nations and my self also shall be blessed The premisses these God that hath promised is faithfull and able to give it In respect of the premisses his faith is generall In respect of the conclusion particular as we see In like sort we conceive the faith of every justified man to proceed from generalls to their own particular and to the particular by virtue of the generals Assent they yield to generals but with reference still to particulars For example That which for comfort of conscience cast down by the Law they believe is this particular conclusion My sins are or shall be forgiven me How come they to believe this particular Answ By belief of generals The sins of all that believe in Christ are for Christs sake forgiven according to Gods promises in the Evangelical Covenant therefore my sins are forgiven me since I have received by grace to rest on Christ for the pardon of my sins so is faith justifying Generall in respect of the premisses Particular in respect of the conclusion Their third deduction Faith concurrs to justification not as an instrument but as the formal cause of our righteousness For Abrahams faith was imputed justice c. Bellarm. de justif l. 1. c. 2. Ipsa fides censetur esse justitia Answ Whether whole justice or justice in part They answer justice in part for it is only Initium justitiae according to their conceit The sense then must be this absurdly Faith is counted justice that is the beginning of justice And Abrahams faith must be his justice in part only whereas the Apostle ascribes to Abraham whole justification in respect of his faith or else forgets the state of the question For this Scripture the sense is this Sense Abrahams faith was imputed to righteousness that is set on his score or taken notice of so far that the Lord in respect of it allowed him the esteem of righteousness See supra ad vers 3 4 5. The substance of Doctrine conceived in this verse hath been already handled ad vers 3. Pass we from it therefore to the third member of the Chapter the applying of all that hath been said of Abrahams justification to us VERS 23 24 25. Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him But for us also to whom it shall be imputed if we believe on him that raised up Iesus our Lord from the dead Who was delivered for our offences and was raised again for our justification THe passage to this last member we may thus conceive The Apostle supposeth some weakling thus to enquire It is true Theophylact. ad loc quid nostra interest thou hast taught of Abraham that his faith was to him imputed to righteousness But what is that to us Answ It was not written for him only as matter of his glory and priviledg but for us also for our profit and comfort The points of the text are three First The use and comfort arising to us from the records of Abrahams justification Secondly The condition required of us to the end we may share with Abraham in the blessing of justification Thirdly The Reason brought to assure us of like favour in like faith c. for better confirming the comfort unto us It was not written for him only c. but for us also Where first observe we The method of conversing in the histories of the Saints let it still be with reference to our selves and our use They were written for us see Rom. 15.4 Heb. 11. and 12. Their favours for our comfort their chastisements for our terrour their vertues to our patterns their falls for our caution And it is idle to conceit them as encomiasticall narrations of their glory only Gods Spirit intended their records to our benefit A Second generall here observable is That Gods mercifull proceedings with his children are exemplary he justified Abraham believing he shall justifie us also performing like faith He pardoneth Paul repenting his blasphemies and made him a pattern to all that shall believe in him to eternall life 1 Tim. 1.16 He saved Noah from the deluge delivered Lot from the fire of Sodome Peters inference from these particulars is this generall God knows to deliver his out of temptation 2 Pet. 2.9 It is therefore a discomfortable misprision of Gods Children in temptations to conceive Gods favour as the priviledges of some eminent amongst his Saints and their great weakness to study differences betwixt themselves and others in points of necessary comforts For to yield that there were that had their speciall prerogatives in some particulars as Prophets to be taught by dreams and visions and immediate inspirations c. Yet in matter generally necessary for comfort of conscience and eternall salvation what was vouchsafed one may be expected of all 1. The Covenant is made with all without difference with the least as well as with the greatest Ier. 32.40 2. The mediation of Christ available for all 1 Tim. 2.4 of all sorts sexes nations and ranks of men God is he the God of Abraham only nay even of his seed also Christ is he the Mediatour for Apostles only nay even for all that the Lord hath given him out of the world Ioh. 17.9 Their is neither male nor female bond nor free weak nor strong but all are one in Christ Jesus The same blood of Christ redeemed all the same love of God embraced all the same spirit seals all to the day of redemption the impression in some is more evident then in others the image all one wherewith all are stamped and thereby sealed unto the day of redemption The only thing that concerns us is to provide we resemble in our behaviour the Lord we shall finde impartiall in his favours if we be not dissonant in our demeanure and that is the next thing the text leads unto To us it shall be imputed as to Abraham believing as Abraham in him that raised up Iesus from the dead Observ The generall instruction the text affords is this That a man desiring to partake the favours of the Saints must be carefull to resemble the practice of Saints Wouldest thou be justified as Abraham believe as Abraham pardoned as Paul repent as Paul delivered as Lot be righteous as Lot The same God is a like to all in his blessings that are alike to him in their obedience There is a generation of men enviously emulous of the priviledges of Gods Children dissolutely careless of their behaviour Let my soul dye the death of the righteous saith Balaam but the hellish wretch cares not to live the life of the righteous Bernard in Psal qui Habitat Ser. 7. life of the righteous Tantus est pietatis fructus saith Bernard tanta justitiae merces ut ne ab ipsis quidem non desiderari queat impiis injustis I would the conditions might seem as reasonable as the reward is glorious But the complaint of that Father who sees it not fitting the times quam
unto them and taken notice of so far as that he was for it esteemed righteous We shall best understand the meaning by comparing the self-same phrase as it it is extant Psal 106.31 Phineas his executing judgment was counted to him for righteousness to all generations for evermore that is he for that fact or by means thereof had the esteem of a righteous man amongst men unto all posterity So Abrahams faith was counted to him for righteousness before God that is he for believing or by means of faith was esteemed or reckoned righteous before God This as far as I conceive is the proper meaning of the phrase If that hypallage seem harsh thus conceive it His believing was reckoned unto him to righteousness that is came into reckoning so far with God on his behalf or for his benefit that thereby he obtained righteousness Faith then is of that reckoning with God as that to Abraham yea to every man endued thrrewith he allowes the esteem of a righteous man understand faith as it s before described For the better understanding of this conclusion let us see a little how faith obtains this blessing of righteousness at Gods hands or what is the reason of the connexion of righteousness with believing Bellarm. de just if lib. 1. cap. 17. Divers are the explanations Papists impute it sometimes to the merit and worth of the very habit or act of faith as if it deserved at Gods hands justification and had the force of a proper efficient cause meritoriously to procure it Against it are these Reasons First Bernard Ser. 1. de Annunciat Hereof we may say as Bernard of other good works or as he terms them merits that it s not such as as that for it righteousness should be due to the believer of right or as though God should do us wrong except he gave to us believing righteousness for this as all other good qualities or actions is the gift of God and therefore man is rather a debtor to God for it then God to man Secondly Besides this how holds the difference assigned by the Apostle betwixt the worker and the believer in the manner of obtaining righteousness if righteousness belong to the believer as a reward of debt If righteousness belong to the believer of debt as a reward of believing then vainly doth the Apostle alledg this as a difference betwixt the believer and the worker that the one hath righteousness paid as of debt the other given as of grace but the difference is sure authenticall Ergo. Their arguments will be fitlyest answered when we come to set down the opinions of our own Divines Sometimes they thus conceive it that faith is the beginning of righteousness Bellarm. qua supra and the inchoate formall cause of righteousness that is part of that righteousness whereby we are made formally righteous and that they would prove out of this text because to him that believeth in him that justifyeth the ungodly his faith is counted to righteousness But they would deceive us with a false glosse for that is not the meaning that faith is counted our righteousness but that its taken notice of so far as that to the believer righteousness is imputed A mean therefore it is of obtaining righteousness not righteousness it self except by righteousness they will understand that of sanctification 1 Ioh. 3. Wherefore we acknowledg it to be a part but what is that to the righteousness of justification whereof the question is 2. After their own glosse its righteousness only aestimativè not therefore formally Sometimes again they make righteousness depend on faith as a preparation thereto in part necessary to dispose the subject to receive justification that is as they term it the infusion of charity and other graces whereby we are made formally righteous Versipelles Where may we finde you Is it the form of righteousness and yet but a preparation to righteousness Ob. The form inchoate not compleat Answ But I demand Is it before the other graces of God in time Or are they togethes with it infused If so how then make you yet a preparation only to righteousness when as together with it other gifts which make up righteousness compleate are infused Let us leave them and come to explications of our own Divines Some thus Righteousness or justification hath its connexion with faith by an order that God hath been pleased to set down in the Covenant of grace which is this that whosoever shall believe in Christ shall be justified and saved This condition now performed on our parts justification is ours and we are as righteous in Gods esteem as if we had all the righteousness of the Law performed by our selves Now this is an evident and clear truth that in the Evangelical Covenant faith is the condition of justification But first if faith justifies us as a condition performed by us fain I would know how we may maintain that doctrine of our Churches concerning sole faith and its being the only thing in us that avails to the attainment of justification for if we view the tenour of the Covenant of grace faith is not the only condition required of us to justification and remission of sins for repentance also is a condition required in that covenant to the same end Mar. 1.15 Repent and believe the Gospel Act. 2.38 Repent and be baptized for remission of sins but faith must so justifie that in that work no other thing may share with it no not repentance it self Ergo Besides this if the act of faith qua actus be that for which we are justified how doth the Apostle describe our righteousness to be without works vers 6. How sets he the worker and believer in direct opposition in the articles of justification Perhaps it will be said that works of the law only are excluded not this which is a worker of the Gospel Answ It should seem that not only works of the law but universally all works are excluded because whatsoever may occasion boasting in man is exclnded Rom. 3.27 Now as great occasion of boasting is left to man in the act of faith as in any work of the law whatsoever Nay may some mansay for faith is the gift of God and the exercise of faith meerly his work Answ The same may as truly be said of love patience c. These being also gifts infused of God and their actions even every act of them meerly his works in us even as meerly as the act of faith It remains then that we enquire whether in the other explanations of our Divines more likelihood may be found Usully it s thus conceived to justifie namely as it is an instrument to apprehend that righteousness for which we are justified even the * 1. Cor. 1.30 righteousness of Christ whether of this life or death or both it is not pertinent to this place to enquire but in this respect righteousness is ascribed unto it And here we are asked whether we
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
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.
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
faith in Christ If a man have works his works are taken notice of and recorded and withall his reward is thus registred after the Covenant of the Law Righteousness of Debt If a man want works but have faith his faith is recorded and to him also is ascribed or imputed the same reward though out of another cause Righteousness by favour The thing we have in the word of God and perhaps it is Allegorically expressed by allusion to the customs of men This I am sure is truth in the Legal Covenant If a man do the Commandments he shall live in them and the doers of the Law shall be iustified This also is true in the Evangelicall Covenant He that believes shall be saved and if a man believes in Christ his faith shall be reckoned of to iustification The reward is all one that God intends to both they differ 1. In the condition 2. In the ground of payment Righteousness is ascribed to the Worker of Debt to the Believer of Grace God should do the worker wrong if he should not approve him as righteous that hath fulfilled the Laws But it s his mere grace that to a believer he will ascribe righteousness sith his righteousness is merely precaria performed by another and by him nothing brought but faith to receive it and tender it unto God and that faith also merely the work of God If I fail in expressing my self or explaining the Apostle yet let no man blame my desire of both but further my weakness with his help that the Apostle may be understood Sense The sense then is this as I conceive it To him that hath works such as the Law prescribes and brings them unto God righteousness is ascribed or set on his reckoning as wages belonging to him of debt and not of grace VERS 5. But to him that worketh not We must beware that we mistake not the Apoâ—â—e as if he promised righteousness to him that believes and neglected good works Jam. 2.26 For the Apostle James hath taught us that faith without works is dead and if a man say he hath faith and have no works can that faith save him And the Apostle describing faith justifying as it is in the justified man saith it worketh by love Gal. 5.6 What is then the sense To him that worketh not that is hath no such works to bring before God as for them to claim righteousness thereby or as Ambrose expounds Ambros ad loc Non operanti id est qui obnoxius est peccatis quia non operatur quod mandat Lex To him that hath no works because he is a transgressour of the Law But believeth in him See here say some how faith justifying is described To be rather an affiance in the Justifier then an assent to the Gospel Answ Rather see here affiance meeting with assent in the person of the believer they agree in the subject differ for all that in their nature In him that justifieth the ungodly Doth the Lord then justifie the wicked Answ Surely though he be God that forgiveth iniquity and sin yet will he in no case clear the wicked Exod. 34.7 and Prov. 17.15 He professeth that he is as abominable that justifieth the wicked as he that condemns the righteous Answ Hereto answers are diversely conceived according as the terms admit distinction First thus Wicked men are of two sorts some such as continue impenitently in their sinns some that by grace repent and believe in Christ Of the first sort its true God justifies them not that is acquits them not while they so continue and yet wicked men repenting and believing in Christ that is ceasing to be wicked God clears and holds innocent for to such he forgives iniquity transgression and sinne Paraeus ad loc Exod. 34.7 or thus Justifying of a wicked man is either against the orders of Justice without receiving sufficient satisfaction for the trespasse or else upon receit of sufficient satisfaction In the first sense God justifieth not the wicked in the second he mercifully justifieth us having received satisfaction in the death of his Son Lasâ—ly Justification hath divers significations sometimes it signifies to make just sometimes to declare just or to absolve In this last sense God justifies not the ungodly that is absolves him not whiles he so continues but yet he makes an ungodly man righteous Of the first kind of justification understand Moses of the second Paul His faith is counted for righteousness See explication ad vers 3. Observ The things out of this passage of Scripture observable are these First the direct opposition of Faith and Works in this Article of justification If it be by Faith it s not of Works If by Works not of Faith that howsoever it be true their concurrence is certain their agreement amiable in the life of the justified yet their contrariety irreconcileable in the procurement of justification Not to be long in the manifestation of it First the Apostles argument hath else no force in the case of Abraham except their opposition be such as is mentioned 2. Besides this view it in the contrary principles from which the two kinds of justification proceed The Worker is justified of debt the believer of grace that look what opposition there is betwixt favour and debt the same is betwixt justification by Works and justification by Faith Like see Rom. 11.6 Now were it not a point of acute Sophistry to teach us how to deny the Apostles argument and to tell him the consequence is not good because they are able to assigne a medium Witty I confesse but with such wit as S. James tells us to be * Jam. 3.15 devilish Such as it is let us hear it forsooth they point us to this medium of participation It is partly by Faith partly by Works I say not any man is so impudent as in plain terms to contradict the Apostle but surely this in the issue shall be found their answer howsoever with distinctions they colour the matter Let us hear them Justification by Faith and justification by Works indeed are opposite if ye understand in both the same justification but there is a first justification and a second the one is by Faith the other by Works Again works are of two sorts works of Nature works of Grace betwixt justification by works of Nature and that by Faith there is indeed an opposition not so in that by works of Grace For these distinctions and the vanity of them see suprà ad ver 2. Annotat. ad cap. 3. This once is evident out of this place that the Apostle imputes the justification of Abraham now regenerate unto his Faith and betwixt the justification that Abraham had being now in grace and that of works placeth the opposition Besides this what means the Apostle to befool the Galatians for expecting the perfection of this benefit by the Law which was begun by the Gospel Gal. 3.3 Would he not thereby teach us
by ourselves The righteousness of God is the righteousness which God in Christ performed fulfilling the Law for us called the Righteousness of Faith because we are by faith made partakers of it See Illyric Zanch. ad Phil. 3. If any shall demand what the difference between these two is I answer They differ not at all in the matter or substance of righteousness for the righteousness which by Christ we are made partakers of is that very righteousness which the Law prescribes namely perfect obedience to the Law but they differ efficiente our righteousness that we in our persons perform to the law And that it is no other righteousness then what the law prescribes for substance whereof in justification we are made partakers that one place Rom. 9.32 is clear where the Apostle giving a reason why the Jews that followed the law of righteousness attained not the law of righteousness that is as most interpret the righteousness which the law prescribes The reason was because they sought it not by faith but by the works of the law as if he had said Had they sought it by believing as they did by working they had attained the righteousness which the law prescribes to justification The righteousness of the law then we obtain by faith to justification It is therefore the righteousness which in justification we are made partakers of How then is it said to be righteousness without works I answer In respect of us without works In respect of Christ the performer not so Come we now to the means how it is imputed unto us and that is by Imputation Imputation Imputation of righteousness What it is in this case we may thus describe To be an act of God ascribing to us the righteousness of Christ and counting it ours no less then if we had in our own persons performed it Touching it it is enquired whether there be any such act of God in our justification Papists generally deny it and make the righteousness of Christ to avail to justification onely as a cause procuring to us remission of sins and the gifts of the holy Ghost That which our Divines hitherto have consented in is this That the righteousness of Christ is not onely the cause for which the Lord remits sins c. but the very thing whereby we are made righteous in the sight of God Their reasons are these 1. Because we are said to be made righteous by the obedience of Christ Rom. 5.19 shall we say as by a procuring cause nay rather formally For so are we made sinners by the transgression of Adam And the purpose of the Apostle in that comparison betwixt Adam and Christ seems to be this To shew that it is no absurd thing that we should be made righteous by the righteousness of Christ seeing we were made sinners by Adams disobedience Inst But Adams disobedience was not ours by imputation but we rather were actours therein by an implicite act sinning in Adam To say nothing that the whole stream of Interpreters judge otherwise Let it be granted that we were actours in Adams sinne being in his loins Why not also actours in Christs obedience being one mystically with him by bond of the spirit 2. It is no more absurd that we should be righteous by imputation of Christs Righteousness then that Christ should be a sinner by imputation of our sins but Christ was a sinner by imputation of our sins Inst Not a sinner but a sacrifice for sinne Answ The exposition is ancient but 1. The Antithesis bears it not and 2. How could God punish him in that extremity had he not taken upon him our sins 3. For to Papists methinks of all men Imputation should be no such ridiculous matter sith they are of opinion the overplus of some Saints righteousness may be applyed to others by indulgence to make up the defects of their obedience How I wonder except by imputation 4. Quid quod Their Bellarmine plainly confesseth Bellarm. de Amiss grat stat peccat lib. 4. c. 10. Bernard ser 1. de Dom. 1. post octavas Epiphaniae that Adams sin is imputed to all his posteritie so as if they had all committed the same and alledgeth to this purpose the testimonies of Augustine and Bernard Nostra est inquit Bernardus Adami culpa quia etsi in alio nos tamen peccavimus nobis justo Dei judicio imputabatur licèt occulto And why so absurd sith Adams sin is in this manner ours Christs righteousness should also in like sort become Ours that as the same Bernard speaks aliena lavet aqua quos culpa inquinaverat aliena And so wash as the other had defiled Against it these reasons are brought First that it hath no testimonie either in Scriptures or Fathers to avow it Answ What none neither expressed nor implyed we have above shewed that the Scripture testifieth as well what it implyeth as what it expresseth how say we now to this Scripture in hand God imputeth righteousness without works whose our own that stands in works Phil. 3.9 Anothers therefore and whose else I wonder except Christs who alone is mentioned to be the procurer of our righteousness Hear S. Bernard Domine Bern. ser in Cant. 61. memorabor justitiae tuae solius Ipsa est enim mea nempe factus es mihi Tujustitia à Deo nunquid mihi verendum ne non una ambobus sufficiat non est pallium breve quod secundum Prophetam non possit operire duos Justitia tua justitia in aeternum quid longius aeternitate te pariter me operiet largiter larga aeterna justitia Object 2. No necessitie of such imputation of Christs righteousness Answ Yes That we may be found at that great day having such perfection of righteousness as for which we may be accepted and pronounced righteous See Phil. 3.9 Inst But our inherent righteousness is perfect for faith hope charity c. are perfect Answ Hear Bernard Are we better then our Fathers They said with as much truth as humility All our righteousnesses are like the clothes of a menstruous woman Isa 64.6 and again Quomodo pura justitia ubi non potest culpa deesse Augustine August epist 29. ad Hieron Charitas in aliis major in aliis minor in aliis nulla plenissima verò quae jam non potest augeri quamdiu hic homo vivit in nemine est quamdiu autem augeri potest profecto illud quod minus est quà m debet Bern. in Cant. ser 174. ex vitio est And again Charitatis effectualis initium quidem profectúmque vitam quoque praesentem experiri divinâ posse gratiâ non negamus sed plane consummationem defendimus futurae felicitati And if any shall ask why it is commanded when it cannot be fulfilled Bernard answers Judicavit utilius ex hoc ipso suae illos insufficiontiae admoneri ut scirent sane ad quem justitiae finem
niti pro viribus oporteret Object 3. By this means we shall be denominated just of a Justice without us as if a man should be wise by wisdome of another Answ Though that in Physicks and morall Philosophy be absurd yet in Divinitie it is no absurditie Object 4. Then shall we be as just as Christ Ans That follows not for Christ besides the Justice he had by obedience to the Law had also Divine justice as second Person of the Trinity 2. Yea even in Legal Justice a preheminence there is left unto Christ because he had it by his own performance we have it onely by imputation And what great absurdity is it to say save onely that the comparison is somewhat odious that we have not lesse Legal justice then Christ had whiles it is acknowledged we have it not as Christ had it by our own performance but by imputation and as I may say aestimativè because it is given us to be ours Obiect 5. Justification stands in restoring what in Adam we lost Now in Adam we lost not imputed righteousness Ergò Answ To let pass that description of Justification Ad minorem We lost righteousness though not the impatation thereof quà Justice though not quà imputata and he doth ill confound the thing with the manner of applying and hear a like reason Justification stands in restoring what we lost in Adam now in Adam we lost not remission of sins Ergò Hear Bernard Si unus pro omnibus mortuus est ergò Bernard Epist ad Innocent 190. omnes mortui funt ut videlicet satisfactio unius omnibus imputetur sicut omnium peccata Vnus ille portavit mox Justum me dixerim sed illius justisiâ quaenam ipsa Finis Legis Christus adjustitiam omni credenti Denique qui factus est nobis inquit iustitia à Deo Patre quae ergò mihi iustitia facta est mea non est Si mea traducta culpa cur non mea indulta iustitia sanè mihi tutior donata quà m innata c. Bellarmine himself thus Dicitur Christus iustitia nostra quoniam satis fecit Patri pro nobis eam satisfactionem ità nobis donat communicat cùm nos iustificat ut nostra satisfactio iustitia dici possit Nam etiamsi per iustitiam nobis inhaerentem verè insti nominemur simus tamen non per eam satisfacimus Deo proculpis nostris poenâ aeternâ c. Et hoc modo non esset absurdum si quis diceret nobis imputari Christi iustitiam merita cùm nobis donentur applicentur ac si nos ipsi Deo satisfecissemus c. VERS 7 8. There followeth in these verses proof of the Minor in the former syllogisme David appropriates blessedness to the man that hath righteousness imputed without works for he appropriates it to him whose sinns are remitted Cajetane Paraeus Piscator How follows the argument Some thus conceive it The Apostle say they thus collects the argument from David because in this speech of David there is no mention made of any of our works but onely of Gods actions in remitting covering not imputing sinne some gather it from equipollence of the phrases for it is all one not to impute sin and to impute righteousness because that he that by not imputation of sin is made non peccator is thereby made iustus there being no medium betwixt a non-sinner and a righteous man betwixt absence of all sin and having of righteousness Against that opinion I mean not to dispute yet I would have the Reader remember that betwixt imputation of Christs righteousness and remitting of sins a difference there must needs be such I mean as is betwixt the cause and the effect the thing destinied to the end and the end it self for remission of sins presupposeth imputation of righteousness and he that hath his sins remitted hath first Christs righteousness imputed that he may have sins forgiven May I have leave to interpose my sentence What if the consecution stand thus The iustified man by Davids opinion hath quá talis remission of sins therefore he hath imputation of righteousness without works forasmuch as where sins are remitted there can be no iustice but imputative every transgression of the Law depriving of that iustice which stands in works forasmuch as the Law to righteousness requires observance of every particular duty therein prescribed abstinence from every particular sin therein forbidden sith therefore Whosoever is iustified hath sinnes remitted it follows that his blessedness ariseth from imputation of righteousness without works Judicent Docti The coherence we see Let us now view the sense of the words What difference may some say betwixt remitting covering and not imputing sinn Answ Cajetane thus conceives a difference In sinne we are to consider three things 1. The offence and displeasure of God 2. The turpitude it leaves either in the action or person 3. The punishment Now sin is in respect of the offence remitted in respect of the turpitude covered in respect of the punishment not imputed such like niceties many I could recite out of interpreters But it may be it is true that Ambrose hath Remittere tegere non imputare Ambrose ad loc una ratio unus est sensus and again Vnius significationis surt verba quia cùm tegit remittit cùm remittit non imputat And the heap of words serves onely to amplifie the grace of God in this blessing yet Cajetane errs not much in his explanation The things here to be treated are First Rimission of sins wherein it consisteth What this remission of sins is which David so much magnifies as that he pronounceth him blessed that is partaker of it To this Papists make this answer True remission of sins is not only the removall of Gods displeasure and the absolving of us from the guilt and punishment of them but an utter abolishment of them in respect of being Consil Trident seff 5. Bellarm. de sacrament baptism lib. 1. cap. 3. de justific lib. 2. cap. 7. and 9. Bellarm. in Psal 32. In Baptismate tollitur totum id quod veram propriam rationem peccati habet As Bellarmine speaking of the communicating of this blessing in Baptisme likewise defines Baptismo reipsâ tolli omnia peccata it a ut non solum non imputetur sed nec sit quod imputari posset ad culpam And generally thus hold they of remission of sins that it is the abolishment of them in respect of being And what is it to have sins covered Dicuntur peccata tegi hoc loco non quod sint non videantur sed quòd abolita sint eorum loco justitia successerit What the not imputing peccatum non imputari non significat peccatum manere sed non puniri sed significat nihil esse in homine justificato quod in peccatum reputari possit That we
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
to the course of the Covenant Now the defect of the verb is diversly supplyed Cajetan some thus adimplenda fuit others thus contingit or contigit and these by the promise understand the thing promised I would rather thus facta est as Gal. 3.16 By the Law That is works or righteousness of the law but of what law that given in Sinai or that of nature Paraeus Answ Vnderstand either or both and that some think is intimated by abscence of the article as a condition or a means we shall anon resolve I have now propounded the severall judgments of Interpreters touching the sence Whether shall we resolve of for my own part I will peremptorily prescribe to no man My judgment only I will propound The conclusion I think is this That justification belongs to believers all and only in respect not of works but of faith The Reasons proving it is taken partly from the form or manner of conveiance in the promise partly from parity In this form If the promise of inheritance to Abraham and his seed was to be accomplished not by legall obedience but by righteousness of faith then it followes that we are justified by faith and not by works But the promise of the inheritance to Abraham was to be accomplished not by the law but by the righteousness of faith Ergo. The consequence of the proposition hath this ground because that justification must be by such means as the inheritance may be obtained and that is obtained so as it is promised it is promised to be obtained by the righteousness of faith as a mean or disposition thereto tending Ergo. Justification is by faith and not by the law Hitherto the Connexion The particulars of this verse are these First The ground of Abrahams and our title to the blessing and that is the promise Secondly The matter of the promise To be the heir of the world Thirdly The means whereby we partake the promise set out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not by the law but by the righteousness of faith Observ Out of the first this is the collection That the title we have to the blessings of God that concerne life and godliness is the promise of God And our whole claim to them is sub titulo promissionis compare Gal 3.18 For this cause I think it is that the blessings of God which we partake are so often called promises and the Children of God the heires of the promise see Heb. 9.12 17. and 10.36 because by virtue of the promise accrewes our claim title and possession of the blessing Hence Peter Act. 2.39 reasons for the blessing and seal thereof in respect of the humbled Iews the promises are made to you and to your seed And to assure us of enjoying them Gods Spirit usually sends us to consideration of the Lords fidelity 1 Cor. 1.9 and 10 13. 1 Thess 5.24 2 Thess 3.3 Heb. 10.23 c. And it is not to be omitted that Budaeus observes that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a promise meerly voluntary and gratuitous without respect to any worth in the party to whom it is made In which respect it seems to be opposed to the law Gal. 3.18 From whence it well follows in Pauls Divinity that it is not founded on the worth of any our works Gal. 3.18 neither may we claim them as due to us for the merit of our obedience And howsoever obedience be required as a qualification of our persons to make us capable thereof yet the cause moving God to bestow them is not our righteousness but Gods promise Memorable is that caveat Moses gives to Israel being now at the skirts of Canaan say not in thy heart c. for my righteousness Deut. 9.4.5 the Lord hath brought me in to possesse this land c. Not for thy righteousness or for the uprightness of thy heart doest thou go in but for the wickedness of these nations c. and that the Lord may porform the word Which the Lord sware unto thy fathers Abraham Isaac and Iacob his reason is vers 16. Thou art a stiff-necked people which self-reason hath place in us all whatever our righteousness be by grace Rebellion alas Rom. 7.23 how much is still in our nature Hence it is that the Saints of God in their prayers to God usually acknowledg their own unworthiness and the blessings they crave and lay claim to they claim by promise read Neh. 1.8 9. And if ever we read in any of them allegation of righteousness as Isai 38.3 It is not intended as cause of the blessing but as a disposition in the person fitting it to receive the blessings made ours by promise In the next place consider we the matter of the promise That he should be the heir of the world The Heir that is saith Mr. Beza out of Vlpian Lord or owner agreeably to that Gal. 4.1 Howbeit something else is withall signified that this possession descends upon him freely as an inheritance not as by way of purchase Of the world That is say some of believers of all nations whereof supra say others of the Kingdome of Heaven others of whole heaven and earth and all the creatures therein with whatsoever heaven or earth can afford to make him blessed in token and pledg whereof Canaan was given him by promise as being the most fertile and pleasant part of the world and withall a type of Heaven and as Heb. 4 and 12. the rest pleasantness and glory thereof This I think the best interpretation for reasons above assigned Observ Whereout observe we That by covenant and promise Gods Children have title to the whole world All things are yours saith the Apostle whether Paul or Cephas or the world c. or things present or things to come all are yours 1 Cor. 3.21 22. And again godliness hath promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come And if any shall say that in experience we see Gods Children none of the greatest sharers in the things of this life Answ The lack of use hinders not our title and property in them The heir is Lord of all in title though in this nonage he differs nothing from a servant Gal. 4.1.2 That little they enjoy they enjoy comfortably as their own without usurpation Tit. 1.15 1 Tim. 4.4 5. 3. A recompence they have in graces equivalent here Mar. 10.29 30. by an happy commutation 4. And in the life to come full fruition of that happiness which passeth all the felicity earth can afford unto them 5. Besides there is in the best something that turns many of these earthly blessings into poyson as Agur intimates Prov. 30.8 9. And experience daily teacheth In that case therefore if the Lord keep us short to prevent our mischief shall we say his promises is not made good 6. Finally our wants in this kinde are usually chastisements of particular disobedience c. From whence followes as a just consectary this
nature I would easily infer Pelagius his conclusion That by the power of nature it were possible to fulfill the Law But 1. The Hypothesis is improbable there being no true merits of any meer creature 2. Yield there were some works of some men perfect yet so will not the conclusion follow in respect of that frequent intervenience of sins destroying the value of other works saith Hilary truly Spes in misericordia Dei in seculum Hillar ennarr in Psal 51. in seculum seculi est Non enim ipsa illa justitiae opera sufficient ad perfectae Beatitudinis meritum nisi misericordia Dei etiam in hac justitiae voluntate humanarum demutationum motuum vitia non reputet Let us see their other limitation so that pride in such confidence be avoided There is then belike an humble kind of confidence in our own works as if we should say an humble pride There be some saith Bernard Bernard de Quadrages serm 5. that seek life eternal Non in humilitate sed tanquam in fiducia suorum meritorum In his opinion very confidence in our works is a shrewd spice of pride But let us see what that pride is that in such confidence they prescribe to be avoided It is this When a man thinks he hath his merits of himself not of Gods grace In case then a man thankfully acknowledge his good works to proceed from Gods grace it is lawfull to put confidence in them Hear Bernard Bern. in Annunciat Ser. 3. Si quis gratus est si quis devotus si quis solicitus si quis spiritu fervens caveat sibi nè suis fidat meritis nè suis operibus innitatur alioquin nec hujusmodi quidem animum intrat gratia I thank God saith the Pharisee I am not as others to Gods grace he ascribes his righteousness and yet returns emptie of justification To come briefly to the point our conclusion is this No confidence at all for righteousness or salvation ought to be placed in any our works be they never so good or seemingly perfect Our first reason is for that we find the most eminent amongst Gods Saints renouncing all their own works not onely naturall but gracious also and relying themselves onely on Gods mercy in Christ see Psal 143. Phil. 3.9 10. Dan. 9.18 We do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousness but for thy great mercies Shall we say as they he speaks as one conceiving it as a matter of best safety Bellarm. de justif lib. 5. cap. 7. not of necessity What then means that so plentifull and humble confession of sins in the former part of the prayer In any reasonable construction he speaks as a man pressed with conscience of sin so far as that he acknowledgeth confusion to be their onely due portion if mercy succour and relieve him not To this we add these reasons weighty for the purpose howsoever sleightly passed over by Adversaries as 1. That our best works are defiled by our concupiscence Gal. 5.17 2. Are defective and imperfect according to the rule of the Law of God 3. Lose their worth through interruption and the frequent intercurrence of sins of ignorance and weakness would God not too often by some falls almost presumptuous Hereto we adjoyn the consent of Fathers August manual c. 22. Tota spes mea saith Augustine est in monte Domini mei mors ejus meritum meum refugium meum saelus vita resurrectio mea meritum meum miseratio Domini non sum meriti inops quamdiu ille miserationum Dominus non defuerit si misericordiae Domini multae multus ego sum in meritis Shall we say he remits of his right and speaks onely out of humility or as one choosing the sole mercie of God for his safest refuge Hear him in another place Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum August Confes l. 9. c. 13. si remotâ misericordiâ discutias eam Non est quod jam quaeras quibus meritis speremus bona praesertim cùm audies apud Prophetam Non propter vos Bern. in Cant. Ser. 67 68. sed propter me ego faciam dicit Dominus sufficit ad meritum scire quòd non sufficiant merita Idem Deest gratiae quicquid meritis deputas nolo meritum quod gratiam excludat Horreo quicquid de meo est ut sim meus c. The same Bernard noting the faults that sometimes insinuate themselves into our prayers Bern. de Quadrages Serm. 5. ad calcem in those that are made for eternall life pride sometimes useth to creep upon us Vitam aeternam fortassis aliqui non in humilitate quaerunt sed tanquam in fiducia suorum meritorum Nec hoc dico quin accepta gratia fiduciam donet orandi sed non oportet ut in ea constituat quisquam fiduciam impetrandi Hoc solum conferunt haec praemissa dona ut ab ea misericordia quae tribuit haec sperentur etiam ampliora Sit ergo oratio quae fit pro aeterna vita in omni humilitate praesumens de sola ut dignum est miseratione divina Propter incertitudinem propriae justitiae periculum amittendae aeternae gloriae tutissimum est Bellarm. qua supra fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia benignitate reponere Thus rather Propter imperfectionem propriae justitiae periculum amittendae aeternae gloriae necessarium est fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia benignitate reponere Let us briefly view the reasons they alledge for their purpose They produce Nehemiah praying remembrance of his good deeds Neh. 13.22 Ezekias also alledging his sincerity Isa 38.3 David promising himself retribution because he had kept Gods wayes Psal 18.20 21. Many the like might have been heaped up but how follows the conclusion Therefore they put confidence in their works Nay see Nehemiah in the same place praying to be spared according to the greatness of Gods mercy think we he puts confidence in his works as true causes of salvation that prayes pardon of his imperfections Thus briefly let us conceive that the Saints of God alledging their righteousness in prayers respect not their works as matter of their confidence see Dan. 9.18 but as inferiour helps of their hope quatenus they are evidences of their being in the Covenant and partakers of the promises That they put confidence in is Gods mercy and truth in his promise the reason of that confidence is their obedience in respect of presence not of efficiency Take one inftance for many Neh. 1.8 the servant of God prayes for restoring the people out of captivity what layes he for ground of his prayer The word that he spake by Moses If they turn unto me I will gather them Now Lord saith Nehemiah we desire to fear thy Name therefore gather us Can any think the holy man alledgeth their fear of God as matter of confidence See how diminutively he