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
by ourselves The righteousness of God is the righteousness which God in Christ performed fulfilling the Law for us called the Righteousness of Faith because we are by faith made partakers of it See Illyric Zanch. ad Phil. 3. If any shall demand what the difference between these two is I answer They differ not at all in the matter or substance of righteousness for the righteousness which by Christ we are made partakers of is that very righteousness which the Law prescribes namely perfect obedience to the Law but they differ efficiente our righteousness that we in our persons perform to the law And that it is no other righteousness then what the law prescribes for substance whereof in justification we are made partakers that one place Rom. 9.32 is clear where the Apostle giving a reason why the Jews that followed the law of righteousness attained not the law of righteousness that is as most interpret the righteousness which the law prescribes The reason was because they sought it not by faith but by the works of the law as if he had said Had they sought it by believing as they did by working they had attained the righteousness which the law prescribes to justification The righteousness of the law then we obtain by faith to justification It is therefore the righteousness which in justification we are made partakers of How then is it said to be righteousness without works I answer In respect of us without works In respect of Christ the performer not so Come we now to the means how it is imputed unto us and that is by Imputation Imputation Imputation of righteousness What it is in this case we may thus describe To be an act of God ascribing to us the righteousness of Christ and counting it ours no less then if we had in our own persons performed it Touching it it is enquired whether there be any such act of God in our justification Papists generally deny it and make the righteousness of Christ to avail to justification onely as a cause procuring to us remission of sins and the gifts of the holy Ghost That which our Divines hitherto have consented in is this That the righteousness of Christ is not onely the cause for which the Lord remits sins c. but the very thing whereby we are made righteous in the sight of God Their reasons are these 1. Because we are said to be made righteous by the obedience of Christ Rom. 5.19 shall we say as by a procuring cause nay rather formally For so are we made sinners by the transgression of Adam And the purpose of the Apostle in that comparison betwixt Adam and Christ seems to be this To shew that it is no absurd thing that we should be made righteous by the righteousness of Christ seeing we were made sinners by Adams disobedience Inst But Adams disobedience was not ours by imputation but we rather were actours therein by an implicite act sinning in Adam To say nothing that the whole stream of Interpreters judge otherwise Let it be granted that we were actours in Adams sinne being in his loins Why not also actours in Christs obedience being one mystically with him by bond of the spirit 2. It is no more absurd that we should be righteous by imputation of Christs Righteousness then that Christ should be a sinner by imputation of our sins but Christ was a sinner by imputation of our sins Inst Not a sinner but a sacrifice for sinne Answ The exposition is ancient but 1. The Antithesis bears it not and 2. How could God punish him in that extremity had he not taken upon him our sins 3. For to Papists methinks of all men Imputation should be no such ridiculous matter sith they are of opinion the overplus of some Saints righteousness may be applyed to others by indulgence to make up the defects of their obedience How I wonder except by imputation 4. Quid quod Their Bellarmine plainly confesseth Bellarm. de Amiss grat stat peccat lib. 4. c. 10. Bernard ser 1. de Dom. 1. post octavas Epiphaniae that Adams sin is imputed to all his posteritie so as if they had all committed the same and alledgeth to this purpose the testimonies of Augustine and Bernard Nostra est inquit Bernardus Adami culpa quia etsi in alio nos tamen peccavimus nobis justo Dei judicio imputabatur licèt occulto And why so absurd sith Adams sin is in this manner ours Christs righteousness should also in like sort become Ours that as the same Bernard speaks aliena lavet aqua quos culpa inquinaverat aliena And so wash as the other had defiled Against it these reasons are brought First that it hath no testimonie either in Scriptures or Fathers to avow it Answ What none neither expressed nor implyed we have above shewed that the Scripture testifieth as well what it implyeth as what it expresseth how say we now to this Scripture in hand God imputeth righteousness without works whose our own that stands in works Phil. 3.9 Anothers therefore and whose else I wonder except Christs who alone is mentioned to be the procurer of our righteousness Hear S. Bernard Domine Bern. ser in Cant. 61. memorabor justitiae tuae solius Ipsa est enim mea nempe factus es mihi Tujustitia à Deo nunquid mihi verendum ne non una ambobus sufficiat non est pallium breve quod secundum Prophetam non possit operire duos Justitia tua justitia in aeternum quid longius aeternitate te pariter me operiet largiter larga aeterna justitia Object 2. No necessitie of such imputation of Christs righteousness Answ Yes That we may be found at that great day having such perfection of righteousness as for which we may be accepted and pronounced righteous See Phil. 3.9 Inst But our inherent righteousness is perfect for faith hope charity c. are perfect Answ Hear Bernard Are we better then our Fathers They said with as much truth as humility All our righteousnesses are like the clothes of a menstruous woman Isa 64.6 and again Quomodo pura justitia ubi non potest culpa deesse Augustine August epist 29. ad Hieron Charitas in aliis major in aliis minor in aliis nulla plenissima verò quae jam non potest augeri quamdiu hic homo vivit in nemine est quamdiu autem augeri potest profecto illud quod minus est quà m debet Bern. in Cant. ser 174. ex vitio est And again Charitatis effectualis initium quidem profectúmque vitam quoque praesentem experiri divinâ posse gratiâ non negamus sed plane consummationem defendimus futurae felicitati And if any shall ask why it is commanded when it cannot be fulfilled Bernard answers Judicavit utilius ex hoc ipso suae illos insufficiontiae admoneri ut scirent sane ad quem justitiae finem
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
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
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
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
whoso will share with Abraham in the blessing of righteousness must imitate Abraham in the condition of righteousness Believe as he believed and as near as may be tread in the steps of his faith Needs proof see vers 24. and consider that the conveyance of all blessings is made to Abraham and his seed on even terms From hence is it that in the next verse the Apostle takes it for granted that as the promise is one made to Abraham and his seed so the condition is one required of Abraham and his seed Onely let it be remembred that Abrahams measure is not required of all so we follow him in faith though we keep not pace we have interest in his blessing provided alwayes we strive to equal yea to excell him albeit through weakness we reach not his perfection This point had it been well understood or considered of ancient Jews they had not perished so many through vain confidence in their carnall descent from Abraham but so besotted were they in that presumption that they thought very birth of Abraham to give them title to his blessings what more frequent in the mouths of the most incredulous then this We have Abraham to our father Joh. 8.36 39. We be Abrahams seed Abraham is our father But our Saviour well distinguisheth They were his seed by generation not his seed by imitation If they were Abrahams children they would do the works of Abraham but now they seek to kill Christ thus did not Abraham c. And I know not how that Jewish errour hath place in many of our people that think they have enough even to salvation that they proceeded from the loyns of virtuous Parents A blessing I confess not to be dispised and such an one as in temporall favours brings a share often even to graceless children But what advantage in spirituall things a religious parent brings to degenerating posterity I conceive not except perhaps the heavier condemnation Read Ezek. 18. And of this period thus far Proceed we in the Text. VERS 13. For the promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the Law but through the righteousness of faith THe Apostle having now sufficiently cleared the doubt moved touching the persons to whom this blessing belongs returns now from that digression to his principall purpose propounding new arguments to confirm his conclusion His return is very artificiall and such as matcheth the skill of the chiefest Rhetoricians the close of his digression rescuing after a sort the conclusion from which he had digressed His passage thus conceive Describing the Jews to whom he extends the blessing of justification he will have them thus qualified That they walk in the steps of Abrahams faith And marvell not saith the Apostle that I interpose that condition For the promise was not to Abraham or to his seed by the Law but by the righteousness of faith This third argument therefore is in summe this Look as the blessing was promised to Abraham and his seed so it must be obtained But it was promised to Abraham c. not through the Law but through the righteousness of faith Ergò it must be so obtained Sense The promise Whether we are to take it properly for that act of Gods mercy binding himself by promise to give Abraham this blessing or Meconimically for the thing promised is the question The first acception seems most pertinent as well for the scope of the text as for that we read Gal. 3.16.18 That he should be heir of the world The doubts here are many 1. What is here meant by the World and Abrahams being heir thereof 2. Where we find this promise made unto Abraham 3. How it fits the purpose of the Apostle For the first Beza Paraeus alii Most Interpreters here understand by the World that Mundus credentium whereof 1. John 2.2 and by his being heir thereof his fatherly dominion and title he had to them by Covenant But then the question is How this belongs to his seed for howsoever such dominion was promised to Abraham and he by Covenant was to become Father of many nations yet to his posterity was no such promise made Now the promise here mentioned extends it self to his seed also If any shall say that by the seed we are here as Gal. 3.16 to understand Christ the circumstances of the Text seem not to bear it for shall we say the promise was made to Christ by the righteousness of faith surely it appears his title that he hath to the world as Mediatour comes to him as a reward of his Legall obedience Phil. 2.9 and besides the confirmation added ver 14. seems to force us by the seed to understand Abrahams other posterity except perhaps we shall say that the Apostle intends to shew not so much what condition the Lord required of Abraham or Christ his chief seed to the end they might be heirs of all the world as the means by which he intended to set them in possession of that inheritance which was not by the Law but by the righteousness of faith and that indeed is a truth and affords accommodation of the reasons subjoyned fit enough Judicent docti Others by the world understand by Metalepsis the Kingdome of Heaven figured they say by Canaan as the principall part of the world and that was as they say truly Heb. 12. a type of heaven But where find we in all the Scripture the word world so used To the second doubt Where this promise is extant in Scripture They that by the world understand Believers of all nations alledge that place Gen. 22.17 18. I will multiply thy seed as the starres of heaven c. that for the promise to Abraham and for Christ his seed Psal 2.8 I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance They that by the world understand Canaan and that which it Typically shadowed produce these Scriptures Gen. 12.7 and 15 8.8 The first concerns his seed the second Abraham himself To the third question touching the accommodation to the Apostles purpose their conceits are divers the drift is diversly conceived The conclusion some imagine this That Abraham is father of nations not by circumcision but by faith To this conclusion the accommodation is plain The promise That he should be heir of the world was made to Abraham by faith Ergo He is father of them in respect of faith not of circumcision or the law because it is the promise that makes him heir Look therefore how the promise is made so Abraham hath his inheritance The conclusion seems this rather That to believers the blessing of righteousness belongs in respect of faith How followes that from the Apostles proof Answ The inheritance of the world that is of Heaven was made to Abraham through the righteousness of faith Ergo Righteousness it self is obtained by faith there being one condition and means both of justification and salvation according
paradox That Gods Children are the richest heirs in the world being by promise heirs of the whole world and of all the comforts earth or heaven can afford them And should it not teach us to labour to come within the Covenant of grace Questionless it is true that though in civill states men aliens from the Covenants of promise have by humane right a dominion and property in the things they enjoy yet in respect of spirituall and true interest they are but usurpers the air they breath in the earth they tread on the heavens they look on the meat they eate the cloaths they are cloathed withall are not theirs much less the comforts of a better life For the promise whereon such right is founded belongs only to Abraham and to his seed c. The last thing remains and that is the means whereby the promise was intended to be accomplished Not by the law c. but by the righteousness of faith Not by the Law may some men say though to Abraham the promise was given through faith yet to his seed it was made by the law Rom. 10.5 Lev. 18.5 Answ Made it might be to his seed by the law hypothetically but the exhibition and performance was neither accomplished nor yet intended to be accomplished save only by the righteousness of faith And yet was not the law vainly given there being so many other ends to which the promulgation in Sinai tended as the Apostle afterwards cap. 5. fully shewes Now from the manner of the Apostles reasoning we learn so to exspect the blessings promised as they are promised and intended to be performed God promised Abraham and his seed to be heirs of the world the means whereby that promise was intended to be performed was not by the law but by the righteousness of faith by faith therefore and not by works must we exspect the enjoying of them and of all our hopes of things promised this must be the measure By what means In what manner In what measure they are promised so to exspect the blessings For example he hath promised to godliness all the good blessings of the earth but how hath he promised it with limitation to experiency with exception of the cross Disjunctively either the blessings or the equivalent c. He hath promised victory to us in the spirituall combate but it is neither perfect victory nor without condition of striving lawfully nor so but that for our humiliation and to teach us compassion he may leave us to our selves and permit us to foyls in many particulars Sic de reliquis The due meditation whereof serves to support Gods truth in his promise and our hopes of enjoying the blessings promised both which our ignorance often makes to waver because of our misprisions the Matter of the promise we look at the Manner how it is made we seldome consider For example Godliness we say hath the promise of this life How is it accomplished saith a weakling in his wants Answ As it is promised so I dare say it is performed to thee so farre as these Temporalities are expedient for thee so be it thou demean thy self as becomes a child of God either in the kind or by a compensation in spirituall things equivalent thou enjoyest them c. And want of this Prudence in weighing the manner how the promises are conveyed alas how many inconveniencies hath it drawn Gods great servants unto Abraham had a promise of a seed to come out of his loins intended by Sarah because the time is delayed and naturall vigour decayeth Sarah begins to distinguish she shall obtain children by her maid it may be and so Abraham goes in to Hagar to have the promise hastened Rebecca had learnt from Gods mouth that Jacob was the Beloved and the blessing should be derived from him to his brother Esau but see how she betakes her self to shifts of her own that Gods intentions may take place c. the like in sundry particulars might be instanced Learn we to exspect the promises by means in manner measure time that God hath been pleased to limit them withall A more particular observation out of the Text is this That the inheritance promised to Abraham and his seed was never intended to be exhibited to them through the righteousness of the Law as a mean whereby they should obtain it What needs much confirmation the conclusion being the Apostles almost in so many words and reasons by him annexed to that purpose Had God a purpose by the Law to make us partakers of the Inheritance What meant he then to substitute another mean namely the righteousness of Faith Perhaps some should obtain it by the Law others by faith How absurd is that conceit when as the Apostle hath taught us that God is unvariable in his courses in this kind Rom. 3.30 and can we think the posterity obtained it by any other mean then Abraham the root of blessing Either therefore God intended not unto us the inheritance by the Law or else vain was the substitution of faith Hereto let us add this consideration That no man ever yet obtained it by the righteousness of the Law and can we better judge of Gods intentions then by the event Besides How was it that the Lord creating Adam in the perfection of righteousness wittingly permitted his fall if he had meant to give us the inheritance by the Law see Rom. 11.32 And wherefore is it that having power to enable us to perfect performance of the Law He never yet supplyed any of his Saints with perfection of strength to fulfill it Certes if by Legall righteousness he intended for us the inheritance that righteousness should be at least by Grace given unto us But it is given to none If any shall now demand why the Law was given except to be a mean of the inheritance Answ Let him hear the Apostle To shew us our sinne Rom. 3.20 To beat down pride to drive unto Christ Gal. 3.24 And if to any it be propounded as a mean of life I dare say it is to a proud Justitiary to the end to humble him and to drive him through conscience of infirmity from confidence in works to believing in Christ for righteousness Vse Is it now any less then madness in our popish Justitiaries to thrust into Heaven by the Law which God never intended to be a mean of the inheritance One of the two I dare say they must procure that by it will enter either an alteration of Gods intention that he may make the Law the mean of inheritance or else by strong hand break into Heaven by such a mean as God hath not provided Synagoga Bernard ser 14. super Cantica saith Bernard fortis est the Jewish Synagogue so may we say the Romish also is strong she cares not for the light burthen nor for the sweet yoke Confidet in Lege liberet eam si potest but sure saith he there is no such Law given as can give
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
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
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
the like reason where a phrase or thing equivalent the phrase and thing to which it is equivalent c. And whatsoever may otherwise by just and necessary consequence be deduced from the Scripture that is all the sentence and contents of Scripture They say as well what they imply as what they express quae colliguntur ex Scripturis sacris perindè habenda sunt ac si in illis scripta essent Gregor Nazianzen lib. 5. Theolog. See Ruizius Reg. 74. and see to this purpose likewise Tertullian in his Treaty despectaculis The particulars of the sentence come now to be scanned David saith Blessedness is that mans to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works Wherein observe we two things First The subject or Person to whom David appropriates blessedness The man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness Secondly His description Observ Whereout amounts this conclusion That the man iustified is the only blessed man on earth The branches are two First he is blessed Secondly Only blessed Needs either of them proof His sins are remitted vers 8. His curse removed Gal. 3.13 His conscience pacified Rom. 5.1 His person accepted Heb. 11. His heart sanctified Act. 5. His actions pleasing God Heb. 11.6 His crosses sanctified His hopes certain Rom. 5.5 Death he fears not Heb. 2. Persecutions he laughs at Rom. 5. Satan he triumphs over hell is quenched God reconciled judgment with joy expected Angels serve him Devils envy him Heaven is prepared for him Give me now he that can this mans peere for blessedness amongst all the Monarchs of the world Oh miserable blessedness that men fancy to themselves without justification One swims in sensuall pleasures and thinks himself blessed that he hath wherewith to glut his sensuall appetite saith Tully a speech better beseeming beasts then men another hath his castle of wealth and no misfortune he thinks can approach him but wretched man what profits it to win the whole world and lose thine own soul what ransome wilt thou give for the sins of thy soul A third feeds upon the breath of the people and thinks himself a God because the people so applaud him but miserable man that thou art the basest vermin can consume thee The last more generous place their felicity in the action of vertue but wilt thou hear who said without faith it s not possible to please God and the most glorious actions of a man not justified are but glittering sins In a word goe over all the blessedness that the world fancyeth to it self out of Christ Thou shalt be forced to say of every particular This also is vanity and vexation of spirit was ever any man more happily miserable in this kinde then he in the top of the golden empire yet see him in the middest of his pompe and glory shaken with the fingers writing on the wall Dan. 5. Such and more miserable is the state of all those again whom the handwriting of ordinances stands still in force unreconciled to them in the cross of Christ Be awakened therefore all ye that are drunken with the vanities of the world Why lay ye out silver and gold for things that cannot profit yea that cannot but hurt whiles they feed corruption and aggravate condemnation labour for righteousness remission of sins for justification for to every one unjustified I may say as Christ woe be unto him it had been better for him that he had never been born or born a dog or a toad or if there be any other creature more loathsome or detestable in the eyes of man The wrath of God saith our Saviour abideth on him John 3.3.6 Gods curse even all the curses written in the book of the Law he lyeth open unto no peace hath he in his life Isa 57.20 in death horrour or astonishment after death damnation never to be ended And let Gods children partakers of his high favour herewith comfort themselves in all those outward afflictions that press them The were but Godless Epicures that placed felicity in vacuity of grief and that could discern no other happiness of a man but when sensuall pleasures afforded him If we believe the Authour of happiness there is more blessedness even in Christian sorrow then in all such heathenish pleasures Heb. 12.6 yea afflictions are so farre from impairing the happy state of a justified man that they rather confirm and encrease it while they kill the corruption that is in them and so assure them that the sinnes are remitted which are thus mortified And shall any Christian now think he is therefore miserable whiles he feels smart of sorrows when he knows his sins are remitted The heathen could say that vice onely made miserable and that a wise man lost not his happiness no not in equuleo Christianity much more teacheth the sinner whose sins stand still in force against him to be onely wretched and the justified man in the greatest outward afflictions to be blessed therefore because justified And I would but know of such weaklings that think themselves miserable because afflicted Whether they think the happier the glutton with his Belly-chear or the Lazar pinched with hunger David every day afflicted or those gallants that spend their dayes in mirth and in a moment go down to hell Augustine would soon resolve Hîc ure hîc seca saith he ut in aeternum parcas For me thus I resolve Let me have my sins pardoned my person accepted with God for outward pressures I say as David lo here I am Let the Lord do with me what seemeth good in his eyes 2 Sam. 15.26 See we now the description of the man thus Blessed He is such an one as to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works In the words three things 1. He hath righteousness 2. The quality of his righteousness without works 3. The manner how he is partaker of it by Imputation For the first that in justification we are made partakers of righteousness vers 11. Circumcision was to Abraham a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had being uncircumcised Paul desires to be found in Christ having the righteousness which is by faith of Christ Phil. 3.9 and perhaps it is true that Bellarmine hath that justification hath the name à termino ad quem because that thereby we are made partakers of righteousness 2 Cor. 5.21 We are said to be made The righteousness of God in Christ and Rom 5. To be made righteous This then let stand for a ground That in justification Righteousness is imparted to us But secondly it is enquired What righteousness this is of Righteousness in this question of justification we find two kinds One called our own righteousness or the righteousness which is by the Law The other the righteousness of God sometimes called the righteousness of faith or the righteousness which is by the faith of Jesus See Rom. 10.3 Phil. 3.9 our own Righteousness or the righteousness of the Law is the perfect obedience of the Law performed