proportion to us that is the fulfilling of the whole Law Gal. 5.3 our Saviour to such a boaster asking What he must do to inherit salvation suits answer to his proud humour Thou knowest the Commandments if doing be the means thou seekest to inherit by Keep the Commandments this do if thou wilt needs be doing and thou shalt live fail in the least apex the Curse is upon thee Gal 3.10 Now dares any arrogate power of fulfilling the Law it is strange yet what will not Popish pride assume Anathema to them saith the Trent Council whosoever shall say Dei praecepta homini etiam justificato sub gratia constituto esse ad observandum impossibilia of that question hereafter 2. Add unto this that other reason of the Apostle Christ becomes of no effect to such as by the Law seek to be justified or saved Gal. 5.4 3. They are fallen from Grace not which they had but which they might have had had they not renounced it by cleaving to their works Shal I need now to exhort in the Apostles terms Gal. 1.6 to hold Anathema all such as teach us by works to seek salvation they deprive us of the promised salvation exclude from fellowship in Christs merits the sole pillar of hope deprive us of Gods grace which alone is made the fountain of salvation I say not but other errors in the foundation obstinately holden deprive of salvation I say not but all heresies in their kind are so many blasphemies against God Neither blame I the rigour of Magistrates that with extraordinary severity labour to bring Hereticks and their heresies into ashes But surely an errour more pernicious to the souls of Gods people more derogatory to the glory of Gods grace and the validity of Christs merits I know none then this of Justitiaries and can but wonder How the severity of Laws against Popish Seminaries hath gotten relaxation that it should now no longer be holden Capitall so dangerously to seduce Gods people to evacuate the virtue of Christs death and to plunge so many souls bought with the precious bloud of Christ into eternal perdition Amongst Jews no recompense might be taken for bloud but the bloud of the slayer the bloud of souls how cries it lowder then the bloud of Abel And yet the Murtherer hath benefit of sanctuary More I add not save this onely He loves not his own salvation that hates not the enemies of the grace of God VERS 15. Proceed we in the Text Because the law worketh wratht for where no Law is there is no transgression The Scope THis verse tends to confirmation of the Apostles Consequence If they which are of the Law be Heirs then is the promise of none effect that is salvation promised can never be obtained How follows the argument The Apostle shews us by sending us to consider the effect or work of the Law such as it hath in all men since the fall The Law causeth wrath Ergò it frustrates the promise to all that cleave thereto for justification And this Antecedent hath proof from another effect of the Law betwixt which and wrath the connexion is inseparable to wit transgression it causeth transgression Ergò wrath This the context Sense For the sense view we a little the particulars they are principally two 1. The effect of the Law 2. The manner how it produceth his effect The effect of the Law is wrath whether Gods or mans Man 's saith Sasbout alledging to that purpose the judgement of Augustin neither dissent some of our own Divines Illyricus And if any ask How They answer by urging things upon the conscience as duties from which our vitious nature is most abhorrent as also by shewing how odious all a mans best actions yea his whole nature is and adjudging him to hel for his sins against those acts of the Law how doth mans vitious and proud nature storm that not without cause have learned interpreters thus expounded But fitlier to the Apostles purpose it is expounded of the wrath of God that is of the punishments which for transgression God is in his wrath ready to execute Now if any demand How the Law should have this effect Not of it self as if it were originally destined to subject man to punishment but by accident and occasionally onely in respect of our disobedience which sith it is by means of corrupt nature inevitable as inevitably doth the Law adjudge us to punishment as our vitious nature forceth us to rebellion This is the sense of the first clause It also hath its proof The Law causeth wrath for it causeth trangression betwixt which and Gods wrath the connexion is inseparable How we shall hear by and by if we shall first view the manner of the Apostles reasoning It is thus as most conceive A contrario sensu Where is no Law there is no transgression therefore where the Law is there is transgression But what if we conceive the Apostle to reason à signis Where is no Law there is no transgression an apparent signe that is that by means of the Law transgression followeth take away the Law there is no transgression therefore apparent that by putting the Law we put transgression See we how how comes it that the Law draws with it so unavoidably transgression sith it forbids and threatens disobedience enjoyns and crowns obedience Answ Not of it self but by accident through the corruption of nature ut suprâ In man corrupted the Law hath a double advantage to further transgression 1. Because by it corruption is provoked to be the more sinfull as in men unregenerate Rom. 7.5 13. 2. Through impotencie and weakness that remains in nature even reformed to perform that obedience which the Law requires in that manner it requires it Rom. 8.3 Some other explanations might be annexed as this Every sin is therefore sin because it violates some Law take away all Law thou takest away all sin for sin essentially presupposeth some prescription of Law violated Had not God by his Commandment forbidden Adam the eating of the fruit it had been no sin in him to eat it This is a truth but not all tâ—â— Apostle here intends whose purpose is to shew not sâ— much the necessity of a Law to the being of sin as the necessary sequel and exsistence of sin in man since the fall by occasion of the Law Observ The point then observable is this That the law is so far from restoring us to Gods favour that it occasioneth his wrath so far from justifying that it condemns so far from being means of righteousness that it occasioneth transgression Hence called the Ministry of condemnation and death 2 Cor. 3.7 and the very strength and vigour of sin 1 Cor. 15 56. That not without cause said Luther though therefore traduced by Papists the law alwayes accuseth terrifieth condemneth The severall branches will be evident if we shall clear the last only and shew how inevitably it draws after it transgression in
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
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
the guilt and punishment thereof c. is onely removed the thing it self remaining still in us Manet pccatum sed jam non dominatur c. Bern. in Psal Qui habitat Serm. 10. evulsum quodammodo nondum tamen expulsum dejectum sed non prorsus ejectum saith Bernard of men regenerate A second question here usually discussed is Whether whole justification stands in remission of sins I shall not need to shew how fitly this place affords the question it is shewn plentifully by others In this question my purpose is not to deal at all against Papists but to handle it as it is now controverted among our own Divines The answer thereto by those that think iustification in this question to signifie nothing but acquitall and discharge from sin must needs be this That it stands onely in remission of sinns for what is it to acquit from sin but to remit sins And this seems strange to me that men urging that signification of the word to be proper to this question can seek for any other thing to make up the entirety of Justification Is it nothing to be justified but to be acquit from sin then sure to be justified implies no more but to have sins remitted Either therefore we must grant that to justifie in this question signifies somewhat more or else that whole justification stands in remission of sins And let that be the first argument Justification in Scripture signifies onely a quittal Ergò To this answer must be made if any be to purpose that to iustifie hath some other signification so some labour to shew That it signifies sometimes to make just as Rom. 4.5 sometimes to account or pronounce just or to give testimony of righteousness Luke 7.29 sometimes to give reward of righteousness 1. Kings 8.32 c. Whether these satisfie or no I had rather others judge then I determine Their second reason is from this place but diversly collected some thus David gives no where a full description of justification Ergò Whole justification is absolved in remission of sins Answ It cannot be shewed that either David or Paul intended here to describe much lesse perfectly to define justification For what though the Apostle doth purposely dispute of the means of justificatior must he needs therefore alledge this testimony of David to expresse the nature of it He proves by this testimony that justification is not by works because the justified man hath sins forgiven in his justification and so the argument follows well though justification be not here perfectly defined see suprà in Exposition nay consider that by this means his argument is as nothing for if remission of sins be whole justification will it follow thence that we are justified without works Excipiat quispiam Let justification stand in remission of sins that may yet be procured by works Others thus gather it To pronounce Blessed to impute righteousness to remit sins are all one with the Apostle Ergò Justification stands onely in remission of sins Answ The Antecedent is untrue Their third argument is that testimony Acts 13.39 and 2. Cor. 5.21 Paul in the first place tells us That by remission of sins he means justification from those things by which by Moses Law we could not be justified c. And in the other he shews we are reconciled by not having sins imputed Answ To the first the adverse part would answer that there is shewed Justification stands in remission of sins ex parte that being our part of justification but an other part there is and that is making us righteous with the righteousness of the Law which we have by imputation from Christ To the second the answer would be made that our reconciliation stands partly in not imputing sinne and it is usuall to declare the whole by some part as whole redemption by remission of sins Eph. 1. yet may we not say that redemption stands onely in remission of sinns Their chief reason is this for that justification is ascribed onely to the bloud of Christ now that bloud of Christ procured us nothing but remission of sins Answ It is answered that the bloud of Christ is there put synecdochicè for the whole obedience of Christ The other opinion is this That justification hath two parts 1. Our discharge from our sinns 2. Our furnishing with the righteousness of the Law Their reasons are these First for that we are said to be made righteous by the actuall obedience of Christ Rom. 5.19 as well as in other places to have remission of sins by his bloud Ob. By obedience may be understood his obedience in suffering 2. That the Law since the fall requires to justification not onely satisfaction for breaches by punishment but also that the obedience therein prescribed be performed else still the curse lies on us Answ It is answered 1. That we are not under the Law but under grace 2. That by remission of sins we have the righteousness of the Law for all sins as well of omission as of commission are cleared in the bloud of Christ 3. Because God in his word hath prescribed no other way to life but perfect obedience to the Law It is answered that in the Gospel another way is prescribed Believe and thou shalt be saved Acts 16. Mar. 16.4 Dan. 9.24 The Messiah is promised not onely to expiate sin but also to bring everlasting righteousness Answ What if that may be understood of that we perform in the studie of Sanctification Well whatever become of that controversie this conclusion we have evidently hence That in Justification we have perfect remission of sin See Acts 13.39 Papists themselves herein consent with us as we have seen before And will it not hence follow that therefore we are delivered from the whole guilt and punishment of our sins Here now they-begin to mince it for stablishing their doctrine of satisfaction to be made to Gods justice Sasbout ad loc Bellarm. ad Psal 31. and our release is they say onely from guilt of eternall punishment The question hath been largely discuffed ad cap. 3. Here onely I would have them reconcile their two opinions First that when sins are remitted they are utterly extinct and abolished so that there is nothing left that can be reputed sinne Secondly that there remains unto him that hath his sins thus remitted part of the guilt to be expiated by his own satisfaction Hear a subtile shift Remission of sins is either totall or partiall Totall when it is remitted quoad omnem poenam Partiall when it is remitted onely quoad culpam poenam aeternam Now where the remission is totall there is no reservation of any punishment where partiall onely in respect of eternal punishment there remaineth still reatus poenae temporalis Contra. But I demand whereon is that guilt founded Me thinks it must needs be on something that hath veram propriam rationem peccati Bellarm. de Justific l. 2. c. 7. ad Psal
all the posterity of Adam That mass let us conceive to admit this distinction part of it is meerly naturall such only as it is derived from Adam part sanctified and purged in a measure by the Holy Ghost For that meerly naturall it is confessed by adversaries it is so meerly rebellious against the law that the more it is restrained the more it rebells things prohibited therefore the more affected because prohibited confer Rom. 7. 8. The main question is touching those of Adams posterity that are by grace renewed whether in these also the law puts a necessity of transgressing Now howsoever we acknowledg that grace so far prevails against nature that there is something in every man regenerate so far from fretting against the law that it findes a kinde of complacentia and delight in the laws prescripts Rom. 7.22 Yet 1. Neither are we so wholly purged by grace but that there still remains in us part of that carnall wisdome that is not nor can be subject to the law Rom. 8.7 There still is a law in the members rebelling against the law of the minde Rom. 7.23 And 2. Though it were granted we are wholly freed from enmity to the law yet are we not wholly delivered from frailty in obedience in which last respect at least sinning even in men regenerate is occasioned by the law inevitably in respect of the event Let us yield then ex abuntdnti that transgression is not in Gods Children caused ex fremitu yet I hope it is occasioned ex infirmitate by frailty And though Gods Children sin not out of fury yet sin they out of impotency Besides the texts now alledged compare we the perfection of the righteousness which the law requires with the perfection of that holiness grace worketh and we shall not chuse but acknowledg that howsoever out of another principall yet sin is by the law occasioned infallably in the Children of God so long as they live here in the spirituall warfare see Rom. 7. For clearing of this point sith thereon turns the whole controversie It shall not be amiss to handle that controversie Whether the righteousness performed in the law to justification fall within compass of our power to perform so long as we live in this world Or whether all transgression of the law may be by any strength of grace here attained avoided In this question the opinions are three First That of Pelagians condemned long since to the pit of hell The law they say is possible to nature If a man would strive with his naturall abilities to the utmost he might perfectly fulfill the law without any assistance of grace supernaturall And the only reason why men fail in legall obedience is because they want will Touching this though I refer the Reader to what was long ago written pithylie and truly by S. Augustine Hierome and others only remember we what Paul that had more then nature professeth of himself To will is present but I finde not power to perform Rom. 7.18 He failed in obedience not for that he wanted will but because he lacked strength And least any should think it was his personall weakness he shewes the same impotency to be in all Gods Children even after regeneration Gal. 5.17 S. Augustine S. August de peccat merit Remiss lib. 2. cap. 17. ex abundanti yields to Pelagius that we may keep the law si volumus but the Hypothesis saith he is impossible We cannot will to make good the obedience of the law His reasons are because impediments unavoidable the will hath alwayes clogging it in this life 1. Ignorance 2. Infirmity And sometimes our wills are not moved to do what the law prescribes quia latet quod justum est sometimes quia minus delectat From both these who can say he is or can be free during state of this life Second opinion is that of Papists The Law is possible yea easie though not to Nature yet to Grace and anathama to him that shall say the Commandments of God are impossible to a man in state of Grace The judgement of our Churches stands thus obedience to the Law is thus distinguished there is an inchoate obedience standing 1. In love of the Law 2. Desire 3. Purpose 4. Endeavour to obey 5. Some measure of actuall performance 6. Grief for imperfections this is possible to every regenerate child of God There is also perfect and complete obedience which answers exactly to the rigour of the Law for matter manner measure of performance of this is the question and hereof teach we that by no measure of grace here given it can possibly be attained See we therefore the terms 1. What that obedience is which the Law requires 2. What measure of grace it is that God in this life gives to his children The justice of the law in Bernards terms must thus be qualified 1. It must be Recta according to rule so that all that is prescribed and onely what is prescribed must be done 2. It must be Pura free from blemish in manner and measure of performance 3. Firma steady for continuance without any the least intermission and interruption And this explanation hath ground Gal. 3.10 Where the law curseth to hell every man that continues not in all things written in the book of the law to do them In Hieroms term somewhat unusuall but significant the law requires to righteousness Impeccantiam that is Freedome from all sinne not onely that which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Enormity but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Infirmity and that explanation hath ground Rom. 6.23 because the wages of every sinne more or less is death According to the Apostles explication The righteousness of the law must be 1. Universall Gal. 3.10 so that no duty nor branch of duty in any Commandment may be omitted No sinne nor degree of sin against any precept may be incurred 2. As the law is spirituall Rom. 7.14 so prescribes it spirituall obedience not onely binding the outward man to good behaviour but reaching to the very thoughts and affections and ordering them so that though it were possible for a man to omit no outward act of duty enjoyned to incurre no outward act of sin forbidden yet evil purposes desires yea thoughts of evil approved yea if they arise from that inward principle Concupiscence unapproved disable us from being justified by the Law For the tenour thereof runs thus Love the Lord with all thy soul with all thy thought c. This measure of obedience we teach S. August de peccat merit Remiss l. 2. c. 6. c. not onely as Augustine that it never yet fell into any man in this life nor in likelihood shall be attained but that it is impossible to be reached unto That that term offend not know we that though all things are possible unto God nothing hard unto Him yet that infinite and boundless power of God admits a double limit 1. His nature hence said the
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
carriage He that takes not up his Crosse and follows me is not worthy of me saith our Saviour Matth. 10.38 Crux Christi facilis est nudum post Christum ire ludus est jocus est Christs crosse is easie to follow Christ stript of all helps of this life it is a matter of sport Hieron advers Pelag. lib. 2. a very play-game Thus S. Hierome Ironically His answer is this It is certain they are called light not simply but in comparison to the yoke of the Jews something he aimed at Thus we answer The Commandments of God must be two wayes considered 1. As propounded in the rigorous terms of the Law so the yoke is importable 2. As tempered to our weakness in the Gospel so comparatively light In respect 1. of the assister Gods Spirit 2. of the accepter that is content to approve endeavours Aug. Retract lib. 1. cap. 19. and to pardon omissions Augustine Omnia mandata facta deputantur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur Object Instances we have many of such as have kept the Law as of Zachary David Job c. to whom the Scripture gives the title of Just men Answ Just they are called because absque vitio free from notorious crimes non quia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 void of all sin even infirmities Hierome 2. Not simply just but in comparison to others of their times August de pecc mer. remiss l. 2. c. 12 Ex hominum qui sunt in terra comparatione laudatur Augustine 3. Just in respect of their endeavour for Zacharies foul incredulity is recorded and chastened so is Davids adultery and murther and Jobs defects in that grace wherein he was the greatest mirrour Object May do more then is commanded as sell his possessions and give them to the poore Answ Duties enjoyned are of two sorts 1. Some generally and perpetually binding 2. Some duties in casu as leaving goods life c. for Christs sake which though till God call to performance they are not necessary to be done yet stand they in force upon the conscience by Gods precept Quod ad praeparationem animi and in case the Lord call to actuall forsaking of goods or life it is so a duty that the omission thereof makes culpable of damnation Matth. 10.37 Object Impossibilia non ligant No man is bound to an impossibility yea it were not onely vain to propound impossible precepts but tyrannicall in God the Lawgiver to exact obedience Answ Man is to be considered 1. In pure nature 2. In impure nature 3. In nature purified 4. In nature glorified In nature pure before the fall they were possible In nature glorified they shall be possible In nature merely impure merely impossible In nature purified partly possible In perfection impossible Inst Then they bind not Answ It follows not God made man righteous at the first Eccles. 7.29 and hath not lost his right of exacting because we are wilfully disabled to performance In a word they are impossible not per se but ex accidenti Inst However yet vainly enjoyned Answ Nor that saith Augustine August de pec mer. remiss lib. 2. c. 16. In contemptorum damnatione facit Deus quod justum est in proficientium mundatione quod bonum est and the Apostle sets down uses sufficient as 1. To acquaint us with sin Rom. 3.20 2. To drive us to Christ Gal. 3.24 in whom God hath provided a remedie for our imperfections Legatur Bernardus Ser. 2. in vigil Nat. Dom. fol. 11. A Propterea mandata sua Object He that is born of God sins not 1. Iohn 3.9 Answ And yet saith the same Apostle If we say we have no sin there is no truth in us 1. Ioh. 1.8.10 Bern. serm 1. in Septuag Bernard thus interprets He sins not that is non permanet in peccato he lies not impenitently in his sin 2. Or thus tantundem est ac si non peccet pro eo scilicet quòd non imputatur peccatum 3. Augustine thus We are all after regeneration August de pecc mer. remiss lib. 2. c. 7 8. in part the children of the world though in part also we be the sonnes of God and though per quod filii Dei sumus per hoc non possumus peccare yet per hoc quod adhuc filii seculi sumus per hoc peccare adhuc possumus Other Expositions there are many the fittest these He sins not nor can sinne 1. Namely unto death 1. Joh. 5.18 2. Not with full or whole consent Rom. 7.15 Gal. 5.17 3. Not customarily practising known sins or in the Apostles phrase not walking after the flesh Rom. 8.1 The summe of all is this That in respect of frailtie of flesh and small measure of grace in this life given the righteousness of the Law is impossible the transgression of the law inevitable Vse Let us now see a little how we may use this conclusion to our profit and first I cannot here but take notice of that pride and arrogancy of our vulgar people then whom though none be more licentious in life yet none that arrogate to themselves greater purity or perfection of righteousness And howsoever they scoff at the very endeavour of purity in others though with never so feeling acknowledgement of imperfections yet who hath not heard that proud profession from their mouthes They can love God above all their neighbour as themselves To whom if our Saviour should propound like triall as to him in the Gospel that made like proud profession I doubt not but they should discover as much hypocrisie Our Saviour lighting on such a braggard that had from his youth up kept the Commandments to make him see his pride and hypocrisie propounds him not as Papists say A counsell of Perfection but a precept of triall Thou professest to love God above all and thy neighbour as thy self If that be so sell all that thou hast and give to the poore thou shalt have reward in heaven That precept to such a measure of love as was professed was not harsh But He goes away sorrowing saith the Text and thereby bewrayes his proud dissembling Let the triall be far more reasonable unto our people Leave but profane pastimes unlawfull profits for his sake you love so well this speech is as harsh to our proud dissembling self-loving people To us all Let me say as Paul Gal. 4.21 You that will needs be under the law for justification do ye not hear the law you look for righteousness by the law it causeth transgression for salvation it causeth wrath And is it not strange men acquainted with Scriptures should cleave so close to the justification of the Law I had once to deal with a Papist in this question and that of merit Mentior if he professed not that except he thought he could merit righteousness and salvation by his works he would never do any good work Miserable man are there not motives strong enough to
point at all the dreams and devices of the enemies of Gods grace with their cunning shifts in that no less then Sacrilegious diverting the more part of the glory of mans salvation from Gods grace to our selves Fitter occasion will hereafter offer it self only I say as Augustine Augustin tract in Ioh. 3. seeing God gives freely let us love freely quia gratis dedit gratis ama noli ad praemium diligere deum The Second point followes That it may be of grace it must be of faith This way of justification and no other preserves the glory of Gods grace entire Let us see how say some because grace is promised and given only to the believer Paraeus ad loc that is a truth But the Apostles purpose in this argument is not to shew the necessity of faith to the obtaining of grace but rather to the maintaining of the glory of Gods grace in the matter of our righteousness and salvation Let us enquire therefore how this means of justification by faith stablisheth grace and how that other by works either overthrows or empairs it May we say as some of late because faith is a free gift of God in us The like may be said of charity But take faith correlatively thou shalt see easily how this means of justification alone and no other makes grace glorious For if all our title to righteousness and salvation accrew to us only for the obedience sake of Christ apprehended by faith who sees not how entirely the glory of all belongs to the grace of God But I wonder how Papists with all their skill can uphold the concurrence of works in procuring our title to righteousness and salvation and not overthrow or clip at the least the glory of Gods grace Perhaps because our works proceed of grace but Dic sodes are they meerly of grace or partly of the power of nature Their common consent is that though grace be a principall yet naturall abilities have their partnership in every good work So much as they ascribe to nature so much they derogate from the grace of God See Annotat. ad cap. 3. vers 27. S. Bern Ser. 67. in Cantic 28. Deest gratiae quicquid meritis deputas as S. Bernard The Second argument followes That the promise may be sure and that to all the seed Whether we make this a second argument or a confirmation of the minor in the former is not much materiall If a new argument thus is the frame If the promise must be sure then must the inheritance be of faith But the promise must be sure Ergo. Take it the other way It is of grace Why Because else the promise cannot be sure I rather conceive it as a second argument though linked thus artificially with the former In it we have also two points First That the promise is sure Secondly That except the inheritance be of faith the promise cannot be sure Sure Whether in it self in respect of certain accomplishment or to us in respect of our apprehension and undoubtfull perswasion This later some insist on and thus give the sense If the inheritance depend on any thing except faith and grace we can never have any assurance to obtain the promise but must needs be filled with uncomfortable doubtings and uncertain waverings And that is a truth but not here directly taught The Apostle speaking of the certainty of the promise rather in it self then to our apprehension and perswasion though by Consequence this follows from the former Observ The Point is That the promise of inheritance is firm and shall have certain accomplishment Read for this Heb. 8.6 where the Apostle compares the two covenants together and shews that of grace to be preferred especially in respect of the certainty of it and of our attainment of the blessings therein conveyed And view 1. The Mediatour Christ in whose bloud it is ratified Heb. 10.2 The removall of impediments by mercifull pardon of sinnes and imperfections Heb. 8.3 The certain donation of graces necessary to attainment and our confirmation therein ibidem the certainty of accomplishment is easily discerned The more solid is our Hope and the more firm should be our faith and confidence as the Apostle inferres Heb. 10.23 So that neither violence of afflictions nor prevailing of heresies nor conscience of our own weaknesses and imperfections to which pardon is promised Heb. 8. nor any doubt of perseverance in state of grace should make us waver 2 Tim. 2.19 For he is faithfull that hath promised not onely salvation but pardon of sinnes donation of spirit perseverance and perfecting the work of grace to the day of the Lord Jesus Christ It is true there are duties required of us to the obtaining of the promises as faith and perseverance in faith obedience and perseverance in obedience but that God that requires them hath covenanted to work them Jer. 31. and 32.40 The next point is The necessity of faith and the property it hath peculiar to it self in making firm after a sort the promise the truth of this point will the better appear if we shall consider a little the consent and difference of the two Covenants Their agreement is this in both is promised Salvation and Blessedness of the Law it is said That if a man do it he shall live thereby as of faith he that believeth shall be saved Their difference stands 1. In the condition the Law requiring perfect obedience to be performed in our own persons threatning a curse to every transgression Gal. 3.10 The other Covenant requiring faith of the Messiah and sincere endeavour of obedience A second difference the Law requires perfect obedience promiseth neither ability to perform it nor pardon to any imperfection The Gospel so requires faith that it promiseth to work it so new obedience that withall the Lord covenanteth to make us walk in his statutes Ezek. 36. Yea and to pard on imperfections Jer. 31. Heb. 8. And besides delivers all these promises as ratified unto us in the bloud of Christ These things thus briefly laid together shew how faith onely makes the promise sure because to the believer promise is made 1. To remove impediments by pardon and sanctification 2. To enable to do and to persevere in doing whatsoever the Lord in the Covenant of grace requires to salvation Who can shew like promises made to the Worker that not without cause said the Apostle It must be of faith that the promise may be sure it being impossible by the Law to obtain the promises The third Argument from the extent of the promise both in the making and accomplishment It is made and must be sure to all the seed not onely to that of the Law but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham therefore it must be of faith and not of the Law The minor hath its proof in the latter end of the verse and is also further confirmed and illustrated vers 17. Abraham is the father of all
both Jews and Gentiles as it is written Therefore the promise must be sure to all the seed Sense That the force of the argument may appear See we briefly the sense of the words The whole seed of Abraham is here Paraeus as some think described by properties as I rather think distributed into kinds They that think it described imagine a trajection of the Article and thus render To the whole seed which is not onely of the Law but also of the faith of Abraham But against this exposition are these reasons 1. That by this means the promise shall be here restrained to the Jewish seed onely inasmuch as they onely are that seed of the Law whereas the Apostles purpose is to include the seed of the Gentiles as appears by the confirmation I have made thee a father of many nations And 2. The Emphasis of the argument lying in the universall particle is by this means much abated besides that the Trajection is harsh and hath no pregnant example in other Scripture nor warrant from circumstances of the place to approve it I rather conceive it as a distribution of Abrahams seed brought to illustrate and explain what the Apostle meant By the whole seed as if it had been said The seed of Abraham is of two sorts One part of the Law as the Jews another not of the Law but of the Faith of Abraham as the Gentiles To both these must the promise be sure which cannot be if the law be made the condition or mean of inheirtiance What is the ground of the Consequence this as I think because the Law was given to the Jews onely and not to the Gentiles Rom. 9.4 and 2.14 The question then here is Whether the Law were not given to Gentiles as well as to Jews Answ Some here distinguish on this manner The law of ordinances and ceremoniall rites was given onely to Jews that that enjoyns morall duties to Gentiles also as who say the Apostle spake onely of Ceremonies and not chiefly of the Law morall Was not then the Law morall given to the Gentiles how then binds it us to obedience Answ In the morall law we must consider two things 1. The substance of doctrines and prescriptions 2. The accidents and circumstances of giving For the substance of doctrine it belongs to all Jews and Gentiles as having at first an impression in mens hearts Gen. 2. and being by immediate voice of God delivered to Adam Touching accidents under which comes the delivery of it written in two Tables by the finger of God in Sinai so not given to Gentiles but to Jews onely no not to Abraham Isaac and Jacob as Moses amplifies the Lords love to the people of his time Deut. 5.3 He made not this Covenant with our fathers but with us The Negative seems absolute but is respective onely to the manner of giving But howsoever the law was given to the Gentiles whether in writing or otherwise the Apostles ground seems infirm Answ Supposing the Cavilsome objection of Justitiaries firm enough For this very circumstance they urged strangely in the point of justification that the law was given in writing to the Jews with promise of life to the observing thereof which in their judgement had been vain except righteousness might be in part by the law according to which supposition the Apostle in this place disputes see Gal. 3.17 Now though I love not extravagances yet let me have leave a little upon occasion of this question thus assoiled to note the idle inference of some Antisabbathists Therefore say they The precept of Sabbath binds not the Church of the Gentiles because the Decalogue was given onely to Jews Answ And why inferre they not the like for other Precepts and so become absolute Antinomi Object Forsooth other precepts are revived in Scriptures of the new Testament their recitall there gives them authority with us Answ Belike then no precept of the Decalogue binds futher then it is recited in the new Testament It was wont to be taught that the whole Decalogue stands in force for ever unto our consciences in respect of that congruence it hath with the Law eternall and the impression it once had in our hearts in Creation some rudera whereof in all the Commandments are to be found in very Ethnicks But to their argument It is fallacious and except it be limited untrue Take the Decalogue for the substance of precepts therein contained so it is given to Gentiles respect the circumstances and accidents of giving as the writing in so many letters and syllables c. so the peculiar favour of Iews but so understood it affords no such conclusion Leave we them and see what out of this argument we may observe Observ That is chiefly this An answer to a thread bare argument of Justitiaries ancient and modern that reason from the reviving of the Law in Sinai to prove an intention in the Law-giver to justifie us by the Law and to give us power to perform it to justification Answ If from that ground we may infer a possibility to be justified by the Law from the self-same may we prove justification to be peculiar to the nation of the Jews for theirs onely was the giving of the Law Rom. 9.4 But the promise belongs to Gentiles as well as to Jews Ergò Whereto then served the reviving of the Law Paul answers Gal. 3.9 It was added because of transgressions not so much to restrain them by prescriptions and threats Theoph. ad Gal. 3. as Chrysostome and Hierome and after them Theophylact Vt pro fraenis esset lex illa Iudaeis quae hos vel à mandatorum quorundam transgressu etsi non omnium prohiberet but rather to detect and discover them as Augustine centies interprets agreeably to the Apostle Rom. 3.20 and 5.20 Here also occurs that observation before made ad ver 11. That the promise of righteousness and salvation belongs to Gentiles believing and not to Jews onely because it hath been often fore-treated I will not long insist on it onely sith the Apostle is pleased so often to inculcate it and here to add new confirmation it shall not be amiss to explane his proofs against the foolish limitation and enclosure of Abraehams covenant made by Jews to themselves The argument of the Apostle is this because Abraham is father of us all both Gentiles and Iews believing the covenant and promises therefore belong to the whol seed and generation of believers Because the antecedent might be doubted the Apostle first proves the universall paternity of Abraham and after illustrates it the proof we have extant Gen. 17.5 whwere the Lord to signifie the point in hand is pleased to alter the name of Abram to Abraham himself giving the Etymon and signification Because a father of many nations I have made thee How then say Iews that the Covenant made with Abraham belongs to them onely and think the fidelity of God must needs fall to