you continue as upon your souls to prize and waite upon the holy and k Heb. 10.25 publick ordinances of God keep close to the l Gal. 6.16 Rule of Gods written word his m Rom. 12.2 Iob. 17.17 revealed Will Shun spirituall pride inordinate opinion of private gifts it opens the gap to n 2 Thess 2.11 Isai 29.9 10. delusions and the spirit of giddiness Remember who said there are o Rev. 2.24 depths of Satan who more mischiefeth well-meaning souls under the vizar of an p 2 Cor. 11.14 Angell of light then he doth under the shape of an open Dragon q 1 Cor. 16.13 stand fast in the setled received truth of Christ slight not the universall approved practice of Gods true Church be not r 2 Pet. 3.17 18. led away with the errour ſ Heb. 13.9 of the wicked have regard to the precepts as well as to the promises of the Gospel and a chiefe respect to the peace of the Church It is good t 1 Thess 5.23 that the heart be established with grace And now the very God of peace sanctifie you wholly and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the comming of our Lord Jesus Christ in whom I am Your affectionate Pastor to serve you William Sclater Collompton April 3. 1650. Errata PAge 3. line 25. for assail read avail and l. 3. r. explanation p. 8. l. ult after hath cause of boasting read thus now with him that hath noe such works but faith only in him that justifieth the ungodly it s otherwise p 9. l. 6. r. saving p. 13. l. 8. r. these p. 14. l. 19. for or r. of p. 15. l. 11. r. allmost p. 17. l. 2. r. allegations p. 18. l. 34. r. perhibet p. 20. l. 14. r. tenet p. 21. l. 11. r. an and l. 14. for in r. is p. 23. l. 13. r. oweth thee p. 26. l. ult r. work p. 27. l. 15. r. usually and l. 18. r. his lise p. 28. l. 27. r. due to thee p. 35. l. 1. r. oftner p. 36. l. 29. r. of him p. 38. l. 10. r. by inherence p. 42. l. 35. r. charity p. 50. l. 3. r. they and l. 5. for when r. what p. 51. l. 10. r. imputed p. 56. l. 20. r. destined p. 59. l. 6. for contractions r. contradictions and l. 10. r. temporal and l. 30. r. with p. 67. l. 19. for had r. tyed p. 68. l. 13. r. lyeth and l. 34. r. rain p. 69. l. 18. r. viaregni and l. 22. for decree r. degree p. 70. l. 1. r. Howsoever l. 12. r. contemptus and l. 22. r. significat and l. 24. r. ille p. 75. l. 9. r. into p. 76. l. 4. for where r. whence p 77. l. 20. r. considered p. 78. l. 22. r. weakness and l. 29. for said r. say I p. 80. l. 30. r. propound p. 84. l. ult r. Two p. 92. l. 32. for free r. see p. 95. in margin r. Basil in Hexamer p. 102. l. 13. r. whether as a condition p. 106. l. 23. r expediency p. 110. l. ult r. amplectentem p. 115. l. 14. r. subjoyned p. 117. l. 17. r. this effect p. 120. l. 10. r. infalibly p. 121. l. 9. r. anathema p. 125. l. 16. 19. for bis r. eis p. 136. l. 25. r. of inheritance p. 137. l. ult r. further p. 141. l. 32. for it r. is p. 153. l. 9. r. out of mens blindness p. 159. l. 29. for tempted r. tempered p. 160. l. 13. r. comfortable p. 161. l. 2. for the r. and p. 167. l. 23. r. reputed p. 170. l. 18. r. fructus p. 171. l. 9. r. though and l. 26. r. sequele p. 174. l. 13. r. propounded p. 182. l. 19. for loving r. losing p. 183. l. 1. r. scarce and l. 18. r. conceive p. 184. l. 1. for mediate r. meditate AN EXPOSITION WITH Notes on the fourth Chapter to the ROMANES CHAP. IIII. VERS 1 2. What shall we say then that Abraham our Father as pertaining to the flesh hath found For if Abraham were justified by works he hath whereof to glory but not before God THE Apostles purpose in this Chapter is by farther proofs to confirm his principall conclusion viz. That a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law The chief Parts of the Chapter are three First A Confirmation of the conclusion Secondly A Laudatory declaration of Abrahams Faith Thirdly An applying of Abrahams example to us even as many as walk in the steps of Abrahams faith The Reasons brought for confirmation are 1. From Abraham's example 2. From Davids testimony 3. From time and use of circumcision 4. From meanes of conveyance of the inheritance to Abraham 5. From ends of justification The passage to Abraham's example is by most conceived thus The Apostle is imagined to prevent what Iewes might object against the conclusion of justification by faith without works If this be so what got Abraham our father according to the flesh as if they had said it seems there is no prerogative of Abraham by all that righteousness wherein he lived And the Apostle is supposed to grant their inference and to subjoyn Reasons thereof But methinks weighing the words the connexion may rather be conceived to be by way of inference out of the doctrine of the former Chapter as if it had been said if this be so that boasting must be excluded and that all that are justified must be justified by faith What shall we say then that Abraham our father found as concerning the flesh c. In no case Thus then but that I love not novelty I would read the text What shall we say then that Abraham found by the flesh And so methinks the reasons more fluently are applyed to the Negative conclusion The connexion we see The conclusion principall is here proved by the example of Abraham If Abraham obtained not righteousness by works but by faith then no man is or can be justified by works but by faith but Abraham obtained not righteousness by works c. Ergo no man is justified by works The proposition is not expressed but easily collected out of the text The assumption is Vers 1. laid down in way of inference delivered interrogatively where the interrogation implyes a negative The conclusion is Chap. 3. vers 28. The assumption is proved by an argument from inconvenience If Abraham were justified by works he had whereof to boast but not with God that is he had no cause to boast with God Ergo he was not justified by works Sence For the sence of the words Found That is obtained as Gen. 26.12 Isaac sowed in the land and found that is received or obtained in that year an hundred fold Hos 12.8 I have found substance that is gotten 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As pertaining to the flesh This particle some Ancients as well as later Expositors both Popish and Protestant refer rather to the
unto them and taken notice of so far as that he was for it esteemed righteous We shall best understand the meaning by comparing the self-same phrase as it it is extant Psal 106.31 Phineas his executing judgment was counted to him for righteousness to all generations for evermore that is he for that fact or by means thereof had the esteem of a righteous man amongst men unto all posterity So Abrahams faith was counted to him for righteousness before God that is he for believing or by means of faith was esteemed or reckoned righteous before God This as far as I conceive is the proper meaning of the phrase If that hypallage seem harsh thus conceive it His believing was reckoned unto him to righteousness that is came into reckoning so far with God on his behalf or for his benefit that thereby he obtained righteousness Faith then is of that reckoning with God as that to Abraham yea to every man endued thrrewith he allowes the esteem of a righteous man understand faith as it s before described For the better understanding of this conclusion let us see a little how faith obtains this blessing of righteousness at Gods hands or what is the reason of the connexion of righteousness with believing Bellarm. de just if lib. 1. cap. 17. Divers are the explanations Papists impute it sometimes to the merit and worth of the very habit or act of faith as if it deserved at Gods hands justification and had the force of a proper efficient cause meritoriously to procure it Against it are these Reasons First Bernard Ser. 1. de Annunciat Hereof we may say as Bernard of other good works or as he terms them merits that it s not such as as that for it righteousness should be due to the believer of right or as though God should do us wrong except he gave to us believing righteousness for this as all other good qualities or actions is the gift of God and therefore man is rather a debtor to God for it then God to man Secondly Besides this how holds the difference assigned by the Apostle betwixt the worker and the believer in the manner of obtaining righteousness if righteousness belong to the believer as a reward of debt If righteousness belong to the believer of debt as a reward of believing then vainly doth the Apostle alledg this as a difference betwixt the believer and the worker that the one hath righteousness paid as of debt the other given as of grace but the difference is sure authenticall Ergo. Their arguments will be fitlyest answered when we come to set down the opinions of our own Divines Sometimes they thus conceive it that faith is the beginning of righteousness Bellarm. qua supra and the inchoate formall cause of righteousness that is part of that righteousness whereby we are made formally righteous and that they would prove out of this text because to him that believeth in him that justifyeth the ungodly his faith is counted to righteousness But they would deceive us with a false glosse for that is not the meaning that faith is counted our righteousness but that its taken notice of so far as that to the believer righteousness is imputed A mean therefore it is of obtaining righteousness not righteousness it self except by righteousness they will understand that of sanctification 1 Ioh. 3. Wherefore we acknowledg it to be a part but what is that to the righteousness of justification whereof the question is 2. After their own glosse its righteousness only aestimativè not therefore formally Sometimes again they make righteousness depend on faith as a preparation thereto in part necessary to dispose the subject to receive justification that is as they term it the infusion of charity and other graces whereby we are made formally righteous Versipelles Where may we finde you Is it the form of righteousness and yet but a preparation to righteousness Ob. The form inchoate not compleat Answ But I demand Is it before the other graces of God in time Or are they togethes with it infused If so how then make you yet a preparation only to righteousness when as together with it other gifts which make up righteousness compleate are infused Let us leave them and come to explications of our own Divines Some thus Righteousness or justification hath its connexion with faith by an order that God hath been pleased to set down in the Covenant of grace which is this that whosoever shall believe in Christ shall be justified and saved This condition now performed on our parts justification is ours and we are as righteous in Gods esteem as if we had all the righteousness of the Law performed by our selves Now this is an evident and clear truth that in the Evangelical Covenant faith is the condition of justification But first if faith justifies us as a condition performed by us fain I would know how we may maintain that doctrine of our Churches concerning sole faith and its being the only thing in us that avails to the attainment of justification for if we view the tenour of the Covenant of grace faith is not the only condition required of us to justification and remission of sins for repentance also is a condition required in that covenant to the same end Mar. 1.15 Repent and believe the Gospel Act. 2.38 Repent and be baptized for remission of sins but faith must so justifie that in that work no other thing may share with it no not repentance it self Ergo Besides this if the act of faith qua actus be that for which we are justified how doth the Apostle describe our righteousness to be without works vers 6. How sets he the worker and believer in direct opposition in the articles of justification Perhaps it will be said that works of the law only are excluded not this which is a worker of the Gospel Answ It should seem that not only works of the law but universally all works are excluded because whatsoever may occasion boasting in man is exclnded Rom. 3.27 Now as great occasion of boasting is left to man in the act of faith as in any work of the law whatsoever Nay may some mansay for faith is the gift of God and the exercise of faith meerly his work Answ The same may as truly be said of love patience c. These being also gifts infused of God and their actions even every act of them meerly his works in us even as meerly as the act of faith It remains then that we enquire whether in the other explanations of our Divines more likelihood may be found Usully it s thus conceived to justifie namely as it is an instrument to apprehend that righteousness for which we are justified even the * 1. Cor. 1.30 righteousness of Christ whether of this life or death or both it is not pertinent to this place to enquire but in this respect righteousness is ascribed unto it And here we are asked whether we
that whole justification is perfected in Faith And for works of grace though as hath been said they agree with faith well in the heart of a Christian yet justification even by these works is opposite to that of Faith Phil. 3.9 More I adde not onely I advise them that labour to mingle Moses and Christ Faith and Works in this point of justification to remember what Paul hath pronounced Gal. 5.4 with a solemn protestation That as many as look for justification by works whether in whole or in part are fallen from grace and Christ shall nothing profit them This opposition also is to be remembred against all such as teach us to expect justification by faith as it is a work the opposition is none that I can conceive betwixt the justification by the work of faith and the work of love The next thing here offered to our notice is a distinction of rewards and it lies thus There is a reward paid as Debt there is another given of Favour And it is of some use in that grand question betwixt us and our Adversaries touching the merit of good works which from no ground they ofter infer then from this Because they shall be rewarded To this the answer is Not every work that hath a reward is by and by meritorious except the reward be paid as debt to the work Now the reward that is given to our obedience is given of favour not paid of debt and that we prove thus First because the same that is called the reward of obedience is said withall to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a free gift of God A reward and yet a free gift How if paid of Debt not given of grace besides saith Bernard Mans merits or good works are of no such quality or worth as that eternall life should be due to us for them of right or as if the Lord should do us wrong except he gave it us Nam ut taceam Bern. Serm. 1. ce Annunc quòd merita omnia Dei dona sunt ità homo magìs propter ipsa Deo debitor est quà m Deus homini quid sunt merita omnia ad tantam gloriam as S. Bernard His reasons are these Man is debtor to God for his good works because they are his gifts not God to man 2. The reward exceeds by many degrees the worth of the work Therefore is not a reward of debt but of favour If they shall reply and say God should wrong us except he thus rewarded us I answer Not us but himself the debt not growing from the worth of our works but from the grace and truth of the Promiser Debitor factus est Deus non aliquid a nobis accipiendo sed quòd ei placuit promittendo S. August De verb. Apost Serm. 16. To him that worketh not but believeth The sense see supra So then God hath not left sinfull man Observ without a means of justification though he want works such as the law required to righteousness for what through want of works we fail of he hath provided by faith shall be obtained even righteousness such as may stead us at the barr of Gods justice A point worthy of our attentive consideration for the magnifying of Gods mercy and furtherance of our comfort It was grace enough in God that he was pleased to create us in so excellent a condition only through desire to communicate himself unto us and for it he might justly claim obedience to any his commandements especially proportioned to our abilities even without any promise of farther recompence but loe that nothing should be wanting to our encouragement when he propounds a law to be obeyed he also covenants with him to crown his obedience with immortality This do and thou shalt live Lev. 18.15 Rom. 10.5 But see mans great unthankfulness to God and unmercifulness to himself not contented with the happiness presently enjoyed nor with the hope of immortality promised he affects not to be like God as he was but to be equall unto him in knowledg Gen. 3.5 He throws off the yoak of obedience and thereby deprives himself justly of all the happiness he had or could hope for plunges himself into misery endless easeless and remediless except God in mercy provide an escape Now behold the unsearchable riches of the mercy and love of God toward man loath that he should perish he enters another course for his recovery sends his own Son out of his bosome in the similitude of sinfull flesh by obedience unto death to satisfie justice that there might yet be a way for his mercy to overflow in the salvation of his chosen and in him enters a new league with man for restoring righteousness and salvation under a condition so reasonable as none more could be devised believe only in him that justifieth the ungodly thy sins are pardoned righteousness restored salvation recovered Lord what is man saith David considering a blessing far inferior that thou so reckonest on him or the son of man that thou so visitest him Psal 8.4 Our hearts must needs be dull and dead if these things work not in us more then acknowledgment even admiration of Gods endless mercy Well this was Gods mercy towards us Vse 1 Now sure I doubt not but those that have felt in any degree the misery to which the Law hath sentenced them and withall how impossible it is for the law to restore them inasmuch as its weak through the flesh can willingly say Amen to that thinksgiving of the Apostle Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift 2 Cor. 9.15 That our hearts may be yet more inflamed to this duty consider we I beseech you the preferment and property God hath given man in this mercy even above Angels creatures by naturall condition more excellent then he Heb. 2.16 Angels sinned God sent them no Mediator they fell by not obeying God hath made them no promise of rising by believing Man sinned God sent his Son to propitiate man fell by disobedience hath promise of restoring by believing Let them perish everlastingly with hellish Angells that acknowledg not this mercy or that renouncing the righteousness of faith seek to establish their own in works of the Law Vse 2 Now as this serves for the magnifying of Gods mercy so no less for the multiplying of our comfort and nourishing our hope of righteousness yea though we have no works such as the law prescribes to justification for behold another mean of righteousness provided for sinners even faith in him that justifies the ungodly And therefore what do we vexing and breaking our hearts for sins once committed now repented A mustard seed of faith commands a mountain of sin to the bottome of the sea What if Moses be so strict that none but exact justice will serve to justification One greater then Moses is here that tels us faith is available to righteousness And to the end the conscience of sins after faith received might not overthrow hope of
righteousness mark the description of him to whom faith is carried as to her proper object He is such an one as justifies the ungodly and from whom sinners great sinners believing in believing may expect justification For God justifieth the ungodly How may some men say by infusing righteousness saith Bellarmine by imputing righteousness say some of our Divines by remitting sins faith Cajetane and of our own Interpreters not a few Let us see whether hath more truth The two former have their agreements and their difference they agree in this First That to justifie in this place signifies to make righteous They differ in the manner how we are made righteous in this sense that the Apostle seems to mean whether by infusion or by imputation Papists especially Bellarmine will have it to be done only by infusing the habits of righteousness as faith charity c. whereby we are made formally and by inheritance righteous Now in handling this question we must remember that it s not denyed of us that God doth make us just by infusing righteousness For we confess God by his spirit doth sanctifie us throughout and infuse the habits of inherent righteousness as they call it whereby we are fitted to exercise morall justice 1 Ioh. 3. Neither deny we but that in the time when he justifieth us by imputation as some speak he also sanctifieth us and works a begun conformity to the law But this is that we enquire of whether this infused righteousness be that whereby we are made just so as according to the course and sentence of the law we stand just at the day of Gods justice This they affirm we all with one consent deny and that upon these grounds First For that Apostle 1 Cor. 4.4 that had his share herein as far as most yet professeth he had not nor expected justification thereby What is his meaning that he did not thereby stand just before God according to the sentence of the law In form thus Pauls righteousness inherent made not him stand just before God according to the tenour of the law Ergo No man is made so just by inherent righteousness as to stand just thereby before God according to the law Psal 143.2 David excellently endued with this righteousness yet deprecates tryall by judgment acording to the law upon this reason In Gods sight no man shall be justified The arguments are two First If David fear the tryall of Gods judgment by the law that had so great a measure of righteousness then is not that the righteousness whereby we stand just before God according to the law for a man having that righteousness which the law requires needeth not fear tryall by exactest justice but David deprecates judgment Ergò 2. View his reason No living man shall be justified in thy sight to wit if thou deal with him in judgment according to the law Theodoret paraphrasing the text expounds Novienim fieri non posse ut aliquis sine paenâ à tuo tribunali discedat si enim hominum vitae regulam legum â te latarum appones nemo secundum has vixisse videbitur And Augustine quantumlibet rectus mihi videar producis tu de thessauro tuo regulam coaptas me ad eam et pravus invenior To these testimonies so direct what answers give they Perhaps they will say they speak of actuall justice not of habituall and therefore are impertinently alledged to the purpose in hand Answ Not to examine that distinction we shall see they conclude as well against habituall as against actuall righteousnes For is our actuall righteousness such as may not endure the censure of the law then certainly it more then seems the habits whence they proceed are not so perfect as after the law they should be For what should let the perfect habit of faith to bring forth a perfect act of faith c. sith therefore the acts are imperfect so are the habits also But other answers they have many and variable First that the Prophet speaks only of justice which a man hath of himself not of God Bellarm. in Psal 143. lib. 4. cap. 20. de justific and that he denies a man to be justified thereby But howsoever or whensoever David had his righteousness if it were justice such as in the law is required why deprecates he judgment He needs not fear Gods Tribuniall that hath the iustice of the law to present unto God For it s written The man that doth them shall live in them Rom. 10 5. Their second Answer is this That David deprecates judgement because of his veniall sins and they forsooth though they deserve punishment in exact justice yet hinder not justification Answ Well then belike these lighter sinnes though a man have He may be justified according to the Law What is then become of that sentence of the Law cursing all men to the pit of Hell that continue not in all things little or great written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3.10 2. And are these the sins onely for which David feared judgement then hear either veniall sins hinder justification or else David doth ill give this as a reason why he was so loath to have the Lord enter into judgement with him because no flesh should be justified in Gods sight In a word draw out the Prophets speech something largely after this Exposition The sense will be this Oh Lord I beseech thee spare calling me to reckoning for my veniall sins For in respect of them sith no man is free from them no flesh shall be justified in thy sight Their third answer No flesh shall be justified because our Righteousness though it be true and pure in it self yet compared to the infinite righteousness of Gods Nature it seems no righteousness as the light of a candle though it be light yet compared to that of the sunne is no light and this exposition hath the Authority of some Fathers annexed Answ With this distinction of righteousness I find no fault It hath the testimony of Fathers and the warrant of Scripture Job 4.18 But is this the reason why David so much feared to come to judgement because he wanted righteousness comparable to the Essential righteousness of God Who can think it it sufficeth to any man at the day of judgement to bring unto God the righteousness which the Law prescribes neither need he fear punishment because he wants righteousnes comparable to that Lev. 18.5 Rom. 10.5 which God hath as God and thus Theod. Aug. and others interpret that his desire to be free from judgement was because he answered not to the rule of righteousness Now is Gods Essentiall righteousness The Rule after which in judgement our righteousness must be squared Dic sodes I think rather the Law of God Saint Hierome in his time alleadged this Scripture against Pelagius to prove that no man ever was or could be so Holy as to live without sin what answer receives he saith
Hierome S. Hieron epist ad Ctesiph Hoc testimonium sub nomine pietatis novâ argumentatione deludunt aiunt enim ad comparationem Dei nullum esse Perfectum Perfectly righteous they might be according to that required in the Law not so in comparison to the Essentiall righteousness of God Hear Hieroms answer quasi hoc scriptura dixerit as who say this Scripture affirmed so much No saith Hierom but when it saith None shall be justified in thy sight hoc intelligi vult quòd etiam qui hominibus sancti videntur Dei scientiae atque notitiae nequaquam Sancti sunt Homo enim videt in facie Deus autem in corde That is This is the meaning That even they that seem to men Holy to Gods knowledge are not so For man looks on the face God on the heart One reason more I propound against their conclusion and so proceed The Righteousness whereby a man stands just before God according to the Law must be for the matter Right for the measure Pure for continuance Firm The terms are Bernards It must be Recta according to Rule Pura Bernard de verb. Esa ser 4. free from stain Firma without wavering or interruption He seems in fit terms to express the Apostle citing that testimony of Moses Gal. 3.10 and certainly if our Righteousness fail in any of these by sentence of the Law we are under the Curse The assumption let us hear out of Bernard Nostra si qua est humilis justitia recta forsitan est sed non pura nisi forte meliores nos esse credimus quà m patres nostros qui non minùs veraciter quà m humiliter aiebant omnis justitia nostrae tanquam pannus menstruatae mulieris quomodo enim pura justitia ubi adhuc non potest culpa deesse Ours 1. no better then our Fathers 2. Not free from fault therefore not pure or perfect And I wonder much how Papists sticking so close to their distinction of first and second justification can maintain the perfection of inherent righteousness For is there a second justification whereby we are made more righteous it is apparent therefore that inherent righteousness is never perfected in this life Perfectio viae Patriae It is idle when they distinguish perfection into that of the Way and the other of the Countrey For if by it we are justified in via according to the Law we must by it also be perfected in via inasmuch as no righteousness but perfect is approved by the Law I conclude therefore That the righteousness whereby we stand just according to the Law is not inherent righteousness Lastly If the righteousness whereby we are thus just stand in the habits of faith hope charity patience meekness c. How is it that the Lord when he justifies an ungodly man believing is said to count his faith to righteousness vers 3 4. perhaps because that is our righteousness Ex parte Apage Then when Paul concludes Abraham not to have been justified by works because he was justified by faith his meaning is this Abraham was justified by faith in some part ergò by works in no part How easie were it to denie his consequence Thus though in part of Faith yet he must be in part also of Works and so the Argument follows not And again The state of the question so largely disputed in this Epistle betwixt faith and works must be this Whether we be justified in part of Faith But these are absurd 2. If therefore faith be counted our righteousness because it is so In part Why I wonder Faith more then Chariey or Hope c. Why saith the Apostle so oft Faith is counted to Righteousness never so of Charitie perhaps Denominatio fit ex parte potiori Apage I dare say by their notes 1 Cor. 13. they will never abase Charity so farre as to give Faith the preheminence in this point of justification Perhaps now it will be exspected that I should answer their objections in this point but that hath been already in a great part done ad cap. 3. and besides the grounds now laid afford answer sufficient Proceed we therefore to the next explication God justifies the ungodly that is makes him righteous by imputing righteousness and if the question be What righteousness The Righteousness of Christ whether of his life or death it is not so pertinent here to enquire For we are now onely to dispute whether imputation be the means whereby we are made just in the sight of God and this also will fitliest be handled in the next verse thither therefore I refer it Onely it shall not be amiss to see upon what reason our Divines thus interpret the word of justifying by making righteous That acception of the word in Scripture being so rare that scarce in any other place it is found Their reason is this because the word when it is taken to acquit can in no wise fit this place because the Lord professeth so often He will not justifie the wicked in this sense so as to acquit him or hold him righteous whiles he continues wicked It should seem therefore that when Paul saith he justifieth the ungodly his meaning is He makes him righteous that he may acquit him But what if that sentence of Moses be understood with the exception of the Gospel Except he repent and believe the Gospel Surely though the Lord profess He will not clear the the wicked Exod. 34.7 that are impenitently such yet we know he testifieth in the same place that he will forgive transgression iniquity and sinne to the penitent and believing The last thus God justifieth the ungodly Cajetan by remitting his sins or in that that he forgiveth him his sinnes But Is this true doth God forgive the sins of the ungodly Answ Though not to an ungodly man continuing in his ungod liness yet to an ungodly man that ceaseth to be ungodly Isa 1.18 c. as they all do that believe in Christ for faith purifieth the heart not onely from the guilt but also from the power and practice of ungodliness Act. 15.9 Obiect But so doing God iustifies not the ungodly but the righteous Answ Distingue tempora concordabunt Scripturae No man saith that in the instant of iustification a man is in that sense ungodly but yet inasmuch as before faith he was ungodly it s no absurd speech to say That in remitting the sins of a believer he forgives the sins of the ungodly or thus He iustifieth him that is ungodly by Nature though when he iustifieth him he be altered by Grace Matthew the Apostle is called Matthew the Publican Matth. 10.3 not for that he was so then but because he had been a Publican Why not then the believer ungodly especially when as there are reliques of ungodliness sticking even after justisication Vse Now brethren how sweet is the comfort of this meditation that God who in his wrath is a * Hebr. 12.29 consuming fire
word Father then to the verb found And thus read Abraham our father concerning the flesh but methinks the trajection is too harsh and besides the conclusion shall want one principall term that best serves to express the things in hand and therefore I rather refer it to the verb and thus read Abraham found not by the flesh or as pertaining to the flesh According to the flesh That is saith Ambrose S. Ambrosius ad loc by his Circumcision fittingly to what we may suppose the Apostle to preoccupate and yet in as much as ye count Circumcision is a work he affirms it as well of morall works as of circumcision Say others as Cajetan by flesh that is Cajetan ad loc by righteousness which stands in works and are done by the flesh that is by the body Others as Theodoret by his own strength Theodoret ad loc Illyric in clavi Zanch. de tribus Elohim lib. 3. cap. 1. and good vvorks done thereby Generally I thus conceive it that Abraham obtained not righteousness by any work Ceremonicall Morall or whatsoever can be imagined to assail to righteousness except faith in Christ so finde I the use of the word in the same case Phil. 3.3 4 5 6 9. Where under this name of flesh comes circumcision our own righteousness which is by the Law or whatsoever is or may be opposed to that righteousness which is by the faith of Christ The whole explination amounts to this summe Abraham obtained not righteousness by any his own works See we the confirmation The argument is taken from an inconvenience issuing out of that supposition If Abraham were justified by works he hath whereof to glory But he hath not any thing whereof to glory at least with God Ergo he was not justified by works Let us see what our adversaries have to say against this full argument of the Apostle For ground of their answer they attempt an inversion of the Apostles syllogisme and thus conceive him to reason Sasbout ad loc If Abraham were justified by works then had he no glory or boasting with God he might indeed by that means procure the commendation of a man excellently righteous but with men only not with God but Abraham had cause of glorying and boasting with God Ergo was not justified by works This cross frame of the argument Augustin in prefat ad Psal 31. Ambros ad loc I could not without indignation read were it not that it hath great Authors to give it countenance for Reverence to them let us afford it tryall First then consider that the Apostle in this argument hath apparent respect to that ground laid down Rom. 3.27 That is that we are to be justified by such a mean as whereby boasting may be excluded according to which ground he here concludes That Abraham was not justified by works for if that were true then had he cause of boasting Is it not now too grosse blindness so to conceive the Apostle as if he would give Abraham cause of boasting Secondly besides this the proposition thus conceived is apparently false For if Abraham were justfied by works then sure he had cause of boasting even before God for what greater cause of glorying even before God then this That he hath wrought works to his justification and may therefore say he is not beholden to God for his greatest blessing justification as having purchased it by his own works of obedience see Rom. 3.27 Thirdly add hereunto that the assumption is apparently false for Abraham if the Apostle could judg had no cause of boasting with God his justification being as ours meerly of grace through faith in Christ Jesus leave we therefore that dream and see whether their other answers have more waight Say some Catholiques we must here understand observation of Legall Ceremonies as Circumcision Sabbaths New-Moons c. Not works of the Law Morall Answ To this idle exception see my Annotation in Rom. 3. But bring we this distinction into the Apostles argument and see whether boasting be excluded If Abraham were justified by works ceremoniall then had he cause of boasting belike not so if by works morall and how I wonder do works Ceremoniall give greater cause of boasting then works Morall is their dignity now greater then works of Morall obedience Fidem vestram Papistae Behold to obey is better then sacrifice and to hearken then the fat of rams 1 Sam. 15.22 I will have mercy and not sacrifice Hos 6.6 Mat. 9.13 sexcenta hujusmodi Bellarm. de Iustific lib. 1. cap. 19. blush at such idle evasions which your own Bellarmine willingly disclayms and confutes by Fathers Besides this according to this answer boasting is only in some part taken from Abraham namely in respect of his observance of Ceremonialls for Morall obedience is still left him for matter of boasting but boasting on any pretence is excluded in Pauls intention Ergo. Hear Hierome Ex operibus legis Hierom ad Ctesiphont Adv. Pelag. ultramed non justificabitur om nis Caro quod nè de Lege Moysis tantùm dictum putes non de omnibus mandatis quae uno legis nomine continentur idem Apostolus scribit dicens consentio Legi Dei c. iterum scimus quòd Lex spiritualis est c. We know saith Paul that the Law is spirituall Rom. 7.14 What Law I wonder if not that Morall Let us see yet whether other playsters will salve the sore Bellarm. qua supra works of Abraham are of two sorts some Praecedentia fidem going before faith some Facta per fidem done by faith the Apostle understands works done before faith and regeneration not those done in and by faith Let us bring this into the argument If Abraham were justified by works done without faith by the meer power of natural free will then had he cause of boasting not so if by works done in faith Answ And why not I marvail when works done by grace according to their opinion are done partly by strength-naturall of free-will so much then as free-will helped in the doing so much cause of boasting Abraham had of himself But Abraham had no cause of boasting c. 2. What if it be apparent that the Apostle speaks even of works done by Abraham now believing and regenerate then methinks these works must also be included in the Apostles intention Certainly if we consider the testimony alledged out of Gen. 15. in the next verse to prove that Abraham was not justified by works it will easily appear that Abraham was long before this regenerate and believing and had many works of faith whereas yet the testimony of righteousness is given him not for working but for believing It was a work of faith that Abraham did in following the Lords call out of his countrey Heb. 11.8 Other works of piety and love see Gen. 12.8 13.8 9. 14 16 20 c. Yet not these works done in faith but faith
was imputed to righteousness True saith Bellarmine Abraham was now regenerate and had done many good works of faith and yet the Apostle when he saith he was justified by faith and not by works rejects not his works done in faith from power of justifing but those only which he might have done not of faith For even they who have faith work sometimes not of faith as when they sin or do works meerly Morall without relation to God In a word the Apostle speaketh conditionally and according to their opinion which ascribed righteousness to their own strength Answ Now what is to be willfully blind if this be not was it ever heard of that a man should be justified by works not which he had done but which he might have done or think we the Saints of God to whom he wrought or the Iews that perhaps disturbed them were ever so shameless as to ascribe justice to works finfull or meerly Morall such as heathens performed It s apparent that the Apostle fits answer to Iewish objections who urged works of law written for matter of justification yea in likelihood works done in grace for whereto else comes in the example of Abraham so worthy a Saint of God Certes if of works meerly naturall there had been question example of Abimelech or Socrates or Aristides had been as pertinent to the purpose Lastly say others the Apostle speaks not de justificatione Pii but Impii not of that justification whereby a man of a righteous man is made more righteous but he speaks of justifiing a wicked man which is done by faith Answ Concerning this distinction see Annotat. in Chap. 3. But it is their opinion that he speaks of the first justification only surely Sasbout confesseth that the testimony out of Genesis treats only De augmento Iustitiae non de justificatione Impii And that is apparent to every confiderate Reader This mist of cavills thus dispelled let us now resume the Apostles conclusion and lay it for a ground that Abraham was not justified by any works of any law in any state by him performed Use Hear this now yee justitiaries that dare obtrude your menstruous merits to Godsjustice and for them claim righteousness at his judgment seat Behold Abraham that mirrout of good works as well as of faith yet stript of all right and claim to righteousness by any his obedience and dare any of his children challenge more at God hands then Abraham the pattern of justification Bring to the ballance your voluntary poverty building of temples pilgrimage vvorks of mercy or if there be any vvork that you think more glorious and see if they be not found lighter then vanity it self to those of Abraham that one vvork of obedience in offering his Son Isaac upon the altar vvhich of the sons of men can parallel I spare amplifications because they are extant in the Apostle and particularized in Ambrose De Abrah Patriarch lib. 1. Cap. 8. VER 3 4 5. For what saith the Scripture Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt but to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justfieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousness VVHether the words be conceived as proof of the Minor or of the principall conclusion it is not much materiall the issue being all one The argument proving it is taken from the manner or meanes of Abrahams justification which was meerly gracious the Scripture affirms that Abrahams believing was counted to him for righteousness Gen. 15.6 Ergo he had no cause of boasting because that not to the worker but to the believer only faith is imputed unto righteousness The consequence of this Enthymeme hath its proof from the place of unlikes That the force of the proofe may be better conceived let us view a little the terms of the comparison The persons compared are he that worketh and he that worketh not but believeth The things wherein they are compared as unlike is the manner or means whereby these severally obtain righteousness The worker that is he that hath works to be justified by he hath righteousness reckoned to him as wages not granted out of favour but paid as of debt He that hath no works but believes hath righteousness counted to him not of debt but of favour as if he had said that yee may see how Abrahams having faith counted righteousness left him no cause of boasting observe this difference betwixt the worker and believer viz. He that hath works to bring before God hath righteousness ascribed unto him of debt not of grace because that by his works he hath purchased righteousness as wages and so by consequence hath cause of boasting him that justifieth the ungodly it s otherwise this faith is of grace imputed to righteousness Abraham therefore being of this latter sort not a worker but a believer and by consequence hath faith of grace counted to him for righteousness surely had no cause of boasting for this matter of justification This having the better judgment of the learned I take to be the naturall resolution of the text Let us now turn back to the words and enquire their sense and what instructions they afford for our use In verse the third are two things 1. The Judg whom Paul appeales unto 2. The sentence of the judg For what saith the Scripture Holy Apostle thou forgottest thy self that didst appeal to Scripture to give sentence in a matter of dobut For we are taught by men of unerring spirits the Scripture is Mutus Index a dumbe judg not able to utter what may resolue us in matter of doubt Now how much better were it that these men were dumb then to use their tongues in manner so blaspheously derogatory to him that inspires the Scripture For be it that in property of speech the Scripture is speechless yet contains it not directions sufficient to determine doubts or needs it any more then mans minde to conceive and his tongue to publish what it contains Or hath the Church any other authority about the Scripture save only to declare what Gods Spirit therein speaks Must the sense needs be locked up in the Popes breast and the Scripture taught to mean only what he determines 2. Is it so strange and abhorrent from common language that the Scripture should be said to speak In common assemblies what more usuall How saith your record What saith the Law 3. How ever I hope Gods Spirit may be said in Scripto speak to his Church without any great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inasmuch as he doth therein utter what his meaning is And writing doth the office of speech thus far that it serves to express the conception of our minde As David said of his tongue it was the pen of a ready writer Psal 45.1 So may we say of the pens that the Lords holy scribes used they were the tongues of a ready speaker
Sitacet Christus quid sibi volunt haec Evangelia quid sibi volunt voces Apostolicae quid cantica Psalmorum quid eloquia Prophetarum in his enim omnibus Christus non tacet S. Augustin In Johan tractat 4. The Scripture Fitly doth Paul consult with Scripture as the only Competent Iudg in-questions of his nature without which if we search for resolution in matters of this quality we run into a Labyrinth The advise that Constantine gave to the fathers in the Nicene Councell should have place with us sumamus ex dictis divini spiritûs explicationes quaestionum Mark his reason Evangelici enim Thedoret Hist lib. 1. cap. 7. Apostolici liâ—ri nec non Antiquorum Prophetarum oracula planè instruunt nos sensu Numinis And truth is howsoever in matters of Morality there be to be found some good directious in nature yet in this and like matters touching reconciliation with God and means of justification before him how utterly not only blind but opposite to what truth teacheth is nature yea it may not be denied that the Fathers them selves have some of them too naturall conceits in this business and if my judgment and observation in their writings be any thing as it is not much the attentive Reader shall finde much of the popish plot of justification to be framed out of the errours and misprisions of some Ancients here therefore especially let it have place that the Prophet adviseth to the Law and to the Testimony Isai 8.20 See we now the sentence of this Judg What saith the Scripture This Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness In which sentence we have two particulars observable First Abrahams act with the object he believed God Secondly The fruit or benefit thereof It was counted to him for righteousness Touching the first Abrahams act he believed God Let us here a little largely enquire what is the nature of justifying faith so much the rather The nature of justifying faith explained because the controversie is famous betwixt us and our adversaries Concerning it two questions shall be handled First whether it be an assent to the promise Or an Affiance rather and trusting in the promise Or in plainer terms whether this to believe in this question signifie to give Credence to God speaking or else to put confidence in God The opinions both of them have great Authors both Popish and Protestant For our better understanding it shall not be amiss to fetch the consideration somewhat higher even from the generall notion of these two habits as they are conceived by Philosophers and others according to reason Faith therefore or beliefe hath this generall description It is an habit of the understanding inclining us to a firm and undoubtfull assent to something as truth for the authority and credit of the speaker or witness I call it first an habit of the understanding because the proper object thereof is truth and the act thereof an assent to truth or a perswasion and acknowledgment of the truth propounded The difference stands partly in the measure of assenting partly in the cause moving to assent for as touching absolute doubtfulness when the minde hangs in aequilibrio giving no assent either way it s quite opposite to the nature of faith Now the assent of the minde hath three degrees The first is when the minde hath some though weak inclination and hath a propension to assent to a thing propounded perhaps moved by some slight sign or by apprehension of possible truth some call this suspition more fitly perhaps conjecture The Second is when the assent is more stable and resolute yet not without fear that the contrary may be true this called opinion The Third and highest is a perfect and peremptory acknowledgment that the thing propounded is of infallible and certain truth of this last sort is the assent that faith yields Now this certain and perfect assent is of four sorts according to a fourfold means swaying the minde The first is that which is caused by sense as when the minde acknowledgeth a thing for truth because it hath received perfect intelligence from the sight hearing c. or other senses not hindered or deceived The second is that which is caused out of the clear light and evidence of the thing without arguments of any kinde to perswade it as in principles clear of themselves and that need no demonstration or evidence but their own light to convince as that omne totum majus est suâ parte The third is that which is caused by certain discourse and demonstrative arguments which they call science The last is that which is procured by the authority and credit of him that propounds a thing to be received for truth which authority being without exception breeds perswasion as firm as any can be raised by argument sense or if there be any other means more forcible with the minde to perswade And of this last sort is faith Now Fiducia confidence or affiance is that habit or act of the will whereby we hopefully repose our selves upon the power truth and goodness of the promiser for receiving of some good thing promised It differs from belief 1. In the proper seat belief being in the understanding affiance in the will 2. In the object which it s carried unto which is bonum not verum 3. As the effect from the cause this reposing of our selves on arising from a perswasion of the power truth goodness of him we trust in And of the general notion of these two qualities thus far Their difference we shall better yet see if we consider the divers phrases of speech wherein the Scripture expresseth their actions fittingly to that usuall distinction received from Austin putting difference betwixt these two acts of S. Aug. Trict. in Ioh. 29. and Serm. 61 de verb. Domini Credere deo Credere in deum The first being the act of beliefe properly so called the other expressing the act of that other habit which we call fiduciam To apply this Praemissa to the purpose the question is of whether sort that faith which we call justifying is whether a giving credit to God promising us remission of sins in Christ or a relying on his mercy and the merits of Christ for pardon of sins and life everlasting The severall opinions shall be propounded and examined that the truth may the better appear Papists well nigh all that I have seen Resolve of the former and thus determine Bellarm. de Iustif lib. 1. cap 5. 9. See Kemnit Exam. lib. 1. cap. de Fide justific That Faith justifying is no such Affiance or Confidence in Gods mercy as Protestants teach but a general assent to all things contained in the Word of God and a perswasion of their Truth Of our own Divines some not of lowest rank judg that it is meerly an assent to the truth of the Gospell or Evangelicall promise made to us in Christ And they
gift disparate from it not in act and office only but in the very subject and seat where it resides More see to this purpose Suprà The Third opinion is of them that make it only an affiance and resting on God and his Christ as propounded in the gospel for justification and remission of sins And for this opinion these Reasons are brought First For that the phrase wherein usually it is expressed imports rather confidence and affiance then assent or perswasion as Ioh. 12. alibi But finde we it not as often expressed in a phrase that signifies assenting Secondly Because they cannot else finde a difference betwixt faith justifying and that which may be in hypocrites and divells What say they to that particularity of assenting Gal. 2.20 and appropriating the generals to our selves a thing as impossible for hypocrites or divels to perform as that other of affiance and what to that Eph. 3.12 that makes this confidence a fruit of faith justifying The last tenant is of those that make it partly an assent particular partly an affiance and for that opinion are these Reasons First For that the phrases of speech wherein it is expressed seem to import both Secondly They are both required as necessary to justification not only as dispositions but after a sort as ingredients not only as qualifications of the person but our means of justifications Thirdly Because they concur in every person justified as he is justified Now Of these three last which is the truth I dare not peremptorily determine For my part I profess my self to think with them that make faith justifying and assent rather then affiance especially for that place Eph. 3.12 Howbeit I may not deny but that the affiance spoken of in an inseparable companion of that assent perhaps also as conferring something to justification yet this I am well assured of First Faith properly so called hath its seat in the understanding Secondly According to Etymology imports a perswasion Thirdly In use of Scripture most frequently signifieth giving credit rather then putting confidence Fourthly And if there be any truth in that our Divines affirm concerning the office of faith in applying Christ to our selves most likely it should be an assent rather then affiance applying or appropriating of Christ to us being no more but this an acknowledgment that Christ is such to us as the Scripture describes him a Redeemer a Saviour a Mediatour of reconcilement and Author of righteouiness and salvation which acknowledgment is an act of the understanding not of the will Fiftly Besides this the opposites or defects of faith are apparently in the understanding and import defect of assenting as doubting Sixtly The perfection and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I may term it of this grace is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fulness of assent and perswasion the grace it self for substance therefore is of the same nature Let us view a little how the Apostle in this Chapter expresseth that faith of Abraham which to him was imputed to righteousness In this verse it s thus enunciated Abraham believed God that is gave credit and assent to what the Lord promised touching a seed and vers 22. He was fully assured or perswaded that he which had promised was able to perform and this perswasion was imputed to him for righteousness All which laid together sway my judgment to theirs that teach faith justifying to be such an assent as in the third opinion is expressed rather then affiance and of the nature of faith justifying thus far There remains yet one thing before we proceed to the fruit of Abrahams faith expressed in the next member And that is to enquire how fitly this testimony is alledged to the purpose of justification the promise being in shew only of a temporall blessing namely a numerous seed and no mention made of Christ the Mediator whom faith justifing as it is such respects Answ Answers here are diversly conceived the likeliest I will propound First It s thus answered that Abrahams faith whereby he believed the promises both touching the reward vers 2. and touching the seed cannot be imagined to have been without respect to Christ the Mediator inasmuch as all the the promises of God are yea and Amen in Christ 2 Cor. 1.20 That is have their accomplishment and ratification in and for Christ Secondly That the seed mentioned in the promise is rather to be understood of the spirituall seed then of the carnall posterity of Adam and the head thereof is Christ as the Apostle interprets Gal. 3.16 The fruit of Abrahams faith follows It was counted to him for righteousness The difference in the reading out of the Hebrew originall is little or nothing Hebrew thus he imputed or counted it for righteousness out of the septuagint it s rendred positively it was counted for righteousness For the sense of the words if it be enquired What was it that was counted righteousness It s answered faith as appears both by the text Gen. 15.6 as also vers 5. Was counted unto him for righteousness For better understanding the text let us consider the word first severally and alone according to the native signification and use of Scripture 2. Conjunctly according as thereof sundry phrases are raised The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it signifies usually two things First To repute or esteem and make reckoning of Secondly to impute or ascribe In the first sense Psal 8.4 What is man that thou reputest or esteemest him Christ was reckoned amongst the wicked that is esteemed as they Isai 53.12 In the second sense the use is also frequent Philem. vers 18. If he hath wronged thee or oweth the ought impute that is ascribe it to mee and set it as it were upon my score the speech being borrowed from Merchants The phrases of speech arising from conjunction of this word with others are divers in Scripture In this Chapter faith is said to be imputed to righteousness or reckoned for righteousness wages is said to be reckoned or imputed righteousness to be imputed to a man sins to be imputed or not imputed to the committer The First phrase is of all the rest of most difficult explication Conjectures of others that have any probability I will propound some thus Faith was counted for righteousness that is instead of righteousness as if it supplyed the stead of the righteousness of the Law in this point of justification and this exposition they would approve by likeness of phrase in other things as they conceive it As Rom. 2.26 Uncircumcision is counted for circumcision that is instead of circumcision Rom. 9.8 The Children of the promise are counted for the seed that is instead of the seed But why not thus rather they are counted the seed for so they are apparently not reckoned iustead of the seed but counted or esteemed the leed they being the seed with which the Covenant is made Others thus Faith is imputed to righteousness that is ascribed
finde faith to have any such act or office as to apprehend and receive Christ and his righteousness Answ Amongst other places that is pregnant Rom. 5.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est oblatam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fidei videlicet manu Beza Where believers are deseribed to be such as receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness that receive to wit by faith as by a hand the gift of righteousness that is the righteousnes of Christ given unto us After this sentence we see how faith alone justifieth namely because faith only hath fitness to receive the gift of righteousness This laid also for a ground boasting is excluded in every respect which after all other explanations is left in some respect unto men Thus also is the comfort of conscience left provided for when Gods children shall be taught out of the word of God that the righteousness whereby they are justified before God is so absolute and every way perfect as is that of Christ and that it sufficeth them to justification that they receive it whether by strong or weak Faith the virtue of Righteousness being stil the same when it is received in what measure soever it be received As the alms given is of the same benefit whether the hand that receives it be steady or shaking so it be received The summe of all is this sith Faith is accepted to Justification neither in respect of the Worth of it to procure it nor yet as being the Form of righteousness nor as a Preparation nor as a Condition It remains that it justifieth Instrumentally onely or because it apprehends that for which we are justified namely the merit and Righteousness of Christ For Use of this point let it be this It affords Comfort to every weary soul groaning under the burthen of sinne and pressed with the Terrours of the Almighty and affrighted with the Curse of the Law due to Transgressions If thou believe in the Lord Jesus and hast received this grace by faith to receive his righteousness offered in the Gospel thy sins are forgiven and shall never be imputed to Condemnation Thou standest as just in Gods sight as if thou hadst in thine own person performed exactly the whole obedience that the Law requires And let no man say it is true if they could firmly believe as Abraham but their faith is so weak and wavering that even for it Condemnation is due them Answ For this Consider that it is not the strength of Faith that justifies not Faith as an Act wherein our Righteousness stands but it is that which Faith apprehends that justifies even the obedience and righteousness of Christ That apprehended truly in what measure soever covers all defects not onely of Legall obedience but even of Faith it self A second thing here observable is this That whereas to Abraham that had now long time been Regenerate and in state of grace had done many works of Piety and obedience Yet Faith is still counted to Righteousness it follows well that whole justification is absolved in Faith and that Faith is not onely the beginning of Righteousness but the very complement thereof And Bellarm. qua supra it is to be observed against that errour of Romanists that to evade the direct testimonies of Scripture against Justification by works and for that by Faith alone have devised a distinction of Justification It is say they Concil Trident Sess 6. of two sorts The First whereby a man of unjust is made just and that stands in two things 1. Remission of sins 2. Infusion of gracious habits whereby the heart of man is disposed and inclined to actuall justice The Second is that whereby a man of Righteous becomes more righteous encreasing the habits infused by exercise of them in doing good works The First of these is ascribed to Faith The Second to good works Now To omit that in this Doctrine they confound things to be distinguished namely Justification and Sanctification There is no ground for this distinction of justification in Scriptures nay grounds many against it For 1. If good works have this force to make us more justified in the sight of God how comes it to pass that Abrahams Iustification is still ascribed to faith For that the place Gen. 15.6 is to be understood de secunda justificatione Sasbout confesseth Sasbout ad locum Besides this the Apostle Phil. 3.9 apertly declares his whole justification both in his first Conversion Kemnit in Exam. in that time wherein he wrote yea at the day of Resurrection to be wholly and meerly absolved in Faith And surely if there were such virtue in the exercise of Good works as to make us more justified in the sight of God Saint Paul did fondly count so basely of them as to call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dung and loss Add hereunto that the Apostle 1 Cor. 4.4 speaking of the righteousness wherein he lived after his Conversion yet plainly disclaims opinion of justification thereby he was privy to himself of no insincerity in his calling having since his calling lived in all good conscience yet saith he I am not hereby justified What shall we say he speaks of his first justification as if it could possibly be thought that the works not yet extant could be the means of that justification which he had before he had works More I adde not We will now proceed to that which followeth VERS 4. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt The applying of these verses to the Apostles purpose see in the Analysis Sense To him that worketh That is say some that presumes of his works others that deservs by his works Thus rather To him that hath or brings works to God The wages or reward What is the wages here mentioned Paraeus Some take the Apostle to reason out of a principle in Civil life by similtude applyed to this purpose but the Antithesis bears it not Wages here understand Synecdechicè put for estimation of righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is say some is not imputed but the Catachresis is too hard and abhorrent from all custome of speech Cajetan Is notreckoned that is not paid saith Cajetan What if we say the speech is borrowed from the custome of Common life on this manner That the Lord should be imagined after the manner of men to keep his book of accounts wherein the records both the behaviours of men and the wages due unto them according to the same It s not much unlike that we fiud Mal. 3.16 Let us for the purpose imagine the Lord the great distributor of reward according to the double covenant of works and grace to have referred all men to two ranks viz. Workers and Believers to resolve with himself to crown both with a sentence of righteousness according as they bring to him either works such as the Law prescribes or
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
pretence to be neglected Who dare then stand up to defend the profaneness of those fanaticall spirits that scoffe at these ordinances more meete they say for carnall Jewes then for spirituall Christians Forsooth they have the spirit immediately to work what Sacraments serve to signifie or exhibite and what needs the Element where the grace is received They had best taxe God of indiscretion that of his mercy hath ordained them to be helps for our weekness and fitting himself to our state in the flesh in sensibilibus intelligibilia praebet Chrysostom Homil. ad Pop. 60. and 83. in Matth. as Chrysostome in things sensible reacheth unto us things intelligible They boast of the spirit they have a spirit indeed but not of God but of fornication as the Prophet speaks or of delusion that hath caused them thus to erre No man saith Paul speaking by the Spirit of God defieth Iesus 1 Cor. 12.3 Moman said I taught by the Spirit of God contemneth the ordinances of Christ established in the word But what need Sacraments when the thing they signifie is obtained Let Paul answer thee from the case of Abraham he was justified before he was circumcised yet received the sign of circumcision to be a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had being uncircumcised No less absurd is that saying of them that in heat of affection inveighing against dumbe Ministers stick not to affirm their actions are meer nullities Baptisme no Baptisme that is administred by a non-Preacher Well then why receive they not a new Baptisme sith the old is a blank They answer they have the inward Baptisme and therefore need not the Sacrament Be well advised if thou hadst the measure of Abraham or of the blessed Virgin in regeneration thou art not exempted from use of any Sacrament From Abrahams act proceed we to the object What received Abraham The sign of circumcision genitivus speciei frequent in Scripture and common language the gift of tongues the gift of healing 1 Cor. 12. That is tongues and healing which are gifts the sign of circumcision that is circumcision which is a sign Observ The things here observable are 1. The natvre of a Sacrament opened Bellarm. de Sacrament lib. 1. cap. 17. A brief description of the nature of Sacraments Sacraments are signes ordained of God to seal up unto us the righteousness of faith Your collection is naught say Papists For you conclude a generall from a particular It follows not that if circumcision were so and so to Abraham that therefore all Sacraments are such and to all men such But it is well answered that what belongs in common to all the species may well enough be attributed to the generall For that which all the species have in common Parcus ad loc they have from their generall proceed we therefore to the explication Touching the name of Sacraments it is idle to contend though in so many letters and syllables we have it not in Scripture yet the thing we have and why should we be so abhorrent from the word so significant and of so long continuance in the Church of God The first thing in the nature of a Sacrament is this August de Doctr. Christ lib. 2. cap. 1. That it is a signe Now a signe saith Augustine is that which besides the species it offers to the senses causeth some other thing to come to our mind as when we see smoak we say there is fire when we see the rain bow we think of the covenant God made with all flesh Signes are of two sorts Naturall Voluntary Augustine calls them data others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naturall signes are such which naturally without the will or appointment of any of themselves cause us to think of what they signifie as smoak of fire Voluntary signes are such as signifie what they do signifie by the will and appointment of those that make them signes as the rain-bow of the Covenant which it signifies not Naturally but by the will of God and of this latter sort are Sacraments Again of these Voluntary or made signes some are analogica that carry a resemblance of things they signifie some not so but meerly by appointment and constat of the imposers signifie what they signifie as Ivy bush wine Sacraments are in the first kind whereupon saith Augustine if Sacraments had not some similitude and likeness of the things August epist 23. ad Bonifacium whereof they are Sacraments they could at no hand be Sacraments Therefore in all Sacraments God hath made choice of such signes as have a fitness naturall though indeterminate to represent what they are ordained to signifie though actually they do not signifie it till Gods ordinance have therto determined them for example washing in water hath a fitness to signifie spirituall cleansing by Christs bloud actually it signifies it onely by appointment of God c. Moreover Popish Schoolmen in this question of Sacraments have devised other distinctions of Signes which it shall not be amiss to propund Scotus ad sent l. 4. dist 1. First thus Signes are either Rememorative which by their signification call to remembrance something past or Demonstrative as it were pointing at something present Aquinas part 3. qu. 6. art 3. Bellarm. de Sacram. l. 2. c. 9. or Prognosticall foreshewing something to come Sacraments of the new Testament are al these Memorials of Christs Passion demonstrating the effect of the Sacrament Foreshewing eternal glory Although though this we must observe saith Bellarmine Bellarm. de effect Sacrament lib. 1. c. 8. that that which Sacraments of the new Law chiefly and essentially signifie is onely justifying Grace According to him therefore our Sacraments are chiefly yea essentially onely demonstrative Yet they further distinguish of signes Scotus ubi suprà some are speculative onely they are such as are ordained to no other end but to signifie some are withall practicall which are ordained to effect and work that which they signifie and of this latter sort they will have our Sacraments to be Thus farre of the generall nature of Sacraments Proceed we now towards enquiry of the difference that we may see what it is that distinguisheth Sacramentall signes from others Signes then are all of them amongst those things quae dicuntur ad aliquid Every signe is a signe of something and by being a signe leads us to consider of that whereto it stands in relation What is it then that Sacramentall signes do signifie For better understanding we are to consider in every Sacramentall signe Two things as Parts after a sort of it as it is such a signe First a Substance or Matter 2. Actions about that matter as in Circumcision the matter was the Foreskinne The Action thereabouts The cutting off the Foreskinne In Baptism the Matter is water the Sacramentall action the dipping or sprinkling of the child c. If the question now be what Sacraments in common signifie Answ The
Matter or Substantiall element signifies the person of Christ or something therein The actions of the Minister the actions of God the Father and his Spirit communicating Christ and his benefits unto us The Sacramentall actions of the people their receiving Christ and his benefits The Authour of them comes next to be treated of as part of the difference whereby they are distinguished from other signes of mans imposition The Authour of them is God onely 1. Because He onely can determine signes to such actuall signification 2. And can alone by them assure us of the grace they signifie Last is the Use or End of Sacraments which is intimated in the next words seals of the righteousness of faith Let us explain the words and then examine the doubts The office of a seal stands in four things 1. Concealment 2. Distinction 3. Impression 4. Confirmation According to which severall uses of seals the explanation is here diversly conceived Some think the Apostles metaphor hath respect to the first office Concealment and they thus expound it Circumcision sealed up righteousness that is concealed Sasbout ex origine and closed it up for a Time namely Till by Christs coming in the flesh it should be revealed That dotage needs no confutation Another sort take it well nigh Stapleton in Antidoto Cajetan ad loc as Anabaptists and they will have it so called onely because it is a mark of the righteousness of faith by which men might know that they had obtained the righteousness of faith but that office of Sacraments if there be any such is sufficiently expressed in the former Title when it is called a signe Whether in the third respect they are called Seals because they leave a stamp and impression of the righteousness of faith that absurdity I wonder some of them fell not up 〈…〉 considering that they teach they confer grace by the work done but the place it self sufficiently confutes it because Abraham had this righteousness before either he received or God ordained the sign of circumcision It remains then that in the last respect they are called seals because they are ordained for greater confirmation and assurance given to us of righteousness promised in the Covenant of grace So Theophylact as Sasbout conceives him a seal whereby God sealed up righteousness to Abraham and testified it to be most true and certain as we are wont to set seal to that which we would testifie to be sure and firm Now if any demand what they seal up or confirm unto us the answer is It is the righteousness of faith that is remission of sins and that esteem of righteousness which the Lord allows to all truly believing If this be not all they assure us of yet it is the principall other ends being all subordinate to this other uses less principall and dependent thereon Now see we what it is that adversaries except against our description of Sacraments hence collected Forsooth they tell us that we reason absurdly from one species to the whole kinde affirmatively thereto hath been already answered They limit this use of circumcision to Abraham only and though to him it was a seal in this sence yet not therefore to others But I demand Bellarm. de Sacram. lib. 1. cap. 17. Gen. 17.7 10. was the Covenant made with Abraham only or with his seed also or was circumcision a sign of the Covenant to Abraham only or else to his seed also If the Covenant belonged to all if circumcision was to all a sign of their being in the Covenant why not to all also a seal of righteousness Forsooth say our adversaries one end of Abrahams circumcision was peculiar to Abraham as that he should be the father of all believers therefore this also of being a seal of the righteousness of faith Answ And I wonder why we may not conclude by the like reason that to Abraham only it was a sign of the Covenant because this end they mention had place in Abraham only But let us more neerly view the Reasons It was Abrahams priviledg only to be the father of all believers both circumcised and uncircumcised Ergo His priviledg onely to have circumcision a seal of righteousness How prove they their consequence Forsooth Paul joyns both together and therefore they are of like priviledg Answ Why may we not say ut supra that the necessity of the sign of circumcision was also Abrahams priviledg because it also is joyned to the rest But for more full satisfaction view we the scope of the text which is this To shew that justification belongs to believers of both people The proof is from a sign Abraham had righteousness in uncircumcision Ergo Righteousness belongs to the uncircumcised For this was that the Lord mystically intended to signifie in justifying Abraham before circumcision and in commending circumcision to him justified But to what end mentions he that end of circumcision sealing up the righteousness of faith Answ To answer that which he saw might be objected on this manner If Abraham were justified before circumcision what profit received he by that Sacrament Answ It sealed unto him the righteousness of faith And shall we say now it was Abrahams priviledg to be confirmed in perswasion of righteousness belike then his posterity either needed no such confirmation and so Abrahams priviledg shall be to be the only weakling in faith that needs means of confirmation or else his seed shall lack that help that Abraham had for establishment though the Covenant were equally made with them It is too tedious to follow them in all their diversions here therefore an end of his enquiry touching the generall nature and use of Sacraments What is it now that our adversaries want in our description that serves to express the generall nature of Sacraments that pulcherima definitio of a Sacrament extant in the catechisme of Trent Councill and ours besides the homonymie of the word righteousness they can assign no difference but in a term onely Sacramentum say they est res sensibus subiecta Bellarm. de Sacram. lib. 1. cap. 11. quae ex dei institutione sanctitatis justitiae tum significandae tum efficiendae vim habet Sacramentum say we est res sensibus subjecta quae ex dei institutione justitiae tum significandae tum obsignandae vim habet sealing of righteousness they like not though the Apostle hath pointed us thereto It should be effecting or working of righteousness and then all were well See we therefore a little whether this be of the nature of Sacraments and amongst the uses to which they are assigned to effect or work righteousness Where we have to things to consider First What grace they are appointed to work they answer justifying grace which after them stands in the habit of faith hope charity Secondly How they work it Not as principall efficients for that is peculiar to God but as instruments as the Master of sentences expresseth it Lumbard
to the course of the Covenant Now the defect of the verb is diversly supplyed Cajetan some thus adimplenda fuit others thus contingit or contigit and these by the promise understand the thing promised I would rather thus facta est as Gal. 3.16 By the Law That is works or righteousness of the law but of what law that given in Sinai or that of nature Paraeus Answ Vnderstand either or both and that some think is intimated by abscence of the article as a condition or a means we shall anon resolve I have now propounded the severall judgments of Interpreters touching the sence Whether shall we resolve of for my own part I will peremptorily prescribe to no man My judgment only I will propound The conclusion I think is this That justification belongs to believers all and only in respect not of works but of faith The Reasons proving it is taken partly from the form or manner of conveiance in the promise partly from parity In this form If the promise of inheritance to Abraham and his seed was to be accomplished not by legall obedience but by righteousness of faith then it followes that we are justified by faith and not by works But the promise of the inheritance to Abraham was to be accomplished not by the law but by the righteousness of faith Ergo. The consequence of the proposition hath this ground because that justification must be by such means as the inheritance may be obtained and that is obtained so as it is promised it is promised to be obtained by the righteousness of faith as a mean or disposition thereto tending Ergo. Justification is by faith and not by the law Hitherto the Connexion The particulars of this verse are these First The ground of Abrahams and our title to the blessing and that is the promise Secondly The matter of the promise To be the heir of the world Thirdly The means whereby we partake the promise set out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not by the law but by the righteousness of faith Observ Out of the first this is the collection That the title we have to the blessings of God that concerne life and godliness is the promise of God And our whole claim to them is sub titulo promissionis compare Gal 3.18 For this cause I think it is that the blessings of God which we partake are so often called promises and the Children of God the heires of the promise see Heb. 9.12 17. and 10.36 because by virtue of the promise accrewes our claim title and possession of the blessing Hence Peter Act. 2.39 reasons for the blessing and seal thereof in respect of the humbled Iews the promises are made to you and to your seed And to assure us of enjoying them Gods Spirit usually sends us to consideration of the Lords fidelity 1 Cor. 1.9 and 10 13. 1 Thess 5.24 2 Thess 3.3 Heb. 10.23 c. And it is not to be omitted that Budaeus observes that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a promise meerly voluntary and gratuitous without respect to any worth in the party to whom it is made In which respect it seems to be opposed to the law Gal. 3.18 From whence it well follows in Pauls Divinity that it is not founded on the worth of any our works Gal. 3.18 neither may we claim them as due to us for the merit of our obedience And howsoever obedience be required as a qualification of our persons to make us capable thereof yet the cause moving God to bestow them is not our righteousness but Gods promise Memorable is that caveat Moses gives to Israel being now at the skirts of Canaan say not in thy heart c. for my righteousness Deut. 9.4.5 the Lord hath brought me in to possesse this land c. Not for thy righteousness or for the uprightness of thy heart doest thou go in but for the wickedness of these nations c. and that the Lord may porform the word Which the Lord sware unto thy fathers Abraham Isaac and Iacob his reason is vers 16. Thou art a stiff-necked people which self-reason hath place in us all whatever our righteousness be by grace Rebellion alas Rom. 7.23 how much is still in our nature Hence it is that the Saints of God in their prayers to God usually acknowledg their own unworthiness and the blessings they crave and lay claim to they claim by promise read Neh. 1.8 9. And if ever we read in any of them allegation of righteousness as Isai 38.3 It is not intended as cause of the blessing but as a disposition in the person fitting it to receive the blessings made ours by promise In the next place consider we the matter of the promise That he should be the heir of the world The Heir that is saith Mr. Beza out of Vlpian Lord or owner agreeably to that Gal. 4.1 Howbeit something else is withall signified that this possession descends upon him freely as an inheritance not as by way of purchase Of the world That is say some of believers of all nations whereof supra say others of the Kingdome of Heaven others of whole heaven and earth and all the creatures therein with whatsoever heaven or earth can afford to make him blessed in token and pledg whereof Canaan was given him by promise as being the most fertile and pleasant part of the world and withall a type of Heaven and as Heb. 4 and 12. the rest pleasantness and glory thereof This I think the best interpretation for reasons above assigned Observ Whereout observe we That by covenant and promise Gods Children have title to the whole world All things are yours saith the Apostle whether Paul or Cephas or the world c. or things present or things to come all are yours 1 Cor. 3.21 22. And again godliness hath promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come And if any shall say that in experience we see Gods Children none of the greatest sharers in the things of this life Answ The lack of use hinders not our title and property in them The heir is Lord of all in title though in this nonage he differs nothing from a servant Gal. 4.1.2 That little they enjoy they enjoy comfortably as their own without usurpation Tit. 1.15 1 Tim. 4.4 5. 3. A recompence they have in graces equivalent here Mar. 10.29 30. by an happy commutation 4. And in the life to come full fruition of that happiness which passeth all the felicity earth can afford unto them 5. Besides there is in the best something that turns many of these earthly blessings into poyson as Agur intimates Prov. 30.8 9. And experience daily teacheth In that case therefore if the Lord keep us short to prevent our mischief shall we say his promises is not made good 6. Finally our wants in this kinde are usually chastisements of particular disobedience c. From whence followes as a just consectary this
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
perseverâsse quod acceperat ut nasceretur Isaac Observ The difficulties thus rid let us now see what we may observe for our further profit Where first offers it self that distinction of faith according to the divers degrees and measures thereof in believers There is weak faith and strong faith there are men of no faith as infidels men of weak faith as novices men strong in faith as was Abraham Matt. 14.31 O thou of little faith saith Christ to Peter Matth. 15.28 O woman great is thy faith saith our Saviour to the Canaanitish woman Christ found not so great faith in Israel as in the Centurion some in Israel not so great as in an alien The greatness or smalness of faith is three wayes considered 1. In respect of the things to be believed so it is more or less according as things believed are more or lesse in number 2. According as things believed are more or less distinctly conceived the more implicite faith is the less it is the more explicite the greater 3. According as the assent to things believed is more or less firm more or less free from doubting and in this last sense we must conceive the Apostle Abraham strong in faith because he doubts not of the promise Questions here offering themselves are these First whether weak faith have in it justifying virtue or Whether a man weakly believing have title to justification according to the Covenant Answ Weak faith if true gives title to justification our Saviour speaking of faith miraculous saith The least degree of it even the grain of mustard seed Luke 17.6 is available to miracles even of greatest nature it holds proportionally of faith justifying to the uses whereto it serves the least measure is of force to justification 2. Add hereunto that it is not the greatness of faith that justifieth Faith as it is a virtue or gift in us hath not justifying virtue but as it apprehends the righteousness of Christ whereby we are justified which apprehension may be as true in him that believes weakly as in him whose faith is more firm 3. It is not to be forgotten that as the defects of other gifts and parts of obedience are covered with Christs perfection so that they hinder not justification so is also the imperfection of faith Secondly it may be demanded How we may discern our faith to be true while it is weak Answ It is true if 1. It strive against doubting and infidelitie 2. If it be carefull to get strength by means that God hath sanctified Luc. 17.5 Mar. 9.24 3. If that weak perswasion we have of Gods love and pardon of our sins breed care to purifie our hearts and to please God Act. 15.9 The next point in the text is the signes of strength in Abrahams faith two in number First this That he considered not the opposition in course of nature made against the promise 2. That he doubted not of the promise nor debated the matter how it could have accomplishment For the first Whether we consider it as a signe or as a means of Abrahams firmness in believing is not much materiall It is no small signe of stable faith to passe by notice of things that oppose Gods promise and a great means to stablish faith the withdrawing of our minds from beholding the things that may hinder the accomplishment of Gods promise This once is clear that the first step to incredulity is the loosing of our thoughts to rove towards things opposing Gods promise and demitting our minds to behold the impediments of second causes Thus fell Zachary incredulously to question the promise of God whiles he considered his own and his wife 's old age disabled as he thought for procreation Luc. 1.18 Thus Sarah in like sort Gen. 18.12 thus Moses Num. 11.21 Thus Gods children at this day Their sins great therefore not capable of pardon Corruptions strong and settled by evil custome therefore not possible to be mortified Grace small temptations many and violent therefore perseverance impossible Vse It is our wisdome and will be our comfort in this particular to hold semblance with Abraham where we have Gods promise seem it never so incredible rest in it and that thou mayest so do beware how thou give way to flesh and bloud drawing down thy thoughts to the course of nature To many yea most of the promises made to us in Christ gainsaying we shall find in nature reasons of believing onely in the power truth and goodness of God and in the merit and obedience of Christ the ratifier of the promises 2. Cor. 1.20 The second signe of Abrahams strength in faith is That he doubted not of the promise where also the generall cause of doubting is expressed that is unbelief Touching the sense see the former explanation The points we have here observable 1. A difference betwixt faithlesness and doubtfulness such as is betwixt the Cause and the Effect Not every one that doubts is faithless though doubting argue some measure of unbelief A man merely faithless denies all assent to truth propounded in doubtfulness is some assent though not without fear that the contrary may be true I observe it the rather respecting the weakness of some amongst Gods Children that perplexed with doubtings pass censure of meer faithlesness upon themselves Saith our Saviour to Peter doubting * Mat. 14.31 oh thou of little faith wherefore didst thou doubt Doubtings argues weakness of faith not a nullity of believing A Second point observable is the fountain of doubtfulness and that is unbelief doubting is a fruit of unbelief so far as we are doubtfull so far are we faithless from faith proceeds nothing but certainty wavering therefore issues from want of faith If any demand whether such as doubt may be presumed to have faith Answ Doubtfulness though it agree not to the nature of faith yet may meet with faith in the same subject Why not as well as other corruption with grace Flesh with spirit knowledg with ignorance rebellion with obedience hard-heartedness with remorsefulness c. So hath God tempted all gifts of the spirit in us that their contraries are abated not abolished Whence issue in Gods Children acts not of grace only but of corruption also yea in the same act of Gods Saints a spice of corruption as well as a rellish of grace see Rom. 7.23 Gal. 5.17 And as the argument is ill there is some rebellion therefore no inclination to obedience some corruption therefore no grace so as ill followes it there is some doubtfulnes therefore no faith But though this be true yet doubtfulness hath no other fountain then unbelief And it serves first to shew the vain contentment and self-pleasing many through misprision conceive from their doubtings even hence concluding the sincerity of faith from the sense of doubtings Their errour I would gladly reform and it springs from hence We say truly it is presumption not faith that 's never encountred with doubtings and they have no faith
nations and my self also shall be blessed The premisses these God that hath promised is faithfull and able to give it In respect of the premisses his faith is generall In respect of the conclusion particular as we see In like sort we conceive the faith of every justified man to proceed from generalls to their own particular and to the particular by virtue of the generals Assent they yield to generals but with reference still to particulars For example That which for comfort of conscience cast down by the Law they believe is this particular conclusion My sins are or shall be forgiven me How come they to believe this particular Answ By belief of generals The sins of all that believe in Christ are for Christs sake forgiven according to Gods promises in the Evangelical Covenant therefore my sins are forgiven me since I have received by grace to rest on Christ for the pardon of my sins so is faith justifying Generall in respect of the premisses Particular in respect of the conclusion Their third deduction Faith concurrs to justification not as an instrument but as the formal cause of our righteousness For Abrahams faith was imputed justice c. Bellarm. de justif l. 1. c. 2. Ipsa fides censetur esse justitia Answ Whether whole justice or justice in part They answer justice in part for it is only Initium justitiae according to their conceit The sense then must be this absurdly Faith is counted justice that is the beginning of justice And Abrahams faith must be his justice in part only whereas the Apostle ascribes to Abraham whole justification in respect of his faith or else forgets the state of the question For this Scripture the sense is this Sense Abrahams faith was imputed to righteousness that is set on his score or taken notice of so far that the Lord in respect of it allowed him the esteem of righteousness See supra ad vers 3 4 5. The substance of Doctrine conceived in this verse hath been already handled ad vers 3. Pass we from it therefore to the third member of the Chapter the applying of all that hath been said of Abrahams justification to us VERS 23 24 25. Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him But for us also to whom it shall be imputed if we believe on him that raised up Iesus our Lord from the dead Who was delivered for our offences and was raised again for our justification THe passage to this last member we may thus conceive The Apostle supposeth some weakling thus to enquire It is true Theophylact. ad loc quid nostra interest thou hast taught of Abraham that his faith was to him imputed to righteousness But what is that to us Answ It was not written for him only as matter of his glory and priviledg but for us also for our profit and comfort The points of the text are three First The use and comfort arising to us from the records of Abrahams justification Secondly The condition required of us to the end we may share with Abraham in the blessing of justification Thirdly The Reason brought to assure us of like favour in like faith c. for better confirming the comfort unto us It was not written for him only c. but for us also Where first observe we The method of conversing in the histories of the Saints let it still be with reference to our selves and our use They were written for us see Rom. 15.4 Heb. 11. and 12. Their favours for our comfort their chastisements for our terrour their vertues to our patterns their falls for our caution And it is idle to conceit them as encomiasticall narrations of their glory only Gods Spirit intended their records to our benefit A Second generall here observable is That Gods mercifull proceedings with his children are exemplary he justified Abraham believing he shall justifie us also performing like faith He pardoneth Paul repenting his blasphemies and made him a pattern to all that shall believe in him to eternall life 1 Tim. 1.16 He saved Noah from the deluge delivered Lot from the fire of Sodome Peters inference from these particulars is this generall God knows to deliver his out of temptation 2 Pet. 2.9 It is therefore a discomfortable misprision of Gods Children in temptations to conceive Gods favour as the priviledges of some eminent amongst his Saints and their great weakness to study differences betwixt themselves and others in points of necessary comforts For to yield that there were that had their speciall prerogatives in some particulars as Prophets to be taught by dreams and visions and immediate inspirations c. Yet in matter generally necessary for comfort of conscience and eternall salvation what was vouchsafed one may be expected of all 1. The Covenant is made with all without difference with the least as well as with the greatest Ier. 32.40 2. The mediation of Christ available for all 1 Tim. 2.4 of all sorts sexes nations and ranks of men God is he the God of Abraham only nay even of his seed also Christ is he the Mediatour for Apostles only nay even for all that the Lord hath given him out of the world Ioh. 17.9 Their is neither male nor female bond nor free weak nor strong but all are one in Christ Jesus The same blood of Christ redeemed all the same love of God embraced all the same spirit seals all to the day of redemption the impression in some is more evident then in others the image all one wherewith all are stamped and thereby sealed unto the day of redemption The only thing that concerns us is to provide we resemble in our behaviour the Lord we shall finde impartiall in his favours if we be not dissonant in our demeanure and that is the next thing the text leads unto To us it shall be imputed as to Abraham believing as Abraham in him that raised up Iesus from the dead Observ The generall instruction the text affords is this That a man desiring to partake the favours of the Saints must be carefull to resemble the practice of Saints Wouldest thou be justified as Abraham believe as Abraham pardoned as Paul repent as Paul delivered as Lot be righteous as Lot The same God is a like to all in his blessings that are alike to him in their obedience There is a generation of men enviously emulous of the priviledges of Gods Children dissolutely careless of their behaviour Let my soul dye the death of the righteous saith Balaam but the hellish wretch cares not to live the life of the righteous Bernard in Psal qui Habitat Ser. 7. life of the righteous Tantus est pietatis fructus saith Bernard tanta justitiae merces ut ne ab ipsis quidem non desiderari queat impiis injustis I would the conditions might seem as reasonable as the reward is glorious But the complaint of that Father who sees it not fitting the times quam
pauci post te o domine Iesu ire volunt cum tamen ad te pervenire Nemo sit qui nolit Lord Jesu How few are they that are willing to go after thee when as yet there is no man but desires to come unto thee as knowing that at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore Et propterea volunt omnes te frui at non ita imitari conregnare cupiunt sed non compati Hence is it that all men would enjoy thee but they like not so well to resemble thee fain they would raign with thee loath they are to suffer with thee Et mox mortem spiritualium optant sibi etiam carnales quorum tamen vitam abhorrent Brethren like rewards require like labours like favours like duties They fail not of Abrahams blessing that follow Abrahams faith and let them never expect his comforts that refuse to resemble his virtues That for the Generall View we now the Words wherein are two things First The duty it self required of us to the end we may share with Abraham in the blessing of justification believing in God Secondly The object thereof God set out here by a periphrasis who raised up Iesus from the dead Sense Sense Believing in God The words thought not delivered in that form yet import the condition required of us to justification and are therefore well rendred according to the sense by some translatours If we believe or so that we believe Some here conceive the Apostle to deliver us the nature of justifying faith and to resolve us that it is rather an affiance or putting trust in God then an assent or giving credit to the truth of his promise The question hath been largely discussed ad vers 3. Whether I remit the Reader We may better hence collect the necessity of putting trust in God for righteousness to justification then a description of the faith that justifieth And that is it the Apostle directly teacheth that to justification is necessary a relying upon God through Christ and putting confidence in him for justification and withall the infallible sequel of justification upon our confidence placed in God for that blessing As touching the nature of faith justifying the Apostle intends not here to teach us yet shall it not be amiss on this occasion to propound some arguments brought for that conclusion as I heard them lately in conference with a friend reverend for learning and piety Mr. J.D. His judgment was that faith justifying was rather an affiance and resting on Christ for righteousness then a perswasion of Gods love in Christ or an assent to the promises of the Gospel His arguments these First Faith that justifieth be it what it will be must needs go before justification it self so doth affiance so not particular faith For it must first be true that God justifieth me before I can believe it and in order of nature there is truth in the proposition before the assent is given to the truth of it Answ The propositions of the Gospel we may conceive to offer themselves to our minde either in terms of the future tense or sub verbis de praesenti or praeterito As thus God will pardon my sins and accept me to his favour for Christ or thus God hath pardoned my sins and doth accept me as righteous in Christ accordingly the assent thereto is either as to a thing that shall be or as to a thing already done In the first obtaining of justification the assent of faith is to the proposition De futuro and that we are sure had actual truth from everlasting concerning all those that shall be heirs of salvation The assent to the proposition de praesenti or praeterito is in order of nature after justification In time for all that they are simul the proposition de futuro is in nature before it so soon as I believe that God will pardon he pardons Before I believe that he hath pardoned he hath pardoned And that I think may suffice to assoyl that doubt so expertly and acutely contrived Besides this they should attend that the affiance they speak of issues out of the perswasion we have of Gods love to us in Christ for who can relye on God for righteousness and salvation that hath not some perswasion that God is a father to him in Christ So that what argument concludes the precedence of confidence to justification concluds much more a precedence of particular assent out of which as out of a fountain that affiance issueth And howsoever it be true that such assent as is spoken of receives strength from our affiance yet from it no otherwise then from other gifts of sanctification namely as from evidences and signes and as I may term them qualifications of our persons and dispositions as it were to entitle us to the Promises or rather to evidence the title we have according to the Covenant unto the merits and benefits of Christ The second argument was as I conceived it on this manner To faith justifying all men are bound To particular perswasion of Gods will to pardon sins all are not bound For God binds no man to believe an untruth there are some of whom it never was nor shall be true that God will pardon their sins as Reprobates Ergó Answ Zanch. de natura Dei lib. 5. c. 2. That which is ground of his Argument I confess I find amongst our Divines more resolutely determined then distinctly explained Their conclusion is that all men even Reprobates are bound to believe that they are in Christ Elected to Salvation These reasons seem to make against it First for that there are and ever have been many to whom the name of Christ or the benefits in him conveyed unto us were never known And Paul seems to say of such Rom. 2.12 as sin without the Law they shall perish without the Law By proportion we may say They that sin without the Gospel shall perish without the Gospel The not giving credit thereto shall not be imputed to their condemnation in as much as it was never revealed unto them By consequence therefore there was no bond upon their conscience to believe it Moreover particular assent riseth from that particular Testimony of Gods spirit with ours Rom. 8.16 Which who can say to be vouchsafed to Reprobates But yield ex abundanti that Reprobates at least in the Church are bound to believe it What then It follows thence that God binds them to believe an untruth Answ An untruth in the thing No untruth to them except by their own default because that howsoever God hath revealed that there are some Reprobates Yet reveals he to no man in this life his own Reprobation And as the rule of our actions is not Gods secret but revealed will so the rule and measure of Faith is not truth secretted but truth revealed St. August Enchirid ad Laurent Augustine sticks not to say that a man may will what is contrary to
would thus be understood not that it excludes beliefe of the rest of Gods word but that as it justifies it respects only the Gospel And further this assent they make of two sorts one generall whereby we believe the Gospel to be true another speciall whereby we believe it to be true to us A third sort there are that make it meerly an affiance or confidence in God and his Christ for pardon of sins and salvation The last is of them that make it partly an assent particular partly affiance of these let us enquire which comes nearest unto the truth As touching that of Papists making it only a generall assent to the truth of the whole word of God without any particularlizing either of the object or of the assent The reasons are forcible against it First For that by this means justification is extended to sundry reprobates yea after a sort to divells for if this be the faith that justifyeth namely whereby men assent to the truth of the word of God Iam. 2.19 then must all in whom such faith is be partakers of justification but only the * Rom. 8.30 predestinate are justified reprobates and divells not so Ergo. Secondly Our next reason is from the effects of faith justifying one speciall whereof is that it makes our service all * Heb. 11.6 acceptable to God through Iesus Christ Now how a generall assent to the truth of Gods word without a particular perswasion of his love to us in Christ should thus sweeten our services I would have them explain sith none pleaseth 1 Ioh. 4.19 but what issues from love of God and that again flowes from our perswasion of Gods love to us in Christ Add unto this those other gracious effects or faith justifying as that it breeds peace of conscience Rom. 5.1 Patience yea joy in afflictions under hope certain of glory boldness of appearing before God in prayers c. yea in the day of judgment Can these be imagined to flow from generall faith These and many the like reasons sufficiently overthrow that dream of generall faith Let us examine these Reasons the summe of them I will briefly propound The First lyes thus the faith described by the Apostle Heb. 11. is not a speciall perswasion of Gods speciall mercy or an affiance therein but only a generall assent to the truth of the whole word of God But the faith there described is justifying faith Ergò Justifying faith is not a perswasion of Gods speciall mercie or a confidence therein but a general assent to the truth of the whole word of God Answ To the minor I thus answer that its easily confessed that the Apostle in that whole Chapter describes that faith that justifies But whether he intend an exact definition of the nature of it as it justifieth or rather a setting out and commendation thereof by the effects and properties is the question And its apparent that the Apostles purpose is not so much to give us an exact definition of the nature of it as to exhort to continue therein by arguments drawn from the properties and wonderfull effects that were wrought by it in the Saints that have gone before us as appears there and in Hebr. 10. and 12.1.2 For first think we the Apostle so ill an Artist as to compose his definition of Terms amost all figurative as ver 1. if he desired exactly to set down the nature of it to our understanding Besides that some of the effects ascribed there to faith are particular and almost personally belonging to the Saints there mentioned and which we cannot but foolishly expect to be wrought by our faith Now had the Apostle there intended to describe that faith that justifieth so as to shew us the nature thereof as it justifieth impertinently had those works as miraculous and of personall obedience been there inserted To the Major it is denied Even the faith there described is a speciall perswasion of Gods speciall mercy and an affiance therein For what though there be no mention made of any such specialty either of the perswasion or of the object or of the affiance cannot it therefore be such because it s there described by effects and properties The Apostle 1. Cor. 13 describes unto us at large true Christian charity by Necessity Effects perpetuall endurance shall we now say that Charity is no benevolous or wel-wishing affection towards our neighbour because there is no express mention made thereof where it is purposely described Adde unto this That this speciall perswasion of Gods love in Christ and affiance in his mercy is there necessarily included it being impossible that any of these works of obedience could have been either so couragiously undertaken or so acceptably performed had they not had even such faith as we now enquire of Their second reason lies thus The faith which Christ required commended exhorted unto approved with miracles was onely a generall assent to the truth of the word of God as Matth. 9. and 16. Luke 7. Ioh. 1. c. But that faith which Christ so required and commended c. was faith justifying Ergò Justifying faith is onely a generall assent to the truth of the word of God or as Bellarmine himself inferrs the conclusion Kemnit qua suprà it hath for the object something else besides Gods speciall Mercy Answ If that be the conclusion it was never denied by our Divines but that the faith that justifieth hath for the object not speciall mercy onely but the whole word of God If that therefore be the conclusion the Adversary proves what is not denied For we grant if they will needs have it that its the same faith which believes both the History in generall and which receives and rests on the speciall mercie of God for justification But the questions be 1. Whether generall faith alone suffice to justification 2. Whether the object of faith justifying as it is justifying be the promises of the Gospel as they concern us The first of these we deny the second we avow and prove ut suprà there is none of us that ever denied but that its the same faith which assents to the truth of the word of God in generall and which justifieth us in the sight of God But if we speak of faith as its justifying so we say it respects particularly the promise of the Gospel I illustrate what I mean by this similitude It s the same soul whereby a man lives moves exerciseth sense and useth reason but yet if the question be What it is in the soul that forms a man to his particular nature We say it s the soul not as it gives life motion or sense but as it useth reason Even so c. Now to the proofs of the adverse part I answer that the Major is untrue The faith which Christ required was not onely a generall assent to the truth of the word of God concerning his person power offices c. but principally it was
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
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
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
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 4â— 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
was fully assured 2. The matter subject of his perswasion or the Proposition to which Abraham thus fully assented That what God had promised he was able to perform where we may also conceive to be implyed the grounds of Abrahams so firm believing The promise and power of God Observ From the First we observe That faith in her strength Beza Paraeus ad loc Calvin Instit and perfection hath firmness yea fulness of assurance others otherwise conceive the note and thus collect That fulness of perswasion is of the nature and essence of Faith That none of Gods children erre to their discomfort thinking they have no truth of believing because they want fulness of perswasion thus much understand That in exact defining the custome is to consider virtues c. Abstractly from their subjects 2. In such abstraction to express their nature in terms importing their greatest excellency and perfection 3. Virtues morall and Theologicall they describe not as they are in our practice but as they ought to be by Gods prescript What now if faith in us be doubtfull yet in it self and according to its own nature it is a full perswasion What though in the disposition and beginnings it be wavering yet in the excellency and perfection it is of infallible certainty What if our practice of faith be weak yet God requires perfection of it and our striving must be to perfection prescribed Vse Thus let us use it As an occasion to humble our selves for our doubtings Augustin Epist 29. ad Hieron for that which Augustine saith of charity is as true of faith profectò illud quod minus est quà m debt ex vitio est yet thus much withall Let us not so far deject our selves as to think we have no truth of faith because we want perfection and fulness of assurance yet may faith be in truth where that measure is not attained See Annot. ad vers 20. as the truth of humane nature in an infant wanting the strength of grown men The matter of Abrahams perswasion followeth That what he had promised he was able also to perform The points observable are 1. That faith even justifying is an assent rather then affiance having for his object terminum complexum whereof see Annot. ad vers 3. 2. Take notice of two speciall grounds for faith to rest on the promise and power of God both joyntly considered establish faith sever either from other thou makest faith either phantasticall or wavering Hereof see Annot. ad ver 17. VERS 22. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness THe fruit of Abrahams faith is here expressed that is his justification The depravations of this Scripture by Adversaries are many Let us briefly take view of them The first is from the illation Therefore it was imputed c. Hence they collect that faith avails to justification virtuously and by way of merit Man is justified by faith not because it apprehends the promise but because it obteins remission of sinns suo quodam modo etiam mereatur how infer they the conclusion out of this Scripture The Apostle in this place saith Bellarmine Bellar. de just lib. 1. cap. 17. sets down the cause why Abrahams faith was reputed justice to wit because by believing he gave glory to God therefore for the merit of that faith he justified Abraham Where first let us weigh how they utterly crosse the intention of the Apostle in his whole discourse which is to exclude all merits of men from justification can we imagine he excludes the merit of other works to substitute the merit of faith 2. Besides that it is easily observable that the Apostle maintains a continuall opposition betwixt faith and merit as ver 4. To their argument thus we answer That the Apostles illation indeed implyes a sequel of justification upon the performance of faith yet none such as is caused by the merit and excellency of the gifs or work of faith above other works and this is that deceives them that they can conceive no connexion betwixt our offices and Gods benefits but what the worth and merit of our performances causeth Know we therefore 1. That there is an infallible connexion betwixt faith and justification so that every one believing is without faith justified But 2. If the reason of this connexion be demanded it is apparently Gods covenant and promise therefore shall every believer receive remission of sins because so runs the promise in the covenant of grace Believe and thy sins shall be forgiven August de verb. Apost Serm. 16. Augustines speech for the generall let be remembred Debitor factus est Deus non aliquid à nobis accipiendo sed quod ei placuit promittendo Abraham believed and was therefore justified the cause if we seek is the promise of God not the worth of his faith which 1. Is a duty 2. Gods gift 3. In us imperfect And if Abrahams faith were the meritorious cause of his justification I demand whether as faith or as such faith that is whether in respect that he believed or in respect that he believed in this full measure was he justified If in respect of his measure then methinks it will follow that only such measure of faith sufficeth to justification so the disciples of Christ so doubtfull and wavering in many main articles till after Christs ascension must be reputed for that time unjustified if faith simply in what measure soever then can it not be meritorious sith in the beginnings it is so ful of imperfection Thus I conclude Faith is an antecedent no cause properly of justification justification a consequent of believing no effect issuing out of the virtue and merit of faith Trelcat Instit de justific the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore notes not the cause of the consequent but of the sequel or consequence saith a learned Divine Their second collection is this Rhemens ad loc That faith justifying is a generall faith whereby we assent to the truth of Gods speeches in generall Bellarm. de justif lib. 1. cap. 11. and no such speciall faith or affiance as Protestants require to justification Their reason The faith whereby Abraham was justified was no other then this A general perswasion of Gods faithfulness and power at large Ergò Answ The question hath been largely handled ad vers 3. whither I refer the Reader To their argument thus I answer their antecedent is untrue Abrahams faith was not of Gods truth and power in generall onely but of both applyed to the particular promised From these generals he concluded the particular touching the seed in whom all nations should be blessed In his believing and the matter of it we must conceive something propounded and considered as a conclusion somthing as an argument or premisses inferring the conclusion to both which Abraham assented To the conclusion by virtue of the premisses The conclusion was particular I shall have a seed in whom all
an action best available for confidence in that respect to relye upon namely His raising of Jesus from the dead The like in sundry other places is observable Would they humble themselves for their sins they consider God as terrible and dreadfull in his judgments would they raise up themselves with comfort they consider him as a God that heepeth Covenant and promise as a father of mercies and God of all consolation would they stablish hope in expectation of things passing the course of nature they consider his endless power able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we can aske or think There is a confused apprehension of the deity for the most part liveless and ineffectuall when men ingross only and indistinctly mediate the Divine nature without reference to particulars concerning the present occasion And another as preposterous unseasonable and no less uncomfortable when men fit their faith with meditation of that that is most unseasonable for their present state God is merciful saith the presumer he is just saith the desperate distressed Both true he is just and mercifull saith the Psalmist but should not faith in wisdome contemplate what is fittest for the present necessity This wisdome pray we for The last thing in this period remains The Reason brought to assure us of like favour in like faith for better confirming the comfort unto us Vers 25 Who was delivered for our offences and was raised again for our justification The force of the argument thus conceive God the Father hath delivered his Son to death for expiation of our sins he hath raised him which was our surety to assure us of our justification doubt not therefore but he will justifie thee believing on him through Christ In the words the Apostle sends us to consider two things as pillars for faith to rest on for justification First is The cause meritorious Christ death Secondly The evidence of the value and worth of his humiliation His resurrection from the dead This text saith one is Brevis largus short in words large in sense Let us view the particulars In the first member are these 1. Who delivered 2. Who was delivered 3. Whereto 4. For what For the First Who delivered Pater filium Christus seipsum Iudas Dominum saith Austin The fact one the motives different which made Iudas his treason criminous Christs tradition of himself meritorious I point only at the heads Who was delivered Iesus our Lord A less price say some might have sufficed yea none at all had God been so pleased I think not considering the endless justice violated which God in our ransome intended to preserve and manifest Rom. 3. Delivered why saith he delivered rather then crucified To lead us by the hand to the first cause thereof the determinate councells of the Blessed Trinity Act. 4.27 28. I could command Legions of Angells for deliverance Mat. 26.35 saith our Saviour to Peter but how then should the Scripture be fulfilled how the Fathers purpose and councels accomplished VVhereto To death even the shamefull and cursed death of the cross Phil. 2.8 That so we might be delivered from the curse of the Law Gal. 3.13 Incomparable Benignity of the Father unmatcheable compassion and humility of our blessed Saviour For what For sins for our sins whether we conceive sin as the efficient cause procuring these things unto our Saviour or tropically intepret For sins that is for expiation of sins it is not greatly materiall This latter hath some Auncients approving it however Socinus laugh at the strangeness of it Theodoret He underwent his passion Theodoret. ad loc Vt nostrum debitum exsolveret not much unlike Ambrose And that of the Prophet cannot better be expounded Isai 53.10 His soul an offering for sin that is to expiate sin The senses are subordinate sins procured it by it sins were expiated and to expiated them Christ was delivered see Isai 53. 1 Pet. 2.24 For our sins Our in this case 2 Cor. 5.21 hath a threefold Antithesis 1. To Christ 2. To Angells 3. To Vnbelievers For ours not his own He was holy harmeless seperate from sinners knew not sin per experimentum as Augustine interprets see 1 Pet. 2.22 23 24. Heb. 7.26 Isai 53. Augustin de peccat Merit Remiss lib. 2. cap. 35. Sine peccato natus est in similitudine carnis peccati sine peceato vixit inter aliena peccata sine proccato mortuus est propter nostra peccata as Saint Augustine Ours not Angells Heb. 2.16 In no place he assumes the Angells but the seed of Abraham It may be there was something eminent in their sin that excludes them but let us take heed whiles we seek the reason of our preheminence in the quality of the sinners we forget the Lords 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the specialty of his love to man that only caused it Nunquid Angelo Bernard de Passione Domini sed ille non eguit Nunquid Diabolo sed ille non resurget as Bernard Ours that believe Ioh 3.16 Not for sins of unbelievers yes say some sufficiently for theirs that distinction I stand not to examine The question is this Whether intentionally for the sins of any but believers They shall never be able to prove that the intention is larger then the efficacy or that his death was not effectuall to procure remission for all unto whose benefit it was intended The heads of this first member we have seen let us with like brevity see to what use they serve us Vse First They direct us to a right estimate of our sins a point wherein alack how partially blind are the most of us The matter we think small wherein we offend the act and pleasure momentany transient in a moment should justice be so strict as for such triflles to load us with eternall cursing or rather should mans malice be so dissolute as for such trifles to violate the endless majesty that loadeth us daily with so many blessings Learn rather by consideration of the necessary remedy to esteem the quantity of thy perill whereout nothing could suffice to rid thee but the death of the Son of God Agnosce ô homo quà m gravia sunt vulnera Bern. in Natal Domin Ser. 3. pro quibus necesse est Dominum Christum vulnerari si non essent haec ad mortem mortem sempiternam nunquam pro eorum remedio dei filius moreretur saith Bernard sweetly Secondly As they teach us compunction so minister they unto us unspeakeable consolation sicut enim gravem agnosco morbum cuitanta apponitur medicina sic ex hoc ipso non incurabilem esse conjecto They know not the excellency of Christ person nor the worth of his bloud that question the availableness thereof to purchase redemption Let strictest justice ballance our sins with Christs satisfaction this shall be found infinitely to preponderate Some weakly perhaps will say of the valew he doubts not but of the avail for