Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
death_n body_n dead_a sin_n 15,745 5 5.5153 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A62378 An exposition vvith notes on the whole fourth chapter to the the Romanes wherein the grand question of justification by faith alone, without works, is controverted, stated, cleared, and fully resolved ... / by William Sclater, Doctor in Divinity, sometimes minister of Gods word at Pitminster, in Summerset ; now published by his son, William Sclater, Batchelar in Divinity, minister at Collompton in Devon. Sclater, William, 1575-1626.; Sclater, William, 1609-1661. 1650 (1650) Wing S918; ESTC R37207 141,740 211

There are 13 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Tertullian well answers That this sentence is of undoubted truth Nothing at all is hard unto God but yet if we shall thus abruptly use this sentence in our presumptuous and ground less conceits we may feign any thing of God as if he had wrought it because he had power to work it Non autem quia omnia potest facere ideo credendum est illum fecisse etiam quod non fecerit sed an fecerit requirendum God could have furnished man with wings to flie he hath done it to kites follows it thence that he hath done it yea or that ever it shall be done In a word Dei posse velle est non posse nolle Quod autem voluit potuit ostendit c. Psal 115.3 Gods power must be considered with his will and significations thereof what he will do he can do what he hath signified he will do let us build upon it that it shall be effected but where we want evidence of his will we shall but absurdly expect the event in respect of his power for he can do more then ever shall come to passe With like frand do our Transubstantiatours and their of spring Ubiquitaries delude the simple perswading the reall presence of Christs body some in many some in all places by this as one argument God is omnipotent Quis hoc nesciat To vield that it is possible for God to make reall communication of immensity part of his incommunicable glory to Christs Humanity and to grant that God can uphold a body in its essence without that essentiall property of a body Circumscription What Divinitie teacheth to believe that as actually true which God hath power to effect where is no evidence of his will to work it Abraham rested on Gods power and therewith supported his faith but it was for things whereof he had a promise as after followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And of the generalis thus far Let us now view the words Who quickneth the dead and calleth things that be not as though they were These effects subject to Gods power Abraham considered fittingly for support of his faith in the particular promised him Sense For thesense of the words Sasbout Cajetan alii Many Interpreters take them particularly and thus interpret Who quickeneth the dead That is that gives generative virtue to men disabled for generation so putting as it were a new life into them And calleth the things that are not as if they were That is that makes eximious things contemptible the Gentiles that were no people a people of God I rather think they are to be taken in their largest sense according to the immediate purport of the words though I confess Abraham from them inferred the particulars of his promise and thus conceive Abraham to have reasoned for the establishing of his faith His first conclusion is this My body now as dead in respect of the act of generation God will quicken and make vigorous His argument God by his power can quicken the dead therefore he can give generative vigour to my dead body His second Conclusion The seed promised though it yet subsist not yet shall have being His argument God by his word makes things to be that are not Ergo. The question here moved by some seems to me impertinent Whether it be Gods property onely to raise the dead inasmuch as the Apostles purpose here is not to deliver these as effects peculiar to Gods power but rather to shew that they are things subject to his power Which was that that Abraham considered for establishment of his faith In the mean time I joyn with them in the conclusion That these effects fall not under the compass of any created power for howsoever we read of some Prophets and Apostles that raysed up the dead yet was not the virtue that quickened them inherent in them they being but instruments if so much rather signifiers of Gods will to effect such miracles In a word in all miraculous effects three sorts of causes must be distinguished 1. The principall efficient that is Gods power 2. The instrument or mean cause which sometimes are creatures and their actions not so much elevated above their naturall ability as chosen of God to be attended with his divine virtue 3. The cause dispositive which is fides miraculosa Gregor Dial. lib. 2. cap. 30. Gregory goes far yet stayes within these bounds Sancti aliquando ex potestate miracula exhibent aliquando postulatione utrolibet tamen modo Deus principaliter operatur c. saith Thomas If therefore at any time this effect be ascribed to Saints it is to them onely as instruments or means by faith obtaining the miracle to be wrought by the power of God Sive sit Elizaeus sive ille magnus Elias mortuorum utique suscitatores ipsi quidem suo non imperio sed ministerio for is exhibent nobis nova insueta Deus verò in ipsis manens ipse facit opera Bern. super Cantic Serm. 13. Vse Let us see to what use the meditation of these mighty effects of Gods power may serve us God quickneth the dead and calleth the things that be not as if they were that is by his word gives things being that erst had no being in nature When there was no light he onely said Let there be light and there was light when no firmament he called for a firmament and there was a firmament These and the like effects of Gods power Abraham meditated and thereby assured himself of obtaining the promises that had no help of performance in nature As comfortable and great promises God hath made us as he did to Abraham as to raise our bodies out of the dust of the earth and to make them like to the glorious body of the Lord his Son Christ Phil. 3.21 Why should it seem encredible to any as Paul speaks that the Lord should raise the dead Acts 26.8 He could at first build the body in that excellent figure out of the dust why not again repair the ruines death hath wrought in it He quickneth the dead He hath promised to * Isa 5 7.15 revive the spirit of the humble and to bring them up from the gates of hell Why are our souls so disquieted with our present apprehension of Gods wrath as if our state were remediless He quickens the dead Promised to work faith knowledge sanctification in the hearts of all that conscionably seek them in the means What now if we feel nothing but infidelity Let him but call for faith by his word he works it in the most incredulous and as he caused the light to shine out of darkness so can he cause the light of the glorious Gospel of Iesus Christ to shine in the hearts that yet sit in darkness and in the shadow of death In these spirituall effects of his power instances we have daily How many dead in trespasses and sins hath he quickened by his spirit to newness of
Scripture if necessary or else are such points of faith or practice as in the conclusion are inquireable For that of infants Baptism Scripture prescribes in Generalls Principles equivalent For that of the blessed Maries perpetuall Virginitie post partum a point that we piously believe according to some probabilities of Scripture No matter of such weight as that the doubting or deniall thereof should shut us up under condemnation To leave these men to their vain faith and conversation taught by their fathers traditions from which Christ with his bloud hath ransomed us 1 Pet. 1.18 Let us in matter of faith learn Abrahams prudence believe according to that we know the Lord hath spoken And this rule let us remember it is partiall infidelity to deny credence to any thing delivered in Scriptures Fancy not Faith to believe as Gods truth what he hath not in Scriptures revealed unto us And here I cannot but take notice of the folly of many amongst us Wise it may be in their generation wiser in their own conceit Their profession is this in the point of believing They had rather believe too much then too little and in that sottish resolution how many gross errours drink they in almost to the bane of their souls It cals to mind that fable should I call it or story rather of a woman in the dayes of Popish darkness accused to her Confessour for denying Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament that being charged by the Priest with that point of heresie made answer for her self That she never made question of any such matter And believest thou indeed saith her Confessour that Christ is there present Flesh Bloud and Bone as he was born of the Virgine Not He onely saith the woman but his blessed Mother also O woman replies this Seraphicall Doctour great is thy faith or rather O man great is thy impious folly to approve as points of faith such sottish dreams a just parallel for our men so superfluous and supererogatory in matter of believing But now proceed we in the Text. VERS 19 20 21. And being not weak in faith he considered not his own body now dead when he was about an hundred years old neither yet the deadness of Sarahs Wombe He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief but was strong in faith giving glory to God And being fully perswaded that what he had promised he was able also to perform THe next commendable property of Abrahams faith is the strength of it set out in an Antithesis and heap of words Not weak but strong and fully assured 2. By removing certain effects of weak faith from Abraham as 1. Consideration and looking down upon things that opposed the promise and might hinder faith 2. Doubting or debating of the promise 3. By the means supporting and strengthening faith the truth and power of the promiser This is the sum these the particulars of this passage Sense For sense of the words Sundry questions offer themselves to be discussed First was Abrahams faith so perfect that in it was no weakness no doubtfulness at all Answ So Origen so Papists often in question touching perfection of righteousness The truth is great things are here given to Abraham in this point of believing Now whether this strength of faith should be conceived comparatively or limited to the particular Article now in hand may be some question This once is evident in the story of Abraham that however firm his faith was touching this particular at some time yet in other things Cajetan ad loc he bewrayed some incredulity and at other times as Cajetane conjectures was not without some doubtfulness of this promise Now what when it is yielded Abrahams faith was at sometime perfect in respect of this particular promised The Law to justification requires an universall perfection of all virtues as well as of faith and in faith perfection not onely in respect of some particulars but of all truths revealed and that not at sometimes onely but perpetually without interruption Gal. 3.10 A second quaere How saith Paul Abraham considered not his body dead c. When as Moses bringeth him laughing at the promise Gen. 17.17 and enquiring as it should seem of the likelihood of it Shall a child be born to him that is an hundred years old and shall Sarah that is ninty years old bear Answ Cajetane answers That the quaeres of Abraham recorded by Moses were made whiles yet the Revelation was not so clear unto him and issued not so much from doubtfulness of the thing as from desire to be informed whether the words bear the sense that their sound purported Pauls speech is to be referred to the time when the Revelation was complete and the sense thereof distinctly understood conferre Gen. 17.17 18. What if we say Pauls meaning is this He considered not these impediments out of doubtfulness of the promise but as admiring the power and great grace of the Promiser intending him a favour that must be accomplished against the course of nature saith Augustine Riserat pater quando ei promissus est Augustin de Civ dei lib. 16. cap. 31. super Gen. qu. 36. admirans in gaudio riserat mater quando iterum promissus est dubitans in gaudio The same Augustine to like purpose enquires Why the Lord reproves Sarahs and not Abrahams laughter and thus answers Quia illius risus admirationis laetitiae fuit Sarae autem dubitationis So much force is there in the grounds of our actions to determine them either to good or evil The third quaere How saith Paul of Abrahams body it was dead that is destitute of generative vigour when as so many years after he had many children by Keturah Gen. 25.1 August qu. 35. super Gen. de Civ Dei lib. 16. c. 28. contra Iulian. Pelag. l. 3. c. 11 2. his second wife after Sarahs death Answ Augustine in many places propounds this doubt and assoyls it The summe of his solution is this First that it was dead in respect of Sarahs body decayed by age not so in respect of a younger woman alledging to that purpose the judgement of Physicians Emortuum corpus non ita intelligendum est ac si omnino nullam vim generandi habere posset si mulier juvenilis aetatis esset sed secundum hoc emortuum ut etiam de provectioris aetatis muliere non posset His second answer this That Abrahams bodie was dead until such time as the Lord was pleased to put new vigour into it as he did for the begetting of Isaac and that the same gift of generation continued after the death of Sarah for begetting of other children of Keturah we have both in summe Abrahams body was dead through age ut ex illius aetatis foeminâ gignere non valeret qui tamen ipse de adolescentula valeret sicut postea de Cethura valuit quamvìs illic dici possit foecunditatis munus in eodem
speaks of it it is rather a desire to fear then actuall fearing and therefore needs mercy to accept it hath no merit to procure so great a blessing from God August de verb. Apost Ser. 16. To like purpose Augustine In his quae jam habemus landemus Deum largitorem in his quae nondum habemus tenemus debitorem Debitor enim factus est non aliquid à nobis accipiendo sed quod ei placuit promittendo Illo ergò modo possumus exigere Dominum nostrum ut dicamus Redde quod promifisti quia fecimus quod jussisti hoc tu fecisti quia laborantes juvisti Their second argument because our works are vera salutis causa we may put confidence in any true cause which is known fit to bring us to the end wished and hoped for such are our works Ergo. To this argument the answers are divers amongst our Divines The Apologie of the Augustane confession seems not to deny that there is some virtue in the works of the faithfull procuring unto us eternall life But that virtue they imagine to be extrinsecall issuing from the merit of Christ imputed to us whereby it comes to pass that the blemishes of our obedience are covered and our works presented as pure and without spot before God And sundry others eminent in the Church of God think it no heresie to say that our good works tincta sanguine Christi make us worthy of eternal life In which and many the like speeches I must needs profes●e I see nothing derogatory to the glory of Gods grace or Christs Mediation nor worthy the tragicall exclamations of many if they be duely considered Our Sacrifices saith Peter are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ 1. Pet. 2.5 See Reynolds contra Hart. cap. 8. pure and clean saith Malachy though not by inherence yet by acceptation and by that tincture they receive from Christs bloud and intercession Rev. 8. But will it not hence follow that they are true causes of salvation Answ In no wise as Papists conceive it namely that ex propria dignitate and because they satisfie the Law of God such dignity we acknowledge none inherent in them nor such perfection as satisfies the Law The worth they have is from their die and tincture in Christs bloud and that is it alone that makes them capable of reward so that the term of our confidence is Christs bloud not our works into which the whole causality as I may term it of salvation in respect of us is to be resolved Others there are that choose simply and without distinction to deny the assumption least peradventure the proud heart of man should swell with opinion of its own conferring any thing to its own salvation They are via regni saith Bernard non causa regnandi Causes if ye will sine quibus non necessary antecedents to salvation no virtuall efficients or procurers thereof unto us most truly and fitliest to the Popish opinion according whereto they are made so exactly answerable to the justice of the Law that they need no mercy to cover their defects no imputation of Christs merits to hide their blemishes from Gods justice yea have a worth in them proportionall to the transcendent weight of glorie The Apostle otherwise Rom. 8.18 The sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed Non si unus omnes sustineat saith Bernard Totis licèt animae Bern. de Annun Ser. 1. Euseb Emess Hom l. 3. ad Monach corporis laboribus desudemus totis licèt obedientiae viribus exerceamur nihil tamen condignum merito pro coelestibus bonis compensare offerre valebimus saith Eusebius Emissenus We conclude therefore That no confidence may be placed in our works of righteousness The whole must relie upon the mercy and truth of the promiser and on his Christ in whom the promises have their accomplishment 2. Cor. 1.20 And of the dutie and object thereof thus far His Periphrasis followeth Sense Who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead For the sense of the words It may be enquired how the resurrection of Christ is ascribed to the Father whereas it is said The Sonne hath power to lay down his life and to take it up again Joh. 2.19 and 10.18 Answ The answer rests in that old rule of Augustine The externall works of the Trinity are undivided in them all the whole three persons work joyntly in regard that the same divine virtue is equally residing in all If it be yet demanded why most usually the resurrection of Christ is assigned to the Father Answ Thus we may conceive that Christ in state of humiliation emptyed himself Phil. 2.7 Not as loving his glory but as forbearing for the time the ordinary manifestation of his Divine power inasmuch that howsoever there was no work of the father wherein he did not equally communicate quod ad substantiam operis yet so little shew thereof was there in the infirmity of his flesh that they might seem to be wholly from the father without any concurrence of Christ incarnate Again It may be demanded What the reason is that the Apostle singles out this effect of raising Christ from the dead to describe the father by Answ Some think to maintain the proportion betwixt the faith of Abraham and the faith of his seed that as he respected the power of God raising the dead in like sort should ours This is somewhat but if I be not deceived there is some farther aym of the Apostle he speaks methinks as if he thought there were some speciall reason and ground for confidence in God for justification in this act of God raising Jesus from the dead And weigh it well we shall finde there is scace any thing more fit to stablish faith in perswasion of justification then this For when the Lord losed the sorrowes of death and delivered our surety from bond age thereunto doth he not give evidence that his justice is fully satisfied for our sins he fully reconciled unto us Had not our surety Christ Jesus paid the utmost farthing due for our sins he had yet continued under the dominion of death the wages of our sins Hence saith Peter 1 Pet. 1.3 that the Lord hath begotten us to a lively hope by the resurrection of Christ from the dead there being no greater or more effectuall means to perswade us of pardon of sins reconciliation with God acceptation to life eternal then that Christ our surety and undertaker is risen from the dead There is a kinde of wisdome and prudence in believing the Apostle seems here to give us an hint for the nature and use of it thus conceives it It is when a man fits the consideration of the attributes and actions of God to the particulars most necessary and fit for faith to respect according to severall occasions as here The Apostle prescribing confidence in God for justification fits us with a description of him by
particular assent and affiance also in him as the Messiah promised as by view of some of the principall obligations will appear For think we the acknowledgment of this proposition in generall That Jesus Christ is the Son of God is that See Joh. 20. and 1 Ioh. 5. that justifieth and saveth Then how fail Divells of justification yea and of eternall life that sensibly acknowledg him to be Jesus the Son of the living God Mark 2. Besides what means our Saviour so often to invite us unto him and propounding the condition of eternall life to utter it in a phrase importing affiance as Ioh. 6.40 yea particular acknowledgment of him to be a Saviour unto us Lastly Thus I reason A Pari other parts and conclusions of Scripture propounded generally are to be believed not only as they concern the generall but particularly as having their truth in us Why not then these that propound remission of sins righteousness and salvation to be obtained by Christ For instance when the Scripture teacheth that every one is accursed that keeps not the Law that the wages of sin is death c. Binds it not me also to believe that I also for my sins am by nature subject to the curse that the proper wages for my sins is death When it propounds promises of temporall blessings as it doth to them that seeks Gods Kingdome and his righteousness ought not I to acknowledg this promise to belong to me and to place confidence in God for the performance Why then when the promise of remission of sins is made to believers binds it no me and every believer to assume that my sins are pardoned when it teacheth Christ to be the Saviour of the world and Author of Righteousness to those that obey him should I not say that Christ requiring generall faith intends also a particular applying of this generall to my self for my comfort and salvation More I add not in this kinde Two paradoxes only of Bellarmine Bellarm. l. 1. de justific cap. 8. I will briefly propound and so leave them The first is that faith is justifying though it have no respect to Gods speciall mercy The Second That it is not justifying if perhaps it have respect thereto The proofes have in them the quintessence of Iesuitical acumen The Leprous mans faith Mark 1. was a justifying faith and yet had no respect to speciall mercy Ergò Faith not respecting speciall mercy is justifying Answ The proposition needs proof inasmuch as many had faith for obtaining Miracles that had none at all touching the person of the Messiah Luk. 17. 2. How proves he that he had no speciall faith concerning remission of sins by Christ What because he doubts of his will for his cure As who say there may not be speciall faith touching pardon of sins even where there is doubt of obtaining some remporall blessing the one having a promise for Gods children to rest on the other not so but with limitation to expediency But will you see how he proves that faith is not justifying if it have respect to speciall mercy The Pharisee having it even because he had it was not justified Ergò Answ And was the Pharisees affiance in Gods speciall mercy the Reason why he was not justified Nay rather the vain boasting of his own righteousness as appears by the drift of the parable expressed Luk. 18.9 Vacuus proindè rediit Bernard de Annuc Ser. 3. ad calcem quia plenitudinem simulavit as S. Bernard and therefore failed he of justification not because he trusted on Gods speciall mercy to obtain it but for that he trusted in himself that he had it Some Ancients let us hear in this point Bernard de Annuc Serm. 1. saith Bernard Si credis pecoata tua non posse deleri nisi ab eo cui soli peccâsti in quem peccatum non cadit benè facis Sed adde adhuc ut hoc credas quia per ipsum Tibi peccata donantur hoc est Testimonium quod perhibit in corde nostro spiritus sanctus dicens dimissa sunt tibi Poccata Tua The Second opinion touching the nature of saith justifying as it is justifying is this that justifying faith is an assent not so much to the truth of the whole word of God as to the promises of the Gospell and that as having their truth in us The difference betwixt this and the Popish opinion stands in two things First in the object which they make the whole word of God these only the Doctrine of the Gospel Secondly In the manner of assenting which they make generall without any particular applying to our selves these particulars They consent in this that it is an act of the understanding rather then of the will perswasion rather then considence assent rather then affiance And for this they have these Reasons First For that the faith that justifieth is so often expressed in a phrase importing assent or giving credit as in this Scripture Abraham believed God that is gave credit to God promising to be his reward c. Similia vide Mark 1.15 Their Second Reason is because the object thereof is usually made the propositions of the Gospel and that which they call Terminum complexum or as Thomas speaks something propounded per modum enuntiabilis or to speak more plainly and agreeably to the phrase of Scripture a testimony which God gives in the word and in the heart See Rom. 8.16 Gal. 2.20 A Third Reason Because it seems strange that faith justifying should have divers seats or subjects The understanding as an assent the will as an affiance From hence and the like reasons it is concluded that faith justifying is an assent rather then affiance Now that it hath not for the proper object the whole word of God but rather only the doctrine of the gospel as it is justifying these Reasons evince First For that our Saviour prescribing the act limits out also the object and makes it the Gospel rather then any other part of the Scripture Mark 1.15 Secondly Kemn it in Exam. part 1. de Fide justisic For that in other parts of the word of God faith findes not what it may lay hold on for reconciliation remission of sins and justification but only in the Gospel that is the word of reconciliation there is Christ the Mediatour propounded there remission of sins promised For the Third branch that its a particular assent particular I mean not only in respect of the Subject but of the Object Examples prove Gal. 2.20 Christ loved me gave himself for me The generalls of the Gospel thus particularized are that which faith justifying as it is justifying respects by this faith Paul lived Secondly In point of believing there can else be no difference betwixt faith of Reprobates and that of the Elect betwixt faith of Divells and of justified men For it s an idle tenant of theirs that they make charity the form of faith a
may the better see the my stery of their iniquity in this point let us a little enquire how many things are to be considered in actuall sins For as touching concupiscence we will touch it only by the way In every actuall sin we must consider 1. The act it self with the anomie thereof wherein the nature of sin consists 1 Ioh. 3.4.2 The effects and consequents flowing therefrom as 1. the offence and displeasure of God 2. as Cajetan cals it the turpitude thereof Thom. 1a 2ae quaest 109. Art 7. which according to Thomas and others we will imagine to contain three things First Maculam the blemishing of the soul or person of a sinner and the deprivall of that beauty and comeliness of it wherewith by grace it is adorned Secondly The corruption or destroying of that naturall good that stands in the subjection of man to God Thirdly The encrease of prones to the same sin A Third consequent is the guilt that lyeth upon the person of the sinner and his liableness to punishment Fourthly The fourth let be the punishment it self Let us now apply their conclusion to some controversies betwixt us and them Sins they say when they are remitted are utterly abolished and extinct yea so done away that there remains nothing of them that can be reputed sin then I hope we may assume of every sin pardoned that it is wholly abolished What think we then of originall sin in infants after Baptisme Is it pardoned or no Yes for Baptisme so takes away sin that it leaves nothing that hath the true and proper nature of sin Well then how comes it to pass that many of them dye before ever they had ability to commit actuall sins Have they nothing left that hath the nature of sin and yet tast they of death the wages of sin Rom. 6.23 Far be it that the Judg of all the world should not do right in punishing an innocent that hath nothing left in him that hath the true and proper nature of sin Again had David true remission of his adultery and murther yea or no Yes no doubt for Nathan telleth him the Lord hath put away his sin 2 Sam. 12.13 Well yet David must be punished though his sin be put away as a Clowd and there remains no foot-print of it nothing that could be reputed sin Help us to reconcile these or else blush at your contractions Lastly Methinks the sin being wholly abolished the whole reatus accrewing to the person thereby should be withall extinct for what is it that binds us over to punishment of any sort temperall or eternal sin only I trow yet according to their judgment in remission of many sins there remains reatus poenae Temporalis as they give instance in Davids case Well one thing I perceive remission of sins is any thing but what it is that is a release and discharge of the sinner from punishment Let us now come to set down what our judgment is concerning remission of sins We thus conceive it out of Cyprian to be in property of speech Cyprian de Orat. Dom. nothing but Venia delicti the pardon of sins and that in common apprehension is the discharge of the offendor from the punishment of his sin and that which pardon or remission hath in property of speech respect unto is the punishment of sin The first phrase in Davids speech hath this meaning Their sins are forgiven or pardoned that is not taken notice of to be punished What is the covering of sin the same that pardon is in effect saith Ambrose save only that the phrase is metaphoricall unfold it it is this as things that are covered are not seen so sins when God will pardon them are not seen of him that is not seen with regard or which such notice as that he should punish them Are they then and not seen of him to whose eyes all things are naked and * Heb. 4.13 uncovered or is there any covering so thick or impenitrable as that the eyes of God cannot pierce through it to discern what lyeth under Answ None that so hides as that he cannot see or know that they are done Isai 29.15 But yet they are so covered with the righteousness of Christ to believers that God willingly overseeth them and takes no notice of them to punish the times of this ignorance God winked at saith the Apostle Act. 17.30 Num. 23.21 He hath not beheld iniquity in Iacob neither hath he seen trangression in Israel See Psal 130.3 Bernard Bern. de septem misericorde Serm. 2.3 Ego peccabam tu dissimulabas expectans expectavit me dominus non intendit mihi sed oculos suos avertit a peccatis meis quasi nolens advertere quantum delinquerem c. Si texit peccata Deus noluit advertere si noluit advertere noluit animadvertere si noluit animadvertere noluit punire noluit agnoscere maluit ignoscere Tecta peccata quare dixit vid August ad Psal 31. ut non viderentur quid enim erat dei videre peccata nisi punire peccata ut noveris quià hoc est dei videre peccata quod punire peccata quid ei dicitur averte faciem tuam a peccatis meis Psal 51. c. See we now What it is not to have sins imputed The same I think that Stephen prayes for Act. 7.60 that they be not laid to our charge nor come into reckoning against us before God to be punished 2 Sam. 19.19 Saith Shimei to David Let not my Lord impute iniquity unto me neither do thou remember that which thy servant did perversly c. that the King should take it to his heart What begs Shimei here but that his offence be not punished But are they still where they are not imputed Answ Actuall sins as acts after committing have no being save only in Gods and our own remembrance Actus transit saith Thomas the sinfull action is transient and vanishing that only which results from the action remains As 1. The offence of God 2. The guilt of the person 3. The recording thereof in Gods book of remembrance and setting it on his reckoning against the day of accounts 4. The punishment 5. Add if you will the maculam Now when they are not imputed the offence guilt remembrance and punishment are taken away remains there any thing of them Nothing at all no not the macula Where then is the odds betwixt us Answ 1. Herein that they will have remission of sins to be that act of God whereby our vicious inclinations are abolished we not so but take it rather to be that other act of Gods Spirit in our hearts which the Scripture call sanctification 1 Cor. 6.11 2. That they affirm all sins remitted even by remitting to be utterly abolished We say for corruption naturall and our inclinations to evil they still remain in part in us after they be forgiven and have the true and proper reason of sin so that
l. 4. Homo non quaerit salutem â Sacramentis quasi ab eis sed per ea à Deo Haec enim praepositio A * Scotus ad lib 4. dist 1. denotat Causam agentem per verò notat causam instrumentalem Well let us yeild them to be organa whether Morall or Physicall It pleaseth not Bellarmine Bellarm de effect Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 11. that they should be causes Morall though he confesse a stream of their own Writers run current that way But they must be Physicall instruments that is such as properly and by inherent vertue work or cause justification And if any ask what that vertue is that God hath put in them to effect this grace He answers It is nothing but Gods moving or using of them to that purpose For by this that God useth the Sacramentall action to produce grace he doth elevate it above the nature and makes it reach to an effect supernaturall Now I might be long in shewing the contrary judgement of his own side some making them means or instruments of grace per modum continentiae because they contain the grace they signifie some by concomitance onely c. I will propound the sentence of Scotus onely whom ye shall find thus to resolve There is not saith he in Sacraments aliqua Causalitas activa propriè dicta respectu gratiae but they are said to be causes of grace improperly inasmuch as the receiving thereof is an immediate disposition to grace mox For thus hath God disposed and set down the order and hereof he hath certified the Church that to him that in due manner receives the Sacrament he will give the effect thereby signified This I trow is far from Bellarmines conceit But let us further examine his conclusion In all ordinary Physical instruments which God useth to effect his purposes by there is besides Gods use of them a vertue and power and fitness given them to produce what he useth them unto as meat to nourish clothes to warm Sun to cherish the earth c. and shall Sacraments be ordinary Physical instruments and yet lack this inherent vertue What Philosophy yea or Divinitie so teacheth Besides this Sacraments all suppose those habits wherein they make justifying grace to consist Acts 8. Matth. 28. to be in him that receives them they must have faith or at least 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before Sacraments may be applied unto them and shall we think they are elevated by this use and motion they speak of to work what is already wrought Lastly if they wrought thus Physically as it were potions methinks then every one to whom they are applyed must needs receive their effect unavoidably and so Simon Magus must receive the grace of the Sacrament as well as Simon Peter which if it be absurd as absurd it is to make them Physicall instruments or Active causes of this grace which they call justifying To conclude this whole question May it not be granted that Sacraments are instruments or means of grace Answ No doubt yes but instruments morall onely that is such as whose vertue sticks not in them but onely because where they are duely used God is present by covenant to work grace supernaturall So Scotus ut suprá so some of our Divines Yet more nearly 1. Consider what grace they are ordained to work as means 2. How they concur to the working of it The grace they work is 1. Confirmation in perswasion of justification 2. Care and increase of sanctification c. How work they it Answ Occasionally onely quatenus they represent Gods actions Christs person and benefits our duty c. by which representations Gods spirit worketh in our hearts in these or the like discourses God hath in the Gospel promised remission of sins to all those that believe in Christ and for further assurance hath been pleased to ordain Sacraments as it were his seals set to his covenant wherein I see represented the death of Christ that procured pardon of sinns and in the Ministers action delivering the Sacrament to me Gods act in delivering Christ and his benefits to me is resembled Now his promise is that if I bring faith to the use of the Sacraments the things they signifie are mine How then assumes conscience I believe what God in the Gospel promiseth what in Sacraments he seals unto me and thence follows as a conclusion my faith confirmed c. Now what say our Adversaries to this manner of Sacraments efficacy Forsooth if in this manner onely they have their efficacy there shall then be no difference betwixt Sacraments of the Old Law and those of the New Testament Answ What none at all Bellarm. de effect Sacram. lib. 2. c. 8. They confesse elsewhere that we agree with them in the differences thus far 1. The signes are others 2. The number less 3. The facility more 4. Clearness of signification greater 5. Manner of signifying different 6. Endurance of new longer Object Yea but in the point of efficacy there is left no difference For thus theirs were effectuall by stirring up faith by their significations and by the devotion of the receiver which they call The work of the Worker Observ Is that the matter then hear what I think the Apostle here teacheth or at least warrants us to teach by collection That Sacraments of the Old Testament were the same with ours in matter signified in use ends and efficacie What is Baptisme unto us more then a signe of our initiation into the Covenant Gen. 17.7 Rom. 4.11 Deut. 30.6 A feal of the righteousness of faith An occasionall mean of sanctification The same was Circumcision to Abraham and to all his posterity in the ordinary measure of efficacy there might be some odds in efficacy and manner of it none at all that can be assigned For 1. In their Sacraments they had Communion with Christ They ate the same spirituall meat 1. Cor. 10.3 4. drank the same spirituall drink that we do though under other signes or elements Object Rhenenses ad loc Bellarm. de effect Sacram. lib. 2. c. 17. August de utilit Poenit. cap. 1.2 Nay rather say Papists the same amongst themselves not the same with us Answ Then let us hear Augustine Eundem inquit cibum spiritualem manducaverunt quid est eundem nisi quia eum quem etiam nos mox Eundem non invenio quomodo intelligam nisi eum quem manducamus nos Inst What Paul there speaks of were not Sacraments Answ How then fit they Pauls intention which is apparently this to take from this people vain confidence in Sacraments 2. What means Paul to say of their passage through the sea c. it was a baptizing of them Cyprian Epist 76. August in Psal 77. Hear ancients Cyprian Mare illud Sacramentum Baptismi fuisse declarat beatus Apostolus Paulus dicens Nolo vos ignorare fratres c. 1. Cor. 10. Augustine Per mare transitus
Baptismus est The same Augustine Cùm essent omnia communia Sacramenta non communis erat omnibus gratia quae Sacramentorum virtus est speaking of the very elements Inst The same let them be but in signification not in vertue or efficacy Answ They drank of the Rock which was Christ some of them I mean as Augustine expounds in Psalm 77. And if therein they had Communion with Christ how are they not the same in efficacy Will they say the effect was one the efficiency or manner of producing different It is easie to say any thing their proof we want and require Not to be long Scholast ad 4. senten Concerning the Sacrament of Circumcision their own Divines confess many of them that it had the same effect with Baptisme and in the same manner namely the work wrought Why may we not then conclude that their Sacraments were one with ours in Use Ends and Efficacy Forsooth their Sacraments had no absolute promise of grace ours have But before I answer their objections the Reader must be entreated to observe that they change the state of the question For the question is not betwixt them and us Whether their Sacraments conferred justification as ours For we maintain that neither confer justification though both equally confirm it in manner above-shewn But the question is whether theirs had the same efficacy that ours have to the uses and ends whereto they were designed And so we affirm that the same promises for spirituall things were made to both people in both Testaments and confirmed in both Sacraments The same promise that is made to us was made to Abraham yea first to Abraham and first to the seed of his loins walking in the steps of his faith Gen 17. How else reasons the Apostle from the example of Abraham the promise was given Abraham through faith Ergò It s ours through faith and not by the Law c. and again How makes he Abraham the father of believers in both people except that the Covenant was stablished in him as the father for his children of both people But have our Sacraments absolute promise of grace justifying to be conferred by them then what lets infants even of hereticks in baptisme of hereticks to receive justification And if justification may be had in the Conventicles of hereticks why not also salvation We will henceforth be of comfort in the Church of England and we will hope for our infants yet that they may go to heaven 2. Where have we such an absolute promise made to our Sacraments Mar. 16.16 this I read He that believes and is baptized shall be saved Acts 2.39 He that repents and is baptized shall receive remission of sins Never He that is baptized shall have justification or salvation simply because he is baptized To omit all other their objections bewraying too foul ignorance in the matter of the Covenant of grace their last onely I will take notice of It lies thus Our Sacraments are said to save to regenerate to justifie and no such thing is read of theirs in the Scriptures Ergò They are not equal in efficacy Answ Many of the places alledged are to be understood of the Baptisme of the Spirit as that 1. Pet. 3.21 Tit. 3.5 Joh. 3.5 And what is that to the Sacrament 2 If in other places remission of sins be in shew of words ascribed to the Sacrament it must be understood significativè at most but concomitanter Vse Let us now leave a while these toilesome controversies and see what use of this conclusion redounds to us And it shall be the same that Paul once made to the people of Corinth 1 Cor. 10. upon this ground That none of us presume upon Sacraments as if they sealed up impunity to willfull transgressions there is no greater vertue in ours then was in Iewish Sacraments And their Murmurings Idolatry Fornication Tempting of God was severely punished even in those that partook Sacraments the same with ours in signification use and efficacy And why should any of us adventure the displeasure of God upon vain confidence of the work done of Sacraments Consider we that they are not only obsignations of favour but obligations to duty and so bined to dutifull carriage that they seal up pardon of no more sins then are repented and forsaken It is in this respect with Gods pardon as with like indulgence of Princes to Malefactours they binde for ever to good behaviour And I could wish our people thus perswaded of them But thus it fares with most through their ignorance as it is said of the Hart when he is wounded he runs to the herbe dittany known by naturall instinct to be soveraign So our people when they have wounded their souls even to death with the vilest abominations they post to Sacraments for medicine adding to their other sins this of profaning Gods sacred ordinances By the law of God given to the Iewes it was ordained that none that had contracted any legall pollution should on pain of death adventure on their Passeover till such time as his cleansing according to the law was accomplished The statute for the letter bindes not us but the signification thus far serves to instruct us that none of us renewing his sins should adventure on Sacraments without renewing repentance The last thing here observable is this That Sacraments are ordained not to confer justification but to confirm us in perswasion of it As to Abraham circumcision gave not righteousness but as a seal confirmed it unto him for what shall we say as Papists This Sacrament was so to Abraham only as his priviledg not so ours to us Thereto hath already been answered and the case is as plain for Baptisme in Cornelius as this for circumcision in Abraham Kemnit Exam. part 2. de sacram efficac Vsu or shall we say these instances were extraordinary and therefore afford no generall rule First How appears it of either that there was any thing extraordinary Secondly Whence should we fetch the rule to judg of the ordinary use of Sacraments save from their persons that first received them Let it stand therefore for a conclusion that the use of Sacraments is not to confer faith or justification but to confirm it For which cause we shall finde that ordinary faith is required as a pre-disposition necessary in all that are admitted to the Sacraments yea Act. 8. faith of the Messiah and confidence in him for justification between which faith and justification the connexion is inseparable Ob. If any shall say that they cannot have use in infants Answ To omit other answers though in infants while they are infants they have not actually that use yet to 〈◊〉 end they are ministred to infants that when in time to come they shall believe to righteousness their faith may receive confirmation by baptisme in infancy received August de Bapt. contra Donat. lib. 4. cap. 24. To this purpose saith Augustine In Abraham praecessit
inasmuch as no man can ever be assured that he hath fatisfied the Law nor indeed can by works fulfill it But the other Expositions seem more pertinent let us view them Faith is vain That is say some frustrate and fruitless though how they explain not perhaps they thus conceive it If they onely which fulfill the Law be heirs then faith is fruitless and can never attain the inheritance promised inasmuch as no man is able to fulfill the Law But I take it the Apostle hath eye rather to the prescription of faith on Gods part then to the fruit on ours So that the sense is this If they which seek the inheritance by the Law do by the Law obtain it needlesly and vainly was faith prescribed to be the means of inheritance To discern the consequence of this argument view we whereupon the necessity of substituting faith instead of works grew The Lord had made a covenant of life with man upon condition of fulfilling the Law so that if he kept the Law and continued in obedience thereof he should live see Rom. 10.5 Lev. 18.5 Man falling through disobedience lost the benefit of that Covenant and withall propagated to posterity a nature so not onely impotent to fulfill the Law but vitiously inclined to the breach thereof that there was no hope of salvation by the Law Howbeit the Lord out of his love to mankind and loath that the whole posterity should perish in his rich mercy was pleased to enter a new covenant of life and salvation establishing another means for our happiness which was faith of the Messiah by which through grace performed we might from Christ receive a better and more firm title to the inheritance This was one reason why faith was prescribed as is intimated Rom. 8. and Gal. 3. Now how needless had this been if by the Law we might inherit salvation To what end go we by faith out of our selves to seek righteousness and salvation in Christ if by the Law performed by our selves we might have obtained it The Consequence therefore we see to be firm Let us now consider what out of this argument may be collected viz. Observ The Doctrine of salvation by works frustrates faith and chargeth on God the crime of folly in ordeining it to be the onely mean of inheritance Much to this purpose speaks the Apostle Gal. 3 c. If righteousness be by the Law then Christ died in vain it had been needless for the Lord to send his Son to die for our sins thereby to procure unto us justification if by the Law we might have obtained the blessing and Rom. 8.3 he makes this his reason why the Lord sent his Son in the similitude of sinfull flesh because it was impossible for the Law weakned by the flesh to give us righteousness Whereto what say our adversaries Forsooth their old distinctions they obtrude for answer Works are of two sorts some done by strength of naturall free-will some by grace and faith works of naturall free-will indeed frustrate faith and grace and Christs death not so works done by grace in faith yea the Apostles consequence Gal. 3. is very firm if by them we will exclude works done through grace For it followes not that if we be justified by works following faith that then Christ dyed in vain Bellarm. de justif lib. 1. cap. 19. nay if Christ had not dyed we could not have been justified by faith or works issuing therefrom It being Gods grace in Christ that hath made our works so virtuous Answ Where first we desire to know for our learning where in all the Scripture we may finde that Christs death or our faith gives to our works justifying or saving virtue That our services are acceptable to God by Iesus Christ that our works done in faith are pleasing to him though in great weakness performed we finde that they are of value to countervail our sins or to purchase Heaven we finde not nay the contrary we finde in sundry Scriptures taught us 2. Yea the purgation of our sins we know Christ made by himself Heb. 1.3 and the way into the holy of holies to be opened by his flesh never by our righteousness Heb. 10.19 20. 3. Let the Reader observe how cleanly a gull they would put upon us in this distinction of works done by grace and those done by power of naturall free will For in these works of grace free-will is according to their principles the predominant 4. Doth the Law of God in any place allow us justification by works imperfect though done in grace search and see whether it damne not to hell the least blemises cleaving to our works and require not only that the principall manner and end be regular but that in every respect they be pure and free from blemish All which considered return us our conclusion firm and undoubtfull notwithstanding these cavills of popish Iustitiaries In our passage let us take notice of the intolerable pride of our merit-mongers chusing rather to robbe God of the glory of his wisdome then in humility to acknowledg the imperfection of their own obedience How much better were it with holy Iob 4● 6 to abhor our selves in dust and ashes then thus to nullifie the wisdome of God in frustrating his prescripts hath God appointed faith the sole mean of inheritance and shall we by works seek to inherit the blessing I say not much but sure Gal. 4.30 if Ishmael may not be heir with the Son of promise no more shall Workres with believers The second inconvenience follows to be scanned The promise by this means becomes ineffectuall How if any demand Answ Because the inheritance promised shall never by this means be obtained For hangs it on condition of fulfilling the law And must those that desire to inherit by legall obedience obtain salvation Who then can be saved Seeing no man is able by any measure of grace in this life given to fill up the measure of legall righteousness This saving the judgment of more Learned I take to be the ground of the consequence the rather for the reasons objoyned Hence the inference is fluent That who so teacheth us to seek salvation by works frustrates Gods promise and deprives us of salvation Not but that good works are necessary but as duties not as merits for thankfulness not for righteousness as the way to the kingdome not as causes of salvation the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman Gal. 4.30 That is by Pauls intention not legall workers with Evangelicall believers Gal. 3.9 As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse so far is it that they should have any title to the blessing Such mischiefs bring pharisaicall Iustitiaries upon their sectaries Hear the Reasons They bind us by this means to a condition and means of Salvation impossible not onely to Nature but to Grace according to that portion God is pleased in this life to
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 t●● Apostle here intends whose purpose is to shew not s● 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
all the posterity of Adam That mass let us conceive to admit this distinction part of it is meerly naturall such only as it is derived from Adam part sanctified and purged in a measure by the Holy Ghost For that meerly naturall it is confessed by adversaries it is so meerly rebellious against the law that the more it is restrained the more it rebells things prohibited therefore the more affected because prohibited confer Rom. 7. 8. The main question is touching those of Adams posterity that are by grace renewed whether in these also the law puts a necessity of transgressing Now howsoever we acknowledg that grace so far prevails against nature that there is something in every man regenerate so far from fretting against the law that it findes a kinde of complacentia and delight in the laws prescripts Rom. 7.22 Yet 1. Neither are we so wholly purged by grace but that there still remains in us part of that carnall wisdome that is not nor can be subject to the law Rom. 8.7 There still is a law in the members rebelling against the law of the minde Rom. 7.23 And 2. Though it were granted we are wholly freed from enmity to the law yet are we not wholly delivered from frailty in obedience in which last respect at least sinning even in men regenerate is occasioned by the law inevitably in respect of the event Let us yield then ex abuntdnti that transgression is not in Gods Children caused ex fremitu yet I hope it is occasioned ex infirmitate by frailty And though Gods Children sin not out of fury yet sin they out of impotency Besides the texts now alledged compare we the perfection of the righteousness which the law requires with the perfection of that holiness grace worketh and we shall not chuse but acknowledg that howsoever out of another principall yet sin is by the law occasioned infallably in the Children of God so long as they live here in the spirituall warfare see Rom. 7. For clearing of this point sith thereon turns the whole controversie It shall not be amiss to handle that controversie Whether the righteousness performed in the law to justification fall within compass of our power to perform so long as we live in this world Or whether all transgression of the law may be by any strength of grace here attained avoided In this question the opinions are three First That of Pelagians condemned long since to the pit of hell The law they say is possible to nature If a man would strive with his naturall abilities to the utmost he might perfectly fulfill the law without any assistance of grace supernaturall And the only reason why men fail in legall obedience is because they want will Touching this though I refer the Reader to what was long ago written pithylie and truly by S. Augustine Hierome and others only remember we what Paul that had more then nature professeth of himself To will is present but I finde not power to perform Rom. 7.18 He failed in obedience not for that he wanted will but because he lacked strength And least any should think it was his personall weakness he shewes the same impotency to be in all Gods Children even after regeneration Gal. 5.17 S. Augustine S. August de peccat merit Remiss lib. 2. cap. 17. ex abundanti yields to Pelagius that we may keep the law si volumus but the Hypothesis saith he is impossible We cannot will to make good the obedience of the law His reasons are because impediments unavoidable the will hath alwayes clogging it in this life 1. Ignorance 2. Infirmity And sometimes our wills are not moved to do what the law prescribes quia latet quod justum est sometimes quia minus delectat From both these who can say he is or can be free during state of this life Second opinion is that of Papists The Law is possible yea easie though not to Nature yet to Grace and anathama to him that shall say the Commandments of God are impossible to a man in state of Grace The judgement of our Churches stands thus obedience to the Law is thus distinguished there is an inchoate obedience standing 1. In love of the Law 2. Desire 3. Purpose 4. Endeavour to obey 5. Some measure of actuall performance 6. Grief for imperfections this is possible to every regenerate child of God There is also perfect and complete obedience which answers exactly to the rigour of the Law for matter manner measure of performance of this is the question and hereof teach we that by no measure of grace here given it can possibly be attained See we therefore the terms 1. What that obedience is which the Law requires 2. What measure of grace it is that God in this life gives to his children The justice of the law in Bernards terms must thus be qualified 1. It must be Recta according to rule so that all that is prescribed and onely what is prescribed must be done 2. It must be Pura free from blemish in manner and measure of performance 3. Firma steady for continuance without any the least intermission and interruption And this explanation hath ground Gal. 3.10 Where the law curseth to hell every man that continues not in all things written in the book of the law to do them In Hieroms term somewhat unusuall but significant the law requires to righteousness Impeccantiam that is Freedome from all sinne not onely that which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Enormity but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infirmity and that explanation hath ground Rom. 6.23 because the wages of every sinne more or less is death According to the Apostles explication The righteousness of the law must be 1. Universall Gal. 3.10 so that no duty nor branch of duty in any Commandment may be omitted No sinne nor degree of sin against any precept may be incurred 2. As the law is spirituall Rom. 7.14 so prescribes it spirituall obedience not onely binding the outward man to good behaviour but reaching to the very thoughts and affections and ordering them so that though it were possible for a man to omit no outward act of duty enjoyned to incurre no outward act of sin forbidden yet evil purposes desires yea thoughts of evil approved yea if they arise from that inward principle Concupiscence unapproved disable us from being justified by the Law For the tenour thereof runs thus Love the Lord with all thy soul with all thy thought c. This measure of obedience we teach S. August de peccat merit Remiss l. 2. c. 6. c. not onely as Augustine that it never yet fell into any man in this life nor in likelihood shall be attained but that it is impossible to be reached unto That that term offend not know we that though all things are possible unto God nothing hard unto Him yet that infinite and boundless power of God admits a double limit 1. His nature hence said the
carriage He that takes not up his Crosse and follows me is not worthy of me saith our Saviour Matth. 10.38 Crux Christi facilis est nudum post Christum ire ludus est jocus est Christs crosse is easie to follow Christ stript of all helps of this life it is a matter of sport Hieron advers Pelag. lib. 2. a very play-game Thus S. Hierome Ironically His answer is this It is certain they are called light not simply but in comparison to the yoke of the Jews something he aimed at Thus we answer The Commandments of God must be two wayes considered 1. As propounded in the rigorous terms of the Law so the yoke is importable 2. As tempered to our weakness in the Gospel so comparatively light In respect 1. of the assister Gods Spirit 2. of the accepter that is content to approve endeavours Aug. Retract lib. 1. cap. 19. and to pardon omissions Augustine Omnia mandata facta deputantur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur Object Instances we have many of such as have kept the Law as of Zachary David Job c. to whom the Scripture gives the title of Just men Answ Just they are called because absque vitio free from notorious crimes non quia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 void of all sin even infirmities Hierome 2. Not simply just but in comparison to others of their times August de pecc mer. remiss l. 2. c. 12 Ex hominum qui sunt in terra comparatione laudatur Augustine 3. Just in respect of their endeavour for Zacharies foul incredulity is recorded and chastened so is Davids adultery and murther and Jobs defects in that grace wherein he was the greatest mirrour Object May do more then is commanded as sell his possessions and give them to the poore Answ Duties enjoyned are of two sorts 1. Some generally and perpetually binding 2. Some duties in casu as leaving goods life c. for Christs sake which though till God call to performance they are not necessary to be done yet stand they in force upon the conscience by Gods precept Quod ad praeparationem animi and in case the Lord call to actuall forsaking of goods or life it is so a duty that the omission thereof makes culpable of damnation Matth. 10.37 Object Impossibilia non ligant No man is bound to an impossibility yea it were not onely vain to propound impossible precepts but tyrannicall in God the Lawgiver to exact obedience Answ Man is to be considered 1. In pure nature 2. In impure nature 3. In nature purified 4. In nature glorified In nature pure before the fall they were possible In nature glorified they shall be possible In nature merely impure merely impossible In nature purified partly possible In perfection impossible Inst Then they bind not Answ It follows not God made man righteous at the first Eccles. 7.29 and hath not lost his right of exacting because we are wilfully disabled to performance In a word they are impossible not per se but ex accidenti Inst However yet vainly enjoyned Answ Nor that saith Augustine August de pec mer. remiss lib. 2. c. 16. In contemptorum damnatione facit Deus quod justum est in proficientium mundatione quod bonum est and the Apostle sets down uses sufficient as 1. To acquaint us with sin Rom. 3.20 2. To drive us to Christ Gal. 3.24 in whom God hath provided a remedie for our imperfections Legatur Bernardus Ser. 2. in vigil Nat. Dom. fol. 11. A Propterea mandata sua Object He that is born of God sins not 1. Iohn 3.9 Answ And yet saith the same Apostle If we say we have no sin there is no truth in us 1. Ioh. 1.8.10 Bern. serm 1. in Septuag Bernard thus interprets He sins not that is non permanet in peccato he lies not impenitently in his sin 2. Or thus tantundem est ac si non peccet pro eo scilicet quòd non imputatur peccatum 3. Augustine thus We are all after regeneration August de pecc mer. remiss lib. 2. c. 7 8. in part the children of the world though in part also we be the sonnes of God and though per quod filii Dei sumus per hoc non possumus peccare yet per hoc quod adhuc filii seculi sumus per hoc peccare adhuc possumus Other Expositions there are many the fittest these He sins not nor can sinne 1. Namely unto death 1. Joh. 5.18 2. Not with full or whole consent Rom. 7.15 Gal. 5.17 3. Not customarily practising known sins or in the Apostles phrase not walking after the flesh Rom. 8.1 The summe of all is this That in respect of frailtie of flesh and small measure of grace in this life given the righteousness of the Law is impossible the transgression of the law inevitable Vse Let us now see a little how we may use this conclusion to our profit and first I cannot here but take notice of that pride and arrogancy of our vulgar people then whom though none be more licentious in life yet none that arrogate to themselves greater purity or perfection of righteousness And howsoever they scoff at the very endeavour of purity in others though with never so feeling acknowledgement of imperfections yet who hath not heard that proud profession from their mouthes They can love God above all their neighbour as themselves To whom if our Saviour should propound like triall as to him in the Gospel that made like proud profession I doubt not but they should discover as much hypocrisie Our Saviour lighting on such a braggard that had from his youth up kept the Commandments to make him see his pride and hypocrisie propounds him not as Papists say A counsell of Perfection but a precept of triall Thou professest to love God above all and thy neighbour as thy self If that be so sell all that thou hast and give to the poore thou shalt have reward in heaven That precept to such a measure of love as was professed was not harsh But He goes away sorrowing saith the Text and thereby bewrayes his proud dissembling Let the triall be far more reasonable unto our people Leave but profane pastimes unlawfull profits for his sake you love so well this speech is as harsh to our proud dissembling self-loving people To us all Let me say as Paul Gal. 4.21 You that will needs be under the law for justification do ye not hear the law you look for righteousness by the law it causeth transgression for salvation it causeth wrath And is it not strange men acquainted with Scriptures should cleave so close to the justification of the Law I had once to deal with a Papist in this question and that of merit Mentior if he professed not that except he thought he could merit righteousness and salvation by his works he would never do any good work Miserable man are there not motives strong enough to
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 quàm 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
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 habe● 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 ●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 U●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 1● 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.