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
an action best available for confidence in that respect to relye upon namely His raising of Jesus from the dead The like in sundry other places is observable Would they humble themselves for their sins they consider God as terrible and dreadfull in his judgments would they raise up themselves with comfort they consider him as a God that heepeth Covenant and promise as a father of mercies and God of all consolation would they stablish hope in expectation of things passing the course of nature they consider his endless power able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we can aske or think There is a confused apprehension of the deity for the most part liveless and ineffectuall when men ingross only and indistinctly mediate the Divine nature without reference to particulars concerning the present occasion And another as preposterous unseasonable and no less uncomfortable when men fit their faith with meditation of that that is most unseasonable for their present state God is merciful saith the presumer he is just saith the desperate distressed Both true he is just and mercifull saith the Psalmist but should not faith in wisdome contemplate what is fittest for the present necessity This wisdome pray we for The last thing in this period remains The Reason brought to assure us of like favour in like faith for better confirming the comfort unto us Vers 25 Who was delivered for our offences and was raised again for our justification The force of the argument thus conceive God the Father hath delivered his Son to death for expiation of our sins he hath raised him which was our surety to assure us of our justification doubt not therefore but he will justifie thee believing on him through Christ In the words the Apostle sends us to consider two things as pillars for faith to rest on for justification First is The cause meritorious Christ death Secondly The evidence of the value and worth of his humiliation His resurrection from the dead This text saith one is Brevis largus short in words large in sense Let us view the particulars In the first member are these 1. Who delivered 2. Who was delivered 3. Whereto 4. For what For the First Who delivered Pater filium Christus seipsum Iudas Dominum saith Austin The fact one the motives different which made Iudas his treason criminous Christs tradition of himself meritorious I point only at the heads Who was delivered Iesus our Lord A less price say some might have sufficed yea none at all had God been so pleased I think not considering the endless justice violated which God in our ransome intended to preserve and manifest Rom. 3. Delivered why saith he delivered rather then crucified To lead us by the hand to the first cause thereof the determinate councells of the Blessed Trinity Act. 4.27 28. I could command Legions of Angells for deliverance Mat. 26.35 saith our Saviour to Peter but how then should the Scripture be fulfilled how the Fathers purpose and councels accomplished VVhereto To death even the shamefull and cursed death of the cross Phil. 2.8 That so we might be delivered from the curse of the Law Gal. 3.13 Incomparable Benignity of the Father unmatcheable compassion and humility of our blessed Saviour For what For sins for our sins whether we conceive sin as the efficient cause procuring these things unto our Saviour or tropically intepret For sins that is for expiation of sins it is not greatly materiall This latter hath some Auncients approving it however Socinus laugh at the strangeness of it Theodoret He underwent his passion Theodoret. ad loc Vt nostrum debitum exsolveret not much unlike Ambrose And that of the Prophet cannot better be expounded Isai 53.10 His soul an offering for sin that is to expiate sin The senses are subordinate sins procured it by it sins were expiated and to expiated them Christ was delivered see Isai 53. 1 Pet. 2.24 For our sins Our in this case 2 Cor. 5.21 hath a threefold Antithesis 1. To Christ 2. To Angells 3. To Vnbelievers For ours not his own He was holy harmeless seperate from sinners knew not sin per experimentum as Augustine interprets see 1 Pet. 2.22 23 24. Heb. 7.26 Isai 53. Augustin de peccat Merit Remiss lib. 2. cap. 35. Sine peccato natus est in similitudine carnis peccati sine peceato vixit inter aliena peccata sine proccato mortuus est propter nostra peccata as Saint Augustine Ours not Angells Heb. 2.16 In no place he assumes the Angells but the seed of Abraham It may be there was something eminent in their sin that excludes them but let us take heed whiles we seek the reason of our preheminence in the quality of the sinners we forget the Lords 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the specialty of his love to man that only caused it Nunquid Angelo Bernard de Passione Domini sed ille non eguit Nunquid Diabolo sed ille non resurget as Bernard Ours that believe Ioh 3.16 Not for sins of unbelievers yes say some sufficiently for theirs that distinction I stand not to examine The question is this Whether intentionally for the sins of any but believers They shall never be able to prove that the intention is larger then the efficacy or that his death was not effectuall to procure remission for all unto whose benefit it was intended The heads of this first member we have seen let us with like brevity see to what use they serve us Vse First They direct us to a right estimate of our sins a point wherein alack how partially blind are the most of us The matter we think small wherein we offend the act and pleasure momentany transient in a moment should justice be so strict as for such triflles to load us with eternall cursing or rather should mans malice be so dissolute as for such trifles to violate the endless majesty that loadeth us daily with so many blessings Learn rather by consideration of the necessary remedy to esteem the quantity of thy perill whereout nothing could suffice to rid thee but the death of the Son of God Agnosce ô homo quà m gravia sunt vulnera Bern. in Natal Domin Ser. 3. pro quibus necesse est Dominum Christum vulnerari si non essent haec ad mortem mortem sempiternam nunquam pro eorum remedio dei filius moreretur saith Bernard sweetly Secondly As they teach us compunction so minister they unto us unspeakeable consolation sicut enim gravem agnosco morbum cuitanta apponitur medicina sic ex hoc ipso non incurabilem esse conjecto They know not the excellency of Christ person nor the worth of his bloud that question the availableness thereof to purchase redemption Let strictest justice ballance our sins with Christs satisfaction this shall be found infinitely to preponderate Some weakly perhaps will say of the valew he doubts not but of the avail for
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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