Commentary on Romans, Biblical exegesis 2 · Chapter 14 · Section 5

Commentary on Romans · Biblical exegesis 2 · Chapter 14 · Section 5

p. 6575. Places of controversie.

Controv. 1. Whether to abstaine from certaine meates, be an act of religion, and a part of Gods worship, or a thing in it selfe indifferent.

The latter is affirmed and maintained by Protestants, the other is stifly defended by the Romanists: but that the state of the question may better appeare, first the diuerse kinds of fasting and abstinence are to be considered.

1. There is a naturall abstinence, which is onelyonly from such meates, as agree not with the stomack, and are enemies to the helth of the bodie.

2. A morall abstinence is from such meates and drinkes, as a man findeth to distemper him, and to disturbe his memorie and other faculties of his minde, as the drinking of wine and strong drinke.

3. A ciuill and politike abstinence is to refraine eating of flesh some certaine daies for the maintenance of navigation and the vtterance of fish, and for sparing the breed of cattell, as the Lenton fast is now kept in England.

4. There was beside these a Iudaicall fast, which was of two sorts, either a totall and generall abstinence, as from swines flesh and other meates counted vncleane by the law: or an abstinence for a time, which was either generall of the whole nation, as to abstaine from eating of vnleavened bread for seauen daies in the feast of the Passeouer: or particular of some professed persons, as of them which had taken vponupon them the vow of the Nazarites, which was neither to take wine, nor any strange drinke: See the law of the Nazarites, Numb. 6.

5. Beside these there was an hereticall fast, and abstinence, of such as abstained from certaine meates, counting them euill, and vncleane in themselues: which was the opinion of the Manichees and Tatiane heretikes: which kind of impious abstinence the Apostle speaketh against, 1. Tim. 4.

6. Adde vntounto this the superstitious abstinence of the Papists, which make the fasting and refraining from fleshmeates, vponupon the fift and sixt day of the weeke and in the time of L…u…, to be a necessarie part of Gods worship, and a thing meritorious, and satisfactorie. This is the abstinence, that now is in question.

7. Yet a religious fast we acknowledge, which is when vponupon some daies appointed by the Church, publikely, or when any are disposed priuately to fast, the more feruently to giuegive themselues vntounto praier: which the Apostle speaketh of, 1. Cor. 7.5. But this is done without any opinion of merite, or holines in the act it selfe, but as it helpeth and confe… …eth to a spirituall end, the more earnest invocation of God, and humble supplication before him.

8. There was also a scrupulous kind of abstinence in the primitiue Church, when some Christians did abstaine of conscience from eating things which were consecrate to Idols: of the which S. Paul entreateth 1. Cor 8.10.

Now the fast and abstinence, which is controverted betweene vsus and the Papists, is the superstitious fast, before the 6. whose opinion is this, that to abstaine from flesh and other kinds of meates in the time of lent, and vponupon other daies of restraint, is a necessarie part of the diuine worship, meritorious and satisfactorie: habet meritum & satisfactionem apud Deum, it meriteth, and satisfieth before God, &c. Tolet in his annotations here: and the precept of fasting, obligat sub peccato mortali, bindeth vnderunder the daunger of mortall sinne: we will examine some of their reasons.

Argum. 1. The Apostles by their synodicall decree prouided, that they should abstaine from certaine meates, as strangled and blood.

p. 658Ans. 1. The Pastors of the Church hauehave not now the same power and authoritie to make Canons to bind the conscience, which the Apostle had, who were guided by the immediate direction of the spirit. 2. they did not enioyne abstinence from flesh-meate, egges, milke, and such like, as the Romanists doe, but onelyonly from such meates, as were forbidden by the law. 3. neither did they enioyne this abstinence as a part of the divine worship, for then it should bind still, but onelyonly for a time to avoid offence, in respect of the Iewes newly conuerted.

Argum. 2. Those things which the Church commandeth, are necessarily to be kept and observed: for our Sauiour saith, he that heareth you, heareth mee, &c. But such is the Ecclesiasticall law and precept of fasting: Ergo, &c.

Ans. 1. Not eueryevery thing the Church commandeth, is to be obserued as a part of Gods worship, but those things onelyonly, which the Church propoundeth by the warrant, and authoritie of Gods word, and so is our Blessed Sauiour to be vnderstood: otherwise whosoeuer preacheth any other Gospel, or any thing contrarie thereunto, is to be held accursed. 2. neither are we to regard what the false and Antichristian Church now commandeth, no more then our B. Sauiour, and his Apostles did hold themselues bound to the superstitious decrees of the Pharisies.

Argum. 3. The law of fasting, is a tradition Apostolicall, therefore necessarie to be oserued, and kept.

Ans. We graunt that the free vse of fasting, to be ioyned as an helpe vntounto praier, was taken from the Apostles: but not this necessarie kind of fasting tied vntounto certaine daies, which may thus appeare. 1. Eusebius lib. 5. c. 24. sheweth the libertie and varietie of fasting in the Church, and maketh mention how Irenaeus reprooued Victor Bishop of Rome, for excommunicating the East Churches, for obseruing an other kind of forme in celebrating of the Pasch, and in fasting. 2. Sozomen. lib. 7. c. 19. declareth how at Rome they fasted onelyonly three weekes before the Pasch, in Greecia six: and Telesphorus in his decretall ordained the fast of seauen whole weekes: it was not then an Apostolike tradition. 3. Chrysost. hom. 47. in Matthew, denieth the Lenton fast to hauehave beene instituted by Christ: non dicit ieiunium suum esse imitandum, &c. he saith not his fasting is to be imitated, though he might hauehave propounded his fourtie daies fast: but he saith, Learne of mee, for I am humble and meeke, &c.

Argum. 4. In the new Testament there is no other abstinence from meates forbidden, but the legall and Iudiciall.

Ans. 1. The argument followeth not, it is not forbidden, therefore it is a part of the diuine worship: the contrarie is inferred, therefore it is no part of the diuine worship, beeing neither commanded, nor forbidden: for all necessarie parts of the worship of God is prescribed in the word: if then it were not forbidden, it should remaine free, and therefore is not to be imposed as a necessarie thing. 2. the antecedent is false, for not onelyonly the Iewish abstinence, but all other superstitious kindes of fasting and abstinence are forbidden: Coloss. 2. 1. Tim. 4. and if such abstinence, as was sometime commanded by the law, by the libertie of the Gospel be taken away, much more such, as is the meere invention of man.

5. Argum. The taming and mortifying of the flesh is a necessarie thing, but abstinence from flesh doth helpe to the taming, and subduing of the flesh: Ergo, &c.

Ans. 1. The continuall mortifying of the flesh is a necessarie thing, which is to be practised all the life long: but to tame and subdue the flesh for a time, as in fasting certaine daies, is but a superstitious and hypocriticall mortification, which is reprooued by the Prophet, Isai. 58.5. Is it such a fast, that I hauehave chosen that a man should afflict his soule for a day, and to bow downe his head as a bulrush, &c. 2. neither by such Popish abstinence is the flesh …amed, when they abstaine from fleshmeate, and eate of other confected meates, as of marmaled, and sucker, and such like things, and drinke wine, which doe more inflame, and instigate the flesh, then the eating of flesh-meates: Thomas answer is ridiculous, that flesh doth increase the humors of the bodie, which are of long continuance, wine doth but nourish the spirits, which doe soone passe away: for the Phisitians will refute him, who affirme, that as meate doth engender the solid nutriment of the bodie, so drinke doth encrease the liquide nutriment, which in effect is all one.

Arg. 6. The abstinence of the Rechabites by the cōmandement of their father pleased God in so doing, as a part of his worship: much more abstinence which is inioyned by our mother the Church.

p. 659Ans. 1. The argument followeth not, for there is great difference betweene the abstinence of the Rechabites, and the ceremoniall abstinence: 1. in the matter, that was not from flesh, egges, and such like, but from wine, tillage, dwelling in cities. 2. in the forme: they abstained all their life time, and with a libertie, in time of necessitie, for in Ieremies time, they dwelt in Ierusalem, because of the warre, Ierem. 35.11. 3. and further, by the law the parents might either confirme or disanull the vowes of their children, Num. 30. but now vnderunder the Gospel such legall rites are ceased.

2. The antecedent is false, for they did not keepe their fathers precept, as an act of religion, but for some politike and morall respects: as they are forbidden inhabiting in cities, least they might be corrupted with the vices thereof, and were commanded to dwell in tents, to put them in minde, that they were straungers beeing descended of the Kenites: these and such other arguments are produced by Bellarmine lib. 4. de verb. Dei. c. 3. lib. 2. de bonis operib. c. 71. c. 11.

Now on the contrarie, against such superstitious abstinence, vrged by the Papists as a necessarie part of Gods seruice, & the same meritorious, some of our arguments are these.

1. Argum. The Apostle saith, c. 14.17. The kingdome of heauen is not meate nor drinke: and Heb. 13.9. It is good to hauehave the heart established with grace, and not with meates, which hauehave not profited them, that hauehave bin occupied therein: therfore to be occupied in abstinence frō meats, is a thing indifferent, not in it selfe meritorious, or a part of Gods worship.

2. Argum. That which God hath purified and made cleane, no man must pollute, Act. 20.15. but he which for religion and conscience sake maketh meates vnlawfull, which God hath made cleane, doth pollute them: Ergo.

3. Arg. All will worship is no part of Gods seruice; but the choice of meates, touch not, tast not, handle not, is a voluntarie and will worship, Coloss. 2.21.23. therefore no part of Gods seruice: Bellarmine answeareth, that the Apostle doth not speake against all ecclesiasticall abstinence, but onelyonly the Iudaicall or the Philosophicall abstinence, which was practised among the heathen. Contra. The Apostles reason is generall against all choice of meates, and other humane inuentions, which are according to the doctrines of men, v. 22. but this ecclesiasticall and Popish canonicall fast, is an humane invention meerely, and according to the doctrines of men, therefore euen against such speaketh the Apostle.

4. Argu. Our Blessed Sauiour saith, that which entreth in by the mouth defileth not the man, Matth. 15.17. therefore flesh at all times eaten and entring in by the mouth is lawfull in it selfe, because it defileth not, so it be done without scandale and offence: our Blessed Sauiour giueth a generall rule as well against Pharisaicall traditions, as all other invented by man, that the conscience before God is not defiled with the breach thereof.

5. Argu. The doctrine of Deuils is no part of the diuine worship: but the forbidding of meates is the doctrine of Deuils, 1. Tim. 4.3. Ergo. Bellarmine telleth vsus, that the Apostle there noteth such heretickes, as the Manichees, Tatians, Eucratites, which condemned flesh, as euill, and so did dishonour the Creator. Contra. The Apostle onelyonly noteth not those heretickes, but euen the Papists, which should forbid meates, for he prophecieth of the latter times: and not onelyonly they which simply condemne meates, but doe place an holinesse in merite in some meates, rather then others, are these forbidders of meates: and how doe not they condemne meates, which thinke men to be polluted by them, and do rather chuse to cast them away, then to eate them vponupon forbidden daies?

6. Argu. That which infringeth Christian libertie, and bringeth vsus to more then a Iewish bondage, it is no part of Gods worship vnderunder the new Testament, but such is this canonicall abstinence: for whereas the Iewes were enioyned abstinence but once in the yeare, the tenth of the seauenth monethmonth, Levit. 23.17. the Papists doe enioyne abstinence, (beside twice or oftner eueryevery weeke) the tenth part of the yeare in lent for religion: see further of this controversie Synops. Centur. 4. err. 94.10.97.

Controv. 2. That faith is not onelyonly an assenting of the will, but an act also of the vnderstanding, and it is ioyned with knowledge.

v. 2. One beleeueth that he may ea…e, &c. Bellarmine agreeing with others of that side, will hauehave faith to be, assensum non notitiam, an assenting onelyonly of the will, not a knowledge: lib. 1. de iustificat. c. 5. and therefore they say to beleeue is nothing else but to giuegive assent vntounto the doctrine of the Church, although one vnderstand not what it is.

But the Apostle sheweth the contrarie: for here he that beleeueth, that he might teare of p. 660things, did know it to be lawfull, assented thereunto, and was fully perswaded: as the Apostle expoundeth himselfe afterward, v. 14. I know, and am perswaded, that nothing is vncleane of it selfe: so then to beleeuing belongeth as well a knowledge, as an assenting and perswasion.

There is a generall faith, as to beleeue the word of God, and the heauenly doctrine therein contained, vntounto the which three things are required, a knowledge, and assenting, and a full perswasion: to the which these three are opposite, ignoratio, negatio, dubitatio, ignorance, deniall, or not assenting, and doubtfulnes.

There is a speciall and particular faith, which is an assurance of remission of sinnes in Christ, which is that which we call iustifying faith: and beside those three things before concurring in a generall faith, there is required in iustifying faith confidence beside and firme assurance, contrarie whereunto is diffidence and distrust. See more hereof Synops. Centur. 4. err. 49.

3. Controv. That it is necessarie, that festivall daies should be obserued among Christians.

v. 6. He that obserueth the day, obserueth it to the Lord. This condemneth the auncient error of the Petrobusianes, of whome mention is made, lib. 3. de vita Bernard. c. 5. whome the Anabaptists in these daies follow, who denie, that Christians should obserue any festivals at all: their reasons are these.

1. The Galatians are reprooued by S. Paul for obseruing of daies, Gal. 4.

2. The Apostle saith, Col. 2.15. Let no man iudge you, &c. in a part of an holy day.

3. It is against Christian libertie to be tied vntounto the obseruation of daies: Gal. 5.1. Stand fast in the libertie, wherein Christ hath made vsus free.

4. The Sabbath of a Christian ought to be perpetuall, &c.

Ans. 1. The Apostle reprooueth them for their superstitious obseruing of daies, such as then the Iewes practised, and now the Papists: but to obserue such holy daies, as God hath appointed, such as the Sabbath is: and others for order and policie, not for religion sake, is not within the Apostles reprehension.

2. The Apostle speaketh of the Iewish festivals, wherein they did clogge their consciences, and one iudged an other: not of the Lords day, which is of Christs appointing, or of other festivals for order & policie, not as a part of the seruice of God, to bind the cōscience.

3. Christian libertie is infringed by the superstitious obseruation of daies; but not otherwise.

4. The perpetuall Sabbath of Christians, is the spirituall cessation from sinne, not the externall Sabbath, which can not continually be obserued.

Contra. Now on the other side, that it is necessarie for Christians to obserue some festivall daies, we reason thus.

1. It is one of the morall precepts, to remember to keepe holy the Sabbath, which though in particular, concerning the prescript of the day, it doe not bind Christians, yet the moralitie of it remaineth still, that some daies should be appointed for the worship of God, and for publike instruction.

2. God is not the author of confusion, but of peace: and all things must be done decently and orderly in the Church, 1. Cor. 14.33.40. but if there should be no daies appointed for the publike seruice of God, there would be a great confusion: for thus the calling also of ministers should be remooued, if no time were allowed for the exercise of their publike ministerie, and so the people should be as sheepe without a shepheard.

3. If no such daies of rest were allowed Christians, their case should be much inferior vnderunder the Gospel, to the condition of the Iewes vnderunder the Law, both for their bodies, hauing no daies of refreshing and rest, and their soules, hauing no time of instruction, as the Iewes had both.

4. Controv. Whether any festivall daies are to be obserued as in themselues holier, then other.

This is the opinion of the moderne Papists, as Bellarmine setteth downe this proposition, dies festi vere sunt alijs sanctiores, &c. that festivall daies are in themselues more holy then others: de cult. sanctor. lib. 3. c. 10. And the Apostle seemeth here to make it as a thing indifferent to observe a day, or not to obserue it.

Contra. 1. The Apostle approoueth not this difference of daies, which was still retained p. 661of some comming from Iudaisme, for he counted it an infirmitie in them, and so calleth them weake, v. 1. he onelyonly beareth with their infirmitie herein for a time, till they should be better confirmed: therefore this is no warrant for men to make difference of daies.

2. This obseruation of daies, in preferring one before an other as more holy, is condemned by the Apostle, Gal. 4.10. Coloss. 2.15. for both the Iewes offended herein, who made a legall difference betweene day and day, and the Gentiles counted some dismall and vnfortunate daies, some otherwise.

3. If one day were more holy then an other, it must be either in the nature of the day, or by institution divine or humane: but the Popish festiuals are neither holy in nature, for the Planets by their motion and influence make no difference, nor yet by institution from God are they made more holy: for they are not of Gods appointing: and by humane institution one day can not be made holier then other: for it belongeth onelyonly to the Creator to sanctifie the creature.

4. Then, like as the externall elements, as water in baptisme, bread and wine in the Eucharist, are not more holy in their nature, but in respect of the present vse, which beeing finished, they returne to their first vse againe; so holy daies are counted sacred in respect of the holy vse onelyonly: as Hierome saith, non quod celebrior sit dies illa, qua convenimus, sed &c. not that the day wherein we meete, is more excellent, but on what day soeuer we meete, ex conspectu mutuo maior laetitia oriatur, by the mutuall sight one of an other greater ioy is caused: in 4. ad Galatas. See further Synops. Centur. 2. err. 63.

5. Controv. That festivall daies ought not to be consecrated to the honour of Saints.

The Romanists hold the contrarie, reasoning thus for their opinion.

1. Argum. God is honoured in his Saints, the festivals therefore which are instituted to the honour of the Saints, are referred to and determined in God.

Ans. 1. No will-worship tendeth to the honour of God, but the odoration of Saints is a will-worship, therefore God can not thereby receiue honour. 2. God rather is thereby dishonoured: for they giuegive the honour due vntounto God vntounto creatures, inuocating the name of Saints, saying, O S. Peter, S. Paul heare vsus.

2. Argum. The memorie of the Saints is to be honoured: but festivals are dedicated to the memorie of Saints: Ergo.

Ans. 1. Popish festivals are not dedicated onelyonly to the memorie of Saints, but to their worship, which is idolatrie. 2. and the Saints may better be remembred, then by erecting holy daies in their names, namely, by imitating of their godly zeale, and setting before our eyes their good example: see Hebr. 13.7.

3. Argum. These festivals of the Saints hauehave beene receiued and confirmed by long custome, and therefore are not to be reiected.

Ans. Cyrpian saith, epist. ad Pompeium, writing against the epistle of Stephanus Bishop of Rome, consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est, custome without truth, is but the oldnes of error.

Our arguments for the contrarie part, that no festivals are to be consecrated to the honour of Saints, are these, and such like.

1. All religious worship is due vntounto God onelyonly: him onelyonly shalt thou serue, Matth. 4. but to dedicate daies vntounto the honour of any, is a religious worship: Ergo. Augustine saith, honoramus sanctos charitate, non servitute, we honour Saints with charitie, not seruice. de vera relig. c. 55.

2. Argum. Festivall daies, are not onelyonly for the rest of the bodie, but for the sanctifying of the soule: but this is onelyonly Gods worke: therefore to him onelyonly the right of festivall daies belongeth.

3. In the old Testament, there were no holy daies consecrated to the Patriarks, as Abraham, Isaak, Iacob, nor to any of the Prophets, therefore neither ought any be so dedicated in the New.

4. Christians are not to imitate Pagans in the rites of religion: but, in dedicating daies vntounto Saints, they imitate the Pagans apparently: for so the Pagans did consecrate feasts to their inferiour gods, as the Saturnals to Saturne, the Bacchinals, to Bacchus, and such other: & herein Papists doe follow their example, changing onelyonly the names: and this was done by the authoritie of one of their owne Popes, Greg. l. 9. ep. 71. festa Paganorum sensim esse &c. p. 662the Pagan feasts are by little and little to be changed into Christian feasts, and some things must be done to the similitude of theirs, that they may more easily be brought to the Christian faith, &c.

6. Controv. Whether all the festivalls of Christians are alike arbitrarie to be altered and changed, as shall seeme good to the Church.

Herein not onelyonly the Papists are our aduersaries, but some of our owne writers seeme to incline vntounto this opinion.

The Papists affirme, that the Sabbath is but an Apostolicall tradition, and that it was charged from the last day of the weeke to the first, by the authoritie of the Church: Rhemist. whereupon it will follow, that the Church may alter it by the same authoritie, if it shall so seeme good, vntounto an other day.

Learned Pareus hath also this position, dub. 4. hypoth. 3. feriae Christianorum quantum ad genus sunt necessariae, vt tamen quantum ad speciem maneant liberae, &c. the holy daies of Christians, though they be necessarie in generall, yet in particular are free, that they may be changed and transferred if there be cause, from one day to an other, &c. and he seemeth to account the dominicall day, inter res medias, among things indifferent. hypoth. 4.

But I preferre herein the iudgement of that excellent diuine D. Fulke, who concerning other festiuals of Christ and the holy Ghost, thinketh that they may be changed, as the Church shall see cause, from certaine daies, vntounto other occurrent times and occasions, or from the daies now observed to other, as things in themselues indifferent: but concerning the Lords day, he writeth in these words, But to change the Lords day, and to keepe it on monday, twesday, or any other day, the Church hath none authoritie: for it is not a matter of indifferencie, but a necessarie prescription of Christ himselfe deliuered to vsus by his Apostles. annot. Revel. c. 1. sect. 7.

The reason hereof is, 1. because we finde that in the Apostles time, the first day of the weeke was appointed to be the Lords day, Act. 20.7. 1. Cor. 16.2. Revel. 1.10. who beeing directed by the spirit of God, no doubt but herein also they followed either the expresse commandement of Christ, or the speciall direction of the spirit. 2. because there can not come the like reason of the altering of the Lords day, while the world endureth, as was in the first change, namely for the commemoration of Christs resurrection. 3. the Sabbath could not be changed but by the same authoritie, whereby it was first instituted, which was by God himselfe.

Wherefore to conclude this point, the festiuals of Christians may be diuided into three sorts: 1. some are of necessitie to be kept, and bind in conscience, as the Lords onelyonly. 2. other festiuals, though not so necessarie, yet are conuenient to be retained, and can not be remooued without great scandall, as the feasts of the Nativitie, Circumcision, Annuntiation, Ascension of Christ, and of the comming of the holy Ghost. 3. some are meerely arbitrarie in the Church, as all other festiuals of the Apostles. See further hereof, Synops. Centur. 2. err. 87. and Hexapl. in Genes. c. 2.

7. Conntrov. Against Purgatorie.

v. 8. Whether we liue, or die, we are the Lords: hence may be confuted the Popish opinion of purgatorie: for they which are the Lords, are alreadie purged by the blood of Christ, and neede no other purgation by fire: if they be not purged, they are not the Lords, for no vncleane thing can come into his sight: so the Spirit saith, Blessed are they which die in the Lord, they rest from their labours, Revel. 14.13. all that die in the faith of Iesus, die in the Lord: if they die in the Lord, they rest from their labours: but they which are in purgatorie, are in labour and sorrow still. See further Synops. Centur. 2. err. 11.

8. Controv. Whether Christ by his obedience and suffering merited for himselfe eternall glorie and dominion.

1. It is the opinion of the Schoolemen, that as Christ merited by his death for his members redemption from death and sinne, so by his perfect obedience, and most holy passion, he merited both to himselfe and his members the glorifying of his bodie, and the manifestation of his Godhead: to this purpose Lombard. lib. 3. distinct. 18. and some of our Protestant writers seeme to incline to this opinion, as Pet. Martyr.

1. Pet. Martyr would prooue so much out of this place, v. 9. Christ therefore died, and rose againe, &c. that he might be Lord of the quicke and dead: whereupon he inferreth thus; p. 663which dominion, though God might hauehave conferred vponupon him (gratis) freely, yet meritis eius dare maluit, he did choose to giuegive it rather for his merits.

Answ. Though I reverence the iudgement of this learned writer, whose worthie commentaries vponupon the Scriptures, are not inferiour to any of our newe writers, yet herein vponupon better reason I must dissent from him. The argument followeth not, Christ therefore died, &c. therefore by his death he merited. 1. like as this is no good reason, the Martyrs die to the ende to set forth Gods glorie, Ergo, they merit the setting forth of his glorie: that indeede is the ende and consequent, the other is not the meriting cause, but precedent onelyonly. 2. Christ died then to that ende, because this was the way and order appointed of God, whereby he should come to exercise his dominion.

2. Lombard in the place before recited, vrgeth that place, Philip. 2.7.8. he became obedient to the death of the crosse, &c. wherefore God hath exalted him: here the exaltation of Christ, is the reward of his humiliation, and this the meriting cause of the other.

Answ. 1. This word foreign, therefore, doth not alwaies signifie the cause or merit, but the order also and sequele of a thing: as Genes. 22.16. Because thou hast done this thing, &c. I will exceedingly blesse thee, &c. and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in thee: vnlesse any will thinke, that Abraham by that one act of obedience, in being readie to sacrifice his sonne, merited to be the father of Christ according to the flesh, in whom all the earth should be blessed: see the like Heb. 1.9. Because thou hast loued righteousnesse, &c. God hath anointed thee with the oyle of gladnes aboue thy fellowes, &c. but the deitie, or to be deified, cannot be merited.

2. The Apostle then in this place sheweth the order of the passion, and glorification of Christ, as Luk. 24. Ought not Christ to hauehave suffered these things, and so to enter into his glorie? likewise S. Peter, 1. ep. c. 1.11. ioyneth together the sufferings of Christ, and the glorie which should followe.

3. The Rhemists vrge that place, Heb. 29. We see Iesus, for the passion of of his death, crowned with glorie and honour.

Answ. The words are displaced, which in the originall stand in this order, We see Iesus a little lower then the Angels, by the passion of his death, crowned with glorie and honour, &c. so that these words by the passion of his death, must be ioyned with the former clause, made a little lesse then the Angels, not with the latter, crowned with honour, &c.

2. An other opinion is, that euerlasting glorie, was gratuitum donum, a free gift conferred vponupon Christ, not merited, as Pareus collecteth by the word, foreign, he gaue him as of free gift, a name aboue all names, &c. Phil. 2.9.

Answ. 1. The word foreign, doth not alwaies signifie to giuegive freely, as the wife is said in profane authors foreign, to gratifie her husband in yeelding the vse of her bodie, which yet is her dutie to performe. 2. and it were better to say, that Christ receiued his glorie of merit, then by grace and favour; to shew a difference betweene Christ and his members, for we receiue all by grace, Christ not by grace, but as his due receiued his glorie. 3. and for the further explanation of that place, Philip. 1.9. 1. some thinke that Christ onelyonly merited the glorie of his bodie, for his soule was glorified ab ipso instanti incarnationis, from the verie instant of his incarnation, Lyranus. 2. some thinke that he merited onelyonly manifestationem, the manifestation of his glorie, which he had before, secundum rem, indeede; so also Lyranus. 3. Augustine vnderstandeth this gift to be giuen, per gratiam vniens, non adoptans, by the grace of vnion not of adoption. 4. Ambrose interpreteth it, de naturali donatione ab aeterno, of the naturall donation from all beginning, as Christ is the Sonne of God, post crucem manifestatur, quod à patre, cum generatur accepit, after his passion, that is manifested, which he receiued of his father in his generation. I ioyne two of these expositions together, that the glorie which was due vntounto Christs humanitie in respect of his vnion, was not now first conferred after his passion, but then manifested: which manifestation was not merited, but did fall out in that order, as God had appointed, as due vntounto Christs humanitie by reason of that vnion.

3. This then is our opinion, that Christ did not merit any thing, for, or to himselfe, but all which he wrought and purchased was for vsus, as may appeare by these reasons.

1. To what ende Christ was borne, died, and suffered, to the same he rose againe, and was glorified: but he was borne and died, not for himselfe, but for vsus, Isay. 9.6. to vsus a child is borne: and he was not offered for his owne sinnes, Heb. 7.27. which he had not: therefore p. 664neither receiued he glorie for himselfe but for vsus: to this purpose, Ambrose de fide resurrection. c. 24. si nobis non resurrexit, vti que non resurrexit, qui cur sibi resurgeret, non habebat, if he did not rise for vsus, he did not rise at all, for he had no cause to rise for himselfe.

But that saying of Ambrose will be obiected vponupon that place to the Philipians, 2. quid & quantum humilitas mercatur, hic ostenditur, what and how much his humilitie merited, here it is shewed. Answ. The fathers doe vse this word merere, to merit, in a large sense: it signifieth, impetrare, obtinere, …o obtaine a thing, or posse, contingere, to be able, to fall out: as Ambrose saith, epistola meruit pervenire in manus tuas, the epistle merited to come to your hands, that is, might, or obtained to come: But he is otherwise absolutely of iudgment that no works can truely or properly merit at Gods hand: as de vocat. gent. lib. 1. c. 5. Ambrose or Prosper thus writeth, nulla possunt tam praeclara opera existere, quibus hoc, quod gratis tribuitur, per retributionis iudicium habeatur, there can be no such excellent workes, whereby that should be had by way of retribution and recompence, which is freely giuen: for so the redemption by Christs blood, vilesceret, should waxe vile, and be of small worth.

2. M. Calvin addeth this reason, Christi gratiam obfuscat, it would much obscure the grace of Christ, if he had done any of these things which belong vntounto our redemption for himselfe, and not wholly and altogether for vsus.

3. And further it would followe diuinos honores mereri posse, that diuine honour may be merited: for this honour to hauehave euerie knee to bowe, is due vntounto the Godhead, Isa. 45.23.

4. That glorie which was due vntounto Christ before in respect of the vnion of his natures, was not merited by his passion: but this glorie and exaltation of Christ was so due: as our B. Sauiour saith, Iob. 17.5. now glorifie me thou father with thine owne selfe, with the glorie which I had with thee before the world was: See further hereof in D. Fulkes answear to the Rhemists, Philip. 2. sect. 1. and Synops. Centur. 4. err. 30.

Controv. 9. Of bowing the knee to the name of Iesus, whether it be necessarily inferred out of this place, ver. 11. and Philip. 2.10.

Though we doe not simply condemne the bowing at the name of Iesus, if it be vsed onelyonly, vt ritus indifferens, as an indifferent rite and gesture, Pareus: yet if it be commanded, as a necessarie part of externall worship, and commanded by precept, it is superstitious: as it is prescribed and practised in Poperie: which may appeare by this, that they bowe the knee at the name of Iesus, rather then at the name of Christ, or of God the father, and the holy Ghost.

And whereas the Apostle speaketh of bowing the knee at the name of Iesus, it is not literally to be taken: for by the name of Iesus, is not signified the name written, or pronounced, (for this was the error of Osiander, as Beza obserueth. 2. Philip. 9. which confounded the name Iesus with Iehova) but the power and Maiestie of Christ, as this word name is vsed by the Apostle, Ephes. 1.21. Christ is set at the right hand of God, farre aboue all principalities, and euerie name that is named, &c. Neither is the bowing of the knee here taken literally, as Origen sheweth in this place: quod non est carnaliter accipiendum, vt putemus coelestia, genu flectere, &c. sed genu flectere, subiecta esse cuncta, & culius Dei obedire declarat, which is not to be taken carnally, that we should thinke the heauenly things to bowe the knees, as the Sunne, and Moone, starres, and Angels, &c. but to bowe the knee, declareth all things to be subiect vntounto God, and to be obedient to his worship, &c. It seemeth then, that in Origens time, this gesture of bowing the knee at the name of Iesus was not taken vp, therefore it is to be held no necessarie thing, nor prescribed by commandement: See further Synops. Papism. Centur. 2. er. 51.

Controv. 10. That Christ is prooued to be God by this saying of the Prophet cited, v. 11. as I liue, euerie knee shall how vntounto me: against the blasphemie of Georgius Eniedinus.

From this place thus it is inferred and concluded concerning the deitie of Christ: he to whom euerie knee boweth, is verie God, Isay 45.23. but vntounto Christ euerie knee shall bow, Rom. 14.11. Philip. 2.10. Ergo, he is God.

Georgius Eniedmus a blasphemous Samosatenian heretike, taketh two exceptions to this argument. 1. he denieth the assumption, that the knee is bowed vntounto Christ: for one may sit in the tribunall seate, and yet the knee may be bowed vntounto an other, even to God himselfe, p. 665who shall iudge in that day, Rom. 2.16. 2. he distinguisheth of the proposition, which is true onelyonly of him, to whom worship is giuen, and the knee bowed, ratione essentiae, in respect of his essence, but now the knee is bowed to Christ, not in respect of his essence, but of his dignitie, as vntounto the ordinarie Iudge, not as vntounto the chiefe Prince.

Contra. 1. The Apostle sheweth directly, that the knee is bowed vntounto Christ as the Iudge, because he had prooued before, that he was Lord both of quicke and dead, to whom else then should the knee be bowed, but vntounto the Lord and Iudge? The Father shall iudge by his Sonne, to whom he hath committed all iudgement, Iohn. 5.22. and yet Christ iudgeth also by his owne power: for there is but one Godhead, and one power of both: therefore it followeth not, God the Father iudgeth, therefore not the Sonne.

2. Christ is worshipped not onelyonly in respect of his office and dignitie of iudging, but in the vnitie of essence with his father, as he saith, Ioh. 5.19. Whatsoeuer things the father doth, the Sonne doth the same: and v. 26. As the father hath life in himselfe, so he hath giuen vntounto the Sonne, to hauehave life in him: but what is the life of God els, then the essence of God? Christ then is by nature and essence the same with the father, and so is one God to be worshipped, and adored with him: and whereas it is said, the Father hath giuen him, &c. this must be vnderstood, not de dono gratia, sed communicatione naturae, not of the gift of grace, but of communication by nature, so that for the Father to giuegive vntounto the Sonne, is all one as to say, Pater genuit filium, the father hath begot the Sonne from euerlasting.

And that Christ is one God with the father by identitie of essence, may appeare, by the accusation of the Iewes, that he beeing a man made himselfe God, Ioh. 10.33. they did not challenge him, as if he would be some secundarie Iudge or Prince, but equall vntounto God: which is there iustified and maintained by our Sauiour: See Pareus further hereof, dub. 8.

Controv. 11. That morall workes, which are done without faith are sinne, how soeuer outwardly they appeare good.

1. The Romanists for the most part doe hold the contrarie, that a naturall man onelyonly directed by the vse of his reason and vnderstanding, may do some things morally good, which hauehave not the nature of sinne: their arguments, some of them are these.

1. S. Paul saith, c. 2.14. that the Gentiles doe by nature the things contained in the law, they then therein sinned not.

2. Our Sauiour did not mislike those ciuill offices, which were performed by the Pharisies, in louing those which loued them, Matth. 5.46.

3. A man is a reasonable creature, and this were against his nature, non posse facere aliquid secundum rectam rationem, not to doe any thing according to the right vse of reason: for euen God hath giuen this facilitie to euerie naturall thing, to attaine vntounto the naturall ende thereof: much more vntounto man.

4. Gregor. homil. de Diuit. & Lazar. vponupon these words of Abraham vntounto the rich man, thou hast receiued good things in thy life: indicatur & dives iste boni aliquid habnisse, propter quod in hac vita acceperit bona, &c. hereby it is shewed, that the rich man had some good thing, for the which he received good things in this life, and Lazarus had some euill thing, that was purged in his life, &c. herevpon Pererius inferreth, that there is no man so euill, but he hath some good thing in him, which is temporally rewarded in this life: therefore all that the wicked and infidels doe, is not sinne: To this purpose Pererius disput. 5. in 14. c.

Contra. 1. We denie not, but that the wiser sort of the Gentiles might doe some externall workes agreeable to the lawe in outward appearance, but they were farre from the perfection and internall obedience required by the lawe, and therefore could not be voide of sinne.

2. Those ciuill duties of rendring louelove for louelove, which belong vntounto common ciuilitie, as they are not simply condemned: yet our Sauiour in requiring greater perfection in his disciples, sheweth that those duties were spotted with Pharisaicall leauen, and were not approoued in Gods sight, as good workes.

3. If man had kept that perfection, wherein he was created, he might hauehave beene sufficiently directed by the rule of reason: but now his reason is not right, it is corrupted and obscured by sinne, and therefore can give him no direction to that which is truely and properly good: as other creatures know naturally what is good for their life, so man by nature knoweth what is naturally good for himselfe: but it followeth not, that he should therefore p. 666by nature doe any thing morally good.

4. That saying of Gregorie beeing allowed, it is not to the purpose: for that rich man might hauehave some knowledge of God, whereby he might be directed, beside the helpe of nature: and yet it followeth not, that euerie one, which enioyeth the temporall things of this life, should be temporally rewarded for his good parts: for we see that many in this world, which hauehave least parts of morall and ciuill goodnes, hauehave a better earthly portion, then those in whom more goodnesse appeareth: And yet further, this temporall recompence, onelyonly sheweth, that their acts are not truely good, and in the sight of God, for then they should not onelyonly hauehave a temporall, but an eternall reward.

Now on the other side, it shall be prooued, that all the actions of infidels and wicked persons, that hauehave no ture faith, what goodly shew soeuer they make in the world, are no better before God, then sinfull workes.

1. Our blessed Sauiour saith, Matth. 7. an euill tree cannot bring forth good fruite: but they which hauehave no faith, are euill trees, Ergo.

2. Likewise, Ioh. 13. our Sauiour saith, without me ye can do nothing, therefore without faith, no good thing can be wrought.

3. And in this place, the Apostle saith, Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne.

4. Further, no worke can be accepted of God, vnlesse the person that worketh it be first accepted: but none can please God without any faith, Heb. 11.6. Againe Augustine saith, finibus, non officijs virtutes à vitijs discernendae sunt, vertues must be discerned from vices, by the endes, not by the offices and actions: but the infidels doe nothing to a right end.

5. Augustine in many places condemneth the workes of infidels, how good soeuer they appeare, as in Psal. 21. Let no man account any worke good before faith: vbi fides non erat, bonum opus non erit, bonum enim opus intentio facit, intentionem fides derigit, &c. for where no faith is, there is no good worke: an intention maketh a good worke, and the intention is directed by faith.

Pererius to these arguments by certaine distinctions. 1. that no infidel, ratione infidelitatis, as his workes proceede from his infidelitie, can doe any good thing, but he hath bona naturae, some good things by nature, by the which he may doe some things that are good.

2. Or some things are simply good, and worthie of eternall life, and are acceptable to God, such good things cannot be done without faith: but notwithstanding, some morall good things may.

3. Or it is so said, that the workes of infidels are sinne, because vt plurimum, for the most part they are such, not all.

4. And there is a double kind of intention: a generall, and particular, though the generall intention be euill, yet in some particular action, an infidel may hauehave a good intention, as to giuegive almes in meere commiseration: and though they look not vntounto God, as the supernaturall ende, yet they may be by nature guided to make God the naturall ende of their actions, as by nature they know there is a God.

5. And sine generali concursu, without Gods generall assistance man indeede can do nothing, either naturally or morally good, but Gods speciall assistance is onelyonly required vntounto those workes, which are acceptable to God, and worthie of life eternall.

Contra. 1. We graunt that by naturall helpes man may doe things naturally good, but no vertuous action can proceede from an infidel, because all his actions sauour of infidelitie.

2. No not the best workes of the faithfull, are in themselues meritorious and worthie of eternall life, because they are imperfect, they are crowned of grace not for merit: neither is there any worke truely good, but it is thorough Christ acceptable vntounto God, that is good: if it be not pleasing vntounto God, it is not good.

3. Not onelyonly some but all the workes of infidels are sinfull: for whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne, the sentence is generall.

4. It is not enough to hauehave a particular intention, but it must ayme at the generall ende of all, which is the glorie of God: and though by nature men are taught, that there is a God, yet can not they referre their actions to him, as the generall end without faith.

5. This generall concurrence is not sufficient to bring forth a good worke: but speciall grace in Christ the Mediator is necessarie: so our blessed Sauiour saith, without me (that is, the Mediator & Sauiour of the world not cōsidered only as the Creator) you can do nothing. p. 667Now concerning this question, that the workes of infidels are sinne: these things may further be remembred. 1. that among the auncient writers, Origen and Augustine are directly of opinion, that an infidel can doe no good worke, as Origen saith, speaking of infidels and heretikes, videndum est, ne forte si aliquid boni operis apud illos geri videatur, quia non sit ex fide, convertatur in peccatum, it is to be considered, if that, whatsoeuer good worke seeme to be done among them, because it is not of faith, it be turned into sinne: Augustines opinion is shewed before: And though Pererius take vponupon him by certaine querkes to shift off Augustines testimonies, yet Tolet ingeniously confesseth, that both Origen and Augustine so affirme, annot. 15.

2. The Romanists themselues are here diuided in opinion: for Gregorius Ariminens. Capreolus, Catharinus, with other of that side, are confuted by Pererius for thus affirming with the Protestants, Perer. 4. disput. ad. 8.

3. Yet doe we not say, as the Rhemists charge vsus here, annot. 4. that it was sinne in the heathen, to honour their parents, to releeve the poore, to doe iustly: the actions in the substance thereof were not sinne, but in respect of the manner and circumstances, because they were not directed to a tight ende.

4. Concerning the meaning of this place, which we vrge against the Romanists, Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne: how it is expounded by the Papists, and their exposition refelled: See before quest. 36. and of this whole question, see cap. 2. quest. 27. and controv. 9.