31. but according to their opinion Remission so takes our sins ut nè vestigium quidem ullum maneat it dispels them as the sun doth clouds so that nothing of them remains washeth them away so as we become whiter then snow Well yet as clean as we are made from fault and sin yet some of the guilt may lie on our persons and the just God may inflict upon his innocent and purest servants punishments temporall yea the same for smart which the devils and damned in hel endure Out upon Popery it is Bilinguis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And of this second argument against Justification by Work thus far VERS 9 10 11 12. 9. Cometh this blessedness then upon the Circumcision onely or upon the uncircumcision also for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness 10. How was it then reckoned When he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision not in circumcision but in uncircumcision 11. And he received the signe of Circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the father of all them that believe though they be not circumcised that righteousness might be imputed to them also 12. And the father of Circumcision to them who are not of the Circumcision onely but also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham which he had being yet uncircumcised THe scope and dependence of this passage is diversly conceived Some think the Apostle here propounds a new argument for justification by Faith against justification by Works and these also diversly collect it Some thus Abraham was justified before he was circumcised Ergò He was not justified by circumcision nor by consequent by any works of the Law The ground of which argument is this because if circumcision were cause of his justification then must he needs have been circumcised before he was justified for the effect cannot be without or before the cause Others thus Paraeus ad loc If Abraham were justified by faith then must all men whether circumcised or uncircumcised be so justified But Abraham was justified by faith Ergo. The consequence of the proposition they imagine to have this proof because Abraham is father of both people and they both his sonnes wherefore by good consequent they think it follows that as be was justified so others must be sith there is one reason of the father and children of the pattern and the imitatours of the head of the covenant and of those that in him are admitted into the covenant The scope But methinks weighing the words the scope seems no more but this To shew that the blessing of justification belongs indifferently to Jews and Gentiles believing A point touched before chap. 3. and here again resumed and more purposely proved because he had immediately before made mention of Abrahams justification and their guess is not without ground that think the Apostle now frames answer to that second quaere of Jews Rom. 301. What profit of Circumcision which to this place he hath purposely deferred because from Abrahams case it receives fittest answer Neither let it seem strange that the Apostle should thus digress from his principall conclusion sith we know it is frequent with him in his passage as well to clear doubt as to confirm his purpose And for the scope thus far See Rom. 3. Now the passage to this Conclusion is by way of Prolepsis Came this blessedness then c. Wherein we have 1. The doubt 2. The reason of it 3. The solution The doubt is whether this blessedness that is justification belongs to the circumcision that is to the Jews onely or to the uncircumcision also that is to the Gentiles yet uncircumcised Metonymia adjuncti frequens as Rom. 2.28 the supply of the Verb whether it be falleth as Theophylact or cometh as our English or is as others we have no cause to enquire of the sense being apparently such as we have shewn The reason of the doubt For we say that faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness as if he had said This is in confesso that Abrahams faith was reckoned to him to righteousness Now the question here is Whether sith it is apparent Abraham was circumcised this blessedness of justification or having faith imputed to righteousness belong to circumcision onely or also to the uncircumcised The solution follows carried artificially as this whole passage is in a Rhetoricall Dialogisme How was it then imputed c. as if he had said If this be the doubt see in what state Abraham was when he received this testimony of righteousness and you shall find it was long before he was circumcised For this imputation of faith to righteousness whereof we treat was whiles he yet had no child as appeareth Gen. 15.2 and the ordinance of circumcision began after this towards a fourteen years For after the promise made by God and the testimony of righteousness given to Abraham took he Hagar to wife and of her had Ishmael being 86 years old Gen. 16.16 and many years after was given him in charge the ordinance of circumcision and the execution thereof fell into the year 99 of Abraham and of Ishmael the 13. Gen. 17.24 25 so that by the history it is clear he was justified long before he was circumcised and this as the Apostle seems to intimate wanted not his mysterie the Lord thereby testifying that justification is not had to circumcision but that the uncircumcised believing may also be sharers with Abraham in that blessing Observ Thus far of the Context and sense of the first clause Now the things here observable are these First That very circumstances of Scripture stories afford often substantiall conclusions A weighty conclusion that justification belongs to Gentiles and that which was long controversed in the days of the Apostle See Act. 15. Gal. 5. And it is determined by a circumstance in the story Abraham was justified in time of uncircumcision therefore justification belongs not to the circumcised only A like case we have determined by like evidence Gal. 3.17 out of circumstances of story conferred the blessing must needs be ours by promise and not by the Law How is it proved because the Covenant was made with Abraham in Christ 430 years before the giving of the law in Sinai in Heb. 7.12 13 14. The Apostle proves this conclusion that perfection was not by the leviticall Priesthood What is his arguments because another Priest was to arise according to Davids prophecy not after the order of Aaron even Christ a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek And because it might be said that that other Priest though another yet might be of Aarons order nay saith the Apostle that appears false by this circumstance for our Lord Christ of whom David speaks was of another tribe even of the tribe of Judah unto which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning Priesthood I might be infinite in this kinde but a tast
was fully assured 2. The matter subject of his perswasion or the Proposition to which Abraham thus fully assented That what God had promised he was able to perform where we may also conceive to be implyed the grounds of Abrahams so firm believing The promise and power of God Observ From the First we observe That faith in her strength Beza Paraeus ad loc Calvin Instit and perfection hath firmness yea fulness of assurance others otherwise conceive the note and thus collect That fulness of perswasion is of the nature and essence of Faith That none of Gods children erre to their discomfort thinking they have no truth of believing because they want fulness of perswasion thus much understand That in exact defining the custome is to consider virtues c. Abstractly from their subjects 2. In such abstraction to express their nature in terms importing their greatest excellency and perfection 3. Virtues morall and Theologicall they describe not as they are in our practice but as they ought to be by Gods prescript What now if faith in us be doubtfull yet in it self and according to its own nature it is a full perswasion What though in the disposition and beginnings it be wavering yet in the excellency and perfection it is of infallible certainty What if our practice of faith be weak yet God requires perfection of it and our striving must be to perfection prescribed Vse Thus let us use it As an occasion to humble our selves for our doubtings Augustin Epist 29. ad Hieron for that which Augustine saith of charity is as true of faith profectò illud quod minus est quà m debt ex vitio est yet thus much withall Let us not so far deject our selves as to think we have no truth of faith because we want perfection and fulness of assurance yet may faith be in truth where that measure is not attained See Annot. ad vers 20. as the truth of humane nature in an infant wanting the strength of grown men The matter of Abrahams perswasion followeth That what he had promised he was able also to perform The points observable are 1. That faith even justifying is an assent rather then affiance having for his object terminum complexum whereof see Annot. ad vers 3. 2. Take notice of two speciall grounds for faith to rest on the promise and power of God both joyntly considered establish faith sever either from other thou makest faith either phantasticall or wavering Hereof see Annot. ad ver 17. VERS 22. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness THe fruit of Abrahams faith is here expressed that is his justification The depravations of this Scripture by Adversaries are many Let us briefly take view of them The first is from the illation Therefore it was imputed c. Hence they collect that faith avails to justification virtuously and by way of merit Man is justified by faith not because it apprehends the promise but because it obteins remission of sinns suo quodam modo etiam mereatur how infer they the conclusion out of this Scripture The Apostle in this place saith Bellarmine Bellar. de just lib. 1. cap. 17. sets down the cause why Abrahams faith was reputed justice to wit because by believing he gave glory to God therefore for the merit of that faith he justified Abraham Where first let us weigh how they utterly crosse the intention of the Apostle in his whole discourse which is to exclude all merits of men from justification can we imagine he excludes the merit of other works to substitute the merit of faith 2. Besides that it is easily observable that the Apostle maintains a continuall opposition betwixt faith and merit as ver 4. To their argument thus we answer That the Apostles illation indeed implyes a sequel of justification upon the performance of faith yet none such as is caused by the merit and excellency of the gifs or work of faith above other works and this is that deceives them that they can conceive no connexion betwixt our offices and Gods benefits but what the worth and merit of our performances causeth Know we therefore 1. That there is an infallible connexion betwixt faith and justification so that every one believing is without faith justified But 2. If the reason of this connexion be demanded it is apparently Gods covenant and promise therefore shall every believer receive remission of sins because so runs the promise in the covenant of grace Believe and thy sins shall be forgiven August de verb. Apost Serm. 16. Augustines speech for the generall let be remembred Debitor factus est Deus non aliquid à nobis accipiendo sed quod ei placuit promittendo Abraham believed and was therefore justified the cause if we seek is the promise of God not the worth of his faith which 1. Is a duty 2. Gods gift 3. In us imperfect And if Abrahams faith were the meritorious cause of his justification I demand whether as faith or as such faith that is whether in respect that he believed or in respect that he believed in this full measure was he justified If in respect of his measure then methinks it will follow that only such measure of faith sufficeth to justification so the disciples of Christ so doubtfull and wavering in many main articles till after Christs ascension must be reputed for that time unjustified if faith simply in what measure soever then can it not be meritorious sith in the beginnings it is so ful of imperfection Thus I conclude Faith is an antecedent no cause properly of justification justification a consequent of believing no effect issuing out of the virtue and merit of faith Trelcat Instit de justific the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore notes not the cause of the consequent but of the sequel or consequence saith a learned Divine Their second collection is this Rhemens ad loc That faith justifying is a generall faith whereby we assent to the truth of Gods speeches in generall Bellarm. de justif lib. 1. cap. 11. and no such speciall faith or affiance as Protestants require to justification Their reason The faith whereby Abraham was justified was no other then this A general perswasion of Gods faithfulness and power at large Ergò Answ The question hath been largely handled ad vers 3. whither I refer the Reader To their argument thus I answer their antecedent is untrue Abrahams faith was not of Gods truth and power in generall onely but of both applyed to the particular promised From these generals he concluded the particular touching the seed in whom all nations should be blessed In his believing and the matter of it we must conceive something propounded and considered as a conclusion somthing as an argument or premisses inferring the conclusion to both which Abraham assented To the conclusion by virtue of the premisses The conclusion was particular I shall have a seed in whom all
word Father then to the verb found And thus read Abraham our father concerning the flesh but methinks the trajection is too harsh and besides the conclusion shall want one principall term that best serves to express the things in hand and therefore I rather refer it to the verb and thus read Abraham found not by the flesh or as pertaining to the flesh According to the flesh That is saith Ambrose S. Ambrosius ad loc by his Circumcision fittingly to what we may suppose the Apostle to preoccupate and yet in as much as ye count Circumcision is a work he affirms it as well of morall works as of circumcision Say others as Cajetan by flesh that is Cajetan ad loc by righteousness which stands in works and are done by the flesh that is by the body Others as Theodoret by his own strength Theodoret ad loc Illyric in clavi Zanch. de tribus Elohim lib. 3. cap. 1. and good vvorks done thereby Generally I thus conceive it that Abraham obtained not righteousness by any work Ceremonicall Morall or whatsoever can be imagined to assail to righteousness except faith in Christ so finde I the use of the word in the same case Phil. 3.3 4 5 6 9. Where under this name of flesh comes circumcision our own righteousness which is by the Law or whatsoever is or may be opposed to that righteousness which is by the faith of Christ The whole explination amounts to this summe Abraham obtained not righteousness by any his own works See we the confirmation The argument is taken from an inconvenience issuing out of that supposition If Abraham were justified by works he hath whereof to glory But he hath not any thing whereof to glory at least with God Ergo he was not justified by works Let us see what our adversaries have to say against this full argument of the Apostle For ground of their answer they attempt an inversion of the Apostles syllogisme and thus conceive him to reason Sasbout ad loc If Abraham were justified by works then had he no glory or boasting with God he might indeed by that means procure the commendation of a man excellently righteous but with men only not with God but Abraham had cause of glorying and boasting with God Ergo was not justified by works This cross frame of the argument Augustin in prefat ad Psal 31. Ambros ad loc I could not without indignation read were it not that it hath great Authors to give it countenance for Reverence to them let us afford it tryall First then consider that the Apostle in this argument hath apparent respect to that ground laid down Rom. 3.27 That is that we are to be justified by such a mean as whereby boasting may be excluded according to which ground he here concludes That Abraham was not justified by works for if that were true then had he cause of boasting Is it not now too grosse blindness so to conceive the Apostle as if he would give Abraham cause of boasting Secondly besides this the proposition thus conceived is apparently false For if Abraham were justfied by works then sure he had cause of boasting even before God for what greater cause of glorying even before God then this That he hath wrought works to his justification and may therefore say he is not beholden to God for his greatest blessing justification as having purchased it by his own works of obedience see Rom. 3.27 Thirdly add hereunto that the assumption is apparently false for Abraham if the Apostle could judg had no cause of boasting with God his justification being as ours meerly of grace through faith in Christ Jesus leave we therefore that dream and see whether their other answers have more waight Say some Catholiques we must here understand observation of Legall Ceremonies as Circumcision Sabbaths New-Moons c. Not works of the Law Morall Answ To this idle exception see my Annotation in Rom. 3. But bring we this distinction into the Apostles argument and see whether boasting be excluded If Abraham were justified by works ceremoniall then had he cause of boasting belike not so if by works morall and how I wonder do works Ceremoniall give greater cause of boasting then works Morall is their dignity now greater then works of Morall obedience Fidem vestram Papistae Behold to obey is better then sacrifice and to hearken then the fat of rams 1 Sam. 15.22 I will have mercy and not sacrifice Hos 6.6 Mat. 9.13 sexcenta hujusmodi Bellarm. de Iustific lib. 1. cap. 19. blush at such idle evasions which your own Bellarmine willingly disclayms and confutes by Fathers Besides this according to this answer boasting is only in some part taken from Abraham namely in respect of his observance of Ceremonialls for Morall obedience is still left him for matter of boasting but boasting on any pretence is excluded in Pauls intention Ergo. Hear Hierome Ex operibus legis Hierom ad Ctesiphont Adv. Pelag. ultramed non justificabitur om nis Caro quod nè de Lege Moysis tantùm dictum putes non de omnibus mandatis quae uno legis nomine continentur idem Apostolus scribit dicens consentio Legi Dei c. iterum scimus quòd Lex spiritualis est c. We know saith Paul that the Law is spirituall Rom. 7.14 What Law I wonder if not that Morall Let us see yet whether other playsters will salve the sore Bellarm. qua supra works of Abraham are of two sorts some Praecedentia fidem going before faith some Facta per fidem done by faith the Apostle understands works done before faith and regeneration not those done in and by faith Let us bring this into the argument If Abraham were justified by works done without faith by the meer power of natural free will then had he cause of boasting not so if by works done in faith Answ And why not I marvail when works done by grace according to their opinion are done partly by strength-naturall of free-will so much then as free-will helped in the doing so much cause of boasting Abraham had of himself But Abraham had no cause of boasting c. 2. What if it be apparent that the Apostle speaks even of works done by Abraham now believing and regenerate then methinks these works must also be included in the Apostles intention Certainly if we consider the testimony alledged out of Gen. 15. in the next verse to prove that Abraham was not justified by works it will easily appear that Abraham was long before this regenerate and believing and had many works of faith whereas yet the testimony of righteousness is given him not for working but for believing It was a work of faith that Abraham did in following the Lords call out of his countrey Heb. 11.8 Other works of piety and love see Gen. 12.8 13.8 9. 14 16 20 c. Yet not these works done in faith but faith
l. 4. Homo non quaerit salutem â Sacramentis quasi ab eis sed per ea à Deo Haec enim praepositio A * Scotus ad lib 4. dist 1. denotat Causam agentem per verò notat causam instrumentalem Well let us yeild them to be organa whether Morall or Physicall It pleaseth not Bellarmine Bellarm de effect Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 11. that they should be causes Morall though he confesse a stream of their own Writers run current that way But they must be Physicall instruments that is such as properly and by inherent vertue work or cause justification And if any ask what that vertue is that God hath put in them to effect this grace He answers It is nothing but Gods moving or using of them to that purpose For by this that God useth the Sacramentall action to produce grace he doth elevate it above the nature and makes it reach to an effect supernaturall Now I might be long in shewing the contrary judgement of his own side some making them means or instruments of grace per modum continentiae because they contain the grace they signifie some by concomitance onely c. I will propound the sentence of Scotus onely whom ye shall find thus to resolve There is not saith he in Sacraments aliqua Causalitas activa propriè dicta respectu gratiae but they are said to be causes of grace improperly inasmuch as the receiving thereof is an immediate disposition to grace mox For thus hath God disposed and set down the order and hereof he hath certified the Church that to him that in due manner receives the Sacrament he will give the effect thereby signified This I trow is far from Bellarmines conceit But let us further examine his conclusion In all ordinary Physical instruments which God useth to effect his purposes by there is besides Gods use of them a vertue and power and fitness given them to produce what he useth them unto as meat to nourish clothes to warm Sun to cherish the earth c. and shall Sacraments be ordinary Physical instruments and yet lack this inherent vertue What Philosophy yea or Divinitie so teacheth Besides this Sacraments all suppose those habits wherein they make justifying grace to consist Acts 8. Matth. 28. to be in him that receives them they must have faith or at least 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before Sacraments may be applied unto them and shall we think they are elevated by this use and motion they speak of to work what is already wrought Lastly if they wrought thus Physically as it were potions methinks then every one to whom they are applyed must needs receive their effect unavoidably and so Simon Magus must receive the grace of the Sacrament as well as Simon Peter which if it be absurd as absurd it is to make them Physicall instruments or Active causes of this grace which they call justifying To conclude this whole question May it not be granted that Sacraments are instruments or means of grace Answ No doubt yes but instruments morall onely that is such as whose vertue sticks not in them but onely because where they are duely used God is present by covenant to work grace supernaturall So Scotus ut suprá so some of our Divines Yet more nearly 1. Consider what grace they are ordained to work as means 2. How they concur to the working of it The grace they work is 1. Confirmation in perswasion of justification 2. Care and increase of sanctification c. How work they it Answ Occasionally onely quatenus they represent Gods actions Christs person and benefits our duty c. by which representations Gods spirit worketh in our hearts in these or the like discourses God hath in the Gospel promised remission of sins to all those that believe in Christ and for further assurance hath been pleased to ordain Sacraments as it were his seals set to his covenant wherein I see represented the death of Christ that procured pardon of sinns and in the Ministers action delivering the Sacrament to me Gods act in delivering Christ and his benefits to me is resembled Now his promise is that if I bring faith to the use of the Sacraments the things they signifie are mine How then assumes conscience I believe what God in the Gospel promiseth what in Sacraments he seals unto me and thence follows as a conclusion my faith confirmed c. Now what say our Adversaries to this manner of Sacraments efficacy Forsooth if in this manner onely they have their efficacy there shall then be no difference betwixt Sacraments of the Old Law and those of the New Testament Answ What none at all Bellarm. de effect Sacram. lib. 2. c. 8. They confesse elsewhere that we agree with them in the differences thus far 1. The signes are others 2. The number less 3. The facility more 4. Clearness of signification greater 5. Manner of signifying different 6. Endurance of new longer Object Yea but in the point of efficacy there is left no difference For thus theirs were effectuall by stirring up faith by their significations and by the devotion of the receiver which they call The work of the Worker Observ Is that the matter then hear what I think the Apostle here teacheth or at least warrants us to teach by collection That Sacraments of the Old Testament were the same with ours in matter signified in use ends and efficacie What is Baptisme unto us more then a signe of our initiation into the Covenant Gen. 17.7 Rom. 4.11 Deut. 30.6 A feal of the righteousness of faith An occasionall mean of sanctification The same was Circumcision to Abraham and to all his posterity in the ordinary measure of efficacy there might be some odds in efficacy and manner of it none at all that can be assigned For 1. In their Sacraments they had Communion with Christ They ate the same spirituall meat 1. Cor. 10.3 4. drank the same spirituall drink that we do though under other signes or elements Object Rhenenses ad loc Bellarm. de effect Sacram. lib. 2. c. 17. August de utilit Poenit. cap. 1.2 Nay rather say Papists the same amongst themselves not the same with us Answ Then let us hear Augustine Eundem inquit cibum spiritualem manducaverunt quid est eundem nisi quia eum quem etiam nos mox Eundem non invenio quomodo intelligam nisi eum quem manducamus nos Inst What Paul there speaks of were not Sacraments Answ How then fit they Pauls intention which is apparently this to take from this people vain confidence in Sacraments 2. What means Paul to say of their passage through the sea c. it was a baptizing of them Cyprian Epist 76. August in Psal 77. Hear ancients Cyprian Mare illud Sacramentum Baptismi fuisse declarat beatus Apostolus Paulus dicens Nolo vos ignorare fratres c. 1. Cor. 10. Augustine Per mare transitus
Baptismus est The same Augustine Cùm essent omnia communia Sacramenta non communis erat omnibus gratia quae Sacramentorum virtus est speaking of the very elements Inst The same let them be but in signification not in vertue or efficacy Answ They drank of the Rock which was Christ some of them I mean as Augustine expounds in Psalm 77. And if therein they had Communion with Christ how are they not the same in efficacy Will they say the effect was one the efficiency or manner of producing different It is easie to say any thing their proof we want and require Not to be long Scholast ad 4. senten Concerning the Sacrament of Circumcision their own Divines confess many of them that it had the same effect with Baptisme and in the same manner namely the work wrought Why may we not then conclude that their Sacraments were one with ours in Use Ends and Efficacy Forsooth their Sacraments had no absolute promise of grace ours have But before I answer their objections the Reader must be entreated to observe that they change the state of the question For the question is not betwixt them and us Whether their Sacraments conferred justification as ours For we maintain that neither confer justification though both equally confirm it in manner above-shewn But the question is whether theirs had the same efficacy that ours have to the uses and ends whereto they were designed And so we affirm that the same promises for spirituall things were made to both people in both Testaments and confirmed in both Sacraments The same promise that is made to us was made to Abraham yea first to Abraham and first to the seed of his loins walking in the steps of his faith Gen 17. How else reasons the Apostle from the example of Abraham the promise was given Abraham through faith Ergò It s ours through faith and not by the Law c. and again How makes he Abraham the father of believers in both people except that the Covenant was stablished in him as the father for his children of both people But have our Sacraments absolute promise of grace justifying to be conferred by them then what lets infants even of hereticks in baptisme of hereticks to receive justification And if justification may be had in the Conventicles of hereticks why not also salvation We will henceforth be of comfort in the Church of England and we will hope for our infants yet that they may go to heaven 2. Where have we such an absolute promise made to our Sacraments Mar. 16.16 this I read He that believes and is baptized shall be saved Acts 2.39 He that repents and is baptized shall receive remission of sins Never He that is baptized shall have justification or salvation simply because he is baptized To omit all other their objections bewraying too foul ignorance in the matter of the Covenant of grace their last onely I will take notice of It lies thus Our Sacraments are said to save to regenerate to justifie and no such thing is read of theirs in the Scriptures Ergò They are not equal in efficacy Answ Many of the places alledged are to be understood of the Baptisme of the Spirit as that 1. Pet. 3.21 Tit. 3.5 Joh. 3.5 And what is that to the Sacrament 2 If in other places remission of sins be in shew of words ascribed to the Sacrament it must be understood significativè at most but concomitanter Vse Let us now leave a while these toilesome controversies and see what use of this conclusion redounds to us And it shall be the same that Paul once made to the people of Corinth 1 Cor. 10. upon this ground That none of us presume upon Sacraments as if they sealed up impunity to willfull transgressions there is no greater vertue in ours then was in Iewish Sacraments And their Murmurings Idolatry Fornication Tempting of God was severely punished even in those that partook Sacraments the same with ours in signification use and efficacy And why should any of us adventure the displeasure of God upon vain confidence of the work done of Sacraments Consider we that they are not only obsignations of favour but obligations to duty and so bined to dutifull carriage that they seal up pardon of no more sins then are repented and forsaken It is in this respect with Gods pardon as with like indulgence of Princes to Malefactours they binde for ever to good behaviour And I could wish our people thus perswaded of them But thus it fares with most through their ignorance as it is said of the Hart when he is wounded he runs to the herbe dittany known by naturall instinct to be soveraign So our people when they have wounded their souls even to death with the vilest abominations they post to Sacraments for medicine adding to their other sins this of profaning Gods sacred ordinances By the law of God given to the Iewes it was ordained that none that had contracted any legall pollution should on pain of death adventure on their Passeover till such time as his cleansing according to the law was accomplished The statute for the letter bindes not us but the signification thus far serves to instruct us that none of us renewing his sins should adventure on Sacraments without renewing repentance The last thing here observable is this That Sacraments are ordained not to confer justification but to confirm us in perswasion of it As to Abraham circumcision gave not righteousness but as a seal confirmed it unto him for what shall we say as Papists This Sacrament was so to Abraham only as his priviledg not so ours to us Thereto hath already been answered and the case is as plain for Baptisme in Cornelius as this for circumcision in Abraham Kemnit Exam. part 2. de sacram efficac Vsu or shall we say these instances were extraordinary and therefore afford no generall rule First How appears it of either that there was any thing extraordinary Secondly Whence should we fetch the rule to judg of the ordinary use of Sacraments save from their persons that first received them Let it stand therefore for a conclusion that the use of Sacraments is not to confer faith or justification but to confirm it For which cause we shall finde that ordinary faith is required as a pre-disposition necessary in all that are admitted to the Sacraments yea Act. 8. faith of the Messiah and confidence in him for justification between which faith and justification the connexion is inseparable Ob. If any shall say that they cannot have use in infants Answ To omit other answers though in infants while they are infants they have not actually that use yet to 〈◊〉 end they are ministred to infants that when in time to come they shall believe to righteousness their faith may receive confirmation by baptisme in infancy received August de Bapt. contra Donat. lib. 4. cap. 24. To this purpose saith Augustine In Abraham praecessit
life suprá Iâ—st judicium ut qui contemnunt Dei misericordem justitiam suam volunt constituere eidem suae justitiae relinquantur opprimendi magis quà m justificandi For us Let us learn to expect the inheritance by the means whereby God hath intended to give it What is that if not the Law the Apostle answers The Righteousness of Faith And what is that righteousness say Papists Cui fides est initium that is in short Bellarm. de Justif l. 1. c. 17. obedience which we in our own persons perform to the law after we have received to believe the word of God so great force is there in general faith to make works imperfect in themselves and therefore condemned by the law to be the mean of our inheritance and salvation But I wonder what made Paul now a believer having it in so exellent a measure yet to say he was not thereby justified 1 Cor. 4.4 Large discussing of the point I mean not on this occasion to enter into But this I am sure of the law to salvation requires perfection of obedience curses to hell even the least imperfections Gal. 3.10 and doth any man believing receive ability to perform it to the full I am sure it s Augustines and Hieromes resolution that howsoever perhaps such measure of grace may be obtained yet there never yet lived the man on earth nor should do to the end of the world so righteous that he did good and sinned not Eccles 7.20 Say others The righteousness of faith That is the righteousness which stands in faith so making faith the substance as it were of that righteousness whereby we are justified and saved against it are these reasons 1. That then our righteosness whereby we are just in Gods sight shall be a thing that is imperfect for hath any man at all times perfection of faith 2. Accordingly conscience shall never have solid peace neither in act nor in the cause 3. Righteousness of Justification shall be variable in the degrees according as faith is more or less in the same or divers subjects so that some shall be more some less justified in the sight of God and the same man according as his faith ebbs or flows shall be whiles perfectly whiles partially whiles not at all justified in the sight of God For the act of faith wherein according to this opinion our righteousness stands may by the consent of all be lost for a time The old way still is the good way by righteousness of faith that is by righteousness which faith apprehends in Christ see Rom. 5.17 By righteousness of Christ then apprehended by faith obtain we the promised inheritance Gal. 3.22 The Scripture hath concluded all under sin that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe and vers 9. They which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham By faith they are made partakers of the Blessing Vse Exhortation in this point is more needfull then proof the whole Scripture almost running this way Be we exhorted therefore leaving all confidence in the Law for righteousness or salvation to cleave fast to the righteousness of faith It is a fearfull doom passed on the Jews by the Apostle Rom. 10.3 that going about to stablish their own righteousness they were not subject to the righteousness of God And was it for nothing think we that the Apostle counts all dung and dross for the excellent knowledge sake of Christ and desires to be found in him not having his own righteousness by the Law but that which is by the righteousness of faith Phil. 3.8.9 Surely if any had cause to trust therein the Apostle much more that from the time of his calling had lived in all good conscience before God and men Acts 23.1 and yet knowing that thereby he was not justified or saved he utterly disclaims confidence therein and rests onely in that which is by faith of Christ Whose example let us follow as we desire to have comfort in the day of judgement Bern. in tantic Ser. 30. S. Bernard elegantly comparing grace and the Law together in their effects saith Quà m dissimili vultu ad omnem conscientiam se offerunt suavitas hujus illius austeritas quis sanè ex aequo respiciat condemnantem consolantem reposcentem ignoscentem plectentem implectentem And surely they know little the terrour of the Judge and have had as little experience of the Laws arraignment in the conscience that trust to their own polluted righteousness and not to that absolute obedience of Christ the Mediatour Proceed we now in the Text. VERS 14 15. For if they which are of the Law be heirs faith is made void and the promise made of none effect Because the Law worketh wrath For where no Law is there is no transgression THe words tend to confirmation of the Apostles former argument for justification by faith the summe whereof was this That the promise of inheritance was not to be accomplished by the Law c. the proof of it is here laid down taken from a double inconvenience issuing from that manner of attaining the inheritance If they which are of the Law be heirs then is faith made void and the promise of none effect But neither is faith void nor the promise of none effect Ergò They which are of the Law be not heirs or which is equivalent the promise of inheritance is not obtained by the Law They which are of the Law That is saith Theodoret Qui ex Lege vitam instituerunt saith Cajetan Qui subditi sunt Legi Mosi Sasbout Qui Legis observatores sunt Many the like Expositions might be cited Thus I think rather They which are of the Law that is which by the works of the Law seek the inheritance as Gal. 3.9 10. The Apostle sorts them that seek righteousness and salvation into two kinds Some are of faith they are such as by faith seek the inheritance Theophylact. ad Gal. 3. Some again are of the works of the Law they are such as by the Law seek salvation or as Theophylact They are of faith Quirelictà Lege ad fidem se conferunt They of the Law which leaving faith betake themselves to the Law If these be heirs namely ex Lege as Ambrose interprets if they get the inheritance by the Law Then is faith void Whose faith Gods or Mans Gods saith Cajetan that is his fidelity in keeping promise impertinently rather Mans prescribed of God to be the means of inheritance Their faith is void or vain What is that whether frustrate in respect of fruit or unnecessary and needless in the prescript Calvin Instit lib. 3. c. 11. S. 11.13 3. or else as M. Calvin so shaken that it turns to distrust and degenerates towards desperation this latter is a truth as he explains it there being left no place for perswasion of justification if it depend upon condition of fulfilling the Law
was imputed to righteousness True saith Bellarmine Abraham was now regenerate and had done many good works of faith and yet the Apostle when he saith he was justified by faith and not by works rejects not his works done in faith from power of justifing but those only which he might have done not of faith For even they who have faith work sometimes not of faith as when they sin or do works meerly Morall without relation to God In a word the Apostle speaketh conditionally and according to their opinion which ascribed righteousness to their own strength Answ Now what is to be willfully blind if this be not was it ever heard of that a man should be justified by works not which he had done but which he might have done or think we the Saints of God to whom he wrought or the Iews that perhaps disturbed them were ever so shameless as to ascribe justice to works finfull or meerly Morall such as heathens performed It s apparent that the Apostle fits answer to Iewish objections who urged works of law written for matter of justification yea in likelihood works done in grace for whereto else comes in the example of Abraham so worthy a Saint of God Certes if of works meerly naturall there had been question example of Abimelech or Socrates or Aristides had been as pertinent to the purpose Lastly say others the Apostle speaks not de justificatione Pii but Impii not of that justification whereby a man of a righteous man is made more righteous but he speaks of justifiing a wicked man which is done by faith Answ Concerning this distinction see Annotat. in Chap. 3. But it is their opinion that he speaks of the first justification only surely Sasbout confesseth that the testimony out of Genesis treats only De augmento Iustitiae non de justificatione Impii And that is apparent to every confiderate Reader This mist of cavills thus dispelled let us now resume the Apostles conclusion and lay it for a ground that Abraham was not justified by any works of any law in any state by him performed Use Hear this now yee justitiaries that dare obtrude your menstruous merits to Godsjustice and for them claim righteousness at his judgment seat Behold Abraham that mirrout of good works as well as of faith yet stript of all right and claim to righteousness by any his obedience and dare any of his children challenge more at God hands then Abraham the pattern of justification Bring to the ballance your voluntary poverty building of temples pilgrimage vvorks of mercy or if there be any vvork that you think more glorious and see if they be not found lighter then vanity it self to those of Abraham that one vvork of obedience in offering his Son Isaac upon the altar vvhich of the sons of men can parallel I spare amplifications because they are extant in the Apostle and particularized in Ambrose De Abrah Patriarch lib. 1. Cap. 8. VER 3 4 5. For what saith the Scripture Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt but to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justfieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousness VVHether the words be conceived as proof of the Minor or of the principall conclusion it is not much materiall the issue being all one The argument proving it is taken from the manner or meanes of Abrahams justification which was meerly gracious the Scripture affirms that Abrahams believing was counted to him for righteousness Gen. 15.6 Ergo he had no cause of boasting because that not to the worker but to the believer only faith is imputed unto righteousness The consequence of this Enthymeme hath its proof from the place of unlikes That the force of the proofe may be better conceived let us view a little the terms of the comparison The persons compared are he that worketh and he that worketh not but believeth The things wherein they are compared as unlike is the manner or means whereby these severally obtain righteousness The worker that is he that hath works to be justified by he hath righteousness reckoned to him as wages not granted out of favour but paid as of debt He that hath no works but believes hath righteousness counted to him not of debt but of favour as if he had said that yee may see how Abrahams having faith counted righteousness left him no cause of boasting observe this difference betwixt the worker and believer viz. He that hath works to bring before God hath righteousness ascribed unto him of debt not of grace because that by his works he hath purchased righteousness as wages and so by consequence hath cause of boasting him that justifieth the ungodly it s otherwise this faith is of grace imputed to righteousness Abraham therefore being of this latter sort not a worker but a believer and by consequence hath faith of grace counted to him for righteousness surely had no cause of boasting for this matter of justification This having the better judgment of the learned I take to be the naturall resolution of the text Let us now turn back to the words and enquire their sense and what instructions they afford for our use In verse the third are two things 1. The Judg whom Paul appeales unto 2. The sentence of the judg For what saith the Scripture Holy Apostle thou forgottest thy self that didst appeal to Scripture to give sentence in a matter of dobut For we are taught by men of unerring spirits the Scripture is Mutus Index a dumbe judg not able to utter what may resolue us in matter of doubt Now how much better were it that these men were dumb then to use their tongues in manner so blaspheously derogatory to him that inspires the Scripture For be it that in property of speech the Scripture is speechless yet contains it not directions sufficient to determine doubts or needs it any more then mans minde to conceive and his tongue to publish what it contains Or hath the Church any other authority about the Scripture save only to declare what Gods Spirit therein speaks Must the sense needs be locked up in the Popes breast and the Scripture taught to mean only what he determines 2. Is it so strange and abhorrent from common language that the Scripture should be said to speak In common assemblies what more usuall How saith your record What saith the Law 3. How ever I hope Gods Spirit may be said in Scripto speak to his Church without any great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inasmuch as he doth therein utter what his meaning is And writing doth the office of speech thus far that it serves to express the conception of our minde As David said of his tongue it was the pen of a ready writer Psal 45.1 So may we say of the pens that the Lords holy scribes used they were the tongues of a ready speaker
Sitacet Christus quid sibi volunt haec Evangelia quid sibi volunt voces Apostolicae quid cantica Psalmorum quid eloquia Prophetarum in his enim omnibus Christus non tacet S. Augustin In Johan tractat 4. The Scripture Fitly doth Paul consult with Scripture as the only Competent Iudg in-questions of his nature without which if we search for resolution in matters of this quality we run into a Labyrinth The advise that Constantine gave to the fathers in the Nicene Councell should have place with us sumamus ex dictis divini spiritûs explicationes quaestionum Mark his reason Evangelici enim Thedoret Hist lib. 1. cap. 7. Apostolici liâ—ri nec non Antiquorum Prophetarum oracula planè instruunt nos sensu Numinis And truth is howsoever in matters of Morality there be to be found some good directious in nature yet in this and like matters touching reconciliation with God and means of justification before him how utterly not only blind but opposite to what truth teacheth is nature yea it may not be denied that the Fathers them selves have some of them too naturall conceits in this business and if my judgment and observation in their writings be any thing as it is not much the attentive Reader shall finde much of the popish plot of justification to be framed out of the errours and misprisions of some Ancients here therefore especially let it have place that the Prophet adviseth to the Law and to the Testimony Isai 8.20 See we now the sentence of this Judg What saith the Scripture This Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness In which sentence we have two particulars observable First Abrahams act with the object he believed God Secondly The fruit or benefit thereof It was counted to him for righteousness Touching the first Abrahams act he believed God Let us here a little largely enquire what is the nature of justifying faith so much the rather The nature of justifying faith explained because the controversie is famous betwixt us and our adversaries Concerning it two questions shall be handled First whether it be an assent to the promise Or an Affiance rather and trusting in the promise Or in plainer terms whether this to believe in this question signifie to give Credence to God speaking or else to put confidence in God The opinions both of them have great Authors both Popish and Protestant For our better understanding it shall not be amiss to fetch the consideration somewhat higher even from the generall notion of these two habits as they are conceived by Philosophers and others according to reason Faith therefore or beliefe hath this generall description It is an habit of the understanding inclining us to a firm and undoubtfull assent to something as truth for the authority and credit of the speaker or witness I call it first an habit of the understanding because the proper object thereof is truth and the act thereof an assent to truth or a perswasion and acknowledgment of the truth propounded The difference stands partly in the measure of assenting partly in the cause moving to assent for as touching absolute doubtfulness when the minde hangs in aequilibrio giving no assent either way it s quite opposite to the nature of faith Now the assent of the minde hath three degrees The first is when the minde hath some though weak inclination and hath a propension to assent to a thing propounded perhaps moved by some slight sign or by apprehension of possible truth some call this suspition more fitly perhaps conjecture The Second is when the assent is more stable and resolute yet not without fear that the contrary may be true this called opinion The Third and highest is a perfect and peremptory acknowledgment that the thing propounded is of infallible and certain truth of this last sort is the assent that faith yields Now this certain and perfect assent is of four sorts according to a fourfold means swaying the minde The first is that which is caused by sense as when the minde acknowledgeth a thing for truth because it hath received perfect intelligence from the sight hearing c. or other senses not hindered or deceived The second is that which is caused out of the clear light and evidence of the thing without arguments of any kinde to perswade it as in principles clear of themselves and that need no demonstration or evidence but their own light to convince as that omne totum majus est suâ parte The third is that which is caused by certain discourse and demonstrative arguments which they call science The last is that which is procured by the authority and credit of him that propounds a thing to be received for truth which authority being without exception breeds perswasion as firm as any can be raised by argument sense or if there be any other means more forcible with the minde to perswade And of this last sort is faith Now Fiducia confidence or affiance is that habit or act of the will whereby we hopefully repose our selves upon the power truth and goodness of the promiser for receiving of some good thing promised It differs from belief 1. In the proper seat belief being in the understanding affiance in the will 2. In the object which it s carried unto which is bonum not verum 3. As the effect from the cause this reposing of our selves on arising from a perswasion of the power truth goodness of him we trust in And of the general notion of these two qualities thus far Their difference we shall better yet see if we consider the divers phrases of speech wherein the Scripture expresseth their actions fittingly to that usuall distinction received from Austin putting difference betwixt these two acts of S. Aug. Trict. in Ioh. 29. and Serm. 61 de verb. Domini Credere deo Credere in deum The first being the act of beliefe properly so called the other expressing the act of that other habit which we call fiduciam To apply this Praemissa to the purpose the question is of whether sort that faith which we call justifying is whether a giving credit to God promising us remission of sins in Christ or a relying on his mercy and the merits of Christ for pardon of sins and life everlasting The severall opinions shall be propounded and examined that the truth may the better appear Papists well nigh all that I have seen Resolve of the former and thus determine Bellarm. de Iustif lib. 1. cap 5. 9. See Kemnit Exam. lib. 1. cap. de Fide justific That Faith justifying is no such Affiance or Confidence in Gods mercy as Protestants teach but a general assent to all things contained in the Word of God and a perswasion of their Truth Of our own Divines some not of lowest rank judg that it is meerly an assent to the truth of the Gospell or Evangelicall promise made to us in Christ And they
Tertullian well answers That this sentence is of undoubted truth Nothing at all is hard unto God but yet if we shall thus abruptly use this sentence in our presumptuous and ground less conceits we may feign any thing of God as if he had wrought it because he had power to work it Non autem quia omnia potest facere ideo credendum est illum fecisse etiam quod non fecerit sed an fecerit requirendum God could have furnished man with wings to flie he hath done it to kites follows it thence that he hath done it yea or that ever it shall be done In a word Dei posse velle est non posse nolle Quod autem voluit potuit ostendit c. Psal 115.3 Gods power must be considered with his will and significations thereof what he will do he can do what he hath signified he will do let us build upon it that it shall be effected but where we want evidence of his will we shall but absurdly expect the event in respect of his power for he can do more then ever shall come to passe With like frand do our Transubstantiatours and their of spring Ubiquitaries delude the simple perswading the reall presence of Christs body some in many some in all places by this as one argument God is omnipotent Quis hoc nesciat To vield that it is possible for God to make reall communication of immensity part of his incommunicable glory to Christs Humanity and to grant that God can uphold a body in its essence without that essentiall property of a body Circumscription What Divinitie teacheth to believe that as actually true which God hath power to effect where is no evidence of his will to work it Abraham rested on Gods power and therewith supported his faith but it was for things whereof he had a promise as after followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And of the generalis thus far Let us now view the words Who quickneth the dead and calleth things that be not as though they were These effects subject to Gods power Abraham considered fittingly for support of his faith in the particular promised him Sense For thesense of the words Sasbout Cajetan alii Many Interpreters take them particularly and thus interpret Who quickeneth the dead That is that gives generative virtue to men disabled for generation so putting as it were a new life into them And calleth the things that are not as if they were That is that makes eximious things contemptible the Gentiles that were no people a people of God I rather think they are to be taken in their largest sense according to the immediate purport of the words though I confess Abraham from them inferred the particulars of his promise and thus conceive Abraham to have reasoned for the establishing of his faith His first conclusion is this My body now as dead in respect of the act of generation God will quicken and make vigorous His argument God by his power can quicken the dead therefore he can give generative vigour to my dead body His second Conclusion The seed promised though it yet subsist not yet shall have being His argument God by his word makes things to be that are not Ergo. The question here moved by some seems to me impertinent Whether it be Gods property onely to raise the dead inasmuch as the Apostles purpose here is not to deliver these as effects peculiar to Gods power but rather to shew that they are things subject to his power Which was that that Abraham considered for establishment of his faith In the mean time I joyn with them in the conclusion That these effects fall not under the compass of any created power for howsoever we read of some Prophets and Apostles that raysed up the dead yet was not the virtue that quickened them inherent in them they being but instruments if so much rather signifiers of Gods will to effect such miracles In a word in all miraculous effects three sorts of causes must be distinguished 1. The principall efficient that is Gods power 2. The instrument or mean cause which sometimes are creatures and their actions not so much elevated above their naturall ability as chosen of God to be attended with his divine virtue 3. The cause dispositive which is fides miraculosa Gregor Dial. lib. 2. cap. 30. Gregory goes far yet stayes within these bounds Sancti aliquando ex potestate miracula exhibent aliquando postulatione utrolibet tamen modo Deus principaliter operatur c. saith Thomas If therefore at any time this effect be ascribed to Saints it is to them onely as instruments or means by faith obtaining the miracle to be wrought by the power of God Sive sit Elizaeus sive ille magnus Elias mortuorum utique suscitatores ipsi quidem suo non imperio sed ministerio for is exhibent nobis nova insueta Deus verò in ipsis manens ipse facit opera Bern. super Cantic Serm. 13. Vse Let us see to what use the meditation of these mighty effects of Gods power may serve us God quickneth the dead and calleth the things that be not as if they were that is by his word gives things being that erst had no being in nature When there was no light he onely said Let there be light and there was light when no firmament he called for a firmament and there was a firmament These and the like effects of Gods power Abraham meditated and thereby assured himself of obtaining the promises that had no help of performance in nature As comfortable and great promises God hath made us as he did to Abraham as to raise our bodies out of the dust of the earth and to make them like to the glorious body of the Lord his Son Christ Phil. 3.21 Why should it seem encredible to any as Paul speaks that the Lord should raise the dead Acts 26.8 He could at first build the body in that excellent figure out of the dust why not again repair the ruines death hath wrought in it He quickneth the dead He hath promised to * Isa 5 7.15 revive the spirit of the humble and to bring them up from the gates of hell Why are our souls so disquieted with our present apprehension of Gods wrath as if our state were remediless He quickens the dead Promised to work faith knowledge sanctification in the hearts of all that conscionably seek them in the means What now if we feel nothing but infidelity Let him but call for faith by his word he works it in the most incredulous and as he caused the light to shine out of darkness so can he cause the light of the glorious Gospel of Iesus Christ to shine in the hearts that yet sit in darkness and in the shadow of death In these spirituall effects of his power instances we have daily How many dead in trespasses and sins hath he quickened by his spirit to newness of
him Hear the Apostle assuring us that for our sins not for his own he was delivered even for the sins of all that believe in his name Act. 10. For us he was born our sins he bear the chastisement of our peace was laid upon him It is no blasphemy to say he is more ours then his own our benefit we are fure more by him then his own by himself saith Bernard Bern. in Epiphan Ser. 1. Vtamur nostro in nostram utilitatem If we lack what to give for our sins we have Christs body to give it is of ours and it is ours And as Bernard so may every believer say De Te Domine suppleo quod minus habeâ— in me And of the first member the cause meritorious of our justification thus far Proceed we to the Second containing the evidence of the value that was in his humiliation for righteousness to wit his resurrection from death amplified by the end thereof our justification And was vaised for our Iustification How for our justification To work it say some to apply it say others to preserve us in it saith a third To declare and assure us of it say the most Iudicious It is good advise a Learned Interpreter here gives Not auxiously to dispute or enquire how the Apostle distinguisheth the effects of Christs Death and Resurrection ascribing to his death the expiation of sins to his resurrection our justification Touching the thing I will not be inquisitive but of the sense it will not be amise a little to enquire The first exposition is commonly received amongst our adversaries and thus they explain themselves Bellarm de Iustific l. 2. c. 6. Justification they here understand our internall renovation and regeneration by which we walk in newness of life and that they ascribe to Christs resurrection not as to a cause meritorious for Christ by his Resurrection merited nothing being then extra statum merendi How then say some As causa exemplaris Thomas par 3a quest 56. Art 2. Bellarm. quâ suprâ Cajetane ad loc quatenus he hath given us therein a forme of rising in our souls to newness of life as he in his flesh rose to the life of glory Say others His resurrection avails to our justification rather as an occasion and help or motive to faith for had he not risen from the dead who would have believed in him as Author of life These interpretations both of them contain truthes It is true that Christs Resurrection is a pattern for us to follow Rom. 6. True also that it is an enducement to believe in him as able to save us but impertinent to this place For 1. In what Scripture finde they Renovation to be called Justification And 2. The Apostle is not yet come to treate the point of sanctification And 3. How fits the Reason to the Apostles conclusion Faith shall be imputed to us for righteousness for Christ rose to give us a pattern of rising to new life dissolutae scopae To apply it â—rsin Kemnitius and to confer it upon us say others For it behoved the Mediator not only to merit but also to confer what he had merited upon us that also is a truth but these in explaining themselves make his resurrection availeable only as a cause sine quâ non to our justification except he had risen he could not have conferred his benesits upon us To preserve it unto us saith a third some such thing we finde after a sort ascribed to Christs Resurrection Rom. 8.34 But if we attend the place to his Resurrection it is assigned remotely our continuance in grace following rather from his session at his Fathers right hand and his intercession there made for us The last I rathest rest in conceiving Christs resurrection to avail to our justification as an evidence assuring us of it rather then as a cause in any sort procuring it unto us By raising Christ from the dead God the Father shewed that he accepted the obedience Keumit part 1. de Justificat Uâ—sin and satisfaction of his Son Christ for our reconciliation and atonement Christ was thrust into such a prison as out of which he could never have come forth except he had paid the utmost farthing The least sin unsatisfied had for ever detained him under the dominion of death but God raised him Ergo He hath satisfied or thus you may conceive it As when Christ our surety was condemned we in him and together with him were condemned So when he was discharged we in him and together with him received our discharge from the guilt and punishment of sin So that the point we have here is this That Christs Resurrection is to us a pledge of our Justification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Amen FINIS Texts of Scripture explained in this Commentary GEn. 17.17 p. 155.156 Levit. 18.5 compared with Rom. 10.5 p. 106 107 112 113. Num. 23.10 P. 170. Nehem. 1.8 p. 180. Nehem. 13.22 p. 179.180 Psal 2.7 p. 92. Psal 32.1 p. 48 49 57. Psal 143.2 p. 38 39 40 41. Isa 38.3 p. 104. Isa 64.6 p. 123.124 Dan. 9.18 p. 178 179. Matth. 5.45 p. 92. Matth. 10.3 p. 44. and verse 37. p. 126. and vers 38. p. 125. Matth. 11.30 compared with 1 Joh. 3.5 p. 125 126. Matth. 16.18 p. 142. Matth. 19 1â— p. 128. Mar. 16.16 p. 70 89 97. Luk. 1.6 p. 126. Luk. 10.28 p. 115. Luk. 17.6 p. 157. Joh. 2.19 compared with Joh. 10.18 p. 182. Joh. 3.5 p. 72. Joh. 8.36 39. p. 97 98 99 141. Act. 13.39 p. 62 63. Rom. 5.19 p. 52. Rom. 6.23 p. 122. Rom. 7.14 p. 122. Verse 18. p. 120. Rom. 9.32 p. 51 52. Rom. 10.5 p. 106 107 112 113. 1 Cor. 3.21 22. p. 104 105. 1 Cor. 10. p. 90. Gal. 1.8 p. 150. Gal. 3.10 p. 121 122. vers 18. p. 103. Gal. 4.1 p. 104 105. vers 30. p. 115. Gal. 5 4. p. 116. Eph. 2.12 p. 96. 1 Tim. 4.8 p. 106 107. Heb. 8.6 p. 134. 1 Pet. 1.3 p. 183. vers 18. p. 153. 1 Joh. 2.2 p. 100. 1 Joh. 3.9 p. 127. 1 Joh. 5.3 p. 125 126.