all should not arise, that sleepe in the dust, but onelyonly some.

4. And it is a weake reason, there shall be inhabitants of the new earth, therefore infants shall inhabite it: Bellarmine thinketh that the earth shall be couered with waters, and so hauehave no inhabitants at all, but this is an idle speculation: for the earth shall then be restored to a perfect estate, & not to lie hid vnderunder the waters: and to what end there shall be a new earth, it is curiositie to enquire, the scripture hauing not expressed it: And if it be appointed for the habitation of the Saints, to passe from heauen to earth, and to follow the Lambe wheresoeuer he goeth, it is a worke consequent, that infants shall be those Saints: thus much shall suffice for the answer vntounto these reasons.

5. And further the opinion it selfe to make any kind of happines out of the kingdome of heauen, and to inuent a third place betweene heauen and hell, is contrarie to the Scripture: which forteth all men into two rankes or companies, which are appointed to two places: they are either of the sheepe at Christs right hand, which shall enter into life, or of the gootes at his left hand, for whom hell fire is prepared, Matth. 25. And the Scripture testifieth, that all that shall be saued, shall walke in the light of the celestiall Ierusalem, Reuel. 22.4. and without it shall be dogges, c. 12.15. none then can be saued out of it,

2. Now we come to the other opinion of the Romanists, that send infants dying without baptisme to hell, but they onelyonly attribute vntounto them a punishment without any sense, vnlesse it be the inward greefe and dolor of mind, to see themselues excluded the kingdom of God.

Contra. First it is an vncharitable opinion to send all infants to hell that die vnbaptised: for the grace of God is not tied to the outward element: God can saue without p. 280water: it is not the want of baptisme, but the contempt thereof, that condemneth: the Scripture saith, Mark. 16.16, he that shall beleeue, and be baptised shall be saued: but he that will not beleeue, (not he, which is not baptised) shall be damned: here are three opinions, 1. the Papists generally hold, that all infants dying without baptisme, are damned: but this is a cruell and vncharitable opinion, as is shewed before: See else where more hereof. Synops. Centur. 3. er. 3.

2. Some thinke that many of the infants of the Saintes are saued euen without baptisme, by the couenant of grace made vntounto the faithfull and their seede, but not all, for some of the children of the faithfull doe not belong vntounto election, such were Ismael, Esau. Thus Pet. Martyr.

3. But the better opinion is, that all the infants of faithfull parents dying in their innocent estate before baptisme, are saued by the generall couenant of grace, made to the righteous and their seede: because there is now no barre or impediment put in to binder the efficacie of that couenant, as in those, which liue vntounto the yeares of discretion, and depriue themselues by their impietie and vnbeleefe, of the benefit of that couenant.

Secondly, that such infants as are not saued by Christ, dying before baptisme, or after, doe suffer the sensible paines of hell fire, though in the least and easiest degree of all, it is thus prooued.

1. The Scripture saith, Reuel. 10.15. Whosoeuer was not found written in the booke of life was cast into the lake of fire. Infants then which are condemned, shall be punished in hell fire.

2. We see that infants euen in this life doe suffer in their infancie paine and torment of bodie: it therefore standeth with Gods iustice that infants euen for originall sinne should feele sensible torments:

3. If they will graunt that they shall hauehave the inward dolor of the minde to see others admitted into the kingdome of God, and themselues excluded, why not also paine of bodie? seeing the Scripture saith, that there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when men shall see the Patriarkes entring into heauen, and themselues excluded, and thrust out at the doores. Luk. 13.28.

4. Christ died for infants, as well as for others, and bare the punishment due vntounto them for their sinnes: but he suffered both the torments of bodie and minde: therefore both were due vntounto infants.

5. Gregorie is of this opinion: perpetua tormenta percipient qui nihil ex propria volunta… peccauerunt, they shall receiue euerlasting torments, which had not sinned by their owne will: in 9. c. Iob. so also Augustine: but he saith mitissima omnium pana erit eorum, their punishment shall be most gentle and easie of all other, which beside originall sinne hauehave added none other sinnes, &c. and this may be safely affirmed with Augustine: But that when followeth, hath more doubt: non audeo dicere, quodijs, vt nulli essent, quàm vt ibi essent, sotius expediret, I dare not say, that it were better for them not to be at all, then to be there, Augustine. Enchirid. c. 93.

Controv. 22. That Christs essentiall iustice is not infused into vsus.

v. 17. Much more shall they which receiue abundance of grace, &c. Osiander did hold, not Lucas Osiander, who hath written breefe annotations vponupon the old and new Testament: but another of that name before him, that the iustice of Christ is some reall thing infused into the faithfull, and that it was his essentiall iustice, as he is God, that is communicated to the faithfull, ex Faio. in v. 17.

But the Apostle euidently refuteth this error. c. 4.22. where he sheweth that it was imputed vntounto Abraham for righteousnes, because he beleeued in God: if we are iustified by faith, then not by the essentiall iustice of Christ, which still remaineth in Christs person, as the subiect thereof; but the righteousnesse whereby we are iustified before God, is the righteousnes of Christ, as he is man, which is apprehended by faith: and this also is euident in this place, where the Apostle ascribeth iustification to the abundance of grace receiued; and how is it receiued but by faith?

Controv. 23. Against the patrones of vniuersall grace.

v. 18. By the iustifying of one, the benefit abounded toward all men, &c. Hence of … p. 281Huberus, and before him the Pelagians would prooue, that the benefit of iustification is as vniuersall toward all, euen infidels and vnbeleeuers, as the condemnation, that came in by Adam: for the Apostle on both sides nameth all; for otherwise the benefite by Christ, should be inferiour vntounto the losse in Adam, which redounded generally vponupon all.

Contra. 1. This tearme of vniuersalitie (all) must be restrained according to the nature of the subiect: as Adam transfused his sinne vntounto all, which were his ofspring, so Christ also iustifieth all his, that is, all which beleeue in him: so by all, the Apostle vnderstandeth, the vniuersall companie of the faithfull. 2. the preheminence of the benefit consisteth not in the equalitie of the number, that Christ should saue as many, as are lost in Adam, for then there should be onelyonly an equalitie, not a superioritie.

3. But herein is the prerogatiue of grace seene: 1. in the excellencie of the effect, for life is a more excellent thing then death, and righteousnesse, then sinne. 2. in the powerfulnesse of the worke, it sheweth a greater power to saue, then to destroie, to iustifie, then condemne: for it is an easier matter to destroie, then to saue, to pull downe, then to build vp, to mortifie, then to reviue and raise to life. 3. the preheminence is in the amplitude and largnes of grace, in that we are iustified not onelyonly from one, but all kind of sinnes, as well actuall as originall; whereas originall sinne is onelyonly deriued from Adam: See more hereof, quest. 15.

Controv. 24. Against the Popish inherent iustice.

v. 9. So by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous, &c. The Romanists, as Bellar. lib. 2. de. iustificat. c. 1. Pererius disputa. 17. doe much vrge this argument against imputatiue iustice, that we are not iustified by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed by faith, but by an inherent righteousnesse wrought in vsus by Christ, whereby we are formally made iust: because we are so made righteous and iust in Christ, as we became sinners in Adam: but that was not by imputation of Adams sinne, but by sinne dwelling in them, whereby they are formally made sinners: therefore we are formally made righteous by an inherent iustice remayning in vsus, and not imputed onelyonly: Pererius further vrgeth the phrase, iusti constituentur, many shall be made iust, which is not all one, as to be reputed iust, or to be iust by imputation; but to be iust indeed.

Contra. 1. The comparison betweene Adams disobedience, and Christs obedience doth hold verie well euen in this point of imputation: for as there is in making of vsus sinners, both an imputation of Adams sinne to his posteritie, as comming out of his loines, as also an habituall prauitie and corruption of nature, the effect thereof: so their is a double operation of Christs obedience: both it is imputed vntounto vsus by faith, whereby we are iustified before God, and thereby there is wrought in vsus holines and righteousnesse, which is our sanctification, but by this, because it is imperfect in this life, we are not iustified before God. 2. and whereas the Apostle vseth the word foreign, constituentur, shall be made or constituted iust, we confesse that he meaneth, they shall be made iust indeede in Christ: but therefore the word is put in the future tence, because in this life our sanctification is but begun, it shall not be absolutely perfect till the next life, when all imperfection and impuritie of our nature shall be cleane taken away, and then shall we be made perfectly iust indeed: See a more full answer to this obiection, Synops. Centur. 4. er. 56.

3. But if they shall further replie, that we are rather made sinners by the reall corruption of our nature, then by the imputation of Adams sinne, and so consequently we should rather be iustified by an inherent righteousnesse, then imputed onelyonly; we answer, that herein appeareth the preheminence of grace, that Christs righteousnesse onelyonly imputed is more able to iustifie vsus, then Adams sinne onelyonly imputed, was to condemne vsus.

Controv. 25. That we are iustified both by the actiue and passiue obedience of Christ.

Piscator in his annotations vponupon this verse vrgeth this point, that we are not iustified by the obedience of Christ in his life, which was his actiue obedience, but by his passiue obedience in his death, because if we be iustified by his righteousnesse acted in his life, then should he not hauehave needed to hauehave died for vsus: for beeing iustified alreadie by the righteousnesse p. 282of his life, there was no cause for Christ to be punished for vsus, beeing alreadie made iust by his righteous life.

Contra. 1. Though the Apostle doe principally meane the particular obedience of Christ in submitting himselfe to his fathers will in his death, to giuegive his life for his sheepe, as it is opposed to Adams particular disobedience in eating of the forbidden fruite: which was in re facillima, in a thing most easie to hauehave beene kept: whereas Christs obedience was in re dissicillima, in a most hard & difficult thing, to giuegive himselfe for vsus euen vntounto death: yet this his particular obedience in his death depended vponupon the generall obedience of his life, whereby he merited the imputation of his righteousnesse: for the merite of Christs passion, depended vponupon 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 vntounto 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 onelyonly to be righteous, which by continuall exercise and practise of vertue attained vntounto an habite of well doing, which they ascribed onelyonly 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 onelyonly afterward, the former memorie of their sinnes was worne out; whereas it is in God onelyonly 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 vsus, 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 vsus before God, who is absolutely perfect: true it is that eueryevery 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 vsus 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 vntounto 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 vntounto 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 onelyonly 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 p. 283the 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 vntounto 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 hauehave righteousnesse, as Adam and Adams children were sure to die, after they hauehave sinned: So Chrysostome vponupon this place collecteth well, Noli ita que cum iustitiam habeas, de vita dubitare, vitam enim excellit iustitia, mater quippe illius est, do not therefore doubt of life and saluation, if thou hauehave 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 hauehave 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 vsus acceptable vntounto 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 onelyonly, that is freely giuen, they insinuate, that there are other graces, which are not freely giuen. 2. the grace, which maketh vsus 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 onelyonly the worke of the free grace and fauour of God toward vsus: this word (grace) is either taken actively for the louelove, grace, and fauour of God, or passiuely, for those seuerall gifts and graces, which are wrought in vsus by the fauour of God: the first grace is as the cause, the other graces are the effects: the first is without vsus, the other within vsus: the first is the originall grace in God, the other are created graces: Now we hold that we are made acceptable vntounto God, onelyonly by the first grace of God toward vsus, 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, the grace working together, is that wherewith the will of man worketh for the effecting of that which it willeth. This distinction must be qualified: for to make the will of man a ioynt worker with grace, is against the Apostle, who saith, that it is God which worketh in vsus both the will, and the deede, Philip. 2.13. But thus it may be admitted, that mans will beeing once mooued, and regenerate by grace, is not idle, but then worketh with grace not of it owne strength, but as it is still mooued and stirred by grace: see further hereof, Synops. Centur. 4. err. 30.

3. Of this sort, is that distinction of grace, praeveniens, & subsequens, grace preuenting and going before, and following grace: which are not indeede two diuerse or seuerall graces, but diuerse effects of one and the same grace: Gods grace preuenteth mans will, and changeth it, of vnwilling, making it willing, and then it followeth, to make the will of man fruitful and effectuall; and this we acknowledge: but the grace subsequent or following, is not merited or procured by the well vsing of the first preventing grace, in which sense this distinction is to be reiected.