Commentary on Romans, Biblical exegesis 1 · Chapter 7 · Section 6
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 vponupon him to prescribe lawes and rules vntounto those which are dead, and their soules as they imagine in purgatorie: for no lawe imposed vponupon 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 …i…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 hauehave beene twice married, they shew what base conceit they hauehave 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 … 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 onelyonly two, baptisme and the Eucharist, which answer vntounto the two principall Sacraments of the old Testament, Circumcision and the Paschal lambe. 3. If it be decent for a Bishop to be the husband of one wife, as Christ is of one Church: why will they not then allow them to hauehave any wife at all. 4. Christ indeede is the husband but of one Church at one time; yet the Church of the old Testament, and the Church of the new did one succeede an other: so then this resemblance may hold very well, if likewise a Bishop be the husband of one wife after an other.
Controv. 3. Whether the marriage bond be indissoluable before the one partie be dead.
1. Pererius would prooue the negatiue, that marrying cannot be dissolued, quoad vi…culum, in respect of the bond, if it be lawfully contracted, but onelyonly, quoad torum, in respect of their bedding, and conuersing together, no not for fornication: but after death, by this place of the Apostle, v. 3. If while she liueth she take an other man, she shall be called an adulteresse: the Apostles words are generall, that till death part them, neither of them is free.
Contra. 1. The Apostle speaketh of marriage, as it was instituted of God, which by Gods ordinance was to continue as long as life lasteth; for God appointed in the beginning, that the man should cleaue vntounto his wife: here then the Apostle had no cause to speake of the cases wherein diuorce is admitted, either civilly, as the law of Moses permitted the men to giuegive a bill of diuorce to the women: or by Christian libertie or immunitie, as in the cases of fornication, or desertion: for when there happeneth any other separation of mariage then by death, it falleth not out, nisi per vitium, but by the fault of the one, as Chrysostome here obserueth: for the Iewes were permitted to giuegive their wiues a bill of diuorce for the hardnes of their heart, as our Sauiour saith, Matth. 15. and either their wiues were in fault, for the which cause they dismissed them, or they were in fault, in seeking to be rid of their wiues: likewise in diuorce vponupon fornication, the partie diuorced was in fault, but in the case of desertion, the partie forsaking was in fault: so none of these separations was without the fault of the partie: but the Apostle speaketh of the institution of marriage, according to Gods ordinance, as it is found and entire without any such impediment, or let comming betweene: in which sense it is not dissolued but by death.
2. Erasmus further answereth, that the Apostle onelyonly taketh his similitude from marriage: and in a similitude, it is not necessarie, that eueryevery thing should agree, neither is it to be pressed in eueryevery point.
3. But that in two cases the mariage bond may be dissolued, beside death, by the fault of either partie delinquent, namely for fornication, and vponupon wilfull desertion, it is euident: the first by the words of our Sauiour, Matth. 19.9. Whosoeuer shall put away his wife, vnlesse it be for whordome, and marrie another, &c. committeth adulterie: the other by that place of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 7.15. if the vnbeleeuing depart, let him depart, a brother or sister is not in subiection in such things: Pareus, dub. 1. see further else where, Synops. p. 685. 687.
Controv. 4. That the disparitie of profession is no cause of the dissolution of marriage.
v. 4. If the man be dead: Gorrhan here putteth in a distinction of ciuill death, which is by profession, ante carnaletu copulam, before carnall knowledge, or naturall, which is by death properly: for it is the common opinion of that side, that the man or woman hauing contracted matrimonie, may either of them forsake the other, before the consummation of marriage, to take vponupon them the profession of single life. The Romanists also hauehave another opinion, that marriage contracted in the time of infidelitie before baptisme, is dissolued, and made void, if either of the parties afterward be conuerted to the Christian faith: Bellar. de matrimon. c. 12.
But these two exceptions for the disparitie of religion, or profession, to dissolue matrimonie, are contrarie to the rule of our Sauiour, Matth. 19.9. who alloweth no marriage to be dissolued, but for fornication: and Saint Paul directly prescribeth, that the woman should not forsake her vnbeleeuing husband, if he be content to dwell with her, 1. Cor. 7.13. See further hereof, Synops. Centur. 3. er. 82. er. 95.
Controv. 5. Whether the bill of diuorce, permitted to the Iewes, did lawfully dissolue matrimonie vnderunder the law.
This question ariseth by reason of the Apostles generall words here, that if the woman take another man, as long as the first liueth, she is called an adulterer: hence then this doubt is mooued, what was to be thought of the men, which dismissed their wiues vnderunder the law, and married others, and the woman likewise so dismissed married againe, whether it were adulterie in them.
1. Some are of opinion, that by the bill of diuorcement giuen, the verie bond of matrimonie was dissolued, and that then it was lawful for either partie to marrie againe: as Scotus, Dorandus, Poludanus in 4. Sententiar. distinct. 33. Caietanus in 24. Deuter. Abulens. in c. 19. Matth. qu. 49. and Burgens. against Lyranus, in 24. Deuter. But the words of our Sauiour Christ make against them, who saith, that Moses permitted them so to doe for the hardnes of their heart, Matth. 19.8. it was therefore tolerated onelyonly, and suffered because of their infirmitie, it was not made lawfull: and our Sauiour Christ addeth, from the beginning it was not so: this their instance then of distinguishing their wiues, was a departing from the first institution.
2. Wherefore their opinion is more sound, which thinke, that although because of the hardnes of their heart, to auoid a greater mischeefe, namely vxoricidium, the murthering of their wiues, they were permitted to send them away; yet the marriage was not in truth dissolued: they married againe, sine poena legali, without any legall punishment, but yet non sine peccato, not without sinne: Thus Pererius; shewing the same to be the opinion of Thomas, Bonaventure, Lyranus, with others, and before them Augustine, lib. 19. cont. Faustum. c. 26. and Hierome in c. 2. Malach. And further Augustine sheweth, that Moses intendment, in graunting a dismission of the wife vponupon a bill of diuorcement, was to hauehave them reconciled: that whereas onelyonly the Scribes were to write the bills of diuorcement of purpose, henc interposuit moram, he put in this caution, to delay the matter, that while the man went vntounto the Scribe, while his bill was in writing, his minde might be altered, especially by the perswasion of the Scribe, who in his discretion was not to write any such bill, if reconciliation might otherwise be had.
So then of this libertie of the Iewes, the like iudgement is to be giuen as of the polygamie or marriage of many wiues, that neither was void of infirmitie, which God did beare within those times: but neither was euer simply lawfull, the first institution beeing violated.
Controv. 5. Against the workes of propitiation.
v. 4. That we should bring forth fruit vntounto God, &c. This place is well vrged by Pet. Martyr against the propitiatorie workes vntounto 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 vntounto God, must first be an others, that is, maried vntounto 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 vsus.
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 vponupon him to confute him: diligenter meminerimus, &c. let vsus 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 vsus, 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 vponupon 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 vsus, beeing made a curse for vsus, as the Apostle sheweth, Galat. 3.10.13. see further Synops. Centur. 4. err. 60.
Controv. 8. That concupiscence though it hauehave 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 vntounto 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; onelyonly 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 hauehave 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 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 hauehave 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 la… 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 vntounto 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 vsus vntounto 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 vsus power, &c. which Augustine affirmeth, not as though any man had power by grace to keepe all which is commanded, but onelyonly 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 onelyonly bringeth forth sinne, or if it be, it is no mortall sinne, for sinne onelyonly 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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 de…es, it should not differ from the 7. precept, which restraineth the lusts of the heart, that hauehave the will consenting, Matth. 5.28.
Argum. 2. That which hindereth vsus from doing our dutie vntounto 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 vsus 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 onelyonly in heauen: the other way is, so farre as it bindeth a man in this life, when the heart is habitually inclined vntounto God, so that it admit nothing against it: as this kind of louelove 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 vntounto 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 vntounto here, but euen that perfect obedience is propounded vntounto vsus here, and required of vsus, 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 vntounto 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 vsus: it followeth, that God in the strict rule of his iustice required of vsus 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 giuegive ouer, till he hauehave 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 vntounto him the cause of death, v. 10.11. 2. S. Augustine also confesseth, that concupiscence is not onelyonly 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 hauehave 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 vsus, though it hauehave not our consent: Calvin: Pererius answereth, that the other commandements onelyonly 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, …on solum externa peccata, &c. in those legall precepts, not the externall workes of sinne onelyonly to be prohibited, but the verie inward concupiscence: But we hauehave 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 hauehave no other Gods, &c. and thou shalt make to thy selfe no grauen image, &c. but one.
2. Contra. 1. The Apostle calleth it foreign, 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 eueryevery 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 hauehave no other Gods, &c. and thou shalt not make to thy selfe, &c. are but one: and the first commandement he would hauehave 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 onelyonly is the true God; and in this first commandement, the Gospel is offred vntounto vsus: for in that mention is made of their deliuerance out of Egypt; there the promise concerning Christ is contained: But this is onelyonly 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 onelyonly, not spoken by way of commanding. 2. and if he will hauehave 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 vntounto that which is good.