Commentary on Romans, Biblical exegesis 1 · Chapter 5 · Section 5
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 vsus 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 vponupon 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 vsus by the grace of iustification, but declarative, it declareth, confirmeth, and assureth vntounto vsus 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 vntounto vsus; so the peace of conscience wrought in vsus by faith, is confirmed and ratified vntounto vsus 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 hauehave accesse through faith: this text is well vrged by Peter Martyr, and Pareus against the invocation of Saints: for if by Christ we hauehave accesse vntounto God, what neede we the helpe of other mediators and intercessours? the Papists then doe much derogate vntounto the glorie of Christ, in bringing an other foreign, to enter vsus, and cause vsus to hauehave accesse vntounto God; And further two arguments may be vrged out of the Apostles words; he saith we hauehave accesse by him through faith: but Saints are not the obiect of our faith, we must onelyonly beleeue in God. Ioh. 14.1. Ye beleeue in God, beleeue also in me. 2. we hauehave accesse vntounto this grace, namely, whereby we are iustified; but by the Saints we are not iustified, therefore by them we hauehave not accesse and entrance.
Controv. 3. Of the certaintie of saluation, and of finall perseuerance.
v. 5. We hauehave accesse vntounto 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 vntounto 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, hauehave 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 hauehave 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 foreign, worketh: for it is sometime ascribed vntounto the principall efficient cause, as vntounto God the author and worker of all good things in vsus, 2. Cor. 5.5. sometime to the second or next vnderworking cause; as the Apostle saith, of beneficence or liberalitie, that it worketh or causeth thanksgiuing vntounto God: sometime the effect is ascribed by this word vntounto the instrumentall cause; as Rom. 4.15. the lawe is said to worke or cause wrath: and our light and momentanie afflictions, are said to cause or worke vntounto vsus an exceeding weight of glorie, 2. Cor. 4.17. because they are meanes to withdrawe our mindes from earthly things, and to stirre vp faith in vsus: So tribulation worketh patience, not as the efficient cause, but as the organe and instrument, whereby the spirit worketh patience in vsus: it procureth patience, not sicut causa effectum, &c. as the cause the effect, as Caietan, but eam exercendo, augendo, ostendendo, in exercising, encreasing, and shewing forth our patience, Gorrh: to the same purpose, Pererius: exercendae patientiae materia & occasio est, tribulation is the matter and occasion of exercising our patience: This then is to be vnderstood according to the phrase of Scripture, which doth vse to pronounce that of the signe and instrument, which is proper vntounto the thing; as when it speaketh of the Sacraments: for of it selfe tribulation worketh not patience, as is seene in the wicked, who thereby are driuen to impatience and despaire: here then is no place to prooue any merit in the afflictions of the faithfull.
Controv. 5. That we are not iustified by the inherent habite of charitie.
Whereas the Apostle saith, v. 5. The louelove of God is shed abroad in our hearts, &c. Pererius vnderstanding the Apostle to speake here of that louelove and charitie, which is infused as an habite into the minde, whereby we louelove God; setteth downe here certaine positions concerning this inherent charitie. 1. he affirmeth, that this charitie is that iustice, whereby we are formally made iust and righteous before God, disput. 2. numer. 10. 2. this charitie, whereby we are iustified, he affirmeth esse donum omnium donerum maximum, to be a gift farre exceeding all other gifts. 3. this charitie, re non distingui à gratia gratum faciente, is not indeede distinguished from grace making vsus acceptable vntounto God. 4. Against the opinion of Caietane, Scotus, Gabriel, he holdeth, that there is in those which are iustified, the habite of charitie permanent and remaining when the act ceaseth, whereby they are formally made iust before God: otherwise they should not be helde to be iust before God, in their sleepe, or when they cease to worke, disput. 3. numer. 17.18.
Contra. Although all these questions are here impertinent, because the Apostle treateth not here of the charitie or louelove, which is in man toward God, but of Gods louelove toward vsus, as hath beene shewed at large before, quest. 7. yet it shall not be amisse briefly to counterpoise these erroneous assertions with the contrarie true and sound positions.
1. An inherent righteousnesse, and infused charitie in the faithfull we denie not: but not such, as whereby we are formally made righteous and iustified before God: both because all our righteousnesse is as a stayned cloth, Esay. 64. it is imperfect and weake, and therefore not able to iustifie vsus: and for that the Scripture testifieth, that it is the righteousnesse of Christ which is applyed by faith, whereby we are iustified before God, as the Apostle calleth it, The righteousnesse of God, thorough the faith of Christ, Rom. 3.22. Philip. 3.9.
2. Charitie is not simply the greatest of all other gifts, and so absolutely preferred before faith, but onelyonly wherein they are compared together, namely, in respect of the continuance: because faith and hope shall cease, when we enioy those things which are beleeued and hoped for: but louelove shall remaine still: so Chrysostome expoundeth the Apostle, 1. Cor. 13.13. Thus Hugo saith well, that charitie is said to be the greatest, quia non excidit, because it falleth not away: but otherwise faith is the greater, in quantum est cognitio, & generans omnes alias virtutes, as it is a knowledge, and engendreth all other vertues.
3. The Thomists are herein contrarie to the Iesuite, who affirme, that gratia gratum faciens, grace which maketh vsus acceptable to God, is in respect of charitie, as the soule is to the powers and faculties which proceede from it: And so indeede the grace that maketh vsus acceptable vntounto God, is the louelove and fauour of God in Christ, which is, as the efficient cause of that other louelove and charitie, which is infused into vsus, and wrought in vsus by the holy Ghost: And that our louelove of God maketh vsus not first acceptable vntounto him, the Apostle euidently testifieth, 1. Iob. 4.10. Herein is louelove, not that we loued him, but that he loued vsus: we were first then accepted and beloued of God, before we could louelove him againe.
4. We graunt, that faith, hope, and charitie, are habits of the minde infused by the spirit, and permanent in the soule: for as the wicked doe attaine vntounto euill habites of vice and sinne; so the faithfull hauehave the habite of vertue: but this is the difference; that an euill habite is acquisitus, gotten by euill custome, but the good habites of the intellectuall vertues of faith, louelove, hope, are iufusi, infused and wrought in vsus by the spirit.
But we denie, that by any such inherent habite we are made formally iust: they are not causes of our iustification, but rather the fruits and effects: we hauehave the habite of faith, because the spirit of God worketh in vsus beleefe: and we louelove God, because he loued vsus first, and gaue vsus his spirit, which worketh this louelove in vsus, Faius. So then the faithfull euen in their sleepe are iustified, not by any inherent habit, but because they are accepted of God in Christ, as the Apostle saith, Christ died for vsus, that whether we wake or sleepe, we should liue together with him.
Controv. 6. Against the heresie of impious Socinus, who denieth that Christ died for our sinnes, and payed the ransome for them.
Whereas the Apostle here saith, v. 8. that Christ died for vsus, we according to the Scriptures so vnderstand it, that he offered a sacrifice for our sinnes, Heb. 10.12. that he as our high Priest offred himselfe for our redemption, Heb. 7.27. that he was our suretie and paied our ransome for vsus, Heb. 7.22. and saued vsus from our sinnes, in bearing the punishment due vntounto the sam… …nd so he died for vsus, that is, in our place and stead, and so purchased our redemption: … wicked Socinus thus wresteth and misconstrueth these words, that Christ died no … wise for vsus, then for our profit and benefit, in confirming by his death his doctrine and example of life: by the which he saith he brought saluation vntounto the world, and not by dying for vsus, as in our stead, or to pay by his death our ransome: his wicked obiections are these.
1. Obiect. The Apostle saith, 1. Ioh. 3.16. He laid downe his life for vsus, and we ought to lay downe our liues for the brethren: Christ died for vsus, as we must die for our brethren, which is not to die in their stead, but onelyonly to profit them by our example.
Answ. The Apostle doth not simply compare the death of Christ, and of the faithfull dying for their brethren together: but onelyonly in this, that in both louelove is expressed to the brethren, though not in the like measure: But Christs death doth not onelyonly by the example thereof profit the Church, as the death of the martyrs did: but thereby mans saluation and redemption also was wrought.
2. Obiect. S. Paul saith, that he suffered for the Colossians, 1. Coloss. 1.24. which was not to satisfie for them, or he suffered in their stead, but onelyonly to confirme their faith, and so to edifie them.
Answ. There is great difference betweene the sufferings of Christ for his Church, which was to redeeme it, and the sufferings of Paul for his brethren, which onelyonly was to edifie them.
3. Obiect. As Christ is said to hauehave died for vsus, so likewise the Scripture saith he died for our sinnes, Galath. 1.4. the meaning is not in stead or place of our sinnes; but. because of our sinnes: in the same sense he died for vsus, that is, for our cause, not in our stead.
Answ. This is a childish cauill: for the Scripture sheweth a manifest difference betweene these two phrases, to die for vsus, that is, to saue vsus, and to die for our sinnes, not to saue them, but to purge them, and take them away.
4. Obiect. That which no lawe or custome euer allowed, is not to be affirmed of Christ: but one to die for an other, is warranted by no lawe nor custome: indeede one may pay an others pecuniarie mulct or debt, because ones money may become an others, but the death of one cannot be an others.
Answ. 1. The assumption is not true, for euen among the Romanes there were some found, that did offer themselues to present destruction for their countrey, as Decius the Consull and Curtius: these examples are farre vnlike vntounto Christs, yet they shewe, that it is not against all vse and custome one to die for another.
2. The proposition fayleth diuersly. 1. Christs example is singular, the like president cannot be found, as the Apostle sheweth, v. 7. that he died for his enemies, which neuer any did: therefore we must not seeke for lawe or custome to measure this singular act of Christ by. 2. it is also false, that no lawe nor rule can be found for this: for it is reuealed in the Euangelicall lawe; that God gaue his sonne to die for the world: the lawe of Moses indeede required that the same person that sinned should die: but that which was impossible to the lawe, is fulfilled in Christ, Rom. 8.2. yea the blind high Priest spake the truth vnwittingly, Ioh. 11.50. That it was expedient; that one die for the people, and that the whole natiō perish not: he little thought that Christ should redeeme the people from euerlasting death yet ignorantly vttered that which the Lord intended.
5. Obiect. It is a great cruelty and iniustice to punish him that is innocent, and to let goe vnpunished the offenders: they then accuse God of cruelty and iniustice, in deliuering vp his innocent sonne to death for vsus sinners.
Answ. 1. Gods acts are not to be measured according to the rules of humane proceedings; for the like temper of iustice and merciemercy cannot be found among men: neither hauehave any the like absolute power, as God hath, to dispose of all things, according to his will and pleasure: who if he should, as he made the world of nothing, so being it of a sudden to nothing againe, should not therefore shewe himselfe either cruell or vniust.
2. Neither is it vniust, for the innocent to suffer punishment for the offenders, vponupon these conditions: 1. If both of them be of the same nature. 2. If the innocent partie doe willingly offer himselfe. 3. If he can by his owne strength ouercome the punishment. 4. and if thereby he can effectually procure the saluation of others: all which doe concurre in Christs voluntarie suffering for vsus.
6. Obiect. The Scripture saith, The same soule that sinneth shall die, Ezeck. 18. it was therefore vniust, that Christ should die, that had not sinned, and those escape which had sinned.
Answ. These legall sentences shewe, what God might, according to the iustice of the lawe, hauehave required of euerie one: they are no rules of Gods proceeding in merciemercy with his children according to the promise of the Gospel.
7. Obiect. God might, if it had pleased him, hauehave freely forgiuen men their trespasses: therefore Christ needed not to hauehave died for them.
Answ. 1. First, it is no good argument, à posse, ad esse, from that which may be, no that which is: God might doe it, therefore he did it, or would doe it, is no good consequent. 2. Neither is it true, that God could otherwise hauehave forgiuen men, then by the death of Christ, his iustice beeing presupposed: for God cannot denie himselfe, seeing the sentence was past, that they should die the death, if they transgressed, this decree must stand, and the death deserued, must be satisfied for: neither is this any want or defect in Gods power, but an argument of the perfection of his nature, that he cannot lie, neither is mutable.
8. Obiect. It is perfect merciemercy to forgiue freely, and perfect iustice, that the offender should be punished onelyonly: but in God is perfect merciemercy and iustice.
Answ. 1. It is true, that perfect merciemercy, and perfect iustice considered apart, and by themselues, hauehave these effects and properties: but so can they not be incident into one and the same subiect: therefore seeing Gods merciemercy and iustice are tempered together, they must be so considered, as the one destroy not the other. 2. Indeede the rigor of the lawe requireth perfect iustice, but in the Gospell of Christ is propounded a way how the seueritie of Gods iustice should be moderated with equitie, and tempered in merciemercy, or else no … should be saued.
9. Obiect. One man can but redeeme one: and therefore either there must be found out an infinite sort of redeemers for all men, or Christ redeemed but one.
Answ. The antecedent is false: for many times for one captiue Prince a thousand common prisoners are set at libertie: much more auaileable for all was the redemption purchased by Christ the Prince of our saluation, ex Pareo.
Controv. 7. Against other obiections of Socinus, and other impugning the fruit and efficacie of Christs death, in reconciling vsus to God his father.
1. Obiect. Whereas the Apostle saith, v. 8. God setteth forth his louelove toward vsus▪ hence it is obiected, that seeing God loued vsus before the foundation of the world, and whom he loueth, he is not angrie with, therefore Christ needed not to hauehave died to reconcile vsus to God, and to appease his fathers wrath toward vsus.
Answ. 1. The antecedent is true concerning those whom God loued simplie, and was neuer offended with them, because they had not sinned against him, such were the Angel… but it is not true of those whom God was offended with for their transgression, and yet he loued them not onelyonly as his creatures, but as his children whom he purposed to redeeme in Christ, 2. So then in a diuerse respect God both was angrie with them as sinners, and yet he loued them, vnderunder this condition, that they should be saued by the redemption of Christ, in him they were elected and beloued before the foundation of the world: the argument then followeth not, God loued them in sending his sonne to die for them, and so reconcile them, therefore it was needelesse that Christ should die for them, which were beloued of God alreadie, for God loued them in Christ, whom he had ordained before to be their Mediator and Redeemer.
2. Obiect. As herein God shewed his louelove toward vsus so it would seeme a cruell part in God, so to be delighted in the death of his sonne.
Answ. 2. God had no delight in his sonnes death in respect of his suffering and torments, but as it was a satisfaction for the sinne of the world, and the price of our redemption, 2. and Christ the sonne of God was not forced hereunto, but offred himselfe willingly of his infinite louelove to die for man.
3. Obiect. It had beene a greater louelove, if the father himselfe had died for vsus, then in sending his Sonne: thus Pareus reporteth how a Iewe obiected vntounto him as he tooke his Iourney toward Silesia, ann. 78.
Answ. First, we must not curiously search into Gods secrets to knowe the reason of his will, why the sonne of God rather then the father tooke our flesh and died for vsus: Secondly, yet these reasons may be alleadged hereof. 1. the father and sonne beeing but one God, the father as God did worke with his sonne, in finishing our redemption. 2. because God was offended, and it was God, that must satisfie, for none else could doe it, therefore there must be one person in the Godhead, that must satisfie, namely the Sonne, and one that must be satisfied, namely the father. 3. what greater louelove could God the father shewe, then in giuing his owne Sonne, the most deare thing vntounto him. 4. It was the Redeemers and Sauiours part, to restore vsus vntounto the dignitie of the sonnes of God: vntounto whom did this more properly belong, then vntounto the Sonne of God?
Controv. 8. That Christs death was a full satisfaction for our sinnes, against Socinus his cauills.
Obiect. If Christs death were a satisfaction vntounto the iustice of God for the sinnes of the world… then 1. it must hauehave beene performed by the same person that had offended. 2. the iustice of God required a punishment equivalent to the offence, namely, euerlasting destruction and malediction, which Christ sustained not. 3. the Scripture no where speaketh of any such satisfaction for vsus by the death of Christ.
Answ. 1. As in humane Courts there is a double kind of iustice, either strict or rigorous iustice, or iustice moderated and tempered with equitie and clemencie: as if a king inflict vponupon a traytor either the punishment of death, or the mu…ct of ten thousand talents, in the rigor of iustice he may exact either, but if he shall in his clemencie accept an 100. talents of an other, that shall vndertake for the offender, here now is iustice tempered with merciemercy: So is it with God, he dealeth with some in strict iustice, as with the reprobate Angels, and reprobate men, that doe despise Christ and his redemption, but with his elect by dealeth in the other kind of tempered iustice, accepting the satisfaction of Christ for them, not a stranger from them, but made man like vntounto them.
2. Though Christ suffred not eternall paines, yet in respect both of the excellencie of his person, that suffered, and the bitternesse of that agonie, which he endured, did beare that punishment which in Gods gracious acceptance was equiualent vntounto euerlasting paine.
3. And though the Scripture vse not the verie tearme of satisfaction, yet there are words of like f…ree and efficacie applyed to the death of Christ, as foreign ransome, redemption, and such like, as Matth. 20.28. to giuegive his life for the ransome of many: Rom. 2.14. are iustified, &c. by the redemption that is in Christ Iesus, and in many such places th… like phrases are found.
Controv. 9. That Christs death was not onelyonly satisfactorie, but meditarious, against Socinus.
Obiect. 1. No satisfaction of a due debt, hath merit in it, for no more is paid then is due Christ then by his death merited not, because he payed our due debt: neither doth the Scripture ascribe any merit to Christs death.
Answ. 1. It is true, that he which satisfieth for his owne debt, therein doth not merit: for he paieth but that he oweth, but he that satisfieth for an others debt, meriteth two waies, first in respect of the debter, in paying that he oweth not, then in respect of the Creditor, who by an agreement, couenanteth to accept the satisfaction of the vndertaker, not as a recompence onelyonly for the debt, but as a merit to deserue further grace and fauour for the debter: So Christ hath truely merited in respect of vsus, in paying our debt for vsus, and in respect of God, who accepteth the death of his sonne as truely meritorious of his grace and fauour for vsus.
2. And further herein appeareth the merit of Christs death. 1. in respect of the excellencie of the person that died. 2. of the perfect obedience and fulfilling of the law. 3. his great louelove and willingnesse in suffring. 4. and beside his satisfaction, he was a faithfull martyr and witnesse of the truth, Reuel. 3.14.
3. The Scripture, though in direct tearmes, it ascribeth not merit vntounto the death of Christ, yet it vseth words equivalent, as the word foreign, acquisitio, purchasing, includeth merit, as Act. 20.28. Christ is said to hauehave purchased his Church by his blood, and Ephes. 1.14. It is called the redemption of the possession purchased, &c. which is all one as if he had said merited: See more in Pareus dub. 7.