proportion to us that is the fulfilling of the whole Law Gal. 5.3 our Saviour to such a boaster asking What he must do to inherit salvation suits answer to his proud humour Thou knowest the Commandments if doing be the means thou seekest to inherit by Keep the Commandments this do if thou wilt needs be doing and thou shalt live fail in the least apex the Curse is upon thee Gal 3.10 Now dares any arrogate power of fulfilling the Law it is strange yet what will not Popish pride assume Anathema to them saith the Trent Council whosoever shall say Dei praecepta homini etiam justificato sub gratia constituto esse ad observandum impossibilia of that question hereafter 2. Add unto this that other reason of the Apostle Christ becomes of no effect to such as by the Law seek to be justified or saved Gal. 5.4 3. They are fallen from Grace not which they had but which they might have had had they not renounced it by cleaving to their works Shal I need now to exhort in the Apostles terms Gal. 1.6 to hold Anathema all such as teach us by works to seek salvation they deprive us of the promised salvation exclude from fellowship in Christs merits the sole pillar of hope deprive us of Gods grace which alone is made the fountain of salvation I say not but other errors in the foundation obstinately holden deprive of salvation I say not but all heresies in their kind are so many blasphemies against God Neither blame I the rigour of Magistrates that with extraordinary severity labour to bring Hereticks and their heresies into ashes But surely an errour more pernicious to the souls of Gods people more derogatory to the glory of Gods grace and the validity of Christs merits I know none then this of Justitiaries and can but wonder How the severity of Laws against Popish Seminaries hath gotten relaxation that it should now no longer be holden Capitall so dangerously to seduce Gods people to evacuate the virtue of Christs death and to plunge so many souls bought with the precious bloud of Christ into eternal perdition Amongst Jews no recompense might be taken for bloud but the bloud of the slayer the bloud of souls how cries it lowder then the bloud of Abel And yet the Murtherer hath benefit of sanctuary More I add not save this onely He loves not his own salvation that hates not the enemies of the grace of God VERS 15. Proceed we in the Text Because the law worketh wratht for where no Law is there is no transgression The Scope THis verse tends to confirmation of the Apostles Consequence If they which are of the Law be Heirs then is the promise of none effect that is salvation promised can never be obtained How follows the argument The Apostle shews us by sending us to consider the effect or work of the Law such as it hath in all men since the fall The Law causeth wrath Ergò it frustrates the promise to all that cleave thereto for justification And this Antecedent hath proof from another effect of the Law betwixt which and wrath the connexion is inseparable to wit transgression it causeth transgression Ergò wrath This the context Sense For the sense view we a little the particulars they are principally two 1. The effect of the Law 2. The manner how it produceth his effect The effect of the Law is wrath whether Gods or mans Man 's saith Sasbout alledging to that purpose the judgement of Augustin neither dissent some of our own Divines Illyricus And if any ask How They answer by urging things upon the conscience as duties from which our vitious nature is most abhorrent as also by shewing how odious all a mans best actions yea his whole nature is and adjudging him to hel for his sins against those acts of the Law how doth mans vitious and proud nature storm that not without cause have learned interpreters thus expounded But fitlier to the Apostles purpose it is expounded of the wrath of God that is of the punishments which for transgression God is in his wrath ready to execute Now if any demand How the Law should have this effect Not of it self as if it were originally destined to subject man to punishment but by accident and occasionally onely in respect of our disobedience which sith it is by means of corrupt nature inevitable as inevitably doth the Law adjudge us to punishment as our vitious nature forceth us to rebellion This is the sense of the first clause It also hath its proof The Law causeth wrath for it causeth trangression betwixt which and Gods wrath the connexion is inseparable How we shall hear by and by if we shall first view the manner of the Apostles reasoning It is thus as most conceive A contrario sensu Where is no Law there is no transgression therefore where the Law is there is transgression But what if we conceive the Apostle to reason à signis Where is no Law there is no transgression an apparent signe that is that by means of the Law transgression followeth take away the Law there is no transgression therefore apparent that by putting the Law we put transgression See we how how comes it that the Law draws with it so unavoidably transgression sith it forbids and threatens disobedience enjoyns and crowns obedience Answ Not of it self but by accident through the corruption of nature ut suprâ In man corrupted the Law hath a double advantage to further transgression 1. Because by it corruption is provoked to be the more sinfull as in men unregenerate Rom. 7.5 13. 2. Through impotencie and weakness that remains in nature even reformed to perform that obedience which the Law requires in that manner it requires it Rom. 8.3 Some other explanations might be annexed as this Every sin is therefore sin because it violates some Law take away all Law thou takest away all sin for sin essentially presupposeth some prescription of Law violated Had not God by his Commandment forbidden Adam the eating of the fruit it had been no sin in him to eat it This is a truth but not all tâ—â— Apostle here intends whose purpose is to shew not sâ— much the necessity of a Law to the being of sin as the necessary sequel and exsistence of sin in man since the fall by occasion of the Law Observ The point then observable is this That the law is so far from restoring us to Gods favour that it occasioneth his wrath so far from justifying that it condemns so far from being means of righteousness that it occasioneth transgression Hence called the Ministry of condemnation and death 2 Cor. 3.7 and the very strength and vigour of sin 1 Cor. 15 56. That not without cause said Luther though therefore traduced by Papists the law alwayes accuseth terrifieth condemneth The severall branches will be evident if we shall clear the last only and shew how inevitably it draws after it transgression in
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
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
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
against unbelieving ungodly ones is yet so exceeding ready to forgive even the ungodly believing in him so that we may say as David every one to his own soul faith once received Psal 43.5 Why art thou so cast down O my soul and why art thou so disquieted within me Trust in God and thou shalt find him full of mercy and compassion exceeding ready to forgive the sins that he hath enabled thee to repent Hast thou sinned in seculo saith Bernard Bernard in die Pet. Pauli Serm. 30. Not more then Paul In religion and state of grace Not more then Peter and yet they obtained mercy and as Paul speaks It is for ever a * 2. Tim. 1.16 Beza Piscator pattern of Gods pardoning mercy to all such as shall hereafter believe in him to everlasting life Neither impieties in seculo nor infirmities in grace are imputed to such as believe in him for behold he justifies the ungodly believing in him that though all sins be damnable in their own nature yet may it be said in a sense The onely damning sin is infidelity insomuch as if infidelity were not no sin should be imputed to condemnation But thus far of the first argument against justification by Works drawn from the example of Abraham The rest of this Verse hath been already explained ad vers 3. VERS 6 7 8. 6. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works 7. Saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered 8. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sinne TO the example of Abraham taken from Moses is adjoyned the testimony of David amongst the Prophets And Theodorets reason of the choice is not to be contemned for Abraham lived before the Law and now he shews that David who lived under the Law gave Testimony to Faith The rendring differs Beza Piscator David describeth the blessedness of that man others had rather thus David saith Blessedness to be that mans unto whom c. In the issue is no great odds The summe of the argument is this If David say That blessednesse is that mans to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works Then is no man justified by works But David saith Blessedness is that mans to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works Ergò No man is justified by works The minor hath its proof ver 6 7 8. borrowed from Psalme 32. But may some say How follows the Proposition that if a man be blessed that hath righteousness without works imputed to him then no man is justified by works Answ Thus as I conceive prescribing to no man If blessedness be onely that mans that hath righteousness without works imputed then justification cannot be by works Inasmuch as blessedness is his onely that is justified justification being a part of blessedness If any Justiciary shall object That the exclusive particle onely is not extant in the Apostle and that though he be blessed that hath righteousness imputed without works yet may he be blessed also that hath righteousness purchased by works Let this suffice him for answer That there is one onely way of all mens justification for else how follows Pauls argument Abraham was not justified by Works but by Faith Ergò No other man After this conceit a man might mannerly deny the Apostles consequence and tell him that though Abraham were justified by Faith yet another man may be iustified by Works Now to make way to the particulars observable in this sixth verse It may be said that the words are no where extant in David and how then saith the Apostle that David saith The man is blessed to whom righteousness without works is imputed David indeed saith that he is blessed that hath not his sins imputed no where that righteousness without works is imputed Answ Though the words be no where extant in David yet the sense is and though he speak not in expresse words yet he speaks it in effect inasmuch as by iust and necessary consequence it may be deduced for he that saith A man is blessed that hath not his sins imputed saith in effect that he is blessed that hath righteousness without works imputed Observ Whence observe we that Gods Spirit in Scripture speaks as well what he implyeth as what he expresseth as well what by consequence is deduced as what in summe of words he uttereth Instances are frequent Iam. 4.5 Saith the Scripture in vain the spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth it after envy Now where finde we those words in all the Scripture By deduction we have them Num. 11.29 in express terms we no where finde them yet saith Iames the Scripture saith so Luk. 1.73 74. God sware to Abraham that we should be delivered out of the hands of our enemies that we might serve him without fear where finde we such an oath extant for words In no Scripture yet when God sware he would bless him Gen. 22.18 and that in his seed all nations should be blessed He sware in effect we should be delivered from our enemies and serve him without fear inasmuch as this blessedness stands in being delivered from our enemies and it s no small part thereof to serve God in holiness The Observation is of speciall use for maintaining the fulness of the Scripture and for helping us in sundry controversies Say Papists and Anabaptists where have we it taught that infants should be baptized in all the Scripture Answ Not in express terms but by just consequence we have it From the generall Mat. 28.19 From pâ—rity Gen. 17.12 From principles Act. 2.39 Where finde we that Christs Righteousness is imputed to us for justification saith Bellarmine Answ Bellarm. de justific l. 2. and lib. 1 cap. 16. In express terms we finde it not but virtually and by just consequence we have it 2 Cor. 5.21 In the equivalent we have it Rom. 5.17 18 19. The adversaries saith Bellarmine are wont to boast much of the express word of God and to reduce all their opinions to this one head But in the case of justification by faith only that help fails them For they were never yet able to shew in the Scripture that particle only where they intreate of justifiing faith Answ But we are taught that if we have it by consequence from the Scripture we have it in the Scripture The Scripture propounding but two means only of justification Faith and Works and denying all justifying vertue to works affords it us not the conclusion by consequence We are justified by faith only see Rom. 3.18 Again have we it not in the equivalent Gal. 2.16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Iesus Christ as much as if he had said by faith only In a word where we have the generall we have the particulars where principles and causes the effects where one equall there also the other By
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
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
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